108 
of the present day, — a gentleman to whom was assigned the very arduous 
and most honourable task, by the Congress of Egyptologists, held in London, 
and presided over by Dr. Birch, of editing the great book — “ The Bitual 
of the Dead,” or “ Book of the Dead ” — the great book which treats of the 
destiny of the soul in the Hades of the Egyptians . (Hear, hear.) I commu- 
nicated with M. Naville and heard from him about another matter, but I have 
received from him the following letter, written in English, and dated from 
Cannes : — 
“ Villa Augusta, Cannes, January 23rd. 
‘My dear Sir, 
“ Accept my best thanks for your two letters, and for your paper 
on the Life of Joseph, which has been sent to me from Geneva. I have read 
it with great interest. It is, in fact, the outline of a very learned and useful 
commentary on the last chapters of Genesis. 
“Now, I believe it is necessary that such books should be written. Christians 
have so often been reproached with their fear for scientific inquiry that 
it is our duty to show that, on the contrary, we would gladly favour all 
researches bearing upon Holy Scripture, and face the results at which 
scholars may arrive. On the other hand, we are to be cautious, and remember 
that knowledge is a capital which increases every day, but which is most 
movable. Egyptian and Assyrian scholars are often obliged to destroy 
what they have built with their own hands. It is therefore most important 
that a book written on such a grave subject should unite, like yours, sound 
learning and impartial criticism. 
“As you do me the honour to ask for some further information, I must say 
that there are a few points on which I might add, perhaps, some particulars, 
but for the unfortunate circumstance of my being without a single book ; I 
am obliged to quote from memory ; however, you will allow me two or three 
observations.” 
[Here follows a critical observation which will be embodied in some 
detailed remarks on the form of oath referred to in p. 103.] 
“ I may here say that I have been pursuing this question as to the ‘ top of 
the staff’ in a very minute manner, and the result of it all is that I believe 
Chabas was right in thinking that the passage in the papyrus Abbott referred 
to touching, or bowing to, or coming into some kind of contact with, the top 
of the staff, which designated the authority of the superior officer who tendered 
the oath, and I have since seen a most interesting passage inBrugsch’s History 
of Hjij'pt quite to the same effect, where the Pharaoh in a royal proclamation, 
equivalent to a charter, speaks of the people belonging to the Temple ‘who 
are on the top of my staff,’ or rather ‘who are on the carved flower-knob of 
my staff.’ Of course the expression ‘ on the staff’ is perfectly familiar to 
English people, and it comes to the same meaning as was the case in Egypt. 
‘ Attached to the staff,’ or ‘ on the staff/ of the commanding officer is a 
perfectly common expression, and here, in Egypt, we have the beginning of 
it, and when asked a question as to ‘ the top of the staff/ we can explain 
