In compliance with c urrent co ri h law Corne l Universit py g t , l y Library produced this replacement volum e on paper that meets the AN SI Standard 23948- 1992 to replace the irreparably deterio rated original . THE S erpent mg g B EING MONUMENTS IN THE BRITISH AND CONTINENTAL MUSE UMS , O R BY . R. O PE W Q , R HON . SEC. SO C. BIB . A CHE OLOG Y. BI RCH E N ORMANR rks b D r. Voth N otes and Rema y S , M. RE NOUF, M. L J , Bei a, Pa er rea bef re the Vic oria s i u e ng p d o t In t t t . or Philoso ical Socie of G a Bri ai 8 Ade hi Terrace S rand . ph ty re t t n, . lp . t ’ t h ( Hi h t e D iscussion. ) THE W HO LE IL LUST RATED WIT H 129 E NG RAVING S . LON D ON H D W I CK E 192 PI CCAD LLY. RO BE RT AR , , I - tio and Re roductio are reserved (The righls of Transla n p n . ) S rine of the reat eit Armi n-Ra wit the o esses Mersok ar and Eile i h g d y , h g dd thy a in t he form n k s on eit er side o f the o or Abo e are the so ar of s a e h d . v l disk and the usua o r i in uraei Le e e . n l c rnice of ev l v g ( yd Museum. ) OB SE R VATI ONS ON THE S E RPEN T M YTHS OF AN CI E N T E G YP T * I llustra ted with E x lana tor . p y Fi ures rom E tia n Monu ments a nd An ie G em B g f gyp c nt s . y . CO PE R he o i t O E s . S ecretar o t c e W R , q , y f S y o Biblica l Archaeolo f gy . HIL E much has b e en don e for the elucidation of the O io a r of n ia G ree e an d om e man mos ph l t y I d , c , R by y t a e s o ars et the ser en m t s of E —the oldes bl ch l , y p t y h gypt, t, m os a un an and est reser e of em all a e een b ut t b d t, b p v d th , h v b i e a t en e to sin the time of am o ion a n d i in l ttl t d d ce Ch p ll W lk son . O n the C ntin n Pierret B ru sc o e it is true a . and t th t MM , g h, L enormanti have publishe d a few isolated papers upon p arts of the e en s of iero l h b ut ese a e n e er een rans l g d h g yp y, th h v v b t a e into E n is and e en the ori in a s are but it e nown l t d bgl h, v g l l tl k . T is is b oth a S iib ect of re re an d of sur rise for n o on e h j g t p , who c onsid ers the very early connection b etwe en E gypt a nd I sra el in B iblical time s can fail to have n otic ed that there were many allusion s an d restriction s in the c eremonial laws of the a er a ion w i on a refe ren e to the customs of eir l tt n t , h ch ly by c th c ntem oi ar n ei ours u b e u und r i th o p y ghb c o ld d ly e stood . Wh le e om ans ou e an d the G ree s 1 idiculed eir ods the R d bt d, k , th g , n o e r and more rimi i e E ians o ed and wei e su ose bl p t v gypt l v , pp d m Th ro ane and the 1 m ur i in to b e e o e e . e e i i b l v d, by th p f p d v t e s of the G re ia O m us the debauche1 ies of Si enus and O f c n ly p , l Pan the rau u en er ur and the un as e V enu s fin d no , f d l t M c y, ch t , N t ti h i cou nterp art in the E gyptian Pantheon . o ll t e rruption of the semi - greek Psammetici does Th eb an worship become O s ene and T e an s u ture ra ui ous inde en and it b c , h b c lp g t t ly c t ; m a b e sa e asser e d wit ou fear of on ra i ion tha y f ly t , h t c t d ct , t t ere is mora and s ien i a l more to is us in the h , lly c t fic l y, d g t Odes of Hora e or The D a s a nd ”f eels of Hesio t an in the c y d, h W hole vast range of ancient E gyptian literature . Those aware of some of the tendencies of modern thought will recog h in e it was rea th aut or has k in t k nize t e value of this paper. S c d e h dly a en the opp ortunity of adding such new matter as the most recent investigations 011 the su e t affor in or er t at it mi t be as om ete a statement of bj c d , d h gh c pl the ser ent m t s of an ient E t as ou be at resent u is ed The p y h c gyp c ld p p bl h . en ra in s a e een are u one on the ra hot e ro ess M Jo n g v g h v b c f lly d g p yp p c by r. h —E D Allen . ' M ost in the Revue A rchéolo t ue of P aris and the Zeitschm' f t iir i ly g q , , f f E ttsche S rache Of Ber in. E n an as et ossesses no ourna w o gyp p , l gl d y p j l h lly ti devoted to exege cal archaeology. 4, 2 The a er of E ia eo o was not in its i a e . d ng gypt n th l gy nn t im uri but its e reme s e u a i e ara er its e ess p ty, xt ly p c l t v ch ct , ndl u eties and misunderstoo mbolisms its e is amu e s and s btl , f t h l t , ma r a e te e radin ani i o a r . n ese it was to a e d g g l d l t y i th , g t x nt, imi a e the ews w om es i e the re au io s of the t t d by J , h , d p t p c t n i i e i er it orru te w i e asso ia i wi the d v n la v , c p d, h l by c t ng th visible agencies of good and e vil the ideas of invisible and s u er a ura ower the hiero l hers as more or less all s m p n t l p , g yp , y ho is s e e ua do o s ure the a i es e i e e to l t v nt lly , b c d nt typ th y nt nd d i and o er oade eir im er e si i a ai a typ fy, v l d th p f ctly gn fic nt f th by still less significan t sys tem of representationfl Th ese errors the p ride and subtlety of the hie rarchy permitte d the common orders to fall into by the divi sion of their dogmatic teaching i o an e o eri and eso eri meani —one for the eo e nt x t c, t c, ng p pl and a o er for emse es —an d e a er a ime avaric: n th th lv , th n , ft t , and s a e ra usur i the a e of rin i e the ul of the t t c ft p ng pl c p c pl , b k E gyptian s were left to follow th eir own interpretations of thei r s m o i s a ua w i e th s e re eau of the T eore i y b l c t t ry, h l e c t b ty h t c r faith was rese ve d for the hierophant s alone .