antiquity by the path which had been substantially opened to modern
science, and firmly trodden by her, since Champollion’s important
discoveries regarding phonetic hieroglyphs. I did so with a generally
diffused doubt as to the soundness of the new doctrine which had been
almost exclusively founded and embraced by a French scholar. The system
of Champollion was a purely empirical one, which had not yet been
reduced to order. It affirmed more than it proved, and appealed to me
less at the beginning, in proportion as I had become accustomed in those
of my previous studies which related especially to philology, to seek
organic coherence in science, and only to admit as a foundation there
for reasons of intrinsic worth. I began with the _Précis
hiéroglyphique_, as the most comprehensive statement of the new
discovery, and found on every side assertions which seemed to me
undemonstrable, and evidence which seemed to me imperfect. I reserved to
myself some doubts as to the reading of the names Ptolemy and Berenice,
which would need to be solved to satisfy reasonable criticism. But in
the phonetic hieroglyphs the substitution of the vowels seemed to me too
arbitrary, and the mixing of the phonetic with the figurative and
symbolical hieroglyphs, to represent one and the same word, seemed quite
inadmissable. In my earlier palaeographic researches amongst occidental
and oriental writings I had always found the strictest economy and a
surprising significance in the original signs for the sounds, united
with an accuracy which has hitherto been far too little regarded. But
here I had to accustom myself to a superfluity, I might say a
prodigality, of signs, which yet only imperfectly attained their object,
and therefore seemed so much the more to be chosen arbitrarily and
multiplied in a chaotic manner.
Nevertheless, I did not allow myself to be discouraged from proceeding
further, because at the same time I saw plainly that there were many
things which were incontestably correct, and I also believed that I had
found a coherence in the system, and several isolated proofs of it,
which had escaped the discoverer himself. Thence I began to believe that
it was a question of method, and that it was only necessary to separate
the certain from the uncertain in order to make clear the true condition
of affairs, and the real extent of what had so far been achieved on this
field. Here other workers had preceded me, some of whom sided with and
some against Champollion. More especially since the French Expedition an
immense literature has begun to investigate, describe, and profit by
every aspect of Old and New Egypt. By making myself as thoroughly as
possible acquainted with this, I endeavored to keep myself as free as
possible from a one-sided apprehension and criticism of hieroglyphics,
and of Egyptian learning in general, so far as it rests upon native
authorities.
A problem which was to be solved above all others concerned the Coptic
language. Even the purely historical researches in the “_Recherches sur
la langue et la littérature de l’Égypte_” by Etienne Quatremére had not
been able to satisfy me regarding the identity of this tongue with the
ancient Egyptian, or, at least, its direct descent therefrom. But on a
closer acquaintance with this language, and its application on the
hieroglyphic and demotic monuments, every doubt must be dispelled as to
its being the sole key to the ancient language of the Egyptians, and the
only one which could lead to the end in view. I have since applied
myself chiefly to the study of the Coptic language, to which I also felt
myself especially attracted by my previous linguistic studies. Within a
few days there have arrived in Paris the last sheets of a Coptic lexicon
which has been prepared from the most copious sources by Amadeo Peyron,
and shows extensive learning. From the first I have directed my labors
on the Coptic tongue to the end of preparing a grammar of that language,
especially intended to lighten the study of hieroglyphics, and in
accordance with the philological science of the present day.
In order to give you, most highly esteemed Herr General Secretary, a
comprehensive idea of the course of my studies up to the present time in
the department in question, I must further mention two circumstances,
which were especially favorable to me. One was my sojourn in Paris,
which is the place altogether best adapted to obtaining an initiation
into Egyptian antiquity. The first broad foundation for this science was
laid on the part of the French in the “_Description de l’Égypte_.” A
French scholar first procured access to the native monuments of Egypt,
and for a number of years he was the center of Egyptian studies on
account of his admirable talent, which seemed made for the deciphering
of the Egyptian monuments. I need not say that for these reasons there
can be no lack in Paris of the most perfect aids to study, as regards
both literature and monuments. But that to which I attribute yet
greater weight is that there is always a large number of men assembled
there who take the most lively and direct interest in the discoveries of
their countryman, and are in a position to give thorough information,
generally directed by their own opinions, on all the different parts and
details. They were frequently more instructive to me through their
conversation than any books could have been. I often felt there the
great value of the _viva voce_ correction of many unavoidable errors in
the judgment of persons, objects and facts. These are of far greater
importance in so young a science than in one which has been long
founded. As a second favorable circumstance I would mention my early
acquaintance with a young, learned and talented man, François Salvolini.
For ten years he educated himself exclusively for the study of
hieroglyphics under the personal direction of Champollion, he took
copies of the most important drawings and manuscript works of his
teacher, part of which are still inaccessible to the public, and with
the greatest liberality he opened to me his important collections, and
allowed me the freest use of them. Under the auspices of the Sardinian
government he is occupying himself with a comprehensive work on the
Rosetta inscriptions, specimens of which he communicated to me. He also
gave me a verbal explanation of the details. I thus became acquainted in
the most rapid and thorough manner with the real value of the system of
Champollion, and the development which it has thus far attained. It is
true that the principal doubts which I had entertained were not entirely
removed, but I believed in the difficulties which still remained to see,
not a refutation of the system, but only a want of completeness.
Especially I became aware that many difficulties might be removed when
some other linguistic standpoint than that previously employed should be
adopted.
At the same time it seemed to me of the greatest importance to come to a
positive opinion as to the relation of the Egyptian language to the
other civilized languages of the ancient world, and to my great
satisfaction I have now arrived at the conviction that the primitive
Egyptian language is by no means so far removed from the Semitic and
Indo-Germanic as, on a superficial examination, it has hitherto been
almost universally considered. I believe that I shall not in all
subsequent investigations into Egyptian antiquity allow myself to lose
sight of this comparative point of view, since the great interest which
the history of Egyptian civilization offers, as one of the most ancient
of which we have a general historical knowledge, is without doubt
greatly increased when we learn to know it also in its original relation
to other civilizations. It also seems to me a worthy and useful task to
draw the Egyptian people within the circle of those great groups of
nations, whose most ancient history has in modern times acquired an
altogether different aspect by means of the comparison of languages. I
propose to preface my Coptic grammar with a special chapter on the
relation of the Egyptian to the Semitic and Indo-Germanic primitive
languages. I most respectfully beg you, Herr General Secretary, to
present to the most favorable consideration of the very worshipful
Academy two treatises in which I have attempted to prove the linguistic
relationship of these two families of language. These papers treat of
distinct points which would find no place in the Coptic Grammar. The
first relates to the numerical words, the second to the arrangement of
the alphabet, among the different nations.
Thus I have chiefly made use of my sojourn in Paris to acquire a general
knowledge of Egyptian science, and am thereby placed in a position to
adopt a decided course for the future according to the needs which seem
to me most urgent, and to those abilities of my own which I believe to
have been best developed by my previous studies. Therefore it now
becomes a matter of special importance, in order to arrive at the best
possible conclusions of my own, to procure correct copies of the
numerous Egyptian monuments scattered about through the various French
museums, and especially in Italy.
To undertake a journey to Italy for this purpose must be all the more
desirable for me since a corresponding member of the Academy, whose name
will always be mentioned beside that of Champollion as one of the most
distinguished promoters of Egyptian science, H. P. Rosellini of Pisa,
has offered, with the most noble disinterestedness, to reveal to me the
rich treasures which he has brought back from Egypt, and, under his own
invaluable guidance, to place them at my service.
Since I could not have been able to undertake this journey on my own
resources, I have to thank the resolves of the most worshipful Academy
alone, if I can directly pursue the object which is the aim of my
scientific career. I must appreciate the more profoundly the special
encouragement which I have thus received as up to the present time I
have been able to present no sort of security on my part to the most
worshipful Academy. For this reason I will make all the more
conscientious use of the appropriation granted me. I will from time to
time lay before the most worshipful Academy an account of the
expenditure thereof, and seek to prove myself worthy of the confidence
which has been shown me by the greatest zeal in the promotion of this
most fruitful science, which has been so little cultivated in our own
country.
With the most distinguished esteem and respect.
RICHARD LEPSIUS.
APPENDIX III.
EXTRACT FROM THE REPORT ADDRESSED TO THE MINISTRY, ON THE
ACQUISITIONS AND RESULTS OF THE EXPEDITION TO EGYPT UNDER R.
LEPSIUS.
BERLIN, _March 12, 1846_.
The antiquarian Expedition to Egypt, Nubia and the Peninsula of Sinai,
ordered in the year 1842 by his Majesty, our most gracious and
illustrious King Frederick William IV., and committed to my leadership,
is completed.
My reports, transmitted to your Excellency from time to time, will have
convinced you that it has been executed entirely in accordance with the
plans advised by the Royal Academy of Sciences, most graciously approved
by his Majesty, and submitted to your Excellency before departure. You
will also observe that the annual sum of money appropriated at the
beginning has not been exceeded, and that it has also been made to cover
the important excavations, transportations and purchases, for which no
special appropriation had been made. The journey of two years has,
however, extended itself to three and a half. My companions were not
able to return before the end of last year, and I myself not till the
27th of January of this year; a possibility which had been already
foreseen in the advice of the Royal Academy.
With regard to the material welfare of its members the Expedition may
be called in every way a very fortunate one, and especially favored by
Providence. The members were eight in number, with the addition of three
others who joined as volunteers, and all returned in good condition to
European soil. The painter Frey alone could not support the climate, and
on that account was obliged to return from Lower Egypt to Europe, where
he has since recovered. As a contrast to this, the company of Professor
Ehrenberg lost nine members, in spite of the greatest care. They were,
however, under much more unfavorable conditions, and through his advice
we profited by their experiences. It was still worse with the English
under Clapperton. The French Tuscan expedition also lost both its
leaders, besides many other members, in consequence of the journey. As
we did not, like the expeditions mentioned, have a physician with us, we
were obliged to redouble our direct attention to ourselves, and I
ascribe the fortunate result, next to the protection of Providence,
chiefly to the excellent conduct, mutual helpfulness and strict regard
for order of all the members. There was but one exception, the moulder
Franke, whom I was forced to dismiss on account of unseemly disturbances
of this order. This harmony and admirable disposition of the members
also greatly facilitated the management for me, and I cannot but praise
this spirit especially in our architect, Herr Erbkam, who stood by me on
every occasion as a true and helpful friend.
As far as the scientific results are concerned, I must first observe
that scarcely any other expedition had been undertaken under such
favorable circumstances. Amongst these circumstances I reckon chiefly
the definiteness of the tasks which were set before us, and which we
were able on this account to pursue with perfect system. The expedition
most immediately comparable with ours was Champollion’s, but that was
more a voyage of discovery, and necessarily suffered from the very
deficiencies which we were easily able to supply. The advantages which
he had as founder of the science and from his incomparable ability as a
student of monuments, were for us more than counterbalanced by the
firmer and broader foundations of the science, the last results of which
are now presented to us in Bunsen’s remarkable work on history. Added to
this was our greater previous knowledge of the interesting localities
which we had to investigate. From the very beginning of the journey we
could within wide limits strive for completeness, without suffering from
any want of new, unexpected and most highly important discoveries.
Especially had Champollion left behind to us, practically uncommenced,
the investigation of the oldest Egyptian history, that is, the epoch of
the first Pharaonic kingdom from about 3000 to 1700 years before Christ,
which extends the history of the world for almost 1500 years. He had
only ascended the valley of the Nile as far as the second cataract,
beyond which there still exist a great multitude of old Egyptian
monuments of all kinds, as yet entirely uninvestigated. There the whole
of Ethiopian antiquity, which cannot be separated from the Egyptian,
must find its interpretation and, if I do not deceive myself, has done
so through us.
Thence it follows that our results are by far the most important in
chronology and history. The pyramid fields of Memphis, whose importance
had not been recognized by Champollion, and which had therefore scarcely
been touched by him, have placed the Egyptian civilization of those
remote ages before us, in four hundred large pictures. The
representation which they furnish must for all future time be regarded
with the highest interest and considered the beginning of investigable
human history. Those earliest dynasties of the Egyptian rulers now offer
us more than a barren succession of empty, unknown or doubtful names.
They have not only been raised beyond all reasonable doubt and been
critically arranged in order and according to the correct periods of
time, but through the contemplation of the political, civil and artistic
popular life which bloomed under their reigns, they have preserved an
intellectual and often very individual historical reality.
This is the greatest success of our journey and must always be a
convincing proof of the great and lasting service rendered to science by
our expedition and its illustrious promoter. I pass over for the present
the details of the evidence, which can only be rightly estimated by
those co-workers on this field who shall make later and more extensive
investigations. But I will mention that in Middle Egypt up to Thebes we
found eight separate places of sepulchre, belonging to the Old Kingdom,
which the French Tuscan expedition had passed by without suspicion. Of
some of these we were the discoverers, and others we were the first to
recognize as belonging to that period, and to excavate. We could not
fail, also, to make a great number of more or less substantial
restorations, corrections and additions to the history of the most
flourishing period of the New Empire, which was peculiarly the prime of
Thebes, as well as to that of the following dynasties. Even those
Ptolemies who were apparently completely known in the light of Grecian
history, have appeared in a new aspect in their Egyptian representations
and inscriptions, and indeed have been recruited by some individuals
scarcely mentioned by the Greeks and whose existence has hitherto been
considered doubtful. Finally the Roman emperors, in their character of
Egyptian rulers, have also appeared to us on the Egyptian monuments in
greater and almost perfect completeness. They have been carried down,
from Caracalla, (who had till now been recognized as the last whose name
was written in hieroglyphics,) through two later emperors to Decius.
Thus the whole extent of Egyptian monumental history has been increased
at the latter end also by a number of years.
Egyptian philology, too, has made no insignificant advances during the
journey. The lexicon has been increased by the addition of some hundred
signs or groups, and the grammar has received manifold corrections.
Besides this a wealth of material has been gathered, especially by means
of the numerous paper impressions of the most important inscriptions,
the gradual interpretation of which must lead to substantial progress in
the science. According to the great age established for the earliest
written monuments the history of the Egyptian language now embraces a
period of nearly five and a half thousand years, and thus acquires an
entirely new significance in relation to the universal history of human
language and writing. In matters of detail one of the most important
discoveries on this field was two bi-lingual decrees, written in
hieroglyphics and demotic, which were discovered in Philae. One of these
repeats the inscription of Rosetta, and there is promise of important
results from a comparison between them. The news of this seemed so
important to the French that they resolved on sending out the famous
scholar Ampére, with an artist, expressly to copy this one monument. I
first became aware of their intention through the publication and
philological exploration of that inscription, now just appearing in
print.
According to my opinion Egyptian mythology, in spite of countless works
upon the subject, has hitherto been without any firm foundation. I had
almost abandoned the hope that our expedition would achieve any actual
advance for this science, when upon the return journey I discovered in
the Theban temples a series of monuments which threw so much unexpected
light upon its essential nature and historical phases, that I have come
to the conclusion that upon this basis Egyptian mythology may for the
first time be presented according to its true import and in its
historical development.
The history of art has never been worked out from the present standpoint
of Egyptology. To accomplish this was necessarily one of the chief
objects of our expedition and the advanced chronological knowledge of
the monuments conduced greatly to progress in this direction. For the
first time we have been able to trace the various divisions of the
history of art in the Old Egyptian Empire, previous to the invasion of
the “Hyksos,” and thus to extend it, as well as Egyptian history in
general, for about thirteen centuries upwards and for some decades
downwards. We were also obliged to regard the history of art almost
exclusively in the selection of our collection of monuments, of which I
shall speak again hereafter. Amongst the different branches of Egyptian
art, architecture, which had been entirely neglected by Champollion and
Rosellini, was especially well handled by our skillful and industrious
architect Erbkam. From him it received the treatment befitting the
important position of this special branch, in which the artistic element
of grandeur, bestowed upon the Egyptians above all other nations, could
be and was most highly developed. The rendering of the sculpture and
painting fell to the other artists who accompanied us. They soon learned
to reproduce with praiseworthy skill the peculiar Egyptian style, which
in spite of all the childish constraint that characterizes Egyptian art,
yet contains an unmistakable and finely perfected ideal element. If the
Grecian genius had not received art from the Egyptians as a child so
severely, chastely and carefully reared, it could never have given to it
such a positive character of blooming freedom. The chief task of the
history of Egyptian art is to show wherein consisted this culture of
art, which no ancient Asiatic nation shares with the Egyptian. I will
adduce as one of the most important details belonging here, that we have
found three separate canons of the proportions of the human figure, in
numerous examples, upon uncompleted monuments; one for the old Pharaonic
kingdom, another for the New Empire since the eighteenth dynasty, and a
third which first came into general use shortly before the time of the
Ptolemies. This latter involved an entire change of the principle of
distribution, and remained in force under the Roman emperors to the end.
These discoveries are also of decided importance in judging of the Greek
canon.
Next to the history of art, however, a great part of our time and
attention was claimed by Egyptian archaeology in its widest sense. This
was a field which had already been worked with success and industry,
especially by Wilkinson and Rosellini. It contains an inexhaustible
wealth of detached monuments of common life, and representations thereof
of all kinds, far exceeding in abundance all other remains of antiquity.
And on this account this branch of study needed much more a vigorous
prosecution of its aims and elevation of its standard, than a farther
accumulation of details. Nevertheless these are continually coming in
from all sides and have been collected by ourselves in great quantity as
material.