Hieroglyphics

HIEROGLYPHICS Introduction.

THE term hieroglyphics is used, with others, by Greek and Latin writers to describe the sacred characters of the ancient Egyptian language in its classical phase. It is used by the moderns for various systems of writing in which figures of objects take the place of conventional siθ∙ns. This article is limited to an account of Egyptian hieroglyphics, with some notice of the derived systems called hieratic and demotic.

It is no longer necessary in an article like the present to give a history of the interpretation of hieroglyphics and a sketch of the grammar of ancient Egyptian. What students need is a statement of the main results as to the Egyptian characters themselves and a systematic bibliography.

The written language of the ancient Egyptians remained the same from the date of the earliest monuments (Third Dynasty) until the age of the Ethiopian kings (b.c. cir. 700), when a vulgar dialect expressing the common speech is first found in written documents. Then, if not earlier, the older phase of the language became the classical Egyptian, sometimes called the sacred dialect, to distinguish it from the vulgar dialect. The classical Egyptian was used almost as late as the fall of paganism generally for all documents but legal and commercial ones, for which the vulgar dialect was used.

It is necessary to observe that although Egyptian is not proved to be a Semitic language, it contains in its oldest known form undoubted Semitic elements, both in structure and roots. The constant comparison with the Semitic languages which is here necessary is therefore not merely employed for the sake of the analogies that may be discovered, but on the ground of partial affinity, which, however, must not be strained.

It must also be borne in mind that the grammar of ancient Egyptian is in its infancy. We know many of its principal facts, but we do not know them accurately. For instance, we know the forms of many tenses of the verb, and can perhaps place these tenses in groups, as past, present, and future, but we cannot define the different senses of the various tenses of each group. Similarly, in Coptic we do not always know the shades of difference within a group of tenses. It may be that in Coptic these shades have disappeared through the decay of the language, but it would be rash to affirm this of the classical Egyptian. Thus this essential part of the grammar will not be understood until the verb has been thoroughly worked downwards from the oldest texts through ⅛he classical language, then through the demotic, and then the Coptic, and again in inverted order from the Coptic upwards. The same labour has to be performed for the whole grammar in each of the three phases of the language, before we can speak with any certainty of Egyptian grammar. This is said in no disparagement of the admirable work already done, but as a necessary caution to the student.

The following sections are abridged (to p. 806, end of section on “Secret Writing ”), with additions and modifications, which are noted by their being included in parentheses, from Μ. de Rougé’s ChrtS' tomathie Égyptienne, Abrégé Grammatical.

The Systems of Writing.

The elements of Egyptian writing are composed of a certain number of actual objects, natural or artificial, imitated by drawing or engraving.

Egyptian writing falls into three systems—(1) hieroglyphic, (2) hieratic, (3) demotic or enchorial, the hieratic being a simplified form of hieroglyphic, and the demotic of hieratic. The complete designing of hiero∙ glyphics required skill and time. They thus came to be reduced in writing to the simplest forms which retained the leading characteristics. These were called by Champoilion linear hieroglyphics. The linear forms not lending themselves with sufficient readiness to very rapid writing, a further abbreviation was made, by which the forms became almost conventional,—the original type usually ceasing to be immediately recognizable: this cursive system Champoilion called hieratic. The demotic writing is a new abbreviation of the hieratic: it gradually departs so far from the original types as to appear to consist of arbitrary signs.

Hieroglyphics are written either in horizontal lines or vertical columns, and are ordinarily read from the right. The heads of animals and the like shew from what direction to begin reading. Hieratic and demotic are written from right to left, in horizontal lines. In very early times hieratic is sometimes written in vertical columns.

(The hieroglyphic is a lapidary system, the hieratic and demotic purely systems for common writing. Consequently the hieroglyphic is the most difficult of the three to read, as the engraver or painter paid great attention to the symmetrical appearance of each group of signs, and grammatical forms were hence often omitted. In hieratic and demotic the signs follow each other without interruption of the natural order, and the grammatical forms are usually given, and even more fully.)

Characters in Relation to their Use in Writing.

Egyptian writing is composed of a mixture of signs of two distinct classes—(1) ideographic, each sign representing an idea; (2) phonetic, representing a sound, either (a) a simple articulation (alphabetic) or (β) a complete sound, i.e., a complete syllable (syllabic). The two classes were combined according to fixed rules in writing words.

Ideographic Signs.

This class may be best divided into (a) representative signs and (∕3) symbolic (tropical).

The representative signs exactly express the idea of the object of which they present an image, as a star.

The symbolic (tropical) signs represent an idea by the aid of certain analogies which the mind sees between the symbol and the idea attached to it. A simple symbol presents a single object, as the sun Q, when used in the symbolic sense a day.” A symbol is complex when uniting more objects than one to convey to the mind a single idea, thus a star suspended beneath the celestial vault t < represented a night.” Under complex signs should be placed figures of divinities in which the human form has special headdresses or insignia.

The value of ideographic signs may be discovered in various ways. The representative signs only need that the thing represented should be determined. The symbolic signs are often (rather, sometimes) explained by classical authors; they may also be explained by careful study of bilingual documents, as the Rosetta Stone (and the Decree of Canopus). The sense, and more certainly the reading, can be discovered by an exact knowledge of the words written by phonetic combined with ideographic signs, and above all by the variants allowed in writing the same word with signs of different classes.

(The result may be thus tabulated: [table]

Dr. Brugsch in his Gram. Hier. (p. 3) gives the following scheme: [table]

Here the ideographic signs are classed, not according to their nature but according to their use, which will be later noticed. Μ. de Rougé’s seems the more logical classification.)

Phonetic Signs.

As the phonetic signs represent either (a) a simple articulation or (∕3) a complete sound, i.e., a complete syllable, the hieroglyphic method comprehends (a) an alphabet and (3) a syllabary.

Champoilion held that the alphabet originated from giving to each object the phonetic value of the initial of its name: thus the mouth <⊂> “ro” would become a r.” This probable principle cannot now be tested for a great part of the alphabet, probably in consequence of the loss of many archaic words.

The alphabet of the Greek and Roman periods presents a great number of homophones .for each articulation. The more we advance towards antiquity the more the method simplifies, and the alphabet of primitive times admits but a very small number of homophones. Dr. Lepsius {Lettre d ßoselhni) first scientifically treated this distinction.

Articulations of the Egyptian Language.

The determination of the exact number of articulations which the scribes distinguished in the Egyptian language presents great difficulties. Comparison with the articulations of languages which occur in bilingual texts cannot give sufficiently precise results, for the shades of sound are far from being the same in the languages thus placed in juxtaposition. The Romans and Greeks had many letters which, though quite distinct in their languages, the Egyptians confounded in their transcriptions. On the other hand, there were some Egyptian articulations preserved in the Coptic language which had no special representative in Greek or Latin; hence certain letters derived from the demotic were added to the Greek alphabet on its adoption by the Copts. (It must also be remarked that the Greek and Roman rule was an age of literary decay and ruin for classical Egyptian, in the depression of which little effort seems to have been made to represent accurately foreign sounds. The student must not be misled by the greater accuracy at this time in rendering the vowels, which was merely due to the decay of the system of writing, by which the Egyptian vowels usually following certain consonant signs came to be disregarded.) Happily those Egyptian articulations which were unknown t□ the Greeks and Romans have at least analogues in thι Semitic languages. Moreover, the many transcriptions of Semitic words (made while the Egyptian was iη full vigour), joined to the traditions of the Coptiα language (which has ceased for a hundred years to be a living speech), enable us to appreciate sufficiently those articulations unknown to the Greeks and Romans (and this indication may be followed in the cases of the rest of the letters).

The words common to Egyptian and Semitic in the earliest known condition of the Egyptian language must be omitted from comparison; the more exact transcriptions of the scribes of the Ramessides (Dynasties XIX., XX.) must take precedence of the looser ones of the earlier period of the Empire (Dynasty XVIII.). Coptic, having long existed in a languishing state and under the influence of Arabic, whence the colouring of the latest dialect, the Bashmuric (Revillout ap. Rossi, Gram. Coρto-Ger., 30, n. l),and certain peculiarities of the present pronunciation, is not an absolutely safe guide.

It might be thought that the study of the various modes in which words are written would furnish an exact table of homophones, and give us at once the list of distinct articulations; thus we might suppose that variants shewing two characters might enable us to assume their identity, as when in reading Greek we assume that θ is the same as θ. But in Egyptian, as in other written languages, there are certain licensed irregularities of orthography, and also oscillations between the different shades of sound in the same class of letters when, used for the same word: a small number of variants between two letters therefore does not prove their perfect homophony. Hence certain differences of opinion among Egyptologists, according to the weight, greater or less, which they give to this or that series of variants. Thus the number of letters under the “t” group differs with different scholars.

Without denying that there may have been some shades of sound in the different signs here called homo* phones, as in the sounds represented by the English “th,” the chief guide should be the estimate the Copts made of the elements of their language, when they adopted the Greek alphabet, completing it for their purpose by adding six special letters taken from demotic writing.

The Egyptian Christians in adopting the Greek alphabet, which had vowels with fixed sounds, made their writing undergo a radical change: up to that time they had only vague vowels which were, as in the Semitic alphabets, simple aspirations, susceptible of being coloured by the sounds of different vowels (but. this vague character must be limited by the vowels falling, as in Semitic, into three groups of sounds; the vagueness was therefore not unlimited. This characteristic of the old Egyptian influenced the Coptic, which presents in the vowels varieties of orthography of the same word, these varieties, however, usually falling within the three ancient groups. It is only in the Coptic helping vowel that absolute vagueness is found, like that of the primitive “shëva” of Hebrew.)

Following these indications we find 15 leading articulations in Egyptian the shades of sound which may be most certainly distinguished would indicate an alphabet of 21 divisions. They are transcribed by letters taken, one, χ, not to be confused with the Coptic excepted, from the Latin alphabet, according to the principles of the Standard Alphabet. Cf. Lepsius, Standard Alphabet- The simple letters used by the Egyptians in the earliest times to write these articulations are as follows: [table]

During the Pharaonic periods ten homophone letters were added: one is very ancient; some appear under the Ramessides; others under the Saïtic Twenty-sixth Dynasty. Probably they were introduced in order to render it easier to nil spaces in sculptured inscriptions.

It must be observed that all simple letters can in writing radical forms be replaced by syllabic signs.

These articulations have now to be examined under natural classes: their interchange has to be noticed, their use in the transcription of Latin, Greek, and Semitic words, and the rules according to which Egyptian words are transformed into Coptic words in the two chief dialects, the Sahidic and Memphitic. (This branch of the subject is of great importance for comparative philology, as our endeavour should be to ascertain as nearly as we can the fundamental sounds of ancient Egyptian, and then to compare these sounds with those of languages to which it has relation.)

Soft Aspirate, and Vague Vowels.

The Egyptian vowels have two distinct uses—(1) as aspirates, or initials in the syllable, and (2) as vague vowels, either final or medial.

The Copts have marked no difference of aspiration between the initial vowels of syllables in their language, which correspond to ancient words beginning with [∣, or -—o.

When these signs are employed as vowels, or “matres lectionis,’’ it does not appear that one of them was used by preference for one sound more than another: they remain vague in the full force of the term. This vague “a” is unlike the ∣ of prolongation of the Arabs, which (though otherwise susceptible of being coloured by all the vowels) then becomes a true a. (Notwithstanding this vagueness it is safest to transcribe this group by a, as there were special signs for the semi-vowels i and w, and the helping vowel which we write é was not written. The a must, however, be considered a symbol, vague to the extent of the Hebrew X when not vowelled.)

The final vague vowels do not vary much between themselves in the ancient texts; the orthography of each word was very stable, and, besides, the choice of the · final vowel depended much on the preceding consonant, each sign having a vague vowel which it seems to prefer. (See the Section on “Expletive Vowels and Complements of Simple Leiters,” and observe the usage of syllabic signs.) They sometimes interchange, and are even replaced by the vowels u and i, which as finals share their vague character. .This system lasted .to the latest periods of demotic writing. (Coptic shews the same instability of a and the kindred vowels.)

The three signs of the soft aspirate sometimes interchange: (∣ and "⅜X serve equally as initials in Greek and Roman names, as well as in Egyptian words. The group of two a’s, aa, was ordinarily written a ^' a " d * 3 f° un ^ as va " ant °f ^‰ κ ι n *tial∙

ß is used with a marked preference to transcribe the Semitic X.

On the contrary j —o seems preferentially used to express long vowels, or such as were emphatically pronounced. In the Semitic transcriptions it corresponds habitually to V, when that letter is initial. But it was not the same articulation. Under the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties, and particularly in the papyri, a great degree of exactness was sought in the transcription of Semitic words. The scribes often then expressed the ÿ by the syllabic <-=, which has the value of ag,. It seems that the arm alone did not offer them an approximation which they judged sufficient.

The Hebrews transcribed o by y in many words. The (J□ of the Copts answers oftener to .—o than to the other vowels (and this seems a convincing proof that the signs of the u vowel had no stable sound).

There are also some cases of permutation between a and the aspirate h, analogous to the variants between ∏ and X (but we must be careful not to confound true variants with a root in Egyptian augmented by a preformative h).

When the vowel a should form a syllable by itself it is often followed by the sign , which indicates the voice, by the representation of a man, his hand to his mouth. Transcriptions of proper names thus beginning, as °(∣t}> Apoplιis, shew that should a PP i ordinarily be pronounced a.

Ιhe final vague vowels could be omitted in writing; numerous variants shew there was no rule in this matter; but the hieratic, preserves them more habitually. In writing themedial vowel of a syllable of two (or three) consonants, it was very ordinarily placed after the consonants and not between them; this is true of a, a l ä, u, i. Thus the name of the divinity ® ⅛ , ’ X ensu > * s constantly tran scribed by χωvs in proper names. There is a striking instance of this orthography in the word ∖∖ <≡≡≡>, ani for ain, transcription of the Hebrew })V “eye” and “fountain.”—List of cities of Syria taken by Thothmes III.

l7 and i could be initial semi-vowels or vague vowels; «initial answers in many Coptic words to the diphthongs OY(J(J, OYG, &c., without being followed in writing by a second vowel: here it is an initial semi-vowel. Z7 necessarily carried with it its aspiration; there are some variants with the aspirate ∣, h, which recalls i. The two signs , @ , interchange readily, and may be considered to be absolute homophones, but was much more frequently used ir. the earliest times.

U, considered as a vowel, was vague, and in a larger measure than the Hebrew 1, for we find it transcribed even by i and by e. It interchanges with i in Egyptian words, and sometimes even with a. In Hebrew we remark frequently the same oscillation between the sounds w and i in the këri këtib of the Biblical text. In Coptic this vowel has generally produced OY, O, (J□, but very often also G and the other vowels or diphthongs; the group , au, answers to G, e, in the Coptic and the Greek transcriptions; it would be thus equivalent to X in the Masoretic system.

Of the two signs for i, Q and ∖∖ , the second is evidently shorthand for the first. I initial should always be considered to be a semi-vowel with the value ia, iu: in this use we ordinarily find (j > which better fills the initial space; ∖∖ serves oftener for i vague final. Thus the verb i, “to go,” was written with vague a initial for the aspirate, and {j , or ∖∖, as final vowels {∣ , _/\ , or

.A ’ t ^ e lθ ss determinιn S 1 ^ e * dea °f movemcnt: * s transcribed ai; in Coptic I, Gl, “to go,” “come.” We also find the variant

7∖ , «, which is regular in consequence of the vagueness of the vowels. (The two forms are traceable in Coptic.) The signs Q and ∖∖ interchange as much as their forms permit, which fit very differently into the composition of groups.

I, semi-vowel, does not vary with any other letter; it is only found in a very small number of Egyptian words, but it is much used in the Semitic transcriptions; the Coptic derivations are initial I and

Gl.

I, the vague vowel, interchanges with « and a, a, au, ai. The Greek transcriptions oscillate principally between i, e, ei. lhe Semitic transcriptions have a much wider range, which 'comprehends nearly all the vowel sounds.

(The unwritten aspirate or short vowel is not noticed in this place by Μ. de Rouge. It will be seen, under the Section on “the Transcription of Vowels Omitted,” that he does not admit the transcription of an unwritten vowel except as a makeshift, or in other words, that he does not allow the Egyptians to have had a vowel sound never written. The existence of the supposed vowel seems, however, certain on these grounds. Some syllables never take a vowel except for an unusual form,—the root and the ordinary derivatives never being vowelled, and a vowel only appearing in what is obviously a derivative formed by lengthening the vowel. Further, the Coptic has such a vowel marked by peculiar forms v or — above a letter, or in the latter case above a letter or syllable, indicating that the sound, hero generally G, was omitted in writing by the ancient Egyptians; and still more remarkably the Coptic use is sometimes found where the older writing would lead us to expect it. In ancient Egyptian the use of this helping vowel is implied, as an aspirate in a syllable written with a consonant alone, as n, m, <=> r; in Coptic

If, ΛΛ, p, and as a medial vowel in a syllable of two consonants, as tm, “not,” in Coptic ’ TΛΛ. In Coptic, as already mentioned, it is generally read G, ë, but had this been its constant sound it would have been represented by G, and would of course have been needless. It is safest to read the old Egyptian helping vowel ë. It resembles the Hebrew Shëva, as including its variants Hateph-Pathah, Hateph-Segol, and Hateph-Kames.

Μ. de Rouge’s section on this subject seems wanting in his usual clearness. This is, however, due to the inherent difficulty of the subject. The Egyptian vowels, except when used as semi vowels, are undoubtedly vague. Thus, in the writing of Semitic words under the Ramessides, while the consonants are most carefully represented, the vowels afiected by those consonants are frequently used, and the apparent pronunciation is distorted. Consequently, though we have no difficulty in separating the vowels into the a, i, and u group, adding the helping vowel, or short ë, because the use of the i and u vowels as semi-vowels gives them and the third vowel (a) thus limited a certain definite character, yet, when we have to treat of vowels pure and simple, the distinction of these classes vanishes. Thus the idea of fixed vowels, with however wide legitimate extension, is constantly rising in the enquiry to be as constantly suppressed by the vagueness of their use. It must, therefore, be held that the transcriptions we adopt do not give the accurate pronunciation, inasmuch as the vowel constantly, but not always, depended upon the consonant preceding, and vowel complements are even added where they were not pronounced. This is proved by Greek transcriptions, as will be seen later. On the other hand, the vowelling of Greek and Latin proper names shews that the vagueness of the vowels was not absolute, for the Egyptian scribes in the decay of the old style, no longer bound by the ancient usage of complements, employed the vowels with such accuracy as their limitation in sounds permitted, subject to the carelessness of the age. Of course these vowels could not accurately represent the Latin five or the Greek seven. Perhaps it may be suggested, in conclusion, that some idea of the Egyptian vowel system may be formed by a comparison with unpointed Hebrew.)

Labials.

While approaching ph or f κ— is distinct, for the Copts who adopted φ as necessary for the aspirated p of the Memphitic dialect, also considered the needful, of which their Cj is the demotic sign in a modified form. In some words *— is employed as a variant of u. On account of this function it has been transcribed by w instead of/. In consequence of this use it was sometimes omitted:

thu3 > 8ni > for “Wood,”

Coptic CΓCOC∣. (Μ. de Rouge calls this letter, so used, a vowel or variant of u, and in the example just cited characterizes it as a short vowel, but it seems more analogous to 1 after a vowel, when not quiescent, in the present or ordinary Hebrew pronunciation.) In Greek words x y— does not render φ ; the Egyptians used either 0, », or the combination 0 ΓD, ph. But in the transcription of Semitic words we sometimes find κ— for Ö. In Coptic, besides C∣, this letter sometimes becomes <∣) and β,.

Like the Hebrew 3 the Egyptian b comprised the two shades of sound 3 b and 3 (δ⅛ or) v t at least in the less ancient periods. The Copts seem also to have known the two sounds, though their one E has been generally transcribed by υ. The transcriptions of the Greeks do not aid us, for their β was probably sounded υ. The evidence of the Semitic words is perhaps more precise in the system of transcription of the (hieratic) papyri of the Nineteenth Dynasty. 3, b, is rendered either by p or by the group J bp; 3 (⅛Λ) by Jj alone: the ordinary sound of b should therefore approach v. In the hieroglyphics they were often content with , b, homophone of J, for 3. (The weight of this reasoning partly depends upon the antiquity of the Masore(ic punctuation, which is, however, supported by the double rendering of the Egyptians.)

The compound bp, introduced for Semitic words, is found later employed in hieratic for Egyptian words, no doubt to characterize the pronunciation b, 3 , better than by alone, or the group J, which serves as its variant in these same words. The signs J and sometimes interchange; offener J replaces alone; they also exchange, but rarely, with p and ∕. The ancient b produced regularly the Coptic 1A ; and by affinity OY, ∏, <∣>, C∣, and Ut.

T he two signs of p, □ and , are complete homophones. The Memphitic dialect aspirated p, and used φ in many words where the Sahidic used ∏. Here the Sahidic has been more faithful to the ancient pronunciation: in fact φ Greek was sometimes rendered by the group □ΓlI , ph, and the Hebrew D by —, ∕. This ancient Egyptian letter was then y?; it also corresponds exactly to S. It was further used to transcribe approximately 3, as already remarked.

It produced regularly in Coptic the Sahidic ∏ and the Memphitic ψ. Affinities occasionally introduced C∣ or β,. The ancient p also presents some instances of varying with b. Palatals.

This class of letters lends itself to great varieties of pronunciation which render them difficult to understand; it is in their nature to modify themselves considerably by the simple change of the vowel which follows them. The Greek and Roman transcriptions would lead us to consider the four signs Zl, , U, and as perfect homophones. But we are led to another opinion, if we consider the transcriptions of Semitic words, and the Coptic derived words.

The Semitic transcriptions afford the following results: 1, Hand (j} answering to) £ (plι^) are almost always rendered by; 2, 3 corresponds to and p to 21; but this second rule is not so faithfully observed as the first.

In the Coptic language there are here two distinct types; 1, K Sahidic, aspirated as in the Memphitic; 2, 6~ j Sahidic corresponding to X Memphitic, but sometimes identical.

Taking the Copts as guides we distinguish two palatals, which we mark as k and k. U did not exist in their writing, but in some rare cases which do not correspond to a special ancient fetter: in a small number of words where it is derived from s. , lc, it is produced by the presence of the nasal which precedes; thus ΛHΓ, I, from

In studying more closely the three signs ZJ, , U, we are easily convinced of the perfect homophony of 1 1 with ->⊂^ι. The equality of Δ and LJ may seem more doubtful; variants exist, but they are not frequent. However, we find the group /1 LJ, where the first letter only doubles the second, as we have seen in the group J 7χ≥ i » and we are thus authorized to connect intimately Δ , 1 1, and and transcribe them by k.

To this articulation correspond regularly, in Coptic, K Sahidic and

Memphitic, 6~ and X less frequently, <⅛) and g, as rare exceptions.

The rule of derivation is different in what concerns ß , and it is there above all that we recognize the distinct type' preserved in the Coptic (S~ ’ . Tho sign fi , which we transcribe k, shows s^me ancient cases of variants with the preceding signs, and the Greek transcriptions do not give us sufficient reasons for making a distinction. The Semitic transcriptions are more decisive; the Û, as already noticed, is quite specially set apart to render J, and V answering to £ · Tho Coptic derived forms strengthen this first result; they quite regularly class themselves under the Sahidic (5"Γ answering to the Memphitic X, or under the (S~ in both dialects. The exceptions are as follows, in order of frequency :—1, (S^" Sahidic, K Memphitic; 2, K Sabidic, ££ Memphitic; 3, K in both dialects; 4, X Sahidic, 6~ Memphitic.

The graphic origin of the Coptic (s~' is doubtful. It is incorrect in our judgment to derive it, as hitherto, from the demotic ® ' , coming from cΓ * , hieratic of: the suffix of the second person K has been rendered as far as the latest periods, almost contemporary with the Coptic, by this demotic sign; consequently we ought to find it in Coptic under the form (Wif this letter came from that sign; on the contrary, K is used for this pronoun. may have come from the demotic form of fl , through the hieratic.

Dentals.

The exact appreciation of the Egyptian dentals is hard. It seems certain that the three homophones g—> > o ∣ » answer to a t, and that " λ (j ∣ , are represented in Coptic by the special articulation X . The sign ’ =≡> seems to have the character of an intermediate shade of sound. In the Greek and Roman names, τ, θ, and δ are transcribed by all the signs without distinction (the Roman being transcribed through Greek forms). In the Semitic transcriptions ∏ and □ are rendered by ≡=> ’ o ’ ant ^ m0re rare ly <-~=^⅛; *1 is transcribed by with a marked preference; Î and ¥ answer exclusively to ^ v I and its homophones (including a later sign).

The Coptic offers two certain types, τ T, becoming θ-Memphitic, and X; the trace of a third variety seems also preserved in the syllabic τ f - . We are thus led to distinguish three consonants t, t, and i'.

The three signs ≡=>, ^, ∣, t, conduct themselves as perfect homophones. The Greek and Roman names shew them to be used for τ, θ, δ ; but the hierogrammats when they sought a more scrupulous transcription of θ used the group ∣~∣ , th (cf. □ ΓΠ, ph), which shews that originally the Egyptian t did not lend itself to the aspirated sound. The Leyden MS. with Greek transcriptions thus places θav in correspondence to an Egyptian word, written <=> Γ□ Tqhqn, in which the first a is a “mater lectionis,” of no value in pronunciation. In Semitic words ≡⊃ , o , , served to transcribe regularly ∏ and D, sometimes also 1, bt more rarely.

We observe no preference for transcriptions of 0; this letter, which is not frequently found, corresponds even to <=≡>, t, in the name of Potiphar. We may conclude that the special sound of the tθ had no existence in old Egyptian. The Coptic derived forms have but one type T for g—> and its homophones; the Memphitic aspiration changes it to Ο; following the rules of affinity we find some cases of

'¼rivation with X.

We pass at once to the third dental, t', of which the differential characteristics are more marked; perhaps the intermediate consonant may be more easily defined afterwards. The two signs, ^* ∣, β which we transcribe t', interchange in many Egyptian words; they are both varied with the very common syllabic , t’g, (which became an alphabetic sign though retaining its vowel, like our q) ; they act in exactly the same manner in the transcriptions and in the Coptic derived words. The hierogrammats employed them, but very rarely, to transcribe the Greek τ and δ, and the Greeks felt some difficulty in transcribing this articulation; thus we find t rendered by τ and δ, or by σ ; thus Sq r n-tlaho is rendered by Sensaos, and Har-ant’-atef by Arontotes and Arendotes.

In the cartouche of Cambyses the Persian articulation z, j of Rawlinson, , is found; it is transcribed by k , t', but not constantly; variants shew a simple t, S=⊃. Therefore there was not a perfect identity between the Egyptian t' and the Persian z. The Hebrews had two sibilants more or less shading off into cerebrals, t and; they are constantly transcribed by ^* ∣ , Ü, and its homophones, and not by t; but we do not remark a preference in favour of this or that sign for either of the two Semitic letters, and this çonfusion shews that there was but an approximative correspondence.

The Coptic derived forms from the ancient t , are classed according to two rules they are written either (1) with X in the two dialects, or (2) with X Sahidic, corresponding to Memphitic,—the dialect of Upper Egypt shewing a higher exactness. The exceptions shewus— 1, T Sahidic, -θ-Memphitic; 2 j 0~" Sahidic, X Memphitic; 3, <Λ) > 4, the palatals; i.e., all the letters which shewa kind of affinity with this dental, of which we cannot now fix the pronunciation beyond saying that it approached the sibilants and the cerebrals. The Copts preserved it in X, which comes from the hieroglyphic , through the hieratic , , becoming in demotic: this was developed and made regular by the Copts. The Copts Cannot now give precise information as to the pronunciation of X; in the last century, an attempt was made to indicate it by sj. Dr. Brugsch proposes for the ancient letter z, and Dr. Birch j; it seems to us that the conventional t ’ is more suitable to the Egyptian variants of the articulation, which constantly make it approach ⅞ , t.

In the eyes of the ancient Egyptians the letter c≡za , t, was a near neighbour of ^* ∣, t'; it could even be considered as a homophone if we had only the evidence of the variants; for variants between ^ l I and c ≡⅛ are numerous, and found in the earliest texts. The variants between <≡⅛ and ≡r⊃ , o l ι are rare enough, and belong above all to the late periods. But the Semitic transcriptions indicate the principle of a distinction. Far from using it to render T and S , , <=≡> is connected with ∏ with a very marked preference. From the Nineteenth Dynasty, when the system of these transcriptions appears to have been made regular, on account of the many relations established with the neighbouring nations by conquests and emigrations (into Egypt), this preference became so constant that it led Dr. Brugsch to transcribe e≡> by a d.

The exceptions to this rule place the c ≡⅛ beside L3 and ∏, rather than the cerebrals.

In Coptic the derivatives of c ≡>, t, do not act like those of ancient words usually written with t'. We find the derivatives of <≈ 3 regularly under the dentals T^, ∙θ∙, ,c f - J '0metimeβ also under X, but in very small number. The verb tu, “to give,” ordinarily written ⅛ -∏, becomes in Coptic τ f^∙ This sign, which the earlier Copts pronounced di, was considered a simple ligature for T’ and I . But Dr. Brugsch has remarked that τ f^ resembles the demotic , corresponding to ∆ 0, “to give,” too much for the likeness to be due to chance; there was here a recollection of the softened sound peculiar to v≡≡, and the Copts took the τ f^ from demotic with their other special letters.

Evidently these two groups of documents may induce us to mark the c—⅛ as a special letter, but this letter could not be a d. In fact, the Copts excluded from their native words, and the hierogrammats indicated that the was not a true d: when they would transcribe more exactly the Latin d, which they found in foreign names, they employed a double letter, nt. We notice this in variants of the cartouche of Darius for the Persian d, and for the Latin d in the surname a (j D , nt(α)tιT , (u)s, for Daoicus, inserted in the cartouche f Trajan. This wholly artificial orthography aids us to appreciate a peculiarity of the Egyptian dentals, that after the nasal the pronunciation softened in the direction of d. This explains many Greek transcriptions which shew the. δ, as Zβevδeτηs, which represents B r es-bi-n-tet. ’ The d being out of the question we select t as near the point of view of the Egyptian variants where e≡> replaces ^* ( .

Liquids.

The three signs , and r — exactly answer to ni; the transcriptions are uniform, always μ Greek and ft Semitic.

The Coptic derived forms are almost always ΛA, some rare exceptions presenting Π, β, ∏. One must be very careful in Coptic not to confound a radical ΛΛ with that which comes from ∏ by assimilation before a labial, as in the Sahidic particle δλl, coming f. om

“in,” before the article ∏. It is also to be remarked that one often finds in Coptic the 3UL added to an ancient root as a kind of final, which slightly modifies its signification: thus, oyul>£, “to add;” oy∞^λi, “to repeat;” cωp, “to atrew;” C(JUPJUl, “to wander,” &c. (cf. also the Hebrew □ added to the root). This peculiarity has not yet been noticed in the ancient language.

N was regularly transcribed v and J; an undoubted exception shews the change of' S into n in the word ξχ.!⅛⅛

Sgnahem, “grasshopper,” D^Sd. The example justifies us in .Searching for under the transcription n, which is more easily explained as the ancient Egyptians originally had not any sign to express the articulation l.

The Coptic ft transcribes the ancient n, but in course of time the liquid I, ?\, had gained a footing in the pronunciation; a part of the Coptic words in which it figures derive it from the ancient n ; thus, X—∣∣ <l s , nee, “tongue,” became AÄ.C.

The nasal presents many peculiarities worthy of remark in the Egyptian writing and language. It influenced certain consonants, in the direction of modifying the pronunciation; thus it softened t, as in the group nt for writing d. The s, preceded by a nasal, seems to have been also analogously modified; for the Greeks transcribed the particle i —, nes, which begins certain proper names, by a, as we have seen in Zβεpδeτ17s. The similar action of n on k, which was thus modified enough for the Sahidic dialect to have sometimes rendered it by T, has been previously observed. N, as already remarked, sometimes became I, the Coptic; the combination nr must have more frequently given occasion to the pronunciation I through the softening ot r; nr is oiten written ∣ ∣ ∣ ∣ , where ∣ ∣ ∣ represents

ΛΛAWΛ

a sounding n. The group ∣ ∣ ∣ , which has the value ng, is a syllabic: the a is of no force in the pronunciation. In illustration of the modification of nr (where the n was originally sounding), the Coptic root, “outside,” may be cited; it comes from the Egyptian

J (3 *j w [*J * z y"* , bunar, of the same sense.

The Egyptian grammarians evidently considered the nasal a simple accident of the vowel, to be indicated or omitted at will in writing: thus the same person’s name is written ∣ ∣ ∣ $

kgnra, and ∣ $ , hgra∙ I∏ such cases a bar above the vowel may be used to note the omission of the nasal. Thus the particle Q may be transcribed a, when we find it written under AΛWΛΛ

the form Q, which it would be difficult to recognize without this note in transcription. The examples of this curious peculiarity are frequent; it is a grammatical view analogous to the “anusvara” of the Indians; it is known that the omission of the nasal has also been remarked in the ancient monuments of classical epigraphy.

The Egyptians used very readily the nasalized vowel; they sometimes introduced it into Semitic words which they adopted, or even only transcribed: thus they wrote ^T⅞T⅜T T⅞T⅞T *j*, Sasg,nk, the name of the king called in the Bible pWW f Sisaq, a name apparently of Semitic origin. (Here the nasal helps to express the sound of the Hebrew p.)

The Coptic possesses the two letters p and 2∖; it is difficult to ascertain if the ancient dialects of the Egyptian language knew the distinction of these two liquids, but it is certain that the hieroglyphics admitted but one type, represented by the signs <=> and , which serves indifferently to transcribe p and λ Greek, and S and η; only at certain times we ren ark a preference given to the lioness for transcribing I, but without regularity, and it is not until the last stage of demotic writing that the letter derived from this sign seems to attach itself regularly to the liquid l. In Egyptian words is rare; it is sometimes joined to <≡> , as a doubled letter <=> ,≤≥≡5>, like the groups □ , Jj &c. It is frequently employed in the transcription of Semitic words. In the Bible the Egyptian liquid is rendered by Ί in all the words given, never by 7: thus the ancient articulation was r.

The Coptic derived forms are divided between p and ?\.—See also above for the combination nr.—The Bashmuric dialect is characterized above all by the exclusion of p (and use of 2∖ in its stead, from the influence of Arabic).

This liquid approached the semi-vowels in its nature; hence it was sometimes permissible to omit it in writing, like the nasal: thus LJ, ka, for ∣ ∣ <=>, kar, n j ∏ , nes, for J ∏, neser, “flame.” By a frequent exception final r (and I in Bashmuric) is obliterated in Coptic words; thus the particle <=>, er, has become ∈.

Sibilant.

The two signs for s are homophones. The Greek transcriptions have always σ, and the Semitic render 8 by D or V; an exception which is common enough makes the Egyptian s equivalent to ⅛y, but probably this is only apparent. We know how easily the pronunciation varies between s and s in the Semitic languages. The celebrated story of the word shibboleth (Judges xii. 6) shews that even among the Hebrews the pronunciation varied according to the tribes. The pronunciation of Ephraim, which doubtless followed that of the different peoples situate north of Palestine, shews why we find sometimes an Egyptian s in relation to & Hebrew, particularly in the names of Syrian towns or nations. (This should be qualified, for Ephraim was in middle rather than northern Palestine, and it is possible that was always anciently eh.) The Coptic derivatives of the Egyptian e fall under C , but there are many exceptions to this rale, the ancient s sometimes becoming ty, and more rarely (s~'; it seems to have passed into W in -some roots. We also find the sibilant written in Coptic MSS. by ζ; but the instances are so few as to be unauthoritative. It has been already remarked that f was used by the Alexandrian Greeks to transcribe the combination ns. Hushing Letter ( Chuintante).

(The term Μ. de Rouge uses is important as distinguishing this letter from the sibilant. We can only suggest the English “hushing’ as here equivalent. )

The letter s (c⅛, French) having no representative in the Greek alphabet, the Copts preserved the demotic regularized as cy I it comes from the hieratic , hieroglyphic T⅜T⅜T ∙ The Greeks ordinarily rendered e by σ, sometimes by χ and <rχ. The exact sound of s ’s found in Persian and the Semitic languages; it is constantly rendered by T⅞T⅜T in the names of Persian kings; we also find rw^ι in the cartouches of Darius and Artaxerxes. For the Hebrew ty we find equally T⅞T⅞T a little oftener than ∣ ~w~ ∣.

The Coptic derivatives are very regular; they use (Λ); some exceptions shew the ancient s passing into X, and rarely <P and <t).

The transcriptions and derivations shew us that from a very ancient time T⅞T⅞T an d rarc- ∣ were homophones; but perhaps we cannot affirm that it was so from the origin of Egyptian writing. Dr. Hincks conjectured that ⊂≡o had the value of <rχ. This idea rests on—(1) the fact that ⊂cct presents a certain number of variants with © , χ; (2) that it seems to double itself with an initial s, without change of value, so that we sometimes find * instead of t=w□ alone. On the other hand, there has not yet been noted a variant between J⅜RJ and ©. It is then possible that r-w-ι primitively marked some intermediate sha,de of sound of which the trace was afterwards lost in pronunciation. Perhaps we may attribute to this oscillation the most ancient orthography of 8eχa, “to write,” Coptic c<b<M, which in the earliest times was written ,. The sign in question must, however, be classed as homophonous with T⅞T⅜J ·

Aspirated Guttural.

The aspirated guttural, here rendered by the Greek χ, is represented in the alphabet by © and . These letters sometimes interchange, and are found grouped as a double letter © , a reduplication analogous to those noted above. «— is a third homophone, of a little rarer use but very old. The Greek transcribed this aspirated guttural by χ; this was but an approximate value, for the Copts, who adopted the for the aspiration of K in the Memphitic dialect, judged it necessary also to take their d⅛ f rom the demotic alphabet, in which the J—⅝ represented hieratic of It was used side by side with χ and in the same dialect. The Copts noted carefully shades of sound which appear to us very near.

The cartouches of the Persian kings render the Persian kh by and by ®; these two signs answer to ∏ of Hebrew words, but we must here draw a distinction. We know that the ∏ comprises two shades of sound which Arabic distinguishes by ,; the hiero glyphic transcriptions establish the antiquity of this distinction in the pronunciation; for they render the ∏ sometimes by ® or , the Egyptian χ, and sometimes by ∣, ⅞, as will be shewn later.

The Coptic derivatives of the ancient χ are of two classes. In the first the Memphitic dialect faithfully observes the ancient orthography, preserving the; we find in the same words a Sabidic . In a second class of words the ancient χ is softened, and we find a Ct) in the two dialects. The exceptions, conforming to the laws of affinity, are the Memphitic the 6~ζ and the K.

Aspirates.

The Copts borrowed but one aspirate, g, from the demotic alphabet. The Semitic transcriptions indicate, however, two shades of sound, at least as marked as those which are found in French in the letter h. The Greeks, who had lost the habit of writing the aspiration H of their ancient alphabet, equally omitted (in most cases, but note τ Ωpos well as τ Ωpos for her) to transcribe the Egyptian h, at least when they had not occasion to indicate it by an aspirated letter, as φlβιs for p-hib, “the ibis.” As to the hierogrammats, they sometimes used their h, Γ□, to indicate the breathing at the beginning of Greek words which they transcribed, or in seeking to render aspirated letters by the combination ph, , th, for φ, θ.

The Hebrew ∏ , as already stated, answered to two shades of sound; these also existed in Egyptian, so that the Semitic transcriptions take the following progressive order: 1, ∏ = Γ□, h ; 2, ∏,

= I, h ; 3, ∏, , = χ. It is therefore needful to distin guish these two aspirates in the point of view of the transcription of foreign (Semitic) words, for they have a considerable importance for the determination of these words. The distinction of jf], h, and , h, the latter being a strengthened aspirate, would be less useful for Coptic, for this distinction had been lost, the Copts having taken from the demotic the sign of th· strong aspirate , coming from , hieratic , demotic ÿ .

The Coptic derivatives have almost all preserved faithfully the in the two dialects. The exceptions are rare; they introduce the Memphitic ⅛ , the cy , and the K; it is also possible for the aspiration to be obliterated and the Coptic to present an initial vowel. ^The rare variants which may be remarked in the Egyptian texts between the aspirates and the other letters are limited to χ, or to the initial vowels.

Syllabic Signs.

An. ideographic sign could be employed in four different ways. Of this the sign ∙^*, the symbol of “life,” may be taken as an illustration.

1. It could be used alone, ⅜ , to indicate the idea of a life” and the different words conveying this idea (“life,” “to live,” “living”).

2. The same sign could be written after the phonetic expression of one of the words signifying life, thus «Aw« j Coptic ∞rr⅛>, “life.” Here the sign takes no part in the pronunciation; it simply determines the idea which we should attach to the word ά«χ preceding it: in this use it is called, following Champoilion, a determinative.

3. The same sign could be accompanied by all or by a part of the letters used to write the word αnχ: the letters thus used have been termed phonetic complements; their choice (as to number) is ordinarily ruled by the necessities of design, in which the squareness of the group was much considered. Thus we. find or dinarily ϋ , with the second and third complement) but and „ d -^∙ § would be equally in accord with rules. A group of this kind is said to be written in the mixed manner.

4. The same sign, once attached to a word such as ä/ζχ, could be used in writing for the phonetic value of this word with a complete loss of the primitive sense. This is exactly a rebus in principle. Thus, anχ, “ ear ⅜, “oath,” Coptic, ΛfiΛG). A determinative often indicates to the reader, as in the first example, this radical change in the use of the sign. In this case the sign is said to be employed as a syllabic. (The Assyro-BabyIonian syllabary is remarkable as affording a double system of this kind, arising from the original Akkadian sounds of a sign and the later Assyro-Babylonian ones. The difference is in the extensive polyphony of this syllabary.)

Probably in principle all hieroglyphics were susceptible of use as syllables ∙, but in fact, it was necessary for this—1, that a symbol should represent a word composed of a simple syllable, and, 2, that we should find this syllable in different words. The list of the most usual syllables of known value, in the Pharaonic period, amounts to considerably over three hundred.

It is therefore not enough to have established the fact that a certain syllable corresponds in reading to a symbol, for us to consider the symbol as being properly a syllabic. We must also have found it sometimes more or less turned from its ideographic value and corresponding to a simple sound, to write which it takes the place of the letters of the alphabet. Thus the essential character of the syllabic is the abstraction made of the ideographic value for its use as a sound pure and simple. It is only as syllabics and determinatives that the ideographs belong to grammar. Those that do not play these parts have their proper place in the dictionary.

Syllabics, as well as ideographs, can be written alone or with phonetic complements in the mixed manner; the choice (and arrangement) of the complements depended on the needs of the designer. Thus we find , sent, grouped thus, p' '2zF t , P

-Z∖ > ' ζ 'j⅛Ι> ’ & c "’ ^ ιe ^ e ≡ s > kθ re determining movement.

The second phonetic complement is found frequently; ’ the first is more rare, and there are syllabics for which it has not yet been discovered. The writer seems to have had full liberty in this matter. From these facts it is evident that we cannot retain Ch ampoilion’s term, “initial signs,” nor adopt Lepsius’s division, in his Lettre à Rosellini, into “initial signs” ands⅛ns intended for the middle of a group. Bunsen’s division into syllabic signs and mixed signs is equally untenable.

A sign could wholly lose its ideographic value, although written as a determinative. Thus the word tar, determined by a shoot(?) of palm, signified “season,” “time but to write the syllaole tar, in another word, as htar, “horses,” it was not necessary to drop the determinative £, and the whole group Q £, tar, could be retained; thus: ∣ [∣ £ , htar, Coptic

δ r ro, “horse.” This peculiarity may embarrass the interpreter, particularly in texts carelessly written, where the determinative of the idea is often omitted or incorrectly given. (Mr. le Page Renouf distinguishes this use of the determinative by the term deter«

minative of sound from the ordinary use as determinative of sense.)

Syllables are divided into two classes—1, an articulation and one or more vowels; 2, two articulations (usually with a medial helpingvowel unexpressed. All are, no doubt, monosyllables, although a syllabic like sga has the appearance of a dissyllable; here, either the first a has no force, or the two indicate a long vowel.)

The first class of syllables, an articulation and a vague vowel, is scarcely distinguishable from the letters of the alphabet. The distinction is thus determined: 1, the simple letters were used as phonetic complements; 2, the syllables do not seem to have been used quite indifferently for all kinds of words. We frequently find allusions, relations direct or remote, which have originally induced their choice for the purpose of writing this or that radical. (This is strictly analogous to the principle of the syllabary of Assyro-Babylonian in its Akkadian and Semitic developments, though in its application that principle led to wide polyphony, in consequence of an ideograph taking different sounds according to the cognate senses in which it was used.)

It is also possible that the syllables were sometimes employed to give an idea of the sound of the vowels. But if they had this use primitively, they did not retain it, for we cannot establish this property in a constant manner in the hieroglyphic transcriptions of Greek or Semitic words. (It is indeed the converse use of the vowel most affected by a consonant or of the syllabic with its vowel which is our chief embarrassment in the reading of Semitic transcriptions.)

There were also some signs corresponding to three articulations which could be used as syllables. Here the cases of homophony are much more rare; we have to do with different acceptations rather than different radicals, but the ideal bond between these different acceptations may escape us now. (These are still monosyllables.)

Polyphony.

There are characters which had various pronunciations. There are three kinds of polyphones :—

1. A sign can answer to various words which belong to the same class of ideas; thus, the calf’s ear, answers to the words mest'er, dnhh, and Q c - ca , at, which seem to have all signified the ear or some special part of this organ. The words ff) sent, and sctcm, “to hear,” are two new values, on the same principle. One might add to this first class the very near values produced by variants of pronunciation or writing for the same word, such as tg, tag, tg, at, aat, aat, aatu for 1× j , and the forms more or less developed of a single root, but these are rather extensions of a word than true instances of polyphony.

2. The same sign might have been chosen as symbol of a certain number of ideas without any true bond between them, at least to our view: thus V7 answers to the phonetic p useχ, “largeness,” to fl J" σ ,

“offering,” and ∣ ≈ , Tient, “regent” (fem.)

3. A sign may have become syllabic and be used for several purely phonetic values taken from the words in which it figures, on the two principles explained. Thus in the syllabary, the sign λ 0 , which symbolizes the idea ii gift,” answers to two roots, tu and ma; these give in their turn to a_ 0 the values c J°, tn, and j mä, even in words where the idea of gift no longer exists.

Such is the series of facts which has produced Egyptian polyphony. The number of figures suitable to design and with which one could reasonably charge the memory being limited, we should expect to find polyphony more or less developed in every system of writing originally ideographic. The syllabic polyphony of Assyrian seems to have been produced by wholly analogous circumstances, though the change from the original language habitually veils the connection of values.

Polyphony is a source of great difficulty, and science has still much to do to fix the different phonetic values of the polyphones. Often our decision is made on the evidence of phonetic complements, and in hieratic it is seldom that this aid is wholly omitted.

Thus is easily recognized as mα. But our ignorance is not always thus aided, and the choice of the suitable word sometimes can only be indicated by a profound study of analogous texts.

The following list gives an abridgment of De Rougé’s lists of syllables, and contains the most common signs, the important polyphones being indicated by asterisks, and their principal varieties of sound being given in the fourth column. The method is varied from that of the Chrestomathie. [table]

[table]

Determinatives.

Champollion described as determinatives certain ideographic signs which were placed after words phonetically expressed. The use of each of these signs is more or less extended. The greater part are used for one radical, or at least for one and the same idea. For such determinatives the proper place is the dictionary. But there is a class of determinatives placed after different words, often many in number, and therefore called generic determinatives. The determinative is attached to the radical, and has nothing to do with the grammatical use of a word as noun or verb. (Μ. ∙de Rongé gives a list of above a hundred as necessary for the student of Egyptian grammar, leaving out those of more restricted use.) Science has not yet wholly accomplished its task in this section. (Necessarily the exact definition of the range of a determinative requires a careful induction from its use.)

(The table which follows is but slightly abridged from Μ. de Rouge’s, after comparison with Dr. Brugsch’s in his Grammaire Hiéroglyphique, where a somewhat fuller but less logical list is given, apparently founded on that of the French savant. The reason for here giving a larger proportion of determinative than of syllabic signs is that the senses of the determinatives when logically arranged, as by Μ. de Rougé, present a key to the whole construction of the Egyptian system of ideographic signs, and afford us a remarkable insight into the genius of the language.) [table]

[table] [table]

[table] [table]

The Reading of Ideographic Signs.

The Egyptians used not only simple letters and syllabic signs, but also ideographs, to write words. The reading of these ideographs is obtained in divers ways. It is often furnished by the analysis of proper names of which there are transcriptions, though the result is sometimes approximative. Another method is the study of variants, when a phonetic form of a word replaces the ideographic sign, in the same text. Often also the ideograph is written as a determinative after the phonetic equivalent. (Hence the great importance of publishing collations of known texts, a work to be recommended to new students.)

When a word is written by a single ideograph, and above all when it is a substantive, it is most commonly distinguished by the marks ∣, or their combinations o ∣, Thus i w i is the letter «, se, the basin.

The Combination of Signs of different kinds in Writing Words.

In texts which shew a certain development, and above all in hieratic manuscripts, where the signs are always more abundant, many words are written phonetically and followed by one or more determinatives. In such a case, the determinative which is most general is written last: thus λλλλλ ^ ⅛ men ' “to become weak,feebleness”—Copt. (∏WJT, soft,—where thephonetic letters are followed by the determinatives for (I) repose, feebleness, (2) crossing, bending, (3) evil, unfortunate. A word expressed by an ideograph may be followed by a generic determinative. (The same is the case when a word is written phonetically with its ideograph as a first determinative, of course special.)

Expletive Signs.

There are a few expletives which were not pronounced, and had a purely graphic use. The most important is the roll r-^- l , the determinative of writing, knowledge, &c. It is sometimes used as a sign of separation or as disjunctive. The signs I, I, o, are often used as pure expletives, adding nothing to the idea or the sound. I or ο is frequently added to a determinative; it is almost the rule, when the space needs it: as l T j

ΛΛΛΛΛΛ (J C J > ζ(√ mennefer, Memphis. In such cases the expletive ordinarily follows the gender of the substantive, ∣ for masc., <=>for fem. The phonetic value of a j t, as feminine final, sometimes causes perplexity, but its expletive character is clear in other cases. The sign 1, which (like o) is not always expletive, has similar uses. It is written after <ξl>, thus <p>, even for final r. With it forms the group Ç> ∣, not only for the substantive har, ha, “face,” but also for the particle her, “upon,” <fcc. In hieratic, I is attached to many characters, probably to distinguish them from very similar ones; thus k? for <⊂> is clearly distinguished from f° r ω ∙ i≡ ^ lus used as a diacritical sign, though very variably. At the end of words we find, above all in late times, the expletive 11.

Expletive Vowels and Complements of Simple Letters.

Although the vowels were often omitted, sometimes they are added in a wholly expletive manner, which their vagueness can only aid us to understand. This is easily proved from certain words transcribed, such as θav, the Egyptian ~^^λλλλλλ, tahan. In any other system the first a would produce a separation of syllable between t and h, transcribed here by θ. (It should be remembered, however, that the Greek could not represent a sound like t’han otherwise than by Ö. The Egyptian vowel may here represent a disjunctive.) The same remark applies in the consideration of the Egyptian transcriptions of divers foreign words, of which the grammatical form is well known. Thus the Hebrew ∏□3">.0 is written ^∣ f∣ , mär- habuta, and the name of the Hebrew harp ΊΪ33, is written , hmaanaur. It has been remarked that each consonant had a kind of favourite complement, and that this complementary sign should often be treated as an expletive in reading·. It has been proposed to admit for these letters inherent vowels, but this idea seems exaggerated: the alphabet is not a syllabary, for most of the letters unite with the different vowels. The knowledge of the ordinary complements of each letter is useful, especially in reference to transcriptions.

*—, f seems to take ∖∖, but ’ <-— fg; * ' , fa; , fu t are common. J has as favourite final w, (2 or indifferently: we also find J [∣, ba; J *—«, bu; J Q (J, bi; but J, δα, is rare: ba is expressed ordinarily by; we find *⅜K , 0r J ∣, equally, ^⅛ s thus has as favourite complement.

It is the same with p, □, which has for complement u, <2 , , and we find the syllables □ [∣, J~*, □ (∣ (∣; but pa was written ‰ ⅛v or ⅛⅛ ln the 8 P ellιng of ‰ ή ί > which i8 often found for the article pi, the variant (j Q, pai, intro duces the complementary a.

For 4 k, we find all the combinations ∩ , /1 (∣ , j ^ n , /1

but the favourite vowel seems to have been a. We observe equally the use of all the. vowels after κ ^>, except, perhaps, fl, ä, which we have not remarked. The complementary vowel seems to be or ∖∖, according to the writers, fi, ⅛, shews a decided preference for but we also find a , Û , ffl (∣ (∣ . With LJ, k, we observe (∣, -—o , , Q Q , but is more frequent; sometimes the expletive I is added, even when ∣ ∣ ∣ is not a substantive.

g >, t, somewhat prefers <2: it is joined to , t∣, ^— 0 >

Q Q, or \\. , t, takes <2, , as complementary vowel; but it is not repugnant to any other combination of vowels. ∣ ordinarily takes {j, or Q Q, much more rarely and . ⊂ ≡> , t, is most often followed by: <=≡> and [∣ [∣ are used; some texts shew ∖∖ as expletive of ⊂≡>. ^ 1 —∣, t', seems also to be completed by ∖∖. The syllables " l ∣ [j, , ^ 1 ) , are not rare but t'α is rendered by the eagle being the favourite comple ment of: this sign also forms the groups , (∣ (∣.

We cannot establish any special complement for m; the ordinary l y∏rtic combinations are », Q, (∣ Q.

The transcriptions shew that . ∏ is often expletive after The eagle is more readily attached to , as nex t in frequency is e ∕ often takes as expletive I, ∕ r ~ZZ I.

It is also combined as ' ' > ∩ ∏

~n ’ (2 ’

For mwλ , n j the complementary vowel seems to be γ∖ · λλλλλλ ΛΛ∕V√∖A λλλλλλ

Q , ~ q , ∣j Q , are more used than λλ ^ λλ , for this syllable was ordinarily written ζj ^-y ∖ as final, and by the syllables r rχ — x , r-r~-, as initial.

≤≡≈>, r, is completed by the expletive ∣, forming the group

> hieratic i≡ the favourite syllabic of <ΞΣ>; we also note often < ““=> , <⊂ξ> (j, hut extremely rare. also often takes the expletive ∣, hieratic É ∙f an( j is joined to the final vowels without exception. ’

1, s, is often completed by ≈ expletive; the name cf the baud 1 seems to have been set. ∖∖ is frequent after p, but p β,

1 ί|» P ⅛, P {j ψ are used ∙ P ^is found; but syllabic homophones were used more readily for this syllable. In other cases the vowel was suppressed, as p ∕] _ p gj∑p s 9 ’ l c ∙ ∣∣ is also completed by o, and follows exactly the same rules as p. The name of the letter — h— was undoubtedly „ ‰≡>-÷, ses, “ bolt.”

1 ∖∖ -1, », most readily takes fl, <2 , . T⅜T⅜T P re fers without excluding the others. χ, takes ∖∖ as expletive, and we find very often ® ® ® ® ar0 more rare, the last syllable being almost always written with Z ° r gr ° u P ® ^^⅞⅛∖' Th 0 ea ≡i e i≡ evidently the complement of: thus the syllables ij ’ > have as ordinary variants > XP» ’ S ordinarily followed by consonants; its vowel is - _ fl; with the expletives it is the substantive χa.

Γ∩, h, takes as complement; we also find ∩J ∣""jj in which often causes variants, as in the case ofj, χ. To the harder aspirate,7«, ^∖^was rarely added except with the introduction of<^ ’, as or | alone united with D ’ i Q ’ * ts 0rdinar y e xplθtive is ∖∖ . for h is rare: we have only found it followed by consonants or the vowel u. The syllabic ⅜ >, hu, much used for h, has for expletive w ~ ∣ .

These remarks are of much use when one desires to fill up lacunoe of small extent in Egyptian texts. They explain usages, on which one general remark may be added, that the vowel a, did not unite itself readily to a certain number of letters; hence the introduction of an intermediate letter and the pleonastic forms § l∕⅛⅛⅛ ⅛V ^ εc '' ^ 0r ^ ’ & c ' mus i' a ^ s0 re ^ membered that, on the one hand, the expletive vowel cannot in all cases have full weight in roots which are always monosyllabic, on the other, that we can scarcely deny it some force. Was it used to modify the consonant as when a local pronunciation of g in English is written by grammarians g'< as garden? In transcriptions the expletive vowel appears, but for philological purposes must be disregarded, and the same is sometimes true of the complementary vowel. In English q, our only syllabic, always requires u as its complementary vowel: consequently when it is used for its ancestor the Semitic koph, as in qoran, an uneducated person would read and even write quoraτt.

On applying these observations to the orthography of mârkgbuta for Π□□Ι0 and kanaanaur for Ί133, it is immediately evident that the deviations from the Semitic are due to the Egyptian vowel-system. In the word mürkgbuta, the u is the favourite complement of the δ, and the final t requires a vowel. In kenqanaur the doubled n is resolved into two syllables: it could have been written with the disjunctive sign between the two “n' ’ s and a final vowel.

It has been shewn that the transcriptions of the scribes of the Kamessides from Semitic into Egyptian were very accurate bo ia√ as the consonants were concerned. ït is equally evident that this was scarcely possible and practically was not the case with the Semitic vowel sounds. This remark should be borne in mind in all comparisons of Hebrew and Semitic.)

The Transcription of Vowels Omitted.

The vowels, particularly the complementary ones noticed above, were omitted at will in writing·, and must often be added in transcription. This is easy when a definite fuller form of a word is known. But there are many words for which the variants give different vowels, and many others for which a vowelled variant has not yet been found. Most Egyptologists here use e for the absent vowel, which must only be regarded as a conventional sign for a gap to be filled. (There are, however, cases in which a very common word is never vowelled: here we may safely assume a very short vowel best represented by e, as already noticed.)

Abbreviations and Exceptions.

Abbreviations were rare; ideographs and syllables rendered them needless. But there are cases in usual formulae; as c ∣ , nuter a, for c j ° , nuter atef, a divine father,” the title of an order of priests. In the formula -jι I p, αnχ uta senl>, “life, balance, health,” a kind of good wish added to king’s names and rendered in the Rosetta Stone υγiεuι, -2- is anχ, j tja is an abbreviation, for we find the complete word <^,ωi , α,in the same formula; but the p for j 8 0 f a more trenchant character.

There are some words of which the writing is exceptional, due to causes which may sometimes be traced. Thus ^^^^^^ , which should according to rule be transcribed senhti, was a variant of sett. The syllabic *1) , set , received as hieratic abbreviation , the last line being exactly like the κr∑>s, of that time: thus it resembles the hieratic group for the three letters and the scribes took occasion to trace i n hieroglyphics for set. This is an imitation of the cursive style taken into the monumental, of which there are a certain number of cases.

Secret Writing.

Intentionally accumulated exceptions in certain texts compose what Champoilion has called the Secret Writing. The most ancient traces we have found are of the Eighteenth Dynasty. In this system we remark—(1) objects rare or unused in ordinary writing; (2) syllabic signs used as simple letters; (3) phonetic values obtained by turning the signs from their ordinary ideographic values; (4) variants between the values of neighbouring sounds. Thus every deviation was made from the usual principles of writing by which it was possible to produce exceptions. This is an enigmatic system intended to be unintelligible to the ordinary reader. The causes of this method are of interest, for from them originated the new values which strangely complicate the hieroglyphic writing of the time of the Greeks and Romans (the secret writing thus passing in a certain degree into the common writing).

The Use of Hieroglyphics in Grammar.

Although, as already stated, an outline of ancient Egyptian grammar is not given in this article, it is necessary to explain how hieroglyphics were used for grammatical purposes.

In expressing roots or derivatives, whether pronominal, verbal, or of particles, both phonetic and ideographic signs could be employed, either apart or in combination. There is, however, in all but verbal roots a marked preference for phonetic expression, with again a preferential use of alphabetic signs.

The masculine and feminine of nouns are marked, especially when they were ideographically written, by I and: the former was not pronounced; it is doubtful whether the latter was, and if so in what cases (De Bougé, Chrestomathie, ii. 7, 8).

The plural of nouns, pronouns, and the pronominal affixes which were also used to indicate the persons of verbs, is indicated by the abstract symbol, III, j . In the case of nouns it may be replaced by a phonetic ending or the trebling of the word when written ideographically or even phonetically. The principle of expressing the dual, which is proper to nouns, appears to have been the same, though as to this there are difficulties.

The pronouns and cognate words, including the article, are mostly written alphabetically. The affixed personal pronouns, which are identical in form with a very few exceptions, whether used as possessives, as inflexional verbal suffixes, or as direct complements, or in other words, in their genitive, subjective, and objective uses, afford instructive instances of the different modes of writing. It may be observed that in Egyptian these are the primitive forms of the personal pronouns. The following table is taken from Μ. de Kougé’s Chrestomathie, ii. 42, with the omission of some late forms.

Affixed Personal Pronouns.

Singular.

-∙-T()∙TΨT⅛Tt'-É

I ’

2. m. k ''—-×o f∙ t ≈, 3. m. f ⅛-=-, Q.

> u l⅛ ’ l e, si ~UP

t ∙> —P∙ m <"> p β > T’PT

Plural

ΛΛΛΛΛΛ C∕∣ f ∕

1. nα i i "'≡ ςf [’

S=⅛ <≈> g: ⅜ <= s

*' lc " ’ II) I)) ΛΛΛZ√V∖ ΛΛΛΛΛΛ

fk I @ V× Q ∙fk ΛΛΛΛΛΛ

«·“1∣'ιιι'F’ eι ' m ^rn'1 in.

«· γyγ∙ ΞΓ^ ; eui

It will be remarked that' all the phonetic forms but one are written with alphabetic signs, that the introduction of ideographs, either as determinatives or independent symbols, gives the common first person singular a feminine in writing but not in sound, and farther confuses this feminine and the true feminine of the second person singular when represented by the same symbol only. The principle of writing an ideograph to determine the use of the pronoun, phonetically expressed or only represented by that symbol, is carried farther in the first person singular than the table shows, there being special signs for a god, &c.

In the case of the articles and the pronouns of more common use alphabetical signs are employed with ideographic signs for the pronouns when the necessity occurs. (Syllabic signs are used for some of the less common pronouns, and ideographs for substantives employed as pronouns. The fuller forms of pronouns are produced by alphabetic signs; the same is usually the case with the compounds that introduce no new element.

The verbal root, identical with that of the noun, is expressed in every mode in which hieroglyphics can be used. It is, however, otherwise with the derivative forms, the inflexions, and the substantive verb, which in its various expressions is really an inflexional word employed in tense-formation. The derivative forms are produced by prefixes which are always alphabetic or by repetition of the radicals (reduplication, sometimes afterwards apocopated). The inflexions are formed by the pronominal affixes for the persons and other prefixes and affixes, these affixes being almost always placed before the pronominal ones,for the moods and tenses; here again the expressionis alphabetic with the exceptions afforded by the pronominal affixes as already shewn. The forms of the substantive verb are phonetic, either alphabetic, Q □, pu, rarely pg, ° (j (j, put, ¾ , ar; ( ∣

A (S, au; ≈ ^ ∖ , tυ, >' or syllabic * = | => , un;

_Z1 Q. ΛΛΛΛΛΛ ΛΛΛΛΛΛ ’ ® X e P er > an. This mode of writing leads to the

<=> ∖∖ identity of some forms of this verb and of other parts of speech: thus pg, is the same in form as the definite article, andyutι with the affixes as the possessive article, and pu as the demonstrative article. These identical forms are here cited as evidence of the result of the use of alphabetic writing.

The radical particles shew the same phenomena. The prepositions are expressed phonetically, the majority, including nearly all the most common, alphabetically. The simple adverbs, including the negatives, are written phonetically, with perhaps about an equal use of alphabetic ana syllabic forms. The few interjections are written alphabetically. In consequence of this mode of writing, particles of different sense are sometimes identical inform. Thus V∖ , ém, is both “in” and “not,” but most apparent instances or this kind are due to the use of a particle as both preposition and conjunction or adverb.

The bearing of these results on the problems of the formation of the Egyptian hieroglyphic writing, and the growth and origin of the language is significant.

The earliest Egyptian writings, which are hieroglyphic, shew a predominant use of ideographic signs. The phonetic signs gradually grow in importance until the full development of the character and language. We are thus led to ask whether there was a period in Egyptian writing when it was wholly ideographic, the supposed first stage of all such systems, when the figure of each object conveyed its name or names and nothing more.

A .stage of pure picture-writing would express a language in the condition which is supposed to have been the earliest in the case of all monosyllabic languages, the condition before grammar. It is precisely to such a condition that the linguistic phenomena of Egyptian seem to point. For its simple necessities ideographs alone would be sufficient, and the phonetic signs wanted for grammatical machinery would be introduced when a higher condition was reached.

It may be farther enquired whether the growth of Egyptian was wholly internal, or whether it was influenced from without; in other words, whether there is any reason to assign the roots which serve the purposes of grammar, and even the verbal roots to more than one source. The basis of the inquiry by which this question might be answered lies in the undoubted identity of the personal pronouns in Egyptian and Semitic. The inquiry is beyond the scope and limits of this article. It requires an exhaustive comparison of the Egyptian vocabulary, including the structural words, and of the system of grammar, with the Semitic and with the families of language which geographical and ethnological considerations would lead us to include in the category of possible cognates to the Egyptian. The leading results of a limited examination may, however, be stated. In the verbal roots a certain small number occur apparently common to Egyptian and Semitic. Of these roots a good proportion are proper to civilization, and thus belong to a stage above that of barbarism. In the pronominal roots the personal pronouns are undoubtedly Semitic, whereas the articles seem to be identical in source with a non-Semitic form of the substantive verb. The roots of particles fall into two classes, those which are purely metaphysical, probably including Semitic equivalents, though in the case of practical!, uniliteral forms the comparison ∙. hazardous, and such as have become particles by the diversion of substantives to a tropical sense.

It would thus appear· that the Egyptian language was originally purely monosyllabic without inflexion and written by ideographic signs, that the first stage towards inflexion was the use of substantives in tropical senses for prepositions and adverbs, the primitive ideographic signs being still sufficient for the purposes of writing, and that the second stage was attained by borrowing from Semitic, so far as was necessary, grammatical forms and particles, with perhaps some verbal roots needed in a civilized condition, and that at this time phonetic signs became absolutely necessary. The importance of the phonetic signs for expressing grammatical forms would tend to their prevalent use for the whole category, except where the radical sense was dominant in the tropical, as in our own use of the word “head” in such prepositional phrases as “at the head of” the table, the army, the administration, &c. This view is put forward as a mere hypothesis, to be sustained or refuted by the study which the subject deserves. The importance of the question is great as its solution will mainly tend to determine whether the Egyptian belongs to an early stage of Semitic, as has been conjectured on very insufficient grounds. In the previous remarks it is assumed that such a view may at present be set aside, otherwise we could not speak of borrowing from Semitic.

The Supposed Derivation of the Phoenician from the Egyptian Alphabet.

Μ. de Bougé endeavoured to shew that the Phoenician alphabet was derived from the Egyptian in its hieratic form. The hypothesis has been accepted by Μ. François Lenormant in his Essai sur la Propagation de ΐ Alphabet Phénicien, 2d ed., of which the first Plate presents a comparative table of hieratic and archaic Phoenician letters. The method leaves nothing to be desired. The conclusion is, however, scarcely established. It must be remembered that the Egyptian alphabet presents one or more alternative forms of more than half its letters. Most of these correspond to a single Phoenician letter. Thus there is in half the Phoenician alphabet a choice between two or more hieratic forms. This diminishes the effect of the comparison. Again the hieratic forms vary, like all cursive forms of writing, with the hand of each scribe. Consequently the writer who desires to establish their identity with Phoenician can scarcely avoid straining the evidence. Any one who will compare Μ. Lenormant’s plate with Μ. de Rouge’s hieratic alphabets in the Chrestomathie, Pls. I. seqq., will see that the signs chosen for comparison by Μ. Lenormant do not agree throughout with any of the three types given without that object by Μ. de Rouge. It may be remarked in illustration that if we endeavoured to connect the demotic in its latest form with the Arabic Koofee in its earliest, which is of course absurd, it would be possible, by selecting the demotic variety nearest in form to the typical Koofee of coininscriptions, to shew a very good apparent agreement of many letters. Any one may try the experiment vith the Koofee alphabet in Soret’s Numismatique Musulmane, Pl. I. and Μ. de Rougé’s demotic in the Chrestomathie (l.c.), taking care to use only one type where it was repeated by the Arabs for other letters, and in the case of their alphabet to compare only the isolated or final forms. The result would shew the great caution needed in the inquiry.

There are two objections to the proposed derivation of the Phoenician alphabet which must have great weight against any but the strongest evidence of resemblance. The Egyptian letters represent objects the names of which begin with these letters; similarly the Phoenician letters had names indicating an origin from a hieroglyphic system on the same principle of acrophony. 11 would be supposed if the Phoenician letters were derived from the Egyptian ones that their names would describe the original signs. This, however, is not the case in a single instance. Aleph signifies an ox and not an eagle, Beth a house and not a bird, Gimel a camel and not a basket, and so, as far as we know, to the end. It is difficult to imagine the complete loss of the original form, and the naming of letters from a supposed resemblance to another form, which form can scarcely be traced in the most archaic Phoenician. Yet, if the derivation from hieratic be true, we are tied to this archaic form on account of its apparent similarity to the hieratic, and any deviation to explain the Semitic names of the letters would weaken, if not destroy, the foundation of the theory.

Again, it is very noteworthy that the oldest monuments of the Phoenician alphabet are to be found not in Egypt but in Palestine and Assyria. These are the Stele of Mesha, king of Moab, and the inscriptions on the Nemrood bronze lion-weights. These weights take us a step farther in the argument, for they shew us on sfficial documents of a palace of Assyrian kings the use of this alphabet, side by side with the Assyrian character, as a kind of demotic or perhaps commercial writing, of necessity well-known in Assyria itself. Of course it is not to be supposed that the languages expressed were the same, but they were so closely allied that their joint use in Assyria was natural, and particularly to a nation accustomed to the Turanian Akkadian. This appearance of the Phoenician alphabet in Assyria would suggest that it had its origin rather from Assyrian than Egyptian writing. Is there, however, any evidence that any such alphabet was derived from cuneiform?

Among the systems of writing which present a sufficient similarity to the Phoenician, and its descendant the Greek, to justify our conjecturing their common derivation, though not necessarily their later connexion, is the Cyprian. This is radically different from the Phoenician in being syllabic, and thus having a much larger list of characters, but the formal resemblances suggest the same source. In the case of the Cyprian, Dr. Deecke has endeavoured to shew the source to be the Assyrian cuneiform in its later form. His arguments are very strong; here it is only necessary to mention the syllabic character of the Cyprian, the agreement in form of many signs, without the readjustment of their elements suggested as theoretically possible by the Median and Armenian variants, and the striking fact that the Cyprian is found in two inscriptions written in cuneiform, each stroke having the Assyrian typical shape (Deecke, Der Ursprung der Kyρrisehen Silbenschrift, Strasburg, 1877).

This probable solution of the Cyprian problem suggested to Dr. Deecke the comparison of the Phoenician alphabet with Mesopotamian cuneiform. The result, published in the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft (xxxi. 102 seqq.), is well worthy the attention of scholars. The inquiry was founded on the comparison of forms and sounds in cuneiform. The forms were much less numerous than the extent of the list of signs would lead us to expect, for the great majority of these signs are far too complex to have been the prototypes of such simple signs as the Phoenician letters. The sounds on the same side present no little difficulty, as the adoption by the Babylonians and Assyrians of the Akkadian system of λvriting produces a confusion of kindred sounds, and excludes some proper to the Semitic alphabets. A further difficulty arises from the polyphony of the Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform signs, whether ideographic or syllabic, which gives a variety of sounds to the same group and thus greatly diminishes the degree of probability in an agreement. These signs are all conventional transcriptions of original hieroglyphics. These hieroglyphics can sometimes be traced in the rare hieratic forms, and even occasionally in the regular cuneiform types. When we know the original form we can sometimes select the radical sound, but where we find more than one cognate sense with a different sound, the selection becomes difficult, if not impossible. Supposing such a sign to be represented by the English figure 1, standing for “one” and “first,” the discovery of the radical sound would be apparently hopeless. It would be obviously so if the sign also stood for “beginning” and “union.” The result seems satisfactory to the extent of about one-third of the Phoenician alphabet, signs like the Phoenician having like sounds. This result would have little force did it not seem to be supported by the meaning of some of the signs as compared with the names of the Hebrew letters of which we know the meaning, seventeen innumber. But the difficulty in discovering the original radical sound and sense in cuneiform shakes this conclusion. Consequently the five agreements which might be accepted were we certain of the original Assyrian sound and sense cease to have much weight. There are also some probable agreements which, of course, have still less strength. It is, however, to be noted that the syllable had, &c., taken as the origin of Heth, and tip, as that of Teth,have forms in the hieratic cuneiform agreeable to the meaning of the words from which these syllables are supposed to be abbreviated, hattu, a “graver,” and dibbu, a “writing-table.” 'This explanation of the signs Heth and Teth, consecutive, be it remembered, and without certain renderings, in the Hebrew alphabet, is very remarkable as a confirmation of the theory. For the present it is no more than a theory, but perhaps it is as probable as the derivation of the Phoenician alphabet from Egyptian hieroglyphics, through the hieratic types.

It is of course possible that the old Semitic alphabet had an origin independent of Egyptian hieroglyphics or the conventional hieratic forms of Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform. The discovery of a new hieroglyphic character in the Hittite inscriptions, containing, in a list of greater extent, certain of the forms indicated by the names of the Hebrew letters, is a new factor in the problem, and must be defined before its true value can be ascertained. All that can be said at present is that the Hittite characters w ear the aspect of an Egyptian origin. Considering the geographical position of this mode of writing, its prima facie evidence is in favour of Μ. de Rougé’s derivation of the Phoenician alphabet from Egyptian.

Bibliography.

The following list is an outline of the bibliography of the subject:—

Dictionaries. —Brugsch, Dr H., Hieroglyphisch-Demotisches Wörterbuch, the fullest and best Ancient Egyptian Lexicon; Birch, Dr S,, “Dictionary of Hieroglyphics,” in Bunsen’s Egypt's Place, vol. v.; Pierret, P , Vocabulaire Hiéroglyphique·, Champollion, le Jeune, Dictionnaire Égyptien, now out of date, but valuable for the history of interpretation; vocabularies in various works, as Chabas, F., Papyrus Magique Harris, and Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache und Alterthumsku∙ιde. Special Dictionaries. —Brugsch, H., Dictionnaire Géographique de V Ancienne Égypte-, Pierret, P., Dictionnaire <T Archéologie Égyptienne·, Lieblein, J.,Dictionnaire des noms [propres] hiéroglyphiques. Grammars. —Rougé, vicomte de, Chrestomathie Egyptienne, Abrégé Grammatical, complete except as to the particles, the best Egyptian grammar; Brugsch, H., Grammaire Hiéroglyphique (Hieroglyphische Grammatik), only second to De Rougé's, and complete; Rossi, F., Grammatica Copto-Geroglifica. a useful work, based on Peyron’s Grammatica Linguoe Copticoe, and De Rougé's Chrestomathie Égyptienne, combining the elements of Hieroglyphics and Coptic; Birch, S., “Hieroglyphic Grammar,” in Bunsen’s Egypt's Place, vol. v.; Le Page Renouf, Elementary Grammar of Ancient Egyptian, with Dr Birch’s Egyptian Texts (Archaic Classics). These two works are the best grammar and reading book for beginners; Champollion, Grammaire Égyptienne, out of date, but valuable for history of interpretation.

Texts. —Lepsius, Dr R., Denkmäler aus Aegypten und A éthiopien, the great corpus of Egyptian transcriptions, without commentary or translation. Many of the most interesting texts are translated in the works of other scholars. Rosellini, I., I Monumenti dell' Egitto e della Nubia·, Monumenti Storici; Monumenti del Culto ; Monumenti Civili; this smaller work contains some texts, particularly the historical inscriptions of Ramses HI. (called by Rosellini Ramses IV.), which are not in Lepsius’s D nkmäler; Champollion, le Jeune, Monuments de l' Égypte et de la Nubie, a similar work similarly useful. The “Notices Descriptives” are specially interesting. Of generally later date than the Denkmäler are the works of Aug. Mariette {Choix de Monuments du Sérapéum; Abydos, Description des fouilles; Dendérah; Monuments divers recueillis en Égypte et en Nubie; Deir el Bahari; Les listes géographiques des Pylônes de Karnak), and of H. Brugsch [Geographische Inschriften altägyptischen Denkmäler; Recueil des Monuments Égyptiens; Monuments géographiques; Monuments de l' Égypte); Diitnichen, J∙, Die Flotte einer Aegyptischen Königin; Greene, J. B., Fouilles à Thèbes ; Rougé, Vic. J. de, Inscriptions Hiéroglyphiques copiées en Égypte pendant la Mission Scientifique du Vie. E. de Rougé (Études Égyptologiques); Bergmann, E. von, Hieroglyphische Inschriften; Brugsch, H., Inschrift von Rosetta; Lepsius, R., Das Bilingue Dekret von Kanopus ; Reinisch, L., and Roesler, R., Die zweisprachige Inschrift von Tanis; Pierret, P., Glossaire Égyptien-Grec du Décret de Canope (Études Égyptol.); Lepsius, R., Auswahl der wichtigsten Urkunden des Aegyptischen Alterthums; Pierret, P., Recueil des Inscriptions Inédites du Louvre (Ét. Ég.)

Texts of the Ritual and Cognate works. —Lepsius, R., Tödtenbuch der Aegypten, and Aelteste Text des Tödtenbuchs; Rougé, E. de, Rituel funéraire; Leemans, C., Papyrus Égyptiens funéraires hiéroglyphiques; Id. hiératiques; Guieysse, P., Rituel funéraire Égyptien, chap. 64, textes comparés, traduction, et commentaire; Renouf, Le Page, Traduction d'un chapitre du rituel funéraire (a prayer from the Egyptian Ritual); Lefébure, E., Le Mythe Osirien (L, Les Yeuxd’Horus; II., Osiris; Ét. Eg.); Lefébure et Guieysse, Le Papyrus funéraire de Soutimes; Pierret, P. (Devéria, T.), Papyrus de Neb-qued; Pierret, P., Manuscrits Religieux (Ét. Ég.), and Recueil d'inscriptions Inédites du Louvre (Le Livre de ce qui est dans l'Hémisphfere inférieur, Μ. Devéria's translation, &c., Ét. Ég.); Lanzone, R. V., Le Domicile des Esprits; Birch, S., Papyrus of Nas-khen; Navillé, E., La Litanie du Soleil; Textes relatifs au mythe d'Horus, Edfou; Brugsch, H., Sai an Sinsin; Chabas, F., Papyrus Magique Harris. Historical Papyri, &c. —Birch, S., Select Papyri in the Hieratic Character, British Museum; Inscriptions in the Hieratic and Demotic Character, British Museum; Hieratic Papyrus of Ramses III., British Museum ; Eisenlohr, A., Die grosse Papyrus Harris; Prisse, E., Facsimile d,'un Papyrus; Chabas, F., Les Papyrus Hiératiques de Berlin; Voyage d'un Égyptien; L' Égyptologie, I. (Les Maximes du scribe Ani); Eisenlohr, A., Ein mathematisches Handbuch der alten Aegypten; Lincke, A., Correspondenzen aus der Zeit der Ramessiden; Lieblein, J., Deux Papyrus Hiératiques au Musée de Turin; Maspero, G., Études Égyptiennes, Romans et Poésies du Papyrus Harris, No. 500; Mariette, A., Les Papyrus Égyptiens du Musée de Boulaq; Pleyte, W. et Rossi, Papyrus de Turin; Wiedemann, Hieratische Texte aus den Museen zu Berlin und Paris; Ebers, G., Das hermetische Buch über die Arzeneimittel der alten Aegypter. Demotic. —Brugsch, H., Grammaire Démotique, and Hieroglyphisch-Demotisches Wörterbuch; Leemanns, C., Papyrus Égyptiens Démotiques à Transcriptions Grecques ; Revillout, E., Le Roman de Setna. Translations. —Birch, S. (editor), Records of the Past; Chabas (ed.), Mélanges Égyptologiques; Lepsius, R., Brugsch, H. (edd.), Zeitschrift für Aegyptische Sprache und Alterthumskunde.

It is obviously impossible to specify the many valuable translations and dissertations which have been produced by Dr Birch, Dr Brugsch, Μ. Chabas, Dr Diimichen, Μ. Devéria, Dr Lepsius, Μ. Mariette, Μ. Maspero, Μ. Pierret, Μ. E. de Rougé, and other scholars. Many of these woιks contain Ancient Egyptian texts either in part or entire. (R. 8. P.)