None of the dictionaries offer a satisfactory explanation of the word _God_. It was once commonly supposed to be related to the adjective _good_, but Grimm long ago showed that this connection is, to say the least, very improbable. It has also been sought to identify it with Persian _Khodâ_, from Zend _qvadata_, Skr. _svadata_, Lat. _a se datus_, in which the idea is that of self-existence; but this fanciful etymology was exploded by Aufrecht. The arrant guesswork of Donaldson, who would connect _God_ with +kalos+, and +theos+ with +tithêmi+ (New Cratylus, p. 710), scarcely deserves mention in these days. Among the more scientific philologists of our time, August Fick, in treating of the "Wortschatz der germanischen Spracheinheit," simply refers _God_ to a primitive Teutonic _gutha_, and says no more about it. (Vergl. Woerterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen, III. 107.) He is followed by Skeat (Etymological Dictionary, p. 238), who adds that there is "no connection with _good_." Eduard Müller says: "So bedenklich die zusammenstellung mit _good_, so fraglich ist doch auch noch die urverwandtschaft mit pers. _Khodâ_ gott, oder skr. _gûdha_ mysterium, oder skr. _guddha_ purus; Heyne: 'als sich verhüllender, unsichtbarer, vgl. skr. _guh_ für _gudh_ celare.'" (Woerterbuch der englischen Sprache, p. 456.) Max Müller has much more plausibly suggested that _God_ was formerly a heathen name for the Deity, which passed into Christian usage, like the Latin _Deus_. (Science of Language, 6th ed. II. 317.) Following this hint, I suggested, several years ago (North Amer. Review, Oct. 1869, p. 354), that _God_ is probably identical with _Wodan_ or _Odin_, the name of the great Northern deity, the chief object of the worship of our forefathers. This relation of an initial _G_ to an initial _W_ is a very common one; as for example _Guillaume_ and _William_, _guerre_ and _war_, _guardian_ and _warden_, _guile_ and _wile_. The same thing is seen in Armorican _guasta_ and Ital. _guastare_, as compared with Lat. _vastare_, Eng. _waste_; and in the Eng. _quick_, Goth. _quivs_, Lat. _vivus_. In Erchempert's Historia Langobardorum, 11, Pertz, III. 245, we find _Ludoguicus_ for _Ludovicus_. Not only is this relation a common one, but there are plenty of specific instances of it in the case of _Wodan_. In Germany we have the town names of _Godesberg_, _Gudenberg_, and _Godensholt_, all derived from _Wodan_. In the Westphalian dialect, _Wednesday_ ("day of Wodan") is called _Godenstag_ or _Gunstag_; in Nether-Rhenish, _Gudenstag_; in Flemish, _Goenstag_. See Thorpe, Northern Mythol. I. 229; Taylor, Words and Places, 323; and cf. Grimm, Gesch. der deutschen Sprache, 296. The Westphalian Saxons wrote both _Guodan_ and _Gudan_. _Odin_ was also called _Godin_ (Laing, Heimskringla, I. 74), and Paulus Diaconus tells us that the Lombards pronounced _Wodan_ as _Guodan_. In view of such a convergence of proofs, I am surprised that attention was not long ago called to this