Page  40

That these Islands of Scilly were the Cassiterides of the Ancients.

FIrst, We have the Authority of Strabo, as to their Position, full opposite to the Artebri, that is, Gallitia in Spain, those Islands Northwards are discovered, * which are called CASSITERIDES, placed after a manner in the same Clime with Britain. This Description cannot suit with any other Islands in the West Sea, for the Asores bare westward of Gallitia in Spain, when the Cassiterides are said to be northward; so that the Asores cannot be they, neither are the Asores near the Eighth Climate, which is the vttermost Climate of the South parts of England, and so could not be said by Strabo, to be almost in the same Climate; In another place Strabo saies, That the Sea, between Spain and the Cassiterides is broader than that which lieth between the Cassiterides and Britain; so that Olivarius his Opinion is cut off, who makes them *Cysarga, for Cysarga lieth on the Spanish Coasts, almost close upon the Conti∣nent.

Next to him we have the Opinion of Solinus, in these words [The Cassiterides *look towards the Coasts of Celtiberia;] Now the Asores look no more towards that Coast, or bear no more upon it, than they do upon the Coast of Asrick; and as for Cysarga, lying upon Spain, it cannot be proper to say it looks towards it, for that term in Geography is used to Places that have some distance, yet lie in some relation as to Parallels and Clymes. Diodorus Siculus writes, In the Islands next to the Spa∣nish Sea for their Tynn, are called CASSITERIDES, which description is only proper to the Islands of Scilly, for Cysarga is not next to the Spanish Sea, but in it, and as for the Asores, the Spanish Sea was never extended so far.

That which has made the greater doubt, is, the words of Eustathius; There be Ten Islands (saies he) called CASSITERIDES, lying close together Northward,* when as Mr. Cambden makes them in all One hundred forty five. *

To Answer this, let us consider that in no part of the Western Seas there are Ten Islands lying close together, no more, nor no less, and we must understand Eustathius either to have written of the Principal only, which are but Ten, namely, St. Maries, Annoth, Agnes, Samson, Silly, Brefer, Rusco or Truscaw, St. Hellens, St. Martins, and Arthur, which is not unusual in Geographers; or, which is most probable, that in those daies of the Ancients, they had no certain knowledge of these Remote parts of the Earth, more than we have now of the Islands of Mar del Zur, the passage through the Streights of Gibraltar being as full of Difficulties, or more, than those of Magellan are to us.

Neither can this number of the Cassiterides make, but that they are the Scilly Islands, any more than the Hebades, which by Ptolomy are made Five, and the Or∣cades Thirty, take from the truth of those Islands, because in the discovery of them * they are not found now exactly of that number. The Chief of them that have Names are these;

S. Maries, five miles over, nine in compass; Agnus Isle, six miles over; Annot, Minwisand, Smithy-sound, Suartigan, Rousuian, Ronsuiar; the Cregwin, Moncarthat, Inis-Welseck, Suechial, Rat Island, Anwell, Brior, Rusco, as great as St. Maries; the Round Island, St. Lides Island, Notho, Aving, Tyan, St. Martins Isle, Knolworth, Sni∣villiver, Menwetham, Vollis, Survihe, Vollis again, Arthurs Island, Guiviliner, Ne∣nech, Gothrois.

That which is most material, is, that they have Veins of Tynn, which no other Islands in this Tract have, and according to those descriptions of Strabo, Solinus, Diod. Siculus, and Eustathius, have, as witnesseth Mr. Cambden, and Bocartus; Besides Mr. Cambden, according to his usual manner, hath found two of the lesser of them to have their Names from the Mines, as Minan Witham, and Minuisisand; so that laying all Circumstances together in the words of Mr. Cambden: Seeing these Islands of Scilly are opposite to the Artebri, viz. Gallia in Spain; seeing they bend directly Northward from them; seeing they are placed in the same Clime of Britain; seeing they look towards the Coast of Celtiberia; seeing they are disjoyned by a far broader Sea from Spain thanPage  41 Britain; seeing they lie next to the Spanish Sea; seeing they lie hard one by another to∣ward the North, and TEN only of them of any good account; that which is most ma∣terial, seeing they have Veins of Tynn, as no other Islands have besides them in this Tract, I think we have as much demonstration, that these ISLES of Scilly were the Cassiterides of the Ancients, as we have for any Kingdom under the Sun, whose de∣scription we find in Geographers.

This therefore being granted, that the Phoenicians Traded hither, which I shall * prove, from hence may be gathered the Name of BRITAIN it self, and that from these Islands, and part of Cornwal and Devonshire, this whole Island first received its Name not from Brit, or Brith and Canta, as some will have it: so that what Mr. Cambden ends his History of Britain with, viz. the ISLES of SCILLY, from thence I shall begin to derive its Name, and clearly demonstrate to any, that the Western-name of this Island, in process of time denominated the whole, as in after Ages it happened to the Monarchy it self, the West Saxons taking in the Heptarchy, united the whole Kingdom under one entire Government.

Now the Reader is desired to recollect what before I have writ concerning the Greeks, their way of denominating of Kingdoms, and it will be found from whence and from whom they called these Islands CASSITERIDES, which could be from no other than the Phoenicians, who alone knew them, as I have alrea∣dy made appear, but for the better satisfaction shall discourse it more at large.

WHAT the Graecians call CASSITERIS, or the Country of Tynn, in the Phoenician Language, which was but only a Dialect of the Hebrews (as all * know that have read Plautus his Poenus, or any of the Phoenician Records) is, BARAC-ANAC, or BRACANAC, the first a or Patha being, ac∣cording to the Eastern Languages, silenced in a Sheva.

Now this word Bratanac in the Phoenician Tongue, signifies the very same thing as Cassiteris, viz. A Country, or Field of Tynn, as Bochartus Learnedly proves, * from whom I confess my self to have gathered it, and taken the first hints of this Derivation upon this very account, in all reason it is to be supposed, that the Greeks hearing the Phoenicians in their Language call these Islands, to which they Tra∣ded for Tynn, Bratanac, they gave them the name Cassiterides, signifying the same thing.

When the word Bratanac by the Phoenician Marriners prevailed more, and more, then the Greeks were obliged to receive it, but mollifying it after their manner, as I have shewn, yet not so far as at first to make it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but preserved the last c of Bratanac, by which they acknowledged it a Phoenician derivation, which is very remarkable, so that Strabo all along calls it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Bretanica, not Bretania; so that Bretanica is Ancienter than Bretannia, as Punicûm, and Poe∣nicum, derived from Phoenix, are Ancienter than Poenum, which yet seems to be of a more primitive extract, and nature. The same may be said of Afri, Marmoridae, Messabatae, later in time than their Primitives, Africa, Marmarica, Messabatica (as Learned Bochartus proves) from whence they were derived.

Now the reason of this Chang of Bretanica into Bretania, by the Greeks, is this, because 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 seems, according to the Idiom of their Language, to be an Adjective, and so defective in sence without 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 joyned to it, might give occasion of mistake in Readers to understand it, which was alwaies carefully prevented by the Graecians, who studied nothing more than Elegancy of stile.

In that little Book De Mundo, which is falsly fathered upon Aristotle, as, besides other Errors, the Luxury of the stile witnesseth, I find 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Bre∣tanica the primitive Substantive, by Error, turned into an Adjective. So that when once Bretanica, or Bratanac, came to be Bretannia, we ought not to wonder at the several Changes, as 〈◊〉 in the body of the World as in its Terminations, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Bretania, Brettania, Britannia, Brittannia, the People Britanni, and so on to Britones, Britus, Britton, for this is very ordinary in Places themselves, whose Ori∣ginal Names are undoubtedly known, where men by negligence mistake a Humor, or Dialect, often deviate from the true Original.

Page  42

But to clear every point, I will further search this Termination of BRITANNIA, which Mr. Cambden calls 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which I think improperly, and ought to be only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that being a frequent Termination of Countries in the World, as Germania, Pomerania, Transylvania, and Romania; this I believe was the reason too why Bretanica was turned into Britannia, because it corresponded with the Idiom of o∣ther Terminations; and Mr. Cambden saies, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek Glossaries, beto∣keneth a Region, which is granted in some Compositions, but then must be consi∣dered, whether the word to be compounded, end in a Vowel or Consonant, for if it ends in a Consonant, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 makes the Composition, but if it end in a Vowel, as Mauri, Aqui, the T is put in for sounds sake, because Mauriania, Aquiania cannot sound well, and that T is a letter often used Euphoniae gratiâ [as it is aster ce in French, cet un, and n among the Saxons before a Vowel, as an Island,] among the Greeks, without any other signification; as any one versed in that Language may understand. And this is the true Reason, I suppose, why the Mauritania, Aquitania, and falsly Britannia, as Mr. Cambden saies, are the only Countries of note that end in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because it did not happen in compounding in other Countries names, that they ended partly in a Vowel.

Thus much considered concerning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, let us see how it could be added to Brith, to clear out Mr. Cambden's Britannia, for add 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to Brith and it makes Brithtania, which would have been written by the Greeks〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to their Idiom; and let Mr. Cambden make as little as he will of the H, yet it is the Shibboleth, or Ca∣racteristical note of the British, and Teutonik Dialect in general, and we know words as blithea, sithe, which can never be made vlite, site; with, teeth, become wit and teet, are clear of another signification without the h.

And if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had been added to Brith, it would have made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which, I think, proves, that Brith alone was not the name of these Islanders, but rather Britani, as Pomerani, Pomerania, not Pomeranani; Romani, Romania, not Romanania, if you give the name from the People so called, or, as I rather apprehend, from Pomer, Rom, the ani being rather taken from ania, than ania from ani.

So that when Bratanac was mollified first into Bretanica, as in Strabo, than into Bretania; It is to be supposed, the People were called Bretani, Brittani, by them∣selves, * or something like it, according to the Dialect of their Neighbours, but nei∣ther Brit, or Brith, but by diminution and corruption; as at this day we call a Switzar, a Swis; so that although the Saxons called the Britains, in their Lan∣guage, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and Witigandus the Saxon every where names the Britains, Britae, yet this proves not Brit to be the Primitive any more, than the Phoenicians being cal∣led Poeni, prove that Punicum (as I said before) and Poenicum were derived from it, when all the World knows Poenicum to be the Primitive. For granting, just be∣fore the Saxons daies they were called Brits, Brittae, yea and in Caesars daies too, yet this makes not that Britannia came from Brit, this Age being many hundred years subsequent to the first discovery of it by the Phoenicians, and how Bratanac might be altered and changed in those daies, delivered only from mouth to mouth, in a Rude and ignorant Age, wherein they had few Records and Writings, I leave it to the wisest to judge.

And here it is carefully to be noted, that in deriving of Nations and People, we mistake not in the primitive and first Name, by thinking that to be it which in rea∣lity is only part of the whole, and not a distinct composure by it self, as here it is in Brit and ania, where Brit is only made part of the signification, and ania, because it corresponds with other like Terminations, is only a hanger on: To give one Ex∣ample, of the Euxine-Sea, called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, where 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is taken for the Primitive alone, A or Ev being thought to be given to it only, as People stood affected or disaffected to the Inhabitants upon it; so that if you make it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is the most Barbarous place in the World, if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, pretty tolerable, however 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is accounted the Primitive, for A or Ev being joyned to it, are of 〈◊〉 real signification to the Thing, but only to the Affections of Men; yet, in the diligent search after the Antiquity of those Coasts, we find that the Alpha is a real and essential part of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not a privative Particle, for that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is derived from Askenaz, from whom also came the River and Lake Ascanius, the Ascanean Islands, the City and Country Asania.

Page  43

In like manner may it undoubtedly be thought, hath happened to Britania, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by reason of its similitude with other Terminations being neglected, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 alone carries the glory of the Derivation, when as in reality 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had a real part and share in it, as derived from Bretanica, and being Anciently Anac signifying Tynn among the Phoenicians.

To shew a little of these sorts of Derivations, I shall instance in two only, BRITAIN, and LONDON its Famous Metropolis. I desire the Reader, for diversion sake, to imagine himself living two or three thousand years hence, as Ovid wittily makes his Pythagoras, and suppose likewise that some fatal Barbarism should over-run the World, that most Writings and Records of Britain were lost, and only the Name of it, and some of our present Language and Roman Histories preserved, let us then see which way men would go to work; perhaps some or other might happily blunder upon Brutus, but, by the wary and judicious, that would soon be exploded, as too fabulous to derive Britannia; Well then, first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that must be granted to have been a Termination of that Kingdom, which in the Reign of King CHARLES the Second (as we find on an English-Coyn was called BRITAN∣NIA) so that it is evident it was named so in those daies, all the pudder will be about BRIT, but saies one I have found it, Britannia was called from the Eng∣lish word Bright, signifying Shining, and so, Britanni quasi Brightania, for I find that the English in those daies had a project to leave out those Letters as superfluous which sounded not in the Pronunciation, so that g and h being left out, Britannia is as much as the Light, or shining Country, for I find in a Roman Satyrist

In which words the Poet intimates its derivation, for the Britains have but very lit∣tle Night, and in some parts none at all, so that the business now is ended, and we have a solid and unquestionable derivation of its Name.

In like manner would they proceed in deriving the Great and Famous Metropolis LONDON. I have seen, saies one, upon this great and noble River (but by what name the Thames will be then called, God alone knoweth) the Ruines of a CITY, which extends six miles in length, and in breadth not above one quarter of a mile, and this I guess was LONDON of the Ancients, or Long-Cown, so called by the English, by reason of its vast disproportion in length to the breadth of it; and so you see London is also dispatched.

But if in truth I may deliver my Opinion, there is no way more fallacious and deceitful, in deriving of Kingdoms and Cities, than from the Language of the People, for I scarce think there is a Town, or any place in England, but by fertile Heads may be derived from some word or other that is now in use among its present Inhabitants, every place yielding something, either by Scituation, Soyl, or else Creek of Rivers, Prospect of Hills and Valleys, Customes and Manners, Battles, Buildings, with thon∣sands of other Circumstances too tedious to mention, from whence they may be de∣duced.

Now I leave it to any Rational man to judge, whether it be not more proper and consonant to Reason, to derive Places from their undoubted Trade, by which they were known to all the World, as the Isles of SCILLY were, by the name of Cassi∣terides of the Greeks, and Barat-anac or Bratanac of the Phoenicians, than to de∣duce them from the uncertain sound and coincidency of a word, with some light and trivial Custome among them.

The Reason that absolutely confirms me in the Opinion, the Scilly Islands gave Name at last to this Great ISLAND, that now alone keeps the name of Britannia,* is, because Pliny writes, that this Island was called ALBION, when as all the Islands adjacent were called BRITAIN: so that we see the name of Bratanac first took place in the adjacent Islands, before it came on the main Land of Albion, but in succession of Time the Name gaining footing in Cornwal and Devonshire, it prevailed at last over all the Island, and the greater part swallowed up at last the Name of the whole, although corrupted and distorted by the several Dialects it ran through.

Page  44

And that the exported Commodities of Countries gave Names anciently to Peo∣ple, by which they were most commonly known, although they might have other Names peculiar to themselves, will be manifest, if we consider how Africk and Ebora, part of Spain, took their names from Corn, Iava, called of Old Iabaduc, from Barley; Carmania, Cremetes, Sicilia, Inychus, Anapus, Arvisium, A∣rambys, from Wine; Ruspina and Ebusus, from Figgs; Zaita and Uzita, from Olives; Lusitania, not from Lysus the Son of Bacchus, but from the abundance of Chesnuts called Luza, and the delicacy of them, a great Merchandize in those daies, and brought from those parts of Spain. Italy and Calabria took their Names from the Pitch they yielded; Cythnus from its Cheese, Calymna and Alabus from its Hony; Caristus, Achates, from certain Stones found there, and the British Islands from its Mettal; as also Chasus, Chryse, Odonis, Siphnus, Cimese, Carcoma, Orospeda, with many others.

For considering the many diversities of People and Governments in this Island, it is not reasonably to be supposed, that they had one common Name among them∣selves by which the whole Island was known, unless they had it from Forreigners who Traded with them.

If we examine the Original Names of all Nations, we shall find that the Name by which they are known to the World, differs much from those Names they have from themselves, and by which too they do distinguish one another; yet the Major part of the World which is ab extra to every particular Kingdom, prevails in the denomination, therefore it happens that those Kingdoms themselves so denominated, are obliged to conform to those Appellations given them by the Major part; and therefore that saying of Isidore, That the BRITAINS were called so from some∣thing*within them, in my reason as it makes no more for Brit, Painting, than for King BRUTUS, is to be neglected. For the same Motives that could make an Hi∣storian write so much, might have enabled him to have writ more; for he that can positively affirm, that a NAME comes from within a Kingdom, and not from without, in my Opinion, ought to be particular in valuable Reasons, otherwise he had better be silent, being against the experience of the World; That Nations re∣ceive their Names not from themselves, but others.

But if Isidore means, that BRITAIN had something within it from whence Strangers gave it that Name, then none can deny it, for it is true, that these Islands took their Name from the TYNN they yielded, though not all alike and at the same time.

And here I cannot but wonder, that when Mr. Cambden had laid down, that CUMERO was the primitive Name of the Inhabitants, by which they called them∣selves, he then in answer to his own Questions, Whence then came ALBION? Whence came BRITAIN? saies, that those Names came either from themselves, or from others, when just before he had given Examples, That Countries have different Names, some Names by which they called themselves, others by which they were called of Strangers, for as follows, I will set down his own words; They that were called Israelites, saies he, by the Greeks, were called Hebrews and Jews, by the AEgyptians Huesi, as witnesseth Manethon: so the Greeks named those Syrians (who as Josephus* writes) called themselves Aramaeans; they which named themselves Chusians, were by the Graecians, for their black Faces, called AEthiopians, those which after their own Speech were called Celtae, the Greeks named Galatae, so those that nominated themselves, after their own Language, Teutsch, Numideans and Hellens, by the Ro∣mans were named Germans, Mauri and Graecians: even so in these daies, not to speak of many others, they which in their own Idiom, Musselmans, Magier, Czec∣chi and Bessermans, are by all Nations in Europe named Turks, Hungarians, Bohe∣mians and Tartarians: so even we our selves in England, by our Native and natural Speech, call our selves English men, but by the Welch, Irish men, and the High-land Scots, Saffons, that is as much as to say, Saxons.

Now what follows from this, but that the Inhabitants of this Island being called CUMERO by themselves, were by some others named BRITAINS; No, for this will destroy all, then they could not give themselves Brit, &c. from their Painting, which assisted much to the derivation of BRITANNIA, therefore (saies he) mark I pray you, they were upon some other cause, by themselves or others, Page  45 named BRITAINS. But why by themselves? when he had proved before they were called CUMERO by themselves, and by the Examples he brought, if they were proper, he ought to have inferred, they received their Names of Britains from Others, which indeed they did, as I have partly shewn, and shall shew more at large hereafter.

Grant we then that Brit or Brith, &c. was the name of these Islanders, and that the name signifies in their Tongue, Painted, depainted, dyed or coloured, yet it is not reasonable to believe, that Brit signifying a Britain, came from Brith signifying a Colouring, but rather that Brith, Colouring, came from Britha, a Britain: my Reason is this; Because that Customes in Nations, arising from some general likings, and insensible creepings upon the People, are not so much taken notice of by them∣selves, as by Neighbours and lookers on, so that although they may be remarkable in themselves, yet are they not so to those who by several gradations and steps have received them; for which cause I am not deceived, if I think that names of Countries arising from some strange and unaccountable Customes, have been given them by their Neighbours, who have been absolutely surprized by them for the novelty of them. For instance of which shall be Gallia Comata, not called so by themselves but their Neighbours, by reason of their immoderate nourishing their Long hair.

The like may be said concerning the Aspect, Greatness, Scituation, Nature, and other Circumstances of People; and here is to be observed, that the Ethiopians had nothing in their own Denomination of themselves that signified Black, because it was no wonder in their own Country to be so, AEthiopem Albus derideat; neither ought we to think, that the Islands of the Cannibals, now called the Caribees, had any thing in their own Appellation given to themselves, that denoted any such barbarous Action. But it was the Complexions of the one, and Customes of the other, that gave occasion to Strangers to call them so.

This is a good Argument to induce me to believe, that the Britains were not cal∣led Brith by themselves, from their being Painted.

That which confirms most in this Opinion, is the connexion of Reason, but ra∣ther the coincidence of Words; It is certain, say they, that these Islanders were a Painted-people, Brit signifying Painting, and these Painted-people were called Brits, therefore Bryth must needs give them their Name.

To this I Answer, Let us consider how many names of Nations have become common Appellatives, of some Customes peculiarly belonging to such Nati∣ons.

To instance in a few: A Sybarite, signifying a debauched Person, from Sybaris, the most exquisite of Luxurious Commonwealths; a Ghaldean was a common name among the Jews for any South-sayer; an Egyptian; was as much as to say a Magician or Sorcerer: so it is supposed it happened with the Britains, when they were immo∣derately given to Painting themselves, that their Neighbours, the Gauls or some o∣thers, by long use, might call whatever was painted by the name of Brit or Brith, as much as to say, Like a Britain, so that in time a Painted-man and a Britain might be all one, the proper name Britain being become a common Appella∣tive.

To evidence this plainer, let us look farther into the word Egyptian, and we shall see something more in its Derivatives that makes to this case. In the time of the Saracens possession of Spain, there entered a sort of People into Christendome calling themselves AEgyptians, as much as to say Subtile or Cunning People, and so took up the trade of Fortune-tellers, AEgypt having in those daies kept up the repute of such Sciences; These sort of People used to paint their Hands, Face, and Neck, as they do to this day, to make themselves appear more horrid and strange, and are now at this day, among us, called Gypsies, not that all came out of Egypt, or pre∣tended so, but because they use the same Arts in Painting and Fortune-telling, and in our Laws provided against them are called Gypsies, or People colouring their Hands and Face.

Now some have derived, though falsly, these Gypsies from the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which signifies Paint, because a painted Person in that manner, and a Gypsie, is all one.

Page  46

Now as Gypsie has no relation to painting it self, but by accident, and the syllable 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ought not to be the Root alone of its Derivation seeing it is derived from AEgypti, primitively and immediately from the Egyptians, so I think it is with the word Brit, signifying Painting, that it came from the People called Britains, and not that the Britains came from it; so from Egypt comes an Egyptian, from thence a Gypsie, and from whence, if I am not mistaken, a Gyp, the meanest of Servants, a swarthy Turn-spit, &c.

In like manner I think that Brit comes from Britanni, and they from Britannia, Britania, from Strabo's〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which was the Bratanac of the Phoenicians: so * that their Painting comes in only by accident in the diminutive Brith, and hath no∣thing to do in the Original Primitive of Britannia, the Root of which ought not to be Brit alone.

And although it is to be supposed that none can be so mad, as to derive Egypt from Gyp, the Antiquity of the name Egypt being sufficiently known, yet it has hap∣pened that the not considering of the Antiquity of Britannia, which really was the Bratanac of the Phoenicians, hath caused that Brith and Brits, whence 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Saxons (many hundred years after the First Olympiad when this Island received the Name) which are diminutions and corruptions of the Primitive word, have been accounted the Original.

To manifest this, let us hear what Humphry Lloyd, a Gambro-Britain, and a * Learned and diligent Searcher after Antiquities, saith, concerning BRITAIN, namely, he confidently and boldly affirms, that there is not any British word whose first Radical Letter is B; if this be true, then it plainly appears that the word Brith and Brit, if not the same with Pryd, are not genuine British words, but are derived from some Forreign Name, which crept by degrees into their Language, which exactly agrees with the Bratanac of the Phoenicians, or the Greeks〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, words by Trading and Custome introduced into their Language, whose Idiom in their own genuine production admits not of a B in the first Radical.

Hence I believe it might proceed, that when the Greeks had named them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and their Country 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Islanders after their own manner turned the B into a P and called themselves Prydayns (as Humphry Lloyd proves out of Anci∣ent Copies, and Traditions of their Old Poets, and Bardi) for it is Recorded by Bishop Cooper something to this purpose.

At Evy Church (saith he) two miles from Salisbury, in the digging down of a*Wall, a Book, containing twenty Leaves of very thick Velom was found, which from the hands of Mr. Richard Pace, Chief Secretary to the King, I read, but being sore defaced, could read no one Sentence through, yet could I well perceive in several places the word Prytania.

If this Book be admitted of any considerable Antiquity, as that Humphry Lloyd speaks true, that there is no first Radical Letter B in the Welch Tongue, but that they were called Prydayns by themselves, I believe, without doubt, the Greeks, from this way of the Islanders, derived them from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Prytania, signifying Mettals in their own Language, for they knowing that the first Original Name Bretanica came from the Phoenicians, in which name the Commodity of the Country, Tynn, was expressed, and finding it corrupted by the Natives into Pretan, Prytan, or something like it, easily making 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wittingly embraced this occasion to derive the Country from a word from their own Language, signifying Mettals; so that if there be any truth in the Derivation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it must of ne∣cessity proceed from this Fountain.

The like may be said of Bretta, the Spanish word Earth, from whence some have derived it; For if there be any kind of Truth delivered by Tradition of such a thing among the Spaniards, then it must come from those Spaniards which in former times were called Iberi, that is, Diggers in Mines, and as the word importeth, it was derived from the Phoenicians.

Page  47

That these Iberi might be employed by the Phoenicians in the Tynn Mines in BRITAIN is not unlike, for Tacitus saies, That the Complexion of the South * part of Britain differs much from the Northern, and both from those parts that lie upon France; and therefore he is of Opinion, that the North parts were Peopled by the Germans, the Eastern Coast by the opposite Neighbours the Gauls, and the South parts by the Iberi. This he gathers by the different Complexion of the People, the North Britains being Fair, having large Limbs, long Yellow hair, as the Germans have; the South Britains being Swarthy, and Curled hair like the Spaniards; the Coast lying upon France, agreeing in Language, Customes, and in every thing with the Gauls.

It is difficult to perswade me, that Primitively any part of Britain could be Peo∣pled out of Spain by entire Colonies, but rather that it is more natural, that this Island being peopled by Colonies descending down the Rhine, and filling France, Belgium, and all that Tract of Ground, the Spaniards came to the South part as Mi∣ners only, being very active and expert in that Trade, having plenty of Mines in their own Country, as the Roman Histories witness, continued unexhausted even to Hannibals daies.

According to this account, it must certainly be vainly supposed of the derivation of Britain from Bretta, signifying Earth in Spanish, especially when considered, this Island once in conjunction with the Continent; but from the Spanish Mariners, who took Bretta from the Phoenician Brat, the first syllable in Bratanac signifying Earth. For it will frequently happen, that the Truth of things is delivered down, though the Reason by which men would evidence them, are often vain and frivolous, according to the divers apprehensions and conceptions of Men.