under the direction of the East India Company. I have felt myself the more interested on this occasion, because I have frequently ventured to suppose, in my private reflections, that there actually are extant, by the providence of God, various confirmations of historical parts of the sacred writings, which are not usually adverted to, but which, when properly considered, add strong collateral evidence in establishment of that department of the Bible; and not only so, but they enable us to understand the manner and the terms of the Bible accounts of such or such events to very great advantage.

It would be deviating too much from our purpose to detail the mode of procuring these bricks; I shall therefore take for granted that they are authentic and genuine, and then proceed to compare what we know of them with the Mosaic account of what seems to be their history.

Moses tells us, Gen. xi. 3. that mankind journeyed from the East; they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and dwelt there; and they said one to another, 1st, let us make brick; 2d, and burn them thoroughly; 3d, and they had brick instead of, 4th, stone; and 5th, slime they had for mortar. They afterward proposed to build a city and a tower, which in process of time was called [the city I suppose] Babel, and afterward was known by the name of Babylon.

The first question is the situation of the place. Now we find on the river Euphrates, about three miles above the present city of Hillah, an immense mass or mound of earth, so large that it has usually been mistaken for a hill and this the rather, as it has trees of various kinds, and some of great magnitude, growing on it. At the foot of this hill, and round about it, are remains of vast edifices, composed of two sorts of brick: one, the common sort of the country, hardened by having been dried in the sun; the other hardened by having been baked in the kiln. Those which are only sun dried, are placed in the interior and less noticeable parts of the structure; and those which are baked, are placed whereve; a better appearance or more solid construction was desired. Bricks of this kind are now, from time to time, fetched away in carts, &c. and are used for the purposes of building, in the country around. Thus, according to the Mosaic history, there being no quarries within easy reach of the tower of Babel, its builders used brick instead of stone which, for so large and magnificent an edifice, is extremely remarkable, such structures being usually of the most costly materials. The second article is, that whereas bricks are usually bound together by mortar, when combined in building, these bricks are bound together by bitumen, the slime of our translation. The word in the Hebrew is occasionally rendered pitch, but should be bitumen; as when the mother of Moses pitched his ark, &c. because, pitch being a production from the pine-tree, which is a native of cold climates, as Norway, &c.

where no such tree grew, they could have no pitch; but their bitumen was a natural production, rising from the earth, and flowing into what was called pits, from whence it was procured by labour. Those pits which furnished the bitumen employed at Babel, besides such as the country yielded on the spot, which might be considerable, are situated at the town of Ait or It, about six or eight days journey up the river, so that it was easily floated down to Babylon. Now the courses of bricks, which are at present extant, and laid in bitumen, such as the pits above mentioned supply; and every four or five courses of bricks has also a layer of reeds between the bricks, of which Moses makes no mention, but which seems to imply that marshes, &c. had prevailed hereabouts formerly, from which these reeds were cut. This narration therefore of sacred history is fully justified by what we now find in the situation and construction of the buildings alluded to, though at present in ruins.

After this slight sketch, by way of introduction, we come to the bricks themselves, which have been exhibited to the Royal and Antiquary Societies, &c. and at sir Joseph Banks's in London. They are composed of a yellowish clay, somewhat redder in the centre; they are three inches thick, and in length and breadth rather exceed twelve inches; so that they resemble that kind of brick called among us, I think, "paving tiles," or twelve inch tiles. This should seem to decide the question, whether anciently men were larger in dimensions than they are at present, since no doubt the same considerations of readiness for being held in the hand, of being placed, &c. and of weight, &c. were then attended to as now; and the inference is, that the builders of Babel, though robust and active men, yet were of much about the same powers as the same laborious class of mankind in the present day.

But the most extraordinary part of these bricks is, that impressed on them is a series of characters in several lines, which was evidently struck while the clay was wet. This discovery is of great consequence to us, as biblical students; because, many Christian divines have held, that writing was communicated by God to Moses, when on mount Sinai, and this has lately been strongly insisted on. But we must observe, that Moses does not intimate any thing of this kind; rather, on the contrary, by mentioning a particular species of writing, "like the engraving on a seal," he distinguishes, by reference to an art well known, and he admits of other kinds. The editor of CALMET has supposed, that the seal which Judah gave to Tamar was inscribed, and that the purchase deeds of Abraham needed but a few technical to have and to hold's to render them creditable to a modern attorney, on the art of filling a sheet handsomely. Now, if writing was known in the days of Abraham, if it was also known to the builders of the tower of Babel, then we approach so nearly to the antediluvian ages,

that it becomes a very interesting question, whether it was not known also before the flood? For, we have no mention of any incident between the flood and Babel, which was likely to be its origin; and if writing was practised before the flood, then we may safely believe, that Noah was acquainted with it, and would preserve it, as the value of the art must render it too important to be lost. This, if admitted, cuts off at once all those traditionary conveyances of divine truth, which some have supposed from Adam to Moses, thereby leaving the principles of that truth exposed to the variations and perversions to which tradition is always liable. But, if we suppose that divine truths, divine worship, divine knowledge, were preserved by writing, then we see that those whom we call patriarchs, as Abraham, &c. had, like ourselves, the most authentic memoranda to guide their faith; we see too that the ancient promises, when once registered, might descend to them, and from them to us, verbatim as delivered ; and, in short, that they also had those permanent memoirs which left them at no loss on the subject of past events, or of future expectations. If they had writing, they had divine books, comments too, no doubt, and thus they were capable of knowing perfectly the references of their services, their sacrifices, their hymns, their music, &c. and in short of performing their sacred rites with the same solemnity and interest, as men of God in later ages, David, Solomon, or the prophets.

This subject leads us to think, that the antediluvians had more of the means of grace than we are aware of. In the days of Enoch "men began to call on the name of Jehovah," in a manner perhaps more solemn, more united, than formerly. Perhaps the Holy Scriptures, then extant, were even read to them; perhaps Enoch left in writing his prophecy of the coming of the Lord with ten thousand of his saints; perhaps Noah was a preacher of righteousness by other ways than by personal admonition merely; and perhaps too the sons of violence, on whose account the waters of the flood came upon the earth, were warned, were entreated, were adjured, even by the most effectual remonstrances, by remonstrances calculated for the most salutary effects.

Such are the consequences of admitting that the bricks now shewn are those of the original tower of Babel; but we ought to recollect that this tower had, as it were, two origins; one soon after the flood, when the foundations were laid and the superstructure advanced; but the whole scheme not completed according to the primary intention of its builders, by reason of those dissensions among them which produced their confusion and dispersion. The second origin of this tower, to which it is possible these bricks may be referred, was when Nebuchadnezzar undertook to finish it, and to render Babylon the seat of his glory. A question therefore arises, whether these inscriptions might not be struck at this latter

time, this re-edification? The answer depends on ascertaining in what part of the building they are found; if in the foundations of the tower, then no doubt they are of great antiquity; if on the superficies and finishings, then they may be of later date. It appears that, "to come at the bricks, it is necessary to dig into the earth;" the relator also seems to mention walls level with the bed of the river, as well as perpendicular to it in their course, and "subterraneous canals." Moreover, I suppose, we ought to distinguish between the tower, which was finished to a certain degree by the original undertakers of the work; and the city, which perhaps was little, if at all, inhabited for we find Moses saying they proposed to build both a city and a tower; and that the tower was in some degree perfected, is certain from the astronomical observations made there, and examined by desire of Aristotle, whose earliest date is nearly coincident with that recorded in the Mosaic history: [I think the difference is less than 50 years.]

As eastern tradition universally attributes the use of letters to the antediluvian ages, it may be presumed to have had some foundation for the notion; and there seems to be no cause why those who could invent certain arts mentioned by Moses, might not invent that of writing also. The testimony of Josephus too inclines to this side of the question.

Assuming for the present that this writing is of deep antiquity, we proceed to remark on it, that it is one simple element, wholly composed of a single point, like a nail, or the head of an arrow, placed in various combinations: in fact, this has been called "the nail-headed character," and it seems to be as a character, a very simple thought, but of very arbitrary application. The next question is, whether each combination expresses a complete word; and the third is, the manner of reading it, whether it should be read from the left hand to the right, like our own writing; from right to left, like the ancient Hebrew, &c. or from top to bottom, like the Chi

nese.

As I have made it a kind of rule in my life to consider nothing as desperate, and as the course of knowledge is progressive from one thought to another, I hope the reader will excuse my digressing so far, as to suggest a hint on this subject, which hereafter somebody else may improve, and another somebody may complete.

The reader will observe on our Plate a collection of characters so closely resembling those of the bricks, that they may fairly be taken for the same, at least as to principle; these are, as delineated on the spot by Le Bruyn, from the ruins of Persepolis; or at least what is understood to have been a palace of the ancient Persian kings; and the application of these may reflect some kind of light on the nature of the former, from which I venture to say, they are more or less distant transcripts.

To determine the manner of reading these characters, we have given No. 1. which is a view of three inscriptions; these are evidently meant to be read horisontally, since such is their situation in a wall. Now a public inscription in a wall would be useless, unless posited as meant to be read. These are clear instances; an instance equally clear is given in No. 2. in which we see three inscriptions laid horisontally inside of the portico. One of these inscriptions we have given at large in No. 3. where it appears to be beyond a doubt horizontal; as in short are all those given by Le Bruyn, except as we shall notice hereafter.

But we further remark, that the inscription No. 3, must begin to be read from the left hand; because, every line commences full, and even, to this beginning, but no two lines end at corresponding points; so that this irregularity must mark the termination, not the commencement of the lines. This leads also to the inference, that these inscriptions are poetry; because, had they been prose, they would naturally have filled up each line, and carried the sense to a following, whereas poetry would allow only so many words in any one line as completed the sense intended, and each line must begin afresh for itself. The blank spaces, therefore, at the end of each line, being variable, they lead to the inference, that the writing is at least controlled in its dimensions by poetical measures. This is precisely according to the custom of the East; and, that poetry was practised before the flood, appears by that example of it, which Moses has preserved in the address of Lamech to his wives. Adah and Zillah. I think this instance clear; yet to confirm it, I have given No. 4. which shews the endings of the lines. in another inscription. In this example, too, the lines begin in a determinate manner, but end with considerable variations. The same is the fact with respect to the others.

There is yet another remarkable application of these characters, which is shewn in No. 5. i.e. that they go not only along the tops of these windows, but down their sides; and not entirely down their sides, whereby they could be suspected of commencing at the bottom, but they clearly commence from the top, and take their course downward. One of these, and of the actual size, is given in No. 6. The appearance of this, I think, determines that they are not signs of syllables, or mere letters, since nobody would write letters singly down a wall; but they are complete sounds, and combinations of sounds; i.e. words, or signs of ideas, and therefore each by itself is expressive, and according to the order of their course is the current of the information they contain.

The result of our speculations is, that this character is extremely simple in its form, and is varied in its sounds, inflexions, and powers, by its position: that it is to be read horizontally; from the left hand to the right: and that it denotes words, not syllables. The close of these hints should inquire the prob

ability of our expectations, or hopes, of reading this character. I cannot here say all I might say; but shall only suggest, that it was undoubtedly legible, and well understood too, when Persepolis was built. If this palace dates from Cyrus, then it affords a gleam of hope, that the memory of what was popular in the days of Cyrus may have survived, since we have writings of a much older date; witness Moses and David, and many of the prophets, to say nothing of ancient Greek writings. If the date of Persepolis be referred to the Persian kings, known by the name of the Arsacidæ, as some incline, it may raise our hopes still higher, that what was intelligible long after Alexander, will have been preserved by some good fortune or other: and as we now read many alphabets, such as the [East Indian Sanscrit] Palmyrene, Phenician, &c. which fifty or sixty years ago were totally unknown to us, and their information was shut up from us, so it should seem to be far from desperate, that the inscriptions at Babylon, by means of those at Persepolis, may be decyphered, and communicated to mankind.

It may be serving some inquirer to add, that in the seventeenth volume of the Philosophical Transactions, there is a plate of inscriptions copied from Persepolis, and some Arabic writing, which has greatly the air of a derivation from the arrow headed character. A translation of the Greek inscriptions on that plate, may probably appear, restored according to my reading of them.

Having thus attended to the immediate subject of our inquiry, it may not be amiss to hint at what information, in respect to the science of communicating ideas by signs, i.e. writing, may be gathered from ancient authors. The ancients in general referred every excellent thing, of which they could not discover the origin, to "the gods:" and if we properly understand their words, they were right in this reference. "The gods," in the language of deep antiquity, did not mean so much the deities, or su preme celestial powers, as those great patriarchs to whom, out of a fond and overweening respect, after ages attributed divinity; human personages promoted, as it were, to be gods, and venerated as such by their descendants. On this principle, the first gods we know, or can know, are the patriarchs Noah, and his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth: our inference is, that to refer writing to "the gods," is to ascribe the practice of it to the second progenitors of mankind.

If we examine this notion more closely, we shall find that each tribe of descendants claimed its respective head as the author of this art. The Hebrews speak of Shem as a teacher, who taught religion, &c. to Isaac, son of Abraham; and the Egyptians claim for Ham, or at least for his son Thoth, the honour of instructing them in religious rites, and of inscribing historic memoranda, on pillars of stone, or on masses of clay, i.e. terra cotta.