442 
desses of paganism stem to be all one and 
the same mythological character; though 
they sometimes represent the moon, some- 
times the ark, and sometimes the globe of 
the earth emerging from the waters of the 
deluge. hie 
«« From this union of the two primitive 
superstitions originated the custom of be- 
stowing the names of the hero-gods upon 
the celestial catasterisms. Modern asttono- 
my still continues to retain the same titles ; 
and Nimrod himself, the founder of this 
-compound idolatry, still holds a conspicuous 
place in the sphere, and _ stil] overlooks the 
aflairs of mortals from the brilliant constel- 
lation of Orion. The servile flattery of more 
recent times translated the deified spirit of 
the first Cesar into the Julium Sidus; and a 
great astronomer of the present 7 adopt- 
ing the classical compliment without the 
classical impiety, has given the appellation 
of the Georgium Sidus to his newly disco- 
yered planet. 
<‘The attempt of Nimrod, to force his 
abominations upon the reluctant consciences 
of mankind, produced a war between his fol- 
lowers, and those, who still persevered: in 
commemorating the event of the deluge, and 
who rejected with horror the profane reveries 
of Sabianism. The issue of it was such as I 
have mentioned; the arkite festival was per- 
verted into a superstitious idolatry, and was 
for ever united with the worship of the hea- 
venly bodies. The mysteries of the Cabiri 
are in fact nothing more than a mythological 
account of these events; and they will be 
feund throughout to refer at once to the ca- 
tastrophé of the deluge, aad to the impious 
rites of that Sabianism, which was united by 
Nimrod with the arkite superstition.” 
From this extract our readers will have 
already begun to suspect, that Mr. Faber 
is an adept of no mean proficiency in 
that school of criticism, which if not 
established by Mr. Bryant, has, at least, 
received from his labours its greatest 
share of celebrity and illustration. ‘This 
opinion will need no further confirma- 
tion, when they are informed that in 
some of the most important of thie cir- 
cumstances, in which the present writer 
has departed from the system delivered 
in the analysis of ancient mythology, 
the veteran author of that work had 
himself already seen reason to change 
his own sentiments, We must, there- 
fore, listen to our author with the re- 
spect due from the uninitiated to a 
hierophant of acknowledged skill in 
these solemn mysteries. 
Inthe imagination of Mr. Faber, the 
memorials of the deluge are imprinted 
not less indelibly in the languages, cus- 
toms, and traditions of all the nations 
rere 
ANCIENT CLASSICS. 
of the earth, than its physical effects are 
impressed on the structure of the globe 
itself. In one place, the appearance of — 
convulsed nature attests to the admiriny 
spectator that awful season, when the 
fountains of the gréat deep were broken 
iip;?.and in another, with no less cer- 
tainty, some fragment of a Hebrew 
word, or some diluvian symbol, has per- 
petuated through the dark succession of 
ages, an uninjured memorial of the 
same event. Even in this remote island, 
the philosopher has often traced, in ima- 
gination, the impetuous course of the 
overflowing waters ; but what convic- 
tion is contained in the name of the 
country itself, Britannia, as we corruptly 
write it, but more truly, Brit-tan-nu-aia, 
or “the land of the fish-god, Noah the 
covenanter?” ‘The author, however, can+ 
didly observes, that Bochart gives a difs 
ferent derivation of Britannia. ; 
The inherent improbability of a sys- 
tem, founded principally on such étymo- 
logies, must be so obvious to almost 
every reader, that a laboured refutation 
of it would be as superfluous as the 
hypothesis itself is groundless. We shall 
only bestow a few words on the nature 
of the calculus employed by Mr. Faber 
and similar writers, to shew, what needs 
but little proof, how utterly inapplicable 
it is to the investigation of historic truth. 
Not only are his particular derivations 
of words opposite, in most instances, to 
_all probability, but his whole system of 
etymology* contradicts, in our opinion, 
every established principle of language. 
Nothing appears to us more clear, than 
that languages are reducible to several 
classes, radically distinct from each other, 
whose differences are almost universal, 
and their instances of agreement rare, 
particular, or accidental. Such classes, 
in the opinion of the most skilful judges 
of language, are the Celtic, the Teu- 
tonic, and the Slavonic, with others 
which might be mentioned. _ If this sys- 
tem be true, all etymological hypothesis 
which violates these fixed barriers, must, 
except in some particular instances, be 
wholly nugatory. That all languages 
have many sounds in common, proves 
nothing. As all speech is capable 
of being reduced to a few articula- 
tions of voice, which admit of ex- 
pression by letters, so all languages must 
be capable of being analyzed into a cer- 
tain, though considerably greater, num- 
ber of common syllables, which, how- 
ever, in different languages have no 
