MYTHS AND LEGENDS
ANCIENT EGYPT
by
LEWIS SPENCE
Author of "The Myths of Mexico and Peru,"
"The Civilisation of Ancient Mexico," "The Popol Vuh,"
"The Myths of the North American Indians"
BOSTON
DAVID D. NICKERSON & COMPANY
PUBLISHERS
1915
[Illustration: The Presentation of Ani to Osiris) From the
Papyrus of Ani--Reproduced from the Facsimile by Permission of the
Director of the British Museum]
PREFACE
In this volume the religious history of ancient Egypt has been reviewed
in the light of the science of modern mythology. Few Egyptologists
are well informed regarding the basic laws of that science, and much
misapprehension regarding the character and attributes of many of
the deities worshipped in the Nile Valley in times past has thereby
resulted. The statement that Egyptian religious ideas cannot be collated
with barbarian and savage conceptions simply because they are Egyptian
and therefore 'classic' and inviolate will no longer remain unquestioned
among that section of the public accustomed to think for itself, and
such pronouncements as that the animal gods of Egypt have no connexion
with totemic origins will shortly assume their proper perspective.
In advancing ideas so iconoclastic--which all will remember were
adumbrated by the late Mr. Andrew Lang and strongly buttressed by Sir
James Frazer--it is essential that I should at the outset protect
myself against any charges of lack of acquaintance with the science of
Egyptology. Such a work as this, which attempts to further recent views
concerning a well-worn subject, must by the very circumstances of its
effort be cast and written in popular style. That such a treatment is
sufficient to prejudice it in the eyes of a certain type of critic I am
well aware. A long series of handbooks and articles had prepared critics
for my work in this series upon Mexican and Peruvian myth, and it was
generally admitted that I spoke upon these subjects out of the authority
of long experience.
I find it necessary to state, then, that the study of Egyptian
hieroglyphs is not new to me. For several years I laboured at
these assiduously, studying the languages, Semitic and African,
including Coptic, which are cognate with the Egyptian. In the study
of hieroglyphic systems I was attracted toward the wonderful system
of writing which prevailed among the Maya of Central America, and
through it to the consideration of Mexican archæology in general. My
grounding in the Egyptian language has also stood me in good stead, and
if for reasons connected with the necessity for popular presentation
my pages are not littered with hieroglyphs, I can lay claim to such a
knowledge of Egyptian linguistic origins as can control any derivations
here attempted--which, however, have not been ventured upon without
the countenance of other and higher authorities. If I have differed
from Egyptologists of standing in matters mythological, I have been
sedulously careful not to attempt the impertinence of contradicting them
in matters linguistic.
Their lifelong acquaintance with original texts gives them, of course,
authority to which I gladly bow, but I feel, on the other hand, that
my own close studies of mythological problems, which are as vital to
the interests of the science as its linguistic and archæological sides,
entitle me to advance my personal views upon such, even when these
are opposed to those of authorities whose reputation in the field of
Egyptology stands deservedly high.
Students of myth and Egyptology, as well as the general reader drawn
to the subjects by the glamour of the mystic atmosphere which, let us
hope, will ever surround them, will find that I have not hesitated to
attack hypotheses concerning the character and attributes of certain
deities the mythological type of which may have been regarded by many as
ultimately fixed. This applies especially to my attempted reconstruction
of the natures of Osiris, Isis, Thoth, and several other divinities.
My remarks, too, upon totemism in Egypt may engender opposition, though
I believe that the rank of the authorities I can call to my aid will
succeed in disarming criticism of my arguments.
No one can rightly comprehend the trend and currents of Egyptian faith
who does not possess some acquaintance with Egyptian history, manners,
and customs. I have therefore provided brief synopses of these, as well
as some account of Egyptian archæology. To Mr. W.G. Blaikie Murdoch,
whose works and influence on modern art are well known to its more
serious students, I am obliged for the greatest possible assistance and
guidance in the section dealing with the art of ancient Egypt. To my
assistants, Miss Mavie Jack and Miss Katherine Nixey, I am much beholden
for the collection and arrangement of valuable material and for many
suggestions.
L.S.
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTORY
II. EXPLORATION, HISTORY, AND CUSTOMS
III. THE PRIESTHOOD: MYSTERIES AND TEMPLES
IV. THE CULT OF OSIRIS
V. THE GREAT GODS
VI. EGYPTIAN LITERATURE
VII. MAGIC
VIII. FOREIGN AND ANIMAL GODS: THE LATE PERIOD
GLOSSARY AND INDEX
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
The Presentation of Ani to Osiris _Frontispiece_
The Egyptian Symbol of the Soul
Pylon, Karnak
The Pyramids of Gizeh
Model of a Funeral Boat
Canopic Jars representing the Four Sons of Horus
Temple of Horus at Edfû
Scene representing the driving of a Herd of Cattle
Rāhetep, a Priest
Osiris
Osiris beguiled into the Chest
Isis and the Baby Prince
The Departure of Isis from Byblos
A Shrine of Osiris
Isis
Winged Isis
Cippus of Horus
Horus in Battle
Nephthys
Set
Anubis
Thoth and Maāt
The Weighing of the Heart
Ra
Isis and Ra
Amen-Ra
Mut and Ptah
Sekhmet and Bast
Khnemu, I-em-hetep and Nefer-Tem
Aten
Hathor
Hapi
Taurt and Khonsu
The Maiden of Bekhten
The Goddesses as Dancing-girls
Thoth and the Chief Magician
"Who are you?"
The Treasure-Chamber of Rhampsinites
Isis conjured Ra to tell his Name
Amulet of Hathor
Bes
Procession of the Sacred Bull
Sebek
Rameses II accompanied by a Lion
Mummied Cats
Horus the Child
Hauling Blocks of Stone for the Pyramids
Head-rest
Temple of Isis at Philæ
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTORY
The group of beliefs which constituted what for convenience' sake is
called the Egyptian religion in an existence of some thousands of years
passed through nearly every phase known to the student of comparative
mythology. If the theologians of ancient Egypt found it impossible to
form a pantheon of deities with any hope of consistency, assigning to
each god or goddess his or her proper position in the divine galaxy as
ruling over a definite sphere, cosmic or psychical, it may be asked
in what manner the modern mythologist is better equipped to reduce to
order elements so recondite and difficult of elucidation as the mythic
shapes of the divinities worshipped in the Nile Valley. But the answer
is ready. The modern science of comparative religion is extending year
by year, and its light is slowly but certainly becoming diffused among
the dark places of the ancient faiths. By the gleam of this magic
lamp, then--more wonderful than any dreamt of by the makers of Eastern
fable--let us walk in the gloom of the pyramids, in the cool shadows of
ruined temples, aye, through the tortuous labyrinth of the Egyptian mind
itself, trusting that by virtue of the light we carry we shall succeed
in unravelling to some extent the age-long enigma of this mystic land.
One of the first considerations which occur to us is that among such
a concourse of gods as is presented by the Egyptian religion it would
have been surprising if confusion had not arisen in the native mind
concerning them. This is proved by the texts, which display in many
cases much difficulty in defining the exact qualities of certain
deities, their grouping and classification. The origin of this haziness
is not far to seek. The deities of the country multiplied at such an
astonishing rate that whereas we find the texts of the early dynasties
give us the names of some two hundred deities only, the later Theban
Recension (or version) of the _Book of the Dead_ supplies nearly five
hundred, to which remain to be added the names of mythological beings to
the number of eight hundred.
Local Gods
Another cause which made for confusion was that in every large town of
Upper and Lower Egypt and its neighbourhood religion took what might
almost be called a local form. Thus the great gods of the country
were known by different names in each nome or province, their ritual
was distinctive, and even the legends of their origin and adventures
assumed a different shape. Many of the great cities, too, possessed
special gods of their own, and to these were often added the attributes
of one or more of the greater and more popular forms of godhead. The
faith of the city that was the royal residence became the religion _par
excellence_ of the entire kingdom, its temple became the Mecca of all
good Egyptians, and its god was, so long as these conditions obtained,
the Jupiter of the Egyptian pantheon. It might have been expected that
when Egypt attained a uniformity of culture, art, and nationhood, her
religion, as in the case of other peoples, would also become uniform
and simplified. But such a consummation was never achieved. Even
foreign intercourse failed almost entirely to break down the religious
conservatism of priesthood and people. Indeed, the people may be said to
have proved themselves more conservative than the priests. Alterations
in religious policy, differentiation in legend and hieratic texts
emanated from time to time from the various colleges of priests, or
from that fount of religion, the sovereign himself; but never was
a change made in deference to the popular clamour unless it was a
reversion to an older type. Indeed, as the dynasties advance we behold
the spectacle of a theological gulf growing betwixt priests and people,
the former becoming more idealistic and the latter remaining as true to
the outer semblance of things, the symbolic, as of old.
The evolution of religion in ancient Egypt must have taken the same
course as among other races, and any hypothesis which attempts to
explain it otherwise is almost certainly doomed to non-success. Of late
years many works by learned Egyptologists have been published which
purport to supply a more or less wide survey of Egyptian mythology and
to unravel its deeper significances. The authors of some of these works,
however admirable they may be as archæologists or as translators of
hieroglyphic texts, are for the most part but poorly equipped to grapple
with mythological difficulties. To ensure success in mythological
elucidation a special training is necessary, and a prolonged familiarity
with the phenomena of early religion in its many and diverse forms is a
first essential. In the work of one foreign Egyptologist of standing,
for example, a candid confession is made of ignorance regarding
mythological processes. He claims to present the "Egyptian religion as
it appears to an unprejudiced observer who knows nothing of the modern
science of religions." Another Egyptologist of the first rank writes
upon the subject of totemism in the most elementary manner, and puts
forward the claim that such a system never existed in the Nile valley.
But these questions will be dealt with in their proper places.
Beginning with forms of the lower cultus--forms almost certainly of
African origin--the older religion of Egypt persisted strongly up to
the time of the Hyksos period, after which time the official religion
of the country may be found in one or other form of sun-worship. That
is to say, all the principal deities of the country were at some time
amalgamated or identified with the central idea of a sun-god.
The Egyptian religion of the Middle and Late Kingdoms was as much a
thing of philosophic invention as later Greek myth, only, so far as we
have the means of judging, it was not nearly so artistic or successful.
For, whereas we find numerous allusions in the texts to definite myths,
we seldom find in Egyptian literature the myths themselves. Indeed,
our chief repository of Egyptian religious tales is the _De Iside et
Osiride_ of the Greek Plutarch--an uncertain authority. It is presumed
that the myths were so well known popularly that to write them down
for the use of such a highly religious people as the Egyptians would
have been a work of supererogation. The loss to posterity, however, is
immeasurable, and, lacking a full chronicle of the deeds of the gods of
Egypt, we can only grope through textual and allied matter for scraps
of intelligence which, when pieced together, present anything but an
appearance of solidity and comprehensiveness.
Animism
It has been admitted that the ancient Egyptians, like other early
races, could not have evolved a religion unless by the usual processes
of religious growth. Thus we discover, by means of numerous clues more
or less strong, that they passed through the phase known as animism,
or animatism.[1] This is the belief that practically every object
in the universe surrounding man has a soul and a personality such
as he himself possesses. Man at an early date of his consciousness
formulated the belief in a soul, that mysterious second self which even
the most debased races believe in. The phenomena of sleep, the return
of consciousness after slumber, and the strange experiences of life
and adventures in dreamland while asleep would force early man to the
conclusion that he possessed a double or second self, and it was merely
an extension of that idea which made him suppose that this secondary
personality would continue to exist after death.
But what proof have we that the early dwellers in Egypt passed through
this phase? Besides the belief in a human soul, the animistic condition
of mind sees in every natural object a living entity. Thus trees,
rivers, winds, and animals all possess the gift of rational thought and
speech. How is it possible to prove that the ancient Egyptians believed
that such objects possessed conscious souls and individualities of their
own?
First as to the early Egyptian belief that man himself possessed a
soul. The Egyptian symbol for the soul (the _ba_) is a man-headed bird.
Now the conception of the soul as a bird is a very common one among
savages and barbarians of a low order. To uncultured man the bird is
always incomprehensible because of its magical power of flight, its
appearance in the sky where dwell the gods, and its song, approaching
speech. From the bird the savage evolves the idea of the winged spirit
or god, the messenger from the heavens. Thus many supernatural beings in
all mythological systems are given wings. Many American Indian tribes
believe that birds are the visible spirits of the dead. The Powhatans
of Virginia believed that birds received the souls of their chiefs
at death, and the Aztecs that the spirits of departed warriors took
the shapes of humming-birds and flitted from flower to flower in the
sunshine. The Boros of Brazil believe that the soul has the shape of a
bird, and passes in that form out of the body in dream.[2] The Bilquila
Indians of British Columbia conceive the soul as residing in an egg
situated in the nape of the neck. If the shell cracks and the soul flies
away the man must perish. A Melanesian magician was accustomed to send
out his soul in the form of an eagle to find out what was happening in
passing ships. Pliny states that the soul of Aristeas of Proconnesus
was seen to issue from his mouth in the shape of a raven. A like belief
occurs in countries so far distant from one another as Bohemia and
Malaysia.
We see from these parallel examples, then, that the ancient Egyptians
were not singular in figuring the soul in bird-shape. This idea partakes
of the nature of animistic belief. But other and more concrete examples
of this phase of religious activity occur to us. For instance, the
objects found in early graves in Egypt, as elsewhere, are sometimes
broken with the manifest intention of setting free their 'spirits,'
doubtless to join that of their owner. Again, in the myth of Osiris we
find that his coffin when at rest in Byblos became entangled in the
growth of a tree--an obvious piece of folk-memory crystallizing the race
reminiscence of an early form of tree-worship--a branch of animistic
belief. In the texts, too, statements frequently occur which can be
referred only to an early condition of animism. Thus each door in the
otherworld was sentient, and would open if correctly adjured. We find
in chapter lxxxvi of the Papyrus of Ani the Flame of the Sun addressed
as an individual, as is the ferry-boat of Ra in chapter xlii. "I am
the knot of the Aser tree," says the dead man in the same chapter,
referring to the tree which wound itself around the coffin of Osiris.
All these are animistic references, and could be easily multiplied by a
glance through any representative Egyptian manuscript. The practice of
magic, too, in later times in the Nile Valley is to some extent merely a
survival of animistic belief.
Fetishism and Totemism
Fetishism, too, bulks largely in Egyptian religious conceptions. Many of
the gods are represented as carrying the fetishes from which they may
have originally been derived. Thus the arrow of Neith is fetishistic (a
statement which will afterwards be justified), as are the symbols of Min
and other deities.
Fetishism, regarding which I have given a prolonged explanation
elsewhere,[3] is a term applied to the use of objects large or small,
natural or artificial, regarded as possessing consciousness, volition,
and supernatural qualities--in short, a fetish object is the home of
a wandering spirit which has taken up residence there. The remnants
of fetishism are also to be discerned in the amulets which were worn
by every Egyptian, living and dead. All amulets partake of the nature
of fetishes, and the remark is often heard that good luck resides in
them. That is, just as the savage believes that a powerful agency
working for his good dwells in the portable fetish, so the civilized
man cannot altogether discredit the idea that the object attached to
his watch-chain does not possess some inherent quality of good fortune.
Many of these amulets typify divinities, such as the 'buckle' sign which
symbolizes the protection of Isis; the sacred eye representative of
Horus; and the symbol of the parallel fingers might perhaps recall the
fetishistic necklaces of fingers found among many savage peoples.
Many Egyptologists deny that totemism entered as a force into the
religion of ancient Egypt. Totemism may be defined as the recognition,
exploitation, and adjustment of the imaginary mystic relationship of
the individual or the tribe to the supernatural powers or spirits which
surround them. Whereas the fetish is to some extent the servant of its
owner, a spirit lured to dwell in a material object to do the behest of
an individual or a community, the totem, whether personal or tribal, is
a patron and protector and is often represented in animal or vegetable
shape. The basic difference between the individual and tribal totem is
still obscure, but for our present purpose it will be sufficient to deal
with the latter. The most notable antagonist of the theory that some of
the divinities of ancient Egypt are of totemic origin is Dr. E.A. Wallis
Budge, the well-known Egyptologist. In his _Gods of the Egyptians_
he says: "It now seems to be generally admitted by ethnologists that
there are three main causes which have induced men to worship animals,
_i.e._ they have worshipped them as animals or as the dwelling-place
of gods or as representatives of tribal ancestors. There is no reason
whatsoever for doubting that in neolithic times the primitive Egyptians
worshipped animals as animals and as nothing more." None of the above
statements approaches a definition of totemism. The theory that the
totem is a tribal ancestor is now regarded as doubtful. Dr. Budge
continues: "The question as to whether the Egyptians worshipped animals
as representatives of tribal ancestors or 'totems' is one which has
given rise to much discussion, and this is not to be wondered at, for
the subject is one of difficulty. We know that many of the standards
which represent the nomes of Egypt are distinguished by figures of birds
and animals, _e.g._ the hawk, the bull, the hare, etc. But it is not
clear whether these are intended to represent 'totems' or not.... The
animal or bird standing on the top of a nome perch or standard is not
intended for a fetish or a representative of a tribal ancestor, but for
a creature which was regarded as the deity under whose protection the
people of a certain tract of territory were placed, and we may assume
that within the limits of that territory it was unlawful to kill or
injure such animal or bird." Totems are invariably carried on banners,
poles, and shields, and it is unlawful to kill them. He also states
that the totemic theory "may explain certain facts connected with the
animal-worship of numbers of savage and half-savage tribes in some parts
of the world, but it cannot in the writer's opinion be regarded as
affording an explanation of the animal-worship of the Egyptians."
Wherefore, it may be asked, was Egypt alone immune from the influence
of totemism? Dr. Budge continues, by way of final refutation of the
totemic theory, that on nome standards several objects besides animals
were worshipped and regarded as gods, or that they became the symbols
of the deities which were worshipped in them. Thus on some standards
were displayed representations of hills, arrows, fish, and so forth.
These objects, Dr. Budge seems to imply, cannot be fetishistic or
totemic. Dr. Budge cannot, for example, find the reason why three
hills were connected with a god. This does not present a mythological
problem of high complexity. In many parts of the world mountain-peaks,
separately or in groups, are objects of direct worship. A mountain may
be worshipped because it is the abode of a god; for its own sake, as
were Olympus, Sinai, and Carmel, which latterly became the high places
of deities; or because they were supposed to be the birthplaces of
certain tribes. In old Peru, for example, as we are informed by the
Indian writer Salcamayhua, each localized tribe or Ayllu had its own
_paccarisca_, or place of origin, many of which were mountains which
were addressed by the natives in the formula:
"Thou art my birthplace,
Thou art my lifespring,
Guard me from evil,
O paccarisca!"
These mountains were, of course, oracular, as those represented on the
Egyptian standards would probably be. That they were worshipped as the
houses of oracles and for their own sakes, and not as the home of a
deity, seems to be proved in that they, rather than such a deity, are
represented in the standards.
Neither can Dr. Budge decipher in a mythological sense the symbol of two
arrows placed notch to notch with double barbs pointing outward. Arrows
of this type are common as fetishes in several parts of the world. Among
the Cheyenne Indians of the Plains the set of four sacred 'medicine'
arrows constitutes the tribal palladium which they claim to have had
from the beginning of the world, and which was annually utilized in
tribal ceremonial as lately as 1904. They also had a rite spoken of as
'fixing' the arrows, which was undertaken by priests specially set apart
as the guardians of this great fetish.[4]
But there are other and much more apparent proofs of the totemic nature
of a number of the Egyptian deities. It is obvious, for example, that
the cat-headed Bast, who was worshipped first in the shape of a cat,
was originally a cat totem. The crocodile was the incarnation of the
god Sebek, and dwelt in a lake near Krokodilopolis. Ra and Horus are
represented with the heads of hawks, and Thoth with the head of an ibis.
Anubis has the head of a jackal. That some of these forms are totemic
is not open to doubt. But it was a decadent totemism, in which the more
primitive sentiment was focused on particular animals considered as
divine, totems which had become full-fledged divinities. The Egyptians
carried standards on which were represented their totemic animals
precisely as the natives of the Upper Darling engrave their totem on
their shields, and as several American tribes in time of war carry
sticks surmounted by pieces of bark on which their animal totems are
painted. An instance of protection by a totem is alluded to by Diodorus,
who states that there was a tale in Egypt that one of the ancient kings
had been saved from death by a crocodile. Lastly, in many of the nomes
of Egypt certain animals were not eaten by the inhabitants. This is a
sure indication of the existence of totemism, for the presence of which
in Egypt no better proof could be adduced.
There is no reason to suppose, however, that in later times animals
were not worshipped in Egypt for other than totemic reasons. The
later worship of animals may have been a relic of totemism, but it
is more likely to have been merely symbolic in character. Even when
the attendant rites and beliefs of totemism cease to be recognized,
the totem animal may retain its bestial form instead of assuming a
semi-human one. There is a pony totem worshipped by a certain tribe of
North American Indians which is at present in course of evolution into a
full-fledged divinity, but which persists in retaining its equine form.
Again, the ability of the Egyptian gods to transform themselves into
animals by means of magical formulæ[5] is eloquent in many cases of
their totemic origin. It has been said that not only individual animals
but all the animals of a class were sacred in certain nomes. In these
cases, says Wiedemann, "the animals were not honoured as gods, but
rather as specially favoured by the gods." But as this is exactly what
happens among peoples in the totemic stage, this contention must fall to
the ground.
Creation Myths
There are several accounts in existence which deal with the Egyptian
conception of the creation of the world and of man. We find a company of
eight gods alluded to in the Pyramid Texts as the original makers and
moulders of the universe. The god Nu and his consort Nut were deities
of the firmament and the rain which proceeds therefrom. Hehu and Hehut
appear to personify fire, and Kekui and Kekuit the darkness which
brooded over the primeval abyss of water. Kerh and Kerhet also appear
to have personified Night or Chaos. Some of these gods have the heads
of frogs,[6] others those of serpents, and in this connexion we are
reminded of the deities which are alluded to in the story of creation
recorded in the _Popol Vuh_, the sacred book of the Kiche Indians of
Guatemala, two of whom, Xpiyacoc and Xmucane, are called "the ancient
serpents covered with green feathers," male and female. We find in the
account of the creation story now under consideration the admixture of
the germs of life enveloped in thick darkness, so well known to the
student of mythology as symptomatic of creation myths all the world
over. A papyrus (_c_. 312 B.C.) preserved in the British Museum contains
a series of chapters of a magical nature, the object of which is to
destroy Apepi, the fiend of darkness, and in it we find two copies of
the story of creation which detail the means by which the sun came into
being. In one account the god Ra says that he took upon himself the
form of Khepera, the deity who was usually credited with the creative
faculty. He proceeds to say that he continued to create new things out
of those which he had already made, and that they went forth from his
mouth. "Heaven," he says, "did not exist and earth had not come into
being, and the things of the earth and creeping things had not come
into existence in that place, and I raised them from out of Nu from a
state of inactivity." This would imply that Khepera moulded life in
the universe from the matter supplied from the watery abyss of Nu. "I
found no place," says Khepera, "whereon I could stand. I worked a charm
upon my own heart. I laid a foundation in Maāt. I made every form. I
was one by myself. I had not emitted from myself the god Shu, and I had
not spit out from myself the goddess Tefnut. There was no other being
who worked with me." The word Maāt signifies law, order, or regularity,
and from the allusion to working a charm upon his heart we may take
it that Khepera made use of magical skill in the creative process, or
it may mean, in Scriptural phraseology, that "he took thought unto
himself" to make a world. The god continues that from the foundation of
his heart multitudes of things came into being. But the sun, the eye of
Nu, was "covered up behind Shu and Tefnut," and it was only after an
indefinite period of time that these two beings, the children of Nu,
were raised up from out the watery mass and brought their father's eye
along with them. In this connexion we find that the sun, as an eye, has
a certain affinity with water. Thus Odin pledged his eye to Mimir for
a draught from the well of wisdom, and we find that sacred wells famous
for the cure of blindness are often connected with legends of saints
who sacrificed their own eyesight.[7] The allusion in those legends is
probably to the circumstance that the sun as reflected in water has the
appearance of an eye. Thus when Shu and Tefnut arose from the waters the
eye of Nu followed them. Shu in this case may represent the daylight and
Tefnut moisture.
Khepera then wept copiously, and from the tears which he shed sprang men
and women. The god then made another eye, which in all probability was
the moon. After this he created plants and herbs, reptiles and creeping
things, while from Shu and Tefnut came Geb and Nut, Osiris and Isis,
Set, Nephthys and Horus at a birth. These make up the company of the
great gods at Heliopolis, and this is sufficient to show that the latter
part of the story at least was a priestly concoction.
But there was another version, obviously an account of the creation
according to the worshippers of Osiris. In the beginning of this Khepera
tells us at once that he is Osiris, the cause of primeval matter. This
account was merely a frank usurpation of the creation legend for the
behoof of the Osirian cult. Osiris in this version states that in the
beginning he was entirely alone. From the inert abyss of Nu he raised
a god-soul--that is, he gave the primeval abyss a soul of its own. The
myth then proceeds word for word in exactly the same manner as that
which deals with the creative work of Khepera. But only so far, for we
find Nu in a measure identified with Khepera, and Osiris declaring that
his eye, the sun, was covered over with large bushes for a long period
of years. Men are then made by a process similar to that described in
the first legend. From these accounts we find that the ancient Egyptians
believed that an eternal deity dwelling in a primeval abyss where he
could find no foothold endowed the watery mass beneath him with a soul;
that he created the earth by placing a charm upon his heart, otherwise
from his own consciousness, and that it served him as a place to stand
upon; that he produced the gods Shu and Tefnut, who in turn became
the parents of the great company of gods; and that he dispersed the
darkness by making the sun and moon out of his eyes. After these acts
followed the almost insensible creation of men and women by the process
of weeping, and the more sophisticated making of vegetation, reptiles,
and stars. In all this we see the survival of a creation myth of a
most primitive and barbarous type, which much more resembles the crude
imaginings of the Red Man than any concept which might be presumed to
have arisen from the consciousness of 'classic' Egypt. But it is from
such unpromising material that all religious systems spring, and however
strenuous the defence made in order to prove that the Egyptians differed
in this respect from other races, that defence is bound in no prolonged
time to be battered down by the ruthless artillery of fact.
We have references to other deities in the Pyramid Texts, some of whom
appear to be nameless. For example, in the text of Pepi I we find homage
rendered to one who has four faces and who brings the storm. This would
seem to be a god of wind and rain, whose countenances are set toward
the four points of the compass, whence come the four winds. Indeed, the
context proves this when it says: "Thou hast taken thy spear which is
dear to thee, thy pointed weapon which thrusteth down riverbanks with
double point like the darts of Ra and a double haft like the claws of
the goddess Maftet."
The 'Companies' of the Gods
In the Pyramid Texts we find frequent mention of several groups
consisting of nine gods each. One of these companies of gods, or
Enneads, was called the Great and another the Little, and the nine gods
of Horus are also alluded to. It is not known, however, whether this
group is in any way connected with either of the others. We also read
in the Pyramid Texts of Teta of a double group of eighteen gods which
recur in the text of Pepi I. These eighteen gods may simply be the
Great and Little companies of gods taken together. In the texts of Pepi
I and Teta, however, we find a third company of nine gods, officially
recognized by the priests of Heliopolis, and all three companies are
represented by twenty-seven symbols representing the word _neter_ (god)
placed in a row.
Although these companies of gods are spoken of as containing nine
deities, that is owing to their designation of _Pesedt_, which signifies
'nine'. The Little company in reality contains eleven gods, but nine was
their original number, and, as Sir Gaston Maspero says, each of them,
especially the first and last, could be developed. A local company such
as that of Heliopolis might have the god of another nome or district
embraced in it in one of two ways; that is, the alien god might replace
one of the local gods or be set side by side with him. Again, strange
gods could be absorbed in the leader of the _Pesedt_. When a fresh god
was admitted into a company all the other deities who were connected
with him were also included, but their names were not classed beside
those of its original members.
These three companies of gods were fully developed by the period of
the Fifth Dynasty, and there is little doubt that the Egyptian theology
owed the formation of this pantheon to the caste of priests ruling at
Heliopolis.
To the third _Pesedt_ they gave no name. The gods of the first
company are Tem, Shu, Tefnut, Qeb, Nut, Osiris, Isis, Set, Nephthys.
Occasionally Horus is given as the chief of the company instead of Tem.
In the text of Unas we find the names of the gods of the Little company
given, but they are for the most part quite unimportant. The third
company is rarely mentioned, and the names of its gods are unknown.
Earth as well as heaven and the underworld had its quota of deities,
and it is considered highly probable that the three companies of gods
are referable one to each of these regions. The members of each company
varied in different periods and in different cities. But the great local
god or goddess was always the head of the company in a given vicinity.
As has been said, he might be joined to another deity. At Heliopolis,
for example, where the chief local god was Tem, the priests joined to
his name that of Ra, and addressed him in prayer as Ra-Tem. Texts of all
periods show that the chief local gods of many cities retained their
pre-eminence almost to the end. The land of Egypt was divided into
provinces called _hesput_, to which the Greeks gave the name of _nome_.
In each of these a certain god or group of gods held sway, the variation
being caused by racial and other considerations. To the people of each
nome their god was the deity _par excellence_, and in early times it is
plain that the worship of each province amounted almost to a separate
religion. This division of the country must have taken place at an early
epoch, and it certainly contributed greatly to the conservation of
religious differences. The nome gods certainly date from pre-dynastic
times, as is proved by inscriptions antedating the Pyramid Texts. The
number of these provinces varied from one period to another, but the
average seems to have been between thirty-five and forty. It would serve
no purpose to enumerate the gods of the various nomes in this place, as
many of them are obscure, but as each deity is dealt with the nome to
which he belongs will be mentioned. Several nomes worshipped the same
god. For example, Horus was worshipped in not less than six, while in
three provinces Khnemu was worshipped, and Hathor in six.
The Egyptian Idea of God
The word by which the Egyptians implied deity and, indeed, supernatural
beings of any description was _neter_. The hieroglyphic which represents
this idea is described by most Egyptologists as resembling an axe-head
let into a long wooden handle. Some archæologists have attempted to show
that the figure resembled in outline a roll of yellow cloth, the lower
part bound or laced over, the upper part appearing as a flap at the top,
probably for unwinding. It has been thought possible that the object
represents a fetish--for instance, a bone carefully wound round with
cloth, and not the cloth alone.
We are ignorant of most of the gods worshipped during the first four
dynasties, chiefly because of the lack of documentary evidence, although
some are known from the inscription called the Palermo Stone, which
alludes to several local deities. Some portions of the _Book of the
Dead_ may have been revised during the First Dynasty, and from this we
may argue that the religion of the Egyptians, as revealed in the later
texts, closely resembled that in existence during the first three
dynasties. It is only when we come to the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties
that we discover material for the study of the Egyptian pantheon in
the Pyramid Texts of Unas, Teta, Pepi the First, and others. By this
period the first phase of Egyptian development appears to have been
entered upon. At the same time it is plain that the material afforded
by the Pyramid Texts contains stratum upon stratum of religious thought
and conception, in all probability bequeathed to the pyramid builders
by innumerable generations of men. In these wondrous texts we find
crystallized examples of the most primitive and barbarous religious
elements--animistic, fetishistic, and totemic. These texts are for the
most part funerary and, in consequence, relate chiefly to deities of the
underworld.
Deities of the Pyramid Texts
In order to understand this earliest fixed phase of religious thought
in Egypt, it is necessary to pass in brief review the deities alluded
to in the Pyramid Texts, and for the moment to regard them separately
from the rest of the Egyptian pantheon. In doing so we must beware of
definitely labelling these conceptions with such names as 'water-god,'
'thunder-god,' 'sun-god,' and so forth. Despite the labours of the
last half-century, the science of mythology is yet in its infancy, and
workers in its sphere are now beginning to suspect that mere variants
or phases of certain deities, which are by no means separate entities,
have in many cases been credited with an individual status they do not
deserve. The deities of the Greek and Roman pantheons are doubtless
good examples of gods whose attributes are finally fixed. Thus one may
say of Mars that he is a war-god, and of Pallas Athene that she is a
goddess of wisdom, but these were merely the attributes possessed
by these deities which were most popular and uppermost in the public
consciousness. Recent research has proved that most of the Greek and
Roman deities are traceable to earlier forms, some of which possess a
variety of attributes, others of which are more simple in form than
the later conception which is developed from them. Again, many deities
which exhibit some particular tendency are necessarily connected with
other natural forms. Thus many rain gods or goddesses are connected with
thunder and lightning. Possession of the lightning arrow frequently
implies a connexion with hunting or war. All moon-gods are deities of
moisture, and preside over birth. Some deities of rain preside also
over the winds, thunder and lightning, the chase and war, general
culture, and so forth. A sun-god, as lord of the vault of heaven, can
preside over all the meteorological manifestations thereof. He is god
of growth, of wealth, because gold possesses the yellow colour of
his beams, of travelling, because he walks the heavens, and he rules
countless other departments of existence. From polytheism may evolve in
time a condition of monotheism, in which one god holds complete sway
over mankind--that is, one deity may become so popular, or the priestly
caste connected with him so powerful, that all other cults languish
as his spreads and grows. But, on the other hand, polytheism, or the
multiplicity of deities, may well spring from an early monotheism,[8]
itself the child of a successful fetish or totem, for the attributes
of a great single god may, in the hands of a people still partially in
the animistic stage, become so infused with individuality as to appear
entirely separate entities. In dealing, then, with the gods alluded to
in the Pyramid Texts, several of which are obviously derivative, we must
recollect that although in a manner it is necessary to affix to them
some more or less definite description, it will be well to bear in mind
the substance of this paragraph.
We are not at present finally considering the natures or characteristics
of the deities mentioned in the Pyramid Texts, but merely affording such
a brief outline of them as will give the reader some idea of Egyptian
religion in general during the early dynasties.
The goddess Net, or Neith, who is mentioned in the Pyramid Texts of
Unas, is a figure in which we descry a personification of moisture or
rain, because of her possession of the arrow, the symbol of lightning.
The hawk-headed Horus, probably originally a hawk totem, is one of the
manifestations of the sun-deity, from whom he may have evolved, or
with whom he may have been confounded. Khepera, also found in the Unas
Texts, is another form of the sun. His possession of the beetle glyph
is symbolical of the manner in which the sun rolls over the face of the
sky as the Egyptian beetle or scarabæus rolled its eggs over the sand.
Khnemu, the ram-headed, whose name signifies 'the moulder' or 'uniter,'
was probably the totemic deity of an immigrant race who had achieved
godhead, and perhaps monotheism, or at least creatorship, in another
sphere, and who had been accepted into Egyptian belief with all his
attributes. Sebek, the crocodile-god, Ra and Ptah, two other forms of
the sun-god, Nu, the watery mass of heaven, are also alluded to in the
Pyramid Texts of Unas and Teta, as is Hathor.
Early Burials
Egyptian religious tenets carefully fostered the idea of the
preservation of the human body after death. In the earliest period the
burials of the time throw much light on the nature of religious belief.
The corpse was buried in such a posture that it would appear to have
been doubled up prior to interment. The knees touch the chin, and the
hands are disposed in front of the face. The head was turned to the
west. In later prehistoric times the body was often closely bound with
wrappings which were so tightly drawn as to force all the bones parallel
with each other. Later still, a less contracted attitude was adopted,
which in turn gave way to a fully extended position. In the late
prehistoric period the corpse is found wrapped in linen cloths. It was
surrounded with articles provided for its use, nourishment, or defence
in the other-world, or perhaps for that of its _ka_, or double--stone
vessels containing beer, unguents of various kinds, flint knives and
spear-heads, necklaces and other objects of daily use which the deceased
had employed during life. Amulets were placed upon the corpse to protect
it against evil spirits both in this world and in the life beyond.
In the Old Kingdom, which may be designated the Pyramid Age, we find
a new description of burial coming into fashion. Mummification of a
simple kind became the vogue. There is good reason to suppose that
this custom arose out of the cult of Osiris, the god of the dead, and
it powerfully influenced all future Egyptian funerary and theological
practice and thought. But between what may be conveniently described as
the 'prehistoric' period and that of the Pyramids several other types
of tomb had found popularity. The Pharaoh, during the First Dynasty,
was buried in a large rectangular building of brick, which had several
chambers inaccessible from outside. In one of these the body of the king
was laid, and in the others a variety of offerings and utensils were
stored. The whole was merely an elaboration of the prehistoric method
of sepulture. The exterior of the tomb was broken up by niches in the
form of doors, through which it was thought the _ka_ of the dead king
would be able to leave and re-enter his tomb at will. Round the whole a
wall was built, and fresh offerings to the deceased royalty were placed
within the niches or alcoves of the tomb from time to time, and over all
a mound of earth or brick was probably heaped. The name-stele of the
monarch was blazoned in hieroglyphs on a large memorial slab outside,
without any allusion to his life, character, or actions. Several of
the early royal burial-places contain the graves of women, servants,
and dogs. These in true Neolithic fashion had been slaughtered at the
grave of the Pharaoh in order that they might accompany him and attend
to his comfort and requirements in the new life. Later these sacrifices
were discontinued, and instead of a graveside holocaust the images or
pictures of wives and dependents were placed in the royal tomb.
The Pyramid
From such a resting-place was gradually evolved the stupendous
conception of the pyramid. The pyramid is, in effect, nothing but a vast
funeral cairn, a huge grave-mound, on which, instead of stones or pieces
of rock, enormous blocks of granite were piled. Often the burial-chamber
it contains is nothing more than a mere vault, to which access is gained
by a narrow passage or gallery, which was carefully blocked up after the
royal funeral.
Originally these burial-chambers were quite unadorned, and it was not
until the end of the Middle Kingdom that it became usual to inscribe
their walls with texts relating to the future life. Thus originated
those wonderful Pyramid Texts from which we have learned so much of the
lore of ancient Egypt. On the eastern side of the pyramid was built
a temple dedicated to the defunct monarch, in which offerings to his
manes were duly and punctually made. As he became deified upon death,
so his statue in his character of a divinity was placed in an apartment
specially prepared for it. The pile of stones proper from which the
pyramid was evolved may be traced to the retaining wall of the tomb.
By the Third Dynasty this small retaining wall had become roofed over
and expanded into a solid mass of brickwork, called by the Arabs a
_mastaba_, which was practically a truncated pyramid. This pile of
brickwork was later in the same dynasty copied in stone, as at Saqqara,
and enlarged by repeated additions and successive coats of masonry.
Lastly, the whole received a casing of limestone blocks, and we have
such a structure as the pyramid of Medum.
Pyramidal Architecture
The pyramidal form of architecture is peculiar to Egypt, and even there
is confined to the period from the Fourth to the Twelfth Dynasty, or
before 3000 B.C. The Mexican and Central American teocalli, or stepped
temple, has frequently been erroneously compared to the pyramid, but
whereas it was a place of worship, the Egyptian form was purely a
place of sepulture. A definite design lay behind each of these vast
structures. It seems to have occurred to some writers that the pyramids
were built haphazard and by dint of brute force. So far from this
being the case, they were constructed with extraordinary care, and
mathematical computations of considerable complexity are manifest in
their design.
The early pyramids were composed of horizontal layers of rough-hewn
blocks of stone, held together principally by their own weight, but
between the interstices of which mortar was placed. In the later stages
of the type the core of the structure was formed chiefly of rubble, of
which stone, mud, and mud bricks were the principal constituents. This
was faced outwardly with a fine casing of stone, carefully dressed and
joined, and the mortuary-chambers showed similar care in construction.
These were generally placed below the ground level, and access was
gained to them by a gallery opening on the northern side of the pyramid.
These are usually blocked once or more by massive monoliths, and were
sometimes closed externally by stone doors revolving on a pivot in order
that the priests might gain entrance when desired.
The first pyramid has been definitely attributed to Cheops or Khufu, and
is situated at Gizeh. The second is credited to Dad-ef-ra, and was built
at Abu Roash. Khafra was entombed in the second pyramid of Gizeh, and
that known as 'the Upper' at the same place was tenanted by the corpse
of Menkaura. The smaller structures at Gizeh near the great and third
pyramids were constructed for the families of Khufu and Khafra.
'Lost' Pyramids
Several of the pyramids alluded to in the ancient texts of these
buildings have either entirely disappeared, or cannot be identified.
Thus the burial-place of Shepseskaf, known by the delightful title of
'the Cool,' is unknown. We can picture the shaven priests stealing
into the recesses of its thickly shadowed galleries to shelter from
the fierce Egyptian sun. No doubt the _ka_ of Shepseskaf found its
shade acceptable enough as he played at draughts with his mummy in its
inaccessible chambers. It is known that the pyramid of Menkauhor, 'the
most divine edifice,' is somewhere at Saqqara, but which of its stately
piles can be attributed to him it is impossible to say. So with the
pyramid of Assa, who is mentioned in tablets at Saqqara, Karnak, and
elsewhere. This was called 'the Beautiful.' Neither can the similarly
named 'beautiful rising' of Rameses and the 'firm life' of Neferarkara
be satisfactorily placed. It is highly unlikely that these structures
can have crumbled into a ruin so complete that no trace whatsoever has
been left of them--that is, unless they were built of mud bricks. The
brick pyramid of Amenemhat III at Howara, however, still remains, as
does that of Senusert III at Dahshur.
So much has been written of late concerning the pyramids that it would
be idle to pursue the subject further in a work such as this, which
professes to give an account of the mythology of Egypt and an outline
only of its polity and arts. There can be little interest for the
general reader in mere measurements and records of bulk.
Mummification
Mummification was, as has been said, probably an invention of the
Osirian cult. The priests of Osiris taught that the body of man was
a sacred thing and not to be abandoned to the beasts of the desert,
because from it would spring the effulgent and regenerated envelope
of the purified spirit. In prehistoric times some attempt appears to
have been made toward preservation, either by drying in the sun or
smearing the corpse with a resinous preparation; and as the centuries
went by this primitive treatment developed into the elaborate art of
embalming, with all its gloomy, if picturesque, ceremonial. By the time
of the Middle Kingdom, as is evidenced by the graves of Beni Hassan,
the practice prevailed of removing the internal organs and placing them
in a box divided into four compartments inscribed with the names of the
four canopic deities who presided over them. In some burials of this
date, to avoid the trouble of removing the intestines those responsible
for the obsequies simply made up parcels which purported, by written
descriptions upon them, to contain the organs in question, believing,
doubtless, that the written statement that these bundles contained the
heart, lungs, and so forth was magically efficacious, and quite as
satisfactory as their real presence within the receptacle.
We do not find the process of mummification reaching any degree of
elaboration until the period of the New Kingdom. At first it was
confined to the Pharaohs alone, who were identified with Osiris; but the
necessity for a retinue which would attend him in the dark halls of the
Tuat prescribed that his courtiers also should be embalmed. The custom
was taken up by the wealthy, and filtered down from rank to rank until
at length even the corpse of the poorest Egyptian was at least subjected
to a process of pickling in a bath of natron. The art reached its height
in the Twenty-first Dynasty. At that period the process was costly in
the extreme, and a mummification of an elaborate kind cost about £700
in modern currency. When the relations of the deceased consulted the
professional embalmers they were shown models of mummies, one of which
they selected. The corpse was then placed in the hands of the embalmers.
First of all they injected a corrosive into the brain cavity, after
which its softened contents were removed through the nostrils by hooked
instruments. A mummifier, whose office rendered him almost a pariah,
so sacred was the human body considered, made an incision in the corpse
with a flint knife, a time-honoured instrument that seems eloquent of
prehistoric practice. The intestines and the principal organs were then
removed, washed, and steeped in palm wine. The body then underwent
a drying process, and, according to the period, was stripped of its
flesh, only the skin remaining, or was stuffed with sawdust, skilfully
introduced through incisions, so that the natural form was completely
restored. The cavity occupied by the organs might otherwise be stuffed
with myrrh, cassia, or other spices. When sewn up the corpse was next
pickled in a bath of natron for seventy days, and then meticulously
bandaged with linen which had been dipped in some adhesive substance.
A coffin was built for it which retained the shape of the human form,
and which was gaily and elaborately painted with figures of divinities,
amulets, symbols, and sometimes burial scenes. The carven countenance of
the deceased surmounted this funerary finery, and the short wig, typical
of the living Egyptian, glowed in gilded hues or in less costly colour
above the conventional death-mask, which in general bore but little
resemblance to him.
The canopic jars in which the intestines were placed had lids so
carven as to resemble human heads, but subsequent to the Eighteenth
Dynasty the heads of the four sons of Horus, the man-headed Mesti, the
ape-headed Hapi, the jackal Tuamutef, and the falcon Qebhsennŭf, the
'genii' who guarded the north, south, east, and west, were represented
upon their covers. In their respective jars were placed the stomach and
larger intestines, the smaller intestines, the lungs and heart, and
the liver and gall-bladder. These jars were placed in the tomb beside
the mummy, so that upon resurrection it could easily command their
contents. It is a striking circumstance that we discover a parallel to
these 'genii' among the ancient Maya of Central America, who possessed
four deities placed one at each point of the compass to uphold the
heavens. Their names were Kan, Muluc, Ix, and Cauac, or, according to
other authorities, Hobnil, Kanzicnal, Zaczini, and Hozanek, and it
has been stated that the Maya made use of funerary jars called after
these, _bacabs_, which held the internal organs of their dead.[9]
Strangely enough, the ancient Mexicans also practised a description of
mummification, as did the Peruvians.[10]
Funeral Offerings
The tomb furniture of the Egyptians of the higher ranks was elaborate
and costly--chairs, jars, weapons, mirrors, sometimes even chariots,
and wigs. Beginning with the Middle Kingdom (Eighteenth Dynasty),
small statuettes, called _ushabtiu_, were placed in each tomb. These
represented various trades, and were supposed to assist or serve the
deceased in the otherworld. The walls of the tomb and the sides of
the sarcophagus were usually covered with texts from the _Book of the
Dead_, or formulæ devoting offerings of loaves, geese, beer, and other
provisions to the _ka_ of the deceased. The burial ceremony was stately
and imposing. Sometimes it chanced that the corpse had to be conveyed by
water, and gaily painted boats held the funeral procession; or else the
chain of mourners moved slowly along by the western bank of the Nile.
The ceremonial at the tomb appears to have been almost of a theatrical
character, and symbolized the night journey of Ra-Osiris. The prescribed
prayers were recited, and incense was offered up. The kinsmen of the
deceased were loud in their lamentations, and were assisted in these
by a professional class of mourners who 'keened' loudly and shrilly
as the procession slowly approached the _mastaba_, or tomb, in which
the mummy was to be laid to rest. It was taken from the coffin when it
arrived at the door of its long home, and was placed upright against the
wall of the _mastaba_ by a priest wearing the mask of the jackal-headed
god Anubis. At this point an elaborate ceremony was performed, known
as the 'opening of the mouth.' With many magical spells and signs the
mouth of the deceased was opened by means of a hook, after which he
was supposed to be able to make use of his mouth for the purpose of
speaking, eating, or drinking. Special literature had sprung up in
connexion with this custom, and was known as _The Book of the Opening of
the Mouth_. Elaborate and numerous were the instruments employed in the
ceremony: the _pesh-ken_, or hook, made of a pinkish flint, the knife
of greyish-green stone, the vases, small stone knives representing the
'metal of the north' and the 'metal of the south,' the unguents and
oils, and so on. Interminable was the ceremonial in the case of a person
of importance, at least twenty-eight formulæ having to be recited, many
of which were accompanied by lustration, purification, and, on the
part of the priests who officiated, a change of costume. The coffin
containing the mummy was then lowered into the tomb by means of a long
rope, and was received by the grave-diggers.
The Ka
The dead man was practically at the mercy of the living for subsistence
in the otherworld. Unless his kinsmen continued their offerings to him
he was indeed in bad case, for his _ka_ would starve. This _ka_ was his
double, and came into the world at the same time as himself. It must be
sharply distinguished from the _ba_, or soul, which usually took the
form of a bird after the death of its owner, and, indeed, was capable of
assuming such shape as it chose if the funeral ceremonies were carried
out correctly. Some Egyptologists consider the _ka_ to be the special
active force which imbues the human being with life, and it may be
equivalent to the Hebrew expression 'spirit' as apart from 'soul.' In
the book of Genesis we are informed that God breathed the breath of life
into man and he lived. In like manner did He lay His arms behind the
primeval gods, and forthwith His _ka_ went up over them, and they lived.
When the man died his _ka_ quitted the body, but did not cease to take
an interest in it, and on occasion even reanimated it. It was on behalf
of the _ka_ that Egyptian tombs were so well furnished with food and
drink, and the necessities, not to say the luxuries, of existence.
The Ba
The _ba_, as has been mentioned, did not remain with the body, but took
wing after death. Among primitive peoples--the aborigines of America,
for instance--the soul is frequently regarded as possessing the form and
attributes of a bird. The ability of the bird to make passage for itself
across the great ocean of air, the incomprehensibility of its gift of
flight, the mystery of its song, its connexion with 'heaven,' render it
a being at once strange and enviable. Such freedom, argues primitive
man, must have the liberated soul, untrammelled by the hindering flesh.
So, too, must gods and spirits be winged, and such, he hopes, will be
his own condition when he has shaken off the mortal coil and rises on
pinions to the heavenly mansions. Thus the Bororos of Brazil believe
that the soul possesses the form of a bird. The Bilquila Indians of
British Columbia think that the soul dwells in an egg in the nape of
the neck, and that upon death this egg is hatched and the enclosed bird
takes flight. In Bohemian folk-lore we learn that the soul is popularly
conceived as a white bird. The Malays and the Battas of Sumatra also
depict the immortal part of man in bird-shape, as do the Javanese and
Borneans. Thus we see that the Egyptian concept is paralleled in many
a distant land. But nowhere do we find the belief so strong or so
persistent over a prolonged period of time as in the valley of the Nile.
No race conferred so much importance and dignity upon the cult of the
dead as the Egyptian. It is no exaggeration to say that the life of
the Egyptian of the cultured class was one prolonged preparation for
death. It is probable, however, that he was, through force of custom and
environment, unaware of the circumstance. It is dangerous to indulge in
a universal assertion with reference to an entire nation. But if any
people ever regarded life as a mere academy of preparation for eternity,
it was the mysterious and fascinating race whose vast remains litter
the banks of the world's most ancient river, and frown upon the less
majestic undertakings of a civilization which has usurped the theatre of
their myriad wondrous deeds.
[1] Certain forms of belief are now spoken of by some mythologists as
'pre-animistic.' But these are not as yet sufficiently well defined
to permit of accurate classification. See Marett, _The Threshold of
Religion_.
[2] K. von den Steinen _Unter den Naturvolker Zentral-Brasiliens_
(Berlin, 1894).
[3] See _Myths and Legends of the North American Indians_, p. 87.
[4] See _Handbook of North American Indians_, article "Cheyenne."
[5] As do many primitive supernatural beings all over the world.
[6] This is typical of many water gods in America and Australia. See
Lang, _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, vol. i, p. 43.
[7] See Gomme, _Ethnology in Folklore_.
[8] See Lang, _The Making of Religion_ and _The New Mythology_, for
hypothesis of a monotheism prior to animistic belief.
[9] H. de Charencey, _Le Mythe de Votan_, p. 39. There is but little
substantiation for the latter part of this statement, however. The
_bacabs_ were closely identified with the Maya _chac_, or rain-gods.
[10] See my _Myths of Mexico and Peru_.