tion. Immediately after this, Dr Young asserted that all the symbols included in the frame or cartouche, did not represent ideas, but sounds; finally, he endeavoured, by a minute and very delicate analysis, to assign an individual hieroglyphic character to each of the sounds the ear perceives in the name Ptolemy on the pillar of Rosetta, and also in that of Bernice, which he found upon another inscription.

Such then were, if I do not deceive myself, in the researches of Young into the Egyptian systems of writing, the three grand points. No one, we have said above, had previously discovered them, or, at all events, had pointed them out previous to the English physician. This opinion, though generally admitted, I regard doubtful. In truth, it is certain, that as early as the year 1766, M. de Guignes, in a printed memoir, had pointed out that the cartouches of the Egyptian inscriptions all enclosed proper names. Every one may also see, in the same work, the arguments which this learned Orientalist employed to establish the opinion which he had embraced, regarding the constant phonetic character of the Egyptian hieroglyphics. Young, therefore, has the priority only upon a single point; being the first who attempted to decompose into letters the encircled groups, that he might give a phonetic value to the hieroglyphics in the Rosetta pillar composing the name of Ptolemy.

In this investigation, as may be supposed, Dr Young furnished new proofs of his extraordinary penetration; but, misled by a false system, his endeavours were not crowned with entire success. Thus, sometimes he attributed to the hieroglyphic characters a value which was simply alphabetic, or of a single letter; then he would assign to them the value of a whole syllable, or even of two syllables, without troubling himself with the strangeness of this mixture of characters so different in their nature. The fragment of the alphabet published by Dr Young, contains both what is true and what is false; but the false so much superabounds in it, that it would be impossible to apply the significancy of the letters of which it is composed, to the reading of any thing else than the two proper names from which it was derived. The word impossible, however, is so rarely applicable to the scientific career of Young, that I hasten to prove

my assertion. I remark, then, that, subsequent to the composition of his alphabet, Dr Young himself discovered, within one of the frames upon an Egyptian monument, the name Arsinoe where his celebrated competitor has since deciphered, to the entire satisfaction of every one, the word Autocrator; and, in the same way, Dr Young read Evergete in a group which contained the name Cesar.

The labours of Champollion, in reference to the discovery of the phonetic value of hieroglyphics, is simple, homogeneous, and apparently does not afford ground for any uncertainty. Each symbol is the equivalent of a simple vowel or a simple consonant. Its value is not at all arbitrary; every phonetic hieroglyphic is the image of some physical object, the name of which, in the Egyptian language, commences with a vowel or consonant, which it was the object to represent.

The alphabet of Champollion, once formed from the pillar of Rosetta and two or three other monuments, serves for the deciphering of inscriptions which are wholly different, as, for example, for the name Cleopatra, upon the obelisk of Philæ, long ago removed to England, and where Dr Young, using his own alphabet, could make out nothing. Upon the temples of Karnac, Champollion twice read the name of Alexander; upon the zodiac of Denderah, he read a Roman imperial title; upon the great edifice above which the zodiac was placed, he read the names and surnames of the Emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, Nero, Domitian, &c. And thus, we may remark in passing, is decided, on the one hand, the stirring and endless discussions concerning the antiquity of these monuments; and, on the other, it is definitely determined that, under the dominion of the Romans, hieroglyphics were still in general use upon the banks of the Nile.

The alphabet which has already afforded so many unlooked for results, whether applied to the grand obelisks of Karnac, or to other monuments which are also known to be contemporaneous with the Pharaohs, will present us with the names of many of the kings of this ancient race, with the names of their divinities, we will say more, with substantives, adjectives, and verbs of the Coptic language. Dr Young, then, was deceived, when he supposed the phonetic hieroglyphics to be a modern

invention, and when he advanced that they had only been employed in the transcription of proper names, and those proper names only which were foreign to Egypt.

M. de Guignes and especially M. Etienne Quatremere have, on the contrary, established a fact of the greatest importance, which the reading of the inscriptions of the Pharaohs has corroborated by irresistible proofs, since they have pointed out that the present Coptic language is the same as that of the ancient subjects of Sesostris !

And now I have adduced the facts, and may therefore limit myself to establish, by some short observations, the consequences which appear to me to result from them. Discussions about priority, even under the influence of national prejudices, would never become embittered, if it were possible to determine them by fixed rules; but in one case the first idea is every thing, whilst in another the details offer the principal difficulties, and sometimes the merit seems to consist less in the formation of a theory, than in its demonstration. These reflections shew how much the selection of the point whence the subject is viewed will lead to a capricious result, and how much influence it will likewise have upon the ultimate conclusion. To escape from this embarrassment, I have sought for an example in which every one would agree;-in which the parts performed by the two claimants to the discovery, might be as near as possible assimilated to those performed by Young and Champollion. This example, I think, I have found in the question of interferences,' even when, in the hieroglyphic discussion, we entirely lay aside the citations which were taken from the memoir of M. de Guignes.

Hooke had in truth affirmed before Dr Young, that luminous rays interfere, as Dr Young had supposed before Champollion that the Egyptian hieroglyphics are sometimes phonetic. Hooke did not directly prove his hypothesis; and the proof of

* Under the name of interference is understood a very remarkable action of the rays of light, in virtue of which two of these rays, at their point of crossing, may sometimes be united, and sometimes may completely destroy each other. By this law of interference, therefore, the optician arrives at a result which is almost incredible; he may produce a total obscurity by adding light to light!

the phonetic values assigned by Young to different hieroglyphics, could only repose upon readings which had not, and could not, be made. From his ignorance of the composition of white light, Hooke had not an exact idea of the nature of interferences, as Young, on his part, deceived himself concerning a pretended syllabic and disyllabic value of hieroglyphics. Young, by unanimous consent, is considered as the author of the theory of interferences; and hence, as it appears to me, by inevitable consequence, Champollion ought to be regarded as the author of the discovery of hieroglyphics.

I regret I did not sooner think of this method of agreement. If Dr Young whilst living had been offered the alternative of being considered the author of the doctrine of interferences, making over the hieroglyphics to Champollion, or of keeping the hieroglyphics, and giving over to Hooke the ingenious optical theory, I have no doubt he would have been all anxiety to recognize the claims of our illustrious compatriot. Even then there would have remained to him, what none would have disputed, the right of bearing in the history of the memorable discovery of hieroglyphics, that part which Kepler, Borelli, Hooke, and Wren, bear in the history of universal gravitation.

Remarks on the Garnkirk and Glasgow Railway. By Mr GEORGE MARTIN, Edinburgh. *

RAILROADS, notwithstanding the visionary objections of certain theorists, and the prejudices of a few individuals denominating themselves practical men, are gradually securing for themselves the approbation and support of the enlightened portion of the community.

The Stockton and Darlington, the Liverpool and Manchester Railways, two of the greatest undertakings of this description yet opened for the benefit of the public, have deservedly attracted the attention of all who feel interested in the advancement of science and commerce.

Much has been written on their construction, and not a little

* Read before the Society of Arts for Scotland, 22d April 1835.

discussion has been excited as to their ultimate success, which has justly been looked upon as the test of the expediency of forming others in various parts of the kingdom.

Their success, however, having more than equalled the most sanguine hopes of their proprietors, has satisfactorily demonstrated, that such undertakings must not only ultimately prove a safe and profitable investment for capital, but likewise be of essential benefit to the empire.

In the course of my enquiries on the subject of Railways in England, I was naturally led to consider the extent of such undertakings in this part of the island. These I find have, comparatively speaking, advanced but little; the greatest works of this description being situated in Lanarkshire, in the vicinity of Glasgow, and in one of the richest mineral districts of Great Britain.

The public Railways constructed in this quarter are the Garnkirk and Glasgow, the Monkland and Kirkintilloch, the Ballochney and the Wishaw and Coltness, the last of which is not yet finished. (Plate I.)

Of all these undertakings, the Garnkirk and Glasgow railway, both from the magnitude of the works connected with its formation, and the superior manner in which it is constructed, more particularly attracted my attention.

The apparent object of this work was to form a communication with the Glasgow market, it being clear to every one, that if coals could be sent for a distance of 17 miles (one-half of which was by a railway conveyance, and the other by water) with any chance of profit, both the proprietors and the public would be gainers, if a railway conveyance could be got for the whole distance. Besides this, the greater dispatch obtained by shortening the distance one-half, and its being the means of bringing into the market many new fields of coal and ironstone, which, from the difficulty and expense of carriage, it was thought a needless waste of money to attempt to work; were additional inducements to the promoters of the undertaking.

From the inequalities of the face of the country through which this line of railway has been carried, and from the wellknown maxims of engineering, that the least deviation from a level line adds considerably to the difficulty of draught; and

VOL. XIX. NO. XXXIX.-JULY 1835.

D