it necessary to hurry, as Turin is without doubt the most important
point of my journey as far as the collection of materials is concerned.
One realizes this thrice as strongly when one has staid here awhile and
become familiar with the situation. I leave this excellent museum very
unwillingly, but one would have to stay for years to exhaust it, and I
do not think that I have employed my time ill. You will enjoy the rich
harvest which I bring you from here. I have taken paper impressions of
all the inscriptions engraved on hard stone; part of them with starch,
which makes them indestructible. Unfortunately, I could not continue my
Parisian collection of a hundred and twenty stelae in the same way, for
they were unnecessarily afraid here of injury to the limestone from the
damp paper, so that the most important stelae and many other objects in
limestone I have partly counterdrawn with pith paper and partly copied,
and have done this to some extent in the colors, the value of which I
first learned to appreciate properly here. The greater part of the time,
though, I have spent upon the rich stores of papyrus, almost the whole
of which, with all the important fragments of every kind, I have
counterdrawn or copied. I have taken special pains with the large
perfect ritual, which can be found here and nowhere else.” He had not
yet seen the stores of papyrus in London and Leyden. “It was a matter of
special importance to me to possess some common basis for all the other
fragments of the ritual (which are to be found everywhere; a portion of
them are at Rome), for the special purpose of beginning an extensive
collection of the different readings; very necessary for the study of
hieroglyphics. Therefore, I have spared no pains to compare the whole
Parisian papyrus, a copy of which I have, with that here. I have noted
all the different readings, in the text as well as in the vignettes, and
counterdrawn all that is lacking, which amounts to about twice as much
as the Parisian copy. So that I now possess the most perfect ritual, in
a volume of more than sixty sheets of paper, of half-folio size,
stitched together, besides the collation of the Parisian ritual, a
preparatory work which will be very valuable for future studies.”
In fact all the material that he so laboriously acquired at Turin formed
the foundation for his celebrated edition of the Book of the Dead, of
which we shall have to speak hereafter. Many historical dates, which are
contained in the monuments preserved at Turin and the famous papyrus of
the kings were also collected by him in 1836; yet he found, on his
second journey to Turin in 1841, that in his first visit to the museum
many of the treasures preserved there had been purposely withheld from
him.
From Turin he went to Pisa, partly to make the acquaintance of
Rosellini, with whom he had long been in scientific correspondence,
partly to study the monuments which the latter had brought with him, and
the papyrus and other written records which were intrusted to the care
of the Italian Egyptologist.
“Rosellini,” he writes on the twentieth of March, 1836, “received me
very cordially, and I find myself well off in this excellent family,
where I spend the whole day, from nine o’clock in the morning till nine
at night.” The monuments here had less to offer him, “but so much the
more do I learn,” he writes, “from Rosellini’s Lexicon of Hieroglyphics.
This also contains the accumulations of Champollion, and I shall copy it
out in full. Besides this, I derive great benefit from the oral
instruction and communications, which Rosellini gives me on all possible
subjects without the least reservation. I quickly perceived, that I
should not be able to leave this place as soon as I had expected.” The
following verses, with which he took leave of the Rosellinis, may show
how intimate the relation had become between the young German and the
family of the Italian scholar:
From the South to the South
I am driven away;
From the North to the South--
Yet fain would I stay.
* * * * *
From country to country,
From dome unto dome;
From Strasburg to Pisa,
From Pisa to Rome.
* * * * *
Wert thou in the South land,
Thou home of my heart,
No farther I’d wander,
I’d never depart.
* * * * *
Yet linger I may not,
And so I prepare
In my heart a warm shelter,
And cherish thee there.
* * * * *
Then when farther I’m roaming
I’ll bear thee with me,
And Heaven, protecting,
Will guard me with thee.
PISA, April 19, 1836.
After Pisa he visited Leghorn, where was lodged the Drovetti collection,
which was afterwards purchased for the Berlin Museum, by the special
advice of Lepsius. The owner had asked sixty thousand francs, and got
thirty thousand. Amongst the monuments was the Colossus of Rameses II,
and the valuable fragment of the statue of Usurtasen I. (throne and
legs). This is now restored and is the great ornament of the Egyptian
collection in the capital city of the empire. It may be seen, from a
letter which Lepsius wrote to Bunsen about the collection, that the
fragment of the statue of Usurtasen I. had only been brought to Europe
by Drovetti in order to restore with it the slightly injured colossus of
the same king. The fragment consisted of the same “black granite”
(properly graywacke) as the better preserved statue of Rameses II.
In May, 1836, Lepsius at last arrived in Rome, richly laden with
treasures. There, for the first time, he met Charles J. Bunsen, who had
directed his attention towards Egyptian antiquity, and had assisted him
with fatherly kindness during his residence in Paris. Bunsen was at that
time living on the Tiber as Prussian Ambassador, under the title of
Minister Resident. He presided as chief secretary over the
Archaeological Institute, which had been founded by Gerhard, with his
assistance, in 1829. Ten years before the arrival of Lepsius,
Champollion had visited Rome, and found there an enthusiastic admirer
and disciple in Bunsen. Absorbed in numerous affairs, and in other
branches of research,[24] the latter could devote but a small portion
of his time to Egyptological studies. In Lepsius he believed that he had
found the right man to continue the work of Champollion with greater
success, and in a more profound and independent spirit, than the
Master’s two disciples, Salvolini and Rosellini. He also hoped that
Lepsius would be specially fitted to take charge of the business of
recording secretary of the Institute in conjunction with Braun. For this
he had already proved his ability in Paris.
The affairs of this learned society were at that time in a very bad
condition. The most necessary pecuniary means were wanting, differences
of opinion, which seemed entirely irreconcilable, divided the Parisian
and the Roman-Prussian sections, and indeed there was serious question
as to the continued existence of this beneficient Institute. But, as
Michaelis, its historiographer, expresses himself, “Danger stimulated
Bunsen’s elastic spirit,” and at the right moment Lepsius, together with
Braun, “who was delighted with his expert colleague,” stepped into the
breach. We will not say that it was Lepsius alone who averted the
threatened danger, but it is certainly to be partly ascribed to his warm
personal relations with Panofka, de Witte, and the noble Duc de Luynes,
who was so influential in France, that the relations of the society to
Paris, and its affairs in general, improved soon after his participation
in the management. What impression he made on his appearance in Rome may
be shown by the following passage from a letter which Bunsen’s wife
wrote to her mother on the twelfth of May, 1856: “Lepsius,” says this
estimable lady, “has been here since Monday. He makes a very pleasant
impression in regard to character as well as talents; in short, he
fulfills the expectations roused by his letters, which were clear,
upright, intelligent, copious, but not excessive. He has naturally
refined manners, but no stiffness, and is neither presuming nor shy. It
is incredible, what material he has collected for his study of Egyptian
antiquities, and his drawings are wonderfully executed. You can fancy
that Charles (Bunsen) is delighted to talk of hieroglyphics with him;
yet it does not make him idle,--he is busily occupied the whole day, and
only at meal times and in the evenings does he enjoy such a great
pleasure.”
At that time Bunsen was already contemplating the execution of his great
work “The Place of Egypt in the History of the World,” and from the
first was disposed to confide many of the special researches for it to
Lepsius. Soon, however, (indeed long before his recall from Rome), he
felt inclined to offer him the honor of being his collaborator. “Bunsen
and Lepsius” were to appear upon the title-page as the authors; and if
the elder scholar and statesmen furnished the great leading ideas, the
young doctor, with bee-like industry, collected everything in Rome that
might prove useful for the details of the work.
Bunsen knew how to value the labors of the new member of the board of
directors and editing secretary of the Institute, and Lepsius soon felt
at home in the inspiring atmosphere of his house.
The Ambassador and Gerhard both successfully exerted their influence in
Berlin to induce the Academy, which was already well disposed towards
the first critically trained German Egyptologist, to grant him
additional assistance. It would be impossible to imagine help more
energetic, more disinterested, or more efficacious, than that which
Lepsius thus received from Bunsen. The hundreds of letters before us,
addressed by the former to his patron, show how the relation between
them became continually more intimate and cordial. The superscription
changes by degrees from “Highly Honored Herr Minister,” to “Dearest Herr
Privy Counselor,” “My Dear, Fatherly Friend,” and finally, “Most Highly
Esteemed Friend.” When the young scholar writes to his beloved patron on
special occasions, his letters, usually calm and confined to the matter
in hand, acquire a heartiness and warmth otherwise alien to them. He
once wrote to Bunsen on his birthday (1839): “My heartiest thanks for
your splendid letter of August twenty-second, and for the delightful
lines which I received yesterday. May the Lord grant you his most
abundant blessing in the new year of your life just beginning, as in all
that follow, and preserve to me your fatherly affection, which has
already so often strengthened, encouraged, and refreshed me. I have far
greater need of you, and am more dependent on you than it may appear to
you. I feel it with every sheet that I receive from your hand, and that
surprises me unawares in my disposition to triviality, timidity, and
every sort of narrow-mindedness. Your words, even the most unimportant,
fall like pearls upon my poverty, and I feed upon them from one letter
to another.”
With what sincerity these ardent phrases were meant is evident from
Lepsius’ letters to his father and mother, in which he always speaks of
Bunsen with enthusiasm and child-like affection.
Even in after years Lepsius’ eye would still kindle, his measured speech
grow fervent, when he recalled Charles Bunsen, the inexhaustible wealth
of his ideas, the depth of his knowledge, the purity of his character,
and the friendship which united the statesman and investigator, though
twenty years the older, with the aspiring scholar; which only gained in
strength from year to year, survived the death of the one, and was borne
to the grave with the other.
Bunsen had the advantage of Lepsius in a rich, poetic, soaring
imagination, otherwise they had many great qualities in common.
Frederick William IV. had honored Bunsen with the title of baron. Apart
from this, however, he, like Lepsius, deserves to be designated as a
genuine noble German freeman; that is, a man of unalterable intrinsic
superiority, who derives the right to carry his head loftily, not from
external circumstances, but from honest, indefatigable, difficult, and
conscientious work. To such labor they both remained faithful through
all the circumstances of life, and when we see the leaders of a
turbulent party claiming the name of “workman” exclusively for the man
with horny hands, and exerting themselves to restrict within the
narrowest limits the hours of employment for the day laborer, we would
point to these two men, who free from every material solicitude of life,
turned their nights into day, bade defiance to bodily fatigue, and only
sought refreshment in change of occupation, in order to fit themselves
for the exalted enterprise which they had imposed upon themselves.
His first purely Egyptological paper presents the most brilliant
evidence of the zeal and sagacity with which Lepsius, from the
beginning, devoted himself to the study of the Egyptian writing and
language. It appeared in the annals of the Roman Archaeological
Institute, in the shape of a letter to his Pisan friend, Rosellini,[25]
and ranks among model works of this kind on account of its wonderful
succinctness, clearness and comprehensiveness. Lepsius gives in it a
complete summary of the whole system of writing of the ancient
Egyptians. He distinguishes, with clearness and acuteness, the elements
of which this is composed, and from the Master’s list of sound symbols,
which was much too large, he singles out those elements which do not
properly belong there, and fortunately rejects one of the fundamental
errors of Champollion’s system. As we now know, the phonetic part of
hieroglyphics, that is the part relating to sounds, consists simply of
letters which were sounded,--our _matres lectionis_,--and syllabic
signs. These by themselves alone can represent a syllable. Thus, the
mere picture of a mirror is to be read ‘_anch_,’ but to this picture may
also pertain all the sounds of the syllable which it represents: thus,
in our case, an ‘_a_, _n_, and _ch_.’ Champollion, on the contrary, had
known nothing of syllabic symbols, and thus regarded the mirror as a
mere abbreviation of the word ‘_anch_,’ which he had also met with
written out in full.
This error was done away with by Lepsius,[26] and through him that
immensely important element of writing, the syllabic symbol, received
its due. The observations contained in this treatise on the relation of
Coptic (See page 76) to ancient Egyptian, are also of fundamental value.
Lepsius’ letter to Rosellini gives a critical recapitulation of the
discoveries of the Master. It is the first really methodical and
scientific work of an adherent of the Champollionic system, and although
after this Lepsius only returned incidentally to the linguistic and
grammatical side of Egyptology,[27] yet in this work, as everywhere
where he planted the lever, he has pointed out the right way and method.
In the Nubian Grammar, which was one of the chief works of his life,
and which was completed at a late date, he showed how firmly he stood
upon the grammatical foundation so early won, and how faithful he
remained thenceforth to grammatical studies. He did not cease, too, to
work at those studies, regarding the sounds of languages and the
alphabet, to which he had early devoted himself. His “Standard
Alphabet,”[28] which originated long afterwards and amidst great
opposition, was intended chiefly to enable missionaries and travellers
to reproduce correctly in our own language the sounds of the foreign
tongues examined by them. This was to be done by means of letters,
easily and conveniently modified by dashes and dots. It became of great
practical importance, as it was adopted by the English “Church
Missionary Society” as the most available universal alphabet to be
employed, according to their directions, by their emissaries. No one can
deny that it is also of scientific value. Its applicability has been
specially proved with the African languages, and in this department it
has been most successfully employed in a great number of grammatical and
lexicographical works, as well as biblical translations and the
reproduction of narrations, legends, and proverbs in the various idioms.
Of the Hamitic branch of the African languages, which is distinguished
by grammatical genders, there are seven side-branches, from the ancient
Egyptian to the _Haūsa-_ and _Nama-_ (_Namaqua-_) languages, which have
been thus examined. Of the more remote native African idioms there are
not less than twenty-two. In 1874, during the Congress of Orientalists
at London, we ourselves were permitted to hold council with him and
other leaders of science, concerning an acceptable universal method of
transcription for hieroglyphic writing. Many of his propositions were
adopted at that time, but the method of transcription agreed on in the
British Museum did not become current, and it is undoubtedly in need of
much improvement.
Lepsius had already given particular attention to the two special
departments in which he was to achieve the greatest and most fruitful
results; first at Göttingen, under the superintendence of O. Müller,
then in Paris after the publication of Biot’s work, and finally at Rome,
in the company of Bunsen. These departments were first, history, with
its numerical groundwork of chronology, and in the second place,
mythology.
Here, everything was still to be achieved, for before the hieroglyphics
had been deciphered, scholars had been obliged to depend solely upon
Grecian accounts of the Egyptian kings and gods, especially upon those
given by Herodotus, and therefore had often relied on reports which were
most inadequate, and which in many cases were misunderstood. The power
recently acquired of reading the writing of the Egyptians disclosed a
wealth of original material, which was unexpected, new, and authentic.
The incontrovertible importance of this was self-evident, and even
during Champollion’s lifetime many rushed upon the freshly discovered
mines, and sought to rifle them for historical and mythological
purposes. But, although at the outset many mistakes and uncertainties
were rectified, and much that was incontestably new was established, yet
on the other hand, error after error was introduced into the science by
the rash course of the immediate successors of Champollion. They
received on faith that which they only half comprehended, and applied it
without care or criticism. They instituted comparisons upon bases either
false or insufficiently established, and by means of them arrived at
conclusions that we can now only regard with scorn and dismay. In place
of the imperfect knowledge of former time, there appeared as its evil
successor a disorder without parallel. The grateful, but difficult task
undertaken by Lepsius, was to clear this away, and compel Egyptological
research to conform to the same critical method which has become
obligatory for other branches of study, and without which there can be
no soundness in science.
Out of vague and unregulated fancies concerning Egyptian history and
mythology, he formed a true Egyptian history and science of Egyptian
divinities. By his strong hand were restrained the more or less
ingenious and active divagations of Champollion’s successors, and he
pointed out the path by which alone Egyptology could succeed in winning
the name of a science.
His course was at the same time bold, prudent, and dexterous. He
considered the whole extent of the monumental material collected by
himself, or otherwise attainable, separated it into groups, sifted
these, and treated the essential constituents which he thus extracted
according to the same critical method to which he had become accustomed
in other departments of science, under the tutelage of Hermann, Dissen,
Müller, Bopp, Lachmann, and Boeckh.
After his journey to England and Holland, of which we shall soon have to
speak, he possessed a sovereign comprehensive view of all of the written
relics of the Egyptians to be found in Europe. But he carefully guarded
himself against drawing conclusions from them which had not been
thoroughly worked out, or from using them, like many other followers of
Champollion, in the building of card houses.
In the historical group of his collectanea, which were arranged with the
orderliness peculiar to himself, he brought together all the kings’
names which it was possible to obtain, and all texts provided with
dates, as well as all writings on stone or papyrus which concerned the
genealogical relations of the Pharaonic families. Thus, too, during his
sojourn at Rome we see him chiefly occupied in collecting the building
stones only for that chronological-historical edifice to be reared in
more tranquil days, and which he expected to erect in common with
Bunsen.
This self-control was to be well rewarded, for on his first and most
important expedition to Egypt there flowed in upon him an affluence of
new material, especially regarding the earliest epoch of Pharaonic
history, which supplemented and in many ways modified that previously
obtained. We can now take a comprehensive view of all the acquisitions
of that time, and if we compare them with the two folio volumes of his
Book of Kings,[29] or rather with the first draught of the same as he
completed it in 1842, we must be astonished at the wealth of material
which he had collected by the close of his sojourn upon the Tiber. The
work mentioned contains in its present form all the names of the
Pharaohs which have been preserved on monuments or papyrus, and is an
indispensable handbook to anyone occupied in the study of Egyptian
history. Its accuracy is equal to its copiousness, in which it had of
course gained immensely, compared to the first sketch, which he
willingly and frequently showed us.
The production of a new book of this kind could only mean the giving of
a new title to Lepsius’ Book of Kings, for the arrangement of this great
work is so fine and faultless that a change could but injure it. If we
regard the first draft of the Book of Kings, which was completed before
the Egyptian journey (it was never printed), as the foundation of
Lepsius’ later chronological labors, we must acknowledge that at that
time it would have been entirely impossible to add anything new to what
was there collected.
It is with such weapons as these that victories are won, but he who had
forged them imposed upon himself one preparatory labor after another
before he entered upon the combat, and used them for the great
historical purposes which he had in view.
In Turin he had also laid the foundations for his later researches in
mythology, especially that of the ancient Egyptians, and in this group
of studies we see him proceed with exactly the same method and
circumspection as in his chronological works. His predecessors had found
the innumerable and motley figures of the Egyptian Pantheon, often
accompanied by their names, portrayed upon monuments of stone and
papyrus, and had compared them with those divine beings of the Egyptians
mentioned by the classic writers. They had attempted to explain the
significance of these figures, and in so doing, where the sources of
information at their command would not serve them, they had given free
play to their imaginations,--it is only necessary to remember the
ingenious phantasies of Creuzer, Roth, etc. The gods throng through
their writings in a wild confusion, and it had occurred to no one, not
even to Champollion (whose _Panthéon égyptien_[30] must nevertheless
always be characterized as a valuable preparatory work), to proceed to
an organization of the great crowd of gods, and to point out the
historical principle by which they were to be classified.
This task Lepsius imposed upon himself, but here too, during his stay in
Italy, he contented himself with sifting and studying all the materials
at hand, and we are enabled to take a survey of his introductory labors
in this province also. During his first sojourn in Turin he had already
discerned that innumerable religious texts, existing in all the museums,
on papyrus rolls, sarcophagi, mummy cloths, amulets, etc., belonged
collectively to a larger work, to which he gave the name of “Book of the
Dead.” This work, composed from many fragments, never reached a
canonical conclusion, but the larger specimens of it included all the
chapters which occurred alone, or in lesser number, on smaller papyri or
monuments. Lepsius recognized the true significance of this book, which
Champollion erroneously considered a book of ritual (_rituel
funéraire_), that is, a book which comprised the prayers and formulas to
be repeated and the hymns to be sung at the burial of the dead. It was
usually found on the body of the deceased, under the mummy cloths, or in
the coffin, and its contents only referred incidentally, and to a
certain extent in a recapitulatory manner to transactions which were to
take place on earth. The destiny of the soul which sprang from Osiris
resembled the destiny of the god himself, and it is with this destiny
that the “Book of the Dead” is occupied. It was given to the departed to
carry with him into the grave as a passport and aid to memory. For in
the other world it was necessary to sing hymns of praise, and with the
help of the “right word,” which they imagined as endowed with magic
power, to ward off demons and hostile beasts, to open gates, to procure
food and drink, to justify oneself before Osiris and the forty-two
judges, and finally to secure for the deceased all his claims as a god.
Everything depended on being acquainted with the magical “right word,”
and in order that it should always be at the command of the traveller
through the next world, it was first written on the sarcophagus and then
on the grave-clothes. From the collection of these formulas, then, arose
the “Book of the Dead,” the _vade mecum_, the cicerone, for the pilgrim
through the mysteries of the other life.