145 
the kirig/^ M. Lonormant has suggested that 
(Shadrak) may well stand for Sutruk or Sudruk_, nii 
Elamite name naturalised in Babylon. And as to Meshak 
he says it is evidently an alteration,* under the hands 
of transcribers, of an original form where the latter element 
of the Jewish name of Mishael has been replaced by the 
appellative of some Babylonian god, perhaps Misha [Marda] 
kh (Assyrian Ma-sa-Maruduk), and compares the great con- 
traction of Assurbanipal into Asnappar. 
But may not the contraction be rather of Misha Sheshak 
(Assyrian Ma-sa-Sisku) into Meshak ?f Dr. Lauth has 
suggested that Siskii may be a divine name, meaning the 
brilliant protector (Marduk?) Sir Henry Eawlinson had 
connected the same word with the passages in Jeremiah, { 
where the name Sheshak is mentioned in connexion with 
Babylon, and had taken the word as a divine name.§ 
Animal Names. 
But this paper must not be unduly protracted, and we will 
now turn to a very different topic, the use of animal names. 
To these Professor Bobertson Smith has called our attention 
in the Journal of Philology , in his remarkable and very 
striking paper on Animal worship and Animal Tribes among 
the Arabs and in the Old Testament. || 
In this paper he connects the Totem-worship with its 
apparent origin and consequences, among barbarous tribes, 
as expounded by Mr. Maclennan, with usages and tribal and 
personal names among the Arabs, and through Arabian 
channels with the tribes of the Hebrews, but especially 
Judah, and in a smaller degree Benjamin, Simeon, and Dan. 
There is much that is very shocking and sorrowful in this 
disquisition, as in other recent inquiries of a similar kind. 
This should make us the more highly value the sweetness 
and light of Moses and Samuel and the prophets. 
The class of animal names are claimed as derived from a 
stage of fetish-worship, and ^^the line of descent is through 
the mother who gives her totem to her children.^^ This is 
connected with abominations proscribed in the ‘.books of 
Leviticus and Deuteronomy, of which the very proscription 
proves its own need. 
* La Divination, p. 178. t Proc. S. B. A., 1881, 48, 
t Jer. XXV. 26 ; li. 41. § Her., i. 506. 
II Journ. of Philology, ix. 75. 
VOL. XVI. L 
4 
