This week you will be reading a variety of texts dealing with religious practice and celebration as well as beliefs and rituals concerning the afterlife. Both are really meaty topics and there are so many interesting points to draw from these texts.
For this week I want you to think about either 1) different identities and their connection to religious experience or 2) state vs. personal religion (more to do with class than individual profession)
One goal of this course is to demonstrate how ancient Egypt (or any society)was comprised of different groups of people who experienced the world differently despite belonging to the same social fabric. Use one or more of the texts do demonstrate how a social identity or belonging to a specific class engendered multiple religious experiences. You can also think about shifts in practice over time. For example, Pyramid Texts date to the Old Kingdom and were meant for the king only while Coffin Texts, available to private individuals, were part of a larger shift to a more equal playing field during and after the First Intermediate Period.
Evident from Professor Morris' lecture, it is clear that the division between the upper and lower classes of Egypt extend even to religious practices. The majority of the population would of course not have lavish tombs and tomb texts and certainly access to the divine was restricted to just the members of the Ivy-paat. This differentiation can be inferred from several of the primary sources for this week. In the "Penitential Hymns", the votive inscriptions carved onto the walls of the chapel demonstrate how humble the commoners of society, such as the workers at Deir el-Medina, must present themselves in order that the deity might listen to their prayers, and forgive their sins. From the second hymn, the speaker says: "I called out to my mistress. I found that she came to me as a pleasant breeze. She forgave me after she had made me see her hand. She turned round to me in mercy." On the other hand, the king being deity himself, would not need such votive inscriptions as the gods would lend their ears to him because he is seen as their peer. In the other text, "The Book of the Heavenly Cows", several mythical narratives are told in the similar manner that stories from the Bible are told. From the introduction one learns that the text is nonroyal, thus it is meant to be read by whomever and meant to spread the tales of Egypt's most favored deities to the greatest audience possible. This demonstrates once again the differentiation of religion to someone who is royal and someone who is quite ordinary. The king and his royal entourage are able to have religious texts regarding their own afterlife whereas those who are outside of the Ivy-paat learns of the stories of the deities by mythical tales.
ReplyDeleteWe have discussed at length the religious practices of ancient Egypt and there has a developed a sense of strict moral and religious guidelines that every individual must follow if they want to attain the afterlife. However, all of the daily rituals, prayers, spells, sacrifices, and offerings combined with the "holier-than-thou" attitude of the temple and priests would not doubt have felt overwhelming to some individuals.
ReplyDeleteThis is evident in "The Man Who Was Weary of Life" who struggles to cope with the evils and oppressions of life. The speaker converses with his "ba" spirit about the idea of suicide and about escaping from this life to the pleasantries of the afterlife, where the Gods will judge him and he will live in the "West".
To understand the speaker's feeling of being overwhelmed, we can look at "The Book of the Dead 125", in which a deceased individual recounts all of his sins in the Hall of Two Truths. Although the text may have been only for a select audience, it is possible to see the admittance as a set of instructions and guidelines that the living must abide by in order to gain entry into the land of Osiris.
The weary man in the first text is obviously depressed because he must live his whole life trying to avoid sin while routinely doing a multitude of religious practices. Even suicide is not an escape because death must come "at the right time".
Even though this man may have been an ordinary class citizen under the same religious conditions as the rest of society, it is evident that he is isolated in his religious agony. Many individuals, such as priests, pharaohs, or skilled workers, may have held sacred the strict religious and moral code and seen it as a proper way to live, but for many the burden of such rules only resulted in a life of despair and depression.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile the Iry-paat got to experience a luxurious side of religious practices that came along with knowing influential priests, Egyptian Rekhyet, or commoners, practiced religion for the promise of a fulfilling afterlife, with little other benefits. With that said, these benefits made daily life a bit more exciting for an Egyptian.
ReplyDeleteAs discussed in lecture, although communicating with the Gods was rare and tough, when it did occur it was thrilling for commoners. Interestingly enough though, stopping a God during his procession was not a pure practice (according to Book of the Dead 125), so Egyptians had to be wary of this if they wanted to be welcomed when they came to the land of Osiris. Other practices that made commoner welcome in the land of Osiris are also laid out very clearly in the Book of the Dead 125 and included not being hot-tempered, not mistreating cattle, not robbing, being crooked, stealing a god’s property, and more. Many of these ‘codes’ tie back to legal practices in Egypt. Overall, while they didn’t leave much room for social mobility, they did allow commoners to enjoy festival times and promise them a good afterlife.
The promise of this good afterlife was very motivating for Egyptians. The Book of the Heavenly Cow stated that if you were good during life, even as a non-royal you had a chance of participating in the sun god’s process of renewal. This amazing afterlife experience may have been so contrasting to daily life that some Egyptians thought of suicide. In The Man who was Weary of Life, mortal land is described as ‘rampant with evil’ while ‘he who is yonder,’ in the afterlife, ‘will be a living god.’ Ultimately though, it seems daily life was not bleak enough for the man to commit suicide. He continued the religious practices for commoners that including making sacrifices and waiting for fate to take his life at the right time. However, as shown, he did contemplate suicide with reason; daily religious life for the Rekhyet was mostly motivated by the afterlife or festival season, which couldn’t even guarantee communication with the gods.
It cannot be argued that life in Egypt was significantly better for the elite; however the after life in Egypt held hope for all of Egypt's citizens. In the afterlife, everyone was a sort of mediocre god. Peasants lived their life the whole time thinking forward to the future. So much of their lives were devoted to religious practices, prayer, festivals, burials, etc. The Penitential Hymns were in chapels in Dier el-Medina. This would have been seen by people daily. It warned people that they would be punished for wrongdoing, it shows though that later in history during the Ramesside period religion was becoming more accessible. In the Old Kingdom, there were only pyramid texts. The elite had a larger connection to religion throughout their mortal lives. The pyramid texts would never have been seen my commoners, and even if the peasants could see a text, they most likely would not be able to read it. The Book of the Heavenly Cow is a rare text in that it said that "by magical means a person could participate, especially after death, in the sun god's process in renewal". This gave commoners access to magic, which was highly taboo. When everyone started using magic during the first intermediate period, the power of the magic was thought to diminish because it was no longer rare and sacred. Magicians were the only ones who were supposed to use magic. Also, another thing that didn't separate the Rekhyet and Iry-Paat was that everyone had the ability to contact ghosts. According to A Ghost Story, "the living could communicate with the dead by means of letters", and also that they were "personalities to whom the living reacted pragmatically". This was most likely because of the special significance of death.
ReplyDeleteThe main difference in death seems to be the preparation for the afterlife. The richer the people the more material items they were buried with. They would then have these items in the afterlife. They would have statues of themselves and deities, many items made with precious metals such as gold, etc. The richest people would also be buried with/near the king so that they would be able to remain with the king in the afterlife. The king would have the most inscriptions and texts with him, to ensure proper resurrection, and the elite would also have writing in their tombs. Commoners would have to rely on a few pots and their faith alone.
Although “The Man Who Was Weary of Life” does not specify to which social class the individual concerned belongs, it is interesting that many of the comparisons and references that are made within the text refer to a specific type of lifestyle. For example, in the passage beginning on p.183, a pattern of comparison between the individual and “loathsome” things is set up. The things that are classified as loathsome include ideas related to outdoor work, in close contact with animals. Loathsome ideas include: vulture dung; fish on a hot day; ducks; fishermen and marshes; the stench of crocodiles. While the text goes on to eventually include the idea of mutiny against a king as loathsome, the predominantly animal-related and everyday nature of the comparisons suggests that the attitudes reflected within the text are likely to correspond with those of the majority of Egyptians, who were dependent upon these animals and the land for their livelihoods. Similarly, the stories listed (182) concern the behavior of peasants.
ReplyDeleteThat the text seems to reflect the attitudes of the peasantry is interesting, as the text revolves around a questioning of the value of life. The ba remarks that the man is “obsessed with burial” (181) after he worries about having an heir who will “make offerings and officiate at [his] tomb” (181). This implies that an important aspect of religion for peasants was how they would be buried, and what awaited them in the afterlife. Given the often dire state of their lives, it seems logical that many would be happy to anticipate ease and equality in the afterlife. Moreover, if the peasants were not always able to afford to keep up with the expensive mortuary rituals, it may understandably have become a source of anxiety for those who hoped to be happy in the afterlife.
As a whole, I found the fact that the "field of rushes," the egyptian afterlife, was so similar to actual egypt very interesting. It was told to be an agrarian society where even pharoahs would be in the field to serve the gods. However, they did have shabtis, personal spirits of sorts, which would do work for them (if they were included in the tomb).
ReplyDeleteIn the "Negative Confessions" text, a man was recounting all of his sins to the Truth, so that he may be judged favorably to gain access to the afterlife. He was tested thoroughly, after convincing Thoth and the other gods that he was free from sin. This is the experience of a non-elite person who made it into the field of rushes. However, I feel that a pharoah would have a different experience, as they are essentially deities themselves. Regardless, the fact that all are essentially united under the reign of the gods in the afterlife, this fact was probably a motivating factor for the Egyptian commoners to live a straight and pious life. As mentioned many times by my classmates, the text of the heavenly cows outlined the fact that all are rewarded in the afterlife for their good deeds during life. This is interesting, because there are such defined social classes in Egypt at the time, that the ones who constructed these beliefs made a way to trap the commoners in their own religion - accepting their worldly position in exchange for a glorious afterlife.
In Religion in Society, and in the many other texts read throughout the semester the separation between the privileges of the elite and the commoners is very evident. Many of the religious texts are only available to the royals whom are usually the only ones capable of reading and interpreting them. Also many rituals were held and accessible only by the elite. This is portrayed in Religion in Society when Szpakowska states “The icon of the deity affiliated with the temple was housed deep inside, in an area only accessible to the high priest, while the people were allowed no deeper than the first forecourt.” Royal officials were clearly closer to the pharaoh and thus seen as closer to god. However, over time religion became more accessible to everyone.
ReplyDeleteCommoners were given an opportunity to celebrate in the ritual and religious practices through the numerous festivals. “That distance between the gods and mankind was alleviated by the many festivals which afforded people an opportunity to view the deities and partake in rituals as well as to receive the largesse of the bounty of goods that had been offered to temples.” This demonstrates that regardless of the social status of the Egyptians, they all valued religion heavily and held the same religious beliefs. “it is clear that by the time of the New Kingdom, oracles were in use by royalty and commoners alike. From this time on, prayers also abound that provide written expression of direct appeals from individuals to the state gods in a format that had previously been restricted to formal royal texts.” Commoners were able to practice the same rituals that they were incapable of performing in earlier times and attend ceremonies held in more approachable places to the Egyptians. Like Morris mentioned in lecture and confirmed by Szpakowska “workmen were given time off to attend many of the festivals – some of which would last for days – as well as their own private group rituals. Presumably, they would be attended by the women, children, and elders as well. The festivals thus also fostered and strengthened the overall sense of community as a whole.”
As Professor Morris stated in lecture, 99% of Egypt’s population wasn’t allowed inside of the temples. The temples were solely reserved for Kings, Gods, Priests, and members of the elite and served as a proclamation of God’s power. However, despite this lack of access, Egyptians were still very much concerned with religion and afterlife. Why should the commoners of Egypt strongly believe in a force that they didn’t have a right to access? It is texts such as The Book of the Heavenly Cow that give commoners hope. Like Caroline writes, The Book of the Heavenly Cow gives non-royals a chance of participating in the sun god’s renewal. The thought of this was so appealing to lower status Egyptians that they would even contemplate suicide for a chance to interact with the Gods.
ReplyDeleteIn the text, Stela of Iykhernofret, we can see how important personal religion is. Iykhernofret describes his mission to refurbish God’s statues and ritual equipment. He writes, “I embellished the breast of the lord of Abydos with lapis lazuli and with turquoise, fine gold, and all precious stones which are the ornaments of the god’s body, and I clothed the god with his ornaments in my function as one versed in the musteries and my duty as stolist. I was pure of hand in decorating the god, a sem priest clean of fingers” (Simpson 427). It is clear that Iykhernofret is part of the upper class, but it is still important to note his relationship with the statue. He uses the most precious materials in dealing with the gods, illustrating his utmost respect. He also describes this as his “duty” which signifies to us how this refurbishment is more than just a job, it is his moral obligation.
Ancient Egypt harbored, as we’ve seen, a slew of different identities and professions. Although royals seem to be bestowed with “longer lives” than mere peasants and the working class; it was still a fact of Egyptian life that death was imminent [and therefore requires preparation]. “The Book of the Dead” is a set of infractions put in place by the gods that “reflect restrictions and abstinence preparatory for entrance into a sacred place and state (267).” The list contains sins that the living should avoid, and will have to share within the Hall of Two Truths in order to gain admittance to the Field of Reeds, the Solar Boat, or the Land of Osiris (all names for the Egyptian afterlife, according to lecture).
ReplyDeleteAmong the many ridiculous things that the catalog bans, some of the most rational prohibitions are not to kill, the avoidance evil, the good treatment of cattle, telling the truth, and not stealing. Some of the more ridiculous exclusions discuss blabbering, masturbation, “puffing up” and the raising of one’s voice; nearly impossible feats for any human to avoid throughout the duration of their lives. At the “border” of the afterlife, the recently deceased person’s sins (in accordance with those just discussed) and heart are weighed against the feather of truth; and if their heart is equal to ma’at, they are permitted to proceed to the afterlife.
The piece of all of this that I find most interesting, however, is the ability for someone with a large sum of money (obviously someone of high class or a part of the nobility) to purchase a “new heart” termed a “scarab.” The scarab bares the “Book of The Dead” within it, and has the ability to cover up sins upon arrival at the Hall of Two Truths. With their purchased scarab, or piece of expensive jewelry, Egyptians were able to [in part] bypass a life of wrongdoing and continue to a fabulous afterlife. This is something that was not granted amid the lower class and those professions unable to fund a scarab; those sinning members of society would be instead banned to a horrible eternity; fed into ovens and forced to live upside down (and without their heads) for the rest of time.
Ancient Egypt had such a strict social structure that caused even a universal practice such as religion to be subject to division based on class and rank. Generally, next to priests, kings had the most religious practices and authority. They were after all seen as gods themselves. Pharaohs began the building of their tombs extremely early; almost as soon as they took power. These tombs were lavish and filled with treasures and precious items. Also, at their time of death, kings would be buried in the finest linens and the grandest coffins. Nobles and other high officials built tombs that were of high quality and grandeur, but were not as extraordinary as the pharaohs. This evidence of massive tombs and impressive burials shows a sharp divide from the lower class. Lower citizens of Egypt had small tombs, if any. They were not wrapped in fine linens or buried with expensive goods. Peasants usually had very modest graves.
ReplyDeletePreparing for the afterlife was only one aspect of the divide in religious practice. It was apparent that kings and high officials performed religious practices due to the evidence of their jobs and daily tasks. The king was already considered divine, he had to constantly appease the gods, giving offerings and prayers, and he participated in religious ceremonies and festivals. The high officials also lent their hands in these areas because the king couldn’t do everything. It is evident that kings, the elite, and high priests took part in religious practices, but what about the lower class? From the readings, there is proof that in the Old Kingdom Pyramid Texts, thy only applied to the king, however, the Coffin texts show that due to the decentralization of power in the first intermediate period, the lower class received more rights to equally practice certain religious traditions. Commoners were able to use spells for general use and could inscribe these texts in their burial tombs. These texts led to a movement of a more complex religious following among the lower class.
Without doubt, we have been constantly talking about how inseparable secular and religious life was back in the old days in Egypt. The extent to which the Egyptians were religious under the deities is clearly shown in the Penitential Hymns. It says “I give him praises to the height of the sky, to the breadth of the earth,” which establishes the deity Amon as a supernatural being that surrounds them at all time. He also states how people should not do ‘wrong’, because the gods will not forgive. “Just as a servant is wont to commit sin, so the lord is wont to forgive.” The gods will get angry at humans wrongdoings, and no one wants gods to ‘spend the whole day being angry’ In this way, the existence of gods must have helped to keep order within the country for every individual, of course, that is limiting to the most of the Egyptians who were pious enough to believe in it. But not only the individuals but also the state itself, for the ‘rightness’ of individuals eventually comprises the order of the entire nation. In “The book of the heavenly cow,” it states that "by magical means a person could participate, especially after death, in the sun god's process in renewal.” This is surprising in the fact that a low class, or a commoner could participate in such holy pious process too. In Egypt the magicians were the only ones, or high priests, so the commoners’ access to magic at this time is surprising and unusual. On the other hand, in other times the use of magic, similar with the idea of repulsion of hostile entities which the Egyptians called heka was available to all Egyptians. These the Egyptians used for things like giving healthy birth to successful inundation. These must have helped both the individual and the state, because a famine would struck both hard. In the ‘Religion in Society: Pharaonic’, it addresses the difference between the state and personal religion quite explicitly. Though not formally expressed, it says that the dead could also be approached through letters and perhaps rituals. Though the commoners were usually restricted from the religious rituals where only the priests and the Pharaoh could participate. “A number of gods could be approached by all, but some only by the Pharaoh, priests, or their avatars.” However, one who carried out proper funerary rituals with the correct knowledge to navigate through the world of the afterlife could be elevated, but it was hard for commoners because the funerary ritual would cost a fortune.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is not explicitly stated, we can imply that the narrator of, “The Man Who was Weary of Life” is likely a member of the Rekhyet (commoners). 5 out of 8 of the stanzas in Poem 1 refer to animals an Egyptian would only see in fields or marshes. Additionally, Poem 2 refers to personal and petty lamentations virtually nonexistent to the Iry-Paat (nobility). Under this more focused perspective, a theme begins to emerge regarding the identity of commoners and their experience with religion.
ReplyDeleteOne distinction between the narrator’s frame around religion and that of kings or nobility is the relevance of one’s ba. An ambiguous term indeed, the narrator places great emphasis on his ba, speaking to it directly as if it is a very practicable element of him. His descriptions of his ba are very personal and seem to reflect an instinctual side of the man: “If my ba…will listen to me…I opened my mouth to my ba in answer to what he had said”. On the other hand, nobility (the king in particular) place much greater emphasis on gods and their interactions with them. Though one’s ba is a universal personal asset, the king instead places emphasis on his efforts to please the gods and emulate them.
What is common between the two is the concept of offering. Whereas kings and the nobility present the gods with fine cloths, rich pottery, and stores of grain, commoners instead present prayers and complete their tombs as sufficient sacrifice. The narrator says, “[when] I have an heir who will make offerings and officiate at my tomb”.
This presents an interesting comparison between the Rekhyet and the Iry-Paat. The paradox lies in their shared acts of giving sacrifice, while they differ in their frames around “god” (i.e. the ba for commoners and the gods themselves for the nobility). This leads me to believe that the common act of sacrifice holds different meanings for each class, which in turn reinforces their beliefs. For example, kings may offer lavish goods to the gods, cementing their beliefs that they are looked on favorably (so long as they maintain their high-status positions). Contrastingly, commoners may only offer prayer and the occasional dialogue with their ba, which acts as a coping mechanism for their comparatively tough lifestyles. In each case, each class feels obligated to continue offering their sacrifices in order to maintain or handle their positions effectively. Without sacrifice or struggle, each would perhaps lose hope and focus on death alone, much like the man who was weary of life. Indeed, perhaps the only solution to his problem is giving sacrifice. In the last communication between the man’s ba and himself, his ba reassures him, saying,” Make offerings on the altar / and struggle for your life…I shall alight after you have [died]”.
I think that just the way the Ancient Egyptian social hierarchy was constructed is quite evident and representative of the differing religious views pertaining to different members of society. For example, a scribe or priest would have more access to more sophisticated and perhaps deeper texts and ideas relating to the gods than a farmer or soldier.
ReplyDeleteTake Spell 148. Wente writes that it "is of dramatic nature and may actually have been performed in a religious ritual" (263). But, by whom? We know that, by this time in Egyptian history, certain rites had been appropriated by everyday citizens- rites which had previously been limited to royals and the hereditary elite. Perhaps then it is safe to assume that this was a spell that was uttered as commonplace the funerary rituals. This spell's purpose is to transform a person into a falcon, the representative bird of Horus. Because Horus is the god associated most with the pharaoh, and a prayer that would transform somebody into a falcon effectively makes that person either equal to, or at least similar to Horus. Thus, the object of this spell is lifted up to a kinglike status. Or, one could argue that the king's status is dramatically reduced. And, as we have learned in lecture, this downgrading of the kind and raising of all other citizens was occurring in government. And, because Egyptian government was so intrinsically linked with the supernatural and their religion, it only makes sense that such an equalization of classes would be represented in both the socio-political and religious spheres of Egyptian life.
So then, how does this relate to state versus personal religion? I suppose it's that what was once a creature of the state (i.e. religion), had now become a creature of the people. And, once royal religious practices became common, each citizen could make of the spells, rites and rituals what he or she wished. I don't think that this relates to any one specific occupation; this is a people versus government issue. The separation between the elite and the peasantry, it seems, boils down to one thing: literacy. Through literacy, the elite and the priests were able to keep secrets and keep ideas from the masses, much like the pre-Enlightenment church in Europe. Once that power of religion was relegated elsewhere than to the top, whether by reading or by some other medium, the fact that literacy had once separated Egyptians became irrelevant. --Melanie Zelikovsky
Little by little, the lower classes of society were allowed the same funerary practices as those carried out by royalty. For example, commoners eventually started using royal Pyramid Texts. In The Egyptians mentions that once kings moved on to another tomb design, non-royalty were now allowed to copy the old designs for their tombs as well. In this way, the pharaoh was always one step ahead of everyone else.
ReplyDeleteIt was also really interesting to see completely different takes on the afterlife. On one end of the spectrum, texts focused on the experience of eternal leisure time and wished for the deceased, “May you be given wine and milk that come up before the offering table…” (Mc Dowell, 121). One thing to also underline is the fact that there was a probability that even powerful men such as the pharaoh would have to partake in labor, which was usually expected to be left to peasants. However, we are also given evidence that some ancient Egyptians leaned more towards skepticism.
It's also astounding how much emphasis they put into their preparations for "traveling to the West", especially after one reads Book of the Dead: "The Negative Confession". They made sure to address each offense and deny it to assure themselves of eternal life in good terms with Osiris and all the other gods presiding over the Hall of Two Truths. Yes, people did anything in their power to not end up like the ghost of the official, without a resting place and no offerings, yet people were still advised to enjoy life. The 'ba' of the tormented person in "The Man Who Was Weary of Life" says "if you are obsessed with burial, it will cause only sadness of heart" (181). The lines following this one pretty much state to not be in such a rush for the next world because you will miss the present after you're gone.
Arguably, religion was the most important and fundamental aspect of Ancient Egyptian life; it played a part in every individual’s life in one-way or another. Having said that, it would be impossible to try and prove that religion, though affecting everyone, affected everyone in the same way. As a matter of fact, religion, like everything else in Egyptian society, was strongly influenced by class. In turn, members of different social strata, though learning the same religious principles, carried out their worship in very different ways.
ReplyDeleteThe Upper echelons of society expressed their worship differently than members of the lower class. An example of this would be the differences in burials. Once mummification was readily available and the preservation of a corpse was now up to 70 days, burials changed dramatically. The elite used the 70 days in order to create as big of a scene as possible so as to draw attention to their passing. It seems as though the more time they had to spare, the less the service became about the individual’s crossing over into the afterlife. Rather, it was creating a display to express how esteemed you were. There was even a competition among nobles as to who could have the most lavish funerals. A member of the lower class may not even be able to have a funeral at all.
The burial itself is only the beginning of the differentiation between the upper and lower classes in regards to funerary rights. The tombs themselves were very different. The lower classes had very humble tombs and were advised to begin preparing to stock them long before they thought they were going to die. Therefore, being well endowed in the afterlife would mean financial burden for those already on the bottom. This is in juxtaposition with the elite who could afford to bring over hundreds of shabtis or depict lavish scenes to guarantee their success in the afterlife on their tomb walls. It seems to me that the Egyptians equated how well a tomb was equipped directly with how successful an individual would be in the afterlife. Due to the competition between the classes, the fundamental principles of religion were lost on the Ancient Egyptians.
Book of the Dead 125 is a glimpse into what happens when an individual crosses over into the afterlife. The Gods whom confront him do not care about his personal wealth or what he planned on bringing over with him. Rather, they care about the sins which he has and has not committed. To be rewarded with a great afterlife, which was the Egyptian’s main life goal, was never meant to be dependent on what one could afford to depict. Rather, it was about being a good person during your time on Earth. If you are successful in dying with a pure heart, then perhaps you will be lucky enough to be rewarded by spending eternity in the Fields of Reeds. No amount of money will save your heart when confronted with the Feather of Truth test. That is something that is hidden amongst the lavishness of the burials.
It is evidently true that different classes had different ways to worship their god and practice religion in ancient Egypt. The king himself was equally treated as a god connecting himself to Osiris, Re, and Amun. Whenever he was portrayed in paintings, he was always the biggest figure with light or symbols. He was thought to have an ability to communicate with gods directly and treated as a god in temples. Scribes, on the other hand, pursued their religious practice through writing and so to say sucking up to kings. Since 90% of population was illiterate in ancient Egypt, scribes of course were treated holy and perform actions only literate people would understand. To praise a king and write about him was their way to practice religion. In addition, priests who were especially involved in worshiping gods in temples of course had an authority to communicate with gods. Since 99% of population was not allowed to even enter temples, the high classes had unique, direct means to practice religion. Only exception would be during festivals, where high officials and normal people participated together and celebrated the gods. Also, they all valued their afterlife very much, so they had huge tombs and focused on mummification of themselves in order to have a happy afterlife.
ReplyDeleteHowever, normal people’s situations were different. They barely got to see a king because he did not show up often. Even though commoners got to see him, he was covered under bails, and he did not give elaborate answers to their questions. According to the lecture, to ask a god some question, normal people just had to satisfy with a king’s nodding or shaking his head or set two paths with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ and watched which path the king went. In “The Man Who Was Weary of Life,” as Adnan said before, we can imply that the narrator is likely a member of the Rekhyet (commoners). A commoner’s agony is conveyed here. The story is about a conversation between a weary man and his ba, and the man wants to commit a suicide due to the harsh reality. “Behold my loathsome,” “Whom can I trust today?” “There is emptiness in faithful friends;" all of his ramblings reflect how devastating his life is. However, the ba gives advices to him that there is no more joy in his life and that he will surely obtain it in the West. This argument seemed a bit superficial to me since we know from Egyptian religion that not all men attained peace in the afterlife; on the contrary, some were subjected to an eternity of pain and torture so as to pay for their misdeeds. I believe it is because suicide was such a big prohibited deal in Egypt as Professor Morris said before. Since afterlife, their end in religion practice, was essential to him, a commoner cannot go against harms. Eventually, the man emphasizes the gods and his available unity with them in the West. He says that, in the west, one "will not be prevented from standing in the presence of Re when he speaks." which is a very enticing argument for any Egyptian seeking a closer relationship with the gods. Thus, all classes looked for an intimidate relationship with god, but methods to approach were different.
I don't think I still got the prompt right... but this is what I thought.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAncient Egyptian society was strictly hierarchical in political, economic, and religious terms. In all cases, the king was on top, then his family, officials, priests, craftsmen, peasants, and slaves. However, there was always an opportunity for all except the king to become socially equal - and that occurred at death. As Sergio Donadoni explains, Egyptians believed that the end of the world would cause ancient hierarchies to reshuffle and "individuals were given the chance to reach levels they could never have hoped to achieve in a serenely stratified society," and that "everyone could expect to "become Osiris" after death" since "the name of the god was applied at death...to anyone who identified with him" (274).
ReplyDeleteAlthough this may be an extreme example, death provided an opportunity for Egyptians to change, or restart, per say. As suggested (though not depicted) in "Book of the Dead 125", as long as one passed the "weighting of the heart before [the] tribunal and its overseer Osiris, god of the dead," and was "a follower of Osiris", one was able to go to an utopian world (267, 277). There seems to be less class distinction in life after death regarding non-royals; becoming Osiris was in a way becoming divine, since the king identified himself with Horus, son of Osiris.
As discussed in lecture, temple access was limited to the elite and those who were purified through cleansing rituals. (As an aside, it's interesting to consider whether or not the Egyptian elite considered the actual sanctity of the temples themselves if they were built by the hands of slaves and of the "lowly" in general.) The king, himself, was hidden as much as the gods, and only he had the duty and honor of going from temple to temple during festivities. Moreover, the king did not require--though he could have--an intermediary to request favors on his behalf, whereas Egyptian commoners would have to pay their respects to the appropriate intermediaries outside the temples. Because the commoners were, well, commoners and not divine like the king, honoring the gods appropriately was especially essential to their ritualistic, private practice of religion to ensure good health and good legal standing. Each of the votives in the "Penitential Hymns" illustrate this. "I made for him adorations in his name...I made to him supplications before him" (Simpson 285). However, it may be important to consider whether or not the practice of religion was really so intrinsically grounded in the social fabric and how it, ultimately, was naturally divided, or whether the differences in religious practice were largely simply due to changing times and the reigns of the kings. In other words, was the way commoners practiced religion because their "common" status demanded a more indirect access to the gods, or was it because that was all the ruling king permitted? For instance, as noted in lecture, during the 3rd and 4th dynasties, there was hardly any record of private religious practice, as well as during Aknakhtnem's rule, the cause being that he had banned most forms of religious practice. According to the "Coffin Texts," "following the collapse of the Old Kingdom, royal Pyramid texts were gradually appropriated by commoners" (263). As seen in the syntax and diction of the spells laid out in the Coffin Texts, as well as in the narratives of the "Book of the Heavenly Cow," they were made for the "level" of commoners--that is, they were no longer so esoteric and kept to the elite. "Then...then...this...so..." (291).
ReplyDeleteAs a lower class Egyptian in Ancient Egypt, there are many limitations and restrictions as to what one can and cannot do. Education is a big thing that the poor cannot afford to acquire, but interestingly enough, so is religion despite the idea that you shouldn’t need money to worship or believe. However, due to their lack of education, access to religious texts and even the actual temples, this puts the poor at a disadvantage once again. The Book of the Heavenly Cow provides the lower class with better knowledge about their religion and an explanation as to how things, such as “murderoursness” (Simpson, 293), the Milky Way, and planets and stars came to be. Similarly to what Linjia mentioned in the first comment of this blog post, this book functions as kind of a commoner’s Bible.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting aspect about the relationship between socio-economic status and their religious experiences is the difference in the levels of morality. It is more likely to see poorer people with better work ethics and morality than those of the rich because since they are poor, their lives pretty much suck and the only thing they have to really look forward to is a better afterlife. And in order to attain that blissful afterlife in the Field of Reeds with Osiris and many other deities, these people know that they must first be good in their life on Earth. In contrast, the nobles and royal Egyptians were more likely to be corrupt due to their massive amount of wealth and power. Having too much of those two things could easily steer someone off the path of morality and onto one of selfishness, where you only care about your own self-interests rather than do what’s right. Furthermore, the existence of objects such as heart amulets, as Professor Morris mentioned in lecture, only encourages these people to be corrupt because they can get away with it and essentially still be able to lead a good afterlife.