206 



EEY. J. IVERACH MUNEO^ M.A.^ OX 



April, 1912, January, 1913, whicli I am glad to have, because it 

 gives me the opportunity of saying that the critical hero of the 

 hilarity at the lions was the writer of the April article. You seemed 

 to share my suspicion as to what he would do in the presence of even 

 one lion. But I further welcome the opportunity the reference gives 

 me of saying that the Editor, then Principal Headlam, withdrew 

 " unreservedly " the objectionable words which the reviewer had used. 

 The article does not discuss a single argument in the book. The 

 January number contains an apology for the language used in the 

 former number, but repeats in substance part of the offence without 

 any attempt to face the arguments. His criticism on my essay on 

 makes one expect that the epicene use of it has disappeared from 

 the Pentateuch. One is reassured to find it still there. 



I am somewhat surprised that any self-respecting Briton should 

 have given the reference to the article on my essay on ^"^n in the 

 Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1912, Xo. 23, as it is simply a silly 

 supercilious skit, utterly imworthy of such a great nation of scholars 

 as Germany is. The writer is so absurd as to represent me as 

 claiming to have made the discovery that h^in is epicene in the 

 Pentateuch III If the misrepresentation was intentional, it is highly 

 discreditable as well as silly. Professor Bennett may have desired 

 that I should have the opportunity of showing the folly of the article, 

 and I thank him on that account. I need scarcely say that my 

 discovery was not what has been perfectly well known for two 

 thousand years — at least to everyone conversant with the subject 

 that t^in is epicene in the Pentateuch — but was the result of an 

 investigation into the reason for that anomaly, viz., that there was a 

 double pronunciation of it, and the following up of this clue has 

 thrown such light upon the grammatical structure of Semitic and 

 Indo-European languages as to leave no doubt whatever in my mind 

 of their original identity. 



This brings me to that part of Mr. Eouse's remarks which deals 

 with strictly philological matters. Though comparative philology 

 has now reached a stage which forbids us thinking of Hebrew or of 

 any Semitic language as the original language of mankind, and the 

 same remark applies to Indo-European language, what is now 

 perfectly certain is that they all sprang from a common source. And 

 I take this opportunity of calling the attention of the Institute to the 

 valuable papers of Colonel Conder and Mr. Isaac Taylor, the former 



