now we see not only that the present reading is wrong, but are led, by this last observation, to the right; the passage being without all question to be read thus:—μετὰ τὸν κατακλυσμὸν ἐκ τῆς ἱερᾶς διαλέκτου εἰς τὴν Ελληνίδα φωνὴν γράμμασιν ΙΕΡΟΓΡΑΦΙΚΟΙΣ καὶ ἀποτεθεισῶν ἐν βίβλοις, 80. γράμμασιν ΙΕΡΟΓΡΑΦΙΚΟΙΣ, in speaking of the translation, being the very words just before employed in speaking of the original; and with great propriety: for itgyogaPixa was used by the ancients as a generic term, to signify as well sacred letters composing words, as sacred marks standing for things; iegoyixa not so, but denoting only marks for things: so that the plain and sensible meaning of the passage is, that a work, written by the first Hermes, in the sacred dialect, and sacred letters, was translated, by the second Hermes, into the Greek dialect; the original sacred letters being still employed. And the reason is evident; the Greek translation was for the use of the Egyptians: but such would be soonest invited to the study of a foreign dialect when written in their own letters: a common inducement for translators into a foreign language, to preserve the original character. Besides, this version was not for the Egyptians in general, but for the priests only; and therefore their peculiar character was preserved. We now begin to see that the whole extravagance in this account, which made it rejected by the critics with so much contempt, is only in the high antiquity given to the fact; and this, the very circumstance of the fact refutes: for it not only tells us of sacred alphabetic letters, which we have shown to be of late use amongst the Egyptians, but likewise of a sacred dialect, which certainly was still later: and, if I be not much mistaken, a passage in Herodotus will lead us to the time when this translation was made. The historian tells us, that when Psammitichus, by the assistance of the Ionians and Carians, had subdued all Egypt, he placed these Greek adventurers on both sides of the Nile; where he assigned them lands and habitations, and sent among them Egyptian youths to be instructed in the Greek language; from whence sprung the state-interpreters for that tongue :* Thus far the historian; from whose account of Psammitichus's project it appears, that his purpose was to establish a constant intercourse with the Grecian nations. The youth picked out for interpreters were, without question of the priesthood, all letters and learning residing in that order; which had likewise a great share in the public administration. And now the priesthood having the Greek tongue amongst them, which its use in public affairs would make them diligently cultivate; where was the wonder that, about this time, some of these interpreters, igunvies, should employ themselves in translating the sacred Egyptian records into the Grecian language? —Τῶσι δὲ Ιωσι καὶ τοῖσι Καρσί, τοῖσι συγκατεργασαμένοισι αὐτῷ, ὁ Ψαμμίτιχος δίδωσι χώρους ἐνοικῆσαι ἀντίους ἀλλήλων, τοῦ Νείλου τὸ μέσον ἔχοντος—καὶ δὴ παῖδας παρέβαλε αυτοίσι Αιγυπτίους, τὴν Ἑλλάδα γλῶσσαν ἐκδιδάσκεσθαι· ἀπὸ δὲ τούτων ἐκμαθόντων τὴν Ἑλλάδα ghärras, oi väv 'Egunvies iv A¡yúrry yıyóvası —Euterp. lib. ii. cap. 154. Hence it appears that the learned Dr Prideaux was mistaken when he said-But the worst of it is, the an rient Egyptians did not speak Greek; the Ptolemies first brought that language amongst them.-Connection, part ii. lib. i. p. 12. But then as to the precise time of the invention of EGYPTIAN LETTERS, it can never be so much as guessed at; because hieroglyphics continued to be in use long after that time; particularly on their public monuments, where we find no appearance of alphabetic characters. However, that letters were very early, we have shown above, as well from other circumstances, as from this, the giving the invention of them to the gods.* Those who are for deriving all civil improvements from the line of Abraham, of course, bestow upon it the invention of an ALPHABET. But as this fancy is only amongst the loose ends of an hypothesis, without any foundation in scripture, these critics differ much about the time. Some suppose letters to have been in use amongst the patriarchs; and, by them, transmitted to the Egyptians; but there are such strong objections to this opinion (to mention no other than the patriarch's sending verbal messages where it was more natural, as well as more expedient to send them written), that others have thought proper to bring down the time to that of Moses,† when GOD, they say, taught him the use of alphabetic letters, in the exemplar of the two tables written, as the text assures us, with the finger of GOD. But how, from words, which at most only imply that the ten commandments were miraculously engraved as well as dictated, it can be concluded that letters were then first invented, I have not logic enough to find out. A common reader would be apt to infer from it, that letters were now well known to the Israelites, as God had thought fit to deliver the first elements of their religion in that kind of writing; I say, he would be thus apt to infer, though MOSES had never spoken of them on other occasions (which he hath done) as of things in familiar use: but if GOD was indeed the revealer of the artifice, how happened it that the history of so important a circumstance was not recorded? for, as we shall see presently, the memory of it would have been one of the strongest barriers to idolatry. However, though I think it next to certain that MOSES brought letters, with the rest of his learning, from Egypt, yet I could be easily persuaded to believe that he both enlarged the alphabet, and altered the shapes of the letters.§ (1.) The Hebrew alphabet, which he employed in the composition of the Pentateuch, is considerably fuller than that which Cadmus brought into Greece. Cadmus was of Thebes in Egypt; he sojourned in Syria, and went from thence into Greece: his country shows that his letters were Egyptian; and this, their difference in number from the Hebrew, sufficiently confirms; Cadmus having only sixteen, and the Hebrews two and twenty. (2.) That MOSES likewise altered the shape of the Egyptian letters I think probable; all hieroglyphic writing was absolutely forbidden by the second commandment, and with a view worthy the divine wisdom; hieroglyphics being, as we shall see hereafter, the great source of their idola† See note T T, at the end of this book. See note X X, at the end of this book. See pp. 32, 33, of this volume. See note U U, at the end of this book. tries and superstitions. But now alphabetic letters (which henceforth could be only used amongst the Hebrews) being taken by the Egyptians* from their hieroglyphic figures, retained, as was natural, much of the shapes of those characters: to cut off therefore all occasion of danger from symbolic images, Moses, as I suppose, altered the shapes of the Egyptian letters, and reduced them into something like those simple forms in which we now find them. Those who in much later ages converted the northern pagans to the Christian faith observed the same caution. For the characters of the northern alphabet, called RUNIC, having been abused to magical superstition, were then changed to the Roman. -Tantas in his Runis (says Sheringham) latere virtutes Gothi ante fidem susceptam rati sunt, ut sive hostium caput diris sacrandum, sive pestis morbique amoliendi, sive aliud opus suscipiendum se incantationibus Runisque muniebant-Post fidem vero susceptam Runæ, qui incantationibus præstigiisque magicis in tantum adhibitæ fuerint, adeo fastidiri cœperunt, ut multi libri, multaque antiqua monumenta exinde præpostero zelo dejecta atque deleta sunt: unde historia Getica magnum detrimentum clademque accepit. Tandem vero, teste Loccenio, Sigfridi episcopi Britannici opera (papa etiam Romano suam operam præstante) eò res devenit ut Runæ in Sueciâ, A. D. м L., penitus abolerentur; et characteres Latini substituerentur. † This account will reconcile the differing systems of Marsham and Renaudot; one of whom contends, ‡ that the letters which Cadmus brought into Greece were Egyptian: the other, that they were Phenician;§ and both of them appeal to the authority of Herodotus; who says plainly, "that the alphabet brought by Cadmus into Greece was Egyptian; and yet, speaking of the three most ancient inscriptions in Greece, he says, they were in Phenician characters, which very much resembled the Ionic" for if what has been here supposed be allowed, then the alphabet which Cadmus carried with him was doubtless of MOSES's invention, as to the form, but Egyptian, as to the power. It may be just worth observing, that Renaudot's discourse is full of paralogisms, which this solution detects. (3.) To this let me add another consideration. The vowel-points (a's seems now to be generally agreed on) were added since the Jews ceased to be a nation. The Hebrew language was originally, and so continued to be for a long time, written without them. Now if God first taught Moses an alphabet, can we believe that the vowels would have been thus generally omitted? But suppose Moses learned his alphabet of the Egyptians, and only made it fuller, and altered the form of the letters, we may easily give a good account of the omission. The Egyptian alphabet, as we observed, was invented for precision, and used for secrecy. Both ends were answered by an alphabet with hardly any Vowels. See p. 26 of this volume. De Ang. Gent. Orig. pp. 292, 293. Thus we see that the form of alphabetic characters was a matter of much importance to the Hebrews, as to the integrity of their religion. If therefore God was the immediate author of them, it is difficult to suppose that Moses could omit to record the history of their invention; such a history being the best sanction to recommend their use; and the best security against a return to the idolatrous practice of hieroglyphic writing; to which this people, so fond of Egyptian manners, were violently inclined. But we have not yet done with Manetho; the last circumstance opening the way to another discovery of great importance in the Egyptian antiquities: for by this passage we find they had not only sacred characters and letters, but a sacred DIALECT or language also; for what he here calls igd didnextos, in another place (where he interprets a certain word in this language) he calls leed ywood. It might perhaps be imagined that this sacred dialect was only the more ancient Egyptian language; which being now grown into disuse, was preserved amongst the priesthood: but if we consider the small and slow change to which the Eastern languages were subject; especially that of a people who admitted so little of foreign manners, we can scarce believe this to have been the case. Besides, the sacred dialect was used for secrecy (being known only to the priests) which could never be the condition of a national language, how obsolete soever we may suppose it to be grown. All this considered, I take the sacred dialect to have been a language of their own framing: and one of their latest expedients for keeping their science to themselves. We have shown how, for the sake of exactness, as they grew more speculative, they invented an alphabet to express their conceptions by marks for words, instead of marks for things: but the simple mystery of a peculiar alphabet, employed in a common tongue, would be soon detected; they therefore, as now it appears, invented peculiar language for the use of their alphabet; and thus, under a double cover, effectually secured their hidden science. The way of framing the sacred dialect, I suppose, to be this: they called things by the names of their hieroglyphical representatives: thus YK in the Egyptian tongue signifying a serpent; and a serpent, in their hieroglyphics, denoting a king,† YK, as Manetho informs us above, signified a king in the sacred dialect: and in this manner, their hieroglyphics became a sufficient fund for a new language. On the whole then, it appears that the Egyptian priests had these three methods of secreting their recorded knowledge; by HIEROGLYPHIC SYMBOLS, by a SACERDOTAL Alphabet, and by a SACRED DIALECT. In explaining their several natures, and distinguishing them from the proper hieroglyphic, I have endeavoured to disembroil a subject which Εκαλεῖτο δὲ τὸ σύμπαν αὐτῶν ἔθνος ΥΚΣΩΣ, τοῦτο δὲ ἐστι βασιλεῖς ποιμένες· τὸ γὰρ ΥΚ και ΙΕΡΑΝ ΓΛΩΣΣΑΝ βασιλία σημαίνει, τὸ δὲ ΣΩΣ ποιμήν ἐστι, καὶ ποιμένες κατὰ τὴν ΚΟΙΝΗΝ ΔΙΑΛΕΚΤΟΝ, καὶ οὕτω συντιθέμενον γίναται ΥΚΣΩΣ. Apud Joseph, cout. Ap. lib. i. cap. 14. Horapollo, lib. i. cap. 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 61. seems to have perplexed even the ancients themselves; who, in their accounts of the Egyptian literature, perpetually confound the several species of sacred writing with one another. What greatly contributed to this confusion, I presume, was the sacerdotal practice of promiscuously using, in one and the same book or literary monument, the several various species of sacred writing; that is to say, the proper hieroglyphic, the symbolic, and the hierogrammatic; as was done in composing the Bembine table, and the mystic ritual described by Apuleius. Thus we find how it happened that that which had its origin in necessity, came, in time, to be employed for secrecy, and was at length improved into an ornament. But now, in the incessant revolutions of things, this imagery, which was at first invented for open communica tion, and was from thence converted into mystery, at length resumed its primitive use; and, in the flourishing ages of Greece and Rome, was employed in their monuments and medals as the shortest and plainest method of conveying men's conceits; and a SYMBOL, which, in Egypt, was pregnant with profound wisdom, was in those places the vocabulary of the people. To illustrate these several changes and revolutions, we shall once again take up our instance from LANGUAGE (which still, in all its minuter alterations and improvements, ran parallel with WRITING); and show, how the original expedient, to communicate our thoughts in converse, the rude effort of necessity, came in time, like the first hieroglyphics, to be turned into mystery, and afterwards improved into the arts of eloquence and persuasion. 1. It hath been already shown, in the fable of Jotham, how the apologue corresponded to the proper Egyptian hieroglyphic; and was invented only to present a sensible image to the unimproved conception of the hearer. As the change of the object, which the fable introduced, made it exactly answer to the tropical hieroglyphic; so that sort of PROSOPOPOEIA, which the fable much employed, representing a multitude under the image of one, made it equally correspond with the curiological hieroglyphic. 2. But now, in after-times, either when men began to affect mystery, or their subject to require secrecy, they gradually changed the apologue or fable, by quaint and far-fetched allusions, into a PARABLE, on set purpose to throw obscurity over the information; just as the tropical hieroglyphic was turned into the tropical symbol. We find innumerable instances of this mode of speech in scripture: thus GOD by the prophet Ezekiel:-"Son of man, utter a PARABLE unto the rebellious house, and say unto them, thus saith the LORD GOD, set on a pot, set it on, and also pour water into it: gather the pieces thereof into it, even every good piece, the thigh and the shoulder, fill it with the choice bones. Take the choice of the flock, and burn also the bones under it, and make it boil well, and let them seethe the bones of it therein."* Ezek. xxiv et. 3, scq. |