ELARKE’S MARITIME DISCOVERIES. 
and adorned by stceceeding generations. 
The great masters of history even in our own 
times have confused themselves and their 
readers, by referring the important events of 
the earliest periods, to Osiris and Sesostris, 
to the Argonauts and Hercules: when at 
length a sage appeared, who arrested the 
progress of fable, and vindicated the cause 
of truth.—The fame of the venerable Bryant 
needs no eulogium, bnt enjoys an elevation 
which succeeding centuries will support. 
By pointing out a path which all preceding 
writers had neglected, he recalled his coun- 
trymen’ from the legends of that mythology 
which had disgraced their writings. Ad- 
‘mired and abused, imitated and blamed, Mr. 
Bryant has preserved the even tenout of his 
course, and given a new impulse to the li- 
terary world.” — 
When the blind lead the blind it is 
no marvel that they go astray. Mr. 
Clarke has chosen Jacob Bryant for his 
guide in antient history ; he calls him 
a judicious sceptic, and says that the 
scarcity of his valuable work will excuse 
long and frequent citations. Mr. Mau- 
rice ig another of the author’s oracles, 
‘but he seems to be unacquainted with 
the writings of General Vallancey, the 
at master of the erudite and the con- 
Frced. He himself partakes the judicious 
scepticism of his school, which consists 
in disbelieving whatever thwarts their 
own hypotheses, and quoting the most 
absurd legends of the most suspicious 
writers with full faith. 
<< M. Bailli, in his history of astronomy, 
after describing its convection with agri- 
‘culture, chronology, geography, and navi- 
‘gation, takes a general view of the inventors 
and origin of this science ; and, in his third 
book, considers the state of astronomy be- 
fore the flood. He scruples not to assigna 
knowledge of the mariner’s compass, and of 
the clepsydra, to the antediluvians ; and also 
seems inclined to add the use of the pendu- 
Jum. Mr. Maurice, with considerable in- 
genuity, supports the same opinion in his 
valuable history of Hindostan ; and after 
invalidating many of the extravagant and 
‘dogmatical assertions of M. Bailli, intro- 
duces a sketch of such arts and sciences as 
may reasonably, and without exaggeration, 
be presumed to have been cultivated by man- 
kind before the flood. Though Mr. Mau- 
written by 
13 
rice does not particularly contend for the 
existence of an, antediluvian sphere, he ex- 
patiates on the probability of many invalu- 
able astronomical records having been pre- 
served by Noah, among the remains of the 
wisdom Of the antient world; and cites the 
few passages in profane history, from Jo- 
sephus, Manetho, and Diodorus Siculus, 
that seem to illustrate this opinion. But the 
most curious attestation of this occurs in 
the oriental philosophy of Mr. Stanley, whe 
gleaned it from the old Chaldean and Arabiar 
authors... Kisseus, a Mahomedan writer, 
asserts that the Sabians possessed not only 
the books of Seth and Edris, but also others 
Adam himself; for Abraham, 
after his expulsion from Chaldea by the 
tyrant Nimrod, going into the country of 
the Sabians, opened the chest of Adam ; and, 
behold, in it were the books of Adam, a3 
also those of Seth and Edris ; and the names 
of all the prophets that were to succeed 
Abraham.” 
Who can doubt the astronomical 
knowledge of the antediluvians? nay, 
who does not hope to see an edition of 
the works of Adam printed from the 
original manuscript, after this attestation 
of the learned Kisseus? But Mr. Clarke 
does not bow in passive obedience to the 
authority of his worthy predecessors 5 
he cannot believe, notwithstanding the 
authority of M. Bailli and Mr Maurice, 
that the magnet was discovered pre- 
vious to the flood; for “ this,” says he, 
«“ would argue a degree of skill in 
science among the antediluvians, suffi- 
cient to have counteracted, or opposed, 
the overwhelming chastisement of the 
deluge.”” 
Mr. Clarke proceeds to a history of 
the general deluge, “ the universality of 
which the Arabians to this day strikingly 
express by theirs appropriate term of Al 
Tufan.”? Al Tufan! who does not per- 
ceive the striking and appropriate beauty 
of the term?* “ the word is well-cull’d, 
choice, sweet and apt, I do assure you, 
Sir!?? Next come the dimensions of the 
divine Thebath, that Thebath, com- 
monly, yea vulgarly, not to say pul- 
pitetically, nor yet tea-tabellically, and 
moreover among the speciallest species 
of. porter-drinking, oxyphonic, puppet- 
show rhetoricians, called, appellated, as 
* Yet surely even A! Tufan must yield the palm of expression and #ppropriate beauty to 
the Tomogkog of the Catawhbas. Mr. Clarke, we perceive, has a true sense of the sublime 
in language. How is it that he has overlooked the history of the ‘Tufan or’fomogkog in 
the impressive diction of that great people? Wame tohk¢ékomuash quogkononogkcdtash 
pohquodchuwanash, kah tomogkonne squoantamash kesukqut pohquaemoouk. 
ilere are 
werds worthy to employ the lips, larynx, and lung F Fal fi 
NX; lungs of Stentor! what a mouthful for 
Garagantua! what a gem to have: hone among the jewels of Mr. Clarke's Arabian, 
Hebrew and Sanscrituomenclature 
