ancient Egyptian, and similar to no ancient language whatever, but original; for whatever words have any apparent connexion with Chaldee, are in course first deducted, because it can never be known, whether they had subsisted in the ancient Egyptian, or were introduced into Coptic in later ages through later connexions of Egypt with Arabia, and with the mixed and later Chaldee of Ethiopia. It is therefore the residuum of the Coptic, after deducting all more modern and foreign words introduced in later ages, which I call ancient Egyptian and an original language; and of this kind is indeed the chief part of the Coptic language. Why then, by my word Egyptian, did be suppose me to mean Coptic at p. 415, when I said, as he quotes me there" that the Egyptian is an original language," (i. e. the Coptic) as he interprets my word, namely modern Egyptian. But my words here ought to be interpreted by their meaning elsewhere, and every where else as well as here I plainly use Egyptian in opposition to Coptic, as distinguishing the ancient language of Egypt from the modern; I have sometimes indeed added the word ancient to it, yet very seldom; and he himself likewise in general uses Egyptian in the same sense as myself to mean ancient Egyptian, sometimes however, in like manner adding ancient to it, as may be seen at pp. 409, 410, 411, and 412: why then here and here only does he interpret my word Egyptian by Coptic, that is, modern Egyptian, not ancient? This misapprehension of my sense of Egyptian, so contrary to my own sense of it every where else, seems to have been made on purpose that he might prove the Egyptian (as he proceeds to do) to be not original, because the Coptic is full of Greek and other modern words: true, it is soft,but the Egyptian is only that language, which remains after the Coptic is deprived of all such modern words, and it is so dissimilar from all other ancient as well as modern languages as to be altogether original; excepting possibly a few and very few Chaldee words, yet even these we are not certain of having subsisted in the most ancient state of the Egyptian tongue; for they may possibly have been introduced in later ages just as well as the Greek words, so that even these or many of them ought to be separated from the ancient Egyptian ones. this reason I have employed the following expression, "that as Egypt is connected with the rest of the continent only by the narrow isthmus of Suez, so also its language in like manner is connected with the continental language only by a very narrow resemblance," the Jews having perhaps borrowed a few words from Egypt, to the Greeks also a few others were carried by Danaus, and possibly a few other words may be like to the Chaldee; yet not borrowed thence by the Egyptians, but they were remains of the old stock spoken by Shem, Ham, and Japhet, therefore still as original ones in the Egyptian as in the Chaldee, although common to both, the Egyptians having retained them from Ham, just as in the Chaldee and Hebrew they were retained from their ancestor Shem. I am afraid, that I have been unnecessarily prolix in the above explications, but I was willing, if possible, to prevent any further misapprehensions of my words; for in fact excepting Sir W.'s different opinion concerning the Egyptian being nearly the same as the Chaldee language, I doubt whether any other real dif

For

ference subsists between us, which is not caused by the misapprehension of the senses of words. I will however, still subjoin concerning this subject one example of such original names in Egyptian for common objects of the senses, and for which no language could be without a name. Bochart blames Josephus for saying that the name Moyseh, commonly Moses, was formed from the Egyptian word mo, which as Josephus adds, means water, and yseh, saved, Moses having been saved from the water: instead of which Bochart will have the word to be altogether Hebrew, and derived from a Hebrew word somewhat similar, meaning drawn out. Nevertheless, little as we can know now of the ancient Egyptian by the remains of it in the Coptic, we may nevertheless find reason to conclude, that Josephus may be right in the name being derived from the Egyptian language, not the llebrew. For in the Coptic moou still means water, and ougeai means servare (Ps. xxxii. 16.) but the Coptic letter for ge namely as in OYXMI is often in Coptic substituted for another letter, viz. 6, which sounds more like sh, in shie, and which would make the word to be oushai nearly yseh or useh. Thus in like manner the dialect of Upper Egypt, which may be the most free from foreign corruptions, still retains in use n'shie instead of n'gie in use in Lower Egypt as a nominative article (v. Woidè, p. 188.) I do not hence contend, that this was the true derivation of Moyseh, but only, that even still we may as well seek for its origin in the Egyptian as in the Hebrew, and that it cannot be concluded from Bochart's derivation, that Egyptian and Hebrew were nearly alike. For where shall we find moou to mean water in any other language? If not, it becomes a proof of the originality of the Egyptian in the names of the most common objects of life; and many other similar proofs may be, added: but even if moou does exist in any other ancient language in the same sense, still its being found in the Egyptian also can prove nothing more, than that it is one of the antique varieties of words preserved unaltered in two different languages ever since the time of Shem, Ham, and Japhet; therefore it is still an ancient and original word, although not an unique; and a few such antique words as these, although found in two ancient languages, do not destroy the originality of either, for they may not have been borrowed by one from the other, but by both from one common original stock of still greater antiquity than either, in all those cases, where their words have not been new ones invented by themselves.

I think that I have now noticed the chief misapprehensions of the senses of words, which, when removed, would show, that there is not so much difference in opinion between us as at first may seem to be; and this has been a very unpleasant task, although a necessary one, to be thus obliged to notice the mistakes of others, and to be puzzling ourselves about words instead of the more engaging pursuit after truths, if haply we may be able to discover them. As to the accidental mistake of a Coptic letter in my finding or to be written by Sir W. #or, I never mentioned it as of much importance, but as I thought it a real variation in some Coptic Bible, its being now proved to be a mere mistake, took away from me one proof of the existence of variations

in the letters of the words in question; which proof, however, I am now able to supply by others, and these tending to confirm my etymology of the name of Joseph, as I will show in a future paper; by which it will also appear, that Dathe is not free from misapprehensions and mistake. At present I shall only add, that I have certainly no wish to point out the mistakes of other writers, when they do not interfere with my own pursuit of truths, but since I have been forced to notice several misapprehensions in the etymologies of Sir W. D. it may help to verify the reality of such defects by my showing still farther that similar ones are to be found in his papers concerning other writers, both in Greek and Latin, as well as concerning my English words. I have already shown, that if he has not misapprehended the Scripture concerning there being a necessity for interpreters between the Egyptians and Israelites, yet he has at least departed from the ancient opinion, and so also he has misapprehended the Greek of Strabo and the Latin of Woidè. In his remarks on an inscription at Saguntum in No. 4. p. 908, will be found these words, "Strabo distinctly tells us, that the language of the Gauls differed only a little from that of the Aquitani.” Now this is so far from the real sense of Strabo's words, that on the contrary they mean that the two languages were quite different. His words are these, "Aquitanos non modo linguâ sed etiam corporibus permutatos, Hispanis magis quàm Gallis similes esse," and it is the other nations in Gaul, called Belga and Celta, who differed only a little from one another in language, not from that of the Aquitani, reliquos verò (Belgas et Celtas) Gallicâ sanè facie, verùm non utentes usquequaque câdem linguâ omnes, sed in plerisque paululum variata" [pingov παραλλάττοντας ταῖς γλώσσαις] lib. 4; and the same sense of the great difference between the Aquitani and Galli he repeats again not long after: Aquitani à natione Gallicâ corporis habitu et linguâ differunt, magis Hispanis similes."-Woidè also had said " Eggo, m, scribitur et go, go, rex. Plur. veggwo reges. ougo." p. 185. This is in the Saidic dialect, and the words of Sir W. are these, "This word (ouço) is in the Saidic go, and it may be suspected, that it was originally written Po." No. 6. p. 374. in note from Essay on Punic inscription. Now that phrase, “this word (ugo) is in the Saidic ggo," must be understood by all readers to mean, that when either pronounced, or written at full length as pronounced, it is go, in the Saidic; but this is quite a different sense from the meaning of Woide's words, which is, "that ougo is in the Saidic pronounced and also written eggo, but is sometimes contracted in writing into go, and into go instead of aggo: there is then no such word as go in the Saidic language, it is only a contracted sign of the real word eggo, just as Co. is a contraction of Company. As to this contraction being ever reduced to go, this is a mere supposition of the above writer, for which he has not the least foundation, and it has been thus reduced by him, in order that this pretended Egyptian word may approximate the nearer to the Hebrew word roh. But although by this surgical operation performed upon the word sggo, it is reduced in letters, not to exceed in magnitude the Hebrew word roh; yet it is a still more difficult task to make these two words mean the same sense; and the method adopted for this by making a shepherd become a king, is still more curious; but I have no con

cern here with any thing more than the sense of Woide's words, and thus to show that scribitur is by him always opposed to pronounced. Hence he says "Evav, duo, scribitur ut plurimum 6-Sæpe scribitur BT-suis literis scribitur in Exodus 12. 22.” (p. 94).

Norwich, Jan. 28.

S.

P. S. I might proceed to show, that Sir W. has in like manner misapprehended a quotation made from Akerblad at p. 414, which is applied by him to prove the truth of a conclusion, totally different from that, which it is there quoted to prove by Sir W. D.

On the

Primary Meaning, the Use, and the Etymology of
NUBERE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOUrnal.

If the following remarks upon a Latin verb, which has long exercised the pens of Critics, and the following strictures upon Dr. Burgess's etymology of it, be at all interesting to your readers, I shall have great pleasure in having communicated them.

Hatton, Oct. 24.

E. H. BARKER.

"Nubere, proprio primarioque significatu est, nubis instar tegere, velare, naλúty G. voiler, couvrir: ita vetus Poeta in Pervigilio Veneris v. 22. Ipsa (Venus) jussit mane ut ude virgines nubant (velent, tegant virgines) rose. Arnobius, L. iii. p. 118. Quod aqua nubat terram, appellatus est, inquiunt, Neptunus: hinc nubere etiam nuptias facere significat, quod sc. nova nupta flammeo nuberetur, sive velaretur, Ambros. Exhort. ad Virg. Rom. 1. f. 108. A nubibus verbum nubentium tractum arbitror: denique operiuntur ut nubes, cum acceperint nupturæ velamina. B. Hieronymus ad illud Matthæi c. 22. In resurrectione neque nubent, nec nubentur, Latina, inquit, consuetudo Græco idiomati non respondet; nubere enim proprie dicuntur mulieres, et viri uxores ducere, Ovid. Met. 9. 761. de Iphi puella, sed quam pro mare pater habuerat hactenus, et ei formosissimam virginem desponderat,

Pronuba quid Juno? quid ad hæc, Hymenae, venitis
Sacra quibus qui ducat abest, ubi nubimus amba?

Claudian. in Eutropium Eunuchum, 1 v. 222.

Quo struis hos auri cumulos, quæ pignora tantis
Succedunt opibus? nubas, ducasve licebit,

Nunquam mater eris, nunquam pater:

quando vero de viris hoc verbi usurpant auctores, de hominibus uxoriis, i. e. sub imperio uxorum viventibus fere loquuntur, ut observat Scalig. in Catalect. Poet. Vet. Comment., et ita signate Martialis 8 Epigr. 12.

Uxori nubere nolo meæ,

sed neque hoc perpetuo observant auctores, Nonius 2. 577. ait, Nu bere veteres non solum mulieres, sed etiam viros dicebant, e. g. Pompon. Meus frater nupsit dotatæ vetulæ: v. Barth. 6. 14.; item ad Claudian. paullo ante citatum locum, p. 1315. Scheurl. Statuam Mercur. 1. 2. p. 47. Taubman. ad Plaut. 15." Basilii Fabri Sorani Thesaurus Eruditionis Scholastica, recensitus, emendatus, locupletatus a J. M. Gesnero, Haga-Comitum, 1735.

"Nubo, xxx, tego, operio, velo, unde obnubo, Colum. L. 10. v.158. Tellus depositis cupiet se nubere plantis:-aliquando de viro dicitur, sed vel cum præposteras nuptias significamus, Juvenal. Sat. 2. v. 135. Nubit amicus, adde Mart. L. 12. Epigr. 42. Lamprid. in Heliogab. c. 10. et Impp. Constantin. et Constant. L. 9. Cod. tit. 9. Leg. 31. hac sententia Sueton. in Neron. c. 29. et Tacit. Ann. 15. c. 37. verbo denubo usi sunt; vel cum vir uxori subjicitur, servitque aut propter dotem, aut propter nobilitatem, Pompon. ap. Non. c. 2. n. 577. Martial. L. 8. Epigr. 12.: reperitur etiam simpliciter de viro dictum, Tertull. L. 1. ad Uxor. c. 7. sub fin. Pontificem Max. rursus nubere nefas est, et L. 2. c. ult. Nec filii sine consensu patrum rite et jure nubent: hinc viri nupti, matrimonio juncti, Varr. ap. Non. c. 7. n. 98. Viris nuptis, sacrificabantur in cubiculo viduæ ; sic nupta populus, h. e. juncta viti, Plin. L. 18. c. 28." Totius Latinitatis Lexicon Consilio et Cura J. Facciolati, Opera et Studio Egidii Forcellini, Patavii, 1781.

"Nubo, operire, velare, ut nubes, quæ cœlum aperit-, Onomast. Nubo, καλύπτω:- -Nubere, inquit Nonius, veteres non solum mulieres, sed etiam viros dicebant, ut nunc Itali dicunt, Pomponius Pannuceatis, Sed meus frater major, postquam vidit me vi dejectum domo, nupsit posterius dotata vetulæ, varicosa, Afræ: hactenus Nonius 2. 577.: posset Poeta sic indicare voluisse virum in potestatem mulieris dotatæ transiisse, quod sic visum Scaligero ad Catal. p. 226., sicut Martial. 8. 10. Uxori nubere nolo meæ; nam obscenum plane est, et ad mollitiem marium pertinet, 1. 25. Nupsit heri, et Juv. Sat. 2. 134. Nubit amicus, Plaut. Trin. argum. extr. Nubunt liberi, i. e. filius et filia :hæc debentur Barthio Adv. 6, 14. et ad Claudian. in Eutrop. 1. 223. : illud non exemit, vel archaicam esse hanc rationem, ut nubere, legitimo quidem matrimonio, dicantur viri, vel recentioris ævi: add. Tertull. de Monog. 7. Sine dubio, dum ille prohibetur denuo nubere, et illa prohibetur, non habens nubere nisi fratri: cf. Alb. Gentilis de Nuptiis 2. 3. p. 126." J. M. Gesneri Novus Lingua Latina The

saurus.