of many able and judicious persons for many centuries: some of the most respectable writers have reasoned upon erroneous principles, and, by their works, have obscured the true path which might have led to the discovery of letters. Mons. Fourmont, Bishop Warburton, and Mons. Gebelin, have endeavoured to shew that alphabets were originally made up of hieroplyphic characters; but it will presently appear that the letters of an alphabet were essentially different from the characteristic marks deduced from hieroglyphics, which last are marks for things and ideas, in the same manner as the ancient and modern characters of the Chinese; whereas the former are only marks for sounds; and though we should allow it an easy transition from the Egyptian hieroglyphics to the characteristic marks of the Chinese, which have been demonstrated by Du Halde and others to be perfectly hieroglyphic, yet it doth not follow that the invention of an alphabet must naturally succeed these marks. It is true there is a sufficient resemblance between the Mexican picture-writing, the Egyptian hieroglyphics, and the Chinese characters; but these are foreign to alphabetic letters, and, in reality, do not bear the least relation to them.”
101. From a consideration of certain historical facts which cannot be denied, I think I can shew that hieroglyphics did not precede the invention of letters, as has been generally imagined.
102. It has been observed by almost every philosopher who has visited the pyramids of Egypt, that they are placed exactly to face the four cardinal points of the compass, from which astronomers know that their builders must have possessed a very considerable skill in the science of astronomy. This affords a strong presumption that the art of writing must have been known to their builders; they can scarcely be believed to have possessed so much science as the fact seems to require, without it. Now, in the next place, it may be observed, that there is not on any one of the larger pyramids the least appearance of any thing like a hieroglyphic. This fact, combined with the evident knowledge possessed by their builders of astronomy, justifies the presumption that they were built before hieroglyphical writing was known, though perhaps after our mode of writing was discovered. Though the two facts may not be considered to amount to a decisive proof, I maintain that taken together they afford strong presumptive evidence. On the subject of hieroglyphics,
103. Mr. Maurice says, “Before we quit the pyramids, I must be permitted to make one reflection. On no part of the three great pyramids, internal or external, does there appear the least sign of those hieroglyphic sculptures which so conspicuously and so totally cover the temples, the obelisks, and colossal statues, of Upper Egypt. This exhibits demonstrative proof, that at the period of the construction of those masses, that kind of hieroglyphic decoration was not invented, for, had that sacerdotal character been then formed, they would undoubtedly not have been destitute of them.”[1]
104. Some of the smaller pyramids have been built out of the ruins or stones of temples on which have been hieroglyphics. This shews these particular pyramids to be of modern date. No doubt they have been tombs. All our churches are tombs; but they are also places of worship.
105. After the celebrated Mr. Belzoni and Lieut.-Col. Fitzclarence had with great labour obtained admission to the inner chamber of the second in size of the pyramids, Mr. Belzoni discovered, from an inscription, that it had been opened before by one of the Califs. It appeared that the contents of the sarcophagus which he discovered had been thrown out, and were lying on the floor at its side. He preserved part of them, which were bones, and brought them to England, never letting them go out of his own possession. These were carefully and publicly examined by several of the first natural philosophers in London, who, to their great surprise, discovered that they were the remains of an animal of the Beeve kind.[2] Respecting these facts there never has been any dispute. They are perfectly notorious; and neither Mr. Belzoni, nor the natural philosophers, had any theory, interest, or system, to influence their judgments respecting them. Part of the bones may yet be seen, where I have seen them, at the house of Lieut.-Colonel Fitzclarence.
106. I suppose no one will doubt that these were the bones of an exemplar of the famous God Apis, on which some foolish and absurd priest-ridden king must have been weak enough to lavish such immense labour and treasure. This Bull Apis has been proved by many philosophers to have been the Bull of the Zodiac; in fact, the Sun, when he entered the sign of the Bull in the Zodiac, at the vernal equinox, concerning which I shall shortly make some observations, and of which I shall have much to say in the following work. This being, for the sake of argument, at the present moment admitted, it follows that the Zodiac must have been invented before one of its signs, the Bull, can have become the object of adoration.
107. Now I think no person can believe that the Zodiac, with its various signs, and divided and subdivided as it necessarily is into many parts, was invented before writing. Then it seems to follow, if this be admitted, that
