Note 598 — ETYMOLOGICAL TRUTHS

I have before taken notice of an objection liable to be made from a supposition, that if Hanes signified the fountain of light, as I have presumed, it would have been differently expressed in the Hebrew. This is a strange fallacy; but yet very predominant. Without doubt those learned men, who have preceded in these researches, would have bid fair for noble discoveries, had they not been too limited, and biassed, in their notions. But as far as I am able to judge, most of those, who have engaged in inquiries of this nature, have ruined the purport of their labours through some prevailing prejudice. They have not considered, that every other nation, to which we can possibly gain access, or from whom we have any history derived, appears to have expressed foreign terms differently from the natives, in whose language they were found. And without a miracle the Hebrews must have done the same. We pronounce all French names differently from the people of that country: and they do the same in respect to us. What we call London, they express Londres: England they style Angleterre. What some call Bazil, they pronounce Bal: Munchen, Munich: Mentz, Mayence: Ravenspurg, Ratisbon. The like variation was observable of old. Carthago of the Romans was Carchedon among the Greeks. Hannibal was rendered Annibas: Asdrubal, Asdroubas: and probably neither was consonant to the Punic mode of expression. If then a prophet were to rise from the dead, and preach to any nation, he would make use of terms adapted to their idiom and usage; without any retrospect to the original of the terms, whether they were domestic, or foreign. The sacred writers undoubtedly observed this rule towards the people, for whom they wrote; and varied in their expressing of foreign terms; as the usage of the people varied. For the Jewish nation at times differed from its neighbours, and from itself. We may be morally certain, that the place, rendered by them Ekron, was by the natives called Achoron; the Accaron, Ακκαρων, of Josephus, and the Seventy. What they termed Philistim, was Pelestin: Eleazar, in their own language, they changed to Lazar, and Lazarus: and of the Greek συνεδριον they formed Sanhedrim. Hence we may be certified, that the Jews, and their ancestors, as well as all nations upon earth, were liable to express foreign terms with a variation, being led by a natural peculiarity in their mode of speech. They therefore are surely to be blamed, who would deduce the orthography of all antient words from the Hebrew; and bring every extraneous term to that test. It requires no great insight into that language to see the impropriety of such procedure. Yet no prejudice has been more [598]common. The learned Michaelis has taken notice of this [599]fatal attachment, and speaks of it as a strange illusion. He says, that it is the reigning influenza, to which all are liable, who make the Hebrew their principal study. The only way to obtain the latent purport of antient terms is by a fair analysis. This must be discovered by an apparent analogy; and supported by the history of the place, or person, to whom the terms relate. If such helps can be obtained, we may determine very truly the etymology of an Egyptian or Syriac name; however it may appear repugnant to the orthography of the Hebrews. The term Hanes is not so uncommon as may be imagined. Zeus was worshipped under this title in Greece, and styled Ζευς Αινησιος. The Scholiast upon Apollonius Rhodius mentions his temple, and terms it [600]Διος Αινησιου ἱερον ου μνημονευει και Λεων εν περιπλῳ, και Δημοσθενης εν λιμεσι. It is also taken notice of by Strabo, who speaks of a mountain Hanes, where the temple stood. [601]Μεγιστον δε ορος εν αυτῃ Αινος (lege Αινης) εν ᾡ το του Διος Αινησιου ἱερον. The mountain of Zeus Ainesius must have been Aines, and not Ainos; though it occurs so in our present copies of Strabo. The Scholiast above quotes a verse from Hesiod, where the Poet styles the Deity Αινηιος.