« AnteriorContinuar »
the only resource of the injured party, till the civil magistrate began to neglect his duty. In fine, he recommends a renewal of the ancient penalties, at least of tine and imprisonment, in addition to the damages which the husband may obtain ; and, with regard to the adultress, such a punishment, as may secure her for a time from the enemies of her virtue, and impress a salutary caution on her mind.
This treatise of Dr Ireland, till it was reprinted in 1821, was very scarce.
Mr. Tebbs has inserted an extract from it in p. 100, but without mentioning the title, where he ascribes it to the pen of Sir Alexander Croke; but in a notice subjoined to the errata, he informs his reader, that this valuable pamphlet was re-published last year, and is the production of the present learned and very Reverend the Dean of Westminster, Dr. Ireland,' and further, that,
in the progress of his essay through the press, he took the liberty of inserting several other passages from the same pamphlet, imagining it to be out of print.' This is certainly a candid confession, but it comes rather late, after the Nuptiæ Sacræ had been reprinted, and was become familiar to the public. Why did not Mr. Tebbs, instead of a general acknowledgment that he was indebted to the pamphlet in question, specify his particular obligations, by indicating the several passages which he had inserted ? Far from doing this, he uses the very words of Dr. Ireland as his own, and şays nothing about the Nuptiæ Sacræ, till he comes to p. 100, and even there he does not mention the title of the book. The Dean says:
‘Eusebius, who is always so eloquent when he describes the simplicity and purity of the patriarchal ages, informs us, that the minds of the ancient servants of Heaven were tempered with so much sanctity, that they were in no need of those strict regulations which the progress of corruption afterwards made so necessary. Their own piety was their unwritten law, and (to apply this to the present purpose) they were safely trusted with that power of marriage and divorce which it was certain they would not abuse.'
What says Mr. Tebbs?
* The patriarchal ages were distinguished by a simplicity and purity, which rendered unnecessary those strict regulations, for which the
progress of corruption afterwards imperatively called. Eusebius remarks, that their own piety was their unwritten law; so that, with respect to the subject of the present essay, they were safely trusted with that liberty of marriage and divorce, which it was certain they would not abuse.'
Alter ipse! Mr. Tebbs copies the Dean even to his parenthesis. In the 14th, 15th, and 22d pages, he borrows, although not so largely; and gives, as his own, some learning taken from the authors to whom the Dean has referred in his notes. In p. 8, of the Nuptiæ Sacræ, we read,
• It was the intervening time between these holy men and Moses, and the impure connexion with the Egyptians, which brought with it the corruption of manners already alluded to; and, till the law threw a better restraint upon their practice, they indulged a vicious and excessive polygamy, without any sufficient solemnities of marriage, and dismissed their wives and even their children from their houses whenever they pleased. In short, the important power of repudiation was not onlyʻleft to the chance of personal motives on the part of the husband, but an important consideration) to his sole and personal execution.'
Now for Mr. Tebbs:
• After the age of the Patriarchs, and during the period that intervened between them and the giving of the law, the impure connexion with Egypt had introduced a corruption of manners, and indulged a vicious and excessive polygamy, which greatly needed some restraint. Few solemnities of marriage were observed, and wives and children were dismissed from their homes at the arbitrary will and irresponsible pleasure of their lord. The husband possessed not only the power of repudiation, and that dependent on his personal motives and feelings, but also on his sole and personal execution.'
Here we have the Dean's own expressions, only transmuted by some ingenious alterations into bad English. This is much the same, as if a man were to steal his neighbour's coat, and tear a few holes in the good broad cloth, in order to avoid detection. These passages are not put in inverted commas, nor is there the least sign to indicate a quotation. In fact this is not quotation, Mr. Tebbs, nor is it, what you are pleased to term,' inserting passages ;' but it is palpable pilfering and defacing. The same process is repeated about thirty times in the course of the
to say nothing of the learning which is borrowed, without acknowledgment, from Selden, Buxtorf, and Potter. Nor is Mr. Tebbs less indebted to Dr. Ireland in the historical account which he gives in the latter part of his essay. Dr. Ireland quotes a canon of the council of Trent; and then says, ' but Cotelerius has not told us how the terms of this decision were altered to serve an urgent convenience-Soave shall tell it for him.' Mr. Tebbs observes, But a curious circumstance occurred respecting this, of which Cotelerius takes no notice. We have it from Soave,' &c. and he transcribes, nearly verbatim, Dr. Ireland's note. Had Mr. Tebbs seen the Doctor's new edition of 1821, he would have learnt the great name which lay hid under that of Soave, and would have talked, with equal familiarity, of Fra. Paolo, with whom, however, he has just as much acquaintance as with Soave. There is no occasion to multiply instances; we will only add that the paragraph in p. 249. “We now draw this essay to a close,' &c. in which the auihor states his conclusions, is copied (always excepting the bad English) from p. 142 of Nuptiæ Sacræ. Whoever will take the trouble of comparing the two works, will be satisfied that the pith
and marrow of the prize essay are extracted from the Nuptiæ Sacræ; the learned author of which may fairly lay claim to about forty-five pounds odd shillings of the St. David's Society's premium. We should have been backward in imputing a deliberate system of pillage to Mr. Tebbs, had he not just altered the language of the author from whom he borrows to make it his own; had he not expressly quoted one or two sentences from the anonymous pamphlet, as a blind to his unacknowledged use of others;* or, lastly, had he any where mentioned the title of the pamphlet in question. We cannot forbear adducing one instance of Mr. Tebbs's real want of knowledge on the subject of his essay. After having quoted the opinions of various commentators on our Saviour's limitation of divorce, all of them given in the Nuptiæ Sacræ; he observes, * Thus unanimous are the most approved of the expositors on this interesting and important subject. They have been stated at length, because considerable variations of sentiment have prevailed respecting it with some individuals of no ordinary powers, particularly one of the bishops of Rochester, in a speech delivered in the House of Peers on the case of Lord Northampton!' Will the reader believe, that this one of the bishops of Rochester' was no other than Bishop Horsley; and that Mr. Tebbs took his fancy of this bishop, whoever he was, having made a speech on Lord Northampton's case, from the following passage in Nuptiæ Sacræ, where the author says, expressly addressing the learned prelate, 'In the case of Lord Northampton, you applaud the re-marriage of the innocent party,' referring in a note to the ‘ Bishop of Rochester's Speech, p. 12.' The siniple fact was, that some of the speakers on Lord Auckland's bill, Bishop Horsley amongst the rest, alluded to the remarkable case of Lord Northampton.
We do not wish to press too hard upon Mr. Tebbs; who seems to have some ingenuity, and some learning, which, however, when stripped of its furtive colours,' is much reduced in bulk: but we do wish to place in a strong light the inutility, to say no more, of such a society as that, which awarded a prize to Mr. Tebbs's essay, twenty years after the first publication of the work from which it is borrowed, and one year after its re-publication : for the second edition of the Nuptiæ Sacræ appeared in January,
• A striking instance of this disingenuousness occurs in p. 125. In Nuptiæ Sacræ, p.' 107, is mentioned the persuasion concerning the utter indissolubility of marriage; which, after a few temporary changes, lay floating in the western church, till the improvident orthodoxy of the council of Trent fixed il for ever on the acceptance of the Catholic believer. Mr. Tebbs says, ' all those opinions, concerning the indissolubility of marriage, which, with the exception of a few temporary changes, lay floating in the western church, till, what has been justly termed" the improvident orthodoxy of the council of Trent,” fixed it for ever on the acceptance of the Catholic believer. Who would not suppose that all this passage was Mr. Tebbs's own, except the words which Ire incluses in inverted conimas? He gives not the least intimation where it has been justly termed the improvidedt,' &c. but refers ių a note to Ayliffe's Parergon.
1821; and Mr. Tebbs was crowned with the society's laurel in the December of the same vear. We hope it will be the last time that fifty pounds of the principality's money will be so heedlessly spent. At all events, we recommend, in order that the literati of the diocese may have a fair chance of success, without the danger of a similar exposure, that for the time to come the Essays be written in Welch.
Art. XI.-Lettre à M. Dacier, Secrétaire perpétuel de l'Aca
démie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, relative à l' Alphabet des Hiéroglyphes Phonétiques employés par les Egyptiens, &c. &c. Par M. Champollion le jeune. Paris.
1822. L ITTLE did Doctor Richardson imagine, when he threw
down the gauntlet of defiance to the learned scrutators into the hidden mysteries of hieroglyphical lore, and maintained
that not a man living could write the name of George the Fourth in those sacred characters,'— little, we say, could he suppose that a few months only should pass away before a complete hieroglyphical alphabet would make its appearance, by the help of which, not only the Doctor, but, every one who pleases, may not only write the name of his present Majesty, but both write and read those of every emperor, king and conqueror of ancient Egypt, from the time of Alexander down to Antoninus Pius. And yet, paradoxical as it may appear, though we can thus read and write with the utmost facility all those names which are found on the public monuments of Egypt, and write billet-doux, as we understand the petit-maîtres of Paris are now doing, in characters of this hieroglyphical alphabet, we are not a single iota advanced in understanding the meaning of any one of these sacred characters, unless when so applied in designating the mere names of foreigners.
Such being the case, we may say, without at all derogating from the merit of M. Champollion's indefatigable labours, that, whether we weigh their value in the scales of utility or novelty, we find little or nothing in them that can repay him for the persevering siege which he has conducted against the pot-hooks of Egypt, for just so many years as the Greeks sat down before Troy; nothing, in fact, of originality in his supposed discovery to console him for the laborious investigation he has patiently submitted to, merely to complete an invention which had been known to so many of his predecessors, but the pursuit of which had deterred them. Of this sad truth he must be fully aware; for M. Champollion is no novice in the discoveries which have been made in Egyptian paleography. In the course of his ten years' lucubrations, he has produced two Memoirs to prove, that neither the hieratic or sacer
dotal, nor the demolic or vulgar, writing is alphabetic, (as, he says, was generally thought) but ideographic, like the pure hieroglyphics; that is to say, that they are, like the latter, the signs or pictures of ideas, and not the representations of sounds. But neither is this a discovery due to M. Champollion, nor are his results quite correct. The correspondence between the two kinds of writing was first detected by that excellent oriental scholar, M. Silvestre de Sacy, from a close comparison of the enchorial or demotic character with the corresponding Greek on the Rosetta stone. Having observed the words Alexander and Alexandria to occurin two passages of the Greek inscription, he was able to trace two marked groups of characters in the enchorial, which had a strong resemblance to each other, and from which, and their relative position, he was led to conclude, that they respectively represented these two names : in the same way, the name of Ptolemy and most of the other
proper names in the Greek inscription were traced out in the demotic. With these materials, assisted by some others, the late Mr. Akerblad set to work, and constructed a sort of alphabet, by the help of which several foreign names in the hieroglyphical inscriptions, and in the writing of papyri, were made out; a method by which Doctor Young successfully extended the catalogue, and discovered that the system was equally applicable to the pure
hieroglyphics, from which, in fact, the enchorial characters, on a closer comparison, have been ascertained to be derived and abbreviated. :
The present · Letter,' therefore, of M. Champollion does nothing more than extend the principle, particularly as it is applicable to the sacred characters, and complete what was before imperfect; and we must do him the justice to say, that he has so far succeeded as to render it perfectly easy for any one to read those names and surnames of the Greek and Ronian sovereigns, who successively governed Egypt, as they appear on almost all the public monuments of that country, mixed up among the hieroglypbical characters, but generally, perhaps always, enclosed within an oval ring. To enable him to analyze these groups of hieroglyphics, and to proceed in the operation of constructing, or rather of arranging, his alphabet, nothing more was wanting thau a comparison of those Greek names which had already been detected in the enchorial character on the Rosetta stone, with the corresponding names in the hieroglyphics. Unluckily the name of Ptolemy only was preserved in the hieroglyphical part of the inscription, the others being broken off; but Mr. Bankes's obelisk brought from Philæ amply supplied the deficiency, as not only the same name of Ptolemny, in the same characters, appeared thereon, but also an additional name which, from a Greek inscription on the same obelisk, or rather its pedestal, could scarcely admit a doubt of its being that of Cleopatra.