tices are all that can be gleaned from the ancient authors respecting the state and condition of the country of the Pharaohs. It is certain, however, that, both prior and subsequent to the Persian invasion, the Greeks, notwithstanding the exclusive spirit with which they have somewhat inconsistently reproached the ministers of religion, then the sole depositaries of knowledge, were in the habit of resorting to Egypt to be initiated in the laws, customs, and learning of that country; and that in proportion as the principles of civilization took root in the genial soil of Greece, they crowded back to imbibe from the great fountainhead fresh supplies to facilitate and encourage their growth. Thales, Pythagoras, Plato, and others, all acquired in Egypt the elements of that science which they afterwards taught, with such success, to their countrymen; and even the rudiments of Grecian Art, the originals of those beautiful forms, which the fine genius of the Greeks, improving upon their models, raised to an almost ideal perfection, may be distinctly traced to the banks of the Nile. The Persians, under Cambyses, had indeed overturned the temples and monuments consecrated to the worship of the Gods; in their rage against idolatry, they had ravaged the country, and deluged it in blood; but they had neither been able to destroy the monuments on which they discharged their iconoclastic fury, nor to exterminate the learning and science which they could not appreciate. Hence, when the fortunes of a second conquest had placed Kings of Greek descent on the throne of the Pharaohs, Egypt, under their enlightened sway, recovered a portion of its ancient splendour; the treasures of that renowned seat of early civilization were laid open to inquiry and investigation; and when, at length, the caprice of a third conquest degraded it to the rank of a Roman province, the masters of the world came, in their turn, to dispose of all that yet remained to grave and learned Egypt.

To the Greeks, therefore, who had appropriated much of the science, and to the Romans who had exported not a few of the monuments of ancient Egypt, (where each of these nations had in turn obtained the ascendancy), it was natural to look for complete information touching the institutions, arts, and literature of that remarkable region. Nor, in all that concerns the two former, will we look altogether in vain. The Father of History has devoted a considerable portion of his invaluable work to details connected with the laws, usages, manners, and topography of Egypt, which he studied on the spot with a care and fidelity that have stood the test of the most severe criticism; and not a little curious and useful information may be gleaned from the works of Diodorus, StraVOL. XLV. No. 89. . G

ers.

bo, and others, as well as from those of the later Roman writOn the subject of Egyptian art, too, as displayed in those colossal structures which still remain, having outlived the ravages of more than three thousand years, and the fury of five conquests, the same authorities furnish us with details of the utmost interest and value;-details without the aid and guidance of which the study of these monuments would prove a hopeless and unprofitable undertaking.

But there is one subject, and that the most important of all, in regard to which they have supplied only a few scanty and hitherto almost unintelligible notices;-we mean the Literature of ancient Egypt, including, of course, the method of writing practised in that country. This is, doubtless, a lamentable omission-one, indeed, of which it is difficult to offer an explanation, and for which it is impossible to devise an apology. Nor will our surprise on this account be lessened by reflecting, that, in Egypt, the arts of Sculpture and Painting were at all times subordinate to, and in reality branches of, the art of Writing; that the monuments scattered over its surface were nearly all covered externally with sculptures, and many internally with paintings, intended to serve as representatives either of ideas, or of the sounds of a spoken language, or of both. Here was a phenomenon calculated, one would have imagined, to arouse the most incurious observer, and to excite the most ardent spirit of inquiry: For what subject of greater interest could be presented to the human mind than the language and literature of a great and enlightened nation-especially when the preservation of both has been consigned to eternal monuments? But, from whatever cause it has happened, whether from national pride, which led them to disdain those languages which they considered barbarous, or from an absolute want of philological talent, -the fact undoubtedly is, that the Classical Writers supply us with only a few vague and general notices, which, but for recent discoveries, would be nearly unintelligible; while they at once aggravate and apologize for their ignorance by asserting, that, as Egypt was the parent of art and science, so the Hieroglyphical Inscriptions on its public monuments contain a summary of the most important mysteries of nature, and the most sublime inventions of man; but that the interpretation of these characters had been so studiously concealed by the priests from the knowledge of the vulgar, and had indeed been so imperfectly understood even by themselves, that it was soon wholly lost and forgotten. It is even alleged, though the story seems to rest on no authentic foundation, that a reward was offered in vain by

one of the first Cæsars, for an interpretation of the inscription on an obelisk, then recently brought from Egypt to Rome.

Be this as it may, however, it was reserved for a Father of the Church to record the first precise and exact statement of the different methods of writing practised in Egypt ;-a statement so exact and so precise, that it serves as a key to the partial information contained in the classical authors, and tallies, in a remarkable manner, with the result of those brilliant discoveries to which we are about to direct the attention of our readers. For this reason, before proceeding to give any account of the progress which has, within these few years, been made in the interesting task of deciphering the sacred sculptures on the Egyptian monuments, it may be necessary, first of all, to advert to such intelligible information as is to be found in the ancient authors, and to exhibit a view of the state of opinion relative to this subject among modern inquirers, anterior to the period when Dr Young and M. Champollion commenced their exemplary labours.

When the arts were yet in their infancy, men employed mimetic images, or portraits to represent individual objects, and give notice of events to those at a distance. Thus, the Mexicans denoted the arrival of the Spaniards by a rude delineation of a ship, and of a man distinguished by the peculiarities of the European dress. But mere mimetic images, which could convey no idea of time, or any abstract quality, were totally insufficient for the purposes of communicating information and recording events. Hence conventional signs were chosen, to serve as symbols both of things and thoughts. But much time must have elapsed before men learned to communicate with one another by means of symbolical pictures; and no length of time could render such a method of communication easy. The painter would probably begin improvement by lessening the size and abridging the number of his signs,—the language spoken to the ear helping him to form that which was to be addressed to the eye. But, in the formation of language, man invariably proceeds from particulars to generals, classifying individuals according to their species, and arranging qualities under their proper categories. Thus, in inventing words for expressing his ideas, he would also invent the means of limiting their number; and, as oral preceded written language, the forms and figures of speech would instruct the graphic artist both how to express his sentiments and abridge his symbols. The metaphors he employed in speaking would suggest the images which he might use in writing. If, when he spoke, he called a strong man a lion, when he wrote he

might draw the figure of that animal as the symbol of strength or force. But the inconvenience of representing the entire image would be almost immediately felt; and therefore necessity would teach the use of synecdoche, or putting a part for the whole, as when the Mexicans represented the rabbit by its head, and the reed by its flower. By another natural transition, an action or event would be indicated by some object necessary to its accomplishment, as when the Egyptians expressed the existence of a siege by painting a scaling-ladder. Thus, the classifications which take place in all languages, but more especially the tropes and figures which abound in all dialects spoken by nations not yet refined by the highest civilization, must have greatly facilitated both the invention and the comprehension of hieroglyphics. +

But whatever might be the talents of the graphical painter or sculptor, his method was essentially defective; his symbols were constantly liable to be misunderstood, and his art could only be practised by a few. Therefore, as necessity is the parent of invention, and as the natural tendency of improvement is to abbreviate and simplify, the inconveniences attending the hieroglyphical mode of writing appear to have induced the Egyptians, at a very early period of their history, to begin at least the invention of a more compendious and practicable method of expressing their thoughts, by reference to the sounds of their living speech.

Accordingly, after mentioning that, contrary to the method of the Greeks, the Egyptians wrote from right to left (which is the truth, but not the whole truth, as we shall see hereafter), Herodotus proceeds to state, that they employed two kinds of characters, the one denominated sacred (iga), and the other popular (dnuoruna); f but he says nothing which would lead us to infer that these sacred and popular characters had any affinity with each other. Diodorus Siculus repeats the statement of Herodotus almost in the same words; adding, moreover, that the popular characters were taught to all, but that the knowledge of the sacred characters was confined exclusively to the priests. This is concise enough undoubtedly; but it embraces the whole information which these authors (both of whom had visited Egypt)

Horus Apollo, Hieroglyphica, L. 11. + Origines, B. IV. c. 9.

† Δίφασιοισι δὲ γραμμασι χρεώνται (Αίγυπτίοι), καὶ τὰ μὲν αὐτων ίρα, τὰ δὲ

§ Δίττων γαρ Αἰγυπτίοις ὄντων γραμμάτων, τὰ μὲν δημώδη προσαγορευομενα παντας μανθάνειν, τὰ δ ̓ ἱερα καλουμενα παρὰ μεν τοις Αἰγυπτίοις μόνους γινώσκειν Tous ittus, x. T. A. III. .

have thought proper to communicate on this interesting subject. Scanty as it is, however, it is in perfect accordance with the inscription on the Rosetta Stone, to which we shall have frequent occasion afterwards to refer, and in regard to which it is impossible to suspect any error, since it bears to have been engraved under the inspection of the Egyptian priests themselves. That celebrated monument, agreeing in this respect with the authors just named, makes mention of only two kinds of characters; the one called enchorial (εγχώρια γράμματα), or ' characters of the 'country,' evidently identical with the demotic characters of Herodotus and Diodorus ; and the other sacred (ἱερά). But, notwithstanding this coincidence, we have yet learned nothing of the nature of these sacred and enchorial or popular characters; and must, therefore, turn at once to the well-known passage of Clemens Alexandrinus, in which that learned Father enumerates, with a precision to which recent discoveries have given a high value, the different methods of writing employed and taught by the worshippers of Isis and Osiris. The passage alluded to, which is not without difficulty, has been often quoted, and we may add, often misunderstood or mistranslated; but, as it supplies a sort of key to the statements already given, and will be found in the sequel to receive a singular verification, its insertion entire is indispensable to that full view of the subject which we are anxious to lay before our readers.

'Those who are educated among the Egyptians learn first of ' all the method of Egyptian writing called EPISTOLOGRAPHIC; 'secondly, the HIERATIC, which the hierogrammatists (or sa'cred scribes) employ; and, lastly, the most complete kind, the HIEROGLYPHIC,-of which one sort is kuriologic' (or expressive of objects in a proper, not figurative or metaphorical, manner) by means of the first (or initial) elements' (of words —that is, as we understand it, by reference to the initial sounds of

ή

* Αντίκα οἱ παρ' Αἰγυπτίοις παιδευόμενοι πρῶτον μὲν πάντων τὴν Αἰγυπτίων γραμμάτων μεθοδον, ἐκμανθάνουσι, τὴν ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΟΓΡΑΦΙΚΗΝ καλουμένην δεύτερον δὲ, τὴν ̔ΙΕΡΑΤΙΚΗΝ, ᾗ χρῶνται δι ἱερογραμματεις· ὑστάτὴν δὲ καὶ τελευταίαν ΙΕΡΟΓΛΥΦΙΚΗΝ, ἧς ἡ μὲν ἐστι διὰ τῶν πρώτων στοιχείων κυριολο γική, ἡ δὲ συμβολική. Τῆς δὲ συμβολικῆς ἡ μὲν κυριολογεῖται κατὰ μίμησιν, ἡ δ' ώσπερ τροπικῶς γραφεται, ἡ δὲ ἀντικρὺς ἀλληγορεῖται κατὰ τινας αινιγμους. Ἥλιον γοῦν γράψαι βουλόμενοι κύκλον ποιοῦσι, σελήνην δὲ σχῆμα μηνοειδές, κατὰ το κυριολογούμενον ἔίδος. Τροπικῶς δὲ κατ' οικειότητα μετάγοντες καὶ μετατιθέντες, τὰ δ ̓ ἐξαλλαττοντες, τὰ δὲ πολλαχῶς μετασχηματίζοντες χαράττουσιν. Τοὺς γοῦν τῶν βασιλέων ἐπαίνους θεολογουμένοις μύθοις παραδίδοντες, αναγράφουσι διὰ τῶν ἀναγλυφῶν. Τοῦ δὲ κατὰ τοὺς ἀινιγμοὺς τρίτου είδους δεῖγμα ἔστω τόδε· τα μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἄλλων ἄστρων, διὰ τὴν πορείαν τὴν λοξὴν ὄψεων σώμασι ἀπείκαζον, τὸν δὲ Ἥλιον τῷ τοῦ κανθάρου, κ. τ. λ. Strom. V. 647. Potter.