The complex character of a human being is expounded only by the study of his forefathers. If we would appreciate the value of a race or nation we must of necessity sit down seriously to a detailed examination of its past. It is as futile to attempt to understand the modern Egyptians from a survey of this little moment of their present existence as it would be at a single interview to gauge the character of a butler or groom who brings no testimonials with him. The testimonials, credentials, references, and certificates of the Egyptian race are to be found in her ancient tombs; and, say what you will, those who would leave them unexcavated and unstudied are like the trusting and much deceived young housekeepers who place their confidence in servants whose “characters” are not forthcoming. The study of Egyptology is a political necessity, and for this reason alone the tombs must be opened and their contents recorded. Lord Cromer, in a letter to the present writer, speaks of the “value of archæology, which is really only another name for history, _to the practical politician of the present day_.” “Incidents in ancient history,” he writes, “frequently brought to my mind the facts with which I had to deal during my tenure of office in Egypt”; while both in his Reports and in his _Ancient and Modern Imperialism_ he enlarges upon this same theme. Thucydides said that history was philosophy learnt from examples. “To philosophise on mankind,” wrote Taine, “exact observation is not sufficient, but requires to be completed, and knowledge of the present must be supplemented from the history of the past.” “History,” says Seeley, “lies before science as a mass of materials out of which a political doctrine may be deduced.... The ultimate object of all my teaching (of history) is to establish this fundamental connection, to show that politics and history are only different aspects of the same study.... What can be more plainly political than the questions--What ought to be done with India? What ought to be done with our Colonies? But they are questions which need the aid of history. We cannot delude ourselves ... so as to fancy that commonsense or common morality will suffice to lead us to a true opinion.”