Darkest God Set: the Freudian Psyche Profiled

When we analyze the story of Isis, Osiris, and Horus, we find an interesting character set at the antagonist to the primary characters representing positive forces. When analyzing this character, the dark god Set, we might find some interesting correlations between the role he plays and the aspects of the psyche as described by Dr. Sigmund Freud. By studying and analyzing the character’s role and actions, we can find profound evidence of all three major sections of the psyche: Id, Ego, and Superego. We find characteristics of these in almost all characters found in myth, but the combination of all three into one antagonistic character is compelling. Set not only represents the most carnal aspects of the psyche and the things we should repress, but he sets forth an example of how we might deal with these immutable forces of the human mind. Throughout this paper, the three aspects of the psyche will be examined through the actions of Set, as well as what function he plays in demonstrating a great deal about the ancient Egyptian thought-processes. Finally, the three aspects will be combined to demonstrate the overall effect of the character Set on the Egyptian psyche.
First, we must wonder what aspect of the Ego Set portrays. The ego, as defined by Freud, is the conductor of abstract subconscious thoughts into conscious, tangible ideas and symbols. It rests in both the conscious and the subconscious. While we might argue that the myth itself represents the Ego, Set himself transfers our subconscious thoughts into tangible, conscious symbols and meanings. The very things that Set holds dominions over – natural catastrophes, darkness, destruction, death, and the desert – were the things that the Egyptians feared at the most primal level. The vast desert, wasteland of barren expanses that surrounded Egypt, filled with nothing but sorrow and death. Darkness, cold and terrifying, home to predators which were willing to rip into man if the advantage was in their favor. Darkness also brought the absence of the sun. Religiously speaking, in darkness the great Eye of Re did not pierce and could not watch over the living children. More basically, darkness was the absence of the sun that nourished crops. While the sun might ruin crops in times of great heat and drought, without it no crops could possibly grow. More importantly, although not wholly unrelated, Set held dominion over natural catastrophes – earthquakes, floods, storms, droughts (Rosenberg, 16). These were the things that would tear the Egyptian civilization apart, bringing devastation to crops, death to animals, and destruction to the primitive buildings constructed by the ancient civilization. All of these primal, basic fears were ruled by Set, a tangible symbol for the natural forces that plagued the subconscious minds of ancient Egypt.
Now that we have seen how the subconscious is transmuted into the conscious through Set, we must analyze the deeper root of the psyche; the Id. Freud defined the Id as the primal urges of the human mind. These base impulses are not willing to yield their desires simply because of things like rules or morality. The Id simply wants it desires gratified. Set’s desires were simple, to gain control over the temporal power that Osiris wielded due to his birthright. Not only did this stand against the political and religious beliefs of the ancient Egyptians, but his methods were antithetical, as well. Set used trickery, treachery, intrigue, and cunning to try and gain power. Only rarely did Set resort to use of his physical capabilities, and generally only in rage or in defense of himself, both very primal emotions and instincts. In one version of the myth, Set only resorts to combat once when he is forced to battle Horus as Horus attacks him to avenge his father (Rosenberg, 20). To the Egyptians, Set was the very embodiment of impetuousness and acting based on impulse. He was the embodiment of the Id.
From a more sexually-oriented viewpoint, he was the contradiction to the libido. Set seems to have an underlying role as the manifestation of the fears of infertility. His role in this regard as related to agriculture is obvious when we reexamine the earlier things over which Set is given dominion. However, more personally, he seems to represent infertility of the human sexual drive, as well. There are a couple of very poignant examples of this. First, Set defies the laws of nature in his own birth by choosing his time to be born and cutting his way out of his mother, instead of being birthed naturally (Rosenberg, 16). Moreover, Set’s marriage was not the ideal, as Nephthys was loyal to Isis over Set (Rosenberg, 19). One of the major plot points of the myth displays Set’s role as disruptive to human fertility, though. First, he slays Osiris before Horus can be born, forcing Horus to be born of the temporarily-animated god. Then, when Horus is just an infant, Set manages to turn his own protectors against him so that Horus nearly dies of poisoning. In some versions of the myth, Isis found only thirteen of Osiris’ 14 dismembered parts. Set had hidden the genitals so well that they were never to be found (Frazer, par. 7).
The third aspect of the psyche seems to be the least likely that Set would have any relation to: the Superego. If the Superego is supposed to be the moral imperative of every mind that mediates the urges of the Id, how exactly is our Id-strong antagonist supposed to be representative of it? Well, the answer is that Set is not so much a representation of the Superego, as opposed to defining what morals the Superego should instill in every ancient Egyptian psyche. Set serves to demonstrate what some of the “Thou shalt” tenets of the ancient Egyptians were because Set did the opposite of most of them. There are some things that fit into this category that can be defined simply through Set’s mythic activities, many of which we’ve already discussed. Set was not a family man; he disgraced his mother by birthing himself in a violent manner, slew his brother, and had a very dysfunctional marriage. He tried to rise above his station through intrigue and treachery, as opposed to being forthright and trying to earn the right to sit upon a throne. He was greedy, too, not content to rule what was given him, but always striving for more, whether the one who had what he wanted was worthy or not. His actions and the actions of others in response to him set precedence for the moral imperatives that the ancient Egyptians would hold dear. Rulers should be mighty, but wise and aware of treachery as we see when Osiris is easily duped, starting the entire fiasco. Most importantly, though, is the moral that is imposed only at the end of the myth. When Horus is ready to slay Set, Isis feels pity for him and she frees him. While Horus is furious, Osiris and Thoth, wise and ancient gods, simply watch and accept that Set must go free. In the pantheon of Egypt, this was an explanation for why evil shall always be, even if it is defeated temporarily. In the subconscious meanings that are transmuted into these symbols, this clearly demonstrates that the Superego would require justice be swift, but merciful among the ancient Egyptians.
Overall, Set served as an example of not only the fear the ancient Egyptians had of their own surroundings, but also of their most subconscious desires and their attempts to come to terms with them. His actions address many things that people struggle with now, and some things that are far more specific to the Egyptian culture because of its history and environment. As a whole, Set functions to demonstrate the very essence of the Egyptian psyche when analyzed from the proper perspective, and gives us great insights into what the common person in Egypt might think given certain circumstances.