SEYFFARTH THE HIEROGLYPHIC TABLET OF POMPEIUM. 277 



is urgently requested to answer the following questions, without 

 which the truth will never come to light. 



I. Is it true that Ch. discovered the key to the Egyptian litera- 

 ture, or is it false what the Champollionists honestly confessed 

 in 1S45 (Bunsen's Egypt; see also the passage p. 197 in the pre- 

 mises), that it is absolutely impossible to grammatically translate 

 any entire hieroglyphic text by means of Ch's theory ? Is it true 

 that the latter was, in this respect, a complete failure, as two in- 

 telligent Egyptologists, Prof M. Uhleman in Gottingen and Prof. 

 H. Wultke in Leipzig, have constantly maintained? Is it a fact 

 that Ch., from 1S24 down to his death in 1832, failed to translate 

 the bilingual R. S. by means of his theory ? Is it true that the 

 great Ch't B. could not interpret, with the exception of two words, 

 the Pompeian Tablet? Is it true that G. could not translate 79 

 words of the Pompeian Tablet notwithstanding Ch's " Key " to 

 the Egyptian literature, and that his interpretation of the remain- 

 ing 330 words of the same text contains downright nonsense? 

 Has the bilingual Tanis Stone, discovered 42 years after the pub- 

 lication of Ch's Precis, confirmed or refuted this system.? — It is to 

 iDe taken into consideration that L. could not translate 440 hiero- 

 glyphs of the T. S. at all ; that he adopted Ch's 201 phonetic 

 hieroglyphs without knowing that 93 had turned out to be wrong ; 

 in consequence of which he brought out a great many monster- 

 words occurring neither in the Coptic nor in any other language 

 of the world, e.g.' aaan^ cynocephalus ; aaaiu, time; aaau^ 

 arms ; uau^ to well ; uaa^ swearing ; tuau^ praising ; ou^ all ; 

 oau^ office ; oou^ dignity ; aa^ chief; u^ way ; oau^ flesh ; and a 

 legion of similar chimeras in Brugsch's Dictionary. The same 

 interpreter of the same inscription translated, according to Ch's 

 system, Cyprus by " Phoenicia," Phoenicia by " Cyprus" (-|insX3 

 kapthor), Chaldea by "of it," Asia by "valley,'" Syria by 

 " Ruten," Greek by "book," demotic by " Greek," and so on. 

 Moreover, at the same time another translation of the T. S. 

 appeared, that of Reinisch, which, though based upon the same 

 system of Ch., totally differs from L. These practical proofs will 

 certainly enable every sane man to answer the question, whether 

 Ch's theory is the key to the Egyptian literature or not. Ch. has 

 his merits, but it is shameful to change a mosquito into an ele- 

 phant. Let us now come to Ch's fundamental mistakes. 



