Egyptian Ideas of the Future Life Part 1

Egyptian Ideas of the Future Life.

by E. A. Wallis Budge.

PREFACE.

The following pages are intended to place before the reader in a handy form an account of the princ.i.p.al ideas and beliefs held by the ancient Egyptians concerning the resurrection and the future life, which is derived wholly from native religious works. The literature of Egypt which deals with these subjects is large and, as was to be expected, the product of different periods which, taken together, cover several thousands of years; and it is exceedingly difficult at times to reconcile the statements and beliefs of a writer of one period with those of a writer of another. Up to the present no systematic account of the doctrine of the resurrection and of the future life has been discovered, and there is no reason for hoping that such a thing will ever be found, for the Egyptians do not appear to have thought that it was necessary to write a work of the kind. The inherent difficulty of the subject, and the natural impossibility that different men living in different places and at different times should think alike on matters which must, after all, belong always to the region of faith, render it more than probable that no college of priests, however powerful, was able to formulate a system of beliefs which would be received throughout Egypt by the clergy and the laity alike, and would be copied by the scribes as a final and authoritative work on Egyptian eschatology.

Besides this, the genius and structure of the Egyptian language are such as to preclude the possibility of composing in it works of a philosophical or metaphysical character in the true sense of the words.

In spite of these difficulties, however, it is possible to collect a great deal of important information on the subject from the funereal and religious works which have come down to us, especially concerning the great central idea of immortality, which existed unchanged for thousands of years, and formed the pivot upon which the religious and social life of the ancient Egyptians actually turned. From the beginning to the end of his life the Egyptian's chief thought was of the life beyond the grave, and the hewing of his tomb in the rock, and the providing of its furniture, every detail of which was prescribed by the custom of the country, absorbed the best thoughts of his mind and a large share of his worldly goods, and kept him ever mindful of the time when his mummified body would be borne to his "everlasting house" in the limestone plateau or hill.

The chief source of our information concerning the doctrine of the resurrection and of the future life as held by the Egyptians is, of course, the great collection of religious texts generally known by the name of "Book of the Dead." The various recensions of these wonderful compositions cover a period of more than five thousand years, and they reflect faithfully not only the sublime beliefs, and the high ideals, and the n.o.ble aspirations of the educated Egyptians, but also the various superst.i.tions and childish reverence for amulets, and magical rites, and charms, which they probably inherited from their pre-dynastic ancestors, and regarded as essentials for their salvation. It must be distinctly understood that many pa.s.sages and allusions in the Book of the Dead still remain obscure, and that in some places any translator will be at a difficulty in attempting to render certain, important words into any modern European language. But it is absurd to talk of almost the whole text of the Book of the Dead as being utterly corrupt, for royal personages, and priests, and scribes, to say nothing of the ordinary educated folk, would not have caused costly copies of a very lengthy work to be multiplied, and ill.u.s.trated by artists possessing the highest skill, unless it had some meaning to them, and was necessary for the attainment by them of the life which is beyond the grave. The "finds" of recent years in Egypt have resulted in the recovery of valuable texts whereby numerous difficulties have been cleared away; and we must hope that the faults made in translating to-day may be corrected by the discoveries of to-morrow. In spite of all difficulties, both textual and grammatical, sufficient is now known of the Egyptian religion to prove, with certainty, that the Egyptians possessed, some six thousand years ago, a religion and a system of morality which, when stripped of all corrupt accretions, stand second to none among those which have been developed by the greatest nations of the world.

E. A. WALLIS BUDGE.

LONDON, _August 21st_, 1899.

CHAPTER I.

THE BELIEF IN G.o.d ALMIGHTY.

A study of ancient Egyptian religious texts will convince the reader that the Egyptians believed in One G.o.d, who was self-existent, immortal, invisible, eternal, omniscient, almighty, and inscrutable; the maker of the heavens, earth, and underworld; the creator of the sky and the sea, men and women, animals and birds, fish and creeping things, trees and plants, and the incorporeal beings who were the messengers that fulfilled his wish and word. It is necessary to place this definition of the first part of the belief of the Egyptian at the beginning of the first chapter of this brief account of the princ.i.p.al religious ideas which he held, for the whole of his theology and religion was based upon it; and it is also necessary to add that, however far back we follow his literature, we never seem to approach a time when he was without this remarkable belief. It is true that he also developed polytheistic ideas and beliefs, and that he cultivated them at certain periods of his history with diligence, and to such a degree that the nations around, and even the stranger in his country, were misled by his actions, and described him as a polytheistic idolater. But notwithstanding all such departures from observances, the keeping of which befitted those who believed in G.o.d and his unity, this sublime idea was never lost sight of; on the contrary, it is reproduced in the religious literature of all periods. Whence came this remarkable characteristic of the Egyptian religion no man can say, and there is no evidence whatsoever to guide us in formulating the theory that it was brought into Egypt by immigrants from the East, as some have said, or that it was a natural product of the indigenous peoples who formed the population of the valley of the Nile some ten thousand years ago, according to the opinion of others.

All that is known is that it existed there at a period so remote that it is useless to attempt to measure by years the interval of time which has elapsed since it grew up and established itself in the minds of men, and that it is exceedingly doubtful if we shall ever have any very definite knowledge on this interesting point.

But though we know nothing about the period of the origin in Egypt of the belief in the existence of an almighty G.o.d who was One, the inscriptions show us that this Being was called by a name which was something like _Neter_, [Footnote: There is no _e_ in Egyptian, and this vowel is added merely to make the word p.r.o.nounceable.] the picture sign for which was an axe-head, made probably of stone, let into a long wooden handle. The coloured picture character shews that the axe-head was fastened into the handle by thongs of leather or string, and judging by the general look of the object it must have been a formidable weapon in strong, skilled hands. A theory has recently been put forward to the effect that the picture character represents a stick with a bit of coloured rag tied to the, but it will hardly commend itself to any archaeologist. The lines which cross the side of the axe-head represent string or strips of leather, and indicate that it was made of stone which, being brittle, was liable to crack; the picture characters which delineate the object in the latter dynasties shew that metal took the place of the stone axe-head, and being tough the new substance needed no support. The mightiest man in the prehistoric days was he who had the best weapon, and knew how to wield it with the greatest effect; when the prehistoric hero of many fights and victories pa.s.sed to his rest, his own or a similar weapon was buried with him to enable him to wage war successfully in the next world. The mightiest man had the largest axe, and the axe thus became the symbol of the mightiest man. As he, by reason of the oft-told narrative of his doughty deeds at the prehistoric camp fire at eventide, in course of time pa.s.sed from the rank of a hero to that of a G.o.d, the axe likewise pa.s.sed from being the symbol of a hero to that of a G.o.d. Far away back in the early dawn of civilization in Egypt, the object which I identify as an axe may have had some other signification, but if it had, it was lost long before the period of the rule of the dynasties in that country.

Pa.s.sing now to the consideration of the meaning of the name for G.o.d, _neter_, we find that great diversity of opinion exists among Egyptologists on the subject. Some, taking the view that the equivalent of the word exists in Coptic, under the form of _Nuti_, and because Coptic is an ancient Egyptian dialect, have sought to deduce its meaning by seeking in that language for the root from which the word may be derived. But all such attempts have had no good result, because the word _Nuti_ stands by itself, and instead of being derived from a Coptic root is itself the equivalent of the Egyptian _neter_, [Footnote: The letter _r_ has dropped out in Coptic through phonetic decay.] and was taken over by the translators of the Holy Scriptures from that language to express the words "G.o.d" and "Lord." The Coptic root _nomti_ cannot in any way be connected with _nuti_, and the attempt to prove that the two are related was only made with the view of helping to explain the fundamentals of the Egyptian religion by means of Sanskrit and other Aryan a.n.a.logies. It is quite possible that the word _neter_ means "strength," "power," and the like, but these are only some of its derived meanings, and we have to look in the hieroglyphic inscriptions for help in order to determine its most probable meaning. The eminent French Egyptologist, E. de Rouge, connected the name of G.o.d, _neter_, with the other word _neter_, "renewal" or "renovation," and it would, according to his view, seem as if the fundamental idea of G.o.d was that of the Being who had the power to renew himself perpetually--or in other words, "self-existence." The late Dr. H. Brugsch partly accepted this view, for he defined _neter_ as being "the active power which produces and creates things in regular recurrence; which bestows new life upon them, and gives back to them their youthful vigour." [Footnote: _Religion und Mythologie_, p. 93.] There seems to be no doubt that, inasmuch as it is impossible to find any one word which will render _neter_ adequately and satisfactorily, "self-existence" and "possessing the power to renew life indefinitely," may together be taken as the equivalent of _neter_ in our own tongue, M. Maspero combats rightly the attempt to make "strong" the meaning of _neter_ (masc.), or _neterit_ (fem.) in these words: "In the expressions 'a town _neterit_ 'an arm _neteri_,' ... is it certain that 'a strong city,' 'a strong arm,' give us the primitive sense of _neter_? When among ourselves one says 'divine music,' 'a piece of divine poetry,' 'the divine taste of a peach,' 'the divine beauty of a woman,' [the word] divine is a hyperbole, but it would be a mistake to declare that it originally meant 'exquisite'

because in the phrases which I have imagined one could apply it as 'exquisite music,' 'a piece of exquisite poetry,' 'the exquisite taste of a peach,' 'the exquisite beauty of a woman.' Similarly, in Egyptian, 'a town _neterit_ is 'a divine town;' 'an arm _netsri_' is 'a divine arm,' and _neteri_ is employed metaphorically in Egyptian as is [the word] 'divine' in French, without its being any more necessary to attribute to [the word] _neteri_ the primitive meaning of 'strong,' than it is to attribute to [the word] 'divine' the primitive meaning of 'exquisite.'" [Footnote: _La Mythologie Egyptienne_, p. 215.] It may be, of course, that _neter_ had another meaning which is now lost, but it seems that the great difference between G.o.d and his messengers and created things is that he is the Being who is self-existent and immortal, whilst they are not self-existent and are mortal.

Here it will be objected by those who declare that the ancient Egyptian idea of G.o.d is on a level with that evolved by peoples and tribes who stand comparatively little removed from very intelligent animals, that such high conceptions as self-existence and immortality belong to a people who are already on a high grade of development and civilization.

This is precisely the case with the Egyptians when we first know them.

As a matter of fact, we know nothing of their ideas of G.o.d before they developed sufficiently to build the monuments which we know they built, and before they possessed the religion, and civilization, and complex social system which their writings have revealed to us. In the remotest prehistoric times it is probable that their views about G.o.d and the future life were little better than those of the savage tribes, now living, with whom some have compared them. The primitive G.o.d was an essential feature of the family, and the fortunes of the G.o.d varied with the fortunes of the family; the G.o.d of the city in which a man lived was regarded as the ruler of the city, and the people of that city no more thought of neglecting to provide him with what they considered to be due to his rank and position than they thought of neglecting to supply their own wants. In fact the G.o.d of the city became the centre of the social fabric of that city, and every inhabitant thereof inherited automatically certain duties, the neglect of which brought stated pains and penalties upon him. The remarkable peculiarity of the Egyptian religion is that the primitive idea of the G.o.d of the city is always cropping up in it, and that is the reason why we find semi-savage ideas of G.o.d side by side with some of the most sublime conceptions, and it of course underlies all the legends of the G.o.ds wherein they possess all the attributes of men and women. The Egyptian in his semi-savage state was neither better nor worse than any other man in the same stage of civilization, but he stands easily first among the nations in his capacity for development, and in his ability for evolving conceptions concerning G.o.d and the future life, which are claimed as the peculiar product of the cultured nations of our time.

We must now, however, see how the word for G.o.d, _neter_, is employed in religious texts and in works which contain moral precepts. In the text of Unas, [Footnote: Ed Maspero, _Pyramides de Saqqarah_; p. 25.] a king who reigned about B.C. 3300, we find the pa.s.sage:--"That which is sent by thy _ka_ cometh to thee, that which is sent by thy father cometh to thee, that which is sent by R[=a] cometh to thee, and it arriveth in the train of thy R[=a]. Thou art pure, thy bones are the G.o.ds and the G.o.ddesses of heaven, thou existest at the side of G.o.d, thou art unfastened, thou comest forth towards thy soul, for every evil word (or thing) which hath been written in the name of Unas hath been done away."

And, again, in the text of Teta, [Footnote: _Ibid_., p. 113.] in the pa.s.sage which refers to the place in the eastern part of heaven "where the G.o.ds give birth unto themselves, where that to which they give birth is born, and where they renew their youth," it is said of this king, "Teta standeth up in the form of the star...he weigheth words (_or_ trieth deeds), and behold G.o.d hearkeneth unto that which he saith."

Elsewhere [Footnote: Ed. Maspero, _Pyramides da Saqqarah_, p. 111.] in the same text we read, "Behold, Teta hath arrived in the height of heaven, and the _henmemet_ beings have seen him; the Semketet [Footnote: The morning boat of the sun.] boat knoweth him, and it is Teta who saileth it, and the M[=a]ntchet [Footnote: The evening boat of the sun.]

boat calleth unto him, and it is Teta who bringeth it to a standstill.

Teta hath seen his body in the Semketet boat, he knoweth the uraeus which is in the M[=a]ntchet boat, and G.o.d hath called him in his name...and hath taken him in to R[=a]." And again [Footnote: _Ibid_., p.

150.] we have: "Thou hast received the form (_or_ attribute) of G.o.d, and thou hast become great therewith before the G.o.ds"; and of Pepi I., who reigned about B.C. 3000, it is said, "This Pepi is G.o.d, the son of G.o.d."

[Footnote: _Ibid_., p. 222.] Now in these pa.s.sages the allusion is to the supreme Being in the next world, the Being who has the power to invoke and to obtain a favourable reception for the deceased king by R[=a], the Sun-G.o.d, the type and symbol of G.o.d. It may, of course, be urged that the word _neter_ here refers to Osiris, but it is not customary to speak of this G.o.d in such a way in the texts; and even if we admit that it does, it only shows that the powers of G.o.d have been attributed to Osiris, and that he was believed to occupy the position in respect of R[=a] and the deceased which the supreme Being himself occupied. In the last two extracts given above we might read "a G.o.d"

instead of "G.o.d," but there is no object in the king receiving the form or attribute of a nameless G.o.d; and unless Pepi becomes the son of G.o.d; the honour which the writer of that text intends to ascribe to the king becomes little and even ridiculous.

Pa.s.sing from religious texts to works containing moral precepts, we find much light thrown upon the idea of G.o.d by the writings of the early sages of Egypt. First and foremost among these are the "Precepts of Kaqemna" and the "Precepts of Ptah-hetep," works which were composed as far back as B.C. 3000. The oldest copy of them which we possess is, unfortunately, not older than B.C. 2500, but this fact in no way affects our argument. These "precepts" are intended to form a work of direction and guidance for a young man in the performance of his duty towards the society in which he lived and towards his G.o.d. It is only fair to say that the reader will look in vain in them for the advice which is found in writings of a similar character composed at a later period; but as a work intended to demonstrate the "whole duty of man" to the youth of the time when the Great Pyramid was still a new building, these "precepts"

are very remarkable. The idea of G.o.d held by Ptah-hetep is ill.u.s.trated by the following pa.s.sages:--

1. "Thou shalt make neither man nor woman to be afraid, for G.o.d is opposed thereto; and if any man shall say that he will live thereby, He will make him to want bread."

2. "As for the n.o.bleman who possesseth abundance of goods, he may act according to his own dictates; and he may do with himself that which he pleaseth; if he will do nothing at all, that also is as he pleaseth. The n.o.bleman by merely stretching out his hand doeth that which mankind (_or_ a person) cannot attain to; but inasmuch as the eating of bread is according to the plan of G.o.d, this cannot be gainsaid."

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."