F??s?? ??es????s?----

??es???? signified a person, who lived in a mountain habitation; whose retreat was a house in a mountain. Co, and Coa, was the name of such house.

Strabo says that this term is alluded to by Homer, when he styles Lacedaemon [426]?a?eda???a ??t?essa?, _for it was by many thought to have been so called on account of their caverns._ From hence we may fairly conclude, that ??t?essa was a mistake, or at least a variation, for [427]?a?etaessa, from Cai-Atis; and that Co, [428]Coa, Caia, were of the same purport.

But this term does not relate merely to a cavern; but to temples founded near such places: oftentimes the cave itself was a temple. Caieta, in Italy, near c.u.ma, called by Diodorus ?a??t?, was so denominated on this account. It was a cave in the rock, abounding with variety of subterranes, cut out into various apartments. These were, of old, inhabited by Amonian priests; for they settled in these parts very early. It seems to have been a wonderful work. [429]??e??et' e?te??e? sp??a?a ?pe?e?e??, ?at????a?

e?a?a?, ?a? p???te?e?? dede?e?a. _In these parts were large openings in the earth, exhibiting caverns of a great extent; which afforded very ample and superb apartments._ Diodorus informs us, that, what was in his time called Caiete, had been sometimes styled [430]Aiete: by which we may see, that it was a compound; and consisted of two or more terms; but these terms were not precisely applicable to the same object. Ai-Ete, or Ai-Ata, was the region of Ait, the Deity to whom it was sacred. Colchis had the same name; whence its king was called Aietes: and Egypt had the same, expressed by the Greeks [431]?et?a, Aetia. Aiete was the district: Caiete was the cave and temple in that district; where the Deity was worshipped.

In Botia was a cavern, into which the river Cephisus descended, and was lost. It afterwards emerged from this gulf, and pa.s.sed freely to the sea.

The place of eruption was called An-choa, which signifies Fontis apertura.

The later Greeks expressed it Anchoe[432]. ?a?e?ta? d' ? t?p?? ?????? est?

de ???? ??????. The etymology, I flatter myself, is plain, and authenticated by the history of the place.

From Cho, and Choa, was probably derived the word ??????, used by the apostle. [433]? p??t?? a????p?? e? ??? ??????? ? de?te??? a????p?? ? ??????

e? ???a???. ???? ? ??????, ?a? t??a?t?? ?? ??????. Hesychius observes, ??????, p??????, ??????. From hence we may perceive, that by Cho was originally meant a house or temple in the earth. It was, as I have shewn, often expressed Gau, and Go; and made to signify any house. Some nations used it in a still more extended sense; and by it denoted a town or village, and any habitation at large. It is found in this acceptation among the antient Celtae, and Germans, as we learn from Cluverius. [434]Apud ipsos Germanos ejusmodi pagorum vernaculum vocabulum fuit Gaw; et variantibus dialectis, gaw, gew, g?w, gow, hinc--Brisgaw, Wormesgaw, Zurichgow, Turgow, Nordgaw, Andegaw, Rhingaw, Hennegow, Westergow, Oostergow. The antient term ??????, Purgos, was properly Pur-Go; and signified a light-house, or temple of fire, from the Chaldaic Pur.

PARTICLES.

Together with the words above mentioned are to be found in composition the particles Al and Pi. Al, or El, for it is differently expressed in our characters, is still an Arabian prefix; but not absolutely confined to that country, though more frequently there to be found. The Sun, ???, was called Uchor by the people of Egypt and Cyrene, which the Greeks expressed ????, Achor. He was worshipped with the same t.i.tle in Arabia, and called Al Achor. [435]Georgius Monachus, describing the idolatry which prevailed in that country before the introduction of the present religion, mentions the idol Alachar. Many nations have both expletives and demonstratives a.n.a.logous to the particle above. The p.r.o.noun Ille of the Romans is somewhat similar; as are the terms Le and La of the French; as well as Il and El in other languages. It is in composition so like to ??, the name of ?????, the Sun, that it is not always easy to distinguish one from the other.

The article Pi was in use among the antient Egyptians and Cuthites, as well as other nations in the east. The natives of India were at all times worshippers of the Sun; and used to call themselves by some of his t.i.tles.

Porus, with whom Alexander engaged upon the Indus, was named from the chief object of his worship, ???, Pi-Or, and P'Or; rendered by the Greeks ?????, Porus. Pacorus the Parthian was of the same etymology, being a compound of P'Achorus, the Achor of Egypt: as was also the [436]city Pacoria in Mesopotamia, mentioned by Ptolemy. Even the Grecian p?? was of Egyptian or Chaldac original, and of the same composition (P'Ur) as the words above; for [437]Plato informs us that p??, ?d??, ???e?, were esteemed terms of foreign importation. After the race of the Egyptian kings was extinct, and that country came under the dominion of the Grecians, the natives still continued to make use of this prefix; as did other [438]nations which were incorporated with them. They adapted it not only to words in their own language, but to those of other countries of which they treated. Hence there is often to be found in their writings, [439]???e??, ??a?t??, ??a??t??, p?s?a, p??a??, Pidux, Picurator, Pitribunus; also names of persons occur with this prefix; such as Piterus, Piturio, Pionius the martyr; also Pior, Piammon, Piambo; who are all mentioned by ecclesiastical [440]writers as natives of that country. This article is sometimes expressed Pa; as in the name of Pachomius, an abbot in Egypt, mentioned by [441]Gennadius. A priest named Paapis is to be found in the Excerpta from Antonius [442]Diogenes in Photius. There were particular rites, styled Pamylia Sacra, from [443]Pamyles, an antient Egyptian Deity. We may infer from Hesychius that they were very obscene: ?aa????, ????pt??? Te??

???ap?d??. Hades, and Pi-Ades, was a common t.i.tle of the Sun: and the latter, in early times, was current in Greece; where I hope to give ample testimony of the Amonians settling. He was termed Melech Pi-Adon, and Anac Pi-Adon: but the Greeks out of Pi-Adon formed ?a?d??: for it is inconceivable how very ignorant they were in respect to their antient theology. Hence we read of pa?d?? ??t???, pa?d?? ?????, pa?d?? ?p???????; and legends of pa?d?? a?a?at??; and of pa?d??; who were mere foundlings; whose fathers could never be ascertained, though divine honours were paid to the children. This often puzzled the mythologists, who could not account for this spurious race. Plutarch makes it one of his inquiries to sift out, [444]??? ? ?a?d?? taf?? pa?a ?a???de?s?; Pausanias mentions, [445]?f??????

pa?d?? ???: and, in another place, [446]???? de Te?? te ???a??e???

a???st??, ?a? ?????, ?a? ????O? t?? T?se??, ?a? Fa?????. From this mistake arose so many boy-deities; among whom were even Jupiter and Dionusus: [447]??t?? t?? ??a, ?a? t?? ?????s?? ?a?da?, ?a? ?e???, ? ?e?????a ?a?e?.

_According to the theology of the Greeks, even Jupiter and Dionusus are styled boys, and young persons._ One of the most remarkable pa.s.sages to this purpose is to be found in the antiquary above quoted; who takes notice of a certain mysterious rite performed by the natives of Amphissa, in Phocis. The particular G.o.ds, to whom it was performed, were styled ??a?te?

pa?de?. [448]????s? de ?a? te?et?? ?? ?f?sse?? t?? ??a?t?? ?a???e???

?a?d??. ??t??e? de Te?? e?s?? ?? ??a?te? ?a?de?, ?? ?ata t' a?ta est??

e???e???. _The people of Amphissa perform a ceremony in honour of persons styled Anactes Paides, or Royal Boys: but who these Anactes Paides were, is matter of great uncertainty_. In short, the author could not tell; nor could the priests afford him any satisfactory information. There are many instances in Pausanias of this nature; where divine honours are paid to the unknown children of fathers equally unknown.

Herodotus tells us, that, when he discoursed with the priests of Thebes about the kings who had reigned in Egypt, they described them to him under three denominations, of G.o.ds, of heroes, and of men. The last succeeded to those above, and were mere mortals. The manner of succession is mentioned in the following words: [449]?????? e? ??????? ?e???e?a?--?a? ??te e?

?e??, ??te e? ???a a?ad?sa? a?t??? (?? ????pt???). There are many strange and contradictory opinions about this [450]pa.s.sage; which, if I do not deceive myself, is very plain; and the purport of it this: _After the fabulous accounts, there had been an uninterrupted succession of Piromis after Piromis: and the Egyptians referred none of these to the dynasties of either the G.o.ds or Heroes, who were supposed to have first possessed the country_. From hence I think it is manifest that Pi-romis signifies _a man_. Herodotus, indeed, says, that the meaning of it was ?a??? ?a?a???, _a person of a fair and honourable character_: and so it might be taken by implication; as we say of a native of our own country, that he is a true and staunch [451]Englishman: but the precise meaning is plain from the context; and Piromis certainly meant _a man_. It has this signification in the Coptic: and, in the [452]Prodromus Copticus of Kircher, ?????, Piromi, is _a man_; and seems to imply a native. Pirem Racot is an Alexandrine; or, more properly, a native of Racotis, called Raschid, and Rosetta. Pirem Romi are [453]Romans.

By means of this prefix we may be led to understand what is meant by Paraia in the account given by Philo from Sanchoniathon: who says, that Cronus had three sons in the region of Paraia: [454]??e?????sa? de ?a? e? ?a?a?? ?????

t?e?? pa?de?. Paraia is a variation of P'Ur-aia; and means literally the land of Ur in Chaldea; the region from whence antient writers began the history of mankind. A crocodile by the Egyptians was among other names called [455]S?????: and the name is retained in the Coptic, where it is expressed [456]Pi-Souchi.

This prefix is sometimes expressed with an aspirate, Phi: and as that word signifies a mouth, and in a more extensive signification, speech and language, it sometimes may cause a little uncertainty about the meaning.

However, in most places it is sufficiently plain. Phaethon, a much mistaken personage, was an antient t.i.tle of the Sun, a compound of Phi-Ath-On.

Bacchus was called Phi-Anac by the Mysians, rendered by the poets [457]Phanac and Phanaces. Hanes was a t.i.tle of the same Deity, equally reverenced of old, and compounded Ph' Hanes. It signified the fountain of light: and from it was derived Phanes of Egypt: also fa???, fa?e??, fa?e???: and from Ph'ain On, Fanum. In short, these particles occur continually in words, which relate to religious rites, and the antient adoration of fire. They are generally joined to Ur, by which that element is denoted. From P'Ur Tor came Praetor and Praetorium, among the Romans: from P'Ur-Aith, Purathi and Puratheia among the Asiatics. From P'Ur-tan, p??ta?e??, and p??ta?e?a among the Greeks of h.e.l.las: in which Prutaneia there were of old sacred hearths, and a perpetual fire. The antient name of Latian Jupiter was P'ur, by length of time changed to Puer. He was the Deity of fire; and his ministers were styled Pueri: and because many of them were handsome youths selected for that office, Puer came at length to signify any young person. Some of the Romans would explain this t.i.tle away, as if it referred to Jupiter's childhood: but the history of the place will shew that it had no such relation. It was a proper name, and retained particularly among the people of Praeneste. They had undoubtedly been addicted to the rites of fire; for their city was said to have been built by Caeculus, the son of Vulcan, who was found in the midst of fire:

[458] Vulcano genitum pecora inter agrestia Regem, Inventumque focis.

They called their chief G.o.d Pur: and dealt particularly in divination by lots, termed of old _Purim_. Cicero takes notice of this custom of divination at Praeneste; and describes the manner, as well as the place: but gives into the common mistake, that the Purim related to Jupiter's childhood. He says, that the place, where the process was carried on, was a sacred inclosure, [459]is est hodie locus septus, religiose propter Jovis _Pueri_, qui lactens c.u.m Junone in gremio _Fortunae_ mammam appetens, castissime colitur a Matribus. This manner of divination was of Chaldac original, and brought from Babylonia to Praeneste. It is mentioned in Esther, c. 3. v. 7. They cast Pur before Haman, that he might know the success of his purposes against the Jews. _Wherefore they call these days Purim after the name of Pur_[460]. c. 9. v. 26. The same lots of divination being used at Praeneste was the occasion of the G.o.d being called Jupiter Pur. This in aftertimes was changed to Puer: whence we find inscriptions, which mention him under that name; and at the same time take notice of the custom, which prevailed in his temple. Inscriptions Jovi Puero, and Fortunae Primigeniae Jovis [461]Pueri are to be found in Gruter. One is very particular.

[462]Fortunae Primigeniae Jovis Pueri D.D.

Ex _SORTE_ compos factus Nothus Ruficanae L. P. Plotilla.

That this word Puer was originally Pur may be proved from a well known pa.s.sage in Lucretius:

[463]Puri saepe lac.u.m propter ac dolia curva Somno devincti credunt se attollere vestem.

Many instances, were it necessary, might be brought to this purpose. It was a name originally given to the priests of the Deity who were named from the Chaldaic ???, Ur: and by the antient Latines were called P'uri. At Praeneste the name was particularly kept up on account of this divination by [464]lots. These by the Amonians were styled Purim, being attended with ceremonies by fire; and supposed to be effected through the influence of the Deity. Praeneste seems to be a compound of Puren Esta, the lots of Esta, the Deity of fire.

These are terms, which seem continually to occur in the antient Amonian history: out of these most names are compounded; and into these they are easily resolvable. There are some few more, which might perhaps be very properly introduced: but I am unwilling to trespa.s.s too far, especially as they may be easily taken notice of in the course of this work. I could wish that my learned readers would afford me so far credit, as to defer pa.s.sing a general sentence, till they have perused the whole: for much light will accrue; and fresh evidence be acc.u.mulated in the course of our procedure. A history of the rites and religion, in which these terms are contained, will be given; also of the times, when they were introduced; and of the people, by whom they were diffused so widely. Many positions, which may appear doubtful, when they are first premised, will, I hope, be abundantly proved, before we come to the close. In respect to the etymologies, which I have already offered and considered, I have all along annexed the histories of the persons and places spoken of, in order to ascertain my opinion concerning them. But the chief proof, as I have before said, will result from the whole; from an uniform series of evidence, supported by a fair and uninterrupted a.n.a.logy.

OF

ETYMOLOGY,

AS IT HAS BEEN TOO GENERALLY HANDLED.

???a ?e?? t?? e? a???? apet?e?ate ???ss??, ?? d' ?s??? st?at?? ?a?a??? ??ete?sate p????.

?a? se, p?????st?, ?e????e?e pa??e?e, ??sa, ??t?a?, ?? ?e?? est?? ef?e????s?? a???e??.

?epe pa?' e?se??? e?a??s' e?????? ??a.----EMPEDOCLES.

It may appear invidious to call to account men of learning, who have gone before me in inquiries of this nature, and to point out defects in their writings: but it is a task which I must, in some degree, take in hand, as the best writers have, in my opinion, failed fundamentally in these researches. Many, in the wantonness of their fancy, have yielded to the most idle surmises; and this to a degree of licentiousness, for which no learning nor ingenuity can atone. It is therefore so far from being injurious, that it appears absolutely necessary to point out the path they took, and the nature of their failure; and this, that their authority may not give a sanction to their mistakes; but, on the contrary, if my method should appear more plausible, or more certain, that the superiority may be seen upon comparing; and be proved from the contrast.

The Grecians were so prepossessed with a notion of their own excellence and antiquity, that they supposed every antient tradition to have proceeded from themselves. Hence their mythology is founded upon the grossest mistakes: as all extraneous history, and every foreign term, is supposed by them to have been of Grecian original. Many of their learned writers had been abroad; and knew how idle the pretensions of their countrymen were.

Plato in particular saw the fallacy of their claim, he confesses it more than once: yet in this article n.o.body was more infatuated. His Cratylus is made up of a most absurd system of etymology. [465]Herodotus expressly says, that the G.o.ds of Greece came in great measure from Egypt. Yet Socrates is by Plato in this treatise made to derive Artemis from t?

a?tee?, integritas: Poseidon from p?s? des??, fetters to the feet: Hestia from ??s?a, substance and essence: Demeter, from d?d??sa ?? ?t??, distributing as a mother: Pallas from pa??e??, to vibrate, or dance: Ares, Mars, from a??e?, masculum, et virile: and the word Theos, G.o.d, undoubtedly the Theuth of Egypt, from ?ee??, to run[466]. Innumerable derivations of this nature are to be found in Aristotle, Plato, [467]Heraclides Ponticus, and other Greek writers. There is a maxim laid down by the scholiast upon Dionysius; which I shall have occasion often to mention. [468]?? a?a???

t? ???a, ?? ??? ??te?? ????????? et??????a? a?t??. _If the term be foreign, it is idle to have recourse to Greece for a solution_. It is a plain and golden rule, posterior in time to the writers above, which, however, common sense might have led them to have antic.i.p.ated, and followed: but it was not in their nature. The person who gave the advice was a Greek, and could not for his life abide by it. It is true, that Socrates is made to say something very like the above. [469]????? ?a?, ?t?

p???a ?? ?????e? ???ata, a???? te ?a? ?? ?p? t??? ?a?a???? ??????te?, pa?a t?? ?a?a??? e???fas?--e? t?? ??t?? ta?ta ?ata t?? ????????? f????, ??

e????t?? ?e?ta?, a??a ? ?at' e?e????, e? ?? t? ???a t???a?e? ??, ??s?a ?t? ap???? a?. _I am very sensible that the Grecians in general, and especially those who are subjects to foreigners, have received into their language many exotic terms: if any person should be led to seek for their a.n.a.logy or meaning in the Greek tongue, and not in the language from whence they proceeded, he would be grievously puzzled_. Who would think, when Plato attributed to Socrates this knowledge, that he would make him continually act in contradiction to it? Or that other [470]writers, when this plain truth was acknowledged, should deviate so shamefully? that we should in after times be told, that Tarsus, the antient city in Cilicia, was denominated from ta?t??, a foot: that the river Nile signified ?e ????: and that Gader in Spain was G?? de??a.

The antients, in all their etymologies, were guided solely by the ear: in this they have been implicitly copied by the moderns. Inquire of Heinsius, whence Thebes, that antient city in upper Egypt, was named; and he will tell you from ???, Teba, [471]stet.i.t: or ask the good bishop c.u.mberland why Nineve was so called? and he will answer, from Schindler, that it was a compound of [472]Nin-Nau, ??? ???, _a son inhabited_. But is it credible, or indeed possible, for these cities to have been named from terms so vague, casual, and indeterminate; which seem to have so little relation to the places to which they are appropriated, or to any places at all? The history of the Chaldeans is of great consequence; and one would be glad to know their original. They are properly called Chasdim; and are, very justly, thought to have been the first const.i.tuted nation upon earth. It is said of the patriarch Abraham, that he came from the city Ur of the Chasdim. Whence had they their name? The learned Hyde will [473]answer, that it was from Chesed, their ancestor. Who was Chesed? He was the fourth son of Nahor, who lived in Aram, the upper region of Mesopotamia. Is it said in history that he was the father of this people? There is no mention made of it. Is it said that he was ever in Chaldea? No. Is there the least reason to think that he had any acquaintance with that country? We have no grounds to suppose it. Is there any reason to think that this people, mentioned repeatedly as prior to him by ages, were in reality const.i.tuted after him? None. What, then, has induced writers to suppose that he was the father of this people? Because Chesed and Chasdim have a remote similitude in sound. And is this the whole? Absolutely all that is or can be alleged for this notion. And as the Chasdim are mentioned some ages before the birth of Chesed, some would have the pa.s.sage to be introduced proleptically; others suppose it an interpolation, and would strike it out of the sacred text: so far does whim get the better of judgment, that even the written word is not safe. The whole history of Chesed is this: About fifty years after the patriarch Abraham had left his brother Nahor at Haran in Aramea, he received intelligence that Nahor had in that interval been blessed with children. [474]_It was told Abraham, behold Milcah, she also hath borne children to thy brother Nahor; Huz, Buz, Kemuel, and Chesed:_ of these Chesed was the fourth. There occurs not a word more concerning him.

It is moreover to be observed, that these etymologists differ greatly from one another in their conceptions; so that an unexperienced reader knows not whom to follow. Some deduce all from the Hebrew; others call in to their a.s.sistance the Arabic and the Coptic, or whatever tongue or dialect makes most for their purpose. The author of the Universal History, speaking of the Moabitish Idol Chemosh, tells us, [475]_that many make it come from the verb ???, mashash, to feel: but Dr. Hyde derives it from the Arabic, Khamush, which signifies gnats, (though in the particular dialect of the tribe Hodail) supposing it to have been an astronomical talisman in the figure of a gnat:--and Le Clerc, who takes this idol for the Sun, from Comosha, a root, in the same tongue, signifying to be swift._ There is the same variety of sentiment about Silenus, the companion of Bacchus.

[476]Bochart derives his name from Silan, ????, and supposes him to have been the same as Shiloh, the Messias. Sandford makes him to be Balaam, the false prophet. [477]Huetius maintains that he was a.s.suredly Moses. It is not uncommon to find even in the same writer great uncertainty: we have sometimes two, sometimes three, etymologies presented together of the same word: two out of the three must be groundless, and the third not a whit better: otherwise, the author would have given it the preference, and set the other two aside. An example to this purpose we have in the etymology of Ramesses, as it is explained in the [478]Hebrew Onomastic.u.m. Ramesses, tonitruum vel exprobratio tineae; aut malum delens sive dissolvens; vel contractionem dissolvens, aut confractus a tinea--civitas in extremis finibus aegypti. A similar interpretation is given of Berodach, a king of Babylon. Berodach: creans contritionem, vel electio interitus, aut filius interitus, vel vaporis tui; sive frumentum; vel puritas nubis, vel vaporis tui. Rex Babyloniae.

It must be acknowledged of Bochart, that the system upon which he has proceeded is the most plausible of any; and he has shewn infinite ingenuity and learning. He every where tries to support his etymologies by some history of the place concerning which he treats. But the misfortune is, that the names of places which seem to be original, and of high antiquity, are too often deduced by him from circ.u.mstances of later date; from events in after ages. The histories to which he appeals were probably not known when the country, or island, received its name. He likewise allows himself a great lat.i.tude in forming his derivations: for, to make his terms accord, he has recourse, not only to the Phenician language, which he supposes to have been a dialect of the Hebrew; but to the Arabian, Chaldaic, and Syriac, according as his occasions require. It happens to him often to make use of a verb for a radix, which has many variations and different significations: but, at this rate, we may form a similitude between terms the most dissimilar. For, take a word in any language, which admits of many inflexions and variations, and, after we have made it undergo all its evolutions, it will be hard if it does not in some degree approximate. But, to say the truth, he many times does not seem to arrive even at this: for, after he has a.n.a.lysed the premises with great labour, we often find the supposed resemblance too vague and remote to be admitted; and the whole is effected with a great strain and force upon history before he brings matters to a seeming coincidence. The Cyclops are by the best writers placed in Sicily, near Mount [479]aetna, in the country of the Leontini, called of old Xuthia; but Bochart removes them to the south-west point of the island. This he supposes to have been called Lelub, ????a???, from being opposite to Libya; and, as the promontory was so named, it is, he thinks, probable that the sea below was styled Chec Lelub, or Sinus Lebub: and, as the Cyclops lived hereabouts, they were from hence denominated Chec-lelub, and Chec-lub, out of which the Greeks formed [480]?????pe?. He derives the Siculi first from [481]seclul, perfection; and afterwards from ?????, Escol, p.r.o.nounced, according to the Syriac, Sigol, a bunch of grapes. He deduces the Sicani from ???, Sacan[482], near, because they were near their next neighbours; in other words, on account of their being next to the Pni. Sicani, qui Siculorum Pnis proximi. But, according to the best accounts, the Sicani were the most antient people of any in these parts. They settled in Sicily before the foundation of Carthage; and could not have been named from any such vicinity. In short, Bochart, in most of his derivations, refers to circ.u.mstances too general; which might be adapted to one place as well as to another. He looks upon the names of places, and of people, rather as by-names, and chance appellations, than original marks of distinction; and supposes them to have been founded upon some subsequent history. Whereas they were, most of them, original terms of high antiquity, imported and a.s.sumed by the people themselves, and not imposed by others.

How very casual and indeterminate the references were by which this learned man was induced to form his etymologies, let the reader judge from the samples below. These were taken, for the most part, from his accounts of the Grecian islands; not industriously picked out; but as they casually presented themselves upon turning over the book. He derives [483]Delos from ???, Dahal timor. [484]Cynthus, from ???, Chanat, in lucem edere.

[485]Naxos, from nicsa, sacrificium; or else from nicsa, opes. [486]Gyarus, from acbar, softened to acuar, a mouse; for the island was once infested with mice. [487]Pontus, in Asia Minor, from ????, botno, a pistachio nut.

[488]Icaria, from icar, pastures: but he adds, tamen alia etymologia occurrit, quam huic praefero ?? ????, Icaure, sive insula piscium.

[489]Chalcis, in Eubea, from Chelca, divisio. [490]Seriphus, from resiph, and resipho, lapidibus stratum. [491]Patmos, from ?????, batmos, terebinthus; for trees of this sort, he says, grew in the Cyclades. But Patmos was not one of the Cyclades: it was an Asiatic island, at a considerable distance. [492]Tenedos is deduced from Tin Edom, red earth: for there were potters in the island, and the earth was probably red.

[493]Cythnus, from katnuth, parvitas; or else from ?????, gubna, or guphno, cheese; because the next island was famous for that commodity: Ut ut enim Cythnius caseus proprie non dicatur, qui e Cythno non est, tamen recepta ?ata???se? Cythnius dici potuit caseus a vicina Ceo. He supposes Egypt to have been denominated from [494]Mazor, an artificial fortress; and the reason he gives, is, because it was naturally secure. Whatever may have been the purport of the term, Mizraim was a very antient and original name, and could have no reference to these after-considerations. The author of the Onomastic.u.m, therefore, differs from him, and has tried to mend the matter. He allows that the people, and country, were denominated from Mazor, but in a different acceptation: from Mazor, which signified, the double pressure of a mother on each side[495], pressionem matris geminam, i. e. ab utraque parte. Upon which the learned Michaelis observes--[496]quo etymo vix aliud veri dissimilius fingi potest.

In the theology of the Greeks are many antient terms, which learned men have tried to a.n.a.lyse, and define. But they seem to have failed here too by proceeding upon those fallacious principles, of which I have above complained. In short, they seldom go deep enough in their inquiries; nor consider the true character of the personage, which they would decypher. It is said of the G.o.d Vulcan, that he was the same as Tubalcain, mentioned Genesis. c. 4. v. 22: and it is a notion followed by many writers: and among others by Gale. [497]_First as to the name_ (says this learned man) _Vossius_, de Idolat. l. 1. c. 36, _shews us, that Vulca.n.u.s is the same as Tubalcainus, only by a wonted, and easy mutation of B into V, and casting away a syllable_. And he afterwards affects to prove from Diodorus Siculus, that the art and office of Vulcan exactly corresponded to the character of Tubalcain, [498]_who was an instructor of every artificer in bra.s.s and iron_. Upon the same principles Philo Biblius speaking of Chrusor, a person of great antiquity, who first built a ship, and navigated the seas; who also first taught husbandry, and hunting, supposes him to have been Vulcan; because it is farther said of him, [499]that he first manufactured iron.

From this partial resemblance to Vulcan or Hephastus, Bochart is induced to derive his name from ??? ???, Ch.o.r.es Ur, an artificer in [500]fire. These learned men do not consider, that though the name, to which they refer, be antient, and oriental, yet the character, and attributes, are comparatively modern, having been introduced from another quarter. Vulcan the blacksmith, who was the master of the Cyclops, and forged iron in Mount aetna, was a character familiar to the Greeks, and Romans. But this Deity among the Egyptians, and Babylonians, had nothing similar to this description. They esteemed Vulcan as the chief of the G.o.ds the same as the Sun: and his name is a sacred t.i.tle, compounded of Baal-Cahen, Belus sanctus, vel Princeps; equivalent to Orus, or Osiris. If the name were of a different original, yet it would be idle to seek for an etymology founded on later conceptions, and deduced from properties not originally inherent in the personage.

According to [501]Hermapion he was looked upon as the source of all divinity, and in consequence of it the inscription upon the portal of the temple at Heliopolis was ?fa?st? t? Te?? ?at??. _To Vulcan the Father of the G.o.ds_. In short, they who first appropriated the name of Vulcan to their Deity, had no notion of his being an artificer in bra.s.s or iron: or an artificer in any degree. Hence we must be cautious in forming ideas of the antient theology of nations from the current notions of the Greeks, and Romans; and more especially from the descriptions of their poets.

Polytheism, originally vile, and unwarrantable, was rendered ten times more base by coming through their hands. To instance in one particular: among all the daemon herd what one is there of a form, and character, so odious, and contemptible as Priapus? an obscure ill-formed Deity, who was ridiculed and dishonoured by his very votaries. His hideous figure was made use of only as a bugbear to frighten children; and to drive the birds from fruit trees; with whose filth he was generally besmeared. Yet this contemptible G.o.d, this scarecrow in a garden, was held in high repute at Lampsacus, and esteemed the same as [502]Dionusus. He was likewise by the Egyptians reverenced as the princ.i.p.al G.o.d; no other than the Chaldaic [503]Aur, the same as Orus and Apis: whose rites were particularly solemn. It was from hence that he had his name: for Priapus of Greece is only a compound of Peor-Apis among the Egyptians. He was sometimes styled Peor singly; also Baal Peor; the same with whose rites the Israelites are so often [504]upbraided. His temples likewise are mentioned, which are styled Beth Peor. In short, this wretched divinity of the Romans was looked upon by others as the soul of the world: the first principle, which brought all things into light, and being. [505]????p?? ? ??s??, ? ? p??est?? a?t??

?????. The author of the Orphic hymns styles him [506]???t??????--?e?es??

a?a???, ???t?? t' a????p??. _The first born of the world, from whom all the immortals, and mortals were descended_. This is a character, which will hereafter be found to agree well with Dionusus. Phurnutus supposes Priapus to have been the same as Pan, the shepherd G.o.d: who was equally degraded, and misrepresented on one hand, and as highly reverenced on the other.

[507]?s?? d' a? ??t?? ?a? ? ????p?? e??, ?a?' ?? p??e?s?? e?? f?? ta pa?ta?

t?? a??a??? d' e?s? ?a?????. _Probably Pan is no other than the G.o.d Priapus, by whose means all things were brought into light. They are both Deities of high [508]antiquity_. Yet the one was degraded to a filthy monster; and of the other they made a scarecrow.