SEYFFARTH EGYPTIAN THEOLOGY. 79 



kind as to demonstrate his thesis practically, by translating, gram- 

 matically and logically, our astronomo- theological inscription, 

 but strictly in accordance with Champollion's requirements. He 

 is bound to take those 82 hieroglyphs half for ideologic, half for 

 alphabetic signs ; further, to attribute to no hieroglyph a syllabic 

 value ; finally, to pronounce Champollion's phonetic hieroglyphs, 

 as he has done in his Grammar and other works, and not to recur 

 to the Hebrew language ; — for these are the principal rules of the 

 "great master's" system. Should Prof. Ebers, however, fail to 

 accept this public challenge, and deny satisfaction to the injured 

 truth, then I shall, in the name of the whole scientific world, call 

 him simply a calumniator and cheat. 



In conclusion, I cannot forbear to remind the Rev. P. Le Page 

 Renouf, a member of the Catholic University of Ireland, of the 

 provocation published in these Transactions, vol. i. i860, p. 569, 

 to wit, this most refined pasquilant among the greatest lampoon- 

 ers having crowned Champollion's system in '"Atlantis, a Register 

 of Literature and Science, conducted by members of the Catholic 

 University of Ireland" (London, 1859, '^^^' "^- P- 74)' bbelled my 

 own theory, e.g. thus : " Seyftarth's theory is fundamentally un- 

 sound, and simply illusory"; "it is apparently impossible to learn 

 or teach it"j " if this be the key, it would be a sufficient answer 

 to say, that with such an instrument it would be as possible to 

 decipher texts as to open real doors with an ideal key"; " there 

 is no arguing with people who talk such nonsense," and the like. 

 These false invectives were rebuked at the end of my treatise, 

 concerning the funeral papyrus, once in possession of Gen. Geo. 

 A. Stone of Roxbury, found on the body of the same Egyptian 

 general with whom King Shishak, in 945 B.C., conquered Pales- 

 tine. My provocation (p. 569), soon after transmitted to P. 

 Renouf, reads thus : " In case the representative of the " ortho- 

 dox school" should not succeed in translating and explaining the 

 sixteen lithographed pages, in a satisfactory manner, according 

 to Champollion's principles. Grammar and Dictionary, then I 

 shall ask the learned world to take the reverend reviewer for a 

 gross and shameless calumniator." Nevertheless, the latter has 

 from i860 to this day neglected to translate the said parts of 

 Stone's Papyrus according to "the orthodox system"; wherefore 



