"Beautiful is thy setting, thou sun's disk of life, thou Lord of Lords and King of the worlds. When thou unitest thyself with the heaven at thy setting, mortals rejoice before thy countenance and give honour to him who has created them, and pray before him who has formed them, before the glance of thy son who loves thee the King Khu-en-aten. The whole land of Egypt and all peoples repeat all thy names at thy rising, to magnify thy rising in like manner as thy setting."[94]
As may be gathered from Lepsius' maps and plans, this "temple of the Sun" was not built alone. Set was again brought to the front. There was another at right angles to it, and while Spica was seen setting in one, a star near γ Draconis was rising in the other.
It may be added that it was not apparently till Rameses II. built his temple M that Set again had an available temple at Karnak: one, however, again to be blocked when the victorious Tirhaqa and the Theban priests returned after their exile. (See page [186].)
We see, then, that in a detailed study of the sun-worship at Thebes alone, we distinctly trace two schools of astronomical thought associated with different religious tendencies. As a protest against the Southern worship of the Theban priests, Khu-en-Aten goes back to a Northern cult. This point is evidently worth further inquiry.
CHAPTER XXXII.
THE EARLY TEMPLE AND GREAT PYRAMID BUILDERS.
In previous chapters I have referred to the difference in astronomical thought evidenced by the solstitial solar worship at Thebes as opposed to the non-solstitial solar worship at Annu, and again by the observations of southern stars above Thebes as opposed to observations of high northern stars below.
There is still another fundamental difference to be signalised, and that is the building in some cases of pyramids, with or without associated temples, east and west true.
It will perhaps be generally conceded that the differences in thought indicated by the building or non-building of colossal pyramids are greater than those indicated by the two other differentia to which I have referred, and on this ground I propose to enter upon this point at some length.
We may first inquire if there be any other class of considerations which can be utilised to continue the discussion of the question thus raised on astronomical grounds. It is obvious that if sufficient tradition exists to permit us to associate the different classes of structures which have been studied astronomically with definite periods of Egyptian history, a study of the larger outlines of that history will enable us to determine whether or not the critical changes in dynasties and rulers were or were not associated with critical changes in astronomical ideas as revealed by changes in temple-worship and pyramid building. If there be no connection the changes may have been due to a change of idea only—a variation in astronomical thought—and the suggestion of a distinction of race falls to the ground.
In a region of inquiry where the facts are so few and difficult to recognise among a mass of myths and traditions, to say nothing of contradictory assertions by different authors in their exposition of the inscriptions, the more closely we adhere to a rigidly scientific method of inquiry the better. I propose to show, therefore, that there is one working hypothesis which seems to include a great many of the facts, and I hope to give the hypothesis and the facts in such a way that if there be anything inaccurately or incompletely stated it will be easy at once to change the front of the inquiry and proceed along the new line indicated.