210 Rev. Epwarp Hincxs on the Number, Names, and Powers 
very often ; and it is important to attend to the different manners in which it is 
written, as they will, I think, determine the value of the onion. It is in the sin- 
gular S*UT (fig. 153, Gr. p. 285), and in the plural *UT (fig. 154, Gr. 
p- 459), or *CU (fig. 155, Gr. p. 258). These are all modifications of the 
same word, as is evident from the context; it does not imply causation, whence 
the S in fig. 153 must be radical; and the U at the end of fig. 155 is the affor- 
mative of the plural, implied by the three bars at the end of fig. 154. This 
variety can only be accounted for, and it is perfectly accounted for, by supposing 
that the onzon was equivalent to the three characters S, U, or W, and T, or C, 
which in this particular word happen to be interchanged ; or, in other words, that 
it was, when used phonetically, a form of SW (see No. 51,) only used in the 
word before us and its derivatives. I read, then, the word SWiC, or SWiT; 
I suppose that the Sahidic coert is its representative ; but that the word, which 
Champollion reads thus, being in the causative conjugation, ought to be read with 
a double 8, SeSWiT. How far this root may be connected with the Sanscrit 
s'véta I do not pretend to say. 
The other instances of interchange require less remark. The verb signifying 
‘“to hate”’ is, I believe, always written MeST, with the hand, in the age of the 
papyri. On the other hand, in the second period it is written for the most part 
MeSC, with the long serpent. The word signifying “‘liquor’’ is generally writ- 
ten with a peculiar character ; but on the sarcophagus of Seti I. (S. E. I. 65, 
midd, div., and again 66 midd. div.) it is written with an initial hand, TeSReT. 
There can be no mistake about this word, as it occurs in a formula of frequent 
occurrence, which has in other places the peculiar letter, alone or with S 2, 
in place of the first syllable TeS. Now im a stele in the Louvre anterior to the 
twelfth dynasty, this word is written with an initial Jong serpent, CeSReT, Lep- 
sius, 1x. 5. 
These facts, I admit, if they stood alone, would be powerful arguments in 
favour of the equivalence of the long serpent with the letters of T power ; but, 
considering the serious, if not insurmountable, difficulties in the way of admitting 
this supposition, it may be well to consider whether they may not be otherwise 
accounted for. It appears that in all these words the long serpent was first used ; 
that it was superseded in course of time by the T, and that the latter alone appears 
in the Coptic. sxecTe, “to hate,” is certainly the representative of one of the 
