egyptian myth and discourse myth gods and the early written and iconographic record
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Egyptian Myth and Discourse Myth Gods and the Early Written and Iconographic Record
1/26
Egyptian Myth and Discourse: Myth, Gods, and the Early Written and Iconographic RecordAuthor(s): John BainesSource: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 50, No. 2 (Apr., 1991), pp. 81-105Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/545669.
Accessed: 27/11/2013 11:01
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
The University of Chicago Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal
of Near Eastern Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 80.147.103.221 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:01:30 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/545669?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/545669?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress -
8/10/2019 Egyptian Myth and Discourse Myth Gods and the Early Written and Iconographic Record
2/26
EGYPTIAN MYTH
AND DISCOURSE:
MYTH,
GODS,
AND
THE
EARLY WRITTEN
AND ICONOGRAPHIC
RECORD*
JOHN
BAINES,
University
of Oxford
I.
CHARACTER AND HISTORY
OF THE
PROBLEM
FOR
decades,
a
number
of
Egyptologists
have
seen the definition
and
status
of
myth
as one
of the
most
problematic aspects
of
Egyptian religion
and texts.
The
essential
difficulty
with
the
concept
of
myth
has
been,
on the
one
hand,
the
divergence
between
the
ample
attestation
of
many
Egyptian
deities
and
groupings
of
deities,
and,
on the
other
hand,
the near
absence
of
narratives about the
gods
that can
easily
be
termed
myths.
Scholars
have
questioned
the existence of
myths
in earlier
periods
and
have been
perplexed
by
the
variability
of
mythical
motifs. This attitude
contrasts
with
those
of
students
of
many
ancient
cultures and
most
complex
societies,
in
which
myth
is
seen
as
a
central
repository
of
values,
many
myths
are known
in the
literary
record,
and
the
problem
of
defining myth
may
be
given
a subordinate
position.
*
Abbreviations
of
works
cited
frequently
in
this
article are
as
follows:
Conceptions:
Erik
Hornung,
Conceptions
of
God
in
Ancient
Egypt,
trans. John
Baines
(Ithaca, New York, 1982) (revision of Der
Eine
und die
Vielen:
Altagyptische
Gottesvorstellun-
gen
[Darmstadt,
1971];
French
trans. Paul
Cou-
turiau
[from
the
English],
Jean-Paul
Bertrand, ed.,
Les
Dieux
de
l'Egypte:
L'un
et le
multiple,
Civilisa-
tion
et
Tradition
[Monaco,
1986],
with
additional
revisions);
GOF:
Gottinger
Orientforschungen
IV.
Reihe:
Agypten
(Wiesbaden,
1973-);
Lichtheim:
Mir-
iam
Lichtheim,
Ancient
Egyptian
Literature:
A
Book
of
Readings,
3
vols.
(Berkeley,
1973-80);
Mythe:
Siegfried
Schott,
Mythe
und
Mythenbildung
im
al-
ten
Agypten,
UGAA 14
(Leipzig, 1945);
Past :
John
Baines,
Ancient
Egyptian
Concepts
and
Uses
of
the
Past:
3rd to 2nd
Millennium
B.C.
Evidence,
in Robert Layton, ed., Who Needs the Past?: In-
digenous
Values
and
Archaeology (London,
1989),
pp.
131-49;
Seth: Herman
te
Velde,
Seth,
God
of
Confusion,
Probleme der
Agyptologie
6
(Leiden,
1967);
Verborgenheit :
Jan
Assmann,
Die
Verbor-
genheit
des
Mythos
in
Agypten,
GM
25
(1977):
7-
43;
Verhaltnis:
Eberhard
Otto,
Das
Verhaltnis von
Rite
und
Mythus
im
Agyptischen,
Sitzungsberichte
der
Heidelberger
Akademie
der
Wissenschaften,
phil.-hist.
Ki.
1958,
no.
1
(Heidelberg,
1958);
Wirk-
lichkeit :
Friedrich
Junge,
Wirklichkeit
und
Abbild:
Zum
innerigyptischen
Synkretismus
und zur
Welt-
sicht der Hymnen des Neuen Reiches, in Gernot
Wiessner, ed.,
Synkretismusforschung-
Theorie
und
Praxis,
Gottinger
Orientforschungen:
Grundlagen
und
Ergebnisse
1
(Wiesbaden,
1978),
pp.
87-108;
Zeu-
gung :
Jan
Assmann,
Die
Zeugung
des
Sohnes:
Bild,
Spiel,
Erzahlung
and
das Problem
des
agyp-
tischen
Mythos,
in Jan Assmann
et
al.,
Funktionen
und
Leistungen
des
Mythos:
Drei
altorientalische
Beispiele,
Orbis Biblicus
et
Orientalis
48
(Freiburg,
Switzerland
and
G6ttingen,
1982),
pp.
13-61.
This article
is an initial
discussion
of the
status
of
myth
in
Egyptian
texts.
I do not consider
attesta-
tion from
periods
after
the New
Kingdom,
which
is
uncontroversial.
I
hope
later to
present
a
study
of
Egyptian myths
on the basis of the
position
presented
here.
For reasons
of
space,
I
omit
non-German
traditions
of
scholarship
and restrict
discussion
of
questions
of
definition.
A
preliminary
version
was
given
at the
University
of
Chicago
in March 1989.
I
am
grateful
for
the
invitation
to
attend,
to
Stephen
Parker for
organiz-
ing
my
visit,
and
to
participants
for
many
useful
comments.
That version
was later
presented
to
a
seminar
at
the
University
of
Michigan
to
whose
members
I am indebted
for
discussion. I
should
also
like
to thank
Christopher Eyre,
Erhart
Graefe,
Rolf
Krauss,
and Peter Machinist
for
comments on
drafts,
and Richard Parkinson for much help. Work was
aided
by
a
Humboldt-Stiftung
fellowship
at
the
Uni-
versity
of
Mtinster.
[JNES
50
no. 2
(1991)]
@
by The University of Chicago.
All
rights
reserved.
0022-2968/91
/
5002-0001$1.00.
81
This content downloaded from 80.147.103.221 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:01:30 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Egyptian Myth and Discourse Myth Gods and the Early Written and Iconographic Record
3/26
82
JOURNAL OF
NEAR EASTERN
STUDIES
This article offers
a
critique
of the
Egyptological
approaches
and
suggests
alternatives
to
them,
focusing
on
the
German
tradition,
which is the
only
one with
a
continuing
discussion
of the
status
of
myth.
Outside
these
discussions
the
problems
of the
presence
and absence
of
myths,
and of the relation
between
the written
record and
whatever
myths
there were in other
contexts,
have
hardly
been raised. The
possibility
that
there
were no
narrative
myths
in
some
periods
should be
taken
seriously
because
societies
with few
myths
do
exist,'
but
that
might
be rare in a
complex
state.
It should also
be
asked
whether
myths
are
as
ideologically significant
as
is
often
assumed.
Early
scholars,
notably
Heinrich
Brugsch,2
tended
to
exploit
the
fragmentary
evi-
dence
and assume
that there
had been
numerous
myths relating
to
the
many
deities;
the
task was to
order
the
material,
especially
in
regional
terms,
and to
reconstruct the
cults
and
assemble
evidence for
myths.3
The evidence
they
used is
often
scattered
or
consists
only
of
allusions
or
evocations.
Brugsch's principal
successor was Hermann
Kees,
whose
work
culminated
in
Der
Gdtterglaube
im
alten
Agypten.4
This
approach
is
appropriate
for late materials because of the amount of information
they preserve,
often
regionally
organized;
here it continues to
be
pursued.5
It
assumes that
available evidence
is
only
a
fraction
of what there
was both
in
quantity
and
in
range
of
genres.
Writers who have
moved
away
from
these
approaches
have attended
more
closely
to
the form
and statements of the
sources
themselves,
partly
to
the
exclusion of
their
position
in
a wider
context of
religious
conceptions
and
action.
There has also
been a
change
of
temporal
focus. Whereas
earlier
Egyptology
tended to
concentrate on
more
recent
periods,
especially
for
religion,
later
scholarship
has turned
increasingly
to
earlier
times,
with their
sparser
and more
problematic
evidence. The
growing
emphasis
on
sources
contrasts with
the rather
absurd
interpretation
of Kurt
Sethe,
who
suggested
(with
reserve)
in
Urgeschichte
und
iilteste
Religion
der
Agypter6
that relations between
gods
could be
mapped
fairly
directly
onto
events
in
order
to
model
prehistory
as far
back
as the fifth
millennium
B.C.
Such a
construct
could be
proposed
only
if
contexts
and
mechanisms
of
spoken
and
written
transmission were
largely ignored.
Because of
hypotheses
such as this
one,
it
is
understandable
that
these scholars'
breadth of
approach
should
have been
ignored
or
discredited.7
Sethe and
Kees
also
showed a
certain
rationalistic
contempt
for
religion
and reduction
of
its
implications
to
politics
and
factional
struggle.
The
reaction
against
these
aspects
after
World War
II
was
probably
reinforced
by
antipathy
to
this
reductionism and
to
the
nationalism
of these
academi-
cally
illustrious
scholars.
I
See,
for
example,
E. E.
Evans-Pritchard,
The
Zande
Trickster,
Oxford
Library
of
African
Litera-
ture
(Oxford,
1967),
pp.
31-32;
general
context
pp.
11-13.
2
Heinrich
Brugsch,
Religion
und
Mythologie
der
alten
Aegypter
(Leipzig,
1885-88,
1891).
3
For
the
nineteenth-century
controversy
on
Egyp-
tian
gods,
which
is
closely
related to that
mentioned
here,
see
Conceptions,
pp.
17-26.
4
Hermann
Kees,
MVAG
45
(1941;
2d
ed.,
Berlin
[East],
1956);
historical
outline:
preface,
pp.
v-vii,
introduction,
pp.
1-4,
with
acknowledgement
of
Brugsch.
5
For
example,
Adolphe
Gutbub,
Textes
fonda-
mentaux
de la
thdologie
de
Kom
Ombo,
2
vols.,
Bibliothbque
d'Etude 47
(Cairo, 1973).
Jean
Yoyotte
has
contributed
many
studies
in
this area.
6
Kurt
Sethe,
Abhandlungen
fdir
die Kunde
des
Morgenlandes
18:4
(Leipzig,
1930).
7
See
positive
assessment of
Sethe's work
in,
for ex-
ample,
Jacques
Vandier,
La
Religion
egyptienne,
2d
ed.,
Les Anciennes
Religions
Orientales
1
(Paris,
1949),
p.
31. J.
Gwyn
Griffiths,
The
Conflict of
Horus
and
Seth
from
Egyptian
and
Classical Sources: A
Study
in
Ancient
Mythology,
Liverpool
Monographs
in
Archaeology
and
Oriental
Studies
(Liverpool,
1960),
basically
followed
Sethe's
reconstruction;
see
Hans Bonnet's comments in his review of Griffithsin
OLZ 57
(1962):
472-74;
Seth,
pp.
74-80.
This content downloaded from 80.147.103.221 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:01:30 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Egyptian Myth and Discourse Myth Gods and the Early Written and Iconographic Record
4/26
EGYPTIAN MYTH
AND
DISCOURSE
83
The
first
author of the
post-Kees
generation
to discuss
the
problem
of
Egyptian
myth
was
Siegfried
Schott.8
The
point
of
departure
for
his
approach
was the
vast
range
of
brief
statements,
particularly
in
the
Pyramid
Texts,
that allude
to events
in
the world
of
the
gods. Studies of Giinther Rudnitzky9 and Eberhard Otto'o built on Schott's book on
myth,
and on his
study
of the
hypothetical
function
of the
Pyramid
Texts
in
royal
mortuary
rituals,1
o elaborate
a
theory
of the close connection
between
Egyptian
myth
and
ritual. This
theory
arose
almost
independently
of the widerdiscussion-now
largely
ignored-of
the
relation
between
myth
and
ritual
and the
putative origin
of
myth
in
ritual.12
Schott's basic conclusion
was that the
Egyptians
had no
true
myths
before
Early
Dynastic
times
and
that
traces
of
their formation
could
be seen in the
Pyramid
Texts.
His
position
has seldom
been
seriously
disputed,
as
against
being ignored
or
built
upon. 3
He
considered
that
there
was a time
when
stories
or
folktales
about
the
gods
existed on the one hand-he called narrativesMdrchenand the early Egyptians'mental
universe
mdrchenhaft14--and
rituals were
performed
on
the
other,
without
there
being
any
essential
connection
between the
two. There
were thus
myth-free
(mythenfrei)
rituals16
and
myths
perhaps
developing
separately
from
them.
In
that
period,
rituals
were
believed
to be
innately
efficacious,
whereas
by
the Old
Kingdom
this
conviction
withered,
so that
the
rites
then came to
be
associated
with
myths,
whose
authority
resacralized
them and
rendered them
effective
once
more.
Because
ritual
thus
had
priority
over
myth, myths
might
be either
created
or
distorted
in
the
process
of
using
them
in
rituals.
Many
of the
mythical
elements
encountered in
ritual texts
can
be
reduced
to
just
a
few
motifs,
particularly
the
restitution of
the
healed
eye
of
Horus. If
these important ritual texts were representative of the range that existed, or of oral
traditions
and
religious
practices,
there
could
hardly
have been
a
coherent
body
of
myth
behind
this
jumble.
The
fullest
and most
sophisticated
study
in
this
area,
by
Jan
Assmann,18
takes
the
argument
about
myths,
rather than the
one
about
rituals,
a
stage
further
and
proposes
8
Siegfried
Schott,
Spuren
der
Mythenbildung,
ZA'S
78
(1942):
1-27;
Mythe-dedicated
to
Kees.
Schott
reported
(p.
vii)
on
difficulties
Heinrich
Schai-
fer
had
experienced
in
assembling
myths
for
a
pro-
posed
collection of
Near
Eastern
texts.
9
Giinter
Rudnitzky,
Die
Aussage
iiber
das
Auge
des Horus : Eine altdgyptische Art geistiger Ausse-
rung
nach
dem
Zeugnis
des
Alten
Reiches,
Analecta
Aegyptiaca
5
(Copenhagen, 1956).
10
Verhiiltnis.
11
Herbert
Ricke,
Bemerkungen
zur
aigyptischen
Baukunst des
Alten Reiches,
vol.
2,
with
Siegfried
Schott,
Bemerkungen
zum
iigyptischen
Pyramiden-
kult,
BABA
5
(Cairo,
1950);
cogent
critique,
often
ignored:
Hans
Bonnet,
Agyptische
Baukunst
und
Pyramidenkult,
JNES 12
(1953):
257-73.
12
See,
for
example,
Siegfried
Morenz,
Agypt-
ische
Religion
(Stuttgart,
1960),
pp.
85-88,
who
stated
that in
Egypt
evidence
for
early
relations
between
myth
and ritual
was
lacking. Aspects of his
approach,
which
distinguishes
between
genuine
(eigentlich)
religion
and
primitive
magic,
are
prob-
lematic. For
a
survey
of
the
myth-ritual
question,
see Walter
Burkert,
Homo
Necans:
The
Anthro-
pology
of
Ancient
Greek
Sacrificial
Ritual
and
Myth,
trans.
Peter
Bing
(Berkeley, 1983),
pp.
29-34.
13
Schott's
exposition
is
confusing,
in
organiza-
tion rather
than in
style,
and has
consequently
been
rather little
used.
His clearest
formulation is
the
summary Die alteren
G6ttermythen,
in Literatur,
Handbuch
der Orientalistik
1,
1:2,
2d
ed.
(Leiden,
1970),
pp.
90-98.
14
See,
for
example,
Mythe,
pp.
88-90.
15
Essential
exposition Mythe,
chap.
4,
pp.
83-109.
16
See
especially
Otto,
Verhiiltnis,
p.
9;
idem,
An
Ancient
Egyptian
Hunting
Ritual,
JNES 9
(1950):
164-77;
see
also
Verborgenheit,
pp.
15-16.
Burkert
cites Otto
in Homo
Necans
and also
assumes
a
priority
of ritual over
myth.
While this
must be
true
of the
evolution of
mankind,
it does
not
mean
that
this
priority
need be
posited
for
the
rituals of
any
accessible
human
culture.
17Some points derive from extensions of the
theory,
notably
by
Otto.
18
Verborgenheit.
This content downloaded from 80.147.103.221 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:01:30 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Egyptian Myth and Discourse Myth Gods and the Early Written and Iconographic Record
5/26
84
JOURNAL OF NEAR
EASTERN
STUDIES
that there
were
no
narrative
myths
until
perhaps
the Middle
Kingdom,
or more
certainly
the New
Kingdom
(see
sec.
II,
pp.
85-92
below).
Assmann
returned to this
theme in
a
discussion
of
the
motif of
the divine
child centered
on scene
cycles
of the divine
descent
of the
king
and
referring
to sources
ranging
as far as the Greek Alexander
Romance.19
In this
article,
which cannot be
easily
reconciled with the earlier
one,
Assmann
con-
cludes
that the
irreducible
core
in a
myth
is not
its
narrativity
so much
as
its
iconicity. 20
This
shift
allows him to
integrate
his notion
of
a
Konstellation
(see
sec.
II,
p.
86
below)
with
that of
myth,
but it
strays
to the
opposite
extreme
to his first
article
in
virtually
eliminating transitivity
or
narrativity.
Assmann's iconic
analogy
is
prob-
lematic
because,
as
he
notes,
there is
little
preserved representation
of
myth
in
pictorial
compositions.
The term iconic is a
metaphor
for the tableau-like
presentation
of
religious
conceptions, especially
of
solar
beliefs,21
rather
than
a
description
of the
scene
cycles
or
of
myths.
After
Assmann's first
article,
Friedrich
Junge22
published
a
synthesis
of
Egyptian
syncretism
and its
position
in
religious
beliefs. This
usefully
integrates
relevant
ap-
proaches.
Junge
brings
together
strands
of
scholarship
which have
tended
to
interpret
the
character
of
evidence for
Egyptian
myths
in different
ways:
as
exhibiting
unusual
features
of
the
myths
or
of the
structure
of the
pantheon.
In
his
analysis,
it exhibits
both.
Emma
Brunner-Traut's
entry
Mythos
in
the
Lexikon
der
Agyptologie23
builds
partly
on
Assmann's first article and
accepts
his closer
circumscription
of
myth.
She
sees
difficulties with his
rejection
of
mythical
content from the
Pyramid
Texts
(see
sec.
III,
pp.
93-95
below)
and
remarks
that so few
texts are
preserved
from the
Old
Kingdom
that
the absence
of
mythical
narratives should
not
cause
surprise. By
implication,
either
there could have
been such narratives but
they
have not
survived-as is
largely
true
of
later
periods-or
narratives of
myths
were restricted to the oral domain and so have
disappeared; myths
could
then
still
have
existed
in
early
times.
There has been no
outside evaluation
of
the
discussion initiated
by
Schott.24
Although
most
scholars
ignore
these
writings
and
continue
to
assume that the
Egyptians
had
myths
in
all
periods25
and that
the record for
them
poses
no
special problem,
the
issues
raised are
important.
Among
questions
that
arise are the
position
of
myth
in
the
central
Egyptian
cult of the
gods
and in
beliefs about
the
underworld and
the
next
world;
relations
between the
various contexts of
use of
mythical
materials;
the
media
in
which
mythical
materials
were or
were not
recorded;
and,
more
generally,
the
use
of
written
19 Zeugung.
20
Ibid.,
pp.
38-42.
21
Assmann
has discussed textual
and
interpretive
aspects
of
these
repeatedly,
esp.
Re
und
Amun:
Die
Krise
des
polytheistischen
Weltbilds
im
Agypten
der
18.-20.
Dynastie,
Orbis Biblicus
et
Orientalis
51
(Freiburg,
Switzerland and
G6ttingen,
1983);
brief
exposition:
idem,
Die
'Haresie'
des Echnaton: As-
pekte
der
Amarna-Religion,
Saeculum 32
(1972):
111-16. For
pictorial
forms,
known
primarily
from
coffins and
vignettes
to
the
Book
of
the
Dead,
see
Erik
Hornung,
Die
Tragweite
der
Bilder,
Eranos-
Jahrbuch 48
(1981):
183-237.
22
Wirklichkeit.
23
LA,
vol.
4,
cols.
277-86.
24
Heike
Sternberg,Mythische
Motive
und
Mythen-
bildung in den iigyptischen Tempeln und Papyri der
griechisch-r6mischen
Zeit,
GOF 14
(Wiesbaden,
1985),
pp.
14-20,
summarizes the
positions
of
Schott
and
Assmann
usefully
but
does not
go
beyond
them.
She
announces
another relevant
work
entitled
(p.
20,
n.
2):
Das
Verhaltnis
von
Magie
und
Religion
im
alten
Agypten.
Untersuchungen
anhand der
sog.
magischen
Texten,
insb. des NR
und der
SpZt
(Teil-
thema:
Mythische
Motive in
den
magischen
Texten.
Zur
Verkniipfung
von
agyptischer
Religion
und
Magie),
GOF.
25
For
example,
Rudolf
Anthes,
Mythology
in
Ancient
Egypt,
in
Samuel
Noah
Kramer,
ed.,
Mythologies of the Ancient World(Chicago, 1961),
pp.
15-92,
drawing
together
the
conclusions
of
numerous
articles of
the
1950s.
This content downloaded from 80.147.103.221 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:01:30 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Egyptian Myth and Discourse Myth Gods and the Early Written and Iconographic Record
6/26
EGYPTIAN MYTH
AND DISCOURSE
85
records.26
One
important
reason
why
sources
constrain
the
way
in which the
problem
presents
itself
may
be
that
they
in turn are constrained
by
formal
restrictions
and
by
their
position
in written
tradition.27
The
analysis
of
myth
stretches
what can
be
achieved
with available sources
and
brings
out
problems
of
the ancient
deposition
of
evidence.
Before
addressing
some
of these
issues,
I would like
to
review
Assmann's
and
Junge's
views.
II.
DISCUSSIONS
ASSMANN,
DIE VERBORGENHEIT
DES
MYTHOS :
THE LATERFORMATION
OF
MYTH
Assmann's views
on the
scarcity
of
myth
are
stated more
strongly
in his earlier
article
than in
his later
study,28
but he
hardly
indicates
in
the latter how far
his views
have
shifted.
It is
convenient to
base a discussion
on his
first,
more
sharply
formulated
exposition
(cited
in
this
section
by simple
page
number).
Assmann does
not
define
myth formally,
but he
understands a
myth
as a
tale about
the
divine
world
that
has true
narrative
qualities,
such
as a
beginning,
middle,
and
end.29
He
shows that
pre-New
Kingdom
mortuary
literature
is
non-narrative,
so
that
this
corpus-the
principal
body
of
available
texts-cannot be
used
directly
to
substan-
tiate the
existence
of
myths
in
early
periods.
Events in the
world of the
gods
that
are
mentioned
typically
in
the
Pyramid
Texts
have been
very
variously
interpreted,
but
they
do
not form
narratives
and hence
do not
qualify
as
myths.
To
call
them
allusions
to
myths
is
to weaken
the
implications
of their
presence
in
the
texts,
in
which
they enact,
rather
than
evoke,
an
identification between
a
ritual action
and
a divine
occurrence;30
they
are
performative. 31
chott
therefore
called them
citations,
a
usage
that
begs
some
questions by
ascribing
to the
myth
an
existence
separate
from
its
citation,
while
perhaps
not
suggesting
strongly enough
the
force of the
myth's
presence
in
a
ritual.
Assmann
denies
mythical
character
to
a
category
of
Pyramid
Texts
which
Schott
termed
hymns
with
a
name
formula
(Hymnen
mit der
Namensformel)
(p.
14).
Similarly,
the
Ramesseum
Dramatic
Papyrus,32
much
discussed for
possible
mythical
associations,
is not
a
narrative of
a
myth,
but
a
ritual
(of
uncertain
identification)
that
draws
heavily
on
events in
the
world of the
gods
(pp. 15-21).
Assmann
denies
mythical
character to
narrative
fragments
in
Middle
Kingdom texts,
of
which the
most
significant
is
the
Horus
and
Seth
episode
in a
papyrus
from
Illahun;
he
suggests
that
this is
part
of
a
magical
spell
rather
than
a
separate
narrative
(see
sec.
III,
pp.
85-86,
99
below).33
It
26
Cf.
Past.
27
Brunner-Traut
(n.
23
above)
sees the
issue in
this
way.
28
Zeugung.
29
Pp.
20-21.
The
point
is
expounded
more
fully,
but
not
very
clearly,
in
Zeugung,
pp.
30-31 with
p.
54,
nn.
85-86;
pp.
56-67,
n.
121.
30
A
conclusion of
Schott
that
is
reiterated
by
Assmann, for example, pp. 8-9 with nn. 2, 5; pp. 18-
20,
esp. p.
20,
n.
28.
31
Assmann
has used
this term
in a
related
sense
(e.g.,
Re
und
Amun,
pp. 50-51),
but it
is
absent
from
this
article.
32
Kurt
Sethe,
Dramatische
Texte
zu
altiigypti-
schen
Mysterienspielen,
UGAA
10
(Leipzig, 1928),
pp.
83-264.
33 P. 33 with n.
52. Text:
F. Ll.
Griffith,
The
Petrie
Papyri:
Hieratic
Papyri from
Kahun
and
Gurob
(Principally
of
the
Middle
Kingdom) (Lon-
don, 1898), pl. 3, no. VI.12, p. 4; see also Seth, p. 38
with n.
6.
This content downloaded from 80.147.103.221 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:01:30 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Egyptian Myth and Discourse Myth Gods and the Early Written and Iconographic Record
7/26
86
JOURNAL OF
NEAR
EASTERN
STUDIES
would
follow
that the earliest
securely
attested
mythical
narratives
were
of New
King-
dom
date,
most
of them
being
narrowly
literary
or
embedded
in
magical
texts.34
Because
no
early
mythical
narrative
is
preserved,
Assmann
gives
priority
to
what
he
terms
Konstellationen
of
deities--relatively
fixed
groupings
of them
and
relations
among
them;35
his
concept
is central
to his
thinking
about the
pantheon.
He
sees
the
divine and human or real
worlds
as
being
so close to each
other in
early periods
as
to
preclude
people's
conceptions
of deities from
being
sufficiently
detached
for
the
formula-
tion of
myths
(p.
14).
This
view
raises
questions
about
the
shape
and
configuration
of
a
pantheon
that
has
no
mythical
organization.
Its
apparent
implication
that
myth
is
in
some
way
not
serious,
or less serious
than
a
Konstellation,
seems to involve
assuming
that
narrative
myths
of the
type
that is at issue
cannot have
a
fundamental
significance
(sec.
III,
pp.
99-100
below). Although
the
centrality
of
myth
may
indeed
have
been
overemphasized,
it
would be
questionable
to
generalize
this view
to the rest of
Egyptian
society,
or more
broadly
to
myths
as
a whole.
It
also
seems
to
imply-perhaps
uninten-
tionally-that
myths
can be used for
only
one
purpose
in
any
period;
there is no
reason
why
this
should be
so.
Assmann's
separation
of
the
divine
and
real
worlds
is
problematic
because it
could
suggest
that the
world
of
the
gods
is not
real.
For the actors
that
world
is
real,36
even
if
its
status
may
be less
straightforward
than
that of the
human
world. Assmann
sub-
sequently
distinguishes
between
the
real
world,37
which
includes such
sacred activities
as
temple
and
mortuary
cults,
and
the
everyday
world
(Alltagswelt),
in
which
magical
practices
take
place
in
an
extra-temple
setting.
Yet
although
there is a
distinction
between
temple
or
mortuary
cult
and
other
religious
practices,
this
need
not
be
one
between the
real
and
the
everyday. Many
usages
of
magic
occur in
less
tightly
ordered
contexts,
but in relation to
magic
and
causality-as
against
sanctity
and
decorum-the
Egyptians
do not
seem
to
have
distinguished
sharply
among
contexts,
and
they legitimized
magic
as
something
the creator
had
given
to the
created
world
in
general.38
Magic
was
a distinct
force
that
could also be
personified
as a
major deity
or
creator,39
but it
was
integral
to
the
cosmos.
The
real
world
which
Assmann
proposes
is
the
elite
Egyptian
society
and
cosmos,
excluding
anything
outside
official
religious
practices
and beliefs
and those
who
might
have
access to
them.
One
could
distinguish
between
narrowly
instrumental
practices
and ones in
which
magic
or
religion
was
involved,
but
this
distinction
would
cut
across
analytical
notions of
the
real
and
the
everyday.
In
addition,
the
instrumental
or
34
This
applies
even to
the
Destruction
of
Man-
kind,
which
is
preserved
in
royal
tombs:
see
Hornung
et
al.,
Der
iigyptische
Mythos
von
der
Himmelskuh:
Eine
Atiologie
des
Unvollkommenen,
Orbis
Biblicus
et
Orientalis
46
(Freiburg,
Switzerland
and
G6ttin-
gen);
Lichtheim,
vol.
2,
pp.
197-99
(part only);
Nadine
Guilhou,
La
Vieillesse
des
dieux,
Institut
d'Egyptologie
Universit6
Paul-Valery
(Montpellier,
1989).
Scholars
have
reconstructed
the
skeletons of
numerous
mythical
narratives
from
such
sources.
35
P. 14
with
refs.;
Wirklichkeit,
passim.
36
See pp. 10-13, where Assmann argues in favor
of a
perspective
which
is not
that of
the
actors;
but
see
p.
18,
n. 24
where he
accepts
the
reality
of the
world of
the
gods.
37
Junge, Wirklichkeit,
p.
89,
applies
Assmann's
terms more
broadly,
and
I
think
more
usefully, say-
ing
that
the real
world is the
entire
factual
(tat-
siichlich)
environment of
a
person,
the
experien-
tial
horizon of
the
religious
subject
in
nature
and
society.
This definition
could
be too
broad
because
it is
hard to
see
what a
fact
would
be
here.
38
See
Hornung,
Conceptions,
pp.
207-11.
39
Herman
te
Velde,
The
God
Heka
in
Egyptian
Theology, JEOL 21 (1970): 175-86.
This content downloaded from 80.147.103.221 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:01:30 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Egyptian Myth and Discourse Myth Gods and the Early Written and Iconographic Record
8/26
EGYPTIAN MYTH AND DISCOURSE
87
obvious
is itself
culturally
constructed and
circumscribed.40
Except
for its
ignoring
of
magic,
Assmann's
definition of the real
world
might
have
been
acceptable
to
the
Egyptian
inner
elite,
but a broader measure
is needed. These notions
may
also
be
largely
dispensable.
Although
there is
a
significant
development
in the
New
Kingdom
and later
attestation
of
myths
in
magical
texts,
I
see
no
easy
way
to connect this with
changes
in the status
of
the
real,
the
everyday,
and
their
sanctity
and relations.
Further,
the
apparent
predominance
of
groupings
of
deities
in
earlier times
may
not be as
directly
related to
a
strong
presence
of
the
reality
of the
gods
on earth as Assmann
proposes.
These
groupings
continued
to exist
later,
in
periods
from which
myths
are more
certainly
attested,
and
the
groupings
are in
many ways
abstract in character.
Assmann,
like
Morenz before
him,41
uses
a model
of
secularization,
into which this
conception
of
the
real and
the
everyday
is
integrated.
The model
is
problematic,
and
other
writers,
including myself, have suggested an almost opposite pattern of development. The
difference in
interpretation
here
lies
partly
in
using
definitions
of
religion
that
devalue
magic42
and
partly
in
views
of
such central social
phenomena
as
kingship,
where
I
would
see
complex
conceptions
from an
early
date.43
If
by
secularization
were meant
pluraliza-
tion
or
the
partial separation
of
social and
power
relations
from
religious
life,
agreement
might
be
possible.
Even
then, however,
the
diversity
of
social
and
ideological
foci
in
early
periods
may
have been underestimated.
For
later
periods, especially
the
New
Kingdom,
Assmann cites
magical spells
and
calendars
of
lucky
and
unlucky days
as
being
rich in
narrative
elements
about
the
gods.44
He
concedes
to
these
a
more
strongly mythical
character,
terming
them
mythi-
cal statements (or 'realizations of myths': mythische Aussagen), rather than myths. A
feature which demonstrates that some
examples
are not
simply
narratives of
myths
is
first-person
form,
which
occurs
in
two
texts
incorporated
in
magical
spells.45Myths
are
almost
universally
narrated
in
the
third
person,
as
Schott
implied
when
he
termed them
what
people
narrate about
the
gods. 46
Epics
often
include
first-person
speeches by
deities but within
a
third-person
framework.
First-person
form
is
characteristic of
non-narrative utterances of
deities-aretalogies47-or
of
complex
works of
literature.48
The
first-person
form in
the
magical spells may
lie
between
aretalogy
and
literature:
it
adds to
the
weight
of
the
deity's
statement and
assimilates
the
narrative to
literary
types.
40
See Clifford Geertz, Common Sense as a Cul-
tural
System,
in
idem,
Local
Knowledge:
Further
Essays
in
Interpretive
Anthropology (New
York,
1983),
pp.
79-93.
41
Morenz,
Agyptische
Religion,
pp.
6-15;
idem,
Die
Heraufkunft des
transzendentenGottes in
Agyp-
ten,
reprinted
in
idem,
Religion
und
Geschichte des
alten
Agypten:
Gesammelte
Aufsditze,
ed.
Elke Blu-
menthal et
al.
(Weimar,
Cologne,
and
Vienna,
1975),
pp.
77-119.
42
See
Morenz,
Agyptische
Religion,
pp.
85-87.
43
For
these
points,
see
my
articles
Interpretations
of
Religion:
Logic,
Discourse,
Rationality,
GM
76
(1984): 47-50; Practical Religion and Piety, JEA
73
(1987):
80-83;
and
The
Origins
of
Kingship
in
Egypt,
in
David
O'Connor
and
David
P. Silver-
man,
eds.,
Ancient
Egyptian
Kingship:
New
Investi-
gations (in
press).
44
Emma
Brunner-Traut,
Gelebte
Mythen:
Bei-
trdge
zum
altiigyptischen
Mythos
(Darmstadt,
1981),
pp.
18-33;
idem,
Tagewahlerei,
LA,
vol.
6,
cols.
153-56.
45J. F.
Borghouts,
Ancient
Egyptian Magical
Texts,
NISABA:
Religious
Texts in
Translation
Series 9
(Leiden, 1978),
nos.
90-91,
both
Late
Period.
46
In
Literatur,
Handbuch
der
Orientalistik
1,1:2
(Leiden,
1970),
p.
90;
cited
by
Assmann,
p.
13.
47 See
Assmann,
Aretalogien,
LA,
vol.
1,
cols.
425-34.
48See my articles, InterpretingSinuhe, JEA 68
(1982):
35;
Interpreting
the
Story
of the
Ship-
wrecked
Sailor,
JEA
76
(1990):
69-70.
This content downloaded from 80.147.103.221 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:01:30 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Egyptian Myth and Discourse Myth Gods and the Early Written and Iconographic Record
9/26
88
JOURNAL OF NEAR
EASTERN
STUDIES
Among
other texts
that constitute
mythical
statements,
Assmann
cites the
stories
about
the
gods, notably
the
late New
Kingdom
Horus
and
Seth,
which
he
characterizes
as
entertainment
literature;
for some
purposes
he also includes
the narratives
in
magical
texts. There is an
inconsistency
here. Assmann
grants
the status
of
mythical
statement
to
narratives
in
New
Kingdom magical
spells
but
denies
that
status to
the
Middle
Kingdom
Horus
and Seth
example
because it
may
come from
a
spell.
The
only way
that
I can
see
to
save this
interpretation
would be to
assume that a
single
example
did
not
provide
the
critical
mass
necessary
to
posit
the existence
of
mythical
narratives
or statements
in
the
Middle
Kingdom
(sec.
III,
p.
99
below).
Assmann
then
presents
a
model of the
relation
between
myth
and
mythical
state-
ment. His central
category
of
mythical
statements
consists of
the texts
which
narrate
myths
or
episodes
of
myths.
Although
he
states
that the
essence
of
myth
is
narrative
structure,
the
myth
itself
is not
identical with
any
one
narrative
of its
episodes
or of
a
selection of
them.
Mythical
statements
may
stand
in
various
relations
to
(presumably
narrative)
myths.
Assmann
proposes
three
relations,
which
may
be
characterized as
(i)
instrumental
or
analogical
(handlungsbezogen);
(ii) argumentative
or
etiological
(wissensbezogen);
and
(iii)
literary
or
noninstrumental
(situationsabstrakt).
These
types
correspond
to the
use
of
mythical
material in
such
contexts
as
(i)
magical
texts;
(ii)
encyclopedic
or
discursive material
such
as the
Memphite
Theology ;49
and
(iii)
liter-
ary
narratives
such as
Horus
and Seth.so
These
types
and
sources
correspond
one-to-
one
in
the
model on
his
p.
37.
Assmann
seems
to assume
that
these
functional
relations
operate
transformations on
the
myth
and
thus
produce
the
mythical
statement -the
text
or text
passage.
Thus,
the
myth
is
in
some
respects
an
analytical
abstraction. It
is a
fixed
entity
to
which the
different
occurrences
relate,
but it
is not
available
for
direct
investigation.
This
status
may
be
one the
myth
must
assume in
modern
study,
but it
is
unlikely
to
be that
conceived
by
the
actors,
and
it
is
necessary
to
insist on
the
reality
of
myths
for
them.
These
are
detailed
problems
in
Assmann's
model. It
reifies the
relation
between
myth
and
mythical
statement
into
a level or
process
of
its
own
rather
than
a
mode
of
realization.
Such an
intervening
level
can be
validly
supplied
if
there
is
a
strong
transformation
between
myth
and
mythical
statement.
This
may
happen
with
a
magical
formula,
where the
narrative's
structure is
influenced
by
what the
spell
is
designed
to
achieve or
by
its
formal
properties.
The
model,
however,
reifies
not
just
this
relation
but
also
the
structure of
the
myth.
There is
no
clear
reason for
assuming
that this
structure
should be fixed. In
many
cultures differentversions of
myths
vary
widely,
either in
detail
or
in
basic
features
of
their
narratives. The
relationship
between
mythical
statement
and
myth
is
thus
one
between
two
variables,
not
between
a
fixed
entity
and
a
variable
one. In
addition,
a
realization
or
mythical
statement
may
affect
the
underlying
myth:
their
relationship
can be
reciprocal.
Some
features
may
prove
resistant
to
transformation.
Two
magical
spells
that use
the
sojourn
of
the
infant
Horus in
the
marshes
as
part
of
recipes
against
snakebite
state
that
49
Hermann
Junker,
Die
politische
Lehre
von
Memphis, Abhandlungen
der
PreussischenAkademie
der
Wissenschaften,
phil.-hist.
Ki.
1941:6
(Berlin,
1941),
pl.
1;
trans.,
Lichtheim,
vol.
1,
pp.
51-55.
50
Alan
H.
Gardiner,
Late-Egyptian
Stories,
Bib-
liotheca Aegyptiaca 1 (Brussels, 1932), pp. 37-60;
trans.,
for
example,
Lichtheim,
vol.
2,
pp.
214-23.
This content downloaded from 80.147.103.221 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:01:30 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Egyptian Myth and Discourse Myth Gods and the Early Written and Iconographic Record
10/26
EGYPTIAN MYTH AND
DISCOURSE
89
Isis was
coming
from
the
weaving
shop. '
Although
this
detail,
which
J. F.
Borghouts
suggests
alludes
to the
spinning
of the shroud
of
Osiris,
does
not seem
to be
germane
to
the
spells,
it
is retained
as
coloring.
In
Assmann's
terms,
part
of a
mythical
statement
has adhered
to
the
myth
and
appears,
without a
specific function,
in another
mythical
statement.
The main
difficulty
with
Assmann's
three-level
model is
that it can
imply
almost
the
opposite
of
what
he
proposes.
His
position
is
that
myths may
not have
existed
before
appropriate mythical
statements
are
attested. Yet his
argument
otherwise
suggests
that
the absence of
mythical
statements
would
say
little
about the existence
or
nonexistence
of
underlying
myths.
If
so,
there
could have been
myths
in
periods
from which
no
narrative evidence
for
them
is
preserved.
He
concedes this
point
at
first
(p. 9),
but
does
not
return to it. The
essential
supporting arguments
for
the
later
stages
of
his
exposition
are
two:
(1)
the
existence of
myths
implies
an
ontological
distance between the
divine
and
real
words
(p. 23),
and
yet
their
inextricable
involvement with
each
other,
as
shown
in
early
rituals,
is
incompatible
with
such
a
distance;
and
(2)
the
detaching
of
divine
and real involves
a
disenchantment
and
the
creation of a
temporal
frame
between
them. Assmann
dates both of
these
assumed shifts to
the First
Intermediate
Period
and later.52
If
the
posited
resacralization
of
ritual
through
association
with
the
world of the
gods
is
added
to
this
picture,
three
stages
would
have
led
to the
formulation of
myths.
In
the first
stage,
there
were
myth-free
rituals
that
were
efficacious
without divine
involvement. The
position
and status
of the
gods
and
any
possible
myths
would be
a
separate question
for
this
stage.
In
the
second
stage,
rituals
acquired
divine
involvement,
but from
a
pantheon
that
was
so
strongly
immanent
and,
it
seems,
so
pliable
in
evocation,
that
myths
were not
created
or
invoked;
instead,
smaller
groupings
of
deities
and
divine events
sacralized
rituals.
Assmann
terms
this
sacralization a
sacramental
exegesis
(sakramentale
Aus-
deutung)
(pp.
15-25).
Here
his
analyses
raise no
problems
and the
term
sacramental
is
useful
and
revealing.
He
does, however,
assume
that
a
mythical
presence
would be
a
contradiction in
terms
(p.
28,
n.
28),
and
this
seems to
imply
that
myths
could
not
be
incorporated
into
rituals,
unless
an
extensive
narrative were
present.
If
the
parallel
of
the
Passion
story
and its
role
in
the
Mass is
used,
both the
Last
Supper
and
the
Crucifixion
and
Body
of
Christ contribute to
the
sacramental
exegesis
of
the con-
secrated bread
and
wine,
but there
are
also
narratives of the
Passion in
other
contexts
(including
ones that
may
be
read out at
another
point
in
the same
performance,
perhaps
fusing
two
types
of
liturgy).54
For the
outsider,
the
Gospel
story
is
a
myth,
and
its
mythical
status and
religious
centrality
will
be
strengthened
rather
than
weakened
by
its
mobilization
in
crucial
rituals. There
are
evident
differences
between
the
two
cultural
contexts,
but
these
need not
suggest
that
the
use
of
fundamental
narrative
events
in
51
Borghouts, Magical
Texts,
pp.
25
(no.
34),
59
(no. 90),
with
p.
103,
n.
91.
52
Esp.
pp.
39-43.
By
implication,
there
would be
little
point
in
looking
for
myths
in
a
period
in
which
these preconditions were lacking. Assmann suggests,
however
(p.
6,
n.
6),
that an
effort
would be
worthwhile.
53
Assmann
formulates
(pp.
20-21)
conditions for
speaking
of a
myth
being
invoked
in
a
ritual as
(1)
narrative
coherence
and
(2)
a
location in time
and
place
that
would
turn
a
ritual
repetition
into a
mythical evocation.
54
Whether
this is
a
correct
historical
reading
of
the
origin
of the
Mass is
not
relevant
here.
This content downloaded from 80.147.103.221 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:01:30 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Egyptian Myth and Discourse Myth Gods and the Early Written and Iconographic Record
11/26
90 JOURNAL
OF
NEAR EASTERN
STUDIES
either should
not be
termed
mythical.
Neither an
Egyptian
ritual
nor the
consecration
of
the
bread and
wine contains an extended
narrative
of
a
myth,
but the treatment
of
the
divine world in this context
is
not
revealing
for the
question
of the
presence
or
absence
of myths in the wider religion and culture.
In
the third
posited
stage,
divine and
real
worlds moved
apart
and
myths
came
to
sanction
some
ritual
actions,
notably
in
magic,
while
also
serving
other
functions
in
other
types
of
text. This
usage
was not
sacramental and
applied
to more
secular
affairs.
There is
solid
evidence
for the third
stage,
and,
if this
were
the sole
point
at
issue,
it
would remain
only
to
discuss to which
period
such a
description
should
apply.
The
hypothetical
first
two
stages,
however,
are based on some
extent
on
arguments
from
silence. If
they
are not
accepted,
a new
hypothesis
about
the
early
status and
presence
or
absence of
myth
must be
formulated;
in
part,
this
could
apply
the
third
stage
to
a
period
earlier than
that
for which
it was
envisaged (sec. II, p.
93
below).
The
thrust
of
Assmann's
argument
is
to demonstrate how
the
formation
of
myths
and
their
integration
into
religious
and
non-religious
life
can
be
brought
further down in
the
historical
period, beyond
Schott's
dating
to
the
Early Dynastic
Period or
Otto's
to
that
time
and
earlier. 5
His
recognition
of
this
continuing potential
for
the
emergence
of
myths
is
valuable:
myths
could have
originated
or
developed
and
varied
throughout
historical times.56
Such
development
might
be
blocked
if
there
were a
canon of
texts
encapsulating
the
truths
of a
culture or
body
of
belief,
like
the
sacred
books
of
world
religions;
even
there,
myths
develop
and
change
around a
relatively
fixed core. Alter-
natively,
a
small-scale and
short-lived
society's myths
might
focus
around
episodes
of
origin
which
would
lose
their
meaning
if
new ones appearedthat were sited closer to the
present.
Egypt
is not like
either
of
these
cases,
and
Egyptian
sources
distinguish
between
myths
about the
gods
and
historical
traditions
(which
could
also be
termed
myths)
about
human
beings;
myths
that form a
historical
charter
might
merge
these
two
categories
rather
more.
These
points
do
not
qualify
Assmann's
contention
about the
evolution of
myth
in
later
times,
but
they
may
suggest
a
range
of
possible
forms of
myth.
Conversely,
as
Assmann
initially
accepts,
the
continual
evolution of
myths
does
not
imply
that
none
could
have
an
early
origin.
There
is evidence
against
Assmann's
view
that the
First
Intermediate
Period
created
a
disenchantment
which
allowed
myths
to
appear.
He cites
as
support
for
his
position
Ulrich
Luft's
statement
that
only
the Instruction
of Ptahhotpe provides an Old King-
dom
allusion to the
notion of
the rule of
the
gods
on
earth.58
Assmann
dates
that
text to
55
Verhiiltnis.
Assmann
says
(p.
9,
without refer-
ences)
that
for
most
Egyptologists
it
is
unthinkable
that
myths
originated
in
the
historical
period.
The
approach
of
Sethe and
Kees
could
tend to
exclude
late
formation,
but,
beyond
an
assumption
(which
he
accepts)
that
myths
do
not
treat the
immediate
present,
it
is
not
clear
what he
has in
mind,
and
it
would
be hard
to
find
such
views in
other
fields.
56
Here
Sternberg,
Mythische
Motive,
is
useful.
See also Wolfgang Schenkel, Kultmythos und Mar-
tyrerlegende:
Zur
Kontinuitait
des
digyptischen
Den-
kens,
GOF
5
(Wiesbaden,
1977).
57 The
presentation
of the
origins
of
society
in
king
lists,
with
their
antecedent
listing
of
dynasties
of
gods,
is relevant here.
See
Donald
B.
Redford,
Pharaonic
King-lists,
Annals
and
Day-books:
A
Contribution
to the
Study
of
the
Egyptian
Sense
of
History,
SSEA
Publication 4
(Mississauga,
Ontario,
1986).
For a
Mesopotamian
parallel,
see
Piotr Mich-
alowski,
History
as
Charter:
The
Sumerian
King
List
Revisited,
JA
OS 103
(1983):
237-48.
58
P. 29, n. 43, citing 'Seit der Zeit Gottes',
Studia
Aegyptiaca
2
(Budapest, 1977):
47-78.
This content downloaded from 80.147.103.221 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:01:30 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Egyptian Myth and Discourse Myth Gods and the Early Written and Iconographic Record
12/26
EGYPTIAN MYTH
AND DISCOURSE
91
the
Middle
Kingdom59
and thus would
eliminate
all such evidence.
Although
the
dating
is
plausible,
the conclusion is
invalid because
formulas
mentioning
antiquity,
closely
related
to that
evoking
the
rule of
the
gods,
are
attested from the Fourth
Dynasty,
among the oldest continuous
texts.60
The Egyptians may thus always have had a
conception
of an
ideal,
probably
mythical antiquity,
from which
the
imperfect
present
world
was
temporally
removed.
It
cannot
be
proved
that this
conception
included
the
rule of
the
gods
on
earth,
and
hence a mediation between divine and
human as well
as
descent from one to the
other,
but there is no
good
reason
for
excluding
this
possibility.61
On
general grounds,
it
is
preferable
to credit
early
Egyptians
with
a more
complex
and nuanced view
of the
cosmos
than Assmann
and
others
would
allow because
their
position
implies
a
lasting
blindness to
the realities of
existence which is hard
to
parallel
in
other
cultures.
It
suggests
that
fundamental transformations
in
cosmology
took
place
during
later
periods
when
display
did
not
change
so
markedly.
Political
struggle
articulated in terms of conflict between gods occurred as early as the Second Dynasty.62
This
use
of
the
divine
world
in
human
affairs
is
unlikely
to
have
manifested
unreflect-
ingly
an
inseparability
of the
two,
as
Assmann
posits
when
he assumes
a
lack
of
ontological separation.
Rather,
it
may
show
an
awareness
of
interpretive possibili-
ties-in the
sense that
people
relate human
events
meaningfully
and
constructively
to
divine
ones-and
of
propaganda.
A
low-level
argument
for
the view that there
was
no
one
period
when
disenchantment
set in
is that the
gods
do not
simply
live
on
earth.63
In
all
accessible
periods, they
were
worshiped
in
cult
images
within
shrines
in
temples,
but
they
were
not
thought
to
be
identical with
those
images.
The First
Dynasty
comb of
King
Wadj,64
n
which
Horus is
depicted as a falcon in a bark in the sky while a second falcon surmounts the royal
serekh in the
field
beneath,
shows the distant
realm of the
god
while
he is
also manifest
on
earth
(in
this
case
as
the
king,
who
is
additional to
his cult
images).
Since
the
gods
were
not
only
or
principally
on
earth,
people
might
not
apprehend
them in
any
straightforward
way.
One of the
main
purposes
of the
cult was to
invoke their
presence
on
earth
in their
statues.
The
connection between
myth
and
disenchantment
should be
questioned
in
any
case.
This notion
seems
to
be
derived from
societies such
as ancient
Greece,
in which
defining
myths,
for
example
in
Homer,
were
distant from
the
present
social
realities of
Classical
times
and were the
objects
of some
skepticism
and
open
discussion.65
Even
there,
however, the myths had serious significance and were discussed and mobilized for the
59
Cf.
Assmann,
Schrift,
Tod
and
Identitift:
Das
Grab
als
Vorschule
der
Literatur
im alten
Agypten,
in
Aleida
Assmann et
al.,
eds.,
Schrift
und
Geddiicht-
nis:
Beitriige
zur
Archdologie
der
literarischen
Kom-
munikation
(Munich,
1983),
pp.
64-93.
60
Hans
Goedicke,
Re-used
Blocks
from
the
Pyra-
mid
of
Amenemhet I at
Lisht,
Publications of the
Metropolitan
Museum
of Art
Egyptian
Expedition
20
(New York,
1971),
nos.
6, 60,
pp.
20-23,
105-6;
see
also
Past,
p.
135.
61This qualifies the position of Past, p. 134.
Schott,
Die
alteren
G6ttermythen, p.
93,
n.
2,
suggested
that a
dynasty
of
gods
could have
been
included on the
Palermo
Stone.
62
See
The
Origins
of
Kingship
in
Egypt.
63
Conceptions,
pp.
227-30.
64
Cairo
Museum,
JE
47176;
R.
Engelbach,
An
Alleged
Winged
Sun-disk
of the
First
Dynasty,
ZAS
65
(1930):
115-16;
excellent
photograph
in
Jaromir
Malek,
In
the Shadow
of
the
Pyramids:
Egypt
during
the
Old
Kingdom
(London,
1986),
p.
35.
65
Cf. Paul
Veyne,
Did
the
Greeks
Believe
in Their
Myths?: An Essay on the Constitutive Imagination,
trans.
Paula
Wissing
(Chicago
and
London,
1988).
This content downloaded from 80.147.103.221 on Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:01:30 AMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Egyptian Myth and Discourse Myth Gods and the Early Written and Iconographic Record
13/26
92 JOURNAL OF
NEAR EASTERN
STUDIES
present,
as
in the
tragedies performed
at
major
Athenian
festivals.
The cults
of
the
Olympian
gods
continued
for
many
centuries after
the
first
signs
of
skepticism.
There
are
comparable
discussions
in
Egyptian
literary
texts66--not
as it
happens
in
mythical
contexts-which do not seem
to have led to
any general skepticism.
I see
no
reason
why
discussions should not have occurred
in
periods
from
which
they
are
not
attested.
One
may
suggest
that no
specific
time
of disenchantment should
be
sought,
and
that the
gods
could
have been near and
far,
taken for
granted
and
questioned
in
their
wisdom,
in
any
period.67
Since
they
were
not
purely good,
a
simple
attitude
to
them
would be
difficult
to
maintain.
The
multiplicity
of
approaches
to
phenomena
and
of
relations
between divine and
human almost
requires
some
detachment.
Whereas
the
sacramental
use
of
the
gods
described
by
Assmann seeks to
bypass
detachment,
mythical
narrative
may
belong
in
this
broader context of
negotiating
relations
between
the
divine
and the human
and
comprehending
the
human
predicament.
To
model
a
conceptual space
for
such
phenomena
is
different from
demonstrating
that
they
occurred
(sec.
III,
pp.
99-103
below),
but the
notion that
myth
performs
similar functions
is
a
cross-cultural
commonplace.
In a
sense,
the
view
of
early
times as
a
period
when
divine
and
human were
in
close
contact is an
Egyptological myth
with
some of the
etiological
function of
many
ancient
myths.
In
the modern
context,
such
an
age
of
innocence
both
legitimizes
conceptions
of
the
pristine
Egyptian
state and
fits
an
analogy
between
the
duration of
Egyptian
civilization and a
lifespan
that
passes
from
innocence
through experience
to
senescence.68
It is one of
many
manifestations
of
the
difficulty
of
comprehending
the
duration
of
ancient
cultures.69
This
argument
need
not be
pursued.
The chief
conclusions to
emerge
from
reviewing
Assmann's contribution
are
that
no
easy
line
can
be drawn
between
early
periods,
from
which
myths
are
not
attested
in
mythical
statements,
and
later
ones in
which
they
are
found;
and
that
myths
could
have
emerged
throughout
the
historical
period
(pp. 39-43).
Assmann
and
Heike
Sternberg70
are
probably
right
to
say
that
the
Late
Period was the
heyday
of
Egyptian
myths.
JUNGE:
WIRKLICHKEIT UND
ABBILD
Junge's
rather
schematic
approach
tends
to
see
myth
and
religion mainly
in
terms of
aetiology
and
legitimation,
but
it
is
significant
for
its fusion
of
the
ideas of
Erik
66
See,
for
example,
Gerhard
Fecht,
Der
Vorwurf
an
Gott in
den
Mahnworten
des
Ipuwer
(Pap.
Leiden
1
344
recto,
11,
11-13,
8:
15,
13-17,
3):
Zur
geistigen
Krise der
ersten
Zwischenzeit
und
ihrer
Bewiltigung,
Abhandlungen
der
Heidelberger
Akad-
emie
der
Wissenschaften,
phil.-hist.
KI.,
1972:1
(Heidelberg,
1972); idem,
Agyptische
Zweifel
am
Sinn
des
Opfers:
Admonitions
5, 7-9,
ZAS 100
(1973-74):
6-16;
Mordechai
Gilula,
Does God
Exist?,
in
Dwight
W.
Young,
ed.,
Studies
Presented
to Hans Jakob Polotsky (East Gloucester, Mass.,
1981),
pp.
390-400.
67
Because
early
sources
do
not
include
general
discussion
of
the sort
known
from
later,
it
may
be
very
difficult
to
establish this
point.
68
The
purest
example
of
such a
vision,
which
also
informs
much
popular
writing
on ancient
Egypt,
may
be John
A. Wilson's
The
Burden
of
Egypt:
An
Interpretation
of
Ancient
Egyptian
Culture
(Chi-
cago,
1951).
69
For
the
assumption
that
the
First
Intermediate
Period
brought
on the
sense of