with three copies of the monument, as we have already stated, and, in reading the Greek inscription, few difficulties occurred; but in the upper part of the Egyptian, toward the middle of the stone, his several copies presented a confused mixture of indeterminate strokes, which he was at loss to decide whether it were occasioned by imperfection in the impression, or from the injury which the stone had sustained.

Without entering into a discussion of the Greek, M. de Sacy confines himself to the citation only of such passages from it as are necessary more immediately to his purpose, premising that the three inscriptions are but one and the same in three languages, or rather in three different characters (for the hieroglyphic

character, being the picture of images and not of sounds, belongs to no determinate language). That such is the import of this inscription is obvious, since toward the end of the Greek the following passage occurs ΣΤΕΡΕΟΥ ΛΙΘΟΥ ΤΟΙΣ ΤΕ ΙΕΡΟΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΧΩΡΙΟΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΟΙΣ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΣΙΝ; which, notwithstanding the chasm at the beginning of them, evidently express that the authors of the decree ordained it to be engraved on A HARD THREE CHARACTERS-—THE SACRED [or hieroglyphic], LOCAL, AND Greek. It is, however, judiciously observed, that great error would arise from considering either translation as the literal representative of the other two.

Upon this ground, indeed, M. de Sacy first proceeded, and, by the simple rule of proportion, endeavoured to find in the Egyptian inscription the proper names in the Greek, hoping by that mean to obtain the alphabet desired: but though the concurrence of ALEXANDER and ALEXANDRIA first seemed to justify the principle, the same degree of certainty did not follow upon further attempts.

In respect to the name of Alexanderwhich occurs but once, and that in the fourth line of the Greek inscriptionthough M. de Sacy's rule of proportion led him to look for it in the third line of the Egyptian, and he found the characters which he apprehended to correspond in the close of the second line, yet it follows-not to our conviction—that he found the name he supposed; for, not to insist upon the circumstances remarked by him in respect to small letters and capitals, notwithstanding the name Alexandria, in the seventeenth line of the Greek, might point out its correspondent in the tenth of the Egyptian, it is not thence to be hastily concluded that a similarity of four characters in the two respective places will

* M. de Sacy's translation is here given ; but the term XTEPEOT, we apprehernd, here signihes erectible; and the words και ΣΤΗΣ ΑΙ εν έκαστω των τε πρωτων 3αι δευτερων which ο Ηλιος μεγας βασιλευς, των τε ΑΝΩ και των ΚΑΤΩ X®pwy, in the third line, will explain--confirms this to be the sense.


أستوم 34in), and) اقلیم

ascertain the first name to be Alexander and the second Alexantdria-unless it can be shown that the city to which the Greeks gave the name Alexandria was so called by the natives of Egypt; and that it was not, we have Coptic authorities tò evince. Hence, then, there is some ground to infer that, instead of having ascertained these two names, great doubt attaches to both. This observation is not made in the spirit of cavil, but only to intimate the propriety of caution.

With the letters obtained from these names, M. de Sacy proceeds in his investigation; and as, in the Egyptian inscription, the word Aftouolma, thus made out, occurs at least a dozen times in lines 2, 3, 4, 5, 21, 22, 24, 29, &c. he distinctly states his analysis of it, adding, to preclude any objection that might be offered from the name commencing with an A before , that it is almost the universal practice with the Orientals;. when they borrow from the Greek, or any other language, 'a word which begins with two consonants. Thus, in Otoa, oxoruchy στρογλυλος, the Syrians use 109.00) (estous), L1233) (eschimo), llis -16.00 (estranghelo); and the Arabs CsLX:1 (afictcun) for Plato ;

and (estoum), for xuc and crouc.

Considering the alef as ascertained, the next attempt is made on the name of Arsindë, in the 2d, 3d, 4th, 6th, and 24th lines; which being often preceded by that of Ptolemy, is obé vious; since Ptolemy (Philopator) and Arsincë are here mentioned as the father and mother of Ptolenzy Epiphanes, in favour of whom the monument itself was erected. In analysing the characters of which this name is composed, and pointing out their similarity to the Phænician, Hebrew, and Arabic, it is stated to have been pronounced Arsinioua, and, accordingly, is supposed to be so written.

M. de Sacy did not, at first, imagine that the word Epiphanes would occur in an Egyptian inscription; nor indeed, as being a TITLE, and not a name, can we be easily persuaded that it does. He however professes to have found it in lines 2, 3, 5, 21, 22, 24, 25, 29, 30, and 31, as immediately following, or being very near to the name of Ptolemy; but wherever the name of Ptolemy is followed by that of ARSINOË-and, consequently, Ptolemy Philopator is intended—it is never seen to oc

This is considered as a convincing proof that the term Epiphanes is ascertained. To obviate a difficulty that might bar this conclusion, it is observed that, as in the Hebrew, Syriac, &c.- which, having no letter corresponding to the Greek II, express indifferently that character and ¢ by the same-the word EMPANHE must contain two similar letters; and the Hebrews


[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

being obliged to write it D'3b9X, so likewise must it have been in the Egyptian. But granting the name of Ptolemy to be unequivocally ascertained, if the title Epiphanes were translated in the inscription, the corresponding epithet must occupy in the inscription the same relative spaces. If

any stress then should be laid upon this remark, whatever ingenuity may be shown in investigating the characters alleged, it will be irrelevant, at least, to the case; but, this out of the question, it appears to us a hint of caution, lest, because one character may resemble a Phoenician, another a Samaritan, a third an Arabic, a Hebrew, or Syriac, we conclude it must therefore be received as of the same value when we meet with it in Egyptian.

Between the name of Ptolemy and the term Epiphanes, there occurs in various parts of the inscription, particularly in lines 2, 5, and 21, 2 word which M. de Sacy supposes to answer the Greek CEOE ; but this he imagines to be a monogram, or abbreviation, rather than a term which expresses each letter at length. According to his adopted method of deciphering, the two first letters are supposed to exhibit the word $nort, or, in Sardic, INOT te, which the modern Copts pronounce Abnoudi, or Abnouda, and which literally signifies God. This word, in the Memphitic dialect, is written in an abridged form ; thus, $t. M. de Sacy conjectures that in the ancient language of Egypt the word might have terminated with an aspiration, whence the Greeks might take occasion to write Qgas; and also that pixe, or 09a, was possibly no other than Abnouda, or Afnouta. This conjecture, he thinks, is countenanced by the Jewish practice of altering the pronunciation of names, and offers as an example the instance of Rambam, or Ramban, for Rabi Mosché ben-Maï moun, and Rabi Mosché ben-Nabman, because they abbreviate these names thus : D267 and 1039. It is however with great reluctance that we admit this expedient ; nor indeed can we admit it, but with much additional evi. dence that the word in question is so to be explained. This very respectable writer is aware, according to Jablonski, supported by the evidence of antiquity, that the word bhas is the name of a particular divinity, which the Greeks translated by the term Ηφαιστος.-If now the term Φθας were itself Egyptian, why not seek it in the inscription itself, instead of giving Abnouda as the substitute ? But it is alleged that the inscription appears to convict the Greeks of error, since it distinguishes mbas from ‘HQAIOTOs——the Greek inscription containing both terms. Thus, in the second line, Ptolemy Epiphanes is compared both to Vulcan and the Sun. ΚΥΡΙΟΥ ΤΡΙΑΚΟΝ. ΤΑΕΤΗΡΙΔΩΝ ΚΑΘΑΠΕΡ Ο ΗΦΑΙΣΤΟΣ Ο ΜΕΓΑΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ

[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]



Ir falt

Then the


at the



ΚΑΘΑΠΕΡ Ο ΗΛΙΟΣ ΜΕΓΑΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΤΕ ΑΝΩ ΚΑΙ ΤΩΝ ΚΑΤΩ ΧΩΡΩΝ ΕΚΓΟΝΟΥ ΘΕΩΝ ΦΙΛΟΠΑΤΟΡΩΝ ON Ο ΗΦΑΙΣΤΟΣ ΕΔΟΚΙΜΑΣΕΝ Ω Ο ΗΛΙΟΣ ΕΔΩΚΕΝ ΤΗΝ NIKHN. And as the name phas is afterwards found—IITOAEΜΑΙΟΥ ΑΙΩΝΟΒΙΟΥ ΗΓΑΙΙΗΜΕΝΟΥ ΥΠΟ ΤΟΥ ΦΘΑ-it is inferred , that 'HQAICtos and glas should not be confounded. But admitting this, if p9a or phas be an Egyptian térm, the question recurs, Why substitute Abnouda for it?

The names of Isis and Osiris being found in the Greek inscription, lines 10 and 26, M. de Sacy looks for them also in the Egyptian, and, as he persuades himself, discovers them conjoined twice in the 6th line, once in the 12th, and, particularly Osiris, in lines 7, 10, 11, 20, 21, 29, and 30: that of Isis, he observes, occurs also several times, but without Osiris connected with it. The repetition of these names induces our author to believe, unless the illusion of fancy has misled him, that he has developed also the conjunction that joins them.

I know not,' adds he, if I can communicate that kind of conviction which I feel, of having ascertained these two words; for I am conscious that it rests entirely on simple conjectures, and especially as the name which I have substituted for that of Osiris is attended with considerable difficulties: but having promised nothing but conjectures more or less probable, I shall freely state what I think I have found.'

Premising then that, for these names, he reads Isi oub Osnib, the following observations are added upon them:

1. We certainly have here two proper names, each beginning with a capital.

2. The second letter of each name is a schin, the value of which is known from the name of Arsinoë.

3. In the Greek inscription, line 10, Isis is placed before Osiris - ΚΑΘΑΠΕΡ ΩΡΟΣ Ο ΤΗΣ ΙΣΙΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΟΣΙΡΙΔΟΣ TIO£; and the same reading occurs in line 26. It is natural therefore to find the same order in the Egyptian inscription.

4. The forın which I attribute to the capital jod may be justified to a certain point by the figure of that letter in the Samaritan alphabet, n,' and on different Phoenician monuments, where it is formed by three inclined strokes: the jod, especially of Pococke's inscriptions, reversed, approaches very nearly to this. On an Asmonean medal, in the name of Mattathias, the jod is formed like a capital Z, which is precisely the shape of the jod in question:

5. The third letter of the word Isi may be the vowel i, or y, if there were a particular letter in this Egyptian alphabet to express the latter, as has been before observed on the word Epiphanes.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

• 6. The two letters that follow, not belonging to the name of Isis, '

must be considered as constituting the conjunction copulative, and frequently occur throughout the inscription. Of these the former is a vau, signifying and, and is the conjunction copulative of all the Oriental languages. No determinate value is annexed to the latter, as it never offers itself in any other of the words deciphered. But the Coptic language comes here to my aid; and as in it we use oro, according to the Memphitic dialect, to express the conjunction and, I consider this letter as nothing more than the aspirate hori It is singular to find this pronunciation of the conjunction in the northern languages: thus we have og in the Danish and Islandic, och in the Swedish, and in the Gothic of Ulphilas the conjunction is jah,

7. That the capital letter which follows is an o or vau, and performs the function of a vowel, as in the conjunction, will be readily admitted, if it be adverted to that its form is very analogous to the Samaritan 3, and the Phoenician vau, on different monuments.

8. After the schin, which makes the second letter of the name Osiris, comes a letter whose value, from the name of Epiphanes, can be no other than a nun. Next occur two strokes, sometimes united, at others separate; as is evident from lines 29 and 30.

If these strokes form but one letter, M. de Sacy professes himself ignorant of their import; but if they be two, the first he apprehends to be i ory, and the second the aspiration 2, as in the conjunction ouh.

As it may be a difficulty with others--and M. de Sacy confesses it to be one with himself-satisfactorily to identify the word which is to be pronounced Osnih or Osnéh (or, if you will, Osinih or Osinih; or, in short, Osn ...., admitting the last letters to be unknown) with the name of Osiris, he frankly professes that there is but one expedient: this is, to admit that the word Osiris is a name altered by the Greeks, and that the primitive pronunciation must have been Osint; the s being only a Greek termination, and the aspiration, as in the other instances, dropped. Precluding any objection that might be offered from the unanimous testimony of the ancients, or the monument of Carpentras, on which some difficulties besides might be raised for it is admitted that the name of Osiris may have undergone this alteration, either among the Phænicians, or even in the vulgar language of Egypt-M. de Sacy alleges only in support of his conjecture, that the ancients have materially varied in explaining the name of Osiris, and the moderns in the etymologies they have offered of it; insisting but little

« ElőzőTovább »