[Footnote 92:  If the Colchians, according to the assertion of Herodotus, Euter. 104, are to be considered as derived from the Egyptians, which some circumstances of resemblance render probable, it seems not irrational to imagine, that they had acquired from that people an abhorrence to the thought of becoming food for worms.  This, Herodotus says, in Thal. 16. was the reason why they (the Egyptians) embalmed the bodies of the dead; for which the practice adopted by the Colchians, of wrapping them in hides of oxen for the purpose of preservation, was judged an adequate substitute.  But though this be admitted as satisfactory with respect to the origin of the usage, it affords no explanation as to the difference observable in the treatment of the sexes after death, which must be looked for in some other circumstance, common to these two people, or peculiar to one, of them.  It can scarcely be imputed to the different estimation in which the sexes were held whilst living; for if any thing, at least in the opinion of Diodorus Siculus, the women were in higher authority in Egypt than the men, in so far as civil and political rights were concerned.  On the other hand, it is certain from Herodotus, that men alone could officiate in the service of their gods, whether male or female, and that there were no priestesses in Egypt.  No reason can be discovered for this exclusion.  It is merely credible, that the Egyptians, though ascribing great excellence to the female sex in various particulars, nevertheless judged them to be destitute of that principle which constituted the essence of the gods; and therefore unfit for their society.  Possibly they might in consequence imagine them to be incapable of immortality and transmigration, a belief which they so firmly maintained, as to be led to specify the various changes which the soul underwent for the space of three thousand years, when it re-assumed the human body.  Now, if the Colchians credited this doctrine of the immortality and transmigration of the soul, and at the same time depreciated for any reasons whatever the dignity of women, one may easily conceive why they should think of a difference in the mode of disposing of male and female corpses.  After all, however, such reasoning as this is very far from satisfactory; nevertheless, in the mind of the judicious reader, accustomed to contemplate the minute circumstances, which, though much modified, prove a connection betwixt different people, it cannot but have some weight,—­E.]

Perhaps no better use can be made of reading an account of manners altogether new, by which the follies and absurdities of mankind are taken out of that particular connection in which habit has reconciled them to us, than to consider in how many instances they are essentially the same.  When an honest devotee of the church of Rome reads, that there are Indians on the banks of the Ganges who believe that they shall secure the happiness of a future state by dying with a cow’s