A rebirth for the pharaoh: reflections on the classification of the new kingdom divine birth cycle as a ritual
The interpretation of rituals enacted, or represented, in the temples of Egypt is limited by the often sparse survival of evidence; most of our knowledge of the Egyptian temple cult comes from the temples of the Graeco-Roman period. This paper deals with an aspect of ancient Egyptian divine kingship, the divine birth cycle, and the question of its rituality. The focus is on the well-known but somewhat enigmatic event of engendering the divine child (i.e. the king), as depicted during the New Kingdom period. Following the various types of ritual classification, one might be tempted to interpret the divine birth cycle as a political ritual designed to legitimize the pharaoh's rule. At the same time, it coequals with various aspects of religious renewal, such as the annual re-creation, and rebirth of the pharaonic state through its socio-ideological self, represented by the king. In this respect, one might categorize divine birth as a festival or calendrical rite. The purpose of this paper is to explore various ways of interpreting the divine birth cycle as a ritual, or as a religious representation of a different type.
Religion in ancient Egypt
"Religion in Ancient Egypt" seeks to characterize Egyptian answers to universal questions - answers put forth in the "official" art, architecture and literature sponsored by king, priests, and nobility; and answers reflected in the personal practice of people who were not part of society's elite. The gods; the "divinity" of the king; myths of the origins of the gods and of the creation of the cosmos; personal religious experience and practice - these are some of the issues that the authors address. The reign of the heretic king Akhenaten receives special attention. This book should be of interest to students and academics of Egyptology, religion and anthropology.
Continents of Liberty: Emerson and Gerald Vizenor’s Chair of Tears
Ralph Waldo Emerson protested what came to be known as the Trail of Tears in a public letter to President Martin Van Buren in 1838. Th e Cherokee Nation, he argued, had been cheated by a “sham treaty” (Emerson, “Letter” 50), the will of the people ignored, and a false acquiescence to removal written into law. In making a passionate appeal to the highest “chair” of the land, Emerson underscored the great political and moral stakes involved: