1886.] on Thomas Young. 583 



at Grenoble, in 1821, enables us to do. After speaking of the notions 

 previously entertained regarding the hieroglyphical and epistolo- 

 graphic characters of the Egyptians, and of the opinion, universally 

 diffused, that the Egyptian manuscripts, like those of to-day, are 

 alphabetical, the author states his case thus : — " Une longue etude, et 

 surtout une comparaison attentive des textes hieroglyphiques avec 

 ceux de la seconde espece, regardes comme alphabetiques, nous ont 

 conduit a une conclusion contraire. 



II resulte, en effet, de nos rapprochements : — 



1° Que I'ecriture des manuscrits Egyptiens de la seconde espece 

 (I'hieratique) n'est point alphabetique ; 



2° Que ce second systeme n'est qu'une simple modification du sys- 

 teme hieroglyphique, et n'en differe uniquement que par la forme 

 des signes ; 



3° Que cette seconde espece d'ecriture est I'hieratique des auteurs 

 Grecs, et doit etre regardee comme une tachygraphie hieroglyphique ; 



4° Enfin, que les caracteres hieratiques sont des signes de choses, 



ET NON DES SIGNES DE SONS." 



There is no mention here of the name of Young, though he had, 

 many years previously, made known to the world, as the result of his 

 own researches, the first, second, and third of these propositions. With 

 regard to the fourth, it incontestibly proves, as maintained by both 

 Klaproth and the Dean of Ely, " that at this epoch, Champollion had 

 either formed no conception of the existence of phonetic hieroglyphics, 

 or had given it up as altogether untenable, if he had once entertained 

 it." Immediately after the publication of this work in 1821, Cham- 

 pollion became acquainted with the " popular and superficial sketch. " 

 — ^in reality the transcendently able article of Young — published in 

 the ' Encyclopaedia Britannica ' for 1819. 



Peacock's analysis of what next occurred is not agreeable reading. 

 ChampoUion's memoir of 1821 was rapidly suppressed, and soon be- 

 came so scarce that it has been passed over by almost every author 

 v^ho has written on the subject. In the following year Champollion 

 addressed a letter to M. Dacier, in which, to use the language of 

 Peacock, we suddenly find him pushed forward into the inmost recesses 

 of the sanctuary, reached by Young five years before. The plates, 

 moreover, of the suppressed memoir were circulated, without dates and 

 without letterpress. A copy of these plates was given by Cham- 

 pollion to Young, who was left in entire ignorance of the date of 

 publication. " The suppression of a work," writes Peacock, in strong 

 reproof, " expressing opinions which its author has subsequently found 

 reason to abandon, may sometimes be excused, but rarely altogether 

 justified; hut under no circumstances can such a justification he pleaded, 

 when the suppression is either designed or calculated to compromise the 

 claims of other persons with reference to our own. The memoir in 

 question very clearly showed that so late as the year 1821, Cham- 

 pollion had made no real progress in removing the mysterious veil 

 which had so long enveloped the ancient literature of Egypt. The 



