Egyptian belief and modern thought / by James Bonwick.

  • James Bonwick
Date:
1878
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Egyptian belief and modern thought / by James Bonwick. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    103/474 (page 89)
    plete absence of the figures of the gods in the midst of the innumerable scenes which the mastaba of the ancient Empire have given back to us, is, in fact, an anomaly which constitutes a very decided’character.” We read of “ an intentional absence of the representations of divini- ties,” even as late as the thirteenth dynasty. Only their names appear. And yet, as the Emperor Julian observes: “ He who is a lover of Divinity, gladly surveys the statues and images of the gods, at the same time venerating and fearing with a holy dread the gods who invisibly behold him.” If the stone before mentioned be accepted, as Mariette Bey admits, then, as he says, Cheops “ renewed the personal of the statues of gold, silver, bronze, and wood, which adorned the sanctuary.^’ The Disk worshippers were certainly opposed to image worship, which was by force put down by Amenoph III. We will now turn to the gods themselves. The Egyptian gods were many, but nothing in pro- portion to the thirty thousand assumed for Greek worship, or the millions for Hindoo. Many names are given to the same deity ; that is, to the same expression of thought. The multitude of Divinities could be reduced TO THE FEW SIMPLE ATTRIBUTES OF THE GODHEAD. Lenormant put it another way: “All the tribes of its gods may be reduced to a very small number of elements, infinitely diversified in outward expression.” Grebant calls them “ names which one Being received in its dif- ferent roles Pierret writes: “The innumerable gods of the Pantheon are only the nnse en seine of the unique god in his different roles. Beauregard says : “ The Egyptian religion has the communion of Divine essences, as Chris- tianity has the communion of saints.” He styles the gods plasUc hieroglyphs. Well might Epicurus declare : “ The