Periplus of Hannon
. It is with one of these,* upon the subject of Egyptian hieroglyphics, that we have now to do. "Two years since Simonides was introduced, in Liverpool, to a gentleman named Mayer, who has collected one of the finest museums in the country. In fact, the Mayer Museum is one of the curiosities of Liverpool. Mr. Mayer conducted Simonides over his collection, and, aware of his great reputation as a decipherer of ancient MSS., submitted to his inspection a mass of papyri in the hieroglyphic, hieratic, demotic, Coptic, and Greek characters. Some of these Simonides says he has deciphered recently, and he has published a large volume of fac-similes, respecting which we may have a few words to say on another occasion. Besides papyri, Mr. Mayer possesses a large number of Egyptian antiquities, many of them bearing hieroglyphical inscriptions. These Simonides declared himself able to interpret, and, selecting several at random from the collection, he at once proceeded to decipher them. The method employed by Simonides is totally different to that accepted by Egyptologists as the true system. So different are the two systems that, if Simonides is correct, all the Egyptologists of the present day- the followers of Champollion, Lepsius, and Bunsen-are utterly wrong, and must have been labouring under a delusion the most extraordinary ever recorded in the annals of literature; or, on the other hand, if the system of Champollion is correct, and the discoveries of Young and the later Egyptologists are genuine, then must Simonides be an arch impostor, and deserving of all the opprobrium to which he has been subjected. A short explanation will render the matter perfectly simple, even to those who have no knowledge of the subject,
"The present universally-accepted system of deciphering hieroglyphics was invented by M. Champollion, who founded his method on a comparison and analysis of the tablets or cartouches bearing the names of Ptolemy, Cleopatra, and Berenice, expressed in hieroglyphics. His method starts with the idea that hieroglyphics are phonetic, each representing an alphabetical character. Thus he says the L in Ptolemy is represented by a lion, because the Egyptian for lion was labo, and the hieroglyphical lion represents the first letter of its name. In this manner each hieroglyphic represents a single letter. Each letter may, however, be represented by numerous hieroglyphics - in fact by any hieroglyphical drawing of an article the name of which begins with the letter desired to be represented. By a highly ingenious process, never satisfactorily explained, M. Champollion succeeded in assigning to the various hieroglyphics their several alphabetical values. He decided which meant A, which meant B, and so on, and by this means he in time obtained words. Here, however, he became greatly embarrassed. The Egyptian language was lost, and he could not discover the meaning of the words he had thus obtained. In this dilemma he hit upon the plan of making the Coptic language answerable for the Egyptian, and he even went so far as to declare that the Coptic language is the ancient Egyptian written in Greek characters.' By this means he proceeded to interpret the hieroglyphical inscriptions, and with an ingenuity that is marvellous he readily found an explanation for every inscription placed before him. The hieroglyphics contained within rings he pronounced to be the names of kings, and much of the accepted Egyptian chronology is dependent on the names thus obtained. Champollion found numerous followers. Coptic was accepted as Egyptian; the alphabetical system was adopted throughout Europe; to this day his method is the only one practised; and the authorities in the British Museum decipher all hieroglyphical inscriptions by its means. must, however, be remarked that the Egyptians employed three methods of writing:
1. The hieroglyphic, used in sacred inscriptions;
2. The hieratic, or the hieroglyphic, written rapidly on papyrus, in which the various characters were contracted and imperfectly formed; and
3. The demotic, the method employed by the people in the ordinary transactions of every-day life.
The Champollion system does not undertake to translate the demotic, but it says that the first writing employed by the Egyptians was the hieroglyphic, and that the demotic did not come into use until a few centuries before the commencement of the Christian era.
"This, then, is a brief outline of the system of Champollion, which Simonides characterises as nonsense. The latter declares that hieroglyphics are never alphabetical, that they are symbolical, and that each hieroglyphic expresses not a letter, but an idea; that Coptic is no more Egyptian than English is Greek; that the demotic
* "A Brief Dissertation on Hieroglyphic Letters." By Constantine Simonides, Ph. D. David Nutt.
character is the oldest, and was in use earlier than the hieroglyphic; that the rings (cartouche) do not contain the names of kings, but the apophthegms by which kings were distinguished; that the vocabulary of Egyptian words in use by the modern Egyptologist is completely false; that even Champollion's illustration of the lion, representing the letter L, is absurd, because the Egyptian for a lion is not labo thaouraō (labo being Carian and not Egyptian), and that no inscription has ever yet been interpreted correctly by the Champollion system. In a word, he denounces the method as a tissue of falsehoods, absurdities, and errors, and insinuates that many of the most eminent Egyptologists have been, and are, guilty of wilful deception.
"For some time past a suspicion has existed that the theories of the Egyptologists are not reliable or sound, and these suspicions, within the past few weeks, have acquired immense force by the publication of Sir George Cornewall Lewis's work on the Astronomy of the Ancients. Few men enjoy a greater reputation for learning than our present War Minister, and in his recently published book he points out the inconsistencies of the Champollion system with a remorseless hand, and does not hesitate to assert his belief that the key to the hieroglyphics has yet to be discovered.
He says
'Egyptology has a historical method of its own. It recognises none of the ordinary rules of evidence; the extent of its demands upon our credulity is almost unbounded. Even the writers on ancient Italian ethnology are modest and tame in their hypotheses compared with the Egyptologists. Under their potent logic all identity disappears; everything is subject to become anything but itself. Successive dynasties become contemporary dynasties; one king becomes another king, or several kings, or a fraction of another king; one name becomes another name; one number becomes another number; one place becomes another place.'
With these opinions of Sir Cornewall Lewis the system of Simonides entirely harmonises. Here let it be observed that where so much doubt and such great uncertainty exist, it might be expected that the exponent of a new system would meet with attention and consideration; and this, we think, has not been the case in the instance of Simonides. Nor is it a matter for surprise that Simonides should be treated with little consideration by the learned world. He comes before them with his name associated, whether truly or not we cannot pretend to say, with suspicions of literary forgery - and he himself falls tooth and nail, not only on the system of Champollion, but on its professors. Indeed, in all his writings there is a tone of personal animosity that detracts much from their merit. His illustrations of the absurdity of the accepted hieroglyphical system are, nevertheless, so forcible as to call for a more careful consideration than any they have yet received, and, however strong may be the disinclination of the learned world to listen to his not by any means politely urged claims, the statements he makes are too remarkable to be any longer ignored or passed over in contemptuous silence. Simonides, whilst ridiculing the Champollion system, demands, if the hieroglyphical characters are alphabetical, that some well-known inscription, say that on the Rosetta Stone, shall be interpreted by its means to the satisfaction of an unprejudiced jury. This has never yet been accomplished, and as to the demotic inscription on the Rosetta Stone, though the Greek translation accompanies it, no person has ever yet been able to give more than a conjectural interpretation. Sir Cornewall Lewis, speaking on the subject of the ancient writings, says:
'The attempts even of the most accomplished linguists to explain the inscriptions must be regarded by an impartial judge as utter failures' (p. 387).
This being the case, the arguments of Simonides, as published by him in the numerous books he has issued, assume a grave importance; and when he asserts that Coptic is not Egyptian, he completely destroys, if he establishes his assertion, the whole Champollion system. His reasonings on this point are much too elaborate to permit of their introduction here, but it may be briefly observed that he points out that Coptic took its origin at a period when Egypt had been conquered and overrun by foreigners for more than a thousand years; that it is simply the Greek language considerably corrupted, and intermixed with Parthian, Libyan, Carian, Lycian, Arabic, and Hebrew words, and that the number of words of Egyptian origin is very limited; that the remains of the Coptic language which have reached us do not ascend higher than the third century after the commencement of the Christian era; that the name Coptic does not appear to have been used earlier than the sixth century; and that all attempts to interpret Egyptian by its aid have failed. On this point we may ourselves venture an observation. In the British Museum there is at least one MS. in which the Egyptian language is written in Greek characters. question of the identity of the Coptic with the Egyptian language may therefore be readily ascertained. If the Egyptologists can translate this MS. by means of Coptic and Bunsen's Egyptian vocabulary, they would establish their point; if they cannot, they must then admit their failure, and confess themselves defeated. We have only space now to notice one other argument used by Simonides, in his denunciation of the Champollion system. The modern Egyptologists state, that the hieroglyphic characters were first in use, that the hieratic followed, and that, lastly, the demotic was invented for the use of the common people. This theory, at first sight, appears probable. It seems natural that a people emerging from barbarism should, in their first attempts to write, take the direction of picture representations. The Egyptologists themselves destroy this theory, for their whole system is founded on the basis of the hieroglyphical characters being alphabetical. Among the earliest hieroglyphics known to the world are those ascribed to the 4th dynasty, or about 500 years after Menes, a date variously fixed by Egyptologists at 2300 B. c. and 5200 B. c. These are declared to be alphabetical. If so, the Egyptians must have had an alphabet, and if they had an alphabet it seems pretty clear that they would use it in the ordinary transactions of life, without employing the elaborate devices of hieroglyphics. This consideration is damaging to the Champollion system, and the fact of figures of inkstands, and of the stylus, being found in the inscriptions of the 4th dynasty, almost establishes the point that writing was common among the Egyptian people. The theory of Simonides is by some considered more ingenious and probable than that of Champollion. He says that the demotic alphabet was invented first, and that as time went on the priesthood sought to increase their power by rendering all theological matters mystical. They therefore invented a system of writing, of a secret character, in which the demotic letters for a particular word were made into a monogram, which monogram took the shape of some object resembling the idea expressed. For instance, the duckling, so commonly found in hieroglyphical inscriptions, is said by Horapollo to represent affection, and Simonides states that the figure of a duckling is drawn by combining together the five demotic characters for the letters ch-a-o-e, which is the Egyptian for love. Thus the figure of a duckling expresses, by a symbol, affection, and its component parts contain the demotic characters for the word love. This theory is extremely ingenious, and, if correct, will explain away many of the difficulties that hang around the subject. Simonides supports his theory with considerable learning and skill, and stoutly contends that writers of antiquity corroborate his views. We can, however, accompany M. Simonides no farther in his proofs of the untrustworthy character of the modern system, and can only afford space to glance over the evidences afforded of the truth of his own method.
"In the first place, it must be observed that Simonides does not assume to himself any credit for having discovered a new method of hieroglyphical interpretation. He states that he does nothing more than follow the instructions left by the old writers. Horapollo wrote ten books, treating of the interpretation of hieroglyphics, two of which have been preserved to the present day. These books explain the symbolic meaning of some 200 hieroglyphics; and as these explanations are quite opposed to the system of Champollion, the Egyptologists declare that Horapollo, who flourished about 100 years B. C., and was himself a priest in one of the temples of Egypt, knew nothing at all about the matter. Simonides also states that he has acquired his knowledge of the Egyptian writings and language by means of manuscripts obtained by him in various eastern monasteries and in Egypt. He says that he has in his possession, not only the eight lost books of Horapollo, but also the whole of the lost works of Chærémon (300 books -the Egyptian words expressed phonetically in Greek characters), Chenophis, and Charon; and by the aid of these, especially of Cheremon, who wrote a vocabulary of the Egyptian language, he has mastered the ancient language of Egypt, and the whole secret of the Egyptian writings. The proofs he affords of the correctness of his own system are, however, not by any means so conclusive as those he gives of the incorrectness of that of Champollion. They are, nevertheless, important, and in the pamphlet before us he has adopted the bold expedient of interpreting inscriptions by his own method, and publishing them to the public. In this pamphlet he has deciphered and interpreted several hieroglyphical inscriptions in Mr. Mayer's Museum, and has given the reasons for his interpretations, and an explanation of the process employed. He has also on several occasions expressed his willingness to decipher any inscription that may be agreed upon, and to give full explanations of the interpretation. He even avows his readiness to take the demotic inscription in the Rosetta Stone, to write out line for line and word for word the Egyptian words it contains, to give in a similar manner a word for word translation of the Egyptian into Greek, and to compare the latter with the hieroglyphic inscription. The strongest proofs he possesses he declares to be the MSS. themselves from which he acquired his knowledge. Such proofs, in the case of Simonides, will be received with very considerable doubt; in fact, as evidence, they will scarcely be received at all. Chærémon may have been manufactured by himself, and all the Egyptian vocabulary it is said to contain may be only a clever invention; but if he really has these works in his possession, he should produce them before the public, and then, whether they are forgeries or not, if they contain the lost key to the Egyptian writings and language, they are equally valuable. We are very far from saying that Simonides has convinced the world, by his pamphlets and other publications, of the truth of his hieroglyphical theories, but we do say that he has violently shaken the system of Champollion, and that, if the Egyptologists wish to preserve their credit, they must take prompt measures to dispel the strongly excited suspicions of the public."*
* “ Τὰ μετὰ τὸν ἀστερίσκον ἐκδίδονται ἐκ χειρογράφου τοῦ συντάκτου· ὅτι οὐκ ἐξεδόθη εἰσέτι, καὶ ὃ, χειρόγραφον, ἀπεστάλει μαι ἀνωνύμως. Τὸν δὲ τούτου συντάκτην εἰσέτι ἀγνοῶ.
===============================
