Book Read Free

The Temple of Set II

Page 6

by Michael A Aquino


  salient characteristics of the Egyptian political system. To begin with, it was cyclic rather than linear.

  Individual pharaohs and dynasties came and went, but the social system and political structure remained

  constant. Each successive pharaoh, for example, was merely the momentary personification of a permanent,

  semi-divine entity that governed Egypt in the name of the gods. The nation itself was not viewed as merely

  one in a series of political units located in northeast Africa; it had existed as a divine creation before

  recorded history, and it would continue to exist indefinitely. Various natural cycles and human lifetimes

  would impact upon it, but the essence of Egypt would remain untouched by [linear] time. 9 Consider, for

  example, the following hieroglyphic inscription accompanying an image of the scarab-beetle Xepera,

  principle of cyclical regeneration and immortality:

  I was the spirit in the Primeval Waters. He who had no companion when his name Came Into Being.

  The most ancient form in which I Came Into Being was as a drowned one. I was he who Came Into

  2 Stecchini, Livio, “Notes on the Relation of Ancient Measures to the Great Pyramid” in Tompkins, Peter, Secrets of the Great

  Pyramid, pages 287-382.

  3 Cottrell, Leonard, Life Under the Pharaohs, pages 189-191.

  4 Casson, Lionel, Ancient Egypt, page 146.

  5 Ibid., page 141.

  6 Ibid.

  7 Tompkins, op. cit., pages 3-4.

  8 Berlitz, Charles, Mysteries from Forgotten Worlds, page 36.

  9 Compare this to the Chinese view of China as the “Middle Kingdom” ( Chhung kuo), the “focus” of civilization and creativity.

  - 25 -

  Being as a circle. He who was the Dweller in his Egg. I was the one who began everything, the

  Dweller in the Primeval Waters. First the Wind emerged for me, and then I began to move. I created

  my limbs in my glory. I was the maker of myself; I formed myself according to my desire and in

  accord with my heart. 10

  The Chimæra: If each pharaoh were held to be divinely-appointed, what was the actual selection procedure? And

  how could a human-supervised selection procedure retain credibility as a divine process?

  The Sphinx: It compares rather intriguingly with the system for selection of philosopher-kings in the Republic.

  During stable dynasties new pharaohs were selected from among the male offspring of the late pharaoh.

  There was more latitude in this process than one might think, because (a) pharaohs generally had many

  wives and concubines, resulting in scores of children, and (b) the education and selection of pharaohs were

  handled by colleges of priests, themselves detached from the secular government but exercising a sort of

  guardianship over it. Unsuitable princes were either diverted to harmless careers or simply assassinated.

  With the exception of a few temporary puppet-kings or usurpers, then, Egyptian monarchs were generally

  priest-kings [an intentional reference to the Atlantean tern in the Critias] of exceptional calibre. Incumbent

  pharaohs who began to behave in maverick fashion [such as Akhenaten, the monotheist mystic of the XVIII

  Dynasty] were also assassinated with the tacit consent of the priesthood. This method of “impeachment”

  does not seem to have been abused, because an attack on the divine pharaoh for purely-partisan motives

  would have been thought extremely ill-omened. Only for an obvious betrayal of the pharaoh’s sacred trust -

  as determined by the priesthood - could assassination be contemplated.

  The Chimæra: What sort of legal system did the Egyptians have?

  The Sphinx: Now we enter some particularly interesting territory from a Platonic standpoint. As far as can be

  deduced from surviving records, bureaucratic and judicial affairs were not conducted according to a

  centralized legal code superior to the judgment of individual officials. Such officials were given a more-or-

  less free hand within their respective areas of responsibility - contingent, of course, upon the maintenance

  of order, payment of taxes, and general preservation of a harmonious attitude among the people. There

  were no legislated standards of good and evil/right and wrong. Justice was meted out ad hoc according to

  each supervisory official’s concept of fairness and equity. The Egyptians prized this system very highly; it

  was personified by the goddess Maat. When an Egyptian died, a feather from Maat’s crown would be

  weighed against his heart to determine whether he would be granted a pleasant repose in Amenti or be torn

  limb from limb by monsters from the Tuat. I expect that would-be crooks were inhibited accordingly, since

  the Egyptian religion was taken quite literally. Consider the following inscription, dating from one of the

  earliest Old Kingdom dynasties of Egypt [and compare it to the concept of Tao]:

  If thou art a leader who directs the affairs of a multitude, strive after every excellence until there be

  no fault in thy nature. Maat is good, and its worth is lasting. It has not been disturbed since the day

  of its creator, whereas he who transgresses its ordinances is punished. It lies as a path even in front

  of him who knows nothing. Wrongdoing has never yet brought its venture to port. It is true that evil

  may gain wealth, but the strength of truth is that it lasts; a man can say, “It was the property of my

  father.” 11

  The Chimæra: A rather interesting contrast to the governments of Mesopotamia, Persia, and Greece, all of which

  laid stress upon codified law. I expect you are leading up to a comparison to the Republic and Statesman,

  wherein Plato argues for specially-trained or specially-gifted rulers above the law. Are you going to suggest

  that Plato took the Egyptian system as an ideal governmental model?

  The Sphinx: Let’s not jump the spear on this. I have a few other points to make concerning the Egyptian system

  proper; then we’ll look into the matter of its actual links with Plato. Again bearing the recommendations of

  the Republic in mind, consider the following: Almost uniquely within the ancient world, Egypt was free

  from hereditary caste, racial, or sexual discrimination in political affairs. A social aristocracy was created by

  property-inheritance, but a scion of poor or even unknown parentage might just as easily rise to high office

  upon demonstrating suitable prowess. At various times the throne was held by Negroes, Persians,

  Mesopotamians, Greeks, and assorted Asians without racial objections being raised. Women enjoyed the

  same “citizenship” status as men, including choice of mate and inheritance of property. Queens such as

  Nefertiti and Ty wielded as much or more power than their consorts, and female pharaohs such as

  10 Clark, R.T., Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt, page 74.

  11 Frankfort, Henri, Ancient Egyptian Religion, page 62.

  - 26 -

  Hatshepsut and Cleopatra ruled Egypt as decisively and with as much popular sport as did male pharaohs.

  Even in the Egyptian religious pantheon, gods and goddesses enjoyed equal prestige.

  The Chimæra: To an observer this extraordinary flexibility and tolerance might well account for the staying-power

  of the Egyptian system, in spite of the occasional invasions, occupations, and even civil wars that took place

  there. When the dust cleared, so to speak, the political and social institutions remained intact.

  The Sphinx: Precisely. Egypt was no more a utopia than any other human-run society was, is, or will be. There

  were power-struggles, epidemics of corruption,
popular revolts, and all the rest. During the Middle

  Kingdom (2150-1792 BCE) a pessimistic Pharaoh Amenemhet I advised Crown Prince Senwosret:

  Harken to that which I say to thee,

  That thou mayest be king of the earth,

  That thou mayest be ruler of the lands,

  That thou mayest increase good.

  Harden thyself against all subordinates.

  The people give heed to him who terrorizes them;

  Approach them not alone.

  Fill not thy heart with a brother,

  Know not a friend,

  Nor make for thyself intimates,

  Wherein there is no end.

  When thou sleepest, guard for thyself thine own heart;

  For a man has no people in the day of evil.

  I gave to the beggar, I nourished the orphan;

  I admitted the insignificant, as well as him who was of great account.

  But he who ate my food made insurrection;

  He to whom I gave my hand aroused fear in my heart. 12

  The Chimæra: But the institutions survived, and on the whole Egyptians were able to boast of a far more stable,

  prosperous, and inspiring society than those of the other Mediterranean countries. That is your point?

  The Sphinx: Yes. By contrast the Greece of Plato’s time was in pretty sorry shape. The various city-states couldn’t

  even maintain stable governments of their own, much less get along with each other. Elitist systems such as

  that of Sparta were vulnerable to tyranny by strongmen; democratic Athens suffered from demagoguery and

  dictatorships. The much-vaunted philosophers were tolerated only as long as they were not thought to be

  actual threats. When they were inconvenient, as Plato and Aristotle had occasion to observe, hemlock or

  banishment awaited. Great principles of religion and/or philosophy were ridiculed in favor of Sophistic

  opportunism. Yet -and I think this is an important point - the Greeks had demonstrated that they were quite

  capable of high intellectual achievement. They had produced a number of noteworthy philosophers, artists,

  statesmen, architects, and military leaders. What they had not produced was a stable cultural environment

  in which such talent could be nurtured. In his politically-oriented dialogues, therefore, Plato sought a

  system of government that could achieve this stability without being as dictatorial as, say, the Persian or

  Assyrian monarchies. In Egypt, if in fact he realized it, he had a near-exact functioning model of his

  Republic - and one which was working quite well.

  The Chimæra: ... If he realized it! So the problem is now to discover what connections, if any, Plato had with

  Egypt. Are the Dialogues of any help?

  The Sphinx: No, they aren’t. There are a very few passing references to Egypt, but nothing of any substance. It

  would be discouraging if it were not for the fact that the Pythagoreans are similarly ignored. That makes the

  situation a bit suspect. If Plato’s links with Egypt are tenuous, his links with the Pythagoreans are beyond

  doubt. The geometric passages in the Timæus are virtually pure Pythagorean doctrine. And, from a political

  point of view, the Pythagoreans represented the extreme of initiated elitism that Plato juxtaposed to

  Sophistry. To the Sophists, human values were purely relative to custom, convention, and practical

  necessity; to the Pythagoreans, values were eternal, unchanging, and universal - the “Platonic” Forms. How

  is it that the Pythagoreans came to hold this point of view? Let us look to Pythagoras himself for the answer.

  The Chimæra: Back to the Stanley text. I see that most of its biographical entries concerning Pythagoras are

  footnoted to Iamblicus, a fourth-century CE Neoplatonist, and from Diogenes Laertius, writing about a

  12 Fairservis, Walter A., The Ancient Kingdoms of the Nile, pages 98-99.

  - 27 -

  century earlier. Specific passages dealing with Pythagoras’ stay in Egypt are footnoted to Porphyrus and

  Clemens Alexandrinus as well. In Chapter III “How he travelled to Phœnicia” we read:

  He made a voyage to Sidon, as well out of a natural desire to the place itself, esteeming it his

  country, as conceiving that he might more easily pass from thence into Egypt.

  Here he conferred with the Prophets, successors of Mocus the Physiologist, and with others, and

  with the Phoenician Priests, and was initiated into all the mysteries of Byblus, and Tyre, and sundry

  of the principal sacred institutions in divers other parts of Syria, not undergoing these things out of

  Superstition, as may be imagined; but out of love to knowledg, and a fear, lest any thing worthy to

  be known, which was preserved amongst them, in the miracles or mysteries of the gods, might

  escape him. Withal, not being ignorant, that the rites of those places were deduced from the

  Egyptian ceremonies, by means whereof he hoped to participate of the more sublime and divine

  mysteries in Egypt, which he pursued with admiration, as his Master Thales had advised him. 13

  The Sphinx: Two rather intriguing points - first that Mesopotamian initiatory priesthoods were thought to be

  corruptions or derivations of their Egyptian counterparts, and secondly that Pythagoras undertook this

  quest on the advice of Thales. Thales was reputed to have been born of a Phœnician mother, and it is more-

  or-less reliably established that he studied the science of geometry in Egypt. 14 But please continue

  The Chimæra: Here are some extracts from Chapter IV “How he travell’d to Egypt”:

  Antiphon, in his Book concerning such as were eminent for virtue, extolleth his perceverance when

  he was in Egypt, saying, Pythagoras designing to become acquainted with the institution of the

  Egyptian Priests, and diligently endeavoring to participate thereof, desired Polycrates the Tyrant to

  write to Amasis King of Egypt, with whom he had friendship (as appears also by Herodotus) and

  hospitality, (formerly) that he might be admitted to the aforesaid Doctrine. Coming to Amasis,

  Amasis gave him Letters to the Priests, and going first to those of Heliopolis, they sent him to the

  Priest of Memphis, as the more ancient, which was indeed but a pretence of the Heliopolitans: [For

  the Egyptians imparted not their mysteries to every one, nor committed the knowledg of Divine

  things to profane persons, but to those only who were to inherit the Kingdom; and, of Priests, to

  those who were adjudged to excel the rest in education, learning, and descent.] From Memphis,

  upon the same pretence, he was sent to Thebes. They not daring, for fear of the King, to pretend

  excuses; but thinking, that by reason of the greatness and difficulty thereof, he would desist from

  the design, enjoyned him very hard precepts, wholly different from the institution of the Grecians,

  which he readily performed, to their so great admiration, that they gave him power to sacrifice to

  the gods, and to acquaint himself with all their studies, which was never known to have been

  granted to any forraigner besides. Clemens Alexandrinus relates particularly, that he was disciple to

  Sonchedes, an Egyptian Arch-prophet.15

  The Sphinx: Again something catches my eye - that comment about Egyptian initiation normally being reserved

  for the pharaoh and the priesthood alone. In the Statesman Plato writes:

  For the priest and the diviner have great social standing and a keen sense of their own importance.

  They win veneration and respect because of the high tasks they undertake. This is shown in the fact

  that in Egypt none can be king unless he belon
gs to the priestly caste, and if a man of some other

  caste succeeds in forcing his way to the throne, he must then be made a priest by special

  ordination. 16

  The Chimæra: Now how would Plato come to know that bit of information, unless he were party to policies within

  the Egyptian priesthoods?

  The Sphinx: It is always possible that he heard it from the Pythagoreans, although it seems only incidental to the

  sort of doctrines that Pythagoreans would be inclined to discuss. So here we may have a link directly

  between Plato and the Egyptian initiatory orders. Continue with the material from Stanley.

  13 Stanley, Thomas, The History of Philosophy, page 494.

  14 Asimov, Isaac, Asimov’s Biographical Encyclopædia of Science and Technology, page 2.

  15 Stanley, op. cit. , page 94.

  16 Plato, Collected Dialogues, page 1059.

  - 28 -

  The Chimæra:

  Diogenes saith, that whilst he lived with these Priests, he was instructed in the Learning and

  Language (as Antiphon also affirms) of the Egyptians, and in their three kinds of writing, Epistolick,

  Hieroglyphick, and Symbolick; whereof one imitates the common way of speaking; the rest

  allegorical, by Ænigms. They who are taught by the Egyptians, learn first the method of all the

  Egyptian Letters, which is called Epistilographick; the second, Hieratick, used by those who write of

  sacred things; the last and most perfect Hieroglyphick, whereof one is Curiologick, the other,

  Symbolick. Of the Symbolick, one is properly spoken by imitation, another is written as it were

  Tropically; another on the contrary doth allegorize by Ænigms. For instance, in the Kyriologick way,

  to express the Sun, they make a Circle; the Moon a Crescent. Tropically they do properly traduce,

  and transfer, and express by exchanging some things, and variously transfiguring others. Thus when

  they deliver the praises of Kings, in Theological Fables, they write by Anaglyphicks. Of the third

  kind, by Ænigms, let this be an example: All other Stars, by reason of their oblique course, they

  likened to the bodies of serpents, but the Sun to that of a Beetle, because having formed a ball of

 

‹ Prev