LECTURE II.

Opinions of the ancients concerning the nature and use of hieroglyphics-Erroneous judgment of the moderns-Scarcity of monuments - The Isiacal table-Horapollo-HermapionThe Rosetta stone-Discoveries made by M. de Sacy, by Mr. Ackerblad, and Dr. Young-Enchorial or Demotic alphabet -Attempt at decyphering hieroglyphics-Manner of counting numbers-Interpretation of names-Reflections.

IN In my last Lecture I endeavoured to give some preliminary notions of the history and topography of Egypt, and we dwelt at some length on the number and nature of monuments which are still to be found, either in their original situation, or in the various public and private museums of this country as well as of others; but, above all, it was our business to ascertain what were the notions which both the ancients and the moderns entertained of the nature and import of hieroglyphics. The Greeks were fully persuaded that hieroglyphics were a sort of mystic characters, intended to preserve the most important mysteries of nature, and the most sublime inventions of man; they, therefore, considered the interpretation of these characters as exclusively confined to the priesthood, and

even by them very little understood, as their real and primitive knowledge had been lost and passed away, in the annihilation of the power of the Pharaohs, first by the usurpation of the Shepherd kings of the seventeenth dynasty, and afterwards by the irruption of the Persians, under Cambyses. This persuasion of the Greeks arose from their believing, what in point of fact seems to be the case, that Egypt was the parent of all arts and sciences, the storehouse of the most ancient records, and the repository of all the mighty events which had often changed the face of the world. This persuasion, joined to the profound secrecy under which the hierophant, or high-priest, imparted to the initiated in the mysteries of Isis the sublime truths, to which the veneration and credulity of mankind had attached so much importance, made the Greeks to look upon hieroglyphics as the mystic expression of these secrets, so carefully preserved from the people at large, the explanation of which it was impossible to obtain.

What has been said of the Greeks might be applied to the Romans also. They seem to have known nothing about the nature of hieroglyphics. The story itself of a reward being offered by one of the first Cæsars to him who should give a proper interpretation of the inscription on the obelisk which had been carried to Rome, seems very doubtful; but even if we wish to admit the reality of this story, as this reward was never claimed,and we know of no work, or even attempt made to

decypher this inscription,-we must conclude that the knowledge of the Romans about the nature and import of hieroglyphics was small indeed.

This ignorance and misconception of the ancients must be considered as one of the causes which have tended to mislead the moderns. Finding that all the classical authors of antiquity only spoke of two sorts of hieroglyphics, the one representing the figure or picture of the thing, the other exhibiting the same thing by symbols, they, like the ancients, concluded that each hieroglyphic had a fixed and determinate idea. Misled by this reasoning, they collected from the Greek and Latin authors all the explanations of the signs which had been recorded; and in this way they adopted all the dreams of the ancients; and as these signs, explained by Diodorus, Horapollo, Clement of Alexandria, Plutarch, Eusebius, and the like, were very few, the moderns had recourse to analogy, or rather to imagination, whenever they found any new sign not recorded by these writers; and in this way they added their own dreams to the dreams of the ancients. From this moment fancy was substituted for fact, and the impossibility of our knowing any thing about the nature of hieroglyphics, became every day more apparent, from the perusal of the works of the Jesuit Kircher, the Abbé Pluche, the Chevalier Palin, Count Caylus, and, in short, of all those who had written on the antiquities of Egypt.

It is true, that the acute Warburton, in his Di

E

vine Legation, from an attentive perusal of what Porphyry and Clement of Alexandria had said, concluded that "hieroglyphics were a real written language, applicable to the purposes of history and common life, as well as those of religion and mythology;" and that amongst the different sorts of hieroglyphics, the Egyptians possessed those which were used phonetically, that is, alphabetically, as letters. The learned still remained incredulous, and no one ever thought of endeavouring to ascertain what this alphabet might be, or even to apply this conjecture of the learned bishop to the monuments then existing in Europe.

To do so, three things would have been necessary: first, to ascertain what was the ancient language of Egypt, and whether any remains were still to be found:

Secondly, to possess a certain number of monuments, or faithful fac-similies of them:

Thirdly, to have an authentic translation of an original Egyptian inscription, in a language known to our scholars.

But of these three requisites none, unfortunately, existed at the time. Until Quattremere published his work, "Sur la Langue et Littérature de l'Egypte," no one ever dreamt that the Coptic language was the language of the old Egyptians. The Copts, or Coptes, are, in fact, the natural inhabitants of Egypt, the only direct de scendants of the primitive race. They still speak the Coptic language, though imperfectly; but this

language has been orally preserved among the people, and transmitted in writing, in Greek and Coptic characters, from the first establishment of Christianity to the present day. They have, in fact, their missals, the Pentateuch, and some other works, translated into Greek and into Arabic, and from comparing these translations with their originals, it was evident that the ancient common language of Egypt is not entirely lost.

With respect to the second requisite, the number of monuments then existing in Europe were very few, and mostly collected in particular spots, so as to prevent their being consulted by the generality of scholars; and the impressions and fac-similies of them were much too incorrect to be of any use; nor were even these monuments themselves all genuine. Among those belonging to Egyptian antiquity then known, many were imitations, and many spurious. Such, for instance, are some of the obelisks in Rome, and the celebrated Isiac table so called on account of its being supposed to contain the description of the festivals which were celebrated in honour of Isis and other Egyptian deities. This table, which is of bronze, five feet long, and three feet wide, is divided into several partitions, filled with all sorts of hieroglyphics; and this strange mixture alone, independent of other reasons equally strong, seems to establish the fact, that it is a monument of a modern date, fabricated at Rome towards the latter end of hieroglyphical writing, by some person who knew but little about the science,