Masonic, Occult and Esoteric Online Library
The Rosetta Stone
By E. A. Wallis Budge
Opinions of Egyptologists on Young and Champollion
In favour of Young.
The first idea of certain hieroglyphics being intended to represent sounds was suggested by Dr. Young, who, from the names of Ptolemy and Berenice, had pointed out nine, which have since proved to be correct; the former taken from the Rosetta inscription, and the latter deduced with singular ingenuity from the enchorial of the same monument. [M. Champollion fils seems to be unwilling to allow this: but the fact is evident; and surely he has accomplished too much to stand in need of assuming to himself the merits of another. Note I, p. I.] Working upon this basis, M. Champollion, with happy success, made out four or five others, as also about thirty synonymes; and by the ingenious application of these, the merit of which is all his own, he has been able to turn to effect the discovery, and to decipher therewith a great number of the names of the Ptolemies and of the Roman emperors . . . . . –SALT, H., Essay on Dr. Young's and M. Champollion's Phonetic System of Hieroglyphics; London, 1825.
Amidst this mass of error and contradiction, the application of the phonetic principle by Young, in 1818, had all the merit of an original discovery . . . . and it was only by a comparison of the three kinds of writing that he traced the name of Ptolemy up in his own way,
In favour of Champollion.
His [Young's] translations, however, are below criticism, being as unfounded as those of Kircher. How far even, in the decipherment, he proceeded correctly, may be doubted. . . . But even here [in interpretation] there is much too incorrect in principle to be of real use; much of it is beneath criticism.–BIRCH, Hieroglyphs, p. 196.
It is even to this day a common habit of Englishmen to couple the name of their countryman, Dr. Thomas Young, with that of Champollion, as sharing with him the glory of this discovery. No person who knows anything of Egyptian philology can countenance so gross an error. . . . . . . But it is not true that he discovered the key to the decipherment of hieroglyphics, or even that his labours assisted Champollion in the discovery. When the key was once discovered and recognized as the true one, it was found that one or two of Young's results were correct. But there was nothing in his method or theory by which he or anyone else could distinguish between his right and his wrong results, or which could lead him or anyone else a single step in advance ., . . . . If anyone has a right to be named in conjunction with Champollion, it is not Young, but Akerblad, to whom he does full justice (as he does indeed to Young himself) at the very beginning of his letter to M. Dacier. –RENOUF, Hibbert Lectures; London, 1880, pp. 12-16.
In favour of Young.
from the demotic into hieratic, into hieroglyphs.—BIRCH, Hieroglyphs, in WILKINSON, The Egyptians, pp. 195, 196.
Fast gleichzeitig mit dem alten Jomard . . . ; hatte Dr. Young das Glück aus den hieroglyphischen Texten die Bezeichnungen für die Einer, Zehner, Hunderte, und Tausende richtig herauszuerkennen und überdies den hieroglyphischen Königsnamen—
ihre entsprechende griechische Form Ptolemaios und Berenike gegenüberzustellen, eine Entdeckung, die ihm allein gebührt und die den Ausgangspunkt der späteren Entzifferungen bilden sollte . . . . . Dr. Young's glückliche Zusammenstellungen der oben aufgeführten ägyptisch-hieroglyphischen Eigennamen mit ihren entsprechenden griechischen Vorbildern sollten ihm plötzlich die Augen öffnen und ihn [i.e., Champollion] auf den rechten Pfad führen.—BRUGSCH, Die Aegyptologie, pp. 9, 11.
Ein solcher Ring mit Hieroglyphen
fand sich nun auch an den betreffenden Stellen der Inschrift von Rosette und er musste den Namen des Ptolemäus bilden. Es war der bekannte englische Naturforscher Thomas Young, der im Jahre 1819
In favour of Champollion.
Sæculi enim hujus et initium usque quum cognitio hieroglyphorum, quibus veteres Aegyptii in sacra dialecto scribenda utebantur, densissimis tenebris scateret, ita quidem ut fere omnia, quæ antea vel eruditissimi hommes summo ingenii acumine explorasse sibi visi sunt, si hodie forte legimus risum vix tenere possimus: hoc lapide detecto postquam omnium animi ad spem enucleandi tandem istud monstruosum et perplexum per tot sæcula quasi involucris involutorum genus signorum arrecti sunt, unus vir Champollio Francogallus exstitit, qui mira sagacitate incredibilique studio adjutus totam hieroglyphorum rationem nulla fere parte relicta luce clarius explanavit et exposuit.—BRUGSCH, Inscriptio Rosettana; Berlin, 1851, pp. 1, 2.
Unabhängig von Young kam gleichzeitig ein junger französischer Gelehrter, François Champollion, zu der gleichen Vermutung und ihm war es beschieden, sogleich ein völlig richtiges Resultat zu erhalten. –ERMAN, Aegypten, p. 14.
. . . . .Young, qui, le premier, fit l’application du principe phonétique à la lecture des hiéroglyphes. Cette idée fut, dans la réalité, le fiat lux de la science . . . Toutefois, malgré quelques succès remarquables, Young ne sut pas la féconder; il avait bien reconnu dans les hiéroglyphes les noms de Ptolémée et de Bérénice, mais sans réussir à assigner à chacun des signes qui les composent leur véritable valeur; ses autres lectures sont fausses, quoiqu’il ait rencontré juste dans la détermination de la valeur
In favour of Young.
diesen scharfsinnigen und völlig richtigen Schluss machte und wenigstens für einige Zeichen des Namens den Lautwert feststellte.—ERMAN, Aegypten, p. 14.
Der erste, der es that und von dem richtigen Grundsatze ausging, dass die Königsnamen alphabetisch geschrieben sein müssten war der berühmte englische Physiker Thomas Young (geboren 1773). Er erkannte in der häufigsten in dem Dekret von Rosette vorkommenden Gruppe den Namen Ptolemäus, er vermochte ein später zum grossen Teile bestätigtes hieroglyphisches Alphabet aufzustellen und sie über das System der ägyptischen Schrift vollkommen richtige Ansichten zu bilden. So haben wir denn in Young den eigentlichen Entzifferer der ägyptischen Schrift zu sehen, wenn es ihm auch nicht gelang, der Sprache selbst Herr zu werden.—WIEDEMANN, Aegyptische Geschichte, p. 29.
In the first work of Champollion, his essay De l’Ecriture hiératique des Anciens Egyptiens, published in 1821, he recognized the existence of only the first of these three ways of representing words, supposing that all the Egyptian characters represented ideas. When he discovered the erroneousness of this opinion, he used all possible efforts to suppress the work in which he had stated it. That work, however, contained a valuable discovery. . .
In favour of Champollion.
alphabétique de plusieurs caractères. Quelques minces qu’ils soient, ces premiers résultats constitueraient en faveur du docteur Young un titre considérable, s’il ne les avait pas compromis lui-même en s’engageant dans une fausse voie, et en publiant des traductions tout aussi imaginaires que celles de ses devanciers. La solution du problème était réservée au génie de Champollion le jeune; c’est un honneur que personne ne peut lui disputer.—CHABAS, L’Inscription de Rosette, p. 5.
Wenn wir die Frage so stellen: Wer hat zuerst einige hieroglyphische Zeichen in ihrem Lautwerthe richtig bestimmt? oder besser gesagt, zufällig errathen, so müssen wir antworten: das war Th. Young; den Schlüssel zur Entzifferung der Hieroglyphenschrift jedoch hat er nicht gefunden. François Champollion, geb. den 23. December 1790, gest. den 4. März 1832, er ist es, den die Wissenschaft der Aegyptologie in dankbarer Verehrung als ihren eigentlichen Begründer nennt . . . . . . —DÜMICHEN, Geschichte des alten Aegyptens, Berlin, 1878, s. 304.
Zwei grosse Männer, in England der auf vielen Gebieten des Wissens ausgezeichnete Thomas Young, in Frankreich François Champollion, begaben sich zu gleicher Zeit, aber unabhängig von einander, an die Arbeit. Beider Bemühungen lohnte schöner Erfolg. Champollion aber wird mit Recht vor seinem britischen Rivalen als Entzifferer der
In favour of Young.
. . . . . . In the year after this publication, Champollion published his Lettre à M. Dacier, in which he announced the phonetic powers of certain hieroglyphics and applied them to the reading of Greek and Roman proper names. Had he been candid enough to admit that he was indebted to Dr. Young for the commencement of his discovery, and only to claim the merit of extending and improving the alphabet, he would probably have had his claims to the preceding and subsequent discoveries, which were certainly his own, more readily admitted by Englishmen than they have been. In 1819 Dr. Young had published his article "Egypt" in the Supplement to the Encyclopædia Britannica; and it cannot be doubted that the analysis of the names "Ptolemæus" and "Berenice," which it contained, reached Champollion in the interval between his publication in 1821 and 1822, and led him to alter his views. . . . . . . The Grammaire Egyptienne ought to have been given to the public as his sole bequest in the department of Egyptian philology. It was published from a manuscript written in 1831, immediately before his last illness. Shortly before his decease, having carefully collected the sheets, he delivered them to his brother, with the remark, "Be careful of this; I trust that it will be my visiting card to posterity." Even the warmest admirers of Champollion must admit that he left his system in a very imperfect state. Few, probably, will deny that he held many errors to the close of his life, both in what respects the
In favour of Champollion.
Hieroglyphen genannt werden müssen.—EBERS, Aegypten in Bild und Wort; Leipzig, 1879, Bd. ii., s. 49.
Un savant anglais du plus grand mérite, Th. Young, essaya de reconstituer l’alphabet des cartouches. De 1814 à 1818, il s’exerça sur les divers systèmes d’écriture égyptienne, et sépara mécaniquement les groupes différents dont se composaient le texte hiéroglyphique et le texte démotique de l’inscription de Rosette. Après avoir déterminé, d’une manière plus ou moins exacte, le sens de chacun d’eux, il en essaya la lecture. . . . . Ses idées étaient justes en partie, mais sa méthode imparfaite; il entrevit la terre promise, mais sans pouvoir y entrer. Le véritable initiateur fut François Champollion. . . . . . . —MASPERO, Histoire Ancienne; Paris, 1886, pp. 729, 730.
Ce fut en 1819, que le Dr. Young déclara le premier que les cartouches, ou encadrements elliptiques, dans le texte hiéroglyphique de l’inscription de Rosette, correspondaient aux noms propres grecs et particulièrement à celui de Ptolémée du texte grec, et aux groupes, du même nom, dans le texte intermédiaire en écriture égyptienne démotique ou vulgaire, groupes qui avaient été déjà reconnus et décomposés par MM. Silvestre de Sacy et Akerblad. Il allait encore plus loin en supposant que chaque signe du cartouche représentait un son du nom de Ptolémée et en cherchant à les définir réellement un à un par une analyse très ingénieuse . . . . Plusieurs signes
In favour of Young.
reading of the characters, and in what respects the interpretation of the texts.—HINCKS, On the Number, Names, and Powers of the Letters of the Hieroglyphic Alphabet, in Trans. Royal Irish Acad., Vol. XXI., Section Polite Literature, pp. 133, 134, Dublin, 1848.
In favour of Champollion.
avaient été faussement interprétés et la preuve la plus évidente en était qu’il ne réussissait pas à lire d’autres noms que ceux de Ptolémée et de Bérénice. Il faut donc avouer que, malgré cette découverte, les opinions du Dr. Young, sur la nature du système hiéroglyphique, étaient encore essentiellement fausses et que cette découverte elle-même serait probablement restée infructueuse et à peine signalée comme découverte dans la science, si on avait suivi le chemin que son auteur lui-même avait proposé.—LEPSIUS, Lettre à M. le Professeur F. Rosellini sur l’Alphabet Hiéroglyphique; Rome, 1839, p. 11.
Seyffarth and others reject Champollion's system.It could hardly be expected that the system of decipherment proposed by Champollion would be accepted by those who had rival systems to put forth, hence we find old theories revived and new ideas brought to light side by side with Champollion's method of decipherment. Among those who attacked the new system were, Spolm, the misguided Seyffarth, Goulianoff and Klaproth. Spolm and Seyffarth divided hieroglyphics into emphonics, symphonics and aphonics, by which terms they seem to imply phonetics, enclitics and ideographics. Their hopelessly wrong theory was put forth with a great show of learning in De Lingua et Literis veterum Ægyptiorum at Leipzig, 1825-31. Goulianoff 1 did not accept Champollion's system entirely, and he wished to consider the phonetic hieroglyphics acrologic; this also was the view taken by Klaproth, who bitterly attacked Champollion in his Lettre sur la découverte des hiéroglyphes acrologiques, adressée à M. de Goulianoff, Paris, 1827, and also in his Examen critique des travaux de feu M. Champollion sur les Hiéroglyphes, Paris, 1832. To the first of these two works Champollion published a reply entitled Analyse critique de la lettre sur la découverte des hiéroglyphes acrologiques par. Klaproth (Extr. du Bulletin de Férussac), Paris, 1827, in which he showed the utter worthlessness of the theory. In 1830, when the correctness of Champollion's system was fully Persistence of false systems of interpretation.demonstrated, Janelli published at Naples his Fundamenta Hermeneutica Hieroglyphicae, in three volumes, in which the old symbolic theory of the hieroglyphics was re-asserted! and there were many who hesitated not to follow the views of François Ricardi, feu Charles d’Oneil, the soundness of which may be estimated by the title of one of his works, "Découverte des Hiéroglyphes domestiques phonétiques par lesquels, sans sortir de chez soi, on peut deviner l’histoire, la chronologie (!!), le culte de tous les peuples anciens et modernes, de la même manière, qu’on le fait en lisant les hiéroglyphes égyptiens selon la nouvelle méthode;" Turin, 1824. 1 Little by little, however, Champollion's system was accepted. In 1835 Leemans published his edition of Horapollo, in which the results of the decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphics were ably applied, and two years later Richard Lepsius published his famous Lettre d M. F. Rosellini sur l’alphabet hiéroglyphique, wherein he 'discussed the whole question of the decipherment, and showed that Champollion's method was, without any question, correct. About this time students, who worked on Champollion's plan, sprang up in Holland, Italy, France and England, and the misguided Seyffarth alone continued down to 1855 to write and protest against the new system.
Footnotes
152:1 See his Essai sur les Hiéroglyphes d’Horapollon, Paris, 1827.
153:1 Another of his works was entitled, Triomphe sur les impies obtenu par les adorateurs de la très-sainte Trinité et du Verbe éternel, sous le gouvernement des sixième et septième rois d’Egypte au VIe siècle après le déluge. Sculpté en signes hiéroglyphiques sur l’ Obélisque Barberinus et maintenant expliqué; Geneva, 1821.
