CLAIMS OF YOUNG. 327 



in connection with the former, was expressive of the feminine 

 gender ; and it was Dr. Young who had not only first sug 

 gested that the characters in the ring of Ptolemy were pho 

 netic, but had determined, with one very unimportant inac 

 curacy, the values of four of those which were common to the 

 name of Cleopatra, which were required to be analyzed. All 

 the principles involved in the discovery of an alphabet of 

 phonetic hieroglyphics were not only distinctly laid down, 

 but fully exemplified by him ; and it only required the fur 

 ther identification of one or two royal names with the rings, 

 which expressed them in hieroglyphics, to extend the alpha 

 bet already known sufficiently to bring even names which 

 were not already identified under its operation.&quot; 



Dr. Peacock states that Champollion and Young, while 

 engaged simultaneously in the prosecution of the researches 

 connected with these points, in some instances had opportu 

 nities of personal communication with each other. But 

 Champollion enjoyed especial advantages from circumstances 

 which placed some of the papyri in his possession ; and thus 

 enabled him to take precedence in the publication of results, 

 while his competitor, if he had enjoyed the same facilities, 

 would, no doubt, have been equally competent to perceive 

 the force of the new evidence thus adduced, and equally 

 ready to make use of it, even if setting aside some of his 

 early inferences and conjectures. 



Dr. Peacock, after reflecting with much severity on Cham 

 pollion, expresses his regret to find so eminent a writer as 

 Chevalier Bunsen, whose remarks are quoted before, (p. 311,) 

 &quot; supporting, by the weight of his authority, some of the 

 grossest of these misrepresentations&quot; (p. 337). 



Dr. Young displayed singular modesty and forbearance in 

 his controversy with Champollion, treating him throughout 

 with all the respect due to his acknowledged eminence ; and 

 while mildly reproaching him with omitting to give him the 

 due credit for his own share in the research, yet in no way 

 insinuating that any discreditable motive led to the omission. 



Dr. Peacock, however, thinks a far more stringent tone of 



