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 trespass 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 passing
a general sentence, till they have perused the whole: for much light will
accrue; and fresh evidence be accumulated 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 analogy.
* * * * *
OF
ETYMOLOGY,
AS IT HAS BEEN TOO GENERALLY HANDLED.
Αλλα θεοι των μεν μανιην απετρεψατε γλωσσης,
Εκ δ' ὁσιων στοματων καθαρην οχετευσατε πηγην.
Και σε, πολυμνηστη, λευκωλενε παρθενε, μουσα,
Αντομαι, ὡν θεμις εστιν εφημεριοισιν ακουειν.
Πεμπε παρ' ευσεβιης ελαουσ' ευηνιον ἁρμα.----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 nobody was more infatuated. His Cratylus is
made up of a most absurd system of etymology. [465]Herodotus expressly
says, that the Gods of Greece came in great measure from Egypt. Yet
Socrates is by Plato in this treatise made to derive Artemis from το
αρτεμες, integritas: Poseidon from ποσι δεσμον, fetters to the feet: Hestia
from ουσια, substance and essence: Demeter, from διδουσα ὡς μητηρ,
distributing as a mother: Pallas from παλλειν, to vibrate, or dance: Ares,
Mars, from αῤῥεν, masculum, et virile: and the word Theos, God, undoubtedly
the Theuth of Egypt, from θεειν, 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]Ει βαρβαρον
το ονομα, ου χρη ζητειν Ἑλληνικην ετυμολογιαν αυτου. _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 anticipated, 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]Εννοω γαρ, ὁτι
πολλα ὁι Ἑλληνες ονοματα, αλλως τε και ὁι ὑπο τοις Βαρβαροις οικουντες,
παρα των Βαρβαρων ειληφασι--ει τις ζητοι ταυτα κατα την Ἑλληνικην φωνην, ὡς
εοικοτως κειται, αλλα μη κατ' εκεινην, εξ ἡς το ονομα τυγχανει ον, οισθα
ὁτι αποροι αν. _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
analogy 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 ταρτος, a foot: that the river Nile signified νε ιλυς:
and that Gader in Spain was Γης δειρα.
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 תבא, Teba, [471]stetit: or ask the good bishop Cumberland why
Nineve was so called? and he will answer, from Schindler, that it was a
compound of [472]Nin-Nau, נין נוה, _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 constituted 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 constituted
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 passage 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
assistance 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 משש, mashash, to feel: but Dr. Hyde derives it from the Arabic,
Khamûsh, 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, שילן, 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 assuredly 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 Onomasticum. Ramesses,
tonitruum vel exprobratio tineæ; aut malum delens sive dissolvens; vel
contractionem dissolvens, aut confractus a tineâ--civitas in extremis
finibus Ægypti. 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 Babyloniæ.
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 circumstances 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 latitude 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 analysed 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]Ætna, 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, Λιλυβαιον, 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]Κυκλωπες. He
derives the Siculi first from [481]seclul, perfection; and afterwards from
אשכול, Escol, pronounced, according to the Syriac, Sigol, a bunch of
grapes. He deduces the Sicani from שכן, Sacan[482], near, because they were
near their next neighbours; in other words, on account of their being next
to the Pœni. Sicani, qui Siculorum Pœnis 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 circumstances 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 assumed 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
דהל, Dahal timor. [484]Cynthus, from חנט, 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 בטנא, botno, a pistachio nut.
[488]Icaria, from icar, pastures: but he adds, tamen alia etymologia
occurrit, quam huic præfero אי כורי, Icaure, sive insula piscium.
[489]Chalcis, in Eubea, from Chelca, divisio. [490]Seriphus, from resiph,
and resipho, lapidibus stratum. [491]Patmos, from בטמוס, 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 גובנא, 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 receptâ
καταχρησει Cythnius dici potuit caseus a vicinâ 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 Onomasticum, 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 utrâque 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 analyse, 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 God 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 Vulcanus 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 brass 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 כרש אור, Chores 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 Ætna, 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 Gods the same as the Sun: and his name
is a sacred title, 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 Ἡφαιστῳ τῳ Θεων Πατρι. _To Vulcan the Father of
the Gods_. In short, they who first appropriated the name of Vulcan to
their Deity, had no notion of his being an artificer in brass 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 dæmon 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
God, 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 principal God; 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]Πριηπος ὁ κοσμος, η ὁ προεστως αυτου
Λογος. The author of the Orphic hymns styles him [506]Πρωτογονον--γενεσιν
μακαρων, θνητων τ' ανθρωπων. _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 God: who was equally degraded,
and misrepresented on one hand, and as highly reverenced on the other.
[507]Ισως δ' αν ὁυτος και ὁ Πριηπος ειη, καθ' ὁν προεισιν εις φως τα παντα·
των αρχαιων δ' εισι Δαιμονων. _Probably Pan is no other than the God
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.
* * * * *
DISSERTATION
UPON THE
HELLADIAN
AND OTHER
GRECIAN WRITERS.
Ενθα πυλαι νυκτος τε, και ηματος, εισι κελευθων.----PARMENIDES.