they did not think it necessary to erase the old hieroglyphical characters from their temples, from their obelisks, from their tombs, and religious vases. The priests, therefore, still continued to study and preserve the knowledge of hieroglyphics; and these, partly by their showy nature, partly by the continuation of the old custom, continued still to be used in public monuments of a votive and funereal nature. To distinguish them, therefore, from the alphabetical letters newly invented, they obtained the name of sacred, on the score of their being employed only in matters of religion.

The priests however, who had already invented a new set of arbitrary marks, as a shorter way of hieroglyphical writing, which they employed exclusively in transactions which concerned their body and their pursuits, after the invention of the alphabet turned these marks into letters, and thus they formed another set of characters, or mode of writing, to which they gave the appellation of hieratic, as belonging exclusively to their order. In these characters they wrote all historical, political, and religious transactions. And as the common, or demotic letters, were employed in all the common business of life, and hieroglyphics confined to public monuments, and funereal, and votive ceremonies, the Egyptians became possessed of at least three different modes of writing, or sets of characters, which were hieroglyphic, demotic, and hieratic. Whether the priests had invented

another set of characters, unknown to the people, and in which they concealed their doctrine and their knowledge, is a question which cannot be solved at present. The want of monuments disables us from saying any thing of a decisive nature on this subject. One thing alone we can suppose with certainty, that if such a mode of writing did ever exist, and for the purpose which it is supposed to have existed, the knowledge of it must have been confined to the priests only, and the records so written concealed with the greatest care from the eye of the nation. If therefore such records exist, they must be sought for in the dwelling of the Hierophant, in the most recondite places of the temples; perhaps in those subterraneous passages, which now lie hidden under mountains of sand, and in which no one but the priests were ever permitted to enter.

From what has been said, it is evident that hieroglyphics were never intended to hide mysteries, or in other words, hieroglyphics were in use as common writing, amongst most if not all the nations of the universe long before the invention of the alphabet. Originally they exhibited the regular picture of the thing; and by an easy and gradual alteration, for the sake of shortening labour, they were turned into arbitrary marks, which however had the same signification and import as the original figure. And as most of the words which were attached to each of these figures or marks were monosyllables, these figures and these marks were finally taken as the

expression of the hard sound of the consonants with which each monosyllable began; and thus, by degrees, mankind came to the invention of the alphabet. But hieroglyphics, neither in their original nor alphabetical signification, were intended to conceal mysteries, nor was their knowledge ever kept from the people. To suppose, in fact, that hieroglyphics were invented for the sake of secrecy, is to suppose what has been contradicted by the most authentic historical records; and to assert that the Egyptians had letters before they had hieroglyphics, is the same as to affirm that they danced before they could walk. Whether they had any literature, or scientific books, we will consider in our next Lecture.

LECTURE IX.

Continuation of the same subject-Opinion of those who ascribe the invention of the alphabet to the Antediluvians—Scientific and literary productions of the old Egyptians-Books of Hermes-A short enumeration of their several classes, and of the priests who were to cultivate each of them—A further account of the scientific productions of the Egyptians— Authorities of the classic writers-Libraries-Of Osymandias-Alexandria-An account of them-General observa

tions.

IN my last Lecture I endeavoured to explain how mankind came to the discovery of the alphabet. We saw that the original mode of writing was the exact figure of the object, and that this figure, for the sake of diminishing labour, became first a simple drawing of the outlines, then a sketch somewhat resembling the outlines, and ultimately an arbitrary mark, which produced the three different modes of writing existing amongst the Egyptians, generally designated by the appellations of hieroglyphic, demotic, and hieratic. We noted that these different characters had a sound attached to them, and were mostly expressed in the common language by monosyllables. By adding two of

these marks together, mankind came to form words of two syllables, which in writing, were represented by the addition of the two marks, each of which expressed one of these monosyllables. Thus, originally, each picture, or hieroglyphic, had the sound of a whole syllable, that is, a sound made up by a consonant and vowel: and, by degrees, by analyzing the sound of the vowels in which these monosyllables generally terminated, men came at last to find the consonants, that is, to consider these marks, which originally represented a monosyllable, or a sound of a consonant joined to a vowel, as representing the consonant only. To prove this theory, we had recourse to the Hebrew, Chinese, and Egyptian alphabets and languages, from which we derived several examples, by which I endeavoured to join the different links of the chain of our reasoning.

Turning afterwards to the country where this discovery was made, we gave the credit of it to the Egyptians, and quoted a remarkable passage of Plato. From this passage we deduced many important consequences, and principally that hieroglyphics were never intended for secrecy, and that they were in use amongst all the nations of the globe, long before the invention of the alphabet; and I concluded the Lecture by a promise to attempt at ascertaining whether the Egyptians had any literature or scientific productions.

Before however I fulfil this promise, I think it necessary to state to you another opinion, by