TRANSACTIONS OF THE SECTIONS. 183 



and hieratic systems of writiufj, must be borne in mind when studying tlie develop- 

 ment of other systems. 



With regard to the origin of the alphabet in common use in Europe there can 

 be no doubt, the testimony of classical historians, as well as that of the letters 

 themselves, being conclusive as to its Phoenician source. But at what date letters 

 were first in use in Greece is by no means certain ; Grote thought that they were 

 absolutely unknown in the days of Homer and Ilesiod (b.c. 850-770). It seems, 

 however, probable that they were introduced at a somewhat earlier date. If the 

 date which has been assigned to the famous " Moabite stone," of about 900 B.C., 

 be correct, the correspondence in form between the archaic Greek letters and those 

 on the stone raises a strong presumption in favour of letters having been imported 

 into Greece at the time when the fhcenician alphabet was in that stage of develop- 

 ment in winch it occurs on the stone. 



E-i-en the name of the alphabet preserves the memory of its Phojnician origin, 

 for Alpha and Beta, the names of the two letters from which the word is derived, 

 are not really Greek, but merely the Ilellenized forms of the Phosuician Aleph and 

 Beth. The same is the case with the names of all the other Greelc letters down to 

 Tan, the last five letters, Y, *, X, "ir, a, being of later introduction. 



The correspondence in form laetween the Homan, the Greek, and the early 

 Phoenician alphabet, as given on the Moabite stone, can readily be traced. It 

 must, however, be remembered that the letters of the latter are written from right 

 to left, or in tlie same manner as Ileln-ew, and not, as is the case with us, from left 

 to right. In the early Greek inscriptions it appears to liave been a matter of 

 imlilference in which direction the letters were placed. In some the lines are 

 alternately in eith.er direction ; and this form of writing was known as Boustrophe- 

 don, or that which turned backwards and forwards like an ox in ploughing. 



As to tlie original identity of these three alphabets there can be no doubt ; 

 neither can any exist as to the order in which the letters were originally arranged ; 

 for in the Hebrew Scriptures, the language of -nhich may practically be regarded 

 as tlie same as tlie Phoenician, there are several instances in whicli a succession 

 of passages, each commencing with a different letter of the alphabet, present 

 them in this order. A well-known example is atibrded by the lltlth Psalm, each 

 of the twenty-two sections of which coumieucos with a different letter, the name 

 of which forms the heading to each in the English version of the Bible. 



When, however, we come to consider the history and development of the Phcc- , 

 nician alphabet, we are no longer upon so sure a footing. The manner in which 

 some other forms of writing such as the Chinese and the Egj-ptian hieratic, were 

 dcA-eloped will have prepared us for the probability of the Phoenician alphabet 

 having also been evolved from a pictorial source. 



It is a by no means unimportant fact, in reference to this view, that the names 

 of the Plioeniciau or Hebrew letters are not arbitrary, but each significant of somo 

 object, thoughthe meaning of the names cannot in all cases be recognized with 

 absolute certainty. For instance, Aleph, Beth, Gimel, and Daleth mean Ox, 

 House, Camel, Door ; and if we find that these and the succeeding letters, when 

 in their most primitive forms (so far as known), present similarities with the 

 whole or a portion of the objects by the names of which they are distinguished, 

 there is a strong probability of a pictorial origin for the letters. 



Taking the forms of tlie letters, as given on the Moabite stone, in conjunction 

 with the meaning of their names, such a.similarity can in all cases be traced, though 

 more certainly intentional in some letters than in others. This will be best shown 

 in a tabular form* (p. 184). 



This correspondence in form can hardly be appreciated without diagrams, but in 

 many instances is striking, and in none absolutely forced. Tliere have, however, 

 been numerous objections raised to such a view of the derivation of the forms of 

 the Phoiinician letters. 



Lenormant and De Rouge would rather trace them to Egyptian hieratic cliarac- 

 tors ; but the resemblances they point out between them are but slight, and in no 

 iustance docs the Phoenician name of the letter agree with that of the object repre- 



* The letters are liere given in (he ordinary Hebrew character instead of the older form. 



