Note 479 — ETYMOLOGY,

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.