CLAIMS OF YOUNG. 325 
keep the hieroglyphics, giving up to Hooke the ingenious 
optical theory, I do not doubt he would have felt obliged 
to recognize the claims of our illustrious fellow-country- 
man. At all events there would have remained with 
him, what no one could have contested, the right to ap- 
pear in the history of the memorable discovery of the 
interpretation of hieroglyphics in the same relative posi- 
tion as that in which Kepler, Borelli, Hooke, and Wren 
appeared in the History of Universal Gravitation. 
NOTE. 
We have here put before our readers the literal version of 
Arago’s statement respecting the claims of Young in regard 
to the discovery of the principle of interpreting the Egyptian 
hieroglyphics. Arago’s representations have been, as is well 
known, greatly called in question. And though he through- 
out speaks in a tone of marked courtesy and candour towards 
Young, yet it is clear that he espouses the cause of Champol- 
lion with an ardour which many, in this country, believe has, 
in some degree, blinded him to the truth of the case. 
At any rate, in the vivid and highly coloured sketch here 
presented by M. Arago, the reader may need some caution 
in discriminating the fair share of merit which may be claimed 
by the respective parties engaged in the inquiry. The au- 
thor’s national partialities may very naturally have had some 
influence in biassing his judgment. It is impossible here to 
enter on details of controversy. But both as to the actual 
amount and accuracy of Dr. Young’s investigations and the 
relative claims of M. Champollion, the reader may find it 
desirable to refer to the extended discussion of the subject 
given in Dr. Peacock’s Life of Young. Without the preten- 
sion, or, indeed, the possibility, of adequately going into this 
question within the limits of sach a commentary as can be here 
given, we shall content ourselves with pointing out to the 
