122 CHAP. IX.* ON THE GREEK, LATIN, AND SANSCRIT ALPHABETICAL SYSTEMS. AN apparently valid objection to the identification of Greek and Latin with the language which was anciently spoken in Asia Minor, but which has now become extinct, except so far as undeniable proofs of its existence have been preserved in Greek, Latin, and Sanscrit, may perhaps arise from a supposed dissimilarity in their alphabetical systems. To obviate, therefore, this objection, it becomes indispensable to enter into an examination of that obscurest and most contested of all subjects, the origin of alphabetical characters. But it seems that the generally received opinion attributes their origin to Phenicia, and their communication to other nations to Cadmus or the Pelasgi. In the search after truth, however, I may be permitted to profess myself "Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri ;" and to consider myself at liberty to reject the opinions of learned men, if they be inconsistent with the plainest principles of common sense and sound reasoning. For how is it possible to acquiesce in the correctness of such an account as this?" The Pelasgi were of Phenician original: we learn from Sanchoniatho, that the sons of the Dioscuri and Cabiri wrote the first annals of Phenician history by the command of Taaut, the first inventor of letters. These men made ships of burden, and being cast upon the coast about forty miles from Pelusium they built a temple; this event happened in the second generation after the deluge recorded by Moses. These Phenicians were called Pelasgi, from their passing by sea, and wandering from one country to another." + I prefer rather to adopt the opinion of Cour de Gebelin : For the illustration of the remarks contained in this Chapter, see Plates A No. 1., A No. 2., B No. 1., B No. 2., C, D No. 1., D No. 2., D No. 3. + Astle's Origin and Progress of Writing, p. 52. "Tels sont,” says he, “ à peu près les divers systèmes qu'on a proposés jusques ici sur les tems et sur les lieux où parut l'écriture pour la première fois, et sur les objets qui servirent de modèle à son inventeur. On voit que ces systèmes, semblables aux héros de Cadmus, se combattent et s'entre-détruisirent tous; et qu'après les avoir tous lus, on retombe dans les ténèbres dont on espéroit sortir par leur moyen. Faudra-t-il donc abandonner tous ces guides, et renoncer à avoir des idées plus nettes, plus précises, plus exactes sur un objet aussi intéressant et aussi étroitement lié avec l'Histoire de la Parole? Mais, dira-t-on, comment, être plus heureux ? En n'imaginant point de système ; en réunissant tous les monumens, tous les faits, en les comparant, en se rendant attentif à tout ce qu'ils nous apprennent; en évitant les méprises de ceux qui nous ont précédés, et qui ont presque toujours pris un champ beaucoup trop resserré."* +; The opinion, at the same time, of ancient writers, that letters derived their origin from Phenicia, seems to rest entirely on the authority of Herodotus. But Herodotus invalidates his own account, by adding, Πρωτα μεν τοισι και άπαντες χρωνται Φοινικες· μετα δε, χρονου προβαίνοντος, ἅμα τη φωνή μετέβαλον και τον ρυθμον των γραμματων t; and further, Ιδον δε και αυτος Καδμηια γραμματα εν τῳ έρῳ του Απολλωνος του Ισμηνίου εν Θηβῃσι τησι Βοιωτων, επι τρίποισι τισι εγκεκολαμμενα, τα πολλα ὁμοια εοντα τοισι Ιονικοιτι. † For, if, at the time when Herodotus lived, the supposed Cadmean letters greatly resembled the Ionian, either the latter had not materially changed their forms and sounds, as first stated, or the former could not have been the same as the Phenician; because it cannot be denied that, 450 years before Christ, the Greek and Phenician alphabets were radically dissimilar. § As, therefore, the reason assigned by Herodotus for denominating the ancient letters of Greece Cadmean is inconsistent in itself, and as he merely says, Оux εOVтα [τα γραμματα] * Monde Primitif, vol. iii. p. 398. + Herod., lib. v. c. 58. + Ibid. p. 59. "The Ionian letters on the medals and other monuments of his [Herodotus's] age now extant, are evidently very different from the Phenician."— Knight's Analysis of the Greek Alphabet, p. 120. πριν Ἑλλησι, ὩΣ ΕΜΟΙ ΔΟΚΕΕΙΝ, it may be concluded that alphabetical characters had been known in Greece previous to the arrival of Cadmus; in which case there is no conceivable cause which could have induced the people to give up their own letters, and to adopt those of a stranger. Were, however, this account of Herodotus admitted, it would only be explaining obscurum per obscurius; for neither he nor any other ancient writer explains the form, sound, and order of the Phenician letters; and without this indispensable information it is impossible to form any opinion respecting their resemblance to the Greek. But the authors of the Ancient Universal History remark, that "the language of the Phenicians was a dialect of the Hebrew, the same with that of the ancient Canaanites. Their letters were either the same with, or very like to, those of the ancient Samaritans.”* Bochart, also, is of the same opinion; for he observes, -"Denique res ipsa docet literas e Phoenicia in Græciam allatas. Primo si figuram spectes, Græcæ literæ, maxime antiquiores illæ, quarum exempla in Eusebianis profert doctissimus Scaliger, vetustis Phoenicum literis, quibus hodie utuntur Samaritani, in plerisque tam sunt similes, ut nemini non pateat illas ex his esse expressas." But his identification of the Phenician or Samaritan alphabet with the Greek is inadmissible; because, if the authority of ancient writers is considered sufficient to establish the Phenician origin of letters, its validity to prove that the ancient Greek alphabet consisted of sixteen or eighteen letters only ought equally to be admitted. Bochart, however, is obliged in order to effect this identification, to employ not only four of the letters which were subsequently added to the Greek alphabet, but also the episemons, bau, koppa, and sanpi, the existence of which as letters has never been proved‡; while, on the contrary, he rejects both the upsilon and the digamma, the existence of which cannot be disputed. His failure, therefore, is sufficient to disprove the fancied identity of the Phenician Anc. Un. Hist., vol. ii. p. 20. + Boch. Cha., lib. i. c. 20. They are not noticed in Mr. Payne Knight's Analysis of the Greek Alphabet. and Greek alphabets, if the Samaritan is considered to be the same as the former. Apparently aware of this difficulty, other writers assume that the Phenician alphabet consisted of sixteen letters only. Astle even asserts that they were no more than thirteen in number.* But on what authority these suppositions were founded, I have not been able to ascertain; for, on referring to the Phenician alphabets annexed to the Mémoire of M. Barthelemy on this subject, I find that No. 1. consists of eighteen letters, No. 2. of twelve, and No. 3. of nineteen.† It will, however, be admitted, that the collecting the letters of any language from inscriptions and medals, is a method much too uncertain to determine the number of letters of which its alphabet might be composed; and this variation in the number, resulting from an examination of inscriptions and medals collected in three different places, must render the completeness of these alphabets very doubtful.‡ That all three must be incomplete is evident from there being no character to represent p, or a substitute for this letter; a deficiency that does not exist in any known language. From this circumstance it might be much more justly concluded that, on a further examination of Phenician inscriptions and medals, all the twenty-two letters of the Samaritan and Hebrew alphabets would be found, than that the Phenician alphabet itself consisted of thirteen or sixteen letters only. It is further contended that, as the ancient Greek letters were written from right to left, and as the Samaritan have been always written in this manner, it must follow that the former were derived from the latter. But it is incorrect to argue from the present day to a remote period of antiquity; for, in ancient times, Phenicia and * Origin and Progress of Writing, p. 50. + Mém. de l'Acad. des Insc., vol. xxx. p. 425. The Phenician alphabet given by Cour de Gebelin, in Plate VI. of Monde Primitif, vol. iii., does not correspond in any respect with the alphabets published by the Academy. The Phenician alphabet taken from a marble at Oxford, and inserted in the first plate of Astle's Origin and Progress of Writing, consists of fifteen letters; and that given by Dutens, in his Explication des quelques Médailles Grecques et Pheniciennes, of nineteen. The Arabs have no p, but they have an f. Samaria were not the principal nations of Asia, and it cannot be supposed that the knowledge of letters was confined to these inconsiderable and unfrequented countries. Until, therefore, it be proved that 1600 years B. C. no other people in Asia, except the Phenicians, wrote from right to left, it is evident that no just conclusion can be drawn from this peculiarity. But there is one circumstance that seems to be entirely overlooked, which is of itself alone sufficient to disprove the Phenician origin of the Greek letters; for Mr. Payne Knight remarks that "None of the ancient oriental alphabets had any vowels*, except the Phenician, and that had properly only two, the aleph and the ain, signifying (as I am inclined to think) merely the different degrees of aperture the mouth required to pronounce the words represented by the consonants. The Greeks, even in the very earliest stage to which their alphabet can be traced, had five; all which (except the alpha borrowed from the Phenicians) appear to be their own invention."† But can any thing be more improbable, than that the same people who could invent characters for four vowels should find it necessary to receive one from strangers, and that vowel the very one which is the easiest and most frequent of utterance? If, however, the Greeks invented any part of their alphabetical characters, or rather if they were brought into Greece by the Pelasgi, it seems most probable that the whole was also derived from the same origin; and this conclusion is much too consonant with reason, to be in the least invalidated by the fancied resemblance which is supposed to exist between some of the Phenician ‡ and Greek letters. The opinion of Pliny, therefore, seems most probable; for he * This remark ought to be restricted to the alphabets of Phenicia, Palestine, and Syria; because it is not known whether the alphabet of ancient Persia had vowels or not, and the alphabets of India have not only vowels, but characters for the long and short sounds of a, e, i, and u. + Analysis of the Greek Alphabet, p. 16, 17. I use this term in compliance with common usage, but it seems to me that the very existence of ancient Phenician letters remains still to be proved; for, hitherto, this important fact appears to have been merely assumed, and never established by any evidence whatever, |