298 THOMAS YOUNG. 



We now approach a period of stormy discussion 

 regarding the claims of different discoverers. And as the 

 tempest raged chiefly round Young and Champollion, 

 it is desirable to fix with precision, if that be possible, 

 the position of the learned Frenchman before he came 

 into contact with Young. This a work published by 

 Champollion at Grenoble in 182 1 enables us to do. After 

 speaking of the notions previously entertained regard- 

 ing the hieroglyphical and epistolographic characters 

 of the Eg)ptians, and of the opinion, universally dif- 

 fused, that the Egyptian manuscripts, like those of to- 

 day, are alphabetical, the author states his case thus: — 

 1 Une longue etude, et surtout une comparaison atten- 

 tive des textes hieroglyphiques avec ceux de la seconde 

 espece, regard es comme alphabetiques, nous ont con- 

 duit a une conclusion contraire. 



II resulte, en effet, de nos rapprochements : — 



1° Que l'ecriture des manuscrits egyptiens de 

 la seconde espece (Fhieratique) n'est point alphabe- 

 tique ; 



2° Que ce second systeme n'est quune simple 

 modification du systeme hieroglyphique, et n'en differe 

 uniquement que par la forme des signes ; 



3° Que cette seconde espece d'ecriture est l'hiera- 

 t'que des auteurs grecs, et doit etre regardee comme 

 une tachygraphie hieroglyphiiue ; 



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. Immediately 

 after the publication of this work in 1821, Champollion 

 became acquainted with the ' popular and superficial 

 Bketch' — in reality, the transcendently able article of 



