only written work of Sokrates with which we are acquainted was originally drawn from Egyptian sources. We know that in the last few weeks of his life he translated several of Esop's fables. No nation has a better claim to such an invention than the Egyptians, who introduced animal life so largely into their religion and art.

The Romans have expressly remarked upon the sceptical, satirical, and even sarcastic traits in the popular character of the Egyptians, at the same time that they mention their passionate choleric habits. The humour of a nation of slaves, bound down on all sides by prescribed forms, found vent in politics and religion under the garb of parody and satire, which, however, contained a deeply serious meaning, as in the popular tradition about Mykerinus for instance. This monarch complained of the gross injustice that, as the oracle announced, the Gods should accord to him, the pious king, only a short life, while his godless predecessors had enjoyed such long reigns. The Gods were right, the priests replied, for they did not choose to let off the impious Egyptians with so short a punishment. If we reflect upon this story, which is assuredly no Greek fiction, we shall see that it exhibits a solemn feature in popular conviction, a belief in the existence of a moral government of the world, mixed up with a feeling of melancholy and bitterness, which degenerated into moroseness and despair on reflecting upon the contrast between it and the realities of life. Neither does it seem to have been an idle invention that Paapi, one of the sages of the court of the unfortunate son of the exe

in the time of Amasis, first told by Herodotus (II. 134.), being the witty narrator of the humorous animal fables of Africa and Egypt, to be perfectly historical, whether he penned them in Samos itself or not. Compare Bähr's remarks on this passage in Herodotus, new edition.

crable Ramesses, committed suicide because he foresaw the judgment impending upon so much inhumanity practised by the bigoted king. But the most obvious indication of their solemn conviction upon this head will be found in their ethical formulary of the judgment of Osiris on the dead, to which allusion has been already made.

CONCLUSION.

SUCH, then, was the basis upon which the social and public life of the Egyptians rested. In order to appre ciate its noble and venerable characteristics, it will not even be necessary to contrast it with the torpid sacerdotal state of Meroe, or those caricatures of humanity, debased by sensuality and crushed by despotism, the inhabitants of Negroland and the Troglodytes.

Egypt, as compared with the degeneracy and degradation of Africa and of historical Asia, not only erected a barrier against the savageness of the Libyan and Negro, and the frenzied orgies of Asia, but even kept it up and secured it with a vigour of purpose deserving of the grateful recognition of mankind. For in various points of view the Egyptians imposed wholesome restraints upon the wild frenzy of the Turanians as well as heathen Semites. In the very earliest times they abolished human sacrifice, which they declared to be an abomination to the Gods; whereas in Palestine, in Syria, and cultivated Phoenicia and Carthage, sacrifices continued to be offered to Molokh as being the very climax of religious worship. Rome even, herself, in the time of the Cæsars, buried her Gallic prisoners alive in order to appease the wrath of their Gods. Many indeed of the kings of Judah and Israel caused their children "to pass through the fire." The only people who in the age of political civilisation kept themselves wholly free from these atrocities were the Greeks. This is a very

striking proof that the exercise of thought alone, and

a belief in the power of reason, of truth, and of goodness, coupled with a respect for the divine nature in man, can save mankind from relapsing into a savage state. Neither external religious customs and ceremonies, nor the hollow and dead civilisation of the Chinese and Byzantines, and of their modern successors, have been capable of producing any such result for themselves, much less for mankind. Egypt was the land of real national civilisation in the times of Abraham and of Joseph, as well as in that of Moses, and it owed this privilege to the ethic character of their religion, and to the intellectuality of their religious philosophy.

The intercourse between man and the Divinity was of a spiritual and personal character, requiring neither the intervention of sorcery nor even of priests. The oracles of the Gods were communicated alike to kings and to priests; incubation in the temples, dreams, and most probably clairvoyance, were the mediums by which the religious feelings were worked up above those of the waking state. Not a trace is found in Egypt of the intoxicating potions, the beating of drums, the ringing of bells, and that violent excitement which was so rife among the Turanian, Iranian, and Semitic races.

Unfortunately our information about the spirit of their domestic and social relations, as well as their constitution, is very meagre. But everything we do know is worthy of our highest respect. Even in Egypt civil liberty is old, and despotism a dynastic innovation. In respect of the rite of circumcision, as well as the practice of monogamy, both law and the customs of the priests represented the ancient and correct principle. Woman was the helpmate of man, not precluded from the enjoyment of social intercourse; which implies a personal relation, and consequently monogamy. It is probable, too, that only royal immorality in the practice of polygamy destroyed the ancient discipline of the nation.

No Egyptian, moreover, was a slave, not even when all classes, except the sacerdotal and warrior castes, were made serfs. The murder of a slave was punished by law. All their domestic habits were of a moral kind. We find no signs of cruelty, tyranny, or licentiousness either on the monuments or the tombs, although they appear to represent all the different phases of actual life. Their habits seem to have been serious, and, considering the times, remarkably gentle. We may also repeat, what has been already laid down as a historical fact in its proper place, that in the earliest ages liberty was their charter, and not imperial Pharaonism, and it remained so down to the 12th Dynasty, the last but one of the Old Empire.

Their system of caste was wholly different from what it was in India. In Egypt there was no Pariah, no conquered indigenous race. Every Egyptian was the child and friend of the Gods; there was one nation, one language, one religion, and a common national worship, though with considerable provincial differences. Their festivals and solemnities were assemblies of the whole people, as their name Panegyries (general gatherings) imports. After the time of Menes, as a general rule, their kings belonged to the warrior caste; but the younger branches of the Pharaonic dynasty merged in the nation. as landed proprietors, and thus it happened that sometimes a new dynasty was founded by a man from among the people. Every king, however, was adopted into the sacerdotal caste. In these two, as well as the others, the individual enjoyed great freedom. Marriages, again, might be contracted between persons of different castes, the only exception being the lowest order, that of the swineherds, who were not allowed to intermarry with those of a higher class.

In summing up the whole, we may say that Egypt has the appearance, in many respects, of having been a place of refuge for ancient civilisation, although in a