« PreviousContinue »
values of three others had been correctly stated as far as the consonants were concerned. There is no doubt whatever that Champollion's plan of work was eminently scientific, and his great knowledge of Coptic enabled him to complete the admirable work of decipherment, which his natural talent had induced him to undertake. The value of his contributions to the science of Egyptology it would be difficult to overestimate, and the amount of work which he did in his comparatively short life is little less than marvellous. It is, however, to be regretted that Champollion did not state more clearly what Young had done, for a full acknowledgment of this would have in no way injured or lessened his
own immortal fame.' Cham.
Briefly, the way in which Champollion recovered the pollion's
greater part of the Egyptian alphabet is as follows. It will be remembered that, on account of breakages, the only name found on the Rosetta Stone is that of Ptolemy. Shortly before Champollion published his letter to M. Dacier, he had published an account of an obelisk,recently brought to London, which was inscribed with the name of a Ptolemy, written with the same characters as that on the Rosetta Stone, and also contained within a cartouche. It was followed by a second cartouche, which should contain the name of a queen. The obelisk was said to have been fixed in a socket, bearing a Greek inscription containing a petition of the priests of Isis at Philae, addressed to Ptolemy, to Cleopatra his sister, and to Cleopatra his wife. . Now, he argued, if this obelisk and the hieroglyphic inscription which it bears are really
the result of the petition of the priests, who in the Greek speak The names of the dedication of a similar monument, it follows of necessity Ptolemy
that the cartouche must contain the name of a Cleopatra. Cleopatra. The names of Ptolemy and Cleopatra having, in the Greek,
some letters which are similar, may be used for comparing
1 We have seen above that Champollion did know of Young's work, yet in his Précis du Système Hiéroglyphique, p. 18, he says that he had arrived at results similar to those obtained by Dr. Young, without having any knowledge of his opinion.
• Observations sur l'Obélisque Egyptien de l'fle de Phila, in Revue encyclopédique, Mars, 1822.
the hieroglyphics which are used in each ; and if the
No. 1, PTOLEMY.
Now in No. 2 cartouche, sign No. 1, which must represent Recovery K, is not found in cartouche No. I. Sign No. 2, a lion lying of th
8 Egyptian down, is identical with sign No. 4 in cartouche No. I. This alphabet. clearly is L. Sign No. 3, a pen, represents the short vowel E; two of them are to be seen in character No. 6 in No. 1 cartouche, and considering their position their value must be Al of alos. Sign No. 4 is identical with No. 3 in No. 1 cartouche, and must have the value o in each name. Sign No. 5 is identical with sign No, i of No. I cartouche, which being the first letter of the name of Ptolemy must be P. Sign No. 6 is not found in No. I cartouche, but it must be A, because it is the same sign as sign No. 9, which ends the name KAEONATPA; we know that signs 10 and 11 always accompany feminine proper names, because we see them following the names of goddesses like do Isis, and to Nephthys. Sign No. 7, an open stretched out hand, must be T. It does not occur in No. I cartouche, but we find from other cartouches that o takes the place of , and the reverse. Sign No. 8 must be R; it is not in No. i cartouche,
and ought not to be there. In No. I cartouche sign No. 7 must be S, because it ends the name which in Greek ends with S. Thus from these two cartouches we may collect twelve characters of the Egyptian alphabet, viz., A, AI, E, K, K, L, M, O, P, R, S, T. Now let us take another cartouche
from the Description de l'Egypte, t. III. pl. 38, No. 13, and try The name to make it out ; it reads :Alexander.
B o nomme o
Now signs Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8, we know from cartouches Nos. I and 2, and we may write down their values thus:
AA.. EE.. TP.
The only Greek name which contains these letters in this order is Alexander, therefore let us assign to the signs
a mw, and +, the value of K, N and S respectively. We find on examination that the whole group corresponds, letter for letter, with the group which stands in the demotic text of a papyrus in the place of the Greek name AAEXANAPO2. We have, then, gained three new phonetic signs K, N, and S, and have determined the value of fifteen in all.
Again, let us take the cartouche of another lady :
The name Now signs Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 we know, and we may Berenice. write them down thus:
The only female name which contains these letters in this order is that of Berenice, and to one and we may therefore assign the values B and K respectively. Thus we have gained two more signs.
we find that we are able to read the first at once KAISRS, which is clearly Kalo apos or Caesar; in the second the only sign we do not know is @. Writing down the values we know we have A.TAKRTR, which is clearly Autokpatop: thus the value of the second character must be U. In this manner Champollion worked through the names of all the Ptolemies and the Roman Emperors, and eventually succeeded in making out the value of one hundred and eleven signs. At the foot of Plate I., in his Lettre à Monsieur Dacier, he writes his own name in hieroglyphics thus :
The following are the letters of the Egyptian alphabet with their values as now accepted by Egyptologists :
r or 1
OPINIONS OF EGYPTOLOGISTS ON THE LABOURS OF
YOUNG AND CHAMPOLLION.
In favour of Champollion. The first idea of certain hiero. His [Young's] translations, howglyphics being intended to represent ever, are below criticism, being as sounds was suggested by Dr. Young, unfounded as those of Kircher. who, from the names of Ptolemy How far even, in the decipherment, and Berenice, had pointed out nine, he proceeded correctly, may be which have since proved to be doubted. . . . But even here (in correct; the former taken from the interpretation] there is much too Rosetta inscription, and the latter incorrect in principle to be of real deduced with singular ingenuity use; much of it is beneath criticism. from the enchorial of the same - BIRCH, Hieroglyphs, p. 196. monument. [M. Champollion fils seems to be unwilling to allow this: It is even to this day a common but the fact is evident; and surely habit of Englishmen to couple the he has accomplished too much to name of their countryman, Dr. stand in need of assuming to him. Thomas Young, with that of Chamself the merits of another. Note i, pollion, as sharing with him the p. 1. Working upon this basis, glory of this discovery. No person M. Champollion, with happy suc- who knows anything of Egyptian cess, made out four or five others, philology can countenance so gross as also about thirty synonymes ; an error ...... But it is not true and by the ingenious application of that he discovered the key to the these, the merit of which is all his decipherment of hieroglyphics, or own, he has been able to turn to even that his labours assisted Chameffect the discovery, and to decipher pollion in the discovery. When the therewith a great number of the key was once discovered and renames of the Ptolemies and of the cognized as the true one, it was Roman emperors. .....-SALT, found that one or two of Young's H., Essay on Dr. Young's and results were correct. But there was M. Champollion's Phonetic System nothing in his method or theory by of Hieroglyphics; London, 1825.
which he or anyone else could distinguish between his right and his wrong results, or which could lead him or anyone else a single step in
advance. ......... If anyone Amidst this mass of error and has a right to be named in concontradiction, the application of the junction with Champollion, it is not phonetic principle by Young, in Young, but Akerblad, to whom he 1818, had all the merit of an original does full justice (as he does indeed discovery ...... and it was only to Young himself) at the very beby a comparison of the three kinds ginning of his letter to M. Dacier. of writing that he traced the name -RENOUF, Hibbert Lectures; Lonof Ptolemy up in his own way, don, 1880, pp. 12-16.