2. That this second system (of writing) is only a simple modification of the hieroglyphic system, and differs from it only in the form of the signs.

3. That the second kind (of writing) is the hieratic of the Greek authors, and must be considered as an hieroglyphical tachygraphy. 4. Lastly that the hieratic characters (and consequently those from which they are derived) are signs of things and not of sounds.

There is little doubt, we think we may say none, that to the time of Dr Young's discovery, M. Champollion was convinced, as he expresses himself, that the "hieroglyphics are signs of things and not of words.” In his letter to M. Dacier of September 22, 1822, on the contrary, he expressed himself in the commencement of his letter in the following manner :-"I may venture to hope that I have succeeded in shewing that both the hieratic and demotic (enchorial) writing are not entirely alphabetical, as had been generally supposed, but often also ideagraphic, like the hieroglyphics themselves, that is to say, that they represent sometimes the ideas, and sometimes the sounds of a language. I think I have at last succeeded, after ten years of assiduous research, in bringing together data almost complete on the general theory of these two kinds of writing, on the origin, the nature, the form, and the number of their signs, the rules of their combinations by means of those among these signs which have functions purely logical or grammatical, and in having thus laid the first foundation of what we may call the grammar and dictionary of these two modes of writing which are employed in the great number of monuments whose interpretation will throw so much light on the general history of Egypt." Not a word is here said of the Grenoble publication; nor does the author any where else in this letter make the slightest allusion, that we can find, to his former opinion on the nature of the hieroglyphics. The author goes on to state, that the subject of this letter is the pure hieroglyphics, "which, forming an exception to the general nature of the signs of this kind of writing, were endowed with the power of expressing the sounds of words, and have been employed on the public monuments of Egypt in recording the titles, names, and surnames of the Greek and Roman sovereigns, who successively governed it.

Two years after the last date, namely in 1824, M. Champollion published his great work "Précis du systême hieroglyphique &c." in which he reviews the whole subject which for so many years had occupied his attention.

The author's conclusion (continues the writer of the "Egyptian Antiquities,") as to the nature of what is called hieroglyphical writing is this "The Egyptians, possessing three different modes of expressing their ideas, employed in the same text that mode which seemed best. adapted to the representation of a given idea. If the object of an idea could not be clearly indicated either by the direct mode of a figurative (pictorial) character, or tropically (indirectly) by a symbolical character, the writer had recourse to phonetic characters, which readily accomplished either the direct or indirect representation of the idea, by the conventional mode of exhibiting the word which is the sign of this idea. Consequently the series of phonetic characters was the most efficient and the most common part of the Egyptian system of writing; by them particularly the most metaphysical ideas, the most delicate shades of language, the inflexions, and, finally, all grammatical forms, could be represented with almost as much perspicuity as they are by means of the simple alphabet of the Phoenicians or Arabs.

It follows from all that has been said, and is indubitably proved,1. That there was no Egyptian writing altogether representative (pictorial), as the Mexican has been supposed to be.

2. That there does not exist on the monuments of Egypt any regular writing altogether ideagraphic, that is, composed altogether of figurative and symbolical characters.

3. That primitive Egypt did not employ a mode of writing altogether phonetic.

4. But that the hieroglyphic mode of writing is a complex systema system, figurative, symbolical and phonetic, in the same text, in the same phrase, I would almost say in the same word."

This conclusion is certainly not very flattering to those who may hereafter enter upon the investigation of the Egyptian hieroglyphics. But it is sufficient to shew that, according to both the theories which M. Champollion has adopted, the Egyptian writing was either very partially alphabetic, or even not alphabetic at all.

The same inference has been drawn by others, who, since the time of Champollion, have examined the Egyptian monuments.

Zoëga, a learned Italian, by studying the obelisks and other Egyptian monuments in Italy, made out a list of 958

different hieroglyphical characters. To suppose that these represented letters is an absurdity; for no known language ever contained even so many as 100 elementary characters such as we call letters, and, if the 958 represented words— even monosyllables-or simple ideas, which are represented by words, the language was clearly not alphabetic.

Even in the short compass of the Rosetta stone, in fourteen lines, M. Champollion detected no less than 166 different characters to which the same observation applies, that they are too many to be letters, and if they represent words, the language is not alphabetic.

Again in all the twenty lines, of which the hieroglyphical part of the Rosetta stone consisted, when unmutilated, there were about 2218 characters; and in the portion of the stone, giving the same meaning in the Greek language, the number of letters altogether was 7290. It appears then, that if the hieroglyphical characters were letters, the Egyptian language could " express as much as the Greek in less than one-third of the number of the characters.*" This is surely a strong reason for believing that the hieroglyphics denote ideas or words, and not letters, and it is strengthened by an observation made by M. Champollion himself, that many of the characters in the hieroglyphic text of the Rosetta stone are purely figurative or pictorial, as is manifest even by their shape. Thus he recognized, in the Greek, the following words, temple, image, statue, child, asp, and column, all of which, in the hieroglyphical part of the Rosetta inscription, were represented by their corresponding figures, and not. by words formed out of letters.

*Egyptian Antiquities, vol. ii, p. 368.

4.

Sameness of the written but difference of the spoken language in the various parts of ancient Egypt.

It has been observed, in our notice of the Chinese language that its written characters can be understood by all the tribes and nations, notwithstanding the great differences of dialect which prevail in that vast empire. But it appears, from the sameness of the hieroglyphical inscriptions in Egypt, even in provinces many hundred miles apart, that the state of things was precisely the same. The same hieroglyphics are found on the borders of Ethiopia, as in the Delta near the sea; yet it is certain that the dialects must have been numerous and differed much from one another in so large a tract of territory. As the inscriptions were of course intended to be read, it is a natural inference that those who spoke different dialects, could all read these common inscriptions; but this can only happen, when the characters are ideagraphic; i. e. when they suggest the same ideas to the minds of persons speaking different languages, for, if the emblems suggested words only and not ideas, they would be intelligible to those only who spoke the language in which those words are found. An instance of this may easily be given. If the following inscription were placed in some conspicuous place

30-10-20

it would be intelligible to Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans &c. without the least difficulty: but each of these nations would read it in a very different manner; and the words which each employed would be unintelligible to all the others. Thus the Englishman would read it

66

Thirty minus ten is equal to twenty."

The Frenchman would say

"Trente moins dix égale vingt." &c.

If therefore inscriptions of this kind should hereafter be found in every part of Europe where it was known that

the languages varied much, it would be a proof that the mode of writing arithmetical subjects was nevertheless the same, and consequently ideagraphic. This is the case with all the Egyptian hieroglyphics, from one end of Egypt to the other, even where it is known that the dialects differed much, and so identical is the style of the hieroglyphics that it is difficult to determine the age of any of them, for they are the same whether they belong to the 200th or the 2000th year before Christ. The writing, therefore, of the Egyptians was ideagraphic, and continued so for many centuries, with, apparently, no improvement in its perspicuity, or alteration of its style, beyond the introduction of a phonetic system as we have before described it, to express foreign names, the ideas of which would not of course form part of their usual train of thought, and would therefore have no representative emblem among their usual ideagraphic characters.

5. The introduction of the Greek alphabet into the Coptic, or later Egyptian language, shews that there was

no previous Egyptian alphabet.

Egypt, though intimately connected by commerce with Judæa, and separated from it by a very narrow strip of sandy deserts, was later than some of the other ancient kingdoms in receiving the doctrines of Christianity. We find that, even in the days of Clemens Alexandrinus, who died in the beginning of the third century, the Egyptian priests continued to maintain their empire over the minds of the people, and still practised their mystic ceremonies in every part of Egypt. But there had been two powerful principles brought into action, which sooner or later were

*The zodiac of Dendera was supposed to belong to the times of the Pharaohs, until an inscription was deciphered which proved it to be of the age of Tiberius.