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.” 
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,) 
“supporting, by the weight of his authority, some of the 
grossest of these misrepresentations” (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 
