“This apollinean trophy is consecrated to the honour of king ‘remesses,’ crowned with an asp bearing diadem; it is consecrated to the honour of the son of ‘heron,’ the ornament of his country, beloved by phthah, living for ever; it is consecrated to the honour of the revered and beneficient deity ‘remesses,’ great in glory, superior to his enemies; by the decree of an assembly, to the powerful and the flourishing, whose life shall be without end.”

“It is true, that some parts of this interpretation are in great measure conjectural; but none of it is altogether arbitrary, or unsupported by some probable analogy: and the spirit and tenor of the inscription is probably unimpaired by the alterations, which this approximation to the sense may unavoidably have introduced.

“Of the obeliscs, still in existence, there are perhaps about thirty, larger and smaller, which may be considered as genuine. Several others are decidedly spurious, having been chiefly sculptured at Rome, in imitation of the Egyptian style, but so negligently and unskilfully, as to have exhibited a striking difference even in the character of the workmanship. Such are the Pamphilian, in explanation of which the laborious Kircher has published a folio volume, and the Barberinian or Veranian: in both of these the emblems are put together in a manner wholly arbitrary; and when an attempt is made to imitate the appearance of a name, the characters are completely different at each repetition. The Sallustian obelisc has also been broken, and joined inaccurately, and some modern restitutions have been very awkwardly introduced, as becomes evident upon comparing with each other the figures of Kircher and of Zoëga. [A similar restitution has been rather better executed at one corner of the Lateran obelisc, as I observed in the course of a few weeks that I passed at Rome in the summer of 1821: the block of granite, which has been employed, still exhibits some words of a Latin inscription, turned upside down, but not effaced, although the hieroglyphics belonging to the place have been imitated with tolerable fidelity]. Another very celebrated monument, the Isiac table, which has been the subject of much profound discussion, and has given birth to many refined mythological speculations, is equally incapable of supporting a minute examination upon solid grounds; for the inscriptions neither bear any relation to the figures near which they are placed, nor form any connected sense of their own; and the whole is undoubtedly the work of a Roman sculptor, imitating only the general style and the separate delineations of the Egyptian tablets; as indeed some of the most learned and acute of our critical antiquaries had already asserted, notwithstanding the contrary opinion of several foreigners, of the highest reputation for their intimate acquaintance with the works of Greek and Roman art. We may hope, however, that in future these unprofitable discussions and disputes will become less and less frequent, and that our knowledge of the antiquities of Egypt will gain as much in the solidity and sufficiency of its evidence, as it may probably lose in its hypothetical symmetry and its imaginary extent; and while we allow every latitude to legitimate reasoning and cautious conjecture, in the search after historical truths, we must peremptorily exclude from our investigations an attachment to fanciful systems and presupposed analogies on the one hand, and a too implicit deference to traditional authority on the other.”

A few general remarks, that I had taken the liberty of sending out to Mr. William Bankes, for his assistance in his Egyptian researches, had been found of some utility in directing his attention to points of the most material importance for the promotion of the investigation: and even before the actual publication of the Supplement of the Encyclopaedia, I had received from Egypt a very agreeable confirmation of my opinions, in a letter addressed by Mr. Salt to Mr. William Hamilton, of which I shall here insert an extract.

“Cairo, 1st May, 1819.

“At Dakki in Nubia there is an inscription of the Ptolemies, over the principal entrance, that occupies a place evidently connected with the architecture; and on each side of this is a tablet of hieroglyphics, nearly similar one to the other. Now it struck me on the spot, that these, being nearly of the same length as the Greek tablet, might possibly contain a translation. I therefore referred to a letter in Mr. Bankes’s possession, containing some fifty explanations of hieroglyphics from Dr. Young, and was certainly gratified to find that in the oval [ring], conspicuous on each side, was the name of the “immortal Ptolemy”: and immediately afterwards the name of Hermes on one side, and of Isis on the other, to whom, by numerous Greek inscriptions, it is certain that the temple was dedicated. In following up this idea, I found, in other parts of the temple, the name of “Ptolemy“ without the “immortal,” over offering figures; and also those hieroglyphics which Dr. Young supposes to represent the names of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, as well as Hermes, over their respective figures, invariably, I may say, throughout the numerous representations on the walls....

H.S.”

Upon Mr. Bankes’s return to England, he had the kindness and liberality to allow me free access to the unequalled treasures of drawings and inscriptions, that he had accumulated and brought home; and I soon obtained a knowledge of several additional characters from the comparison of these valuable documents. The most useful of these was the symbol for BROTHER or SISTER, which appears to be the crook generally seen in the hands of Osiris, and which is closely imitated in the enchorial character that I had already ascertained. I found, also, that the emblem which I had taken for MOTHER could only be translated WIFE, as it was applied to Cleopatra with relation to her husband Ptolemy; and that a FATHER was denoted by a bird with an arm, as I had at first inferred from the pillar of Rosetta, though I afterwards abandoned the opinion, from supposing that I had found another emblem for Ptolemy Philopator. It happened, however, by mere accident, that the advantage which I derived from this source was much less considerable than might have been expected, both from its abundance and from its uncontaminated purity; but I had been rather disposed to defer the ultimate study of Mr. Bankes’s collections, till their publication should give me a free right to employ them in any manner that I might think proper. Some remarks, however, that occurred to me in consequence of looking them over, I incorporated in a little essay which I gave to Mr. Belzoni, and which makes the appendix to the second edition of his travels. I have here observed, in speaking of the reference of the supposed Jewish captives, exhibited in the catacomb of my “Psammis,” to the expeditions of Necho to Jerusalem, in the time of King Josiah and Jehoahaz, “that there are some difficulties in reconciling the name of Psammis with some other monuments, and in particular with a most important fragment of an enumeration of the kings of Egypt, discovered by Mr. Bankes, at Abydos. In this there are only two kings intervening between this Psammis and the Memnon of the ancients: so that, if Pliny is right in his account of this obelisc, the popular tradition respecting the colossus, supposed to represent Memnon, must be erroneous. This, indeed, it would not be difficult to admit, as very likely to have happened in the case of any popular tradition; but there is a still greater difficulty in the inscription found by Mr. Bankes on the leg of the colossus at Ebsambul, in which Psammetichus is mentioned; and if this was the first Psammetichus, as appears in some respects to be the more probable, it would follow that the king who founded that temple was more ancient than Psammetichus. But it is abundantly certain that our Psammis was prior to the founder of that temple: so that either that Psammetichus must be of much later date, as the employment of the Greek Ψ in the inscription would indeed appear to indicate, or this catacomb was not constructed in honour of the son of Pharaoh Necho. It has also been observed by an accomplished scholar, who is much attached to the pursuit of Egyptian antiquities, that, according to the testimony of Herodotus, all the kings of this dynasty were buried at Saïs, and that we must either reject this evidence, or admit that neither Psammis nor Necho can be the personage here represented. We may, however, hope, that future researches will furnish us with materials, that may enable us to remove this and many other difficulties, which at present envelope the chronology of the kings of Egypt.”

CHAPTER IV
COLLECTIONS OF THE FRENCH. MR. DROVETTI. MR. CHAMPOLLION’S DISCOVERIES.

Although the discovery of the general import of the hieroglyphics has by no means excited any great sensation in this country, yet the activity of the various collectors resident in Egypt seems to have been in some measure stimulated by it. Important additions have been made, or are about to be made, to the Egyptian department of the British Museum; and in France, the magnificent liberality of the Government, together with the insatiable curiosity of some affluent individuals, has held out ample encouragement to the commercial antiquarian.