90 



KNOWLEDGE - 



[Feeruary 1, 1888. 



(g Sf S( I p. 



By Eiciiard A. Proctor. 



A coRREsroNDENT kiiiilly sends me tbe following cheerful 

 note : — 



I have been in communication with a competent authority upon 

 the subject of the assertions respecting Osiris and Horus made by 

 3'ou in Knowledge for October 188G, p. 346. This gentleman 

 (sic .') says of these remarlis : "The statement in question is utterly 

 false. It is not founded upon a mistake, but is a deliberate fraud 

 — which can hardly be called a y^i'tfus one. It is a lie, and nothing 

 else." Further on in his letter he says: "The writer" (I did not 

 name you, sir, nor your magazine) " of the passages quoted is a 

 deliberate liar, and there is no other judgment to be passed upon 

 him." 



As I am anxious to examine the evidence adduced by you for 

 myself, I should feel greatly obliged if you would furnish me with 

 your authorities. The statements I wish verified are that Osiris 

 and Horus were virgin-born ; that a star appeared in the east on 

 December 25 ; that Osiris was at that time e.xhibited in effigy (will 

 you please give the exact reference to tbe " Chronicles of Alexan- 

 dria") ; and that Horus w.as worshipped at Christmas time. I may 

 also add that I have been unable to (ind the name of Pigord, from 

 whom you quote in the foot-no^e, in any biographical dictionary. 

 These particulars would, dear sir, bs very acceptable. 



* * * 



I regret much that I aui unable to give my polite corre- 

 spondent the exact reference to the " Chronicles of Alex- 

 andria," a work which I do not possess, and believe to have 

 been non-existent — save in certain passages by ancient 

 authors — for many centuries. Mr. Bonwick, who refers to 

 the Chronicles in his " Egyptian Belief and Modern Thought" 

 (published by Kegan Paul & Co.), see pp. 143 and 1.57, may 

 be able to tell my correspondent moreon this point. Pigord 

 (misprinted Pigord) is quoted by lliggins in his " Anacalyp- 

 sis," vol. ii., p. 102. As another authority I would name 

 M. Le Clerk de Septelemes's " Religion of the Ancient 

 Greeks," p. 214, where it is mentioned that the ancient 

 Egyptians fixed the pregnancy of Isis (the Qaeen of 

 Heaven, and Virgin Mother of the Saviour Horus) in the 

 last days of March, and assigned the commemoration of her 

 delivery to the last day of December. For the star, see 

 article in this number on the " Star of Bethlehem." 



* * * 



As for the virgin birth of both Horus aird O.siris, it has 

 been universally admitted that Isis, the mother of Horus, 

 and Neith, the mother of Osiris, were virgin goddesses ; 

 Seb, the father of Osiris, was simply the celestial fire, and 

 Osiris in turn only in a mystical sense and as Deity the 

 parent of Horus. Both Horus and Osiris are called " self- 

 begotten " as well as '" virgin-born," their mothers being 

 deities. I do not profess to be an authority, however, about 

 such asserted proces.ses, whether of self conception or of 

 incarnation. They cannot be regarded as belonging either 

 to history or to exact science. 



* * * 



It has been suggested by Mariette Bey, as formerly by 

 the Abbe Dupuis, that Osiris was the nocturnal sun, Horus 

 the sun of day. Volumes might be written, indeed, about 

 the various suggestions which have been made respecting 

 the Egyptian deities. I should have to refer niy correspond- 

 ent to a whole library of books for fall information on such 

 points, but it is abundantly clear that both Osiris and 

 Horus were solar deities, and, like all solar deities, regarded 

 as virgin born, and brought forth at the time of the winter 

 solstice — determined in each age by the heliacal rising of 

 some .special star — with a number of other details reproduced 

 again and again in the histories of long-departed heroes or 

 teachers, even when the original lives of these had had 

 nothing to do with the sun's birth and death and resurrec- 

 tion. These are a.scertained facts, be their interpretation 

 what it may. 



I HAD almost forgotten to refer to my correspondent's 

 " competent authority's " personal comments. I am not sure 

 whether they belong or not to the order of denunciation 

 typified by the .amusing curse, " May God confound him 

 for his theory of irregular verbs." If this "competent 

 authority " does not ajiply to me in this sense, and for some 

 kindred no-reason, an amusing curse, he is at least, like 

 Artemus Ward's kangaroo, " an amoosin' cuss " himself. 

 My correspondent should cultivate his acquaintance — not, 

 however, as an authority, but as au awftd example. 

 Hitherto (let me suggest very gently) my correspondent 

 does not seem to have learned all that the warning example of 

 this particular " Helot in drink " might have taught him ; 

 or he would hardly have quoted remarks so singularly rude, 

 outside their absurdity, as " this gentleman's." He will 

 doubtless be wiser one day. 



* * * 



I>f reply to a correspondent (Mr. J. E. F\,oose), J! rsf, I do 

 not think the sun will ever be inhabited, but I do not 

 know; secondli/, the central orb of the universe, if such an 

 orb there is, needs no centripetal force to keep it in its place, 

 but I do not think there is such an orb, though here again 

 I do not know ; thirdli/, I suppose when our system dies it 

 will still obey the laws of gravity, seeing that a dead lion is 

 as obedient to these as a live dog ; and fourthly, I cannot 

 tell why our earth's shining in past ages on an inhabited 

 moon, if our earth ever did so shine, is to be represented 

 " for the sake of argument " by " the reversed position " of a 

 globe fifty times larger than ours (why larger?) shining upon 

 the earth. There i.?, however, no "scientific opinion about 

 the moon's having been inhabited," for " knowledge is of 

 things we see." 



I HAVE received several interesting and valuable com- 

 munications respecting Mr. Faith's article about " Collisions 

 at Sea." One of these I published last month ; another I 

 publish this month ; and I have still a third which will 

 interest readers of Knowledge. 



* * * 



Americans of sense are relieved to find that those in 

 their own country who took interest in Sullivan are 

 matched by at least an equal proportion of persons in the 

 old country taking interest in one who would be almost a 

 match for a gorilla. Yet how much more interesting if the 

 gorilla itself could be trained to pugilism ! 



* * * 



The Saturday Review remarks of me in a recent issue 

 that I do not love it, while — Safurdai/ Eeviler though it 

 has been called by the profane — it dislikes nothing and no 

 one. I dislike many things myself : among others, untruth 

 and unfairness. But to dislike a paper or a magazine would 

 be preposterous. I know enough of journalism to be able 

 to distinguish an article written by a student and a gentle- 

 man from one written by a charlatan and a humbug, or 

 from another written by a soured " old woman " of either 

 sex, even though all three articles appear in the same paper'. 

 Averaging my ideas about the Saturday Revieio as I have 

 had occasion to regard it personally, I have rather a liking 

 for it, for I have had occasion to observe in its pages — 

 (1) Ple.asant and strong notices of my work ; (2) pleasant, 

 though unfortunately weak, notices ; (3) unpleasant notices, 

 iLseful as giving me an opportunity of correction (with or with- 

 out use of the thong) ; and, lastly, some notices, so manifestly 

 unfair or so femininely spiteful that they were their own 

 severest corrective, and could do me nothing but good, 

 whether noticed or left alone. [I personally very seldom 

 adopt the afl'ectation of " letting abuse alone " — I " go for 

 it," as my American friends say, enjoying the work heartily, 

 and striving to do it thoroughly.] 



