EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE AND WRIT ING. To formulate an opinion in regard to the group to which the ancient language of Egypt belonged, it is best to follow step by step the gradual process of interpretation and secondly the translation of the numerous texts existing in inscriptions and papyri. By so doing one is led to the conclusion that the language of old Egypt belonged to the Semitic family, an opin ion objected to until quite recently. The first modern studies tending to elucidate the myste rious tongue locked up in the Egyptian hiero glyphics were those of the learned Jesuit Athanasius Kircher (1601-80), but they, like those of other savants of the 17th and 18th centuries, were without result until the discov ery of a tablet inscribed in three languages fur nished the key to the history of an ancient civ ilization, whose annals extended over 40 centu ries. A French military officer, Captain M. Boussard, found in 1798 or 1799 in the.-fort of Saint Julien de Rosetta an inscription drawn up by the priests of Egypt gathered at Mem phis, in honor of Ptolemy Epiphanes (196 a.c.). The first inscription was carved in hieroglyph ics, the second in demotic characters and the third in Greek. The inscriptions were copied and copies sent to several academies. The Rosetta tablet came into the hands of the Brit ish in 1801 and now rests in the British Mu seum. The first Greek translation was that of Du Theil and Weston in 1801-02, and about the same time Akerblad, a Swedish Orientalist connected with the embassy at Paris, deciphered several demotic phrases, identifying the equiv alents of the names of Alexander, Alexandria, Ptolemy and others, being guided principally by the position they occupied in the Greek text. Subsequently Thomas Young published in 1819 the result of his labors in this field, formulat ing some rudiments of an Egyptian vocabulary from the Rosetta Stone and from other monu ments. Warburton, Barthelemy, Zcega and others indicated the possibility of the existence of a hieroglyphic alphabet. Finally Champollion the Younger, prepared by his studies of history and philology, brought an almost complete light to bear on the subject, revealing the contents of hieroglyphic writing on many inscriptions. His 'Précis du systeme hieroglyphique) was fol lowed, after his death in 1832, by the publication of a grammar and dictionary of the Egyptian tongue. Lepsius, Birch, Rouge, Chabas and others continued the work but without success in establishing the grammatical structure of the works on a solid basis. Gaston Maspero and Revillout added considerably to the collection of translation, but the admirable scientific pre cision of the modern translations was first reached in 1880 when Louis Stern published his Coptic grammar, and when Erman published his in 1902. This last-named work is based on wide study of the linguistic variations during the time that the ancienttian tongue was a living idiom. It shows of dif ferent periods and permits that those who study this old tongue may now do so with as great security as those who undertake the study of Latin or of Greek. The investigations of the German school, which counts illustrious mem bers in England, Denmark, the United States, Italy and France, are published in the annals of the Berlin Academy of Sciences. From the
most recent studies it appears that the ancient Egyptian belonged to the Semitic branch. Until recently and because of the biliteral roots of the Coptic, it was supposed that the Egyptian language should be classified with the three sub-families of the Hamite group previous to the formation of the Semitic, of which the triliteral root is characteristic. But it was shown that the biliteral roots of the Coptic had originated from triliteral roots of the early Egyptian and other similarities were shown which prove conclusively that ancient Egyptian belonged to the Semitic branch. The ancient language had four periods: (1) that of the Ancient Empire, employed until some centuries previous to our era; (2) colloquial Egyptian, employed by merchants and in social inter course, and which existed from the 6th to the 17th or 18th dynasty; (3) the popular tongue from the 18th dynasty to the end of the period of Roman domination, and (4) the language of the country from the propagation of Christianity until it ceased to be spoken three centuries ago, except in the liturgy of the Coptic Christians.
Ancient Egyptian writing had three forms: (1) the Hieroplyphic, the most ancient, em ployed on inscriptions on temples, tombs, pillars and statues; (2) the Hieratic, the abbreviated form of the former. It was employed by the priests from the 4th to the 16th dynasty; (3) the Demotic or popular form, which began about the end of the 22d dynasty and consisted of conventional signs. The hieroglyphic writ ing was employed with small variation from the 4th dynasty until the 3d century of our era. The signs were employed in three ways —1st, representing in themselves an ob ject, idea, a word or root; 2d, representing a syllable or part of a word; 3d, limiting the sense of a word already expressed by one or more signs. Phonograms were few, about 100 in all, of which 70 or 80 were in current use. The most important signs are those represent ing a single letter; in the Old Empire there were 24 of these. Signs representing two let ters were about 50, and those which represented three letters were formed by combinations of this and the first group. Ideographic signs were represented by hieroglyphs symbolizing an idea, viz.: V a sceptre signified prince or ruler; the moon; 0 the sun; an inclined wall represented the action of falling, etc., etc. Hieroglyphs were written horizontally or per pendicularly, reading in the direction in which the signs figuring birds were faced, which was generally from right to left of the reader, ex cept in cases where the horizontal direction was changed to conform with the sides of a door, pylon, etc. To preserve a symmetrical appearance the scribes were accustomed to group the signs in squared areas and by adopt ing syllabic notation when the signs hindered such symmetrical disposition. Only the con sonants were represented, thus adding mate rially to the difficulty of interpretation, which is also complicated by the fantastic writing of various scribes and their errors. See HIERO GLYPHICS; EGYPTIAN LITERATURE.