of a man of honour who has, in a duel, killed some scoundrel by whom he has been grievously offended.
Thus it seems to me clear that we must not use our nineteenth century ideas in judging sixteenth century conduct. What is criminal in a state of advanced civilization is only a bold deed in a state more backward, and in a state of barbarism may perhaps be a laudable action. It is generally felt that the judgment which is passed on the same action must vary with countries as well as with times, for between nation and nation there is at least as much difference as between century and century.[1] Mehemet Ali, with whom the Mameluke Beys vied for the control of Egypt, one day invites the principal chiefs of his militia to a festival within his palace walls; when they are inside the gates are shut; Arnauts shoot them down from behind cover on the top of the courtyard walls, and from that time Mehemet Ali reigns alone in Egypt. Well, we negotiate with Mehemet Ali; Europeans even think very highly of him; he is held a great man by all the newspapers; they call him Egypt's benefactor. And yet what can be more
- ↑ May not this rule be extended to individuals? Is the son of a thief, who himself thieves, as culpable as an educated man who goes through a fraudulent bankruptcy?
