166 Rev. Epwarp Hincxs on the Number, Names, and Powers 
Méudus is a Greek corruption of Mev-vud, or Mev-vude; a termination being 
added, a short vowel omitted, and the labial nasal being substituted for the 
dental one, as more congenial to the labial, which was then made to follow it 
immediately. “Opus, which is given by Plutarch as an epithet of Osiris, is a 
similar corruption of Wov-vuds;, a W, to which the Greeks had no equivalent, 
being dropped, in addition to the preceding changes. But the word vud or 
vugdt, meaning “good,” is itself a corruption. The hieroglyphic word which it 
represents had a final R; and in a Theban transcription, in the fourth line of 
Mr. Grey’s Antigraph, we have this very name written Ov-vodpis. In other 
transcriptions, the latter element is written vedep. ‘The first vowel was pro- 
bably the natural one, already mentioned as occurring in the last syllable of 
Ammon, into which all unaccented vowels have a tendency to pass; and the 
accent was probably on the last syllable when the word stood alone, on the first 
syllable of the compound; ’/ér, Won-n' fer, Mén-n’fer. Now, what depen- 
dence can be placed on transcriptions which give for the last two words such misre- 
presentations as "Opgis and Meudis? As data for investigating the powers of 
the phonoglyphs, they are of no value whatever; and they are of very little 
value in determining their vocalization. 
The few transcriptions that we have in Hebrew characters are quite useless 
for the latter purpose, inasmuch as the Hebrew agrees with the Egyptian in 
omitting vowels. As to the former purpose, their use must be very limited. 
To say nothing of the difference in time between many of these transcriptions 
and the age of the papyri, it is probable that they all express the pronunciation 
of Lower Egypt, rather than of Thebes; they cannot, therefore, be much relied 
on, if in any case there be reason to suspect that the pronunciation of any letter 
was different in different parts of Egypt. Another objection to them is the cir- 
cumstance that seven of the Hebrew letters had a double power. The Masoretes 
have indicated the power which should be given to each letter in each case, 
according to their opinion, by the insertion or omission of Dagesh, or by the 
position of a diacritical point. There is, however, no reason to think that their 
opinion was a correct one. So far from that, the reflex evidence of these tran- 
scriptions shews that the Dagesh was inserted by them very improperly, and 
omitted by them equally so. The royal name, fig. 88, which they have pointed 
