Egyptology and the Book of Mormon

IMPROVEMENT ERA Vol. XXVI FEBRUARY, 1923 No. 4 Egyptology and the Book of Mormon By R. C. W. Nearly everyone who reads current literature is familiar with the term "scientific criticism," which indicates the meth- ods followed by scholars in determining, as far as possible, the meanings of ancient documents and their claims to credibility, through study of their linguistic and grammatical structure and the historical accuracy of their references. The term is par- ticularly familiar through its application to study of the Bible, and, in spite of the ultra-logical excesses of some scholars, which have caused consternation in conservative minds, very many val- uable facts have been revealed. Of course, in this connection, the word "criticism" is used in its primitive sense of "judging," "determining," etc., rather than in that of "finding fault," as some might be led to sup- pose. A critic is merely a judge (according to the primitive meaning of the word in Greek), one who decides a matter on the evidence at hand. Thus, one who possesses a "critical knowledge" of a subject is he who is capable of deciding ques- tions on the basis of essential facts and principles. Many people learn foreign languages well enough to carry on ordinary con- versations, or to read general literature, and consider it unnec- essary to go further. But the man who has a truly "critical" knowledge, either of his own or any other language, is one who understands the structure and derivation of words, the sig- nificance of idioms, etc. He is the only one who really un- derstands the language, or who can use it with the greatest effect. Thus, for the study of ancient books, there are two dis- tinct kinds of criticism, known by the terms "higher" and "lower," but which might be designated, with equal, or better, Entered at the Post Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, as second class matter. Ac- ceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in Section 1103, Act of October 3, ioir, authorised on July 3, 1018, %z per annum. Address Room 406 Church Office Building, Salt Lake City, Utah.

312 IMPROVEMENT ERA force, "general" and "particular." A quotation from Professor A. H. Sayce will serve to define them. He says: "By the 'higher criticism' is meant a critical inquiry into the nature, origin, and date of documents with which we are dealing, as well as into the historical value and credibility of the statements they contain. The two lines of inquiry depend a good deal, one upon the other. * * * In this investigation, however, into the nature and origin of the docu- ments with which it deals, the 'higher criticism' is largely dependent on the aid of the 'lower criticism.' By the 'lower criticism' is meant what we have been accustomed to call '"textual criticism', a method of criticism which is wholly philological and paleographical, busied with minute re- searches into the character and trustworthiness of the text, and the exact significance of its language. * * * The 'lower criticism,' accordingly, can be called 'lower' onlv in so far as it is. as it were, the handmaid of the 'higher criticism,' without whose help the 'higher criticism' could not advance very far. Moreover, a large part of the most certain facts upon which the 'higher criticism' has to rely are furnished by the 'lower criticism.' " With such a hody of literature as the Hebrew and Christian scriptures of which we have ancient editions in the original languages; also, and equally important in many particulars, ancient translations (as into Greek, Chaldee, Syriac, Samaritan, etc., as bases of comparison), and whose contents refer to mat- ters of history, archaeology, etc. which are perfectly known from other sources, scientific determinations of values in nearly every line are rendered readily possible. With such a work as the Book of Mormon, however, the case is, unfortunately, otherwise in numerous particulars. Had we a perfectly de- cipherable transcript from the plates, whence, according to be- lief and testimony, it was translated, we should be able to pro- gress immensely toward a true scientific criticism of its language and contents — greatly to the encouragement of all who accept the claims made for it. But, to the present time, apart from some valuable archaeological data in confirmation of its claims to antiquity and historical accuracy, the best presumtive evi- dence in its favor has been derived from the studies of those writers who have enlarged upon the stylistic differences be- tween the several books and sections composing it and the evi- dences favoring the reproduction of Hebrew idioms in the language used by the translator. The present paper attempts to extend the investigation a step further, and to present evidences based upon the accuracy of statements made in the text, which betray either precise knowledge of ancient languages — knowledge, also, which neither Joseph Smith, nor any of his associates, could halve possessed — or else such remarkable examples of "good guessing" that one might be excused for doubting that such coincidences are pos-

EGYPTOLOGY AND THE BOOK OF MORMON 313 sible. In any event, if the facts here cited really be found to indicate mere haphazard guessing, rather than accurate knowl- edge, we have had our choice between two entirely exceptional alternatives. Apart from all other considerations, an entirely candid mind must admit that the conditions relating to the "coming- forth" and "translation" of the Book of Mormon are, to say the least, peculiar. The primary claim made by Joseph Smith is that the book was translated "by the power of God" from ancient documents, written either in a language which he called "re- formed Egyptian," or else in a style of writing so designated. As we shall see later, this expression certainly refers to the style of writing — the particular signs or characters used in forming its message— whether, or not, also to the language expressed.* Thus, to cite the first "peculiar circumstance," when, in 1827, Martin Harris showed Professor Charles Anthon a professed transcript from the plates of Mormon, he showed him a docu- ment which he has described as consisting of "all kinds of crooked characters, disposed in columns, * * * Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted, or placed sideways, etc." And to this description Anthon added, «j * * * we\ remember that the paper contained any- thing else but Egyptian hieroglyphics." If we may judge from Anthon's written expressions on this subject, he was certainly not inclined to favor Joseph Smith's claims in regard to the "transcript" — although Martin Harris seems to have derived, and acted upon a different impression — and his verdict has been frequently quoted as "scholarship's first condemnation of Mormon assumptions." Let us not try, however, to strain more out of a man's words than they evi- dently contain. Dr. Anthon, although a famous authority in Greek and Latin classics, possibly also conversant with Hebrew, Arabic, etc., is not known to have made a considerable study of the then new science of Egyptology. Judging his knowledge *Among students of the Book of Mormon there is a difference of opinion as to the language of the plates. Some hold that both the language and the letters were Egyptian, altered or "reformed" to meet the needs of the people of these continents. Others believe that the language used was the Hebrew, with such changes as time and altered conditions and sur- roundings bring to every spoken language, but that the letters used were "reformed" Egyptian, which occupied less space than the old Israelitic or Phoenician, which was also a "reformed" Egyptian, in use among the Hebrews before the adoption of the Aramaean and with which Laban, Lehi, and Nephi must have been acauainted. Mor. 9:32 seems to require this view, for there the explanation is made that it is the characters which are called "the reformed Egyptian." See Story of the Book of Mormon, by George Reynolds, p. 368. where both views are stated. — Editors,

314 IMPROVEMENT ERA from his written words, he seems to have considered that a document ostensibly written in "anything else but Egyptian hieroglyphics" is conclusively demonstrated, in that fact, to be of extra-Egyptian origin. Why did he not add that this trans- cript was not written in any form of the Hieratic or Demotic character, and thus attest conclusively — supposing that he pos- sessed the knowledge sufficient — that it was not, and could not be, Egyptian? Most probably because, like most people of his time, the learned as well as the unlearned, he associated the idea of Egyptian writing with the Hieroglyphic character ex- clusively. Knowledge of the Hieratic, in particular, was rare at that day, as at the present; although this style was a very com- mon medium in papyrus books of all ages. The most probable inference from this is that, had Joseph Smith been, as some have held, a mere ignorant trickster, bent on perpetrating a hoax on the public, it would have been only reasonable to expect him to attempt justifying his claim to pos- sessing an Egyptian document by issuing a screed in imitation of hieroglyphic writing. That this transcript was declared to be "anything else" may be held to suggest that his "ignorance" was not so dense as some have supposed. Either he knew that there are other styles of Egyptian writing, or else he hazarded a guess that there might be such. How clever a guesser was this Joseph Smith! Furthermore, if he attached the term "reformed Egyptian" to such other styles of writing, as com- pared with ordinary Egyptian, considered as hieroglyphics, he used a term both descriptive and accurate. By the word "re- formed" in this connection we may understand a "modified" or "revised" style of writing, which perfectly describes either the so-called hieratic or the later demotic, both simpler than, but traceably derived from, the older hieroglyphics. Regarding its original language and the character in which it was written, as claimed, the Book of Mormon contains three significant passages. The first of these (I Nephi 1:2) states: "I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians." The second (Mosiah 1:4) states that Lehi had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians," and that, "therefore he could read these engravings" on the plates of brass. The third, and by far the most significant of the three (Mormon 9:32-33), reads: "We have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among usi the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew;

EGYPTOLOGY AND THE BOOK OF MORMON 315 * * * and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record." If we understand the word "language" in the first two passages as indicating a method of expression, graphic as well as vocal, we may reconcile their statements with those of the third passage, which distinctly applies the term "reformed Egyptian" to certain "characters," or forms of writing. In any event, the statements of this third passage are most significant, and seem to present a distinct challenge for a critical test of accuracy. Careful reading of Mormon 9=33 will show two definite statements, readily Verifiable or refutable, to the effects that: (1) A narration in Hebrew characters, or in the Hebrew language, would occupy more space than the self-same ideas expressed in Egyptian characters, or in the Egyptian language. (2) A narration in Hebrew would have "no imperfection," as comp pared to the same narration expressed in Egyptian; or, as we may un- derstand, would present fewer uncertainties to the translator. If both these statements are true, it is evident that their truth would be understood only by people acquainted with both Hebrew and Egyptian. It is surprising, therefore, to find them expressed in a book, which, as many confidently assert, was written in toto by unlearned men. If either statement had expressed a fact, leaving the other erroneous, one might invoke "coincidence" to explain the truth, and take the error as a matter of course. But, when we read two perfectly true, but not generally known, facts about the Hebrew and Egyptian languages and characters, in a book purporting to have been written by people familiar with these languages, we must con- fess that the matter deserves attention and analysis In order that we may understand the matters with which we have to do in this connection, it will be in place to begin with a brief account of Egyptian writing. Although the style of writing which we know is so extremely ancient that we have no documentary evidences of the several successive steps in its development, the hieroglyphic figures were first used, un- doubtedly, as simple pictures of things or commonly under- stood indicators of ideas, rather than as letters, syllables, or conventional indcators of separate sounds. In this particular, they were used, undoubtedly, just as are the Chinese characters at the present day. For, as is shown by ancient Chinese rec- ords and inscriptions, which are still extant, these complicated combinations of lines and strokes represent so many highly conventionalized pictures. When several of them are juxtaposed

316 IMPROVEMENT ERA to form a sentence, as we would say, the differentiation between things, ideas, parts of speech, etc., is to be understood by the order in which the several figures stand related. Thus, although there are several distinct languages or dialects among the peo- ple of China, differing so widely among themselves that con- versation is difficult between representatives of several given sections of their great empire, they have a common written language, which all the learned can read. In all probability, the primitive hieroglyphic writing among the Egyptians served a purpose precisely similar. At a comparatively recent period (about the 3rd century A. D.), the Japanese, profiting by the learning and traditions of China, as well as by its vast literature, made a notable ad- vance by taking a selected number of typical Chinese char- acters, to be used with constant sound-equivalents in forming their syllabaries. Thus, they invented — for themselves — a thor- oughly practicable system of phonetic writing, such as had never been imagined by the ultra-conservative Chinese. The original Japanese syllabary, called Hitakana, contained about 300 sep- arate characters, which varied, or repeated, far fewer distinct syllabic sounds; but their later syllabary, called Katakana, re- duces the number of characters to forty-seven, giving one def- inite character for each separate syllabic sound known to the Japanese language. Among the ancient Egyptians the development of phonetic writing followed a very similar course. At a very early period they selected about fifty familiar signs for apparently true al- phabetic use, or — according to modern scholars — to indicate so many consonant sounds, which were to be uttered with their vowels, either before or after, in accord with certain rules of writing. Thus, for example, their "r" sign could indicate either the sound "er" or the sound "re"; the "m" sign standing alone usually connoted the sound "em," and the "n" sign, the sound "en." In addition to these, there were a very large number of signs indicating one or more syllables, and which were used as true "syllabics" in all writings. Thus, the syllable "ba" is usually read (1) from the picture of a long-beaked bird re- sembling a heron; (2) from the picture of a ram or the head and fore-quarters of a ram; and (3) from a flaring vessel show- ing a flame rising out of it — probably a stove or charcoal burner. The first two of these are common equivalents of the human- headed hawk, the symbol of the disembodied human spirit (ha), which, in turn, is often written with the third, as an index to its proper sound-equivalence. Very many other characters, while recognized indicators of syllabic sounds, in precisely similar fashion, are used regu-

EGYPTOLOGY AND THE BOOK OF MORMON 317 larly as "ideograms." That is to say, their use is proper to indicate the objects pictured; although, in later times, they are often used as syllabics, indicating definite sounds wherever they occur in spelling words. In a very real sense, however, it may be said that phonetic writing among the Egyptians was never an entirely stable in- stitution. That is to say, they were not content to write en- tirely phonetically, indicating sounds by recognized symbols, and deriving the ideas from the sounds corresponding to them in their language, as did other peoples even in antiquity. They used regularly with their phonetic signs numerous others, called "determinants," with the object of indicating the pre- cise meaning of any given word, or of discriminating it from other different words precisely like it in sound and spelling. Thus, for example, the syllabic indicating the sound khen (khn), when written alone, or followed only by a determinant stroke, means "king," but, when followed by the determinant figure meaning "man," it means "slave" or "servant." Likewise, the syllabic indicating the sound onkh for ankh) — this is the looped cross, or crux ansata — regularly indicates the idea of "life" or "living," also, in some connections, "oath," etc., but, when followed by the determinant figure of an ear, means "ear," "to hear," "hearing," etc. Although numerous familiar deter- minant figures are also used, in proper connections, as true syl- labics and as ideograms, they are not to be read aloud, when used as determinants — any more than our marks of punctu- ation are to be read by the words "comma," "period," etc., ex- cept in proofreading — being only rather clumsy devices in- tended to guide the reader's mind to the particular senses of ba or onkh, for example, which the writer had in mind. If we may judge from the findings of modern scholars, it would seem that the ancient Egyptian language was not rich in the number and varieties of its charactsristic sounds. And this gives a clue to justification for their large use of determin- ants— discriminating words of similar or identical sounds, but of diverse meanings. Thus, even to the present time, there is considerable uncertainty about the precise number and character of its vowel sounds. Some have argued that the emphatic, or "long," vowel sounds, such as "u" and "o", etc., were absent, or unusual. Thus, it has been held that their vowels tended to merge into such common or "urvocal," funda- mental sounds, as are found in such English words as "about," "assert," "bird," "oven," "but," "double," etc.; although, most probably, Egyptian writing indicates only consonants, and spells no vowels, precisely as did the ancient Hebrew, and other Semitic writing. It has been seriously doubted, also, if such

318 IMPROVEMENT ERA sounds as "1" and "r" were fully discriminated in early times. We know that the sign commonly rendered "1," in later in- scriptions, is generally absent, or very rare, in ancient writings. Thus, the Rosetta Stone renders the Greek names Ptolemaios, or Ptolemy, and Cleopatra, with the recognized "1" sign — thus, Petwalemis and Klawapatrat — but the Damanhur Stele, in which scholars have recognized a duplication of the same in- scription, gives the Greek Telemachos with an "r" — thus, Thurimekus — and spells Arsinoe as Alsarnat. The sounds "1" and "r" are "liquids" or "continuants" — some languages, such as Sanskrit, have recognized "1" and "r" vowels — and the con- fusion between them may be partially understood by vocalizing, or continuously sounding, them. Then, as will be found, they differ only in the position of the tongue; and, that being al- tered, are to be readily changed, the one sound into the other. In spite, however, of its several clumsy complications, as well as of other defects in the spoken or written language, Egyptian is characteristically "brief and to the point." The Egyptians were a truly literary people. After the invention of papyrus, at a very early date, they busied themselves with producing numerous books. But, as may be understood, the physical labor, involved in transcribing the hosts of pictures familiar in hieroglyphic writing, must have effectually dis- couraged writers whose ideas flowed readily. Consequently, like the Chinese, when faced with a very similar situation, they early devised conventionalized equivalents for their picture signs, and the character thus produced is known to us as the "hieratic." Undoubtedly, the hieroglyphic pictures were first written cursively, in a manner analogous to our own hand- written script, in which we reproduce our square "printing" letters. This method is found conspicuously in the so-called "hieratic" of later times. And, as we may understand, the cur- sive signs were still further simplified, with the growing habit of writing, until most of them came to bear little, if any, re- semblance to the original hieroglyphic pictures. All this process of development took place so very anciently that the earliest examples of the "hieratic," or conventionalized hieroglyphic, writing, now extant, have already reached the second stage. An example of the earliest, or "old-empire," style of hieratic may be seen in the accompanying transcript of the first four lines of the "Precepts of Ptah-Hetep," as given in the famous Papyrus Prisse. This work, which professes to have been written in the reign of a king of the Fifth Dynasty, believed to have lived about 3,500 B. C, but found in a tomb of the Eleventh Dynasty (about 2,500 B. C), has been called very generally "the oldest book in the world." As may be seen

ft •". to 3. a re <S (ft « '%- ^Sa1§ g.ST to as ** >^ cb §•? " '$ ?i to S, to "%) S In i q 1 : r1 0 " 2 2 e. © a « "2^ cL 1 .3 a „ * a * & s 3.3. C I Hs *3 * S-S. ■a tq g. a I 5" 2 Q £ 3^3 H.S 3 2 5' §S a "• * S 5-' -II A 2 Q 3 "» • to to to e fl-1 2-5" - ■" 1 « » 5 iri OR 51 ^^ (j »y f j.Aj ft K ■ Vc <8 "—^ c W> -12 ffj E - s = ^& 1|3L a fii -i^ilA 1 «}JV > ^0 „«\j 2hJJ>, B A -J- A^ i& ■xH d)Ift at 8 J1? -H^J > |X> " \ * — «a ■X ~^o d)— ^ ■ -I — ^ S8"«r 8 i e Mgtffe c^ • a= ~^a x. —A »>H = fv -1 TJ 4^ ,2^j S 2 - > a -1 — j (Si s o ^ if a- 2 >^- » £ » a- o « » * 3 o- •9-3 a S--^ re -. © -^. a a ** Has a, * * to H M ^ R" re S 1 & £|£ a s;-£ re -J) ft- to 5 is a- CO re IS Tan all a-o

320 IMPROVEMENT ERA in this copy, the Egyptians of that early date were already ex- pressing their ideas in "all kinds of crooked characters," some of them closely suggesting "Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted, or placed sideways," etc. Had Professor Anthon attempted to describe the writing of the Papyrus Prisse — it had not been discovered in his day — he could have used no more graphic words. The Papyrus Prisse was written, evidently, with a reed pen, in characters averaging a half inch in height, and showing evidences of rapid work. Its writing is to be read from right to left. As direct analysis of its contents would be difficult— particularly since, as seems inevitable, there is little obvious uniformity among the several repetitions of identical char- acters— a transcript into hieroglyphics, with transliteration and running translation, is added. As this transcript, following the judgment of noted authorities, reproduces the hieratic text "letter for letter," the characteristics of Egyptian writing are made readily manifest. According to current practice, fol- lowed in the printing of hieroglyphic books, as well as in all grammars and readers of the Egyptian language now in use, the text is to be read from left to right, like English, and most modern and non-Semitic languages. The regular Egyptian prac- tice was to read from the right, but some inscriptions read from the left, as indicated by the fact that the human and animal figures face in that direction. These four lines give the title and part of the introductory paragraph of the treatise. One fairly accurate translator (B. G. Gunn) renders it as follows: "The Instruction of the Governor of his City, the Vizier, Ptah-Hetep, in the Reign of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Isosi, living forever, to the End of Time." This completes the first line, which may be regarded as the title of the book. The introductory paragraph then fol- lows: "The Governor of his city, the Vizier, Ptah-Hetep — he says: 'O Prince, my Lord, the end of life is at hand; old age descendeth [upon me] ; feeble- ness cometh, and childishness is renewed. He [that is old] lieth down in misery every day. The two eyes are small; the two ears are deaf. Energy is diminished — the heart hath no rest. The mouth is silent, and he speaketh no word'." This completes the contents of the first page, or the first four lines as they appear in our transcript; but the remainder of the paragraph continues the sad recital, thus: " 'The heart stoppeth, and he remembereth not yesterday. The bones are painful throughout the body; good turneth into evil. All taste de-

EGYPTOLOGY AND THE BOOK OF MORMON 321 parteth. These things doeth old age for mankind, being evil in all things. The nose is stopped, and he breatheth not for weakness [?], whether standing or sitting.' " In consequence of the disabilities mentioned, the Governor of his city asks to be relieved of his official duties, and then proceeds to give his "precepts" for the guidance of all who would follow the way of wisdom. In general, his advice is wise and practical, much of it even lofty in sentiment, and char- acterized by a sound religious aspiration. The following is a fair example: "If thou art become great; if after being in poverty thou hast amassed riches, and art become the first in thy city; if thou art known for thy wealth, and art become a great lord, let not thy heart become proud, for it is God who is the; Author of these things for thee." •As will be noticed, the transliteration of the hieroglyphic transcript follows current practice in giving no vowel equivar lents. Although several of these signs seem to have been used as true vowels in later times, particularly as seen in the trans- literation of Greek names on the Rosetta Stone, etc., most Egyptologists seriously doubt their proper use to indicate vowel sounds, insisting that they are to be understood as real con- sonants, or as such "breathings" as are familiar in Semitic writing. The explanation of this contention is to be found in the fact that, as shown by their systems of writing, many an- cient— particularly Semitic — peoples seem not to nave dis- sociated vowel sounds from the consonants uttered with them in the formation of audible words. Thus, for example, such syllables as "ba," "ka," "ma," etc., were regarded as single sounds — consonants uttered through proper vocalization, with- out which they must have been only inarticulate clicks and grunts. They may have observed that the simple vowel sounds (not the compound sounds, such as "o" in "mote" and "a" in "mate") may be sounded continuously, after the accom- panying consonant has been uttered. But, instead of holding, with modern opinion, that such fact establishes the vowels as true sounds separate from consonants, they recognized the fact, now usually overlooked, that vowels are never really uttered alone, but, if not uttered with true consonants, always with certain variable sound elements called "breathings." Thus, if a vowel, such as "a" or "u" is sounded in the front of the mouth, it is audibly different from the same vowel sounded with a guttural expiration, or "in the throat." And gutturals are far commoner, also more emphatic, in ancient, and Semitic, languages, than with us. The Hebrew alphabet, for example.

IMPROVEMENT ERA n-tm-r nt-ta Sb - -^ - y - t The teaching (which is) of chief of citu Lord 71 i, i t - t a p-t-h htp-t-p AAAAAA ^ J stn bit H PtahHetep AAVVW ft Q/^-V hr hr b 1 (In) rgiqn of King of Eqypt^^ n-nh-h-h J t '<hh d-t-t$ living forever to eternity I ^ he (in) misery ■ nni, a) Q) 2 ears t-m-r - w deaf (are) rib mrfcl every 2 eyes (are) small/ p-h - ph-t-u 2 hr b s- k .strenc "^s. stop n" wr-r - d S lb a § r3 a g-r | n m-d-w g rvf not rests heart mouth silent not speaks he founds- "5s isjfcfcieora.l/breatbing;^thegutteral breathing; d tike fcch in *fetch1 h ana h like German ch ; t like English ch ; ta indicates determiTiant strokes. Transcription of the hieratic of Ptah-Hetep into hieroglyphics, with transliteration and running translation. The determinant figures, which have no corresponding sound'equivalents, are indicated by captions written vertically.

EGYPTOLOGY AND THE BOOK OF MORMON 323 recognizes two "breathings," known as aleph and ayin, the former oral or sounding in the mouth, the latter guttural, or sounding in the throat. Both were treated as consonants, be- cause they had no proper sounds, except when uttered through associated vowels. The guttural breathing, ayin, which is prop- erly peculiar to Semitic languages, gives an articulation char- acterized by a distinct approach to a gurgle, such as one would describe as a "growl." It uttered its vowel with an audible suggestion of the sounds of "g" or "r," occasionally, according to some authorities, with a suggestion of "n" or "ng." Thus, we fail to suspect it in the Biblical names, Eli and Amalek, but can derive some notion of its force in the names Gaza and Gomorra, all of which begin with ayin in the written Hebrew. If, then, as often happened, a word began with a vowel sound, as we would say, the first written character was either aleph or ayin, whatever the "initial" vowel, semi-vowel or diphthong. The evident inference from this is that, because the Egypt- ian language was closely akin to Semitic dialects in its syntax and intimate constructions, it is reasonable to suppose that its systems of written sound-equivalents followed Semitic rules; regularly indicating only consonants and breathings, to be ac- companied by their proper, or usual, vowel elements. When, therefore, for sake of comparison we transliterate the Egyptian of Ptah-Hetep into the "square Hebrew," or "Chaldee," char- acter, the breathings are to be indicated in accord with the rules of equivalence recognized by scholars. The correct rendering in Hebrew writing of the Egyptian sounds of this passage, as they are understood by modern scholars, at any rate, would reqire, as may be seen, 148 sep- arate letters. The hieroglyphic, or hieratic, original contains a total of 156 separate characters, all essential to proper Egypt- ian orthography. Of this total, however, we have twenty-one determinant figures, nine determinant strokes with various sig- nifications, and ten repeated consonants, written with syllabic characters, in order to enforce correct reading — forty in ail- none of which can be represented in any Semitic writing except cuneiform. Thus, there remains a total of 116 characters essential to expressing the sounds proper to the inscription. The disparity may be partially explained by the fact that sev- eral of the Egyptian signs are disyllabic. It is also necessary to express initial vowel sounds by proper "breathings" in He- brew, as already explained, a practice not consistently followed in Egyptian writing. In addition to the other characteristics through which a Semitic writing would, on the average, and particularly in long compositions, require more space, character for character, the

324 IMPROVEMENT ERA n>* n w nsrr tan •na ^ruk pps ppn wis to aa an Ttan S3 '-ano ise -in w v m a^Brriis psnn'WTS tit wibsj •^x^ -^u^ ^XB-HX^-XVX^^>N^ .^•^•^^.^•^B.^xH^-^2-^H|>£3-\vv Transliteration, for sake of comparison, of the Egyptian text of Ptah- Hetep into He\brew characters. The first six lines of this plate show the\ "square" Hebrew, or Chaldee, characters, which have been used in writing the language since about the first century B. C. The second seven lines show the text transcribed into the older Phenician-Hebrew characters, which were in use, as shoivn by various inscriptions, at least as early as 800 B. C. This latter style of writing furnishes the real basis of comparison in the\ present connection. It is the progenitor of the present-day Samaritan character. Egyptian method involves the practice of grouping signs, or piling them up, in squares. This1 peculiar feature is found, also, in the hieratic writing of Ptah-Hetep, in which, in numerous instances, the smaller characters are literally run together in groups, in a fashion quite analogous to the writing of modern script. Although, as seen in this particular manuscript, the dis- crimination of the several distinct characters is by no means easy, the system represented marks a great advance toward simplicity, as compared with writings in the hieroglyphic style. Remembering that this manuscript reads from right to left, we may readily compare its figures with those in the hieroglyphic transcript. Thus we find the complicated bird characters, for example, represented by easily formed curved figures: the eagle (line 1, No. 2.), as a figure somewhat like script "1"; the owl (line 1, No. 1), as a figure suggesting a "spiral," and the

EGYPTOLOGY AND THE BOOK OF MORMON 325 c <Fff> ®J1 0 0 Q Hand copy of rita fragmentary first line of the hieroglyphic text of tlie Rosetta Stone, showing the usual method of "piling" the characters, into squares, instead of ivriting them lineally, as in most other written languages. Also the last line of the demotic inscription on the Rosetta Stone, showing the simplicity of most of the characters used in general writing at this stage of development. duckling, which is the third lineal figure in the same line, as a modified capital "L" with its upright side crossed. On the whole, the separate characters used in the style of writing represented in the Ptah-Hetep manuscript are simple, capable of being quickly written, readily distinguishable from one another, and capable of considerable reduction in size without confusion or danger of illegibility. Contrary in these qualities is nearly every known form of Semitic writing char- acters. Whatever may be the explanation, Semitic alphabets, as a rule, have included several forms that, if not carefully written, may be confused together. In addition, if reduced be- yond certain very definite limits in writing, many of their letters, consisting of several essential strokes, would be liable to become indeterminate. Semitic characters, as a rule, must be written of a certain definite size — hence more room, letter for letter, is required for inscriptions in Semitic languages than for similar inscriptions in, say, Egyptian hieratic. At- tentive examination of the Hebrew transcription herewith may reveal something of the intended lesson here expressed. But, if the real comparison is to be made between Egyptian writ- ing dating from before 1,000 B. C, and Hebrew writing of a similar period, it is certain that we should not consider the "Chaldee" character at all, but some form of the Phenician writing, which was then current among the Hebrews. Probably the most typical character of this description is that of the Siloam inscription in Jerusalem, dating somewhere between 850 B. C. and 750 B. C. As may be understood from the transcription reproduced in its letters, they are not susceptible of use for inscriptions of very small size. They could not be

326 IMPROVEMENT ERA very far reduced, and maintain their respective characteristics. The greatest qualification of the Egyptian writing for brief, or condensed, expression lies in the fact that by far the greater number of its characters are syllables — many of them disyllabics. Thus, the figure of a lute regularly indicated the disyllable nefer, with the meaning "beautiful" or "good;" a hatchet in- dicated neter, meaning "god" or "divine;" while the beetle (scarabeus) represented cheper, connoting the idea of "becom- ing," "begetting," etc., hence of God as the Creator, or Gen- erator. In most cases such figures are used for sounds proper to the names of the indicated objects in Egyptian, or, by com- mon process of transference, to indicate other objects or ideas, similarly named, but of different description, precisely as in our familiar "rebus" puzzles. Thus, for example, the Goddess Isis was known to the Egyptians as Ast, but the same sound also meant "chair" — hence the picture of a chair, followed by one of an egg — the determinant for "goddess" in later times — regularly spells the name of Isis. The name of the sister of Isis was Nebhat, and, in order to indicate this, a dish or basin (neb) was placed upon the conventional picture of a house (het). So, also, with the name of the Goddess Hathor — a house (het) containing the hawk of Horus (Hor) was perfectly ex- pressive. Now, although the names given to the Hebrew letters, Aleph, Beth, Gimel, Daleth, etc., are all words with definite meanings, no one ever thought of using a letter to indicate either the sound or the object connoted by its name. Thus, Ayin means an "eye," and Beth means a "house," but these words are invariably spelled out. Again, although in Hebrew, as also in Greek and Latin, the letters of the alphabet are used as numerals, there is never an instance in Hebrew books where the names of numbers are not fully spelled. Thus, for example, they wrote sheshah ("six"), instead of indicating it by its numer- ical sign, the letter vav ("v"). On the other hand, the Egypt- ians regularly indicated all numbers by their arithmetical signs, and so seldom spelled out the corresponding words that we do not know how they spoke many of them. The same is true of several common objects, which they habitually indicated by pictures, never by spelling characters. With this knowledge of the Egyptian methods in writing, we may understand its possibilities, as they might readily have appeared in the eyes of any man, or men, desiring to find and use a system of characters suitable for writing extended rec- ords in small spaces; such as on small parchment pages, on tablets of moderate sizes, and particularly, if small metal leaves, or "plates," were to be used. We need postulate no merely

EGYPTOLOGY AND THE BOOK OF MORMON 327 hypothetical condition. It is quite evident that people desir- ing to make records of such character — be these "genealogical" merely, or fully historical — could have done no better, in the first millennium B. C, than to draw upon the immense treasury of Egyptian writing signs, in order to find the very mediums most suitable for their purpose. A selected number — say 300 or 400 — from the numerous syllabics and ideograms used by the Egyptians could readily have supplied all the possible, or known, sound combinations in either Hebrew or Egyptian. It is not wholly improbable that a smaller selection would have answered all ordinary purposes. To claim that such selected signs were actually used as a ready means for making long rec- ords in small spaces, is merely to claim that some one in the past formed a convenient working syllabary from Egyptian hieratic characters, precisely as the Japanese formed their syl- labary from the conventionalized Chinese pictures. This brings us to another notable fact regarding the claims made about the "plates" of Mormon, and the characters with which they are said to have been inscribed. It is that, barring the Chinese system, which has not been mentioned in this con- nection, there was no other in the then known world, which could possibly have been "reformed," or modified, to serve the purpose indicated. No true Semitic alphabets could have been used for any such purpose, not only because they nover contained a sufficient number of separate characters to serve as the basis of a syllabary for abbreviated writing in either Hebrew or Egyptian, but also because the necessary modifica- tions to fit them for such a purpose would have required more inventing than would be possible to the average individual. The closest approach to such an attempt with pure Semitic char- acters is found in the Ethiopic syllabary, each of whose twenty- sixi letters in pure form stands for a consonant, or breathing, in combination with the short "a" sound; the other six. vowel sounds being indicated by adding, in each case, a specially placed branch or horn to the pure form of the consonant. This gave a total of 182 separate characters, each monosyllabic, and each distinguished from all others in its own consonant series by a particular complication. Furthermore, because of these elaborations, and the care required to distinguish them, such a system would halve been no better capable of use where char- acters must be written small and many of them assembled in small pages, or "plates," such as the Book of Mormon records are stated to have been, than could the earlier or later "He- brew" characters with such a system as the familiar vowel- pointing, devised at a far later date. (To be continued.)

Lovest Thou Me?' Have my sheep been led to pasture As I would lead at morn? Has the soul been filled and the heart been thrilled, And the wounds been bound that were torn? Take the flock to fields fresh glowing With gems of heaven's dew; Let the lambs be brought with a tender thought To the stream where the sward is new. Is the fold a shelter builded Against the storm and foe? Do my loved ones rest as a people blest With no evil to fear or know? Be thou sure no sheep is missing, No lamb unfed or ill ; — When I bring my own to the Father's throne Thou shalt find me a Shepherd still. Boston, Mass. Claudia May Ferrin The Conscience The Conscience is a ruling king, And oft to penitence does bring — The erring human heart. The body is a rebel bad, And oft does make good Conscience sad, For it so human is. Through sleepless hours at night I roll And pay to Conscience heavy toll — For wrongs of every day. Real solace shall I never find Till Conscience leaves this frame behind In final victory. Belleisle, N. B, Alan Reidpath .,«'-"'