Another of Mr. Wilkinson’s very valuable inscriptions, from a temple at Kous, must be allowed to give evidence much more favourable to Mr. Champollion, as far as it regards the signification of the plough, which seems to enter into the composition of Philometor, as applied to Cleopatra and “Ptolemy Alexander,” who are called Philometores Soteres, both here and in Anastasy’s Greek Manuscript. The name of Alexander had never occurred to the author of the article EGYPT, but he had evidently a foresight in what way it would make its appearance when he observed, N. 55, “it will appear hereafter, that a knowledge of the enchorial forms may possibly contribute very materially, at some future time, to assist us in determining it:” and he immediately proceeds to the subject of PHONETIC HIEROGLYPHICS.
The plough seems to be exchanged on the Minervean obelisk for the dentated quadrant and chain, which may hence have been synonymous with the dentated parallelogram or comb: both perhaps having represented instruments which bore the same name, and served the same purposes, though of different forms: they may, for instance, have been rakes or harrows, and may hence have borne some analogy to the plough or hoe. Whether they had names beginning with M, may still be questionable.
Mr. Champollion has endeavoured to explain the absence of the names of our queens from the tablet of Abydus, by saying that it must be considered as a tablet “purely genealogical.” First Letter to the D. de B. p. 89. A reader is naturally disposed to acquiesce in this explanation, since Mr. Champollion, who has carefully examined it, asserts it on his own credit; especially as the assertion appears to be supported by a long and minute discussion. Unhappily, however, it is only necessary to compare his brother’s chronology in P. 107, with his own Plates II. and III. fig. 5, from which it appears that Amenses, who reigned more than 20 years, was the mother of Thuthmosis the second, whose name is in the tablet, while his mother’s is omitted. It is true that, with his usual ingenuity, Mr. Champollion seems afterwards to change his ground in the same page: for he says, that one only of two brothers or sisters was inserted, in order to keep the number of the [p320] generations unaltered: and he might have added that Amenses was the sister of Amenophis, whom she succeeded. If he had stated this clearly, the reader might have judged for himself, whether such a coincidence was or was not sufficient to support the chronology of Manetho; which was, however, by no means in want of such support: in the article EGYPT, for example, Manetho’s chronology of this dynasty is fully adopted: and the same ‘cartouche’ is read Thuthmosis, which Mr. Champollion, after all his parade, still admits to be Thuthmosis: nor is there a difference of half a century in the dates assigned to his reign by various chronologists. It was established in the article Egypt, that the name contained that of Thoth, the Egyptian Hermes, and for this reason it was considered as better established than any other of the names of the Pharaohs. Mr. Champollion had never discovered this for many years afterwards: and yet we have been told by an ENGLISHMAN in the last Quarterly Journal, that to Mr. Champollion the greater part of the discoveries made by the interpretation of hieroglyphics are owing!
Believe me, dear Sir, very sincerely, yours,
* * * *
London, 24 Nov. 1827.
On the Naturalization of Fish. By J. Mac Culloch, M.D., F.R.S., &c. [◊]
Dear Sir,
As I promised you that I would communicate to you, from time to time, any new remarks or facts which might occur on the subject of naturalizing sea-fish in fresh water, I am pleased to have an opportunity of noticing a few circumstances which may serve to keep alive in the public mind a subject, from which I cannot yet help foreboding useful results, in spite of the neglect and opposition which it has experienced from every person, I believe I may safely say, to whom it has been proposed, except Mr. Arnold. I am perfectly safe in saying, that, with this sole exception, every individual to whom the facts have been described, and the experiment proposed, have replied by doubts, or cavils, or objections of some kind; many, by [p321] positive disbelief of the very facts; while the far greater number have been persons, whose entire ignorance of every requisite point of physiology, natural history, and chemistry, must, of course, have rendered their objections sufficiently unworthy of notice, though not sufficient to restrain the confidence with which they have been urged. The satirical writers of the day view this as the character of the age: the more obvious aspect which this disposition presents, is the feeling, as if he who attempted, by suggesting an improvement, to render a service, was meditating an injury, and was an enemy to be opposed at all hazards. I must permit you to settle metaphysical and moral questions so profound as to exceed my own ingenuity.
But I cannot avoid regretting that Mr. Arnold is not the rich and idle proprietor of some of the tens of thousands of acres of fresh water, whether Scotch or English, in which a ‘sea-fish cannot possibly live,’ or ‘would certainly not be eatable’: and, in addition, that, instead of a not very opulent and very busied ‘notary public,’ he was not in possession of some five thousand of these acres, with as much money, and as much leisure. And I feel bound to add to this apology for what he has not yet done, that the expense of such a course of experiments is considerable; at least in this comparison. A superintendent would be necessary; and for the purpose of taking and transporting the fish, still more of drawing nets periodically and frequently, to ascertain the progress of the transplanted fish, there must be expensive assistance, for which, as yet, there can be no returns; while that, in addition to irregularities and rocks in the pond itself, impeding the accurate drawing and examination, must also be the apology for the imperfection of the present additional report as to the success for certain fishes. It is plain that, though ten or a hundred turbots were present in a pond of four or five acres, the fact is not one that can easily be ascertained. Let those who have money, leisure, and water, and nothing else towards the investigation of this object, restrain, at least, their incredulity and opposition; as may also they, very safely, who never saw a fish, except on the stall of a London fishmonger.