virtue of necessity, and turned that into ornament and mystery, which had its birth in poverty, and was brought up in simplicity and plainness, is to be our next enquiry.

II.

It is now, I suppose, apparent, that the hitherto received opinion, that the Egyptians invented hieroglyphics to conceal their knowledge, and render it mysterious, is altogether without foundation. However, as it is very certain they did, at length, employ hieroglyphic writing to such a purpose, it will be proper to examine how this came about; How one of the simplest and plainest means of instruction came to be converted into one of the most artificial and abstruse.

To support what we have to say on this head with proper authority, it will be necessary to produce two important passages from Porphyry and Clemens Alexandrinus, concerning the several natures and kinds of Egyptian writing. 'On these, we shall regulate our discourse, which will, in its turn, contribute to illustrate these passages, hitherto, as we conceive, very imperfectly understood.

But it will be proper first of all to give the reader a general idea of the several natures and kinds of Egyptian writing, according to the order of time in which each was invented and improved; and for the truth, as well as perfect intelligence of the account, refer him to the whole of the discourse.

Egyptian writing was of four kinds: the first, HIEROGLYPHIC, and this twofold: the more rude, called curiologic; and the rnore artificial, called iropi

cal: the fecond, SYMBOLIC; and this likewife was twofold; the more fimple, and the more myfterious; that tropical, this allegorical. These two kinds of writing, namely the hieroglyphic and fymbolic, (which went under the generic term of hieroglyphics, diftinguished into proper, and fymbolic hieroglyphics) were not composed of the letters of an alphabet, but of marks or characters which ftood for THINGS, not words. The third EPISTOLIC, fo called, as we fhall fee, from its being first applied to civil matters and the fourth and laft, HIEROGRAMMATIC, from its being used only in religious. These two last kinds of writing, namely, the epistolic and hierogrammatic, expreffed woRDS, and were formed by the letters of an alphabet.

We come now to the paffages in queftion. Porphyry, fpeaking of Pythagoras, tells us: That be Jojourned with the priests in Egypt, and learnt the wifdom and the language of the country, together with their three forts of letters, the EPISTOLIC, the HIEROGLYPHIC, and the SYMBOLIC; of which the HIEROGLYPHIC expreffed the meaning of the writer, by an imitation or picture of the thing intended to be expreffed; and the SYMBOLIC, by allegorical enigmas. Clemens is larger and more ex

plicit :

P—Καὶ ἐν Αἰγύπλῳ μὲν τοῖς ἱερεῦσι συνῆν, καὶ τήν σοφίαν ἐξέμαθε, καὶ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων φωνήν. Γραμμάτων δὲ τρισσὰς διαφοράς, ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΟΓΡΑΦΙΚΩΝ τε, και ΙΕΡΟΓΛΥΦΙΚΩΝ, καὶ ΣΥΜΒΟΛΙΚΩΝ τῶν μέν κοινολογεμένων κατὰ μίμησιν, τῶν δὲ ἀλληγορυμένων κατά τινας ainf. De Vita Pythagora, cap. xi. & xii. p. 15. Ed. Kuferi. Hollenius tranflates τῶν μὲν κοινολογεμένων κατὰ μίμησιν, τῶν δὲ ἄλλη γορεμένων καλά τίνας ains, in this manner: Quorum illud propriam commu em loquendi confuctudinem imitatur; reliqua "per allegorias fub quibufdam ænigmatum involucris fenfum exprimunt." By which, it feems, he underflood rv pašo nowoλoy&μévwv xalà inou to be an explanation of the nature of

181

plicit: --- Now those who are inftructed in the egyptian wifdom, learn first of all the method of their Several

epinolary writing ; and τῶν δὲ ἀλληγορεμένων κατά τινας αἰνιγμές, of the nature both of hieroglyphic and Symbolic; whereas the first words are an explanation of hieroglyphic writing, and the fecond only of fymbolic. For Porphyry having named three kinds of writing, the first common to all people; the two other peculiar, at that time, to the Egyptians; when he comes to fpeak of their natures, he judicioufly omits explaining the epiqlary, which all the world knew, and confines his discourse to the hieroglyphic and Symbolic. But was it, as Holftenius thought, that he explained the nature of the epiftolary in the words τῶν μὲν κοινολογεμένων, &c. then has he entirely omitted the proper hieroglyphic (for the Tv de anλnyogaμévwv, &c. relates only to the fymbolic) which had been an unpardonable fault. But that this is Holftenius's mistake is further feen by the next paffage from Clemens Alexandrinus: for what Porphyry calls bieroglyphical and fymbolical, Clemens calls hieroglyphical; ufing hieroglyphical as a generic term, which Porphyry used as a specific. Clemens, I fay, giving an account of the nature of hieroglyphic writing, tells us it was of two forts; the one, KYPIOÃOΓΕΙΤΑΙ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΙΜΗΣΙΝ, direilly and fimply imitates the thing intended to be rerefented; by this he meant the proper hieroglyphic (which Porphyry, in his enumeration of the kinds, diftinguishes from the Symbolic) and what is more, Porphyry feems to have borrowed his expreflion of τῶν μὲν κοινολογεμένων κατὰ μίμησιν, from Clemens's κυξιολογεῖται καλὰ μίμησιν, by which this latter evidently meant to exprefs the nature of the proper hieroglyphic. Befides, Clemens, who gives the nature of epistolary writing, with the fame judgment that Porphyry omitted giving it, defcribes it in a very different manner, and with great propriety, thus, ἧς ἡ μέν ἐςι διὰ τῶν πρώτων ΣΤΟΙΧΕΙΩΝ KYPIOAOFIKH. Yet a learned writer, fupported by the authority of Holftenius, which ferved his purpofe in an argument for the low antiquity of Egypt, would perfuade us that Porphyry did not mean by the exprefion κοινολογόμενα κατὰ μίμησιν, that the characters he spoke of imitated the forms or figures of the things intended by them; FOR that was not the punis which the anci nt writers ofcribed to LETTERS. [Sacr. and Prof. Hift. of the Worid connect. vol. ii. p. 296.] This argument is a Peticio Princi iz; which fuppofes Porphyry to be here defcribing epiftolary writing. On this fuppofition the writer fays, that the imitation of the forms or figures of things, is not the

nors the ancient writers afcribed to letters. Certainly it is not.

But

feveral forts of letters; the first of which is called EPISTOLIC; the fecond SACERDOTAL, as being ufed

:

But Porphyry is not fpeaking of letters, but of hieroglyphic figures: therefore rois does here, and may any where, mean (because it is the literal fenfe of the word) imitation of the figure of things. However, let us confider his criticism on this word, tho' it makes fo little to his purpose:-Socrates in Plato fays, it feems, ὁ διὰ τῶν συλλαβῶν τε καὶ γραμμάτων τὴν ἐσίαν τῶν πραγμάτων ΑΠΟΜΙΜΟΥΜΕΝΟΣ" and the ancients, the learned writer tells us, were exceeding philofophical in their accounts of both words and letters: when a word or found was thought fully to exprefs, according to their notions, the thing which it was defigned to be the name of, then they called it the sinav, or picture of that thing. The ancients were, without doubt, wonderfully profound; if we will believe Kircher and his school: but if a plain man may be heard, all the mystery of μinois and ɛixwv was fimply this Alphabetic letters, as we have obferved, sprung from hieroglyphic characters; and even received their form from thence. Now the ancients, as was very natural, when they fpoke of the power of letters, and of words compofed of letters, frequently transferred the terms pienois and tixar, to these, which properly belonged to hieroglyphic characters: a plain proof of this is the very word arouμéquat, quoted by the learned writer from Plato; which literally fignifies, to imitate from an exemplar, but figuratively, to exprefs, at large: So whaoua originally fignified any thing formed and fashioned by art; traductively, a fimilitude in fpeech, nay, the mufical modulation of the voice. There is a remarkable paffage in Plutarch's discourse of the Pythian prophetess no longer rendering her prophecies in verfe; where the word anaopa is generally thought to be used in the first of thefe traductive fenfes, but I think it must be understood in the fecond; fpeaking of the ancient manner of delivering the Oracles, he fays, — ἐκ ἀνήδυνον, ἐδὲ λὴν, ἀλλ ̓ ἐν μέτρῳ καὶ οἴκῳ καὶ ΠΛΑΣΜΑΤΙ καὶ μεταφοραῖς ὀνομάτων, καὶ μετ' αὐλό. Mr. Le Clerc, [De Prophetia, p. 18. tom. iv. Comm. in V. T.] tranflates the latter part thus, pedibus vincta, tumida, quæfiis & tralatitiis verbis conftantia, & cum tibia pronunciata. But aλáoμal fignifies here, not quæfitis verbis, but that modulation of the voice which we may call placida conformatio, and is opposed to sxw, a contrary modulation of the voice, which may be called gravis conformatio. These two were used in the theatre (to which the matter is compared) in a kind of recitative on the flute: fo that what Plutarch would fay, is this, that the ancient oracles were not only delivered in verfe, and in a pompous figurative style, but were fung likewife to the flute. Toxy and dopali he opΤο πλάσμα]ι pofed

ufed by the facred fcribes; the last with which they conclude their inftructions, HIEROGLYPHICAL. Of thefe different methods, the one is in the plain and common way of writing by the first elements of words, or letters of an alphabet; the other by SYMBOLS. Of the fymbolic way of writing, which is of three kinds the firft is that plain and common one of imitating the figure of the thing reprefented; the fecond is by tropical marks; and the third, in a contrary way, of allegorizing by Enigmas. Of the first fort, namely, by a plain and direct imitation of the figure, let this Stand for an inftance: :-to fignify the fun, they

pofed adulov, in the fenfe of untunable; and to plafoçais ὀνομάτων he oppofed λιτή, plain, fimple. Plutarch ufes πλάσμα again in the fenfe of conformatio, where fpeaking of the elocution of Pericles, he calls it ΠΛΑΣΜΑ φωνῆς ἀθόρυβον, a compofed modulation of voice. But Quintilian employs it in the very sense in question, to exprefs a foft and delicate modulation of voice. Sit autem imprimis lectio virilis & cum fuavitate quadam gravis, & non quidem profæ fimilis, quia carmen eft, & fe poetæ canere teftantur. Non tamen in canticum diffoluta, nec PLASMATE (ut nunc a plerifque fit) effoeminata, 1. i. c. 14. Hence again, in another traduction, plafma was used to fignify a certain medicine, that speakers in public took to render their voice soft and harmonious,

Sede leges celfa, liquido cum plafmate guttur
Mobile conlueris
Perf. Sat. 1. ver. 17.

Turnebus, not attending to this progreffive change in the fenfe of words, and taking his fignification of plafma from the paffage of Quintilian, fuppofed that plafma, in this place of the poet, fignifies not a medicament, but a foft and delicate modulation of the voice. Eft cùm molli & tenera fictaque vocula poema eliquaverit udo gutture. Eft enim plafma, ut alio loco docui, cum vox eft tenera & mollis. On the other hand, Lubin, who had taken his fignification of plafma from this place, will needs have the fame word in the paffage quoted above from Quintilian to fignify not a foft and delicate modulation of the voice, but a medicament. Turnebi hujus loci explicatio, 1. xxviii. c. 26. Adverfar. mihi non placet, & hoc Quintiliani loco refutatur. Comment. in Pef.