The earliest form of government, which we find amongst the Egyptians, was strictly monarchical ; and appears to have been as unlimited as any before or since that time. We are not to enter upon a discus sion of the advantages or disadvantages of the various modes of government, which have had their times and their changes among the nations of the world. We be lieve that in this, as well as in every other respect, ex tremes are dangerous; and it seems to require no proof, that the most happy form of government lies between the extreme of absolute power, and that of pure demo cracy. In a mixed state of privileges and power, where the people check the tendency of the rich and digni fied toward increased authority or absolute rule, and where the prince and the nobles restrain the turbu lence, and chasten the innovations of popular move ments, there is the best chance for moderation of go vernment, and stability of happiness.
In some respects an absolute government is better calculated to raise monuments of national glory. Ha ving the whole powers of the state at his command, the unlimited monarch can bring them more quickly into action, and direct them to bear with greater cer tainty on any individual point. With a secrecy and expedition which no popular government can obtain, he carries into effect the purposes of his will, though great or difficult. Hence the pyramids, the labyrinth, and other works of great difficulty and labour in Egypt, were accomplished by its absolute kings ; but in the performance of these works, the oppression of abso lute authority was felt. To procure money for such vast designs, the imposts were grievous, and in sonic cases, where the necessities of the state were supposed to require it, the feelings of the people were hurt, by having the money allotted for the public services di verted into the channel of common life. In such ca ses, the labour of the people was excessive ; and we know the children of Israel cried by reason of their task-masters, who were severe and unrelenting. A monarch of Egypt boasted, that his slaves and captives only were employed in public labour, and that no na tive Egyptian had been engaged in works of such toil ; but whatever an individual of influence and national delicacy might do in saving his subjects, yet a severer master might employ severer means; and even where bondmen and captives can be cruelly treated, the go vernment is not correct, nor the arrangements such as justice or humanity require.
But, however, the government of Egypt may be said to have been always of an unlimited nature. Through every successive change, it still maintained the cbarac ter of unrestrained monarchy, till it became a province of the Tui kish government ; and then it had a divan, at the head of which is a pasha, or deputy-governor, some appearances of a deliberative council. But
this form of government, though apparently allied to a mixed and limited authority, was notwithstanding exposed to very arbitrary exactions. And yet the ar rangements were so disjointed and feeble, that the go vernment was neither steady nor secure, for amid the tumults of an ill-regulated t.tte, the court of Constan tinople nearly lost its authority. In this condition, the turbulent and ambitious boys were striving for the su preme command; and since they were subdued, we suspect that the liberties of the people are neither ac curately defined nor well secured, so that the govern ment of Egypt is still absolute, and unfriendly to or der and happiness.
Egypt was celebrated for wisdom of old, and the learning of that country attracted to its schools the wise and inquiring of other nations. We are to esti mate its pre-eminence not by a comparison with the present state of erudition, but by considering the rank which it then held in the scale of knowledge. India, Babylon, and even Plnmnicia, lay claim for no incon siderable share of literary glory. But the principal competition seems to subsist between India and Egypt. Each of them has its supporters, and it would be presumptuous, as well as unwise, to decide the contest from the nature of the documents which have hitherto been furnished. It is more becoming to say with the poet— "Non meum inter voce tantas componere lites." Yet we may suppose, that both of them flourished about the same period, and that there must have been an in tercourse, less or more frequent, between the two na tions. If we were disposed to argue strenuously in fa vour of Egypt, we might say, that there was a period in its early history, when the learned, the wise, and the noble, were compelled to seek refuge in other countries, and many of them might land in India.
The season to which we have an eye, was the time when Cambyses desolated Egypt, destroyed its tem ples, and overthrew its venerated order of things. For a succession of years, the natives were oppressed ; and during such events, it was natural for men of eminence and spirit to leave a country which was unworthy of their presence, and to take refuge in more favoured abodes. It may also be observed, that the madness of Ptolemy Physcon drove from his kingdom many of the wisest and most literary persons ; and they, too, might seek and find protection in the East.