ADDITIONAL INFERENCES, DEDUCED FROM THE EGYPTIAN MANUSCRIPTS, AND FROM
OTHER MONUMENTS.
My full conviction respecting the nature and origin of the enchorial
character I expressed at the end of a collection of letters, inserted
in the MUSEUM CRITICUM, and published in 1815. It was not, however,
till the next year, that I obtained the most complete evidence of
the truth of my opinion: having been obligingly accommodated, by Mr.
William Hamilton, with the use of his copy of the great _Description
de l’Égypte_, as far as it was then published, I proceeded to study
its contents: and I discovered, at length, that several of the
manuscripts on papyrus, which had been carefully published in that
work, exhibited very frequently the same text in different forms,
deviating more or less from the perfect resemblance of the objects
intended to be delineated, till they became, in many cases, mere lines
and curves, and dashes and flourishes; but still answering, character
for character, to the hieroglyphical or hieratic writing of the same
chapters, found in other manuscripts, and of which the identity was
sufficiently indicated, besides this coincidence, by the similarity of
the larger tablets, or pictural representations, at the head of each
chapter or column, which are almost universally found on the margins
of manuscripts of a mythological nature. And the enchorial inscription
of the pillar of Rosetta resembled very accurately, in its general
appearance, the most unpicturesque of these manuscripts. It did not,
however, by any means agree, character for character, with the “sacred
letters” of the first inscription, though in many instances, by means
of some intermediate steps derived from the manuscripts on papyrus, the
characters could be traced into each other with sufficient accuracy,
to supersede every idea of any essential diversity in the principles
of representation employed. The want of a more perfect correspondence
could only be explained, by considering the sacred characters as the
remains of a more ancient and solemn mode of expression, which had been
superseded, in common life, by other words and phrases; and, in several
cases, it seemed probable, that the forms of the characters had been
so far degraded and confused, that the addition of a greater number of
distinguishing epithets had become necessary, in order that the sense
might be rendered intelligible.
A particular account of this comparison of the different modes of
writing, and a detailed reference to the passages of the respective
manuscripts from which they were derived, is contained in two letters,
printed in 1816, as a part of the seventh number of the Museum
Criticum, and of which several copies were immediately sent to Paris,
and to other parts of the Continent, although the actual publication of
the number was retarded till 1821.
The principal contents of these letters were, however, incorporated
with other matter into a more extensive article, which I contributed
in 1819 to the Supplement of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I had made
drawings of the plates, which were engraved with great fidelity by
Mr. Turrell, about a year before; and having been favoured by the
proprietors with a few separate copies, I had sent them to some of my
friends, in the summer of 1818, with a cover, on which was printed the
title Hieroglyphical Vocabulary: these plates, however, were precisely
the same that were afterwards contained in the fourth volume of the
Supplement, as belonging to the article Egypt.
The characters explained, with confidence, in this vocabulary, amounted
to about 200; the number which had been immediately obtained from the
pillar of Rosetta having been somewhat more than doubled by means of
a careful examination of other monuments, on which the terms god, and
king, and other epithets, already ascertained, were so applied as to
furnish either certain or probable conclusions respecting the principal
deities of the Egyptians, and respecting several of the latest and the
most celebrated of their sovereigns. The higher numerals were readily
obtained, by a comparison of some inscriptions, in which they stood
combined with units and with tens. The hieratic manuscripts assisted
also in this identification, by facilitating the determination of
the hieroglyphic corresponding to a given enchorial character. The
names of Phthah and of Apis were still left on the pillar: to these
I was now enabled to add, with tolerable certainty, those of Ammon,
or Jupiter, Phre, or the Sun, Rhea, or Urania, Ioh, or the Moon,
Thoth, or Hermes, Osiris, Arueris, or Apollo, Isis, Nephthe, Buto,
Horus, and Mneuis; besides a multitude of others, to whom I found it
convenient to appropriate fictitious or temporary appellations, for
the greater convenience of reference. Thus I have called Cerexochus, a
figure whose real name was perhaps Amonrasonther, and my Hyperion and
Platypterus are supposed by Mr. Champollion to belong to Horus and to
Hercules. Of the kings, I have ascertained, as far as the testimony
of the Greek and Latin historians and inscriptions would enable
me, the names of Mesphres, Memnon, Sesostris, Nechao, Psammis, and
Amasis; and having obtained the distinction of Ptolemy Soter from the
pillar, I afterwards determined, by its assistance, the name of his
queen Berenice. The termination indicating the female sex was another
important result of this comparison of various monuments.
I must acknowledge that my respect for the good sense and
accomplishments of my Egyptian allies by no means became more profound
as our acquaintance became more intimate: on the contrary, all that
Juvenal, in a moment, as might have been supposed, of discontent,
had held up to ridicule of their superstitions and their depravity,
became, as it were, displayed before my eyes, as the details of their
mythology became more intelligible. That Plato professed to have
learned much during a long residence in Egypt I can easily believe: he
may very probably have derived from thence some hints, that led to his
own purer doctrines of the immortality of the soul, although he may
have been tempted to exaggerate a little the other advantages of his
travels in search of truth; but that Pythagoras ever professed to have
acquired any solid knowledge from the Egyptians, appears to me to be
very inconsistent with what we know of the history of this illustrious
philosopher, speculative and visionary as some of his arithmetical
metaphysics seem to have been. I shall enter into some further details
of my conclusions, in the words which I have already employed in the
article EGYPT.
“By means of the knowledge of the hieroglyphical characters, which has
been already obtained, we are fully competent to form a general idea of
the nature of the inscriptions on the principal Egyptian monuments that
are extant. Numerous as they are, there is scarcely one of them which
we are not able to refer to the class either of sepulchral or of votive
inscriptions; astronomical and chronological there seem to be none,
since the numerical characters, which have been perfectly ascertained,
have not yet been found to occur in such a form as they necessarily
must have assumed in the records of this description: of a historical
nature, we can only find the triumphal, which are often sufficiently
distinguishable, but they may also always be referred to the votive;
since whoever, related his own exploits thought it wisest to attribute
the glory of them to some deity, and whoever recorded those of another
was generally disposed to intermix divine honours with his panegyric.
It has, indeed, been asserted, that the Egyptians were not in the habit
of deifying any mortal persons; but the inscription of Rosetta is by
no means the only one in which the sovereigns of Egypt are inserted in
the number of its deities; the custom is observable in monuments of a
much earlier age: indeed, in such a country, it might be considered as
a kind of dilemma of degradation, whether it was most ridiculous to be
made a divinity, or to be excluded from so plebeian an assemblage;
but flattery is more prone to err by commission than by omission,
and, consequently, we find the terms king and god very generally
inseparable. The sepulchral inscriptions, from the attention that was
paid in Egypt to the obsequies of the dead, appear, on the whole,
to constitute the most considerable part of the Egyptian literature
which remains, and they afford us, upon a comparative examination,
some very remarkable peculiarities. The general tenor of all these
inscriptions appears to be, as might be expected from the testimony of
Herodotus, the identification of the deceased with the god Osiris, and
probably, if a female, with Isis; and the subject of the most usual
representations seems to be the reception of this new personage by the
principal deities, to whom he now stands in a relation expressed in
the respective inscriptions; the honour of an apotheosis, reserved by
the ancient Romans for emperors, and by the modern for saints, having
been apparently extended by the old Egyptians to private individuals
of all descriptions[; as indeed appears to be partially hinted in the
concluding line of the golden verses of the Pythagoreans]. It required
an extensive comparison of these inscriptions to recognise their
precise nature, since they seldom contain a name surrounded by a ring
in its usual form: sometimes, however, as in the green sarcophagus
of the British Museum, a distinct name is very often repeated, and
preceded by that of Osiris; while, in most other instances, there
is a certain combination of characters, bearing evident relation to
the personage delineated, which occurs, after the symbols of Osiris,
instead of the name; so that either the ring was simply omitted on
this occasion, or a new and perhaps a mysterious name was employed,
consisting frequently of the appellations of several distinct deities,
and probably analogous to the real name[, which will, indeed, hereafter
appear to have consisted not uncommonly of a similar combination]. That
the characteristic phrase[, or group], so repeated, must have had some
relation to the deceased, is proved by its scarcely ever being alike
in any two monuments that have been compared, while almost every other
part of the manuscripts and inscriptions are the same in many different
instances, and some of them in almost all; and this same phrase
maybe observed in Lord Mountnorris’s and Mr. Bankes’s manuscripts,
placed over the head of the person who is brought up between the two
goddesses, to make his appearance before the true Osiris, in his own
person, and in his judicial capacity, with his counsellors about him,
and the balance of justice before him.” ...
“The tablet of the last judgment, which is so well illustrated by
the testimony of Diodorus concerning the funerals of the Egyptians,
is found near the end of almost all the manuscripts upon papyrus,
that are so frequently discovered in the coffins of the mummies, and
among others in Lord Mountnorris’s hieratic manuscript, printed in the
collection of the Egyptian Society. The great deity sits on the left,
holding the hook and the whip or fan; his name and titles are generally
placed over him; but this part of the present manuscript is a little
injured. Before him is a kind of mace, supporting something like the
skin of a leopard; then a female Cerberus, and on a shelf over her
head, the tetrad of termini, which have been already distinguished by
the names “Tetrarcha,” Anubis, Macedo, and “Hieracion,” each having
had his appropriate denomination written over his head. Behind the
Cerberis stands Thoth, with his style and tablet, having just begun
to write. Over his head, in two columns, we find his name and titles,
including his designation as a scribe. The balance follows, with a
little baboon as a kind of genius, sitting on it. Under the beam stand
“Cteristes” and “Hyperion” [supposed by Mr. Champollion to be Anubis
and Horus], who are employed in adjusting the equipoise; but their
names in this manuscript are omitted. The five columns over the balance
are only remarkable as containing, in this instance, the characteristic
phrase, or the name of the deceased, intermixed with other characters.
Beyond the balance stands a female, holding the sceptre of Isis, who
seems to be called Rhea, the wife of the Sun. She is looking back at
the personage, who holds up his hand as a mark of respect, and who
is identified as the deceased by the name simply placed over him,
without any exordium. He is followed by a second goddess, who is also
holding up her hands, in token of respect; and whose name looks like
a personification of honour or glory, unless it is simply intended to
signify “a divine priestess,” belonging to the order of the Pterophori,
mentioned on the Rosetta stone. The forty two assessors, [noticed by
Diodorus and by these manuscripts], are wanting in this tablet; and,
in many other manuscripts their number is curtailed, to make room for
other subjects; but, in several of those which are engraved in the
_Déscription de l’Egypte_, they are all represented, sometimes as
sitting figures, and sometimes standing as termini, with their feet
united.”
“The principal part of the text of all these manuscripts appears
to consist of a collection of hymns, or rather homages, to certain
deities, generally expressed in the name of the deceased, with his
title of Osiris, although the true Osiris is not excluded from the
groups that are introduced. The upper part of each manuscript is
occupied by a series of pictural tablets; under them are vertical
columns of distinct hieroglyphics, or, in the epistolographic
manuscripts, pages of the text, which are commonly divided into
paragraphs, with a tablet at the head of each; the first words being
constantly written with red ink, made of a kind of ochre, as the black
is of a carbonaceous substance. The beginning of the manuscripts
is seldom entire, being always at the outside of the roll; as the
_umbilicus_ of the Romans was synonymous with the end.” ...
“The coffins of the mummies, and the larger sarcophagi of stone, are
generally covered with representations extremely similar to some of
those which are found in the manuscripts. The judicial tablet is
frequently delineated on the middle of the coffins; above it are
Isis and Nephthe, at the sides, and apparently Rhea in the middle,
with outspread wings. The space below is chiefly occupied by figures
of twenty or thirty of the principal deities, to whom the deceased,
in his mystical character, is doing homage; each of them being
probably designated by the relationship in which he stands to the new
representative of Osiris. In the sculptures, the figures are generally
less numerous; the same deities are commonly represented as on the
painted coffins, but without the repetition of the suppliant, and
in an order subject to some little variation. The large sarcophagus
of granite, in the British Museum, brought from Cairo, and formerly
called the Lover’s Fountain, has the name of Apis, as a part of the
characteristic denomination. This circumstance, at first sight, seemed
to make it evident that it must have been intended to contain the mummy
of an Apis, for which its magnitude renders it well calculated; but
when the symbols of other deities were found in the mystic names upon
various other monuments, this inference could no longer be considered
as absolutely conclusive.” ...
“Of the triumphal monuments, the most magnificent are the obeliscs,
which are reported by Pliny to have been dedicated to the Sun; and
there is every reason to suppose, that the translation of one of these
inscriptions, preserved by Ammianus Marcellinus, after Hermapion,
contains a true representation of a part of its contents, more
especially as ‘the mighty Apollo’ of Hermapion agrees completely with
the hawk, the bull, and the arm, which usually occupy the beginning of
each inscription. These symbols are generally followed by a number of
pompous titles, not always very intimately connected with each other,
and among them we often find that of ‘Lord of the asp bearing diadems,’
with some others, immediately preceding the name and parentage of the
sovereign, who is the principal subject of the inscription. The obelisc
at Heliopolis is without the bull; and the whole inscription may be
supposed to have signified something of this kind.
“THIS APOLLINEAN TROPHY IS CONSECRATED TO THE HONOUR OF
KING ‘REMESSES,’ CROWNED WITH AN ASP BEARING DIADEM; IT IS
CONSECRATED TO THE HONOUR OF THE SON OF ‘HERON,’ THE ORNAMENT
OF HIS COUNTRY, BELOVED BY PHTHAH, LIVING FOR EVER; IT IS
CONSECRATED TO THE HONOUR OF THE REVERED AND BENEFICIENT DEITY
‘REMESSES,’ GREAT IN GLORY, SUPERIOR TO HIS ENEMIES; BY THE
DECREE OF AN ASSEMBLY, TO THE POWERFUL AND THE FLOURISHING, WHOSE
LIFE SHALL BE WITHOUT END.”
“It is true, that some parts of this interpretation are in great
measure conjectural; but none of it is altogether arbitrary, or
unsupported by some probable analogy: and the spirit and tenor of the
inscription is probably unimpaired by the alterations, which this
approximation to the sense may unavoidably have introduced.
“Of the obeliscs, still in existence, there are perhaps about thirty,
larger and smaller, which may be considered as genuine. Several others
are decidedly spurious, having been chiefly sculptured at Rome, in
imitation of the Egyptian style, but so negligently and unskilfully,
as to have exhibited a striking difference even in the character of
the workmanship. Such are the Pamphilian, in explanation of which the
laborious Kircher has published a folio volume, and the Barberinian
or Veranian: in both of these the emblems are put together in a
manner wholly arbitrary; and when an attempt is made to imitate the
appearance of a name, the characters are completely different at each
repetition. The Sallustian obelisc has also been broken, and joined
inaccurately, and some modern restitutions have been very awkwardly
introduced, as becomes evident upon comparing with each other the
figures of Kircher and of Zoëga. [A similar restitution has been rather
better executed at one corner of the Lateran obelisc, as I observed
in the course of a few weeks that I passed at Rome in the summer of
1821: the block of granite, which has been employed, still exhibits
some words of a Latin inscription, turned upside down, but not effaced,
although the hieroglyphics belonging to the place have been imitated
with tolerable fidelity]. Another very celebrated monument, the Isiac
table, which has been the subject of much profound discussion, and
has given birth to many refined mythological speculations, is equally
incapable of supporting a minute examination upon solid grounds; for
the inscriptions neither bear any relation to the figures near which
they are placed, nor form any connected sense of their own; and the
whole is undoubtedly the work of a Roman sculptor, imitating only the
general style and the separate delineations of the Egyptian tablets; as
indeed some of the most learned and acute of our critical antiquaries
had already asserted, notwithstanding the contrary opinion of several
foreigners, of the highest reputation for their intimate acquaintance
with the works of Greek and Roman art. We may hope, however, that in
future these unprofitable discussions and disputes will become less and
less frequent, and that our knowledge of the antiquities of Egypt will
gain as much in the solidity and sufficiency of its evidence, as it may
probably lose in its hypothetical symmetry and its imaginary extent;
and while we allow every latitude to legitimate reasoning and cautious
conjecture, in the search after historical truths, we must peremptorily
exclude from our investigations an attachment to fanciful systems and
presupposed analogies on the one hand, and a too implicit deference to
traditional authority on the other.”
A few general remarks, that I had taken the liberty of sending out to
Mr. William Bankes, for his assistance in his Egyptian researches, had
been found of some utility in directing his attention to points of
the most material importance for the promotion of the investigation:
and even before the actual publication of the Supplement of the
Encyclopaedia, I had received from Egypt a very agreeable confirmation
of my opinions, in a letter addressed by Mr. Salt to Mr. William
Hamilton, of which I shall here insert an extract.
“_Cairo, 1st May, 1819._
“At Dakki in Nubia there is an inscription of the Ptolemies,
over the principal entrance, that occupies a place evidently
connected with the architecture; and on each side of this is a
tablet of hieroglyphics, nearly similar one to the other. Now
it struck me on the spot, that these, being nearly of the same
length as the Greek tablet, might possibly contain a translation.
I therefore referred to a letter in Mr. Bankes’s possession,
containing some fifty explanations of hieroglyphics from Dr.
Young, and was certainly gratified to find that in the oval
[ring], conspicuous on each side, was the name of the “immortal
Ptolemy”: and immediately afterwards the name of Hermes on one
side, and of Isis on the other, to whom, by numerous Greek
inscriptions, it is certain that the temple was dedicated. In
following up this idea, I found, in other parts of the temple,
the name of “Ptolemy“ without the “immortal,” over offering
figures; and also those hieroglyphics which Dr. Young supposes
to represent the names of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, as well as
Hermes, over their respective figures, invariably, I may say,
throughout the numerous representations on the walls....
H.S.”
Upon Mr. Bankes’s return to England, he had the kindness and liberality
to allow me free access to the unequalled treasures of drawings
and inscriptions, that he had accumulated and brought home; and I
soon obtained a knowledge of several additional characters from the
comparison of these valuable documents. The most useful of these
was the symbol for BROTHER or SISTER, which appears to be the crook
generally seen in the hands of Osiris, and which is closely imitated
in the enchorial character that I had already ascertained. I found,
also, that the emblem which I had taken for MOTHER could only be
translated WIFE, as it was applied to Cleopatra with relation to her
husband Ptolemy; and that a FATHER was denoted by a bird with an
arm, as I had at first inferred from the pillar of Rosetta, though
I afterwards abandoned the opinion, from supposing that I had found
another emblem for Ptolemy Philopator. It happened, however, by mere
accident, that the advantage which I derived from this source was
much less considerable than might have been expected, both from its
abundance and from its uncontaminated purity; but I had been rather
disposed to defer the ultimate study of Mr. Bankes’s collections, till
their publication should give me a free right to employ them in any
manner that I might think proper. Some remarks, however, that occurred
to me in consequence of looking them over, I incorporated in a little
essay which I gave to Mr. Belzoni, and which makes the appendix to the
second edition of his travels. I have here observed, in speaking of the
reference of the supposed Jewish captives, exhibited in the catacomb
of my “Psammis,” to the expeditions of Necho to Jerusalem, in the
time of King Josiah and Jehoahaz, “that there are some difficulties
in reconciling the name of Psammis with some other monuments, and in
particular with a most important fragment of an enumeration of the
kings of Egypt, discovered by Mr. Bankes, at Abydos. In this there are
only two kings intervening between this Psammis and the Memnon of the
ancients: so that, if Pliny is right in his account of this obelisc,
the popular tradition respecting the colossus, supposed to represent
Memnon, must be erroneous. This, indeed, it would not be difficult
to admit, as very likely to have happened in the case of any popular
tradition; but there is a still greater difficulty in the inscription
found by Mr. Bankes on the leg of the colossus at Ebsambul, in which
Psammetichus is mentioned; and if this was the first Psammetichus, as
appears in some respects to be the more probable, it would follow that
the king who founded that temple was more ancient than Psammetichus.
But it is abundantly certain that our Psammis was prior to the founder
of that temple: so that either that Psammetichus must be of much later
date, as the employment of the Greek Ψ in the inscription would indeed
appear to indicate, or this catacomb was not constructed in honour of
the son of Pharaoh Necho. It has also been observed by an accomplished
scholar, who is much attached to the pursuit of Egyptian antiquities,
that, according to the testimony of Herodotus, all the kings of this
dynasty were buried at Saïs, and that we must either reject this
evidence, or admit that neither Psammis nor Necho can be the personage
here represented. We may, however, hope, that future researches will
furnish us with materials, that may enable us to remove this and many
other difficulties, which at present envelope the chronology of the
kings of Egypt.”