to obscene rites; but is that a proof, that the Moabite idolators were without them? It is not disputed by me, at least, that the Moabites were polytheists.

I think that Chemosh, or Chamos, was the same with the Egyptian Chemmis, which was one of the names of Pan, since the city Chemmis was rendered Panopolis by the Greeks, (Diodor. Sicul. p. xvi.) But Pan was there represented in the same manner as Priapus, as Stephanus tells us in no ambiguous languageJerom, a person of more authority than Mr. S. says that Chamos was the same with Peor and Priapus. The likeness of the names, and of the characters, therefore induce me to suppose, that Chemmis and Chemosh, if they were not the same, were very near relations. The name D, Chemosh, cannot be Hebrew; the vau is nothing; and would make a combination of letters, that never came together as a significant word in this dialect. The name, therefore, must be foreign; and why should not the Moab→ ites, who were gross idolators, have received among them the Gods of Egypt, which were received in countries much more remoteat Tsidon, in Phrygia, and even in Greece. Thammuz was an Egyptian name, and a king of Egypt was so called according to Philastrius. Plato (in Phæd.) tells us, that there was. a king of Egypt called Thamos, whom the Greeks named Ammon. Moloch was a God common to the Egyptians, (Kirch. 331.) and to the Ammonites. Hear Dictericus, "Non inventa est natio sub sole, quæ tam immaniter insanierit, præ Ægyptiaca gente, quæve magis fascinarit ac quasi provocarit æstu et oestro superstitionis vicinos populos, qui maxime ab iis idolatrica sacra abstulerint;" and then I ask, why their near neighbours, the Moabites, are to be fancied exempt from the infection?

As I have endeavoured in your No. 14. to identify the Peor of the Moabites with the Or or Pi-Or of the Egyptians, and both with the Chemosh of the former, and Chemmis or Pan of the latter, as the symbol of the generating principle, it may not be improper to mention, that, according to Herodotus, (1. 2.) a temple was dedicated, in the island of Chemmis, to Orus. It was probably then in this same temple, that stood the image described by Stephanus. He says, that the name of the God was Pan, Egyptiace, therefore, Chem or Chemmis. Now I have to remark, that Plutarch has the following words: Ωρον εἰώθασιν καίμιν #pоayogeúsi. Or, consequently, or Pi-Or, was also named Kaimis. This nearly approaches Chemmis, and is not extremely unlike to Chemosh, or Chamos.

Mr. S. concludes his diatribe with the following refined raillery : "If some similitude in two names in two different languages is thus to be deemed a sufficient foundation for deriving one from the other, without any connecting evidence to support it, what a mul

titude of derivations may any one language derive from any one other? For example, Tchar in Coptic means pellis, skin, therefore in the language of Sir W. D. it is very probable, and most certain, that from this was derived chair in French, when it signifies skin, e. g. elle a la chair blanche, she has a white skin. Upon the whole, now that writers have exhausted almost all subjects fit for novels, it only remains, that some ingenious artists should from this similitude between names attempt a new species, by composing a diverting volume of etymological romances: at the same time by dexterously connecting together names and circumstances, which have no connexion of themselves, we may be able to attain to a new species of knowledge never discovered before, which is more creditable to rational creatures, than ingenuously to confess that we know nothing about the matter." p. 269.

With what propriety this tirade comes from Mr. S., you, Sir, and your readers, will by this time be enabled to judge. This genman set out with accusing me of speaking without sufficient evidence, and in the course of his progress he has stumbled at every step. Writing with the intention of pointing out my errors, he himself has fallen into mistake after mistake. I trust I have never made any pretensions to infallibility; but still I may justly complain of the accusations of Mr. S., who may truly say with lago, "As I confess, it is my nature's plague

To spy into abuses, and oft my jealousy
Shapes faults that are not."

I deny, Sir, that a similitude between two names has ever been deemed by me a sufficient foundation for deriving the one from the other, without any connecting evidence to support the derivation. I have shown, that Mr. S. could not have accurately examined the evidence that might be adduced in many instances, in which he has spoken in so decided a tone; and that he has proved himself not to be intimately acquainted with the best authors, who have treated on the subjects of dispute between us. Of the Coptic language it is plain, that he is far from being a complete master. After this, I can only advise him to throw aside the critic's rod; and to write such a diverting etymological romance, as his own ingenious imagination has suggested. The work will no doubt succeed -especially if he lay the scene in Amon-nou-te; illumine this place by the rays of rete; and call his hero by the name of Ph'ont-oun→ ph'nechi. W. DRUMMOND.

Logie Almond, April 6th, 1814.

CONJECTURA DE HESYCHIO MILESIO..

Ησύχιος Μιλήσιος.

ἔγραψεν ̓Ονοματολόγον ἢ Πίνακα τῶν ἐν παιδεία ὀνομαστῶν, οὗ ἐπιτομή ἐστι τοῦτο τὸ βιβλίον, εἰς δὲ τὸν Πίνακα τῶν ἐν παιδεία λαμψάντων, ̓Εκκλησιαστικῶν διδασκάλων · οὐδενὸς μνημονέυει. ὡς ἐκ τούτου ὑπονοίαν παρέχειν μὴ εἶναι αὐτὸν Χριστιανὸν, ἀλλὰ τῆς ̔Ελληνικῆς ματαιοπονίας ἀναπλέων. SUIDAS, Tom. 11. p. 82, ed. Kuster.

NOTUM

OTUM est, libellum hoc titulo, Ησυχίου Μιλησίου, Ιλλου στρίου, περὶ τῶν ἐν παιδείᾳ διαλαμψάντων σοφῶν, post alios edidisse Joannem Meursium, Lugd. Bat. 1613. Cujus libelli quum major pars e Diogene Laertio excerpta sit, conjicit. Meursius, p. 110. legendum esse in Suida, ὀνομαστῶν, Διογένην τὸν Λαέρτιον μιμησάμενος, οὗ ἐπιτομὴ, &c. Meursium ex re ipsa refutat Fabricius (Bibl. Grac. Τ. vi. p. 242, ed. prim.) ita Lexicographi verba accipiens, ut duo opera, τὸν Ονοματολόγον, et τὸν Πίνακα scripserit Ηesychius, quorum brevior, qui hodie exstat, ὁ Ονοματολόγος, fuerit alterius Epitome. Sed, ne dicam legendum fuisse καὶ Πίνακα, non ἢ Πίνακα, ipsa verborum structura talem interpretationem plane respuit. Illud autem rectissime statuit Fabricius, Hesychium illum, quem nunc habemus, e majore opere esse desumtum; sed verius Excerpta, quam Epitomen vocasset'. Cum enim virorum omni doctrinæ genere clarorum octoginta fere mentionem faciat libellus, ne unius quidem vitam persequitur, aut scripta recenset; quæ in primis est materies Πίνακος vel Ονομα τολόγου, sive integri sive contracti. In philosophorum placitis tradendis, et clarorum virorum dictis moribusve notandis, tota versata est Excerptoris opera. Nihil autem omnino habet, quod non vel apud Diogenem Laertium vel apud Suidam invenias.

1

Quæ communia sunt Excerptori et Suida, semper3 apud Suidam

Epitome nihil omittit quod ad historiam spectat, excursus duntaxat resecat. In Excerptis loca tantum selecta continentur. H. VALESIUS, Præf. ad Excerpta ex Collectaneis Constantini Aug. Porphyrogeneta. * Leviter attinguntur Αίσωπος. Νέστωρ. Σώφρων. Τυραννίων. Φιλόστρατος. Χοίριλος.

Debebam fortasse unum locum excipere, de Hypatia, T. III. p. 533. ubi longa ecloga, quam e Damascio sumtam esse probabiliter conjicit Kusterus, incipere videtur a verbis αὕτη διεσπάσθη.-In Ερμογένης excerptum e Philostrato mediæ Vitæ intrusum est.

locum habent in Scriptorum Vitis, non in Historicis Fragmentis. Nempe, cum Suidæ Lexicon sit partim grammatici, partim historici argumenti, pars historica constat vel locis, e quovis fere scriptore ad verbum descriptis, vel Vitis, brevissime plerumque enarratis. Illi ad nomina in historia vel civili vel ecclesiastica illustria, hæ ad scriptores profauos, maximam partem pertinent. Atque Vitas omnes fere ex uno eodemque fonte 1 derivatas esse, lexico scilicet sive onomastico quodam, nemo non conjiciat; adeo sunt inter se similes, adeo dissimiles historicis istis laciniis. Et quum Fragmentorum plerorumque sedes a Pearsono et Kustero sit indicata, ne unam quidem notavi profani scriptoris vitam, cujus auctor sit repertus. Solus ille libellus περὶ τῶν ἐν παιδεία διαλαμψάντων σοφῶν multa habet quæ sparsa per Suidæ Biographica inveniuntur. Omnia vero apud Suidam vel totidem verbis, vel integrius exstant, et ita quidem, ut cum proximis uptime cohæreant. Unde satis liquet, non Suidam ex isto libello sua duxisse, sed libellum contractum esse ex eo ipso Biographo, quem nobis servavit Suidas. Suida ipso si usus esset, nonnulla ex Historicis Fragmentis hausisset proculdubio; quum præsertim Fragmenta passim videas quæ ad claros scriptores spectent, et quæ cum Excerptoris consilio apprime quadrent3. Sed age, comparemus Diogenem Laertium.

Quadraginta minimum viros claros memorat Excerptor, quorum vita est apud Laertium; et Laertium passim exscribit, ubi omnino præterit vitam Suidas; ubi in vita contexenda, ea omittit, quæ dat Excerptor; imo ubi diversa, et ex alio auctore, narrat; sed hoc non nisi semel, in 'Hpáxλeiros. Sed omnia fere quæ ex Laertio habet Excerptor ejusmodi sunt, ut apud Suidæ Biographum unquam fuisse non putem, quamvis ille a Diogene libenter mutuetur quæ faciunt ad operis institutum. Contra loca satis multa

Vide Kusteri Indicem 111. Locorum Investigatorum.

2 Interdum, sed rarissime, duas ejusdem scriptoris vitas invenies; ut in Δημάδης. Δημοσθένης. Διογένης. Αἰσχίνης ὁ ῥήτως). Υπερίδης. Addendus videtur 'Avtipávys, collata Eudocia, p. 61. Oratorum vitas habere potuit e lexico rhetorico, diverso ab Harpocratione, quod passim expilavit. Vide Valckenarium ad Theocrit. p. 297. B.

3

Vide Suidam in 'Αναγαλλίς. Αναξαγόρας. Αἰσχίνης ὁ τ. Λ. Επίκουρος. Αίσωπος. Ἡράκλειτος. Τιμαῖος. Εμπεδοκλής. Ερμογένης, et alibi

sæpe.

• Vide 'Αλεξίνος. Αρχύτας (musicum). "Ανάξαρχος. Βίων-Βίων (al terum.) Διόδωρος. Διογένης ὁ ̓Απολλωνιάτης. Θεόδωρος (alterum). "Ιππασος. Κράτης. Κράντωρ. Λεύκιππος. Μενέδημος. (Excerpta, nulla vita. ̓Αρκεσίλαος. Μέλισσος. Ξενοφάνης.)

3 Αἰσχίνης. (Αντισθένης. sed eadem fere habet ex Juliano) 'Αρχύτας (philos.) * Δημόκριτος. Ευκλείδης. Επίκουρος. Εμπεδόκλης. (vide liesych. Miles. p. 16. 'Ακρωνος, &c.) *Ζήνων Κιτ. Ζήνων Ελεατ. Θεόδωρος ὁ ἄ9. Erianwv. *XguoiπTOS. [N. B. Stellula indicat vitam contractam videri e Diogene Laertio.]

apud Excerptorem, non e Laertio, sed e Suida Biographo provenere; tum ubi is Laertium contraxit, tum ubi aliunde profecit 2.

Aut igitur Suidae Biographica ex vero et antiquo Hesychio Milesio desumta sunt, aut auctorem mentitur hodiernus Hesychius. Atque ob perpetuum mangonium quod in librorum titulis exercent compilatores Byzantini, prudentis critici esset dubitare, nisi litem dirimeret ipse Suidas. Quis enim jam non videt, lexicographi locum quem principio dedi sanissimum esse, et ibi servata esse ipsa Biographi verba, fatentis se nobis exhibere Hesychii Milesii Πίνακα sive Ονοματολόγον, in compendium redactum. Ita enim solet Suidas;

auctorum suorum

verbis adhærens, sensûs unice securus. In his ipsis Vitis, eadem chorda oberrare monuit Kusterus ad V. Φιλήμων. adde Διόδωρος κ. α. κ. Τ. 1. p. 594. Επίνικος, p. 892. Φιλιππίδης Α. κ. Τ. 111. p. 601.

Non autem ita intelligi velim, ut nihil omnino Hesychianis addiderit Biographus; ipsius certe Hesychii vitam inseruit, et forsan scriptoris unius et alterius qui post Hesychium vixerunt. Imo ex iis quæ de Ecclesiasticis doctoribus subdit, suspicor eum id potissimum curasse, ut ecclesiasticos scriptores profanis conjungeret.3

AgioToTEλns (vita integrior apud Menagium a Kustero laudatum.) Κλεάνθης. Ξενοκράτης. Φαίδων. Πλάτων. (Δημήτριος Φ. "Αρίστιππος. Θεόφραστος, et Πύρρων e Diogene fuxerunt, sed forsan ipsum Diogenem, non Biographum, adiit Excerptor.)

Ceterum notandum est interdum ipso Diogene pleniorem esse Suidam. Vide Θεόφραστος. Πλάτων. (In Αριστοτέλης. Δημόκριτος. Ευκλείδης. ple nius traditur philosophorum successio). Sed quum certum sit, Laertii codices interdum esse mutilos (vide VV. DD. ad 1x. init. (Heraclit.) VII. 21. (Zenon.) 1. 109. (Epimenid.) pene suspicor locum in Platonis vita, cap. 2. redintegrandum e Suida et Hesychio Milesio, TW TOWTW ETEL TYS ὀγδίης καὶ ἑκατοστῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος, βιοὺς ἔτος ἓν πρὸς τοῖς ὀγδοήκοντα, [οὔτε γάμον τινὰ οὔθ ̓ ὁμιλίαν καθάπαξ σώματος εἰς πεῖραν δεξάμενος.] In Theophrasto (v. 40.) vide an supplendum, [xal naтáπоvos UTÒ TOυ del γράφειν γενόμενος] ἐτελεύτα δὴ γηραιός, βιοὺς ἔτη πέντε καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα, ἐπειδήπερ [διὰ μαθητοῦ γάμους] ὀλίγον ἀνῆκε τῶν πόνων.

Contra ex Diogene III. 6. emendandus Suidas in IIλáτwv T. III. p. 124. ἐφιλοσόφησε παρὰ Σωκράτει, ἔχων [vel γεγονώς] ἔτη κ. Vulgo παρὰ Σ. ἐπὶ ἔ. κ'.

Vide Δημήτριος. Ιξίων. et Φερεκύδης. Nescio an e Diogene sumserit Επιμενίδης. Καρνεάδης.

Non autem necesse est ut statuamus, Biographum totum descripsisse Suidam; ut nec totum Photium descripsit. Suspicor eum catalogos operum sæpe truncasse vel omisisse. Vide AgioTOTÉANS.

Totus fere articulus de Philone Judæo T. III. p. 613. sumtus est ex Græca versione Hieronymi de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis, ut partim monet Kusterus. (Confer Hesych. Mil. p. 40.)