376 5TA* Legacy to Modern Egypt definite as the caste system of India and farther east, and to it.1 That system once gravitated round the king and the gods. The service of the court and temples required priests, sculptors, linen-workers, washermen, cobblers, butchers, bakers, car- penters, fly-whisk bearers, a whole panoply of occupations. We can see the divine counterpart of that organization officiating round the god in the bas-reliefs; for 'the divine court is organ- ized on the model of the terrestrial', or rather the two are one, since the king of Egypt is king of the gods. There is Ptah, the artificer; Khnum, the potter; Thoth, the scribe; Hathor, the nurse; Heket, the midwife; Anubis, the embalmer, each playing his part in the royal ritual. With the breakdown of the old religion these courts dis- persed, the craftsmen were set adrift. They no longer revolve round king, feudal lord, or temple. Having lost its old mean- ing, the old organization has also lost its fullness: in a community struggling for bare existence there is no room for painters, sculptors, superintendents of stables, and such luxuries; the occupations have been pared down to the minimum require- ments of the village. It is no longer a monarchic theory that prescribes the occupations, but the necessities of existence and of a simplified democratic religion. The barber, for instance, is a village dignitary, but his status is not defined, as it is in India, by a theory of society. He is hereditary in practice, but not by rule; he is neither appointed nor paid by a lord or by the community jointly, but establishes himself where there is work and is paid by individuals a fee fixed by custom. However much his status may have changed, his purpose has changed but little: he is there because the modern peasant, like the ancient, has to have his head shaved and be circumcised. As for the reason why, it has got lost long 1 Hocart, Kings and Councillors^ chap, is and Les Castes^ Musee Guimet, Paris, in the press.