middle ages, but I think that the Zodiac on the former, and the Mosaic pavement found in the latter, of a Bacchanal filling a wine vessel, were the works of an age long prior.
116. My view of the subject is considerably strengthened by an observation of Belzoni’s, I think, that some of the smaller pyramids have been built with stones, the ruins of old temples, on which are hieroglyphies broken and worked into them. And Mons. Denon found in the bases of some of the oldest pillars at Medinet Abou, near Thebes, Kurnec, numerous hieroglyphics. On which he asks, “How many preceding ages of civilization would it require to be able to erect such buildings? How many ages again, before these would have fallen into ruins, and served as materials for the foundations of other temples, which themselves have existed for so many centuries?” The questions are interesting: but it would not require a long period for the buildings to have decayed, if the decay were produced by the violent hand of a Cambyses. On the subject of the Origin of Letters, I must refer my reader to the first chapter of The Celtic Druids, where it is treated of at large.
CHAPTER II.
ETYMOLOGY AND ITS USE.
1. A little time ago two systems of Etymology were published, one by the Rev. Mr. Whiter, of Cambridge, and the other by Mr. James Gilchrist. The former called his work Etymologicon Universale. It is very large, and was printed by the University of Cambridge, at its press. The object is to prove that all the words of every language may be traced back to the word Earth.[1] Great learning and ingenuity are displayed, and incredible labour must have been bestowed on the production. The work of the latter gentleman, entitled Philosophic Etymology, is not so large, and in its doctrine is directly in opposition to the former. Mr. Gilchrist contends, that CL, CR, LC, or RC, is the primary simple word of written language, and that all the copiæ verborum are merely varieties and combinations of that one simple word, or rather sign.
2. He says, “There is nothing arbitrary about language. All the dialects, as Hebrew, Celtic, Greek, Latin, &c., are essentially but one language. They have such diversities as may be termed idioms; but with all their circumstantial varieties, they have substantial uniformity: they proceed on the same principles, and have the same origin. The philosophic grammar and lexicography of one, is in reality that of all.”[2] In this I perfectly agree with Mr. Gilchrist: I also agree with him that there is a wide difference between a scholar and a philosopher, but I cannot think with him that men in the first instance conversed wholly by looking, not by listening; and that the different modifications of sound, emitted from the mouth, were a subsequent step of improvement and conveniency, not contemplated when the mouth was first applied to curiologic signs; which application of the mouth was not anticipated when these signs were first employed, and which signs were not contemplated when hieroglyphics were invented: that thus, in the use of signs, men were led on step by step from hieroglyphics or picture-writing to curiologics, an abridged form of the preceding; from curiologics engraved or drawn on any substance, to the expression of them by the mouth; and from the expression of them by the mouth to the eye, to the expression of them by sound to the ear, enabling men to converse in the dark as well as in the light. If I understand Mr. Gilchrist, he supposes both hieroglyphics and letters to have been invented before speech. This does, indeed, surprise me very much. On reflecting on the first situation of man, I cannot help believing that he would not perceive his mate many minutes before he would utter some kind of a sound or sounds, which would soon grow into monosyllabic words.
3. I lay it down as a principle, that there were no such persons as Aborigines (as this word is often used)—that man did not rise into existence by accident, or without cause: but that he was the effect of a cause, a creation, or formation by a Being possessing power. This admitted, I consider that he must have acquired his knowledge of speech either by experience, or have such knowledge of it given to him by his Creator, as would enable him to communicate his ideas to his mate, and that in each case his Creator gave him the power of using his voice at the same time that he gave him the power of using his teeth and other organs. And if I admit the former, that man acquired by experience the
