this must imperceptibly engender a hostile feeling amongst them, and prevent their plotting against the government." These were, of course, merely the fanciful notions of the uninstructed, as Diodorus justly observes. Many of the animals were worshipped, not from a particular respect paid to them, nor on account of any qualities they possessed, but solely because they had been chosen as emblems of certain Deities; and their selection for this purpose is a separate and independent question. That the reasons for it were often as capricious and ridiculous, as those stated by the historian, is very probable; and what could be more arbitrary than the adoption of the Ibis to represent the God Thoth, or the spotted Cow to be the emblem of Athor? For, if they looked upon the Ibis with a feeling of gratitude on account of its utility in destroying serpents, the reason for its being chosen as the peculiar type of the Egyptian Hermes could not originate there; nor does a Cow, however useful to mankind, appear to be a suitable representative of the Goddess Venus. It is, therefore, evident, that neither the benefits derived by man from the habits of certain animals, nor the reputed reasons for their peculiar choice as emblems of the Gods, were sufficient to account for the reverence paid to many of those they held sacred. Some, no doubt, may have been indebted to the first mentioned cause; and, however little connection appears to subsist between those animals and the Gods of whom they were the types, we may believe that the ox, cow, sheep, dog, cat, vulture, hawk, Ibis, and some others, were chosen from their utility to man. We may also see sufficient reasons for making some others sacred, in order to prevent their being killed for food, because their flesh was unwholesome, as was the case with certain fish of the Nile,-a precaution which extended to some of the vegetables of the country. But this will not account for the choice they made in many instances; for why should not the camel and horse have been selected for the first, and many other common animals and reptiles for the last-mentioned reason? There was, as Porphyry observes, some other hidden motive, independent of these; and whether it was, as Plutarch supposes, founded on rational grounds, (with a view to promote the welfare of the community,) on accidental or imaginary analogy, or on mere caprice, it is equally difficult to discover it, or satisfactorily to account for the selection of certain animals as the exclusive types of particular Deities. Porphyry gives another reason for the worship of animals, which is consistent with the speculative notions of the Egyptians; but still it offers no elucidation of the question respecting the preference shown to some before others, nor does it account for one or other being chosen to represent a particular attribute of the Deity. "The Egyptian priests," says that writer*, "profiting by their diligent study of philosophy, * Porphyr. de Abstin. iv. c. 9. and their intimate acquaintance with the nature of the Gods, have learnt that the Divinity permeates other beings as well as man; that he is not the only creature on earth possessed of soul; and that nearly the same spiritual essence pervades all the tribes of living creatures. On this account, in fashioning images of the Gods, they have adopted the forms of all animals, sometimes joining the human figure with those of beasts; at others, combining the shapes of men and of birds. Wherefore some of their images have the form of a man up to the neck, with the face of a bird, or a lion, or any other creature: others, again, have the head of a man, with the remainder of the body, either the upper or lower parts, shaped like some other animal. Thus we find the lion adored as a God; and there is a part of Egypt called the Leontopolite nome, from the lion, another called the Busirite, from the bull, and a third the Lycopolitan, from the wolf. Under these semblances, they adore the universal power which the Gods have severally displayed in the various forms of living nature." If, as he supposes all animals had been admitted by themt, this notion of the universal participation of the divine essence would account for the adoption of each member of the animated creation, as the representative of its own particular portion of the Divinity from whom it emanated. *"Bouσipiny." This is a Greek fancy. Vide suprà, Vol. I. (2d series) p. 347. Cicero is also wrong in saying, "Omne fere genus bestiarum Ægyptii consecraverunt. De Nat. Deor. iii. But the difficulty is not solved by this statement, nor by that of Plutarch*, who says, "Many suppose the soul of Typho to have been divided amongst those animals, signifying that the irrational and brutal nature proceeds from the evil principle; and, consequently, all the reverence paid to these creatures, is with a design to pacify him." Plutarch+ and Porphyry attach great importance to the doctrine of emanation, as the source of animal worship; and the statements of those two writers tend to show the principle which guided the Egyptians, in their speculations respecting the connection between the Creator and his creatures. The doctrine of emanations from one great soul, to which all returned again, after having been sufficiently purified from the contaminations to which each soul was subject during its earthly career, formed a principal feature of their religion; and not only was man, or the human soul, considered an emanation from the same great and universal source, but every animated creature was supposed to partake of its divine essence. This idea extended even to "herbs and stones," which were thought to "have within them the natural property of the Divinity."+ I have already had occasion to observe §, that the idea of the human soul, which was an emanation from the great soul that governed and *Plut. de Is. s. 73. Vide suprà, Vol. I. (2d series) p. 318. pervaded the universe, returning to its divine origin after certain purifications, led to the doctrine of the transmigration. The evil propensities of man, and the sinful actions of which he was frequently guilty, were thought so to taint the original purity of the divine nature of the soul, that, on leaving the body, it was no longer in a fit state to reunite itself with the immaculate source from which it proceeded; they therefore supposed that it underwent a proportionate degree of purification, according to the nature of the impieties each individual had committed. For this purpose, it was condemned to a state of purgatory, by passing through the bodies of various animals. The most wicked were confined in those of the most odious description, as the pig and others, which for this reason they believed to be fit emblems of the Evil Being t; and "those," as Plato ‡ makes Socrates say, "who were guilty of injustice, tyranny, and rapine, entered into the tribes of wolves, hawks §, and kites." Hence it appears, that the animals they held sacred, which partook more immediately of the divine nature, were distinct from those into which the "souls of wicked persons passed during the period of their transmigration;" and that it was imparted to some in a direct manner, while others only received it through the medium of other influences. * Vide Plut. de Is. s. 72. + Plut. de Is. s. 31. Plato, Phædo, p. 294. Trans. Taylor. |