« PreviousContinue »
still remain undeciphered, and these M. C. leaves in the present instance unnoticed. They occur again in cartouche No. }11, and tlien, although the learned Author has not assigned, and, as far as we are aware, cannot assign, any reason why these two characters are not to be regarded as part of the proper name, he reads the four letters Ă. M. N. F., and calls the remaining two' un titre honorifique ;? which is not less absurd than it would be to read his name Cham, and call pollion a title of honour. Thus, out of thirty-one characters of which these two cartouches consist, M. C. has read only ten, and yet, he pretends to have expounded the whole. Of the groupe No. 110, he knows only two letters in the second cartouche, which he reads Mes, and translates son ; yet, connecting it with the * symbol' by which it is surmounted, and which is affirmed to be the symbolic proper name of the god Thoth or Thộout, he explains the whole to be. Touthmosis, seventh king of the -eighteenth dynasty.' But what is this achievement, in which he had two letters to work with, compared to the ingenuity exercised upon cartouche No. 120, in which M. C. knows not one letter of the name, and yet reads • Psammus, third king
of the twenty-third dynasty ? Quid subtilius aut magis tenue quam quod nihil est? We must give his own explanation.
« This proper name, as it can be expressed by a single sign, is certainly not phonetic; it must therefore be symbolic, and we have only to ascertain the symbolic value of this same sign,--the anterior parts of a lion. The inestimable work of Horapollo fully satisfies us on this point. He states, that the Egyptians, wishing to express strength (A2xmy ds yes ortes), represented the anterior parts of a lion. And the word in the language spoken by the Egyptians, which specitically expresses this idea, aann, robur, is djom, sjom, or sjam, accordan ing
to the dialects,mathe word which is also the true Egyptian orthography of the name of the Egyptian Hercules, which the Greeks wrote Eti, Equos, and Copos. Now, the king whom Manetho makes the ima mediate successor of the king Osorthos (Osortasen), is YAMMOTE : a proper name in which we cannot mistake the same root, formed into a noun by the addition of the determinate masculine article 7, which has produced Psjom, Pdjom, Psjam, The MIGHTY ONE, or more simply, (the Egyptian) HercULES. Pp. 200, 1.
But M. Champollion is so carried away by his lion, that he leaves two letters in this cartouche unexplained. These, if read by his alphabet, are Tand A, or R ; so that, if the lion's head and shoulders be djom, the name must be Djomta or Djomter! Give an antiquary an inch, and he will take a yard. We thought we had conceded enough, when we allowed ourselves to be persuaded that Tomtens meant Domitian, and Krmnks Ger
manicus*. We were next required to allow Ptahf to be Ptahaftep and Petoubastes, and Sam Tig to be Psammiticus. But to admit Djomter to be first of all cut down to Pidjom, and then transformed into Psammus, is really more than we can conscientiously grant even to M. Champollion. From women to King Pepin were, after this, but an easy leap. And why are we called upon to do this? Merely because M. Champollion does not know the alphabetic value of a lion's head and shoulders, and will not confess his ignorance !
The fact seems to be, that the view which he had taken of Hieroglyphics, is too simple, not only for general satisfaction, but for his own. The public seem to expect something occult in hieroglyphics, --something great, that shall compensate for the gaping amazement with which, for three thousand years, they have been ignorantly stared at. They will not be brought to believe, that a lion is but an L., a sibilant goose but an S.; that Dr. Young's favourite semi-circle is but a T, Jupiter Ammon but a B, and the great Apis himself, θεος εν Αιγυπτους ένεργειαλος, a mere round 0 helping to spell the name of his greatest enemy; M. Champollion, alarmed for his symbols, recoiling at the havoc which himself hath made, looks round in his exigency for the aid of Horapollo; and no sooner, in the present instance, does he gain sight of the symbolic lion's fue poster, than
he springs,-adieu, frére Jean, le texte est formel,'and off be gallops, like Munchausen on the forepart of his charger, reckless of all behind. He beats a similar retreat, in another instance, (No. 105,) on the lion's other half— les para ties postérieures d'un lion.'
In cartouche No. 113, the Author shews us the name of Ramses Meiamoun, but he leaves three characters unexplained, which might make it any thing else. He deserves our best thanks, however, for shewing us, in the next cartouche, the name of Ramses the Great, first king of the nineteenth dy• nasty,' better known under the name of Sesostris ; the lid of whose sarcophagus, adorned with his effigy and that of two of his wives, was brought from the Harp tomb in Thebes, and is now at Cambridge. The name of Ramses is much better made out in this cartouche, than any of the others in the whole list of the Pharaobs. The letters are RAMss. M. C. shews us the same name on the columns at Karnac, and that of Ramses Meiamoun is seen where the monarch is reposing on his chariot to witness the spectacle of the mutilation of the captives, on the walls of Medinat Abou.
* Eclectic Review. Dec, 1823. (Vol. XX.) p. 492.
In the remaining cartouches of the Pharoahs, fifteen in all, we find something defective or redundant, which, as we have shewn in the above instances, requires an unwarrantable license to be exercised in supplying or omitting, in order that the name guessed out may seem to tally with the characters. An honest critic must read as it is written: he has no right to make additions or retrenchments. We think that M. Champollion has decidedly failed in his interpretation of the • prenoms, not one of which is satisfactory.
We are far from thinking that this failure is attributable to any thing erroneous in the Author's system of phonetic hieroglyphics. The opinion that hieroglyphics were but letters, had been maintained by many writers before M. Champollion. His own countryman Loys le Roy says: “The Egyptians in
holy things did use the figures of beasts for letters, which
they called hieroglyphics ;' and Pliny, speaking of an inscription on an obelisk, uses the following expressions : Etenim sculptura illa effigiesque quas videmus Ægyptia sunt litera.* His system is undoubtedly the true one ; and his failures arise from his attempting to explain more than the state of his knowledge warrants him to do,-his culpably blinking difficulties, and passing over characters which he does not know, as if they were known. He that smothers up à difficulty, is not less an enemy of science than he that ridicules a truth; for difficulties ought, like the sick of old, to be exhibited in the market-place, that every head might contribute its aid towards their solution-το τεχνιον πασα γαία τρεφει. Difficulties are the raw material out of which the new truths of science are to be manufactured, the ore that must be assayed before it will yield its grains of precious metal. .
From the Egyptian, M. Champollion proceeds to the Persian epoch, of which the only name that he has hitherto discovered, is Xerxes, which he reads KHSCHEARSCHA. It is accompanied with a groupe which he reads Irina,' that is, • Iranian, or Persian.' The inscription occurs on an alabaster vase belonging to the King of France, on which the same name is also inscribed in Persepolitan or cuneiform characters. To these succeed the hieroglyphic names of the Greek and Roman sovereigns of Egypt, the greater part of which were previously noticed in the Author's “ Letter to M. Dacier.” Zoego, in his learned and excellent work “ De Origine et
Usu Obeliscorum,” calculated 950 distinct hieroglyphic signs. M. Champollion has counted 864. Of these, 100 consist of furniture and works of art; 120 of the human form in different positions ; 150 of utensils and instruments of different kinds; 20 figures and geometric forms; and 50 fantastic forms. His alphabet is composed of 134 pure hieroglyphics answering to twenty-five articulate sounds, which, according to Plutarch, were the number of letters in the ancient Egyptian alphabet-we presume he means after the adoption of the Greek alphabet. We have 118 linear or outlined hieroglyphics, 88 hieratic, and 76 demotic characters ; besides which M. C. presents the reader à general table of hieroglyphic signs and groupes, thirty-eight of which are alphabetic forms, such as affixes, prefixes, prepositions, articles, pronouns, verbs, (which, he says, have only three tenses, the present, the past, and the future,) &c. Twenty-eight are phonetic names of the deities. Seventeen are figurative names, that is, actual figures or representations of seventeeü deities ; among whom we are rather surprised not to find Mendes or Pan, summum et antiquissimum Ægyptiorum nou • men.' Twenty-four are symbolic names of deities, several of which are so complicated, that we are disposed to regard them as phonetic, and as thrown into this class merely from ignorance of their alphabetic value. M. Champollion seems grievously alarmed lest all mysticism should be excluded from the subject, and he still clings to the symbolic interpretation, in spite of his own system. The work of Horapollo Niliaeus is as much a book of emblems as that of Heinsius Alciatus, Junius, Lombucus, Schoonhovius, or any other such author, and can avail him no more in expounding phonetic hierogly. phics, than they would assist in explaining the alphabets of their own language. It is, moreover, unfortunate, that not one of his symbolic names corresponds to those mentioned by Horapollo. "M. Champollion has given altogether a list of 450 hieroglyphics which he has explained. We would earnestly recommend him to separate such as are doubtful from such as are fully ascertained, and to print them in distinct lists, together with a list of those the meaning of which he has not ascertained.
* Book xxxvi, c. 8.
In taking leave, for the present, of this most -indefatigable and intelligent Author, we thank him very sincerely for the entertainment and instruction which his work has afforded us. We have spoken freely, as became us, of what we consider as the error into which he has been betrayed by losing sight of his own principles, and by a nervous impatience of difficulties: But, in hieroglyphic learning, M. Champollion has no competitor. He is the Mahommed Ali of Egyptian literature. He promises a work on the chronology of Egyptian monuments, which we shall look for with impatience. In the mean time, we beg leave, in conclusion, to present to our readers an extraet on that subject from the work before us.
• The monuments raised by the piety and power of the Pharaohs, or the kings of the Egyptian race, are the following, known for the most part under the modern wames of the towns or villages near which they are situated : The ruins of San (the ancient Tanis), the obelisk of Heliopolis, the palace of Abydos or El Arabah, a small temple at Dendera, Karnac, Looksor, Medamoud, Kourna, the Meninonium, the palace called the Tomb of Osymandias, the superb excavations of Beban el Melouk, the greater part of the hypogea which pierce in every direction the Lybian mountain in the latitude of Thebes, the temples of Elephantina, and a very small portion of the edifices of Philoe in Egypt. In Nubia, the monuments of the earliest style and of the same date as those just mentioned, are the temples of Ghirshé, Wady Esseboualı, one of the edifices of Kalabshe, the two magnificent excavations and the colossi of Ibsamboul, the temples of Amada, of Derry, of Moharraka; lastly, that of Soleb, towards the frontiers of Ethiopia.
• The only well-known monuments of the Greek and Roman epoch, are, in Egypt, the temple of Bahbeit, the Kasr-Keroun, the portico of Kau-el-Keber, the great temple and typhonium of Dendera, the portico of Esneh, the temple to the north of Esneh, the temple and typhonium of Edfou, the temples of Ombos, as well as the larger edifices of Philoe ; lastly, in Nubia, the temples of Kalabshe, Dendour, and Dakke.
I am unable to fix the eras of some other known edifices of Egypt and Nubia, not having yet obtained drawings of the royal legends which those buildings bear; such as the temples of Hermontis, El Kab, Taoud, Syene, Aschmounain, Fazoun, and the Oases.'
pp. 387, 8. The classification of these monuments is an important step towards the elucidation of Egyptian history, and will assist more particularly in determining the much controverted question, whether Egypt derived its worship and literature from the African Ethiopia, or whether they were of Asiatic origin, and, ascending the Nile, extended into Nubia. M. Champollion is decidedly in favour of their African origin.
• The monuments of Nubia are,” he says, ' in fact, covered with hieroglyphics perfectly similar, both in their form and arrangement, to those inscribed on the edifices of Thebes. We find there, the same elements, the same formulæ, the same words, the same language ; and the names of the kings by whom the most ancient were erected, are those of the princes who constructed the most ancient parts of the palace of Karnac at Thebes. The ruins of the beautiful edifice of Soleb, situated on the Nile, nearly two hundred leagues further south than Philoe, the extreme frontier of Egypt, are the most remote known to exist, which bear the royal legend of an Egyp. Vol. XXII. N.S.