before hinted, characters to express numbers by, which are not designed to stand for any particular sounds, or words; but then, we have artificially reduced them to a small number, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and the cypher 0, will express all numbers that can possibly be conceived. Without doubt the Chinese character might be contracted by a proper method, but the writing of this people, as well as their language, has had little improvement. When mankind began first to make their marks for things, having but few things to mark down, they easily found marks enow for them: As they grew further acquainted with the world, and wanted more characters, they invented them, and the number increas. ing by degrees, it might cause no great trouble to persons who were skilled in the received characters, and had only to learn the new ones, as they were invented; but it is strange that a nation shonld go on in this method for thousands of years, as the Chinese have really done; one would think, that it must easily be foreseen to what a troublesome number their letters must in time grow, and that a sense of the common convenience should, at one time or other, have put them upon trying to reduce them; but we find in fact they have not done it. The Chinese report their letters to have been invented by Fohi, or Noah; and in reality both their letters and their language seem so odd, that they might well pass for the invention of the early and uncultivated ages of mankind. Without doubt the Chinese have added to the number of their letters, since the time of their emperor Fohi, and probably altered the sound of their old words, and made some new ones; but they differ so remarkably, both in writing and language, from the rest of mankind, that I can't but think them the descendents of men that never came to Shinar, and who had no concern or communication with those who were thence dispersed, by the confusion of Babel, over the face of the earth.

We have no remains, nor so much as any hints in ancient writers, to induce us to imagine, that this sort of writing was ever used by any of the nations that were dispersed from Babel. We read of no letters on this side India truly ancient, but what were designed to express the words of the people that wrote them. Laertius || indeed seems to hint that the Babylonians had anciently a sacred character, different from the letters in common use: and Eusebius § from Philo-Biblius represents Sanchoniathon to have search'd records wrote in a character of this sort. The sacred letters of Egypt are frequently mentioned: there were two pillars inscribed in this sort of letters, at the tomb of Isis and Osiris; and Strabo speaks of a pillar in memory of Sesostris,* which had these characters cut upon it; and the remains of Thyoth were

says Walton; 54409 say other writers; and Le Compte says, that he is no learned man amongst them that does not understand 15 or 20000 of their letters. || Burnet. Archæolog. p. 86. § Præp. Evang. l. I. c. 9.

* Lib. 16.

*

without doubt written in this character.† If we consider that Herodotus and Diodorus mention only two sorts of letters, the sacred and common letters; and that Clemens Alexandrinus, and Porphyry, and the later writers, who take in the Hieroglyphics, mention three sorts; it will perhaps induce us to imagine, with Dr Burnet,|| that the sacred letters of the Egyptians were different from their Hieroglyphics, and that the Hieroglyphics were not in use in the first times. It is true, Diodorus, by his description of the sacred letters, makes them to be Hieroglyphics; but I imagine that he happened to do so, because Hieroglyphics being in use before his time, and the sacred letters, which were distinct from them, being then wholly laid aside, he knew of but two sorts, the Hieroglyphics and the common letters; and so took the sacred letters which he found mentioned by those that wrote before him, to be the Hieroglyphics. But Porphyry very evidently distinguishes them one from the other: he calls the sacred letters, 'Iepoyλupià κοινολογούμενα κατὰ μίμησιν· and the common Hieroglyphics, Συμβολικὰ ἀλληγούμενα κατά τινας Αἰνιγμούς. It is indeed something difficult to apprehend how letters can be said to imitate the things designed by them; however we find this was an ancient notion. Plato puts it into the mouth of Socrates. But tho' for these reasons, I imagine that there was an ancient character in Egypt, distinct from both the vulgar letters, and common Hieroglyphics; yet I cannot think, with Dr Burnet, that it was like the letters used in China. The Chinese letters express no words, or particular sounds whatsoever; but the old Egyptian letters did, as appears plainly from the account we have ‡ of Agathodæmon's translating them. The remains of Thyoth were inscriptions on pillars [στηλῶν, ἱερᾷ διαλέκτῳ καὶ ἱερογραφικοῖς γράμμασι KеxaρактηρioμÉνwv.] Written upon in the sacred language, and sacred characters: and Agathodæmon translated them, [ex Ts iepâs διαλέκτου εἰς τὴν Ἑλληνίδα φωνὴν γράμμασιν Ιερογλυφικοῖς·] out of the sacred language, into the Greek tongue, in sacred letters, i. e. he changed the language, but used the same letters in which Thyoth wrote. T Here therefore we see, that the sacred letters were capable of being used

Strom. 1. 5.

Lib. 3.

+ Euseb. in Chron. Herodotus in Euterpe. Diodorus lib. 1. Porph. de Vita Pythag. p. 185. Archæolog. In lib. de vit. Pythag. + In Cratylo. ¶ Bishop Stillingfleet, and several other writers, translate iepoyλupikois ypáμμaoiv, Hieroglyphic characters; and the learned bishop remarks upon the passage as follows: it is well still, that this history should be translated into Hieroglyphic characters; what kind of translation is that? we had thought Hieroglyphics had been representations of things, and not of sounds and letters, or words. How could this history at first have been written in any tongue, when it was in Hieroglyphics? do Hieroglyphics speak in several languages? and are they capable of changing their tongues? the reader will easily observe from this remark, that ἱερογλυφικοῖς γράμμασιν, in the passage before us, should be translated, not Hieroglyphics, but sacred letters, and then the sense will be clear and easy.

to express the words of different languages, and were therefore not like the Chinese, or of the same sort with the first letters of mankind, which expressed no words at all. Plato || says, that Thyoth was the first that distinguished letters into vowels, and consonants, and mutes, and liquids, and was the author of the art of grammar. I doubt these improvements are more modern than the times of Thyoth; however, Plato's opinion in this matter is an evidence that there was no notion in his days of Thyoth's using any other than alphabetical letters.

The use of alphabetical letters therefore began very early in the second world, probably not long after the dispersion of mankind; for the records of the Chaldæan astronomy reach almost up to this time, and Thyoth's inscribing pillars was not above two centuries later. Alphabetical letters were perhaps invented both in Assyria and in Egypt, and to one or other of these two nations all countries are indebted for the use of them. We find the great project at Babel, next to building of the tower, was the improvement of language; for this caused the confusion which scattered mankind over the face of the earth; and if the course they took in this affair was such as I imagined, namely, an attempt to dissolve the monosyllables, of which the first language of mankind consisted, into words of various lengths, in order to furnish themselves with new sets of names for new things; it may be conceived, that a project of this sort might by degrees lead to the invention of alphabetical letters. It is not likely that they immediately hit upon an alphabet, but they made attempts, and came to it by degrees.

If we look into the Hebrew tongue, which, before it was improved, was perhaps the original language of the world, we shall find that its dissyllables are generally two monosyllable words put together: thus the word Barah, to Eat, is only Bar, the old word for Beer, to declare; and Rah, the old word for Raah, to see; so the word Kashash, to gather is only the word Kash, which signifies Straw, and Sash, to rejoice; Ranal, to be moved, is only the old word Ran, which was afterwards wrote Ranan, to be evil; and Nain, which was anciently wrote Nan, to direct the eye; Abah, to be willing, is made of two words, ab, a father, and Bah, the old word for Bohu, for our Lexicons derive Bohu from an ancient word Bah, or Bahah. This observation may, I believe, be carried thro' the whole language; there is hardly an Hebrew dissyllable, except such only as were anciently pronounced monosyllables, or such as are derived from some theme, and made up of the letters of that theme, with some additional affix, but what are plainly and evidently two words (i. e. two significant sounds) join'd together: and I dare say, instances of this kind are not to be found in any of the modern languages. This therefore was the method which men took to make words of more syllables than one, they joined together their monosyllables, and that afforded a new set of words for the enlarging their language; and if this may be allowed me, it will, I think, lead us

In Philebo. p. 374.

to the first tep taken towards altering the first characters of mankind. As they only doubled their sounds, so they might at first only repeat their marks, and the two marks put together, which singly were the characters of the single words, were the first way of writing the double ones; and this I think must bring them a very considerable step towards the contriving a method of making letters to stand for sounds, and not for things. When men spake in monosyllables only, and made such marks for the things they spoke of, as the fancy of the first author had invented, and custom had made familiar to all that used them, they might go on as the Chinese have, and never think of making their marks stand for the words they spoke, but rather for the things they meant to express by them; but when they once came to think of doubling or joining their marks, in a manner that should accord with the composition of their words, this would evidently lead them to consider strictly, that as sounds may be made the means of expressing our thoughts, by agreeing to use particular sounds for such thoughts as we would express by them; so also may characters be made the marks of particular sounds, by agreeing what character shall be used for one sound and what for another. To give an instance from some one of the words I have before mentioned: suppose Kashash to be the new invented word, designed to signify what we call to gather, and suppose this new word to be made by agreeing as I said, to put two known words together, Kash, the word for Straw, and Sash, to rejoice; and suppose the ancient character for Kash was 8, and for Sash was the character then for Kashash would be Here then it would be remarkable, that the reader, however he might not observe it, when he met either of these characters single, yet he could not but see, when he met them together, that each of them stood in the compound word, for a sound, and not for a thing; for the two sounds, one of which each character was to express, were, when put together, to signify a very different thing from those, which each of them single would have offered. If language therefore was altered as I have hinted, which looks very probable from considering the nature of the Hebrew dissyllables; and if this alteration of language led to such a duplication of character as I have imagined, which is a method very easy and natural for men to fall into, we may see that they would be engaged in making characters stand for sounds before they were aware of it, and they could hardly do so long, before they must consider it, and if they come once to consider it, they would go on apace from one thing to another; they would observe how many sounds the words they had in use might be compounded of, and be hereby led to make as many characters as they could frame single sounds, into which all others might be resolved, and this would lead them directly to an alphabet.

,

It is pretty certain, that various nations, from a difference of pronunciation, or from the different turn of imagination that is always found in different men, would hardly, tho' agreeing in a general scheme for the framing their letters, yet happen to frame an alphabet exactly the same, in

either shape or number of letters; and this we find true in fact: the Arabian and Persian alphabets have such a similitude, that they were probably derived one from the other. And the old Hebrew and Arabian (and perhaps the old Egyptian) characters agree in so many respects, as to give reason to imagine that they were formed from one common plan: tho' they certainly so differ in others, that we can't but think that the authors of them sat down and formed, tho' upon a common scheme, yet in their own way, in the countries which they planted. It is very probable, that there may have been in the world several other alphabets very different from these. I think I have read of a country in India where they use an alphabet of sixty five letters; and Diodorus Siculus* informs us, that in the island of Taprobane, which we now call Ceylon, they anciently used but seven; but perhaps the reader may be better informed in this matter, if he consults some books which Bishop Walton directs to, and which I have not had opportunity of seeing, viz. Postellus de 12 Linguis, Duretus de Linguis et characteribus omnium Linguarum; the Alphabetical tables of various characters published at Frankfort 1596; and Fa. Bonav. Hepburn's seventy Alphabets, published at Rome 1616.

4. ON THE VOWEL POINTS.

From Prideaux's Connection of the History of the Old and New Testament, Sixth edition, Part I, p. 348.

Whether Ezra on this review did add the vowel points, which It are now in the Hebrew Bibles, is an harder question to be decided. went without contradiction in the affirmative, till Elias Levita a German Jew wrote against it, about the beginning of the Reformation. But Cappellus a Professor of Hebrew in their University at Saumur, hath in a very elaborate discourse made a thorough reply to all that can be said on this head, and very strenuously asserted the contrary. Buxtorf the son in vindication of his father's opinion, hath written an answer to it; but not with that satisfaction to the Learned World, as to hinder the