Schwartze, Moritz Gotthilf: Das alte Aegypten oder Sprache, Geschichte, Religion und Verfassung des alten Aegyptens: nach den altägyptischen Original-Schriften und den Mittheilungen der nichtägyptischen alten Schriftsteller (Band 1) (Leipzig, 1843)

von Champollion. 303

Auf eine ähnliche Weise haben nun im Allgemeinen die phonetischen Hieroglyphen der
Aegypter, als die notwendigen Vermittelungsglieder der spätem Buchstabenschrift, nicht einzelne
Consonanten, sondern, mit Ausnahme der Stellung zu Ende des Wortes und der verhältnissmässig
wenigen Fälle, wo auf einen Consonanten ein Vocalzeichen gefolgt sei, einzelne von einem voraus
gehenden Consonanten und nachfolgenden Vocale, oder auch umgekehrt, gebildete Sylben dargestellt.
Dem gemäss sei denn der von Young Bir-e-n-i-ke oder Bir-e-n-i-ken, von Champollion BRNIKE
gelesene Name *} nicht also, sondern durch BeReNIKE, der Name des Ptolemäos weder, wie
Young ihn zergliederte, Pt-ole-ma-e-os oder Pt-ole-ina-e-osch, noch nach Champollion's Methode
PTOLMAIS, PTOLMEES, PTOLMAOS, sondern syllabisch durch PTO-Le-Mal-oS oder PTO-
Le-ME-oS wieder zu geben und eben so KaiSaRoS, TiBeRloS, SeBaSToS, TOMiTIaNoS, KeR-
MaNlKoS u. s. w. aufzufassen 2).

«uieds satis certae regulae dari possunt; v. c. Yocalis sexti ordinrs, muta vel geminata seqiiente, legitur et auditur, iit

\ fiezV, populiis, f^">7\ö!3"5 '. meinen, fidelis elc. — Vergl. Uber die Nicht-Ursprünglich-
keit des Aethiopischen Syllabariums Korr- Bilder und Schriften der Vorzeit. II. p. 116. 322. 3Ü0.

1) S. über die Namen BereniUe und Ptolemäos uns. B. p. 183 fgg. und weiter unten.

2) Wall Inqutry. p. 149. STow we shall be assisied in getting to a rigüt determiuation here by observing tbat tbe
Egyptians never could Iiave intentioualJy contracted tbe pbonetic expression of a royal name, or liave Ums omitted any of
its constituent parts throngh design. Tliis is proved by several considerations: — 1. Sliould llie Chinese, upou arriving
an equal degree of knowledge on die subject, omit signs of vowels in tbeir designation of naines; tlie iuference would be
natural, and might probably be parlly rjght, (hat they did so from a desire of contraction; as it is a common practice with
Ihem in thetr ge'neral syst em to express a wbole train of thoughts by a Single sigu. Hut the Kgyptians, on Ihe contrary,
were accustomed to express a Single Ihought, if complex, by a whole train of signs, giving separate marks for each of its
inore simple component parts. This gave their graphic System a great superiority over that of Ihe Chinese, in one respect,
of considerable. imporlance, viz. tbat Ihe whole niunber of signs renuisite in it was so much less; but the effect of it upou
their melliod of wriliug was a dilutation of style, and the practice they w.ere thus led into was qiiife incänsistent wilh any
tendency to make contractions. 2. Tlie numerous repetilions observable in their writing were equajly inconsistent wilh
such tendency; aud the arguinent derived from this consideratiou has the advanlage tbat ihe fact on which it rests cannot
be disputed. For no matter whelher Ihe general text of any inscription, as for instauce that on Ihe llosella stone, he
supposed ideagraphic or pbonetic, the repelilioiis which appear on the very face of it inust be admilted as such equally on
either supposilion; and they occur in this inscription fvenuently where there are uo correspondeut oues in the alphabeUp
vvrjting, consegueutfy we have a less right to expect an intentipn'al Omission of vowel signs in (he pbonetic grouns ofihe
hieroglyphs (hau in (he Greek text. 3. Tlie circumslance on which I most rely, in proof of this point, is Ihe oslentatio«9
manner in which the pbonetic groups, surrounded by carlouches, are displayed in the Egyptian legends, from which it
obviously was the inlenliou of the insculptor of each landatory record to omit no part of the principal name, but t<> l),ace
the whole of it in the most prominent aud conspieuous point of view. Besides all Ihe titles and honoiirs of the P^fPWf?
celebraled are generally found to aecompany the name in the füllest manner; and where Ihe subonlinale deiiominatious
are Ilms given, it surely is not (o be supposed that the principal one could be intentionally curlailed. We nfgf* tberefore
look (o some olher cause than design on the part of (he Egyptians for (he prevailing Omission of vowel signs in their
phonelic wriliug. - In ihe nexl place it is to be observed, (hat this Omission did not arise from any want of vowel signs,
for they bad hieroglyphic marks for all the Greek vowels, except the close (ycXov) U, and occasionally made äfft of tliem.
Tllc rare appearance, (herefore, of such signs in their legends can only be aecounted for by the cause which was before
ilSs'K»ed for it, vi/.. Ihe very confused and imperfeet knowledge of Ihe subject which they possessed in ennsequence of
their deriving it from inaccurate Observation of a foreign practice. The difticulty which under such ciremnstances would be
'elt- in forming a coneeption of the consonantal part of a syllable has been already developed; but Ihe iuevitable result of
"»s difficuJly mtist have been (o create a tendency in Ihe mind to employ graphic cliaraclers wilh syllubic radier than wilh
consonantal powers. Hence the Egyptian wriler, wherever Ihe vowel part of a syllable was not particularly presented (o
»« thoughts, would naturaUy employ a pbonetic hieroglyph as the sign of that syllable taken in its enlire uudivided slate;
;i»d from Ihe same cause Ihe Egyptian reader would be preyented from perceivjng (he extreme iniperfection of (Iiis mode
°f writing. Thus, for inslance, stippose the ärtJs't bad lo insculp tbe name llercnilie, aud Ihat he wrote it wilh hieroglyplis,
whlcK in Iheir s(a(e of eipiivalence to Single Greek lelteis, would give im the phonelic group IIUNlkK; any person forming
'h's oombination who bad a dlfficulty iu coueeiving the consonantal power of :i chtiracter, must have employed the initial