CLAIMS OP 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 such a commentary as can be here 

 given, we shall content ourselves with pointing out to the 



