It may truly be said, touching the type of culture at least, that Egypt has an Egyptian lower class, a French middle class and an English governing class.  Anyhow it is true that the civilisations are stratified in this formation, or superimposed in this order.  It is the first impression produced by the darkness and density of the bazaars, the line of the lighted cafes and the blaze of the big hotels.  But it contains a much deeper truth in all three cases, and especially in the case of the French influence.  It is indeed one of the first examples of what I mean by the divisions of the West becoming clearer in the ancient centres of the East.  It is often said that we can only appreciate the work of England in a place like India.  In so far as this is true, it is quite equally true that we can only appreciate the work of France in a place like Egypt.  But this work is of a peculiar and even paradoxical kind.  It is too practical to be prominent, and so universal that it is unnoticed.

The French view of the Rights of Man is called visionary; but in practice it is very solid and even prosaic.  The French have a unique and successful trick by which French things are not accepted as French.  They are accepted as human.  However many foreigners played football, they would still consider football an English thing.  But they do not consider fencing a French thing, though all the terms of it are still French.  If a Frenchman were to label his hostelry an inn or a public house (probably written publicouse) we should think him a victim of rather advanced Anglomania.  But when an Englishman calls it an hotel, we feel no special dread of him either as a dangerous foreigner or a dangerous lunatic.  We need not recognise less readily the value of this because our own distinction is different; especially as our own distinction is being more distinguished.  The spirit of the English is adventure; and it is the essence of adventure that the adventurer does remain different from the strange tribes or strange cities, which he studies because of their strangeness.  He does not become like them, as did some of the Germans, or persuade them to become like him, as do most of the French.  But whether we like or dislike this French capacity, or merely appreciate it properly in its place, there can be no doubt about the cause of that capacity.  The cause is in the spirit that is so often regarded as wildly Utopian and unreal.  The cause is in the abstract creed of equality and citizenship; in the possession of a political philosophy that appeals to all men.  In truth men have never looked low enough for the success of the French Revolution.  They have assumed that it claims to be a sort of divine and distant thing, and therefore have not noticed it in the nearest and most materialistic things.  They have watched its wavering in the senate and never seen it walking in the streets; though it can be seen in the streets of Cairo as in the streets of Paris.