![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hornung states that while some of the gods' names have clear meanings (eg Amun, "Hidden", Sekhmet, "Mighty"), the etymology of some Egyptian gods' names remains unknown, including well-known ones such as Re, Osiris, and Seth. (Interestingly, Hornung uses the Hellenicised versions of some names - I'm guessing this is, or was, a convention among Egyptologists.) He also points out that many gods' names are not the same as the names for what they represent - eg Nut (the sky goddess), but pt (the sky) - which warns us against thinking of them as having simple, one-dimensional natures.
Hornung goes on to discuss how, while the usual view is that the gods started as local deities whose worship spread throughout Egypt, this isn't always the case; for example, Khnum was already worshipped at the court at the start of recorded history, and only later became the local god of Elephantine. Some deities are named for specific places, such as Nekhbet, the goddess of Nekheb; Hornung argues that their influence may have been restricted in space, but not restricted to specialised activities: they represent "the entire extent of divine power, as it were focused by a lens on a single point in the world."
Some gods, such as Ma'at, personify concepts, but Hornung again warns against seeing them simplistically - they have "a life of their own". Moreover many concepts were never personified as deities - there was no god of the morning/evening star, fish god, god of love, etc.
There are female "doublets" of some gods, some of which were worshipped in their own right, such as Raet and Amaunet.
The gods - epecially the great gods - have many names, including secret names which don't appear in their worship or mythology. Often these names can be applied to more than one god, such as "lord of the sky".
Hornung goes on to summarise the ways in which one Egyptian gods can be linked to another:
- family ties
- as the "image" of another
- "complicated theological statements", such as the complex identification of Re and Osiris, who combine and separate daily, or Amon-Re, "not the synthesis of Amun and Re but a new form that exists along with the two older gods." Rather than blending the gods together, this syncretism emphasises that "the divine partner of humanity is not one but many".
So the Egyptian gods exist in a "fluid" state, which reminds me strongly of Aztec religious thought. I think this sentence from sums up the chapter: "Everywhere and at all periods the gods thrive on an abundance that tolerates no dogmatic restriction." (p86)
Hornung goes on to discuss how, while the usual view is that the gods started as local deities whose worship spread throughout Egypt, this isn't always the case; for example, Khnum was already worshipped at the court at the start of recorded history, and only later became the local god of Elephantine. Some deities are named for specific places, such as Nekhbet, the goddess of Nekheb; Hornung argues that their influence may have been restricted in space, but not restricted to specialised activities: they represent "the entire extent of divine power, as it were focused by a lens on a single point in the world."
Some gods, such as Ma'at, personify concepts, but Hornung again warns against seeing them simplistically - they have "a life of their own". Moreover many concepts were never personified as deities - there was no god of the morning/evening star, fish god, god of love, etc.
There are female "doublets" of some gods, some of which were worshipped in their own right, such as Raet and Amaunet.
The gods - epecially the great gods - have many names, including secret names which don't appear in their worship or mythology. Often these names can be applied to more than one god, such as "lord of the sky".
Hornung goes on to summarise the ways in which one Egyptian gods can be linked to another:
- family ties
- as the "image" of another
- "complicated theological statements", such as the complex identification of Re and Osiris, who combine and separate daily, or Amon-Re, "not the synthesis of Amun and Re but a new form that exists along with the two older gods." Rather than blending the gods together, this syncretism emphasises that "the divine partner of humanity is not one but many".
So the Egyptian gods exist in a "fluid" state, which reminds me strongly of Aztec religious thought. I think this sentence from sums up the chapter: "Everywhere and at all periods the gods thrive on an abundance that tolerates no dogmatic restriction." (p86)
