glyphic characters, and the phonetic equivalents of these are thus obtained in Greek letters.

Dr. Young published a facsimile, for the Egyptian Society and the Royal Society of Literature, of three deeds of sale brought over by Mr. Grey, and the Greek translation which we have mentioned was obtained by the same gentleman. He also published with these a copy of Casati's manuscript, with an interlineary translation. Afterwards he published an Euchorial dictionary, containing the words whose meanings he supposed that he had ascertained, including the proper names in all the documents that he had published. These were arranged according to a provisional alphabet. Before this dictionary he placed specimens of several Euchorial manuscripts that had been recently sent to him; and he added a list of the Euchorial numerals, including a set of thirty which were only used to denote the days of the month, and some signs for fractions. The last sheets of this dictionary were uncorrected at the author's death.

We are reluctant to criticise the works of one who has done so much to advance knowledge, not only in the department of which we have been speaking, but in many others. Truth, however, requires that we should state that correct information was not to be found either in the translations published by Dr. Young, or in his dictionary. He often came near the exact truth, but he scarcely ever reached it. He frequently attached articles, pronominal affixes, and even prepositions, to the nouns with which they were connected; and, on the other hand, he omitted essential parts of the radical words. Of several words he completely mistook the meaning; and he gave no information whatever as to the grammar of the language. It would appear, indeed, that he believed that no rules of grammar were observed in it.

For many years after Dr. Young's death, nothing was published respecting the Euchorial language, with the exception of a short paper in the "Dublin University Review" for 1833, in which the articles, pronominal affixes, and personal endings of verbs, are explained. At length, Dr. Henry Bourgsch, when a very young man, turned his attention to this language, and published a short grammar of it in 1848, which was far in advance of what had been previously made known. He has since extended our knowledge of the Euchorial language considerably farther, and also contributed to increase that of the hieroglyphical inscriptions. He was the first to publish the hieroglyphic text of the Rosetta stone, with the interpretation which he gave to each word and to each character, whether

ideographic, syllabic, or alphabetic. The Rosetta inscription, though it was invaluable as furnishing the key by which the whole system of hieroglyphic writing has been opened, is of so late an age, and contains so many ill-formed characters, that it is by no means a desirable specimen of the language to be selected for being studied. The advantage of a translation, or rather paraphrase of it, being in existence is far more than compensated by the disadvantages that we have mentioned. Dr. Bourgsch's translation contains many undoubted errors; but we must say that it is beyond all comparison preferable to a translation which has appeared in England within the last year; the author of which, by the way, appears to have been completely unaware of anyone having previously attempted a translation of this inscription.

Having now shown, as we conceive that we have done, the grounds on which confidence may be placed in such translations of hieroglyphical inscriptions as are made by the chiefs of what may be called the orthodox school, or as are accepted by these as correct; having shown also the nature of Egyptian writing, and the difficulties which it presented to those who should attempt to decipher it, and having explained the manner in which these great difficulties have been overcome, we would observe that charges similar to those urged against the certainty of Egyptian interpretations, have been alleged in reference to the inscriptions on Assyrian monuments, and, among other places, have appeared in a recent number of the CHURCH OF ENGLAND QUARTERLY REVIEW.

**Of course we cannot now, though we may hereafter, enter into a discussion of the Assyrian question, and shall, therefore, at present, only advert, in one or two words, to the recent notice of what is known as "The Literary Inquest," in which that question was involved. There are, in the British Museum, portions of four octagonal prisms of baked clay, which contained the same inscription. Some of them are imperfect in one part, and some in another; but from comparison of the four an edition of the inscription has been prepared by Sir Henry Rawlinson, which is perfect throughout. It contains above a thousand lines of writing, which have been lithographed in double columns on eight plates. This inscription is intended to be published by the trustees of the British Museum; but they have held it back, along with other valuable inscriptions, till they could appear accompanied with the transliterations and translations of Sir Henry Rawlinson. Some months ago, Mr. Fox Talbot obtained from Sir Henry a copy of this inscription; and on the 21st March he laid on the table of the Royal Asiatic Society a sealed packet,

containing his translation of it, which he desired that no one should open until Sir Henry Rawlinson's translation should appear. Dr. Oppert was present at this meeting, and offered to give in a third translation of the inscription, which he had been studying. The liberality of the Emperor Napoleon and his influential recommendation had secured for Dr. Oppert facilities with respect to the contents of the museum, which no one in this country but Sir Henry Rawlinson enjoyed. On the 18th April, the council of the Royal Asiatic Society had three sealed packets, containing translations of the inscription by Sir Henry Rawlinson, Dr. Oppert, and Mr. Fox Talbot. It was proposed that these should be opened and compared preparatory to the anniversary meeting on the 23rd May. In the meantime, it was suggested that Dr. Hincks should be invited to send in a fourth translation, sealed up like the others. He was written to, asking if he would make such a translation, if a copy of the inscription were sent to him; and on his undertaking to do this, the copy was sent. He promised to send as much as he could prepare within the time allowed him-less than three weeks; and at the expiration of that time he sent translations of three portions of the inscription, including its most important parts, and containing about the half of it. If the object had been to test the skill of the four translators, it would have been preposterous to have commenced the contest at the eleventh hour; but as the object was explained to be to show the soundness of the method of deciphering employed, by exhibiting the general agreement which existed between four translations, made altogether independently of one another, he did not feel at liberty to withhold his translation; though it was, from the shortness of the time allowed him, not only incomplete, but in many places erroneous. Of the five hundred lines which he translated, about two-thirds were altogether new to him. Of the remaining third he had obtained a copy in 1853; but it was taken from a number of fragments, and scarcely a line in it was complete. In one of these fragments there was, however, a curious chronological passage, which enabled him to fix the date of the inscription to the twelfth century before Christ, the time of Eli and Samuel. This reading was discussed at the time when it was announced; and an agreement of the four translators as to it would not be remarkable. If, however, the agreement extended to the translation of passages as to which no opportunity of interchanging their views had ever been afforded, it must be decisive as to the rectitude of the method of proceeding which they employed in common. Error, it has been justly observed, is manifold; but truth is single; and, therefore, if the versions be coincident, they must be true. As soon as Dr. Hincks's translation reached London, which was on the 16th May, the committee, which had been previously constituted, was summoned to meet. The Dean of St. Paul's, Dr. Whewell, Mr. Grote, and Sir Gardner Wilkinson, accordingly met on the 20th May, when

the seals were broken, and the different translations examined. The verdict of this literary inquest was to the effect that there was a sufficient agreement among the translators to prove that the system of decipherment which they used was correct; and yet that there were such difficulties as to show that its application was still very uncertain, and that much yet remained to be done.

We are happy to learn that the four translations will be published by the Royal Asiatic Society, printed in parallel columns. We are sure that this will tend to the elucidation of the inscription; and that it will furnish a new proof of the soundness of the system on which the translators have proceeded. This proof will be given by the corrections of their original versions which the different translators will make, in consequence of their seeing those of the others. We anticipate that these corrections will be to such an extent that very little difference in the interpretation of passages will in the end exist. A person may imagine an erroneous version of a passage to be correct, while he has not the true version before him; but when he compares the two, he will prefer the latter. This is on the supposition, which we believe to be correct, that the translators are not visionaries or empirics, but that they proceed on sound principles which they hold in common. The case would be very different any of the translators in question were to compare his version with one made by Mr. Forster or Mr. Pote. No agreement as to first principles would then exist; each would reject the entire of what the other put forward; and no comparison of two different translations would lead them to an approximation. We will only add, that the result of this inquest goes to confirm all that we have advanced in the preceding articles, and gives additional force to the arguments that we have used.

if

47

ART. II.-1. Sermon Notes. By the Late Rev. JAMES SCHOLEFIELD, M.A., late Fellow of Trinity College, Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge, &c. London: Wertheim and Macintosh. Cambridge: Thomas Dixon. 1856.

2. The Hulsean Lectures for 1856. By the Rev. HARVEY GOODWIN, M.A. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, & Co. London: Bell and Daldy. 1856.

3. Better Times and Worse; or, Hints for Improving the Church's hold on the People. A Sermon preached in Lambeth Palace Chapel. By Rev. JOHN HAMPDEN GURNEY, M.A., Rector of St. Mary's, Marylebone. London: Rivingtons. 1856.

ARCHIMEDES is reported to have said, "Give me a place to stand on and I will move the world.” From this we see how his great mind comprehended the fact that things were impossible, simply because means and appliances were wanting to make them possible. Had he lived in our days he would have been taught the grand corroboration astronomy affords, that the earth is movable, the lever being an almighty will, the fulcrum almighty power. And hence we may deduce the corollary that all ponderable masses are movable, when the moving and sustaining powers are adequate. And what is true physically is, we believe, also true morally. We assert that all masses are capable of impression, all have some centre of oscillation around which they vibrate, when the finger is applied upon the right spot. That this is true for evil, the history of Democracy through all ages abundantly proves. Grievances long smouldering unheeded needed but the breath of some democrat endowed with the power of oratory to fan them into a flame; and then the conflagration has raged fiercely over the land, until quenched in the blood of contending factions, and smothered beneath the embers of expiring kingdoms and uprooted dynasties. The history of Greece and Rome is full of instances to the point. How often too has the commander of an army quelled a mutiny among his rude legions, re-animated their expiring ardour, diverted their ungovernable wills, and reduced them to willing instruments of subserviency, by a few short sentences of rough but forcible eloquence, to the point, and therefore effective. What schoolboy but remembers the effect of a few brief words upon the Roman malcontents who had seceded to Mons Saen, in which the orator forcibly and irresistibly demonstrated the folly of their