ePub 版

same with the Eatus or Earts of the Greek inscription. 7. Of the names of divinities better known, those deciphered by M. Champollion are- Anubis, the son of Osiris and Nepthé, written Anb and Ancbó, and distinguished by the head of a schacal, which the Greeks have mistaken for that of a dog; Osiris, the spouse of Isis, written Ousré and Ousri; Arueris, the twin-brother of Osiris, written Aroeri, Harocri, or Haroueri ; together with Horus, Apis, Anucis, Besa, Socharis, and Thermouthis.

From all which it appears, that the ancient Egyptians wrote with phonetic hieroglyphics, the names of their gods and goddesses.

Results at once curious and interesting have been obtained by the application of the Phonetic Alphabet to the proper names of individuals of both sexes, Of these the Greek writers have preserved a considerable number, all of which are composed of the names of gods and goddesses, with the addition of some significative epithet, easily explicable by means of the phonetic analysis. Thus Aquitanos signifies given by Ammon; Notargos vic. torious Neith; Abwors, engendered of Thoth; Magis or Morges, gift of or the Sun; Sue Deuxgames, Hercules Harpocrales; opaspect, the world friend of Phtha; Nancis, the consecrated to Isis ; MævouQis, the consecrated to Chnouphis; Izdegtout, the consecrated to Thermuthis; Iezzois, he who belongs to Isis; Istoriges, he who belongs ta Osiris; Mancis, gift of Isis ; tavapour, child of Amoun ; Exvorog, child of Osiris, &c. The same observation is applicable to the names deciphered by M. Champollion, which prove that the mythological creed of the ancient Egyptians was interwoven with the whole texture of their society, and with every circumstance of life and manners, Thus we have Petamon, he who belongs to Amon; Petamonré, he who belongs to Amonré; Amenof (A pcevapas) an abbreviation of Amenoftep (A piyanoons), approved of Amon; Amonlet, obedient to Amon; Phtahaflep or Plahftep, approved of Phtha; Ftep-an-Plah or Ftep Ptuh, the approved of Phtha; Ptahdjer or Ptadjor, Phtha the powerful, or the powerful by Phtha; Pethorpré, he who belongs to Horus and the Sun; Peleprê or Pelephré, (supposed by M. Champollion to be the same with the Putiphar of Scripture, which, in the Coptic text of Genesis, is regularly written Petephre), he who belongs to Re or the Sun; Isidjer or Isidjor, Isis the great or powerful; Hatórche masculine and Xatorchet feminine, child of Athor; Hór.amon, Horus-Ammon; Horsiesi, Horus son of Isis, and Amon-Horsiesi, Ammon-Horus son of Isis. From all which it appears, that the proper names of individuals of the Egyptian nation were written phonetically; and, consequently, that the opinion expressed by Dr Young in the Article Egypt, and repeated by M. Champollion himself in his first Letter to M. Dacier--that the phonetic hieroglyphics were con

fined to the transcription of words and proper names foreign to the Egyptian language-is altogether erroneous.

But the investigations of the ingenious and indefatigable Frenchman did not stop here. By an analysis of the royal titles and qualifications inscribed on the more ancient Egyptian monuments, he has shown, that, even anterior to the Persian Invasion, the Egyptians employed, in their hieroglyphic texts, characters representing the sounds of words in their spoken language; and that these words are expressed by signs similar in form and value to those which were afterwards used for transcribing the proper names and titles of the Greek and Roman sovereigns: And by reading the hieroglyphic names of the kings of the Egyptian race sculptured on these monuments, he has not only established, upon a firm basis, the high antiquity of the phonetico-hieroglyphic system in Egypt, but, in a number of instances, determined the epoch at which the monuments themselves were erected. A few results of the latter class will complete our abstract of M. Champollion’s labours.

In the Lettre à M. Dacier, it is proved by an unbroken chain of facts, that the Egyptians wrote phonetically (that is, employed the figures of familiar objects to express sounds), from the period of the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great, till the end of the reign of Antoninus, that is, from the year B. c. 332, to a. D. 161, or nearly 500 years. But the Persian Conquest preceded that of Alexander by about 193 years; and the next question was, whether, in the interval between the two conquests, and in the periods of the Egyptian monarchy anterior even to the first, evident traces of the same system of writing can be discovered. If this point can be determined in the affirmative, the chain of evidence will be complete. The following results will enable the reader to form his own judgment.

1. In a cartouche engraved on a vase of Oriental alabaster, preserved in the Cabinet of the King, and evidently of high aniiquity, M. Champollion deciphered the name Xerxes, writteir Khscheurscha, (the Persian name of that Prince), without any other omission than that of a single short medial vowel ; anit what seems to place this reading beyond all doubt is, that the same vase exhibits another inscription in the cuneiform or Persepolitan character (the ancient Persian), which M. SaintMartin found also to evolve Khschearscha-a new and traordinary confirmation of the phonetic theory. The hieroglyphic name of Xerxes is accompanied by five characters, whose phonetic values give the word lerina or Iriona, the same with léré, Iranian or Persian. 2. In his 29th Dynasty (the Mendesiun) Manetho places a king whose name is wriiten Axwgis, the axogos of Diodorus Siculus; and this king had as his predecessor and successor two princes of the name of NsPigitas, as written by Manetho, and Nepigius according to Diodorus. But on two sphinxes, the style of which approaches that of the sculptures executed under the Greek kings of Egypt, we find the hieroglyphic names of a king Hakr (Axog-es) and of a king Naifroué or Naifroui, evidently identical, we think, with Nephereus or Nepherites. 3. On the Campensian obelisk, which Augustus caused to be transported from Egypt to Rome, and placed as a gnomon in the Campus Martius, and which from ihe first was believed to be the work of a Pharaoh (Plin. Hist. Nat. xxxvi. 8. 9. & 10.), we read (see the engraving given by Zoëga) the name Psmtk or Psmig, the skeleton of Psammeticus, Psammitichus, or Psammetichus, one of the most celebrated kings of Egypt, the same who opened the ports of that kingdom to the Greeks, encouraged commerce, and patronised the arts. M. Champollion proves, that the name on this obelisk is that of Psammetichus I., who flourished about 120 years before the Persian Conquest. 4. According to Manetho, the second king of the 23d Dynasty (the Tanite) bore the name of Ocoçbos or Oropiww; and on a granite obelisk amidst the ruins of Heliopolis is sculptured the name of a prince called Ousortasen or Osorlason ; which name also occurs on a small statue of cornelian in the cabinet of M. Durand, accompanied by the legend, the son of the Sun, beloved of Phtha. Two coloured pillars, some time ago received from Egypt, confirm the above reading, and prove the identity of the king mentioned by Manetho, with the prince whose hieroglyphic name is Osortasen, (Précis, 197–200.) 5. The same monuments make us acquainted with several other persons of both sexes belonging to the 230 Dynasty; as Ptahaf ép, (the Petubastes of the Greeks), father of Osorthos; Ran, bis wife; Psjam, or Psdjam, Psammus, óv‘H goexdsx Aiyut ti01 Exadecar, the son and successor of Osorthos; Amonschet, daughter of Osorthos, and sister of Psammus; Beba, or Bebo, wife of Psammus; and Amonraou, his son, probably the last scion of the Tanites. 6. The head of the 22d Dynasty (the Bubastite) is called by Manethe, Iscoyxos or Escoylosis

very ex

, the Pharaoh who, in Scripture, is named Sesak, Schischak, or Schouschak, and who, in the reign of Rehoboam, the grandson of David, pillaged Jerusalem, and carried off all the shields of gold which Solomon had made.' (1 Kings xiv. 25, 26.) On one of the colonnades which decorate the court of the great palace at Karnak, are two royal legends, the prenomen of the first of which contains the title Approved of the Sun, followed by The beloved of Amon Schi schonk, evidently the Sesonchis of Manetho; for, in the second legend, we read, The belov d of Amon, Osorkon, and we know that the king, called Ooogxo, (who has sometimes been confounded with Ocaçlay), was the immediate successor of Sesonchis. A variety of other legends confirm this conclusion. 7. M. Champollion next proceeds to decipher the name of the Pharaoh, chief of the 19th Dynasty, (one of the Diospolitan), which, occurring on almost every monument of the ancient style, he finds written Remses, Ramses, Amon-maiRamses, Amon-Ramses-mai, &c.; and determines, by a conclusive historical investigation (into which we cannot enter), to be that of Rhameses the Great, the same sovereign who is called Sethosis by Manetho, Sesoosis by Diodorus Siculus, and Sesostris by Herodotus and Strabo. The proof of this identity is quite ir. resistible, and well deserving the attention of every scholar. 8. Lastly, Of the 18th Dynasty, also Diospolitan, he deciphers the names of Meiamoun. Ramses, of Ramses I., of Amenophis II., (whom the Greeks mistaking the title Meiamoun, Beloved of Ammon, for the name, called Memnon), of Amenophis I., and, finally, that of Thouthmosis, the founder.*

These results have received a remarkable confirmation from the Genealogical Table of Abydos, of which an engraving is prefixed to Mr Salt's Essay, and which, among other things, contains the names of the Egyptian kings of the 18th dynasty, arranged in the same or. der as in the Canon of Manetho. This interesting monument was disinterred by Mr W. J. Bankes while excavating for the purpose of obtaining an accurate ground-plan of the extensive ruins at Abydos : and soon after his return to England a lithographic engraving of it was executed, and copies distributed to different individuals both in this country and in France. M. Champollion could not be ignorant of the fact here stated. In his Letter to the Duc de Blacas, published in the same year with the Précis, he expressly describes the monument in question as tableau precieux, dont une copie est depuis plusieurs années dans les portefeuilles de M. W. Bankes, ' en Angleterre ;' but he cautiously avoids dropping so much as a bint which might lead his readers to suspect that the discovery was due to the exertions of Mr Bankes; and, in his Précis, he certiorates his readers that it is a hieroglyphic text of the highest interest, et · dont le dessin a été apporté par notre courageux voyageur M. Cailliaud,' thus leaving i hem to infer that the discovery was due to that traveller. This literary dishonesty, in every case where the pretensions of Englishmen are concerned, is the besetting sin of M. Champollion, and cannot fail to injure his reputation among liberal and enlightened men of all countries. We have already had occasion to notice his gross injustice to Dr Young, who was, in every sense of the word, his master; and we cannot but be of opinion that he has behaved with equal impropriety to Mr Bankes, to whose spirited exertions Hieroglyphic Literature is so deeply indebted. The first discovery of the name Cleopatra, and the removal of the obelisk of Philae were

Thus, by a series of readings among the most remarkable in the history of scholarship (but of which we regret to say that our limits have permitted us to give only a faint outline), has M. Champollion traced the use of hieroglyphico-phonetic signs, first, from the age of Antoninus upwards to that of Alexander, secondly, from that of Alexander to the Persian Conquest, and lastly, through the different dynasties up to the commencement of the 181h, about the year 1874 before ihe Christian era :-exemplifying, at every stage of his progress, the accuracy of the royal chronological Canon of Manetho, as preserved by Julius Africanus and Josephus, and which the majority of learned men þave hitherto treated with undeserved neglect. From the whole of these investigations, therefore, it follows, first, That the use of phonetic signs is capable of being traced upwards to a very remote antiquity; and, secondly, That the system of hieroglyphic writing, hitherto regarded as entirely consisting of symbols or emblems of ideas, is, on the contrary, composed of signs, a very considerable portion of which expresses merely the sounds of words in the spoken language of the Egyptians; that is to say, of phonetic characters.

So much, then, for the curious and singular results which have been obtained in exploring this new and interesting field of inquiry. It was our original intention to have followed up this abstract by an attempt at digesting these into something like a systematic shape; and, in particular, after explaining the nature, number, and arrangement of the signs, to have endeavoured to determine the principles upon which the three different orders of characters were combined in one and the same form of writing: But as this would necessarily require a much larger space than we can now afford, we shall conclude at present by giving a synoptical view of the elements of hieroglyphic writing, as these have been deduced from M. Champollion's researches.

The graphic system, then, of the ancient Egyptians was com. posed of three kinds of writing; I. The HIEROGLYPHIC, or sacred; II. The Hieratic, or sacerdotal ; and III. The Demotic, or popular, called also thc EncHORIAL and EPISTOLOGRAPHIC.

1. The HieroGLYPHIC or sacred writing consisted in the simultaneous employment of three distinct kinds of signs; viz. 1. figurative characters, which literally represented the object meant to be expressed; 2. symbulic, tiopic, or ænigmatic characters, which expressed an idea by the image of a physical ob

both achieved by Mr Bankes; yet M. Champollion has chosen to be silent in regard to the former, and to ascribe the latter to poor Belzoni, who, had he been alive, would have rejected with indignation the credit here given him for the labours of another.

« 上一頁繼續 »