From the standpoint of everyday experience, we are aware of
the universe as an incredibly diverse system made up of a multiplicity
of apparent unities. A duck is a unity, made of a multiplicity
of cells, each of which is a unity made up of a multiplicity of
molecules, each of which is a unity made up of a multiplicity of
atoms, each of which is a unity made up of a multiplicity of
'particles ' for whose description ordinary language will no longer
suffice. Seen one way they are particles, or unities ; seen another
way, they are modes of behavior of energy; and it is energy that is
now regarded as the ultimate unity underlying the material universe.
The same line of thinking followed into the macrocosmic sphere leads
to the same conclusion. The duck is a unity, which is one aspect of
the planet earth, which is a unity, which in its turn is part of the
solar system, which is a unity, etc . . .and on and on to the galaxies
which, combined, make up the unimaginable unity we call the 'universe'.
Positivists and certain linguistic philosophers may argue that the
concept 'universe' is a fallacy, that the universe is an illusion,
no more than the sum of its parts. But in that case a duck, or
a positivist , is also a fallacy and an illusion, and no more than the
sum of its parts.
Multiplicity presupposes unity. Multiplicity is meaningless unless
unity also has meaning. Both terms confer a real, not merely
abstract, meaning upon number.
It is the manner in which our senses receive information that creates
an automatic, often insuperable problem.
Multiplicity assaults our senses on every front, while the unities
we call 'duck', 'cell ' and 'molecule' are provisional and relative
and we know this. We are such philosophically provisional , relative
unities ourselves. Philosophically, logically, we may postulate
an ultimate unity , but it is impalpable to our senses.
We are obliged to acknowledge the limits of reason, and to
acknowledge the necessary reality of realism to which reason
has no access. And while reason will not in itself set men going
along the paths of an initiative tradition (that is the function of
conscience), reason is enough to invalidate skepticism.
It is the senses that make us skeptics. When scientists and
intellectuals claim that their atheism or agnosticism is forced
upon them by 'reason' , they lie. They have simply failed to apply
their reason to the relative and provisional data returned by
the senses.
What is today called Pythagorean number mysticism is Egyptian in
origin (if not older still) and corresponds to the underlying
philosophy behind all the arts and sciences of Egypt. In effect,
what Pythagoras did was to undramatise myth — a strategy that had
the advantage of talking directly to those capable of thinking along
these lines.

The work of Schwaller de Lubicz and the independent but complementary
work of a few other contemporary thinkers (J. G . Bennett, for example)
has made it possible to reexpress Pythagorean theory in a way
acceptable to our thinking.

When we reapply this to Egyptian myth it becomes clear that these
curious tales are based upon an understanding of number and the
interplay of number, not upon animism, tribal superstitions, priestly
feuds, the raw material of history or dreams.

Number: key to function, process and principle
1
One, the Absolute or unity, created multiplicity out of itself.
One became Two.
This Schwaller de Lubicz calls the 'Primordial Scission '
(Division, Separation). It is forever unfathomable and
incomprehensible to human faculties (although language allows us
to express what we cannot comprehend).
The creation of the universe is a mystery. But in Egypt this
was regarded as the only ineluctable mystery — beyond the Primordial
Scission, all is in principle comprehensible. And if it
is objected that a philosophy founded upon a mystery is
unsatisfactory, it must be remembered that modern science is rife
not only with mysteries, but with abstractions corresponding
to no possible experience in reality : the zero, which is
a negation;infinity, which is an abstraction ; and the square root of
minus one, which is both a negation and an abstraction.
Egypt carefully avoided the abstract.
Turn (transcendent cause), in regarding himself, created
Atum out of Nun, the primeval waters.
In our terms unity, the Absolute or unpolarized energy, in
becoming conscious of itself, creates polarized energy. One
becomes simultaneously Two and Three.
Two, regarded by itself, is divisive by nature. Two represents
the principle of multiplicity ; Two , unchecked, is the call to
chaos. Two is the Fall.
But Two is reconciled to unity, included within unity, by
the simultaneous creation of Three. Three represents the principle
of reconciliation, of relationship. (This three in one is of
course the Christian trinity, the same trinity that is described
in innumerable mythologies throughout the world.)
Numbers are neither abstractions nor entities in themselves.
Numbers are names applied to the functions and principles
upon which the universe is created and maintained. Through
the study of number — perhaps only through the study of number
— these functions and principles can be understood. Generally
speaking, we take these functions and principles for
granted; we do not even realize they underlie all our experience
and that, at the same time, we are largely ignorant of them. We
can only measure results, which provide us with quantitative
data but not with understanding. We experience the world in terms of
birth, growth, fertilisation, maturation, senescence, death,
renewal. We experience in terms of time and space, distance,
direction, velocity.
But contemporary science can account for this only in partial,
superficial, quantitative terms. And either it refuses to
admit these shortcomings, or to the manifold mysteries it
applies meaningless but impressive labels. Eloquent in the
emperor's new vocabulary, it insists the mystery is solved.
'Selection pressure', 'survival value', 'interaction between genetics
and environment' — analyze any or all of these terms and
you will find underlying all the mysteries of fecundation,
birth, growth, maturation, senescence, death, renewal. None
can be accounted for by the scientific method.
Yet through a restated Pythagorean number mystic is man
insight can be gained into their nature. The philosophy based
upon Pythagorean is miscalled by Schwaller de Lubicz 'the
only true philosophy'. This is not arrogance but a recognition
of the fact that by this means we can begin to understand the
world as we experience it.
2
The Absolute, unity, in becoming conscious of itself creates
multiplicity, or polarity. One becomes Two.
Two is not One plus One. Metaphysically, Two can never be
the sum of One plus One since, metaphysically, there is only
one One , which is All.
Two expresses fundamental opposition, fundamental contrariety
of nature: polarization. And polarity is fundamental to
all phenomena without exception. In Egyptian myth, this
fundamental opposition is vividly depicted in the interminable
conflict between Seth and Horus (ultimately reconciled
after the death of the king).
The Primordial Scission provokes, postulates, reaction.
Modern science is aware of the fundamental polarity of phenomena
— though without acknowledging its implications or
its necessarily transcendent nature. Energy is the measurable
expression of the revolt of spirit against its imprisonment in
matter. There is no way to express this fundamental verity in
acceptable scientific language. Yet the language of myth
expresses it eloquently: in Egypt, Ptah, the creator of forms, is
depicted as imprisoned, bound in swaddling clothes.
Polarity is fundamental to all phenomena without exception,
but it changes in aspect according to the situation. This
fact is taken into account in common language. We apply different
names according to the situation or category of phenomena.
Negative, positive ; active , passive ; male , female ;
initiating, resisting ; affirming, denying ; yes, no; true , false —
each pair represents a different aspect of the same, fundamental
principle of polarity.
For purposes of clarity and precision , we carefully distinguish
among these sets of polarities according to their specific
function within a given situation. And it is true that by doing
so, we may gain in clarity and precision. At the same time we
may — and in science invariably do — lose sight of the cosmic,
all pervading nature of polarity. In myth, this danger is
avoided. In myth the cosmic nature is intensified, and the individual
scholar, philosopher or artist utilizes that precise aspect
of the principle that applies to his task or quest, whatever it
may be. Precision and clarity are not purchased at the price of
diffusion.
Two, regarded in itself, represents a state of primordial or
principal tension. It is a hypothetical condition of eternally
unreconciled opposites. (In nature, such a state does not exist.)
Two is static. In the world of Two,nothing can happen.
3
A relationship must be established between opposing forces .
The establishment of relationship is, in itself, that third force.
One, in becoming Two, becomes Three simultaneously. The 'becoming' is
the third force, automatically providing the
innate and necessary (and mysterious) reconciling principle.
Here we come to an insoluble problem in both language and
logic. The logical mind is polar by nature and cannot accept or
comprehend the principle of relationship. Throughout history,
scholars , theologians and mystics have been faced with
the problem of explaining the trinity in discursive language.
(Plato wrestled manfully with it in his description of the
'world soul' ; to all but Pythagorean it seems gibberish). Yet
the principle of Three is easily applied to daily life where,
again according to the nature of the situation, we apply a different
name.
Male/female is not a relationship. For there to be relationship
there must be 'love ' or at least 'desire'. A sculptor and a
block of wood will not produce a statue. The sculptor must
have 'inspiration'. Sodium/chlorine is not in itself enough to
produce a chemical reaction ; there must be 'affinity'. Even the
rationalist, the determinist, pays unwitting homage to the
principle: unable to account for the physical world through
genetics and environment, he calls in 'interaction', which is a
label applied to a mystery.
Logic and reason are faculties for discerning, distinguishing,
discriminating (note the Greek prefix di-, meaning two).
But logic and reason will not account for everyday experience:
even logicians fall in love .
The third force cannot be 'known ' by the rational faculties;
hence the aura of mystery hovering about every one of its
innumerable aspects — 'love', 'desire', 'affinity', 'attraction' ,
'inspiration'. What does the geneticist 'know ' about 'interaction'?
He can't measure it. He infers it, extrapolates from his
own experience, and by using a word from which all emotion
has been removed, assumes he is being 'rational'. He can
define 'interaction ' with no more precision than the sculptor
can define 'inspiration ' or the lover , 'desire'.
The heart, not the head, understands Three. (By 'heart ' I
mean the complex of human emotional faculties. ) 'Under standing'
is an emotional more than an intellectual function,
and it is practically a synonym for reconciliation, for relationship.
The more one understands, the more he or she is able to
reconcile, and relate. Seeming incongruities and inconsistencies. It
is possible to know a great deal and understand every little.
So, while we can not measure or know Three directly, we
experience it everywhere. From common everyday experience,
we can project and recognize the metaphysical role of Three;
we can see why trinities are universal to the mythologies of the
world. Three is the 'Word' , the 'Holy Ghost', the Absolute conscious
of itself. Man does not directly experience the Absolute
or unity or the Primordial Scission. But the famous mystical
experience, union with God, is, I believe, the direct experience
of that aspect of the Absolute that is consciousness.
The degree to which one understands Three is a fair indication
of the degree to which he or she is civilized. To acknowledge
the third force is to assent to the fundamental mystery of
creation; at the same time it is a recognition of the fundamental
need to reconcile opposites. The man who understands
Three is not easily seduced into dogmatism. He knows that
true and false in our world are relative — or if seemingly absolute,
as in logical systems, then that system itself is but relative,
and abstracted from a greater, more complex reality. The failure
to understand this result in the curious modern reasoning
that declares the part valid but the whole an illusion.
Though the third force can not be measured or known
directly, an enlightened science such as the Egyptian can deal
with it precisely. Any manifestation in the physical world
represents a moment of equilibrium between positive and
negative forces. A science that understands this also understands
that by knowing enough about those positive and negative
forces it will also , by inference , know about the ineffable
third force , since this must be equal to the opposing forces in
order to bring about that moment of balance. The ability to
make use of this knowledge is one aspect of 'magic'.
In everyday life, recognition of the role of Three is a step
toward that most difficult of feats : acceptance of the opposition.
A masterpiece of art, indeed creation of any sort, can take
place only in the face of commensurate opposition. To the
sculptor, the block of wood is his opposition in a very real
sense — as every sculptor knows. If his inspiration is insufficient
to deal with his block of wood, he will either go out and
get drunk or produce an ambitious failure. If the block of
wood is insufficient to his inspiration, he will finish with a
sense of frustrated ambition. Easy to recognize in principle,
the ability to give the opposition its due is one of the most difficult
things to put into practice. This is why the principle is
expressed and re expressed in a thousand different ways in
sacred literature's of the world. It is this, and not any sense of
obsequiousness, that is meant by the Christian dictum to 'love
thine enemy'. Try to love thine enemy!
4
Material, substance, things ; the physical world is the matrix of
all sensuous experience. But material or substance cannot be
accounted for in two terms or in three. Two is an abstract or
'spiritual' tension . Three is an abstract or 'spiritual ' relationship.
Two and three are insufficient to account for the idea of
'substance', and we can illustrate this by analogy. Lover /
beloved / desire is not yet a 'household' or even an affair. Sculptor
/ block / inspiration is not yet a statue. Sodium / chlorine /
affinity is not yet salt. To account for matter in principle
requires four terms : sculptor / block / inspiration / statue ;
lover / beloved / desire / affair ; sodium / chlorine / affinity/
salt.
Thus matter is a principle over and above polarity and relationship.
It includes, of necessity, both Two and Three, yet is
something beyond the sum of its constituents, as every sculptor
and lover knows full well. Matter or substance is both a
composite and a new unity ; it is an analogue of the absolute
unity, with its triune nature.
The four terms needed to account for matter are the famous
four elements — which are not, as modern science believes, a
primitive attempt to account for the mysteries of the material
universe, but rather a precise and sophisticated means of
describing the inherent nature of matter. The ancients did not
think that matter was actually made up of the physical realities
fire, earth , air and water. They used these four commonplace
phenomena to describe the functional roles of the four terms
necessary to matter — or, rather, to the principle of substantiality.
(At Four we have not arrived yet at the actual physical stuff
we stub our toes against.) Fire is the active, coagulating principle;
earth is the receptive, formative principle; air is the subtle,
mediating principle, that which effects the interchange of forces;
water is the composite principle, product of fire, earth and
air — and yet a 'substance ' over and above them.
Fire, air, earth, water. The ancients chose with care. To say
the same thing in modern terms requires more words, and
none stick in the memory. Active principle, receptive principle,
mediating principle, material principle — why bother
with such abstractions when fire, earth, air and water say the
same and say it better?
In Egypt, the intimate connection between Four and the
material or substantial world was applied in symbolism. We
find the four orientations, the four regions of the sky, the four
pillars of the sky (material support of the realm of the spirit),
the four sons of Horus, the four organs, the four canopic jars
into which the four organs were placed after death, the four
children of Geb, the earth.
Unity is perfect, eternal, undifferentiated consciousness.
Unity becoming conscious of itself creates differentiation,
which is polarity. Polarity, or duality, is a dual expression of
unity. Thus each aspect partakes of the nature of unity and of
the nature of duality — of the 'One' and of the 'Other', as Plato
put it.
Thus each aspect of primordial, spiritual duality is itself
dual. The primordial Scission creates a twofold antagonism,
which is reconciled by consciousness. This double reaction, or
double inversion, is the basis of the material world. If we understand
nothing of this fourfold process, we understand little of
the world of phenomena — which is our world. Symbols, studied
in the correct manner, make these processes clearer than
words. The square inscribed in a circle represents passive, potential
matter contained within unity. The same process is
shown in action, as it were, in the cross — which is rather more
than two sticks of wood upon which an upstart Jew was nailed. This is
the cross of matter, upon which all of us are
pinned. Upon the cross , the Christ, the cosmic man, is crucified.
By reconciling its polarities through his own consciousness,
he attains unity.
It is this same principle of double inversion and
reconciliation that lies behind all religious Egyptian art and
architecture. The crossed arms of the mummified pharaoh —
who (whatever his personal traits may have been) represents
successive stages of the cosmic man — holds the crossed scepter
and flail of his authority. Schematically, the point where the
two arms of the Christian cross intersect represents the act of
reconciliation, the mystical point of creation, the 'seed'. Upon
a similar scheme, the exalted, mummified pharaoh represents
the same abstract point.
The cross and the mummified pharaoh thus symbolize both
Four and Five.
5
To the Pythagorean, Five was the number of 'love' because it
represented the union of the first male number, Three, and the
first female number, Two.
Five may also be called the first 'universal ' number. One,
that is unity, containing as it does all and everything, is strictly
speaking incomprehensible. Five, incorporating the principles
of polarity and reconciliation, is the key to the understanding
of the manifested universe. For the universe, and all
phenomena without exception, are polar in nature, treble in
principle.
From the roots of Two, Three and Five all harmonic proportions
and relationships can be derived. The interplay of these
proportions and relations commands the forms of all matter,
organic and inorganic, and all processes and sequences of
growth. It may be that in the not too distant future, with the
aid of computers, science may come to a precise knowledge of
these complex interactions. But it will not succeed in doing so
until it accepts the underlying principles which the ancients
knew.
It may seem odd to saddle numbers with gender. But reflection
upon the functional role of numbers quickly justifies
such a procedure. Two, polarity, represents a state of tension;
Three, relationship, represents an act of reconciliation. Female
numbers, the even numbers, represent states or conditions;
the female is that which is acted upon. The male is that which
is initiative, active, 'creative', positive, (aggressive , rational);
the female is correspondingly receptive, passive, 'created ' (sensitive,
nuturing). This is not a tract advocating universal male
chauvinism; the universe is polar, masculine/feminine by
nature. And it is probably no accident that in countless phenomena
of the natural world, we find this relationship
between odd numbers and masculinity, even numbers and femininity.
Genital organs are usually treble. Female mammals of
all species have two (or multiples of two) breasts. In an accidental
universe, there is no reason why such uniformity should
prevail.
So Five, to the Pythagorean, was the number of love, but
given the innumerable connotations of that much abused
word, it is perhaps preferable to call Five the number of life.
Four terms are necessary to account for the idea of matter, or
substance. But these four terms are insufficient to account for
its creation. It is Five — the union of male and female — that
enables it to 'happen'.
And it is an understanding of Five in this sense that is responsible
for the peculiar reverence in which Five has been held in
so many cultures; this is why pentagram and pentagon have been sacred
symbols in esoteric organizations (and why it is so
ironic to see it currently used as the basis of the plan of the
world's largest military headquarters). In ancient Egypt, the
symbol for a star was drawn with five points. The ideal of the
realized man was to become a star, and to 'become one of the
company of Ra' .
As we apply the functional roles of number to familiar conditions
of everyday life, we can gain insight into the manner in
which they operate more easily than we can by technical
description. Roles change and become more complex within
functions. Man/woman is a polarity. But the same man and
woman, linked by desire in a relationship, are no longer the
same; and when the three term relationship turns into the
tetrad of affair, or household, the parties to it again change
functionally— as all lovers, husbands and wives know full
well. The parties involved play both active, masculine, initiating
and passive, feminine, receptive roles simultaneously. The
lover is active toward his beloved, receptive to desire; she is
receptive to his advances, but provokes desire. The sculptor is
active toward the block of wood, receptive to inspiration; the
block of wood is receptive to the chisel, provoking inspiration.
This kind of thinking underlies the vital philosophy of
Egypt.
Broadly speaking, contemporary philosophy falls into two
main camps. One, characterized by logical positivism and its
rather more sophisticated descendants, concentrates upon
logic and a scientific methodology. The other, typified by
existentialism in its various forms, concentrates upon human experience
in a personal or social context. Neither school incorporates
Pythagorean thinking, with the result that the positivists have
developed a rigorously consistent analytical tool unrelated to
human experience, while the existentialists
have made useful observations about experience, but cannot
fit them into a consistent or convincing structure. The Pythagorean
approach reveals a structure and system underlying experience.
The philosophy of ancient Egypt is not philosophy in our
sense; there are no explanatory texts. It is nevertheless a real
philosophy in the sense that it is systematic, self consistent,
coherent and organized upon principles that can be expressed
philosophically. Egypt expressed these ideas in mythology,
and it is not until that mythology is studied as the dramatization
and interplay of number that its coherence reveals itself.
From his study of the Hebrew Cabala, Chinese yin yang
philosophy, Christian mysticism, alchemy, the Hind u
pantheon and the latest work in modern physics, Schwaller de
Lubicz recognized a common Pythagorean bond uniting all.
However different the means or modes of expression, each of
these philosophies or disciplines concerns the creation of the world,
or matter, out of the void; each recognizes that the physical
world is but an aspect of energy, each — excepting modern
physics which, by concentrating on the material aspect of the
problem, can avoid its philosophical implications — recognizes
that 'life' is a fundamental universal principle, and not
an afterthought or an accident.
The number of 'love', the number sacred to Pythagoras, the
number symbolized by pentagon and pentagram, which commanded
the proportions of the Gothic cathedrals, played a crucial
but subtler role in Egypt. Apart from the hieroglyph of the
five pointed star, we find no over t instances of five sided figures.
Instead Schwaller de Lubicz found the square root of Five
commanding the proportions of the 'Holy of Holies', the
inner sanctuary of the Temple of Luxor. In other instances he
found the proportions of certain chambers dictated by the hexagon
generated from the pentagon. In others, crossed 8x11 rectangles,
the four sided generators of the pentagon from the
square, commanded the proportions of wall murals symbolically
related to those functions represented by Five.
Egypt also made extensive use of the Golden Section which,
from the Primordial Scission, commands the flow of numbers
up to Five. The pentagram, made up of Golden Section segments,
is the symbol of unremitting activity; Five is the key to
the vitality of the universe, its creative nature. In mundane
terms, Four accounts for the fact of the sculptor's statue, but
does not account for the 'doing' of it. Five terms are required to
account for the principle of 'creation'; Five is accordingly the
number of 'potentiality'. Potentiality exists outside time. Five
is therefore the number of eternity and of the principle of eternal
creation, union of male and female — and it is for this reason,
and along these lines of thought, that the ancients came to
hold Five in what looks to us like a peculiar reverence.

Translation of the hieroglyphs still presents difficulties. In
any Egyptological journal, half the articles generally concern
unsolved problems of meaning, grammar and syntax. As it
stands, the hieroglyphs can be 'deciphered', but it is unjust to
say that they can be exactly 'translated'.
Champollion himself did not believe that he had revealed
all that the hieroglyphs conceal. But death prevented him
from following up his presentiments and subsequent scholars
have not done so either, contenting themselves with refinements
upon his original work. This failure has resulted in
translations that miss the spirit and sense of the texts. But
because Egyptologists have not found the metaphysical basis
of the whole of Egyptian civilization, they attribute the in coherence
of the texts to primitive and 'uninvolved' Egyptian thinking rather
than to fundamental shortcomings of their own.

As is so often the case with solved mysteries, once the solution
is provided it is difficult to see how it should not have been
discovered long ago. But though simple enough to explain
and illustrate, the symbolic key to the hieroglyphs requires a
kind of thinking that is diametrically opposed to the analytic
spirit of modern thought. The analytic mind rebels and refuses
to countenance a symbol that contains within a single sign a
complete hierarchy of meaning from the literal to the most abstract.
But this is what the hieroglyphs do.
Curiously enough, if Egyptologists stuck rigidly to an absolutely
literal translation of the texts, the underlying symbolic meaning would
almost force itself upon them; but by approaching the texts
cerebral, by trying to turn them into an equivalent of our
'literature', they effectively covered over this inner meaning.
Thus, the sign for 'bird' shows a bird. But the constant use of
this symbol in sacred texts suggests that the literal meaning
does not tell the whole story. And the ubiquitous symbol for
the 'soul' (the ba, a bird with a human head) provides the clue
to the symbolic meaning of 'bird'.
The sign refers not only to the physical bird, but also to
all the functions and properties that are contained within the
'idea' of bird: the ability to fly, to escape from the earth, and
hence the principle of volatility which ultimately implies 'spirit'.
When, in religious texts, the Egyptians carefully drew scenes of
men drawing closed a net full of wild birds, they were not merely
reminding the hovering disembodied dead of the pastimes of earth,
but performing a magic rite reminding him of the exigencies of the
spirit; of the need to capture, to 'draw the net' around the
volatile aspects of the spiritual self. The failure to understand
both the purpose of myth and its underlying verity contributes to the
current unsatisfactory picture of ancient Egypt.
Consonant with evolutionary thought, modern scholars regard myth as
either a quaint early attempt by primitives to rationalize the
baffling physical world, a romantic effort to escape from harsh,
matter of fact realities or as a clumsy artistic endeavor to
communicate historical and political realities.
Even Jung, who often saw wisdom where others saw only
superstition, attributed the universality of myth to the workings
of a mysterious 'collective unconscious'.
Schwaller de Lubicz comes to a contrary conclusion and substantiates
his claim. Myth may be the earliest known means of
communicating information related to the nature of the cosmos,
but it is also the most precise, the most complete, and perhaps the best.
Myth dramatizes cosmic laws, principles, processes,
relationships and functions, which in turn may be defined and
described by number and the interplay between numbers

Had the Egyptians possessed both their high order of knowledge,
and a manner of expressing or encoding it similar to our
own, Schwaller de Lubicz's work would have been unnecessary
and the paradox of supposed primitives producing artistic
masterpieces would have never arisen.
Beyond a certain level, in every one of the arts and sciences of
Egypt, knowledge was secret. The rules, axioms, theorems and
formulate — the very stuff of modern science and scholarship
— were never made public, and may never have been written down.

But the question of secrecy is today thoroughly misunderstood.
It is generally agreed among scholars that most ancient
societies (and many modern primitive ones) reserved certain
types of knowledge for select initiates. At best this practice is
considered absurd and undemocratic, at worst it is considered
a form of intellectual tyranny, by which a class of priestly con men
kept the masses in a state of quiescent awe. But the ancient
mind was rather subtler than our own. There were (and are)
good reasons for keeping certain types of knowledge secret,
including the secrets of number and geometry; a Pythagorean
practice that particularly arouses the ire of modern mathematicians.
Five was the sacred number of the Pythagoreans, and members
of the brotherhood were sworn to secrecy regarding it on
pain of death. We know the secrets existed only because they leaked out.

That Egypt possessed this knowledge is incontestable in the
face of the harmonic proportions of her art and architecture as
revealed by Schwaller de Lubicz.
But perhaps unfortunately, Egypt was also much better at
keeping her secrets than the loudmouthed Greeks — so very
good that Egyptologists refuse to believe she possessed them.
Though by definition circumstantial, the evidence that she did
so is commanding, and it remains only to understand the valid
motives behind keeping this kind (or any kind) of knowledge secret.

In a world of hydrogen bombs, bacteriological warfare and
other progressive horrors, it is self evident that knowledge is
dangerous. It is also self evident that the ancients possessed no
technology capable of unleashing such brutal power. However,
if we look more closely at the manner in which we are
emotionally and psychologically influenced — which in turn
makes predictable the manner in which we will react to given
situations — we will see that dangerous knowledge lies behind
this curious Pythagorean number symbolism.
A work of art, bad or good, is a complex vibratory system.
All our five senses are constructed to pick up this data in the
form of visual, aural, tactile and probably olfactory and rapid
wavelengths. The data is interpreted by the brain and provokes
a response that — given wide variations among individuals —
is more or less universal: no one thinks the last movement of
Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is a lullaby.
Accomplished artists know instinctively that their creations
conform to law: consider Beethoven's famous statement, made
while working on the late quartets, that 'music is a higher revelation
than philosophy'. But they do not understand the precise
nature of these laws. They arrive at mastery only through
intense discipline, innate sensitivity and a long period of trial
and error. There is little they can pass on to pupils or disciples.
Only technique can be passed on, never 'genius'. But in ancient
civilizations, a class of initiates had precise knowledge
of harmonic laws. They knew how to manipulate them to
create the precise effect they wanted. And they wrote this
knowledge into architecture, art, music, paintings, rituals and
incenses, producing Gothic cathedrals, vast Hind u temples,
all the marvels of Egypt and many other sacred ancient works
that even today, in ruins, produce a powerful effect upon us.
This effect is produced because these men knew exactly what
they were doing and why they were doing it: it was done
entirely through a complex of sensory manipulation.
Now, if we look at our twentieth century, we find no masterpieces
of sacred art, but we do see countless examples of scientifically
proven harmful effects resulting from a misuse of sensory data.
Torture is a misuse of sensory data. Men have known about
torture for a very long time. But never before has it been studied
scientifically. When it is analyzed, it becomes clear that torture
takes two forms: sensory deprivation (solitary confinement) and sensory
over stimulation (tying someone to the clapper of a bell, the rack, etc.).
It is also well known today — and continuing work reveals
ever more subtle and insidious effects — that the stresses and
strains of modern life take a real, even a calculable, toll of our
emotional and psychological faculties. People go haywire living
to o near an airport or working in the incessant noise of a
factory. Office buildings that recirculate air and make extensive
use of synthetic materials create an atmosphere depleted of
negative ions. Though undetectable by the senses directly, this
is ultimately a vibratory phenomenon on the molecular level,
and it has powerful, measurably harmful effects: people
become depressed and irritable, tire easily and lose resistance
to infection. The subsonic and ultrasonic frequencies produced
by a wide variety of machinery also exert a powerful and
dangerous influence. Designers today have some knowledge of
the effects of colors and color combination; they know those
effects can be beneficial or harmful, though they do not know why.
In effect, then, the daily life of city dwellers today is technically
a form of mild but persistent torture, in which victims
and victimizes are equally affected. And all call it 'progress'.
The result is similar to that wrought by deliberate torture. The
spiritually strong recognize the challenge, meet it and surmount
it. The rest succumb, become brutalized, apathetic, easily
swayed ; anything or anyone promising relief from an
intolerable situation is followed slavishly , and men are easily
moved to violence or to condoning violence in what they
imagine to be their interests. All of this is brought about by
men professing high ideals, but ignorant of the forces they manipulate.
It is incontestable that all of these phenomena work their
effects either through the senses directly or (as with unionized
air and subsonic and ultrasonic sound) through subtler physiological
receptors. It is, therefore , clear that they may be reduced
to mathematical terms, at least in principle.
The ancients could not have built an H bomb had they
wanted to. At the same time, while the military mind may consider
killing people an aim in itself, the ultimate aim of war is
not so much genocide as the psychological conquest of the
enemy. Brute force alone invariably provokes violent reaction;
tyrannies seldom last long when based solely upon military
power. But when the enemy is psychologically helpless, the
ruler is secure.
We look at our own society and see human beings reduced to
slavery by sensory and supra sensory phenomena imposed by
men who do not know what they are doing. We can easily postulate
a situation in which wiser but equally egotistical men
produce a similar effect deliberately, through the knowledge able
manipulation of the senses.
In the cathedrals and sacred art and architecture of the past,
we see the knowledge of harmony and proportion employed
rightly, provoking in all men who have not had their emotions
permanently crippled or destroyed by modern education a
sense of the sacred. It therefore takes no great leap in imagination
to conceive of the same knowledge put to an opposite use
by the unscrupulous. In principle, buildings, dances, chants
and music could be devised that would reduce the mass of any
given population to helplessness. It would not be difficult for
men who knew the secrets, since men who deny that the secrets
exist produce the effect consistently in the twentieth century.
And there is a tradition repeated throughout history (though
no concrete evidence I know) that Egypt waned and ultimately
fell through the widespread misuse of magic, which is
ultimately the manipulation of harmonic phenomena.
This is but one valid reason for keeping certain types of
mathematical knowledge secret. There are many others pertaining
to the course of development and initiation of the individual:
th e ma n foun d incapabl e o f keepin g a simpl e secre t
cannot b e entruste d wit h a mor e complex , mor e dangerou s
secret. Finally , w e mus t conside r th e possibilit y tha t ou r
undeniably develope d Wester n intellect s ar e purchase d a t the
price o f intuitiona l an d emotiona l sensitivity ; i n time s past ,
the misus e o f mathematical knowledg e migh t have been more
dangerous tha n i t woul d b e today .
In every fiel d of Egyptian knowledge, th e underlying principles
were kept secret, bu t made manifest in works. If this knowledge
wa s eve r writte n i n book s — an d ther e i s mentio n o f
sacred librarie s whose contents hav e never been foun d — then
these book s wer e intende d onl y fo r thos e wh o had earned the
right t o consul t them . Thus , i n writing , w e hav e bu t a few
mathematical papyr i intende d fo r students and apparently of a
purely practica l an d mundan e nature : the y involv e problems
of distributing bread and beer among X number of people, and
so on . Later , I shal l briefl y sho w ho w Schwalle r d e Lubic z
proves tha t these school exercises are necessarily derived from a
high an d exac t theoretica l mathematica l knowledge .
In astronomy , ther e ar e no texts , bu t a marvellousl y precise
calendrical syste m indicate s beyon d an y possibilit y o f doubt
that th e Egyptian s possesse d an advanced astronomy. I n geography
and geodesy there are no texts , bu t th e work of a number
of scholar s ha s show n tha t th e sitin g an d dimension s o f the
Great Pyramid , an d o f tomb s an d monument s datin g back to
the First Dynasty, as well as the whole complex system of Egyptian
weights and measures, coul d not have been achieved without
precis e knowledg e o f th e circumference of the earth, of the
flattening o f th e poles , an d o f man y othe r geographica l
details.
In medicine , agai n ther e i s th e proble m o f a shortag e o f
texts, an d th e problem i s compounded by technica l difficulties
in translation . Bu t th e availabl e text s allud e t o a bod y o f
unwritten knowledge , whil e tha t committed t o writing , when
studied closely , divulge s a profoun d knowledg e o f anatomy,
pathology an d diagnosis .
Finally, an d most convincingly, ther e are no texts relating to
architectural techniques . Egyptia n mural s ar e rif e with depictions
o f ostensibl y everyday occupations. (Actually , the y have
a deeper meaning as well, but more of this later.) We see carpenters,
potters , stickmakers
, fishermen , boatwrights , brewmas ters
— al l th e trade s commonl y associate d wit h a developed
artisan culture . Bu t nowhere in Egypt is there a scene showing
an architec t a t work . Nothin g indicate s th e manne r in which
the prodigiou s monument s o f Egyp t wer e planned , designed
or executed . A fe w fragmentar y plan s lai d ou t carefull y on papyri se t out in grids prove that plans existed — which comes
as n o surprise . Bu t no t a wor d o f th e knowledg e underlying
those plans . Tha t architectura l knowledg e existed . Ther e i s
the architectur e t o prov e it . Th e technica l skil l o f th e Egyp tians
ha s alway s bee n selfevident
. I t i s no w equall y eviden t
that thi s wa s matche d b y a profoun d knowledg e o f harmony,
proportion, geometry and design. And it is clear that all of this
knowledge, technica l an d theoretical , wa s secre t an d sacred ,
and tha t thes e secret s wer e kept .
They wer e manifeste d i n Egypt' s works , wher e the y migh t
produce thei r effects . Schwalle r d e Lubicz' s wor k consist s in
abstracting from th e ar t and architectur e th e profound mathematical
an d harmoni c understandin g responsibl e fo r th e
design o f thes e works, and in delving beneath the confused and
complex appearanc e o f th e hieroglyphs , mytholog y and sym bolism
t o th e simpl e metaphysica l realit y from whic h al l thi s
apparently arbitrary bu t actually consisten t and coherent complexity
devolved .

Ancient sources claimed Egypt as the original home of geometry.
Though biographies of Pythagoras were all fragmentary , secondhand and therefore unreliable , all agreed upon this point: that Pythagoras had acquired much of his learning in the East .
Arguments had long ranged over whether the proportions of the Great Pyramid were deliberate or purely fortuitous. The pyramid's height stands in a precise pi relationship to the perimeter of the base . P i (3.141 6 . . . ) i s the transcendental that defines the ratio between the diameter of a circle and its circumference.
At the same time, pi is related to another, more interesting, irrational , phi , the socalled Golden Section . I t had been observed — an d ignored by Egyptologist s — tha t not only the Great Pyramid but the other pyramids as well made use of different
phi relationships in their construction .
Schwaller d e Lubic z therefor e se t out t o discover whether or
not ph i relationship s wer e buil t into th e Temple of Luxor. If
this coul d b e prove n beyon d doubt, i t would corroborate these
fragmentary ancien t source s an d forc e a reconsideration of the
extent o f ancien t knowledge . I f i t coul d b e show n tha t th e
Egyptians possesse d advance d mathematica l an d scientifi c
knowledge, i t would not only prov e — a s man y suspected —
that th e famou s Gree k intellectua l flowerin g wa s bu t a pal e
and degenerat e shadow of what had been know n previously ; it
might als o hel p substantiat e th e legen d persisting throughout
history, an d widesprea d amon g th e peopl e o f th e world , tha t
great civilisation s ha d existe d i n th e distan t pas t eve n befor e
Egypt.
In seein g th e Templ e o f Luxo r a s a n Egyptia n Parthenon ,
Schwaller d e Lubic z was seein g mor e tha n a n exercis e i n har mony
and proportio n for its own sake . Aesthetic s played a secondary
rol e i n th e sacre d architectur e o f th e past . Th e Greek
Parthenon wa s buil t t o th e virgi n Athen a (parthenos mean s
virgin i n Greek) .
The symbolis m o f th e virgi n i s widesprea d an d extremely
complex, an d i t operates upon many levels. Bu t it s fundamental
metaphysica l significanc e i s th e creatio n ex nihilo — th e
universe create d ou t o f nothing , ou t o f th e void .
For al l it s analytical success, science in 193 7 was no closer to
a solution t o th e mystery of creation than in Newton's day. But
a lifetime' s stud y o f mathematic s — an d particularl y th e
mathematics o f number, harmony and proportion — had convinced
Schwalle r d e Lubic z tha t howeve r distorted and diffuse
the teaching s o f Pythagora s ha d become , i n thei r pur e form
they hel d th e ke y t o thi s ultimat e mystery . H e wa s als o con vinced
tha t ancien t civilisation s possesse d thi s knowledge ,
which the y transmitte d i n th e form o f myth — accounting for
the strikin g similaritie s o f myth s th e worl d over , i n cultures
completely isolate d fro m eac h othe r i n spac e an d time .
Central t o all thes e interlinked themes was tha t curious irra tional,
phi , th e Golde n Section . Schwalle r d e Lubic z believed
that i f ancien t Egyp t possessed knowledg e o f ultimate causes,
that knowledg e woul d b e writte n int o thei r temple s no t in
explicit texts , bu t i n harmony , proportion , myt h an d symbol.
Schwaller d e Lubicz' s firs t ste p towar d th e recover y o f thi s
putative los t knowledge was a study of the dimensions and proportions
o f th e Temple o f Luxo r t o fin d out i f significant and
deliberate us e o f measur e reveale d itself . Schwalle r d e Lubicz
set ou t t o loo k fo r phi .
It was soo n apparen t that his insight had been accurate. But
the subtlet y an d refinemen t wit h whic h measur e an d proportion
were employed demande d a commensurat e refinemen t of
technique on th e par t o f Schwalle r d e Lubicz and his team. In
the end , th e tas k occupie d fiftee n year s o n th e sit e a t Luxor .
Although Schwalle r d e Lubic z se t out knowing more or less
what h e wa s lookin g for , hi s interpretatio n doe s no t brin g in
measure and proportion in order to support a preconceived the ory.
Rather , th e measure s and proportions impose d th e inter pretation.
I t i s als o wort h mentionin g tha t al l measure s and
data wer e supervise d an d checke d b y qualifie d professionals :
by Alexandre Varille, a young Egyptologist who was won over
to th e Symbolis t approac h earl y o n an d who , i n effect , threw
over a saf e caree r i n Egyptolog y t o ac t a s spokesma n fo r
Schwaller d e Lubicz ; an d by Clement Robichon , a n architect,
chief o f excavation s fo r th e Frenc h Egyptologica l delegation
in Cairo .
Schwaller d e Lubic z claime d tha t Egyptia n civilizatio n wa s
based upo n profoun d an d precis e knowledg e o f th e mysteries
of Creation. Th e Symbolis t interpretatio n support s thi s claim
with tw o kind s o f evidence ; th e firs t linguistic , th e secon d
mathematical. I n Egyp t languag e an d mathematic s wer e sim ply
two aspects of a single scheme. But in order to satisfactorily
explain an d describ e thi s scheme Schwaller de Lubicz found it
necessary t o trea t linguistic s an d mathematic s separately .

Throughout Wester n history , Pythagoreanis m ha s ha d a
checkered bu t honorabl e career .
The Pythagorea n brotherhoo d wa s founde d b y Pythagora s
to appl y hi s mathematical , philosophica l an d harmoni c the ories
t o th e mora l an d practica l sphere s o f everyda y life .
Within decades it dissolved, but small groups and isolated individuals
continue d t o regar d themselve s a s Pythagoreans .
Number mysticis m becam e degenerat e o r diffuse , bu t
Pythagorean principle s o f rhythm , harmon y an d proportion
continued t o exercis e a n important , sometime s a command ing,
influenc e i n ar t an d architecture ; thes e principle s made
(and make) sens e to all thos e individuals whose personal experience
compelle d a belie f in a fundamental order . Throughou t
Western histor y th e grea t creativ e talent s hav e bee n explicitly
or implicitl y Pythagoreans .
Plato, especiall y i n th e Timaeus, showe d himself a Pythagorean,
a s wer e th e Neoplatonist s o f Alexandri a i n th e third , fourth an d fift h centurie s AD . Th e earl y Christia n churc h
seems t o hav e evince d n o interest , bu t Boethius , wit h Rom e
crumbling abou t him i n th e sixt h century , gathere d togethe r
what remaine d o f Pythagorea n doctrin e an d wrot e i t dow n
before bein g bludgeone d t o deat h b y Theodoric . Thoug h
apparently no t a Christian , Boethiu s enjoye d grea t estee m
within th e otherwis e intoleran t church , an d Pythagoreanism
was neve r entirel y submerged .
Enlightened elements within Islam , probabl y inheriting the
teaching of the late r Neoplatonists, kep t th e flame alive; and it
seems possibl e tha t i t ma y hav e survived , mor e or les s under ground,
i n Gnostic , Hermeti c and alchemical societies . I n any
case, i t survive d (or , conceivably , wa s reformulate d afres h
through direc t revelation) , fo r i t surface d i n ful l flowe r i n th e
Gothic cathedrals .
Much myster y stil l surrounds th e building of the cathedrals.
The technique s employe d were not part of th e Christian tradi tion
u p t o tha t time ; th e effec t create d b y th e cathedral s was
unlike anythin g earlier , an d no on e toda y i s certai n where the
knowledge cam e from . Th e cathedra l builder s appeare d i n
France i n th e eleventh century. Fo r the next three centuries the
movement wa s widesprea d ove r Europe , an d whateve r wa s
responsible fo r th e guidin g spiri t seeme d t o disappea r a s
abruptly a s it had appeared. In the later cathedrals (St. Peter's,
Rome; St . Paul's , London , fo r example) th e spiritua l effec t is
not th e same ; everyon e notices .
That effec t i s no t th e resul t o f accident. No r is it a concomitant
o f shee r size : moder n structure s fai l t o conve y a similar
effect, thoug h i t ma y b e tha t th e Empir e Stat e Buildin g and
Waterloo Statio n d o conve y a sens e o f th e 'sacred ' t o techno crats
an d financiers . Th e cathedral s 'work' , a s d o th e Par thenon
an d th e Ta j Mahal , becaus e whoeve r designe d them
had precis e an d profoun d knowledg e o f universa l harmonic ,
rhythmic an d proportiona l laws , an d equally precise and profound
knowledge of the manner in which t o employ these laws
in orde r t o creat e th e desire d effect .
The cathedral ag e represents the height of European civilisation.
The precise knowledge tha t went in to building the cathedrals
wa s mysteriousl y lost , o r diffused, never again t o become
a visibl e livin g forc e i n th e West . Bu t i t percolate d dow n
through th e guilds , throug h th e alchemists , th e Cabbalists ,
Rosicrucians an d Masoni c order s — wit h whos e wor k
Schwaller d e Lubic z wa s thoroughl y familiar .

Schwaller d e Lubicz' s vas t work, Le Temple de l'Homme (The
Temple Of Man), wa s publishe d i n 1957 . Thoug h a t firs t
glance it seems to present a picture of Egypt wholly at variance
with tha t pu t forwar d b y academi c Egyptologists , detaile d
examination show s tha t i n certai n instances , hi s wor k i s fore shadowed
i n th e finding s o f hi s predecessors . Often , soun d
work ha s bee n allowe d t o languis h whil e les s soun d theorie s
gained preeminence
. I n othe r instances , th e past tw o decades
of Egyptolog y hav e corroborate d Schwalle r d e Lubicz' s the ories
i n significan t detail s i n man y field s — thoug h withou t
acknowledging hi m a s th e source . (Thi s ma y o r ma y no t be
deliberate. There is no compelling reason why scholars should
not com e t o simila r conclusion s independently. )
But abov e an d beyon d thes e similarities , Le Temple de
l'Homme i s unique , fo r i t provide s a complete , coheren t doc trine
fusin g art , science , philosoph y and religion int o a single
body of wisdom tha t can account for th e civilisation o f ancient
Egypt i n it s entirety . Th e glaring paradox of primitive, mud dleheaded
necrophile s producin g unparallele d artisti c an d
architectural masterpiece s fo r fou r millenni a vanishe s com pletely
i n th e ligh t of this interpretation . The Symbolist interpretation
als o account s quit e naturall y fo r th e amazin g
integrity o f Egyptia n art , architectur e an d religio n through out
it s lon g histor y — a n integrit y that , prio r t o Schwaller de
Lubicz, scholar s coul d onl y ascrib e t o 'conservatism' . More over,
as work goes on in th e various fields of modern science, in
anthropology, archaeology , linguistics , an d man y other disciplines,
ne w fact s kee p comin g t o light , ne w theorie s kee p
being advanced tha t directly o r indirectly relat e t o the Symbolist
pictur e o f Egypt .
Though th e unwar y reade r woul d neve r kno w i t fro m a
casual readin g of popular scientific journals or from the popular
press (even the self appointed 'responsible' press) a real revolution
i n huma n though t is already under way (compensating
with intensit y fo r wha t i t perhap s lack s i n numbers) .
The fac t ha s no t ye t foun d it s wa y int o mos t schoo l text books
or even into th e heads and hearts of most working scientists
an d scholars , bu t scienc e an d scholarshi p hav e effectively
disproved th e mechanisti c and evolutionary hypothese s moti vating
s o muc h o f it s effort .
It i s a n intriguin g an d possibly uniqu e situatio n i n human
history. Schwalle r d e Lubicz' s work , i n th e righ t hands , may
play a n importan t rol e i n th e shapin g o f a ne w society . Fo r
although Le Temple de l'Homme apparentl y concern s a n
ancient an d alie n civilisation , tha t civilisatio n ha d profound
and exac t knowledg e o f th e principle s responsibl e fo r th e
created universe . I t i s thi s knowledg e tha t moder n scienc e
lacks. Fo r al l it s succes s i n studyin g an d measurin g th e
mechanisms o f phenomena, th e principles responsibl e for this
creation ar e almos t a s unknow n a s the y wer e a t th e onse t of
modern science . Whethe r o r no t scientist s an d scholar s will
manage t o exercise th e necessar y facult y of humility, and turn
to a n ancien t an d vanishe d civilisatio n fo r instruction ,
remains t o b e seen .
Meanwhile, Schwalle r de Lubicz's picture of Egypt makes it
clear tha t i t was thi s tota l understandin g of principle, function
and proces s tha t was responsibl e fo r th e form an d structur e of
Egyptian societ y an d fo r al l it s sacre d works .
R. A. Schwalle r was born in Alsace in 1891 . Trained in mathematics
and chemistry, he was attracted at an early age to philosophical,
mystica l an d religiou s subjects . H e wa s formall y
adopted b y th e Lithuania n princ e an d poet , O . V . d e Lubicz
Milosz, fo r work done on hi s behal f during World War I , and
appended th e honorar y 'd e Lubicz ' t o hi s ow n name . I n the
1920s and 1930 s he devoted himself to a range of mathematical,
mystical, alchemica l an d scientifi c studies ; t o experiment s
with plants , metal s an d staine d glass ; an d t o attempt s t o pu t
his idea s into practice with a number of likeminded
individuals.
Bu t until chance — or more accurately, destiny — brought him to Egypt in 1937 , h e had no conscious intention of solving
the parado x i t posed .
Confronted b y th e Templ e o f Luxor , h e ha d on e o f those
flashes o f dee p insigh t tha t s o ofte n accompan y discovery ; he
was certai n tha t h e sa w i n thi s immense , asymmetri c rui n a
deliberate exercis e i n proportion . H e sa w i n Luxo r th e Par thenon
o f Egypt .
This conviction ra n directl y counter to accepted Egyptological theory . Egyptia n mathematic s wa s considere d a primitive,
purely practica l affair , concerne d wit h dividin g lan d an d
apportioning ou t loave s o f brea d an d measure s o f corn . Th e
Egyptians wer e no t suppose d t o hav e understoo d th e law s o f
harmony and proportion o r known of the existence of irrationals.*
All o f thes e wer e supposedly Gree k inventions. (Scholars
disputed, an d stil l dispute , no t s o muc h th e exten t o f Greek
knowledge i n thes e areas , bu t th e exten t t o whic h thi s know ledge
wa s applied. )The discover y o f th e irrationa l an d of th e law s o f harmony
and proportio n wer e attribute d t o Pythagoras , th e discon certingly
semilegendar
y mysti c an d mathematicia n (ca .
580500
BC ) t o whom wa s also attributed th e development of
Pythagorean number mysticism: th e theor y tha t numbers have
innate meaning. Althoug h thi s latte r theor y has bee n a subjec t
of some merriment among modern scholars, i t is undergoing a
strong revival , an d understoo d i n contex t i t i s a means , per haps
th e bes t means , o f understandin g th e worl d w e experi ence.

Of all th e monuments of Egypt, th e pyramids have always provoked
th e keenest interes t and wildest theories . Generation s of
Egyptologists hav e stolidl y declare d tha t th e pyramid s wer e
built fo r th e mos t trivia l an d misconceive d motives , tha t their
dimensions an d proportion s ar e accidents, an d tha t thei r bulk
is n o mor e tha n a n instanc e o f pharaoni c egomania . Ye t the
layman remains unconvinced, and anything smacking of mystery
continue s t o excit e attention .
Ancient source s reporte d tha t th e pyramids , an d th e Grea t
Pyramid of Cheops in particular , were buil t to embody in their
dimensions an d proportions a wealth of astronomical, mathe matical,
geographi c an d geodesi c data . (Geodesy : th e branch
of applie d mathematic s whic h determine s th e figure s an d
areas o f th e earth' s surface. )
One o f Napoleon' s scholars , EdmeFrançoi
s Jomard , wa s
particularly intrigue d b y thi s theory . Bu t while certain o f his
calculations seeme d t o bea r ou t th e idea , other s di d no t jibe.
Accurate measurin g of th e pyrami d overall wa s the n impossi ble
due to the sand and debris around the base, and — as is generally
th e cas e i n scienc e — thos e dat a tha t supporte d
prevailing orthodo x theor y wer e retained , whil e thos e tha t
were embarrassin g wer e ignored .
In England , however , Jomard' s idea s wer e take n u p b y an
amateur astronomer , mathematicia n an d religiou s zealot ,
John Taylor , wh o foun d man y astonishin g coincidence s
between th e measurement s an d proportion s o f th e pyramids
and th e then but recently verified modern measurement s of the
earth. He could not attribute this to chance. As a fundamentalist,
however , Taylo r believe d i n th e litera l trut h o f th e Bible,
and could not bring himself to attribute such knowledge to the
ancient Egyptians — a race much abused in the Old Testament
(though Mose s learne d hi s wisdom at the court of the pharaoh
by Biblica l account) . Give n hi s fundamentalism , Taylo r had
no choice bu t t o call in direct divine intervention, and the pseudoscience
o f 'pyramidology ' wa s born .
Though Taylor initiall y foun d few devotees , hi s idea s came
before th e AstronomerRoya
l o f Scotland , Charle s Piazz i
Smyth. Smyt h se t out for Egypt t o confirm Taylor's thesis . His
measurements on sit e wer e b y fa r th e mos t precise to date, and
again confirme d th e hypothesi s tha t th e ancien t Egyptian s
had precis e advance d astronomical , mathematica l an d geo desic
knowledge , whic h wa s embodie d i n a magnificen t sys tem
o f relate d weight s an d measures , whos e remnant s wer e
still i n wide us e th e world over in th e form of bushels, gallons,
acres an d othe r measures .
But, a s avid a fundamentalis t as Taylor, Piazz i Smyth could
not credi t th e Egyptian s wit h hig h learning ; he , too , ha d
recourse t o divinity . Shortl y thereafter , anothe r religiou s
enthusiast, Rober t Menzies , propose d tha t th e passag e system
of th e Grea t Pyrami d wa s intende d a s a syste m o f prophecy
from whic h th e dat e o f th e Secon d Coming might be deduced.
And a t tha t point , pyramidolog y becam e a zealot' s play ground.
Curiou s a s i t may now seem , th e AngloIsraelite
the ory
(tha t th e Britis h wer e descended from on e of the los t tribes
of Israel ) wa s on e upo n whic h man y educated Victorians , not otherwise beref t o f sense , spen t muc h tim e an d thought .
Pyramidology wa s a hotl y conteste d intellectua l issue .
But in Smyth' s ostensibly scientifi c context, th e theor y stood
or fel l upo n th e validit y o f th e 'pyrami d inch' , a measur e
invented b y Smyth and manifested in no other Egyptian monument
o r metri c device . Whe n thi s wa s disprove d b y th e stil l
more exacting measurements of W. M. Flinders Petrie, the theory
wa s undermined , thoug h enthusiast s continue d t o rea d
more an d mor e detaile d prophecie s int o th e king' s chamber .
With th e adven t o f th e spac e age, spiritua l descendant s of the
pyramidologists (Eric h Vo n Daniki n i s th e leas t credible ,
hence mos t successfu l o f these ) continu e t o propos e ne w and
fantastic use s fo r th e pyramids: the y served as landing pads for
space ship s o r were protective baffle s fo r ancient scientist s tap ping
th e energ y o f th e Va n Alle n belt .
Needless t o say, thes e theorie s are backed by no concrete evidence.
Bu t if lack of evidence constitutes th e criterion fo r judging
the crankiness of any given theory , then ther e is one theory
crankier tha n al l th e fantasisin g o f th e pyramidologist s and
the UFO freaks . This is th e theory tha t the great pyramids were
built a s tombs , an d a s tomb s only.
In suppor t o f thi s theor y ther e i s n o direc t o r indirec t evi dence
whatsoever. Whil e the numerous small pyramids of Middle
an d Lat e Kingdo m Egyp t wer e clearl y an d obviousl y
designed a s tombs , an d hav e disclose d a wealt h o f mummies
and coffins , th e eigh t 'great ' pyramid s assigne d t o th e Third
and Fourt h Dynastie s o f th e Ol d Kingdo m hav e reveale d no
sign of either coffin o r mummy. Th e construction of these vast
edifices differ s i n ever y way from th e later tombs. The curious,
slanting passageway s coul d no t possibl y b e les s conduciv e to
the elaborat e funerar y ritual s fo r which Egypt was famed . The
stark interiors of the 'tom b chambers' stan d in vivid contrast to
the lavishl y inscribe d an d carve d chamber s o f late r Egypt . In
addition, th e eigh t grea t pyramid s ar e believe d t o hav e been
built over the reigns of three pharaohs (though thi s is disputed
due t o th e lac k of direct evidence attributing these pyramids to
specific pharaohs). I n an y case , i t work s out at mor e tha n one
great pyrami d pe r pharaoh , invitin g speculatio n o f multiple
burials fo r a king .
Egyptologists, an d followin g the m historians , refus e t o
entertain th e possibl e validit y o f alternative s t o th e 'tomb s
only' theory , no matter how well supported . What, then , i s the
appeal o f thi s undocumented , unlikel y and indefensible hypothesis?
I believ e i t i s tha t i t i s prosaic and trivial . I n Egyptology, as
in s o man y moder n disciplines , al l question s ar e believe d to
have 'rational ' answers . I f no evidence is available to provide a
rational answer, th e customary solution i s to trivialise the mystery.
I n man y academi c circle s trivialit y i s a synonym fo r rea son.
Given thi s passio n fo r trivialisation , th e unsubstantiate d
claims o f th e pyramidologist s ha d seriou s repercussions .
Throughout th e developmen t o f Egyptology , fro m Jomard
on, qualified , seriou s an d san e scholar s hav e challenge d th e
prevailing preconception s an d th e widesprea d determination
to regar d th e Egyptian s a s primitives. Biot , Lockye r and Proctor,
professiona l astronomers , pu t forward solid theories attesting
t o a hig h orde r o f Egyptia n astronomica l knowledge .
Lockyer — wh o wa s deride d fo r proposin g tha t Stoneheng e
was buil t a s a n astronomica l instrumen t — showe d how th e
pyramids might have served practically t o gather precise astronomical
data .
In man y othe r fields , specialist s also attested t o high Egyp tian
knowledge. Bu t the sensational claims of Smyth, Menzies,
and thei r successor s stol e th e spotlight , an d allowe d orthodox
Egyptologists t o ta r an y an d al l dissentin g theorie s wit h th e
brush o f pyramidology. Th e provocative speculations of Lockyer
an d other s wer e ignored .
Meanwhile, Darwin' s theor y o f evolutio n ha d bee n
published.
When Egyptolog y began , mos t scholars , a s dutifu l son s of
the Enlightenment , wer e atheists , materialist s o r onl y nomi nally
religious . Mos t were convinced the y represente d an apogee
o f civilisation . Bu t th e proces s wa s no t ye t regarde d a s
inevitable an d automatic ; th e mos t renowned intellect s o f the
time did not yet regard themselve s as advanced apes. I t was not
yet heretica l t o sugges t tha t ancien t peopl e ha d actuall y
known something .
But as th e theory of evolution became dogma, it became (and
remains) impossibl e t o attribut e exac t knowledg e t o ancien t
cultures withou t underminin g th e fait h i n progress . Thus ,
lumped i n wit h th e pyramidologists, incapabl e o f supporting
sound insigh t wit h ironcla d proof , th e man y earl y Egyptologists
wh o wer e me n o f breadt h an d visio n graduall y los t
ground. I n retrospect , thi s ca n b e see n a s inevitable .
Without exception , thes e me n wer e workin g i n th e dark .
The mystica l and metaphysical verities that nourish a true civilisation
were , i n Europe , obscured , ossifie d o r forgotte n
(although Fenelon , Goethe , Fechne r and a few alchemists had
kept thei r traditio n alive) . Th e crud e scienc e o f th e da y sup ported
th e depressin g billiardbal
l univers e postulate d b y
Laplace.
It was possible then, as it is now, to walk into Chartres Cathedral
an d t o b e struc k with th e unconquerabl e conviction that,
in some way, thi s i s what human lif e on eart h i s about. Bu t to
explain that conviction , t o pu t i t int o communicabl e terms ,
was impossibl e on e hundre d year s ago . T o 'prove ' i t i s stil l
impossible.
Though corrupt and decadent, th e 19t h century civilisations
of th e Orien t wer e flourishin g compare d t o Europe . Bu t they
were accessible t o Westerners only through the garbled prolixities
o f Blavatsky , o r i n book s b y Wester n scholar s imbue d
with progressiv e notion s o f th e Enlightenmen t an d therefor e
blind to the inner meaning of the words they pretended to communicate.
What i s no w readil y availabl e t o ever y studen t wa s the n
unavailable to the most erudite. I t was impossible to study first
hand th e authenti c works of Zen masters , Sufis , yogis , t o read
the Bard o Thodol , th e Ta o T e Ching , th e Philokalia , th e
Christian mystics, alchemists, Cabbalists and Gnostics; to compare
thes e t o th e myth s o f Egypt ; an d t o recognise above and
beyond thei r difference s th e bon d tha t unite s al l thes e tradi tions.
At th e same time , i t was impossibl e fo r th e majorit y o f men
to recognis e th e tru e natur e o f 'progress' . Artists , wh o i n the
West especially function a s th e sensitiv e nerve ends of society,
were les s ofte n fooled . Goethe , Blake , Kierkegaard , Nietzsche ,
Melville, Schopenhauer , Novalis , Dostoyevsk y and a few oth ers
saw progress for what it was; bu t these represented a powerless
minority . Today , t o believ e i n 'progress ' a ma n mus t be
insane. A hundre d year s ag o insensitivit y sufficed .
Seen i n historica l perspective , Egyptolog y i s a n inevitable
product o f it s time . Lookin g back, i t become s obvious tha t no
single schola r o r grou p o f scholar s coul d hav e discerne d th e
true Egyp t on e hundre d year s ago . Fo r that , th e advances of
modern science were first necessary — as well as the simultaneous
availabilit y o f th e mystica l doctrine s o f th e Eas t an d the
mind capable of applying both thes e kinds of knowledge to the
ruins o f Egypt .
Looking back, i t i s impossibl e no t t o admire th e Herculean
labours o f the Egyptologist s — thei r painstaking excavations,
the reconstruction of ruins, th e collection, collation and classification
o f data , th e giganti c labou r of deciphering th e hiero glyphs
and th e scrupulous attention t o detail i n every field and on every level. At the same time, i t is difficult to understand the
manner i n whic h thes e scholar s came t o many of their conclusions,
given the nature of the material at their disposal. A statement
made b y Ludwi g Borchardt , on e of the most industrious
and prolific of Egyptologists, captures th e situation in a single
sentence. I n 1922 , havin g proved tha t th e pyramid s o f Egypt
were oriented to th e cardinal point s and sited and levelled with
a precisio n tha t coul d no t b e surpasse d today , Borchard t concluded
tha t Egyptia n scienc e at th e tim e of the building of the
pyramids wa s stil l i n it s infancy .

The development of orthodox Egyptology in the historical
context
The earlies t recorde d accoun t o f Egyp t come s t o u s fro m th e
Greek historian Herodotus , who visited Egypt around 500 BC,
when i t wa s alread y wel l int o it s decline . Thoug h muc h tha t
he wrote has prove n true , muc h i s evidently fancy ; Herodotus
indiscriminately report s a s trut h tale s tol d t o hi m b y a n
ancient versio n o f touris t guides, whom he mistook for temple
priests.
Like s o man y traveller s afte r him , Herodotu s marvelle d a t
the sights . Bu t neithe r h e no r anyone followin g had access to
those responsibl e fo r thei r construction . Throughou t history,
then, visitor s t o Egypt have recorded thei r impressions according
t o persona l interpretation . Bu t th e exac t natur e o f Egyp tian
knowledge , locke d a s i t wa s i n th e impenetrabl e
hieroglyphs, coul d no t hel p bu t remai n a mystery . Moder n
Egyptologists insis t wit h justic e tha t n o possibilit y o f understanding
Egypt existed until th e hieroglyphs were deciphered.
In th e lat e eighteent h century , Napoleo n invade d Eygp t
armed with scholars as well as soldiers, determined to solve the
mystery as well as to build an empire. Accounts of his discoveries,
illustrate d wit h fine , accuratel y rendere d drawings , made
Egyptian civilisatio n know n t o a European public fo r th e first
time an d interes t ra n hig h a s gifte d scholar s pitte d thei r wits
against th e hieroglyphs. Bu t it was not until 1822 , nearly thirty
years afte r Napoleon' s campaign , tha t a ke y wa s found .
Jean Francoi s Champollio n wa s convinced , a t th e ag e o f
twelve, tha t h e woul d decipher th e hieroglyphs. H e se t out to
master al l th e languages, ancien t and modern, tha t he believed
would lea d t o thi s goal . Th e solutio n wa s provide d b y th e
Rosetta Stone , a Ptolemai c relic upon which th e same inscription
wa s recorde d in hieroglyphs, demotic (a sort of shorthand
or vernacula r for m o f th e hieroglyphs ) an d Greek . Workin g
back throug h th e Gree k int o th e hieroglyphs , Champollio n
was eventuall y le d t o th e answe r or , rather , a partia l answer .
Egyptology wa s born .
Prior t o Champollion' s discovery , man y scholar s worke d
upon th e reasonabl e assumption tha t a civilisatio n capabl e of such work s mus t hav e ha d a hig h orde r o f knowledge . Som e
made soun d observation s tha t were subsequentl y forgotte n or
neglected i n th e fac e o f th e apparentl y boastful , repetitive ,
banal an d incoheren t natur e o f th e translate d hieroglyphs .
The early translation s stan d i n suc h strikin g contrast t o the
works themselve s tha t i t i s har d t o believ e s o fe w scholar s
should hav e stoppe d t o questio n th e paradox . Bu t i t is , o f
course, impossibl e t o 'prove' a masterpiece. Those who understand,
understand . Emotiona l and psychological factors , more
than science , combine d t o mak e moder n Egyptology .

Most ancient cultures placed a strong emphasis on gods
or deities, which they used as a means of explaining things in
the natural world such as the ocean and the thunder. With the
exception of the Hebrews, virtually all ancient cultures had a
pagan belief system—that is, they worshiped many gods. These
beliefs were certainly held by the Egyptians, who usually represented
their gods as beings with bodies of men or women but
the heads of other creatures.
Principal among the Egyptian
deities were Ra, the sun god, who later
came to be called Amon-Ra; Osiris (oh-
SIGH-riss), the god of the underworld;
Isis (EYE-siss), the goddess of the
home; the evil Set; and the falconheaded
Horus (HORE-us). There were
hundreds of gods, each with its own
priests, temples, and rituals. And then
there were the men who the Egyptians
believed were close to gods: the
pharaohs.
In modern America, people are
used to following the lives of celebrities,
stars they read about in magazines
and see on television shows. In
ancient Egypt, by contrast, there was
only one “star,” and he was the
pharaoh. The word pharaoh (FAIR-oh)
means “great house” or “one who lives
in the palace.” This was the title for
the king of Egypt, but the pharaoh was
much more than a mere king. He was
seen as a link between the gods and
humankind, and the people viewed him more as a divine
being than as a human. They addressed him as “son of Ra” or
by other godlike names, and they considered him an earthly
embodiment of Horus. Thus Egyptian illustrations often portrayed
the pharaoh as a falcon, like Horus, whose wings covered
the world.
When a pharaoh died, the Egyptians believed, he
became one with the god Osiris and ruled over the dead. This
role might seem unpleasant, but to the Egyptians, the afterlife
was more important than life on earth. They believed that a
person did not really die: the person’s spirit would continue to
live for eternity—if the people who prepared the body for burial
followed certain procedures. Therefore the Egyptians built
enormous tombs, the pyramids, for the pharaohs.
Pyramids were not simply graves. They were houses in
which the pharaoh’s spirit would live until it came time to
emerge and begin life again in the afterworld. Along with dolls symbolizing their wives and servants, pharaohs were buried
with various treasures, including jewelry as well as models of
furniture, chariots, and boats. So that they would not go hungry,
their tombs contained great quantities of food and drink,
which would often be supplemented by offerings of more food
and drink at a temple attached to the pyramid.
The pyramids housed the pharaoh’s body, but that
body first had to be preserved. Therefore the Egyptians developed
the art of mummification. Eventually not only pharaohs,
but Egyptian nobles and ultimately even rich commoners
(nonroyalty) began having themselves mummified and buried
in their own elaborate tombs. Indeed everyone, not just the
pharaohs and the upper classes, believed that they would continue
living in the afterworld. Only the select few, however,
could afford to make what Egyptians considered the proper
preparations.
Everything about the pharaoh distinguished him from
other people—even the items he wore. One of these items was
a rectangular-shaped ceremonial beard (i.e., it was not his real
hair), that hung straight down from the chin about six inches.
Often pharaohs were shown with arms crossed over their
chests, each hand holding objects that symbolized their
power: usually a whip and a crook. A pharaoh’s crook is a long,
hooked, striped object that looks a bit like a candy cane.
As it is today in the desert, headgear was extremely
important in the hot, dry climate of Egypt. The pharaoh’s head
cloth, called a nemes, served to distinguish him from his subjects.
From the front, the nemes (pronounced NEM-ease) had
a shape like thick hair that hung down over both of his shoulders,
to about the center of his rib cage. Like the crook, it was
striped; across the top, over his eyebrows, it had a band of gold.
At the center of this band were one or two golden cobras, the
fearsome poisonous snakes that lived in the deserts around
Egypt. This stood for the cobra goddess that protected the
kings and queens of Egypt.
As impressive as the nemes looked, it was not the
pharaonic crown. (The word “pharaonic” is simply pharaoh
transformed from a noun to an adjective.) To describe his
crown and its symbolism, however, it is necessary to appreciate
what happened when a pharaoh named Menes united the
kingdoms of Upper and Lower Egypt in about 3100 B.C.

It is impossible to talk about ancient Egypt without talking
about the Nile River, the center of Egyptian life. Just as a per-son’s body is built around their spine, the Nile was the spine of
Egypt; without it, there would have been no pharaohs or pyramids
or any Egyptian civilization of any kind—only desert.
Not only is the Nile the world’s longest river, at 4,160
miles (6,695 kilometers), it is also the only major river on Earth
that flows northward. From its source deep in the African continent,
in the present-day nation of Burundi, the Nile flows
into Lake Victoria, crosses the Equator, and spans half the
length of Africa, running through the countries of Uganda and
Sudan before entering Egypt.
More than halfway along its course, near the Sudanese
capital of Khartoum, the Nile changes in two important ways.
The first of these changes is the beginning of the cataracts, or
rapids, which interrupt the smooth flow of the river. Just above
Khartoum is the Sixth Cataract. As the Nile snakes gradually
northward, it passes through several more of these rapids, each
numbered in descending order. The First Cataract lies near the
modern city of Aswan; above this point, Egyptian civilization
developed.
Even more important than the cataracts, however, is
the second change. At Khartoum two rivers come together to
form the Nile as the ancient Egyptians knew it. These two bodies
of water are the White Nile, which flows up from the south;
and the Blue Nile, which originates to the southeast, in
Ethiopia. The White Nile has a relatively stable flow, whereas
the Blue Nile experiences a dramatic rise and fall during the
course of the year because it comes from an area prone to
heavy summer rains.
In ancient times, the Blue Nile caused flooding from
July to September. These floods, rather than being disasters,
were essential to the life of Egypt. As the floodwaters receded
each year, they left a deposit of silt, a type of soil rich in minerals.
Silt has a consistency somewhere between that of sand and
clay. The enriched earth was perfect for growing wheat and barley.
Most years the farmers of Egypt had bountiful harvests.
Thanks to the Nile, Egypt was known as the Black
Land—that is, a place of black earth good for crops. Beyond the
Nile Valley, however, lay the Red Land. This was the desert,
which covered more than ninety percent of Egypt. With the
exception of a few scattered oases (green areas), this area was and is a hellish place where no living creature could long survive.
No wonder, then, that the Egyptians’ religion depicted
the red god of the desert, Set, as an evil deity (DEE-ih-tee).
Even with the Nile, Egypt is a hot, dry, country; without
it, the climate would be almost unbearable. Although the
modern nation of Egypt is more than 700 miles wide at its
widest point, virtually all of Egyptian civilization—both now
and in ancient times—focuses on a narrow strip of land that
spreads out for a few miles on either side of the Nile. This land
is the Nile Valley, which forms the rim of the river as it flows
for some 500 miles through Egypt.
Cairo, the modern capital, is close to the site of Memphis,
one of ancient Egypt’s capitals. Near Cairo the Nile begins
its final stage before flowing into the Mediterranean Sea. This
region is the Nile Delta, an area perhaps 100 miles long and
about as wide. Most major rivers have a delta, a triangle-shaped
region where the river slows down before emptying into the
sea. In a delta, the river’s waters fan out, depositing great loads
of silt and creating particularly rich soil for farming.
Not only was the Nile the source of all life in ancient
Egypt, it was also the principal highway for commerce and
other transportation. If people wanted to go from southern
Egypt (Upper Egypt) to the north, the currents would carry
their boat. If they wanted to travel from the north (Lower
Egypt) to the south, they had only to rely on the Mediterranean
winds to push a sailboat. Thus the river formed the
framework of Egyptian civilization. A later historian would
describe Egypt as “the gift of The Nile.” The Egyptians in turn
believed that the Nile came from the source of all life and the
source of all things both good and bad: the gods.

The world’s first major civilization developed in Egypt more
than five thousand years ago. It flourished longer than
almost any society in human history. The Egyptians, who were
very concerned about what happens in the afterlife—that is, in
a life after death—built vast tombs called pyramids for their
kings, the pharaohs. Many of the pyramids are still standing.
They represent some of the greatest architectural achievements
of human history. Closer to home, a legacy (a gift from
the past) of ancient Egypt can be found in many a modern
household, thanks to the Egyptians’domestication, or taming,
of the house cat. The Egyptians were also one of the first peoples
to develop a system of writing, which they called hieroglyphics;
and a basic type of “paper,” derived from the papyrus
(pronounced puh-PIE-russ) plant. (The word paper comes from
papyrus.) Though Egyptian society declined after 332 B.C., it
exerted a huge influence over Greece and Rome. Out of Greek
and Roman civilizations ultimately came the cultures of
Europe and the nations influenced by those cultures—including
the United States.
Where to find Egypt
Egypt lies in the northeastern corner of the African
continent, along the Nile River. The Nile flows through a vast
desert, including the Sahara, which separates Egypt from most
of Africa. To the northeast of Egypt is the Sinai (SIGH-nye)
Peninsula, which links Africa with the Asian land mass. To the
east is the Red Sea, which separates Africa from the Arabian
Peninsula. North of Egypt is the Mediterranean Sea, on the
shores of which many ancient civilizations developed. Today,
the region around Egypt is called the Middle East. To historians
studying the ancient world, this area is known as the Fertile
Crescent.

Nobles become Little PharaohsThe Growth of CultureTemple BuildingMaxims of PtahhotepHomely
SuperstitionsCharms to protect ChildrenFear of the Evil EyeSet and Redhaired BabesGruesome
GhostsFeudal Lords assert ThemselvesA Strong MonarchMilitary ExpeditionsThe Promotion of
UniComing of the DengA Queen's VengeanceRevolt of Feudal LordsPyramids raided.
DURING the Fifth Dynasty the power of the nobles gradually increased until they became little Pharaohs in
their own provinces. Even at the Court they could make their influence felt, and when they set out on
expeditions their successes received personal acknowledgment and were not recorded to the credit of an
overshadowing monarch. They recognized the official religion, but fostered the local religious cult, and in
their tombs related the stories of their own lives, boasting of their achievements and asserting the ethical
principles which justified them before Osiris. The age thus became articulate. Education was spreading, and
the accumulation of wealth promoted culture. The historic spirit had birth, and the scribes began to record the
events of the past and compile lists of kings. Among the tomb pictures of everyday life were inscribed
fragments of folksong, and it is evident that music was cultivated, for we find groups of harpers and flautists
and singers.
The religious energies of the Pharaohs were devotedmore to the building of temples than to the erection of
tombs. Ra worship introduced elaborate ceremonials, and large numbers of priests were engaged at
Heliopolis. At a later period we learn that over 12,000 persons were directly connected with the temples
there. The Pharaohs continued to reside in the vicinity of Memphis, and the Court was maintained with great
splendour; their tombs were erected at Abusir, farther south than those of the Khufu line of kings.
No wars of any consequence occurred during the Fifth Dynasty, but exploring expeditions were fitted out,
and in the time of Sahura, the second monarch, the coast of Somaliland, which was called Punt, was visited,
and there were large imports of gum and resins for incense in the temples, and of wood and precious metals.
The quarries in Sinai continued to be worked, and the name of Isôsi, the eighth monarch, is associated with
the working of black granite at Wadi Hammamat. We know little or nothing regarding the personalities of the
kings. They appear to have reigned with discretion and ability, for the age was one of political progress and
extending culture.
In the reign of King Dedka Ra Isôsito give him his full namethat famous collection of maxims, "The
Instruction of Ptah−hotep", was compiled. This production survives in the Prisse Papyrus, which was called
after the French archæologist who purchased it from a native in 1847. The author was Isôsi's grand vizier, and
he was evidently of Memphite birth and a Ptah worshipper, for his name signifies "Ptah is well pleased". He
lived over a thousand years before Hammurabi, the wise king of Babylon, and long ages ere Solomon
collected his Proverbs at Jerusalem.
The maxims of Ptah−hotep were for centuries copiedby boys in the schools of ancient Egypt. In their papyrus "copybooks" they were wont to inscribe the following phrases:
It is excellent for a son to obey his father.
He that obeys shall become one who is obeyed.
Carelessness to−day becomes disobedience to−morrow.
He that is greedy for pleasure will have an empty stomach.
A loose tongue causes strife.
He that rouses strife will inherit sorrow.
Good deeds are remembered after death.
The maxims afford us interesting glimpses of the life and culture of the times. Old Ptah−hotep is full of
worldly wisdom, and his motto is: "Do your duty and you will be happy". He advises his son to acquire
knowledge and to practise the virtues of right conduct and right living. His precepts are such as we would
expect to find among a people who conceived of an Osirian Judgment Hall in the next world.
The "Instruction" is dedicated to King Isôsi. The vizier feels the burden of years, and laments his fate. He
opens in this manner:
O King, my lord, I draw nigh to life's end,
To me the frailties of life have come
And second childhood. . . . Ah! the old lie down
Each day in suffering; the vision fails,
Ears become deaf and strength declines apace,
The mind is ill at case. . . . An old man's tongue
Has naught to say because his thoughts have fled,
And he forgets the day that has gone past. . . .
Meanwhile his body aches in every bone;
The sweet seems bitter, for all taste is lost
Ah! such are the afflictions of old age,
Which work for evil. . . . Fitful and weak
His breath becomes, standing or lying down.
Ptah−hotep then proceeds to petition the king to be released of his duties, so that his son may succeed him.
He desires to address to the young man the words of wisdom uttered by sages of old who listened when the
gods spake to them.
His Majesty at once gives his consent, and expresses the hope that Ptah−hotep's son will hearken with
understanding and become an example to princes. "Speak to him", adds the king, "without making him feel
weary."
The "Instruction" is fairly longover 4000 wordsso that it was necessary to have it copied out. We select a
few of the most representative maxims.
Do not be vain although you are well educated; speak to an illiterate man as you would to a wise one. After
all, there is a limit to cleverness; no worker is perfect. Courteous speech is more uncommon than the
emeralds which girl slaves find among the stones.
If you speak with an argumentative man who really knows more than you do yourself, listen respectfully to
him, and do not lose your temper if he differs from you.
If, however, an argumentative man knows less than you do, correct him and show him that you are the wiser of the two; others will approve of you and give you an excellent reputation.
If a man of low rank argues without knowledge, be silent. Do not speak angrily to him. It is not very
creditable to put such an one to shame.
When you become a leader, be courteous and see that your conduct is exemplary. . . . Do not tyrannize over
men. . . . It is he who gives to those who are in need that prospers; not the man who makes others afraid. . . .
Listen graciously to one who appeals to you. Let him speak frankly, and be ever ready to put an end to a
grievance. If a man is not inclined to tell everything he knows, it is because he to whom he speaks has the
reputation of not dealing fairly. A mind that is well controlled is always ready to consider. . . . See that your
employees are adequately rewarded, as is proper on the part of one to whom the god has
given much. It is well known that it is no easy thing to satisfy employees. One says to−day: "He is generous;
I may get much", and to−morrow: "He is a mean, exacting man". There is never peace in a town where
workers arc in miserable circumstances.
That man is never happy who is always engaged reckoning his accounts, but the man whose chief concern is
to amuse himself does not provide for his household. . . . If you become rich after having been poor, do not
bind your heart with your wealth; because you are the administrator of what the god has given you.
Remember that you are not the last, and that others will become as great as you. . . . Enjoy your life, and do
not occupy the entire day at your work. Wealth is no use to a worn−out man.
Love your wife; feed her and clothe her well; make her happy; do not deal sternly with her; kindness makes
her more obedient than harshness; if she yearns for something which pleasures her eye, see that she gets it. . .
. Do not be jealous, or despondent, or cross if you have no children. Remember that a father has his own
sorrows, and that a mother has more troubles than a childless woman. . . . How beautiful is the obedience of a
faithful son. The god loves obedience; he hates disobedience. A father rejoices in a son's obedience and
honours him. A son who hearkens to counsel guards his tongue and conducts himself well. A disobedient son
is foolish and never prospers. He blunders continually. . . . In the end he is avoided because he is a failure. . . .
A father should teach wisdom to his sons and daughters, so that they may be of good repute. When others
find them faithful and just, they will say: "That father has trained them well". . . . A good son is a treasure
given by the god.
Ptah−hotep reminds his son that when he goes to dine with a great man he should take what is given to him.
A nobleman gives the daintiest portions to those he likes best. He must not keep staring at his host, or speak
until he is spoken to; then he should answer readily. . . . When he is sent with a message from one nobleman
to another he should take care not to say anything which will cause strife between them. He should not repeat
what a nobleman said when in a temper"Let your heart be more generous than your speech," advises
Ptah−hotep as he draws his "Instruction" to a close. He hopes that his son will prosper as well as he himself
has prospered, and that he will satisfy the king by his actions. "I have lived", he adds, "for a hundred and ten
years, and have received more honours from His Majesty than did any of my ancestors, because I have been
just and honourable all through life."
Such was the ethical. but there was also a superstitious element in Egyptian domestic life. The people
believed that the world swarmed with spirits which were continually desiring to inflict injuries upon living
beings, and were abroad by day as well as by night. An amulet on which was depicted a human hand was
considered to be efficacious, and the Egyptian mother suspended it from a cord which was put round the
baby's neck. She tied a knot in the morning and another in the evening until there were seven knots in all. On
each occasion she repeated a formula over a knot, which was to the following effect: "Isis has twisted the
cord; Nepthys has smoothed it; and it will guard you, my bonnie bairn, and you will become strong and
prosper. The gods and the goddesses will be good to you, and the evil ones will be thwarted, the mouths of those who utter spells against you will be closed. . . . I know all their names, and may those, whose names I
know not, suffer also, and that quickly."
Erman, the German Egyptologist, has translated an interesting papyrus by an unknown scribe, which contains
the formulæ used to protect children. Some children were more liable to be attacked by evil spirits than
others. In Europe pretty children require special protection against the evil eye. Red−haired youngsters were
disliked because the wicked god Set was red−haired) and was likely to carry them away. Their mothers,
therefore, had to exercise special care with them, and there was a particular charm for their use. In Russia
red−haired people are believed to have more knowledge of magic than others, and are disliked on that
account.
The Egyptian ghosts, the enemies of the living, like the archaic deities, were of repulsive aspect. They came
from tombs in mummy bandages with cheeks of decaying flesh, flat noses, and eyes of horror, and entered a
room with averted faces, which were suddenly turned on children, who at once died of fright. They killed
sleeping babies by sucking their breath when they kissed, or rather smelled, them, and if children were
found crying they rocked them to sleepthe sleep of death.