famous for her poetry, and a native of Mytelene, the other of Eresos, and celebrated for her unfortunate love, was perfectly correct. 6 The history and antiquities of EGYPT furnish matter for two articles, both communicated by M. Champollion Figeac, author of the Annals of the Ptolemies,' and brother of the zealous and successful inquirer whose researches have thrown so brilliant a light on the hieroglyphic, and other systems of writing, employed by the antient inhabitants of Egypt. The first of these articles consists of a notice on two Egyptian Papyri, in what M. Champollion has thought fit to call the demotic writing, a term for which no authority can be found in antient authors, (as we have no means of ascertaining to what system the popular of Herodotus belongs,) and unnecessarily superseding Dr. Young's prior denomination of enchorial, which has not only the precedence of the other in modern days, but is also expressly employed in the Greek inscriptions to designate the system of writing in question. The papyri to which this notice relates, are of that description which, on account of their similarity to certain Greek MSS., and by means of a marginal summary, or registry, in Greek, which each of them contains, have long been recognized as contracts between individuals for private purposes. There is indeed strong reason to believe, that all the contracts of the time of the Ptolemies consist of two parts, the original being in Egyptian, and written in the enchorial character, while the copy and registry are in Greek, the language of the administration. The most important of this species of documents which had been previously made known, are, an enchorial deed of the Royal Library at Paris, the Greek antigraph of which was almost miraculously discovered by Dr. Young among the collections of Mr. Grey; a Greek contract, in the possession of M. Anastasy, the Swedish Consul at Alexandria, published by Professor Boeckh, of Berlin; and three enchorial contracts for the sale of land in the neighbourhood of Thebes, translations of which are given by Dr. Young, who considers the earliest of these latter documents, which bears date in the 28th year of Ptolemy Euergetes the Second, 143, or, more probably, 154 years before Christ, as at least thirty-seven, but in this latter case, forty-eight, years more antient than any other writing with pen and ink that exists. The two contracts here referred to are, however, of much older date, being of the fourth and eighth years of Ptolemy Epiphanes, that is to say, 202 and 198 before Christ, the latter date being only one year earlier than that of the Rosetta stone. In his translation of the Preambles of these documents, which are the only portions he has given, Mons. C. Figeac has made use of the improved alphabet, published by his brother, and founded on the previous labours of M. Akerblad, the Baron de Sacy, and Dr. Young. The certainty of this alphabet is now so fully established, and its accuracy so universally recognized, that we deem it superfluous, on the present occasion, to offer any account of the method by which its elements have been gradually and successively deduced, from a comparison of the different parts of the Rosetta inscription, and from other monuments in the enchorial character. Neither would it be at all interesting to the general reader to follow the learned author through his minute inquiry into the succession of the priests of Alexander and the Ptolemies, the Athlophores, or prize-bearers, of Berenice-Euergetes, the Canephores, or basket-bearers, of ArsinoëPhiladelphus, and the priestesses of Arsinoë-Philopator. It is, however, principally in this point of view that the preambles of the various documents hitherto investigated, may be considered as of some importance, inasmuch as they are all similar in their contents, and perfectly analogous to that of the Rosetta stone, bearing, in addition to the names of the reigning monarch, and of the Ptolemies, his predecessors, together with the year of his reign, those of the respective dignitaries of the hierarchy whose titles we have just enumerated. One circumstance, however, connected with these relics is worthy of observation, namely, that the whole of the names which they exhibit, and indeed those of all the official personages under the Ptolemies elsewhere mentioned, are uniformly and exclusively Greek; a fact which speaks volumes with regard to the personal and mental degradation of the Egyptians under their foreign rulers. Leaving the minutiae of M. Champollion's investigation to those who take a deep interest in such matters, we pass to the consideration of his other paper, which contains matter of a more generally interesting character. This is entitled a Notice on a Greek Papyrus and a bilingual Inscription of the Royal Museum of Turin,' and is partly taken from an unpublished Memoir, read before the Academy of Turin by M. Amédée Peyron, Professor of Eastern Languages in the University of that city. The first of these monuments, which form part of the celebrated collection made by M. Drovetti, and purchased by the King of Sardinia, is a Greek papyrus of more than six feet in length, and one foot in height, divided into ten columns of from twenty-nine to thirty-seven lines each, with the exception of the last, which only contains five: it is in a perfect state of preservation, and written in a very fine hand, the orthography also being more than usually accurate. But the principal interest of this document is derived from the circumstance of its exhibiting the record of an Egyptian law-suit of the 54th year of the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes the Second; that is to say, 117 years before Christ. The action is brought at Diospolis the Great, before Heraclides, one of the captains of the body-guard, governor of the suburbs of Thebes, and commissioner of the revenue, by Hermias, commandant of the military station at Ombos, against Horus and other Cholchytes, for having, during the absence of the complainant from Diospolis, taken possession of a house (the boundaries of which are stated) belonging to him in that city. The plaintiff declares that he has frequently, for several years past, demanded redress, and enumerates the petitions which he has presented to various magistrates for that purpose; but he complains that, partly by the address of his adversaries, and partly by the duties of his office, he has hitherto been precluded from obtaining a definitive judgment. He then recapitulates the facts on which he founds his title to the house in question, which occupy two columns and a half of the MS. Next follow the pleadings of the counsel on both sides, which are in the third person, and entirely devoid of the ornaments of oratory. Each of the advocates adduces the titles under which his client claims possession, and points out the various laws which bear upon the case, quoting textually the clauses which are most essential to the discussion. But as though it were impossible for lawyers, under whatever circumstances, to confine themselves to the simple question at issue, Philocles, the advocate of Hermias, goes out of his way to abuse the corporation of the Cholchytes, whom Dino, their advocate, consequently feels himself called upon to panegyrize, retorting upon Hermias the charge of inattention to the rules consecrated to the ser→ vice of the judicial hierarchy. The ninth column contains the summing up of the judge, whose sentence occupies the five lines of the tenth: by this the Cholchyte Horus is declared rightful possessor of the house claimed by the plaintiff Hermias. In the course of the pleadings we meet with a strong corroboration of the conjecture, that all contracts under the Ptolemies consisted of two parts, Egyptian and Greek; for the advocate of the Greek soldier having objected to the title-deeds produced by the Cholchytes, a law which declares such contracts to be of no avail, if written only in Greek, his opponent' produces the same writings in the Egyptian character, and on this ground the judge pronounces in his favour. With respect to the functions of the Cholchytes, who appear to have formed a distinct corporation, and who are likewise mentioned in the enchorial deed of Paris, the Greek antigraph of which is in Mr. Grey's possession, M. Peyron is of opinion, from various passages in the present document, that they were in some way connected with the process of embalming the dead, and were not, as Dr. Young had supposed, on the slender data in his possession, aided by a vague etymological conjecture, the dressers, or tire-men, of the temple. Of the other monument here described, some mention had been previously made by Dr. Young, and we cannot forbear noticing the very illiberal treatment which that gentleman experienced from M. Drovetti in regard to it. In an excursion to the Continent in 1821, our learned countryman had the good fortune to discover, among the collections of M. Drovetti, which had long lain warehoused at Florence, this important relic, which was so little appreciated as not to be even mentioned in the catalogue of the Museum, prepared by its proprietor himself. No sooner had Dr. Young made this discovery, than, struck with its apparent value, he applied to the agents in whose care the collection was placed, for permission to send an artist to make two impressions in plaster, and two tracings on paper, of the stone, on the express condition that these copies should remain in their hands until M. Drovetti should affix a price to them, when, in case the stipulated sum exceeded what Dr. Young should consider reasonable, they were to become bona fide the property of M. Drovetti; with the single reservation, that if it should ever be deemed advisable to transport the collection by sea, they should be retained at Leghorn until the original had reached its destination in safety. To this liberal proposal the agents readily assented; accident prevented the artist from carrying the arrangement into effect, but it appears that had it been completed, it would have been but labour in vain, for M. Drovetti subsequently gave Dr. Young to understand, that nothing should induce him to separate this stone from the remainder of his collection, neither would he permit any kind of copy of it to be taken. Such was the grateful return which Dr. Young received for first bringing to the notice of its possessor the value of a monument which was then thought to be the only supplement to the Pillar of Rosetta extant. It is, however, in every respect infinitely below the last-mentioned monument; it contains no hieroglyphic text, with the exception of the names of the royal personages, and of the divinities, whose figures occupy its upper compartment; and the enchorial inscription of twelve lines, and its Greek antigraph, which occupy the two lower divisions, are very much mutilated by a lateral fracture of the stone, which has demolished from a third to a sixth of each line. From the remains of the Greek inscription, M. Peyron has ascertained that it contains a decree of the priests of Diospolis the Great (under the reign of the Queen Cleopatra, and King Ptolemy Caesar) in honour of Callimachus, cousin of the king, epistolographer, commissioner of the revenue for the suburbs of Thebes, and gymnasiarch, who had governed the province with wisdom under the most difficult circumstances, and preserved it from the scourge of plague and famine. In memory of these services, it is ordered that this decree shall be engraved upon a stone pillar, in Greek and Enchorial characters, which pillar shall be placed on the plinth of the temple of Amon-ra at Thebes. This decree substantiates the fact, which has been disputed by some writers, that Cæsarion, the illegitimate offspring of Cleopatra and Julius Cæsar, was actually recognized as King of Egypt. From various circumstances, M. Champollion is of opinion that its date, although not very clearly ascertained, must occur between the 12th and 16th years of the reign of Cleopatra, and consequently from 41 to 37 years before Christ. No attempt had yet been made to decipher its enchorial legend. It is proper also to mention, the insertion, in one of the early Numbers, of extracts from two letters from M. Cailliaud to M. Jomard, dated Sennaar, November 1821 and February 1822; but the subsequent splendid publications of this enterprising traveller have superseded the necessity of referring more particularly to the brief notices contained in his correspondence. The reflections of M. Jomard on certain points therein adverted to, and which relate principally to the supposed communication between the western branch of the Nile and the Niger, have also been stripped of their interest by the observations of Lieutenant Clapperton and his companions, and by the scientific and instructive discussions to which their discoveries have given rise. Having thus fulfilled our promise of laying before the English reader a faithful epitome of the contents of the first five volumes of what may be regarded as the transactions of the Asiatic Society of Paris, which bring us down to the commencement of 1825, it seems unnecessary to extend our analysis by any additional observations on its general features. On the contrary, we feel called upon in some measure to apologize for the length to which it has already run; in excuse for which, we can only plead, that it has been our principal object, througout the series of articles now completed, to exhibit, by a reference to the labours of the Oriental scholars of the Continent, as briefly as was consistent with a clear understanding of the different subjects, the extent of the progress which this department of knowledge has made, during the last few years, in the rest of Europe; and to stimulate, by this exposition, the qualified among our countrymen to emulate the example which is here set before them. We do not, indeed, mean to assert, that the Society whose labours we have been reviewing have been the medium of communicating to the world any of those grand and striking discoveries which are calculated to immortalize their authors; but a cursory glance at the contributions of its members will be sufficient to prove that they have elucidated many curious and interesting particulars, and that many of them have evinced a degree of zeal and perseverance in the pursuit of science, which the literati of other countries would do well to imitate. WOMAN. AMID this earthly scene of woe It cheers man's sorrowing heart to know, That thou, sweet one! art near; To soothe his toil, dispel his care, To throw thy smile serene. The spell that chains man's lofty pride And blots from thought all claims beside But Virtue, Truth, and Love- That angel natures prove. Oh! thou dost cling around the hear |