Egypt Exploration Society

Osiris or the Sun-God? A Reply to Mr. Perry

Author(s): Aylward M. Blackman
Source: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 11, No. 3/4 (Oct., 1925), pp. 201-209
Published by: Egypt Exploration Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3854141
Accessed: 26/07/2009 11:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ees.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Egypt Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal
of Egyptian Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

201

OSIRIS OR THE SUN-GOD ? A REPLY TO MR. PERRY

BY AYLWARD M. BLACKMAN, D.LITT.
I have been asked to write an answer to Mr. Perry's very interesting paper which
appears in this volume of the Journal. Owing to pressure of other work I have not been
able to make this answer as detailed and systematic as I should like it to be; but I hope
that what I have to say in reply to some of his more important statements will suffice
to show that Mr. Perry's efforts to disprove my theory-and it is only a theory-of the
origin of the Ancient Egyptian temple liturgy and kindred rites have miscarried.
I think it will be noticed by any one who cares to make a careful study of my articles on
Egyptian temple and funerary ceremonies, that Mr. Perry is inclined to twist round and
misinterpret statements of mine, especially on pp. 198-9, where he criticizes what I have
said on the subject of lustrations and libations.
The whole trouble with Mr. Perry is, I feel sure, that he is out to prove a theory that is
very dear to his heart, is indeed almost a religion with him, namely that all organized cults
are derived from the cult of the dead Egyptian king, that Osiris in fact was the first " god,"
and that before the cult of the dead king and Osiris had been instituted, there was nothing
which can be regarded as institutional religion and organized temple worship.
I do not feel myself hampered by any such prejudice. If I thought that Mr. Perry's theory
was correct and that it was the best solution of the problems connected with the origin
of the rites in question, I should accept it gladly. As a matter of fact I myself originally
inclined to the view that the Egyptian temple liturgy, the rite of the House of the Morning,
the rite of Opening the Mouth of a statue, and the other kindred rites, were all Osirian
in origin. It was not till I had immersed myself in these studies and tried, for a long time
in vain, to work out their connection, that I found that the solution of the whole question
as to why they are all so similar fundamentally lay in the fact that they are all ultimately
based upon the ceremonial toilet of the Heliopolitan king and the supposed daily matutinal
ablutions of the sun-god.
First let me reply to Mr. Perry's remarks about Monsieur Moret's interesting book, Du
caractre religieux de la royauti pharaonique, a book that I have no hesitation in saying
has been of great service to myself in my work on Egyptian religious ceremonial. But
suggestive and useful though it is to scholars who have a sound working knowledge of the
Egyptian language and are thoroughly conversant with Egyptian religious texts, it is
dangerous for those who do not possess such an equipment. As Dr. Kees has shown
both in his Opfertanz des dgyptischen Konigs and elsewhere, Monsieur Moret, in his interpretations of Egyptian texts and representations, is inclined to let his sometimes too vivid
imagination run away with him.
On p. 195 Mr. Perry maintains " that the statements of Sethe do not constitute proof, or
anything approaching proof, of a predynastic Heliopolitan hegemony. There is no reason
whatever for believing that Heliopolis must have been a capital.........None
of Sethe's
evidence seems to me to have any bearing whatever on the matter."

202

AYLWARD M. BLACKMAN

Here I feel that Mr. Perry's lack of knowledge of the language and of Egyptian texts in
general stands him in bad stead. As Sethe has shown', Atum of Heliopolis was known as
" Lord of the Two Lands of
Heliopolis " and as such wore the crown of Upper and Lower
of
Ptah
Egypt. Similarly
Memphis, the capital during the Old Kingdom, was " King of
the Two Lands," Jjarshef of Herakleopolis Magna, the capital during the Ninth and Tenth
Dynasties, was " King of the Two Lands, Ruler of the Lands," and Amenrec of Thebes, the
capital during the Imperial Age, was " King of Gods, Ruler of the Ennead." This designation of the sun-god, and the undeniable position of Heliopolis as the intellectual and
spiritual centre of the whole country, can only be accounted for by that city having once
been a capital2. Other important evidence in support of this claim is also adduced by Sethe3.
Here let me state that against Professor Peet (as quoted by Mr. Perry), I still hold to
the view that the Calendar originated at Heliopolis, though I fail to see that, even if that
view had to be abandoned, the disproval of a predynastic hegemony of Heliopolis would
necessarily follow; there is too much other evidence in favour of the theory. One piece of
such evidence is comparatively new. On the top line of the recto of the recently discovered
fragment of the Palermo Stone seven predynastic kings are shown whose crowns are still
visible. Of these the first, second, and seventh, wear the crown of Upper Egypt, the third
that of Lower Egypt, but the fourth, fifth, and sixth, all wear the double crown, indicating
a union of both lands before Menes4.
May I also point out that important evidence that the temple liturgy (with which the
rite of the House of the Morning, the Opening of the Mouth of statues, and the funerary
liturgy etc. are so intimately connected) and the temple cult-accessories are fundamentally
solar, is to be found in my article " Worship (Egyptian)," in HASTINGS,Encyclopaedia of
Religion and Ethics, xii, 777 ?
On p. 196 Mr. Perry, if I understand him rightly, makes the surprising statement
that the Pharaoh wass emphatically not the embodiment of the sun-god after the end
of the Fifth Dynasty. But the truth is that though he was assigned the title "Son of
Rec" towards the end of that Dynasty, the Pharaoh still continued to be regarded as the
embodiment of the sun-god and was indeed spoken of and addressed as such throughout
Egyptian history 6 i
1 Untersuchungen,v, 5, n. 6.
2 SETHE,Zeitschr.f.
3 Ibid., and see also Untersuchungen,ibid.
ag. Spr., 44, 26.
4
Journal, IIn,144-145.
6 The following passage from ERMAN's
Handbookof Egyptian Religion, English transl., 37, might well
be quoted here :-" The king is described as the sun-god on earth, his palace is the horizon; when he shows
himself he arises, when he dies he sets. Thus he wears as his diadem the fire-spitting serpent, which the
sun-god bears on his forehead,and which destroys his enemies."
Accordingly, when Ammenemes I died it is said that the god entered his horizon (Sinuhe, R, 6).
AmOsis I is the image (ij n\
\\ 3) of Re' whom he (RO')hath fashioned (Urkunden, iv, 14). Tuthmosis III is spoken of as appearing as king in the ship of millions of years (the sun-god'sboat) as occupant
of the seat of Atum like Ree (Ibid., 291). Amenree, the sun-god, is represented as saying to Hl.atshepsut
Welcome,welcome,in peace, beloveddaughter of my body,......my living image upon earth (Ibid., 279). In
another inscription H.Iatshepsutis designated thedaughterof Amiin of his body......the goodgoddess mighty
of arm, the likeness of Amenre^,his living image upon earth (Ibid., 275), and she is similarly called his (i.e.
Re?'s) living image on one of her obelisks at Karnak(Ibid., 362). It is said of Horemheb,he is a god, the king
of gods......he is Re', his body is the sun (DtMICHEN, Hist. Inschr., ii, XLe, 15 ff.). On the Kuban Stela,
lines 17 and 18, we find it said of Ramesses II, If thou sayest to the uwater" Comne
upon the mountain,"the

OSIRIS OR THE SUN-GOD ?

203

Mr. Perry's difficulty in accepting this lies in the fact that he does not make sufficient
allowance for the characteristic inconsistency and lack of logic of the Egyptians in all
matters appertaining to their religion. Egyptian religious texts are full of inconsistencies
and contradictions. Thus in the Pyramid Texts, to which Mr. Perry often refers, the dead
king is at one time the sun-god's son and at another time is identified with that divinity,
or is even spoken of as stronger than he !
Another equally astonishing statement is made on p. 196, namely " the royal tombs of
the first four dynasties do not, to my knowledge, reveal any trace of the sun-cult, nor any
hint of that connection between the king and the sun-god which is so vital a part of
Dr. Blackman's theory." But Neter-khet (=Zoser?) of the Third Dynasty, Snefru, and
almost certainly all the kings of the Fourth Dynasty, were each buried beneath a pyramid,
which was the emblem of the sun-god, or rather one of his manifestations, for, as we read
in the Pyramid Texts, Thou (i.e. the sun-god) didst appear as the benben(pyramidion) in
the House of the Phoenix (the sun-temple) in Heliopolis2. It is hardly likely that the
Pharaoh would be thus closely associated with the sun-god after death, if he were not
equally associated with him in his life-time. In this connection it might be pointed out
that Kheops' pyramid was named "Horizon," than which no more emphatically solar
designation could be found!
It should be pointed out, moreover, that not only all the kings of the Fourth Dynasty
except Soris (Sflrw) and Kheops bear solar names, but also several of the kings of the Third
Dynasty. The name of the second king of that dynasty, Nebka, is possibly solar, for the
possession of a ka or kas was essentially a characteristic of Rec the sun-god (GARDINER,Proc.
Soc. Biblical Archaeology, xxxvII, 257 ff.). Neter-khet, the third king, the builder of the
0
famous step-pyramid at Sakkarah, had certainly a solar name, viz. r\.
The fourth king
again is named Nebkerec, and Snefru, the last king of the dynasty, has the throne-name of
Neb-m&eet, Lord of Right, which is beyond question solar; his pyramid, too, is called
f, hC,distinctly a solar designation, for the verb hey means "to rise," "appear," used
primarily of the sun, then of the king, the sun's embodiment, and of divinities equated
with the sun.
Other connections of the kings of the Third and Fourth Dynasties with the Heliopolitan
sun-cult may here be noted. Snefru's eldest son, Kanefer, was superintendent of his pyramid
flood comesforth speedily after thine utterance,even as thou art Ree in body, Khepri in his true form. Thou
art the living likeness of thy father Atum of Heliopolis; Authoritative Utteranceis in thy mouth, Under(right and truth personified as a
standing is in thy heart, the place of thy tongue is the shrine of MAeCet
goddess), the god sits on thy lips. It should here be pointed out that Authoritative Utterance (/.w) and
Understanding (Si?) are attributes of the sun-god, personified as divinities, and are intimately associated
with him (GARDINER,Proc. Soc. Biblical Archaeology,xxxviii, 43 ff.), they are in fact thosegods who are in
the presenceof Re (NAVILLE, Todtenbuch,Oh. 17, line 30). Understandeingagain is he who is on te right
hand of Rie (Ibid., Ch. 174). Also when the sage Ipuwer addresses his feeble sovereign (probably one of
the weak Pharaohs of the Seventh or Eighth Dynasty), he says reproachfullyto him, Authoritative Utterance, Understanding,aind Riqht are with thee (in thy capacity of king and therefore embodiment of the
sun-god on earth), but confusion is what thou puttest throughout the land (GARDINER, Adnmonitions, 12,

12-13). It is not surprising, therefore, in view of all this, that the Pharaoh'ssubjects were called upon to
give hiin praise like Re' (Urkunden,iv, 20).
1 On this see BREASTED, Developmentof Religion and Thoughtin Ancient Egypt, 122-129.
2

Pyr., ? 1652.

AYLWARD M. BLACKMAN

204

Khac and also Chief of the Seers of Heliopolis, i.e. high priest of the Heliopolitan sun-god1.
Another king's son, Rechotpe, whose parent's name is not given, but who must, according
to Professor Griffith, have lived inreign
of Snefru or at the latest in that of Kheops,
in the
was also a high priest of RKeof Heliopolis2, as was likewise Merib, a superintendent of all
the works of the king and a prophet (hm ntr) of Kheops3. It might also be noted that
two Superintendents of the T'woPyramids (called) KhaC of Snefru, a father and his son,
bear respectively the solar names DuareCand CEnkhmaCreC4.
But two kings of the Second Dynasty also bore names compounded with ReC,ReCneb
and Karec (or Neferkerec). Though the tomb of Khasekhemui, the last king of the dynasty,
is at Abydos, there are indications that this line of kings had associations with the region
of Heliopolis and with the Heliopolitan sun-cult apart from the fact that two bore solar
names. There are grounds for supposing that the tomb of JIetepsekhemui and that of
theof
second king
Recneb were situated at SakkArah5. Also, Kaiechos the sd
dynasty (supposed
to be the same person as Recneb) established, according to Manetho, the worship of the
Apis bull at Memphis and the Mnevis bull at Heliopolis6. We can thus trace the association
of the Egyptian kings with the sun-cult back to the Second Dynasty. This does not necessarily mean that the sun-cult was now just beginning to exercise an influence on the state
religion, but rather that owing to the Thinite kings having, for political reasons, to make
their official residence on the dividing line between the northern and southern kingdoms,
the sun-cult began once more to gain that religious and political ascendancy which it
seems to have lost when the Thinite

kings first acquired control of Lower Egypt and still

regarded This (Abydos) as their capital.

Other possible evidence of a close connection between the Second Dynasty Pharaohs
and the sun-cult is to be found in an inscription on the very early squatting granite
statue in the Cairo Museum. Here in front of the names of the first three kings of the
dynasty is depicted what looks very much like a rough carving of a heron (the phoenix)
seated on a pyramidion7. At first I was inclined to regard the bird's perch as a pole supported by props, such as is to be seen, for instance, in the relief from the funerary temple
of Amenophis I8. But in that and similar representations the pole projects some way above
the props. If my suggestion is correct, it is another important link, for the pyramid, as we
have seen, and of course also the phoenix, are intimately connected with the Heliopolitan
sun-cult.
One of the First Dynasty entries on the Palermo Stone, which refers to a pool attached
to the temple of Harshef at Herakleopolis Magna, may also have some bearing on the point
at issue, for the two pools belonging to this temple were, according to the Book of the Dead,
closely associated with the sun-god9.
1 Egyptian Stelae in the British Museum,I, PI. 4. I possess a collation of this inscription by Mr N. de
2 PETRIE,bedumn, 37, Pis. X, XII-XV.

G. Davies.
3 LEPSIUS,

Denkmdaler,
II, P1. 22c ; Aegypt. Inschr. aus den konigl. Museenzu Berlin, I, 100. The title

shouldundoubtedlyread s+)

jJ

being a mistakein both Lepsius'and Schafer'scopyof the

inscription, and indeed there is a pencilled marginal note to that effect in my copy of L., D., made by a
previous owner.
4 MASPERO,Menmoires
Miss. Archeol.Franc. du Caire, i, 190.
5 PETRIE, A History of Egypt, I (tenth
edition), 29 f.
6 Op. cit., 30; The CambridgeAncient
7 Museee'gyptien,I, 12 and P1. XIII.
History, i, 274.
8 Journal, IV, P1. IV.
9 BLACKMIAN,
Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch., XL, 89 f.; see also Rec. Trav., xxxix, 75.

OSIRIS OR THE SUN-GOD ?

205

What grounds has Mr. Perry for saying, as he does on p. 197, that the royal tombs at
Abydos "are full of ample evidence of Osirian ideas"? So far as I can discover neither the
name nor any representation of that god occurs on any object found in the royal tombs of
the first two dynasties, and it might be pointed out that the old mortuary god of Abydos
was in early times not Osiris but Anubisi; also, as will be seen below, a record of the
making of a statue of Anubis was actually found in the tomb of cAha, a king of the First
Dynasty.
On pp. 197 f. Mr. Perry again asserts that "in the first four dynasties of united Egypt......
there is, so far as I am aware, no mention of any direct connection between the king and
the sun. Certainly the king does not seem to be the sun-god's embodiment. In the
early royal tombs, which persisted as those of the nobles during the Pyramid Age, there is
no trace of the solar theology, the ideas being all 'Osirian': only in the pyramids themselves are solar ideas to be found." He then proceeds to admit that pyramid building
began in the Third Dynasty and that the solar names of kings can be traced back to the
Second Dynasty. But he adds, " the possibility of solar influence can be pushed back to
the Second Dynasty...simply in the matter of royal names and tombs." This is surely a
very important admission! As I have pointed out, the fact that the king was buried
beneath a pyramid, the embodiment or manifestation of the sun-god, only shows how
closely the king must have been associated with that god, indeed suggests that he was
even then regarded as the god's embodiment.
Now for the assertion that there are no instances of solar theology in the tombs of
nobles during the Pyramid Age, but that the ideas expressed there are all Osirian.
Nobles of the early Pyramid Age with solar names have already been mentioned on
p. 204. As has been pointed out by Breasted2 and myself3, righteousness and truth are in
the first instance associated with the sun-god, who is the god of righteousness and truth
par excellence. He is said to "live on righteousness," and MeCet,Righteousness personified
as a goddess, is his daughter4. The fact that there were priests of MeCet,anyhow as early
as the first half of the Fifth Dynasty5, points to the antiquity of this belief.
Again there is but little doubt that the "great god" by whom the nobles of the
Pyramid Age, as far back as the Fourth Dynasty6, assert that they are " honoured," Im4h,
is the sun-god7, and as late as the Sixth Dynasty the " great god " by whom they expected
to be judged after death was still ReC and not Osiris8, who only usurped this position during
the First Intermediate Period9.
Osiris, on the other hand, does not figure in any way in the tombs of the nobles and
1 MEYER,Zeitschr.f. dg. Spr., 41, 97 ff.
2 Development,165-176.
See my article " Righteousness (Egyptian)" in HASTINGS,
Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, xr,
795 ff.
3

4 GARDINERin op. cit., x, 791.

5 Ptahshepses, who was born under Mykerinos and was still living in the reign of Neuserr?t, is the
earliest holder of that priestly office known to me.
6 E.g., LEP8IUS, Denkmndler,
Ii, 15b; Urkunden,I, 9.
7 See Pyr., ? 760c.
8
BREASTED,
op. cit., 170 if. When a certain Meni of the time of Mykerinos says :-Be the crocodileat
him in the water, the serpentat him on land, him who shall do aught to harm this tomb! I have never done
aught to harm him. God shall decide (betweenus), the god he mentions is undoubtedly the sun-god
(Urkunden,I, 23).
9 BREASTED,op. cit., 176.

206

AYLWARD M. BLACKMAN

high officials until the latter half of the Fifth Dynasty, when his name begins to appear in
the htp dy nswt formula, but only then as secondary to Anubis. Until that time Anubis,
not Osiris, was the funerary god, and he appears as such in the tomb of the Third Dynasty
official Methen.
Accordingly in the private tombs of the Pyramid Age we do not find the solar theology
ousting Osirian ideas, but rather we see Osiris beginning to appear on the scenes as a
funerary god during the latter half of the Fifth Dynasty, and finally during the First
Intermediate Period becoming the god of the dead par excellence.
From his statements on pp. 198 f., Mr. Perry seems to have got a wrong conception of
what I wished to express in my articles dealing with Ancient Egyptian religious ceremonies, that is to say in my articles published after the one on incense and libations in
Zeitschr.f. dg. Spr., 471.
As can be seen in my article in Vol. XL of the Proceedings of the Society of Biblical
Archaeology and elsewhere, it is remarkable how closely the sun-god is associated with
washing and purity. Everybody and everything approaching him or brought into close
contact with him must be " clean" or had to undergo purification. Thus the king, during
his life-time, had to be washed in an adjunct of the temple (originally the Heliopolitan
"
sun-temple), called the House of the Morning," before he could enter the actual temple
at dawn to officiate. When he was dead he had to be washed before he could enter the
sun-god's kingdom.
The sun-god himself was supposed to wash every morning before he appeared above the
horizon, and there were sacred pools, actual or mythical, where these lustrations were
supposed to be performed.
According to a very old conception, the sun-god was reborn every morning from the womb
of the sky-goddess, a conception originally quite distinct from, and doubtless much more
ancient than, the idea that he daily underwent lustration at dawn. But owing to the association of these two conceptions, the theory arose that the god was born as a result of being
washed2. Such a theory was particularly liable to arise in a country like Egypt, where life
and the production of life are so obviously associated with water, and where the lack of
water means certain death.
As has been stated, the king underwent lustration before he could officiate in the suntemple, later in any temple. Since he was the embodiment of the sun-god, the idea naturally
arose that he was reborn3 as the result of lustration, like his divine prototype. The king
was not only washed in the " House of the Morning," but was subjected also to an elabo1 For the sake of scholars who care to examine more
closely the evidence for and against Mr. Perry's
and my theories, I herewith give a list of these articles:"Some notes on the Ancient Egyptian Practice of Washing the Dead,"Journal, v, 117 ff.; " The House
of the Morning,"ibid., 148 if.; " On the Position of Women in the Ancient Egyptian Hierarchy,"ibid., vii,
8 f.; " The Rite of Opening the Mouth in Ancient Egypt and Babylonia,"ibid., x, 47 ff.; " Sacramental
Ideas and Usages in Ancient Egypt. 1. Lustrations and the Heliopolitan Sun-God,"Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.
XL, 57 ff., 85 ff.; "II. Osirian Lustrations," Rec. Trav., xxxix, 44ff.; "Purification (Egyptian)," in
HASTINGS, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, x, 476 ff.; "Righteousness (Egyptian)," ibid., xI, 792 ff.;

"Worship (Egyptian)," ibid., xII, 776ff.; "The Sequence of Episodes in the Egyptian Daily Temple
Liturgy," Journal of the Manchester Egyptian and Oriental Society, 1918-19, 26 ff.
2 The Pyramid Texts are full of allusions to this
theory.
3 An old lustration formula used in the Osiris
Mysteries at Edfu, Philae, and Denderah, identifies the
water with the primaeval ocean, out of which the sun-god was born in the first instance, and speaks of it
as "giving birth to the king like Rec every day" (JUNKER,Die Stundenwachen in den Osirismysterien, 67).

OSIRIS OR THE SUN-GOD?

207

rate toilet. He was fumigated with incense, his mouth was cleansed with natron, he was
anointed, clothed, crowned, and given his insignia of office, and then seems to have been
presented with a repast.
A word on the "House of the Morning." In view of the evidence brought together in
the article bearing that name in Journal, v, 148 ff., it can hardly be denied that the
"House of the Morning" is anything else than a toilet-chamber, originally the chamber
where the Heliopolitan king's toilet was performed before he entered the sun-temple at
dawn-hence its name ' House of the Morning."
The image of the Heliopolitan sun-god would also have been washed every morning in
imitation of the washing which the god was supposed to undergo in the sacred pool. But
the sun-god, owing to his close association with the king, was himself regarded as a king,
the prototype in fact of all Egyptian kings. Naturally, therefore, the same toilet ceremonies
were performed for him as for the Pharaoh, and the ideas about the god and the Pharaoh
and the ceremonies performed on their behalf, acted and reacted on one another.
Owing to the mystical virtue of the lustral water and the value ascribed to the ceremonial toilet ceremonies as a whole, the same rite, with certain special additions, was
employed to animate a statue, originally a statue of the sun-god and his embodiment
the Pharaoh, later any statue or image. This rite was performed at dawn, as we learn from
the biographical inscription of Khentemsemtil, which speaks of that person as being great
shm in the House of Gold (the sculptor's workshop) when the god (the god whose statue was
to be animated) is born in the early morning (m nhp)2.
It is significant that the place where the Opening of the Mouth was performed could
also be designated the " House of the MorningS."
As we have already seen, it was believed that the dead king could not enter the realms
of the sun-god unless he was " clean." Accordingly, before he was buried, he underwent
exactly the same purification as that daily undergone by him, when alive, in the " House of
the Morning," or as nearly similar as was possible. As a result of this lustration the dead
king was thought not only to be purified but to be reborn. The place in the embalmer's
establishment where this purification took place might also, it would seem, be called the
" House of the Morning4,"i.e., it too was given the same name as the ancient Pharaoh's
toilet room.
Finally the directions for the celebration of the funerary liturgy in the tomb of Petamenope are preceded by the following line of text: " Formula: the House of the Morning, what
the offeringtable requires5,the purifying of the banquet-tablefor the ka......of Petamenope6."
Thus a recognition of the fact that the purificatory ceremonies in the funerary liturgy were
derived from the corresponding ceremonies in the royal toilet is preserved even in funerary
inscriptions of the Saite period7.
When the Osiris cult became the powerful factor in the state religion that we see it to
have been in the Fifth Dynasty, and the dead king was identified with Osiris, its influence
was not confined to the funerary liturgy, but it affected all the related rites as well.
1 Journal, v, 155.

The fact that this rite was performed "in the early morning,"i.e., at dawn, shows that it was essentially a solar and not an Osirian rite, Osiris having nothing whatever to do with the sun-rise !
2

3 Journal, v, 159.
5 See
6 Journal, v, 162.
See Journal, v, 148, 157.
Gunn, ap. ENGELBACH,Harageh, 21.
7 All this forms an effective reply to what Mr. Perry has to say on pp. 198 f. about the ceremonial royal
toilet and its connection with the temple liturgy and kindred rites.
R
4

208

AYLWARD M. BLACKMAN

The Pharaoh, as we have seen, was regarded not only as the embodiment, but also as
the son, of the sun-god. Owing to the political influence of the Heliopolitan god and his
cult, other important Egyptian gods were identified with him by their priests in order to
enhance their prestige. The king was thus regarded as the son of these gods also, and
finally was looked upon as the son of all Egyptian divinities male and female. Now the
living king was Horus, and Horus, according to the Osiris myth, was the son of Osiris.
Under the influence of the Osiris myth the relationship of the king with any god or goddess
was conceived of as that of Horns with Osiris, and so every divinity was treated as an
Osiris for cult purposes, and for that matter every object of a cult, whether a person or an
image. Thus the temple-liturgy and all the kindred rites were completely Osirianised. But,
as I have pointed out in my article " Worship (Egyptian)" in HASTINGS, Encyclopaedia of
Religion and Ethics, xII, 777, Egyptian worship and all its accessories are plainly Heliopolitan in origin.
The idea of the king being the son of all divinities is obviously a result of solar and not
Osirian influence. The great local gods were as a rule not funerary divinities, and accordingly it was not with Osiris that they were identified but ReC,of whom the king was the
sonl1.
What I have been trying to maintain in my articles-a point that Mr. Perry does not
seem to grasp, judging from what he says on p. 198-is that the formulae recited at the
performance of what were originally solar rites and in no way concerned with restoring
moisture to a dead and shrivelled corpse, were, owing to the enormous influence exercised
by the Osiris-Horus myth on the imaginations of the Egyptians, very largely or completely
Osirianised, the external forms of the rites, however, remaining unchanged or practically
unchanged. Thus all the lustration- and libation-formulae, which identify the water with
putrescence and exudations from the corpse, are Osirian, replacing the older solar formulae,
of which examples, however, survived, and were in use even as late as Graeco-Roman times.
On p. 199 Mr. Perry remarks that "it is probable that animation of life-size
portrait statues of the dead arose in conjunction with mummification, perhaps as late as
the Fifth Dynasty. Can Dr. Blackman or Professor Peet give us any hint of evidence of
statues of gods in earlier days that were in temples and the objects of ritual performances
such as are described by Dr. Blackman ?... Moreover it is of crucial importance to the
Blackman-Peet theory that the existence of these statues be established. You cannot
perform the toilet of a statue that does not exist! So far as I am aware there were no such
statues prior to the Pyramid Age, with the exception of the enigmatical statues of Min of
Coptos. On the other hand, if it be assumed that the toilet of the statue of the sun-god
came after the invention of mummification with its attendant practices, all is clear and
simple."
Unfortunately for Mr. Perry the Palermo Stone records the making of statues of divinities2 at as early a date as the First Dynasty. The earliest statue thus recorded is one of
Anubis (not of Osiris be it noted !)3. Other statues are also recorded on this monument as
having been fashioned by the orders of kings of the First Dynasty, viz. a statue of the
goddess I?mt4, statues of the " Two Children of the King of Lower Egypt5," a statue of
1A
point to be noted too (and this goes against Mr. Perry's theory), is that Rec was never equated with

Osiris in the way that some of the great local gods were equated with Re'.
2 See Gardiner's remark in
Journal, III, 145.
3 SCHXFER, Ein Bruchstaick
altdgyptischer Annalen, 15.

4 Ibid., 16.

5 Ibid., 16 and note.

OSIRIS OR THE SUN-GOD ?

209

Min', another statue of Anubis2, a statue of the god Sed3, and of the goddesses Seshat
and Mafdet4. It is not until we come to the Second Dynasty that the Palermo Stone
records the fashioning of the statue of a king5, though of course it must be remembered
that only a fragment of this once large monument survives.
Also tablets found by Petrie at Abydos record the making of statues of divinities during
the reign of cAha of the First Dynasty6, these divinities being Anubis, Imy-wt, and a
hawk-god.
As.has already been pointed out, Osiris does not appear in the private tombs till the
latter part of the Fifth Dynasty, by which time, judging from the Pyramid Texts7, his cult
was mreoreand more influencing the funerary ideas and beliefs of the governing classes.
Yet in the Third Dynasty tomb of Methen the rite of Opening the Mouth is both mentioned, and depicted as taking place, and this long before there seems to have been any
connection between the dead nobles and Osiris! On the other hand there is evidence
direct and indirect that the sun-cult was exercising a great influence on the governing
classes both then and earlier. The Opening of the Mouth of the statue of Methen was
therefore probably performed in what I maintain was its original, i.e., solar form.
Again both the making and the Opening of the Mouth of a statue of Horus of the Gods,
a solar divinity mnentionedin the Pyramid Texts, are recorded on a fragment of an annalstablet, similar to the Palermo tone, the entry apparently belonging to the reign of Kheops
of the Fourth Dynasty8.
As stated in footnote 7, the earliest version we possess of the Pyramid Texts dates
from the very end of the Fifth Dynasty, by which time the funerary liturgy was entirely
dominated by Osirian ideas, and of course also Osiris figures very prominently in many
of the other " utterances" comprising this great compilation; during the Sixth Dynasty
we see the texts being more and more Osirianised at the hands of the priestly editors.
As it was not tillerthe latter half of the Fifth Dynasty that Osiris begins to appear in
the private tombs at Gizah and Sakkarah-the very time when the Osirianisation of the
funerary liturgy of the Pharaohs seems to have begun to take place-we can only suppose
that all this was a new development in Egyptian religious thought; at any rate it is clear
that the Osiris myth had not previously exercised any great influence upon the court and
upon the state religion.
This is apparently also the conclusion to which Dr. Roeder came, after studying the
great mass of material that he had collected for his article " Usire " in ROSCHER'SLexikon,
for he says (p. 126, Lieferung 92/93) :-" Die Verbreitung des Osiris wurde gefdrdert, als
er und seine Familie in die Neunheit von Heliopolis aufgenommen war."
1 Ibid., 17.
2 Ibid., 17.
3 Ibid., 21.
5 Ibid., 27 and see SETHE,Journal, I, 233 ff.
4 Ibid., 21.
6 PETRIE,Royal Tombs, 11, Pis. III, X, XI.
7 The earliest version of these texts that we possess is that found in the pyramid of King Unas, the
last king of the Fifth Dynasty.
8 GARDINER, Journal,

III, 145.