Prince's and Children
Princes were distinguished by a badge hanging from the side of the head, which enclosed, or represented, the lock of hair emblematic of a “son;” in imitation of the youthful god “Horus, the son of Isis and Osiris,” who was held forth as the model for all princes, and the type of royal virtue. For though the Egyptians shaved the head, and wore wigs or other coverings to the head, children were permitted to leave certain locks of hair; and if the sons of kings, long before they arrived at the age of manhood, had abandoned this youthful custom, the badge was attached to their head-dress as a mark of their rank as princes; or to show that they had not, during the lifetime of their father, arrived at kinghood; on the same principle that a Spanish prince, of whatever age, continues to be styled an “infant.”
When the sovereign was a military man, it was his duty, as well as his privilege, on ascending the throne, to be instructed in the mysteries of the religion, and the various offices of a pontiff. He learnt all that related to the gods, the service of the temple, the laws of the country, and the duties of a king; and in order to prevent any intercourse with improper persons, who might instil into his mind ideas unworthy of a prince, it was carefully provided that no slave or hired servant should hold any office about his person, and that the children of the first families, who had arrived at man’s estate, and were remarkable for their ability and piety, should alone be permitted to attend him; from the per suasion that no monarch gives way to evil passions, unless he finds those about him ready to serve as instruments to his caprices, and to encourage his excesses. His conduct and mode of life were regulated by prescribed rules, and care was taken to protect the community from the caprices of an absolute monarch; laws being laid down in the sacred books, for the order and nature of his occupations. He was forbidden to commit excesses; even the kind and quality of his food were settled with precision; and he was constantly reminded of his duties, both in public and in private. At break of day public business commenced; all the epistolary correspondence was examined, and despatched; the ablutions for prayer were then performed, and the monarch, having put on his robes of ceremony, and attended by proper officers with the insignia of royalty, repaired to the temple to superintend the customary sacrifices to the gods of the sanctuary. The victims being brought to the altar, it was usual for the high priest to place himself close to the king, while the whole congregation present on the occasion stood round at a short distance from them, and to offer up prayers for the monarch, beseeching the gods to bestow on him “health, victory, power, and all other blessings,” and to “establish the kingdom unto him and his children for ever.” His qualities were then separately enumerated; and the high priest particularly noticed his piety towards the gods, and his conduct towards men. He lauded his self-command, his justice, his magnanimity, his love of truth, his munificence and generosity, and, above all, his entire freedom from envy and covetousness. He exalted his moderation in awarding the most lenient punishment to those who had transgressed, and his benevolence in requiting with unbounded liberality those who had merited his favours. These and other similar encomiums having been passed on the character of the monarch, the priest proceeded to review the general conduct of kings, and to point out those faults which were the result of ignorance and misplaced confidence. And it is a curious fact, that this ancient people had already adopted the principle, that the king “could do no wrong:” and while he was exonerated from blame, every curse and evil were denounced against his ministers, and those advisers who had given him injurious counsel. The idea, too, of the king “never dying” was contained in their common formula of “life having been given him for ever.”
The object of this oration, says Diodorus, was to exhort the sovereign to live in fear of the deity, and to cherish that upright line of conduct and demeanour, which was deemed pleasing to the gods; and they hoped that, by avoiding the bitterness of reproach, and by celebrating the praises of virtue, they might stimulate him to the exercise of those duties which he was expected to fulfil. The king then proceeded to examine the entrails of the victim, and to perform the usual ceremonies of sacrifice: and the hierogrammat, or sacred scribe, read those extracts from the holy writings which recorded the deeds and sayings of the most celebrated men.
These regulations were instituted by a cautious people, when the change took place which introduced the kingly form of government. The law could, if required, be repealed, to protect the country from the arbitrary conduct of a king; and even if he had the means of defying its power, there still remained a mode of avenging its dignity, for the voice of the people could punish the refractory tyrant at his death, by the disgrace of excluding his body from interment in his own tomb. It was, however, rather as a precaution that these laws were set forth: they were seldom enforced, and the indulgence of the Egyptians to their king gave him no excuse for tyranny or injustice. Nor were the rigid regulations respecting his private life vexatiously enforced; and though the quantity of wine he was allowed to drink, and numerous punctilious observances, were laid down in some old statute, he was not expected to regard them to the very letter, provided he benefited society by his general conduct. It was no difficult task for a king to be popular; the Egyptians were prone to look upon him with affection and respect; and if he had done nothing to obtain their approbation as prince, the moment he ascended the throne he was sure to be regarded with favour.
Nor did it require any great effort on his part to conform to the general rules laid down for his conduct: and by consulting the welfare of the country, he easily secured for himself that good will which was due from children to a parent; the whole nation being as anxious for the welfare of the king as for that of their own wives and children, or whatever was most dear to them. To this Diodorus ascribes the duration of the Egyptian state; which not only lasted long, but enjoyed the greatest prosperity, both at home, and in its wars with distant nations, and was enabled by its immense riches, resulting from trade and foreign conquest, to display a magnificence, in its provinces and cities, unequalled by that of any other country.
Love and respect were not merely shown to the sovereign during his lifetime, but were continued to his memory after his death; and the manner in which his funeral obsequies were celebrated tended to show, that, though their benefactor was no more, they retained a grateful sense of his goodness, and admiration for his virtues. And what, says the historian, can convey a greater testimony of sincerity, free from all colour of dissimulation, than the cordial acknowledgment of a benefit, when the person who conferred it no longer lives to witness the honour done to his memory?
On the death of every Egyptian king, a general mourning was instituted throughout the country for seventy days,* hymns commemorating his virtues were sung, the temples were closed, sacrifices were no longer offered, and no feasts or festivals were celebrated during the whole of that period. The people tore their garments, and, covering their heads with dust and mud, formed a procession of 200 or 300 persons of both sexes, who met twice a day in public to sing the funeral dirge. A general fast was also observed, and they neither allowed themselves to taste meat nor wheat bread, and abstained, moreover, from wine and every kind of luxury.
Wilkinson, J. Gardner. A Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians. Vol. 1. London: John Murray, 1890. Print.
Comments