THE LANGUAGE OF EGYPT.
“He went out through the land of Egypt; where I heard a language that I understood not.”
WE are now so accustomed to a written language corresponding to that which is spoken, that we can hardly realize what it would be to be deprived of this mode of communicating our wants and wishes. And yet, when we consider it, it is wonderful to be able to express by arbitrary marks, the sounds we utter, and the thoughts that pass through our minds.
A missionary was once erecting a building, and on finding that he needed a tool that he had left at his house, he caught up a piece of wood, and wrote upon it what he wanted. Handing it to a chief of the natives, he asked him to carry the piece of wood to his wife. The chief asked what he was to say. He was told to say nothing: if he took the piece of wood to the missionary's wife, she would send what was wanted. The chief, after some hesitation, carried the piece of wood to the missionary's wife; who, after reading what was written thereon and throwing the wood away, at once handed to the chief the tool her husband needed.
The chief was astonished, and could gather up no idea how the wife knew what her husband wanted. He picked up the piece of wood, and on returning to the missionary, and finding that the right tool had been sent, he concluded that the wood must have spoken, and told what was wanted. He hung the piece of wood round his neck, and was seen telling the wonders thereof to his equally astonished people.
Such was the effect on an uncultivated but intelligent man who knew nothing of a written language; while we employ it without a thought, and cannot conceive how the events of daily life could proceed without it.
We say we employ a written language without a thought; for how few stop to inquire how language is transferred from the spoken to the written. Let us try and illustrate it. Suppose in the above case, the missionary had written, "Send my axe." There is first, the tool is called "axe;" of course, any other name would have done as well, providing it had been understood by his wife. A Frenchman would have written hackie, and the same instrument would have been sent. A German might have written beil. So the same tool may have a dozen different names in a dozen different languages. So of the word "my," and the word "send.”
But the missionary could have written, "Send my," and have drawn an axe; but if he had several tools similar in appearance, and if he were not a good draughtsman, the wrong tool might have been sent. Without a question, there is nothing so simple and so definite as a written language composed of an alphabet, by means of which any word can be spelt.
But we are now in the fifty-ninth century of human existence, and written language doubtless passed through many phases before it arrived at the perfection and precision it now has in most civilized countries—we say most civilized countries, because of the language of the Chinese. That empire, shut out from intercourse with other countries, and perhaps from choice as well, has preserved a peculiar and cumbersome mode of writing, as is well known. In some respects it is said to resemble the ancient Egyptian.
For centuries the visitors to Egypt, while they wondered at the ruins of immense works, also looked in astonishment on the strange writing made up of figures of men, animals, &c., without a thought that those strange figures would ever be deciphered. There seemed to be no key to unlock their mysteries. If the strange figures had been like the letters of any known language, there might have been some hope; but no stretch of the imagination could transform an eagle, an owl, or a chicken to be the letters of any known language. To look and wonder what they signified was all that the most learned did. And thus the very name of hieroglyphics became a by-word for anything that passed all comprehension.
But a large piece of black basalt, known as the Rosetta stone, now many years in the British Museum, proved to be the key to those ancient mysteries, or perhaps we must say the key to the outward chambers, and the means of many other keys being discovered.
The Rosetta stone was found by a French officer in A.D. 1799, during the repair of Fort St. Julien, a little to the north of the town of Rosetta, on the Rosetta branch of the Nile. The English nation being successful in overcoming the French, this, with other trophies fell by treaty into the hands of the British, and found its way to the British Museum.
It is a record written in three different characters: 1, The Hieroglyphic, called the sacred language. 2, The Enchorial, which means the characters of the country. 3, Greek. A considerable part of the first is missing, the beginning of the second, and the end of the third; still enough is left to be of great use in deciphering the language of Egypt.
The decree related how " PTOLEMY, ever living, the well beloved of Pthah, god EPIPHANES, most gracious prince" had benefited the country and shown his generosity and zeal concerning the gods; his statue, therefore, was to be erected in all the temples of the land, together with the principal god of each temple; and that certain honors should be paid to these statues, and a yearly festival held in their honor.
Dr. Young was the first to see the use that was to be made of this triple record. The way the meaning of the unknown characters was discovered was somewhat as follows:—
Of course, the Greek could be read by scholars. In that language were found the words "Alexander" and "Alexandria,'" and two groups of characters were looked for that might stand for these two words. Two such groups were soon discovered.
Then a small group of characters was observed to occur very frequently; but as there were no spaces between the words, they might be a short word, or they might be the common ending of different words, like our syllable "ing," or "ous." So these had to be noted, and left for the time, but they afterwards proved to be the word corresponding to "and.”
Again, in the enchorial writing, a group of characters occurred nearly thirty times, and no word in the Greek could be found repeated as often, except the word "king," which, with its compounds, occurs thirty-seven times.
Another group of characters was found in the enchorial inscription fourteen times, and this agreed with the word "Ptolemy" in the Greek both as to its frequency and to its position.
Further examination brought out the word "Egypt," which was found frequently in the enchorial, but less frequently in the Greek; for, as it proved afterwards, the words "the country" were substituted sometimes in the Greek inscription for Egypt, and sometimes it was omitted.
Now these common points of identification having been discovered, the next step was to copy down the enchorial inscription, and above each word the Greek word that seemed to agree with it, and then to see what parts had still to be dealt with, supposing the other portions had been interpreted correctly.
In this process it was necessary to notice that the enchorial inscription had been written from right to left, the reverse of the way that the Greek was written. Herodotus had told us long since that the Egyptians wrote in this way, though the hieroglyphics were written both ways. But this does not cause such confusion as might be supposed, because the letters are formed differently. Thus, sometimes all the men, animals, and other figures face the right, and then it is read from right to left; but at other times they all face the left, and then the inscription is read from left to right. Thus it was found that, as a rule, the inscriptions might be read in the direction that would meet the faces of the figures.
Groups were sometimes arranged in pairs, facing one another, and would be read as if the word" Europe," or "England," were written in either of these styles:—
O O GNE ENG
PRUE EURP L L
E E A A
N N
D D
On Cleopatra's Needle, on two of the sides the characters all face the right, and on the other two they face the left.
Well, after laborious study, and many guesses, some of which proved to be right and some wrong, the translation of certain words was mastered, both of the enchorial and of the hieroglyphical characters. The three inscriptions were declared to be the same in substance, judging as far as could be by what remained of each, but not the same word for word. Thus the enchorial gave in one place suten, "king," and the hieroglyphic and the Greek gave the name of the king.
Champollion followed Young, and having obtained two rings or cartouches, one supposed to Be the name Ptolemy and the other Cleopatra, he conducted his studies thus: working upon the further supposition that in these names the characters were letters having sounds. Let us look at how they agree, going through Cleopatra letter by letter, remembering that we must read so as to meet the faces of the animals, and thus these both read from left to right.
The first sign in Cleopatra, which is called a knee, ought to be the K of Kleopatra (there being no C), and which would not occur in Ptolemy, which was the fact.
The second is a lion couchant, the fourth in Ptolemy; L would be right for both.
The third, a reed, which is sixth and seventh in Ptolemy—an A or E in Cleopatra, and being doubled, was AI or AIO in Ptolemy.
The fourth, a kind of noose, which must be O in Cleopatra, and being third in Ptolemy also answered for O.
The fifth, a mat, which represented P in Cleopatra, and being first in Ptolemy, would also be right for P.
The sixth, an eagle, an A for Cleopatra. It was not found in Ptolemy, which was correct.
The seventh, a hand, the T in Cleopatra; but not the same T as is found the second in Ptolemy.
The eighth, a mouth, and answered to R.
The ninth, an eagle, the same as the sixth—an A.
The last, a semicircle, was the same as the second in Ptolemy, and apparently the T, or feminine Coptic article. This with the egg (the tenth), was supposed to mark the fact that Cleopatra was a woman, and these last two figures did not form a part of the name.
Supposing the second in Ptolemy to be a T, there reclaimed only two letters in his name to consider—the fifth, an M; and the last, an S—spelling PTOLMAIS.
These were found by comparing the whole with other Lames, and a somewhat complete alphabet was at length arrived at.
The next step was to try and master the letters or words that accompanied the names; and on the Rosetta stone it stated in the Greek, that Ptolemy was "beloved," and in the hieroglyphics was found a word that answered in Coptic to the same word, "beloved.”
Thus light gradually broke in to the student's mind, and the decipherment was in great measure worked out by Champollion in an indefatigable study of eight years. He was sent to Egypt by the French government to rescue, as far as he could, any remaining monuments. It is said, that by practice he could read with fluency almost any of the inscriptions. He hesitated not to say that on the wall of Karnak he found the name Judah Malek (the kingdom of Judah) among the prisoners of Shishank. This has been confirmed by others.
Still, of course, the system of decipherment in its minuter details was capable of improvement, and many others have improved or expanded the science, if such it may be called.
To give the reader an idea of the varied extent of the hieroglyphics, we copy Champollion's list of subjects used:—
Celestial bodies 10
Human figures 120
Limbs 60
Wild quadrupeds 24
Domestic quadrupeds 10
Limbs of quadrupeds 22
Birds and parts of birds 50
Fishes 10
Reptiles and parts of reptiles 30
Insects 14
Vegetable kingdom 60
Buildings 24
Furniture 100
Attire 80
Tools and instruments 150
Vases and cups 30
Geometric forms 20
Fantastic forms 50
864
But the list has been further increased to about a thousand characters.
We will endeavor to give the reader some idea of this interesting language by a short sketch of it.
In the first place, in all languages, there are sounds. And these sounds can be represented either by letters or by syllables.
The following is a list of the letters and their nearest representatives in English. We give mostly the more ancient letters. There are others called "the later alphabet," by Bunsen; and in the decree of Canopus, in the time of Ptolemy and Cleopatra, the characters seem to have been increased to what the uninitiated would call an appalling extent. In Mr. Sharpe's interpretation of the Decree, there are no less than ten characters representing M, and twelve representing N, though some are only slightly varied in form. Some of the later alphabet occur in our list of syllables.
As we have seen, the whole of the letters may be reversed, and face the contrary way, without in any way altering their significance. A? is placed to some, it being doubtful what character is represented by the hieroglyphic: but this does not throw any doubt upon its corresponding letter being known.
The Alphabet.
A reed (short sound)
A eagle (slight aspirate)
A arm (strong nasal)
B human leg
F horned snake
H twisted cord
H meander
H club, or finger
I two reeds
I two oblique signs
K side of seat
K bowl with handle
L same as R.
M owl
M hole (?)
N waved line
N crown of lower Egypt
P mat
Q knee (called by some, K)
R mouth (or L)
R lion(or L)
S back of chair
S bolt
S (SH) pool (?)
T open hand
T segment of sphere
O (TH) cord
T snake (called by some, Gi)
U duckling
U coil
X (CH) sieve
1 repeated up to nine
5
10 repeated up to ninety
100 repeated up to nine hundred
1000 this sign turns a numeral into an ordinal
In some, if not all of the foregoing, there may be an inherent vowel: as Bu instead of B; Fi instead of F, &c. Indeed, some think that there was no alphabet pure and simple, but that all were syllables; but by others, the foregoing are treated as the alphabet, in distinction from the short syllables, such as the following:
|
Ba heron
|
Ma pen
|
|
Ga, or eaglet
|
Mu feather
|
|
Ga, or Ta vase and stand,
|
Ma weight
|
|
Ha leg of stool (?)
|
Mu vulture
|
|
Ha papyrus plant
|
Nu vase
|
|
Ha fore part of lion
|
Pa goose flying
|
|
Hu hills and valley
|
Sa top of quiver
|
|
Hu tusk
|
Sa goose
|
|
χa KHa (if leaf of water lily
|
Sa woof
|
|
KHa mormorus fish
|
Su reed
|
|
Ka woof
|
SHa garden
|
|
KHi
|
SHa part of dress
|
|
KHa mace
|
Ta spindle
|
|
KHu garment Besides the foregoing, there
|
|
Besides the foregoing, there are a series of short syllables,
|
AB skin of animal
|
MA sickle
|
|
AM tree
|
HL, HR face
|
|
KA uplifted arms
|
HM well, or bucket
|
|
MN chess board (?)
|
AB vase
|
|
MR plough, or hoe
|
AM cross
|
|
UA cord
|
USR sceptre (?)
|
|
UAH kind of flower
|
χA diadem
|
|
MR pool
|
UN hare
|
|
STP kind of drill
|
SA door
|
|
SN (unknown)
|
|
and many others. One peculiar thing with many of these is, that each has a "complement," that may accompany it or may not. Thus, the first may stand alone for AB, or may have its complement J, human leg, with it, and still be only AB. The second may have its complement S.' the owl, or not. With it, it is AM, and without it, it is AM.
Then there are a number of characters that are neither letters nor syllables, but are called DETERMINATIVES, because they determine what is the meaning of a word which might otherwise be misunderstood.
Thus, if after the letters SP we find the picture of a boat, we know that a ship is meant; but if the picture of an animal is placed after the same letters, we know it represents a sheep ; but if we find the figure of a man, then it is a man's name, as Æsop. There is also a class of determinatives, each of which gives a general idea of what is alluded to, rather than one definite thing. These are called ideographs. Determinatives are numerous, we can give but a few.
Determinatives.
A few specimens of the mode of spelling words are subjoined. They must be read so as to meet the faces of the characters; which will be seen to be from left to right.
In each of these a determinative is added which gives either a picture of the thing itself, or an idea of it thus, in the first, a skin is added to show that some animal is pointed out by the letters TSM. In the second a picture of the ox determines what animal is alluded to. In the word HAB, a pair of legs are given to convey the idea of motion, and hence sending. In MEST, the raven is added because that bird is symbolical of evil; and thus to hate' is classed among the evils.
In the above it will be seen that some of the short vowels are unrepresented: thus Tsm is all we get for tesem; PT for pet; indeed, where two consonants come together, it is common to add a short E between them. In sba, a star, we get only ss.
Another peculiar thing which affected the spelling of words is that though, as a rule, the letters are placed in the order in which they are to be read, this rule is sometimes departed from, in order, as is supposed, to make the letters range themselves in a more compact form.
The language has been technically explained by Mr. Birch as follows:
“It is necessary to bear in mind the following terms.
“A Symbolics: Hieroglyphic symbols used to express ideas, and never pronounced or read except as the idea was.
“B Determinatives: Symbols, never pronounced at all, placed after groups of characters which were pronounced, and used to determine or fix their meaning. They are the same as the Chinese keys, or radicals.
“C Phonetics: Symbols used to express sounds, and not ideas, forming groups which express the sounds or spoken words of the ideas intended to be conveyed.
Alphabetic: Expressing one articulation.
“D. Syllabic: Expressing a syllable.
“D Limited: This last may be employed to express one or few ideas.
“D. Extended: Used extensively in the texts.
“E Inherent: The character whose pronunciation exists in another, although not actually written.
“F Complement: The character written after a syllabic symbol to complete the syllable; when omitted it is inherent in the syllabic symbol.
“G Homophone: A symbol having similar sound to another, and used in other examples of the same word.”
Clement of Alexandria gave an account of the Egyptian language thus: “Those who are educated among the Egyptians learn first that mode of writing which is called Epistolographic [or enchorial, common.]
“Secondly, the Hieratic, which the sacred scribes use.
"Lastly, the Hieroglyphic.
“Of this one method is kyriologic, by means of the first letters, and the other is symbolic.
“Of the symbolic, one is express, or written imitatively.
"Another is written figuratively.
"The third is allegorical, like some enigmas.”
The Hieratic style here named is a mode of writing the hieroglyphics. In general form they are like the characters cut into stone, but more free, as would naturally be the case when written on the papyrus.
The Epistolographic is the common writing of the country, in distinction from the other style called sacred.
ENCHORIAL, OR DEMOTIC.
Mr. Birch gives the following dates for the different styles of writing: the use of hieroglyphics dates from the earliest times. In the sixth dynasty the hieratic was introduced and superseded the hieroglyphic for books, letters, &c., but not for monumental and other important purposes. At the commencement of the twenty-sixth dynasty, a more cursive form of hand writing called demotic, or popular, was introduced, and in a great measure superseded the hieratic.
The learned have tried to dissect the Egyptian language, and to discover how it grew into such an elaborate system as that in which they now find it.
The simplest form of a picture language would be for each character to be a picture of what is pointed out: thus, a man, for a man; a woman, for a woman; an ox, for an ox; and so on. Thus we find stone, wall, flower, house, ram, fish, obelisk, throne and city. This, however would not tell us much; but we could further distinguish the actions of a man; either sitting, of walking, or striking, &c. Thus we find a man in a priestly garb, holding up his hands as if in prayer, or pouring something out of a vessel, would portray a priest. A house with a god signified a temple.
Liquids could sometimes be distinguished by the vessels in which they are usually carried; and then a vessel and a bee would perhaps do to point out honey. Water was represented in the hieroglyphics by three lines perhaps suggested by the ripple on the river Nile; thirst, by the lines and a kid going to the water; and so forth.
Verbs were expressed by such signs as To give, to act forcibly, actions of sight, and to avoid, escape. But this—and more that might be worked out by symbols—would not give us nearly all we want for a written language. But it appears clear that the Egyptian language was not confined to symbols; but that they had also signs representing sounds, as we have seen in the names Ptolemy and Cleopatra.
By referring back to the alphabet it will be seen that a human leg stands for the letter יייB: or, as some say for the sound Bu: but why was this selected to represent the sound Bu? It is supposed that it was chosen because the name or word by which the Egyptians represented a leg began by this sound; in the same way that we should use a leg, or lion, &c., for the letter L.
Some scholars say that if this were so, it was not a principle that guided the Egyptians only, for the same thing is also to be found in the Hebrew, Arabic, Samaritan, Phoenician, and other Semitic tongues; as in the Hebrew, the second letter בּ is called Beth', and this is the sound of their word for house,' though the word is spelt בּיח Beth.
One writer illustrates the principle of forming these sounds into words by a child's primer, in which A is represented by an Archer; B by a Butcher; and C by a Captain. Then if we were to draw a Captain, an Archer, and a Butcher, we should represent the word CAB; and we add that if we placed after this the picture of a vehicle on wheels as a determinative, it would represent the plan adopted by the Egyptians. There might be another word composed of the same letters or sounds, with a different meaning; but this is the vehicle, a CAB.
It is remarkable how sounds become associated with objects. If a child is taught the alphabet by a picture book, the picture and the sound of the letter intimately connect themselves in the child's mind. Thus if we suppose O is represented by an orange, though he is taught that O stands for orange, he will sometimes, when asked in some other book what letter the O is, he will say it is ' orange' rather than O.
But questions arise as to why in a picture-word should particular objects be chosen when there are others which would denote the same; for instance, in the above illustration, would not the word CAB be as well represented by a Cat, an Ape, and a Bell? And so the picture-word might be varied almost indefinitely. This was not however done by the Egyptians. Though there were variations in the spelling of the same word, there were certainly restrictions, and, as a rule, the same word was spelled by the same characters. Marquis Spineto seeks to illustrate what may have guided them.
“Suppose we were to imagine an alphabet of our own: to write the name of LONDON, for instance, we might choose for the several letters the following images or hieroglyphics. For the letter L we might take the figure of a lion, or of a lamb, or of a lancet, or of a leaf, or any other such objects, whose names begin with an L. Again, to express N, we might select a net, a negro, the north star, and the nave of a temple. To denote the letter D, we might choose the figure of a dromedary, or a dagger, the deck of a ship, or even the whole of a ship, to signify the deck; and for the O we might pick out the figure of an oak-tree, an ostrich, an ox, or an owl. Now if from all these images or hieroglyphics we should be obliged to write the word LONDON, we ought not to select the lamb, but the lion, as the expression of the letter L, because the lion is the acknowledged emblem of England. For the O we should prefer the representation of an oak-tree, or of the acorn its fruit, as connected with the building of a ship. For the N, you certainly would not pick out a negro slave, for this choice would be quite unnatural, and contrary to the decided antipathy which the English have to slavery; nor would you select the representation of the nave of a church, because this emblem would better suit an ecclesiastical government, and by no possible means could it apply to your nation; but you would choose in preference the fishing-net or the north star, as the only images which would convey to the mind of the beholder two of the characteristics of a seafaring nation, as the English are. And, last of all, for the letter D you would, I am certain, decidedly prefer the representation of the whole, or a part of a ship, as the only image connected with the very existence of the nation. Thus the whole word LONDON, written hieroglyphically, would then be represented by a lion, an oak-tree, a net, a [deck of a] ship, and the north-star; for, you remember, we have no need to repeat the second O.”
There are some characters that are used in sacred and royal subjects alone. And though there are several characters representing one letter, these are not used indiscriminately. The words 'beloved,' deceased,' place, ‘water,’ ‘born,' all commence with the letter M, but with letters of different form; and these letters are seldom changed in the same word.
The mingling of the symbols and letters is curious, and to the uninitiated very puzzling. Thus Mr. Birch gives a remarkable instance of what would appear to be overloading a word. It stands thus A First are the two letters K N to signify kan, then a leg to show that it is the same word as kan, a knee; then the semicircle to show that the word knee is feminine; then an angle to give the pronunciation kan; then a 'man to show that it does not signify a knee but a man: and altogether it is a minister or servant.
It was supposed that a study of the many monuments in existence would have shown a progress in the development of the language; and that the earliest inscriptions would have been composed of what are called now symbolicals and ideographs only. But this has not been found to be the case. The oldest monuments of the third dynasty are filled with phonetic characters as well as ideographs. So that it is not now known how the language became developed into the state in which it is found on the monuments.
Those who have made a study of the subject have constructed Egyptian grammars and dictionaries much more voluminous than was at first supposed to be possible.
We cannot attempt to give even a sketch of the grammar. It has its verbs, adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, and interjections. Its prepositions alone are over thirty in number.
Verbs may be said to have strictly no tenses, moods, voices, or conjugations, and yet present, past, and future times are expressed by means of suffixes, affixes, and auxiliary verbs, and the sense made pretty definite.
A man's name, spelt with six letters, may in a long inscription have only four letters in the middle, and at last be represented only by one.
The living Horus the Conductor, the king Khufu (Suphis), the Living; he designed the temple of Isis the ruler of the Pyramid near the house of the Sphinx, above the north-west of the house of Osiris, lord of Rusta; he built his pyramid near the temple of that goddess.
Names of the Kings.
As the names of Ptolemy and Cleopatra were the key to unlock the mysteries of the hieroglyphics, so the key was found of great use in deciphering the names of the kings in general. These names were generally distinguished from the mass of inscriptions by being enclosed in cartouches or ovals. At first one oval was enough for a king's name, thus:—
CHEMREN (Chephren). CHEMI (Chemnus).
From the sixth dynasty each king had two ovals, one containing his family name, and the other a prenomen or throne name. Some of these throne names were very general, so that if a king erased the family name in an inscription to substitute his own name, he did not trouble always to alter the throne name: it did as well for him as for his predecessor. Thus Thothmes IV. is found with the prenomen of Amunoph II., &c. But this was an exception, and the throne names are very useful in distinguishing one king from another when the family name was the same as that of other kings.
Thus there were eleven kings of the name of Rameses; and as the kings did not add, as we do, second, third, &c., they can be distinguished only by these additions to their names. However, though keeping generally to the same prenomen for the same king, they were varied in detail; so that one writer believes that he has discovered no less than thirty different modes of writing the name of Thothmes III. As the adopted names, or rather titles, were so general, it is not surprising if two kings at different times adopted the same title. We give a few as specimens.
RA KHEPER KA. The Sun, the existence of the world.
RA KHEPER EN The Sun, belonging to the world.
RA MEN KHEPER The Sun, Establisher of the world.
RA As KHEPER-U The Sun, Great One of the worlds.
RA MEN KHEPER-U The Sun, Establisher of the worlds.
RA TSER KHEPER-U The Sun, Dispenser to the world.
RA NEB PEH-TI The Sun, Lord of glory.
RA TSER KA The Sun, Dispenser of existence.
RA NEB MA The Sun, Lord of truth.
RA MEN PEH The Sun, Establisher of glory.
RA MEN MA The Sun, Establisher of truth.
RA USER MA The Sun, Guardian of truth.
SAT? EN RA Approved of by the Sun.
The translation of these names is doubtful, for some of the words have different meanings, and there is nothing to decide which was intended. The words too are sometimes transposed, and RA is placed at the end instead of the beginning, and read as passive instead of active. The writers on Egypt generally leave these names untranslated: as long as what king is alluded to is known, the end is answered.
Over the ovals are found a variety of symbols, one or more of which were adopted by all the kings.
As to the general name of Pharaoh, Josephus says that it signifies "king;" but gives no key as to how this is made out. It is now generally believed to be simply PH-RA: PH, the article, and RA, "sun." If this be correct, the simple sign of the sun O would express the same as Pharaoh. It is found in nearly all the kings' names or titles.
Interpretation Tested.
It may reasonably be asked, are we sure, even now, that the hieroglyphics are correctly interpreted? Suppose the guesses have been so neatly and systematically done, that they fit in one with another, and make the whole to give some result, how do we know that that result is the true one? Could not some other clever man interpret the whole altogether in another manner, which might also be consistent in itself?
Not to mention others, it is well known that the Rev. C. Foster had a very different system—taking the Arabic as a kindred language instead of the Coptic, which is taken by the system we have been considering. The way his system seemed to hang together, and give a sense to everything he examined, appeared very plausible, and for a time, at least, perplexed many as to which of the rival systems was correct; but we suppose all have before this time come to the conclusion that Mr. F. was wrong. But it is certainly a legitimate question, Is the other right?
Well, there are some external proofs that seem to stamp upon the now acknowledged system a confirmation not to be gainsaid. For instance, from various materials and data, it had been settled that the Great Pyramid had been built by a certain king. In an expedition conducted by General Vyse, some chambers were discovered, which had never been opened since the building was erected. These new apartments were a series of entresols, one above another, over the king's chamber, intended, as is supposed, to lighten the weight of the heavy masonry. In them were found scrawls on the stones by some of the workmen. These marks, therefore, were of the same date as the building of the pyramid. In these scrawls occur the names of two kings —KHUFU and NOU-KHUFU—one of whom had been previously concluded to be the builder of the pyramid, and the other, the next king of his dynasty. In the Third Pyramid also was found on a mummy-case, the name of MENKARA, which also agreed with the name previously known.
The names of kings occurring in the same parts of edifices have been easily recognized as belonging to one and the same period. Thus the Cæsars are found together, and the Ptolemies together. The styles are also distinct. "The accurate delicate style 'of the Psammetichi is not accompanied by any but names of that line; the heavy style of the Ptolemies is not found with Egyptian or Roman names; the still heavier style of the early emperors does not contain the names of the later ones, under whom Egyptian art reached its lowest point.”
“The date of the Rosetta stone is B.C. 196. The oldest Coptic papyri are not much earlier than the close of the sixth century after the Christian era." Yet Coptic is considered to be a debased form of ancient Egyptian, essentially differing but little from it. This is proved by many words referring to actions which cannot be misunderstood; or to animals which are drawn with their names over, and these names are essentially the same in Egyptian and in Coptic.
It may be said that the student knows what he wants to find, and finds it somehow; but this is not true. All have wanted to find some account of Joseph and the Israelites; and though some have imagined that they have discovered certain traces, further investigation has not confirmed the supposition; we may say, that nothing has been with certainty discovered.
“The alphabet may be obtained without the guess that led Dr. Young to its discovery. There is in the Leyden Museum a well-known enchorial papyrus, in which certain words are transcribed in Greek characters. From these transcriptions an enchorial alphabet may be formed, by which the words in the enchorial inscription of the Rosetta stone, enclosed in signs like those we use for parentheses, will be found to furnish the same names as the corresponding words enclosed in rings in the hieroglyphic inscription according to Dr. Young's reading."
There is also another stone—known as "The Decree of Canopus"—written in hieroglyphics with a Greek translation. This was discovered in 1866 by some German gentlemen at Tanis. The priests met at the city of Canopus, where they drew up the decree. It contains thirty-seven lines of Egyptian, and seventy-five of Greek. Each inscription is written without spaces between the words. In this inscription, proper names occur, which would have given a key to many characters of the hieroglyphics, had they not been already discovered, but which were confirmed by this. Here, again, the Coptic was the best means of deciding the words in most cases, and gave the same sense to the hieroglyphics as was read from the Greek.
Another stone was discovered during the progress of the works of the Suez Canal. It contained an inscription in hieroglyphics and in Greek, referring to Ptolemans III and his wife Berenice. Here, again, the correct translation of the hieroglyphics was proved by the Greek.
There are also vases found that bear inscriptions in hieroglyphics and cuneiform characters; and while some scholars have read the cuneiform, others have interpreted the hieroglyphic, each by their separate and independent systems: and the names of Persian sovereigns have been declared to be the same by both systems. The natural conclusion is, that they are both right.
There is, however, yet more conclusive evidence in favor of the present system of interpretation. Certain fragments have been discovered of the lost work of Chæremon in hieroglyphics. This man was an Egyptian by birth, and sacred scribe and keeper of the library of Alexandria towards the close of the first century of the Christian era. The fragments contain the explanation of nineteen hieroglyphic signs, whereof three have more meanings than one, making in all, twenty-six significations. Of these, fifteen agree with the present system, and are thus thought to be certain. Three are probably, and another three possibly, to be placed in the same class, from their similarity; while five are positively unknown; and there is no contradiction.
Considering the short time the interpretation has been attempted, and the difficulties attending an unknown language without a single book of instruction of any sort, the above result is so far satisfactory, and beyond what might have been expected.
Writing Materials.
In hieroglyphics, a roll of papyrus tied at the center, denoted rolls, books, writing, &c. Another sign gave the materials. On the left is the pen; in the center, the bottle of ink; and on the right, the pallet with two indentations for holding the colors. This sign does equally well to point out the painter as the scribe.
The scribe used a small portable writing-tablet, about sixteen inches long and two inches wide. It was made of alabaster, porcelain, wood, or ivory, about a quarter of an inch in thickness. In the upper part were small depressions for holding the ink, and at the lower part a groove for the writing-reeds. The reeds, called KASH, were split, but not cut to a point, with which the scribe rather painted than wrote the characters. The common colors were black and red; but other colors were used, as in painting. The writing for common purposes was almost on anything; thin slices of stone, tiles, linen, leather, wood, on which was placed a layer of cloth and plastered over; and for documents of more importance, the papyrus was used. This was a sort of paper made by fastening thin slices of the pith of the papyrus plant together, strengthened by a layer of the same placed the reverse way, and all well pressed together. These were seldom wider than fifteen inches, but were several feet in length, especially for the ritual of the dead. The Great Harris Papyrus was a hundred and thirty-three feet in length, and sixteen and three-quarter inches wide. These were rolled up and placed in leather cases for protection—or in wooden images of Osiris. In the British Museum are some of these god-shaped cases, in which are portions of the papyrus. But this material was too expensive for common every-day life, and the fragments of broken vases, &c., were used to write accounts, or even a soldier's furlough.
There is a prophecy that has been thought to declare that the papyrus should cease to grow in Egypt. (Isa. 19:77The paper reeds by the brooks, by the mouth of the brooks, and every thing sown by the brooks, shall wither, be driven away, and be no more. (Isaiah 19:7).) "The paper reeds by the brooks.... shall wither, be driven away, and be no more;" but translators are not at all agreed that this refers to "paper reeds." Nevertheless it is a fact that the papyrus has ceased to grow in Egypt.
It is remarkable that though paper made of rags, &c. has long since superseded all other materials, paper is much used in narrow strips as was the papyrus. A traveler who had begged a letter of introduction from the Patriarch of the Coptic Church at Cairo, writes, "Then we sought out the scribe, which was no easy matter. At last he came to us with his reed in his hand, and his silver inkhorn at his girdle, and immediately began to concoct the rough draft of the note required; this took place as we stood in the court below, in front of the new Coptic Church. An oriental scribe requires no office for his work; he carries all his materials in his girdle, and the palm of his hand is his usual desk. This accounts for the long strips of paper on which notes are generally written in the East.”
The paper made of papyrus was succeeded by parchment, which was more durable. It is supposed that this was first made about B.C. 250, and was extensively used for copies of the Holy Scriptures. This has preserved these inestimable treasures, the papyrus being of a nature far too perishable. A very small portion of the scriptures has come down to us on papyrus. The miscellaneous documents seen in our museums owe their preservation to being buried in tombs and in the folds of mummies, as also in the buried city of Herculaneum. But God's word must be preserved, and the Author of it brought parchment to light when copies and translations of the Old Testament were needed by His people.