106 
mankind in general ; I would rather say to one race, by contact with which 
all other races may have derived their religious ideas. Again he refers to 
M. Lenormant having shown that the Accads and Chaldees invoked a gracious 
god, whose office was intercessary ; this was Marduk the son of Hea, his 
office was more of a physician and protagonist of Tiamut the Abyss than 
that of a redeemer ; his offices were also assumed by Bel : the Semitic and 
Turanian ideas of Marduk differed. Further on he says, “ Horus had no 
being ” ; surely no, the very essence of Horus was his Being , self-existence or 
personality ; the theories which made him a deified pre-historic monarch came 
later. With regard to his comparison of my hypothesis with Yolney’s state- 
ments; it is hardly fair to compare my argument with Yolney’s philosophical 
atheism. The French Count assumed his facts ; mine at least are based upon 
texts and monuments. My own contention is that the interpretation of those 
texts is the sole question in dispute. 
The Rev. B. W. Savile : remarks that tradition and other evidence shows 
that Jacob must have arrived in Egypt during the reign of Apophis, the most 
distinguished of the Hycsos kings ; this view I also published in an article in 
The Church of Eng. Sunday School Magazine in 1871. With respect to the 
tomb at the Ashmolean Museum, it is that of a Priest of King Sent, and 
exhibits “ the personal adoration of the monarch as the direct and lineal 
descendant of the gods, and of the same substance or flesh with them.” 
(Birch, Egypt, p. 27.) Further on he says it is probable that Mizraim may have 
carried to Egypt some tradition of a promised Deliverer, in which I agree with 
him. He then states that there were two Hori; now both Hori are really 
one ; the Aroeris is a later Greco-Egyptian form : Horus is called the child 
alike of Hathor and of Isis, of Ra and of the spirit Hut. I quite agree with 
Mr. Sa vile’s next paragraph; but I really knew personally (in 1873) a learned 
mythologist who would put an egg into an egg-cup on the mantelpiece and then 
adore it as the mysterious mother of all things : the other reference was 
to the doctrine of the Tyndallites, all life is from the sun. I must confess 
that my phrase in saying, “ the present copies of the Litanies of Horus which 
we possess, are all very late,” was vague. 
On perusing the opinions which my paper has brought forth, I cannot but be 
painfully impressed with regret that so little controversy took place on the 
night when it was read, and when I was prepared with materials additionally 
to substantiate my positions. If these were heterodox, why were they not 
then refuted ? If, Egyptologically, they were unscientific, why was I not 
corrected ? Writing as I do now, in permanent exile from London, and 
myself at the very door of death, it is peculiarly disheartening, after thirty 
years of orthodoxy, to be in doubt whether a paper written in defence of 
Christian doctrine, has not in itself afforded a handle to infidel misarguments. 
Of course, as an Egyptologist, I cannot endure such a felicitous (?) simile 
(which I understood a critic to apply to my paper) of a pyramid of theory 
being raised upon a slender inverted apex of fact, but I do nevertheless very 
sensibly feel the importance of the fears urged by Canon Titcomb, that improper 
inferences may be drawn from certain statements in the myth of Horus, so, rather 
