W

T

;

HEN I fat down to compofe the work which I have fince fent into the world, it appeared to me, that most of the Af fyrian, and Chaldaïc names were an affemblage of titles; which often occurred out of compofition and from thence their meaning might be afcertained. And I thought, that I could obferve the 'fame in those of Egypt, and of other countries. In this I was countenanced by the opinions of Bayer, Selden, Bochart, and the great Sir Ifaac Newton. Upon a nearer view there feemed reafon to think, that this obtained not only in the names of perfons, but of places for I laid it down, as a fixed principle, that all fuch names had originally a meaning and that there was certainly in them a reference either tò fituation, or religion, or to the people, by whom they were denominated. Upon this I fet about the investigation of thofe firft principles: and gave a lift of fome few elements; of which I thought many B ancient

1

ancient names were compofed; and into which
they might by a very fair analyfis be refolved,
And in this operation I often ran counter to the
received rules of Grecian etymology, as warranted
by grammarians. For I had confidered them of
old and though they might have their use in the
inftructing of young perfons; yet they were in
many inftances fallacious, and arbitrary, being
founded neither in reafon nor truth. At the fame
time I fufpected, that this way of proceeding
would neceffarily raife me fome enemies and my
fufpicions have been warranted by the event. An
anonymous writer, a person of undoubted learn-
ing, who has undertaken to give an account of
the yearly productions in literature, has among
others mentioned my work and very little to its
advantage. His ftrictures are chiefly confined to
what I have faid upon etymology: for though he
condemns the whole, yet he confiders only a part;
thinking very politickly, that though the poifon be
infused at an extremity, yet the nobler parts will
be ultimately tainted and ruined. But he has
made a mistake at the very beginning: for my
chief fyftem does not at all depend upon etymo-
logy; though it may be in fome degree illuftrated
by it. It ftands quite independant, and is fup-
ported by far other principles fo that his arrows
L have been fped to little purpose: as the main object
remains
found and unimpaired: nor indeed has
he thought it worthy of his notice. However as
he is very fevere in his ftrictures upon that part,
which he has taken in hand to confider; and has
accufed me of blindness, temerity, and ignorance:
I will take a calm review of the principal parts
of his cenfures; and then leave it to the reader to
judge of the truth of his allegations, It shall be
my endeavour to fhew, that he is himself misled

greatly

greatly by abiding by rules, which are no rules; and by precedents, which have no validity. As his beginning will fhew, with how unfavourable a dif pofition he fets out; I will produce it at large, and then proceed to thofe particulars, which are the principal objects of his notice.

Epicurus, cum novam philofophiæ fectam conderet, duobus maxime ufus eft artificiis: altero ut ipfe fe profiteretur fapientem, et antiquos philofophos, ne Democrito quidem, a quo plurimum profecerat, excepto, infaniiffe diceret: altero, ut ab eodem Democrito excogitatas atomos fumeret, feu corpufcula minutiffima, et individua, fed concreta tamen, et variis figuris, hamata, uncinata, fingeretque ea ab æterno ad rectos angulos mota fuiffe, donec forte et cafu ab hoc motu deflecterent, coïrent, cohærerent, ita ut animalia, plantæ, et omnia procrearentur. Cujus opinionis inanitas etiam fi nemini non fponte in oculos incurrat, tamen eadem ratio, cum ad alias doctrinas adhibetur, non ita attenditur, atque animadvertitur. At nuper adeo hujus rei documentum habuimus Bryantii librum, ab hominibus doctis haud paucis laudatum probatumque: quamquam eo confilio fcriptus effe videatur, ut Epicurea temeritas, dudum ex philofophicis ftudiis explofa, in antiquæ hiftoriæ et grammatices rationem induceretur. Nam et Bryantius paffim veterum in his rebus ignorantiam exagitat; fuam fcientiam jactat: et vel ab aliis fumpfit, vel ipfe finxit, ingentem vim atomorum, -feu elementorum primævæ linguæ, ex iifque ver, fando, commifcendoque, vetuftiffimarum gentium hiftoriam conftruxit.

I fhould little have thought, that I could poffibly have been compared to Epicurus: the whole scope of my system being in favour of religion in general, and of the Mofaic hiftory in particular;

and quite oppofite to the purpose and doctrine of that philofopher. But my ingenious opponent has found out a resemblance; and fays, that my defign appears to have been the introduction of the idle notions of this perfon. That like him I have made a jumble of atoms and elements, without number; and from thefe have endeavoured to form an history of nations. And while I am profecuting this my purpose, I am continually expofing the ignorance of the ancients, and making an idle parade of my own knowledge and learning. As my work is in the hands of many persons of rank and learning, I muft leave it to them to judge of thefe illiberal cenfures. In refpect to Epicurus, whofe notions I am fuppofed to have clofely copied, I proteft, during the whole courfe of my writing, I do not know, that I had him once in my thoughts. Indeed what inducement could there be? Both his purpofe and mode of operation being the very reverfe of mine. From an imaginary concourfe of atoms he pretended to compound matter. I frame nothing. What I treat of is ready compofed to my hands. My bufinefs is merely to fhew its original principles. This writer therefore has certainly taken compounding and analyfing for the fame: in confequence of which he has made the comparison above; fancying that he faw a fimilitude where there was the greatest difference. He farther fpeaks of this part of my plan as in its very nature abfurd, and even dangerous and he accordingly accufes me of rafhnefs for proceeding in fuch a course, and after such a master. Yet the whole of my process amounts to this only. I imagined, as I before faid, that the names of men, and likewise of places, were of old compounded: and I endeavoured to find out their conftituent parts. Can he poffibly be ignorant, that

1

the

the names of regions and cities are at this day formed after the fame manner: and that one half of them are made up of fimilar principles. Let him consider those, which may be most familiar tờ him, fuch as Dunkirk, Oftend, Amfterdam, Rotterdam, Sandwic, Mardike, Herenhaufen, Buckholt, Rheinweald: Add to thefe, Utrecht, Coblentz, Falkenberg, Francfort, Copenhagen, Warburgh, Wurtzburgh, Ravensburgh, Koningsburgh, Petersburgh. Are not thefe compofed of particular terms: and may they not without any difficul ty or danger be reduced to their original principles? The like obtained among places of old: and I have given a fyllabus of thofe elements, of which they seem chiefly to be compofed. Whether I have made a right application, is not here to the purpose. There they ftand, obvious and intelligible and they do not amount in the whole to fifty. What poffible connexion can they have with the system of Epicurus? And how can this writer out of fo small a number form, ingentem vim, a prodigious affemblage, and make them border upon infinity? Yet this he does by comparing them to the atoms of that philofopher and he feems to dread fome evil confequence, which may enfue. But his fears are as imaginary as the atoms, of which he treats. No poffible evil can' proceed, from any thing, that I have advanced. He goes on to inform the world, that upon these principles I have formed an hiftory of ancient. nations. But I never entertained any fuch pur pofe the very words, which he immediately quotes from me, will fhew; that at moft it was the origin and not the hiftory, which I took in hand. Propofitum nobis eft infantiam atque incunabula gentium-prodere. p. 55. And even in this little abstract he does not keep up to my meaning,

B 3