September -JS, ]$33.] 



SCIENCE. 



439 



best solutiou hitherto discovered ; the right to 

 doubt an inference not yet made certain is a 

 precious and indefeasible one. It would be 

 highly gratifying to regard the derivation of 

 Phoenician from Egyptian as not less certain 

 than that of English from Phoenician, since 

 then we should have followed up the history 

 to its very beginning ; for the character of the 

 Egyptian as a wholly original mode of writ- 

 ing, carrying ou its face the evidence of its 

 steps of development from the initial stage, 

 is beyond dispute. Considering that Mr. Tay- 

 lor liolds the hieroglyphics to be the antecedent 

 phase of Plioenician letters, we wish that he 

 had made his exposition of the system some- 

 what fuller, and especially that he had told in 

 more detail how lie regards the al[)habetic 

 value of certain of the hieroglyphs as having 

 been arrived at : the point is by no means so 

 clear as were to be wished. 



It would take far too much space to go 

 through the book and notice all the points of 

 special interest in it ; but attention may be 

 called to a few. Mr. Taylor has a new and 

 well-supported theory as to the Mediterranean 

 alphabet from which the Germanic runes were 

 taken : he holds it to have been the Greek of 

 the Enxine colonies and Thrace, transmitted in 

 peaceful intercourse along the eonunercial route 

 of the Dnieper, some centuries before the C'liris- 

 tian era. His discussion of the Ogham crypto- 

 grams is less satisfactory. The (Tlagolitic (an 

 early Slavonic) alphabet receives from him a 

 suggested explanation which has met with 

 general favor. The earliest Semitic mon- 

 uments — the sarcophagus of Sidon. the Mo- 

 abite stele, the recently discovered Siloam 

 inscription — are fully treated, the last being 

 given in facsimile. .Some of tlie most origi- 

 nal parts of the author's work lie in the dis- 

 cussion of the South Semitic alphabets and 

 their derivatives. It is to them that he traces 

 the immense group of the alphabets of India 

 by a theory which wears a more plausible and 

 accept al)lc aspect than any otiier yet suggest- 

 ed ; it must, of course, stand the test of time, 

 and of examination iiy other experts, before 

 it can be admitted as final. Even in so old 

 and well-worked departments as the varieties 

 of Semitic and Greek writing and their mu- 

 tual relations, Mr. Taylor brings to light 

 much that is new and interesting, laying under 

 contribution the most recent finds, and com- 

 bining them with independence of judgment 

 and sound sense. There is nowhere any efl'ort 

 at brilliancy or show of profundit}- : sober, 

 earnest work is the keynote of the tre.itise. 

 which in this respect compares favorably with 



certain other recent publications, French and 

 German, on the same subject. 



In conclusion, we may notice adversely a 

 point or two. The now accepted explanation 

 of Pehlevi, as needing to be read out of its 

 Semitic signs into Iranian words, should not be 

 credited to ' the sagacity of Professor Ilaug ' 

 (ii. 2."{9). That exi)lanation was distinctly 

 offered by the veteran Westergaard, in the 

 preface to his Zendavesta, in 1854, when Haug 

 was fresh from the university ; and in the lat- 

 ter's earliest article ' on the Pehlevi language 

 and the Bundepesh,' published in the same year, 

 there is to be found no hint of the doctrine. 



It is hardly correct to ascribe the success 

 of riglit methods in paleography in any meas- 

 ure to Darwinism (ii. 363). That every suc- 

 cessive phase of a historical institution is the 

 outgrowth of a preceding phase, and ditt'ers 

 little from it, is a truth long coining to clear 

 recognition and fruitful application in every 

 department of historic research, prior to and 

 in complete independence of any doctrine of 

 evolution in the natural world. Only error 

 and confusion have come of the attempts made 

 to connect Darwinism and philologic science. 

 On the other hand. 'Sir. Taylor appears to make 

 a too mechanical application of the doctrine 

 of historical development in denying altogether 

 the possibility of an element of free inven- 

 tion in alphabetic growth. Man is capable 

 of devising something a little diflferent from, 

 or like and additional to. what he has already 

 won and knows how to use. One who has a 

 language can invent another, regarded by 

 him as an improvement on the former : the 

 thing has ha[ipened repeatedly, and is no vio- 

 lation of the law of gradual and unconscious 

 growth of human speech. So. notwithstanding 

 the law of alphabetic development, a man who 

 practises various modes of writing can devise 

 a new one, for cryptographic or tachygi'aphic 

 l)urposes, or other. And a community that 

 is receiving and adapting an alphabetic system 

 from another community may, in like maimer, 

 well enough add a sign or two of its own 

 device : hence the question whether our X 

 is an out-and-out invention of the (ireeks, or a 

 dilferentiated K. is one of paleograi)hic prob- 

 aliilities, not to be settled in favor of the lat- 

 ter alternatiAe by denying the possibility of 

 the former ; and so in other like cases. 



The number of interesting (lueations to 

 wliich this work furnislies a trustworth}' reply 

 is surprising ; and. while sparing of notes, it 

 yet gives references sufficient to set upon the 

 right track any one desirous of investigating 

 more fullv the matters with which it deals. 



