[I]f one examines foreign names, one does just as well at discovering the meaning of each. For example, even in the case of this thing that we call ousia (being), some people call it essia, and others ōsia. Well first, according to the former of these two names, the being (ousia) of things has good reason to be called Hestia, and another reason why it can correctly be called Hestia is that we ourselves, for our part, say estin (‘is’) of what shares in being (ousia): for it seems that we too, once upon a time, called being (ousia) essia. And second, even by reflecting on sacrificial practice one could conclude that the name-makers had this thought. It is, after all, quite reasonable that those people who entitled the being of all things essia should have made Hestia the first recipient of sacrifice, ahead of all the other gods. But those who, for their part, call it ōsia would believe what is tantamount to Heraclitus' doctrine that all the things there are are on the move and that nothing stays still; hence they think that the cause and instigator of things is to ōthoun (‘that which pushes’), and that that is why it is fine for it to have been named ōsia (‘pushing’).