e same as the _young man_ of the parallel clause, than that he
had slain two; the word rendered _hurt_ is properly a _wheal_, the effect
of a severe strife or wound.

As to the etymologies of the names mentioned by MR. CROSSLEY, we gather
from God's words that she called her first son Cain, an acquisition (the
Latin _peculium_ expresses it more exactly than any English word), because
she had gotten (literally _acquired_, or obtained possession of) a man. As
for Lamech, or more properly L[)e]m[)e]ch, its etymology must be confessed
to be uncertain; but there is a curious and interesting explanation of the
whole series of names of the patriarchs, Noah's forefathers, in which the
name of the other Lemech, son of Methusaleh, is regarded as made up of
_L[)e]_, the prefixed preposition, and of _mech_, taken for the participle
Hophal of the verb to smite or bruise. Adah, [Hebrew: 'DH], is _ornament_;
Zillah, [Hebrew: TSLH] may mean the _shade_ under which a person reposes;
or if the doubling of the _l_ is an indication that its root is [Hebrew:
TSLL], it may mean a dancer.

H. WALTER.

Allow me, in reference to MR. CROSSLEY's remarks, to say, that from the
accidental resemblance of the Hebrew and Celtic words _Lamech_ and
_Lamaich_, no philological argument can be drawn of identical meaning, any
more than from the fact that the words Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazar, or
Belteshassar[2], are significant in Russian {433} and Sclavonian, as well
as in Chaldee. _Lamache_ in Arabic means (see Freytag) "_levi intuitu et
furtim adspicere_ aliquem;" also to _shine_, as lightning, or a star.
_Lamech_, therefore, is an appropriate designation for a man known to prowl
about for plunder and murder, and whose eye, whether taking aim or not,
would give a sudden and furtive glance.

The word _lamed_ signifies, in Hebrew, _teaching_; the word _Talmud_ is
from the same root. It is the same in Syriac and Chaldee. The _original_
significant of these three languages is to be found in the Arabic _Lamada_:
"_Se submisit_ alicui; _humiliter se gessit_ erga aliquem." (Freytag.) No
argument can be drawn from the shape of the letter [Hebrew: L] (_lamed_),
because, although popularly so called, it is _not_ a Hebrew letter, but a
Chaldee one. The recent discoveries, published in Layard's last work,
demonstrate this fact; Mr. Layard falls into the mistake of calling the
basin inscriptions Hebrew, although Mr. Ellis, who had translated them,
says expressly tha