bullion merchant, the prices of all countries will become. nearly equal (p. 7). How the effect of his interpofition is limited, and particularly as to the prices of articles of the firft neceffity, we have, on a recent occafion, attempted to fhow. The effect Mr. F. afcribes to the loans to Ireland, on its exports and imports, is deduced from a principle which is not to be admitted; but we fhall clofe this collection of his errors with the new principle he introduces, that if gold were the neceffary medium of circulation, it muft, from the nature of things, receive an artificial value in a country, exactly proportionate to the balance of debt" to foreign ftates: " a value feen only in the cheapnefs of commodities that enfues" which is as much as to fay, that if a given adverfe balance, as of half a million, deprefs the price of commodities, or raise the value of coin to a certain point; if that balance were to become a million, or to be doubled, that value would be doubled, or those prices halved; that is, varied proportionally.

This work, however, prefents to us an important account of fome evils affecting Ireland, and of the mifconduct which has produced them; the diftrefs of the lower orders for fpecie muft have been extreme, after the filver had been fo debased, that there arose a feeming neceffity to prohibit its currency: and this followed by the emiffion of 6d. and 1s. notes, and banks erected in every village for the iffue of them; whereof twelve are required to fupply Skibbereen, and twenty-three for Youghall and it fhould feem, that the conduct of the Irish bank, fince the suspension of cash payments, has added not inconfiderably to the diftreffes of that country. The bank of England, foon after the reftriction, replenished its coffers with coin in an extraordinary proportion, as Mr. Thornton has informed us. The year before, the bank of Ireland had expended 230,000l. in the purchase of bullion; and, in the year after, 23,170l. only, or one tenth thereof. In this it copied not the example of the bank of England, which feems, from Mr. Thornton's work, to have derived gain enough from the fufpenfion. The fmall notes of the bank of England are to be regarded only as a fubftitute for the guineas that great operation had drawn out of circulation; but taking these and the greater conjointly, that company, according to Mr. Thornton, are to be taken, from the laft proper period before the fufpenfion to December, 1800, to have increased their paper, nearly in the proportion of 120 to 154*, or unity 1.28. And taking the Irish notes in January, 1797, as not reduced by an impolitic

Thornton, p. 225.

operation

operation as thofe of England at that period were; they were from that time to April, 1800, increafed as 62 to 248*, or as unity to 4; and the celerity of the augmentation was, in the two cafes, as 28 to 300, or as unity to 10: and thus, by the junction of these measures, in the year 1803, the Irish bank made a dividend on their stock of 71. to which was added a bonus of 51. making 121. on the wholet. There are other parts alfo of Mr. Fofter's tract which we read with much approbation; among thefe, we fhall inftance his obfervations on the further abuse which may be made of the fufpenfion of bank payments in coin in addition, to the evils they naturally draw after them (p. 70, 162); and to this add, his distinction of the circumstances, in which an adverfe rate of exchange does, or does not, operate as a bounty on the exports of a country.

We' fhall, in conclufion, give a judgment on this work, abftracted from what has been faid above, and the other remarks that occurred to us in the reading of it. There is no inconfiderable degree of gloom which certainly hangs over the profpect of the fifcal and commercial affairs of Ireland; but Mr. Fofter has darkened alfo his picture of the flate of Great Britain with fome of the fame hues. We difcern, and have inftanced from his work, marks of penetration and ingenuity; but they are found mixed with very direct felf-contradictions. These we regard as indifputable evidence, that he wrote both with much bias and much precipitancy; and that he is to be regarded not as the judge between the two contending parties, but as the advocate of one. In laying down propofitions, in some of them his enunciation is confused, and wants definitive clearness; and he has adopted others, feemingly fpecious, for which no juft proof can be adduced. With a genius, which we admit to be well turned to that fpecies of argument on political economy founded on arithmetical induction, he runs into errors against arithmetical principle; and he is not, but he may easily become, a writer of reputation and authority, on fubjects related to that which he has now brought before the public.

J. B.

Fofter, p. 209;

+ Ib. p. 143. What addition it may have made to its capital at The fame time is not here noticed. It may be conjectured not to have been inconfiderable, if regard be had to the magnitude of their emiffions.

ART. XI. A Differtation on the Myfteries of the Cabiri; or the great Gods of Phenicia, Samothrace, Egypt, Troas, Greece, Italy, and Crete; being an Attempt to deduce the feveral Orgies of Ifts, Ceres, Mithras, Bacchus, Rhea, Adonis, and Hecate, from an Union of the Rites commemorative of the Deluge with the Adoration of the Hoft of Heaven. By George Stanley Faber, A. M. Fellow of Lincoln College. In Two Volumes. 8vo. 16s. Rivingtons, &c. 1803.

MR.

R. BRYANT, after giving his extenfive collection of radicals, in his mythology, from which, as has been juftly obferved, any word in the world might have been derived, introduces a fhort chapter on etymology, in which he complains of former etymologifts, that" many, in the wantonnefs of their fancy, have yielded to the most idle furmifes; and this too with a degree of licentioufnefs, for which no learning nor ingenuity can atone". That this fentence was not sometimes applicable to his own etymologies, few readers will be bold. enough to contend; though certainly his learning and ingenuity made more atonement than those of the majority of learned and ingenious writers could have made. The refult appears to be, that he has become the founder of a new etymological fect, the pupils of which, though they differ from him in many great points, agree in fplitting words into ast many parts as they think proper, and affigning to them boldly the fignifications of fome of their radicals. Mr. Faber, in the prefent work, commences with a fet of about 114 radicals, or variations of radicals (we may not have counted quite exactly), concerning which, he previously says:

"In Mr. Bryant's catalogue of radicals, feveral occur which I fhall find no occafion to ufe; while fome, which to me will prove of effential service, are omitted by that excellent writer. Hence the fubjoined lift will be found to vary in many particulars from that of Mr. Bryant." P. 24.

This difference may feem of fmall importance; but, in our opinion, it is not fo. If, in the prodigious multitude of derivations hazarded (we can ufe no other term) by Mr. Faber, fome of Mr. Bryant's radicals are of no ufe, their right to be confidered as radicals must be reduced to almoft nothing; and those which are found of fo frequent ufe by Mr. F. ought, on the other hand, to have presented themfelves to Mr. BryWe fhall give, however, the cleareft idea of Mr. F.'s fyftem, by tranfcribing his radicals, with which the reader will of courfe compare the etymologies we fhall produce.

ant.

2

"Ain,

Ani, a Ship.

Aran, An Ark.

Ar, Aur, Ur, Or, Light.

Ar, a Mountain.

Arc, Arg, Org, Erech, Arech, a long Ship, or Ark.

Ares, Eres, the Sun.

As, Ath, Ait, Es, Fire.

Bal, Bel, Bol, Baal, Lord.

Bu, Bo, Boi, Bo, an Ox.

Car, Cur, Cor, Sar, Sir, the Sun.

Chan, Chon, Chen, a Prieft.

Cal, Cul, Col, Hollow, an epithet of the ark.

Da, The.

Dac, Dag, a Fish.

Du, Dus, Thu, Thus, God.

Ga, Gai, Illuftrious.

Ham, Om, Heat, Fire.

Hipha, Siphina, Hiph, Siph, a decked or covered Ship.
Luc, the Sun.

Ma, Mai, M', Great.

Menu, Manes, Menes, Noah.

Menah, Men, Monah, Mon, any Thing Noetic, the Ark, the Moon. Nuh, Nuch, Nuach, Nus, Nau, Noah.

Ob, Op, Aub, a Serpent.

On, Aun, the Sun.

Patar, Petar, to difmifs, to open, to let out.

Ph', P', Pu', The.

Phree, Phri, Phra, Pherah, the Sun.

Phi, a Mouth, an Oracle.

Phont, a Prieft.

S', a common Prefix to an afpirated Vowel.

San, Son, Azan, Azon, the Sun.

Tal, Ital, Aital, the Sun.

Theba, an Ark.

Tin, Tinnin, a Sea-Monster.

Tit, the diluvian Chaos.

Tor, a Bull.

Yuneh, Yoneh, Juneh, Jonah, a Dove.
Za, Greatly." P. 27.

On this lift many remarks might be made; we fhall, however, content ourfelves with one or two. The radicals are, in general, fupported by Hebrew derivations in the margin*.

To many of thefe, obvious objections occur; but they would lead us into a tedious detail.

Luc,

Luc, for the Sun, is, however, fupported by no fimilar term in any language; but is only illuftrated by words arbitrarily faid to be derivatives from it. Thus Auxabas, Lycabas, is faid to be "a year, or a revolution of Luc"; but, as long as there is no proof that Luc means the Sun, a revolution of Luc will have no fenfe. Mr. Bryant indeed tells us, that El-Uc is the origin of Auxos, and thence meant the Sun; but of this fanciful derivation the proofs are very flender. In the fame note on Luc, Mr. F. gives two fine fpecimens of the dash of etymology. Engl. Luck, from the ufual metaphor of profperity being reprefented by light, and adverfity by darknefs." Look, from the circumftance of light being neceffary for the organs of vifion." P. 29. Is not this a worthy difciple of the etymological school? After this, when we come to the radical of "Patar, Petar, to dismiss, to open, to let out", we cannot but wonder at the omiffion of a French word, manifeftly derived from that fource!

66

The fyftem of Mr. F. which is to be fupported by his radicals, is briefly this; "that the whole idolatry of the Gentile world (for it is by no means confined to the Cabiri) is built, almoft univerfally, upon a traditional remembrance of the deluge, joined to the fuperftition of worshipping the heavenly bodies." This, however, is all conjecture. When he tells us, "it is fcarcely poffible that all recollection of the flood could have been very foon erafed from the minds of the Noachida", or defcendants of Noah, we readily agree with him; but, when he would perfuade us therefore, that in a few generations they began to worship Noah and the ark; and that foon after, joining the worship of the heavenly bodies with that fuperftition, they called Noah the Sun, and the ark the Moon, and became unable to diftinguifh one from the other, we cannot refrain from fmiling at the wild fuppofition; unfupported by any thing that we can perceive, except his mere conjecture. The whole foundation of his fyftem is placed in these two or three, perfectly conjectural, fentences.

"Previous to the building of the Tower (of Babel) then, I conceive that all mankind were accuftomed to commemorate the cataftrophe of the deluge; but, at the fame time, I think it probable, that they had now begun to entertain too exceflive a veneration for their arkite ancestors. This veneration was, by the degenerate Nimrod, foon perverted into grofs idolatry, and blended with the antediluvian worship of the host of heaven. Noah and the Sun were henceforth regarded as one divine object; and the Ark, in which he was preferved, was profanely reverenced in conjunction with the Moon." P. 14.

Under all this paffage, which is, in fact, the bafis of the whole work, the margin, ufually crouded with notes, is pure

as