Allegory in Greece & Egypt

7/29/2019 Allegory in Greece & Egypt

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/allegory-in-greece-egypt 1/25

Egypt Exploration Society

Allegory in Greece and EgyptAuthor(s): J. Gwyn GriffithsReviewed work(s):Source: The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 53 (Dec., 1967), pp. 79-102Published by: Egypt Exploration SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3855578 .

Accessed: 18/04/2012 12:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Egypt Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal

of Egyptian Archaeology.

ALLEGORY IN GREECE AND EGYPT'By J. GWYN GRIFFITHS

I. An inherited tradition

THERE re several statements in the DIO which show that Plutarch is both consciouslyand avowedly applying an allegoricalmethod in his treatment of the Egyptian myth.In no other work does he devote so much attention to the method and its meaning. In

one passage (9, 354 B-C) he suggests that the materialexpounded by him in this treatise

is particularlysuited to such a method:

A king chosenfromamongthe warriorsnstantlybecamea priestandshared n the philosophythat is hiddenfor the most part n mythsandstorieswhichshow dim reflexionsandinsightsof the

truth, just as they of coursesuggest themselveswhen they place sphinxes appositelybeforethe

shrines, intimating that their teaching about the gods holds a mysterious wisdom.

Although he adorned the Greek literarytradition in many ways, Plutarchcan hardlybtesaid to have originated any new tendency or movement. His allegoricalapproachwas no exception. He was hereusing a traditionwhich had persistedfor manycenturiesbefore him and which was at the height of its popularity during his lifetime. It is atradition which has survived into our own era. In Christianexegetic it is as old as thetreatmentof the Song of Songs as an allegoryof the relationbetween Christ and the

Church. At present it appears in some phases of the urge to 'demythologize' partsof the New Testament in the mannersuggested by Bultmann.

It was the interpretationof Homer'the Bible of the Greeks', that gave rise to

allegoristic,and the motive appearsto have been a moral one. In the sixth centuryB.C.some of the philosophers,notably Xenophanes, Pythagoras,and Heracleitus,attackedthe Homeric and Hesiodic conceptionof the gods. The rise of allegorical nterpretationwas an attemptto salvagethese reveredworksby suggestingthat the offendingepisodesreally bore hidden meanings which were at once acceptable and elevating. Theagenesof Rhegium, Anaxagoras, and Metrodorus of Lampsacus were among the earliest

allegorists,2 but Tate3 showed that Pherecydes of Syros (born c. 600 B.c.) 'read some

kind of new meaning into Homer', and he is earlier than Theagenes. Tate also makesthe suggestion that te early philosophers, when they expressed their teaching in

mythical language, which should be taken as 'symbolical and allegorical', 'may wellhave been the first to interpret the poetic traditions as though they were conscious

I This discussion has special reference to Plutarch's De Iside et Osiride, of which a new edition, with transla-tion and commentary, has been prepared by the writer and is now in the press. DIO = De Iside et Osiride;Ziegler, Plut. = 'Plutarchos von Chaironeia' in PW 21. I (I951), 636-962.

2 See Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen, III 3rd ed. Leipzig, I880), 322 f.; Anne B. Hersman, Studies in Greek

Allegorical Interpretation (Chicago, o906), I0 ff.3 Class. Rev. 41 (1927), 214-15 ('The Beginnings of Greek Allegory').

J. GWYN GRIFFITHS

allegories'. Tate's procedure seems a little dangerous in this respect; if generally

applied, it would put a very different face on much ancient mythopoeic thought.

Accordingto himi 'the function of allegorismwas originallynot negativeor defensive

but rather(as with Anaxagoras,Metrodorus, etc., in latertimes) positive or exegetical'.

The difficultyin assessingthe conscious motives of the earlyallegoristsis that theythemselves do not discuss the aim and nature of allegory.The word AA^qyopias not

used until the time of Cicero and of Plutarch, nor is the verb AArqyopEc used in the

technical sense of allegorical interpretationuntil the same time, Plutarch being the

first to use it thus, unless he was precededby Heracleitus n his QuaestionesHomericae,2

a work which was written perhaps during Plutarch's lifetime. Theagenes applied

physical or mental qualities to the gods' names.3The scholiast on Homer (II. 20, 67)

says thattahis was the ancientmethod of a5roAoyla,and that Theagenesfirst wrote about

Homer. That he wrote about Homer is stated also by the scholiast on Aristophanes,

Birds, 822. In view of these two testimoniesTate's attemptto belittle the contribution

of Theagenes is not entirelyconvincing.4It is true that the Homeric scholiast'saccount

may be inaccurate.Theagenes, for example, may well have included the etymologicalmethod in his physical explanationsof the divine names.5Further, it is questionablewhether the mythic speculations of the early philosopherswere as closely related to

the allegorical approachas Tate implies.6In many respectsPlutarchwas indebted to Plato, so that any discussionof his use of

allegory must consider the possibility that Plato's vies on allegoristicwere accepted

by him partially or fully. At first sight Plato seems to have rejected the allegorical

approach.In the Republic,378 D it is said that the immoralstories about the gods are

not to be admitted into the State whether they contain 'deeper meanings' (7Trovotat)

or not, for the young would not be in a position to judge what was to be interpretedthus. A well-known passagein the opening of the PhaedrusdescribesSocratesdiscuss-

ing the myth of how Boreas carriedaway the maiden Orithyiafrom the banks of the

Ilissus. Socrates quotes an allegoricalexplanation,to the effect that Boreasrepresentsthe North Wind and that the girl was physicallyremovedby the force of the wind. He

tells Phaedrus, 'I regardsuch theories as no doubt attractive,but as the invention of

clever, industrious people who are not exactly to be envied.'7He urges the Delphic'Know thyself' as more profitableadvice to the serious-minded.

The etymologizingwhich had become a dominant method in allegoristicis one of

the themes of theCratylus;

but the treatmentis not a serious one, and the aim seems

to be to poke fun at the whole method.8Plato's attitude may be summed up by saying

Class. Quar. 28 (R934), 105 ('On the History of Allegorism').2 See F. Oelmann's edition (Teubner, o191).

3 Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem, ed. Dindorf, iv (Oxford, I877), 231.

4 Class. Quart. 28 (1934), 0o8: 'His barren record serves merely to illustrate the fact that grammariansand

biographersof Homer could make use of the labours of the philosophers for the purpose of expounding, eulogiz-

ing and defending the poet.' He does not seem to have noted the evidence of the Schol. on the Birds.

5 Cf. Paul Decharme, La Critiquedes traditionsreligieuses chez les Grecs (Paris, 1904), 275.6 Cf. the refusal of Decharme to enlist Heracleitus of Miletus among the early aJlegorists,op. cit. 273 n. I.

7 Plato, Phdr. 229 D (R. Hackforth's tr., Cambridge, 1952, 24).

8 See especially 406 c and cf. A. B. Hersman, op. cit. 8.

ALLEGORY IN GREECE AND EGYPT

that while he did not deny the possibility of allegoricalmeanings, he had little use for

them; nor did he employ the method himself with any seriousness.' Tate2 calls thisthe 'negative aspect' of allegorism, and maintains that Plato, in the Cratylus, for

example, supports its 'positive aspect', which implies a nobler method exemplified

by the mythical languageof divinely inspiredpoets. On the basis of his own definitionTate is doubtlessright. But it should be noted that his 'positive' categoryis not related

by ancient writers to the question of allegorical writing. In the Cratylus,for instance,it is regardedas something very different.

Whereas Plutarch uses the words aAA-ryopew adAAMopla, and aAAq7yoplKJ4,3he also

employs some of the words which occur in Plato's treatmentof the subject. The verb

atvr7TromaL, hich Plutarchuses twice in the DIO, is employed several times by Plato4to discuss the enigmaticsayingsof a poetic nature.Plutarch'sattitude,however,is verydifferent from Plato's. In the De audiendispoetis the differenceextends to the wholeestimateof poetry;for Plutarch,althoughhe does not explicitlymention his opposition

to the austerejudgement of the Republic n banning poetryfrom the State, neverthelessbegins his discussion with a clear statement that it is a mistake to forbid the readingof poetry by the young.s Maintaining that in rO TE'prrov

one should seek and love r6

Xp3attov in one's study of poetry, he was nearer to Aristotle and the teaching of the

Peripateticschool.6He does not join forceswith Plato in attackingHomer and Hesiod,but claimsthat carefulstudy of the poet's literarymethodwill removemuch that seemsoffensive.He does not, however,adoptthe attitudeof the Stoics and regardHomer andHesiod as infallible teachers whose words should be defended at all costs. He is

occasionallyreadyto blame Homer's words. 'For not only,' he says, 'as it seems, con-

cerningthe land of the Egyptians, but also concerningpoetry, it is possible to say that

she gives to those who use her"manyexcellentdrugsmixedtogetherandmanybitter".'7He states emphatically that when poems say anything reprehensibleabout the godsor the daemons or about virtue, a whole-hearted rejection is possible.8 The textual

improvements of Cleanthes and Zeno are not acceptable to him;9 and he refuses to

give an astralmeaning to the story of the adulteryof Aphrodite and Ares, as thoughit signifiedthe coming togetherof two planets.10He goes on to saythatthe poet's inten-tion is to give a moral lesson on the evils of licentious ways and the transitorynatureof ill-gotten pleasures.Decharme"I xplainsPlutarch'sattitudeasimplyingthe rejectionof the physicalinterpretationsof the myths in favour of the moralinterpretations,which

(according to Decharme) ever since Theagenes of Rhegium were strongly prevalentamong most of Homer's commentators. There is surely a confusion here, however,

I Cf. A. B. Hersman, loc. cit.; Tate, Class. Quart. 23 (1929), 154; R. Hackforth, op. cit. 26.2 Loc. cit. 3 See Wyttenbach, Lex. Plut. I, 38.4 E.g. Lysis, 214 D; Charm. 162 A; Theaet. 152 c. A. B. Hersman calls attention to this usage, op. cit. 8 n.

I6 and 30. 5 De aud. poetis, I, 15 F.6 Cf. Ziegler, Plut. 806; and S. Weinstock, Philologus82 (I926), 137 ('Die platonische Homerkritik und ihre

Nachwirkung', 121-53).7 De aud. poetis, i, I5 B-C; cf. 4, 20 c. 8 Op. cit. 2, 16 D.9 Op. cit. 12, 33 C-D. So too the etymologies of Cleanthes and Chrysippus, II, 31 D-E.

10 Op. cit. 4, 19 E-F. This is the context where he refers to the rejected type of explanation as nrrovotatr

AAMrlyoplai. I Op. cit. 475.

as immoral. Plato, therefore, naturally comes in for a good deal of criticism. Since

Homer is to be regardedas a sacredwriter, the true understandingof him is arguedto

be imperative;those lackingin wisdom and learningwill not succeed in understandingthe allegories, but the duty is more urgent, in view of this, to seek the real meaning

of those stories regardedas worthyof reproach.An exampleof the method adoptedbyHeracleitus is his interpretationof the theomachies; physical and moral allegory is

applied. It is fairly clear, however, that even if Plutarch was familiar with the work of

Heracleitus,he cannot have been much attractedby it, since in his De audiendispoetishe shows that his own approachto Homer was very different. Hersman,' in a com-

parisonof Heracleitusand Cornutus,describesthe latter'swork as 'but a tiresomelist

of etymologiesof the namesof the gods and of their epithets that aims to show that the

whole hierarchyof the Greekreligionwas a figurativeexpressionof physicaldoctrine';

she is more attractedto his closing paragraph n which she finds that he 'expressesa firm belief in the wisdom of the ancients, and proclaimshis own pious purpose of

leading the young to religion, but not to superstition'. It is surprising, nonetheless,that although Mrs. Hersmanis mainly concernedwith Plutarch'sallegoristic,she fails

to see that of these two writers Cornutus is much the closer to Plutarch. This is true

not only of his interest in, and approachto, mythology, which dominates his book;

it is also true of that partof it which is devoted to the poets, for Tate2has shown that

Cornutushere deviatesfrom the Stoic position to the extent of censuringboth Homer

and Hesiod for adding fictitious matter to the materialthey inherited.Tate has prob-

ably gone too far when he says3 that Cornutus consequently drew back 'from the

extremes to which the earlier Stoics had pushed the method of allegoricalinterpreta-

tion'. He can point to an occasional example where he dissents from the eminent

Stoics. In chapter20 Cornutusdisagreeswith the Stoic explanationof Tritogeneia as

deriving from the rptia e'v of philosophy; cf. DIO 75, 381 E-F; in chapter31 he dis-

sents from the way takenby Cleanthesto explainthe laboursof Heracles.On the other

hand he refersto the works of the earlierStoic philosophersas a commendablesource

for the allegoricalsystem which he himself is employing (Ch. 35); and his own ex-

planationsare mostly in line with those propagatedby this group. Decharme says4of

Cornutusrightly,'I1est tout plein des doctrinesde Zenon,de Cleantheet de Chrysippe.'

II. Plutarch's practice

Where then does Plutarchbelong? Tates classifieshim as one who rejectedallegoris-tic in toto. 'Thus Plutarch,' he says, 'who did not care for allegoricalinterpretations,

explains the Homeric quarrels of the gods by pointing out that Homer elsewhere

describesthe gods as delightingall their days in their peacefulabode.'6Plutarchaccepts

the latter notion as truth and rejects the former as fictitious opinion. Tate7points out

Op. cit. 21. 2 'Cornutus and the Poets', Class. Quart. 23 (1929), 41-45.

3 Class. Quart. 23 (1929), 44.4 Op. cit. 26I. s Class. Quart. 24 (1930), 8.

6 The reference is to De aud. poetis, 2, 17 D.

7 Class. Quart. 24 (1930), 2. Cf. eundem, Class. Quart. 28 (1934), IIo: 'Plutarch himself... would have none

of it.' He refers here to De aud. poetis, 4, 19 E and II, 3 E.

J. GWYN GRIFFITHS

that 'Plutarch regards the etymologies of Cleanthes and Chrysippus as belonging

properly, not to philosophy, but to the specialized studies of the grammarians'.Thetruth is that Plutarch does reject allegoristic in the De audiendispoetis: he does notfavour there the physical or moral allegorists, nor does he recommend the subtle

etymologies of the Stoics, some of which were borrowed from Plato in spite of thelatter's distaste for the allegoricalapproach.i Hersman2states that the De audiendis

poetis'containsonly one or two allegoricalexplanations';but she does not specifythem.She is correct,however,in her assessment of the DIO as a worksteeped in allegoristic,and it is somewhat remarkable hat the contrast between it and the earlier work hasnot received more attention.

Decharme3discusses in this connexiona fragmentascribedto Plutarchby Eusebius,4where it is said that the Orphic poems, together with the traditions of Egypt and

Phrygia, show the physiology (or philosophy) to be mysterious and presented enig-matically, and that the secret thought of the wise men of old was available in the

mysteriesand sacrifices.E. H. Giffordsthus translatesthe beginning of the passage:The physiology(var. philosophy)of the ancientsboth among Greeks and Barbarianswas a

physicaldoctrineconcealed n legends,for the mostparta secret andmysteriousheologyconveyedin enigmasandallegories,containing tatements hat wereclearer6 o the multitude han the silent

omissions,and its silent omissionsmore liable to suspicionthan the open statements. This isevident n the Orphicpoems,andin the EgyptianandPhrygian tories;but the mind of the ancientsis most clearlyexhibited n the orgiasticrites connectedwith the initiations,and in what is sym-bolically acted in the religious services.

Eusebiusattributesthese words to Plutarch'swork De DaedalisPlataeensibus, nd givesinstances of the explanationsfound therein. The legend that Hera was stolen away,

while yet a virgin, by Zeus, but that their clandestinelove was kept secret throughthekindness of Leto, is explained by the fact that Hera is the earth and Leto is night.A story that told of a quarrelbetween Hera and Zeus is said to referreallyto a distur-bance and confusion of the elements, Zeus being heat and fire, and Hera being rainand wind. Eusebius adds the comment that both the originalindecencyof the legendsand the physiologicalexplanationsare debasing and unworthy.

Decharme7finds in this une couleurtoute stoicienne'; for Chrysippus, Zeus is theluminous ether; for Cornutus,he is, as for the authorof the De DaedalisPlataeensibus,the celestial fire. The whole Stoa recognizedin Hera the air which is under the sky,the terrestrialatmosphere,alwaysagitatedby winds or chargedwith rain. How could

Plutarch,who neverceasedto combatthe Stoics,who declares heirtheologyridiculous,who rejects their physical explanationsof the Homeric legends, how could he, asks

Decharme, be caught in such a contradiction?He suggests that this fragmenteither

I e.g. the equation of Hera and Aer (Cratyl. 404 B), often used by the Stoics. Cf. DIO 32, 363 D. See furtherF. Wehrli, Zur GeschichtederallegorischenDeutungHomersimnAltertum (Diss. Zirich, 1928), 86 f.

2 Op. cit. 38 f. 3 Op. cit. 475 ff. 4 Praep. Evang. 3, I.5 EusebiiPamphili Evangelicae Praeparationis, III,Part i (Oxford, 1903), 91.6 Karl Mras, however, Eusebius Werke, Bd. 8 (Die griech. christl. Schriftsteller, 43, i, Berlin, 1954),

106 reads (d)oraiacTEpa, following Reitzenstein, Poimandres, 164. The text is given also by Bernardakis, Plu.vol. vII (Teubner, 1896), 43 ff. 7 Op. cit. 476.

has been wrongly ascribedto him or belongs to a dialogue in which one of the inter-

locutors held an opinion peculiarto himself. 'En realite',he concludes, 'Plutarquen'a

jamais confondu les personnesdivines avec les elements de la nature.'This statement will certainlynot stand examinationin the light of the DIO. In 66,

377 D it is true that a vigorous protest is made against the tendency to identify godswith naturalproducts, such as Dionysus with wine. But Osiris is identified with mois-

ture, and physicalallegoryis freely indulged in. The citation in Eusebius tallies closelywith the teaching of the DIO about the mysteries.

Elsewhere too his allegoristic is in evidence. Bernardakis'cites chapter 27 of theDe facie in orbe lunae (942 F; 950 E; I008 A). The Vita Homeri,which Bernardakis s

there defending as genuine, is no longer consideredso; but in the passagehe refersto2

Theon is addressing Sulla and Lamprias,and he propoundsa physical explanationofthe myth of Demeter and Kore: the earth is the realmof Demeter and the moon thatof Kore; the coming of the moon into the shadow of the earth betokens the union of

mother and daughter.3 It is impossible, he says, for Kore to leave Hades, since she isherself the end of Hades. Here Homer Od. iv, 563 is quoted, and he is said to have

expressedthis 'enigmatically' eirtKpviabdtevos), but not ineffectively,in his referencetothe Elysianplain and the ends of the earth.This is a clearcase of physicalallegory,andthe only way to deny its validityin the presentargument s to maintainthat it is Theon's

view, and not Plutarch's. He is himself responsiblefor the views expressed in the DePrimo Frigido,which is dedicated to the Aristotelian Favorinus and which criticizes

many statements made by the Stoics. But he uses a physical allegory when he says(I4, 950 E)4thatHomer5 physicallyrather hanmythically(qvMaKWJSAAXov3 V0WKCS) set

Hephaestus in opposition to the river and Apollo to Poseidon. He suggestssimilarlyin the QuaestionesPlatonicae, i007F-Io08E, that the epithet 'highest of the lords'

(i7aros- KpEtOvTwv), whichHomerusesof Zeus, denotesphysicalposition o startwith ;6but this explanationis not fully allegorical.

The passage which we have quoted from the beginning of Eusebius' extract fromPlutarch'sDe DaedalisPlataeensibuss similar in approach,as we have noted, to theattitude shown in the DIO; see especially9, 354 B-C which has alsobeen quoted above.One can go further than this and maintainthat the DIO contains examples of everykind of allegoristicpreviouslyknownto Greekliterature,manyof them being presentedas acceptableto Plutarch himself. Etymology, a favouritearm of the Stoic allegorists,is used

frequently.For

instance,Clea is told

(2, 351 F)that she

worshipsa

goddessexceptionallywise and wisdom-loving, as 'her name certainlyseems to imply that toher more than anyone belong knowledge and understanding'.The name, he adds, is

Plutarchi Moralia, vII (Teubner, I896), p. ix.2 See Moralia, v, 3 (ed. Hubert and Pohlenz, Teubner, 1955), 81-82; ed. Cherniss (Loeb, vol. xII), pp. 194 f.3 Cf. Ziegler's summary, Plut. 854; and R. Wiggers, Beitrage zur Entwicklungsgeschichteesphilosophischen

Mythos der Griechen(Diss. Rostock, 1927), 37 f. He regards this as a philosophical myth derived partly fromXenocrates and partly from Poseidonius. H. von Arnim, Plutarch iiberDdmonenundMantik (Amsterdam, 1921),66 does not believe Xenocrates to have been the source.

4 Ed. C. Hubert, op. cit. IoI-2. 5 The ref. is to II. 21, 342 ff. and 435 ff.6 He is here dealing with some of the argument of Plato, Resp. 443 D. Cf. R. M. Jones, The Platonism of

Plutarch, 104-5.

J. GWYN GRIFFITHS

Greek, and he is obviously connecting Isis with a form ofolSa, 'know'. Later in the

work his etymological interpretationof the goddess is elaborated,althoughon different

lines-a readiness to swap horses which we noted in Cornutus. In 60, 375c Isis is

derived froml'EaOaL (here L'EaTat)to hasten' with understanding(pEr' rLa-rrf'Lrs),

'since she is soulful and intelligent movement'. There follows a plethoraof analogousetymologies. Plutarch is here adopting the approachwhich is made light of in the

Cratylus,but which the Stoics used fervently. In the same way he explains Typhon,which he also assumesto be a Greekname, as one who is 'demented by his ignoranceand deceit' (2, 35 F). It is through his allegoricalmethod, rigorously applied, that

Plutarch is able to maintain, concerning Egyptian cults, that 'nothing irrational or

fabulous or based on superstition, as some believe, was embodied in the religious

services, but ideas which either had moral and necessarycauses or were not devoid

of historical or physicalplausibility,such as that connectedwith the onion' (8, 353 E-F).

This is an instructive example, for a tale about the onion is rejected; it is utterly in-

credible, he says, that Dictys, the nurslingof Isis, fell into the riverand was drownedbecause she tried to lay hold of a clump(?) of onions. The priests, however, abstain

fromthe onion; they loatheandavoidit asthe only plantthatgrowsand flourisheswhen

the moon is on the wane.A factualnote is added:it is not useful eitherfor those purify-

ing themselves (by fasting) or for those keeping festival, for in the former it producesthirst and in the latter tears. In this case Plutarch, in disbelieving the story, clearly

regards it as having been fabricated by the priests to justify a custom regarded as

salutary.Here is an exampleof allegoristicwhich involvesrejectionof myth by suggest-

ing its aetiology.In one instancePlutarchconsciously paradesan improvementon an allegorical nter-

pretationpreviouslymade by writerswhom he does not name. He is discussing a state-

ment by Heracleitusthat Hades and Dionysus are the same:

For hosewhoclaimhat hebody s calledHades ince he soulbecomes esidetself,asitwere,and intoxicatedwithin it, are allegorizingoo subtly(yAXlaxpwsaAAyopovian).t is betterto equate

OsiriswithDionysus, ndSarapiswithOsiris, ince he latter cquiredhisnamewhenhechangedhis nature. (28, 362A-B)

It would clearlybe wrongto explainthe improvementhere as a rejectionof allegoryin

general, althoughthis particular nstance of it is dismissed.

With regardto Sarapishe proceedsto interpretthe god etymologicallyas 'the name

of him who orders the universe, being derived from aalpetv (to sweep)', and he will

not countenancethe statementsof Phylarchusthat the derivation s from words mean-

ing 'to beautify' and 'to order' (29, 362 c). The possibility that the word is Egyptian

promptshim to say, 'For my part I believe that if the name Sarapis s indeed Egyptian,it denotesjoy andgladness(charmosyne),akingmy clue fromthe factthatthe Egyptians

call the Charmosyna, he festivalof gladness, Sairei' (29, 362 D). Amenthes he explainsas 'the place under the earth, to which they believe souls go after death', the word

signifying 'he who takes and gives' (29, 362 D).

When he goes on to treat of the physical allegoriesbased on etymology, similar to

thoseemployedby the philosopherswho explainedCronusas time,Hera as air,and

Hephaestusas fire, it is noticeable hat Plutarch's one is respectful.The followingis thecounterpartitedbyhimasprevailing mong heEgyptianswithregardo Osirian

theology:

So among he EgyptiansOsiris s the Nile, unitingwith Isis as the earth,whileTyphonis the sea,into which the Nile fallsandso disappears nd is dispersed, ave forthatpartwhichthe earth akes

up and receives, becomingfertile through it. (32, 363D)

A modifiedandgeneralized ersionof this interpretationeemsto receivePlutarch's

approvaln the important hapter33 wherethe wiser of thepriestsaresaidto regardOsiris as the whole principleand powerof moisture.Plutarch'spreferencehere is

typicallyGreekandis in line withthe tendencyof Greekphilosophyromthe time ofthe Milesians o look for the primary lements.It is not surprisinghathe later(34,364B-D)mentions he beliefthat Thalesreceived romEgypthis ideathatwaterwas

the sourceof everything.This happens o be a casewherea parallelexplanationwascertainlyfound amongthe Egyptians,but probablyin its firstratherthan second form.Osiriswasexplainedby themas the Nile or as freshwaterrather hanas theprincipleof moisture.WhatPlutarch scribeso theEgyptianpriests s therefore Greekrefine-ment,on the linesof Stoicallegoristic, f the native dea.

Detailsadded o thephysicalallegory re hatNephthysrepresentsheouterbordersof the earthand the partsnearthe mountainsandthe sea (38, 366B),whilethe helpgiven to Typhon by the Queen of the Ethiopiansdenotes'southernbreezesfrom

Ethiopia' (39, 366 c). The enclosureof Osirisin the chestmeans 'the concealmentand disappearancef water' (39, 366D). After comparingStoic interpretations f

Dionysus, Heracles,Ammon,Demeter,and Poseidon,Plutarchdeviatesstrangelyfrom this lineof exegesis o ascribe uddenlya verydifferentallegoryo the Egyptiansor possibly o anothergroupof Greekphilosophers.t is still a physicalallegory,butnowTyphon epresentshesolarworld, ndOsiris helunar 41, 367C-D). Frischhasdealtacutelywith theimplications f thisviolentswitch-over stheyaffect hepossiblesources which Plutarchwas using. The followingof a Stoic source,but a differentone, is probably ndicated.The new interpretationtill appears o be dealtwith inakindlymanneruntilwereach5I, 372A, wherePlutarchays hat'justridiculeattachesto those whoassign he ballof the sunto Typhon,whohasnothingradiant rprotec-tive abouthim,nor hashe orderor creationor the movementwhichhasmeasureand

reason,but rather he opposite'.In the meantimePlutarch s deciding n favourofa moralallegoryas the correctexplanation.Osiris s the goodandrestrained,Typhonis the evil and intemperaten everything; his is declaredafteran expositionof thebelief that there aregood and evil powersbehind the workingsof the universe(49,37I A-B; cf. 64, 366 F-377 A). The dualism which is at the root of this explanation is

undoubtedly due in part to the influence of Plato. Hopfner indeed gives the heading'Die akademische [Platonische] Deutung' to chapters 49-64 in his commentary.Daemonologys involvedtoo. Like allegoristic,daemonology rovideda way out of

ascribingevil to the gods. It was not the gods, but daemons, that is, inferior beings,

J. GWYN GRIFFITHS

that were responsible. Plutarch's combination of daemonology and allegoristictakes

him far enough from Plato.

Did allegoristic mply rejectionof the myths?We have noted one instance where this

appears to be so. TateI suggests that it was usually so: 'But neither Plato nor the

allegorical interpreters believed that the myths were true. In order to accept therationalization t was necessaryto disbelievethe myth.' The implicationis particularlyclear in the approachmade to Homer and Hesiod, for a major aim of the allegoristswas to remove the necessity of believing in immoral and unworthy stories. Tate

shows that Plato's view of myths distinguishedthree elements: (i) the Ao'yosor nar-

rative in its literal sense; (2) the vo6os, TvrTOS, or d0aa, i.e. the principle implied, the

'moral' of the tale; and (3) the vrrovotaor allegoricalmeaning. Plato is preparedto

approveof stories whose narrativesare falsebut whose 'moral' s sound; but he believes

that the young are incapableof apprehendingthe third element.

Plutarch'sattitude seems to have varied. In DIO 58, 374 F he says: 'We must not

treat the myths as entirely factual statements (ovixus Ao'yoLsrac4rrav iactv), but take whatis fittingin each episode accordingto the principleof likeness (to truth).' This difficult

sentence seems to mean that incredible and fantastic incidents may be rejected, the

emphasis being on 7racTrav,'entirely'. Allegoristicthen providesa deepermeaning,but

does not invalidate the simple truth of the greaterpart of the stories themselves. One

crucial passage may be adduced to establish Plutarch's disbelief in certainpartsof the

myth. After finishinghis main narrationof the myth he refers to episodes which he has

omitted:

The foregoingareprettywell the mainpointsof the myth with the exceptionof the most out-

rageous episodes, such as those concerning the dismemberment of Horus and the decapitation of

Isis. For if they believe and say these things about the blessed and incorruptible nature throughwhich we mainly form our idea of the divine, as though they were really enacted or actually

happened, here is no need to tell you that

Oneneedsmustspitandpurifythe mouth

as Aeschylushas it. (20, 358E)

He has saidin I2, 355 D thatthese episodesare'utterlyuseless andsuperfluous eatures'.

Yet one of the cases he mentions in 20, 358 E is the decapitationof Isis; and he has

just included this in a softened form in 19, 358 D, where he describes the removalof

Isis' head-dress by Horus. What is implied, it seems, is a right to modify the formandmeaningof some of these

episodes.Reference s madein I

I, 355Bto the samematter:

Thus wheneveryou hear the myths told by the Egyptiansaboutthe gods, those, for instance,which tell of theirwanderings,mutilations,andmanyother suchtales,you shouldrememberwhatwassaidabove andnot thinkthatanyof thesethingsis saidto haveactuallyhappened o orto havebeen enactedso.

Here the emphasison oV'Ttoso' seems to restrictthe denialto the detailed form of the

mythical episode. The instancesthat followshow that the secondandsymbolicmeaningis regarded as the importantone. In the case of Hermes he is not literally 'the Dog',

I Class. Quart. 23 (1929), I44-5.

and in the case of the Sun-god, his arising from a lotus-flower represents sunrise;Ochus was not actuallya sword, but his brutality ustified the name. These three casesare obviously not parallel, and none of them deals strictly with a myth, but ratherwith a symbol. Atarchhe same time Plutarch inends the principleto apply to myths.

In his attitude to the myth of Osiris, or at least to most of it, Plutarch does notsuggest, however, a rejectionof the initial story. If certain episodes are thrown asideor modified, the others are accepted as factual even if a deeper meaning is attached.For instance, Plutarch has no suggestion that he does not believe that Osiris wasa king who actually lived. In I3, 3560 he discusses two ideas about the length of his

reign and in chapter I3 talks of his contributions to civilization. In the same chapterhe describes how Typhon inveigled him into the chest. Later, in 39, 366D, he saysthat this incident symbolizes the concealment and disappearanceof water. DoesPlutarchtherefore disbelieve in the incident? This is clearlynot so.

His allegoristic,on this showing, leaves room for some variety of treatment. Some

myths, such as that of Osiris, are mostly factual but also symbolic. Certainepisodes inthem must be rejectedor revised.theorther myths do not have a literalor factualmeaningat all; they are entirely symbolical. There is no clear instance of a myth thus treated,but in chapter 11 the principle is certainlystated.

III. Anterior developments in Egypt

In its originalGreeksense allegory implies that an authorproclaimsa meaningotherthan the one which is instantly apparent(aAAa yopvELt). The Greeks who explainedHomer from this point of view were superimposingthe second meaning upon a nar-rative which usually does not, in our opinion, bearany tracesof such a meaningbeingdeliberate. Some of Plato'smyths, on the otherhand,wereclearlywrittenwith a second

meaningin mind; those which conclude the Gorgiasand the Republicpresent eschato-

logical beliefs in narrativeform,' and in the Republic he descriptionof the cave con-stitutes a short allegory.2Two kinds of allegory therefore occur in Greek literature,the one superimposed by critics and the other consciously intended by the author;for the formertype the term 'allegoristic'is generallyused today.3

Egyptian literature has not usually been credited with a tradition of allegoricalwriting or interpretation.The only exception seems to be The Blinding of Truth, a

Late-Egyptian story which Gardiner4edited. It is preserved only in a fragmentaryform, and the three main charactersare Truth, his

youngerbrother

Falsehood,and

his son, who is not named. The story began, it appears,with an accountof how Truthborrowed a wonderful knife from Falsehood and then lost or damaged it. For this

I Cf. H. Leisegang in PW s.v. Platon (1950), 2416 f. and 2471 ff., though he does not use the term allegory.2 Cf. J. Tate, Oxford Class. Dict. s.v. Allegory, where he also cites The Choice of Heracles by Prodicus

(apud Xenophon, Mem. 2, 21) as an example.3 Cf. M. von Albrecht in Lexikon deralten Welt (Artemis, Zirich, I965), I2I ff. where the words 'Allegorie'

and 'Allegorese' are distinguished; thus too J. C. Joosen and J. H. Waszink in Reallexikonfur Antike undChristentum, I (Stuttgart, 1950), 283-93.

4 He gave the editioprincepsin Late-Egyptian Stories (Brussels, 1932), 30-36 and edited it again in HieraticPapyri in the British Museum. Third Series (London, I935). Textual details are fuller in the former, but thestory's significance is elaborated in the latter work.

J. GWYN GRIFFITHS

misdeed Falsehood proposes to the Ennead that Truth should be blinded and made

his door-keeper,a proposal which the Ennead accepts and implements. An account

follows of the procreation,birth, and education of Truth's son, who is nonetheless

ridiculed by his schoolmatesas having no father. Intent on avengingthe wrong done

by Falsehood, Truth's son eventuallyaccuses his uncle before the Ennead of stealinghis wonderful ox. He apparentlysecuresa favourableverdict,as the story'stattered end

seems to refer to the blinding of Falsehood. The strikingfeatureis that the two chief

charactersare treated, in respect of their names, as personifiedabstractions;and thus

Gardiner' was impelled to remark that 'surely this must be the earliest example of

allegory n the mannerof JohnBunyan'.It hasnot been noted thatthe Egyptianwritings

very neatly combine the abstractand personalelements of the names by using and

) as determinativesof both Truth and Falsehood.2Gardinerproceeds to designatethe theme as 'a but thinly disguisedversion of the legend of Osiris'; he equatesTruth

with Osiris, Falsehood with Seth, and Truth's son with Horus, and he observes the

parallelrole of the Ennead in the stories. He admitsthatTruth's consortis not muchlike Isis, since she is not very helpful to eitherspouse or son. The slanderingof Truth's

son on the scoreof doubtfulparentagecertainlyrecalls the treatmentof Horus,althoughit is not here laid as a chargebefore the Ennead. In 6, 6 ff. and 10, 5 wsb,'avenge', is

used of the son's intention concerninghis father; this verb is not apparentlyused of

Horus, but the general sense correspondsto Horus's actions. It is the Horus-Seth

legend, however, that provides the basic parallel:Truth is the elder brotherof False-

hood (2, 5) as Horus is of Seth;3 the Ennead is the arbiterof their rival claims and

charges;and in particular he initial and final allusionsto blinding recall the seizureof

the eye of Horus by Seth, althoughthe infliction of the same fate on Seth has no part

in the legend. Dr. Emma Brunner-Traut4sees a further parallelbetween Falsehoodand Seth in the wonderful knife or sword which Falsehood lost: Seth in Re's bark

has a spearwith which he attacksApopis. Her attemptto see a connexionwith Osiris

in the wonderfulox of Truth is a little more circuitous.5Yet she is doubtless right in

refusingto regardthe story as a full-blown allegory,6while recognizingin it a didactic

trait. In essence we have here a folk-tale which is partly allegoricaland which also

shows the influenceof two outstanding myths. Gardiner'sreferenceto allegoryseems to

concern only the names of the main characters,and this type of nomenclature,while

Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum. Third Series, i, 6.

2 A third personified abstraction may have been present in the story if a conjecture by Dr. Emma Brunner-

Traut is regarded as probable. In her AltdgyptischeMarchen (Dusseldorf, 1963), 41 she refers (in her transla-

tion) to Truth's consort as 'Begierde'. Unhappily the name is missing in the papyrus every time this person

is referred to.3 Cf. The Memphite Tlzeology,12 c and Junker, Die politischeLehre von Memphis, 32 f. In P.Chester Beatty

I, 4, 8 and 8, 7 Seth is referred to as the elder brother, but the form of Horus is here influenced by the Osirian

concept of Horus the Child: see J. Gwyn Griffiths, The Conflict of Horus and Seth (Liverpool, I960), 67 f.4 Op. cit. 262. Cf. Lanzone, Diz. Alit. Pl. 378, i; Rundle Clark, MIythand Symbolin Ancient Egypt (London,

I959), 208 ff. Daumas, Les Dieux de l',gypte (Paris, I965), 95 describes Seth as 'dieu de la guerre et du desert

st6rile', but the former designation may be questioned.5 Ibid: one of the insignia of Osiris is the shepherd's crook, and so the ox recas his cattle; also the word

iVwt s used punningly to refer to 'office' and 'cattle'. The second point is true of P.Chester Beatty I, 5, io ff.

(as Dr. Brunner-Traut indeed remarks), but not of the present text. 6 Op. cit. 261.

clearly allegorical,is not here pursued actively enough to involve a sustainedallegory;in Bunyan'sworkit is more constantlya facet of the method.' If Truth and Falsehood,on the other hand, hide the names of Osiris (or Horus) and Seth, a third meaningemerges,and a highly sophisticatedintention would be revealed;but it is preferable o

regardthis as the unconscious imprint of the myth and to find in the story only thebroad frameworkof moral allegory which is expressed in the names,2the intention

being to suggest that this is how truth must eventuallybe vindicatedagainstthe wilesof falsehood.

The Tale of the TwoBrothershas been shown by Jacobsohn3 o contain a wealth of

mythological and theological allusion or reminiscence,but again it is a matter of un-conscious reflectionratherthan of presenting consciouslyasecond meaning. Accordingto Spiegel4TheContendings f Horus and Seth in P.Chester Beatty I provides a fusionof contemporaryhistory and ancient myth, the former element being concernedwiththe tension between the kingship and the nome-governors at the beginning of the

Middle Kingdom.5We are told that 'Osiris embodies the kingdom of Heracleopolis'.6Such a proceduremight seem to be allegorical,though Spiegel does not use the term.7A contemporarycolouringof the terminologyis the limit of what is probablyinvolved.8

It is possible, however, to cite stories whose allegoricalintention is beyond doubt.One of the best-known allegories in classical literature is the story of the dialoguebetween the belly and the other members of the body. It appears in the speech ofMenenius Agrippa as recorded by Livy, 2, 32 and Plutarch, Vita Coriolani 6: the

belly is accused of havingan easytime, but repliesby sayingthat it nourishesthe whole

body, the moralbeingthat all the body's membersneed one anotherandthat the senate,IThus when Bunyan refers to Giant Despair he is personifying an

experience.Abstractions are often

per-sonified in the medieval morality plays, as they are in the Welsh 'interludes' of Twm o'r Nant. The oppositeprocess usually occurs in Greek allegoristic, as when Plut. DIO 33, 364 A favours the interpretation of Osirisas the principle of moisture. The allegorical personifications of Aristophanes, on the contrary, such as Penia,Ploutos, the Logoi, and Techne, are probably comic creations deriving from a projection of poetic metaphors:see H.-J. Newiger, Metapher und Allegorie (Zetemata, I6, Minchen, 1957).

2 There was, of course, a precedent for the procedure in the name of the goddess Ma'at; but although theword is feminine, both as the name of the goddess and as an abstract noun, it is used here as the name ofa man. G. Lefebvre, Romans et contes egyptiens(Paris, I949), I60, points out that Falsehood (grg) is brieflypersonified in Peasant B 2, 98-99. The particular antithesis of our story persists in numerous parallels in laterliteratures: see M. Pieper, ZAS 70 (1934), 92-97 and idem, Das dgyptische Mdrchen (Leipzig, 1935), 31 ff.;Lefebvre, loc. cit.; Brunner-Traut, op. cit. 262 points to analogies relating to other features.

3 Die dogmatischeStellung des K6nigs in der Theologieder alten Agypter (Gliickstadt, 1939), 13 ff. Earlierappraisals tended to view the story as a simple folk-tale: see A. C. Mace, Egyptian Literature (New York,1928), 29 and T. E. Peet, A ComparativeStudy of theLiteratureof Egypt, Palestineand Mesopotamia(London,193 ), i 3. Max Pieper, Die dgyptische Literatur (Wildpark-Potsdam, 1927), 78 ff. recognized its complexityand artistic skill, though he thought that its dominant idea was the wickedness of woman ('Das Ganze istbeherrscht von einer einzigen Idee: der Schlechtigkeit des Weibes ...'); in Das dgyptischeMdrchen (Leipzig,1935), 33 ff. he emphasized rather the mingling of varied motifs. That the story reflects ancient ideas aboutnature and its fertility is well shown by Spiegel in HandbuchderOrientalistik(ed. Spuler), I, ii (Leiden, 1952),I35. 4 Die Erzahlung vom Streite des Horus und Seth (Gluckstadt, 1937), 25 ff.

5 Op. cit. 71. 6 Op. cit. 77.7 Cf. however, p. 79: 'Mythologische Verhaltnisse werden dabei zum Ausdrucksmittel fur geschichtliche

Beziehungen und Spannungen.'8 Cf. J. Gwyn Griffiths, The Co-nflict of Horus and Seth (Liverpool, 1960), 78 and JEA 24 (1938), 255 f.;

also Siegfried Schott, OLZ 4I (1938), 528 f.

J. GWYN GRIFFITHS

equatedwith the belly, is really helpful to the plebs. That a form of this short allegoryfirst appearsin Egyptian literature,though in a severely fragmentarystate,' is a fact

of some significance.It is the head and the body that are arguingin the Egyptiantale,which begins Wptht hnrtp,2 'the body3was disputingwith the head'. The disputation

characteristicallyoccurs before a tribunal, in this case the mrbiyt,the 'Court of theThirty'.4 In spite of the difficultiesof a partiallypreservedtext-the case againstthe

head is missing-the generaltheme is clear. Nor is the purpose of the story in doubt.

Such a tale can hardly have been composed for mere amusement; neither does it

reflect a myth. Its purpose must have been moralin the sense of a plea for unity, and

the allegorywas probablypolitical. Although the date suggested for the compositionis the Twentieth Dynasty (Maspero)or the Twenty-second (Erman),Spiegelscogently

suggests an ultimate origin in the era before the Middle Kingdom when the need for

political unity in the 'body of the State' was sorely felt. Certainlya period of unrest

and threatened disintegration,even if somewhat later than this, would provide an in-

telligible background. The influence of this allegory, despite the differing details,extends not only to the storytold by MeneniusAgrippabut also,as Dr. Brunner-Traut6

points out, to the Aesopic fable about the quarrelof the belly and the feet. It may be

added that the Paulinedoctrineof the Churchas a communityof membersof one bodyowes somethingto the Egyptiantradition,especiallywhen it is appliedto the quarrel-some Corinthians 7 he conceptof the actLaXptarov, however,adds adeeperdimension.8

It is when we turn to the animalfables of Egypt that we find a rich allegorical radi-

tion firmlyentrenched.A good exampleis TheLion and the Mouse,a story embedded

in the myth of the returnof the sun-god from Nubia, a demoticwork(Leiden Demotic

P. I, 384) which Spiegelberg9edited. It relates how a lion, having spared the life of

a mouse, was helped by it to escape from a hunter's net; the story is, of course, well

knownfromthe Aesopiccorpusalso.'?The Egyptiannarrative ncludesaremark,before

this, made by the ape to the cat, to the effect that every mighty one meets his master;

I Maspero, 1tudes dgyptiennes Paris, 1879), 260-4 gives the only publication available. He also suggested

the connexion with the later fable. Cf. Erman, Literatur, 224 f. and eundem, tr. Blackman, 173 f.; E. Brunner-

Traut, AltdgyptischeMarchen, 126 and 278.2 Perhaps to be read d_d;,though the form is in each case ideographic only: see Wb. v, 530 s.v.3 Perhaps 'belly'; ht can have either meaning. Maspero has 'ventre' throughout, but other translators, while

following him in their versions, inconsistently refer to 'body' in their titles (e.g. Erman tr. Blackman, 'The

Quarrel of the Body and the Head'). The German 'Leib', it is true, is itself ambiguous. As the ht's argument

is missing, the matter is not easy to decide; but in favour of 'body' is 7-8 (Maspero, p. 263): 'I am their mistress,

I am the head, whom her brothers accuse', the suggestion clearly being that all the other members of the bodyare here accusing the head.

4 Probably with the sense of the divine court; cf. Wb. II, 46, 17 and P.Chester Beatty I, 3, 9, on which see

Spiegel, Erzdhlung, 74.5 In Handbuch der Orientalistik, I, ii, 136. Since the text is on a writing-board in the form of a school-

exercise, an earlier origin is at once indicated; cf. E. Brunner-Traut, op. cit. 278.6 Op. cit. 279.7 i Cor. xii. 12; cf. Col. i. i8 and Eph. i. 22, where Christ is described as the head of the body.8 The debt to ancient tradition and the quality of the new elaboration are admirably discussed by Rudolf

Bultmann, Glaubenund Verstehen,I (Tibingen, 1954), I66 (from an essay first published in I929).9 Der Mythus vom Sonnenauge (StraBburg, 1917), 43 ff.

10 See no. I55 in Hausrath's edition (Teubner, I956-7); Perry, Aesopica, I, 379, no. 150.

ALLEGORYIN GREECE AND EGYPT

further,the lion has askeda number of questions,particularlyabouttheonaspo ner of man.When the mouse has freed the lion from the net, they go off nto the desert together,and the hearer is urged to learn therefromthat even the weakest can help the strongestwhen fate so wills.' Here is an exquisite example of moral allegory,and Dr. Brunner-

Traut,2 after a detailed analysis of the demotic and Greek forms, has little difficultyin showing that the Egyptian form must be the earlier.In this connexion it has beendiscovered that P.British Museum 274 (second or third century B.C.) contains a frag-

mentary Greek renderingof the demotic tale.3In its general context the latter standsout from materialwhich is not predominantlyallegorical.Many animal stories derivefrom Egypt which are mythological in origin,4and in her illuminating study of the

sources Dr. Brunner-Traut5distinguishes between this type and the more elaborateanimalfable, althoughshe shows that the religioustraditionwas the matrixof the fablealso. It is the latter,of course,that revealsallegorical ntent, and the constantpointertothis purpose is that the world of animals is seen to portraythe world of men. The aim

is therefore didactic and occasionallysatiric as well. Many instances of this approachcan be seen in the pictureson ostracaand papyri,and although an accompanyingtextis usually missing, it can be assumed that such texts existed, and that the pictures areillustrationsof themes which were well known in literatureas well as in oral tradition.

The theme of a War ofCats and ice is charminglydepicted, andngthe representa-tions are numerous enough to allow one to make the assumptionof a literaryversionwith some confidence. Once again there is a parallelin Greece, for the Batrachomyo-machia, the War of Frogs and Mice, which parodiesthe Iliad, owes something to the

Egyptian prototype;7 and the subject remained popular also in the Near East.8 The

allegoricalelement is still clear, since human affairs are burlesqued,as for instance in

the titillating depiction (from a Ramessidepapyrus in Turin) of a mouse-Pharaohinhis chariot attackinga formidable cat-fortress; but the vein is humorous and satiricratherthan didactic. In the case of TheSwallowandtheSea9the source is literaryonly,and the story of how the swallow succeeded in drinking up and removing the sea

i For a translation with brief commentary see E. Brunner-Traut, AltdgyptischeMdrchen, 133 ff. and 282.2 Saeculum 10 (1959), I72.

3 See Reitzenstein, Cronert, and Spiegelberg, 'Die griechische Tefnutlegende' (Sitzb. Heidelberg, 1923);cf. F. L. Griffith, JEA 9 (I923), 220 and F. W. F. von Bissing, Forschungenund Fortschritte25 (I949), 227 ff.The discovery does not in itself decide the question of precedence with respect to the Aesopic and demoticversions; in fact Reitzenstein leaves that open.

4 For the possibility that one such legend, deriving from Cynopolis and contained in the Papyrus Jumilhac

which Vandier has edited, was translated into Greek by Eudoxus, see J. Gwyn Griffiths, 'A Translation fromthe Egyptian by Eudoxus', Class. Quart. I5 (1965), 75-78.

5 See especially her article 'Altigyptische Tiergeschichte und Fabel: Gestalt und Strahlkraft' in Saeculum10 (1959), 124-85; also Die altdgyptischenScherbenbilder Wiesbaden, 1956) by the same author.

6 See E. Brunner-Traut, Saeculum I0 (1959), I47-5I and Agyptische Mdrchen, 59 ff.7 Cf. Morenz, in Neue Beitrdgezur klassischenAltertumswissenschaft.FestschriftBernhardSchweitzer (Stutt-

gart, I954), 87-94.8 Cf. the translation from the epic of Obeid Zakani, a fourteenth-century Persian poet, reproduced in

Brunner-Traut, Agyptische Mdrchen, 60-62.9 Spiegelberg, DemotischeTexte auf Kriigen (Leipzig, 1912), i6 ff.; on p. 7 he suggests a date in the first or

second century A.D.; cf. Roeder, Altdgyptische Erzdhlungenund Marchen (Jena, 1927, Die Mairchender Welt-literatur), 312 f. and Brunner-Traut, Ag. Mdrchen, I26 f.

J. GWYN GRIFFITHS

because it had not protected the bird's young, is intendedallegoricallyas a hint to the

Pharaoh that the Arabianprince Uski, in spite of his apparentweakness,is capableof

unexpectedlypowerfulactions.'Other literaryexamplesare providedagain by the Leiden Demotic PapyrusI, 384:

in the Dialogueof the Vultureand the Cat (2, 7 ff.)2 the ethical problem of retaliationis presented, and it is given a religious solution (revenge belongs to Rec); a similar

theme appearsin the Dialogueof the Two Vultures(I3, 22 ff.),3 nor is the conclusion

verydifferent:he who kills will himself be killed,and Re(dispensesjustice. Thoth, who

tells the story, applies it openly to the life of man:for thegoodand evil whichmandoes

on earth arerecompensedy Rer (i5, I I-i2). Talking animalsare matchedin Egyptianliterature by talking trees;4 their interpolations in the love lyrics are full of poetic

feeling, so that they might almost be regardedas earlyinstancesof the 'patheticfallacy'were not their origin apparentratherin religiousideas, such as the belief that Hathor,

a goddess of love, resided in the sycamore-tree.5But unlike the animal fables these

episodes are not allegorical.The terms'Gleichnis'6and'parable'7havebeen used of two stories n the Lebensmiide,

and Gertrud Thausing8has treated them as allegories.From our point of view, that

is from the standpointof GreekaAA-ryopla, they are certainlymoral allegories9 n that

they adumbratea second meaning which is intended to apply to the main theme of

the work.The firststorytells of a peasantwho was engagedin transportinghis harvest;

his watchfulness enabled him to avoid the dangers of a night storm, but afterwards

he lost his wife and childrenin a lake which was infested with crocodiles. In this crisis

the peasantdeclares:

I do not

for the mother'0 yonder who cannot come forth from the West more than any other

woman on earth."II grieve for her children, who have been crushed in their infancy,12 who have seen

the faceof thecrocodile-godeforeheyhave fully) ived.

(Lebensmiide,6-80)

Cf. E. Brunner-Traut, op. cit. 279 f. Previous commentators explained the piece as a letter. A similar

tale is said to occur in the Indian Pantshatantra, which derives from the third century A.D.

2 Spiegelberg, Mythus vom Sonnenauge, 3 ff.3 One recalls he storyof the nightingaleandthe hawk n Hesiod,Op.et Dies.A dialogueof birdsoccurs n

each case and the violenceinflictedby the strongon the weakis discussed n each.The Egyptian ale has a

highermoral evel, but Hesiodis earlierby nearlya millennium.4 E. Brunner-Traut, Saeculum 10 (1959), 159-61; Erman tr. Blackman, Lit. 249-51; S. Schott, Altdgyp-

tische Liebeslieder (Zurich, 1950), 58 ff.; A. Hermann, Altdgyptische LiebesdichtmngWiesbaden, I959), I21

and 146 f.s Cf. Ramses Moftah, ZAS 92 (1965), 40-47, esp. 42 and 44.6 A. Scharff, Der Bericht iiber das Streitgesprach eines Lebensmudenmit seiner Seele (Sitzungsb. Miinchen,

1937), 34 and 39.

7 R. J. Williams, 'Reflections on the Lebensmiide', JEA 48 (I962), 55.8 'Betrachtungen zum "Lebensmiiden"', MDAIK 15 (I957), 262-7.

9 From the point of view of distinctions developed in later times R. J. WVilliams,oc. cit., has every right to

call them 'parables'. It is not necessary to seek a second meaning in all the details after the manner of G.

Thausing's treatment.10 R. O. Faulkner, JEA 42 (I956), 35 f. manifestly improves the interpretation of this word and of the passage.

I Faulkner, op. cit. 27: 'for another (term) upon earth', but kt in such an ellipse seems unparalleled. See

[footnotes Ir and 12 continuedon p. 95]

ALLEGORY IN GREECEAND EGYPT

The story is preceded by the soul's Carpedieminjunction(68) and the moral seems to

be linked with this: here was a man who by his vigilance avoided one peril only to be

overwhelmedby another thatwas totally unexpected.What is the use, then, of excessive

care?'

In the second story a peasant is apparentlydisappointedwhen he asks his wife fora meal; he goes out, and when he returns he will not listen to her remonstrances.

Perhaps the folly of blind impetuosity is the moral here, and its application to the

main theme will be in the nature of a general rebuke administeredby the soul.2The

first story is clearerin its relevance,but both are allegoricalanecdotes.

A much earlier work, the Ramesseum Dramatic Papyrus, is replete with allegory,but there is a basic difference in the treatmentwhen we comparethe approachof the

allegoricaltales hitherto discussed. Here Twe ave instructions for ritual proceedings,and the allegory is tersely embodied in a series of identificationsin which the ritual

objects and actions are constantly assigned second meanings. A brief example will

suffice:It happenedhatsrmt-beer asbroughtn. It is Horus hat s weeping ecause f hisfather nd

turningo Geb.Horus peakso Geb.Theyhaveplacedmyfatherunder heearth.Osiris.h-bread.

(11.104-5; Sethe, DramatischeTexte,213 f.)

Here the beer is interpreted as the eye of Horus. Probably it is poured out in the

ensuing rite to suggest the weeping of the eye, an action which is explained mytho-

logicallyas lamentationfor the deathof Osiris.This allusion is then embodiedin apieceof ritual recitation,which is followed in the instructionsby an apparentidentification

of abread-offering

with Osiris. The relevantrepresentation

22)3 addsnothing

to our

understandingof the procedure, but its allegorismis unquestioned. Helck4 has seen

two strata of interpretations,both later, in his view, than the original record of the

Scharff, op. cit. 37 for the above version of the phrase. One is tempted to take tP here as referring to the

necropolis, as it does in line 152 (also after a mention of 'the West'); cf. Wb. v, 213, 9-Io. The difficulty is that

hry t; usually denotes someone living on earth (Wb. v, 213, 7 and IIl, 136, I-2).12 R. J. Williams, JEA 48 (X962), 55 n. 2, aptly cites instances where the phrase m sw.at, in the egg', denotes

extreme youth. A meaning 'in the womb' (Scharff) might seem to be supported by the clause beforethey have

lived, but this may well imply life in the full sense.

I Scharff (op. cit. 38) has a slightly different emphasis: the peasant's lament shows that life itself is the

supreme end. Faulkner (op. cit. 35) thinks that both stories were perhaps 'intended to convey to the would-be

suicide that there were misfortunes worse than those of which he complains'. Williams (op. cit. 55) is closer toScharff: '. . . life, however short it may be, is better than none at all, and so the bai suggests that the manshould be thankful for the life which he has already enjoyed.'

2 Scharff (op. cit. 39 ff.) ingeniously differentiates the two words for a meal in the story: the peasant is

disappointed and rebuked because he wants a light meal at once, whereas his wife refers to a full supperwhich will be ready only later on. In the same way, argues Scharff, the soul is rebuking the man for demand-

ing death prematurely. Williams (op. cit. 55) finds the point in the idea 'that it is useless to demand what onecannot have'; 'the bai hints that the man should not insist on having the luxury of death and funerary prepara-

tions to boot'.3 See also Helck in Orientalia 23 (I954), 400, where the order of the scenes is reconstructed on the basis of

a posited relation to representations in the tomb of Kheruef, published by Fakhry in Ann. Serv. 42 (I943),

449-508. 4 Op. cit. 383 f.

J. GWYN GRIFFITHS

ritual: the first is drawnfrom the Osiris-myth,and the second, which he calls a series

of 'third comments', is recognized by him either as being written in a 'modernized'

speech' or as being manifestly appended over some lines of the older text. Whether

Helck is right or not, the processof allegorismhas been palpablyembodiedin the text

as it stands. Our quotation exemplifies the two ways in which the symbolism is ex-pressed: either there is directjuxtapositionof objectand interpretationor a clause with

pw addsthe interpretation.The generalresult is of course not an isolatedphenomenonin the history of religion. There are celebrated instances in the Christiantradition

where the ritual object or the rite itself is interpreted allegorically. This is my bodyis a sentence referring o bread 2 and the believerwho rises from the waters of baptismis said by St. Paul (Rom. vi. 3-4) to pass from death to resurrection.

If the Ramesseum text exemplifies a combination of allegory and ritual, the storyof Apophis and Seqenenre' seems to combine allegoryand history. The story begins

historicallyand has all the appearanceof being an account of a quarrelbetween the

two kings.3But the main point of the letter said to be sent by Apophis cannot be taken

literally,since he complainsof the noise made by the hippopotamiin the canal in the

east of Thebes, saying that he cannot sleep because of it. Quite clearlyno noise made

in Thebes could be heard in Avaris.4Maspero5suggested that the far-fetchedelement

is an instance of the challenging riddles which oriental kings are sometimes said to

have addressedto one another,daringthe rival monarch to go one better. Such a tradi-

tion attachesto Hiram of Tyre and Solomon, as well as to Nectanebus and Lycerus of

Babylon; it is akin to the miraculous fantasies of folk-tale rather than to allegory.Erman6suggested that Apophis was merely asserting thus his right to the canal, in

that thehippopotami

were crying for their true lord. He does not elaboratethepoint;presumablyhe saw the animals as sacredto Seth, and the papyrushas earlierstressed

Apophis' exclusive devotion to Sutekh. The Sethian connexion is undoubtedly the

key to the true explanation.From early times the royal hunting of the hippopotamushad symbolically representedthe triumph of Horus over Seth, and the Hyksos kingwas offendedby the revival of this rite in Thebes, the hyperbolictouch in his complaint

being a markmerelyof his anguishat the thought of the sacredanimalsbeing hunted.7

The allegoricalelement is thereforereligious,involvingthe interpretationof a royalrite.

I Op. cit. 406. He refers to 105-6 thus: ' "Brot und Bier" als Erklarungzu den altertiimlichen Brptbezeich-

nungen rh t und srmt.' But no evidence emerges of srmt having been used for anything other than a liquid.2 A literal explanation in the sense of transubstantiation in the Eucharist does not preclude the allegorical

meaning of the saying in its first setting. Such a meaning is indeed compulsive, since the body had not yet been

broken when the words were uttered.

3 Pahc Labib's characterization in Die Herrschaft der Hyksos in Agypten und ihr Sturz (Gluckstadt, 1936),

37 still seems valid: 'eine Geschichtserzihlung in der Sprache und im Stil der Volkserzihlung'.4 Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford, 1961), 163 unduly magnifies the role of this reference when he

says that 'though the theme of the whole is fantastic, the setting may well give a truthful picture'.5 Les Contespopulaires de l'Pgypte ancienne (Ed. 5, Paris, 191 i), xxvi f.; cf. G. Lefebvre, Romans et contes

egyptiens (Paris, 1949), 132; Wilson in Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Princeton, 1950), 23I.6 Die Literatur der Agypter (Leipzig, 1923), zI6 n. i; tr. Blackman, i88 n. 5.7 See Save-S6derbergh, On Egyptian Representationsof HippopotamusHunting (Uppsala, 1953), 43 ff.; cf.

eundem, JEA 36 (1950), 67. The god opposed to Sutekh in the story is a form of Re': see J. Gwyn Griffiths,JEA 44 (I958), 8i.

That allegoristic,as well as allegory, occurs in Egyptian literaturehas alreadybeennoted in connexion with the Ramesseum Dramatic Papyrus; it can be further exem-

plified by adducing some of the interpretationswhich follow certain phrases in theBook of the Dead. Ky dd is one of these. In many cases the phrase introducesanother

readingsimply;' and the alternativerecordedis sometimes very similar.2Comparableis the use in medical texts of kt phrt, 'another remedy', ky gsw, 'another ointment',and similar phrases;3whereas in Late Egyptian letters ky dd itself is used to mark atransition to a different theme or an item of news.4 But ky dd can introduce, in theBook of the Dead, an interpretationof a statement alreadymade, as in the case of awell-known locus in Spell I75where Atum or Recis speaking:

To mebelongs esterday; know omorrow. hisis Osiris.As foryesterday,his is Osiris.As fortomorrow,hisis Re.

Thus the Middle Kingdom texts. New Kingdom versions6are more expansivein their

explanation:

What, hen, s this?As foryesterday,his s Osiris.As for omorrow,his sRe<, nthatdaywhenthe enemies f the lordofall willbedestroyedndwhenhissonHoruswillbeestablisheds ruler.

Anotheraying.Thisis thedaywhenwe shallremainnfestival;his s thedisposal ftheburialof OsirisbyhisfatherRe.

Two lions back to backbelow the sign of the horizonareshownin the relevantvignette,and the symbolismwhich contrastsyesterdayand tomorrowas Osiris and Re extendsalso to them. The first explanationis in reply to the questionptr rf sw? The second isintroduced by ky dd. But both are allegorical and indicate a method of exegesis, asRundle Clark7has pointed out, which the Egyptian priests not infrequently pursued.

In connexion with the locus just quoted he aptly refers to a varianton a coffin fromBeni Hasan which is now at Brussels:What hen s thattime in whichwearenow?It is theburial f Osirisand heestablishmentf

theruleof his sonHorus.8

I Hence Wb.v, i x , i i and 12: ' "andere Lesart" (varia lectio)' referring to religious and medical texts. Cf.the phrases cited under 14-16 and p. I 2, I-4.

2 E.g. Sethe et al., Die Spriichefiir das Kennen der Seelen (Leipzig, 1925), II, i8a (=BD I 5) where that Imay inherit this city has the portion of N as an alternative. Cf. Sethe et al. p. 20 n.

3 Grapow, Von den medizinischenTexten (GrundrfiJder Medizin etc. II1 Berlin, 1955), 45 f. He shows thatkt sometimes occurs by itself. See also von Deines and Westendorf, Wb. der medizinischenTexte (GrundriJ3,vii, 196I), 284.

4 CernL, Late Ramesside Letters (Bibl. Aegypt. 9, Brussels, 1939), I5, I4; 2I, 15; 38, 8; cf. the variant kt

mdt in 36, I; see A. M. Bakir, Egyptian Epistolography(Oxford, unpubl. thesis), 46 and 52.5 Grapow, Rel. Urk. 1, Abschnitt 5. See also De Buck, CT iv, 192 a ff. In 193 c two versions have Atum

for Rtc. T. G. Allen, The Egyptian Book of the Dead: Documents n the Oriental Institute Museum at the Univer-sity of Chicago (Or. Inst. Publs. 83, Chicago, 1960), 97, note c would translate the early variant nnk as 'mineis' in contradistinction to the later ink, 'I am'. Both forms may indicate possession; see Erman, ZAS 34 (1896),50 and cf. Gardiner, ZAS 41 (1904), 135 f.; Heerma van Voss, De oudste Versie van Dodenboek I7a, I6 n. 2.

6 Grapow, op. cit. 12. Some minor variants have been ignored.7 Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt (London, 1939), 157: 'But the priests not only hid their god in awe and

mystery; they also taught that the legends and ritual were symbols for metaphysical ideas. Relics of theirexegesis exist in the glosses to Chapter 17 of the Book of the Dead.'

8 Rundle Clark, loc. cit.: 'It is that Osiris has been buried while his son Horus is ruling.' The verbs arepresumably infinitives and I take the second one to be a causative; cf. Wb. Iv, 221, 4.

J. GWYN GRIFFITHS

Now anotheraying: s foryesterday,his s Osiris; sfortomorrow,his s Re(.

(De Buck,CT iv, 193d-f, b-c)

Here indeed, as Rundle Clarkobserves, there is evidence of ('disagreementsn inter-

pretation and subtle theological distinctions'. They are all, however, instances of an

applied second meaning, that is, of allegoristic.Another clear instance from the same spell uses the same introductoryformulae:

I am heGreatGodwhooriginatedromhimself.What, hen,does hismean The GreatGodwho

originatedromhimself,he is water.He is Nun,the father f thegods.Anotheraying:he is Re.

(Grapow,Urk.v, 8, '3-17)

In this case, however,the explanation s not allegorical,but exegeticalin a literal sense.

This occurs elsewhere too in instances where the first saying is brief, vague, and

apparentlycryptic, so that a more detailed statement seems calledfor, as in the section

following the words 'I am one who is not repelled among the gods' (Grapow's Ab-

schnitt 4). On the other hand, in the section dealingwith the phoenix,ky ddintroducesa furthermeaningwhich is allegorical:

I amthis greatphoenixwho is in Heliopolis, he inspectorof what is and what was.What,then,does hismean Thisis Osiris.What s andwhatwas, his s hisefflux.

Anothersaying:this is his corpse.Anothersaying:this is infinity'and eternity.'As for infinity,thisis day;as foreternity,his is night.

(Grapow, Urk. v, x6, I7 ff.)

In BD 93, 3-4 (ed. Naville) a second version of a conditional clause is supplied: If I

am snatchedaway to the east with (or, on) the two horns; anothersaying: if anythingevil or wicked s doneagainstme at thefeast of the transgressors.T Save forthe final

phrase the intent of the explanation here seems to be the reduction of the concrete

image to abstract terms. In other cases, as in Spells 69 and 70, ky ddintroduceswhole

spells that are considered as alternativematerial,without any interpretativemotive

attaching to them; 70 in fact links itself to the end of 69 by supplying a variant of

a particularword, as Allen3 shows.

There is also in the Book of the Dead much allegorizationof particularobjects. In

Spell 153as given in Allen's plate 48, lines 19-20 (see too his pp. 277 f.) we read: As

for thewoodwhich s thtere,t is the handof Isis. This is a Spellfor escapingrom the net

and it says that the cord is a sinew of Atum, that a blade is the knife of Osiris.A whole-

saleallegorization

inmythological

terms isapplied

to numerous nauticalobjects

Spell 99; it is said, for instance,of the vessel for balingout water,Thy name s thehand

of Isis, wipingout thebloodfrom heeye of Horus(ed. Naville, line 24). Knowing hesouls

in the spells which use this phraseincludes a knowledgeof many secret second mean-

ings.4Thus in Spell 113 knowing he soulsof Nekhenincludes an understandingof the

I Allen, op. cit. 88 translates 'endless recurrence' and 'changelessness' respectively. For a commentarysee Rundle Clark, Univ. Birm. Hist. J. z (1950), Iio ff. and Heerma van Voss, op. cit. 58ff.

2 In one of the later texts edited by Allen the alternatives are apparently merged: see his translation, p. i68.3 Op. cit. I45. An earlier version is sometimes indicated, see Heerma van Voss, op. cit. 9.4 Cf. Sethe et al., ZAS 57 (1922), II.

doctrine that the two strokes used in the writingof the appellationNekhen referto thehands of Horus which were fished from the water by Sebek.

IV. Affiliations

Lengthy as it is, our survey has certainly not exhausted the extent of allegory inEgyptian religion and literature. To the Greek mind JaAA-yoptand TOcvUpFOXAKo'Vere

closely bound up, as Plutarch makesclearin chapters9 and io of his De Isideet Osiride.A rich symbolism was manifestly attached by the Egyptians to such ritual objects asthe Eye of Horus, the royal diadem and its components, and the djed-pillar.In the

presentstudy, however,attention has been focused on literature and mythology partlybecausethis makes a comparisonwith the Greektraditioneasier.In most of the severalinstancesexpoundedabove the natureof the allegoryis reasonablyclear. An exceptionis the second story in the Lebensmiide. t must be admitted, though, that some writerson Egyptiansymbolismhaveproducedvery differentexplanations.Schwallerde Lubicz

rightly insists in his Templedans l'hommeI on the dangersof readingmodern or per-sonal interpretationsinto material which is inherently far removed from our way of

thinking. Yet he himself is not easy to followwhen he maintains2of the DoomedPrincethat 'le crocodilesymbolise le principecontractant';or when he says of the Ennead inThe Contendings f Horusand Seth:

L'Enneade symbolise effectivement l'aspect mile et l'aspect f6minin, c'est-a-dire les deux aspects,actif et passif, des quatre elements: Feu, Air, Eau et Terre, qui sont commandes par le Quint-

element, issu d'Atoum-Rd.

The four pairsin the Enneadconsist, of course,of male and female. Shu is airand Geb

is earth. But who representsfire and water?A cosmic harmonyis doubtless generallyadumbrated in the grouping. In this particularstory, however, the augustly symbolicside of the deities is hardly conspicuous.

It is worth stressing here that we have been concerned only with allegory as con-

sciously intended. There is a case for believing, as some psychologistsurge, that the

only importantsymbolism is that which is unconsciouslyproduced.3Helmuth Jacob-sohn4has attemptedan approachof this kind, as when he sees Horus as afilius macro-cosmiand salvatormundi n the Jungiansenses, or when he finds a divine archetypeofthe 'Dead Father' in the concept of Osiris-King.s Here, however, we are looking at

symbolism only in the context of allegory as defined by the Greeks. Least of all are

we concerned with the symbolistic procedures based on astrologicaland cabbalistictheories which Yoyotte6has deservedlylambasted.

Cairo, I949, p. i8.2 Le Roi de la Theocratiepharaonique(Paris, 1961), 173. On pp. 155ff. he is able to show that the representa-

tions and texts concerning the battle of Qadesh include a symbolical equation of Ramesses II with Re', im-

plying a comparison of the sun's conquest of darkness.3 Cf. C. H. S. Spaull, JEA 47 (196I), 157; A. Piankoff in Piankoff and Rambova, The Tombof RamessesVI

(New York, I954), 33.4 'Das Gegensatzproblem im altiigyptischen Mythos' in Studien zur analytischen Psychologie C. G. Jungs.

II. Beitrdge zur Kulturgeschichte (FS. C. G. Jung, Zirich, I953), 17I-98.S Op. cit. 175 f. 6 'Symbolism' in Posener, Dict. of Egyptian Civilization (London, 1962), 277.

J. GWYN GRIFFITHS

It is curious how Anthes' has gone to the other extreme. He admits the endless

symbolism of Egyptian religion, which seems to him to suggest a conviction that the

greater the number of symbols, the nearer is human understandingto the truth.2

He is at the same time primarilyconcerned to show 'that logic worked in the tran-

scendental and speculative thought of the ancient Egyptians as fully as it did amongthe earlyGreeks'.3Laterhe discusses 'the increasinglymysticalcharacterof Hellenistic

philosophy'and attributes this to 'the immanentcharacterof Greekphilosophywhich

calledfor a synthesiswith religion',a processwhich was achieved,he thinks, 'by means

of allegorical interpretation, first, from about 550 B.c., of Greek, and later on, of

Egyptianand other orientalmythological topics'.4Since the present analysishas shown

that allegorical nterpretationswere common in Egypt long before this time, the ques-tion of Egyptian influence on the two forms of Greek allegoryimmediatelyarises.

It seemed clearto Plutarch5 hat therewas a figurativeor symbolic elementin hiero-

glyphic writing which was akin to Pythagoreansayings. As an example of the latter

he gives 'Do not sit on a bushel' which means 'Do not live slothfully'. The parallelin hieroglyphicwritingis, of course,the use of ideograms.WhereasPlutarch and other

classicalwritersdid not seem to realize that a phonetic element is mostly presentalso,

the symbolic approachin the system was naturallyalined by them with allegorism.Plutarch(IO, 354 E) states of the influence of Egyptian priests on Pythagorasthat he

'imitated their symbolism and mysterious manner, interspersing his teaching with

riddles'; here he is clearlyoverstatingthe Egyptianurge to be enigmatic,but when he

gives, as an example of allegory, the interpretationthat a child coming from the

lotus is a depictionof sunrise (11, 355 B) he is nearer the truth. The associationof the

young sun-god Nefertum6with the lotus is myth, it might be argued,and not allegory;

and so is the idea that sunrise is suggested by the image ;7 and yet the mode of expres-

sion is thoroughly allegorical to an outsider, for without the hidden meaning one sees

simply a child emerging from a flower.8 A further meaning, unnoticed by Plutarch,

was often added in Egyptian contexts, as in BD 174: the rise of Re from the under-

world at the moment of sunrise symbolizes the conquest of death for the deceased

who is in the company of Re(. This is allegory consciously applied, although its source

is living myth and not literary device.

'Affinity and Difference between Egyptian and Greek Sculpture and Thought in the Seventh and Sixth

Centuries B.C.' in Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 107 (1963), 6o-8i.2 Op. cit. 7I. 3 Op. cit. 68. 4 Op. cit. 80. 5 DIO io, 354 E.

6 Nefertum wasclosely

associated with the sun-god and is later equated with Horus, Harsomtus, Harpo-

crates, and Re' himself. Cf. Morenz in Morenz and Schubert, Der Gott auf der Blume (Ascona, 1954), 65 ff.

Nefertum is shown emerging from the lotus-flower in a well-known figurine of painted wood from the tomb

of Tutankhamun; cf. Desroches-Noblecourt, Tutankliamen(Harmondsworth,965), pl. i and Piankoff, The

Shrines of Tut-Ankh-Amon (New York, 1955, repr. 1962), pl.I3. The young god is doubtless identified here

with the young king.7 Cf. BD I74, 15 (Mut-hetep, ed. Budge): 'I have arisen as Nefertum, the lotus at the nose of Re, when

he emerges from the horizon every day.'8 The image is of course the product of myth, and is not merely metaphorical. On the role of metaphor in

myth see E. Cassirer, Language and Myth (tr. Langer, New York, 1946), 83 ff. Grapow, Die bildlichenAus-

driickedes Agyptischen (Leipzig, I924), 9 refers to the image of the heaven as a woman lying over the earth

as a well-known representation. It is an image, nonetheless, derived from myth. It can give rise, at the same

time, to various metaphors, such as the description of rain as weeping.

That Pythagoras and his followers were influenced by this aspect of religious

symbolism in Egypt does not seem very likely. At least no particular nstance of such

influence is apparent;and in these matters the only safe assessment is that based on

specific affiliations.Derchain's' approachto the Hermetic literatureis an admirable

index of the method that commends itself. If the inspirationand backgroundof thesewritings are thoroughly Greek, as Nock and Festugiere have maintained-and ex-

pounded in some detail-it is idle to propounda theory of Egyptian influencewithout

pointing to specific instances. Derchain has made a promising start in this task. Theinstances of Egyptian origin proposed by him (e.g. the concept of kingship and thedoctrine of the solar demiurge) are happily not complicated by questions of dating,since the Hermetic literaturefollows chronologicallyall the workscited from Egyptiansources. A striking series of resemblances,on the other hand, between the Instruction

of 'Onkhsheshonqy nd some of the Hesiodic sayings, to which Walcot2 has pointed,have led to the claim that Greece in this matter has influenced Egypt, since Hesiod

is manifestly earlier than the Demotic document in question. Some of the Demotic

sayings, however, go back to much earliersources in Egypt.3The rise of allegoristicin Greece shows every sign of being a native product in as

much as it is essentially an intellectual adjustmentto problems arising in Greek re-

ligion, in particularto the difficultyof readingHomer without moral embarrassment.It is true that one is confronted eventually by a striking philological equation when

Egyptian allegoristicis examined: ky dd and a'AArlyoptarecloselyparallelexpressions,althoughthe formerterm is by no means used exclusivelyof allegorical nterpretation.The word aAA-Xyoptatself is not earlier than Cicero, so probablywe need not attachtoo much significanceto what

be a sheer coincidence.A comparisonof allegoricalstories in the two traditionsreveals the Egyptian origin

of the animalfable. This was a genre that had an immenseinfluence on Aesop and his

successors, as Dr. Brunner-Traut has shown. It also appears in the Batrachomyo-machia.4The Demotic forms of some of these fables arelaterthan their Greekcounter-

parts, but the existence in Egypt of a rich pictorial corpus which is much earlier indate puts the question of origin beyond reasonabledoubt. Another particularallegoryfirst found in Egypt is the story of the dispute bet,ween he belly and other membersof the body. Since this appearsin one form in the New Testament, its diffusion hasbeen widespread.Again, there are traces in Egypt of a divine allegoryof metals: goldis associated with

Re(and

Hathor,and in an ancientrite

use was made of bi; (meteoriciron?) 'which came forth from Seth' (Pyr. 14 a). One may well recall the statement ofManetho(recordedby Plutarch,DIO 62, 376 B): 'They still callthe loadstone(magnetic

I 'L'authenticite de l'inspiration egyptienne dans le "Corpus Hermeticum" ', Rev. Hist. Rel. 161 (1962),175-98. 2 JNES 21 (i962), 215-19.

3 Walcot, Hesiod and the Near East (Cardiff, 1966), 86 ff. He admits affinities in the Instructionof Amen-em-

ope. The much earlier Wisdomof Ptah-hotep contains a number of comparable maxims, as indeed Walcot's

summary makes clear.

4 Cf. Morenz, 'Agyptische Tierkriege und die Batrachomyomachie' in Festschrift Bernhard Schweitzer(Stuttgart, I954), 87-94, where it is stressed that the sixth century B.C.,when the Greek mock epic was prob-ably written, was an era of close Graeco-Egyptian relations.

J. GWYN GRIFFITHS

oxide of iron ) "the bone of Horus" and iron "the bone of Typhon".' Hesiod's metallic

races also come to mind, but there is a more detailed parallel in the literature of

Zoroastrianism.

Although Egyptian religion supplied the fundamental data by which Plutarchalle-

gorized the Osiris-myth, the ultimate process is here a Greek achievement. Yet thefact remains that the use of allegoryin both its forms originatedin Egypt.2

I Cf. J. Gwyn Griffiths, 'Archaeology and Hesiod's Five Ages', JHI 17 (1956), 109-19. Walcot, Hesiod and

the Near East, 86, believes that 'the Near East does not help us at the moment with the myth of the ages'.2 S. N. Kramer in History Beginsat Sumer(1956, repr. London, 1958) claims twenty-five 'firsts' for Sumeria,

but allegory does not seem to be included. An Akkadian allegorical fable (Dispute Between the Date Palm and

the Tamarisk)is translated by R. H. Pfeiffer in Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Ed. 2, Princeton, 1955),

410 f. Two allegorical animal fables are found in the O.T. in Ezek. xvii and xix; cf. also the allegory of the

vine in Psalm lxxx. It was not until the second century B.C. that allegoristic was pursued by Jewish exegetes

at Alexandria. See J. Massie s.v. 'Allegory' in Hastings, Dict. Bible (1898, repr. I931), 64 ff.; cf. J. Geffcken

in Hastings, ERE I (1908), 327-31; B. J. Roberts, Patrymau Llenyddol y Beibl (Liverpool, 1950), 58 f.;

J. Hempel in H. W. Robinson (ed.), Recordand Revelation(Oxford, 1938), 36 f. For developments in the early

Christian era see Merkelbach, Roman und Mysterium in der Antike (Munich, 1962), 55 ff. and E. R. Dodds,Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (Cambridge, 1965), I30 f.

Allegory in Greece & Egypt

Documents

Greek Mathematics - Brigham Young Universitymathed.byu.edu/~williams/Classes/300Su2011/PPTs/Greece 1.pdf · particularly geometry, to Greece, from Egypt. ... under Plato for a time,

Allegory Homer

Neolithic Revolution Mesopotamia Ancient Egypt … · Neolithic Revolution Mesopotamia Ancient Egypt Ancient India Ancient China/Dynasties ... Ancient Greece Roman Republic

Born around 530 BCE (Before Common Era) in Samos, Greece. Traveled around Egypt, Greece and Italy

Doing Business with Egypt Greece 16 - 18 October 2014

Figurative Language Metaphor (=) Metaphor Simile(%) Simile Allegory (a:b = c:d) Allegory

A Guide to Symbolism and Allegory in Maus SYMBOLISM AND ALLEGORY

Africa Egypt Atlantic Ocean Rome Gaul Greece Iberian Peninsula Mediterranean Sea Persia

Math & Science of Ancient Greece and Egypt

Symbol Identifying Symbols Allegory Practice Symbolism and Allegory Feature Menu

Plato’s allegory

Renaissance allegory

A Comparison of Ancient Civilizations Egypt, Greece, Rome

Symbolism in Lord of the Flies ALLEGORY. SUCKS TO YOUR ALLEGORY

161006236 GRIFFITHS 1955 the Orders of Gods in Greece and Egypt According to Herodotus

Turkey to not accept Greece-Egypt Mediterranean dealdocs.petform.org.tr/docs/petform_politics_economics_bulletin_43_12122014.pdfGreek Cyprus, Egypt and Greece had met on Nov. 8 in

The influence of ancient Greece and Egypt in Pompeii and Herculaneum

Allegory & X-Men

THE GREECE-EGYPT MARITIME AGREEMENT

The Very Beginning Ancient Egypt Ancient Greece Roman Empire Babylonian Numeration