584 Professor Tyndall [Jan. 22, 



article " Egypt," written by Young, had meantime confessedly come 

 under his observation. He saw the errors of his views and sup- 

 pressed them, without giving due credit to the man who had first 

 struck into the true path." In reference to an account given by 

 Champollion of the labours of Young, Peacock remarks, " It would 

 be difficult to point out in the history of literature a more flagrant 

 example of the disingenuous suppression of the real facts bearing upon 

 an important discovery." 



And yet the Dean of Ely is by no means stingy in his praise 

 of Champollion. It would be unjust, he says, to refuse to Cham- 

 pollion the honour due to his rare skill and sagacity, not merely 

 in the application of a principle already known, but in its rapid 

 extension to a multitude of other cases, so as not merely to point out 

 its character and use, but also to determine the principal elements of 

 a phonetic alphabet. His long-continued studies, Peacock remarks, 

 had fitted him more than any other living man, Young himself 

 hardly excepted, to deal with this subject, " and the rapidity of his 

 progress, when once fully started on his career of discovery, was 

 worthy of the highest admiration." Peacock, moreover, describes his 

 work as ever memorable in the history of hieroglyphical research, 

 not only from the vast range of knowledge which it displays, but 

 from the clear and lucid order in which it is arranged. " It was," he 

 continues, " singularly unfortunate that one who possessed so much 

 of his own, should have been so much wanting in a proper sense of 

 justice to those who had preceded him in these investigations, as 

 materially to lessen his claims to the respect and reverence which 

 would otherwise have been most willingly conceded to him." 



With regard to the lack of literary candour, thus so strongly 

 commented on, it is of interest to note the views concerning 

 Champollion held by one of his own countrymen. Soon after the 

 researches of Young had begun, an extremely interesting corre- 

 spondence was established between him and De Sacy. As early as 

 October 1814, Young was able to submit to his correspondent a 

 " conjectural translation " into Latin of the Egyptian Eosetta inscrip- 

 tion. He subsequently sent him an English translation, the receipt 

 of which is acknowledged by De Sacy in a letter dated Paris, 20th 

 July, 1815. The opening paragraph of this letter contains an 

 allusion of considerable historic importance : — " Outre la traduction 

 latine de I'inscription egyptienne, que vous m'avez communiquee, j'ai 

 reQU posterieurement une autre traduction anglaise imprimee, que 

 je n'ai pas en ce moment sous les yeux, Vayant prete a M. Champollion 

 8ur la demande, que son frere m'en a faite d'aprcs une lettre qu'il 

 rna dit avoir re^u de vous.'' In view of the statement of Champollion 

 in a Freds of his researches published in 1824, that he had arrived 

 at results similar to those obtained by Dr. Young, without having any 

 knowledge of Young's opinions, the foregoing extract is significant. 

 De Sacy goes on to recognise formally the progress which had been 

 made by Young at the date of the foregoing letter. He asks some 



