His researches, however, it is to be regretted, are too often deficient in critical caution, or sound philological judgment. Instead of attempting to explain the enigma of a pure alphabet of 200 signs, with only 15 sounds, he increases the difficulty not only by swelling the above number to nearly 300, but by starting a principle which, if well founded, would put an end to all clear or specific research in this department. Champollion had asserted, although without proof, that the figures selected as alphabetic signs were those of objects, the names of which commenced with the sound to be indicated. In the case of many of these signs, as (axem) the eagle for a, (ro) the mouth for r, this was easily demonstrable from the Coptic, or the hieroglyphic language itself. It was reasonable then to adopt it as a fundamental principle, and the more so, that in the Semitic, Runic, and Irish alphabets, the names of the letters appear to indicate a similar connexion between the image of the object indicated by those names, and the form of that letter to which they are respectively allotted. But Salvolini has a second axiom, which he words nearly in the following terms - Every hieroglyphic may indicate, in the first place, the sound with which the object represented by it begins-and secondly, also the initial sound of a word, the object of which it is the symbol. Thus, the vulture may not only designate n, because the Egyptian word for this bird (nurheu) begins with n, but m also; for the vulture is the sign of maternity, and mother is called mu, mut." Salvolini terms this a happy flexibility of the hieroglyphic system. Certainly the idea of mother is expressed symbolically by a vulture: but if this were sufficient to establish the phonetic use of the sign for m, as well as for n, we should be involved in a most fatal confusion, and all the absurdities of a cabalistic character. Besides, there is no one proof adducible of this assertion; and as regards the example in question, the vulture in Old Egyptian is not phonetic at all, but

only indicates mu-t, which is both vulture and mother. It became phonetic and alphabetic as a sign for m merely in the later epochs.

In the year 1834, Richard Lepsius, a young German philologer, gifted with a genius for the study of the monuments not inferior to that of Rosellini, and with much more natural acuteness and critical tact — furnished, besides, with that comprehensive knowledge of language peculiar to the German school, commenced, although not himself a pupil of Champollion, following out, from his own independent resources, the path opened up by that great master. He had already in the same year announced his vocation to the higher branches of linguistic science, and his acquaintance with classical, Indian and Germanic philology, by a treatise, received in Germany and France with great approbation, upon written character, as a means of investigating language. Thus prepared, he began in that year to turn his attention to hieroglyphics. By a happy fatality, and one which doubly redounds to the honour of German science in this department, it was the Royal Academy of Science at Berlin which furnished the young scholar with the means of dedicating himself to those pursuits; that institution which Leibnitz founded in the country of La Croze, Jablonski, and Vignolles, with especial reference to the study of language, as a means of restoring the genealogy of mankind. Not long afterwards Lepsius succeeded in effecting a brilliant discovery at Paris. He perceived that by far the greater part of the characters in Champollion's alphabet were not purely phonetic, i. e. not capable of universal application. Rejecting such as are either only used phonetically in certain words, or for peculiar combinations of sounds (of which he discovered eleven), he had remaining 34 purely alphabetic signs, which he identified as corresponding with the 15 Old Egyptian letters. By this means the hieroglyphic alphabet was not only corrected, but illustrated.

A

pure alphabet of 200 signs were difficult to comprehend. The existence of two signs on an average for each sound explains itself by the necessity, which the monumental nature of their writing, and their own symmetrical turn of mind imposed on the Egyptians, of employing, sometimes a horizontal, sometimes a perpendicular sign, sometimes a long, sometimes a broad figure, in order to give an artistic shape and finish to each group of words. Lepsius at the same time still further extended the principle introduced by Champollion, by separating all the signs which first occur with phonetic power in the time of the Ptolemies and Romans, from the old signs.

This closes the history of hieroglyphic discovery: for in the alphabet published by Leemans, in his valuable work on the Egyptian monuments of the Leyden museum, owing to the absence of all illustrative evidence, we are the less able to judge what amount of progress may have been made by the learned author. We are, however, very doubtful whether such evidence can be adduced.

VI. THE TEXT OF CLEMENS OF ALEXANDRIA.

THE principle of hieroglyphic writing had barely been discovered, when its opponents threw themselves under the protection of the ancients. One party endeavoured to prove that what was actually demonstrated was impossible, because ancient (and indeed modern) writers had asserted the reverse. Others looked for comfort in the fact of the ancients having spoken clearly enough of an hieroglyphic alphabet, and of Clemens having expounded with great minuteness the whole system, in the same passage, from which they, or persons like them, had repeatedly proved the contrary. This is indeed quite in keeping with human nature. No sooner was America discovered than the enemies of Columbus found facts enough tending to disprove the existence of such a coun

try, and a few years after Hervey discovered the circulation of the blood, one of those English physicians, who had denied that discovery and attacked it with great vehemence, showed that the thing had been clearly alluded to in a verse in Proverbs. In our case, the fact discovered was certainly both known to and testified by the ancients. Pliny, in a passage (given in the Appendix of Authorities, C. II. 1.) upon the Obelisks, drily, but distinctly asserts it" They are dedicated to the Sun-God; that their inscriptions declare; for the signs engraven on them are Egyptian letters." The The passage of Clemens, to which we could allude but cursorily in treating of the sacred books, has since the late discoveries received very dif ferent interpretations. Letronne, Goulianof and Lepsius have been the most successful in their efforts to illustrate its obscurities; the latter especially, by his correct explanation of the celebrated expression, "the first elements," which no one before understood. By this phrase the Greek writers simply and plainly meant letters, in contradistinction to syllables, a word signifying originally a combination (of letters). All previous interpretations, however, leave one part of the passage wholly unexplained, namely, that which treats of the so-called Anaglyphic signs. According to Letronne and Champollion 217, these signs form an altogether distinct kind of representation by symbolic figures, and consequently no portion of the hieroglyphic system. De Sacy shows this to be impossible, without, however, suggesting any other interpretation, and Goulianof builds on it an exclusive system of secret characters, which, did it exist, would destroy the whole value of Champollion's discovery. We have already intimated our own views

217 Précis du Système Hiér. 2d edition, ii. 378. seqq. Compare with Sylvestre de Sacy, Journal des Savans, Mars, 1825. Lepsius, Lettre, p. 17. seqq., and Appendix A-De Goulianof, Archéologie Egyptienne, 3 vols. 1839, vol. i. p. 213. seqq.

upon this point in the first section. We hold the whole assumption of special anaglyphic signs to rest upon a philological misunderstanding. In order to establish these views, we shall now give, in the first place, a translation of the passage, referring for the original text to our Appendix of Authorities, C. III. 1.

"The Egyptians teach as the first branch of education that kind of writing which is called epistolographic; secondly, the hieratic, used by the sacred scribes; and last of all, the hieroglyphic. This latter is divided into two classes, one of which is expressed directly (kyriologically) by letters (literally, first, or simple phonetics), the other is symbolic. The symbolic (hieroglyphic character) represents the object either directly, by imitation. (kyriologically), or by tropes—or is expressed altogether allegorically, by means of certain enigmas. Thus, to indicate the sun, they make a circle; for the moon, a sort of crescent-shaped sign. These are examples of the direct (kyriological) method (of hieroglyphical writing). But they make use of the tropical method when they apply and transfer objects to something else, according to a certain analogy, sometimes by confounding them together, sometimes by altering them in various ways. Thus in writing the books which celebrate the praises of their kings in theological myths, they use the hieroglyphic character. Of the third method, which is expressed by enigmas, let this serve as an instance. While they designate the other planets on account of their spherical motion by the bodies of serpents, they represent the sun by the figure of a beetle (Scarabaeus)

We agree with Letronne 218 that the epistolographic

218 Lepsius' arguments against this are very ingeniously stated in the Appendix A to his Letter. He understands the contrast in the expressions of the Greek writers between the sacred and popular signs to mean, that by the former, the hieroglyphics, by the latter,