 |
Is “sothis” a forgery? . The arguments of encyclopædism refuted. The Seriadic land
|
|
|
|
IS “SOTHIS” A FORGERY?
This natural line of descent of the fundamental doctrines in the tradition of the Trismegistic literature, however, is scouted by encyclopæ dism, which would have our sermons to be Neoplatonic forgeries, though on what slender grounds it bases its view we have already seen. It will now be interesting to see how the testimony of Manetho is disposed of. Our encyclopæ dias tell us that the book Sothis is obviously a late forgery; parrot-like they repeat this statement; but nowhere in them do we find a single word of proof brought forward. Let us then see whether any scholars have dealt with the problem outside of encyclopæ dism. Very little work has been done on the subject. The fullest summary of the position is given by C. Mü ller. 1 Mü ller bases his assertion on Bö ckh, 2 and Bö ckh on Letronne. 3
p. 108
The arguments are as follows: (i. ) That the term “venerable” (σ ε β α σ τ ό ς ) is not used prior to the time of the Roman emperors; (ii. ) that Egypt knows no flood; (iii. ) that the ancient mythology of Egypt knows no first and second Hermes; (iv. ) that Egypt has no Seriadic land; (v. ) that the term “Trismegistus” is of late use.
THE ARGUMENTS OF ENCYCLOPÆ DISM REFUTED
Let us take these arguments in order and examine them, bearing in mind, however, that the whole question has been prejudiced from the start, and that encyclopæ dism, in order to maintain its hypothesis of the spuriousness of our Trismegistic writings, is bound to argue the spuriousness of Manetho’s Sothis. The categorical statements of Manetho are exceedingly distressing to the former hypothesis; in fact, they give it the lie direct. As to the arguments, then:
(i. ) The term σ ε β α σ τ ό ς is in later times equated with “Augustus, ” the honorific title of the Roman emperors. Therefore, it is argued, it could not have been used prior to their times. But why not? The king to an Egyptian was divine—every inscription proves it—and the term “venerable” was in early times always applied to the Gods. Why not then apply it to the “Great King”? Indeed, what could be more natural than to do so?
(ii. ) We have already shown that, according to Plato, Egypt knew most accurately of a Flood; Plato further tells us that Solon got his information from the priests of Saï s, who told him that all the records were preserved in the temple of Neï th.
It is not here the place to discuss the Atlanticum of Plato and the long history of opinion connected with
p. 109
it, for that would require a volume in itself. I have, however, acquainted myself with all the arguments for and against the authenticity of at least the germ of this tradition, and with the problems of comparative mythology and folklore involved in it, and also with the recent literature of the subject which seeks to corroborate the main conceptions of Plato by the researches of seership. All this, taken in conjunction with the general subject of the “myths” of Plato, and the latest views on this subject, has convinced me that the greatest of Greek philosophers did not jest when, his dialectic having gone as far as it could, he sought refuge in the mystery-traditions for corroboration of those intuitions which his unaided intellect could not demonstrate.
|
|
|
It can of course be argued that every reference to a flood in Egyptian Hellenistic literature is but a repetition of what the incredulous must regard as Plato’s brilliant romance; but in this connection, as in many others, it is equally arguable that all such references—Plato’s included—are derivable from one and the same source—namely, Egypt herself.
And, indeed, on 9th November 1904, at a meeting of the Society of Biblical Archæ ology, a paper by Professor Naville was read by Mr F. Legge on “A Mention of a Flood in the Book of the Dead. ” The flood in question is that described in the Leyden version as Ch. clxxv. 1
(iii. ) Cicero (106-44 B. C. ) speaks of five Mercurii, the last two of whom were Egyptian. 2 One was the “son of Father Nile, ” whose name the Egyptians considered it impiety to pronounce—and for whom, presumably, they substituted the term Agathodaimon; and the
p. 110
second was the later Thoyth, the-founder of Hermopolis. 1 Cicero could hardly have invented this; it must have been a commonplace of his day, most probably derived in the first instance from the writings of Manetho, from which generally the Greeks, and those imbued with Greek culture, derived all their information about Egypt.
And, indeed, Reitzenstein (p. 139), though he refers the information given by Syncellus to a Pseudo-Manetho (without a word of explanation, however), admits that the genealogy of Hermes there given is in its main features old. 2
THE SERIADIC LAND
(iv. ) The statement that Egypt knew no Seriadic land or country seems to be a confident assertion, but the following considerations may perhaps throw a different light on the matter.
In the astronomical science of the Egyptians the most conspicuous solar system near our own, represented in the heavens by the brilliant Sirius, was of supreme interest. Cycles of immense importance were determined by it, and it entered into the highest mysticism of Egyptian initiation. Sirius was, as it were, the guardian star of Egypt. Now ancient Egypt was a sacred land, laid out in its nomes or provinces according to the heavens, having centres in its body corresponding to the centres or ganglia of the heavens. As the Hindus had a Heavenly Ganges (Ā kā sha-Gangā ) and an earthly Ganges, so had the heavens a Celestial
p. 111
[paragraph continues] Nile, and Egypt a physical Nile, the life-giver of the land. The yearly inundation, which meant and means everything for ancient and modern Khem, was observed with great minuteness, and recorded with immense pains, the basis of its cycle being the Sothiac or Siriadic; Sirius (Seirios) being called in Greek transliteration Sothis and Seth (Eg. Sepṭ ). What more natural name, then, to give to the country than the Seriadic Land?
The Nile records in ancient times were self-registered by pyramids, obelisks, and temples, and in later times nearly all monuments were built according to the type of the masonic instruments of the Egyptian astrogeological science. This science has been studied in our own times by an Egyptian, and the results of his researches have been printed “for private circulation, ” and a copy of them is to be found in the British Museum. In his Preface the author writes as follows: 1
|
|
|
“The astrogeological science gave birth to a monumental system, by means of which the fruits of the accumulated observations and experience of the human race have been preserved, outliving writings, inscriptions, traditions, and nationalities. The principal monuments had imparted to them the essential property of being autochronous landmarks of a geochronological nature. Many of them recorded, hydromathematically, the knowledge in astronomy, in geography, and in the dimension and figure of the earth obtained in their respective epochs. They were Siriadic monuments, because their magistral lines were projected to the scale
p. 112
of the revolutions of the cycles of the star Surios (sic) in terms of the standard astrogeological cubit. ”
Doubtless our author flogs his theory too severely, as all such writers do; but nilometry and the rest was certainly one of the most important branches of the priestly science.
|
|
|
