162 Rev. Epwarp Hincxs on the Number, Names, and Powers 
different kind from what I now recommend would have to be consulted. But I 
avail myself of the labours of Champollion and my other predecessors. It might 
be said with truth of Champollion’s alphabet, and may be said with greater 
reason of Chevalier Bunsen’s, that the powers assigned to most of the letters are 
correct, or nearly so. In some few instances, the power of a character has been 
altogether mistaken; in several others it has been slightly so; while in many 
cases it has been correctly given. What I propose now to do is to re-examine 
all the characters, aided by the new principle that I have explained, and, availing 
myself of new data, preferable in some important respects to those that have 
been previously in use, to seek the exact powers which they had. 
The precaution which I have first to point out is, that these powers should 
be investigated at a particular time and place. Other investigators have pro- 
ceeded as if the Egyptian letters had the same powers in all parts of Egypt, and 
in all ages. This, however, ought not to be taken for granted. The difference 
between the dialects of the Coptic language is by no means trifling; and as the 
Memphitic and Theban monuments exhibit many Egyptian words, written with 
the same phonoglyphs, which correspond to words that were different in the 
Memphitic and Theban dialects, it seems plain that some phonoglyphs must, 
before they were superseded by the Coptic letters, have been differently sounded 
at Thebes and at Memphis. Again, Egyptian words were transcribed differ- 
ently by different Greek writers. The name of the builder of the great pyramid 
was called by Herodotus Xéoy, and by Manetho Zovdis. To say nothing of 
the latter parts of these names, which were variously modified by these authors, 
in order to reduce them toa Greek form, it is plain that the initial letter of this 
name, the sieve, was pronounced by the informant of Herodotus as the Greek X, 
or in a manner not very dissimilar; while Manetho was in the habit of pro- 
nouncing it as our SH, which could be best represented by the Greek >. 
Possibly this difference was occasioned by the informant of Herodotus being a 
Theban, while Manetho was a native of Lower Egypt: but it is possible, also, 
that the sound of this letter varied in different ages. In the Theban dialect of 
the Coptic language, as well as in the Memphitic, it was represented in most 
words where it occurred by W, that is, certainly, our SH. This was its common 
equivalent, whether initial, medial, or final; as in ayimte, “to seek,” ceaT, “to 
entangle in a net,” 2cj, “ what,” &c. &c. Occasionally, it was represented by 
