the foregoing theory, and invent chiefly by means of their analogies; at the same time that a servile adherence to those of any one language, or the putting words for things, would lead us into many errors. Now diversity of languages does both enlarge the field of invention, and by opposing analogy to analogy preserve us from the prejudices derived from mere verbal agreements. Let me add here, that the abstract terms of logicians, metaphysicians, and schoolmen, which may be considered as a distinct language, have spiritualized men’s understandings, and taught them to use words in reasoning, as algebraists do symbols.
Different languages do likewise improve one another, and help one another to grow in some proportion to the advancement in the knowledge of things.
Let us now examine the probable consequences of supposing different languages, and such as were far more copious than the old one, to be given at once miraculously.
First then, The character, which suited the old language very imperfectly, would be still less suited to the new one.
Secondly, The new language might be more copious, and better adjusted to express objects and ideas, than the character. And this I think can scarce be doubted, if we suppose the new languages given miraculously.
Thirdly, The agreement between many of the marks of the character, and the words of the old language, may be supposed likely to put some persons upon denoting the words of the new language by marks. But whether this would necessarily lead to alphabetical writing, is very doubtful. I think not. The first attempts at least would not be alphabetical writing.
Fourthly, Persons of different families, who could not understand one another’s language, might yet correspond by the character. However, one may guess from the circumstances of things in ancient times, that this would seldom take place in fact.
Fifthly, This and the convenience of corresponding with persons of the same family at a distance, also the desire of preserving memorials of remarkable events and transactions, might make them continue the use of the character, and improve it, considered as a method of conveying ideas, distinct from that of language. And the character thus separated from the language might give rise to hieroglyphical writing in all its varieties.
Sixthly, The patriarchs after the flood in the line of Shem might convey in succession the history of the creation, fall, deluge, calling of Abraham, &c. either in the original picture-writing improved, or in the mixed character, which, according to the third of these consequences, denoted in some imperfect gross way the words of the new language. And some of the difficulties of the book of Genesis may be owing to its consisting of patriarchal records of one of these kinds, translated by Moses into the Hebrew of his own times, and then written alphabetically.
