128 



KNOWLEDGE. 



[Jdne 1, 189C. 



(hat Osiris Liid been slain ; and it seems almost certain 

 that the scribe who wioto the account to adorn the walls 

 of the groat Mcmphito tcniplo was unacquiiinted with the 

 legend of the enmity botwoin Osiris and his brother Set, 

 especially as the death of Osiris is mentioned in another 

 connection in the same inscription. It may also-bo noted 

 that the pyramid texts, though they speal; continually of 

 all three gods, and even occasionally refer to the contest 

 between Ilorus and Sjt, never suggest that it was con- 

 nected with the death of Osiris. We must conclude, 

 then, that the Osiriau myth, in the form in which 

 Plutarch gives it, docs not bslong to the early ages of 

 Egyptian history. Rather was the death of Osiris quite 

 independent of the contest between the two Ivehus (the 

 name given by the I'.gyptians to a pair of gods, such as 

 Horus and Set, Shu anil Tefnut, Ra and Tchuti). It is 



FlO. 1. — In the centre is the King Her-Hor ; on tlie right of the picture arc 

 Nekhebit wearing the soutliern crown, and Ilorus offering the same emblem to 

 tlie liing ; on the left are Uatchit and Set, respectively wearing and offering to 

 the king the northern crown ; over the king is the sun with the two snakes 

 representing the sovereignty of the north and south. 



not difficult to understand, however, how, in the process 

 of amalgamation by Avhich the Egyptian Pantheon was 

 formed, the two myths would tend to coalesce and ulti- 

 mately become fused. But that the new doctrine never 

 altogether ousted the old is curiously illustrated by the 

 position of Isis and Nephthys. Isis was the wife of 

 Osiris, and Nephthys that of Set, and they ought, one 

 would suppose, to be in antagonism ; nevertheless, 

 throughout Egyptian history they are the two beloved 

 sisters who stand beside Osiris — the two weepers who 

 mourn his death, and that of the dead man identified with 

 him. This conception is clearly a survival of a much 

 older mythology than that which the Greeks and Romans 

 found in Egypt. 



How, then, shall we explain the fight ? The most 

 probable suggestion appears to be that it was invented to 

 account for the divided sovereignty. When the " disease 

 of language," mythology, had personified the two aspects 

 of the sun, it was inevitable that stories should arise of how 

 the double kingdom came into being. A fight, followed by 

 the intervention of the great god Beb (or Tehuti, according 

 to another version), and a division of the territory between 

 the combatants, would at cnce commend itself to the "ood 



sense of the early Egyptian. Be that as it may : that the 

 two gods did symboli/e for many ages the sovereignty over 

 the north and south is established beyond reasonable doubt. 

 Liter on, the antagonism which was originally represented 

 as a mere fight for territory came to bo regarded as an 

 allegory of the eternal war between light and darkness, 

 between the Nile and the desert, and even between good 

 and evil. This last stage, which is supposed to have been 

 arrived at under the inlluenco of Persian ideas, was marked 

 by the erasure of the name of Set from the monuments, 

 and the substitution of other names for his in the religious 

 papyri. 



The duality of the Pharaoh's kingdom is expressed also 

 by the two goddesses Nekhebit and I'atchit, who are 

 represented usually by a vulture and a urieus, but some- 

 times by two vultures, sometimes by two ura3i, sometimes 

 by snake-headed vultures, and sometimes 

 by winged snakes. l''rom their continu- 

 ally receiving the same epithets as the 

 southern and northern crowns (notably 

 that of "mighty one of magical spells"), 

 and also interchanging with the crowns 

 in different copies of the same text, 

 it seems reasonable to infer that they 

 are in fact the crowns personified. Al- 

 though this may be open to question, 

 it is clear that Nekhebit and Uatchit 

 are goddesses of the south and north. 

 They usually wear the special crowns of 

 their respective territories, they are 

 represented standing on the plants em- 

 blematic of the two divisions, they are 

 constantly depicted in close association 

 with the two snakes depending from 

 either side of the sun (who sometimes 

 even bear their names), and they are 

 also found in company with Horus and 

 Set. One piece of sculpture seems to 

 sum up the whole matter very effec- 

 tively : the king is shown seated between 

 the goddesses Nekhebit and Uatchit, 

 each wearing her appropriate crown ; 

 beyond them, on either side, stand 

 Horus and Set offering the two crowns 

 to the king ; beyond these again arc 

 written the speeches of the gods in 

 making Ihe presentation, and above is the sun's disc with 

 the two uriei {xiv Fjg. 1 1. 



Here we must close this too brief sketch of the myths 

 and symbols that gathered round the sun, and the Pharaoh 

 as his image upon earth. To exhaust the subject would 

 be well-nigh impossible, for, to the Egyptian, the sun was 

 the one grand object of worship — the creator and sustainer 

 of the universe ; and concerning him, in his various per- 

 sonifications, myths innumerable were related. 



THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF PAINTERS IN 

 WATER COLOURS. 



is to be noticed as a curious fact that in this exhi- 

 bition the majority of the more important pictures 

 are the work of artists well known to fame as painters 

 in oil, illustrators, or designers ; and to students 

 particularly this fact would seem to be of some 

 interest. .Judging from the pictures themselves it is 

 extremely difficult to find a satisfactory reason for this 

 superiority on the part of those who have not made water- 

 colour painting their specialty, for where this superiority 



I 



