

HIEEOGLYPHICAL RESEAKCHES. 299 



Young published in the * Encyclopaedia Britannica ' 

 for 1819. 



Peacock's analysis of what next occurred is not 

 agreeable reading. Champollion's memoir of 1821 

 was rapidly suppressed, and soon became so scarce that 

 it has been passed over by almost every author who 

 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 sanc- 

 tuary, 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 Champollion 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 sub- 

 sequently found reason to abandon, may sometimes be 

 excused, but rarely altogether justified ; but under no 

 circumstances can such a justification be pleaded 

 U'hen the suppression is either designed or calculated 

 to compromise the claims of other persons with re- 

 ference 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 article " Egypt," written by 

 Young, had meantime confessedly come under his 

 observation. He saw the errors of his views and 

 suppressed 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 sup- 

 20 



