112 
to designate him as the one who was ultimately to hold the patriarchal rank 
of the family, that is a solution of the matter. 
Dr. Baylee also notices that in the phrase translated, “ the eleven stars,’* 
there is no article in the Hebrew, nor in the LXX. This is important, but 
it may be that the full complement of twelve would have been called “ the 
twelve stars ; ” and I leave my suggestion in the text for what it is worth. 
I refer to an old book of Ainsworth’s, which gives an independent trans- 
lation of the Hebrew, and there the word is omitted— he simply says “ the 
sun and moon and eleven stars.” I mean to say with regard to this that 
if it had been a certain series of twelve, then the article would have come in. 
It was not “ the ” eleven stars, for the eleven did not make up the series, 
but had the whole series been meant it would then have come in, so that 
after all it does not all melt away, this suggestion that it implies some familiar 
cycle of twelve stars. 
Dr. Baylee, like Dr. Birch, thinks it very uncertain whether nebat and 
nelpath were the same original word (p. 87). 
He writes : — “ I agree with your observations on "inbn TV3.” 
I am very glad that Dr. Baylee agrees with me here. 
Dr. Birch notices (p. 93) that Pierret, Zeitschrift, f. ; JEg. spr. 1879, 13C, 
gives 
variant of 
horse, as a proper name in 
the 30th year of Amenemha I. (from the Bulak stela). This is very interest- 
ing, but I do not see in it, with M. Pierret, a proof of the appearance of the 
horse itself in Egypt at that date, but only of a (foreign) person bearing a 
name derived from that of the horse. The personal name may have preceded 
the animal. Just as you may take the name of Oliphant, which is found as a 
surname in Scotland, and which means elephant — in fact, “ elephant ” was 
anciently spelt “ oliphant.” The existence of this name in Scotland does not 
prove that elephants had been brought there before the name was known, 
but the natural supposition is that some one had gone there with that name 
before the beast was ever introduced into that country. The personal name 
may have preceded the animal. 
Dr. Birch doubts if qebh (p. 98) is the equivalent of the Hebrew word. 
On further thought, I believe Q Jcabu, is the real Egyptian 
equivalent, applied to cups and flowers. 
The Rev. P. Lilly has kindly given me several interesting suggestions. 
He refers to Rosenmiiller on Gen. xli. 42, who notices that by the same 
ceremony (gift of the signet) the Sultan constitutes the Grand Vizier. 
Of course, we need not go beyond our own Cabinet for an illustra- 
tion of this: they receive the seals of office at the present time. 
The same eminent commentator quotes, with apparent approval, a similar 
explanation of Gen. xlvii. 31, to that given in p. 103, viz.: that Jacob bowed 
