1895
She Was Lilith and Was Expelled After Being 130 Years Married.
Whether Lilith was one of the female creation of chapter 1, or a demon, or something between the two, she was, considered matrimonially, a complete failure. she was expelled after living with Adam 130 years and subsequently became the wife of Satan, by whom she was the mother of the Jinns, so familiar in Persian fairy lore.
The emphatic remark of Adam when he first saw Eve, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh," makes, it is suggested, a comparison between Eve and the beautiful but fiendlike Lilith not complimentary to the latter, while the reference on the birth of Seth to him as Adam's son "in his own likeness, after his image," conveys a painful hint of the uncanny offspring born to Adam and Lilith.
Perhaps in revenge for this Lilith — The name occurs translated "night monster" in Isaiah xxxiv — became the sworn foe of little children, whom she was wont to strangle with one of her glorious golden hairs, unless the watchfulness of their mothers drove her away. It has indeed been gravely suggested by an etymologist of great daring that our word lullaby is simply a corruption of "Lilla abi," Lilith, avaunt, which mothers and nurses would croon over the cradles or write on the doorpost. — All the Year Round.
Showing posts with label Eve. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eve. Show all posts
Friday, May 23, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Fun in Law Reports
1895
SOME OF THE CASES FURNISH FOOD FOR LAUGHTER.
Mistakes of Judicial Pens — Early English Common Law Severe on Clergymen — Citing High Authority — The Remarkable Opinion of Judge Lewis.
Many of the law reports are full of curious judicial slips. In a Georgia case, for instance, the judge, giving the opinion, says that "Montgomery, C. J., was providentially prevented from presiding in this case." This may have been a whack at Montgomery, C. J., or at the lawyer who argued it before the weary judge. This isn't quite as bad, however, as the theological slip of a Nebraska judge in a supreme court case, in which he holds that "the law presumes against the carrier unless he shows that it was done by the king's enemies or by such an act of God as could not happen by the intervention of man." His opinion of the relative positions of God and man recalls the story of the Adams county justice who had occasion to punish a party for gross profanity used in open court. "For taking the name of Almighty God in vain," said this worthy successor of Mr. Justice Shallow, "I shall fine you $10, and for offending the dignity of this court you will pay a fine of $60 and costs or go to jail."
Lawmakers furnish us quite as funny mistakes as law writers. When the supreme court of California came to pass upon the charter of the city of Oakland, a few years ago, they said of the phraseology of the charter that "the joint labors of Malaprop and Partington could scarcely have made such a collocation or dislocation of words and sentences as did this legislator. Among other things it gives the board of trustees power to license and suppress dramshops, horse racing, gambling houses, houses of ill fame and all indecent and immoral practices, shows and amusements." Such a license power might do in New York. It scandalized the pious town of Oakland.
If clergymen wish to know their rating in the ponderous sheepskin tomes, they can find it out by beginning with the very earliest English lawbooks in existence. In one of the black letter year books it appears that some one had been so unkind as to call a preacher a fool, with a good theological prefix to the fool. The preacher brought suit for slander, and the defendant justified, as the lawyers say — that is, he claimed that what he said was not slander, but gospel truth, and he showed that the words spoken could not hurt the clergyman, "for that it was a maxim of the common law" that "a parson might be a good parson and still be a fool." The court so held, but said that had the words been spoken of a lawyer or a doctor it would have been otherwise.
Lord Coke, the great fountain of our common law, had little use for the preachers, and in his third institute he says that in order that the Carmelite friars of Fleet street might perform their vows of chastity King Edward III had to prohibit all woman from passing through a lane next to the friar house. Apropos of preachers an old chronicle relates that when Alan de Neville, chief forester of Henry II, died a certain monastery begged for some of his great wealth. The king, with fine religious discrimination, said, "I shall take his wealth, but you may have his carcass, and the devil will get his soul."
Some of the funniest things in the lawbooks are the far fetched authorities that are cited to establish certain rulings. In a case tried before Justice Fortescue it was claimed that the other side had no right to be heard. The judge decided that it had. "I have heard it observed," said he, "that even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was given chance to defend himself. 'Adam,' says God, 'where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?' And the same question was put to Eve also."
But for exciting legal reading the famous case reported in 10 Pa. St. Report Daily takes first prize. Mr. Justice Lewis thus disports himself on the subject of restraining a widow from marrying: "The principle of reproduction," he says, "stands next in importance to its elder born correlative, self preservation, and is equally a fundamental law of existence. It is the blessing which tempered with mercy the expulsion from paradise. It was impressed upon the human creation by a beneficent Providence, to multiply the images of himself and thus to promote his own glory and the happiness of his creatures. From the lord of the forest to the monster of the deep, from the subtlety of the serpent to the innocence of the dove, from the elastic embrace of the mountain kalmia to the descending fructification of the lily of the plain, all nature bows submissively to this primeval law. Even the flowers, which perfume the air with their fragrance and decorate the forests and fields with their hues, are but curtains to the nuptial bed. The principles of morality, the policy of the nation, the doctrines of the common law, the law of nature and the law of God unite in condemning as void the condition attempted to be imposed upon this widow."
In Manby versus Scott, a case decided in England in 1662, Mr. Justice Wyndham thus prophesies as to what may be expected if a husband is to be held responsible for the contracts of his wife. His objections are a curious commentary on the marriage tie of those days. Among "the many inconveniences which must ensue" he specifies the following:
First. — The husband will be accounted the common enemy, and the mercer and the gallant will unite with the wife, and they will combine their strength against the husband.
Second. — Wives will be their own carvers, and, like hawks, will fly abroad and find their own prey.
Third. — It shall be left to the pleasure of a London jury to dress my wife in such apparel as they think proper.
Fourth. — Wives who think they have insufficient will have it tried by a mercer whether their dress is not too mean, and this will make the mercer judge whether he will dispose of his own goods or not. — Philadelphia Times.
SOME OF THE CASES FURNISH FOOD FOR LAUGHTER.
Mistakes of Judicial Pens — Early English Common Law Severe on Clergymen — Citing High Authority — The Remarkable Opinion of Judge Lewis.
Many of the law reports are full of curious judicial slips. In a Georgia case, for instance, the judge, giving the opinion, says that "Montgomery, C. J., was providentially prevented from presiding in this case." This may have been a whack at Montgomery, C. J., or at the lawyer who argued it before the weary judge. This isn't quite as bad, however, as the theological slip of a Nebraska judge in a supreme court case, in which he holds that "the law presumes against the carrier unless he shows that it was done by the king's enemies or by such an act of God as could not happen by the intervention of man." His opinion of the relative positions of God and man recalls the story of the Adams county justice who had occasion to punish a party for gross profanity used in open court. "For taking the name of Almighty God in vain," said this worthy successor of Mr. Justice Shallow, "I shall fine you $10, and for offending the dignity of this court you will pay a fine of $60 and costs or go to jail."
Lawmakers furnish us quite as funny mistakes as law writers. When the supreme court of California came to pass upon the charter of the city of Oakland, a few years ago, they said of the phraseology of the charter that "the joint labors of Malaprop and Partington could scarcely have made such a collocation or dislocation of words and sentences as did this legislator. Among other things it gives the board of trustees power to license and suppress dramshops, horse racing, gambling houses, houses of ill fame and all indecent and immoral practices, shows and amusements." Such a license power might do in New York. It scandalized the pious town of Oakland.
If clergymen wish to know their rating in the ponderous sheepskin tomes, they can find it out by beginning with the very earliest English lawbooks in existence. In one of the black letter year books it appears that some one had been so unkind as to call a preacher a fool, with a good theological prefix to the fool. The preacher brought suit for slander, and the defendant justified, as the lawyers say — that is, he claimed that what he said was not slander, but gospel truth, and he showed that the words spoken could not hurt the clergyman, "for that it was a maxim of the common law" that "a parson might be a good parson and still be a fool." The court so held, but said that had the words been spoken of a lawyer or a doctor it would have been otherwise.
Lord Coke, the great fountain of our common law, had little use for the preachers, and in his third institute he says that in order that the Carmelite friars of Fleet street might perform their vows of chastity King Edward III had to prohibit all woman from passing through a lane next to the friar house. Apropos of preachers an old chronicle relates that when Alan de Neville, chief forester of Henry II, died a certain monastery begged for some of his great wealth. The king, with fine religious discrimination, said, "I shall take his wealth, but you may have his carcass, and the devil will get his soul."
Some of the funniest things in the lawbooks are the far fetched authorities that are cited to establish certain rulings. In a case tried before Justice Fortescue it was claimed that the other side had no right to be heard. The judge decided that it had. "I have heard it observed," said he, "that even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was given chance to defend himself. 'Adam,' says God, 'where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?' And the same question was put to Eve also."
But for exciting legal reading the famous case reported in 10 Pa. St. Report Daily takes first prize. Mr. Justice Lewis thus disports himself on the subject of restraining a widow from marrying: "The principle of reproduction," he says, "stands next in importance to its elder born correlative, self preservation, and is equally a fundamental law of existence. It is the blessing which tempered with mercy the expulsion from paradise. It was impressed upon the human creation by a beneficent Providence, to multiply the images of himself and thus to promote his own glory and the happiness of his creatures. From the lord of the forest to the monster of the deep, from the subtlety of the serpent to the innocence of the dove, from the elastic embrace of the mountain kalmia to the descending fructification of the lily of the plain, all nature bows submissively to this primeval law. Even the flowers, which perfume the air with their fragrance and decorate the forests and fields with their hues, are but curtains to the nuptial bed. The principles of morality, the policy of the nation, the doctrines of the common law, the law of nature and the law of God unite in condemning as void the condition attempted to be imposed upon this widow."
In Manby versus Scott, a case decided in England in 1662, Mr. Justice Wyndham thus prophesies as to what may be expected if a husband is to be held responsible for the contracts of his wife. His objections are a curious commentary on the marriage tie of those days. Among "the many inconveniences which must ensue" he specifies the following:
First. — The husband will be accounted the common enemy, and the mercer and the gallant will unite with the wife, and they will combine their strength against the husband.
Second. — Wives will be their own carvers, and, like hawks, will fly abroad and find their own prey.
Third. — It shall be left to the pleasure of a London jury to dress my wife in such apparel as they think proper.
Fourth. — Wives who think they have insufficient will have it tried by a mercer whether their dress is not too mean, and this will make the mercer judge whether he will dispose of his own goods or not. — Philadelphia Times.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Keeps Women Silent, How Does He Do It?
1920
Pastor Finds Long-sought-for Method of Hushing Talkative Sex.
Women are not allowed to preach or to bear rule or authority in the church at Zion City, Ill., near Chicago.
"I will not allow any woman to come on the platform and preach or teach," said Overseer Voliva. "Paul said, 'Let the women keep silent in the churches,' and in Zion no woman can be a public speaker. No woman is entitled to bear rule or to be placed in authority. When the apostles were selected, there wasn't a woman among them. When God chose a prophet, or a messenger, he always chose a man."
Here are some of the things that a woman can do, according to Voliva:
She can stay at home and mend socks; wash the dishes; knit and darn; cook; keep her home and her children clean and tidy, and she can be an angel of mercy to the sick and distressed. But she can't preach.
Besides accepting the apostle Paul as an authority on woman's place. Voliva also takes the position that woman was to be subject to man, from creation down. Voliva gives as his reasons for this position that Adam was first created, then woman was created from the rib of man, and that Eve was first in the transgressions in the Garden of Eden. She didn't keep her place, and not only got into trouble, but dragged man into trouble after her.
—The Saturday Blade, Chicago, Jan. 3, 1920, p. 5.
Pastor Finds Long-sought-for Method of Hushing Talkative Sex.
Women are not allowed to preach or to bear rule or authority in the church at Zion City, Ill., near Chicago.
"I will not allow any woman to come on the platform and preach or teach," said Overseer Voliva. "Paul said, 'Let the women keep silent in the churches,' and in Zion no woman can be a public speaker. No woman is entitled to bear rule or to be placed in authority. When the apostles were selected, there wasn't a woman among them. When God chose a prophet, or a messenger, he always chose a man."
Here are some of the things that a woman can do, according to Voliva:
She can stay at home and mend socks; wash the dishes; knit and darn; cook; keep her home and her children clean and tidy, and she can be an angel of mercy to the sick and distressed. But she can't preach.
Besides accepting the apostle Paul as an authority on woman's place. Voliva also takes the position that woman was to be subject to man, from creation down. Voliva gives as his reasons for this position that Adam was first created, then woman was created from the rib of man, and that Eve was first in the transgressions in the Garden of Eden. She didn't keep her place, and not only got into trouble, but dragged man into trouble after her.
—The Saturday Blade, Chicago, Jan. 3, 1920, p. 5.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Just Like Eve's Apple
1910
A fruit supposed to bear the mark of Eve's teeth is one of the many botanical curiosities of Ceylon. The tree on which it grows is known by the significant name of "the forbidden fruit," or "Eve's apple tree."
The blossom has a very pleasant scent, but the really remarkable feature of the tree, the one to which it owes its name, is the fruit. It is beautiful and hangs from the tree in a peculiar manner. Orange on the outside and deep crimson within, each fruit has the appearance of having had a piece bitten out of it.
This fact, together with its poisonous quality, led the Mohammedans to represent it as the forbidden fruit of the garden of Eden and to warn men against its noxious properties. The mark upon the fruit is attributed to Eve. Why the bite of Adam did not also leave its mark is not known, but as only one piece seems to be missing its loss is ascribed to the woman.
A fruit supposed to bear the mark of Eve's teeth is one of the many botanical curiosities of Ceylon. The tree on which it grows is known by the significant name of "the forbidden fruit," or "Eve's apple tree."
The blossom has a very pleasant scent, but the really remarkable feature of the tree, the one to which it owes its name, is the fruit. It is beautiful and hangs from the tree in a peculiar manner. Orange on the outside and deep crimson within, each fruit has the appearance of having had a piece bitten out of it.
This fact, together with its poisonous quality, led the Mohammedans to represent it as the forbidden fruit of the garden of Eden and to warn men against its noxious properties. The mark upon the fruit is attributed to Eve. Why the bite of Adam did not also leave its mark is not known, but as only one piece seems to be missing its loss is ascribed to the woman.
Cain's Wife
1910
"I never discuss marriage," said the late Gen. Fitzhugh Lee, to the Womans' Companion, "without thinking of an old colored preacher in my state who was addressing his dark-skinned congregation, when a white man rose in the back of the building."
"Mr. Preacher," said the white man.
"Sir to you," said the parson.
"Mr. Preacher, you are talking about Cain, and you say he got married in the land of Nod, after he killed Abel. But the Bible only mentions Adam and Eve as being on the earth at that time. Who, then, did Cain marry?"
The colored preacher snorted with unfeigned contempt.
"Huh!" he said. "You hear dat, brederen an' sisters? You hear dat fool question I am axed? Cain, he went to de land o' Nod, just as de Good Book tells us, an' in de land of Nod Cain gits so lazy an' so shiftless dat he up an' marries a gal o' one o' dem no 'count white trash families dat de inspired apostle didn't consider fittin' to mention in de Holy Word."
—Amador Ledger, Jackson, CA, Dec. 30, 1910, p. 2.
"I never discuss marriage," said the late Gen. Fitzhugh Lee, to the Womans' Companion, "without thinking of an old colored preacher in my state who was addressing his dark-skinned congregation, when a white man rose in the back of the building."
"Mr. Preacher," said the white man.
"Sir to you," said the parson.
"Mr. Preacher, you are talking about Cain, and you say he got married in the land of Nod, after he killed Abel. But the Bible only mentions Adam and Eve as being on the earth at that time. Who, then, did Cain marry?"
The colored preacher snorted with unfeigned contempt.
"Huh!" he said. "You hear dat, brederen an' sisters? You hear dat fool question I am axed? Cain, he went to de land o' Nod, just as de Good Book tells us, an' in de land of Nod Cain gits so lazy an' so shiftless dat he up an' marries a gal o' one o' dem no 'count white trash families dat de inspired apostle didn't consider fittin' to mention in de Holy Word."
—Amador Ledger, Jackson, CA, Dec. 30, 1910, p. 2.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Bananas – The Original Forbidden Fruit
1910
Curiosity of the Vegetable Kingdom So Considered by Many
The banana, which the late Sir Alfred Jones did so much to popularize in England, is believed by some people to be the original forbidden fruit of the Garden of Eden.
In any case, it is one of the curiosities of the vegetable kingdom, being not a tree, a palm, a bush, a shrub, a vegetable or an herb, but a herbaceous plant with the status of a tree. Although it sometimes attains a height of 30 feet, there is no woody fiber in any part of its structure, and the bunches growing, on the dwarf banana plant are often heavier than the stalk which supports them.
No plant gives such a quantity of food to the acre as the banana; it wields 44 times more by weight than the potato and 133 times more than wheat. Moreover, no insect will attack it, and it is always immune from disease of any kind. Altogether, it is a highly favored plant, and likely to become even more popular in this country than it is at the present time.
Curiosity of the Vegetable Kingdom So Considered by Many
The banana, which the late Sir Alfred Jones did so much to popularize in England, is believed by some people to be the original forbidden fruit of the Garden of Eden.
In any case, it is one of the curiosities of the vegetable kingdom, being not a tree, a palm, a bush, a shrub, a vegetable or an herb, but a herbaceous plant with the status of a tree. Although it sometimes attains a height of 30 feet, there is no woody fiber in any part of its structure, and the bunches growing, on the dwarf banana plant are often heavier than the stalk which supports them.
No plant gives such a quantity of food to the acre as the banana; it wields 44 times more by weight than the potato and 133 times more than wheat. Moreover, no insect will attack it, and it is always immune from disease of any kind. Altogether, it is a highly favored plant, and likely to become even more popular in this country than it is at the present time.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Noah, Not Adam, Ate the Apple
Feb. 1920
Delver in Ancient Lore Finds Evidence Older Than the Bible
Apparent History of Human Race Back 14,000 Years Before Christ
Philadelphia, Pa. — What the discoverer claims to be evidence older than the Bible by two or three thousand years, that woman had nothing to do with the downfall of the human race, was produced by the museum of the University of Pennsylvania in the form of a new set of translations by Dr. Stephen Herbert Langdon.
Doctor Langdon is now professor of Assyriology at Oxford University, England. He was for three years curator of the Babylonian section at the university museum, and while there studied and translated thousands of ancient clay tablets from the ruins of Nippur, in ancient Babylonia.
Noah Ate the Apple
The new book is the fourth in a series depicting the religious life of the Sumerians, a mysterious race, the origin of which is unknown, which was finally swallowed up by the later Semitics. According to one of the flood stories in the collection Noah ate the forbidden fruit after he had been saved from the deluge.
This salvation was accomplished, according to the Sumerian version, by a woman deity. There is no mention of any Eve in the story. Clay tablets from which this and other stories are taken are said to be at least one thousand years older than Babylonian tablets.
14,000 Years Before Christ
After the Sumerians had been extinguished in their political power, according to Doctor Langdon, the Babylonians retained the language for ecclesiastical purposes for many centuries, just as Latin is now used in the Roman Catholic church.
The Sumerian records at the university provide an apparent history of mankind back to 14,000 years before Christ, but this is not considered absolutely authentic, because many of the reigns of kings are collateral. The Sumerians believed that the patriarchs, corresponding to those of the Old Testament, ruled before the flood for 360,000 years. According to their story it was 35,000 years after the deluge when Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylonia.
Delver in Ancient Lore Finds Evidence Older Than the Bible
Apparent History of Human Race Back 14,000 Years Before Christ
Philadelphia, Pa. — What the discoverer claims to be evidence older than the Bible by two or three thousand years, that woman had nothing to do with the downfall of the human race, was produced by the museum of the University of Pennsylvania in the form of a new set of translations by Dr. Stephen Herbert Langdon.
Doctor Langdon is now professor of Assyriology at Oxford University, England. He was for three years curator of the Babylonian section at the university museum, and while there studied and translated thousands of ancient clay tablets from the ruins of Nippur, in ancient Babylonia.
Noah Ate the Apple
The new book is the fourth in a series depicting the religious life of the Sumerians, a mysterious race, the origin of which is unknown, which was finally swallowed up by the later Semitics. According to one of the flood stories in the collection Noah ate the forbidden fruit after he had been saved from the deluge.
This salvation was accomplished, according to the Sumerian version, by a woman deity. There is no mention of any Eve in the story. Clay tablets from which this and other stories are taken are said to be at least one thousand years older than Babylonian tablets.
14,000 Years Before Christ
After the Sumerians had been extinguished in their political power, according to Doctor Langdon, the Babylonians retained the language for ecclesiastical purposes for many centuries, just as Latin is now used in the Roman Catholic church.
The Sumerian records at the university provide an apparent history of mankind back to 14,000 years before Christ, but this is not considered absolutely authentic, because many of the reigns of kings are collateral. The Sumerians believed that the patriarchs, corresponding to those of the Old Testament, ruled before the flood for 360,000 years. According to their story it was 35,000 years after the deluge when Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylonia.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Adam Was Rib, Woman Says
1914
Mrs. Gilman Asserts at Feminist Gathering Eve Came First In Garden of Eden
New York, Feb. 20 — Adam, not Eve, was the rib. That is, instead of woman springing from the rib of man it happened the other way — man was fashioned from the rib of woman, who came first in the Garden of Eden. So declared Mrs. Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a leader of the feminist movement.
Elaborating on her address delivered before 100 women, Mrs. Gilman brought out these tenets of her belief:
First, the highest form of life is the female of the species — any species. Woman has progressed, while man has failed to develop physiologically speaking.
Woman's sphere is motherhood and the growth of the race, while man is but a hunter and fighter. Only as she serves man in motherhood is woman considered useful and protected.
Mrs. Gilman Asserts at Feminist Gathering Eve Came First In Garden of Eden
New York, Feb. 20 — Adam, not Eve, was the rib. That is, instead of woman springing from the rib of man it happened the other way — man was fashioned from the rib of woman, who came first in the Garden of Eden. So declared Mrs. Charlotte Perkins Gilman, a leader of the feminist movement.
Elaborating on her address delivered before 100 women, Mrs. Gilman brought out these tenets of her belief:
First, the highest form of life is the female of the species — any species. Woman has progressed, while man has failed to develop physiologically speaking.
Woman's sphere is motherhood and the growth of the race, while man is but a hunter and fighter. Only as she serves man in motherhood is woman considered useful and protected.
Friday, May 4, 2007
The Apples of Eden — How Many Did Adam and Eve Eat?
1898
How many apples did Adam and Eve eat? Some say Eve 8 and Adam 2 — a total of ten only. Now we figure the thing out far differently. Eve 8 and Adam 8 also. — Total 16. — Boston Journal.
We think the above figures are entirely wrong. If Eve 8 and Adam 82, certainly the total will be 90. Scientific men, however, on the strength of the theory that the antediluvians were a race of giants, and consequently great eaters, reason something like this: Eva 81 and Adam 82. — Total 163. — Gloucester Advertiser.
Wrong again. What could be clearer than, if Eve 81 and Adam 812 the total was 893. — Lawrence American.
If Eve 811st and Adam 812 would not the whole be 1,623? — Boston Journal.
I believe the following to be the true solution: Eve 814 Adam, Adam 8124 Eve. — Total 8,938. — Veritas.
Still another calculation is as follows: If Eve 814 Adam, Adam 81242 oblige Eve. — Total 82,056. We think this, however, not to be of sufficient quantity; for though we admit that Eve 814 Adam, Adam, if he 8081242 keep Eve company. — Total 8,082,056. — New York Mail.
Mathematicians, you're all at fault. If Eve 81421st tempt Adam, Adam must have 81242XL Eve! — Total 812,505,150. — Portchester Journal.
Now set 'em up in the other alley. Old Mathematics, you haven't got to the "root" of the matter yet. If Eve 814 Adam, of course Adam 81242 make it square. — Total 6,600,263,378. — Colby Echo.
How many apples did Adam and Eve eat? Some say Eve 8 and Adam 2 — a total of ten only. Now we figure the thing out far differently. Eve 8 and Adam 8 also. — Total 16. — Boston Journal.
We think the above figures are entirely wrong. If Eve 8 and Adam 82, certainly the total will be 90. Scientific men, however, on the strength of the theory that the antediluvians were a race of giants, and consequently great eaters, reason something like this: Eva 81 and Adam 82. — Total 163. — Gloucester Advertiser.
Wrong again. What could be clearer than, if Eve 81 and Adam 812 the total was 893. — Lawrence American.
If Eve 811st and Adam 812 would not the whole be 1,623? — Boston Journal.
I believe the following to be the true solution: Eve 814 Adam, Adam 8124 Eve. — Total 8,938. — Veritas.
Still another calculation is as follows: If Eve 814 Adam, Adam 81242 oblige Eve. — Total 82,056. We think this, however, not to be of sufficient quantity; for though we admit that Eve 814 Adam, Adam, if he 8081242 keep Eve company. — Total 8,082,056. — New York Mail.
Mathematicians, you're all at fault. If Eve 81421st tempt Adam, Adam must have 81242XL Eve! — Total 812,505,150. — Portchester Journal.
Now set 'em up in the other alley. Old Mathematics, you haven't got to the "root" of the matter yet. If Eve 814 Adam, of course Adam 81242 make it square. — Total 6,600,263,378. — Colby Echo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
