HIEROGLYPHIC AL RESEARCHES. 293 



jects naturally follow each other ; sixthly, that proper 

 names were included by the oval ring, or border, or 

 cartouche ; l and seventhly, that the name of Ptolemy 

 alone existed on this pillar, having only been completely 

 identified by help of the analysis of the Enchorial in- 

 scription. And,' adds Young, s as far as I have ever 

 heard or read, not one of these particulars had ever 

 been established and placed on record by any other 

 person, dead or alive.' 



No man was a better judge of intellectual labour 

 than Dean Peacock. The whole of Young's writings, 

 preparatory and otherwise, were before him when he 

 wrote; and he states emphatically, that it is impos- 

 sible to estimate, either the vast extent to which Dr. 

 Young had carried his hieroglyphical investigations, or 

 the progress which he had made in them, without an 

 inspection of these manuscripts. In reference to an 

 article entitled * Egypt,' written by Young in 1818, 

 and published in the * Encyclopaedia Britannica ' for 

 1819, a writer in the 'Edinburgh Eeview' for 1826 

 delivers the following weighty opinion : 6 We do 

 not hesitate to pronounce this article the greatest 

 effort of scholarship and ingenuity of which modern 

 literature can boast.' Even to an outsider it offers 

 proof of astonishing learning and research. Still, 

 Peacock assures us that this publication of 1819 could 

 hardly be considered more than a popular and super- 

 ficial sketch of the vast mass of materials on which it 

 was founded. 



Young was limited to what Peacock here calls ( a 

 popular and superficial sketch ' by the fact that the 



1 Young's editor adds here : ' The discovery was long afterwards 

 made by Champollion that the cartouches were confined to the 

 names of royal personages.' 



