faculties, but the private lectures, which he delivered at his own house
to a few youthful scholars who desired to devote themselves to the study
of Egyptology, were models as regarded the well-considered arrangement
of the material. Amongst them we must praise as especially instructive
the historical and chronological lectures. These were attended with
profit by many young students of history. The purely grammatical
lectures were confined to the ancient Egyptian grammar, and only
incidentally touched upon the hieratic or the later linguistic forms of
speech of the demotic and Coptic. His delivery was always simple, and
nevertheless the surpassing faculty of judgment and the severe critical
method of the teacher always enchained the attention of his hearers. The
material was always as copious as the arrangement was excellent.
Lepsius gave to the writer of this biography the strongest proof of the
seriousness with which he regarded his office of instructor and the
lovely benevolence which was united with his other great qualities. When
a young and enthusiastic student I was obliged by illness to keep the
house during a whole winter term, and I shall be forever grateful to
Lepsius for the great and rare kindness with which he visited me on a
certain day of every week, and went over the essential parts of the
lectures of which my illness had deprived me. These private lectures, or
rather these lessons when the pupil worked under the direction of the
master, for which of course no material equivalent could be given, are
among my most delightful memories, and a more liberal gift I have never
received. Those of his scholars who afterwards rendered special service
to Egyptology were J. Dümichen, professor at Strasburg, and E. Naville,
the eminent Genoese Egyptologist. A. Erment, professor at Berlin, and A.
Wiedemann, private lecturer at Bonn, attended his lectures during
subsequent terms. The younger Egyptologists educated by me at Leipsic,
he liked to call his “grandpupils.”
At that time, and indeed in 1856, there was submitted to the Berlin
Academy and offered to it for sale, by professor Dindorf of Leipsic, a
palimpsest containing the work of Uranius mentioned by Stephen of
Byzantium, Αἰγυπτίων βασιλέων ἀναγραφῶν βίβλοι τρεῖς, (three books of
lists of the Egyptian kings). Up to that time this had been supposed
lost. On the first examination, at which Lepsius was present, there
appeared to be no reason to doubt the genuineness of the manuscript. It
was written between the lines of a genuine text of the twelfth century.
The traits of the Greek uncial writing, skilfully reproduced in the
style of the first centuries after Christ, would not be suspected by a
palaeographer of the present day, although it is now proved that the
codex is a counterfeit. When it was learned that the manuscript belonged
to the Greek Simonides of ill-repute, some doubts were raised, and yet
the rediscovery of the Uranius would have been of such eminent
importance for the historical and chronological studies in which Lepsius
was then engaged, that he furnished from his own pocket half the price,
as a deposit in order to secure it for Berlin and for himself. Dindorf
had declared that in consequence of an agreement with Simonides he could
not leave the manuscript behind in Berlin for closer inspection without
such a deposit. This examination was committed to Lepsius, and on
searching more thoroughly the lists of kings which Simonides represented
to be those of Uranius, he soon found there could be no question but
that he had before him a bold and unprecedently skilful counterfeit.
Indisputable arguments were soon added to the internal reasons which had
led Lepsius to this conviction, and it then became a question of
recovering from the counterfeiter his plunder of twenty-five thousand
thalers. In this Lepsius was successful, owing to the cleverness and
prudence of Stieber, the chief of police, who accompanied him to
Leipsic. Thus the Berlin library was protected from loss and imposition,
and science from unspeakable confusion, through the sagacity of our
friend. Lepsius himself furnished information as to the particulars of
this affair in a clear and exhaustive explanation.[74] Simonides appears
to have continued to drive his trade as a counterfeiter, for it is
hardly possible that it was any one else than he who produced the
manuscript of the Persians of Aeschylus, which reached Leipsic by way of
Egypt, and (not without our own humble coöperation) was recognized by
Ritschl as a forgery.[75]
During his life in Berlin as a Master Workman, Lepsius also addressed
himself to those metrological studies which he continued to pursue up to
the time of his death. If we look over the Transactions of the Berlin
Academy of Sciences we shall also find that he was faithful to research
in the department of languages. This was entirely apart from his special
and unceasing labors on the Nubian Grammar and in the examination of the
fundamental laws of construction of the other African languages.
During his sojourn in Egypt amongst the monuments of the Pharaonic
period, his attention had been specially called to the measures of the
ancient Egyptians. He had subjected many of the monuments to
measurement, and also found certain stamps of linear measure, with
accompanying figures, upon some of those of the Old Kingdom. These he
studied according to the same method which had already approved itself
to him throughout his previous labors. He collected all existing
material from the monuments with a thoroughness and in an abundance
thitherto unknown, and subjected all previous investigations and
measurements to severe criticism. From the information thus gained he
sagaciously and cautiously deduced positive inferences. In his
investigations he also included the kindred measures of other ancient
peoples.
In his fine work on the ancient Egyptian ell and its subdivisions[76] he
arrived at the conclusion that the small ell of 0.450 of a meter “was
the true unit under-lying the whole system.” The great royal ell, which
was in use at the same time, he considered a special ell, distinct from
the common one and added to the measures at a very early date. The cause
of the increase of the small ell used in private life appeared to him to
have been “that the kings or priests paid the same compensation for the
great ell, in building, as formerly for the small ell, as the overplus
of labor was considered as compulsory service, and not paid for.” In
addition to all the greater and lesser units of the Egyptian linear
measure[77] he also directed his attention to other measures of the
ancient Egyptians,[78] and after familiarizing himself with the results
obtained in Assyriology, (which at that time was making rapid progress),
he occupied himself with comprehensive researches into the linear
measures of the ancient nations in general. He took special pains to
subject the celebrated tablet of Senkereh,[79] in which he discerned one
of the most important bases of Asiatic metrology, to a searching
examination, and in doing so he received the assistance of the most
eminent Assyriologists. He restored the whole tablet, and recognized it
as a table of comparison, by the aid of which Babylonian-Assyrian
measures could be reduced to ells, which were reckoned according to the
sexagesimal system. He proved that the metrical systems of the
Assyrians, Babylonians and Persians were entirely distinct from each
other, although he could grant them one point in common, the building
ell of 0.525 of a meter, which was regularly in use in Egypt in the
fourth century before Christ, and was employed in the building of the
pyramids.
Although Lepsius had worked with sagacity and caution in the realm of
metrology, yet his conclusions in that field were not to remain
unchallenged, and he found himself forced to defend the results of his
investigations, first against the distinguished Assyriologist Jules
Oppert, and then against the attacks of the architect Dörpfeld. This
young scholar, who had distinguished himself by his very excellent work
in his own special province, attempted to tax Lepsius with a fundamental
error, and to prove that the small ell which the latter considered, and
was obliged to consider, as a special unit of measure, was in fact
nothing of the sort, but should only be regarded as a subdivision of the
great royal ell. But the grey-haired scholar, although he had been
struck by apoplexy, still rejoiced in a keenness of mind which many a
younger man might have envied, and defended himself bravely. He not only
opposed his adversary in a controversial treatise scarcely a year before
his death, but he also energetically refuted Dörpfeld’s reply in the
last of his works, “The Linear Measures of the Ancients.”[80] This
appeared a few days before his decease. We have examined both opinions
impartially, and cannot but range ourselves on the side of the Master,
Lepsius, who had the advantage of his opponent in a knowledge of all the
monuments and an understanding of hieroglyphic writing. It was in his
favor in the controversy that his adversary partly relied upon perverted
translations and on dubious authorities, or those which he was obliged
to take at second hand. The old warrior knew how to bring such errors
skilfully into the foreground, and thus, at the very beginning,
compromise his adversary, who in other respects had worked with good
faith in the correctness of his cause. The controversial paper of
Lepsius has not the least appearance of being written by an old man
suffering from illness. He may have drawn the force of his reply from
the conviction that he was in the right. Besides, the vigorous
grey-beard saw all that he had won by painful and conscientious labor
unexpectedly endangered, and “therefore,” thus he says himself in his
last book--“I both desired and was obliged to make a plain answer in a
matter which but few understand. Otherwise the greatest confusion might
be occasioned in the minds of half-instructed readers by the influence
of such an extensive, bold, and yet entirely unfounded attack from a man
otherwise estimable, and who, in his own department, has decided merit.”
Lepsius’ last work, on the linear measures of the ancients, included all
the results of his metrological studies. In it he took a high standpoint
from which it was possible to survey all the multitude of details as
one great whole. He considered the linear measures of the Egyptians,
Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, Assyrians and Persians, and the Philetarian
system. This latter he found to be employed in Egypt, especially in the
temple of Denderah. But he was not contented with treating them
monographically, but also investigated the relations of all these
systems to each other, and showed that in all probability a historical
connection existed between them.
The treatises on language written by Lepsius were all published in the
transactions and monthly reports of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, and
the greater number of them have been already cited.
Up to the year 1866 he remained in Berlin, occupied with ceaseless
labors, and only in the autumn holidays did he undertake long journeys
for recreation or in pursuit of his scientific aims. Several times he
went to London, especially on account of affairs relating to his
standard alphabet. He was always attracted towards Paris, and once went
there (1857) on a commission from the government to bid at an auction of
Egyptian antiquities for the Berlin museum. He also reaped a fresh
scientific harvest in the year 1852, during a second and longer visit to
the museum at Leyden, where he was most cordially received by the
Leemans and the mother of the excellent Director.
In the beginning of 1866, he undertook his second journey to Egypt, and
was again accompanied by his faithful hierogrammatist, E. Weidenbach. On
the second of April he left for Cairo, and this time with the design of
visiting the Eastern Delta and the localities of the ruins there. These
were of special importance for Biblical geography. He first inspected
the Persian-Egyptian monuments which had just been excavated by the
workmen on the Suez Canal. According to his views these had been dug up
from the canal constructed by Darius, and were memorials intended to
adorn that great undertaking. After also examining the other monuments
found in the neighborhood of the excavations of De Lesseps, together
with their surroundings, he proceeded in quest of the site of ancient
Pelusium.[81] The shingle bed which covers the whole Gesiret-el-Farama
is bounded towards the east by a continuous bank, which can be traced
till beyond the western Tell-el-Her, and whose fortress-like curves
separate the shingle field upon its declivity from the sand dunes of the
desert. Lepsius believed that he had found there the locality of the
ancient Hauaris (auaris), so often sought for, and thus proved that this
was not to be looked for in Tanis, but on the site or in the
neighborhood of the later Pelusium. In the Herin Tell-el-Her he thought
might perhaps be recognized a remnant of the old name Ha-uar, the
ancient Egyptian form of Auaris. These conjectures have not been shaken
by any later investigations, but on the other hand Lepsius’ opinion,
previously expressed, that Tell el-Maschuta, which he visited before
Pelusium, was the Ramses of the Bible, seems to be disproved by the
latest excavations of Naville, and this place must now be regarded as
the Biblical Pithom and Succoth, in spite of the opposition which that
view afterwards encountered from the Master.[82]
His greatest prize was to fall into his hands at San, the Tanis of the
Greeks, the Zo’an of the Bible, whither he was accompanied by the
Viennese Egyptologist Reinisch. This acquisition was of such great and
epoch-making importance as to throw into the shade all the other gains
of the journey. The discovery of the decree of Tanis, or the Tablet of
Canopus, amongst the ruins of San, is one of the most important
discoveries made in Egypt since the finding of the Rosetta stone. It
furnishes proof of the correctness of the results which had been
obtained up to 1866, by the Egyptologists with the aid of the Rosetta
key and Champollion’s method of deciphering hieroglyphics.
This rare monument consists of a stela of solid limestone, and has on
its front surface a hieroglyphic inscription of thirty-seven lines, and
the Greek translation of the same in seventy-six closely written lines.
On the edge of the tablet, though Lepsius did not notice it at first, is
the same text in demotic writing, that is, in the popular dialect of the
later heathen Egyptians. The whole stone, including the rounded upper
surface, is 2.16 meters high and 0.78 of a meter wide, and is at present
kept in the museum of Bulak. It is in excellent preservation, and
Lepsius could easily read both texts at the first trial.
The translation of the hieroglyphic decree, which was made on the basis
of Champollion’s method of deciphering and by the aid of the grammars
and lexicons published between the time when that was discovered and the
year 1866, agreed perfectly with the Greek version thereof upon the same
stone. With this valuable monument for a basis it was thus once for all
positively determined that the study of the Egyptian language was being
pursued according to the correct method.
The decree discovered by Lepsius was dated in the ninth year of Ptolemy
Euergetes I. Like the decree upon the Rosetta stone it had been passed
by priests, who had assembled at Canopus for the celebration of the
birthday of the king. In the first part of it were enumerated the
benefits conferred by the ruler of the land, which had caused the
hierarchy to accord to him many new honors in addition to those
conferred upon his predecessor. In the part establishing a new popular
festival to be celebrated in honor of Euergetes in all the temples of
the country, there occurred certain arrangements of the calendar from
which, as Lepsius immediately perceived, it must be inferred that a
mutable year had been in use at an early period, in addition to the
fixed year. It was also evident that in the ninth year of Euergetes I.
the fixed Julian year had already come into use in the civil affairs of
Egypt.
The hieroglyphic names for Canopus, Syria, Phœnicia, the island of
Cyprus and Persia, could be determined with the aid of the Greek
translation. This weighty document also furnished much important
information regarding history, chronology and the calendar. Egyptian
philology is indebted to these inscriptions for confirmation only, if we
except a few additions to the dictionary, and some peculiarities of the
dialect of Lower Egypt in which they were written.
Lepsius immediately made the monument which he had discovered the common
property of science, in a model publication[83] containing both texts,
which he accompanied by thorough translations and most important
explanations. In so doing he gave an example worthy of imitation to
Mariette, the great autocrat of all the monuments in Egypt, who always
published the inscriptions which he excavated long after their
discovery.
Invested with a new and illustrious honorary title,[84] Lepsius returned
to Berlin, and there resumed his old labors with all his energy.
Henry Brugsch, a scholar who, quite independently of Lepsius, had become
one of the most eminent leaders in the science of Egyptology, had in
1863 founded an organ of his own for Egyptological research, under the
name of “Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Alterthumskunde”
[Journal of Egyptian Language and Archaeology:] A profound estrangement,
increased by adverse casualties and incidents, had up to this time kept
these two eminent men asunder. But Brugsch, after successfully
conducting the new journal to the end of its first year, obtained a
place in Egypt in the Prussian consular service, and left Europe. The
relations between him and Lepsius at this time became more friendly, and
Lepsius undertook, “with the coöperation of H. Brugsch at Cairo,” the
management of this journal of Egyptology. Scholars from all countries
furnished contributions to it, and for some time it remained the chief
organ for the special investigations of Egyptologists. It also received
Assyriological works. It had afterwards as competitors, first in France
the Vieweg “Recueil”[85] and then the “Revue Égyptilogique”[86] founded
in 1880, by Revillont and Brugsch, and in England the “Proceedings of
the Society of Biblical Archaeology.”[87] Yet, in spite of the rivals
mentioned, the German journal maintained its rank and its importance.
This was the case even after Lepsius, overwhelmed by his official duties
and with enfeebled health, resigned the lion’s share of the editorial
work to the distinguished young Egyptologist, A. Erman. Erman taught as
a private lecturer at the Berlin University in the time of Lepsius, and
has lately been appointed professor there.
H. Brugsch-Pasha still worked for the “Zeitschrift,” even after he had
founded the “Revue Égyptologique” in conjunction with Revillout, and
his relation to his older colleague became more friendly with time.
After the death of Lepsius, Brugsch again became editor of the
“Zeitschrift” and dedicated to the senior master an obituary which was
couched in the warmest terms.
In the autumn of the year 1869, Lepsius undertook his third and last
journey to Egypt, and was present at the opening of the Suez Canal. His
hasty trip to Upper Egypt could yield little fruit to science, but it
served to give him great pleasure, and in his letters to his wife he
could not sufficiently praise the amiability of the Crown Prince, to
whom, as cicerone, he showed the monuments.
A great number of distinctions were conferred upon the Master during the
latter portion of his life, but in consequence thereof, at a time of
life when others feel the desire for rest, he was induced to assume a
burden of duties which would have oppressed many a man in his prime.
In 1873, he was appointed privy counsellor to the government, and was
entrusted with the temporary direction of the Berlin library. We were
witness to the extreme and careful deliberation with which he considered
the matter before assuming this onerous office. He did not conceal from
himself that it would hinder the completion of many an enterprise which
he had already begun and which was very dear to him; but on the other
hand he told himself that he was the right man to regulate and carry
through numerous affairs which he knew would be of benefit to the
important institution which he was to conduct.
The broad and firm foundation of his education, his prolonged work as a
student at Paris, Rome and London, and his practical intelligence,
specially fitted him for the place of a chief librarian. He entered upon
the post on the twenty-fifth of March, 1874.
Pertz had formerly been a very useful man, but had now become enfeebled
by age, and was difficult to manage. We learn from the most
authoritative of all sources that Lepsius, at the instance of Delbrück,
then vice-chancellor, undertook to induce Pertz first to resign the
management of the collection of the archives of the German people, (the
Monumenta Germaniae), and afterwards to retire from his office of chief
librarian. After Lepsius had succeeded in this--the wits of Berlin
called him Propertz, as the successor of the aged Pertz,--the Minister,
Falk, invited him in April, 1873 to assume the management of the Royal
Library. The place was at first provisional, but when he definitively
assumed the office in March, 1874, he did it under the condition that
the Budget for the library should be considerably increased, and that
provision should be made for erecting a new building. Of this there was
and is urgent need, for the limited amount of space in the old
“roccoco-cabinet of Frederick II.,” produced, and still produces,
incredible disadvantages. After inspecting many large foreign libraries
during the long vacation of 1873, and taking into consideration
everything which he found there suitable for the end in view, Lepsius
looked over the plans of the grounds available for this purpose. As the
result of his reflections a bold idea saw the light of day. The place
which he chose for the future library of the capital city was the great
square enclosed by Unter den Linden, Charlotten, Dorotheen and
Universitäts streets. This was a bold but extraordinarily happy project,
which might perhaps have been adopted, had it been earlier laid before
the Government and the chambers. But the golden days of flood in the
Prussian treasury were passing away. Lepsius succeeded in arranging that
the rear portion of the Dutch palace, towards Behren Street, should be
specially appropriated as journal rooms, whereby space was procured for
from one to two hundred thousand volumes more. But he did not live to
see the realization of his project. Nevertheless, the impulse given by
him is still working, and the day cannot be far distant when a worthy
domicile will be provided for the treasures of the Berlin library.