162 LANG 
tiful are written in a ftyle near that of the Chaldean or 
Aflyrian. Marianus Vidlorius, who was the firll that re¬ 
duced the Ethiopic tongue to the rules of grammar, tells 
us, in his Procemium, “ that the Ethiopians call their 
tongue Chaldaic ; that it fprings from the Babylonian ; 
and is very like the Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic : at the 
tame time (he-concludes) that this language may beeafily 
learned by thofe who are mafters of the Hebrew.” The 
learned Bochart, and bilhop Walton, are clearly of the 
fame opinion. 
Thevulgar letters of the Ethiopians, according to Dio¬ 
dorus Siculus, were the fame with the facred charafters 
of the Egyptians. From this account, if the Sicilian may 
be trufted, the facred letters of thefe people, concerning 
which fo many wife conjectures have been formed, were 
actually Chaldaic. To carry on this inveftigation a little 
farther, we may obferve, that fir William Jones leems to 
have proved, by very plaufible arguments, that the San- 
fkrit characters were deduced from the Chaldaic. This 
c.ircumttance affords a prefu.mp.tion that the Ethiopian 
Cufhim were likewife concerned with the Egyptians, who 
probably introduced the religion of the Brahmins into 
Hindooftan. This is advanced as a conjecture only; and 
yet, when we coniider the affinity between the Egyptian 
and Gentoo religions, we are ftrongly inclined to hope 
that this furmile may one day be verified by undeniable 
faCls. 
The mod ancient language of Ethiopia, which we ffiall 
now call AbyJJinia (its modern name), according to Mr. 
Bruce, was the Geez , which was fpoken by the ancient 
Cuffiite fhepherds. This, we fhould think, approaches 
neareft to the old Chaldaic. Upon a revolution in that 
country, the court redded many years in the province of 
Amhara, where the people fpoke a different language, or at 
lead a very different dialed of the fame language. During 
this interval, the Geez, or language of the fhepherds, was 
dropped, and retained only in writing, and as a dead lan¬ 
guage : the facred Scriptures being in that tongue only 
faved it from going into difufe. This tongue is exceed¬ 
ingly harffi and unharmonious. It is full of the letters d 
and t, in which an accent is put that nearly refembles 
Hammering. Confidering the fmall extent of fea that di¬ 
vides this country from Arabia, we need not wonder that 
it has great affinity with the Arabic. It is not difficult 
to be acquired by thofe who underftand any other of the 
oriental languages; and, as the roots of many Hebrew 
■words are only to be found here, it feems to be abfolutely 
tieceffary to all thofe who wiffi to obtain a critical fkill in 
that language. The modern Ethiopic alphabet confiffs 
of 26 letters, each of which, by a point annexed, varies 
its found in fuch a manner as that thofe 26 form as it 
were 62 diftinfl letters. At firft they had but 25 of thefe 
original letters, the Latin P being wanting: fo that they 
were obliged to fubftitute another letter in its place. 
Paulus, for example, they called Taulus, Aulas, or Caulus: 
Petros they pronounced Ketros. At laffc they fubftituted 
T, and added this to the end of their alphabet; giving it 
the force of P, though it was really a repetition of a cha¬ 
racter rather than the invention of a new one. Beiides 
thefe, there are 20 others of the nature of diphthongs ; 
but fome of them are probably not of the fame antiquity 
with the letters of the alphabet, but have been invented 
in later times by the fcribes for convenience. 
The language of Egypt appears to be one of the fifter- 
dialedls of the Hebrew, Phoenician, Arabic, Chaldaic, 
&c. but this is difficult to be proved ; for the origin of 
that people, their language, religion, laws, and inftitu- 
tions, have been fo warped and confounded, both by their 
own hiftorians and thofe of other countries, that one is 
fcarcely able to determine what to believe or what to re¬ 
ject. Diodorus Siculus is pofitive that the Egyptians were 
a colony of Ethiopians; and this he endeavours to prove 
by the fimilarity of features, cuftoms, laws, religious cere¬ 
monies, &c. between the two nations. That there was a 
*onftant intercourfe of good olTkes between thefe two 
U A G E. 
branches of the Hamites, cannot be queftioned ; and that 
they nearly refembled each other in many refpeCts, is too 
evident to admit of contradiction. 
According to the fame Diodorus Siculus, the Egyptians 
had two kinds of letters ; the one facred, the other com¬ 
mon : the former the priefls taught their own children', 
the latter all learned promifcuoully. In the facred cha¬ 
racters the rites and ceremonies of their religion were 
couched ; the other was accommodated to the ordinary 
bufmefs of life. Clem. Alexand. mentions three different 
ftyles of writing employed by the Egyptians : “The pu¬ 
pils, who were inftrudted by the Egyptians, firft learned 
the order and arrangement of the Egyptian letters, which 
is called epijlolography, that is, the manner of writing let¬ 
ters; next, the facred character, which the facred fcribes 
employed ; laftly, the hieroglyphic character, one part of 
which is exprefled by the firft elements, and is called cy- 
riologic, that is, capital, and the other fymbolic.” In this 
paffage we have an excellent defeription of the three di£- 
fereat modes of writing ufed by the Egyptians; the com¬ 
mon, the facred, and the hieroglyphic : and hence it plain¬ 
ly appears, that the facred character of the Egyptians was 
entirely different from the hieroglyphic; and by this con- 
fideration we are in a good meafure juftified in fuppofing, 
as we have done all along, that the facred letters of the 
Egyptians were actually the Chaldaic. The inferiptions 
on the obelilks mentioned by Caifiodorus, fo often quoted, 
were certainly engraved in the facred character; and the 
character in which they were drawn was that above-men¬ 
tioned, If the facred letters, were Chaldaic, the facred 
language was probably the fame. 
The Egyptians and Phoenicians were in a manner cou- 
fin-germans, and confequently muft have fpoken the fame 
language; that is, one of the fifter-dialedts of the Hebrew, 
Chaldean, Arabian, Cufhite, &c. This is not a mere ccn- 
jedfure ; it may be realized by almoft numberlefs exam¬ 
ples. The defeendants of Canaan and ofMizraim (Egypt) 
were ftridfly connected in their religious ceremonies : they 
worfhipped the fame objedls, namely, the Holt of Heaven ; 
they mourned Ofirisand Adonis in concert; they carried 
on a joint commerce, and, we think, fpoke the fame lan¬ 
guage; we may therefore conclude, that their vulgar let¬ 
ters were nearly the fame, both in form, difpofition, and 
number. 
We are abundantly feniible that there are found upon 
Egyptian monuments characters altogether different from 
thole we have been deferibing. At what time, by what 
people, and to what language, thefe letters belonged, we 
will not pretend to determine. The Ethiopians, the Chal¬ 
deans, the Perfians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Saracens, 
have, at different times, been iovereigns of that unhappy 
country. Perhaps other nations, whofe memory is now 
buried in oblivion, may have eredfed monuments, and co¬ 
vered them with inferiptions compofed of words takers 
from different languages, perhaps, upon fome occafions, 
whimfically devifed, with a view to perplex the curious 
antiquaries of future ages. Some of thefe are compofed 
of hieroglyphics intermingled with alphabetical charac¬ 
ters, artificially deranged, in order to render them unintel¬ 
ligible. Thele we do not pretend todevelope; becaule 
the moft inquifitive and fagacious antiquaries are not yet 
agreed as to their purport and fignification. 
Almoft all the names of cities belonging to Egypt which 
are mentioned in Scripture are evidently Hebrew. To be 
fatisfied as to this pofition, cur curious readers may coni 
fult Jamiefon’s Spicilegia, an excellent book very little 
known. The names of moft of the Egyptian deities are 
fignificant in the Hebrew tongue ; and in that dialed! the 
names appear to have been impofed with great judgment 
and propriety, plainly indicating fome office alligned them, 
or pointing to l'ome peculiar attribute. 
On the hieroglyphical language of the Egyptians, fee the 
article Egypt, vol. vi. p. 371. and Hieroglyph,- vol. ix. 
The Arabic language is evidently one of the fifter- 
dialedts of the Hebrew. Both, we imagine, were origin 
‘ Rally 
