who did not marry at all. There is evidence that a prohibition to the same effect existed in early Rome."1 I have thought it well to insist upon this feature of the Egyptian religion, in consequence of the importance attached to the celibate life in later times in four different religions: first, in the great system of Buddhism; secondly, in Judaism; thirdly, in Christianity; and fourthly, in Manicheism. Christian monasticism, as is well known, first grew up in Egypt, and was introduced into Europe through Christians from Egypt. But the monastic life and the word monastery already existed before Christianity among the Jewish ascetics, whose mode of life is described by the Alexandrian Philo. It certainly was not from the Egyptian religion that monastic institutions were derived.3 It is no doubt extremely natural, when phenomena are discovered which bear close resemblance to each other, to look out for some historical connection be 1 "The Aryan Household: an Introduction to Comparative Jurisprudence," p. 71. 2 Tom. II. p. 475, 15. 'Ev iκáorη dè oikią korìv oïênμa, iepòv, ö καλεῖται σεμνεῖον καὶ μοναστήριον, ἐν ᾧ μονούμενοι τὰ τοῦ βίου σεμνοῦ μvoτýpia teλovvtal. [Grave doubts have, quite recently, been raised against the genuineness of this treatise. Far graver doubts may be raised against the hypothesis that it was written by a Christian of the third century.] 3 The Greek papyri speak of a class of persons called oi év karóxņ, oi KαTɛxóμεvoι, who led a cloistered life; that is to say, they were restricted to the precincts of the temple to which they were attached. But they were not ascetics or necessarily celibates. tween them. But in the history of human thought, the supposition of such a connection frequently proves to be an illusion. No historical connection can possibly be admitted between the Egyptian and the Indo-European doctrines of the necessity of marriage, and all the doctrines in favour of religious celibacy may very probably turn out to be historically independent of each other. The late Professor Baur, of Tübingen, wrote an exceedingly able work, in which he endeavoured to trace the Manichean system to Buddhism.1 His arguments were admitted by Neander and many other learned men; among others, by Dr. Pusey in this country. Admirable, however, as Baur's analysis of the Manichean system must be confessed to be, his conception of Buddhism was radically false. This is not to be wondered at, for the book was written before any authentic information on the subject of Buddhism was yet accessible, and the principles which in the Gnostic and Manichean systems were wrongly ascribed to Buddhism were taken from the Platonic, Neo-Pythagorean or some other Hellenic philosophy. And all attempts to discover Buddhist influences in Jewish or Christian theologies will, I am sure, prove equally abortive. What they have in common is human reason, working according to the same natural laws. 1 I have discussed this question at length in an article on "Orientalism and Ancient Christianity," in the Home and Foreign Review, July, 1863, p. 151. L The question, however, is one which should be decided upon strictly historical evidence, independently of all dogmatic prejudice. Not a trace of the philosophic theories peculiar to the Buddhist canon has yet been discovered in any of the philosophic or religious systems of the Western world, and why should we be alarmed if it could be proved that the sublime precepts of humanity, purity, charity and unworldliness, inculcated by the moral code of Sâkya Muni had historically paved the way for Christianity?1 1 "Le bouddhisme réformé, établi au Thibet sous la suprême direction du grand lama, a vivement excité la curiosité des Européens. Les premiers missionaires qui en eurent connaissance au dix-septième siècle, ne furent pas peu surpris de retrouver au centre de l'Asie des monastères nombreux, des processions solennelles, des pélérinages, des fêtes religieuses, une cour pontificale, des colléges des lamas supérieurs, élisant leur chef souverain ecclésiastique et père spirituel des Thibétains et des Tartares en un mot une organisation assez semblable à celle de l'église romaine." Huc, "Le Christianisme en Chine en Tartarie et au Thibet," tome II. p. 9. The French philosophers of the last century inferred from this that Christianity was derived from Buddhism, and "que le culte catholique avait été calqué sur les pratiques lamaïques." But M. Huc shows that the most striking points of resemblance are owing to changes in the Tibetan worship since the time of Kubla Khan, in the thirteenth century, who had had frequent relations with Christian missionaries, and may have wished to imitate their institutions. The intercourse between the Mongolian conquerors and Western Christendom was very active at this period. Mongolian envoys repeatedly visited Rome, and some were present at the great Council of Lyons. Some points of resemblance are certainly more ancient, but it is worthy of notice that the resemblances are much more numerous as regards the Latin than as regards the Eastern churches. This would not be the case if Buddhism were the fountain-head. On matters such I now come to another very remarkable point of coincidence between the Egyptian and the Indo-European religions. The Ka or Genius. When we speak of a man of genius, of a genius for poetry or for warfare, or of being inspired by the genius of the place, we are often forgetful of the original use of the word genius. The genius was a god, "sanctus et sanctissimus deus," as Servius calls him, in the religion of the Romans, worshipped with libations, incense and garlands of flowers. Every man had his own genius, which was to be propitiated by sacrificial offerings, and so had every god and even every locality. The genius was a sort of spiritual double of each individual. Men swore by their own genius, by the genius of Rome, of the gods, or of the emperor. Very similar facts are to be found in the Greek and in the Persian religions. The Fravashis in the religion of Zoroaster were heavenly types of created things, whether gods, men, mountains, streams or other objects, and formed a divine society, the guardian angels, as it were, of the good creation. Each individual thing was furnished with its Fravashi. On the Persian monuments, especially those of Persepolis, the king's Fravashi is repre as spiritual direction, both religions have developed very similar methods quite independently one of the other. In regard to the subject of the development of dogma, no history is more instructive than that of Buddhism. sented standing close to the king, just as the royal ka is represented on Egyptian monuments down to the times of Vespasian. The notion was deeply rooted in all the branches of the India-European family, and has been preserved in many of the superstitions still current among us. You remember how in the novel of Waverley the Highland chieftain saw his own wraith. The water-wraith would in classical language be called the genius of the stream or of the billows, and this not in mere poetical phraseology, but in the severe prose of every-day life. The belief itself is not limited to the Egyptian and Indo-European families, but is nearly universal. "Everywhere," as Mr. Herbert Spencer tells us,1 "we find expressed or implied the belief that each person is double; and that when he dies, his other self, whether remaining near at hand or gone far away, may return, and continues capable of injuring his enemies and aiding his friends." But the development of this belief among the Egyptians is in many of its details surprisingly similar to the corresponding process among Indo-Europeans. The Egyptian word corresponding to the Latin genius is ka. Its original signification, as I have recently endeavoured to show, in a paper read before the Society of Biblical Literature,2 is image. The use of the Greek 1 Fortnightly Review, May 1, 1870, p. 537. |