much in character with the Fire-God, who consumes all earthy substances. But we must consider this to mean burnt bricks, as contrasted with the dried bricks which were previously in use, in order to make the two references agree. The purport, then, of the myth was this, that Melekh taught men the special art of erecting solid walls and buildings. This was, indeed, nothing more than the symbolical mode of expressing the value of the use of fire in building houses; houses, in fact, of a better and lighter class, for which large hewn stones and dried bricks were unsuitable. Out of this the waggish pupil of Euhemerus devised the most absurd of fables: that King Melekh taught men this art, on which account he was deified by a grateful people. The two brothers, Khusor and Melekh, are repeated in his sons. As sons of "these," (so the best MSS. read, not of "his," as was the reading before Gaisford's emendation,) the "Artificer" and the "Earthborn" are mentioned. The former, therefore, is the human artificer, the artistic race. I think his name is a translation of KAIN, i. e. QAYIN, which means "smith " and "maker of tools" generally (like faber). We do not hear of Kain, the son of Adam, possessing these arts, but Tubal-Kain, the son of Lamekh did. The brother, the sisters, and mother of this same Tubal are mentioned in the theogony of Uranos-Kronos, and in fact in the circle of Vulcan, as being kosmological deities of Phoenicia. But, independently of this, we know that the sons of Ptah were the Kabiri, the artistic pygmies, and likewise the bold and skilful seamen. In short, the son of Vulcan is most characteristically indicated, but here simply as a man, that is, as the artistic workman who overcame nature. Now the brother of Khusor was the perfect Creator, that is, the Creator and Lord of man. And thus his son is called Adam, he who was formed out of the earth ('Adamah). This explains what would otherwise seem a retrograde step. The father of these brothers had practised building with burnt bricks, and yet it is only now that their sons discover the most rudimentary mode of making them. They prepare the clay with straw (as must always be done with dried bricks), and then dry them in the sun. This is just the account in the old popular belief of the first men. There we had a symbolical account of the power of fire, here an historical fact.42 According to our restoration, therefore, we obtain the following synopsis: We have, therefore, the same relation in both generations. The elder brother represents the intellectual 42 Perhaps also this may aid us to a better explanation of the Biblical name Tubal. There are too many instances of the un-Semitic position of the words (Ore-smith instead of Smith-ore) to make this an objection. Its ordinary interpretation, copper (which it means in Persian), has nothing analogous either in Semitic or Egyptian. But we must look for a more simple root. The Coptic word, Tobi, for brick is found in the hieroglyphics as Teb; but teben means, in Hebrew itself, the chopped straw here mentioned, which was mixed with the clay. The amplification of the original root by the final N is organic in Hebrew; so that TBL may very well have signified, in old Kanaanitish, "chopped straw," and so "dried bricks," and then, from its fundamental signification, "ore." But tebel means, in Hebrew, principle, the younger the material. The former is the strong Creator, Khusor, the elder brother of the Fire-God and brick-drier. The same relation is represented in a subsequent kosmogonical description as that of the father and his sons: Khusor-Hephæstos-Ptah and the Kabiri-Pataikoi. Here, however, is represented the original antithesis of the historical men, which we find depicted in the Bible, according to the account in the last part of the primitive history, among the sons of Lamekh, as existing between his children by Ada and the son of Zillah. In the one case we have Jabal and Jubal, the keeper of sheep and the dweller in tents, with the first musician ; in the other, the Ore-smith, Tubal-Qayin. But even the sons of Adam present the contrast between the shepherd and the husbandman with his skill in metals, which he applies to making the plough, and the settled life in towns where he practises the art of fire for making weapons. I think, therefore, the same contrast exists in the Phoenician tradition. Here, however, the Qayin, the artistic smith and builder of solid houses, takes precedence. Contrasted with him is the younger brother (son of the younger God), the primitive inhabitant, whom the Edomitish colonists drove out of the country when they began to live in towns and became seafaring people as well as fishermen. RESULT. As the purport of the preceding fragment was preeminently philosophical and speculative, so here the historical predominates. They exhibit remarkable points "the inhabited and cultivated earth," "the world." This was enough to tempt a Euhemeristic grammarian like Philo of Byblus to pass off such stories as old traditions; indeed some rationalistic Môkhtheologian in Phoenicia may have done so long before him. But we leave this to future investigators. of resemblance. The Kanaanitish reminiscences are here prominently brought out, there those of Aram (the highland and original settlement); at all events there is a genuine Phoenician character about the traditions. D. Fourth Fragment of the Second Kosmogony of Philo. THE ADONIS-THEOGONY, OR THE KOSMOGONICAL SYSTEM THIS account is a most remarkable one: it is the fullest,. but at the same time the most obscure. It again is genealogically connected with the foregoing by the introductory words. It begins, as we have seen, with Agros or Agruêros (§ 11.), and ends with the first man, with the same two names, Earth-born and Primeval Father (§ 15.). With the introduction of Man, we are necessarily arrived at the close of a kosmogony. We know beforehand, therefore, how much of the succeeding Euhemeristic combination of the last and most elaborated system, that of Uranos and Kronos, we shall have to accept. Here is the opening sentence of the Uranos kosmogony, by which it is connected with the preceding, and which was a most barefaced imposture (chap. iv. § 1.): "Afterwards he" (that is, Adam, the man of the earth, original inhabitant; for this is the only grammatical sense the word can bear, although he is afterwards expressly described as Eliun, father, consequently Behult, as mother) "was called Uranos: from him the firmament above us was, on account of its singular beauty, named Uranos (heaven)." "A sister was also born to him from the above pair, she was called Gê (earth); and from her, on account of her beauty, the earth received its name." It may or may not be that in some Phoenician kosmogony Uranos really was connected with Eliûn, the Most High, but he certainly was not with the first man. This Uranos kosmogony will form the subject matter of the following Section. Here we have to consider the last fragment of the second, which ends in the middle of the above sentence, and endeavour to establish some fixed points out of the seeming confusion. I. AGROS AND AGRUÊROS OR AGRÓTES.-EL-SADDAI. In the first place, it must be borne in mind that one of the two brothers with whom it commences was called by the Byblians "the highest God," and was held in the greatest veneration throughout Phoenicia generally. We are, consequently, the more curious to ascertain what was the Phoenician word corresponding with the above Greek terms. There can be no doubt that here, as in the case of Zayyad and Zidon, we have merely two derivatives from one and the same root, or two forms for the same name. Agruêros is 'Aypo pws, the hero or lord of the field; Agrótes, again, is the man of the field (aypós), that is simply another derivative from ἀγρός, field. The entire rendering, as Scaliger and Bochart remarked, originated in the Hebrew words Sadai (sadêh), field, and Saddai (pronounced in Phoenician Saddai), the Almighty, being confounded. We may add that there being in the latter language no distinction between Sin and Shin, the only way of distinguishing them was by reduplication, or the sign of it. Philo, therefore, finding the word Saddai, explained it as though it were written Sadai, because it suited his system better. Sadeh we know to have been a Punic word for field. Nor is |