Don't get me wrong. If you want to learn about how late ancient and renaissance people( when it was redisciovered) people thought about hieroglyphic writing, go ahead. But it's painfully obvious that the author doesn't have a clue. Interesting as cultural history, but worthless as linguistics..

I've encountered a reference to this book in one of Erik Hornung's books, therefore decided to read it. Mainly, I was interested in superstructure of semiotic-semantic ideas that could be inbuilt in magickal tech of the hermetic Glass Bead Game. The iconographic, allegoric fabric did not fail me, and I understand why it influenced so many artists and philosophers in the Reneissance. After encountering "nonsense statements" that my friend spotted, and advising me "not to read this bullshit", I retorted, admitting that many things were since discredited by science: "An idiot will deepen his idiocy reading fundamentally such works, wisdom will find pearls, if it knows how to seek and use them properly". With this final statement I leave people aspiring to read this book. Thank you. ( )

The text of the Hieroglyphica consists of two books, containing a total of 189 explanations of Egyptian hieroglyphs. The books profess to be a translation from an Egyptian original into Greek by a certain Philippus, of whom nothing is known. The inferior Greek of the translation, and the character of the additions in the second book point to its being of late date; some have even assigned it to the 15th century.[1] The text was discovered in 1419 on the island of Andros, and was taken to Florence by Cristoforo Buondelmonti (it is today kept at the Biblioteca Laurenziana, Plut. 69,27). By the end of the 15th century, the text became immensely popular among humanists and was translated into Latin by Giorgio Valla (in ms. Vat. lat. 3898). The first printed edition of the text appeared in 1505 (published by Manuzio), and was translated into Latin in 1517 by Filippo Fasanini, initiating a long sequence of editions and translations. From the 18th century, the book's authenticity was called into question, but modern Egyptology regards at least the first book as based on real knowledge of hieroglyphs, although confused, and with baroque symbolism and theological speculation, and the book may well originate with the latest remnants of Egyptian priesthood of the 5th century.[2]

Though a very large proportion of the statements seem absurd and cannot be accounted for by anything known in the latest and most fanciful usage, there is ample evidence in both books, in individual cases, that the tradition of the values of the hieroglyphic signs was not yet extinct in the days of their author.[1]

This approach of symbolic speculation about hieroglyphs (many of which were originally simple syllabic signs) was popular during Hellenism, whence the early Humanists, down to Athanasius Kircher, inherited the preconception of the hieroglyphs as a magical, symbolic, ideographic script. In 1556, the Italian humanist Pierio Valeriano Bolzani published a vast Hieroglyphica at Michael Isengrin's printing press in Basle, which was originally planned as an exegesis of Horapollo's. It was dedicated to Cosimo I de' Medici.

The second part of book II treats animal symbolism and allegory, essentially derived from Aristotle, Aelian, Pliny and Artemidorus, and are probably an addition by the Greek translator.

Editions by C. Leemans (1835) and A. T. Cory (1840) with English translation and notes; see also G. Rathgeber in Ersch and Gruber's Allgemeine Encyclopädie; H. Schafer, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache (1905), p. 72.[1]