supposed that the ring surrounding the royal names in the hieroglyphic inscription had the same value as the phonetic mark in Chinese, and from the symbols in the name of Ptolemy he commenced to construct a hieroglyphic alphabet. He made an error, however, in supposing that some of the symbols might be syllabic instead of alphabetic. It is true that in the older inscriptions single signs have sometimes a syllabic value, and sometimes are used ideographically, while in other cases a single sign representing the whole word is employed in conjunction with the alphabetic signs, probably to distinguish the word from others spelt in the same way, but in inscriptions of so late a date as the Rosetta Stone, the symbols were purely alphabetic. Another important step made by Young was the discovery of the use of _homophones_, or different symbols to represent the same letter. Young's work was closely followed up by Champollion, and afterwards by Lepsius, Birsch, and others. The greater part of his researches he never published, though he made careful examinations of several funeral rolls and other documents. It would occupy too much space to give an adequate account of Young's researches in this subject; some portion of his work he published in a popular form in the article "Egypt," in the supplement of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica," to which supplement he contributed about seventy articles on widely different subjects. Perhaps it is not too much to say that to Young we owe the foundation of all we now know of hieroglyphics and the Egyptian history which has been learned from them; and the obelisk on the Thames Embankment should call to mind the memory of no one more prominently than that of Thomas Young. MICHAEL FARADAY.