صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

ancient times called Anaglyphs. It is probable that these Anaglyphs are pages of that secret writing which the Greek and Roman writers declare was known only to the Priests and the initiated; for the strictly Hieroglyphic writing, on the other hand, does not appear ever to have been a secret character, but to have been known to, or at least capable of interpretation by, all educated persons in ancient Egypt.

It is worthy of remark that S. Clement of Alexandria (to whom alone of the ancients we owe any satisfactory account of the Egyptian system of writing), after noticing the two other forms, viz. the Epistolographic (or Demotic), and the Hieratic (that used by the sacred scribes), divides the third or Hieroglyphic into two kinds, one of which he calls Kyriologic (διὰ τῶν πρώτων στοιχείων, by the first elements), the other Tropical. It is clear that by the first he means the system of Phonetic Symbols (that is, the use of the initial letters of common words as explained above), and by the second, that of Typical representation of Ideas, which has been called the Ideagraphical. If this interpretation of S. Clement's meaning be just, it follows that the system proposed by Dr. Young and adopted by Champollion has the confirmation of the only writer who himself, by his residence in Egypt, well acquainted with the system adopted there, has spoken accurately and truly of what he understood. Add to this, that Plutarch in his Symposion makes Hermias say, that "Hermes is said in Egypt to have first invented letters: the Egyptians, therefore, represent the first letter of the alphabet by a picture of the Ibis (τῶν γραμμάτων Αἰγύπτιοι πρῶτον Ιβιν γράφουσιν) as belonging to Hermes." The context shows that alphabetic symbols are here spoken of, as it speaks expressly of the arrangement and order of letters in the alphabet. Champollion had independently, by his own method, arrived at the same result, for he says, "L'épervier, l'ibis, et trois autres espèces d'oiseau s'emploient constamment pour A." The existence of one Phonetic Hieroglyphic may therefore be proved by the testimony of Plutarch.

The next and most important matter to ascertain is what has been really done in the way of decypherment, and whether what has been done agrees with history? Now it is quite possible that when the signs representing sounds have been once made out, a writing may be read by the rules of artificial decyphering without even a knowledge of the language; but it could not be understood, if the ma

1 Champ., Lettre à M. Dacier, p. 38, pl. iv.

jority of symbols so determined, after all merely represent letters of an alphabet. It is therefore necessary to determine the language in which the inscriptions were written; and this, in the case of the Hieroglyphics, it is generally agreed, must have been the Coptic. Now, the Coptic itself has ceased to be a living tongue, and exists only in writings (the present Copts for the most part speaking Arabic). We know of three principal dialects of it-the Saidic or Thebaic, which prevailed in Upper Egypt; the Bahiric or Memphitic, in Middle Egypt; and the Bashmuric, in Lower Egypt, in the Oases, or in both. Its whole literature is Theological; and the alphabet in which the language is at present written has been borrowed from the Greek, with the addition of eight signs to express sounds for which the Greek alphabet was not adequate. From the peculiar position of Egypt, and the long time that it was under the dominion of the Greeks and Romans, we should expect to find that a large number of foreign words had crept into the Coptic.' Yet, after all, the proportion of Greek words appears to be very small, and of Latin hardly one has been recognised. The presumption is, that with all allowances for modifications and changes during the lapse of eighteen or twenty centuries, the Coptic is at least as near to the language of the Pharaohs, as modern Greek to the language of Demosthenes; and no one will deny that we might easily understand ancient Greek, even if we had no better clue than through the modern.

What has been as yet decyphered, consists almost entirely of inscriptions on public monuments, temples, palaces, obelisks, and mummies. Now since we know that the principal monuments were built by Kings, we should expect to find their names and usual titles. In a Theocracy such as the Egyptian government, the style of these would naturally have reference to the Divinities with whom these kings had associated themselves. There would also be a recital of names of ancestors and of similar titles borne by them.

We find, accordingly, that we hence meet with such titles as "Well beloved of Amun," "The approved of Amun," "The Ammon loving," &c., which evidently refer to the worship of and relation with local deities.

Again, the translation of the inscription on the obelisk of Hermapion, preserved by Ammianus Marcellinus (xvii. 4), is a direct proof that the true interpretation of the Hieroglyphics was known

1 Coptic has been deemed by some a corruption of Egyptic ('AyúπTios).

as late as the Fourth Century; for he gives the title of the King by whom it was erected, partly in the same words, and even where his rendering differs from the original, in a style manifestly Egyptian. Lastly, of the names of the Pharaohs, the majority of which have been preserved to us in the fragments of Manethon; and what has been as yet decyphered agrees as well with these as can be expected, allowing for the omission of vowels in the Egyptian orthography, and for the alteration caused by the Hellenizing of the terminations of the Egyptian names. We have also, by the late discoveries of Colonel Rawlinson, the additional curious evidence afforded by the inscriptions on the Vase, preserved in the Treasury of S. Mark's at Venice, on which there are two legends, one in Hieroglyphics, and the other in the three forms of the Cuneiform writing. Some years ago Sir Gardner Wilkinson decyphered in the former the name Artasharssha (Artaxerxes), and we now know that this interpretation is correct by the discovery of the means of reading the Persian Cuneiform, in which the same name is expressed.

On these grounds, in our opinion, we are fairly warranted in believing the method discovered by Young and adopted by Champollion to be the right one, and that it does not rest, as some have supposed, on merely fanciful and arbitrary data. It must be remembered that we are still only on the threshold; and that though many of the most powerful intellects in Europe have for many years been engaged upon the study of these recondite records, we are not yet in a position to determine how much may be done by the correct application of this method, as the Ancient Coptic continues to unfold its treasures, and as the Hieroglyphic texts themselves are more carefully collected and more completely collated.

Such may, perhaps, suffice for a notice of the Rosetta Stone. We proceed to describe the "Tablet of Abydos," a monument which is thought by Egyptian scholars scarcely less interesting than the Rosetta Stone.

The name "Tablet of Abydos" has been applied to an inscription discovered by W. J. Bankes, Esq., in the year 1818, on the wall of a small building, partly executed in the rock, at some distance from the principal pile of Abydos. It was observed on clearing away the sand which covers the ground-plan of those extensive ruins. M. Caillaud subsequently examined it in 1822, and sent a drawing of it to M. Champollion, who published an engraving of it in his second 'Letter to the Duc de Blacas relative to Egyptian History.' The tablet itself is incomplete, both in the upper part and in one of its extremities. It was eventually removed by

M. J. F. Meinaut, the French Consul in Egypt, and purchased for the Museum, at his sale in 1837, for 5007. It was first made known in Europe by Mr. Bankes, who circulated privately lithographs taken from it; then by Caillaud, Champollion, Mr. Salt, Dr. Young, Mr. Burton, and Sir Gardner Wilkinson. Of these copies M. Caillaud's is the most complete, but Sir G. Wilkinson's the most correct as to its present state, the tablet having suffered considerable mutilation between the respective visits to it of M. Caillaud and Sir Gardner Wilkinson. Its chief value consists in this, that it gives a chronological succession of the Monarchy, the commencement of which is uncertain, but which terminates with Rameses the Great, who makes an offering to his ancestors and predecessors on the throne. Each line reads in a direction perpendicular to that at the base of the Monument, which gives the name of King Rameses under its different forms. Thus the Tablet, when entire, expressed "Libation made by the King Rameses to the Kings," &c., in a horizontal line which surmounted it; and then to each King in succession, their names following in order from 1 to 52. The succession is from right to left, similar to the Karnak Tablets. By no means the whole of what remains can be made out, but there seems satisfactory evidence for the names of the first five or six Kings of the Twelfth Dynasty, from B.C, 2082—1822, and for those of the first fourteen (omitting the tenth) of the Eighteenth Dynasty, from B.C. 1822— 1499; but most of the readings of these names are confirmed by other monuments in different parts of Egypt.

7. SEPULCHRAL TABLETS.

This large collection of sepulchral memorials records the names of persons from which these tablets have been procured. They are much alike, especially to the uninstructed eye; and, though valuable to the Egyptian scholar, as supplying him with additional materials to aid in the interpretation of his difficult language, they possess comparatively little interest for the majority of visitors. From the 400 which are placed along the walls and in different parts of this room, a few may be here especially noticed.

Some are of an extremely ancient date: thus, No. 212, a tablet to the memory of a minister of Nepercheres, ascends to the remote period of the Fifth Dynasty; while Nos. 143, 145, 233, 256, 257, 258, 557, 558, 559, 562, 572-6, 581, and 585 belong to that of the Twelfth Dynasty. Some of them are remarkable for the subjects which are traced upon them, illustrative of the

domestic manners and habits of the people at a very remote period. Thus,

No. 256 declares that the person it commemorates was Prefect of the Palace of Amen-em-ha, one of the Kings of the Twelfth Dynasty, and contains a sort of family register.

No. 557 is a tablet of the same period, and represents a functionary seated on a chair before a table of viands, and having his four daughters before him; and below him are his father, mother, and brother. On this tablet are traces of the ancient paint.

No. 576, of the same period, is a dedication for Senatef, a chief of the Palace of King Amen-em-ha; his two brethren are represented bringing him a haunch, a goose, and some bread, and five other members of his family are present.

No. 579 is interesting, as showing that the tablet has, for some reason, never been finished, the squared net-work or canon for the guidance of the sculptor still being apparent on it, traced in red.

Some of the tablets are believed to be older than the Twelfth Dynasty, though their precise date has not been determined: of these, Nos. 563, 577-8, and 584 are specimens.

Some have an interest independent of their date or excellence of execution, from the names of the persons recorded on them. Thus,

No. 193 contains a representation of the Celestial Sun, or Agathodæmon, with a Greek honorary inscription, erected by the local authorities and inhabitants of the village of Busiris to Tiberius Claudius Balbillus, Governor of Egypt under Nero.

Nos. 153 and 277 contain respectively representations of the monarch Amenophis I., standing and sitting. In the first instance, he is making offerings to Amen-ra and other Deities; in the second, he is seated beside his wife, holding in his hand the emblem of life.

No. 303 is an excellent specimen of Egyptian colouring, and is curious for the way in which it is divided into three separate divisions. The first division represents Kahu, the superintendent of the place where the offerings to Amen were deposited, clad in the skin of a panther and in the act of making various offerings to Isis, Osiris, and Anubis. The second denotes the same person, but wearing a different dress, seated by the side of his sister Nem, and receiving the offerings and adorations of his four sons. The third shows his daughters and younger children bringing various offerings of viands and green lotus flowers.

No. 305 is divided like the last, but into two divisions. In the first, the members of the family are seen offering funeral honours

« السابقةمتابعة »