signs of sounds, that is to say, phonetic in their very nature and purpose. The proper names of certain kings and deities which never, perhaps, existed but in sound, with some few of their inseparable attributes, comprize the whole of the phonetic symbols which have yet emerged from their Egyptian obscurity to modern notice. The attributes here alluded to are of a simple and almost indispensable nature. In fact, the indications of gender, the single preposition of, and the single adjective beloved, are all that it is even pretended has been interpreted; and concerning these the expounders themselves are so at variance that we must needs be sceptical. An important and leading question is, whether any of the hieroglyphics excepting proper names are phonetic? The species of emblems enclosed, as shewn in the cut, differs, without doubt, from the rest found in the inscriptions where they present themselves; or why should they have been thus enclosed? In alphabetical languages it is not customary to separate proper names from other words. Why? - Evidently because all letters are simple signs of sounds. The ring, or tablet, then, seems to say, whatever I enclose or present to the eye is a composite sound, consisting of those elementary sounds of which you here behold the several conventional signs. This, as before explained, is the very nature of proper names, which form no necessary or constituent parts of a language. We should conjecture that the practice of thus inscribing and enclosing the names of the Egyptian monarchs originated with the shepherd kings, or whoever else may have been the earliest conquerors of Egypt. The names of these foreigners being unsuited to the native language, the hierophants probably could not, without infinite perplexity, have expressed them in any other manner. To have attempted it, they must have sought for ideas in the names; and, where they could trace such, must have symbolized them, somewhat in the manner before intimated concerning that of Philip of Macedon; or in the way they are supposed to have symbolised the word beloved, which some think is signified by a twisted cord. This is the opinion of Dr. Young: but Mr. Salt would substitute a hoe for beloved; and reserve the twisted cord to express the phonetic name of the god Pthah. The proofs he exhibits are not, however, very satisfactory. Though it might perhaps have been adopted as a sign of that species of parental or preceptive solicitude, which would weed out what is amiss from the mind of youth, still, a hoe is not likely to have been employed as a general symbol of love. Now a twisted cord, especially if supposed to be of silk, or some precious material, is not inaptly expressive of intimacy; em embracing a mutual or sympathetic union. It might thus be an intelligible general symbol, resting on analogy which the imagination could readily apprehend and supply. However these matters may be determined, all proper names are not like the Greek Philippos, pregnant with meaning; and if they were, the sounds would convey no such meanings in a foreign land and language. Do, or do not, these considerations form a reasonable presumption that no other hieroglyphics are intended to be phonetically understood than those which are enclosed in rings? Does not the very circumstance of their being thus enclosed shew that such separated words are anomalies? -We do not perceive that Mr. Salt has noticed this important point: but it appears to us, that either this is the case, or all hieroglyphics are signs of sounds; and we cannot now read them because the local meanings that were originally annexed to those several sounds are lost. If the sacred language differed from the antient popular language, or vulgar tongue, of Egypt, we fear the means of interpreting the symbolical inscriptions is irrecoverably lost. The common language of antient Eygpt is not likely to be rescued from oblivion through the modern Copts: but concerning this we shall submit the sentiments which the author's better opportunities allowed him to form, when we come to his concluding opinion of the phonetic hieroglyphics. Gentlemanly manners seem to have occasioned something of mutual deference between the three principal explorers of these mysterious characters; and to have induced a sort of conventional or reciprocally understood agreement to admit, as far as they each can, the inferences of one another. Hence, a considerable number of very different signs appear to have been recognized by each party as expressive of the same elementary sound. In the phonetic alphabet, which forms the subject of Mr. Salt's sixth plate, these are severally distinguished by the initials placed over each character, of Salt, Young, and Champollion. Of the eleven sigmas thus exhibited, two are Dr. Young's, four are Mr. Salt's; (of which four two are also marked with a small q., which we take to denote questionable) and five are from the more ambitious and less uncertain M. Champollion. Mr. W. J. Bankes, one of the most observant of Egyptian travellers, seems to steer, on this subject, the more steady and independent course. He lends his aid without putting forward his name as authority; and takes no share in the seeming compact of deference to which we before alluded. If we rightly conjecture, those notes to the present work, which are dated London, 1825, are from his pen; pen; and they are, in general, replete with facts that are highly acceptable. We should, however, like to ask, how Mr. Bankes ascertained that a greater portion of the language called Barábra, now spoken in Nubia, is identical with the antient Coptic.'* If the Barábru be the antient vocal and written language of Egypt, a great deal indeed of our future knowlege of the hieroglyphics will rest on the explanations it may afford; since it holds out the only practical and available link we know of, which is capable of connecting these antient records with modern interpretation. We cite the following passage from p. 57., as shewing how nearly our sentiments concur with those of the author; at least, with those conveyed in his concluding paragraph: for on the facts which he says are now clearly established,' we are far from being of one opinion. 66 'I shall here conclude for the present with an opinion, that the fact being now clearly established that phonetic hieroglyphics were in use in the earlier period of the Egyptian monarchy, their application will not be found to be confined to the names of gods, kings, or places. Two demonstrative articles, "ta," "pa," masculine and feminine, "en," the sign expressing " of," and "mi," signifying "appertaining to," or "beloved," have already been discovered; and I do not hesitate to say that, with a complete knowledge of Coptic, and close application to this study in Egypt, a person might be able in no long time to decipher whole inscriptions. Every where, I conceive, the real hieroglyphics and phonetic characters will be found to be mingled together, as in the rings of the Ptolemies and Roman emperors; and this of course will require a double study, in which any great progress can only be the result of extreme patience and labour.' In a subjoined postscript, the author writes, 'I think it necessary to state that I have been almost deterred from this publication by a sight of the last work of M. Champollion fils, in which I find that this eminent scholar has forestalled me in a great number of my names of Egyptian gods and kings. The present essay, I have to state, was written and shown to several persons in February last, when a series of family afflictions and severe illness prevented its being fairly copied out, and the plates completed up to the present time. During this period, I think at the latter end of April, M. Champollion's Egyptian Pantheon, or at least some numbers of it, were shown to me by M. Le Lorraine, to whom I had communicated the scope of this essay; and on the third of August I saw in the hands of Signor Anastasy, but have not yet read it, the first copy of M. Champollion's "Pré * Note to p. 57. cis du Systême Hiéroglyphique des Anciens Egyptiens," (Paris, 1824,) that reached Egypt; and I can conscientiously assert that I have not altered a single word in this essay in consequence of the sight of either of his works. Though the publication of M. Champollion's last work is in 1824, (I do not know the month,) it is not improbable that his catalogue of kings may have been made out some time before; so that he in all likelihood may have the honor of prior discovery, as of publication. It cannot, however, but be gratifying to him, as it has been to me, to find his ideas thus confirmed by the singular coincidence of two persons in such distant parts of the globe, without the slightest communication between them, coming by different modes of deduction to the same conclusions on so unpromising and intricate a subject; a circumstance that seems to me to afford the surest proof of the solidity of the basis on which our premises are founded his phonetic alphabet; the correctness of which becomes thereby, I conceive, most decisively established, and it is this in great measure which has determined me to persist in the publication.' 6 But there is not much to interest the public in this self-gratulation; and the attentive reader will remark, that if M. Champollion's phonetic alphabet be the basis on which their premises are founded,' how can Mr. Salt say, that C. and himself came by different modes of deduction to the same conclusions? Again, if the solidity of the basis is to be proved by the phonetic alphabet, how can the solidity be said to establish the correctness of the alphabet, since the same thing cannot be both cause and effect in the same case? — If a tortoise supports the elephant that supports the world, how should the elephant support the tortoise? How should all this be, while the asserted fundamental alphabet is full of discrepancy, of such diversity of synonymes' as they are very accommodatingly termed? We learn, however, from a passage before cited from p. 2., that Dr. Young is far less accommodating on this point than Mr. S.; and we are firmly persuaded, that more accurate examination will stop Messrs. Salt and Champollion from adding what they term a synonyme,' instead of studying to get over a seeming or real objection or impediment. At present it appears as if neither of them could make any progress, without their ten mus and eleven sigmas, which is about as bad as carrying the wild etymological jargon of Mr. Jacob Bryant and his school, which is now becoming obsolete, into the science of antiquarian research. It is mistaking quicksands for firm ground. Almost any visionary hypothesis might be speciously made out under such licence. Can it be possible that the wise Egyptians, — the tutors of Thales, Solon, and Pythagoras, should have em ployed ployed a shepherd's crook; an egg; a star; a tablet; a heart and cross *; and a flail, beside five other hieroglyphics; and all to express one and the same simple sound? The reader will readily answer this question. If in the present state of Egyptian research, a philosopher should inquire, "What is to be learned in this hieroglyphical lore?" we are afraid that Dr. Young, Mr. W. J. Bankes, and the more wary scholars, must candidly reply in the words of Pope, "Tis but to know, how little can be known; ART. VII. Lochandhu; a Tale of the Eighteenth Century. 3 Vols. 12mo. 17. 1s. Boards. Constable and Co. Edinburgh; and Hurst, Robinson, and Co. London. 1825. THERE HERE is, we know, a prevailing prejudice against all attempts to follow with a view to reap, in the same fairyland, honors like to those which have have been followed and reaped by the author of Waverley. It is not, however, quite fair prejudice. Whatever degree in the scale of criticism its offspring may be permitted to occupy, the faculty of imitation is a gift of genius as inherent as is that of invention itself. Those treasures which one mind has left behind it may be improved and refined by the genius and taste of later ages, so as to be heightened in worth and longer preserved. It is analogous in mechanics and the fine arts- it is so in the more sublime sciences and why should not the mental works of genius admit of being enriched? To the ideas and charms of their predecessors are we indebted for many of the finest effusions of Shenstone and Beattie -- of Burns and Byron; and what critic would think of sitting down to measure, by standards of questionable originality, every thought and word in the structure of a romance fabricated after the fashion of the Waverley novels. The poetical works of their author are not less worthy of our admiration than his prose; and yet, while those who draw from the same fountain-head and pursue the same bourn as that admired genius are deemed intruders, who hears it ever averred, as matter of reproach, that the bard of the North is a copyist of the old balladwriters? Why may not then his prose-writings be made sub This same heart and cross stands also for Z in the same alphabet; and stands thus on Mr. Salt's authority. jects |