259 
side but the propriety of the terminology. In Elam we have a people 
of Shemite lineage (x. 22) speaking a ‘ Hamite ’ tongue _ (section 29) ; as, m 
Sidon, a race of Hamite lineage (ver. 15) speaking Shemite. This is a matter 
well worthy of elucidation ; and loudly calling for it ; because, else, to believers 
in Revelation, there seems confusion between lineage and language. I am 
aware that facts appear to warrant such appropriations of language to nations ; 
but it is desirable that a nomenclature of scientific philology be adopted, which 
would avoid the use of the names of N oah’s sons, — 4 Shemitic,’ 4 Hamitic, 
—while it would leave the field open for proof of the appropriation of certain 
linguistic branches to them. If however, the Pentateuch is true (and this 
Mr. Titcomb assumes at outset, while his whole scope is to confirm it), diver- 
sities of language did not originate with those antediluvian patriarchs ; for, 
after the Deluge (and long after, I presume from the phrase, 4 the whole earth, 
xi. 1, 6), there was still but one language. 
“ In section 34, Babel is given as Bab El : — this is ingenious ; but it is one 
of those etymologies, which every language knows, wonderfully striking and 
plausible, yet on severe examination demonstrably false. In this case it is not 
an open question, — if we accept the inspiration of the narrative, which the 
author grants ; for another derivation is authoritatively given, 4 because 
Jehovah did there confound ’ (mingle, V?3) the language of all the earth (xi. 9). 
The 4 Gate of God,’ moreover, seems an unmeaning term : why a Gate on the 
plain of Shinar ? Gate, to what ? 
44 The fact given by Prof. Eawlinson (section 38) that there is in the Assyrian 
mythology a god named Hea, with the characters mentioned, is one of high 
interest ; like so many of those which Mr. Titcomb has gathered. Is not, 
however, the allusion, in Hea, a little misread ? Is not the origin of this word 
(— Hiya in Arabic), not the serpent, but Eve, nin, connected as the latter word 
is with rm, to live — 4 because she was the mother of all living?’ She, too, 
was the first human possessor of that 4 knowledge and science ’ (Gen. iii. 5) 
which was so fatal a purchase. 
44 1 remain, yours, 
44 P. H. Gosse.” 
Mr. A. Y. Newton. — In the able paper which Mr. Titcomb has just read 
to us I do not find any reference to the Runic Crosses of Ireland. Mr. 
Fergusson, I understand, holds that these crosses are curious relics of 
antiquity, and of very ancient date ; if this be so, I think they will serve 
as still further illustrations for this paper. A friend of mine, who has lately 
given considerable attention to these crosses, and studied them with the 
view of pointing out their peculiar features, agrees with Mr. Fergusson in 
considering that they are of very ancient date. In a very rare and 
costly work on them, there are, if I mistake not, three instances of 
Adam and Eve (on the panels of those crosses) represented as eating the 
forbidden fruit. There is also a representation of Cain striking down Abe], 
adjoining Adam and Eve, in the same panel. There are likewise on two of 
the crosses, representations of the children in the fiery furnace. Now, if 
these be really ancient crosses, they form a very curious illustration of Mr. 
Titcomb’s text. But then comes something else which is also very curious. 
If they be crosses erected before the Christian era, we have some puzzling 
things to get over : there is evidently a last judgment depicted on more 
than one of them, and there is also a crucifixion on three or four ; and so 
clearly is the crucifixion represented on one of them that I fancy I can detect 
