liS Fragments on Egyptian Literature, 



to belong to it. Not only did he cause this genealogical table 

 to be constructed in his palace, but among the titles in his first 

 oval he selected '* of the race of the Siin*," in addition to 

 the matter-of-course " Son of the Sun," between his ovals. 

 It is remarkable, that in this particular he was afterwards imi- 

 tated by Shishonk, who, it can scarcely be questioned, became 

 the founder of a dynasty by usurpation or conquestf. 



iv. Hieroglyphical Tablet commemorative of Julius C(Esar. 

 —In M. Champollion's letter to M. Dacier, atid Mr. Salt's 

 Essay, there is a tolerably complete series of the names of the 

 Roman emperors, from Augustus to Commodus. Some inac- 

 curacies occur, indeed, in both of these publications, espe- 

 cially in Mr. Salt's % ; but, in general, the readings published 

 are correct. M. ChampoUion, in his Egyptian tour, has con- 

 tinued the series, having read the names of Severus and Geta ; 

 and it is probable, that some of the names " Antoninus," 

 which occur on the temples, may be intended for the emperor 

 whom we call Caracalla. 



* So the concluding qualification is now interpreted by M. ChampoUion, as 

 appears by his letters from Egypt. In his Precis he explained it Jo be " approved 

 by the Sun." I presume he has good grounds for his present opinion, but am 

 ignorant what they are ; those assigned for his former one were so weak, that I 

 never assented to it. I was disposed to interpret the unknown combination of cha- 

 racters " belonging to," or " a votary of," — equivalent to the PT at the com- 

 mencement of some proper names ; but, considering the advantages M. Cham- 

 poUion enjoys in Egypt, 1 readily yield to his corrected opinion. 



f The fact of Shishonk being the founder of a new dynasty, for which we have 

 the express testimony of Manetho, explains an apparent inconsistency in the sacred 

 writings, as has been already remarked in the Christian Examiner for January, 

 1829. Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh ; yet Solomon's enemy, Jero- 

 boam, fled for refuge from him to the court of Shishak, king of Egypt, by whom 

 he was favourably received. This Shishak, it is observed, was of a new family, 

 tmconnected with Solomon, and who had probably dethroned his brother-in-law. 

 There may be some weight also in the remark which is there made, that the reason 

 why the Jewish historians do not call this prince " Pharaoh," as they do the other 

 kings of Egypt, was, that they considered him to be an usurper, and consequently 

 to have no right to that title, which, without regarding its interpretation in the 

 Egyptian language, was understood by foreigners to denote " the legitimate sove- 

 reign of Egypt." 



J The principal errors in Mr. Salt's explanations are the following : — the two first 

 shields in his fig. 19, are not "Marcus Verus," but " Lucius Aurelius/' (LUKI 

 AURLI;) fig. 21 is not "Adrian," but " CElius," (ALI,) with a qualification 

 that 1 may hereafter explain ; fig. 23 is certainly not " Verus," it is badly executed 

 or copied, but seems to have been intended for '• CElius," (ALIOS.) Mr. Salt 

 was reluctant to read characters as L, which he considered to represent R ; and 

 he confounded the characters for A and U : the two latter are always distinguished 

 in foreign proper names, while the two former are represented by the same cha- 

 tacters indiscriminately. It is to these two mistakes that the false interpretations 

 of the ingenious and lamented gentleman are principaUy to be attributed. 



