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

taxation merely because, although they were at liberty to exercise some profession, they failed to do so. An 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. I never met him, as he was very chary of mixing with

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 pronounced decisively in favour of the male sex on the ground, which would be strongly resented by all suffragists, 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 manifest. 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, especially 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.' 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.

The

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

tooth out. Ismail said that he was afraid it would be very painful. He was informed in reply that if laughing gas was administered to him he would feel nothing. He still doubted, but told the dentist to bring his apparatus to the palace and he would then discuss the question. It was accordingly brought and the process explained to him. Ismail then summoned an attendant and told him to send up the sentry who was at his door. The man was then ordered to sit down in a chair and the dentist was requested to take out a tooth on either side of his jaw. He was then asked whether he had felt anything, and replied in the negative. Ismail, however, was not yet satisfied. He said that the sentry was a young, strong man and that he would like to see the experiment tried on somebody of weaker physique. Accordingly, a slave girl was summoned from the harem and a couple of her teeth were extracted. He then consented to have his own tooth out. It is related, though possibly this portion of the story is apocryphal, that the dentist then received an order on the Egyptian Treasury for 1000l., and that when the draft was presented it was not honoured, though it was presumably, with many other claims of a similar nature, eventually funded in the Unified Debt.

Ismail, like many other spendthrifts, was niggardly in some small matters. He was very chary of giving away a good cigar. Whenever I called upon him I always knew his disposition towards me because, ordinarily speaking, the attendant would bring me a cigarette. If he wished to be a little more civil he would take a cigar from his breast-pocket; but, if he wished to be out-of-the-way polite, generally as a prelude to asking me to adopt some view of his own to which I was opposed, he would put his hand into an inner envelope in his breast-pocket which contained cigars worth half a crown each. He fully understood the character he generally held in public estimation. I remember on one occasion calling upon him after a fire had taken place in his palace and expressing my regret at the misfortune. He interrupted me at once and said: 'Vous savez que je ne suis pas assuré.' He said the same to other visitors. The first idea which arose in his mind was that everyone would think that he had first insured his palace and then set fire to it himself in order to pocket the insurance