Egyptian religion and ethics

Source and rights: Internet Archive historical scan, published 1925. The source text below is imported without translation or rewriting.

Wears,

Theology Library

SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY AT CLAREMONT California

The Back Panel of Tut-Ankh-Amen’s Throne, showing the King and Queen in the Palace and Aten with his protecting arms above

(Reproduced, with Mr. Howard Carter’s kind permission, from Carter and Mace, Zhe Tomb of Tut-Ankh-A men)

Frontispiece

EGYPTIAN RELIGION AND ETHICS

F, W. READ ma

LONDON : j WATTS & CO., JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET STREET, E.C.4

First published October, 1925

University of Soutnern Calitornia Liptay,

Printed in Great Britain by Watts & Co,, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C.4

A931 1R2€2e

a ty a

2 CONTENTS

g 5s

PAGE

• PREFACE . : ; : : Vv

CHAP. I. INTRODUCTORY : ; : : I

2 II. THE SotaR Gops . : : ; 5 ™ III. THe Gops oF THE OsIRID CYCLE.

8 1V. OrHerR GODS OF THE PANTHEON ; 24 5 V. LEGENDS OF THE GODS . : 3 32 xe) VI. HeNnoTHEISM AND MONOTHEISM . : 42 £ vil. Tue HERESY OF THE Disk-WORSHIPPERS 51 ‘@VIII, Buriat Customs . : : i 09 2 IX. THE Pyramip TEXTS ‘ ne j 83 2, X. Tue “ Book or THE DEAD” : : 93

_ XI. CHARACTER AND HISTORY OF THE “ Book

, OF THE DEAD” . H : z 98 ‘> XI. THE JUDGMENT OF THE,DEAD . wi. FOO) YRIII. Tue Future LIFE ; j ni eo ‘xiv. Later Mortuary LITERATURE . Fs 134 & XV. Morat Treatises ae eats e344

iii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

PLATE THe Back Panet or Turt-ANKH-

AMEN’S THRONE. : j frontispiece Ia. Taz DousLe-HEADED Gop . Facing page 16 Is. DEITIES IN THE BARQUE OF RA . ie 16

II. SceENE or HATHOR AND THE WEST-

ERN MOUNTAIN. ‘ : Pe gr III. VicNETTE To CuHapter I, “ Boox

OF THE DEAD” ‘ = 70 IV. ScENE OF THE WEIGHING OF THE

HEART . : ‘ : e 113

V. THe Etysian FIELDS oF THE EGYPTIANS . : A S 127

PREFACE

Tuis little book, though intended mainly for the layman, is not amere compilation. In some parts of the subject it departs widely from the views of recognized authorities ; and, as far as possible, the original texts have been consulted.

t would be impossible for one who is not an Egyptologist by profession to find time to make acquaintance with all the literature, and the author can only hope that he has not seriously erred in any matter of primary importance. References have been given to the principal works made use of ; and particulars of these, with others, will be found in the Bibliography.

The transcription of Egyptian proper names and words involves questions of considerable difficulty. If authors dealing with the classical languages find it almost impossible to be absolutely consistent, the difficulty is even greater in the case of Egyptian. Where the Greek writers have made us familiar with such forms as Osiris, Isis, and Thoth, it would be mere pedantry to insist on a literal trans- cript of the hieroglyphs, even if there were any one generally recognized system—which unfor-

tunatély there is not. In so far as familiar Greek Vv

vi PREFACE

forms were available they will be found usually to have been followed. No attempt has been made to bring the transcriptions of authors quoted into harmony with those in the rest of the book. So long as there is no settled system, each worker is entitled to his own; and the reader must take them as they are.

A Table of Dynasties has been included, from which the dates of the various kings mentioned in the book may be approximately ascertained. It must be remembered, however, that there is still no generally accepted chronology of Egyptian history, especially for the period anterior to the 18th Dynasty. From the 26th Dynasty onwards the dates may be regarded as exact.

F. W. R. September, 1925.

TABLE OF EGYPTIAN DYNASTIES

THERE is still great difference of opinion among scholars as to Egyptian chronology. The following dates are extracted from Professor Breasted’s Chronological Table of Kings in A A7zs- tory of Egypt :—

DYNASTIES B.C. I and II : S : : 3400-2980 Ga aie ; : é 2980-2900 IV 2 5 : : é 2900-2750 Vi : ; é ; ? 2750-2625 VI é : . 2625-2475 VII and VIII : : : 2475-2445 IX and X ; ; ; : 2445-2160 XI ; : : i é 2160-2000 2A ieee > i i £ 2000-1788 XIII-XVII . : : ; 1788-1580 XVIII : : : : 1580-1350 SLX ec 5 : 4 i 1350-1200 MX 7. : : Z : 1200-1090 XXII. ‘ . P : 1090-945 Sue EY, : 5 ‘ 5 945-745 XXIII : ‘ . , 745-718 XXIV : : Fi Z 718-712 XXV. : ; ; : 712-663 XXVI. 4 : ; 663-525 XXVII- XXX : 525-332 Alexander and the Ptolemies : 332-30 Egypt a Roman Province . 30

Vil

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gardiner, Alan Henderson, The Tomb of Amenemhet (London ; 1915).

Breasted, James Henry, Development of Religion and T. hought in Ancient Egypt (London and New York 3 1912).

Steindorff, Georg, The keeligion of the Ancient Egyptians (New York ; 1905).

Erman, Adolf, 4 Handbook of Egyptian Religion, English trans. (London ; 1907).

Petrie, Sir seb heligious Lifein Ancient Egypt (London ; 1924).

Religion and Conscience in Ancient Egypt, 2nd ed. (London ; 1920).

— The Religion of Ancient Egypt (London ; 1906).

Renouf, Sir Peter le Page, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, Translation and Commentary continued and completed by Professor E. Naville (London ; 1904).

Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as tllus- trated by the Religion of Ancient Egypt, Hibbert Lec- tures, 1879, 2nd ed. (London ; 1884).

Budge, Sir Ernest, Legends of the Gods (London ; 1912).

—— Tutankhamen (London ; 1923).

— The Egyptian Heaven and ffell, 3 vols. (London ; 1906).

—— The Gods of the Egyptians, 2 vols. (London 5 1904).

—— The Chapters of the Coming Forth by Day, Text, Trans-

lation, and Vocabulary, 7 vols. (London 3 1909-11).

Speleers, Louis, Les Textes des Pyramides Egyptiennes, Tome I;

Traduction ; Tome II, Vocabulaire (Bruxelles ; 1923-4).

Vili

CHAPTER I .

INTRODUCTORY

WHEN the student seeks to explore the doctrines of the Egyptian religion he is faced by difficulties resulting from many causes. Even the Pyramid Texts, almost the only religious literature of the Old Kingdom, though containing much that is probably older than the union of Upper and Lower Egypt under one king, exhibit a strange mixture of contradictions; and the contradictions became greater and greater as the centuries passed. All religions have shown a tendency to admit irrecon- cilable traditions, but in none has this tendency been so powerful as in the Egyptian. Whether the priests had any schemes aiming to clear away the difficulties with which the more critical might be troubled we do not know; but, if they had, such works have not come down to us, nor were their schemes at all likely to have been put into writing. At any rate, as the teachings were added to, the new were placed side by side with the old ; and the modern student must make the best he can of them. It is even impossible with any degree of accuracy to separate new from old. Sometimes -a very ancient doctrine has survived only in a late papyrus ; and a great deal which was supposed, before the discovery of the Pyramid Texts, to be

late is now known to go back at least to the Old I B

2 INTRODUCTORY

Kingdom. As an instance of our difficulties, it may be mentioned that the highly interesting and important problem of the meaning originally con- veyed by the word zeder, which we translate by “ god,” seems to be as far off as ever from solution. The best that we can do is to say, with Sir Ernest Budge, that the word indicates “God, and god, and spirits of every kind, and beings of all sorts, and kinds, and forms, which were supposed to possess any superhuman or supernatural power.” *

One important cause of confusion in Egyptian mythology is the fact that, as the country was gradually unified, local gods of a similar character tended to be amalgamated. Thus in primitive times Busiris in the Delta was a great centre of Osiris worship, while Abydos in Upper Egypt was the seat of a god called Khenti-Amentiu, “the chief of the Westerners.” As both gods were rulers over the western region, to which the dead were (according to one view of the hereafter) believed to go, it was easy for them to coalesce; and under the 18th Dynasty and later “ Khenti- Amentiu” became a mere descriptive epithet of Osiris. In the large collection of stele from Abydos in the British Museum the change can be traced without difficulty. In the Old and Middle Kingdoms Osiris, lord of Busiris, and Khenti- Amentiu, lord of Abydos, are quite distinct per- sonalities. Then such forms as “Osiris, lord of Busiris, Khenti-Amentiu, great god, lord of Abydos,” which might be understood either of one

• Gods of the Egyptians, vol. i, p. 63. The view that the Egyp-

tians believed in “ God,” as distinct from “gods,” is discussed in Chapter VI.

. INTRODUCTORY 3

god or two gods, begin to appear ; and finally there emerges as the orthodox form “Osiris Khenti- Amentiu, lord of Busiris, great god, lord of Abydos,” where the amalgamation has been com- pletely effected, and it is no longer possible to separate linguistically the original elements of the combination.

Political causes also tended to produce confusion. Until the rise of Thebes as the capital of Egypt its local god Amen was quite insignificant ; but from the 18th Dynasty onwards he absorbed the qualities of most of the other gods, being even invoked as

_a god of the dead in company with Osiris himself. “It is most probable,” as Renouf remarks, “that neither Ptah nor Amen were originally at the head of lists, but obtained their places as being chief divinities of the capitals Memphis and Thebes.” There was also a tendency for all important gods to assume the character of the sun-god; this too affected Amen, who became Amen-Ra, and was addressed as if he were Ra (the sun). Needless to say, Osiris, the most popular god of all, did not escape this tendency, which at last affected the writing of his name, one of its two signs, the eye, ‘being altered to the sun. In this case the assimi- lation was rendered easier by the confusion of the Osirian and solar conceptions of the hereafter, with which we deal later.

Unfortunately for us, the Egyptians did not produce treatises upon religion, any more than ‘they did grammars, or dictionaries, or histories. In all these subjects, and many more, we have only the very raw material out of which treatises may be wrought with great labour and with

4 INTRODUCTORY

extensive possibilities of error. Most, if not all, of the myths recounted were told, not for their own sake, but for a magical purpose; and a very great deal of the material consists of allusions obscure to us and certainly not always clear to the scribes who copied them.

It will be seen at once that the reader cannot expect anything like a definite and unqualified statement of the nature of the Egyptian religion. On some points more or less general agreement has been reached among scholars, but on others there is the greatest divergence of opinion. So far as is possible in a small book, the present writer has endeavoured to indicate the existence of important differences, and to state the arguments on either side. This has been done more fully than elsewhere in the chapters dealing with the alleged monotheism of the Egyptians, and with the Aten-worship which has become of such special interest to us through Mr. Howard Carter’s wonderful find of the tomb of Tutankhamen.

CHAPTER II THE SOLAR GODS

OF the many solar gods worshipped in Egypt the most important were those of the great Ennead of Heliopolis. This Ennead is stated in the Pyramid Texts to have consisted of Tum, Shu, Tefnut,

• Geb, Nut, Osiris, Isis, Set, and Nephthys, whose genealogy is usually given as follows :—

Tum

Shu Tefnut

| | |

Geb = Nut

| Sore | Osiris = Isis Set = Nephthys

But it is evident from the Pyramid Texts that even under the Old Kingdom this tradition was by no means universally accepted. We are told in the oldest version (that of Unas, at the end of the 5th Dynasty) that Osiris was the son of no less than five deities: Tum, Shu, Tefnut, Geb, and ‘Nut; and that he was the brother of Isis, Set, Nephthys, and Thoth; and the father of Horus. If we may take the word “son” in a wide sense, this statement is not inconsistent with the family- 5

6 THE SOLAR GODS

tree given above, but it also introduces two additional gods—Thoth and Horus.

In an extremely interesting passage of the same collection of texts we are told that when Osiris _, appears as “Lord of Law at the beginning of the . year, Lord of the Year,” a great many gods are’ “satisfied ’; and at the head of these stand: Tum, “father of the gods,” Shu and Tefnut, Geb and Nut, Osiris and Isis, Set and Neith. Here we have the whole of the Ennead except Nephthys, while Set is coupled with Neith, the great goddess of Sais, who could not originally have had any- thing to do with the Heliopolitan company of| gods. Also, very curiously, Osiris is included ¥ among the satisfied gods, though his appearance | (or rising) is said to be the cause of the gods being satisfied. It is fairly evident that some god other than Osiris must. originally have been referred to as appearing “at the beginning of the year,” which is consistent with much evidence that Osiris was not originally a solar deity.

It will be seen that all the gods in the Helio- politan Ennead other than Tum, “ the father of the gods,” is provided with a wife who is also his sister. The Pyramid Texts explain that Tum” produced Shu and Tefnut from his own body. A late papyrus in the British Museum, first com- pletely published by Sir Ernest Budge,’ repeats this statement, and also says that they were pro-

/ duced by the god having union with his khazbit (or shadow).? This very curious document begins

t See his Legends of the Gods. 2 The god is called Neb-er-zer, a common name of Osiris, but evidently to be here identified with Tum.

= THE SOLAR GODS 7

with the “ Book of Overthrowing Apep, the Enemy of Ra, the enemy of Un-nefer,” which is intended to be recited for the purpose of securing the unobstructed rising of the sun. Later in the papyrus are inserted two versions of the “ Book of Knowing the Forms of Ra and of Overthrow- ing Apep.” In this latter book is an account of the creation. The story is put into the mouth of the god Neb-er-zer, who is made to say that~ before he had emitted Shu and Tefnut he was ONE by himself, and that he created himself by uttering his own name. He found no place _whereon he could stand, and he thereupon uttered a spell and laid a foundation for further opera- tions. Then “from being one god I became three gods ”—i.e., Neb-er-zer, Shu, and Tefnut. Man- kind are said to have issued from the tears that fell from the god’s eye, which, like so many of the statements in the Egyptian texts, is a mere pun, the words for “mankind” and “tears” being similar. The story concludes with a genealogy, imperfectly written in both versions, but which certainly intended to say that “ Shu and Tefnut pro- duced Geb and Nut, and Geb and Nut produced Osiris, Horus, Set, Isis, and Nephthys one after the other, and they gave birth to their multitudes upon this earth.”

Another story, doubtless independent of the above, since the gods are clearly thought of in quite different relationships, told how heaven and earth “were separated and a place made for the sun to travel in. This story is frequently illustrated in the papyri, where we see Geb (the earth) rising from slumber, while Shu lifts up Nut (the sky).

8 THE SOLAR GODS

The sun god Ra is frequently combined with Tum and other gods. He is certainly one of the oldest divinities of the Egyptians, and in concep- tion he is as old as any. His name is identical with that of the physical sun; and there can be no reasonable doubt that originally the actual orb of the sun was regarded asa god. Gradually a more refined belief grew up; and Ra was conceived as an entity separate from the sun, which might be absent when the god was present.

Aten, also a solar god, who for a few years occupied a very prominent position in Egypt as the deity of the heretical Disk worshippers, is discussed later (see Chapter VII).

CHAPTER III THE GODS OF THE OSIRID CYCLE

Plutarch’s Story of Ostrts

As we have already seen in the previous Chapter, the children of Geb and Nut were Osiris, with his sister-wife Isis, and Set, with his sister-wife Nephthys; and these four children, together with Horus, son of Osiris and Isis, who according to one very old doctrine was brother of Set, are the gods with whom this Chapter is mainly concerned. These deities were fabled to have been born of Nut on five successive days in the order: Osiris, Horus, Set, Isis, Nephthys. The five days in question were the five epagomenz (or supplementary days) which made up, with the twelve months of thirty days each, the Egyptian year of 365 days. It is not until the New Kingdom that these gods are found associated with the epagomenez, but even under the Old Kingdom the latter are called “the days on which the gods were born.” It is one of the claims of Plutarch to be heard on questions of Egyptian religion that he gives the births in the exact order in which they appear in the native writings nearly 2,000 years before his time. Yet immediately afterwards, reflecting the confusion in the Egyptian texts themselves, he says that Horus was the offspring of Osiris and Isis, the latter of whom was not born till two days later. Notwith- ‘ 9

10 THE GODS OF THE OSIRID CYCLE

standing this and other inconsistencies, Plutarch has furnished us with the clearest, and indeed the only continuous, account of the Osiris myth, and we therefore commence by setting out briefly what he has to tell us.

Osiris was the ideal beneficent king; he it was who when he lived on earth taught the Egyptians the arts of civilization, and particularly the cultiva- tion of the soil. At last his brother Set (called Typhon by Plutarch) entered into a conspiracy to kill him. Having privily taken his measure, he had a chest made of his exact size, and on the occasion of a banquet he invited the guests to lie down in it by turns, offering to give it to the one whom it was found to fit. Of course it fitted none but Osiris, and as soon as he had got into it the conspirators lifted the cover and fastened it with nails and poured molten lead over it. They then took the chest and threw it into the Nile, which carried it out to sea. Isis went wandering about all over the country in search of her husband Osiris. At length she learnt that the chest had been carried by the sea to the coast of Byblos and had there lodged in the branches of a tamarisk bush, which had grown round it and enclosed it so that it was not to be seen. Isis was also informed that the king of Byblos had had the tree cut down and made into a pillar as a support for the roof of his palace. She thereupon proceeded to Byblos, where she got into touch with the queen’s women, and ultimately with the queen herself, with the result that she was made nurse to one of the queen’s sons. The goddess used to put the child each night into the fire in order to consume his mortal part; and at

THE GODS OF THE OSIRID CYCLE 11

the same time, having transformed herself into a swallow, circled round the pillar uttering cries of lamentation. After this had been going on for some time the queen happened to see her child on fire and cried out in alarm, whereupon Isis revealed herself and begged that the pillar might be given to her. By the aid of her magic arts she took the pillar down and cut it open quite easily, and then departed with the chest to Egypt.

The goddess now went to the city of Buto in the Delta, where her son Horus was being reared, and deposited the chest in a remote and unfrequented place, where it was found by Set when he was hunting one night by the light of the moon. He tore the body into fourteen pieces and scattered them upanddownthecountry. Isis found the fragments and buried them with the exception of the phallus,’ which had been thrown into the Nile and swal- lowed by fish. Presently Osiris returned from the other world, and, appearing to Horus, encouraged him to fight and instructed him in the use of arms. A battle soon took place between Horus and Set which lasted many days, but Horus was the victor, and Set was taken prisoner. He was delivered into the custody of Isis, who set him free. This so enraged Horus that he pulled the royal crown from his mother’s head, but Thoth provided her with the head of anox. Then Set accused Horus of illegiti- macy, but he was triumphantly vindicated before the gods with the aid of Thoth. _Two other battles followed, in both of which Set was defeated. And Plutarch winds up this part of his famous treatise,

• According to some accounts the phallus also was buried,

12 THE GODS OF THE OSIRID CYCLE

De Iside et Ostride, by saying that Isis had union with Osiris after his death and brought forth Harpocrates, who came into the world before his time and was lame in his lower limbs.

Now it is certain that, in spite of some mistakes and some incorrect inferences, Plutarch must have derived his information from genuine Egyptian sources, for nearly everything that he says may be paralleled from the texts, though it is nowhere set out in the order of a regular story as Plutarch gives it. The loss of the phallus, for instance, is found in the Tale of the Two Brothers, but in a different context. It is said of the younger brother: “He cut off his phallus, he threw it into the river, and the mar-fish swallowed it.” The story of the anger of Horus against his mother, again, is found in the Fourth Sallier Papyrus, but with slight differences of detail in which Plutarch certainly erred. The battle lasted three days and three nights instead of “many days.” And it was because her head had been cut off by Horus, not because he had pulled her crown off, that Thoth provided her with a cow’s head. And, as a final instance, the birth of Harpocrates,* to which Plutarch attaches no signifi- cance, is of the greatest importance, for it was he (in one version of the story, at any rate) who rose up in the place of his father.

A papyrus of the late period (usually called the “Lamentations of Isis and Nephthys”) gives an account of the cries supposed to have been uttered

• “Varpocrates” is the Greek form of the Egyptian Hor-pa- khred, “ Horus the child”; and Plutarch’s statement that Harpo- crates was lame in his lower limbs is an erroneous inference from the form of the Egyptian hieroglyph for “ child,”

THE GODS OF THE OSIRID CYCLE 13

over the dead body of Osiris by his two sisters. The following extracts are sufficient to indicate their character :—

Isis says: Come to thy house, come to thy house, O god An, come to thy house! Thine enemies are no more. O beautiful ruler, come to thy house! Look upon me; I am thy sister whom thou lovest. Do not stay far from me, O beautiful youth. Come to thine | abode at once, at once. I see thee no longer; my heart aches for thee. Mine eyes search for thee, I seek to behold thee. Will it be long ereIseethee? O beautiful ruler, will it be long ere I see thee? Beholding thee is happiness. O god An, beholding thee is happiness. Come to her whom thou lovest. O Unnefer, triumphant, come to thy sister, come to thy wife. O motionless of heart, come to the lady of thy house. I am thy sister by thy mother; do not separate thyself from me. Gods and men turn their faces towards thee, weeping together for thee when they behold me. I call thee in lamenta- tions to the height of heaven, and thou hearest not my voice. Iam thy sister whom thou lovedst upon earth ; thou hast not loved another more than me, thy sister, thy sister.

Nephthys says: O beautiful ruler, come to thy house. Rejoice, all thine enemies are no more. Thy two sisters are near thee, behind thy funeral bed, calling thee with weeping, thou who art prostrate on thy funeral bed! Speak to us, our ruler, our lord. Chase away all the anguish that is in the hearts of us, thy sisters. O ruler, our lord ; the life of our faces is in seeing thy face; let not thy face be turned from our faces ; the joy of our hearts is to contemplate thee. O beautiful ruler, the desire of our hearts is to see thee. I am Nephthys, thy sister whom thou lovest. Thine enemy is vanquished ; he no longer exists. I am with thee, protecting thy limbs for ever and ever.

• • • %

Isis says: Come to thy house, come to thy house;

14 THE GODS OF THE OSIRID CYCLE

beautiful ruler, come to thy house. Come and behold thy son Horus as ruler of godsandmen. He hath taken possession of the cities and the nomes by the greatness of his might. Heaven and earth are in awe of him; the barbarians are in fear of him. Thy two sisters are near thee, pouring out libations to thy fa. Thy son Horus maketh to thee the funeral offering—bread, beer, oxen, and geese. Thoth chanteth thy festival songs, and invoketh thee with his glorifications. The children of Horus are the protection of thy limbs, making glorious thy soul every day. Thy son Horus saluteth thy name. The gods hold vases to pour out libations to thy a. Come to thy companions, our ruler, our lord ; do not be far from them ! a The only one of the numerous references to the Osiris story in native Egyptian literature which at all approaches the form of a narrative is found on a stele in Paris of the earlier part of the 18th Dynasty. On this we read: “ His sister made his protection, driving away enemies, warding off danger, taking the foe by the excellence of her speech, skilful of tongue, her word failed not, excellent in command, Isis effective in protecting her brother. Seeking him unweariedly, sadly going through this land, she stayed not until she found him. Then making a shadow with her pinions and causing a wind with her wings, she made the death cries for her brother, she raised up the weary limbs of the still-hearted, receiving his seed, bringing forth an heir, nursing the child in solitude, whose place is not known, introducing him when his arm grew strong into the House of Geb. The Company of the gods rejoice greatly when Horus the son of Osiris comes, he whose heart is established, the triumphant one, the son of Isis, the heir of Osiris.”

THE GODS OF THE OSIRID CYCLE 15

The inscription concludes with the assembly of the gods and the transmission of the sovereignty to Horus. Itisto be noted that throughout this recital there is not a word as to the wicked Set, nor as to the vengeance which he is supposed to have suffered at the hands of Horus. Osiris has some- how been killed, and by means of the magic power of Isis he is resuscitated, an heir is born to succeed — him ; and that is all! It is impossible to believe that an author who accepted the story as related by Plutarch would have omitted to introduce the con- flict immediately after he had related the bringing up of Horus by Isis. It is, moreover, to be noted that the heir in this story is Plutarch’s . Harpocrates, not the earlier born Horus, who succeeds in Plutarch’s account.

Lhe Conflict of Horus and Set

A very much older document than the stele just mentioned, preserved only in a badly mutilated copy of the 25th Dynasty, but now generally recog- nized as going back to the Old Kingdom, proves conclusively that the extremely ancient story of the fight between Horus and Set had originally no connection at all with the death of Osiris. In this account Horus and Set fight for the sovereignty over Egypt, and the conflict is ended by the arbi- tration of Geb, who assigns Upper Egypt to Set and Lower Egypt to Horus. Side by side with this account we have the legend of the death of Osiris by drowning, without the slightest reference to Set. Itis clear that here are two independent Stories; but Horus has already in some way become son of Osiris, which he could not originally

16 THE GODS OF THE OSIRID CYCLE

have been, and thus has been forged the first link in the chain which subsequently connected the two legends.

Another very early document also refers to a battle between Horus and Set which plainly has nothing to do with the death of Osiris. In chapter 17 of the Book of the Dead we read: “I make full the Eye when it waxeth dim on the day of battle between the two Opponents. What is that? The battle of the two Opponents is the day upon which Horus fighteth with Set, when he flingeth his filth upon the face of Horus, and when Horus seizeth upon the genitals of Set.”

The conception of Horus and Set as brothers is well exemplified in one of the scenes on the Sarcophagus of Seti I (19th Dynasty) in the Soane Museum, which has two representations of a double- headed god with the description “his two heads” (Plate 1a). One is the hawk head of Horus, and the other the head of the unknown animal identified with Set.

In the Pyramid Texts there are a large number of scattered references to the various gods of the Osiris myth, and here also there is clear evidence that the relations between Horus and Set were not such as they were later believed to be. Horus and Set were brother gods of a solar character, probably symbolizing day and night. Just as day and night may be regarded from one point of view as in eternal conflict, and from another point of view as alternating conditions peacefully existing side by side, so Horus and Set in the Pyramid Texts are shown at one time in deadly antagonism, and at another time in friendly co-operation. There is

PLATE I

The double-headed god: Horus and Set combined

(From the Sarcophagus of Seti I, Soane Museum)

The deities Shu, Tefnut, Geb, Nut, Osiris, Isis, Horus, and Hathor in the Barque of Ra (From the Papyrus of Nebseni, British Museum)

Facing p. 16

THE GODS OF THE OSIRID CYCLE 17

never the least suggestion that one is less worthy of respect than the other; both render the same kind of assistance to the dead. In the earliest of the texts, that of Unas, it is said: “Unas comes forth upon that ladder which his father Ra made for him; Horus and Set seize upon the hand of Unas ; they conduct him to the Duat.” And in another passage we read: “ Hail to thee, ladder of the god. Hail to thee, ladder of Set. Standup, ladder of the god. Stand up, ladder of Set. Stand up, ladder of Horus which is made for Osiris; he comes forth upon it to heaven.” Itis worth noting that Set is first mentioned wzthout Horus, and that when Horus is mentioned he comes after Set, instead of taking the first place as usual, leading to the very probable inference that Horus is here secondary, and that Set alone was at one time sup- posed to be in charge of the solar ladder.

Yet, notwithstanding that Horus and Set in these passages are equally friendly to the deceased king, in others the hostility between Set and Osiris is already fully established. In fact, almost every single incident in the Osiris myth as related by Plutarch is to be found in the texts, but the incidents are not brought into connection with each other, and it is quite a mistake to suppose that these separately related incidents bear witness to the existence of the myth in the pyramid age in the form in which Plutarch has handed it down to us. The truth rather is that different accounts, never intended by their authors to be read together, have been first of all put side by side without any attempt at reconciliation, and have been later

blended into a more or less consistent whole. In . Cc

18 THE GODS OF THE OSIRID CYCLE

one particular, at any rate, the texts have received a gloss which is really derived from Plutarch, but which makes them appear to give independent support to his story. We refer to the word which is constantly translated “avenger,” because it seemed to those who had read Plutarch specially appropriate that Horus should be called “avenger of his father.” There are some passages in which this sense is possible, many in which it is admittedly impossible, and none in which it is demanded by the context. It may be said with confidence that but for Plutarch it would never have occurred to anybody to so translate the word.*

Most of the statements in the Pyramid Texts relating to the death of Osiris are introduced by the search of Isis, either alone or together with her sister Nephthys, for the dead god which is so strongly insisted on in Plutarch and in the Paris text already quoted. We read, for instance: “Thou didst come seeking thy brother Osiris when his brother Set overthrew him upon his side (ges) on the further side (ges) of the land of Gehestz.” And again: “Isis comes, Nephthys comes, one of them on the right, one of them on the left, one of them as a Aat-bird, one of them asa falcon. They found Osiris when his brother Set felled (eda) him to the earth in Vedat.” And in another passage: “The at-bird comes, the falcon comes ; they are Isis and Nephthys; they come to embrace their brother Osiris…… Weep for thy brother, Isis ;

• The word in question is constantly used in passages referring to the good offices of Isis and Nephthys towards Osiris, where it must be translated by “ protect” or “assist,” since there is no record of these goddesses engaging in conflict with Set.

THE GODS OF THE OSIRID CYCLE 19

weep for thy brother, Nephthys; weep for thy brother. Isis sits, her hands upon her head. Isis and Nephthys seize the tips of their breasts [as a sign of mourning] because of their brother.” There are several interesting passages which name other gods beside Horus as assisting Osiris—a phase of the myth which does not appear in Plutarch, and which had probably been excluded in the process of harmonization. “Horus hath come that he might embrace thee,” says one passage. “Hehathcaused Thoth to turn back the followers of Set before thee…… He hath turned back the heart of Set before thee, for thou art greater than he…… Horus hath caused the gods to unite with thee and fraternize with thee. He hath caused that the gods protect thee. Geb hath placed his sandal on the head of thine enemy, who hath retreated beforethee. Thy son Horus hath smitten Es eae Horus hath protected thee.” And in another place Geb again appears. “Geb comes. cba. He adjudges te: countries to the embrace of Osiris when he finds him lying upon his side in Gehesti. Osiris, stand up before thy father Geb; he protects thee from Set.” “Geb gives to thee thine eyes…… Geb causes that Horus give them to 18 eae Thou seest Isis and Nephthys when they find thee. Horus makes offerings to thee. Horus causes that Isis and Nephthys assist thee.”

The following is perhaps the most direct reference to the death of Osiris in the Pyramid Texts, though it is not certain that Set is alluded to as the murderer: “Stand up, that thou mayest see what thy son hath done for thee. Awake, that thou | mayest hear what Horus hath done for thee. He

20 THE GODS OF THE OSIRID CYCLE

hath smitten for thee the one that smote thee; he hath slain for thee the one that slew thee.” We conclude these extracts with a passage which is of | special interest as being probably the original form of the trial to which Plutarch refers: ‘“ The sky is troubled, the earth trembles; Horus comes, Thoth appears. They lift Osiris from his side; they make him stand up before the two companies of gods. Remember, O Set, and put it in thy heart, this word which Geb spoke, and this manifestation which the gods made against you in the hall of the prince in Heliopolis, because thou didst fell Osiris to the earth……. Isis takes thy arm, Osiris ; Nephthys takes thy hand; and thou goest between them.”’ As we have already mentioned, Set ultimately fell into discredit ; but the process must have been avery gradual one. It had certainly begun under the 18th Dynasty, and there is evidence that it was not fully completed at the time of the Macedonian conquest. In documents written under the New Kingdom and later there is the most extraordinary confusion. Originally, Set as a solar god assisted in destroying the great serpent Apep (apparently personifying mist or cloud), who had to be over- come by Ra as he rose every morning: and he ended by being identified with that evil being! The two conceptions appear side by side in chapter 134 of the Book of the Dead. This chapter at first had to do with the destruction of Apep only. It opens with an address of the deceased to Ra: “ Hail to thee who art in the midst of thine Ark…… who overthroweth Apep. Here are the children of Geb who overthrow the adversaries of Osiris and destroy them from the Bark of Ra. Horus cutteth off their

THE GODS OF THE OSIRID CYCLE 21

heads in heaven when in the forms of winged fowl, their hinder parts on earth when in the forms of quadrupeds, or in the water as fishes.” The vig- nette to the chapter depicts a boat which originally contained the Heliopolitan company of gods: Tum, Shu, Tefnut, Geb, Nut, Osiris, Isis, Set, and Nephthys. Set is included under Thothmes III, but in the Papyrus of Nebseni we find Shu, Tefnut, Geb, Nut, Osiris, Isis, Horus, and Hathor (Plate Is). Here Set has disappeared; but even in copies of the chapter which still allow him a place in the boat he is mentioned (in what must be a later addition) as an enemy of Ra: “The Osiris N is Horus; his mother Isis bringeth him forth, and Nephthys nurseth him, as they did to Horus who repelleth the dark ones of Set.” The chapter there- fore passed through at least three stages: (1) Set was in the boat of Ra as one of the destroyers of Apep; (2) Set was in the boat assisting Ra, and was also mentioned in the text as an enemy of ka; (3) He was removed from the boat.

In a passage of chapter 17 of the Book of the Dead, which we give in full later (Chapter XI), Set was actually called a “Lord of Righteousness” ; but Thoth began to take his place in the 18th Dynasty (as, for instance, in the Papyrus of Yuau). Both here and in chapter 134 Set had disappeared and left no trace by the time of the Turin Papyrus, but even in this late copy he is still not altogether without honour. In the assimilation of the limbs (chapter 42) he is the deity to whom the deceased’s belly and back-bone are assimilated, but with the variant reading “Thoth.”

We have already noticed (p. 7) “the Book of

22 ~THE GODS OF THE OSIRID CYCLE

Overthrowing Apep”’; this document has a colo- phon written while Ptolemy I was ruling in the name of the puppet son of Alexander the Great ; but it is, in part at least, a copy of much more ancient material, as its treatment of Set testifies. Scattered about in it are many references to Set. Apep is thus addressed :—

“The great company of the gods who dwell in Heliopolis make thee to retreat quickly. Horus maketh thy accursed crocodile to go backwards, and Set hath paralysed thee at the moment of thy power. Isis hath repulsed thee, Nephthys hath made gashes in thee, and the great company of the gods who dwell in the fore part of the boat of Ra make thee to go back. The staff of Set is upon thy neck, and the sons of Horus drive their spears into thee. The gods who guard the secret doors drive thee back, and flames rush out against thee from their fire.”

“The spear of Horus cometh forth against thee, and the fetters of Set are placed on thy head.”

“Thou art [given over] to Set, the son of Nut, who fettereth thy back and rippeth open thy neck, and tieth thee to the victorious neck-stake which is in his hands.”

“The blaze of Horus and the Eye of Ra work against thee. Set hath driven his lance into thy head.”

Nothing could be plainer than that the author of these sentences regarded Set as a most important solar god, exactly as did the authors of the Pyramid Texts. This attitude must have been a puzzle to the scribes who copied the work later, and it is Strange that some of them did not boldly eliminate

THE GODS OF THE OSIRID CYCLE 23

the name, as had been done long before (though not consistently) in the Book of the Dead. But they did something much less reasonable. It was ’ the practice to write the names of evil beings in red, and in the first of the four passages quoted above the name of Set isso written. Thus, by the method of writing his name, he is classed with the enemies of Ra, whom, according to the text, he is engaged in destroying! In the other passages the name has been left in black as originally written.

CHAPTER IV

OTHER GODS OF THE PANTHEON

DurinG the whole period of Egypt’s greatest prosperity, from the driving out of the Hyksos at the beginning of the 18th Dynasty to the middle of the 19th, excepting the short triumph of Atenism, the most extensively worshipped of all the gods was Amen. It has been thought by some that Amen was known in Lower Egypt under the Old Kingdom, and undoubtedly a god of that name appears in the Pyramid Texts and is also indicated by certain personal names. It is, however, more probable that this deity was of independent origin ; and if the name of Amen is etymologically identical with the word “amen ”—to hide—it would be quite easy for two gods of that name to be evolved independently of each other. The later Amen was the local god of Thebes, in Upper Egypt, and it is hardly likely that he could have become known so far north until a much later period. We have no information as to the characteristics of Amen at the earliest period of Egyptian history; and, indeed, he was of so little account that the people of Hermonthis, quite close at hand, regarded the war- god Mentu as their principal divinity. Amen does not come fully into view until the kings of his native city were firmly established on the throne, and he had become, in consequence, the head of 24 -

OTHER GODS OF THE PANTHEON 25

the Pantheon. By this time he was completely identified with the sun-god Ra, and his name was frequently written Amen-Ra. Like Ra, he was the great creator of gods and men, and the adora- tion paid to him in this character is well exempli- fied by the famous Cairo Hymn to Amen, with which we deal in Chapter VI.

The consort of Amen was generally known as Mut. As the word mut is also a common noun meaning “ mother,” it is to be presumed that the goddess was so called to indicate that she was the great mother of all creation, though it has been

• suggested that the coincidence was merely fortuitous.

In any case, like most of the goddesses, she had little personality of her own. The son of Amen and Mut was Khensu, who has very distinct lunar characteristics, and therefore came to be identified not only with Aah (whose name means “ moon,” just as Ra means “sun”), but also with Thoth, the much more important god of learning, including measuring, and of the moon, the earliest time- measurer known to man.

Amen was frequently identified with the very early god of Coptos (another town of Upper Egypt), about whose name there is, some doubt, though it is usually read Min. This god was the personification of the generative power in nature, and the crude ithyphallic representations of him have been frequently obliterated by the Christian Egyptians. He wasalso identified with Horus and

’ other gods.

Although the act of creation might be attri- buted to any great god, there were two deities whose special function it was supposed to be

4

26 OTHER GODS OF THE PANTHEON

—viz., Ptah and Khnum. These deities were originally the local gods respectively of Memphis, at the apex of the Delta (the earliest capital of Egypt, and always an important city), and of Elephantine, in the extreme south, whence the Nile issued from his mysterious cavern. Originally, of course, the worshippers of the one knew nothing of the other ; but when the assimilation of the local cults had taken place Egypt was provided with two gods of almost precisely similar functions. Also, of course, they were, nominally at least, brought into subordination to other great gods, and were said to have acted under the commands of Ra or Thoth, or some other divinity. But this did not prevent those who were specially devoted to one or other from addressing each of them with all the laudatory epithets due to a supreme god. For the Memphites and those who adopted their doctrines, Ptah was not merely not subordinate to any other god—he was supreme. In a hymn of the New Kingdom the compound god Ptah-Tenen (Tenen having been identified with Ptah at an early period) is given every conceivable divine attribute. The great sun-god Ra is actually called his son, and the light is said to come forth from his two eyes. He is the author of the winds and the waters, and the crops are said to come out of his back (an expression especially applicable to the earth-god Geb). He was the former of his own limbs, without father or mother, the begetter of men, the creator of the gods. Ptah was also united with Seker, the Memphite god of the dead, and with Osiris, who absorbed the functions of all the gods of the dead, to form the compound deity Ptah-Seker-Osiris.

OTHER GODS OF THE PANTHEON 27

Khnum, equally, was all these things ; but he was especially the god of the Nile. While Ptah made the fertilizing river to come forth, Khnum was the Nile, and hence was identified with Hapi, the Nile personified. In connection with this aspect of him there is an interesting story that has come down to us of a king of the 3rd Dynasty, in an inscription discovered in 1889. The document is, however, of Ptolemaic times, though it doubt- less embodies some traditions of an earlier period. That the text in its present form is late is clear from the statement that the deities dwelling in the temple of Khnum are the goddesses Sothis and Anget, and the gods Hapi, Shu, Geb, Nut, Osiris, Horus, Isis, and Nephthys. Such a combination would have been impossible under the Old King- dom, nor could such a list at that time have failed to include Set. According to the inscription, in the reign of king Zoser there was a seven years’ famine. Several instances of such an occurrence are recorded by the Arab historians, and a similar event was evidently known to the author of the Joseph story in Genesis. When death was stalk- ing through the land owing to the failure of the inundation, the king sent to a great officer of the south to inquire where the Nile rose and who was its god. On receiving the officer’s reply he made supplication to Khnum, and finally the god appeared to him in a dream (an incident which is found in another Ptolemaic inscription), complained

• that his shrine was neglected, and promised that for the future the Nile should rise regularly at its due season. The king hastened to make munificent provision for the offended deity, and

28 OTHER GODS OF THE PANTHEON

we may assume that prosperity returned to the land.

Another divinity who acquired accidental impor- tance from political causes was the goddess Neith. She was the deity of Sais in the Delta, and hence She rose to power when the kings of that town became sovereigns of all Egypt as the 26th Dynasty. But the references to her in the Pyramid Texts prove that her worship was of great antiquity. Her son, the crocodile-god Sebek, is said to rise from the horizon, from which it is clear that she was regarded as the sky-goddess giving birth to the sun; and indeed in later texts she is constantly referred to as the mother of Ra. From the signs used in writing her name, Neith has been supposed to be a goddess of weaving or of the chase ; but the mere use of a particular sign is a very unsafe ground on which to base a theory as to the character of a divinity. Neith was believed, according to the earliest view of her, to produce the sun without the aid of a male partner; but later she was paired with Khnum and Amen, and even represented as suckling Horus! .

Thoth is a very ancient god, who appears some- times in the Pyramid Texts, as we have already seen, in connection with the Heliopolitan Ennead. Finally, he assumed many characteristics, but all more or less connected with the notions of learning

and scholarship, and probably derived ultimately’

from the idea of measuring. Ra and Thoth—that is to say, the sun and moon—were the two com- panions travelling across the sky, and the moon was the earliest measurer of time. Thoth was the

\

OTHER GODS OF THE PANTHEON 29

scribe of the gods, and he records the result of the weighing of the heart in the judgment of the dead. Hence he was the patron of all scribes, and prayers to him were inscribed on the scribes’ palettes. He was the inventor of the hieroglyphs (“lord of divine words”) and the author of the sacred books; he was learned in the magical formulae, and hence (according to one view) even the great enchantress Isis had to be taught her spells by him. Among other attributes Thoth is “lord of law,” and in this capacity he judges between Horus and Set, though the same function is attributed to Geb, in the early mythological text in the British Museum. Both the ibis and the ape are found associated with Thoth as sacred animals, and the ape usually sits on the beam of the balance in the weighing of the heart.

The goddess Maat (as her very name implies) is a goddess of law, and therefore naturally became the wife of Thoth when the independent cults were amalgamated. She was said to regulate the path of the sun, and she and Thoth stood on either side of Horus when he steered the bark of Ra. Usually, however, when Thoth is regarded as the god of writing, as on the scribes’ palettes, he is associated with Sefekh-abu (or Sesheta, the read- ing is doubtful), “lady of writing, mistress of the house of books.” That it should have been neces- sary to provide Thoth with a different companion according to the particular aspect of him which was ~ in evidence is sufficient indication that the relation-

ship was an artificial one.

The goddess Hathor was a very ancient deity, who combined in herself a number of diverse and

30 OTHER GODS OF THE PANTHEON

doubtless originally distinct elements. Her name means literally “ House of Horus,” which would make her a personification of the sky, Horus being a sun-god. In the legend of the Destruction of Mankind she appears as a destroying power acting on behalf of Ra. Whatever her primary character, she came in the end to be the goddess of love and all kinds of joy. In one aspect, she was the determiner of human destiny, as we know from references in two Egyptian tales. In the Tale of the Two Brothers the god Khnum, at the command of Ra-~Harmachis, made a wife for the younger brother, who “was more beautiful in her limbs than any woman in the whole land, for every god was in her.” When “the seven Hathors” came to look upon this lovely creature, they said with one voice: “She will die a violent death.” Similarly in the Tale of the Doomed Prince, the Hathors (number not stated, but doubtless the seven) predict that the hero will die “either by a crocodile, a serpent, or a dog.” At the very end of Egyptian history Hathor underwent a most curious development. For countless generations men and women alike, when they died, were assimilated to Osiris; but in Roman times women were supposed to become Hathors. We know nothing of why a change was thought necessary, nor why Hathor should have been selected for this purpose rather than Isis, who would seem, as the wife of Osiris, to be more appropriate. It may be that some of the priests were struck with the absurdity of assimilating women to a male divinity, and that Hathor was chosen out of all the goddesses because she presided over the western mountain in

we

“1 i

Lon

ae

=

z =}

PLATE Il

5

looking out from the

———————— il IN Western Mountain

Scene of Hathor, in the form of a Cow, (From the Papyrus of Ani, British Museum)

Facing p. 31

OTHER GODS OF THE PANTHEON 31

which the dead were buried. The copies of the Book of the- Dead of the Theban age usually end with a scene of Hathor as a cow looking out from the mountain (Plate II). ;

CHAPTER V

LEGENDS OF THE GODS

Tue legends that have come down to us respecting the Egyptian gods have been in the main preserved on account of their supposed magical efficacy. The dominant belief of the Egyptian in all ages—not merely in late times, as was formerly supposed— lay in magic. If the appropriate formula could be found, there was nothing that could not be accomplished. Whatever people such as the author of the famous Hymn to Amen may have thought, in the view of the ordinary man nobody could resist the proper formula. A man could control a god, or any number of gods, and gods could control one another. Isis, as we shall see, got the better of Ra, though, according to another story, she could secure the restoration to life of her son Horus only by praying to Ra to send down Thoth. Naturally, the most powerful spells of all were those that had been used by the gods, and he who could avail himself of them was the best equipped for producing magical results. Hence the legends which recounted the use of these magical spells—and which legends, of course, were themselves the product of the Egyptian’s belief in magic—were inscribed in tombs for the benefit of the dead, or were written on papyri as an equipment for the magician who desired to 32

. LEGENDS OF THE GODS 33

produce the same results as a god or goddess had produced on the occasion to which the legend relates.

One of the most interesting legends is that generally known as the Destruction of Mankind, which is found in a mutilated state in the tomb of Seti lI. Thestory opens with the complaint of men that Ra had become old—a disability from which even gods were not exempt, according to the Egyp- tian belief, as we see also in the story of Ra and Isis. “Behold, his majesty has grown old,” men are represented as saying, “and his bones are like silver, his limbs like gold, and his hair like real lapis lazuli.”* Ra heard the complaints of men and decided to consult the other gods, whom he ordered to be brought to him. He addressed Nu as “the eldest of the gods, from whom I have my existence,” told him that men were uttering com- plaints, and asked for advice, for he will not slay them until he has heard what the other gods have to say about it. To which Nu replied: “Oson Ra, god greater than he who made him, mightier than his creator, let thine Eye be against those who have blasphemed thee.” Ra replied that the men had retreated into the desert, being afraid because of the words which they had uttered. The point of this observation is not clear, but apparently Ra doubted whether his power could reach them in the desert. The gods reply again, urging that the Eye should go forth, and assuring Ra that it is irresistible when it descends in the form of the goddess Hathor. Then Hathor went forth

• Possibly the text is corrupt at this point, as similar expressions

are elsewhere used when glorifying the gods. D

34 LEGENDS OF THE GODS

and slew the men who had betaken themselves to the desert. At this point the text is slightly damaged, but it is clear that Ra addressed Hathor with the object of bringing the destruction to an end. Hathor was evidently anxious to continue the slaughter, for she told Ra that it was “sweet to her heart” to have the mastery over men. But Ra answered : “I will master them as king by destroy- ing them,” It is difficult to seize exactly the course of the narrative immediately after this point, but it is concerned with the making ofa large quantity of beer. Some fruit (conjecturally rendered “man- drakes”’) is brought to Ra, and this he ordered to be crushed. ‘And when the slaves were bruising the grain to make beer these mandrakes were placed in the vessels with the blood of the men ; and there were made 7,000 vessels of beer.” Ra came with the gods to see the beer, and he said: “It is doubly good ; I will protect men against her” (i.e., the destroying goddess Hathor). Then the beer was poured out under cover of night, so that it might attract the attention of Hathor when she came in the morning. She found the “inunda- tion” of beer as Ra had anticipated: “beautiful was her face therein. She drank, and her heart rejoiced… She reached a state of drunkenness, and she no longer cared anything about men!”

We see from the above that it was necessary for even the great Ra to resort to very human methods indeed to keep the goddess Hathor in order. Although she is described as “his Eye,” and he orders her to effect the destruction of men, never- theless she has an independent volition, and it is only by taking advantage of her love of strong

_ LEGENDS OF THE GODS 35

drink that Ra can stop the slaughter when he thinks it has gone far enough! We find a similar conflict of wills in the story of Ra and Isis, which is preserved in a papyrus at Turin. This is entitled “The Spell (or chapter) of the god who created himself, the maker of heaven and earth, of the breath of life, fire, gods, men, animals, cattle, reptiles, birds, and fishes ; king of men and gods;

_ having many names which are not known, (even)

the gods do not know them.” It tells that Isis was learned in incantations, and she meditated in her heart how she might know the name of the august god and be like Ra in heaven and earth. So she resolved to find out the name by means of her magic arts. ‘Now Ra had become old and he slobbered at the mouth; his emisstons went forth upon the earth, and his saliva fell upon the ground. Isis kneaded it in her hand with earth; she moulded it into an august serpent, and she made it in the form of a dart so that none could escape alive from it.” (Isis left it on the road where the great god would pass on his daily journey, and when he came forth the next day he was bitten by the serpent, and “ the living fire” (i.e., the vital force) began to leave him. “The god opened his mouth, the voice of his majesty reached to heaven. His associate gods said ‘what is it?’; his gods said ‘what has happened?’ But he could not find words to answer them. His jaw fell, all his limbs

trembled ; the poison seized upon his body as the

Nile seizes upon his channel. The great god made firm his heart. He called out to those who were in his train: ‘ Come ye to me who have been pro- duced from my limbs, the gods who have come

36 LEGENDS OF THE GODS

forth from me, and I will tell you what has happened. I have been wounded by a deadly thing. I know it in my heart, but my eyes have not seen it…… I have never tasted pain like this; there is nothing more grievous than it. I ama noble, the son of a noble; a great one, the son of a great one. My father meditated deeply upon my name; I have many names and many forms, my form is in every god; I am called Tum and Horus-hekennu. My father and my mother pronounced my name and hid it in my body at my birth, so that an enchanter of enchantments should have no power over me. _ I had come forth from my abode and was passing through the two lands which I have made, and behold there was an attack upon me. Ido not know what itis. It is not fire, it is not water. My heart is full of fire, my limbs tremble, my body is full of pain. Let there be brought to me my children, the gods skilled in words, whose mouths are cunning, whose powers reach to heaven.’” Now was the time for Isis to reap her reward. She at once came forward with information as to the injury, of course con- cealing her own part in the matter. “A serpent has put sickness into thee; one of thy creatures has raised its head against thee. Behold, it shall be overthrown by beneficent incantations. I will cause it to depart from the sight of thy rays.” Then follows an apparently quite unnecessary speech of Ra, repeating what he has already said, but introducing the serpent of which Isis has just told him: “I was passing on my way going through the two lands, for my heart wished to see what I had created, when I was bitten by a serpent

‘LEGENDS OF THE GODS 37

which I did not see. It is not fire, it is not water ; I am colder than water, Iam hotter than fire. All my limbs are full of sweat, I tremble, my eye is unsteady, I cannot see the sky, water cometh out upon my face as if it were summer.” Isis now asks the god to tell his name: “Tell me thy name, father god; for the person lives whose name has been uttered!” The god, of course, sees that the purpose behind the request is not his restoration, but the establishment over him of the power of Isis ; and he therefore seeks to put her off with a long string of epithets which do not contain the real name: “I am the maker of heaven and earth and the builder of the mountains, the creator of that which exists…… I have placed the souls of the gods in them. I am he the opening of whose eyes makes the light and the shutting of whose eyes makes the darkness. The water of the Nile rises when he commands. Even the gods do not know his name. I am the maker of the hours, the bringer into existence of the days. I am the ordainer of the yearly festivals, the creator of the waters…… I am Khepera in the morning, Ra at noonday, and Tum in the evening.” But all this pretence did not impose upon the wily Isis ; what the god had pronounced were well-known names, and useless for the purpose of magical incantations. Isis was determined to gain knowledge of the secret name which the god had already said “was hidden in his body at his birth.” The narrative proceeds: “The poison was not repulsed in its course, and the great god felt no better. Then Isis said to Ra: ‘Thy name has not been declared among the things which thou hast said tome. O

38 LEGENDS OF THE GODS

tell it unto me and the poison shall come forth, for the person lives whose name has been uttered.’ The poison burned as a burning fire, and its heat was greater than that of a burning flame.” Ra now gave up the struggle, and said: “I will allow that I may be searched by Isis, and my name shall come forth from my body into her body.” Then Ra hid himself from the gods, and his throne in the Boat of Millions of Years (the boat in which Ra traverses the sky) was empty. What happened at the searching by Isis, and what name it was that passed _ from the body of the god where it was hidden, the scribe does not record. He merely tells us: “The great god was deprived of his name, and Isis the great one of enchantments said: ‘ Flow poison and come forth from Ra……. I have made to fall on the ground the poison which has been conquered. Verily, the great god has been deprived of his name. Ra lives and the poison dies. A certain man, the son of a certain woman, lives and the poison dies.’ Thus spake Isis, the great one, the mistress of the gods, who knew Ra by his very own name. Say the words over an image of Tum and Horus-Hekennu, an image of Isis, and an image of Horus.”

Some extremely interesting legends have been preserved by the Metternich Stela, which is the largest and best known of the stelz called Cippi of Horus. These stele were placed at the doors of houses to protect the inhabitants from the bites of serpents and other venomous creatures, which have always been a terror in Egypt. The legends are mostly concerned with the story of Isis and Horus ; and one of the most intelligible of them begins with

’ LEGENDS OF THE GODS 39

a speech of Isis: “I am Isis who conceived by her

husband, and became pregnant with Horus. I

gave birth to Horus, the son of Osiris, in the

papyrus swamp. I rejoiced exceedingly because I

saw that he would make answer for his father. I

‘hid him and concealed him.” But, notwithstanding

the concealment, Isis returned home one day to find

that Horus had been stung. “He had watered the

ground with the water of his eye and with the foam

of his lips. His body was motionless, his heart

was powerless, and the muscles of his limbs were

helpless.” On making this discovery Isis called

to the people to assist her; they came out of their

houses and bewailed with her, but there was none

who could make the child live. Then a woman

came and declared that Horus should live and that

he had been stung by ascorpion. The narrative

continues with what appears to be taken from

another story, as the incidents more or less overlap

those already related. Isis placed her nose in the

mouth of Horus to ascertain if he still breathed, and

on examining the wound found that there was poison

init. Then she embraced Horus and jumped about

with him “as fish leap when they are laid upon the

fire.’ “Horus is bitten, O Ra,” she cried; “thy

son is bitten.t Horus is bitten, the Heir, the lord

of the sovereignty of Shu. Bitten is the beautiful

child of gold; the babe is not. Horus, the son of

Unnefer, is bitten. Horus, who is without abomina-

tion, is bitten, the son, the youth among the gods.

Horus is bitten, he for whom I prepared, because

I saw that he would make answer for his father.

This is an interesting instance of the complete identification of Osiris and Ra.

40 LEGENDS OF THE GODS

Horus is bitten, he for whom I had fear when he was in the womb of his mother. Horus whom I guarded is bitten. I have desired the life of his heart. The child is wounded; the babe is destroyed.” Then Nephthys came weeping, and also the goddess Serqet ; and they advised Isis to pray to heaven that the boatmen of Ra might stop. Isis sent forth her voice, and the boat descended, and there came forth Thoth, who is provided with spells, and who gives the great command with authority of voice. Thoth tells Isis that he has come to heal Horus for his mother, “and every person who is under the knife (i.e., every person for whom the spell was recited) in a similar manner.” Isis again bewails the fate of the child, and Thoth assures her that all will be well. He then recites a series of formule identifying Horus with a number of mythological personages: “Horus is protected as he who is in his Disk, and who lights up the Two Lands with the glory of his eyes”; and soon. Thespeechcontinues: “Wake up, Horus; thy protection is established; thou shalt make happy the heart of thy mother Isis. The words of Horus shall bind up hearts; he shall cause to be at peace him who is in affliction…… I am Thoth the eldest, the son of Ra. Tum and his company have commanded me to heal Horus for his mother Isis, and to heal him that is under the knife also…… Horus lives for his mother, and he who is under the knife also (shall live).”

This legend is in remarkable contrast with the story of Ra and Isis by reason of its representation of Isis as helpless in the presence of the death of her beloved son Horus. It is true that scattered

LEGENDS OF THE GODS Al

about here and there are phrases which imply that Isis was the great mistress of spells, but these are clearly no part of the original narrative. In the mind of the author it was Thoth alone who possessed magical healing power, and such refer- ences to the power of Isis as exist in the present form of the story must be interpolations belonging to a totally different view of the goddess. Accord- ing to that view (as we have seen), she was more powerful than the great Ra himself, not only making a serpent which could poison the god, but also healing him when he had paid her price by _ disclosing his name.

CHAPTER VI HENOTHEISM AND MONOTHEISM

As we have seen, the complicated polytheism of the

Egyptians wasconstantly undergoing modifications

through the assimilation of certain of the deities to

others. But there also developed at an early date

a rationalizing form of thought to which Professor

Max Miiller has given the name of Henotheism,

though not, of course, with any special reference to

the Egyptian religion. Henotheism (the belief in

one god, as opposed to Monotheism, or the beliefin

a sole god) is thus described: ‘“ Each god is to the

mind of the suppliant as good as allthe gods. He

_ is felt at the time as a real divinity, as supreme. and absolute, in spite of the necessary limitations

which, to our mind, a plurality of gods must entail

on every single god. All the rest disappear from

the vision of the poet, and he only who is to fulfil

their desires stands in full light before the eyes of the worshippers.”

A very early record of this phase of religious thought has been preserved on the tablet in the British Museum already mentioned (p. 15). The inscription comes from the great temple of Ptah at Memphis, and its purpose is to attribute all power to the great Memphite god. It is difficult to arrive at a complete understanding of the text, but the following typical passage is quite clear and free

42

HENOTHEISM AND MONOTHEISM 43

from lacune: “He (i.e. Ptah) formed the gods; he made the cities, he organized the nomes. He placed the gods in their shrines, he made their offerings to flourish, he equipped their holy places. He made their bodies to the satisfaction of their hearts. Then the gods entered into their bodies —of every wood and every stone and every metal.”

Of later compositions, one of the best known is the Hymn to Amen-Ra in the Cairo Museum, which is attributed to the 19th Dynasty or later. It is written throughout in a high moral tone, and, with very slight alterations, might pass for the utterance of a modern Theist. The language is simple and direct, and, apart from a few short passages, presents no difficulties to the trans- lator :—

Hail to thee, Ra, Lord of Law :

whose shrine is hidden, Lord of the gods:

Khepera in the midst of his boat :

whose word didst decree the becoming of the gods: ’ Tum, maker of the people:

determining the fashion of them, making their susten-

ance,

distinguishing the complexion of one from another :

hearing the prayer of him who is in evil case:

compassionate of heart when one cries unto him :

delivering the timid one from the overbearing :

judging between the mighty man and the humble :

Lord of Intelligence, wise are his decrees :

the Nile comes as he desireth :

(Lord of kindness, great one of love :)

it (the Nile) comes to preserve alive the people :

The gods exult in his glories :

their hearts live when they see him :

44 HENOTHEISM AND MONOTHEISM

Hidden (amen) is his name from those whom he hath formed :

in this his name of Amen:

Hail to thee who art in peace :

Lord of dilation of heart (joy), mighty in his appear- ances :

Lord of the wverit-crown, lifting up the double plume :

beautiful of diadem, lifting up the white crown:

the gods rejoice to see thee :

the double crown is established upon thy brow :

thy love goeth throughout the two lands (Egypt) :

thy beams shoot forth from thy two eyes :

Men glory in thy rising :

living creatures are made languid by thy (overpower- ing) rays:

thy love is in the southern heaven :

thy kindness in the northern heaven :

thy glories take captive all hearts :

thy love paralyses the arms :

thy wonderful creation makes weak the hands :

all hearts are softened at the sight of thee :

One Image making all which is :

One alone making that which exists :

men came forth from his two eyes :

his decree brought the gods into being :

maker of pasture whereby the cattle live:

staff of life of mankind :

making the sustenance of the fishes in the water :

the feathered fowl in the air:

giving breath to that which is within the egg:

making to live the son of the worm:

making that on which the gnats live:

the reptiles and the insects likewise :

supplying the needs of the mice in their holes :

causing to live the birds in every tree :

Hail to thee who hast made all these:

One alone, but with many hands:

he lieth awake watching when all men sleep :

that he may search out the good of his creatures :

O Amen enduring in all things :

|

HENOTHEISM AND MONOTHEISM 45

Tum, Horus of the two horizons :

adoration to thee by all voices together :

acclamations to thee for thy sojourning among us :

prostration before thee since thou hast created us :

all creatures give hail to thee:

every land acclaims thee :

to the height of heaven :

to the breadth of earth :

to the depths of the sea :

the gods bend the back to thy majesty :

exalting the mighty forces of their creator :

rejoicing in meeting their begetter :

they say to thee, Come, come, in peace :

Father of the fathers of all the gods:

raiser of the heaven, fixer of the earth:

maker of that which is, creator of that which exists :

O sovereign (life, health, strength !), chief of the gods :

we adore thy mighty forces because thou hast made us:

thou hast made us and thou hast formed us:

we -make acclamation to thee for thy sojourning among us:

Hail to thee, maker of everything which is :

Lord of Law, Father of the gods:

maker of men, creator of beasts :

lord of the corn-grains :

making to live the wild beasts which are in the mountain.

We thus see that, from the earliest times, it was possible for a worshipper to exalt the god to whom he gave special adoration almost to the position of the monotheistic god; but there was never any thought of denying that the other gods were equally important. That this was so is admitted by all scholars when an individual god is referred to by name as Ptah and Amen in the works quoted above. But it is argued by many Egyptologists that the Egyptians believed not merely in the gods but also in God, the gods being either his sub-

46 HENOTHEISM AND MONOTHEISM

ordinates or, according to another view, aspects of his all-pervading will. That such an explanation of Egyptian thought could ever have been put forward at all by competent scholars is a most interesting example of the influence of the social environment, since the evidence is so prepon- deratingly against it.

This will appear from a consideration of some of the documents which are used to support the doctrine. The Precepts of Ptah-hetep (said to have been written under the 5th Dynasty, but probably not older than the 11th) are largely drawn upon for this purpose by Sir Ernest Budge, who quotes the following among others: “The eating of bread is according to the plan of God.” “Thou shalt not put terror into men and women ; God is opposed: thereto.” “Labour in the field which God hath given.” “What is loved of God is obedience ; disobedience God hateth.” “ Verily, a good son is of the gifts of God.”* There has been recently made available for study in the fine series of British Museum publications a work of a similar character to that attributed to Ptah-hetep— the Teaching of Amen-em-apt (“Amen in Apt,” a part of Thebes). Among the passages quoted from this Teaching by Sir Ernest in the Preface are these: “ Leave the wicked man to the hand of God, for it may be God’s will to show him further mercy.” “ Better is six feet of ground which God hath given thee than five thousand feet obtained by fraud.” “Better is the morsel begged from the hand of God than the strong meats from a rich

• Budge, The Gods of the Egyptians (1904), vol. i, p. 123.

HENOTHEISM AND MONOTHEISM 47

man’s table.” “Though a man prepares the straw (for building his house), God is his architect ; it is He who throweth down and buildeth up.” *

Now it must be admitted that these precepts

(especially when “God” is written with a capital

G!) do strongly suggest to the modern mind that

the writer believed in some power very like the

Christian God. But this feeling is purely the

result of association of ideas. When we have

always known such teachings as those of Ptah-

hetep and Amen-em-apt to be associated with

belief in “God,” it requires a considerable mental

effort to connect them witha “ god”; and this quite

independently of whether we ourselves believe in

any such being or not. The Egyptian, however,

did not read the words with this preconception,

as will be evident after an examination of one or

two expressions which he constantly used. Let

us take, for example, the word for “temple,” ~eter-

hatt, literally “the house of the god.” Here it is

certain that we are dealing not with the mono-

theistic “God,” but solely with “the gods,” to

whom alone temples were dedicated. A particular

temple might be “the house of Amen” or “the

house of Ptah”; but when no specific reference

was made to an individual building a temple was

“the house of the god.” Another expression with

the same connotation is found on the sepulchral

stele. It was customary to make an appeal to

the passers-by to utter a pious wish for the benefit

’ of the deceased, and, according to the more usual

Budge, Facsimiles of Egyptian Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum (2nd series ; 1923). See also the chapter on “ Egyptian Monotheism ” in Budge’s Tutankhamen (1923).

48 HENOTHEISM AND MONOTHEISM

form, they are assured “your gods will reward you”; but occasionally the scribe varied the expression and said “your god will reward you.” It would be absurd to suggest that in a formula of this character any fundamental difference of mean- ing is implied by the use of the singular rather than the plural. The real explanation is much simpler. When the plural was used the scribe was thinking of the totality of gods to which the passers-by might be supposed to be devoted ; in the rarer case when he employed the singular he made reference to the god specially favoured by each separate individual. To tell the devotee of Amen that he would be rewarded by Osiris, or the worshipper of Ptah that he would receive recompense from Anubis, would not be the most effective form of appeal, but the general word “god” was equally suitable for all.

If, indeed, the worship of one sole God distinct from the gods really formed part of the Egyptian religion, it is difficult, if not impossible, to under- stand how Amen-Ra and other gods could have been addressed in the language which we have seen was used towards them. If it was the omni- potent God of the universe (the monotheistic God) who forbade “ putting terror into men and women,” how does it come about that Amen (one of the mere “gods”) “delivers the timid one from the overbearing,” and “judges between the mighty man and the humble”? Such an attitude of the worshipper is as unthinkable as that a modern European should pray to the African Mumbo- jumbo. To account for the utterances of the author of the Hymn to Amen-Ra we should have

HENOTHEISM AND MONOTHEISM 49

to suppose that he was still in the stage of ascribing to a “god” that which more enlightened persons ascribed to “God” alone—an explanation which is fatal to the contention that belief in “God” was a recognized part of the Egyptian religion. But the case is much stronger even than this, for it can be shown that Amen-em-apt himself (whose Teaching is claimed as evidence of Egyptian monotheism) spoke of Thoth (to whom as a scribe he was, of course, specially devoted) in just the same way as he did of “God.” Here are some sentences from his chapter xv: “Do not falsify documents for the benefit of the fraudulent, for the beak of the Ibis (Thoth) is the finger of the scribe.” “The Ape of Hermopolis sitteth, and his eye goeth around the two lands (Egypt); if he sees him doing evil with his finger, he will snatch away his provisions.” “Tf the scribe doeth evil with his finger, his son will not be inscribed in the registers; but if thou pass thy period of existence with these things in thy heart, then thou shalt behold thy children.” It will not be denied that the moral tone of these passages is just as high as is that of the precepts which are alleged to refer to “God”; and yet here palpably there is no question of any other being than Thoth, who is identified with his well-known animal embodiments—the ibis and the ape. The perfect identity between Amen-em-apt’s state of mind towards “God” and towards a “god” is still further shown by a curious parallelism of _phrase. In chapter xv (as already quoted) he says that “the beak of the Ibis (Thoth) is the finger of the scribe,” while in chapter xxiv we

are told that “the heart of man is the nose of God E

50 HENOTHEISM AND MONOTHEISM

(or a god).” The parallelism is not merely in the sentiment, but also in the grammar: there are six words in each case, and the construction is identical. If Amen-em-apt had foreseen the possibility of his treatise being interpreted in a monotheistic sense, he could not have provided a clearer refutation.

CHAPTER VII

THE HERESY OF THE DISK- ~ WORSHIPPERS

WE now approach the most profoundly interesting of ali the phases of Egyptian religion—a phase associated with the beliefs of a man whom we can more or less clearly visualize, and the development of whose thought we can trace almost from year to year. This man was the “heretic” king Amen- hetep IV, or, as he later called himself, Akh-en- Aten, whose son-in-law’s tomb has been so dra- matically and unexpectedly discovered at Thebes. Although the main facts relating to the worship of Aten or the Disk are not very difficult to trace, the contradictions among the writers on the subject are most confusing to the general reader, and might almost lead him to think that very little is definitely known. These contradictions are due in part to the inevitable differences in inter- pretation of the evidence, but in part also to writers stating as facts what appear to them to be natural inferences from the facts, which inferences other and equally competent students refuse to accept. For instance, it has been stated in the ‘most unqualified way that Akh-en-Aten was a monotheist, and that Aten was for him not a mere “god” but the God of the universe. As we shall see later, such a view is admissible only for the } 51

52 HERESY OF THE DISK-WORSHIPPERS

very latest phase of the heresy, and is not clearly demonstrated even for that period. In fact, opinion would appear to be still largely influenced by the mistaken and now abandoned view that Aten was a new god, whose worship necessarily involved repudiation of the old polytheism. This is far from the truth, for an orthodox Egyptian was just as much entitled to worship Aten as any other god in the Pantheon. Nothing could demonstrate this more clearly than the way in which scenes of Aten worship were treated after the power of the Amen priests was re-established. Among the finds made in the tomb of Tut-ankh-Amen are some very beautiful examples of furniture with these scenes, dating from the time when the king called himself Tut-ankh-Aten. (See Frontispiece.) This furniture would not have been allowed to go into the tomb if it had offended the susceptibilities of Amen worshippers. So also, on the funeral canopy of Tiy, the mother of Akh-en-Aten, both mother and son are depicted worshipping Aten; but this most interesting monument has suffered no mutilation beyond the very careful erasure of the figure of the arch-heretic himself and the Gartouches containing his name. The quarrel, then, was with the man, not with his special kind of worship. As it is evident that the work of mutilation in this case was performed by (or under the direction of) men who knew exactly what they wanted to do, we may take it that the more exten- sive and somewhat random erasures found else- where were no necessary part of the orthodox plan. In particular it may be inferred that the frequent cutting out of the Aten cartouches was

HERESY OF THE DISK-WORSHIPPERS 53

the very natural error of the doubtless usually ignorant men who were instructed to ae the _ name of the hated king.

The primary meaning of the word aten is nothing more than “the disk of the sun,” and there is no reason why we should not translate it “sun” simply, except that this would cause confusion with the much more common word va. That aten and ra are in effect the same may be seen from the sepulchral stele of the twin brothers Horus and Set in the British Museum. Among the numerous prayers is one that the deceased may have granted ‘to him “the sight of the disk (aten) and the view of the moon after the manner of those who are upon earth.” The parallelism leaves no room for doubt that afen is equivalent to va. It is further significant that the god to whom the prayer is addressed is Ra-Horus of the two horizons (abbre- viated at the end of the prayer to Ra), who was in the first part of the heretic’s reign identified by him with Aten.

We can, then, confidently infer that, although the particular form of the sun known by the name of aten was not usually an object of worship before the 18th Dynasty, it might be as legitimately worshipped as Ra himself, who was originally no more than the physical sun, and whose name was always written in the same way as that of the latter. And not only was this the case, but Aten was coming to be an important god under Amen- ‘hetep III, the father of the heretic, and apparently mainly through the influence of Tiy, the beloved wife of the former and the mother of the latter. It has been argued from this circumstance that the

54 HERESY OF THE DISK-WORSHIPPERS

worship of Aten was inspired by the religion of Mitanni, a country situated between northern Mesopotamia and the Hittite lands, with the royal family of which both Tiy and Nefertity (wife of the heretic) are alleged to have been connected. That one or both kings obtained a wife or wives from that country is clear from Egyptian and cuneiform evidence, but these ladies cannot be identified with Tiy or Nefertity. Amen-hetep III was already married to Tiy when we first hear of him, and in all probability married her as crown prince, while his Mitannian marriage is recorded on a scarab of the tenth year. There is no evidence to disprove the Mitannian origin of the wife of Amen-hetep IV, but equally there is none to prove it.

It has been claimed that Yuau and Thuau, the father and mother of Tiy, were foreigners and possibly of royal descent; but the arguments for this are not strong. They appear not to have been people of position until the marriage of their daughter, when the king heaped wealth and honours upon them, and commemorated them upon scarabs. It is said also that the physical aspect of Yuau is foreign, but this is certainly not sufficiently marked to be decisive. The only really sound argument for his foreign origin is the extraordinary number of ways of spelling his name, suggesting that the Egyptians found a difficulty in expressing the sound of it in their language. In any case, he had completely adopted the orthodox Egyptian religion, and was not therefore likely to transmit to his daughter any burning desire to depart from it.

iA

i)

HERESY OF THE DISK-WORSHIPPERS 55

Whether Tiy was a woman of independent mind who thought things out for herself, or whether she was inspired from outside, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the first rise of Aten from obscurity was due to her. The stele of Horus and Set is definitely dated to her husband’s reign, and there we find (apart from the prayer already mentioned) a Hymn to Amen in which that great god is identified with Aten, so soon to be his implacable enemy. That it was the queen who had made the unfamiliar god popular is shown by two interesting facts. Ona scarab of her husband’s eleventh year we are told that the king caused a great lake to be made for her, and “ His Majesty sailed upon it in the barge called ‘ Aten sparkles.’” Still more significant is the name she gave to her youngest daughter—Aten-bakt, “the servant of Aten ”’—-which shows that her devotion to the god became more pronounced as the years passed.*

This is not the place to enter into the controversy

as to the age of Amen-hetep IV at his accession.

If he was not the mere child that some think, it is

generally agreed that he could not have been more

than a youth; and therefore the influence of Tiy,

already great in her husband’s reign, must have

become still greater. The policy of exalting Aten

at the expense of Amen was almost certainly

inspired by her, though it is clear that the king

made it his own as he grew up, or it would not

have been pursued with such fanatical fury after

the death of his mother. The first step taken was

It was formerly thought that this girl was a daughter of Akh- en-Aten, but Professor Petrie has shown that she was really his sister,

36 HERESY OF THE DISK-WORSHIPPERS

to build a temple to Aten, in Thebes, the capital. Although we know nothing directly as to what happened between the king and the priests of Amen, it is easy to infer that the erection of a. goodly temple devoted to the worship of a quite minor deity in the very heart of Amen’s own territory must have been felt by the priests of the latter as a great outrage, even though there was so far no attempt to interfere with Amen worship. | The king had been called like his father Amen- hetep, “ Amen is satisfied,” and at this time he was quite content with the name. In a quarry inscrip- tion, where he is shown worshipping Aten, this name is given to him. The new honorific name which he devised for his god, and which he later placed in cartouches in imitation of the royal name, is here found without the cartouches. To this period must belong a broken slab at Berlin and a scarab in the British Museum. The former is divided into two panels with the king’s titles between them. In one panel is the hawk-headed god bearing the sun’s disk with the new name, “Live Ra-Horus of the two horizons, rejoicing in the horizon, in his name of Heat which is in the Disk.” In the other panel is shown the king him- self, depicted conventionally as a Pharaoh (not in the realistic later style), and above him the Disk without the rays with hands descending from it which were later invariable. The scarab is damaged at the sides, but apparently bears an inscription in praise of Aten; while the king and queen have their original names, Amen-hetep and Nefertity.

How long this phase lasted we do not know, but

HERESY OF THE DISK-WORSHIPPERS 57

it is evident that the tension between the rival

parties must have become too great for the king to

bear, for we soon find him removing to the site of

the modern Tell el-Amarna. At this spot, about

midway between the then capital Thebes and the

old capital Memphis, the mountains which shut in

the Nile valley recede for a few miles, leaving a

magnificent plain on either bank ; and here the

king resolved to build a new capital, which he

called Akhet-Aten, “the horizon of Aten.” The

date when he undertook this great enterprise is not

precisely known, but it cannot be later than the

sixth year, in which the boundary stele are dated.*

At this time (or possibly a little earlier) the king

and queen changed their names: his name

became Akh-en-Aten, “glory of Aten,” and to

hers was prefixed Nefer-nefru-Aten, “ beauty of the

beauties of Aten.” The titles of Aten were also

placed in cartouches.

During the residence of the king at Tell el-

Amarna the development of the Aten faith is

marked by some small, but highly significant,

changes in the mode of writing certain words.

From his earliest years the king appears to have

been devoted to Maat, a word impossible to trans-

late into any modern language, but combining the

ideas of Truth, Justice, and unvarying Law. Now

this conception had been traditionally personified

as a goddess, and in the early quarry inscription

before referred to Amen-hetep is shown with this

goddess. The boundary inscriptions of the sixth

year always write maaz in the king’s title ankh

There are other stele said to be dated in the fourth year, but they are seriously damaged, and the date is disputed.

| 58 HERESY OF THE DISK-WORSHIPPERS

em maat, “living in (or on) truth,” with the goddess; but two of them have an addition of the eighth year in which the word is spelt phonetically only. Evidently the idea of truth and justice having a personal form had become distasteful to the king. Later, a still greater scrupulosity developed with regard to another character. The word mut, “mother,” had been traditionally written with a vulture, and in the first years of the Aten worship no objection was felt to this. But the name of the wife of Amen was also Mut, and it therefore came to be thought that a vulture ought not to be used at all in the hieroglyphs even when it stood for the common noun “ mother,” and had nothing at all to do with the goddess. Henceforth the vulture was banished, and “mother” was written with the simple consonants m-¢, Analogous to these changes in spelling is the change in the titles of Aten. We have already seen one change in the introduction of the cartouches; now it was decided to change the wording, which became: “Live Ra, ruling the two horizons, rejoicing in the horizon, in his name of Effulgence, which comes from the Disk.” In the old title there were two words which the more fully developed religion could not tolerate—“ Horus,” written with a falcon, and shu, “heat,” which was identical in form with the name of the god Shu. Both these words have now disappeared.

All that we know of the once beautiful city of Akhet-Aten is what has been preserved to us by the tombs. The palace of the king and the temple in which he worshipped were destroyed by his enemies within a few years of his death, and he

HERESY OF THE DISK-WORSHIPPERS 59

became “the defeated one of Akhet-Aten” (he is so described in a law suit, to avoid mentioning his abhorred name). But the tombs hewn out of the solid rock were not so easy to destroy, and the triumphant Amen worshippers contented them- selves with cutting out the cartouches and some more or less random damage. In these tombs we find representations of the palace and temple, with scenes from the court life and the worship of Aten ; and they have preserved several copies of the Hymns to Aten. The following is Professor Breasted’s translation of the longer hymn, with a few very slight alterations :—

Thy dawning is beautiful in the horizon of the sky.

O living Aton, Beginning of life!

When thou risest in the eastern horizon

‘Thou fillest every land with thy beauty.

Thou art beautiful, great, glittering, high above every land ;

Thy rays, they encompass the lands, even all that thou hast made.

Thou art Re, and thou carriest them all away captive ;

Thou bindest them by thy love.

Though thou art far away, thy rays are upon earth ;

Though thou art on high, thy footprints are the das

When thou settest in the western horizon of the sky |

The earth is in darkness like the dead.

They sleep in their chambers,

Their heads are wrapped up,

Their nostrils stopped,

And none seeth the other.

While all their things are stolen

Which are under their heads,

And they know it not.

Every lion cometh forth from His den,

All serpents, they sting.

Darkness reigns,

The world is in silence,

60 HERESY OF THE DISK-WORSHIPPERS

He that made them resteth in his horizon.

Bright is the earth when thou risest in the horizon.

When thou shinest as Aton by day, thou drivest away the darkness.

When thou sendest forth thy rays,

The Two Lands are in daily festivity,

Awake and standing upon their feet,

When thou hast raised them up.

Their limbs bathed, they take their clothing ;

Their arms uplifted in adoration to thy dawning.

Then in all the world they do their work.

All cattle rest upon their pasturage.

The trees and the plants flourish,

The birds flutter in their marshes,

Their wings uplifted in adoration to thee.

All the sheep dance upon their feet,

All winged things fly,

They live when thou hast shone upon them.

The barques sail up-stream and down-stream alike.

Every highway is open because thou dawnest.

The fish in the river leap up before thee.

Thy rays are in the midst of the great green sea.

Creator of the germ in woman,

Maker of seed in man,

Giving life to the son in the body of his mother,

Soothing him that he may not weep,

Nurse even in the womb,

Giver of breath to animate every one that he maketh !

When he cometh forth from the body,…… on the day of his birth,

Thou openest his mouth in speech,

Thou suppliest his necessities.

When the fledgling in the egg chirps in the shell

Thou givest him breath therein, to preserve him alive.

When thou hast perfected him,

That he may pierce the egg,

He cometh forth from the egg,

To chirp with all his might ;

He goeth about upon his two feet

When he hath come forth therefrom.

HERESY OF THE DISK-WORSHIPPERS 61

How manifold are thy works !

They are hidden from before us,

O sole God, whose powers no other possesseth.

Thou didst create the earth according to thy heart,

While thou wast alone :

Men, all cattle large and small,

All that are upon the earth,

That go upon their feet ;

All that are on high,

That fly with their wings.

The countries of Syria and Nubia,

The land of Egypt ;

Thou settest every man into his place,

Thou suppliest their necessities.

Every one has his possessions,

And his days are reckoned.

Their tongues are divers in speech,

Their forms likewise and their skins are distinguished,

For thou makest different the strangers.

Thou makest the Nile in the Nether World,

Thou bringest it as thou desirest,

To preserve alive the people.

For thou hast made them for thyself.

The lord of them all, resting among them ;

Thou lord of every land, who risest for them,

Thou sun of day, great in majesty.

All the distant countries,

Thou makest also their life.

Thou hast set a Nile in the sky ;

When it falleth for them,

It maketh waves upon the mountains,

Like the great green sea,

Watering their fields in their towns.

How excellent are thy designs, O lord of eternity !

There is a Nile in the sky for the strangers,

And for the cattle of every country that go upon their feet ; ;

But the Nile, it cometh from the Nether World for Egypt.

Thy rays nourish every garden ;

When thou risest they live,

62 HERESY OF THE DISK-WORSHIPPERS

They grow by thee.

Thou makest the seasons,

In order to create all thy work :

Winter to bring them coolness,

And heat that they may taste thee.

Thou hast made the distant sky to rise therein, In order to behold all that thou hast made, Thou alone, shining in thy form as living Aton, Dawning, glittering, going afar and returning. Thou makest millions of forms

Through thyself alone ;

Cities, towns, and tribes, highways and rivers. All eyes see thee before them,

For thou art Aton of the day over the earth. Thou art in my heart,

There is no other that knoweth thee,

Save thy son Ikhnaton.

Thou hast made him wise

In thy designs and in thy might.

The world is in thy hand,

Even as thou hast made them.

When thou hast risen they live,

When thou settest they die ;

For thou art length of life of thyself,

Men live through thee,

While their eyes look upon thy beauty

Until thou settest.

All labour is put away

When thou settest in the west.

Thou didst establish the world,

And raise them up for thy son,

Who came forth from thy limbs,

The king of Upper and Lower Egypt,

Living in Truth, Lord of the Two Lands, Nefer-khepru-Re, Wan-Re,

‘The son of Re, living in Truth, Lord of diadems, Ikhnaton, whose life is long ;

And for the chief royal wife, his beloved, Mistress of the Two Lands, Nefer-nefru-Aton, Nofretete, Living and flourishing for ever and ever.

HERESY OF THE DISK-WORSHIPPERS 63

On this Hymn mainly is based the contention that Akh-en-Aten was the founder of a peculiarly spiritual and monotheistic form of worship, though one of his most devoted modern champions admits that it was only at the end of his career that he arrived at the pure monotheistic belief, while the various spellings referred to above show that the Hymn was originally promulgated while the king still allowed the goddess Maat and the vulture to be used in the hieroglyphs. If, however, we com- pare it with the Cairo Hymn to Amen quoted in the: previous Chapter, some interesting facts are at once perceived. Here are a few specimen

parallels :— ATEN.

Thou didst create the earth BAR while thou wast alone : men, all catile large and small, all that are upon the earth that go upon their feet, all that are on high that fly with their wings.

When the fledgling in the ege chirps in the shell thou givest him breath therein, to preserve him alive.

Their tongues are divers in speech, their forms likewise and their skins are dis- tinguished, for thou makest different the strangers.

Thou makest the /Vi/e in the nether world, thou bringest it as thou desirest to preserve alive the people.

AMEN.

Maker of pasture whereby the cattle live, staff of life of mankind, making the susten- ance of the fishes in the water, the feathered fowl in the air, giving breath to that which is within the egg, making to live the son of the worm, making that on which the gnats live, the reptiles and the insects likewise, supplying the needs of the mice in their holes.

Distinguishing the com- plexion of one from another.

The Nile comes as he de- Stvet..060 it comes fo preserve alive the people.

64 HERESY OF THE DISK-WORSHIPPERS

It is difficult for the impartial student to compare these passages without seeing that the general level of thought is the same in both ; even the very same words are used by the two writers, who, each for the honour of his own god, applies to him the terms of adulation current under the New Empire.” But, it may be said, we ought to consider the points wherein the two compositions differ rather than those in which they agree, and that then the superiority of the Atenite beliefs will appear. Even on this basis, it is submitted the Hymn to Amen is not the inferior. The Atenite hymn has not a word even equal to the ethical conception of the god which was in the heart of the devotee of Amen when he exclaimed: “ Hearing the prayer of him who is in evil case, compassionate of heart when one cries unto him, delivering the timid one from the overbearing, judging between the mighty man and the humble.”? In one particular only

t It is worth noting that the epithet, “living in truth,” applied to himself by Akh-en-Aten, is found in the Cairo Hymn.

2 Professor Breasted would explain the likeness between the Cairo Hymn to Amen and the Atenite inscriptions by supposing that the former “contains evident echoes of the Aton faith” (Religion and Thought, p. 347). It is, of course, a fact that the copy of the Hymn which happens to have survived was written after the Tell el-Amarna inscriptions were engraved, but this is not evidence of the date of its composztion. And, curiously enough, Professor Breasted himself admits, as he could not fail to do, that “‘a spirit of humane solicitude……appeared as early as the social teaching ofthe Feudal Age. Especially the preference for the ‘timid’ as over against the ‘haughty’ and overbearing, and the discerning ‘taste’ and ‘knowledge,’ which are the royal and divine prerogatives, we have already discovered in social tractates like Ipuwer, and even in a state document like the Installation of the Vizier in the 12th Dynasty” (zdzd., p. 348). If, then, these high ethical conceptions are found as early as the Middle Kingdom and again under the 19th or zoth Dynasty (whether or not the document containing them was then com- posed), it is surely more probable that they derive from the

HERESY OF THE DISK-WORSHIPPERS 65

can the two hymns be contrasted to the advantage of the Atenites: the latter do not use such expres- sions as “beautiful of diadem, lifting up the white crown”; “the double crown is established upon thy brow.” Aten was emphatically not a magni- fied man crowned in imitation of an Egyptian king. But was his worshipper’s conception of him any the more “spiritual” for that? Although Aten had no human or animal form, he could not escape the anthropomorphism which is the fundamental weakness of Theism (meaning thereby the belief in a personal god). He is represented as the Disk with rays emanating from it, and the rays terminate in human hands! But, apart from the hands, surely the Disk is material enough; indeed, so material is it that the defenders of the “spiritual ”’ nature of the Aten religion are driven to say that it is a mere symbol; that what was worshipped was the divine force manifested in and through the sun. In the interests of this view Weigall writes: “ Although he is so often called ‘ the Aton,’ he was more closely defined as ‘the Master of the Aton.’” For this he gives a reference to the first volume of the Egypt Exploration Society’s invalu- able publication of the Tell el-Amarna inscriptions ; but he omitted to notice that in the sixth volume, after five years’ further study of the texts, the editors showed that the translation is grammatically impossible.”

earlier source than that they should be “echoes” of a phase of ‘thought which had long been forgotten, and-which, moreover, so far as the surviving evidence goes, never included any such con- ceptions at all. i

! The difficulty arises from the fact that Egyptian has two words neb written exactly alike, one meaning “lord, master,”

and the other meaning “all, every.” F

66 HERESY OF THE DISK-WORSHIPPERS

We now come to the final question, Was Aten in the view of his worshippers the one god of Henotheism, or was he the sole god of Mono- theism? We have endeavoured to show in the previous Chapter that the mere attribution of all power to a god, or the description of him as “One alone,” is no evidence of monotheistic belief. If it were, the writer of the Cairo Hymn to Amen must have been a monotheist, which he certainly was not. As Sir Ernest Budge (Tutankhamen, p- 79) well observes :—

The worshippers of every great god in Egypt had from time immemorial declared that their god was “One.” “Oneness” was an attribute, it would seem, of everything that was worshipped in Egypt, just as it is in some parts of India. It is inconceivable that Amen- hetep IV knew of the existence of other suns besides the sun he saw, and it was obvious that Aten, the solar disk, was one alone, and without counterpart or equal.

But, it is argued, there is evidence of mono- theistic belief independent of the Hymn, and it is this evidence which is relied on by those who place the monotheistic phase at the very end of the reign. The rise of Atenism was marked by a campaign of mutilation, the name Amen being cut out of the monuments wherever it could be found, even in the king’s own name and that of his father. On some monuments, however, the names of other gods are also erased, and the word “ gods” is similarly treated. It is certain that these latter erasures were no part of the original plan, for in several cases where “ Amen” has been cut out the word “gods” remains unmutilated in such close proximity that it could not have been overlooked.

HERESY OF THE DISK-WORSHIPPERS 67

There is also evidence that this word was not con- sidered objectionable until after it was decided not to use the vulture for “ mother,” and this itself was a comparatively late development. Even admitting the erasures to prove what is claimed, the king must have taken some sixteen or seventeen years to arrive at monotheism. But need we place this interpretation upon the facts? It is demonstrable that other mutilations of the monuments, both earlier and later, were motived by personal spite or vanity ; why not these? As the persecution of Amen and his priests grew more bitter, what more _ natural than that the priests of the other gods should come to their aid, and what more natural also than that the king should retort, after the manner of the time, with still further mutilations?

Another most important line of evidence seems to have been singularly little noticed. Constantly at Tell el-Amarna the king himself is worshipped asa god! In the tomb of Ay, thought by some to have been the father of the queen, and in any case a most important official (afterwards becoming king), there is an inscription in which the deceased on one side “ gives praise to the Aten and adora- tion to the lord of eternity,” and on the other side “ gives praise to the Aten and adoration ¢o his son Akh-en-Aten.” The king is put absolutely ona level with Aten! Is it conceivable that a man who allowed his courtiers to flatter him in this manner could have had in him even the ultimate

• possibility of monotheistic belief?

At the present moment opinion in the western world is almost as much divided as to the true character of Akh-en-Aten as it was in Egypt in his

68 HERESY OF THE DISK-WORSHIPPERS

own day; and it is almost as difficult now as then to properly appraise the significance of his move- ment. Was he the great individual thinker that many highly competent scholars have proclaimed him? Or was he the insane sufferer from water on the brain that others, perhaps equally com- petent, would wish us to believe? It is very unlikely that the final verdict will approve the conclusions of either side. We may be fairly con- fident that he was not the monster of iniquity that he appeared to the priests of Amen, nor the mighty intellect that his present-day partisans maintain that he was. In one respect at least he fell far below the standard of most of those who praise ‘him now. After making every allowance for the spirit of his times, which no man can wholly transcend, we must pronounce him to have been intolerant. It is significant that the only substan- tial evidence of his monotheism should be his mutilations of the monuments! And we cannot think that the leaders of the Amenites were greatly inferior to him in moral and intellectual stature when, in the day of their triumph, they were content, as we have seen, with destroying the image and name of their enemy and left the records of his religious belief almost unharmed.

CuHaptTerR VIII ¢« BURIAL CUSTOMS

MumMIFICATION, or embalmment of the dead body,

though not apparently practised in the earliest

times, was during the historical period of Egyptian

history never omitted if the survivors could possibly

afford to pay for it; and, if we may trust Herodotus

and Diodorus Siculus, it was an expensive busi-

ness. The accounts of these two authors are in

general agreement, but are clearly of independent

origin. According to the former there were three

modes of embalming. In the first method as

much of the brain as possible was drawn out

through the nostrils by means of an iron tool, and

the remainder was removed by the use of drugs.

An incision was then made in the flank, through

which the contents of the abdomen were taken out,

and the interior was cleansed with palm wine and

an infusion of pounded aromatics. The cavity

was filled with the purest bruised myrrh, cassia,

and every sort of spicery except frankincense, and

the opening sewn up. The body was then placed

in natron for seventy days; after which it was

washed and was ready for the elaborate swathing

in linen bandages with which every one is familiar

The incision is also mentioned by Diodorus; and it is actually found in unrolled mummies covered by a metal plate bearing the Eye of Horus.

69

70 BURIAL CUSTOMS

in our museums. In the second method no incision was made, but cedar oil was introduced into the abdomen by means of syringes, and the body laid in natron for seventy days; when it was taken out the oil was allowed to make its escape, the stomach and intestines going with it. In the third method the intestines were removed by means of some powerful liquid, and the body left in natron for seventy days. In both the second and third methods there was no wrapping in linen bandages, so that bodies were hardly mummified in the usual sense of the word, though more or less preserved from decay. The bulk of the people, however, in view of the expense, must have been compelled to put up with these inferior methods. Diodorus tells us that the most expensive process cost a talent of silver (about £250), the second twenty-two mine (about £90), and the third was very cheap.

The scenes on the day of the funeral are depicted in the vignette to chapter 1 of the Book of the Dead, one of the few chapters of that collection which appear to have had a ritual purpose (see Plate III). Dr. Gardiner has published a most interesting account of the proceedings from two stele at Thebes. The following is his transla- tion :—

“A goodly burial arrives in peace, thy seventy days having been fulfilled in thy place of embalm- ing.* Thou art placed on the bier and art drawn

• Cf. the seventy days in natron mentioned by Herodotus.

The seventy days would appear to include the whole period from the day of death to the day of the funeral. The dates on the stele of the Apis bulls show that burial took place on the 69th or qoth day after death.

(wnasny Yysijtig ‘1ajou-ny jo snakdeg oyj wos ) « PROC 949 JO YOOG ,, “[ r0ydeyQ 03 ej 0uS1A

Ill ALV Td

Facing p. 70

BURIAL CUSTOMS at

by bulls without blemish, the road being be- sprinkled with milk until thou reachest the door of thy tomb. The children of thy children, united of one accord, weep with loving hearts. Opened is thy mouth by the lector, and thy purification is made by the sem-priest. Horus adjusts for thee thy mouth, and opens for thee thy eyes and ears, thy flesh and thy bones being perfect in all that appertains to thee. There are recited for thee spells and glorifications. There is made for thee an offering-which-the-King-gives, thy own true heart being with thee, thy breast that thou didst have upon earth. Thou comest in thy former shape, even as on the day wherein thou wast born. There is brought to thee the son thou lovest, the courtiers making obeisance. Thou enterest into the land given of the King, into the sepulchre of the West. There are performed rites for thee as for those of yore; the Muu* come to thee in jubilation.”

The following clear and succinct account by Renouf of the mortuary arrangements could not well be improved upon as a general statement, though of course the details varied greatly from tomb to tomb :—

The ancient Egyptian tomb consisted of three essential parts : (1) a chamber above ground, entered by a door, which appears to have always remained open; (2) a corridor, now commonly known as the serdab, in the interior of the masonry, containing statues of the

deceased ; and (3) a pit, sunk to a considerable depth through the rock, and communicating with the sepul-

• The Muu were a kind of male dancers who met the funeral procession at the entrance to the tomb. ? Tomb of Amenemhet, p. 56.

2

BURIAL CUSTOMS

chral vault hollowed in the rock, and containing the sarcophagus of the dead. The chamber (which some- times consisted of several rooms) was the only part accessible to human foot. Its walls were often covered with pictures, but the most essential portion of it was a tablet invariably facing the east. At the foot of this, lying on the ground and made of granite, limestone, or alabaster, was a table for the offerings. The serdab, or corridor, was only accessible through a small aperture, through which the smoke of incense might be conveyed from the chamber to the statues which the solid walls concealed from sight. The representations upon the walls of the chamber reproduce the entire domestic and social life of the period. It is from these pictures that Sir Gardner Wilkinson has drawn up his admirable work on the Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyp- tians, and described the Egyptian house, with its furni- ture, its gardens, its farm-yards, its vine-yards—the occupations of its owner and the amusements of his guests—the games within and out of doors, the hunting and fishing, the agricultural operations, the numerous arts, manufactures, and trades—all of which are repre- sented to the life. Short inscriptions accompany the pictures ; the names of men, animals, and other objects are written over them; descriptive titles are constantly given, such as “ ploughing,” “ mowing,” “ the slaughter of a young bull”; sometimes scraps of dialogue occur, generally of a very trivial character. “Hold hard,” a master says to his servant; and the lad replies, Arz heset-ek, “Thy will be done.’ One man says, “This donkey is wild”; and another replies, “I will tame him.” A peasant is engaged in combing flax, and he says to another who brings him a fresh supply of stalks, “Tf you bring me eleven thousand and nine, I will comb them.” The other man rather rudely replies, “Make haste, and none of your chatter, you prince of clod- hoppers!” The tomb in which this dialogue occurs is rich in texts of the same kind. It was here that Cham- pollion found the “Song of the Oxen.” But all these representations are really subordinate to one end, and

BURIAL CUSTOMS 73

that is the worship of the departed. The slaughter of the ox or the antelope is not introduced for its own sake, but really as a sacrifice ; and the pictures of men bearing joints are on the point, as they are sometimes actually represented, of offering them to the image of the deceased. An endowment was always intended to provide for the celebration of these propitiatory services, as well as for keeping the tomb in perpetual repair."

The purpose with which the Egyptians decorated their tombs so lavishly has been the subject of much controversy, and the whole of the arguments have been fully stated and reviewed by Dr, Gardiner in his admirable monograph already quoted. It is strange that on this, as on so many other questions in Egyptology, opinion is divided along racial lines, the French and the Germans holding diamet- rically opposite views. According to Maspero, the purpose was magical—the scenes depicted enabled the deceased magically to take part in the feasting and the hunting and the other occupations of his earthly existence. According to Erman, the owner provided himself with as costly and beautiful a tomb, his “eternal habitation,” as his means would afford, justas he provided himself with as costly and beautiful a house as he could during his earthly life. Gardiner concludes that the truth lies between the extreme positions. While he does not deny that “the pleasure and pride of possessing beautiful monuments” was a very considerable factor in inducing the erection of elaborate and costly tombs, he points to a number of facts that are not easy to account for if the paintings and inscriptions

® Renouf, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion (Hibbert Lectures, 1879), pp. 128-30.

74 ‘BURIAL CUSTOMS

were not believed to have magical virtue. “It is difficult to conceive what purpose the religious texts deep-buried on the walls of the sepulchral chamber could serve if it were not the purpose of being magically efficacious to the corpse of the dead man. On the other hand, the paintings and sculptures of the rooms open to the public may have been originally intended merely for the edification and to command the admiration of the beholder. A biographical inscription can have had no magical significance; the hunt- ing and fishing scenes also may possibly in the beginning have had none.” But these latter must have come in time to be regarded as having magical potency. When the inscriptions in the banqueting scenes speak of “this thy thousand years which thy master Amun has decreed for thee,” or a servant is made to say toa guest: “Ye shall not cease from boon-companionship eternally,” most people will agree that it is far more probable that the painting was intended to perpetuate these delights for all time than that it was a mere com- memoration of earthly banquets in which such hyperbolical words were spoken.

Among the most notable features of an Egyptian tomb was the constantly repeated offering formula of which multitudes of copies can be seen in our museums. We give typical examples of this formula from the 18th Dynasty tombof Amenemhat, in Dr. Gardiner’s translation :—

“ An offering-which-the-King-gives to Osiris in the Thinite nome, the Lord of Eternity, who quelled the warfare of the Two Lands, the again- born, the heir of Geb; may he grant to travel in

BURIAL CUSTOMS 75

the divine bark in the train of the great god in his procession of the beginning of the year, for the ka of the scribe who reckons the grain of Amun, Amenemhet, justified; and to receive a place among his followers in his place of U-pekr; and to come in peace and justification, (his) soul to the sky, (his) corpse to the Underworld, for the Steward of the Vizier, the scribe Amen- embet.”

“An offering-which-the-King-gives to Harakhti (?)], Chief of the Two Lands, dwelling in the Sacred Place, the hawk which makes festive the breast, which inundates the Two Lands with gold when he arises; may he grant offerings and provisions, cloth, bread, incense, and oil, gifts of all that groweth, what heaven gives, what earth creates, what the Nile brings; for the a of the scribe who reckons the grain of Amun, Amenemhet, justified, born of the lady of the house, Antef, justified ; and to be in the train of this great god in his processions by water and by land, for the scribe Amenhet, justified.”

The two examples above are somewhat excep- tional forms; the following from the same source asks for the gifts which the deceased more com- monly craved :—

“[An_ offering-which-the-King-gives to Amen- re], Lord of Thrones-of-the-Two-Lands in Elect-of- Places, the living god who came into being of himself, who lives upon truth every day; may he

• grant prt-r-khrw offerings of bread and beer, oxen and geese, all things good and pure, the sweet breeze of the north wind, to drink water from the swirl (of the Nile), for the Aa of the steward who

76 “BURIAL CUSTOMS

reckons the grain of Amun, Amenemhet, justi- neds"

This common formula has given rise to numerous controversies, and the questions involved have been subjected to a most careful and scholarly investigation by Dr. Gardiner. The most difficult question of all is undoubtedly the meaning of the opening words, “An _ offering-which-the-King- gives.” The only thing which can be said to be agreed upon is that the three Egyptian words so translated have the sense of “king,” ‘ give,” and ‘offering’ respectively ; but their grammatical relations have been explained in a great variety of ways. A fundamental question is for what reason the king is introduced. The formula is scattered all over Egypt in countless private tombs ; and it would be ridiculous to suppose that the king did really provide mortuary equipment in all these cases, or even in any considerable proportion of them. There is evidence that he sometimes did so,

• as we might expect, for specially favoured officials ;? but the suggestion that this exceptional practice gave rise to a common formula seems quite unacceptable. Another, much more plausible, explanation is that what is meant is a “royal” offering—a gift such as a king would give—just as we say that a rich man entertains his guests “royally.” Grammatically, there is no objection to this rendering ; and it would solve much of the problem. But there is an exceptional mode of writing the opening of the formula which seems to

• Gardiner, Tomb of Amenemhet, pp. 43, 44.
• “The land given of the king” in the inscription quoted above appears to be a case in point.

BURIAL CUSTOMS ay

be conclusive against it. In some few cases, in place of the three usual words, there is a picture of a king actually presenting the offering; and it would be difficult to suppose that this mode of writing could have been resorted to unless the traditional understanding was that the king himself was meant. Gardiner finds the solution in the democratization of the funeral customs. Origi- nally, there can be no doubt, the king was looked upon as enjoying a quite special kind of immor- tality—he went to “his brothers the gods,” as the Pyramid Texts say in so many words. Now the offerings for a deceased king would, as a matter of course, be made by the reigning monarch, so that every part of the mortuary equipment was quite literally “An offering-which-the-king-gives.” When the nobles first, and afterwards all men who could afford anything better than to be merely placed in the sand after death, adopted for them- selves the kingly ceremonies, the now inappro- priate formula was taken over among the rest; and it may have appeared to be redeemed from entire absurdity by the fact already mentioned, that the king did occasionally provide for the mortuary needs of his servants.

But the expression underwent a development of meaning in the course of ages, as religious formulas generally do. The early examples do not contain the words which later became universal— “may he (she, they) grant.” In the Old Kingdom

• forms we find that “an offering-which-the-king- gives” is usually accompanied by “an offering- which-Anubis (Osiris, Geb)-gives.”” This opening is zmmediately followed by the specification of the

¥8 BURIAL CUSTOMS

offering. The meaning is that the king and the god mentioned (Anubis or another) jointly gave the offering. It was of course the king who really gave it ; but to the Egyptian, who believed in the intervention of the gods at every moment in human affairs, the supposition of the divine gift presented no difficulty. This, then, was intended as a mere statement of fact. When the words “may he give” were interpolated after the name of the god (or gods) a new meaning was put into the formula, or, rather, was now openly acknowledged, for the new Jelief must have been establishing itself for a long time before the conservative Egyp- tian could think of altering an ancient formula. What is now meant is that the king (really the relatives of the dead man) makes an offering ¢o such and such a god zz order that he (the god) may give what is desired. And from this developed the belief that the mere presence of the inscription in the tomb would be magically efficacious for the same purpose.

Another matter of interest in the offering formula is the use of the word ka. As will be seen from the translations above, the gifts which the god was to give were “for the 2a” of the deceased. This word was not introduced into the offering formula until the Middle Kingdom, although it was well known long before, being in fact found in the Pyramid Texts. The fa, the ba, the khu, the khazbit (and sometimes other entities), were formerly supposed to be elements making up the complex personalities of both gods and men; but this view appears to be no longertenable. Although sometimes spoken of as if they were distinct from

BURIAL CUSTOMS 79

the man himself, they were really “modes of being” of the one person rather than separate constituents of his nature. This seems to be necessitated by the immense number of parts which the earlier view would compel us to believe in. If it were merely a question of the two or three most commonly mentioned, we might indeed find little difficulty ; but when there are five or six together in one passage (and vastly more if we collect a number of such passages) we feel forced to seek some simplification of the chaos. It so happens that the solution is presented to us in the inscriptions of the tomb of Amenemhat, though of course it may be that the view there expressed was not universally accepted. On two opposite walls offering-bearers are depicted who in the inscriptions above them are said to bring all manner of good things for Amenemhat, for his ka, for his stele belonging to this tomb which is in the necropolis, for his destiny, for his life, for his place of origin, for his upbringing, for his Khnum, for his [soul] (0a), for his illumination (khu), for his corpse, for his shadow (khazbzt), and for all his modes of being.* The word translated “modes of being” is well known from the Book of the Dead to mean a form of existence. In the latter work there is a series of chapters (amounting to twelve in late times) by means of which the deceased could magically assume the forms of a golden hawk, a serpent, a crocodile, a lotus, etc. These were his kheperu, or “modes of being,”

• Tomb of Amenemhet, p. 99. 1 have adopted Gardiner’s translation throughout, but the meanings of some of the words are not precisely known.

80 ‘BURIAL CUSTOMS

and obviously never could have been considered to be parts of his personality. The inscriptions of Amenemhet make it clear that the ka, ba, khu, etc., were on exactly the same footing. There is therefore no need to suppose that any new mean- ing was intended when the scribes of the Middle Kingdom began to say that the offerings were for the 4a of the deceased instead of merely for the deceased himself. This change of form was part of the appropriation of the kingly attributes by ordinary men. The particular mode of being called a Aa originally belonged to gods and kings alone ; it was henceforth to be claimed by all. Another expression which deserves notice is the epithet constantly appended to the name of the deceased: maa-kheru. In the end it came to mean practically nothing more than “deceased,” but its original and literal meaning must have been totally different. It is frequently translated by “justified,” and this may pass as expressing something like the idea which the epithet probably conveyed to an Egyptian ; but that word is not, any more than ‘“ deceased,” an exact translation of the two words of the original. The word maa (in the feminine maat) is the same as the name of the goddess Maat, who personifies the complex conception of Truth, Justice,and Natural Law. The word kheru has many meanings, but it is universally agreed that in this expression it means “voice.” One of the earlier suggestions put forward was that maa- kheru is “true of voice ”’—i.e., a truth-teller ; but this is inconsistent with the use of the word kheru in Egyptian. heru is “voice,” the means of utterance, not the words spoken. “I am not one

BURIAL CUSTOMS 81

of loud voice” (kheru), says the Negative Confes- sion; but “I lend not a deaf ear to the words of Righteousness” (medut maat). A later sugges- tion, which enjoyed great popularity, was that of Maspero, according to which “true of voice” was to be understood as referring to the tone of voice in which magical incantations required to be uttered in order to be efficacious. If the deceased could repeat the formulas in the right key, he could surmount all the trials of the hereafter. It would be rash to dogmatize on a subject which the scribes themselves would probably have found great diffi- culty in explaining; but in the opinion of the present writer the most satisfactory (or the least unsatisfactory) view is that propounded by Renouf. This gives to maa the meaning of “authority ” or “authoritative”; maa-kheru as a substantive is “authority of voice,” and as an adjective “ authori- tative of voice,” which are equivalent to “triumph,” “triumphant.” MJaa-kheru, though most frequently occurring as an epithet applied to the dead in the funerary texts, is also used in other ways; and no explanation can possibly be right which does not fit these cases as well as the funerary use. When it is said of the great conqueror Thothmes III in the tomb of Amenemheb, one of his chief servants, that he “ended his time of existence of many good years of victory, power, and maa-kheru,” the context imperatively demands some such word as “triumph” or “conquest.” And nothing could be more appropriate than the constantly reiterated invocation of the eighteenth chapter of the Book of the Dead: “O Thoth, who didst cause Osiris

to triumph over his enemies, do thou cause the

G

82 * BURIAL CUSTOMS

Osiris N. (deceased) to triumph over his enemies as thou didst cause Osiris to triumph over his enemies.”

The epithet maa-kheru, like all the other special terms in connection with the dead, came only very gradually to be used of ordinary men. In the Pyramid Texts it is found applied to the king, and during the greater part of the Old Kingdom even the great nobles did not venture to appropriate it. Towards the end of that period, however, it began to be used by others, and eventually was regarded as the right of every dead man.

CHAPTER IX THE PYRAMID TEXTS

ONE of those great surprises which archeological excavation has constantly provided occurred in the years 1880 and 1881, when the pyramids of Kings Unas (5th Dynasty), Teta, Pepi I, Merenra, and Pepi II (6th Dynasty) were cucoverd by Mariette and Maspero at Saqqarah. The mere discovery of the burial places of five monarchs of the Old Kingdom would have been in itself a triumph, but its importance was enormously increased by the occurrence on the walls of the numerous chambers of hieroglyphic inscriptions. This latter fact was so startling to Mariette that he could not believe that the first to be found was really a royal pyramid, for he had formulated a theory that all pyramids were without inscriptions, like those of the 4th Dynasty. He was, however, convinced by further discoveries just before his death, which occurred early in 1881.

Immense interest was at once excited in these texts, and some small portions were quickly pub- lished in learned periodicals of Berlin and London ; but the integral publication of the collection was accomplished by Maspero in successive volumes of his Recueil de Travaux. Finally, in 1894, the whole was issued as a separate work. This first transcript was accompanied by a translation into French, which in view of the difficulties of the ! 83

84 THE PYRAMID TEXTS

archaic language and characters was a really mar- vellous piece of work. It was, however, recognized by Maspero himself that both the text and the trans- lation were merely tentative; and he willingly gave his assistance to Sethe, the German Egypto- logist, when the latter decided to publish a new edition. This work, issued during the years 1908-10, is not likely to be superseded for a long time, if.at all. One of its great advantages is that all the versions are brought together, one under the other, so that the student can see at a glance exactly how far they agree or differ—a matter of the first importance when dealing with difficult texts. Another valuable feature is that the work is auto- graphed, which enables the precise forms of the rare signs to be shown. Unfortunately, the trans- lation which was intended as part of this great undertaking of Sethe has not yet appeared. The unforeseen delay has induced the Belgian Egypto- logist Speleers to issue a new French translation based on Sethe’s text (1923), to which he has added a much-needed Vocabulary (1924).

Although the Pyramid Texts are, in the main, quite distinct from the later Book of the Dead, their purpose is fundamentally the same. While the inscriptions in the royal pyramids were in- tended primarily for the benefit of kings, and the Book of the Dead was intended primarily for the benefit of other folk, the object sought to be achieved in both cases was the magical provision for the dead in the future life. We find in the pyramids the first beginnings of the “ rubrics” which are so characteristic a feature of the Book of the Dead, and, although there are no chapter

THE PYRAMID TEXTS : 85

headings in the former, a magical spell when mentioned in a “rubric” is called 7e, ‘“‘chapter,”’ exactly as it is later. The following is quite in the style of the “rubrics” in the Book of the Dead: “(If) there be known this Chapter of Ra, and (if) he (the king) make these magical incantations of Heru-khuti, he shall be known of Ra, he shall be a friend of Heru-khuti. King Pepi knows this Chapter of Ra, King Pepi makes these magical incantations of Heru-khuti; (therefore) King Pepi is known of Ra, King Pepi is a friend of Heru- khuti. The hand of King Pepi lays hold upon heaven as a follower of Ra.”

The Pyramid Texts give us the earliest indica- tion of that conflict between the Osirian and Solar faiths which must have raged in prehistoric times, for these Texts (or some of them) are certainly far older than Unas, in whose reign the earliest extant copies were made. We may quote at this point the summing-up of Professor Breasted, to whose illuminating researches all students of these early faiths owe so much: “ While the nucleus of each group of myths is fairly distinguishable from the other, the coalescence of the Solar and Osirian conceptions of the hereafter have left us a very difficult process of analysis if we undertake to separate them. There is a certain body of beliefs regarding the hereafter which we may designate as Solar, and another group which are unquestionably Osirian, but the two faiths have so interpenetrated each other that there is much neutral territory which we cannot assign to either, to the entire exclusion of the other. It is clear that \in the Solar faith we have a state theology, with all the

86 THE PYRAMID TEXTS

splendour and the prestige of its royal patrons behind it ; while in that of Osiris we are confronted by a religion of the people, which made a strong appeal to the individual believer. It is not impossible that the history of the early sequence of these beliefs was thus: We should begin with a primitive belief in a subterranean kingdom of the dead which claimed all men. As an exclusive privilege of kings at first, and then of the great and noble, the glorious celestial hereafter which we have been discussing finally emerged as a Solar kingdom of the dead. When the growing prestige of Osiris had displaced the older mortuary gods (like Anubis) Osiris became the great lord of the Nether World, and Osiris and his realm entered into competition with the Solar and celestial here- after. In the mergence of these two faiths we discern for the first time in history the age-long struggle between the state form of religion and the popular faith of the masses.”*

Although it is evident that by the time of Unas (and probably long before) the orthodox religion had accepted both the Osirian and Solar concep- tions, and had even made certain feeble attempts to reconcile them, the old conflict is apparent in many ways. One of the most interesting is the presence or absence of the name “Osiris” before the king’s name. From the 19th Dynasty onwards every dead man was an “Osiris”; in other words, by dying he became identified with the supreme god of the dead. But it took many centuries to

• Breasted, Development of Religion and T, hought in Ancient Egypt, pp. 140, 141.

THE PYRAMID TEXTS 87

arrive at this result. As Professor Naville has pointed out, even towards the end of the 18th Dynasty so important a person as the father-in-law of the king is called “Osiris” once only in his funerary papyrus. In pyramid times, however, the king alone was “ Osiris,” and even he not always. To be identified with a god was as yet thought too great an honour for any but a king; but the reason. of the king being sometimes “ Osiris” and some- times not must lie in the conflict between the Osirian and Solar doctrines of the future life. When the title of “Osiris” is placed before the name of the king in one pyramid, and not given to him when the same passage is repeated in another, the explanation, in most cases at any rate, is that these passages originated with the Solar school, who did not recognize the Osirian future. But such cases are comparatively rare. In the main the title is given or withheld in the same passages in all the pyramids.

The conflict comes out in a much more startling manner in the interpolations, and is sometimes apparent even in the unaltered text. It would be decidedly interesting, not to say amusing, if we could read the comments of an Egyptian priest on some of the more remarkable passages. There are two at least which must have been originally directed by the Solar worshippers against the Osirians; and it may be significant that they are preserved only in the two earliest pyramids (Teta and Unas) respectively, though this of course may be purely accidental. “The two horizons of heaven embrace King Teta; he voyages to the horizon (khut) like Heru-Khuti……King Teta voyages to

88 THE PYRAMID TEXTS

that eastern side of heaven, to the place where the gods are born…… Behold, King Teta stands up as a star upon the belly of Nut.t…… They bring to him those four gods who stand up on the (four) supports of heaven. They tell the name of King Teta to Ra (the sun-god) ; they send up his name to Heru-Khuti (Horus of the horizon). He comes to thee ; he comes to thee…… He protects King Teta from that which is below; he does not give him to Osiris. King Teta does not die the death; he is a glorious one (&hu) in the horizon (kAut).” Everything is solar through- out. What is to be done for Teta is done by Ra or gods associated with him ; and finally Ra befriends him as against Osiris, who is clearly identified with the nether world: “ He (Ra) protects King Teta from ¢hat which zs below; he does not give him to Oszris.”

It will be seen that in this case no attempt has been made to edit the passage into even a super- ficial conformity with Osirian beliefs. In the other passage to which we have referred (that in the pyramid of Unas) the antagonism to Osiris is equally apparent. “Ra-Tum does not give thee to Osiris; he (Osiris) does not count thy heart ; he has not power over thy heart. Ra-Tum does not give thee to Horus; he (Horus) does not count thy heart; he has not power over thy heart. Osiris! thou hast not power over him; thy son has not power over him. Horus! thou hast not power over him; thy father has not power over him.”

• The actual word in the text is fet, “ heaven,” but Nut is of course heaven personified.

THE PYRAMID TEXTS 89

;

As a specimen of he very earliest literature pro- duced by man we quote (in Professor Breasted’s translation) a hymn to the Sun-god which is worthy of note for its own sake as well as for other reasons :—

“ Hail to thee, Atum ! Hail to thee, Kheprer ! Who himself became (or ‘ self-generator ’). Thou art high in this thy name of ‘ Height,’ Thou becomest (£47) in this thy name of ‘Beetle’ (khprr). Hail to thee, Horus-eye (Egypt), Which he adorned with both his arms.

“He permits thee (Egypt) not to hearken to the westerners, He permits thee not to hearken to ve easterners, He permits thee not to hearken to the southerners, He permits thee not to hearken to the northerners, He permits thee not to hearken to the dwellers in the midst of the earth, But thou hearkenest unto Horus.

“Tt is he who has adorned thee, It is he who has built thee, It is he who has founded thee ; Thou doest for him everything that he says to thee In every place where he goes. ,

“Thou carriest to him the fowl-bearing waters that are

in thee,

Thou carriest to him the fowl-bearing waters that shall be in thee.

Thou carriest to him every tree that is in thee,

Thou carriest to him every tree that shall be in thee.

Thou carriest to him all food that is in thee,

Thou carriest to him all food that shall be in thee.

Thou carriest to him the gifts that are in thee,

Thou carriest to him the gifts that shall be in thee.

90 THE PYRAMID TEXTS

Thou carriest to him everything that is in thee,

. Thou carriest to him everything that shall be in thee, Thou bringest them to him, To every place where his heart desires to be.

“ The doors that are on thee stand fast like Inmutef ; They open not to the westerners, They open not to the easterners, They open not to the northerners, They open not to the southerners, They open not to the dwellers in the midst of the earth. They open to Horus. It was he who made them, It was he who set them up, It was he who saved them from every ill which Set did to them, It was he who settled (g7g) thee, In this thy name of ‘ Settlements’ (grg-wi). It was he who went doing obeisance (xyny) after thee, in this thy name of ‘City’ (xzw/). It was he who saved thee from every ill Which Set did unto thee.”

While we need not doubt that the author of this hymn was really desirous of expressing a deep feeling of gratitude to the Sun-god for all the good things which he did for Egypt, and in return for which Egypt was bound to offer him everything that it possessed, his primary object was to benefit the dead king by means of sympathetic magic. And he proceeds to do this by attributing to the king all the beneficent functions of the god, and claiming for the former on that account all that was due to the latter. He begins: “This Pepi is Horus adorning his eye (i.e., Egypt) with both his arms.” And he goes on a little later: “Hearken thou not to the westerners [easterners, etc., as above]; but hearken thou to this Pepi, for it is

THE PYRAMID TEXTS gI

this Pepi who has adorned thee, this Pepi has built thee, it is he who has founded thee. Do thou for him everything that he says to thee, in every place where Pepi goes.” The spell continues in this fashion to the end, and would not need further quotation except for a variant which throws a most instructive light on the editorial revision to which the texts were subjected. For this reason we give the conclusion of the spell in full :—

“ The doors that are on thee stand fast like Inmutef ;

They open not to the westerners,

They open not to the easterners,

They open not to the northerners,

They open not to the southerners,

They open not to the dwellers in the midst of the earth.

They open to Pepi.

It was he who made them,

It was Pepi who set them up,

It was he who saved them from every ill which men did to them.

It was Pepi who settled thee,

In this thy name of ‘ Settlements.’

It was Pepi who went doing obeisance after thee,

In this thy name of ‘ City.’

It was Pepi who saved thee from every ill

Which men did unto thee.”

Here the evil which in the first part of the spell is attributed to the god Set, in the second part is attributed to men. Seeing that the whole object of the composition is to say exactly the same things about the king as are said about Horus, with whom he is to be magically identified, it is clear that either «“ Set” or “men” must bean interpolation. There is little room for doubt that “ men ” was originally read in both places, and that “ Set” was inserted

92 THE PYRAMID TEXTS

by an Osirian editor who thought that here was ° an appropriate occasion to vilify the enemy of his god. In the Solar faith, to which the spell certainly belongs, Set was not an evil god; and he only became such when the Osirian faith had annexed Horus and made him son of Osiris.

Cuaprer X THE “BOOK OF THE DEAD”

VISITORS to the British Museum whose attention has been attracted by the fac-simile of the beautiful Papyrus of Ani must often have been puzzled by what appears at first sight the strange method of numbering the chapters. After some preliminary hymns and scenes to which no chapter number is attached, we find, as we should expect, chapter 1 ; but after that all is apparently chaos. Chapter 22 follows immediately on chapter 1, then comes a rubric, then chapter 17, and after that chapters 146 and 147 written one above the other. From begin- ning to end the numbers appear to be in confusion ; only at rare intervals will two successive numbers be found to follow each other, such as 23, 24; 77; 78; and 87, 88. Another thing will soon strike the careful observer: although the chapter numbers run as high as 186, the actual number of chapters is somewhere about 60. So that not only are the numbers out of order, but about two-thirds of them are altogether wanting! Like most otheranomalies, this one has an historical explanation.

Prior to 1842 no copy of the Book of the Dead had been edited by a competent Egyptologist, and no numbers had been assigned to its various divisions. In that year Lepsius published the great Turin Papyrus of Auf-ankh, which at once

93

94 THE “BOOK OF THE DEAD”

became the standard text. This particular copy was selected because of its unusual length, its fine state of preservation, and its very clear style of writing. All this was in its favour; but it was of very late date—certainly as late as the 26th Dynasty, if not Ptolemaic. The numbering of the chapters by Lepsius, though as well done as it could at that time have been by any one, was soon seen not to be satisfactory even for the individual papyrus, and still less so for purposes of reference. To every section of the Book which is provided with a heading Lepsius quite properly gave a number ; but, because he found that each chapter is normally (though not invariably) divided from its neighbour by a double vertical line, he also gave a number to every part so divided, whether called a “chapter” or not. The effect of this was, in some cases, to make of a vignette a different chapter from that of the text to which it belongs; thus the so-called chapter 16 is really the vignette to 15, and chapter 150 is the vignette to 149. Another difficulty is that several chapters in the Turin papyrus occur twice, and therefore received two different numbers.

Now, these irregularities would have mattered very little for practical purposes if all copies of the Book of the Dead had been alike, but they are in fact far from being so. They vary greatly, not only in the number of chapters, but in their order. Nevertheless, the numbers given in the generally recognized standard were necessarily attached to the chapters wherever they might be found, The chapter of the assimilation of the limbs was always spoken of as 42, that of the Elysian Fields was

THE “BOOK OF THE DEAD” 95

always 110, and that of the judgment of the dead 125. These could no more be altered than we could now adopt a new scheme of numbering the chapters and verses in the Bible, though it would be quite easy to improve the existing one.

So matters stood when, at the instigation of Lepsius himself, the International Congress of Orientalists, meeting in London in 1874, decided to publish a complete edition of manuscripts of the Book of the Dead of all periods. This immensely important work was entrusted to Pro- fessor Naville, who at once set about examining the available material in museums and private collections. It proved to be unexpectedly abun- dant, and for this and other reasons it was later decided to limit the work to manuscripts of the 18th, 19th, and 2oth Dynasties. Naville states that the collation of the documents of the subse- quent period would certainly not be worth the labour expended on it. The task as limited was accomplished in twelve years, and the complete work was published in 1886. The problem of the arrangement of the chapters was a difficult one. On the one hand, the numbers given by Lepsius must be adhered to; while, on the other, means must be found of dealing with the chapters which do not occur in the Turin copy. Some of the latter were closely akin to some of those in Lepsius, but not sufficiently alike to be given the same numbers. In these cases the old and new chapters were distinguished by the old number and a letter; among other instances are 30 A and B, 38 A and B, 81 A and B, 145 A and B. The remaining chapters were placed’ at the end, being given the

96 THE “BOOK OF THE DEAD”

numbers from 166 to 186; but the work does not _ contain actually 186 chapters, as many of those in the Turin copy are not found in papyri of the period covered by Naville.

It is obvious from the above that this great work does not give an adequate conception of the relationship of the chapters to each other in the papyri collated. The true order is, however, set out in the description of each papyrus in the intro- ductory volume. Fortunately, also, there are now available for study facsimiles of several of the documents used by Naville. When he took up his task only one, that of Sutimes in Paris, had appeared ; but since then others in London, Paris, Leyden, and Cairo have been given to the world besides still others, such as the Papyri of Ani and Nu in the British Museum, which were not known till after Naville’s work was published.

The Book of the Dead is one of the most difficult compositions to translate in the whole realm of Egyptian literature—not so much from any doubt as to the meaning of the words or the construction of the sentences as from its frequent mythological allusions, which, though doubtless once intelligible, ultimately became obscure even to the copyists, and are necessarily still more so to us. Another serious difficulty arises from the corruption of the text, often written with great carelessness by more or less ignorant scribes. This last fact renders an examination of many copies an absolute necessity if an even passably correct rendering is to be pro- duced; and therefore the translations made by Birch (1867) and Pierret (1882), being based—the first almost entirely and the second largely—on

~ THE “BOOK OF THE DEAD” 07

one late text (that of Turin), must now be regarded as superseded by the works of Renouf (completed by Naville) and Budge (for which see the Biblio-

graphy).

CHAPTER XI

CHARACTER AND HISTORY OF THE «BOOK OF THE DEAD”

Tue Book of the Dead, like most sacred books, is of a composite character. Primarily, it is a magical vade mecum for the future life; and this fact has not always been sufficiently kept in mind by those who have sought to interpret it. As we have already had occasion to point out, it was believed in Egypt from the very earliest times that any result whatever could be achieved by the use of the correct formula—the Azkau, or “ Words of Power,” to use Renouf’s phrase. This idea dominates the Pyramid Texts, the Middle Kingdom

Coffin Texts, the Book of the Dead, and the later ©

mortuary literature equally. The very clear

evidence for this proposition is discussed in the next Chapter. Another element is that of ritual, which led Champollion to adopt the title “ Funerary Ritual.” This use of the work is apparent in some of the most important chapters. Chapter 1 is stated to be “ That which is said on the day of burial,” and the vignette shows the procession to the tomb and the mourning of the relatives. Chap- ter 18 also was clearly intended for use in a ritual, although the text and vignette relative to such use

are found in only one or two copies. The mytho-—

logical element is another important part of the

book. While the Book of the Dead is nota treatise ©

98

~ THE “BOOK OF THE DEAD” 99

on Egyptian mythology, there is a great deal of / scattered mythological information to be collected | from it, and one chapter (17) seems to be almost, wholly of this character and to have very little relation to the primary purpose of the book.

A very interesting question is that of the Egyp- tian title of the Book of the Dead. Had ita title | at all? And, if so, what did that title mean? In / the Turin copy the long heading over chapters 1-6 was apparently intended to apply to the whole of the first 16 chapters, since these chapters are not, as is the practice in the rest of the papyrus, divided from each other by a double vertical line. Now this title opens with the words “Beginning ~ of the Chapters of Per-em-hru,” and, whatever the original intention may have been, there is no doubt that the Egyptians did in the end call the whole work “The Book of Per-em-hru.” For the papyri of the late period this is proved by the heading to an Appendix. The Turin papyrus consists of 165 chapters, of which the last three (163-165) bear the collective title “Chapters brought from another book, in addition to the Per-em-hru,”’ showing that the preceding 162 chapters were called “The Book of Per-em-hru.”” Nor was it only in very late times that the book bore this title, for Naville mentions that it is endorsed on one of the papyri collated by him.

When we inquire what was the meaning of Per-em-hru, we embark upon an apparently endless controversy. Weadopt here Renouf’s translation, © “Coming forth by Day”; but this is by no means universally accepted. Professor Naville insists that the meaning is “Coming ou¢ of the Day,”

100 CHARACTER AND HISTORY OF

“the day” being a man’s earthly life, and to ~ “come out of” it being to be freed from all earthly | limitations. Professor Breasted takes the view — that it is a solar expression—‘ Ascending by Day.” _ It is needless to say that all the translations are possible meanings of the three apparently simple words Per-em-hru, or they would not have found favour with eminent Egyptologists. The question is, what do the words mean in this special use? and it appears to the present writer that “ Coming forth by Day” is the best suggestion so far put forward. It is quite possible that the Egyptians themselves understood the words differently at different times, such being the fate of religious formulas in Egypt as elsewhere.

The Book of the Dead has been called “the | Bible of the Egyptians,” and in respect of its | character as a sacred book the title may be allowed — to it. In nearly every other respect it was quite unlike the Bible, and in nothing did it differ from it so much as in the fact that it had no recognized contents. The papyri do not agree in the chapters which they contain, and there is no part of the book which can be said to be essential, though certain chapters were more frequently included than others. The number of chapters was of course largely influenced by the amount which the family of the deceased could afford to pay for his mortuary equipment, but this was by no means the only factor in the case. When we find a beautifully written and coloured papyrus, like that of Hunefer in the British Museum, containing only a few chapters and omitting some that were most often included, we can have little doubt that

~ THE “BOOK OF THE DEAD” IOI

• there were differences of opinion as to what was

really necessary to protect the deceased against the perils of the next world. It is clear, however, that in most cases a papyrus was not specially prepared for a particular individual, since the name of the deceased was usually inserted by another hand in spaces left for that purpose by the original scribe. This is the case even in the copy buried with such an important person as Yuau, the father-in-law of Amenhotep III. Sometimes, as in this instance, the scribe inserting the name has taken care to write as much as possible like the first scribe, but in others the difference between the neat hand of the original writer and the clumsy one of the later is apparent at a glance.

In its fully developed form, the work is divided into sections, most of which are called vo, “chapter,” or shat, “book.” There appears to be no distinc- tion in meaning between these words, as different copies use them interchangeably. In all proba- bility, the chapters did not in the first instance have titles at all. This conclusion is suggested by several considerations: some chapters have different titles in different copies; some that have titles in the later copies have none in the earlier ; and some.of the oldest chapters remained without titles to the last.

It is not at all uncommon to find one chapter written twice or even thrice in the same papyrus, which points to the larger collections having been made up mechanically by putting together two or more smallerones. This inference is strengthened when (as in a case noted by Naville) the same word is written in different ways in different copies

University of Soutnern Calitornia Liprary

102 CHARACTER AND HISTORY OF

of the same chapter. No less than seven chapters are repeated in the great Turin papyrus of Aufankh.

Generally speaking, there is no organic unity in the Book of the Dead, but some attempt has been made to bring together chapters of the same kind, even although they may embody inconsistent teaching. In addition to the inconsistencies dealt with in other chapters, mention may be made of chapters 144 to 147, which ‘are devoted to the various “gates” and “pylons” of the kingdom of Osiris. Chapters 144 and 147 describe the seven “ gates,” and chapters 145 and 146 the “ pylons,” which vary in number in different papyri. That the chapters in each pair were understood in the 18th and 19th Dynasties to be duplicates is evident from the fact that only one of either pair is included in any copy of that time. It is further evident from the papyrus of Ani that the “gates” and “pylons” themselves were also regarded, at any rate by some authorities, as mere duplicates, because the scribe has arranged the seven gates and the ten pylons in two registers, one above the other, occupying exactly the same space. These four chapters, then, are expansions of one and the same fundamental conception, and they were ultimately all included in the late copies of which the Turin papyrus is an example. * _ The Book of the Dead was composed by anumber | of quite unknown authors during a period of many centuries—precisely how many it is impossible to say. It is certain that some of the chapters must have been old even at the beginning of the Middle Kingdom, as copies of that date contain explanatory

se

~ THE “BOOK OF THE DEAD” 103

commentaries, introduced by the words petr-ref-su (“What is that?”), or other words of the same meaning, and variant readings, introduced by ki zed (“otherwise said”). Some generations, at any rate, must have elapsed before these additions to the original text could have obtained canonical authority. As the ages passed, new explanations of the text, and explanations of the explanations, were invented, and new variant readings arose. And all the time new chapters were being written, some of which succeeded in gaining admission to the received text. The number of chapters and their order were both unfixed until the time of the Saites, when it appears that an authoritative revision was made. But the collection still con- tinued to grow, as is evidenced by the title already quoted, which states that the last three chapters of the great Turin copy are an addition to the book. It is believed by some scholars that information as to the date of the Book of the Dead is contained in the book itself. One of the earliest of the state- ments on which they rely is found on the coffin of Queen Mentuhotep, of the 11th Dynasty. This text contains two versions of chapter 64, a longer - andashorter. The longer is followed by a rubric which reads: “This chapter was discovered at Hermopolis upon a slab of alabaster, inscribed in blue, under the feet of this god, in the time of King Men-kau-Ra,* by the prince Hordadaf, when he was journeying for the purpose of inspecting the temples.” The rubric to the-shorter version is: “ This chapter was discovered in the foundation of

• 4th Dynasty.

104 CHARACTER AND HISTORY OF

the god who is in the Hennu-bark by the superin- tendent of the builders of the wall in the time of King Semti.”* The papyrus of Yuau agrees with this early authority, and so do the late Turin papyrus as to the long version and a papyrus at Cairo as to the short. But some very good manu- scripts do not record the tradition. The papyrus of Nebseni in the British Museum contains the rubrics, but in both cases omits the words referring to the king. This copy, however, quite excep- tionally, attributes the discovery of chapter 137 A to Hordadaf, and presumably, therefore, to the time of Men-kau-Ra. The same rubrics are also appended to other chapters. A papyrus in London and another in Paris attach the rubric referring to Men-kau-Ra to chapter 148, while a solitary example at Parma gives it to chapter 30 B.?, The rubric mentioning Semti follows chapter 130 in the Turin papyrus, but no early copy has such a rubric to this chapter.

The evidence does not seem to be sufficient to establish the truth of the statements made. Even if we had to deal with the two versions of chapter 64 only, it would be very strange if this one chapter had been found under the rst Dynasty and again under the 4th. And when the same rubrics are attached to other and quite unrelated chapters, the difficulty of belief becomes greater still. These rubrics really belong to the class of pseudo- historical records which were not uncommon in

• 1st Dynasty.

? In some of the other papyri the rubric is followed by the words of chapter 30 B without the intervention of a new chapter heading,

~ THE “BOOK OF THE DEAD” 105

Egypt, and of which an example has survived in connection with a very late form of the Book of the Dead. Dr. Pleyte has published as one of his series of “supplementary chapters” “The book found on the neck of the King Usermara’ in the tomb.” No one would be likely to defend this as a genuine historical statement; and the mere fact that the similar statements we have considered above are of more respectable antiquity is no sufficient ground for placing them in a different category.

Undoubtedly the most important portion of the )

Book of the Dead as evidence of the history of its development is chapter 17. In this extremely ancient chapter we find a series of commentaries intermixed with the text. Both text and commen- tary were written on coffins which are at least as old as the 11th Dynasty, and some of which have been attributed to the gth or roth, though the com- mentary had not yet assumed the elaborate form which we find in the 18th Dynasty papyri. One of the earliest copies known gives the original text only, but everywhere else we have the com- mentary as well. So that by the dawn of the Middle Kingdom at the latest the commentary had acquired equal authority with the text. The text, then, must certainly have been a good deal older.

A passage from the chapter (lines 32-42 in Lepsius’s Zodienbuch) is printed below in a form which shows the relation between text and com-

t This name was borne by several of the Ramessid kings of the

19th and 2oth Dynasties; Dr. Pleyte thinks that Rameses III

is meant,

i

106 CHARACTER AND HISTORY OF

\

mentary. It will be understood that the numbers and the divisions do not exist in the original, in which the matter headed “ Text” reads straight on without a break, and is immediately followed by

the matter headed “ Commentary ” :—

TEXT.

1. Hail, ye Lords of Righteousness ;

2. the divine princes at- tached to Osiris ;

3. who destroy iniquities, and are in the train of Hotep- eskhaus.

4. Grant ye me that I may come to you; bring ye to an end all the evil which is in me,

5. as ye have done for the

• Thoth in some copies.

COMMENTARY. What is that ?

1. Now these Lords of Righteousness are Set,* and Asdes lord of Amenti.

2. Now these divine princes attached to Osiris are Mesta, Hapi, Duamutef, and Kebh- sennuf ; they who belong to the Thigh in the northern sky.?

3. Now they who destroy iniquities, and are in the train of Hotepeskhaus, are the divine crocodiles who are in the water. Now Hotepes- khaus is the Eye of Ra (other- wise said: the divine flame which accompanies Ostris3 for burning the souls of his adver- saries),

4. Now all the evil which is in him is that which he hath done against the Lords of Eternity since he came from his mother’s womb,

5 (a). Now these seven

? The Thigh is the constellation which we call the Great Bear. 3 Some copies read Tum or Tum-Osiris.

~ THE “BOOK OF THE DEAD” 107

seven glorious ones who | glorious ones are Mesta, Hapi,

follow their lord Sepa, Duamutef, Kebhsennuf, He who sees his Father, He who is under his olive-tree, and Horus chief of the City of Blindness ; they who are sta- tioned by Anubis as protectors of the burial of Osiris (other- wise said: about the sanctuary of Osiris).

5 (b). Otherwise said: Now these seven glorious ones are Netcheh-netcheh, Ked-ked, the Burning Bull in his fire, He who enters to him who is in his hour, He of the red eyes -in the House of Gauze, Fiery- faced one who cometh forth backwards, He who sees by night that which he brings by day. Now the chief of these divine princes of Anaref, Horus is his name.

6. and whose places Anubis| 6. Now that day of “Come appointed on that day of|thou hither!” was when

“Come thou hither !” Osiris said to Ra, “ Come thou hither!” I see the meeting in Amenti.

It is evident at a glance that the commentary is, to say the least, a very considerable expansion of the text; but a little closer scrutiny shows that the commentators (for there were certainly more than one) contradict not only the text but also each other. Nothing can be plainer than that the original author intended the expressions numbered 1, 2, and 3 above to be descriptive of one kind of beings; it could never have occurred to him fora moment that “the Lords

108 THE “BOOK OF THE DEAD”

of Righteousness” were distinct from “the divine princes attached to Osiris” or from “they who destroy iniquities.” But the commentary makes them into three different orders of beings. It will be further noticed that 5 (a) in the commentary, besides being inconsistent with 5 (b), is incom- patible with 2. According to the latter, the divine princes attached to Osiris are Mesta, Hapi, Duamutef, and Kebhsennuf (the four children of Horus or. of Osiris); but according to 5 (a) these four are the first of the seven glorious ones— in other words, those who bring evil to an end are the same as those for whom that office is performed ! It is to be inferred that 2 and 5 (a) are the work of different authors ; and this is confirmed by the interesting fact that the introductory expression which we translate by “now” is not quite the same in the two cases.

|

j

CHAPTER XII

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DEAD

OF all the chapters of the Book of the Dead, the’

most interesting, both for its contents and for the / problems to which it gives rise, is without doubt | chapter 125. This chapter, in its most completely | developed form, consists of five parts: Introduction, | Negative Confession, Conclusion, Rubric, and the | scene of the Psychostasia or Weighing of the, Heart.

The text opens with the heading, “Said on arriving at the Hall of Righteousness, that V may be loosed from all the sins which he hath com- mitted and that he may look upon the divine countenances.” The deceased addresses Osiris, and assures him that he knows the names of the Forty-two Gods (the so-called assessors of Osiris) who are with him in the Hall. He then denies a

_long catalogue of sins, some of which are the same ‘as sins in the Negative Confession ; but, on the whole, this part of the chapter is much more con- cerned with ecclesiastical offences than with the moral lapses which form the main subject-matter of the Negative Confession. The denials being concluded, the deceased exclaims: “I am pure, I am pure, I am pure, I am pure.” The Intro- duction is completed by the prayer: “Let no harm come to me in this land, in the Hall of Righteous- 109

110 THE JUDGMENT OF THE DEAD

ness, because I know the names of those gods who make their appearance in it.”

In the next section, the Negative Confession, the deceased names the Forty-two assessors and denies a sin to each in turn. For example, the first is “O thou of long strides, who makest thine appear- ance in Annu ; I am not a doer of wrong”; and the thirteenth is “O Eater of Blood, who makest thine appearance at the Block; I have not slaughtered the sacred animals.” The following is the full list of forty-two sins as given in Renouf’s translation ; but the sins denied, and the order in which they occur, are not the same in all copies of the chapter :—

• Iam not a doer of wrong.

. Iam not a man of violence.

I am not evil-minded.

I am not rapacious.

. Iam not a slayer of men.

I am not fraudulent in measures of grain. I commit no fraud.

I am not a robber of sacred property.

. Lam not a teller of lies.

. Iam not a robber of food.

. Lam not sluggish.

. I am not a transgressor.

. I have not slaughtered the sacred animals. . I deal not fraudulently.

• Iam not a land-grabber.

. I am not an eavesdropper.

• Iam not one of prating tongue.

• I trouble myself only with my own affairs.

• I commit not adultery with another’s wife.

• Iam not unchaste with any one.

• I do not cause terrors.

• I am not a transgressor,

23- I am not hot of speech,

SO MW ANY Dm

Se Re ee RO Oe Oe DN OSOVANRONA

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DEAD III

’ 24. I lend not a deaf ear to the words of Righteousness. 25. 1 am not boisterous in behaviour. 26. I am not the cause of weeping to any. 27. Iam not given to unnatural lust. 28. I indulge not in anger. 29. Lam not given to cursing. 30. I am not of aggressive hand. 31. I am not one of inconstant mind.

• 32. I do not steal the skins of the sacred animals. 33- I am not noisy in my speech,

34. I am neither a liar nor a doer of mischief. 35- 1 am not one who curseth the king.
35. I put no check upon the water in its flow.
36. I am not one of loud voice.
37. I curse not a god.
38. I am not swollen with pride.
39. I have no unjust preferences.
40. [have no strong desire except for my own property.
41. I donot that which offendeth the god of my domain.

It is obvious at a glance that the list is altogether artificial and unscientific. There is no principle to be traced in the order of the sins; and there is a great deal of repetition and overlapping. Why it should have been thought necessary to have exactly forty-two denials is quite unknown. The superficially plausible suggestion that the forty- two assessors represented the forty-two nomes (or administrative districts) is by no means a satis- factory solution. As Renouf remarks, the number of the nomes “ is only certain for the later periods of Egyptian history, and is not true for earlier times. Moreover, the localities in which the gods are said to make their appearances do not corre- spond to the nomes or places within them. Some of the localities occur more than once, and some of them, if not all, are localities not upon earth.

=

112 THE JUDGMENT OF THE DEAD

Heaven occurs twice, the eleventh god makes his appearance at Amenta, and the forty-second in the Netherworld.” To this argument may be added the important consideration that some at least of the gods were not habitually associated with a locality till quite late times. In eight of the papyri published by Naville the last five of the assessors are not said to belong to any place. In six others, three of the five are given without a place. In five only do they appear in what was later regarded as the complete form. This point will be further discussed when dealing with the evolution of the chapter.

On the Confession follows the Conclusion, so called from the place assigned to it in the final recension, though it was doubtless an independent composition originally. Here we get a few more denials, and for the first time in this chapter asser- ; tions of positive acts of righteousness. “I have given bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, a boat to the shipwrecked.” The last two-thirds or so of this part is devoted to an elaborate catechism, in which the deceased is required to give the mystical names of the various parts of the Hall of Righteousness. At last he is called upon to pronounce the names of his two feet, and is told that he may walk over the floor of the Hall. But even then his troubles are not over. The Doorkeeper has not only to be told his own name, but to be satisfied that the deceased can recognize certain gods under their mystical appellations.

The fourth division is the Rubric. In this , instructions are given for making efficacious use >

i Fe i

(unesny ysoiig ‘uy jo snakdeg ay3 wos ) SPpOH BAH 94} jo goussaid ay} UI yABeTy 94} Jo Surysie NM 2°43 Jo 2ue0g

AI ALV 1d

Facing p. 113

“THE JUDGMENT OF THE DEAD 113

of the chapter; and the reader is assured that if it be written “upon a clean brick of clay, extracted from a field in which no swine hath trod,” the man “will prosper and his children will prosper : he will rise in the affection of the king and his COUrE 73. he shall not be cut off at any gate of Amenta, but he shall be conveyed along with the kings of North and South, and make his appear- ance as a follower of Osiris : undeviatingly and for times infinite.” :

The scene of the Weighing of the Heart differs _ more in the various papyri, both in position and | in details, than any other portion of the chapter. | It is here described from the Turin copy of the_ Saite recension, which will be found to differ considerably from the earlier copy shown in the illustration (Plate IV). At one end of the Half’ Osiris sits in a naos, while along one side are the forty-two assessors. The deceased enters by the door opposite to Osiris, to whom he addresses a prayer, and is received by Maat, the goddess of Righteousness. His heart is shown being weighed in the great scale against the figure of Maat, under the superintendence of Anubis, while Horus adjusts the plummet and the ape of Thoth sits on the beam. The weighing having been satisfactorily ~ carried out, Thoth reports to Osiris that the heart of the deceased has been restored tohim. Between Thoth and Osiris stand the four children of Horus and the strange-looking animal called “the eater _ of the dead, the lady of the land of Amenti.” Of. this creature it is said in some of the older papyri that “her fore part is that of a crocodile, her hind

part is that of a hippopotamus, and her middle ; I

114 THE JUDGMENT OF THE DEAD

part is that of a lion.” Her function obviously is to eat up those who do not pass the judgment ; but it need hardly be said that no papyrus shows her performing that interesting and pleasant duty !

We may now inquire what was the process of evolution by which all these parts were brought together. Setting aside the Psychostasia for the moment, it is clear even with regard to the parts that appear more intimately connected that they were not at first intended to be read together. We cannot suppose that we possess the very earliest documents containing the chapter; but the papyri, even as they exist, provide ample evidence of the gradual bringing together of independent com- positions. The so-called Conclusion is quite as suitable as the so-called Introduction to precede the Negative Confession, and its ultimate position must have been artificially assigned to it. It is, in fact, found in two versions that do not contain the Negative Confession at all, and in another it appears as a separate chapter at a considerable distance from the latter. Similarly, the Introduc- tion sometimes occurs without the Confession and sometimes after it. In two texts given by Naville, which do not contain the Conclusion, the Introduc- tion follows the Confession, and in one other the Introduction and Conclusion doth follow the Con- fession.

It is, moreover, to be inferred from the material which has survived that the Negative Confession itself was gradually developed. It is now impos- sible to reconstruct its history with any cer- tainty; but there seems to be good ground for

,

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DEAD 115 /

inferring that the canonical number of forty-two assessors was not original, and that possibly, in its first form, the Negative Confession (as it afterwards became) was nothing more than a recital of the names of the assessors. As already mentioned, many of the best and earliest papyri conclude the Confession with five names of assessors that have no place named with them, and this pecu- liarity continued certainly down to the 21st Dynasty, and possibly later. It would appear, then, that these five names were added after the others, and that the places to be associated with them only later came to be settled. This view is strongly supported by the very curious fact that the fine hieratic papyrus of Nesitanebtashru in the British Museum, after the regulation forty-two assessors, adds six more who have neither places associated with them nor sins denied. This papyrus was written for a royal princess, and presumably would contain only what was considered strictly correct. It is, therefore, at least good evidence that it was not at that time believed to be essential that the assessors should number exactly forty-two, which is almost conclusive against the theory that that number was selected to agree with the number of the nomes. Finally, we may note that a coffin at Brussels, from the great find of coffins of the priests of Mentu, gives forty-nine assessors, all followed regularly by the place name and by the sin denied.

We have left till the last the consideration of the

• Psychostasia, or Weighing of the Heart, which in the Turin Papyrus concludes the 125th chapter. In this late papyrus not only does the Psychostasia stand as part of the chapter, but the forty-two

116 THE JUDGMENT OF THE DEAD

assessors of the Confession are actually shown in the Hall where the ceremony takes place. Here the assimilation is complete, or as complete as it could be made. But, even so, we should be justified in concluding that two originally distinct methods of judging the dead had been brought together. If the happy lot of the deceased in the next world is assured to him equally by his denials to the assessors and by the weighing of the heart, why should he be subjected to both trials? But we are not left to such arguments alone. Anybody can see by merely looking at the facsimile of the papyrus of Ani exhibited at the British Museum that the Psychostasia is separated from the Con- fession by three-quarters of the length of the papyrus. And if we examine it, we shall find that it differs from the scene in the Turin text in one most important particular. Instead of the forty-two assessors, who were later introduced to suggest a connection with the Negative Confession, the weighing of the heart takes place in the presence of twelve of the great gods of Egypt. In another British Museum papyrus (Hunefer) there are four- teen gods, and in still another (Anhai) we have the great and the little company of the gods. That the doctrine of salvation by the weighing of the heart arose in quite a different school from that which originated the Confession is also shown by its position in the papyrus of Ani. It occurs after the introductory hymn to the sun-god and imme- diately before the commencement of the regular chapters; evidently it hardly yet had a recognized right to count as part of the Book of the Dead. The same conclusion may be drawn from the fact

THE JUDGMENT OF THE DEAD 117

that many of the very best papyri give the Con- fession without the Psychostasia, which would have been impossible if the latter had then been regarded as an integral part of the judgment.

But Ani and some other papyri that treat the Psychostasia and the Confession as separate add . to the Negative Confession a small scene of the weighing of the heart. This scene is doubtless the first faint indication of the future absorption of the Psychostasia in chapter 125.

We conclude our consideration of this extremely important chapter with a brief discussion of what it all meant to an Egyptian, and what it can teach us as to his moral attitude. On one point there is no room for doubt: it is certain that the Egyptian ideal was to avoid those things that are denied, and to do those things that are affirmed.

But if we ask the crucial question, whether the Egyptian thought it necessary that the denials and affirmations should be ¢rue in an objective sense, the answer is by no means so obvious. Fora long time the opinion was generally held that when the deceased said, “I commit no fraud” or “I am not

• ateller of lies,” these were to be taken as statements

of pre-existing facts, and that only in so far as they were true (in our sense) could he hope to pass the judgment and be admitted into the blissful realms of Osiris. As one scholar puts it: “From the earliest times the Egyptian regarded a life of moral _excellence upon earth as a necessary introduction to the life which he hoped to live with the blessed in heaven.” It would be pleasant to believe so, but the evidence is all against any such belief. It never could have been entertained at all if the early

118 THE JUDGMENT OF THE DEAD

investigators had not (very naturally) missed the essential fact that the collection of texts to which we give the name Book of the Dead is made up of magic spells. It is and must be admitted by every one that when the deceased frightens the Crocodile of the East by saying “I am Osiris” he is not stating an objective fact; and it is only by shutting one’s eyes to the evidence that it can be believed that his denials of sins were of a different nature. But there was no sense of falsity in all this. To say “I am Osiris” was not to speak falsely, because when a magical spell is properly uttered it brings to pass, according to the belief of the sincere magician, the very thing which he has affirmed.*

The evidence is abundant; and, indeed, the opening sentence of the chapter is not consistent with any view other than the magical. We are told plainly that the purpose of the text is that the deceased “may be loosed from all the sins which he hath committed.” It is assumed that he has committed sins, and he is provided with the formule ~ which will “loose” him, or, to use the language of a religious system with which we are more familiar, “save” him from their power. The insistence of the deceased that he knows the “names” of the forty-two assessors does not suggest any great concern for morality; but it is exactly what we

t The following passage from Sir Flinders Petrie’s valuable and interesting work, Religious Life in Ancient Egypt, appears to show that this view, like so many other of the old beliefs, still survives; “The modern Egyptian never acknowledges that he has done wrong; if he suffers for it, that is fate. He always feels that by asserting his innocence he justifies himself. The sense of wrong-doing, of sin, is foreign to his nature, as it is to all Mediterranean folk; it belongs to the Semite and the Indian.”

“THE JUDGMENT OF THE DEAD 119

should expect if the formula is magical, and it is an additional reason for thinking that the names alone stood in the formula originally, and that the denial of sins was an afterthought. In any case, to give the correct name is equally necessary with the denial of the appropriate sin. The examina- tion to which the deceased is subjected in the Conclusion, which is clearly pure magic, affords an exact parallel. What can it matter, from the point of view of “moral excellence,” whether he knows or not that the lock has the mystical name “Bone of An-maut-ef,” or that the Doorkeeper is | called “He who knoweth the heart and exploreth the person”? Yet the orthodox Egyptian was bound to believe.that his hope of future happiness depended on the correct enunciation of names like these. And the lowest depth of all is reached in the Rubric, where we are solemnly assured that a man may infallibly “make his appearance as a follower of Osiris” by writing the chapter on a brick “extracted from a field in which no swine: hath trod” !

CHAPTER XIII THE FUTURE LIFE

ALTHOUGH an educated Egyptian must have under- stood many things in his religious literature which are obscure to us, it is impossible that he could have had any consistent idea of what awaited him in the future life. Doubtless, like the devotees of other religions, he professed belief in the orthodox creed of the moment; but that creed had been gradually formed through long centuries by the amalgamation of beliefs derived from various sources, and belonging to various levels of culture ; and there could have been no real belief in it as a whole. There are at least two conceptions of the future life which are still clearly discernible in the Book of the Dead and other documents, in spite of all the attempts to fuse them into a single whole— the Osirian and the Solar. References to the Netherworld and to Amenti, which are distinctly Osirian doctrines, have been introduced into chapters originally purely solar; and this is specially frequent in the titles. The Osirian doctrine ultimately acquired such predominance that it has been superimposed upon the solar in every direction. Even where there is no other evidence of it, it appears in the epithet “Osiris ” applied to the deceased. At first it was only kings who became Osiris at death. But the ; I20

” THE FUTURE LIFE 121

Osirian realms were gradually democratized, and at last everybody was called Osiris in the mortuary texts. But the process was very gradual. Even great nobles were not regularly called “Osiris” before the 19th Dynasty.

Earlier, however, in all probability than any other belief was the doctrine that the dead man resided in his tomb, either permanently or with occasional visits to the world of the living. With this belief is associated the practice of mummifica- tion. The explanation frequently put forward, that the body was preserved in order that the soul might some day reincarnate in it, is without justification in the Egyptian writings. It was believed that a physical basis of life was necessary ; and the body was mummified as a means (and originally, doubtless, the only means) of avoiding that extinction of consciousness which the normal Egyptian looked upon with horror. To this belief also is clearly due the practice of making offerings of real food and drink, and of painting pictures of offerings in the tomb. And, as Professor Breasted remarks, these customs were continued after the belief implied by them had been entirely lost, just as people to-day place flowers on graves without believing that their loved ones are actually present there.

The predominant doctrine for many centuries was that the dead went to live in the realms of Osiris in Amenti (the West) or the Underworld. To get into the Underworld and get out again is the purpose of many chapters of the Book of the Dead; and this purpose is often combined with others of a clearly solar character. For

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY LIBRARY,

ne THE FUTURE LIFE

instance, a rubric which is found attached to chapter 72, and also to chapter 1, reads: “If this discourse is learnt upon earth, or is written upon the coffin, he may come forth upon every day that he pleaseth and again enter his house without impediment. And there shall be given to him bread and beer and flesh meat upon the table of Ra: he shall receive allotment in the Garden of Aarru, and there shall be given to him there wheat and barley, for he shall be flourishing as when he was upon earth.” In making his way into the | Underworld, or various special sections of it, the deceased had to encounter many dangers, and chapters were provided to enable him to surmount these. Thus we find chapters for repulsing croco- diles (31 and 32), for keeping back serpents (33), for preventing the head of a person being taken from him (43), for avoiding being burnt with fire and boiled in water (63 A and B); and many others- of a like nature. One of the most interesting of the dangers to be encountered, from the Osirian point of view, is that of being conveyed to the East (chapter 93)—the most blissful of all places accord- ing to another doctrine, as we shall see later.

One of the objects to be attained by means of certain chapters of the Book of the Dead was to traverse the heavens in the boat of the Sun—a destiny obviously quite incompatible with dwelling in the realms of Osiris in the West. With this belief are associated the Hymns to the Sun-God, known as chapter 15, and the vignettes of the rising and the setting sun belonging to that chapter, but erroneously numbered 16. Chapters g8-102 are probably all originally solar, although

THE FUTURE LIFE 123

Osirian elements have been introduced into them. Chapters 98 and 99 are both entitled “Chapter whereby one saileth a ship in the Netherworld”; but, so far as can be made out from our very corrupt copies of the text, the reference to the Netherworld is not justified. In 98 the deceased is made to say: “I sail across the sky, and Shu [a solar god] standeth erect”; and 99 concludes with: “And he cometh forth in the Garden of Aarru [which we describe later] in all the forms in which it pleaseth him to come forth.” The next three chapters are predominantly solar, even in their titles, all of which refer to the Bark of Ra. In 100 the deceased says: “I hail and give worship to the Orb, and associate myself with those in adoration. I am one of them…… Let Ra lend me his two hands; let not his-divine Boatmen prevent me. Let my strength be that of the divine Eye, and conversely.” In 1o2 Ra is again addressed: “O Great One in thy Bark, let me be lifted into thy Bark. Let me make head for thy staircase…… And I embark for the voyage of Ra.” The chapters 130-136 B are of a similar character in the main, though references to the Underworld have been interpolated, especially in the titles and rubrics.

The conception of the future life of which we have the fullest account is that associated with the Gardens of Aarru (later Aanru) and Hotepit, though the exact relation of these to each other has been in considerable doubt. In his edition of the Book of the Dead Renouf says: “ The Gardens of Hotepit and Aarru are the Paradise, Elysian Fields, and Islands of the Blessed of the Egyptian imagination.

124 THE FUTURE LIFE

They were supposed to be situated in the neigh- bourhood of the rising Sun, but certain features were apparently suggested by the islets of the Deéliaccce. The Garden of Aarru is often mentioned in connection with that of Hotepit, and may perhaps be considered as the most notable part of it.”

The opinion that the Garden of Aarru is part of the Garden of Hotepit finds practically no support outside the title to chapter 110 of the Book of the Dead, which Renouf thus translates: “The Begin- ning of the Chapters of the Garden of Hotepit, and of the Chapters of coming forth by day ; and of entering and coming forth in the Netherworid, and of arriving at the Garden of Aarru, at the Rise in Hotepit and at the Grand Domain, blest with the breezes: that I may take possession there and be in Glory there: that there I may plough and mow: that there I may eat and drink and love: doing whatsoever things are done upon earth.” Although this title is at least as old as the 18th Dynasty, it must be considerably later than the composition of the chapter. This is evident not only from its inconsistency with the text, but from the fact that even the late Turin papyrus (here as elsewhere preserving an older form than the papyri of the New Empire) has no title at all to the chapter. Like many others in the Book of the Dead, the title is misleading, and shows a confusion of originally quite distinct ideas. There is absolutely nothing in the text about “coming forth by day, and entering and coming forth in the Nether- world,” and any such conception of the future life is altogether alien from the thought of the original

THE FUTURE LIFE 125

author. Neither did the original author have any- thing to say about the Garden of Aarru, either as part of, or as identified with, the Garden of Hotepit, though both Gardens clearly embodied similar conceptions of the life of the blessed dead. But this we shall be better able to understand after reading the chapter itself. The following passages, extracted from Renouf’s translation, show clearly the kind of beatitude to which the deceased had looked forward :—

May I have the investiture of thy Garden, O Hotep. What thou willest, do thou it.

Let me be glorified there, and eat and drink there, and plough there, and reap there, and grind there, and have my fill of love there.

May my mouth be potent there ; let me there utter my Words of Power and not be slighted……

I am in possession of that Word of Power of mine which is the most potent one within this body of mine here : and by means of it I make myself either known or unknown.

I make my progress and I plough.

I take my rest in the divine Domain.

I know the names of the domains, the districts, and the streams within the Garden of Hotep.

I am there, I am master there, I am in glory there, I eat there ; I plant and I reap there ; I plough there, and I take my fill of love. I am united there with the god Hotep.

I cast my seed there, and I sail upon its stream that I may come to the domains thereof, O Hotep……

I sail upon its stream, and I range within the Garden of Hotep, for Ra is in the sky, and Hotep is putting together the oblations.

I hasten to the land, and I fasten my stole upon me, that I may come forth, and that that may be given to me which hath to be given; that I may have joy and take possession of the wealth which Hotep assigneth to me.

126 THE FUTURE LIFE

Rise in Hotep,? 1 arrive in thee, my soul is with me, and my provision is before the Mistress of the Two Earths, who maketh fast my Words of Power, which recall to mind that which I have forgotten. Let me live free from strife ; and be there granted to me enlarge- ment of heart.’……

Great Domain, | arrive in thee, and I reckon up the abundance as I pass on to Uakh……

Uakh, 1 arrive in thee, and I eat my cakes, and take possession of my joints of flesh and meat and fowl.

Tchefait, | arrive in thee, I put on the stole and fasten upon me the girdle of Ra, whilst he is in heaven, and the gods who are in heaven are following Ra.

Rise in Hotep, Lord of the Two Earths, 1 arrive in thee: I salute the stream of Tcheserit. Lo, here am I, and all impurity is far from me. The great one flourisheth…… I net the ducks, and I eat dainties.

Kankanit, 1 arrive in thee ; that I may see my father and attentively view my mother.

I take care to net the reptiles ; and that which pro- tecteth me is that I know the name of that god who is next to Tcheserit (goddess with flowing locks and armed with horns), and who reapeth.

I myself plough and reap.

Hesit, 1 arrive in thee, and I encounter the Blue.

I follow the Breezes, and the company of the gods.

It is the Great goddess who hath given me my head, and he who fasteneth my head upon me is the Great god, the Blue-eyed, who doeth according to his own will.

Userit, I arrive in thee, in face of the mansion where food is produced for me.

Smait, I arrive in thee. My heart is awake: my head is provided with the White crown and I am conveyed over the heavens: and I make those things to prosper which are below me: a joy to the Bull of the gods above, the divine company.

t This and the other expressions in italics are the names of various sections of the Garden.

2 “Enlargement, expansion, or dilatation, of heart” is an expression for joy.

PLATE V

Rew tN | ——

<a Ah, 2 |) a aotan ANNI a Na

zen. | mn | vJf 22120 GX BPA Za Ci le'=

NY « a ores 6 a co ay ee Ae RRR RAC RN

The Elysian Fields of the Egyptians (From the Papyrus of Ani, British Museum)

Facing p. 127

c THE FUTURE LIFE 127

Iam the Bull, the Lord of the gods; and I make my way through the midst of the Emerald ones.

Isle of Corn and Barley, divine district, I arrive in thee. I encounter and I bear off that which proceedeth from the head of Ra: the pair of horns which have the force of purification.

I make myself fast to the Block of Moorage on the heavenly stream, and I utter my praise to the gods who are in the garden of Hotepit.

The large vignette attached to the chapter differs greatly in the different papyri. That here repro- duced (Plate V), from the Papyrus of Ani, is divided into four compartments. In the first of these Ani is seen in his boat and also making offerings to certain gods; in the second he reaps the corn and drives the oxen who tread out the grain in the usual Egyptian manner ; in the third he ploughs his fields; while in the fourth are shown two sacred barks. Around the whole picture and between the compartments runs the stream that is mentioned several times in the passages quoted above. In the third compartment it is described as being 1,000 atru (about 950 miles!) in width and of a length that cannot be told ; and it contains neither fish nor reptiles. In this same compartment, over the backs of the oxen, are the words “Garden of Aanru.” In the fourth compartment we read: “ The place of the glorified ones; their height is seven cubits.* The corn is three cubits.”

While this extremely interesting vignette un-

doubtedly in the main depicts what is described in

the text, a little criticism will show that, as it

The cubit was about twenty inches in length.

138 ‘THE FUTURE LIFE

stands in the Papyrus of Ani, it is of a later date. In the vignette, the wonderful stream which surrounds and intersects the Garden is said to contain neither fish nor reptiles; but this would have been a rather startling piece of information to the author of the text, who wrote “I net the fish,” and, a little later, “I take care to net the reptiles.”* The words “Garden of Aanru” occur in one only of the five papyri in Naville. But a still clearer proof, if any were needed, that ideas foreign to the chapter have been introduced into the vignette is furnished by the curious refer- ence quoted above to the height of the inhabitants of the Garden and of the corn. The author of the chapter would hardly have omitted to mention that the glorified ones attained the height of about twelve feet had he been acquainted with such a curious fact, but he made no reference to it in describing the Garden of Hotepit; while other parts of the Book of the Dead, dealing with the Garden of Aarru, constantly make the statement. The chapter of the Domains (149) gives the Garden of Aarru as the name of the second domain, and it informs us that the walls are of steel, the wheat is seven cubits high, and the glorified ones seven cubits. And again at the end of the description the wheat is said to be seven cubits, the barley seven cubits, and the glorified ones no less than nine cubits in height!? The statement in the

• Renouf has, as will be seen, “I net the ducks”; but this is the reading of one papyrus only ; the other four used by Naville have “fish”; and all have “reptiles ” in the second passage.

• The numbers are those in Naville’s translation, but they vary greatly in the different papyri; the favourite figures appear to be seven for the wheat and barley, and nine for the glorified dead

/ THE FUTURE LIFE 129

latter form is also contained in chapter 109, which is really only another version of the second domain in chapter 149.

We may conclude, then, that the Gardens of Hotepit and Aarru were two forms, quite inde- pendent in origin, of the belief in a future life in which the agricultural occupations which must always have engaged the attention of the majority of the inhabitants of Egypt should be continued as upon earth. But all the vicissitudes of earthly life would be done away ; all the anxieties as to a low Nile would cease; and the beatified souls who had been able to reach the blissful abode would be ensured a constant supply of all the good things of this life. Such a conception must have originated with those who loved the work of the fields and wished for nothing better than to be allowed to continue it. All they demanded from their gods was security against the tribulations which they must have so often suffered in their earthly life. Provided this were granted them, they were content to take their share in raising the corn and other food which they hoped to consume in abundance.

But there was no idea that all this was a reward for moral virtue. The secret of arriving at the Elysian Fields was to know the names of the gods and to be able to utter “words of power”—i.e., magical incantations. If the deceased were pro-

vided with a copy of the Book of the Dead

who inhabit the Garden. The corn and the people as pictured in the vignettes are usually about the same height, as will be seen from the illustration; but the Turin vignette shows the corn much higher than the reapers, although it states the reverse.

j K

130 THE FUTURE LIFE

containing the proper spells, all was well with him.

In no-other part of the Book of the Dead can we see so clearly as here that there were con- ceptions of a future life that had nothing whatever to do with. the Osirian doctrine of the Netherworld, which came ultimately to dominate everything con- nected with the dead. The title which was imposed on chapter 110 speaks, it is true, of the Nether- world; but, as already mentioned, there is nothing of this in the text. Strange to say, even the name of Osiris, which has been forced into so many inappropriate places, does not appear in title or text.. The title to chapters 145 and 146 is, it is true, “The knowing of the pylons of the house of Osiris, in the Garden of Aarru”; but this attempt to associate Osiris with the Garden is much later than the text of the chapter. In many papyri these two chapters have no title, and the text has nothing to say of the Garden. Both in chapter 110 (Hotepit) and chapters 109 and 149 (Aarru) everything is solar and belongs to the east, not to the west where Osiris reigned. The glorified ones reap the corn in the presence of Ra-Heru-khuti or of the Powers of the East. Inthe Garden of Aarru are the gate “out of which cometh Ra in the east of the sky” and, according to another image, “those two sycamores of emerald between which Ra cometh forth.”

Whatever inconsistencies there may be in the various conceptions of the future life, it is generally

t The scribe of one of the papyri collated by Naville could not, however, resist dragging it in. In the passage where Renouf reads “that I may see my father,” Nebseni has “that I may see Osiris”; but no other papyrus supports the reading.

THE FUTURE LIFE £31

assumed that the deceased overcomes all his diffi- culties and attains a happy immortality, but there are some parts of the Book of the Dead which do not allow him apparently to hope even for eventual bliss. The picture presented by chapter 175, of which we unfortunately possess only two imperfect copies, is by no means the same as that of the Gardens of Hotepit and Aarru :—

“O Thoth! What has become of the children of Nut? They have stirred up hostilities, they have raised storms, they have committed iniquity, they have raised rebellion, they have perpetrated murder, they have done oppression, and thus have acted, the strong against the weak, in all that they have done to me…i.

“JT am thy pallet, O Thoth, and I bring to thee thine inkstand; I am not one of those who do mischief in secret. Let not mischief be done unto me.

“OQ Tum! what is this place to which I have journeyed? For itis without water and without air! It is all abyss, utter darkness, sheer perplexity. One liveth here in peace of heart. There is no pleasure of love here. Let there be granted to me glory instead of water, air, and pleasures of love; and peace of heart instead of bread and beer.”

These gloomy beliefs as to the future are much more fully and emphatically expressed in the Ptolemaic stele in the British Museum of the wife _ of Pashere-en-Ptah (“the child of the god Ptah ”). As her husband was High Priest of Memphis and doubtless approved, if he did not actually compose, the inscription, we may conclude that such beliefs were not at all incompatible with the orthodox

132 THE FUTURE LIFE

Egyptian religion. The lady is made to address her surviving husband in these terms :—

“OQ my brother, my husband, my friend, cease not to drink, to eat, to drain the cup of joy, to enjoy the love of woman, and to make holiday ; to follow the desire of thy heart by day and by night; and let not sorrow or sadness find a place in thy heart during all the years which thou shalt live upon earth. Amenti is the land of stupor and darkness, and a place of oppression for those who are therein. The august ones sleep in their mummied forms ; they cannot awake to see their brethren, they cannot look upon their fathers and mothers, and they are unmindful of wives and children. The living water which the earth hath for its dwellers is stagnant water for me…… I no longer know where I am, now that I have arrived in this valley. I weep for the water which passes by me; I weep for the ‘breeze on the river bank that the coolness thereof might quiet the anguish which is in my heart! He whose name is Universal Death calleth every one to him; and they come unto him with quaking hearts, and they are terrified through their fear of him. With him is no distinction made between gods and men, and the great are even as the little in his sight. He showeth no favour to those who long for him, for he carrieth away the babe from his mother, as well as the aged man. As he goeth about on his way all men fear him, and though all make supplication before him he turneth not his face towards them. Entreaty reacheth not unto him, for he will not hearken unto him who maketh supplication, and him who presenteth unto him offerings and funerary gifts he will not regard.”

THE FUTURE LIFE 133

It will thus be seen that the Egyptian had many different doctrines offered for his acceptance, and all of them appear, to have been more or less current atalltimes. Doubtless different individuals among the learned laid special stress upon different parts of the composite mass; while the great body of the population gave a nominal assent to the whole without troubling to understand the meaning of any partofit. It has been generally held that the Egyptians had a profound and passionate belief in immortality, but it may be questioned whether they were quite so certain about the matter as has been thought. That they abhorred above everything the thought that the individual consciousness might some day cease to exist, and that they took every precaution to prevent such a catastrophe, is abun- dantly evident; but is it equally clear that they believed that their efforts would succeed? “Did, in point of fact, the Egyptians really believe in immortality? Were not their ever-shifting affirma- tions concerning the state of the dead rather the reflexion of an unconfessed ignorance betraying itself in conjecture ? and were not the multifarious rites that were performed on behalf of the mummy just so many despairing efforts to stave off an ineluc- table doom—the expression of a firm purpose, if die one must, at least to die fighting? There is evidence enough to make it certain that the fear of complete dissolution was a very real fear indeed.” *

t Gardiner, Zomb of Amenemhe?, p. 118.

CHAPTER XIV LATER MORTUARY LITERATURE

THE principal works of mortuary literature other than the Pyramid Texts and the Book of the Dead are known as the Book of Amduat (or, the Book of that which is in the Under-world), of which there are several copies in the royal tombs of the new kingdom, and the Book of Gates, best repre- sented by the beautiful alabaster sarcophagus of Seti I in the Soane Museum. These compositions both profess to record the progress of the sun god through the under-world by night, and on this perilous journey he is accompanied by the blessed dead. But, although the general idea is the same in both, they must have emanated from different schools, since the details are almost entirely different. These differences, however, did not prevent the pious Egyptian from putting his trust in both. To describe these books in detail would not be of much interest to the reader, and we con- tent ourselves with giving a summary of the Book of Amduat, which is reproduced with a few altera- tions from Erman’s Handbook of Egyptian Religion (Eng. trans., pp. 109-14).

According to the Book of Amduat, the under- world is divided into twelve parts, which corre- spond to the twelve hours, and are spoken of as “fields” or “caverns.” They have a large popu-

134

LATER MORTUARY LITERATURE 135

lation of gods, of spirits, and of the dead. In each there is usually a town, and each is ruled bya god. As the Pharaoh sailed through the provinces of his kingdom, so did the sun god sail from one cavern to another ; “he issues his commands to the gods who are therein,” and divides the land among them. Various gods formed the escort of Ra, and the goddess of the special hour also acted as his guide. On this journey, however, he himself is actually a corpse—his “ flesh,” as the text says.

During the first hour the sun god journeys “into the earth, into the gateway of the western horizon.” From the second hour another bark is used by the god, which at first is convoyed by four marvellous boats. In the field of the third hour Osiris dwells with his followers. Here also ships precede him, and he receives a friendly welcome.

The fourth and fifth hours bring us into a strange locality, into the “ passages, the secret caverns of the West,” where Sokaris, the ancient Memphite god of the dead, has his abode. There darkness reigns, and Ra “does not see who is therein,” yet they hear his voice when he gives his commands. It is a sandy desert without water, the abode of serpents. The bark of Ra must itself change into a serpent, and thus it is drawn through a passage, “the road by which the body of Sokaris entered,” through the mound of sand in which Sokaris is buried, and out of which he still thrusts his head in order to behold the sun.

The sixth hour once more affords water for the bark of the sun; and it arrives “in this field near the body of Osiris.” The seventh brings him danger, for the great storm dragon Apep, “ whose

136 LATER MORTUARY LITERATURE

place is in heaven,” has established himself here, and lies on a “ ridge of land which he fills with his coils.” But “his voice guides the gods to him,” and they wound him: “this great god does not pass over him, but diverts his way from him.” Yet “this secret way on which the god sails in his splendid bark” has yet another difficulty : there is not sufficient water for it, for the dragon has drunk it up, and the magic of Isis and of the Elders is required to bring the ship on its way. These caverns still belong, moreover, to Osiris, whose flesh we here see enthroned as king, while his enemies lie beheaded or bound before him. It is yet more noteworthy that in this hour and the following the sun god arrives at mounds of sand, under which various gods are buried. Atum, Ra, Kheper, Shu, Tefnut, and others: thus he meets himself, and, moreover, actually under his three forms !

In the ninth hour the rowers of the sun god land and “rest in this city ”; in the eleventh, where also the torture of the enemies of Osiris is to be wit- nessed, the rope by which the ship is dragged is changed into a serpent. In the twelfth the great transformation occurs, which has been prepared during the eleventh hour. In the tenth hour a beetle had alighted close to Ra, now in the cavern “End of the dawn,” the sun bark is dragged through a serpent, and when at last he emerges out of the jaws of the serpent the sun god himself has become this beetle. He has now become Kheper, god of the morning sun, his former body remains in the under-world, and the god Shu takes the beetle in charge ; the new god “comes

LATER MORTUARY LITERATURE 137

out from the under-world, and seats himself in the morning bark, and ascends into the bosom of the goddess of heaven.” The sun is new-born and begins his new career.

These are roughly the contents of the book so far as they can be reproduced. The innumerable quaint details with which the confused imagination of its compilers has loaded it cannot be reproduced, and yet they give the book its special character. Thus, for instance, in pictures of the third hour, the kingdom of Osiris, in the ninety-seven figures in the illustration we see nothing, actually nothing, of all we find elsewhere associated with the god of the dead. Neither his table of food, nor the fields tilled by the blessed dead, neither the judgment of the dead, nor Isis and Nephthys. Instead we find on one bank three gods standing with sceptres; a hawk ; four women who, according to the explana- tory text, “weep” or “lament”; four mummies having horns and wings on their heads; and four men, who, it appears, represent “the noble dead.” Then follows the “ rich in magic,” a papyrus stem on which a piece of meat is lying. Behind area man “who brings the eye and satisfies the gods,” Anubis with his sceptre before him, and a mummy form provided with hands. The ram with the sword is “the slayer of his foes ’; the male and female “ bringers ” appear also to be bringing eye- balls. Finally, behind Set and Anubis are two monkeys, one of which is seated in a hiding- place; the other, as stated in the inscription, is seated “on his sand.” On the other bank we find two gods in long garments, one of whom represents Orion, a god in a short skirt, the

138 LATER MORTUARY LITERATURE

“ Western,” the goddess “ who is upon her flame,” the goddess of birth, the “ five,” five bird-headed beings with knives, and others. Between these are two groups of four gods enthroned wearing the crowns of Lower and Upper Egypt; and these eight gods all represent Osiris, to whom this locality belongs, corresponding to eight different titles of the god. These are “ The mightiest of the gods,” “King of Lower Egypt,” “He who is seated upon his throne,” “Bull of the West,” “ Conqueror of Eternity,” “ Representative of the Stars,” “First of the Westerners,” “Lord of the West.” Behind all these again stand a man praying and the god Khnum. When we turn to the ships which are conducting the sun bark we find in them the serpents “Sparkling of face,” “Fire in countenance,” “Fire in eye,” and also hawks and female hawks, with “ Lords of sceptres ” and “ He who is in the country,” with the pilots, “Flaming Face,” “ Knife in the countenance,” and “Rower of rowers.” “What in the world,” exclaims Professor Erman, “is the meaning of all this?” In vain we search in the text for an explanation; here we are told that those in the upper row “create the ocean, make the overflow- ings of the Nile,” while those below “cut up souls and ensnare shadows,” and harry the enemy with fire and sword.

Weare also informed that these beings worship Ra; he speaks kindly to them and gives them drink, and when he has passed away from them they lament. But what help does this give us towards understanding the individual figures? And yet the man who compiled this grand book

LATER MORTUARY LITERATURE 139

on the basis of one similar and more ancient undoubtedly associated ideas with the whole of this, and took delight in all the allusions concealed in these pictures. We need not, however, greatly lament our ignorance, for what is incomprehensible to us here does not represent popular ideas, nor does it contain deep speculation, Itisthe phantasy of a strange people, who have given it the form in which we now see it, and who were nothing more than compilers of magic spells. The titles, with which the whole book is pervaded, point to this. Whoever knows these pictures and names, “to him it is of the greatest use upon earth and of use in the great under-world.” Or: “who knows them,” he possesses “food in the under-world, and is satisfied with the gifts of the followers of Osiris, while his relations upon earth also make gifts to him.” Or, again: “He is a passenger of the Bark of Ra in heaven and in earth. He, however, who does not know these things,” he cannot escape Apep. “Every word, every picture of the book, is thus,” Erman concludes, “a protection for the fortunate possessor.”

It has been doubted whether the creatures whose punishment is spoken of in these works included human beings, or whether they were only the serpent Apep and the other enemies of Ra, who sought to prevent him from rising each day. Some passages certainly seem to suggest that those who had not rendered due homage to Ra on earth shared after death in the punishment he inflicted upon Apep; and it would appear that the late Egyptians, at any rate, so understood the texts, for when they embraced Christianity their

140 LATER ; MORTUARY LITERATURE

conceptions of Amenti were clearly transferred to the Hades of their new faith. In proof of this Sir Ernest Budge quotes as follows from the Gnostic work, Pistis Sophia (Gods of the Egyptians, vol. i, p. 266) :—

Jesus tells the Virgin Mary: “The outer darkness is a great serpent, the tail of which is in its mouth, and it is outside the whole world, and surroundeth the whole world ; in it there are many places of punishment, and it containeth twelve halls wherein severe punishment is inflicted. In each hall is a governor, but the face of each governor differeth from that of hisneighbour. The governor of the first hall hath the face of a crocodile with

\ its tail in its mouth. From the mouth of the serpent proceed all ice, and all dust, and all cold, and every kind of disease and sickness; and the true name by which they call him in his place is Enkhthonin. And the governor of the second hall hath as his true face the face of a cat, and they call him in his place Kharakhar. And the governor of the third hall hath as his true face the face of a dog, and they call him in his place Arkharokh. And the governor of the fourth hall hath as his true face the face of a serpent, and they call him in his place Akhrokhar. And the governor of the fifth hall hath as his true face the face of a black ox, and they call him in his place Markhour. And the governor of the sixth hall hath as his true face the face of a goat, and they call him in his place Lamkhamor. And the governor of the seventh hall hath as his true face the face of a bear, and they call him as his true name Lonkhar. And the governor of the eighth hall hath as his true face the face of a vulture, and they call him in his place Laraokh. And the governor of the ninth hall hath as his true face the face of a basilisk, and they call him in his place Arkheokh. And in the tenth hall there are many governors, and there is there a serpent with seven heads, each head having its own true face, and he who is over them all in his place they call Karmarokh. And in the eleventh hall there are many governors, and there are

LATER MORTUARY LITERATURE 141

there seven heads, each of them having as its true face the face of a cat; and the greatest of them, who is over them, they callin his place Rokhar. And in the twelfth hall there are many great governors, and there are there seven heads, each of them having as its true face the face of a dog; and the greatest, who is over them, they callin his place Khremaor. These twelve governors are in the serpent of outer darkness, and each of them hath a name according to the hour, and each of them changeth his face according to the hour.”

On this quotation Sir Ernest comments as follows :—

It is quite clear that in the above extract from the famous Gnostic work we have a series of chambers in the outer darkness which has been borrowed from the twelve divisions of the Egyptian Tuat already described, and the reader has only to compare the vignettes to chapters cxliv and cxlv of the Book of the Dead with the extract from Pistis Sophia to see how close the borrow- ing has been. An examination of another great Gnostic work, generally known as the Book of eu, proves that the Underworld of the Gnostics was nothing but a modified form of the Amentet or Amenti of the Egyptians, to which were added characteristics derived from the religious systems of the Hebrews and Greeks. The Gnostic rivers and seas of fire are nothing but equivalents of those mentioned in the Book of the Dead; and the beings in Amenti, and Chaos, and Outer Darkness are derived, in respect of form, from ancient Egyptian models. The great dragon of Outer Darkness and his twelve halls, and their twelve guardians or governors who change their names and forms every hour, are, after all, only modifications of the old Egyptian system of the Twelve Pylons or Twelve Hours which formed the Under- world, The seven-headed serpent of the Gnostic system has his prototype in the great serpent Nau, which is called the “ buil of the gods,” and has “seven serpents on his seven necks”; the seven-headed serpent, Nau-

142

LATER MORTUARY LITERATURE

shesma, also had seven uraei for heads, and he had authority over seven archers, or seven bows.

Of Amentet and the Tuat in general we find many traces in the martyrdoms of Coptic saints, but, as was to be expected, the writers have made the demons and the pits of fire of the Egyptian Underworld instruments of punishment for the souls of those who did not embrace Christianity when upon this earth. Thus the writer of the Martyrdom of George of Cappadocia makes the saint to raise up from the dead a pagan called Boes, who had been dead two hundred years, and who told Dadianus, the governor, that he had been on earth a worshipper of the “stupid, dumb, deaf, and blind Apollo,” and that when he departed this life he went to live in “a place in the river of fire until such time as I went to the place where the worm dieth not.” According to another writer, Macarius of Antioch restored to life a man who had been dead for six hours, and who stated that his miseries during that short time had been greater than those which he had endured throughout all his life upon earth. He confessed that he had been a worshipper of idols, and then went on to say that when he was dying the fiends crowded upon him, and that these had the faces of serpents, lions, crocodiles, and, curiously enough, of bears. They tore his soul from his body with great violence, and fled with it to a great river of fire wherein they plunged it to a depth of four hundred cubits ; then they drew it out and set it before the Judge of Truth, who passed sentence upon it. After this was done they took it to a “place of darkness, wherein there was no light whatsoever, and they cast it down into the cold where there was gnashing of teeth. Here,” said the wretched man, “I saw the worm which never slumbereth, and his head was like unto that of a crocodile. He was surrounded by serpents of every kind which cast souls before him,and when his own mouth was full he allowed the other creatures to eat ; in that place they tore us to pieces, but we could not die. After that they took me out of the place and carried me into Amenti, where I was to stay for ever.” In another work a nameless mummy

LATER MORTUARY LITERATURE 143

_ is made to tell how before he died the avenging angels came about him with iron knives and pointed goads, which they thrust into his sides, and how other angels came and tore his soul from his body, and having tied it to the similitude of a black horse they carried it off to Amentet. Here he was tortured in a place filled with noxious reptiles, and having been cast into the outer darkness he saw a pit more than two hundred feet deep which was filled with reptiles, each of which had seven heads, and had its body covered with objects like scor- pions. In this place were several other terrible serpents, and to one of these, which had teeth like iron stakes, the poor soul was given to be devoured ; this monster crushed the soul for five days of each week, but on Saturday and Sunday it had respite. This last sentence seems to suggest that the serpent respected the Sabbath of the Jews and the Sunday of the Christians.

CHAPTER XV MORAL TREATISES

SEVERAL treatises have come down to us embodying the practical wisdom of the Egyptians and setting forth the standard of conduct which was considered to be fitting for “a scholaranda gentleman.” The most famous of these is contained in the Papyrus Prisse, which has acquired an undue importance from being dubbed by Chabas “the oldest book in the world.” This document originally contained two distinct compositions, of one of which only the latter part remains. The second treatise, which has been preserved entire, claims to be the work of the vizier Ptah-hetep, who lived under Assa (5th Dynasty). The uncritical way in which this statement has been accepted in some quarters is exemplified by the observation of one editor, that we know precisely the date of the composition of the text, “and we know it by the text itself.” The fact, of course, is that the attribution of writings to famous men centuries after their death was one of the commonest tricks of antiquity—a trick which was practised as assiduously in Egypt as elsewhere. Ptah-hetep is made to say that he had reached the extraordinary age of 110 years, which is alone suffi- cient to throw the gravest doubt upon his alleged authorship. There seems to be good evidence, however, that the work attributed to Ptah-hetep and possibly other works of the same class are anterior to the New Kingdom. 144

é MORAL TREATISES | 145

The translation of this “ Wisdom” literature is beset by many difficulties, and a good deal that is commonly quoted is far from being solidly estab- lished. Many of the words are unusual, and the style is frequently involved. Moreover, there is no systematic arrangement of the subject matter, and it is, therefore, not always easy to decide where one maxim ends and another begins.

Apart from the actual instruction as to conduct’ contained in the works of these wise men, there are many interesting reflections on life. One of the most famous of these is the discourse on the evils of old age with which Ptah-hetep opens his treatise. “Maturity,” he laments, “passes into old age…… The sight fails; the ears become deaf; strength diminishes unceasingly; the mouth is silent, it does not speak; the mind decays so that (even) yesterday is not remembered. The whole body suffers; good turns into evil; all taste departs. . Old age is evil in everything; the nose is stopped up, it no longer breathes.”

The scribe Ani (to whose authorship a work pre- served in one of the Cairo papyri is attributed) grows eloquent in impressing upon his son the powerful effects of education in moulding character. For this purpose he takes several examples from the animal kingdom. “The aged bull,” he exclaims, “victim of the slaughter house, does not know how to leave the pasture where he tramples his food under foot. His nurture has rendered him docile. He is such as the herdsman has made him. The terrible lion forsakes his ferocity ; he becomes more obedient than the patient ass. The horse passes

under the yoke ; the obedient one goes forth. The ; L

146 MORAL TREATISES

dog hears the voice; he follows after his master. The camel bears the burden; has not her mother borne it? The goose descends among the multitude of birds; she is stifled in the net.” He next cites the Negro, who was evidently noted then as now for his ability to assimilate the culture of other races: “The Negro is taught the language of the men of Egypt, of Syria, and of all foreign countries.” And this leads up to the purpose of the whole composition: “I have told thee what I have done in all my offices. Be thou obedient, and thou shalt know how to do it thyself!”

The mutability of fortune has always been a favourite subject with moralists. Ani says in one place, doubtless with a figurative intention: “The course of the waters is diverted from time to time into another channel. Oceans become deserts; the shores become an abyss.” And later on he puts his point more directly: “Thou enterest into a town with acclamation; thou comest forth, and thou hast to save thyself with thy hand!”

The importance of courtesy to all, but especially to superiors, is constantly insisted on. In one of the clearest of the sayings of Ptah-hetep, the pupil is told: “If thou art among those seated at meat in the house of a greater man than thyself, receive what he gives thee, bowing humbly to the ground. Regard what is before thee, and do not bombard him with frequent glances. Do not speak to him more than he desires, for thou knowest not what may be displeasing to him. Speak when he invites thee, then what thou sayest shall be pleasing.” *

• It is hardly necessary to call attention to the striking simi-

MORAL TREATISES 147

To stand in the presence of superiors was another lesson that the pupil had to learn: “ Do not remain seated while another stands if he is older than thou, or if he is thy superior by his position.” Apparently even the casual wayfarer is to be treated kindly : “Do not be rude to the man who is in thy house, thy guest. He tells thee what he is; he makes to thee the salutation of his mouth, thou art acquainted with his affairs. Let food be given him.” Those who do not wish to listen are not to be worried with much speaking: “When people are deaf, do not multiply words; it is better to be silent, to say nothing at all.”

Ptah-hetep especially condemns arrogance to- wards inferiors: “ Be not arrogant on account of thy knowledge; deal with the ignorant as with the learned.” “If thou art great after having been little, if thou art rich after having been poor…… do not harden thy heart because of thy elevation. Thou hast become but the administrator of the divine goods; do not place behind thee another who is like unto thyself.” Avarice, too, is to be studiously avoided: “If thou desirest that thy con- duct shall be good, refrain from all evil, guard thy- self from every occasion of avarice; it is a fatal malady which leads to discord…… It causes strife between fathers and mothers and between brothers and sisters.”

Harsh speaking and terrifying conduct also come under the ban of these old moralists. “Do

larity of this and other sayings to some of those contained in the “ Proverbs of Solomon ”—a book likewise wrongly fathered on an ancient sage. But these similarities are far from proving that the Hebrew author must have known the Egyptian book.

148 MORAL TREATISES

not cause fear among men,” says Ptah-hetep, laconically. And Ani exhorts more fully in the same strain: “Guard thyself against wounding by thy words. Do not put fear in the breast of a man. That will not be a resource for thee in the future. Separate thyself from contentious people ; do not make them thy companions.” In another passage the same writer says: “Do not dispute with an angry superior, but act towards him in a different manner. Speak softly when he speaks brutally—that is a remedy to pacify his heart.” And elsewhere he says more generally: “The breast of man is as the hall of a public granary— filled with every kind of speech. Do thou select the good and let that which is evil be imprisoned within thee—the harsh reply, the raising of the staff! Speak with the softness of love, and thou shalt preserve peace continually !”

Ptah-hetep has some sensible advice for one in the position of a councillor: “If thou art a wise man seated in the council chamber of his lord, direct thy heart towards wisdom. Be silent! that is better than oratory. But if thou speakest, give heed to that which is objected against thee. Speaking in council is an art, and speech is criticised more than any other work. Verily it is contradiction that puts it to the proof!”

Like the moralists of all time, Ani discourses on the dangers for the young man arising from the female sex. ‘Do not follow after women ; do not allow them to captivate thy heart.” And, speaking more particularly, he says: “ Guard thyself against the strange woman, unknown in her town ; do not approach her; she. is like all her kind; have no

“ MORAL TREATISES 149

dealings with her. She is a deep river, whose windings are unknown. A woman whose husband is far away calls out to thee every day. If there are no witnesses, she seeks to ensnare thee. Itisa crime worthy of death if one listens to her, even if it be not known abroad. Men commit all kinds of crime after this.” On the other hand, it was the mark of the wise man “to establish a house.” “If thou art wise,” says Ptah-hetep, “thou wilt estab- lish thy house, and love thy wife therein. Fill her stomach, clothe her back; that is what is needed for her body. Anoint her, dilate her heart (i.e., make her happy) during the time of thy existence. She is a field profitable to her lord.” Here follow some doubtful words, evidently intended to mean that kindness is more powerful than brutality, con- cluding with “ That will cause her to be settled in thy house.”

In accordance with the many other indications of the important position of women in ancient Egypt, Ani discourses on the duty of kindness towards one’s mother. “I have given thee thy mother,” he says to his son, “but it was she who bore thee. She has carried many burdens on thy account, and she has not placed them upon me. She gave thee birth after months (of gestation); she has borne thee as a veritable yoke, her breast in thy mouth during three years…… When thou wast sent to school and wast instructed in the writings, she attended thy master daily, bringing bread and beer from her house. Now thou art grown up, thou hast a wife, thou art established in thy house; do not forget all the suffering and tender care which thy mother has undergone for thee. Donot

150 MORAL TREATISES

give her cause to complain of thee, lest she should raise her hands to the god and he should hear her prayers.”

Although there is evidence that drunkenness was regarded by many in old Egypt as a highly desirable condition (the goddess Hathor, it will be remembered, got drunk on one occasion), Ani condemns it entirely. ‘“ Do not frequent the drink shop,” he counsels. “If thou fallest through drunkenness, breaking thy limbs, nobody lends thee a hand. Thy companions drink ; they get up and say: Get thee away, O drunkard! Onecomes to look for thee in order to discuss business, and thou art found sprawling on the ground likea little child!”

The teachings which we have quoted are amply sufficient to prove that the writers had no belief in the necessity of “moral excellence” as a passport to future happiness. If the authors and those whom they addressed really believed that the human soul at death had to face the forty-two terrible assessors of Osiris, and make to them truthful denials of the sins mentioned in the “ Negative Confession,” as a condition of being admitted to the realms of eternal bliss, it is incredible that such an awe-inspiring prospect should not have been brought vividly before the pupil. But we find nothing of the kind. Either the maxim is baldly stated without any reason at all (as “Do not cause fear among men”), or it is enforced, not merely by utilitarian reasons—which, however we may desire to disguise the fact, are ultimately the only reasons that can be given for any rules of conduct—but by reasons relating

MORAL TREATISES 151

solely to the life on earth. It is hardly necessary to cite examples, but we may remind the reader of what has been already quoted from Ani as to kindness of speech. He does not say: “Remember that when thou appearest in the Hall of Righteous- ness thou wilt need to declare with truth: ‘I do not cause terrors ; I am not the cause of weeping to any.’” But he says in one maxim: “Speak softly when he speaks brutally—zhat zs a remedy to pacify his heart.” And in another: “Speak with the softness of love, and thou shalt preserve peace con- tinually!” Similarly, when dealing with the rights of property, he might have referred to more than one passage in the Negative Confession. What he actually says is very different: “Do not trespass upon any property lest thou shouldst be carried to the tribunal before the gudges when infor- mation has been given against thee.”

There is, however, stronger evidence in the attitude which Ani assumes on the question of a man’s relations with his god. “Celebrate,” he counsels, “the festival of thy god; renew his anniversaries. Their omission irritates the god.” “Let thine eye behold the acts of the god ; zt zs he who strikes whoever ts struck.” “That which the sanctuary of a god* abominates is noisy behaviour. If thou prayest with a loving heart of which all the words are secret, he will prosper thy affairs, he will hear thy words, he will accept thy offerings.”

And—most convincing of all—even when the

• This maxim, though it has been quoted on the other side of the argument, really affords conclusive evidence that we ought not to translate “the sanctuary of God,” since no one pretends

that Egypt possessed “ sanctuaries of God” in the monotheistic sense (see p. 47).

152 MORAL TREATISES

scribe comes to discourse on the great question of Death he has not a word to say about the Judg- ment of the Dead: he is solely concerned with the importance of getting the tomb ready, doubtless with the idea of preserving the mummy on which the future life depended (according to one of the conflicting theories accepted by the orthodox). “Cause to be prepared,” says the sage, “a tomb in the funerary valley which to-morrow will hide thy body. There is no remission even for him of good conduct; he is taken away also. Likewise to thee will come the messenger (of death) to carry thee away ; yea, he is ready even now! Words will serve thee not at all, for he comes, he holds himself in readiness. Do not say: I am a child whom thou carriest off. Thou knowest not how thou shalt die. When Death comes he masters the infant, even him who is at the mother’s breast, as well as him who has arrived at old age. See! I have told thee these salutary things. Ponder in thy heart and do them! Thou shalt there find happiness, and every evi! will be far from thee.”

It seems clear that no man could have concluded his remarks on death in these optimistic words if he believed in a Judgment of the Dead of the kind which some modern authorities teach. Seeing that our oldest copy of the 125th chapter of the Book of the Dead dates from the 18th Dynasty, it is quite possible that the author had never heard of the Judgment. If he knew of it and believed in it, he must have regarded the denials of sins as mere magical incantations, having no relation to objective reality, which we have endeavoured to show is the true view (pp. 117-19).

University of Southern California Lipraty

ee! ne

BL 2hb1 Rh

z DUE

pAT Pocket Card F ae gserld Remove wou %° A ae xe oS pinren w 29-247

Read, Frederick William, 1863- Egyptian religion and ethics, by F. W. Read. L

W atts & co, 192 dy viii, 152 p. front., v pl. 19 cm.

Libliography : p. viii.

228339

1, Kgypt—Religion. 2. Mythology, Egyptian, 3. Ethics, E I. Title:

BL2441.R4 »

Library of Congress

26-

iy

ses see See

eS <

pete Hh oe i rae ee 1A

Zex6 Ese fe

a 5%

2

cies =e

pet os

Bets