And thus the sweet deluders tune their song.

Pope.

For when our poor deluded people at home, and foreigners abroad, read the poisonous and inflammatory libels that are daily published with impunity they act accordingly.

Junius.

Where wavering man, betrayed by venturous pride To chase the dreary paths without a guide, As treacherous phantoms in the mist delude, Shuns fancied ills, or chases airy good.

Johnson. Vanity of Human Wishes.

DELVE, v. a. & n. s. Į Sax. delpan; Teut. DE'LVER, n. s. delben; Belgic delven ; Goth. dalf, a subterranean place. Screnius refers to this last as the origin of the Saxon bedelfan, to bury; and Wiclif confirms this etymology by using dalf for delve. See below. To dig, and, figuratively, to endeavour to fathom the mind. It is used as a substantive by Spenser and Jonson, for the pit or place dug: a delver is a digger.

But he that hadde taken oon ghede forthe and dalf into the earthe: and hidde the money of his Lord. Wiclif. Matt. xxv. When Adam delved, and Eve span, Who was then the Gentleman ?

He by and by

Old Ballad.

His feeble feet directed to the cry;
Which to that shady delve him brought at last,
Where Mammon erst did sun his treasury.

Philips. f

DELVINO, one of the principal towns o Lower Albania, between Joannina and Butrinto. It stands on the side of a mountain, on the site of the ancient Eleus, between the Paria, or ancient Xanthus, and Pistrini; and is well defended by a castle. Population 8000. It is fifty miles E. N. E. of Larissa.

DELUGE, n. s. Fr. deluge; Span. Ital. and Portug. diluvio; Lat. dilavium, from diluo, de and luo; Gr. Avw, to wash.

The restless flood the land would overflow, By which the deluged earth would useless grow. Blackmore. DELUGE.

Several deluges are recorded in history; as that of Ogyges, which overflowed almost all Attica; and that of Deucalion, which drowned all Thessaly in Greece: the most memorable however was the universal deluge or Noah's flood, which overflowed and destroyed the whole earth; and from which only Noah, and those with him in the ark, escaped. See ANTEDILUVIAN, an article in which we have entered into this subject at some length, and particularly its epoch. See also CHRONOLOGY.

But the deluge is a topic of great interest both to science and religion. It has given birth, therefore, to various theories and controversies on every point connected with it; and, while we cannot devote much space to the review of them in this work, some of the principal considerations that have been offered respecting its causes and effects may be acceptable to the reader. The great points in question may be reduced to three 1. Was the deluge universal, as is commonly supposed, or partial? 2. Was it from natural agency only, and if so what natural agency effected this mighty convulsion? 3. What were the principal effects and changes resulting?

But

1. İsaac Vossius and bishop Stillingfleet are amongst the most respectable supporters of an opinion that the deluge was but partial. the reasoning of the former upon this subject is a little involved in our second question, respecting the agency employed; for it rests partly upon the difficulty there must have been in effecting a universal deluge. Many miracles,' he says, 'must have concurred; but God works no miracles in vain. What need was there to drown those lands where no men lived, or are yet to be found? Although we should believe that part of the earth only to have been overflowed by the waters which we have mentioned, and which is not the hundredth part of the terrestrial globe, the deluge will nevertheless be universal (œcumenical), since the destruction was universal, and overwhelmed the whole habitable world.' Bishop Stillingfleet adopted the same opinion, from a persuasion that the earth was by no means fully peopled, and therefore there was no necessity for the deluge being universal. I cannot,' says he, see any urgent necessity from the Scripture to assert that the flood did spread itself all over the

the ark excepted, were destroyed by it, is most certain according to Scripture. When the Lord said that he would destroy man from the face of the earth, it could not be any particular deluge of so small a country as Palestine, as some have ridiculously imagined; for we find a universal

corruption in the earth mentioned as the cause; a universal threatening upon all men for this cause; and afterwards a universal destruction expressed as the effect of this flood. So then it is evident that the flood was universal with regard to mankind; but from thence follows no necessity at all of asserting the universality of it as to the globe of the earth, unless it be sufficiently proved; and what reason can there be to extend the flood beyond the occasion of it, which was the corruption of mankind? The only probability of asserting the universality of the flood, as to the globe of the earth, is from the destruction of all living creatures, together with man. Now though men might not have spread themselves over the whole surface of the earth, yet beasts and creeping things might, which were destroyed with the flood; for it is said that all flesh died that moved upon the earth, and every man.' To what end should there be not only a note of universality added, but such a particular enumeration of the several kinds of beasts, creeping things, and fowls, if they were not all destroyed? To this I answer; I grant that, as far as the flood extended, all these were destroyed; but see no reason to extend the destruction of these beyond that compass and space of the earth where men inhabited, because the punishment upon the beasts was occasioned by, and could not be concomitant with the destruction of man; but (the occasion of the deluge being the sin of man, who was punished in the beasts that were destroyed for his sake, as well as in himself) where the occasion was not, as where there were animals and no men, there seems no necessity of extending the flood thither.'

The bishop, therefore, thinks it probable that this visitation of divine judgment extended only to the continent of Asia, and those animals only which were immediately connected with mankind; and he thinks the latter a sufficient reason for Noah's preserving the pairs of animals which he was commanded to take with him into the ark. But it is shown, under the article ANTEDILUVIAN, that, according to the most moderate computations, the world was probably more full of inhabitants than at present; the expression of Scripture is strong, that the earth was filled with violence and if it were admitted that the earth' means only continental Asia, the supposition of a partial deluge involves almost all the difficulties, with regard to the agency employed, that are supposed to be connected with that of a universal one. If the tops of the highest mountains, in a very considerable part of the earth, were covered, the laws of gravity would carry the water that must have been thus elevated over all the ordinary habitations of men, or it would require a miracle to suspend their operation. We shall see that nothing strictly miraculous is supposed on our hypothesis of a universal deluge.

Mr. Bryant, in his Ancient Mythology, adverts at great length to the traditional traces of the act of a universal deluge in all the early fables and histories of the heathen world. He even contends that this fact furnished the principal, if not the only foundation of ancient idolatry; that the first of all the heathen deities was Noah;

that all the ancient nations regarded him as their founder; and that he, his sons, and the first patriarchs, are alluded to, in most if not all the religious ceremonies. The Egyptian Osiris (he says) was the same with Ham the son of Noah; though the name was sometimes bestowed on Noah himself. Osiris, according to Diodorus Siculus, was wonderfully preserved in an ark, and taught the use of the vine; to build, plant, &c. We may reasonably suppose,' says Mr. Bryant, that the particulars of this extraordinary event would be gratefully commemorated by the patriarch himself, and transmitted to every branch of his family; that they were made the subject of domestic converse, where the history was often renewed, and ever attended with a reverential awe and horror, especially in those who had been witnesses to the calamity, and had experienced the hand of Providence in their favor. When there was a falling off from the truth, we might farther expect, that a person of so high a character as Noah, so particularly distinguished by the Deity, could not fail of being reverenced by his posterity; and, when idolatry prevailed, that he would be one of the first among the sons of men to whom divine honors would be paid. Lastly, we might conclude, that these memorials would be interwoven in the mythology of the Gentile world; and that there would be continual allusions to these ancient occurrences, in the rites and mysteries as they were practised by the nations of the earth. In conformity to these suppositions, I shall endeavor to show that these things did happen; that the history of the deluge was religiously preserved in the first ages; that every circumstance of it is to be met with among the historians and mythologists of different countries, and traces of it are to be found particularly in the sacred rites of Egypt and of Greece.'

If the success of this author, in this great undertaking, was not complete; if his theories involve many doubtful points of history, and some altogether conjectural assumptions; he embodies on the other hand many unquestionably interesting and important facts, connected with this subject, and which the reader who is desirous of a complete review of it should not overlook. Of Noah, he says, they styled him Prometheus, Deucalion, Atlas, Theuth, Zuth, Xuthus, Inachus, Osiris. When there began to be a tendency towards idolatry, and the adoration of the sun was introduced by the posterity of Ham, the title of Helius, among others, was conferred upon him. Noah was the original Zeus and Dios. He was the planter of the vine, and inventor of fermented liquors: whence he was denominated Zeuth, which signifies ferment, rendered Zeus by the Greeks. He was also called Dionusus, interpreted by the Latins Bacchus, but very improperly. Bacchus was Chus the grandson of Noah; as Ammon may be esteemed Ham, so much reverenced by the Egyptians. Among the people of the east, the true name of the patriarch was preserved; they called him Noas, Naus, and sometimes contracted Nous; and many places of sanctity, as well as rivers, were denominated from him. Anaxagoras of Clazomenæ had obtained some knowledge of him in Egypt.

By him the patriarch was denominated Noas or Nous; and both he and his disciples were sensible that this was a foreign appellation; notwithstanding which he has acted as if it had been a term of the Greek language. Eusebius informs us, that the disciples of Anaxagoras say, that Nous is by interpretation, of the deity Dis or Dios; and they likewise esteem Nous the same as Prometheus, because he was the renewer of mankind, and was said to have fashioned them again,' after they had been in a manner extinct. Suidas has preserved, from some ancient author, a curious memorial of this wonderful personage, whom he affects to distinguish from Deucalion, and styles Nannacus. Accord ing to him, this Nannacus was a person of great antiquity, and prior to the time of Deucalion. He is said to have been a king, who, foreseeing the approaching deluge, collected every body together, and led them to a temple, where he offered up his prayers for them, accompanied with many tears. Other well known traditions, mentioned by Stephenson, speak of the flood of Deucalion in which all mankind were destroyed. Afterwards, when the surface of the earth began to be again dry, Zeus ordered Prometheus and Minerva to make images of clay in the form of men; and, when they were finished, he called the winds, and made them breathe into each, and rendered them vital.' From these accounts, Mr. Bryant concludes: 'However the story may have been varied, the principal outlines plainly point out the person who is alluded to in these histories. It is, I think, manifest, that Annacus, and Nannacus, and even Inachus, relate to Noachus or Noah. And not only these, but the histories of Deucalion and Prometheus have a like reference to the patriarch: in the 600th year, and not the 300th, of whose life the waters prevailed upon the earth. He was the father of mankind, who were renewed in him. Hence he is represented by another author, under the character of Prometheus, as a great artist, by whom men were formed anew, and were instructed in all that was good. He seems in the east to have been called Noas, Noasis, Nasus, and Nus; and by the Greeks his name was compounded Dionusus. The Amonians, wherever they came, founded cities to his honor; hence places called Nusa often occur, and many of them are mentioned by ancient authors. These, though widely distant, being situated in countries far removed, yet retained the same original histories; and were generally famous for the plantation of the vine. Misled by this similarity of traditions, people in after times imagined that Dionusus must necessarily have been where his history occurred; and as it was the turn of the Greeks to place every thing to the account of conquest, they made him a great conqueror, who went over the face of the whole earth, and taught mankind the plantation of the vine. Though the patriarch is represented under various titles, and even these not always uniformly appropriated; yet there continually occur such peculiar circumstances of his history, as plainly point out the person referred to. The person preserved is always mentioned as preserved in an ark. He is described as being in a state of darkness, which is repre

sented allegorically as a state of death. He then obtains a new life, which is called a second birth; and is said to have his youth renewed. He is, on this account, looked upon as the first born of mankind; and both his antediluvian and postdiluvian states are commemorated, and sometimes the intermediate state is also spoken of. Diodorus calls him Deucalion; but describes the deluge as almost universal.' We have noticed the corresponding Chaldean tradition, &c. mentioned by Berosus in the article ANTEDILUVIANS. While we consider the further range of these traditional accounts of the flood over the continent of India, and as far as China, has also its weight in establishing the Mosaic accounts, we shall shortly advert to the present and permanent effects of such a visitation, now remaining, as another proof both of the fact of a deluge, and of its universality. At present we enquire:

2. What was the nature of the agency employed on this occasion? Dr. Thomas Burnet, in his Telluris Theoria Sacra, endeavours to show, that all the waters in the ocean are not sufficient to cover the earth to the depth assigned by Moses. Supposing the sea drained quite dry, and all the clouds of the atmosphere dissolved into rain, we should still want the greatest part of the water of a deluge. According to the Dr. no less than eight oceans would have been requisite. To get clear of this difficulty, he and others have adopted Descartes's theory. That philosopher will have the antediluvian world to have been perfectly round and equal, without mountains or valleys. He accounts for its formation on mechanical principles, by supposing it at first in the condition of a thick turbid fluid replete with divers heterogeneous matters; which, subsiding by slow degrees, formed themselves into different concentric strata, or beds, by the laws of gravity. Dr. Burnet improves on this theory, by supposing the primitive earth to have been no more than a crust investing the water contained in the ocean, and in the central abyss, which he and others suppose to exist in the bowels of the earth. See ABYSS. At the time of the flood, this outward crust broke in a thousand places; and sunk down among the water, which thus spouted up in vast cataracts, and overflowed the whole surface. He supposes also, that before the flood there was a perfect coincidence of the equator with the ecliptic, and consequently that the antediluvian world enjoyed a perpetual spring; but that the violence of the shock, by which the outer crust was broken, shifted also the position of the earth, and produced the present obliquity of the ecliptic. This theory is not only equally arbitrary with the former, but directly contrary to the words of Moses, who assures us, that all the high hills were covered; while Burnet affirms that there were no hills then in being. Dr. Hook conjectured that the shell of earth was subjected at the deluge to a compression into a prolate spheroid, thereby pressing out the water of an abyss under the earth. Dr. Halley ascribes the deluge to the shock of a comet, whereby the polar and diurnal rotation of the globe was changed; and the ingenious Whiston so far adopted and improved upon this hypothesis, that he published a tract

on the subject entitled, The Cause of the Deluge demonstrated.

The theories above enumerated, though sanctioned by those names which entitled them to our notice, are, we conceive, one and all, destitute of any thing amounting to proof. The following, which endeavours to account for this most remarkable event, without doing any violence to the established laws of nature, is the hypothesis, we believe, of a Mr. James Tytler, a chemist of Edinburgh, who contributed largely to the Encyclopædia Britannica, from which work we make the extract.

1. If we consider the quantity of water requisite for the purpose of the deluge, it will not appear so very extraordinary as has been commonly represented. The height of the highest hills is thought not to be quite four miles. It will therefore be deemed a sufficient allowance, when we suppose the waters of the deluge to have been four miles deep on the surface of the ground. Now it is certain, that water, or any other matter, when spread out at large upon the ground, seems to occupy an immense space in comparison of what it does when contained in a cubical vessel, or when packed together in a cubical form. Suppose we wanted to overflow a room sixteen feet every way, or containing 258 square feet, with water, to the height of one foot, it may be nearly done by a cubical vessel of six feet filled with water. A cube of eight feet will cover it two feet deep, and a cube of ten feet will very nearly cover it four feet deep. It makes not the least difference whether we suppose feet or miles to be covered. A cube of ten miles of water would very nearly overflow 256 square miles of plain ground to the height of four miles. But if we take into our account the vast number of eminences with which the surface of the earth abounds, the above-mentioned quantity of water would do a great deal more. If, therefore, we attempt to calculate the quantity of water sufficient to deluge the earth, we must make a very considerable allowance for the bulk of all the hills on its surface. To consider this matter, however, in its utmost latitude: the surface of the earth is supposed, by the latest computations, to contain 199,512,595 square miles. To overflow this surface to the height of four miles, is required a parallelopiped of water sixteen miles deep, and containing 49,878,148 square miles of surface. Now, considering the immense thickness of the globe of the earth, it can by no means be improbable, that this whole quantity of water may be contained in its bowels, without the necessity of any remarkable abyss or huge collection of water, such as most of our theorists suppose to exist in the centre. It is certain, that as far as the earth has been dug, it has been found not dry, but moist; nor have we the least reason to imagine that it is not, at least, equally moist all the way down to the centre. How moist it really is cannot be known, nor the quantity of water requisite to impart to it the degree of moisture it has; but we are sure it must be immense. The earth is computed to be nearly 8000 miles in diameter. The ocean is of an unfathomable depth; but there is no reason for supposing it more than a few miles. To

make all reasonable allowances, however, we shall suppose the whole solid matter in the globe to be only equal to a cube of 5000 miles; and even on this supposition we shall find, that all the waters of the deluge would not be half sufficient to moisten it. The above-mentioned parallelopiped of water would indeed contain 798,050,368 cubic miles of that fluid; but the cube of earth containing no less than 125,000 millions of cubic miles, it is evident that the quantity assigned for the deluge would be scarcely known to moisten it. It could have indeed no more effect this way, than a single pound of water could have upon 150 times its bulk of dry earth. We are persuaded, therefore, that any person who will try by experiment how much water a given quantity of earth contains, and from that experiment will make calculations with regard to the whole quantity of water contained in the bowels of the earth, must be abundantly satisfied, that though all the water of the deluge had been thence derived, the diminution of the general store would, comparatively speaking, have been next to nothing. 2. It was not from the bowels of the earth only that the waters were discharged, but also from the air; for we are assured by Moses, that it rained forty days and forty nights. This source of the diluvian waters has been considered as of small consequence by almost every one who has treated on the subject. We shall transcribe the general opinion from the Universal History, Vol. I. where it is very fully expressed. 'According to the observations made of the quantity of water that falls in rain, the rains could not afford one ocean, nor half an ocean, and would be a very inconsiderable part of what was necessary for a deluge. If it rained forty days and forty nights throughout the whole earth at once, it might be sufficient to lay all the lower grounds under water, but it would signify very little as to the overflowing of the mountains; so that it has been said, that if the deluge had been made by rains only, there would have needed not forty days, but forty years, to have brought it to pass. And if we suppose the whole atmosphere condensed into water, it would not all have been sufficient for this effect; for it is certain, that it could not have risen above thirtytwo feet, the height to which water can be raised by the pressure of the atmosphere; for the weight of the whole air, when condensed into water, can be no more than equal to its weight in its natural state, and must become no less than 800 times denser; for that is the difference between the weight of the heaviest air and that of water.' On this subject we must observe, that there is a very general mistake with regard to the air, similar to the above-mentioned one regarding the earth. Because the earth below our feet appears to our senses firm and compact, therefore the vast quantity of water, contained even in the most solid parts of it, and which will readily appear on proper experiment, is overlooked, and treated as a non-entity. In like manner, because the air does not always deluge with excessive rains, it is also imagined that it contains but very little water. Because the pressure of the air is able to raise only, thirty-two feet of water on the surface of the earth, it is therefore supposed we

may know to what depth the atmosphere could delage the earth, if it was to let fall the whole water contained in it. But daily observations show, that the pressure of the atmosphere has not the least connexion with the quantity of water it contains. Nay, if there is any connexion, the air seems to be lightest when it contains most water. In the course of a long summer's drought, for instance, the mercury in the barometer will stand at thirty inches, or little more. If it does so at the beginning of the drought, it ought to ascend continually during the time the dry weather continues; because the air all the while is absorbing water in great quantity from the surface of the earth and sea. This, however, is known to be contrary to fact. At such times the mercury does not ascend, but remains stationary; and what is still more extraordinary, when the drought is about to have an end, the air, while it yet contains the whole quantity of water it absorbed, and has not discharged one single drop, becomes suddenly lighter, and the mercury will perhaps sink an inch before any rain falls. The most surprising phenomenon, however, is yet to come. After the atmosphere has been discharging for a number of days successively a quantity of matter 800 times heavier than itself, instead of being lightened by the discharge, it becomes heavier, nay, specifically heavier than it was before. It is also certain, that very dry air, provided that it is not at the same time very hot, is always heaviest; and the driest air which we are acquainted with, namely, Dr. Priestley's dephlogisticated air, is considerably heavier than the air we commonly breathe. For these reasons we think the quantity of water contained in the whole atmosphere ought to be considered as indefinite, especially as we know that by whatever agent it is suspended, that agent must counteract the force of gravity, otherwise the water would immediately descend; and while the force of gravity in any substance is counteracted, that substance cannot appear to us to gravitate at all. 3. The above considerations render it probable, at least, that there is in nature a quantity of water sufficient to deluge the world, provided it was applied to the purpose. We must next consider whether there is any natural agent powerful enough to effect this purpose. We shall take the phrases used by Moses in their most obvious sense. The breaking up of the fountains of the deep we may reasonably suppose to have been the opening of all the passages, whether small or great, through which the subterraneous waters possibly could discharge themselves on the surface of the earth. The opening of the windows of heaven we may also suppose to be the pouring out the water contained in the atmosphere through those invisible passages by which it enters in such a manner as totally to elude every one of our senses, as when water is absorbed by the air in evaporation. As both these are said to have been opened at the same time, it seems from thence probable, that one natural agent was employed to do both. Now it is certain, that the industry of modern enquirers has discovered an agent unknown to the former ages, and whose influence is so great, that with regard to this world it may be said to have a

kind of omnipotence. The agen. we mean is electricity. It is certain, that, by means of it, immense quantities of water can be raised to a great height in the air. This is proved by the phenomena of water-spouts. Mr. Forster relates, that he happened to see one break very near him, and observed a flash of lightning proceed from it at the moment of its breaking. The conclusion from this is obvious. When the electric matter was discharged from the water, it could no longer be supported by the atmosphere but immediately fell down. Though water-spouts do not often appear in this country, yet every one must have made an observation somewhat similar to Mr. Forster's. In a violent storm of thunder and rain after every flash of lightning, or discharge of electricity from the clouds, the rain pours down with increased violence; thus showing that the cloud, having parted with so much of its electricity, cannot longer be supported in the form of vapor, but must descend in rain. It is not, indeed, yet discovered that electricity is the cause of the suspension of water in the atmosphere; but it is certain that evaporation is promoted by electrifying the fluid to be evaporated. It may therefore be admitted, as a possibility, that the electric fluid contained in the air is the agent by which it is enabled to suspend the water which rises in vapor. If, therefore, the air is deprived of the due proportion of this fluid, it is evident that rain must fall in prodigious quantities. Again: we are assured from the most undeniable observations, that electricity is able to swell up water on the surface of the earth. This we can make it do even in our trifling experiments; and much more must the whole force of the fluid be supposed capable of doing it, if applied to the waters of the ocean, or any others. The agitation of the sea in earthquakes is a sufficient proof of this. It is certain, that at these times there is a discharge of a vast quantity of electric matter from the earth into the air; and, as soon as this happens, all becomes quiet on the surface of the earth. From a multitude of observations it also appears, that there is at all times a passage of electric matter from the atmosphere into the earth, and vice versâ from the earth into the atmosphere. There is, therefore, no absurdity in supposing the Deity to have influenced the action of the natural powers in such a manner that for forty days and nights the electric matter contained in the atmosphere should descend into the bowels of the earth; if, indeed, there is occasion for supposing any such immediate influence at all, since it is not impossible that there might have been, from some natural cause, a descent of this matter from the atmosphere for that time. But by whatever cause the descent was occasioned, the consequence would be, the breaking up of the fountains of the deep, and the opening of the windows of heaven. The water contained in the atmosphere being left without support, would descend in impetuous rains; while the waters of the ocean, those from which fountains originate, and those contained in the solid earth itself, would rise from the very centre, and meet the waters which descended from above. Thus the breaking up of the fountains of the deep, and