119 
equal dislike. It is sufficient, then, to know that in one part of Egypt shep- 
herds were disliked. Herodotus mentions that although in one part of 
Egypt the goat was the subject of adoration, in another part it was the sub- 
ject of detestation. That is quite sufficient to support the language of the 
sacred writer ; and to a large number of the Egyptians the sheep and the 
work of the shepherd might have been held in equal abomination. Mr. Savile 
sometimes uses stronger expressions than I think the facts justify ; as for 
instance, when he tells us that it is as certain that the king “ who knew not 
Joseph” was Amosis, as that William I. was the hero of the Norman con- 
quest. Any one who has examined the mode in which dates in Egyptology 
are arrived at, must be aware that many of them rest on an uncertain basis, 
and sometimes we get nothing more than a long list of names, and we are 
uncertain whether some dynasties were or were not contemporaneous. I am 
quite sure that we must wait for some time before we can be accurate as to 
the dates of these Egyptian kings, for at present there is a great deal of it 
founded on supposition, — more, I think, than the evidence often justifies. 
That, at all events, has been my impression on reading Bunsen. We are 
safe in reading the monuments of Egypt as affording evidence of the exist- 
ence of certain kings ; but as to identifying these dates as matters of 
absolute certainty, although I do not say that we never shall be able to do 
so, I most positively assert that we have not done so yet. (Cheers.) 
The Meeting was then adjourned. 
Me. SAVILE'S REPLY. 
I have carefully read through the remarks which have been made on my 
paper, and beg leave to offer the following reply ; mentioning at the same 
time that a complete answer to the criticisms would demand a larger space 
than can be spared. 
I quite agree with the Chairman’s remark that “ an examination and dis- 
cussion of the question as to what is the genuine Biblical chronology would 
be very desirable,” and trust that the Institute will one day take it up. 
In reply to his regret that he has not been able to obtain any information 
respecting “ that new stone which we have all heard of,” I would commend 
to his attention a pamphlet On the Trilingual Inscription at San ( Decree of 
Canopus) by my friend Dr. Birch, and which is also found in vol. ix., New 
Series, of the Transactions of the Loyal Society of Literature , as giving the 
desired information. 
In reply to the Chairman’s remark, that I have used “ stronger expressions 
than the facts justify,” especially in relation to the king “who knew not 
Joseph,” to which Mr. Titcomb also objects, I would ask leave to correct my 
previous expression, and would wish the sentence should run thus “ It 
appears to me as conclusive, from the evidence which has been adduced, that 
