Egyptian Ideas of the Future Life: E. A. Wallis Budge
VOL. I.
EGYPTIAN IDEAS OF THE FUTURE LIFE
PUBLISHERS' NOTE.
In the year 1894, Dr. Wallis Budge prepared for Messrs. Kegan Paul,
Trench, Trubner & Co. an elementary work on the Egyptian language,
entitled "First Steps in Egyptian," and two years later the companion
volume, "An Egyptian Reading Book," with transliterations of all the
texts printed in it, and a full vocabulary. The success of these works
proved that they had helped to satisfy a want long felt by students of
the Egyptian language, and as a similar want existed among students of
the languages written in the cuneiform character, Mr. L.W. King, of the
British Museum, prepared, on the same lines as the two books mentioned
above, an elementary work on the Assyrian and Babylonian languages
("First Steps in Assyrian"), which appeared in 1898. These works,
however, dealt mainly with the philological branch of Egyptology and
Assyriology, and it was impossible in the space allowed to explain much
that needed explanation in the other branches of those subjects--that is
to say, matters relating to the archaeology, history, religion, etc., of
the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians. In answer to the numerous
requests which have been made, a series of short, popular handbooks on
the most important branches of Egyptology and Assyriology have been
prepared, and it is hoped that these will serve as introductions to the
larger works on these subjects. The present is the first volume of the
series, and the succeeding volumes will be published at short intervals,
and at moderate prices.
EGYPTIAN IDEAS
OF THE
FUTURE LIFE
BY
E.A. WALLIS BUDGE, M. A., LITT. D., D. LIT.
KEEPER Of THE EGYPTIAN AND ASSYRIAN ANTIQUITIES
OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM
WITH EIGHT ILLUSTRATIONS
_THIRD EDITION_
1908
To SIR JOHN EVANS, K. C. B., D. C. L., F. R. S., ETC., ETC., ETC. IN
GRATEFUL REMEMBRANCE OF MUCH FRIENDLY HELP AND ENCOURAGEMENT
PREFACE.
* * * * *
The following pages are intended to place before the reader in a handy
form an account of the principal ideas and beliefs held by the ancient
Egyptians concerning the resurrection and the future life, which is
derived wholly from native religious works. The literature of Egypt
which deals with these subjects is large and, as was to be expected, the
product of different periods which, taken together, cover several
thousands of years; and it is exceedingly difficult at times to
reconcile the statements and beliefs of a writer of one period with
those of a writer of another. Up to the present no systematic account of
the doctrine of the resurrection and of the future life has been
discovered, and there is no reason for hoping that such a thing will
ever be found, for the Egyptians do not appear to have thought that it
was necessary to write a work of the kind. The inherent difficulty of
the subject, and the natural impossibility that different men living in
different places and at different times should think alike on matters
which must, after all, belong always to the region of faith, render it
more than probable that no college of priests, however powerful, was
able to formulate a system of beliefs which would be received throughout
Egypt by the clergy and the laity alike, and would be copied by the
scribes as a final and authoritative work on Egyptian eschatology.
Besides this, the genius and structure of the Egyptian language are such
as to preclude the possibility of composing in it works of a
philosophical or metaphysical character in the true sense of the words.
In spite of these difficulties, however, it is possible to collect a
great deal of important information on the subject from the funereal and
religious works which have come down to us, especially concerning the
great central idea of immortality, which existed unchanged for thousands
of years, and formed the pivot upon which the religious and social life
of the ancient Egyptians actually turned. From the beginning to the end
of his life the Egyptian's chief thought was of the life beyond the
grave, and the hewing of his tomb in the rock, and the providing of its
furniture, every detail of which was prescribed by the custom of the
country, absorbed the best thoughts of his mind and a large share of his
worldly goods, and kept him ever mindful of the time when his mummified
body would be borne to his "everlasting house" in the limestone plateau
or hill.
The chief source of our information concerning the doctrine of the
resurrection and of the future life as held by the Egyptians is, of
course, the great collection of religious texts generally known by the
name of "Book of the Dead." The various recensions of these wonderful
compositions cover a period of more than five thousand years, and they
reflect faithfully not only the sublime beliefs, and the high ideals,
and the noble aspirations of the educated Egyptians, but also the
various superstitions and childish reverence for amulets, and magical
rites, and charms, which they probably inherited from their pre-dynastic
ancestors, and regarded as essentials for their salvation. It must be
distinctly understood that many passages and allusions in the Book of
the Dead still remain obscure, and that in some places any translator
will be at a difficulty in attempting to render certain, important words
into any modern European language. But it is absurd to talk of almost
the whole text of the Book of the Dead as being utterly corrupt, for
royal personages, and priests, and scribes, to say nothing of the
ordinary educated folk, would not have caused costly copies of a very
lengthy work to be multiplied, and illustrated by artists possessing the
highest skill, unless it had some meaning to them, and was necessary for
the attainment by them of the life which is beyond the grave. The
"finds" of recent years in Egypt have resulted in the recovery of
valuable texts whereby numerous difficulties have been cleared away; and
we must hope that the faults made in translating to-day may be corrected
by the discoveries of to-morrow. In spite of all difficulties, both
textual and grammatical, sufficient is now known of the Egyptian
religion to prove, with certainty, that the Egyptians possessed, some
six thousand years ago, a religion and a system of morality which, when
stripped of all corrupt accretions, stand second to none among those
which have been developed by the greatest nations of the world.
E. A. WALLIS BUDGE.
LONDON,
_August 21st_, 1899.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER
I. THE BELIEF IN GOD ALMIGHTY
II. OSIRIS THE GOD OF THE RESURRECTION
III. THE "GODS" OF THE EGYPTIANS
IV. THE JUDGMENT OF THE DEAD
V. THE RESURRECTION AND IMMORTALITY
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
CHAPTER
I. THE CREATION
II. ISIS SUCKLING HORUS IN THE PAPYRUS SWAMP
III. THE SOUL OF OSIRIS AND THE SOUL OF R[=A] MEETING IN TATTU. R[=A],
IN THE FORM OF A CAT, CUTTING OFF THE HEAD OF THE SERPENT OF
DARKNESS
IV. THE JUDGMENT OF THE DEAD IN THE HALL OF MA[=A]TI
V. THE DECEASED BEING LED INTO THE PRESENCE OF OSIRIS
VI. THE SEKHET-AARU OR "ELYSIAN FIELDS"--
(1) FROM THE PAPYRUS OF NEBSENI
(2) FROM THE PAPYRUS OF ANI
(3) FROM THE PAPYRUS OF ANILAI
CHAPTER I.
THE BELIEF IN GOD ALMIGHTY.
A study of ancient Egyptian religious texts will convince the reader
that the Egyptians believed in One God, who was self-existent, immortal,
invisible, eternal, omniscient, almighty, and inscrutable; the maker of
the heavens, earth, and underworld; the creator of the sky and the sea,
men and women, animals and birds, fish and creeping things, trees and
plants, and the incorporeal beings who were the messengers that
fulfilled his wish and word. It is necessary to place this definition of
the first part of the belief of the Egyptian at the beginning of the
first chapter of this brief account of the principal religious ideas
which he held, for the whole of his theology and religion was based upon
it; and it is also necessary to add that, however far back we follow his
literature, we never seem to approach a time when he was without this
remarkable belief. It is true that he also developed polytheistic ideas
and beliefs, and that he cultivated them at certain periods of his
history with diligence, and to such a degree that the nations around,
and even the stranger in his country, were misled by his actions, and
described him as a polytheistic idolater. But notwithstanding all such
departures from observances, the keeping of which befitted those who
believed in God and his unity, this sublime idea was never lost sight
of; on the contrary, it is reproduced in the religious literature of all
periods. Whence came this remarkable characteristic of the Egyptian
religion no man can say, and there is no evidence whatsoever to guide us
in formulating the theory that it was brought into Egypt by immigrants
from the East, as some have said, or that it was a natural product of
the indigenous peoples who formed the population of the valley of the
Nile some ten thousand years ago, according to the opinion of others.
All that is known is that it existed there at a period so remote that it
is useless to attempt to measure by years the interval of time which has
elapsed since it grew up and established itself in the minds of men, and
that it is exceedingly doubtful if we shall ever have any very definite
knowledge on this interesting point.
But though we know nothing about the period of the origin in Egypt of
the belief in the existence of an almighty God who was One, the
inscriptions show us that this Being was called by a name which was
something like _Neter_, [Footnote: There is no _e_ in Egyptian, and this
vowel is added merely to make the word pronounceable.] the picture sign
for which was an axe-head, made probably of stone, let into a long
wooden handle. The coloured picture character shews that the axe-head
was fastened into the handle by thongs of leather or string, and judging
by the general look of the object it must have been a formidable weapon
in strong, skilled hands. A theory has recently been put forward to the
effect that the picture character represents a stick with a bit of
coloured rag tied to the, but it will hardly commend itself to any
archaeologist. The lines which cross the side of the axe-head represent
string or strips of leather, and indicate that it was made of stone
which, being brittle, was liable to crack; the picture characters which
delineate the object in the latter dynasties shew that metal took the
place of the stone axe-head, and being tough the new substance needed no
support. The mightiest man in the prehistoric days was he who had the
best weapon, and knew how to wield it with the greatest effect; when the
prehistoric hero of many fights and victories passed to his rest, his
own or a similar weapon was buried with him to enable him to wage war
successfully in the next world. The mightiest man had the largest axe,
and the axe thus became the symbol of the mightiest man. As he, by
reason of the oft-told narrative of his doughty deeds at the prehistoric
camp fire at eventide, in course of time passed from the rank of a hero
to that of a god, the axe likewise passed from being the symbol of a
hero to that of a god. Far away back in the early dawn of civilization
in Egypt, the object which I identify as an axe may have had some other
signification, but if it had, it was lost long before the period of the
rule of the dynasties in that country.
Passing now to the consideration of the meaning of the name for God,
_neter_, we find that great diversity of opinion exists among
Egyptologists on the subject. Some, taking the view that the equivalent
of the word exists in Coptic, under the form of _Nuti_, and because
Coptic is an ancient Egyptian dialect, have sought to deduce its meaning
by seeking in that language for the root from which the word may be
derived. But all such attempts have had no good result, because the word
_Nuti_ stands by itself, and instead of being derived from a Coptic root
is itself the equivalent of the Egyptian _neter_, [Footnote: The letter
_r_ has dropped out in Coptic through phonetic decay.] and was taken
over by the translators of the Holy Scriptures from that language to
express the words "God" and "Lord." The Coptic root _nomti_ cannot in
any way be connected with _nuti_, and the attempt to prove that the two
are related was only made with the view of helping to explain the
fundamentals of the Egyptian religion by means of Sanskrit and other
Aryan analogies. It is quite possible that the word _neter_ means
"strength," "power," and the like, but these are only some of its
derived meanings, and we have to look in the hieroglyphic inscriptions
for help in order to determine its most probable meaning. The eminent
French Egyptologist, E. de Rouge, connected the name of God, _neter_,
with the other word _neter_, "renewal" or "renovation," and it would,
according to his view, seem as if the fundamental idea of God was that
of the Being who had the power to renew himself perpetually--or in other
words, "self-existence." The late Dr. H. Brugsch partly accepted this
view, for he defined _neter_ as being "the active power which produces
and creates things in regular recurrence; which bestows new life upon
them, and gives back to them their youthful vigour." [Footnote:
_Religion und Mythologie_, p. 93.] There seems to be no doubt that,
inasmuch as it is impossible to find any one word which will render
_neter_ adequately and satisfactorily, "self-existence" and "possessing
the power to renew life indefinitely," may together be taken as the
equivalent of _neter_ in our own tongue, M. Maspero combats rightly the
attempt to make "strong" the meaning of _neter_ (masc.), or _neterit_
(fem.) in these words: "In the expressions 'a town _neterit_ 'an arm
_neteri_,' ... is it certain that 'a strong city,' 'a strong arm,' give
us the primitive sense of _neter_? When among ourselves one says 'divine
music,' 'a piece of divine poetry,' 'the divine taste of a peach,' 'the
divine beauty of a woman,' [the word] divine is a hyperbole, but it
would be a mistake to declare that it originally meant 'exquisite'
because in the phrases which I have imagined one could apply it as
'exquisite music,' 'a piece of exquisite poetry,' 'the exquisite taste
of a peach,' 'the exquisite beauty of a woman.' Similarly, in Egyptian,
'a town _neterit_ is 'a divine town;' 'an arm _netsri_' is 'a divine
arm,' and _neteri_ is employed metaphorically in Egyptian as is [the
word] 'divine' in French, without its being any more necessary to
attribute to [the word] _neteri_ the primitive meaning of 'strong,' than
it is to attribute to [the word] 'divine' the primitive meaning of
'exquisite.'" [Footnote: _La Mythologie Egyptienne_, p. 215.] It may be,
of course, that _neter_ had another meaning which is now lost, but it
seems that the great difference between God and his messengers and
created things is that he is the Being who is self-existent and
immortal, whilst they are not self-existent and are mortal.
Here it will be objected by those who declare that the ancient Egyptian
idea of God is on a level with that evolved by peoples and tribes who
stand comparatively little removed from very intelligent animals, that
such high conceptions as self-existence and immortality belong to a
people who are already on a high grade of development and civilization.
This is precisely the case with the Egyptians when we first know them.
As a matter of fact, we know nothing of their ideas of God before they
developed sufficiently to build the monuments which we know they built,
and before they possessed the religion, and civilization, and complex
social system which their writings have revealed to us. In the remotest
prehistoric times it is probable that their views about God and the
future life were little better than those of the savage tribes, now
living, with whom some have compared them. The primitive god was an
essential feature of the family, and the fortunes of the god varied with
the fortunes of the family; the god of the city in which a man lived was
regarded as the ruler of the city, and the people of that city no more
thought of neglecting to provide him with what they considered to be due
to his rank and position than they thought of neglecting to supply their
own wants. In fact the god of the city became the centre of the social
fabric of that city, and every inhabitant thereof inherited
automatically certain duties, the neglect of which brought stated pains
and penalties upon him. The remarkable peculiarity of the Egyptian
religion is that the primitive idea of the god of the city is always
cropping up in it, and that is the reason why we find semi-savage ideas
of God side by side with some of the most sublime conceptions, and it of
course underlies all the legends of the gods wherein they possess all
the attributes of men and women. The Egyptian in his semi-savage state
was neither better nor worse than any other man in the same stage of
civilization, but he stands easily first among the nations in his
capacity for development, and in his ability for evolving conceptions
concerning God and the future life, which are claimed as the peculiar
product of the cultured nations of our time.
We must now, however, see how the word for God, _neter_, is employed in
religious texts and in works which contain moral precepts. In the text
of Unas, [Footnote: Ed Maspero, _Pyramides de Saqqarah_; p. 25.] a king
who reigned about B.C. 3300, we find the passage:--"That which is sent
by thy _ka_ cometh to thee, that which is sent by thy father cometh to
thee, that which is sent by R[=a] cometh to thee, and it arriveth in the
train of thy R[=a]. Thou art pure, thy bones are the gods and the
goddesses of heaven, thou existest at the side of God, thou art
unfastened, thou comest forth towards thy soul, for every evil word (or
thing) which hath been written in the name of Unas hath been done away."
And, again, in the text of Teta, [Footnote: _Ibid_., p. 113.] in the
passage which refers to the place in the eastern part of heaven "where
the gods give birth unto themselves, where that to which they give birth
is born, and where they renew their youth," it is said of this king,
"Teta standeth up in the form of the star...he weigheth words (_or_
trieth deeds), and behold God hearkeneth unto that which he saith."
Elsewhere [Footnote: Ed. Maspero, _Pyramides da Saqqarah_, p. 111.] in
the same text we read, "Behold, Teta hath arrived in the height of
heaven, and the _henmemet_ beings have seen him; the Semketet [Footnote:
The morning boat of the sun.] boat knoweth him, and it is Teta who
saileth it, and the M[=a]ntchet [Footnote: The evening boat of the sun.]
boat calleth unto him, and it is Teta who bringeth it to a standstill.
Teta hath seen his body in the Semketet boat, he knoweth the uraeus
which is in the M[=a]ntchet boat, and God hath called him in his
name...and hath taken him in to R[=a]." And again [Footnote: _Ibid_., p.
150.] we have: "Thou hast received the form (_or_ attribute) of God, and
thou hast become great therewith before the gods"; and of Pepi I., who
reigned about B.C. 3000, it is said, "This Pepi is God, the son of God."
[Footnote: _Ibid_., p. 222.] Now in these passages the allusion is to
the supreme Being in the next world, the Being who has the power to
invoke and to obtain a favourable reception for the deceased king by
R[=a], the Sun-god, the type and symbol of God. It may, of course, be
urged that the word _neter_ here refers to Osiris, but it is not
customary to speak of this god in such a way in the texts; and even if
we admit that it does, it only shows that the powers of God have been
attributed to Osiris, and that he was believed to occupy the position in
respect of R[=a] and the deceased which the supreme Being himself
occupied. In the last two extracts given above we might read "a god"
instead of "God," but there is no object in the king receiving the form
or attribute of a nameless god; and unless Pepi becomes the son of God;
the honour which the writer of that text intends to ascribe to the king
becomes little and even ridiculous.
Passing from religious texts to works containing moral precepts, we find
much light thrown upon the idea of God by the writings of the early
sages of Egypt. First and foremost among these are the "Precepts of
Kaqemna" and the "Precepts of Ptah-hetep," works which were composed as
far back as B.C. 3000. The oldest copy of them which we possess is,
unfortunately, not older than B.C. 2500, but this fact in no way affects
our argument. These "precepts" are intended to form a work of direction
and guidance for a young man in the performance of his duty towards the
society in which he lived and towards his God. It is only fair to say
that the reader will look in vain in them for the advice which is found
in writings of a similar character composed at a later period; but as a
work intended to demonstrate the "whole duty of man" to the youth of the
time when the Great Pyramid was still a new building, these "precepts"
are very remarkable. The idea of God held by Ptah-hetep is illustrated
by the following passages:--
1. "Thou shalt make neither man nor woman to be afraid, for God is
opposed thereto; and if any man shall say that he will live thereby,
He will make him to want bread."
2. "As for the nobleman who possesseth abundance of goods, he may act
according to his own dictates; and he may do with himself that which
he pleaseth; if he will do nothing at all, that also is as he
pleaseth. The nobleman by merely stretching out his hand doeth that
which mankind (_or_ a person) cannot attain to; but inasmuch as the
eating of bread is according to the plan of God, this cannot be
gainsaid."
3. "If thou hast ground to till, labour in the field which God hath
given thee; rather than fill thy mouth with that which belongeth to
thy neighbours it is better to terrify him that hath possessions [to
give them unto thee]."
4. "If thou abasest thyself in the service of a perfect man, thy
conduct shall be fair before God."
5. "If thou wouldst be a wise man, make thou thy son to be pleasing
unto God."
6. "Satisfy those who depend upon thee as far as thou art able so to
do; this should be done by those whom God hath favoured."
7. "If, having been of no account, thou hast become great; and if,
having been poor, thou hast become rich; and if thou hast become
governor of the city, be not hard-hearted on account of thy
advancement, because thou hast become merely the guardian of the
things which God hath provided."
8. "What is loved of God is obedience; God hateth disobedience."
9. "Verily a good son is of the gifts of God." [Footnote: The text was
published by Prisse d'Avennes, entitled _Facsimile d'un papyrus
egyptien en caracteres hieratiques_, Paris, 1847. For a translation of
the whole work, see Virey, _etudes sur le Papyrus Prisse_, Paris,
1887.]
The same idea of God, but considerably amplified in some respects, may
be found in the _Maxims of Khensu-Hetep_, a work which was probably
composed during the XVIIIth dynasty. This work has been studied in
detail by a number of eminent Egyptologists, and though considerable
difference of opinion has existed among them in respect of details and
grammatical niceties, the general sense of the maxims has been clearly
established. To illustrate the use of the word _neter_, the following
passages have been chosen from it:[Footnote: They are given with
interlinear transliteration and translation in my _Papyrus of Ani_, p.
lxxxv. ff., where references to the older literature on the subject will
be found.]--
1. "God magnifieth his name."
2. "What the house of God hateth is much speaking. Pray thou with a
loving heart all the petitions which are in secret. He will perform
thy business, he will hear that which thou sayest and will accept
thine offerings."
3. "God decreeth the right."
4. "When thou makest an offering unto thy God, guard thou against the
things which are an abomination unto him. Behold thou his plans with
thine eye, and devote thyself to the adoration of his name. He giveth
souls unto millions of forms, and him that magnifieth him doth he
magnify."
5. "If thy mother raise her hands to God he will hear her prayers [and
rebuke thee]."
7. "Give thyself to God, and keep thou thyself daily for God."
Now, although the above passages prove the exalted idea which the
Egyptians held of the supreme Being, they do not supply us with any of
the titles and epithets which they applied to him; for these we must
have recourse to the fine hymns and religious meditations which form so
important a part of the "Book of the Dead." But before we quote from
them, mention must be made of the _neteru_, _i.e._, the beings or
existences which in some way partake of the nature or character of God,
and are usually called "gods." The early nations that came in contact
with the Egyptians usually misunderstood the nature of these beings, and
several modern Western writers have done the same. When we examine these
"gods" closely, they are found to be nothing more nor less than forms,
or manifestations, or phases, or attributes, of one god, that god being
R[=a] the Sun-god, who, it must be remembered, was the type and symbol
of God. Nevertheless, the worship of the _neteru_ by the Egyptians has
been made the base of the charge of "gross idolatry" which has been
brought against them, and they have been represented by some as being on
the low intellectual level of savage tribes. It is certain that from the
earliest times one of the greatest tendencies of the Egyptian religion
was towards monotheism, and this tendency may be observed in all
important texts down to the latest period; it is also certain that a
kind of polytheism existed in Egypt side by side with monotheism from
very early times. Whether monotheism or polytheism be the older, it is
useless in our present state of knowledge to attempt to enquire.
According to Tiele, the religion of Egypt was at the beginning
polytheistic, but developed in two opposite directions: in the one
direction gods were multiplied by the addition of local gods, and in the
other the Egyptians drew nearer and nearer to monotheism. [Footnote:
_Geschiedenis van den Godedienst in de Oudheid_, Amsterdam, 1893, p. 25.
A number of valuable remarks on this subject are given by Lieblein in
_Egyptian Religion_, p. 10.] Dr. Wiedemann takes the view that three
main elements may be recognized in the Egyptian religion: (1) A solar
monotheism, that is to say one god, the creator of the universe, who
manifests his power especially in the sun and its operations; (2) A cult
of the regenerating power of nature, which expresses itself in the
adoration of ithyphallic gods, of fertile goddesses, and of a series of
animals and of various deities of vegetation; (3) A perception of an
anthropomorphic divinity, the life of whom in this world and in the
world beyond this was typical of the ideal life of man [Footnote: _Le
Livre dei Moris_ (Review in _Museon_, Tom. xiii. 1893).]--this last
divinity being, of course, Osiris. But here again, as Dr. Wiedemann
says, it is an unfortunate fact that all the texts which we possess are,
in respect of the period of the origin of the Egyptian religion,
comparatively late, and therefore in them we find these three elements
mixed together, along with a number of foreign matters, in such a way as
to make it impossible to discover which of them is the oldest. No better
example can be given of the loose way in which different ideas about a
god and God are mingled in the same text than the "Negative Confession"
in the hundred and twenty-fifth chapter of the Book of the Dead. Here,
in the oldest copies of the passages known, the deceased says, "I have
not cursed God" (1. 38), and a few lines after (1. 42) he adds, "I have
not thought scorn of the god living in my city." It seems that here we
have indicated two different layers of belief, and that the older is
represented by the allusion to the "god of the city," in which case it
would go back to the time when the Egyptian lived in a very primitive
fashion. If we assume that God (who is mentioned in line 38) is Osiris,
it does not do away with the fact that he was regarded as a being
entirely different from the "god of the city" and that he was of
sufficient importance to have one line of the "Confession" devoted to
him. The Egyptian saw no incongruity in setting references to the "gods"
side by side with allusions to a god whom we cannot help identifying
with the Supreme Being and the Creator of the world; his ideas and
beliefs have, in consequence, been sadly misrepresented, and by certain
writers he has been made an object of ridicule. What, for example, could
be a more foolish description of Egyptian worship than the following?
"Who knows not, O Volusius of Bithynia, the sort of monsters Egypt, in
her infatuation, worships. One part venerates the crocodile; another
trembles before an ibis gorged with serpents. The image of a sacred
monkey glitters in gold, where the magic chords sound from Memnon broken
in half, and ancient Thebes lies buried in ruins, with her hundred
gates. In one place they venerate sea-fish, in another river-fish;
there, whole towns worship a dog: no one Diana. It is an impious act to
violate or break with the teeth a leek or an onion. O holy nations!
whose gods grow for them in their gardens! Every table abstains from
animals that have wool: it is a crime there to kill a kid. But human
flesh is lawful food."
[Footnote: Juvenal, Satire XV. (Evans' translation in Bohn's Series, p.
180). Led astray by Juvenal, our own good George Herbert (_Church
Militant_) wrote:--
"At first he (_i.e._, Sin) got to Egypt, and did sow
Gardens of gods, which every year did grow
Fresh and fine deities. They were at great cost,
Who for a god clearly a sallet lost.
Ah, what a thing is man devoid of grace,
Adoring garlic with an humble face,
Begging his food of that which he may eat,
Starving the while he worshippeth his meat!
Who makes a root his god, how low is he,
If God and man be severed infinitely!
What wretchedness can give him any room,
Whose house is foul, while he adores his broom?"]
The epithets which the Egyptians applied to their gods also bear
valuable testimony concerning the ideas which they held about God. We
have already said that the "gods" are only forms, manifestations, and
phases of R[=a], the Sun-god, who was himself the type and symbol of
God, and it is evident from the nature of these epithets that they were
only applied to the "gods" because they represented some qualify or
attribute which they would have applied to God had it been their custom
to address Him. Let us take as examples the epithets which are applied
to H[=a]pi the god of the Nile. The beautiful hymn [Footnote: The whole
hymn has been published by Maspero in _Hymns au Nil_, Paris, 1868.] to
this god opens as follows:--
"Homage to thee, O H[=a]pi! Thou comest forth in this land, and dost
come in peace to make Egypt to live, O thou hidden one, thou guide of
the darkness whensoever it is thy pleasure to be its guide. Thou
waterest the fields which R[=a] hath created, thou makest all animals
to live, thou makest the land to drink without ceasing; thou
descendest the path of heaven, thou art the friend of meat and drink,
thou art the giver of the grain, and thou makest every place of work
to flourish, O Ptah! ... If thou wert to be overcome in heaven the
gods would fall down headlong, and mankind would perish. Thou makest
the whole earth to be opened (_or_ ploughed up) by the cattle, and
prince and peasant lie down to rest.... His disposition (_or_ form) is
that of Khnemu; when he shineth upon the earth there is rejoicing, for
all people are glad, the mighty man (?) receiveth his meat, and every
tooth hath food to consume."
After praising him for what he does for mankind and beasts, and for
making the herb to grow for the use of all men, the text says:--
"He cannot be figured in stone; he is not to be seen in the sculptured
images upon which men place the united crowns of the South and the
North furnished with uraei; neither works nor offerings can be made to
him; and he cannot be made to come forth from his secret place. The
place where he liveth is unknown; he is not to be found in inscribed
shrines; there existeth no habitation which can contain him; and thou
canst not conceive his form in thy heart."
First we notice that Hapi is addressed by the names of Ptah and Khnemu,
not because the writer thought these three gods were one, but because
Hapi as the great supplier of water to Egypt became, as it were, a
creative god like Ptah and Khnemu. Next we see that it is stated to be
impossible to depict him in paintings, or even to imagine what his form
may be, for he is unknown and his abode cannot be found, and no place
can contain him. But, as a matter of fact, several pictures and
sculptures of H[=a]pi have been preserved, and we know that he is
generally depicted in the form of two gods; one has upon his head a
papyrus plant, and the other a lotus plant, the former being the
Nile-god of the South, and the latter the Nile-god of the North.
Elsewhere he is portrayed in the form of a large man having the breasts
of a woman. It is quite clear, then, that the epithets which we have
quoted are applied to him merely as a form of God. In another hymn,
which was a favourite in the XVIIIth and XIXth dynasties, H[=a]pi is
called "One," and is said to have created himself; but as he is later on
in the text identified with R[=a] the epithets which belong to the
Sun-god are applied to him. The late Dr. H. Brugsch collected [Footnote:
_Religion and Mythologie_, pp. 96-99.] a number of the epithets which
are applied to the gods, from texts of all periods; and from these we
may see that the ideas and beliefs of the Egyptians concerning God were
almost identical with those of the Hebrews and Muhammadans at later
periods. When classified these epithets read thus:--
"God is One and alone, and none other existeth with Him; God is the
One, the One Who hath made all things.
"God is a spirit, a hidden spirit, the spirit of spirits, the great
spirit of the Egyptians, the divine spirit.
"God is from the beginning, and He hath been from the beginning; He
hath existed from of old and was when nothing else had being. He
existed when nothing else existed, and what existeth He created after
He had come into being. He is the father of beginnings.
"God is the eternal One, He is eternal and infinite; and endureth for
ever and aye; He hath endured for countless ages, and He shall endure
to all eternity.
"God is the hidden Being, and no man hath known His form. No man hath
been able to seek out His likeness; He is hidden, from gods and men,
and He is a mystery unto His creatures.
"No man knoweth how to know Him, His name remaineth hidden; His name
is a mystery unto His children. His names are innumerable, they are
manifold and none knoweth their number.
"God is truth, and He liveth by truth, and he feedeth thereon. He is
the King of truth, He resteth upon truth, He fashioneth truth, and He
executeth truth throughout all the world.
"God is life, and through Him only man liveth, He giveth life to man,
and He breatheth the breath of life into his nostrils.
"God is father and mother, the father of fathers, and the mother of
mothers. He begetteth, but was never begotten; He produceth, but was
never produced He begat Himself and produced Himself. He createth, but
was never created; He is the maker of His own form, and the fashioner
of His own body.
"God Himself is existence He liveth in all things, and liveth upon all
things. He endureth without increase or diminution, He multiplieth
Himself millions of times, and He possesseth multitudes of forms and
multitudes of members.
"God hath made the universe, and He hath created all that therein is:
He is the Creator of what is in this world, of what was, of what is,
and of what shall be. He is the Creator of the world, and it was He
Who fashioned it with His hands before there was any beginning; and He
stablished it with that which went forth from Him. He is the Creator
of the heavens and the earth; the Creator of the heavens, and the
earth, and the deep; the Creator of the heavens, and the earth, and
the deep, and the waters, and the mountains. God hath stretched out
the heavens and founded the earth. What His heart conceived came to
pass straightway, and when He had spoken His word came to pass, and it
shall endure for ever.
"God is the father of the gods, and the father of the father of all
deities; He made His voice to sound, and the deities came into being,
and the gods sprang into existence after He had spoken with His mouth.
He formed mankind and fashioned the gods. He is the great Master, the
primeval Potter Who turned men and gods out of His hands, and He
formed men and gods upon a potter's table.
"The heavens rest upon His head, and the earth supporteth His feet;
heaven hideth His spirit, the earth hideth His form, and the
underworld shutteth up the mystery of Him within it. His body is like
the air, heaven resteth upon His head, and the new inundation [of the
Nile] containeth His form.
"God is merciful unto those who reverence Him, and He heareth him that
calleth upon Him. He protecteth the weak against the strong, and He
heareth the cry of him that is bound in fetters; He judgeth between
the mighty and the weak, God knoweth him that knoweth Him, He
rewardeth him that serveth Him, and He protecteth him that followeth
Him."
We have now to consider the visible emblem, and the type and symbol of
God, namely the Sun-god R[=a], who was worshipped in Egypt in
prehistoric times. According to the writings of the Egyptians, there was
a time when neither heaven nor earth existed, and when nothing had being
except the boundless primeval [Footnote: See Brugsch, _Religion_, p.
101.] water, which was, however, shrouded with thick darkness. In this
condition the primeval water remained for a considerable time,
notwithstanding that it contained within it the germs of the things
which afterwards came into existence in this world, and the world
itself. At length the spirit of the primeval water felt the desire for
creative activity, and having uttered the word, the world sprang
straightway into being in the form which had already been depicted in
the mind of the spirit before he spake the word which resulted in its
creation. The next act of creation, was the formation of a germ, or egg,
from which sprang R[=a], the Sun-god, within whose shining form was
embodied the almighty power of the divine spirit.
Such was the outline of creation as described by the late Dr. H.
Brugsch, and it is curious to see how closely his views coincide with a
chapter in the _Papyrus of Nesi Amsu_ preserved in the British Museum.
[Footnote: No. 10,188. See my transcript and translation of the whole
papyrus in _Archaeologia_ vol. 52, London, 1801.] In the third section
of this papyrus we find a work which was written with the sole object of
overthrowing [=A]pep, the great enemy of R[=a], and in the composition
itself we find two versions of the chapter which describes the creation
of the earth and all things therein. The god Neb-er-tcher is the
speaker, and he says:--
"I evolved the evolving of evolutions. I evolved myself under the form
of the evolutions of the god Khepera, which were evolved at the
beginning of all time. I evolved with the evolutions of the god
Khepera; I evolved by the evolution of evolutions--that is to say, I
developed myself from the primeval matter which I made, I developed
myself out of the primeval matter. My name is Ausares (Osiris), the
germ of primeval matter. I have wrought my will wholly in this earth,
I have spread abroad and filled it, I have strengthened it [with] my
hand. I was alone, for nothing had been brought forth; I had not then
emitted from myself either Shu or Tefnut. I uttered my own name, as a
word of power, from my own mouth, and I straightway evolved myself. I
evolved myself under the form of the evolutions of the god Khepera,
and I developed myself out of the primeval matter which has evolved
multitudes of evolutions from the beginning of time. Nothing existed
on this earth then, and I made all things. There was none other who
worked with me at that time. I performed all evolutions there by means
of that divine Soul which I fashioned there, and which had remained
inoperative in the watery abyss. I found no place there whereon to
stand. But I was strong in my heart, and I made a foundation for
myself, and I made everything which was made. I was alone. I made a
foundation for my heart (_or_ will), and I created multitudes of
things which evolved themselves like unto the evolutions of the god
Khepera, and their offspring came into being from the evolutions of
their births. I emitted from myself the gods Shu and Tefnut, and from
being One I became Three; they [Illustration: THE CREATION. The god Nu
rising out of the primeval water and bearing in his hands the boat of
R[=a], the Sun-god, who is accompanied by a number of deities. In the
upper portion of the scene is the region of the underworld which is
enclosed by the body of Osiris, on whose head stands the goddess Nut
with arms stretched out to receive the disk of the sun.] sprang from
me, and came into existence in this earth. ...Shu and Tefnut brought
forth Seb and Nut, and Nut brought forth Osiris, Horus-khent-an-maa,
Sut, Isis, and Nephthya at one birth."
The fact of the existence of two versions of this remarkable Chapter
proves that the composition is much older than the papyrus [Footnote:
About B.C. 300.] in which it is found, and the variant readings which
occur in each make it certain that the Egyptian scribes had difficulty
in understanding what they were writing. It may be said that this
version of the cosmogony is incomplete because it does not account for
the origin of any of the gods except those who belong to the cycle of
Osiris, and this objection is a valid one; but in this place we are only
concerned to shew that R[=a], the Sun-god, was evolved from the primeval
abyss of water by the agency of the god Khepera, who brought this result
about by pronouncing his own name. The great cosmic gods, such as Ptah
and Khnemu, of whom mention will be made later, are the offspring of
another set of religious views, and the cosmogony in which these play
the leading parts is entirely different. We must notice, in passing,
that the god whose words we have quoted above declares that he evolved
himself under the form, of Khepera, and that his name is Osiris, "the
primeval matter of primeval matter," and that, as a result, Osiris is
identical with Khepera in respect of his evolutions and new births. The
word rendered "evolutions" is _kheperu_, literally "rollings"; and that
rendered "primeval matter" is _paut_, the original "stuff" out of which
everything was made. In both versions we are told that men and women
came into being from the tears which fell from the "Eye" of Khepera,
that is to say from the Sun, which, the god says, "I made take to up its
place in my face, and afterwards it ruled the whole earth."
We have seen how R[=a] has become the visible type and symbol of God,
and the creator of the world and of all that is therein; we may now
consider the position which he held with, respect to the dead. As far
back as the period of the IVth dynasty, about B.C. 3700, he was regarded
as the great god of heaven, and the king of all the gods, and divine
beings, and of the beatified dead who dwelt therein. The position of the
beatified in heaven is decided by R[=a], and of all the gods there
Osiris only appears to have the power to claim protection for his
followers; the offerings which the deceased would make to R[=a] are
actually presented to him by Osiris. At one time the Egyptian's greatest
hope seems to have been that he might not only become "God, the son of
God," by adoption, but that R[=a] would become actually his father. For
in the text of Pepi I, [Footnote: Ed. Maspero, line 570.] it is said:
"Pepi is the son of R[=a] who loveth him; and he goeth forth and raiseth
himself up to heaven. R[=a] hath begotten Pepi, and he goeth forth and
raiseth himself up to heaven. R[=a] hath conceived Pepi, and he goeth
forth and raiseth himself up to heaven. R[=a] hath given birth, to
Pepi, and he goeth forth and raiseth himself up to heaven."
Substantially these ideas remained the same from the earliest to the
latest times, and R[=a] maintained his position as the great head of the
companies, notwithstanding the rise of Amen into prominence, and the
attempt to make Aten the dominant god of Egypt by the so-called "Disk
worshippers." The following good typical examples of Hymns to R[=a] are
taken from the oldest copies of the Theban Recension of the Book of the Dead. |
|
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기