Tebilab, n, and not Babel, which word, according to grammatical principles, cannot be derived from Balal,, or Balbal, 57, to confound.' r. 2.

Now, what says the text not a word of the confusion of languages, but of LIP, that is, of PRONUNCIATION; and so in ver. 6.They have all one LIP; and ver. 7. Let us go down, and con found their LIF.' Till then this confusion in articulating shall be proved to have been reducible to grammatical principles, we see no reason for rejecting the statement that the city which, in consequence of it, this people had left off to build, was called BABEL; because the Lord did there confound the LIP of all the land.

Dr. Hager adds an observation which appears at first view to militate against this remark, but, when more nearly examined, will be found still in point.

Others say that Babel was thus called instead of Balbel, by supe pressing the letter ;, so that the Hebrews pronounced it Babel. But besides this being a forced derivation, it is to be observed that the Chaldeans, give to their capital a quite different origin. They tell us that Bel,, built first of all a great tower or castle, Bags, and that this was the origin of that immense city to which Babylon afterwards increased. Thus, says Pezronius, we find that Dido built first of all Byrsa, the citadel of the new town, which, according to the Punië language, was called Chartago. Romulus began the foundation of Rome by the Capitolium, and Cadmus that of Thebes by the Thebau Fort; and, in like manner, the citadel of Athens in Greece was of much greater antiquity than the town itself. p. 2. th

Whether the Hebrews pronounced Balbel, by the suppression of, Babel, or that this derivation of the word were forced, are neither of them at all to the question, so far as they tend to in validate the passage in Genesis. The inquiry is not, how the Hebrews pronounced the name? but the founders of Babel? and that its derivation were a forced one, the very passage evinces for their lip, or pronunciation, was so far confounded, as to render them unintelligible to each other. The account given by the Chaldeans of the origin of their capital is by no means incongruent with the Mosaic; for authorities are not wanted to show that. Bel, and Nimrod were one and the same, nor that the Babylon of the Chaldeans in after times was erected where Nimrod and his adherents first settled, and began the tower, whose top was to reach unto heaven. As to the stories of Dido, Romulus, and Cadmus, with their byrsa, capitol, and fort, nothing can be less like evidence than the mention of them, in proof of what was done by Bel; unless it can be shown that Bel was posterior to these (perhaps, imaginary) personages, and pro fessed to follow their example; besides that nothing can well be more wild than to suppose builders beginning and carrying

1

on a mighty work before they had habitations, or a settlement to

live in.

Dr. Hager proceeds:―

From Bel, then, Berosus and Abidenus, both Chaldean writers, assert that Babel derived its first origin, which, like Nineveh, was called after its founder, and signified either the castle of Bel, or the court of Bel; or, it might have some other meaning, (in which the Chaldaic language is not deficient), but not confusion, a term applied to the Babylonians, as it appears, by the jealousy of their neighbours, who envied their prosperity and glory.' P. 3.

If now, as this passage states, Babel might still have some other meaning besides the castle, or court of Bel; the doctor virtually gives up, as infirm, all he had rested upon that interpretation-excluding only what is built on confusion, which he now attributes. to the jealousy of their neighbours, who envied their prosperity and glory. May we ask who these neighbours were? The doctor, by a note referring to Deuteron. xii. 3. in which it was com manded by the law of Moses to destroy the name of the foreign divinities, points out the Israelites as those neighbours; but what has this to do with the term Babel as the name of this tower, which was founded for ages before the Israelites existed, and was erected as the castle or court of Bel its founder?—It is evident, however, that Dr. Hager, on the whole he has advanced, does not think his objections tenable; for he subjoinsBut as it is not my purpose to enter into this dispute, I shall only add, that this town or castle, according to the same wri ters (Berosus and Abydenus) was of an immense height,' &c.thus again confirming the narrative of Moses, with which he began.

Having given a description of this celebrated tower according to Herodotus, and attempted to establish its antiquity as greater than that of the Indian pagodas, which, being all square like it, and looking to the four cardinal points, served the purposes of astronomical observations, Dr. Hager proceeds to show that the Chaldeans were the most ancient astronomers; and this he confirms by the remark of Lalande, that Ptolemy and Hipparchus, who lived in Egypt, found no-where observations of greater antiquity; and still further by the questions of Bailly: If a system of astronomy were really invented by the Egyptians, why did Ptolemy, who resided in Egypt, make no mention of it? Why did he quote only the Chaldeans? W does he employ only the Chaldaic epoch of Nabonassar, and not a Greek or Egyptian one? and why does he use Chaldaic periods, Chaldaic elements, and Chaldaic observations?" Astron. tom. i. p. 177.

D

The rest of this chapter, in support of the antiquity of the Babylonians, consists of observations in opposition to the claims of the Indians, Chinese, and Persians.

The extent of Assyria being the subject of his second chapter, our author commences it with observing on the name, that Syria and Assyria were originally the same, the former without the article, and the latter with it; and produces as proofs that Cicero called the country of the Chaldeans Syria, and Lucian, who was born in Syria, styles himself both a Syrian and Assyrian. Taking Aram, D, for the common name of Syria of Damascus, and Syria beyond the Euphrates, and inferring the extent of a country from that of its language, &c., Dr. Hager includes Persia; and proceeding to support his argument on this ground, observes:

I could here adduce several other words, which Mr. Wilford, and others who have written on this subject, believe to be pure Sanscrit; which, however, are either Persian, or Chaldaic, and Hebrew. Nay, when future researches shall make us better acquainted with the Sanscrit language, I fear that a number of them, now supposed to belong to it, will be found borrowed from other idioms, and chiefly from the Persian-a circumstance which will considerably diminish its pretended antiquity. Thus, though its partisans maintain, that the Persian was derived from the Sanscrit, it may be asked, why are the Persian words always more simple and regular than the Sanscrit of the same sound and signification? Are not the simplicity and regularity of a language a proof of higher antiquity than the complex and corrupted language? And, if the Sanscrit was introduced into Persia, why do we not find the Devanagari, their most ancient characters, with which the Sanscrit was expressed, on the ancient monuments of Persia, before it had its own characters, as, for instance, on the ruins commonly called of Persepolis, where we find those celebrated inscriptions in unknown characters, the most ancient to be found in Persia, and which have no resemblance to any character of India? And why have the Hindoos themselves inscriptions on their ancient pagodas in characters which they do not understand?" P. 16.

Having intimated that vestiges of Assyrian literature might be traced beyond the Ganges and Imais, Dr. Hager turns toward the west, and observes that the Arabic language, that celebrated dialect which at present extends over half Asia, and almost all Africa, is a daughter of the Chaldaic.' This the doctor-setting aside the genealogical argument drawn from the traditions of the Arabians, as claiming their descent from Abrahamn the Chaldean-observes, may be evinced from a slight comparison of the grammar and structure of both languages; which prove that the Arabic approaches much nearer to the Chaldaic than to the Hebrew. From a like similarity between the Arabic and the Geez, or most ancient language of Abyssi nia, it is inferred that the Assyriac gradually extended from Babylon to the centre of Africa and the very sources of the Nile. As if, however, the doctor entertained some doubts on thevalidity of this argument, he adds

But the clearest proof of the influence, which the Chaldaic lite rature had in Arabia, appears in their numbers, for which, like the Greeks, they often use alphabetic letters instead of ciphers; and also by the names of the days of the week, which were used among the ancient Arabians, called Homerites. Both show their Assyriac origin, being exactly equal in number, and having the same order as the Syriac alphabet; which proves that they were not only acquainted with, but also used it. The same order of the alphabet is still common among the Arabians of Marocco, at the western extremity of Africa, who, being now so far separated from their brethren, the Oriental Arabians, and from their ancient neighbours, the Chaldeans, must have been in possession of this alphabet at a very early period.' P. 17.

Other arguments, to prove the influence and extent of Chaldaic literature, are deduced from the Cufic, Neski, Talik, Divani, &c.; and the Homeritic alphabet, the oldest which the Arabians possessed, is stated, upon the authority of an Arabic MS. discovered by ADLER at Vienna, and denominated Suri, to have been deduced from the Syriac.

Dr. Hager next proceeds to show that Canaan or Palestine, and Phoenicia, belonged also to Assyria, and, from Strabo, that Syria anciently extended from Babylon to the Black Sea; after which, from the Phoenician language, and the colonies by which it was diffused, he applies his conclusion to the greatest part of the ancient world. But though we admit the consequence of the doctor, so far as concerns an agreement in language to the extent stated, there appears to be an evident deficiency of proof, whence to infer an equal extent, as to the empire of Babylon. If the whole earth were originally of one language, the agreements pointed out will be much more easily accounted for upon this ground, than the other. But, however the question be determined, the inference is substantially the same, so far as language is concerned, and Dr. Hager's application of it to the object of his work.

(To be continued.)

ART. V.-Supplement to the Third Edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, &c. By George Gleig, LL.D. &c. (Continued from Vol. XXXIV, p, 381.)

WE need not repeat our account of the plan of the work, the improvements of its third edition, nor of the design and assistants of the continuation before us. We have in general given our opinion of its execution, and shall speak more fully Still on this subject before we conclude our analysis.

The remaining parts of the first volume of the Supplement

are conducted with the same care as the former; and we notice, chiefly from Dr. Anderson, some very useful remarks on the management of dairies,' They are not, however, sufficiently extended to the varying practice of different counties; and some valuable additions may still be made. The term den drometer,' the appellation of an instrument whose use is the measurement of trees, has been applied somewhat unaccountably to another machine, for the purpose of measuring distances by a single observation; but we suspect that it will not answer the sanguine views of Mr. William Pitt, its inventor or improver.

The subject of draining' has been pursued with so much care, since the publication of the Encyclopædia, that a Supplement was peculiarly necessary. It is given with candour and ability; and though somewhat might have been added from still later experience, this by no means detracts from the diligence and abilities of the authors: indeed this somewhat is neither considerable nor important. We were much pleased with the very clear, comprehensive abridgement of Mr. Sineaton's account of the Edystone Light-house,' which we have had occasion to notice in its separate state; and the article of electricity' appears to us to be truly valuable, as it comprises the whole of the science at present known. The author adopts the system of pinus, acknowledging it, indeed, to be a hypothesis, but one that meets the numerous facts more completely than any other hitherto suggested.

A very satisfactory account of a new art, that of enameling culinary vessels, to supply the temporary coatings of tin, and to prevent any ill taste from some metals, and danger from others, is also inserted. We have kept this subject much in our view, and think the improvement highly valuable. The coating does not increase considerably the thickness, nor retard boiling; and it resists the alternations of heat and cold very successfully. We perceive, that, like tin, it acquires a crust from some hard waters; but it is more easily removed from this than from tin coatings. We find some additions to the article of 'episcopacy,' chiefly as it relates to Scotland; and some very extraordinary details from later authors on the subject of fas cination.' If the whole of these facts be true, this influence is really surprising and unaccountable: much, we suspect, may be fancy; but we dare not limit the influence of animal effluvia, as we so often experience the wonderful effects of those of vegetables.

To the article of felting' we find some curious additions, as well as to that of hat-making,' from Mr. Nicholson's valuable Journal. The article of felters' is also much improved; and to that of fire-balls' is an interesting supplement, particularly respecting the famous Greek fire, and the