King-of-the-Under-world, the Rhadamanthos of the Hellenes, rewards every man according to his works, and permits to see his face, makes like, or even in some mysterious way incorporates with, himself, those who, like him, overcome the snares, seductions and opposition of the Great Serpent, adversary and accuser of the brethren, and the powers of evil, and appear at last as just men made perfect, weighed in the balance by Har and Anupu,' and not found wanting. This is he who makes numerous captives, whose majority or multitude 2 is continually increasing, the chthonian Dionysos, Ra the Sun, at times identified with the primal Amen, Helios shining in the Under-world,3 Zagreus, the many-guest-receiving Zeus of the Dead.' Thus the Uasarian cult is no mere observation of, and childlike deductions from, the external phenomena of nature; the sun is not simply regarded as a bright being who is born each morning of the darkness, and is slain each evening by the arrow of night. The spiritual and psychical element is everywhere predominant. God and the soul both exist; God not only is, but he is also a rewarder of them that diligently seek him; eternal life is no phantom, the resurrection of the dead is both probable and credible." Osiris is the Sungod, without ceasing to be the real Lord, the Self-created, the God of the human Soul.' Thus, although essentially kosmogonic in development, he is far more than a mere pantheistic spirit of nature. Through all the elaborations and corruptions of Kamic mythology, through all the apparent intricacy of idea involved in the union and connection of, and in the distinction between, the shadowy 1 The dog Anubis' (Milton). 2 Cf. Dan. xii. 2. 3 Cf. Od. xii. 383. 4 Ais. Iket. 146. 5 As to the Kamic belief in the resurrection of the body, cf. Bunsen, Egypt's Place, iv. 641; Lenormant, Anct. Hist. of the East, i. 322-3. No opponent of the doctrine has ever been able to answer S. Paul's subtle question, What is the abstract probability against it? (Acts xxvi. 8.) Egypt's Place, iv. 325. 6 groups of indistinct and oftentimes grotesque divinities of Kam, we may learn their belief that life, however developed, is greater and more glorious than inanimation, that mind is first and reigns for ever,' that all things come from God and go to God, that probation will in the case of the righteous be followed in due time by perfection, and that whatever is, exists for the glorification of God in time.' Solar, astral, phallic, kosmogonic, chthonian, and psychical, Uasar links together in one the various elements of nature and of religious idea. He stands between man and the far-off Primal Cause; and when the history of his worship shall be fully known, its various phases thoroughly understood, and its marvellous similarities with the teachings of our own Sacred Books duly appreciated, we shall unhesitatingly assert, with the philosophic Apostle, that the invisible things of God become distinctly visible when studied in the things that He hath made.'1 Subsection IV-Identity of the Uasarian and Dionysiak Myths. That the Uasarian and Dionysiak myths were, at a certain period, identified is beyond all contradiction; but on the fact whether they were originally identical or not, practically depends the important question, Is Dionysos non-Aryan in origin, or is he merely a simple Aryan divinity overlaid with Semitic incrustations? I will therefore notice various features and points of similarity which constitute the parallel between, and identity of, the two personages, and consider the deductions which may be legitimately drawn from these facts. The identity of Dionysos and Usar is illustrated by the following circum stances: I. The consensus of ancient Authors.-Herodotos, as we have seen,1 identifies the two, and considers that the Uasarian or Dionysiak cult was introduced into Hellas, through the instrumentality of Phoenicians, by Melampous many hundred years before his time. The deliberate conclusion of the great historian and investigator on this last point, the time of the introduction of the cult into Hellas, is deserving of the greatest weight, and must, I think, carry conviction to an unprejudiced mind that the Bakchik worship was brought into Hellenik regions long anterior to the era of Onomakritos and the Peisistratids, to the reign of Psammetik the Great, when Kam was first partially thrown open by law to Hellenes, to the Olympiad of Koroibos, that wonderful epoch when, according to some moderns, by virtue of a mysterious fiat lux we pass at a bound from fiction to history, and to the Herodotean era of Homeros and Hesiodos, some 400 years before his own time. Sir G. Wilkinson ingeniously suggests that if Melampous 'be an imaginary personage,' his name, 'Blackfoot,' was invented to show the origin of the rites he was said to have introduced as coming from Kam, the 'Black Land.'3 4 Diodorus is equally clear on the point. He states that the first men in Aigyptos thought that there were two eternal gods, the Sun, Osiris, and the Moon, Isis; 5 and that some ancient Hellenik mythologists call Osiris Dionysos, and quotes verses from Eumolpos and Orpheus in illustration of this. Again, he says that Osiris was explained to be Dionysos, and Isis, Demeter; and, when alluding to the numerous opinions about the gods, he declares that Osiris was named by some Sarapis [i.e. 7 Osiri-Hapi, the deceased and canonised Bull of Memphis], by others Dionysos, by others Plouton [as the Lord of the Under-world], by others Ammon [i.e. Amen the Invisible God, and Primal Cause, with whom he was at times indirectly identified], by some Zeus [as the great and universally-worshipped and Ammon-connected divinity], and by many Pan,'1 [as the kosmogonic spirit of all nature.2] These apparently contradictory opinions will not, I think, perplex the judicious reader, who will observe that Uasar was, of course, absolutely distinct from the three Aryan divinities Zeus, Plouton, and Pan, and will further notice the special reasons which led to their being identified with him. The non-identity of, but the connection between, Sarapis, Ammon, and Uasar, especially through the solar and psychical links, is sufficiently known to all acquainted with Kamic mythology. Diodoros paid especial attention to the Dionysiak myth, and although much confused by an absurdly extended principle of Euemerism, and believing that there were several Dionysoi, yet on the whole he appears to have quite admitted the identity of Dionysos and Uasar. Plutarchos, who in his special work on the UasarUasi myth, which is the gem of his writings, displays both considerable knowledge and ability, is quite clear on the point, remarking that it is better to identify Osiris with Dionysos, and Sarapis with Osiris.'4 He had before him when writing Manethon's mythological Work on Uasi and Uasar, so that he may be fairly considered to represent the views of that most distinguished of ancient Egyptologists on the matter. Later writers agree. 2 1 Diod. i. 25. Sup. IV. iii. 2. 3 Cf. sup. I. 4 Peri Is. xxviii; cf. Ibid. xxxv. 5 Cf. Euseb. Euan Apod. Propar. Prooim. ii; Theodoret. Serm. ii. De Therapeut. 6 Cf. Nonnos, iv. 269–70. II. Uasar and Dionysos are both represented as great warriors and conquerors, especially in the East.1 III. They are both connected with Nysa.-'Osiris was brought up in Nysa in Arabia Felix, the son of Zeus, and named from his father and the place Dio-nysos.' 2 IV. They are both pre-eminently suffering divinities.— This is one of the most important links between them. Uasar is slain, and his body cut in pieces by the wicked Set. Dionysos similarly is torn in pieces by the Titanes.1 Adonis who, as we have seen, is identical with Dionysos, is also a suffering, dying, and yet immortal, divinity.5 6 V. They are both of Asiatic origin.-It will be almost universally admitted that the civilisation of the Nile is derived from Western Asia. The myth of Osiris is Asiatic.' Osiris and Isis are sometimes represented as Egyptians; sometimes Isis comes from Phoenicia.'7 'Osiris seems to be the purely Egyptian form of an early Asiatic idea of the Deity.'8 It is a well-known fact, and universally admitted, that the fundamental ideas of the worship and sacred ceremonies of Adonis and Osiris were identical.'9 All the Phoenician names of AdonisOsiris can be fully explained, both as to meaning and etymology, in that language.' 10 The Egyptians were a branch of the race of Ham. They came from Asia, through the desert of Syria, to settle in the valley of the Nile. This is a fact clearly established by science, and 1 Cf. Diod. i. 19 with ii. 38, iii. 63, 65, 73, 74; Plout. Peri Is. xiii. xxii. xxix.; inf. IX. vii. Indoletes. 2 Diod. i. 15; cf. Herod. ii. 146; Diod. i. 19; iii. 64-6, 70; iv. 2; sup. IV. ii. 1; inf. VIII. i; Nysios, IX. viii. 3 Typhon. Diod. i. 21. 97; iv. 6; Plout. Peri Is. xiii. xviii.; cf. Herod. ii. 156, 171; Paus. x. 32; Vide 'The Lamentations of Isis and Nephthys,' translated by P. J. de Horrack (Records of the Past, ii. 117 |