in the triple Inscriptions of the Persians, &c. 291 
to decipher the second group of the cuneiform title, 2-e-r-e, and interpret it 
either ‘valiant,’ or ‘Arien;’* yet, upon this weak authority, Champollion con- 
fidently read what he assumed to be the corresponding Egyptian expression, 
that is, the five hieroglyphs under discussion, 7-r-e-n-a, or i-7-ie-n-o, and assigned 
to their combination the meaning of ¢ Persian.’ The first step of this process 
being now on all sides abandoned, the remaining ones dependent thereon must 
be equally rejected ; but, I must add, Champollion’s part of the investigation 
bears, even on the very face of it, the marks of its unsoundness. I do not allude 
to this author’s assigning here to the bird with expanded wings the phonetic 
value of e or ze, and giving it elsewhere, as M. Klaproth has observed, that of 
p3t because this latter application of it is not before us. But, confining our at- 
tention to the collection of characters now under view, the slightest consideration 
must show the inconsistency of using the sceptre in one place with the power of 7, 
and in another part of the very same collection with that of m. Moreover, allow- 
ing for a moment that this collection could be read Lrena, or Irieno, no proof 
is offered of this beimg the Coptic or ancient Egyptian term for ‘a Persian,’ nor, 
indeed, is there any trace of either series of articulate sounds constituting a Coptic 
word at all. At present the combination of hieroglyphs in question is read 
Erpra, and interpreted ‘great,’ with fewer blunders, indeed, than before, but 
with no better success in the course of the investigations leading to these results. 
With respect to the process of deciphering resorted to, the sceptre, it is true, 
has not here appropriated to it two inconsistent powers; but the phonetic values 
of the first and third, supposing them to be ever used as letters, are not satisfac- 
torily established ; and, even could it be proved that the entire five admitted of 
being correctly read Erpra, there yet is no such Coptic word extant,—at least, 
no one like it is to be found in Peyron’s or Tattam’s Dictionary. Again, with 
regard to the interpretation, it is, I grant, made out with a high degree of proba- 
bility, that the second group of the cuneiform title means ‘great;’ but still the 
inference that the hieroglyphic combination under discussion also means ‘ great,’ 
entirely fails; because, though one of the premises from which this inference is 
* See Memoires de l’ Académie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, tom. xii. seconde 
Partie, pp. 129, 130. 
t See Précis du Systéme Hieroglyphique, premiére Edition, p. 179. 
t See Examen Critique, &c., par M. Klaproth, pp. 30-32. 
202 
