* The sepulchres of Tûmû, Khopri, Râ, Osiris, and in each
of them the heap of sand hiding the body, are represented in
the tomb of Seti I., as also the four rams in which the
souls of the god are incarnate. The tombs of the gods were
known even in Roman times.
** To my mind, at least, this is an obvious conclusion from
the monuments of Siût, in which the jackal god is called
Uapûaîtû, as the living god, lord of the city, and Anûpû,
master of embalming or of the Oasis, lord of Ra-qrirît,
inasmuch as he is god of the dead. Ra-qrirît, the door of
the stone, was the name which the people of Siût gave to
their necropolis and to the infernal domain of their god.
That bliss which we dream of enjoying in the world to come was not granted to the gods any more than to men. Their bodies were nothing but inert larvae, "with unmoving heart,"[*] weak and shrivelled limbs, unable to stand upright were it not that the bandages in which they were swathed stiffened them into one rigid block. Their hands and heads alone were free, and were of the green or black shades of putrid flesh.
* This is the characteristic epithet for the dead Osiris,
Urdu Mt, he whose heart is unmoving, he whose heart no
longer beats, and who has therefore ceased to live.
2 Drawing by Faucher-Gudin of a bronze statuette of the
Saïte period, found in the department of Hérault, at the end
of a gallery in an ancient mine.
Their doubles, like those of men, both dreaded and regretted the light. All sentiment was extinguished by the hunger from which they suffered, and gods who were noted for their compassionate kindness when alive, became pitiless and ferocious tyrants in the tomb. When once men were bidden to the presence of Sokaris, Khontamentîfc, or even of Osiris, "mortals come terrifying their hearts with fear of the god, and none dareth to look him in the face either among gods or men; for him the great are as the small. He spareth not those who love him; he beareth away the child from its mother, and the old man who walketh on his way; full of fear, all creatures make supplication before him, but he turneth not his face towards them." Only by the unfailing payment of tribute, and by feeding him as though he were a simple human double, could living or dead escape the consequences of his furious temper. The living paid him his dues in pomps and solemn sacrifices, repeated from year to year at regular intervals; but the dead bought more dearly the protection which he deigned to extend to them. He did not allow them to receive directly the prayers, sepulchral meals, or offerings of kindred on feast-days; all that was addressed to them must first pass through his hands. When their friends wished to send them wine, water, bread, meat, vegetables, and fruits, he insisted that these should first be offered and formally presented to himself; then he was humbly prayed to transmit them to such or such a double, whose name and parentage were pointed out to him. He took possession of them, kept part for his own use, and of his bounty gave the remainder to its destined recipient. Thus death made no change in the relative positions of the feudal god and his worshippers. The worshipper who called himself the amakhû of the god during life was the subject and vassal of his mummied god even in the tomb;[*] and the god who, while living, reigned over the living, after his death continued to reign over the dead.
* The word amakhû is applied to an individual who has
freely entered the service of king or baron, and taken him
for his lord: amakhû khir nibuf means vassal of his
lord. In the same way, each chose for himself a god who
became his patron, and to whom he owed fealty, i.e. to
whom he was amakhû—vassal. To the god he owed the service
of a good vassal—tribute, sacrifices, offerings; and to his
vassal the god owed in return the service of a suzerain—
protection, food, reception into his dominions and access to
his person. A man might be absolutely nib amahkît, master
of fealty, or, relatively to a god, amakhû khir Osiri, the
vassal of Osiris, amakhû khir Phtah-Sokari, the vassal of
Phtah-Sokaris.
He dwelt in the city near the prince and in the midst of his subjects: Râ living in Heliopolis along with the prince of Heliopolis; Haroêris in Edfû together with the prince of Edfû; Nît in Saïs with the prince of Sais. Although none of the primitive temples have come down to us, the name given to them in the language of the time, shows what they originally were. A temple was considered as the feudal mansion—hâît,—the house—pirû, pi,—of the god, better cared for, and more respected than the houses of men, but not otherwise differing from them. It was built on a site slightly raised above the level of the plain, so as to be safe from the inundation, and where there was no natural mound, the want was supplied by raising a rectangular platform of earth. A layer of sand spread uniformly on the sub-soil provided against settlements or infiltration, and formed a bed for the foundations of the building.[*]
* This custom lasted into Græco-Roman times, and was part of
the ritual for laying the foundations of a temple. After the
king had dug out the soil on the ground where the temple was
to stand, he spread over the spot sand mixed with pebbles
and precious stones, and upon this he laid the first course
of stone.