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 that the language is Chaldee (_Nineveh and Babylon_, p. 510.), one of them only being Syriac (p. 521.). Chaldee and Syriac, indeed, differ from each other as little as Chaucer's and Shakspeare's English, although the written characters are wholly distinct. Davis, in his _Celtic Researches_, has done all that was possible, taking a very limited view, however, in fixing upon certain linguistic resemblances in some ancient tongues to the Celtic; but a clear apprehension of the proper place which the Celtic language and its congeners hold in comparative philology, can only be learnt from such works as Adelung's _Mithridates_, and Adrien Balbi's _Atlas Ethnographique du Globe_. T. J. BUCKTON.