freemasonry of the ancient Egypt 8

freemasonry of the ancient Egypt 8

The second factor, which gravitates against the likelihood of Plutarch’s in-

terpretations being correct, is the condition of Egyptian metaphysics in the

first century after Christ. If, as Budge maintains, the Egyptians themselves

were unaware of the meaning of the word “Osiris” long prior to the Christian

era, into what decay had the old rites fallen even prior to the Ptolemaic pe-

riod? If Plutarch based his accounts upon popular traditions, they were most

certainly inaccurate and it is not impossible that even the priests themselves

were for the most part ignorant of the origins of their doctrine. It should not

be inferred from the general literature available concerning the Mysteries that

all of the priests were themselves initiates of a high order. Only a small part

of them ever actually received the greater secrets of their order; for the rest,

rite and ritual sufficed.

 

According to James Bon wick, “the Ptolemaic Egyptian writers were a hy-

brid and conceited set, who, like the jackdaw, stole a stray feather or two from

 

 

 

. 138 .

 

 

 

THE SECRET DOCTRINE IN EGYPT

 

 

 

the grand old sacerdotal peacock, and strutted about in mock majesty. As the

real and higher secrets of religion were, in all ages, confided only to a few,

those hybrids were very unlikely to get these from the initiated.” (See Egyptian

Relief and Modern Thought .)

 

In the face of these two factors, Plutarch’s “explications” lose caste. The

probability that they are correct or that they represent the opinion of the

informed Egyptian is considerably decreased. The modern Egyptologist

however finds Plutarch’s work eminently suited to his purposes, or, more

correctly, to his conceits. There is a popular prejudice among even the so-

called learned that antiquity is synonymous with ignorance. By accepting

Plutarch’s interpretations it is possible to preserve the traditional superiority

of all things modern. By acknowledging Plutarch to have correctly inter-

preted the fable, they can demonstrate that the Egyptians possessed no sacred

knowledge superior to, or even equal to, our own. Plutarch is therefore re-

garded as an eminently satisfactory authority who explains everything with

such a nicety that the whole issue may be regarded as closed.

 

In order that the reader may be in full possession of Plutarch's interpreta-

tions of the Osirian cycle, and may judge for himself as to their adequacy, we

shall summarize them briefly in the order set forth by the old priest.

 

I st: The fables of the gods are derived from the histories of ancient kings,

priests and heroes who lived at some ancient time and whose deeds were so il-

lustrious that the men themselves came to be regarded as divine beings. Osiris

and the other personalities of his epic were such meritorious persons that the

state religion came into existence to perpetuate their glorious deeds. (To di-

gress slightly, the opinions of two Egyptologists on this subject are illustra-

tive of our present confusion. Sir Gardner Wilkinson writes, “No Egyptian

deity was supposed to have lived on earth, and to have been deified after

death.” Maspero’s opinion contrasts sharply. He refers to Osiris as, “A god of

flesh and blood who lives upon earth.”)

 

2nd: Another interpretation which Plutarch calls “better” describes the

personnel of the Osirian myth as beings not human but of a middle distance

between gods and men, called Demons or Genii. These heroes, of which

 

 

 

• / J9 .

 

 

 

FREEMASONRY OF THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS

 

 

 

THE SECRET DOCTRINE IN EGYPT

 

 

 

order are also the 1 itans of the Greeks, were stronger and greater than men

but less perfect than the abstract divinities, and in a remote period they bat-

tled for dominion over the universe. Plato refers to the Demons as "inter-

preters of the wills of the gods to men, and ministering to their wants;

carrying the prayers and supplications of mortals to heaven and bringing

down from thence in return, oracles, and all other blessings of life.” Two of

these Demons, Isis and Osiris, on account of their eminent virtue and their

unselfish service of humanity and the gods, were like Hercules and Bacchus

finally elevated from the status of Demons to the status of gods, and after-

wards proper honors were paid to them by a grateful humanity.

 

3rd: The next interpretation Plutarch terms "more philosophical” but in

our mind it is less so, inasmuch as it departs from universal grandeur and

takes upon itself the aspect of a local fable. In this rendering Osiris is re-

garded as the Nile, Isis, that part of the country which is overflowed by the

Nile during the period of inundation and is thus rendered fertile and pro-

duces the little Harpocrates, the sprouting seed. Typhon becomes the sea

which swallows up the Nile by accepting its waters and distributing them

throughout its deep. It would appear that Plutarch becomes a little ashamed

of his own interpretation and seeks to improve upon it by asserting that

Osiris signifies not only the waters of the Nile but the principle of moisture

in general as the cause of generation; Isis is the whole body of the earth

which, accepting this humidity, becomes the mother of all generated beings

which are personified as Horus.

 

4th: His next effort to unveil the Static Isis is addressed to those who are

not satisfied "with this physiological interpretation.” He has recourse to the

assistance of the mathematicians and astronomers, declaring Typhon to sig-

nify the Sun and Osiris the moon. According to some, Osiris lived for

twenty-eight years, and according to others, he reigned for that length of

time. Plutarch sees in this an allusion to the twenty-eight days of the moon, at

the end of which time it is swallowed up by the sun. He also attempts to cor-

relate the fourteen pieces into which the body of Osiris was torn with the

fourteen days of the waning moon. This interpretation would show that both

 

 

 

Osiris and Isis arc the moon, the former, its power and influence, the latter, its

generative faculty.

 

5ih: Plutarch then develops the astronomical explanation, affirming that

certain philosophers regard the whole myth of Osiris as nothing but an enig-

matical description of eclipses. When Osiris is said to be shut up in a chest, it

is the moon falling into the shadow of the earth. This interpretation makes

Anubis the horizon which divides the invisible world, Nephthys, from the vis-

ible world, Isis. Plutarch seemingly thinks so little of this interpretation that

he gives little space to it and passes on to the next.

 

6th: After assuming that these previous interpretations cannot separately

contain the true explanation of the Osirian myth, Plutarch hazards the possi-

bility that collectively they may contain the facts of this so-called fabulous

history. He suggests that from the conflict of Osiris and Typhon we arc to

understand the constant warfare between the constructive and destructive

principles of nature. To demonstrate his opinion he advances the example of

the Persian Magi who taught the constant conflict of a good and evil prin-

ciple under the names of Ormuzd and Ahriman. We must consider this last

explanation, therefore, to be of the nature of a moralism revealing the ulti-

mate victory of good over evil, and Plutarch develops this interpretation ac-

cording to the precepts of Pythagoras and Plato. Thus Osiris becomes the

world idea, Isis, the place or receptacle of generation, and Horus, the off-

spring, the world itself manifested out of the contendings of the agent and

patient. Thus Osiris becomes the prototype of all order, beauty and harmony

and Typhon, of disorder, asymmetry, and inharmony.

 

To these interpretations must be added one more, derived also from

Plutarch, based upon the sprouting of corn. The burial of Osiris, therefore, is

the death of the seed, his resurrection, its rebirth, at which time he appears in

(he form of his own son, Harpocrates or the first green shoot. Of this inter-

pretation Julius Firmicus writes in his treatise "On the Falsity of the Pagan Reli-

gion:" “ I hey call the seeds of fruit. Osiris; the earth, Isis; the natural heat,

Typhon; and because the fruits are ripened by the natural heat and collected

lor (he life of man. and are separated from their natural tie to the earth, and

 

 

 

• 140 .

 

 

 

• 141 .

 

 

 

FREEMASONRY OF THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS

 

are sown again when winter approaches, this they consider is the death of

Osiris; but when the fruits, by the genial fostering of the earth, begin again to

be generated by a new procreation, this is the finding of Osiris."

 

While the foregoing interpretations of the Osirian myth are unquestion-

ably ingenious and may have had wide circulation in Egypt at various times, it

is evident that none of these interpretations contained any rare or unusual

knowledge not available to the unitiated. There is no mention here of those

ancient arts and sciences with which the priests are known to have been famil-

iar. Nor do we find in these renderings the kernel of that universal knowledge

which the Egyptians are known to have possessed and from the possession of

which they became the founders of arts and sciences. If we assume, and it

seems that this assumption is reasonable, that the Osirian cycle was the great

initiatory drama of the Egyptians over a vast period of time, it must certainly

have ushered the intellect into the contemplation of verities more profound

and more practical than those of which Plutarch hints. We must therefore ex-

tricate ourselves from the fascination which Plutarch's thesis has stimulated

and, disregarding his whole line of reasoning, search for a more essentially

Egyptian meaning of the great religious drama. Plutarch approached the

Egyptian metaphysics with the eyes and mind of a Greek. He naturally fell

into a Grecian mode of interpretation, yet if his vows held, and it seems that

they did, he did not tempt fate as Aeschylus had, by divulging the arcana; he

remained prudent and Grecian to the end and has seemingly been successful

in deceiving the whole illustrious line of Egyptologists who sought to build

substance from the shadow of his words. Of course it is quite possible that

the whole metaphysical philosophy of the Egyptians was not entrusted to the

Osirian myth, but it is also quite probable that initiated and uninitiated alike

would not have reverenced a fable which was unworthy of the great truths

with which it was associated.

 

Thales, in the advanced years of his life, made a difficult journey to Egypt.