[18] In the case of Egypt we admit that there may be cited against us the authority of Plato, in whose Politicus it is said that the king of Egypt must be a member of the priestly caste, or if by usurpation a member of any other caste acquired the sovereignty he must be initiated with the sacerdotal order.  But Plato was writing of a state of things which already belonged to the past; nor have we any assurance that his information on Egyptian institutions was authentic and accurate.  Had the king been necessarily or commonly a member of the priestly order, it is most improbable that the careful Herodotus, of whose comprehensive work an entire book was devoted to a minute account of Egypt and its institutions, and who collected his information from Egyptian priests in the country itself, would have been ignorant of a part so important, and tending so much to exalt the dignity of the priesthood, who were much more likely to affirm it falsely to Plato than to withhold the knowledge of it if true from Heredotus.  Not only is Herodotus silent respecting any such law or custom, but he thinks it needful to mention that in one particular instance the king (by name Sethos) was a priest, which he would scarcely have done if this had been other than an exceptional case.  It is likely enough that a king of Egypt would learn the hieratic character, and would not suffer any of the mysteries of law or religion which were in the keeping of the priests to be withheld from him; and this was very probably all the foundation which existed for the assertion of the Eleatic stranger in Plato’s dialogue.

[19] Mill, History of British India, book ii. chap. iii.

[20] At a somewhat later period M. Comte drew up what he termed a Positivist Calendar, in which every day was dedicated to some benefactor of humanity (generally with the addition of a similar but minor luminary, to be celebrated in the room of his principal each bissextile year).  In this no kind of human eminence, really useful, is omitted, except that which is merely negative and destructive.  On this principle (which is avowed) the French philosophes as such are excluded, those only among them being admitted who, like Voltaire and Diderot, had claims to admission on other grounds:  and the Protestant religious reformers are left out entirely, with the curious exception of George Fox—­who is included, we presume, in consideration of his Peace principles.

[21] He goes still further and deeper in a subsequent work.  “L’art ramene doucement a la realite les contemplations trop abstraites du theoricien, tandis qu’il pousse noblement le praticien aux speculations desinteressees.”  Systeme de Politique Positive, i. 287.

[22] 1. Systeme de Politique Positive, ou Traite de Sociologie, instituant la Religion de l’Humanite. 4 vols. 8vo.  Paris:  1851—­1854.

2. Catechisme Positiviste, ou Sommaire Exposition de la Religion Universelle, en onze Entretiens Systematiques entre une Femme et un Pretre de l’Humanite. 1 vol. 12mo.  Paris:  1852.