Of Jlphabetkal Charaders. 301 



But in oppofition to this evidence, fome ^ill 

 argue againft all poHible admiffion of our con- 

 clufion, by alledging the entire difTimilarity of 

 characfters employed by the ancients to difcrimi- 

 nate their letters. '•^Why (hould not one nation, 

 ** it will be urged, adopt from the other the 

 ** mode of expreffing the art, as well as the 

 ** art itfclf? To what purpofe the trouble of 

 ** inventing another fyftem of chara^ersV 



Various anfwers may be returned to this 

 objeftion. 



I. We know, from the inflance of our own 

 language, what diverfities may be introduced in 

 this refpeift merely by length of time, and an in- 

 tercourfe with neighbouring nations. And fuch 

 an efFed would be much more likely to take 

 place, before the art of printing had contributed 

 to eftablifh an uniformity of charafler. For, 

 when every work was tranfcribed by the hand, 

 we may eafily imagine how many variations 

 would arife from the fancy of the fcribe, and the 

 mode of writing fo conftantly different in indi- 

 viduals. What two pcrfons write without the 

 plained fymptoms of peculiarity ? 



2. Vanity might fometimes give occafion to 

 this diverfity. When an individual of another 

 community had become acquainted with this 

 wonderful artifice, he might endeavour to recom- 

 mend himfelf to his own people, as the devifer 

 of it : and, to evade dcteftion, nnight have re- 



courfe 



