Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

that there is Herder, and we shall perhaps have occasion in a subsequent article to justify this statement. Sir William Jones was the first to point out the affinity of the religions of classical antiquity with the still existing philosophy of the oriental nations. Had he lived to give the full proof of his propositions, and were it not the fate of all distinguished men to throw out leading ideas rather than to detail systems, he might have finished the work he commenced. But though after his death the volumes of the Asiatic Researches still continued to give valuable articles on the subject of the oriental systems, yet the spirit with which he had known to combine the phenomena of the most distant epochs and climates, was no longer conspicuous in most of the essays which the Society caused to be printed.

But the ideas of Sir William Jones were taken up with increased interest in a country which was never known to be backward in the honor paid to genius and talent, with whatever nation the impulse of a new pursuit may have originated. The classical scholars of Ger. many, among them, or rather at the head of them, Frederick Creuzer, gave much of their time and their best abilities to the investigation into the subject of the ancient religions. Creuzer's work, Symbolik und Mythologie, first appeared in 1810; the sensation which it created, the interest with which these studies were taken up by the young, and the juvenile ardor with which men of a more advanced age joined in a new course of research, the opposition which it met with from a party, whose acute criticism was generally feared, and whose dictatorial authority had been offended by the confident tone of the new school, the sober and judicious inquiries of impartial judges, the follies and extravagant speculations of mythological Ultras-all this produced a most animated scene in the literary world, which grew still more animated, when a new edition, or rather a new work, of Professor Creuzer appeared. He had in the mean time an opportunity of gaining access to many sources of information unknown before; he had been confirmed in many of his views; he had improved upon others, and he had been irritated by opposition, and called upon to make his arguments good by proofs, and to develope them with spirit. There is scarcely at present a distinguished scholar or "humanist" in the better sense, in Germany, who has not formed and pronounced his opinion on the subject. The most illustrious names, and among them the celebrated Schelling, have engaged in the question, and in a friendly sense to the efforts of -Creuzer.

The first scholars of France have done the same. But our leading reviews, and our eminent scholars, have been observing a -course of dignified silence. That the existence of Creuzer's work is known to them, we have no doubt; for we feel confident that they all read the Literary Gazette, which mentioned it last year" with a "word, and with a sign." But it seems to us extraordinary, that while our scholars bunt up and translate grammars and dictionaries from the German, while Matthiae is the great oracle, while our

classical booksellers are reprinting the notes of German commentators, and publishing classical authors edited by Berlin professors, while even other labors of German scholars are noticed and reviewed, it seems to us extraordinary, that the works of Creuzer and other writers on the same subject should remain altogether unknown.

It cannot be our purpose, in a publication like this, to offer a critique of the works which we have mentioned. But it is our intention, as far as our limits will allow us, to give an idea of the subject, and of the mode in which it is treated. We cannot of course engage to reproduce any thing but a faint outline of some parts of the work. But it is our wish, that those who are interested in these studies, may be induced to consult Creuzer's work, either in the original, or in the French translation, by Guignot, which, we understand, is about to be completed. And it is our ulterior wish, that they may be sufficiently interested in the subject, to take up these studies, to follow them up to the original authorities, and to cultivate a science, in which our antiquarians have too long been deficient of original research, and ignorant of the character and results of foreign compositions.

Our prefatory remarks have been carried to greater length than we had intended: and we hall confine ourselves, in this number, to a rapid sketch of the principal results of Creuzer's Essay on the Religion of Egypt.

The earliest inhabitants of Egypt were, no doubt, wandering tribes of shepherds and fishermen, scattered on the banks of the river, and by the side of the sea. Among such a population, we cannot expect to meet with religious ideas very different from those which are commonly found among savage nations.

Man, in the lowest stage of civilization, is not much given to reasoning. He has causality very small, and wonderment (ideality, we believe we should say) very large indeed. For a share in the mental faculties which he is possessed of, he gives credit to every thing around him. He ascribes reason to the irrational, and life to the inanimate creation. On some objects he looks with feelings of sympathy, on others with veneration. When we refer to the pages of Buffon, he looks back with a contented eye on the feats of his youth, on the scene of his life; when we call for the solar microscope, or for the Philosophical Transactions, he kneels down to worship.

Take the poor fisherman in his canoe in one of the mouths of the Nile. The luxuriant growth of the water plants, moving on its surface, the monsters lurking in the deep, the mighty ocean itself, must inspire him with mingled feelings of admiration and horror. Or take the shepherd in the plain. His is a more peaceful lot. He lives among his flock; he almost raises them to level with himself. His dog is his favorite companion; the faithfulness and the sagacity of the animal must raise it in his estimation very high in the scale of beings. Who can describe the sort of commerce that exists between the shepherd and the rest of the flock, and most of all, the stately bull who strides at the head of them, with silent and impressive gra

vity, looking unutterable things? The Bedouine even now gives a hundred names to his camel, and holds converse with his horse. And we would submit it to the consideration of Dr. Evelyn, whether the delight taken in a rookery does not, after all, originate in the same feelings which gave rise to the hylozoic system.

This system, by which we mean, of course, the habit of ascribing a consciousness of purpose to irrational and even inanimate ob jects this same hylozoic system was favored, in a great measure, by the peculiar nature of the country and the river. There was the regular rise and fall of the Nile; and as regular the appearance of the crocodiles, the serpents, and other uncouth animals; there was the wild gazelle, with its hurried retreat when the river threatened to overflow, and its return when the danger was over, a very convenient index of "high water" at Syene; and these extraordinary movements of the waters, and of the animals, regularly corresponding with the movements of the celestial bodies, so that the Nile was called an earthly satellite of the sun and moon. Besides, the burning plains of the Libyan and Arabian deserts formed a striking contrast with the warm and well-watered valley of the Nile.

Considering all these circumstances, it appears highly probable, that the primitive inhabitants of Egypt worshipped the same objects as the tribes on the borders of the Syrian lakes, or the first colonists in the deserts of Dodona, or the Negroes of this day in the interior of Africa. We may then conclude, that they worshipped plants and animals, the river and the ocean, the sun, moon, and stars. In addition to this, they had an idea, not perhaps of the migration, but at least of a continuation of existence of the soul after the death of the body. Nothing is more frequent than the formation of a sort of natural mummies in the sandy deserts, where the Sameum wind.completely dries up and thus preserves the dead bodies for some time. This occasioned the belief, that though animal life is fled, yet the soul still hovers near its former seat, until it is domesticated in another body; an idea, which afterwards encouraged the belief of its transmigration, and perhaps also the practice of embalming the mortal remains.

But though we have reason to suppose that so poor was the original creed of the Egyptians, yet in the first historical record in the Scriptures they appear already in a more advanced state. In the book of Genesis, Memphis is described as a city, with all the advantages that prosperity and civilization can give in a country which is chiefly agricultural and very fertile; it is even described as the resort of foreign caravans, refined and depraved, and, in fact, in wealth and manners quite a capital. And yet, it appears from the historical dates still extant, that Memphis attained that importance only when Thebes was already declining, or had fallen altogether +-Thebes,

The name of Memphis is not mentioned in the book of Genesis; but it is evident, that the description applies to the capital of Middle Egypt.

This is at least decidedly the opinion of Creuzer, and adopted by him on the testimony of Jomard who examined the ruins of Thebes. But we must not omit to state,

the city of hundred gates, one of the wonders of the world. Both cities were governed by kings, at whose side is conspicuous a powerful hierarchy.

What, then, was the reason of this great change in the state of the country? We can only say, that strangers of a foreign and nobler origin, left their own seats, and took possession of Egypt. They found one of the most fertile countries of the world without agriculture, without any permanent forms or institutions of social life. It was easy for them to assert their superiority over the wandering hordes. Their own government, their discipline, their arts and pursuits, were soon established throughout the country.

The policy employed by these strangers was admirable. It is probable that they were superior in number to the natives. But it does not appear that they made use of violence in establishing the new system of things. They wielded other arms, far more powerful. The chief engine for the promotion of their influence was religion. The religious ideas which they found, the various kinds of superstition in vogue among the people, were combined to an artificial system. This system itself was made subservient to the civilization of the country, and to the exclusive encouragement of agricultural pursuits. It contained symbolical representations of the various employments, and of the peculiar circumstances, connected with agriculture, in a country that was fertilized by the Nile. It was calculated to rule the minds by its mysterious reference to the phenomena of nature, and to please the imagination by the variety of its emblems," the pomp and circumstance" of many of its ceremonies.

The lower classes could not be expected to enter into the hidden sense of the tales narrated, and the religious duties imposed to them. Their former superstition was retained, though in somewhat a modified shape. If their mind was little enlightened, their manners at least were civilized, and a salutary restraint was put upon the idle habits. of their former unsettled life. Industry was enjoined to them; and there is scarcely a country in which industry is so much encouraged by nature, and so plentifully rewarded, as in the valley of the Nile.

In that happy country, in which no living creature ever dreamt of Corn Laws, or the abolition of them, the produce of the labor of one class more than provided for the wants of all. The leisure which that by many antiquarians the arguments on which it rests are considered by no means conclusive. Among them is Professor Baur of Tubingen, who in his learned and ingenious work (Naturreligion des Alterthums, vol. i. p. 333) insists on the express testimony of Herodotus (2, 99) that Menes, the first king of Egypt, was also the founder of Memphis, which would appear to go directly against the supposition of the higher antiquity and earlier splendor of Thebes. Professor Baur also alludes to the difficulty of ascertaining the exact antiquity of the remains which Jomard had occasion to examine, as the materials of their construction, and still more the peculiar climate of Upper Egypt must have contributed to preserve them in an appearance different from that of the ruins of other cities. We cannot help thinking how odd it must be, when, after thousands and thousands of revolving years, some antiquarian from another part of the world will blunder about the exact period of the construction of Belgrave Square, or write an essay on the probable extent of Mr. Nash's original labors.

this circumstance afforded to the rest, contributed in forming the broad line of distinction, which separated the different classes from each other. It is unnecessary to say, that the progress of civilization was the work of the intelligence and influence of the priests. They laid down the principles, and established the foundation upon which the fabric of the social system was constructed. They kept the cultivation of arts and sciences for themselves, and especially the art of governing, of which they were unquestionably great masters. They were looked up to as beings of a higher order; their various knowledge, their skill and ingenuity, their exemplary life, gave them the most unbounded power. The form of government was monarchical; but it is clear enough, that the supreme direction of the affairs of the realm was in the hands of the hierarchy. The state of the people appears to have been comfortable and happy, as far as exterior circumstances go; but they were for ever shut out from every kind of mental improvement; it was criminal for the son to endeavour to look further than his father had done before him; but a man might enjoy his life if he was prepared to obey the laws, to reverence the priests, and, above all, to abstain from reasoning.

The institutions of Egypt, and the curious customs and manners prevailing there, are sufficiently well known from Herodotus, and other authorities. The writers of antiquity are also full of the most strange and contradictory reports of the religious opinions, and the mysterious tenets which were held by the priests and believed by the people. These reports have given rise to numberless speculations, on which much learning and ingenuity has been wasted. The chief difficulty was, to separate the vulgar belief of the multitude from the more enlightened philosophy of the priests.

Creuzer has tried to combine and explain the various accounts in the following manner: there are two leading ideas in the Egyptian system, which contain the stamina of the whole culture of the nation, political and religious. By a personification familiar to the ancient world, they are attached to the two deities, Osiris and Hermes. The one is the representation of active nature, the other of creative intelligence. The tales connected with the history of the one, are symbolical descriptions of the phenomena of nature, the sketches of which the other is the hero, are illustrative of the agency of the mind. In their application to the state of things, and to the institutions of the country, Osiris is the foundation of the royal dignity; Hermes, of sacerdotal authority. The first is the beau idéal of the Pharaoh, the second of the priest.

We shall mention a few of the details which Professor Creuzer regards as the foundation of his theory. The principal incidents of the story of Osiris are well known. Osiris and Isis govern Egypt; they first invent agriculture, they give laws, they humanize the people, and lay down the first civil institutions. But Osiris is not content with this narrow sphere; he wishes to spread happiness not in the valley of the Nile only, but throughout the world, He leaves Egypt, and with a numerous attendance he visits the

« PředchozíPokračovat »