SEYFFARTH THE HIEROGLYPHIC TABLET OF POMPEIUM. 293 



1837. Moreover, the latter has never discovered that the syllabic 

 glyphs expressed the consonants contained in the name of the 

 figure ; his theory v^as the following. In earlier times the Egyp- 

 tians expressed some words of their spoken language by two 

 alphabetic characters, but afterwards they dropped the second 

 sign, and hence the remaining first obtained syllabic value. This 

 theory is as foolish as the writer's first idea concerning the sylla- 

 bic values of the hieroglyphs. So far as the assertion is concerned 

 that Champollion discovered the first syllabic glyphs in 1832, I 

 do not know whether the year 1832 precedes 1826 or vice versa. 

 Moreover, in the same aforesaid articles Ebers informs his read- 

 ers, both that Champollion discovered the first syllabic hiero- 

 glyphs, and that Lepsius discovered the same "denied by Cham- 

 pollion." I do not venture to decide in what place Ebers told 

 the truth, and where he asserted the reverse of truth. Neverthe- 

 less great Ebers impresses upon his faithful readers that S. (the 

 writer) has stolen Champollion's or Lepsius's discovery. I won- 

 der that a Professor of the University of Leipzig did not blush in 

 uttering such a defamation. 



3. The same Champollionist maintains that " the great mas- 

 ter's theory" is put beyond question by numberless translations. 

 This is another cheat; for translations of Egyptian texts without 

 commentaries, without reducing every word to reliable roots and 

 grammatical certainties, prove nothing. For instance, Kircher 

 translated all the Roman obelisks, and yet at the present time all 

 the Egyptologists know that Kircher's seven volumes in folio do 

 not contain one word of truth. Goodwin's translation of the Pom- 

 peian slab contains, as we have seen, only four words correctly 

 explained. Birch's version of the Todtenbuch, to which Ebers 

 had recourse, decides nothing as long as a grammatical commen- 

 tary is not added. Lepsius's and Reinisch's translations of the 

 Tanis-stone totally difier from each other ; their commentaries, 

 promised eleven years ago, are still to be expected. All the trans- 

 lations of Egyptian texts in " Records of the Past," in French 

 journals, even in Ebers' translations of his medical papyrus, 

 wherein he took "Lagerbier" for a medicine and "honey" for a 

 medical plant, prove nothing in favor of Champollion's theory. 

 The latter being the true key to the Egyptian literature, how 

 came it to pass that the great author of an Egyptian Dictionary 



