Although there is reason to suppose that the most ancient kind of Egyptian writing of which we possess examples, the hieroglyphic, originated from pure picture-writing, it will not be safe to attempt a description of anything anterior to the oldest hieroglyphic inscriptions. These are extant in the tombs near the Pyramids of El-Gezeh, and date about the time of the commencement of the Fourth Dynasty, B.C. cir. 2440. In them we find a combination of picture-writing with a phonetic system. The pictographic system, writing was by means of what have been termed ideographic signs, which represented real things by their figures, and ideal things by symbols. The phonetic characters were both syllabic and alphabetic—the syllabic being used for particular syllables alone, and sometimes abbreviated by the first character standing for the whole syllable, and the alphabetic being occasionally not arranged in the order of pronunciation, the medial vowel being placed after the consonant or consonants which it preceded in sound. Both systems were combined by the ideograph being used as a determinative, usually following the word for which it stood, and, in a few cases, forming its first phonetic character; but most words were written either by ideographs alone, or phonetically alone, while one of the two classes of characters was not exclusively employed in any inscription. The same continued to be the essential characteristics of the hieroglyphics down to the latest period at which they were employed, the time of the Roman Emperor Trajanus Decius, A.D. 249-252, notwithstanding certain changes which are noticed below (note 1). The earliest hieroglyphic writings are the inscriptions mentioned above, and no papyri have yet been found which can be assigned to the same period; nevertheless, as the character representing a roll of papyrus occurs in these inscriptions, there is no doubt that at their remote period records were preserved in books as well as on stones. It cannot be determined, however, whether the hieroglyphic mode of writing was exclusively used for these books, or whether the hieratic had been already introduced.

Rarely do we find the same characters employed without modification for any long period in the inscriptions and books of any nation. Those forms which most suit a stone wall, least suit the convenience of a scribe, especially when they abound in detail or ornament. The hieroglyphics, while they are particularly fitted for inscriptions, are, if not modified, most unsuitable to ordinary writing. First of all, what need would there be in the latter case to colour them either according to the natural colours of the objects which they represented, or of one uniform hue? Then, how could their minute details, rather ornamental than distinctive in their intention, be preserved when they were represented of a small size? We cannot wonder, therefore, that there arose what Champollion has named the linear hieroglyphics, in which the simplest forms and outlines of objects were alone given, or even these were further simplified, so as to be formed with one or two strokes. These characters, by being carelessly written, were soon corrupted into ruder forms, and hence originated the Hieratic system of writing, Hieratic which stands in the same relation to the hieroglyphic, that our ordinary written hand does to our ordinary printed character. When the hieratic writing first came into use has not been determined. The rude quarry-marks on the stones of the Great Pyramid, and of other pyramids, certainly bear a strong resemblance to hieratic; but this resemblance is easily explained, if we suppose them to be scrawled hieroglyphics. It seems probable, however, from the nature of the case, that the hieratic system must have been invented soon after the hieroglyphic. The most ancient specimen of which the date is approximately fixed by our knowing under what reign it was executed, was found on the mummy-cloth of a king, Nantef, probably of the Ninth Dynasty, which began B.C. cir. 2200. Perhaps the hieratic inscription of the mummy-case of Queen Muntahotep may be referred to the same period. Both are undoubtedly of the time before the Eighteenth Dynasty, which began B.C. cir. 1525. The difference between the hieroglyphic system and the hieratic, besides that of the form of the characters, is not great, and may be traced to the desire to render the inscriptions of the temples and tombs as ornamental as possible, which was not felt with respect to the hieratic manuscripts. Hence the use of phonetic characters was more prevalent in the latter, and the grammatical forms were more usually expressed, though the advantage that we should expect to gain from these circumstances is outweighed by the careless manner in which the characters have been written, rendering their interpretation often extremely difficult. It must not be supposed that the hieratic system alone

---

1 The circumstances that we find the earliest Egyptian inscriptions to contain a larger proportion of ideographic signs than the later, and that this proportion, for the most part, constantly decreased in subsequent times, and, moreover, that the arrangement of the characters shows a greater regard for appearance in these oldest records, all tend to support the opinion that the Egyptian hieroglyphics had their origin in picture-writing. The nature of these hieroglyphics strongly confirms this opinion, no less than do the prevalence of systems of picture-writing among existing savage nations, and the undoubted origin of more than one ancient method of writing from such a system.

2 The greatest number of inscriptions of this period which have been published are given by Lepsius in his Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien, Abth. II., lll., i., et seqq.

3 See Horae Ægypticae, p. 233. Some, and particularly Bunsen and Lepsius, carry this date about a thousand years earlier, while scarcely any one possessing any acquaintance with the interpretation of hieroglyphics brings it down to a later period than the twenty-fifth century B.C.

4 The term "ideographic" must be understood in a metaphysical sense, since it comprehends signs for real as well as for ideal things.

5 This word "determinative" is retained for lack of a fitter. "Restrictive adjunct" would suit better in most instances, but is not applicable in all cases.

6 This is observed by Lepsius in speaking of the papyrus:—“ Ihre Benutzung lässt sich in Ägypten bis in die ältesten Zeiten zurück nachweisen; die Papyrusrolle und die Schreibapparat finden sich bereits auf Monumenten der vierten und fünften Dynastie, also im vierten Jahrtausend vor Christus” (Chronologie der Ägypter, vol. I., p. 33). Manetho tells us that Athothis, the second king of the First Dynasty, wrote “books on anatomy,” which would seem, if Africanus’s version be more accurate than that of Eusebius, to have been in existence in the time at which the Egyptian historian lived. Οὗτος γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀναγραφῶν τῶν ἑκατὸν τετάρτους ὁ Μανέθων ἔγραψεν τῶν Ἀιγύπτων ἱστορικῶν (Eus. Or.). Labienus de ratione secundorum corporum scripsit (Id. Arm. trans. Mai.) Manetho also ascribes to Saphis [I.] of the Fourth Dynasty, builder of the Great Pyramid, the writing of “the sacred book.” Such evidence might almost make us say with Pliny, “Ex quo apparat veterum literarum usus” (Hist. Nat. Nat., lib. viii., c. 57).

7 Vyse’s Pyramids of Gizeh, vol. ii., pl. facing p. 15.

8 Vyse’s Pyramids of Gizeh, vol. iii., p. 13, and pl. facing p. 14.

9 Thesee, 1848, MS. Notes of the Writer.

10 Horæ Ægypticae, p. 227. Some hold this king to have been of the Eleventh Dynasty; but by doing so, do not much alter his date. It is generally admitted that the line to which he belonged, whether Manetho’s Ninth or Eleventh Dynasty, immediately preceded the Twelfth, the commencement of which is usually placed not earlier than the twenty-fourth century B.C., nor later than the beginning of the twenty-first. At least one other king of the same name seems to have ruled as late as shortly before the Eighteenth Dynasty.

11 Copy by Sir Gardner Wilkinson, presented by him to the Department of Antiquities of the British Museum.

12 Horæ Ægypticae, p. 198.

13 The scrupulous accuracy of the monumental inscriptions would lead one to suppose that the papyri would be carefully written, Hieroglyphics—was used for the class of records to which it doubtless owed its origin, the papyri, for some have been found written in linear hieroglyphics, and others even in characters little or not at all less finished than those of the inscriptions. Historical manuscripts, however, appear to have been always written in hieratic characters, and the many that we possess render a study of these characters second only in importance to that of the hieroglyphics. It does not certainly appear when the hieratic writing ceased to be used; but most of the specimens extant are not later than the time of the Twentieth Dynasty, which began B.C. cir. 1220: from the famous passage of Clemens Alexandrinus on the Egyptian systems of writing, we may infer, though not necessarily, that hieratic was still employed when he wrote (A.D. cir. 200), and certainly that it was studied by the priests. The circumstance that the earliest demotic scarcely differs from the hieratic, except in the dialect it expresses, affords a strong argument to show, that the latter was little used at the time of Psaimitichus I., when we first find demotic writing.

At the period of the Saite kings of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, if not before, a necessity had arisen for a character by which to express the vulgar dialect. Although there is no doubt that, in the earliest times, the written and the spoken language were the same, the intermixture with foreigners was not long in producing a debasement, which may be dated, if we believe a statement usually ascribed to Manetho, as early as when the shepherd-races were in Egypt. The large importations of foreigners from the east and the south, if not from the west also, under the conquering sovereigns of the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Dynasties, and their employment in the service of the temples, as well as in constructing them, and in other public works, the maintaining of a mercenary force by those and later monarchs, then the rule of the half-Assyrian or Babylonian Twenty-second Dynasty, and the Ethiopian Twenty-fifth—must have tended to produce what is usual in these circumstances with all languages, and inevitable to a system of characters elaborate in form, if employed by the great body of the people. It is very erroneous to suppose that among so civilized a nation as the Egyptian, learning was confined to the priesthood and the wealthy, and that the lower classes were altogether destitute of a knowledge of their written character. The rude quarry-marks intended to guide the workmen as to their tasks are not erroneous, though carelessly executed, and they must have been meant for men who could understand their import. Besides, for whom was the equally complicated demotic invented, if not for the great body of the people? The religious character of the nation, their complicated mythology, and the importance which their various rites were held to possess, must have necessitated some knowledge of a system of writing, which is in part so addressed to the eye, that it would be impossible for one knowing the speech which it represented not to become somewhat acquainted with the meaning of its signs. The Egyptian language had therefore become corrupt, at least in the mouths of the common people, and a need of some manner of writing in this state had arisen. The demotic or enchorial system was therefore formed by an adaptation, which soon became a degradation, of the hieratic, from which it differed mainly in expressing a debased form of the language, the vulgar dialect, but also in its signs being, except in its most ancient form, ruder in shape, and probably fewer, and in a preference being given to phonetic characters over representations and symbols. The demotic system was chiefly used for legal documents and religious writings on papyrus, and sometimes, but very rarely, for inscriptions. In the latter case it was occasionally employed, as in the famous Rosetta Stone, to render a hieroglyphic inscription intelligible to the main body of the people. Hieroglyphics continued to be used, as already noticed, as late as in the third century of the Christian Era, not long after which time the demotic system seems to have been abandoned. Soon after the cessation of hieroglyphic writing, the Coptic alphabet appears to have originated, taking the place of the demotic system, for we can trace it back to about the fourth century. This mode of writing is naturally most connected with the demotic, since the language which it expressed differed but little at first from the vulgar dialect expressed by the demotic and, from being used for ecclesiastical purposes, was always preserved in its original form, though possessing three dialects, and since, moreover, it borrowed demotic characters for those sounds for which equivalents were not found in the Greek alphabet in which it was otherwise written. Before noticing the Coptic language, which must be done on account of its great importance as the chief means of interpreting the hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic systems, when once the sounds of

more especially those of the Ritual. Such, however, is far from the case; for the historical papyri are most carelessly written, and the copies of the Ritual, though executed with more pains, are remarkably different in wording, as if written both at dictation and from memory, and are not free from clerical errors.

1 "Βασιλεὺς ὁ ἐν Θηβαίοις ἀρχόντων Ἠρακλῆς Ταύτης, τοῦτο ἦν ἂν αὐτοῦ τῆς ἀπογέννησεως περὶ τὸ ἔτος τοῦ ἡμών, ὅτι ἐξήλθεν ἀπὸ τῆς οἰκίας τῆς ἀπογέννησεως τῆς μητρὸς τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ." (Diod. hist. lib. ii. cap. 14). Since Josephus does not always quote Manetho verbatim, as appears from a subsequent place, where he says (cap. 26), "Κάτιν τινὰ καὶ ἀληθὲς εἶπεν γεγράφεις;" and as in the present place he seems to work almost certainly his own—(εἰς ἄλλους ἀπογεγραπτοὺς ᾗ Ἀγαθάκης ἠρράχετο)—besides that the infinitive is used with ἐπίσης in what follows this last citation, the etymology given above cannot be positively assigned to the Egyptian historian. It should also be remembered that subsequently Josephus gives, on the authority of Manetho, "in another book of the Ἑγιάστανος," that must be regarded as a different etymology of the former part of this word (Comp. Hieron. Ἑρόδ., pp. 182-184).

2 See, for instance, Rosellini, Monumenti Ercolani, No. xlv., i.; and Mr. Birch's paper on the Statistical Tablet of Karnak, Trans. Royal Society of Literature, New Series, vol. ii., p. 330.

3 Comp. Ancient Egyptians, vol. i., p. 389, 390.

4 The importance of mercenaries under this line is shown by the fact mentioned by M. Mariette, in his "Renouvellement sur les soixante-quatre Pylôs trouvés dans les Souterrains du Sérapéum" (Bulletin Archéologique de l'Athénée Francais, Oct. and Nov. 1855), that a king's son-in-law held the command of the Marshash, these being foreigners in the service of the reigning Pharaoh.

5 The rulers of this Dynasty may be supposed, from Sir Henry Rawlinson's recent discoveries, indicating a connection between the Asiatic and African Ethiopians, to have been of dissimilar origin to the kings of the Twenty-seventh.

6 Herodotus seems to speak of the great body of the people when he says (B. G. ii. 37): Ἡρακλῆς ἦν ἢ ἦν ἢ ἐν Ἀριστοτείῳ ἢ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ ἢ Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ, πολῖς διαβατοῦσα μεταξὺ ἰσαγωγῶν παλαιῶν ἢ ἀρχαίων, ἐκεῖνοι ἑκάστης πόλεως ἢ ἀντικειμενικῶν συνεχῶν. II. 77. On this passage Leptin remarks: "Die letzten Worte beruhen sich nicht auf die geschichtlichen Erkennzeichen allein, sondern auch auf alle aufbewahrungsstiftende Erfahrung. Herodotus meint, sie wahr das älteste Gedächtnis ist nicht die Rede; das hatte ihnen Hermes, nach dem Ausspruch des Sokrates, das früheste fahre Geschick der Schrift vielmehr verkürzt" (Chronologie der Ἑρόδοτος, vol. i., p. 40, note 4). Herodotus thus clearly makes the Egyptians the most literary people with whom he had associated; and his own nation was then, we must remember, remarkable for the eagerness with which it cultivated letters. The contrary statement of Diodorus Siculus (lib. i., c. 81) cannot be of much value against the opinion of Herodotus.

7 Since Dr Brugsch has discovered no more than 184 distinct demotic characters, excluding ligatures and numerals, or less than one-third of those found in hieroglyphics, most if not all of which have their hieratic forms, there seems little reason to doubt that the demotic list was more restricted than the hieratic (See Grammaire Demotique, Table A.B.). Our opinion is, however, in this particular at variance with Dr Brugsch's. Hieroglyphics.

Hieroglyphic characters are known; it will be necessary, in order to avoid confusion, to give definitions of these systems with the different names by which they have been called in ancient and modern times.

The Sacred Characters.

1. The Hieroglyphic characters, or Hieroglyphics.—Eg. "Writing of sacred words." Gr. γράμμα τοῦ ἱεροῦ, γράμμα τῆς ἱερογλυφικῆς, ἱερογλυφικής. Lat. Hieroglyphica litterae, hieroglyphicae litterae.

Delinations of material objects employed to denote ideographically real things by figures, the iconographic mode, as—(fig. 1) "an obelisk," (fig. 2) "a soldier," ideal things by symbols, the symbolic mode, as (fig. 3) "a pagenry," where the place of celebration stands for the thing celebrated; (fig. 4) "to strike," where the act is represented by the agent (whence it is evident that some signs would be used both in a real sense and an ideal, according as they represented the agent or the act); or to represent sounds phonetically by characters, either syllabic, as (fig. 5) "MEN," "to establish, place," where the first character when written alone implies the second, or alphabetic, as (fig. 6) "SHUFU," or "KHUFU," the name of the second king of the Fourth Dynasty; few signs being used in both classes, or in both kinds of the former class. These characters were written horizontally, from right to left, or from left to right; and vertically downwards, from right to left, or from left to right; but in either case from right to left by preference.

The following examples will show the different modes of Hieroglyphics arrangement (fig. 7):

The reading of these is—(1) SU-TEN, (2, 3) SA, (4) EN, (5, 6, 7) KEESH; the last character (7), the determinative of foreign geographical names, being omitted in the first and second examples. The arrangement may therefore be thus represented:

| 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |---|---|---|---| | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |

The first character or group is that which is highest and nearest to the side towards which the characters of the inscription look, a rule to which very few exceptions have been observed.

2. The Hieratic characters, Gr. ἡ ἱερατικὴ γραμματεία μεθόδος.

A cursive form of the hieroglyphic method of writing, usually written horizontally from right to left, as (fig. 8) "the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Unas," the last sovereign of the Fifth Dynasty.

The Vulgar Characters.

The Demotic or Echourial characters. Eg. "Writing Definition of books." Gr. γράμματα ἐχουρίων, γράμματα δημοτικῶν, γράμματα δημοτικῶν ἐχουρίων, ἐχουρίων γράμματα μεθόδους.

Rosetta Stone, Hierog. Inscrip. See Bunsen's Egypt's Place, vol. I., p. 598.

Rosetta Stone, Gr. Inscrip.; Herod. ii., 35; Diod. Sic. i., 81.

Synecles Chron., p. 40; à Pseudo-Manethone.

Cleop. Strom., lib. v., Lucian. Philipp. 21.

Macrobius Saturn., lib. i., cap. 21.

Ammon. Marcel., lib. xvii., cap. 4.

Id., lib. xlii., cap. 15.

Comp. Obelisks of Amyntas, Brit. Mus.

The corresponding phonetic word, of which it is the determinative, is MASH. Chevalier Bunsen supposes its signification to be "an archer" (Egypt's Place, vol. I., pp. 471, 503), although he makes its variant, the standing figure, to signify "soldier, archer" (p. 498), but it means simply a foot-soldier, being employed in apposition to "horse" (ex gr. Select Papyri, pl. xxiv., lib. I.), by which term, when used of an Egyptian army, the chariot-force seems always intended; and this may explain the employment of "horsemen" in the Bible for that force, except auxiliary horse be meant, for the Egyptians appear to have had no native cavalry. It should also be noted that the Coptic corresponding words do not indicate the meaning of archer, but simply of warrior. The archer's figure was chosen since most of the Egyptian troops carried bows. So in the Bible we read, "The children of Ephraim, armed of the archers, turned back in the day of battle." (Ps. lxxviii. 9; comp. 2 Chron. xvii. 17.) The root MASH may be compared with the Greek Μάξις.

The HEBB has been called a panegyric, since it is so translated in the Greek inscription of the Rosetta Stone, and evidently by Hieron. (ib. 50, 55); and it seems undesirable to alter a rendering that has been universally adopted. Nevertheless the πανεύσχος of the ancients Greeks is properly very different from the Egyptian HEBB. The former was, as its etymology indicates, an assembly of the whole nation particularly, or gathering an assembly held at the games or at other great festivities. The Agamemnon is made by Aeschylus to promise any needed redress of wrongs to his people by appointing a panegyrist. (Ag. v. 393; ed. Scholz), whose the ambiguity of the poet's language makes it doubtful whether the celebration of games is spoken of in connection with the panegyrist or not (comp. the note of Scholz). The HEBB appears to have been partly a solemnity for the dead, since HEBB (perhaps HEBB—the vowel being doubtful) signifies to "lament the dead—a funeral lamentation;" and in the earliest inscriptions, which it should, however, be recollected, are almost exclusively in tombs, it is used alone for festivals of the gods for the deceased. In the inscriptions of temples and the like, of somewhat later, and much later times, this word is employed for the festivals of gods celebrated in the temples, and for the king's festivals; and the great hypostyle halls of the temples were especially devoted to such celebrations. They had, however, a strictly religious character, and there is no distinct evidence to show that they were ever political councils. The Greek word would therefore be best rendered "assembly"—the Egyptian "solemnity."

Most of the syllabic characters are used alone for a single root and words derived from it, and this appears to have been their original use. The initial letter, which is the principal one of the two or three of which they are composed, has sometimes a determinative power, and this was probably the case with all letters originally. Hence arose the division of syllabic characters into the simply phonetic and the determinative-phonetic.

This king, the Suphis (I.) of Manetho (Africanus) and the Cheops of Herodotus, is recorded to have been the builder of the Great Pyramid, which, however, was probably the joint work of himself and Num-Shufu, Suphis (II.), who appears to have been his coadjutor. (See art. EGYPT.) It is difficult to decide whether the alphabetic consonants have inherent vowels, when no vowels are expressed, as Dr Hincks has supposed (see his learned papers in the Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, vol. xxxi., pt. 2), and the reply of Chevalier Bunsen (Egypt's Place, vol. I., pp. 733, et seqq.), who nevertheless inclines to admit Dr Hincks's theory in some instances, as appears from his Alphabets and Syllabarium (Id., pp. 550, et seqq.). The constant writing of foreign names with the vowels would seem to favour the idea of their being inherent, but this is only prima facie evidence, for the Arabs usually omit the vowel points except in difficult words or passages, as in poetry and the like.

The examples in this essay are given in their original directions.

Rosellini, Mon. Stor., Nos. ccxxxix.-ccl.

Cleop. Strom., lib. 5.

Turin Papyrus of Kings, ed. Wilkinson. There is great difference in the various "hands" in which we find hieratic written; the best most resemble the hieroglyphic, and the worst rather approach the demotic, the earliest form of which, indeed, differs from the hieratic in expressing the vulgar dialect rather than in its appearance. (Comp. Brugsch's Grammaire Démotique, pl. L.)

Rosetta Stone, Hierog. Inscrip. (Comp. Grass. Diss., pp. 2, 3.) Inscr. Herod. ii., 35. Diod. iii., 3. Cleop. Strom., lib. v. Hieroglyphics.

A debased form of the hieratic method of writing, differing from it mainly in expressing the vulgar dialect, but also in its signs being ruder in form, probably fewer, and in a preference being given to the use of phonetic characters over iconographic and symbolic. It was written from right to left, horizontally, as in the following example (figure 9), the name of Ptolemy from the Rosetta Stone.

These definitions must be regarded as provisional, and the observations which have preceded them as hypothetical, in the present stage of the inquiry. It is, however, advisable to premise thus much in order to render what follows clear, and these premises will receive entire confirmation in the succeeding portion, of which they may indeed be regarded as the results.

When anything written in cipher is placed before one to be deciphered, his first inquiry is what language it conveys. Before attempting to read the Egyptian characters, our first step must be to ascertain from other sources, if possible, the language they express. We find by the Rosetta Stone that both hieroglyphic and demotic were in use as late as the time of Ptolemy Epiphanes, on the 27th March (Jul.) of whose 9th year (B.C. 196) the decree on that monument is dated, and we can trace up Coptic to the fourth century of the Christian Era, so that there is an interval of not more than about 600 years from the latest hieroglyphic and demotic writing to the earliest Coptic, which, it should be observed, is identical with the later Coptic. We cannot doubt, therefore, that the vulgar dialect expressed by the demotic characters of the Rosetta Stone differed from the Coptic but little. The sacred dialect must have differed from the latter somewhat more. The essential identity of the two can, however, be satisfactorily proved by the etymology given by Greek and Latin writers of certain Egyptian words, which must have belonged from their nature to the sacred dialect, and which may be equally derived from Coptic.

Thus, among names of divinities, Plutarch gives us two etymologies of that of the chief god of Thebes:—ἐν τῷ ἀρχαίῳ ὑποκείμενος ἰδέα παρ' Ἀιγύπτιοις ὄνομα τοῦ Διός εἴη τὸν Ἀρσάκην (διὰ παράγοντος ἡμᾶς Ἀμμώνα λέγοντες). Μανεθὼν μὲν ὁ ἐξερευνῶν τὸ κεκεκρυμένον στέλνει καὶ τὴν κρήνην ἐν τῇ τοῦ ἔβαλεν τῆς φωνῆς. Ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἢ Ἀβδέρης φυλάσσει τοῦτο καὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλους τῷ ῥήματι χρηστοὺς τοὺς Ἀιγύπτιους, ὅτι τὰ προσκεκρυμένα προσκεκρυμένα γινόνται τῷ τῆς φωνῆς. κ. τ. λ. The former of these two etymologies, resting on the high authority of Manetho, the Egyptian historian (B.C. 300), is doubtless from the sacred dialect. In Coptic the word ἀλλοῦ signifies "to hold, retain, put round

1 Rosetta Stone, Dem. Inscrip. 2 Comp. Letronne in Frag. Hist. Græc., vol. I.; Inscription Grecque de Rosette, p. 13. The ninth year of Ephphanes commenced B.C. 197. 3 Plat. de Iside et Osiride, c. 9. Compare Diodorus—εἰ Ἀιγύπτιοι καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀναγνώσσοντες ἐξερευνοῦσιν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀλλούς ἀναγνώσσοντες ἐρευνοῦσιν Ἀιγύπτιοι ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς; ἐν κατ' αὐτοῖς ἤ μὴ μὴ τῶν ἱερῶν ἐξερευνοῦσιν ἀναγνώσσοντες ἐρευνοῦσιν Ἀιγύπτιοι ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς. Cary's Anc. Frag., 2nd ed., p. 320. 4 Eratosthenes ad calc. Herod. i. Didot, p. 183. The names and their etymologies in this list of Eratosthenes are undoubtedly genuine, although the chronology is extremely corrupt. This corruption may be the result of the fraud of a copyist. 5 Plat. Tim., p. 21.—οἱ τε ἐπὶ τῶν ἱερῶν ἐρευνοῦσιν τοὺς ἱεροὺς Ἀιγύπτιοι μετὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ Ἀιγύπτιοι μετὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ. 6 Eratosth. (Herod.). Didot, p. 184. 7 Tzetz. ad Lycurg., p. 579. 8 Jos. Ant. Jud. ii. 9. 9 Jos. Ant. Jud. ii. 9. 10 Herod. ii. 143. This rendering of the Greek historian, which has been supposed to prove his ignorance of the Egyptian language, should we think, rather be considered as an evidence of his acquaintance with it. We find, in the ancient procession of the four races, in the Temple of the Kings at Thebes, that the Egyptians are alone called "mankind," while the other races receive their Gentile appellations, and observe that, on all their monuments, the Egyptians are represented as handsome, and called good, whereas foreigners are represented as ugly and ill-favoured. It is surprising that any should have doubted that Herodotus meant that προσκεκρυμένος signified man, although he indicated that it signified a particular kind of man, since his translation includes the former meaning as much as does its English equivalent "a gentleman," and the context should remove any doubt that might exist. 11 Hierap. Hierogl., lib. i., c. 38. 12 Strabo Geogr. xvii., p. 811; Photius Fid., sp. Parthey, Thes. Copt. 13 Hieron. in Jessiam, lib. ii.; tom. iv., col. 291, Vailati. See more etymologies given by ancient writers in Parthey's Vocab. Copt. Hieroglyphics.

Hieroglyphic tions of ἄξον (juncus, calamus, alga, carex), and ἄξι (pratum, virens herba, juncus, calamus).

The evidence derived from these etymologies and correspondences as to the essential identity of the Coptic language with the sacred, as well as with the vulgar dialect of the ancient Egyptian, is well supported by that deduced from the names of ancient cities and nomes of Egypt. Such words as these usually remain unchanged in the course of many centuries, and we find that the Copts called a town by a name derived from that of a divinity of the religion they had abandoned, and that at this day the Muslim inhabitants still use it. If the Coptic affords a satisfactory explanation of the signification of a name which must have been given long before the Egyptian language was called Coptic, and given, necessarily, in the sacred dialect, we obtain a fresh evidence of the essential identity of what we may venture to call the two states of the language. The following examples will show the satisfactory nature of this evidence:

- Βουσίρι, Busiris, πούτερι, πούτερι, a name applied to two other towns, called in Arabic, Abou-Seer, properly Booscer, certainly meaning "the (town) of Osiris;" the first of these places is mentioned by Herodotus, who visited Egypt, n.e. cir. 450. Θάκι ὑπὲ παμών, παμών, Thesbes, or Diospolis, "the city of Amen," corresponding to the Hebrew יָעֵז וּ spoken of by the prophet Nahum, b.c. cir.700; Παμώνως, "the abode of Thoth;" Πανᾶς, "the (abode) of Isis," Anysis, mentioned by Herodotus; Χεμνώς, Sebennytus, a name composed of that of Hercules, Χελ (?) and Πανᾶς, a god.

We may therefore safely conclude that the Coptic language is essentially the same as that of the ancient Egyptians in both its sacred and its vulgar dialect, but differing more from the former than from the latter. If then we can discover the sounds conveyed by the hieroglyphic or demotic characters, we shall have to look to the Coptic for their meaning. It will be necessary, however, as a test of the accuracy of this conclusion, to examine the Coptic in order to ascertain its characteristics, and if the conclusion be supported by this inquiry, it will acquire a still more definite form.

An analysis of a single verse of one of the Gospels will give a more distinct idea of the characteristics of the Coptic than any lengthened explanation.

Οὐος ἀνὶ ἐπὶ τὴν ἰδαῖον παλαιὸν καὶ ἀνεστημένην ἐνταῦθῳ ἐνανθίζει ἐβολὴν ἦν. (Καὶ προσιόντες ὁ Παπαιοῦντες καὶ Σαββατιοῦντες, παραλαβόντες ἐπιγραφὰς αὐτῶν συμβολῶν ἐκ τοῦ ὑπὸρον ἤγιον ἐνανθίζειν.) Οὐος, "and," signifies also a "house;" to be added, increased, to place to, to inhabit;" &c. ἀνὶ "came" (they), 3d pl. com. past indefinite of ἀν, "to go, come." ἀν is a pronominal prefix derived from ἀ, the characteristic of the past indefinite, and ον, the suffixed pers. pron. 3d pl. com., "they" and "their." ἐπὶ, a particle prefixed to nominatives.

Hieroglyphic: ἐπὶ, pl. com. of the article prefixed to the corrupt sing. of a Greek word, ἰδαῖον, for ἰδαῖον, in order to render it plural. ἐνανθίζει ἐβολήν, conj. "with," also

1 Herod. ii. 59. The festival of Isis of which Herodotus speaks was probably held at Iseum, which stood near Busiris, and at the site of which are remains of a magnificent temple, probably founded not long after the historian's visit (see Egyt.) 2 Nah. iii. 8. 3 St Matt. xvi. 1. The Coptic version is that of the very handsome edition of the Gospels, printed by Mr Watts in 1847. 4 By Coptic, the Memphitic dialect is usually intended, except when the whole language is spoken of without distinction of dialects. In the dictionaries, the Sahidic and Bashmuric words are alone distinguished as such. It is, however, not certain that the Memphitic is the purest form of the language; for some claim this honour for the Sahidic, all agreeing that the Bashmuric is corrupt.

Memphitic. Sahidic. Bashmuric. A mouth po. pw. po. pw. ηα. ηω. pa. To do ep. ipl. ep. eipe. εξ. ειρι. ιαι. pa. ipe. ipe. eipe. Hieroglyphics.

These instances show not only the various forms which a root may take in the different dialects, but also the care that is necessary to avoid confounding distinct roots which happen to have the same form in different dialects; they likewise show the various forms a single root may assume in one dialect, evidencing the corruption of the language in form and in signification; for a root properly has but one form, and the most marked formal changes undoubtedly originally indicated, as they still do in many instances, a change in signification. At the same time many of the lesser formal changes can only be attributed to the carelessness of the earlier Copts.

Since we must infer from the accounts of ancient writers, without assuming any knowledge of the results of Young's and Champollion's discoveries, that the hieroglyphic method of writing was partly or wholly by ideographic signs, both of real and ideal things, we must expect to find the roots in Coptic having either real, generally substantive, or ideal, generally verbal, significations.

Derivatives and Compounds.—Derivatives are formed in three ways—by a change in sound, effected by the substitution of another vowel for that of the root; by reduplication; and by agglutination, one or more consonants or vowels, originally roots, being prefixed or suffixed to the root. There are properly no compounds, for what appear to be compounds are really words composed of two or three roots agglutinated together with scarcely any, or no, change.

Inflection.—All Coptic words are in themselves unchangeable, and their inflexion is therefore not by essential changes, but by the addition of prefixes or suffixes. The few exceptions to this rule are susceptible of satisfactory explanation. The inflexion of nouns is effected either by the definite article, or by the addition of a vowel or diphthong, or a diphthong followed by a vowel in the case of the plural number, and by the addition of a vowel in the case of the feminine gender. Forms not agreeing with this rule may yet be traced to its operation. There is no dual in Coptic. The cases are distinguished by prefixed particles, either separate or joined. The inflexion of verbs is extremely complicated, from the great number of tenses. These are generally distinguished by prefixes, terminating in enclitic pronouns, with sometimes one or two separate suffixes.

Syntax.—Notwithstanding that it has been asserted that Coptic has no syntax, we find in it peculiarities of construction and concord that can be referred to no other head. The peculiarities of construction are especially to be noticed in the exuberant use of particles; and among those of concord may be instanced the agreement of a verb sing. fem. with nouns plur. com.

From these characteristics we may draw some conclusions as to the antiquity of the Coptic language, and the probability of its having passed through considerable changes. The circumstance that the roots are all monosyllabic indicates an extreme antiquity and fixedness in the language, Hieroglyphics. As does the manner of forming derivatives, and the virtual absence of compounds. The method of inflexion, on the other hand, though essentially in accordance with the evidences of age just mentioned, shows numerous accidental changes, as does the presence of compounds, although the latter may be so easily resolved as not to be considered part of the essence of the language. From the whole survey we must infer that the Coptic is very ancient in itself; and that the changes which it has undergone are, though numerous, for the most part of such a character as not to affect its essential characteristics; and we may, therefore, reasonably expect to find it almost exactly the same as the vulgar dialect expressed by the demotic inscription of the Rosetta Stone, and essentially the same as the sacred dialect expressed by its hieroglyphic inscription, as we had indeed already concluded on other grounds.

Admitting, therefore, that the language, in two dialects, Statements which we find expressed in the Egyptian inscriptions of the Rosetta Stone, does not essentially differ from the Coptic, we have yet to discover in what manner it is expressed, whether by ideographic signs representing real things by their figures, and ideal things by symbols, in which case the Coptic would be of no use; or by signs having a phonetic value, and being either alphabetic or syllabic; or by a mixture or a combination of these two methods. It is to the statements of ancient writers that we must look for the means of solving this question.

The celebrated passage in the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria is the most important of those which bear upon the present question. He tells us that "those who are educated among the Egyptians first of all learn the method of Egyptian writing which is called the epistolographic; and secondly, the hieratic, which the sacred scribes employ; and in the third place, and after the others, the hieroglyphic, of which one kind expresses its meaning directly by letters, and the other is ideographic. Of the ideographic kind one sort expresses its meaning by imitation, and another is written as though tropically, and another is wholly allegorical by means of certain secret signs." Thus, wishing to write sun, they make a circle, and moon, a moon-like figure, according to the kind which expresses its meaning directly. But, when they write tropically, they transfer and transpose according to relation, utterly changing some, but altering the meaning of others in many ways; thus handing down the panegyrics of the kings in theological relations, they write by anaglyph. Of the third kind, which is by secret signs, let this be a specimen: the bodies of the other stars, because of the obliquity of their course, they represented by those of serpents, but that of the sun by that of a beetle, because [this creature] having moulded a ball-shaped thing of ox-dung, with its face towards it rolls it along," &c. Certain words and expressions in this difficult

1 Αἰσχύλος ἐν τῷ Παρέλαντι ποιεῖ ἀκριβῶς τῷ πάσης τῆς Ἀιγυπτίως γραφῆς ἀναγλυφίδας, τῇ ὑποτροπογραφίᾳ καὶ καλλιγραφίᾳ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς, ἢ μένοντα ἢ ἐπιστολημένον διάγραμμα τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἢ ἢ μένοντα ἢ ἐπιστολημένον διάγραμμα τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἢ ἢ μένοντα ἢ ἐπιστολημένον διάγραμμα τῆς ἐπιστολῆς. Hieroglyphics.

Hieroglyphic passage must not be left unnoticed, since they have been variously rendered. First of all, ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ στοιχείᾳ has been shown by Lepsius to mean here simply "letters," and no one can reject so opposite a rendering. Σύμβολον has been translated "symbolical," but this is not its primary meaning, nor does it apply in the present case. Σύμβολον is used in philosophical literature to denote a sign of something thought of in the mind, as Aristotle tells us; and οὐρανοῦς means primarily "ideographic," and then "symbolic" in our use of the word. The latter we have, therefore, rendered "ideographic," and what follows entirely justifies this translation. No satisfactory explanation has been offered of the δράκων. Chevalier Bunsen's is very ingenious, but it does not seem to render the passage clearer.

The main facts stated by Clemens may be summed up as follows. The Egyptians in the second century after the Christian Era had three methods of writing—the epistolographic, the hieratic, and the hieroglyphic. The first of these methods appears from its name to have been employed for ordinary purposes, and it is therefore reasonable to suppose that it expressed the vulgar dialect. Any doubt that might exist on this matter is removed by the mention of an enchorial (or demotic) system of writing in the Greek inscription of the Rosetta Stone, and by Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus. The second method, the hieratic, is not spoken of by any other ancient writer, as far as is known. Its use by the sacred scribes leaves us no room to doubt that it must be that character in which the greater number of the papyri that have been preserved to our times are written, since it is distinct from the epistolographic on the one hand and the hieroglyphic on the other. The circumstance that the hieratic system is merely a cursive form of the hieroglyphic explains the silence which all ancient writers, except Clemens, appear to have maintained respecting it. The hieroglyphic method of writing was of two kinds, the one by letters, and the other by signs of ideas. The latter or ideographic sort, was divided into three different kinds—the first of these represented an object by a figure of it; the second was topical, but not in an arbitrary manner, and the third was allegorical. Let us see how an actual examination of the hieroglyphics, without presupposing a knowledge of Young's and Champollion's discoveries, affects this statement. If, for example, we examine the Rosetta Stone, we cannot fail to see in the hieroglyphic inscription certain characters which bear the impress of being ideographic; indeed, at first sight, we might suppose that all the signs were of this sort, but when we come to compare this inscription with the corresponding Greek, it becomes evident that such cannot be the case, for they are too numerous, and that many of the signs must in all probability represent sounds. The two sorts of characters seem, therefore, primâ facie, to have been mixed. Many of the sculptures in the tombs indicate how this was done; for we find a number of animals of different kinds portrayed, and over each a group of a few characters terminating in a small figure of the animal represented beneath. We may therefore infer that the ideographic signs were occasionally employed as determinatives following the names of the ideas they represented. The allegorical ideographs, of which Clemens speaks, seem from their nature to belong to a separate system, and an examination of the Hieroglyphics of Horapollo Nilous supports this view. This work, composed at a late period, and subsequently enlarged by additions, relates almost wholly to such allegorical or enigmatical characters, or uses of characters, and thus affords us a means of judging of their value. We may trace throughout the book evidences of the late origin of the system, both in its being unlike that of a primeval language, and in the marks it bears of Greek philosophy. We must, therefore, look with suspicion upon allegorical explanations of hieroglyphics which, it may be here remarked, Egyptologists have already rejected as inapplicable to those of the Egyptian monuments.

Porphyry, in his Life of Pythagoras, speaks of the Egyptian methods of writing in terms which illustrate the statement of Clemens. He says that Pythagoras "in Egypt lived with the priests, and learned thoroughly the wisdom and language of the Egyptians, and the three different modes of writing, the epistolographic [letters], the hieroglyphic, and the symbolic, some conveying a direct meaning by imitation, and some expressing their meaning allegorically by certain secret signs." This passage, from its singular resemblance to that of Clemens on the same subject, may be almost conjectured to have been taken from the same source, or possibly from it. It will be noticed that the hieratic is not mentioned, doubtless on account of its being but a form of the hieroglyphic method.

1 Arist. Intersp., vol. i., p. 346. 2 Egypt's Place, vol. i., p. 346. 3 Comp. Elenum. Var. Hist., x., 10. 4 Chev. Bunsen remarks on the allegorical system:—“He (Clemens) mentions, likewise, a kind of enigmatical character, or secret writing, in which, for example, a serpent designates the planets on account of their spherical motion; but the scarabaeus, the sun, probably because of the analogy between the round lump which it rolls before it, and the circular form of the ecliptic. Clemens calls this character the allegorical, and very properly; for the distinction between symbol and allegory is, that the former represents the intellectual object itself by a direct image; the latter conveys the idea of the object only through the medium of a logical motion. The examples in Clemens are the best proof that such a secret writing is as foreign to the sacred books as to the monuments. The serpents and scarabaei occur on the papyri as well as monuments; but the scarabaeus never beclouds the sun, nor the serpent the planets. The allegorical writing was an artificial one, a late application of the hieroglyphic system, originally, perhaps, for astronomical and astrological purposes, afterwards to our own planetary signs, and afterwards cabalistically developed. Clemens, therefore, was right in noticing this enigmatical character; in consequence with the hieroglyphics, he ought to have intended to represent it as a real subdivision of the hieroglyphic writing, not merely calling it, which is composed entirely and exclusively of the three elements he had previously enumerated—the phonetic, hieroglyphic, and symbolic signs. His object was to give an example of the manner in which this hieroglyphic character was used, as a whole, the parts of which he describes before explaining the secret character.”

5 Kai ἐν Ἀιγύπτῳ μετὰ τῶν ἱερῶν εἰσῆλθεν, καὶ τὴν ἀναγνώσιν ἔδειξεν, καὶ τὸν Ἀιγύπτιον Κώστα, γραμμάτων ὅτι τρεῖς ἔσχεν, ἑπτάλογον τὸ ἄγγελον τοῦ ἀναγνώσεως, καὶ ἀναγνώσιν, τὸν μὲν ἀναγνώσεως κατὰ μήνας, τὸν δὲ ἀληθεροφορίας κατὰ τῶν αἰώνων. (De Vit. Pyth., p. 8.) Hieroglyphics. By the symbolic letters Porphyry evidently intends the allegorical mode of writing spoken of by Clemens, using συμβολικός in its secondary sense, but it may be doubted whether that mode was as ancient as the time of Pythagoras.

Perfect as are these notices of the Egyptian systems of writing by the late Greek writers, they are ample compared to those which we find in the works of their predecessors. Herodotus merely tells us that the Egyptians "use two kinds of written characters, of which one is called sacred and the other vulgar,"¹ and Diodorus Siculus says the same, only adding that the popular method was learnt by all, while the sacred was understood by the priests alone.² Herodotus mentions, in the place above referred to, that they wrote from right to left, contrary to the Greek manner, which indeed was the manner of writing that they preferred, adding, that they said that in doing so, they wrote to the right, but that the Greeks wrote to the left.³

The main result of our inquiry thus far is the knowledge that the ancient Egyptian language in its two forms, the sacred dialect and the vulgar, was essentially identical with the Coptic in its three dialects, and that the written characters of the former were phonetic and ideographic, signs of the two classes being sometimes employed together for the same word.

Having ascertained thus much, we cannot proceed further with any degree of certainty without the aid of bilingual inscriptions in ancient Egyptian and some known language. Such records do fortunately exist. The most remarkable of them is the Rosetta Stone, a tablet bearing a decree of the Egyptian priests in honour of Ptolemy Epiphanes, issued B.C. 196. Although it has usually been called trilingual, it is properly bilingual, for it is in but two languages, Egyptian and Greek, the former being written in hieroglyphic and demotic characters. Happily, to remove any doubt as to the identity of subject of the three inscriptions, we read at the close of the Greek portion that the decree was inscribed in the characters before mentioned. "ΤΟ ΔΕΥΘΗ ΙΣΜΑΤΟΤΟΝΤΟΝ ΑΤΡΑΠΑΙΕΙΣΤΑΘΗΝΕΚΣΤΕΡΕΟΥΑ ΙΘΟΤΟΣΑΕΙΡΟΙΣΚΑΙΕΙΤΧΡΟΙΣΚΑΙΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟΙ ΣΡΑΜΜΑΣΙΝΚΑΙΣΤΗΑΝΕΚΑΣΤΟΤΡΟΝΤΕΠΡΩΝ ΟΝΚΑΙΔΕΤΕΡΟΝΚΑΠΤΠΤΩΝΙΟΝΠΡΟΝΠΟΣΘΤΟΥΑ ΙΩΝΟΒΙΟΥΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣΕΙΚΟΝΙ."⁴ Great difficulties, however, beset the inquirer who thinks at first that he can read the Egyptian inscriptions of the record by the Greek. The tablet is so broken that much of the hieroglyphic version, hieroglyphics particularly a great part of its earlier portion, is wanting, and some of the Greek has also been lost, as well as of the demotic version. The difficulty of comparing the hieroglyphic version with the Greek is thus greatly increased, and it seems more practicable to commence with the demotic.

The indistinctness of the demotic characters, however, as well as their not being separated into groups, makes their study a most difficult task, and it is not to be wondered that many years had elapsed after the Rosetta Stone had been found before any real progress was made in the interpretation of its Egyptian inscriptions.

The inscriptions of the Rosetta Stone do not, however, afford the only examples known to us of bilingual records in Egyptian and Greek. Besides some tablets, there is in the Musée des Pays-Bas at Leyden, a Gnostic papyrus in Gnostic papyri of demotic characters, accompanied by an interlinear transcription of certain magical words into Greek characters from Leyden, the demotic words below them.⁵ By carefully comparing the demotic characters of these words, when phonetic, with the Greek letters corresponding to them, an alphabet can be formed, as has indeed been done by Dr Leemans,⁶ which can be used for the interpretation of the Rosetta Stone, either by being applied to the demotic version of that record, or to the hieroglyphic. In the latter case, it would be necessary to trace the demotic characters to the corresponding hieratic, and these again to the hieroglyphic, and this, notwithstanding its apparent difficulty, would be found the more satisfactory method of the two. In this manner, the Rosetta Stone might have been partly interpreted, and any one may now thus test the accuracy of the results of Young's discovery. But another method was adopted, the papyri not being known, and it depends for its defence rather upon the congruity of its results than upon its logical character. If the more accurate method, however, be tried, the results will be the same.

SECTION II.

THE METHOD OF INTERPRETING THE ANCIENT EGYPTIAN CHARACTERS EMPLOYED BY YOUNG AND CHAMPOLLION, AND THEIR FOLLOWERS.

From certain differences it has been supposed that Young and Champollion followed different methods. But since their followers have made such efforts to explain the hieroglyphics, supposing that the Egyptians contemplated the directions of the strokes of the letters themselves.—"D'après notre connaissance du démotique, il est évident que cette remarque ne concerne point la direction générale de l'écriture déjà tracée mais uniquement la manière dont on devait écrire les signes, c'est-à-dire, en les commençant du côté gauche et en les terminant à droite. Il est du reste aisé de s'apercevoir au sujet des signes qui s'étendent sur le papyrus plus que les autres, que l'encre sur la droite est toujours plus faible qu'à la gauche, preuve évidente que l'écritain a commencé par la gauche et fini par la droite" (pp. 15, 16). This explanation, however, does not seem applicable to the Greek mode of writing. The Egyptians may, however, have considered a papyrus itself as having its own right and left hand like a person opposite, and so have spoken of the right and left in precisely the opposite sense to that of the Greeks; an explanation which may be illustrated by our ordinary and military use of the terms in question. The meaning may perhaps be—if we suppose that the Egyptians were joking with Herodotus, and that he did not perceive it—that they considered their own mode of writing right, and that of the Greeks gauche; a rendering which is authorized by the terms employed.

Tzetzes has also preserved the meaning of certain hieroglyphic ideographs according to Charonemus, an Egyptian priest and historian of the first century of the Christian Era; but he has not given us any theory of the characters, and the fragment is rather valuable as corroborative evidence, having been first noticed long after Young's discovery had been matured, than in the present place. We shall have occasion to refer to it in detail in a later part of this treatise.

As there are similar papyri of the same times in Greek, it is evident that these transcribed words were either untranslatable, or were supposed to lose their power in invocations by translation, and were, therefore, thus distinguished. The following verses from the so-called "Chaldean Oracles" of Zoroaster, may be cited, as illustrating the latter of these two reasons:—

"Όραται βάθυνε μέτωπ' αλλάξη. Εἴτ' ἦν ἐγώ κύρια τοῦτος ἀνάστατος. Διατυπώ ἐκ τούτων ἄλλος ὁράω." —Cory's Anc. Frag., 2d edit., p. 271.

Papyrus Egyptien Demotique à transcriptiones Grecques, ed. Leemans.

VOL. XI. Hieroglyphics.

These differences are the marks of early stages of the inquiry, and since the distinctive peculiarities of the results arrived at by both these interpreters are preserved in the present theory as accepted by later scholars, it is best to consider the method to be but one.

The other methods of interpreting hieroglyphics which have been proposed in modern times will not be here considered, since a full examination of them would occupy too much space in the present article, and since, if the truth of the method of Young and Champollion be proved, all other systems must necessarily fall to the ground.

The Rosetta Stone was discovered in 1799, and brought to England in 1802. In the same year the first step towards deciphering its Egyptian inscriptions was made publicly by the distinguished French Orientalist, Baron Silvestre de Sacy, who had discovered in the demotic inscription the groups corresponding to Alexander, Alexandria, and Ptolemy, in the Greek. But he was unable to determine the force of the characters composing these groups. This was, however, done by M. Akerblad, who further discovered and resolved other proper names and words in the demotic version, but was stopped in his progress by his suppositions that the demotic system was wholly alphabetic, and that the words expressed by it were in nothing different from those of the Coptic. To M. Akerblad belongs also the merit of having discovered the numerals "first," "second," and "third," in the hieroglyphic inscription, and thus been the first to interpret correctly, on sure grounds, any part of that inscription.

The inquiry was next taken up by Dr Young, who communicated to the Society of Antiquaries, in May 1814, a "Conjectural Translation of the Egyptian Inscription of the Rosetta Stone," published in the Archaeologia, vol. xviii. (1815). He then applied himself to the study of Coptic, and republished his translation in a revised form in the Museum Criticum of Cambridge, 1815. After this, in 1819, he gave the world the result of his researches in the article Egypt, in the Supplement to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. iv. The essential part of this article, that is, so much of it as refers to the interpretation of the hieroglyphic and demotic systems of writing is here retained, for reasons which have been already stated. Some remarks are added in notes and subsequent observations, the former distinguished, for fear of mistake, by the writer's initials, to point out in what particulars subsequent discoveries have altered the views of its learned author.

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; so that we have 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 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 M. de Sacy, in his letter relating to this inscription. A small group of characters, occurring very often in almost every line, might be either some termination, or some very common particle; it must, therefore, be reserved till it is found in some decisive situation, after some 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 that occurs so often in the Greek, except the word king, 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 hieroglyphical 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; where, however, there are no tablets, they almost always look towards the right; and it is easily demonstrable that they must always 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

---

1 Bunten erroneously states these names to have been "Ptolemy, Berenice, and Alexander" (Egypt's Place, vol. i., p. 315). 2 The Rosetta Stone was discovered in the year 1799, by a French officer during the repair of Fort St Julien, a little to the north of the town of Rosetta. See art. Egypt. (n.s.r.) 3 See preceding page. 4 Dr Young published the three inscriptions of the Rosetta Stone thus arranged in the Hieroglyphics of the Egyptian Society. (n.s.r.) 5 Ibid. ii. 36. See preceding page. (n.s.r.) 6 We have noticed in an earlier place exceptions to this rule. (n.s.r.) Hieroglyphics.

most conveniently appreciated, by arranging them in a lexicographical 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 lexicon 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 king to be expressly named in the one, while 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 proceed 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, those that remain being 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 among 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 a fair specimen 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 dia-

dem, 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 of various manuscripts on papyrus, still extant, with each other. Several of these, published in the great Description de l'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 texts 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 extending to a series of above ten thousand characters, have been enumerated in the Museum Criticum; 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, lately brought from Egypt. A few specimens from different manuscripts will be 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 [as will be seen 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; while, in reality, we can but seldom trace any very striking ana-

1 Dr Young did somewhat towards publishing such a lexicon in the index to the translation of the Rosetta Stone given in the parallel arrangement which he printed in the Hieroglyphics of the Egyptian Society. (n.s.p.) 2 This conjecture is perfectly just, the enchorial inscription giving in its last line the word SUTEN "king," instead of the PTUREMEES (Πτολεμαῖος) of the hieroglyphic inscription. (n.s.p.) 3 In this passage Dr Young calls hieratic characters enchorial, and linear hieroglyphic, hieratic. These mistakes were natural in the early stages of the inquiry. The manuscripts, accompanied by tablets or scenes, which he mentions, are copies of all or part of the Ritual or Book of the Dead. (n.s.p.) Hieroglyphics.

But the enchorial character, having been long 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 even in English we might sometimes be obliged to say a new tree, in order to distinguish it from a new 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 [sic], 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 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 Hieroglyphics, 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. We are now to proceed to an enumeration of the principal characters which have been rendered intelligible.

Hrudiments of a Hieroglyphical Vocabulary.

A. Deities.

1. 2. 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 among the modern weapons engraved by Denon. (Plate xcv.)

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 (No. 151), [which will be

---

1 Excepting the implied statement that determinatives were unknown to the hieroglyphic system, though used in the hieratic, this whole paragraph, if we apply it to the true enchorial, is remarkably accurate and just, and shows far higher knowledge than one would have supposed could have been attained at the time when it was written. (n.s.r.)

2 The Ritual itself had a most ancient origin, as already noticed, but the copies of it, of all periods, the later of which, although exhibiting changes, are yet purer in their characters than the contemporary inscriptions. (n.s.r.)

3 Long after this Chevalier Bunsen wrote in his Egypt's Place (Eng. trans., vol. i., p. 267, published in 1848), "There are inscriptions, such as those on the obelisks, and whole pages in the Book of the Dead, which can now be read and explained, as regards their substance at least; as can also the greater part of the hieroglyphic inscription on the Rosetta Stone, by the assistance of the Greek texts [sic]. Champollion, in fact, made out the essential import of both the Egyptian texts before his visit to Egypt. Still we confidently maintain that no man living is competent to read and explain the whole of any one section of the Book of the Dead, far less one of the historical papyri." This is not strictly correct, for at the time this was written there was at least one scholar who could, now there are at least four who can, read and explain some of the short chapters of the Book of the Dead; yet it must be admitted, that for the most part the ancient Egyptian records in both the sacred and the vulgar characters are understood in their substance rather than in their minute details. This is seen at once from the consideration that while different scholars agree as to the general sense of any inscription, they widely differ as to its details. The alleged difficulty as to the interpretation of the historical papyri arose from neglect more than from the imperfect condition of many of them. (Though he does not in great measure repair since the remark of Chevalier Bunsen, quoted above, was written, see the exertions of Mr. Heath and M. de Rougé.) (n.s.r.)

4 The examples given as of enchorial characters by Dr Young are taken indiscriminately from the enchorial and hieratic texts, for he supposed the two to be enchorial, as already noticed. The result of this is not any positive error, for the earliest enchorial writing is scarcely distinguishable from hieratic, but it is liable to produce confusion. The later forms of demotic are to be regarded as typical of that mode of writing, the earliest are nearly identical with the typical forms of hieratic. (n.s.r.)

5 The hatchet and the bearded human seated figure (usually distinguished by particular generic emblems, and by the length and form of the beard), are ideographic equivalents and generic determinatives of the word NETER, "a god," of which the hatchet forms the initial character with the force of N. The hawk-headed and other brute-headed figures, or the man-headed figures, with specific emblems, usually represented sitting, but sometimes standing, are the ideographic equivalents and specific determinatives of the names of different gods and goddesses. On the use of determinatives, see infra, section iii. (n.s.r.) Hieroglyphics.

This interpretation is also fully justified by the testimony of Plutarch, that "the figures of judges were represented without hands."¹

3. 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 goddesses indifferently.

ΦΩΤ (φωτ̄) ΘΕΑ

The semicircle and oblique oval,² 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 enebral 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 ṝ, which distinguishes a female. Nor must we omit to observe, that a semicircle seems to answer to the ṟ in some other cases, and is always expressed in the running hand by the character which Mr Akkobrad calls ρ, and which is also exactly the Syriac ṝ. 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 (No. 57).

θεά

4. The plural, Gods, is formed by repeating the character three times, or by placing three dashes after, or sometimes before it. In the enebral 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 (No. 57.)

θεαʼ

5. 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.

6. The symbol, often called the Hieralpa, or sacred λ, corresponds, in the inscription of Rosette, to Pttha, or Vulcan, one of the principal deities of the Egyptians.⁴

PTHAIλ

A multitude of other sculptures sufficiently prove, that the object intended to be delineated was a plough or hoe;⁵ 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 pulley⁶ is used indifferently for the plough. Horapollo tells us that Vulcan was denoted by a beetle;⁷ and the Monticianian obelisk of Kircher has the plough on three sides and the beetle on the fourth. Horapollo, however, is seldom perfectly correct;⁸ 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;⁹ 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 Phtha, as the father of the gods. The plough is very rarely found as the name of a personage.

---

¹ The passage here referred to relates to certain statues at Thebes, and therefore not necessarily to the general mode of representing a judge, whether by a statue or image, or by a hieroglyphic. (see p.) ² The semicircle and egg, called by Dr Young "the semicircle and oblique oval," form a determinative of the names of goddesses, and the semicircle alone is the sign of the feminine singular. (see p.) ³ There is no dual in either dialect of the ancient Egyptian, or in the Coptic. See infra, section iii. (see p.) ⁴ The winged globe, or Her-hat, is held to correspond to the Agathodaimon of the Greek writers, and the ram-headed god Num to the Chemmis. (see p.) ⁵ This part of the Gnostic amulets, although they doubtless contain remains of ancient Egyptian magic, show so much foreign influence that it is best not to deduce anything from similarities we may observe in them to the old religion of Egypt. The Gnostic papyri, though more Egyptian than most of these, are yet too markedly characterized by the same foreign influence to be considered as veritably Egyptian. (see p.) ⁶ This is a mistake; the character in question, reading MAR and MEE, signifies to love, &c., but occurring on the Rosetta Stone in connection with the name of Eba, perhaps wider Raba, in the expression MEE-PTEH, "Beloved of Ptah," it was supposed, in the comparison with the Greek inscription, to be the name of that divinity. The word MAR deserves some attention, since it offers more significations than are known to belong to most other Egyptian words, and whether these are all significations of the root alone or not, they illustrate the different significations of a root was susceptible, whether it was in primitive or derivative forms. MR is probably in our orthography since we cannot be certain that the same vowel was also used in all the significations, primarily — 1, to bind, envelope ; 2, an island (surrounded by water); 3, a pool (surrounded by land) ; 4, a frontier, boundary ; 5, tropically, to love, &c. (see p.) ⁷ The plough and water-pitcher are secondary to the sign. (see p.) ⁸ This is a confusion between the objects mentioned. (see p.) ⁹ This fact is also the proof that the Egyptian language has been pure. (see p.) ¹⁰ This is a remark of an instance of that discriminating judgment by which Dr Young showed himself so much in advance of his predecessors, and most of his contemporaries. The character of Horapollo's work has been already noticed. (see p.) ¹¹ Tar. See Ancient Egyptians, vol. vi., pl. 25, p. 2. (see p.) Hieroglyphics actually represented; and it is difficult to say under what form the Egyptian Vulcan was chiefly worshipped; but on the tablet of a Horns 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.

7. 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 manuscripts, 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 Edou (Apollinopolis Magna), and at Esneh (Latopolis). The temple at Edou seems to have been dedicated by Amenophis or Memnon; and he appears to be called "lover of Ammon," that is, Miamun, which is not unlike the name Memnon.

8. The common astronomical diagram for the sun, Ω, 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 Re, or Phre, 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; an oval and an arm also often follow the circle. The enchorial 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 (No. 160), 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 (No. 178, 179). In the great Hieratic Ritual, and in some other manuscripts, this name of Phre 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 (No. 6), as the sun is said to have been the offspring of Phthah. Whatever plant this lotus may have been, it certainly does not much resemble the melumbo of the East, which some imagine to have been the original emblem of fertility. The name Phre is almost the only intelligible combination of letters that ever occurs on the Abraxas 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."

9. The name of Rehea 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 ana-

1 This hieroglyphic name Num, here not perfectly accurately represented, since the jar should be one-handled, is that of Kneph or Chnumphis, not Ammon, whose name is written in the hieroglyphics Amen. The mistake which Dr Young here sanctions had its origin in that of the Greeks and Romans who confused the two divinities, making them to be the same as their Jupiter, and always ram-headed. Amen, however, always ram-headed. The ancient error may have arisen from the fact that the ram-headed god of the Great and Little Oases, Jupiter Ammon, was called Amen-Num, i.e., Ammon-Chnumphis, or Hemon-Chnumphis. (n.s.r.)

2 The temple at Edou is a Ptolemaic structure dedicated to Her-het. See art. EGYPT. (n.s.r.)

3 The title Mee-Amen, signifying beloved of Amen, is given to many kings. It may have been one of those which the Greeks supposed to correspond to Memnon, which there is little reason to suppose not have been an Egyptian name. Lepsius conjectures that Memnonia, a name given to a famous temple of Ramesses II. at Thebes, and mother of the same king, and his father Sethe I. at Abydos, has its origin in the Egyptian Memnu, "structures," a word always used when temples are intended (Chronologie der Ägypter, vol. I., p. 277). (n.s.r.)

4 As a determinative of time. (n.s.r.)

5 The two representations here mentioned are the tablets or vignettes of the eighth and eighty-first chapters of the Ritual. The title of the former is RA EN ART TARU EM NETER ERTE TEP KES ER HAR KEKU. "The chapter of the making transformations into a god giving the hour which is to the path of darkness;" and the title of the latter RA EN ART TARU EM SESHNEE. "The chapter of the making transformations into a lotus." These relate to some of the transformations of the deceased in the other state; and the latter phrase is used for birth, as M. de Rougé has shown (Tombeaux d'Amon, p. 109), which seems to indicate that the Egyptians held the doctrine that man's soul returned to a human body after a certain period spent either in the other world or on the earth in the bodies of various creatures. (n.s.r.)

6 On the lotus, see art. EGYPT. (n.s.r.)

7 The goddess Nutpe, here called Rhea, is the wife of Seb (Chronus), and mother of Osiris, Isis, Anubis, Typhon, and Nephthys. She is represented on the mummy-cases as the protector of the deceased, who in taking the form of Osiris becomes her child. Thus the inscription of the mummy-case of Men-ku-ra (Mycerinus), the fourth king of the Fourth Dynasty (B.C. c. 2500), reads thus—HESAR SUTEN SHEBT MEN-KU-RA ANSH TET MES EN TPE SHEBT NUTPE SHA [SHEBT]. PESEHESH SUTEN NUTPE HAREM EN RENS EN SHITE [EN] TPE ERATYES UNEK EM NE TERENSHETFUK SUTEN SHEBT MEN-KU-RA ANSH TET,"—Osiris, king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Menkura ever-living, born of Heaven, child [of] Nutpe, flesh [of Seb], thy mother Nutpe spreads over thee in her name of the expanse of heaven, she has granted [that] thou art as a god against thine adversaries [O.] king of Upper and Lower Egypt Menkura, ever-living" (Vvse's Pyramids, vol. ii., p. 94). Whether or not the name of the goddess Nutpe signifies the "abyss of heaven," in which case she would be the feminine form of Enpe (Empe), the Emepth of the logy of the hieroglyphical name only, we should be disposed to interpret it as meaning the wife or sister of Ammon.

10. 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 (No. 179).

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 Lumus 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.

11. 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 (No. 103) is also frequently found among 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 were contained in eight books.

12. 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 book 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 (No. 100) seems also sometimes to have been used as an emblem of Osiris, as well as of Apis and Mnevis, 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.

13. Aruens, the Apollo of the Egyptian mythology, is sufficiently identified by the comparison of various inscriptions with the fragment of Hermaphroditus, 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

---

*Footnotes:*

1. 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.

2. 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 book 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 (No. 100) seems also sometimes to have been used as an emblem of Osiris, as well as of Apis and Mnevis, 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.

3. Aruens, the Apollo of the Egyptian mythology, is sufficiently identified by the comparison of various inscriptions with the fragment of Hermaphroditus, 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... Hieroglyphics.

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 characterized by a hawk with two bars, and styled the son of another personage who seems to be the sun, as Apollo is called by Hermaphrodite, 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 frieze of Montagu and Ficoroni (Hieroglyphics of the Egyptian Society, 7 Eo p. 9 Lk), and it 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 plate 138 of Denon, the two deities seem in some measure confounded. The Egyptian name may be interpreted "evening sun," as emblematic of the repose of victory—ΕΡ ΕΝΝΗ ΝΕΣ.

14. 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 been long recognised as representations of Isis by other attributes, are distinguished by bearing the throne on the head, which is a common mode of characterizing 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 stone 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 scarabaeus brought from Egypt by Mr Legh, and in a hieroglyphic inscription at Philae, she appears to be called the offspring of Phthah. She often bears in her hand a sceptre forked at the foot, with a lotus for its head, while 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 Lethenouiller'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 Dendera, 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 ΘΕΙΣΤ, which may probably have been intended for ΘΕΙΣΤ, the Egyptian name with the feminine article.

15. The constant companion of Isis can be no other than Nephtie.

Her name somewhat resembles that of Isis, with a scale or basin annexed to it, but the square surrounding the throne is completed, and the scale is sometimes detached from it, with a [semi] circle interposed; and, in this form, the name comprehends one of the characters denoting a temple (No. 87). It seems also to be a head of Nephtie that is found at Dendera 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 Dendera was dedicated to Nephtie, for the Greek inscription has Aphrodite, which is mentioned by Plutarch as a synonym of Nephtie. 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 Nephtie, as well as that of Isis, was sometimes represented on these instruments.

16. The emblem of a bird in a cage, which is often found in the manuscripts, accompanied by the figure of a child, seems to indicate the character of a nurse, and may without inconvenience be interpreted as relating to the goddess Buto, 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; 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.

17. The enchorial name of Horus seems to be derived from the figure of a hawk followed by the character de-

---

1 These hieroglyphics form a name of Ra. (n. s. p.) 2 The character here called a ladder is the second hieroglyphic of the second name in the wood-cut above. The name reads Atum, and is applied to a deity of Hades. (n. s. p.) 3 The name of Isis reads HES. (n. s. p.) 4 The female divinities who are here represented as mourners, are Isis and her sister Nephtys. (n. s. p.) 5 This is a female figure, a child is Sekh. (n. s. p.) 6 The gods usually carry the sceptre with an uncertain animal's head; the goddesses, that with a lotus. (n. s. p.) 7 The great temple at El-Karnak was dedicated to the Theban triad, Amun-ra, Mut, and Chuns; and the principal temple to the south of that great edifice, to Chuns. The latter appears to be the one here called "the small southern temple." (n. s. p.) 8 Inscriptions of this kind on coins are frequently tooled, having been added by the cinque-cento forgers; and the one here mentioned is probably such, although it is of course impossible to pronounce on this matter without an inspection of the coin itself. (n. s. p.) 9 The proper orthography of this name is Nephtys. (n. s. p.) 10 This name reads NBPT-EE or NEFT-EE, "the lady of the house;" the latter reading is based on the supposition that Dr Hincks is right in making the complementary letter of the first sign sometimes F and not B. (n. s. p.) 11 Νεφτίς, ἡ καὶ Τόκωντος καὶ Ἀσπερίς, Ἰσιδὸς καὶ Νεκρῶν ἐπιγραφῆς (De Isid. et Ori., cap. 12). The Egyptian Venus was, however, Athor, not Nephtys, and it is to the former goddess that the famous temple at Dendera was dedicated, and it is her head which adorns the capitals of its columns. (n. s. p.) 12 The hieroglyphic name here given is that of Athor, and may be read TEE-HER or perhaps EET-HER, the abode of Horus, an explanation entirely in accordance with Plutarch's, for he says that "Ασπερίς signifies εἰκός;" Ὁμοῖος σημαίνει (De Isid. et Ori., cap. 56). In this passage Plutarch makes Ασπερίς to be but a name of Isis, and it must be admitted that the two goddesses are closely connected. (n. s. p.) Hieroglyphics.

Hieroglyphics noting Isis; an arrangement which agrees very well with the supposition that his usual denomination was Horus.1

The figure of the infant (No. 133), the chain, and the knot, clearly form a part of the name on a Horus engraved by Montaucon (Ant. Expl., tom. ii, p. 302), and on an obelisk from Bosc 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 Caius (Recueil, tom. iv, pl. 13).

18. 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 Edou 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 Paamyta.

19. The Nile seems to have been reckoned among the deities of Egypt, and the character which appears to be appropriate to a river (No. 82) is found occasionally in the tablets, followed by a vessel and a spiral (Nos. 7 or 9, and 201), which seem, indeed, to make a part of the name, and 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.

20. The sacred characters denoting Apis are pretty clearly determined by the triple inscription; the enchorial name is perfectly so.1

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 Osiris, 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 on the great sarcophagus of granite formerly at Cairo, called the Lover's Fountain, and now in the British Museum; which there is some reason to suppose, from the frequency of this name, 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.1

21. The enchorial name of Mnevis 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.

21*. 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 mythology.

22, 23. 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 other is often observed to be employed in the preparation of a mummy, and may be called from this occupation Cleristes, 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

---

1 Horus, the Younger is frequently termed HER-SA-HES, "Horus, son of Isis," to distinguish him from Anubis, HER-UR, "Horus the Elder," and Harpocrates, HER-PA-SHUT (CHRUT), "Horus the Child." The hieroglyphic name given in the text is that of Harpocrates, the enchorial that of Horus simply, meaning Horus the Younger, for the simple name Horus applies to this divinity. (n. s. f.)

2 The Egyptian name of this divinity, a bolt on a stand, is usually read Khem, but its sound cannot be considered certain. At Thebes he was worshipped as Amen-ra-Khem, or Amen-ra-ka-mut-f, the latter name first rightly read by Mr Birch as "Amen-ra, who is male and female." The hieroglyphics given in the text have nothing to do with Khem. (n. s. f.)

3 The hieroglyphic character does not represent a nilometer but an adze; its proper signification when employed as an ideograph is "approved," or something very similar, as in the prenomens of Ramses II. The group spoken of by Dr Young in the text, with a character which he does not mention, the wavy line preceding the adze and with the vase and chicken, the homophone of the spiral, with the determinative of heat or fire, also not mentioned, following it, is rendered by Dr Brugsch "the hot season" (Recherches Nouvelles, p. 62, pl. iv, no. 13, b, c). (n. s. f.)

4 This is the goddes HAPI, and is that of the sacred bull Apis, one of the four gods of Amenti (Hades) whose names occur on the so-called Canopic vases, and it is also the commencement of the name of Niusa, usually read HAPIE-MU. (n. s. f.)

5 The proper etymology of the name of Besitis is doubtless PA-HESHE, "the (tomb) of Osiris." (n. s. f.)

6 It is not far from this Busiris that the sepulchre of the bulls Apis has been discovered by M. Mariette. Art. Egypt.

7 The word here mentioned is that of the person for whom this sarcophagus was made, HAPIE-MEN, "Apis the Established." The bulls Apis were buried in sarcophagi of much larger dimensions than this. (n. s. f.)

8 The hieroglyphic characters do not compose the name of Moseva. (n. s. f.)

9 It is very probable that Io is connected with Egyptian mythology. The name Io may be traced in AAH, the moon, or in AH, a cow, more probably in the latter. (n. s. f.)

10 Horus and Anubis. (n. s. f.) Hieroglyphical name is a feather, a wavy line, and a block; or a hatchet under a sort of arch.

24–27. Under the bier on which a mummy lies, and 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 foreeps, and a broken line. 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 Manchata, 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, and he is denoted by a water jar, with three plants somewhat resembling leeks or onions.

28–32. 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 characterized 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 Biosiphos; 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 Platypeters; 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 Edfu, bears a tear on her head, and who may be called Soraca.

B. Kings.

33, 34. We are informed by Pliny that the Alexandrian obelisk was erected by Mespheps or Mestries, the reading of the different manuscripts being different; and since no king of the name Mestries is mentioned by other authors, we may consider this Mespheps as the Mespheps or Mespheps who succeeded his mother Amersis about 1700 B.C., or perhaps a century or two later. The hieroglyphic 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 Mespheps. The obelisk at Alexandria, now called

---

1 This is the hieroglyphic name of Anubis, the characters composing which are the reed (A), the wavy line (N), and the mat (P), as in the woodcut; to these is sometimes added the chicken, to express the medial vowel (U). The name reads ANUP. The head of Anubis is that of a jackal. (n. s. p.)

2 These are the four genii of Asentii, children of Osiris, who presided over the parts of the body which were removed in the process of embalming, and placed in the jars of which the lids had the forms of their heads. (n. s. p.)

3 The name of this first genius is AMERT. (n. s. p.)

4 The heads of the four genii here mentioned, HAPIE and SU-MUTF, are respectively those of a cynocephalus and a jackal, not of a dog or baboon, and of a wolf! (n. s. p.)

5 The name of Anubis has nothing to do with that of gold, which is a distinct root. (n. s. p.)

6 This is the same as the name of Apis, as already mentioned. (n. s. p.)

7 This name probably reads KABHNSUF. (n. s. p.)

8 This divinity is HEP-HERU, “the guardian of the paths” [of the sun]. Like Anubis, he is jackal-headed, and is sometimes represented by a jackal alone, as on the top of the funeral tablets, where Anubis and he are thus represented.

9 The Egyptian names in Pliny are so corrupt that it is frequently impossible to trace their original forms. “Trabes ex eo [syntete] fecere reges quodam certamine, sedibus vocantes, Solis numini sacros. Radiorum ejus argumentum in effigie est; ita significatur nomine Aegyptio. Primus omnium id instituit Mespheps [var. Mespheps], qui regnatam in Solis urbe, somnio iussus; hoc ipsum inscriptionem in eo; et enim sculptura illis effigiesque quas videamus Aegyptius sunt litterae. Postes est aliis excidere reges. Statuit eos in supradicta urbe Sothis [var. Sothis] quattuor numeros, quadragramnum octocubitorum longitudine: Rhamsevis autem, quo regnatam illam expedit est, XXXXX [var. quadraginta] cubitorum [Hist. Nat., lib. xxxvi., cap. viii., § 4, ed. Silius]. Comp. Herod. ii., cap. 111, on the two obelisks set up by Pheros, the son of Seotisiris, at the temple of Heliopolis, in gratitude for the recovery of his sight, and Died. i., cap. 52, where the name of the Hero is related of as being the Pharaoh of the solar obelisks. (n. s. p.)

10 The name here read Mespheps is the commonest of Thothmes III., who is not the Mespheps of Manetho, but the Misphragmuthosis (Misphreps-Theodorus?) Its sound is probably MEN-TAR-RA, or MEN-TA-RA. Mespheps is the fifth king of Manetho’s Eighteenth Dynasty, and Misphragmuthosis the sixth, respectively the Thothmes II. and Thothmes III. of the monuments, and their chronological period is about the middle of the fifteenth century before the Christian Era. (n. s. p.)

11 Dr Young always supposes the second name of a king—perhaps because the phrase “son of the sun” intervenes between it and the first—to be the name of his father. The title “son of the sun” is, however, applied to the second name as a prefixed title, not as a title. Hieroglyphics.

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 Thuthmosis. 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, pl. 98, and on some others brought from Egypt by Mr Legh.

35. Misphragmuthosis.

35. 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.

36-38. A multitude of ancient Greek inscriptions identify the statue of Memnon, celebrated by all antiquity for its musical powers, which Strabo says he witnessed in person though he could not very positively decide that the sound proceeded from the statue rather than 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 Amenoph 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 Amenophites of Manetho, or Amenophis the Fourth, and 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 Titibous 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 Thuthmosis, 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; which is 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. So that there is little doubt 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 are in 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 connecting the two names. The first name is now called the prenomen, the second the nomen. Thus in the present case the nomen Tet-mes or Thoth-mes, born of Thoth (Hermes), follows the prenomen Mem-tar-ra. The earliest kings have no prenomens.

1 The standing and fallen obelisks at Alexandria have in their centre lines the name of Thothmes III., and in their lateral lines that of Ramesses II., while that of a later king appears in small additional inscriptions exterior to the others and near the base.

2 This obelisk is the largest known, being upwards of 105 feet in height, and having been originally upwards of 108, exclusive of course of the modern pedestal and ornaments. It bears the name of Thothmes III., son of the fourth and last Thothmes, unless indeed the king Sko-tse or Aos-he of an earlier period.

3 In Manetho's list Misphragmuthosis is the son of Memnon; Manetho's version, his son. The royal name given by Dr Young is not, however, that of this sovereign, but a blurred imitation of another name.

4 The inscriptions give Amarna, and Pharamond (Mod. Egypt and Thebes, vol. ii., p. 162).

5 Αλλον γὰρ ἤτοι Ἀμενώπου καὶ Θούθμην πάρως, Θούθμην δὲ αὐτὸς τὸ ὄνομα ἔχει. Θούθμην δὲ ἂν εἴη καὶ Σινότροπος ἢ Σινότροπος ἢ τοῦτο ἢ Ἄμενωπος ἢ Καπρυκενές θυγατέρας (Paus. Att. l., 42). Comp. the Perseid Chronicle—O τῶν μυστῶν (Καρυκενῆς) καὶ τῶν Ἀμενωπέων, Μισφραγμούθωτις ἔτεσιν ἀπ᾽ ἧς τοῖς ἐξερευνησάμενοι τινὲς ἦσαν ἢ ἀντί, ἢ τοῦτο παραληλικήσαν ἢ Ἀσσυρίας (Chron. Pach. i., p. 270, ed. Diocl.)

6 The name is that of Amenoph III., whom the two colossi, the Vocal Memnon and the corresponding one, represent. He is called Amenophis by Manetho, and is the eighth sovereign of his Eighteenth Dynasty.

7 Manetho omits the second Amenoph, and the third is therefore the second in his list.

8 Amenoph III. is here misplaced. He was son of Thothmes IV., and reigned long before the first Ramesses. The Ramesses Miammas, properly Miammanu, of Manetho, is Ramesses II., grandson of the former king of the same name.

9 Few would now propose to find an etymology of Memnon in Egyptian. The whole story of Memnon is one distinct from Egyptian history. He was an Asiatic if a really historical personage, and his name probably either Greek or Assyrian. The Greeks after the time of Herodotus, and still more the Latins, took little care to distinguish between Eastern and the Western Ethiopians; it was enough that Memnon was an Ethiopian for them to seek for traditions of his life in Egypt, and the Egyptian priests, with a readiness that has made them in more cases than one causes of confusion in history, told their inquisitive Greek visitors that the half-Ethiopian Amenoph was the son of Helen of the Trojan War. But after a time, either through the carelessness of the priests or the hasty conjectures of the Greeks and Romans, every king who had a name or title resembling Memnon was confounded with him, and the edifices which he raised called Memnoniums. Of the latter appellation we have noticed Dr Lepelus' ingenious, though we cannot but think improbable, explanation.

10 This temple is the Ramesseum of El-Kurneh, or palace-temple of Ramesses II., in Western Thebes. This king was called Mee-amen Ramessos, a name which in this case was corrupted into Memnon. remarked by Strabo, that Memnon and Ismenides may probably have been the same person. The name is also found in the grottoes at Bilhan-el-Molouk; on some statues representing Osiris, and in some inscriptions at Ombos, as well as on a seal of Denon (pl. xcviii.) Mr Bullock has presented to the British Museum a scarabaeus 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 Eoa, 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 Ismenides. 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 on a square seal in the possession of Mr Legh. There is another copy of the inscription of Mr Bullock's scarabaeus, on a scarabaeus 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 lately 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 Phtha; 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.

39. In the principal name on 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 Amenases or Amenases, from sheshu, 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 Archaeologia, the name appears to be the same, but with the synonymous substitution of the hatchet for the judge.

40, 41. 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 Mestries 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; a circumstance which, as well as the sounds belonging to the different characters, agrees very well with Ramesses; for we have ns, the sun, ms, a birth, and smsh, a pair, so that we may venture to call it Remesses; and we may take Heron for the father of the first Remesses, from Hermaphon, 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 Remesses seems to have been a son of Sesostris; a third Ramesses follows Amenemphites in Manetho, and agrees with the Rhamphisitus of Herodotus, and the Remphis of Diodorus, who is mentioned as the successor of Proteus; and this may, perhaps, have been the Remesses of the friezes of Montagu and Ficoroni (Hieroglyphics, 7 Ou. 9 ff.), 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 another Remesses on the Lions at the fountain of Aqua Felice, near the baths of Diocletian at Rome, the name of whose father is a little like the name supposed to belong to Arsinoë (No. 60).

42, 43. 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. If 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

---

1. The tomb of Amenoph III. is in the Western Valley of the Tombs of the Kings at Thebes. (n. s. p.) 2. Another scarabaeus of this king is interesting as one of the few Egyptian monuments, excluding the small mummy-shaped figures, of which more than one copy has been found, and on account of the remarkable character of its inscription, which gives the name and titles of Amenoph II. and his Queen Teey, and the parentage of the latter, as well as the extent of the king's dominions. After the mention of Teey occur these words: EN EN TEF-ES YUAA REN MUT-ES TAWF HETI PU ENT SUTEN NESHT TEPAW. (Rosellini Mem., No. xlv., 1). 3. ER KERAY MEH ER NEHARENA. The name of his father Yuha, the name of his mother Yuaw, wife [she] is of the strong king, the extreme [of] his kingdom toward the east, northward to Nubarema" (Rosellini Mem., No. xlv., 1). Karay is supposed to be Colos, in Ethiopia; and Naharema is held to be Medinet Habu, the Aramaean realm of the Scriptures. (n. s. p.) 4. The name given as that of Amenases is the patronym of a queen, Numt-amen, who reigned conjointly with Thothmes III. Manetho's Amenases is the Ahmose of the monuments, the wife of Thothmes I. (n. s. p.) 5. The names here called Remesses and Heron are the patronym and nomen of Usereteen or Sesertesen I., the first king of Manetho's Twelfth Dynasty. (n. s. p.) 6. This king is Nezanebo II., the third king of the Thirtieth Dynasty, who has the same patronym as Usereteen I., and the nomen Nezanebof or Nezanef. (n. s. p.) 7. Sesostris or Sothis, not Sesostris. "Is autem obeliscus, quem divos Augustus in circu magno statuit excusus est a rege Semen-petito, quo regnante Pythagoras in Aegypto fuit, lxxxv pedum et dodrantis, praeter basim ejusdem lapidis; is vero quem in Campo Martio novem pedibus minor a Sesothis" (Pilin Hist. Nat., lib. xxxvi., cap. viii., § 14). (n. s. p.) Hieroglyphics.

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 (pl. cxviii.)

44. 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 Mr Montagu's friezes. 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 Paris. 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.

45. Proteus, or Certus, otherwise Ammenophites, is only known as the predecessor of one of the kings named Ramesses; and we may safely employ it for the father of the Remesses of the friezes of Montagu and Ficoroni, the whole of which are remarkable for the excellence of their workmanship.

46, 47. 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 Amenophites and Amytis, supposing them to have lived about the time of Amenophites, or Amenophis the Fifth, and his successor Osorcon. The father's name might, without difficulty, be read "Mamaphthah," supposing some titles to follow it. There are also two obelisks of the same king, brought from Cairo, which stand near the sarcophagi 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 in 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 among 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.

48-50. 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, placed there by Augustus, and used as the gnomon of a dial, was the work of Sennecertes or Sennysertes, who reigned in Egypt at the time when Pythagoras visited it. This king seems to have been the same with Psammuthis or Psammitis; and the authority of the evidence is so much the stronger, as the period in question is not extremely remote. The father of Psammitis, 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 Monfaucon. 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 Psammitis, which we may therefore call Psammeticus, 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 Phtha; and it is remarkable that in Manetho's series the predecessor of Psammetichus is also Nechan.

51, 52. Among the most common of all the names of the kings of Egypt, on a great variety of monuments, are those which were mistaken by Kircher for a sort of amulets or charms, which he denominated the Mophthonesian tablets. They occur alone on three small obelisks only, the Medicean, the Mahutean, and the Monticellian of Kircher; but they are found in the external lines of the Alexandrian, the two at Luxor, the Flaminian, and the Sallustian, while none are ever found exterior to them.

---

1 The name is that of Psammetichus I. of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, written Psametik. (n. s. r.) 2 Diodorus Siculus does not mention Nuncoreus, but Pliny does. Perhaps Dr Young supposes this king to be the same as the Uchores of whom Diodorus speaks, but he was not a son of Sesostris. (n. s. r.) 3 The name is that of Proteus or Certus, of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty. (n. s. r.) 4 The name read Proteus is Nectanebo II. of the Thirtieth Dynasty. The friezes of Montagu and Ficoroni, the former of which is in the British Museum, are in bad style, though carefully executed. The earlier portions of the former are of the Egyptian Renaissance under the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, the later ones of its decline, to which the latter seems wholly to belong. (n. s. r.) 5 These names are the names and prenomens, for the name is placed first in the woodcut of a king Her-nebt-heb, who has been usually supposed to be Amytis, the sole king of the Twenty-eighth Dynasty. Dr Hincks, however, conjectured him to be Manetho's first Nectanebo, the head of the Thirtieth Dynasty, and his correctness has been proved by the discoveries of M. Marlette (Lepsius, Uber eine Hieroglyphische Inschrift aus Tempel von Edfu, Abhandl. der K. Akad., 1855, p. 74). (n. s. r.) 6 This is not strictly correct; either Alexander Egyus, the posthumous legitimate son of Alexander, or Hercules, his illegitimate son, might have been mentioned on a sarcophagus executed in Egypt after his death. (n. s. r.) 7 The village here called Behbeit, but properly Bahbeyt el-Hagar, marks the site of the ancient Iseum, and near it may be seen the remains of a magnificent temple, the earliest name in which is that of Her-nebt-heb. Perhaps this is the very temple of Isis which Nectanebo was commanded to build in the dream related in the papyrus bearing the title "Nectanebo's Dream." (n. s. r.) 8 The names rendered Psammitis and Nechao are the prenomens and nomen of Menptah Sethee I. (Sethos), head of the Nineteenth Dynasty; and the name represented by Psammeticus is a form of the prenomen of Ramesses II., the son and successor of Sethee I. (n. s. r.) Hieroglyphics.

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 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 Menephtes; 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 sides. 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 Psammetichus; 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.

53. Ptoleberius.

54. Disceygos.

53, 54. 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 Disceygos and Ptoleberius as specimens, somewhat singular, of a mixture of different dynasties; and in this point of view they may be placed between the old Egyptian kings and their Grecian conquerors.

55. Alexander.

56. Ptolemy.

55. The name of Alexander has not yet been identified in the sacred characters; 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.

56. There can be no doubt whatever respecting the signification of the name of Ptolemy, as it occurs on the stone 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 r 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, 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; although, in more modern Coptic, oll is translated, a ram; we have also eol, 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; and this character is always expressed in the running hand by the m 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 i or e; the bent line probably signified great, and was read osm or os; for the Coptic shei seems to have been nearly equivalent to the Greek stigma. Putting all these elements together, we have precisely Ptolemaios, the Greek name; or perhaps Ptolemeos, as it would more naturally be called in Coptic. The slight variations of the word in different parts of the enchorial text may be considered as expressing something like aspirations or accentuations.

57. 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 Edou, which must mean "the two saviour gods," with various titles of honour, such as "the agents of Ptahh, the em-

---

1 The names read Menephtes and Amasis, are the menem and prenomem of Rameses II., the second king of the Nineteenth Dynasty. (n.s.p.) 2 This king, the builder of the great temple of Medinet-Haboo, is Rameses III., of the Twentieth Dynasty. (n.s.p.) 3 These two names are incorrectly copied. (n.s.p.) 4 The enchorial name here given is that of Alexander the Great, since it forms, with the addition of the determinative for city, the name of Alexandria on the Rosetta Stone. The Alexander of the hieroglyphics is the famous Alexander Agus, in whose name the first Ptolemies governed. (n.s.p.) 5 The rhyme bounds the names of royal personages alone—always of kings and queens, and sometimes of princes and princesses. The names of private persons sometimes contain that of the monarch under whom they were born, and hence, perhaps, arose Dr Young's mistake. (n.s.p.) 6 The characters of the name of Ptolemy are all simply alphabetic, not syllabic in any case. They read, in the example given, in the hieroglyphic form, PTURMEES or PTULMEES, and in the demotic, PTULMEES. At this late period the use of syllabic signs was almost, if not wholly, disused in foreign proper names. (n.s.p.) 58. 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 Bihain-el-Molouk, and called, in the description, panier à anses; and a basket, in Coptic, is ἀρική. The oval, which resembles an eye without the pupil, means elsewhere ἐν, which in Coptic is ε; the waved line is ὤφ, and must be rendered ω; the feathers τ; the little footstool seems to be superfluous; the goose is ἀγέλη, or ἀγελη. Kircher gives us ἀγελησοῦ for a goose, but the ἀγελησοῦ 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 Berenice; or, if the η must be inserted, the accusative Berenicen, which may easily have been confounded by the Egyptians with the nominative. 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 ἀράβη, or possibly ἀράβη; for it is doubtful whether Kircher had any other authority than that of Diodorus for ἀράβη, and the word ἀραβεῖται is used for another vehicle. The enchorial η may possibly have been derived from a horizontal line, turned up at one end. We have then the three dashes for the τ, and the two angles seem to have answered to the ηε, for a bird is not uncommonly scribbled in some such manner; so that we have either Berinice or Berenice, by a combination somewhat different from the former.

59–65. The temple at Ombos was dedicated, as we find from the Greek inscription copied by Mr Hamilton, "in 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 Arsinoë, 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 Arsinoë, 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 ἀρσινί, and which alone may have been sufficient to identify the name. It occurs in the celebrated zodiac of Denderah, and very frequently at Phila, 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 great temple at Edion 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 (No. 121); 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 Phila, and in the great temple at Edion, 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 Koos, or Apollinopolis Parva, there is another Greek inscription of the Philometores and their children; but in the hieroglyphics copied by Denon, the names of 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.

---

1 The name of Berenice reads, in the hieroglyphic and demotic forms given in the woodcut, BERENEEKA. As in the name of Ptolemy Dr Young was in error in reading some of the characters composing it to be syllabic. (n. s. p.) 2 This is no name or title of a king. (n. s. p.) 3 The hieroglyphic name given as that of Arsinoë, is a form of Autocrator incorrectly copied, but the demotic name is that of this queen. (n. s. p.) 4 The proper title for Epiphanes, HER, occurs in the Rosetta Stone; the hieroglyphic title in the woodcut is part of the pronomen of Physcon, but it is sometimes also given as a title to Epiphanes. (n. s. p.) 5 This name is the pronomen of Auletes. (n. s. p.) Hieroglyphics.

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.

C. Private Persons.

66-71. 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.

| Name | Hieroglyphics | |---------|---------------| | Aetus | Κνκιλλος | | Philinus| Κικιλλος | | Diogenes| Ιωακειος | | Pyrrha | Ρ/Ρ/Ρ | | Areia | ΥΙΙ/ΥΙΙ | | Irene | Ρ/Ρ/Ρ/Ρ |

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.

72. 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 parallelopiped, but more accommodated to the shape of the body. The pseudonymous appellation Ramose has been derived from the elementary characters already observed in the names of Re and Amun.

D. Animals.

73. 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.

74. 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 r, approaches extremely near to the Coptic r, which also means him; and hor, or hro, is the Coptic term for a snake; so that this coincidence seems to afford us another trace of the origin of the alphabet.

75-78. 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.

79. 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.

80. The essential parts of the name of Egypt seem to be the square and the wheel, signifying splendid land. In

---

1 This is the prenomen, incorrectly copied, of Philadelphus. (n.s.r.) 2 This is the prenomen of Amasis of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty. (n.s.r.) 3 The principal uses of this character are as determinative of proper names of men and the like, and for the affixed pers. and poss. pronouns of the 1st sing. for the masc. (n.s.r.) 4 The horned snake or cerasus is a common alphabetic sign for the letter we have represented by P, both in its hieroglyphic and its demotic form; from the latter originated the Coptic character for the same letter. It is also used for the affixed pers. and poss. prons. 3rd sing. masc. (n.s.r.) 5 Thus the bull signified "male," and the ram "soul," in a tropical sense. (n.s.r.) 6 The crocodile-headed god is named Sebak, and his usual symbol is a crocodile standing upon a shrine. (n.s.r.) 7 The character here called a wheel, is the determinative of the names of Egypt and those of Egyptian districts, cities, and the like. The character which precedes it in the hieroglyphical group in the woodcut is the sign for h, which may here have an ideographic use. The two signs appear in this place to denote Egypt. (n.s.r.) 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 Horapollo 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.

81. The name of Memphis cannot be determined without some uncertainty; the line of hieroglyphics in which it is contained being in several respects obscure.

82. 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 Peirene, 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.

83. The word Greek, in Coptic Uinix or Ouenin, in the basic Ouerenin, 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 ouo or oO, which is nearly the sound attributed by Akerblad to the enchorial character, a little like the Hebrew u. The feathers, as in Ptolemy and Berenice, may be read r or ei, having the three dashes to express them, as usual, in the enchorial text; the serpent is eneii, ever; and the hat, which looks a little like a plough, is equivalent to the waved line (No.177), and must be read n; so that we have very accurately ouerenin, which seems to be near enough to ouerenin to justify us in considering these characters as phonetic.

84. 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 that enters into one of the names of Arneris (No. Hieroglyphics), the sculptures of the Rosetta Stone being by no means highly finished.

85. 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.)

86. 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.

87. 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, 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.

88. The character representing a shrine so much resembles the object which it denotes, that it was the most readily identified of all that are 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.

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

90. 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. 102), and in some other

---

1 The hieroglyphic group here given is not the name of Memphis; the demotic is, however, rightly attributed, and reads, like the hieroglyphic equivalent, MEN-NUPE, "the good abode," Plutarch's ἤγειρα ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑποκλίνου (De Is. et Osir. cap. 20). (n.s.p.)

2 The characters given by Dr Young are not those for "Greek," which immediately follow them on the Rosetta Stone, and it may be observed that the first of them is inaccurately copied. The hieroglyphic name reads HUENEN, and must rather be regarded as sprung from a common origin with the Greek "Iaou," perhaps from the Hebrew "yav," since it is found in the inscriptions of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, as the name of a conquered country or people. The earliest of these mentions of the HUENEN known to us is in the reign of Thothmes IV., n.e. cir. 1400. (n.s.p.)

3 This is a translation of country, or rather region, is correct. (n.s.p.)

4 The oldest Coptic inscriptions, having been originally ideographs, present some similarities with the Egyptian hieroglyphics; but these may be fairly regarded as accidental, and we cannot venture to reason on anything but the circumstance that both nations used ideographic characters. (n.s.p.)

5 The proper significance of this ideographic sign is "a star," the tropical "a god." (n.s.p.)

6 The "open square" signifies a "house" or "abode," if it represents the ground-plan of a house or room; with the addition of an ostrich feather, the symbol of truth and justice, or of a hatchet, the symbol of divinity, it stands for a temple. (n.s.p.) Hieroglyphics.

91. 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.

92. 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.

93. 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."

94-99. The boat or ship, 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 n, 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 Esne, 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.

100. 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 Macius. 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, while the ingenious Kircher has made it a phallus oculatus. Among the antiquities collected by Lord Mountmorris in Egypt is an eye seen in front, and apparently shedding a tear.

101. The character for an image seems to mean a wrought man; the hands, connected with an eye, appear to be holding an ear as an emblem of labour. The same character, with a slight variation in the form of the eye, means a rower (No. 136).

102. 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 probably answer to osir, or 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 frieze. (See Hieroglyphics, 7 S. L.)

103. 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.

104. In the numerical tablet of the great French work,

---

1 The signification of this character, which represents a seat and not a throne, is "seat:" thus, when combined with the ostrich feather, it forms the compound word "seat of judgment," or "hall of justice." In No. 102 it has no signification, being merely the seat of the figure. (n.s.p.)

2 This ideograph represents a stela, and in the Rosetta Stone is the determinative of the word HAY, a stela, lit. "a thing set up." (n.s.p.)

3 The scribe's implements signify "to write, engrave, sculpture, a scribe," &c., and serve to determine the word S-SHEE, "to write," &c. (n.s.p.) Hieroglyphics.

105. 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 frieze of Nuncereus, we have over the king's figure the characters, "Joy, Life, Stability, Power, Riches, Like the Sun, for ever." (Hieroglyphics, 7 p.)

106. 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.

107. 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 frieze of Ficoroni and Montagu (Hieroglyphics, 9 okl., nskl, 7 lmp). 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.

F. Attributes and Actions.

108. The cruz 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 Serapeum 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.

109. Eternity is represented simply by a serpent rising in an oblique arch, and without horns; the serpent devouring its tail, and making a ring, is never found as an Egyptian emblem. Horapollo says that eternity was denoted by a serpent having its tail hidden under its body, and that such serpents were called uraei, meaning in Greek basilisks, 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.

110. The cross with the serpent is a very common epithet in the sense of everlasting, or immortal, or aeonobius; 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 (No. 177). Almost all authors have very hastily taken 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; and 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, "living for ever."

111. Joy.

112. Power appears to be indicated by a sceptre having the head of an animal, which is often placed in the

---

1 The hieroglyphic character signifies "dilation of the heart," and has no connection with the first of the two enchorial ones, which is rightly supposed to be the meaning of "gold." (n. s. p.) 2 The so-called crocodilus is simply an emblem of life. There is no doubt that this is the symbol spoken of, and it may be observed that it is seen at the head of many early Christian inscriptions instead of the cross. (n. s. p.) 3 The basilisk, or asp, is a symbol of royalty. (n. s. p.) 4 The hieroglyphic groups, though neither of them correct in the last character, which should be a thick straight line, signify "living for ever." (n. s. p.) 5 This sign signifies "to give, a gift, offerings," &c. (n. s. p.) Hieroglyphics.

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.

113. Stability.

\[ \text{TAXPO} \]

114. Established.

\[ \text{TAXPHOY} \]

113, 114. 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 makes 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.

115. Strength.

\[ \text{AMAI} \]

115. 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 somewhat to resemble a kind of head-dress.

116. Mighty.

\[ \text{XOP} \]

116. 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 Hermaphrodite. The arm is, in many other instances, used in compound characters.

117. Victory.

\[ \text{OPO} \]

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

118. Fortune.

\[ \text{EYU} \]

118. The character signifying fortune somewhat resembles that which denotes gold (No. 105); 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.

119. Splendour.

\[ \text{WOY, ORWIMI} \]

119. 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.

120. Bearing.

\[ \text{CAI} \]

121. Illustrious.

\[ \text{DEPIWOR} \]

120, 121. 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 makes 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 intensifier.

122. Honour.

\[ \text{TALO} \]

123. Respectable.

\[ \text{AE? EYGA?} \]

124. Venerable.

\[ \text{NYGT? RAIAIT?} \]

122-124. 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 may, however, 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. (See No. 172).

125. Rite.

\[ \text{NETCUE} \]

125. 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 also simply doing; as in Greek the same word signifies to do and to sacrifice.

126. Worship.

\[ \text{YAMME} \]

126. Worship, or the Greek therapeia, is denoted by a very unintelligible character, resembling a kind of casket, which is frequently delineated in the boats of the tablets, if it is not intended for some emblematical figure.

---

1 This sign is held to mean "purity, pure." (n.s.p.) 2 It is doubtful what this sign represents, but its signification of stability is unquestionable. (n.s.p.) 3 This group, which is most fully written with the waved line before the branch, which, it may be noted, is not a palm-branch, reads NESHT, and signifies "strength, strong, victory, victorious." (n.s.p.) 4 This is an incorrect rendering. (n.s.p.) 5 This sign is used as the initial of the word HER, "manifested," corresponding to ἐπανειδος, as in the Rosetta Stone (No. 121). (n.s.p.) 6 The legs are simply the determinative of the word mentioned in the previous note, written with the open square bent inwards, or meander, the mouth, here called the oval, and the legs. This determinative follows words relating to motion, and is therefore applied to this, of which the primary signification is "to come out." (n.s.p.) 7 This character is a reed, denoting the vowel A. (n.s.p.) 8 The reed and owl, or owl alone, denote the prep. AM or M, "in," &c. (n.s.p.) 9 This is the isolated personal pronoun, 1st sing. com. "I." (n.s.p.) 10 The eye signifies "to make" or "do." At the commencement of a prosynema, followed by the waved line, it should be read "made by," that is, "this act of adoration is made by—" (n.s.p.) Hieroglyphics

127. Father.

128. Mother.

129. Son.

130. Attendant.

131. Daughter.

132. Sons.

133. Child.

134. Director.

135. Steersman.

136. Rower.

137. King.

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.

127, 128. 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 scarabaeus, 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.

129. Son.

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 (Nos. 22, 130). Mr Bailey has also observed the occurrence of the bird between two proper names, and has identified it with the chenalopex mentioned by Horapollo 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.

130. Attendant.

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.

131, 132. 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; and at Philae we find a dual, meaning sons or descendants, as a son and a daughter, expressed apparently by two circles only.

133. 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., fig. 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.

134. Director.

135. Steersman.

136. 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 (No. 101).

137. 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 king; 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, thiron; and

---

1 It is doubtful what this character represents. Its signification, whether with or without the siphon as a complement, is "servant." (n. s. p.)

2 These signs do not signify "father," a word which is written phonetically, with characters reading ATF. (n. s. p.)

3 This character is often used for "wife," but not "mother," and reads HEMT. The vulture signifying, in its primary tropical sense, "female," is commonly employed as a symbol for "mother," with the addition of the sign of the feminine. (n. s. p.)

4 These characters signify "son of the sun," a title usually preceding the second ring of an Egyptian king's name containing the nome. The goose stands for "sun," and the disk for "sun." The preposition "of," which would be in this case written with the wavy line, is rarely expanded in the group. (n. s. p.)

5 The goose followed by the leg is the name of the god SER, Chronos, the father of Osiris, written phonetically. (n. s. p.)

6 This group means son of the sun, the egg being used for the word son, and the sun being represented by a combination of the uraeus, or basilisk, with the disk. (n. s. p.)

7 The sense of this character is rather "child" than "son," but it is certainly employed in the latter signification. (n. s. p.)

8 This is near the signification, which, however, has not been precisely defined. The symbol above the arm is a sleeve, standing for the sound SH, and the object held in the hand is a sail.

9 This group reads SUTEN-SHEBT, "king of Upper and Lower Egypt;" the title "King of Upper Egypt" being denoted by the abbreviation ST, the reed and semicircle, and the title "King of Lower Egypt," by the symbolic sign, a "bee" or "wasp," and semicircle. (n. s. p.) Hieroglyphics.

Horapollo tells us that a bee signified a people obedient to a king; hence this symbol might be interpreted king 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 ῥιον, 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 (No. 19).

138. CONDITION.

MET...

138. 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.

139. KINGDOM.

METOPO

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

140. LIBRATION.

WEN EBOS

140. The character denoting a libration 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 other 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.

141. CEREMONY.

142. PRIEST.

141, 142. 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 Stone 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 (No. 130); and the enchorial character is a more tolerable approximation to this form than to the complete figure.

143. PRIESTHOOD.

143. Priesthood is simply the condition of a priest; the character prefixed answering to the Coptic prefix MET, and to the Greek termination ηλα.

144. SACRED.

144. 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 SACRED agrees very well with the context where this character occurs, though it cannot be deduced with absolute certainty from the comparison with the Greek.

145. ASSEMBLY.

145. 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.

146. SACRED.

146. The character god is made an adjective by the addition of the waved line, and of the long drop, which seem 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 in 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.

147. SACRED.

147. 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.

148. GIVE.

148. 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 ττ has both these senses. It is often preceded by a circle and a semicircle.

149. OFFER.

149. The hand bearing the triangle or pyramid (No. 111), manifestly means, in the friezes of Montagu and Ficononi, to offer, as an oblation to a deity.

150. DEDICATE.

1 The first character means primarily a "pure person," and then a "priest;" and the characters under Nos. 141, 142, have the same signification. (n.s.p.)

2 This hieroglyphic stands for the letter Η, in the passage referred to. (n.s.p.)

3 See section I., supra. (n.s.p.)

4 This group is part of the expression "of sacred words" in the Rosetta Stone. It is imperfect in consequence of the omission of the three lines, indicating the plural, after the tongue, not drop. (n.s.p.)

5 These hieroglyphics form a syllabic group, reading MES, "born," as in the royal name Tetmes, commonly called Thothmes, and the like. (n.s.p.)

6 The hand bearing a pyramidion or triangle signifies to "give," or "offer." (n.s.p.) 150. 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 (No. 134); the character already interpreted *consecrated*, precedes, but it is not absolutely certain that it belongs to the same phrase.

151. 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.

152. Good.

153. Bestowing.

154. Munificent.

152-154. The character representing good strongly resembles the figure of a lute, depicted in the chamber of the harps, among 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 *eucharistus*, 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 eucharial 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.

155. 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; while, in other places, this character seems almost always to convey the sense of a dual. The eucharial epithet of Thoth is a little like the crown with two semicircles, which is most frequently found among the titles of Osiris, especially when he sits in judgment.

155*. 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 Hieroglyphics 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.

156. Others.

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

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

158. Declaration.

158. 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.

159. Manifest.

159. 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 (No. 84), or for a kind of flag or banner.

160. Name.

160. 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.

161. Enlightening.

161. 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. (See Nos. 8, 63.)

162. Loving.

162. The square block, the semicircle, and the chain,

---

1 This hieroglyphic group signifies a "status," also a "ceremony." (n.s.p.) 2 The lute is "good" (NUPR), the basin (NEB), "lord" and "all" the thrice-repeated lute is not a plural in the group given in the woodcut, but a kind of superlative, and the whole reads "three good," or "very good, lord." (n.s.p.) 3 The semicircle and two inclined lines signify twice, as in the epithet of Thoth, "twice great," where it follows the sceptre, meaning "great." We have shown in the present essay, that the Egyptians had no dual. The second group from the left, in the woodcut, means "foreign country." (n.s.p.) 4 This sign is the determinative of the word REN, "name," and within it were inclosed royal names. (n.s.p.) 5 This character is a generic determinative of words signifying "light" and the like. (n.s.p.) Hieroglyphics.

163. PRESERVER.

\[ \text{ΕΘΟΡΕΤ} \]

163. 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.

164. SET UP.

\[ \text{TΑΓΩ ΕΠΑΤ} \]

165. PREPARE.

\[ \text{ΣΕΒΤΕ} \]

164, 165. 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.

166. IN ORDER THAT.

\[ \text{ΖΙΝΑ} \]

166. 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 ΗΝΑ or ΕΤΗΕ.

167. WHEREVER.

\[ \text{ΠΙΣΣΑ ΟΥΝΑ} \]

167. 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 Ε-Υ-ΜΑ.

168, 169. 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.

170. MOREOVER.

\[ \text{ΝΕΟΝ} \]

170. 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.

171. LIKEWISE.

\[ \text{ΧΡΩΡΗΤ} \]

171. 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 sun. In the enchorial character for likewise the symbols seem to be transposed, and the loop is doubled.

172. IN.

\[ \text{ΣΙΝ, ΕΤΩΝ} \]

172. 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 M, which is a particle not very distinctly intelligible, nor capable of being translated. It is also not a little remarkable, that the M of Akerblad's alphabet is the enchorial character which answers to both of these symbols. (See No. 123.)

---

1 This group is the name of the Egyptian Vulcan, PTEH, commonly called Ptah, or Phtha. (n.s.r.) 2 This is a correct rendering, but the legs are a determinative of motion or its results. (n.s.r.) 3 This group signifies a "stela" or "tablet," i.e., "a thing set up." It should be followed by the representation of a tablet, as a determinative, as on the Rosetta Stone. (n.s.r.) 4 This group, with one "oval" is rightly rendered "in order that." (n.s.r.) 5 This group reads ERMA, and means literally "towards the place," and thence whatever. (n.s.r.) 6 Both these groups, reading respectively H.A. or HER, signify "and, also;" but it must not be concluded that they are identical on the principle of the omission of the final e, mentioned in the subsequent sketch of grammar (section iii.), for the vowel is one that is probably long or guttural, and not like that added before R. (n.s.r.) 7 These groups both signify equality, likewise. (n.s.r.) 8 This group, with one "line," signifies "like, as," SHA, and is usually written with the reed (A) as a complement; with the two semicircles it means "similarly." The group mentioned here as this sign, with the circle (disk) and bar (masculine sign), means "resembling the sun, like the sun." (n.s.r.) 9 The hieroglyphic character and second enchorial character are the same, and stand for the letter M, frequently employed for the preposition mentioned in the text. The first enchorial character corresponds to a usual form of the chicken U, but may represent the owl in carelessly written manuscripts. (n.s.r.) Hieroglyphics.

173. 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 ἐπὶ and ἐπον, ὑπὸ, or ὑπονομα, also meaning a head. The encircling 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 ἸΑΝΙΑ, 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.

174. FOR.

175. A semicircle and an oval mean FOR, as relating to time.

176. BY THE.

177. OF, TO.

178. A day seems to be very naturally expressed by splendour of the sun, or sunshine. (See Nos. 119, 8.)

179. 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. Horapollo says that a month is denoted by a palm branch, or by an inverted crescent; but the crescent is too indistinct on the Stone of Rosetta to have allowed us to recognise it without the assistance of the collateral inscriptions.

180. 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.

181. There is some little uncertainty respecting the exact limits of the characters denoting the first month, ὁροῦς. 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 dog-days, the appropriation of this character to the first month may have been contemporaneous with the origin of the calendar.

182. MECHIR.

183. MESORE.

184. FIRST DAY.

185. THIRTIETH DAY.

Hieroglyphics.

The hare and two waved lines, ἸΝΝ, represent the substantive verb "to be," but the second N does not occur except in its participial form. The next group is wrongly represented, the circle being a false copy of a head in profile. It is a compound preposition, "above," "in," "on," or "over, the head." (n. s. p.)

This Coptic letter is derived in its form from the hieratic representation of the crocodile's tail, a hieroglyphic sign for K. (n. s. p.)

This group, followed by the palm-branch, determinative of the year and seasons, signifies a "season, time." (n. s. p.)

The character for "each" is a kind of loop, and has no relation to the head in profile, which, when alone, signifies "first," &c., and with the straight line or bar, usually a "head," as may be seen by the literal rendering of the compound preposition mentioned in note 1, above. (n. s. p.)

The waved line and crown of Lower Egypt, are here rightly held to be homophones. They represent the preposition EN or N, "of," &c. (n. s. p.)

The first character is alphabetic (H) or syllabic, the second, a determinative, in the first group; the second group is inaccurately given. The whole word for day is ἩΑΥ. (n. s. p.)

Both these characters are used for month in the Rosetta Stone. (n. s. p.)

The first sign of this group is a palm-branch, and should have a notch in the middle of the outer side. The third is usually the disk, though the square occurs in its place. (n. s. p.)

The third sign of this group, "month" is understood, and the second hieroglyphic is the sign of the first season of the Egyptian year. Into the original character of these seasons, as indicated by the signs representing them in the hieroglyphic writing, we have not space here to enter. (n. s. p.)

This group is the name of the second month, the two crescents here meaning "second month" of the first season, or Paopi. (n. s. p.)

The signs rendered "first day," mean "last day," which is equally the signification of the group rendered "thirtieth day." The character usually translated "good," properly signifies "perfect;" hence perfect in form, "beautiful," perfect in character, "good," perfect in time, "complete," and thence "last." (n. s. p.) Hieroglyphics.

one seems to mean good, or rather new, as in Thoth, 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 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. (See No. 130.)

Numbers.

I. Numbers.

186. 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.

187-196. The twisted line distinguishing the ordinal numbers answers to the Coptic man, which is prefixed to the cardinals in the same sense: in the enchorial text the corresponding 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.

197. 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.

198. 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 to the next day, which is the date of the decree.

199, 200. The enchorial character for thirty, 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-two, 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.

201-203. The curl, like the figure 9, meaning a hundred, and the notched circle, supported by a cross, denoting a thousand, occur in several inscriptions, so combined with units and tens, as to leave no doubt respecting the numbers that 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., fig. 26-30).

204. 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; while, 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 anyone uniform termination.

---

1 All these renderings of numerals are correct, excepting that of No. 192, where the second character does not produce the signification "thrice." (R. S. P.)

2 This account of the modes of writing the plural is nearly accurate. It will, however, be seen in the subsequent grammatical sketch, that the signs almost always represent the sound U, unless a sign for that sound is given with them. (R. S. P.) Hieroglyphics.

K. Sounds.

205-218. The phonetic characters, according to the traces which may be discovered in the words Berenice, Ptolemy, Greek, and some others (Nos. 56, 58, 74, 83, 123, 172), 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 which is 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 considerably modified by the conjectures which have been published in the Museum Criticum.

M. Specimens of Phrases.

The last line of the inscription of Rosetta will serve as specimens 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,

---

1 Of this alphabet, beginning from the left, the first group in the first column is composed of the demotic signs for BR in Berenice, and is out of place here; the second is simply B, the third R, the fourth T, and the last is correctly rendered; the first character in the second column should be the eagle A, the second is M, the third is rightly rendered, the fourth is R, and the last S; and in the third column the last character alone is wrong, for it should be S. (n. s. p.)

2 A comparison of this enchorial alphabet, with the latest results of research into these characters, cannot fail to awaken our admiration for the sagacity and judgment of Dr Young. In Brugsch's list of the alphabetic signs, we find a remarkable agreement, and Dr Young's renderings of letters are in few cases wholly wrong. Compare Gram. Zees., p. 18. (n. s. p.)

3 The heading L, here omitted, comprised merely references to additional illustrations now inserted in their proper places. (n. s. p.) Hieroglyphics.

with its semicircle, stone; the loop or knot wrought or engraved; 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 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 curl on the stem, the feathers, the serpent, and the hat, which signify Greek. The head-dress of flowers meaning probably a priest, the following curl 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 kinds; 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 arch, and dash, wherever, or in which, leaving out “shall be?” the tool and standing figure, with the intervening characters, the image; the hat, of; 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 everlasting; the square block, semicircle, and chain, dear to; the hieraphla and two feathers, Phthah, or Vulcan—all this being included within the ring or phylactery, together with the name; the open square, Hieroglyphics, the oval, and the pair of legs after the ring, illustrious or Epiphanes; and lastly, the scale and the three lutes, magnificent; the conjunctions being often omitted, as they also very commonly are in Coptic, and even in Greek.1

The enchorial text agrees in many parts extremely well with the hieroglyphics, according to the general style of imitation which has been already 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 decre, 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 wherever 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.

N. 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 manuscripts 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 Strasbourg, 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, Nephthys, Hieracion, to set up, four priests, and child or prince.2 (Description de l’Egypte, Antig. tom. ii., plate lxviii., col. 106; ix., col. 3; lxiii., col. 2; lxxii., col. 38; lxviii., col. 2.)

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 that 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

---

1 It would occupy too much space to follow Dr Young in this analysis, especially as the Chevalier Bunsen has given an analysis of this extract from the hieroglyphic inscription of the Rosetta Stone (Egypt’s Place, vol. i., p. 596, et seqq.), in accordance with the present state of knowledge. (n. s. r.)

2 The first extract, given first in Linear hieroglyphics, and then in two kinds of hieratic, reads—“[These] are the venerable (i) great [divinities] dwelling in the land of TETTU, Osiris, Isis, Nephthys, Horus, [who] sustains (i) his father. They are placed . . . The second is a mutilated fragment. (n. s. r.) 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 Egypt 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 by commission than by omission, and consequently we find the terms king and god very generally inseparable. The sepulchral inscriptions, from the attention that 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; while, 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 that have been compared; while 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 Mountmorris' and Mr. Banks' manuscripts, placed over the head of the person who is brought up between the two goddesses, to make his appearance before the true 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, with-

out any violence, "the votary of Hyperion and of Phre." Hieroglyphics.

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 Pseudomennon in the British Museum; the one having the hieralphal laid flat, the other the traces of the pedestal, which is 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, that are so frequently discovered in the coffins of the mummies, and, among others, in Lord Mountmorris'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 Stone. 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

---

1 Both males and females, when "justified," received the name of Osiris. (R. s. r.) Hieroglyphics.

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, 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, 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 decad is the most constant part of the manuscripts found with the mummies, though a little more extended in some than 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 (No. 146), 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 re-

spect. 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, among the epithets of each, the term "from illustrious" (No. 121); 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).

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 Nephtis 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, 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 scarabaeus, 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 [T] 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 hieralphra 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 connection with the line and the hieralphra, 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 (No. 154), 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 reduplica-

---

1 The meaning of this group is difficult to explain. Mr Birch proposed to the writer PETER-REF-SU, "let it be interpreted to him," comparing the first word with the Hebrew. (n.s.p.) 2 This group signifies "O!" and commences invocations. (n.s.p.) 3 This group signifies "speech of." (n.s.p.) 4 On the Ritual see the preface of Lepsius to his valuable edition (Das Todtenbuch der Aegypter), and Bunsen, Egypt's Place, vol. i., p. 25, et seq. The contents are prayers to be said by the deceased during his journeys in the other world, and descriptions of these journeys. (n.s.p.) 5 The name of Apis enters into the composition of that of the person for whom this sarcophagus was made, Hapeezem, as already mentioned. (n.s.p.) It may be remarked, that all the inscriptions on the scarabaei 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 Stone 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. Of 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 Hermapolion, contains a true representation of a part of its contents, more especially as "the mighty Apollo" of Hermapolion agrees completely with the hawk, the bull, and the arm, which usually 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 among them we often find that of "Lord of the asp-bearing diadems," with some others 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 Phtha, living for ever; it is consecrated to the honour of the revered and benevolent 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 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 while 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.

OBSERVATIONS ON DR YOUNG'S ANALYSIS.

In the following observations on the preceding essay it is Observations not intended to do more than correct the errors in principle tions of Dr Young's analysis, which its writer fell. To correct, except by occasional Young's notes, all the faults of detail inevitable to the early stages of such an investigation, would occupy much space that can be more usefully employed. The reader will have seen that he cannot rely upon the accuracy of all the interpretations in Dr Young's essay, and before accepting them, he will do well to examine the later works referred to in this article.

Dr Young's essay is, perhaps necessarily, very faulty in arrangement, since it gives us rather the record of the progress of his inquiry, than the results of that inquiry placed in a systematic form. His method of examination need not here be further commented on, except that it should be granted that in the first instance he displayed extraordinary skill, and undoubtedly deserves the credit of having discovered the means of interpreting the hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic characters.

Dr Young ascertained the identity of the three modes of writing, though he was in error in calling the linear hieroglyphic, hieratic, and in making what is now called the hieratic identical with the demotic. He was correct in his supposition that the demotic expressed a vulgar dialect. He supposed the characters, whether hieroglyphic, hieratic, or demotic, to be either phonetic or ideographic, and if phonetic to be syllabic or alphabetic, a single character in the former case expressing a monosyllable or a disyllable, which was the name of the object which it represented. It is very remarkable that he was near the truth in this case in principle, but that he applied the principle to words for which it was not employed. It has been since proved by Dr Lepsius that the Egyptians had syllabic characters; but these were almost if not wholly disused for foreign names at the period to which the Rosetta Stone belongs. These syllabic characters, however, are rarely objects standing for their names, and they are not in so large a proportion to the phonetic signs as Dr Young supposed. He was in error in not sufficiently recognising the existence of homophonous characters, which were very numerous at the time when the Rosetta Stone was sculptured, though much fewer in earlier periods. He seems also not to have understood the principle of determinatives in the hieroglyphic method, although he detected them in the demotic or hieratic. His two most important results were the separation into phonetic characters of the hieroglyphic names of Ptolemy and Berecine. Here his progress was arrested, and he did little further beyond ascertaining the meaning and sound of demotic words, the comparatively scanty alphabet of which system hindered him from discovering the general application of the principle of homophones in late hieroglyphic writing.

1 This inscription is either an Arab forgery, or ancient, but executed by some artist who did not correctly understand the characters. (R.S.P.) Champollion le Jeune, following Young's discoveries, formed the conjecture that the phonetic hieroglyphics were simply alphabetic, and at once commenced an examination of royal names, thus putting the hypothesis to the test. The result, based on partial error, was brilliantly successful, and it was not long before he was enabled to publish, in the year 1822, his *Lettre à M. Dacier*, containing a considerable number of alphabetic characters. Abandoning the demotic, Champollion set himself to apply this alphabet to all the hieroglyphic documents within his reach, and in his *Précis*, published two years subsequently (in 1824), he astonished the world with a relatively complete system of hieroglyphics, which subsequent discoveries have not much altered except in principle. His great mistake was not seeing that some phonetic characters were syllabic; but this error did not affect his results, since he had to deal for the most part with inscriptions in which the alphabetic characters had mostly supplanted the syllabic, which were formerly more intermixed with them, and he explained the syllabic signs to be abbreviations. By his *Grammaire Égyptienne* and his *Dictionnaire*, Champollion deservedly took the highest rank among Egyptologists, and it is not a little remarkable that since his death scarcely more has been done in addition to his results than was done before he took up the study.

Young and Champollion contended in their lifetime for the honour of having discovered the interpretation of hieroglyphics, and their friends have not ceased to maintain the controversy. Too much acrimony was displayed by both the principals, and Champollion was unquestionably guilty of unfairness in endeavouring to establish his claim. The truth is, that neither can merit the claim of undivided discovery. Young, indeed, first read the mysterious characters, but his reading was not correct until Champollion had taken it up. Certainly Champollion was unable to discover what Young discovered; but it is equally sure that Young could not apply the discovery as did Champollion. It is most unfair to say that Young did little when he made the first step, and it is no less unfair to decry Champollion as a fortunate guesser when we see how little has been effected since his death. The abilities of these two great men are distinct; and while we admire the patience, the scientific skill, and the varied knowledge of Young, we need not undervalue the marvellous felicity of conjecture, power of comparison, and accuracy, which distinguished Champollion.

It might have been reasonably hoped that an Egyptologist who is neither an Englishman nor a Frenchman, would have been unswayed by any party feeling in estimating the merits of Young's discovery. Chevalier Bunsen appears, however, as a partisan of Champollion, and instead of pointing out the singular merits of the two great rivals, endeavours to raise the one at the expense of the other. The German scholar's observations are so ingenious that they cannot be considered except in some detail. After speaking of Dr Young's high acquirements in the physical and mathematical sciences, he goes on to mention his attempt to interpret the Egyptian characters. "His acute mind was not contented with studying the enchorial inscription. He contemplated also the deciphering of the hieroglyphic character, and applied to both texts a method, in which, and in his mode of following it out, we recognise rather the sagacity of the experienced mathematician than the native genius of the philologer." This passage is the first of a series of criticisms which seem too much as if intended to be accepted unhesitatingly, without examination. In an inquiry of this kind we should have expected, in the first instance, better results from the close reasoning of a mind trained to high mathematical processes than from the speculations of a philologer, which would be rather valuable in the second stage, as indeed was proved in this very case. We find no especial fault with the account of the subsequent results of Young's studies, until the criticism of his famous essay. Of this it is said, with reference to the opinions he had previously formed, "So firmly were these views impressed on his mind, that his closer and more philological limitation and definition of them, in his treatise of 1819 on the Language and Writing of the Egyptians," which, however, formed an epoch in the inquiry, led him in many points still further from the truth, and in no instance to any certain or philologically accurate result. Afterwards, indeed, he was led clearly to perceive the difference between the hieratic and enchorial writing, chiefly by a more careful collation of the demotic papyri; but he calls the latter a second corrupt form of the hieroglyphics, the hieratic character being the first. He gives no proof of this; indeed his method neither aims at nor admits of any strict philological demonstration; but, besides, the assumption is incorrect. It is as impossible to deduce and explain the demotic from the hieratic character as it is false to define it to be purely alphabetical, as Akerblad has done." The fault here found with Dr Young is his unacquaintance with a method of philological inquiry which may be said to have been but in its infancy when he wrote, and his results are unjustly estimated. It would have been more satisfactory had we been told how it was that a treatise which "formed an epoch in the inquiry" did not express "any certain or philologically accurate result." The concluding sentence of the quotation given above is perhaps its most extraordinary portion, and we may ask from what the demotic characters are to be deduced if not from the hieratic; and that Chevalier Bunsen does derive the former from the latter is evident from the transcriptions of a hieroglyphic passage into hieratic and demotic (taken from Lepsius), at p. 594 of the volume from which we quote. Perhaps the meaning is, that the hieratic does not afford direct means of interpreting the demotic, since the one expresses the sacred, the other the vulgar dialect, although the characters of the second were derived from those of the first; but the criticism should have been more distinct. Chevalier Bunsen continues as follows:—"There was, however, one very happy result of his speculations embodied in this treatise, and which, by the impression it made upon Champollion, led to the greatest discovery of the century, the alphabet of the old Egyptian language and character. But it would be a very false view of the matter to suppose that he arrived at it by a scientific process, or upon any principle of inductive analysis. His continued comparison of demotic, hieratic, and hieroglyphic groups—for these, and not their individual elements, were the sole data for the exercise of his inventive faculties—led him, indeed, to the inference that the rings on the Rosetta Stone and other monuments contained the names of kings, which, as we have seen, had already occurred to Barthelemy and Zoega." This citation contains a more distinct opinion on Dr Young's result and his method. The former is diminished into an impression on Champollion's mind which "led to the greatest discovery of the century," where we must notice that the other great parallel discovery, which is fully equal to that of the reading of hieroglyphics, is ignored: it was made by an Englishman. As to the method, it is expressly denied that it was one of inductive analysis, and in the next sentence its essentially inductive character is proved. We do not think that the first stages of any inquiry of this sort can be conducted on strictly scientific principles, however easy it may be to apply such principles to their result. Champollion, whose marvellous success places him at the very head of acute decipherers, cannot be said to have used a scientific process.

---

1 Supplement to the *Egypt. Brit.*, vol. iv., Dec. 1819. except that he was guided by inductive reasoning. His Grammaire is absurdly unscientific in form. But both he and Young reasoned generally by induction, of which he indeed made the greater use, and neither is to be condemned for not having put his results into better shape, through a want of acquaintance with methods of arrangement subsequently matured. In pursuing the criticism, which we have not space to continue to examine in detail, Chevalier Bunsen finds fault with Young for a conclusion which, although in his case "a certain kind of syllabic system," in itself a very obscure and uncritical expression," becomes in Lepsius's hands "a brilliant discovery" (p. 332). Young did indeed discover the original principle of nearly all, if not all, the phonetic characters, but failed by applying the original principle to their most debased use. The discovery is therefore to be attributed to Young, not to Lepsius, and his application of it seems to us to be an evidence of the abandonment of simple induction for the more refined process which Chevalier Bunsen recommends. The whole criticism is based on an admission of the inapplicability of the first principles of the Egyptian modes of writing to which philologists have at length arrived, to the late records by which Young and Champollion discovered the interpretation of the characters. Young's success was mainly retarded by his adhering too rigidly to a philosophic method: Champollion's was mainly advanced by his setting simple induction above all other means of arriving at the truth. We have dwelt at some length on Chevalier Bunsen's observations, because we think that they are calculated to injure the reputation of Dr Young by their low estimate of his abilities, and the use to which he put them, and we are gratified to find our views corroborated by those of Dr Peacock and Mr Leitch, in the Life and Works of Dr Young, respectively.

Having thus endeavoured to indicate the respective merits of Young and Champollion, rendering honour to each without robbing the other, we have yet to sketch the subsequent progress of discovery after the publication of the Précis. As soon as the learned had thus been enabled to profit by the results of Young's and Champollion's researches, the interpretation of the hieroglyphics ceased to be confined to those who had discovered it. For a time, however, inquirers were rather engaged with the historical results of these discoveries in identifying the names of sovereigns of Egypt mentioned by ancient writers with those occurring on the monuments, than in philological questions. Mr Salt and Colonel Felix did much to apply the system to the monuments, and Mr, now Sir, Gardner Wilkinson was one of the first to make himself master of the new discovery, and to attempt the reconstruction of Egyptian history; and his earliest work, the Materia Hieroglyphica, evidences the importance of the fruits of his inquiry. Dr Young himself pursued his Egyptian researches, particularly in the eucharial, of his great progress in which we may judge by the posthumous Egyptian Dictionary. Champollion, however, carried much further than any others the study of the Egyptian characters. Having been sent, by the liberality of the French government, on a scientific expedition to Egypt, he there collected materials for the Grammar and Dictionary which appeared after his lamented death. The Tuscan expedition, conducted at the same time by Professor Rosellini, had no small share in promoting the knowledge of hieroglyphics, but its head was unable to give to philology more than an incidental attention. The next step was taken by Dr Lepsius, who, in his Letter to Rosellini, made public an important modification of Champollion's views, by showing that the greater number of phonetic hieroglyphics were, until a late period, syllabic not alphabetic, thus proving the correctness of Young's theory. The same scholar was afterwards sent on a scientific mission to Egypt and Ethiopia by the King of Prussia, and the result of his labours is the magnificent Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien, now in course of publication. Five other living scholars have done good service as successors of Champollion, the Rev. Dr Hincks, Mr Birch, and the Rev. Dunbar Heath, in our own country; M. de Rougé in France; and Dr Heinrich Brugsch in Prussia. Dr Hincks and Mr Birch have from time to time discovered the significance of hieroglyphic groups previously unknown, and have published many very valuable papers. Mr Heath has applied himself to the study of the hieratic papyri, and has proved himself to be well acquainted with their contents. M. de Rougé has proved his ability by his critical examination of part of a very remarkable inscription in a tomb at Eilethyas, of which he has given an account in a memoir read to the Institute of France, wherein much new and valuable philological information is to be found, and has published many interesting papers. But it is to Dr Brugsch that we are indebted for the first great philological work which has appeared since Champollion's Grammaire et Dictionnaire. Notwithstanding the dryness of the study, he has indefatigably applied himself to the demotic character, and has been enabled at last to make public, in his Grammaire Demotique, a complete account of that difficult system. He has also done much to advance the knowledge of hieroglyphics.

When we contemplate the brilliant results that have already rewarded those who have devoted themselves to the pursuit of the studies which Young and Champollion rendered practicable to the learned world, it is disheartening to see so few engaged in the cultivation of these branches of learning. So much was, however, achieved by Champollion, that if any one possessing the same qualifications should now take up the study, we might hope for the most remarkable results. At the same time, the field is so wide and so rich, that there is room for all to labour, and a certainty that none will go away unrewarded.

Before proceeding to the examination of what is known respecting the ancient Egyptian language, it will be desirable to give a summary of the main results of its interpretation, and the chief reasons for the correctness of that interpretation principally deduced from external evidence.

The results of the interpretation of an unknown language may be divided into the philological and the historical, the former concerning the language itself, the latter the ideas which it expresses. The former class must be again separated into the characteristics of the language by itself, and those characteristics which refer to comparative philology, and here philology is connected with history. The second class may be conveniently separated into three divisions,—the first containing the purely historical results, the second those illustrating religion, and the third, those relating to manners and customs, as well as the results bearing on science and art. This class must be considered with reference, in the present case, both to the Egyptians and to the nations connected with them. So large a subject can only be treated, as it were, in outline, for to enter into it fully would demand more space than is devoted to the whole of this article.

First, as to the Egyptian language itself. We can now form a very just opinion of its characteristics. The methodian language of writing, the sounds, the nature of the roots, the grammar, usage, are all, more or less, known to us, and it is hardly too much to say, that if the study is prosecuted with perseverance and zeal, the time may not be far distant at which Egyptian will be as well understood as Latin. Already, enough Hieroglyphics.

Hieroglyphics has been done to enable the student to ascertain the general purport of any document. If it be an historical tablet, for example, he can say that it is dated in a certain year of a sovereign of a particular dynasty, and that it refers, for example, to the subjugation of some country, and the carrying away captive of some of its inhabitants. The exact period at which the sovereign reigned, or even his dynasty, may indeed be uncertain, to a greater or less degree, the country mentioned may be difficult or impossible to identify with any known region, and many details may be hard to explain, yet the general sense will be clearly made out, and the historical fact recorded on the tablet ascertained more or less certainly. With the religious records the case is not dissimilar, although, in their case, obviously much of the meaning must be lost by our being often unable to translate every word even approximately. Yet we know enough to form a clear opinion of the most important doctrines of the religion, as we do of the leading events of the history; and an increased knowledge of the language is not likely of itself to lead to any very important results in either branch of inquiry.

We may here notice the strong evidence of the antiquity of the Egyptian language to be found in that language itself, and in the hieroglyphic method of writing it. The monosyllabic roots, and the virtual absence of inflexion and composition, prove its extreme age, while the system of hieroglyphics having probably its origin in picture-writing, is of itself an evidence of the same kind; and, if we examine the most ancient form of this system, our opinion will receive additional strength.

Another important result of Young's and Champollion's discoveries must not be overlooked—the proof thus obtained, that the Coptic is but a later form of the language of the ancient Egyptians, and thus essentially the same. It was indeed to be expected that the language expressed by the ancient characters should bear a strong resemblance to the Coptic; but that this resemblance should be as close as it has proved could scarcely have been anticipated. It is, however, readily explained, when we consider the necessarily unchangeable character of the language. In the dialect of Egyptian expressed by the demotic method of writing we have a record of the transition from the dialect of the hieroglyphics to the Coptic.

The importance of the Egyptian language to comparative philology is beginning to be understood. It forms a connecting link between the so-called Semitic group and an unknown family of languages; besides that its records are more ancient than those of any other form of human speech. We are also able to trace in it evidences of the influence of immigrations from the East, as in the presence of more than one derivative word which must have been taken direct from the Hebrew, or a sister language, since it is not formed in the Egyptian manner.

Those results of the interpretation of the Egyptian characters which illustrate the history and condition of the world in early times far outweigh those which we have been noticing; and in their congruity, and their accordance with the statements of ancient writers, furnish the most conclusive evidence of the correctness of the system by which they have been obtained. We now possess a history from contemporary monuments, extending, with few considerable breaks, through a period of about twenty-six centuries, or, as some hold, through a still longer time. This history presents no internal discordance, and there is no forced agreement between its different parts. The progress of art on the monuments whence we derive the history most satisfactorily confirms it, as do the statements of ancient writers. The testimony of these last is not to be overlooked, more especially as it has not come so much from expected as from unexpected sources. Thus, admiration for the beautiful style and evident truthfulness of Herodotus had induced most scholars to prefer his statement regarding Egyptian history to the dry fragments of the native historian Manetho. But they should have remembered that Herodotus was but a visitor and a stranger, and that his veracity did not ensure that of his informers; and that, on the other hand, Manetho was an Egyptian priest, well versed, no doubt, in the ancient literature of his country, and probably commissioned by his sovereign to write its history. It is therefore no matter for surprise that Manetho has received the most ample confirmation, while many of the statements of Herodotus have been found to be incorrect, or absolutely false. Another important circumstance is that of the occurrence of the names of the sovereigns of the House of Lagus, and of many of the Roman emperors, on the monuments, in entire accordance with the history of the period.

But while the history of Egypt itself is thus restored, we are enabled from the same sources to throw light upon the annals of neighbouring nations. An Egyptian record has been discovered of one important event in Hebrew history, the subjection of Judah to Sheshonk I., or Shishak, and many other facts illustrative of the Bible have become known. The early history of the Greeks has received important light from the Egyptian records, no less than that of the nations nearer to Egypt, and this illustrative or corroborative evidence is being constantly increased by fresh discoveries.

The information as to the Egyptian religion which we have gained through the interpretation of the ancient characters has been almost wholly new. Previously, we had scarcely any reliable account even of its principal tenets and observances under the Romans. Now, we are acquainted not only with such general particulars of its state under the early Pharaohs, but we have been able partly to interpret and explain its sacred book. The results have corroborated what trustworthy information the Greek and Roman writers had handed down to us on this subject, and we are again able to elucidate wider questions than any respecting particular points of the Egyptian religion, for we can trace in it marks of different origins, and discover remains of what can only have been a patriarchal revealed religion. (See article Egypt.)

Besides the light thus thrown upon the history and religion of the people of ancient Egypt, we, for the first time, gain a clear idea of their life and manners, of their literature, and their arts and sciences. We are astonished to find the height of their civilization, and the extent of their knowledge. But it is not only with respect to them that we gain this valuable information, for their records are not silent respecting neighbouring nations. Besides, we are able to say that this or that scientific fact was known to mankind at least as early as a particular date, that of the Egyptian monument on which we discover its most ancient mention. In this manner we can state that probably steel was used in the time of the building of the Great Pyramid, since in a tomb of that period a man is represented slaughtering an ox with a knife painted blue. From time to time we find fresh evidence of the high degree of knowledge which obtained in the remotest periods of Egyptian history, periods not far distant from the most probable date of the Dispersion of Noah's descendants; and we are thus led to form more correct notions from facts than we had previously done from theories with respect to such doctrines as those of progressive improvement.

From these particulars it is manifest that we can no more over-estimate the importance of the results which have already flowed from the new source of knowledge opened by Young and Champollion, than we can calculate the value of what may reward further inquiries. On this matter it is needless to insist, but it will not be without use to point out the resistless evidence that is afforded of the truth of the system of interpretation which has led to such results. Hieroglyphics.

When we bear in mind the various records from which these facts have been drawn, by several rival scholars who have worked to the same results in different countries and at separate times, we find in the consistency of the results at which they have arrived, the most conclusive evidence of the correctness of the method they have employed. And we are firmly persuaded that any one who will take the trouble to verify for himself these deductions, or merely one class of them, will, except he be unfortunately the victim of a scepticism which no evidence will overthrow, rise from the examination firmly convinced of the truth of this method of interpretation. In order, however, to show that it does not depend for the proof of its truth upon the harmony of its results alone, some separate evidences are here added.

After a little progress had been made in the reading of king's hieroglyphics, travellers in Egypt began to attempt the identification of the kings' names found on the monuments with those occurring in the works of ancient writers. Among the most certain of these identifications were those of the names of the builders of the three most famous pyramids, according to the hieroglyphic orthography, Shufu or Chufu, Shafa or Chaifa, and Menkura. These names corresponded to the Sopris, or Cheops, the Chephren, or Kephren, and the Mencherès, Mykerinos, or Mecherinos, of the historians. This identification was based upon the similarity of sound and the circumstance that the names occurred in the inscriptions of tombs near the Pyramids of El-Geezeh, until the results of the late General Vyse's expedition threw an unexpected light upon the matter. In the course of the examination of the Great Pyramid by that expedition, some chambers were discovered which had never been previously opened since the edifice was raised. These new apartments were a series of entresols, one above the other, over the King's Chamber, intended to lighten the weight of the superincumbent masonry. In them were found marks scrawled on the stones by the masons who cut them from the quarry, or placed them in their present position. These marks were therefore contemporary with the building of the pyramid. In them occur the names of two sovereigns, Shufu and Num-shufu, one of whom had been previously concluded to be the builder of the pyramid, and the other the next king of his dynasty. Nor was this all. In the examination of the Third Pyramid, a portion of a mummy-case was discovered bearing an inscription which proved that it originally inclosed the body of King Menkura, who had been before identified with the Mencherès, or Mykerinos, who founded this monument. No one will be rash enough to assert that these are fortuitous coincidences.

Very striking evidence is afforded by certain quadrilingual cuneiform and hieroglyphic inscriptions, which are more valuable from their showing that the three systems of arrow-headed writing have received a true interpretation no less than the ancient Egyptian characters. Two examples of quadrilingual inscriptions of this character are known to exist in modern collections. They are on vases, one of which is known as that of the Comte de Caylus, and the other is in the treasury of St Mark's at Venice, and are in hieroglyphics and the three kinds of cuneiform characters, expressing the names and titles of Persian sovereigns. The systems of Young and Champollion on the one hand, and of Grotefend and his successors on the other, will be found, without any change or modification, to afford the same reading in their respective languages to the double inscriptions. Since this evidence cannot be set aside, some will admit that the royal names can be correctly read in Egyptian, but that nothing further has been satisfactorily determined. But when this concession is made, the truth of the whole system is at once of necessity admitted. As M. de Rougé has very justly remarked, two forms of the royal names afford examples of every mode by which ideas were expressed in hieroglyphics. And not only is the truth of the method thus proved, but from the royal names we can form an alphabet that will afford a sufficient basis of interpretation.

The most complete and remarkable confirmation which the interpretation of the Egyptian characters has received from Chesterfield is afforded by the recent discovery of a fragment, or a series of citations, of the lost work of Cheremon on hieroglyphics. This valuable evidence we owe to the research of Mr Birch, who has brought it forward and criticised it with his usual skill and learning, in a paper read to the Royal Society of Literature. Referring to this paper for the complete details, it will not be necessary here to do more than point to the main results, and cite the passage in which the fragment is preserved. Chesteremon was an Egyptian by birth, a sacred scribe, and keeper of the Library of Alexandria towards the close of the first century of the Christian Era. He was known to have written an Egyptian history, and to have been the author of a work entitled Ἱπτορια. It is of this work that Mr Birch discovered a fragment in the Commentary on the Iliad by Tzetzes the grammarian. The passage in question contains the explanation of nineteen hieroglyphic signs, whereof three have more meanings than one, making altogether twenty-six significations. Of these, fifteen agree with the results of Young's and Champollion's method, and have been for the most part long known, and are thus certain. Three are probably, and other three possibly, to be placed in the same class, from their similarity; while but five are positively unknown, and there is no contradiction. Considering the short time that the method of interpretation has been discovered, and the confessedly imperfect state of the study as regards what we may call the vocabulary, intending by that term words, however written, this agreement is greater than could have been expected, and furnishes the most conclusive confirmation of the truth of Young's discovery. Those who require mathematical demonstration in arguments which can only be treated by the laws which apply to the examination of evidence will no doubt be disappointed. But such would we ask to demonstrate mathematically any one historical fact, or even their own existence. We are firmly convinced that the interpretation of the Egyptian characters is capable of the most convincing proof; and that

1 Pyramids of Gizeh (fol. plates), Great Pyramid, pl. x., vi., vii. 2 Rawlinson in Journ. As. Soc., vol. x., pp. 339, 347, 348. 3 Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit., 2d Series, vol. iii., p. 385. 4 Tombeau d'Almès, p. 2, note 1.

---

1 Pyramids of Gizeh (fol. plates), Great Pyramid, pl. x., vi., vii. 2 Rawlinson in Journ. As. Soc., vol. x., pp. 339, 347, 348. 3 Trans. Roy. Soc. Lit., 2d Series, vol. iii., p. 385. 4 Tombeau d'Almès, p. 2, note 1. Hieroglyphics.

if we have not produced that proof in its strongest form, we have adduced evidence that will enable more practised logicians to do this in an irresistible manner. This has certainly not been hitherto done, partly because one who is firmly convinced of the truth of any system is often unable from that conviction to place himself in an independent position, so as to prove his case, and falls into the error of arguing in a circle; and partly because those who have studied hieroglyphics have felt that it would not be worth while to attempt to prove the truth of what is shown by its results to be true. Some have thought, too, that it would be derogatory to reply to the objections of those who seemed to condemn a new study simply because it was new, or sat in judgment on a cause without making themselves acquainted with the language of those who pleaded it. We may now pass on to the next portion of our subject—an examination of the ancient Egyptian language; and this will afford to the philologist the most satisfactory evidence, not alone of the truth of the system of interpretation, but of the accuracy of its details.

SECTION III.

THE EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE.

The Egyptian language has not yet been classed by the general agreement of the learned in the so-called Semitic group, or as belonging to another family. Several of those best acquainted with this language, particularly Bunsen, Lepsius, and Benfey, the last of whom treats only of its Coptic form, have come to the conclusion that it must be assigned to the Semitic class, while their arguments have been answered by Ewald, Renan, and others, who maintain it to be essentially distinct, and representing the earliest form of what may be called Hamitic languages, if such a group can be made out. Bunsen, in his late work on comparative philology, even goes so far as to assert the Egyptian to be the earliest form of Semitic speech. He, and those who more or less hold with him, find in the almost perfect identity of the Egyptian and Hebrew pronouns, and in other less striking points, conclusive evidence; while their opponents maintain the essential distinction of the two languages, and the impossibility of tracing one to the other by any known principle of change.1 Those who support the former theory are most distinguished as comparative philologists, but their opponents are rather known for their acquaintance with Semitic languages. The opinion of these last, therefore, that the Egyptian cannot be of the Semitic stock, must not be set aside without good reason, although its acceptance has seemed to involve a dilemma. In a recent work, a theory has been proposed which harmonizes the results of the inquirers on each side. Therein it is suggested that the Egyptians were a mixed race sprung from a settlement of Noachians, that is, philologically, a people having a Semitic speech, for the Semitic, it is argued, must not be restricted to the descendants of Shem, among an aboriginal population possessing a language resembling in its essence the Chinese. Thus the Egyptian, in the main a non-Semitic tongue, might naturally present essential Semitic peculiarities.2

It is impossible, however, in the present state of comparative philology, the imperfections of which are shown by its having led its most distinguished students to such different views as those of Bunsen and Ewald with respect to the Egyptian language, for us to push the inquiry any further, and endeavour to determine how much of that language is actually Semitic and how much non-Semitic. Far less can we determine on philological grounds when the Semitic element was introduced, nor to which Semitic phyle it may be most reasonably referred.

Various influences affect the change of languages so differently that induction seems only to lead us to the most general conclusions. Thus, in America, we find numerous languages almost wholly differing in their vocabulary, but almost identical in their grammar. In the so-called Indo-European class, on the other hand, we see languages differing in their roots little more than do dialects of one tongue, yet distinguished by remarkable variations in their grammar. The physical condition of a race, its mental state, its intercourse with other races, produce results that forbid us to establish strict general laws of change, and if such is the case as to philology in itself, it is so in a much higher degree with reference to its application to history. If we carefully investigate the linguistic changes that have occurred to certain races, or the inhabitants of certain countries, within periods of which we know the history, we shall perceive again the difficulty of establishing strict general laws, and the dangers which attend an attempt to restore history by means of comparative philology. Whether we hold these views or not, our means of judging will be rendered more numerous by the most accurate outline that we can obtain of the structure and history of every language of mankind. Such an outline and history it will be our endeavour here to give of the language of the ancient Egyptians.

I. GRAMMATICAL SKETCH OF THE ANCIENT EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE.

§ 1.—sounds.

Our knowledge of the sounds, or vowels and consonants, of the ancient Egyptian language, must be derived from a comparison of the Coptic alphabet with the hieroglyphic and demotic alphabets founded upon the Egyptian renderings of proper names, &c., independently of the Coptic. The first step in this inquiry will be to reduce the Coptic alphabet by rejecting those letters which were simply introduced to express Greek words, as well as those which are properly compound. In the next place we shall endeavour to ascertain whether any letters of the alphabet thus reduced are proper to one dialect alone, either of the Coptic or of the more ancient language; and having thus determined, as nearly as may be, how many letters composed the alphabet of the sacred dialect of Egyptian, we shall strive to fix within certain limits their sound. When it is remembered that the pronunciation of some letters of the Greek and Latin alphabets is still matter of controversy among the learned, any one will admit that a perfectly exact result is not to be expected in the present case. But if we take care to separate in our minds the question as to the correspondence of a letter in Egyptian to one in Coptic, or in another language, from that of its exact sound in either language, we shall not only avoid error, but find the results of our inquiry in reality much more definite than we should have supposed. It matters very little, for example, whether we pronounce the Greek χ as a k or as a German ch, so long as we do not found philological arguments on its sound. It is something to know that χ and κ have distinct though related sounds, and that they correspond to certain letters in kindred languages.

The letters of the Coptic alphabet are thirty-one in number, and are written as follows:

αβγδεζηθικλμνξοπρστυφχψ

---

1 Though we might agree with M. Renan in considering the pronouns, which show the most important points of agreement with Semitic languages, to be linguistically accidental, yet they are logically essential since they cannot have been accidentally introduced, for how can we suppose a language without pronouns? Histoire Générale des langues Sémitiques, vol. i., p. 72, et seqq.

2 The Genesis of the Earth and of Man, pp. 210, et seqq. Hieroglyphics.

They are taken from the Greek alphabet, which is comprehended entire in the Coptic, with the addition of six characters, adopted from the demotic and hieratic systems, and one compound character. On referring to the lexicons, we find that five of the Greek letters, Υ Λ Ξ Ψ, are not employed for Coptic words, except for an extremely small number, none of which are common roots, and some of which are of doubtful authenticity. These letters have been used for the Greek words which are so numerous in Coptic literature, and cannot properly be assigned to the language. In the next place we must exclude Τ, as a compound letter. Twenty-five characters remain, which form the genuine Coptic alphabet. Certain of these letters, however, are peculiar to one dialect, being very generally substituted for other letters, and therefore represent a particular pronunciation. Whether this pronunciation be the right one or not, we are warranted in excluding the letters which represent it as dialectical variations.

The letters in question are Φ Χ Φ and Θ, which are peculiar to the Memphitic dialect, and very generally take the place of Τ Κ Π and Ρ, in the other dialects, being the aspirated forms of those letters. In addition to these we find Ρ and Ρ very often interchanged, and Ρ almost always replaced by Ρ in the Bashmuric dialect. The confusion of these two letters is evidenced by our finding Cornelius written κορινθιακός. The frequent interchange of Χ and Θ is another case of the same kind, and we are warranted in concluding that Θ and Ρ, as well as Χ and Θ only represent different sounds of the same letter. The vowels we must likewise reduce; for comparative philology leaves little room to doubt that the Egyptian language had but three vowels—a, the sound of which sometimes resembled that of e, i or ei, and u or oo, besides a short vowel, inexpressible. The manner in which the vowels interchange in Coptic favours this supposition. The result of our inquiry thus far gives the following alphabet:

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

(The Υ has usually the form Ω, the Coptic having properly no simple Υ.)

This result may be tested by the manner in which foreign names are written in hieroglyphics. Unfortunately, Greek and Latin names are the only ones which are numerous enough to enable us to form an alphabet, and they do not afford us direct evidence as to those sounds which are unknown to their respective languages. From these Greek and Latin names we form an alphabet of twelve letters:

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

This alphabet is of great value, since it establishes the close similarity, if not identity, of sounds that afterwards became distinct. Three of its peculiarities require especial notice—Firstly, no distinction is made between the G and K sound, which is a strong evidence to show that there was no letter corresponding to Χ and Θ in the ancient Egyptian. Secondly, L and R are not distinguished, although they are distinguished in the demotic. We find the signs which are employed in demotic for L and R used in hieroglyphics of the same period for these letters indiscriminately, whence it appears that the separation in writing of the two sounds was an innovation which was not admitted into the sacred dialect; nevertheless, these sounds were never perfectly distinguished in the Coptic, as the instance of their confusion given above may serve to show. Thirdly, F and Φ are represented, since the Latin names are rendered from Greek transcriptions, by the same characters, and yet the Copts found it necessary to add a letter, Θ, to the Greek alphabet, to represent a sound supposed to be that of F. The reason might, indeed, be that the Greek Φ was not pronounced Ph but Fh but rather that the Egyptian F, like the Ἑολίκ digamma, approached the sound of V. In support of the former assertion, it may be observed that the name of Philip Arrhabaeus has been found written in hieroglyphic characters PHILIPPOS, instead of PHILIPUS, according to the usual orthography, the P being in both cases represented by the same character; and in corroboration of the latter assertion it must be remarked that in Coptic Π interchanges with Φ, and Θ with Θ, while Θ interchanges with Θ and Θ. We may therefore infer that the Egyptian P corresponded to the Greek Π and Θ perhaps the Latin P, and that the Egyptian F was rather a V, though not a Bh. In modern Greek we have Bh and V in the pronunciation of B and Y. The best parallel to this case is that of the Latin language, in which, contrary to the Greek usage of rendering F by Φ, the Greek Φ is never represented by F, but always by Ph, although the Italians and Spaniards have lost the distinction, as did the Copts, and write Filippo, and not Philippo, Felipe, not Phelipe. There is a difficulty in the supposition that the aspirated form of P was Fh, and not Ph, or both, as it would not in either case strictly follow the analogy of the aspirated form of other letters; but the parallel instances show that such has been the case in the other languages, and warn us against reasoning as to what a thing ought to be, instead of endeavouring to ascertain what it is.

We have yet to examine those letters of the Copt-Coptic alphabet which are unknown to the Greek or Latin letters, that is, Ω, Θ, Χ, and Θ. As these letters have forms known to derive from those of demotic characters, themselves Latin, traceable to hieroglyphics, it is important to ascertain, if possible, what sounds these hieroglyphic characters conveyed. Ω is traceable through demotic and hieratic forms to a common hieroglyphic character never employed in writing Greek and Latin proper names. It occurs in the names of some well-known kings, as the two

---

1 Υ and Ψ are sometimes used for their component letters in Coptic words, by way of abbreviation. 2 Θ is not used, but as an abbreviation of Τ Ρ, except in the Memphitic dialect. 3 Peyron, Gram. Copt., p. 4, which see for a fuller account of the changes of the Coptic letters. 4 It is to be noted that the hieroglyphic signs were used for the sounds they originally represented, at the same time that their demotic forms were employed for a different sound or sounds which had arisen from the changes of the language. 5 Without attempting to disparage the extraordinary critical skill which has been displayed by recent scholars in discovering the original meanings of particular derivatives and grammatical forms, it may be safely asserted that many have pushed the results thus obtained too far when they have supposed these original meanings to have been always, or even often preserved. They have thus been led either to repudiate senses which usage proves to have been assigned to words or forms, or to accommodate those senses to their preconceived opinions. Although this method does not produce very serious evils when applied to the highly philosophical Indo-Germanic languages, it would be disastrous in its results were any one bold enough to try it with the Semitic group. Hieroglyphics.

Hieroglyphs called Shebek, where it has been rendered in Greek by Σ (Σαβάκων, Σαβάκων, Σαβάκων, Σαβάκων), and in the case of one of these kings, in Hebrew, by ד (ΝΙ). The same character is twice employed in the name Sheshonk, which has been written, in Greek, Σεσονκός, Σεσονκός, and Σεσονκός, &c., and in Hebrew, דְּשֶׁשׁוֹנֵק. There is no doubt that this letter had a sound resembling that of s, and was its aspirated form sh. Cf is likewise proved to have been a letter unknown to the Greek alphabet of the time of the Ptolemies and Caesars, since its hieroglyphic form, which may be traced through the demotic and hieratic, is not employed in writing Greek proper names, nor, indeed, in Roman ones, which, it should be remembered, were spelt according to their Greek orthography. When, however, a name containing this letter has been transcribed in Greek characters, we find it represented by Φ, as in Νεσσόπτερος, Οφιδίας, Μέγαρος, for Nufir-ka-ra, Un-nufir, Men-nufir. Its sound thus nearest approached that of Φ, though it had not the sound of that letter, as is clearly shown by Φ never being represented by it. The hieroglyphic character whence it was taken seems therefore to have resembled Ρ in sound, and we have already shown that it must have been pronounced like the kindred letter V. We retain the character Ρ, however, for this sound, as it seems to have been intermediate between Ρ and V, though more nearly resembling the latter, to prevent needless change, and particularly as the German V affords an instance of an inconsistent use, the very converse of this.

Χ may be clearly traced to a hieroglyphic sign which is the initial letter of the common name of Egypt, and of the adjective "black," which has the same orthography. Both words are rendered in several ways in Coptic, but their initial letter is always Κ or Χ. Now, as the sign in question is properly used for the words above mentioned alone, it should here be rendered by Χ in Coptic, were that letter one of the ancient alphabet. We are therefore warranted in excluding it. Θ, which very frequently interchanges with Χ, of which it is to be regarded as simply another form, is traced to a common hieroglyphic sign used for θ in very many Greek names and Latin names taken from Greek transcriptions. It sometimes stands for the Greek θ, to which the Egyptians had, as we have seen, no equivalent. The letter Θ cannot, therefore, be assigned to the ancient alphabet, and with it must fall its variant Χ, which we have already rejected for another reason. It is not improbable that Κ, Θ, and Χ represent three modes of pronouncing one letter, as in Egypt in the present day, the two letters Kaf and Klaf (the Hebrew Caph and Kopf, and Greek Κάφα and Κώφα), have three pronunciations, that is, Kaf is a simple k, and Klaf a guttural k, pronounced by some as a very hard g. It is probable, from their having been so anciently distinguished among the Hebrews and Greeks, that the old Egyptians had both a simple and a guttural k, but there is no evidence to show that they represented them by different signs; and we may reasonably suppose that the Greeks, Hebrews, and Arabs, did not originally distinguish letters the names of which are so strikingly similar. They may have been in all three languages originally dialectal peculiarities of pronunciation not distinguished in writing. The result of the inquiry thus far may be now stated hypothetically that we may take the next step in its prosecution. In this table we have given ΗΗ and ΚΗ as the stronger form of Η and aspirated form of Η, adding those by which we represent them, ΚΗ and ΚΗ. We should prefer the more accurate forms, but we have retained those in use not to cause confusion.

Each of these letters must now receive a separate examination in order that we may ascertain, as nearly as may examine, its general sound and dialectal differences, although some part of this inquiry has been anticipated in the preceding remarks. It will be most convenient to arrange them in a philosophical order, first, the aspirates a, i, u, the inexpressed vowel e and h; then the liquids m, n, r; then the sibilants s, sh; and lastly, the mutes b, f, p, k, t.

With respect to the vowels, it is important at the commencement to ascertain the place they held with respect to the consonants, when they were written always, when always omitted, and when optionally written or omitted. The vowel a is rarely omitted at the commencement of a word, and ee and oo are never so left out. The reason is probably that the latter two are frequently, when so placed, consonants, having the sound of y and w. Incipient vowels are therefore generally written. Medial vowels are frequently omitted, as also are final vowels. These particulars regard syllables and words of which the vowel or vowels are sometimes at least expressed. There are, however, syllables and words in which vowels are never written, and these inexpressed vowels appear to be short rather than long. It should be observed that in the Coptic a medial or incipient vowel, generally ε (e), is frequently omitted, its omission being indicated by a line over the consonant following in Sahidic, and a grave accent in Memphitic. Those roots which usually or always drop their vowel in Coptic are often the same that always do so in the hieroglyphic writing. Hence we may conclude that the consonants were more important than the vowels, and the long vowels, as we might analogically suppose from our previous conclusion, more important than the short. This opinion is confirmed by the place of the vowels. Very generally in the most ancient inscriptions, and frequently in the later ones, the medial vowel of a syllable is written after the consonant or consonants which it preceded in sound: thus, shuns (khuns), was always, when fully written, written shuns. We may therefore infer that the vowel letters, except when they had the sound of consonants, were of secondary importance, and that the short vowels were rarely expressed. It is unnecessary to do more than advert to the striking similarity of the Egyptian language to the Semitic group in this particular, as it is too obvious to be called in question.

The vowel a had two sounds, a and e. The former sound is proved by transcriptions of Egyptian names into Greek, or of Greek and Roman names into hieroglyphics; the latter, by the circumstance that the most common form of the vowel ει is one of the usual signs for a, twice written. This first vowel appears—if we may judge from euphony, and the high probability that the short vowel usually omitted was e—to have represented long and short a, and also sometimes long e, but most frequently the first of these three sounds. It may sometimes have approached to the sound of o or u, both short, like the Arabic vowel, Fet-hah, which has frequently that of a in "beggar," or the Hebrew Kametz, which has been separated into two vowels, an a and an o. It would be important could we ascertain whether this vowel, when at the commencement of a word, ever became a consonant like the others. It must be remembered that נ י ' in Hebrew, and ل ق س in Arabic, are acknowledged to be sometimes consonants, and though the consonant sound of נ has been lost, that... of I is preserved by the addition of the sign Hemzeh, which resembles in sound the French aspirated h. The "smooth breathing" of the Greeks was probably a similar catch. On these grounds it is most reasonable to suppose that if the first Egyptian vowel ever became a consonant, its sound was that of the Arabic l, with Hemzeh, rather than that of the rough guttural y of the Hebrews and Arabs. Sometimes we find two signs for the first vowel at the commencement of a word, where, if we assign to them the same sound, which the Coptic forms warrant our doing; we cannot pronounce them without slightly aspirating the first 'a' (in French 'haa'), or reading it as an aspiration 'a' ('haa'); except, indeed, we attribute to it the strong sound of y, but this is inconsistent with the use of the two signs in question for the same Greek vowel. We have already seen, that the Egyptians were careful not to employ signs representing sounds unknown to the Greeks and Latins for Greek and Latin letters resembling them. If they did not write Sheverus, nor Filippus or Viliipus, we cannot suppose they wrote the names of Adrian (not Hadrian, for they adopted the Greek form) and Antoninus with an y, as those must do who accept the theory of Dr Hincks on this subject.

The probability of a perfect analogy with the Semitic languages as to the vowel system, both in the sounds and the manner in which those sounds were expressed, is a very important point of evidence, though we must remember the case of the Greeks, whose Iranian language was expressed in an alphabet shown by external and internal evidence—the latter including the vowel letters—to have been in its original form derived from a Semitic source, though the latter may have been of Turanian origination. The first vowel appears, therefore, to have most probably had the sounds 'a', 'a', 'a' (sometimes like 'u') and 'e'. It is represented in this essay by a, to which it generally corresponded.

The second vowel presents no difficulties. It has two forms, both of which are formed by the repetition of a sign. The original of one of these, two sloping lines, seems to have been lost; but that of the other, two reeds, is one of the most usual signs for the first vowel. It is therefore a double letter, having a sound of the first vowel repeated, or lengthened, which, in a medial or final position, amounts to the same thing. As an incipient letter, it was, as we shall see, a consonant. Its sound is determined by our finding it consistently rendered by the Coptic i, the Greek e, and the Hebrew 'a'. As a vowel, therefore, its sound was that of our ee. At the commencement of words where it is immediately followed by another vowel its sound must necessarily be that of y, as is shown by its being then equivalent to i, as in yum, yom, "sea;" yuteh, "Judah." Two sounds, therefore, suffice for this letter, y and ee.

The third vowel corresponds to every form of o and u in Coptic, but its prevailing correspondent is the diphthong ow, which is the same as our sound oo. It is equivalent to the Hebrew y, as in the word yuteh, "Judah," quoted above, and was used for the Greek o, u, and oo. It can be shown sometimes to have the sound of a consonant, w, at the commencement of a word, for the same reasons which have induced us to assign the sound of y to the second vowel when similarly placed. Our main difficulty with respect to this vowel is to decide whether or not it has ever the sound of a short o or u. The settlement of this question partly depends upon the probability that the first vowel had sometimes a sound resembling o or u, both short. The sound this letter must have had when it became a consonant, its prevailing correspondence with the Coptic diphthong ow, and the probability that it was analogous to the second vowel, render it most reasonable to suppose that it had, when a vowel, the sound of u or oo. We cannot, however, prove it to have been a double vowel, or constantly long; and we therefore retain for its vowel sound the letter u, which has been frequently employed for it, particularly as the constant use of oo would be cumbrous: we therefore represent it by w and u.

The sound of the fourth, or inexpressed, vowel remains to be considered. It has been noticed above that the inexpressed vowel in Coptic is generally e (e) and that the roots which usually or always drop their vowel in Coptic are often the same as those that always do so in the hieroglyphic system. Chevalier Bunsen has justly compared this vowel with the Hebrew Sheva, and represented it by a short e. Like Sheva, which sometimes had the sound of a very short a, whence originated Hatephi-Pathu, at others that of a very short e (Hateph-Segol), differing, in what we know not, from its original sound, and at others that of a very short o (Hateph-Kametz), though it generally retained its original sound, so it is not improbable that the Egyptian inexpressed vowel represented other sounds besides that of e. This, however, we may regard as its prevailing sound. It must be borne in mind that it is convenient to employ this short e wherever we do not know the vowel or vowels of a word, so that it must be regarded in such cases as in some sort as a conventional sign. In order, however, to distinguish between this letter when thus used, and when representing, either certainly or very probably, the inexpressed vowel, it is written in this essay in the former case small (e), and in the latter large (e). As the long e is represented, according to our theory, by the vowels a and ee, it is not necessary to distinguish this short e by a mark of short quantity. The inexpressed vowel, therefore, which was probably the only real vowel of the ancient Egyptians, had thus the sound of e short, and occasionally other sounds.

In considering the consonants we must first examine n. In Coptic we find three letters representing different sounds of n, namely, e, x, and d, simple n, cn, and kn. The first of these is undoubtedly found in the hieroglyphic system; the second cannot be a variant of it, since it interchanges with sn, and since, in Manetho's Lists, k is generally rendered by its Greek equivalent x. d remains, which may be properly considered as the strongly aspirated form of e. It will be shown, by arguments which the analogy of the system confirms, that there was no separate letter in the hieroglyphic system corresponding to d, and those arguments indicate that the two sounds did not exist in the pronunciation of the sacred dialect. We may next pass by m and n since their sounds are established, with the remark that n was probably pronounced m, as by the Copts, when immediately followed by n, m, and r. L and r are represented by one consonant. We do not find them distinguished except in the demotic, and they are frequently confounded in Coptic. In that language, however, we trace their separation in the circumstance that in the Bashumric dialect the Memphitic and Theban p is almost always rendered by r. The greater number of words in Coptic containing the letter p than r, the general use of r for p in the worst dialect, all tend to show that the prevailing sound was p. That sound we may safely assign

---

1 The latter reading is the more probable, since the two signs occur in monosyllabic roots. 2 Trans. Roy. Ir. Acad., vol. xxi., pt. 2. 3 The two sloping lines may, however, be the double of the single straight line, representing a. Hieroglyphics.

Hieroglyphs.

to the consonant in question, bearing in mind that it may sometimes resemble \( \text{i} \), or even correspond to that letter. We do not find any traces of an aspirated \( \text{n} \), \( \text{m} \).

The letter \( \text{s} \) presents little debatable matter, for the supposition as to its sound to be mentioned below is but conjectural. This, however, is not the case with \( \text{sh} \), the sound of which we must endeavour to ascertain. It has been already shown that its proper sound was \( \text{sh} \), but there are strong reasons for supposing that it was pronounced \( \text{ch} \) or \( \text{kh} \) in one dialect. Thus Herodotus calls \( \text{Shufu Xeop} \) (Xerxes); the names Xerxes and Artaxerxes are written \( \text{Shiseheush} \) and \( \text{Artaisheshes} \), in which cases a sign for \( \text{sh} \) is evidently employed as \( \text{ch} \) or \( \text{kh} \). But as the sign which in every one of these cases represents \( \text{ch} \) or \( \text{kh} \) is sometimes rendered by \( \text{g} \) in Coptic, and as Herodotus can only be supposed to have given the pronunciation which he heard, while foreign names could only be rendered by the letters nearest resembling their sounds, these examples afford no convincing evidence, nor has any such been adduced. Even Chevalier Bunsen, who has separated the two sounds as distinct letters in his vocabulary, does not propose to maintain that they were originally separate, for he says that it is doubtful if at the earliest period there were any distinction between them. If we suppose, as is most reasonable, that the two sounds were represented by one letter, we have still to determine whether they existed in the sacred language, or were differences of dialects. The smallness of the alphabet, and the undoubted certainty that certain other letters had more than one sound, would indeed incline one to the former view, but a consideration of the relation of the two sounds will convince him that this supposition would be at variance with the analogy of the language. \( \text{sh} \) should rather include the sound of \( \text{s} \), which indeed it may, like the Hebrew \( \text{w} \), if the letter usually called \( \text{s} \) be a hard letter (\( \text{ss} \)) like \( \text{D} \). On the other hand, the interchange of \( \text{sh} \) and \( \text{ch} \) or \( \text{kh} \) is a natural occurrence, of which many instances might be produced, as in the derivation of Guadalaxara (Guadalachara) from Wadi-l-Ashbarah, and of Sherry from Xeres (Cheres).

This peculiarity exists also in the Coptic, \( \text{g} \) interchanging with \( \text{x} \), but not with \( \text{d} \), a circumstance of great importance, since the last letter is derived in its form from one of the hieroglyphic signs most commonly corresponding to the first and second. This circumstance shows that \( \text{d} \), which is maintained to be the representative of the ancient sound, is derived from a hieroglyphic equivalent of letters which do not interchange with it in Coptic, and thus the argument based on the form of \( \text{d} \) being ancient is not valid. This evidence in showing that the \( \text{sh} \) and \( \text{kh} \) were only separate letters by reason of the dialects (the \( \text{sh} \) of the sacred dialect being rendered in the vulgar dialect, or its Memphite form, by \( \text{kh} \)), forbids us to imagine them to have been ever distinguished in the hieroglyphics.

Of the mutes, \( \text{b} \) appears to have been sometimes aspirated, taking a sound resembling \( \text{v} \), that is, \( \text{v} \). For this we have double evidence, since in Coptic \( \text{B} \) interchanges with \( \text{v} \), \( \text{c} \), \( \text{f} \), and hence even \( \text{p} \); while in the rendering of Latin names, through Greek, its hieroglyphic correspondent is employed for \( \text{v} \). Here again we must inquire whether this is the result of the difference of dialects, or whether the two sounds existed in the sacred language represented, as probably in Hebrew, by one letter. The latter seems probable, since, on the one hand, it is not reasonable to exclude \( \text{v} \) from one dialect, and on the other, because, if \( \text{v} \) were never \( \text{v} \), then \( \text{v} \) would have been always represented by \( \text{v} \), which it never is, and thus Seferus would have more nearly represented Severus (Σεβροπος) than Seberus. We shall see, too, that the weight of evidence is in favour of the existence of aspirated sounds of several letters, that is, of certain letters having been sometimes aspirated in the sacred dialect. The pronunciation of the next letter \( \text{r} \) has already been determined as that of a \( \text{v} \) approaching the sound of \( \text{v} \). The letter which we have called \( \text{r} \) is used for the Greek \( \text{II} \) and \( \text{P} \), whence we may infer that it had the true sound of the latter (being probably pronounced \( \text{rh} \), or perhaps \( \text{rh} \)), no less than the sound which we usually ascribe to it, \( \text{rh} \). The one hieroglyphic letter \( \text{k} \) corresponds partly or wholly to the Coptic \( \text{k} \), \( \text{x} \), \( \text{z} \) and \( \text{g} \), that is, to \( \text{k} \), \( \text{kh} \) (\( \text{cn} \)), and \( \text{kk} \), for there can be little doubt that the last two (\( \text{z} \) and \( \text{g} \)) represent a harsh \( \text{k} \) (\( \text{p} \), \( \text{c} \), and \( \text{kw} \)). The first sound \( \text{k} \) is unquestionably made out, and may be considered the proper sound of the letter, and its aspirated form is shown to have been known to the sacred language by examples of Manetho's transcriptions of kings' names given in a note (*) below. Lastly, \( \text{t} \) appears to have also had the sound of \( \text{th} \), though not of \( \text{d} \). Although the \( \text{t} \) was employed in the time of the Ptolemies and Caesars to represent the Greek \( \Delta \) as the nearest sound, the first introduction of \( \text{d} \) into the language is under the form \( \text{nt} \), for so was the name of Darius spelt, \( \text{Ntererush} \); whence, as this was probably a simple \( \text{d} \) in both old Persian and Greek, we may infer that sound to have been unrepresented in the Egyptian alphabet. \( \text{T} \) seems, however, to have had sometimes the sound of \( \text{th} \) in the sacred dialect, for such would have been the case by analogy, and the transcriptions of Egyptian names would lead to the same inference.—It has not been attempted in these observations to determine, in the cases in which letters appear to have had in the sacred dialect more than a single sound, when a letter took one sound or another, or, in other words, when its sound was changed by its position. Some steps may be taken towards doing this; but the carelessness of the ancients in the transcription of foreign names into Greek, and the corrupt orthography of Coptic, render the probabilities of great success very slight. Still, by the application of the inductive process, which is not sufficiently employed in inquiries of this nature, it may be possible to obtain more satisfactory results than those at which we have hitherto arrived. In the meanwhile, the following table gives a statement of the fruits of our examination of the Egyptian alphabet.

---

1 Egypt's Place, vol. I., pp. 490, 572. 2 Manetho, who may be fairly concluded to have given, as nearly as he could in Greek, the pronunciation of the sacred dialect, seems generally to have rendered the \( \text{sh} \) by \( \text{c} \), employing the \( \text{x} \) for \( \text{s} \) aspirated. The examples are \( \text{Sapir} \), \( \text{Shufu} \); \( \text{Sapir} \), \( \text{Shufu} \); \( \text{Sapir} \), \( \text{Shafra} \). We find, however, \( \text{Axe} \) or \( \text{Axir} \), or \( \text{Axir} \), for \( \text{Ashenatenra} \), where \( \text{sh} \) is rendered by \( \text{x} \) or \( \text{s} \), and \( \text{Yiray} \) for \( \text{Peanesh} \). These are the instances that occur in the Dynasties. In the fragments of the history we find \( \text{Sai} \) for the Coptic \( \text{yoo} \), \( \text{yoo} \), or \( \text{yoo} \). The \( \text{x} \) on the other hand is frequently used for the letter \( \text{x} \) as its aspirated form: thus, \( \text{Kai} \), \( \text{Kai} \), \( \text{KeKu} \); \( \text{Xir} \), \( \text{Menkara} \); \( \text{Xir} \), \( \text{Nuprakara} \); \( \text{Xir} \), \( \text{Kaena} \); \( \text{Axe} \), \( \text{Axe} \); \( \text{Mery} \), \( \text{Menkura} \); \( \text{Mery} \), \( \text{Userker} \); \( \text{Mery} \), \( \text{Nuprakara} \); \( \text{Mery} \), \( \text{Menkher} \); \( \text{Sapir} \), \( \text{Sapir} \); \( \text{Sapir} \), \( \text{Sapir} \); \( \text{Sapir} \) (but \( \text{Sapir} \) also \( \text{Sapir} \)); \( \text{Yiray} \) (also \( \text{Yiray} \)), \( \text{Psemek} \); \( \text{Nep} \), \( \text{Nep} \); \( \text{Axe} \), \( \text{Haker} \);—as positively against these can be adduced nothing but \( \text{Oxy} \), the corrupt transcription of AMENSAPEIER. Hieroglyphics

The Egyptian Alphabet

| Primitive Sound | Derivative Sound | Used for Greek | Transcribed by Greek | Used for Hebrew | Transcribed by Hebrew | Rendered by Coptic | |----------------|------------------|----------------|----------------------|----------------|-----------------------|-------------------| | (A) A | E | Ō, Ū | A, E, H, O | Α, Ε, Η, Ο | Α, Ε, Η, Ο | Α, Ε, Η, Ο | | Y, EE | ... | P, EI, AI | I | Ι | Ι | Ι, Α, ε | | W, OO, U | O | O, Ω, Y, OY | O, Ω, Υ, ΟΥ | Ο, Ω, Υ, ΟΥ | Ο, Ω, Υ, ΟΥ | ΟΥ, Υ, ΟΥ | | Ē | ... | E, A, O | E, A, Ι | Ε, Α, Ι | Ε, Α, Ι | Ε, Α, Ι | | H | ... | X, A | Χ, Α | Χ, Α | Χ, Α | Χ, Α | | M | ... | M | M | Μ | Μ | Μ | | N | ... | N | N | Ν | Ν | Ν | | R | (L?) | P, P, Λ | P, Π, Λ | Ρ, Π, Λ | Ρ, Π, Λ | Ρ, Π, Λ | | S | ... | Σ | Σ | Σ | Σ | Σ | | SH | (S?) | Σ, K | Σ, Κ | Σ, Κ | Σ, Κ | Σ, Κ | | B BH | ... | B, OY | B, ΟΥ | Β, ΟΥ | Β, ΟΥ | Β, ΟΥ | | F | ... | Φ | Φ | Φ | Φ | Φ | | P | ... | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π | | K KH (eh) | ... | K, Γ | K, Γ | Κ, Γ | Κ, Γ | Κ, Γ | | T TH | ... | T, Δ | T, Δ | Τ, Δ | Τ, Δ | Τ, Δ |

1. Ἀσίανος, κλεπτής Ατρά. 2. ἀλληλούχοις, συμβολαιοῦντες. 3. μεταφέρω, βασιλεύω. 4. καταγίζω. 5. διάδοξος, τοξεύως. 6. καταγίζω. 7. πολεμικός, καταληκτικός. 8. πολεμικός, καταληκτικός. 9. πολεμικός, καταληκτικός. 10. πολεμικός, καταληκτικός. 11. πολεμικός, καταληκτικός. 12. πολεμικός, καταληκτικός. 13. πολεμικός, καταληκτικός. 14. πολεμικός, καταληκτικός. 15. πολεμικός, καταληκτικός. 16. πολεμικός, καταληκτικός. 17. πολεμικός, καταληκτικός. 18. πολεμικός, καταληκτικός. 19. πολεμικός, καταληκτικός. 20. πολεμικός, καταληκτικός. 21. πολεμικός, καταληκτικός.

---

Hieroglyphics

Hieroglyphics

Hieroglyphics The number of examples from which selection has been made has been in most cases very limited, since many words have been excluded for various reasons. In the case of the use of hieroglyphic letters for Greek names, or Latin names written in Greek, it has seemed desirable to choose examples as far as possible of the earliest times at which this transcription was usual. In like manner, the examples of the transcription of hieroglyphic words into Greek characters have been chosen from those writers alone who understood the hieroglyphic writing, or from those who drew their information from such writers. To have referred to others who merely give the pronunciation of the common people would have involved the inquiry in confusion and error. With respect to the instances of Hebrew words rendered by hieroglyphics, it has been necessary to exclude such as appear to have been adopted into the ancient Egyptian language, whether proper names or not, and to reject such parts of words as seem to be only Egyptian forms, not literal transcriptions. As to these and the Egyptian words written in Hebrew, it has been necessary to except such as appear to be of common origin rather than borrowed, such as Caphtor, Capthorim. The Coptic corresponding letters are the result of an examination of Bunsen's vocabulary, and are placed as far as possible according to the frequency of their occurrence. Common correspondents are written in capitals.

A comparison of the table with what has been previously said respecting the alphabet, will tend to show the general accuracy of those antecedent views; while a careful inspection of it affords indications that there are materials for a more accurate definition of the sound of each letter than we have ventured to give. It should be here remarked that one character is used for the Hebrew י, and transcribed by that letter, showing that the A had sometimes something of a guttural sound. The use of this very character for the Greek Α forbids us, however, to suppose that its sound was more than a slightly guttural Α.

§ 2. WRITING, OR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS BY WRITTEN CHARACTERS.

According to the definition previously given of the hieroglyphics, these characters were delineations of material objects employed to denote real things by figures, ideal things by symbols, or to represent sounds by characters either syllabic or alphabetic. We may divide these signs therefore, into two classes, each subdivided into two kinds.

1.—Ideographic Signs.

1. Iconographic, as (fig. 1), "an obelisk." 2. Symbolic, as (fig. 2), "to strike."

2.—Phonetic Signs.

1. Syllabic, as (fig. 1), "stable, firm," where the first sign may be put for the whole word. 2. Alphabetic, as (fig. 2), Shufu, Saphis (L.), the name of the second king of the Fourth Dynasty.

It must be observed that the ideographic signs are, though indirectly, no less representations of sounds than the phonetic; also that few signs were used in both classes, or in both kinds of the former class; and that both kinds of the latter class are connected by the syllabic signs being frequently used alphabetically with their proper complement.

Let us examine each of the kinds of hieroglyphics somewhat more minutely. We shall best understand their nature and use by ascertaining for what classes of words they were chiefly employed.

Since everything of which we think may be referred to Ideographic signs of one of the categories, and since the ideographic hieroglyphics represent ideas of every kind, they may be conveniently referred to the categories. The ten categories of Aristotle have been separated into two heads, substance and attribute, or accident, the former comprehending the first of these categories, and the latter the remaining nine. It will be seen at once that all the iconographic hieroglyphics stand for real things referrible to the category of substance; and that all the symbolic hieroglyphics, excepting those very few which stand for beings or things which, as ideal, could not be represented but by symbols, are referrible to the categories comprehended under the head of attribute.

Iconographic signs represent, therefore, real things alone, or, grammatically, all substantives which are names of real things, as man, dog, house, country, and the like. There are probably no other substantives in the Egyptian language excepting names of such ideal things as are referrible to the category of substance.

Symbolical signs may be classed in the following manner, the categories being arranged in a grammatical order:

I. Substance.—Substantives which are names of ideal things referrible to this category; as, "Hades." Personal pronouns; as, "I," "thou."

II. Attribute.

1. Quantity.—Adjectives of number; as, "first." 2. Quality.—Adjectives of quality; as, "good." 3. Relation.—Adjectives of relation; as, "green." 4. Action.—Adjective verbs (derived). 5. Suffering.—Adjective verbs (derived). 6. Collocation.—Participles of adjective verbs relating to position. 7. Place.—Prepositions and adverbs of place; as, "in," "to," "on high." 8. Time.—Adverbs of time; as, "ever." Prepositions of time; as, "after." 9. Possession.—Possessive pronouns; as, "thy."

Hence it is evident why so few signs are used both in an iconographic and a symbolical sense. It should be observed that particles of place, time, and situation are rarely expressed by symbolical characters, and that when such characters are employed they are symbolico-phonetic.

In the oldest form of the Egyptian language we find very few characters which have an indiscriminate alphabetic use, signs, the greater number of the phonetic signs being only used with a particular alphabetic sign or signs by way of complement to express a syllable. This complement being frequently omitted, the initial sign acquires a syllabic value, standing for a syllable. The two kinds of phonetic characters have therefore no distinction as to signification. They are employed to represent the sounds of the names of things represented by figures and symbols in the other class, as well as some ideas excluded by their nature from that class, like the substantive verb "to be," and almost all particles of place, time, and situation. This phonetic class should be therefore the more comprehensive, since it should contain the sounds of the whole of the signs of the other class with those of words not contained in that class. Of the form of the syllables we shall have to speak more fully hereafter in treating of the roots; but it is here needful to notice an important peculiarity in the mode of writing them, already mentioned. In the case of syllables commencing and ending with a consonant the medial vowel was usually written after vowel the final consonant. Professor Lepsius was the first to suggest that this might be the case in syllables apparently terminating in u in the written characters. Thus the name Hieroglyphics.

Hieroglyphs of the god Chons was written Shnsu (Khnsu), where the position of the vowel is proved by the Greek orthography and that of the Copts in the name of the month Ἀσσοῦς, Ἀσσοῦς, Ἀσσοῦς. But this principle, which has been recognised as correct with respect to the u vowel, has never been carried out with reference to the others. Notwithstanding, there is abundant evidence to show its wider application. The word for horse is, for example, written Ἀταρ, corresponding to the Coptic Ἀταρ, pl. Ἀταροι, and since it is a root, and therefore monosyllabic, can only be read Ἀταρ or Ἀταρ, the former of which forms appears from the Coptic to be the correct one.—As the principle under consideration may be considered to be directly or indirectly admitted with respect to the u vowel in consequence of such instances as that of the name of the god Chons, written Ἀσσοῦς, but pronounced Ἀσσοῦς; that of the god Munt, written Ἀσσοῦς; and many others—it becomes necessary to consider only the α and ι vowels. It should be remembered that the admission of a principle of this kind as to one vowel, makes its application, to say the least, highly probable to the other two, the short or inexpressed vowel being necessarily excluded. In order to test the applicability of the principle, several apparently monosyllabic words, mostly roots, were chosen at random from Champollion's Dictionnaire Égyptien, and compared with their Coptic equivalents, and the following was the result:

A.—HNA, "with." Copt. ἈΝΗ; s. ἈΝΗ. MNA, "to come to port, disembark." Copt. ἈΝΗ; s. ἈΝΗ. MNA, "a port." Copt. ἈΝΗ. MSHA, "to fight, a warrior." Copt. "a fight," ἈΝΗ; s. ἈΝΗ. SHA, "a flute." Copt. ἈΝΗ; s. ἈΝΗ. "A reed," ἈΝΗ; s. ἈΝΗ. SHRAU, "a son." Copt. ἈΝΗ; s. ἈΝΗ. SKA, "to labour, to plough." Copt. "to plough," ἈΝΗ; s. ἈΝΗ. TSHA, "a stronghold." Copt. s. ἈΝΗ. TSHA, "a boundary, frontier." Copt. ἈΝΗ; s. ἈΝΗ.

Of these examples seven are in accordance with the supposed principle, and but one (SKA), which may possibly be a derivative form (s-KA), against it. That respecting which some doubt might be entertained, on account of its Coptic correspondent, MNA, may be fairly supposed to have had a medial vowel.

I.—FNTEE, "a worm." Copt. ἈΝΗ; s. ἈΝΗ; ἈΝΗ. HNEE, "a serpent." Copt. ἈΝΗ; s. ἈΝΗ. HNEE, "to terrify, to fear." Copt. ἈΝΗ; ἈΝΗ; s. ἈΝΗ. HNREE, "a fountain." Copt. s. ἈΝΗ. HTEE, "a heart." Copt. ἈΝΗ; ἈΝΗ; s. ἈΝΗ. KBEE, "a honeycomb." Copt. ἈΝΗ. KIMEE, "Carthamus." Copt. ἈΝΗ. "Carthamus silvestris." NHEE, "to swim." Copt. s. ἈΝΗ; ἈΝΗ. "Swimming" (act of), ἈΝΗ. NHEE, "a sycamore." Copt. ἈΝΗ. STEE, "a wall." Copt. ἈΝΗ. SHREE, "to, towards." Copt. s. ἈΝΗ; ἈΝΗ; ἈΝΗ. STEE, "to found." Copt. "Foundations," ἈΝΗ; s. ἈΝΗ; ἈΝΗ; s. ἈΝΗ.

1. Final Determinatives.

Generic determinatives restrict the word which they follow to a generic signification. Thus the representation of the sun restricts the words which it follows to the signification of light, or time, and the representation of a fish restricts the words which it follows to the sense of fish, i.e., some kind of fish, or something abominable. These adjuncts have generally both a primary generic meaning and a secondary; the primary meaning being either literal, as in the latter example, or of a simple tropical character, as in the former, and the secondary meaning being tropical in a Hieroglyphics.

greater or less degree. These signs are also used as specific determinatives, as when the representation of the sun follows its name; and this is doubtless the primitive meaning of every generic determinative, although it cannot always be traced. The generic final determinatives are not numerous.

2. Specific determinatives restrict the word to which they are applied to the signification of a species; thus, the representation of a cat follows the word "male cat," SHAU; that of a particular kind of boat, the name of that boat; and sometimes they serve to distinguish different uses of the same word, as when the word "wa," a boat, is shown to mean a "boat" simply, or a "barge." This is a very numerous division of determinatives.

Final determinatives appear scarcely ever to have any phonetic value when used as such, and they are very rarely so placed as to become initial, and never, as far as is known, medial.

2. Initial Determinatives.

These determinatives are distinguished by having a phonetic value and standing for the first letter of the word which they restrict. They are generally limited to a specific significance, since no one of them can be applied to more than a single root. Thus ḫ, the so-called crux ansata, the emblem of life, is the initial letter of the word ANSH (ankh) "living." These determinatives are very rarely employed as final ones, and rarely as medial, and they are not a large class.

3. Medial Determinatives.

These determinatives always immediately follow the first letter of a root, and are almost always initial determinatives deprived of their phonetic value, but otherwise they are final determinatives transposed. This class is very limited. Of the former kind we may instance, HET (commonly written hotp or hotep), signifying "devoted" or the like.

There are some determinatives which cannot be included in any of these classes. Of these one of the most common is the ring in which royal names are inclosed. It is also found as the final determinative of the word MEN, a "name;" and in one of the earliest inscriptions we find its primitive form, that of a signet-ring (which appears to have been elongated in order to comprehend in it the characters composing royal names), as the determinative of a king's name.

Determinatives, being properly ideographic signs, are either iconographic or symbolic, or both, as may be seen by the examples mentioned above. It will not be necessary to speak of these signs more in detail, since they must be again noticed when we come to consider the different parts of speech.

Words.

§ 3.—Words.

In a language of so primitive a character as the Egyptian, it is especially needful to endeavour to ascertain the characteristics of the roots. One thing is certain respecting them, that they are always monosyllabic, except perhaps in some names imitative of sound; and this is an essential peculiarity of the language which is of the highest importance. They are either uniliteral, biliteral, trilateral, or quadrilateral, and each class has several forms, as may be seen by the following examples; unusual forms being denoted by Hieroglyphics an asterisk (*).

I. Uniliteral—

* Vowel A (Affixed pronoun), "Me," &c.

II. Biliteral—

1. Consonant and vowel. BA, "a goat." 2. Vowel and consonant. AW "to be;" UN, id.

III. Trilateral—

1. Consonant, vowel, and consonant. MEN (inexpr. vowel), "to establish." *2. Consonant, consonant, and vowel. SNA, "to bend." 3. Vowel, consonant, and consonant. ART, "milk."

IV. Quadrilateral—

1. Consonant, cons., vow., and cons. PTEH, "Ptah," Vulcan. 2. Consonant, vow., cons., and cons. SHUNS, Chons.

It is not probable that there are any quinquilateral roots. Of the preceding forms the most common, and those from which most derivatives are taken, are the biliteral and the trilateral having a medial vowel. The vowel of the former is generally long when the consonant precedes and short when it follows, and that of the latter is generally short, if we may judge from Coptic and analogically. The following may be given as the order of the forms according to the number of words belonging to each, the consonant being denoted by "c," and the vowel by "v."

1. cv. 2. cvc. 3. vc. 4. vcc. 5. cvcg. 6. cvcg. 7. ccv. 8. v.

It would lead us beyond the province of the present article were we to endeavour to ascertain the meanings of the various forms, or whether they had originally peculiar meanings, but it should be remarked that certain roots are imitative, representing things by their sounds. Thus the names of animals are taken in many instances from their cries, and the like is the case with some words descriptive of noises. This is the hieroglyphic method brought before the mind through the ear instead of the eye.

Derivatives are formed in five ways, by changing the Derivativowel, by increasing the word at its commencement, by tives, increasing the word at its end, by reduplication, and by agglutination.

I. Change of vowel.—MAN, "to come to port," from MEN, "to establish."

II. Increase at commencement—

1. MA, place. MA-ANSHU, "the abode of the living" (pl.) 2. S, Causation. S-ANSH, "to cause to live" (and other verbal forms to be noticed subsequently).

III. Increase at end—

1. EE—o. Belonging to. AMENEE, 'Aμενεος, pr. n. b. Verbal form usually participial. MEREE, "beloved," from MEE, "to love." e. Substantive result of action of verb. S-SHEE, "a writing, the writing" (i.e., a thing written), from S-SHAU, "to write." HAY, "a stela" (i.e., a thing set up), from HA, "to set up." 2. U, abstract noun from verb. HAU, "duration," from HA, "to set up," "establish." 3. NU, added to some words ending in N for the sake of euphony, as BEN-NU, "the Phoenix."

There are possible exceptions to this rule, as perhaps the word AB "to be thirsty, thirst," which would seem to have been pronounced AB-NUN, for it is rendered as the name of a Shepherd-king, the third sovereign of the Fifteenth Dynasty, Ἀρσησίς (Man. Afr.); but the Coptic equivalent is Ἀβι, &c. There are also determinatives of sound, not of sense.

Modern Egypt and Thebes, vol. i., p. 368. 4. St, added to some words ending in s for the sake of euphony, as mes-su, "born."

Besides these there are the inflectional terminations, which must be noticed in another place.

IV. Reduplication—

a. Augmentative, as tex-tex, "to revolt," from tex, "to raise one's self."

b. Frequentative, as tef-tef, "to drip."

c. Imitative of the cries of animals, &c., as ka-ka, "to cackle;" sen-sen, a kind of heron.

V. Agglutination—

1. Two substantives. Suten-sa (king's son), "prince."

2. Substantive and epithet. Men-nefnef (good abode), "Memphis."

3. Verb and substantive. Has-sha, "a flute-player," from has, "to play," and sha, "a flute."

4. Preposition and substantive. Em-ha, "in front."

5. Preposition and adverb. Er-ter (?), "for ever."

The changes in pronunciation must here be noticed, and, first, the contractions.

The euphonic terminations nu and su were frequently omitted, as we may conclude from their being often left out in the inscriptions, and from the correspondence of the words to which they were applied to their Coptic forms.

The letter n or l was frequently dropped at the end of a monosyllable. The cause of this elision was the weak sound which this letter had with the Egyptians, as is alone evident from its representing both n and l. The words her, ker, hur, and mer were not only written ha, ka, hu, and ma, but so pronounced, as is proved by each of them being written in both manners in Coptic as well as in hieroglyphics. The English and German pronunciation of the final n is an exactly parallel case. It does not seem possible, however, to determine by any rules what was the practice of the ancient Egyptians, nor do the inscriptions afford us a safe guide, since we cannot prove that the abbreviated form indicates in all cases an abbreviated pronunciation. Euphony, combined with ancient transcriptions, will be our safest guide. Thus we find merer-amen or mer-am-en transcribed Meprou (Meprou?), and euphony points out mee-amen as the ancient pronunciation. So, too, with mee-ra, Mopre. By this discovery we have been enabled to settle more than one difficulty. The word, for example, usually written with a beetle and mouth, was known to signify "transmigration" or "transformation," as constantly in the Ritual (Lepsius, Todtenbuch, ch. lxvi., and passim), and its sound was generally held, and for good reasons, to be tar or ter. For this no equivalent had been discovered in the Coptic. But if we admit the rule given above, we find the corresponding word in TOY, transmutare.

With respect to transpositions, it is very difficult to judge, since the letters of a word were generally written in the same order, whether that were the order of pronunciation or not. There is, however, some evidence to show that both consonants and vowels were transposed. For example, the name of the crocodile is written mshu, msuh, and imshu, and in Coptic mca, s. eca, and by Herodotus xapayu is given as the Egyptian name for crocodiles. Hence it seems that transpositions in writing indicate differences of pronunciation no less than does the omission of the final n, in many instances at least. It is evident that in the most ancient mode of writing transpositions were more numerous than afterwards, as we may see by comparing the inscriptions in the tombs of the time of the Fourth Dynasty near the Great Pyramid, with those of monuments of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The names of the gods, which we find to have continued unchanged until the latest period at which hieroglyphics were used, and which therefore we may conclude to have been preserved from the beginning of hieroglyphic writing, are most remarkable for the transposed mode in which their characters are arranged. That of Osiris, for example, is usually written AR-HES, though pronounced HES-AR; and that of Nephtys, either NEBT-EE or EE-NERT. Religious reasons, perhaps, had somewhat to do with these transpositions, as with the adjectives "divine" and "royal," which preceded in writing the names to which they were applied, contrary to the use of the language, to which the exceptions are very rare. The word "Ra," "the sun," again, in royal names always occupies the first place, whether pronounced at the beginning of the name or not, thus Shaf-ra is written RA-SHAF; and Men-kura, RA-MEN-KU.

It is important to notice that doubled letters were expressed, doubled though they seem to have been almost confined to foreign letters, words, except when the addition of the terminations nu and su rendered the final letters n and s double. Of foreign names we may instance that of an African nation or country, Tererei; and that of the Ionians, Haunen or Haunnen, also written Haunen and thus showing that the reduplication was not always expressed.

Certain signs have been concluded to be expletives used merely to fill up a gap in a group of characters, whether in sign, the middle or at the end of a word. Champollion enumerated several of these, but some of them are determinatives, and but one certainly an expletive. This is the papyrus-roll, which follows substantives, adjectives, verbs, and prepositions; and some of these, such as na, "great," mei, "to fill, full," almost always; it cannot, therefore, be anything but a mere expletive, as Champollion concluded it to be. Bunsen has indeed assigned to it two uses, for he calls it "a period at end of sentences," and "the hieroglyphical stop or end of a group," making it thus a simple division and a stop. Its constant employment after particular words, in the midst of some words, and where no stop is admissible, affords a positive disproof of these definitions, which seem, though somewhat obscure, to contradict one another.

The section of grammar relating to the parts of speech has Parts of next to be considered, and this may be conveniently divided speech into what relates to inflected and what to non-inflected words. It must not be supposed, however, that any words were in themselves capable of inflexion, for the language was not in that sense susceptible of inflexion, but the ideas of number, gender, and person were added to a word by prefixes or suffixes, and the reception or non-reception of these signs of inflexion is what constitutes the great divisions into which we may separate the etymology of the Egyptian language. The most convenient order, with reference to inflected words, will be to examine the article first, then the pronoun, then the noun in its two kinds of substantive and adjective, and, lastly, the verb.

Before speaking of the article, it is necessary to mention the signs of the singular, masculine and feminine, gender and of the plural, more especially as one of these has been number confounded with the article. The sign of the masculine singular is a single vertical line |, which is properly the sign of the singular only. The singular feminine is distinguished by the character . Both appear to have been used as determinatives, though they sometimes represented sounds, the former the sound a and the latter t. We find the latter retained in many Coptic words at the commencement or the end, though in others it is omitted, while for the former there is no certain equivalent. The plural is denoted by three vertical lines variously disposed, and sometimes with the fem. sign prefixed. All these signs are therefore to

1 The modern name Tekroor, pl. Takarneh. Hieroglyphics be regarded as determinatives, and that of the feminine as sometimes indicating a feminine form either commencing or terminating with t. It is important to observe that there is evidence to show that this feminine form existed in both varieties in the ancient language no less than in the Coptic. As, however, it is almost always suffixed in the hieroglyphic writing, we cannot determine its position, and must be content to place it after the word, as it seems to have been most generally pronounced as well as placed.

Article.

The article PA, PEE, "the," was thus declined:

Sing. Masc. PA, PEE; Plur. Com. NA, "The."

It was prefixed to nouns, as TA-MEN-T, "the swallow" (in which group we find the termination T as well as the article, proving that the two were distinct, and that both cannot be articles); NA-NEBU, "the lords."

Pronouns.

The pronouns we must now consider. In the tables, as in those of the verbs, the method of arrangement usually adopted in grammars of Semitic languages has been here followed, as in these parts of grammar the Egyptian most resembles the languages of that class.

Personal.

ISOLATED PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

| Singular | Plural | |----------|--------| | 3. M. ENTUT, He. | 3. C. ENTUTEN, SEN They. | | F. ENTUS, She. | | | 2. M. ENTER, Thou (m.) | 2. C. ENTERUTEN, EM-TUTEN You. | | F. ENTA, Thou (f.) | | | 1. C. ANER, NAK I. | 1. C. (f) We. |

AFFIXED PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

| Singular | Plural | |----------|--------| | 3. M.—ENT, Him. | 3. C.—SEN Them. | | F.—ES Her. | | | 2. M.—ENT Thee (m.) | 2. C.—TEN Ye. | | F.—ET Thee (f.) | | | 1. C.—A Me | 1. C.—EN Us. |

It is to be observed that when the ideographic signs for the affixed pronouns of the first person singular are employed that person becomes necessarily masculine or feminine. As, however, it has but one sound, the person remains common though bearing this indication of a distinction of gender. The same must be remarked of the pronominal affixes of verbs for this person. These pronouns are likewise used as possessive pronouns without agreeing with the gender and number of the thing possessed, and to indicate the persons of verbs.

Possessive.

POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS.

Third Person. Object masc., person spoken of masc.

Sing. PAEEF, PEEF, PEET, PAF His (m.) i aivs

Object fem., person spoken of masc.

Sing. TAEET, TEET, TEEF, TAP His (f.) i aivs

Object masc., person spoken of fem.

Sing. PAEEF, PEEF, PEES, PAS Her (m.) i aivs

Object fem., person spoken of fem.

Sing. TAEEF, TEETE, TEEF, TAS Her (f.) i aivs

Object masc., persons spoken of com.

Plur. PAEESEN, PEESEN, PAEEF, PAYU Their (m.) i aiav

Object fem., persons spoken of com.

Plur. TAEESEN, TEESEN, TEESEN, TASEN Their (f.) i aiav

Objects com., person spoken of masc.

Plur. NAEEF, NAF His (pl. c.) i ai ai aiav

Objects com., person spoken of fem.

Plur. NAEEF, NEES, NAS Her (pl. c.) i ai ai aiav

Objects com., persons spoken of com.

Plur. NAEESEN, NEESEN, NASEN Their (pl. c.) i ai ai aiav

Second Person. Object masc., person spoken to masc.

Sing. PAEEF, PEEF, PEET, PAK Thy (m.) i aiav

Object fem., person spoken to masc.

Sing. TAEEF, TEET, TEEF, TAP Thy (f.) i aiav

Object masc., person spoken to fem.

Sing. TAEEF, TEETE, TEEF, TAP Thy (f.) i aiav

Object masc., persons spoken to com.

Plur. PAEEF, PAEEF, PAEEF, PAEEF Your (m.) i aiav

Objects com., person spoken to masc.

Plur. TAEEF, TEETE, TEEF, TAP Your (f.) i aiav

Objects com., person spoken to fem.

Plur. NAEEF, NEES, NAS Thy i ai ai aiav

Objects com., persons spoken to com.

Plur. NAEESEN, NEESEN, NASEN Your i ai ai aiav

First Person. Object masc., person speaking com.

Sing. PAEEF, PEEF, PEET, PAEEF My (m.) i aiav

Object fem., person speaking com.

Sing. TAEEF, TEETE, TEEF, TAP My (f.) i aiav

Object masc., persons speaking com.

Plur. PAEEF, PAEEF, PAEEF, PAEEF Our (m.) i aiav

Object fem., persons speaking com.

Plur. TAEEF, TEETE, TEEF, TAP Our (f.) i aiav

Objects com., person speaking com.

Plur. NAEEF, NEES, NAS Our i ai ai aiav

Objects com., persons speaking com.

Plur. NAEESEN, NEESEN, NASEN Our i ai ai aiav

DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS.

Prefixed.

Singular.

M. PAY, PEE This (m.) C. NAY These.

F. TAY This (f.)

Suffixed.

M. PEN.

F. TEN.

RELATIVE PRONOUNS.

1. Simple Relative Pronouns.

Singular.

M. PUY, PEPEE He who. C. NAY

F. TUY She who.

Plural.

C. APEN, APU.

2. Determinate Relative Pronouns.

Indefinite.

ENTEE, ENT (of both numbers and genders) He who; she who.

Definite.

Singular.

M. PUYENT, PAENTEE, PEN-TEE, PENT, His who.

F. TUYENT, TAENTEE, TENT, She who.

Plural.

C. NAENTEE, NENTEE, Those who.

INDEFINITE PRONOUNS.

Indefinite.

KEE, KE Another, others.

SA A certain one, each one.

SA-NEST Each one, whoever.

ASHET, SHET Another, others.

SHET-NEB All others, everything else.

UN-NEB, UN-NEBU Each being, each one, each thing.

We now come to the consideration of nouns, whether Nouns substantives or adjectives. The greater number of pure substantives, as before suggested, in Egyptian seem to have been names of real things, the names of ideal things being in that language essentially adjectives or verbs, which classes of words were nearly allied; at least this seems the most probable opinion. Such words as "cat," "horse," "tree," and proper names, which are logically of the same class, are undoubtedly substantives; while, on the other hand, "life," "goodness," or "good," and the like, are almost certainly, in a rude language like the Egyptian, primarily adjectives; for "life" is "the state of living," spoken of a person; "goodness," "the state of being good," except among those who can comprehend the abstract notion of "life" and "goodness."

The determinatives of substantives are necessarily very numerous. Some specimens are given below, arranged under their different classes and kinds.

I. Generic Determinatives.

Fig. 1. (Representation of the sun.) 1. Light, as ṢEBEN, "light, to shine." 2. Time, as ḤARU, "day;" KURU, "night;" ḤEBE, "a panegyric," periodical celebration.

Fig. 2. (Repr. of skin of some animal.) 1. Quadrupeds (including quadruman), as ṢHAU, "a male cat;" ḤTAH, "a horse," and proper name of a man, in which latter case it is followed by a second determinative, the ordinary one of proper names of men. 2. Things made of leather, as ṢEB, "a sandal;" ṢHEKH, "a helmet."

Fig. 3. (Repr. of water.) 1. Sea, river, lake, and the like, as YUMA, "the sea;" ḤRU, "a river." 2. Proper names of the same, as . . . ḤUT-MU, "the Mediterranean;" ḤAPEE-MU, "the Nile." 3. Fluids, besides water, as ṢNEF, "blood." 4. Actions and feelings connected with water and other fluids, as ḤB, "thirst, to be thirsty."

II. Specific Determinatives.

1. FINAL

A. Generic, in their Primary use, as Specific.

Fig. 1. (Representation of the sun.) RA, "the sun."

Fig. 2. (Repr. of skin of some animal.) Bes, a "hide" or "skin."

B. Specific.

Fig. 1. (Figure of Amen.) AMEN, "Jupiter-Ammon," the god of Thebes.

Fig. 2. (Repr. of ears.) MESTER, "the ears."

Fig. 3. (Repr. of bee.) SHEB, "a bee."

Fig. 4. (Repr. of bow.) PEET, 1. "a bow." 2. Followed by numerals for 9, the "Nine Bows," a nomadic people, bordering on the Egyptians.

2. INITIAL

Fig. 5. (Repr. of a hatchet.) NETER, a god.

Fig. 6. (Repr. of an ear of corn.) BETER, corn.

From these examples, compared with what has been before said on the subject of determinatives generally, it will not be difficult to comprehend the use of these signs as Hieroglyphics applied to substantives. The examples, it should be added, have been chosen with a view to illustrating the use of determinatives, for instance, by showing, that all those which are generic had in many instances, and probably originally in all, a primary specific use.

In Egyptian, as in Coptic, there are but two numbers, Number the singular and the plural, for the dual was not known to and gen- that language. Bunsen, indeed, has assigned to it a dual, der- contrary to the opinion of Champollion, but his view is disproved by the facts—(1.) that the usual so-called sign of the dual is not strictly analogous to those of the singular and plural; (2.) that it follows in some instances a plural termination; (3.) that it is occasionally employed as a simple termination without implying duality, whereas the sign of the plural is never so used, and that of the singular apparently never without retaining its signification of unity, and certainly never in opposition to that signification; and (4.) that the dual number does not exist in the Coptic language. It is easy to perceive how this mistake has arisen, for duality could only be represented where ideographic signs were simply employed without the addition of numerals by the doubling of a sign (as in Spec. Det. 2, supra), and thus occupying a place between the singular and the plural, this form was naturally mistaken for a dual.

The singular of substantives is indicated by an ideographic or phonetic sign or word being written singly, or by the addition of the signs previously mentioned of the singular masculine and feminine. The plural is analogically indicated, but, from the nature of the case, in several manners. In both numbers there are two genders, the masculine and the feminine; the former being indicated by the sign of the masculine, whether singular or plural; the latter by the feminine sign alone, or added to the masculine plural, except when the gender is denoted by the determinative, in which case that sign is not always employed.

The plural was indicated—(1.) by trebling ideographic signs; (2.) by trebling a phonetic word; (3.) by trebling the second and third signs of a trillar phonetic word; (4.) by adding the sign of the plural, three vertical lines; (5.) by adding the termination ṢU (or OO), to ideographic or phonetic words (by preference to the latter), whatever were their sound, excepting those ending in ṢU, which take the termination ṢU (or OO); (6.) by adding the sign of the plural to the trebled ideographic or phonetic word; (7.) by adding the sign of the plural to the terminations ṢU and ṢU. The sign of the feminine is also retained in the plural.

Nouns adjective are declined in the same manner as Adjectives nouns substantive. They differ from them grammatically as to their determinatives principally, which will be noticed with those of the verbs. Most of the adjectives are indeed also verbs, the radical signification being the adjective one, since there is properly but one verb, the substantive; but as in use the adjective held a secondary place to the verb, being a kind of verbal noun, the verb is grammatically the more important.

The substantive verb is represented by at least three Verbs words:—1. ḤU, or ḤW, "to be," both declinable and indeclinable. In the latter form it is used as the copula, and Substantive becomes a conjunction, and it also is used as a preposition, tive verbs. 2. ḤU, "to be," "to exist," both declinable and indeclinable. 3. ḤU, "to be," indeclinable, placed at the head of a proposition, and representing the 3d persons singular and plural of the present, as well as the infinitive. This also becomes a preposition. To these Bunsen adds a fourth, ḤU, ḤU, ḤU, ḤU, which he inaccurately conjectures to be perhaps merely a pronoun. We must add to these the kindred formative ṢU, which is certainly a form of the substantive verb. From it have originated forms of the substantive verb in Coptic, ṢE, ṢE, and doubtless the plural ṢE, of which last we have to find Hieroglyphics.

the original. Perhaps one or more of the signs of tense besides AU may be considered to be forms of the substantive verb.

Adjective verbs are distinguished by their determinatives, which are symbolical signs, very rarely used in their primary signification to restrict substantives. Their general character may be seen by the following examples:

I. Generic Determinatives.

Fig. 1. (A sword). 1. Cutting, as HESK, "to cut;" SKA, "to labour." 2. Division, as TUM, "to separate, distinguish, make to distinguish, cause to know." 3. Tropically, negation, TUM, "not to be." 4. Wounding, as SMAM, "to accuse."

Fig. 2. (Two legs walking). 1. Locomotion, as YA, "to come, to go;" SHEN, "to hunt, to fish." 2. The result of locomotion, as HER, "to appear." 3. Motion, as PSESH, "to extend;" PA, "to place, to set up."

II. Specific Determinatives.

1. Final.

A. Generic, in their primary use when applied to adjective verbs, as Specific.

It is scarcely possible to determine the primary use of the determinatives of adjective verbs as such, on account of their being tropically employed. Sometimes there seems little doubt, as in the case of the second of those cited under the previous class, the primary use of which as applied to adjective verbs, is almost certainly to restrict the verb YA, "to come" or "go." It is, however, so difficult to trace this use, that the safest plan is to class the word or words which seem to show it under the first head of examples of the employment of a sign as a generic determinative.

B. Specific.

Fig. 1. (A man wrapped in his dress.) AMEN, "to envelop, cover;" the root of the name of the god Amen.

Fig. 2. (A hoe.) SKA, "to labour."

Fig. 3. (An Egyptian holding an Asiatic prisoner.) SHEBT, "to subdue."

Fig. 4. (A cynocephalus.) KANT, "to be enraged."

2. Initial.

Fig. 1. (Crux ansata.) ANSIL, "to live (life)."

Fig. 2. (Two legs united to the initial letter.) YEE or AY, a form of YA, "to come, go." (This group is sometimes remarkable for the repetition of the determinative.)

There are several forms of adjective verbs, each of which may comprehend one or more kinds. They may be arranged as below, according to our present knowledge of the ancient Egyptian language. It should be remembered, however, that our incomplete acquaintance with the words of that language, both as to their number, and as to the manner in which they were written, renders the inquiry into a hieroglyphic matter of this kind extremely difficult, and its result in many respects only approximate. Nevertheless, most of the particulars are proved by satisfactory examples to be entirely correct, and these are therefore distinguished by an asterisk (*). These examples are not all of verbs, because in some of the rarer formations one is compelled to have recourse to other parts of speech; this, however, does not weaken the cases in question, if we consider the character of the language. Care must be taken to distinguish verbs in forms from compound verbs, and these last again from verbs in juxtaposition with other words, but not composition. In the case of verbal forms they are mostly produced by separable or inseparable prefixes, respecting the former of which there can alone be doubt. When separately employed, however, these prefixes are either followed by a preposition or written under a different form, of which their prefix form is a contraction or simplification. The compound verbs are again to be distinguished from those simply in juxtaposition by the position of the pronominal terminations indicating the person, for these follow the whole group in the case of a compound verb, whereas they immediately follow the simple verb when it is not compounded with the word which it precedes. The following, then, are the principal forms:

A. Monosyllabic Forms.

Sometimes the second and third of these forms appear to be derivatives.

* 1. With A, or inexpressed vowel. * 2. With ER. * 3. With U.

B. Derivative Forms.

* 1. Reduplicate, frequentative and augmentative. * 2. S prefixed, intensifier. * 3. H prefixed, intensifier and verb of action of substantive root. * 4. T prefixed, denotative.

The root of the verb is the infinitive noun, a verbal noun which expresses what we should term the abstract notion of the meaning conveyed by the verb, and is the only part of an adjective verb which does not require the assistance, either expressed or understood, of the substantive verb. It may be best rendered the act of doing or condition of being, as MAR, "the condition of loving," &c. It must be carefully distinguished from the infinitive mood, which requires a prefixed preposition.

Indicative Mood.

| Sing. 3. M. — Er. | F. — Es. | Plur. 3. C. — Sen. | |------------------|---------|----------------| | Asvist. | | | | 2. — Ek. K. | 2. — Et. T. | 2. — Ten. | | 1. C. — A. | | 1. — Es. |

This tense is formed by adding the affixed personal pronouns to the root of the verb. A more complex form is made by placing the particle KU between the root and the pronoun of the first person.

Although this tense has been usually denominated "the present," it has been judged best to call it the aorist, since it is susceptible of three meanings, corresponding to those of our present, imperfect, and preterite, as will appear from the examples given in the chapter on construction.

The past is formed by prefixing the characteristic N to the affixed personal pronouns.

| Sing. 3. M. — Nep. | F. — Nes. | Plur. 3. C. — Nesem. | |-------------------|----------|---------------------| | Past. | | | | 2. — Nec. | | 2. — Neten. | | 1. C. — Na. | | 1. — Nes. |

The signification of this tense is usually that of the past alone, though it has sometimes both a pluperfect and an Hieroglyphics.

Hieroglyphic emphatic present sense, in the latter case implying a past one. It may generally be best rendered by the compound form, "I have done thus," than by the simple past; so that it is better to read "I have loved" than "I loved," for the latter form would be more usually found to correspond to the aorist.

The future is formed by prefixing the substantive verb \( \text{au} \), generally with the addition of the preposition \( \text{er} \), to the infinitive of the verb to which it is desired to give a future signification.

| Future. | | --- | | Sing. 3. M. AUF-ER— | 2. AUK-ER— | 1. C. AWA-ER— | | Pler. 3. C. AUSEN-ER— | AUTE-ER— | AWEN-ER— |

Chevalier Bunsen and M. de Rouge suppose that the preposition may be omitted, and the latter has even gone so far as to constitute of this supposed form a new future unknown to Champollion. This opinion has been caused by the circumstance that the \( \text{u} \) as we have shown in the present essay, was sometimes omitted in writing no less than in speaking by the ancient Egyptians, while the vowel that preceded it was retained. When, however, the vowel preceding the \( \text{u} \) was that which was never expressed, it became impossible to indicate that it was not dropped with the consonant following it. This inexpressed vowel is that which forms part of the preposition \( \text{er} \), and therefore when the consonant of that preposition is omitted in writing the future the whole particle appears to be omitted. The formation of the Coptic futures remarkably corroborates this opinion, for they retain the \( \text{P} \) in some persons, but reject it in others.

M. de Rouge has noticed another form of future commencing with \( \text{tu} \) immediately prefixed to the root without an intervening particle, but with marks of tense following the root: thus, \( \text{tu-beshi-kua} \) ("I will invoke it?"). He is evidently correct in supposing this to be a form of the substantive verb, like \( \text{ae} \), as we have already seen to be the case.

The optative mood is known only in the aorist. This tense is formed by prefixing the syllable \( \text{ma} \) to the aorist of the indicative; as, \( \text{ma-yta} \), "that I may go."

The imperative mood, which is likewise known only in the aorist, is formed by prefixing the syllable \( \text{ma} \) to the aorist of the indicative. The close similarity to the prefix of the optative is what one would reasonably expect from the affinity of the two moods.

The infinitive mood is formed by prefixing \( \text{er} \) and other particles to the infinitive noun or root of the verb, with which it should not be confounded.

The participles are formed from the root by the addition of a prefix or suffixes. The active participle is formed—(1.) by prefixing \( \text{ent} \), \( \text{enten} \), "he who," to the root; or (2.) by adding to it \( \text{ta} \) or \( \text{t} \); or (3.) lastly, by adding to it the pronominal affixes of the third person singular, \( \text{ep} \) (m.), \( \text{es} \) (f.), and \( \text{v} \), not \( \text{sex} \), as their plural common.

The passive participle is remarkable as being the only form in which the passive voice is found in the ancient Egyptian expressed by a peculiar inflection. It is formed by the addition to the root of \( \text{ut} \) or \( \text{ut} \), sometimes prefixed, but almost always affixed, for both numbers and genders; and by its aid a construction arises which must be called the aorist of the passive. This is formed by the addition of the pronominal suffixes to the participle past; as \( \text{astu mestiup em renp xxl} \), "Behold he was born in the year 21," where the aorist is used with an imperfect signification. It has been supposed that the derivative form terminating in \( \text{ee} \) is a passive participle; but this seems rather to be a separate form of the verb, having significations that would naturally lead to its being usually employed in a participial sense, both as an active and as a passive participle.

All verbs assume a negative signification by receiving the Negative prefixes \( \text{nen} \) or \( \text{entem} \), as in the following example from the negative confession in the Ritual:—\( \text{nen-art-a amam hata} \), "I have not eaten my heart"—i.e., repented; meaning, I have had no reason to repent, I have not committed anything to cause repentance; where it may be noticed that the aorist is used for the perfect.

Very frequently do we find the root of the verb employed without mark of tense, number, or person, in the signification of every one of the tenses spoken of above, and for both the participles; but this use is chiefly confined to the sculptured inscriptions of the temples, where the scribes have aimed at a contracted mode of writing; and we do not find frequent instances of it in the papyri. The general sense of the inscription in which the root is thus employed without inflexion enables us to supply the omission.

Respecting the non-inflected words, prepositions, adverbs, conjunctions, and interjections, little need be said, for they can be learned from vocabularies, and their use will appear from the syntax.

Prepositions are both simple and compound, the compound ones being formed by the addition of a noun; as \( \text{her-ker} \) or \( \text{ha-ka} \), "above, before," literally "above the head." They are joined with the affixed pronouns when they are used in relation to a person, as \( \text{ner-sen} \), "above them."

Adverbs are in like manner both simple and compound, the compound ones being usually formed by the union of two nouns, a preposition and adverb, of two adverbs, &c.

Conjunctions are also simple or compound, but the compound ones hitherto discovered are but two, \( \text{har-enter} \) (above which?) "because," and \( \text{kae-entee} \) (below which?) "therefore." Among the simple conjunctions \( \text{at} \) is remarkable as being identical with one of the forms of the substantive verb; and it is to be observed that its manifest correspondence with the Hebrew \( \text{y} \) seems to lend support to the supposition that the latter is etymologically connected with the substantive verb \( \text{y} \). Having thus sketched the main features of the orthography and etymology of the Egyptian language, it only remains for us to notice some of the principles of its syntax.

§ 4.—CONSTRUCTION.

It has been observed in an earlier part of this article that it has been denied that there was any syntax to the Coptic language, syntax being here used in a very limited sense to denote the part of grammar relating to idiomatic uses, and the same opinion appears to have prevailed respecting its ancient form, the Egyptian; for no one has yet attempted to give any account of the syntax of the latter. The deficiencies of this portion of the present essay are therefore in some measure excusable, not only as there is no previous work, but because of the imperfect knowledge of the language. It is also difficult at this distance of time so completely to master the modes of thought of the Egyptians of the Pharaonic period, as to be able to discriminate the more delicate of the idiomatic forms of expression, and to ascertain their origin. Nevertheless the

---

1 Stela from the Apsa-tombs, now in the Louvre, from Sir Gardner Wilkinson's notes. 2 L. T., c.cxxv., 27. Hieroglyphics.

simplicity of the language, and its similarity to the Coptic, tend to lessen these difficulties, and to embolden us to hope that some general principles of syntax may be indicated.

First of all, it will be necessary to give a short sketch of the literature of the ancient Egyptians, since much that must be included in the province of syntax may be the result of the peculiar forms it took. In this place the literary records must be considered as to form and matter, and divided into graven and written.

Such remains of the ancient Egyptian literature as have come down to us are either historical or religious; for those that cannot be referred to these classes are so very few as only to afford exceptions to general rules in their subjects, and to indicate to us that the same system of composition runs through the entire body of records. The substance of the historical and religious inscriptions is, however, remarkably different; for the former, although religious in feeling, are devoid of the peculiar mysticism which characterizes most of the latter. The historical inscriptions are records of the successes of the kings, in explanations (often very short) accompanying the historical scenes on the walls of the temples; the religious inscriptions are extracts from the great Ritual, or explanatory inscriptions like those of the former class. The historical papyri are panegyrics of the sovereigns recording their successes in war, and notes of current events made by the scribes of the palace-temples; the religious papyri mostly comprehend the whole or parts of the great Ritual before mentioned. Of those inscriptions which cannot be classed as either historical or religious, we may particularly mention the explanatory ones accompanying the scenes illustrative of manners and customs which adorn the walls of the tombs of private persons. Referring to other works for some account of the subjects and characteristics of these various records in more detail, it is only needful here to consider them in their relation to our present subject. In the religious inscriptions particularly, and more or less throughout the whole literature, there runs a superstitious conservatism, which has doubtless caused words otherwise obsolete, and characters of an earlier usage, to be constantly retained. The explanatory inscriptions, whether religious, or historical, or simply civil, must be regarded as merely complementary to the scenes which they were meant to explain; and he who should take any one of these inscriptions, and judge it by the rules applied to a quotation from a classical author, would be as unjust as he who should read the short sentences or single words that occur in the illuminations of medieval manuscripts as connected or complete records. It should be noticed also, that in the sculptured inscriptions much was sacrificed to appearance, and, as has been before remarked, ideographic signs therefore preferred to phonetic, as well as particles and marks of tense omitted. Where this is plainly the case it is folly to cite as an example of peculiar construction what is merely an accidental result of this desire to adopt the most decorative characters; but there are instances on which it is difficult to form a decided opinion.

1. Propositions.

As to propositions, nothing need be noticed except the use of the copula. The copula in Egyptian is denoted after a Semitic method, as well as in the Indo-European manner; so that one could write "man he great," or "man is great." Hence it might be argued that the language had a double origin, but it should be remembered that in this instance the pronominal affixed termination of the so-called Iranian copula is a Semitic word, the same which is employed for the other copula. It may, indeed, be replied that the probable indication of an Iranian impression yet remains, although it has taken a Semitic form; and it must be confessed that this reasoning is not without its force, nevertheless it is best to base the theory of the origin of the language on more convincing evidence.

2. The Article.

The article was prefixed to substantives to determine their application to a particular individual or individuals, but most commonly to express a remarkable distinction between the individual spoken of and all others of the same class.—Thus we read "PE-NEH EN KAM," "the lord of Egypt;" AU-NAK PE-HEKA, "adorations to thee the king." So, too, we find such royal names as TA-USERT, "the director" (L), and P-SA-MUT, "the son of Mut."—Psaumthos.

The article is thus especially used in the names of countries, places, and peoples; as PE-MUE, "the City of the Lion"—Leontopolis. It was also employed as a simple determinative article; thus, PE-TU-N SHETA, PE-TU-N NEHEREN, "the land of Sheta, the land of Neheren" (Aram-Nahrain, Mesopotamia). From the Coptic we might conclude that this use was very common, but we must remember that the Copts mainly supplied the old marks of gender and number by the definite article, as well as by the indefinite. The emphatic use is too frequent in the inscriptions and papyri not to have been universal in the language; but with this simple determinative use the contrary is the case in the written language, and therefore probably was also in the spoken.

3. Pronouns.

The isolated personal pronouns are very rarely employed; so rarely that Chev. Bunsen does not give that of the first person plural in his Egypt's Place, not believing that an instance of its use has been found in the Egyptian records. These pronouns are indeed used very much as were the personal pronouns in the nominative in Latin, for example in the following passage: "TET EN-SEN AN HAN-P ENTUTEN ASH-TATSEN TUEN ER PE-SHIR-EN-SHETA" ("Speech to them of his holiness, 'Who are ye?' They say, 'We are of the hostile Sheta.")

---

1 Select Papyri, pl. lxiii., line 1. 2 Wilkinson's Modern Egypt and Thebes, vol. ii., p. 424. 3 The sound and signification of this word seem to be proved by its use for "ear" (Legatus, Todtenbuch, ch. xix.), line 16, compared with Rit. of Burton, Brit. Mus., Coptic ocp, s.; BOCEP, M.; and in the name of the Obelisk of Manetho, USER-KEF, head of the Fifth Dynasty. 4 Wilkinson's Modern Egypt and Thebes, vol. ii., p. 429. One Psaumthos alone is known from the Egyptian monuments. He has been usually held to have been the third sovereign of the Twenty-ninth Dynasty (Yagmouer), but Chevalier Bunsen makes him the third of the Twenty-third Dynasty (Yagmouer). 5 For the identification of this town with Leontopolis, see Horne, Egypticae, pp. 176, 177. 6 Rosellini, Mon. Stor., No. cii., line 18. 7 This Neheren may be the Nahiri of the Assyrian Inscriptions placed by Sir H. Rawlinson to the west of the Euphrates. It is indeed once written Neheren in a tomb at Thebes (MS. notes of writer). 8 Egypt's Place, vol. i., p. 283. 9 Corrected from Champollion's Dictionnaire Egyptien, s. v. 10 Champollion Grammaire Egyptienne, p. 480. 11 Copie AY, M. quis, &c. ELU, B. quis, unde, &c. 12 This is valuable as an example of the use of the rare substantive verb TU, with marks of inflection, already noticed by Mr Birch. M. de Rougé had also discovered its employment as a prefix to form the future, had conjectured that it might be a substantive verb like AU, and had pointed out its probable relation to the Coptic. 13 Rosellini, Mon. Stor., No. cii., line 14. The affixed personal pronouns are employed for the accusative of the isolated personal pronouns of which they may be regarded as contracted forms; and they are also used as possessive pronouns, and to indicate the persons of verbs. The sense of a sentence in which they occur can alone determine their signification. Thus *anshef* may be rendered "his life," or "he lives." *s-ha-f*, "to set it up," or "he sets up," lit. "to cause to set it up," &c. The affixed personal pronoun when used as a possessive immediately follows the substantive to which it applies, whether or not that substantive be followed by an adjective in concord; as, *neshet-ef ukt*, "his chief throne."

The proper possessive pronouns are always isolated and placed before, and both in their etymology and their signification may be best rendered by the Greek ὁ—αὐτοῦ, &c.

The determinative relative pronoun is properly indefinite, but it becomes definite by the simple relative pronoun being prefixed to it. In both forms it is isolated.

4. Nouns.

The gender of substantives is not to be reduced to any distinct rules; objects in themselves masculine or feminine are assigned to these genders, but the very large class which is not susceptible of this determination is necessarily classed, in the absence of a neuter gender, in an arbitrary manner.

An adjective in concord with a substantive follows it in almost all instances. There are some rare exceptions to this rule, particularly in the case of the words *neter*, "divine," and *suteq*, "royal," which always, as far as we are aware, precede the substantives to which they are applied, doubtless from respect to the signification of these words. These afford the only general exceptions; of particular exceptions we may instance *neter-han*, "the fourth priest." Ordinal numerals, it should be observed, are declined in the same manner as adjectives.

5. Verbs.

It will be necessary to consider in some detail the signification of the different parts of the verb.

The infinitive noun is the root of the verb, and expresses what we should term the abstract notion of its meaning. Although therefore not part of the verb, it must be considered with it. It must be distinguished from the infinitive mood, which both requires a prefixed preposition, and is accompanied in all adjective verbs by the substantive verb either expressed or understood. It may be rendered "the act of doing," or "the condition of being," as in the following instances:—*shef yu-f ha... rutem*, "on his coming from the land of Rutem;" *yea en han-f ha...* "The coming of his holiness from foreign lands."

In many cases, when no preposition is used, it is difficult to say whether the word is an infinitive noun or a simple substantive. It may be doubted whether the Egyptians would have expressed "the condition of living" and "life" by different forms of the same root, and not by the same word, and the same difficulty is experienced as to all roots which are simple substantives as well as verbs. With reference to the infinitive mood there can be no doubt, for it may always be distinguished, as in English, by its prefixed prepositions, thus,—*neshet nef er mash shef manef hanp*, "He did not come forward to fight after that he had seen his holiness." The root is frequently used for all parts of the verb, and this is especially the case with the forms of the substantive verb. In many inscriptions where the root appears without any marks of mood, tense, number, or person, we may conclude that the license of the scribe has omitted them; but the frequency of this use and its consistency with the genius of the language forbid us from applying this explanation in every case.

The indicative having but three tenses in the Egyptian by which to express the various shades of meaning that have caused the formation of so many tenses in the Coptic, it becomes a matter of importance to determine as nearly as may be their use.

That tense which has been formerly termed the present we have ventured to call the aorist, since it is indefinite, having occasionally a past, though not a past definite signification. The following examples will show its use; firstly, as a simple present,—*tatzen en hanp*, "They say to his holiness;" secondly, as an imperfect, *ary-a-beshu (asbesu) en neferu shef unha tu*, "I did perform (or was performing) the ceremonies of the gods while I was on earth;" and as a past, *sha s-mak-tu hesar er sheftu-f*, "as thou hast justified Osiris against his enemies." In some cases the aorist has a kind of future signification when it is used for a continuous action or condition commencing at the present time, thus,—*suten-shef neb-tu tee araf heer-ef-en (tet)*? "The king of Upper and Lower Egypt, the lord of the two regions, performs the panegyric for ever;" *ary-a suten ha ket er (tet)*? "I am king on the throne for ever." In these last instances the use of the future would perhaps be more accurate, although the sense could not be completely expressed without the employment of both future and present. In all the instances which we have given of the use of the aorist, deviating from its primary use as a present, it might perhaps be best rendered in English by the present, for in so doing the idiom of the original would not be lost, nor would any violence be done to our language.

The tense which we have called the past does not deviate widely from a preterite signification. Usually it is a past definite, sometimes it is a pluperfect, and at other times it becomes an emphatic present, though in the last case retaining part of its proper sense. The following examples will explain these uses:—Past definite, *aryef memennu-f en ate amen-ra*? "He has made (these) his buildings to his father Amen-ra?" *katnef han-p anshe-ta-shef-ef reshem*, "His holiness, of a strong life, built a fort," in the latter of which cases the past sense is more remote than in the former: pluperfect, *neshet nef er mash shef ma nef hanp*, "He did not come forward to fight after that he had seen his holiness," where the same tense is employed as a past and as a pluperfect: emphatic present, *yea na shef-ek neb-an*, "I am come unto thee my lord," which compare with *betu a emhenek*, "I am come before thee," where the simple present is employed. This last use is very similar to our indiscriminate use in English of "I am come," and "I have come."

The future is not altogether unlike in signification to the Hebrew aorist, but the future sense is so predominant that its occasional employment as an emphatic present, indicating determination, does not warrant us in calling it an aorist. Of each use a single example will suffice,—*aw-er-an heeb*, "I will celebrate the panegyry."1 AWA-RESH TU-RESH-KU- A-REN-ERK2 "I will invoke, I will invoke, thy name," where it should be noted that both forms of future are used in the same sense. The context in this place seems to show that the meaning is, "I do invoke."

What we term the subjunctive mood is not distinguished in the Egyptian from the indicative, as in the following in- stance.—AW . . . NA HAN EN SUTEN-SHEER STEERAS ANSH (TET?) YEA ER KAM3, "And the holiness of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Darius (Hystaspis) ever-living, commanded me that I should go to Egypt."

The imperative and optative moods have each but a single tense. Of the former, it must be remarked, that it is fre- quently expressed by the root without any mark of time, as,— PESHT (TENHU?)—ET HA-HER-A, "Spread thy wings over me;" and that at other times it has the form of the aorist indicative in consequence of the omission of its distinctive prefix MA; as,—SMENEX . . . HA KA-K,4 "Place thou the royal helmet on thy head." The imperative is sometimes written with its prefix but with no sign of person when it is in the second person singular. Of the optative mood nothing need here be said.

The participles present considerable difficulties both from the various forms they possess and on account of their idio- matic use. As it is probable that some shades of difference were originally indicated by these forms, it will be best to give the examples of their significations under each form separately.

**Participle Present.**—1. Root preceded by ENT, ENTER, ENTEN, unconnected; as,—ENTEE-NEHEM, "[He] who de- livers, the deliverer."5 2. Root with affix TA or T, as,— ENTER RA SHATA SHA,7 "Thou Pharaoh, ruling like —." 3. Root with pronominal affixes EF (m.) ES (f.) sing., and U (com.) plur., as,—42 NENETTU UNNU HNAK EM US-SHAT ENT (OF ENTER) MATU, "Forty-two gods who are (being) with thee in the hall of the two Truths."

**Participle Past.**—This has, as a participial form, the root, with the formative UT or TU indeclinable, either prefixed or affixed, but almost always the latter; as,—NEN-PE-UT-ME- SHATEF,8 "There has not been seen ought like unto it," in which the participle is used for the past passive; and HA EM RA-U EN HER . . . TATU HERU KRAS AK, &c.,9 "The beginning of the chapters of the manifestation . . . said [on] the day of the coffin's going," &c.

The formation of the passive is a remarkable character- istic of the Egyptian, more especially as in the Coptic the passive is always, or almost always, expressed by circumlo- cation. In the hieroglyphic inscriptions we find, however, a regular aorist indicative of the passive voice formed by adding the pronominal affixes of person to the participle past, as in the following passage,—UNU NAU EN REMEN TAT- SEN EM . . . NEB TUTE EM S-NA . . . Y MATU-E- SHA TEKF RA,10 "The great chiefs of the land of Remen say in adoring the lord of the two regions of Egypt, in magni- fying his . . . thou seemest (art seen) like thy father Ra."

Besides the regular adverbs, certain words become ad- verbs by their use in an adverbial sense. These are sub- stantives, adjectives, and prepositions. Thus,—UNNA INA HER HERU AR HEBU EN HESAR UN-NUF,12 "I was with Horus the day of the celebration of the panegyries of Osiris Unufr," where HERE, "day," is used adverbially. The placing of an adverb immediately after a substantive gives the substantive an adverbial sense, as,—AA-U-NEK PE-HEKA NUFR MEN-TIE AMEN-SHA, NEB HEBU ATF-EP PTAH-SHA ATF NETERU, ATEE RA-SHA,13 "Glory to thee! the king good, twice-loved, Amen-like, lord of panegyries, Ptah-like [like] the father of the gods, chief RA-like." In the following sentence an adjective takes an adverbial sense,—SHEFT EEY-F HA . . . RUTEN KER HAK NA-NESHITU,14 "On his coming from the land of Rutenu with captives a great many," where the adjective great is employed as in the English idiom. The use of prepositions for adverbs will be seen by the following passage:—PE-TU ER-HET, ER-(PER'H), EM KADEM,15 "The world before and behind [him is] in [the act of] performing libations."

The use of the prepositions does not present any diffi- culty, and their formation has been already spoken of in the proper place. The same may be said of the conjunc- tions, although it should be noticed that they are so rarely expressed in the inscriptions that we may reasonably con- clude that they were frequently omitted in the language.

The interjections usually immediately precede the word to which they apply, as,—A TET S-MATU HESAR ER SHAY- UP,16 "O Thoth, justify thou Osiris against his adver- saries." It must be remarked that sometimes the article occurs between the interjection and the name of the person addressed.

Of the figures of syntax none are more common in the ancient Egyptian than ellipsis and pleonasm. The former is principally used for brevity of expression, and the latter for greater emphasis.

To this grammatical sketch may be added some obser- vations on the question whether the ancient Egyptians had Egyptian poetry, and in particular as to the evidence on this matter poetry afforded by their records.

What Herodotus relates of the song of Maneros indicates very clearly a sacred chant, and from this we might infer the existence of measured prose or poetry in the Egyptian literature. Clemens Alexandrinus, in his account of the sacred books of Egypt, an account which undoubtedly was taken from good authority, speaks of their containing hymns. In describing the procession, he tells us that "first goes a singer, bearing one of the symbols of music: they say that his duty is to be versed in the two books of Hermes, of which one contains the hymns of the gods, the other, the regulation of the king's life;"17 and later, in speaking of ten others of the Hermetic books, he tells us that they contained hymns.18 Plato also speaks of hymns as well as music, traditionally supposed to have been composed by

---

1 Champ., Gram., p. 413. 2 Lepsius, Todtenbuch, ch. cxxxv., line 1. Without insisting on the meaning here assigned to RESH, we may mention that it seems the most probable that we can obtain from a comparison of the inscriptions. 3 Champ., Gram., pp. 450, 501. 4 Id., p. 466. 5 Id., p. 462. 6 Wilkinson's Mod. Eg., and Thes., vol. ii., p. 436. 7 Rosellini, Mon. Stor., No. cxxxii. 8 Lepsius, Todtenbuch, ch. cxxxv., line 2. 9 Rosellini, Mon. Stor., No. xlvii. 10 Lepsius, Todtenbuch, ch. i., title. 11 Rosellini, Mon. Stor., No. xlvii. 12 Champ., Gram., p. 512. 13 Id., p. 480. 14 Rosellini, Mon. Stor., No. ii. In other cases the adjective used adverbially follows the adjective to which it is applied instead of preceding it; thus,—HEEB AR-F NESHTU-UR, "The first panegyry which he performs [of a great man]" (Ancient Egyptian, pl. 70). 15 Champ., Gram., p. 512. 16 Lepsius, Todtenbuch, ch. xviii., line 1, et passim. 17 Πρῶτος μὲν γὰρ προσελθὼν ὁ τότε, ἐν τῷ τῆς μυστηρίων ἱεραπολεῖῳ, τοῦτον ἔχων ὑπὸ βλέποντος ἀνακηρύξατο διὰ τοῦ Βεροῦ εἰς Ἀγάμεμνον μέλος, ἢ μέλος προσέλθει ἰδίᾳ, ἐκδηλώσας ἢ ἐκδηλώσατο ἢ καταδηλώσατο τὸν ἀνάγκης. (Clem. Strom. vi.) 18 Δίκαιος ἦ ἂν ἂν ἡ τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀκροσύνη τῶν ἄλλων ἀνδρῶν, καὶ τὴν Ἀλυπτίαν πολλοὺς περιέχει ἐν τῇ ἀνακήρυξε, ἀποκρί- θηκεν, ἐποίει πάντα, ἐποίει, καὶ τὰ παρόντα ἐποίει. —Id., loc. cit. Hieroglyphics.

The Egyptian Ritual, which we have so often cited, is supposed by the Chevalier Bunsen, with good reason, to have been a portion of those ten books of which Clemens speaks as containing hymns. Yet nothing has been found in it which we can conclude to be measured prose, much less poetry. A careful examination of such of the hieratic papyri as are not copies of the whole, or portions of the Ritual, has afforded the same result. Primae faciei, indeed, some of these papyri, containing praises of the kings, and some of the late demotic papyri, would seem to be arranged in verses or parallelisms, since we find dots above in the former case, within each line in the latter at equal distances. But a closer examination shows that this must be regarded as merely a method of subdivision, for the convenience of the scribes, perhaps like the English legal reckoning of "folios." In like manner we do not find any indications of poetry in the tablets bearing prayers to the gods, or those which record the exploits of the kings. There is indeed a chant sung while ploughing, inscribed in a tomb at Eileithyas, but this does not seem to be strictly poetry. Although it must be admitted that much of the ancient Egyptian literature has perished, yet enough of it remains for us to form a correct idea of each of its classes, and thus to show that it probably did not contain any poetry, even if we include in that term measured prose. And it is most reasonable to conclude that the Greeks termed those prayers and invocations hymns, which were chanted because they were so recited, and because they corresponded in their subject, though not in their form, to their own hymns.

In order to render this essay complete, some notice is subjoined of the demotic system, expressing the vulgar dialect, in the compilation of which we have received great assistance from Dr Brugsch's Grammaire Démotique, to which the reader is referred for fuller details.

SECTION IV.

THE VULGAR DIALECT.

Although there is reason to believe that the vulgar dialect of the ancient Egyptian was already in existence before the rule of the Eighteenth Dynasty, we cannot prove that it was more ancient than the seventh century B.C., to which period is assigned the earliest known papyrus in the vulgar characters. These characters continued to be employed until the fourth century of the Christian Era. Our knowledge of the vulgar dialect is therefore limited to its condition between these extremes, but its near agreement with the sacred dialect, expressed by the hieroglyphics on the one hand, and with the Coptic on the other, enables us to consider the results of a study of its known records as establishing the main characteristics of this dialect from its first establishment until its abandonment. It does not differ from the sacred dialect in a greater degree than would suffice to constitute a different dialect, and it sufficiently resembles the Coptic to warrant our saying that the latter is but its later form. In comparing the vulgar dialect with the Coptic, we must especially bear in mind that the demotic characters were not adopted to express the more delicate differences of sound expressed by the Greek alphabet, and that on the adoption of the latter by the Copts, the written language became a more accurate representation of the spoken than before. This is most evident in the various forms in which we find one word written in a single dialect of Coptic, some of which, excluding others as the result of carelessness, must have existed in the vulgar dialect, and could only have been represented by a single demotic group.

The alphabet of the vulgar dialect contained at least one sound more distinct sound than did that of the sacred. L and R are distinguished by separate phonetic signs in the demotic writing, although in the hieroglyphics the former sound either did not exist at all, or was represented by the same signs that were used for R. It is commonly held that sh or ch or kh were likewise distinct, but this Dr Brugsch doubts, and it is probable that the corresponding Coptic sounds had common representatives in the demotic characters no less than in the hieroglyphic. We have endeavoured to show, in opposition to the prevalent opinion, that such was the case in the latter system. The demotic alphabet also has a letter which appears, from its correspondence to the Coptic Χ and Θ, to have been a hard s, like the Arabic ص (ssid), or a hard gh, like the غ (ghyn) of the same language. Some believe that this letter, whatever its precise sound or sounds may have been, had its representative in the hieroglyphic alphabet, but this cannot, we think, be satisfactorily proved. The certain difference, therefore, between the alphabets of the sacred and vulgar dialects is the distinction, in the latter, of r from n, the probable difference the separation of a hard s or gh from n, and the possible difference the distinction of sh and ch. We have evidence, here, therefore, even if we reject every one of these differences excepting the first, of the commencement of that separation of sounds in the written character, which, checked by the conservative bias of the Egyptians, did not acquire its full development until the formation of the Coptic alphabet.

It is more important in the present place to indicate the relation of the demotic signs to the hieroglyphic, than to describe them in detail, which indeed would involve a repetition of much that has been said respecting the latter in the earlier part of this treatise.

The demotic character must be considered, if we found our opinion on its records of all periods, to be a debased form of the hieratic, differing from it principally in expressing the vulgar dialect, but also in its signs being ruder in shape, probably fewer, and in a preference being given to phonetic characters over representations and symbols. It is remarkable that the earliest known demotic writing scarcely differs from the hieratic except in expressing a different dialect. Hence we may reasonably suppose that this oldest demotic known to us is not much later than the time of the institution of the character, since it does not seem likely that a character which subsequently underwent considerable and rapid changes should have remained stationary in its primitive form for any long period. The hieroglyphics were unquestionably greatly changed in the course of centuries, but this was chiefly through the increase of their alphabetical

---

1 De Legg., II., p. 657. 2 Brugsch, Gram. Dém., p. 69. 3 Supra, p. 371. 4 Champ., Lettres, p. 196. 5 Select Papyri, passim. 6 Brugsch, Gram. Dém., pl. I. 7 Gram. Dém., p. 17. 8 It is important to recollect that for centuries Arabic has been the language commonly spoken by the Copts, and that their own language has almost ceased to be spoken, although Sir Gardner Wilkinson informs us, it has begun to be again spoken. Even when it was spoken for several hundred years past, it could only have been as a dead language, very much as Latin was employed in the middle ages. Hence the pronunciation of the Copts may be reasonably supposed to have been affected by their use of Arabic, and we cannot in any case accept the pronunciation now taught by them except as hypothetical. 9 It is not meant to be concluded from what is here said that all the Coptic letters properly represented various sounds of one alphabet, since some of them are used exclusively, or nearly so, for Greek words, while others are purely dialectal. class by the admission into it of signs originally syllabic or ideographic, for the changes in form are the result of a decline of art, not of an intentional alteration.

So distinctly is the demotic writing traceable to the hieratic, that Dr Brugsch remarks that each demotic sign should have its hieratic prototype; although he has been unable in some cases to ascertain these prototypes. Being a written character, the demotic was not so variously arranged as the hieroglyphic, but, as is usually the case with the hieratic, written from right to left, in horizontal lines. One sign was very rarely placed above another in these lines, this usage being nearly confined to particular characters, almost all of which were phonetic. Ligatures of two characters were more frequent than in the hieratic, and on this account the separate characters in any particular inscription are usually fewer. It is also observable that some single signs in the demotic represent more than one hieratic sign, and thus more than one sound, whether the signs represented be ideographic or phonetic, two signs altogether distinct being thus expressed by one. This is the result of the similarity of hieratic signs which, through the carelessness of the scribes, became identical in the demotic. The position of these signs made their use intelligible to the Egyptians. In these matters it does not appear that the demotic system was characterized by the exercise of inflexible rules; on the contrary, it displays an irregularity natural in a popular mode of writing.

It will not be necessary to speak in any detail of the demotic signs in their different classes, for they follow the same principles as the hieroglyphic. The distinctive peculiarities of the demotic system have rather to be indicated. It should be remembered that the hieroglyphic and hieratic systems are but two different forms of writing the same characters for the same dialect; and that the only reason why the demotic is more frequently compared to the latter than to the former is because of its being derived from it as to its forms.

In demotic as in hieroglyphic the signs were either phonetic or ideographic, and the phonetic signs were further divided into alphabetic and syllabic, the ideographic into iconographic and symbolic. Signs of the ideographic class were used as determinatives to phonetic groups. Thus the system of the hieroglyphics was retained in a mode of writing to which it was manifestly not fully applicable; since the forms of the ideographs were rude, and often retained scarcely a semblance of their original hieroglyphic shapes; and this circumstance is curiously illustrative of the conservative feeling of the ancient Egyptians, who preferred applying their difficult system to the vulgar dialect than adopting or inventing something more practical. Necessarily, however, ideographs, whether in their primary use or in the secondary place of determinatives, were much less frequent in the demotic writings than in the hieroglyphic, and usually less than in the hieratic. In the demotic alphabet we do not find any evidence of simplification, for had it been a simple alphabetic system, we should perceive either one sign or an equal number of signs for each letter. It is not, therefore, to the characters that we must look for the distinctive features of demotic. They are to be discovered rather in the words which those characters express. It must not be supposed, however, that the peculiarities of which we speak are of that markedness which we are accustomed to regard, often incorrectly, as essential to the ancient and the modern forms of a language. We must not expect the difference that we see between Latin and Italian, or even Greek and Romaic; for the causes that have made Italian a different language from Latin, and Romaic a new phasis of Greek, did not exist in the history of the Egyptian language until after the formation of the demotic system. Even if we compare the sacred dialect of the ancient Egyptian with the Coptic, carefully setting aside those changes which may be pronounced accidental, we find a most remarkable agreement, and trace the rudiments of almost every peculiarity of the Coptic in the parent dialect. In the demotic such an inquiry with reference to both the earlier and the later form of the language—for the vulgar dialect, whether itself changed or not in its oldest known records from a more ancient form, must be regarded as the offspring of the sacred dialect—will lead us to the same result, and will tend to show that the peculiarities of Coptic are of native growth, owing their development rather than their origin to foreign influence, unless, indeed, foreign influence in remote ages originated those distinctions of the vulgar dialect, which it afterwards appears to have promoted.

The roots in demotic are still monosyllabic, but the vocabulary appears to contain a greater number of words of more than one syllable than does that of the sacred dialect. The marks of gender and number are the same as in the hieroglyphics. The inflected parts of speech do not possess a dual; and the sign of duality, which has been erroneously supposed to indicate the dual number, is less frequently used than in the sacred dialect. The definite article and the pronouns generally follow the use of the hieroglyphics, although showing marks of the changes which are more evident in the Coptic.

We have noticed the virtual absence of composition in the sacred dialect. This peculiarity we find to be not so marked in the vulgar dialect as expressed by the demotic characters. The formation and use of compound substantives is, for example, much more frequent, as of those formed with τι-εν, corresponding to the Coptic ξυτ (m.n.), ξητ (s.), forming verbs from nouns expressing the action of the verb; and ιεμ-αν, corresponding to the Coptic πεξ (m.), &c., and forming nouns denoting the agent. Except in these particulars, the nouns in demotic do not present any remarkable differences from those of the sacred dialect. The modes of expressing the plural, and the uses of prepositions in relation to substantives, are the same as in that dialect.

Of the adjectives in particular it need only be remarked that they are susceptible of composition, a class being formed by prefixing to the verbs the enclitic pronouns of the third person singular, αρ for the masculine, and ασ for the feminine; thus from ανσι, to live, we have αρ-ανσι, living; the Coptic εκωνδό; and from αεβ, to be pure, ασ-αεβ, purified, pure (f), Coptic εκοναβ.

The verbs very clearly indicate the transition from the sacred dialect to Coptic, for we find the tenses more numerous than in the former, and observe a deviation from its principles. The substantive verb in at least four forms is employed without marks of person, and one of these forms, if not more, is also susceptible of conjugation in the aorist. With respect to the adjective verbs, their derivative and compound forms are especially characteristic. Among the former we must notice the reduplicate form, which is rarer than in the sacred dialect, and the causative, with the prefix σα, corresponding to the σ of the hieroglyphics, which is still more rarely employed than the former. The forms which are composed of two verbs, the first of which has almost become a formative particle, are classed by Dr Brugsch among the derivatives, though they are properly chiefly compounds. Those verbs which this learned writer admits to be compound are formed by a verb prefixed to a substantive, adjective, or preposition. The aorist of the indicative is the same as in hieroglyphics; but it possesses an emphatic

---

1 "Chaque signe démotique doit avoir son prototype hiératique quoique quelques-uns ne soient restés inconnus jusqu'à présent." (Grammaire Démotique, p. 15.) Hieroglyphics.

form with the substantive verb and enclitic pronoun prefixed to the root—thus A-ti, perhaps pronounced Aw-ti. The past tense is formed by prefixing NE and affixing the pronominal terminations, thus showing a change from the hieroglyphics. There are two (if not three) forms of future—that with TA-i prefixed, corresponding to the hieroglyphic TU; and AL-en, corresponding to AU-er. The two forms, it will be noticed, present differences of which the most striking is the change of the preposition. The subjunctive mood is distinguished by the prefix EXTA, immediately followed by the pronominal marks of person. The optative and infinitive follow the uses of the sacred dialect, and there are similar negative conjugations, although the particle indicating negation in some forms stands between the marks of tense and the root, in others at the head of the whole form. The non-inflected parts of speech present little comparative variation from their hieroglyphic originals, and need not receive any especial notice in the present place.

From this short view of the peculiarities of the vulgar dialect we may learn somewhat of its relation to the sacred dialect and to the Coptic, and see that in this branch of the inquiry the discoveries of the Egyptologists have led to as satisfactory and consistent results as in the rest. Had the interpretation of the Egyptian characters been of that vague and unsatisfactory nature that some would have us to believe, is it credible that it should have led after a length of time to the tracing of the differences of the two dialects? Those who have accompanied us thus far in our inquiry will not, however, we trust, be troubled by any doubts as to the truth of that great and memorable discovery which we shall ever gratefully attribute to our countryman Dr Young.

Before concluding this article, we may enumerate the works most useful to any one commencing the study of ancient Egyptian. The student should first gain some knowledge of Coptic, particularly of words; its grammar he will find useful, but the vocabulary will be of greater service. He will do well to read carefully Peyron's Grammar, and he will find Parthey's Vocabulary more convenient than the Lexicons for constant reference. He must take care not to be too much biased by what he learns of Coptic in his next step, the study of ancient Egyptian. He must reverse the order in which Clemens Alexandrinus tells us the Egyptian modes of writing were in his time learnt, for he must take the hieroglyphic mode first, then the hieratic, and last of all the demotic. For the hieroglyphics he will still have to begin with Champollion's Grammar and Dictionary. Hieroglyphics.

The diffuseness of these works is, however, so great that he will do well to follow the example of the writer and abridge both, copying all the words and significations from the latter work, and taking the chief characteristics of the language from the former without attempting at this stage to improve Champollion's arrangement. This method will fix a great number of words in the student's memory, and give him a good idea of the system of writing. He can next acquire some knowledge of the hieratic characters, which may be easily done by transcribing hieratic texts into hieroglyphics, with the aid of the table at the close of Champollion's Grammar. Having thus gained an elementary acquaintance with the sacred dialect, he can attempt to read some inscriptions. The easiest of these, and the most interesting, are the historical ones of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, which he will find in Rosellini's great work, which is better arranged than the similar one of Champollion, and more portable than that of Lepsius, which, however, contains many more records, particularly of other periods of Egyptian history. And here we may express a regret that no one has thought it worth while to publish a collection of the most important Egyptian inscriptions in a portable form, and at a moderate price. Having thus become somewhat familiar with the language, the student may read the Chevalier Bunsen's account of it in his Égypte's Place, and that contained in the present article, and he will thus gain more distinct general views than he had previously possessed, and be able to examine the Ritual, the historical hieratic papyri, and the various published inscriptions. He will do well to collect Dr Hincks', Mr Birch's, and M. de Rougé's papers, as far as he can, and to compare the various views of the different scholars who have followed Young's and Champollion's method. At the same time he should endeavour to make himself acquainted with the people whose language he is studying, in doing which he will receive the greatest aid from Sir Gardner Wilkinson's Ancient Egyptians. If he can visit Egypt and Nubia he will find his studies greatly assisted by the local knowledge he will thus acquire. The reason of much that before appeared obscure will then be seen by him, and his pursuit will acquire a stronger interest. The demotic forms a separate study, more difficult and less interesting than that of the sacred characters. It is, however, not without a high value as supplying a link between the sacred dialect and the Coptic, and therefore it should not be overlooked. Brugsch's Grammar will be found an excellent guide to a knowledge of the demotic.

1 This form corresponds in appearance to the future in the sacred dialect when the preposition is omitted, but we have shown that this omission is one of writing, and that the preposition was really pronounced. The fact that the demotic tense is not the same as the hieroglyphic thus corroborates our opinion founded on other evidence.

2 To the works mentioned above, and many others, we have, as the foot-notes sufficiently tell, been much indebted. We have also to express our personal obligations to Mr Lane, Sir Gardner Wilkinson, the Rev. Dunbar Heath, and others, for the assistance they have rendered us. (H. S. P.)