In conclusion, then, it must be repeated that the present Nile-centred policy in Egypt, though infinitely best for the country at this juncture, is an artificial one, unnatural to the nation except as a passing phase; and what may be called the Imperial policy is absolutely certain to take its place in time, although the Anglo-Egyptian Government, so long as it exists, will do all in its power to check it.  History tells us over and over again that Syria is the natural dependant of Egypt, fought for or bargained for with the neighbouring countries to the north; that the Sudan is likewise a natural vassal which from time to time revolts and has to be reconquered; and that Egypt’s most exposed frontier lies on the north-west.  In conquering the Sudan at the end of the nineteenth century the Egyptians were but fulfilling their destiny:  it was a mere accident that their arms were directed against a Mahdi.  In discussing seriously the situation in the western oases, they are working upon the precise rules laid down by history.  And if their attention is not turned in the far future to Syria, they will be defying rules even more precise, and, in the opinion of those who have the whole course of Egyptian history spread before them, will but be kicking against the pricks.  Here surely we have an example of the value of the study of a nation’s history, which is not more nor less than a study of its political tendencies.

Speaking of the relationship of history to politics, Sir J. Seeley wrote:  “I tell you that when you study English history, you study not the past of England only but her future.  It is the welfare of your country, it is your whole interest as citizens, that is in question when you study history.”  These words hold good when we deal with Egyptian history, and it is our business to learn the political lessons which the Egyptologist can teach us, rather than to listen to his dissertations upon scarabs and blue glaze.  Like the astronomers of old, the Egyptologist studies, as it were, the stars, and reads the future in them; but it is not the fashion for kings to wait upon his pronouncements any more!  Indeed he reckons in such very long periods of time, and makes startling statements about events which probably will not occur for very many years to come, that the statesman, intent upon his task, has some reason to declare that the study of past ages does not assist him to deal with urgent affairs.  Nevertheless, in all seriousness, the Egyptologist’s study is to be considered as but another aspect of statecraft, and he fails in his labours if he does not make this his point of view.