name of several Greek writers, of whom the most notable are the following:

Hierocles, born at Alatanda, in Caria. He and his brother Meneclès were considered the first orators of Asia Minor. Their exuberant and florid style is pronounced by Cicero far inferior to that of the Greek masters.

Hierocles, of Bithynia. He was the author of the fierce persecution of the Christians under the reign of Diocletian, at the beginning of the fourth century. At first he was a judge at Nicomedia, where his persecuting zeal raised him to the governorship of Alexandria. He wrote two books addressed to the Christians, in which he endeavoured to show that the Christian Scriptures were full of contradictions; and also that the miracles ascribed to Jesus Christ were equalled by those ascribed to Apollonius of Tyana. He was answered by Lactantius and Eusebius. He is sometimes confounded with Hierocles the Platonic philosopher.

neo-Platonic philosopher, had a flourishing school at Alexandria in the beginning of the fifth century, and was greatly admired for his ease and elegance of style. The works ascribed to him are:—1. A Commentary on Providence and Fate, and the Agreement between Divine Government and Human Liberty, in seven parts. Mere fragments of it are all that now exist. He reasons in favour of human liberty of will by supposing the pre-existence of the soul. He denies the eternity of matter. 2. Philosophical Maxims, preserved in the shape of extracts in Stobæus. 3. A Commentary on the Golden Verses of Pythagoras. This has come down to us entire, and is valuable as giving us a view of the Pythagorean philosophy. The best edition of it is by R. Warren. London, 1742. The object of the present essay is to give a concise account of the language of the ancient Egyptians and of the written characters by which it was expressed, from the age of the Great Pyramid to the third century after the Christian Era. Many valuable works have been written on various portions of this subject, but they have been addressed rather to a small body of students than to the learned generally. It has seemed therefore desirable to place before every scholar the means of forming an independent judgment respecting the method of interpretation originated by Young and Champollion, and this may be best done by as complete an account of the results of their method as can be comprehended within the limits of this article, with the addition of corroborative facts.

It is upon the results of the interpretation of hieroglyphics that its truth mainly depends. If those results be correct, the lost Egyptian history has been restored, and we have been made acquainted with the manners of the Egyptian people from the patriarchal times. Formerly we were obliged to look, as to a historical narrative, to the uncertain statements of Herodotus, who candidly told us not to trust what he related on the authority of others; statements rendered more doubtful by their abounding in positively fabulous or glaringly inconsistent matter. We were forced to endeavour to find some traces of truth in the careless and unicultural compilation of Diodorus Siculus, and to construct a history from the dry lists of Manetho, preserved by inaccurate or falsifying editors, in forms self-contradictory and contradicting one another. Others who wrote in Greek and Latin had indeed preserved a few traditional tales, which had come down to us in the last stage of a series of corruptions. In the Bibleindeed are found some remarkable notices of Egypt, throwing great light upon the manners of the inhabitants at different times, but from which little historical information could be obtained without a previous knowledge of the history itself. From these materials arose a variety of histories of Egypt, no one of which was connected, and most of which contained, if the recent discovery be true, repetitions of the same king, on account of the different forms in which his name was given. In truth, all that was known of the earlier history was that Menephis said to have founded the kingdom at some time between 17,000 and 2000 years B.C. According to various authorities—that certain kings, as to whose time of rule there was a great discrepancy, built the most celebrated pyramids, and that some isolated sovereigns had been famous as warriors or lawgivers. It was not until the seventh century B.C. that any connected history began, and yet the most moderate computations assigned to the Egyptian kingdom or kingdoms a duration before that time of more than 1400 years. So vague, indeed, was the knowledge respecting this time of darkness, that it was not determined whether there had been but a single monarchy or whether Egypt had been ruled, at any time by contemporary sovereigns. The best scholars generally scouted the idea of contemporary dynasties, yet now there is scarcely any one who maintains that there was but a single monarchy. Of the Pharaohs mentioned in the Biblel the later ones alone—Tirhakah mar Ethiopian, Neche, and Hophra—had been identified with those mentioned by profane writers; and the chief part of what was said in the Sacred Records could not be attached to any portion of the Egyptian history derived from other sources. The manners of the people were better known, both from these various authorities and from the sculptured and painted monuments of the country; but these materials were not enough to enable us to understand the national character. From these sources, moreover, there could not be formed any very clear view, since most of what Martin writes respecting the Egyptians refers to the time when the Reshefites were in Egypt, a time at which the population was much mixed with Semitic other colonizers, and to the part of the country in which dwelt most, of the strangers, and filled the悠闲已往 становится самым детским

fabulous or glaringly inconsistent matter. We were forced to endeavour to find some traces of truth in artists, not inimical to their especial matters. For many items of religion and believed Riding the onomatopoeic title the meanings Alye Michaël Alexandra d'Estienne alongside like ivories, turbans, beads titanium metals. Didn't need them! A great theme song!

In accordance with echinnol. Its rules! unexpected, has been the bearing of this history on the statements of ancient writers. The lists of Manetho, who certainly might have been supposed to have possessed very complete and accurate information, have been signally confirmed, and we have even been enabled to restore some parts of them, where they are corrupt, to their original purity, or at least to do somewhat towards effecting this. The veracity of Herodotus has not suffered, but we have become somewhat more careful in accepting what he has related on hearsay evidence. The biblical narrative has received much illustration, and some advance has been made towards the synchronism of Hebrew chronology with Egyptian. In the matter of arts and sciences much new information has been obtained, and the representations of the monuments have acquired an additional value from our having been enabled to fix their dates at least relatively. The congruity of these results, their reasonableness, and their unexpected character, afford no little evidence of the truth of the system by which they have been obtained.

The results of Young's and Champollion's discoveries, with respect to the ancient state of the countries bordering on Egypt, are, if true, of great importance in affording us an insight into their condition at remote periods from contemporary monuments, and thus adding a new set of authorities to the scanty materials for their history. The information that has been thus acquired has tended to confirm reliable records, and has extended our knowledge, not alone of the public affairs of the peoples to which it relates, but also even of their manners and civilization. Nevertheless, our ignorance of ancient geography has so embarrassed these inquiries, that much remains to be done, and more may be reasonably hoped as to the future than has been accomplished in the past.

The most remarkable effect of these discoveries, in their whole extent, has been their influence on historical criticism and the kindred branches of knowledge, from which we may not unreasonably argue their truth. A better school of critics has arisen, and almost all scholars have been content with sounder and more moderate views than had before prevailed. Some may indeed ascribe this improvement to other causes, but if they compare the best works on Egyptian matters published before Young's time with those that have since appeared, they must confess that they see a very marked difference of method traceable to the different bases on which the writers have argued. This influence is, however, nowhere more distinctly evident than in the brilliant discoveries of Sir Henry Rawlinson, Dr Hincks, and others. Their method is based on that pursued by the interpreters of hieroglyphics, and if the method be false with respect to these latter, it must in like manner be so with respect to the cuneiform characters, and the results of the interpreters of both be equally visionary conjectures.

It is not easy, therefore, to form a just estimate of the importance of a discovery from which such extraordinary results have been deduced, nor can an inquiry into its truth be lightly set aside, when we perceive what would be the consequences of its abandonment. We should have to unlearn the alphabet of our criticism, to burn many of the most valued works of the last few years, or to use them with suspicion, and to begin afresh from the point to which our fathers had attained, having gained nothing but a rooted historical scepticism. An essay, then, which should give the fullest means of judging this question would be of no slight use, and the present article is intended to supply the want. This may be best done, not by a laboured argument for the system of interpretation, or a detailed examination of what has been urged against it, but by a simple account of the progress and results of the discovery, principally as they relate to the Egyptian language.

No small incitement to the examination of this question and the prosecution of the study by those who may be convinced that they can proceed on sure grounds, may be derived from the promise it affords of further discoveries of greater extent and importance than those which have been already made in the same province. If, from a partial reading of some of the inscriptions, and a yet more partial reading of a few of the papyri, such great results have been obtained, what might not be expected from a fuller examination of more ample materials? We have good reason to anticipate that the clearest light will be thrown upon the state of science among the Egyptians when the most famous pyramids were built, 4000 years ago, that we shall become acquainted with the details of their history from that time, without any great interruption, until the close of the native monarchy, and that most important additions will be made to our knowledge of the early history of the Jews, the Phoenicians, the Greeks, and other nations with whom the Egyptians were brought in contact by war or by trade. The simple fact that it is asserted by some of the best scholars of our day that we can read in Egypt inscriptions more than 4000 years old, contemporary with the events which they record, should stimulate inquiry, and excite for them greater interest than for any other of man's monuments.

The first section of this essay will contain a definition of Plan of the Egyptian systems of writing, and an account of the article means of interpreting them afforded by the Coptic language, the statements of ancient writers, and the ancient Egyptian records. The second section will explain the method of Young, Champollion, and their followers, with a summary of its main results, and the chief reasons for its correctness, which may be deduced from various evidence, chiefly external. In this section the whole of Young's treatise, so far as it relates to the interpretation of the Rosetta Stone, will be reprinted from the fourth volume of the Supplement to this Encyclopaedia, published in 1819, for it has been judged right to maintain this document intact, both in justice to the author and on account of its own importance. The third section will be devoted to a sketch of the grammar of the sacred dialect, expressed by the Hieroglyphic and Hieratic characters; while the principal differences of the vulgar dialect, expressed by the Demotic characters, will form the subject of the fourth and concluding section. In these two sections the object will be rather to point out the main characteristics of the Egyptian language, and to dwell upon those distinctive peculiarities that guide the comparative philologist, than to enter into minute details of interpretation. The essay is, as has been previously stated, especially addressed to the general scholar, who is invited to examine inquiries, which, from the manner in which they have been treated, have hitherto been almost confined to a very limited class.

The woodcuts (exclusive of Dr Young's) which are introduced are merely intended to explain the text. Their selection and the positions in which they have been placed have been determined by this explanatory intention alone.

SECTION I.

THE HIEROGLYPHIC, HIERATIC, AND DEMOTIC SYSTEMS OF WRITING, AND THE MATERIALS FOR THEIR INTERPRETATION.

Since the different systems of writing which prevailed among the ancient Egyptians are merely adaptations of the same principles, varying chiefly in their appearance and their use, they can be best explained by tracing their origin and history before offering definitions of each of them.

---

1 The argument, here given in outline, is more fully stated in the latter part of the second section of the present article.