the general theory of the fertilizing
properties of water to the practice of embalming, it is true that the
latter was responsible for giving Osiris a much more concrete and
clearly-defined shape, of "making a god in the image of man", and for
giving to the water-theory a much richer and fuller significance than it
had before.

The symbolism so created has had a most profound influence upon the
thoughts and aspirations of the human race. For Osiris was the prototype
of all the gods; his ritual was the basis of all religious ceremonial;
his priests who conducted the animating ceremonies were the pioneers of
a long series of ministers who for more than fifty centuries, in spite
of the endless variety of details of their ritual and the character of
their temples, have continued to perform ceremonies that have undergone
remarkably little essential change. Though the chief functions of the
priest as the animator of the god and the restorer of his consciousness
have now fallen into the background in most religions, the ritual acts
(the incense and libations, the offerings of food and blood and the
rest) still persist in many countries: the priest still appeals by
prayer and supplication for those benefits, which the Proto-Egyptian
aimed at securing when he created Osiris as a god to give advice and
help. The prayer for rain is one of the earliest forms of religious
appeal, but the request for a plentiful inundation was earlier still.

I have already said that in using the terms "god" and "religion" with
reference to the earliest form of Osiris and the beliefs that grew up
with reference to him a potent element of confusion is introduced.

During the last fifty centuries the meanings of those two words have
become so complexly enriched with the glamour of a mystic symbolism that
the Proto-Egyptian's conception of Osiris and the Osirian beliefs must
have been vastly different from those implied in the words "god" and
"religion" at the present time. Osiris was regarded as an actual king
who had died and been reanimated. In other words he was a _man_ who
could bestow upon his former subjects the benefits of his advice and
help, but could also display such human weaknesses as malice, envy, and
all uncharitableness. Much modern discussion completely misses the mark
by the failure to recognize that these so-called "gods" were really men,
equally capable of acts of beneficence and of outbursts of hatred, and
as one or the other asp