the same species are those which recal the idea of their gods, Ammon, Osiris, Isis, Saté, and the like. These characters, in regard to their origin, are symbolic, and as such we shall speak of them by and by; but in regard to their form, they are figurative, because they mark the exact figure of these gods, such as the nation saw them in the temples.

Besides these three different sorts of hieroglyphics, which all represent the image of the object, more or less accurately, there is another sort, which is called symbolical. These hieroglyphics not being able to express by themselves the forms and figures of the thing itself, are made to do so by borrowing the image of another object, which possesses some qualities common to both. This was done in four ways:

1st. By taking a part for the whole : for instance, two hands and two arms holding a bow, and some arrows, were made to express a battle; a box, with a flame or smoke issuing out of it, as if burning frankincense, represented an act of adoration.

2dly. By taking the cause for the effect; for instance, to take the moon as the sign of the months; a reed, with a little box used to hold ink, or other colour, for the act of writing.

3dly. By employing the image of an object to express another metaphorically. Thus, the wings of a bird signify the wind; the head and shoulders of a lion, force and courage.

4thly. By convention; when the image of one

object is made to signify another, with which it has no similarity, nor even a distant relation, except what convention has given to it. Some of these may appear real enigmas, and may occasionally require explanation; which, however, a tolerable acquaintance with the Coptic language allows us to obtain. Such is the scarabeus, to signify the world, or the male nature, or paternity; a vulture the female nature, or maternity; a twisted serpent the course of the planets; a mouse, destruction; a hare, openness. And, finally, we must reckon among these symbolical, or enigmatical hieroglyphics, those signs which are introduced to represent some of their gods and goddesses; and this representation may be done in three different ways.

First, by exhibiting an inanimate object, or even part of an animated one, such as an eye, for Osiris ; an obelisk, for Jupiter Ammon; a nilometer, for the god Phtha.

Secondly, by representing each of their gods and goddesses under the human figure, but with the head of the animal that was consecrated to him or to her. Thus, the figure of a man, with the head of a ram, signified Jupiter Ammon; with the head of a hawk, the god Phtha; with the head of a crocodile, the god Souk, or Suchus, something like the Saturn of the Greeks; and so on.

Lastly, by leaving out, altogether, the figure, and exhibiting only the animal, with some of the divine attributes. Thus, a hawk, with a circle on its head, signifies the god Phré; a ram, having its horns

surmounted by a feather, or more generally by a circle, Ammon Cnouphis; and so on.

However ridiculous, or, if you like it best, however monstrous, this combination may appear to us now, it was the consequence of the notion which has prevailed among mankind from time immemorial, that some particular animal enjoyed the protection of, and was consecrated to, a particular god; it exists to this day in many parts of Europe, and it has existed amongst all the ancient nations. The form, therefore, which the Egyptians gave of their deities, of a human figure with the head of a particular animal, was neither more nor less than what was afterwards practised by the Greeks and the Romans, and after them by the Christians throughout the world. If, instead of placing an eagle by the side of Jupiter, a dove by Venus, a peacock by Juno, an owl by Minerva, a serpent by St. Paul, and a horse by St. Anthony, which are real hieroglyphics, we were to put the heads of these animals on the images representing each of these personages, we should have the exact symbolical characters used by the Egyptians.

With them, however, it seems that the great respect they felt towards the Deity, a respect which has been shared by all the Orientals, might have been the cause which prompted them to express their names by symbols rather than by letters.

Indeed, you may see in Iamblicus, the importance which the Egyptians, and the Greeks who had been brought up in their school, attached to

the names of those of their gods, which they believed of divine institution, full of mysterious signification, and remounting to the first origin of all things. And although we find these mystic names expressed phonetically in the hieroglyphical legends, yet we are to remember that these texts were written by the priesthood, and that the characters themselves were considered as sacred, and peculiarly fitted to be employed in religious matters. This is so true, that in all documents written in the demotic, or common characters of the country, the names of the gods and goddesses were always and invariably written symbolically; just as the Jews never wrote at full length the ineffable name of Jehovah, but always expressed it by a short mark, which they pronounced Adonai. We are even informed by the Leviticus, that the Jews abstained from using the word on any occasion, not only from the dread of profanation, but because it was forbidden by law, under heavy penalties. It has even been asserted, that the pronunciation of this word was lost during the Babylonian captivity.

The Egyptians seem to have had the same religious dread, and consequently to have adopted the same custom. Indeed, Champollion openly asserts that they wrote the names of their principal deity, at least, in one way, and pronounced it in another.

This religious feeling seems to have prevailed among the Greeks also. For in Athens they had a prophetic and a mysterious book, which they called the Testament, to which they believed the

safety of the Republic was attached. They preserved it with so much care, that amongst all their writers no one ever dared to make any mention of it; and the little we know of this subject has been collected from the famous oration of Dinarcus against Demosthenes, whom he accuses of having failed in the respect due to this ineffable book, so connected with the welfare and safety of the state.

You know that this was the case among the Romans also, by whom a certain name was held in such reverence, that for want of use it was lost, and is now not known. Solinus informs us that a person named Marenus Soranus was condemned to torture and death, for having incidentally pronounced it. And you no doubt remember the passage in Lucan, that the name of Demogorgon, which the Gentiles had given to the Supreme God, was considered so ineffable, that it was believed the whole earth would tremble if that name were uttered. In fact, the sorceress Erito, to command the obedience of evil spirits, threatens to pronounce this terrible name, as the most powerful charm, which would shake hell itself from its very foundation.

This, however, in regard to the Egyptians, requires a further explanation. Their principal gods were many, and it would lead us much too far from our present subject to speak of them all; I shall, therefore, confine my observations to a few of the principal; to those, indeed, whose images or names often occur in the different legends, as