t taught the "epistolographic" style of writing (i.e.
demotic), secondly the "hieratic" employed by the sacred scribes, and
finally the "hieroglyphic" (_Strom._ v. 657). It is doubtful whether
they classified the signs of the huge hieroglyphic syllabary with any
strictness. The only native work on the writing that has come to light
as yet is a fragmentary papyrus of Roman date which has a table in
parallel columns of hieroglyphic signs, with their hieratic
equivalents and words written in hieratic describing them or giving
their values or meanings. The list appears to have comprised about 460
signs, including most of those that occur commonly in hieratic. They
are to some extent classified. The bee [HRGs: bit] heads the list as a
royal sign, and is followed by figures of nobles and other human
figures in various attitudes, more or less grouped among themselves,
animals, reptiles and fishes, scorpion, animals again, twenty-four
alphabetic characters, parts of the human body carefully arranged from
[HRGs: tp] to [HRGs: D54], thirty-two in number, parts of animals,
celestial signs, terrestrial signs, vases. The arrangement down to
this point is far from strict, and beyond it is almost impossible to
describe concisely, though there is still a rough grouping of
characters according to resemblance of form, nature or meaning. It is
a curious fact that not a single bird is visible on the fragments, and
the trees and plants, which might easily have been collected in a
compact and well-defined section, are widely scattered. Why the
alphabetic characters are introduced where they are is a puzzle; the
order of these is:--[HRG Z91] [HRGs: r-H-kA-W] (?) [HRGs: wA] (?)
[HRGs: s] (?) [HRGs: z-Db] (?) [HRGs: Z91-b-Z91-S-SA] (?) [HRGs: k]
(?) [HRGs: xA-X-U29-p-a-g-x-t] (?) [HRGs: i-q].

Three others, [HRGs: XA-D] and [HRGs: f], had already occurred amongst
the fish and reptiles. There seems to be no logical aim in this
arrangement of the alphabetic characters and the series is incomplete.
Very probably the Egyptians never constructed a really systematic list
of hieroglyphs. In modern lists the signs are classified according to
the nature of the objects they depict, as human figures, plants,
vessels, instruments, &c. Horapollon's _Hieroglyphica_ may be cited as
a native work, but its author, if really an Egyptian, had no knowledge
of good writing. His production consists