all Moslems shave their heads except one lock in the middle, whereas the only Europeans who shave their heads at all are Roman Catholic priests, and they only shave that particular portion which the Moslem leaves unshaved? Why is it that, if an Oriental wishes anybody to approach him, he will throw his hand away from his body, whereas a European will extend his arm and draw his hand towards his body? How does it come about that, if in reply to a question an Oriental shakes his head, he means an affirmative answer to be inferred, whilst a similar gesture on the part of a European implies a negative? An Oriental, if he wishes to indicate a negative by gesture, will throw up his chin.*

The first impulse of a European, if he feels cold, is to cover his feet and throat; the Oriental, on the other hand, will, in the first instance, cover his ears. Is it not strange to our ideas that an Eastern will occasionally sow first and then plough his field afterwards? If two bargees on the Thames quarrel, they will at times curse each other vigorously. A Nile boatman will never do this. But he will thunder across the river the most uncomplimentary expressions as regards the relatives, particularly those of the female sex, of any other boatman with whom he happens to have a difference of opinion. Why should a dead Mahommedan be wrapped up in a shroud and buried in a sitting posture, whereas Europeans are always placed in the coffin in a recumbent posture? Again, it is singular that an Oriental will amuse himself by seeing others dance, whereas a European will join in the dance himself. Moreover, Oriental dress is loose, except for infants, who are wrapped in swaddling clothes, whereas European dress is tight, except for infants, who are dressed in loose, flowing robes. Why, again, should an Oriental, if he wears a sword, which is generally curved, place it at his right side, whereas a European, whose sword will generally be straight or very nearly so, always puts it at his left side? So, also, as regards the use of metaphor, why should an Englishman say from top to bottom,' whereas a Turk will always say 'from bottom to top' (altindan ustuna

* The Oriental gesture is, however, common to the inhabitants of the South of Europe.

kadar)? Why should a Turk or a Persian speak of beginning his affairs from a new head' (yeni bashdan, or ez ser-i-nev), whereas an Englishman would talk of placing them 'on a new footing'? I cannot answer any of these questions any more than I can say why an Egyptian screw always turns from right to left, whereas a screw in Europe turns from left to right.

The contrast between the mentality of Easterns and Westerns is quite as striking, and is certainly far more important, than that which prevails in respect to the petty incidents of social life. The intellectual standard attainable in the East is assuredly in no sense inferior, and is sometimes, indeed, superior to that which is reached in the West. But the Oriental and the Occidental minds move in different grooves. It has very often happened to a European that, when he has imagined that he has found a common ground for discussion on some subject with an intelligent Eastern, the latter will suddenly advance some theory or make some remark which, to the amazement of the European, will reveal to him that their minds are, in reality, as the poles asunder, and that arguments which appear to carry conviction to the Western mind exercise no influence whatever on that of the Oriental. On one occasion I was discussing with an intelligent and educated Egyptian official the question of the levy of a tax on the professional classes. I pointed out that in a country where the main revenue was derived from the land it was perfectly right and just that some special taxation should be imposed on the professional classes, such as doctors, engineers, etc. But in Ismail Pasha's time, when this discussion took place, the professional tax had been allowed to become a poll tax and was levied on every one indiscriminately. I asked the Egyptian official whether he did not think it rather anomalous and unjust that a man should pay a tax for the exercise of a profession which he did not follow. The Egyptian expressed the greatest surprise that I should advance any such plea. He pointed out that the Government did not impose any veto upon a man exercising any profession in which he wished to engage, but that it would be extremely unfair on those who were engaged in professional work that those who were not similarly employed should escape from

An

taxation merely because, although they were at liberty to exercise some profession, they failed to do so. argument of this sort completely disconcerts the Western mind. A European cannot put himself in the position of one who will advance what to him appears such an absolutely untenable theory.

Naturally, amongst the uneducated classes the differences of mentality become even more striking. I remember that on one occasion the English doctor who was employed by the Egyptian railway administration was summoned to a station in the Delta to see the station-master, who was said to be very ill. On being admitted to the man's room, the doctor found that he was in the presence of a raving maniac, who instantly attacked him and, being a very powerful man, threw him on the ground and endeavoured to strangle him. A furious struggle ensued, until at last the doctor was able to gasp out to two policemen who had been passive spectators of the whole scene an order that they were to pull the station-master off him. They at once replied with the Arabic equivalent of Aye, aye, Sir!' and acted accordingly. Their non-interference was in no way due to cowardice or to any reluctance to take action. It was simply owing to the fact that it never occurred to them that it was either necessary or desirable to stop a furious struggle between a maniac and a sane person. Or, possibly, they may have thought that the doctor was adopting some strange and, to them, unknown European method for dealing with maniacs.

It might perhaps be thought by a superficial observer that Europeans resident in the East would be specially attracted by such Easterns as have been more or less Europeanised and, therefore, in some respects resemble themselves. The very contrary is the case. I have invariably noticed that Englishmen, at all events, are much more attracted towards the pure Oriental untainted by any European alloy than towards the semi-Europeanised type of Eastern. The former class is becoming every day more and more rare. I can, however, cite one typical case within my own experience.

A venerable Sheikh, who is now dead but who used to reside at Cairo, was a very remarkable character. never met him, as he was very chary of mixing with

6

Europeans, but he often used to send me very friendly
messages and, indeed, on one occasion, paid me the
compliment, in connexion with certain judicial reforms
which I was then advocating, of letting me know that
he thought my ideas were much more in conformity
with the religion and practices of Islam than those
advocated by the semi-Europeanised Moslems, whom he
cordially despised and detested. He was very devout,
and when he went out used to put wax into his ears in
order to prevent him from hearing any blasphemous or
indecent words in the street. In Surah XXVII of the
Koran it is stated that Solomon visited the Valley of
Ants, and that one ant said to the others: Oh, ye ants,
enter your dwellings, lest Solomon and his army crush
you and know it not.' The question was raised by
certain Ulema of Aleppo, whether the ant who made
this remark was of the male or female sex.
It was
referred for decision to the Sheikh at Cairo. He pro-
nounced decisively in favour of the male sex on the
ground, which would be strongly resented by all suffra-
gists, that only the most superior kind of ant would have
dared to speak in the presence of Solomon, and that the
superiority of the male over the female ant was mani-
fest. The matter was then referred to various learned
Moslems in different cities, even to those resident so far
off as remote Samarkand. At last the discussion, espe-
cially between the Cairo Sheikh and a Tunisian Pundit,
who threw himself whole-heartedly into the cause of the
female ant, waxed so warm that common friends had to
interfere to stop it. On another occasion, the Sheikh
was asked to dine with a few friends. The pièce de
resistance of the dinner was a roast turkey. Just as it
was placed on the table a beggar happened to pass by in
the street who invoked charity. The Sheikh instantly
took the whole of the turkey and, the room being on the
ground floor, passed it out of the window to the beggar
with the remark: All Moslems are brothers.' The
hungry guests were somewhat amazed, but they were
shortly afterwards deeply interested by a discussion
which arose as to whether, in the next world, the credit
for the disposal of the turkey would accrue to the man
who gave it to the beggar or to the host who had paid
for it.

Ismail Pasha, the Khedive of Egypt, was a very curious example of a man who remained a thorough Oriental, albeit his Orientalism was covered by a thin veneer of Occidentalism. He was illiterate. He probably never read a book of any kind. He wholly misunderstood European politics and the motives which guide the actions of all high-class Europeans. His Europeanisation hailed from the Stock Exchange; and, although he would squander money in the most reckless manner, he would haggle with all the persistence of a practised broker over the difference of th or end per cent. of profit or commission in any financial transaction in which he was engaged. He was surrounded by people who habitually robbed and deceived him, and he took a great delight in deceiving them. On one occasion, when he was engaged in the familiar process of issuing a loan which was to fund his outstanding Treasury Bills, he had an interview with a foreign capitalist who was negotiating the matter. The door of the room in which this interview took place was open, but a portière, which did not reach quite to the ground, hung over the opening. In the course of the conversation Ismail Pasha, looking under the portière, noticed a pair of brown trousers which he recognised as belonging to one of his staff. He said to the loan contractor in a loud voice that he agreed to his conditions and that, if the contract were brought to him the next day, he would sign it. The brown trousers at once disappeared. On the following day, when the contract was submitted to him, he made objections, said he had not fully understood the matter and refused to sign. At that time the most furious speculation was going on in Egyptian stocks. Scarcely had the loan contractor left the room when the wearer of the brown trousers rushed in in a great state of excitement and protested violently on the ground that he had heard Ismail himself say the day before that he agreed to the terms. Ismail choked with laughter and said: 'Mon cher, j'ai reconnu vos pantalons bruns. Vous avez acheté; vous auriez dû vendre.'

In this episode the education in European trickery came into play. In the following, the purely Oriental habit of thought was prominent. It once happened that Ismail was suffering from toothache. He sent for a European dentist who told him he ought to have the