The Mummy

Abstract

TEN years ago, and even less, the English readers of hieroglyphs might be counted on the fingers of one hand, without the thumb. They may now be reckoned by the score. The reasons for this movement—we can hardly term it a revival—are partly the opening of the Nile to any English tourist who can afford to travel at all. This is chiefly due to the ubiquitous Mr. Cook. But it would not be fair to mention it without also mentioning such authors as Dr. Budge, who have made what used to be a sort of secret knowledge, a sort of occult science, into one of the easiest branches of learning any one, especially an Englishman, can study. Hieroglyphs appeal to several different kinds of minds. People pictorially disposed find the representations of all kinds of common objects easy to remember, and very interesting to copy. The naturalist finds these curious old birds, beasts, fishes, and reptiles well worth learning, if only to find out why they stand for letters. The astronomer must work a little at them, on account of the light they throw upon the stars of a time so remote that α Draconis was then the Pole Star, and not a Ursæ Minoris. To the ordinary lover of languages the grammar of ancient Egypt is full of delightful surprises, as well as pitfalls, while he unravels a tongue spoken by Aryans, with Semitic inflections and Hamitic roots. We might go through the whole catalogue of ‘isms and’ ologies, and yet find none in which hieroglyphs would not give some help; and, above all, they are so absurdly easy. The ancient Egyptian was quite determined that whensoever people did learn to read his inscriptions, there should be no kind of mistake as to his meaning, and one result is that many beginners find it possible, without knowing the pronunciation of more than a dozen words, to ascertain the sense of whole passages. There is one thing more. At the very root of all literary learning lies this marvellous invention of the Egyptians. Hieroglyphs are the parents of the writing of the Phenicians, Hebrews, Syrians, Greeks, and Romans; and consequently they are the by no means remote ancestors of our own alphabet, every letter of which is itself a modified hieroglyph. It is therefore curious to remark that the printing and publishing of Dr. Budge's book is the first effort on the part of any university in the three kingdoms to encourage the study of Egyptology. A kind of exception may be made in favour of University College in Gower Street, which accepted a legacy left by the late Miss Edwards to found the chair now occupied by Prof. Flinders Petrie. But the work now accomplished by the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, must be followed in the sister universities, and there are signs already of a movement in this direction. Dr. Mahaffy of Trinity College, Dublin, is known to have acquired a share in the wisdom of the Egyptians, and the university of Oxford has given the honorary degree of D.C.L. to Mr. Petrie. Under these circumstances, therefore the appearance of Dr. Budge's book is opportune. Only a few weeks ago a young gentleman was found trying to learn hieroglyphs from Sir Gardiner Wilkinson's six volumes of mingled learning and ignorance. Even in Dr. Birch's great three-volume edition of Wilkinson, there is nothing practical to be gleaned. From this time there will always be a handy work, which can be recommended to the would-be student, a work as profound in linguistic learning as it is easy and simple in communicating it. There are points in which we differ with Dr. Budge, yet we cannot exactly impute them to him as errors. For example, we do not always like his transliterations, in which he is loyal to the system now long in vogue among the best class of scholars on the continent. He has not gone in for the recent French absurdities in this respect, nor, on the other hand, has he followed Herr Erman into his impossible quests after exact pronunciation. This is not the only point on which we are inclined to quarrel with that learned and whimsical German; but it must not for a moment be supposed that there is anything controversial about the calm pages of Dr. Budge's “Mummy.” On the contrary, when we consider that there is not a statement in the book that has not at one time or another been called in question, not a chapter that has not been fiercely debated, we must concede to the author a credit for moderation very remarkable. True, he has disdained even to mention the difficulties to which such books as the French catalogue of the Gizeh Museum, or M. Maspero's later works, expose a student. The method pursued by Dr, Budge is the safest. Conceivably, better systems may be constructed, but we must remember that it is by the present system that the great discoveries of Lieblein, Lepsius, Marriette, Birch, and so many others have been made.

The Mummy.

By E. A. Wallis-Budge (Cambridge: University Press, 1893.)