CHAPTER III.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 theMuseum 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 greatDescription 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by considering the sacred characters as the remains of a more ancient and solemn mode of expression, which had been superseded, in common life, by other words and phrases; and, in several cases, it seemed probable, that the forms of the characters had been so far degraded and confused,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 referenceto 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, alreadyascertained, 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, Iafterwards 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 articleEgypt.
“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 excludedfrom 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 distinctname 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 uponpapyrus, 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 calledRhea, 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 theDéscription 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 dividedinto 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 theumbilicusof 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,’ crownedwith 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.”
“This apollinean trophy is consecrated to the honour of king ‘remesses,’ crownedwith 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 appearanceof 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 fortheir 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 itshypothetical 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, thatoccupies 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.”
“Cairo, 1st May, 1819.
“At Dakki in Nubia there is an inscription of the Ptolemies, over the principal entrance, thatoccupies 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 wasthe symbol forBROTHERorSISTER, 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 forMOTHERcould only be translatedWIFE, as it was applied to Cleopatra with relation to her husband Ptolemy; and that aFATHERwas 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 difficultiesin 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 dynastywere 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.”