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 Sethôs) 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