not to the people. Justice was meted out by viziers (internal roving ambassadors of the pharaoh)
and nome governors according to the neter of justice, Maat, on an individual-case basis. There
was no concept of individual rights against the government, because government was viewed as
a system imposed from without by the neteru. Similarly each Egyptian, whether high- or
lowborn, participated in this system. Crime and corruption were of course possible, but
inadvisable because of the conviction that viciousness, callousness, or cruelty would be punished
severely after Earthly death. 20 [It is of note that such posthumous judgment focused upon
individual virtue/vice rather than, as in later Christian/Islamic doctrine, upon mere orthodoxy
and obedience to religious institutions.]
Old Kingdom Egypt was largely insulated from foreign invasion or conflict, hence Egypt
spent its early years as a peaceful culture with no standing military. Egypt is credited with
invention of the alphabet, as well as the use of currency as a medium of exchange. It is
noteworthy for having produced the first national (as opposed to city-state) political system, as
well as the most enduring one in recorded history (more than 3,000 years). There was no caste,
racial, or sexual discrimination; foreigners were considered “less than human (=Egyptian)”, but
could remedy this misfortune simply by moving to Egypt and adopting Egyptian culture.
Egypt was ultimately destroyed by foreign conquerors (Persia, Macedonia, Rome) and by her
inability to adapt to the continuing competition of foreign cultures. Her New Empire of the
Setian (XIX-XX) Dynasties was a protectionist backlash rather than an effort to “civilize” or
create a permanent empire [after the fashion of Persia, Macedonia, or Rome].
19 Cf. Fagan, Brian M., The Rape of the Nile. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1975.
20 Wilson, John A., “Egypt” in Frankfort, Henri (Ed.), Before Philosophy. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1946.
- 33 -
The Neteru
The Egyptians perceived the Universe as actively controlled by conscious, natural principles
( neteru) of which Sir E.A. Wallis Budge remarks:
The word neter has been translated “godlike”, “holy”, “divine”, “sacred”, “power”, “strength”,
“force”, “strong”, “fortify”, “mighty”, “protect”; but it is quite impossible to be certain that any
word which we may use represents the meaning of neter, because no one knows exactly what idea
the ancient Egyptians attached to the word. The truth is that the exact meaning of neter was lost at
a very early period of Egyptian history, and even the Coptic does not help us to recover it. 21
To the Egyptians, all of “nature” (derived from neter) was alive and the direct consequence of
the wills of the neteru. Nature was intelligible not just through inanimate, automatic, general
regularities which could be discovered via the “scientific method”; but also through
connections and associations between things and events perceived in the human
mind. There was no distinction between “reality” and “appearance”; anything capable of
exerting an effect upon the mind thereby existed. Hence a dream could be considered just as
“real” and thus significant as a daytime experience. No more eloquently has this been
summarized than by She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed in H. Rider Haggard’s She and Allan:
[Allan Quatermain] “I have heard of Isis of
the Egyptians, Lady of the Moon, Mother of
Mysteries, spouse of Osiris whose child was
Horus the Avenger.”
[Ayesha] “Aye, and I think will hear more
of her before you have done, Allan, for now
something comes back to me concerning you
and her and another. I am not the only one who
has broken the oaths of Isis and received her
curse, Allan, as you may find out in the days to
come. But what of these heavenly queens?”
“Only this, Ayesha: I have been taught that
they were but phantasms fabled by men with
many another false divinity, and could have
sworn that this was true. And yet you talk of
them as real and living, which perplexes me.”
“Being dull of understanding doubtless it
perplexes you, Allan. Yet if you had imagination,
you might understand that these goddesses are
great principles of nature: Isis of throned
21 Budge, E. A. Wallis, The Book of the Dead. New Hyde Park: University Books, 1960, page #99.
- 34 -
Wisdom and strait virtue, and Aphrodite of Love as it is known to men and women who, being
human, have it laid upon them that they must hand on the torch of life in their little hour. Also you
would know that such principles can seem to take shape and form and at certain ages of he world
appear to their servants visible in majesty, though perchance today others with changed names
wield their sceptres and work their will. Now you are answered on this matter.”
The Egyptian concept of “magic”, correspondingly, was neither unusual or exceptional. It
merely represented the setting in motion of appropriate neteru forces to accomplish a desired
end: which could be through physical action, symbolic ritual, art, or speech ( heka). A magical
operation thus initially required perception ( sia) of a necessity, followed by utterance of the heka
( hw) to address it.
Egyptian art, literature, and science looked for beauty and symmetry (felt to be indications of
divine perfection), rather than for cause-and-effect relationships. Hence Egyptian thought is
sometimes called “geometric” as opposed to the “algebraic” thought of Hellenic and later
logicians.
Since impressions and appearances substantiated reality, the Egyptian emphasis on portraits
and statues of the neteru was not merely decorative, metaphorical, or symbolic. Rather an image
was a medium whereby the neter in question could make an actual appearance in the material
world. 22
Similarly part of something could substitute for the whole as long as the mind completed the
connection. Mental imagery created by viewing the portrait of a dead relative, for example,
brought that relative to true life.
Persons unfamiliar with the ancient Egyptian culture often assume that the Egyptian
religion, like those of later Mediterranean civilizations, consisted of a single, integrated pantheon
of anthropomorphic gods and goddesses. It is rather the case that the earliest Egyptian neteru
were provincial, being patrons of individual cities and districts (nomes). Nor, despite their
famous human/beast composite appearances, were they mere “supernatural persons” in the later
Greek, Mesopotamian, or Roman mold. While popular stories were woven about them -
presumably for popular consumption - the hieroglyphic treatment of the Egyptian neteru
suggests that they actually represented various aspects of existence - the “Forms” or “First
Principles” discussed by Pythagoras and Plato in a more abstract manner. 23
Intriguingly the neteru may have had a physical presence as well. The 30-Dynasty dating
system most archæologists use for ancient Egypt comes from Manetho, an Egyptian priest at
Sebennytos in the Nile Delta ca. 280 BCE. Manetho’s dynastic list extends backward before
Menes and the I Dynasty date of 3100 B
CE: 350 years Thinites; 1,790 years other Memphite
kings; 1,817 years other kings; 1,255 years “Heroes”; and before that 13,900 years in which the
neteru reigned physically on Earth.
Obviously this chronology would conflict with the “accepted” prehistory of Egypt as
summarized at the beginning of this chapter. Conventional Egyptologists are comfortable only
with a “civilization began suddenly in 3100 BCE” scenario, hence Manetho is relied upon very
strongly after that date, but swept under the rug prior to it. 24
22 Cf. Schaefer, Heinrich, Principles of Egyptian Art. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974. Contrast Egyptian statuary
with Greek, Roman, or later European. The “living presence” in the former will be dramatically evident.
23 Cf. Winspear, Alban D., The Genesis of Plato’s Thought. New York: S.A. Russell, 1940. Also Cf. Aquino, M.A., “The
Sphinx and the Chimæra” (Appendix #1).
24 Hoffman, Michael A., Egypt Before the Pharaohs. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979. Fix, Wm. R., Pyramid
Odyssey. New York: Mayflower Books, 1978.
- 35 -
Commerce, protective alliances, cultural contact, and finally the unification of the entire
nation ca. 3100 BCE resulted in the gradual incorporation of local neteru into regional groups,
and then into a loosely-knit national pantheon. Local and regional cult centers continued to hold
their respective patrons in especial regard, however, and so the character and role of a specific
neter might vary remarkably from place to place. Individual dynasties also tended to be oriented
to particular cult centers, and so the neteru in question would be elevated - at least for a time - to
the status of national patrons. 25
The information concerning these cults which is available to modern Egyptologists is both
sparse and confusing. Since a given neter could be portrayed in a number of different ways,
identifying the “core neter” is difficult. The images and inscriptions concerning a neter were
often altered or appropriated by cultists of rival neteru. In Christian and Islamic times all “old
gods” were considered blasphemous, and monuments to them were regularly defaced and
destroyed. By the end of the fifth century CE, knowledge of hieroglyphics had died out, not to
reappear until the nineteenth century; meanwhile many “useless” records perished through
neglect.
For two reasons the cult of Osiris ( Asar) and Isis ( Asa) has been emphasized in modern
literature: First, it was the last cult to dominate the entire Egyptian nation. Thus it was in a
position to do a “final editing” of non-Osirian manuscripts and monuments. Secondly it was
described in detail by Plutarch, permitting its study long after the hieroglyphic records of the
other cults had become unreadable. 26
Set
No records of the ancient Priesthood of Set survived first the Osirian-dynastic persecution
and later the more general vandalism of the Christian/Islamic eras. We know of it only by its
reflection, both in the character of Set as he was portrayed symbolically and mythologically and
in the nature of Egyptian priesthoods in general. Three significant facts are known about the
Priesthood of Set:
(1) Together with the Priesthood of Horus [the Elder], it was the oldest of the
Egyptian priesthoods. If we date it to the earliest predynastic images of Set found by
archæologists, we can establish an origin of at least 3200 BCE. Working with the Egyptians’ own
25 Ions, Veronica, Egyptian Mythology. New York: Hamlyn Publishing Group, 1968, pages #11-13.
26 Budge, Egyptian Language. New York: Dover Publications, 1971, page #15. Ions, op.cit. , pages #50-55. Fagan,
op.cit. , pages #34-36. Plutarch, Isis and Osiris, Volume V in Moralia (14 volumes), F.C. Babbitt (Ed. & Trans.).
London: Loeb Classical Library, 1936.
- 36 -
astronomically-based records, we may approximate 5000 BCE. 27 If we are to assume the final
eclipse of the Priesthood at the end of the XIX-XX [Setian] Dynasties ca. 1085 BCE, we are
looking at an institution which existed at least two thousand and possibly as many as four
thousand years. “In the early dynasties,” observes Budge:
Set was a beneficent god, and one whose favor was sought after by the living and by the dead,
and so late as the XIX Dynasty kings delighted to call themselves “Beloved of Set”. After the cult of
Osiris was firmly established and this god was the “great god” of all Egypt, it became the fashion to
regard Set as the origin of all evil, and his statues and images were so effectively destroyed that
only a few which have escaped by accident have come down to us. 28
One may note that Set was by no means the only “fabulous” creature ever portrayed by
Egyptian artists. But he was the only one represented as a principal neter, as opposed to a
purely-animalistic monster of the Tuat.
(2) Set was the neter who was “different” from all of the others. Too often this is
simplified into his being the “evil” slayer of Osiris, hence the personification of “evil”; yet any but
the most cursory study of Egyptian religious symbolism is sufficient to dispel this caricature. He
This is a very curious role for a neter in Egyptian cosmology: to be a presence and force
which alone could not be apprehended by perceptions of the natural senses. Set thus represents
the nameless “thing” whose existence we know of by the shadow it casts on things apprehended
and things perceived by it: the non-natural “presence of self” in individual intelligent life.
We have generalized the vehicle by which this presence is manifest as the ba, spirit, psyche,
or soul, but increased precision is possible. We must subtract from the psyche what is “life
force”, and focus our attention on that which remains: the very awareness of self. In doing so
we have in one sense retraced the path of Descartes to the cogito ergo sum proposition. Unlike
Descartes, however, we see this phenomenon to be a “thing totally apart” which is not an
extension of “God” or anything else. Set is the conceptualizer of this principle: the designer. To
rewrite the crucial sentence in the above quote from the point of view of a neter: “A thing created
in the mind thereby exists.”
This is delicate ground to tread, so much more so for an ancient Egyptian civilization whose
entire “natural” cosmology was based upon the perfection and harmony of the Universe.
(3) Despite this unique and disturbing image, or perhaps because of it, Set
became the patron of the two most powerful dynasties in Egypt’s long history, the
XIX and XX. Herein there is an interesting “theological succession”:
The early XVIII Dynasty (ca. 1580-1372) was that of the great Amenhoteps, during whose
reigns the Priesthood of Amon at Thebes was preeminent. The dynasty disintegrated during the
“Amarna period” (ca. 1372-1343) of Akhenaten, during which the solar disk of Aton was
considered supreme if not indeed all-inclusive of the neteru. When the new XIX Dynasty arose
under Rameses I and Seti I, the state role of Amon was restored - but the pharaohs directed
much of their efforts towards Set. Recounts Sauneron:
The new dynasty in power, careful to appear to be “restoring everything to order”, had many
reasons for mistrusting the Amonian priesthood. Descendants of a military family of the eastern
delta, the new pharaohs were traditionally devoted to a god little esteemed by the masses because
27 Lockyer, J. Norman, The Dawn of Astronomy. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1964, page #215.
28 Budge, The Book of the Dead, page #181.
- 37 -
of the role that he had been assigned in the death of Osiris. But they preserved nevertheless, here
and there, the temples and priesthoods of the god Set.
The Amarnian experience had demonstrated the cost of too abrupt a break with the beliefs
central to the entire nation, and of entering into open warfare against a priesthood practically as
powerful as the throne itself. Thus the politics of Seti I (1312-1301) and of Rameses II (1301-1235)
were infinitely more subtle than those of their predecessors. There was no rupture with Thebes;
the constructions continued, and magnificent edifices were raised to the glory of Amon at Karnak,
Gourna, and Ramesseum. But it was from the [Osirian] center of Abydos that Rameses appointed
the High Priest of Amon. Then he installed two of his sons, Merytum and Khamuast, as the High
Priests of Ra at Heliopolis and Ptah at Memphis, and demonstrated by further monuments and
political favors his public support of these gods. But finally, wearied of Thebes and its ambitious
priests, he departed to build a new capital, Pi-Rameses, in the eastern delta - where he could
quietly worship the god dearest to him, with Amon occupying a secondary prominence.
The provincial cities where Set had been worshipped from all eternity - among them Ombos,
Tjebu, and Sepermeru - gained new preeminence from the favor accorded by the Ramesside
leaders to the god of the Eastern Delta. Above all, Pi-Rameses, the new capital, brilliantly restored
the worship that Set had formerly received in the Avaris of the Hyksos. 29
During the Setian Dynasties - most probably during the reign of Merenptah - the revolt and
“exodus” of a number of nomads (hieroglyphic habiru) living in Egypt’s Goshen province
occurred - or at least did so in Jewish legend. Although “Old Testament” lore states that the