Egyptian as a mystical language

[_NorthboundZax]

The book Alpha Beta: How 26 letters shaped the western world, by John Man takes us through the evolution of written language. A passage on hieroglyphics sounded peculiarly familiar:

In the fifteenth century, when a few philosophers began to wonder about the mysteries left by the ancient peoples in the Nile valley, the idea arose that the pictures on Egyptian tombs were the purest form of communication. It was an odd notion, given that no one had a clue what they meant, but it was based on what classical authors had written centuries before and had the smack of authority. So it was assumed that Nature herself had been captured in mystic code, and would address the elevated soul in her own pure tones, without the necessity for a base script, which like language, reflected the confusion imposed by God on mankind by the destruction of the tower of Babel. There were, of course, those who claimed to be on suitably intimate terms with Nature. A sixteenth-century Jesuit antiquarian, Athanasius Kircher, set about interpreting hieroglyphic, starting with an obelisk now standing in Rome's Piazza Minerva. One little sequence of signs merely records the name of a sixth-century BC ruler: "King Apries". This is Kircher's confident interpretation: "The protection of Osiris against the violence of Typho must be elicited according to the proper rites and ceremonies by sacrifices and by appeal to the tutelary Genii of the triple world, in order to ensure the enjoyment of the prosperity customarily given by the Nile against the violence of the enemy Typho".

Does this sound as eerily familiar to anyone else as it did to me?

[_NorthboundZax]

Another interesting passage on Egyptian as a mystical language from the same book:

Until the early nineteenth century, Egyptian writing had been a mystery for 2000 years. ... The world was left only with the enigmatic evidence of a vanished culture. As the Bible rose in prominence, so Egypt's reputation for intellectual achievement declined. Hieroglyphs were seen not as elements of a script but as symbols of an impenetrable and mystical paganism. At best, this fed into a romantic belief in a pre-Babel unity, a single language that which represented pure thought, a perfect mode of communication. The belief in a mystical Egypt dominated European attitudes in the late eighteenth century. Mozart drew on it for The Magic Flute in 1791; Napoleon, whose Egyptian campaigns opened in 1798, adopted the bee as his personal symbol because it was supposedly the sign for 'ruler' in hieroglyphic.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Hey NBZ,

Yes, it sounds quite familiar. Incidentally, you might be interested in this.

Best,

-Chris

[_NorthboundZax]

Thanks, Chris. Interesting read. I am envisioning the various apologist approaches applied to Kircher's translation.

Brown: While Kircher's translation is not accurate in any normative Egyptological sense, we cannot view it in such terms. Rather we should see the value in Kircher's insights to the Osiris-Typho tensions as understood in sixteenth century thought and application to a fuller theological understanding today.

Gee: Kircher's translation clearly did not come from the short Obelisk in the Piazza Minerva today despite descriptions attesting to the short obelisk as the source material. Rather his translation clearly came from a taller obelisk that we can only assume was loaned to the Lisbon museum and destroyed in the 1755 earthquake.

On a side note , I had to smile reading this from your linked thread

I must say that it's kind of surreal reading a dead-serious discussion that involves such words as enish-go-on-doshling and flo-eese. But that is "beside the point." :)

I agree with the sentiment, but the word was enish-go-on-dosh. Enish-go-on-doshling was my online name at FAIR a while back. Making the "ling" a natural add-on just may be the only lasting contribution of that persona (but at least that's something :))

[_harmony]

Brown: While Kircher's translation is not accurate in any normative Egyptological sense, we cannot view it in such terms. Rather we should see the value in Kircher's insights to the Osiris-Typho tensions as understood in sixteenth century thought and application to a fuller theological understanding today.

Would this be Matt Brown?

[_NorthboundZax]

Would this be Matt Brown?

Sam Brown - from CK's linked thread. Sam Brown's paper can be found on Cambridge Journals Online. The paper is titled "Joseph (Smith) in Egypt: Babel, Hieroglyphs, and the Pure Language of Eden,"

Who is Matt Brown?

[_harmony]

Would this be Matt Brown?

Sam Brown - from CK's linked thread. Sam Brown's paper can be found on Cambridge Journals Online. The paper is titled "Joseph (Smith) in Egypt: Babel, Hieroglyphs, and the Pure Language of Eden,"

Who is Matt Brown?

thanks. and I have no idea.