‘2 i still following the system of Champo 
- §62 SEYFFARTH—CHAMPOLLION AND RENOUF. 
inschrift,” in which he, as yet, ane followed the system “A 
a eat master ;” an althou is texts offer: — mass 0 
Soon ane however, he received a copy of m Sylla ¢ Al- 
habet; and then, in 1851, as soon as possible, his iy one 
whic ugsch adopted 
to Champollion) to contain 152 syllabic characters, viz., 
same which, <a some mistakes on the pats Mr. Bru on 
“key,” and “ porate stolen” my literary property, or 
ert 
In the autumn of 1849, M. de Rougé visited Berlin, and 
published there a pamphlet, entitled “Essai sur une stéle fu- 
néraire. Dédié 4 M. A. de Humboldt.” rate a in- 
scription contains nearly 50 s llabie figures, 0 
i 3 “Ch llion, failed we 
a single one. n after, he received a copy 
printed syllabic Alphabet, and then, in 1851, he pu ihe 
fe work— “Memoire sur |’Inscription n du‘ — 
pollion” s system, 
possible to decipher this inseription ’ - then I 
lisrespectfully of my own researches, and finally discovers 
Egyptian lite . | 
nscription contains more than 30 syllabie figures, of 
0 are still to be found in in my lithographed Alphabet. There- 
ore, I ask again, has M. de Rougé dese rted Champollion’s 
ystem, and silently ns spp rs “key,” and “dishonestly 
tolen” another’s property, or o 
First, however, we must hone ‘hat the Rev. Reviewer 
to say in favor of those gentlem: 
The. full justification en ar the ‘defendante is, that — Dublin 
judge has seen with his own eyes that ose hon 
m a oh BS ft ef. — 
ehted their cigars with my Plates before ‘ooking chet 
eeest, however, jonah yet, pecs a mind. 
See alpze Repertorium, 1852, Vol. L, p- 2%, ielidbe it is demon- 
as “pret ish nd, as ae aa 
riften, et, Lele 1855, p- 
