was

on what is advanced by Herodotus, that Osiris is the same as Dionysius in Greek: Όσιρις δε εστι Διόνυσος κατ ̓ Ἑλλαδα γλωσσαν. Among the many explications which the ancients have given of this name, the most commonly adopted is πολυοφθαλμος ; ΟΣ, according to Plutarch, signifying much, and IPI, an eye-but this is scarcely admissible, at least from what we know of the ancient language of Egypt through the Coptic; for in that, though ocy signify much, yet eye is expressed by Bad. Hence M. de Sacy offers his suspicion that Plutarch's etymology is founded on a mixture, of Phoenician and Egyptian; and the name of Osiris rather came from ou, much, and be saw, as if this barbarous mixture formed carpe, who sees much or it may be conjectured further that this name formed from the two Egyptian words, oy, much, and top&, the pupil of the eye. From the assurance of Plutarch, that the name of Osiris has many significations, but especially an efficacious and beneficent energy τούνομα πολλα βράζει, ουχ ήκιστα δε κρατος ενεργούν και αγαθοποιον Jablonski has sought its etymology on the two Coptic words, o, much, and Ips, to act—a derivation which, of all the others proposed by him, M. de Sacy most approves; but, adverting to that of Salmasius, who would pronounce the name Usiris, apprehending it to be the Coptic word нрr son, preceded by the indefinite o, he recurs to Plutarch for another derivation, cited from a writer who pretends the true name of the God to have been Agraons, or, admitting what is styled a very probable correction, Arigis, as signifying vigor, to ANAPEION. But as these several readings and etymologies all suppose a g in the last syllable, if the pronunciation be admitted which seems to result from the inscription, as deciphered by M. de Sacy, it may, he adds, be conjectured that Osnih or Osneh comes from o, much, and ere, an age; or from ocy, much, and own, illumination. To facilitate the admission of these derivations, it is observed, that in the Coptic the vowels of derivatives very frequently vary from those of their radicals-a circumstance noticed the rather, as suggesting a more systematic form which might be introduced into the Lexicons of that language, by arranging words according to their radicals, as in those of the Hebrew.

Returning to his subject, M. de Sacy concludes that the name of Osiris, or Osinis, written in Egyptian oyre, and pronounced one, or oying, may signify abundance ef life, or duration; or else, deriving it from orwng, of which the primitive root is wr2, abundance of light. To favour the last etymology, the name of Heliopolis, in the books of Moses,

is urged, as apparently demonstrating that ON, in the Egyptian, signified the Sun; and St. Cyril is quoted as an authority of great weight, who asserts positively, in his commentary on Hosea, that, according to the mythology of the Egyptians, Apis is the son of the Moon, and descendant from the Sun. In their language, or signifies the Sun.' That in the Coptic the Sun is commonly styled pH, and also that there is reason to suppose this was his ancient name, M. de Sacy very readily allows; but contends that he might have been as well designated by the word own, which signifies to manifest, show, appear, enlighten; and further supposes that it is the true etymology of the name of Ammon, Horwng, formed from 2, characterising the adjective, and own, he that manifests or enlightens;-and every thing that Jablonski has advanced on this subject is referred to, as justifying the etymology proposed.

Though M. de Sacy still professes to doubt, after all he has offered on the name of Osiris, he cannot forbear adding another argument, which appears to himself of considerable weight, inasmuch as it almost justifies the substitution of forg in the name, and well accords with the interpretation given by Plutarch of its signification. N&, in Coptic, signifies to see; and if the permutation of vowels be admitted, there would be no difficulty in deriving the word Osinih from oy, much, and П, to see; nor in rendering it by movoplanos.

The same pronunciation will indicate, perhaps, the reason, as our author conjectures, of the signification To avôgelov; for in the Chaldee, ouschan, w, or ouschna, NV, and in the Syriac ouschno, Loa, is of the same import. This word existed, M. de Sacy thinks, indisputably in the Phoenician, probably in the Egyptian, and might easily be regarded as the radical of Osinih.

In the discussions here offered upon the name of Osiris, several positions occur, to which we cannot accede. Some of our objections may be anticipated from the preceding remarks; but as this article unavoidably extends to a considerable length, and the subject of it will again come under notice, we are for the present obliged to postpone them.

The name of Egypt, after appearing in the Greek inscription, M. de Sacy sought for in the Egyptian, and could scarcely suspect that he had not found it in XH, which is that given it by the Copts, which sometimes occurs in the Hebrew Scriptures, and was recognised in his time by St. Jerom; or else Misr, the ordinary name of Egypt among the Hebrews, Syrians, and other Orientals, with whom our author`includes

the Phoenicians. Entertaining, however, some doubts as to the value of the letter he had taken for a resch, and having no reason to believe that Egypt had ever been, called Misr by its own inhabitants, he was led from this last observation-joined to the presumption that the word should be read Misr, in the order of writing from right to left, and the form of most of the letters whose import he had determined-to another conjecture, which he here mentions for the sake of combating, as he had previously communicated it to some learned foreigners. Accordingly he states, that, recollecting in an ecclesiastical writer the mention of several cities in Lower Egypt which spoke Phoenician, as this monument was found in that district, he conjectured that the inscription which he had termed Egyptian was perhaps really Phenician. This was deemed not inconsistent with the decree which ordained, in the Greek, that it should be engraven in three kinds of characters-the sacred, ΙΕΡΟΙΣ, local, ΕΓΧΩΡΙΟΙΣ, and Greek, ΕΛΛΕΝΙΚΟΙΣ ; understanding by local the particular character of each province. But on reading St. Cyril more attentively, he was convinced that the language of Lower Egypt was not to be taken for Phoenician; but only that in five cities in that district, of which Rhinocorura was one, the Phoenician was spoken in concurrence with the Egyptian, and that more attention was paid to the former; the introduction of which into this part of Egypt St. Cyril attributes to a colony of Jews:-Ai TgOS TOIS TEGATI της Αίγυπτε πόλεις πρώτον παραδέχονται ΤΟ ΣΩΤΗΡΙΟΝ ΚΗΡΥΓΜΑ· πεντε δε αὗται ὧν δη και πρωτην είναι φαμεν την νυνι Ρινοκορουρήτων, λαλεσι μεν και τη γλώσση ΧΑΝΑΝΙΤΙΔΙ. Εσπουδασται γαρ τοις εν ταυταις ταις πόλεσιν, ουχί της Αιγυπτιων φωνης μετα ποιεισθαι τοσούτον, όσον της Σύρων. The cities on the confines of Egypt first received the preaching of the Gospel. Five of these, of which Rhinocorura is first, speak also (that is, beside the Egyptian) the language of Chanaan: for the inhabitants of these cities are less solicitous in cultivating the Egyptian language than that of the Syrians.

Since nothing could be drawn from this passage by M. de Sacy to support his first conjectures, it followed of course that the character of the inscription was to be regarded as Egyptian, and of the kind which Herodotus has styled δημοτικα γραμματα, popular, or vulgar, in contradistinction to the sacred, iɛga; as these, ΙΕΡΟΙΣ, are opposed to local, ΕΓΧΩΡΙΟΙΣ. And having suggested that the order of the Egyptian inscription is from right to left, like the Hebrew, on the authority of the same historian, our author proceeds to point out the error of Wilkins, who, in his dissertation De Lingua Coptica, at the end of the Lord's Prayer by Chamberlayne (p. 85), regards this assertion of the father of history as one of the fables which Diodorus

Siculus reproaches Herodotus with having too lightly adopted. It is also proper, he adds, to observe that the remark of Hero dotus applies equally to the two kinds of writing used by the Egyptians; for he almost immediately subjoins, Apatinio de γραμμασι χρέωνται. Και τα μεν αυτών, ΙΡΑ, τα δε, ΔΗΜΟΤΙΚΑ xasTa-that the one is called the sacred, and the other the vulgar.

Člemens of Alexandria, in a passage that may be looked upon as classical, attributes to the Egyptians three kinds of writing. • Those among the Egyptians who are brought up to learning acquire, in the first place, that mode of writing which is called epistolographic; next, the hieratic, which is used by the hiero grammatists; and, lastly, the most perfect, which is the hiero glyphic.' If this account appear to differ from that of Hero dotus and Diodorus Siculus, who speak only of two kinds, it is, as our author observes, easy to reconcile them; nor is it necessary, with Wilkins, to suppose that, under the name of epistolographic, Clemens is to be understood as speaking of the Greek character; for the two historians are better explained by the passage of the father to have intended, under the name of vulgar writing, in opposition to the sacred or hieroglyphic, the two kinds of hieratic and epistolographic. These two kinds, in reality, have this in common, that they were never regarded as sacred, and that the knowledge of them was never ranked among the mysteries of religion, though the one were of universal usage, and the other peculiar to the ministers of religion, It is likewise obvious to imagine that these denominations, belonging to an age posterior to Herodotus, were copied by Diodorus at a time when the knowledge of hieroglyphics was entirely lost; and imply that, at the epoch when hieroglyphic writing had sunk into disuse, the priests, accustomed to wrap up from the vulgar a knowledge of their mysteries, would adopt a mode of writing, whether alphabetic or syllabic, different from that used in ordinary life. Hence the name of hieratic might be given to distinguish it from the vulgar or runninghand, distinguished by the name of epistolographic.

The introduction of this half-sacred sort of writing, M. de Sacy conjectures, might have occasioned the total oblivion into which hieroglyphic writing fell, as being both more easy to learn, and more commodious to write.

But no farther to indulge conjecture, it is concluded, from a passage of Plutarch, that the vulgar character of the Egyptians was composed of twenty-five letters; for that author observes, that the square of five gives the exact number of Egyptian letters, and years in the life of Apis. The inscription however under consideration gives more, probably, one while, because the same letter may have been formed of detached strokes; at

another, several letters may have been joined by the graver. To which be added:

1. That, as there are capital letters and small, the number of their figures are doubled.

2. That there may be some supernumerary letters, foreign to the Egyptian and borrowed from the Greek, such as in the name of Alexander, and perhaps the vowels ɛ and 7.

ε

3. That many letters may be supposed to have varied in their form, accordingly as they are joined or detached, initial or final: of this the Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic, abound with examples. also be in it abbreviations or monograms. Of 4. There may the letters which enter not into any word M. de Sacy has med, dled with, some occur that still appear to remain in the Coptic; these are the †, Dei, and the X, genga.'

After remarking that little or no similitude is discoverable between the characters of this inscription, and those on the mummies, published by Montfaucon and count Caylus, our author ventures to think, of the words he has endeavoured to decipher, no doubt will remain in respect to the names Alexander, Alexandria, Ptolemy, Arsinoë, and Epiphanes: and as these words in themselves supply a considerable number of letters, so they present another datum, which is, that the Egyptian inscription is by no means a literal translation of the Greek; for the names of Ptolemy and Arsinoë are said to recur more often in the Egyptian than in the Greek; and the places where these two names are found in the inscriptions do not appear to correspond.

In attending also to the many epithets and titles of honour ascribed to Ptolemy Epiphanes, who is styled ΑΙΩΝΟΒΙΟΣ, ΗΓΑΠΗΜΕΝΟΣ ΥΠΟ ΤΟΥ ΦΘΑ, ΘΕΟΣ ΕΠΙΦΑΝΗΣ ΕΥΧΑPIETOE; and the different intervals of the space, in particular parts of the inscription, between the name of Ptolemy Epiphanes and those of his father and mother Ptolemy and Arsinoë; M. de Sacy induced to believe that the Egyptian style is less emphatic than the Greek, and points out a passage to prove it. But, with proper deference, we would ask, If the anomalies thus noticed do not suggest a doubt, whether these names have after all been really ascertained?

Reverting again to the Greek inscription, several other proper names are pointed out besides those supposed to have been found in the Egyptian; such are the names of the highpriest consecrated to the worship of Alexander and the Ptolemies, the priestesses presiding over the worship of the queens Arsinoë wife of Philadelphus, Arsinoë wife of Philopator, and Berenice wife of Euergetes, which appear in the 4th and 5th lines:ΕΦ ΙΕΡΕΩΣ ΛΕΤΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΔΕ ΤΟΥ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΩΝ