evidence on which this strange theory rests. But there are certain
matters connecting it with the above narrative which must here be
noticed. The mention of the shepherd Philition, who fed his flocks about
the place where the Great Pyramid was built, is a singular feature of
Herodotus's narrative. It reads like some strange misinterpretation of
the story related to him by the Egyptian priests. It is obvious that if
the word Philition did not represent a people, but a person, this
person must have been very eminent and distinguished--a shepherd-king,
not a mere shepherd. Rawlinson, in a note on this portion of the
narrative of Herodotus, suggests that Philitis was probably a
shepherd-prince from Palestine, perhaps of Philistine descent, 'but so
powerful and domineering, that it may be traditions of his oppressions
in that earlier age which, mixed up afterwards in the minds of later
Egyptians with the evils inflicted on their country by the subsequent
shepherds of better known dynasties, lent so much fear to their
religious hate of Shepherd times and that name.' Smyth, somewhat
modifying this view, and considering certain remarks of Manetho
respecting an alleged invasion of Egypt by shepherd-kings, 'men of an
ignoble race (from the Egyptian point of view) who had the confidence to
invade our country, and easily subdued it to their power without a
battle,' comes to the conclusion that some Shemite prince, 'a
contemporary of, but rather older than, the Patriarch Abraham,' visited
Egypt at this time, and obtained such influence over the mind of Cheops
as to persuade him to erect the pyramid. According to Smyth, the prince
was no other than Melchizedek, king of Salem, and the influence he
exerted was supernatural. With such developments of the theory we need
not trouble ourselves. It seems tolerably clear that certain
shepherd-chiefs who came to Egypt during Cheops' reign were connected in
some way with the designing of the Great Pyramid. It is clear also that
they were men of a different religion from the Egyptians, and persuaded
Cheops to abandon the religion of his people. Taylor, Smyth, and the
Pyramidalists generally, consider this sufficient to prove that the
pyramid was erected for some purpose connected with religion. 'The
pyramid,' in fine, says Smyth, 'was charged by God's inspired
shepherd-prince, in the beginning of human time, to keep a certain
message secret and inviolable for 4000 years, and it has done so; and in
the next thousand years it was to enunciate that message to all men,
with more than traditional force, more than all the authenticity of
copied manuscripts or reputed history; and that part of the pyramid's
usefulness is now beginning.'
There are many very obvious difficulties surrounding this theory; as,
for example (i.) the absurd waste of power in setting supernatural
machinery at work 4000 years ago with cumbrous devices to record its
object, when the same machinery, much more simply employed now, would
effect the alleged purpose far more thoroughly; (ii.) the enormous
amount of human misery and its attendant hatreds brought about by this
alleged divine scheme; and (iii.) the futility of an arrangement by
which the pyramid was only to subserve its purpose when it had lost that
perfection of shape on which its entire significance depended, according
to the theory itself. But, apart from these, there is a difficulty,
nowhere noticed by Smyth or his followers, which is fatal, I conceive,
to this theory of the pyramid's purpose. The second pyramid, though
slightly inferior to the first in size, and probably far inferior in
quality of masonry, is still a structure of enormous dimensions, which
must have required many years of labour from tens of thousands of
workmen. Now, it seems impossible to explain why Chephren built this
second pyramid, if we adopt Smyth's theory respecting the first pyramid.
For either Chephren knew the purpose for which the Great Pyramid was
built, or he did not know it. If he knew that purpose, and it was that
indicated by Smyth, then he also knew that no second pyramid was wanted.
On that hypothesis, all the labour bestowed on the second pyramid was
wittingly and wilfully wasted. This, of course is incredible. But, on
the other hand, if Chephren did not know what was the purpose for which
the Great Pyramid was built, what reason could Chephren have had for
building a pyramid at all? The only answer to this question seems to be
that Chephren built the second pyramid in hopes of finding out why his
brother had built the first, and this answer is simply absurd. It is
clear enough that whatever purpose Cheops had in building the first
pyramid, Chephren must have had a similar purpose in building the
second; and we require a theory which shall at least explain why the
first pyramid did not subserve for Chephren the purpose which it
subserved or was meant to subserve for Cheops. The same reasoning may be
extended to the third pyramid, to the fourth, and in fine to all the
pyramids, forty or so in number, included under the general designation
of the Pyramids of Ghizeh or Jeezeh. The extension of the principle to
pyramids later than the second is especially important as showing that
the difference of religion insisted on by Smyth has no direct bearing on
the question of the purpose for which the Great Pyramid itself was
constructed. For Mycerinus either never left or else returned to the
religion of the Egyptians. Yet he also built a pyramid, which, though
far inferior in size to the pyramids built by his father and uncle, was
still a massive structure, and relatively more costly even than theirs,
because built of expensive granite. The pyramid built by Asychis, though
smaller still, was remarkable as built of brick; in fact, we are
expressly told that Asychis desired to eclipse all his predecessors in
such labours, and accordingly left this brick pyramid as a monument of
his reign.
We are forced, in fact, to believe that there was some special relation
between the pyramid and its builder, seeing that each one of these kings
wanted a pyramid of his own. This applies to the Great Pyramid quite as
much as to the others, despite the superior excellence of that
structure. Or rather, the argument derives its chief force from the
superiority of the Great Pyramid. If Chephren, no longer perhaps having
the assistance of the shepherd-architects in planning and superintending
the work, was unable to construct a pyramid so perfect and so stately as
his brother's, the very fact that he nevertheless built a pyramid shows
that the Great Pyramid did not fulfil for Chephren the purpose which it
fulfilled for Cheops. But, if Smyth's theory were true, the Great
Pyramid would have fulfilled finally and for all men the purpose for
which it was built. Since this was manifestly not the case, that theory
is, I submit, demonstrably erroneous.
It was probably the consideration of this point, viz. that each king had
a pyramid constructed for himself, which led to the theory that the
pyramids were intended to serve as tombs. This theory was once very
generally entertained. Thus we find Humboldt, in his remarks on American
pyramids, referring to the tomb theory of the Egyptian pyramids as
though it were open to no question. 'When we consider,' he says, 'the
pyramidical monuments of Egypt, of Asia, and of the New Continent, from
the same point of view, we see that, though their form is alike, their
destination was altogether different. The group of pyramids of Ghizeh
and at Sakhara in Egypt; the triangular pyramid of the Queen of the
Scythians, Zarina, which was a stadium high and three in circumference,
and which was decorated with a colossal figure; the fourteen Etruscan
pyramids, which are said to have been enclosed in the labyrinth of the
king Porsenna, at Clusium--were reared to serve as the sepulchres of the
illustrious dead. Nothing is more natural to men than to commemorate the
spot where rest the ashes of those whose memory they cherish whether it
be, as in the infancy of the race, by simple mounds of earth, or, in
later periods, by the towering height of the tumulus. Those of the
Chinese and of Thibet have only a few metres of elevation. Farther to
the west the dimensions increase; the tumulus of the king Alyattes,
father of Croesus, in Lydia, was six stadia, and that of Ninus was
more than ten stadia in diameter. In the north of Europe the sepulchre
of the Scandinavian king Gormus and the queen Daneboda, covered with
mounds of earth, are three hundred metres broad, and more than thirty
high.'
But while we have abundant reason for believing that in Egypt, even in
the days of Cheops and Chephren, extreme importance was attached to the
character of the place of burial for distinguished persons, there is
nothing in what is known respecting earlier Egyptian ideas to suggest
the probability that any monarch would have devoted many years of his
subjects' labour, and vast stores of material, to erect a mass of
masonry like the Great Pyramid, solely to receive his own body after
death. Far less have we any reason for supposing that many monarchs in
succession would do this, each having a separate tomb built for him. It
might have been conceivable, had only the Great Pyramid been erected,
that the structure had been raised as a mausoleum for all the kings and
princes of the dynasty. But it seems utterly incredible that such a
building as the Great Pyramid should have been erected for one king's
body only--and that, not in the way described by Humboldt, when he
speaks of men commemorating the spot where rest the remains of those
whose memory they cherish, but at the expense of the king himself whose
body was to be there deposited. Besides, the first pyramid, the one
whose history must be regarded as most significant of the true purpose
of these buildings, was not built by an Egyptian holding in great favour
the special religious ideas of his people, but by one who had adopted
other views and those not belonging, so far as can be seen, to a people
among whom sepulchral rites were held in exceptional regard.
A still stronger objection against the exclusively tombic theory
resides in the fact that this theory gives no account whatever of the
characteristic features of the pyramids themselves. These buildings are
all, without exception, built on special astronomical principles. Their
square bases are so placed as to have two sides lying east and west, and
two lying north and south, or, in other words, so that their four faces
front the four cardinal points. One can imagine no reason why a tomb
should have such a position. It is not, indeed, easy to understand why
any building at all, except an astronomical observatory, should have
such a position. A temple perhaps devoted to sun-worship, and generally
to the worship of the heavenly bodies, might be built in that way. For
it is to be noticed that the peculiar figure and position of the
pyramids would bring about the following relations:--When the sun rose
and set south of the east and west points, or (speaking generally)
between the autumn and the spring equinoxes, the rays of the rising and
setting sun illuminated the southern face of the pyramid; whereas during
the rest of the year, that is, during the six months between the spring
and autumn equinoxes, the rays of the rising and setting sun illuminated
the northern face. Again, all the year round the sun's rays passed from
the eastern to the western face at solar noon. And lastly, during seven
months and a half of each year, namely, for three months and three
quarters before and after midsummer, the noon rays of the sun fell on
all four faces of the pyramid, or, according to a Peruvian expression
(so Smyth avers), the sun shone on the pyramid 'with all his rays.' Such
conditions as these might have been regarded as very suitable for a
temple devoted to sun-worship. Yet the temple theory is as untenable as
the tomb theory. For, in the first place, the pyramid form--as the
pyramids were originally built, with perfectly smooth slant-faces, not
terraced into steps as now through the loss of the casing-stones--was
entirely unsuited for all the ordinary requirements of a temple of
worship. And further, this theory gives no explanation of the fact that
each king built a pyramid, and each king only one. Similar difficulties
oppose the theory that the pyramids were intended to serve as
astronomical observatories. For while their original figure, however
manifestly astronomical in its relations, was quite unsuited for
observatory work, it is manifest that if such had been the purpose of
pyramid-building, so soon as the Great Pyramid had once been built, no
other would be needed. Certainly none of the pyramids built afterwards
could have subserved any astronomical purpose which the first did not
subserve, or have subserved nearly so well as the Great Pyramid those
purposes (and they are but few) which that building may be supposed to
have fulfilled as an astronomical observatory.
Of the other theories mentioned at the beginning of this paper none seem
to merit special notice, except perhaps the theory that the pyramids
were made to receive the royal treasures, and this theory rather because
of the attention it received from Arabian literati, during the ninth and
tenth centuries, than because of any strong reasons which can be
suggested in its favour. 'Emulating,' says Professor Smyth, 'the
enchanted tales of Bagdad,' the court poets of Al Mamoun (son of the
far-famed Haroun al Raschid) 'drew gorgeous pictures of the contents of
the pyramid's interior.... All the treasures of Sheddad Ben Ad the great
Antediluvian king of the earth, with all his medicines and all his
sciences, they declared were there, told over and over again. Others,
though, were positive that the founder-king was no other than Saurid Ibn
Salhouk, a far greater one than the other; and these last gave many more
minute particulars, some of which are at least interesting to us in the
present day, as proving that, amongst the Egypto-Arabians of more than
a thousand years ago, the Jeezeh pyramids, headed by the grand one,
enjoyed a pre-eminence of fame vastly before all the other pyramids of
Egypt put together; and that if any other is alluded to after the Great
Pyramid (which has always been the notable and favourite one, and
chiefly was known then as the East pyramid), it is either the second one
at Jeezeh, under the name of the West pyramid; or the third one,
distinguished as the Coloured pyramid, in allusion to its red granite,
compared with the white limestone casings of the other two (which,
moreover, from their more near, but by no means exact, equality of size,
went frequently under the affectionate designation of "the pair").'
The report of Ibn Abd Alkohm, as to what was to be found in each of
these three pyramids, or rather of what, according to him, was put into
them originally by King Saurid, runs as follows: 'In the Western
pyramid, thirty treasuries filled with store of riches and utensils, and
with signatures made of precious stones, and with instruments of iron
and vessels of earth, and with arms which rust not, and with glass which
might be bended and yet not broken, and with strange spells, and with
several kinds of _alakakirs_ (magical precious stones) single and
double, and with deadly poisons, and with other things besides. He made
also in the East' (the Great Pyramid) 'divers celestial spheres and
stars, and what they severally operate in their aspects, and the
perfumes which are to be used to them, and the books which treat of
these matters. He put also into the coloured pyramid the commentaries of
the priests in chests of black marble, and with every priest a book, in
which the wonders of his profession and of his actions and of his nature
were written, and what was done in his time, and what is and what shall
be from the beginning of time to the end of it.' The rest of this
worthy's report relates to certain treasurers placed within these three
pyramids to guard their contents, and (like all or most of what I have
already quoted) was a work of imagination. Ibn Abd Alkohm, in fact, was
a romancist of the first water.
Perhaps the strongest argument against the theory that the pyramids were
intended as strongholds for the concealment of treasure, resides in the
fact that, search being made, no treasure has been discovered. When the
workmen employed by Caliph Al Mamoun, after encountering manifold
difficulties, at length broke their way into the great ascending passage
leading to the so-called King's Chamber, they found 'a right noble
apartment, thirty-four feet long, seventeen broad, and nineteen high, of
polished red granite throughout, walls, floor, and ceiling, in blocks
squared and true, and put together with such exquisite skill that the
joints are barely discernible to the closest inspection. But where is
the treasure--the silver and the gold, the jewels, medicines, and
arms?--These fanatics look wildly around them, but can see nothing, not
a single _dirhem_ anywhere. They trim their torches, and carry them
again and again to every part of that red-walled, flinty hall, but
without any better success. Nought but pure polished red granite, in
mighty slabs, looks upon them from every side. The room is clean,
garnished too, as it were, and, according to the ideas of its founders,
complete and perfectly ready for its visitors so long expected, so long
delayed. But the gross minds who occupy it now, find it all barren, and
declare that there is nothing whatever for them in the whole extent of
the apartment from one end to another; nothing except an empty stone
chest without a lid.'
It is, however, to be noted that we have no means of learning what had
happened between the time when the pyramid was built and when Caliph Al
Mamoun's workmen broke their way into the King's Chamber. The place
may, after all, have contained treasures of some kind; nor, indeed, is
it incompatible with other theories of the pyramid to suppose that it
was used as a safe receptacle for treasures. It is certain, however,
that this cannot have been the special purpose for which the pyramids
were designed. We should find in such a purpose no explanation whatever
of any of the most stringent difficulties encountered in dealing with
other theories. There could be no reason why strangers from the East
should be at special pains to instruct an Egyptian monarch how to hide
and guard his treasures. Nor, if the Great Pyramid had been intended to
receive the treasures of Cheops, would Chephren have built another for
his own treasures, which must have included those gathered by Cheops.
But, apart from this, how inconceivably vast must a treasure-hoard be
supposed to be, the safe guarding of which would have repaid the
enormous cost of the great Pyramid in labour and material! And then, why
should a mere treasure-house have the characteristics of an astronomical
observatory? Manifestly, if the pyramids were used at all to receive
treasures, it can only have been as an entirely subordinate though
perhaps convenient means of utilising these gigantic structures.
Having thus gone through all the suggested purposes of the pyramids save
two or three which clearly do not possess any claim to serious
consideration, and having found none which appear to give any sufficient
account of the history and principal features of these buildings, we
must either abandon the inquiry or seek for some explanation quite
different from any yet suggested. Let us consider what are the principal
points of which the true theory of the pyramids should give an account.
In the first place, the history of the pyramids shows that the erection
of the first great pyramid was in all probability either suggested to
Cheops by wise men who visited Egypt from the East, or else some
important information conveyed to him by such visitors caused him to
conceive the idea of building the pyramid. In either case we may
suppose, as the history indeed suggests, that these learned men, whoever
they may have been, remained in Egypt to superintend the erection of the
structure. It may be that the architectural work was not under their
supervision; in fact, it seems altogether unlikely that shepherd-rulers
would have much to teach the Egyptians in the matter of architecture.
But the astronomical peculiarities which form so significant a feature
of the Great Pyramid were probably provided for entirely under the
instructions of the shepherd chiefs who had exerted so strange an
influence upon the mind of King Cheops.
Next, it seems clear that self-interest must have been the predominant
reason in the mind of the Egyptian king for undertaking this stupendous
work. It is true that his change of religion implies that some higher
cause influenced him. But a ruler who could inflict such grievous
burdens on his people in carrying out his purpose that for ages
afterwards his name was held in utter detestation, cannot have been
solely or even chiefly influenced by religious motives. It affords an
ample explanation of the behaviour of Cheops, in closing the temples and
forsaking the religion of his country, to suppose that the advantages
which he hoped to secure by building the pyramid depended in some way on
his adopting this course. The visitors from the East may have refused to
give their assistance on any other terms, or may have assured him that
the expected benefit could not be obtained if the pyramid were erected
by idolaters. It is certain, in any case, that they were opposed to
idolatry; and we have thus some means of inferring who they were and
whence they came. We know that one particular branch of one particular
race in the East was characterised by a most marked hatred of idolatry
in all its forms. Terah and his family, or, probably, a sect or division
of the Chaldaean people, went forth from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into
the land of Canaan--and the reason why they went forth we learn from a
book of considerable historical interest (the book of Judith) to have
been because 'they would not worship the gods of their fathers who were
in the land of the Chaldaeans.' The Bible record shows that members of
this branch of the Chaldaean people visited Egypt from time to time. They
were shepherds, too, which accords well with the account of Herodotus
above quoted. We can well understand that persons of this family would
have resisted all endeavours to secure their acquiescence in any scheme
associated with idolatrous rites. Neither promises nor threats would
have had much influence on them. It was a distinguished member of the
family, the patriarch Abraham, who said: 'I have lift up mine hand unto
the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, that I
will not take from a thread even to a shoe-latchet, and that I will not
take anything that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram
rich.' Vain would all the promises and all the threats of Cheops have
been to men of this spirit. Such men might help him in his plans,
suggested, as the history shows, by teachings of their own, but it must
be on their own conditions, and those conditions would most certainly
include the utter rejection of idolatrous worship by the king in whose
behalf they worked, as well as by all who shared in their labours. It
seems probable that they convinced both Cheops and Chephren, that unless
these kings gave up idolatry, the purpose, whatever it was, which the
pyramid was erected to promote, would not be fulfilled. The mere fact
that the Great Pyramid was built either directly at the suggestion of
these visitors, or because they had persuaded Cheops of the truth of
some important doctrine, shows that they must have gained great
influence over his mind. Rather we may say that he must have been so
convinced of their knowledge and power as to have accepted with
unquestioning confidence all that they told him respecting the
particular subject over which they seemed to possess so perfect a
mastery.
But having formed the opinion, on grounds sufficiently assured, that the
strangers who visited Egypt and superintended the building of the Great
Pyramid were kinsmen of the patriarch Abraham, it is not very difficult
to decide what was the subject respecting which they had such exact
information. They or their parents had come from the land of the
Chaldaeans, and they were doubtless learned in all the wisdom of their
Chaldaean kinsmen. They were masters, in fact, of the astronomy of their
day, a science for which the Chaldaeans had shown from the earliest ages
the most remarkable aptitude. What the actual extent of their
astronomical knowledge may have been it would be difficult to say. But
it is certain, from the exact knowledge which later Chaldaeans possessed
respecting long astronomical cycles, that astronomical observations must
have been carried on continuously by that people for many hundreds of
years. It is highly probable that the astronomical knowledge of the
Chaldaeans in the days of Terah and Abraham was much more accurate than
that possessed by the Greeks even after the time of Hipparchus.[24] We
see indeed, in the accurate astronomical adjustment of the Great
Pyramid, that the architects must have been skilful astronomers and
mathematicians; and I may note here, in passing, how strongly this
circumstance confirms the opinion that the visitors were kinsmen of
Terah and Abraham. All we know from Herodotus and Manetho, all the
evidence from the circumstances connected with the religion of the
pyramid-kings, and the astronomical evidence given by the pyramids
themselves, tends to assure us that members of that particular branch of
the Chaldaean family which went out from Ur of the Chaldees because they
would not worship the gods of the Chaldaeans, extended their wanderings
to Egypt, and eventually superintended the erection of the Great Pyramid
so far as astronomical and mathematical relations were concerned.