, 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
[Hebrew: DHL], Dahal timor. [484]Cynthus, from [Hebrew: CHNT`], 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 [Hebrew: BT`NA],
botno, a pistachio nut. [488]Icaria, from icar, pastures: but he adds,
tamen alia etymologia occurrit, quam huic praefero [Hebrew: AY KWRY],
Icaure, sive insula piscium. [489]Chalcis, in Eubea, from Chelca, divisio.
[490]Seriphus, from resiph, and resipho, lapidibus stratum. [491]Patmos,
from [Hebrew: BT`MWS], 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
[Hebrew: GWBNA], 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 [Greek: katachresei] 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 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 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 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