Part 1 (2/2)
3. ”If thou hast ground to till, labour in the field which G.o.d hath given thee; rather than fill thy mouth with that which belongeth to thy neighbours it is better to terrify him that hath possessions [to give them unto thee].”
4. ”If thou abasest thyself in the service of a perfect man, thy conduct shall be fair before G.o.d.”
5. ”If thou wouldst be a wise man, make thou thy son to be pleasing unto G.o.d.”
6. ”Satisfy those who depend upon thee as far as thou art able so to do; this should be done by those whom G.o.d hath favoured.”
7. ”If, having been of no account, thou hast become great; and if, having been poor, thou hast become rich; and if thou hast become governor of the city, be not hard-hearted on account of thy advancement, because thou hast become merely the guardian of the things which G.o.d hath provided.”
8. ”What is loved of G.o.d is obedience; G.o.d hateth disobedience.”
9. ”Verily a good son is of the gifts of G.o.d.” [Footnote: The text was published by Prisse d'Avennes, ent.i.tled _Facsimile d'un papyrus egyptien en caracteres hieratiques_, Paris, 1847. For a translation of the whole work, see Virey, _etudes sur le Papyrus Prisse_, Paris, 1887.]
The same idea of G.o.d, but considerably amplified in some respects, may be found in the _Maxims of Khensu-Hetep_, a work which was probably composed during the XVIIIth dynasty. This work has been studied in detail by a number of eminent Egyptologists, and though considerable difference of opinion has existed among them in respect of details and grammatical niceties, the general sense of the maxims has been clearly established. To ill.u.s.trate the use of the word _neter_, the following pa.s.sages have been chosen from it:[Footnote: They are given with interlinear transliteration and translation in my _Papyrus of Ani_, p.
lx.x.xv. ff., where references to the older literature on the subject will be found.]--
1. ”G.o.d magnifieth his name.”
2. ”What the house of G.o.d hateth is much speaking. Pray thou with a loving heart all the pet.i.tions which are in secret. He will perform thy business, he will hear that which thou sayest and will accept thine offerings.”
3. ”G.o.d decreeth the right.”
4. ”When thou makest an offering unto thy G.o.d, guard thou against the things which are an abomination unto him. Behold thou his plans with thine eye, and devote thyself to the adoration of his name. He giveth souls unto millions of forms, and him that magnifieth him doth he magnify.”
5. ”If thy mother raise her hands to G.o.d he will hear her prayers [and rebuke thee].”
7. ”Give thyself to G.o.d, and keep thou thyself daily for G.o.d.”
Now, although the above pa.s.sages prove the exalted idea which the Egyptians held of the supreme Being, they do not supply us with any of the t.i.tles and epithets which they applied to him; for these we must have recourse to the fine hymns and religious meditations which form so important a part of the ”Book of the Dead.” But before we quote from them, mention must be made of the _neteru_, _i.e._, the beings or existences which in some way partake of the nature or character of G.o.d, and are usually called ”G.o.ds.” The early nations that came in contact with the Egyptians usually misunderstood the nature of these beings, and several modern Western writers have done the same. When we examine these ”G.o.ds” closely, they are found to be nothing more nor less than forms, or manifestations, or phases, or attributes, of one G.o.d, that G.o.d being R[=a] the Sun-G.o.d, who, it must be remembered, was the type and symbol of G.o.d. Nevertheless, the wors.h.i.+p of the _neteru_ by the Egyptians has been made the base of the charge of ”gross idolatry” which has been brought against them, and they have been represented by some as being on the low intellectual level of savage tribes. It is certain that from the earliest times one of the greatest tendencies of the Egyptian religion was towards monotheism, and this tendency may be observed in all important texts down to the latest period; it is also certain that a kind of polytheism existed in Egypt side by side with monotheism from very early times. Whether monotheism or polytheism be the older, it is useless in our present state of knowledge to attempt to enquire.
According to Tiele, the religion of Egypt was at the beginning polytheistic, but developed in two opposite directions: in the one direction G.o.ds were multiplied by the addition of local G.o.ds, and in the other the Egyptians drew nearer and nearer to monotheism. [Footnote: _Geschiedenis van den G.o.dedienst in de Oudheid_, Amsterdam, 1893, p. 25.
A number of valuable remarks on this subject are given by Lieblein in _Egyptian Religion_, p. 10.] Dr. Wiedemann takes the view that three main elements may be recognized in the Egyptian religion: (1) A solar monotheism, that is to say one G.o.d, the creator of the universe, who manifests his power especially in the sun and its operations; (2) A cult of the regenerating power of nature, which expresses itself in the adoration of ithyphallic G.o.ds, of fertile G.o.ddesses, and of a series of animals and of various deities of vegetation; (3) A perception of an anthropomorphic divinity, the life of whom in this world and in the world beyond this was typical of the ideal life of man [Footnote: _Le Livre dei Moris_ (Review in _Museon_, Tom. xiii. 1893).]--this last divinity being, of course, Osiris. But here again, as Dr. Wiedemann says, it is an unfortunate fact that all the texts which we possess are, in respect of the period of the origin of the Egyptian religion, comparatively late, and therefore in them we find these three elements mixed together, along with a number of foreign matters, in such a way as to make it impossible to discover which of them is the oldest. No better example can be given of the loose way in which different ideas about a G.o.d and G.o.d are mingled in the same text than the ”Negative Confession”
in the hundred and twenty-fifth chapter of the Book of the Dead. Here, in the oldest copies of the pa.s.sages known, the deceased says, ”I have not cursed G.o.d” (1. 38), and a few lines after (1. 42) he adds, ”I have not thought scorn of the G.o.d living in my city.” It seems that here we have indicated two different layers of belief, and that the older is represented by the allusion to the ”G.o.d of the city,” in which case it would go back to the time when the Egyptian lived in a very primitive fas.h.i.+on. If we a.s.sume that G.o.d (who is mentioned in line 38) is Osiris, it does not do away with the fact that he was regarded as a being entirely different from the ”G.o.d of the city” and that he was of sufficient importance to have one line of the ”Confession” devoted to him. The Egyptian saw no incongruity in setting references to the ”G.o.ds”
side by side with allusions to a G.o.d whom we cannot help identifying with the Supreme Being and the Creator of the world; his ideas and beliefs have, in consequence, been sadly misrepresented, and by certain writers he has been made an object of ridicule. What, for example, could be a more foolish description of Egyptian wors.h.i.+p than the following?
”Who knows not, O Volusius of Bithynia, the sort of monsters Egypt, in her infatuation, wors.h.i.+ps. One part venerates the crocodile; another trembles before an ibis gorged with serpents. The image of a sacred monkey glitters in gold, where the magic chords sound from Memnon broken in half, and ancient Thebes lies buried in ruins, with her hundred gates. In one place they venerate sea-fish, in another river-fish; there, whole towns wors.h.i.+p a dog: no one Diana. It is an impious act to violate or break with the teeth a leek or an onion. O holy nations!
whose G.o.ds grow for them in their gardens! Every table abstains from animals that have wool: it is a crime there to kill a kid. But human flesh is lawful food.”
[Footnote: Juvenal, Satire XV. (Evans' translation in Bohn's Series, p.
180). Led astray by Juvenal, our own good George Herbert (_Church Militant_) wrote:--
”At first he (_i.e._, Sin) got to Egypt, and did sow Gardens of G.o.ds, which every year did grow Fresh and fine deities. They were at great cost, Who for a G.o.d clearly a sallet lost.
Ah, what a thing is man devoid of grace, Adoring garlic with an humble face, Begging his food of that which he may eat, Starving the while he wors.h.i.+ppeth his meat!
Who makes a root his G.o.d, how low is he, If G.o.d and man be severed infinitely!
What wretchedness can give him any room, Whose house is foul, while he adores his broom?”]
The epithets which the Egyptians applied to their G.o.ds also bear valuable testimony concerning the ideas which they held about G.o.d. We have already said that the ”G.o.ds” are only forms, manifestations, and phases of R[=a], the Sun-G.o.d, who was himself the type and symbol of G.o.d, and it is evident from the nature of these epithets that they were only applied to the ”G.o.ds” because they represented some qualify or attribute which they would have applied to G.o.d had it been their custom to address Him. Let us take as examples the epithets which are applied to H[=a]pi the G.o.d of the Nile. The beautiful hymn [Footnote: The whole hymn has been published by Maspero in _Hymns au Nil_, Paris, 1868.] to this G.o.d opens as follows:--
”Homage to thee, O H[=a]pi! Thou comest forth in this land, and dost come in peace to make Egypt to live, O thou hidden one, thou guide of the darkness whensoever it is thy pleasure to be its guide. Thou waterest the fields which R[=a] hath created, thou makest all animals to live, thou makest the land to drink without ceasing; thou descendest the path of heaven, thou art the friend of meat and drink, thou art the giver of the grain, and thou makest every place of work to flourish, O Ptah! ... If thou wert to be overcome in heaven the G.o.ds would fall down headlong, and mankind would perish. Thou makest the whole earth to be opened (_or_ ploughed up) by the cattle, and prince and peasant lie down to rest.... His disposition (_or_ form) is that of Khnemu; when he s.h.i.+neth upon the earth there is rejoicing, for all people are glad, the mighty man (?) receiveth his meat, and every tooth hath food to consume.”
<script>