LECTURE VII.

History of figurative hieroglyphics—Their general use amongst mankind-Explanation of the Mexican mode of writing by representation of the object-Alterations introduced by the Egyptians-Causes which must have produced them—Attempt at explaining some of the characters.

I HAVE now explained, in as comprehensive a way as I could, the whole of the discoveries which have been made hitherto in the decyphering of hieroglyphics. Our scholars may now, by the assistance of the Coptic language, and with comparatively little trouble, read almost any and every inscription which can be found amongst the Egyptian monuments. But although this may be a great satisfaction, yet there are other topics connected with this celebrated country of Egypt, which now command our attention. Who, for instance, were these dreaded Hyk-shos, or shepherd kings? Who was the Pharaoh that protected Joseph, and admitted the Israelites into Egypt? Who was the other Pharaoh who opposed Moses? What were the celebrated mysteries of Isis? What was their nature and their import? Have they been the cause, or have they been the consequence, of ido

latry? In either case, were they connected with the theology of the people? Can any thing respecting them be collected from their literature? and if so, of what character was the Egyptian literature? How was it made public, how preserved? Are there any records from which we can collect some information concerning this important question? And, above all, how were these books written? Did the Egyptians always make use of the alphabet? and if so, what is the origin of hieroglyphics? and, on the other hand, if these latter were the first invented and employed, by what step did the Egyptians come to the discovery of the alphabet?

These are all important, curious, and highly interesting questions, which command the attention of the scholar, as well as the general reader, and they will furnish us with the subject for the remaining part of these Lectures. Amongst these, the invention of the alphabet seems the first to claim our attention; and, therefore, in this Lecture we shall confine our research to the origin and manner of writing adopted by the Egyptians, which, from time immemorial, has attracted the attention of the learned, but which, till the present moment, seemed to have been enveloped in fables and obscurity. Indeed, the variety of opinions held on this subject, even now, is appalling. Many, in fact, pretend that the Egyptians had three different manners of writing; others, that they had only two. The acute Warburton asserted that they

had four; and not a few have strenuously supported, that hieroglyphical writing was the only mode in use amongst them, because, according to the hypothesis adopted by these writers, to other nations was due the credit of having invented the alphabet.

To clear up so much uncertainty will be the object of this and the next Lecture. To do so, it will be necessary to inquire what were the precise notions of the ancients in regard to hieroglyphics, and what information can we derive from the writings of the moderns? We must then proceed to trace, if possible, the origin of the hieroglyphics.

Clement, a priest of Alexandria, who lived about the end of the second century of our æra, a man of great learning, and who had paid a great deal of attention to the study of antiquity, asserted that the Egyptians had three different modes of writing, or, in other words, three different sorts of characters. These were, the epistolographic, or common characters, used in all the common transactions of life; the hieratic, or sacerdotal, employed merely in the writing of books by the priesthood; and the hieroglyphics, destined to religious uses, and generally on public monuments. Of the former sets of characters, Clement does no more than mention the names, because, being alphabetical, and consequently not very different from the letters employed by other nations, there was no more to be said on the subject. He is more minute in

regard to hieroglyphics, because, as they were peculiar to the Egyptians, he thought it necessary to state all he knew about them; and he does it accurately enough, though not with sufficient clearness to enable those who knew nothing of hieroglyphics to find out the mode of decyphering them, of which, probably, he himself was ignorant. He only speaks of their nature and quality, but not of their import. He correctly divides all hieroglyphics into curiologic, which employ the first elements of letters; and symbolical, which he subdivides into imitative, tropical, and enigmatical. The imitative represent the plain figure of the object; for instance, a circle to express the sun, half a circle the moon. The tropical figurative hieroglyphics have recourse to analogy for the representation of the object, and alter its appearance by way of anaglyphs; that is, by adding something to, or deducting something from, the true figure of the thing. "By these anaglyphs," he says, "the Egyptians celebrated the praises of their kings on their religious inscriptions." This, I own, is not very clear; but, according to the opinion of M. de Sacy, who has written a long dissertation on this passage of Clement, it seems that by anaglyphs, he meant a particular species of abstract and fanciful figures, which were destined to some particular purposes, of which more hereafter.

Of the symbolical enigmatical hieroglyphics, Clement gives no definition, but exhibits examples.

"The Egyptians," says he, " draw the figure of a serpent to signify the oblique course of the stars, and the figure of a beetle to express the sun."

Such is the account which, more than sixteen centuries ago, Clement of Alexandria gave of the nature of hieroglyphics. Something, indeed, of the same sort, but not quite so clear, has also been recorded by Porphyry in the "Life of Pythagoras;" in which he says, that the Egyptians had three different kinds of letters, epistolographical, hieroglyphical, and symbolical; and as he makes no mention of the hieratic letters recorded by Clement, the acute Warburton thought that the Egyptians had, in fact, four different sorts of characters; but this is evidently a mistake; because, in his epistolographic, Porphyry comprehends both the hieratic and the demotic characters, and mentions the symbolical as a mere division, or species, of hieroglyphics.

However, long before all these writers, Manetho had stated, that the first Hermes had engraved on pillars in the sacred or poetical language, and in hieroglyphical letters, the predictions he had made from the inspection of the heavens. These were afterwards, by the second Hermes, translated into the common dialect, and written in books in hieratic letters. According to Plato, these letters had been invented by Thot, or Thoth, during the reign of the Pharaoh Thamus; from which testimony it is evident, that, at the time of Plato, the Egyptians not only had the use of the alphabet,