We are exceedingly surprised that some learned men have attributed to this deluge some small shell found in many parts of our continent. We are still more surprised at what we find under the article on "Deluge," in the grand "Encyclopædia." An author is quoted in it, who says things so very profound that they may be considered as chimerical. This is the first characteristic of Pluche. He proves the possibility of the deluge by the history of the giants who made war against the gods! _Briareus_, according to him, is clearly the deluge, for it signifies "the loss of serenity": and in what language does it signify this loss?--in Hebrew. But _Briareus_ is a Greek word, which means "robust": it is not a Hebrew word. Even if, by chance, it had been so, we should beware of imitating Bochart, who derives so many Greek, Latin, and even French words from the Hebrew idiom. The Greeks certainly knew no more of the Jewish idiom than of the language of the Chinese. The giant Othus is also in Hebrew, according to Pluche, "the derangement of the seasons." But it is also a Greek word, which does not signify anything, at least, that I know; and even if it did, what, let me ask, could it have to do with the Hebrew? _Porphyrion_ is "a shaking of the earth," in Hebrew; but in Greek, it is porphyry. This has nothing to do with the deluge. _Mimos_ is "a great rain"; for once, he does mention a name which may bear upon the deluge. But in Greek _mimos_ means mimic, comedian. There are no means of tracing the deluge of such an origin. _Enceladus_ is another proof of the deluge in Hebrew; for, according to Pluche, it is the fountain of time; but, unluckily, in Greek it is "noise." _Ephialtes_, another demonstration of the deluge in Hebrew; for _ephialtes_, which signifies leaper, oppressor, incubus, in Greek is, according to Pluche, "a vast accumulation of clouds." But the Greeks, having taken everything from the Hebrews, with whom they were unacquainted, clearly gave to their giants all those names which Pluche extracts from the Hebrew as well as he can, and all as a memorial of the deluge. Such is the reasoning of Pluche. It is he who cites the author of the article on "Deluge" without refuting him. Does he speak seriously, or does he jest? I do not know. All I know is, that there is scarcely a single system to be found at which one can forbear jesting. I have some apprehension that the article in the grand "Encyclopædia," attributed to M. Boulanger, is not serious. In that case, we ask whether it is philosophical. Philosophy is so often deceived, that we shall not venture to decide against M. Boulanger.