{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_29010/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_29010","id":"gutenberg_29010","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29010","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Ancient","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Egypt -- Religion"],"text":"Produced by Al Haines\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n[Transcriber's note: refer to the more detailed notes at the end of\nthis etext for more information.]\n\n\n\n\n\nReligions Ancient and Modern\n\n\n\n\n[Frontispiece: EGYPTIAN GODS.  PETRIE COLLECTION]\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE RELIGION OF\n\nANCIENT EGYPT\n\n\nBy\n\nW. M. FLINDERS PETRIE\n\n\n  D.C.L., LL.D., LIT.D., PH.D., T.R.S., F.B.A., F.S.A. SCOT.\n  EDWARDS PROFESSOR OF EGYPTOLOGY,\n  UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON\n\n\n\n\n\nLONDON\n\nARCHIBALD CONSTABLE & CO LTD\n\n16 JAMES STREET HAYMARKET\n\n1906\n\n\n\n\nEdinburgh: T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to His Majesty\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nCHAP.                                                      PAGE\n\n    I. THE NATURE OF GODS, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    1\n   II. THE NATURE OF MAN,  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    7\n  III. THE FUTURE LIFE,  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   12\n   IV. ANIMAL WORSHIP, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   20\n    V. THE GROUPS OF GODS.  ANIMAL-HEADED GODS,  . . . . .   28\n   VI. THE HUMAN GODS, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   37\n  VII. THE COSMIC GODS,  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   50\n VIII. THE ABSTRACT GODS,  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   58\n   IX. THE FOREIGN GODS, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   62\n    X. THE COSMOGONY,  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   67\n   XI. THE RITUAL AND PRIESTHOOD,  . . . . . . . . . . . .   70\n  XII. THE SACRED BOOKS, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   76\n XIII. PRIVATE WORSHIP,  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   81\n  XIV. EGYPTIAN ETHICS,  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   86\n   XV. THE INFLUENCE OF EGYPT, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   90\n       INDEX,  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   94\n\n\n\n\nPRINCIPAL WORKS ON EGYPTIAN RELIGION\n\n\nLANZONE.--_Dixionario di Mitologia Egizia_, 1881-86.\n  1312 pp., 408 pls. About \u00a34 second hand.  (The\n  indispensable storehouse of facts and references.)\n\nWIEDEMANN.--_Religion of the Ancient Egyptians_, 1897.\n  307 pp, 73 figs.  12s. 6d.  (The best general view of the\n  subject.)\n\nWIEDEMANN.--Article in supplement to _Hastings's Dictionary\n  of the Bible_.  (Excellent outline.)\n\nWIEDEMANN.--_Ancient Egyptian Doctrine of Immortality_,\n  1895. 71 pp., 21 figs., 2 pls.  3s.\n\nMASPERO.--_Dawn of Civilisation_, see pp. 81-222, 1894.  25s.\n  (A popular outline by a master.)\n\nMASPERO.--_\u00c9tudes de Mythologie_, 1893, 895 pp.\n\nMASPERO.--_Inscriptions des Pyramides de Saqqara_, 1894.\n  456 pp., 9 pl.\n\nRENOUF.--_Book of the Dead_, 1893-1902.  308 pp., 53 pl.  \u00a32.\n  (The standard translation with the illustrations.)\n\nBUDGE.--_Gods of the Egyptians_, 1904.  908 pp., 131 figs.,\n  98 pls.  \u00a33. 3s.  (Useful repertory, but illustrations not\n  exact.)\n\nSAYCE.--_Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia_, 1902.\n  509 pp.  7s. 6d.  (Useful for comparative view.)\n\nPETRIE.--_Religion and Conscience in Ancient Egypt_, 1898.\n  176 pp.  2s. 6d.  (A study of the nature of conscience,\n  and the tribal aspect of religion.)\n\n\n\n\n{1}\n\nTHE RELIGION OF ANCIENT EGYPT\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE NATURE OF GODS\n\nBefore dealing with the special varieties of the Egyptians' belief in\ngods, it is best to try to avoid a misunderstanding of their whole\nconception of the supernatural.  The term god has come to tacitly imply\nto our minds such a highly specialised group of attributes, that we can\nhardly throw our ideas back into the more remote conceptions to which\nwe also attach the same name.  It is unfortunate that every other word\nfor supernatural intelligences has become debased, so that we cannot\nwell speak of demons, devils, ghosts, or fairies without implying a\nnoxious or a trifling meaning, quite unsuited to the ancient deities\nthat were so beneficent and powerful.  If then we use the word god for\nsuch conceptions, it must always {2} be with the reservation that the\nword has now a very different meaning from what it had to ancient minds.\n\nTo the Egyptian the gods might be mortal; even Ra, the sun-god, is said\nto have grown old and feeble, Osiris was slain, and Orion, the great\nhunter of the heavens, killed and ate the gods.  The mortality of gods\nhas been dwelt on by Dr. Frazer (_Golden Bough_), and the many\ninstances of tombs of gods, and of the slaying of the deified man who\nwas worshipped, all show that immortality was not a divine attribute.\nNor was there any doubt that they might suffer while alive; one myth\ntells how Ra, as he walked on earth, was bitten by a magic serpent and\nsuffered torments.  The gods were also supposed to share in a life like\nthat of man, not only in Egypt but in most ancient lands.  Offerings of\nfood and drink were constantly supplied to them, in Egypt laid upon the\naltars, in other lands burnt for a sweet savour.  At Thebes the divine\nwife of the god, or high priestess, was the head of the harem of\nconcubines of the god; and similarly in Babylonia the chamber of the\ngod with the golden couch could only be visited by the priestess who\nslept there for oracular responses.  The Egyptian gods could not be\ncognisant of what passed on earth {3} without being informed, nor could\nthey reveal their will at a distant place except by sending a\nmessenger; they were as limited as the Greek gods who required the aid\nof Iris to communicate one with another or with mankind.  The gods,\ntherefore, have no divine superiority to man in conditions or\nlimitations; they can only be described as pre-existent, acting\nintelligences, with scarcely greater powers than man might hope to gain\nby magic or witchcraft of his own.  This conception explains how easily\nthe divine merged into the human in Greek theology, and how frequently\ndivine ancestors occurred in family histories.  (By the word 'theology'\nis designated the knowledge about gods.)\n\nThere are in ancient theologies very different classes of gods.  Some\nraces, as the modern Hindu, revel in a profusion of gods and godlings,\nwhich are continually being increased.  Others, as the Turanians,\nwhether Sumerian Babylonians, modern Siberians, or Chinese, do not\nadopt the worship of great gods, but deal with a host of animistic\nspirits, ghosts, devils, or whatever we may call them; and Shamanism or\nwitchcraft is their system for conciliating such adversaries.  But all\nour knowledge of the early positions and nature of great gods shows\nthem to stand on an {4} entirely different footing to these varied\nspirits.  Were the conception of a god only an evolution from such\nspirit worship we should find the worship of many gods preceding the\nworship of one god, polytheism would precede monotheism in each tribe\nor race.  What we actually find is the contrary of this, monotheism is\nthe first stage traceable in theology.  Hence we must rather look on\nthe theologic conception of the Aryan and Semitic races as quite apart\nfrom the demon-worship of the Turanians.  Indeed the Chinese seem to\nhave a mental aversion to the conception of a personal god, and to\nthink either of the host of earth spirits and other demons, or else of\nthe pantheistic abstraction of heaven.\n\nWherever we can trace back polytheism to its earliest stages we find\nthat it results from combinations of monotheism.  In Egypt even Osiris,\nIsis, and Horus (so familiar as a triad) are found at first as separate\nunits in different places, Isis as a virgin goddess, and Horus as a\nself-existent god.  Each city appears to have but one god belonging to\nit, to whom others were added.  Similarly in Babylonia each great city\nhad its supreme god; and the combinations of those, and their\ntransformations in order to form them in {5} groups when their homes\nwere politically united, show how essentially they were solitary\ndeities at first.\n\nNot only must we widely distinguish the demonology of races worshipping\nnumerous earth spirits and demons, from the theology of races devoted\nto solitary great gods; but we must further distinguish the varying\nideas of the latter class.  Most of the theologic races have no\nobjection to tolerating the worship of other gods side by side with\nthat of their own local deity.  It is in this way that the compound\ntheologies built up the polytheism of Egypt and of Greece.  But others\nof the theologic races have the conception of 'a jealous god,' who\nwould not tolerate the presence of a rival.  We cannot date this\nconception earlier than Mosaism, and this idea struggled hard against\npolytheistic toleration.  This view acknowledges the reality of other\ngods, but ignores their claims.  The still later view was that other\ngods were non-existent, a position started by the Hebrew prophets in\ncontempt of idolatry, scarcely grasped by early Christianity, but\ntriumphantly held by Islam.\n\nWe therefore have to deal with the following conceptions, which fall\ninto two main groups, {6} that probably belong to different divisions\nof mankind:--\n\n  ( Animism.\n  ( Demonology.\n\n  ( Tribal Monotheism.          ) At any stage the unity of\n  ( Combinations forming        ) different gods may be\n  (   tolerant Polytheism.      ) accepted as a _modus vivendi_\n  ( Jealous Monotheism.         ) or as a philosophy.\n  ( Sole Monotheism.            )\n\n\nAll of these require mention here, as more or less of each principle,\nboth of animism and monotheism, can be traced in the innumerable\ncombinations found during the six thousand years of Egyptian religion:\nthese combinations of beliefs being due to combinations of the races to\nwhich they belonged.\n\n\n\n\n{7}\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE NATURE OF MAN\n\nBefore we can understand what were the relations between man and the\ngods we must first notice the conceptions of the nature of man.  In the\nprehistoric days of Egypt the position and direction of the body was\nalways the same in every burial, offerings of food and drink were\nplaced by it, figures of servants, furniture, even games, were included\nin the grave.  It must be concluded therefore that it was a belief in\nimmortality which gave rise to such a detailed ritual of the dead,\nthough we have no written evidence upon this.\n\nSo soon as we reach the age of documents we find on tombstones that the\nperson is denoted by the _khu_ between the arms of the _ka_.  From\nlater writings it is seen that the _khu_ is applied to a spirit of man;\nwhile the _ka_ is not the body but the activities of sense and\nperception.  Thus, in {8} the earliest age of documents, two entities\nwere believed to vitalise the body.\n\nThe _ka_ is more frequently named than any other part, as all funeral\nofferings were made for the _ka_.  It is said that if opportunities of\nsatisfaction in life were missed it is grievous to the _ka_, and that\nthe _ka_ must not be annoyed needlessly; hence it was more than\nperception, and it included all that we might call consciousness.\nPerhaps we may grasp it best as the 'self,' with the same variety of\nmeaning that we have in our own word.  The _ka_ was represented as a\nhuman being following after the man; it was born at the same time as\nthe man, but it persisted after death and lived in and about the tomb.\nIt could act and visit other _kas_ after death, but it could not resist\nthe least touch of physical force.  It was always represented by two\nupraised arms, the acting parts of the person.  Beside the _ka_ of man,\nall objects likewise had their _kas_, which were comparable to the\nhuman _ka_, and among these the _ka_ lived.  This view leads closely to\nthe world of ideas permeating the material world in later philosophy.\n\nThe _khu_ is figured as a crested bird, which has the meaning of\n'glorious' or 'shining' in ordinary use.  It refers to a less material\nconception than {9} the _ka_, and may be called the intelligence or\nspirit.\n\nThe _khat_ is the material body of man which was the vehicle of the\n_ka_, and inhabited by the _khu_.\n\nThe _ba_ belongs to a different pneumatology to that just noticed.  It\nis the soul apart from the body, figured as a human-headed bird.  The\nconcept probably arose from the white owls, with round heads and very\nhuman expressions, which frequent the tombs, flying noiselessly to and\nfro.  The _ba_ required food and drink, which were provided for it by\nthe goddess of the cemetery.  It thus overlaps the scope of the _ka_,\nand probably belongs to a different race to that which defined the _ka_.\n\nThe _sahu_ or mummy is associated particularly with the _ba_; and the\n_ba_ bird is often shown as resting on the mummy or seeking to re-enter\nit.\n\nThe _khaybet_ was the shadow of a man; the importance of the shadow in\nearly ideas is well known.\n\nThe _sekhem_ was the force or ruling power of man, but is rarely\nmentioned.\n\nThe _ab_ is the will and intentions, symbolised by the heart; often\nused in phrases, such as a man being 'in the heart of his lord,'\n'wideness of {10} heart' for satisfaction, 'washing of the heart' for\ngiving vent to temper.\n\nThe _hati_ is the physical heart, the 'chief' organ of the body, also\nused metaphorically.\n\nThe _ran_ is the name which was essential to man, as also to inanimate\nthings.  Without a name nothing really existed.  The knowledge of the\nname gave power over its owner; a great myth turns on Isis obtaining\nthe name of Ra by stratagem, and thus getting the two eyes of Ra--the\nsun and moon--for her son Horus.  Both in ancient and modern races the\nknowledge of the real name of a man is carefully guarded, and often\nsecondary names are used for secular purposes.  It was usual for\nEgyptians to have a 'great name' and a 'little name'; the great name is\noften compounded with that of a god or a king, and was very probably\nreserved for religious purposes, as it is only found on religious and\nfunerary monuments.\n\nWe must not suppose by any means that all of these parts of the person\nwere equally important, or were believed in simultaneously.  The _ka_,\n_khu_, and _khat_ seem to form one group; the _ba_ and _sahu_ belong to\nanother; the _ab_, _hati_, and _sekhem_ are hardly more than metaphors,\nsuch as we commonly use; the _khaybet_ is a later idea {11} which\nprobably belongs to the system of animism and witchcraft, where the\nshadow gave a hold upon the man.  The _ran_, name, belongs partly to\nthe same system, but also is the germ of the later philosophy of idea.\n\nThe purpose of religion to the Egyptian was to secure the favour of the\ngod.  There is but little trace of negative prayer to avert evils or\ndeprecate evil influences, but rather of positive prayer for concrete\nfavours.  On the part of kings this is usually of the Jacob type,\noffering to provide temples and services to the god in return for\nmaterial prosperity.  The Egyptian was essentially self-satisfied, he\nhad no confession to make of sin or wrong, and had no thought of\npardon.  In the judgment he boldly averred that he was free of the\nforty-two sins that might prevent his entry into the kingdom of Osiris.\nIf he failed to establish his innocence in the weighing of his heart,\nthere was no other plea, but he was consumed by fire and by a\nhippopotamus, and no hope remained for him.\n\n\n\n\n{12}\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE FUTURE LIFE\n\nThe various beliefs of the Egyptians regarding the future life are so\ndistinct from each other and so incompatible, that they may be\nclassified into groups more readily than the theology; thus they serve\nto indicate the varied sources of the religion.\n\nThe most simple form of belief was that of the continued existence of\nthe soul in the tomb and about the cemetery.  In Upper Egypt at present\na hole is left at the top of the tomb chamber; and I have seen a woman\nremove the covering of the hole, and talk down to her deceased husband.\nAlso funeral offerings of food and drink, and even beds, are still\nplaced in the tombs.  A similar feeling, without any precise beliefs,\ndoubtless prompted the earlier forms of provision for the dead.  The\nsoul wandered around the tomb seeking sustenance, and was fed by the\n{13} goddess who dwelt in the thick sycomore trees that overshadowed\nthe cemetery.  She is represented as pouring out drink for the _ba_ and\nholding a tray of cakes for it to feed upon.  In the grave we find this\nbelief shown by the jars of water, wine, and perhaps other liquids, the\nstores of corn, the geese, haunches and heads of oxen, the cakes, and\ndates, and pomegranates which were laid by the dead.  In an early\nking's tomb there might be many rooms full of these offerings.  There\nwere also the weapons for defence and for the chase, the toilet\nobjects, the stores of clothing, the draughtsmen, and even the\nliterature of papyri buried with the dead.  The later form of this\nsystem was the representation of all these offerings in sculpture and\ndrawing in the tomb.  This modification probably belongs to the belief\nin the _ka_, which could be supported by the _ka_ of the food and use\nthe _ka_ of the various objects, the figures of the objects being\nsupposed to provide the _kas_ of them.  This system is entirely\ncomplete in itself, and does not presuppose or require any theologic\nconnection.  It might well belong to an age of simple animism, and be a\nsurvival of that in later times.\n\nThe greatest theologic system was that of the kingdom of Osiris.  This\nwas a counterpart of {14} the earthly life, but was reserved for the\nworthy.  All the dead belonged to Osiris and were brought before him\nfor judgment.  The protest of being innocent of the forty-two sins was\nmade, and then the heart was weighed against truth, symbolised by the\nostrich feather, the emblem of the goddess of truth.  From this\nfeather, the emblem of lightness, being placed against the heart in\nweighing, it seems that sins were considered to weigh down the heart,\nand its lightness required to be proved.  Th[=o]th, the god who\nrecorded the weighing, then stated that the soul left the judgment hall\ntrue of voice with his heart and members restored to him, and that he\nshould follow Osiris in his kingdom.  This kingdom of Osiris was at\nfirst thought of as being in the marshlands of the delta; when these\nbecame familiar it was transferred to Syria, and finally to the\nnorth-east of the sky, where the Milky Way became the heavenly Nile.\nThe main occupation in this kingdom was agriculture, as on earth; the\nsouls ploughed the land, sowed the corn, and reaped the harvest of\nheavenly maize, taller and fatter than any of this world.  In this land\nthey rowed on the heavenly streams, they sat in shady arbours, and\nplayed the games which they had loved.  But the cultivation was a toil,\nand {15} therefore it was to be done by numerous serfs.  In the\nbeginning of the monarchy it seems that the servants of the king were\nall buried around him to serve him in the future; from the second to\nthe twelfth dynasty we lose sight of this idea, and then we find slave\nfigures buried in the tombs.  These figures were provided with the hoe\nfor tilling the soil, the pick for breaking the clods, a basket for\ncarrying the earth, a pot for watering the crops, and they were\ninscribed with an order to respond for their master when he was called\non to work in the fields.  In the eighteenth dynasty the figures\nsometimes have actual tool models buried with them; but usually the\ntools are in relief or painted on the figure.  This idea continued\nuntil the less material view of the future life arose in Greek times;\nthen the deceased man was said to have 'gone to Osiris' in such a year\nof his age, but no slave figures were laid with him.  This view of the\nfuture is complete in itself, and is appropriately provided for in the\ntomb.\n\nA third view of the future life belongs to an entirely different\ntheologic system, that of the progress of the sun-god Ra.  According to\nthis the soul went to join the setting sun in the west, and prayed to\nbe allowed to enter the boat of the {16} sun in the company of the\ngods; thus it would be taken along in everlasting light, and saved from\nthe terrors and demons of the night over which the sun triumphed.  No\noccupations were predicated of this future; simply to rest in the\ndivine company was the entire purpose, and the successful repelling of\nthe powers of darkness in each hour of the night by means of spells was\nthe only activity.  To provide for the solar journey a model boat was\nplaced in the tomb with the figures of boatmen, to enable the dead to\nsail with the sun, or to reach the solar bark.  This view of the future\nimplied a journey to the west, and hence came the belief in the soul\nsetting out to cross the desert westward.  We find also an early god of\nthe dead, Khent-amenti, 'he who is in the west,' probably arising from\nthis same view.  This god was later identified with Osiris when the\nfusion of the two theories of the soul arose.  At Abydos Khent-amenti\nonly is named at first, and Osiris does not appear until later times,\nthough that cemetery came to be regarded as specially dedicated to\nOsiris.\n\nNow in all these views that we have named there is no occasion for\npreserving the body.  It is the _ba_ that is fed in the cemetery, not\nthe body.  It is an immaterial body that takes part {17} in the kingdom\nof Osiris, in the sky.  It is an immaterial body that can accompany the\ngods in the boat of the sun.  There is so far no call to conserve the\nbody by the peculiar mummification which first appears in the early\ndynasties.  The dismemberment of the bones, and removal of the flesh,\nwhich was customary in the prehistoric times, and survived down to the\nfifth dynasty, would accord with any of these theories, all of which\nwere probably predynastic.  But the careful mummifying of the body\nbecame customary only in the third or fourth dynasty, and is therefore\nlater than the theories that we have noticed.  The idea of thus\npreserving the body seems to look forward to some later revival of it\non earth, rather than to a personal life immediately after death.  The\nfuneral accompaniment of this view was the abundance of amulets placed\non various parts of the body to preserve it.  A few amulets are found\nworn on a necklace or bracelet in early times; but the full development\nof the amulet system was in the twenty-sixth to thirtieth dynasties.\n\nWe have tried to disentangle the diverse types of belief, by seeing\nwhat is incompatible between them.  But in practice we find every form\nof mixture of these views in most ages.  In the {18} prehistoric times\nthe preservation of the bones, but not of the flesh, was constant; and\nfood offerings show that at least the theory of the soul wandering in\nthe cemetery was familiar.  Probably the Osiris theory is also of the\nlater prehistoric times, as the myth of Osiris is certainly older than\nthe dynasties.  The Ra worship was associated specially with\nHeliopolis, and may have given rise to the union with Ra also before\nthe dynasties, when Heliopolis was probably a capital of the kings of\nLower Egypt.  The boats figured on the prehistoric tomb at\nHierakonpolis bear this out.  In the first dynasty there is no mummy\nknown, funeral offerings abound, and the _khu_ and _ka_ are named.  Our\ndocuments do not give any evidence, then, of the Osiris and Ra\ntheories.  In the pyramid period the king was called the Osiris, and\nthis view is the leading one in the Pyramid inscriptions, yet the Ra\ntheory is also incompatibly present; the body is mummified; but funeral\nofferings of food seem to have much diminished.  In the eighteenth and\nnineteenth dynasties the Ra theory gained ground greatly over the\nOsirian; and the basis of all the views of the future is almost\nentirely the union with Ra during the night and day.  The mummy and\namulet theory was not dominant; but the funeral {19} offerings somewhat\nincreased.  The twenty-sixth dynasty almost dropped the Ra theory; the\nOsirian kingdom and its population of slave figures is the most\nfamiliar view, and the preservation of the body by amulets was\nessential.  Offerings of food rarely appear in these later times.  This\ndominance of Osiris leads on to the anthropomorphic worship, which\ninteracts on the growth of Christianity as we shall see further.\nLastly, when all the theologic views of the future had perished, the\noldest idea of all, food, drink, and rest for the dead, has still kept\nits hold upon the feelings of the people in spite of the teachings of\nIslam.\n\n\n\n\n{20}\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nANIMAL WORSHIP\n\nThe worship of animals has been known in many countries; but in Egypt\nit was maintained to a later pitch of civilisation than elsewhere, and\nthe mixture of such a primitive system with more elevated beliefs\nseemed as strange to the Greek as it does to us.  The original motive\nwas a kinship of animals with man, much like that underlying the system\nof totems.  Each place or tribe had its sacred species that was linked\nwith the tribe; the life of the species was carefully preserved,\nexcepting in the one example selected for worship, which after a given\ntime was killed and sacramentally eaten by the tribe.  This was\ncertainly the case with the bull at Memphis and the ram at Thebes.\nThat it was the whole species that was sacred, at one place or another,\nis shown by the penalties for killing any animal of the species, by the\nwholesale burial and even mummifying of every example, and by the\nplural form of {21} the names of the gods later connected with the\nanimals, _Heru_, hawks, _Khnumu_, rams, etc.\n\nIn the prehistoric times the serpent was sacred; figures of the coiled\nserpent were hung up in the house and worn as an amulet; similarly in\nhistoric times a figure of the agathodemon serpent was placed in a\ntemple of Amenhotep III at Benha.  In the first dynasty the serpent was\nfigured in pottery, as a fender round the hearth.  The hawk also\nappears in many predynastic figures, large and small, both worn on the\nperson and carried as standards.  The lion is found both in life-size\ntemple figures, lesser objects of worship, and personal amulets.  The\nscorpion was similarly honoured in the prehistoric ages.\n\nIt is difficult to separate now between animals which were worshipped\nquite independently, and those which were associated as emblems of\nanthropomorphic gods.  Probably we shall be right in regarding both\nclasses of animals as having been sacred at a remote time, and the\nconnection with the human form as being subsequent.  The ideas\nconnected with the animals were those of their most prominent\ncharacteristics; hence it appears that it was for the sake of the\ncharacter that each animal was worshipped, and not because of any\nfortuitous association with a tribe.\n\n{22}\n\nThe baboon was regarded as the emblem of Tahuti, the god of wisdom; the\nserious expression and human ways of the large baboons are an obvious\ncause for their being regarded as the wisest of animals.  Tahuti is\nrepresented as a baboon from the first dynasty down to late times; and\nfour baboons were sacred in his temple at Hermopolis.  These four\nbaboons were often portrayed as adoring the sun; this idea is due to\ntheir habit of chattering at sunrise.\n\nThe lioness appears in the compound figures of the goddesses Sekhet,\nBast, Mahes, and Tefnut.  In the form of Sekhet the lioness is the\ndestructive power of Ra, the sun: it is Sekhet who, in the legend,\ndestroys mankind from Herakleopolis to Heliopolis at the bidding of Ra.\nThe other lioness goddesses are probably likewise destructive or\nhunting deities.  The lesser _felidae_ also appear; the _cheetah_ and\n_serval_ are sacred to Hathor in Sinai; the small cats are sacred to\nBast, especially at Speos Artemidos and Bubastis.\n\nThe bull was sacred in many places, and his worship underlay that of\nthe human gods, who were said to be incarnated in him.  The idea is\nthat of the fighting power, as when the king is figured as a bull\ntrampling on his enemies, and the reproductive power, as in the title\nof the {23} self-renewing gods, 'bull of his mother.'  The most\nrenowned was the _Hapi_ or Apis bull of Memphis, in whom Ptah was said\nto be incarnate, and who was Osirified and became the Osir-hapi.  This\nappears to have originated the great Ptolemaic god Serapis, as\ncertainly the mausoleum of the bulls was the Serapeum of the Greeks.\nAnother bull of a more massive breed was the _Ur-mer_ or Mnevis of\nHeliopolis, in whom Ra was incarnate.  A third bull was _Bakh_ or Bakis\nof Hermonthis the incarnation of Mentu.  And a fourth bull, _Ka-nub_ or\nKanobos, was worshipped at the city of that name.  The cow was\nidentified with Hathor, who appears with cow's ears and horns, and who\nis probably the cow-goddess Ashtaroth or Istar of Asia.  Isis, as\nidentified with Hathor, is also joined in this connection.\n\nThe ram was also worshipped as a procreative god; at Mendes in the\nDelta identified with Osiris, at Herakleopolis identified with\nHershefi, at Thebes as Amon, and at the cataract as Khnumu the creator.\nThe association of the ram with Amon was strongly held by the\nEthiopians; and in the Greek tale of Nektanebo, the last Pharaoh,\nhaving by magic visited Olympias and become the father of Alexander, he\ncame as the incarnation of Amon wearing the ram's skin.\n\n{24}\n\nThe hippopotamus was the goddess Ta-urt, 'the great one,' the patroness\nof pregnancy, who is never shown in any other form.  Rarely this animal\nappears as the emblem of the god Set.\n\nThe jackal haunted the cemeteries on the edge of the desert, and so\ncame to be taken as the guardian of the dead, and identified with\nAnubis, the god of departing souls.  Another aspect of the jackal was\nas the maker of tracks in the desert; the jackal paths are the best\nguides to practicable courses, avoiding the valleys and precipices, and\nso the animal was known as Up-uat, 'the opener of ways,' who showed the\nway for the dead across the western desert.  Species of dogs seem to\nhave been held sacred and mummified on merely the general ground of\nconfusion with the jackal.  The ichneumon and the shrewmouse were also\nheld sacred, though not identified with a human god.\n\nThe hawk was the principal sacred bird, and was identified with Horus\nand Ra, the sun-god.  It was mainly worshipped at Edfu and\nHierakonpolis.  The souls of kings were supposed to fly up to heaven in\nthe form of hawks, perhaps due to the kingship originating in the hawk\ndistrict in Upper Egypt.  Seker, the god of the dead, appears as a\nmummified hawk, and on his boat {25} are many small hawks, perhaps the\nsouls of kings who have joined him.  The mummy hawk is also Sopdu, the\ngod of the east.\n\nThe vulture was the emblem of maternity, as being supposed to care\nespecially for her young.  Hence she is identified with Mut, the mother\ngoddess of Thebes.  The queen-mothers have vulture head-dresses; the\nvulture is shown hovering over kings to protect them, and a row of\nspread-out vultures are figured on the roofs of the tomb passages to\nprotect the soul.  The ibis was identified with Tahuti, the god of\nHermopolis.  The goose is connected with Amon of Thebes.  The swallow\nwas also sacred.\n\nThe crocodile was worshipped especially in the Fayum, where it\nfrequented the marshy levels of the great lake, and Strabo's\ndescription of the feeding of the sacred crocodile there is familiar.\nIt was also worshipped at Onuphis; and at Nubti or Ombos it was\nidentified with Set, and held sacred.  Beside the name of Sebek or\nSoukhos in Fayum, it was there identified with Osiris as the western\ngod of the dead.  The frog was an emblem of the goddess Heqt, but was\nnot worshipped.\n\nThe cobra serpent was sacred from the earliest times to the present\nday.  It was never identified with any of the great deities, but three\ngoddesses {26} appear in serpent form: Uazet, the Delta goddess of\nButo; Mert-seger, 'the lover of silence,' the goddess of the Theban\nnecropolis; and Rannut, the harvest goddess.  The memory of great\npythons of the prehistoric days appears in the serpent-necked monsters\non the slate palettes at the beginning of the monarchy, and the immense\nserpent Apap of the underworld in the later mythology.  The serpent has\nhowever been a popular object of worship apart from specific gods.  We\nhave already noted it on prehistoric amulets, and coiled round the\nhearths of the early dynasties.  Serpents were mummified; and when we\nreach the full evidences of popular worship, in the terra-cotta figures\nand jewellery of later times, the serpent is very prominent.  There\nwere usually two represented together, one often with the head of\nSerapis, the other of Isis, so therefore male and female.  Down to\nmodern times a serpent is worshipped at Sheykh Heridy, and miraculous\ncures attributed to it (S.R.E.B. 213).\n\nVarious fishes were sacred, as the Oxyrhynkhos, Phagros, Lepidotos,\nLatos, and others; but they were not identified with gods, and we do\nnot know of their being worshipped.  The scorpion was the emblem of the\ngoddess Selk, and is found {27} in prehistoric amulets; but it is not\nknown to have been adored, and most usually it represents evil, where\nHorus is shown overcoming noxious creatures.\n\nIt will be observed that nearly all of the animals which were\nworshipped had qualities for which they were noted, and in connection\nwith which they were venerated.  If the animal worship were due to\ntotemism, or a sense of animal brotherhood in certain tribes, we must\nalso assume that that was due to these qualities of the animal; whereas\ntotemism in other countries does not seem to be due to veneration of\nspecial qualities of the animals.  It is therefore more likely that the\nanimal worship simply arose from the nature of the animals, and not\nfrom any true totemism, although each animal came to be associated with\nthe worship of a particular tribe or district.\n\n\n\n\n{28}\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE GROUPS OF GODS.  ANIMAL-HEADED GODS\n\nIn a country which has been subjected to so many inflows of various\npeoples as in Egypt, it is to be expected that there would be a great\ndiversity of deities and a complex and inconsistent theology.  To\ndiscriminate the principal classes of conceptions of gods is the first\nstep toward understanding the growth of the systems.  The broad\ndivision of animal gods and human gods is obvious; and the mixed type\nof human figures with animal heads is clearly an adaptation of the\nanimal gods to the later conceptions of a human god.  Another valuable\nseparator lies in the compound names of gods.  It is impossible to\nsuppose a people uniting two gods, both of which belonged to them\naboriginally; there would be no reason for two similar gods in a single\nsystem, and we never hear in classical mythology of Hermes-Apollo or\nPallas-Artemis, while Zeus is compounded with half of the barbarian\ngods of Asia.  So in Egypt, when {29} we find such compounds as\nAmon-Ra, or Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, we have the certainty that each name in\nthe compound is derived from a different race, and that a unifying\noperation has taken place on gods that belonged to entirely different\nsources.\n\nWe must beware of reading our modern ideas into the ancient views.  As\nwe noticed in the first chapter, each tribe or locality seems to have\nhad but one god originally; certainly the more remote our view, the\nmore separate are the gods.  Hence to the people of any one district\n'the god' was a distinctive name for their own god; and it would have\nseemed as strange to discriminate him from the surrounding gods, as it\nwould to a Christian in Europe if he specified that he did not mean\nAllah or Siva or Heaven when he speaks of God.  Hence we find generic\ndescriptions used in place of the god's name, as 'lord of heaven,' or\n'mistress of turquoise,' while it is certain that specific gods as\nOsiris or Hathor are in view.  A generic name 'god' or 'the god' no\nmore implies that the Egyptians recognised a unity of all the gods,\nthan 'god' in the Old Testament implies that Yahvah was one with\nChemosh and Baal.  The simplicity of the term only shows that no other\nobject of adoration was in view.\n\n{30}\n\nWe have already noticed the purely animal gods; following on these we\nnow shall describe those which were combined with a human form, then\nthose which are purely human in their character, next those which are\nnature gods, and lastly those which are of an abstract character.  The\ngods which belonged to peoples who did not conquer or occupy Egypt must\nbe ranked as foreign gods.\n\n+Animal-Headed Gods+.--Beside the worship of species of animals, which\nwe have noticed in the last chapter, certain animals were combined with\nthe human form.  It was always the head of the animal which was united\nto a human body; the only converse instance of a human head on an\nanimal body--the sphinxes--represented the king and not a god.\nPossibly the combination arose from priests wearing the heads of\nanimals when personating the god, as the high priest wore the ram's\nskin when personating Amon.  But when we notice the frequent\ncombinations and love of symbolism, shown upon the early carvings, the\nunion of the ancient sacred animal with the human form is quite in\nkeeping with the views and feelings of the primitive Egyptians.  Many\nof these composite gods never emerged from the animal connection, and\nthese we must {31} regard as belonging to the earlier stage of theology.\n\n+Seker+ was a Memphite god of the dead, independent of the worship of\nOsiris and of Ptah, for he was combined with them as Ptah-Seker-Osiris;\nas he maintained a place there in the face of the great worship of\nPtah, he was probably an older god, and this is indicated by his having\nan entirely animal form down to a late date.  The sacred bark of Seker\nbore his figure as that of a mummified hawk; and along the boat is a\nrow of hawks which probably are the spirits of deceased kings who have\njoined Seker in his journey to the world of the dead.  As there are\noften two allied forms of the same root, one written with _k_ and the\nother with _g_,[1] it seems probable that Seker, the funeral god of\nMemphis, is allied to\n\n+Mert Seger+ (lover of silence).  She was the funeral god of Thebes,\nand was usually figured as a serpent.  From being only known in animal\nform, and unconnected with any of the elaborated theology, it seems\nthat we have in this goddess a primitive deity of the dead.  It\nappears, then, that the gods of the great cemeteries were known {32} as\nSilence and the Lover of Silence, and both come down from the age of\nanimal deities.  Seker became in late times changed into a hawk-headed\nhuman figure.\n\nTwo important deities of early times were +Nekhebt+, the vulture\ngoddess of the southern kingdom, centred at Hierakonpolis, and +Uazet+,\nthe serpent goddess of the northern kingdom, centred at Buto.  These\nappear in all ages as the emblems of the two kingdoms, frequently as\nsupporters on either side of the royal names; in later times they\nappear as human goddesses crowning the king.\n\n+Khnumu+, the creator, was the great god of the cataract.  He is shown\nas making man upon the potter's wheel; and in a tale he is said to\nframe a woman.  He must belong to a different source from that of Ptah\nor Ra, and was the creative principle in the period of animal gods, as\nhe is almost always shown with the head of a ram.  He was popular down\nto late times, where amulets of his figure are often found.\n\n+Tahuti+ or +Th[=o]th+ was the god of writing and learning, and was the\nchief deity of Hermopolis.  He almost always has the head of an ibis,\nthe bird sacred to him.  The baboon is also a frequent emblem of his,\nbut he is never figured with the {33} baboon head.  The ibis appears\nstanding upon a shrine as early as on a tablet of Mena; Th[=o]th is the\nconstant recorder in scenes of the judgment, and he appears down to\nRoman times as the patron of scribes.  The eighteenth dynasty of kings\nincorporated his name as Th[=o]thmes, 'born of Th[=o]th,' owing to\ntheir Hermopolite origin.\n\n+Sekhmet+ is the lion goddess, who represents the fierceness of the\nsun's heat.  She appears in the myth of the destruction of mankind as\nslaughtering the enemies of Ra.  Her only form is that with the head of\na lioness.  But she blends imperceptibly with\n\n+Bastet+, who has the head of a cat.  She was the goddess of Pa-bast or\nBubastis, and in her honour immense festivals were there held.  Her\nname is found in the beginning of the pyramid times; but her main\nperiod of popularity was that of the Shishaks who ruled from Bubastis,\nand in the later times images of her were very frequent as amulets.  It\nis possible from the name that this feline goddess, whose foreign\norigin is acknowledged, was the female form of the god Bes, who is\ndressed in a lion's skin, and also came in from the east (see chap. ix).\n\n+Mentu+ was the hawk-god of Erment south of Thebes, who became in the\neighteenth to {34} twentieth dynasties especially the god of war.  He\nappears with the hawk head, or sometimes as a hawk-headed sphinx; and\nhe became confused with Ra and with Amon.\n\n+Sebek+ is figured as a man with the crocodile's head; but he has no\ntheologic importance, and always remained the local god of certain\ndistricts.\n\n+Heqt+, the goddess symbolised by the frog, was the patron of birth,\nand assisted in the infancy of the kings.  She was a popular and\ngeneral deity not mainly associated with particular places.\n\n+Hershefi+ was the ram-headed god of Herakleopolis, but is never found\noutside of that region.\n\nWe now come to three animal-headed gods who became associated with the\ngreat Osiride group of human gods.  +Set+ or +Setesh+ was the god of\nthe prehistoric inhabitants before the coming in of Horus.  He is\nalways shown with the head of a fabulous animal, having upright square\nears and a long nose.  When in entirely animal form he has a long\nupright tail.  The dog-like animal is the earliest type, as in the\nsecond dynasty; but later the human form with animal head prevailed.\nHis worship underwent great fluctuations.  At first he was the great\ngod of all Egypt; but his worshippers were gradually driven out by the\nfollowers of Horus, {35} as described in a semi-mythical history.  Then\nhe appears strongly in the second dynasty, the last king of which\nunited the worship of Set and Horus.  In the early formulae for the\ndead he is honoured equally with Horus.  After suppression he appears\nin favour in the early eighteenth dynasty; and even gave the name to\nSety I and II of the nineteenth dynasty.  His part in the Osiris myth\nwill be noted below.\n\n+Anpu+ or +Anubis+ was originally the jackal guardian of the cemetery,\nand the leader of the dead in the other world.  Nearly all the early\nfuneral formulae mention Anpu on his hill, or Anpu lord of the\nunderworld.  As the patron of the dead he naturally took a place in the\nmyth of Osiris, the god of the dead, and appears as leading the soul\ninto the judgment of Osiris.\n\n+Horus+ was the hawk-god of Upper Egypt, especially of Edfu and\nHierakonpolis.  Though originally an independent god, and even keeping\napart as Hor-ur, 'Horus the elder,' throughout later times, yet he was\nearly mingled with the Osiris myth, probably as the ejector of Set who\nwas also the enemy of Osiris.  He is sometimes entirely in hawk form;\nmore usually with a hawk's head, and in later times he appears as the\ninfant son of Isis entirely human in form.  {36} His special function\nis that of overcoming evil; in the earliest days the conqueror of Set,\nlater as the subduer of noxious animals, figured on a very popular\namulet, and lastly, in Roman times, as a hawk-headed warrior on\nhorseback slaying a dragon, thus passing into the type of St. George.\nHe also became mingled with early Christian ideas; and the lock of hair\nof Horus attached to the cross originated the _chi rho_ monogram of\nChrist.\n\nWe have now passed briefly over the principal gods which combined the\nanimal and human forms.  We see how the animal form is generally the\nolder, and how it was apparently independent of the human form, which\nhas been attached to it by a more anthropomorphic people.  We see that\nall of these gods must be accredited to the second stratum, if not to\nthe earliest formation, of religion in Egypt.  And we must associate\nwith this theology the cemetery theory of the soul which preceded that\nof the Osiris or Ra religions.\n\n\n\n[1] For instance the words _sek_, to move; _seg_, to go; _sek_, to\ndestroy; _sega_, to break; _kauy_, cow; _gaua_, ox; _keba_ and _geba_,\nsky, etc.\n\n\n\n\n{37}\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE HUMAN GODS\n\nWe now turn to the deities which are always represented in human form,\nand never associated with animal figures; neither do they originate in\na cosmic--or nature--worship, nor in abstract ideas.  There are three\ndivisions of this class, the Osiris family, the Amon family, and the\ngoddess Neit.\n\n+Osiris+ (_Asar_ or _Asir_) is the most familiar figure of the\npantheon, but it is mainly on late sources that we have to depend for\nthe myth; and his worship was so much adapted to harmonise with other\nideas, that care is needed to trace his true position.  The Osiride\nportions of the _Book of the Dead_ are certainly very early, and\nprecede the solar portions, though both views were already mingled in\nthe pyramid texts.  We cannot doubt but that the Osiris worship reaches\nback to the prehistoric age.  In the earliest tombs offering to Anubis\nis named, for whom Osiris {38} became substituted in the fifth and\nsixth dynasties.  In the pyramid times we only find that kings are\ntermed Osiris, having undergone their apotheosis at the _sed_ festival;\nbut in the eighteenth dynasty and onward every justified person was\nentitled the Osiris, as being united with the god.  His worship was\nunknown at Abydos in the earlier temples, and is not mentioned at the\ncataracts; though in later times he became the leading deity of Abydos\nand of Philae.  Thus in all directions the recognition of Osiris\ncontinued to increase; but, looking at the antiquity of his cult, we\nmust recognise in this change the gradual triumph of a popular religion\nover a state religion which had been superimposed upon it.  The\nearliest phase of Osirism that we can identify is in portions of the\n_Book of the Dead_.  These assume the kingdom of Osiris, and a judgment\npreceding admission to the blessed future; the completely human\ncharacter of Osiris and his family are implied, and there is no trace\nof animal or nature-worship belonging to him.  How far the myth, as\nrecorded in Roman times by Plutarch, can be traced to earlier and later\nsources is very uncertain.  The main outlines, which may be primitive,\nare as follow.  Osiris was a civilising king of Egypt, who was murdered\nby his brother Set and seventy-two {39} conspirators.  Isis, his wife,\nfound the coffin of Osiris at Byblos in Syria and brought it to Egypt.\nSet then tore up the body of Osiris and scattered it.  Isis sought the\nfragments, and built a shrine over each of them.  Isis and Horus then\nattacked Set and drove him from Egypt, and finally down the Red Sea.\nIn other aspects Osiris seems to have been a corn god, and the\nscattering of his body in Egypt is like the well-known division of the\nsacrifice to the corn god, and the burial of parts in separate fields\nto ensure their fertility.\n\nHow we are to analyse the formation of the early myths is suggested by\nthe known changes of later times.  When two tribes who worshipped\ndifferent gods fought together and one overcame the other, the god of\nthe conqueror is always considered to have overcome the god of the\nvanquished.  The struggle of Horus and Set is expressly stated on the\nTemple of Edfu to have been a tribal war, in which the followers of\nHorus overcame those of Set, established garrisons and forges at\nvarious places down the Nile valley, and finally ousted the Set party\nfrom the whole land.  We can hardly therefore avoid reading the history\nof the animosities of the gods as being the struggles of their\nworshippers.\n\n{40}\n\nIf we try to trace the historic basis of the Osiris myth, we must take\ninto account the early customs and ideas among which the myths arose.\nThe cutting up of the body was the regular ritual of the prehistoric\npeople, and (even as late as the fifth dynasty) the bones were\nseparately treated, and even wrapped up separately when the body was\nreunited for burial.  We must also notice the apotheosis festival of\nthe king, which was probably his sacrificial death and union with the\ngod, in the prehistoric age.  The course of events which might have\nserved as the basis for the Osiris myth may then have been somewhat as\nfollows.  Osiris was the god of a tribe which occupied a large part of\nEgypt.  The kings of this tribe were sacrificed after thirty years'\nreign (like the killing of kings at fixed intervals elsewhere), and\nthey thus became the Osiris himself.  Their bodies were dismembered, as\nusual at that period, the flesh ceremonially eaten by the assembled\npeople (as was done in prehistoric times), and the bones distributed\namong the various centres of the tribe, the head to Abydos, the neck,\nspine, limbs, etc., to various places, of which there were fourteen in\nall.  The worshippers of Set broke in upon this people, stopped this\nworship, or killed Osiris, as was said, and established the dominion\n{41} of their animal god.  They were in turn attacked by the Isis\nworshippers, who joined the older population of the Osiris tribe,\nre-opened the shrines, and established Osiris worship again.  The Set\ntribe returning in force attacked the Osiris tribe and scattered all\nthe relics of the shrines in every part of the land.  To re-establish\ntheir power, the Osiris and Isis tribes called in the worshippers of\nthe hawk Horus, who were old enemies of the Set tribe, and with their\nhelp finally expelled the Set worshippers from the whole country.  Such\na history, somewhat misunderstood in a later age when the sacrifice of\nkings and anthropophagy was forgotten, would give the basis for nearly\nall the features of the Osiris myth as recorded in Roman times.\n\nIf we try to materialise this history more closely we see that the\nOsiris worshippers occupied both the Delta and Upper Egypt, and that\nfourteen important centres were recognised at the earliest time, which\nafterwards became the capitals of nomes, and were added to until they\nnumbered forty-two divisions in later ages.  Set was the god of the\nAsiatic invaders who broke in upon this civilisation; and about a\nquarter through the long ages of the prehistoric culture (perhaps 7500\nB.C.) we find material evidences of {42} considerable changes brought\nin from the Arabian or Semitic side.  It may not be unlikely that this\nwas the first triumph of Set.  The Isis worshippers came from the\nDelta, where Isis was worshipped at Buto as a virgin goddess, apart\nfrom Osiris or Horus.  These followers of Isis succeeded in helping the\nrest of the early Libyan inhabitants to resist the Set worship, and\nre-establish Osiris.  The close of the prehistoric age is marked by a\ngreat decline in work and abilities, very likely due to more trouble\nfrom Asia, when Set scattered the relics of Osiris.  Lastly, we cannot\navoid seeing in the Horus triumph the conquest of Egypt by the dynastic\nrace who came down from the district of Edfu and Hierakonpolis, the\ncentres of Horus worship; and helped the older inhabitants to drive out\nthe Asiatics.  Nearly the same chain of events is seen in later times,\nwhen the Berber king Aahmes I helped the Egyptians to expel the Hyksos.\nIf we can thus succeed in connecting the archaeology of the prehistoric\nage with the history preserved in the myths, it shows that Osiris must\nhave been the national god as early as the beginning of prehistoric\nculture.  His civilising mission may well have been the introduction of\ncultivation, at about 8000 B.C., into the Nile valley.\n\n{43}\n\nThe theology of Osiris was at first that of a god of those holy fields\nin which the souls of the dead enjoyed a future life.  There was\nnecessarily some selection to exclude the wicked from such happiness,\nand Osiris judged each soul whether it were worthy.  This judgment\nbecame elaborated in detailed scenes, where Isis and Neb-hat stand\nbehind Osiris who is on his throne, Anubis leads in the soul, the heart\nis placed in the balance, and Th[=o]th stands to weigh it and to record\nthe result.  The occupations of the souls in this future we have\nnoticed in chapter iii.  The function of Osiris was therefore the\nreception and rule of the dead, and we never find him as a god of\naction or patronising any of the affairs of life.\n\n+Isis+ (_Aset_ or _Isit_) became attached at a very early time to the\nOsiris worship; and appears in later myths as the sister and wife of\nOsiris.  But she always remained on a very different plane to Osiris.\nHer worship and priesthood were far more popular than those of Osiris,\npersons were named after her much more often than after Osiris, and she\nappears far more usually in the activities of life.  Her union in the\nOsiris myth by no moans blotted out her independent position and\nimportance as a deity, though it gave her {44} a far more widespread\ndevotion.  The union of Horus with the myth, and the establishment of\nIsis as the mother goddess, was the main mode of her importance in\nlater times.  Isis as the nursing mother is seldom shown until the\ntwenty-sixth dynasty; then the type continually became more popular,\nuntil it outgrew all other religions of the country.  In the Roman\ntimes the mother Isis not only received the devotion of all Egypt, but\nher worship spread rapidly abroad, like that of Mithra.  It became the\npopular devotion of Italy; and, after a change of name due to the\ngrowth of Christianity, she has continued to receive the adoration of a\nlarge part of Europe down to the present day as the Madonna.\n\n+Nephthys+ (_Neb-hat_) was a shadowy double of Isis; reputedly her\nsister, and always associated with her, she seems to have no other\nfunction.  Her name, 'mistress of the palace,' suggests that she was\nthe consort of Osiris at the first, as a necessary but passive\ncomplement in the system of his kingdom.  When the active Isis worship\nentered into the renovation of Osiris, Nebhat remained of nominal\nimportance, but practically ignored.\n\n+Horus+ (_Heru_ or _Horu_) has a more complex {45} history than any\nother god.  We cannot assign the various stages of it with certainty,\nbut we can discriminate the following ideas.  (_A_) There was an elder\nor greater Horus, _Hor-ur_ (or Aroeris of the Greeks) who was credited\nwith being the brother of Osiris, older than Isis, Set, or Nephthys.\nHe was always in human form, and was the god of Letopolis.  This seems\nto have been the primitive god of a tribe cognate to the Osiris\nworshippers.  What connection this god had with the hawk we do not\nknow; often Horus is found written without the hawk, simply as _hr_,\nwith the meaning of 'upper' or 'above.'  This word generally has the\ndeterminative of sky, and so means primitively the sky or one belonging\nto the sky.  It is at least possible that there was a sky-god _her_ at\nLetopolis, and likewise the hawk-god was a sky-god _her_ at Edfu, and\nhence the mixture of the two deities.  (_B_) The hawk-god of the south,\nat Edfu and Hierakonpolis, became so firmly embedded in the myth as the\navenger of Osiris, that we must accept the southern people as the\nejectors of the Set tribe.  It is always the hawk-headed Horus who wars\nagainst Set, and attends on the enthroned Osiris.  (_C_) The hawk Horus\nbecame identified with the sun-god, and hence came the winged solar\ndisk as the emblem {46} of Horus of Edfu, and the title of Horus on the\nhorizons (at rising and setting) Hor-em-akhti, Harmakhis of the Greeks.\n(_D_) Another aspect resulting from Horus being the 'sky' god, was that\nthe sun and moon were his two eyes; hence he was Hor-merti, Horus of\nthe two eyes, and the sacred eye of Horus (_uza_) became the most usual\nof all amulets.  (_E_) Horus, as conqueror of Set, appears as the hawk\nstanding on the sign of gold, _nub_; _nubti_ was the title of Set, and\nthus Horus is shown trampling upon Set; this became a usual title of\nthe kings.  There are many less important forms of Horus, but the form\nwhich outgrew all others in popular estimation was (_F_) Hor-pe-khroti,\nHarpokrates of the Greeks, 'Horus the child.'  As the son of Isis he\nconstantly appears from the nineteenth dynasty onward.  One of the\nearlier of these forms is that of the boy Horus standing upon\ncrocodiles, and grasping scorpions and noxious animals in his hands.\nThis type was a favourite amulet down to Ptolemaic times, and is often\nfound carved in stone to be placed in a house, but was scarcely ever\nmade in other materials or for suspension on the person.  The form of\nthe young Horus seated on an open lotus flower was also popular in the\nGreek times.  But the infant Horus with his finger to his lips {47} was\nthe most popular form of all, sometimes alone, sometimes on his\nmother's lap.  The finger, which pointed to his being a sucking child,\nwas absurdly misunderstood by the Greeks as an emblem of silence.  From\nthe twenty-sixth dynasty down to late Roman times the infant Horus, or\nthe young boy, was the most prominent subject on the temples, and the\ncommonest figure in the homes of the people.\n\nThe other main group of human gods was Amon, Mut, and Khonsu of Thebes.\n_Amon_ was the local god of Karnak, and owed his importance in Egypt to\nthe political rise of his district.  The Theban kingdom of the twelfth\ndynasty spread his fame, the great kings of the eighteenth and\nnineteenth dynasty ascribed their victories to Amon, his high priest\nbecame a political power which absorbed the state after the twentieth\ndynasty, and the importance of the god only ceased with the fall of his\ncity.  The original attributes and the origin of the name of Amon are\nunknown; but he became combined with Ra, the sun-god, and as Amon-Ra he\nwas 'king of the gods,' and 'lord of the thrones of the world.'  The\nsupremacy of Amon was for some centuries an article of political faith,\nand many other gods were merged in him, and only survived as aspects\n{48} of the great god of all.  The queens were the high priestesses of\nthe god, and he was the divine father of their children; the kings\nbeing only incarnations of Amon in their relation to the queens.\n\n+Mut+, the great mother, was the goddess of Thebes, and hence the\nconsort of Amon.  She is often shown as leading and protecting the\nkings, and the queens appear in the character of this goddess.  Little\nis known about her otherwise, and she disappears in the later theology.\n\n+Khonsu+ is a youthful god combined in the Theban system as the son of\nAmon and Mut.  He is closely parallel to Th[=o]th as being a god of\ntime, as a moon god, and of science, 'the executor of plans.'  A large\ntemple was dedicated to him at Karnak, but otherwise he was not of\nreligious importance.\n\n+Neit+ was a goddess of the Libyan people; but her worship was firmly\nimplanted by them in Egypt.  She was a goddess of hunting and of\nweaving, the two arts of a nomadic people.  Her emblem was a distaff\nwith two crossed arrows, and her name was written with a figure of a\nweaver's shuttle.  She was adored in the first dynasty, when the name\nMerneit, 'loved by Neit,' occurs; and her priesthood was one of the\nmost {49} usual in the pyramid period.  She was almost lost to sight\nduring some thousands of years, but she became the state goddess of the\ntwenty-sixth dynasty, when the Libyans set up their capital in her city\nof Sais.  In later times she again disappears from customary religion.\n\n\n\n\n{50}\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nTHE COSMIC GODS\n\nThe gods which personify the sun and sky stand apart in their essential\nidea from those already described, although they were largely mixed and\ncombined with other classes of gods.  So much did this mixture pervade\nall the later views that some writers have seen nothing but varying\nforms of sun-worship in Egyptian religion.  It will have been noticed\nhowever in the previous chapters what a large body of theology was\nentirely apart from the sun-worship, while here we treat the latter as\nseparate from the other elements with which it was more or less\ncombined.\n\n_Ra_ was the great sun-god, to whom every king pledged himself, by\nadopting on his accession a motto-title embodying the god's name, such\nas _Ra-men-kau_, 'Ra established the kas,' _Ra-sehotep-ab_, 'Ra\nsatisfies the heart,' _Ra-neb-maat_, 'Ra is the lord of truth'; and\nthese titles were those by {51} which the king was best known ever\nafter.  This devotion was not primitive, but began in the fourth\ndynasty, and was established by the fifth dynasty being called sons of\nRa, and every later king having the title 'son of Ra' before his name.\nThe obelisk was the emblem of Ra, and in the fifth dynasty a great\nobelisk temple was built in his honour at Abusir, followed also by\nothers.  Heliopolis was the centre of his worship, where Senusert I, in\nthe twelfth dynasty, rebuilt the temple and erected the obelisks, one\nof which is still standing.  But Ra was preceded there by another\nsun-god Atmu, who was the true god of the nome; and Ra, though\nworshipped throughout the land, was not the aboriginal god of any city.\nIn Heliopolis he was attached to Atmu, at Thebes attached to Amen.\nThese facts point to Ra having been introduced into Egypt by a\nconquering people, after the theologic settlement of the whole land.\nThere are many suggestions that the Ra worshippers came in from Asia,\nand established their rule at Heliopolis.  The title of the ruler of\nthat place was the _heq_, a Semitic title; and the _heq_ sceptre was\nthe sacred treasure of the temple.  The 'spirits of Heliopolis' were\nspecially honoured, an idea more Babylonian than Egyptian.  This city\nwas a centre of literary {52} learning and of theologic theorising\nwhich was unknown elsewhere in Egypt, but familiar in Mesopotamia.  A\nconical stone was the embodiment of the god at Heliopolis, as in Syria.\n_On_, the native name of Heliopolis, occurs twice in Syria, as well as\nother cities named Heliopolis there in later times.  The view of an\nearly Semitic principate of Heliopolis, before the dynastic age, would\nunify all of these facts: and the advance of Ra worship in the fifth\ndynasty would be due to a revival of the influence of the eastern Delta\nat that time.\n\nThe form of Ra most free from admixture is that of the disk of the sun,\nsometimes figured between two hills at rising, sometimes between two\nwings, sometimes in the boat in which it floated on the celestial ocean\nacross the sky.  The winged disk has almost always two cobra serpents\nattached to it, and often two rams' horns; the meaning of the whole\ncombination is that Ra protects and preserves, like the vulture\nbrooding over its young, destroys like the cobra, and creates like the\nram.  This is seen by the modification where it is placed over a king's\nhead, when the destructive cobra is omitted, and the wings are folded\ntogether as embracing and protecting the king.\n\n{53}\n\nThis disk form is connected with the hawk-god, by being placed over the\nhead of the hawk; and this in turn is connected with the human form by\nthe disc resting on the hawk-headed man, which is one of the most usual\ntypes of Ra.  The god is but seldom shown as being purely human, except\nwhen identified with other gods, such as Atmu, Horus, or Amon.\n\nThe worship of Ra outshone all others in the nineteenth dynasty.\nUnited to the god of Thebes as Amon Ra, he became 'king of the gods';\nand the view that the soul joined Ra in his journey through the hours\nof the night absorbed all other views, which only became sections of\nthis whole (see chap. xi).  By the Greek times this belief seems to\nhave largely given place to others, and it had practically vanished in\nthe early Christian age.\n\n+Atmu+ (Tum) was the original god of Heliopolis and the Delta side,\nround to the gulf of Suez, which formerly reached up to Ismailiyeh.\nHow far his nature as the setting sun was the result of his being\nidentified with Ra, is not clear.  It may be that he was simply a\ncreator-god, and that the introduction of Ra led to his being unified\nwith him.  Those who take the view that the names of gods are connected\nwith tribes, as {54} Set and Suti, Anuke and Anak, might well claim\nthat Atmu or Atum belonged to the land of Aduma or Etham.\n\n+Khepera+ has no local importance, but is named as the morning sun.  He\nwas worshipped about the time of the nineteenth dynasty.\n\n+Aten+ was a conception of the sun entirely different to Ra.  No human\nor animal form was ever attached to it; and the adoration of the\nphysical power and action of the sun was the sole devotion.  So far as\nwe can trace, it was a worship entirely apart, and different from every\nother type of religion in Egypt; and the partial information that we\nhave about it does not, so far, show a single flaw in a purely\nscientific conception of the source of all life and power upon earth.\nThe Aten was the only instance of a 'jealous god' in Egypt, and this\nworship was exclusive of all others, and claims universality.  There\nare traces of it shortly before Amonhotep in.  He showed some devotion\nto it, and it was his son who took the name of Akhenaten, 'the glory of\nthe Aten,' and tried to enforce this as the sole worship of Egypt.  But\nit fell immediately after, and is lost in the next dynasty.  The sun is\nrepresented as radiating its beams on all things, and every beam ends\nin a hand which imparts life and power to {55} the king and to all\nelse.  In the hymn to the Aten the universal scope of this power is\nproclaimed as the source of all life and action, and every land and\npeople are subject to it, and owe to it their existence and their\nallegiance.  No such grand theology had ever appeared in the world\nbefore, so far as we know; and it is the forerunner of the later\nmonotheist religions, while it is even more abstract and impersonal,\nand may well rank as a scientific theism.\n\n+Anher+ was the local god of Thinis in Upper Egypt, and Sebennytos in\nthe Delta, a human sun-god.  His name is a mere epithet, 'he who goes\nin heaven'; and it may well be that this was only a title of Ra, who\nwas thus worshipped at these places.\n\n+Sopdu+ was the god of the eastern desert, and he was identified with\nthe cone of glowing zodiacal light which precedes the sunrise.  His\nemblem was a mummified hawk, or a human figure.\n\n+Nut+, the embodiment of heaven, is shown as a female figure dotted\nover with stars.  She was not worshipped nor did she belong to any one\nplace, but was a cosmogonic idea.\n\n+Seb+, the embodiment of the earth, is figured as lying on the ground\nwhile Nut bends over him.  He was the 'prince of the gods,' the power\nthat {56} went before all the later gods, the superseded Saturn of\nEgyptian theology.  He is rarely mentioned, and no temples were\ndedicated to him, but he appears in the cosmic mythology.  It seems,\nfrom their positions, that very possibly Seb and Nut were the primaeval\ngods of the aborigines of Hottentot type, before the Osiris worshippers\nof European type ever entered the Nile valley.\n\n+Shu+ was the god of space, who lifted up Nut from off the body of Seb.\nHe was often represented, especially in late amulets; possibly it was\nbelieved that he would likewise raise up the body of the deceased from\nearth to heaven.  His figure is entirely human, and he kneels on one\nknee with both hands lifted above his head.  He was regarded as the\nfather of Seb, the earth having been formed from space or chaos.  His\nemblem was the ostrich feather, the lightest and most voluminous object.\n\n+Hapi+, the Nile, must also be placed with Nature-gods.  He is figured\nas a man, or two men for the Upper and Lower Niles, holding a tray of\nproduce of the land, and having large female breasts as being the\nnourisher of the valley.  A favourite group consists of the two Nile\nfigures tying the plants of Upper and Lower Egypt around the {57}\nemblem of union.  He was worshipped at Nilopolis, and also at the\nshrines which marked the boating stages, about a hundred in number all\nalong the river.  Festivals were held at the rising of the Nile, like\nthose still kept up at various stages of the inundation.  Hymns in\nhonour of the river attribute all prosperity and good to its benefits.\n\n\n\n\n{58}\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nTHE ABSTRACT GODS\n\nBesides the classes of gods already described there are others who\nstand apart in their character, as embodying abstract ideas.  Of these\nsome are probably tribal gods; but the principle of each is so clearly\nmarked that they must have been idealised by people who were at a\nrelatively high level of mind.  Others are frankly abstractions of\nartificial ideas devised in a civilised state, much like the deities\nFlora or the Genius of the Roman Emperor.  The general inference is\nthat these gods all belong to the latest of the peoples who contributed\nto the mythology, the dynastic rulers of the land.\n\n+Ptah+ the creator was especially worshipped at Memphis.  He is figured\nas a mummy; and we know that full length burial and mummifying begin\nwith the dynastic race.  He was identified with the earlier\nanimal-worship of the bull Apis; {59} but it is not likely that this\noriginated his creative aspect, as he creates by moulding clay, or by\nword and will, and not by natural means.  He became united with the old\nMemphite god of the dead, Seker, and with Osiris, as Ptah-Seker-Osiris.\nThus we learn that he belonged neither to the animal worshippers, the\nbelievers in Seker, nor to the Osiride race, but to a fourth people.\nThe compound god Ptah-Seker is shown as a bandy-legged dwarf, with wide\nflat head, a known aberration of growth.  It seems as if we should\nconnect this with the _pataikoi_ who were worshipped by Phoenician\nsailors as dwarf figures, the name being similar.  This points to a\nconnection of the Phoenician race with the dynastic Egyptians.  Ptah\nwas worshipped in all ages down to Greek times.\n\n+Min+ was the male principle.  He was worshipped mainly at Ekhmim and\nKoptos, and was there identified with Pan by the Greeks.  He also was\nthe god of the desert, out to the Red Sea.  The oldest statues of gods\nare three gigantic limestone figures of Min found at Koptos; these bear\nrelief designs of Red Sea shells and sword fish.  It seems, then, that\nhe was introduced by a people coming across from the east.  His worship\ncontinued till Roman times.\n\n{60}\n\n+Hat-hor+ was the female principle whose animal was the cow; and she is\nidentified with the mother Isis.  She was also identified with other\nearlier deities; and her forms are very numerous in different\nlocalities.  There were also seven Hathors who appear as Fates,\npresiding over birth.  Thus this goddess has a position different from\nany other, more generalised, more widely spread, and identified with\nmany places and ideas.  The similarity of such a position, with that of\nthe Madonna in Italy in relation to earlier worships, suggests that the\nwidespread devotion to her was of later introduction and superimposed\non varied beliefs.  The figure of Hathor sometimes has the cow's head,\nand often has cow's ears.  The myth of Horus striking off the head of\nhis mother Isis and replacing it by a cow's head, points to the Horus\nworshippers uniting Hathor with Isis.  Statuettes of Hathor are not\ncommon; the head was used for an architectural capital and in the form\nof the sistrum, a rattle which was employed in her worship.\n\n+Maat+ was the goddess of truth.  She is always of human form, and\nshown as seated holding the _ankh_, emblem of life, in her hands.  She\nwas never worshipped, and had no temples or shrines, but was\nrepresented as being offered by the kings {61} to the gods.  She also\noccurs in the names of several kings, and appears in the judgment scene\nof the weighing of the heart.  She was the only idea of the older\nreligion which was preserved by Akhenaten in his reformation; he always\nnames himself as 'living in truth,' but as an abstraction and without\nthe notion of any actual goddess.  She is linked with Ptah, Th[=o]th,\nand Ra, on different occasions.\n\n+Nefertum+ is a god of late times, in human form, as a youth with a\nlotus flower on his head.  He appears to have represented growth and\nvegetation; and is systematised as a son of Ptah and Sekhet.  No temple\nof his remains; but his figures, usually of bronze, are common.\n\n+Safekh+ was the goddess of writing.  She is named in the pyramid\ntimes, and appears in scenes of the eighteenth and nineteenth\ndynasties.  Four pairs of elemental gods were worshipped at Hermopolis,\neach pair male and female; _Heh_, Eternity; _Kek_, Darkness; _Nu_, the\nheavenly ocean; _Nenu_, the Inundation.  They are shown as human\nfigures with the heads of frogs and serpents.  There were also\npersonifications of Seeing, Hearing, Taste, Perception, Strength, and\nthe 'true voice' necessary to intone the magic formulae.\n\n\n\n\n{62}\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTHE FOREIGN GODS\n\nBesides the incorporation into purely Egyptian usage of all the gods\nthat we have noticed, there were others who always retained a foreign\ncharacter.  It is true that Bast, Neit, and Taurt are counted by some\nas foreign; but deities who are found from the pyramid times to the\nRoman age, and who were the patrons of capitals and of dynasties, must\nbe counted as Egyptian; and of Taurt we do not know of any foreign\nsource, nor should we look for any, as the hippopotamus abounded in\nEgypt itself.\n\n+B[=e]s+, though figured from the eighteenth dynasty to Roman times,\nyet retained a foreign character.  He is a dwarfish, clumsy figure,\nwearing a feline skin on his back, with the tail hanging down to his\nheels.  A female figure wearing the feline skin similarly is known from\nthe twelfth dynasty.  Rarely female forms of B[=e]s {63} occur in late\ntimes.  The source of this type is the Sudany dancer, such as may still\nbe seen performing in Egypt, and we know that even in the fifth dynasty\ndancers called Denga (=Dinka tribe?) were brought as curiosities to\nEgypt.  B[=e]s was often figured as dancing with a tambourine; he was\nthe god of the dance, and protected infants from evil and witchcraft;\nhence he appears on the imposts of the capitals of the birth-house at\nDendereh.  The animal whose skin he wears is the _cynaelurus guttatus_,\nwhose name is _bes_.  Possibly Bastet, the feline goddess, was\noriginally a female form of B[=e]s.\n\n+Dedun+ was a Nubian god, who appears to have been a creative\nearth-god.  He was unified with Ptah, and is often named in the\nnineteenth dynasty.\n\n+Sati+ was a goddess of the cataract region, similar to Hathor, with\ncow's horns.  She is called queen of the gods, and seems to have been\nthe great deity of a frontier tribe.\n\n+Anqet+ was the goddess of the cataract island of Seheyl, and is\nfigured wearing a high crown of feathers.\n\n+Sutekh+ must not be confounded with the purely Egyptian god Set or\nSetesh, though the two were identified.  Probably they were one in {64}\nprehistoric ages; but Set was the god known to the Egyptians, while\nSutekh was the god of the Hittites from Armenia, where he was\nworshipped in their home cities.\n\n+Baal+ was another Syrian god also identified with Set, and sometimes\ncombined with Mentu as a war-god in the nineteenth dynasty, when Syrian\nideas prevailed so largely in Egypt.\n\n+Reshpu+, or +Reseph+, was occasionally worshipped as a war-god in the\nSyrianised age; but no statues or temples are known to him or to Baal.\n\n+Anta+, or +Anaitis+, was a goddess of the Hittites, who appears fully\narmed on horseback in the Ramesside times.  Ramessu II called his\ndaughter Bant-anta, 'daughter of Anta.'\n\n+Astharth+, +Ashtaroth+, or +Astarte+, was another Syrian goddess, who\nwas worshipped mainly at Memphis, where the tomb of a priestess of hers\nis known.  Ramessu II named a son of his Merastrot, 'loved of\nAshtaroth.'\n\n+Qedesh+, 'the holy one,' is shown as a nude goddess standing on a\nlion; she may be a form of Ashtaroth, as patroness of the _qedosheth_\ngirls attached to her service.  The position on a lion is a well-known\none of Hittite goddesses.\n\n{65}\n\nFigures of foreign goddesses are often found in Egypt; they are of\npottery, coarsely made, nude, and with the breasts held in the hands.\nThey probably represent Ashtaroth.\n\nWe may also here mention some theories about the foreign connections of\nthe Egyptian gods.  The early Sumerians of Babylonia worshipped Asari,\n'the strong one,' 'the prince who does good to men.'  This has a strong\nresemblance in name and character to Asar, Osiris, of Egypt.  But the\nconnection which is proposed, from both names being written with the\nsigns of an eye and a place, seems baseless, as the syllabic values of\nthe signs were reversed in the two languages; either the writing or the\nsound of the name must be only a coincidence.  Istar, another Sumerian\ndeity, became softened in Semitic speech to Athtar, the moon-goddess of\nSouthern Arabia; and the connection of this moon- and cow-goddess with\nthe similar Hathor of Egypt seems very probable.  Ansar was another\nSumerian god, meaning 'the sky,' or the spirit world of the sky; and\nthis might have passed into Anhar, the sky-god, known both in Upper and\nLower Egypt.  These connections are all with Sumerian gods, but may\nhave been derived through their later Semitic forms.  They have a\ngeneral {66} probability from the names and nature in each instance;\nbut until we can trace some point of connection in place and in period,\nwe can only bear these resemblances in mind as material for some larger\nview of early history.\n\n\n\n\n{67}\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nTHE COSMOGONY\n\nMan in all times and places has speculated on the nature and origin of\nthe world, and connected such questions with his theology.  In Egypt\nthere are not many primitive theories of creation, though some have\nvarious elaborated forms.  Of the formation of the earth there were two\nviews.  (1) That it had been brought into being by the word of a god,\nwho when he uttered any name caused the object thereby to exist.\nTh[=o]th is the principal creator by this means, and this idea probably\nbelongs to a period soon after the age of the animal gods.  (2) The\nother view is that Ptah framed the world as an artificer, with the aid\nof eight _Khnumu_, or earth-gnomes.  This belongs to the theology of\nthe abstract gods.  The primitive people seem to have been content with\nthe eternity of matter, and only personified nature when they described\nspace (Shu) as separating the sky (Nut) from the earth (Seb).  This\n{68} is akin to the separation of chaos into sky and sea in Genesis.\n\nThe sun is called the egg laid by the primeval goose; and in later time\nthis was said to be laid by a god, or modelled by Ptah.  Evidently this\ngoose egg is a primitive tale which was adapted to later theology.\n\nThe sky is said to be upheld by four pillars.  These were later\nconnected with the gods of the four quarters; but the primitive four\npillars were represented together, with the capitals one over the\nother, in the sign _dad_, the emblem of stability.  These may have\nbelonged to the Osiris cycle, as he is 'lord of the pillars' (_daddu_),\nand his centre in the Delta was named Daddu from the pillars.  The\nsetting up of the pillars or _dad_ emblem was a great festival in which\nthe kings took part, and which is often represented.\n\nThe creation of life was variously attributed to different great gods\nwhere they were worshipped.  Khnumu, Osiris, Amen, or Atmu, each are\nstated to be the creator.  The mode was only defined by the theorists\nof Heliopolis; they imagined that Atmu self-produced Shu and Tefnut,\nthey produced Seb and Nut, and they in turn other gods, from whom at\nlast sprang mankind.  But this is merely later theorising to fit a\ntheology in being.\n\n{69}\n\nThe cosmogonic theories, therefore, were by no means important articles\nof belief, but rather assumptions of what the gods were likely to have\ndone similar to the acts of men.  The creation by the word is the most\nelevated idea, and is parallel to the creation in Genesis.\n\nThe conception of the nature of the world was that of a great plain,\nover which the sun passed by day, and beneath which it travelled\nthrough the hours of night.  The movement of the sun was supposed to be\nthat of floating on the heavenly ocean, figured by its being in a boat,\nwhich was probably an expression for its flotation.  The elaboration of\nthe nature of the regions through which the sun passed at night\nessentially belongs to the Ra theology, and only recognises the kingdom\nof Osiris by placing it in one of the hours of night.  The old\nconception of the dim realm of the cemetery-god Seker occupies the\nfourth and fifth hours; the sixth hour is an approach to the Osiride\nregion, and the seventh hour is the kingdom of Osiris.  Each hour was\nseparated by gates, which were guarded by demons who needed to be\ncontrolled by magic formulae.\n\n\n\n\n{70}\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nTHE RITUAL AND PRIESTHOOD\n\nThe accounts which we have of the temple ritual are of the later\nperiods, and we must look to the buildings themselves to trace\ndifferences in the system.  The oldest form of shrine was a wicker hut,\nwith tall poles forming the sides of the door; in front of this\nextended an enclosure which had two poles with flags on either side of\nthe entrance.  In the middle of the enclosure or court was a staff\nbearing the emblem of the god.  This type of shrine and open court was\nkept up always, and is like the Jewish type.  We find stone used for\nthe doors in the sixth dynasty, and stone-built temples in the twelfth\ndynasty.  The earlier type of temple was essentially a resting-place\nfor the god between the excursions of the festivals.  It was open at\nboth front and back, and a processional way led through it, so that the\npriests walked through, taking up the ark of the god, {71} carrying it\nin procession, and then returning and depositing it again in the temple\nas they passed.  This form lasted till the middle of the eighteenth\ndynasty; but the fixed shrine was already coming into use then, and\nseems to have become the only type after that age.  This was emphasised\nstill more in the twenty-sixth dynasty by the great monolith boxes of\ngranite which contained not only precious statuettes, but even\nlife-sized statues of granite.  It seems that the processional form of\nritual had been supplanted by the service of a more mysterious Holy of\nHolies.\n\nThe course of daily service by the priests was of seven parts.  1st.\n_Fire-making_--rubbing the fire sticks, taking the censer, putting\nincense in it, and lighting it.  2nd. _Opening the Shrine_--going up to\nthe shrine, loosening the fastening, and breaking the seal, opening the\ndoor, seeing the god.  3rd. _Praise_--various prostrations, and then\nsinging a hymn to the god.  4th. _Supplying food and incense_--offering\noil and honey and incense, retiring from the shrine for a prayer,\napproaching and looking on the god, various prostrations, again\nincense, and then prayers and hymns, a figure of Maat (goddess of\ntruth) was then presented to the god, and, lastly, more incense for all\nthe companions of the god.  {72} 5th. _Purifying_--cleansing the figure\nand its shrine, and pouring out pitchers of water, and fumigating with\nincense.  6th. _Clothing_--dressing the god with white, green, bright\nred, and dark red sashes, and supplying two kinds of ointment and black\nand green eye paint, and scattering clean sand before him.  The priest\nthen walked four times round the shrine.  7th. _Purifying_--with\nincense, natron of the south and north, and two other kinds of incense.\nProbably such a ritual was a gradual growth of successive ages.  Where\na living animal was maintained as sacred, the feeding of it was a\nconsiderable service.  A court was built at Memphis for the sacred Apis\nbull to take his exercise, and special bundles of fodder were provided.\nA large tank was made for the sacred crocodile in the Fayum, and the\npriests used to follow the reptile around the tank with the offerings\nbrought by devotees.  Similarly at Epidauros is a deep circular trench\ncut in the rock, with a central niche; in this a sacred serpent could\nbe visited and fed without its being able to escape.\n\nThe priesthood was elaborated in many different kinds, and varied\ngrades in each.  There were the 'servants of the god,' who had charge\nof the worship and ritual; the 'pure men,' who were {73} occupied with\nthe acts of offerings and service; the 'divine fathers,' who had charge\nof the property of a god and the providing for the services; the\n'reciters'; the 'female singers'; and others; and there were four\ngrades of most of the classes.\n\nA special divine gift was the _sa_, an essence which was imparted to\nthe king when he knelt with his back to the god and the divine hand was\nplaced on him.  This was also imparted to a class of priests or\ninitiated who were described as 'impregnated with the sa' of four\ndifferent grades.  This seems to have been a kind of ordination\nimparting special powers.\n\nA fundamental idea was that the king was the priest of the land, and\nthat all offerings (especially those for the dead) were made by him.\nEven though the king could not physically perform all the offerings,\nyet when others did so they were only acting on behalf of the priestly\nking of the nation.  So strongly was this held that the regular formula\nfor all offerings for the dead was 'A royal giving of offerings of such\nand such things for the _ka_ of such an one,' or it may be rendered\n'May the king give an offering.'  The act itself is shown on some\nfuneral tablets, where the king appears as making the offering, {74}\nwhile the person for whom he acts stands behind him.\n\nMuch light on the sources of the rise of the priesthood is given by the\ntitles borne by the priests of the various capitals of the provinces or\nnomes.  Many of these refer to what were purely secular occupations in\nlater times, and we thus learn that the priestly character was attached\nto the principal person, be he king, or leader in other ways.  In one\ncity it was the King and His Loved Son who were the priests, in another\nit was the General, in another the Warrior who became the priest;\nelsewhere it was the Great Constructor, in another city the Great\nCommander of Workmen; one city raised the Manager of the Inundation to\nthe priesthood, and very naturally the Great Physician or medicine man\nbecame priest in another place.  The Eldest Son was the title of\nanother priesthood, much as the later kings made their eldest son high\npriest.  A very curious view of the priestess preceding the\nestablishment of a priest is given by some cities; one where she was\ncalled the Nurse, and the priest was the Youth, and another city names\nthe priestess the 'Appeaser of the Spirit' and the priest the\n'Favourite Child.'\n\nPurely religious functions are only a minority {75} of the priestly\ntitles in the Delta, such as the Seer, the Great Seer, the Chief of the\nFeast, and the Opener of the Mouth, referring to enabling the statue of\nthe god to speak, or opening the mouth of the mummy to enable it to\nlive.  A full analysis of the priestly titles would give a picture of\nthe society in which priesthood arose, but it is a subject which has\nnot been systematically studied.\n\n\n\n\n{76}\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nTHE SACRED BOOKS\n\nIn the latest age of ancient Egypt the religious writings were largely\ntranslated into Greek, at a time when they were studied and collected\nas embodying the ideas of a world which was already fading away.  This\nvenerated past kept its hold on the imagination as containing mystic\npowers of compelling the unseen, and strange travesties of ancient\nformulae, the efficacy of which could not be rivalled by any later\nwritings which were baldly intelligible.  There were four main classes\nof writings, on theology, ritual, science, and medicine.  Though the\nlate compilations have almost entirely perished, yet we can gather\ntheir nature from the portions of the original documents which are\npreserved from earlier times.\n\nThe most popular work in the later dynasties was that which has been\ncalled the _Book of the Dead_ by modern writers.  We must not conceive\n{77} of it as a bound up whole, like our Bible; but rather as an\nincongruous accumulation of charms and formulae, parts of which were\ntaken at discretion by various scribes according to local or individual\ntastes.  No single papyrus contains even the greater part of it, and\nthe choice made among the heterogeneous material is infinitely varied.\nThe different sections have been numbered by modern editors, starting\nwith the order found in some of the best examples, and more than two\nhundred such chapters are recognised.  Every variety of belief finds\nplace in this large collection; every charm or direction which could\nbenefit the dead found a footing here if it attained popularity.  From\nprehistoric days downward it formed a religious repertory without\nlimits or regulation.  Portions known in the close of the old kingdom\nentirely vanish in later copies, while others appear which are\nobviously late in origin.  The incessant adding of notes, incorporation\nof glosses, and piling of explanations one on the other, has increased\nthe confusion.  And to add to our bewilderment, the scribes were\nusually quite callous about errors in a writing which was never to be\nseen or used by living eyes; and the corruptions, which have been in\nturn made worse, have left hardly any sense in many parts.  At {78}\nbest it is difficult to follow the illusions of a lost faith, but amid\nall the varieties of idea and bad readings superposed, the task of\ncritical understanding is almost hopeless.  The full study of such a\nwork will need many new discoveries and occupy generations of critical\ningenuity.  We can distinguish certain groups of chapters, an Osirian\nsection on the kingdom of Osiris and the service of it, a theological\nsection, a set of incantations, formulae for the restoration of the\nheart, for the protection of the soul from spirits and serpents in the\nhours of night, charms to escape from perils ordained by the gods, an\naccount of the paradise of Osiris, a different version of the kingdom\nand judgment of Osiris, a Heliopolitan doctrine about the _ba_, and its\npowers of transformation entirely apart from all that is stated\nelsewhere, the account of the reunion of soul and body, magic formulae\nfor entering the Osirian kingdom, another account of the judgment of\nOsiris, charms for the preservation of the mummy and for making\nefficacious amulets, together with various portions of popular beliefs.\n\nIn contrast to the mainly Osirian character above described, we see the\nsolar religion dominant in the Book of Am Duat, or that which {79} is\nin the underworld.  This describes the successive hours of the night,\neach hour fenced off with gates which are guarded by monsters.  At each\ngate the right spells must be uttered to subdue the evil powers, and so\npass through with the sun.  The older beliefs in Seker, the god of the\nsilent land, and Osiris, the king of the blessed world, are fitted in\nto the newer system by allotting some hours to these other realms as a\npart of the solar journey.  A variant of this work is the _Book of\nGates_, describing the gates of the hours, but omitting Seker and\nmaking Osiris more important.  These books represent the fashionable\ndoctrines of the kings in the Ramesside times, and are mainly known\nfrom the royal tombs on which they are inscribed.\n\nAnother branch of the sacred books survives in the formal theology of\nthe schools which grouped gods together in trinities or enneads.  These\nwere certainly very ancient, having been formed under the Heliopolitan\nsupremacy before the rise of the first dynasty.  And if the artificial\nco-ordinating of the gods of varied sources is thus ancient, we have a\nglimpse of the much greater age of the Osiride gods, and still further\nof the primitive gods Seb and Nut, and the earliest worship of animals.\n{80} The great ennead of Heliopolis consisted of Shu, Tefnut, Seb, Nut,\nOsiris, Isis, Set, Nebhat, and Horus; there were also secondary and\ntertiary enneads of lesser gods.  When the sun-god Atmu became\nprominent, Horus was omitted and the eight other gods were called\nchildren of Atmu, who headed the group, as in the Pyramid texts.  The\nnine are not composed of three triads, but of four pairs and a leader.\nThis is on the same type as the four pairs of elemental gods at\nHermopolis under the chief god Tahuti.  The triads were usual at most\ncities, but were in many cases clearly of artificial arrangement, in\norder to follow a type, the deities being of very unequal importance.\nAt Thebes, Amon, Mut, and Khonsu; at Memphis, Ptah, Sekhet, and the\ndeified man Imhotep; and in general Osiris, Isis, and Horus, were the\nprincipal triads.\n\n\n\n\n{81}\n\nCHAPTER XIII\n\nPRIVATE WORSHIP\n\nA people so deeply imbued with religious ideas as the Egyptians\ndoubtless carried their habits of worship beyond the temple gates.  But\nunfortunately we have no graphic or connected view of their private\ndevotions.  At the present day a few natives will scrupulously follow\nthe daily ritual of Islam; many keep up some convenient portion, such\nas the religious aspect of an evening bath after the day's work; but\nmost of the peasantry have little or no religious observances.  Perhaps\nthe average of mankind does not differ very greatly, in various\ncountries, in its extent of religious observance: and most likely the\nancient Egyptian varied in usages much like the modern.\n\nThe funeral offerings for the deceased ancestors certainly filled a\nlarge place in observances; the drink offerings poured out upon the\naltar in the {82} chapel, and the cakes brought for the _ka_ to feed\nupon, were the main expression of family piety.  How serious were such\nservices is seen by their expansion into endowments for great tombs,\nextending to the great temples and priesthoods for the kings.  The\neldest son was the sacrificing priest for his progenitors, as in China\nand India at present; he was called the _an-mut-f_, or 'support of his\nmother,' and is figured as leading the worship in the adoration of\ndeceased kings.  But all the sons took part in the sacrifices, and\ntrapped the birds (_Medum_, x, xiii), or slaughtered the ox for the\n_ka_ of their father.  Such family sacrifices were the occasions of\nsocial feasts and family reunions; of later times the remains of the\nfeasts were found strewing the cemetery at Hawara in the tomb chapels;\nand to this day both Copts and Mohammedans hold family feasts and spend\nthe night at the tombs of their ancestors.\n\nAll offerings were considered to be presented only by the king, as the\ngreat high-priest of all the land.  Every formula of offering began\n'May the king give an offering'; and the figure of the king making the\noffering, while the offerer stands behind him, is actually shown as\nlate as the eighteenth dynasty.\n\n{83}\n\nThe primitive belief in the tree-goddess, the Hathor who dwelt in the\nthick sycomore tree, and showered sycomore figs abundantly on her\ndevotees, was a popular worship.  It was by no means bound up with the\ntomb service, as in one case a red recess in a dwelling room had a\npanel picture at the top of it showing the tree goddess giving\nblessings to her worshipper (_Ramesseum_, xx).\n\nThe latter instance gives the meaning of a curious domestic feature in\nthe well-to-do houses of the bureaucracy at Tell-el-Amarna.  In the\ncentral hall of the house was a recess in the wall painted bright red.\nIt varied from twenty-three to fifty-one inches wide, and was at least\nfive or six feet high.  Sometimes there is an inner recess in the\nmiddle twenty-five to thirty-three inches wide.  From the religious\nscene over such a recess it seems that these were the foci for family\nworship.\n\nThe abundance of little statuettes of gods of glazed pottery, and often\nof bronze, silver, and even of gold, show how common was the custom of\nwearing such devotional objects.  Children especially wore figures of\nBes, and less commonly Taurt, the protecting genii of childhood.\n\nAnother feature of popular religion was the {84} harvest festival.  The\ngrain was heaped, the winnowing shovels and rakes stuck upright in it,\nand then holding up the boards (which were used to scrape up the grain)\nin each hand, adoration was paid to Rannut, the serpent-goddess of the\nharvest.\n\nThe observance of lucky and unlucky days was prevalent.  The fragment\nof a calendar shows each day marked good or evil, or triply good or\nevil.\n\nThe household amulets in the prehistoric days were the great serpent\nstones with figures of the coiled serpent; much suggesting an earlier\nuse of large ammonites.  In later times the image of Horus subduing the\npowers of evil seems to have been the protective figure of the house.\n\nWhen we reach Roman times we have a fuller view of the popular worship\nin the terra-cotta figures.  At Ehnasya, for instance, we find the\nfollowing proportions--five of Serapis, five Isis, twenty-four Horus,\nfour Bes, one goddess of palm trees.  It was especially the worship of\nHorus that was developed in this line.  The kind of shrines used in the\nhouses are also shown by the terra-cottas.  These were wooden framed\ncupboards, with doors below, over them a recess between two pillars to\nhold the image, and a lamp burning {85} before it, and the whole\ncrowned with a cornice of ur\u00e6i.  Smaller little lamp holders were also\nmade to hang up, and very possibly to place with a lamp on a grave.  At\npresent mud hutches are made to place lamps in on holy sites in Egypt.\n\nThe terra-cottas have also preserved the forms of the wayside shrines.\nThese were certainly influenced in their architecture by Greek models,\nbut the idea is probably much older.  The shrines were sometimes a\nlittle chamber, with a domed top, like a modern _wely_ or saint's tomb,\nor sometimes a roof on four pillars with a dwarf wall or lattice work\naround three sides.  Such were the places for wayside devotions and\npassing prayers, as among the Egyptians of the present day.\n\n\n\n\n{86}\n\nCHAPTER XIV\n\nEGYPTIAN ETHICS\n\nFortunately we have preserved to us a considerable body of the maxims\nof conduct from the Pyramid times; and these show very practically what\nwere the ideals and the motives of the early people.  This is only a\nsmall side of the present subject, but it will be found fully stated in\n_Religion and Conscience in Ancient Egypt_.\n\nThe repudiation of sins before the judgment of Osiris is the earliest\ncode of morals, and it is striking that in this there are no family\nduties.  Such an exclusion points to the family being unimportant in\nearly times, the matriarchate perhaps then excluding the responsibility\nof the man.  In the earliest form the prominence of duties is in the\norder of those to equals, to inferiors, to gods, and to the man's own\ncharacter.  In later times the duties to inferiors have almost\nvanished, and the inner duties to character are {87} greatly extended,\nbeing felt to lie at the root of all else.\n\nThe ideal character was drawn in the maxims as being strong, steadfast,\ncommanding, direct, self-respecting, avoiding inferior companionships,\nactive, and above all truthful and straightforward.  Discretion,\nquietness, and reserve were enforced, and a dignified endurance without\npride was to be attained.\n\nIn material things energy and self-reliance were held up, and a\njudicious respect for, and imitation of, successful men.  Covetousness\nwas specially reprobated, and luxury and self-indulgence were looked on\nas a course which ends in bitterness.\n\nThe aspect of marriage depended essentially on property.  Where a woman\nhad property of her own she was mistress of the house, and her husband\nwas but a kind of permanent boarder.  Though in early times, and among\nthe priestesses later, the choice by a woman was scarcely regarded as\npermanent.  Where, however, the household depended on the work of the\nman, he naturally took the leading part.  But the code of abstract\nmorality, and the dictates of common prudence, between men and women,\nwere of as high a standard as in any ancient or modern peoples.  No\nreasonable legislator would wish to {88} add more, although six\nthousand years and Christianity have intervened since the Egyptian\nframed his life.  The family sense of duty in training and advancing a\nman's sons was strongly urged.\n\nIn the general interchange of social life perhaps the main feature was\nthat of consideration for others.  A higher standard of good feeling\nand kindliness existed than any that we know of among ancient peoples,\nor among most modern nations.  The council-hall of the local ruler was\nthe main theatre for ability; and the injunctions to be fearless, and\nat the same time gentle and cautious, would improve the character of\nany modern assembly.  The greater number of precepts however relate to\nthe judicious conduct toward inferiors.  Justice and good discipline\nwere the necessary basis, but they were to be always tempered by\nrespect for the feelings and comfort of the servants.\n\nThe religious aspect of ethics was almost confined to the respect for\nthe property and offerings of the gods.  But the more spiritual side\nwas touched in the precept, 'That which is detestable in the sanctuary\nof god are noisy feasts; if thou implore him with a loving heart, of\nwhich all the words are mysterious, he will do thy {89} matters, he\nhears thy words, he accepts thine offerings.'\n\nThe permanence of the Egyptian character will strike any one who knows\nthe modern native.  The essential mode of justification in the judgment\nwas by the declaration of the deceased that he had not done various\ncrimes; and to this day the Egyptian will rely on justifying himself by\nsheer assertion that he has not done wrong, in face of absolute proofs\nto the contrary.  The main fault of character that was condemned was\ncovetousness, and it is the feeling which wrecks the possibility of\nEgyptian independence at present.  The intrusion of scheming underlings\nbetween the master and his men is noted as a failing; and exactly this\ntrouble continually occurs now, when every servant tries to turn his\nposition to an advantage over those who do business with his master.\nThe dominance of the scribe in managing affairs and making profits was\nfamiliar in ancient as in modern times.  And recent events in Egypt\nhave reminded us of the old fickleness shown in the saying, 'Thy\nentering into a village begins with acclamations; at thy going out thou\nart saved by thy hand.'\n\n\n\n\n{90}\n\nCHAPTER XV\n\nTHE INFLUENCE OF EGYPT\n\nHow far Egypt in its earlier days had influenced the faiths of other\ncountries we cannot trace, owing to our ignorance of the early\ncivilisations of the world.  But in the later times the extension of\nthe popular religion of Egypt can only be paralleled by the spread of\nChristianity or Islam.  Isis was worshipped in Greece in the fourth\ncentury B.C., and in Italy in the second century.  Soon after she won\nher way into official recognition by Sulla, and immediately after the\ndeath of Julius a temple to Isis was actually erected by the\ngovernment.  Once firmly established in Rome, the spread of Imperial\npower carried her worship over the world; emperors became her priests,\nand the humble centurion in remote camps honoured her in the wilds of\nFrance, Germany, Yorkshire, or the Sahara.\n\nNot only Isis but also Osiris claimed the world's {91} worship.  In the\nnew form of the Osir-hapi of Memphis, or Serapis, the Ptolemies\nidentified him with Zeus, both in appearance and by attributes.  And,\nby the time of Nero, Isis and Osiris were said to be the deities of all\nthe world.  An interesting outline of this subject will be found in\nProfessor Dill's _Roman Society from Nero to Aurelius_.\n\nBesides these parent gods their son Horus also conquered the world with\nthem.  Isis and Horus, the Queen of Heaven and the Holy Child, became\nthe popular deities of the later age of Egypt, and their figures far\noutnumber those of all other gods.  Horus in every form of infancy was\nthe loved _bambino_ of the Egyptian women.  Again Horus appears carried\non the arm of his mother in a form which is indistinguishable from that\nadopted by Christianity soon after.\n\nWe see, then, throughout the Roman world the popular worship of the\nQueen of Heaven, _Mater Dolorosa_, Mother of God, patroness of sailors,\nand her infant son Horus the child, the benefactor of men, who took\ncaptive all the powers of evil.  And this worship spread and increased\nin Egypt and elsewhere until the growing power of Christianity\ncompelled a change.  The old worship continued; for the Syrian maid\nbecame {92} transformed into an entirely different figure, Queen of\nHeaven, Mother of God, patroness of sailors, occupying the position and\nattributes already belonging to the world-wide goddess; and the Divine\nTeacher, the Man of Sorrows, became transformed into the entirely\ndifferent figure of the Potent Child.  Isis and Horus still ruled the\naffections and worship of Europe with a change of names.\n\nEgypt also exercised an immense influence upon the Church in the\nTrinitarian controversy.  That was a purely Egyptian dispute, between\ntwo presbyters brought up in the atmosphere of intricacies about the\n_ka_, the _khu_, the _khat_, the _ba_, the _sahu_, the _khaybat_, and\nthe various other entities which constituted man.  To carry forward\nsimilar refinements concerning the Divine Nature was as congenial to\nsuch minds as it was incomprehensible to the Western.  And the dispute\nfinally rested on the question of whether 'before time' was the same as\n'from eternity.'  Such was the struggle which Arius and Athanasius\nthrust upon the Church; a dispute which would never have been heard of\nin such a shape but for their Egyptian origin.\n\nIn another direction Egypt was also dominant.  From some\nsource--perhaps the Buddhist mission {93} of Asoka--the ascetic life of\nrecluses was established in the Ptolemaic times, and monks of the\nSerapeum illustrated an ideal to man which had been as yet unknown in\nthe West.  This system of monasticism continued, until Pachomios, a\nmonk of Serapis in Upper Egypt, became the first Christian monk in the\nreign of Constantine.  Quickly imitated in Syria, Asia Minor, Gaul, and\nother provinces, as well as in Italy itself, the system passed into a\nfundamental position in mediaeval Christianity, and the reverence of\nmankind has been for fifteen hundred years bestowed on an Egyptian\ninstitution.\n\nWe thus see how the religious ideas of six thousand years or more have\nstill survived and continued their power over civilised man, renamed\nbut scarcely changed; and it is shown how new religious ideas can but\ntransform, but not eradicate, the ancestral beliefs of past ages.\n\n\n\n\n{94}\n\nINDEX\n\n\nBolded page numbers refer to bolded entries on their target page(s).\n\n\n  AAHMES, 42.\n  _Ab_, represented by heart, 9.\n  ---- the will, 9.\n  Abusir, temple to Ra, 51.\n  Akhenaten, 54.\n  Amen, 51, 68.\n  Amenhotep III, serpent at Benha, 21.\n  Amon, +47+.\n  ---- goose, 25.\n  ---- ram, 23, 30, 53.\n  Amulets developed in XXVI, 17.\n  Anaitis.  _See_ Anta.\n  Anher, 55, 65.\n  Animal-headed gods, 28.\n  Animal worship, 20.\n  _Ankh_ held by Maat, 60.\n  Anpu.  _See_ Anubis.\n  Anqet, 63.\n  Ansar, 65.\n  Anta, 64.\n  Anubis, jackal, 24, +35+.\n  Apap, serpent, 26.\n  Apis, 23, 72.\n  Asar.  _See_ Osiris.\n  Asari, 65.\n  Aset.  _See_ Isis.\n  Ashtaroth, 23, +64+, 65.\n  Asir.  _See_ Osiris.\n  Astarte.  _See_ Ashtaroth.\n  Astharth.  _See_ Ashtaroth.\n  Aten, 54.\n  Athtar, 65.\n  Atmu, 51, 53, 68, 80.\n\n  _Ba_, associated with _Sahu_, 9.\n  ---- human-headed bird, 9.\n  ---- in Book of the Dead, 78.\n  ---- requires food, 9, 13.\n  Baal, 64.\n  Baboon (Tahuti), 22.\n  Bant-anta, 64.\n  Bast, lioness, 22, 33, 62.\n  Bastet, 33.\n  Benha, agathodemon serpent, 21.\n  B[=e]s, 62.\n  ---- children wear figures of, 83.\n  Body not preserved in early times, 16.\n  Bones preserved in prehistoric times, 18.\n  Book of Am Duat, 78.\n  Book of the Dead, 37, 38, +76-78+.\n  Book of Gates, 79.\n  Bubastis, 22.\n  Buddhist mission, 92.\n  Bull, eaten by worshippers, 20.\n  ---- worship, 22, 23.\n  Burial, offerings, 7.\n  ---- position of body, 7.\n  Buto, 42.\n  Byblos, Osiris's coffin at, 39.\n\n  COMPOUND NAMES OF GODS, 28.\n  Cobra, 25.\n  Crocodile, 25.\n\n  _Dad_, 68.\n  Dedun, 63.\n  Demons, 5.\n  Dendereh, 63.\n\n  EARTH, creation of, 67.\n  Edfu, hawk-worship, 24, 45.\n  Ekhmim, 59.\n  Eldest son offers to ancestors, 82.\n  Entities, two vitalise the body, 8.\n  Eye of Horus, 46.\n\n  FATES, seven Hat-hors, 60.\n  Fayum, crocodile worship, 25, 72.\n  Fish worship, 26.\n  Frog, Heqt, 34.\n  Future life, 12.\n\n  GOD, Christian view of, 5.\n  ---- Hebrew view of, 6.\n  ---- jealous, 5, 54.\n  ---- view of, held by Islam, 5.\n  Gods, Chinese views of, 3.\n  ---- communications from, 3.\n  ---- divine, merged in human, 3.\n  ---- great gods, 3, 5.\n  ---- grouped owing to political unions, 5.\n  ---- misunderstanding of, 1.\n  ---- mortality of, 2.\n  ---- non-existence of other, 5.\n  ---- offerings to, 2.\n  ---- one to a city, 4.\n  ---- profusion of, 3.\n  ---- Siberian views of, 3.\n  ---- suffering of, 2.\n  ---- Sumerian views of, 3, 65.\n  ---- Turanian views of, 3, 4.\n  ---- wife of, 2.\n\n  HARMAKHIS, 46.\n  Hat-hor, +60+.\n  ---- cow, 23.\n  ---- Sinai temple, 22.\n  ---- tree goddess, 13, 83.\n  _Hati_, the physical heart, 9.\n  Hapi, +56+.\n  ---- bull, 23.\n  Hawk, 24.\n  Heart, weighed against feather, 14.\n  _Heh_, 61.\n  Heqt, 34.\n  Heliopolis, associated with Ra, 18, 51, 52.\n  Hermopolis, 32, 61.\n  Hershefi, ram, 23, 34.\n  Heru.  _See_ Horus.\n  Hierakonpolis, boats, 18.\n  ---- hawk-worship, 24, 45.\n  Hippopotamus, 24.\n  Hittite god Sutekh akin to Set, 64.\n  ---- goddess Anta, 64.\n  Horus, +35+, +44+, 91.\n  ---- hawk, 24.\n  ---- overcomes noxious creatures, 27, 46.\n  ---- Ra's eyes obtained for, 10.\n  ---- a self-existent god, 4.\n  ---- stands on _nub_, 46.\n  ---- supersedes Set, 34.\n  Hyksos, 42.\n\n  IBIS, Tahuti, 25.\n  Ichneumon, 24.\n  Immortality, Egyptian belief in, 7.\n  Isis, +43+, 90-92.\n  ---- ennead of Heliopolis, 80.\n  ---- obtains name of Ra, 10.\n  ---- virgin goddess, 4.\n  Isit.  _See_ Isis.\n  Istar, 65.\n  Italy and Isis worship, 44, 90.\n\n  JACKAL, 24.\n\n  _Ka_, the activities of sense and perception, 7.\n  ---- funeral offerings made for, 8, 13, 73, 82.\n  ---- persistence after death, 8.\n  ---- represented by arms, 8.\n  Karnak, Amon, god of, 47.\n  Kak, 61.\n  _Khat_, the material body, 9.\n  _Khaybat_, the shadow, 9.\n  ---- and witchcraft, 11.\n  Khent-amenti, god of the dead, 16.\n  Khonsu, 48.\n  Khepera, 54.\n  Khu, represented as a crested bird, 8.\n  ---- the spirit, 7.\n  Khnumu, +32+.\n  ---- the creator, 32, 67, 68.\n  ---- ram, 23, 32.\n  Kings' souls as hawks, 24.\n  Kings pledged to Ra, 50.\n  Koptos, 59.\n\n  LATOS, 26.\n  Lepidotos, 26.\n  Letopolis, Horus, god of, 45.\n  Lioness, 22.\n  Libyan people's goddess was Neit, 48.\n\n  MAAT, +60+.\n  ---- figure of, presented to the god, 71.\n  ---- her worship retained by Akhenaten, 60.\n  Mahes, lioness, 22.\n  Marriage, aspect of, 87.\n  Memphis, Ptah worship, 58.\n  Mena, ibis on tablet, 33.\n  Mentu, +33+.\n  ---- bull, 23.\n  Merastrot, 64.\n  Merneit, 48.\n  Mert-Seger, +31+.\n  ---- ---- serpent, 26.\n  Milky Way the heavenly Nile, 14.\n  Min, 59.\n  Monastic system, 93.\n  Monotheism, combinations of, 4.\n  Mosaism, 5.\n  Mummifying customary in III and IV dyn., 17.\n  Mut, +48+.\n  ---- vulture, 25.\n\n  NAME=_ran_, 10.\n  ---- power of, 10.\n  Neb-hat, 43.  _See_ Nephthys.\n  Neit, +48+, 62.\n  Nefertum, 61.\n  Nekhebt, +32+.\n  _Nenu_, 61.\n  Nephthys, +44+, 80.\n  Nilopolis, worship of Hapi, 57.\n  _Nu_, 61.\n  Nut, 55, 67, 79, 80.\n\n  OBELISK, emblem of Ra, 51.\n  On.  _See_ Heliopolis.\n  Onuphis, crocodile worship, 25.\n  Osiris, +37+.\n  ---- creator, 68.\n  Osiris in sacred Books, 78-80.\n  ---- kings called, so, 18.\n  ---- ram-worship, 23.\n  Osirian Kingdom, 13, 78.\n  ---- ---- employment in, 14.\n  ---- ---- predominant in XXVI dyn., 18.\n  ---- ---- situation of, 14.\n  ---- ---- slave figures do the work, 15.\n  Oxyrhynkhos, 26.\n\n  PAN identified with Min, 69.\n  Phagros, 26.\n  Plutarch, 38.\n  Polytheism, 5.\n  Prayer, positive rather than negative, 11.\n  Priests, titles of, 74, 75.\n  Ptah, +58+.\n  ---- bull, 23.\n  ---- creator, 67.\n  Pyramid inscriptions, Osiris, 18.\n  ---- ---- Ra, 18.\n\n  QEDESH, 64.\n\n  RA, 50.\n  ---- bull, 23.\n  ---- combined with Amon, 46.\n  ---- eyes obtained by Isis, 10.\n  ---- hawk, 24.\n  ---- predominant in XIX, 18.\n  ---- progress of, 15.\n  Ram-worship, 23.\n  _Ran_, the name, 10.\n  Rannut, serpent, 26, 84.\n  Red Sea, Min from, 59.\n  Religion, purpose of, 11.\n  Reseph, 64.\n  Reshpu, 64.\n  Ritual, 70.\n\n  _Sa_, 73.\n  Safekh, 61.\n  Sahit, associated with the _ba_, 9.\n  Sais, Neit worshipped at, 49.\n  Sati, 63.\n  Scorpion, 26.\n  Seb, 55, 67, 79, 80.\n  Sebek, 25, 34.\n  Seker, +31+.\n  ---- god of silent land, 79.\n  ---- mummified hawk, 24.\n  ---- united with Ptah, 59.\n  _Sekhem_, the force or ruling power, 9.\n  Sekhet, lioness, 22.\n  Sekhmet, +33+.\n  Self-satisfaction of Egyptian religion, 11, 89.\n  Selk, scorpion, 26.\n  Senusert I., 51.\n  Serapis, 23, 91.\n  Serpent, amulet, prehistoric, 21.\n  ---- ---- of Amenhotep III, 21.\n  ---- at Epidaurus, 72.\n  ---- cobra, 25-26.\n  Set, +34+.\n  ---- crocodile, 25.\n  ---- ennead of Heliopolis, 80.\n  ---- god of Asiatic invaders, 41.\n  ---- hippopotamus, 24.\n  Shamanism, 3.\n  Sheykh Heridy, serpent, 26.\n  Shrewmouse, 24.\n  Shrines, 70, 80.\n  Shu, 56, 67, 80.\n  Sistrum in form of Hathor head, 60.\n  Sopdu, +55+.\n  ---- a mummy hawk, 25.\n  Soul, continues near cemetery, 12.\n  ---- goes to Osirian Kingdom, 13.\n  ---- journeys in sun-boat, 15.\n  Speos Artemidos, 22.\n  Sphinx represents a king, 30.\n  Strabo, 25.\n  Sumerian gods, 65.\n  Sutekh, 63.\n  Swallow, sacred, 25.\n  Syria, Osiris' Kingdom in, 14.\n\n  TAHUTI (_see_ Th[=o]th), baboon, +32+.\n  ---- god of wisdom, 22.\n  ---- Ibis, 25, 32.\n  Ta-urt, children wear figures of, 83.\n  ---- a foreign goddess, 62.\n  ---- hippopotamus, +24+.\n  Tefnut, lioness, 22.\n  Theology of Aryans, 4.\n  ---- of Chinese, 4.\n  ---- compound, 5.\n  ---- definition of, 3.\n  Theology, Monotheism first stage of, 4.\n  ---- of Semitic races, 4.\n  Thinis, 55.\n  Th[=o]th (_see_ Tahuti),  god of writing, 32.\n  ---- creator, 67.\n  ---- in Osirian Kingdom, 14.\n  Totemism and animal-worship, 20.\n  Triads, 79, 80.\n  Tum.  _See_ Atmu.\n\n  UAZET, 26, +32+.\n  ---- serpent, 26.\n\n  VULTURE, 25.\n\n  WITCHCRAFT, 3.\n  Worship of Egypt spread over the world, 90-93.\n\n\n\n\n  Printed by T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to His Majesty\n  at the Edinburgh University Press\n\n\n\n\n\n\nRELIGIONS: ANCIENT AND MODERN.\n\n\nANIMISM.\n\nBy EDWARD CLODD, Author of _The Story of Creation_.\n\n\nPANTHEISM.\n\nBy JAMES ALLANSON PICTON, Author of _The Religion of the Universe_.\n\n\nTHE RELIGIONS OF ANCIENT CHINA.\n\nBy Professor GILES, LL.D., Professor of Chinese in the University of\nCambridge.\n\n\nTHE RELIGION OF ANCIENT GREECE.\n\nBy JANE HARRISON, Lecturer at Newnham College, Cambridge, Author\n_Prolegomena to Study of Greek Religion_.\n\n\nISLAM IN INDIA.\n\nBy T. W. ARNOLD, Assistant Librarian at the India Office, Author of\n_The Preaching of Islam_.\n\n\nISLAM.\n\nBy SYED AMEER ALI. M.A., C.I.E., late of H.M.'s High Court of\nJudicature in Bengal, Author of _The Spirit of Islam_ and _The Ethics\nof Islam_.\n\n\nMAGIC AND FETISHISM.\n\nBy Dr. A. C. HADDON, F.R.S., Lecturer on Ethnology at Cambridge\nUniversity.\n\n\nTHE RELIGION OF ANCIENT EGYPT.\n\nBy Professor W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE, F.R.S.\n\n\nTHE RELIGION OF BABYLONIA AND ASSYRIA.\n\nBy THEOPHILUS G. PINCHES, late of the British Museum.\n\n\nBUDDHISM. 2 vols.\n\nBy Professor RHYS DAVIDS, LL.D., late Secretary of The Royal Asiatic\nSociety.\n\n\nHINDUISM.\n\nBy Dr. L. D. BARNETT, of the Department of Oriental Printed Books and\nMSS., British Museum.\n\n\nSCANDINAVIAN RELIGION.\n\nBy WILLIAM A. CRAIGIE, Joint Editor of the _Oxford English Dictionary_.\n\n\nCELTIC RELIGION.\n\nBy Professor ANWYL, Professor of Welsh at University College,\nAberystwyth.\n\n\nTHE MYTHOLOGY OF ANCIENT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.\n\nBy CHARLES SQUIRE, Author of _The Mythology of the British Islands_.\n\n\nJUDAISM.\n\nBy ISRAEL ABRAHAMS, Lecturer in Talmudic Literature in Cambridge\nUniversity, Author of _Jewish Life in the Middle Ages_.\n\n\nPRIMITIVE OR NICENE CHRISTIANITY.\n\nBy JOHN SUTHERLAND BLACK, LL.D., Joint Editor of the _Encyclopaedia\nBiblica_.\n\n\n\n  SHINTOISM.\n  ZOROASTRIANISM.\n  MEDIAEVAL CHRISTIANITY.\n  THE RELIGION OF ANCIENT ITALY.\n\n\nOther Volumes to follow.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's notes:\n\nThe ae-ligature character was not used consistently in the source book.\n\nIn some cases, the god's name \"Bes\" has an e-macron, and in others a\nstandard e.  No attempt was made to regularize this.\n\nPage numbers in this book are indicated by numbers enclosed in curly\nbraces, e.g. {99}.  For its Index, a page number has been placed only\nat the start of that section.  In the HTML version of this book, page\nnumbers are placed in the left margin.\n\nFootnotes have been renumbered sequentially and moved to the end of\ntheir respective chapters.\n\nThe plus (+) sign indicates bolded text, e.g. this is +bolded+.\n\nVowels with macron accenting are preceded by an equals sign (=), and\nthe pair are surrounded by square brackets, e.g. \"Th[=o]th\".  In the\nUnicode version of this etext, the actual Unicode characters have been\nused.  In the HTML version, entities have been used.\n\nThere are two instances in this text of the actual equals sign,\nhowever, neither follows a square bracket or precedes a vowel.","title":"The Religion of Ancient Egypt","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":20301}