_e._ The names _Iolchos_ and _Colchis_.--How comes Jason, in sailing from a part of Thessaly named _Iolchos_, to reach a part of Asia with a name all but identical? or, changing the expression, how comes the Colchos of the Black Sea which Jason visits, to have had a name so like that of the birthplace of the hero who visits it? These things, however little they may be set down to the chapter of accidents, are rarely accidental. Yet they cannot be connected with each other. The evidence, however, of Herodotus to the existence of Egyptian customs in Colchis (evidence which, although it will not prove the identity of the Georgian stock with the Egyptian, suggests the idea of a partial settlement) supplies an explanation. Both _Colchos_ and _Iolchos_ may have been Egyptian. Farther remarks upon the assumption that the Phœnicians only (and not the Egyptians) were a maritime people, will occur in the ethnology of Crete. The influences from Syria and Palestine were either Phœnician or Jewish, and by no means exclusively Phœnician. The selling of the sons and daughters of Judah into captivity beyond the sea, is a fact attested by Isaiah. Neither do I think that the eponymus of the Argive _Danai_ was other than that of the Israelite tribe of Dan; only we are so used to confine ourselves to the soil of Palestine in our consideration of the history of the Israelites, that we treat them as if they were _adscripti glebœ_, and ignore the share they may have taken in the ordinary history of the world. Like priests of great sanctity, they are known in the holy places only--yet the seaports between Tyre and Ascalon, of Dan, Ephraim, and Asher, must have followed the history of seaports in general, and not have stood on the coast for nothing. What a light would be thrown on the origin of the name _Pelop_-o-nesus, and the history of the _Pelop_-id family, if a _bonâ fide_ nation of _Pelopes_, with unequivocal affinities, and cotemporary annals, had existed on the coast of Asia! Who would have hesitated to connect the two? Yet with the Danai and the tribe of Dan this is the case, and no one connects them. In these remarks I by no means say that the resemblance is not accidental; although my opinion is against it being so. I only say that a conclusion which would have been suggested if the tribe of Dan had been Gentiles has been neglected because they were Jews. That the alphabet and the weights and measures of Greece are Phœnician is likely enough; indeed, from the extent to which the habit of circumcision was strange to the Hellenes, the evidence is in favour of the coasts of Phœnicia, and the Philistine country having supplied a larger immigration than those of the Holy Land. In respect to the infusion itself of Semitic blood, whatever may have been the details of its origin, it was considerable; and has generally been admitted to have been so.