First, from analogy. Let us only consider how frequently names are given to parts of our hills, shores, rivers, &c., from their supposed resemblance to parts of the human body. Thus, for instance, we have a _head_ land, a _neck_ of land, a _tongue_ of land, a _nose_ of land (as in Ness, in Orfordness, Dungeness, and, on the opposite coast, Grinez); also a _mouth_ of a river or harbour, a _brow_ of a hill, _back_ or _chine_ of a hill, _foot_ of a hill; an _arm_ of the sea, _sinus_ or bosom of the sea. With these examples, and many more like them, before us, why should we ignore an _eye_ of land as unlikely to be the original of our word _island_? The correspondence between the two is exact. How frequently is the term _eye_ applied to any small spot standing by itself, and peering out as it were, in fact an _insulated_ spot: thus we have the _eye_ of an apple, the _eye_ or centre of a target, the _eye_ of a stream (_i.e._ where the stream collects into a point--a point well known to salmon fishers), and very many other instances. What more natural term, then, to apply to a spot of land standing alone in the midst of an expanse of water than an _eye_ of land? {50} In confirmation of this view, let us look to the original language; there we find the compounds of _eag_, _ea_, _aegh_, the eye, of very frequent occurrence: all of them showing that this compound _ea-land_ is not only legitimate, but extremely probable. Thus we find, _eag-aeple_, the pupil of the eye; _eag-dura_, a window-light, eye-door; _eag ece_, pain in the eye; _eah-hringas_, the orbits of the eyes. In the last instance, the _g_ is dropped; and it is certain that _eag_ was pronounced nearly as eye now is. From all this, is it too much to conclude that _ea-land_ is the same as _eye-land_? But farther, _Ig_ (A.-S.) sometimes stands by itself for an island, as also do _Igland_ and _Igoth_, and _Ii_ was the old name of Iona. Now I cannot find that there ever was the slightest connexion between the A.-S. _Ig_ and _water_; nor do I believe that such an idea would ever have been started, but to support the old derivation of the word; I have never seen a genuine instance of such connexion brought forward. Then the word _Ig_, if it be supposed to mean an _eye_, as I contend, may very well stand by itself for _island_; but, if _water_ be expressed by it, I cannot understand how it can serve to import _land_. If any farther confirmation be wanted, we have it in the diminutive _eyot_, of which _ait_, _aight_, _eight_ are corruptions. H. C. K. ---- Rectory, Hereford. * * * * * WEATHER RULES.