APRIL 21, 1923] 
no obelisks (which were so closely associated with the 
old sun-cult) are depicted as standing before the main 
entrance or elsewhere in the sacred precincts. How- 
ever, we know that Okhnatdn erected an obelisk in 
honour of Harakhte-Aton at Karnak, probably in 
- connexion with his sed-festival celebrations.® 
The Aton-temple liturgy itself is clearly the old 
temple liturgy adapted to the new ideas and new 
requirements. As there was no cultus-image, there 
was no place in the new worship for the toilet, 
or indeed many of the pre-toilet, episodes of the 
old liturgy. The worship of the Aton seems to 




of food- and drink-offerings, perfumes, and flowers, 
and in the chanting of hymns and in musical perform- 
ances in general. But the ceremonies connected with 
the presentation of offerings were those of the old 
religion, the officiant consecrating the offerings in the 
time-honoured fashion, z.e. by extending over them the 
so-called kherp-baton. As in the old liturgy, this ritual 
act was preceded by the burning of incense and the 
pouring out of a libation of water ; indeed, the burning 
of incense and the pouring out of a libation were, as 
in times past, the regular accompaniments of every 
act of offering. The liturgy: was celebrated, as of old, 
to the accompaniment of the rattling of sistra, and also 
of other musical performances, vocal and instrumental. 
Lastly, it should be pointed out, the ceremony of 
sweeping the floor—the removal of the foot-prints— 
before and after the celebration of the liturgy seems 
almost certainly to have been retained. 
This article cannot be satisfactorily concluded with- 
out a brief discussion of two important questions that 
have already been touched upon in the preceding para- 
graphs, namely, Okhnaton’s quarrel with the priests 
of Amun, and the theory advanced by some scholars 
that in the establishment of the Aton-cult we are to 
recognise a temporary restoration of the political and 
religious supremacy of the Heliopolitan priesthood. 
Long before the time of Okhnatén the Theban god 
Amin had been completely identified with the Helio- 
_ politan sun-god. What, then, was the cause of the 
king’s rupture with the priests of Amin and his break- 
ing away from all Theban influences ? 
It must be borne in mind that the monotheistic 
tendencies of the preceding period had in no way 
affected the customary performances of the old in- 
Stitutional religion. Whatever may have been the 
speculations and ideas of the learned and enlightened 
_ few, the worship of the gods was conducted in exactly 
the same way as it had been for centuries, without a 
single hint at a change in the traditional ceremonial. 
Okhnatén’s religious revolution, on the other hand, 
not only entailed a great change in the conduct of the 
temple services and far-reaching structural alterations 
in the temple buildings, but also, since the king would 
brook no rival to his god, the suppression of all the 
festivals and other performances connected with the 
provincial cults and with the various cults established 
at the capital. All this was a completely new attitude 
in Egyptian religious experience; indeed we are en- 
countering the “‘ jealous God” for the first time in 
human history, several centuries before His appearance 
among the Hebrews. The feelings both of the priests 
aes in Amtliche Berichte aus den preuszisch, Kunstsammlungen, xi, 
NO. 2790, VOL. III] 
NATURE 
have consisted mainly in the presentation to the god» 

539 
and of the masses of the people must have been deeply 
stirred by this attack on their religious observances, 
particularly in so far as it affected the festivals cele- 
brated in honour of the local divinities, festivals which 
no doubt played as great a part in the lives of the people 
as do those celebrated in honour of the local Egyptian 
saints at the present day.® In fact, there can be no 
question that Okhnatén’s reform meant far too sharp 
a break with the past for his intensely conservative- 
minded subjects. 
It should here be pointed out that so early as the 
reign of Tethmisis III. all the priesthoods of Egypt had 
been combined in one great organisation, with the high- 
priest of Amin at their head. To the high-priest of 
Amin, therefore, and to the priesthood of Amin as a 
whole, all the local priesthoods would have looked to 
champion their threatened rights, while in Okhnatén’s 
eyes this very high-priest and priesthood would have 
appeared as the embodiment of all the forces of reaction 
against which he was struggling. Herein lay quite 
sufficient cause for his breaking away entirely from 
Thebes and the Theban god. We must also remember 
that Okhnatén’s materialistic conception of the Aton 
was entirely opposed to the—as already pointed out— 
much more spiritual conception of the sun-god formu- 
lated by the theologians of the old religion. It was 
impossible to regard the actual corporeal and localised 
divinity, such as Okhnatén maintained his sun-god to 
be, as capable of identification with a being (or beings) 
who could manifest himself (or themselves) in all 
manner of forms and in many places. Did the cause of 
the final rupture reside in this difference of conception 
as to the nature of the Godhead? Ifso, we have here a 
foretaste of those great theological controversies which 
troubled the Christian Church of the first five centuries, 
and of the seventeenth-century wars of religion. 
Let us now briefly consider the theory that in the 
institution of the Aton-cult we are to recognise the 
restoration of the political and religious supremacy of 
Heliopolis. In view of all that has been set forth in 
the preceding paragraphs, the Heliopolitan sun-cult is 
clearly to be regarded as the basis of the new religion, 
or rather as supplying all the material out of which 
the new edifice was constructed. On the other hand, 
the particular shape that that edifice assumed must be 
regarded as the work of Okhnatdn. If the sun-cult 
had been officially promulgated by the organised priest- 
hood of Heliopolis or, as Borchardt? suggests, of 
Hermonthis (Heliopolis of Upper Egypt [/wnw sm']), 
Okhnatén, instead of founding an entirely new capital 
at El-Amarna, would have been obliged to install the 
seat of government in or very near the actual official 
centre of the religion he had adopted. But he was 
able to act as he did, because the religion he professed 
was regarded as a completely new religion, a special 
revelation to himself, as he distinctly asserts. It was 
therefore not associated with any particular locality, 
so he was free to make his capital in any place that 
seemed to him to be most free from the old traditions 
and best adapted to his requirements. 
Lastly, just a few words on the frequently-made 
assertion that foreign influences are discernible in the 
* See W. S. Blackman, “ Festivals celebrating Local Saints in Modern 
Egypt,” in Discovery, vol. iv. No. 37, pp. 11-14. ; 
7 Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaf, 2u Berlin, March 1917, 
No. 57, Pp. 27- 
