Page images
[blocks in formation]

It could hardly be expected that the system of decipherment proposed by Champollion would be accepted by those who had rival systems to put forth, hence we find old theories revived and new ideas brought to light side by side with Champollion's method of decipherment. Among those who attacked the new system were, Spolm, the misguided Seyffarth, Goulianoff and Klaproth. Spolm and Seyffarth divided hieroglyphics into emphonics, symphonics and aphonics, by which terms they seem to imply phonetics, enclitics and ideographics. Their hopelessly wrong theory was put forth with a great show of learning in De Lingua et Iliteris veterum AEgyptionum at Leipzig, 1825–31. Goulianoff 1. did not accept Champollion's system entirely, and he wished to consider the phonetic hieroglyphics acrologic ; this also was the view taken by Klaproth, who bitterly attacked Champollion in his Lettre sur la découverte des hioroglyphes acrologiques, adressée à M. de Goulianoff, Paris, 1827, and also in his Eramen critique des travaux de feu M. Champos/ion sur les Hièroglyphes, Paris, 1832. To the first of these two works Champollion published a reply entitled Analyse critique de la Jettre sur la découverte des hieroglyphes acrologiques par /. K/aproth (Extr. du Bulletin de Férussac), Paris, 1827, in which he showed the utter worthlessness of the theory. In 1830, when the correctness of Champollion's system was fully Persisdemonstrated, Janelli published at Naples his Fundamenta o of Hermeneutica Hieroglyphicae, in three volumes, in which the *:::::" old symbolic theory of the hieroglyphics was re-asserted ' tation. and there were many who hesitated not to follow the views of François Ricardi, feu Charles d'Oneil, the soundness of which may be estimated by the title of one of his works, “Decouverte des Hieroglyphes domestiques phonetiques par Mesquels, sans sortir de ches soi, on peut deviner l'histoire, la chronologie ( / / ), le culte de tous les peuples anciens et modernes, de la méme manière, qu'on le fait en lisant les hioroglyphes egyptiens selon la nouvelle méthode ; ” Turin, 1824. Little by little, however, Champollion's system was accepted. In 1835 Leemans published his edition of Horapollo, in which the results of the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphics were ably applied, and two years later Richard Lepsius published his famous Lettre d M. F. Rosellini sur l'alphabet hieroglyA hique, wherein he discussed the whole question of the decipherment, and showed that Champollion's method was, without any question, correct. About this time students, who worked on Champollion's plan, sprang up in Holland, Italy, France and England, and the misguided Seyffarth alone continued down to 1855 to write and protest against the new system.

Seyffarth and others reject Champollion's System.

1 Sce his Essai sur les Hiëroglyphes d'Alor apollon, Paris, 1827.


The funeral of a poor Egyptian was, probably, very much like that of one of the present day. After the body had been "steeped for a short time in bitumen or natron, or perhaps merely rubbed with these substances, the few personal ornaments of the man were placed on it, he was wrapped in one

* Another of his works was entitled, Triomphe sur les impies obtenu par Jes

adorateurs de la très-sainte Trinité et du Verbe &termel, sous le gouvernement des

sixième et septième rois d'Egypte au VIe siècle après le déluge. Sculpté en signes

Aićroglyphiques sur l'Obélisque Barberinus et maintenant expliyué; Geneva, 1821. _-------

So L. --. too. or -or o

U of - r o

piece of linen, and with his staff to support his steps," and his sandals to protect his weary feet in the nether-world, he was laid in a hole or cave, or even in the sand of the open descrt, to set out on his last journey. Trusting in the might of a few amulets that were buried with him, he feared not to meet his foes in the grave. The funeral of a king or a member of the royal family, or of a wealthy person, was a very magnificent ceremony, and it is, perhaps, impossible to realize exactly what an imposing sight it must have been. Treating of the burial of a king in Diodorus Egypt, Diodorus says (I. 72), that when a king died all the ū. inhabitants of the country wept and rent their garments; the temples were closed, and the people abstained from sacrifices and celebrated no festival for a period of seventy-two days. Crowds of men and women, about two or three hundred in number, went round about the streets with mud on their heads, and with their garments knotted like girdles below the breasts (oruv8óvas introkéto Tøv plaqtdov), singing dirges twice daily in praise of the dead. They denied themselves wheat, they ate no animal food, and they abstained from wine and dainty fare. No one dared to make use of baths, or unguents, or to recline upon couches, or even to partake of the pleasures of love. The seventy-two days were passed in grief and mourning as for the death of a beloved child. Meanwhile, the funeral paraphernalia was made ready, and on the last day of mourning, the body, placed in a coffin, was laid at the entrance to the tomb, and according to law, judgment was passed upon the acts of the king during his life. Every one had the power to make an accusation against the king. The priests pronounced a funeral oration over the body, and declared the noble works of the king during his life, and if the opinion of the assembled multitude agreed with that of the priests, and the king had led a blameless life, they testified their approval openly; if, on the other hand, the life of the king had been a bad one, they expressed their disapprobation by loud murmurs. Through the opposition of the people many kings have been deprived of meet and proper burial,

* Compare Psalm xxiii. 4.

and kings are accustomed to exercise justice, not only
because they fear the disapprobation of their subjects, but
also because they fear that after death their bodies may be
maltreated, and their memory cursed for ever.
It is very doubtful if the above description of the mourn-
ing is not somewhat exaggerated, and there appears to be no
authority in Egyptian inscriptions for the statement that
many kings were deprived of their meet and proper burial
because of the disapproval of their past lives shown by
the people. This account by Diodorus is more valuable for
the indication of the great and solemn respect which was
shown to dead kings, as sons of the god Rā, and as lords of
the land of Egypt, than for its strict accuracy of detail. The
customs observed at the burial of kings would be respectfully
imitated at the funerals of the nobles and officials of his court,
and the account by the same writer of what happened after
the mummy of an Egyptian gentleman was prepared for
burial, must next be considered.
According to Diodorus (I. 92), when the body is ready to
be buried, the relatives give notice to the judges and the
friends of the deceased, and inform them that the funeral will
take place on a certain day, and that the body will pass over
the lake; and straightway the judges, forty in number, come
and seat themselves in a semi-circle above the lake. Then
the men who have been commissioned to prepare a boat
called 8apts,” bring it to the lake, and they set it afloat under
the charge of a pilot called Charon.” And they pretend that
Orpheus travelling in Egypt in ancient times, was present
at a ceremony of this kind, and that he drew his fable of
the infernal regions partly from his remembrance of this

! Is it possible that Diodorus has confused the forty judges at the lake with the forty-two judges or assessors of the Book of the Dead, before each of whom the deceased was supposed to declare that he had not committed a certain sin P

[ocr errors]

* Wiedemann compares the Egyptian Kare, “Schiffer.” The dictionaries give

[ocr errors]

man,” “cart-driver.”

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Diodorus on Egyptian burial. Diodorus on Egyptian burial.

I 54 FUNER piece of linen, and sandals to protect laid in a hole or ca to set out on his las amulets that were foes in the grave. The funeral of of a wealthy persor is, perhaps, imposs sight it must have Egypt, Diodorus s. inhabitants of the c temples were close and celebrated no Crowds of men an number, went roun and with their garn (aw8óvas intoxdro praise of the dead. no animal food, an No one dared to m upon couches, or The seventy-two C for the death of araphernalia was mourning, the bo entrance to the to passed upon the a had the power to priests pronounce declared the nobl the opinion of th the priests, and th their approval op king had been a b by loud murmur. many kings have

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »