The first thing I noticed when reading this translation was that instead of being called "Set" this character was called "Typhoon." I think this is probably because Set is the god of storms and disorder among other things. This makes it likely that the Greeks would have called him by their word for storms and disorder, and then when translating to English this would have been translated as "Typhoon."
I found no mention of dancing throughout the myth on this site. This is a vast difference from how Reed focuses on Osiris's dancing as his most important characteristic in Mumbo Jumbo. It is therefore apparent that Reed is not using this story as it is generally accepted in ancient history. There is also no mention of a text being recorded about these dances that were not in this version of the myth. However, the Book of Thoth, as Reed calls the text of Jes Grew, is mentioned elsewhere in Egyptian history. Instead of containing dance moves it is said to have 2 spells, one allowing the user to talk with animals and the other enabling the user to see the gods.
Another discrepancy between Reed's version and the source I found is how Set/Typhoon kills Osiris. In Mumbo Jumbo Set brings Osiris back to Egypt by spreading rumors and then challenging Osiris to "Preform the feat of the Germ" (165) and be planted in the Nile to spring forth again. Osiris eventually agrees to this challenge and is sealed inside a coffer using nails and molten lead. He does fine, laying under the waters in a "death-like slumber," but when Set and his followers open the coffer, they mutilate him to make it look like he was torn apart by fishes.
According to the source I found, Osiris returns from his travels without any influence from Typhoon, who pretends to be a loyal servant. However, Set has formed a group of 72 conspirators and laid his plans, in secret obtaining exact measurements of Osiris's body which he uses to construct a perfectly fitting, decorated chest. He then brings this chest to a feast and says that whoever fits into the chest most exactly will win it. When Osiris tries it he fits perfectly of course, but Typhoon and his followers immediately close the chest and seal it with nails and molten lead. They then put this chest into the nile and it is carried out to the sea. Later, Osiris's dead body is found and Typhoon cuts it into 14 pieces and scatters them across Egypt.
I think that by comparing these two stories it is clear that Reed had read the version found in this source or a similar one. He uses the same idea of a chest sealed by nails and molten lead which is thrown into the nile. The question is then why did Reed change the details of this story. It is clear why he made the changes he did regarding the dancing Osiris and the Book of Thoth, but why did he modify the way Osiris is murdered?
I really liked this part of the book, because I'm a mythology nerd and I appreciated Reed's take. To answer your questions about why Reed might have made these modifications, I would say that (in my opinion) it mostly felt like he was fleshing out the story (for the benefit of telling his own story, of course). I didn't read through all of the Plutarch source that you provided, and it's true that it's pretty detailed, but it's still clear that the writer wasn't there to observe -- which deserves a "duh," but the way Reed describes the myth, it feels like he's much more deeply involved and invested in the events he's describing. The myths that are passed down often have that "bare bones" kind of feeling. Reed's telling feels so much richer, and even though I have no real reason to lend him more credence than Plutarch, I feel like Reed isn't modifying the myth so much as saying "no no -- here's what really happened."
ReplyDeleteI find it really interesting that in the original version of Osiris' death, not only does Set/Typhoon play a faux-ingratiating role, but that his scheme to kill Osiris is so painstakingly elaborate. It actually really reminds me of how Hinkle Von Hampton so meticulously attempted to infiltrate the Harlem Renaissance scene, which makes me think that perhaps preserving this original myth would have served Reed a greater metaphorical purpose.
ReplyDeleteI think a partial explanation for your question is that there are multiple versions of the Osiris myth. Since the story has existed for so long, it's likely that some of its details have been altered over the years as its been recorded and rerecorded over the years. Reed could have been basing his take on the myth off of a version that's a different than the source cited in this post. However I think it's more likely that Reed changed the details of the death scene so that Osiris comes off as more "heroic." His devotion to the Work is better conveyed in trying to prove his abilities in Set's challenge than in participating in a contest to win a chest.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate this look into mythology. Reed most likely changed the story to fit into his own. He added a lot more about Moses and origins of Atonism and all that jazz so it makes sense to mold it into his own form-fitting chest ;). The original story, as Athena pointed out, is indeed complicated, and Reed already had a ton of information in the telling of his story so maybe he just sacrificed some details to flesh everything out.
ReplyDeleteThroughout that entire section of the book (chapters 52), Reed is constantly taking different stories and myths from history/myth and adding details to fit his story - Osiris/Set, Moses, the Knights Templar, etc. It's like Mumbo Jumbo is set in an alternate universe where many of the same historical events are the same on the surface, but underneath there's an added layer of meaning.
ReplyDeleteOne way to approach this issue would be to say that the "real" or historical version of the Set/Typhoon-Osiris narrative isn't any more "factual" than any subsequent variation on it: it doesn't depict events that happened, and we have no outside verification for anything in the commonly accepted myth. LaBas (and Reed?) would say that the version you cite here is "real" only in the sense that the Atonists have canonized it, it has become the accepted version not because of its correspondence to truth, but because it is the story told by those in power.
ReplyDeleteSo Reed's alternate version, which adds dancing to the story, is as true or as plausible as the original--it's just unfamiliar, a *different* story but not a *less true* one. We know those Atonists would have repressed all reference to Osiris's dance, cuz that's how they do--and *this* historical narrative has a strong basis in the cultural/historical record.