HIEROGLYPHICS.

The term Hieroglyphics (Tεg07λup∕zα, from/í¢oç, sacred, and yaupw, to carve or engrave) literally denotes sacred sculptures, or characters, and appears to have been applied by the Greeks to that particular species of writing which they found inscribed or engraven on the palaces, temples, sepulchres, and other public monuments of Egypt.

The epithet sacred (hgoς), which enters into the composition of this term, is, however, apt to mislead those who have not attended particularly to the subject. The hieroglyphics were not so denominated as being exclusively appropriated or confined to compositions connected with religion; they, in fact, constituted a real written language, applicable to history and common life, as well as to subjects of a religious or mythological kind. This opinion, which the sagacity of Warburton enabled him to form, long before the true nature of these characters had been divined, is established as incontrovertible by the Greek inscription on the stone of Rosetta, which speaks of the three divisions or compartments of the pillar as containing different versions of the same decree, one in the sacred characters, another in the enchorial or vulgar, and a third in Greek, being a translation of the other two; and that there is no fraud or deception in this description, is at once made evident by the coincidence of the numerals at the end of the hieroglyphical text with the concluding words of the Greek inscription.^[1. This was first remarked by Mr Akerblad, who pointed out, at the close of the hieroglyphical inscription, the three first numerals, indicated by I. 11. and 111. where the Greek has “the first and the second,” Kα< <r<rη<rαι è> ∖ κa<rτuι τ<>>∙> <ri πζωτωι χa Sturt i ⅛[, ¢ıa> ⅛1ω ], the end being broken off. ] Instead, therefore, of qualifying these characters or sculptures as sacred, the Greeks, had they been aware of their real nature, or of all purposes to which they were applied, would have described them as monumental, and thus distinguished them from the other forms of writing in use amongst the Egyptians, by the circumstance which appears to have almost invariably regulated their application. They constituted the monumental writing of ancient Egypt; and as such were distinguished from the intermediate form, called the hieratic, which is for the most part confined to the papyri, and still more from the enchorial or demotic, which appears to have been employed for the ordinary purposes of life. In common language, where nice distinctions are seldom necessary, the term hieroglyphics is indifferently applied to all the three forms of writing, monumental, hieratic, and enchorial; but, in a treatise like this, where the object is to convey accurate information, we must be careful to avoid such confusion, and at the same time to impress upon the mind of the reader the necessity of keeping constantly in view the distinctions here traced, which will afterwards be more fully unfolded and explained.

I. historical and critical view of the opinions entertained respecting hieroglyphics, and of the attempts made, at different times, to decipher them.

All antiquity is agreed in representing the country of the Pharaohs as the birthplace of science, learning, and art, and as the theatre of the earliest form of civilization of which any monument or even tradition has been preserved. At a period when the soil of Greece and of Italy was covered with primeval forests, affording shelter only to wild beasts, or to roving barbarians hardly less savage, the valley of the Nile was occupied by a people far advanced in civil and social improvement, and who had already constructed those Titanian monuments which still command our wonder and admiration, after the lapse of more than three thousand years, and the ravages of successive conquests. Nor has this people been indebted for their high celebrity either to the barbaric splendour of military achievements, or to any of the ordinary elements which constitute material grandeur. On the contrary, the circumstances which have mainly contributed to ensure them an incontestible superiority over most other nations of the world are, the antiquity of their civilization, the wisdom of their institutions and laws, the extent and variety of their knowledge, tire singular character of their government and religion, and the everlasting monuments on which they have engraved their history, and inscribed the names and titles of their gods and their kings. Long before any other country had emerged out of barbarism; when even antiquity, in the ordinary estimate, had not begun; Egypt enjoyed the benefit of a regular government, and cultivated with equal ardour and success those sciences and arts which the Greeks afterwards borrowed, but did not in every instance improve.^[2. Etienne Quatremère, Recherches sur la Langue et la Littérature de l’Egypte, p. 2. Paris, 1808, in 8vo. ]

As early as the days of Moses, who was himself instructed in the wisdom of the Egyptians,^[3. “Erat autem Moses eruditus in omni sapientia Aegyptiorum.” But Philo, in his life of the Jewish lawgiver, enters into details respecting the education of Moses. “Cum enim felicitate ingenii magistrorum, ex universa Aegypto convocatorum doctrinam excederet, et simul multa ingeniose excogitaret; numeros quidem, et geometriam, musicam rhythmicam, harmonicam, metricam, sive contemplativam accepit ab Aegyptiis doctoribus; maxime vero occultam philosophiam descriptam, ut vocant, literis hieroglyphicis, hoc est, notis animalium quae ipsi venerantur pro numinibus.” Justin Martyr, in his Protreptico, denies that Moses studied geometry, but affirms that the Jewish leader was initiated in the mysteries of hieroglyphics. He states, “Mosen, omisso studio omnium mathematicarum, quae in Aegypto vulgares erant, et viles, adjecisse animum ad solas hicroglyphicas disciplinas, quae tum apud eos sola in honore et pretio erant, et non quibuslibet, sed praecipuis ct probatissimis viris, ct in abditis locis secreto traderentur. Has cum didicisset Moses, nil tamen unquam secundum eas, aut dixit, aut fecit; quod contrarium esset unius veri Dei cultui.” In this last particular, however, Clemens Alexandrinus is at variance with Justin; for, in the fifth book of his Stromata, he says, “Moysen, juxta hanc ħiero∙ glyphicae doctrina consuetudinem multa sub tropicis, ac mysticis animalium symbolis, vitae moralis proecepta occulte tradidisse, solis divinae legis amatoribus pervia; qualia sunt illa, neque porco, neque aquila, neque accipitre, aut corvo vescendum.” ] that people, amongst whom laws, institutions,, learning, and the arts had already attained an extraordinary development, appear to have reached the maximum of improvement; they had, in fact, completed their ascending mo vernent, and were fixed on that elevated position which nations generally occupy, for a longer or shorter period, before they begin to descend, and in which the genius of their civil, religious, and social system was eminently calculated to maintain them, for ages, stationary. All the notices incidentally given by the sacred historian, corroborated by the evidence of contemporary [7:11:295]monuments, clearly indicate a people who had already arrived at this grand limit, and who were in the full possession and enjoyment of all the advantages derivable from the peculiar forms of religion and government under which they lived. Even in that remote age, the civilization of the Egyptians had passed into a proverb; nor is it by any means improbable that the Jewish legislator, in framing a code of laws for the people whom he was directed by his high mission to deliver from bondage, and form into a nation, transfused into it somewhat of the practical or written wisdom which he had learned in the country of his birth and education.

From the era of Moses, by whom Egypt is connected with the earliest traditions, no less than with the first historical monument of the human race, until that of the Persian conquest, when its glory and independence perished together; that is, during a long interval of about ten centuries; a few detached and scanty notices, accidentally preserved and often negligently recorded, comprehend all that can be gleaned from the ancient authors respecting either its internal condition or its external relations. It appears, however, that, both before and after the Persian invasion, the Greeks were in the habit of resorting to Egypt to be initiated in the laws, customs, and institutions, as well as science and learning, of the Egyptians; that, notwithstanding all they have alleged as to the exclusion of strangers or foreigners, access was freely afforded them to that knowledge of which the ministers of religion were the sole depositaries; and that in proportion as the seminal principles of civilization began to take root in the genial soil of Greece, they crowded back to obtain fresh supplies from the great storehouse whence the first portion of the good seed had been derived. Thales, Pythagoras, Plato, and many others, were all instructed in the Egyptian school, where they learned the elements of that science which they afterwards taught to their countrymen;^[4. “Horum itaque admirandum studium,” says Kircher, “cum in Graecia percrebuisset, Graecorum sapientissimi ejus gustandi allecti desiderio, Solon videlicet, Thales, Plato, Eudoxus, Pythagoras, et Lycurgus in Aegyptum ad consuetudinem cum sacerdotibus contrahendam sese contulcrunt.” (Obelisci Aegyp. Interpret. Hicrog. p. 144. Home, 166G, in folio.) The learning of the Egyptians was exclusively in the hands of the priests, especially of those who were called h^γζaμIza<rι7s, or sacred scribes, and seems to have been embodied in a great number of volumes, which also contained the annals of the nation, with whatever related to its laws and religion. Diodorus Siculus, describing the palace of Osymandias, makes mention of a library; and Manetho, cited by Jamblicus, states the number of books attributed to Hermes or Thoth, or belonging to that celebrated personage, at thirty-six thousand five hundred and twenty-five. ¢Zoëga, De Orig. et Usu Obeliscorum, p. 502; and Wilkins, Dissert, de Lingua Coptica, at the end of the Oratid∙Do~~ minica of Chamberlayne, p. 81.) ] in Miletus, in Samos, in Crotona, and in Athens, the disciples of the hierogrammatists kindled the lamps which had been trimmed and supplied in Egypt; and, what is less known though equally certain, the rudiments of that art, the originals of those beautiful forms, which the fine natural genius of the Greeks, improving on their models, carried to an almost ideal perfection, may even now be discovered in the bas-reliefs which cover the temples, palaces, and tombs scattered along the valley of the Nile. The fanatical fire-worshippers of Iran, led by a ferocious conqueror, had, no doubt, wreaked their utmost fury against the edifices consecrated to the worship of the gods of Egypt. In their blind hatred of idolatry, they ravaged the country which they had overrun, and deluged it in blood; but they were neither able to destroy the monuments on which they had exhausted their iconoclastic rage, nor to extirpate the learning which they could not appreciate. Hence, when the fortunes of a second conquest had placed kings of Greek descent upon the throne of the Pharaohs, Egypt, under their enlightened sway, recovered a portion of its ancient splendour; the treasures of that renowned scat of early civilization were placed within the reach of philosophic investigation; Greece repaid a portion of the debt which she had long before contracted; science and learning were cultivated with ardour and success in the new capital to which the Macedonian conqueror had bequeathed his name; and when, at length, the star of the Ptolemies set to rise no more, and Egypt was degraded into a province of the Roman empire, the masters of the world came in their turn to dispose of all that a third conquest had spared.

To the Greeks, therefore, who had so long been connected with Egypt, and to the Romans, by whom the Greeks were at length replaced, it was natural to look for the most ample information respecting the institutions, manners, customs, arts, antiquities, science, and literature of that interesting region. Nor, in regard to some of these subjects, did the curious look altogether in vain. Herodotus has devoted a considerable portion of his history to details connected with the laws, usages, manners, and topography of Egypt, which he studied on the spot; and much useful information may likewise be collected from the writings of Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, and others, as well as from those of the later Roman authors, in their incidental notices of that country. But there is one subject, perhaps the most interesting of all, respecting which they have supplied little or no intelligible information; we mean the literature of Egypt, including therein the different methods of writing practised in that country from the earliest times.

In Egypt, the arts of sculpture and painting were at all times subordinate to, and in reality branches of, the art of writing; whilst the monuments scattered over its surface were almost all covered externally with sculptures, or internally with paintings, obviously employed as a species of written language, and intended to serve as records of past events, or of laws, usages, customs, and rites, which had existed at the time when these memorials were originally traced. Here was a circumstance apparently calculated to stimulate the most sluggish curiosity, and to excite even indifference itself to inquire and examine. For what subject of greater interest could possibly be presented to the human mind, than the pictured records of the earliest civilization, which, with a view to the perpetuity of their endurance, had been consigned to eternal monuments? But, from whatever cause, whether from that absurd pride which led the Greeks and Romans to disdain studying those forms of speech which they considered as barbarous, or from the total want of philological talent, and an incapacity for pursuing painful and laborious speculations, the classical writers supply us with nothing beyond a few vague and imperfect notices, which it is often equally difficult to understand or to reconcile; and, whilst they tell us not only that Egypt was the parent of all arts and sciences, but that the hieroglyphical inscriptions on its public monuments contained a summary of the most important mysteries of nature and the most sublime inventions of man, they at the same time pretend that the interpretation of these characters had been so studiously concealed by the priests from the knowledge of the vulgar, and had indeed been so imperfectly understood by themselves, that, in the days of the later Roman emperors, it was wholly lost and forgotten. It is even alleged, though the story seems to rest upon no authentic foundation, that a reward was offered in vain, by one of the first Caesars, for an interpretation of the inscription on an obelisk, then recently brought from Egypt to Rome.^[5. Young, Account of some Recent Discoveries in Hieroglyphical Literature, p. 2. ] Modern ingenuity [7:11:296]is not therefore likely to derive much assistance from any thing which has been transmitted to us on this subject by the Greek or the Roman writers. Their ignorance of the hieroglyphic system in its details is either admitted or evident; and even Clement of Alexandria, who certainly understood the different methods of writing practised in Egypt, has expressed himself with so much technical conciseness, not to say obscurity, that, with all the lights of recent discovery to guide us, it is by no means an easy task to interpret his meaning.

In the infancy of art and civilization, mankind appear to have employed mimetic images, or portraits, to represent individual objects, and give notice of events to those at a distance. Thus, the Mexicans denoted the arrival of the Spaniards by a rude delineation of a ship, and of a man distinguished by the peculiarities of the European dress. This is what may be called picture writings or the natural representation of objects or actions. But mere mimetic images, which could convey no idea of time, nor indicate any abstract quality or attribute, were totally insufficient for the purposes of communicating information and recording events. Hence conventional signs, sometimes kuriologi-caland sometimes tropical,^[6. Those hieroglyphics in which part of a material object is put for the whole, are here called kuriolοgical ; and those in which one thing is put for another, on account of some real or supposed analogy between them, are denominated tropical. ] were chosen to serve as symbols both of things and thoughts, of objects in nature and ideas of the mind. But much time must have elapsed before men learned to communicate with one another by means of symbolical pictures or representations; and no length of time-could possibly render such a method of communication easy. The painter or sculptor, as it might be, would probably, begin improvement by lessening the size and abridging the number of his signs; the language spoken to the ear helping him to represent that which was to be addressed to the eye. But, in the formation of language, man invariably proceeds from particulars to generals; classifying individuals according to their species, and arranging qualities or attributes under their proper categories. Thus, in inventing words for expressing his ideas, he would also invent the means of limiting their number; and, as oral preceded written language, the forms and figures of speech would instruct the graphic artist how to express his sentiments and abridge his symbols. The metaphors which he employed in speaking would naturally suggest the images which he might use in writing. If, when he spoke, he called a strong man a lion, when he wrote he might draw the figure of that animal as the symbol of strength or force. But the inconvenience of representing the entire image would be almost immediately felt; and therefore necessity would teach the use of synecdoche, or putting a part for the whole, as when the Mexicans represented the rabbit by its head, and the reed by its flower. By another natural transition, or rather advance, an action or event would be indicated by some object necessary to its accomplishment, or the concomitant thereof, as when the Egyptians expressed the existence of a siege by painting a scaling-ladder. ^[7. Horus Apollo, Hieroglyphica, lib. ii. ] Thus the classifications which take place in all languages, but more especially the tropes and figures which abound in all dialects spoken by nations not yet refined by the highest civilization, must have greatly facilitated both the invention and the comprehension of hieroglyphics.^[8. .Drummond, Origines, or Remarks on tho Origin of several Empires, States, and Cities, book iv. chap. 9. ] In the progress of improvement, then, we have two stages clearly defined; first, picture-writing, which consists in the mere representation of events, or of objects in a state of action with one another; and, secondly, hieroglyphics, or symbolical writing, which is sometimes kuriological, and sometimes tropical.

Nor is all this matter of hypothetical speculation. Humboldt, in treating of the graphic system of the Mexicans, which he has commented on with great learning and ingenuity, shows that both the stages above described in some measure co-existed amongst, them, and were occasionally combined, though never confounded. They had picture-writing, in its simple and primitive form; and they had likewise a species of hieroglyphical representation, far inferior indeed to that which is found in the Egyptian inscriptions, but still to a certain extent constructed upon the same, or at least similar principles. It appears that the use of hieroglyphical paintings was common amongst the Toltecks, the Aztecks, and other tribes inhabiting the elevated plain of Anahuac, which extends northward from Mexico and is nearly the same with the territory known by the name of New Spain. But no trace of alphabetical characters was anywhere to be found. The analysis of sounds, which leads to the most admirable, we might say the most miraculous, of all inventions, an alphabet, had not been attained by any native of the American continent; and it is even probable, as Humboldt conjectures, that the progressive perfection of symbolical writing, and the facility with which objects were delineated, prevented the introduction of letters. They have at least done so, for a much longer time, with the Chinese, who have contented themselves with fourscore thousand characters, composed of two hundred and fourteen keys, or radical hieroglyphics. The same learned traveller proceeds to inform us, that the Azteck people had real hieroglyphical characters for water, earth, air, wind, day, night, speech, motion; that they had the same for numbers, and for the days and months of the solar year; that these signs, added to the painting of an event, marked the time and other circumstances of the action; that amongst the Mexicans there were found vestiges of the hieroglyphics called phonetic, which indicate not relations with things, but with the spoken language; and that, upon the whole, the Mexican paintings bear a great resemblance, not so much to the hieroglyphical writings of the Egyptians, as to the rolls of papyrus found in the swathings of the mummies, which, according to him, are all paintings of a mixed kind, uniting symbolical characters with the representation of an action.^[9. Humboldt, Researches concerning the Institutions and M ornements of the ancient Inhabitants of America, English translation. “When we examine the history of those nations to which the use of letters is unknown,” says this celebrated traveller, “we find, in both hemispheres, that men have attempted to paint the objects which struck their imagination; to represent things that were complex, by putting a part for the whole ; and thus to compose such pictures as would serve to perpetuate the memory of remarkable events. The Delaware Indian, in scouring the forests, carves some lines on the bark of a tree, to mark the number of the enemy he has killed. Even conventional signs are introduced; and a single stroke marks whether the scalp has been cut from the head of a man or a woman. Such representations, however, are not to be confounded with hieroglyphics, which are essentially different from the mere representation of an event, or of objects in a state of action with one another.” He adds, “The first missionaries who visited America compared the Azteck paintings with the hieroglyphical writing of the Egyptians. Kircher, Warburton, and other learned men, have contested the propriety of this comparison, not having been careful to distinguish the paintings of a mixed kind, in which real hieroglyphics, sometimes kuriological, sometimes tropical, are added to the natural representation of an action." ] In a word, the Mexicans, at the time when their country was overrun by the Spaniards, appear to have made considerable progress in that method of writing which had attained to so high a degree [7:11:297]of perfection amongst the Egyptians; they had passed through the first stage in the career of improvement, and were already entering upon the second, when the hieroglyphic, which is at first employed to modify, comes ultimately to supersede picture-writing.

But although hieroglyphics were a great and manifest improvement on mimetic images or picture-writing, still this method of communication was found essentially defective; its symbols were constantly liable to be misunderstood, the art of painting or engraving them could only be practised by a few, and there were some things which could not in this way be expressed at all. Sensible of these inconveniences, and impelled by the natural disposition to abbreviate and simplify, the Egyptians appear, at an early period of their history, to have made some advances towards the introduction of a more compendious and practicable method of expressing their thoughts, by reference partly to the sounds, and partly to the syllabic combinations, of their living speech; in other words, to have entered on that course of improvement which, if pursued, would have ended in the formation of an alphabet. But, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, it is now pretty certain that they stopped short at the threshold, and extended the use of phonetic symbols no further than appeared necessary to remedy the more obvious defects of the hieroglyphic method of writing.

Accordingly, Herodotus, after mentioning that the Egyptians wrote from right to left, contrary to the method in use amongst the Greeks,^[10. This is the truth, but not the whole truth, as will appear more fully in the sequel. ] proceeds to inform us that they employed two kinds of characters; the one denominated sacred, nga, and the other popular, cημοvικa ;^[11. ∆ιφourioι<rι St γβαμμασι %ζtωvται (ydγυιrτιoi), ×αι ra µiv a'υτωv iiζa, ra St Sημaτι×a xaaιιτa∕. (Lib. II. C. 36.) ] but he states nothing which could lead us to infer that the sacred and popular characters had any affinity, or that the latter were, through an intermediate form, derived from the former. Diodorus Siculus repeats the statement of Herodotus almost in the same words; adding, however, that the popular characters were taught to all, but that the knowledge of the sacred characters was confined exclusively to the priests.^[12. ∆iττa∣v γaζ Αιγύπτιοι; ivτωv γραμμάτων, ra µiv SημωSn πρoraγoριυoμwa παντα; µavffavuv, ra S’ <tξα κaλoυμwa napa µiv toi; Αιγύπτιοι; µovou; γιvωrxiw του; iliti;. ×. <r. λ. (Lib. IIİ. C. 3.) ] This is undoubtedly concise enough; but it nevertheless embraces all the information which these writers, both of whom had visited Egypt, have thought proper to communicate upon this interesting subject. The statement of Herodotus and Diodorus, however, is in perfect accordance with the inscription on the Rosetta column, in regard to which it is impossible to suspect any error, seeing it bears to have been engraved under the inspection of the priests themselves. That celebrated monument, agreeing in this particular with the authors just named, makes mention of only two kinds of characters; the one called enchorial, ιγχωgia γξaμμaτa, or “characters of the country,” evidently identical with the demotic or popular characters of Herodotus and Diodorus; and the other called sacred, Ííga. Thus far, then, the Rosetta inscription and the Greek historians are agreed. But as the latter gives us no information respecting the peculiar nature of the sacred as contrasted with the demotic or enchorial characters, nor conversely, we must turn to the next ancient writer, who treats incidentally of the subject, and endeavour to ascertain whether he has communicated any thing calculated to extend our knowledge, or to supply what is wanting in the statement of his predecessors.

In a well-known passage of the Stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus, that learned father enumerates, with great conciseness, but with a degree of precision to which modern discovery has given a high interest, the different kinds of writing in use amongst the Egyptians, and states generally the peculiarities by which these are distinguished. The passage in question, which has been frequently quoted, and often misunderstood or mistranslated, will be found not only to supply the defects in the statement of the Greek historians, but also to receive a singular confirmation from the discoveries of which it is the principal object of this article to give some account.

“Those who are educated amongst the Egyptians,” says Clemens, “learn first of all the method of Egyptian writing called epistolographic ; secondly, the hieratic, which the hierogrammatists (sacred scribes) employ; and, lastly, the most complete method, the hieroglyphic. The hieroglyphic [is of two kinds]; the one huriologic, (or denoting objects in a direct manner) by means of the primary letters of the alphabet; the other symbolical. Of the symbolical [there are several sorts]; one represents objects directly by imitation; another expresses them tropically (that is, indirectly or ffiguratively); whilst the third employs allegories, expressed by certain aenigmas. Thus, according to the method of representing objects directly or properly by imitation, the Egyptians make a circle when they wish to represent the sun, and trace a luniform figure (or crescent) to denote the moon. According to the tropical method, they represent objects by means of certain, analogies, which they transfer into the expression of those objects by various changes, transpositions, and modifications, very frequently by complete transformations. Thus, when they wish to transmit the praises of their kings under the form of religious legends, they employ anaglyphs (that is, transpositions or transformations of the hieroglyphs). Of the third kind of symbolical writing, which is (Enigmatical, let this serve as an example: The Egyptians assimilate the oblique course of the other [planetary] stars to the bodies of serpents, but the sun they represent by the figure of a scaraboeus,”^[13. Auτιxa oì πa∣> Αίγυπτιοί; naiSιυoμwoι πξωτov µiv πάντων την Αιγυπτίων γξaμμaτωv μι6oSov ι×μav6avoυσι, την ΕΠ1ΣΤΟΛΟΓΡΑΦ1ΚΗΝ xaaoυμι- »1»· Sturtjav St, τ»» 'ΙΕΡΑΤΙΚΗΝ, ņ %ζωwaι oĩ ίΐζογραμματιι;’ υστamv St ×aι τlλιυτaiav 'ΙΕΡΟΓΛΥΦΙΚΗΝ, ή; ή µiv ts ’ τ< Sia των πζωτωv στοιχιιων χυ^ιολογικη, i> St συμβολική. Tn; ĩi συμβολική; ή µiv κυζίολογιϊται κατα μιμησιν, ή S’ ωσπίξ τζοitiκω; γξαφιται, ή Je ίντικζυ; αλληγοζίιται κατα τι»α; αίνιγμου;. Ήλιον γοΐν γζαψαι βουλομινοι κύκλον ποιουσι, otanvnv St σχήμα µnvonSi;, κατα το κυζίολογουμινον iiSo;. Τζοitiκω; St κατ' oiκtio-τ>∣ra μιταγοντι; και μιτατιύιντι;, τα 3’ ιζαλλαττοντι;, τα St πολλαχω; μιτασχηματιζοντι; χαζαττουσιν. Ίου; γουν των βασιλιων ιπαινου; άιολογου-μινοι; μυ6οι; ΐΤαζαΪιΟοντι;, άναγξαφουσι Sia των αναγλύφων. Του St κατα του; αίνιγμου; τζιτου tĩSou; Stιγμa tστω τoSt' τα μιν γαζ των άλλων άστξων, Sia τν,ν ποςιιαν την λοζην οφιων σωμασι aitiικοίζον, τον Se Ήλ/βν τω του κανίαρου, κ. τ. λ. lStrornat. lib. V. ρ. 647, Potter.) ]

In this passage, it is evident that Clement of Alexandria admits three principal and distinct'methods or kinds of the Egyptian writing: first, the epistolographic ; secondly, the hieratic ; and thirdly, the hieroglyphic.

Of the first and second kinds he gives no detail or explanation whatever. The third, or hieroglyphic, which alone occupies his attention, is divided into two sorts: one described as κυg∕oaoy∕%>1 δ∕α rwι vgωτωv <Srorχιιαv, literally, huriologic by means of the first elements; and the other denominated βuμβoλιxη, symbolic. ^[14. In this passage, the words κυζίολογικο;, κυζioaoγιl6aι, are understood of expressions proper to designate objects according to the ordinary usage, and in opposition to figurative terms, or periphrases. Thus Longinus, or the author, whoever he was, of the Treatise on the Sublime, says, ουτω; ⅛ itiριΦοασι; πολλακι; συu,φθi'v'vιτaι τη κυριολογια. ] Of the former sort Clemens says nothing; but he enters into details respecting the latter, which he subdivides into three secondary species. The [7:11:298]first of these (ή κυζioaoγ ∣ κη κara μ∕μr l ff ∣ v) is indicated with precision, as well by the words themselves, as by the two examples given in illustration: it consists in representing an object properly (κυgzoao∕i∕<J ’ dα∕) by imitating (καrα μ ∣ μη- <siv) its form. The second, called the tropical or figurative, is very obscurely defined, and the example' is not much clearer than the definition. It is difficult to discover what the author means by the anaglyphs, which, he says, the Egyptians employed to hand down the praises of their kings, and which, if they consisted of transpositions merely, might •have been formed out of mimetic representations as well as out of tropical symbols.^[15. “Je voudrais,” says Μ. Letronne, “pouvoir définir ce que l’auteur entend par des αηαglyphes, qui servaient, comme on voit, pour l’expression tropique ou figurée: dans la rigeur, la première espèce, comme la seconde, devait se composer de figures auxquelles convenait également le nom d’anaglyphes lorsqu’elles étaient sculptées sur les monumens. Pourquoi done Clément d’Alexandrie borne-t-il les anaglyphes à l’écriture symbolique figurée? Il faut qu’il entende par-là one espèce particulière àe figures sculptées, servant toutefois comme écriture." {Examen du texte de Clément d’Alexandrie, relatif aux divers modes d’écriture chez les Egyptiens, apud Champollion, Précis du Syst. Hiérogh. p. 381.) The reader will also find some judicious observations on this subject, by Baron Silvestre de Sacy, in the Journal des Savans for March 1825, p. 251, 252. ] From the classification, however, it appears that, by anaglyphs he understands sculptured figures employed as a species of writing. As to the third species, namely, the (Enigmatical, there is no room either for doubt or difficulty.

But instead of the three kinds of Egyptian writing here described, Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus mention only two, namely, the popular and the sacred characters ; a statement which is completely confirmed by the Rosetta inscription, where two kinds only are spoken of, viz. the enchorial, identical with the demotic, and those called sacred. These authorities, however, may be satisfactorily reconciled. All the difference between them consists in this, that Clement of Alexandria mentions the hieratic writing, in regard to which Herodotus, Diodorus, and the Rosetta inscription are all perfectly silent. But the reason of this is sufficiently evident. The historians and the inscription include the hieratic amongst the sacred characters, whilst Clement, having employed a more restricted term, found it necessary to distinguish this intermediate form from the hieroglyphic, of which, also, he alone makes mention. A few observations will be sufficient to place this matter in the clearest light.

It is agreed upon all hands that the epistolographic of Clemens Alexandrinus is identical with the demotic of Herodotus and Diodorus, and with the enchorial of the Rosetta inscription. But the hieratic was certainly a species of the sacred characters, inasmuch as it was the form employed by the hierogrammatists, or sacred scribes; and hence Clement has denominated it the sacerdotal writing, from its having been employed by the priests in manuscripts. The hieroglyphic, however, was, properly speaking, the monumental writing, as is indeed expressed by the term (∕ig07λup∕κα), which literally signifies sacred characters sculptured or engraved; whilst the hieratic might be called the hieroglyphic writing, or sacred characters written. This distinction explains and reconciles every thing. Herodotus and Diodorus do not employ the word figoχλu-p∕κα; the epithet they apply is kğa, sacred, which necessarily includes both kinds of sacred writing, the hieratic as well as the other. But Clemens Alexandrinus speaks of the hieroglyphic, an expression which is less generic, and cannot include the hieratic, a kind of writing which was not employed on the sculptured monuments (χsχλuu≠wva)∙ The learned father, therefore, differs from the others merely in this; that they have only employed generic expressions, whereas he has entered into the detail of the species. Discrepancy there is absolutely none. For the same reason, in the Rosetta monument, the monumental characters are designated by the epithet ∕¾α, instead of ∕^oyaυp∕κα, which might have appeared the term most proper to describe the kind of characters engraved on that stone. But the distinction was unnecessary. For, as the hieratic was never employed in monumental inscriptions, and as the question here related to the cutting or engraving of sacred characters on the pillar, these characters could be nothing but hieroglyphics ; and consequently the generic expression 'nξα, sacred, was, in this case, altogether as precise as the specific expression ∕sgoyaυp∕xα would have been.

Having made these observations with a view to remove ambiguity, and prevent the reader from suspecting the existence of discrepancies, where, in reality, there are none, we shall next exhibit a comparative scheme by means of which the accordance of all the texts, and the different kinds of Egyptian writing mentioned by the ancients, together with their respective relations and dependencies, may be at once perceived and understood.
[table]
[7:11:299]

Accustomed to a method of writing in which signs were employed as the representatives of sounds only, the Greek and Roman authors, who had either directly or indirectly acquired any notion or idea of the graphic system of the Egyptians, and particularly of their monumental writing, seem to have been chiefly struck with the figurative and symbolic or ideographic characters which are so largely intermixed therein; and these, as being the most remote from the nature of those signs with which alone they were conversant, appear to have almost exclusively engaged their attention. Hence they nowhere expressly mention any other class or description of signs; they nowhere explicitly and distinctly intimate, what they could scarcely have been altogether ignorant of, that the Egyptians, along with the ideographic symbols, employed certain images and characters as the representatives of simple or elementary sounds. Even Clemens Alexandrinus, in the passage above quoted and analysed, describes the phonetic hieroglyphics in the most concise manner possible; so concise, indeed, that his statement (“kuriologic, by means of the primary elements” of words), from being unaccompanied with any development or explanation, remained perfectly unintelligible, until the ingenious investigations of Young, Champollion, Letronne, and others, suggested the true interpretation. To this circumstance, then, may perhaps be ascribed the ineffectual efforts of the moderns to resolve or elucidate the hieroglyphical inscriptions. Finding in the classical authors indications only of picture-writing and of symbols employed tropically or figuratively, and never once suspecting the existence of characters of a different kind, the learned men of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries invariably proceeded upon the supposition that the hieroglyphic writing was wholly ideographic, or, in other words, composed of characters every one of which was either the natural or arbitrary representative of a distinct idea.

On this assumed principle, indeed, they were all agreed; and, to say the truth, it seemed to receive confirmation from the fact that the hieroglyphical symbols whose forms and values had been indicated by Diodorus Siculus, Horus Apollo, Plutarch, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, and others, were all of them without exception ideographic. The number of these symbols, compared with the immense variety of characters observable on the monuments, was no doubt exceedingly small; nor, from the known characters, was it possible to deduce any general [7:11:300] principle by the assistance of which the unknown could be ascertained or interpreted. But fanciful ingenuity soon supplied all defects; and the learned, rather than confess their ignorance, drew largely on their imaginations. Setting out with the preconceived notion that each hieroglyph stood as the representative of a distinct idea, they thought only of discovering or imagining the esoteric meaning which it was supposed to involve. It was never for a moment doubted that the most profound mysteries of nature and of art lay hidden in these monumental sculptures. The simplest characters, employed perhaps to represent phonetically a proper name, were conceived to be types or symbols of ideas too lofty for ordinary comprehension, and worthy of the eternal records to which their preservation had been consigned. Thus, imagination usurping the place of reason, and the wildest conjectures being substituted for facts, the learned who had undertaken to interpret the Egyptian monuments soon became entangled in an inextricable labyrinth of incongruous fancies, and, like the spirits of Milton when puzzled by their metaphysical speculations, “found no end in wandering mazes lost.” The farther they advanced the thicker became the darkness, and the more inextricable the perplexity.

Such appears generally to have been the method, if method indeed it may be called, pursued by Pierius, and more especially by Kircher, who imitated and improved on the example of conjectural interpretation given by his predecessor. “The extensive learning of Pierius,” says Mr Roscoe, “is chiefly discoverable in his great work on Hieroglyphics, in which he has undertaken to illustrate, from Egyptian, Greek, and Roman symbols, almost every branch of science and of art.” The work thus described is entitled Hieroglyphica, sive de Sacris Aegyptiorum Literis Commentarii, Basiliae, 1556, in folio; and, in the fifty-eight Commentaries of which it consists, there is certainly displayed a great deal of learning and ingenuity; but, unfortunately, the one is wholly misapplied, and the other is of that anomalous description which constantly resolves either into absurdity or extravagance. An idea of this singular production, from which Kircher appears to have derived his peculiar inspiration, may be formed from the summary contained in a brief address to the reader. “Habes in hisce Commentariis non solum variarum historiarum, numismatum, veterumque inscriptionum explicationem, verumetiam praeter Aegyptiaca et alia pleraque mystica, tum locorum communium ingentem magna cum oblectatione sylvam, tum sacrarum literarum, in quibus haud et Christum ipsum, et Apostolos Prophetasque hujusmodi locutionibus usos fuisse videmus exquisitam interpretationem; ut sane vero non temere Pythagoram, Platonem, aliosque summos vivos ad Aegyptios doctrinae gratia profectos intelligas; quippe eum hieroglyphice loqui nihil aliud sit, quam divinarum humanarumque rerum naturam aperire”

Such is the account given of the perjucundum beneficium per Pierium oblatum; nor can it be denied that his ohlation is devoid of entertainment, ĥowever small may be the addition which it is calculated to make to our knowledge of things human and divine. The author not unfrequently invents the symbol as well as the explanation, and of course finds but little difficulty in making the one correspond with the other. He also takes metaphorical language ad pedem literae·, translates it into a visible image or symbol, which he describes with infinite minuteness of detail; and then proposes a resolution or explanation, from which he deduces a long series of consequences, some of them ingeniously puerile or elaborately ludicrous. Nor, in his interpretation of symbols actually employed in liieroglyphical legends and inscriptions is he Jess imaginative or less entertaining. If right in the first instance, as, for example, in regard to the figure of the lion, he generally contrives to be absurd in the second; he introduces combinations which were never before imagined, and stumbles upon explanations which set sense and gravity equally at defiance. He tells us truly that a lion is the natural symbol of strength or force; but nobody could conjecture or divine from this that the representation of a lion devouring an ape means, according to Pierius, a remedy for fever. “Ego sane disciplinas Aegyptiorum in hujusmodi re secutus, compertum esse inquam, leonem febri correptum, vel si ad furorem usque exaestuet, unius pastione simiae liberari. Quapropter Aegyptii sacerdotes si febricitantem hominem, et sibimet auxilia comparantem significare vellent, leonis simiam vescentis hieroglyphicum ponere soliti sunt; tanta enim indignatione simiam fert leo, ut nullum animal avidius perdere desideret'' (P. 8.) The Egyptians, according to Clemens Alexandrinus, assimilated the course of the sun to the body of a scaraboeus, upon the same principle that they compared the oblique course of the planetary stars to the bodies of serpents. This statement is clear, and distinct, and intelligible; but Pierius takes a different and much more curious view of the matter, “Cur enim quis Aegyptios sacerdotes irrideat,” he asks, “quod mundi speciem ipsosque motus per scaraboeum significare tradiderint, si pilulas illas in quibus seminium ex sese primum habuerint, ac in vermiculos primum, mox in certam effigiem conformati fuerint, ad mundi ipsius imaginem et rationem fieri compertum est? Scaraboeus enim certo anni tempore bubulum excrementum nactus, materiam eam sibi suscipit elaborandam, quod primo statim Pacis suae versu mordet Aristophanes, α⅛ ’ a⅛≡ μαζαν ως ra∕χpsra xavt)agω. Quo loco mazam Poëta pro excremento posuit utcunque primum ex ea pilulas conficit, ut jam mundi ipsius formam imitatur, mox eas ab exortu occasum versus posticis impellens pedibus, non intermissa ratione protrudit, ipse interim aversus ortum spectat, quasi de industria id det operam, ut coeli ipsius exemplar intuendo., imaginem ejus exprimere conetur.'' (P. 60.) This and the preceding example will serve as well as a thousand to give the reader an idea of the “great work on Hieroglyphics” spoken of by Mr Roscoe; a work in which all sorts of animals, and parts of animals, vegetables, implements, utensils, weapons, and other objects, artificial as well as natural, are symbolised, sometimes individually, sometimes in arbitrary or grotesque combinations, and in which, from beginning to end, it is impossible to discover the slightest approach towards a rational and sound method of inquiry.^[17. We repeat, however, that the book is amusing, on account of the perverse ingenuity it displays, and the never-failing facility with which the author at once manufactures and expounds his symbols. For instance, a single crane, according to him, means curtodia, but a plurality of these birds signifies democratia, though on what analogy, real or imaginary, we are not informed. From this interpretation, however, he deduces a very sensible etymology: “Sane quidem apud nostros consensus unioque partium in candem sententiam aut rem, Latino vocabulo formam ab ipsis gruibus videtur accepisse, ut inde congruere pro convenire dic am us.” (P. 128.) ]

After an interval of about a century, Pierius was succeeded by Kircher, who, instead of confining himself to the interpretation of detached symbols, boldly attacked the Egyptian monuments themselves; and, by a strange intermixture of cabbalistical science with the extravagant fancies of a refined system of demonism, attempted to expound the inscriptions with which they are covered. His first published work was his Obeliscus Pamphilius, which appeared at Rome in the year 1650; but the magnum opus in which his whole system is most elaborately detailed, we cannot say explained, is the Oedipus Aegyptiacus, [7:11:301]vel Theatrum Hieroglyphicum, Rome, 1654, in four vols. folio; a work of profound research, infinite learning, and unequalled absurdity. In the Oedipus Aegyptiacus, Kircher professes to give a new and hitherto unattempted interpretation of the obelisks and other hieroglyphical monuments extant, whether in Egypt, at Rome, or in the more celebrated museums; and we shall immediately submit to the reader a specimen or two illustrative of the mode in which he has accomplished the task undertaken by him. A further exemplification of his system, in all its mystical extravagance, will be found in the Obelisci Aegyptiaci nuper inter Isaei Romani rudera effossi Interpretatio·, which appeared two years after the publication of the Oedipus Aegyptiacus. These six folio volumes contain some tolerably faithful, though inelegant, representations of the principal monuments of Egyptian art, which had been brought to Europe before the time of the indefatigable Jesuit; and, as his system of interpretation succeeded equally well whether he chanced to begin at the beginning, the middle, or the end of an inscription, he has never, in any instance, failed to subjoin an exposition of what he conceived or imagined to be the import of the characters or legends represented.

According to Kircher, the obelisks, the mummies, and the amulets, all contain mysterious doctrines in religion or metaphysics; and these he proceeds to unfold with as much confidence as if he had been the mystagogus of ancient Egypt, and had inherited all the esoteric learning for which the priests of that country were so much celebrated. No difficulty or obscurity ever for a moment impedes the progress of Kircher; his system enables him to penetrate at a glance the most recondite mysteries. Thus, in the oval, cartouche, or ring, on the Pamphilian obelisk, which contains the title AOTKPTP, Auro%gαrωg, Emperor, expressed in phonetic characters, the learned Jesuit discovers the following luminous oracle: “The author of fecundity, and of all vegetation, is Osiris, whose generative faculty is derived from heaven in his kingdom by the holy Mophta.”^[18. Obeliscus Pαmρ1ιilius, p. 557∙ ] In like manner, the cartouche or ring of the same obelisk, which contains, in phonetic characters, the words KHΣPΣ TMTIANΣ ΣBΣTΣ, Kα∕tfag ∆¾cwnaκ)g ∑s∕3amj, Caesar Domitianus Augustus, signifies, according to Kircher, “Generationis beneficus praeses, coelesti dominio quadripotens, acrem per Mophta beneficum humorem acreum committit Ammoni inferiora potentissimo, qui per simulacrum et cacrimonias appropriatas, trahitur ad potentiam exerendam.”^[19. Obeliscus Pampliilius, p. 5õ9. In regard to the Pamphilian obelisk, Kircher has been doubly unfortunate. It is not genuine. Of the obelisks still in existence there are perhaps about thirty; larger and smaller, which may be considered as genuine. Several others are decidedly spurious, having been chiefly sculptured at Rome in imitation of the Egyptian style, but so negligently and unskilfully as to exhibit a striking difference even in the character of the workmanship. Such are the Pamphilian, in explanation of which Kircher published the folio volume before us, consisting of near six hundred pages, and also the Barberinian or Veranian obelisk. In both of these the symbols are put together in a manner wholly arbitrary; and when an attempt is made to imitate the appearance of a name, the characters are completely different at each repetition. Another very celebrated monument, the Isiac table, which Kircher also undertook to explain and illustrate, is equally incapable of supporting a minute investigation conducted on solid principles. For the inscriptions neither bear any relation to the figures near which they are placed, nor form any. connected sense of their own; and the whole is undoubtedly the work of a Roman sculptor, imitating only the general style and the .separate delineations of the Egyptian tablets, as indeed some of the most learned and acute of our antiquaries had already asserted, notwithstanding the contrary opinion of several foreigners of the highest reputation for their intimate acquaintance with the works of Greek and Roman art. (Young on lneroglyphical Literature, pp. 27, 28.) ] Out of a proper name, written phonetically, the laborious and imaginative Jesuit elaborates all this untranslateable and unintelligible gibberish. Again, in his Oedipus Aegyptiacus, when treating De Simulacris Aegyptiorum portatilibus, Kircher translates the serpent, which is a homophone of the letter D, vitalis ; the three upright lines representing the numeral three, trium elementarium mundorum; the broken line, which represents N, humor ; the extended arm, D or T, beneficus ; the ibis, A, Mercurium, qui; the vase and the chain, NH, in aquam Niloticam, ope catenae numinum aquaticoum; the plough, denominated by him hieralpha, and a phonetic homophone of M, Agathodaemon humorem naturae deducit; lastly, the sceptre and the bee, the abbreviated Egyptian expression of SOUTEN, director or governor, ^[20. Rossellini, I Monumenti delľ Εgitto e della Nubia, tom. i. partç prima, p. 114. ] signify, according to Kircher, Ubi polymorphus Daemon singulis distributa sua portione, inde necessariarum rerum abundantiam confert. ^[21. Oedipus Aegyptiacus, tom. iv. Synt∙ xvii. cap. 2, p. 494. ] These examples will, we conceive, suffice to show that the learned Jesuit had consulted his imagination alone in devising interpretations so absurd and unintelligible; that all his labour and research were expended in vain; and that, so far from contributing in any degree to elucidate the Egyptian inscriptions, he was eminently successful in thickening the darkness in which they were involved.

But extravagant and nonsensical as all this may appear, and no doubt is, Kircher was nevertheless the founder of a school. The recipient power of human credulity has no limits when vanity or self-love is once conciliated; and, as it is at all times much easier to imagine than to examine, investigate, or analyse, the admirers and disciples of thelearn-ed Jesuit failed not, in some instances, to improve upon the absurdities of their master. To men who had no light to guide them, and no footing upon which to take their stand, his mystical jargon appeared a sort of oracular language, which, though nothing could be made of it, was believed to contain every thing. From the operation of the principle, omne ignotum pro magnifico his day-dreams became a sort of transcendentalism in Egyptian archaeology; and there were not a few who devoutly believed that Kircher had found out every thing contained, or rather concealed, in the Egyptian inscriptions, if it were only possible to discover his discoveries.^[22. Solate as the year 1821, there issued from the archiepiscopal press of Genoa a new translation of the hieroglyphics of the Pamphilian obelisk, a monument which (as we have already shown) is decidedly spurious, but which, according to the Italian Oedipus of symbols, “preserves the remembrance of the triumph over the ungodly, obtained by the worshippers of the thrice Holy Trinity, and of the Eternal Word, under the sway of the sixth and seventh kings of Egypt, in the sixth century after the Deluge that is, at a period when neither the “thrice Holy Trinity,” nor the “Eternal Word,” had as yet been revealed to mankind. From the same incomparable authority we learn, to the utter confusion of our chronology, that one of these pious monarchs was no other than Sesac or Sheshak, who, according to the Old Testament, pillaged Jerusalem, carrying off as lawful spoil the treasures of the temple and of the house of David. Pierius and Kircher, with all their fanciful extravagance, were men of real learning, scholars in the best sense of the term; and though they failed to interpret the hieroglyphics, they were careful not to outrage history and chronology, which, in fact, it was one of their great objects to illustrate and confirm. But this translator of an untranslateable monument seems either to have written his book in a calenture of the brain, or to have published it as an experiment (clumsy enough, in all conscience) upon the credulity of mankind. ] But the strange fancies and cabbalistical reveries which excited the stupid wonder of inferior[7:11:302] minds, failed to impose upon the strong sense and the powerful intellect of Bishop Warburton. In his justly celebrated work, The Divine Legation of Moses demonstrated, that learned prelate discussed, with consummate scholarship, the different ancient texts relating to the methods of writing practised amongst the Egyptians; distinguished theoretically the several sorts of characters employed by them; and deduced, from his inquiries, the important observation, now completely verified, that the sacred characters, or hieroglyphics, were not so denominated, as being exclusively appropriated to sacred subjects, but that, as stated at the commencement of this treatise, they constituted a real written language, applicable to the purposes of history and common life, as well as to those of religion and mythology. He was no doubt so far mistaken in supposing that each of the three kinds of characters constituted a distinct and independent system of writing. But as he confined himself entirely to such inferences as seemed logically deducible from the ancient authorities examined and discussed by him, without attempting to verify or correct his conclusions by a direct application to the Egyptian monuments, his misconception in this particular was perhaps unavoidable, and ought in no degree to lessen our admiration of that sagacity which led him to divine a truth which had never been suspected by any one before him, and which the subsequent progress of discovery completely demonstrated. If the profound remark of this learned prelate had been duly appreciated, and prosecuted to its consequences, the quaestio vexata of Egyptian hieroglyphics would probably have been, in part at least, resolved half a century earlier. But succeeding writers, haunted by the spirit of Kircher, dreamed only of symbols ; the existence of phonetic signs, or an alphabet, was never suspected by any one except Zoega, who, unconscious of the value of his own ingenious conjecture, abandoned it as soon as produced;^[23. “Sed satis est exemplorum classis aenigmaticae, superest quinta classes ηοiαrum Phoneticarum." (See his great work, De Origine et Usu Obeliscorum, p. 454. Korne, 1797, in folio.) ] it seemed, in fact, to be tacitly agreed that letters were unknown in the country where they are commonly supposed to have been first invented; and though hypotheses were multiplied, the study was not in consequence advanced. Like a temple half buried in the sand drifted from the desert during a long series of ages, Egyptian literature powerfully attracted the attention and excited the interest of those who stopped to gaze on its mystic form and magnificent proportions; but the entrance to the sacred edifice had not yet been discovered and cleared out, consequently the interior remained wholly unknown. The superstition of antiquarianism still hovered round it, and the mystery of ages, in itself an object of strong interest to many, remained inviolate. But the day of the shovel and the spade was nevertheless fast approaching.

Amongst the first contributions to the study of hieroglyphics in this country, may be mentioned two Essays by Mr Alexander Gordon, a draughtsman and antiquary of considerable eminence; the one having for its object to explain the hieroglyphical figures upon the coffin of an ancient mummy belonging to a Captain Lethicullier, and the other, in like manner, to expound the hieroglyphical figures upon an Egyptian mummy in the museum of Dr Mead. These Essays are accompanied with twenty-five copperplates, in which, besides the different views of the soroi or mummy cases, are delineated with tolerable fidelity the apices of several obelisks, some Egyptian antiquities in the Ashmolean Museum, groups copied from monuments in other collections, amulets, figures of Isis and Canopus, wooden images of the dead (craξfbuγμara νιχgων ξυλina), urns, and other ancient remains; to which is added, a table of the characters found on the Egyptian monuments then in Britain, and amounting to 248 in number. The plates, however, were published before the text with which they are now accompanied; and, in fact, the Essays are only designed to explain three out of the twenty-five, namely, those in which are represented the figures on the mummy-cases. Of the remainder an explanation is also promised, but it does not appear that the author ever fulfilled his intention. Mr Gordon’s text is principally descriptive and critical; and he displays equal learning and good sense in his observations on the ancient authorities. But, like his predecessors, he thinks of nothing but symbols, and, in no instance, makes even the slightest approach towards the interpretation of a single character or group which the ancient writers have not explained. The concluding paragraph of the Essay on Lethicullier’s mummy will be sufficient to convey to our readers an idea of the whole, as well as to confirm the truth of the observation, that our author was as far from the right course as any of those who had preceded him. “The whole, then, on this mummy,” says he, “seem chiefly to be so many physical symbols, representing the different powers or properties of their chief deity Osiris or the Sun, as acting in and upon the different parts of nature; and what is on the back of the mummy, a combined figure of both Osiris and Isis, symbolising universal nature. And what is curious on this mummy, are the flagellum of Osiris, and the fαlχ messoria of Isis, exhibited near their mutual figures, being the characteristical marks or rather trophies of their mutual inventions, namely, of the use of grain and agriculture; the one instrument for reaping, the other for threshing the corn; inventions for which, among many others, they were deified; inventions to which the world owes the first bringing of mankind into society; inventions from whence religion, arts, learning, and whatever else is valuable among mankind, owe their origin.”^[24. A n R. ssa y towards explaining the Hieroglyphical Figures on the Coffin of the Ancient Mummy belonging to Captain William Lethicullier, by Alexander Gordon, A. Μ. London, 1737, in folio. To which is subjoined, by the same author, An Essay'towards explaining the Ancient Hieroglyphical Figures on the Egyptian Mummy in the Museum of Dr Mead, Physician in ordinary to his Majesty, same date. ] The view here referred to is not given in the plates; but we can have little doubt that a lituus has been mistaken for a fαlχ messoria, and a shakal-headed sceptre for a flagellum. The idea that the sacred characters might constitute a written language seems never to have entered the mind of this learned and intelligent antiquary.

We come now to consider one of the boldest and most original attempts ever made to penetrate the inscriptions on the Egyptian monuments, and the honour of. which is due to Μ. de Guignes, the celebrated French orientalist. The Abbé Barthélemy having read to the Academy of Belles Lettres a memoir on the Phoenician Letters, Μ. de Guignes, in examining it, happened to cast his eyes on a dictionary in which the ancient Chinese characters were represented, and observing a striking conformity between these and the letters in question, he at once recollected the opinion expressed by Huet, the celebrated bishop of Avranches, as to the common origin of the Chinese and Egyptians, and resolved to investigate the subject, not as a curious speculation, but with a view to determine the truth. The results of this investigation he communicated to the Academy of Belles Lettres, on the 14th of November 1758, and published the year following under the title of Mémoire dans lequel on prouve que les Chinois sont une Colonie Egyptienne. In this memoir, Μ. de Guignes undertakes, not to explain the monuments of the Egyptians, but to propose some reflections on their system of writing, [7:11:303]to examine its progress, to compare it with that of the Chinese, and to show that both nations had originally the same hieroglyphs. With the assistance of the Chinese characters he attempts to penetrate those of the Egyptians, to develope their composition, and to establish their relation to or identity with the Chinese hieroglyphics; he also explains several Egyptian characters; and, lastly, he compares the language and the hieroglyphics of Egypt and of China with the languages and methods of writing which obtained amongst the Hebrews, the Arabians, the Syrians, and other nations of the East. We shall endeavour to state as briefly as possible an outline of the investigation which we have thus generally described.^[25. Lettre de Pekin, sur le Génie de la Langue Chinoise, et la Nature de leur Ecriture Symbolique, comparée avec celle des Anciens Egyptiens, par un Père de la Campagnie de Jesus, Brussels, 1772. Journal des Savant for the same year. Lettre sur les Caractères Chinois, par le Révérend Père · · · ·, de la Compagnie de Jesus, Brussels, 1773. This letter, however, is dated at Pekin, the 20th of October 1764. ]

The hieroglyphical writing of the Egyptians and that of the Chinese are equally composed of different figures representing men, parts of the human body, animals, plants, vases, instruments, celestial bodies, and so on. But the Chinese writing, though composed of the same elements with the Egyptian, is a kind of cursive writing, in which all these figures are represented in the merest outline, without distinguishing the parts which ought to be strongly brought out from those which ought to be less so; that is, all the lines have the same force. In this consists the chief difference between these two kinds of writing; for if the Chinese were finished off like the Egyptian hieroglyphics, their identity, says Μ. de Guignes, would at once be perceived. He further observes, that the Chinese group and place beside one another several simple characters, which form together a single compound character expressing a word or an idea; and that the same singular proceeding is found to have obtained in the Egyptian writing. From the relations which have only for their object the exterior form of the characters, he then passes to the composition of these characters, that is, to the different parts of which the group is formed; and then proceeds to consider the question, whether those of the Egyptian hieroglyphics of which Horus Apollo has preserved the signification, are composed of the same ideas or the same elements with those of the Chinese. On the result of the examination of this question depends the relation which our author proposes to establish between China and Egypt.

The Chinese possess two hundred and fourteen elementary characters, which the grammarians have called keys ; and these keys are either employed alone, as characters serving to express an idea, or variously combined one with another, in which case they are only considered as parts of the same character or group. Each of these parts is the representation of an idea which, united to two or three others, produces a word, or another idea resulting from the combination of these simple elements; that is, they form together a species of phrase which is “comme la definition d’une idée plus composée.” For example, the Chinese character which expresses night is formed of three of these keys,—of one which signifies obscurity, of another which signifies the action of covering, and of a third which indicates man ; so that the phrase obscurity covering men is the Chinese equivalent of the word night, to which it exactly corresponds. In like manner, the character which signifies music is composed of three parts or keys, one representing wood, another a thread or cord of silk, and a third sound·, because the first instruments of music were made of wood, or boards, upon which were extended silken cords. This phrase, therefore, when rendered literally, signifies sound produced by threads or cords of silk extended on wood. Hence it may be concluded that these two hundred and fourteen keys are the representatives of as many simple and primitive ideas, which, by means of different combinations, were employed to express new ideas, in proportion as accident or necessity led to their formation. But, according to Μ. de Guignes, the same observations apply equally to the Egyptian hieroglyphics, in which may be found simple characters corresponding to the keys of the Chinese, and also groups or compound characters. The number of the former is not considerable, being nearly the same as that of the Chinese keys, and represented by the same figures, having the same signification. If, then, with all these points of resemblance, the Egyptian groups are composed of the same ideas or the same elements, it may be concluded that these two nations had at one time the same system of writing and the same words; and that the Chinese characters, especially when resolved into their elements, may assist in enabling us to interpret those of the Egyptians.^[26. A singular circumstance has recently transpired. Signor Rossellini, the associate of Μ. Champoilion in the Egyptian expedition, and author of the learned work entitled Monumenti delľ Egitto e della Nubia, already quoted, is in possession of a sort of smelling-bottle, evidently of Chinese porcelain, and covered with characters to all appearance Chinese. This curious relic was found by Rossellini himself in a tomb, which, as far as could be ascertained, had not been opened since the davs of the Pharaohs. {Quarterly K¢- view, vol. liii. p. 139.) ' v ]

But in order to avoid every kind of conjecture, Μ. de Guignes avails himself of the information communicated by Horus Apollo, who has preserved the analysis and interpretation of several Egyptian hieroglyphs, and proposes to show that the Chinese characters, being composed of the same elements as those of the Egyptians, have also the same signification. According to Horus Apollo, the Sun and the Moon grouped together form an Egyptian character, signifying the succession of time, or the first principle. In Chinese, the same elements, the Sun and the Moon, have exactly the same signification, and mean the succession of time, revolutions, the principle of all things. In Egypt, a horizontal line crossed by a perpendicular line expressed the number ten. It is not a little remarkable that the Chinese employed the same character in the same sense. “Un caractère de cette espèce ne tient point à ces idées générales qui tombent dans l’esprit de tous les hommes.” In Egypt, the cynocephalus symbolically indicated sadness; in China, the same figure, accompanied with the character for voice, signifies the same thing. To designate education, and an ancient, origin, the Egyptians carved or painted a bundle of reeds. This symbol is founded on ideas so singular that remote nations could scarcely imagine it, much less agree as to its signification. Yet the Chinese employ a bundle of reeds in the same sense as the Egyptians, and, by using characters of this kind, show that, originally, they had communication with that people. Lastly, the Egyptians expressed science by the dew which falls from heaven. This metaphor exists in Chinese, and the character which signifies science, or a learned man, is composed of three elements or keys, one of which designates the rain or the dew, the other heaven, and the third man ; a phrase which can only signify the man on whom descends the dew of heaven. In Deuteronomy we have the entire formula of this hieroglyph. Concrescat ut pluvia doctrina mea, fluat ut ros eloquium meum, quasi imber super herbam et quasi stillee super gramina. The Egyptians compared science to the dew which falls upon plants and causes them to fructify; and the same [7:11:304]imagery was employed by the Hebrews, who had lived long in Egypt, and also by the Arabians and Syrians, the neighbours of the Egyptians, and whose language naturally exhibited traces of their communication with that people.^[27. Mr Needham, an Englishman who, in the year 1761, had visited Turin, and examined the Egyptian antiquities in the cabinet of his majesty the king of Sardinia, appears to have come to nearly the same conclusions with Μ. de Guignes; though, as his claim was only put forward three years after the ingenious speculations of the Frenchman had been published, we have no means of determining the question of priority, unless we hold the Lettre sur les Caractères Chinois as a decisive authority, which we are by no means inclined to do. Having observed that the symbols, or hieroglyphic characters, on the Isis of Turin, were similar to several Chinese characters found in the Dictionary entitled Tching-tsce-Tong, Mr Needham conjectured, l∙s∕, That the Chinese characters might, in several respects, be identical with the hieroglyphics of Egypt; and, 2 dly, That the sense of the hieroglyphics might be discovered by comparing with them the appropriate signification of the Chinese characters. “Les nouvelles observations de AÌr Needham,” says the author of the Lettre above referred to, “font espérer quelque chose de plus heureux pour la gloire de nôtre siècle: il a comparé les caractères Chinois avec les hiéroglyphes d’Egypte, il y a trouvé one ressemblance, du moins une analogie, qui lui fait croire qu’on pourra enfin savoir le secret des mystères de Memphis, et rompre la barrière de ténèbres qui nous empêche de faire remonter nos connoissances jusqu’au temps les plus voisins du Déluge·” The author adds, “Quelle conquête pour la républiques des lettres, « elle a jamais lieu'' The conquest would, no doubt, have been great, if it had ever been made; and we know no other obstacle to its accomplishment except that the thing proposed is manifestly impossible. From all that we have been able to learn on this subject, it appears that the road to Memphis does not pass by Pekin. ]

From these hieroglyphics, the import of which we learn from Horus Apollo, Μ. de Guignes, after showing that the Chinese have characters composed of the same elements, and bearing the same signification, concludes that those found on the monuments, having exactly the same figure and the same elements as the Chinese, must likewise have the same signification, and consequently that the hieroglyphics of Egypt may be interpreted by means of dictionaries of the ancient Chinese characters. Nor did he stop even here. Although these hieroglyphics may be explained without knowing the sound or pronunciation which the Egyptians assigned them, as happens in Chinese where the pronunciation of a character has been lost or forgotten; yet he believed it possible to recover even the sound of the hieroglyphics, that is, the spoken language of the Egyptians. But into this part of the subject it would be foreign to our present purpose to enter in detail. It may be sufficient to state, that De Guignes considered all the elements of the Egyptian and Chinese hieroglyphics as so many alphabetical letters, simple or syllabic, “faisant répondre à one scule lettre les hiéroglyphes les plus simples, et à one ou à deux syllabes ceux qui sont plus composés that the Chinese keys, though hieroglyphics, are at the same time letters or syllables, the combination of which forms the most composite terms that are found in all the oriental languages with the same signification; that the fixation of these keys to a certain letter or syllable is invariable in all circumstances; that the oriental letters are significative, and originated in hieroglyphics, most probably the same with those of the Egyptians; that this numerous alphabet, composed of about two hundred and fourteen figures, is identical with that which the Egyptians called hierogram-matic or sacerdotal writing, into which a greater or smaller number of hieroglyphic characters were inserted; and that the latter, whether huriological or symbolical, were employed in their natural or metaphorical sense, as the case might be, the symbolic hieroglyphics being less a particular kind of writing than a symbolic style or figurative mode of expression.

Such is a rapid sketch of the highly ingenious and refined speculation of Μ. de Guignes. It was successively attacked by Pauw and Deshauterayes;^[28. Deshauterayes, Doutes sur la Dissertation de Μ. de Guignes, qui a pour le titre, Mémoire dans lequel on prouve que les Chinois sont un colonie Egyptienne, proposées à MM. de l' Académie des Belles-Lettres, Paris, 17ð9, in 12mo. See also De Guignes, Réponse aus Doutes proposées par Μ. Deshauterayes, Paris, 1759, in 12mo. ] but neither of these writers seems to have perceived the real fallacy upon which the whole of this beautiful fabric is reared. The assumed identity between the Chinese elementary characters or keys, and the Egyptian hieroglyphics, is entirely imaginary; as is also the principle of combination, upon the Chinese system, extended to the latter. Nothing of this sort has as yet been discovered on any Egyptian monument. Compound ideas are expressed in the monumental writing by juxtaposition alone; nor is there the slightest evidence to show that the Egyptians had characters representative of the syllabic elements of words, or the constituent parts of ideas. It may be true, therefore, that a certain conformity is discoverable between Egyptian and Chinese customs or doctrines, and it may even be admitted that both nations had a common origin; but neither of these points can ever be considered as established by reasoning based on an erroneous assumption, nor can the identity of their language and history, opposed as it is by so many circumstances, physical, political, civil, and religious, be deduced from a few specious and plausible coincidences, such as ingenuity may easily discover between any two nations of the earth, however widely separated by time, place, and every distinctive characteristic or peculiarity. In a word, to use the language of an able writer, “on ne doit aujourd’hui regarder ce système que comme le rêve d’un homme d’esprit, qui est séduit par one idée plus brillante que solide.”^[29. Biographie Universelle, art. Guignes, Joseph de. ]

“Among the works of modern authors who have employed themselves in the study of hieroglyphics,” says Dr Young, “it is difficult to say whether those were the more discouraging which, like the productions of Father Kircher and the Chevalier Palin, professed to contain explanations of every thing, or which, like the ponderous volume of Zoega On the Obelisks, confessed, after collecting all that was really on record, that the sum and substance of the whole amounted to nothing.”^[30. Young, Discoveries in Hieroglyphical Literature, p. 2. ] This was no doubt disheartening enough; and what added to the discouragement was, that between these extremes there existed no middle term. But the candid and honest avowal of the learned Dane ought not to deprive him of the merit which is justly due to him for the important services he has rendered to the cause of Egyptian literature. His great work,^[31. De Origine et Usu Obeliscorum, ad Pium Sextum Pontificem Maximum, auctore Georgio Zoega Dano. Rome, 1797, in large folio. ] if it contains n¢ discoveries, is at least valuable as a repository of author! ties and facts, and presents, in an accessible form, a mass of knowledge, which, as it cost the labour of a life to collect and arrange it, is greatly calculated to facilitate tht’ inquiries and investigations of all who devote themselves to the study of Egyptian archaeology. It is divided int( five parts, which are again subdivided each into chapters and sections. The first part exhibits the testimonies of tht’ ancients respecting the obelisks and o ’ r>jλα∕ of the Egyptians; the second contains an enumeration and description of Egyptian obelisks, including such as have experienced fractures and other injuries, as well as those which stil remain entire; the third treats of the uses of the obelisks or the purposes for which they were erected, and record!
[7:11:305]

the different opinions which have been promulgated on this subject by Kircher, Goguet, the members of the Academy of Inscriptions, Bruce, and many others, including Jablonski, Mercatus, Bergaeus, and others; the fourth is devoted to the consideration of the origin of these monuments, and, in particular, embraces the author’s views, or rather collections, respecting the origin and use of letters amongst the Egyptians; the fifth and last treats of the history of the obelisks, and of their various epochs. As a digest of all the learning and information on the subject which existed at the time of its publication, this work is therefore of the highest importance; and its value is greatly enhanced by the beautiful and accurate engravings with which it is accompanied. Zoega has indeed left little to be gleaned in the field which he undertook to reap; he has gathered into one great storehouse, for the use of those who may succeed him, a vast body of knowledge which previously lay scattered over an immense surface, or concealed in nooks and corners; and he has so arranged and methodized his collection as to render its materials easily accessible to every inquirer. Nor have the discoveries latterly made in Egyptian literature superseded or antiquated the labours of this indefatigable scholar. On the contrary, these have acquired additional importance from the circumstance that, whilst an entirely new direction has been given to learned curiosity, the persons engaged in prosecuting those discoveries have been spared the fatigue of much collateral research, and been placed in a much more favourable position than they could possibly have occupied, if no such work as this had been in their hands.

But whilst Zoega studied practical utility, or at least sought to rend er knowledge more generally available, others indulged only in speculation. But this now took a direction somewhat different from that in which it had previously flowed. The Abbé Pluche, for instance, in his account of the symbolic writing of the ancient Egyptians, maintains stoutly that the whole of it consists of emblems, expressive of doctrines connected with the science of astronomy and the division of time in the calendar; and his followers (for he had not a few in this country, as well as on the Continent), so far from being startled with the incoherence of his views and the arbitrary violence of his explanations, came to the conclusion that the innumerable inscriptions which cover the Egyptian xnonumentsare all referribletoa single science, and in fact to one and the same order of ideas. With inquirers of this class the only signs in favour were the signs of the zodiac. In every legend, in every cartouche, they discovered astronomical emblems expressive of astronomical truths. According to their interpretations, indeed, the whole business of life, in ancient Egypt, must have consisted in studying the heavens, and translating into obscure or doubtful symbols the results of this continued celestial observation. But the author of the work entitled De l’Etude des Hiéroglyphes, published at Paris in 1812, took a different, though not more irrational, view of the subject. Believing it possible, by the aid of ancient traditions, and a knowledge of the symbols and emblems employed by different nations, to arrive at some general principle which might serve as a key to the Egyptian inscriptions, he formed a collection of what he calls les symboles des peuples, or popular symbols of Africa, Asia, and America; and having applied it to the interpretation of the hieroglyphics of Egypt, he had the singular happiness to discover, on the porticoof the great temple at Denderah, not a dedication to Isis, but a translation of the hundredth psalm of David; one of the last compositions, certainly, which we should have expected to find in such a place. Nor is this the only discovery of the kind which we have to record. The anonymous author of the Essai sur les Hiéroglyphes Egyptiens, not content with supposing that the hieroglyphics express emblematically a series of ideas analogous to those which are found in the Bible, maintains that they are neither more nor less than simple letters, and that, considered as such, they express words in the Hebrew language. But, as the number of distinct characters upon the monuments falls little short of a thousand, he has not explained how the Egyptians happened to have so copious an alphabet, exceeding the Chinese elementary characters or keys in the proportion of three to one; how this alphabet applied to Hebrew, a language, all the words of which consist of various combinations of twenty-two elementary sounds; and how the Egyptians came to inscribe their monuments with a foreign language which they never spoke, and most probably did not understand.

Theorists discover no difficulties, or, if they do so, disregard and overleap them. We have already seen thatKirch-er’s method of interpretation succeeded equally well, whether he happened to begin at the beginning or at the end of an inscription; and the same thing might no doubt be predicated of that method which proceeds on the assumption that all the hieroglyphics are letters expressive of words in the Hebrew language. But the sagacity of this class of interpreters has in some cases conducted them to very opposite results. The Chevalier Palin, for instance, beginning by way of variety in the middle of the inscriptions, discovered that Hebrew translations of many of the Egyptian rolls of consecrated papyrus are to be found in the Bible under the name of the Psalms of David. The author of the Essay above mentioned, and the ingenious chevalier, therefore, though proceeding on nearly the same principles, have arrived at very different results. According to the one, the hieroglyphics are letters, and the language of the Egyptian inscriptions is Hebrew; according to the other, the Psalms of David are, in part at least, composed of translations from the consecrated rolls of papyrus inscribed with pure Egyptian. The one makes the Egyptians borrow every thing from the Hebrews; the other makes the Hebrew s borrow a great deal from the Egyptians. But, whatever may be thought of the judgment of these antiquaries, their opinions are not particularly discreditable to their talents and ingenuity. For, having once allowed themselves to set out with the notion that it was possible to determine the sense of the hieroglyphics by internal evidence, the imperfections of their superstructures were the unavoidable consequences of the unsubstantial nature of the foundations on which they were raised.^[32. Young, Recent Discoveries in Hierogtyphical Literature, p. 3. ]

It is not a little mortifying to the pride of human skill and learning, that the key which had long been sought for in vain was at length in some measure discovered in consequence of the accidental disinterment of a single block of stone, which for ages had lain under ground. It is well known that the French expedition to Egypt was accompanied by a commission of the National Institute, most liberally provided by the government of the day with the requisite means for investigating all that related to science or to literature in that wonderful country. In the proceedings of this body the general-in-chief, Napoleon, took the greatest interest; he seemed to consider his glory as not less concerned in the illustration than in the conquest of Egypt; and, amidst all the cares and distractions of his situation, he was unremitting in his endeavours to promote the objects for which the commission had been appointed. The labours of this body were at length made public, with all the elegance which the arts of printing and engraving could communicate; and the splendid work entitled Description de l’Egypte will be an enduring monument of republican[7:11:306] liberality and imperial magnificence. But although much was thus effected in elucidation of the history, antiquities, religion, institutions, and arts of ancient Egypt, not a single ray of new light was shed on the language and letters, the hieroglyphics and papyri, of that singular country; and the principal benefit which the learned of Europe derived from the publication of this national work consisted in the multiplication of hieroglyphic texts, engraved, for the most part, with equal beauty and accuracy. These, however, were unavailing for the advancement of Egyptian literature, as long as the true method of interpreting them, either in whole or in part, remained unknown; and it must have been felt by the French as not a little humiliating to their vanity, that an accident, which occurred in the course of their military labours, and of which the fortune of war afterwards denied them the benefit, should have conduced more towards the elucidation of the monumental inscriptions of Egypt than all the labour, research, and ingenuity which had for ages been expended on them. Whilst a division of the French troops occupied the town of Rosetta, a party of workmen, employed in digging for the foundations of Fort St Julian, discovered and disinterred a huge block or pillar of black basalt, exhibiting the remains of three distinct inscriptions; but the French being soon afterwards dislodged by the British, were prevented from removing this monument, which consequently fell into the hands of the conquerors, and was subsequently brought to England, amongst other trophies of the Egyptian campaign, and deposited in the British Museum.^[33. Young, Discoveries in Hieroglypliical Literature, p. 5. ]

A cursory inspection of the Rosetta inscription was sufficient to establish the truth of the opinion which had been expressed by Warburton, that the hieroglyphics constituted a real written language. Of the three inscriptions sculptured on its sides, a considerable part of the first was unfortunately wanting; the beginning of the second and the end of the third were also mutilated; but the last, written in Greek, concluded with the important information that the decree inscribed on the monument, in honour of Ptolemy Epiphanes,^[34. It hence appears that the hieroglyphical method of writing continued to be understood and employed in the time of Ptolemy Epiphanes, that is, two centuries before Christ. At what time it ceased to be so has not been ascertained. ] had been ordered to be engraved in three different characters, namely, the sacred or hieroglyphic, the enchorial or letters of the country, and the Grech. Here, then, was an authentic specimen of the hieroglyphic characters, expressly accompanied by a Greek translation. ^[35. The concluding words of the Greek, as restored by Porson, are these: [Ta ψnφιoμa τούτο avaγζa∙ψa ùs <rτ∏λ∏v μιλανο; λιiou, TOK^rt itļots, Haι vyxa ζiois, κocι ιλληνιχοι; γξαμμασιν' κttι στnλaι ív sχaoτω των τι τoωτωv κa>ι ‰uτiζω[v 0ιωv !iζω. Thus translated by Heyne: “Et incidere haec in duro (Porsonus vult nigro) lapide, Sacris, et Patriis, et Graecis litteris; et statuere in unoquoque et prioris et secundi ordinis templo.” ] But before any use could be made of the Greek version, it was obviously necessary that it should be carefully examined, and, as far as possible, restored. With this view the Society of Antiquaries caused a correct copy of the triple inscription to be engraved and circulated, and Person and Hcyne, the two best scholars of the age, employed themselves in completing and illustrating the Greek text; a task, in the performance of which the superior industry and vigilance of the German gave him a decided advantage over the more active and irregular genius of the English Hellenist. But no data had as yet been obtained, by means of which a comparison might be instituted between the Greek which Heyne had restored, and the hieroglyphical or enchorial texts, of which not a single character was known. There existed indeed a traditional record of the true value of a particular character, denoting life, which had been handed down by the ecclesiastical writers, and had been generally received as accurate by scholars and antiquaries; but beyond this nothing whatever was known, whilst the explanations given by Horus Apollo in his The-τoglyphica, were somewhat hastily set down as mere puerilities. In these circumstances, there remained but one course to be adopted; namely, to adjust the inscriptions, so that they might as nearly as possible coincide, and, from the situations of the proper names in the Greek inscription, to endeavour attentively to ascertain their corresponding positions in one or both of the other inscriptions. By this means, if characters merely phonetic entered into the composition of the hieroglyphic and enchorial texts, the true value of some of them would be ascertained; but if these texts were found to consist chiefly of characters not phonetic, it was at least probable that the proper names would be written alphabetically, and that, even from the comparison of these, some important inferences might be deduced. It was, therefore, a matter of indifference whether the comparison was first made between the Greek and hieroglyphic, or between the Greek and enchorial text; but as a notion happened to prevail that the enchorial was altogether phonetic, the first attempt was made upon that part of the triple inscription.

The Baron Silvestre de Sacy, justly celebrated for his eminent attainments both as a scholar and as an antiquary, had the honour of taking the lead in this investigation. Having examined the portions of the enchorial text corresponding, by their relative situations, to two passages of the Greek inscription, in which occur the proper names Alexander and Alexandria, he soon recognised two well-defined groups of characters nearly resembling each other, and which, he conjectured, were the enchorial representatives of these names. He also made out satisfactorily the locus or position of the proper name Ptolemy ; but beyond this he found it impossible to advance a single step, and ultimately abandoned the pursuit as hopeless. Μ. de Sacy, however, had not laboured in vain. He had, in some degree, determined the positions of three proper names; and, what was far more important, he had shown that the investigation, which he gave up in despair, was not so impracticable as he had imagined. Mr Akerblad,^[36. A diplomatic gentleman then resident at Paris, but afterwards the Swedish chargé d’affaires at Rome. Having resolved into its component parts the group representing Alexander, and ascertained that other groups signified Ptolemy, Arsinoe, Berenice, and other proper names occurring in the Greek part of the triple inscription, Mr Akerblad published the alphabet which ho had collected from these names, containing about fifteen well ascertained characters. He then applied himself to decipher the remainder of the inscription, which, he hastily took it for granted, consisted of Coptic words expressed in alphabetical characters; but in this attempt he was completely unsuccessful. The greater part of the characters which he met with in the inscription were not such as had occurred in the proper names; nor could he obtain a series of Coptic words by assigning to the new characters any powers that he could think of or imagine. He appears never to have suspected that the words of the inscription could be any other than Coptic, or that these words could be represented otherwise than phonetically. (See an excellent paper on the Enchorial Language of Egypt, in the third number of the Dublin University Review, p. 4.) ] accordingly, resumed the inquiry at the point where it had been abandoned by his predecessor, and completely demonstrated the truth of what Μ. de Sacy had done little more than conjecture, namely, that the enchorial text contained Greek proper names written in Egyptian characters. Continuing his comparative readings, Mr Akerblad subsequently attempted from them to construct an alphabet; but, excepting in as far as regarded the proper names, whence he [7:11:307]deduced about fifteen characters, the attempt proved a failure, partly because he had imbibed the notion that the whole inscription was alphabetical, and partly, too, from expecting to find in the Egyptian writing all the vowels which the same words contain in the Coptic texts still extant; an error which a due consideration of the practice observed in the Hebrew, Chaldaic, Arabic, and other written oriental languages might have enabled him to avoid. Mr Akerblad contributed nothing towards the elucidation of the first or hieroglyphic inscription on the Rosetta monument, if we except a detached but acute observation respecting the three numerals at the end; and it is even alleged that he was disposed to acquiesce in the correctness of Palin’s interpretation, which proceeds upon the supposition that parts of the first lines of the hieroglyphics still remain on the pillar.^[37. This supposition is contrary to the fact. As already stated, the commencement of the hieroglyphic inscription is wanting. ] Be this as it may, however, to Μ. de Sacy and to Mr Akerblad, particularly the latter, belongs the distinction of having made the first advances in the right direction. The progress of discovery is for the most part gradual, and it requires successive efforts to clear much ground in a domain where there are no landmarks to guide the explorer, and where, in puzzling his way through the wrecks of ages, his own natural sagacity is at every instant liable to be bewildered by the fancies, errors, or exaggerations of those who have preceded him. But if there be any truth in the observation, ce riest que le premier pas qui coûte, the merit due to these distinguished individuals will never cease to be fully acknowledged by the historians of hieroglyphical discovery.

Matters were in this state when Dr Young commenced his investigations. Little or nothing had as yet been done to interpret the sacred characters, or hieroglyphics; but the germ of all the succeeding discoveries may be said to have been found, when the idea had once been suggested of fixing the positions of the proper names, and considering the corresponding groups of figures as representing their constituent sounds. Having been induced, as he informs us, to offer to the conductors of a periodical publication an article containing an abstract of the Mithridates of Adelung, a work then recently received from the Continent, his curiosity was forcibly excited by a note, in which the editor, Professor Vater, asserted that the unknown language of the Rosetta inscription, and of the bandages often found with the mummies, was capable of being analysed into an alphabet consisting of little more than thirty letters; but having retained merely a general impression of this bold and striking assertion, he thought no more of these inscriptions until early in 1814, when they were recalled to his attention by the examination of some fragments of papyrus which had been recently brought to England by Sir W. R. Boughton, and on which, after a hasty inspection of Mr Akerblad’s pamphlet, he communicated some anonymous remarks to the Society of Antiquaries. His interest in the subject being thus awakened and stimulated, he, in the summer of the same year, applied his mind first to the enchorial, and afterwards to the hieroglyphic inscription; and, by a methodical comparison of the different parts with each other, he was able, in the course of a few months, to send to the Archaeologia a “conjectural translation” of each of these inscriptions, distinguishing the contents of the different lines with as much precision as his materials then enabled him to attain. He was obliged, however, to leave many important passages still subject to doubt; but he hoped to acquire additional information before attempting to determine their signification; and having fairly broken ground, he flattered himself that he would soon be in a condition to advance with facility and rapidity. In the meanwhile, he endeavoured to make himself familiar with the Memphitic and Thebaic versions of the Scriptures. Aware, from the researches of Quatremère, that the remains of the ancient Egyptian language are preserved in these versions, he hoped, with the aid of this knowledge, to read the enchorial inscription, at least, into a kindred dialect; and although he felt himself gradually compelled to abandon this expectation, he soon afterwards published anew, in the Museum Criticum of Cambridge, his conjectural translation, with considerable additions and corrections. Lastly, in the article Egypt, printed in the fourth volume of the Supplement to the former editions of the present work, he digested in a methodical form the results of his researches, and, in particular, inserted a Vocabulary containing upwards of two hundred names, words, or epithets, which he had succeeded in deciphering in the hieroglyphical and enchorial texts, with some additions derived from his readings' in the Egyptian manuscripts. This article, forming altogether an astonishing effort both of scholarship and ingenuity, was published in December 1819, and almost immediately attracted the attention of the learned throughout the whole of Europe. With the exception of the slight aids afforded by the researches of De Sacy and Akerblad, neither of whom had been able to decipher a single character of the hieroglyphical inscription, it had the merit of complete originality;^[38. “Br Young,” says Mr Salt, “seems to me to stand alone with regard to the progress he has made in the enchorial, as well as for his having led the -xαy to the true knowledge of hieroglyphics.” {Essay on the Phonetic System of Hieroglyphics, p. 1.) ] and hence it was not only received with admiration by all who were capable of appreciating its merits, but it produced a general rush to the study of hieroglyphical literature, and mainly contributed towards those further discoveries, of which it will be our business to render some account in a succeeding section of this article.

Although much has been done for the elucidation of the Egyptian texts, monumental as well as enchorial, since Dr Young published this record of his investigations; although some errors have been corrected, many additions made, and the whole reduced into a systematic form; yet we should consider ourselves as unjust to the memory of that most ingenious man, and as even guilty of removing one of the great landmarks of learning, were we, in this new and improved edition of the Encyclopaedia, either to withhold or to alter a production which, in fact, constitutes an epoch in the annals of letters. For this reason all that part of the article above mentioned which was devoted to the subject of hieroglyphics, is republished entire in the third, fourth, and fifth sections of this general treatise; accompanied only with a few explanatory and corrective notes, intended to keep in view what has been effected by others, and also to prepare the reader for the expositions which follow. We have only further to add, upon this head, that the historical and critical view of the progress of opinion and discovery on the subject of hieroglyphics, which we have here brought down to the period at which the researches of Dr Young were given to the world in a somewhat matured form, will be continued in the explanation of the various systems which have since been promulgated by those who have endeavoured either to extend or to overthrow the principles upon which Dr Young conducted his investigations. But, in the meanwhile, we shall so far interrupt the development of our general plan as, in the next section, to submit to our readers an abstract of the facts and arguments by which the substantial identity of the different dialects of Coptic with the language of ancient Egypt has, in our opinion, been completely established, and an obstacle which might have impeded the future progress of investigation thus cleared away.
[7:11:308]

II. IDENTITY OF THE COPTIC DIALECTS WITH THE ANCIENT LANGUAGE OF EGYPT.

Language is, after all, the most durable of human monuments. Conquerors may overthrow empires and states, earthquakes may swallow up cities, time may confound all things besides; but the winged words in which man gives utterance to his feelings and thoughts often outlast all these ravages, and preserve the memory of nations long after they have ceased to exist. That which seems the most fragile, the most variable, the most evanescent of human attributes or possessions, becomes in reality the most permanent, the most indestructible. If no longer able to support an independent existence, it clings to and coalesees with some more recent and robust dialect; if lost in one form, it is almost certain to re-appear in another, exhibiting, amidst all changes and disfigurations, incontestible traces of its origin. This law of decay and reproduction, of fluctuation yet permanence, is so general, we might almost say universal, that it is principally from analytical inquiries into the origin, composition, and affinities of language, that we derive what knowledge we possess of the early history and fortunes of nations. It is impossible, therefore, to believe that the form of speech which long prevailed in ancient Egypt can have utterly perished, or that remains of it may not still be discovered in one or other of the dialects in which it appears to have merged. The Persian, the Macedonian, the Roman, the Arabian, and the Ottoman conquests, have successively discharged their fury upon that devoted country; and even those monuments which seemed destined to receive the epitaph of Time itself, are mouldering and crumbling into ruin; but, unlike the temples, palaces, and piles stupendous, which once adorned the valley of the Nile, the language of the Pharaohs, though greatly mutilated, has been arrested in its decline, and all of it that remains has long since been placed beyond the reach of further injury.

If the ease, however, were different from what is here stated; if the language of ancient Egypt had perished as completely as the dialects spoken before the Flood; still it would not be impossible to obtain some knowledge of those inscriptions which have so much occupied the attention of the learned both in ancient and in modern times. With the aid of such monuments as those of Rosetta and Philae, in which the hieroglyphical texts are rendered into a known language, we should still be able, if not to read those texts into the language which they originally represented, at least to determine inductively the values of the principal characters, or groups of characters, of which they are composed; and we should thus, to a certain extent, be provided with the means of attempting empirical explanations of texts unaccompanied with versions. Nevertheless it is undoubted that such an ancient language, even if it had ceased to exist independently, and if its remains were only to be found mixed up in another dialect, perhaps blended with heterogeneous elements, would, on being separated from all extraneous forms, prove eminently serviceable in facilitating inquiries, having it for their object to explain the monumental inscriptions and other Egyptian texts. The value of such an auxiliary, indeed, can only be fully appreciated by those who have devoted themselves to these laborious and difficult investigations; but, from the explanations and details which are contained in the sueceeding sections of this treatise, even the general reader will be enabled to form a tolerably just idea of its importance. In the meanwhile, that no branch of this subject may be left unex plained, we shall endeavour to state, as briefly as possible, the grounds upon which we hold it to be demonstratively certain that the Coptic and the ancient Egyptian are substantially identical.

There can be no doubt that the Egyptian language and characters subsisted under the Ptolemies. If the Greek alone was in use at the court of these princes, and in the city of Alexandria, the capital of their empire, it cannot be disputed that in the more remote towns, and particularly in the Thebaid, the Egyptian language continued to be understood and spoken as formerly. This fact, attested by the Rosetta inscription, is confirmed by a passage of Plutarch, in which he relates that Cleopatra, the favourite of Caesar and of Antony, replied, without the intervention of an interpreter, to the Ethiopians, the Troglodytes, the Hebrews, the Arabians, the Syrians, the Medes, and the Parthians, and that she also understood the languages of many other nations; whilst the kings, her predecessors, had scarcely given themselves the trouble to learn the Egyptian, and some of them had even neglected the Macedonian,^[39. Tã, zrot> αυτή; βarιλtu, i iJ, την , Aιγtrarτιuv ava,∙χ l ι>μv ωv πiζιλaβιw 2ιaλ(×τov, tvιωv ∑i ×àl re Maxι‰ιζuriaιπβwuv. (Plutarch in Vita Antonii, tom. i. p. 913, ed. Ruald.) ] That a barbarous people may adopt the laws, and even the language, of their conquerors, is what may easily be believed; but it is altogether incredible that a civilized people like the Egyptians, strongly attached to their own usages, and proverbially averse to those of strangers, should have abandoned or corrupted their language, in which a great number of works had been composed; more especially as the Greek princes who governed Egypt after the death of Alexander do not appear to have, in any respect, interfered with or opposed the prejudices or inclinations of their subjects in favour of their vernacular idiom. If, during the lapse of a certain period, little is to be found respecting either the existence or the condition of the Egyptian language, it should be recollected that the history of Egypt during this period is very little known, and that the greater part of the works which would have thrown light on the reign of the Ptolemies have unfortunately perished.

But it is nevertheless certain that, under the dominion of the Romans, the Egyptian continued to be the language of the people. Origen, in his treatise against Celsus, observes, that “if a Greek desired to teach any useful doctrine to the Egyptians and Syrians, he would prefer learning the barbarous languages of those nations, to being wholly unintelligible by addressing them in Greek.” The same father, in another place, asks why the fables which the Greeks derive from the subject of their gods, should be regarded as more worthy of credit than those of the Egyptians which have sprung from a similar source, or what rational ground there is for preferring Mnemosyne mother of the Muses, Themis mother of the Hours, Eurynome mother of the Graces, and other Greek names, to those which have been consecrated by the mythology of ancient Egypt. Nor are these the only proofs that the Egyptian language still continued to be understood. The Emperor Severus caused all the books which treated of the occult sciences to be removed from the temples of Egypt, and placed in the tomb of Alexander, that no one might in future either see the hody of that prince, or read what had been written in those books. We learn from Capitolinus that the Roman soldiers raised a tomb to Gordian, on which they engraved an inscription in Greek, Latin, Persian, Hebrew, and Egyptian characters, in order that it might be read by all the world. The Emperor Diocletian, irritated at the Egyptians on account of their revolt, caused all the books on chemistry composed by their learned men in ancient times to be searched out and eon-signed[7:11:309] to the flames, from an absurd apprehension that the people might acquire riches by means of this art, and be again in a condition to rise against their oppressors. Lastly, from the first ages of Christianity, the books of the Old and New Testament had been translated into the Egyptian language.

The greater part of the learned, Lelong, Renaudot, Wilkins, Münter, Woide, and Georgi, are of opinion that this version existed in the second century; and Woide even attempts to prove that the composition of the famous Sahidic manuscript of Dr Askew, entitled TΠIΣTH 20ΦIA,^[40. The want of Coptic characters renders it necessary in this, and will oblige us, in other instances, to employ the Greek letters. ] Sapientia Fidelis, containing the philosophy of the Gnostics, is to be referred to the same epoch. Picques thinks that the Coptic translation of the New Testament, which we now possess, was executed in the fifth century, when those who desired to be considered learned, or had connections with Alexandria, cultivated an acquaintance with the Greek or Latin, although the greater number spoke nothing but Egyptian. Paul the hermit, according to St Jerome, was equally conversant with the Egyptian and the Greek tongues. St Antony knew only Egyptian, in which language he addressed to different monasteries several letters, of which Mingarelli has published two fragments written in the Sahidic dialect. The author of the acts of St John and St Simeon, who suffered martyrdom under Diocletian, informs us that he wrote his history with his own hand, and then caused it to be translated into Egyptian by a copyist called Menas. Palladius and Rufinus were equally skilled in Greek, Latin, and Egyptian literature; and the former mentions that the abbot Apollo selected three men possessing the same accomplishments {lμnii%ους της'Ελληνικής. χαι ’Ρωμαϊκής, xa ∣ ’Αιγυπτιακής διaaixroυ). Joseph of Thmuis understood thoroughly, not only the Egyptian, but also the Greek. Jerome informs us that, in the Egyptian, the word Psontom-phance signified Saviour of the world, and that, in the native idiom, Egypt was still denominated Ham. Pachomius, in his infancy, was taught Egyptian by his parents, and never knew any other language, as appears by the history of his life. To those of the brethren who understood not Egyptian, Theodorus acted as interpreter, and explained the discourses of Pachomius; he also translated into Egyptian the letter addressed to him by St Athanasius. In the Coptic acts of the martyrdom of St Apater, it is stated that the governor of the Thebaid addressed a communication to that saint in the Egyptian language. The Syriac author of the life of St Ephrem mentions that this saint, having undertaken a journey to Egypt, went to visit St Bischoï, but as they understood only each his mother tongue, it would have been impossible for them to converse together, if God had not granted to Bischoï the gift of speaking Syriac, and to St Eph-rem that of explaining himself in Egyptian. Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, in his eulogium on the bishop of Tkoou,with whom he travelled to the council of Chalcedon, states expressly that the latter knew only Egyptian. “As I understood not his conversation, the deacon Peter,” says he, “acted as our interpreter.” He adds, “The deacon Theopistos said to me, What shall we do with this mute, athrof, who has embarked with us? Are the heretics Egyptians, that he should have been sent to dispute with them ?” Lastly, the author of an Arabic note inserted in a Coptic manuscript, preserved in the King’s Library at Paris, informs us that, before the invasion of the Moslemins, it was the custom in Egypt, in the celebration of the offices, to read in Greek the lessons of Scripture, and to explain them in Coptic; and it appears from a fragment published by Georgi, that the inhabitants of Upper Egypt recited in both languages litanies, and other parts of the liturgy.

These authorities, and others which might be produced, leave no doubt whatever as to the preservation of the Egyptian language down till the period referred to in the last of them; it had in fact survived all casualties, and it co-existed with the Greek, even in the service of religion, without being displaced or abrogated by that polished idiom. But it is nevertheless true that the Coptic presents us with a multitude of Greek words, and that the actual alphabet of the language is almost entirely Greek, having retained only a small number of Egyptian characters, which it appears to have borrowed from the enchorial or current writing of ancient times. Are we then to conclude that this language is only a corruption or oft-set of the Greek? It would be quite as reasonable to maintain, with Kircher, that Greek is derived from the Egyptian, or to pretend that the Persian language is only a dialect of the Arabic. Foreign terms introduced into a language change not either its nature or its form, any more than the food introduced into the body, though composed of the most diversified ingredients, makes any change in the personality or identity of the individual who receives it. Of this the English is a living and remarkable proof. The intermixture of Greek words in the Egyptian language is attributable to several causes. In the first place, a new form of government having been established in Egypt, first under the Ptolemies, and then under the Romans, the Egyptians were under the necessity of borrowing from the language the names of dignities, and all the terms which had reference to the administration. Secondly, the Christian religion having early penetrated into Egypt, introduced into that country a multitude of ideas altogether new and strange to the inhabitants, and which, consequently, could not be expressed by the words of their language; besides, several terms had been consecrated by religion, and a reasonable apprehension was entertained lest they should lose their true and proper signification by being translated into another idiom. It was necessary, therefore, to have recourse to the Greek, which was the language of the first preachers of the Gospel, and in which indeed were contained all the fundamental books of the Christian faith. Thirdly, some of those who translated Greek works into Egyptian, found it no doubt convenient, when they either happened not to understand a word, or could not readily find a Coptic equivalent, to leave it as it stood in the original; whilst others, to display their knowledge of both languages, employed indifferently Greek or Egyptian words. It must not, however, be supposed that all the Coptic books which we possess contain an equal number of Greek expressions: these are sometimes of more and sometimes of less frequent occurrence: but, in general, it may be observed that comparatively few can be cited, the equivalents of which were to be found in the Egyptian, a circumstance which Μ. Quatremère had frequent occasion to verify.

But a question here arises, namely, at what period the Egyptians renounced their ancient mode of writing, whether phonetic or other, to adopt the Greek alphabet, augmented by some letters borrowed from the enchorial characters. On this subject the learned are much divided. Some, as Lacroze and Father Georgi, carry the change as far back as the reign of Psammeticus; but this hypothesis is refuted by the date of the inscription of Rosetta, namely, the reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes, when the ancient methods of writing were still employed. Bonjour fixes it at the epoch of the conquest of Egypt by Alexander; Montfaucon, Jablonski, and Valperga, are of opinion[7:11:310] that it took place under the Ptolemies; Schow thinks that the introduction of the Coptic alphabet was considerably anterior to our era;^[41. But he adds a qualification: “Tempus autem quo haec unio alphabeti Graeco-Aegyptii cum antiquo Aegyptio facta fuerit, deficiente omni auctoritate historica, adcurate definiri nequit.” (Schow, Charta Papyracea, p. 118. Rome, 1788.) ] l whilst Zoega, founding on a passage of Aristides relative to the word Kavω∕3oς, concludes that the Greek characters were not adopted in Egypt before the third century; an opinion which is confirmed by the passage of Capitolinus already referred to, where that author speaks of the inscription engraved upon the tomb of the Emperor Gordian, “Graecis, et Latinis, et Persicis, et Judaïcis, et Aegyptiacis literis' ’ By the Egyptian characters here mentioned cannot be understood the Greek letters, which are expressly distinguished; nor can the sacred characters, or hieroglyphics, be meant, because, even supposing that this kind of writing was known and understood in Egypt at the period referred to, it must have been within the reach of too small a number of persons to be employed in an inscription intended to be read by all the world (ut ab omnibus legeretur.) It appears, then, that the Egyptian letters here mentioned are the demotic or enchorial characters, and that these remained in use amongst the people of Egypt at the time of Gordian’s death, which, according to the calculation of Tillemont, took place in the year 244, or about the middle of the third century of the Christian era.

The Egyptian language was divided into three dialects: the Coptic of Misr, which is the same with the Sahidic; the Bahiric, so called from the province of Bahirah; and the Bashmouric, which was at one time in use in the province of Bashmour. But the only forms now in use are the Bahiric and the Sahidic, both of which dialects are derived from one and the same radical language. The Bahiric, also denominated the Memphitic, is easily distinguishable from the Sahidic, the differences which exist between them being known; and the former was the language of Lower Egypt, whilst the latter was that of the Thebaid or Saïd. But of these two dialects, which is the more ancient? This is a question which it is exceedingly difficult to resolve, as the historical monuments throw no light on the subject, and we are consequently reduced to mere conjecture. Macrizy, Renaudot, Lacroze, and Jablonski, regard the Sahidic dialect as the more ancient; but Georgi has contended for the priority of the Memphitic, and his opinion is also that of Valperga and of Münter. Mingarelli, however, has not ventured to decide the question either one way or other; but it may not unreasonably be supposed that the Thebaic or Sahidic dialect, in which are written the most ancient monuments extant in the Coptic language, and of which mention is made in the life of Pachomius, and perhaps also the Bashmouric, existed primitively in the Egyptian language, at the same time with the Memphitic. If, as Georgi has demonstrated, the Egyptian words, transmitted to us by the ancient authors, appear to have been for the most part borrowed from the last of these dialects, this circumstance ought to excite no surprise; for, as neither the Greeks nor Latins had many occasions to penetrate into the Thebaid, which was remote from the court and the centre of administration, the language of that province must have been less known to them than the dialect of Lower Egypt, which they were accustomed to hear spoken. Besides, the Thebaic dialect, which is a less cultivated form than the Memphitic, was not perhaps in use at this time, excepting in the villages, or in towns of the smallest class. But that the Memphitic dialect was in reality richer than the Sahidic remains to be proved; in fact, the latter, besides a sufficiently large number of words which properly belonged to it, had the distinctive peculiarity of readily adopting, with a slight change, all the Memphitic words. If the Thebaic manuscripts, then, appear to exhibit a greater number of Greek expressions, this intermixture, which is no doubt attributable to the caprice of the writers, and to the operation of the other causes already specified as affecting the Coptic generally, does not appear to have had much influence on the usage of the language; otherwise they would not have taken the precaution, in the Sahidic lexicos, of explaining the Greek words by native terms, a practice which, as far as we have observed, has not been followed in any of the Memphitic vocabularies.

But it has been objected, that, if the Coptic language represents, or is substantially the same with, the ancient Egyptian, we ought to discover in it the roots or original forms of all the Egyptian words which have been transmitted to us by the Greek or Latin authors; whereas it is not denied that the etymologies proposed by the learned who have occupied themselves with such researches are very far indeed from being all equally fortunate or successful.^[42. “On peut etre surpris,” says Μ. Akerblad, “que les savans comme Lacroze, Jablonski, et autres, qui ne connoissoient qu’une partie des ouvrages Coptes que nous possédons aujourd’hui, se soient imaginé qu’avec ces foibles moyens ils pourroient retrouver dans l’Egyptien moderne les étymologies de tous les noms des divinités Egyptiennes: aussi pas une scule des étymologies qu’ils ont proposées relativement aux noms des divinités dont il est fait mention dans le monument de Rosette, ne se trouve confirmée par ce monument.” (Lettre sur l’ Inscription de Rosette, p. SI.) ] In answer to this objection, which appears plausible and embarrassing, we have to observe that we admit the premises, but dispute the validity of the conclusion deduced from them. Isí, The search for etymologies is of itself extremely hazardous and conjectural. If Varro the most learned of the Romans, Servius the commentator of the Aeneid, and the other Latin grammarians, were mistaken as to the origin of many words in their own language; if, in the French language, there exists a great number of terms, the etymology of which cannot now be discovered; and if Menage, notwithstanding his vast erudition, has fallen into a multitude of errors on this subject; can it be wondered that the same thing should occur in the case of a foreign language which has been dead for centuries, and of which but few monuments have been preserved? t ⅛dly i All the terms of the ancient Egyptian with which we are acquainted have been transmitted to us by the Greeks or the Romans, who, for the most part, were absolutely ignorant of that language; consequently, part of the explanations which they have given was probably conjectural, and, when they furnish no interpretation at all, the difficulty is still greater. Before attempting to trace these words, we would require to be certain as to the true readings; but how can such certainty be attained in regard to terms collected by foreigners, disfigured by a vicious pronunciation, and afterwards altered by the negligence of the copyists? It appears, also, from the contradictory explanations which the ancients have left of the names of Osiris and other divinities, that the Egyptians themselves had no very definite ideas as to the origin of many words in their language; and that their etymology, every authentic trace of which has now disappeared, was sometimes abundantly arbitrary. 2>dly, It is possible that several of the Egyptian words which the ancients have transmitted to us belonged to the sacred language, the knowledge of which was confined to the priests, whilst the terms were employed in a sense different from that which was attached to them by the vulgar. ⅛thly, If, as has already been observed, the Christian religion[7:11:311] introduced a great number of Greek words into the Egyptian language, it must at the same time have abolished and caused to disappear all the terms which relate to the ancient mythology.^[43. “Il ne faut done pas s’attendre à en trouver aucune trace dans les livres Egyptiens que nous possédons, qui appartiennent tous au genre eccle'siastique, et dont plusieurs, tels que les Actes des Martyrs, présentent une grande uniformité, tant pour le style que pour les laits.” (Quatremère, Recherches sur ta Langue et la Littérature de l’Egypte, p. 28.) ] 5thly, We have already seen that the language of Egypt was divided into three dialects; the Memphitic or Bahiric, the Thebaic or Sahidic, and the Bashmouric. But, of these three dialects, the first is that of which we have the most information, though our knowledge of it is very far from being complete. The Sahidic we possess in a very imperfect state, whilst the monuments written in that dialect, and known in Europe, are still but few in number. The Bashmouric is so completely unknown, that Μ. Quatremère, with all his research, succeeded in procuring only a single word of this dialect,^[44. The fragment of St Paul, published by Georgi and Münter, has been referred to this dialect, but, as Μ. Quatremère thinks, erroneously. (See Recherches, ubi supra; also Georgi, Proefaí. in fragment. Evangel. S. Jahan, p. 54, et seqq., and Münter Commentatio de indole Versionis Sahidicae Novi Testamenti, p. 75, et seqq. Copenhagen, 1789.) ] which Μ. Champollion, nevertheless, quotes with confidence as an existing form of the Coptic.

But a revolution equally rapid and complete suddenly changed the political condition of Egypt. The Arabians, whom Mahommed had inspired at once with fanaticism and the spirit of conquest, abandoned their arid deserts, destroyed the monarchy of the Persians, and seized on the finest provinces of the Greek empire. In the twentieth year of the hejira, Amru-ben-el-As, general of Omar, one of the successors of the Prophet, entered Egypt at the head of a body of Moslemins; and as that country was then distracted by the religious dissensions of the orthodox Greeks (Melkites), who adhered to the council of Chalcedon, and of the native Egyptians (Jacobites), who were its implacable enemies, he found little difficulty in uniting it to the empire of the Arabians. Amru, equally politic and brave, whilst he waged an exterminating war against the Greeks, endeavoured by every means to conciliate the good-will of the Egyptian Jacobites; and, with this view, having recalled their patriarch Benjamin, who, under the reign of Heraclius, had been driven from his see, and forced to take refuge in the Thebaid, he authorized that prelate to resume the exercise of his functions. About the same time, the Christians of Egypt began to be denominated Copts ; a name supposed by some to have been derived from that of an ancient king called Kobt, and by others to have originated from the Greek city of Coptos, whilst a third class contend that the Christians of Egypt were called Korro∕by the Greeks, in consequence of their adhering to the rite of circumcision, and a fourth, that the word Copt is only a corruption of the word 'Αιγύπτιος. (See the article Egypt, sub initio.}

But be this as it may, whilst it continued to be for the interest of the conquerors to pursue a conciliating line of policy towards the native population, or, in other words, to strengthen themselves by fomenting divisions and animosities in regard to disputed points in religion, the Egyptian language flourished, at least no obstacle was opposed to its cultivation. In a short time, however, the Copts as well as the Greeks began to be oppressed by their cruel and avaricious conquerors; the tyranny, which at first was only partial, became general; and the native population, being reduced to abject poverty, soon fell into a state of profound ignorance. Forced to learn the language of their masters, they neglected their ancient tongue, which daily became less useful; those of them who held the situations of moubascher, that is, of secretaries or intendants under the princes and grandees, had no other interest but to speak and write Arabic with purity; and thus the knowledge of Coptic bee r an to decline, and was at length altogether lost in Egypt. But at what precise epoch the ancient language ceased to be spoken and ' understood, is a question which, considering the silence of the historical monuments, it is by no means easy to resolve. It appears, however, from a passage in the preface to the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria by Severus, bishop of Ashmounein, that in the tenth century of our era the Coptic was no longer spoken in Egypt; but it is nevertheless certain that, long after this period, persons of consideration who desired to distinguish themselves by their acquirements studied Coptic, and that this language was as generally understood in Egypt as the Latin language is at present in Europe. There are still extant Coptic works composed long subsequently to the epoch fixed by Renaudotas that when the ancient language fell into total desuetude amongst the Egyptian Christians, namely, the century after the Mahommedan invasion; and, as Macrizy mentions the Coptic in several parts of his Description of Egypt, it would appear that, at the period when he wrote, that is, about the commencement of the fifteenth century, the language was not entirely lost. But for further details on this subject we must refer the reader to the learned and satisfactory work of Μ. Quatremère.

Having thus traced a rapid outline of the history of the Egyptian or Coptic under the Ptolemies, the Romans, and the Arabians, marking its different epochs, and indicating generally the changes it experienced, we shall now proceed to give a short account of the efforts which the learned of Europe have at different times made, sometimes with greater, sometimes with less success, to rescue that ancient idiom from oblivion, and, if we may so express ourselves, to impart to it a new existence.

Scaliger is commonly considered as the first who contemplated such an undertaking; but, if he really meditated the design which is attributed to him, it seems pretty certain that he was not in a condition to carry it into effect; for, as he makes a great parade of his acquaintance with Arabic, it may be presumed that he would not have been silent on the subject of Egyptian, if he had really known any thing of that language; and it is not a little remarkable, that in announcing his project of publishing a polyglot psalter in six languages, which he enumerates, he says not a word of Egyptian, nor is that language included in the number. Leonard Abela, who died at Rome in 1605, having been created bishop of Sidon, and sent to the East as apostolic nuncio by Gregory XIII., visited Syria, Mesopotamia, and Egypt, and during his travels made himself well acquainted with the oriental languages, including Egyptian; but whether he brought home any Coptic manuscripts, or imported only the knowledge he had acquired, has not been ascertained. John Baptist Remondi intended to publish the Bible in ten languages, namely, in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldaic, Arabic, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Armenian, Syriac, and Persian; and, besides the texts, and the different Latin versions, this collection was to contain grammars and lexicos of all these languages. But unfortunately his enterprise proved abortive, and the Egyptian remained completely unknown until the enlightened exertions of Peiresc procured for the learned of Europe the means of studying that language.

This illustrious man, to whom letters are under lasting obligations, spared neither pains nor expense to procure Coptic manuscripts. Of these he obtained several from Egypt, comprehending the gospels, epistles, and psalms, [7:11:312] the Coptic ritual, and the liturgies of St Basil, St Gregory, and St Cyril; and he also expected the prophets in Coptic, as well as a psalter in seven languages, viz. Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, Coptic, Ethiopian, Persian, and Armenian, together with other curious manuscripts; but all of them were seized and carried off by pirates. Afflicted but not discouraged, Peiresc, having learned that the pirates had sailed for Tripoli, wrote to the pasha of that town, received a favourable answer, and not long afterwards was presented with a package wrapt up with great care, and said to have been transmitted from Tripoli. Peiresc, rejoiced at recovering the lost treasure, liberally rewarded the unknown persons by whom, as he supposed, it had been brought back to him. He was very disagreeably surprised, however, on opening the package, to find that it contained nothing but the Arabic dictionary of Raphelengius. But his zeal to promote the study of Coptic was in no degree cooled by the fraud thus practised on him; and having with a view to this engaged Samuel Petit and Salmasius to cultivate that new branch of literature, he communicated to them all the manuscripts which he had in his possession. Petit, however, appears to have made but little progress in this study; but Salmasius applied to it with great vigour, and had the merit not only of entering a new path without any guide, but also of inducing the learned to follow his example. In his different works may be seen the use which he made of the Coptic in explaining a number of Egyptian words; and his letter to Golius is particularly deserving of attention.

About this time Pietro della Valle returned from his travels in the East, bringing with him several Coptic manuscripts, and amongst others an extensive Copto-Arabic lexico, accompanied with grammars. These he placed in the hands of Thomas Obicini, who had long resided in the Levant, for the purpose of being translated into Latin. The work was successfully commenced; and the congregation of the Propaganda had already caused to be cut the Coptic characters, which served to print the Alphabetum Coptum seu Aegyptiacum, a work which appeared in 1629. But the affairs of Obicini having fallen into confusion, the undertaking languished, and was at length totally interrupted by the death of the translator, amongst whose papers scarcely any thing was found relative to the work. Peiresc, however, having heard of the manuscript, and being extremely desirous for its publication, pressed Pietro della Valle to lend it him for the purpose of having it translated by Salmasius. The Italian, it seems, refused, but consented to communicate it to Kircher, who was then at Rome, and had acquired a great reputation; or, at all events, he preferred that the translation should be executed under his own eye. Salmasius was in despair on finding that the credit of such a work was to be reaped by another; and in a letter on the subject which he addressed to Pciresc he evinces a bitter feeling of disappointment.

Kircher, with the assistance of the manuscripts of Pietro della Valle, and those of the library of the Vatican, published, first, his Prodromus Aegyptiavus, Rome, 1636, and then his Lingua Aegyptiaca Restituta, Rome, 1644. The first of these works contains several preliminary dissertations, some of them perfectly foreign to its object, with an essay on Coptic grammar; the second, which, with all its errors, is an useful and meritorious work, contains a grammar and a Copto-Arabic vocabulary. The numerous faults committed by Kircher would deserve indulgence, and due allowance would be made for the difficulties incident to the task undertaken by him, were it not for his unpardonable arrogance, and the bad faith with which he has inserted in his work words which are not to be found in the original; as, for instance, MENDJÊS hircus, which Jablonski suspected to be supposititious, and which Quatremère was unable to discover in the manuscript of Pietro della Valle. Hence, the enthusiasm which Kircher’s work at first excited soon cooled, and the author incurred severe censure for his extravagance and dishonesty. Bochart and Ludolf refuted his assertion that the Greek is derived from the Egyptian; Wagenseil analysed his explanation of an inscription engraved on Mount Sinai, and proved its falsehood; Picques alleged that, besides his mother tongue, Kircher knew only a little Latin, and almost no Greek; and Renaudot, who has entered into extensive details respecting the works of the Jesuit, pronounces upon them a severe judgment, which is confirmed by Wilkins, Blumberg, Lacroze, Jablonski, Barthélemy, Tromler, and Schmidt. So great, indeed, was the distrust excited by the exposure of his malpractices, that, at one time, his Lingua Aegyptiaca Restituta was believed to be a literary fraud; but this opinion is entirely inadmissible, now that the original manuscript has been recovered.^[45. “Il esţ certain que Kircher, qui se piquoit de déchiffrer avec succès les hiéroglyphes et les caractères les plus inconnus, donna souvent prise sur lui à ses ennemis, et s’exposa à des méprises ridicules, en expliquant comme Egyptiennes et insérant dans ses ouvrages des inscriptions tracées à plaisir. On peut voir dans Μ. Tromler la maniéré dont il fut pris pour dupe par André Muller, gouverneur de Berlin, qui lui présenta des caractères factices, qu’il n’hésita pas à déclarer Egyptiens: Leibnitz parle d’une inscription envoyée de Vienne, que Kircher jugea composée ne mots Arabes, Syriaques, etc., tandis que Luc Uolstenius n’y vit, avec raison, que des caractères Grecs un peu défigurés. (Quatremère, Recherches, pp. 54, 55.) ] Kircher also translated into Latin an Egyptian manuscript containing the ceremonies used amongst the Copts in ordinations.

Amongst the manuscripts of Samuel Petit, deposited in the King’s Library at Paris, Μ. Quatremère found a Coptic alphabet, with observations written in Latin, and aΓso two French letters addressed to Petit from Tours, the author of which appears to have been profoundly conversant with the oriental languages. It is now known that these letters are the production of Gilles de Loche, a capuchin, who, according to Gassendi, returned from his travels in Egypt about the year 1633. Gessner, in his Mithridates, collected the Egyptian words which the ancients have transmitted to us; Bochart published a greater number; and Ménage, in illustrating the three dialects, collected and explained all the foreign words, Egyptian, Lybian, Persian, Macedonian, and others contained in the Greek and Latin authors. Tromler mentions a confession of faith in Latin and Coptic, printed at Rome in the year 1668; and Lelong indicates a dissertation of Erasmus Vinding, DeLinguae Groecae Aegyptiacae Affinitate, Copenhagen, 1660. Hottinger, in his Bibliotheca Orientalis, has given some details respecting the Egyptian language. Theodore Petraeus, who had resided long in Egypt, studied Coptic, collected manuscripts in that language, and on his return published the first psalm in Coptic, with an Arabic translation and a Latin version. He also translated into Latin, from the Coptic text, the epistle of St Paul to the Ephesians. Huntington, during his stay in Syria and Egypt, employed himself in collecting oriental manuscripts, particularly in Coptic, and his rich collection was afterwards deposited in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Marshal, celebrated for his labours on the Anglo-Saxon, was also profoundly acquainted with the oriental languages, and particularly with Coptic. Not satisfied with having collated the Coptic version of the gospels with the Greek text, and collected the various readings, he undertook to publish the New Testament in the same language; but after every thing had been prepared, this useful enterprise[7:11:313] failed in consequence of the premature death of the editor, who only lived to print a single sheet, containing the first three chapters of St Mathew’s gospel, accompanied with a Latin version, and notes.

The study of Coptic was much encouraged at Oxford by the liberal patronage of the bishop, Dr Fell, who had caused Coptic types to be cast at his own expense for the intended work of Marshal, and who afterwards assisted Thomas Edward in his researches. Edward Bernard, having studied Coptic, left in manuscript an Egyptian lexico, in which he explains many points concerning Egyptian antiquities. In 1686, Witsen, burgomaster of Amsterdam, presented to the university of Oxford the Ethiopian and Coptic punches, which he had sent to Edward Bernard. Bonjour, an Augustin friar of Toulouse, published Exercitatio in Monumenta Coptica seu Aegyptiaca Diblio-thecũe Vaticanae, Rome, 1699, in 4to; a work which is highly commended by Lacroze, and which displays a profound acquaintance with the Coptic language. This learned friar died in China in 1714, leaving several manuscript works, the most important of which is a History of the Dynasties of Egypt, cited by Cuper and by Georgi. Coptic literature owes much to Pope Clement XI., who, in the early part of the eighteenth century, sent three missions to Egypt in quest of manuscripts, and enriched the library of the Vatican with that beautiful and precious collection, which the treaty of Tolentino transferred to Paris, but which was afterwards restored on the downfall of Napoleon. Nor were the learned of Germany neglectful of the study of Coptic. Pfeiffer applied himself to the cultivation of that language, in which he wrote some indifferent verses. Andrew Muller studied Coptic, and applied it to the explanation of some words in the Bible. Acoluthus, a minister of the gospel at Breslau in Silesia, also devoted himself to this pursuit, and published a work entitled Lingua Aegyptiaca Restituta, in which he pretended that the ancient Egyptian had nothing in common with the Coptic, but might be detected in the modern Armenian. Acoluthus was a man of learning; but with all his erudition he was unable to give any colour of probability to this chimerical hypothesis. In the year 1716, Blumberg published a short Coptic grammar entitled Fundamenta Linguae Copticae, of which Lacroze has pronounced a very favourable opinion. Blumberg also promised a Copto-Latin and Latino-Coptic dictionary; but domestic misfortunes and a premature death prevented him from carrying his design into execution.

In France, Coptic literature was enriched by a great number of Coptic manuscripts brought from Egypt by Vansleb, and deposited in the library of the king. Louis Picques, doctor of the Sorbonne, who had distinguished himself as an orientalist, also applied with ardour to the study of Coptic, and was the first who recognised the variety of dialects. Besides the various readings of the Coptic and Armenian versions of the New Testament, we are indebted to him for ingenious etymologies of some Egyptian words, and amongst others of the famous name of Joseph, which has exercised the sagacity of several modern writers. This name, which the seventy-two write Aw∂ομ<ρavτ i ∙χ ι , is, according to Picques, composed of the Coptic words ΠΣOT-MEΦENH, salus mundi, the “safety of the world f’^[46. The Egyptian name of Joseph, expressed in Hebrew characters, is Zαρhηαthραηeαh, which, as we have seen above, is written Ptontìwmphanêch in the Septuagint version; but there can be little doubt, we think, that both were formed from the Egyptian words Píot-mephench, as Picques has most ingeniously supposed. ] which appears to be the only true etymology. He also made a great number of corrections on the lexico of Kircher, and, in the few works which he published, displayed an erudition which justifies the commendations bestowed on them by his contemporaries. But all the orientalists who had yet appeared were eclipsed by the Abbé

Renaudot, whose name will ever be dear to the lovers of eastern literature. In 1716, he published his Collection of the Oriental Liturgies, three of which (those of St Basil, St Gregory, and St CyriD were translated from the Coptic; but the want of the characters prevented him from printing the original texts. To this translation are subjoined commentaries full of erudition, and several dissertations, particularly one entitled De Copticarum Alexandrinorum Liturgiis, and another, De Lingua Coptica. Scarcely had this work appeared, when it was attacked with the greatest asperity by Lacroze, under the pretext of avenging the memory of Ludolf, who had been severely handled both in the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, and also in the Collection of Liturgies. Lacroze was no doubt a formidable adversary, and he certainly detected some faults in the Collection of the learned Abbé, such as Bibite vos omnes omnes for Dibite omnes, which he denounces as an important falsification. But these errors were not of sufficient magnitude to justify the fierce ebullition of literary wrath displayed by Lacroze upon this occasion; and it is not a little amusing to find that, whilst exaggerating the oversights of his opponent, he is himself betrayed into some very serious inaccuracies. “En effet,” says Μ. Quatremère, “si l’Abbe Renaudot n’avoit pas dans le Copte des connoissances très étendues, il est certain qu’il possédoit parfaitement l’Arabe et le Syriaque.” This Lacroze is himself forced to admit.

As yet, however, the progress of the Egyptian language had been but slow and imperfect. All the Coptic monuments were still in manuscript, and the learned had no guide except the lexico of Kircher, which, besides the errors with which it teems, and the omission of a great number of words, has the serious inconvenience of not being arranged in alphabetical order. But these obstacles were now about to be removed; and the first who contributed to facilitate the acquisition of Coptic was David Wilkius, a Prussian by birth, who, during his residence in England, changed his name into that of Wilkins, by which alone he is known. Wilkins applied with ardour to the study of Coptic, and after having examined every work connected with that language in the Bodleian Library, he travelled through France and Italy, occupying himself in copying or collating all the manuscripts he could find. In 1715, he published, in Chamberlayne’s collection, the Lord’s Prayer in Coptic, with a grammatical analysis, and a dissertation De Lingua Coptica. In 1716, he published, at the expense of the university of Oxford, the New Testament in Coptic, accompanied with a Latin translation. Lacroze, who examined this work with great care, discovered a multitude of errors both in the text and in the translation, and thence conceived a most unfavourable opinion of the talents of Wilkins, whom he taxes with gross ignorance of Coptic, and even places in this respect below Kircher. But this censure must appear somewhat too severe, when we reflect on the difficulties Wilkins had to surmount in the study of a dead language, which he had learned without a guide, and without having either a grammar or a dictionary to assist him. He redeemed his character, however, by his Coptic Pentateuch, which appeared in 1731, and in which, according to Jablonski, he greatly surpassed any thing he had previously done. Wilkins also proposed to publish a Coptic grammar and dictionary; but finding no encouragement, the enterprise was at length abandoned. The manuscript of his History of the Church of Alexandria was unfortunately lost immediately after his death, and all the exertions of Woide to recover it proved fruitless.

Lacroze, who about the same time occupied himself with [7:11:314]the study of Coptic, left far behind him all those who had entered on the same career. He communicated his acquisitions on this subject to the celebrated Paul-Ernest Jablonski, so well known by his great erudition, and his labours connected with Egyptian antiquities; and Jablonski having, during his travels, copied, in whole or in part, several Coptic manuscripts, at Paris, at Leyden, and at Oxford, communicated these copies to Lacroze, who, with their assistance, and that furnished by the manuscripts of the library of Berlin, composed a very exact dictionary of the Coptic language. This work was that of all his manuscripts upon which the author set the greatest value; but not having the means of publishing it, he contented himself with printing the preface, which appeared in the Bibliotheca HistoricoPhilologica Bremens is (tom. v. p. 744). To his dictionary Lacroze annexed a list of words in the Sahidic dialect, in regard to which Picques and Renaudot had but confused notions, whilst all the other men learned in Coptic, including Wilkins, were absolutely ignorant of its' existence. The reputation of Lacroze’s lexico having spread throughout Europe, Wilkins, who had also composed a Coptic dictionary, proposed to Lacroze to cast both works into one, and to print it under their joint names, either at London or at Berlin; but the latter, who knew the merit of his own work, and felt no desire whatever to amalgamate it with that of Wilkins, decliued the proposal. After the death of Lacroze, his Coptic dictionary passed with his other manuscripts into the hands of Jordan, his biographer; and, when the latter died, his brother sold the Coptic and Armenian dictionaries to the university of Leyden. In the Royal Library at Paris there is a copy of the Coptic dictionary in the handwriting of Lacroze.

Jablonski, in his Pantheon Mythicum, and in his dissertations on the god Rempha, the land of Goshen, Memnon, and other kindred subjects, made frequent use and showed a profound knowledge of Coptic. He had also laboured for many years on an Egyptian glossary, in which he collected, arranged in alphabetical order, and, with the assistance of the Coptic, explained, all the Egyptian words which are found dispersed in the Greek and Latin authors, and even in the Hebrew text of the Bible. He had also written a multitude of notes and corrections on the New Testament and Coptic Pentateuch of Wilkins. At his death these annotations, as well as the copies he had made of Memphitic and Sahidic manuscripts, were sold by his son to Dr Radcliff of Oxford; whilst another part of his papers, containing the glossary already mentioned, with a number of dissertations, discourses, and other productions, some of them still inedited, were sent to Leyden to the learned Ruhnkenius. Sensible of the value of these papers, Ruhnkenius placed them in the hands of Henry Albert Schultens, who readily undertook to arrange them for publication; Schultens, however, died soon afterwards; and, at the solicitation of Ruhnkenius, Tewater, professor of theology in the university of Leyden, consented to take charge of the publication, which accordingly appeared at Leyden in 1804, under the title of Jablonshii Opuscula. The Egyptian glossary forms the first volume of this collection, and, from the great erudition displayed in it, is calculated to add new lustre to the reputation of its celebrated author.

Amongst those who cultivated some acquaintance with Coptic may be mentioned Bayer, who studied it in the works of Lacroze; Richard Cumberland, bishop of Peterborough, who, having received a copy of Wilkins’ Coptic New Testament, commenced the study of the language in his eighty-fourth year; George Whiston, who copied and translated into Latin the Pentateuch, and also composed a Coptic lexico; Wasse and Gagnier, the latter of whom copied for Lacroze the Acts of the Apostles in the Sahidic dialect, from a manuscript in the Bodleian Library; Henselius, who gave some details on the Coptic in his Synopsis Universae Philologue, et Harmonia Linguarum totius Orbis, Nuremberg, 1741; the Abbé Barthélemy, who, in his Reβexions Générales sur les Rapports des Langues Egyptienne, Phénicienne, et Greque, inserted in the Memoirs of the Academy of Belles-Lettres, evinced a considerable acquaintance with Coptic; Kocher of Berne, the author of a very learned dissertation De Etymo nominum Cnu-phis, aliorurnque adfinium, ex Aegypto repetundo, praised by Jablonski and Reiske; and Schmidt of the same place, who devoted himself exclusively to Egyptian studies, made frequent use of the Coptic to explain Egyptian words, particularly in his able dissertation Sur one Colonie Egyptienne établie aux Indes, and even composed a Coptic dictionary. Raphael Tuki, who was a Copt by birth, and bishop of Arsinoe, printed at Rome the liturgie works of his nation, in Coptic and in Arabic. He published the missal in 1736, the psalter in 1744, the diurnal in 1750, the first part of the pontifical in 1761, the second in 1762, the ritual in 1763, and, lastly, the office of the Virgin in 1764. Tnki also composed a Coptic grammar, which was published at Rome in 1778, by the congregation of the Propaganda, but which, like all the works of the orientals oil the subject of grammar, is defective in method, and devoid of critical accuracy. Assemanni also published at Rome various liturgie pieces in Coptic and Arabic, with a Latin version. Lastly, Christopher Muller, in a work entitled Satura Observationum Philologicarum, Leyden, 1752, made some use of the Coptic, which he had learned with the help of Lacroze’s dictionary, communicated to him by Dithmar Hakman, minister at Wassenaer.

Scholtz, preacher to the king of Prussia at Berlin, occupied himself with ardour in the study of Coptic. In 1748, he obtained permission from the university of Leyden to take a copy of Lacroze’s lexico; and this was accordingly done by Woide, a Pole, then a student in that university, who also took a copy of the dictionary for himself. Before this, Scholtz, being brother-in-law to Jablonski, had been assisted in his Coptic studies by that celebrated scholar, who communicated to him copies of his manuscripts; and having also at his disposal all the treasures of the library of Berlin, with the inedited remarks of Lacroze, he had composed a grammar of the Memphitic and Sahidic dialects, and a dissertation on the Coptic language. Afterwards, becoming possessor of the lexico of Lacroze, and conceiving that the size of the work would be an obstacle to its publication, he made an abridgment of it, in which he carefully preserved all the words and significations, contenting himself with retrenching only the passages which in the original had been cited at length. This work had been completed, when, in 1765, Woide, passing through Berlin on his way to England, was intrusted by Scholtz with the abridgment of the dictionary, the grammar, and the dissertation, in order that he might endeavour to get them published. Woide, on his arrival in this country, applied to Dr Durell, vice-chancellor of Oxford, and, after a negotiation of more than two years, it was at length decided that the lexico, grammar, and dissertation should be published at the expense of the university of Oxford. It was judged proper to print the dictionary first, as being the most important work. Woide, however, being dissatisfied with the abridgment of Scholtz, would have preferred publishing the lexico as Lacroze had left it, with the passages cited at length; but although it would have been easy to verify the citations from the New Testament and the Pentateuch by the printed copies, it became almost impossible to refer to the passages from the psalms, liturgies, and other inedited works, of which there existed at most only two or three copies, in each of which the pagination was different. On the other hand, Lacroze, in composing his dictionary, had possessed but few aids; the works which he put under contribution being the New Testament, the psalms, the liturgies of St Basil, St Gregory, and St Cyril, and some [7:11:315]extracts from the Pentateuch, Daniel, and the office of passion week. Sensible of the imperfection of this work, Woide, having collected a great number of additions from the Pentateuch, a volume of Coptic prayers, and other sources, solicited and obtained permission to insert these additions in the text of the dictionary. But the impression being already considerably advanced, and Scholtz, who wished the dictionary to be as short as possible, having desired the additions to be made at the end, Woide, after printing a small number in the body of the dictionary, where they appear in parentheses, resolved to publish a supplement in a separate form; and, in fact, he composed a very extensive Sahidic dictionary, though he was prevented by circumstances from completing his whole design.

The dictionary of Lacroze appeared in the year 1775, and the printing of the grammar was next commenced. But as this work, from its great length and want of method, seemed rather calculated to repel than to encourage students, .it was resolved to print only an extract, and to deposit the original in the Bodleian Library. Scholtz consented to this arrangement, and Woide undertook to execute an abridgment of the work, which appeared in 1778. Woide performed his task with equal judgment and ability; he changed the plan adopted by Scholtz, who had separated the elements of the Sahidic dialect from those of the Memphitic; he recast both grammars into one, contenting himself with indicating, after each rule of the Mcm-phitic dialect, the relations or the differences presented by the Sahidic; he expunged whatever seemed superfluous or useless, and inserted new observations, the fruit of a profound study of the language, with a multitude of passages and examples drawn from the Memphitic and Sahidic manuscripts which he had copied. His next undertaking was to collect and to publish all the fragments extant of the Sahidic version of the New Testament; and the impression was already far advanced, when death put a period to his laborious and useful career. But the work was continued by Ford, professor of Arabic at Oxford, and appeared in 1799, in one volume folio. Woide left numerous copies of Coptic and Sahidic manuscripts, a dissertation in English on the Coptic language, and the supplement to the lexico of Lacroze.

With the aid of this dictionary, which Woide had lent him, J. Reinhold Foster applied to the study of Coptic, in which he made great proficiency, as appears by his letters to Michaelis, and by his work De Bysso Antiquorum. In 1767, Tromler published at Leipsig a small volume entitled Bibliothecae Copto- Jacobiticae Specimen, containing an enumeration of the works which had appeared on the language, history, and religion of the Copts, and preceded by a dissertation de Fatis Einguae Copticae. At Rome, the celebrated Cardinal Borgia, distinguished as a zealous and munificent patron of letters, engaged Georgi, who, in his Alphabetuni Tibetanum, had evinced an intimate acquaintance with Coptic, to publish an ancient Sahidic fragment in his cabinet containing part of the Acts of St Coluthus. This work appeared at Rome in 1781, with a translation and notes by Georgi, and accompanied with a curious preface, in which the learned cardinal himself relates all that is known of the history and worship of St Coluthus. Georgi then occupied himself in translating and commenting on a very ancient fragment in the same cabinet, containing the Greek text and the Sahidic version of a portion of St John. This work appeared in 1789. In 1793, he published a second edition of the Acts of St Coluthus, with new additions, numerous notes, and a variety of Sahidic fragments from the cabinet of Cardinal Borgia. In the preface he has inserted extracts from several acts of martyrs, written in the Memphitic dialect, which the cardinal had caused to be copied by Tuki, from a manuscript in the Vatican Library; but the careless Copt had done his work very negligently, for the copy made by him is full of errors.

Whilst the works of Georgi thus contributed to advance the study of Coptic in the south, several learned men of the north of Europe directed their attention to that language. Adler, already distinguished by his acquirements as an orientalist, having learned Coptic during his residence at Rome, proceeded to examine the Sahidic manuscripts of Cardinal Borgia, after which he copied the book of Job and the fragments of the New Testament; he also employed the Coptic language to explain several Egyptian words. Miinter, whom Cardinal Borgia had induced to study Coptic, caused to be printed at Rome, in 1786, the ninth chapter of Daniel, in the two dialects, with a translation and notes. On his return to Copenhagen he also published an excellent dissertation on the Sahidic version of the New Testament, to which he subjoined fragments of the epistles of St Paul to Timothy. Munter afterwards undertook, in conjunction with Adler, to publish the prophecy of Daniel in the Memphitic dialect, the book of Job, the greater part of the book of Proverbs, and fragments of the New Testament, in the Sahidic dialect.

Mingarelli, who at an advanced age studied Coptic, published at Bologna in 1785, several Sahidic fragments from the collection of the Chevalier Nani at Venice, with a Latin translation and notes. Zoega, of whom we have already spoken, made frequent use of the Coptic in his learned works on Egyptian coins, and also in that on the origin and use of the obelisks. It was he whom Cardinal Borgia selected to prepare a detailed catalogue of the Coptic and Sahidic manuscripts of his collection. Father Simeon a Magistris, in his edition of Daniel according to the Septuagint, and Bernard de Rossi in his dissertation Della Lingua propria di Cristo, have given some details respecting the Coptic language. In the year 1785, Thomas Valperga, abbot of Caluso, published at Parma a grammar of the Coptic language, under the assumed name of Didymus of Turin. Baron Silvestre de Sacy, one of the most learned orientalists of modern times, has made use of the Coptic language for explaining several Egyptian words, in his Observations on the name of the Pyramids, and also in his Letter on the triple inscription of Rosetta. Mr Akerblad, a learned Swede, applied with indefatigable ardour to the study of Coptic during his residence at Paris and at Rome; and his Letter on the inscription of Rosetta, in which he displayed equal erudition and sagacity, entitled him to rank amongst the small number of those who have thoroughly understood Coptic. In this class a distinguished place must be allotted to the accomplished author of the Recherches sur la Langue et la Littérature de l’Egypte ; a work which is not more remarkable for profound research and extensive erudition, than for sound criticism and the happy union of conciseness and perspicuity. Nor is the celebrated author of √1⅛M Polyglotta inferior to any of his predecessors or contemporaries in the knowledge of Coptic. This he has made sufficiently evident by his Letters on Aerological Hieroglyphics, and still more by his Examen Critique des Travaux defeu Μ. Champollion sur les Hiéroglyphes, Paris, 1832, a work of disproportionate severity, but of great learning and extreme critical acuteness.

Without a knowledge of Coptic it is next to impossible to make any advance worth mentioning in the study of hieroglyphics. This is too obvious to require almost any illustration. If the Coptic be essentially identical with the ancient Egyptian, that is, if the remains of the latter be incorporated in the different dialects of the former, it is evident that the phonetic alphabet can never be applied to any good purpose except by those who are in a condition to distinguish and to understand something of the language in which the inscriptions are written. A person ignorant of Coptic may indeed decipher, by means of this alphabet, the [7:11:316]foreign proper names contained in the ovals or rings; but l ∙ beyond this he cannot advance a single step; to him a legend or a text must be as inaccessible as if nothing had been done on the subject of hieroglyphics since the days of Pierius and of Kircher. Accordingly, all those who have recently treated of the subject evince, by their writings, that they have been at pains to acquire in a greater or less degree this indispensable preliminary qualification. See, in particular, Rosellini, I Monumenti delΓ Egitto e della Nubia, Pisa, 1832, 1833, 1834; and Wilkinson, Materia Hieroglyphica, Malta, 1828; also Topography of Thebes, and General View of Egypt, London, 1835.^[47. In the last-mentioned work, the author, Mr Wilkinson, gives us an important piece of information connected with the subject treated of in this section. After expressing his regret that the Delta has been so little examined, “especially as some light might possibly be thrown on the remains of a very interesting period,” he proceeds thus: “Another object worthy of the attention of future travellers, is the ancient library of a Copt convent at the Natron Lakes, where, besides many other manuscripts, is α Coptic and Arabic dictionary, which, though it cannot be purchased, might be copied, on a proper application for that purpose to the patriarch of Qaherah (Cairo). And as the study of hieroglyphics, and our future insight into the long-lost language and early history of Egypt, depend entirely on the possession of a similar work, it would at the present moment be an inestimable acquisition.” , {Topography of Thebes, &c. p. 347∙) From all that we have known or leamed of oriental lexicoraphers or grammarians, we are not inclined to estimate so highly as Mr Wilkinson has here done, the advantages likely to result from the acquisition of this lexico; but, at the same time, we entirely agree with him in thinking that “proper” means should immediately be employed to obtain a copy of the dictionary, more especially as it appears to be so highly prized by the Copts. Mr Wilkinson informs us that his own efforts to obtain permission to copy it proved fruitless. But if the viceroy were induced to signify his pleasure on the subject, the patriarch would most probably find it convenient not to withhold his assent. ]

III. DR young’s ANALYSIS OF THE TRIPLE INSCRIPTION OF ROSETTA.

The block or pillar of black basalt, found by the French in digging up some ground at Rosetta, and now placed in the British Museum, exhibits the remains of three distinct inscriptions; and the last, which is in Greek, ends with the information, that the decree which it contains was ordered to be engraved in three different characters, the sacred letters, the letters of the country, and the Greek. Unfortunately a considerable part of the first inscription is wanting; the beginning of the second, and the end of the third, are also mutilated; we have, therefore, no precise points of coincidence from which we can set out, in our attempts to decipher the unknown characters. The second inscription, which it will be safest to distinguish by the Greek name enchorial, signifying merely the characters of the country, notwithstanding its deficiencies near the beginning, is still sufficiently perfect to allow us to compare its different parts with each other, and with the Greek, by the same method which we should employ if it were entire. Thus, if we examine the parts corresponding, in their relative situation, to two passages of the Greek inscription in which the proper names Alexander and Alexandria occur, we soon recognise two well-marked groups of characters resembling each other, which we may therefore consider as representing these names; a remark which was first made by Μ. de Sacy, in his letter relating to this inscription. A small group of characters, occurring very often in almost every line, might be either pome termination, or some very common particle; it must, therefore, be reserved till it be found in some decisive situation, after other words have been identified, and it will then be easily shown to mean and. The next remarkable collection of characters is repeated twenty-nine or thirty times in the enchorial inscription; and we find nothing which occurs so often in the Greek, except the word hing, with its compounds, which is found about thirty-seven times. A fourth assemblage of characters is found fourteen times in the enchorial inscription, agreeing sufficiently well in frequency with the name of Ptolemy, which occurs eleven times in the Greek, and generally in passages corresponding to those of the enchorial text in their relative situation; and, by a similar comparison, the name of Egypt is identified, although it occurs much more frequently in the enchorial inscription than in the Greek, which often substitutes for it country only, or omits it entirely. Having thus obtained a sufficient number of common points of subdivision, we may next proceed to write the Greek text over the enchorial, in such a manner that the passages ascertained may all coincide as nearly as possible; and it is obvious that the intermediate parts of each inscription will then stand very near to the corresponding passages of the other.

In this process, it will be necessary to observe that the lines of the enchorial inscription are written from right to left, as, Herodotus tells us, was the custom of the Egyptians; the division of several words and phrases plainly indicating the direction in which they are to be read. It is well known that the distinct hierogiyphical inscriptions, engraved on different monuments, differ in the direction of the corresponding characters. They always face the right or the left of the spectator, according as the principal personages of the tablets to which they belong are looking in the one or the other direction; but where there are no tablets, they almost always look towards the right; and it is easily demonstrable that they must uniformly have been read beginning from the front and proceeding to the rear of each rank. But the Egyptians seem never to have written alternately backwards and forwards, as the most ancient Greeks occasionally did. In both cases, however, the whole of the characters thus employed were completely reversed in the two different modes of using them, as if they were seen in a glass, or printed off like the impression of a seal.

By pursuing the comparison of the inscriptions thus arranged, we ultimately discover the signification of the greater part of the individual enchorial words; and the result of the investigation leads us to observe some slight differences in the form and order of some parts of the different inscriptions, which are indicated in the conjectural translation published in the Archaeologia and in the Museum Criticum. The degree of evidence in favour of the supposed signification of each assemblage of characters may be most conveniently appreciated, by arranging them in a lexicoraphical form, according to the words of the translation, the enchorial words themselves not readily admitting a similar arrangement; but the subject is not of sufficient interest for the public to make it necessary that this little lexico should be engraved at length.

It might naturally have been expected that the final characters of the enchorial inscription, of which the sense is thus determined with tolerable certainty, although the corresponding part of the Greek is wanting, would have immediately led us to a knowledge of the concluding phrase of the distinct hieroglyphical characters, which remains unimpaired. But the agreement between the two conclusions is by no means precise; and the difficulty can only be removed by supposing the hing to be expressly named in the one, whilst he is only designated by his titles in the other. With this slight variation, and with the knowledge of the singular accident, that the name of Ptolemy occurs three times in a passage of the enchorial inscription, where the Greek has it but twice, we pro-cecd[7:11:317] to identify this name amongst the sacred characters, •in a form sufficiently conspicuous to have been recognised upon the most superficial examination of the inscriptions, if this total disagreement of the frequency of occurrence had not imposed the condition of a long and laborious investigation, as an indispensable requisite for the solution of so much of the enigma. This step, however, being made good, we obtain from it a tolerably correct scale for the comparative extent of the sacred characters, of which it now appears that almost half of the lines are entirely wanting, whilst those that remain are also much mutilated. Such a scale may also be obtained, in a different manner, by marking, on a straight ruler, the places in which the most characteristic words, such as god, king, priest, and shrine occur, in the latter parts of the other inscriptions, at distances proportional to the actual distances from the end; and then trying to find corresponding characters amongst the hieroglyphics of the first inscription, by varying the obliquity of the ruler, so as to correspond to all possible lengths which that inscription can be supposed to have occupied, allowing always a certain latitude for the variations of the comparative lengths of the different phrases and expressions. By these steps it is not very difficult to assure ourselves, that a shrine and a priest are denoted by representations which must have been intended for pictures of objects denoted by them; and this appears to be the precise point of the investigation at which it becomes completely demonstrative, and promises a substantial foundation for further inferences. The other terms, god and king, are still more easily ascertained, from their situation near the name of Ptolemy.

The most material points of the three inscriptions having been thus identified, they may all be written side by side; and the sense of the respective characters may be still further investigated, by a minute comparison of the different parts with each other. The last line of the sacred characters, with the corresponding parts of the other inscriptions, which the reader will find represented under the head Specimens of Phrases, will serve as an illustration of the result which has been obtained from these operations.

In thus comparing the enchorial with the sacred characters, we find many coincidences in their forms, by far too accurate to be compatible with the supposition that the enchorial could be of a nature purely alphabetical. It is evident, for example, that the enchorial characters for a diadem, an asp, and everliving, are immediately borrowed from the sacred. But this coincidence cannot certainly be traced throughout the inscriptions; and it seemed natural to suppose, that alphabetical characters might be interspersed with hieroglyphics, in the same way that the astronomers and chemists of modern times have often employed arbitrary marks, as compendious expressions of the objects which were most frequently to be mentioned in their respective sciences. But no effort, however determined and persevering, had been able to discover any alphabet which could fairly be said to render the inscription, in general, at all like what was required to make its language intelligible Egyptian, although most of the proper names seemed to exhibit a tolerable agreement with the forms of letters indicated by Mr Akerblad; a coincidence, indeed, which might be found in the Chinese, or in any other character not alphabetical, if they employed words of the simplest sounds for writing compound proper names.

The question, however, respecting the nature of the enchorial character, appears to be satisfactorily decided by a comparison with each other, of various manuscripts or papyri still extant. Several of these, published in the Description de ι Egypte, have always been considered as specimens of the alphabetical writing of the Egyptians, and certainly have as little appearance of being imitations of visible objects, as any of the characters of this inscription, or as the old Arabic or Syriac characters, to which they bear, at first sight, a considerable resemblance. But they are generally accompanied by tablets, or delineations of certain scenes, consisting .of a few visible objects, either detached, or placed in certain intelligible relations to each other; and we may generally discover traces of some of these objects amongst the characters of the text that accompanies them. A similar correspondence between the text and the tablets is still more readily observable in other manuscripts, written in distinct hieroglyphics, slightly yet not inelegantly traced, in a hand which appears to have been denoted by the term hieratic , ∙ and by comparing with each other such parts of the text of these manuscripts as stand under tablets of the same kind, we discover, upon a very minute examination, that every character of the distinct hieroglyphics has its corresponding trace in the running hand; sometimes a mere dash or line, but often perfectly distinguishable, as a coarse copy of the original delineation, and always alike when it answers to the same character. The particular passages which establish this identity extend to a series of above ten thousand characters; they have been copied in adjoining lines, and carefully collated with each other; and their number has been increased, by a comparison with some yet unpublished rolls of papyrus. A few specimens from different manuscripts, sufficient to show the forms through which the original representation has passed, in its degradation from the sacred character, through the hieratic, into the epistolographic, or common running hand of the country, will be found under the head of Comparison of Manuscripts,

It seems at first sight incomprehensible that this coincidence, or rather correspondence, should not be equally observable in the two inscriptions of the Rosetta stone, which, if the enchorial character is merely a degradation of the sacred, must naturally be supposed to be as much alike as those of the different manuscripts in question; whilst, in reality, we can but seldom trace any very striking analogy between them. But the enchorial character, having long been used in rapid writing, and for the ordinary purposes of life, appears to have become so indistinct in its forms, that it was often necessary to add to it some epithet or synonym, serving to mark the object more distinctly; just as, in speaking Chinese, when the words are translated from written characters into a more limited number of sounds, it is often necessary, on account of the imperfection of the oral language, to add a generic word, in order to determine the signification, and to read, for example, a goose bird, when a goose only is written, in order to distinguish it from some other idea implied by a similar sound; and justas in English we might sometimes be obliged to say a yew tree, ⅛ order to distinguish it from a ewe sheep, or you yourself, or the letter u. The enchorial character, therefore, though drawn from the same source, can scarcely, in this form, be called the same language with the sacred hieroglyphics, which had probably remained unaltered from the earliest ages, whilst the running hand admitted all the variations of the popular dialects, and bore but a faint resemblance to its original prototype. Indeed, if it had been completely identical, there could have been no propriety in repeating the inscription with so slight a change of form.

The rituals and hymns contained in the manuscripts which have been mentioned, are probably either of higher antiquity than the inscription of Rosetta, or had preserved a greater purity of character, as having been continually copied from older originals. It is also remarkable, that in one of these rolls of papyrus, engraved by Denon, the introduction is in the sacred character, and some of the [7:11:318]phrases contained in it may be observed to be repeated in the subsequent part of the manuscript, which is in a kind of running hand, though somewhat less degraded than in most other instances.

It was not unnatural to hope, that the comparison of these different manuscripts would have assisted us very materially in tracing back all the enchorial characters to the corresponding hieroglyphics, as far as the parts of the respective inscriptions remain entire, and even in filling up the deficiencies of the sacred characters where they are wanting; and something has certainly been gained from it with respect to the names of several of the deities; but, on account of the differences which had crept in between the forms of the language, expressed by the sacred and the cursive characters, the advantage has hitherto been extremely limited. It seems, indeed, to have been a condition inseparable from the whole of this investigation, that its steps should be intricate and laborious, beyond all that could have been imagined from our previous knowledge of the subject; and that, whilst a number of speculative reasoners have persuaded themselves, at different times, that they were able to read through a hieroglyphical inscription in the most satisfactory manner, beginning at either end, as it might happen, the only monument which has afforded us any real foundations for reasoning on the subject, is more calculated to repress than to encourage our hopes of ever becoming complete masters of the ancient literature of Egypt; although it is unquestionably capable of serving as a key to much important information with respect to its history and mythology. Nor is it by any means impossible, that a careful consideration of other monuments already known, or of such as are now discovered from day to day, may enable us to detect a number of unknown characters, so situated with respect to others which are already understood, as to carry with them their own interpretation, supported by a degree of evidence far exceeding mere conjecture.

IV. RUDIMENTS OF AN HIEROGLYPHICAL VOCABULARY.

1. Deities.

1. The word God is always represented in the inscription of Rosetta, and often in many others, by a character resembling a particular kind of hatchet, which is delineated repeatedly at Medinet-Habou as a weapon in the hands of warriors, and is even found amongst the modern weapons engraved by Denon.^[48. See plate xcv. of Denon’s work. In the figures inserted in the text the representation is for the most part given in the sacred and in the enchorial characters of the Rosetta inscription. ]

This character is frequently exchanged, in parallel passages of different manuscripts, or of the same, for a figure sitting or standing without distinct arms or feet, either with a human head or a hawk’s head; or sometimes, by a deviation from the correct nature of an abstract or general term, with the heads of different animals, according to the character of the deity to whom it is applied. But in the inscription of Rosetta this symbol appears to be exclusively appropriated to the gods in their judicial capacity; *and it occurs several times in the term meaning lawful, which will be afterwards explained. This interpretation is also fully justified by the testimony of Plutarch, that “the figures of judges were represented without hands.”

2. A Goddess is denoted by the hatchet or sitting figure, with the addition of the female characteristic, generally as a termination; but sometimes the simple character is applied to gods and soddesses indifferently.

The semicircle and oblique oval, distinguishing the feminine gender, are observable in almost all well-marked names of females found in different tablets; and the crooked line, which corresponds to them, in the enchorial character of the stone of Rosetta, may be distinguished at the end of each of the five names of females that occur in the inscription. Occasionally the characteristic is prefixed, and this position agrees better with the Coptic τι, which distinguishes a female. Nor must we omit to observe, that a semicircle seems to answer to the τ in some other cases, and is always expressed in the running hand by the character which Mr Akerblad calls τ or D, and which is also exactly the Syriac τ. The asp or basilisk standing erect is a symbol of divinity, which occurs on the green sarcophagus called the tomb of Alexander, and elsewhere, instead of the more ordinary character. In a few instances, the semicircle is found without the oblique oval. The plural, Gods, is formed by repeating the character three times, or by placing three dashes after, or sometimes before it. In the enchorial inscription, the dashes are united into a crooked line, and are placed in this instance both before and after the principal character; but, in general, the second line is straighter than the first. The dual is expressed by a double character only.

3. A winged globe, sometimes flattened as if intended for an egg, but often coloured red, is very commonly represented as hovering over a hero, and generally occupies the lintel of some of the doors of a temple.

A globe nearly similar is also sometimes connected with the head and tail of a serpent, bearing the symbol of life, which is the common characteristic of a deity. There can, therefore, be no objection to considering these representations as belonging to the Agathodaemon, or Chnuphis of the Greek authors; and the same symbol is sometimes found in the text of an inscription, in the neighbourhood of the pictural representation. Its sense may therefore be considered as tolerably well ascertained; but the evidence being somewhat indirect, the name is inserted in smaller characters, the same distinction being also observed in other instances. Mr Bruce informs us, in his letter to Mr Wood, that in some parts of the Tunisian dominions, serpents are still regarded as a kind of good angels. The Chnubis, or Chnumis, of the amulets, is generally represented as a serpent with a human head, or with that of a lion; and the former combination is not uncommon in the tablets of the manuscripts; but the hieroglyphic denoting it is a long undulated line, totally distinct from this character.

4. The symbol, often called the Hieralpha, or sacred a, corresponds, in the inscription of Rosetta, to Phthah, or Vulcan, one of the principal deities of the Egyptians.
[7:11:319]

A multitude of other sculptures sufficiently prove, that the object intended to be delineated was a plough or hoe; and we are informed by Eusebius, from Plato, that the Egyptian Vulcan was considered as the inventor of instruments of war and of husbandry. In many other inscriptions, the pedestal or pulley is used indifferently for the plough. Horus Apollo tells us, that Vulcan was denoted by a beetle; and the Monticolion obelisk of Kircher has the plough on three sides and the beetle on the fourth. Horus Apollo, however, is seldom perfectly correct; and the names of different divinities are frequently exchanged on the banners of the same obelisk; nor is there any clear instance of such an exchange of the plough for the beetle as occurs perpetually in the case of the pedestal. The beetle is frequently used for the name of a deity whose head either bears a beetle, or is itself in the form of a beetle; and in other instances the beetle has clearly a reference to generation or reproduction, which is a sense attributed to this symbol by all antiquity; so that it may possibly sometimes have been used as a synonym for Phthah, as the father of the gods. The plough is very rarely found as the name of a personage actually represented; and it is difficult to say under what form the Egyptian Vulcan was chiefly worshipped; but on the tablet of a Horus of bad workmanship, belonging to the Borgian Museum, he is exhibited with a hawk’s head, holding a spear; whilst in the great ritual of the Description de l’Egypte (Antiq. ii. pl. 72, col. 104), he seems to be represented by a figure with a human head; an exchange, however, which is very common in some other cases, with respect to these two personifications, though it does not extend to the substitution of the heads of different animals for each other.

5. Ammon, the Egyptian Jupiter, is sufficiently identified by a combination of evidence of various kinds, although no single link of the chain extends very far. A figure with a ram’s head is denoted, both on the green sarcophagus and on the temple at Elephantine, by a water jar, sometimes, but not always, accompanied by a bird.

Now, a water jar of this form is constantly converted, in the running hand of the manuscripţs, into a character like a z; and this character, in the enchorial text of Rosetta, is made to express the name of Jupiter; a fact which confirms the testimony of the Greek authors, who considered the Egyptian Jupiter as having been represented with a ram’s head. A similar figure is found at Edfou (Apol-linopolis Magna), and at Esnch (Latopolis). The temple at Edfou seems to have been dedicated by Amenophis or Memnon; and he appears to be called “lover of Ammon,” that is, Miamun, ^[49. Or rather Meiamun, which is more like Memnon, and may also mean “beloved of Ammon.” ] which is not unlike the name Memnon.

6. The common astronomical diagram for the sun, Q, seems to have been adopted by the Latin astrologers from their masters in Egypt; since it is not very probable that both should have employed a point in the centre of the circle, without some communication with each other, the circle alone having been mentioned by some of the Greek authors, who say that it was the symbol of the sun.

The deity Ra, Re, or Ph re, is indicated by this character followed by an upright bar; and the circle is often enveloped in the coil of the body of a serpent, whilst an oval and an arm also frequently follow the circle. The encho τ rial name of the sun is extremely like that which corresponds in the manuscripts to this hieroglyphic. And a similar circle, with rays diverging from it, though seldom exactly in straight lines, is used in the sense of “enlightening,” or “rendering illustrious ;” and it has also been observed by some of the French, who have been in Egypt, to stand in several inscriptions with a manifest reference to light. The circle occurs also as a part of the terms month and day. In the great Hieratic Ritual, and in some other manuscripts, this name of Phré occurs very frequently under or near the tablet which contains a representation of the sun shining, as well as under the next to it, which exhibits a head rising out of a lotus, an emblem mentioned by Plutarch as relating to the sun, which here is made to spring from the pedestal, as the sun is said to have been the offspring of Phthah. Whatever plant that called the lotus may have been, it certainly does not much resemble the nelumbo of the East, which some imagine to have been the original emblem of fertility. The name Phré is almost the only intelligible combination of letters that ever occurs on the Abraxas^[50. The word Abraxas or Abrasax, which Michaelis supposes, with reason, to be older than the days of the Gnostics, and of pure Graeco-Egyptian origin, may nevertheless be considered as the principal and ordinary name of the Basilidian sun-god; and its import shows that the whole superstition of the Gnostic or Basilidian school of heretics was founded upon the mysteries of the Egyptian calendar, Abraxas or Abrasax being composed of the six Greek letters which represent the number of days in the Egyptian year. Thus, [table] Abraxas being composed of the very same letters transposed, would of course give precisely the same result. (Vide Auct. apud Montfaucon, p. 355 et seqq.; Jablonski, Dissert, de Nom. Abraxas, § 9∙ 12. Opusc. tom. iv. p. 96 et seqq.) ] or amulets; and the monster to which it relates has generally radiations from its head, and is surrounded by six stars. The tablets of the sun in the manuscripts exhibit also little genii worshipping him, each of which is always marked “star god.”

7. The name of Rhea may, without impropriety, be assigned to a female personage very commonly accompanying the sun, and distinguished by many of his attributes, thus: although the evidence would have been somewhat more conclusive if the name had been found attached to the figure of the mother in the tablet of the birth of Isis. On the coffins of the mummies, this personage is generally represented with outstretched wings, and in other tablets without wings; but she carries in both cases a circle on her head, emblematic of the sun. If we considered the analogy of the hieroglyphical name only, we should be disposed to interpret it as meaning the wife or sister of Ammon.

8. Ioh, the moon, is not a deity of very frequent occurrence; but the character is easily interpreted, both from its form, and from its being found in a different position, as a part of the word month. , [7:11:320] At Denderah this character is accompanied by the epithet God, and without any female termination, as well as in several passages of an epistolographic manuscript sent home by Mr Bankes; a circumstance which is favourable to the opinion that Ioh was considered as masculine in mythology as well as in grammar, just as men or lunus was sometimes made masculine by the Greeks and Romans. The fact, however, is not absolutely decisive of this question, since the character is not accompanied by the delineation of any personification of the deity.

9. The historical description of the god Thoth, or Hermes, as the scribe or secretary of Osiris, and the inventor of writing, sufficiently identifies him with the person who is perpetually represented standing before Osiris, and writing with a quill or a style on a square or oblong tablet. He has always the head of an ibis, and this bird, standing on a perch, constitutes his hieroglyphical name, as the ibis is known to have been the emblem of Thoth. The hieroglyphic for letters is also frequently found amongst his titles; and all these circumstances abundantly confirm the opinion of his true character, which Zoega and others had already advanced from conjecture only.

The enchorial name is very much disfigured, but the manuscripts exhibit a character which may serve to supply the connecting link, and another abridgment of the name which deviates still more widely from the original, being simply the common substitute for a feather, which here seems to stand for the whole bird, or perhaps merely for a feather which is often found projecting from the end of the perch. Next to Osiris, we find that Thoth is of more frequent occurrence than any other deity in the great ritual; and it is probable that the mummies of the ibis, which are so commonly found, were preserved in honour of him. The semicircle with two oblique dashes, under the perch, seems to correspond to the epithet “great and great” of the Rosetta inscription; this character being generally significative of a dual. The scale, with eight dashes, and two other characters, is also very frequently employed as an epithet, and sometimes as a synonym of Thoth; it seems to mean “Dispenser of the eight treasures, or laws, of the country,” for Diodorus informs us that the principal laws of Egypt w⅛rc contained in eight books.

10. The name of Osiris is found, with the epithet “divine,” in a great majority of all the mythological inscriptions that have yet been discovered; so that this circumstance alone is sufficient to show that it must have been that of the principal deity of Egypt.

The enchorial character of the inscription of Rosetta is readily identified, and it agrees perfectly well with that of the manuscripts, answering to the eye and the throne; so that the manuscripts here completely supply the want of that part of the stone which contained the name in the sacred characters. This name is also universally annexed to the great figure which is found at the end of almost all the manuscripts, and on the coffins of mummies, holding a hook and a whip or fan, and of which the small detached images are also extremely common. «In the sculptured inscriptions, the eye generally precedes the throne; in the running hand of the manuscripts, and on the coffins of some mummies, apparently of later date, the eye sometimes follows. Plutarch had perhaps been rightly informed respecting this character; but by a mistake, which was easily committed from a want of perfect recollection, he has called it ' “an eye and a sceptre ;” and this combination has not been recognised as the name of a deity, though a symbol something like it occurs in some of the tablets. The pictured delineation of Osiris has indifferently a human head or that of a hawk, but never that of any other animal. The tear seems also sometimes to have been used as an emblem of Osiris, as well as of Apis and Mneuis, who were considered as representations of him. The name is found perpetually on monuments of all kinds as an epithet of a departed person; and this is one great reason of the frequency of its occurrence.

11. This divinity, the Apollo of the Egyptian mythology, is sufficiently identified by the comparison of various inscriptions with the fragment of Hermapion, preserved by Ammianus Marcellinus, as the translation of the inscription on a particular obelisk, with which, however, it does not exactly agree, although its style completely resembles that of the Egyptian inscriptions in general, and the beginning corresponds perfectly well to the beginning of almost all the obelisks in existence, supposing only the hawk to be part of the name of Arueris; which is, besides, an inference extremely probable, from the tablets of several of the obelisks, representing a deity characterised by a hawk with two bars, and styled the son of another personage who seems to be the sun, as Apollo is called by Hermapion, and Arueris by Plutarch. Mr Hamilton has also given us a Greek inscription at Ombos, in which Arueris is made synonymous with Apollo; although the hieroglyphics which have been copied from this temple afford us no assistance in the inquiry. The sort of ladder, which occurs as a second name of Arueris, is found prefixed to the hawk in its usual form, on the obelisk at Wanstead figured by Gordon, and on the frize of Montagu and Ficooni (Hieroglyphics of the Egyptian Society, 7 Eo p; 9 Lk); and the same figure follows it on a statue of Pococke (vol. i. p. 212). Arueris is commonly represented either with a human head, or with that of a hawk, bearing a disc, as that of the sun is also generally depicted; and in one of Denon’s plates, the two deities seem in some measure confounded. The Egyptian name may be interpreted “evening sun,* as emblematic of the repose of victory; er ruhi re.

12. Isis, the sister and wife of Osiris, is very naturally denoted by the throne with the female termination, thus: and in more than one instance, the female figures, which have long been recognised as representations of Isis by other attributes, are distinguished by bearing the throne on the head, which is a .common mode of characterising the different personages of the tablets. The manuscripts, again, enable us to discover the connecting link between the sacred and enchorial characters, and to supply the defects of the monument of Rosetta; though the resemblance is somewhat too imperfect to have satisfied us without their assistance. The goddess, thus distinguished, is very generally represented as standing at the head or feet of a corpse, with another female figure opposite to her; and we find the same personages at the opposite ends of several of the sarcophagi; so that the analogy of Isis to Proserpine, and her character as the guardian of the remains of the dead, are sufficiently consistent with these representations. On a scaraboeus brought from Egypt by Mr Legh, and in a hieroglyphical inscription at Philae, she appears[7:11:321] to be called the offspring of Phthah. Isis often bears in her hand a sceptre forked at the foot, with a lotus for its head, whilst Osiris has more commonly a similar sceptre with the head of an animal; but these attributes are sometimes assigned to other deities. In one of the boats on the green sarcophagus, and on Letheuillier’s mummy, both in the British Museum, she is personified as a basilisk. Mr Hamilton has published some Greek inscriptions from Philae, and from the small temple at Denderah, which show that Isis was the principal deity of these temples; and the hieroglyphics, as far as they have been copied, are precisely of the same import. The great temple at Karnak seems also to have been dedicated to Isis, and probably the small southern temple. On a medal, of Greek workmanship, in the Borgian Museum, we have a figure of Isis, with the word thesi, which may probably have been intended for tiesi, the Egyptian name with the feminine article.

13. The constant companion of Isis can be no other than Nephthe.

Her name somewhat resembles that of Isis, with a scale or basin annexed to it; but the square surrounding the throne is completed, while the scale is sometimes detached from it, with a circle interposed; and, in this form, the name comprehends one of the characters denoting a temple. It seems also to be a head of Nephthe that is found at Denderah and elsewhere, supporting a little temple or shrine, in the place of the capital of a column; nor is it improbable that the temple at Denderah was dedicated to Nephthe; for the Greek inscription has Aphrodite, which is mentioned by Plutarch as a synonym of Nephthe. It is true that the birth of Isis is represented on one of the ceilings; but it does not therefore follow that Isis was the principal goddess of the temple. A head bearing a shrine is not an uncommon ornament of a sistrum ; and this agrees perfectly with the remark of Plutarch, that the head of Nephthe, as well as that of Isis, was sometimes represented on these instruments.

14. The emblem of a bird in a cage, which is often found in the manuscripts accompanied by the figure of achild, seems to indicate the character of a nurse, and may without inconvenience be interpreted as relating to the goddess Buro, the nurse of Horus and Bubastis; though it would perhaps have been more correct to engrave the name in smaller letters, as denoting some degree of uncertainty. On the sarcophagus called the Lover’s Fountain, in the British Museum, she is delineated with a hawk’s head; and in the western temple at Philae she has a human head with a horned head-dress, and she sits near Isis and Horus; a circumstance which strongly confirms the propriety of the denomination.

15. The enchorial name of Horus seems to be derived from the figure of a hawk followed by the character denoting Isis; an arrangement which agrees very well with the supposition that his usual denomination was hôrsiesi.

The figure of the infant, the chain, and the knot, clearly form a part of the name on a Horus engraved by Montfaucon (Antiq. Expliq. tom. ii. p. 302), and on an obelisk from Bose in the Supplement of the same work. In some cases a feather, following the infant, seems to supply the place of the bird, as in Cavlus CPAcueih tom. iv. pl. 13).

16. Paamyles, mentioned by several authors as the Priapus of Egypt, is sufficiently distinguishable by his usual attributes. He is often figured with one hand only, which is elevated towards the angle of a kind of whip or fan suspended above him. At Edfou he is once denoted in an inscription by a figure like that of the tablets; and in another place by a distinct name, much resembling that of a female deity, found on some of the cases of the mummies, and who might consequently be called Paamylia.

17. The Nile seems to have been reckoned amongst the deities of Egypt, and the character which appears to be appropriate to a river is found occasionally in the tablets, followed by a vessel and a spiral, which seem indeed to make a part of the name, and are accompanied by epithets of respect. This character has already been considered by Kircher and others as representing a nilometer; and the deity in question can only be distinguished by the name Nilus.

18. The sacred characters denoting Apis are pretty clearly determined by the triple inscription; the enchorial name is perfectly so.

If, however, any doubt remained on the subject, it would be removed by an examination of the inscriptions on four vases, found by Paul Lucas (Voyage dans la Turquie, vol. i. p. 346, Amsterdam, 1720, in 2 vols. 12mo) at Abousir, the Busiris of the ancients; that is, the be oshiri, or sepulchre of Osiris, as Diodorus very properly translates it. There is a received tradition that Apis was worshipped and buried here; and Lucas established its truth by finding the mummy of a bullock in the catacombs. Now, all the inscriptions on the vases end with a bullock preceded by this character, though the angles are turned in a different direction from those of the inscription of Rosetta; so that the two forms of the character seem to have been used indifferently. With this latitude, we have no difficulty in identifying the name as it occurs in almost every line of the inscriptions upon the great sarcophagus of granite, called the Lover’s Fountain, formerly at Cairo, and now in the British Museum. There is some reason to suppose, from the frequency of this name, that it may have been intended for receiving a mummy of the bull Apis; although it must be confessed, that in several other monuments the names of the deities are introduced in a manner somewhat similar, with an evident relation to the designation of some human being, whom they are intended to commemorate.

19. The enchorial name of Mneuis is very completely ascertained by the inscription of Rosetta; and from a comparison of different passages in the manuscripts, there is reason to infer that it was intended as an imperfect representation of a basilisk and a tear; emblems which are repeatedly found in the great ritual, connected with the figure of a bullock. The sacred cow, in the manuscripts sent home by Mr Bankes, is denoted by a serpentine line with two dots, followed by the term goddess. We may venture to distinguish her by the temporary name Damalis. That of Io would imply too great identity with the Greek mvtholocrv.
[7:11:322]

20. In the tablets representing the judgment of the deceased, we generally find two personages standing by the balance, and apparently weighing his merits; one with the head of a hawk, the other with that of a wolf, and seeming to officiate as the good and evil genius of the person. The former, denoted by a hawk with a bar, and sometimes also a spear, appears, from various monuments, to have some relation to the Sun or to Horus, and may therefore be called Hyperion ; the latter is often observed to be employed in the preparation of a mummy, and may be called from this occupation Cteristes, or the embalmer. He is also frequently represented on the coffins of mummies, and elsewhere, under the form of a wolf sitting on a kind of altar; and he seems to be an immediate minister of Osiris. His hieroglyphical name is a feather, a wavy line, and a block; or a hatchet under a sort of arch.

21. Under the bier on which a mummy lies, āħd in many other situations near the person of the deceased, we find representations of four deities who seem to be concerned in the operation of embalming, and who might even be supposed to preside over the different condiments employed, their heads frequently serving as covers for four jars, of the kind sometimes called Canopi. They may also very properly be considered as attendants of Isis, who seems to be a still more important personage on such occasions. The first of the four has generally a human head, and may be called Tetrarcha ; his name contains a sort of forceps, and a brokendine. The second and third have respectively the heads of a dog or baboon, and of a wolf; and they agree very satisfactorily with the well-known character of Anubis, and with that of Macedo his companion, mentioned by Diodorus as having a wolf’s head, and whose name may possibly have some relation to manchat, a worker in silver, as that of Anubis has to nub, gold. The hieroglyphic name of Anubis differs from that of Apis only in having the angles directed immediately upwards, a circumstance which is not so indifferent to the signification as it at first appeared; that of Macedo has a vulture with a star, and sometimes an arm instead of the vulture. The fourth of these deities is represented with the head of a hawk, and may therefore be called Hieracion. He is denoted by a water jar, with three plants somewhat resembling leeks or onions.

22. Amongst the many hundreds of deities who are represented in various inscriptions and sculptures, some of the most remarkable are two personages with the heads of wolves, the first characterised by a sort of raised frame or banner, and a pair of horns, which may be expressed by the pseudonymous or temporary term Cerexochus, and the second by a half bow, and a sword or knife, whence he may be called Bioxiphus ; a figure with a human head, generally wearing a feather on it, and denoted by a broad feather reversed, which is implied in the name Platypterus ; another wearing a cap with a whip in it, who may be called Mastigias ; and a fifth in the form of a female, distinguished by a bier, who, at Edfou, bears a tear on her head, and who may be called Soraea.

1. We are informed by Pliny, that the Alexandrian obelisk was erected by Mesphres or Mestires, the reading of the different manuscripts being different; and since no king of the name Mestires is mentioned by other authors, we may consider Mesphres as the Mephres or Mesphris who succeeded his mother Amersis about 1700 B. c. or perhaps a century or two later. The hieroglyphical name of his father contains that of the god Thoth, and may therefore possibly have been intended for the Thothmosis of the chronologers, who is said to have been the grandfather of Mesphres. The obelisk at Alexandria, now called Cleopatra’s Needle, like almost all others which contain three lines on each side, exhibits different names in the middle and the outer lines. From this circumstance, as well as from the greater depth of the sculptures, which is generally observable in the middle line, there is reason to suppose that this line stood at first alone, and that the two on each side were added by a later monarch. The Lateran obelisk, however, is remarkable for exhibiting the name of Mesphres on all the lines of the different sides. The Constantinopolitan obelisk has only one line on each side, with the name of Mesphres the son of Thothmosis. The same name is also found on the gateway of the fifth catacomb, at Biban-el∙ Molouk; on a pillar of the palace at Karnak, and in a splendidly-coloured bas-relief on one of the interior architraves of the gallery; as well as on a seal of Denon, and on some others which were brought from Egypt by Mr Legh. The Isean obelisk of Kircher has a “son of Mesphres, favoured by Phthah we must therefore distinguish this king by the name Misphragmuthosis, who is recorded as the son and successor of Mesphres.
[7:11:323]

2. A multitude of ancient Greek inscriptions identify the statue of Memnon, celebrated by all antiquity for its musical powers, which, Strabo says, he heard exemplified, though he could not very positively decide whether the sound proceeded from the statue or from some of the bystanders. In one of the inscriptions we find the word Phamenoth, not as a date, but as a synonym of Memnon, which must be considered as identical with the Phamenoph given by Pausanias as his Egyptian name, and with the Ammenoph or Amenophis of Manetho or others, which differs from it only as wanting the article. There is, however, some doubt to which Amenophis this statue properly belongs. Manetho makes Memnon the eighth king of the eighteenth dynasty, who may be called Amenophis the Second; but Marsham brings him down to the Ammenephthes of Manetho, or Amenophis the Fourth, principally because he thinks that only a successor of Sesostris could have been well known in Asia; and he even supposes him to have been later than Homer, who, he says, never mentions him, though Hesiod calls him the son of Tithonus and Aurora. But, in fact, the name of Memnon does occur in the Odyssey, where Ulysses alludes to his beauty in a conversation with the shade of Achilles; and Hesiod could scarcely have mentioned a king as descended from a deity, that was not considerably earlier than his own time; so that the tradition of Manetho seems to be preferable to the mere conjecture of Marsham. At the same time, we cannot well call him Memnon the son of Thothmosis, the name of the father not agreeing with that of this king; and there is another circumstance which seems to lead us to the third Amenophis, intermediate between these two extremes, who was the son of Ramesses Meiamun, or Ramesses the lover of Ammon; namely, that Amenophis himself appears to have built a temple to Ammon in the isle of Elephantine, and is called Meiamun in several of the hieroglyphical inscriptions still existing there. It appears, then, that the name Memnon must have been derived from Meiamun. Besides the different statues of the Memnonium, we find monuments of the same personage in almost every part of Egypt, though they are much more frequent at Thebes and in its neighbourhood. The name is marked on all the lion-headed goddesses of black granite which are now in the British Museum, and on some others which were in the possession of Mr Bankes. The first of this series having been purchased, as Bruce informs us, for a large price, by Donati, for the king of Sardinia, the inhabitants were induced to take some pains in digging the others out of the sand. The building called by the French the tomb of Osymandyas bears also the name of Memnon; and it is remarked by Strabo, that Memnon and Ismendes may probably have been the same person. The name is also found in the grottos at Biban-el-Molouk, on some statues representing Osiris, and in some inscriptions at Ombos, as well as on a seal of Denon. Mr Bullock presented to the British Museum a scaraboeus of very hard stone, on which we find the name of Memnon, together with that of his father and mother, whom we may call, in order to preserve the mythological analogy, Tithous and Boa, although without asserting that this Tithous was the builder of the Labyrinth, which some authors have attributed to a king named Tithoes, and others to Ismendes. The mother’s name occurs also alone, as “the goddess mother,” on the back of a beetle in Gordon’s Mummies (plate xxii.), a circumstance which removes the doubt that might otherwise arise from the want of the female termination in the name; the father’s is found upon a square seal in the possession of Mr Legh. There is another copy of the inscription of Mr Bullock’s scaraboeus, on a scaraboeus belonging to Mr Palin, which had long been used by a Greek priest at Athens for stamping the paschal bread (Dubois, Pierres Gravées, Paris, 1817, pl. v. N. 5). The beautiful head brought from the Memnonium to the British Museum has only a part of the father’s name remaining, which does not appear to be that of the father of Memnon, though the first three characters are the same; but the fourth is the pedestal representing Phthah; and a similar name is found on some other colossal statues and obelisks remaining in Egypt, as well as on a smaller figure of red granite brought by Mr Hamilton from Elephantine. In the principal name upon the obelisk at Karnak, the final scale of the name of Memnon is exchanged for a pair of arms stretched upwards; a variation which may be expressed by calling it Amenuses or Amenses, from shesh, a pair. The father’s name is also a little like that of Tithous; but, that the difference is constant, may be inferred from its separate occurrence on a seal brought home by Mr Legh, a lion’s head making a part of it in both instances. The true name and date of this personage must be considered as wholly unknown; though the resemblance of the name to Memnon makes it convenient to place them together. In Mr Boughton’s minute golden image, engraved in the Archoeologia, the name appears to be the same, but with the synonymous substitution of the hatchet for the judge.

3. The obelisk at Heliopolis has every mark of considerable antiquity, and the shortness and simplicity of its inscription is appropriate to a remote period. Pliny says that Mitres or Mestires first erected obelisks at Heliopolis; he also mentions Sothis, and apparently Ramesses, as having left similar monuments of their magnificence in the same place. The principal name upon the obelisk now remaining at Matareah may also be observed in several other inscriptions, but with the substitution of two other names for that of the father, so that the name of the son must probably have belonged to many different individuals. This circumstance, as well as the sounds belonging to the different characters, agrees very well with Ramesses; for we have re, the sun, and mes, a birth, and shesh, a pair, so that we may venture to call it Remesses ; and we may take Heron for the father of the first Remesses, from Hermapion, though it is possible that he may be the Armais of Manetho; but we have scarcely sufficient evidence to appropriate to him that name. Another Ramesses seems to have been a son of Sesostris; a third Ramesses follows Ammenephthes in Manetho, and agrees with the Rhampsinitus of Herodotus, and the Remphis of Diodorus, who is mentioned as the successor of Proteus; and this may, perhaps, have been the Ramesses of the frizes of Montagu and Ficooni (Hieroglyphics, 7 Ou. 9 If), who seems, from the resemblance of the different parts of the work, to have been nearly contemporary with Sesostris. (Hieroglyphics, 7 H. I.) There is also on the Lions at the fountain of Aqua Felice, near the baths of Diocletian at Rome, another Ramesses, the name of whose father is a little like the name supposed to belong to Arsinoe.
[7:11:324]

4. The obelisk erected by Augustus in the Campus Martius is said, by Pliny, to have been the work of Sesostris; and there are sufficient documents of its identity with that which had long remained buried near the Monte Citorio, and of which figures have been given by Zoega and others. The inscription was supposed, in the time of Pliny, to contain a compendium of the physical and philosophical learning of the Egyptians; but, in order to make this opinion credible, it would be necessary to admit that the princes of earlier days entertained very different ideas from those which have since been prevalent respecting the comparative importance of the abstract sciences, and of national prosperity and martial glory. II Sesostris was the son of Amenophis, he cannot have been the reigning king mentioned in this obelisk. But it may safely be attributed to Pheron the son of Sesostris, who, according to Herodotus, erected two obelisks; and the occurrence of the name of Sesostris as the father may be considered as sufficiently conformable to the testimony of Pliny. The same names are found, with a slight variation, on a small statue of basalt, very highly finished, now standing in the British Museum; and Denon has copied them from an inscription in the Memnonium.

5. Nuncoreus, according to Diodorus, was another son of Sesostris; his name occurs also in Pliny, and we may consider him as the son of Sesostris mentioned in Montagu s frizes. The name is also found at Philae, and, with a slight variation, on an altar of basalt figured by Caylus {Recueil, tom. i. plate xix.), now in the King’s Library at Pans. The remains of the same name may also be observed on a block, apparently of white sandstone, in the British Museum, which is figured by Norden, in its old situation, as a part of the foundations of Pompey’s Pillar at Alexandria; and it occurs on a fragment of a statue brought by Mr Hamilton from Thebes. The name of Proteus, or Certus, otherwise Ammenephthes, is only known as the predecessor of one of the kings named Ramesses; and we may safely employ it for the father of the Ramesses of the frizes of Montagu and Ficooni, the whole of which are remarkable for the excellence of their workmanship.

6. Until we obtain evidence of a more positive nature, we may give to the two kings mentioned on the sarcophagus of green breccia the names of Amenophthes and Anysis, supposing them to have lived about the time of Ammenephthes, or Amenophis the Fifth, and his successor Osorchon. The fathers name might, without difficulty, be read Me- oephthah, supposing some titles to follow it-There are also tvo obelisks of the same king, brought from Cairo, which stand near the sarcophagus in the British Museum; and the style of the workmanship somewhat resembles that of the times of Sesostris and his immediate successors. It has been observed that neither of the names can well be Alexander’s, since that of the father is repeated much more frequently than that of the son, which could not have happened if it had been meant for Philip; and Alexander had no son who could have been mentioned on his sarcophagus. Nor is it at all probable that Alexander should have erected any obelisks at Memphis or in its neighbourhood. The god Ammon is nowhere mentioned amongst the titles of the king, and holds only an inferior rank among the innumerable deities represented in the tablets. We find both the names, without any addition, on a dovetail of copper (engraved in Lord Valentia’s Travels), which was found at Behbeit, the Atarbechis or Aphroditopolis of the ancients, situated on the branch of the Nile that runs to Damietta.

7. We learn from Pliny that the Flaminian obelisk now standing near the Porta del Popolo at Rome, which was the smaller of the two formerly in the Circus Maximus, where they were placed by Augustus, and used as the gnomon of a dial, was the work of Senneserteus or Semnesyr-taeus, who reigned in Egypt at the time when Fythagoras visited it. This king seems to have been the same with Psamuthis or Psammis ; and the authority of the evidence is so much the stronger, as the period in question is not extremely remote. The father of Psammis, according to Herodotus, was Necos or Nechao. The two names occur on all the middle lines of the obelisk; and that of the father on the pillar of a colossal Isis in the Supplement of Montfaucon. The Sallustian obelisk, which seems to have been partly copied from the Flaminian, has them both. In the middle lines of both the obelisks at Luxor we find a name much resembling that of Psamm’s, which we may therefore call Psammetius, conjecturing that it may have belonged to Psammetichus, who reigned a little earlier. The father’s name is not unlike in its import to that of Nechao, both implying approved by Phthah ; and it is remarkable, that in Manetho’s series, the predecessor of Psammetichus is also Nechao.

8. Amongst the most common of all the names of the kings of Egypt, on a great variety of monuments, are those which were n istaken by Kircher for a sort of amulets or charms, which he denominated the Mophthomendesian tablets. They occur alone on three small obelisks only, the Medicean, the Mahutean, and the Monticolian of Kircher; but they are found in the external lines of the Alexandrian, the two at Luxor, the Flaminian, and the Sallustian, whilst none are ever found exterior to them. They must, therefore, necessarily be attributed to one of the latest kings of Egypt; and there is none so likely to have made such a display as Amasis, a man of considerable magnificence, and at the same time of a cautious and artful character. Indeed we have no alternative left but to choose between him and some of the kings who revolted against the Persians, and who do not appear so likely to have had [7:11:325] leisure or finances for public works of splendour. His father’s name, like that of Nechao, contains the character denoting Vulcan, and it may be called Menephthes ; but he was not the son of a king. Both the names are found in one of the middle lines of the Flaminian obelisk; and on that side the king is represented in the tablet as doing homage to his predecessor, who occupies the place of honour on the other side. The father’s name seems to occur on the belt of a colossal statue in the palace at Karnak. On a fragment of stone in the British Museum the names are repeated in various directions, as if it had belonged to a floor or a ceiling. They also occur on a statue, considerably mutilated, in the attitude of kneeling; and in Montfaucon’s Supplement, on the back of a colossal Isis, which seems also to have been begun by Psammis. On the eastern colossus at Luxor there is a name which might be taken either for that of Amasis or for that of the pseudonymous Psammetius; but the sitting figure is somewhat different. The victor in the naval combat at Medinet-Habou, who appears also frequently at Ombos, considerably resembles them both. Lord Mountnorris has a rough seal with the name of Amasis only, the epithet God being prefixed in a smaller character. The names also occur on a small obelisk lying at Tsan, the ancient Tanis, of which a sketch was brought home by Dr Merion.

9. We find at Karnak the name of a king somewhat like Psammis, that of his father resembling a compound of Ptolemy and Berenice. Perhaps they are not very correctly copied, but they may stand, under the temporary names of Discozygus and Ptoleberius, as specimens, somewhat singular, of a mixture of different dynastics; and in this point of view they may be placed between the old Egyptian kings and their Grecian conquerors.

10. The name of Alexander has not yet been identified in the sacred characters;^[51. The name of Alexander has now been several times identified in the sacred characters or hieroglyphics. It occurs on the edifices of Karnak, where it is written AΛKΣΛntp∑ and ΑΛΚΣΝΡΟΣ. (Champollion, Précis du Sysi. Hiiτοgh. p. 84. Paris, 1828.) We also learn from Mr Salt, that, besides the granite sanctuary at Karnak, the name of Alexander, preceded by mystic titles, js found on the granite propylon in the island of Elephantine. In these titles the word Amun is clearly distinguished. It likewise occurs in another place, where it is preceded by a ring containing in hieroglyphic symbols the legend, “beloved of Amun-Phre.” (Essay οη the Phonet. Syst. of Hierogh. pp. 15 and 16.) We say nothing of Alek-Amun, though probably a contraction of the same name. ] but it will appear hereafter that a knowledge of the enchorial form may possibly contribute very materially, at some future time, to assist us in determining it.

11. There can be no doubt whatever respecting the signification of the name of Ptolemy, as it occurs on the pillar of Rosetta; but it is not quite so easy to determine its identity in some other cases, where it may possibly have been modified by contraction, mutilation, or combination. In this and a few other proper names, it is extremely interesting to trace some of the steps by which alphabetical writing seems to have arisen out of hieroglyphical; a process which may indeed be in some measure illustrated by the manner in which the modern Chinese express a foreign combination of sounds, the characters being rendered simply phonetic by an appropriate mark, instead of retaining their natural signification, and this mark, in some modern printed books, approaching very near to the ring surrounding the hieroglyphic names. The enchorial name of Ptolemy appears at first sight to be extremely different from the hieroglyphical; and it would have been impossible to deduce the one from the other, without a knowledge of the epistolographic forms of the separate characters, as ascertained by a comparison of the manuscripts. The beginning and end are obviously parts of the ring, which, in the sacred character, surrounds every proper name, except those of the deities. The square block and the semicircle answer invariably in all the manuscripts to characters resembling the p and τ of Akerblad, which are found at the beginning of the enchorial name. The next character, which seems to be a kind of knot, is not essentially necessary,^[52. This character is put down in Champoilion’s phonetic alphabet as one of the homophones of O, and as sometimes representing the diphthong OU. ] being often omitted in the sacred characters, and always in the enchorial. The lion corresponds to the lo of Akerblad, a lion being always expressed by a similar character in the manuscripts; an oblique line crossed standing for the body, and an erect line for the tail. This was probably read, not lo, but ole ;^[53. In the hieroglyphicophonetic alphabet the lion represents, not LO or OLE, but the letter L simply, and is one of the best ascertained of all the phonetic characters. ] although, in more modern Coptic, oiLi is translated a ram ; we have also ciul, a stag ; and the figure of the stag becomes, in the running hand, something like this of the lion. The next character is known to have some reference to place, in Coptic ma ; and it seems to have been read either ma, or simply m. ^[54. It is now set down simply as the letter Μ. ] This character is always expressed in the running hand by the Μ of Akerblad’s alphabet. The two feathers, whatever their natural meaning may have been, answer to the three parallel lines of the enchorial text, and they seem in more than one instance to have been read ι or e ;^[55. Champollion reads the feathers I, E, Al, in the sacred characters. ] the bent line probably signified great, and was read osh or os;^[56. The bent staff, in the sacred characters, is now held to be one of the homophones of S. ] for the Coptic shei seems to have been nearly equivalent to the Greek sigma. Putting all these elements together, we have precisely Ptolemaios, the Greek name; or perhaps Ptolemeos, as it would more naturally be called in Coptic.^[57. Champollion, after quoting this passage, observes, ςς Et moi, qui ai conside're' chaque caractère hiéroglyphique comme one simple lettre, et non pas comme pouvant représenter chacun one ou deux syllabes, je n’ai pu et dû obtenir que ΠΤΟΛΜΗΣ, squelette du nom Grec Πτβλί^α/,;.” (Précis, p. 29.) ] The slight variations of the word in different parts of the enchorial text may be considered as expressing something like aspirations or accentuations. The appellation Soteres, as a dual, is well marked in the inscription of Rosetta, and the character, thus determined, explains a long name in the temple at Edfou, which must mean “the two saviour gods,” with various titles of honour, such as “the agents of Phthah, the emblems of triumph, the approved of Phré, the favoured of the Nile, the venerable consorts in empire.” [7:11:326]12. The wife of Ptolemy Soter, and mother of Philadelphus, was Berenice, whose name is found on a ceiling at Karnak, in the phrase, “Ptolemy and . . Berenice, the saviour gods.” In this name we appear to have another specimen of syllabic and alphabetic writing combined, in a manner not extremely unlike the ludicrous mixtures of words and things with which children are sometimes amused; for, however Warburton’s indignation might be excited by such a comparison, it is perfectly true that, occasionally, the sublime differs from the ridiculous by a single step only. The first character of the hieroglyphic name is precisely of the same form with a basket represented at Biban-el-Molouk, and called, in the description, panier danses; and a basket, in Coptic, is bir. ^[58. This character is now considered as one of the homophones of the letter B. ] The oval, which resembles an eye without the pupil, means elsewhere to, which in Coptic is e ;^[59. In Champollion’s alphabet, the oval, or “mouth” as he calls it, is set down as It- ] the waved line is of, and must be rendered N; the feathers ι; the little footstool seems to be superfluous;^[60. ιampollion sets down “the little footstool” as a phonetic symbol of the letter K. ] the goose is ke, or ken. ^[61. °°se is now ascertained to be a phonetic representative of the letter S. ] Kircher gives us kenesoü for a goose, but the Esoii means gregarious, probably in contradistinction to the Egyptian sheldrake, and the simple etymon approaches to the name of a goose in many other languages. We have, therefore, literally Birenice ; or, if the n must be inserted, the accusative Birenicen, which may easily have been confounded by the Egyptians with the nominative.^[62. According to Champoilion, the hieroglyphical name of Queen Berenice is written BPNHKE, and not BIPENIKE or BIPENIKEN, as Dr Young had supposed. (See Précis, p. 32.) ] The final characters are merely the feminine termination. The enchorial text affords us a remarkable instance of the diversity which was allowed in the mode of representing the same name. The first character has not the least resemblance to the basket; but the first and second together are very commonly used in the manuscripts, as a coarse representation of a boat, which was called bari, or possibly bere ; for it is doubtful whether Kircher had any other authority than that of Diodorus for bari, and the word berezouts is used for another vehicle. The enchorial Ν may possibly have been derived from a horizontal line, turned up at one end. We have then the three dashes for the ι, and the two angles seem to have answered to the ke, for a bird is not uncommonly scribbled in some such manner; so that we have either Barinice or Berenice, by a combination somewhat different from the former.^[63. “Le nom Berenice," says Champoilion, “est le seul sur lequel Μ. le Docteur Young ait essayé d’appliquer les valeurs phonétiques qu’il avait voulu déduire de son analyse du nom hiéroglyphique de Ptolrnée. Tous les autres noms propres hiéroglyphiques, en si grande abondance sur les monumens Egyptiens, ont absolument résisté à cette application.” {Précis, ubi supra.) ]

13. The temple at Ombos was dedicated, as we find from the Greek inscription copied by Mr Hamilton, “i∏ the name of the divine Ptolemy Philometor and Cleopatra, and their children, to Arueris Apollo, and the other gods of the temple, by the infantry and cavalry of the nome.” We may therefore expect to find in it the names of these sovereigns, together with those of some or all of the earlier Ptolemies; and, accordingly, we are able to determine, without difficulty, some epithets which seem to be characteristic of this and the two preceding reigns; but hitherto nothing has been observed that can be considered as so clearly denoting either Philadelphus and his queen Arsinoe, or Euergetes and his Berenice, although some assistance might have been derived, in identifying them, from the enchorial text of Rosetta. We have, however, in the same temple, a name, evidently compound, in which a basilisk is followed by two feathers and a bent line; and to judge from a comparison of the enchorial text with the manuscripts, a basilisk ought to be the emblem of Euergetes. The part of the name preceding it is, however, not Berenice, and must, therefore, in all probability, be Arsinoe, the daughter of Euergetes. But it seems impossible to attempt to compare the characters employed with the sounds; since they sometimes occur in an inverted order, which the sounds could not do. Indeed, the name seems to be very often repeated in situations where its most essential parts seem to be a quadrant of a circle, two feathers, and a bent or broken line; in other places, as at Denderah, the bird, the hand, and the oval, are added; and it is not impossible that the quadrant may have been meant as a representation of a lentil, which in Coptic is arshin, and which alone may have been sufficient to identify the name. It occurs in the celebrated zodiac of Denderah, and very frequently at Philae, and it may possibly, hereafter, lead us very readily to discover the hieroglyphical name of Philadelphus. That of Philopator is satisfactorily ascertained by the assistance of the character employed for father in the Rosetta stone, though that character is much mutilated, and could not have been positively determined without this coincidence. The name is found in the temple at Edfou still more distinctly than at Ombos, and it occurs several times at Karnak. Epiphanes is never distinguished in any other inscription by the characters appropriated to him in that of Rosetta; but we continually find a synonymous emblem, which is employed in the Rosetta stone to signify enlightening, where the Greek translation has Epiphanes ; and this character, placed between two hatchets facing each other, can only have meant the illustrious deity, or deities. In this form the name occurs very frequently at Philae, and in the temple at Edfou, where it seems to be the latest name. For the Philometores we have a character which occurs in some other monuments, and means apparently mother, the name containing it being found several times in the temple at Ombos. At Kous, or Apollinopolis Parva, there is another Greek inscription of the Philometores and their children; but in the hieroglyphics copied by Denon, the names of [7:11:327]the sovereigns seem to be wanting, and that of a young prince only remains, a colossal statue of whom is figured by Montfaucon in his Supplement, having the same name in the belt, with the addition of the son of King Ptolemy ; it will, therefore, be justifiable to distinguish this personage by calling him Cleopatrides. The divine honours which are so often attributed in these inscriptions to the reigning sovereigns, afford us an explanation of the Greek inscriptions to the Synthronous gods of Egypt, which repeatedly occur; and of the description Fraternal gods, as, indeed, Philadelphus and his queen are called in the Greek inscription of Rosetta.

3. Private Persons.

We find the names of six individuals expressed in the enchorial text of the inscription of Rosetta, though they are wanting in the distinct hieroglyphics; but, as they are clearly ascertained by the context, they are of considerable value in tracing the approach of the hieroglyphic to alphabetic writing. These are, Aetus, Philinus, Diogenes, Pyrrha, Areia, and Irene.

In Diogenes and Areia we discover no traces of the ring which is the usual characteristic of proper names; and, on the other hand, we find occasionally, in some of the manuscripts, the parts of the ring applied to a title of Osiris, which is more regularly written without any such distinction. A name of a private individual is inserted from a sarcophagus in the British Museum, engraved by Alexander, in his Egyptian Monuments. Its form is not that of a parallelepiped, but more accommodated to the shape of the body. The pseudonymous appellation Ramuneus has been derived from the elementary characters already observed in the names of Re and Amun.

1. A figure sitting on the ground, and stretching out one hand, seems to imply simply a man or person, which is certainly the sense of the enchorial character that commonly answers to it in the manuscripts; but in composition the figure often appears to lose this sense.

2. The horned snake, creeping along, is clearly meant, in some parts of the inscription of Rosetta, for him or it ; although it has other senses in composition. It is very remarkable, that the enchorial character, and that of the manuscripts, resembling a y, approaches extremely near to the Coptic F, which also means him ; and hof, or hfo, is the Coptic term for a snake; so that this coincidence seems to afford us another trace of the origin of the alphabet.

3-7. The bullock, the ram, the antelope, and the tortoise, are proved to be sometimes representations of the things which they resemble, by their occurrence in inscriptions accompanied by tablets; though some of them have probably elsewhere a metaphorical sense. The ram is often represented with two pairs of horns; the one natural, the other imaginary. The crocodile is identified by a very distinct drawing in a manuscript sent home by Mr Bankes, and is repeatedly designated in the text by a figure representing it. The deity with a crocodile’s head is a separate personage, and is denoted by a figure of the same animal with the tail turned under it.

8. The asp or basilisk is so coarsely represented in the stone of Rosetta, that the object intended by it could not have been conjectured without a comparison with other inscriptions; the context was, however, sufficient to determine its meaning from the examination of this monument alone.
[7:11:328]

1. The essential parts of the name of Egypt seem to be the square and the wheel, signifying splendid land Į n addition to these, or their rudiments, the enchorial word has at the beginning a character which generally answers to an arm holding a feather, or to the flame of a lamp, an emblem which seems also to relate to Egypt in one of the lines of the inscription of Rosetta. A flame and a heart are mentioned by Horus Apollo and by Plutarch as employed in the name of Egypt ; but a word occurring so frequently is very likely to have been expressed in a variety of ways. The exact combination of characters generally used on the stone has not been observed in any other inscription.

2. The name of Memphis cannot be determined without some uncertainty; the line of hieroglyphics in which it is contained being in severa! respects obscure.^[64. The name of Memphis or Memphe appears to be a Greek abbreviation of the hieroglyphical name MA-M-PHTHAH, the temple or sacred place of Phthah, which, according to Dr Young {Rudiments of an Egyptian Dictionary, in the ancient Enchorial Character, pref· .London, 1831), was. also probably the first name of Cairo. The phonetic value of the hieroglyphics here placed opposite the word r √rf2ι> s , e t m3 to be HMSRN; a combination which, though no doubt “in several respects obscure,” maybe resolved into HA-MISR, with the mark of plurality, N, subjoined. ]

3. The character supposed to denote the Nile, as a deity, must also sometimes be understood as merely meaning a river ; and there is reason to think that the Nile itself was generally called by the Egyptians the river only. The enchorial character used to denote both the Nile and a river, or canal, sufficiently resembles the hieroglyphic to favour this interpretation; and it is in some degree confirmed by the occurrence of the character alone on a water jar of Pieresc, delineated in Kircher’s Oedipus, and, together with other characters, on the five vases found by Paul Lucas at Abousir. By accident, Kircher appears, in this single instance, to have been right in one of his conjectures; for he calls this character a Nilometer, and considers it as emblematic of the Nile.

4. The word Greek, in Coptic uinin or oueinin, in Thebaic ouceienin, supposed to have been derived from Ionian, seems to exhibit in its form something like an imitation of the sound. The curve on a stem is sometimes exchanged for the term divine, and appears to mean glory, in Coptic oou or oii, which is nearly the sound attributed by Akerblad to the enchorial character, a little like the Hebrew ü. The feather, as in Ptolemy and Berenice, may be read ι or ei, having the three dashes to express them, as usual, in the enchorial text; the serpent is ench, ever ; and the hat, which looks a little like a plough, is equivalent to the waved line, and must be read n ; so that we have very accurately ouiENEHN, which seems to be near enough to ouiENiN to justify us in considering these characters as phonetic.

5. The ladder is well marked as meaning country. It may perhaps be intended to represent a field with its divisions; but it is uncertain whether or not it is the same symbol which enters into one of the names of Arueris, the sculptures of the Rosetta stone being by no means highly finished.

6. It is remarkable that the wheel, signifying land, had been noticed by the Jesuits as resembling the old Chinese character for the word field ; but this is the only one of a multitude of similar conjectures which has been justified by more complete evidence. {Phil. Trans. 1769, pl. xxviii.) [7:11:329]7. The star is shown by inscriptions accompanying the zodiacs, to relate to a real star. It has also elsewhere a figurative sense, meaning an attendant or ministering spirit.

8. The open square is found in both the combinations of characters which are most commonly used for expressing a temple ; the feather signifies ornament or consecration, and the oblong figure either the sacred inclosure or a sacred seat, the character for a god being sometimes placed within it. The feather is occasionally converted into an inclined oval, the square being at the same time a little altered; a difference which may be observed in other inscriptions as well as in the Rosetta stone.

9. The character representing a shrine so much resembles the object which it denotes, that it was the most readily identified of all which were found on the stone of Rosetta. The character signifying a priest was the second; and the combination of both afforded a full confirmation of the truth of the explanation. The enchorial character for a shrine is derived from the sitting statue which always accompanies it.

10. The open square, occurring in habitation as well as in temple, must probably have meant house or building, or possibly stone only.

11. The throne, or chair of state, occurs in a great variety of tablets. It evidently bears its most natural signification in the character denoting statue (No. 23), and in some other instances; but it appears to bear, in some inscriptions, the metaphorical sense of a residence or habitation.

12. The column, or pillar, is too much like the object it denotes to allow us to doubt respecting its meaning, considering the sense of that part of the inscription of Rosetta in which it occurs.

13. The characters denoting a diadem are sufficiently determined by the first inscription of the stone; and they so much resemble the corresponding passages of the enchorial text, that we can scarcely hesitate to admit the intimate connection of the two modes of writing without seeking for any further proofs.

14. The sacred ornaments are expressed by three feathers fixed to a bar, which appears to be held by two arms. The remaining part of the character occurs very frequently as a sort of termination, and seems to answer to ments.

15-20. The boat or sldp, the spear, the bow, the arrow, the censer, and the bier, are sufficiently identified by the comparison of various tablets with their inscriptions. The ship occurs frequently as denoting the sacred boats, in which the representations of the deities are conveyed, though they are not always accompanied by water. But it has been observed, that the Egyptians attributed ships rather than chariots to the sun and moon as gliding smoothly through the skies. The first part of the enchorial word, which has been supposed to be a b, is evidently identical with the character always found in the manuscripts written in the running hieroglyphics as the first part of the delineation of a ship. It is remarkable, that in the inscription at Esnch, as copied by the French, the point of the arrow is turned towards the back of the bowman, instead of being directed towards the enemy.

21. The tear, in some of its representations, is very clearly expressive of the thing intended; and this resemblance, together with its frequent attendance on a corpse and a bier, is sufficient to explain its sense. It occurs also sometimes within a border as a peculiar deity; but it seems to be much more commonly emblematical of Osiris, of Apis, or of Mneuis. It is not unfrequently found as a detached figure, in a kind of pottery, with a green glazing, and may perhaps have been worn, instead of a mourning ring, as a memorial of a departed friend. It has most commonly been called the equi sectio, and supposed to represent a horse’s head, or the rostrum of a ship, whilst the ingenious Kircher has made it a phallus oculatus. Amongst the antiquities collected by Lord Mountnorris in Egypt is an eye seen in front, and apparently shedding a tear.

22. The character for an image seems to mean a wrought man ; for the hands, connected with an eye, appear to be holding an oar as an emblem of labour. The same character, with a slight variation in the form of the eye, means a rower.

23. The sitting statue has no character to imply wrought; but it is followed by a bent line, which seems to be a term of respect, and may possibly answer to osh, great. The same bent line occurs on the great sarcophagus of green breccia as a personification of one of the qualities of Osiris, probably his magnificence. It is often exchanged in the manuscripts for the divided staff’; and both are represented in the running hand by a figure like a 9 or a 4. In the enchorial text this character seems sometimes to be expressed by a single line, either straight, or bent sideways into an angle like part of a K. A similar divine statue is decreed to “King Nuncoreus, the son of Sesostris,” on Mr Montagu’s frize. (See Hieroglyphics, 7 S 1.)

24. Letters are denoted by a character which seems to represent some of the materials employed in writing, and which is indeed not extremely unlike an inkstand figured in Caylus’s Recueil, and consisting of two parallel tubes at some distance from each other, with a cover connected by a chain instead of a hinge. Besides the very well marked passage in the Rosetta stone, the character occurs in many manuscripts near the representation of a Thoth employed in writing; and the enchorial character corresponding to it is also found in the term hierogrammatists or sacred scribes at the beginning of the inscription.

25. In the numerical tablet of the great French work, believed to have been found at Karnak, a character may be observed which frequently precedes a numeral, and which resembles a weight with its handle. Hence we may conjecture, with considerable probability, that it represents some weight of unknown value.

26. The enchorial character for gold is perfectly well determined; and its resemblance to a little vase under a sort of arch is so strong that we may safely attribute the same sense to this hieroglyphic, although it appears to be wanting in one or two passages of the sacred inscription of Rosetta, where it ought to be found. In the great ritual we observe this character immediately preceding a shrine, as if a golden shrine were intended; and, in several other places, it is connected with a number, as if it meant pieces of gold ; for instance, in the green sarcophagus, with the number 360. Sometimes, also, it appears to be used in a metaphorical sense as a complimentary epithet of a monarch, or perhaps in allusion to his riches. Thus, on the black frize of Nuncoreus, we have over the king’s figure the characters, “Joy, Life, Stability, Power, Riches, Like the Sun, for ever.” (Hieroglyphics, 7 p.)

27. Near to the character for gold, in the margin of the great ritual, is a sort of open box, supported on a flagstaff; and a similar box, with a semicircle under it, seems to mean silver, at least it considerably resembles the enchorial character for silver, which is perfectly well ascertained.

28. We find, in several inscriptions, representations of objects which are also observable in the tablets accompanying them, although it is difficult to say for what they are intended. Two of these are copied from the frize of Ficooni and Montagu (Hieroglyphics, 9 okl, Rskl, 7 LMq). The former seems to be a sort of cloak, with a fringe at the bottom; and the latter is a little like a pear; but this character does not occur so clearly in the inscription.
[7:11:330]

6. Attributes and Actions.

(See Plate CCLXXIV.)

1. The crux ansata, sometimes called the key of the Nile, is usually employed as a symbol of divinity; but its correct meaning is life, as Lacroze rightly conjectured, although his opinion respecting the origin of the character is inconsistent with the form of its oldest and most accurate delineations; and there is no one instance in which it is so represented as to stand in any relation to a sluice or a watercock. According to Socrates and Rufinus, the Egyptian priests declared to their Christian conquerors under Theodosius, who were going to destroy the Serapeion at Alexandria, that the cross, so often sculptured on their temples, was an emblem of the life to come. •This passage has been understood by some authors as relating rather to the cross without a handle, which is observable in some rare instances, and indeed twice on the stone of Rosetta; but this symbol appears rather to denote a protecting power than an immortal existence. It happens, perhaps altogether accidentally, that one of the contractions for the word god, which are commonly used in Coptic, approaches very near to this character, except that the arms of the cross are within the circle.

2. Eternity is represented simply by a serpent rising in an oblique arch, and without horns; the serpent devouring its tail., and forming a ring, is never found as an Egyptian emblem. Horus Apollo says that eternity was denoted by a serpent having its tail hidden under its body, and that such serpents were called uraci, meaning in Greek basilishs, which agrees very well with the sense of the Coptic uro, king ; but this description answers better to the asp of the inscription of Rosetta, which has also some relation to the representations of the deities, though it does not exactly mean immortality.

3. The cross with the serpent is a very common epithet in the sense of everliving, or immortal, or aeonobios ; the waved line is in general a preposition, or a termination, meaning of, to, or for ; and it appears to be synonymous with the hat or head-dress. Almost all authors have very hastily taken it for granted that this character must relate immediately to water wherever it occurs, although we find it repeatedly in every line of the inscription of Rosetta, where water is not once mentioned. The fact, however, is, that its prototype seems to have been a stream of water, or of any other liquid, flowing from a vessel, and poured on some other object; and that the idea of the liquid was completely dropped in the general employment of the character, whilst that of the connection only was retained; the hat or cap being also similarly forgotten, whilst its connection with the head of the wearer only was suggested by its figure. In this compound character we have two particles nearly alike, the semicircle and the line; for that they cannot be very different is shown by the occasional substitution of two semicircles for the combination. One of them seems to serve for the connection between life and eternity, “life for ever;” and the other to make the new compound an adjective, “livwŷ for ever.”

4. The triangle or pyramid occurs very commonly amongst other emblems of prosperity and happiness; and it is found in the frize of Montagu and Ficooni in the decided sense of an offering or a present in general, whilst in another place it is made an offering in its own form; so that we can only interpret it as signi lying joy, or pleasure, or prosperity, (Uierogluphics, 7 Mqr, Uqr; 9 Re, Rl; 7 Uq, Urs.)

5. Power appears to be indicated by a sceptre having the head of an animal, which is often placed in the hands of the deities, and often stands with the cross, the pyramid, and the altar, as an emblem of the blessings attendant on the favourites of the gods. It is seldom used in the text of inscriptions, but it occurs once in that of Rosetta.

6, 7. Stability is denoted, on the Rosetta stone and elsewhere, by the altar, which seems to have been fixed in the ground as a column. When repeated it forms the verb establish ; but it often occurs singly, and not uncommonly as an unconnected emblem, accompanied by other characters of similar import; and it is sometimes found as a detached figure formed of glazed porcelain. The two altars are very conspicuous objects in some of the epistolographic manuscripts, and are very useful in comparing them with the hieratic; but the word employed in the enchorial inscription of Rosetta seems to be derived from a different origin.

8. A drop or club over a basin, followed by a bent line, seems to mean great strength, though it is difficult to say what the character is meant to depict. In some other places it seems to resemble somewhat a kind of headdress.

9. The bullock and the arm, which generally occur at the beginning of the inscriptions on the obelisks, agree very well with the epithet mighty in the translation of Hermapion. The arm is, in many other instances, used in compound characters.

10. Victory is denoted by a branch, perhaps by a palm branch, with a semicircle and a circle, sometimes preceded by a waved line.

11. The character signifying fortune somewhat resembles that which denotes gold ,∙ but instead of the arch we have an angular line, which seems to be intended for a pair of arms grasping the vase. The whole assemblage approaches also a little to the form of a pocket, or purse, as it is frequently delineated.

12. The open square, bent inwards, clearly means splendour or glory, though it is uncertain what object it is intended to represent. In some cases a crescent seems to be substituted for it, as if it bore some relation to the sun, and the moon afforded a parallel sense.

13, 14. Illustrious is expressed, in the inscription of Rosetta, by the open square, for splendour, the oval, which signifies addition or respect, making it a kind of superlative, and the pair of legs, which very naturally convey the idea of bearing, or possessing; so that the whole forms the epithet Epiphanes. This assemblage is, in some of the manuscripts, very commonly followed by a bird, or its equivalent, a half arch, apparently serving as an intensive.

15-17. The feather, when alone, seems to imply honour, as well as when accompanied by a man stretching out his arm, or by a bird. The bird also frequently stands alone in similar passages, and must be translated respect, or respectable. The block with the bird has also manifestly the same sense in the great ritual, and the vase with the bowl is so nearly synonymous with it that we can only translate it venerable ; and these characters are frequently exchanged for a sort of bench, with a dash under it, a symbol which, however, may possibly have been deduced from some different origin. The sense of the feather is peculiarly illustrated by its occurrence with a drop or club, a serpent, and a line, at the beginning of a great variety of inscriptions, apparently signifying immortal honour to.

18. The eye, either with or without the pupil, and either preceded or followed by the undulated line, has a sense somewhat similar to all these, and is often employed at the beginning of the honorary inscriptions. On the Rosetta stone it means distinctly rite or adoration. The enchorial character corresponding to it expresses simply doing ; and in Greek the same word signifies to do and to sacrifice.

19. Worship, or the Greek therapeia, is denoted by a very unintelligible character, resembling a kind of cap [7:11:331]stan, which is frequently delineated in the boats of the tablets, if it is not intended for some emblematical figure erected in the boats. On the great green sarcophagus, the long bent line is a snake, and the point projecting upwards from the middle is a sword. But these resemblances afford us little or no assistance in tracing the connection between the whole emblem and its sense.

20, 21. The character denoting father is found in some of the inscriptions of the Ptolemies in such circumstances that it might as easily be supposed to mean mother; but, by means of Mr Bullock’s scaraboeus, compared with some other monuments, another character having been determined for mother, it became easy to identify the symbol for father on the Rosetta stone, where it had been a little injured, and imperfectly copied in the engravings.

22. The frequent occurrence of the Egyptian goose or sheldrake, with a circle over it, between two proper names, sufficiently points out the meaning of these characters, which can only relate to the connection between them, and which must naturally mean son. The circle may perhaps be intended for an egg; but in the painted sculptures the disc is red and the circumference light. The enchorial character nearly resembles the form in which some kinds of birds are usually expressed in the manuscripts. Mr Bailey also observed the occurrence of the bird between two proper names, and identified it with the chenalopex mentioned by Horus Apollo as employed to signify son, on account of its courage in defending its offspring. This quality might rather have been expected to lead to its adoption as a symbol for a parent; but its existence in the bird in question is confirmed by the observations of modern naturalists respecting the sheldrake (the tadorne of Buffon), which has generally been considered as the chenalopex, and resembles very accurately the best of the hieroglyphical delineations of the bird, although the colours, as exhibited in the Description de l' Egypte, are not correctly natural.

23. The same bird, with a leg or a dash instead of a circle, seems to mean a minister or attendant, especially in several parts of the inscriptions on the Lover’s Fountain. There are also some other characters which seem to be nearly synonymous with these; one of them may possibly be meant for a tail, implying a follower, as sat and sa are nearly alike in Coptic; another is sometimes worn as a collar, perhaps implying subjection, and meaning servant.

24, 25. Instead of the usual character for son, we sometimes find, between two names, a serpent with a globe substituted for the bird, and an oval for the circle; and the context seems to require that the 'meaning of these symbols should be a daughter, but probably with some particular character of royalty or divinity. At Philae we find a dual, meaning sons or descendants, as a son and a daughter, expressed apparently by two circles only.

26. A child, or infant, is represented by a figure bent as if sitting, and putting his finger on his lip. This is sufficiently established by the triple inscription; but it is still further confirmed by a plate of the Description de l’ Egypte (Antiq. tom. ii. pl. lxxxvi. f. 1), in which a figure of this kind is represented as immediately derived from the father, who seems to be inspired by a beetle entering his mouth. The manuscripts afford us here some valuable steps by which the enchorial character is connected with the distinct hieroglyphics. Another figure, which is elsewhere used as corresponding to a beetle, is also found in the enchorial text in the sense of son or offspring.

27, 28. A circle, with an arm holding an angular line, means a director. The angular line is intended for part of a rudder; and the same character, with the addition of the figure of a boat, denotes the pilot or helmsman, as is obvious from many parts of the green sarcophagus. The circle and arm are also found in the character denoting dedicate.

29. A pair of arms holding an oar, and connected by a sort of sector, signifies a rower, and possibly also a labourer, or workman in general, as in image.

30. A stem of a plant, perhaps a reed, followed by an insect like a wasp or ichneumon, but probably intended for a bee, and by two semicircles, is the complete emblem for a hing ; but the reed is often used alone in the same sense, and the insect sometimes occurs without the reed. Plutarch says that a king was denoted by a leaf, turion ; and Horus Apollo tells us that a bee signified a people obedient to a king; hence this symbol might be interpreted hing of men. Ammianus Marcellinus, however, asserts, more simply, that a king was denoted by a bee. It appears from the manuscripts that the beginning of the enchorial character, which Mr Akerblad read phu, is derived from the elementary traces representing the reed, the semicircle, a waved line, and a sitting deity, meaning the divine king ; an assemblage which often occurs on the green sarcophagus, and elsewhere, as applied to a royal person. The remainder of the enchorial character seems to represent a termination consisting of a semicircle and a vessel, which is often added to a name, apparently as a demonstration of respect, like the vessel and the spiral in the case of the god Nilus.

31. Condition, or subjection, is denoted by a character which somewhat resembles an altar with an offering of flowers, but which might also be intended for the cup of a flower with an insect hovering over it.

32. In the term kingdom, the crown is figuratively employed for its wearer; a metaphor common in many modern languages.

33. The character denoting a libation is very indistinctly traced in the sacred inscription of Rosetta, so that it would have been impossible to explain its original form without the assistance of any hieroglyphical monuments. The long water jar, out of which the kneeling figure is pouring a divided stream, somewhat resembles those which a modern Egyptian woman is seen carrying in a plate of Mr Legh’s second edition.

34, 35. The vase with the stream, which frequently occurs in the character for priest, is sometimes found alone, and must therefore probably relate to some particular ceremony performed by the priests, approaching to the nature of a libation. On the monument of Rosetta the line is a simple curve, not waved; nor is the vase more distinctly represented. Instead of the sitting figure, a foot is sometimes substituted, as in the word attendant ; and the enchorial character is a more tolerable approximation to this form than to the complete figure.

36. Priesthood is simply the condition of a priest ; the character prefixed answering to the Coptic prefix met, and to the Greek termination cia.

37. The ornaments of the head are very generally used as indicating the person by whom they are worn; and flowers, probably those of the lotus, are frequently found on the heads of the priests, as well as in the inscriptions which accompany them. In the inscription of Rosetta the sense sacerdotal agrees very well with the context where this character occurs, though it cannot be deduced with absolute certainty from the comparison with the Greek.

38. It is by no means easy to explain why the figure like a buckle should clearly mean an assembly. Perhaps, however, the upper part may originally have been a crescent, implying monthly; and the scale or basin below is occasionally found supporting some offerings, which are set upright in it; so that the whole may have meant a monthly exhibition.

39. The character god is made an adjective by the addition of the waved line, and of the long drop, which seem [7:11:332]simply to convert it into the term sacred ; or, if the drop has any other meaning, it can only relate to worshipping or honouring, as the character prefixed to the enchorial text, which is equivalent to the scale or basin, is elsewhere employed to signify honour or attention. In some other instances, a circle and a waved line seem to be employed in a similar manner, for connecting one character with another like substantive and adjective.

4-0. An epithet implying consecrated or dedicated is composed of a trident, or triple branch or root, followed by a bent line. It occurs very commonly near the beginning of inscriptions, on obelisks, and elsewhere.

4L A little oblique cross, over an arm with a feather, seems to mean to give, and perhaps to fight and to defend, as, in Coptic, the word τι has both these senses. It is often preceded by a circle and a semicircle.

42. The hand bearing the triangle or pyramid manifestly means, in the frize of Montagu and Ficooni, to offer, as an oblation to a deity.

43. In the inscription of Rosetta, we find the word dedicate expressed by a bent line and a sitting figure, with the circle, and the arm holding the rudder. The character already interpreted consecrated precedes, but it is not absolutely certain that it belongs to, the same phrase.

44. The term lawful is naturally enough derived from a deity in his judicial capacity; the figure is preceded by a bird, placed between two semicircles, which must here mean according to, answering to the termination ful. Sometimes a curved line, supported by a stem, is substituted as a synonym for the figure of the judge.

45-47. The character representing good strongly resembles the figure of a lute, depicted in the chamber of the harps, amongst the catacombs, and may have alluded to the pleasing sound of music. The plural, with the scale or basin, which implies bestowing, makes the epithet eucha-ristos, which in Greek is somewhat ambiguous, meaning either grateful or munificent. The latter, however, must be its sense in this inscription, because good gifts or delights may be plural, but gratitude not so easily. The lute is also found denoting good in other parts of the inscription. The enchorial character for the scale could scarcely have been suspected to be derived from it, without the assistance of the manuscripts, which constantly exhibit an intermediate form, intended, perhaps, to comprehend one of the lines supporting the scale.

48. The semicircle, with two oblique dashes, seems to mean great in the name of Thoth, who is called, in the Greek inscription of Rosetta, Hermes the great and great ; whilst, in other places, this character seems almost always to convey the sense of a dual. The enchorial epithet of Thoth is a little like the crown with two semicircles, which is most frequently found amongst the titles of Osiris, especially when he sits in judgment. The two kinds of hats, worn by the different deities, seem to be intended by the characters of the Rosetta stone, which express the upper and lower regions or countries. These two characters are also found together in the green sarcophagus as the names of two goddesses; and they occur together in one or two passages of some of the manuscripts, and in an inscription at Philae, so that, although the representation is very indistinct in the particular case of the Rosetta stone, there is little doubt that the cap of Osiris meant, in this case, superior, and that of Hyperion and other personages inferior.

49. A circle and a semicircle stand, in several passages of the inscription of Rosetta, for others, or remaining.

50. Possibly the bowl and the bird together mean say or call, and the figure of a man may serve to make the passive called.

51. The second bowl, substituted for the bird, does not appear very essentially to alter the sense, which is still a thing said or proclaimed, a declaration, or a decree.

52. The characters denoting manifest seem to have some analogy to called, though their derivation is obscure. The first character may either be intended for the country, or for a kind of flag or banner.

53. The ring, which implies a name, and which elsewhere distinguishes proper names, seems to be an imitation of the label, called a phylactery in the Greek inscription of Rosetta, on which the name of a figure was usually distinguished.

54. A disc, with rays descending from it, is one of the few characters in which the form gives us some assistance towards determining the sense, which is found to be enlightening ; though the Egyptians do not seem to have been very correct in their delineation of the motion of light, which they make to diverge in curved lines, like those described by a common projectile.

55. The square block, the semicircle, and the chain, are employed very clearly in the sense of loving or beloved ; in Coptic mai. In the enchorial character the square and semicircle seem to be sometimes transposed, and sometimes changed into an oval.

56. Preserver, or saviour, is represented by a sort of trefoil, with a long stem, which answers to a cross or obelisk in the enchorial text; but, in other passages, the character takes the form of a still simpler club; and in others, again, it has something like a bulbous root.

57, 58. A frame like a ladder, supported by a stem, occurs sometimes as a part of a head dress, but it is difficult to say if it represents any other object. Followed by an arm, and a pair of legs, it signifies set up, and this combination of characters is of very frequent occurrence; sometimes also the bent line or divided shaft forms a part of it. In Coptic, set up is expressed by set on foot, which seems to retain the analogy of the hieroglyphical character. The substitution of a pair of feathers for the legs, however, does not appear materially to alter the sense; the context, where it occurs, requiring the word prepare or construct.
[7:11:333]

1. Two ovals, with a semicircle and an arm, very clearly signify in order that. The ovals seem to mean to or for, and the arm action or doing ; as our own that seems to be allied to the German that, which means deed. The same combination of characters appears to denote, in another passage, to add to ; and one of the ovals is sometimes omitted. The Coptic may be either hina or ethbe.

2. The symbols employed in the sense wherever, seem to mean separately, at, in, one, or in, place, one ; and, transposing the two last, we may make a very good Coptic word E-U-MA.

3, 4. The arm and chain signify and or also ; and the oval sometimes takes place of the arm, without much variation of the sense. This combination is also found in the sense of with, or together with. The elementary ideas seem to be put, with, or add, with. Between the names of Ptolemy and Berenice at Karnak, the arm and chain are separate.

5. The half arch, or the fork, which is perfectly equivalent to it, followed by two curls and two semicircles, mean moreover ; the reduplication probably resembling that of many of the Coptic verbs, which generally imply a continued action.

6. The combination of the loop or sling, with two semicircles and three ovals, means very clearly likewise. The loop seems to represent a bucket, intended for one of a pair, to be carried on a pole, as they are frequently delineated in the tablets, so that it must mean a companion ; and accordingly we find it in a very common epithet of a king, on obelisks and elsewhere, with a circle and a bar, denoting the companion of the sun, or simply resembling the sum In the enchorial character for likewise, the symbols seem to be transposed, and the loop is doubled.

7. An owl, signifying in, seems to be nearly synonymous with the half arch, which is also sometimes to be understood in the sense of all. Both these characters occur also in many instances where they can only be considered as marks of respect, and not very essential to the sense; and in this they resemble the Coptic prefix μ, which is a particle not very distinctly intelligible, nor capable of being translated. It is also not a little remarkable, that the μ of Akerblad’s alphabet is the enchorial character which answers to both of these symbols.

8, 9. A hare over two waved lines is employed, either alone, or together with a head, dash, circle, and dash, which have separately a similar sense, for upon, over, or at; and it is remarkable, that a similar relation exists in Coptic between chreï and ejo, jo, or dcho, also meaning a head. The enchorial character, in some∙of its forms, is manifestly a coarse imitation of an animal. The head is always represented in the manuscripts by a character nearly like a Greek Σ; and this may possibly have been the origin of the Coptic letter janjia, if it was derived from a hieroglyphic; but it is equally probable that it may have been intended for a combination of a delta and a chi.

10. A semicircle and an oval signify for, and have a relation to time.

II. A ball, with two short appendages, one narrower than the other, occurs several times on the Rosetta stone, and seems to have been intended for a head seen in profile, which is often found on other monuments. This character, together with a dash, seems to signify by the, or each ; for instance every year, or every month.

12. The hat, interposed between an image and the king, can only mean of or for. It is often substituted, in passages which are frequently repeated, for the waved line, each being probably equivalent to the Coptic nte', or rather N; which also sometimes makes an adjective of a substantive, as NNUB, golden, from nub, gold.

1. A day seems to be very naturally expressed by splendour of the sun, or sunshine.

2. A crescent turned downwards, with a star and the sun, makes up the character signifying a month ; to which a semicircle and a scale or basin are sometimes added. Horus Apollo says that a month is denoted by a palm branch, or by an inverted crescent; but the crescent is too indistinct on the monument of Rosetta to have allowed us to recognise it without the assistance of the collateral inscriptions.

3. A year is denoted by a bent line with a little projection from the middle, which seems to represent a plant with an annual shoot or bud; it is commonly followed by a semicircle and a block or dash.

4. There is some little uncertainty respecting the exact limits of the characters denoting the first month, Thouth. The name seems to have some relation to gathering the harvest, and the emblem is probably intended for a field of corn; and, perhaps, as the year is said to have begun originally with the dogdays, the appropriation of this character to the first month may have been contemporaneous with the origin of the calendar.

5, 6. The sixth month, ^Mechir, is remarkable for having half as many crescents as the twelfth, Mesore. This relation would without doubt be further illustrated if we could discover any thing like a calendar among the immense mass of Egyptian literature which is still in existence. The manuscript which Montfaucon calls a calendar, merely because it is divided into twelve columns, has no pretensions to the name.

7, 8. The symbol for the sun seems to be employed in the designation both of the first day of the month, the neomenia of the Greek inscription, and of the last, or thirtieth day. Of the characters following the sun, the one seems to mean good, or rather new, as in Thouth, the month of the new year; the other old or last. This character might be taken for a serpent, or for a branch of a tree; but it [7:11:334] seems more probable that it is intended for the tail of an animal, since it occurs in several passages of the manuscripts as representing a tail; and the tail of the month is sufficiently expressive of the sense.

1. Units are denoted by short lines, like the Roman I. Mr Akerblad first noticed the first three numerals in the last line of the sacred characters of Rosetta, where the Greek text is deficient, and the words “first and second” only remain; and this observation alone was sufficient to prove that the hieroglyphical characters related to a real language, and were not simply ornamental decorations, as some persons have imagined.

2-11. The twisted line distinguishing the ordinal numbers answers to the Coptic mah, which is prefixed to the cardinals in the same sense; in the enchorial text the cor- ' responding character follows the number. The three points are more commonly employed, when they follow a word, to make it plural; but when they signify a numeral, they are generally placed immediately above some other character; and, in the enchorial inscription, this numeral is distinguished by making the lines oblique, and joining them.

12. For the number ten we have a Greek pi, either square or rounded, not only in the inscription of Rosetta, but in many other places.

13. We find the number seventeen occurring twice as a date in the inscription of Rosetta; the Greek text, in another part, alluding to the same period, has eighteen ; and the enchorial words are too indistinctly marked to allow us to judge of the identity or diversity of the two numbers; but the difference of a day is of no consequence, since the festival of the “assumption of the kingdom” may easily have begun on the 17th of Mechir, and continued till the next day, which is the date of the decree.

14, 15. The enchorial character for thirty, when applied to years, seems to be the same as is elsewhere used in the sense of the thirtieth day ; but the numbers are almost always confused in the running hand, and exhibit several deviations from the regular system of the sacred characters. The number forty, for example, in the remarkable passage relating to the forty-two assessors of Osiris, seems to be denoted by a single line with a dash on it.

16-18. The curve, like the figure 9, meaning a hundred, and the notched circle, supported by a cross, denoting α thousand, occur, in several inscriptions, so combined with units and tens, as to leave no doubt respecting the numbers which they represent. This is particularly evident from the consideration of an inscription “believed to have been found at Karnak.” (Description de l’Egypte, Antiq. tom. iii. pl. xxxviii. F. 26. . 30.)

19. Plurals are distinguished by writing a character three times, or by putting three dashes after it, and sometimes, perhaps, though very rarely, before it; occasionally also by repeating a part of a collection of symbols once only. In the manuscripts, the three dashes are generally joined into a crooked stroke, which, in the enchorial inscription, sometimes both precedes and follows the word; whilst, in other cases, the second stroke is converted into a single vertical line, which serves to limit the extent of the characters meant to be made plural; the representation being so imperfect, that this assistance is more required than in the sacred characters. And it may be observed, that this second mark is never wanting in the enchorial inscription, as it must frequently have been if the character had been alphabetical; since many of the Egyptian plurals end precisely as their singulars do, and even when they differ from them, it is not by the addition of any one uniform termination.
[7:11:335]

The phonetic characters, according to the traces which may be discovered in the words Berenice, Ptolemy, Greek, and some others, will afford something like a hieroglyphic alphabet, which, however, is merely collected as a specimen of the mode of expressing sounds in some particular cases, and not as having been universally employed where sounds were required. The Supposed Enchorial Alphabet subjoined is applicable to most of the proper names in the inscription of Rosetta, and probably also to some other symbols which have been the prototypes of the characters. It is taken from the alphabet of Akerblad, but is considerably modified by the conjectures which have been published in the Museum Criticum ^[65. We republish this Supposed Enchorial Alphabet, as it originally appeared in the article Egypt contained in the Supplement to the former editions of the Εncyclop<rdia Britannica, notwithstanding one comparatively more perfect might have been copied from the Rudiments of an Egyptian Dictionary in the ancient Enchorial Character, a work completed by Dr Young during the progress and under the pressure of his last illness. But we confess we were anxious to preserve unaltered this astonishing effort of learning and sagacity, to show precisely what had been achieved by the first successful labourer in the obscure domain of Egyptian literature, and t<> draw a marked line of distinction between the discoveries of Dr Young, and the additions or improvements subsequently made by Champoilion and others. In the general alphabet, subjoined to this article, will be found all the phonetic hieroglyphics which have as yet been determined with any degree of certainty. But for an alphabetical classification of all the enchorial symbols or groups which have been ascertained, either by Dr Young himself, or by others who were induced by his example to pursue the investigation which he so ably commenced, we must refer the reader to the interesting work above cited, containing his last contribution towards the advancement of Egyptian literature. ] Μ. Champollion pretends that his labours on the demotic text of the Rosetta inscription had also led him to increase, and in certain points to rectify, the alphabet of Mr Akerblad; and that the comparison of the hieratic manuscripts with a large hieroglyphical papyrus had enabled him to ascertain that the hieratic was a simple tachygraphy of the hieroglyphic writing. In this last point, however, he seems to have been anticipated by Tyschen of Göttingen, who, as early as the year 1816, announced to the world, in the Magasin Encyclopédique, that the hieratic was merely an abridged or simplified form of the hieroglyphical method of writing.

11. Specimens of Phrases.

The last line of the inscription of Rosetta will serve as a specimen of the way in which the hieroglyphical characters were combined, so as to form a language; and will show at the same time the relation between the sacred and the enchorial texts.

At the beginning of the line we find some obscurity, and a want of perfect correspondence in the two inscriptions; but it is clear that the fork or ladder, the arm and the feathers, mean to prepare or procure; then follows a column ; the wavy line, of; the semicircle and two dashes, with the arm, probably strong or hard; the block or square below, with its semicircle, stone ; the loop or knot urrought or engraven ; the half arch in or with ; the instrument or case, writing, or letters; the wavy line, the hatchet, and drop, with the three dashes making a plural, appropriate [7:11:336] to the gods, that is, sacred; the case again, letters ; the hat, of; the ladder, arm, and feathers, the country ; the serpent and bent line, approaching to the sense of perpetuity and greatness, seem to be a mark of respect to the country, though it is barely possible that they may be substituted for the repetition of the instrument or case, and may mean the language, and belong to the following curve on the stem, the feathers, the serpent, and the hat, which signify Greek. The head-dress of flowers meaning probably a priest, the following curve with the dashes probably ornamental or honorary, or perhaps collective, and the two bowls, with the man in the plural, a publication ;— the whole of these symbols must express the honorary decree of the priests, or the decree of the assembled priests ; but the enchorial text seems to include the symbol for honour. The oval, with the semicircle and arm, implies in order that, or in order to ; the fork with cross bars, the arm, the legs, and the snake, set it up ; the bird, in ; the three broad feathers over as many open squares, the temples, as a plural; the half arch and oval with the plural dashes, all, or of all hinds ; the open square, wheel, scale, head, dash, and ring, Egypt', the figure with a vase on his head, subjection or power ; making the whole, belonging to Egypt, or throughout Egypt- The fork and dash are in, or in all; the knots or chains, followed by the numbers, of the first, the second, and the third order ; the oval, half ärch, and dash, wherever, or in which, leaving out “shall be ;” the tool and standing figure, with the intervening characters, the image ; the hat, of ; and the reed and bee, with the semicircles, king. The square, semicircle, lion, half arch, two feathers, and bent line, Ptolemy ; the handled cross and serpent with the two semicircles, the everliving ; the square block, semicircle, and chain, dear to ; the hieralpha and two feathers, Phthah, or Vulcan; all this being included within the ring or phylactery, together with the name. The open square, the oval, and the pair of legs after the ring, illustrious or Epiphanes; and the scale and the three lutes, munificent; the conjunctions being often omitted, as they also are very commonly in Coptic, and even in Greek.

The enchorial text in many parts agrees extremely well with the hieroglyphics, according to the general style of imitation which has already been explained and exemplified, although in some passages there is a greater difference than might have been expected. The beginning of the enchorial line seems to contain the word decree, which cannot be found in this part of the hieroglyphics; the character for letters occurs three times in it, as if the sacred character used in the third place meant language; the sacerdotal decree of the sacred characters is omitted in the corresponding part of the enchorial; the word temples is repeated before each numeral; the term wherο-ever is amplified; the image is a very coarse imitation, and is followed by the character for a deity, meaning sacred or divine; and, lastly, the name of Ptolemy is omitted, the word king being only followed by “whose life shall be for ever,” or a phrase of similar import.

12. Comparison of Manuscripts.

The subjoined specimens of a comparison of the different manuscripts, which deviate more or less from the form of distinct hieroglyphics, with others in which those characters are preserved almost entire, though slightly traced, will serve to show the complete identity of the different systems in their original form; the first and fourth lines being taken from the great hieratic manuscript of Strasburg, and the rest from other copies of the same text, which are universally considered as written in the epistolographic character. We cannot discover the entire connected sense of the whole passages, but we may easily observe the symbols for gods, established, Osiris, Isis, Nephthe, Hieracion, to set up, four, priests, and child or prince. {Description de l’ Egypte, Antiq. tom. ii. plate lxxiv. col. 106; lx. col. 3; lxii. col. 2; plate lxxii. col. 38; lxvii. col. 2.)

V. DR young’s OBSERVATIONS ON THE GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE EGYPTIAN MONUMENTS.

By means of the knowledge of the hieroglyphic characters which has already been obtained, we are fully competent to form a general idea of the nature of the inscriptions on the principal Egyptian monuments which are extant. Numerous as they are, there is scarcely one of them which we are not able to refer to the class either of sepulchral or of votive inscriptions; astronomical and chronological there seem to be none, since the numerical characters, which have been perfectly ascertained, have not yet been found to occur in such a form as they necessarily must have assumed in the records of this description. Of an historical nature, we can only find the triumphal, which are often sufficiently distinguishable, but they also may always be referred to the votive; since whoever related his own exploits thought it wisest to attribute the glory of them to some deity, and whoever recorded those of another was generally disposed to intermix divine honours with his panegyric. It has, indeed, been asserted that the Egyptians were not in the habit of deifying any mortal persons; but the inscription of Rosetta is by no means the only one in which the sovereigns of ⅞ypt are inserted in the number of its deities. The custom is observable in monuments of a much earlier age; indeed, in such a country it might be considered as a kind of dilemma of degradation, whether it was most ridiculous to be made a divinity, or to be excluded from so plebeian an assemblage; but flattery is more prone to err [7:11:337]by commission than by omission, and consequently we find the terms hing and god very generally inseparable. The sepulchral inscriptions, from the attention which was paid in Egypt to the obsequies of the dead, appear, upon the whole, to constitute the most considerable part of the Egyptian literature which remains; and they afford us, upon a comparative examination, some very remarkable peculiarities. The general tenor of all these inscriptions appears to be, as might have been expected from the testimony of Herodotus, the identification of the deceased with the god Osiris, and probably, if a female, with Isis; and the subject of the most usual representations seems to be the reception of this new personage by the principal deities, to whom he now stands in a relation expressed in the respective inscriptions; the honour of an apotheosis, reserved by the ancient Romans for emperors, and by the modern for saints, having been apparently extended by the old Egyptians to private individuals of all descriptions. It required an extensive comparison of these inscriptions to recognise their precise nature, since they seldom contain a name surrounded by a ring in its usual form. Sometimes, however, as on the green sarcophagus of the British Museum, a distinct name is very often repeated, and preceded by that of Osiris; whilst, in most other instances, there is a certain combination of characters, bearing evident relation to the personage delineated, which occurs, after the symbols of Osiris, instead of the name; so that either the ring was simply omitted on this occasion, or a new and perhaps a mysterious name was employed, consisting frequently of the appellations of several distinct deities, and probably analogous to the real name. That the characteristic phrase, so repeated, must have had some relation to the deceased, is proved by its scarcely ever being alike in any two monuments which have been compared; whilst almost every other part of the manuscripts and inscriptions is the same in many different instances, and some of them in almost all; and this same phrase may be observed, in Lord Mountnorris’s and Mr Bankes’s manuscripts, placed over the head of the person who is brought up between the two goddesses, to make his appearance before Osiris, in his own person, and in his judicial capacity, with his counsellors about him, and the balance of justice before him. (Hieroglyphics, 5 E F G e f.) In this instance the phrase consists of the names of Hyperion and the Sun, preceded by a block and an arm with an offering; and it may be interpreted, without any violence, “the votary of Hyperion and of Phré.” In a small manuscript, engraved by Denon, the part which resembles the characteristic phrase of other manuscripts is followed by the name of a king, which is nearly identical with that of the father of the Pseudomemnon in the British Museum; the one having the hieralpha laid flat, the other the traces of the pedestal, which are equivalent to it.

The tablet of the last judgment, which is so well illustrated by the testimony of Diodorus concerning the funerals of the Egyptians, is found near the end of almost all the manuscripts upon papyrus, which are so frequently discovered in the coffins of the mummies, and, amongst ethers, in Lord Mountnorris’s hieratic manuscript, printed in the Collection of the Egyptian Society. The great deity sits on the left, holding the hook and the whip or fan; his name and titles are generally placed over him; but this part of the present manuscript is a little injured. Before him is a kind of mace, supporting something like the skin of a leopard; then a female Cerberus, and on a shelf over her head the tetrad of Termini, which have already been distinguished by the names Tetrarcha, Anubis, Macedo, and Hieracion, each having had his appropriate denomination written over his head. Behind the Cerberus stands Thoth, with his style and tablet, having just begun to write. Over his head, in two columns, we find his name and titles, including his designation as a scribe. The balance follows, with a little baboon as a kind of genius sitting on it. Under the beam stand Cteristes and Hyperion, who are employed in adjusting the equipoise; but their names in this manuscript are omitted. The five columns over the balance are only remarkable as containing, in this instance, the characteristic phrase, or the name of the deceased, intermixed with other characters. Beyond the balance stands a female, holding the sceptre of Isis, who seems to be called Rhea, the wife of the sun. She is looking back at the personage who holds up his hand as a mark of respect, and who is identified as the deceased by the name simply placed over him, without any exordium. He is followed by a second goddess, who is also holding up her hands in token of respect, and whose name looks like a personification of honour or glory, unless it is simply intended to signify “a divine priestess” belonging to the order of the Pterophori mentioned on the Rosetta monument. The forty-two assessors are wanting in this tablet; and, in many other manuscripts, their number is curtailed, to make room for other subjects; but, in several of those which are engraved in the Description de l , Egypte, they are all represented, sometimes as sitting figures, and sometimes standing as Termini, with their feet united.

The principal part of the text of all these manuscripts appears to consist of a collection of hymns, or rather homages, to certain deities, generally expressed in the name of the deceased, with his title of Osiris, although the true Osiris is not excluded from the groups which are introduced. The upper part of each manuscript is occupied by a series of pictural tablets; and under them are vertical columns of distinct hieroglyphics, or, in the epistolographic manuscripts, pages of the text, which are commonly divided into paragraphs, with a tablet at the head of each, the first words being constantly written with red ink, made of a kind of ochre, as the black is of a carbonaceous substance. The beginning of the manuscript is seldom entire, being always at the outside of the roll; as the umbilicus of the Romans was synonymous with the end. Not far from the beginning, we always find a large tablet, occupying the whole depth of the paper, representing the sun adored by his ministering spirits. In the large hieratic manuscript, which occupies four plates of the Description de l’ Egypte, and which may be considered as a fine specimen of the most highly finished copies, there are at present only four columns remaining before this tablet.

It is followed by a short section, with a rubric, which is not very distinctly expressed; after this are thirty-five others, beginning with a long rubric, which is usually followed by the name of a divinity, represented in a neighbouring part of the margin, and which may be supposed to mean something like “Respect and reverence be paid to each of the sacred powers.” The next ten sections begin with the rubric of a feather, [7:11:338]and a sitting figure raising his hand to his head, as if holding a vase on it, meaning probably “Honour is due,” or belonging to; then follow the name and titles of Thoth or Hermes, and the phrase describing the deceased in the character of Osiris; and afterwards the names of each of a group of deities, which is represented in the corresponding tablet with an altar and a suppliant before them. These groups are different in the different sections, but they correspond pretty accurately with each other in the various manuscripts; and this hermetic decade is the most constant part of the manuscripts found with the mummies, though a little more extended in some than it is in others. {Hieroglyphics, 4.) After these, we find thirty-five sections, beginning with a drop, a feather, a serpent, and a line; the rubric being immediately followed by the deified name peculiar to the manuscript. This exordium, from the analogy of the term sacred, we can have no hesitation in understanding as a derivative of the feather, signifying honour or ornament, and the serpent signifying perpetuity, and in translating it, “Eternal honour” or respect. A similar sense seems, in other places, to be expressed by the open square or the pyramid instead of the feather; and not uncommonly the hat is substituted for the line, without any variation of the meaning.

After these thirty-five sections, we have two others, of which the rubrics are less intelligible, followed by forty-two short ones, which evidently contain the names and titles of as many separate deities, whose figures are commonly represented in the great tablet, near that of Osiris. We may generally observe, amongst the epithets of each, the term illustrious ; and each section has a second paragraph, beginning with a pair of arms extended, a character which seems occasionally to be used in reference to the equal scales of justice, though on the stone of Rosetta it appears to signify a kind of temple, so that it may possibly relate to the honours to be paid to these divine judges. With a few additional columns, and with the great tablet of the judgment, the manuscript concludes. It does not contain the figure of the sacred cow, which is the termination of most other manuscripts; nor the agricultural representations, which are frequently found in many of them, especially in that of Lord Mountnorris {Hieroglyphics, 3), with the three deities sitting in a grotto under it. The last of these, according to the inscriptions over the two boats, is meant for Arueris, the second apparently for the mother of the sun, and the first for Osiris; and one of the boats carries the steps, which seem to be emblematic of the solar power; the other, the throne or chair of state, which is universally appropriated to Osiris.

The coffins of the mummies, and the large sarcophagi of stone, are generally covered with representations extremely similar to some of those which are found in the manuscripts. ' The judicial tablet is frequently delineated on the middle of the coffins; above it are Isis and Nephthe at the sides, and in the middle apparently Rhea with outspread wings. The space below is chiefly occupied by figures of from twenty to thirty of the principal deities, to whom the deceased, in his mystical character, is doing homage; each of them being probably designated by the relationship in which he stands to the new representative of Osiris. In the sculptures, the figures are generally less numerous; the same deities are commonly represented as on the painted coffins, but without the repetition of the suppliant, and in an order subject to some little variation. The large sarcophagus of granite, in the British Museum, which was brought from Cairo, and formerly called the Lover’s Fountain, has the name of Apis, as a part of the characteristic denomination. This circumstance, at first sight, seemed to make it evident that it must have been intended to contain the mummy of an Apis, for which its magnitude renders it well calculated; but when the symbols of other deities were found in the mystic names upon various other monuments, this inference could no longer be considered as absolutely conclusive.

Of the votive or dedicatory inscriptions, we find an interesting example on a small scale, in the engraving on the bottom of a scaraboeus, very neatly sculptured in a softish steatite, or lapis ollaris, brought from Egypt by Mr Legh.

It is remarkable for its simplicity, and for affording an intelligible sense in all its parts. The chain, the semicircle, and the square block, mean clearly [ To] the beloved; the loop supporting a wreath or crown, and the imperfect sitting figure, resemble some of the titles often given to Osiris, and, with the following oval, pretty certainly signify of the great god; the throne, the semicircle, and the oval, Isis; the sitting figure, the goddess; the looped wreath, perhaps the great; the bird and circle, offspring of; the hieralpha or plough, and the two feathers, Phthah; the pillar, perhaps the powerful, but it is not distinctly formed; the beetle seems to be here a synonym or epithet of Phthah, as if the father of all ; the handled cross, the living ; the lute, the good; the pyramid, the prosperous or glorious; the ring with the handle seems to be nearly synonymous with the chain, and may be rendered, in conjunction with the line and the hieralpha, the approved of Phthah, an epithet found in the inscription of Rosetta; the hatchet is the deity ; the ring and handle, with the two lutes, approaches near to the symbol for munificent, and may be called delighting in good gifts ; and the concluding ring and staff or hatchet may either mean, this is dedicated, or may, with rather more probability, be considered as a reduplication of the beginning of the line, in an inverted position. It may be remarked, that all the inscriptions on the scaraboei run from right to left, as is most commonly observed wherever the direction was indifferent; so that if they were used as seals, the impression must have assumed the form which is somewhat less usual in other cases.

We have a most valuable example of a dedicatory inscription on a larger scale in the decree preserved on the monument of Rosetta, which, besides its utility in affording the only existing clue for deciphering the hieroglyphical characters, gives us also a very complete idea of the general style of the records of the Egyptian hierarchy.^[66. In another place, Dr Young, after remarking that the French expedition to Egypt was most liberally provided, by the government of the day, with a select body of antiquaries, architects, surveyors, naturalists, and draughtsmen, whose business it ’.vas to investigate all that was interesting to science or to literature in that singular country, and, further, that their labours have been made public with all the advantage, of chalcographical and typographical elegance in the splendid collection entitled Description de l’ Egypte, proceeds to observe: “But it is scarcely too much to say, that the only real benefit conferred on Egyptian literature by that expedition, was the discovery of a huge broken block of black stone, in digging for the foundations of Fort St Julian, near Ilosetta, which the British army had afterwards the honour of bringing to this country as a proud trophy of their gallantry and success. It is not to a want of ability, nor of industry, nor of accuracy, nor of fidelity, in the Egyptian Commission, that so total a failure is to be at tributed; but partly to the real difficulty of the subject, and still more to the preconceived opinion, which was very generally en-ertained by their men of letters, of the exorbitant antiquity of the Egyptian works of art, which caused them to neglect the lights that might have been derived from a comparison of Greek and Roman inscriptions, with the hieroglyphics in their neighbourhood; and to suppose, that whatever bore the date of less than thirty or forty centuries, must necessarily be an interpolation, unconnected with the original architecture and decorations of the edifice to which it belonged.” (Account of some Recent Discoveries in Hieroglyphical Literature, pp. 4, 5.) We shall hereafter find that this opinion was not confined to the members of the Egyptian Commission. Others have entertained the same extravagant notion of the antiquity of the Egyptian monuments, and, what has proved even More prejudicial, have lost sight of the important fact that, by the aid of translations alone, can we ever hope to attain the means of interpreting the inscriptions with which they are covered. It is only by pursuing analytical processes analogous to that of which Dr .Young gave the first example,—by making repeated trials and comparisons with translations to guide and direct us,—by following the method of exhaustion, and at each step narrowing the limits of error,—that the truth will ultimately be attained, and a sure foundation be laid for constructing a system of interpretation alike certain in its principles and universal in its application. ] Of [7:11:339]the triumphal monuments, the most magnificent are the obelisks, which are reported by Pliny to have been dedicated to the sun; and there is every reason to suppose that the translation of one of these inscriptions, preserved by Ammianus Marcellinus, after Hermapion, contains a true representation of a part of its contents, more especially as “the mighty Apollo” of Hermapion agrees completely with the hawk, the bull, and the arm, which usual-fly occupy the beginning of each inscription. These symbols are generally followed by a number of pompous titles, not always very intimately connected with each other, and amongst’them we often discover that of “Lord of the asp-bearing diadems,” with some other epithets immediately preceding the name and parentage of the sovereign who is the principal subject of the inscription. The obelisk at Heliopolis is without the bull; and the whole inscription may be supposed to have signified something of this kind: “This Apollinean trophy is consecrated to the honour of King Ramesses, crowned with an asp-bearing diadem; it is consecrated to the honour of the son of Heron, the ornament of his country, beloved by Phthah, living for ever; it is consecrated to the honour of the revered and beneficent deity Ramesses, great in glory, superior to his enemies; by the decree of an assembly, to the powerful and flourishing, whose life shall be without end.” It is true that some parts of this interpretation are in a great measure conjectural; but none of it is altogether arbitrary, or unsupported by some probable analogy; and the spirit and tenor of the inscription are probably unimpaired by the alterations which this approximation to the sense may unavoidably have introduced.

Of the obelisks still in existence, there are perhaps about thirty larger and smaller, which may be considered as genuine. Several others are decidedly spurious, having been chiefly sculptured at Rome in imitation of the Egyptian style, but so negligently and unskilfully as to exhibit a striking difference even in the character of the workmanship. Such are the Pamphilian, in explanation of which the laborious Kircher has published a folio volume, and the Barberinian or Veranian. In both of these the emblems are put together in a manner wholly arbitrary; and where an attempt is made to imitate the appearance of a name, the characters are completely different at each repetition. The Sallustian obelisk has also been broken, and joined inaccurately, and some modern restitutions have been very awkwardly introduced, as becomes evident upon comparing with each other the figures of Kircher and of Zoega. Another very celebrated monument, the Isiac table, which has been the subject of much profound discussion, and has given birth to many refined mythological speculations, is equally incapable of supporting a minute examination upon solid grounds; for the inscriptions neither bear any relation to the figures near which they are placed, nor form any connected sense of their own; and the whole is undoubtedly the work of a Roman sculptor, imitating only the general style and the separate delineations of the Egyptian tablets; as indeed some of the most learned and acute of our critical antiquaries had already asserted, notwithstanding the contrary opinions of several foreigners, of the highest reputation for their intimate acquaintance with the works of Greek and Roman art. We may hope, however, that in future these unprofitable discussions and disputes will become less and less frequent, and that our knowledge of the antiquities of Egypt will gain as much in the solidity and sufficiency of its evidence, as it may probably lose in its hypothetical symmetry and its imaginary extent; and whilst we allow every latitude to legitimate reasoning and cautious conjecture in the search after historical truth, we must peremptorily exclude from our investigations an attachment to fanciful systems and presupposed analogies on the one hand, and a too implicit deference to traditional authority on the other.

VI. FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS OF DR YOUNG; CASATI AND TURIN MANUSCRIPTS.

The Egyptian investigations of Dr Young had been as laborious as they were unremitting; but, at this stage, they had, in his own estimation, “been so little enlivened by any fortunate coincidences or unexpected facilities,” that, having occasion to adopt a motto, he chose the words Fortunam ex aliis as appropriate to his own history. But the result showed that, in giving way to this fretful and complaining humour, he did injustice to fortune, which had in reserve for him a most “fortunate coincidence,” the occurrence of which forms an epoch in the history of these investigations. We allude to the marvellous accident of the existence of a Greek manuscript, in perfect preservation, which, upon examination, proved to be a translation of an unique Egyptian manuscript, that had been purchased by the king of France. A little previous detail is necessary to put the reader in full possession of the facts.

In 1820 or 1821, an individual of the name of Casati arrived at Paris, bringing with him a parcel of Egyptian manuscripts, amongst which Μ. Champoilion discovered one the preamble of which bore a considerable resemblance to the enchorial text of the Rosetta inscription. This observation naturally excited considerable interest, from its immediate connection with a subject which then engrossed the attention of the learned; and accordingly, Dr Young, having procured a transcript of the papyrus in question, immediately proceeded, with his accustomed ardour, to decipher and translate it. But whilst he was engaged in this difficult and laborious undertaking, in which, by his own unaided exertions, he had made considerable progress, Mr, afterwards Sir George Francis Grey, returned from his travels in the East, bringing with him several fine specimens of writing and drawing on papyrus, which he had purchased from an Arab at Thebes in January 1820. Fortunately for the cause of Egyptian literature, Mr Grey instantly put these manuscripts into the hands of Dr Young, at the same time calling his attention to two of them in particular, which were in a high state of preservation, and contained some Greek characters, apparently written in a pretty legible hand. Upon a closer inspection, [7:11:340]however, it was found that one of these, being the antigraph of an Egyptian deed or conveyance, was altogether in Greek; whilst in the other, and in two more of the same kind, the registry was in Greek, and the agreement, or body of the deed, in the enchorial character.

Without losing a moment, Dr Young proceeded to examine that which was in Greek only, and, to his inexpressible surprise and delight, discovered that it was a translation of the enchorial manuscript of Casati. “I could scarcely believe,” says he, “that I was awake, and in my sober senses, when ĩ observed, among the names of the witnesses, Antimachus, Antigenes, and, a few lines further back, Portis Apollonii, although the last word could not have been deciphered without the assistance of the conjecture which immediately occurred to me, that this manuscript might perhaps be a translation of the enchorial manuscript of Casati. I found that its beginning was, A Copy of an Egyptian Writing ; and I proceeded to ascertain that there were the same number of names intervening between the Greek and Egyptian signatures which I had identified, and that the same number followed the last of them; and the whole number of witnesses appeared to be sixteen in each. The last paragraph in the Greek began with the words, Copy of the Registry ; for such must be the signification of the word ΠTΠMATOΣ employed in this papyrus, though it does not appear to occur anywhere else in a similar signification. I could not therefore but conclude, that a very extraordinary chance had brought into my possession a document, which was not very likely, in the first place, ever to have existed, still less to have been preserved uninjured, through a period of near two thousand years; but that this very extraordinary translation should have been brought safely to Europe, to England, and to me, at the very moment when it was most of all desirable to me to possess it, as the illustration of an original which I was then studying, but without any reasonable hope of being able fully to comprehend it—this combination would, in other times, have been considered as affording ample evidence of my having become an Egyptian sorcerer.”^[67. See Discoveries in Hierogh. Literature (pp. 57, 58), where the reader will find translations (pp. 69-83) of the Greek antigraph, of the Egyptian original of the Casati manuscript, and of the three other deeds of Mr Grey. ]

But a still more extraordinary coincidence, connected with the revival of Egyptian literature, remains to be mentioned. Exclusively of the Greek antigraph, which relates to the sale of part of the offerings made from time to time on account of a certain number of mummies, Mr Grey’s collection contained a second papyrus of considerably greater magnitude, upon which were engrossed three other deeds or conveyances, with separate registries upon the margin written in very legible Greek. In the hope of making some further progress in the study of Egyptian, Dr Young had resumed the examination of these enchorial conveyances, and, amongst other things, had observed the agreement of the numbers in the registries and in the Egyptian text; but whilst he was thus occupied, Μ. Peyron’s account and translation of an Egyptian papyrus in the Royal Library at Turin made its appearance,^[68. Memorie di Torino, xxxi. 1826. Amadeus Peyron, the ingenious translator of this papyrus, is known to civilians as the learned editor of Fragments of the Theodosian Code, deciphered from a palimpsest or rescribed manuscript in the Athenaeum of the Royal Library at Turin, and also as professor of oriental languages in the university of that place. ] and proved to be the record of a law-suit, in which reference is made to three distinct title-deeds or conveyances. The following is an abstract of the contents of this singular instrument.^[69. This abstract is taken from Dr Young’s Letter to Count Ρollon, 1826. ]

The record begins with a date: “In the year liv. the 22d of Athyr, at Diospolis. Before Heraclides, one of the captains of the body-guard, the commander of the Perithebaic nome, and chief officer of the customs; in the presence also of Polemo, a captain of the guard; Heraclides, of the same rank, and gymnasiarch; Apollonius, the son of Apollonius, and Hermogenes, his friends; Pancrates, a lieutenant; Comanus, a general, son of Ammonius a colonist, and several others; there appeared Hermias, the son of Ptolemy, of the Ombitic nome, as plaintiff, against the Cholchytae^[70. The Cholchytae were probably so called “ab involvendo cadavere and hence the name is supposed by Dr Young to be a derivative of the Egyptian word DCHOLH or JOLH, to dress, to put on, or to swathe. Μ. Peyron indeed dissents from the opinion that they were “dressers,” observing that “i Colchiti non sono piu dressers, sacri 'paratori delle divinità, come sospettò il Y.” He confesses, however, that “etymon tamen acute vidit,” and adds, that “dicti sunt ab involvendo cadavere,” conformably to the Coptic etymology suggested by Dr Young. But the author of an Essay on the Enchorial Language of Egypt, published at Dublin, 1833, ridicules as groundless and absurd the etymology proposed by the English and approved by the Italian scholar. “The name of this profession, χ,oaχ ι υτr,s," says he, “is not to be found in any Greek lexico; it is, however, analogically formed, and conveys a clear meaning, ‘ the pourer out of libations.’ Dr Young read the word χ ι oλχ ι υτr, s , and supposed it to be derived from a Coptic word signifying ‘ to dress,’ as if the mummies, after being buried, were every now and then taken up to be dressed-The mistake is a palpable one.” We think it is, but only on the part of the Dublin critic. For, in the first place, if the name of this profession be not found n any Greek Lexico, Dr Young and Μ. Peyron had surely as good a right to call it as the writer in question had to call it “secondly, the word read in the manuscripts is not χoaxprris, but χoλχprns, and in such a matter their authority must certainly be preferred to a mere unsupported conjecture; thirdly, from the terms of the record contained in the Turin manuscript, it appears that it was the business of persons belonging to this profession, not to “pour out libations,” but to “dress” or “swathe” dead bodies after these had been embalmed; and, lastly, although Egyptian mummies were unquestionably “dressed” or “swathed” after being embalmed, it is worse than ridiculous to allege that the existence of such a profession as that of the Colchytae would imply that these “mummies, after being buried, were, every now and then, taken up to be dressed." If, then, “the Colchytae have passed muster in many Reviews and Encyclopaedias,” it is probably because an ascertained reading, supported by collateral evidence, has been thought preferable to an “imaginary word” like χβaχυm, which, though “analogically formed,” would convey a meaning inconsistent with the truth. o ] of the place, Horus, and Psenchonsis, and Chonapres, and their family.” A memorial which had been addressed to Hermias, strategus, or commander-in-chief, and governor of the nome, was then read; in which the plaintiff, Hermias, accuses the Cholchytae, and mentions a former memorial addressed to Demetrius, the epistrategus or high commander in the preceding year, and which had been referred by Hermias, the strategus, to the judgment of Heraclides. The cause having been pleaded by Philocles for Hermias, and by Dinon for the Cholchytae, Heraclides summed up the evidence, discussed the arguments on both sides, and finally gave judgment for the defendants.

The claim of Hermias seems to have been founded on an alleged right of property, supported only by an admission on the part of Lobais or Lubais, one of the vendors of the house, that she had never had any right or title to the tenement in question. He had maintained in the memorial that his ancestors had held possessions in Diospolis during their lives respectively; that the defendants, whose proper habitation was confined to the Memnonia, where their ancestors had resided, knowing that he had been induced by the troubles of the times to change his residence, had seized upon his house, which was situated in the [7:11:341] south-western part of Diospolis, to the north of the course or parade leading to the canal of the great goddess Juno, and to the south of the course leading to the temple of Ceres, the walls of which were left standing; that when they had repaired it they continued to occupy it, and, not content with simple occupation, they had received into it dead bodies, not considering the penalties to which they became liable from their proximity to the courses or parades of the great goddesses Juno and Ceres, which would be equally polluted by the corpses and those who had charge of them.

The Cholchytae, on the other hand, alleged, first, that Hermias had already been nonsuited in a similar action brought on the same grounds; and, secondly, that they had been in possession of the house for many generations, an averment in support of which they produced their Egyptian title-deeds translated into Greek. One of these was dated in the month of Pachon, the xxviiith of Philometor, in which Teephibis, the father of Psenchonsis, one of the defendants, and of Chonopres, bought of Elecis and Lobais, and Ibaeais, and Senerieus, and Erieus, and Seno-sorphibis, and Sisois otherwise called Erieus (in all seven vendors), Tl 2 oikopedic or house cubits of the southern part of “ten cubits” of unproductive ground which they possessed. By the second deed, Asos, the father of the defendants Nechutes and Asos, and a younger Nechutes, and their sister Nechuthis, bought of the same persons 2∣ cubits in the same year and month. A third deed, of the xxxvth year of the same Philometor, and in the month Mesore, attests the sale of a fourth part of the said house, being 3⅜ cubits, to Pechytes, the father of the others, Panas, and Patus, and Pasemis, and Arpchemis, and Se-namunis, by Ammonius and Zbendetis, to whom it belonged. The duties on these transactions had also been paid into the office for the purchase of the tribute; and the parties had held undisturbed possession for thirty-seven years. Some passages of the Benevolent Edict are also cited, in which it is provided that such persons as have for a length of time been in possession of property shall be continued therein even though they be unable to produce the titles by which it was originally acquired. It was added by Dinon, on the part of the defendants, that, since the plaintiffs father left Diospolis at the time of the troubles under Epiphanes, his departure must have taken place eighty-eight years^[71. This is chronologically exact; for, adding to the 24 years of Epiphanes, 35 of Philometor, and 29 of Euergetes, we have the precise number stated in the text. Thus, Epiphanes 24, Philometor 35, Euergetes 29; in all 88. ] before the institution of the suit; that this period was much too remote to allow of the present controversy; that Hermias had produced no document in support of his claim, except a fraudulent decree obtained in collusion with Lobais, who had no interest in defending the action; that with respect to the removal of the embalmers to the Memnonia, the subject was wholly foreign to the question, as Horus and his colleagues were not embalmers, but dressers (Choldiytae) ; that, on popular festivals and other sacred days, it was their business to bring sand or ashes, and to strew therewith the temple of Ammon and that of Juno; and that, besides, in the annual processions, when Ammon passes over to the Memnonia, it was their privilege to be the leaders of the ceremony, to act as Cholchytae, and to be rewarded accordingly.

Such is an abstract of this extraordinary document, which, besides its general interest, embodies the most curious details illustrative of the notions entertained respecting property, and also of the mode in which justice was administered, amongst the Egyptians. But the most remarkable circumstance connected with it yet remains to be mentioned. For, if the reader turn to the three conveyances of Sir George Grey, as translated by Dr Young,^[72. Discoveries in Hìeroglyphical Literature, pp. 78-83. ] he will find, to his astonishment, that they are the actual title-deeds founded on in the abridgment of the record which we have here placed before him. Μ. Peyron, indeed, has only identified two of them, the purchasers mentioned in the registry of the third being Ammonius and Psenamu-nis instead of Ammonius and Zbendetis or Zthenaëtis; but it is probable that Zbendetis or Zthenaëtis had two names, as well as Sisois or Spois, who is also called Erie us; for the date of the deed coincides perfectly with the record, and the same thing may be said of all the rest of the names, as well as the measures, in which there is the most entire agreement. It would almost seem, therefore, that the age of miracles has not yet passed away. Whilst Dr Young was occupied in studying the enchorial papyrus of Casati, the Greek manuscript of Sir George Grey, being the antigraph of an Egyptian deed, arrived as if by conjuration, and proved to be a translation of the document before him; and, next, when the same learned and ingenious person had been accidentally led to resume consideration of the Egyptian deeds of Sir George Grey, the record of a lawsuit founded upon, and expressly referring to, these very deeds, arrived unexpectedly from Turin, and afforded a precise confirmation of the date which, from the Egyptian text, he had previously assigned to the first deed, together with an exact description of the precise spots of ground to which all the three conveyances relate. Here, then, we have a series of “fortunate coincidences,” such as have seldom concurred in confirmation of a new discovery, and which, happening*· at the propitious instant of time, when their great importance could not fail to be at once perceived, contributed materially, not only to establish what had been previously done, but also to facilitate the prosecution of future researches in the same field of inquiry.

VII. INVESTIGATIONS AND DISCOVERIES OFCHAMPOLLION AND OTHERS.

Although for a number of years it has been the custom to speak with enthusiasm of the discovery of the phonetic alphabet made by Μ. Champollion, few persons appear to have a distinct idea, either of what it really is, or of the results which have been obtained by means of it. That Dr Young was the original author of this discovery has already been shown in the preceding sections, and may be proved, independently of all that has yet been stated, by evidence of the most incontrovertible kind. As early as the year 1818, he had ascertained the alphabetical value of the greater part of the hieroglyphical signs which compose the names of Ptolemy and Berenice, amongst which he had very exactly determined seven corresponding with the results obtained by Μ. Champoilion, viz. the phonetic signs of B, F, I, Μ, N, P, and T. But although the determination of these seven letters must be regarded as the basis on which Μ. Champoilion founded his phonetic alphabet, the sagacity of the English scholar, signally displayed in the discovery itself, did not foresee the consequences to which it might lead; and it was reserved for his French competitor to reap the glory which justly attaches to the development and illustration of a principle, fertile in results of the very highest interest and importance. Dr Young had adopted the notion that the characters employed by the Egyptians were essentially ideographic or symbolical, and were only used phonetically in [7:11:342]representing foreign combinations of sound; but this idea, though it led him to neglect the prosecution of his own discovery, did not prevent him from laying the foundation of the hieroglyphicophonetic alphabet, afterwards improved and extended by Μ. Champoilion, and from presenting an enchorial alphabet comparatively so complete that but few additions of any importance have since been made to it by his successors. In short, to use the words of Mr Salt, Dr Young seems to us to stand alone with regard to the progress made by him in the enchorial, as well as for having led the way to the true knowledge of hieroglyphics.^[73. Essay οη the Phonetic System of Hieroglyphics, p. 1, note. London, 1825, in 8vo. ]

A considerable time previous to the date of this dicovery, however, Μ. Champollion had applied himself to the interpretation of hieroglyphics; indeed, from the period of his quitting the Lyceum, he had begun to devote himself with ardour to this study. Jablonski, Zoega, and the authors of the Description de l’Egypte, then exercised a sort of dominion over the different branches of Egyptian antiquities. The mythology of Egypt was exclusively explained by relative passages in the ancient writers, and vain theories, which could never lead to any positive results, were applied to the hieroglyphical inscriptions. M. Champoilion devoted himself entirely to the examination and study of every monument of this kind to which he could obtain access. Of these he made numerous copies, and, as it were, engraved on his memory all that he could find either in public or private collections; he also exercised himself in reproducing texts from recollection, and in this acquired astonishing dexterity. But, during many long years, the hieroglyph!chi inscriptions remained as great a mystery to him as to the rest of the learned. He pored over them without intermission, and he attempted a hundred systems of interpretation; but the time had not yet arrived when the secret of ancient Egypt was to be revealed. Nevertheless, more accurate notions as to the true nature of hieroglyphical writing had already begun to be entertained.

Zoega had suspected that several of the hieroglyphics might have been employed as signs of sounds, and for that reason he had denominated them phonetic. This conjecture, however, had at first made no impression upon those persons who were occupied with the study of the ancient Egyptian writings. On the contrary, in all their labours they followed the ancient system, regarding the mass of the hieroglyphics as composed of ideographic or symbolic signs; nor was it until some time after the discovery of the Rosetta inscription that the only method by which the Egyptians could possibly have expressed either foreign or national proper names, that is, by means of phonetic signs, forced itself on the attention of the learned. In this inscription everybody at once recognised the position of the name of Ptolemy, when Dr Young had, by a happy artifice of collocation, pointed it out; and on other monuments the ovals or scrolls containing the names of Berenice and Arsinoe, as well as those of several kings belonging to the old Egyptian dynastics, were likewise indicated with tolerable certainty. At this period, the current or enchorial writing engaged the attention of several learned and ingenious men, such as Baron de Sacy and Mr Akerblad in France, and Dr Young in England, and considerable progress was made, particularly by the latter, not only in determining the equivalents of groups, but even in ascertaining the values of individual characters. Μ. Champoilion, however, continued to labour in a different direction, the idea that the hieroglyphics might contain a portion of characters purely alphabetical not having taken root in his mind. This is established beyond dispute by a passage in his work entitled De l' Ecriture Hiératique des Anciens Egyptiens, published at Grenoble in 1821, little more than a year before the appearance of his Lettre à Μ. Dacier. In this production, after stating that “long study, and, above all, an attentive comparison of the hieroglyphic texts with those of the second order, regarded as alphabetical, had conducted him to a contrary conclusion,” he proceeds to lay down the following general principles, viz. 1sZ, That the writing of the Egyptian manuscripts of the second order is not alphabetical; 2dly, That this second system is only a simple modification of the hieroglyphical system, from which it differs merely in the form of the signs; 3dly, That this second species of writing is the hieratic of the Greek authors, and may be regarded as a hieroglyphic tachygraphy, or abbreviated mode of writing; ⅛thly, That the hieratic characters, and consequently those also from which they are derived, namely, the hieroglyphic, are signs of things, and not signs of sounds (“sont des signes de choses, et non des signes de sons'). It follows, then, that in 1821, Μ. Champoilion did not believe in the existence of alphabetical signs amongst the hieroglyphics; although Dr Young had communicated his discovery to the learned of Europe in a memoir printed in 1818, and incorporated it in the article Egypt, published the following year in the Supplement to the former editions of the present work, and although the ingenious conjecture of Zoega had been partially verified both by Μ. de Sacy and by Mr Akerblad.^[74. Klaproth, Examen Critique des Travaux de feu Μ. Champollion sur les Hiéroglyphes, p. 3, et seqq. In the preface to the French translation of two articles on Hieroglyphics, which appeared in the Edinburgh Review (vol. xlv. pp. 96 and 528), some curious particulars are mentioned respecting the treatise De l’Ecriture Hiératique des Anciens Egyptiens, referred to in the text. This little work, which is in folio, has now become extremely scarce. “L’auteur a fait tout son possible pour soustraire cet ouvrage aux yeux du public, en retirant du commerce et des mains de ses amis le peu d’exemplaires qu’il avoit d’abord répandus. La raison qu’on a mise en avant étoit, ‘ la crainte de blesser les scrupules de quelques personnes pieuses mais il ne se trouve dans le livre absolument rien qui ait trait à la haute antiquité de l’empire des Pharaons, et il est permis de penser que le véritable motif qui a determine Μ. Champollion à supprimer ce livre, a été de ne pas donner one mésure trop précise des progrès qu’il avait fait jusqu’en 1821, un an avant sa fameuse Lettre à Μ. Dacier. Cette mesure existe dans l’assertion ‘ que les signes hiéroglyphes sont des signes de choses, et non des signes de sons.’ Certes, celui qui, depuis dix ans, avoit travaillé sur les hiéroglyphes sans les déchiffrer, et qui faisoit, en 1821, imprimer un axiome pareil, avoit grand besoin d’etre guidé dans ses nouvelles recherches de 1822, par les découvertes de Μ. Young, publiées en 1819, dans le Supplement de l’ Encyclopédie Britannique. On ne doit done plus douter, que la prétendue découverte de Μ. Champollion ne soit entée sur celle du Docteur Young, auquel appartient le mérite d’avoir le premier démontré qu’on s’est servi, en Egypte, de signes hiéroglyphes pour exprimer alphabétiquement les sons des noms propres. Disputér à ce savant la priorité de cette décou verte, seroit aussi absurde que de vouloir soutenir, que celui qui le premier mêla du salpêtre avec du soufre et du charbon, n’a pas été l’inventeur de la poudre, mais bien celui qui s’est servi pour la première fois de ce mélange comme moteur pour les projectiles.” (Apercus sur les Hiéroglyphes d’Egypte, et les Progrès faits jusqu'à prisent dans leur Déchiffrement, par Μ. Browne, Paris, 1827, in 8vo.) The disingenuousness and want of fairness which marked the commencement of Μ. Champoilion’s career as a claimant for the honour of discovery continued to distinguish it throughout. Of this we have an instance connected with the subject now under consideration. A pretended translation of the first of the two articles on hieroglyphical literature, which appeared in the Edinburgh Review, was inserted in the 22d number of the Revue Britannique (April 1827), then published at Paris. This translation, which was generally attributed to Μ. Champollion, scarcely represents the half of the original, although it is passed off on the public as complete. Several important passages are expunged, especially from the historical part of the article; others are altered so as to suit the views of the translator; and notes are added which clearly indicate the source whence they emanated. “Ces suppressions et ces additions, dont évidemment d autre but, que défaire prendre le change au plus grand nombre des lecteurs, sur la nature et le véritable importance de cet article, et ^accréditer davantage les erreurs répandues en France sur les premières tentatives faites pour déchiffrer les hiéroglyphes Egyptiens.” (Apercus sur les Hiéroglyphes, pref. p. viii.) But by this unceremonious and dishonest proceeding the translator overshot his mark. The garbled and mutilated translation was soon followed by one of the principal article, “rétabli dans son intégrité,” and the claims of Dr Young were thus brought fully and fairly before the literary public of France. ]
[7:11:343]

It is no doubt true that Μ. Champollion afterwards attempted to give currency to a different story, and to lay claim to the merit of independent discovery. Having, on a frivolous pretence, endeavoured to suppress the work to which we just referred, by calling in all the copies in the hands of the booksellers, “de ne pas donner one mesure trop précise des progrès qu’il avait fait jusqu’en 1821,” he ventured to assert that, without having any knowledge of the opinions of Dr Young, he had, about the same period, arrived at very nearly similar results. “Je dois dire,” says he, “qu’ a la meme epoqux, et sans avoir aucune connaissance des opinions de Μ. le docteur Young, je croyais être parvenu, d’une manière assez sûre, à des résultats à· peu-pres semblables” ^[75. Precis du Système Hiéroglyphique des Anciens Egyptiens, p. 18. Paris, 1828, in 8vo, 2d edition. ] But there are several circumstances which render it impossible to give credit to this statement. In the first place, it is wholly irreconcilable with the doctrine laid down in his work on the Hieratic Writing of the ancient Egyptians, published in 1821, in which it is formally stated that both the hieratic and hieroglyphic characters are signs of things, and not signs of sounds. Secondly, it is contradicted by the direct testimony of Dr Young. “At the beginning of my Egyptian researches,” says he, “I had accidentally received a letter from Mr Champollion, which accompanied a copy of his work on the state of Egypt under the Pharaohs, sent as a present to the Royal Society; and as he requested some particular information respecting several parts of the enchorial inscription of Rosetta, which were imperfectly represented in the engraved copies, I readily answered his inquiries, from a reference to the original monument in the British Museum, and a short time afterwards sent him a copy of my conjectural translation of the inscriptions, as it was inserted in the Archoeologia” Dr Young then adds, that with regard to the enchorial inscription, Μ. Champollion appeared to him to have at that time done but little, and that the few references he made to it seemed to depend entirely on the investigations of Mr Akerblad, whose conclusions he had tacitly adopted. It is not easy to imagine how Μ. Champollion, with the knowledge of these facts in his mind, could venture to affirm that he had commenced his hieroglyphical researches at the same time with Dr Young; and that, without any knowledge of the opinions of the latter, he had arrived at nearly the same results. Thirdly, it is evident from the respective dates of Μ. Champollion’s publications, that nearly six years must have elapsed between the date of the above communication and that of his Lettre à Μ. Dacier ; and it also appears, that when Dr Young published his “conjectural translation” in 1815, Μ. Champollion had done nothing beyond tacitly adopting the conclusions of Mr Akerblad. The priority of publication cannot, therefore, be disputed. But as Μ. Champollion has not contradicted the statement of Dr Young regarding the communication above mentioned, and as it is undeniable that he saw the article Egypt nearly two years before he published his Lettre a Μ. Dacier, containing the first statement of his discoveries in hieroglyphics, it is evident that he was in the full knowledge of Dr Young’s “opinions” at every stage of his progress, and that the question of originality may be as easily settled as that of priority of publication. A sense of justice alone compels us to make these remarks, impeaching, as they do, the literary honesty of Μ. Champollion; and although it may appear an ungracious office, now that he is no more, to detract from his fame, yet flattery as well as obloquy should be silent over his grave. The merits of Champollion will not be the less fully appreciated if they are fairly estimated: it is exaggeration alone that can inflict any permanent injury on his reputation.

We have seen that, in 1821, Μ. Champollion did not believe in the existence of alphabetic signs amongst the hieroglyphics, although Dr Young had published his discovery nearly three years before. At this period, however, Mr Bankes made known a Greek inscription which he had discovered upon an obelisk in the island of Philae, and which mentioned the erection of a monument in honour of King Ptolemy. The discovery of the English traveller attracted the attention of scholars, and Μ. Letronne, in some learned observations on the text of the inscription, stated it as his opinion that the monument in question would be found to contain, in hieroglyphical characters, the same sense as the Greek inscription, or, in other words, that the one would prove to be a version of the other. Mr Bankes, having learned the opinion expressed by this distinguished scholar, and being anxious to afford every means in his power for verifying its accuracy, transmitted to the Academy of Inscriptions, in the month of January 1822, a lithographed copy of the hieroglyphics covering the four faces of the obelisk of Philae, upon the base of which he had discovered the Greek inscription already mentioned. And it was this lithograph which, having been communicated to Μ. Champollion, enabled him to make those observations and comparisons the results of which he published in his Lettre à Μ. Dacier, dated the 22d of September 1822. Then, indeed, but not before, did he recognise the name of Cleopatra, and the use of alphabetical characters amongst the hieroglyphics; then only it was that he abandoned the notions which he had hitherto entertained respecting the nature of the Egyptian writing, and which, as already shown, had at first led him to reject the discoveries of Dr Young.^[76. Nevertheless he appears to have been of opinion at this period, that the employment of alphabetical characters was confined to the transcription of Greek and Roman proper names, and that the greater part of the other hieroglyphics were ideographic; one more proof how closely he had followed the footsteps of Dr Young. ]

Having entered upon this new career, Μ. Champollion pushed on with irrepressible boldness, and devoted himself with more ardour than ever to the study of the Egyptian monuments. He applied his alphabet to deciphering the names of the Roman emperors and those of the Greek and Egyptian kings; and finding his observations not only r multiply, but likewise extend to objects which had not been touched on in his Lettre à Μ. Dacier, he embodied the results, modified in some points and verified in others, into a more extended work, which appeared at Paris in 1824, under the title of Precis du Système Hiéroglyphique des Anciens Egyptiens. We must, however, guard the reader against the misconception which this title is calculated to produce respecting the extent and results or Μ. Champollion’s labours. From it he may perhaps expect to find the exposition of a “system,” and a summary of the principles by means of which the hieroglyphic texts can be read and interpreted; whilst, in reality, the book only contains a more ample and extensive application of the ideas explained in the Lettre à Μ. Dader. It embraces a great number of proper names belonging to persons of all ranks, accompanied with observations and conjectures as to the meaning of certain concomitant signs, to which the author attributes a grammatical value, but without having sufficiently established the point by induction. This, however, did not prevent him from proceeding to generalise; and, [7:11:344]as he had formerly maintained that the greater part,, if not the whole, of the hieroglyphic texts were ideographic, so now he passed to the opposite extreme, and concluded that alphabetical signs predominated in the monumental inscriptions, all of which might, in a great measure, be interpreted by means of the phonetic method. Such a conclusion, if it had been sufficiently established, would no doubt have proved of the highest importance; but, instead of applying his new system to the inscription of Rosetta, of which the import was known from the accompanying Greek version, or to other texts of still more considerable extent, M. Champollion confined himself to the interpretation of detached phrases, which of themselves were not sufficient to establish the certainty of his system; and hence his work, important and interesting as it unquestionably is, has still left much to be desired by the friends of archaeological science.

But although the ardour of his mind had, at first, hurried him away, Μ. Champollion appears soon to have become sensible that he had advanced too rapidly; indeed he could not but feel an urgent necessity for augmenting the mass of materials at his disposal, and multiplying more and more the points of comparison indispensable to the progress of his studies. Accordingly he undertook a journey to Italy to explore the treasures contained in the rich collections of that country, and spent much time in the museum of Turin, then recently enriched with the noble collection of Drovetti, containing a great number of papyri, pillars, and inscriptions of every kind. From this museum were written the Lettres addressed to the Duc de Blacas, in which the author began to make more numerous applications of his system, particularly to all that concerned the ancient Egyptian dynastics; and he even hazarded more extensive interpretations, comprehending not only simple proper names, but names preceded or followed by titles, or by certain portions of phrases. These readings, however, were not accompanied with the requisite explanatory details, which alone could give them authority; and, with reference to the Egyptian system of writing, the Lettres a Μ. de Placas seem not to have produced any change of importance in the theory of the author. When, on his return from Italy, he published a second edition of his Precis du Système Hiéroglyphique, Paris, 1828, he accordingly introduced but few modifications of the statements contained in the first, and saw no reason to alter the opinion which he had therein expressed as to the phonetic value of the great mass of the hieroglyphics. On the contrary, he formally repeated his fundamental proposition, “That the figurative and symbolical characters are employed in the Egyptian texts in a smaller proportion than the phonetic characters; that the latter are the true alphabetical signs which express the sounds of words in the spoken language of ancient Egypt; and that every phonetic hieroglyph is the image of a physical object, the name of which, in the spoken language of Egypt, commenced with the sound or articulation which the sign itself is employed to express.”

Such were the general views entertained by Μ. Champollion before setting out for Egypt with the intention of examining the monuments themselves, and of seeking on the spot the confirmation of his discoveries. In his Pantheon Egyptien, the publication of which commenced in 1824, he had given representations of the Egyptian divinities, accompanied with hieroglyphic legends, to which explanatory notices were subjoined; and he had made ( frequent use of notions borrowed from the Greek and the Latin authors, and already classed in the Egyptian Pan- ξ theon of Jablonski. Yet he laid it down as a principle, “que c’était de preference dans les monumens Egyptiens qu’il fallait chercher les noms d’une foule de divinités et de personages mythologiques, qu’on chercherait en vain dans les auteurs classiques ;” a proposition which, according to Klaproth, is only admissible upon the supposition that we have already arrived at a complete intelligence of the graphic monuments of Egypt; and until such knowledge has been attained, no one has any right to found new theories on their alleged contents. The proposition, however, is admissible upon a much more limited supposition, namely, that we have attained the means of deciphering with tolerable certainty names, titles, and legends; and the result has accordingly been, that “the names of a crowd of divinities and mythological personages, which would be sought for in vain in the classical authors,” have been ascertained by Wilkinson, Rosellini, Burton, Felix, and others, not to mention Μ. Champollion himself. We ought to add also, that, at the period of his departure for Egypt, Μ. Champollion held as demonstrated the existence of a considerable number of signs employed phonetically, that is, used to represent the sounds of the Egyptian language, each sign standing for the initial sound of the name of the physical or other object of which it was the image or picture ∙,^[77. On a reconsideration of the subject, Dr Young regarded this notion as altogether fallacious, “Mr Champollion,” says he, “has never been led, in any one instance, from the Egyptian name of an object, to infer the phonetic interpretation, that is, the alphabetical power °t its symbol; but the letters having once been ascertained, he has ransacked his memory or his dictionary for some name t a l ιe J-“ought capable of being applied to the symbol, and not always, as it appears to me, in the most naturaI manner. I should B^ er, ° r lnS anC “t ∕ c L wore hpepi , a fiower, as making the II, to the name of pomegranate, which, it seems, was sometimes called HOMAN or ERMAN. (Discoveries in Hieroglyphical Literature, p. 48.) ] and that, entertaining this view, he departed from the common opinion, which attached a symbolical value to the greater number of the hieroglyphics. Such being the doctrine maintained by him, we shall now proceed to place before the reader a short abstract of the investigations and discoveries of Μ. Champollion, reserving for the conclusion of this section some general observations and criticisms of his labours.

The conditions of the problem which Μ. Champollion undertook to resolve may be very briefly explained. Every body has seen Egyptian monuments, and every body knows in a general way the form and disposition of the characters called hieroglyphics; but few persons, perhaps, have reflected on the nature of these characters, and still fewer know wherein consists the real difficulty of interpreting them. The passages of ancient authors being for the most part vague and incoherent, afforded no explanation of this system of writing; even the celebrated text of Clemens Alexandrinus, so far from serving as a guide to direct inquiry, has only received an approximate interpretation by means of knowledge otherwise acquired of the subject to which it relates; and we cannot be absolutely certain that all the difficulties which this passage presents have as yet been overcome. But the main point for determination was, whether the hieroglyphics were destined to represent ideas directly, or by the intervention of the sounds of the spoken language ; whether they were the symbols of things, or the signs of vocal articulations; whether, in short, they were to be considered as ideographic or as phonetic. In the one case, that is, supposing the signs ideographic, it must be evident that we could never hope, by any effort, to attain a complete intelligence of such characters; because, to attempt to divine the sense of ancient symbols is to expose ourselves at every step to fall into the very errors which now appear so ludicrous or extravagant in Pierius, Kircher, Palin, and Pluche. But, on the other hand, supposing the [7:11:345]hieroglyphics were regarded as in a great measure composed of phonetic signs, the interpretation of these characters would, on such a supposition, be not only possible, but, under certain conditions and in certain circumstances, might be easy. This accordingly was the doctrine espoused by Μ. Champollion in its utmost latitude. The analysis given by Dr Young of the names of Ptolemy and Berenice had proved beyond dispute that these were expressed phonetically; but as it was not unreasonable to conclude that the method employed in representing graphically two proper names might be applied to all, or perhaps even extended to common words and phrases in the language, M. Champollion was led to conceive, that if an alphabet of phonetic characters could be constructed, it would probably furnish a key to hieroglyphical writing in general, and produce new and unexpected results of the utmost importance to history. The first and great object, therefore, was, if possible, to obtain an alphabet; and to the accomplishment of this Μ. Champollion primarily directed his attention.

But the task which he had to perform was, comparatively speaking, an easy one. Dr Young, as we have already seen, had not only demonstrated the practicability of constructing such an alphabet, but, by his analysis of the names Ptolemy and Berenice, he had assigned phonetic values to nine distinct characters, the greater number of which corresponded with the results which were afterwards obtained by M. Champollion. The first step had therefore been made, and it only required perseverance and good fortune to ensure success. We say “good fortune,” because Dr Young had already done all that was possible with his materials. If the hieroglyphical inscription of Rosetta had come to Europe entire, a tolerably complete alphabet of phonetic hieroglyphics would in all probability have been formed before Μ. Champoilion was heard of as a labourer in this interesting field of inquiry. But unfortunately the pillar contains only the last fourteen lines of the hieroglyphic text, and even these are so much mutilated, that the name of Ptolemy, enclosed in an oval or cartouche, is the only one of all those mentioned in the Greek text which has escaped destruction. This name is represented by eight hieroglyphic characters, one of them (the feather, E) being repeated; but, as the Greek name, ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΣ, consists of ten letters, it was of course impossible, without further materials, to fix with certainty the relation between the seven or eight hieroglyphical signs and the ten letters of the Greek name. But the discovery of a new monument (and in this consisted Μ. Champollion’s good fortune) at length removed all uncertainty in this respect, and led directly and easily to the formation of the alphabet required. The obelisk discovered by Mr Bankes in the island of Philae was found to contain the hieroglyphic name of one of the Ptolemies, expressed by the same characters which occur in the inscription of Rosetta, surrounded by a ring or border; and this was followed by a second ring or scroll which obviously contained the proper name of a woman, and a queen of the family of the Lagidae, inasmuch as the group was ter* minated by the hieroglyphics expressive of the feminine gender, which had been previously determined by Dr ìoung. The obelisk in question was fixed on a basis or pedestal containing a Greek inscription, which proved to be a petition of the priests of Isis, addressed to King Ptolemy, to Cleopatra his sister, and to Cleopatra his wife. But if, as Μ. Letronne ingeniously conjectured, this obelisk, and the hieroglyphical inscription engraved upon it, were the result of this petition, which in fact adverts to the consecration of a monument of the kind, the border with the feminine proper name could only be that of one of the Cleopatras mentioned in the petition. This name, therefore, and that of Ptolemy, which in the Greek have several letters in common, were capable of being employed for a comparison of the hieroglyphical characters composing them; and if the similar characters in these names were found to express in both the same sounds, it would follow demonstratively that the nature of these characters must be entirely phonetic.

The course of investigation here indicated appears sufficiently simple and conclusive; but as the development of a hieroglyphical alphabet has been mainly effected by a comparison of the characters which enter respectively into the composition of the names Ptolemy and Cleopatra, we shall endeavour to exemplify the process by means of which the phonetic values of individual signs were determined.

This figure exhibits three proper names written hieroglyphically, each of them enclosed within an elliptical ring or cartouche, viz. the name of Ptolemy, No. 1, taken from the hieroglyphical branch of the triple inscription of Rosetta; that of Berenice, No. 2, copied from a ceiling of the great temple at Karnak; and that of Cleopatra, No. 3, as furnished by the obelisk of Philae. Of the first and second, viz. Ptolemy and Berenice·, the reader has already seen Dr Young’s analysis, deduced with singular ingenuity from the enchorial text of the Rosetta inscription. At present, however, we have only to do with the first and third, or with the names ∙of Ptolemy and Cleopatra. And, on referring to the ovals or rings, Nos. 1 and 3, containing these names, the reader will at once perceive that, in the scroll of Ptolemy, ΠTOΛMHΣ, the fourth, sixth, third, and first characters are identical with the second, third, fourth, and fifth characters in the scroll of Cleopatra, and that these characters must therefore correspond respectively to the Greek letters A, E or H, O, and II. Their relative positions remove all doubt as to their respective values; and the evidence afforded by this comparison is strengthened by the circumstance that, contrary to the common usage, the name of Cleopatra is spelled fully out, leaving none of the vowels to be supplied. Here, then, we have the values of four characters (the lion, the feather, the flower with the recurved stem, and the square) determined by a sort of instantia crucis, and at the same time a striking confirmation of the soundness of the original hypothesis, which, of course, becomes absolute certainty by the repetition of such comparisons. But the same process which enables us to ascertain the values of the characters common to both names, equally enables us to infer the values of those in which they differ. The name ΚΛΕΟΠΑΤΡΑ, for instance, is spelled hieroglyphically by nine phonetic characters or signs, together with the symbols (a semicircle and ovaD of the feminine termination; in other words, there is a phonetic character corresponding to every letter in the Greek name. But four of these characters consecutively A, E, Ο, ∏, have been determined by the direct method of comparison; and as the name is, by the supposition, known, it follows that the values of the remaining five may be inferred without almost the [7:11:346]possibility of error. Having ascertained the values of the second, third, fourth, and fifth, we necessarily obtain, at the same instant, the true values of the first, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth. The same thing precisely is applicable to the name of Ptolemy. But as the name of Cleopatra contains eight distinct characters (one, the phonetic sign of A, being repeated), and as the name of Ptolemy, deducting the four letters which it has in common with that of Cleopatra, supplies three more, we thus obtain, from the analysis of these two names, eleven distinct characters representing as many distinct sounds; and if the same indirect method of comparison be applied to the name of Berenice, it will furnish other four signs, three of them representing distinct sounds, whilst the fourth, a vulpanser or goose of the Nile, is a homophone of the letter a. On the whole, then, it appears that from these three proper names were deduced fourteen distinct phonetic characters, being only two less than the number of the Cadmean letters, and forming no inconsiderable portion of a phoneticohieroglyphical alphabet, which it was an easy matter to extend, and, at the same time, to verify by the comparison of other scrolls or rings with those of which the characters had in this way been ascertained.

As far as we have advanced, then, the process followed in determining the phonetic values of characters seemed equally simple and certain; it carried its own evidence along with it; and the results were afterwards confirmed in the most complete and satisfactory manner by a series of observations conducted with surprising diligence and ingenuity by Μ. Champollion, who established by unassailable evidence that all proper names were written alphabetically. But, not content with a mere induction of facts, the French archaeologist attempted to discover the principle which regulated the phonetic application of certain characters or signs, and at length came to the conclusion that every phonetic hieroglyphic is the image of a physical object, the name of which, in the spoken language of Egypt, commenced with the sound or articulation which the sign itself is destined to represent. Thus, according to him, the image of an eagle, which, in Coptic, is Ahôm or Achôm, became the sign of a ; that of a small vase or censer, in Coptic Berbé, a sign of b ; that of a hand, Tot, a sign of τ; that of a hatchet, Kelebin, a sign of κ; that of a lion or lioness, Labo or Laboi, a sign of l ; that of a nycticoax or owl, Mouladj, a sign of μ ; that of a flute, Sebiandjo, a sign of s; that of a mouth, Ro, a sign of it; the abridged image of a garden, Schné, a sign of sit; and so on. But this hypothesis, which reduces the phonetic hieroglyphics to a species of calembourgs, and leaves, in the greater part of the inscriptions, only a writing in rebuses, seems obnoxious to insuperable objections. In the first place,as Dr Young remarked, Μ. Champollion was never, in any one instance, led, from the Egyptian name of an object, to infer the phonetic interpretation or alphabetical power of its symbol; but the letters having been ascertained by other means, he ransacked his memory or his dictionary for some name which he thought capable of being applied to the symbol, though not always in the most natural manner. Secondly, as the same letter is represented by a diversity of characters, it would be necessary to show, which Μ. Champollion has not attempted to do, that all these homophonous characters are employed on the principle above enunciated, or, in other words, that every one . of them is the image of a physical object, the name of which, in the spoken language of Egypt, began with the sound which the sign itself was intended to represent. Thirdly, the Coptic language, which was undoubtedly . formed from that of ancient Egypt, of which it may in one sense be considered as a precious remnant, nevertheless represents the latter in a very incomplete and imperfect manner; many Coptic words are not Egyptian; many Egyptian words are no longer to be found in the Coptic; the latter, as it now exists, is merely a mutilated and imperfect fragment, through which some traces and lineaments of an elder form of speech are faintly reflected; and even with the Coptic, as we now have it, Μ. Champollion was but indifferently acquainted. It is obvious, therefore, that no reliance whatever can be placed on any theory connected with hieroglyphics which professes to depend exclusively upon Coptic, although, as in this instance, it be propounded with as much confidence as if the language of Egypt had descended unaltered from the days of Ramesses, or the author had possessed a glossary composed under the reign of Sesostris.

Having constructed a phoneticohieroglyphic alphabet in the manner above described, Μ. Champollion proceeded to apply it in deciphering the proper names inscribed on the temples and other edifices of Egypt; and in his Lettre d Μ. Dacier, which is embodied in his larger work, he exhibited the results obtained from the inscriptions on the monuments of Denderah (Tentyris'), Thebes, Esnch (Latopolis), Edfou (Apollonopolis Magna), Ombos, and Philae, relative to the Greek and Roman periods of the history of Egypt. Of these, however, we can only afford to give a very condensed abstract. And, First, connected with the Greek period we read, I. the name of Alexander the Great, whicĥ is sculptured twice on the edifices of Karnak, and written AΛK∑NTP2 and AΛKΣNTPE2. This name Dr Young had previously deciphered from the enchorial text of the Rosetta inscription.^[78. See Supplement to the fifth and sixth editions of this work, vol. iv. plate lxxv.; also section iv. of this treatise. ] 2. The name of Ptolemy, common to all the Lagidae, or sovereigns of the Macedonian dynasty. It is commonly written ΠT0ΛMH2, sometimes ΠTΛ0MH2; it occurs in the hieroglyphic text of the Rosetta inscription, at Denderah, on the monolith of Kous, and on other monuments; it is preceded by the particular surnames of Ptolemy, and followed by one or other of the legends, alivays living, beloved of Phtha ; always living, beloved of Isis ; always living, beloved of Phtha and of Isis. 3. The name of Berenice, written BPNHK∑, which occurs twice on the ceiling of the triumphal arch or gate on the south of Karnak. 4. The name of Cleopatra, written ΚΛΕΟΠΑΤΡΑ on the obelisk of Philae already mentioned, and KΔAOΠATPA and KΛOΠTPA on the edifices of Ombos, Thebes, and Denderah. 5. The name of Ptolemy surnamed Alexander, and accompanied with the legend, always living, beloved of Phtha. The name is written ΠT0ΔMH2, and this is separated from APK2NTP2 by a group corresponding to the Greek word innοahovμiνος, surnamed. 6. The name of another Ptolemy, scarcely known in history, the son of Julius Caesar by the same Cleopatra for whom Antony gave up the empire of the world. This boy, according to Plutarch, bore the name of Coesarion ; Dion Cassius calls him Ptolemy-Coesarion ; and his scroll, sculptured at Denderah, next to that of his mother, contains the name ΠT0ΛMH2 surnamed NHOKH2P2, Ptolemy the young Caesar, followed by the ideographic symbols for always living, and the title beloved of Isis spelled phonetically.

Secondly, the phonetic alphabet was found to apply, without modification either in the values or the arrangement of the signs, to a much more numerous class of hieroglyphic names of sovereigns sculptured on the monuments of Egypt; we mean to those of the Roman emperors: But, contrary to all expectation, it was found that their titles, names, and surnames, on the bas-reliefs of the temples, were expressed in hieroglyphical characters, suggesting not Latin, but Greek words; a circumstance [7:11:347] which seems to prove, what indeed is otherwise pretty well established, that latterly these sacred sculptures were executed by Greek workmen, or at least under the direction of Greek artists. Thus, connected with the Roman period, we read, 1. the imperial title Aυroκgarωg, spelled AOTOKPTP, AOTKPTOP, AOTAKPTP, and AOTOKΛTΛ, “le A étant employe baschmouriquxment pour le P,” according toM. Champollion. This title usually occupies an entire cartouche, and is followed by the ideographic symbols for always living. 2. The title of Kα∕o , αg or Ka∕o ’ agoς, written indifferently KH2P2 or KH2Λ2. It occupies an entire scroll, is followed by the epithets always living, beloved of Isis, and occurs on the edifices of Philae and of Denderah. 3. The legend AOTKPTP KH2P2, the Emperor Caesar, always living, beloved of Isis, which, Champollion conceives, can only apply to Augustus, whose Greek medals struck in Egypt commonly contain only the two words of this legend which are spelled phonetically. It is repeated six times on the cornice of the posterior part of the western temple at Philae. 4. The name of the Emperor Tiberius, which occurs several times on the walls of the western temple at Philae. Two scrolls joined together contain the legend AOTKPTP-TBPH2-KH2PΣ, the Emperor Tiberius Caesar, alινays living. 5. The titles and name of Domitian, contained in conjoined scrolls, and written AOTKPTP TOMHN2 2B2T2, the Emperor Domitian Augustus. This occurs on the monuments of Philae; but a more extensive legend of this emperor is found on the edifices of Denderah, where the hieroglyphic scrolls give the Emperor Caesar Domitian surnamed Germanicus. 6. The name of the same emperor on the Pamphilian obelisk at Rome; but this monument, in explanation of which Kircher published a folio volume, is believed, on good grounds, to be spurious.

The name of the Emperor Trajan occurs on the walls of the intercolumniation of the eastern edifice at Philae. The image of this good prince, presenting an offering to Isis and to Arsiesi or Horsicsi, Horus, the son of Isis, is accompanied by two cartouches or scrolls containing the words AOTKPTP KII2P2 NPO TPHN2, the Emperor Caesar Nerva Trajan ; and the legend, Trajan Caesar, everliving, contained in a scroll, terminates the perpendicular column of hieroglyphics sculptured to the right of the basrelief. The frize of the same intercolumniation is decorated with nine small scrolls. That of the centre, supported by two urcei or royal asps, contains the name of Trajan, TPHN2, with the ideographic epithet ever-living ; and, combined with the scroll on the right and that on the left, it produces the legend, The Emperor always living, Trajan ever-living, Caesar, eternal germ of Isis. The three cartouches placed to the right of these last produce the words, Trajan ever-living, Caesar, Germanicus, Dacicus, always living. And, lastly, the three cartouches on the left give the legend, Nerva Trajan always living, Emperor Caesar always living, Augustus ever-living beloved of Isis. The name of Trajan is also read on the great temple of Ombos, where two scrolls found amidst the ruins of that monument form together the legend, AOTOKPTP KH2P NPOA TPHN2 ⅛7%αλouμswς KPMNHK∑ THKK2, The Emperor Caesar Nerva Trajan, surnamed Germanicus, Dacicus ; which is, word for word, the legend of the Greek medals of this emperor struck in Egypt. The name of the Emperor Hadrian is found on the pyramidion of the fourth face of the Barberini obelisk, which now stands in the new promenade of the Monte Pincio at Rome; the cartouche containing it being placed before a figure of the emperor on foot, presenting an offering to Phre or the Sun. This monument, however, like the Pamphilian obelisk, is supposed to be, not an Egyptian original, but a Roman copy, executed by Roman workmen. The name of the Empress Sabina, the wife of Hadrian, written in phonetic hieroglyphics, is likewise found upon this obelisk. Finally, on the Typhonium at Denderah, two scrolls joined together contain the legend AOTKPTP K2P2 ANTONHN2, The Emperor Caesar Antoninus, with the ideographic epithet always living subjoined; and this is several times repeated on the monuments.

Such is an abstract of the results obtained by the application of the phonetic alphabet to the inscriptions connected with the Greek and Roman periods of Egyptian history. How far they tend to establish the soundness of the original discovery we shall endeavour to explain after we have adverted to the first part of Mr Salt’s Essay, which applies to the subject immediately under consideration. The late consul-general of Egypt informs us that, on the first intimation of the discovery, he had “conceived a very decided prejudice against the phonetic system,” thinking it “founded on too conjectural a basis ;” but having received Μ. Champollion’s Lettre à Al. Dacier, and Dr Young’s Discoveries in Hieroglyphical Literature, he applied himself seriously to the examination of their contents, “being unwilling to suppose that so much importance could be given, without reason, by many persons of acknowledged talent in Europe, to a discovery which appeared to him only a very vague and conjectural hypothesis.”^[79. Essay οη the Phonetic System of Hieroglyphics, pp. 3, 4. London, 1825, in 8vo. ... ] This led to a complete conviction of his error, and enabled him not only to confirm the truth of the “hypothesis” from his own investigations on the spot, but also to add several new phonetic homophones, as well as the names of a number of kings and gods; in regard to which, however, he had, without his knowledge, been anticipated by Champollion. We shall here state as briefly as possible a few of the more remarkable results obtained by Mr Salt in the course of his researches amongst the monuments themselves.

Of names connected with the Greek and Roman periods, Mr Salt was enabled to add to the list of those previously deciphered, 1. that of Arsinoe, which was found by him at Gau-Kibeer, Edfou, and Dakké, with a figure of Isis, and the symbols of the female termination subjoined;^[80. On the noble propylon at Karnak, the finest remaining specimen of Egyptian architecture, this name is also found in conjunction with that of Ptolemy, who'is designated as the “father” of Ptolemy, who had for his wife Berenice. ] 2. the name of Philip, the father of Alexander, which occurs on the granite sanctuary at Karnak, and on the same building is sculptured the name of his son, who is designated as Mai-Amun, or beloved of Ammon ,∙^[81. The phonetic hieroglyphics representing the name of Philip evolve ΦΛEE∏OΣ, which approaches as near to the sound of the Greek as any other name that has yet been discovered, excepting that of ΚΛΕΟΠΑΤΡΑ, which coincides with it, letter for letter. ] 3. a correction of the reading of the name Berenice, the final character of which Mr Salt considered as a hawk, a crow, or an eagle, instead of a vulpanser, as Dr Young and Μ. Champollion had concurred in representing it; 4. the names of the Roman emperors Nero, Commodus, Hadrian, Antoninus, and one which appeared to be Marcus Verus Antoninus Augustus, forming the ornaments of a cornice in the anterior of a small propylon on the west of the island of Philae. The name of Domitian Mr Salt copied from the Beneventine obelisk as delineated by Zoega; and from the whole of these readings he deduced about twenty homophones, in the greater part of which, however, he was, as already mentioned, anticipated by Champollion.

Before proceeding to give the phonetic names of the Egyptian deities, from which, as Dr Murray remarked,^[82. See Summary of Egyptian Mythology, in Appendix to Bruce’s Travels, vol. ii. ] after Jablonski, the names of the Egyptian kings are almost [7:11:348]all derived, Mr Salt stops to mention an intermediate discovery of no inconsiderable interest. It struck him forcibly, that as the phonetic characters had been applied to the names of stranger kings, the Ptolemies and Roman emperors, so they must likewise, if known, have in all probability been employed in expressing the names of the Ethiopian sovereigns who had previously held Egypt in subjection. And the result proved the soundness of this conjecture. From some sketches made at Abydos, Mr Salt was enabled to decipher the name of ΣABAKO or ΣA-BAKOΦΘ, with the same termination as was afterwards found in ΑΜΕΝΟΦΘ; and in a sketch taken from the back of a small porticoat Medinet-Habou he discovered the name of TIPAKA, whom he conceives to be the same with “Tirhahah, king of Ethiopia, who came out to make war against Sennacherib, king of Assyria,” as mentioned in the second book of Kings.^[83. óecona Kings, chap. xix. v. 9. ] If this supposed identity be admitted, and if the inscription of these Ethiopian names on the Egyptian monuments be allowed, as we think it must, to have been contemporaneous with the age of the invaders, then it would follow that the phonetic characters were in use about seven centuries before the Christian era, that is, as far back as the reign of Psammeticus and the time of the prophet Isaiah; and a sovereign named in the Bible, of whose existence learned men had entertained doubts, would be restored to history. Further, upon the high granite rocks at Elephantine, and also beneath the intrusive name of a Ptolemy, Mr Salt deciphered, with the utmost ease, the name ΠΣAMITIK, Psam-miticus, or Psammeticus, written phonetically; a name which he also found sculptured on one of the small temples of Elethyas, on the Campensian obelisk, and also on that in Monte Clitorio, of which engravings are given by Zoega at the end of his learned and valuable work on the origin and use of the obelisks.

Mr Salt then proceeds to give an account of some of the principal Egyptian divinities, and the images under which they are represented, together with their hieroglyphic and phonetic names, wherever these were deciphered. He commences with the eight more ancient divinities mentioned by Herodotus, whose names he determines to have been, 1. Knuph or Ich-Neuphi, or Kneuph, represented symbolically by a chicken watching an ostrich feather, or by the feather alone with a crouching figure, or by the flag indicating god, or as the agathodaemon, or by the image of the sacred serpent, which enters into the celebrated union of the globe, wings, and serpent, placed over the entrance of all the temples of Egypt, the phonetic name being uncertain; 2. Neith, phonetic name NEET or NΘ, expressed by a zigzag or broken line, two feathers, and a pair of tongs, one of the great goddesses of the firmament, represented as a human figure with the head of a lion; 3. Phtha, phonetically ΦΘA, having for his emblem a scaraboeus,^[84. See Horus Apollo, Hieroglyphica, voce Phiha. ] and represented on the temples under the form of a human figure with a scaraboeus over its head, sometimes encircled by the globe and serpent; 4. Amun, Amoun, Ammon, commonly represented by a human form of a black colour, with the head of a ram, surmounted by the globe and serpent, and written phonetically ANN; 5. Phré, the sun, represented generally by a globe or disc, encircled by a serpent, and hieroglyphically designated by the same emblem; 6. Athor or Hathor, phonetic name AΘP, represented under the form of a female, with a peculiar head-dress, composed of a globe, encompassed by two slender horns, and surmounted by two long leathers, and symbolized by the figure of a hawk enclosed in a square, with a smaller square at one of its corners; 7. J3uto or Maut, phonetic name MT, representing the lower firmament, and designated, like Neith, by an outstretched female figure, which is also found sometimes as her symbolical characteristic; 8. Mendes, or the generative power of nature, represented under the form of a human figure, with the head of a goat advanced in front of the forehead, and designated by a square, a dot, and a chicken, the phonetic name being unknown.

Of the minor divinities of the Egyptian Pantheon, Mr Salt explains the phonetic names and symbols of, 1. EPMΣ, Hermes ; 2. TT or ΘΘ, Taut or Thoth, represented by a human figure, with the head of an ibis; 3. OT∑IPE or OTΣIPI, Osiris, designated, as is well known, by an eye, and a chair or throne; 4. ANEΦΘE, Αnepkthe or Nephthe ; 5. OPΣ, Horus, designated by a hawk, or the figure of a child with one hand pointing to the lips, the emblem of silence; 6. ANΦ, Anubis, designated by the head of a shakal or Egyptian fox, commonly mistaken for a dog; 7. ΣΘ, Seth or Sothis, symbol unknown; 8. ∑APΠI, Seraρi ; and, 9. IMOTΘΦ, Imouth, the Egyptian Aesculapius, the reading of whose name is confirmed by a papyrus containing the expression, ’Aσ ’ κλjjπιoυ ô lffn Iμουθου ùioí’ĩĩípai¢- rou, “Asclepius (or Aesculapius), also called Imouth, the son of Phtha.” Mr Salt then subjoins a tabular list of Egyptian kings and queens whose names are all written phonetically, and concludes with expressing an opinion, that, as the fact of phonetic hieroglyphics having been in use in the earlier periods of the Egyptian monarchy seems to be clearly established, so their application will be found not to have been confined to the names of gods and kings or queens; an opinion the truth of which Μ. Champollion had already, unknown to Mr Salt, produced a pretty extensive series of readings to confirm. That the reader, however, may not be bewildered by details, but may be enabled to comprehend the true nature and bearing of these investigations, it may be proper to pause a little in our exposition, and to take a retrospect, not merely of the results obtained, but of the principles which have guided inquiry, and of the evidence by which the different readings are supported.

The phonetic system of the ancient Egyptians, as revealed by the discoveries of Young and Champollion, differs so greatly from every mode of writing known or practised amongst Europeans, that a little scepticism at the outset of our acquaintance with it is perhaps unavoidable. But we are much mistaken if the evidence which prevailed over the early incredulity of Mr Salt will not prove sufficient to convince the intelligent reader that, however anomalous this system may appear, it was in reality employed by the Egyptians as an instrument of communication, though most probably not to the extent which some contended for. And, first, the fact of characters being used in a similar manner, in a living language which upon the whole is not written phonetically, shows that the system in question is not so contrary to analogy as might at first be imagined. The Chinese, for instance, is a sylla-bicoideographic language, consisting of diversified combinations of certain elements or heys, two hundred and fourteen in number; but, in order to express foreign sounds, or combinations of sounds, the characters of that language, instead of retaining their ordinary values, are rendered simply phonetic by an appropriate mark, and thus represent merely the initial or predominant sound of the name or word of which they are the common and recognised signs. Of this Μ. Klaproth has given an example in the Chinese method of transcribing the name of Maria, which is represented by three characters, Ma-li-ya, rendered phonetic; the first signifying Jasper, the second gain, and the third second in rank. ^[85. Examen Critique des Travaux de Champollion, p. 25. ] The same author also informs us [7:11:349] that the ordinary system of Japanese writing resembles, more perhaps than any other, that employed by the ancient Egyptians. “Les Japonais,” says he, “mêlent leurs signes syllabiques, exprimant des sons, aux caractères idéographiques des Chinois, exactement comme les Egyptiens, dont l’écriture se composait à-la-fois de signes phonétiques et de symboliques.” Lastly, on this point, Μ. Saint-Martin, who has succeeded in deciphering an inscription in the cuneiform characters, makes it evident by the word Khchearcha, Xerxes, which is written phonetically, that, in representing proper names, these characters were employed on the same principle as the phonetic hieroglyphics; and it is a singular enough coincidence that Μ. Champollion recognised the same proper name, spelled in the very same manner, in a cartouche engraved on a beautiful vase of oriental alabaster in the cabinet of the king at Paris.

In the second place, the progress of the discovery, and the facts connected with it, seem to demonstrate its general truth and certainty. The name of Ptolemy, taken from the Rosetta inscription, rests upon the basis of an accompanying translation; the same thing may be said of the name Cleopatra, obtained from the obelisk of Philae; and from these two have the elements of the phonetic alphabet been derived. But the strongest evidence, perhaps, in support of this alphabet, is the perfect agreement of the results obtained by means of it with known facts in the history of the individuals whose names have been deciphered, with the dates of the edifices on which these names are sculptured, or with other circumstances of a personal or general nature, the combination of which it is impossible to ascribe to accident, or to account for in any way except by admitting the truth and certainty of the discovery. Thus, the name of Ptolemy is found only upon buildings which, in the style of their architecture, are evidently of a date posterior to the older monuments of Egyptian art. The name of Cleopatra is found, as mother of a Ptolemy, at Ernent and at Kous, where there is also a Greek inscription, in which Cleopatra is represented as reigning with her son; and a queen of the same name is represented as the wife of a Ptolemy at Gau-Kibeer, at Dakké, in a temple of Philae dedicated to Aphrodite, and in another discovered by Mr Salt, dedicated to Aesculapius, in all of which it corresponds with the Greek inscriptions found there; whilst, upon many other temples, a Cleopatra is constantly associated with a Ptolemy. On the magnificent propylon at Karak, one of the wonders of Egyptian architecture, the name of a Ptolemy accompanies, as usual, that of Cleopatra; the name of Alexander, called the son of Ammon, is found in juxtaposition with that of his father Philip; but at Edfou, the name of Ptolemy is followed by the title of Alexander, and by the name of Berenice his wife. Again, the titles of Autohrator, Sebastos, Eusebes, Kaisar, are continually found in conjunction with the names of Roman emperors, but never with those of the Ptolemies; the titles of Germanicus, Dacicus, are found annexed only to the names of those sovereigns who bear these titles on their medals; the name of Hadrian is prefixed, as it ought to be, to that of the Emperor Trajan; and the greater part of the names of the emperors from Augustus to Commodus are found upon temples and edifices, the style of which indicates that they are of more modern date than those which belong to the age of the Ptolemies. Nor are these names and titles, which have all been interpreted by means of the phonetic alphabet, confined to a few insulated scrolls. On the contrary, they are sculptured by hundreds throughout the different edifices in which there are no scrolls that do not apply to those who were concerned in their construction. The oval or ring containing the name of Hadrian is sculptured on a column the hieroglyphics of which are known by a Greek inscription to have been executed immediately after his reign; the name of Soter repeatedly occurs, in phonetic characters, amongst the hieroglyphics upon the soros or mummy-case of a person whose name was Soter, as appears by the Greek inscription upon the same coffin; and this name is also found, in the Greek, immediately after that of Osiris, exactly as Dr Young had before stated, that the names of persons deceased were found in the hieroglyphics on the body. Here, then, we have a mass of concurring evidence, a series of corroborative circumstances, the coincidence and harmony of which amount to a demonstration of the truth of the principles on which the phonetic alphabet is founded, and of the certainty of its application, in as far at least as regards proper names. True results can never be obtained from false assumptions.

Thirdly, it is greatly in favour of the phonetic system of interpretation that the same lax and uncertain use of the vowels, which is observed in the hieroglyphic writing, prevails also in the Coptic,^[86. This has been very clearly shown by Mr Tattam in his excellent Grammar, and by Professor Kosegarten in his very learned work De Ρri s ca Aegypììorum Litteratura, Vimariae, 1828, in 4to. See also Quarterly Review, vol. liii. p. 110. ] where one vowel is constantly put for another, and there is the same confusion between the L and the R. The mixture of symbolic and phonetic signs seems likewise a necessary consequence of the process by which, it may reasonably be supposed, the transition from ideographic to phonetic writing was produced. In this, as in so many other things, necessity was the mother of invention. The impossibility of representing or discriminating by symbols the proper names of individuals, led, as in the Chinese, to the employment of phonetic characters, or, in other words, to the separate indication of each letter or sound in the name by means of an appropriate sign used phonetically; but as the names of the kings, which were probably the first they desired to record, were usually formed from those of the gods, as Thoth-moξ,, Thoth- mosis, √4∕wn-rnai (Mai-α∕nwzz, Memnon), Amun-ορhth, jRam-ses, Osir-tesen, the sign which represented the name of the god would still indicate, in a compendious and intelligible manner, the syllable itself, instead of being composed into separate letters, each with a separate representative. Thus, in the phonetic name of Ranieses or Ramses, the emblem or symbol of the sun stands for the syllable RA. Μ. Klaproth has not, we think, allowed sufficient weight to these considerations, in some of his strictures on Μ. Champoilion. It is obvious, however, that, as the Coptic is the descendant of the ancient Egyptian, and as a knowledge of the latter can only be obtained by means of the former, our confidence in the phonetic interpretation must be increased when we find that it evolves the very same peculiarities observed in that language which embodies all that remains of the idiom of the Pharaohs.

But it is time to return to Μ. Champollion. We have already seen, that the primary idea developed in his Lettre a Μ. Dacier received a more ample and extended application in his Precis du Système Hiéroglyphique des Anciens Egyptiens, the first edition of which appeared in 1824<; that in his Lettres d Μ. de Blacas, written from Turin, he made numerous applications of his system, particularly to the ancient dynastics of Egypt; and that, on his return from Italy, he published a second edition of his Precis, in which, however, he introduced but few modifications of the statements and assertions contained in the first, and in no degree altered or modified the opinion which he had therein expressed as to the phonetic nature of the great mass of the hieroglyphics. This work, which [7:11:350]is written with admirable clearness, and often displays great ingenuity, has for its object to demonstrate, by inductive interpretations, 1. That the phoneticohieroglyphic alphabet is applicable to the royal legends of every epoch in the history of Egypt; 2. that this alphabet is the true key to the whole liieroglyphical system; 3. that the ancient Egyptians constantly employed hieroglyphics to represent alphabetically the sounds of words in their spoken language; 4. that all the hieroglyphical inscriptions are, to a certain extent, alphabetical; 5. that different kinds of characters, the nature of which respectively he endeavours to define, were simultaneously employed in the hieroglyphical texts; and, lastly, from all these propositions, each of which is supported by a great variety of readings and examples, he attempted to deduce a general theory of the graphic system of the ancient Egyptians, generalising with a premature boldness, which afterwards exposed him to the merciless severity of Μ. Klaproth’s criticism. With all its errors, contradictions, and inconsistencies, however, this work displays extreme ingenuity, infinite acuteness, and often rare felicity in the development of views, suggested, perhaps, by an incidental analogy, which would have escaped a less ardent and penetrating observer. This will be sufficiently evinced by the following brief abstract of its contents.

Neglecting the purely controversial, which is the least interesting part of the work, and also omitting that portion in which he retraces the results already obtained, we proceed at once to the application which he makes of the phonetic alphabet to different hieroglyphical groups and grammatical forms of constant recurrence in the inscriptions. The hieroglyphical groups of most frequent occurrence in the texts are those which correspond to son, daughter, child or nursling, offspring, father, mother, sister, hing, and place or locality. 1. The idea of son is expressed by three different hieroglyphic groups, which are often employed upon the same monument. The most common is a goose sh or sch, and a small perpendicular line a or e, forming the word ska, she, or sHi, connected with the Sahidic sha, oriri, nasci, and the Memphitic shai of the same import, and involved in the compounds sheniot, son of father, or brother consanguinean; shenmau, son of mother, or brother uterine; shenson, son of brother, or cousin. The second group is formed of an oval or ellipse s, and a small perpendicular line e, making se or si, which appears in the composite Coptic name Hôr-si-Êse or Hôr-si-Êsi, Horus the son of Isis. ^[87. Mr Akerblad was the first who gave the true import of this composite Egyptian proper name. ] The third is composed of the figure of a child with its hand at its mouth, representing Σ in the title ∑g,8α<rτoς of the Pamphilian obelisk, and the small perpendicular line, which, as before, give the word se or si. A fourth group, which in the hieroglyphical inscriptions expresses filiation, is written ms, equivalent to the Coptic mes, enasci, gignere, whence mas and mise, natus, infans, pullus. ^[88. In the Rosetta inscription, this word, combined with the two characters which express day, corresponds to τα γι ∣∣ ιSλιa of thθ Greek text, where the celebration of Ptolemy’s birthday is mentioned. ] But this group is generally employed to indicate maternal descent, whilst the group she or si commonly expresses paternal descent. Thus, Hôr se ň Ousire mes Ň Ese, Horus, son of Osiris, born of Isis. 2. The group expressing father, formed of the segment of the sphere τ, the horned snake ou, and the small perpendicular line E, reads toue, which is traceable to the Coptic root TAOUE, producere, proferre, probably derived from ta, dare, and ouô, germen. 3. In the hieroglyphical texts, a vulture represents symbolically the idea of mother, ^[89. Horus Apollo informs us {Hieroglyphica, i. No. 12), that to denote mother the Egyptians painted a vulture, iitit‰ epļäív t> τoκτ⅞ l rtf γιιιι τm ζzw⅛>ι> o∙j% ’ ΰκα,ζχιι. ] in Coptic MEOU, MAAu, and mau, according to the dialects; and this character is accompanied with another, the segment of a sphere τ, which gives maut or mout ; a reading the more remarkable, as the word Mo√⅛has been transmitted to us by Plutarch as pure Egyptian for mother, and as one of the surnames of Isis.^[90. H J tins ístiv oτι xm MOTΘ x,a,t πaλιv ’ A,6υ >i. . . 'Σημα.ινΰυσι Js τ<u μtt sr^uTtf πω∙> Ινοματων ΜΗΤΕΡΑ, ru Jí ⅛ιυτtζtf, ×. τ. λ. {De Iside et Osiride.) The statement of Plutarch is confirmed by the fact that, wherever the representation of Isis occurs on the monuments, it is accompanied by the legend Ese djeb-mout, Isis, powerful mother. ] 4. The group expressing king is composed of a plant s, a segment of a sphere τ, and a zigzag or horizontal line n, forming stn, the skeleton of the Coptic word souten, regere, dirigere. 5. The word rοπος, place, in the Greek text of the Rosetta inscription, is expressed in the hieroglyphical text by an owl μ, and an extended arm a, thus giving the Coptic word ma, place, which Dr Young erroneously supposed to signify father.

We come next to the signs or groups in the hieroglyphical texts which perform certain grammatical functions, and express genders, numbers, persons, and times or tenses. And, 1. The ordinary mark of feminine groups s, the segment of a sphere τ, answering to the Coptic article τ', which also characterises the feminine gender. Thus, si, son, τsι, the daughter ; SN, brother, tsn t , the sister ; and TMAu, the mother. But, in the hieroglyphical inscriptions, the feminine article is sometimes placed at the end of a group, which, accounts for our meeting sometimes with mau, mother, and maut, the mother; although the Coptic presents no example of this species of inversion in the use of the article. The masculine definite article in Coptic is p, the equivalent of which is the striated square, the constant sign of the same letter in all the Greek and Roman inscriptions. The plural articles are two in number; first, the zigzag, or the simple horizontal line N; and, secondly, the vase, which is also n ; both being followed by the small perpendicular line e, so that we have the Coptic articles ne, ni, and να, of all which the Rosetta inscription presents several examples. 2. The plural of nouns is expressed either by prefixes or by terminations. The prefixes are the broken or horizontal line N, which is the determinate plural article, and the vase, also n, followed in both cases by the small perpendicular line E, and equivalent to ne or ni. The terminations are either two small perpendicular lines indicating duality, or three such lines indicating indefinite plurality, as Dr Young originally remarked. The two small lines, taken phonetically, are in proper names and others equivalent to the e or i; the three lines, preceded by the crooked staff (lituus), or by the quail, represent the Coptic plural termination oue or oui. 3. As in the Sahidic or Theban dialect of the Coptic certain qualifying words are formed by the conjunctive nt, qui, so in the hieroglyphical texts a number of groups expressing qualifications, or employed adjectively, commence with the vase and the segment of the sphere, the phonetic signs of nt. 4. In the hieroglyphical texts there has only been recognized one distinct group representing a pronoun, the subject of a proposition: it is the pronoun of the third person singular masculine, which is written phonetically ntoph, being letter for letter Coptic. But numerous examples occur of pronouns of the second, and particularly of the third person, combined with nouns and verbs, sometimes as prefixes, though more commonly as affixes. Thus, keeping in view that nph, or simply ph, equivalent [7:11:351]to the Coptic NAPH or neph, is the masculine, and s, equivalent to the Coptic nes, the feminine affix of the third person., we have toueph, father of him, toues, father of her; MOUTPH or TMOUPH, the mother of him, MOUTS, the mother of her ; SEPH, the son of him, ses, the son of her ; TSEPH or SETPH, the daughter of him, TSES or sets, the daughter of her ; snph, the brother of him, sκ τ s, the brother of her ; t"snph or sntph, the sister of him, snts, the sister of her. 6. In Coptic the preposition n, prefixed to a noun, indicates the genitive case; and in hieroglyphics the broken line N performs the same function. Thus, in all the hieroglyphical legends placed beside the representation of the god Horus, we read either Hôr she' n Ousire', Horus, the son of Osiris, or Hôr she' n Ousire' ms n Ese, Horus, son of Osiris, born of Isis.

In the hieroglyphical branch of the Rosetta inscription we meet with verbs in three distinct tenses, present, past, and future, but only in the third person. The characteristic signs of these tenses, taken phonetically, are however nothing more than Coptic prefixes and affixes. Thus the third person plural of the present is indicated in the hieroglyphical texts by a phonetic sign of s, prefixed to the group representing the verb, and equivalent to the Coptic prefix se. Next, the third person of what seems to be a past tense is indicated by the affix of the horned snake ph if the subject be masculine, and by that of the two sceptres s, if the subject be feminine. Of these verbal forms distinct traces appear in one of the past tenses of the verb djô, dicere, as pedjai, pedjak, pedje, pedjaph, PEDJAS, in the Sahidic, and pedjei, pedjek, pedje, pedjeph, in the Memphitic dialect. Lastly, the third person plural of the future, in which form appear all the verbs in the last nine lines of the hieroglyphical text of Rosetta, is marked by a group of three characters, the recurved stem s, the broken line N, and the three small perpendicular lines I or e, from which we obtain sne, equivalent to sene or sena, the characteristic mark of the third person plural of the Coptic future definite. So much, then, for the application of the phonetic alphabet to different hieroglyphical groups of frequent occurrence, and also to certain grammatical forms; an application which, in Champollion’s estimation, goes far to prove his general position, that a great part of every hieroglyphical textis written alphabetically.

The next subject of investigation, viz. deciphering the hieroglyphical names of the Egyptian divinities, is one of equal interest and importance; but after the notice which has already been taken of Mr Salt’s readings, and the publication of Dr Young’s catalogue at the end of the article Egypt in the present work, it will only be necessary to advert to the additional results obtained, and the corrections applied by Μ. Champollion. And here it may be observed generally, that the images of the gods and goddesses with which the Egyptian monuments of all orders abound, are preceded by hieroglyphical legends, invariably commencing with three or four characters, importing, This is the aspect, the mode of existence, the presence, or the resemblance; and this formula is succeeded by the preposition n, of, expressed by the broken or horizontal line, after which comes the proper name of the god or goddess, which is always written in the same phonetic characters with those of individuals. But there is this difference observable, that instead of the figurative character man, which is found at the end of the latter, the names of divinities are constantly terminated by the ideographic sign of god or goddess, as the case may be; a sign the import of which was determined by a comparison of the Greek with the hieroglyphical and enchorial texts of the Rosetta inscription. By this initial formula, and this terminal character, the names of the Egyptian divinities may easily be recognised on the monuments.

From the testimony of the Greek writers, there can be no doubt that the god represented on the monuments by a human figure with the head of a hawk, surmounted by a globe or disc, is the Egyptian ’ Hλ∕og, Sun, denominated Ra, Re', and Phre'. This name, which is of very frequent occurrence, enters into the composition of Rameses or Ramses, written Ra-m-ss. ^[91. From the name of this divinity was also derived that of Piira, or, by inserting (more orientali) a vowel, Pharaii, identical with Pharaoh, the denomination common to all the monarchs of Egypt. Josephus informs us (Αntiq. Jud. lib. viii. cap. 6, § 2) that amongst the Egyptians Pharaoh signified He' ;—and that to each king they gave the title of Sun, that is, called him Phre' or Phra, is demonstrated by all the royal legends, and even by the cartouches themselves, where this title is often expressed, not with the symbolical disc, as when applied to the divinity himself, but with an equivalent character, the figurative image of the sun, that is, a human figure with the head of a hawk surmounted by a disc. This idea, which was originally suggested by Air Wilkinson, has been fully developed and illustrated by Signor ltosellini∙ “Il titolo di Faraone,” says the latter, “dobbiamo prenderlo dal testo originale della Bibbia, ove sta seritto rrjr∣s, Phrah : che tale è la sua naturale pronunzia un poco alterata dai Masoreti, forse non a capriccio, ma per rendere il suono Egiziano della voce ΦPH, Pkrí, il quale noi non conosciamo, e che potè probabilmente conservarsi nella tradi-zone degli Ebrei. Or dunque tra il Phrí o Phra Egizio, ed il Phrah biblico è tanta l’analogia, che non mi sembra lasciar luogo al dubbio sulla identité delle due voci. Ma parrà forse straιιo che Mosè rendesse colla lettera Ain, appoggiato anche dalla He finale, un semplice suono vocale Egizio, che risponde alla Ileta de caratteri Copti. Alla qual cosa rispondo, che la He finale puo essere enfatica, completiva, o espletiva, come vuol dirsi; e tale rimane nella stessa pronuzia dei Masoreti. Ma che la Ain sia la lettera usata costan-temente dagli Ebrei ’ per esprimere l’elemento e o a del Egizia voce Phra o Phré, Mosè medesimo ce ne assicura. Trascrivendo egli il nome della citth Egiziana fabbricata dagli Ebrei e ebiamata con Egizio nome Ramesses, scrisse Ebraicamente DDum, Rhamses." (See I Monumenti dell' Egitto e della Nubia, parte prima, tom. i. pp. 116, U7∙) ] Ammon, Amoun, or Amun, the principal deity of Thebes, represented with the head of a ram, and assimilated by the Greeks to their own Zíu¢, is read Amn by Μ. Champollion as well as by Mr Salt. On the paintings and bas-reliefs, however, the former discovered a second divinity with a ram’s head, but distinguished from the first either by an uraeus or asp placed between his horns, or by a complicated and peculiar headdress, containing a solar disc and one or more uroei. This divinity, like the preceding, bears the name of Amn, sometimes that of Amon-ra or Amon∙re', but more frequently a third name, in the orthography of which there are four distinct varieties, viz. nb, noub, nm, and NOUM. Now, if the b of the name xb be pronounced in the Coptic manner, like a v or an f, we shall obtain Nev or Ner, the god 'K.vη<p, who, according to Plutarch, was the principal divinity of the Thebaid; and, in like manner, if noub be pronounced nouf, the latter will at once suggest the ΚΝΟΤΦ-/; of Strabo, identical with the Kiojp of Plutarch and Eusebius. On the other hand, if noub be pronounced in the ordinary way, we shall obtain the XNOTB-∕g of the inscription at the Cataracts, Α,μ-μωvι ο κa ∣ Xvou,β≡∕, and of the Gnostic or Basilidian Stones, and also the Ammon-Chnubis of the Latin inscription discovered by Belzoni in the quarries of Syene∙ Lastly, in the variation noum we discover the XNOYM-z¢ of the Basilidian Stones, which bear indifferently XvouÇ>/ç, Χνου/3/¢, and Hvoυμις, thus showing that these various names are applied to one and the same divine being represented under the form of a serpent.^[92. All the details transmitted by the Greek writers concerning the mode in wnich the Egyptians represented Ammon∙Kneph, Ammon-Knuphis, or Ammon-Chnoumis, are perfectly applicable to the images of the god whose hieroglyphical names have been found to be ]

According to Eusebius, Phthah or Ρhtha, one of the principal[7:11:352] Egyptian divinities,chiefly adored at Memphis (Mam-phtha), and assimilated by the Greeks to their *Hpa∕<r- nς, was believed to be the son of the god Kneph or Ammon-Chnuphis or Chnubis. In constant juxtaposition with the images of the demiurgos, or creator (celui qui dispose la matière) sculptured on the bas-reliefs of Ibsambul, Philae, Edfou, Ombos, and Thebes, is the figure of a second divinity (d’uwao¢ dεoς), distinguished either by a solar disc and crescent surmounting his head-dress, or by the ordinary sceptre of the gods, combined with a nilometer, a handled cross, a lash, and a balance, or enveloped from neck to heel in a close tight vestment, leaving at liberty only the hanos which hold the sceptre; and there can be no doubt that this figure was intended to represent Phtha, because the adjacent hieroglyphical group contains the name of Phtha expressed in phonetic characters. These readings, then, serve to confirm the statement of Eusebius, that Phtha was believed to be the son of Kneph or Ammon-Chnuphis, the demiurgos of the Egyptian mythology. Amongst the titles which the decree of Rosetta applies to Ptolemy Epiphanes is Mai-Phtha, i l γαπr,μεvος iriro του Φdα, beloved of Phtha. Petbe, whom the Greeks call Kronos and the Latins Saturn, was deciphered from a Coptic manuscript in the Borgian Museum. In a Greek inscription discovered by Ruppel at Schélé, between Elephantine and Philae, and containing the names of different Egyptian divinities, is that of the goddess ΣATH-Σ, or ΣATI-Σ, which occurs immediately after Ammon-Chnoubis, and corresponds to the 'Hp] of the Greeks and the Juno of the Romans. But on the bas-reliefs the figure of Ammon is always accompanied by that of a goddess, whose distinctive emblem is a large feather stuck in her head-dress, and whose hieroglyphical name expressed phonetically is Sate or Sati, identical with the ∑αnjς or ∑ar∕ς of the Greek inscription above mentioned. Of the divinities better known, the names deciphered by Μ. Champollion are, 1. Anubis, son of Osiris and Nephthé, written Anb and Anbô, in Greek ANβυ- B∙∕ς, and distinguished by the head of a shakal or fox, which the Greeks mistook for that of a dog; 2. Osiris, the husband-brother of Isis, written Ousre' and Ousri, or Ousire' and Ousiri ; 3. Arueris, the twin-brother of Osiris, written Aroeri, Haroeri, or Haroueri ; 4. Anucis, assimilated to the *Eo ’ r∕α or Vesta of the Greeks, and written Ank, Anouk or Anouké, in Greek Ayouκjjς or Αvovx ∣ ζ∙, together with Horus, Apis, Mnevis, Besa, Socka-ris, Thermouthis, and the names of the greater part of the Decans represented on the circular zodiac or planisphere of Denderah. From all this, then, the inference deduced by Champollion is, that the Egyptians employed phonetic hieroglyphics in writing the names of the different members of their populous Pantheon.

Results at once curious and interesting were likewise obtained by the application of the phonetic alphabet to the names of private persons of both sexes. Of these the Greek writers have preserved a considerable number, all of them composed of the proper names of divinities, with the addition of some distinctive epithet, and easily explicable with the aid of the Coptic. Thus Kμυwaιος signifies given by Ammon; N∕rωκg∕ς, victorious Neith; ’Aðwd/; engendered of Thoth; Mαg∕ς or Mo∕g∕ς, gift of Ré, or the Sun; ∑i∕4pouκgarjjς, Hercules-Harpocrates; Qομaι^a, the world friend of Phtha; ΠαjjΛς, the consecrated to Isis; ∏αvoup∕ς, the consecrated to Chnuphis; Hα0εgμovr, the consecrated to Thermuthis; ΠsnjΛς, he who belongs to Isis; IIíroffiğ /ς, he who belongs to Osiris; MαηΛς, gift of Isis, or loving Isis; Ψεvaμovv, the child of Ammon; ∑gvoσ⅛g, the child of Osiris; ∏sreag∙τo%gαr>ji, he who belongs to Harpocrates; ∏mαgωjjg∕ς, he who belongs to Aroueris; and so of the rest. The same observation may be applied to the names deciphered by Champollion; they are all formed on the analogy indicated by those which the Greek writers have preserved, and by their composition they show that the mythological system of Egypt, like that of India, had become interwoven with the whole texture of society, and with every circumstance of life and manners. Religion, indeed, like a subtile spirit, insinuated itself into every thing; and even the names of private individuals contain evidence of its universal predominance. Thus we find Petamun, he who belongs to Ammon; Petarnu∙ ra, he who belongs to Ammon-Ra; Amenoph, Αμsvu- <p ∣ ς, an abbreviation of Amenoftep, Αμεvωφ0ης, approved of Ammon; Amontet, obedient to Ammon; Phtaftep or Ptahtefp, approved of Phtha; Etep-an∙Ptalι or Ftep-Ptah, the approved of Phtha; Ptahdjer or Ptahdjor, Phtha the powerful, or the powerful by Phtha; Pethorpre, he who belongs to Horus and the Sun; Petepré or Peteplire, the same with the Putiphar or rather Putiphrah of Scripture, and in the Coptic text of Genesis regularly written Petephre, he who belongs to Ré or the Sun (priest of the Sun); Isidjer or Isidjor, Isis the great or powerful; Hatorshé and Hatôrshet, child (male or female) of Hathôr ; Hor-amun, Horus-Ammon; Hôrsiesi, Horus, son of Isis; and Amun-Hôrsiesi, Ammon-Horus, son of Isis. It is to be observed, however, that the Egyptian proper names of private individuals are never included in an elliptical ring or cartouche, which is the distinctive mark of the proper names of sovereigns alone; they are written like the ordinary current text of the hieroglyphics, but are constantly terminated either by the figurative emblem of man, or by the sign of the feminine gender, as the case may be. From this branch of his analysis Champollion concludes that the proper names of individuals were written phonetically; and consequently that theopi-

Amn, Nb, Noub, and Noum. Eusebius informs us that the Egyptians represented the demiurgos, or creator of the world, under a human form, covered with blue flesh, encircled by a zone or girdle, holding a sceptre, and having on the head a royal ornamented head-dress of feathers-Porphyry gives us the same information. “Hujus porro Kvij¢ imaginem, inquit, humana fonna depingunt, colore caeruleo, zonam tenentem et sceptrum, pennam gerentem in capite; ovum ab ore producit, a quo nascitur deus quem Aegyptfi Phtha, Graeci Vulcanum vocant.” On all the monuments the god called alternately Amun and Noub accordingly appears under a human form, with flesh painted blue, encircled with a zone, and having his head-dress surmounted by two enormous feathers of different colours. Eusebius further informs us (Proeparatio Εvangelii, lib. iii. cap. 9, p. 115, Paris, 1628) that Knaph was emblematically represented under the form of a serpent; and we have already seen that, on the Basilidian Stones, the names Xtevļnţ, Xvoυβn, and Xwυμn, are accompanied by the image of a serpent. On the monuments in the elder style of Egyptian art, this divinity is sometimes found with an uroeus on his head; but he is more frequently preceded or followed by a huge serpent nearly covering his visible image with its voluminous coils. Kneph was regarded by the Egyptians as the ’ ΑγaHoδa>μωv, or good genius, and, in this character, he was also represented by a serpent. Nor is it undeserving of notice, in considering his distinctive attributes or emblems, that the surname of Hioaγaio^a ∣ μωv, given by flattery to Nero upon those of his medals which were struck in Egypt, is combined with the image of an enormous bearded serpent having its head ornamented with a symbolical head-dress. Lastly, the Greek and Latin inscriptions, in which Ammon-Chnoubis is mentioned, were found, the one in the isle of Schélé, near Syene, and the other at Syene itself; in short, at a small distance from the isle of Elephantine, where Strabo places the temple of K>βy∣p<i, and where, according to Eusebius, the divinity worshipped was represented under a human form with the head of a ram surmounted by a solar disc, and had the flesh painted blue. There can be little doubt, then, that the god who, in the hieroglyphical text, bears the name of Neb or Ner, Noub or Nouf, and Noum, is identical with Ammon, and the divinity whom the Greeks called Kneph, Chnuphis, and Chnumis. (See Précis du Systeme Hiéroglyphique, pp. 143, 144, 145, 146.) [7:11:353] nion originally expressed by Dr Young, and repeated by himself in his Lettre a Μ. Dacier, that the phonetic hieroglyphics were confined to the transcription of words, % i A foreign to the Egyptian language, is erroneous.

The next subject which engaged the attention of Champollion was the analysis of the royal titles and qualifications inscribed on the more ancient Egyptian monuments; an analysis the object of which is to show that, even anterior to the Persian invasion, the Egyptians employed in their hieroglyphical texts characters representing the sounds of the spoken language; and that these words are expressed by signs similar in form and in value to those which were afterwards used for transcribing the proper names and titles of the Greek kings and Roman emperors. In his Lettre à Μ. Dacier, Μ. Champollion proved by an unbroken series of facts that the Egyptians wrote phonetically, or employed the figures of objects to express sounds, from the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great (a. c. 332) till the close of the reign of Antoninus (a. d. 161), a period of about five centuries. But as the Persian conquest preceded the Macedonian by nearly two hundred years (193), the question which next arose was, whether, in the interval between these two conquests, and still more in the periods of the Egyptian monarchy anterior to the first or Persian, any traces of the same system of writing could be discovered. If this point were determined in the affirmative, Μ. Champollion conceived that the chain of evidence would thus be rendered complete. His reasoning, however, involves several elements of uncertainty. In the first place, the period at which any given name was inscribed on a monument may not have been contemporary either with the erection of the monument itself, or with the age of the individual whose name has been so inscribed. Secondly, the style of the architecture of the monuments is by no means an infallible indication of the epoch to which their construction should be referred, inasmuch as the rise and decline of the art must necessarily exhibit many points in common, and show nearly the same relative imperfection, and as the more ancient are consequently in danger of being confounded with the more modern edifices. Thirdly, though the dates of the monuments may be ascertained from these dedications, or from independent historical authority, the time when any given name was inscribed thereon is not determinable by the same evidence, and can only be inferred from accessory circumstances, which seldom amount to more than a probability, the value of which, in ordinary circumstances, cannot exceed that of a reasonable conjecture.

But, however this may be, we shall complete our abstract of Μ. Champollion’s investigations by exhibiting a few of the results which he obtained by deciphering hieroglyphic names sculptured on the monuments supposed to belong to the early age of Egyptian art. And, 1. In a cartouche engraved on a vase of oriental alabaster, preserved in the cabinet of the king at Paris, Μ. Champollion, as already mentioned, deciphered the name of Xerxes, written Khschearscha, which is the Persian name of that monarch, without any other omission than that of a sort of medial vowel; and this hieroglyphic name is accompanied by five characters, the phonetic values of which give the word Ierina or Iriena, the same with Iere, Iranian or Persian. 2. In the twenty-ninth or Mende-sian dynasty Manetho places a king whose name is written Aχω^∕j, probably the ’ Aκog∕ς of Diodorus Siculus; and this king had for his immediate predecessor and immediate successor two princes of the name of N≡ς≡g∕r^ς, as written by Manetho, or N>φsgsυς, as written by Diodorus. But on two sphinxes, the style of which approaches that of the sculptures executed under the Greek kings of Egypt, were found the hieroglyphical name of a king Hakr, ’AKÓP-z¢, and that of a king Naifroue' or Naifroui, supposed to be identical with Neplιereus or Nepherites. 3. On the Campensian obelisk, which Augustus caused to be transported from Egypt to Rome, and placed as a gnomon in the Campus Martius, may be read Psmt or Psmtk, the skeleton of the name of Psammetichus,^[93. See the engraving given by .Zoega of this obelisk, which was from the first believed to be the work of a Pharaoh. (Plin. Historia Natural, lib. xxxvi. c∙ 8, 9, 10.) The name on this obelisk is, according to Champollion, that of Psammetichus I. who flourished about 120 years before the Persian conquest. ] one of the most enlightened kings of Egypt, who opened the ports of that kingdom to the Greeks, encouraged commerce, patronised the arts, and sought to revive the maritime power of his country. 4. According to Manetho, the second king of the twenty-third or Tanite dynasty bore the name of , Oσ⅛g0oς or ’ Gaο1Qωv. But on a granite obelisk amidst the ruins of Heliopolis is sculptured the name of a prince called Ousortasen or Osortasen, which also occurs on a small statue of carnelian in the cabinet of Μ. Durand, accompanied by the legend, “the son of the Sun, beloved of Phtha.”^[94. Two coloured pillars, transported from Egypt to France, confirm the above reading, and increase the probability that the king mentioned by Manetho is identical with the Pharaoh whose monumental name is Osortasen. (Précis du Syst. Hièrogh. p. 197, et seqq.) ] This Pharaoh must not however be confounded with the Osirtesen of Mr Wilkinson, the last monarch but one of the sixteenth dynasty, and he with whom the monumental history of Egypt is supposed to commence. 5. From the same monuments have been obtained the names of several other kings and queens belonging to the twenty-third dynasty, particularly those of Ptahaftep, the Petubastes of the Greeks, and father of Osorthos; Ran, his queen; Psjam or Psdjam, Psammus, òv ’ Hgazλsα '⅛uγwrnοι ’ ε×aλεffav l the son and successor of Osorthos; Amonschet, daughter of Osorthos, and sister 'of Psammus; Beba or Bebo, queen of Psammus; and Amonraou, his son, probably the last scion of the Tanites∙ 6. The head of the twenty-second or Bubastite dynasty is denominated by Manetho Σf<r0χ⅝∕5 or being the Pharaoh who in Scripture is c»lled Sesak, Shishak, Shushak, and who, in the reign of Rehoboam the grandson of David, pillaged Jerusalem, and carried off “all the shields of gold which Solomon had made.”^[95. See First Kings, chap. xiv. ver. 25, 26. ] Upon one of the colonnades which decorate the court of the grand palace at Karnak are two royal legends, the praenomen in the first of which contains the title “approved of the Sun,” followed by “the beloved of Ammon, Scheschonk,'' apparently identical with the Sesonchis of Manetho; but, in the second legend, we read “the beloved of Ammon, Osorhon,” and the king called , Qδo1∙χοv, who has sometimes been confounded with ’Offoğâan, was the immediate successor of Sesonchis. A variety of other legends serve to confirm this conclusion. 7. The next Pharaonic name deciphered by Champollion is that of the head of the nineteenth dynasty, which was one of theDiospolitan. It occurs on almost every monument executed in the ancient style of art; it is written Remses, Ramses, Amun-mai-Ramses, Amun-Ramses-mai ; and, according to Champollion, it is , that of Rameses the Great, the same sovereign who is called Sethosis by Manetho, Sesoosis by Diodorus Siculus, and Sesostris by Herodotus and Strabo. This conclusion is not hypothetical or conjectural; it has been established by a very elaborate historical investigation, in which, as appears to us, the identity of these various names has been made out in a very satisfactory manner. 8. Lastly, of the sovereigns belonging to the eighteenth [7:11:354]dynasty, which was also Diospolitan, Champollion deciphered those of Meiamoun-Ramses, Ramses 1., Amenophis II. whom the Greeks, mistaking a title (Meiamoun) for a name, called Memnon, Amenophis I., and, finally, that of Thouthmosis, the founder.

These results are supposed to have received a remarkable confirmation from the Genealogical Table of Abydos. This interesting monument was disinterred by Mr Bankes in 1818, while excavating for the purpose of obtaining an accurate ground plan of the extensive ruins of Abydos; and, soon after his return to England, he caused it to be lithographed, and copies to be distributed to different persons both in this country and in France.^[96. Well might Mr Bankes take as a motto the words of Iamblichus, Και τα łv A∕3w⅛∣ ünafarrav Soξα , “And he will publish the secret of Abydos.” ] One of these accompanies Mr Salt’s Essay, which, in fact, was edited by Mr Bankes. A design of the Tablet was also made by Caillaud, but it is exceedingly ill executed, and, in the first or uppermost row of royal names, a cartouche is wanting. This important and interesting monument is composed of three rows of royal names, each row containing twenty-six; and the two upper rows exhibit the names of kings, arranged in the order of immediate succession, to perform a propitiatory act in favour of Ramses III. whose name and praenomen repeated occupy the whole of the last row. That the names in the two upper compartments present an immediate succession of kings, is rendered certain by other monuments which are particularly referred to by Rosellini. The names in this tablet are arranged in retrograde order from the right to the left, so that the fifty-first scroll, reckoning from the commencement, is the last of the series, whilst the fifty-second contains the proper name of that king whose praenomen is included in the scroll immediately preceding; and the first of the upper compartment on the right is of course the most ancient of all these kings. With the forty-first scroll commences the series of kings belonging to the eighteenth dynasty; the six preceding rings to number thirty-five contain the seventeenth dynasty of Theban Pharaohs, which was composed of the same number of kings; and in the five scrolls to thirty we should have read the names of the five kings who composed the sixteenth dynasty, if the characters had not been obliterated by time; but two of these have fortunately been preserved by other monuments. In the second compartment there still remain three scrolls (the 29th, 28th, and 27th), which, with the twenty-six of the first or uppermost row, form the names of twenty-nine kings, who must have preceded the accession of the sixteenth dynasty. The chronological Canon of Manetho does not give the number of kings who belonged to the fifteenth dynasty; it merely informs us that this dynasty was Theban, and lasted two hundred and fifty years. “Nel silenzio delle liste (di Manetone),” says Rosellini “viene opportunissima la Tavola di Abydos, la quale io credo fuor d’ogni dubbio darci, in questi ventinove cartelli, l’esatto numero dei re che formarono la dinastia XV.”^[97. “E del mio credo ecco le prove,” says the learned Italian. “La dinastia xiv. comprende settantasei re di origine Choiti. Dicopertanto non esser probabile che, nei rimanenti ventinove cartelli del quadro di Abydos, consumato il numero, taciuto da Eusebio, dei re della dinastia xv., si possano comprendere ancora alcuni re della xiv. Poichè esprimendo questo quadro una specie di pri-ghiera in favore di Ramses III. per ordine, o ad onoranza del quale fu scolpito un tai monumento, trovasi convenientissime che a pregar s’introducano i soli re delle familie Tebane, che con lui ebber commune la patria e verisimilmente la discendenza. Nè sarebbe credibile che sovrani di una altra famiglia, quai fu la Choite, la quale lungamente interruppe il regno delle familie Tebane, cominciato fino dalla dinastia decimaprima, fossero ammessi in comunione di prece a favore di un re Tebano. Imperocchè il cangiamento delle dinastic fu quasi sempre operato, in tutti i tempi e presso tutti i popoli, per civili discordie e per violenze; e sempre partori negli ofiesi, od; implacabili e lunghi. I re poi della dinastia xv. regnarono dugento e cinquant’anni. Dato pertanto un numero approssi-mativo di re per riempier questo spazio, non resterebbero, dei ventinove nomi della Tavola di Abydos, altro che pochi da ascriversi alla dinastia xiv. la quale ebbe settantasei sovrani. E perché poi se qualcuno di loro in questo quadro fu ammesso, sarebbero tutti gü altri rimasti esclusi? I limiti della Tavola di Abydos non crano fissati da alcuna legge. La ragione pertanto non consente, o ch? i Choiti vi avessero parte, o che della lor numerosa famiglia alcuni pochi soltanto si ammettessero.” (Z Monumenti delΓ Εgitto, torn· i· part i. pp. 152, 153.) ] The learned Italian then states the grounds on which he was led to form this opinion; but if he be right in ascribing all these twenty-nine names to the fifteenth dynasty, it will follow that the average duration of each reign of that dynasty was only about eighty years and a half, which is considerably below the average duration of a reign in other dynastics of which complete lists have been given. This monument has suffered severe injury from time. In the first or uppermost compartment, twelve scrolls have been entirely and two of them partially effaced; in the second, eight have been totally obliterated; and in the third, three have been destroyed, four rendered illegible, and one partially injured. Μ. Klaproth has given it as his opinion that the Table of Abydos, instead of being read horizontally from right to left, should be read perpendicularly from right to left, in columns of two lines;^[98. “Au lieu de lire ce monument horizontalement de droite à gauche, comme Μ. Champollion l’a fait, il ne nous parait done nullement douteux que ses lignes doivent se suivre perpendiculairement, et aussi de droite à gauche; c’est-à-dire, par colonnes de deux lignes.” (Examen Critique, p. 173.) Μ. Klaproth adds, “Mon intention n’est pas de donner ici une plus ample explication du monument d’Abydos, mais je crois que l’examen le plus leger suffit pour démontrer que Μ. Champollion s'est complètement trompé sur la direction dans laquelle ces lignes doivent être lues." (P. Iĵí.) This is a great deal too tranchant, especially considering that it is not accompanied with a single example of the method of reading proposed, which, in fact, will on trial be found to be an entire delusion. ] but although he has marked his copy of the monument, so as to indicate such a mode of interpretation, he has not ventured to exemplify his suggestion; and a very careful examination of the tablet has convinced us that this idea is erroneous. The repetition of the name and praenomen of Ramses (Amun-mai-Ramses), each thirteen times, in the third row or compartment, excludes such a supposition. But there can be no doubt whatever that the ordinary hieroglyphics in the two vertical columns on the left, containing the propitiatory act, are to be read perpendicularly, from the top to the bottom, beginning with the column towards the right.

Hasty, premature generalization formed the prominent defect of Μ. Champollion’s mind. The importance of the monument discovered by Mr Bankes cannot well be estimated too highly; but we are not yet perhaps in a condition to appreciate its full value. Μ. Champollion, however, assuming a tone of confidence, which, on a subject of this nature, is worse than ludicrous, boldly laid it down, first, that his investigations had been confirmed, in the most remarkable manner, by the monument of Abydos; secondly, that, as far as these proceeded, they had established the accuracy of the royal chronological Canon of Manetho, preserved by Julius Africanus, Josephus, and Eusebius, a record which the learned in their ignorance had contemned as unworthy of credit; and, thirdly, that by his researches, taken in conjunction with the TableorAbydos, the Canon of the high-priest of Heliopolis^[99. This celebrated Egyptian priest, who was a native of Sebennytus, flourished in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 260 years before our era. He discharged the functions of sacrificer, and keeper of the sacred animals, in the temple of Heliopolis, where he officiated as high priest of Phtha. Of his history of Egypt, which was written in Greek, some fragments only are extant. Μ. Klaproth seems to think that he has given the true names of the Egyptian monarchs, and that the series of Egyptian kings extracted from the monuments should generally be conformable to the catalogue given by Manetho. “On ne peut done pas douter, says he, “qu’il ne nous ait conservé les véritables noms des monarques Egyptiens, et non pas, comine Μ. Champollion le dit, par simple hypothèse, des noms en partie vulgaires. Toute série des rois d’ Egypte, qu’on parviendrait a extraireyles monumens, a laide de l’alphabet phonétique, doit être généralement conforme à celles que donne Manethon, au risque de paraitre conjecturale a la critique. Les décisions arbitraires ne sont pas des preuves en matière d’histoire; ce qu on y avance doit. etre démontré. (Examen Critique, pp. I7I, 172.) This must' not be mistaken. Manetho can only be considered as a standard in regard to what was believed or represented by the priests; in other respects, his statements must be liable to every objection which can be competently urged against the records from which he copied, or the authorities upon which he relied. ] had [7:11:355] been verified in almost every particular. But there are several weighty considerations, which render it impossible for us to acquiesce implicitly in these conclusions.

And, first of all, the Table of Abydos differs in many most essential particulars from the royal Canon of Manetho. In the eighteenth dynasty, for instance, Manetho has three queens, whilst the Table of Abydos has not one; ^[100. “Allowing to Μ. Champollion,” says Sir William Drummond, in a letter dated Naples, 27th April 1827, addressed to the author of this article, “that he reads and comprehends the hieroglyphical monuments of the Egyptians as well and as accurately as he does the Moniteur, or the Gazette de Paris, I should still hesitate before I admitted his testimony in favour of Manetho. I bave not seen his book on the chronology of Egypt; but I have had in my possession a very accurate copy of the Table of Abydos, and I have examined it with the assistance of one of the most devoted of Μ. Champoilion’s admirers. That gentleman pointed out to me several names, which, he said, were those of kings of the eighteenth dynasty. But I inquired in vain for dates. Perhaps Μ. Champollion has since discovered them, and can tell us whether Josephus, or Julius Africanus, or Eusebius, be right, or whether all three are wrong.” We suspect Μ. Champollion never made such a discovery. ] and other discrepancies of equal magnitude might easily be pointed out. But our objections strike deeper, and apply much more to principles than to details. The Table of Abydos, with which M. Champollion began his defence of the chronology of Manetho, is the foundation upon which his disciples and followers, including Rosellini, still in a great measure build. We do not object to Manetho, that if his chronology be right, that of Herodotus, Diodorus, and Eratosthenes must be wrong. Neither would we reject it þecause, if all his dynastics existed, and if he were accurate in every point, as Μ. Champollion contended, we might give the chronology of Moses to the winds. Truth is our first object; and if it had been proved to be on the side of the high priest of Phtha, we should not have hesitated a moment to join his standard. But the inconsistencies, not to say contradictions, of which this high priest has been guilty, and the improbable, nay incredible, stories which he relates, render his honesty questionable, and accuse his judgment of positive imbecility. Manetho, however, has had his supporters amongst chronologers. If the system of collateral dynastics, so ingeniously and at the same time so erroneously imagined by Marsham, should be revived, the assistance of Manetho might again be required. Even Fréret, whilst he contended against Newton, where Newton was not in his strength, did not disdain to invoke that assistance. It is not the less true, that the learned in general have condemned the chronology of Manetho as erroneous and untenable. But in Μ. Champoilion’s speculations we have all at once a new defence set up for the high priest of Phtha. By the results of a double discovery, that of the long-lost key of the Egyptian hieroglyphics, and the disinterment of a new monument containing a catalogue of the Egyptian kings, predecessors of Ramses III. the royal Canon has been replaced within the pale of history, and Manetho proved to have been accurate in all his statements.

But this assertion, though very confidently made, has not served to overcome our incredulity. Our objections to Manetho’s chronology are numerous. It would be nothing to us if Μ. Champoilion had found the Hermetic books from which Manetho affirmed that he had made his extracts. We do not deny that the latter copied documents which existed in his time, and which the zeal and success of future inquirers may, perhaps, prove to exist at present. We allow that he quoted from the records of the priests; but we dispute the authenticity of those records. We hesitate not to believe Herodotus when he tells us that the priests of Egypt communicated to him their archives. We doubt not the word of this honest, though somewhat credulous historian, when he says that the wooden images of three hundred and forty-one pontiffs, whohad succeeded each other, from father to son, had been exhibited to him by the priests. We only contend that the archives were forgeries, and that the images, like some other images, were the fabrications of fraud and imposture. Three hundred and forty-one descents, in unbroken succession, would be nearly as great a miracle as any of those which the legislator of the Jews, in preparing the deliverance of his countrymen, performed in Egypt; and, even if this difficulty were overcome, all chronology would be disturbed by an hypothesis which, taking the ordinary average of human life, and allowing thirty-three years for a generation, involves a period of rather more than eleven thousand years. Nor is this all. It would seem that, in every separate district of Egypt, the priests had distinct and totally different records. How shall we account otherwise for the very different statements of Herodotus, of Manetho, of Eratosthenes, of the author of the Old Chronicle, and of Diodorus Siculus? The Greeks were clearly made the dupes of these falsified archives, and now the moderns are to be duped by them in their turn. But if the archives of the Egyptians plainly and positively contradict each other, as it is manifest from the testimony of the Greeks that they do; if the internal evidence of these records show that one is not more worthy of belief than another, as Sir William Drummond has most conclusively proved in the second volume of his Origines; to what purpose, unless it be to gratify curiosity, can they be reproduced at the present time? It would be no answer to this that Μ. Champollion had found the very records themselves which Manetho copied, and in which a lamb is said to have spoken in the time of Busiris; for we should still contend that these records, like those shown to Herodotus, and those explained to Diodorus Siculus, were mere fabrications forged by the priests of Egypt.

But whilst we distrust the authority of Manetho as founded on documents unworthy of credit, and contend that the coincidences discovered in the Table of Abydos cannot make that authority either better or worse than it was before, we are at the same time prepared to admit that Μ. Champoilion has done much to prepare the way for a more extensive acquaintance with the monumental records of ancient Egypt. That he has pushed his conclusions a great deal too far, is undeniable; that when he adopted new opinions he seldom or never took the trouble to retract his old ones, or explain why he had abandoned them, is certain; that, in his interpretations, a sign sometimes represented one letter, sometimes another, has been indisputably established by Μ. Klaproth; and that too much still rests on his unsupported authority, is unfortunately[7:11:356] beyond dispute. Considered in one point of view, he was little better than a brilliant empiric. Instead of cautiously working out his conclusions from fixed and settled premises, he dashed off conjectures which sometimes dazzled by their ingenuity, and at other times overcame all objections by their extreme felicity, but which, upon many occasions, were extravagant and empirical in the highest degree. In a subject beset with difficulties of the most formidable kind, he refused to admit that to him any obstacles were insuperable. Signs at one moment assumed a phonetic, at another a symbolic or ideographic power, as the occasion seemed to require, at the fiat of this hieroglyphical conjuror; when he happened not to find a Coptic word suited to his purpose, he scrupled not to invent one; and, with the strongest adverse facts staring him in the face, he persisted to the last in asserting the almost unlimited applicability of his alphabet. On several occasions, indeed, he acted as if he wished it to be believed that he read and comprehended hieroglyphical inscriptions, and even enchorial texts, with as much facility and,accuracy as he did the Moniteur or the Gazette de Paris. Of this he gave a striking but most unfortunate exemplification in the affair of the papyrus in the collection of Μ. Sallier at Aix; an affair which, very soon after its occurrence, was placed in its true light before the public by the author of this article, in a journal which he then conducted. Μ. Champollion remained two days at Aix;^[101. Lettres écrites d’Egypte et de Nubie, en 1828 et 1829, p. 21. “Cette trouvaille est immense,” says he, “et ce manuscrit hiéra tique (the third) porte sa date à la dernière page. Il a été écrit, dit le texte, l’an ix. au mois de Paôni, du règne de Ramsès-leGrand.” ] but it was not until the evening of the second day that a packet of papyri was placed in his hands. No matter for this; time and labour, which are so necessary to other men, the intuitive penetration of Μ. Champollion enabled him to dispense withal. In a single evening he ascertained the contents of all these manuscripts, and decided off-hand that the third, of which the first pages were wanting, was “a real historical treasure,” containing the praises and exploits of Rameses the Great, or Sesostris, in the form of a kind of dithyrambic dialogue between the gods and the king. He also read, or rather pretended to read, the names of fifteen conquered nations, amongst which were mentioned the Ionians {Iouni or Iavani), the Lycians (Louka or Loukι), and also the Ethiopians and Arabs; and he further informed us that the manuscript spoke of the chiefs of these nations, “led into captivity, and the tributes imposed upon their countries.” All this was the work of one evening; all this, if Μ. Champollion may be in aught believed, was deciphered from a manuscript papyrus written in a character the signs of which are but imperfectly ascertained, in a language of which it is only known that the Coptic, in its various forms or dialects, bears to it nearly the same relation as the Italian or Spanish does to the Latin, or the modern to the ancient Greek.^[102. No sooner did. Μ. Champollion arrive in Egypt than he gave a fresh proof of his unhesitating decision. At eight o’clock in the evening he had an interview with the viceroy, who requested a translation of the inscription on the obelisks of Alexandria, which have three, columns of characters on each face. The Frenchman at once undertook to gratify the viceroy’s curiosity, and the whole, translated into Turkish, was delivered to him next morning. ] Empirical pretension like this was surely more than sufficient to alarm the most credulous believer, and to excite suspicion and distrust in regard to all that he had actually accomplished.

In contradistinction to all this haste and empiricism, we shall here introduce the deliberately-expressed opinion of a sober and patient inquirer, formed after twelve years’ laborious practice in the application of the phonetic system. “With regard to the translation of hieroglyphics,” says Mr Wilkinson, “Μ. Champollion must allow, no one is yet sufficiently advanced in the language of ancient Egypt to enable him literally to translate an inscription of any length, or moderately complicated, though a general meaning may frequently be obtained. Time will no doubt do more, and we may hope to see this language interpreted with the same facility as many with which we have long been acquainted. But the steps must be slow and cautious; and the only mode of convincing those who still adhere to a contrary opinion, is to trust little to conjecture, or at least to state an uncertainty, whenever it exists; to admit and correct errors when discovered; and to settle a fixed rather than a temporary interpretation to the groups which will answer to their meaning whenever they occur.”^[103. Wilkinson, Topography of Thebes, p. 57∙ ] These are the words of truth and soberness, and, we may also add, of honesty.

Much of this extravagance and folly, however, is to be attributed to Μ. Champollion’s unlimited confidence in his alphabet, enchorial as well as hieroglyphical, and his consequent adoption of the principle that the Egyptian system of writing hitherto regarded as almost wholly consisting of symbols or emblems of ideas, was, on the contrary, composed of signs, a large proportion of which expressed merely the sounds of words in the spoken language of ancient Egypt. The consequence was, that he disregarded the tentative or experimental method of investigation, to which Dr Young was mainly indebted for the discoveries which have given such lustre to his name; believing his alphabet an instrument of general if not universal applicability, he shrunk from the labour of the exhaustive process of hypothetical induction, by which the values of entire groups maybe determined, notwithstanding their constituent elements remain unknown; and to this unfortunate misconception, or rather limitation, may be attributed all the inconsistencies into which he was betrayed in endeavouring, by means of his alphabet, to interpret signs which are not alphabetical. It was not by the enchorial alphabet, for example, that Dr Young was enabled to translate enchorial manuscripts, which, in fact, are not reducible to any alphabet, except in proper names; it was the words or groups themselves which he translated, with now and then only a hint from a letter or two. In regard to the sacred characters, Μ. Champollion has no doubt rendered it highly probable that the phonetic signs were much more extensively employed than Dr Young had at first imagined; but, on the other hand, he pushed his system to an extravagant length, and neglected that method of investigation so successfully exemplified by Dr Young, which, when systematically applied, must ultimately lead to certain results, because it is founded on the principle of a constant correction of errors and accumulation of evidence.

Even in deciphering proper names, which are incontestably written phonetically, the difficulty experienced is great, and the risk of error often incalculable. This arises from the capricious and arbitrary manner in which they are written; sometimes from the left to the right, at other times from the right to the left, most frequently up and down; whilst the elements of one word are often thrown together pell-mell, in such a way that unless the sound of the word were somehow known beforehand, it would be absolutely impossible to dispose or arrange the characters representing it in correct order; and where this previous knowledge is wanting, the chance of error must be very [7:11:357]great, and the probability will therefore be, either that a barbarous word will be involuntarily formed, or that one very different from that which is actually formed will be evolved. This observation applies rigorously to all the words of the Egyptian language, and even extends to such proper names of gods and kings as are not derived from the Greek or Latin, and the exact forms of which have not been transmitted to us by the ancient authors. Let us suppose, for example, that, by means of the phonetic alphabet, the following groups of literal characters are recognised in an inscription:

A person skilled in the interpretation of hieroglyphics would readily discover that No. 1 is the name of Cleopatra, which, in fact, is so written in a ring or cartouche contained in an inscription of Philae, published by Mr Salt; and that No. 2 is the name of Tσutmosis, which is otherwise well known. But if this were not so, and if we were devoid of all extrinsic information or assistance, the doctrine of probabilities has no formula to exhaust the number of combinations amongst which an interpreter might fluctuate before discovering the true collocation; and, what is more, he could never be absolutely certain that he had discovered it at all.

Another and still more formidable obstacle to be surmounted, is the incomplete and imperfect manner in which the Coptic represents the ancient Egyptian, notwithstanding it may, in one sense (as we have already shown), be considered as a precious remnant of that language. Hence, supposing that the forms and values of the letters were perfectly determined, that their arrangement was well understood, that, in a word, we could spell syllables and distinguish words with as much certainty and precision as in the improved alphabets of the West, there would yet always remain one difficulty, over which genius itself could not triumph, namely, to discover the signification of the words, when it is not known by tradition or otherwise. Some of the misjudging admirers of Μ. Champollion have talked of his labours in deciphering the hieroglyphical inscriptions, as if he had been accustomed to read the most ancient legends with the greatest facility and certainty; and, from a number of circumstances, it is but too.obvious that he himself evinced no disposition whatever to disturb this belief in the omniscience of his genius for interpretation. But the interests of truth require that so gross a delusion should be dissipated; and this cannot be better accomplished than by stating, as Μ. Klaproth has done, the real difficulties of the problem which he undertook to resolve, and tracing a clear line of demarcation between the province of rational inquiry, and the fantastical domain of archaeological empiricism.^[104. “L’intelligence que nous avons des monumens littéraires des Grecs et des Romains est venue jusqu’à nous par one tradition non interrompue; nous possédons la plus grande partie des livres de ces peuples avec une suite d’explications et de commentaires destinés à en dissiper les obscurités, et pourtant à l’époque de la renaissance des lettres, que d’immenses travaux n’a-t-il pas fallu faire? combien d’hommes patiens et laborieux ont use leur vie pour achever d’éclaircir ce que les anciens textes présentaient à chaque pas d’embarrassant, d’obscur ou d’inintelligible pour les modernes? Quand one inscription greeque se présente à nous pour la première fois, quelle habitude ne faut-il pas pour la lire; la restituer, en expliquer le contenu, développer les circonstances auxquelles elle se rapporte? La langue que de profonds philologues ont si bien approfondie est ici la moindre difficulté, mais les choses, les faits, les particularités de date ou de localité, les institutions, les titres des magistrats, les usages, les préjugés, les opinions religieuses; tout enfin n’exige-t-il pas de la part de nos savans une rare application et une sagacité merveilleuse? Cependant que de travaux préparatoires n’a-t-on pas faits pour diminuer leur peine? que de recherches, de tables, de dictionnaires n’a-t-on pas accumulés depuis trois siècles pour éclairer tout ce qui fait partie du domaine de l’archéologie? En Egypte, au contraire, one vaste solution de continuité, un abime immense sépare ?s événemens d’autrefois de la critique des tems modernes. Toute la littérature a disparu avec la religion, la philosophie, et le système entier de la civilisation; les livres, s'il y en cut jamais, ont été complètement anéantis; les papyrus, que quelques personnes peu éclairées prennent pour des livres, n'of frent qu'une perpétuelle répétition des mêmes formules toujours relatives au même sujet, la mort et ses consequences. Les inscriptions hiéroglyphiques sont les sculs livres que nous aient légués les Pharaons; mais là se présente à l’instant cette double difficulté, insoluble si l’on ne parvient à la diviner; tout est inconnu dans ces inscriptions la langue et les faits, l’écriture et le fond des choses. On arriverait à l’intelligence du contenu si l’on avait à sa disposition l’explication des mots, et vice versa on reconnaitrait aisément la valeur des signes si l’on savait d’avance le sens qu’ils représentent. Mais pour opérer ce dernier prodige, il faudrait recréer à-la-fois l’Egypte des Pharaons avec son système idolatrique, les noms des dieux et de toutes les choses sacrées, les détails du culte et toute la série des opinions philosophiques, la vie civile avec ses innombrables particularités, et, par-dessus tout cela, la prononciation matérielle de tous les mots qui s’y appliquaient, leur synonymie et leurs nuances, et la valeur spéciale d’une foule d’expressions, de figures, de métaphores, d’emblèmes, d’attributs, que l’usage chez one nation vivante introduit, renouvelle et modifie sans cesse. Ce n’est pas la critique humaine, c'est l’intuition de la divinité qui pourrait opérer un tel miracle; et l’on voudrait qu’un savant, de quelques facultés qu’on le supposât doué, eût fait seul, en peu d’années, ce que la raison et le bon sens démontrent impossible à des générationes littéraires qui se succéderaient pendant des siècles.” ]

In fact, the discoveries of Μ. Champoilion apply only to a limited number of the hieroglyphical signs; that is, to proper names, and some other words incapable of symbolization, which are expressed by means of an alphabet in some measure resembling that of the Semitic languages, in which the consonants of words are written sometimes with only part of the vowels, and frequently without any vowel whatever. But in deciphering these names and epithets Μ. Champollion had an excellent guide in the lists supplied by the tables contained in the Egyptian Dynasties of Manetho and other ancient authors; he knew beforehand what he had to seek for, and he was not a person to be long in finding the precise thing which he wanted. But, notwithstanding this, he is by no means at one with himself as to the extent of his discovery. In the introduction to his Precis, he affirms “that his hieroglyphic alphabet applies to the royal hieroglyphic legends of every epoch, that the discovery of the phonetic alphabet is the true key to the whole hieroglyphic system, and that at all epochs the ancient Egyptians employed it to represent alphabetically the sounds of their spoken language.” (P. 11.) But at the commencement of the eighth chapter of the work, he contradicts this dogma in the most explicit manner. “I admit,” says he, “that we do not yet know with any degree of certainty whether the inscriptions and hieroglyphic texts, in which are found Egyptian words expressed phonetically, belong to the tiroes of the Pharaohs (remontent aux temps des Pharaons), kings of the Egyptian race; or only to the Greek period, as the inscription of Rosetta, the obelisk of Philae, and the temples of Ombos and Edfou; or merely to the Roman period, as the obelisks of Albani, Borgia, Pamphilius, Barberini, that of Benevento, part of the edifices of Philae, and the temples of Esnch and Denderah.” With respect to the alleged universality of the phonetic mode of writing “at all epochs,” it is therefore evident, first, that Μ. Champollion flatly contradicts his own fundamental proposition; secondly, that this proposition being at variance with all that the ancient authors, particularly Clemens Alexandrinus, have stated respecting the dit’-ferent[7:11:358] kinds of Egyptian writing, it cannot be established by their authority; and, thirdly, that Μ. Champollion has not only not demonstrated its truth, but that, in the actual state of our knowledge, such demonstration appears to be impossible.^[105. It may be proper to state here a fact, which seems to be decisive of the question. The phonetic alphabet consists of about a hundred and thirty-four characters, more than the half of which are purely conjectural. But supposing the whole to have been completely ascertained, the absolute number of distinct hieroglyphics on the monuments is, according to Champoilion’s computation, 864, whilst Zoega makes it 958; and if from the former we deduct 134, there will remain 730 signs, the greater part of which, it is certain, are not employed phonetically, and their real values as yet altogether unknown. With this fact before him, it is not easy to conceive how Μ. Champollion could venture to affirm that his phonetic alphabet applied to the royal hieroglyphical legends of all periods; that it was the true key to the whole hieroglyphical system; and that the ancient Egyptians employed it, at all epochs, to represent alphabetically the sounds of their spoken language. ]

We could have wished to follow up these observations by stating concisely the results of the searching analysis by means of which Μ. Klaproth has reduced to their real dimensions the discoveries of Μ. Champollion. But after what has already been said, we must content ourselves with stating generally, that different and often incongruous values are arbitrarily assigned by him to the same character, without any previous notice or explanation; that the image of an eye, for instance, which was originally set down as a phonetic sign of s, has been successively employed to represent a, e, and o; that, in numerous other instances, changes still more arbitrary have been made; that we are left in equal ignorance of the process by which the original values were pretended to have been ascertained, and of the reasons which induced the author to abandon them; that he attributes values to signs which are not contained in his alphabet, and of which no account or explanation is given anywhere else; that he is frequently betrayed into incongruities and inconsistencies which impeach his judgment, and would even warrant a suspicion of bad faith; that in the interpretation of ideographical characters or symbols, he adopted conjectures and fancies of his own, which, however ingenious, are wholly unsupported by evidence, or even by probability; that, for instance, the symbolical group which, as far as page 265 of his second edition, is rendered “the goddess Sate,” becomes suddenly converted into Tme, and this name continues to the end of the work, though, in the plates, the goddess appears under the name of Smé ; that changes of a similar description occur in many other words, and almost invariably without any previous intimation; and, lastly, that not a few of his pretended discoveries are mere conjectures and imaginations, sometimes exceedingly ingenious, seldom altogether extravagant, but, in as far as evidence is concerned, not more rational nor better founded than the cabbalistical reveries of Kircher or the fanciful vagaries of Palin. For the details and demonstrations of these anomalies, however, we must refer to the Examen Critique itself, one of the most masterly works of criticism that has yet appeared on the subject of which it treats, and which is well deserving of the most attentive perusal.

It now only remains, under this head, to notice the French and Tuscan expeditions to Egypt; the former undertaken at the urgent solicitation of M∙ Champollion, who, as early as the month of April 1827, had digested the plan of such an enterprise, and both having for their common object a re-examination of the monuments, as well as a more extended application of that method of interpretation which had originally been divined in this country, but which was subsequently enlarged and improved in France. The discovery of the phonetic alphabet, generally regarded on the Continent as the basis of the graphic system of Egypt, promised to the historical sciences an ample harvest of new facts, the more interesting and important, as these might perhaps fill up with some degree of certainty the large blanks in the first pages of human annals. But, to answer this expectation, it became indispensable that the new lights which had been acquired on the subject of hieroglyphical writing should be applied to the innumerable inscriptions engraved on all the monuments, public and private, of Egypt and Nubia; and it was with this special object that the governments of France and Tuscany appointed each a commission, the former directed by Μ. Champollion, and the latter by Signor Rosellini, professor of history and antiquities in the university of Pisa. With Μ. Champollion were associated A. Bibent, architect, and Nestor l’Hôte, Salvador Cherubini, Alexander Duchesne, Bertin the younger, and Lehoux, as draughtsmen; with Professor Rosellini, Gaetano Rosellini, architect, Dr Ricci, Giuseppe Angelelli, and Raddi, professor of natural history, with an assistant. Μ. Champollion set out from Paris on the 16th of July 1828, reached Toulon on the 24th, and set sail for Egypt on the 31st of that month, accompanied by the members of the Italian commission. During the remainder of 1828, and the whole of 1829, the members of both commissions were unremittingly occupied in exploring the antiquities scattered along the valley of the Nile, from the Mediterranean as far as the second cataract, and in accumulating those treasures which, now that Champollion is no more, Signor Rosellini is giving to the world in his splendid work, entitled I Monumenti dell' Egitto et della Nubia, of which a considerable portion has already (1835) appeared, accompanied with engravings equally remarkable for their accuracy and beauty.

The indefatigable travellers, never once losing sight of the determinate object of their enterprise, and exploring, one by one, the monuments still extant on both banks of the river, or on the different points of the valley of the Nile, transferred to their portfolios all kinds of positive documents furnished by each ruin. Every bas-relief and every inscription, whether establishing an historical fact, a point of religious belief, or a usage of ordinary life, was designed or copied with the most scrupulous care; and in the work of Signor Rosellini these bas-reliefs have been r&produced by faithful designs, with all the details and colours exhibited by the originals, as often as this appeared necessary either to illustrate the subject, or to convey a just idea of the compositions of art which adorn the monumental remains of ancient Egypt. The result has been an accumulation of not less than fifteen hundred designs, together with a particular description, drawn out on the spot, of every monument in Egypt and in Nubia, containing the subject of each bas-relief, the detail of the decorations, which are always significant, and copies of the accompanying inscriptions, whenever the texts presented any subject of historical interest.

In a climate like that of Egypt, the fatigue incident to such an undertaking must have been trying even to the most robust constitutions; and it is not to be wondered therefore that some of the travellers should have sunk under it.^[106. Μ. Bibent, the architect, was obliged, from bad health, to take leave of his associates amidst the ruins of Memphis, and to return to France, where he soon afterwards died. Professor Raddi died at Rhodes, when on his way back to Europe. The assistant of the latter had sailed for Leghorn some months before, but sunk during the voyage under the effects of the fatigue and labour to which he had been exposed. Lastly, Dr Ricci had the left side of his body paralysed in consequence of the bite of a scorpion at Thebes. ] Μ. Champollion died soon after his return to [7:11:359] France, though not until he had prepared a Hieroglyphic Grammar, which will doubtless contain the ultimate conclusions established by himself and his learned associates; and it is to Signor Rosellini that we must now look for the exposition and illustration of all that was collected during the time that the commissions were occupied in exploring, designing, and describing the monuments of Egypt and of Nubia. Nor, judging from the portion which has already appeared, could the work of digesting and arranging the materials thus accumulated have fallen into abler or more competent hands. The designs are in every view worthy of the subject, and will not suffer much by a comparison with those contained in the French national work, in point of execution, whilst in all other respects they are greatly superior. As to the literary part of his undertaking, it is composed in a spirit of perfect candour and liberality, evincing not only the acquirements, but also the accuracy, of an accomplished scholar, and uniting to great erudition the utmost anxiety to render justice towards all his colleagues in this branch of inquiry. With regard to Μ. Champollion’s Lettres écrites d’ Egypte et de Nubie en 1828 et 1829, it would have been better for his fame perhaps had these hasty productions never appeared. Signor Rosellini attributes the publication and reprint of the Lettres to a speculating bookseller in Paris; and states, what is no doubt the truth, that Μ. Champollion, if he had lived, would have altered and retracted much that is contained in them. But it is nevertheless obvious that they were originally intended foi-publication; they were evidently written for effect, to keep up the excitement in favour of his project; in short, they were calculated for the meridian of Paris.

VIII. SYSTEM OF SPOHN AND SEYFARTH.

The conflicting results at which both ancient and modern writers had arrived respecting the contents of the Egyptian texts, as well as the kind and description of characters in which these had been expressed, were well calculated to stagger an ordinary reader, and to seduce him into complete scepticism as to the possibility of the hieroglyphical inscriptions being ever deciphered and interpreted. According to Horus Apollo, these mysterious writings contained obscure indications of things sacred and profane; according to Clemens and Plutarch, moral sentences; according to Hermapion, as quoted by Ammianus Marcellinus, the praises of kings; according to Kircher, cabbalistic, metaphysical, and theosophistical dogmas; according to Pluche, matter connected with meteorology, astronomy, and the division of time; according to Denon, the rules of husbandry; and, according to the author of the work De l ’ Etude des Hiéroglyphes, a version of the psalms of David. Prior to the researches of Dr Young, nothing deserving the name of investigation had been attempted, and one bold or fanciful conjecture was merely displaced by another perhaps still more extravagant. It was therefore high time that the subject should be either abandoned as hopeless, or that conjecture and hypothesis should give place to rational inquiry conducted on ascertained or demonstrable principles. Dr Young felt this, and, starting from a point entirely new, succeeded, by means of collocation, comparison, and tentative or experimental investigation, in fixing the values of certain characters and groups, and, generally, in tracing out the line or direction which inquiry ought to pursue. Μ. Champollion followed close in his footsteps, and, enlightened even by the errors of his predecessor, unfolded a method of interpretation, the soundness of which, at least within certain limits, has been established by the truth of the results it has evolved.

But not long after these interesting discoveries had been made known to the world, a system was imagined in Germany which, as far as we are able to comprehend it, seems to proceed on assumptions at once ingeniously original and demonstrably unsound. This system was first obscurely revealed in the work of Spohn De Lingua et Litteratura Veteris Aegypti, and afterwards more fully expounded in the splendid work of Professor Seyfarth, entitled Rudimenta Hieroglypliices, ^[107. Gustavi Seyfarthi Prof. Lips. Rudimenta Hieroglyphices. Accedunt Explicationes Speciminum Hieroglyphicoum, Glossarium, atque Alphabeta; cum xxxvi. tabulis lithographicis. Lipsiae, cioιocccxxv. in 4to. ] which appears to have been favourably received by his countrymen. Spohn died young, without completing his investigations or maturing his system; but Seyfarth undertook to do both, and, if we may credit a writer in the Leipsic Journal, he has succeeded so well that, besides establishing the truth of his own method of interpretation, he has demonstrated the utter fallacy of the pretended discoveries of Dr Young and Μ. Champollion. The investigations begun in England, and so successfully prosecuted in France, were by no means calculated to find favour with the Germans, who seem to have a natural distaste for what may be acquired without labour or understood without effort; and hence the very simplicity of the principles upon which these inquiries were conducted, served to confirm their habitual prejudices, and to fortify their understandings against the conviction naturally arising from the results actually obtained. Dr Young’s researches had no flavour of mystery about them; and those of M. Champollion were communicated in language singularly remarkable for the most transparent perspicuity. The lovers of the profound, therefore, saw to the bottom at once, and because they did so, they concluded that the waters were shallow. The question at issue, however, is not so much one of erudition as of evidénce, of which the German scholars and orientalists are not the only competent judges; and we think we shall be able to show that if Young, Champollion, and others who have followed in their footsteps, have done but little, Spohn, Seyfarth, and their disciples, have literally done nothing at all.

Μ. Seyfarth modestly professes himself to be a mere expounder of the doctrines of Spohn, and candidly admits his obligations to the work of that distinguished scholar, not only for the theory proposed, but for the greater part of the materials by which it is illustrated. “Quod sibi videtur hic libellus rationem tradere, qua hieroglyphica scripta legenda sint; id cujus nomine adscribi debeat, tacere, maxime impium et invidiosum esset. Scilicet Spohnius, vir immortalis meriti, omnia praeparavit, quae ducunt ad intelligentiam etiam hieroglyphicoum. Quodsi concessum ei fuisset, pergere in vita, quam ingressus erat, plura Aegyptiorum scripta, inspicere, perlegere, inter se comparare, quod mihi contigit, non potuisset, sed debuisset leges etiam invenire, quibus hieroglyphica scriptura constat. Quae quum ita sint, velim hae schedae accipiantur, tamquam placita Spohnii, vel tamquam fructus, qui ex segete ejus prodierunt, quem instauratorem litterarum Aegyptiarum veneramur.”^[108. Rudimenta Hierogh. Introduct. § 2. In a note to the following section the author says, “Porro integras inscriptiones demoticas pri- ®us (Spohnius) interpretatus est.” But of this bold assertion no proof whatever is produced; and even if Spohn had interpreted, hi his own way, entire demotic inscriptions, his system is so groundless and untenable, not. to say visionary, that a question of priority could not possibly be raised between him and Dr Young. The tentative method of interpretation so successfully exemplified by the latter has nothing in common with the imaginative transcendentalism of Spohn, and the methodical absurdity of Seyfarth. ] The learned professor deserves credit for [7:11:360]the manly candour of this avowal, as well as for the methodical distinctness with which he has stated the principles and doctrines of his master; and all those who take any interest in Egyptian literature can scarcely fail to be pleased with the very beautiful lithographic tables which adorn his Rudimenta Hieroglyphices· But here, unfortunately, our commendation must stop. The theory invented by Spohn and expounded by Seyfarth appears to us to proceed upon an erroneous assumption, to involve in its explication glaring absurdities, and to be incapable of ever leading to any true results.

The fundamental principles of the Spohnian theory are, first, that the hieroglyphical language is a sacred dialect; ^[109. This notion is founded on a statement of Manetho, quoted by Syncellus, Chronograph, p. 40, Paris, 1652, which is as follows: MavsΛw χρημάτισα; ix των iν rţ; "Σηζία&ιχη γη xιιμιvωv στηλών, ΐΐζίρ, φησι, ∂ιaacxτω xa ίιρογοαφιχοι; γοαμμασι χιχαοαχτηβισμινων z>σro Θωά, rou •χνώτου Έ-ομου, χαι t1μηvιυ6ιισωv μιτα τον χαταχλισμον ιχ τη; ΐίζα; ΰιαλίχτου ίι; την Ελλήνιζα φωνήν, χ. τ. λ. ] l and, secondly, that the hieroglyphical characters are not letters, but only symbols of letters.^[110. The real author of this fancy is Cosmas Indicoleustes, a geographical writer of the sixth century, who gravely reports that Moses learned γoaμμaτω ιεpoγλυφι×a, μάλλον Ss σύμβολα γραμμάτων. (Cθsmθgraph. p. 161.) ]

The first of these propositions, which is professedly founded on a statement of Manetho, quoted by Syncellus, is thus explained by Professor Seyfarth: “E verbo dialecti, quo linguam hieroglyphicam veteres insigniverunt, satis clarum est, hanc neque convenisse cum vulgari, neque diversam plane fuisse a Coptica. Differt autem dialectus sacra a Coptica, partim elementis seu verbis, partim legibus grammaticis. Inter dialectum autem sacram et profanam veterem Aegypti omnia intersunt, quibus differt recention oratio a veteri, nationis cujusque magis subinde artium et litterarum humanitate eruditae.” Now, according to this definition, the language of Chaucer should be denominated the “sacred dialect” of English, in contradistinction to the “profane” dialect by which it has, in the progress of improvement, been displaced; and a similar title of honour should be conferred on the antiquated phraseology of our venerable countryman Gawin Douglas. But how, we would ask, are we to detect the existence of this “sacred dialect,” or elder form of the Egyptian? All that remains of the ancient language of Egypt is preserved in the Coptic, of which there are still extant two dialects, the Memphitic and Sahidic, with a few words belonging to a third, called the Bashmouric. But of these three dialects the most ancient is undoubtedly the Bashmouric, of which scarcely a vestige can now be discovered; and hence the “hieroglyphical language” or “sacred dialect” of Spohn and of Seyfarth is a perfect nonentity. Not to dwell upon this, however, we may observe, that there is no such thing known as a “hieroglyphical language? the term “hieroglyphical” being applied only to a particular method of writing, and never to the thing written. The proposition of Seyfarth, therefore, involves an assumption which is contrary to the fact, and at the same time amounts nearly to a contradiction in terms. Secondly, since hieroglyphical inscriptions continued to be executed as late as the reign of Antoninus,^[111. A learned countryman of Professor Seyfarth’s, Dr Sickler, wrote a book to prove that the language concealed under the hieroglyphics is Hebrew, or, at least, a form of speech composed of the different Semitic dialects. ] if the “sacred dialect” or elder form of Egyptian was alone employed in these texts, it follows that an antiquated dialect still remained in use, and co-existed with the more modern form by which it had been displaced. Thirdly, if one dialect was employed in hieroglyphical writing, it is at least equally probable that another was used in the hieratic, and a third in the enchorial. Lastly, Spohn and Seyfarth have equally misunderstood the statement of Manetho, quoted by Syncellus, in which the “sacred dialect,” whatever it may have been, is expressly distinguished from the “hieroglyphical characters” which had been written in the time of Thoth, the first Hermes, “and which were taught after the transition from the sacred dialect to the Greek language.” So much, then, for the first proposition, in support of which no proof of any kind is produced by Professor Seyfarth.

But the main pillar of the theory is the second proposition, namely, that the hieroglyphical characters are not letters, but symbols of letters. Remove this, and the whole fabric must at once fall to pieces. A letter is a character or symbol, representing either an elementary sound, or the simplest combination of elementary sounds. But what are we to understand by the symbol of a symbol of a sound? The symbol of a sound either represents a particular sound, or it represents nothing at all. If then a hieroglyphic be not a letter, but only the symbol of a letter, it follows that it is the representative of a representative, yet is neither that which it represents, nor the sign or symbol of the thing represented, namely, sound; in other words, it is merely the shadow of a shade. This fundamental principle or proposition, therefore, when taken by itself, would seem to be rather a t ∕eu de mots than a statement of an elementary truth. But Professor Seyfarth labours to make himself intelligible; and, having narrowly examined his exposition, we shall endeavour, as distinctly as possible, to state the substance of his doctrine, or rather that of his master Spohn.

He admits that in every country, not excepting Egypt, the first attempts at writing consisted in rude delineations of material or physical objects; that, from the difficulty and inconvenience of this practice, men were soon led to abridge those delineations by putting, per synecdochen, a part for the whole, and by other devices; that as this pictural tachygraphy was incapable of representing changes of relation and qualities, as well as the sentiments and passions of animated beings, it soon came to be enriched with symbols strictly so called, that is, with arbitrary marks or characters employed to represent those ideas which had no sensible archetypes in nature; that, in the progress of time, all traces of connexion between the sign and the thing signified would be lost, and the characters, being applied to the spoken language, would become the representatives of words, or portions of words, as in the Chinese; and, lastly, that from accident, or the fortunate contrivance of a superior mind, some of these known characters would at length be appropriated to represent the elementary sounds of the spoken language, or, in other words, an alphabet would be invented and introduced. But, whilst he does not, and indeed cannot, dispute this gradual progression of the human mind from picture-writing to an alphabet, the first and greatest of all inventions, the finest result of the finest analysis, Professor Seyfarth at the same time contends that the Egyptians had passed all these different stages before they began to fabricate hieroglyphical characters; that, amongst them, alphabetical signs, instead of being the eventual offspring of picture-writing, through the intervention of kuriological and tropical writing, were in reality the parent of both these forms, primary as well as secondary; and that, in Egypt, after attaining the simplest and last refinement in the art of writing, they retrograded to the imperfect, obscure, and cumbrous methods which in every other country disappeared as soon as an alphabet had been invented.

According to Spohn and Seyfarth, the Egyptians as well as the Greeks received letters from Phoenicia.^[112. “At demonstrari potest Aegyptios litteras accepisse a Phoenicibus, p. 15. The learned professor, however, has not thought it necessary to give any demonstration to prove that the .Egyptians received letters from the Phoenicians, but has contented himself with a reference to Zoega (De Origine et Usu Obelise, p. 550), who, unfortunately for him, contends strenuously that the invention of letters is due, not to the Phoenicians, but to the Egyptians; an opinion which is supported by. a great preponderating weight of ancient testimony, and by the concurrence of the most learned men of modern times. (See particularly, Plato in Phileb. p. 157, and in Phoedr. p. 213; Cicero, De Natur. Dear. lib. iii. c. 22; Pliny, lib. vii. c. 56; Arnobius, lib. iv. p. 135: Diodorus Siculus, p. 14; Sanchoniathon apud Euseb. Prepar. Evangel. lib. i. c. 9, p. 31; Plutarch, Sympos. lib. ix∙ 9, 3, p. 738; Jablonski, Pantheon Aegypt. lib. v. c ∙, p. 161 et seqq. ; Zoega, De Orig. et Usu Obelise, p. 475.) ] But, if we are to give credit to these authorities, the former people[7:11:361] must have made an extraordinary use of this invaluable acquisition. Instead of attempting to improve the invention, or to apply it directly to the purposes of writing, which it was so eminently calculated to facilitate, they did exactly the reverse, and immediately commenced embellishing, varying, and multiplying these elementary characters, as fancy or caprice happened to dictate. “Licuit cuivis calamo, cuivis cestro, variare hieroglyphica.” Such is the broad and unqualified statement of Μ. Seyfarth; but how these arbitrary variations were to be rendered intelligible to any but the scribe, painter, or sculptor by whom they were executed, or even to him after the lapse of a considerable interval of time, the learned professor has not condescended to explain. It would seem, indeed, that nothing short of inspiration itself could enable any one to read and understand writing formed and executed in the manner here described. Yet the three kinds of Egyptian writing, now perfectly distinguished, were, it seems, the fortuitous results of this most extraordinary procedure, first imagined by Spohn, and afterwards zealously contended for by Seyfarth.

Clement of Alexandria informs us that those who were educated amongst the Egyptians learned three sorts of writing; firstly, the epistolographic or demotic; secondly, the hieratic ; and, lastly, the hieroglyphic. ^[113. In the appendix to Μ. Seyfarth’s work, there is a very learned criticism, by Professor Weiske of Leipsic, on the celebrated passage of Clemens, in which, speaking of the perplexing 5τ^a>τα στaιχ ι ua, he remarks, “At si noster (Clemens) ™ πζωτa <rτβ∕χoa initiales voluisset esse verbi cujusque litteras, haud dubie του ί,οματο; iχa<rτoυ addidisset.” Professor Weiske himselfl resting on the authority o Aristotle’s definition of the word στoi^na, (στoi%uo, µs, oυ, io^τι φωvn a⅛taiζiros ∙ ∙ . συvιτrj. De Art. Poetic, c. 20), is inclined to render <rα fi ωτa - rτ0i^ ι a “ simplicissimos sonos, qui litteris exprimuntur a version which does not differ so widely from that of Μ. Letronne as he seems to imagine. For as the letters expressive of the simplest sounds were also the most ancient, it follows, even from Μ. Weiske’s version, that τα τζωτa στtιχ ι ua may equally mean τα naaaioraτa, — τα lξ ⅛χps γζαμματα. ĩia Kaĩµov iioμaσhιτa. ] But Spohn and Seyfarth take it for granted that the order of instruction here indicated is also the order of invention ; and, accordingly, they lay it down as a principle that the demotic is the basis upon which the whole superstructure has been reared, the original stem which the fancy or caprice of writers in time covered and adorned with a variety of branches. In plain terms, their notion is, that the hieratic has been generated by variations on the epistolographic or demotic, and the hieroglyphic by similar or analogous variations on the hieratic; and they contend that all these variations are not letters, but only symbols of letters (ΰυμβοΚα γ%αμμaτων). Taking Μ. Seyfarth’s assumption, therefore, that the original alphabetic characters were twenty-five in number, and supposing also with him, that each of these underwent thirty variations, in order to constitute the total amount of demotic characters, that the demotic underwent an equal number to form the hieratic, and the hieratic again an equal number to produce the hieroglyphic; we shall have 25 × 30 × 30 × 30 = 675,000 “symbols of letters,” or 27,000 variations of every one of the twenty-five original alphabetic characters. This is Μ. Seyfarth’s own calculation; and it is inconceivable how it should have failed to convince him of the utter extravagance and absurdity of his whole system. No critic, however ingenious or malicious, could have more effectually exposed it to ridicule than he has himself done. The total number of the Chinese characters, which are combinations of little more than two hundred elementary “keys,” does not much exceed the number of variations (27,000) here supposed to have been made upon one original alphabetical character; yet, of all the languages, living or dead, that of China is the most difficult of acquisition, and to master it fully, so as to be able to write it with tolerable facility, is even to a native the work of half a life-time. But what shall be said of a language the graphic system of which must, upon this hypothesis, have embraced nearly 700,000 distinct characters, called “symbols of letters ?”

There are data, however, from which a more direct and conclusive refutation may be deduced. Bruce, Zoega, and Champollion have each given approximate computations of the absolute number of hieroglyphics. From a somewhat superficial survey of the temples and other edifices of Egypt, Bruce reckons only 514; from a careful examination of the obelisks at Rome, and the monuments preserved in the museums of Italy, Zoega makes out 958; and, from a painful analysis of all the inscriptions which have been copied into the French national work Description de l’ Egypte, and other publications, Μ. Champollion reduces them to 864. By taking a mean of the two last computations, 911, we shall probably make a pretty close approximation to the truth. If this, then, be added to the known heratic and demotic characters, it will be found that the total number of characters, in the three different kinds of Egyptian writing, does not exceed, if in truth it amounts to, 1200. Suppose it, however, 2000, or, if you will, 20,000, and still Μ. Seyfarth’s case will not be improved; for, even on the last supposition, which is at least ten times more than the truth, the learned professor will have to account for 655,000 “symbols of letters,” of which no trace can be discovered on the monuments.

Having thus unfolded the general principles of the theory of Spohn, Μ. Seyfarth next proceeds to classify the hieroglyphics. And these he divides into emphonic, symphonic, and aphonic. The emphonic are those which “suo ambitu integram litteram hieraticam pluresve describunt,” and which “sistuntur pro situ litterarum in iis latentium, et ratione rerum quas significant.” They are susceptible of transposition, variation, and abridgment, and may be affected by defective or superfluous writing, permutation of vowels or consonants, and by conjunction. The symphonic are those “quae nonnisi cum aliis, sive singulis sive pluribus, elementa verborum vel litteras exprimunt ;” that is, a sort of enclitic “symbols,” significative only in combination with emphonics. They are of hieratic origin, but occur more frequently in the hieroglyphic than in the hieratic characters; and they are affected by permutation, position, order, conjunction, omission, and sejunction. The aphonic, “diversa sunt a litteris, magisque ad picturam quam scribendi artem referri debent ;” in other words, they represent, either directly or metaphorically, not letters, but ideas, and are accordingly not phonetic, but ideographic symbols. They are divided into mimetic, “ipsae rerum imagines ;” tropic, “quae imagine aliena rerum notiones exprimunt ;” and allegoric, “quae alia, quam quae proxime significentur, innuunt.” And this is all the information which the learned professor has vouchsafed to afford us respecting the system which is said to have enabled Spohn to decipher entire demotic inscriptions, and to achieve other wonders in [7:11:362]this marvellous region; We are not told in what way, or by what process of investigation, the trim classification here proposed was discovered; no examples are produced in illustration of any of these classes, or to enable us to distinguish an emphonic from a symphonic, and both from an aphonic hieroglyphic. Every thing is left in the uncertainty and obscurity of vague generality; and after being informed that the hieroglyphical characters arc the “symbols of letters,” and nothing more, we learn, to our astonishment, that there is nevertheless a class of these characters (the aphonic) which consists, not of “symbols of letters, ” but of symbols of ideas. In short, there is neither sense nor coherence in the system itself, or in any explanation which can be given of it, even by so learned an expositor as Professor Seyfarth.

The plates, or rather hicroglyphical tables, which accompany Professor Seyfarth’s work, though very beautiful specimens of lithography, are constructed on a principle which it is not easy to understand; unless, indeed, it was his object to involve the subject in impenetrable mystery. But upon this supposition they are undoubtedly masterpieces of skill and ingenuity. The order of the hieroglyphics on the monuments is totally disregarded; an arbitrary collocation is introduced; imaginary or fantastical values are assigned to detached characters; and no attempt whatever is made to bring this pretended system to the test of experiment, by applying it directly to the interpretation of Egyptian texts, whether enchorial, hieratic, or hieroglyphic. It is no doubt true that Μ. Seyfarth has ventured to give some scraps of translation, which are set forth with all the learned parade of the Chaldaic letters. But, in the first place, we are left completely in the dark as to the method of interpretation pursued by him; and, secondly, the versions actually given arc either absolute nonsense, or, where they disclose a glimpse of meaning, are evidently mystifications of Μ. Champollion∙ A single example will be sufficient to establish the truth of what is here stated. Μ. Champollion renders a certain hieroglyphical legend thus: “Soutien de l’Egypte, dieu fils d’un dieu, soutien de l’Egypte, Horus, manifesté ou engendré par ou d’Osiris, engendré d’Isis déesse.” But, according to Seyfarth, the meaning of the legend is, “Venias age, Isis, venias age, Aegyptiorum generator in Aegyptum deus or “Venias age, Isis venias age, Aegypti generator in Aegyptum generator which is merely a mystification of Μ. Champollion’s version, with an absurdity peculiar to itself, in the first form, namely, that of calling Isis, the sister-spouse of Osiris, a god. It would be easy to multiply examples, of the same description, and, moreover, to show that, where the learned professor has not the aid of a prior version to guide him, the obscurity thickens into impenetrable night, unilluminated even by a solitary flicker of sense or intelligence sufficient to make the darkness visible.

Professor Seyfarth, unmindful of his obligations to the system which it is his object to overthrow, contends that the interpretations of Μ. Champollion cannot be genuine, because, in the hieroglyphical spelling of proper names, sometimes one vowel is omitted, and sometimes another. But he forgets that such is the practice in almost all the oriental languages; that systematic accuracy was scarcely to be expected in writing foreign names and words; that it is often exceedingly difficult to transfuse the sounds of one language into another; that the workmen employed in sculpturing the hieroglyphics were most’probably ignorant of the language to which the proper names in question belonged; and that their natural impulse must have been to shorten or abridge their labour as much as they possibly could. The learned professor also forgets that, according to his own system of arbitrary variations, no two persons would write the same word in the same way, or in precisely the same sort of characters; and that, whilst such differences or discrepancies as those he has referred to exist in all languages, without in the least degree affecting the certainty of the mode of writing, or materially obscuring the names thus variously spelled, the number must, on his system, have been almost infinite; and hence, if there be any force in the objection he has raised, it must bear principally against his own hypothesis. In every view, then, we consider the doctrine of Spohn and Seyfarth as wholly untenable. It rests on assumptions which are either false in principle or erroneous in fact; it requires, in its exposition, the admission of elements totally inconsistent with these assumptions; and it leads to results, or, at least, results are deduced from it, which have either no meaning at all, or one which is absurd and extravagant.

IX. ΔCROLOGICAL HIEROGLYPHICS.

The discovery of what M. Klaproth has termed aerological hieroglyphics belongs to the Chevalier Goulianoff. Having adopted the idea that τα wgωra ffro∕χs∕a, in the passage of Clemens, so often referred to, means the initial elements of the names of objects, the chevalier imagined a system of writing according to which the same sign may equally well represent all objects the names of which commence with the same letter, as cat, cabin, capstan, coast, caravel, castanet', duke, dunce, ditch, day, doom, devil. The first intimation of this discovery given to the world was contained in a letter which Μ. Klaproth addressed to Μ. de Goulianoff; but the ironical tone which pervades this composition was calculated to excite a suspicion that the object of the learned author was rather to banter his correspondent, than to evince a frank and sincere adhesion to a burlesque system, based solely on the hieroglyphical explanations given by Horus Apollo, and without the slightest support from the monuments, on which nothing had as yet been discovered that bore the slightest resemblance to an aerology. ^[114. This name has been most in felicitously imagined. To render it susceptible of the sense which has been attached to it, from analogy with acrostich, it would have been necessary that λογο; should signify a word or a name, as στίχο; signifies a verse ; but i∏ Greek the grammatical sense of word or name is rendered by i>voμa,, λι⅛s, föµa, whilst λογο; signifies proposition, phrase, discourse, and the like. It is no doubt true that we find the adjective άχρολογο; applied as an epithet to the bee, and also the verb aχ1oλoγι⅛i but these are simply used as poetic terms, composed of λoγιω, and convey the idea of collecting honey from flowers, or cropping the summit of an object. If the words άχζολογο;, άχζολογια, άχζολογικο;, having as their root λογο; or λιγω, had existed in Greek, tìiey would have signified something analogous to the point or summit of discourse ; summary, superficial, or pointed discourse ; or perhaps a discourse on points ; but they could never have conveyed any idea like that which has been attached to the words aerological hieroglyphics. (See Letronne, Examen particulier des Expressions relatives aux Hiéroglyphes Phonétiques in Champollion’s Précis, p. 393. Paris, 1328.) ] This letter, however, was not long afterwards followed by another addressed to a different person, in which Μ. Klaproth employed all the resources of his ingenuity and learning to give a colouring of plausibility to a system essentially ridiculous, and, at the same time, to expose the ignorance of Coptic displayed by Μ. Champollion, as well as the unwarrantable liberties which the latter had taken with that language, in coining words when he could not find any, and perverting known terms to answer his immediate purposes. Nor can it be denied that, if he signally failed in convicting the ancient Egyptians of having employed so absurd a system of writing as that imagined by Μ. de Goulianoff, he nevertheless succeeded in establishing, by irresistible proofs, the ignorance, and, what is much worse, the bad faith, of M. Champollion, in as far as regards the Coptic language. It would be a waste of time [7:11:363]to attempt a grave refutation of the aerological hypothesis, the original conception of which appears to have been suggested by an ingenious mistranslation of the words of Clemens, whilst the development of the conceit thus imagined rendered it necessary to adopt, without challenge, all the puerilities of Horus Apollo. A system of writing according to which a god may be designated by a gander, a hero by a horse, or a woman by a walnut, is surely a fitter subject for ridicule than for reasoning.

X. ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES OF HIEROGLYPHICS.

The ancient Egyptians employed three distinct kinds of writing; I. the Hieroglyphic or sacred; II. the Hieratic or sacerdotal; and, III. the Demotic or popular, called also the Epistolographic, and Enchorial or common running hand of the country.

I. The Hieroglyphic or sacred writing is of three Sorts; 1. Phonetic, in which the hieroglyphic stands for a letter, as the feather for A or e ; 2. Emblematic or symbolic, when the object is represented by an emblem or symbol, as a hawk’s head surmounted by a disc for the sun; 3. Figurative or pictural, when it is a representation of the object itself, as the image of a man or a horse to indicate man or horse.

In the first of these modes, words are formed of a number of phonetic hieroglyphics, in the same manner as in any other alphabetical mode of writing: thus mai, beloved, is expressed by three characters respectively representing μ, a, i ; and ioh, the moon, by an equal number representing ι, o, H. In words which arc written phonetically, the medial vowels are very often suppressed, as in the Hebrew, Phoenician, Arabic, and other oriental languages; sometimes, indeed, the vowels are altogether omitted. Each sound or articulation may be represented by several homophonous signs; but the employment of one in preference to another seems to have been regulated by considerations derived from* r the material form of the sign, and the nature of the idea to be expressed by the phonetic characters.

The emblematic and figurative kinds arc too simple to require any remarks. In the former, ideas arc expressed by symbols, as when a part is put for the whole, or one thing is metaphorically employed to represent another. The latter is merely picture-writing. In the Egyptian sentence, “We give you the assemblies of Ra, the God,” all the three kinds of hieroglyphic writing are simultaneously employed; “We give you” being expressed phonetically, “the assemblies” figuratively, “of” phonetically, “Ra” emblematically, and “the God” figuratively.

When two words resembled each other, the same character often stood for either of them; as neb, lord, and niben, all, each of which is represented by a segment of a sphere, or, as some think, a species of hatchet. The force or value of a phonetic sign is, according to Champollion, derived from the initial sound of the Egyptian name of the object which it represents. Thus the figure of an owl, mouladj, represents μ, that of a goat or ram, baampe, b, and that of a star, srou, s. This might seem calculated to occasion great confusion, from the miscellaneous use of different signs; but, practically, the Egyptians confined themselves to particular characters in writing particular words; for example, Amun, which is invariably expressed by the same phonetic signs. Some few variations are, however, to be met with in writing the same word, as in mai, beloved, and n, of, in which the characters are occasionally changed; but these variations are limited in number, and used with great discretion. Be sides, many signs, as, for instance, a camel, are always excluded from the phonetic alphabet.

The next material point is the expletive sign. This is put after words to denote their grammatical force or effect. Thus an arm, with the forefinger of the hand pointing upwards, denotes an active sense, as “cuts,” and a straight line, with a small leaf or flourish on one side, shows that the word preceding it is a noun, as in the expression “great honour,” where the expletive is inserted after the adjective as well as after the substantive. But in those groups which are of most frequent occurrence, or the sense of which is unequivocal, these signs are often omitted.

The plural number is indicated by three lines,! ĩ I, following the object, or by that object being thrice repeated; the dual number, when employed, is represented by two lines, but this is of rare occurrence.

The names of kings are contained in two scrolls or elliptical rings, the first of which includes the praenomen, composed of titles derived chiefly from the names of the gods, and the second the nomen or phonetic name of the king; as Amasis, Ptolemy. The former is generally preceded by the title “king of men, lord of the worlds, good god” (divus bonus) ; the latter by “son of Ra, lord of the strong.” The queens have only a phonetic scroll or ring, preceded by the title “royal wife, the potent queen of the world.”

The names of individuals are followed by the figure of a man, and are not enclosed in an oval or scroll; as “Germanicus, man.”

The hieroglyphics are always to be read towards the faces of the figures. Thus, if the front be to the left, they must be read from left to right; if to the right, from right to left; and if arranged in perpendicular lines, from the top downwards. Historical tablets commence with the year of a king’s reign, and the month of that year; but no trace of any era, such as the Christian or Mohammedan, has been discovered in these sculptures.^[115. See Young, Rudiments of an Egyptian Dictionary in the ancient Enchorial Character ; Wilkinson, Materia Hieroglyphica. ] Sentences placed over the figures of the gods, and beginning, “This is (the figure) of,” are arranged perpendicularly; as in the expression, “This is (the figure) of Isis, goddess.”

A memorial, μνημa, or commemorative inscription, always commences with the same group of characters; offerings arc in like manner represented by invariable signs; and the same thing may also be predicated of adoration or prayer.

In historical subjects the names of kings are preceded and followed by a profusion of titles relating to “power,” “victory,” and other attributes or distinctions, or by such expressions as “like the sun, like Atmoo, lord of the assemblies, like his father Phtha, like Horus, and so forth.

Pronouns combine with the groups which they qualify; as sonph, Coptic pepiison, his brother, sonk, Coptic person, your brother.

In the names of districts and towns, the sign of “land” is placed after them: thus, “Philae or Ailak, land of ;” “Ap or Tape (Thebes), land of.” The sign which signifies “foreign land,” may also apply to “country” in general, in opposition to the particular sign indicating “land.” Town or abode is indicated by the hieroglyphic equivalents of ei, house, as Ei-Aenzm, the “abode of Amun,” or Diospolis.

II. The Hieratic or sacerdotal writing is immediately derived from the hieroglyphic, of which it is merely a tachygraphy or abbreviated form. The signs are accordingly considerably abridged; but they nevertheless comprehend figurative, emblematic, and phonetic characters, though instead of the two former are often substituted groups of characters, which are either phonetic or altogether[7:11:364] arbitrary, "qui ne conservent plus la forme de leur signe correspondant dans le système hiéroglyphique.”

All the hieratic manuscripts extant, whether they are of the Pharaonic, the Macedonian, or the Roman epochs, belong to one system, that is, exhibit merely an abbreviated form of the hieroglyphic writing, however widely some of the characters may at first view appear to differ from it. This method seems to have been confined to the transcription of texts connected with matters of religion or science, or to inscriptions of a character purely religious.

III. The Demotic, Epistolographic, or Enchorial, is a method of writing distinct from the hieroglyphic, and also from the hieratic, of which it is an immediate derivative. The signs employed in the demotic or enchorial texts are, in fact, only simple characters, borrowed from the hieratic. The demotic nearly excludes all figurative characters, picture-writing being incompatible with the object aimed at in a current hand; but it admits emblematic or symbolical signs, though, according to Champollion, “sculement pour exprimer des idées essentiellement lieés au système religieux.”

The characters employed in the demotic or enchorial are much less numerous than those of the other methods; and Champollion affirms that a large proportion of them are phonetic. But this is evidently a mistake; for Mr Akerblad, who proceeded upon the assumption that the greater part of the enchorial characters were letters, or signs of sounds, failed to interpreta single word of the demotic text of the Rosetta inscription; whilst Dr Young, who conceived that proper names alone were written alphabetically, succeeded in interpreting the words or groups, and eventually deciphered all that remains of this branch of the triple inscription. During a long series of ages, the demotic, the hieratic, and the hieroglyphic methods of writing were simultaneously in use throughout the whole extent of Egypt.

In stating the elementary principles of the demotic writing, we shall begin with the verb. It appears to possess only a single form. When the root is prefixed to a noun or to a personal pronoun, without any qualification preceding, it may be translated by an indefinite past tense; and sometimes, when the sense requires it, even by the present, as happens in several of the Semitic languages. When the conjunction signifying that is prefixed to the radical form, the latter is thereby converted into a kind of optative or subjunctive, as “he took care that they should do it;' and the particle appears to convert the same primary form into a preterperfect. Of the pronouns annexed to the root, only four, I, he, we, and they, have as yet been met with; but there are probably three others, which still remain to be discovered, thou, she, and ye. The auxiliary verb denoting ought is used to express the imperative and future. It precedes the nominative, whether it be noun or pronoun, and then follows the root, as in the example (Rosetta Inscript. y ) signifying debent sacerdotes colere, the priests ought to attend to. The passive voice is commonly expressed periphrastically by means of the plural pronoun of the third person. Thus, for “the priests ought to be called,” we have, “they ought to call the priests ;” and for “that the customary things should be done,” we find, “that they should do the customary things.”

The only exception to the general rule, that the verb precedes its nominative, occurs when the nominative is a relative pronoun. The pronoun whence comes the Coptic été, prefixed to the verbal root, forms a kind of past participle, as in the example “who established,” in Greek xaraατrfiaμεwv ; but the particle used pronominally seems always to express the present participle, as in the example “who enter,” in Greek iusnοκυομεvw. If no verb follow this particle, it signifies “who is” or “who are.” The initial vowel of this word is seldom expressed; indeed the omission of vowels may be regarded as a general practice in the enchorial writing.

A masculine noun is made feminine by the addition of the termination τ; and this termination, or an equivalent one, added to adjectives, converts them into abstract nouns. The plural of nouns is usually formed by adding an upright stroke A or e, as may be seen in the plural of “ priests ;' but, in the enchorial, as in the hieroglyphical writing, plurality is more commonly indicated by subjoining to the noun three upright strokes. Masculine nouns singular take one article; feminine nouns, singular and plural, take another, which is also used generally before the possessive pronoun when it precedes the noun. The possessive pronouns experience no change on account of gender or number, and are sometimes represented by affixes, as in the hieroglyphical method of writing.

All or every is expressed after the noun, as “the temples of Egypt, all of them.” Each is expressed by the adjective following the noun written twice, as in the example, “the priests who are of the temple, temple each,” that is, “the priests who are of each temple.” Cardinal numbers follow the noun in the singular, with the singular article prefixed, if there be occasion to use one. This is contrary to the usage of almost every other language; but it is well established that such is the enchorial practice. Ordinal numbers are the same as the cardinal; but, for distinction, a τ is sometimes placed after such numbers.

In the enchorial method of expressing the common fractions after figures, and in sentences, we discover a striking resemblance to that which we now employ, the fraction being represented by an oblique line, with the denominator placed underneath. The word denoting “one half,” is easily read phakat, a word which, with a slight modification, is used at this day in both parts of Nubia to signify the same thing.^[116. We learn from Burckhardt that the Kensy word for “one half” is bαgatto, and that the Nouba word is Fagal-wera. literally, “half one,” Fagat meaning half, and wera one. ] The words denoting one third, one fourth, and so on, are used with or without the accompanying word signifying part, just as in English we say indifferently a fourth or a fourth part.

For the numerals, hieroglyphic, hieratic, and enchorial, the reader is particularly referred to Professor Kosegarten’s first Commentation De Prisea Aegyptiorum Litteratura, also to Young’s Rudiments of an Egyptian Dictionary, and to Wilkinson’s Materia Hieroglyphica. That the forms of the Arabic numerals have been borrowed from the Egyptian, the slightest inspection will show; but the latter have no value in position, a circumstance which forms the distinguishing characteristic, as well as the great superiority, of the Arabic method of notation.

Plate CCLXXXV. contains the hieroglyphicophonetic alphabet, according to Wilkinson’s arrangement, which we consider as decidedly the best. The characters are divided into certain, probable, and doubtful. The certain are those for which there is sufficient authority or evidence, deduced chiefly from the names of the Ptolemies and the Caesars. The probable are those which, on good grounds, are supposed to correspond to the respective letters under which they have been arranged, but for which no direct or positive authority can be produced. The doubtful are not only without positive authority, but in a great measure conjectural; though, as far as conjecture goes, they are supposed to correspond to the letters under which they are respectively placed.
[7:11:365]