easy in the actual theory. For instance, the circular form of the Phoenician letter Teth (t dental) has been taken as derived from the Assyrian word Dibbu (meaning a writing table), through a supposed syllable tip (with a lingual t). The whole theory can only be taken as a mere conjecture, as the phonetic value. of the Assyrian syllabery is itself a matter of conjecture.

Professor Flinders Petrie would take the origin of the Phoenician alphabet from the letter-like symbols on the pebbles found on the shores of the Mediterranean. There are others who think its origin may be found in the Cyprian syllabery or Hittite hieroglyphics, but these are mere suppositions without any grounds whatsoever.

Before a particular system of writing can be given the credit of being the original from which another is derived, it must satisfy all the peculiarities of the latter, the particular shape of its letters, their arrangement, etc., of course making an allowance for the changes necessary due to the change of the languages to be written, the peculiarities of the new people who handle it, and the elapse of the time after which the comparison is made. The letters of the Phoenician alphabet have names (beginning with those letters) which represent certain objects. These names we now know from other alphabets derived from the Phoenician, and the meanings of some of them through other Semitic languages, Hebrew, Arabic, etc. The presumption is that when this alphabet was framed the shape of the letters adopted did approximately, or at least to a certain extent, represent the objects which gave the names to the letters. The prototype must satisfy this chief condition. Then the Phoenician alphabet appears to have had its letters arranged very nearly in the way we find them in the Hebrew, Arabic and the present day European alphabets. The arrangement is not based on any scientific or other principle. It is not, for instance, apparent why the sounds b, g and d, or 1, m and n should be placed as they are, side by side. Several attempts have been made to explain away the anamolous arrangement but all in vain. The explanations are

far from satisfactory. It must therefore have been borrowed, and the original must be shown to have possessed the particular order of the letters at least partially.

Similarity of the form of letters is also one of the chief conditions but as already pointed out it is not a decisive evidence of one alphabet being the prototype of another. The case might just be the reverse, or both might have had a common origin.

The European scholars go, it appears, by the last test only. Dr. Bübler mentions the following fundamental maxims which heays should be observed at the derivation of alphabets-(a) The oldest and the fullest form of the derivation and types of the same periods of the original should be taken. (b) The irregularities should be supported by analogies from other cases of borrowing by other nations. (c) Fixed principles should be found for the changes if these are considerable.1

These, especially the last two, are very loose maxims and the results cannot but be deceptive, unless the tests as to the peculiarities of the derivative, as mentioned above, have been satisfied.

Testing in the light of the above remarks the several systems of writing supposed by the different scholars to be the sources of the Phoenician alphabet we find that every one of them fails hopelessly. The hieratic Egyptian has only a farfetched similarity of symbols. Its letters also bear names of objects supposed to be represented by the form of the symbols, but these objects are quite different from those in the Phoenician alphabet for the same sounds. For instance, while, in Phoenician the symbols for the sounds a, b and g have a supposed resemblance to an ox, a house and a camel, in the Egyptian they are supposed to represent an eagle, a bird and a basket respectively. It is evident from this that the latter was not the origin from which the Phoenician alphabet was derived. Had it been so the names in the two languages would have indicated the same object for each symbol. It cannot be sup

(1) Indian Palæography.

posed that the names of the Egyptian letters were all forgotten and the form of the symbols entirely altered before the Phoenicians adopted them. The antiquity of the Egyptian alphabet does not warrant this. The little s'milarity of form of certain letters is due to the commercial relations of the two people which must have caused an influence of either alphabet over the other.

The Assyrian syllabery cannot stand the test at all. We are not yet certain of the phonetic values of the syllables used in the Assyrian writing. Also we have nothing to show that the Phoenician alphabet did undergo a process of development which is necessary in case an alphabet is derived from a foreign syllabery. The Persian cuniform alphabet, which is an offspring of the Assyrian syllabery, is too modern (the oldest record dating 516 3.c.) to be the medium between the Phoenician alphabet and the Assyrian syllabery.

Let us now see how the Indian alphabet (Bráhmí) fares at the test. We have seen it has a hoary antiquity behind it, that its scientific stage was reached about 1700 B. c. although it could not yet produce any inscri ̧tion dating earlier than fifth century B.C. The letters of the Bráhmí alphabet, as we know it from the inscriptions, bear an unchallenged resemblance to the letters of the Semetic alphabets both northern (Phoenician, Moabite, etc.) and southern (Sabæan), so much indeed that the Bráhui alph..bet has been taken as derived by some scholars from the Phoenician and by others from the Sabæan alphabet. The process adoptel by Bühler to show how each letter of Bráhmí developed from the Phoenician alphabet can very well be reversed to prove the derivation of the Phoenician from the Bráhmí script.

It may however be mentioned that the process followed by him is not at all convincing. First he mentions the characteristics of the Bráhmí alphabet as having its letters set up as straight as possible and generally equal in height, and the majority of them consisting of vertical lines with appendages attached mostly at the foot, occasionally at the foot and top, rarely in the middle, never at the top alone. At the top he says appear the ends of verticals generally, never several angles

placed side by side with a vertical or slanting line hanging down, or a triangle or circle with a perpendicular line. Then he gives the causes of these characteristics and his fixed principles governing the changes from the Phoenician into the Brábmí alphabet in the following words :-"The causes of these characteristics of the Bráhmí are a certain pedantie formation found also in other Indian creations, a desire to frame signs suited for the formation of regular lines, and an aversion to top-heavy characters. The last peculiarity is probably due in part to the circumstances that since early times the Indians made their letters hang down from an imaginary or really drawn upper line, and in part to the introduction of the vowel signs most of which are attached horizontally to the tops of the consonants. Signs with the ends of verticals at the top were, of course, best suited for such a script. Owing to these inclinations and aversions of the Hindus, the heavy tops of many Semitic letters had to be got rid of; by turning the signs topsyturvy or laying them on their sides, by opening the angles, and so forth. Finally the change in the direction of the writing necessitated a further change inasmuch as the signs had to be turned from the right to the left as in Greek".]

The fixed principles that he has taken as governing the change, viz., turning the signs topsyturvy, laying them on their sides, opening the angles, etc., are such that any letter can be shown as derived from any other. For instance, open the top of letter a (written alphabet) and put it topsyturvy and you get n; produce the first slanting line of n and you get p. But we know how different the three letters are, and the danger of following the procedure is apparent. Dr. Bühler has, besides, suggested some missing links to get the connexion.

No great effort, however, appears necessary in this respect, as a perusal of the two alphabets shows the similarity.

We are to see next about the names of the Phoenician letters, whether the shape of the cbjects represented is discernible in the respective Bráhmí letters. As the Bráhmi alphabet we possess

() Indian Palæography.