the natural or customary series of the several letters of a language (see Language and Writing). The word is formed from alpha and beta, the first and second letters of the Greek alphabet. The number of letters is different in the alphabets of different languages. The English alphabet contains 24 letters; to which if we add j and v consonant, the sum will be 26; the French contains 23; the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Samaritan, 22 each; the Arabic 28; the Persian 31; the Turkish 33; the Georgian 36; the Coptic 32; the Mucovite 43; the Greek 24; the Latin 22; the Slavonic 27; the Dutch 26; the Spanish 27; the Italian 20; the Ethiopic and Tartarian, each 20; the Indians of Bengal 21; the Baramefe 19. The Chinese have, properly speaking, no alphabet, except we call their whole language by that name; their letters are words, or rather hieroglyphics, amounting to about 80,000.
It has been a matter of considerable dispute whether the method of expressing our ideas by visible symbols, called letters, be really a human invention; or whether we ought to attribute an art so exceedingly useful, to an immediate revelation from the Deity.—In favour of the latter opinion it has been urged,
1. The five books of Moses are universally acknowledged to be the most ancient compositions as well as the most early specimens of alphabetical writing we have. If, therefore, we suppose writing to be the result of human ingenuity, it must be different from all other arts, having been brought to perfection at once; as it seems impossible to make any real improvement on the Hebrew alphabet. It may indeed be replied, that alphabetical characters perhaps have existed many ages before the writings of Moses, though the more ancient specimens have perished. This, however, being a mere mere unsupported assertion, without any historical testimony to corroborate it, cannot be admitted as a proof. Again, setting aside the evidence to be derived from Scripture on this subject, the simplicity of manners predominant in the early ages, the small extent of the intellectual powers of mankind, and the little intercourse which nations had with one another, which would seem more particularly to render writing necessary, can scarce allow us to suppose that such a complex and curious contrivance as alphabetical writing could be invented by a race of men whose wants were so few, their advantages so circumscribed, and their ideas so limited.
2. If alphabetical writing were a mere human invention, it might be expected that different nations would have fallen upon the same expedient independent of each other during the compass of so many ages. But no such thing has taken place; and the writing of every people on earth may be referred to one common original. If this can be proved, the argument from successive derivation, without a single instance of independent discovery, must be allowed to amount to the very highest degree of probability in favour of our hypothesis, which will now rest on the evidence for or against this fact; and which may be summed up in the following manner.
Among the European nations we find none who can pretend any right to the discovery of letters. All of them derive the art from the Romans, excepting only the Turks, who had it from the Arabians. The Romans never laid claim to the discovery; but confessed that they derived their knowledge from the Greeks, and the latter owned that they had it from the Phoenicians; who, as well as their colonists the Carthaginians, spoke a dialect of the Hebrew scarcely varying from the original. The Coptic, or Egyptian, resembles the Greek in most of its characters, and is therefore to be referred to the same original. The Chaldee, Syriac, and latter Samaritan, are dialects of the Hebrew, without any considerable deviation, or many additional words. The Ethiopic differs more from the Hebrew, but less than the Arabic; yet these languages have all issued from the same stock, as the similarity of their formation, and the numberless words common to them, all sufficiently evince; and the Peric is very nearly allied to the Arabic. Alterations indeed would naturally be produced, in proportion to the civilization of the several nations, and their intercourse with others; which will account for the superior copiousness of some above the rest. It appears then, that all the languages in use amongst men that have been conveyed in alphabetical characters, have been the languages of people connected ultimately or immediately with the Hebrews, who have handed down the earliest specimens of writing to posterity; and we have therefore the greatest reason to believe, that their method of writing, as well as their language, was derived from the same source.
This proposition will be farther confirmed from considering the sameness of the artificial denominations of the letters in the Oriental, Greek, and Latin languages, accompanied also by a similar arrangement, as alpha, beta, &c. It may still be objected, however, that the characters employed by the ancients to discriminate their letters are entirely dissimilar. Why should not one nation, it may be urged, adopt from Alphabet, the other mode of expressing the art as well as the art itself? To what purpose did they take the trouble of inventing other characters? To this objection it may be replied, 1. From the instance of our own language we know what diversities may be introduced in this respect merely by length of time and an intercourse with neighbouring nations. And such an effect would be more likely to take place before the art of printing had contributed to establish an uniformity of character: For when every work was transcribed by the hand, we may easily imagine how many variations would arise from the fancy of the scribe, and the mode of writing so constantly different in individuals. 2. This diversity might sometimes arise from vanity. When an individual of another community had become acquainted with this wonderful art, he might endeavour to recommend himself as the inventor; and, to avoid detection, might invent other characters. 3. The characters of the alphabet might sometimes be accommodated as much as possible to the symbolical marks already in use amongst a particular people. These having acquired a high degree of sanctity by the use of many generations, would not be easily superceded without the aid of some such contrivance. 4. This is supported by the testimony of Herodotus; who informs us, that "those Phoenicians who came with Cadmus introduced many improvements among the Greeks, and alphabetical writing too, not known among them before that period. At first they used the Phoenician character; but in process of time, as the pronunciation altered, the standard of the letters was also changed. The Ionian Greeks inhabited at that time the parts adjacent to Phoenicia; who having received the art of alphabetical writing from the Phoenicians, used it, with an alteration of some few characters, and confessed ingenuously, that it was called Phoenician from the introducers of it." He tells us that he had himself seen the characters of Cadmus in a temple of Isonian Apollo at Thebes in Boeotia, engraven upon tripods, and very much resembling the Ionian characters. 5. The old Samaritan is precisely the same as the Hebrew language; and the Samaritan Pentateuch does not vary by a single letter in twenty words from the Hebrew; but the characters are widely different: for the Jews adopted the Chaldaic letters during their captivity at Babylon, instead of the characters of their forefathers.
3. What we know of those nations who have continued for many centuries unconnected with the rest of the world, strongly militates against the hypothesis of the human invention of alphabetical writing. The experiment has been fairly made upon the ingenuity of mankind for a longer period than that which is supposed to have produced alphabetical writing by regular gradations; and this experiment determines perpetually in their favour. The Chinese, a people famous for their discoveries and mechanical turn of genius, have made some advances towards the delineation of their ideas by arbitrary signs; but have nevertheless been unable to accomplish this exquisite device; and after so long a trial to no purpose, we may reasonably infer, that their mode of writing, which is growing more intricate and voluminous every day, would never terminate in so clear, so comparatively simple, The Mexicans, too, had made some rude attempts of the same kind; but with less success than the Chinese. We know also, that hieroglyphics were in use among the Egyptians posterior to the practice of alphabetical writing by the Jews; but whether the epigraphy, as it is called, of the former people, which was in vogue during the continuance of the hieroglyphics, might not possibly be another name for alphabetical writing, cannot be decided.
4. We shall consider the argument on which the commonly received supposition entirely depends: that is, the natural gradation through the several species of symbols acknowledged to have been in use with various people, terminating at last by an easy transition, in the detection of alphabetical characters. The strength of this argument will be best understood from the following representation.
"1. The first method of embodying ideas would be by drawing a representation of the objects themselves. The imperfection of this method is very obvious, both on account of its tediousness and its inability of going beyond external appearances to the abstract ideas of the mind.
"2. The next method would be somewhat more general, and would substitute two or three principal circumstances for the whole transaction. So two kings, for example, engaging each other with military weapons, might serve to convey the idea of a war between the two nations. This abbreviated method would be more expeditious than the former; but what it gained in conciseness would be lost in perspicuity. It is a description more compendious indeed, but still a description of outward objects alone, by drawing their resemblance. To this head may be referred the picture-writing of the Mexicans.
"3. The next advance would be to the use of symbols: the incorporation, as it were, of abstract and complex ideas in figures more or less generalized, in proportion to the improvement of it. Thus, in the earlier stages of this device, a circle might serve to express the sun, a semicircle the moon; which is only a contraction of the foregoing method. This symbol-writing in its advanced state would become more refined, but enigmatical and mysterious in proportion to its refinement. Hence it would become less fit for common use; and therefore more particularly appropriated to the mysteries of philosophy and religion. Thus, two feet standing upon water served to express an impossibility; a serpent denoted the oblique trajectories of the heavenly bodies; and the beetle, on account of some supposed properties of that insect, served to represent the sun. The Egyptian hieroglyphics were of this kind.
"4. This method being still too subtle and complicated for common use, the only plan to be pursued was a reduction of the first stage of the preceding method. Thus a dot, instead of a circle, might stand for the sun; and a similar abbreviation might be extended to all the symbols. On this scheme every object and idea would have its appropriated mark: these marks therefore would have a multiplicity proportional to the works of nature and the operations of the mind. This method was likewise practiced by the Egyptians; but has been carried to greater perfection by the Chinese. The vocabulary of the latter alphabet is therefore infinite, or at least capable of being extended to any imaginable length. But if we compare this tedious and awkward contrivance with the astonishing brevity and perspicuity of alphabetical writing, we must be persuaded that no two things can be more dissimilar; and that the transition from a scheme constantly enlarging itself, and growing daily more intricate, to the expression of every possible idea by the modified arrangement of four-and-twenty marks, is not so very easy and perceptible as some have imagined. Indeed, this seems still to be rather an expression of things in a manner similar to the second stage of symbol-writing than the notification of ideas by arbitrary signs."
To all this we shall subjoin the following remarks, which seem to give additional force to the foregoing reasoning.
"1. Pliny affirms the use of letters to have been eternal; which shows the antiquity of the practice to extend beyond the era of authentic history.
"2. The cabalistical doctors of the Jews maintain, that alphabetical writing was one of the ten things which God created on the evening of the Sabbath.
"3. Most of the profane authors of antiquity ascribe the first use of alphabetical characters to the Egyptians; who, according to some, received them from Mercury; and, according to others, from their god Teth.
"4. There is very little reason to suppose that even language itself is the effect of human ingenuity and invention."
Thus we have stated the arguments in favour of the answers to revelation of alphabetical writing; which are answered, the above ed., by those who take the contrary side, in the following manner.
1. Moses nowhere says that the alphabet was a new thing in his time; nor does he give the least hint of his being the inventor of it. The first mention we find of writing is in the 17th chapter of Exodus; where Moses is commanded to write in a book; and which took place before the arrival of the Israelites at Sinai. This shows that writing did not commence with the delivery of the two tables of the law, as some have supposed. Neither are we to conclude that the invention had taken place only a short time before; for the writing in a book is commanded as a thing commonly understood, and with which Moses was well acquainted. It is plain, from the command to engrave the names of the twelve tribes of Israel upon stones like the engravings of a signet, that writing had been known and practiced among them, as well as other nations, long before. We must also remember, that the people were commanded to write the law on their doorposts, &c. so that the art seems not only to have been known, but universally practiced among them. But had writing been a new discovery in the time of Moses, he would probably have commemorated it as well as the other inventions of music, &c.: Nor is there any reason to suppose that God was the immediate revealer of the art; for Moses would never have omitted to record a circumstance of such importance, as the memory of it would have been one of the strongest barriers against idolatry.
Again, Again, though several profane writers attribute the origin of letters to the gods, or to some divine person, yet this is no proof of its being actually revealed; but only that the original inventor was unknown. The learned bishop of Gloucester observes, that the ancients gave nothing to the gods of whose original they had any records; but where the memory of the invention was lost, as of seed-corn, wine, writing, civil society, &c. the gods seized the property, by that kind of right which gives strays to the lord of the manor.
As neither the sacred nor profane historians, therefore, have determined anything concerning the invention of letters, we are at liberty to form what conjectures we think most plausible concerning the origin of them; and this, it is thought, might have taken place in the following manner.
"1. Men, in their rude uncultivated state, would have neither leisure, inclination, nor inducement, to cultivate the powers of the mind to a degree sufficient for the formation of an alphabet: but when a people arrived at such a pitch of civilization as required them to represent the conceptions of the mind which have no corporeal forms, necessity would occasion further exertions, and urge them to find out a more expeditious manner of transacting their business than by picture-writing.
"2. These exertions would take place whenever a nation began to improve in arts, manufactures, and commerce; and the greater genius such a nation had, the more improvements would be made in the notation of their language; whilst those people who had made less progress in civilization and science, would have a less perfect system of elementary characters; and perhaps advance no farther for many ages than the marks or characters of the Chinese. Hence we may see, that the business of princes, as well as the manufactures and commerce of each country, would produce the necessity of devising some expeditions manner of communicating information to one another."
The art of writing, however, is of so great antiquity, and the early history of most nations so full of fable, that it must be extremely difficult to determine what nation or people may justly claim the honour of the invention. But as it is probable that letters were the produce of a certain degree of civilization among mankind, we must therefore have recourse to the history of those nations who seem to have been first civilized.
The Egyptians have an undoubted title to a very early civilization; and many learned men have attributed the invention of letters to them. The late bishop of Gloucester contends, that Egypt was the parent of all the learning of Greece, and was referred to by all the Grecian legislators, naturalists, and philosophers; and endeavours to prove that it was one of the first civilized countries on the globe. Their writing was of four kinds: 1. Hieroglyphic; 2. Symbolic; 3. Epistolic; and, 4. Hierogrammatic. In the most early ages they wrote like all other infant nations, by pictures; of which some traces yet remain amongst the hieroglyphics of Horapollo, who informs us, that they represented a fuller by a man's two feet in water; fire, by smoke ascending, &c. But to render this rude invention less inconvenient, they soon devised the method of putting one thing of similar qualities for another.
The former was called the curiologic, the latter the tropical hieroglyphic; which last was a gradual improvement on the former. These alterations in the manner of delineating hieroglyphic figures produced and perfected another character, called the running-hand of the hieroglyphics, resembling the Chinese writing; which having been first formed by the outlines of each figure, became at length a kind of marks; the natural effects of which were, that the constant use of them would take off the attention from the symbol and fix it on the thing signified. Thus the study of symbolic writing would be much abbreviated; because the writer or decypherer would have then little to do but to remember the power of the symbolic mark; whereas before, the properties of the thing or animal delineated were to be learned. This, together with the other marks by institution, to denote mental conceptions, would reduce the characters to a similar state with the present Chinese; and these were properly what the ancients called hieroglyphical. We are informed by Dr Robert Huntington, in his account of the Porphyry pillars, that there are some ancient monuments of this kind yet remaining in Egypt.
The sacred book or ritual of the Egyptians, according to Apuleius, was written partly in symbolic and partly in these hieroglyphic characters, in the following manner: "He (the hieropliant) drew out certain books from the secret repositories of the sanctuary, written in unknown characters, which contained the words of the sacred formula copiously expressed, partly by figures of animals, and partly by certain marks or notes intricately knotted, revolving in the manner of a wheel, crowded together, and curled inward like the tendrils of a vine, so as to hide the meaning from the curiosity of the profane."
But though letters were of great antiquity in Egypt, there is reason to believe that they were not first invented in that country. Mr Jackson, in his Chronological Antiquities, has endeavoured to prove, that they were not invented or carried into Egypt by Taaut or Thoth, the first Hermes, and son of Mifraim, who lived about 500 years after the deluge; but that they were introduced into that country by the second Hermes, who lived about 400 years after the former. This second Hermes, according to Diodorus, was the inventor of grammar and music, and added many words to the Egyptian language. According to the same author also, he invented letters, rhythm, and the harmony of sounds. This was the Hermes so much celebrated by the Greeks, who knew no other than himself. On the other hand, Mr Wise affirms that Moses and Cadmus could not learn the alphabet in Egypt; and that the Egyptians had no alphabet in their time. He adduces several reasons to prove that they had none till they received what is called the Coptic, which was introduced either in the time of the Ptolemies or under Ptolemychus or Amasis; and the oldest alphabetic letters which can be produced as Egyptian, appear plainly to have been derived from the Greek. Herodotus confesses, that all he relates before the reign of Ptolemychus is uncertain; and that he reports the early transactions of that nation on the credit of the Egyptian priests, on which he did not greatly depend; and Diodorus Siculus is said to have been greatly imposed upon by them. Manetho, the oldest Egyptian historian, translated... translated the sacred registers out of Egyptian into Greek, which are said by Syncellus to have been written in the sacred letters, and to have been laid up by the second Mercury in the Egyptian temples. He allows the Egyptian gods to have been mortal men; but his history was very much corrupted by the Greeks, and hath been called in question by several writers from the account which he himself gave of it. After Cambyses had carried away the Egyptian records, the priests, to supply their loss, and to keep up their pretensions to antiquity, began to write new records; wherein they not only unavoidably made great mistakes, but added much of their own invention, especially as to distant times.
The Phoenicians have likewise been supposed the inventors of letters; and we have the strongest proofs of the early civilization of this people. Their most ancient historian, Sanchoniatho, lived in the time of Abibalus, father of Hiram king of Tyre. He informs us, that letters were invented by Taaut, who lived in Phoenicia in the 12th and 13th generations after the creation. "Mifor (says he) was the son of Hamyn; the son of Mifor was Taaut, who invented the first letters for writing." The Egyptians call him Thoth; the Alexandrians Thoyth; and the Greeks Hermes, or Mercury. In the time of this Taaut or Mercury (the grandson of Ham the son of Noah), Phoenicia and the adjacent country was governed by Uranus, and after him by his son Saturn or Cronus. He invented letters either in the reign of Uranus or Cronus; and reigned in Phoenicia with Cronus till the 32nd year of his reign. Cronus, after the death of his father Uranus, made several settlements of his family, and travelled into other parts; and when he came to the south country, he gave all Egypt to the god Taautus, that it should be his kingdom. Sanchoniatho began his history with the creation, and ended it with placing Taautus on the throne of Egypt. He does not mention the deluge, but makes two more generations in Cain's line from Protogonus to Agrovenus (or from Adam to Noah) than Moses. As Sanchoniatho has not told us whether Taaut invented letters either in the reign of Uranus or Cronus, "we cannot err much (says Mr Jackson) if we place his invention of them 550 years after the flood, or 20 years after the dispersion, and 2619 years before the Christian era, and fix, or perhaps ten years, before he went into Egypt." This prince and his posterity reigned at Thebes in Upper Egypt for 15 generations.
Several Roman authors attribute the invention of letters to the Phoenicians. Pliny says (a), the Phoenicians were famed for the invention of letters, as well as for astronomical observations and novel and martial arts. Curtius informs us, that the Tyrian nation are related to be the first who either taught or learned letters; and Lucan says, that they were the first who attempted to express sounds or words by letters. Eusebius also tells us from Porphyry, that "Sanchoniatho studied with great application the writings of Taaut, knowing that he was the first who invented letters."
The Greeks, as we have already observed, knew no older Hermes than the second, who lived about 400 years after the Mezrite Taaut or Hermes. This second Hermes is called by Plato Thoth, and counsellor or sacred scribe to king Thamus; but it is not said that he ever reigned in Egypt; but the former Taaut, or Athothes, as Manetho calls him, was the immediate successor of Menes the first king of Egypt. This second Mercury, if we may believe Manetho, composed several books of the Egyptian history; and having improved both the language and letters of that nation, the Egyptians attributed the arts and inventions of the former to the latter. The Phoenician language is generally allowed to have been a dialect of the Hebrew; and tho' their alphabet does not entirely agree with the Samaritan, yet there is a great similarity between them. Astronomy and arithmetic were much cultivated among them in the most early ages; their fine linen, purple, and glass, were much superior to those of other nations; and their extraordinary skill in architecture and other arts was such, that whatever was great, elegant, or pleasing, whether in buildings, apparel, or toys, was distinguished by the epithet of Tyrian or Sidonian; these being the chief cities of Phoenicia. Their great proficiency in learning and arts of all kinds, together with their engrossing all the commerce of the western world, are likewise thought to give them a just claim to the invention of letters.
The Chaldeans also have laid claim to the invention of letters; and with regard to this, there is a tradition among the Jews, Indians, and Arabians, that the Egyptians derived their knowledge from Abraham, who was a Chaldean. This tradition is in some degree confirmed by most of the western writers, who ascribe the inventions of arithmetic and astronomy to the Chaldeans. Josephus positively affirms, that the Egyptians were ignorant of the sciences of arithmetic and astronomy before they were instructed by Abraham; and Sir Isaac Newton admits, that letters were known in the line of that patriarch for many centuries before Moses. The Chaldaic letters appear to have been derived from the Hebrew or Samaritan; which are the same, or nearly so, with the old Phoenician. Ezra is supposed to have exchanged the old Hebrew characters for the more beautiful and commodious Chaldee, which are still in use. Berossus, the most ancient Chaldean historian, who was born in the minority of Alexander the Great, does not say that he believed his countrymen to have been the inventors of letters.
The Syrians have also laid claim to the invention of letters. It is certain, indeed, that they yielded to no nation in knowledge and skill in the fine arts. Their language is said to have been the vernacular of all the oriental tongues, and was divided into three dialects. 1. The Aramean, used in Mesopotamia, and by the inhabitants of Roha and Edeta of Harram, and the Outer Syria. 2. The dialect of Palestine; spoken by the inhabitants of Damascus, Mount Lebanon, and the Inner Syria. 3. The Chaldee or Nabathean dialect, the most unpolished of the three; and spoken in the mountainous parts of Assyria, and the villages of
(a) See above, no. 2., where he says that the knowledge of letters was eternal. What dependence can we put in the testimony of such a writer? Alphabet. Irac or Babylonia. It has been generally believed, that no nation of equal antiquity had a more considerable trade than the Syrians: they are supposed to have first brought the commodities of Persia and India into the west of Asia; and they seem to have carried on an inland trade by engrossing the navigation of the Euphrates, whilst the Phoenicians traded to the most distant countries. Notwithstanding these circumstances, however, which might seem to favour the claim of the Syrians, the oldest characters they have are but about three centuries before Christ. Their letters are of two sorts. 1. The Estrangelo, which is the more ancient; and, 2. The Eshto, the simple or common character, which is the more expeditious and beautiful.
We must next examine the claims of the Indians, whose pretensions to antiquity yield to no other nation on earth. Mr Halhed, who has written a grammar of the Sanscrit language, informs us, that it is not only the grand source of Indian literature, but the parent of almost every dialect from the Persian gulph to the Chinese seas, and which is said to be a language of the most venerable antiquity. At present it is appropriated to religious records of the Bramins, and therefore shut up in their libraries; but formerly it appears to have been current over the greatest part of the eastern world, as traces of its extent may be found in almost every district of Asia.
Mr Halhed informs us, that "there is a great similarity between the Sanscrit words and those of the Persian and Arabic, and even of Latin and Greek; and these not in technical or metaphorical terms, but in the main groundwork of language; in monosyllables, the names of numbers, and the appellations of such things as would be first discriminated on the immediate dawn of civilization. The resemblance which may be seen of the characters on the medals and sigils of different parts of Asia, the light they reciprocally throw upon one another, and the general analogy which they all bear to the grand prototype, affords another ample field for curiosity. The coins of Assam, Napul, Cashmiria, and many other kingdoms, are all stamped with Sanscrit letters, and mostly contain allusions to the old Sanscrit mythology. The same conformity may be observed in the impressions of seals from Bootan and Thibet."
The country between the Indus and Ganges still preserves the Sanscrit language in its original purity, and offers a great number of books to the perusal of the curious; many of which have been handed down from the earliest periods of human civilization.
There are seven different sorts of Indian hand-writings, all comprised under the general term of Naagoree, which may be interpreted writing. The Bramins say that letters were of divine origin; and the elegant Sanscrit is styled Daeb-naagoree, or the writings of the Immortals, which might not improbably be a refinement from the more simple Naagoree of former ages. The Bengal letters are another branch of the same stock. The Bramins of Bengal have all their Sanscrit books copied in their national alphabet, and they transposed into them all the Daeb-naagoree manuscripts for their own perusal. The Moorish dialect is that species of Hindostanic which we owe to the conquests of the Mahometans.
The Sanscrit language contains about 700 radical words; the fundamental part being being divided into three classes, viz. 1. Dhaat, or roots of verbs; 2. Shubd, or original nouns; 3. Evya, or particles. Their alphabet contains 50 letters; viz. 34 consonants and 16 vowels. They assert that they were in possession of letters before any other nation in the world; and Mr Halhed conjectures, that the long-boasted original civilization of the Egyptians may still be a matter of dispute. The Rajah of Kifhinagur affirms, that he has in his possession Sanscrit books, where the Egyptians are constantly described as disciples, not as instructors; and as seeking in Hindostan that liberal education, and those sciences, which none of their own countrymen had sufficient knowledge to impart. Mr Halhed hints also, that the learning of Hindostan might have been transplanted into Egypt, and thus have become familiar to Moses. Several authors, however, are of opinion, that the ancient Egyptians possessed themselves of the trade of the East by the Red Sea, and that they carried on a considerable traffic with the Indian nations before the time of Sesostris; whom they suppose to have been contemporary with Abraham, though Sir Isaac Newton conjectures him to have been the Shiphak who took Jerusalem in the time of Rehoboam.
In the year 1769, one of the sacred books of the Gentoes called Bagavadam, translated by Meridas Poule, a learned man of Indian origin, and chief interpreter to the supreme council of Pondicherry, was sent by him to M. Bertin in France. In his preface he says, that it was composed by Viasser the son of Brahma, and is of sacred authority among the worshippers of Vishnu. This book claims an antiquity of 5000 years; but M. de Guines has shown, that its pretensions to such extravagant antiquity are entirely inconclusive and unsatisfactory: whence we may conclude, says Mr Aftle, that though a farther inquiry into the literature of the Indian nations may be laudable, yet we must by no means give too easy credit to their relations concerning the high antiquity of their manuscripts and early civilization.
It is not pretended that the Persians had any great learning among them till the time of Hytaiapes the father of Darius. The former, we are told, travelled into India, and was instructed by the Bramins in the sciences for which they were famed at that time. The ancient Persians despised riches and commerce, nor had they any money among them till after the conquest of Lydia. It appears by several inscriptions taken from the ruins of the palace of Persepolis, which was built near 700 years before the Christian era, that the Persians sometimes wrote in perpendicular columns like the Chinese. This mode of writing was first made use of on the stems of trees, pillars, or obelisks. As for those simple characters found on the west side of the stair-case of Persepolis, some have supposed them to be alphabetic, some hieroglyphic, and others antediluvian. Dr Hyde pronounces them to have been mere whimsical ornaments, though the author of Conjectural Observations on Alphabetical Writing supposes them to be fragments of Egyptian antiquity brought by Cambyses from the spoils of Thebes. The learned are generally agreed, that the Persians were later in civilization than many of their neighbours; and they are not supposed to have any pretensions to the invention of letters.
As the Arabians have been in possession of the coun-try try they now inhabit for upwards of 3700 years, without being intermixed with foreign nations, or subjuga- ted by any other power, their language must be very ancient. The two principal dialects of it were that spoken by the Hamyrites and other genuine Arabs; and that of the Koreish, in which Mahomet wrote the Alcoran. The former is named by oriental writers the Arabic of Hamyar; the latter, the pure, or defeated Arabic. Mr Richardson observes, as a proof of the richness of this language, that it consists of 2000 radical words.
The old Arabic characters are said to have been of very high antiquity; for Ebn Hafhem relates, that an inscription in it was found in Yaman as old as the days of Joseph. Hence some have supposed that the Arabians were the inventors of letters; and Sir Isaac Newton is of opinion, that Moses learned the alphabet from the Midianites, who were Arabians.
The alphabet of the Arabs consists of 28 letters similar to the ancient Cufic, in which the first copies of the Alcoran were written. The present Arabic characters were formed by Ebn Moklah, a learned Arabian, who lived about 300 years after Mahomet. The Arabian writers themselves inform us, that their alphabet is not very ancient, and that they received it only a short time before the introduction of Islamism.
On this account of the pretensions of different nations to the invention of letters, Mr Ayle makes the following reflections. "The vanity of each nation induces them to pretend to the most early civilization; but such is the uncertainty of ancient history, that it is difficult to determine to whom the honour is due. It should seem, however, that the contest may be confined to the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, and the Chaldeans. The Greek writers, and most of those who have copied them, decide in favour of Egypt, because their information is derived from the Egyptians themselves. The positive claim of the Phoenicians does not depend entirely upon the testimony of Sanchoniatho; the credit of his history is so well supported by Philo of Byblus his translator, Porphyry, Pliny, Curtius, Lucan, and other ancient writers, who might have seen his works entire, and whose relations deserve at least as much credit as those of the Egyptian and Greek writers. It must be allowed, that Sanchoniatho's history contains many fabulous accounts; but does not the ancient history of the Egyptians, the Greeks, and most other nations, abound with them to a much greater degree? The fragments which we have of this most ancient historian are chiefly furnished by Eusebius, who took all possible advantages to represent the Pagan writers in the worst light, and to render their theology absurd and ridiculous.
"The Phoenician and Egyptian languages are very similar; but the latter is said to be more large and full, which is an indication of its being of a later date. The opinion of Mr Wile, however, that the ancient Egyptians had not the knowledge of letters, seems to be erroneous; as they had commercial intercourse with their neighbours the Phoenicians, they probably had the knowledge of letters, if their policy, like that of the Chinese at this day, did not prohibit the use of them.
"The Chaldeans, who cultivated astronomy in the most remote ages, used symbols or arbitrary marks in their calculations; and we have shown, that these were the parents of letters. This circumstance greatly favours their claim to the invention; because Chaldea, and the countries adjacent, are allowed by all authors, both sacred and profane, to have been peopled before Egypt; and it is certain that many nations said to be descended from Shem and Japhet, had their letters from the Phoenicians, who were descended from Ham.
"It is observable, that the Chaldeans, the Syrians, Phoenicians, and Egyptians, all bordered upon each other; and as the Phoenicians were the greatest as well as the most ancient commercial nation, it is very probable that they communicated letters to the Egyptians, the ports of Tyre and Sidon being not far distant from each other.
"Mr Jackson is evidently mistaken when he says, that letters were invented 2619 years before the birth of Christ. The deluge recorded by Moses was 2349 years before that event; and if letters were not invented till 550 years after, as he affirms, we must date their discovery only 1799 years before the Christian era, which is 410 years after the reign of Menes the first king of Egypt, who, according to Syncellus and others, is said to have been the same person with the Mifor of Sanchoniatho, the Mizraim of the Scriptures, and the Osiris of the Egyptians; but whether this be true or not, Egypt is frequently called in Scripture the land of Mizraim.
"This Mizraim, the second son of Amyn or Ham, seated himself near the entrance of Egypt at Zoan, in the year before Christ 2188, and 160 years after the flood. He afterwards built Thebes, and some say Memphis. Before the time that he went into Egypt, his son Taaut had invented letters in Phoenicia; and if this invention took place ten years before the migration of his father into Egypt, as Mr Jackson supposes, we may trace letters as far back as the year 2178 before Christ, or 150 years after the deluge recorded by Moses; and beyond this period, the written annals of mankind, which have been hitherto transmitted to us, will not enable us to trace the knowledge of them; though this want of materials is no proof that letters were not known until a century and a half after the deluge. As for the pretensions of the Indian nations, we must be better acquainted with their records before we can admit of their claim to the first use of letters; especially as none of their manuscripts of any great antiquity have as yet appeared in Europe. That the Arabians were not the inventors of letters, has appeared by their own confession.—Plato somewhere mentions Hyperborean letters very different from the Greek; these might have been the characters used by the Tartars or ancient Scythians.
"It may be expected that something should be said of antediluvian writing, concerning those books mentioned by some authors to have been written before the deluge. Amongst others, Dr Parsons, in his Remains of Japhet, p. 346, 359, supposes letters to have been known to Adam; and the Sabaeans produce a book which they pretend was written by Adam. But concerning these we have no guide to direct us any more than concerning the supposed books of Enoch; some of which, Origin tells us, were found in Arabia Felix, in the dominion of the queen of Saba. Tertullian affirms, that he saw and read several pages of them; and in his treatise *De Habitu Mulierum*, he places those books among the canonical; but St Jerom and St Austin look upon them to be apocryphal. William Postellus pretended to compile his book *De Originibus* from the book of Enoch; and Thomas Bangius published at Copenhagen, in 1657, a work which contains many singular relations concerning the manner of writing among the antediluvians, which contains several pleasant stories concerning the books of Enoch.
"With regard to this patriarch, indeed, St Jude informs us, that he prophesied, but he does not say that he wrote. The writings, therefore, attributed to the antediluvians, must appear quite uncertain; though it might be improper to assert that letters were unknown before the deluge recorded by Moses."
Our author proceeds to show, that all the alphabets in the world cannot be derived from one original; because there are a variety of alphabets used in different parts of Asia, which vary in name, number, figure, order, and power, from the Phoenician, ancient Hebrew, or Samaritan. In several of these alphabets also, there are marks for sounds peculiar to the language of the east, which are not necessary to be employed in the notation of the languages of Europe.
None of the alphabets to the east of Persia have any connection with the Phoenician or its derivatives, except where the Arabic letters have been introduced by the conquests of the Mahometans. The foundation of all the Indian characters are those called *Shanfrit*, or *Sangkrit*. This signifies something brought to perfection, in contradistinction to *prakrit*, which signifies vulgar or unpolished. Hence the refined and religious language and characters of India are called *Sangkrit*, and the more vulgar mode of writing and expression *Prakrit*. From this Shanfrit are derived the sacred characters of Thibet, the Cashmirian, Bengalese, Malabaric, and Tamoul; the Singalese, Siamese, Maharattan, Concanee, &c. From the same source we may derive the Tangutic or Tartar characters, which are similar, in their great outlines, to the Shanfrit; though it is not easily determined which is derived from the other. The common Tartar is generally read, like the Chinese, from top to bottom.
There are, however, several alphabets used in different parts of Asia, entirely different not only from the Shanfrit and all those derived from it, but also from the Phoenician and those which proceed from it. Some of these are the alphabet of Pegu, the *Batta* characters used in the island of Sumatra, and the *Barman* or *Bo-man* characters used in some parts of Pegu. The names and powers of the letters of which these alphabets are composed, differ entirely from the Phoenician, or those derived from them. It is impossible to assimilate their forms, and indeed it is by no means easy to conceive how the 50 letters of the Shanfrit language could be derived from the Phoenician alphabet, which consisted originally only of 13; though it is certain, that by far the greater number of alphabets now in use are derived from the ancient Hebrew, Phoenician, or Samaritan.
Mr. Ashe next proceeds to consider what alphabets are derived from the Phoenician. These he supposes to have been immediately the ancient Hebrew or Samaritan; *Alp* (a) the Chaldaic; the Baftulian (a) or Spanish Phoenician; the Punic, Carthaginian, or Sicilian; and the Pelagian. From the ancient Hebrew proceeded the Phoenician, Chaldaic or square Hebrew; the round Hebrew; and what is called the *running hand of the Rabbins*. The Pelagian gave birth to the Etruscan, Eubugian, or Umbrian, Ofcan, Samnite, and Ionic Greek, written from the left. From the Chaldaic or square Hebrew are derived the Syriac, and the ancient and modern Arabic. The Syriac is divided into the Estrangelo and Mondran, and the modern Arabic has given rise to the Persian and Turkish. From the ancient Arabic are derived the Kufic or Oriental, the Mauritanic or Occidental; the African or Saracen, and the Moorish. The Ionic Greek gave rise to the Arcadian, Latin, ancient Gaulish, ancient Spanish, ancient Gothic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Russian, Illyrian or Slavonic, Bulgarian and Armenian. From the Roman are derived the Lombardic, Visigothic, Saxon, Gallican, Franco-Gallic or Merovingian, German, Caroline, Capetian, and modern Gothic.
The Punic letters are also called *Tyrian*, and were much the same with the Carthaginian or Sicilian. The Punic language was at first the same with the Phoenician; it is nearly allied to the Hebrew, and has an affinity with the Chaldee and Syriac. Some remains of it are to be met with in the Maltese. To make a complete Punic, Carthaginian, or Sicilian alphabet, we must admit several pure Phoenician letters.
The Pelagii were likewise of Phoenician origin; and, according to Sanconiathe, the Dioscuri and Cabiri wrote the first annals of the Phoenician history, by order of Taunt the inventor of letters. They made ships of burthen, and being cast upon the coast near mount Caius, about 40 miles from Pelusium, where they built a temple in the second generation after the deluge related by Moses, they were called *Pelagii* from their palling by sea, and wandering from one country to another. Herodotus informs us, that the Pelagii were descendants of the Phoenician Cabiri, and that the Samothracians received and practised the Cabiric mysteries from them. The Pelagian alphabet prevailed in Greece till the time of Deucalion, when the Pelagii were driven out of Thessaly or Oenotria by the Hellenes; after which some of them settled at the mouth of the Po, and others at Croton, now *Cartona* in Tuscany. Their alphabet consisted of 16 letters, and the Tyrrhenian alphabet, brought into Italy before the reign of that prince, consisted of no more than 13. Deucalion is said to have reigned about 820 years after the deluge, and 1529 before the Christian era.
That the Tyrrheni, Tyrfeni, or Hetruisci, settled in Italy long before this period, appears from the testimony of Herodotus, who informs us, that a colony went by sea from Lydia into Italy under Tyrrhenus; and Dionysius of Halicarnassus proves that many authors called them Pelagii. He then cites Hellanicus Lesbicus, an author somewhat more ancient than Herodotus,
---
(a) The Baftuli are said to have been a Canaanitish or Phoenician people who fled from Joshua, and settled afterwards in Spain. rodotus, to prove, that they were first called Pelasgi Tyrreni; and when they passed into Italy, they settled in that part of it called Etruria. Their emigration took place about the year of the world 2011, or 1993 years before the Christian era, which is 350 years before the Pelasgi left Greece. Bishop Cumberland adduces many proofs to show that the Tyrrhenians originally came out of Lydia into Italy. Several Roman authors also speak of this Lydian colony; and Horace compliments his patron Maecenas upon his Lydian descent:
Lydorum quicquid Etruscus Incoluit finis, nemo genero eft te.
The Etruscan letters are Pelasgic, and several of the Etruscan inscriptions are written in the Pelasgic language. The Roman letters are Ionic. The Oscan language was a dialect of the Etruscan; their characters are nearer the Ionic or Roman than the Etruscan. There is also very little difference between the Pelasgian, Etruscan, and most ancient Greek letters, which are placed from right to left. The Arcadians were ancient Greeks, and used the Ionic letters; but at what time they began to write from left to right is not known, as their chronology is very uncertain. The Etruscan, Oscan, and Samnite alphabets, are derived from the Pelasgian; they differ from each other more in name than in form, but a far greater number are derived from the Ionic Greek; namely, the Arcadian, the Latin or Roman, and the others already enumerated. The Runic is immediately derived from the Gothic.
According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the first Greek colony which came into Italy consisted of Arcadians under the conduct of Oenotrus the son of Lycaon, and fifth in descent from Phoroneus the first king of Argos, who reigned about 566 years before the taking of Troy, and 1750 years before the Christian era. These Oenotrians were called Aborigines; and after they had been engaged for many years in a war with the Siculi, entered into an alliance with a colony of the Pelasgi, who came out of Thessaly into Italy, after having been driven from the former country.—About 1476 B.C., another colony of the Pelasgi, who had been driven out of Thessaly by the Curetes and Leleges, arrived in Italy, where they assisted the Aborigines to drive out the Siculi; possessing themselves of the greatest part of the country between the Tiber and the Liris, and building several cities. Solinus and Pliny tell us, that the Pelasgi first carried letters into Italy; and the latter distinguishes between the Pelasgi and the Arcades; so the letters first carried into Italy were not the Ionic Greek, but those more ancient Pelasgic characters which the Pelasgi carried with them before Deucalion and Cadmus are said to have come into Boeotia and Thessaly. The story of Cadmus is much involved in fable; but it is agreed by most of the ancients, that the children of Agenor, viz. Cadmus, Europa, Phoenix, and Cilix, carried with them a colony, composed of Phenicians and Syrians, into Asia Minor, Crete, Greece, and Lybia, where they introduced letters, music, poetry, and other arts, sciences, and customs, of the Phenicians.
Dionysius enumerates the following Greek colonies which came into Italy: 1. The Aborigines under Oenotrus from Arcadia. 2. The Pelasgic colony which came from Helmonia or Thessaly. 3. Another Arcadian colony which came with Evander from Palantium. Alphabet. 4. Those who came from Peloponnesus with Hercules; and, 5. Those who came with Aeneas from Troy. It is not easy to discover when the Ionic way of writing from left to right was introduced into Italy; but it is certain, that it did not universally prevail even in Greece till several ages after it was found out. The Athenians did not comply with it till the year of Rome 350; nor was it practised by the Samnites even in the fifth century of that city, or 230 years before Christ: for M. Gebelin, Vol. VI. pl. 2, gives us the Samnite alphabet of that century, wherein the letters are placed from right to left; although the Ionic way of writing prevailed in some parts of Italy in the third century of Rome. "In time (says Pliny), the tacit consent of all nations agreed to use the Ionic letters. The Romans consented to this mode about the time of Tarquinius Priscus their fifth king." The letters brought by Damaratus the Corinthian, the father of Tarquin, Mr Wise thinks, must have been the new or Ionic alphabet, and not the same with that brought by Evander 500 years before. After the Romans had established the use of the Ionic letters, they seem not to have acknowledged the Pelasgian and Etruscan to have been Greek alphabets; the most learned of them knew none older than the Ionic, as appears from the Greek Farnese inscriptions of Herodes Atticus. This learned man, out of a regard to antiquity, caused the oldest orthography to be observed in the writing, and the letters to be delineated after the most antique forms that could be found; and they are plainly no other than the Ionic or right-handed characters.
The ancient Gaulish letters are derived from the Greek, and their writing approaches more nearly to the Gothic than that of the Romans: this appears by means of the monumental inscription of Gordian, messenger of ancient all the Gauls, who suffered martyrdom in the third century with all his family. These ancient Gaulish characters were generally used by that people before the conquest of Gaul by Caesar; but after that time the Roman letters were gradually introduced. The ancient Spaniards used letters nearly Greek before their intercourse with the Romans. The ancient Gothic alphabet was very similar to the Greek, and is attributed to Ulphilas, bishop of the Goths, who lived in Moa about 370 years after Christ. He translated the bible into the Gothic tongue. This circumstance might have occasioned the tradition of his having invented these letters; but it is probable that these characters were in use long before this time. The Runic alphabet is derived from the ancient Gothic.
The Coptic letters are derived immediately from the Greek. Some have confounded them with the ancient Egyptian; but there is a very material difference between them. The Ethiopic alphabet is derived from the Coptic.
The alphabet proceeding from that of the Scythians established in Europe, is the same with what St Cyril calls the Servian. The Ruffian, Illyrian or Sclavonic, and the Bulgarian, are all derived from the Greek. The Armenian letters differ very much from the Greek, from which they are derived, as well as from the Latin.
With regard to the alphabets derived from the Latin, the Lombardic relates to the manuscripts of Italy; from the Latin. the Visigothic to those of Spain; the Saxon to those of England; the Gallican and Franco-Gallic or Merovingian to the manuscripts of France; the German to those of that country; and the Caroline, Copetian, and Modern Gothic, to all the countries of Europe who read Latin. The first five of these alphabets are before the age of Charlemagne, the last three posterior to it. They are more distinguished by their names than the forms of their characters, and the former indicate all of them to have been of Roman extraction. Each nation, in adopting the letters of the Romans, added thereto a taste and manner peculiar to itself, which obviously distinguished it from the writings of all other people; whence arose the differences between the writings of the Lombards, Spaniards, French, Saxons, Germans, and Goths, and all the strange terms observable in the writings of the Francie Gauls or Merovingians; and those of the Carolingians their successors may be traced from the same source. From these distinctions the name of national writing was derived.
The writing of Italy was uniform till the irruption of the Goths, who disfigured it by their barbarous taste. In 569, the Lombards, having possessed themselves of all Italy, excepting Rome and Ravenna, introduced that form of writing which goes under their name; and as the Popes used the Lombardic manner in their bulls, the name of Roman was sometimes given to it in the 11th century; and though the dominion of the Lombards continued no longer than 206 years, the name of their writing continued in Italy from the 7th to the 13th century, and then ceased; when learning, having declined in that as well as in other countries, the manner of writing degenerated into the modern Gothic.
The Visigoths introduced their form of writing into Spain, after having over-run that country; but it was abolished in a provincial synod held at Leon in 991, when the Latin characters were established for all public instruments, though the Visigothic were used in private writings for three centuries afterwards.
The Gauls, on being subjected by the Romans, adopted their manner of writing; but by subsequent additions of their own, their characters were changed into what is called the Gallican or Roman Gallic mode. This was changed by the Franks into the Franco-Gallic or Merovingian mode of writing, being practised under the kings of the Merovingian race. It took place towards the close of the fifth century, and continued till the beginning of the ninth.
The German mode of writing was improved by Charlemagne, and this improvement occasioned another distinction in writing by introducing the alphabet named Caroline, which declined in the 12th century, and was succeeded in the 13th by the modern Gothic. In France it had degenerated by the middle of the 10th century, but was restored in 987 by Hugh Capet, whence it obtained the name of Capetian. It was used in England as well as Germany and France.
The modern Gothic, which spread itself all over Europe in the 12th and 13th centuries, is improperly named, as not deriving its origin from the writing anciently used by the Goths. It is, however, the worst and most barbarous way of writing, and originated among the schoolmen in the decline of the arts; being indeed nothing else than Latin writing degenerated. Alphabet. It began in the 12th century, and was in general use, especially among monks and schoolmen, in all parts of Europe, till the reformation of arts in the 15th century, and continued longer in Germany and the northern nations. Our statute-books are still printed in Gothic letters. The most barbarous writing of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, was preferable to the modern Gothic. It is diversified in such a manner as can scarce admit of description; and the abbreviations used by the writers were so numerous, that it became very difficult to read it; which was one of the great causes of the ignorance of those times. Along with this, however, the Lombardic, Gothic, Roman, Caroline, and Copetian modes of writing, were occasionally used by individuals.
The idea that all the alphabets above mentioned are derived from the Roman, tends to prove the distinction of national writing, and is of great use in discovering the age of manuscripts; for though we may not be able exactly to determine the time when a manuscript was written, we may be able nearly to ascertain its age. For example, if a writing is Merovingian, it may be declared not to be posterior to the ninth, nor prior to the fifth, century. If another be Lombardic, it may be affirmed to be posterior to the middle of the 6th, and prior to the 13th. Should it be Saxon, it cannot be of an earlier date than the 7th, nor later than about the middle of the 12th.
Having considered whence the alphabets now in use throughout the various nations of the world are derived, could not it remains to say something concerning them as the elements of words, or how far they are capable of ex-decomposing those sounds, which, by proper combination of language and arrangement, constitute articulate language. The number of simple sounds in any language cannot be very numerous; and it is plainly these simple sounds alone that we have occasion to represent by alphabetical characters. Hence the person who first invented letters, must have been capable of analysing language in a manner which seems by no means easy to do, and concerning which even the learned among ourselves are not yet agreed. It is this difficulty which has produced the great diversity in the number of alphabetical characters used by different nations; and where we see a vast number of them used, we may account the writing not the better, but much the worse for it; and whoever the pretended inventor was, it is more reasonable to suppose that he disfigured an alphabet already invented, by unnecessary additions, than been the author of one himself.
When we consider alphabetical characters as thus resulting from an analysis of language, it will by no means appear probable that it was derived from a gradual and progressive operation of the human mind through many evolution of ages. There is not the least affinity between representing any object by a picture and finding out the sounds which compose the word by which it is expressed; nor, though a nation had been in use to represent things either in this method, or by any kind of arbitrary marks, for thousands of years, could the one ever have led to the other. Arbitrary marks must always be the same with pictures in this respect, that they must always be fixed to particular objects, and thus be increased ad infinitum. Letters, on the other hand, are indifferent to all | Phoenicium | Hibernum | Mediat. | Basiliac. | Etruscan | Graecum | Grecum | Latinum | Runicum | Gothicum | Copticum | Teutonicon | |-----------|----------|---------|----------|----------|---------|--------|---------|---------|----------|----------|-----------| | Α | Χ | Φ | Κ | Ι | Α | Α | Α | Α | Λ | Α | Α | | Β | Α | Α | Α | Α | Α | Α | Α | Α | Α | Α | Α | | Γ | Β | Β | Β | Β | Β | Β | Β | Β | Β | Β | Β | | Δ | Γ | Γ | Γ | Γ | Γ | Γ | Γ | Γ | Γ | Γ | Γ | | Ε | Δ | Δ | Δ | Δ | Δ | Δ | Δ | Δ | Δ | Δ | Δ | | Ζ | Ε | Ε | Ε | Ε | Ε | Ε | Ε | Ε | Ε | Ε | Ε | | Η | Ζ | Ζ | Ζ | Ζ | Ζ | Ζ | Ζ | Ζ | Ζ | Ζ | Ζ | | Θ | Η | Η | Η | Η | Η | Η | Η | Η | Η | Η | Η | | Ι | Θ | Θ | Θ | Θ | Θ | Θ | Θ | Θ | Θ | Θ | Θ | | Κ | Ι | Ι | Ι | Ι | Ι | Ι | Ι | Ι | Ι | Ι | Ι | | Λ | Κ | Κ | Κ | Κ | Κ | Κ | Κ | Κ | Κ | Κ | Κ | | Μ | Λ | Λ | Λ | Λ | Λ | Λ | Λ | Λ | Λ | Λ | Λ | | Ν | Μ | Μ | Μ | Μ | Μ | Μ | Μ | Μ | Μ | Μ | Μ | | Ξ | Ν | Ν | Ν | Ν | Ν | Ν | Ν | Ν | Ν | Ν | Ν | | Ο | Ξ | Ξ | Ξ | Ξ | Ξ | Ξ | Ξ | Ξ | Ξ | Ξ | Ξ | | Π | Ο | Ο | Ο | Ο | Ο | Ο | Ο | Ο | Ο | Ο | Ο | | Ρ | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π | Π | | Σ | Ρ | Ρ | Ρ | Ρ | Ρ | Ρ | Ρ | Ρ | Ρ | Ρ | Ρ | | Τ | Σ | Σ | Σ | Σ | Σ | Σ | Σ | Σ | Σ | Σ | Σ | | Υ | Τ | Τ | Τ | Τ | Τ | Τ | Τ | Τ | Τ | Τ | Τ | | Φ | Υ | Υ | Υ | Υ | Υ | Υ | Υ | Υ | Υ | Υ | Υ | | Χ | Φ | Φ | Φ | Φ | Φ | Φ | Φ | Φ | Φ | Φ | Φ | | Ψ | Χ | Χ | Χ | Χ | Χ | Χ | Χ | Χ | Χ | Χ | Χ | | Ω | Ψ | Ψ | Ψ | Ψ | Ψ | Ψ | Ψ | Ψ | Ψ | Ψ | Ψ |
ALPHABETUM
Phoenicium
ΑΒΓΔΕΖΗΘΙΚΛΜΝΞΟΠΡΣΤΥΦΧΨΩ
Hibernum
ΑΒΓΔΕΖΗΘΙΚΛΜΝΞΟΠΡΣΤΥΦΧΨΩ
Mediat.
ΑΒΓΔΕΖΗΘΙΚΛΜΝΞΟΠΡΣΤΥΦΧΨΩ
Basiliac.
ΑΒΓΔΕΖΗΘΙΚΛΜΝΞΟΠΡΣΤΥΦΧΨΩ
Etruscan
ΑΒΓΔΕΖΗΘΙΚΛΜΝΞΟΠΡΣΤΥΦΧΨΩ
Graecum
ΑΒΓΔΕΖΗΘΙΚΛΜΝΞΟΠΡΣΤΥΦΧΨΩ
Grecum
ΑΒΓΔΕΖΗΘΙΚΛΜΝΞΟΠΡΣΤΥΦΧΨΩ
Latinum
ΑΒΓΔΕΖΗΘΙΚΛΜΝΞΟΠΡΣΤΥΦΧΨΩ
Runicum
ΑΒΓΔΕΖΗΘΙΚΛΜΝΞΟΠΡΣΤΥΦΧΨΩ
Gothicum
ΑΒΓΔΕΖΗΘΙΚΛΜΝΞΟΠΡΣΤΥΦΧΨΩ
Copticum
ΑΒΓΔΕΖΗΘΙΚΛΜΝΞΟΠΡΣΤΥΦΧΨΩ
Teutonicon
ΑΒΓΔΕΖΗΘΙΚΛΜΝΞΟΠΡΣΤΥΦΧΨΩ
AR-MYRIN.WAL.SCHEFTER fecit. | Punicum | Pelasguan | Oscań | Arcadian | Galli antiqui | Phenicium Hebræorum antiqui et Samaritanum | generalis Etruscorum | |---------|-----------|-------|----------|--------------|------------------------------------------|---------------------| | A | λ | Α | Α | ΑΑΑΑ | ΑΑΑΑ | ΑΑΑΑ | | B | β | Β | Β | Β | ΒΒΒΒ | ΒΒΒΒ | | Gb | ς | CH.K | CG | CCCC | ΚΚΚΚ | ΚΚΚΚ | | D | δ | ΟD | ΟD | Οδδδ | Οδδδ | Οδδδ | | E | ε | ΕΕ | ΕΕΕ | ΕΕΕΕ | ΕΕΕΕ | ΕΕΕΕ | | V | υ | Φ8 | ΦΦ | ΦΦΦ | ΦΦΦ | ΦΦΦ | | Z | ζ | Ζ | Ζ | ΖΖΖ | ΖΖΖ | ΖΖΖ | | H | ο | Θ | Θ | ΘΘΘ | ΘΘΘ | ΘΘΘ | | Th | θ | Ι | Ι | ΙΙΙ | ΙΙΙ | ΙΙΙ | | I | ι | Ι | Ι | ΙΙΙ | ΙΙΙ | ΙΙΙ | | K | κ | Κ | Κ | ΚΚΚ | ΚΚΚ | ΚΚΚ | | L | λ | Λ | Λ | ΛΛΛ | ΛΛΛ | ΛΛΛ | | M | μ | Μ | Μ | ΜΜΜ | ΜΜΜ | ΜΜΜ | | N | ν | Ν | Ν | ΝΝΝ | ΝΝΝ | ΝΝΝ | | S | σ | Σ | Σ | ΣΣΣ | ΣΣΣ | ΣΣΣ | | O | ο | Ο | Ο | ΟΟΟ | ΟΟΟ | ΟΟΟ | | P | π | Ρ | Ρ | ΡΡΡ | ΡΡΡ | ΡΡΡ | | Ts | Τς | Σ | Σ | ΣΣΣ | ΣΣΣ | ΣΣΣ | | Q | η | ΘΤΤΤ | ΤΤΤΤ | ΤΤΤΤ | ΤΤΤΤ | ΤΤΤΤ | | R | ρ | ΡΡΡΡ | ΡΡΡΡ | ΡΡΡΡ | ΡΡΡΡ | ΡΡΡΡ | | Sch | Σ | ΥΥΥΥ | ΥΥΥΥ | ΥΥΥΥ | ΥΥΥΥ | ΥΥΥΥ | | T | ξ | ΤΤΤΤ | ΤΤΤΤ | ΤΤΤΤ | ΤΤΤΤ | ΤΤΤΤ | | V | ο | ΩΩΩΩ | ΩΩΩΩ | ΩΩΩΩ | ΩΩΩΩ | ΩΩΩΩ |
ABELL PRIN.WAL.SCULPTOR fecit. Alphabet. all objects; and therefore, by their combinations, which are more numerous than as many arbitrary marks as we could remember, may express all the objects in nature. This might furnish an argument of some strength for the divine revelation of writing, were it not that other arts seemingly as useful, and as difficult to be invented, had not been expressly ascribed to particular persons whom we cannot suppose to have been divinely inspired. Thus metallurgy, music, the keeping of cattle, and use of tents, are all ascribed to a single family; and though writing be not expressly mentioned as an invention in Scripture, there is no reason to have recourse to a revelation for it as long as the human faculties are known to have been sufficient for the invention of it. Nevertheless, if we take a review of the different arts which mankind have invented, we shall find, that few of them resulted from any gradual progress or evolution of the powers of the human mind, but rather by some sudden and almost unaccountable turn of thought in an individual. Thus, the art of printing, little inferior in its utility to that of writing, lay hid for ages, and was at last invented we scarce know how; so that if one inclined to suppose this a divine revelation, he could be at little loss for arguments to support his hypothesis. This was what all the inventions and evolutions of human powers since the creation had never been able to accomplish; yet nobody believes that it required supernatural abilities to be the author of this art, because we see plainly that it might have occurred to the human mind from various sources, and are surprised that it did not occur long before. In like manner, the method of accounting for the celestial motions by the united forces of projection and gravitation, was no result of the progress that mankind had made in science, but luckily occurred to Mr Horrox, without anything that we know to direct him, or perhaps from causes almost unknown to himself. Thus also, the steam-engine, afloatation, &c., were suddenly invented only by a slight review of principles well known before, and which had been a thousand times overlooked by those who might have invented both. Alphabetic writing, therefore, might have been no deduction from hieroglyphic or picture writing, from which it is essentially different; and it seems to be some confirmation of this, that all nations who ever pretended to the invention of letters, have ascribed it to the labours of one particular person, without taking notice of the progress made towards it in preceding ages.
The learned author of Hermes informs us, that to about 20 plain elementary sounds, we owe that variety of articulate voices which have been sufficient to explain the sentiments of such an innumerable multitude as all the past and present generations of men. Mr Sheridan says, that the number of simple sounds in our tongue are 28; while Dr Kenrick says, that we have only 11 distinct species of articulate sounds, which even by contraction, prolongation, and composition, are increased only to the number of 16; every syllable or articulate sound in our language being one of the number. Bishop Wilkins and Dr William Holder speaks of 33 distinct sounds.
After the analysis or decomposition of language into the elementary sounds, the next towards the notation of it by alphabetical characters, would be the delineation of a separate mark or letter to represent each found; which marks, though few in number, would admit of such a variety of arrangements and combinations, as might be capable of producing that infinity of articulate sounds which compose language. The ingenious Wachter, in his Natura et Scriptura Concordia, p. 64, endeavours to show, that ten marks or characters are sufficient for this purpose.—His scheme is as follows:
| Genus | Figura | Potestas | |-------|--------|----------| | Vocal | O | a, e, i, o, u | | Guttural | O | k, c, ch, q, g, h | | Lingual | L | l | | Lingual | T | d, t | | Lingual | D | r | | Dental | N | f | | Labial | 3 | b, p | | Labial | M | m | | Labial | E | s, ph, v, w | | Nasal | A | n |
If this is the case, then the most simple alphabet, which consisted only of 13 letters, must have been abundantly sufficient to answer all the purposes of mankind, and much of our twenty-four letter alphabet may appear superfluous. That able mathematician Tacquet has calculated the various combinations of the 24 letters, even without any repetition, to amount to no fewer than $620,448,401,733,239,439,360,000$; while Clavius makes them only $5,852,616,738,497,664,000$. Either of these numbers, however, is infinite to the human conceptions, and much more than sufficient to express all the sounds that ever were articulated by man. As there are more sounds in some languages than in others, it follows of course, that the letters in the number of elementary characters, or letters, must vary in the alphabets of different languages. The Hebrew, Samaritan, and Syriac alphabets, have 22 letters; the Arabic 28, the Perian and Egyptian, or Coptic, 32; the present Russian 41; the Sanscrit 50; while the Kashmirian and Malabaric are still more numerous. The following is the scheme of the English alphabet as given by Mr Sheridan in his Rhetorical Grammar, p. 9:
Number of simple sounds in our tongue 28
9 Vowels, a a a a e e o o i u hall hat hate beer note noose bet fit but
w y short oo short ee
19 Consonants, j q b ed ef eg ek el em en ep er es et ev ez eth eth esh ezh ing-
2 Superfluous, c, which has the power of ck or cks; g, that of ck before u.
3 R 2 Compound, ALPHABET
2 Compound, j, which stands for edzb; x, for ks or gz.
1 No letter, h, merely a mark of aspiration.
Consonants divided into Mutes and Semivowels:
6 Mutes, eb ed eg ek ep et.
3 Pure Mutes, ek ep et.
3 Impure, eb ed eg.
13 Semivowels, ef el em en er es ev ez eth eth or liquids, ezh ing.
9 Vocal, el em en er ev ez eth ezh ing.
4 Aspirated, ef els eth ezh.
Divided again into
4 Labial, eb ep ev ef.
8 Dental, ed et eth ethi ez efs ezh ezh.
4 Palatine, eg ek el er.
3 Nasal, em en ing.
Mr Sheridan observes, that our alphabet is ill calculated for the notation of the English tongue, as there are many sounds for which we have no letters or marks; and there ought to be nine more characters or letters to make a complete alphabet, in which every simple sound ought to have a mark peculiar to itself. The reason of the deficiency is, that the Roman alphabet was formerly adopted for the notation of the English language, though by no means suited to the purpose.
It now remains only to take some notice of the forms of the different letters; some knowledge of which is absolutely necessary for ascertaining the age and authenticity of inscriptions, manuscripts, charters, and ancient records. Many authors are of opinion that letters derive their forms from the positions of the organs of speech in their pronunciation. Van Helmont has taken great pains to prove that the Chaldaic characters are the genuine alphabet of Nature; because, according to him, no letter can be rightly founded without disposing the organs of speech into a uniform position with the figure of each letter; and in support of this system, he has anatomized the organs of articulation.
Mr Nelme has endeavoured to show, that all elementary characters or letters derive their forms from the line and the circle. His alphabet consists of 13 radical letters, four diminished, and four augmented.—The radicals are L, O, S, A, B, C, D, N, U, I, E, M, R.—H, according to him, is derived from A; P from B; T from D; and F from U; these are called diminished letters. The augmented ones are Z from S; G from C; W from U; and Y from I. He proves that his characters are very similar to those of the ancient Etruscans: but all characters are composed either of lines and circles of the former, and of parts of the latter.—Mr Gebelin deduces them from hieroglyphic representations, and has given several delineations of human figures, trees, &c. in confirmation of his hypothesis.
One of the most simple alphabets has been formed, by making two perpendicular and two horizontal lines:
thus, \[ \begin{array}{ccc} a & b & c \\ d & e & f \end{array} \] from which may be deduced nine different characters or letters; thus
\[ \begin{array}{cccc} a & b & c & d \\ e & f & g & h \end{array} \]
Nine more may be made by adding a point to each, and as many more as
\[ \begin{array}{ccc} k & l & m \\ n & o & p \\ q & r & s \end{array} \]
may be sufficient for the notation of any language, by adding two or more points to each character. Though these square characters are not calculated for dispatch; yet they may be made as expeditiously, or more so, than the Tartar, the Bramin, the Cathmirian, or many others. Writing composed of these characters, is at first sight somewhat like the Hebrew.—Mr Dow, author of the History of New Indofan, lately formed a new language and alphabet. This language, and the characters formed for its notation, were so easy, that a female of his acquaintance acquired the knowledge of them in three weeks, and corresponded with him therein during their intimacy.