Aug. 18, 1882. 



• KNOWLEDGE 



193 



to the one hypothesis, Joseph interprets Nubti's dream six 

 years liefore the establishment of the Hykshos Calendar ; 

 according to the other, he interprets the dream twenty- 

 four years after tlie establishment of the Calendar. By 

 the first reckoning, the reign of Nubti does not neces- 

 sarily cover a space of more than fifteen years ; by 

 the last, Nubti must be credited with a reign of 

 certainly not less than thirty-eight years, there being 

 just thirty-eight years between the institution of the 

 calendar and the end of the famine. The Bible, indeed, 

 implies that the same Pharaoh who had raised Joseph to 

 power was yet upon the throne when Jacob died seventeen 

 years later ; and that it was he who sent his elders and 

 servants, and a great company of horsemen and chariots, 

 to escort the mummy of his Prime Minister's father with 

 all honour to his place of burial in the cave of ilachpelah, 

 in the land of Canaan, beyond Jordan ; a sepulchre, by 

 the way, which has never been violated, and in which — 

 held sacred alike by Jew and ^Moslem — the remains of 

 Jacob undoubtedly repose to this day. Again, the one 

 scheme supposes Joseph to have seen only the commence- 

 ment of the war of liberation, and to have died during the 

 reign of Apapi ; whereas the other scheme causes him to 

 outlive the whole struggle, to witness the downfall of 

 Apapi, and to die in the seventh year of Ahmes, 

 just one yeai- after the expulsion of the last remnants 

 of the Hykshos. Lastly, the synchronous theory brings 

 the Fourth Centenary of the Era of Nubti into the 

 thirty-fifth regnal year of Eameses II. (b.c. 1400) ; while 

 the consecutive theory, adhering to the same date for that 

 event, brings it into the fifth regnal year of Rameses II. 

 The two schemes are, therefore, equally possible, and 

 perhaps equally probable, though neither is proven. I 

 give them merely for what they are worth. Of the actual 

 date at which these events happened we know nothing. 

 The particular years which I have assigned to them, first 

 synchronously and then consecutively, are advanced neither 

 theoretically nor controversially ; nor in any sense save 

 that of expediency. I repeat that they are assigned only 

 with reference to each other, and not as definite dates in 

 relation to the period in which we live. The whole scheme 

 — or rather the twofold scheme — might be shifted two or 

 three centuries up or down the scale of ages without affect- 

 ing its probability or its coherence. 



I may here observe that nothing shows the loose and 

 uncertain state of Egyptian chronology more strikingly 

 than the curious diversity of opinion which exists among 

 the learned in regard to the date of the accession of 

 Rameses II. ; a king of whom it may be said that the 

 events of his reign are as well known to us, and as well 

 authenticated, as the events of the reigns of Trajan or 

 Titus. Tlie following table (which does not represent 

 all the opinions that might be quoted) differs by 72 years 

 in the highest and lowest estimates : — 



fMariette 1405 



Rameses II. began | I.ppsias 1388 



to reigrn, -{Wilkinson 1353 



according to I Bnnsen 1352 



l^Brngach 1333 



Leatheroid. — Leatheroid is a new article made of paper. 

 It consists of a number of thicknesses of cotton paper 

 wound one upon another over a cylinder. The reniarkalilo 

 qualities of strength and adhesion it possesses arc derived 

 from a chemical bath, through which the paper is drawn 

 on its way to the cylinder. It is moulded wet, and retains 

 its form. When dry, it cuts like raw hide. 



MATTHEW ARNOLD ON KNOWLEDGE.* 



"XT'HEN we talk of knowing Greek and Roman anti- 

 \ \ quity, which is what people Lave called humanism, 

 we mean a knowledge which is something more than a 

 superficial humanism, mainly decorative. " I call all 

 teaching scientific," says Wolf, the critic of Homer, " which 

 is systematically laid out and followed up to its original 

 sources. For example, a knowledge of classical antiquity 

 is scientific when the remains of classical antiquity are 

 correctly studied in the original languages." There can be 

 no doubt that Wolf is perfectly right, that all learning is 

 scientific which is systematically laid out and followed up 

 to its original sources, and that a genuine humanism is 

 scientific. 



When I speak of knowing Greek and Roman antiquity, 

 therefore, as a help to knowing ourselves and the world, 

 I mean more than a knowledge of so much vocabulary, 

 so much grammar, so many portions of authors, in the 

 Greek and Latin languages. I mean knowing the Greeks 

 and Romans, and their life and genius, and what they 

 were and did in the world ; what we get from them, and 

 what is its value. That, at least, is the ideal , and when 

 we talk of endeavouring to know Greek and Roman 

 antiquity as a help to our knowing ourselves and the 

 world, we mean endeavouring so to know them as to 

 satisfy this ideal, however much we may still fall short 

 of it. 



The same as to knowing our own and other modern 

 nations, with the aim of getting to understand ourselves 

 and the world. To know the best that has been thought 

 and said by the modern nations, is to know, says Pro- 

 fessor Huxley, " only what modem litfratures have to 

 tell us ; it is the criticism of life contained in modern 

 literature." And yet "the distinctive character of our 

 times," he urges, " lies in the vast and constantly- 

 increasing part which is played by natural knowledge.'' 

 And how, therefore, can a man, devoid of knowledge of 

 what physical science has done in the last century, enter 

 hopefully upon a criticism of modern life ? 



Knowing the best which modern nations have thought 

 and said is not knowing their belles lettres merely. To 

 know Italian belles lettres is not to know Italy, and to know 

 English belles lettres is not to know England. Into know- 

 ing Italy and England there comes a great deal more, 

 Galileo and Newton amongst it The reproach of being a 

 superficial humanism, a tincture of belles lettres, may attach 

 rightly enough to some other disciplines ; but to the par- 

 ticular discipline recommended when I proposed knowing the 

 best that has been thought and said in the world, it does 

 not apply. In that best I certainly i iclude what in modern 

 times has been thought and said by t'le great observers and 

 knowers of nature. 



Tiie great results of the scientific investigation of 

 nature we are agreed upon knowing, but how much of 

 our study are we liound to give to the processes by 

 which those results are reached ? The results have their 

 visible bearing on human life. But all the processes, too, 

 all the items of fact, by which these results are established, 

 are interesting. All knowledge is interesting to a wise man. 

 and the knowledge of nature is interesting to all men. It 

 is very interesting to know that from the albuminous 

 white of the egg the chick in the egg gets the materials for 

 its flesh, l>ones, blood, and feathers, while from the fatty 

 yolk of the egg it gets the heat and energy which enable it 

 at length to break its shell and begin the world. It is 

 less interesting, perhaps, but still it is interesting, to 



• From an article on "Literature i 

 Century for tbo present month. 



Science," in the }iintt(en!!i 



