• Author / Uploaded
• Collet Ndlovu

• Categories
• Verbo
• Lingüística

Citation preview

The Debate between a Man and His Soul

Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Founding Editor

M. H. E. Weippert Editor-in-Chief

Thomas Schneider Editors

Eckart Frahm, W. Randall Garr, B. Halpern, Theo P. J. van den Hout, Irene J. Winter

VOLUME 44

The Debate between a Man and His Soul A Masterpiece of Ancient Egyptian Literature

By

James P. Allen

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2011

pBerlin 3024, cols. 151–155 (scale 3:4)

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

ISSN 1566-2055 ISBN 978 90 04 19303 1 Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

vii

PREFACE

.......................................................... .................................................................................

ix

CHAPTER ONE. Introduction

...................................................... 1. Previous Studies ............................................................ 2. The Characters .............................................................

1 1 3

CHAPTER TWO. Epigraphic Analysis

............................................ 9 1. Scribal Practice ........................................................... 11 2. Corrections ................................................................. 13 3. Uncorrected Errors and Omissions .............................. 17

CHAPTER THREE. Philological Analysis

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

..................................... Introduction and the Soul’s First Speech (cols. *1–*12) The Man’s First Speech (cols. *12–y) ........................... The Soul’s Second Speech (cols. y–3) ........................... The Man’s Second Speech (cols. 3–55) ........................ The Soul’s Rebuttal (cols. 55–68) ................................ The Soul’s First Parable (cols. 68–80) ........................... The Soul’s Second Parable (cols. 80–85) ....................... The Man’s First Litany (cols. 85–103) .......................... The Man’s Second Litany (cols. 103–30) ...................... The Man’s Third Litany (cols. 130–42) ....................... The Man’s Fourth Litany (cols. 142–47) ..................... The Soul’s Fourth Speech (cols. 147–54) .................... The Colophon (cols. 154–55) ....................................

CHAPTER FOUR. Grammatical Analysis

1. 2. 3. 4.

.................................. The Lexicon ............................................................ Verb Forms .............................................................. Synthetic and Analytic Prospectives .......................... Synthetic and Analytic Imperfectives .........................

19 20 21 22 25 62 67 75 78 90 100 106 108 112 113 113 114 116 118

viii

CONTENTS

CHAPTER FIVE. Stylistic Analysis

............................................. 1. Versification in the Litanies ....................................... 2. Versification in the Text ............................................ 3. Other Stylistic Devices .............................................

123 123 129 132

CHAPTER SIX. Textual Analysis

137 137 138 139 140 146 151 157 158

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

............................................... Introduction and the Soul’s First Speech ................... The Man’s First Speech ............................................ The Soul’s Second Speech ........................................ The Man’s Second Speech ........................................ The Soul’s Third Speech ........................................... The Man’s Third Speech ........................................... The Soul’s Final Speech ............................................ Conclusion ..............................................................

APPENDIX ONE. The Text

.......................................................

APPENDIX TWO.Versification APPENDIX THREE. oGardiner

.................................................. 369

162 180

..........................................

199

APPENDIX FOUR. Sign

List ..................................................... 1. Individual Signs ......................................................... 2. Ligatures ...................................................................

203 203 220

APPENDIX FIVE. Lexicon

and Grammar .................................. 1. Lexicon .................................................................... 2. Grammatical Forms and Constructions .....................

223 223 239

..................................................................... 1. Translations and Studies ............................................. 2. Other Works .............................................................

245 245 249

................................................................................... 1. General Index ........................................................... 2. Other Texts ...............................................................

255 255 256

.........

260

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX

PHOTOGRAPHS AND HIEROGLYPHIC TRANSCRIPTION

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS pBerlin 3024, cols. 151–155 Photograph by Lisa Baylis, British Museum

.........

Frontispiece

Fig. 1. The Final Judgment (Papyrus of Ani, BM EA 10470) © Trustees of the British Museum ........................................

5

Fig. 2. The Ba Returning to the Burial Chamber (Papyrus of Nebqed) T. Devéria, Le papyrus de Neb-qed (exemplaire hiéroglyphique du Livre des Morts) (Paris, 1872), pl. 3 ........................................ 5 Fig. 3. The Deceased Drinking from the Inundation Tomb of Pashed (TT 33): author’s photograph ..................

58

Fig. 4. oGardiner 369 Çerný and Gardiner 1957, pl. 91, 2

..................................

199

Fig. 5. oGardiner 369, hieratic of line 3 Çerný and Gardiner 1957, pl. 91, 2

..................................

201

pBerlin 3024, photographs and hieroglyphic transcription photographs © Morgan Library and Museum, New York, and Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussämmlung ............................................. 260–311

PREFACE The subject of this book is one of the most intriguing, and difficult, works of ancient Egyptian literature. Since 1859, when its sole surviving copy was first published, it has been transliterated, discussed, and debated possibly more than any other Egyptian literary text. Attempts to understand its conundrums and meaning have been hampered in part by the fact that the papyrus has been published only in an early facsimile (Lepsius 1859) and three sets of black and white photographs (Erman 1896, Barta 1969, and Goedicke 1970), none of which is clear enough to allow detailed examination of damaged or obscure sections of the papyrus. Although I have wrestled with the text myself over several decades, the present study owes its existence to the recent collaboration of several colleagues. Thanks to Dietrich Wildung, former director of the Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection in Berlin, I was able to examine the original papyrus briefly a few years ago. I was also allowed to study the fragments in the Morgan Library and Museum, New York, identified by Richard Parkinson (2003) as belonging to the lost beginning of the papyrus, through the courtesy of their keeper, William Voelkle. In 2009, a request by my graduate student, Emily Russo, to read the text with her led me to think about the composition once again. I have also been inspired by Richard Parkinson’s recent study of the papyrus (2009) and have benefited greatly from his generous comments on an early draft of my manuscript. In addition to first-hand observation, I have also made use of high-resolution digital images in studying the papyrus, which have made possible a number of new readings and interpretations. For permission to publish the new images included here, I am grateful to the current director of the Berlin Museum, Friederike Seyfried; to Verena Lepper, Curator and Collection Keeper of the Berlin Museum;

xii

PREFACE

and to William Voelkle, Curator of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts, the Morgan Library. The excellent black and white images of the Berlin papyrus published here were made by the Museum’s photographer, Sandra Steiss. A full-color photographic record of the papyrus was made by the British Museum photographer, Lisa Baylis, in 2007; these images will shortly be published in CD format by her and Richard Parkinson. Finally, I am grateful to Brill’s editors, and especially to Thomas Schneider, editor of the series in which this book appears, for their acceptance and rapid publication of my manuscript. This study can hardly be regarded as definitive. Debate about the translation and larger meaning of the text will undoubtedly continue into the future. It is my hope that I have been able to contribute in some measure to a better understanding of this monument of ancient Egyptian thought. Providence, 2010

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION The ancient Egyptian literary work that is the subject of this study was first entitled by Adolf Erman (1896) Gespräch eines Lebensmüden mit seiner Seele and is often referred to as the Lebensmüde, or in French, Le désespéré. English speakers have had to make do with more cumbersome titles such as The Man Who Was Tired of Life and The Dialogue of a Man and His Ba. The present work has adopted a slightly revised title, The Debate between a Man and His Soul, because it accurately reflects the theme of the work, which is an inner debate about death versus life. Previous Studies

The Debate is universally regarded as one of the masterpieces of Middle Kingdom literature. It appears in every anthology of ancient Egyptian literature, with at least twenty-six full translations, and a number of partial ones, available to scholars and the general public. It is also perhaps the most widely discussed and debated of all Egyptian literary works, the subject of six books and more than seventy articles and translations (see the Bibliography, Section 1, below). No other work of Egyptian literature has inspired as many diverse and antithetical opinions, not all of which have been equally well informed or considered. Erman, who first published a transcription, translation, and commentary to the Debate (1896), understood it as partly autobiographical. This line of thought was developed by Alfred Hermann (1939), who postulated that the man was dying of an illness, and Joachim Spiegel (1950), who saw the work as the post-suicide memoir of a leader of a failed uprising, written by a disciple. Other scholars acknowledge the poem’s fictionality but disagree equally in their interpretation of it. Émile Suys (1932) saw it as a dis-

2

CHAPTER ONE

pute about the value of traditional funeral arrangements, a view adopted by a number of subsequent scholars, most notably Alexander Scharff (1937) and Adriaan de Buck (1947). Richard Parkinson (1997) and Katherina Lohmann (1998) have understood the debate in more general terms, as a discussion of the value or concept of death, while Jan Assmann (1998) analyzed the poem as an encomium of death, in contrast to traditional Egyptian values. For Raymond Weill (1947), it was a more fundamental debate about the reality of an afterlife, and Sylvie Donnat (2004) has argued that it concerns the relationship between the living and the dead. I. M. Lurie (1939) pointed out the absence of any mention of Osiris and used this as a criterion for proposing that the poem was composed before the first appearance of that god in non-royal funerary monuments of the First Intermediate Period; Günter Lanczkowski (1954) took this a step further, characterizing the work as a reactionary diatribe against Osirian views of the afterlife. Y. Frantsev (1960) saw the poem more abstractly as debating materialism versus idealism and Hans Goedicke (1970), as hedonism versus spirituality. Bernard Mathieu (2000) has argued that the debate takes place at the final judgment and concerns the role of Maat in the next life, while for Friedrich Haller (2004) it is about the value of Maat for the non-elite members of Egyptian society. A few scholars have emphasized the psychological nature of the man’s inner struggle, including Hermann Junker (1948), Hellmuth Jacobsohn (1954), and especially Odile Renaud (1954), who described the man as neurotic and the poem as his “auto-therapy.” Renaud, however, has emphasized that his neurosis is merely the subject matter of what was intended primarily as a work of literature; the literary quality of the poem has been championed by Vincent Tobin (1991 and 2003) and Parkinson, who see the work as a dramatic monologue. These differences of opinion arise, in part, from numerous ambiguities in the work itself. It is preserved in only a single manuscript, whose beginning is lost, and understanding of the surviving text is made difficult by a number of lacunae, words of unknown or uncertain meaning, and grammatical constructions or references that are capable

INTRODUCTION

3

of more than one interpretation. The present study offers its own view of the Debate, but its primary purpose is less to offer yet another interpretation than to address these philological conundrums, which have exercised scholars since Erman. It has benefited from access to excellent digital images of the papyrus as well as a brief first-hand examination of the papyrus in the Berlin Museum. These have made possible a number of new or improved readings and restorations, which hopefully will enhance future discussions—though they undoubtedly will not obviate further debate about the poem’s meaning and significance. The Characters

The preserved text of the Debate is a dialogue between two characters, an unnamed Man and his Soul.1 With a single, perhaps irrelevant, exception,2 they address only each other. The lost beginning of the poem may have provided an audience of some sort, as well as the context of the debate, but the composition can be understood coherently without either, and perhaps intentionally so: the anonymity of the Man and his isolation—the latter lamented in the second litany—enhance the conceit of what was clearly designed as the transcript of one man’s internal debate with himself. The dominant character in the composition, however, is not the Man but his Soul. It is the Soul that first takes the active role, urging death, while the Man’s initial response is conservative and defensive, and it is the Soul who is given the final word. In Egyptian literature, the Soul’s role as the Man’s interlocutor is unique to this text. Elsewhere in Egyptian texts, literary and other, it is the heart that serves to personify one side of an internal conversation, most notably in the Lamentations of Khakheperre-seneb: ————— The terms “Man” and “Soul” (or “Ba”) are capitalized in this study when they refer to the two main characters. Justification for the translation of the term bæ as “Soul” is presented below. 2 The second-person plural pronoun of mj.tn “look” (col. 11). This is discussed in Chapter Three, along with another supposed instance of the same pronoun in col. 1. 1

4

CHAPTER ONE

œæ æ rã.j … tmmt wœmt ÿd.j st wšb n.j jb.j (ro. 7) Would that I knew … what has not been repeated, that I might say it and my heart might respond to me. jr jb qn m st qsnt snnw pw n nb.f œæ n.j jb m rã wœdw kæ jry.j sãnj œr.f ætp.j sw m mdwt nt mæj (ro. 13–14) As for a brave heart in a difficult situation, it is the second of its owner. Would that I had a heart that knew how to bear up: then I would make a landing on it and load it with the words of misery. mj mj jb.j mdw.j n.k wšb.k n.j ïæzw.j (vo. 1) Come, then, my heart, that I might speak to you and you answer to me my phrases. ÿd.j n.k jb.j wšb.k n.j nj gr.n jb pœ (vo. 5–6) Let me speak to you, my heart, and you answer me. A heart that has been reached cannot remain silent.3

Apart from its uniqueness as a literary conceit, the conversation of the Man and his Soul (Ba) is also unusual because the ba is primarily associated with the afterlife. It both accompanies (or personifies) the deceased at the final judgment (Fig. 1) and then represents the form in which the deceased leaves the tomb in the morning and returns to it at night (Fig. 2).4 ————— Gardiner, Admonitions, pls. 17–18. For the heart as interlocutor, see Piankoff, Le “cœur,” 91–92, and Todo Rueda, Das Herz, 121–22. 4 The representation of the ba as a human-headed bird first appears in the New Kingdom (Žabkar, A Study of the Ba Concept, 75–85), but the ba’s avian nature is reflected earlier both in the imagery of col. 9 of the Debate (see the next paragraph) and in the hieroglyph with which the word bæ is written. Since the human ba has a human nature, the New Kingdom representation undoubtedly reflects earlier concepts of the ba as well. 3

INTRODUCTION

5

Fig. 1. The Final Judgment The deceased and his wife view the weighing of his heart against the symbol of Maat. The ba is shown as a human-headed bird next to the scale.

Fig. 2. The Ba Returning to the Burial Chamber. The ba is shown flying down the tomb shaft with sustenance for the mummy.

6

CHAPTER ONE

The ancient Egyptian concept of the human ba has been understood either as that of an entity immanent in the individual during life and then surviving in non-physical form after death or as a mode of existence associated with the afterlife.5 The first interpretation, akin to the more recent notion of the soul, underlies most interpretations of the Debate, as an inner dialogue. The second has been adopted by Mathieu (2000), who argues that the debate is projected into the afterlife, at the moment of the final judgment, when the Soul has emerged as an independent being after the Man’s death. With the new reading of col. 9 as ÿr ntt.f m õt.j m šnw nwœ “since he is in my belly in rope net” (see Chapter Three), it seems clear that the Man is speaking of an entity immanent in his body. This validates not only the understanding and translation of the Egyptian term bæ as “soul” but also the interpretation that the debate takes place within the context of this world rather than the afterlife.6 Since the Man speaks to his Soul rather than his heart, the choice must reflect a characteristic of the one that is absent in the other. This can only be the soul’s identity as a mode of existence, whereas the heart is inextricably bound to the body—so much so, that it was left in the mummified corpse to remain with the body for eternity. The Soul’s intention to leave the Man (col. 7 šm bæ.j “my soul’s going”) implies an independence that the heart does not possess. It is also implies, and threatens, the Man’s death—or at least his inability to live normally, as indicated by Sinuhe’s description of himself losing consciousness in the king’s presence: ————— For the first, Otto, in Miscellanea Gregoriana, 151–60, and ZÄS 77 (1942), 78– 91; for the second, Žabkar, A Study of the Ba Concept, 113–14. See also Allen, in Oxford Encyclopedia I, 161–62. Žabkar discusses the Ba of the Debate in A Study of the Ba Concept, 120–23. Goedicke (1970, 32–37) has synthesized the two views, arguing not only that the Egyptian concept of the ba encompassed both but that the “clash of these two attitudes is the topic” of the poem. 6 This may seem at odds with the consistent writing of the term bæ “soul” with the “dead” determinative in the text, but the same determinative is used in Sinuhe B 255 with respect to the ba of a living person. 5

INTRODUCTION

7

gm.n.j œm.f œr st wrt m wmtw nt ÿëm wn.k r.f dwn.kw œr õt.j ãm.n.(j) wj m bæœ.f nïr pn œr wšd.j õnmw jw.j mj z jtw m ëããw bæ.j zj.w œëw.j æ(h)d.w œætj.j nj ntf m õt.j rã.j ënã r mt (Sin. B 252–56)7 Once I had found His Incarnation on the great seat, in the doorway of electrum, and I myself was stretched out on my belly, I no longer knew myself in his presence. That god was addressing me amicably, but I was like a man taken by obscurity, my soul gone, my body limp. My heart, that is not what was in my body, that I might know life from death.

Sinuhe describes both his soul and his heart as having left his body. The first absence leaves his body “limp,” as if lifeless, while the second deprives him of mental ability. In the case of the Debate, it is clearly the first of these states that is envisioned in the soul’s threatened departure, albeit a real death rather than a metaphorical one.

————— 7

Koch, Sinuhe, 73–74.

CHAPTER TWO

EPIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS The DEBATE BETWEEN A MAN AND HIS SOUL survives in a single papyrus, now in the Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, Berlin (pBerlin 3024), four fragments of which are now in the Morgan Library and Museum, New York (pAmherst III).1 It was discovered around 1830 in Thebes together with three other papyri now also in Berlin: manuscripts B1 and B2 of the Tale of the Eloquent Peasant (pBerlin 3023 and 3025, respectively), and manuscript B of the Story of Sinuhe (pBerlin 3022).2 The four papyri were written by three different scribes (pBerlin 3022–3023 by a single scribe), probably during the reign of Amenemhat III (ca. 1859–1813 BC).3 The correction in cols. 113–15 of the papyrus and apparent misreadings of a hieratic original in cols. 26 and 113 (see Section C, below) indicate that the scribe copied this work from an earlier manuscript.4 The date of the original composition is unknown, but features of its grammar place it somewhat earlier than the extant papyrus, probably within the first half of the Twelfth Dynasty (see Chapter Four). The papyrus of the Debate varies in height from 15.9–16.4 cm and is currently 326 cm long; an estimated 66 cm have been lost from the beginning of the roll, giving an original length of some 392 cm.5 Only the first (right-hand) 284 cm were used for the text of the Debate. ————— The analysis in this chapter is based on digital images, notes from a first-hand inspection of the papyrus in the Berlin Museum and the fragments in the Morgan Library and Museum, and the extensive discussion in Parkinson 2009, 88–89 and 107– 11. The Amherst fragments were published and analyzed by Parkinson (2003). 2 Parkinson 2009, 77–83. 3 Parkinson 2009, 76 and 89–90. 4 See Parkinson 2009, 107–109. 5 Parkinson 2009, 88; Parkinson 2003, 126–27. A height of 16 cm seems to have been standard for Middle Kingdom literary papyri: Çerný 1952, 15. 1

10

CHAPTER TWO

That portion of the papyrus was constructed from one or two account papyri originally some 32 cm high, cut in half horizontally.6 The accounts were washed off, with the exception of some horizontal ruling lines still visible in places. The reconstituted roll in this portion consisted of eight sheets, inscribed with some 184 columns of text:7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

blank margin of 21 cm and cols. *1–*15 (15 columns of text) cols. *16–*29 and 1–14 (27½ columns of text)8 cols. 14–42 (28½ columns of text) cols. 43–54 (12 columns of text) cols. 55–78 (24 columns of text) cols. 79–108 (30 columns of text) cols. 109–136 (28 columns of text) cols. 137–155 (19 columns of text) and blank margin of 13 cm.

Sheets 1–4 are from the top half of an account papyrus; sheets 5–8, from the bottom half of the same or another account papyrus. The end of the papyrus consists of 2¼ additional sheets, 95 cm long, cut from a papyrus containing the Tale of the Herdsman, partly erased.9 The scribe may have intended to use this portion for a second, shorter text.10 Following Goedicke’s analysis, Parkinson has estimated the amount of text lost at the beginning of the papyrus as some 29 columns.11 Part of that text survives in the four fragments of pAmherst III. If Parkinson’s suggested placement of those fragments is correct, some eight columns are missing before the first preserved column, *9 (Parkin————— Parkinson 2009, 89. A height of 32 cm is standard for Middle Kingdom accounts: Çerný 1952, 15. 7 All the text is written vertically, in columns. Column numbers with an asterisk are those reconstructed as preceding col. 1 of the Berlin papyrus. 8 Col. 14 is written across the join between sheets 2 and 3. 9 See the facsimile in Lepsius 1859, pl. 112. 10 The entire roll was probably assembled at a single time: Parkinson 2009, 89. Since the Berlin papyrus shows evidence of being copied from another literary manuscript, the scribe would presumably have been able to estimate the approximate length of papyrus he would need for his copy of the Debate. 11 Goedicke 1970, 83–84; Parkinson 2003, 126–27. 6

11

EPIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

son’s Frag. I). The other three fragments contain parts of cols. *12– *15 (Frag. L), *21–*23 (Frag. H), and *25–*28 (Frag. J–K). 1. scribal practice

The hieratic text of the Debate contains 3,260 preserved or partlypreserved signs representing 215 separate hieroglyphs (see Appendix Four).12 A few hieroglyphs have two hieratic counterparts: ABBREVIATED

FULL (A1) (B1)

(col. 73)

(G1)

(col. 74 only)

(G17) (G41)

(col. 74)

(col. 64)

(col. 67) (col. 77)

(col. 67)

(col. 68)13

(col. 50 only)

(col. 92)

The consonant w is represented by both and , the former more often than the latter (98 and 61 instances, respectively), and the latter only with another sign in a group. Ligatures are relatively infrequent, involving only 10% of all signs: 153 instances of 38 groups of two to four signs, a total of 314 ligatured signs. Signs most often ligatured are (72 instances), (70), (36), and (22); the other signs occur in ligatures from one to ten times each. The text is written entirely in black ink, with the exception of the colophon, which is in red (cols. 154–55). Vertical strokes made with the scribe’s brush are generally 2 mm thick. Tall signs and hori————— 12 Including three monograms: , , and the total: (254 instances, including ligatures), (full version, 119), (108), (107), (105), 13 Only with another sign in a group.

. Ten signs account for 43% of (210), (178), (123), (99), and (full version, 99).

12

CHAPTER TWO

zontal signs are usually slightly more than 1 cm high and wide, respectively, but larger signs are not infrequent: for example, the seated man at the end of col. 76 (3.5 cm high) and the crocodile in col. 75 (4.4 cm wide). The scribe dipped his pen on average once per column, sometimes more. Re-inked signs are visible in cols. *26 (final ),14 100 ( of ÿd), 131 (stroke of ), 132 ( at top), and 143 ( ). The text is arranged in columns, as typically for Middle Kingdom literary compositions. In hieroglyphic transcription, the full columns vary from 15 to 29 signs (lowest and highest in cols. 153 and 141, respectively), with an average of 21 signs per column. Words generally are not divided between columns; in col. *25, the scribe has written the final sign of the last word to the left of the column to avoid such a split. In the 159 columns for which the end, beginning, or both, are preserved, there are 31 instances of words divided between two columns, slightly less than twenty percent of the total. These include: division within the consonantal signs of a word:15 38–39

–

spdw

47–48

–

55–56

–

56–57

bæbæt wšb.f

–

nϾt

57–58

–

sjnd

70–71

–

sqdwt

71–72

–

80–81

wãt –

127–28

mšrwt –

131–32

–

132–33

–

148–49

–

ætp.kw hjmt ëntjw

nsw

————— Parkinson 2003, 125. There are also two instances of division between the elements of a compound word: 107–108 bw-nb and 145–46 rã-ãwt. 14 15

EPIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

13

division between a word and one or more of its determinatives: 18–19

–

jhm

19–20

–

29–30

–

63–64

–

64–65

–

ãsf nnw œrj-tæ

94–95

–

98–99

–

123–24

–

128–29 149–50

snÿm

ãæzw grg

šw – –

ëq-jb ëã

division between a word and its determinatives and suffix: 6–7

–

wzf.j

25–26

–

49–50

–

110–11

mdw.j hjm.k

–

112–13

ssbt.f

–

snw.f

division between a word and its suffixes: 3–4

–

14–15

wp.n.j –

[sn].f

17–18

–

bæ.j

39–40

–

[n].j

69–70

–

šmw.f

2. corrections

The scribe made at least 52 emendations in the course of writing cols. 1–155 (none is visible in the fragments of cols. *1–*29). Most of these (78%) appear in the final two-fifths of the text (cols. 94–155):

14

CHAPTER TWO

COLUMNS CORRECTIONS 1–31 0 (0%) 32–62 2 (4%) 63–93 10 (19%) 94–124 18 (35%) 125–155 22 (42%) The majority of corrections occurs in the poems of cols. 86–147, and some of the errors in this section probably derive from the repetitive nature of the verses.16 The overall distribution, however, suggests that the scribe was becoming tired or hasty, or both, as he neared the end of his copy, and this in turn indicates that the papyrus was most likely written in a single sitting. Most of the corrections were made by erasing the erroneous signs, but in some cases the scribe simply overwrote them. A number of the emendations show that he reviewed his copy and checked it against his original as he wrote. Observable corrections are the following: 47 erasure under mw œr 56 erased under , probably to allow insertion of after subsequent signs were written 65 corrected to by erasing and overwriting before writing following šw 67 second written over unerased 74 determinative of æq changed to by overwriting 77 of mst erased and overwritten with , probably after the determinative was written 81 below erased and overwritten with , added next to 86

erased below continuing 86 erased below tinuing

and overwritten with and overwritten with

————— 16

As noted by Parkinson 2009, 109.

before before con-

EPIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

15

88

erased below and overwritten with before continuing 92 incomplete erased below of bwæt and overwritten with before continuing 93 erased below the of bëœ and overwritten with : the scribe began rn.j too low in the column to accomodate the 1s suffix, erased the r and wrote the word higher in the column, re-inking part of the back arm of as well 94 94

96 100 100 101 102 106

107 111

112–13 113–15

altered to by erasing and overwriting the last four signs before continuing written over an erased — the scribe probably began the next verse, m(j.k bëœ rn.j), before realizing he had omitted r ãæzw nw zšw œæm n.sn first determinative of bëœ written over erased before continuing with of rn.j written over erased before continuing with mj.k of jw.f written over erased changed to by erasing and overwriting second determinative of bštw written over erased erased below snnw.f — probably the beginning of 107 j(w zf æq): the scribe “wrote the first sign, half washed it out and left the line blank before writing the following verses” (Parkinson 2009, 109) of 107–108 bw-nb written over erased the scribe wrote the left half of below the determinative of jw, erased it and wrote the suffix before continuing with snnw.f changed to snw.f by adding a third stroke to a three-column erasure under btæw of 113 through ÿd.j of 115; Parkinson reads the erased words as those of 120–21 jbw ëwn nn wn jb n z rhn.tw œr.f (Parkinson 2009, 109)

16

CHAPTER TWO

117 118 118 120 122 127 128 129 130 130 131 131 132 133 136 137 139 139 141

changed to by erasing and overwriting before continuing with erasure under ÿd.j erasure at bottom of column — probably , aborted beginning of 119 œtm (Parkinson 2009, 107) of mjn written over erased altered to by erasing and over17 writing with before continuing with erasure under erased and replaced by as determinative of mæjr erased under behind of pœw.fj erased (cf. the correction in col. 65) inserted secondarily to the right of the of pœw.fj corrected to by erasing and overwriting of 131–32 hjmt written over erased erased under mjn erased after , overwritten by large plural strokes of mjn written over erased — initially omitted written over erased — the scribe initially omitted jw (Parkinson 2009, 109) erased below and overwritten with before continuing begun below , erased and overwritten with before continuing with (Parkinson 2009, 109) after æbb the scribe wrote , then erased and overwrote it with ; he later 18 erased the second , leaving

————— Parkinson offers a more complex analysis (2009, 107), perhaps based on the spacing of the emended bookroll. The main part of this sign, however, is often positioned fairly far below the preceding one, to accommodate the dot representing the ties: e.g., the determinative of mtt in col. 118. 18 This differs from Parkinson 2009, 109, where the erasure is analyzed as mææ jr.n.f rnpwt ëšæt jt, to the bottom of the column. There is no erasure below the suffix sn, and 17

EPIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

17

141 inserted secondarily to the left of the column end 142 final written over an aborted 145 first changed to by erasing the top 145 after wnn erased and overwritten with 147 of ÿdt.n written over erased ( initially omitted) (Parkinson 2009, 109) 19 149 after erased and overwritten with 152 original after sæœ erased and overwritten with (Parkinson 2009, 111) 153 original after ãny erased and overwritten with (Parkinson 2009, 111) 153 original after wrd erased and overwritten by (Parkinson 2009, 111). The greatest number of these corrections (18) involve altered spellings, including five in which a verb-form has been emended: 94 œæm to œæmw, 101 msdd.f to msdw.f, 117 jn.t(w) to jnn.tw, 131 pr to prt, and 147 ÿd.n to ÿdt.n. Another fourteen reflect errors in copying. 3. uncorrected errors and omissions

In addition to his corrections, the scribe also seems to have made a number of errors that were not emended. Most of these involve omissions: 49 sÿm.k written for sÿdm.k (as in cols. 44 and 46) 81 œjm.f written for œjmt.f 89 the preposition r, and probably also the noun st(j) omitted before sbnw ————— the right-hand tips of the original are still visible. Parkinson suggests that the scribe intended to replace the erased second z with a pronominal suffix (mææ.f ), but the erasure of the second z is less thorough than that of the original phrase. 19 Cf. Parkinson 2009, 109. I see no trace of the correction in 148 õææ noted by Parkinson (2009, 109).

18

CHAPTER TWO

102 the preposition r omitted before dmj 102 the second

and probably a determinative omitted in jty

106 ÿd.j n mj mjn omitted, despite space left for it (cf. Parkinson 2009, 109) 131 the preposition mj omitted before snb (note also the insertion of an omitted jw earlier in the same column, discussed in Section 2, above). There are also six instances of clearly or possibly omitted or unwritten 1s suffixes (as opposed to 84 instances of written ). The likeliest omission occurs in 12 jjt.(j), as indicated both by the context and by the parallel in 19 jjt.j, where the suffix is written. Possible instances are 13 ãæë.(j), 16 nœnw.(j), 52 jwëw.(j), 148 bæ.(j), and 148–49 nsw.(j), although these can be understood as written, without the suffix (see the discussions in Chapter Three). The 1s suffix of 52 sn.j was added secondarily.20 In three instances there are also clear or possible errors in spelling in the papyrus: 17

for — the scribe has omitted the ticks (representing wings) that distinguish the abbreviated version of from in his hand

92

perhaps for — æpsw is otherwise unknown, and the scribe may have been influenced by col. 82

113

for

through misreading of a hieratic

original. There is also one instance of dittography: jw.f at the bottom of col. 100 repeated at the top of col. 101. The error may have been conditioned by the erased under the jw.f of col. 100 (see Section 2, above), or by the change of columns, or both. ————— Erman 1896, 38; overlooked by Faulkner 1956, 23, and in the transcriptions of Barta 1969 and Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 45. 20

CHAPTER THREE

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS The preserved text of the Debate contains four interchanges between its two characters, the Man and his Soul. The missing beginning had perhaps three more sections, including an introductory passage that was probably spoken by the Man.1 In all, the divisions of the text can be analyzed as follows: *1–x x–*12 *12–y y–3 3–55 55–68 68–80 80–85 85–103 103–30 130–42 142–47 147–54 154–55

Introduction (lost) The Soul’s first (preserved) speech The Man’s first (preserved) speech2 The Soul’s second speech The Man’s second speech The Soul’s third speech: rebuttal The Soul’s third speech: first parable The Soul’s third speech: second parable The Man’s third speech: first litany The Man’s third speech: second litany The Man’s third speech: third litany The Man’s third speech: fourth litany The Soul’s fourth speech Colophon

The remainder of this chapter provides a hieroglyphic transcription, transliteration, and relatively literal translation of each of these sections, with philological commentary. Epigraphic features, treated in Chapter Two, are noted only where they have a bearing on the interpretation of the text. ————— Since the transitions in the text are all spoken by the Man, the same was probably true for the missing introduction. 2 Ending perhaps in col. *24 (see below). 1

20

CHAPTER THREE

1. introduction and the soul’s first speech (*1–*12)

*1–*8

(lost)

*9 [ … ÿ]wt [ … ] evil. (*9) jrt st [ … ] Doing it [ … ] Assuming that the first word of col. *9 is correctly restored as [ÿ]wt, that the final two signs are the dependent pronoun st, and that the word preceding is the infinitive jrt rather than the imperfective participle jrr, the preserved signs probably contain the end of one sentence and the beginning of another, with st “it” referring to ÿwt “evil.” *10–*12 (lost) In Parkinson’s reconstruction (2003, 126), there is a gap of perhaps two columns between his Frags. I and L, the latter containing part of the final four columns of the first sheet. (*12) [ … wæœ].k mæ[jr.j] [ … ] that you might set down my misery. The suffix pronoun in this column may be the subject of a verb, and the sign following, part of the word mæjr “need” that recurs in cols. 22 and 128. In col. 22, the “misery” is that of the Soul, while in col. 128 it is the Man’s. Both because the first of these is more proximate to col. *12 and because of the dynamic of the text (discussed in Chapter Six), it is possible that col. *12 contains the speech of the Soul, with the suffix pronoun k addressed to the Man: thus, perhaps, as restored here, based on col. 22 wæœ mæjr.j “set down my misery” (discussed in Section 4, below). In that case, the trace above the suffix pronoun belongs to a bookroll rather than to the r suggested by Parkinson.

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

21

2. the MAN’s first speech (cols. *12–Y)

*12–*13 [ÿdt.n.j n bæ.j] What I said to my soul: (*13) wnwt pw [ … ] It is the hour [ … ] *14 [ … ] sw œr stæ[s.j … ] [ … ] him, dragging me [ … ] *15 [ … ]s[ … ] […] *16–*24 (lost; traces in cols. *21 and *23; one sign and a trace preserved in *22) If *14 stæ[ … ] is the verb meaning “drag,” as in col. 12 (there written stæs), the parallel of the latter column suggests that the Man is speaking here, in which case *14 sw may refer to the Soul (who is also referred to in the third person in col. 12). A transitional text of some sort is then lost in the lacuna of cols. *12–*13 or that of *13– *14. There is not enough space in either lacuna for a full transition such as that of cols. 3–4 and 85–86 jw wp.n.j r.j n bæ.j wšb.j ÿdt.n.f “And I opened my mouth to my soul, that I might answer what he had said,” but a shorter text such as that restored above would fit easily (cf. 147–48 ÿdt.n n.j bæ “What the soul said to me”). Given the possible third-person reference to the Soul in *14, the transition to the Man’s speech is likelier to have come in cols. *12–*13, making *13 wnwt pw [ … ] “It is the hour [ … ]”—or perhaps wnwt pw [næ nt … ] “This is the hour of [ … ]”—the beginning of the Man’s statement. In Parkinson’s reconstruction, col. *15 is the last on the first sheet of the papyrus, and the first fourteen columns on the second sheet are

22

CHAPTER THREE

lost before col. 1 of pBerlin 3024 (the fifteenth column on the second sheet). Within these fourteen columns, Parkinson has placed his Frags. H (*21–*23) and J–K (*25–*28), with a gap of five columns before Frag. H (*16–*20), one between Frags. H and J–K (*24), and one (*29) between Frag. J–K and the Berlin papyrus. His placement of the two fragments within the lost fourteen columns is conjectural but feasible given the reconstructed location of his Frags. I and L: the two sets of fragments would probably have been contiguous on the papyrus when it was rolled and could therefore have survived together. 3. the soul’s second speech (cols. Y–3)

Gardiner characterized oGardiner 369 as “Part of an unidentified literary text” and asked “could it be a lost part of that known as the Lebensmüde …?”3 The text makes reference to a bæ “soul” (6b) and has several intriguing statements that could easily belong to the Debate: jw.j jsq.kw “I am hindered” (3b–4b), jw.j r õrt-nïr (4b) “I am for the necropolis,” mj.k æbj jb pæ ëœë œr tæ (4b–5b) “Look, what the heart desires is the lifetime on earth,” and pæ bæ m õnw.st [œr ëq]w pr mr.[f] “The soul inside it enters and emerges as it wants” (5b–6b). But its language is literary Late Egyptian, pointing to a date of composition later than that of the Debate. If the text is a later version of the Debate, however, it most likely belongs to the Soul’s speech preceding col. *25: see below. *25–*26 [ … ] œr zæw.t [ … ] [ … ] face. Guard [ … ] Parkinson (2003, 130–31) reads zæw.t(j) “Beware you,” but the nouns zæwt “guard” or zæwt[j] “guardian” are also possible. He describes the traces above the first sign of this word as “Apparently a single stroke (as at the top of 24), preceded by a sign ending in a diagonal stroke” (2003, 129). These likely represent (cf. col. 143). ————— 3

Çerný and Gardiner 1957, 24: see Appendix Three, below.

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

23

The two words could be part of the final phrase of oGardiner 369: œr zæw r n.[j] “guarding the mouth for me.” Col. *25 zæwt, however, is not the infinitive of 3ae-inf. zæj/zæw, which is zæt in Old and Middle Egyptian (Urk. I, 278, 10, and 290, 3; CT VI, 70b, 83c, 84l). This indicates that the parallel is illusory, and that *25 [œr] and zæw.t(j) belong to two separate clauses or sentences. *26–*27 m]j r.k sbæ.j tw [ … Come, then, that I may instruct you [ … (*27) … ].k jãrw n jmnt … ] you [ … ] the hostile nature of the West. The initial statement is most likely part of a speech of the Soul, since the Man’s role in the text is defensive rather than didactic. The sentence may have continued in col. *27 with [r … ] “about [ … ]” (Wb. IV, 84, 8–12). The reference in col. *27 to jãrw n jmnt “the hostile nature of the West” (for which, see Parkinson 2003, 131–32) might seem better suited to the Man’s rejection of death at this point in the text, but the lost verb could have been something such as [nn snÿ].k “you shall not fear” (for snÿ used transitively, see CT IV, 123b; VII, 263b). Col. *25 then probably belongs to the Soul’s speech as well, and a transitional statement as in cols. 55–56 occurred somewhere between *15 and *25. *28

(beginning lost)

*28–*29 jw z [ … ] For a man [ … ] *29

(lost)

1 [j]w.n r ÿd [m mæët m ÿæÿæt] We are to speak truly in the tribunal:

24

CHAPTER THREE

The traces at the beginning of col. 1 have been read previously as those of the 2pl pronoun . Some instances of are very large in this scribe’s hand (e.g., col. 11 mj.tn), but the spacing indicates that if the first preserved sign is , another low sign has been lost at the top of the column above it. Compared with other examples of , the trace in col. 1 also has a less acute angle. Both that feature and the spacing indicate that the sign is instead , probably with a reed-leaf lost to its right (compare the arrangement of jw grt in col. 6), yielding the adverbial-predicate future [j]w.n r ÿd “we are to speak.” The restoration of the remainder of the column is purely conjectural (cf. Wb. V, 620, 20; CT VII, 112t), based on the preserved text, the size of the lacuna, and the need for a referent of the 3pl pronoun of ns.sn in cols. 2 and 3. 2 nj nmë.n [ns.s]n their tongue cannot be biased. 2–3 [j]w r õæ[b m] dbæw It would be crooked in return. (3) nj nmë.n ns.sn Their tongue cannot be biased. The word ÿbæw “exchange” normally appears as object of the preposition m, which can be restored at the bottom of col. 2; with õæ[b], the column would have been about as long as col. 18. Most translations have accepted Faulkner’s restoration õæ[bb] (1956, 30 n. 2), based on Peas. B1 138 and preferable to Goedicke’s õæ (1970, 86–87),4 which seems to mean “resist” (Wb. I, 361, 6) rather than his “rebuke.” The word may be the infinitive, however, rather than Faulkner’s noun. The unexpressed subject is probably the situation of partiality, and the un————— Followed by Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 23. Their restoration [j]w r õæ[y] is too short for the available space. 4

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

25

expressed referent of [m] dbæw, “speaking truly” or the like (see the preceding note). For the tribunal speaking, cf. CT V 209e/k/o. 4. the man’s second speech (cols. 3–55)

3–4 jw wp.n.j r.j n bæ.j And I opened my mouth to my soul (4) wšb.j ÿdt.n.f that I might answer what he had said: 5 jw næ wr r.j m mjn This has become too much for me today: 5–6 nj mdw bæ.j œnë.j my soul has not spoken in accord with me. Most translations have followed Erman (1896, 20) in understanding mdwj œnë as “converse with” (Wb. II, 179, 9). Suys, however, interpreted it as “agree with” (1932, 59 and n. 1, followed by Scharff 1937, 12 and 13 n. 2; van de Walle 1939, 312; Weill 1947, 116; Junker 1948, 220; Jacobsohn 1952, 10 and 11 n. 1; Parkinson 1997, 155; Tobin 2003, 179; Haller 2004, 14). This is superior both to the usual interpretation and to Faulkner’s “argue with” (1956, 21 and 30 n. 4; also Goedicke 1970, 88–89; Mathieu 2000, 23). Scharff points out that the Soul is in fact “speaking with” the Man, and Faulkner himself notes that “arguing is apparently just what the soul has been doing.” Although mdwj œnë normally denotes a conversation, with the extended connotation of argument (as English “have words with”), the context seems to demand Suys’s interpretation of œnë as “in accord with.” This sense appears elsewhere in the text: 40 twt œnë “be in accord with,” 114 jrj œnë “act (in accord) with,” 126 šm œnë “walk (in accord) with.”

26

CHAPTER THREE

(6) jw grt wr r ëbë It is also too much to exaggerate: 6–7 jw mj wzf jmt.f šm bæ.j my soul going is like one who ignores what he is in. As Erman noted (1896, 19 n. 3), the space at the top of col. 7 is too small for the sign that normally determines wzf before the walking legs, unless that sign projected abnormally high above the adjacent column tops. The two preserved traces suit (for ), which is a feasible determinative for the transitive sense of the verb, although apparently not attested elsewhere. The group below the seated man is almost certainly jm; the m is lower than the reed-leaf because of the bottom flourish of the seatedman sign above. The traces below jm have been read as ever since Sethe’s suggested restoration (1927, 44, 2). The papyrus, however, shows a clear, free-standing below the reed-leaf of jm, with a short horizontal trace to its left, below the m of the same group. These cannot represent : they are separated by a preserved blank space and are written too close to jm to accommodate the “hump” of the sign. The right-hand trace can only represent (cf. col. *13). The left-hand one is most likely the head of (cf. the arrangement in col. 146): the two traces below and to its left, extending into col. 8, are part of the tail; the latter accounts for the gap that intervenes before the šm-sign that follows. The resulting jmt.f must be a nisbe and the object of the preceding verb. Since it is the Soul who is “ignoring” the Man, the verb must be participial wzf “one who ignores” rather than infinitival wzf.j “my ignoring”; the seated man occurs as determinative of a participle in 25 zõæ, 117 jr, 131 mr, and 139 sãt; also plural 60 qdw, 62 sqdw, and 63–64 nnw. The nisbe can mean both “what is in him” and “what he is in,” but the latter makes more sense in the context, probably referring to the qsnwt “difficulties” cited in cols. 10 and 15.

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

27

Given both the context and the following clause, šm bæ.j is not likely to mean “my soul should go.” Instead, it is probably a noun clause in apposition to the unexpressed subject of the preceding clause. The unusual construction may have been conditioned by the fact that jw šm bæ.j could be understood as “My soul goes” (at least, in writing). (7) ëœë.f n.j œr.s He should attend to it for me, The spelling of the preposition œr indicates that the following s is a suffix pronoun, the referent of which is probably the preceding jmt.s. Translations have generally regarded the relationship between ëœë.f and n.j as primary, most following Erman (1896, 20) in understanding the passage to connote support (“stand by me, stand for me”), with others opting for the alternate sense “wait for me”5 (Suys 1932, 59; Wilson 1969, 405; Bresicani 1999, 199). Faulkner saw œr.s as the primary adjunct, translating “that it may attend to it for me” (1956, 21 and 30 n. 7; followed by Lichtheim 1973, 104; Renaud 1991, 23; Mathieu 2000, 23).6 This is supported by the clear use of ëœë œr with this meaning in cols. 42–43 (see below). 8 [snnw].j w[jn ënã].f my second, who [rejects] his [life]. The upper half of col. 8 is lost except for traces. The first was hesitantly read by Faulkner as (1956, 22). The traces below it are almost certainly the right and left sides of the seated-man sign. Since there seems to be no word ending in that would be followed directly by the seated man (either as determinative or 1s suffix pronoun), Faulk————— Wb. I, 220, 5: identified there as “Nä.,” but clear or likely earlier examples are Pyr. 439a, 671a–b, Nt 708; also, later, pWestcar 8, 4. 6 Variant translations are those of Goedicke (1970, 89 “it shall respect me instead”: Wb. I, 218, 11), Haller (2004, 8 “er soll mir in dieser Sache Rede und Antwort stehen”), and Quirke (2004, 130 “but resists me for it”). 5

28

CHAPTER THREE

ner’s reading is doubtful. The traces may represent instead , which suggests the noun snnw “second”; the spelling in col. 106 would fill the lacuna to the top of the column, with the seated man as 1s suffix. Below the seated man is a clear, though faint, -shaped trace at the right of the column, most likely for . The position suggests a sign to its left. Of various possibilities, the likeliest is perhaps a reedleaf, which suggests in turn the verb wjn “reject,” albeit with a slightly different grouping than in col. 151; a trace below would suit the upper right tip of the -sign.7 This leaves about one group before the top of the preserved , too little for sn “brother” but sufficient for the restoration suggested here, which would also suit the traces to the column’s right and left. (8) nn dj.t õæ.f wj He will not be allowed to resist me, The signs following are clear as regards , , , , 8 is almost certainly and the final ; the preserved sign before rather than Faulkner’s suggested (1956, 22). The crux of the passage is the traces between and (drawn at right). Goedicke’s proposed of ëÿæ (1970, 90) is impossible (cf. col. 112), and there is no other verb ë…æ (or ë…m) that suits the traces. The likeliest alternative is that belongs to a separate word, undoubtedly dj; the trace just below it can be read as the of the passive suffix t(w). The remaining trace best suits the -sign (cf. cols. 96 and 99) of the verb õæj “resist, thwart” (Wb. III, 361, 6: cf. CT I, 154c). Since this verb takes a direct object, the small trace just above the final seated man is most likely the tail of the of wj; the sign is tucked under and right of the diagonal of the preceding . ————— The verb is used with reflexive dative in col. 151, but there is no trace of the tail of a reflexive n.f here. 8 The last seen by Goedicke (1970, 90), though not included in his hieroglyphic transcription. The fragment at the bottom left of col. 8 is mounted a millimeter too low. Its uppermost trace is the tail of . 7

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

29

9 ÿr ntt.f m õt.j m šnw nwœ since he is in my belly in a rope mesh: Goedicke (1970, 91) restored the traces at the top of col. 9 as , accepted in some studies (Tobin 1991, 345; Foster 1992, 11; Parkinson 1997, 155). The initial vertical trace could well be part of , but those following (before that of , which is clear) do not suit Goedicke’s reading. The horizontal that he saw as part of does not have the angled back of all other instances of that sign in the papyrus, and the two strokes he read as those of do not match those of the nine examples of that sign in the papyrus (particularly its right-hand stroke, which is always thin, long, and angled right to left). Since the horizontal trace is not part of , the initial vertical probably does not belong to , which is always followed by in this text. Similar verticals, with the tapered bottom seen in this instance, occur in examples of , , , the second reed-leaf of , the single vertical stroke (Z1), and the ligature representing ; the horizontal trace below looks most like the left end of or . Of these possibilities, the only combination that seems feasible here is followed by . The right-hand element of the third set of traces is then most likely part of a ligatured (cf. col. 15), and the left-hand stroke represents a second , yielding the conjunction ÿr ntt.9 The literal meaning of m šnw nwœ is clear, undoubtedly referring to the net in which birds were captured.10 This in turn identifies the referent of the pronoun f as most likely the Soul (reflecting both its avian nature and its hieroglyphic spelling). The passage is a metaphor for the relationship of the Soul to the Man during life. ————— For ÿr ntt with a suffix pronoun, cf. Malaise and Winand, Grammaire, § 138. ntt also appears in col. 28 as a ligature of three vertical signs, but in that instance it is followed by a noun rather than a suffix pronoun. 10 Cf. Caminos, Literary Fragments in the Hieratic Script, pl. 13A, 7 (šnw nw jædt.k “the meshes of your net”); also CT 474, which speaks of the nwœw “ropes” of the jædt “net” used for œæm “fowling” (CT VI, 17e/18i; 23 l–m/24j). 9

30

CHAPTER THREE

9–10 nn ãpr m ë.f rwj.f hrw qsnwt that he leave on a day of difficulties will not happen to him. The verb rwj is normally intransitive in Middle Kingdom texts (Wb. II, 406, 2) but can also be used transitively (Wb. II, 406, 16–17). Translations have adopted one or the other of these senses: the former, first by Erman (1896, 20); the latter, which Erman suggested as an alternative (1896, 21), first by Faulkner (1956, 21 and 31 n. 9).11 The expression ãpr m ë can denote what happens to someone as well as through their agency (Wb. III, 262, 19/21).12 Although either interpretation is defensible here, the second has been generally adopted. The initial verb ãpr has usually been understood as a sÿm.f with the rwj.f clause as its subject and the pronouns referring to the Soul: e.g., “It shall not happen to him that he flees on the day of affliction” (Assmann 1998, 390). Gunn, however, saw it as the participial subject of a negative existential statement, to which the pronouns then refer: i.e, “There is no one through whose agency it will happen that he leave on” (or “deflect”) “a day of difficulties.”13 The parallel of col. 8 nn dj.t õæ.f wj “He will not be allowed to resist me” favors the more usual interpretation, and that of col. 7 šm bæ.j “my soul going,” the intransitive meaning of rwj.f. ————— The transitive use, however, does not have the sense of “escape” proposed by Faulkner, but rather that of “leave” with respect to a place or office (Wb. II, 406, 16– 17) or with causative sense, as in Sin. B 62 nn wn rwj ëœæw.f “there is no one who can deflect his arrows”: Koch, Sinuhe, 36, 1. This sense also suits the instance cited by Faulkner (1956, 31 n. 9): TR 19, 21 = CT IV, 117a. In his subsequent translation of the CT passage, Faulkner opted for the intransitive: Coffin Texts, I, 241. 12 E.g., ShS. 21–23 sÿd.j r.f n.k mjtt jrj ãpr m ë.j ÿs.j “So, let me relate to you something similar that happened to me myself”; Louvre C1 17–19 jr mdt t(n) nt wÿt pn mtt pw nt ãprt m ë.j jrt.n.(j) pw m wn mæë “As for this speech of this stela, it is the witness of what happened through my agency: it is what I actually did”: Blackman, Middle Egyptian Stories, 42, 7; Clère, JEA 24 (1938), 242. 13 Gunn, Studies, 145 and n. 1; followed by Scharff 1937, 14 n. 9; van de Walle 1939, 312; von der Wense 1949, 67. 11

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

31

The phrase hrw qsnwt “day of difficulties” has generally been seen as a euphemism for death.14 The evidence assembled by Vandier, however, does not indicate that it is anything more than an expression for times of hardship, like the analogous term rnpt qsnt “difficult year,” which cannot be interpreted as a similar euphemism.15 Cols. 7–10 as a whole record the Man’s determination that the Soul not abandon him but face hardship with him. 11 mj.tn bæ.j œr tht.j But look, my soul is leading me astray. This is the only demonstrable instance of the second-person plural pronoun in the papyrus and, since Erman’s initial study (1896, 8), it has long been thought to reflect an audience to the debate, established in the poem’s now-lost beginning. Although it is conceivable that such an audience was specified in the missing portions of cols. *1– *11, the beginning of this section (cols. 3–4) clearly indicates that the Man is speaking only to the Soul. Since the plural pronoun has no obvious referent, it is probably used here to avoid the specificity of the singular, as Sethe suggested (1927, 61), perhaps also with the poem’s “readership” in mind. A similar usage of mj.tn occurs in the context of an address to one person in MuK 1, 7.16 The verb thj used transitively with the object of a person can mean either “assail, violate” (Wb. V, 319, 20) or “lead astray” (Wb. V, 320, 5). Early translations rendered it with the first of these meanings, but since Faulkner (1956, 21) it has usually been translated with the second, based on two clear passages in the Story of Sinuhe: th.n.f r kt ãæst (Sin. B 148–49) “one whom he led astray to a different land,” bæk th.n jb.f r ãæswt ÿrÿryt (Sin. B 202) “a servant whom his heart led ————— First proposed by Scharff 1937, 14 n. 10. See especially Goedicke 1970, 92, and Parkinson 1997, 161 n. 4. 15 Vandier, Famine, 61–64. Brunner-Traut (1967, 7–8) reached a similar conclusion. 16 A. Erman, Zauberspruch für Mutter und Kind aus dem Papyrus 3027 des Berliner Museums (APAW; Berlin, 1901), 10. 14

32

CHAPTER THREE

astray to strange lands.”17 This sense is indicated by the remainder of the Man’s second speech, which the statement of col. 11 introduces. 11–12 nj sÿm.n.j n.f I cannot listen to him (12) œr stæs.j r mt nj jjt.(j) n.f because of dragging me to death before I have come to it, Since Erman (1896, 22), the verb stæs here and in col. 70 has been generally interpreted as a variant of sïæ “drag,” despite its final s. The verb also occurs with this writing and meaning in Sin. B 230 nïr šæw wërt tn œr stæs.j “the god who decided this flight was dragging me,” for which the parallel in AOS 34 has stæ.18 Suys’s suggestion that the verb here is an error for æs “hasten” (1932, 59 n. 2; followed by Lurie 1939, 143; Weill 1947, 116, and Quirke 2004, 131) requires an unnecessary emendation. Scharff’s “strive” (1937, 12; also van de Walle 1939, 312; Junker 1948, 220; von der Wense 1949, 67; Foster 1992, 12) demands an intransitive use, not attested for sïæ before the New Kingdom (Wb. IV, 353). As noted by Scharff (1937, 15 n. 13), the verb’s determinatives do not support a form of sï(æ)z “lie on the back” (Wb. IV, 362, 9– 12; Wb. med. 822–23), though understood as such by Jacobsohn (1952, 11) and Goedicke (1970, 93). Since the verb is transitive, stæs.j must be the infinitive with pronominal object, as it is commonly understood. The prepositional phrase œr stæs.j r mt has been universally taken as a second predicate parallel to 11 œr tht.j (“and dragging me to death”), but the intervening nj sÿm.n.j n.f is normally an independent construc————— Koch, Sinuhe, 54, 1, and 63, 9. There is no evidence to recommend the singular renderings of Brunner-Traut 1967, 10 “rebelliert”; Goedicke 1970, 92 “disobeying”; Lalouette 1984, 221 “m’abandonnait”; Foster 1992, 12 “defames”; Assmann 1998, 390 “resists”; Lohmann 1998, 214 “übergehen”; and Tobin 2003, 179 “deceive.” 18 Koch, Sinuhe, 68, 1–2. The verb appears as stæ in Sin. B 248 (stæw) and as ideographic in Sin. B 248 (stæ.j = AOS [st]æs.j) and B 264. Faulkner (1956, 31 n. 11) has suggested that the final s is spurious. 17

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

33

tion, making this less likely than a phrase giving the reason why “I cannot listen to him.” A parenthetic aside, however, is also possible, along the lines of Parkinson’s “though I do not listen to him” (1997, 155), in which case the usual understanding of œr stæs.j r mt is feasible. Both the context and the parallel in col. 19 indicate that the firstperson suffix pronoun is omitted after jjt.19 The text observes the normal Middle Egyptian distinction between the negations nj and nn, which rules out an infinitival expression “without coming” as well as Lohmann’s “ohne daß ein Unwillkommenes meiner dabei möglich wird” (1998, 214–15 and n. 36). 13 œr ãæë.(j) œr ãt r smæmt.j because of throwing me on the fire to incinerate me. The suffix pronoun of smæmt.j implies an unwritten one in ãæë.(j), as generally understood.20 This clause can also be understood as a reason for 11–12 nj sÿm.n.j n.f, although here the circumstantial “throwing me” is also possible. The parallel with 12 stæs.j r mt indicates that the Soul is to be understood as the agent of the infinitive, as also generally understood. Scharff interpreted the passage as a statement of the Man’s intention to commit suicide by self-immolation (1937, 12), understanding the 1s suffixes as reflexive. This has not won general support (followed only by Lurie 1939, 143; van de Walle 1939, 312; Junker 1948, 220; von der Wense 1949, 67; Jacobsohn 1952, 11; Foster 1992, 12). The rest of this section, which clearly describes the Man as resisting death, demands a metaphorical interpretation rather than a literal one, as in ————— See L. Zonhoven, in Essays in Honour of Herman te Velde, II, 396–98. Goedicke’s interpretation (1970, 94 nj jjt.n.f ) is grammatically impossible. The 1s suffix is normally written in this text but is perhaps also omitted in 13 ãæë.(j) and 53 jwëw.(j) (see below). 20 Williams’s “offering sacrifice” (1962, 53) has been accepted only by Lohmann (1998, 215) and makes little sense here. Goedicke interprets ãæë as the infinitive with passive sense, also without the first-person pronoun (1970, 94–95 “being cast”). This is possible grammatically but less likely in the context. 19

34

CHAPTER THREE

col. 9 ÿr ntt.f m õt.j m šnw nwœ “since he is in my belly in a rope mesh.” The “fire” determinative identifies smæmt.j as a form of caus. 2-lit. sæm “burn” rather than of 3-lit. smæ “kill”; the same spelling occurs in CT IV, 263a. The verb form could be the sÿmt.f “until I am burned up” (as understood by Williams 1962, 53; Goedicke 1970, 95; and Mathieu 2000, 23) rather than the infinitive. 14 ptr mnt.f [ …f] What is his suffering, that he should [ … ], 14–15 œr [rdjt] sæ.f r [sn].f giving his back to his brother? Goedicke’s reading of the second word in col. 14 as mnt.f “his suffering” (1970, 96, based on Erman 1896, 21) makes eminent sense of the traces.21 The first word, however, is not Goedicke’s jwtt “without that” but the interrogative ptr “what,” as Quack has seen (1995, 185); there is not enough space for the initial [ãr] suggested by Chioffi and Rigamonti (2007, 28). The lacuna that follows probably contained two verbal expressions before sæ.f, the first perhaps a subjunctive sÿm.f and the second œr [rdjt] “giving.”22 The lacuna at the bottom of col. 14 requires a word large enough to postpone the 3ms suffix to the next column: sn “brother,” written as in col. 52, fits the space and the common use of rdj sæ r and provides an antithesis for the next sentence. (15) tk.f jm.j hrw qsnwt He should be near me on a day of difficulties, ————— As understood by Tobin (1991, 346, but not 2003, 179–80), Foster (1992, 12), Parkinson (1997, 155), and Quirke (2004, 131). Parkinson’s translation “What is he like” indicates that he has read the determinative as rather than , but the trace is better suited to the latter. 22 There is a trace of the right edge of . For the idiom, see Wb. IV, 9, 11. 21

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

35

16 ëœë.f m pf gs mj jr-nœnw that he may stand on yon side like a eulogy-maker, Pyr. 326b and 355c provide a parallel for ëœë m gs “stand on a side” of the river. Goedicke’s reading of the final word in col. 16 as nœnw “eulogy” (1970, 97) is undoubtedly correct (followed by Lalouette 1984, 221; Tobin 1991, 346; Foster 1992, 12; Parkinson 1997, 155; Mathieu 2000, 23). The seated-man sign at the end is probably the determinative of a compound jr-nœnw “eulogy-maker,” although it could also represent the 1s suffix of jr nœnw.j “one who makes my eulogy.” As in cols. 7–10, the Man is arguing that the Soul should not abandon him; the sense her is apparently that he will then be able to welcome the Man after death (“yon side”) as a friend rather than antagonist. 17 pæ js pw prr for that is the sort who goes forth (17) jn.f sw r.f and brings himself to it. The sense of this passage is unclear, in part because of the “characteristically Egyptian ambiguity” of its four pronouns (Faulkner 1956, 31 n. 16). Since js links the statement to the preceding as a dependent clause, the demonstrative pæ may refer to the kind of soul described in those clauses, as most studies have assumed. Its more immediate referent, however, is jr-nœnw “eulogy-maker.” The imperfective participle prr implies either repetitive or normative action. In the first instance, the statement may refer to the soul’s daily emergence from the tomb, as understood by Faulkner (1956, 31 n. 16), Tobin (1991, 345 n. 24), and Mathieu (2000, 34 n. 14). If the referent is jr-nœnw, however, the context here indicates normative action: i.e., a reference to “going forth” from east to west by the “eulogy-maker” at the funeral, mirroring the preceding ëœë.f m pf gs “that he may stand on yon side.”

36

CHAPTER THREE

The verb jn.f has usually been understood to express either concomitant action or purpose or result, but its form suits only the first of these.23 If pæ … prr refers to jr-nœnw, the pronominal subject of jn.f must do so as well. The referent of r.f is probably col. 16 pf gs “yon side,” since jnj r normally is used of “bringing” something “to” a place (e.g., ShS. 71, 84, 109, 114); the pronominal object sw, then, can only be reflexive. The verb jnj is attested with a reflexive pronoun in the sense of “conduct oneself,”24 but the present instance seems to demand the more literal sense “bring oneself.” The passage as a whole expounds on the Soul’s desire for death as a release from a “day of difficulties” and reiterates the theme of the “soul going” in cols. 6–10. It argues that the Soul should “stand on yon side” only at the proper time, like a eulogist at a funeral. 17–18 bæ.j wãæ r sdœ æh œr ënã My soul has become too foolish to suppress pain in life, The initial bæ.j wãæ has been understood in three ways: as a vocative followed by an adjectival predicate (Scharff 1937, 12 “Meine Seele, es ist töricht”; similarly, Lurie 1939, 143; van de Walle 1939, 312; Weill 1947, 106; von der Wense 1949, 68; Jacobsohn 1952, 11; Thausing 1957, 263; Barta 1969, 21; Lalouette 1984, 221; Renaud 1991, 23; Lohmann 1998, 215), as a vocative with modifying adjective (Faulkner 1956, 27 “O my soul, who art too stupid”; similiarly, Williams 1962, 53; Wilson 1969, 405; Lichtheim 1973, 164; Parkinson 1997, 155; Bresciani 1999, 199; Haller 2004, 14; Quirke 2004, ————— Lichtheim (1973, 164) and Goedicke (1070, 97–98) understood it as a statement of past action, but the spelling does not suit the sÿm.n.f and the perfective sÿm.f is normally used only after the negation nj in Middle Egyptian. Jacobsohn interpreted jn.f sw r.f as relative “und zu dem er sich bringen soll” (1952, 11 and 12 n. 11; similarly, Haller 2004, 14), with jn.f sw referring to the Soul and r.f referring to Erman’s nœpw (1896, 23) at the end of col. 16. The reading nœnw, however, makes this interpretation unlikely. 24 E.g., Heqanakht II 28 jnn.ïn ïn m jb qn “you should conduct yourselves with diligent heart”: Allen, Heqanakht, 17. 23

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

37

131), or as a subject–stative construction (Suys 1932, 60 “Mon âme est insensée”; similarly, Goedicke 1970, 98–99; Tobin 1991, 345; Assmann 1998, 390; Mathieu 2000, 23; Tobin 2003, 180; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 30).25 The interpretation depends largely on how 18–19 jhm and 19–20 snÿm are understood (discussed below). The verb sdœ is undoubtedly causative “sink” (Wb. IV, 371, 6–7), despite its determinative, as noted first by Weill (1947, 106 n. 1); the determinative reflects the mental or verbal nature of the action in this context. The phrase æh œr ënã was initially understood as participial (Erman 1896, 25 “einen Trauernden im Leben”), but since Faulkner’s study it has been largely interpreted as his “misery in life” (1956, 27), which is partly supported by the fact that æh does not have a seatedman determinative. Parkinson’s understanding of œr as causal (“the sorrow which is due to life”: 1997, 155) is also possible. 18–19 jhm wj r mt nj jjt.j n.f one who prods me toward death before I have come to it, The verb jhm/hjm (Wb. I, 118, 18) occurs with this determinative only in this text (also 40–50 hjm.k wj r mt). Its sense has been interpreted in two different ways, largely dependent on whether the Man is viewed as rejecting or advocating death at this point: persuasion (Erman 1896, 25, and most subsequent studies) or dissuasion (Sethe 1927, 63; Scharff 1937, 12; van de Walle 1939, 312; von der Wense 1949, 68; Faulkner 1956, 27; Goedicke 1970, 98–99; Foster 1992, 12; Assmann 1998, 390, and 2005, 385; Bresciani 1999, 199; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 30). Of the two, the first is almost certainly correct. The verb from which Scharff derived the second, “go slowly” (Wb. I, 118, 19), is not used transitively and has a different determinative ( ); a better correlate is the later verb “prod” (Wb. II, 490, 6). The clause nj jjt.j n.f “before I have come to it” makes less sense ————— Erman (1896, 25) and Maspero (1907, 126) interpreted bæ.j wãæ as a vocative followed by an imperative but were not aware of the meaning of the verb. 25

38

CHAPTER THREE

with the notion of dissuasion, and the clear parallel of col. 12 argues for the more common reading. The verb form jhm is best understood as a participle appositive to the initial bæ.j, as seen by Faulkner (1956, 27) and most subsequent studies.26 19–20 snÿm n.j jmnt who sweetens the West for me: This clause has been understood as an imperative addressed to the Soul, with a few exceptions “me faire une peinture agréable l’Hadès” (Maspero 1907, 126); “elle m’adoucit (la perspective de) l’Occident” (Suys 1932, 60); “The West can cause (only) pleasantness to me” (Goedicke 1970, 99–100; followed by Tobin 2003, 180); “But the West will be made pleasant for me” (Tobin, 1991, 346; followed by Mathieu 2000, 23, and Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 30–31). None of these interpretations, however, suits the context in this part of the composition, where the Man is clearly arguing against death.27 Rather than an imperative, snÿm can be understood as a participle describing the Soul: the clause is then a parallel expression to the preceding jhm wj r mt. In that case, the initial bæ.j is not vocative, and wãæ is most likely the stative rather than an adjective or adjectival predicate. (20) jn jw qsnt pw “Is it something difficult?

————— Understood as an imperative by Erman (1896, 25), Weill (1947, 1906), Jacobsohn (1952, 11), Lalouette (1984, 221), Foster (1992, 12), Assmann (1998, 390), and Lohmann (1998, 215). Thausing (1957, 263) understood the participle as referring to æh rather than bæ.j: “die Lebensmüdigkeit, die mich zu Tode treibt.” Cols. 11–13, however, clearly indicate that it is the Soul who is prodding the Man toward death. Haller’s “ein Bekümmerter bin ich” (2004, 14) is grammatically impossible. 27 Although Thausing (1957, 263) suggests that the Man is urging the Soul to “sweeten the West” by letting him die at the proper time rather than prematurely. 26

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

39

20–21 põrt pw ënã Life is a cycle; (21) jw ãtw ãr.sn trees fall. 21–22 ãnd r.k œr jsft Tread, then, on disorder, (22) wæœ mæjr.j set down my misery. Since these lines are an argument for death, at this point in the text they are more appropriate to the Soul than the Man and therefore best understood as the content of the Soul’s “prodding” and “sweetening,” cited without an introductory m ÿd “saying” or the like. The question jn jw qsnt pw is a rare Middle Egyptian example of jw before a sentence with nominal predicate;28 pw undoubtedly refers to 19 mt “death.” The final clause is capable of several interpretations. The verb may be transitive “lay, set, offer, add” or intransitive “last” (Wb. I, 253–57); the noun could be mær “miserable one” (Wb. II, 30, 2) or mær.j “my misery” (Wb. II, 30, 4). Most translations have understood the verb as intransitive (exceptions are Weill 1947, 116; Lichtheim 1973, 164; Lalouette 1984, 221; Renaud 1991, 23; Tobin 1991, 346; Foster 1992, 12; Parkinson 1997, 155; Haller 2004, 14; Quirke 2004, 131; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 31). The noun was first understood as mær, without suffix, but since Faulkner (1957, 27) has largely been translated like his “my misery” (except by Herrmann 1957, 72; Williams 1962, 54; Lohmann 1998, 215). Most studies since Lichtheim have followed the sense of her translation “put down my ————— 28

See Silverman, Interrogative Constructions, 85–86.

40

CHAPTER THREE

misery,” which seems best suited to the context. The use of wæœ with an abstract noun is also attested in an Old Kingdom letter.29 23–24 wÿë wj ÿœwtj œtp nïrw Let Thoth judge me and the gods become content; Cols. 23–27 contain a series of four statements referring to the judgment after death, and therefore probably also part of the Soul’s “prodding.” As part of his argument, he urges the Man to let the gods decide whether his wish for death is wrong. Thoth appears as recorder in the judgment scene of the Book of the Dead but also as judge: the text in front of Thoth in Fig. 1 reads, in part, jw wÿë.n.(j) jb n jsjrt jw bæ.f ëœë m mtr r.f “I have judged the heart of Osiris, as his soul stood in witness to him.”30 Following Erman (1896, 28), translations have generally interpreted œtp nïrw as transitive “who pacifies the gods” (cf. Wb. III, 192, 1), but that expression is attested elsewhere only as an epithet of a god in the fifth hour of the Amduat (LäGG V, 575–76), although Thoth is called jmj œtp nïrw in CT I, 27c. As Goedicke has sensed (1970, 104–105), it makes better sense in the context as referring to the outcome of Thoth’s judgment, but probably as a parallel subjunctive sÿm.f rather than Goedicke’s adjectival statement (as seen by Mathieu 2000, 23, and Haller 2004, 14). 24–25 ãsf ãnsw œr.j zõæ m mæët let Khonsu, who writes truly, intervene for me; The expression ãsf œr has been translated as “defend” in the legal sense (since Erman 1896, 28), and that sense is clear in the context; its specific meaning, however, is most likely Goedicke’s “intervene on ————— pBerlin 8869, 11 nfr n wæœ œætj-ë pn ëwæ jr.n.f r tæ “that this high official shall not lay down the robbery he has done”: Smither, JEA 28 (1942), 17. 30 Or “against him.” For Thoth in connection with judgment, cf. also Peas. B1 179–81 and 299–300. 29

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

41

behalf of” (1970, 105).31 The mention of Khonsu, like that of Isdes in cols. 26–27, parallels that of Thoth in the preceding statement (see LÄ I, 962; III, 185). The term zõæ is probably participial rather than the noun “scribe” (for the determinative, cf. 117 jr, 131 mr, 139 sãt; also plural 60 qdw, 62 sqdw, 63–64 nnw).32 The epithet undoubtedly refers to the role of recorder in the judgment. 25–26 sÿm rë mdw.j sg wjæ Let the Sun, who stills the sun-bark, hear my speech; The final verb has been interpreted mostly in one of two ways:33 either as a hapax sg, perhaps for sg(r), meaning “still, silence” (Sethe 1927, 62; Scharff 1937, 13 and 19 n. 35; van der Walle 1939, 312; Jacobsohn 1952, 11; Barta 1969, 21; Goedicke 1970, 103; Lichtheim 1973, 164; Assmann 1998, 390; Lohmann 1998, 216; Haller 2004, 14; Quirke 2004, 131; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 33); or as a hapax sg meaning “command” or the like, in other studies. The latter is more in line with the Sun’s usual role in his bark, but the former is more likely. The verb sgr appears with the same determinative in CT I, 321b Bh2C; with an omitted r in CT V, 217b B2Bo, and VII, 369a B2Bo/B1L; and with for in CT I, 378c B1C and V, 217d B1C. There is evidently a verb sgj “astonish” (ancestor of NK sgæ: Wb. IV, 320, 5), which appears once in the Coffin Texts (VI, 276g) and otherwise in the noun sgw/sgwt “astonishment,” but this is less likely as an epithet of the Sun in relationship to his bark.34 The contrast with mdw.j “my speech” also supports the reading sg(r) “who stills”: cf. cols. 145–47. ————— Also in Ptahhotep 184–85 jn nïr jr jqr.f ãsf.f œr.f jw.f sÿr “The god is the one who made him successful, intervening for him while he was asleep”: Žába, Ptaœœotep, 30. 32 Khonsu is called zõæ mæët in CT VI, 272c; see also LäGG VI, 600. 33 Weill (1947, 119 n. i) saw it as a causative of gwæ “assemble,” but misread the w of wjæ as part of the word. The Late Egyptian verb sg, first noted and rejected by Erman 1896, 28 n. 2, is a New Kingdom loan word: Hoch, Semitic Words, 269 no. 383. 34 In CT 160 it is the Sun’s enemy that causes sgwt in the bark: CT II, 378c–380b. 31

42

CHAPTER THREE

26–27 ãsf jsdz œr.j m ët ÿsr[t] let Isdes intervene for me in the sacred room— 28 [ÿr] ntt sær.j wdn since my need has become heavy Based on the size of the lacuna and the other occurrence in col. 9 (see above), the lost preposition at the top of col. 28 was probably ÿr rather than œr. Like the word at the end of col. 22, the word after ntt can be read either as sær.j “my need” or sær “needy one” (Wb. IV, 19, 6). Faulkner (1956, 32 n. 24) understood it as the second, though he admitted that this presents difficulties in understanding the line. With the exception of Bresciani (1999, 200) and Chioffi and Rigamonti (2007, 34), other translations have adopted the first, which makes better sense here. 28–29 nj [wnt] fæ n.f n.j and [there is] no one to lift to himself for me.” The lacuna at the bottom of col. 28 has presented difficulties in understanding the text at the top of the next column. Faulkner (1956, 27 and 32 n. 24) was the first to suggest a reading of the trace below wdn as m and to restore a word (æïpw “burden”) in the lacuna (followed in most subsequent translations). Both this and his translation of the preceding noun as sær “needy one” were based in part on the lack of an obvious referent for the pronominal suffix f in col. 29, although most studies have seen it as the Soul (understanding cols. 20– 29 to represent the Man’s viewpoint). In the interpretation suggested here, however, the words are those of the Soul, and there is no indication that the Soul views the Man as the source of his anguish. Faulkner’s restoration is also questionable: the final trace lies somewhat too close to the preceding signs to be the tail of an , there is

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

43

no trace below of what should be the tail of Faulkner’s ,35 and the lacuna does not offer sufficient space for ætp (cf. cols. 69 and 127). In the restoration suggested here, fæ is a perfective active participle, referent of the following 3ms pronoun: “one who might lift to himself.”36 The arm is probably a second determinative of fæ rather than part of a separate dj.n.f; the same combination of determinatives is used in the writing of ætp in cols. 69 and 127.37 The final trace at the bottom of col. 28 could belong to the negative arms, as suggested by Quack (1995, 185). If so, the negation must be nj rather than nn, because there is no trace of an below it, which always extends as far to the left as in this scribe’s writing of nn. Since this text observes the normal Middle Egyptian distinction between nj and nn, nj alone cannot serve as a negative existential. There is space in the lacuna for wnt, which would have extended as low as the bottom of the last sign in col. 30 (for the lack of traces below nj here, cf. the alignment of wn below nn in col. 121). The scribe uses nn wn elsewhere as a negative existential (cols. 121 and 130), but only as an independent statement, whereas the clause here is probably adverbial, a common use of nj wnt.38 29–30 nÿm ãsf nïrw štæw õt.j The gods’ barring my belly’s secrets would be sweet, ————— The same objections apply to the restored m[j.ïn] of Chioffi and Rigamonti (2007, 34). 36 For the use of fæj with reflexive dative and without object, see A. Badawy, The Tomb of Nyhetep-Ptah at Giza and the Tomb of ëAnkhmaëhor at Saqqara (University of California Publications: Occasional Papers 11: Archaeology; Los Angeles, 1978), 35 and pl. 61: fæ.(j) n.(j) jqr “I will left to myself excellently” (for jqr used adverbially, see Wb. I, 137, 17; Wb. I, 137, 18–19 r jqr, m jqr seems to rule out Badawy’s interpretation n jqr “readily”). 37 Relative dj.n.f would presumably modify a noun fæ “burden.” That word, however, is invariably feminine fæt (Wb. I, 574, 9–12), and the pronoun of a relative dj.n.f has the same lack of obvious referent as fæ.n.f. 38 Gunn, Studies, 164–67; Satzinger, Negativen Konstruktionen, 33. 35

44

CHAPTER THREE

This may also be part of the cited “prodding” of the Soul, but it makes better sense as an utterance of the Man himself. Since the Soul in this text represents one side of an internal debate, the “secrets” of the Man’s “belly” (seat of thought: Wb. III, 357, 3) are his inner thoughts of a premature death, detailed in the preceding lines, as expressed by the Soul, who is in the Man’s “belly” (col. 9). The verb ãsf here has the basic sense of prevention (Wb. III, 336, 5–7). 30–31 ÿdt.n n.j bæ.j what my soul said to me: This has generally been seen as a transitional such as those in cols. 3–4, 55–56, 85–86, and 143–48, marking the end of the Man’s speech and the beginning of a short speech of the Soul (cols. 31–33). In that case, either 33 ÿd.j serves alone as the transition to the Man’s reply, if it begins in col. 33, or a transitional statement has been omitted, if the reply begins in col. 39 (clearly spoken by the Man). Both of these alternatives are problematic (see below). Goedicke (1970, 109–10) suggested that the statement is parenthetic, introducing a citation of the Soul’s words as part of the Man’s second speech, which does not end until the clear transition of cols. 55–56 (followed by Mathieu 2000, 23/25). Apart from the content of cols. 33–39 (discussed below), this has some support in the consistency of the transitional statements within the body of the text—jw wp.n.j r.j n bæ.j wšb.j ÿdt.n.f “And I opened my mouth to my soul, that I might answer what he had said” (3–4 and 85–86) and jw wp.n n.j bæ.j r.f wšb.f ÿdt.n.j “And my soul opened his mouth to me, that he might answer what I had said” (55–56), all of which introduce long discourses—in contrast to the shorter ÿdt.n n.j bæ “What the soul said to me” (cols. 147–48), which introduces the Soul’s short final speech,39 ————— And perhaps mirrors [ÿdt.n.j n bæ.j] “What I said to my soul” (cols. *12–13), introducing the Man’s short first speech (ending between cols. *12–15: see above). Goedicke’s notion that the longer transitions introduce “a statement made before the court” (1970, 109) is merely speculative. 39

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

45

Mathieu has understood the phrase here as topical (2000, 23 “(Quant à) ce que mon ba m’a dit”), but it makes somewhat better sense as appositive to, and explicative of, 30 štæw õt.j “my belly’s secrets.” (31) nj ntk js z “You are not a man, The opening line of the Soul’s cited speech has usually been understood as a rhetorical question, but also as a negative statement.40 If it is a question, it can only be so virtually—“You are not a man?”— which does not have the same meaning as the common translation “Are you not a man?”41 In the present context, however, either kind of question makes less sense than a negative statement. As part of his argument for death, the Soul points out that the Man himself is in dire straits. The implication is probably less one of social inferiority (first suggested by Sethe 1927, 62) than “You are barely human,” as indicated by what follows. 31–32 jw.k tr ënã.t even though you are alive. This clause has also been understood as an interrogative, largely due to the presence of the particle tr, which is most often found in ————— The latter by Erman 1896, 30; Suys 1932, 61; Lurie 1939, 143; Barta 1969, 21; Foster 1992, 12; Assmann 1998, 391; Lohmann 1998, 216; Haller 2004, 15; Quirke 2004, 131. Von der Wense’s “Sei doch ein Mann” (1949, 68) does not reflect the Egyptian, and Goedicke’s “Aren’t you (now), O man?” (1970, 109–10) is senseless. 41 Cf. Peas. B1 126–27 nj jw js pw jwsw gsæ.w “A tilted balance-arm is not a wrong?”: Parkinson, Peasant, 23, 4. Although is well-attested as a spelling of interrogative jn, the latter is spelled in col. 20, and nominal-predicate sentences with jn are not subordinated by js: Silverman, Interrogative Constructions, 62–64. Sin. B 230 nj jnk js qæ sæ “I am not one who is arrogant” can only be a statement in the context, even though AOS interprets the negative arms as interrogative jn jw (as also in B 114 and B 267): Koch, Sinuhe, 68, 1–2; 47, 5/7; 76, 9/10. The B manuscript of Sinuhe uses as the interrogative (B 35, 115, 120, 123, 126, 133, 162). 40

46

CHAPTER THREE

questions (Gardiner, EG, § 256). If so, it can only be rhetorical: e.g., Foster’s “Are you even alive?” (1992, 12; followed by Quirke 2004, 131, and Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 35–36).42 The probable declarative sense of the preceding sentence, however, makes a question less likely than a statement.43 The presence of tr serves to distinguish this clause from a more straightforward jw.k ënã.t(j) “you being alive.” The sentence as a whole is antithetical to normal Egyptian values, as expressed by Heqanakht: nfr gs n ënã r mt m zp wë “Half of life is better than death in full.”44 (32) ptr km.k What is your gain, 32–33 mœy.k œr ënã mj nb-ëœëw if you will care about life like an owner of riches The expression mœj œr also appears in col. 78, where it aptly illustrates the primary meaning “care about” (Wb. II, 120, 13). The form supports the subjunctive (or prospective) sÿm.f rather than the imperfective used circumstantially (“caring about”). 33–34 ÿd nj šm.j jw nfæ r tæ who says, ‘I have not gone,’ when all those are down? The initial verb form has usually been rendered as simple past “I said” in most translations, introducing a change of voice from the Soul to the Man. Such a use of the bare initial (perfective) sÿm.f, ————— El-Hamrawi, LingAeg 15 (2007), 19, interprets the value of tr in this passage as interrogative, with a connotation of reproach: “Bist du denn kein Mann?” 43 As understood by Faulkner (1956, 27), Barta (1969, 21), Goedicke (1970, 111), Tobin (1991, 347; 2003, 180), Parkinson (1997, 156), Bresciani (1999, 200), and Haller (2004, 15). Maspero (1907, 127) saw it as the verb twr “reject” (Wb. V, 252 = NK try, Wb. V, 318, 12; followed by Lohmann 1998, 216), but this is grammatically impossible. 44 II 26: Allen, Heqanakht, 17, 41–42, pls. 30–31. 42

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

47

however, is highly unlikely before Late Egyptian. Subjunctive “I will say, let me say” is possible, as understood by Mathieu (2000, 25), but as such it would have to be part either of the Soul’s cited speech or of the resumption of the Man’s speech. The first alternative does not suit the Soul’s evident desire to “go” (col. 7) and the second is inconsistent with the text of cols. 34–39 (see below). In that light, the form is better understood as a participle modifying the preceding nb-ëœëw “owner of riches” (as suggested by Letellier 1991, 102 and 103 n. 4; followed by Foster 1992, 13; Tobin 2003, 180). The scribe occasionally uses the seated man as determinative of participles (see the discussion of cols. 6–7, above). Though often translated as future, nj šm.j can only be past in this text, which observes the standard Middle Kingdom distinction between nj and nn.45 The pronoun nfæ refers to the West in col. 37 and has occasionally been understood with the same sense here (Scharff 1937, 21; van de Walle 1939, 313; von der Wense 1949, 68). As Faulkner saw, however (1956, 33 n. 32), the referent here is more likely the preceding ëœëw “riches” of col. 33. The use of r tæ “to earth” to express an undesirable state is paralleled in Heqanakht I vo. 2 nj ãr nfr ïw œr wnm jtj mœ nfr jw.j r tæ “Don’t you have it good, eating fresh full barley while I am down?”46 The sense of the line is that the Man is clinging to life despite his wretched state, like a rich man unreasonably attached to his possessions, even when deprived of them. 34–35 nœmn tw œr tfyt nn nwt.k In fact, you are being uprooted, without considering yourself, ————— Goedicke translates “I would say to someone (ready) to go” (1970, 111–12), followed by Tobin (1991, 347). Goedicke saw rather than before šm, noting that the central “hump” that distinguishes the latter from the former is illusory here, caused by the lower flourish of the preceding seated-man sign touching the horizontal of (1970, 195 n. 96). The two signs do touch, but there is a clear “hump” visible nonetheless (confirmed by first-hand observation; cf. Letellier 1991, 101). 46 See Allen Heqanakht, 30. 45

48

CHAPTER THREE

As Faulkner first realized (1956, 33 n. 33), the signs preceding œr represent the proclitic particle nœmn “in fact” followed by the 2ms dependent pronoun tw, rather than a form of the verb nœm.47 The second determinative of tfyt is rather than Erman’s (1896, 32), followed in all transcriptions. What Erman saw as plural strokes is the normal bottom of the sign; the arm attaches close to the top, as in col. 36. The basic meaning of the verb is transitive “uproot”; the use here is probably passive, describing the Man’s misfortune and implying that, like a tree (Wb. V, 298, 1), he is being separated from life even if he does not realize it.48 The form in nn nwt.k has usually been understood as the infinitive, but also as subjunctive nw.t(w).k “you will not be cared for” (Faulkner 1957, 27; Lalouette 1984, 222; Renaud 1991, 24; Parkinson 1997, 156; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 37).49 Either interpretation is defensible, but the contrast with the preceding statement attributed to the rich man suggests a circumstantial clause, like jw nfæ r tæ. 35–36 ãnrj nb œr ÿd jw.j r jït.k while everyone deprived is saying, ‘I shall rob you,’ The exact sense of this statement is unclear, in part because the meaning of ãnrj is uncertain. The noun normally denotes a prisoner (Wb. III, 296, 8). The “speaking man” determinative also appears in Peas. B1 153 and 154, where the noun has been understood as “evildoer, robber” (Wb. III, 296, 11). The context of those two passages, however, supports Parkinson’s interpretation of a reference to some————— Followed in most subsequent translations, with the exception of Wilson (1969, 405), Goedicke (1970, 112), Foster (1992, 13), and Lohmann (1998, 216). Letellier’s understanding of tw as the impersonal pronoun (1991, 103; followed by Mathieu 2000, 25) is less likely in the context. 48 Intransitive use (“tearing off”) is not attested until Late Egyptian: Wb. 5, 298, 10–11 (the latter a NK text); Janssen, in Pyramid Studies, 135 n. a. 49 Also as a relative form: Letellier 1991, 104 “Il n’est rien que tu puisses protéger”; followed by Mathieu 2000, 25. 47

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

49

one who is “deprived” (1997, 64): in B1 153 it is contrasted with nb-t “possessor of bread,” and in B1 154 it is parallel to jwt(j) ãwt.f “one who has no things.” The notion of deprivation also suits the content of the ãnrj’s speech here, which is probably to be understood with the sense of 112–13 z nb œr jtt snnw.f “every man robbing the other” (see below), as Letellier has seen (1991, 103). 36–37 jw grt.k mt rn.k ënã and you dead as well, while your name is alive. Faulkner cites Urk. V, 148, 3 (BD 99) n mj tr.k jj “who are you who has come?” as a parallel for the order jw grt.k mt (1956, 33–34 n. 34). This statement recapitulates and clarifies the Soul’s description of the Man as being “uprooted.” (37) st nfæ nt ãnt Yonder is a place of alighting, Following Scharff (1937, 21 and 23 n. 2), the pronoun has been understood to designate the West, with the exception of Letellier (1991, 102 and 104 n. 12), who saw it as “l’état du défunt,” requiring a rendition of st … nt ãnt not as “place” but as “une situation de repos.” The verb ãnj, however, means primarily “land” and only secondarily “remain” in a place (Wb. III, 287). The primary meaning is almost certainly intended here, reflecting the soul’s avian nature. 37-38 ëfdt nt jb storage-chest of the heart. The reading of the final word in col. 37 has been a matter of some discussion. Scharff’s ëfd (1937, 24 n. 9) has generally been accepted, though Goedicke read the first sign as rather than (1970, 114–15) and Letellier, following Goedicke, suggested n fdq jb “pour le désesperé” (1991, 100–102 and 104–105; similarly, Mathieu 2000, 25).

50

CHAPTER THREE

The sign at the top of col. 38 must represent , even though the does not have the downward turn found in all other examples of the ligature; it cannot represent the that Letellier saw as determinative of fdq, which is smaller and has a pronounced downward slant of the bottom element in all other examples. The left end of the initial sign of the word at the end of col. 37 is damaged, but the horizontal has a slight dip, more like than ; although normally has a distinct upward projection on the left, absent here, this is sometimes minimal (e.g., col. 129), which could also have been the case here. The ink marks below the are . This does not have the downward turn at the right characteristic of other examples of the bookroll, nor does it look like other examples of . Instead, it appears to be a rectangle with a projection on the right, similar to the one example of Q5 in Möller’s Paläographie I (188). With the preceding consonantal signs it suggests ëfdt “storage-chest,” as seen by Quirke (2004, 131 “treasure-chest”). The upper stroke in Möller’s example represents the top of the chest but here it may be for (although the feminine t is also omitted in 81 œjm.f ). The imagery seems unique but is perhaps reflected in CT IV 54d–e pr.n.j m ëfdt r sktt jn.n.j jb.j m æãt ãn.n.j m ënÿt “I have emerged from the chest to the Night-Bark, bringing my heart from the Akhet; I have landed in the Day-Bark.” (38) dmj pw jmnt The West is a harbor, 38–39 õn.t spdw œr jr which the perceptive should be rowed to.” The first half of this passage presents little difficulty. The noun dmj has been understood to refer both to a settlement and to a harbor. The latter is probably meant here, both because of the nautical metaphor that follows and because it is the regular sense of the term in the Middle Kingdom.

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

51

The verb õnj clearly has the determinative of a boat, and col. 38 clearly ends in a final . The sign or signs between these, and the traces at the top of col. 39 before œr, have usually been left untranslated. Erman (1896, 32) read the signs below the boat as but noted that these were probably not part of qs[n] “difficult,” since the is not grouped with as in cols. 10, 15, and 20. Despite this, a few scholars have understood that word following (Suys 1932, 61; Foster 1992, 13; Assmann 1998, 391; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 39; and perhaps also Parkinson 1997, 156). Goedicke (1970, 115) saw in place of Erman’s and restored õnt nj s[wæ.s n] œr “the voyage—it does not go beyond.” Letellier suggested instead, reading r.s (1991, 100; 101–102 n. g; and 102 “naviguer jusqu’à lui (?) est [ … ]”; evidently followed by Mathieu 2000, 25). The ink marks between the boat and the final s consist of a central “blob” (which Goedick saw as the “hump” of ) and a horizontal. Letellier perceptively noted that the boat sign in this hand normally consists of two parts, the boat itself and a horizontal below it representing the water on which the boat sails (cols. 71, 72, 137); the horizontal is omitted in col. 70, and in col. 26 it is replaced by a smaller sign more like . The sign in col. 38 has been seen as analogous to that of col. 70 but it is probably more like that of col. 26, with the “blob” below equivalent to the -like mark of the latter. The horizontal has a pronounced, though faint, upward projection on the left and undoubtedly represents (in place of , as always in this papyrus), which is sometimes used as a second determinative of õnj (Wb. III, 374). This leaves the final s of col. 38 as either a suffix of or the first sign of a word continued at the top of col. 39. Together with the following œr, the traces in col. 39 are best suited to the plural of the common expression spd-œr “perceptive” (Wb. IV, 109, 14–15). Two interpretations of the resulting phrase are possible. If the verb form is feminine, it must be a relative modifying jmnt with spdw œr as its subject: “The West, which the perceptive should row, is a harbor”

52

CHAPTER THREE

(for the transitive use of õnj, see Wb. III, 374, 25–26). The notion of the West as a navigable body of water, however, is at odds with both the determinative of jmnt here and the normal Egyptian concept of the West. More likely, therefore, the verb form is masculine, modifying dmj; the therefore represents the passive suffix tw (placed before the determinatives as in 115 sãæ.t). The resulting “which the perceptive should be rowed” is incomplete, indicating that the word following œr must represent the adverb jr(j) “toward” (Wb. III, 374, 11; Gardiner, EG, § 113, 2) rather than the initial jr “if” that has been universally understood to introduce the next sentence. In the context of cols. 31–38, the sense of the passage is the Soul’s attempt to convince the Man that anyone perceptive enough to understand the reality of his dire situation should consider death as preferable to life. The text that follows shows that the citation attributed to the Soul in cols. 31–39 ends here. (39) sÿm n.j bæ.j My soul should listen to me instead: This clause has been universally understood with the preceding jr as the protasis of a conditional sentence—“If my soul listens to me”50—but the interpretation argued above indicates an independent sÿm.f. The form is perhaps subjunctive, with jussive sense, but more likely “emphatic,” stressing the dative n.j, as an explicit contrast to the preceding text (30–31 ÿdt.n n.j bæ.j “what my soul said to me”). 39–40 n[n n].j [b]tæ I have no transgression. Sethe (1927, 63) restored the initial word in col. 40 as [b]tæ, suggesting “ohne daß ich ein Unrecht (btæ ?) begehen muß.” The ————— Lohmann 1998, 217, interpreted it as jr sÿm.n.j “if I had heard.” Suys rejected the reading of the verb as sÿm (1932, 61 n. 8) but offered no alternative. 50

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

53

translation indicates that Sethe also understood n[n jrt].j in col. 39–40, but that restoration probably requires more space than is available in the lacuna at the bottom of col. 39 and has not been adopted in subsequent studies. Scharff followed Sethe in reading [b]tæ in col. 40, as have all scholars since, and restored jw[tj] in cols. 39–40, giving jw[tj b]tæ “den Schuldlosen (?)” (1937, 21 and 25 n. 12), a common expression (Wb. I, 484, 6) that has also been generally adopted. Goedicke pointed out that the seated-man determinative should follow the entire phrase rather than its first element (1970, 116), but his suggested bæ.j [s]n [b]tæ “my ba, that neglectful companion” (followed by Foster 1992, 13 “my foolish brother,” and Tobin 2003, 181 “my stubborn brother”) is incompatible with the clear following bæ.j and stretches the sense of btæ, which denotes a legal, moral, or religious transgression (Wb. I, 483–84) rather than “neglect.” In the context, the seated man at the top of col. 40 most likely represents a 1s suffix pronoun and suggests either the restoration above or perhaps nj [jr].j [b]tæ “I have committed no crime” (Wb. I, 484, 8), based on Sethe. The sense probably reflects the notion of the later btæ ëæ n mt “big crime worthy of death” (Wb. I, 484, 11) and is an explicit contrast with the Soul’s desire for judgment (cols. 23–27). 40–41 tt jb.f œnë.j jw.f r mër Should his heart be in accord with me, he will be fortunate, Faulkner (1956, 23 n. 40b) corrected the previous reading of the first word as , although the ligature he saw between the second and the bookroll below the group does not exist. The interpretation argued above for the preceding clause identifies the initial clause here as part of an independent sentence rather than the second condition or circumstantial clause found in previous translations.51 It is most likely an “emphatic” construction expressing an initial condition. ————— It also excludes the result clause of Goedicke (1970, 115), the apodosis of Foster (1992, 13), and the relative clause of Lohmann (1998, 217). 51

54

CHAPTER THREE

41–42 rdj.j pœ.f jmnt mj ntj m mr.f for I will make him reach the West like one in his pyramid, The initial rdj.j is an instance of the prospective sÿm.f, as in ShS. 70–72 jr wdfj.k m ÿd n.j jn tw r jw pn rdj.j rã.k tw jw.k m zz “If you delay telling me who brought you to this island, I will make you find yourself in ashes.”52 The alternation between rdj.j “I will make” and the preceding jw.f r mër “he will succeed” illustrates Vernus’s distinction between subjective and objective expressions of the future, respectively, the prospective suggesting an action over which the speaker has control (here rdj.j) while the “pseudo-verbal” construction denotes one that is necessary or external to the speaker, as in the preceding jw.f r mër.53 42–43 ëœë.n œrj-tæ œr qrs.f to whose burial a survivor has attended. The verb form is almost certainly the relative sÿm.n.f: the circumstantial of Barta (1969, 22), Goedicke (1970, 117), Assmann (1998, 391, and 2001, 385), and Haller (2004, 15), and the present tense of Renaud (1970, 24) and Quirke (2004, 181), would require different verb forms, and the participle of Tobin’s “Which stands above his grave in the sight of his descendants” (2003, 181, following Foster 1992, 13) is ungrammatical. The determinative of qrs reflects the wood coffins of Middle Kingdom burials. 43–44 jw.j r jrt njæj œr õæt.k I shall make an awning over your remains, The pseudo-verbal construction with first-person subject here, in contrast to the sÿm.f of col. 41, most likely expresses inevitability. ————— Blackman, Middle Egyptian Stories, 43, 11–12. For the form, see Allen, Middle Egyptian, § 21.2.1. Chioffi and Rigamonti’s r ë.j “grazie a me” (2007, 40) is improbable. 53 Vernus, Future at Issue, 24–27. See also Chapter 4, Section C. 52

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

55

Scharff (1937, 25–26 n. 17) conjectured the meaning of njæj, which occurs only here and in col. 45, as “Schatten” or “Kühlung” from the context and the determinative, which is certainly the sunshade or fan (Möller, Paläographie I, 406), as well as from the term in col. 48, which Scharff read as šwjt “shade” (see below). Without explanation, von der Wense (1949, 68) rendered it as “ein Dach aus Palmen,” adopted as “shelter, abri” in most subsequent studies. Herrmann (1957, 74) translated “Atemluft(?),” probably relating the word to the later næw/njw “breeze, breath of air” (Wb. II, 200, 5) as Barta has done (1969, 33 n. 40; followed by Lohmann 1998, 217). The translation “cooling, Kühlung” was adopted by Assmann (1998, 391) and Burkard (2008, 156); Parkinson has combined Scharff’s two suggestions as “cool shelter” (1997, 156). Other translations, purely speculative, are Foster’s “sacred fan” (1992, 13), Bresciani’s “offerte” and “una tomba” (1999, 200), and Mathieu’s “receptacle” (2000, 25). Absent further evidence, the meaning must remain conjectural. Both jrt “make” and cols. 45–46 jã tm.f œsw “and it won’t get cold” (see below), suggest a structure rather than a less substantial term such as “shade.” The noun may be an n-preformative from the root jæj, a term for hair in Pyr. 1221e and 1223d, perhaps related to the noun jææ, denoting a kind of plant (Wb., I, 27, 9), also found in jææt (a scepter: Wb. I, 27, 10).54 The word at the bottom of col. 43, which must be a preposition, is damaged, but the preserved traces suit œr, as seen by Scharff (1937, 26 n. 18). Goedicke’s reading jrj n (1970, 117) does not suit the left-hand trace and is based on an erroneous reading of col. 45 jã (see below). His translation of the final noun, õæt.k, as “your remains” aptly reflects the plural strokes (and the “body parts” used as determinative in Pyr. 548b T õæt = P jf qsw), but the noun is singular (cf. CT VI, 74g), perhaps a collective, rather than plural as he suggests (1970, 117–18). ————— The last often with the determinative of a plant in the Coffin Texts. Note also Pyr. 264a jææw(j) “two combatants,” with similar determinative: see Sethe, Übersetzung und Kommentar I, 264. For n-preformatives, see Osing, Nominalbildung, 211. 54

56

CHAPTER THREE

44–45 sÿdm.k ky bæ m nnw and you will make jealous another soul in inertness. The verb sÿdm appears only in this text (the same form in cols. 46 and 49). As Scharff saw (1937, 26 n. 20), it describes the Soul’s action with respect to another one less well provided for, and could therefore conform to either of the Wörterbuch’s suggested translations “despise” or “pity” (Wb. IV, 396, 9); the former was adopted in most early studies,55 as well as by Wilson (1969, 405). Faulkner (1956, 27 and 34 n. 40) analyzed it as a causative of ÿdb/ÿdm “sting” (Wb. V, 632, 8–9, and 634, 19–635, 1) with the meaning “make envious,” which has largely been adopted since.56 Although the verb here has the determinative of the speaking man rather than the knife or fire of ÿdb/ÿdm “sting,” this seems the most reasonable interpretation, with the intransitive meaning of the root (Wb. V, 635, 1). The determinative here probably reflects the mental rather than physical nature of the “sting.” The final nnw has been understood as both a participle (first by Erman 1896, 36 “als Müde”) and an abstract (first by Weill 1947, 120 “en faiblesse”); the lack of a seated-man determinative argues for the latter, adopted in most studies since Weill’s. In cols. 63–64, where the same root is used as a participle with seated man and plural strokes, the term refers to the drowned, who have no proper burial.57 The parallels ky bæ nt(j) tæ.w (46–47) and ky bæ ntj œqr (49) indicate that m nnw here modifies ky bæ.58 ————— Jacobsohn opted for “pity” (1952, 20; followed by Lohmann 1988, 217). Foster’s “attract” (1992, 13) apparently derives from the verb in Sin. B 130 ÿdb.n.s œwyt.s (Koch, Sinuhe, 49, 12), which has been translated “It had assembled its tribes” (e.g., Lichtheim 1973, 228; Wb. V, 632, 13). The use of ÿdb meaning “assemble” is unattested until the Ptolemaic Period, however, and Gardiner proposed “incite,” an extended meaning of ÿdb “sting” (Notes on the Story of Sinuhe, 50). 57 See G. Meyer, SAK 17 (1990), 272–73. 58 Barta’s nisbe (j)m(j) nnw (1969, 33 n. 42) is unnecessary. A parallel for the attributive use of a prepositional phrase occurs in Sin. B 233–34 mw m jtrw swrj.t.f mr.k “water in the river, it is drunk when you like”: Koch, Sinuhe, 68, 7. 55 56

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

57

45–46 jw.j r jrt njæj jã tm.f œsw I shall make an awning and it won’t get cold, 46–47 sÿdm.k ky bæ nt tæ.w and you will make jealous another soul who is hot. Pace Goedicke (1970, 119; not reflected in his transcription of the column), jã is clear at the bottom of col. 45. Its subordinate use denotes future sequentiality, which suits the present context.59 Scharff (1937, 26 n. 22) emended tm.f to tm.k. a suggestion adopted by van de Walle (1939, 313), Weill (1947, 120), von der Wense (1949, 69), Faulkner (1956, 34 n. 42), Renaud (1991, 24), Parkinson (1997, 156), and Mathieu (2000, 25). The emendation, however, is unnecessary: as Barta saw (1969, 33 n. 43), the masculine pronoun refers to njæj. The is overwritten by the top of the œs-vase in the group below but does not seem to have been canceled; the scribe dipped his brush after writing it and before writing the œs group. Quack (1995, 185) has proposed understanding œsw as “get hot,” based on the preceding line and Westendorf’s suggestion that the verb may express both extremes of temperature.60 The determinative, however, indicates coolness, and there is no clear evidence for the opposite meaning until the Roman Period.61 The “soul who is hot” seems a non sequitur with the notion of a warm shelter, but the similar opposition between swrj.j mw and bæ ntj œqr in the next sentence indicates that the contrast is intentional. 47–48 swrj.j mw œr bæbæt I will drink water at the flood ————— Vernus, Future at Issue, 106–11. Westendorf, GM 29 (1978), 153–54. 61 M.-T. Derchain-Urtel, “Zum besseren Verständnis eines Textes aus Esna,” GM 30 (1978), 27–34. 59 60

58

CHAPTER THREE

The term bæbæt has been understood as a watering place, with the exception of Erman (1896, 36 “aus dem Strom”), Lurie (1939, 143 из потска “from the stream”), von der Wense (1949, 69 “aus dem Strome”), Mathieu (2000, 25 “du courant”), and Chioffi and Rigamonti (2007, 44 “l’acqua corrente”), following Wb. I, 419 “Stelle des Flusses, aus der (œr) man trinkt.” Ward, however, has demonstrated that it refers to the waters of the inundation, and Pamminger has collected evidence for the act of drinking these waters as a means of daily rejuvenation of the dead.62

Fig. 3. The Deceased Drinking from the Inundation

(48) ïzy.j šwjw and shall lift away dryness, 49

sÿm.k ky bæ ntj œqr and you will make jealous another soul who is hungry. Erman (1896, 36) transcribed the final word in col. 48 as and noted a “verwischtes o. ä.” below the circle. Scharff (1937, 27 n. 27) tentatively read , adopted by Faulkner (1956, 23 n. 48a). Goedicke (1970, 120) proposed . Of these, Erman’s transcription is the most accurate. The sun determinative is clear; it has the shape used elsewhere in the papyrus in the group but also centrally in col. 88 and cannot be Goedicke’s ; the plural strokes are also visible upon close inspection. Scharff and Goedicke misread the right half of the ————— Ward, Four Egyptian Homographic Roots, 101–103; Pamminger, GM 122 (1991), 71–75. 62

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

59

sun sign as a second reed-leaf; the separation of in two groups is improbable. The word is probably not šw “sunlight” nor šwt “shade,” which has a final t and uses the sunshade as sole determinative until the New Kingdom (Wb. IV, 432). Instead, it is most likely a noun from the root šw “dry” (Wb. IV, 429); this adjective-verb is often written with plural strokes as well as the sun sign, but the strokes here may represent the common ending w of verbal nouns.63 This reading of the noun šwjw is ill-suited to normal meaning of the verb ïzj “raise up” (Wb. V, 405–407). In this context, however, the sense is “lift away”: analogous usages occur in CT V, 379a, and VII, 110h, parallel to šdj “take away,” and CT IV, 238–39b, 242–43c. The notion of “lifting away dryness” is more coherent with the preceding clause than the generally accepted “raise a shade.”64 49–50 jr hjm.k wj r mt m pæ qj If you prod me to death in that manner, 50–51 nn gm.k ãnt.k œr.s m jmnt you will not find a place to land on in the West. For hjm “prod,” see the note to cols. 18–19, above. The adjunct m pæ qj can be read with either mwt (“death in this manner”) or hjm.k (“if you prod … in this manner”).65 Of studies with unambiguous translations or explicit commentary, most have adopted the former (first Sethe ————— The same word probably appears in pUCL 32157 2, 18 (hymn in praise of Senwosret III): Collier and Quirke, UCL Lahun Papyri II, pl. 2. Collier and Quirke transcribe , but a better reading is . The frequent writing of the verb as šww, and the Coptic reflexes S šooue / L šauie, suggest a root šwj (infinitive šwjt). 64 Lichtheim’s relative “over which I made shade” (1973, 165; followed by Lalouette 1984, 222, and Assmann 1998, 391) would require a resumptive. Derchain’s suggestion in RdE 29 (1977), 63 n. 33, that the verb is an error for ïs “sit” would require emendation of two determinatives and a missing preposition. 65 Goedicke’s statement that qj denotes physical form (1970, 121) is contradicted by uses such as Heqanakht II 43 ptr qy n wnn.j œnë.ïn m ït wët “What is the manner of my being with you in one community?”: Allen, Heqanakht, 47. 63

60

CHAPTER THREE

1927, 63). The latter, however, is preferable, as understood by Erman (1896, 38), Jacobsohn (1952, 20), Thausing (1957, 264), and Foster (1992, 13). Although the prior use of the verb in 18–19 jhm wj r mt nj jjt.j n.f “who prods me toward death before I have come to it” supports the former, the apodosis in cols. 50–51 is an explicit threat to counter the Soul’s prodding: i.e., “if you keep pushing me toward death as you have been, I won’t have time to make all the preparations for the afterlife I just described” (in cols. 41–49). This, in turn, provides the background for the Man’s closing statement in cols. 51–55. 51–52 wæœ jb.k bæ.j sn.j Set your heart, my soul, my brother, The final three signs of col. 51 are indicated in transcriptions as lost, but traces of all three are preserved. The semi-detached fragment with the right side of these signs is currently mounted too close to the rest of the papyrus on the left, distorting the shape of the final bookroll. The idiom wæœ jb has usually been understood in this passage as “patient,” but also as “friendly” or “well-disposed,” the meaning given in the Wörterbuch (Wb. I, 256, 15–18) (Jacobsohn 1952, 20; Faulkner 1956, 27; Thausing 1957, 264; Williams 1962, 54; Goedicke 1970, 121–22; Lalouette 1984, 222; Lohmann 1998, 218; Bresciani 1999, 201). Its basic sense, however, is attentiveness or determination, similar to that of the English idiom “set one’s mind” toward something.66 The Man is apparently urging his Soul to stand up to the difficulties he faces instead of avoiding them by dying. 52–53 r ãprt jwëw drpt.fj until the heir has grown up who will present offerings, ————— Lichtheim, Moral Values, 78–82. The sense is particularly clear in Ptahhotep 624–25 wæœ jb.k tr n mdwy.k ÿd.k ãwt tnw “Set your mind at the time of your speaking, that you may say things of distinction”: Žába, Ptaœœotep, 64. The same sense is reflected in the translations of cols. 51–52 by Foster (1992, 13) and Haller (2004, 15). 66

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

61

53–54 ëœët.fj œr œæt hrw qrs who will attend to the tomb on burial-day The verb-form ãprt is undoubtedly the sÿmt.f; there is no need to emend r ãpr m “so as to become,” as Faulkner suggested (1956, 34 n. 46; similarly, Erman 1896, 39; Lurie 1939, 143; Lalouette 1984, 222; Lohmann 1998, 218; Bresciani 1999, 201). The signs are clear and the following clauses undoubtedly describe a human survivor. The verb here certainly has the sense of maturing (Wb. III, 262, 1) rather than merely “coming into being” (as seen by Suys 1932, 64; Brunner-Traut 1967, 10; Barta 1969, 23): the Man is urging his Soul to wait for death at least until he has an adult heir to see to his proper burial. The single seated man at the end of col. 52 is probably the determinative of jwëw rather than the 1s suffix pronoun. The noun could therefore mean “an heir,” as understood by de Buck (1947, 23), Goedicke (1970, 121–22), Foster (1992, 13), Parkinson (1997, 156), Lohmann (1998, 218), Tobin (2003, 181), Quirke (2004, 131), and Chioffi and Rigamonti (2007, 45). The participles drpt(j).fj and ëœët(j).fj in col. 53, however, point to a defined antecedent: thus, either jwëw.(j) “my heir” or “the heir who will …,” as understood by Thausing (1967, 264). Although the 1s suffix could well have been omitted at the end of the column, Thausing’s reading has the benefit of understanding the word as written. The before the suffix in Faulkner’s transcription of drpt.fj (1956, 23) is more likely the “horns” of the , as indicated by Erman’s transcription (1896, 38). The determinatives of qrs “burial” in col. 54 indicate that the author (or scribe) understood the word here as the act of interring the mummy, as opposed to the “wood” determinative of the same word in col. 43, which reflects the coffin (see above). 54–55 sÿæy.f œnkyt n õrj-nïr and will transport a bed for the necropolis. The sign read as by Erman (1896, 38), and universally accepted as such since, does not have the leftward “hook” at the top found in

62

CHAPTER THREE

all other examples of in the papyrus: from its form and the following , it is undoubtedly instead. The verb is clearly caus. 2-lit. sÿæj “transport” (in this case, across the river) (Wb. IV, 397–98), normally written with walking legs or a boat as determinative but occasionally also with the bookroll.67 The word at the top of col. 55 is n rather than nt and therefore the preposition rather than the genitival adjective. For the deceased’s bed, cf. CT VI, 218k–m, 358f/p, 359k, 360f, 362f. The reference is probably to the bier rather than an item of funerary furniture. 5. the soul’s rebuttal (cols. 55–68)

(55) jw wp.n n.j bæ.j r.f And my soul opened his mouth to me 55–56 wšb.f ÿdt.n.j that he might answer what I had said: 56–57 jr sãæ.k qrs nœæt jb pw As for your bringing to mind burial, it is heartache; The jr of col. 56 is topical rather than conditional, since the clauses following are not apodoses of “bringing to mind” but elaborations on the notion of qrs “burial.” The determinative of qrs in this case is the sarcophagus: as opposed to col. 43, where a survivor “attends at” the wood (coffin) and col. 54, where the act of interment seems intended, it suggests that the author (or scribe) had in mind the ultimate finality of burial. The reading of the determinative of qrs and the of nœæt jb were first suggested by Gardiner, and the translation of the ————— CT I, 109b; II,41e; III 240b, 254a; V, 48e, 363e, 364c, 377d, 381d/l; VI, 152e, 331j; VII, 396c. The bookroll may be influenced by sÿæ/swÿæ “make sound” (cf. CT III, 240b), but the ending y rules out that verb in col. 54. 67

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

63

phrase as “heartache,” first by Junker (1948, 220).68 The meaning seems clear, both from the context and from the use of the term in the medical papyri with reference to disorders of the stomach and eyes (Wb. med. I, 471–72). 57–58 jnt rmyt pw m sjnd z it is bringing tears by saddening a man; 58–59 šdt z pw m pr.f ãæë œr qææ it is taking a man from his house so that he is left on the hill: Since it has no object, ãæë is more probably the stative than an infinitive. It clearly expresses an action subsequent to “taking a man from his house” and is therefore best understood as the stative of result,69 as first seen by Jacobsohn (1952, 23 n. 2). 59–60 nn pr.n.k r œrw mæ.k rëw you won’t be able to go up and see Suns. The construction nn sÿm.n.f is a future counterpart of nj sÿm.n.f as an expression of inability (Gunn, Studies, 127–30). The plural strokes after rë are clear; the plural reflects the notion of the spirit’s daily emergence from the tomb at sunrise, as first noted by Ranke (1926, 26 n. b). 60–61 qdw m jnr n mæt Those who build in stone of granite, (61) ãws qn the construction finished, ————— Gardiner, Admonitions, 82. See also A.B. Lloyd, JEA 61 (1975), 63. Lefebvre, GEC, § 350. Lloyd has “so that he is laid up on the hill”: JEA 61 (1975), 63. 68 69

64

CHAPTER THREE

As Goedicke has seen (1970, 126), the signs following ãws undoubtedly represent the three hieroglyphs with which the verb qn “finish” is usually written (Wb. V, 49), rather than the of 70 previous transcriptions. The lack of plural strokes argues against either ãws or qn being a participle like the preceding qdw, as ãws has been understood since Erman (1896, 43) and as Goedicke understood qn. In the context, ãws probably represents the noun ãwzw (Wb. III, 249, 8), which occurs in a Hatnub graffito also as object of qd,71 with qn the 3ms stative. The point of the circumstantial clause, that the building “in stone of granite” was actually completed, strengthens the irony of the main clause in col. 63. 61–62 mrw nfrw m kæwt nfrt fine pyramids as fine works— The noun following qn has usually been transcribed as singular but translated as plural.72 What has been understood as the pyramid’s base, however, consists of two strokes, an upper horizontal and a lower shaped element whose left end overlaps that of the horizontal. The form without the lower element is attested as a hieratic version of the pyramid (Möller, Paläographie I, 371) and is identical to the sign used as determinative of ëœëw “(heaps of) riches” in col. 33. The lower element should therefore probably be read as plural strokes. With Goedicke’s reading of qn, mrw must be either a second object of qdw or, more likely, appositive to the preceding ãws qn. The following nfrw is probably an adjective modifying mrw (as understood by van de Walle 1939, 313; Faulkner 1956, 27; Barta 1969, 23; Licht————— Goedicke’s reading was accepted by Mueller (1973, 354), Tobin (1991, 348, and 2003, 182), and Foster (1992, 14). 71 Anthes, Hatnub, pl. 13, Gr. 9, 8: jw qd.n.j ãwzw jm “I built a construction there.” 72 Plural transliteration in Lohmann 1998, 218. Translation as singular in Erman 1896, 43, and 1923, 125; Maspero 1907, 127; Ranke 1926, 26; Suys 1932, 65; Lurie 1939, 143; Weill 1947, 121; Jacobsohn 1952, 23; Lanczkowski 1954, 4; Frantsev 1960, 209; Wilson 1969, 405; Goedicke 1970, 126. 70

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

65

heim 1973, 165; Lalouette 1984, 222; Renaud 1991, 25; Tobin 1991, 348; Parkinson 1997, 157; Assmann 1998, 392, and 2005, 385; Lohmann 1998, 219; Bresciani 1999, 201; Mathieu 2000, 25; Haller 2004, 16; Quirke 2004, 132; and Burkard 2008, 156) rather than an independent adjective appositive to col. 60 qdw.73 62–63 ãpr sqdw m nïrw once the building commissioners become gods, This has usually been interpreted as an initial dependent clause (i.e., with an “emphatic” verb form) but also as a clause of purpose (the latter by Sethe 1927, 64; Lanczkowski 1954, 4; Parkinson 1997, 157; Tobin 2003, 182; Haller 2004, 16; Burkard 2008, 156).74 The former offers better sense in the context. The use of the sÿm.f rather than the sÿm.n.f suggests non-past reference and implies in turn that col. 60 qdw is aorist rather than past. Although it refers to the same subjects as qdw “those who built,” the causative participle sqdw clearly denotes “those who caused building”: hence, the deceased who commissioned the funerary structures. (63) ëbæw jrj wš.w what are dedicated to them are razed, The spelling of ëbæw does not suit the universal translation of the term as a noun referring to an offering stone or stela (Wb. I, 177, 7– 9). Instead, it may be a passive participle of the verb ëbæ, used both of directing ships and presenting offerings (Wb. I, 177, 1–2). The masculine plural reflects the gender of the preceding ãws and mrw. ————— It is possibly a 3pl stative mrw nfr.w “the pyramids being fine” if col. 61 ãws qn is subject-stative. Elsewhere in the papyrus, however, the 3pl stative is written without plural strokes (63, 74, 103, 117, 119, 120), while masculine plural adjectives and participles usually have them (38–39, 60, 63, 63–64, 64, 79, 123). 74 Also as a declarative statement (Maspero 1907, 27; Herrmann 1957, 67; Frantsev 1960, 209; Lalouette 1984, 222; Renaud 1991, 25; Tobin 1991, 347). Foster’s translation (1992, 14) bears little relation to the original. 73

66

CHAPTER THREE

As Faulkner noted (1956, 35 n. 53), the verb of the plural stative wš.w “razed” implies destruction rather than terms such as “empty” or “desolate,” with which it is otherwise translated. It is used elsewhere of depilation (Wb. I, 368, 6) and defoliation, and as such suits a referent of buildings rather than single stones.75 63–64 mj nnw mtw œr mryt like the inert who have died on the riverbank 64–65 n gæw œrj-tæ for lack of a survivor, For nnw “the inert,” see the discussion of cols. 43–45, above. The phrase is a comparison to the preceding sqdw “building commissioners” rather than to ëbæw, as Lichtheim has seen (1973, 165 “as if they were the dead”). 65–66 jt.n nwy pœ.fj jæãw m mjtt jrj the waters having taken his end, or Sunlight similarly— 66–67 mdw n.sn rmw spt n mw they to whom the fish and the lip of the water speak. For pœwj used of the end of life, see Wb. I, 536, 14; an analogous use occurs in col. 130 nn wn pœw.fj “it has no end.” The suffix of pœ.fj must refer to œrj-tæ, unless it resumes nnw mtw in the singular.76 The ideogram for “Sunlight” probably represents jæãw (Wb. I, 33, 3) rather than šw (Wb. IV, 430, 7). ————— For wš used of defoliation, see H. Junker, Gîza XI: Der Friedhof südlich der Cheopspyramide, Ostteil (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophischhistorische Klasse, Denkschriften 74, 2; Vienna, 1953), 187 Fig. 74a, 191. For the verb used of destroying structures, see Gardiner and Sethe, Letters to the Dead, pl. 6, 4–5. 76 Assmann’s “The water has taken its share” (2005, 385) is unsupported. 75

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

67

The suffix of n.sn probably refers to nwy and šw rather than to nnw mtw. The final rmw spt n mw has usually been interpreted as a single genitival phrase “fish of the water’s lip,”77 but is more likely coordinate, with the rmw speaking to nwy and spt n mw to jæãw. The image is apparently that of a body lying in the shallows at the riverbank. (67) sÿm r.k n.j Listen, then, to me: (67) mj.k nfr sÿm n rmt look, listening is good for people. 68 šms hrw nfr smã mœ Follow a good time, forget care. Despite its inordinately large size, the final consonant of col. 67 is rather than , since the latter is distinguished by a tick (see the note to col. 82, below). Similarly large signs appear elsewhere in this manuscript (e.g., 78 kt, 146 ãt). The prepositional phrase n rmt has occasionally been understood as governed by sÿm (“listening to people”: Foster 1992, 14; Parkinson 1997, 157; Mathieu 2000, 27; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 51), but this is less likely than the more common translation in which it is governed by nfr, as above. 6. the soul’s first parable (cols. 68–80)

68–69 jw nÿs skæ.f šdw.f A little man plows his plot, ————— The masculine genitive n may not be an error. Though normally feminine, spt is occasionally treated as masculine: e.g., CT III, 391e spt n twj (cf. CT IV, 45j spt twj). This may be the origin of Coptic spotou,which evidently derives from a masculine dual *sptwj. 77

68

CHAPTER THREE

69–70 jw.f æp.f šmw.f r õnw dpt and he loads his harvest inside a boat, Franke has established the meaning of nÿs as denoting a man of means but in need of protection from the powerful.78 The trace below the seated man determinative of this word at the end of col. 68 does not seem to be part of an erased sign and cannot belong to a word between nÿs and skæ.f; it may remain from the palimpsest. The use of the subject–sÿm.f construction here and in the next parable presents a problem. Both the context and the continuation of the narrative with the sÿm.n.f in cols. 71–75 rule out the usual aorist meaning in Middle Egyptian, which the construction has elsewhere in this text (see Chapter Four). Since the subject, nÿs, is undefined, it might be possible to understand the first sentence as existential “There was a little man who plowed his plot” (Weill 1947, 124; Guilmot 1969–72, 260; Renaud 1991, 25; Foster 1992, 14; Lohmann 1998, 219; Tobin 2003, 182), but the next sentence indicates that the sÿm.f is part of the subject–sÿm.f construction and not a virtual relative. As this and the following story are parables rather than true narratives, the construction here probably expresses a non-specific present (as understood by Erman 1896, 45, and most translations since), although that use is evidently not attested elsewhere. The of 69 ætp.f is omitted in error. The sign before the suffix is certainly (for ) rather than , which does not curve up to the left in this hand. It is possible that the word is a conflation of fæ.f and ætp.f, although the latter is expected in the context. 70–71 stæs.f sqdwt and drags a sailing, ————— GM 167 (1998), 33–48. The term is nearly synonymous with the English “little man”: e.g., “unless we limit the size of the big man so as to give something to the little man, we can never have a happy or free people” (from a speech of Huey Long in the US Senate, as reported in the Congressional Record of January 14, 1935). 78

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

69

The verb of stæs.f is identical with that meaning “drag” in col. 12 (see above). The phrase stæs.f sqdwt clearly refers to a voyage by ship. Two interpretations of the syntax are possible. If stæs is transitive, the expression “drag a sailing” (Erman “schleppt die Fahrt”: 1896, 45) must be an idiom for making such a voyage: probably not by towing the boat (first suggested by Suys 1932, 68 “tandis qu’il la hale et la traîne”), since 72 rs m dpt later places the man of the parable in the boat (see below). Alternatively, the verb may be intransitive “flow,”79 in which case the verbal noun sqdwt “sailing” is used adverbially. The verb-form stæs.f is used either circumstantially (imperfect) or as a clause of purpose (subjunctive). It can be understood as “emphatic,” but in view of the past tense of the following mæ.n.f clause, the sÿm.n.f would more probably have been employed if an initial circumstance had been intended. (71) œb.f tkn his festival near. The man’s “festival” has been explained in several ways: as “la fête de la mise au grenier” (Maspero 1907, 128), as a time of mourning (Suys 1932, 69 n. 1; Hannig 1991, 27–28) or rejoicing (Tobin 1991, 348), as a time of liberty (Scharff 1937, 35 n. 6), and as returning home (Jacobsohn 1952, 26 n. 1).80 Of these, the notion of personal celebration after the harvest seems likeliest: it both reflects the preceding exhortation šms hrw nfr “follow a good time” (col. 68)81 and enhances the pathos of the tragedy that follows. ————— Wb. IV, 353–54, there characterized as “belegt seit D. 18,” but possibly in Peas. B1 270 šj stæw “flowing basin”: Parkinson, Peasant, 34, 7. I owe this reference to Richard Parkinson. 80 Goedicke’s “accounting” (1970, 134), followed by Foster (1992, 14) and Tobin (2003, 182 “taxation”), is entirely speculative. The interpretation œæb f “la festa del 12o distretto” offered by Chioffi and Rigamonti (2007, 52) requires a highly unlikely use of without determinative as a place name. 81 Cf. the expression zj n œæb “man of festival” (Wb. III, 58, 12), which is used in parallel with zmæy n hrw nfr “associate of a good time”: Janssen, Autobiografie, 144 Ao. 79

70

CHAPTER THREE

71–72 mæ.n.f prt wãt nt mœyt When he saw the darkening of a norther’s emergence, The Soul’s parable continues from her as a past narrative, with mæ.n.f perhaps expressing an initial circumstantial clause. The rest of the clause has been understood to describe the onset of a storm, but the next two clauses seem to describe the man watching the sunset (see below), arguing against that interpretation. As indicated by the following rë œr ëq “as the Sun was going in,” the wãt “darkening” is that of evening (Wb. I, 6/11), when the wind (prevailing northerly in Egypt) picks up as the land cools. The final “water” sign is undoubtedly an unusual second determinative of mœyt “north-wind,”82 though not necessarily indicative of a rainstorm. The image is probably that of twilight accompanied by a northerly breeze that darkens the water. 72–73 rs m dpt rë œr ëq he watched in the boat as the Sun was going in, Faulkner (1956, 35 n. 59) has interpreted the initial verb as an ellipsis for rs.n.f, as also 73 pr and 74 æq, but these can be understood as written, as statives expressing the past tense of an intransitive verb. Goedicke’s reading of the preposition as (1970, 135) is mistaken: the bird’s back and “ears” (which he saw as ) are clearly joined to the base (which he saw as ), and is never ligatured by this scribe (cols. 7, 29, 84). The verb rs can mean merely “awake” but here more likely has the extended sense “watchful” (Wb. II, 450, 7; see Hannig 1991, 29). The phrase rë œr ëq refers to the sunset (cf. Pyr. 1469b–c) rather than to the sun’s disappearance behind storm clouds. There seems to be a subtle word-play between 71 prt and 73 ëq, and again between 73 pr.(w) and 74 æq.(w). ————— Probably not a separate rectum of nt, which would most likely be expressed as nt mœyt œnë mw. Osing’s interpretation of mw as subject to rs.(w) is improbable: see Hannig 1991, 28–29. 82

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

71

73–74 pr œnë œjmt.f msw.f disembarked with his wife and his children, The reading rather than Goedicke’s (1970, 135) is clear; prj is consistently written with in this text. Goedicke’s interpretation of the verb as a second object of œr—“while the sun sets and comes up (again)”; followed by Hannig (1991, 29–31), Tobin (1991, 348, and 2003, 182), Lohmann (1998, 219), and Mathieu (2000, 27)—is therefore improbable. The verb form is most likely the stative, as in col. 72 rs. The verb’s sense has been understood as “escape” (Scharff 1937, 35 n. 11; van de Walle 1939, 314; Weill 1947, 124; von der Wense 1949, 69; Jacobsohn 1952, 23; Faulkner 1956, 27; Guilmot 1968–72, 259; Barta 1969, 24; Wilson 1969, 406; Osing 1977b, 620; Bresciani 1999, 202), but in the interpretation argued above for cols. 71–72, there is nothing to “escape” from. The preceding clauses indicate that the man is on deck (watching the sun set). Therefore, pr “went up” probably refers to disembarking (as seen by Renaud 1991, 25 n. 13), antonym of hæj “go down” used of boarding a boat (Wb. II, 472, 9–10). For msw.f as coordinate with œjmt.f, see the note to col. 76–77, below. (74) æq tp š and they perished atop a depression The initial æq is probably the third-person plural stative (Barta 1969, 35 n. 57) rather than a plural active participle (Hannig 1991, 31): the absence of an ending or plural strokes is typical for the 3pl stative in this text, but not for the (masculine) plural participle (see n. 73, above; a 3pl stative ending appears in 63 wš.w). If šj means “lake, pool,” the preposition tp implies location “atop” a body of water (Wb. V, 274, 9–11), which is inconsistent with that of the wife and children indicated by the preceding clause: it is improbable that the crocodiles climbed into the boat (which was large enough

72

CHAPTER THREE

to carry a cargo of grain). The noun šj, however, can refer to a dry “depression” as well as one full of water (Wb. IV, 398, 5–9)—in particular, the natural “basins” of the Nile Valley that filled with water during the inundation.83 The spelling of the word here, with the same determinative used for tæ “land” (e.g., col. 78), suits such a reference. 74–75 šn m grœ õr mryt ringed by night with riverbankers. Given its undefined antecedent, šn is probably the stative rather than a passive participle. The verb is undoubtedly šnj “ring, encircle”: the determinative84 merely specifies the agent of the action. Judging from its spelling (also in col. 97), the noun mryt is probably a collective rather than a nisbe. 75–76 ÿr.jn.f œms pzš.f m ãrw So, he ended up seated and spreading out by voice, Despite its bookroll determinative, the verb of pzš.f is probably not psš “divide, share,” which makes no sense in this context, but pšš “spread out,” which is commonly written pzš in Middle Kingdom texts (Wb. I, 560); the determinatives are borrowed from psš “divide, share” (cf. CT VIII, 388–89). The expression pzš m ãrw is evidently an idiom for “cry aloud, broadcast.” 76–77 œr ÿd nj rm.j n tfæ mst saying, “I have not wept for that one who was born, The negation here has usually been understood as present but also as future (Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 54; similarly, Mathieu 2000, 27), and perfect or past (Jacobsohn 1952, 23; Williams 1962, 55; Osing ————— 83 84

See Allen, Heqanakht, 150. Also found in Peas. B1 161 and R 25, 2: Parkinson, Peasant, 26, 5–6.

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

73

1977b, 620; Foster 1992, 14; Quirke 2004, 132). 85 The normal Middle Egyptian past negation, however, suits the context: the initial ÿr.jn.f œms “So, he ended up seated” implies a passage of some time between the death of the wife and children and the man’s “spreading out by voice.” There is no compelling reason to assume an exceptional use of nj sÿm.f or an older negated prospective “I shall not weep.” The demonstrative tfæ perhaps reflects the separation between the man and the dead mst (on pf gs “yon side” and nfæ “yonder”: cols. 16 and 37). The determinative of mst is clearly , as seen by Erman (1896, 47), rather than the of other transcriptions. The word has usually been interpreted as an active participle but is more likely a passive one (as understood by Barta 1969, 35 n. 62; Hannig 1991, 26; Assmann 1998, 393; and Burkard 2008, 156), contrasting the mother, who has experience life, with her children (below), who have not. Scharff’s interpretation of mst as referring to a deceased daughter (1937, 37 n. 20, perhaps anticipated by Suys 1932, 69) was adopted in subsequent translations (with the exception of de Buck 1947, 26) until effectively countered by Faulkner (1956, 36 n. 64). This was based in part on Scharff’s understanding of 74 msw.f alone as subject of æq “perished”—in other words, both husband and wife surviving while the children died—but the following reference to the mst as being in “the West” rules it out. 77–78 nn n.s prt m jmnt r kt œr tæ though she has no emerging from the West to another one on earth. Wilson (1969, 406 n. 12) noted that prt m jmnt may reflect the notion of “coming forth by day,” denied the wife because of the manner of her death, but this is unlikely in view of the following prepositional phrases. Those have commonly been understood to refer to a ————— For the present tense, see Gunn, Studies, 99. Goedicke (1970, 137) argues for past tense but his translation “I would not weep” is more appropriate of the future. 85

74

CHAPTER THREE

second lifetime. Gunn’s interpretation of the preposition r with comparative sense (“more than another woman”) is possible if œr tæ is to be understood with prt m jmnt (“emerging from the West on earth”) but not, as Gunn translated, with r kt, since someone “on earth” does not “emerge from the West.”86 Mathieu understood r with antagonistic meaning (2000, 27 “pour s’opposer à une autre, sur terre”), as a reference to the spirit’s possible opposition to her husband’s remarriage (35 n. 30), but this seems extraneous to the narrative. The interpretation hinges on what kt “another one” was meant to denote. Neither the commonly understood “time” or “life” is likely, because both terms would probably have been reflected by a masculine kj (ënã, zp). Lalouette saw it as referring to the wife: “pour devenir une autre (femme) sur la terre” (1984, 223). More likely, however, is a reference to the notion of birth (mswt) inherent in the term mst.87 78–79 mœy.j œr msw.s sdw m swœt But I care about her children, broken in the egg, Since this statement is contrastive with the preceding one, mœy.j is probably “emphatic,” focusing œr msw.s (as understood by Tobin 1991, 340): the point is not the fact that the man cares but those he cares about. Faulkner (36 n. 64) suggested that msw.s refers to “the potential offspring whom the husband had hoped his wife would bear in the future.” This overlooks the more obvious reference to the children mentioned in col. 74, who perished with the wife (and would otherwise be unmourned). ————— Gunn, Studies, 143 “not more than another woman (who is) upon earth”; followed by Suys 1932, 69; Scharff 1937, 34; van de Walle 1939, 314; Weill 1947, 124; von der Wense 1949, 70; Goedicke 1970, 138; Renaud 1991, 25; Foster 1992, 14. A reading rk “time” is unlikely, both grammatically and because the sun sign in this papyrus is always round with a central “dot” when it stands alone in the column. 87 Guilmot understood it as referring to the phrase prt œr tæ (1968–72, 59: “pour une autre (sortie) sur terre”; followed by Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 55), but this is unlikely, since the infinitive (prt) is grammatically masculine. 86

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

75

79–80 mæw œr n ãntj nj ënãt.sn who saw the face of Khenti before they lived.” The qualifications “broken in the egg” and “before they lived” are hyperbolic, reflecting the children’s death at a young age (see Williams 1962, 55 n. 2). The determinative of ãntj is probably the crocodile over a standard, although the latter may have been erased (Erman 1896, 47). 7. the soul’s second parable (cols. 80–85)

80–81 jw nÿs dbœ.f mšrwt A little man asks for an afternoon meal, (81) jw œjm.f ÿd.s n.f jw r msyt and his wife says to him, “It will be supper,” For the sense of the subject–sÿm.f construction in this parable, see the note to cols. 68–69, above. The nature of jw r msyt as a sentence with impersonal subject was first reflected in de Buck’s translation (1947, 26) “het zal zijn voor het avondmaal,” which also expresses the future implications of the preposition r (similarly, van de Walle 1939, 314; Weill 1947, 124; Lalouette 1984, 223; Foster 1992, 15; Lohmann 1998, 200; Bresciani 1999, 202; Tobin 2003, 182; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 56). There is no need to assume a textual omission, as some scholars have done (Faulkner 1956, 36 n. 66; Barta 1969, 34 n. 64; Renaud 1991, 25; and Lohmann 1998, 220). 82 jw.f pr.f r ãntw r.s and he goes outside at it, (82) sï r æt only for a moment.

76

CHAPTER THREE

The signs between ãntw and r æt have puzzled translators since Erman. The sign before the preposition is clearly ; the tick that distinguishes the latter from is also visible in 48 ïzy.j and is placed differently from that of the bookroll. All translations have understood the signs as r ssï, with ssï the infinitive of “an obscure causative verb” (Faulkner 1956, 36 n. 67), without determinative. A number provide no translation (Erman 1896, 49; Faulkner 1956, 27; Lichtheim 1973, 166; Lalouette 1984, 223; Lohmann 1998, 220). Suys was first to suggest a meaning, “pleurer(?)” (1932, 69). Scharff offered “schimpfen” (1937, 40 n. 7), followed in most translations. Barta (1969, 35 n. 66) suggested a causative of wzï “wasted” (Wb. I, 358, 5); Goedicke (1970, 141), a causative of sæt (Wb. IV, 27, 5: see the note to cols. 84– 85, below); and Badawy, a form of sïj “shoot” referring to urination (1961, 145; followed by Parkinson 1997, 157, and Bresciani 1999, 202). None of these offers a reasonable interpretation of the passage, and any of the verbs suggested should have a determinative. Rather than r ssï, the signs are undoubtedly to be read r.s sï. The prepositional phrase could mean “from her,” with reference to the wife (literally, “with respect to her”), but prj r otherwise means “go out against” a person (Wb. I, 520, 2); it is therefore more probably “at it,” referring to the wife’s rejection of his request (cf. Wb. II, 387, 25). The word sï is the subordinating proclitic particle (Gardiner, EG, § 231) and belongs with the following r æt “for a moment”; its presence is evidently meant to distinguish this phrase from a less-marked adjunct (“he goes out at this for a moment”). 83 ënn.f sw r pr.f jw.f mj ky When he turns back to his house, he is like another man The spelling with both signs before the determinative argues against an interpretation of the initial verb form as the sÿm.n.f (Faulkner 1956, 27; Griffiths 1967, 157; Lichtheim 1973, 166; Tobin 1991, 348, and 2003, 183; Lohmann 1998, 219). In either case, it functions as an initial circumstantial clause, as Erman first understood (1896, 49).

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

77

Griffiths suggested emending ky “another,” with the seated-man determinative, to ky “baboon”: “he returned to his house (acting) like an ape” (1967, 157). This has found no acceptance and is unnecessary: the remainder of the story does not necessarily indicate rage (see the note to cols. 84–85, below). 83–84 œjmt.f œr šsæ n.f his wife pleading to him. The verb šsæ here has usually been understood as Scharff’s “kündig sein” (1937, 41 n. 9) or Faulkner’s “reasoned (?) with” (1956, 27), despite the fact that the preposition n rather than œr or m does not suit this meaning, as Scharff realized. Better sense is given by Lichtheim’s “beseeches” (1973, 166; followed by Lalouette 1984, 223; Parkinson 1997, 157; Quirke 2004, 132; and similarly, Osing 1977b, 620, and Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 56). The verb is most likely a metathesis of sšæj “plead” (Wb. IV, 281, 2), with the determinative influenced by šsæ “gain experience” (Wb. IV, 543–44). The lack of an introductory jw suggests that the clause is circumstantial to the preceding one, with the subject–œr-sÿm construction indicating the imperfect. (84) nj sÿm.n.f n.s He doesn’t listen to her, 84–85 sï n.f wš jb n wpwtjw offended and unreceptive to those of the household. The word sï (here with determinative) is most likely a form of the later sæt (Wb. IV, 27, 5), as suggested by Goedicke (1970, 141). The later verb is used both transitively and intransitively. The former use occurs with both human and divine objects and is rendered by the Wörterbuch as “slur, blaspheme”; the latter occurs only in a single instance in the Destruction of Mankind, where it is translated as “suffer

78

CHAPTER THREE

damage.”88 The root meaning may be “offend, be offended.” In the present context, it refers to the commoner’s reaction to his wife’s rejection and is probably the stative with a following reflexive dative. The expression wš jb appears only here. The verb is undoubtedly the same as that in col. 63, despite the difference in determinatives (here perhaps reflecting the more abstract nature of the action). The literal translation “stripped of heart” (see cols. 62–63, above) presents an image of emotional barrenness, hence, lack of receptivity. The term wpwtjw is either the plural of wpwtj “messenger” or a plural nisbe of wpwt “household” (Wb I, 303, 4–6). The latter, first suggested by Lichtheim (1973, 166; followed by Tobin 1991, 348, and 2003, 183; Parkinson 1997, 157; and Bresciani 1999, 202) is more likely in the context. This in turn indicates that the preceding n is the preposition rather than the indirect genitive (pace Faulkner 1956, 36 n. 71). Goedicke’s interpretation of the term as “the spirits of the demons” (1970, 142–43; similarly, Foster 1992, 15, and Mathieu 2000, 35 n. 24) is unnecessarily speculative. 8. the man’s first litany (cols. 85–103)

85–86 jw wp.n.j r.j n bæ.j And I opened my mouth to my soul, (86) wšb.j ÿdt.n.f that I might answer what he had said: 86–87 mj.k bëœ rn.j Look, my name is reeking: ————— E. Hornung, Der ägyptische Mythos von der Himmelskuh: eine Ätiologie des Unvollkommenen, 3rd ed. (OBO 46; Freiburg, 1997), 25: nj sæt.n ërryt.f “his portal cannot suffer damage.” 88

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

79

(87) mj.k r st æsw look, more than carrion’s smell 88 m hrww šmw pt tæ.t on Harvest days, when the sky is hot. The verb-form bëœ, which occurs in this writing only in the papyrus, was initially interpreted as “despised” (Erman 1896, 51; followed by Maspero 1907, 129; Ranke 1926, 26; Pieper 1927, 27; Blackman 1930, 70; van de Walle 1939, 314; Garnot 1944, 22; Weill 1947, 125; Faulkner 1956, 27; Thausing 1957, 265; Potapova 1965, 77; Lohmann 1998, 220; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 58). Scharff suggested “offensive” (1937, 44; followed by von der Wense 1949, 70; Spiegel 1950, 48; Brunner-Traut 1967, 9; Barta 1969, 25; Hornung 1990, 113 ; Renaud 1991, 26; Tobin 1991, 349, and 2003, 183; Lohmann 1998, 220). Lurie (1939, 144) was the first to suggest “stink,” which has been followed in other translations. That sense seems likeliest, both from the determinatives and from the comparison to sïj “smell” throughout the litany; the usual meaning of bëœj, “overwhelm,” suggests the connotation of an overpowering smell. In any case, it is clear that bëœ rn.j denotes the Man’s bad reputation. The comparative r indicates that bëœ has adjectival value and is therefore probably an active participle. Erman’s understanding of the second of each stanza as a repetition of the initial mj.k has been followed by Maspero (1907, 129), Ranke (1926, 26), Weill (1947, 125), Spiegel (1950, 48), Faulkner (1956, 27), Frantsev (1960, 210), Guilmot (1968–72, 255), Lichtheim (1973, 166), Lalouette (1984, 223), Renaud (1991, 26), Tobin (1991, 349, and 2003, 183), Parkinson (1997, 158), Assmann (1998, 394), Lohmann (1998, 220), Bresciani (1999, 202), and Chioffi and Rigamonti (2007, 58). Other scholars have adopted Sethe’s interpretation of it (1927, 65; also Pieper 1927, 27) as the compound preposition m ë.k “through you,” identifying the Soul as the cause of the Man’s ill repute. Faulkner (1956, 36 n. 73) noted, however, that there is nothing

80

CHAPTER THREE

in the text to indicate that the Soul was the source of the Man’s troubles. The repetition of mj.k “look” serves to divide the first comparison in each stanza as a line of verse separate from the initial one. Mathieu (2000, 27) translated “mon nom serait odieux à cause de toi,” with the conditional reflecting his view (2000, 35 n. 36) that the Man is thinking of the final judgment, when his name would be odious if he acceded to the Soul’s desire for a premature death. The remaining litanies, however, clearly indicate that the Man at this point has given up his resistance and has adopted the Soul’s point of view. This obviates Mathieu’s conditional as well as the occasional translation of bëœ as future (first by Scharff 1937, 43). The noun æsw is unattested elsewhere with this determinative. Most translations have followed either Scharf’s suggestion that it refers to bird droppings (1937, 44) or Blackman’s interpretation of it as a term for bald-headed vultures (1938, 67–68). Goedicke, who adopted Scharff’s surmise, proposed a connection with æs (1970, 146–477), more fully æjs, a general term for offal (Wb. I, 20, 10–13; Wb. Drogennamen, 1). The determinative here, in place of the usual “pustule,” suggests an image of carrion, as understood by a few scholars (Lichtheim 1973, 166; Lalouette 1984, 223; Assmann 1998, 394; Haller 2004, 17; Quirke 2004, 132). 88–89 mj.k bëœ rn.j Look, my name is reeking: (89) mj.k šzp sbnw look, more than an eel-trap’s smell 90 m hrw rzf pt tæ.t on catch day, when the sky is hot. Before šzp, the scribe inadvertently omitted the preposition r, and probably also the word st(j), which is used in the other four of the

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

81

first five stanzas. The word šzp has been interpreted universally as a form of the verb meaning “receive” (not “catch,” as often understood here), but this makes little sense in the context, either as a participle (“one who receives a sbnw”) or as an infinitive (“receiving a sbnw”). A participle denoting a human being is out of place in the first five stanzas, where the comparison is otherwise to the smell of things or animals, and is also unlikely in view of the lack of a seated-man determinative. It is also improbable that the “receiving” of something would reek, rather than the thing itself. In that light, šzp more likely is a noun; its meaning is dependent on that of the following noun. The hapax sbnw has uniformly been translated as “fish,” from its determinative. As Scharff pointed out (1937, 45), the term derives from zbn “glide,” which can have the same determinative (Wb. III, 433). It may be merely a more colorful term for fish than the common rmw, but the basic sense of the verb suggests it may be the otherwise unknown word for “eel”.89 Despite the absence of a relevant determinative, the word šzp may then denote the trap in which eels have traditionally been caught, which can smell rancid both from the kind of bait used and from the dead eel itself.90 The term rzf has sometimes been translated as an activity: “catching” (Lurie 1939, 144; Faulkner 1956, 28; Frantsev 1960, 210; Potapova 1965, 77; Parkinson 1997, 158), “fishing” (Lichtheim 1973, 166; Tobin 1991, 349, and 2003, 183; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 59), “hunting” (Goedicke 1970, 148), “angling” (Foster 1992, 15), and “trawling” (Quirke 2004, 132). The noun, however, refers not to the act of catching but to the catch itself (Wb. II, 449, 4–6), as reflected in most translations. ————— For eels in the Nile, see D. Brewer and R.F. Friedman, Fish and Fishing in Ancient Egypt (The Natural History of Egypt 2; Warminster, 1989), 71. 90 The word possibly derives from the lattice-work of which the trap was constructed: cf. šzpt “gazebo” (Wb. IV, 535). “The earliest recorded eel traps consisted of sticks and branches held together with sinew and the basic design has remained fairly consistent since those times”; “The traps are always baited to attract eels, with some believing the more the bait stinks the better due to the eels’ keen sense of smell” (www.eeltraps.com). 89

82

CHAPTER THREE

91 mj.k bëœ rn.j Look, my name is reeking: 91–92 mj.k r st æp«d»w look, more than ducks’ smell 92–93 r bwæt nt trjw õr msyt at a rise of reeds with a brood. The hapax æpsw has been related to 87 æsw (Scharff 1937, 43; Van de Walle 1939, 314; Garnot 1944, 23; von der Wense 1949, 70; Spiegel 1950, 48; Jacobsohn 1952, 31; Wilson 1969, 406; Kitchen 1999, 81) but it is almost certainly an error for æpdw “ducks” (Erman 1896, 54), perhaps influenced by æsw, as Faulkner suggested (1956, 37 n. 77). Ducks themselves are not notoriously malodorous, although their droppings often are. This suggests that the initial preposition of the third line does not denote a second comparative, as universally understood, but rather has locative sense (Wb. II, 387, 22). Blackman’s interpretation of bwæt as “covert” (1930, 70) has been followed in most translations. Weill (1947, 126 n. d) pointed out, however, that the word is obviously related to bwæ “stand out” (Wb. I, 454) and therefore probably refers to a rise of ground, as Erman originally saw (1896, 53; followed by Maspero 1907, 129; Ranke 1926, 26; Lurie 1939, 144; Lalouette 1984, 223; Foster 1992, 15; Haller 2004, 17); that sense is also more compatible with the determinative. As Faulkner noted (1956, 37 n. 79), Erman’s original understanding of trjw as “willows” (followed by Blackman 1930, 70) is in error.91 The final msyt has usually been interpreted as a term for waterfowl (after Wb. II, 143) but is probably the same as the collective for children and foals (Wb. II, 140, 11–13 and 15), as Haller (2004, 17) and ————— See L. Keimer, BIFAO 31 (1931), 227–29. The spelling in col. 92 clearly reflects a word originally ending in r rather than the feminine ïrt “willow” (Wb. V, 385). 91

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

83

Quirke (2004, 132) realized.92 The image seems to be that of a mound of dry ground within a reed marsh, where birds have nested. (93) mj.k bëœ rn.j Look, my name is reeking: 94 mj.k r st œæmw look, more than fowling’s smell 94–95 r ãæzw nw zšw œæm n.sn at the channels of the nests fowled for them. The verb œæm is used of fishing and fowling (Wb. III, 31, 12–13 and 18); the reference to zšw “nests” indicates the latter activity here. The lack of a seated man and plural strokes identifies œæmw as a verbal noun rather than the plural “fishermen” (Wb. III, 32, 3) of most translations.93 As in the previous stanza, the preposition r in the third line may indicate locale rather than another comparison: “fowling” may not be malodorous in itself but probably was so in marshes full of bird nests. Gardiner has established the probable meaning of ãæzw.94 The final word of the stanza has usually been understood as œæm.n.sn, either a relative form “which they have fowled” (most translations) or the sÿm.n.f used circumstantially “when they have fowled” (Erman 1896, 54; Ranke 1926, 26; Lurie 1939, 144; Lalouette 1984, 223; Foster 1992, 15).95 Since col. 94 œæmw is a verbal ————— See also R. Caminos, Late Egyptian Miscellanies (Brown Egyptological Studies 1; London, 1954), 348; W. Helck, Materialien zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Neuen Reiches III (AAWLM 1963 no. 2; Mainz, 1963), 309. 93 Exceptions are the singular “pêcheur” of Weill (1947, 125) and Mathieu (2000, 29), and Potapova’s unsubstantiated bolotna] tina “marsh-slime” (1965, 79). 94 A.H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica (Oxford, 1947), I, *9 no. 43. 95 Von der Wense’s “der Unrat auf dem Schlamm“ (1949, 70) and Potapova’s rybaq|i otrep|] i nevod “fishermen’s rags and net” (1965, 79) unfounded. 92

84

CHAPTER THREE

noun, however, the only possible referents of the suffix pronoun are ãæzw “channels” or zšw “nests,” neither of which are appropriate subjects of œæm.n.sn. This indicates the reading œæm n.sn “fowled for them,” with a passive participle. The participle modifies ãæzw “channels” and the pronoun refers to zšw “nests.” 95–96 mj.k bëœ rn.j Look, my name is reeking: (96) mj.k r st msœw look, more than crocodiles’ smell 97 r œmst õr ëÿw õr mryt at a site of slaughter with riverbankers. Although œmst could be the infinitive of cols. 133 and 135, as it is normally understood, here it is more likely a noun denoting a place of sitting (as Wb. III, 99, 3), as Barta sensed (1969, 25; followed by Lichtheim 1973, 166; “hut”). Together with the fact that crocodiles themselves do not have an inherently unpleasant smell,96 this suggests that the preposition r at the head of the third line is locative, as in the two preceding stanzas. The noun appears to be either ëÿw “desert edges” (of the cultivation: Wb. I, 239, 6) or spæwt “areas of cultivation.”97 The second is unlikely in view of the spelling without , and spæt is not used elsewhere as a general term for “region” (as understood by Goedicke 1970, 150; Hornung 1990, 113; Tobin 1991, 349; Lohmann 1998, 221; Haller 2004, 17; Quirke 2004, 132). The first does not appear else————— www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/crocs/wrestling/wrestling3.html. For the latter (Goedicke, 1970, 151; Lohmann, 1998, 220; Quirke 2004, 132), see Allen, Heqanakht, 150. The reading ÿæÿæt argued by Scharff (1937, 46 n. 11; followed by van de Walle 1939, 315; von der Wense 1949, 71; Spiegel 1950, 49; Jacobsohn 1952, 31; Potapova 1965, 79; Wilson 1969, 406) is improbable. 96 97

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

85

where as a term for the riverbank, as often translated here (Lurie 1939, 144; Barta 1969, 25; Lalouette 1984, 224; Parkinson 1997, 158; Bresciani 1999, 203; Kitchen 1999, 81; Mathieu 2000, 29; Tobin 2003, 183). Faulkner’s “sandbanks” (1956, 28; followed by Renaud 1991, 26; Foster 1991, 15, and 2001, 60) is conjectural; in any case, one does not sit õr “under” sandbanks.98 The other sense of ëÿw is also illsuited to the context, since they were not frequented by crocodiles.99 In light of these difficulties, the word may represent instead a verbal noun of the verb ëÿ “hack up, slaughter” (Wb. I, 238: cf. Wb. I, 239 æÿt “bloodbath”): that verb appears as in CT 100 VI, 413l r-ëÿ “slaughter.” The first õr-phrase qualifies œmst; the second qualifies ëÿw, with the agentive sense of col. 74–75 šn … õr mryt. The third sign of mryt is undoubtedly (for ) rather than a second : its shape is different from that of the preceding and similar to that of most example of in this papyrus. 97–98 mj.k bëœ rn.j Look, my name is reeking: (98) mj.k r zt-œjmt look, more than a married woman 98-99 ÿd grg r.s n ïæy about whom the lie of a lover has been told. The exact connotation of zt-œjmt in the Middle Kingdom, as opposed to the separate terms zt “woman” and œjmt “woman, wife,” is ————— Faulkner translated “by sandbanks” (1956, 28), but this meaning is not attested for the preposition õr. In addition, the Egyptians would undoubtedly have avoided “sandbanks full of crocodiles.” 99 Weill (1947, 125) translated “la lisière de l’inondation,” but ëÿ does not seem to have this meaning elsewhere. 100 Cf. ShS. 114–16 jw … mœ õr nfrwt nbt “island … full of all good things.” 98

86

CHAPTER THREE

unclear. Goedicke (1970, 151) saw it as a term for “a sexually mature maiden,” but evidence is lacking. The nature of this passage would seem to support Scharff’s interpretation of the phrase as referring to a married woman (1937, 46). The word œjmt is used in the text for a woman in relation to her husband, as usually elsewhere, so the compound term here evidently denotes a woman who is a wife. The use of the attributive ÿd (passive sÿm.f ) rather than a passive participle ÿdt or ÿddt indicates that zt-œjmt is undefined, as reflected in most translations. The term ïæy denotes both “male” and “husband” (Wb. V, 344– 45). The latter meaning has been accepted in some translations (Erman 1896, 53; Maspero 1907, 129; Ranke 1926, 26; Weill 1947, 125; Potapova 1965, 79; Lichtheim 1973, 166; Lalouette 1984, 224; Tobin 1991, 349, and 2003, 184; Foster 1992, 15; Parkinson 1997, 158; Mathieu 2000, 29; Quirke 2004, 132; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 61), but as Blackman noted (1930, 71), the lack of a third-person feminine singular suffix argues against it. “Male” probably has the extended sense of “lover” here, like the New Kingdom term ëœæwtj, which denotes both a “male” (particularly with reference to virility) and a “lover.”101 The preceding n has been understood either as “to” or “on account of.” If ïæy refers to a lover rather than a husband, the first is not likely. Faulkner’s argument that the second meaning would more likely have been expressed by œr (1956, 37 n. 82) was countered by Barta (1969, 35 n. 73), citing Edel, AäG, § 757d, and Gardiner, EG, § 164, 5. Those references, however, describe the use of the preposition n to express cause, a meaning ill-suited to the present passage, since the lover is the subject of the lie, not its cause. Rather than the preposition, n is probably the indirect genitive, modifying the preceding singular grg “lie”; for the word order, see Gardiner, EG, § 86.102 99–100 mj.k bëœ rn.j Look, my name is reeking: ————— 101 102

E.g., A.H. Gardiner, Late-Egyptian Stories (BA 1; Brussels, 1932) 10, 1; 12, 9–10. Goedicke’s emended jw.s “She belonged” (1970, 152) is unnecessary.

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

87

(100) mj.k r õrd qn look, more than a brave boy 100–101 ÿd r.f jw.f {jw.f} n msdw.f about whom has been said, ‘He is for one he should hate.’ A few scholars have understood õrd qn as a direct genitive (Spiegel 1950, 49; Barta 1969, 25; Hornung 1990, 113; Lohmann 1998, 221), but the absence of a seated-man determinative after qn makes this less likely than the common interpretation of qn as an adjective (or 3ms stative) modifying õrd. As such, qn is usually rendered as “brave” or the like, but also as “sturdy, healthy, able, vigorous” (Blackman 1930, 71; Lichtheim 1973, 166; Foster 1992, 15; Parkinson 1997, 158; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 62), “good, fine” (Scharff 1937, 44; van de Walle 1939, 315; Tobin 1991, 349; Haller 2004, 17), and “difficult” (Jacobsohn 1952, 31). All but the first, which is the standard meaning of the adjective (Wb. V, 42), derive from the various ways in which the sense of the following relative clause has been understood (discussed below). The initial ÿd is undoubtedly the passive sÿm.f, as in the preceding stanza, with r.f “about whom”103 referring to õrd qn. The following jw.f n has been understood as “he belongs to” or the like, but that carries an aorist connotation, more likely to have been rendered by the adjectival predicate nj sw. The construction jw.f n may have a less aorist connotation, as Sethe sensed (1927, 65 “er soll … gehören”; followed by Scharff 1937, 44; Jacobsohn 1952, 31; and Hornung 1990, 113). The final msdw.f has occasionally been understood as a noun of agent “his hater” (meaning “one who hates him”: Ranke 1926, 26; Lichtheim 1973, 166; Lalouette 1984, 224; Renaud 1991, 27; Parkin————— As understood by all except Quirke (2004, 132 “told”). The expression ÿd r means either “say against” or “say about” (Wb. V, 620, 5–6). The meaning “say to” (Wb. V, 620, 7) is probably spurious; all of the pre-Ptolemaic examples cited for that meaning can be understood with the sense of Wb. V, 620, 5–6. 103

88

CHAPTER THREE

son 1997, 158; Haller 2004, 17). Such a noun is not attested elsewhere, however, and the active sense would have been rendered more probably by an active participle (cf. the feminine msddt: Wb. II, 154, 12; Wb.med., 394). It is undoubtedly a perfective relative form, as interpreted by most scholars and as suggested by the scribe’s correction from the imperfective msdd (see Chapter Two, Section 2).104 Blackman understood the sense of the passage as referring to a child of adultery (1930, 71; first suggested by Maspero 1907, 129 “dont on dit un mensonge auprès de ses parents”), which has generally been followed since: in that case, msdw.f refers either to the boy’s true father or to the cuckolded husband. Goedicke (1970, 153–54) noted the possibility of a reference to the boy’s illicit homosexual lover (followed by Tobin 2003, 184 n. 15, and possibly Foster 1992, 15).105 There is no compelling rationale in the context for Blackman’s interpretation, but Goedicke’s bears consideration. It would provide a male counterpart to the theme of female sexual misbehavior in the preceding stanza, to which it is linked by the repeated relative ÿd r. It would also explain the use of jw.f n rather than nj sw, and is more compatible with the usual prospective sense of the perfective relative form. The adjective qn suggests a contrast to what is said about the boy,106 paralleling the more explicit ÿd grg r.s “about whom the lie has been said” of the previous stanza. Both refer to the damaged reputation of innocent victims: a married woman and a boy with no homosexual transgressions. (101) mj.k bëœ rn.j Look, my name is reeking: ————— Quirke’s translation “told that he is hated” (2004, 132) implies a passive sÿm.f, which overlooks the preceding n. 105 Barta’s “Sünde” (1969, 26; followed by Lohmann 1998, 224) and Mathieu’s “l’amant” (2000, 29) refer to adultery (Barta 1969, 35 n. 74; Mathieu 2000, 35 n. 37). 106 A õrd qn “brave boy” was presumably considered the antithesis of a homosexual œjmt õrd “woman boy” (Ptahhotep 457: Žába, Ptaœœotep, 52): cf. R.B. Parkinson, JEA 81 (1995), 66–70. 104

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

89

102 mj.k dmj n jt look, more than the harbor of the Sire 102–103 šnn bštw mææ sæ.f that plots sedition but whose back is seen. For dmj, see the note to cols. 38–39, above. The two signs following it have been understood as a defective writing of 74 šn (all studies before Faulkner 1956; also Potapova 1965, 79, and Wilson 1969, 406), as n mzœ “of a/the crocodile” (Goedicke 1970, 154; Foster 1992, 16; Haller 2004, 17; and Quirke 2004, 133), and n jty “of the Sire” (Faulkner 1956, 28 and 37 n. 85, and most studies since). All three interpretations require an emendation: the first, of a missing šn sign; the second, of a missing or omitted stroke following the crocodile; and the third, of a second crocodile and probably also a determinative. Of these, the second is likeliest epigraphically, but the term bštw “sedition” that follows presupposes a reference to the king and therefore argues for Faulkner’s reading. The word šnn is clearly an imperfective active participle modifying dmj “harbor.” The phrase mææ sæ.f has been understood as a passive sÿm.f with nominal subject, with the suffix pronoun referring to jty: e.g., Barta’s “wenn sein Rücken gesehen wird” (1969, 26). If so, however, it can only be the prospective passive (sÿmm.f ) “his back will be seen,” which makes no sense here.107 An active participle like šnn also makes no sense if the referent of sæ.f is jty (“which sees his back”).108 ————— See Allen, Middle Egyptian, §§ 21.2.2. The usual circumstantial translation, such as that of Barta, requires either the passive sÿm.f (mæ sæ.f “when his back has been seen”) or the tw-passive of the imperfective sÿm.f (mææ.tw sæ.f “when his back is seen”). “Seeing the back” is probably not a metaphor for the king’s absence but for cowardice: note Sin. B 58 nj rdj.n.f sæ.f “he does not give his back” (Koch, Sinuhe, 34; describing Senwosret I) and cf. Parkinson, JEA 81 (1995), 66. 108 An active participle has been understood by Scharff (1937, 44; followed by van de Walle 1939, 315; Jacobsohn 1952, 31; and possibly also Haller 2004, 17, and Quirke 2004, 133), but with a different referent of sæ.f. 107

90

CHAPTER THREE

Instead, the pronoun refers to dmj and mææ is a passive participle “whose back is seen.” This is undoubtedly a metaphor for cowardice, as in the comparable idiom rdj sæ “give the back” (Wb. IV, 9, 10). 9. the man’s second litany (cols. 103–30)

(103) ÿd.j n mj mjn To whom can I speak today? (103) snw bjn Brothers have become bad; 104 ãnmsw nw mjn nj mr.nj the friends of today, they do not love. 104–105 ÿd.j n mj mjn To whom can I speak today? (105) ëwn jbw Hearts are greedy, 105–106 z nb œr jtt ãwt snnw.f every man taking the other’s things. (106)

To whom can I speak today? 107 jw zf æq For kindness has perished

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

91

107–108 nãt œr hæ.w n bw-nb and sternness has descended to everyone. The partial col. 106 seems to reflect a hiatus before col. 107. The scribe wrote a reed-leaf after snnw.f—presumably the first sign of the clause in col. 107, the second line of the next stanza—and subsequently erased it (Parkinson 2009, 109), leaving the rest of the column blank, with enough space for the missing refrain.109 The clause in col. 107–108 recurs in Adm. 5, 10, in almost identical spelling, with the exception of in place of before the walking legs: i.e., hæb “has been sent” instead of hæ.w “has descended.”110 The phrase nãt œr, again spelled as in col. 107, occurs also in Peas. B1 198– 99 jr œb.k œr.k r nãt œr nmj jr.f ãsf.f bw œwrw “if you cloak your face so as to be stern, who then will bar poverty?”111 The phrase, literally “force of face” (as a verb in the last passage), is an antonym to zf, suggesting a reference to sternness. Since it does not have the seated-man determinative, it is more probably an abstract here (and in Adm. 5, 10) than the participial “one who is stern” that has been adopted in some translations (see Barta 1969, 36 n. 79). For hæj n “descend to (a person),” see Wb. II, 472, 23; the sense is obviously that everyone has become stern. (108) ÿd.j n mj mjn To whom can I speak today?

————— Parkinson suggests that the area of the erased reed-leaf was “probably still too moist to be written over immediately, and he neglected to come back and fill in the right refrain.” While this is conceivable, it seems unlikely for such a minor erasure, and the papyrus has numerous examples of erasures probably overwritten immediately (see Chapter Two, Section Two). The gap remains inexplicable. 110 Enmarch, Ipuwer, 35. Quirke (2004, 133) adopts the verb from this parallel in col. 107, but there is no compelling rationale for such an emendation. 111 Parkinson, Peasant, 29, 10. 109

92

CHAPTER THREE

(108) œtp œr bjn There is contentment with the bad, 109 rdj r.f bw nfr r tæ m st nbt in that goodness has been put down in every place. Translations of the clause œtp œr bjn have offered nearly every possible interpretation of its three words. Erman (1896, 59) understood œtp œr as a participial compound serving as subject of a 3ms stative bjn: “Der mit ruhigem Gesicht ist elend” (followed by Ranke 1926, 27; Scharff 1937, 49; Lurie 1939, 144; Van de Walle 1939, 315; Weill 1947, 127; von der Wense 1949, 71; Jacobsohn 1952, 34; Lanczkowski 1954, 2; and Goedicke 1970, 160–61). De Buck (1947, 28) saw œtp as an impersonal sÿm.f with œr bjn a prepositional phrase: “Men is ingenommen med schlechtheid” (followed in most subsequent studies). Barta (1969, 26) understood œr bjn as subject of an adjectival œtp: “das Gesicht der Bosheit ist zufrieden” (perhaps following Spiegel 1950, 50 “Zufrieden ist der Schlechte”; followed by Hornung 1990, 114 ; Renaud 1991, 27; Lohmann 1998, 222; and Haller 2004, 17). Of these interpretations, de Buck’s is likeliest to be correct (as reflected in the degree of its acceptance): the absence of a seated-man determinative argues against a participle, and bw nfr in the following clause is evidently contrastive with an abstract bjn. The verb œtp is probably an “emphatic” sÿm.f with unexpressed subject stressing œr bjn. The enclitic r.f in col. 109 relates its clause to the preceding (referent of the pronoun) more closely than a less-marked circumstantial (rdj bw nfr r tæ “goodness having been put down”). Goedicke (1970, 161) read the r of r.f as t, but it is difficult to tell from his translation (“he is willing to abandon goodness”) what verb form he had in mind. His reading was adopted by Tobin (1991, 350, and 2003, 184), who understood the form as a future participle rdjt(j).f (“which will cast goodness to the earth”), but this makes less sense than the more common reading.

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

93

109–10 ÿd.j n mj mjn To whom can I speak today? (110) sãër z m zp.f bjn When a man causes anger by his bad deed, 110–11 ssbt.f bw-nb jw.f ÿw he makes everyone laugh, though his misdeed is evil. Most scholars have understood sãër z m zp.f bjn as a participial clause anticipatory to the pronominal subject of ssbt.f, as rendered by Erman (1923, 128 “wer einen (guten) Mann durch seine Schlechtigkeit wütend macht, der bringt alle Leute zum lachen”). Erman originally understood the clause as an initial circumstantial (1896, 59; followed by Lurie 1939, 144; von der Wense 1949, 71; Wilson 1969, 406; Goedicke 1970, 161; Kitchen 1999, 83; Tobin 2003, 184; and similarly, Tobin 1991, 350, and Foster 1992, 16),112 which is somewhat likelier in view of the absence of a seated-man determinative of sãër. The verb is then “emphatic,” with ssbt.f the same form in a balanced clause or, more probably, the imperfective. The final jw.f ÿw is usually rendered as a noun with following adjective, governed by an omitted preposition m, but it is better analyzed as a circumstantial subject–stative construction, as first seen by Ranke (1926, 27; followed by Sethe 1927, 65; Scharff 1937, 49; Van de Walle 1939, 315; De Buck 1947, 28; von der Wense 1949, 71; Jacobsohn 1952, 34; Wilson 1969, 406; Lalouette 1984, 224; and Kitchen 1999, 83). The sentence as a whole describes a prevalent insensitivity to wrongdoing. ————— The renderings of von der Wense (1949, 71 “Wenn man sich empört”), Tobin (1991, 350 “For a man is enraged”; 2003, 184 “Though a man be woeful”), and Foster (1992, 16 “A man is maddened”) do not reflect the transitive value of the causative. 112

94

CHAPTER THREE

111–12 ÿd.j n mj mjn To whom can I speak today? (112) jw œëÿæ.tw For one plunders, 112–13 z nb œr jtt snw.f every man robbing his brothers. The group at the top of col. 113 has universally been read as (i.e., snnw.f “his second”), but there is a clear third stroke partly overlying the two signs. The ink of this stroke is lighter than that of and , indicating that the stroke was made after them, perhaps after the scribe wrote the suffix . The second and third lines of this stanza have been universally analyzed as here, with jw œëÿæ.tw one clause and z nb œr jtt snnw.f a second. It is also possible to read jw œëÿæ.tw z nb “For every man is plundered” as the first clause and œr jtt snw.f “because his brothers take” as the second,113 but this is less likely: all tercets in this litany have the second and third lines as paired statements. A few scholars have followed Erman (1896, 60) in supplying an omitted ãwt before snnw.f, as in 105–106 z nb œr jtt ãwt snnw.f “every man taking the other’s things,” (Ranke 1926, 27; Scharff 1937, 49; Van de Walle 1939, 315; de Buck 1947, 28; Weill 1947, 127; Wilson 1969, 406). As Lurie (1939, 144) and others have seen, however, an emendation is unnecessary. The verb jïj is used with the sense of “take from” in col. 36 (see above) as well as in Peas. B1 134–35 jn ëæt pw n.k jmy œr jb.k r jt tw šmsw.j “Is anything of yours something bigger in your mind than my follower robbing you?”114 ————— 113 114

For œr sÿm.f, see Gardiner, EG, § 165.11. Parkinson, Peasant, 23, 11–12.

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

95

(113) ÿd.j n mj mjn To whom can I speak today? 113–14 btw m ëq-jb The one who should be avoided is an intimate, 114–15 sn jrr œnë.f ãpr m ãft the brother one used to act with become an opponent. As Faulkner has seen (1956, 38 n. 94), the of btw is an error for , with which this word is normally written (Wb. I, 485, 11–14). The two signs are somewhat similar in hieratic (cf. in col. 112), and the position of above the indicates that btæw was not intended (pace Faulkner). The word btw is probably a passive participle (Wb.med., 255), normally used with reference to a serpent but here undoubtedly with a human referent (antonym of the following sn), despite the lack of a seated-man determinative. (115) ÿd.j n mj mjn To whom can I speak today? (115) nj sãæ.t sf Yesterday has not been remembered; 116 nj jr.t n jr m tæ æt no one in this time has acted for one who has acted. The expression m tæ æt has usually been understood as an adjunct to nj jr.t(w) n jr, with its regular meaning “in this time, now” (Wb. I, 1, 17). De Buck rendered it as “op het eigen ogenblik” (1947, 28), adopted by Lohmann with the phrase as an adjunct to jr (1998, 223

96

CHAPTER THREE

“der im rechten Augenblick gehandelt hat”). Parkinson followed Lohmann’s syntactic analysis but interpreted tæ with past reference (1997, 159 “him who gave help then”). Of these, the common interpretation is most probably correct. The usual temporal and present reference of tæ æt argues against the three variant interpretations,115 and the use of the demonstrative pfæ for past reference in col. 126 (see below) indicates that the author would have used tfæ rather than tæ if that sense had been intended here. The phrase is thus contrastive to the preceding sf. (116) ÿd.j n mj mjn To whom can I speak today? 117 snw bjn Brothers have become bad; 117–18 jnn.tw m ÿrÿrw r mtt nt jb one brings only strangers into the middle of the heart. The scribe has omitted the strokes representing the arms (raised in greeting or homage) of the sign that is commonly used as determinative of ÿrÿr “stranger” (Wb. V, 604). The word mtt has been understood as related to mtr “witness” or “exact” (Wb. II, 171–73). The phrase mtt nt jb “middle of the heart,” however, is attested elsewhere as a term for innermost thoughts or feelings (Wb. II, 168, 4–6) and can be understood as such here. Although jnn.tw m … r has the sense of “resort to … for” in the similar verse of cols. 124–25, the meaning here is probably closer to jnj r “bring” a person “to” something (Wb. I, 90, 3–4). The passage evidently decries the need to take strangers into one’s confidence. ————— Past reference is possible in Adm. 6, 5 œæ r.f jr.n.j ãrw.j m tæj æt “If only I had used my voice at that time” (Enmarch, Ipuwer, 37), but the context better supports the reading œæ r.f jr-n.j-ãrw m tæj æt “If only there were someone to use the voice for me in this time,” with the seated man after ãrw a determinative to the phrase jr-n.j-ãrw. 115

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

97

(118) ÿd.j n mj mjn To whom can I speak today? 118–19 œrw œtm Faces are obliterated, 119–20 z nb m œr r õrw r snw.f every man with face down to his brothers. Pace Hornung (1990, 115) and Quirke (2004, 133), the word at the bottom of col. 118 is clearly œrw “faces” and not jbw “hearts”: cf. the form of the latter in col. 120. The sense of œrw œtm.(w) as connoting unwillingness or inability to look (Wb. III, 197, 19) is clear from the line that follows. The meaning of the stative œtm.(w), however, is stronger than the terms such as “averted” or “blank” with which it is usually rendered. The notion is that of the eradication of face-to-face encounters, as seen by Erman (1896, 63 “die Gesichter vergehen”), Spiegel (1950, 51 “Die Gesichter sind verschwunden”), Wilson (1969, 406 “Faces have disappeared”), Foster (1992, 16 “Faces are wiped out”), and Haller (2004, 18 “Die Gesichter sind vernichtet”). The absence of an initial jw suggests that the final line is a circumstantial clause. (120) ÿd.j n mj mjn To whom can I speak today? (120) jbw ëwn Hearts have become greedy; 121 nn wn jb n z rhn.tw œr.f there is no man’s heart one can depend on.

98

CHAPTER THREE

121–22 ÿd.j n mj mjn To whom can I speak today? (122) nn mæëtjw There are no righteous; 122–23 tæ zp n jrw jsft the land left to disorder-doers. (123) ÿd.j n mj mjn To whom can I speak today? 123–24 jw šw m ëq-jb There is lack of an intimate; 124–25 jnn.tw m ãmm r srãt n.f one resorts only to an unknown to make known to. As Faulkner pointed out (1956, 38 n. 101), the verb srã is commonly used of making complaints. In this case, however, its literal meaning is probably intended, in contrast to the preceding ãmm “an unknown,” as sensed by Lohmann (1998, 223), Haller (2004, 18), and Chioffi and Rigamonti (2007, 71). (125) ÿd.j n mj mjn To whom can I speak today? 125–26 nn hr-jb There is no calm-hearted;

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

99

126–27 pfæ šm œnë.f nn sw wn the one once walked with, he is no more. The demonstrative pfæ implies a distance from the speaker, here temporal: “often applied to things and persons belonging in the past” (Gardiner, EG, § 112).116 Erman understood šm as an active participle, with the suffix pronoun of œnë.f referring to hr-jb: “jener, der mit ihm ging” (1923, 123). This has been followed in a few translations (Ranke 1926, 28; Lurie 1939, 145; Faulkner 1956, 29; Bresciani 1999, 204; Kitchen 1999, 85; Haller 2004, 18) but is less likely than the passive participle first recognized by Scharff (1937, 54 n. 34) and accepted in most other studies.117 Erman’s reading implies that both the “calm-hearted” and the one who once associated with him have vanished, which is a paler statement than that implied by the passive participle, that the disappearance of the “calm-hearted” leaves no one who can be associated with. (127) ÿd.j n mj mjn To whom can I speak today? 127–29 jw.j ætp.kw õr mæjr n gæw ëq-jb For I am loaded with need for lack of an intimate. (129) ÿd.j n mj mjn To whom can I speak today? 129–30 nf œw tæ nn wn pœw.fj The injustice that has hit the land, it has no end. ————— So also tfæ in col. 77. Jacobsohn (1952, 36 n. 6) is alone in understanding pfæ here as modifying hr-jb, which makes little sense in this context. 117 Quirke (2004, 133) saw the form as a relative with (unwritten) 1s subject. 116

100

CHAPTER THREE

Erman’s rendering of nf œw tæ as “das Böse schlägt das Land” (1896, 66) has been followed in some translations (Lurie 1939, 145; Weill 1947, 127; Spiegel 1950, 51; Frantsev 1960, 210; Potapova 1965, 81; Goedicke 1970, 171; Lichtheim 1973, 168; Lalouette 1984, 225; Renaud 1991, 28; Tobin 1991, 351; Foster 1992, 17; Parkinson 1997, 159; Assmann 1998, 395; Lohmann 1998, 223; Kitchen 1999, 85; Tobin 2003, 185; Haller 2004, 18; Quirke 2004, 133), but the syntax allows only for a noun modified by a participial clause, as Erman later saw (1923, 129 “die Sünde, die das Land schlägt”) and as recognized in other translations. Following a suggestion of Gunn, Blackman identified the expression œwj tæ as an idiom for “roam the earth,” a meaning it clearly has in the Story of Sinuhe, and applied that meaning to the present passage.118 This interpretation has been followed in a number of translations (de Buck 1947, 29; Faulkner 1956, 29; Wilson 1969, 407; Goedicke 1970, 171; Lichtheim 1973, 168; Tobin 1991, 351; Parkinson 1997, 159; Assmann 1998, 395; Kitchen 1999, 85; Tobin 2003, 185), but the more literal meaning also makes sense here, as generally understood. As Erman saw (1896, 66), the dual strokes behind the of pœw(j).fj, recorded in other transcriptions, were erased. The same word was also emended in col. 65, from pœw.f to pœ.fj (see Chapter Two, Section 2). 10. the man’s third litany (cols. 130–42)

(130) jw mt m œr.j m mjn Death is in my sight today, 130–31 snb mr like a sick man gets well, ————— 118

A.M. Blackman, JEA 22 (1936), 38.

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

101

131–32 mj prt r ãntw r sæ hjmt like going outside after mourning. The scribe has added the initial jw to the right of mt. This is the only stanza in which the final mjn “today” of the first verse is preceded by the preposition m; in the others, mjn is used adverbially. The scribe has also omitted the preposition mj “like” before the second verse. The correct transcription of hjmt was determined by Smither (1939, 220), who suggested its meaning as “detention.” Smither’s reading, however, was not accepted until Faulkner’s study (1956, 29), and thereafter only sporadically (Guilmot 1968–72, 256; Wilson 1969, 407; Goedicke 1970, 173; Lichtheim 1973, 168; Tobin 1991, 351; Parkinson 1997, 159; Assmann 1998, 398; Bresciani 1999, 204; Kitchen 1999, 87; Mathieu 2000, 31; Burkard 2008, 157; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 74). Other translations have largely adopted the conjectured meanings “sickness” (Erman 1896, 67) or “accident” (Scharff 1937, 56 n. 4). While Smither’s transcription is correct, the meaning of the word as “detention” is debatable. Its determinative does not support a relationship with 18–19 jhm and 49–50 hjm.k, which in any case do not mean “restrain” (see the note to cols. 18–19 above). As Quirke realized (2004, 133), hjmt is most likely derived from the verb jhm “mourn,” which has the same determinative (Wb. I, 118); the noun appears as æhmt in the New Kingdom (Wb. I, 12, 8). (132) jw mt m œr.j mjn Death is in my sight today, 132–33 mj st ëntjw like myrrh’s smell, 133–34 mj œmst õr œtæw hrw ïæw like sitting under sails on a windy day.

102

CHAPTER THREE

Blackman (1930, 71) proposed “awning” as the meaning of œtæw, based on a Demotic parallel, and this has been accepted in some translations (Scharff 1937, 55; Lurie 1939, 145; Van de Walle 1939, 316; Garnot 1944, 24; De Buck 1947, 29; Gilbert 1949, 85; Spiegel 1950, 53; Jacobsohn 1952, 36; Lanczkowski 1954, 3; Faulkner 1956, 29; Barta 1969, 28; Wilson 1969, 407; Mathieu 2000, 31; Burkard 2008, 157). In the Middle Kingdom, however, the noun has the meaning “sails” (singular œtæ),119 indicated here by the adjunct hrw ïæw “on a windy day” (see Goedicke 1970, 174). (134) jw mt m œr.j mjn Death is in my sight today, 135 mj st zšnw like lotuses’ smell, 135–36 mj œmst œr mryt-nt-tãt like sitting on the Bank of Inebriation. The “mountain-range” determinative after tãt “inebriation” suggests that the entire phrase mryt nt tãt was understood as a region outside Egypt. “Sitting on the Bank of Inebriation” is therefore a metaphor for translation from the world of everyday reality to one of intoxication, reverie, and bliss. (136) jw mt m œr.j mjn Death is in my sight today, ————— Clearly in Peas. B1 87 = R 14, 4: Parkinson, Peasant, 17, 7–8. The meaning “sail” is also the primary one in Demotic: CDD œ (09.1), 288 (The Demotic Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, ed. by J.H. Johnson, available online at http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/cdd/). 119

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

103

136–37 mj wæt œwyt like the flood’s ebbing, 137–38 mj jw z m mšë r pr.sn like a man comes home from an expedition. The phrase wæt œwyt has been interpreted mostly as the infinitive of wæj “become far” (Wb. I, 245–46) with the noun œwyt “rain” (Wb. III, 49, 1–3) as its subject (first by Sethe 1927, 66 “das Entfernen des Regens”), but also as the noun wæt “path” modified by the perfective passive participle of œwj “hit” (first by Erman 1923, 129 “ein betretener Weg”), or a direct genitive with œwyt either as “rain” (first by Erman 1896, 68–69 “Regenweg”) or “inundation” (Foster 1992, 17; Tobin 2003, 186; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 74).120 All these interpretations can be justified, but the first is perhaps the most accurate: the “water” determinative argues against the identification of œwyt as a passive participle of œwj “hit,” and the parallel verse mj kft pt in the next stanza offers some support both for the analysis of wæt as the infinitive and for the image of an earthly counterpart to “the sky’s clearing” here (the last suggested by Barta 1969, 37 n. 90). The noun œwyt, however, is perhaps better understood with reference to the inundation than as “rain.” This use seems to appear otherwise first in the New Kingdom (Wb. III, 49, 4), but the verb from which it is derived is attested earlier (Wb. III, 48, 16), and the annual flood was a more familiar phenomenon than rain.121 The image is a metaphor both for the end of a spate of troubles and the promise of new life. It also offers a stylistic antonym to the line following: “going away” versus “coming home.” ————— The last perhaps the source of Haller’s unique “ein Gang im Überschwang des Glücks” (2004, 18). 121 The use of œwyt to refer to the inundation may also appear in CT VII, 370f: cf. B. Backes, Das altägyptische “Zweiwegebuch”: Studien zu den Sargtext-Sprüchen 1029– 1130 (ÄA 69; Wiesbaden, 2005), 342. 120

104

CHAPTER THREE

Scharff (1937, 57 n. 8) pointed out that the determinative of mšë suggests an expedition by ship, but as Goedicke noted (1970, 176), the same determinative is used where the excursion was clearly terrestrial: e.g., Sin. B 38 mšë «r» tæ tmœw “expedition to the (Libyan) Temehu’s land,” with the same spelling as in col. 137.122 (138) jw mt m œr.j mjn Death is in my sight today, 138–39 mj kft pt like the sky’s clearing. 139–40 mj z sãt jm r ãmt.n.f like a man enmeshed thereby to what he has not known. The sense of sãt jm has eluded most scholars. Erman (1896, 69) and a number of others left it untranslated. Scharff (1937, 57 n. 10) concluded that a verb had been omitted before z(j) (followed by Van de Walle 1939, 316; Garnot 1944, 24; Spiegel 1950, 53), and Jacobsohn (1952, 37 n. 3) suggested that the passage has been garbled from an original mj sãt zj. Of those who attempted a translation of the text as it stands, most have followed the sense of Sethe’s “hingeleitet, aufmerksam gemacht” (1927, 66), despite the fact that sãt is not attested elsewhere with those meanings. Except for the bookroll determinative, the verb with this spelling means either “trap” (Wb. IV, 262–63) or “weave” (Wb. IV, 263), both probably reflecting a root meaning “enmesh.” A number of translations have attempted to reflect the first of these meanings: “begreift” (Brunner-Traut 1985, 83; Barta 1969, 28), “fowling” (Wilson 1969, 407), “grasping” (Parkinson 1997, 160), “auffängt” (Lohmann 1998, 224), “trapping” (Kitchen 1999, 87), “tracking down” (Quirke ————— 122

Koch, Sinuhe, 27, 8.

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

105

2004, 133), and “un uomo che ha compreso un tranello” (Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 75). The root meaning, however, offers better sense in this context, as a passive participle.123 The adverb jm refers to the preceding kft pt “the sky’s clearing.”124 The passage as a whole uses the image of a man entranced by the clearing of the sky, which reveals things he could not see before.125 As such, it is a powerful simile for the sudden attraction of death that is the subject of the third litany. (140) jw mt m œr.j mjn Death is in my sight today, 141 mj æbb z mææ pr.sn like a man longs to see home, 141–42 jr.n.f rnpwt ëšæt jt m nÿrt when he has spent many years taken in captivity. The scribe added jt “taken” to the left of rnpwt ëšæt at the bottom of col. 141. Erman saw this as intended for insertion between the jm and m of col. 142, but left it untranslated.126 Faulkner regarded it as “inexplicable” (1956, 26), but Sethe (1927, 66, and 1928, 46, 13) ————— The undefined antecedent might suggest the stative (as seen by Sethe 1927, 66), but the seated man makes a participle likelier. 124 Barta’s reading m r “durch einen Spruch” (1969, 18, 28, and 37 n. 92; followed by Lohmann 1998, 224) ignores the reed-leaf and the absence of a stroke after that normally distinguishes the noun “mouth, spell” from the preposition. Goedicke’s “searcher here” (1970, 176) is dubious. 125 The bookroll determinative may reflect the metaphorical use of the word here. It also appears in Ptahhotep 95, 96, and 107, all of which can represent similar metaphorical uses of the verb. 126 Erman 1896, 70–72. This interpretation was reflected in Erman 1923, 130, and followed by Ranke (1926, 28), who also left the word untranslated. The stroke below jm that Erman saw as signaling the insertion point is more likely an aborted overwritten by the following m: see Chapter Two, Section 2. 123

106

CHAPTER THREE

recognized it as a stative meant to be read with the end of col. 141 and before col. 142. His translation, “in Gefangenschaft gehalten,” has been followed by a few scholars (Scharff 1937, 56 and 57 n. 15; von der Wense 1949, 72; Jacobsohn 1952, 37; Barta 1969, 28; Wilson 1969, 407; Lohmann 1998, 224; Quirke 2004, 133; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 76), but most translations have ignored the word. 11. the man’s fourth litany (cols. 142–47)

(142) wnn ms ntj jm m nïr ënã Surely, he who is there will be a living god, 143 œr ãsf jw n jrr sw punishing the misdeed of him who does it. In contrast to all other translations, Junge has analyzed the second verse of this stanza as predicate to the first: “Wer dort als lebender Gott ist, verwehrt das Übel dem, der es tut.”127 This is possible syntactically but unlikely in view of the third stanza of the litany, in which the prepositional phrase m rã-ãwt after wnn ms ntj jm must be the predicate. The same parallel also argues against Scharff’s analysis of the second line as governed by wnn ms ntj jm: “Wer dort ist, fürwahr, der wird ein lebender Gott sein und strafen die sünde an dem der sie tut” (1937, 58 and 59 n. 4; followed by Van de Walle 1939, 316; Junker 1948, 221; von der Wense 1949, 72; Spiegel 1950, 54; Jacobsohn 1952, 37; and Lanczkowski 1954, 3). Goedicke (1970, 178–79) interpreted œr ãsf as “because of having refuted” (followed by Tobin 1991, 352, and 2003, 186) rather than the expression of concomitant action understood in other translations. This too is possible syntactically, but unlikely in view of the parallel in the second stanza, which can only express concomitance. ————— 127

F. Junge, JEA 72 (1986), 122.

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

107

The sense of ãsf has generally been understood as “punish” (first by Erman 1896, 71) but also as “repel, avert, bar, suppress” (Maspero 1907, 130; Jacobsohn 1952, 37; Faulkner 1956, 30; Renaud 1991, 29; Mathieu 2000, 33).128 The former is likelier in this context, in part because the aorist sense of the participle is incompatible with the notion of preventing misdeeds. The n before jrr sw is then the preposition rather than an indirect genitive modifying jw (Wb. III, 336, 15): literally, “punishing the misdeed to the one who does it.” 143–44 wnn ms ntj jm ëœë m wjæ Surely, he who is there will be standing in the bark, 144–45 œr rdjt dj.t stpwt jm n rw-prw having choice cuts given from it to the temples. The second verse of this stanza illustrates the use of r-pr as a term for “temple” specifically in association with offerings.129 Goedicke’s reading of the second as (1970, 180 nt-stpwt) is improbable: the sign’s left end has a clear upward projection. 145–46 wnn ms ntj jm m rã-ãwt Surely, he who is there will be a knower of things, 146–47 nj ãsf.n.t.f œr spr n rë ãft mdw.f not barred from appealing to the Sun when he speaks. Although the final pronoun could refer to rë “the Sun,” in the context it undoubtedly denotes the deceased. ————— Goedicke’s “having refuted” (1970, 178), Tobin’s “has rejected” (1991, 352) and “purged away” (2003, 186), Bresciani’s “scansa” (1999, 205), Haller’s “rächt” (2004, 18), and Quirke’s “avenging” (2004, 134) go beyond the attested uses of the verb. 129 P. Spencer, The Egyptian Temple, a Lexicogaphical Study (London, Boston, Melbourne and Henley, 1984), 41. 128

108

CHAPTER THREE

12. the soul’s fourth speech (cols. 147–54)

147–48 ÿdt.n n.j bæ What the soul said to me: All previous references to the Soul have the 1s suffix (bæ.j), but the pronoun may be intentionally omitted here rather than simply unwritten. If so, the difference may reflect the impending resolution, in which the Man is no longer arguing with himself (“my soul”). (148) jmj r.k nãwt œr õææ Put, then, complaint on the stake, The determinative of the hapax õææ indicates that it denotes a wood object of some kind.130 Faulkner was the first to propose a translation, “peg,” suggesting that the image may be that of discarding “misery like an unwanted garment” and hanging it on a “peg” (1956, 39 n. 111). This was adopted in most subsequent translations, although Lichtheim suggested “wood-pile” (1973, 169; followed by Quirke 2004, 134) and Tobin, “garbage heap” (1991, 352). Parkinson’s “fence” (1997, 160) is based on a suggestion of Gardiner that the later hapax õæyt, rendered as “palisade,” may be a collective of õææ.131 Goyon suggested that õææ is related to another later hapax, õæwj, which he rendered as “brindille, bâton132 net.” If either of these is correct, the term in col. 148 may denote a wood upright, and the image is perhaps that of putting “complaint” to death by impaling it, as in the New Kingdom punishment of major criminals rdj œr tp ãt “putting on top of the stick” (Wb. III, 341, 1). ————— 130

And therefore not a form of Wb. I, 361, 6 õæj as argued by Goedicke (1970,

183). A.H. Gardiner, Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum, Third Series, Chester Beatty Gift (London, 1935), I, 43 n. 2; II, pl. 20, 6, 4; followed by Mathieu (2000, 35 n. 43). 132 J.-C. Goyon, Confirmation du pouvoir royal au nouvel an (BdE 52; Cairo, 1972), I, 112 n. 261; rejected by W.A. Ward, SAK 5 (1977), 273 n. 34. 131

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

109

148–49 nsw pn sn.j O belonger, my brother. Since sn.j “my brother” is written with two seated-man signs, nsw, with only one, was perhaps not intended to be understood with a 1s suffix. The term, literally “he belongs to,” is used uniquely as a noun here (see the discussion of Scharff 1937, 61–62 n. 2), and clearly denotes a relationship closer than mere companionship, as seen first by Erman (1896, 74 “du Angehöriger”). 149–50 wdn.k œr ëã You should make offering on the brazier (150) mj ëœæ.k œr ënã in accord with your fighting for life, 150–51 mj ÿd.k r wj ëæ in accord with your saying, “Desire me here.” Faulkner’s understanding of the first clause as urging the Man to offer to the gods (1956, 39 n. 113) is undoubtedly accurate, in contrast to Scharff’s “Du sollst dich aufs Feuer werfen” (1937, 60), accepted until Faulkner’s study and occasionally thereafter (Thausing 1957, 266; Wilson 1969, 407; Foster 1992, 18). The offering is presumably intended to encourage the gods to alleviate the Man’s misfortune. The sign at the top of col. 150 has been read as (of dmj “cling”) except for Goedicke’s (1970, 183–84). Neither is completely satisfactory, because of the clear “bump” in its lower middle, not present in other examples of and in the papyrus. Goedicke’s r mjœæ.k “in order to be adamant” is impossible, since mëœæ is otherwise attested only as a noun (Wb. II, 49, 5–6). The verb dmj is also problematic in view of the sign before the striking man. Faulkner’s reading of this as (1956, 26 and 39 n. 114) rather than

110

CHAPTER THREE

Erman’s (1896, 75) is correct; identical forms are recorded by Möller, Paläographie I, 113. Since the sign is unlikely to be a determinative of dmj, it must represent the verb ëœæ “fight,” as usual. This leaves the sign at the top of the column to be accounted for. The best explanation is probably a form of the brazier with which ëã is often determined. No exact parallels exist for the form here (cf. Möller, Paläographie I, 551), but somewhat similar signs occur in CT IV, 413 (309a); VI, 206e and 308m. The first mj in col. 150 is then a preposition governing ëœæ.k, as in the subsequent mj ÿd.k. Faulkner’s emendation of ÿd.k to ÿd.j (1956, 39–40 n. 115; followed by Bresciani 1999, 205) is unnecessary; the passage makes sense as written. The verb has usually been translated as present (first by Erman 1896, 75 “wie du sagst”) but also as past (Lurie 1939, 145 podobno tomu kak ty skazal “as you said”), future (Jacobsohn 1952, 39 “wie du sagen wirst”), and perfect (Faulkner 1956, 30 “according as I have said,” followed by Bresciani 1999, 205, and with 2s subject by Brunner-Traut 1967, 11; Lohmann 1998, 225; and Tobin 2003, 187). Of these, Jacobsohn’s future is improbable and the past or perfect would more likely have been expressed by the relative ÿdt.n.k. The verb forms in mj ëœæ.k and mj ÿd.k are either the infinitive or a non-attributive relative, but in either case have no specific tense. Jacobsohn was also the first to understand mr here and in col. 151 as the imperative (1952, 39 “Wünsche, daß ich hier bleibe”) in place of Scharff’s hypothetical “sei es … sei es” (1937, 62–63 n. 4; see also Faulkner 1956, 40 n. 117). The sense is clearly that of Jacobsohn’s translation, as generally understood. The command, however, is most likely that of the Man to the Soul rather than vice versa, and therefore a direct quotation introduced by mj ÿd.k, with wj referring to the Man. Together with the probable non-past sense of mj ÿd.k, it reflects the Man’s argument in the beginning of the text. Though seemingly at odds with the Man’s position in the litanies, it establishes one side of the debate for the resolution that follows. The sense of the passage as a whole can be paraphrased: “Insofar as you prefer to fight for life and have me remain here, you should ask the gods for assistance.”

PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

111

(151) wjn n.k jmnt Reject the West for yourself, The verb of this clause has usually been interpreted as a sÿm.n.f expressing prior circumstance (Scharff’s “nachdem du den Westen abgelehnt hast” 1937, 60). Faulkner, however, saw it as an imperative with “ethical” dative (1956, 30 “thrust thou aside the West”; followed by Foster 1992, 18; Lohmann 1998, 225;133 Bresciani 1999, 205; Tobin 2003, 187; Haller 2004, 19; Quirke 2004, 134;134 and Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 80). Although either is arguable syntactically, the latter gives better sense in the context of the clause that follows. 151–52 mr œm pœ.k jmnt but desire too that you reach the West (152) sæœ œë.k tæ when your body touches the earth, The second clause has been understood both as parallel to pœ.k jmnt (e.g., Jacobsohn 1952, 39 “wünsche auch, daß du den Westen erreichst und dein Leib zur Erde gelangt”) and as circumstantial to it (e.g., Faulkner 1956, 30 “but desire that thou mayest attain the West when thy body goes to earth”). Either interpretation is possible, but the second is clearly more germane to the immediate context, as seen by Renaud (1999, 29–30 “Ne désire atteindre l’Occident que lorsque ton corps aura rejoint la terre”; similarly, Lohmann 1998, 225; Tobin 2003, 187; Haller 2004, 19). 153 ãny.j r sæ wrd.k and I will alight after your weariness. ————— 133 134

Transcribed as wjn.n.k but translated as “stelle für dich den Westen zurück.” With the inexplicable translation “hold up the West for yourself.”

112

CHAPTER THREE

154 jã jr.n dmj n zp Thus we will make harbor at the same time. The expression jrj dmj “make harbor” seems not to be attested elsewhere, but jrj is used with an object of place in the sense of “travel to” (Wb. I, 111, 12); cf. also jrj st “take a position” (Wb. IV, 6, 6–10). The final prepositional phrase has usually been interpreted as a variant of the more common m zp “together, at one time” (Wb. III, 438, 8–9). This understanding has been challenged by Goedicke (1970, 186), who renders it “for the occasion,” and Cannuyer and Delpech (1999), who translate it as “de survivant.” The preceding lines, in cols. 150–53, however, indicate that the author had in mind both the Man and the Soul reaching the West (described as dmj “a harbor” in col. 38) in tandem. Together with the clear sense of reconciliation in this section, this argues for the usual interpretation of n zp as denoting commonality. The expression n zp wë is attested elsewhere in the Middle Kingdom with the closely related meaning “on one occasion.”135 13. the colophon (cols. 154–55)

154–55 jw.f pw œæt.f r pœ.fj mj gmyt m zõæ That is how it comes, its beginning to its end, as found in writing. The colophon, written in red, follows the standard form of Middle Kingdom literary texts. It undoubtedly indicates that the text was copied from another manuscript.

————— 135

Anthes, Hatnub, pl. 6, 8.

CHAPTER FOUR

GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS 1. the lexicon

The preserved and restorable text of the Debate contains 346 lexemes and 1,028 words.1 The lexemes can be divided into eleven categories: adverbs, nisbes of prepositions and nouns, common nouns, compound nouns,2 proper nouns,3 nouns with a verbal root (abstracts, nouns of agent, etc.), particles, simple prepositions, pronouns, the quantifier nb, and verbs. Their distribution is as follows: CATEGORY

NUMBER

PERCENTAGE

OCCURRENCES

PERCENTAGE

3

1%

9

1%

Nisbes

7

2%

30

3%

Common nouns

99

29%

246

24%

Adverbs 4

Compound nouns

7

2%

14

1%

Proper nouns

4

1%

4

< 1%

Verbal nouns

48

14%

69

7%

————— This count differs somewhat from that of Barta (1969, 122–25) and Schenkel (1973) because of the inclusion of the fragments published by Parkinson (2003) and additional restorations. 2 Noun phrases viewed as a single noun, as indicated by a common determinative or usage elsewhere. These include bw-nb “everyone”; the direct genitive r-pr “temple”; the nisbe compounds nj-sw “belonger,” œrj-tæ “survivor,” and õrj-nïr “necropolis”; and the participial phrases ëq-jb “intimate” and hr-jb “calm-hearted.” The phrase mryt-nt-tãt in cols. 135–36 also has a common final determinative but is considered as three separate lexemes because it is not attested as a compound elsewhere. The elements of the phrases bw nfr “goodness” (109) and nãt œr “sternness” (107) are also considered as separate lexemes because they lack a common determinative. 3 Not including the noun rëw “sun” used as a proper name. 4 Not including the nisbes œrj and õrj, which occur only in the compounds œrj-tæ “survivor” and õrj-nïr “necropolis,” respectively. 1

114

CHAPTER FOUR

CATEGORY

NUMBER

PERCENTAGE

OCCURRENCES

PERCENTAGE

Particles

13

4%

96

9%

Prepositions

10

3%

228

22%

Pronouns

15

4%

52

5%

Quantifier

1

< 1%

5

< 1%

138

40%

271

26%

Verbs

The percentage of occurrences in each category corresponds to the category’s weight in the lexicon of the text, with the exception of verbal nouns and verb forms, which have a substantially lower number of occurrences than their lexical weight, and particles and prepositions, with a higher proportion of occurrences than their distribution in the lexicon. Verbs and nouns as a whole account for the greatest number of both lexemes and occurrences, with 271 occurrences (26%) of various forms of 138 verbs (40% of the lexicon) in the text, and 337 occurrences (33%) of 159 nouns of all types (46% of the lexicon). 2. verb forms

The text of the Debate is written in classical Middle Egyptian. It contains most of the verb forms used in that stage of the language (see the Indices, Section 2), with the exception of the rarer ones: prospective passive (sÿmm.f ), sÿm.ãr.f, sÿm.kæ.f, and complementary infinitive. The perfective sÿm.f is restricted to the negation nj sÿm.f, as in standard Middle Egyptian. The prospective active (sÿmw.f ) appears not only in the frequent future wnn (142, 143, 145) but also as a more unusual alternant of the subjunctive in clause-initial position: rdj.j pœ.f jmnt mj ntj m mr.f (41–42) I will make him reach the West like one who is in his pyramid.

This use of the form is paralleled in older Middle Egyptian texts, including the Coffin Texts, the letters of Heqanakht, and the Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor.5 Other possible examples of the form are cols. 47– ————— 5

See also Allen, Heqanakht, 91–96.

GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS

115

48 hjm.k, after conditional jr, an environment in which the prospective is occasionally used instead of the subjunctive in Middle Egyptian;6 and 32 mœy.k, 47 swrj.j, 48 ïzy.j, 152 pœ.k, and 153 ãny.j, with prospective reference. All six, however, could also be instances of the more common subjunctive (see Section 3, below). The text observes the standard Middle Egyptian preference for the stative as the intransitive counterpart of the transitive sÿm.n.f. The stative is used with reference to the past not only in the subject-stative construction (107 jw zf æq and nãt œr hæ.w, 114 sn … ãpr) but also initially with third-person subject in past narrative (72 rs, 73 pr, 74 æq), a relatively rare use.7 The sÿm.n.f of intransitive verbs, or of transitive verbs in intransitive use, occurs only after a negation (2–3 nj nmë.n, 11 nj sÿm.n.j, 59 nn pr.n.k, 84 nj sÿm.n.f ). The perfective passive participle of verbs with biliteral roots shows both the older geminated form (124 ãmm) and the ungeminated form more common in Middle Egyptian (79 sdw). The text has perhaps one instance of the sÿm.n.f relative in non-attributive use (“emphatic” or “nominal”)—71 mæ.n.f, as an initial circumstantial— but a fairly large number of examples of the sÿm.f form in this function: as an initial conditional or circumstantial (40 tt, 62 ãpr, 83 ënn.f, 110 sãër); with a focused adverbial adjunct (78 mœy.j, 103–29 ÿd.j, 117 and 124 jnn.tw); as object of a preposition (130 snb, 137 jw, 141 æbb, 147 mdw.f, 150 ëœæ.k, 150 ÿd.k, 153 wrd.k),8 subject of another predicate (10 rwj.f, 29–30 ãsf ), and nominal predicate (154 jw.f ). Where the form is clear it is the imperfective (æbb, ënn.f, jw/jw.f, jnn.tw), but the perfective is possible in 10 rwj.f and 78 mœy.j.9 ————— Allen, Middle Egyptian, § 21.6. For this use in Middle Egyptian, see Allen, Middle Egyptian, § 17.17. Past narrative uses of the intransitive stative are generally restricted to the first person singular: Doret, Narrative Verbal System, 58–61. 8 130 snb, 150 ëœæ.k and ÿd.k, and 153 wrd.k could be infinitives. 9 The perfective relative in “emphatic” use is attested in Sin. B 202 jr.tw nn mj mj “How was this done?” (Koch, Sinuhe, 63, 9). 6 7

116

CHAPTER FOUR

3. synthetic and analytic prospectives

For statements with prospective reference, the text uses the prospective and subjunctive forms of the sÿm.f and the periphrastic jw.f r sÿm. Four instances of the prospective and three of the subjunctive can be identified morphologically: prospective rdj.j (41) and wnn (142, 143, 145); and subjunctive mæ.k (59) and wn (121, 130). The subjunctive can also be identified in a number of syntactic environments for which it is the only or dominant form in Middle Egyptian: as an initial jussive or optative (7 ëœë.f, 15 tk.f, 23 wÿë, 24 ãsf, 25 sÿm, 26 ãsf, 39 sÿm, 149 wdn.k), in the negation nn sÿm.f (8 dj.t, 9–10 ãpr, 51 gm.k, 121 wn, 130 wn), after the particle jã (46 tm.f, 153 jr.n),10 in clauses of purpose or result (16 ëœë.f, 23 œtp, 44 sÿdm.k, 46 sÿdm.k, 49 sÿm.k, 55–56 wšb.f, 59 mæ.k, 86 wšb.j, 150 ëœæ.k), to continue an imperative (*26 sbæ.j), and as object of rdj (8 õæ.f, 41 pœ.f, 144 dj.t). In other environments, the sÿm.f with prospective reference could be either form. Both are attested after conditional jr (47–48 hjm.k), as noted above, and as object of the verb mrj “desire” (152 pœ.k).11 One environment in which the prospective is normally used instead of the subjunctive is the clause of future circumstance.12 This use may be attested in the Debate in five passages: ptr km.k mœy.k œr ënã mj nb-ëœëw (32–33) What is your gain, if you will care about life like an owner of riches? tt jb.f œnë.j jw.f r mër rdj.j pœ.f jmnt mj ntj m mr.f (40–41) Should his heart be in accord with me, he will be fortunate, for I will make him reach the West like one is in his pyramid.

————— See Vernus, Future at Issue, 101–15. For the subjunctive after mrj, see Gardiner, EG, § 452.1a; for the prospective, Pyr. 977a ( jw). 12 Allen, Middle Egyptian, § 21.6. 10 11

GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS

117

swrj.j mw œr bæbæt ïzy.j šwjw (47–48) I will drink water at the flood and shall lift away dryness. ëœët.fj œr œæt hrw qrs sÿæy.f œnkyt n õrj-nïr (53–55) who will attend at the tomb on burial-day and will transport a bed for the necropolis. mr œm pœ.k jmnt sæœ œë.k tæ ãny.j r sæ wrd.k (151–53) But desire too that you reach the West when your body touches the earth, and I will alight after your weariness.

In these cases, the verb form in question is either clearly prospective rather than subjunctive (41 rdj.j) or shows an ending y (32 mœy.j, 48 ïzy.j, 54 sÿæy.f, 153 ãny.j), which is typical of the prospective of finalweak verbs although also found in the subjunctive of such verbs.13 The periphrastic prospective subject–r-sÿm (“Third Future”) is used in independent statements or initial clauses and as the apodosis of an initial “emphatic” conditional: [ … j]w.n r ÿd [ … ] (*29–1) [ … ] we are to speak [ … ] [j]w r õæ[b m] dbæw (2–3) It would be crooked in return. jw.j r jït.k (36) I shall rob you. tt jb.f œnë.j jw.f r mër (40–41) Should his heart be in accord with me, he will be fortunate.

————— Allen, Middle Egyptian, §§ 21.2 (prospective) and 19.2 (subjunctive). The prospective active rdj does not have an ending. The ending y of the final-weak prospective derives from an original –jw: Allen, Inflection, § 20. Apart from the nonattributive (perfective?) relative mœy.j (78), these are the only examples of the 3ae-inf. sÿm.f with this ending. It does not appear in this text in the final-weak subjunctive (8 dj.t õæ.f, 51 gm.k, 144 dj.t, 153 jr.n). 13

118

CHAPTER FOUR

jw.j r jrt njæj (43, 45) I shall make an awning.

The prospective or subjunctive sÿm.f is also used as an initial future (47 swrj.j, cited above). In this case, the usage illustrates Vernus’s distinction between internal and external expressions of the future: thus, swrj.j “I will drink” vs. jw.j r jït/jrt “I shall rob/make.”14 4. synthetic and analytic imperfectives

A comparable alternation involves the subject–sÿm.f and subject–œrsÿm constructions. In this case, the distinction is between what Vernus has termed “unachieved non-extensive” and “unachieved extensive” expressions, respectively.15 In the Debate, subject–sÿm.f, with the imperfective, is used for aorist statements. These typically hold true regardless of context—jw ãtw ãr.sn (21) “Trees fall”—but also more narrowly within the context of a parable, a usage apparently unique to this text: jw nÿs skæ.f šdw.f jw.f æp.f šmw.f r õnw dpt (68–70) A little man plows his plot, and he loads his harvest inside a boat. jw nÿs dbœ.f mšrwt jw œjm.f ÿd.s n.f jw r msyt jw.f pr.f r ãntw r.s sï r æt (80–82) A little man asks for an afternoon meal, and his wife says to him, ‘It will be supper,’ and he goes outside at it, only for a moment.

The subject–œr-sÿm construction (“First Present”) is used in the Debate to describe actions contemporary with another action or with a situation, including the situation of the speech event itself (moment of speaking): ————— 14 15

Vernus, Future at Issue, 24–27. Vernus, Future at Issue, 163–93.

GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS

119

mj.tn bæ.j œr tht.j (11) But look, my soul is leading me astray. nœmn tw œr tfyt nn nwt.k ãnrj nb œr ÿd jw.j r jït.k (34–36) In fact, you are being uprooted, without considering yourself, while everyone deprived is saying, “I shall rob you.” rs m dpt rë œr ëq (72–73) He watched in the boat as the Sun was going in. ënn.f sw r pr.f jw.f mj ky œjmt.f œr šsæ n.f (83–84) When he turns back to his house, he is like another man, his wife pleading to him. ëwn jbw z nb œr jtt ãwt snnw.f (105–106) Hearts are greedy, every man taking the other’s things. jw œëÿæ.tw z nb œr jtt snnw.f (112–13) For one plunders, every man robbing the other.

Both uses of the subject–sÿm.f construction correspond to comparable uses of the simple present in English (aorist and historical present), while subject–œr-sÿm can usually be rendered best by the English imperfect, both as an immediate present (“is leading”) and in non-present contexts (“was going in”). These aspectual differences extend to the use of the two predicates in circumstantial clauses without initial subjects. The imperfective sÿm.f appears in aorist statements (17 jn.f and 110–11 ssbt.f, both governed by an imperfective attributive in the preceding clause, and 70 stæs.f, following a subject–sÿm.f clause) and other nonextensive environments (152 sæœ, describing a single event): pæ js pw prr jn.f sw r.f (17) that being the one who goes forth and brings himself to it.

120

CHAPTER FOUR

sãër z m zp.f bjn ssbt.f bw-nb jw.f ÿw (110–11) When a man causes anger by his bad deed, he makes everyone laugh, though his misdeed is evil. jw.f æp.f šmw.f r õnw dpt stæs.f sqdwt œb.f tkn (69–71) and he loads his harvest inside a boat and drags a sailing, his festival near. mr œm pœ.k jmnt sæœ œë.k tæ (151–52) But desire too that you reach the West when your body touches the earth.

The example in col. 70 can also be analyzed as an instance of gapping, where stæs.f is to be understood as governed by 69 jw.f, like æp.f. Gapping also explains the use of the imperfective sÿm.f in 76 pzš.f, which might otherwise appear to be an extensive use of the form, like the circumstantial œr ÿd that follows: ÿr.jn.f œms pzš.f m ãrw œr ÿd nj rm.j n tfæ mst (75–77) So, he ended up seated and spreading out by voice, saying, “I have not wept for her who was born.”

In this case, pzš.f is governed by the initial (non-extensive) ÿr.jn.f, like the stative œms, while œr ÿd indicates an action that is contemporary (co-extensive) with the situation described by the three preceding verb forms. This value of œr plus the infinitive also applies to three or four other instances of the construction in the Debate: ptr mnt.f [ …f] œr [rdjt] sæ.f r [sn].f (14–15) What is his suffering, that he should [ … ], giving his back to his brother? bæ.j wãæ r sdœ æh œr ënã (17–18) My soul has become too foolish to suppress misery while living.

GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS

121

wnn ms ntj jm m nïr ënã œr ãsf jw n jrr sw (142–43) Surely, he who is there will be a living god, punishing the misdeed of the one who does it. wnn ms ntj jm ëœë m wjæ œr rdjt dj.t stpwt jm r rw-prw (143–45) Surely, he who is there will be standing in the bark, having choice cuts given from it to the temples.

Only the last of these is a clear example of circumstantial œr plus infinitive: the first is conjectural, the second may involve a verbal noun rather than the infinitive (“because of life”); the third was perhaps intended as a virtual relative (“who bars”), although its aspectual value is the same in both cases.16 As Vernus notes,17 the use of œr plus the infinitive as an extensive represents a grammaticalized construction, as distinct from other examples in which œr has the value of a “full preposition”: 12 œr stæs.j “because of dragging me” (possibly also *14), 13 œr ãæë.(j) “because of throwing me,” 146 œr spr “from petitioning” (Wb. III, 335, 10), and perhaps also 150 ëœæ.k œr ënã “your fighting for life” if ënã is the infinitive rather than a verbal noun. The clear distinction between subject–sÿm.f and subject–œr-sÿm in the Debate represents the third stage (Dynasty XI–XII) in Vernus’s analysis of the history of these two constructions in Middle Egyptian.18 It identifies the probable date of the text’s composition as the first half of Dynasty XII, perhaps a hundred years earlier than the copy that has been preserved.19

————— For œr plus infinitive as a virtual relative after an undefined antecedent, see Allen, Middle Egyptian, § 15.10.2. 17 Future at Issue, 164. 18 Future at Issue, 191. 19 See also P. Vernus, in Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichtheim, 1033– 47. For the date of the papyrus itself, see Chapter Two, above. 16

CHAPTER FIVE

STYLISTIC ANALYSIS The Debate between a Man and His Soul is one of the great compositions of Middle Egyptian literature. As such, it employs the conventions found in other such works, including versification, metaphor, simile, and devices such as alliteration and word-play.1 Not all of these features are recoverable to the same degree, and the means by which some are analyzed is the subject of ongoing debate. To the extent that stylistic features can be discerned, however, they are crucial to the way in which the work is understood. 1. versification in the litanies

The key stylistic feature of the text is its verse structure. Although much of the composition has usually been translated as prose, there is general agreement that at least the litanies in the Man’s third speech are in verse.2 The stanzas of the first three litanies have been understood most often as tercets and those of the fourth as couplets.3 This reflects the structure that seems logically innate in each litany, based on its repetitive elements: ————— See Parkinson, Poetry and Culture, 112–28. The composition apart from the litanies has been treated as verse by Ranke 1926 (cols. 55–68), von der Wense 1949, Barta 1969, Renaud 1991 (cols. 5–30 and 33–55), Tobin 1991 (cols. 5–30), Foster 1992, Parkinson 1997, Assmann 1998, Bresciani 1999, Mathieu 2000, Tobin 2003, and Burkard 2008. The term “litany” has been adopted here to distinguish the four poems of the Man’s third speech (cols. 85– 147) from the rest of the poem proper. 3 The fourth litany is treated as a tercet by Erman 1923, Spiegel 1950, Potapova 1965, Wilson 1969, Foster 1992, and Mathieu 2000. Von der Wense 1949 treats the third and fourth litanies as quatrains. Lohmann 1998 and Burkard 2008 treat all the litanies as couplets. The versification of Barta 1969 is discussed below. 1 2

124

CHAPTER FIVE

1

2

3

4

mj.k bëœ rn.j mj.k r … … ÿd.j n mj mjn … …

Look, my name is reeking: look, more than … … To whom can I speak today? … …

(8 stanzas)

(16 stanzas)

jw mwt m œr.j mjn mj … mj …

Death is in my sight today, like … like …

(6 stanzas)

wnn ms ntj jm … …

Surely, he who is there will be … …

(3 stanzas).

Acceptance of this logical structure, however, requires modification of the prevailing theory of Egyptian metrics, developed by Gerhard Fecht.4 In Fecht’s analysis, lines of ancient Egyptian verse regularly consist of two or three groups of words (cola), each of which has a single primary stress. This system works well for some of the lines of the four litanies: for example,5 3 2 3

ÿd.j n–mj mjn jw–šw m–ëq-jb jnn.tw m–ãmm r–srãt–n.f (123–25) To whom can I speak today? There is lack of an intimate; one resorts only to an unknown to make known to.

3 2 3

jw–mwt m–œr.j mjn mj–æbb–zj mææ–pr.sn jr.n.f–rnpwt–ëšæt jt.w m–nÿrt (140–42) Death is in my sight today, like a man longs to see home, when he has spent many years taken in captivity.

————— Initially, Fecht, ZÄS 91 (1964), 11–63, supplemented by several later studies. See Parkinson, Poetry and Culture, 113–14. 5 Based on Barta 1969, 16–18, where the Debate is analyzed according to Fecht’s system. In the transcription, full forms of all verb forms are used. The words of each colon are joined by a dash; the numbers on the left indicate the number of cola per line. 4

STYLISTIC ANALYSIS

2 2

125

wnn–ms–ntj–jm m–nïr–ënã œr–ãsf–jw n–jrr–sw (142–43) Surely, he who is there will be a living god, punishing the misdeed of him who does it.

In most cases, however, retaining the logical verse structure produces cola that are shorter or longer than those regarded by Fecht as normative: for instance, 1 2 2

mj.k–b뜖rn.j mj.k–r–dmj n–jty šnn–bštw mææ–sæ.f (101–103) Look, my name is reeking: look, more than the harbor of the Sire that plots sedition but whose back is seen.

3 1 4

ÿd.j n–mj mjn snw–bjn.w jnn.tw m–ÿrÿrw r–mtt nt–jb (116–18) To whom can I speak today? Brothers have become bad; one brings only strangers into the middle of the heart.

3 1 3

jw–mwt m–œr.j mjn mj–wæt–œwyt mj–jw–zj m–mšë r–pr.sn (136–38) Death is in my sight today, like the flood’s ebbing, like a man comes home from an expedition.

2 4

wnn–ms–ntj–jm m–rã–ãwt nj–ãsf.n.tw.f œr–spr n–rë ãft–mdw.f (145–47) Surely, he who is there will a knower of things, who cannot be barred from appealing to the Sun when he speaks.

Fecht’s norm of two or three cola can only be maintained in such cases by reanalyzing the lines, as Barta has done. But this often results in a violation of the logical integrity of each line: 3 2 3

ÿd.j n–mj mjn snw–bjn.w jnn.tw m–ÿrÿrw r–mtt nt–jb

126

CHAPTER FIVE

To whom can I speak today? Brothers have become bad; one brings only strangers into the middle of the heart. 3 2 2

jw–mwt m–œr.j mjn mj–wæt–œwyt mj–jw–zj m–mšë r–pr.sn Death is in my sight today, like the flood’s ebbing, like a man comes home from an expedition.

Barta’s analysis also disrupts the logical stanza structure, producing a somewhat random pattern of tercets and couplets in the litanies.6 Fecht’s system is based on Coptic, where stress can be deduced from spelling, but it also entails a somewhat subjective supposition that groups of words have only a single primary stress.7 That supposition is borne out by Coptic in some cases: for example, the Coptic circumstantial First Present with pronominal subject and stative—e.g., efsotp “he chosen”—has a single stress (efsótp), indicating that the same was probably true for its Middle Egyptian ancestor, jw.f stp.w. Fecht extrapolates the same stress pattern for the form with nominal subject—e.g., 36–37 rn.k ënã “your name is alive”—but Coptic indicates that this construction had two stresses—pekšEre onh “your son is alive” (Jn 4:50 pekšére ónh)—and there is no reason to believe that the situation was different in Middle Egyptian. Such discrepancies suggest that the cola identified by Fecht’s rules may not always reflect the true metrical structure of a Middle Kingdom text. Coptic generally shows a single fully stressed vowel in nouns (including the descendants of some original adjectives), independent pronouns, adverbs, prepositional phrases with a noun or suffix pronoun, and verbal compounds with pronominal subject (such as efsotp); other elements normally function as clitics, without full ————— Barta retains consistent tercets only in the third litany. In the first, he has three tercets and five couplets; in the second, ten tercets and six couplets; and in the fourth, two couplets and a tercet. 7 Fecht’s rules defining these stress units are elaborated in ZÄS 91 (1964), 30–36. 6

STYLISTIC ANALYSIS

127

stress. For elements that are usually fully stressed, reduction to a clitic is largely restricted to three syntactic environments: the independent pronoun as subject in a non-verbal sentence with nominal predicate, original direct genitive or noun-adjective constructions that have become lexicalized, and the infinitive and conjunct participle with nominal object: e.g., ntok (ntók) “you” vs. ntk nim (ntk-ním) “Who are you?”; rwme (róme) “man” vs. rm+me (rmtíme) “villager” (from rmï dmj “man of a village”); stoi (stói) “smell” vs. s+noufe (stinúfe) “perfume” (from sïj nfr “good smell”); swtm (sótm) “hear” vs. setmhroou (setmhróu) “hear noise” (from sÿm ãrw “hearing of noise”). These features provide a somewhat more objective basis than Fecht’s cola for deducing the metrics of a Middle Kingdom verse composition. Not surprisingly, lines analyzed in this way turn out to have meters not too different from those in Fecht’s analysis, with two or three feet per line the norm (see Appendix Two). In the first litany, for example, half of the stanzas have a 3–2–3 meter, as in stanza one: 3 2 3

mj.k bëœ rn.j mj.k r–stj–æsw m–hrww–šmw pt tæ.tj Look, my name is reeking: look, more than carrion’s smell on Harvest days, when the sky is hot.8

In the last two stanzas of the litany, the second line has three feet: mj.k r–õrd qn.w (100) “look, more than a brave boy” and mj.k r–dmj n–jty (102) “look, more than the harbor of the Sire.” Lines with four feet also occur at the end of three stanzas: r–ãæzw nw–zšw œæm n.sn ————— Fecht analyzes proclitic particles as clitics but mj.k followed by a dependent pronoun as one colon: ZÄS 91 (1964), 34. The particle mj.k itself, however, may have been fully stressed, as suggested by its origin in mj plus a dependent pronoun (mj-kw: e.g., Pyr. 162c). Fecht also analyzes an adjectival predicate with nominal subject as a single colon: ZÄS 91 (1964), 34 and 36. This was perhaps true for common adjectives such as nfr, as indicated by Coptic nefr–noun, but examples such as Sin. B 82 wr n.f jrp r mw “wine was greater for it than water,” where the adjective and noun are separated, suggest that in other cases both carried full stress. 8

128

CHAPTER FIVE

(94–95) “at the channels of the nests for which they are fowled,”9 ÿd grg r.s n–ïæy (98–99) “about whom the lie of a lover has been told,” and šnn bštw mææ sæ.f (102–103) “that plots sedition but whose back is seen.”10 This suggests a conscious attention to meter on the part of the author, with variation from the normal pattern used for stylistic effect. The overall pattern is 3–2–3 (stanzas 1–3 and 5), 3–2–4 (stanzas 4 and 6), 3–3–3 (stanza 7), and 3–3–4 (stanza 8). The pattern is less regular in the second litany. Its lines have not only two to four feet but also one and five. A single foot appears in the second line of stanzas six, twelve, and fourteen: jw–œëÿæ.tw (112) “For one plunders,” nn–mæëtjw (122) “There are no righteous,” and nn–hr-jb (125–26) “There is no calm-hearted.” A line with five feet occurs at the end of the seventh stanza: sn jrr œnë.f ãpr.w m–ãftj (114–15) “the brother one used to act with become an opponent.” Ten meters appear in the litany as a whole: 3–1–2 (stanza 6), 3–1–3 (stanza 14), 3–1–4 (stanza 12), 3–2–2 (stanza 2), 3–2–3 (stanzas 1, 3, 8, 13), 3–2–4 (stanzas ————— The pronominal dative is fully stressed in Coptic, at least bisyllabic n.ïn > nEtn, and therefore probably also Middle Egyptian n.sn. In Middle Egyptian, however, it may have been clitic when preceding verbal objects and nominal subjects: e.g., Pyr. 587c sœm.n–n.k–sw œrw “Horus has turned him away for you,” with two feet rather than three (sœm.n n.k–sw œrw). A similar bivalence may have existed for clitic r.f/r.k: e.g., col. 109 rdj–r.f bw–nfr r–tæ m–st–nbt vs. cols. 98–99 ÿd grg r.s n–ïæy. 10 Fecht analyzes the sÿm.f with nominal subject as a single colon: ZÄS 91 (1964), 36. This is based, however, on adjectival predicates, which may not have had the same prosody as the sÿm.f. The fact that a nominal subject can be separated from the verb by a number of elements suggests that it bore a separate stress. The same argument applies to the nominal object of active participles, complement of passive participles, and subject of relative forms. The fact that attributive forms can have such complements indicates that they were probably separate cola, as Fecht recognized at least for relative forms: ZÄS 91 (1964), 35. The prosody of adjectives is uncertain. Fecht treats a noun with following adjective as a single colon: ZÄS 91 (1964), 32. Coptic, however, also shows full stress of both elements—Bohairic sToy noufe (sthói núfe) “perfume”—which suggests that they should normally be analyzed as two cola except for common (probably lexicalized) phrases such as hrw nfr “good time.” The quantifier nb, however, was likely only enclitic, as shown by its occasional presence in direct genitives: e.g., Urk. I, 12, 9 œm-kæ nb ÿt “every ka-servant of the funerary estate.” 9

STYLISTIC ANALYSIS

129

4, 9, 10, 11),11 3–2–5 (stanza 7), 3–3–4 (stanza 5),12 3–3 (stanza 15), and 3–4 (stanza 16). Although its length indicates that this litany was intended as the most important of the four, the irregularity of its meter suggests that prosody was less important here than content. In the third litany, the poem returns to a more regular meter. Its first three stanzas have a 3–1–3 pattern.13 This is altered in stanzas four and five by lengthening the final line by one foot (3–1–4), and the final stanza has a unique 3–4–5 meter. This pattern suggests that the author may once again have been devoting attention to prosody in his composition, with a deliberate lengthening of stanzas toward the litany’s end. Of the 94 lines in the litanies, there are 8 with one foot, 19 with two, 48 with three, 16 with four, and 3 with five. In the first three litanies, lines of more than three feet occur only at the end of a stanza. The couplets of the fourth litany, however, use lines of more than three feet as the first of stanzas one and two and the last of stanzas two and three (4–2, 4–5, 3–4). This may also be a conscious stylistic device on the author’s part: the longer lines are associated with finality, as in the ends of the three preceding litanies. 1. versification in the text

There is general agreement that the literary corpus of the Middle Kingdom was composed as verse.14 This is undoubtedly true in the case of the Debate as well, and has been recognized in a number of translations (see n. 2, above). In other Middle Kingdom literary works, the primary organizing feature is the two-line unit that Foster has called the “thought couplet,” defined by him as “a pair of verse lines which form an independent unit of thought, syntax, and rhet————— The final line of stanza nine may have three feet rather than four, if the phrase mtt nt jb had only one stress: for indirect genitive phrases with a single stress, see Fecht, ZÄS 91 (1964), 33. 12 Or 3–4–4, if the final bjn of the second line had independent stress. 13 Perhaps 3–2–3 in the first stanze if snb z is a sÿm.f with nominal subject. 14 Parkinson, Poetry and Culture, 114. 11

130

CHAPTER FIVE

oric.”15 Each line is normally “end-stopped,” coinciding with a grammatical clause, and the couplets contain no final “run-on lines, where the grammatical or rhetorical, or thought content continues without break into the next couplet.”16 The litanies, of course, demonstrate the use of tercets in addition to couplets. These can be analyzed as a stylistic extension of Foster’s basic unit. In the verses of the first and second litanies, a common initial line, or “refrain,” is followed by a couplet; the verses of the third litany consist of an initial couplet (with a common first line) expanded by an additional line. These show that adjuncts or attributives of a single clause can extend over two lines of a couplet (or three of a tercet, as in the third litany), and that a single line can contain more than one grammatical clause: e.g., 110–11 ssbt.f bw-nb jw.f ÿw.w “he makes everyone laugh, though his misdeed is evil” and 141–42 jr.n.f rnpwt ëšæt jt.w m nÿrt “when he has spent many years taken in captivity,” both of which have a second, circumstantial clause with stative predicate. Although the verse structure in the body of the poem is not as self-evident as it is in the litanies, these criteria can be used to analyze it. Unlike the litanies, the division between lines in the rest of the poem is not always clear: for example, 20–21 põrt–pw ënã jw–ãtw ãr.sn “Life is a cycle; trees fall,” can be analyzed as a single line with four feet or a couplet with two feet per line.17 In such cases, the choice usually comes down to individual preference. The text seems to have been composed largely in couplets, and most lines have two or three feet, as in the litanies. There are, however, some probable exceptions to both of these patterns. Although the litanies have a few lines of five feet, the rest of the poem may have had none: possible instances can also be analyzed as ————— Foster, JNES 34 (1975), 9. Foster, JNES 34 (1975), 7–8. 17 Treated as a single line by Renaud (1991, 23), Tobin (1991, 346, and 2003, 180), and Mathieu (2000, 21), and as a couplet in other verse translations. 15 16

STYLISTIC ANALYSIS

131

couplets with two feet in one line and three in the other. As in the litanies, however, a number of lines probably have one foot or four: for example, 3 1

twt jb.f œnë.j jw.f–r–mër (40–41) Should his heart be in accord with me, he will be fortunate.

3 4

jr–hjm.k–wj r–mwt m–pæ–qj nn–gm.k ãnt.k œr.s m–jmnt (49–51) If you prod me to death in that manner, you will not find a place to land on in the West.

As in the litanies, lines of one foot do not occur in the poem as the first line of a couplet or tercet. Those with four feet can appear in any line, or both of a couplet, and are not limited to the beginning or end of a section (see Appendix Two). The poem also has nine instances in which an “independent unit of thought” extends over three lines rather than two—that is, expressed as a true tercet. Seven mark the end of a section. The Man’s second speech begins with two symmetrical sections, each of which has three couplets and a closing tercet. A third tercet marks the end of the first part of this speech, in which the Man speaks of the Soul in the third person, and a fourth occurs as the last stanza of the “minilitany” of cols. 43–49, in which he addresses the Soul directly for the first time. Three more tercets appear in the Soul’s third speech: one at the end of its first section, before the two-couplet injunction of cols. 67–68, and the other two in the Soul’s first parable, marking the end of the first section of the story and the end of the tale itself. The final two tercets occur in the Soul’s concluding speech. These observations indicate that meter can be both incidental to content and an intentional stylistic feature. In the first case, the prosody probably reflects the normal metric length of an Egyptian clause, two or three feet. In the second, the use of lines shorter or longer than the norm suggests a conscious pacing to give variety to the composition

132

CHAPTER FIVE

and as an index of thematic change. Coupled with the occasional use of tercets in place of the usual couplets, this indicates that the parameters of composition were capable of greater variation than that dictated by Fecht’s system of metrics and Foster’s uniform couplets. The poem’s structure, as versified in Appendix Two, is also consciously constructed. The Soul’s second speech (cols. x-–*29 and 1–3) ends with two couplets whose second line is identical. The Man’s second speech has seven discrete sections, with the following themes and structure: 5–10 11–17 17–29 29–39 39–43 41–49

the Soul’s disagreement: 3 couplets and 1 tercet the Soul’s enticement to death: 3 couplets and 1 tercet the Soul’s “sweetening the West”: 9 couplets18 the Soul’s disparagement of the Man’s situation: 8 couplets proper burial, introduction: 2 couplets and 1 tercet proper burial, “mini-litany” (first address to the Soul): 3 couplets and 1 tercet 49–55 proper burial, conclusion: 3 couplets.

The Soul’s third speech has four sections: 56–67 67–68 68–80 81–85

disparagement of proper burial: 7 couplets and 1 tercet injunction to enjoy life: 2 couplets first parable: 3 couplets and 1 tercet plus 2 couplets and 1 tercet second parable: 4 couplets.

The Soul’s fourth speech, which ends the poem, has a symmetrical structure, with an opening couplet, two tercets, and a closing couplet. 3. other stylistic devices

Apart from meter, the only other phonological device recoverable from the text of the Debate is consonantal alliteration. There is nothing to indicate whether this feature is a deliberate device employed by the author or merely accidental, but the following seem to be clear examples with a single consonant: ————— 18

Or 8 if cols. 19–21 is a 3–4 couplet rather than two short couplets (2–1 and 2–2).

STYLISTIC ANALYSIS

2/3 17 21 116–17

133

nj nmë.n ns.sn pæ js pw prr jw ãtw ãr.sn nj sãæ.tw sf nj jr.tw n jr

More complex alliterations appear in other instances where similar consonants are repeated: 17–18 23 24 53–54 68 114–15 118–19 133–34 129–30

bæ.j wãæ.w r sdœ æh œr ënã wÿë wj ÿœwtj ãsf ãnsw œr.j ëœëtj.fj œr œæt hrw qrs smã mœ sn jrr œnë.f ãpr.w m ãftj œrw œtm.w õr œtæw hrw ïæw nf œw tæ nn wn pœwj.fj.19

A particularly sophisticated instance of complex alliteration occurs in 149–50 wdn.k œr ëã … ëœæ.k œr ënã, where similar groups of consonants are used in each clause. In this case, the approximate vocalization can be recovered from Coptic, illustrating assonance as well: *wadnák œi–ëáã and ëaœæák œi–ëánaã. Alliteration involving metathesis occurs in 25–26 sÿm rë mdw.j (probably sdm … mdw) and between the second and third lines of the tercet in 96–97 (r stj msœw and r œmst). Rhetorical devices are more self evident. An unusual feature of the composition is its use of repeated lines or phrases outside the litanies, producing “mini-litanies” in the text. These include nj nmë.n ns.sn “their tongue cannot be biased” as the second line in each of the final two couplets of the Ba’s second speech (cols. 1–3), and the phrase sÿdm.k ky bæ “and you will make jealous another ba” in the beginning of the second line of the first three couplets in the final section of the Man’s second speech (cols. 43–49). A number of the second and third lines in the tercets of the litanies employ contrastive words or images: bjn “the bad” and bw nfr ————— A similar alliteration appears in the second and third lines of the tercet in cols. 89–90, between šzp and rzf. 19

134

CHAPTER FIVE

“goodness” (108–109), sãër zj “a man causes anger” and ssbt.f “he makes laugh” (110–11), sf “yesterday” and tæ æt “this time” (116–17), mæëtjw “righteous” and jrw jsft “disorder-doers” (122–23), wæt œwyt “the flood’s ebbing” and jw zj … r pr.sn “a man comes home” (136– 38); also within a single line in 124–25 jnn.tw m ãmm r srãt n.f “one resorts only to an unknown to make known to.” Simile is used throughout the first and third litanies as well as in the rest of the poem (cols. 6–7, 32–33, 41–43, 63–65). The Egyptian predilection for metaphorical expressions is illustrated by phrases such as štæw õt.j “my belly’s secrets” (30), wš.w jb “unreceptive” (85: literally, “stripped of heart”), nãt œr “sternness” (107: literally, “force of face”), ëq-jb “intimate” (114, 124, 128–29: literally, “one who enters the heart”), and mryt-nt-tãt “Bank of Inebriation” (135–36). Longer metaphors are also employed throughout the composition: ÿr ntt.f m õt.j m šnw nwœ (9) since he is in my belly in a rope mesh ãæë.(j) œr ãt r smæmt.j 13) throwing me on the fire to incinerate me nœmn tw œr tfyt nn nwt.k (34–35) In fact, you are being uprooted, without considering yourself st nfæ nt ãnt ëfdt nt jb (37–38) Yonder is a place of alighting, storage-chest of the heart dmj pw jmnt õn.t spdw œr jr (38–39) The West is a harbor, which the perceptive should be rowed to mdw n.sn rmw spt n mw (66–67) to whom the fish and the lip of the water speak msw.s sdw m swœt mæw œr n ãntj nj ënãt.sn (78–80) her children, broken in the egg, who saw the face of Khenti before they lived. jmj r.k nãwt œr õææ (148) Put, then, complaint on the stake jã jr.n dmj n zp (154) Then we will make harbor at the same time.

STYLISTIC ANALYSIS

135

A number of metaphors reflect the imagery of the soul as avian in nature. Cols. 37, 50–51, and 153 use the verb ãnj “alight” with reference to the soul’s destination in the West, and the metaphor of the šnw nwœ (9) “rope mesh,” cited above, derives from the practice of snaring wild birds in a clap-net.

CHAPTER SIX

TEXTUAL ANALYSIS When I hear somebody sigh, “Life is hard,” I am always tempted to ask, “Compared to what?” Sydney J. Harris

The Debate is presented as a discussion about life and death between two protagonists: the Man, speaking in the first person, and his Soul. As discussed in Chapter One, the concept of the soul is essentially that of a complete individual residing, during life, in a physical shell (the body). The debate is therefore the Man’s inner struggle with himself. It is developed in a series of coherent sections, each devoted to one side of the debate, before the final resolution. 1. introduction and the soul’s first speech […] [ … ] evil. Doing it [ … ] […] [that] you [might set down my] misery.

The lost beginning of the Debate can only be the subject of speculation. Presumably it contained an introductory section, spoken by the narrator, setting the background of the debate. It has been suggested that it was set in the context of an audience of some sort (Parkinson 1997, 152), perhaps a court of the gods (Goedicke 1970, 40) or the final judgment (Mathieu 2000, 20), but there is no evidence of this in the surviving text other than the second-person plural pronoun in 11 mj.tn “look,” and this may be merely generic (see the discussion in Chapter Three, above).

138

CHAPTER SIX

The Man’s mention of a “day of difficulties” (cols. 10 and 15), the Soul’s words cited in the Man’s second speech (cols. 31–37), and the theme of the first two litanies all indicate that the debate takes place in a time of great hardship for the Man. The opening words of the poem undoubtedly made reference to this in some way—perhaps analogous to the beginning of Edgar Allan Poe’s The Raven (“Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary”), with the Man pondering over his sorry state rather than Poe’s “many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore.” Poe’s raven is not introduced until the seventh stanza of his poem. The loss before the Soul’s first speech is shorter (some ten columns of text) but sufficient for the Man’s initial lament and the introduction of the Soul (also avian, like Poe’s raven) as his interlocutor. The first two fragments of the papyrus preserve what may be a few of the words from the Soul’s opening speech. If [wæœ].k mæ[jr.j] “that you might set down my misery” is restored correctly, it is the first intimation of the Soul’s role in the first part of the poem, giving voice to the Man’s thoughts of death as a means of release from his troubles. The words suggest that the Soul begins his role in the debate as an advocate for death as a release from hardship. 2. the man’s first speech [What I said to my soul]: It is the hour [ … ] [ … ] him, dragging [me … ] […] […]

In the reconstruction suggested in Chapter Three, cols. *12– *15+x contained the Man’s first response to the Soul’s opening remarks, with a short heading [ÿdt.n.j n bæ.j] mirroring that which introduces the Soul’s final words at the end of the poem. The phrase œr stæ[s.j] “dragging me,” if restored correctly, suggests the Man’s re-

TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

139

sistance to the Soul’s argument. In that case, his opening words wnwt pw [ … ] may have been part of a statement such as wnwt pw [nt wæœ jb] “It is the hour for being resolute.”1 3. the soul’s second speech [And my soul opened his mouth to me that he might answer what I had said]: […] [ … ] face. Guard [ … ]. Come, then, that I may instruct you [ … ] [ … ] you [ … ] the hostile nature of the West. […] For a man [ … ]. We are to speak [truly in the tribunal]: their tongue cannot be biased. It would be [crooked in return]: their tongue cannot be biased.

The Soul’s response to the Man’s objections began between cols. *15 and *25 and was probably introduced by the same two clauses that head the Soul’s third speech (cols. 54–56). Although the first part of the speech is lost, the Soul’s exhortation “Come, then, that I may instruct you [ … ] the hostile nature of the West” may be part of an attempt to convince the Man not to fear death. The final two couplets of his speech may refer to the judgment after death, with the repeated clause “their tongue cannot be biased” indicating the gods’ verdict. If so, the import of these couplets is evidently that the gods will understand and forgive the desire for death. As such, they are an initial statement of the theme reiterated in the Soul’s cited words in the Man’s second speech. ————— Based on the use of the expression wæœ jb in cols. 51–52 (see the discussion in Chapter Three). For the sentence, cf. Heqanakht I, vo. 9 mj.k rnpt næ nt jrr z n nb.f “Look, this is the year for a man acting for his master”: Allen, Heqanakht, pl. 28. 1

140

CHAPTER SIX

4. the man’s second speech And I opened my mouth to my soul that I might answer what he had said: This has become too much for me today: my soul has not spoken in accord with me. It is also too much to exaggerate: my soul going is like one who ignores what he is in. He should attend to it for me, my [second, who [rejects] his [life]. He will not be allowed to resist me, since he is in my belly in a rope mesh: that he leave on a day of difficulties will not happen to him.

In his second speech, the Man does not address his Soul directly until the very end, but speaks about it in the third person (as he may have done in his first speech as well, if col. *14 sw refers to the Soul). This characteristic could indicate an address before an audience of some sort, but it may also be a more subtle device on the part of the text’s ancient author, meant to reflect the Man’s attempt to disown his own inner thoughts, to which he initially expresses opposition. The initial section of the speech has three couplets and a final tercet. The first couplet describes the Man’s reaction to the Soul’s preceding speech: frustration that the Soul persists in his wish for death despite the Man’s misgivings. In other words, the Man has not been able to dispel his own thoughts of death as a release. In the second and third couplets, the Man decries the Soul’s desire to “go” as facile solution to his problems (“what he is in”): the Man himself rejects death at this point and instead wants the Soul to help him face his troubles (“He should attend to it for me”). The final tercet returns to the theme of disagreement, with the Man making the point that his Soul cannot in fact choose death on his own, because the two are inseparable (“since he is in my belly in a rope mesh”). This a further expression of frustration, that the Man cannot resolve the inner dichotomy that prevents him from dealing resolutely with his problems.

TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

141

But look, my soul is leading me astray. I cannot listen to him because of dragging me to death before I have come to it, because of throwing me on the fire to incinerate me. What is his suffering, that [he] should [ … ] [giving] his back to his [brother]? He should be near me on a day of difficulties, that he may stand on yon side like a eulogy-maker, for that is the sort who goes forth and brings himself to it.

The second section, like the first, has three couplets with a final tercet. Addressed to a general audience (mj.tn), the opening couplets expand on the theme of the preceding section: instead of helping the Man to face his problems, the Soul is tempting him to avoid them by dying. The words “dragging me to death before I have come to it” are a clear intimation of morbid thoughts, but the phrase “throwing me on the fire to incinerate me” is most likely metaphorical rather than an indication of the mode of death that the Man contemplates, as argued initially by Scharff (1937, 15–16). The image reflects the Man’s fear, perhaps expressed in his first speech, that an unnatural death will deny him a happy afterlife, which is dependent on the Soul’s continued association with his mummy but is threatened by his wish to separate himself from the Man. It is clearly a metaphor for total annihilation, but may also reflect the notion of the damned being burnt in the Duat, as depicted in the netherworld books of the New Kingdom. In the closing couplet and tercet, the Man reiterates his argument that the Soul should remain with him and see him through “a day of difficulties.” The Soul’s desire to leave prematurely for “yon side” is contrasted with the normal separation of the soul at death, when it welcomes the deceased’s mummy in the West. The final lines of the tercet seem to reflect an otherwise unknown funeral rite (recitation of the deceased’s tomb biography?), but their primary purpose is to serve as a contrast to the Soul’s wish to go to the West prematurely. In addition, they introduce for the first time the notion of a proper burial, which is elaborated at the end of the Man’s second speech.

142

CHAPTER SIX

My soul has become too foolish to suppress misery in life, one who prods me toward death before I have come to it, who sweetens the West for me: “Is it something difficult? Life is a cycle; trees fall. Tread, then, on disorder, set down my misery. Let Thoth judge me and the gods become content; let Khonsu intervene for me, he who writes truly; let the Sun hear my speech, he who stills the sun-bark; let Isdes intervene for me in the sacred room— since my need has become heavy and [there is] no one to lift to himself for me.”

The next section is the first of two in which the Man cites the Soul’s words (which are, of course, his own inner thoughts). They may reiterate, in part, elements of the Soul’s first speech, now lost. Both lines of the opening couplet have a four-foot meter, reinforcing the beginning of a new section. The text then continues with shorter lines of one to three feet. Its nine couplets fall thematically into three sub-sections, two of four couplets each and a concluding couplet. The first four couplets open with a reprise of the Man’s description of the Soul as advocating death instead of persevering in “misery in life,” with the change of “dragging” to “prodding”—both images reflecting the Man’s own inability to dismiss a nagging desire for death. The next three couplets provide the content of his persistent thoughts, “sweetening” the idea of death as a natural part of existence. With the four statements in the second set of couplets, the Soul returns to the theme of the final judgment sounded at the end of his second speech. In essence, the Man tells himself to let the gods decide whether his thoughts of death are wrong, countering the trepidation expressed in the preceding section. The judgment is described in

TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

143

terms of the god who records the verdict, in the form of Thoth, Khonsu, and Isdes, and the judge, the Sun. This differs from the quartet of gods specified in the later “Book of the Dead”: jr ÿæÿæt ëæt jmt wæt mtw ÿœwtj pw jsjrt pw jnpw pw jsdz pw (BD 18) “As for the great tribunal that is in the path of the dead, it is Thoth, it is Osiris, it is Anubis, it is Isdes.” Lanczkowski (1954, 12–13) used the difference as part of his argument for the text of the Debate as “anti-Osirian.” The absence of Osiris here, however, probably has little significance. In the more contemporary Coffin Texts, the ÿæÿæt is described as that of Osiris (CT II, 243c–244a; IV, 304b; V, 229f, 230n, 232f), Thoth (CT I, 27c–28a; IV, 92k), and both gods (CT VII, 449a–b), but also as that of the Sun (CT I, 76g–h, 199e–f; III, 149e; VI, 264o); Thoth and the Sun appear together in CT VI, 209d–f j.nÿ œr.k ÿœwtj … šzp rë r.f œms ÿæÿæt ëæt r wÿë-mdw “Greetings, Thoth … whose speech the Sun receives when the great tribunal sits for judgment.” The final couplet, in which the Soul bemoans the fact that he is alone in his travail, is an ironic counter to the theme of the first section of the Man’s speech. The gods’ barring my belly’s secrets would be sweet, what my soul said to me: “You are not a man, even though you are alive. What is your gain, if you will care about life like an owner of riches who says, ‘I have not gone,’ when all those are down? In fact, you are being uprooted, without considering yourself, while everyone deprived is saying, ‘I shall rob you,’ and you dead as well, while your name is alive. Yonder is a place of alighting, storage-chest of the heart. The West is a harbor, which the perceptive should be rowed to.”

144

CHAPTER SIX

The opening couplet of this section serves both to interrupt the Soul’s cited words and to counter his request for divine judgment. Its initial nÿm “sweet” contrasts deliberately with the Soul’s description as snÿm “sweetening” in the previous section: instead of the Soul “sweetening the West,” the Man says, it would be better if the gods made things “sweet” by removing his nagging thoughts of death. The couplets that follow also contrast with the preceding section: instead of “sweetening the West,” the Soul now in effect “sours the East” by pointing out how miserable the Man’s life is. Antitheses also occur within the Soul’s cited words: in the two lines of the first couplet, in the contrast between the “owner of riches” and the “deprived” in the three that follow, and again in the two lines describing the Man himself as both “dead” and “alive,” the latter in name only. In the final couplets, the Soul argues that anyone in the Man’s wretched state should be perceptive enough to consider death as an alternative to a miserable life. My soul should listen to me instead: I [have] no transgression. Should his heart be in accord with me, he will be fortunate, for I will make him reach the West like one who is in his pyramid, to whose burial a survivor has attended.

In this short section, the Man returns to opposing the Soul’s arguments. The opening couplet is a statement of the Man’s superior moral position: he has done nothing to merit death. In the final couplet and tercet, the Man attempts to dissuade the Soul from “going” prematurely by offering him the prospect of a happy afterlife that follows on a death in the natural course of things, when a proper tomb has been prepared and the Man’s “survivor” can see to the funerary rites. The final tercet serves a dual purpose. In view of the distinctive section that follows, it presents a coda more prominent than the other concluding device used in the poem, a line of four feet; it also stresses the theme of the final two sections, a proper burial.

TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

145

I shall make an awning over your remains, and you will make jealous another soul in inertness. I shall make an awning and it won’t get cold, and you will make jealous another soul who is hot. I will drink water at the flood and shall lift away dryness, and you will make jealous another soul who is hungry. If you prod me to death in that manner, you will not find a place to land on in the West. Set your heart, my soul, my brother, until the heir has grown up who will present offerings, who will attend to the tomb on burial-day and will transport a bed for the necropolis.

These last two sections continue the theme sounded at the end of the preceding section but are marked as distinct by the change in the Man’s reference to the Soul, from the third person to direct address. Although the Soul speaks directly to the Man throughout the poem, this is the only place in the surviving text, and perhaps in the original composition as a whole, where the Man clearly does the same to the Soul. This externalizes the opposing side of what had previously been an internal debate. The change is certainly intentional, both setting these lines off from the preceding text and foreshadowing the reversal of roles in the second half of the poem. The two sections are divided both thematically and stylistically. The first, in litany form, elaborates on the theme of proper preparations for the afterlife, with each verse contrasting the fate of a soul who will enjoy such provisions and that of one whose body died without them: a funeral structure versus “inertness” (“Zustand des nicht richtig Begrabenen”: Wb. II, 275, 11), the absence of cold versus heat, and the slaking of thirst versus hunger. The second section summarizes the Man’s argument to this point, that untimely death destroys the chance for a happy afterlife.2 The final couplet reprises the theme that ended the section before the litany. ————— 2

On this point, see A. de Buck, in Pro Regno Pro Sanctuario, 79–88.

146

CHAPTER SIX

The features that make this group of seven verses stand out suggests that it is focal to the composition and one of the poem’s key themes. Weill (1947, 132–39) argued that the conflict between the Man and the Soul reflects, in part, disillusionment (expressed by the Soul) with the need for the traditional protocol of burial (expressed by the Man). In the context of the poem to this point, however, the Man’s insistence on the need for proper preparations for the afterlife has less to do with defending such provisions than with pointing out that premature death will obviate them. The protocol of burial as such is viewed as a moot point: it is presented not as a subject of debate but as an argument for the Man’s point of view. Its presence as a theme here, at the end of the Man’s long second speech, both marks the end of the first part of the poem and serves as a transition to the Soul’s rebuttal that follows. 5. the soul’s third speech And my soul opened his mouth to me that he might answer what I had said: As for your bringing to mind burial, it is heartache; it is bringing tears by saddening a man; it is taking a man from his house so that he is left on the hill: you won’t be able to go up and see Suns. Those who build, in stone of granite, the construction finished, fine pyramids with fine works— once the building commissioners become gods, what are dedicated to them are razed, like the inert who have died on the riverbank for lack of a survivor, the waters having taken his end, or Sunlight similarly— they to whom the fish and the lip of the water speak.

TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

147

The first section of the Soul’s third speech deals with the futility of funeral arrangements, and directly counters the argument of the Man in the last two sections of his second speech with two themes: the sadness of burial and the futility of traditional funeral arrangements. The Soul’s opening words, “As for your bringing to mind burial,” refer to the term “burial day” in the last couplet of the Man’s preceding speech. The distinction in the spellings of qrs “burial” in these lines may be intentional. The determinatives of , at the end of the Man’s speech, reflect the act of interring the mummy and the Man’s character as the corporeal shell in which the Soul resides; this is the theme of the first three couplets in this section (“taking a man from his house so that he is left on the hill”). That of , in the Soul’s speech, prefigures the material arrangements that are described in the rest of the section. Listen, then, to me: look, listening is good for people. Follow a good time, forget care.

This short section states the primary theme of the Soul’s third speech. As first noted by Weill (1947, 122 n. c), it and the preceding sextion are thematically identical to the later Harper’s Song, which it may have inspired: nïrw ãprw õr œæt œtpw m mrw.sn sëœw æãw m mjtt qrsw m mrw.sn qd œwwt nn wn swt.sn … jnbw.sn fã.w nn wn swt.sn mj ntt nj ãpr.sn … wÿæ jb.k r.s mhj jb.k œr.s æã n.k šmsj jb.k wnn.k 3

————— BM 10060 6, 4–9: E.A.W. Budge, Facsimiles of Egyptian Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum, 2nd Series (London, 1923), pl. 45. See M. Lichtheim, JNES 4 (1945), 191–95. 3

148

CHAPTER SIX

The gods who existed previously, who rest in their pyramids; the effective privileged likewise, who rest in their pyramids— their enclosures were built, but their places are no more … their walls are lost and no more, their places like that which has not come into being … Let your heart be informed about it, but let your heart forget about it: it is useful for you to follow your heart while you exist.

Following Weill (1947, 132–39), the Soul’s attitude at this point in the Debate is often described as critical of traditional funerary protocol. In the context, however, the Soul’s remarks serve two purposes: to dismiss the Man’s argument about the need for such arrangements and, as in the Harper’s Song, to provide a rationale for the final exhortation. The first couplet counters the Man’s previous statement sÿm n.j bæ.j “My soul should listen to me instead.” The Soul’s words at the beginning of his third speech can therefore be understood as continuing the debate that has been the poem’s subject thus far. The final couplet, however, is directly antithetical to the Soul’s previous role in the debate. Instead of “dragging” and “prodding” the Man toward death, the Soul now exhorts him to forget about his troubles and enjoy life. Together with the opening of the Soul’s third speech, these words represent a profound reversal in the Soul’s attitude, one that is paralleled by a change in the Man’s attitude, as reflected in his own third speech. Each party now adopts the other’s position, the Soul advocating life and the Man, death. The beginning of the Soul’s third speech provides the impetus for this reversal: the realization that death may be an answer to life’s misery but that it also has drawbacks of its own. The remainder of the speech consists of two parables that the Soul narrates. These are in some ways the most obscure part of the poem, but they evidently serves to illustrate the value of the Soul’s exhortation to “follow a good time, forget care.”

TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

149

A little man plows his plot, and he loads his harvest inside a boat, and drags the sailing, his festival near. When he saw the gloom of a norther’s emergence, he watched in the boat as the Sun was going in, disembarked with his wife and his children, and they perished atop a depression ringed by night with riverbankers. So, he ended up seated and spreading out by voice, saying, “I have not wept for that one who was born, though she has no emerging from the West to another one on earth. But I care about her children, broken in the egg, who saw the face of Khenti before they lived.”

The first of the Soul’s two parables carries a relatively transparent message, illustrating the point of his exhortation to enjoy life. The tale begins in seemingly happy circumstances. The farmer’s hard labor of plowing, sowing, and harvesting has culminated in a crop that he and his family are transporting—presumably to a granary, perhaps to sell. In any case, the man anticipates enjoying the fruits of his labor: “his festival near.” Into this happy scene comes the ominous approach of night (a time of fear and danger in ancient Egypt),4 and the man watches as the sun sets—a detail that not only enhances the narrative but also carries metaphorical intimations of impending death. The family disembarks to spend the night ashore, and the man’s wife and children are killed by crocodiles. The moral of the story seems to be, “Appreciate life while you have it, because you cannot know when death will come.” It is reinforced by the farmer’s lament at the end of the tale, which contrasts the loss of his wife, who has lived a productive life, with that of his children, deprived of the same opportunity by an untimely death. ————— 4

E. Hornung, “Nacht,” LÄ IV, 291–92.

150

CHAPTER SIX

A little man asks for an afternoon meal, and his wife says to him, “It will be supper,” and he goes outside at it, only for a moment. When he turns back to his house, he is like another man his wife pleading to him. He doesn’t listen to her, offended and unreceptive to those of the household.

The message of the Soul’s second parable is as obscure as that of the first one is clear. Parkinson (1997, 163 n. 23) has perceptively noted that the initial first couplet parallels the wish for death (the man’s request for a late afternoon meal) before the proper time (the wife’s reply). The wife’s “pleading” with her husband may also be an oblique reference to the debate in the first part of the poem. In this respect, it is perhaps germane that snt “sister” was commonly used with reference to a man’s wife (Wb. IV, 151, 8–9), analogous to the Man’s evocation of the Soul as sn.j “my brother” at the end of his second speech. Here, however, the “pleading” wife is an avatar of the Soul and her husband, who refuses to listen, that of the Man. The reversal of roles is reflected in the final speech of the poem, in which the Soul addresses the Man as sn.j “my brother.” The two key points in the end of the narrative seem to be jw.f mj ky “he is like another man” and the final couplet. As in the first parable, the former may be intended to illustrate the fact that a happy situation can change in an instant (sï r æt “only for a moment”). The final line apparently reflects the obstinacy of one side of the debate (here, the Man) in refusing to listen to reason. The idiom wš.(w) jb “stripped of heart” must have been particularly evocative for an agricultural society, connoting fallow land devoid of all growth. The Soul’s third speech stands approximately at the center of the poem and is one of the central messages of the entire composition, if not the primary one. Along with its exhortation to enjoy life, it introduces the reversal of roles in the second half of the poem and in doing so, it illustrates the possibility of a change of heart through persuasion.

TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

151

6. the man’s third speech

The Man’s response to the Soul’s exhortation is presented in a series of four litanies, the first of which is evidently addressed directly to the Soul:5 And I opened my mouth to my soul that I might answer what he had said: 1 Look, my name is reeking: look, more than carrion’s smell on Harvest days, when the sky is hot. 2 Look, my name is reeking: look, more than an eel-trap’s smell, on catch day, when the sky is hot. 3 Look, my name is reeking: look, more than ducks’ smell, at a rise of reeds with a brood. 4 Look, my name is reeking: look, more than fowling’s smell, at the channels of the nests fowled for them. 5 Look, my name is reeking: look, more than crocodiles’ smell, at a site of slaughter with riverbankers. 6 Look, my name is reeking: look, more than a married woman about whom the lie of a lover has been told. 7 Look, my name is reeking: look, more than a brave boy about whom has been said, ‘He is for one he should hate.’ 8 Look, my name is reeking: look, more than the harbor of the Sire that plots sedition but whose back is seen.

The eight sets of similes in this litany are arranged in what appears to be a logical progression from death to life, water to land, and lower to higher orders of life. The first tercet evokes death with its image of carrion. The next four are based on nature, with references to the river ————— 5

The stanzas of this and the following litanies are numbered for ease of reference.

152

CHAPTER SIX

(stanza two), marshland (stanzas three and four), and the shore (stanza five). In the second tercet, the simile of an eel-trap, with its dead bait or eel, provides a bridge between the opening stanza and these four, and the theme of carrion is reprised in the fifth stanza. The sixth and seventh tercet move to the realm of human beings and society, with the “stench” in each case deriving from an affront to societal mores. The final tercet involves both humanity in more general terms (the “harbor”) and the pinnacle of Egyptian society, the king. In beginning his response with this litany, the Man answers the Soul’s exhortation on the personal level, in effect protesting, “How can I enjoy life when I am in disrepute?” The metaphor of the Man’s name carries with it connotations not only of reputation but also of identity and reflects the Soul’s earlier statement, cited in the Man’s second speech, “and you dead as well, while your name is alive.” 1 To whom can I speak today? Brothers have become bad; the friends of today, they do not love. 2 To whom can I speak today? Hearts are greedy, every man taking the other’s things. 3 To whom can I speak today? For kindness has perished and sternness descended to everyone. 4 To whom can I speak today? There is contentment with the bad, in that goodness has been put down in every place. 5 To whom can I speak today? When a man causes anger by his bad deed, he makes everyone laugh, though his misdeed is evil. 6 To whom can I speak today? For one plunders, every man robbing the other. 7 To whom can I speak today? The one who should be avoided is an intimate, the brother one used to act with become an opponent. 8 To whom can I speak today? Yesterday has not been remembered, no one in this time has acted for one who has acted.

TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

153

9 To whom can I speak today? Brothers have become bad; one brings only strangers into the middle of the heart. 10 To whom can I speak today? Faces are obliterated, every man with face down to his brothers. 11 To whom can I speak today? Hearts have become greedy; there is no man’s heart one can depend on. 12 To whom can I speak today? There are no righteous, the land left to disorder-doers. 13 To whom can I speak today? There is lack of an intimate; one resorts only to an unknown to make known to. 14 To whom can I speak today? There is no calm-hearted; the one once walked with, he is no more. 15 To whom can I speak today? For I am loaded with need for lack of an intimate. 16 To whom can I speak today? The injustice that has hit the land, it has no end.

As noted in Chapter Five, the length of this litany, with its fourteen tercets and two final couplets, indicates that it was intended as the most important of the four. Lurie (1939, 146) was the first to discuss the affinities between it and the later Admonitions of Ipuwer, which is also composed in litany form and has several parallels with, and one quotation from, the Debate: jw ms [mæët] ãt tæ m rn.s pwy jsft pw jrr.sn œr grg œr.s (Adm. 5, 3–4) Surely, Maat is throughout the land in that name of its, but what they do is disorder, while lying about it. jw ms kæ[ … ] ãt tæ nãt œr hæb n bw-nb (Adm. 5, 9–10) Surely, [ … ] is throughout the land, sternness sent to everyone.

154

CHAPTER SIX

jw ms nfæ æq.w mææ sf tæ zp.w n gnwt.f (Adm. 5, 12–13) Surely, that which was seen yesterday has perished, the land left to its weakness.6

Unlike the first litany, this has no discernible order in its stanzas. Several themes are repeated, but only one verbatim, snw bjn “Brothers have become bad” in stanzas one and nine, clearly intentionally: the line is the second of the tercets at the beginning and midpoint of the litany, respectively. Other instances are slightly reworded: ëwn jbw “Hearts are greedy” (stanza 2, line 2) and jbw ëwn.(w) “Hearts have become greedy” (11, 2); z nb œr jtt ãwt snnw.f “every man taking the other’s things” (2, 3) and z nb œr jtt snw.f “every man robbing his brothers” (6, 3); jnn.tw m ÿrÿrw r mtt nt jb “one brings only strangers into the middle of the heart” (9, 3) and jnn.tw m ãmm r srãt n.f “one resorts only to an unknown to make known to” (13, 3); btw m ëq-jb “The one who should be avoided is an intimate” (7, 2), jw šw m ëq-jb “There is lack of an intimate” (13, 2), and jw.j ætp.kw õr mær n gæw ëq-jb “For I am loaded with need for lack of an intimate” (15, 2). This brings a certain cohesiveness to what might otherwise seem a simple list of woes. The tribulations are societal in every case, broadening the Man’s argument from the personal level of the first litany: he now asks, “How can I enjoy life when all around me are evil?” Apart from the general theme of injustice, the dominant motif is the lack of someone to turn to for aid and comfort (reprising the adage in the Man’s second speech: “There is no one who can deflect a day of difficulties by himself”), which is reflected not only by the initial question “To whom can I speak today?” but also in such terms as sn/snw “brother/ brothers” (1, 2; 4, 2; 6, 3; 7, 3; 10, 3), ãnmsw “friends” (1, 3), ëq-jb “intimate” (7, 2; 13, 2; 15, 2), btw “the one who should be avoided” (7, 2), ÿrÿrw “strangers” (9, 3), and ãmm “an unknown” (13, 3). This ————— Enmarch, Ipuwer, 35. For the parallel in Adm. 5, 10, see the discussion to col. 107–108 in Chapter Three, above. The Admonitions also has a line adapted from the Instruction of Amenemhat (Adm. 6, 12–13): Enmarch, Ipuwer, 37; Adrom, Amenemhet, 75–76. 6

TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

155

continues the theme of the unresponsiveness of the Soul (the Man’s sn “brother”) sounded at the beginning of the Man’s second speech. 1 Death is in my sight today, like a sick man gets well, like going outside after mourning. 2 Death is in my sight today, like myrrh’s smell, like sitting under sails on a windy day. 3 Death is in my sight today, like lotuses’ smell, like sitting on the Bank of Inebriation. 4 Death is in my sight today, like the flood’s ebbing, like a man comes home from an expedition. 5 Death is in my sight today, like the sky’s clearing, like a man enmeshed thereby to what he had not known. 6 Death is in my sight today, like a man longs to see home, when he has spent many years taken in captivity.

To modern sensibilities, this litany is clearly the most lyrical of the four. Its similes, however, stand not in isolation but in reference to the long second speeches of the Man and the Soul, as Parkinson has seen (1997, 164 nn. 32–37). The tercets are also intricately related to one another. In stanzas two and three, the second lines are connected by the simile of scent (now pleasant, as opposed to the first litany, as Parkinson has noted: 1997, 164 n. 33) and the third, by the notion of sitting on the shore after sailing. Stanza four parallels the simile of inebriation with that of the flood, and its final line continues the “narrative” of the two preceding in its image of returning home.7 The natural simile of the sky clearing in stanza five is analogous to that of the flood ebbing in stanza four. The phrase jt.(w) m nÿrt “taken in captivity” in the last line of stanza six reflects the term sãt.(w) “en————— This association may also be reflected in the “ship” determinative of the word mšë “expedition.” 7

156

CHAPTER SIX

meshed” in the final line of stanza five, and the notion of returning home brings an end to the metaphorical voyage that began with “going outside” in the first stanza. The theme of the litany as a whole also follows logically on those of the two litanies that precede it. Since the Man’s personal situation, the “injustice that has hit the land,” and the “lack of an intimate” all make it impossible to “follow a good time” and “forget care,” death is the only alternative. 1 Surely, he who is there will be a living god, punishing the misdeed of him who does it. 2 Surely, he who is there will be standing in the bark, having choice cuts given from it to the temples. 3 Surely, he who is there will be a knower of things, not barred from appealing to the Sun when he speaks.

The thematic logic of the litanies culminates in these three short couplets, moving from the theme of death in the third litany to the afterlife. The first two stanzas reflect the first two litanies, contrasting the sublime state of the deceased as a “living god” with that of the Man’s malodorous reputation and identity in the first litany, and promising redress for the ills detailed in the second litany. The second stanza is analogous: “standing in the (Sun’s) bark” implies divine status, and the provision of offerings is part of the proper function of society (Parkinson 1997, 164 n. 39). The final stanza is contrastive with the debate expounded in the poem as a whole: as a “knower of things,” the Man will no longer be subject to the doubts about the afterlife that have kept him from accepting the notion of premature death, and by “appealing to the Sun when he speaks” he will have not only the vindication that the Soul sought (“let the Sun hear my speech”) but also the sympathetic ear denied him by the Soul and the rest of society (the last point, Parkinson 1997, 164 n. 40). The four litanies together form a coherent whole and clearly reference and advance the arguments in the text that precedes them. The relationship is complex and detailed enough to rule out the suggestion that the litanies were inserted into the poem from another

TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

157

source (Weill 1947, 134). There can be no doubt that they were composed as part of the poem by a single author. 7. the soul’s final speech What the soul said to me: Put, then, complaint on the stake, O belonger, my brother. You should make offering on the brazier in accord with your fighting for life, in accord with your saying, “Desire me here.” Reject the West for yourself, but desire too that you reach the West when your body touches the earth, and I will alight after your weariness. Thus we will make harbor at the same time.

The conclusion of the poem clearly bespeaks reconciliation. The Soul, who is given the role of apologist for life in the poem’s second half, proposes a final compromise that reflects and reconciles the two sides of the debate. The opening couplet mentions the Man’s “complaint,” which most likely refers to his lamentations in the first two litanies. The image of putting “complaint on the stake” is an alternative to the death that he wished for himself in the third and fourth litanies (see the discussion in Chapter Three). The tercet that follows reflects the Man’s initial position, in his second speech. Making “offering on the brazier” is both an alternative to the metaphor of “throwing me on the fire to incinerate me” in the Man’s second speech and a means of entreating the gods to end the Man’s tribulations. Together, these establish the two opposing sides of the debate and set stage for the reconciliation that follows. In the second tercet, the injunction to “reject the West for yourself” counters both the Soul’s initial desire to “go” and the Man’s wish for death as expressed in the third and fourth litanies. The final

158

CHAPTER SIX

compromise exhorts the Man to reject not death per se but rather, prematurely. The acceptance of death in the natural order of things permits both a happy afterlife (“and I will alight after your weariness”) and reconciliation (“Thus we will make harbor at the same time”). The metaphor in the final line reprises, in a different sense, the Soul’s earlier description of the West as “a harbor.” 8. conclusion

The Debate between a Man and His Soul presents the inner struggle of a man who is attracted by the thought of death as a release from great personal distress but uncertain and fearful of the consequences a premature death might have for his afterlife. The two sides of this debate are voiced by the characters of the Man and his Soul. Initially, the Soul argues for death, pointing out the Man’s wretched state and exhorting the Man to let the gods decide the justice of his desire. The Man resists these entreaties, protesting that, among other things, premature death will rob him of the opportunity to provide for his afterlife (and the Soul’s) in the proper fashion. The thought of those provisions, however, awakens doubts about their permanence, and this serves as the catalyst for a reversal of the two roles. The Soul now urges the Man to forget about his cares and relish life, using two parables to illustrate how brief and uncertain life is. In a series of litanies, the Man replies by describing the wretchedness of his life, the general injustice of society and the lack of someone to turn to for comfort and aid, the attraction of death, and the happy state of the afterlife—each directly countering the Soul’s arguments. The Soul is given the final speech, in which he proposes a compromise: to turn to the gods for assistance and to accept death as the ultimate end of life rather than a more immediate solution. Only in this way can the man resolve his inner turmoil, so that both he and his soul reach the West in harmony. The poem’s presentation of the two sides of this mental conflict and its final resolution anticipate Hegel’s classic pattern of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

TEXTUAL ANALYSIS

159

Except in its ending, the death envisioned in the poem is clearly a premature one, and is even explicitly stated as such twice: “dragging me to death before I have come to it” (12) and “who prods me to death before I have come to it” (18–19). This has often been interpreted as a reflection of the man’s intention to commit suicide, even by those who (rightly) rejected Scharff’s interpretation of the line “because of throwing me on the fire to incinerate me” (13) as literal (1937, 12: “und wenn ich mich ins Feuer stürze, um mich zu verbrennen”) rather than metaphorical. As Thausing saw, however, there is in fact nothing specific in the poem to indicate thoughts of suicide, only a general wish for death as a release: “Der Lebensmüde will ja sterben—was er nicht will, ist der Selbstmord, ist ein Tod ohne Bestattung” (1957, 264).8 The man’s thoughts are of death but not of the way to achieve it, as unspecific as those reflected in the later Admonitions of Ipuwer: jw ms wr šrj (œr) mr.j mt.j Surely, great and small are saying, “I wish I could die.”9

Although it is a debate about death, in its conclusion the poem is an affirmation of life. Renaud (1991) has argued that the primary motive of the Debate was artistic, to create a work of dramatic, rather than instructional, literature. The literary quality of the poem is unquestionable, but it is doubtful that the rationale of a work such as this could have been viewed by its author in isolation from its message; the notion of instruction is even explicit in the Soul’s words in cols. *26–*27 [m]j r.k sbæ.j tw “Come, then, that I may instruct you” (which Renaud was unaware of). The struggle and resolution in the poem is more than just a literary motif; it is also, and fundamentally, a lesson intended to teach its audience the value of “clinging to life” in the midst of turmoil. As such, it belongs squarely in the Middle Kingdom tradition of didactic literature. ————— Maspero (1907, 125–26) was the first to cast doubt on the notion of suicide, although he admitted “Les deux façons de comprendre le text sont possibles.” 9 Adm. 2, 2: Enmarch, Ipuwer, 31. 8

160

CHAPTER SIX

As a work of literature, the Debate has few peers in the canon of Middle Kingdom texts. Despite its missing beginning, its lacunae, and its difficult or obscure passages, its sole surviving text exhibits subtlety and sophistication in composition coupled with beauty in imagery and language. These features place it at the acme of Middle Kingdom literature, where it is equaled perhaps only by the language of the Eloquent Peasant—with the major papyrus of which, coincidentally, it was discovered.

Appendices

APPENDIX ONE

THE TEXT This appendix presents the text of the Debate between a Man and His Soul in its entirety, with transliteration and relatively literal translation, as established in Chapter Three, on facing pages. Numbers to the left of each line are those of the columns of the papyrus. Indentation marks the second line of couplets and the third of tercets. introduction and the soul’s first speech

*1–*8 *9 *10–*12

(lost) [ … ÿ]wt jrt st [ … ] (lost) [wæœ].k mæ[jr.j] the man’s first speech

*12–*13 *14 *15 *15–x

[ÿdt.n.j n bæ.j] wnwt pw [ … ] [ … ] sw œr stæ[s.j … ] [ … ]s[ … ] […] the soul’s second speech

x–y

[jw wp.n n.j bæ.j r.f wšb.f ÿdt.n.j]

THE TEXT

163

APPENDIX ONE

THE TEXT This appendix presents the text of the Debate between a Man and His Soul in its entirety, with transliteration and relatively literal translation, as established in Chapter Three, on opposing pages. Numbers to the left of each line are those of the columns of the papyrus. Indentation marks the second line of couplets and the third of tercets.

introduction and the soul’s first speech

*1–*8 *9 *10–*12

[…] [ … ] evil. Doing it [ … ] […] [that] you [might set down my] misery. the man’s first speech

*12–*13 *14 *15 *15–x

[What I said to my soul]: It is the hour [ … ] [ … ] him, dragging [me … ] […] […] the soul’s second speech

x–y

[And my soul opened his mouth to me that he might answer what I had said]:

164 *25 *25–*26 *26–*27 *28 *28–29 1 2 2–3

APPENDIX ONE

[ … ] œr zæw..t [ … ] [m]j r.k sbæ.j tw [ … ] [ … ].k jãrw n jmnt […] jw zj [ … ] [j]w.n r ÿd [m mæët m ÿæÿæt] nj nmë.n [ns.s]n [j]w r õæ[b m] dbæw nj nmë.n ns.sn the man’s second speech

3–4

jw wp.n.j r.j n bæ.j wšb.j ÿdt.n.f

5 5–6

jw næ wr r.j m mjn nj mdw bæ.j œnë.j jw grt wr r ëbë jw mj wzf jmt.f šm bæ.j ëœë.f n.j œr.s [snnw].j w[jn ënã].f nn dj.t õæ.f wj ÿr ntt.f m õt.j m šnw nwœ nn ãpr m ë.f rwj.f hrw qsnwt

6–7 8 9 9–10 11 11–12 13 14 14–15 16 17

mj.tn bæ.j œr tht.j nj sÿm.n.j n.f œr stæs.j r mt nj jjt.( j) n.f œr ãæë.( j) œr ãt r smæmt.j ptr mnt.f [ … f] œr [rdjt] sæ.f r [sn].f tk.f jm.j hrw qsnwt ëœë.f m pf gs mj jr-nœnw. pæ js pw prr jn.f sw r.f

THE TEXT

*25 *25–*26 *26–*27 *28 *28–*29 1 2 2–3

165

[ … ] face. Guard [ … ]. Come, then, that I may instruct you [ … ] [ … ] you [ … ] the hostile nature of the West. […] For a man [ … ]. We are to speak [truly in the tribunal]: their tongue cannot be biased. It would be [crooked in return]: their tongue cannot be biased. the man’s second speech

3–4

And I opened my mouth to my soul that I might answer what he had said:

5 5–6

This has become too much for me today: my soul has not spoken in accord with me. It is also too much to exaggerate: my soul going is like one who ignores what he is in. He should attend to it for me, my [second, who [rejects] his [life]. He will not be allowed to resist me, since he is in my belly in a rope mesh: that he leave on a day of difficulties will not happen to him.

6–7 8 9 9–10 11 11–12 13 14 14–15 16 17

But look, my soul is leading me astray. I cannot listen to him because of dragging me to death before I have come to it, because of throwing me on the fire to incinerate me. What is his suffering, that [he] should [ … ] [giving] his back to his [brother]? He should be near me on a day of difficulties, that he may stand on yon side like a eulogy-maker, for that is the sort who goes forth and brings himself to it.

166 17–18 18–19 19–20 20–21 21–22 23 23–24 25 25–26 26–27 28 28–29 29–30 30–31 31–32 32–33 34 34–35 35–36 36–37 37–38 38–39

APPENDIX ONE

bæ.j wãæ r sdœ æh œr ënã jhm wj r mt nj jjt.j n.f snÿm n.j jmnt jn jw qsnt pw põrt pw ënã jw ãtw ãr.sn ãnd r.k œr jsft wæœ mær.j wÿë wj ÿœwtj œtp nïrw ãsf ãnsw œr.j zõæ m mæët sÿm rë mdw.j sg wjæ ãsf jsdz œr.j m ët ÿsr[t] [ÿr] ntt sær.j wdn nj [wnt] fæ n.f n.j nÿm ãsf nïrw štæw õt.j ÿdt.n n.j bæ.j nj ntk js zj jw.k tr ënã.t ptr km.k mœy.k œr ënã mj nb-ëœëw ÿd nj šm.j jw nfæ r tæ nœmn tw œr tfyt nn nwt.k ãnrj nb œr ÿd jw.j r jït.k jw grt.k mt rn.k ënã st nfæ nt ãnt ëfdt nt jb dmj pw jmnt õn.t spdw œr jr

THE TEXT

17–18 18–19 19–20 20–21 21–22 23 23–24 25 25–26 26–27 28 28–29 29–30 30–31 31–32 32–33 34 34–35 35–36 36–37 37–38 38–39

167

My soul has become too foolish to suppress pain in life, one who prods me toward death before I have come to it, who sweetens the West for me: “Is it something difficult? Life is a cycle; trees fall. Tread, then, on disorder, set down my misery. Let Thoth judge me and the gods become content; let Khonsu intervene for me, he who writes truly; let the Sun hear my speech, he who stills the sun-bark; let Isdes intervene for me in the sacred room— since my need has become heavy and [there is] no one to lift to himself for me.” The gods’ barring my belly’s secrets would be sweet, what my soul said to me: “You are not a man, even though you are alive. What is your gain, if you will care about life like an owner of riches who says, ‘I have not gone,’ when all those are down? In fact, you are being uprooted, without considering yourself, while everyone deprived is saying, ‘I shall rob you,’ and you dead as well, while your name is alive. Yonder is a place of alighting, storage-chest of the heart. The West is a harbor, which the perceptive should be rowed to.”

168

39–40 40–41 41–42 42–43 43–44 44–45 45–46 46–47 47–48

APPENDIX ONE

sÿm n.j bæ.j n[n n].j [b]tæ tt jb.f œnë.j jw.f r mër rdj.j pœ.f jmnt mj ntj m mr.f ëœë.n œrj-tæ œr qrs.f

49

jw.j r jrt njæj œr õæt.k sÿdm.k ky bæ m nnw jw.j r jrt njæj jã tm.f œsw sÿdm.k ky bæ nt tæ.w swrj.j mw œr bæbæt ïzy.j šwjw sÿm.k ky bæ ntj œqr

49–50 50–51 51–52 52–53 53–54 54–55

jr hjm.k wj r mt m pæ qj nn gm.k ãnt.k œr.s m jmnt wæœ jb.k bæ.j sn.j r ãprt jwëw drpt.fj ëœët.fj œr œæt hrw qrs sÿæy.f œnkyt n õrj-nïr the soul’s third speech

55–56 56–57 57–58 58–59 59–60 60–61

jw wp.n n.j bæ.j r.f wšb.f ÿdt.n.j jr sãæ.k qrs nœæt jb pw jnt rmyt pw m sjnd z šdt z pw m pr.f ãæë œr qææ nn pr.n.k r œrw mæ.k rëw qdw m jnr n mæt ãws qn

THE TEXT

39–40 40–41 41–42 42–43 43–44 44–45 45–46 46–47 47–48

169

My soul should listen to me instead: I [have] no transgression. Should his heart be in accord with me, he will be fortunate, for I will make him reach the West like one who is in his pyramid, to whose burial a survivor has attended.

49

I shall make an awning over your remains, and you will make jealous another soul in inertness. I shall make an awning and it won’t get cold, and you will make jealous another soul who is hot. I will drink water at the flood and shall lift away dryness, and you will make jealous another soul who is hungry.

49–50 50–51 51–52 52–53 53–54 54–55

If you prod me to death in that manner, you will not find a place to land on in the West. Set your heart, my soul, my brother, until the heir has grown up who will present offerings, who will attend to the tomb on burial-day and will transport a bed for the necropolis. the soul’s third speech

55–56 56–57 57–58 58–59 59–60 60–61

And my soul opened his mouth to me that he might answer what I had said: As for your bringing to mind burial, it is heartache; it is bringing tears by saddening a man; it is taking a man from his house so that he is left on the hill: you won’t be able to go up and see Suns. Those who built, in stone of granite, the construction finished,

170

61–62 62–63 63–64 64–65 65–66 66–67

68 68–69 69–70 70–71 71–72 72–73 73–74 74–75 75–76 76–77 78 79 79–80 80–81 82

APPENDIX ONE

mrw nfrw m kæwt nfrt ãpr sqdw m nïrw ëbæw jrj wš.w mj nnw mtw œr mryt n gæw œrj-tæ jt.n nwy pœ.fj jæãw m mjtt jrj mdw n.sn rmw spt n mw sÿm r.k n.j mj.k nfr sÿm n rmt šms hrw nfr smã mœ jw nÿs skæ.f šdw.f jw.f æp.f šmw.f r õnw dpt stæs.f sqdwt œb.f tkn mæ.n.f prt wãt nt mœyt rs m dpt rë œr ëq pr œnë œjmt.f msw.f æq tp šj šn m grœ õr mryt ÿr.jn.f œms pzš.f m ãrw œr ÿd nj rm.j n tfæ mst nn n.s prt m jmnt r kt œr tæ mœy.j œr msw.s sdw m swœt mæw œr n ãntj nj ënãt.sn jw nÿs dbœ.f mšrwt jw œjm.f ÿd.s n.f jw r msyt jw.f pr.f r ãntw r.s sï r æt

THE TEXT

61–62 62–63 63–64 64–65 65–66 66–67

68 68–69 69–70 70–71 71–72 72–73 73–74 74–75 75–76 76–77 78 79 79–80 80–81 82

fine pyramids with fine works— once the building commissioners became gods, what are dedicated to them are razed, like the inert who have died on the riverbank for lack of a survivor, the waters having taken his end, or Sunlight similarly— they to whom the fish and the lip of the water speak. Listen, then, to me: look, listening is good for people. Follow a good time, forget care. A little man plows his plot, and he loads his harvest inside a boat, and drags a sailing, his festival near. When he saw the gloom of a norther’s emergence, he watched in the boat as the Sun was going in, disembarked with his wife and children, and they perished atop a depression ringed by night with riverbankers. So, he ended up seated and spreading out by voice, saying, “I have not wept for that one who was born, though she has no emerging from the West to another one on earth. But I care about her children, broken in the egg, who saw the face of Khenti before they lived.” A little man asks for an afternoon meal, and his wife says to him, “It will be supper,” and he goes outside at it, only for a moment.

171

172 83 83–84 85

APPENDIX ONE

ënn.f sw r pr.f jw.f mj ky œjmt.f œr šsæ n.f nj sÿm.n.f n.s sï n.f wš jb n wpwtjw the man’s third speech

85–86

jw wp.n.j r.j n bæ.j wšb.j ÿdt.n.f

86–87

mj.k bëœ rn.j mj.k r st æsw m hrww šmw pt tæ.t mj.k bëœ rn.j mj.k šzp sbnw m hrw rzf pt tæ.t mj.k bëœ rn.j mj.k r st æp«d»w r bwæt nt trjw õr msyt mj.k bëœ rn.j mj.k r st œæmw r ãæzw nw zšw œæm n.sn mj.k bëœ rn.j mj.k r st msœw r œmst õr ëÿw õr mryt mj.k bëœ rn.j mj.k r zt-œjmt ÿd grg r.s n ïæy mj.k bëœ rn.j mj.k r õrd qn ÿd r.f jw.f {jw.f} n msdw.f mj.k bëœ rn.j mj.k dmj n jt šnn bštw mææ sæ.f

88 88–89 90 91 91–92 92–93 94 94–95 95–96 97 97–98 98–99 99–100 100–101 102 102–103

THE TEXT

83 83–84 85

173

When he turns back to his house, he is like another man, his wife pleading to him. He doesn’t listen to her, offended and unreceptive to those of the household. the man’s third speech

85–86

And I opened my mouth to my soul that I might answer what he had said:

86–87

Look, my name is reeking: look, more than carrion’s smell on Harvest days, when the sky is hot. Look, my name is reeking: look, more than an eel-trap’s smell on catch day, when the sky is hot. Look, my name is reeking: look, more than ducks’ smell at a rise of reeds with a brood. Look, my name is reeking: look, more than fowling’s smell at the channels of the nests fowled for them. Look, my name is reeking: look, more than crocodiles’ smell at a site of slaughter with riverbankers. Look, my name is reeking: look, more than a married woman about whom the lie of a lover has been told. Look, my name is reeking: look, more than a brave boy about whom has been said, ‘He is for one he should

88 88–89 90 91 91–92 92–93 94 94–95 95–96 97 97–98 98–99 99–100 100–101 hate.’ 102 102–103

Look, my name is reeking: look, more than the harbor of the Sire that plots sedition but whose back is seen.

174

104 104–105 105–106 107 107–108

109 109–10 110–11 111–12 112–13 113–14 114–15

116 117 117–18 118–19 119–20

121

APPENDIX ONE

ÿd.j n mj mjn snw bjn ãnmsw nw mjn nj mr.nj ÿd.j n mj mjn ëwn jbw z nb œr jtt ãwt snnw.f

jw zf æq nãt œr hæ.w n bw-nb ÿd.j n mj mjn œtp œr bjn rdj r.f bw nfr r tæ m st nbt ÿd.j n mj mjn sãër z m zp.f bjn ssbt.f bw-nb jw.f ÿw ÿd.j n mj mjn jw œëÿæ.tw z nb œr jtt snw.f ÿd.j n mj mjn btw m ëq-jb sn jrr œnë.f ãpr m ãftj ÿd.j n mj mjn nj sãæ.t sf nj jr.t n jr m tæ æt ÿd.j n mj mjn snw bjn jnn.tw m ÿrÿrw r mtt nt jb ÿd.j n mj mjn œrw œtm z nb m œr r õrw r snw.f ÿd.j n mj mjn jbw ëwn nn wn jb n zj rhn.tw œr.f

THE TEXT

104 104–105 105–106 107 107–108

109 109–10 110–11 111–12 112–13 113–14 114–15

116 117 117–18 118–19 119–20

121

175

To whom can I speak today? Brothers have become bad; the friends of today, they do not love. To whom can I speak today? Hearts are greedy, every man taking the other’s things. To whom can I speak today? For kindness has perished and sternness descended to everyone. To whom can I speak today? There is contentment with the bad, in that goodness has been put down in every place. To whom can I speak today? When a man causes anger by his bad deed, he makes everyone laugh, though his misdeed is evil. To whom can I speak today? For one plunders, every man robbing his brothers. To whom can I speak today? The one who should be avoided is an intimate, the brother one used to act with become an opponent. To whom can I speak today? Yesterday has not been remembered, no one in this time has acted for one who has acted. To whom can I speak today? Brothers have become bad; one brings only strangers into the middle of the heart. To whom can I speak today? Faces are obliterated, every man with face down to his brothers. To whom can I speak today? Hearts have become greedy; there is no man’s heart one can depend on.

176 121–22 122–23 123–24 124–25 125–26 126–27 127–29 129–30

APPENDIX ONE

ÿd.j n mj mjn nn mæëtjw tæ zp n jrw jsft ÿd.j n mj mjn jw šw m ëq-jb jnn.tw m ãmm r srãt n.f ÿd.j n mj mjn nn hr-jb pfæ šm œnë.f nn sw wn ÿd.j n mj mjn jw.j ætp.kw õr mær n gæw ëq-jb ÿd.j n mj mjn nf œw tæ nn wn pœw.fj

141 141–42

jw mt m œr.j m mjn snb mr mj prt r ãntw r sæ hjmt jw mt m œr.j mjn mj st ëntjw mj œmst õr œtæw hrw ïæw jw mt m œr.j mjn mj st zšnw mj œmst œr mryt-nt-tãt jw mt m œr.j mjn mj wæt œwyt mj jw z m mšë r pr.sn jw mt m œr.j mjn mj kft pt mj zj sãt jm r ãmt.n.f jw mt m œr.j mjn mj æbb z mææ pr.sn jr.n.f rnpwt ëšæt jt m nÿrt

143

wnn ms ntj jm m nïr ënã œr ãsf jw n jrr sw

130–31 131–32 132–33 133–34 135 135–36 136–37 137–38 138–39 139–40

THE TEXT

121–22 122–23 123–24 124–25 125–26 126–27 127–28 129–30

177

To whom can I speak today? There are no righteous, the land left to disorder-doers. To whom can I speak today? There is lack of an intimate; one resorts only to an unknown to make known to. To whom can I speak today? There is no calm-hearted; the one once walked with, he is no more. To whom can I speak today? For I am loaded with need for lack of an intimate. To whom can I speak today? The injustice that has hit the land, it has no end.

141 141–42

Death is in my sight today, like a sick man gets well, like going outside after mourning. Death is in my sight today, like myrrh’s smell, like sitting under sails on a windy day. Death is in my sight today, like lotuses’ smell, like sitting on the Bank of Inebriation. Death is in my sight today, like the flood’s ebbing, like a man comes home from an expedition. Death is in my sight today, like the sky’s clearing, like a man enmeshed thereby to what he has not known. Death is in my sight today, like a man longs to see home, when he has spent many years taken in captivity.

143

Surely, he who is there will be a living god, punishing the misdeed of him who does it.

130–31 131–32 132–33 133–34 135 135–36 136–37 137–38 138–39 139–40

178 143–44 144–45 145–46 146–47

APPENDIX ONE

wnn ms ntj jm ëœë m wjæ œr rdjt dj.t stpwt jm n rw-prw wnn ms ntj jm m rã-ãwt nj ãsf.n.t.f œr spr n rë ãft mdw.f the soul’s final speech

147–48 148–49 150 150–51 151–52 153 154

ÿdt.n n.j bæ jmj r.k nãwt œr õææ nsw pn sn.j wdn.k œr ëã mj ëœæ.k œr ënã mj ÿd.k mr wj ëæ wjn n.k jmnt mr œm pœ.k jmnt sæœ œë.k tæ ãny.j r sæ wrd.k jã jr.n dmj n zp the colophon

154–55

jw.f pw œæt.f r pœ.fj mj gmyt m zõæ

THE TEXT

143–44 144–45 145–46 146–47

Surely, he who is there will be standing in the bark, having choice cuts given from it to the temples. Surely, he who is there will be a knower of things, not barred from appealing to the Sun when he speaks. the soul’s final speech

147–48 148–49 150 150–51 151–52 153 154

What the soul said to me: Put, then, complaint on the stake, O belonger, my brother. You should make offering on the brazier in accord with your fighting for life, in accord with your say, “Desire me here.” Reject the West for yourself, but desire too that you reach the West when your body touches the earth, and I will alight after your weariness. Thus we will make harbor at the same time. the colophon

154–55

•

179

That is how it comes, its beginning to its end, as found in writing.

APPENDIX TWO

VERSIFICATION This appendix presents the preserved and restored text of the Debate versified as discussed in Chapter Five, with full transliteration and translation on facing pages. Numbers to the left of each line represent its putative feet. The translation is free instead of literal, because it is also designed to reflect the meter of the original. introduction and the soul’s first speech

x+1 1+x 2

(lost) [ … ] ÿwt jrt–st [ … ] (lost) wæœ.k mæj.j the man’s first speech

2

ÿdt.n.j n–bæ.j

1+x x+1 1+x

wnwt–pw [ … ] [ … ]–sw œr–stæs.j [ … ] [ … ]s[ … ] […] the soul’s second speech

3 2

jw–wp.n–n.j bæ.j r.f wšb.f ÿdt.n.j

VERSIFICATION

181

APPENDIX ONE

THE TEXT This appendix presents the text of the Debate between a Man and His Soul in its entirety, with transliteration and relatively literal translation, as established in Chapter Three, on opposing pages. Numbers to the left of each line are those of the columns of the papyrus. Indentation marks the second line of couplets and the third of tercets.

introduction and the soul’s first speech

x+1 1+x 2

[…] [ … ] evil. Doing–it [ … ] […] and–allay my–pain. the man’s first speech

2

What–I–said to–my–soul:

1+x x+1 1+x

It’s–the–hour [ … ] [ … ]–him, dragging–me [ … ] […] […] the soul’s second speech

3 2

And–my–soul opened his–mouth to–answer what–I–said:

182 x+1 1+x 2+x x+3 1+x 3 2 2 2

APPENDIX TWO

[ … ] œr zæw.tj [ … ] mj–r.k sbæ.j–tw [ … ] [ … ].k jãrw n–jmnt […] jw–zj [ … ] jw.n–r–ÿd m–mæët m–ÿæÿæt nj–nmë.n ns.sn jw–r–õæb m–dbæw nj–nmë.n ns.sn the man’s second speech

3 2

jw–wp.n.j r.j n–bæ.j wšb.j ÿdt.n.f

4 3 3 4 2 3 2 3 4

jw–næ wr.w r.j m–mjn nj–mdw bæ.j œnë.j jw–grt wr.w r–ëbë jw–mj–wzf jmt.f šm bæ.j ëœë.f–n.j œr.s snnw.j wjn ënã.f nn–dj.tw õæ.f–wj ÿr–ntt.f m–õt.j m–šnw–wœ nn–ãpr m–ë.f rwj.f hrw–qsnwt

3 2 4 3 3+x 3 3 3 4

mj.tn bæ.j œr–tht.j nj–sÿm.n.j n.f œr–stæs.j r–mt nj–jjt.j n.f œr–ãæë.j œr–ãt r–smæmt.j ptr mnt.f [ … ].f œr–rdjt sæ.f r–sn.f tk.f jm.j hrw–qsnwt ëœë.f m–pf–gs mj–jr-nœnw. pæ–js–pw prr jn.f–sw r.f

VERSIFICATION

x+1 1+x 2+x x+3 1+x 3 2 2 2

[ … ] face. Guard [ … ]. Come–then: I–will–teach–you [ … ] [ … ] you [ … ] the–enmity of–the–West. […] For–a–man [ … ]. We–must–speak the–truth in–the–court: their–ruling is–not–biased— would–be–crooked in–return: their–ruling is–not–biased. the man’s second speech

3 2

And–I–opened my–mouth to–my–soul to–answer what–he–said:

4 3 3 4 2 2 2 3 4

This–is too–much for–me today: my–soul not–agreeing with–me. Too–much as–well to–exaggerate: like–ignoring his–plight, my–soul’s going. He–should–attend–to–it for–me, my–other, who–rejects his–life. He–cannot resist–me, since–he–is enmeshed inside–me: he–won’t be–able to–escape in–hard–tiimes.

3 2 4 3 3+x 3 3 3 4

But–look, my–soul is–misleading–me. I–can’t–listen to–him for–dragging–me to–death before my–time, for–throwing–me on–the–fire to–incinerate–me. What–is his–suffering, [that]–he–should–[ … ], giving his–back to–his–brother? He–should–stay beside–me in–hard–times, and–stand on–yon–side like–a–eulogist, for–that’s who–goes–off and–winds–up over–there.

183

184

APPENDIX TWO

4 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3

bæ.j wãæ.w r–sdœ–æh œr–ënã jhm–wj r–mt nj–jjt.j n.f snÿm–n.j jmnt jn–jw–qsnt–pw põrt–pw ënã jw–ãtw ãr.sn ãnd–r.k œr–jsft wæœ mær.j wÿë–wj ÿœwtj œtp nïrw ãsf ãnsw œr.j zõæ m–mæët sÿm rë mdw.j sg wjæ ãsf jsdz œr.j m–ët ÿsrt ÿr–ntt sær.j wdn.w nj–wnt fæ–n.f n.j

4 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3

nÿm ãsf nïrw štæw–õt.j ÿdt.n–n.j bæ.j nj–ntk–js zj jw.k–tr–ënã.tj ptr km.k mœy.k œr–ënã mj–nb-ëœëw ÿd nj–šm.j jw–nfæ r–tæ nœmn–tw œr–tfyt nn–nwt.k ãnrj–nb œr–ÿd jw.j–r–jït.k jw–grt.k mwt.tj rn.k ënã.w st nfæ nt–ãnt ëfdt nt–jb dmj–pw jmnt õn.tw spdw–œr jrj

VERSIFICATION

4 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3

But–my–soul is–too–foolish to–suppress life’s–pain, prodding–me to–death before my–time and–sweetening the–West: “Is–it–hard? Life is–a–cycle; trees fall. So–tread on–disorder, allay my–pain. Let–Thoth judge–me and–the–gods be–content; let–Khonsu intervene on–my–behalf, he–who–writes the–truth; let–the–Sun hear my–speech, he–who–stills the–bark; let–Isdes intervene on–my–behalf in–the–sacred room— since–my–need has–become so–heavy and–no–one will–lift–it away.”

4 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3

Better the–gods bar–the–thoughts inside–me, what–my–soul has–told–me: “You–are–less–than a–man, though–alive. What–is your–gain, if–you–care for–life like–a–rich–man who–says, ‘I–can’t–leave,’ when–all is–lost? In–fact, you’re–uprooted unnoticed, the–deprived planning to–rob–you, and–you–good as–dead, alive but–in–name. Yonder is–the–place to–alight–on, storage-chest of–the–heart. The–West is–a–harbor, to–which the–perceptive should–be–rowed.”

185

186

APPENDIX TWO

2 2 3 1 3 1 3

sÿm–n.j bæ.j nn–n.j btæ twt jb.f œnë.j jw.f–r–mër rdj.j pœ.f jmnt mj–ntj–m–mr.f ëœë.n œrj-tæ œr–qrs.f

3 3 4 3 3 2 3

jw.j–r–jrt njæj œr–õæt.k sÿdm.k ky–bæ m–nnw jw.j–r–jrt njæj jã–tm.f œsw sÿdm.k ky–bæ ntj–tæ.w swrj.j mw œr–bæbæt ïzy.j šwjw sÿdm.k ky–bæ ntj–œqr.w

3 4 4 3 3 3

jr–hjm.k–wj r–mwt m–pæ–qj nn–gm.k ãnt.k œr.s m–jmnt wæœ jb.k bæ.j sn.j r–ãprt jwëw drptj.fj ëœëtj.fj œr–œæt hrw–qrs sÿæy.f œnkyt n–õrj-nïr the soul’s third speech

3 2

jw–wp.n–n.j bæ.j r.f wšb.f ÿdt.n.j

3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2

jr–sãæ.k qrs nœæt–jb–pw jnt–rmyt–pw m–sjnd–zj šdt–zj–pw m–pr.f ãæë.w œr–qææ nn–pr.n.k r–œrw mæ.k rëw qdw m–jnr n–mæt ãws qn.w

VERSIFICATION

2 2 3 1 3 1 3

Let–my–soul heed–me: I–have no–transgression. Should–his–heart agree with–mine, he’ll–succeed, for–I’ll–make–him reach the–West as–a–pyramid–owner, to–whose–burial a–survivor has–attended.

3 3 4 3 3 2 3

I–shall–make a–shelter for–your–corpse to–make–jealous a–soul in–death. I–shall–make a–shelter and–it–won’t get–cold, to–make–jealous a–soul who–is–hot. I–will–drink at–the–flood’s waters, and–dispel dryness, to–make–jealous a–soul who–is–hungry.

3 4 4 3 3 3

But–prod–me to–death in–that–way, and–you–won’t find–a–place to–alight in–the–West. Set your–heart, my–soul, my–brother, til–an–heir has–grown–up to–offer, attend to–the–tomb on–burial-day, and–provide a–bed for–the–necropolis. the soul’s third speech

3 2

And–my–soul opened his–mouth t0–answer what–I–said:

3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2

As–for–thinking of–burial, it–is–heartache, bringing–tears and–sadness, taking–one from–his–house to–be–left on–the–hill. You’ll–never go–up and–see the–sunrise. Builders in–stone of–granite, when–construction is–finished—

187

188

APPENDIX TWO

2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 4

mrw nfrw m–kæwt nfrt ãpr sqdw m–nïrw ëbæw jrj wš.w mj–nnw mwtw œr–mryt n–gæw œrj-tæ jt.n nwy pœwj.fj šw m–mjtt jrj mdw–n.sn rmw spt n–mw

2 3 2 2

sÿm–r.k n.j mj.k nfr–sÿm n–rmt šms hrw–nfr smã mœ

3 3 2 2 3 4 3 2 3 4 4 3 2 2 2 4

jw–nÿs skæ.f šdw.f jw.f–ætp.f šmw.f r–õnw–dpt stæs.f sqdwt œæb.f tkn.w mæ.n.f prt–wãt nt–mœyt rs.w m–dpt rë œr–ëq pr.w œnë–œjmt.f msw.f æq.w tp–šj šn.w m–grœ õr–mryt ÿr.jn.f œms.w pzš.f m–ãrw œr–ÿd nj–rm.j n–tfæ–mst nn–n.s prt m–jmnt r–kt œr–tæ mœy.j œr–msw.s sdw m–swœt mæw œr n–ãntj nj–ënãt.sn

3 3 3 1

jw–nÿs dbœ.f mšrwt jw–œjmt.f ÿd.s–n.f jw–r–msyt jw.f–pr.f r–ãntw r.s sï–r–æt

VERSIFICATION

2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 4

fine pyramids with–fine works— and–the–buildings’ commissioners are–gods, what–was–made for–them is–razed, like–the–dead who–lie on–the–riverbank for–lack of–a–survivor, the–waters having–ended–him too or–sunlight in–equal measure— they–to–whom the–fish and–the–water’s–lip speak.

2 3 2 2

Listen–then to–me: to–listen is–good for–people. Follow a–good–time, forget care.

3 3 2 2 3 4 3 2 3 4 3 3 2 2 2 4

A–little–man plows his–plot, and–loads his–harvest on–a–boat, and–drags a–sailing, his–festival near. When–he–saw a–dark–norther come–up, he–watched in–the–boat as–the–Sun went–down, disembarked with–his–wife and–his–children, and–they–perished by–a–lake ringed by–night with–riverbankers. So–he–ended–up seated and–spreading his–voice, saying, “I–wept–not for–her–born, who–will–have no–emergence from–the–West to–another on–earth. But–I–care for–her–children, broken in–the–egg, who–saw Khenti’s–face before they–had–lived.”

3 3 3 1

A–little–man asks for–lunch, and–his–wife tells–him, “It’s–for–supper,” and–at–that he–goes outside, just–a–moment.

189

190 3 3 3 3

APPENDIX TWO

ënn.f–sw r–pr.f jw.f–mj–ky œjmt.f œr–šsæ n.f nj–sÿm.n.f–n.s sæï.w n.f wš.w jb n–wpwtjw the man’s third speech

3 2

jw–wp.n.j r.j n–bæ.j wšb.j ÿdt.n.f

3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 4

mj.k bëœ rn.j mj.k r–stj–æsw m–hrww–šmw pt tæ.tj mj.k bëœ rn.j mj.k r–stj–šzp–sbnw m–hrw–rzf pt tæ.tj mj.k bëœ rn.j mj.k r–stj–æpdw r–bwæt nt–trjw õr–msyt mj.k bëœ rn.j mj.k r–stj–œæmw r–ãæzw nw–zšw œæm n.sn mj.k bëœ rn.j mj.k r–stj–msœw r–œmst õr–ëÿw õr–mryt mj.k bëœ rn.j mj.k r–zt-œjmt ÿd grg r.s n–ïæy mj.k bëœ rn.j mj.k r–õrd qn ÿd r.f jw.f–n–msdw.f mj.k bëœ rn.j mj.k r–dmj n–jty šnn bštw mææ sæ.f

VERSIFICATION

3 2 3 3

191

He–turns–back to–his–house but–is–changed and–his–wife is–pleading with–him. He–won’t–listen to–her, offended, unreceptive to–those of–the–household. the man’s third speech

3 2

And–I–opened my–mouth to–my–soul to–answer what–he–said:

3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 3 4

Look, my–name is–reeking: look,–more–than carrion’s–smell on–Harvest–days, when–the–sky is–hot. Look, my–name is–reeking: look,–more–than an–eel-trap’s–smell on–catch–day, when–the–sky is–hot. Look, my–name is–reeking: look,–more–than ducks’–smell at–a–rise of–reeds with–a–brood. Look, my–name is–reeking: look,–more–than fowling’s–smell at–the–channels of–nests in–which they–are–fowled. Look, my–name is–reeking: look,–more–than crocodiles’–smell at–a–site of–slaughter with–riverbankers. Look, my–name is–reeking: look,–more–than a–wife about–whom the–lie of–adultery has–been–told. Look, my–name is–reeking: look,–more–than a–brave young–boy said–to–be for–one he–should–hate. Look, my–name is–reeking: look,–more–than the–harbor of–the–Sire that–plots sedition but–whose–back is–seen.

192 3 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 1 2 3 2 5 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 2 4

APPENDIX TWO

ÿd.j n–mj mjn snw bjn.w ãnmsw nw–mjn nj–mr.nj ÿd.j n–mj mjn ëwn jbw zj–nb œr–jtt–ãwt–snnw.f ÿd.j n–mj mjn jw–zf æq.w nãt–œr hæ.w n–bw-nb ÿd.j n–mj mjn œtp œr–bjn rdj–r.f bw–nfr r–tæ m–st–nbt ÿd.j n–mj mjn sãër zj m–zp.f–bjn ssbt.f bw-nb jw.f ÿw.w ÿd.j n–mj mjn Jw–œëÿæ.tw zj–nb œr–jtt–snw.f ÿd.j n–mj mjn btw m–ëq-jb sn jrr œnë.f ãpr.w m–ãftj ÿd.j n–mj mjn nj–sãæ.tw sf nj–jr.tw n–jr m–tæ–æt ÿd.j n–mj mjn snw bjn.w jnn.tw m–ÿrÿrw r–mtt nt–jb ÿd.j n–mj mjn œrw œtm.w zj–nb m–œr r–õrw r–snw.f ÿd.j n–mj mjn jbw ëwn.w nn–wn–jb n–zj rhn.tw œr.f

VERSIFICATION

3 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 1 2 3 2 5 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 2 4 3 2 4

193

To–whom can–I–speak today? Brothers are–now–bad; the–friends of–today do–not–love. To–whom can–I–speak today? Hearts are–greedy, each–stealing from–the–other. To–whom can–I–speak today? For–kindness has–perished and–sternness descended on–everyone. To–whom can–I–speak today? There’s–content with–what’s–bad, for–goodness has–been–put aside in–each–place. To–whom can–I–speak today? When–a–man causes–anger by–bad–acts, he–makes–everyone laugh, though–his–misdeed is–evil. To–whom can–I–speak today? There–is–plundering, each–robbing his–brothers. To–whom can–I–speak today? The–pariah is–an–intimate, the–brother with–whom one–used to–act is–an–enemy. To–whom can–I–speak today? There’s–no–thought of–the–past, no–doing for–the–doer these–days. To–whom can–I–speak today? Brothers are–now–bad; only–strangers to–take to–the–depths of–one’s–heart. To–whom can–I–speak today? Faces are–turned, each–man with–his–face down to–his–brothers. To–whom can–I–speak today? Hearts are–now–greedy; there’s–no–heart of–a–man on–which to–depend.

194

APPENDIX TWO

3 1 4 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 4

ÿd.j n–mj mjn nn–mæëtjw tæ zp.w n–jrw jsft ÿd.j n–mj mjn jw–šw m–ëq-jb jnn.tw m–ãmm r–srãt–n.f ÿd.j n–mj mjn nn–hr-jb pfæ–šm œnë.f nn–sw–wn.w ÿd.j n–mj mjn jw.j–ætp.kw õr–mær n–gæw–ëq-jb ÿd.j n–mj mjn nf œw tæ nn–wn–pœwj.fj

3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 4 5

jw–mwt m–œr.j m–mjn mj–snb–mr mj–prt r–ãntw r–sæ–hjmt jw–mwt m–œr.j mjn mj–stj–ëntjw mj–œmst õr–œtæw hrw–ïæw jw–mwt m–œr.j mjn mj–stj–zšnw mj–œmst œr–mryt nt–tãt jw–mwt m–œr.j mjn mj–wæt–œwyt mj–jw zj m–mšë r–pr.sn jw–mwt m–œr.j mjn mj–kft–pt mj–zj sãt jm r–ãmt.n.f jw–mwt m–œr.j mjn mj–æbb zj mææ pr.sn jr.n.f rnpwt ëšæt jt.w m–nÿrt

4 2

wnn–ms ntj–jm m–nïr ënã.w œr–ãsf–jw n–jrr–sw

VERSIFICATION

195

3 1 4 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 4

To–whom can–I–speak today? No–righteous, for–the–land has–been–left to–those who–do–wrong. To–whom can–I–speak today? There–is–lack of–an–intimate; only an–unknown to–complain–to. To–whom can–I–speak today? No–peaceful; the–associate of–old is–no–more. To–whom can–I–speak today? I–am–laden with–need for–an–intimate. To–whom can–I–speak today? The–injustice that–has–hit the–land has–no–end.

3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 4 3 1 4 3 4 5

Death is–before–me today, like–getting–well, like–going outside after–mourning. Death is–before–me today, like–myrrh–scent, like–sitting under–sails in–the–wind. Death is–before–me today, like–lotus–scent, like–sitting on–the–Bank of–Inebriation. Death is–before–me today, like–flood–ebb, like–a–man comes–home from–a–trip abroad. Death is–before–me today, like–sky–clear, like–a–man entranced by–what was–not–known. Death is–before–me today, like–a–man longing to–see his–home, when–taken and–held as–a–captive year after–year.

4 2

Surely, one–there will–be–a–living god, punishing the–miscreant.

196 4 5 3 4

APPENDIX TWO

wnn–ms ntj–jm ëœë.w m–wjæ œr–rdjt dj.tw stpwt jm n–rw-prw wnn–ms ntj–jm m–rã-ãwt nj–ãsf.n.tw.f œr–spr n–rë ãft–mdw.f the soul’s final speech

2

ÿdt.n–n.j bæ

3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3

jmj–r.k nãwt œr–õææ nsw–pn sn.j wdn.k œr–ëã mj–ëœæ.k œr–ënã mj–ÿd.k mr–wj ëæ wjn–n.k jmnt mr–œm pœ.k jmnt sæœ œë.k tæ ãny.j r–sæ wrd.k jã–jr.n dmj n–zp

VERSIFICATION

4 5 3 4

197

Surely, one–there will–be–standing in–the–bark, having–cuts of–meat given from–it to–the–temples. Surely, one–there will–be–wise, not–barred from–appealing to–the–Sun when–he–speaks. the soul’s final speech

2

What the soul said to me:

3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3

Put–then complaint on–the–stake, O–belonger, my–brother. You–should–offer on–the–brazier as–you–fight for–life, as–you–say, “Desire–me here.” Reject the–West, but–desire to–reach the–West when–your–body touches the–earth, and–I’ll alight once–you–pass. Thus we’ll–make–harbor together.

APPENDIX THREE

oGARDINER 369

Fig. 4. oGardiner 369

[ … ] œr ÿd mr.n.f • pæ mj[õ]nw[tj … ] mj mæët • pæ ÿæy n tæ [ … ] mjk m sæ.f •  p?æ šmt mjwt.tf t.f ãft 3b–4b jw.j jsqæ.kw • jw.j r õrt-nïr 4b–5b mj.k æbj jb pæ ëœë œr tæ • bwt.f ÿæ[t] • 5b–6b pæ bæ m õnw.st [œr ëq]w pr mr.[f] 1 1–2 2–3 b

200

APPENDIX THREE

3a–5a 5a–6a 6a–7

[ … ] jb.f œr [ … ] jnk wÿæ [ … ] ÿdtw mr.f jw [ … ] m œmyt • œr zæw r n.[j]

•

The ferryman [ … ] like Maat. [ … ] saying what he wanted. The ship of the land [ … ] protected behind him, the going of his mother and his father accordingly, while I am hindered. I am bound for the necropolis. Look, what the heart desires is the lifetime on earth. Its abomination is to cross. The soul inside it enters and emerges as it wants, [ … ] his heart on [ … ]. I am one sound [ … ] who says what he wants, while [ … ] at the rudder, guarding the mouth for me. The ostracon’s language and hieratic paleography are clearly of New Kingdom date (see below). Since line 7 is evidently the end of the text, the inscription probably began on the reverse side, now lost.1 The apparent sequentiality of lines 4b–5b and perhaps also 5b–6b suggests that the left side is relatively intact, with perhaps a single determinative (of the speaking man) lost at the end of line 4b and a suffix pronoun at the end of 6b. The gap before mj at the start of line 2 indicates that the beginnings of lines 1–6b are also preserved. The scribe apparently wrote six lines on the main surface of the stone, beginning near the right-hand edge of the top. He then wrote the remainder of his text to the right of lines 3b–6b and below line 6b and drew a red line to the right of lines 3b–6b and below line 6b to separate this text from the preceding (see the textual note to lines 5b–6b, below). The text’s language appears to be Late rather than Middle Egyptian, as indicated by the frequent use of the definite article pæ (lines 1, 2, 3b?, 5b) the First Present construction (lines 1, 5b–6b?, 6a–7, per————— 1

See Çerný and Gardiner 1957, 24.

oGARDINER 369

201

haps also 3a–5a), and the A B nominal-sentence pattern (line 4b–5b). The superfluous æ in jsqæ.kw (line 3b), the writing of the 3fs suffix as st (line 6b) and the active participle of ÿd as ÿdtw (line 6a) are also typical of Late Egyptian, as is the use of the masculine relative in place of the feminine (lines 1, 3b, 6a).2 The words ÿæy (line 2) “ship” and œmyt (line 7) “rudder” are first attested in the New Kingdom.3 The absence of verb forms with prothetic j and the use of the sÿm.n.f relative (line 1) identify the text as literary rather than colloquial Late Egyptian.

Fig. 5. oGardiner 369, hieratic of line 3 Textual notes

3b

The following sæ.f is evidently part of a definite article with the first sign omitted, more probably pæ than tæ,4 or perhaps plural næ. The damaged signs following šmt, which Černý and Gardiner left untranscribed, may be those of mjwt (see Fig. 5, above, and cf. Möller, Paläographie II, 194 Abbott), followed by the seated woman above a ligatured . Černý and Gardiner read the final sign in the line as . Since there is little or nothing lost at the end of the line and 4b jsqæ.kw follows directly, the resulting jæ yields little sense. The form of the sign is also somewhat different from that of the other in the line. The sign may instead be above , yielding jw.j. In view of the resulting jw.j jsqæ.kw, ãft would

————— 2

J. Černý and S.I. Groll, A Late Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed. (Studia Pohl 4; Rome, 1984), 1, 27, 464, 485. 3 Wb. V, 515, 6; III, 81, 11–13. 4 Černý and Groll, A Late Egyptian Grammar, 182.

202

APPENDIX THREE

appear to be used adverbially rather than as a preposition or conjunction. 5b Since only the hieratic of line 3 has been published, it is impossible to judge the validity of the -sign that Çerný and Gardiner have transcribed with a question mark. If correct, it can only be a writing of the definite article without , unless it is an unusual literary Late Egyptian variant of the copula pw. The sign below is most likely the initial of ëœë. 5b–6b Although the scribe’s dividing line has grouped jw with line 6b, the particle is out of place following 5b pæ. In the hieroglyphic transcription, the bæ-sign aligns vertically with the beginnings of the two lines above. These features indicate that jw probably belongs with lines 6a–7, and therefore that the red dividing line was drawn after all the text had been entered. The referent of m õnw.st is probably 4b õrt-nïr. 7 The “verse point” at the end of the line indicates that the text is complete (to that point) and not simply aborted. In that light, and judging from the size of the final damage trace in the hieroglyphic transcription, the lost sign can only have been the seated man of the 1s suffix pronoun. The resulting n.[j] is out of place both for Middle Egyptian and Late Egyptian, but was perhaps conditioned by an understanding of zæw-r as a compound expression.5

————— 5

The expression occurs in CT VI, 206g zææw r.j “those who guard my mouth.” For the position of the dative in Late Egyptian, see Leo Depuydt, “Four Thousand Years of Evolution: on a Law of Historical Change in Ancient Egyptian,” JNES 56 (1997), 21–35.

APPENDIX FOUR

SIGN LIST 1. individual signs

GARDINER MÖLLER

SIGN

OCCURRENCES

A1 full

33

4 (4), 5, 6, 7 (2), 8, 9, 11 (2), 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 (2), 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 (2), 31, 33 (4), 35, 36, 39 (2), 40 (2), 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52 (2), 55 (2), 56, 64, 65, 67, 76, 78, 80, 83, 85 (2), 86 (3), 87, 89, 91, 96, 98, 99, 100 (2), 101, 103, 104, 106, 108, 114 (2), 115, 116, 122, 124, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 138, 139, 146, 147, 149 (2), 153

A1 abbr.

33

*26, *28, 5, 7, 8, 11, 25, 31, 46, 52 (2), 58 (2), 60, 68, 74, 78, 93, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 110, 111 (2), 112, 113 (2), 116, 117 (2), 118, 119, 120 (2), 121 (2), 123, 125, 127 (2), 129, 136, 137, 139, 141, 143, 145, 149, 150

A2

35

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 18, 26, 31, 32, 35, 44, 47, 49, 56 (2), 66, 68, 76, 78, 80, 87, 89, 91, 93, 96, 98, 99 (2), 101 (2), 102 (2), 104, 107, 110, 111, 115, 125, 141, 142, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151

A7

32

45, 64, 104

204

APPENDIX FOUR

GARDINER MÖLLER

SIGN

OCCURRENCES

A9

42

29, 62, 69, 127

A12

44

137

A13a

49

115

A15

52

21

A17

30

74, 75, 77, 97, 100, 133, 135, 153

A24

15

*25, *26, 8, 13, 19, 24, 26, 30, 34, 36, 40, 48, 54, 58, 60, 61, 65, 94, 95, 100, 105 (2), 107, 112 (2), 120, 141, 142, 143, 146, 150

A25

16

129, 137

A26

11

26

A28

4

59

A30

2

60, 62, 117 ( )

A47

48

*25

A53

10

40, 50, 54

B1 full

61

73, 98

B1 abbr.

61B

67, 74, 78, 81, 83, 108, 111

D1

79

74

D2

80

*14, 11, 12, 13 (2), 14, 18, 22, 32, 34, 35, 39, 42, 43, 47, 53, 58, 64, 73, 76, 78 (2), 79, 84, 105, 107, 108, 112, 118, 119, 130, 132, 134, 135, 136, 138, 140, 143, 144, 146, 148, 149, 150; see also Ligatures (D2+D21)

D3

81

63

SIGN LIST

GARDINER MÖLLER

SIGN

205

OCCURRENCES

D4

82

*9, 16, 43, 45, 57, 59, 72, 76, 114, 116 (2), 123, 141 (2), 143, 154; see also Ligatures (U2+D4)

D20

90

35, 102, 107

D21

91

*27, 1, 2, 4, 5 (2), 6 (3), 7, 10 (2), 12, 13, 14 (2), 15, 17 (3), 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36 (3), 39, 41 (3), 42, 43, 45, 47, 49 (2), 50, 52, 53 (2), 54, 55 (2), 56 (2), 57, 59 (2), 60 (2), 61, 63, 64, 66 (2), 67 (2), 68 (2), 70, 71, 72, 73 (2), 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82 (4), 83, 86, 87 (2), 88, 89, 90 (2), 91 (2), 92 (2), 93, 94 (2), 96 (2), 97 (2), 98 (2), 99, 100 (5), 104, 109 (4), 110, 114 (2), 118, 119, 121, 125 (2), 126, 128, 131 (3), 134, 135, 138, 140, 143, 144, 145 (2), 146, 147, 150, 151, 153 (2); see also Ligatures (D2+D21, D21+F22, D21+N35, D21+V31, D21+X1, G17+D21, L1+D21, L1+D21+X1, M36+D21, N29+D21, T28+D21, W12+D21)

D25

92

67

D28

108

62, 69

D33

112

38

D34

113

150

D35

111/332

2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 19, 28, 33, 34, 39, 50, 59, 68, 76, 77, 80, 84, 104, 115, 116, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 130, 140, 146

206

APPENDIX FOUR

GARDINER MÖLLER

SIGN

OCCURRENCES

D36

99

2, 3, 6 (3), 7 (2), 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 23, 25, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 40, 41 (2), 42, 50, 52, 53, 58 (2), 61, 63, 67, 68, 69 (2), 73 (2), 78, 80, 83, 86, 87 (2), 88, 89 (3), 91 (3), 93 (2), 94, 95, 96 (2), 97, 98 (2), 99 (2), 100, 101 (2), 102, 103, 105 (2), 108, 109 (2), 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 120 (2), 122, 123, 125, 126, 127 (2), 129 (2), 132, 139, 144, 148, 151 (2), 152; see also Ligatures (D36+N5, D36+X1, D36+Aa1)

D39

104

54

D41

101

121, 151

D45

107

27

D46

114

1, 3, 5, 18, 21, 25, 27, 28, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 44, 46, 53, 58, 60, 66, 69, 70 (2), 72, 76, 79, 80, 81, 98, 100 (2), 101, 102, 103, 104, 108, 109, 111, 113, 115, 116, 118, 120, 121, 123, 125, 127, 129, 147, 149, 150 (2), 153, 154; see also Ligatures (D46+W24, D46+X1, D46+X1+N35)

D50

117

118 (2)

D52

95

118

D53

96

99

D54

119-20

*26, 7 (3), 10, 11, 12 (2), 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 33, 37, 41, 42, 51, 53, 59, 68, 70, 71 (2), 73 (2), 77, 82, 107, 114, 124, 126, 128, 131, 137,

SIGN LIST

GARDINER MÖLLER

SIGN )

207

OCCURRENCES

(D54

119-20

144, 152 (2), 153, 154

D55

121

83

D56

122

11, 21, 34

D58

124

*26, 3, 4, 6, 47, 48, 56, 63, 71, 80, 86, 87, 89 (2), 91, 92, 93, 96, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 107, 108, 109, 110 (2), 111, 113, 117, 130, 141 (2)

D63

595

152

E9

142

52, 111, 143

E23

125

*27, 81

E34

132

*13, 120, 121, 127; see also Ligatures (E34+N35)

F2

175

146

F4

146

155

F5

151

84

F13

155

3, 55, 85 (2)

F16

157

80, 111

F20

161

2, 3, 148

F21

158–59

11, 25, 39, 67 (2), 84

F22

163

41, 65, 130, 152; see also Ligatures (D21+F22)

F26

165

70

F30

517

58, 69

F31

408

74, 77, 78, 81, 93, 101, 142, 143, 145

F32

169

9, 20, 30, 100

F34

179

38, 40, 52, 57, 85, 105, 114, 118, 120, 121, 124, 126, 128

208

APPENDIX FOUR

GARDINER MÖLLER

SIGN

OCCURRENCES

F35

180

61, 62, 67, 68, 109

F44

—

52

F48

526

20

F51

177–78

3, 152

G1 full

192

74

G1 abbr.

192B

*25, 2, 3, 5, 8, 12, 13 (2), 17, 18 (2), 22 (2), 26, 28, 29, 30, 34, 37, 40, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59 (3), 61, 62, 63, 64, 69 (2), 70, 71, 77, 79, 84, 87, 88, 90, 92, 94 (2), 95, 99, 103 (2), 107 (2), 112, 116 (2), 126, 127, 128 (2), 133, 137, 141 (2), 144, 148 (2), 151, 152; see also Ligatures (G1+X1)

G4

190

85, 122, 133

G7

188

23, 24, 25, 27, 60, 65, 73, 147

G14

193

131

G17 full

196

5, 7, 9 (2), 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19 (2), 25, 27, 32, 33, 34, 36, 41, 42 (2), 44, 45, 46 (2), 49, 50 (2), 51, 57 (2), 58, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66 (2), 67, 72, 74, 76 (2), 77, 79, 80, 86, 87, 88 (2), 89, 90, 91 (2), 93, 94 (2), 95 (2), 96 (2), 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 108, 109 (2), 110, 111, 113 (2), 115, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119 (3), 120, 122, 123, 124 (4), 125, 126, 127, 129, 130 (3), 132, 134, 136, 137, 138, 140, 142 (2), 144, 145 (2), 151, 155; see also Ligatures (G17+D21, G17+X1)

SIGN LIST

GARDINER MÖLLER

SIGN

209

OCCURRENCES

G17 abbr.

196B

G21

229

2, 3, 7, 11, 15, 25, 29, 39, 49, 51, 67 (2), 68, 84, 104, 140, 142, 144, 145, 148, 155 16

G26

207

23

G28 G29

205 208

51, 155 2, 47, 48, 63

G29a

209

G35

215

4, 5, 7, 11, 17, 31, 39, 44, 46, 49, 52, 55, 86, 148 73, 114, 124, 128

G36 G37

198 197

G39

216–17

5, 6, 47, 153 *9, *27, 10, 14, 15, 18 (2), 20, 22 (2), 28, 49, 58, 64, 68, 74, 80, 84, 85, 107, 108, 110, 111 (2), 117, 119, 123, 124, 128 (2), 129, 131, 132, 143; see also Ligatures (N35+G37) *25, 17 (for G41), 119

G41 full

222

50

G41 abbr.

222

37, 51, 87, 90, 92, 93, 153

G43

200

*13, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 (3), 8 (2), 10 (2), 15, 16, 17 (2), 18, 19, 20, 21 (2), 23 (2), 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 36 (2), 38, 39, 40, 43, 45, 47, 50, 52, 53, 55 (2), 60, 61 (2), 62, 63 (3), 66 (2), 68, 69, 71, 74, 79 (2), 81 (3), 82 (2), 83, 85 (2), 86, 88, 90, 92, 94 (2), 101, 103, 111 (2), 113, 117 (2), 119, 120, 123, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 137, 140, 143, 144, 147, 149, 150, 151, 154 (2); see also Ligatures (G43+X1, W24+G43)

210

APPENDIX FOUR

GARDINER MÖLLER

SIGN

OCCURRENCES

G47

224

99

G49

226

95

G51a

214

94, 95

H6

237

48, 123

H8

238

79

I1

240

141

I3

241

74, 75, 96, 97, 102

I3+R12

—

79

I6

392

32

I9

263

6, 7 (2), 8 (2), 9, 10 (2), 12, 14 (2), 15 (2), 16 (2), 17 (2), 19, 22, 24, 26, 29 (3), 34 (2), 37 (2), 40 (2), 41, 42, 43, 46, 53 (2), 54, 55, 56, 58, 61, 62, 65, 67, 68, 69 (4), 70 (2), 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81 (2), 82 (2), 83 (4), 84 (3), 90, 100 (2), 101 (2), 103, 106, 107, 109 (2), 110, 111 (2), 113, 114, 115, 120, 121, 123, 125, 126 (2), 129, 130, 139, 140, 141, 143, 146 (2), 147 (2), 154, 155 (2); see also S29+I9; see also Ligatures (D46+X1+N35 +I9, N35+I9)

I10

250

1, 4, 8, 19, 23, 29, 30, 33, 35, 44, 46, 49, 56, 68, 76, 80, 81, 86, 98, 100, 103, 104, 108, 109, 111, 113, 115, 116, 118, 120, 121, 123, 125, 127, 129, 147, 150

I14

248

113

K1

253

57, 151

SIGN LIST

GARDINER MÖLLER

SIGN

211

OCCURRENCES

K4

257

2, 8, 44, 66, 87, 89 (2), 91, 93, 96, 98, 99, 101, 148

L1

258

114; see also Ligatures (L1+D21, L1+D21+X1)

M2

268

54, 92, 135

M3

269

21, 43, 107, 148

M4

270

141

M6

271

31, 32, 92

M12

277

13, 18, 56, 58, 94, 115

M16

279

53, 57, 94, 95

M17

282

*26, *27, *28, 3, 5, 6 (3), 7, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 (2), 21, 22 (2), 26, 27, 31 (2), 33, 34, 35, 36 (2), 38, 39, 40, 41, 43 (3), 45 (4), 47, 48, 49 (2), 50, 55, 56, 57, 60, 63 (2), 66, 68, 69, 75, 80, 81 (2), 82, 83 (2), 85, 92, 100, 101, 102, 103, 107, 108, 110, 112, 117, 123 (2), 127, 128, 130, 131 (2), 132 (2), 133, 134, 135 (2), 136 (2), 137, 138 (2), 139, 140 (2), 141, 142, 144 (2), 145 (2), 148, 150 (2), 151, 154 (2), 155

—

283

32, 34, 44, 46, 48, 49, 54 (2), 57, 64, 65, 72, 75, 78, 81, 83, 93, 97, 99, 135, 137, 153, 155

M18

284

12, 19

M22a

288

45, 63

M23

289

*14, 17, 24, 83, 126, 143, 149

212

APPENDIX FOUR

GARDINER MÖLLER

SIGN

OCCURRENCES

M29

296

19, 29

M30

297

41

M36

294

see Ligatures (M36+D21)

N1

300

42, 59, 64, 88, 90, 139

N2

301

72, 75

N5

303

5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 26, 48, 53, 68, 73, 81, 82, 88 (2), 90, 115, 116, 127, 134, 138; see also Ligatures (D36+N5, N35+N5)

N8

305

65

N14

314

*13, *26

N16

317

34, 42, 64, 78, 109, 122, 129, 152

N23

324

34, 38, 42, 59, 64 (2), 69, 74, 78, 82, 92, 95 (2), 97, 102, 109, 119, 122, 129, 131, 135, 152, 154

N25

322

*27, 20, 38, 41, 51, 55, 77, 136, 151, 152

N26

320

111

N28

307

110

N29

319

10, 15, 20, 50, 54, 56, 59, 73, 74, 100, 107, 114, 124, 128; see also Ligatures (N29+D21)

N31

326

137, 151

N35

331

*13, *27, 1, 2 (3), 3 (3), 4 (2), 5 (2), 6, 8, 9 (3), 11 (2), 12, 16 (2), 17, 19 (2), 20 (2), 21, 24, 28, 29 (2), 30 (2), 34 (4), 35 (2), 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45 (3), 50, 52, 54, 55 (3), 56, 58, 59, 60 (2), 61, 63, 64, 65 (2), 66 (2), 67 (3),

SIGN LIST

GARDINER MÖLLER

SIGN )

213

OCCURRENCES

(N35

331

68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 77 (3), 79, 80 (2), 81, 83 (2), 84 (4), 85 (2), 86, 87, 89 (2), 91, 93, 95 (2), 96, 98, 99, 100 (2), 101, 102 (3), 103 (2), 104 (2), 105, 107 (2), 108 (2), 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114 (2), 115, 116 (2), 117 (4), 118, 120 (3), 121 (5), 122 (2), 123, 124 (2), 125 (3), 126 (2), 127 (3), 128, 129 (2), 130, 132, 135, 138 (2), 140, 141 (2), 142 (2), 143 (2), 145 (3), 146, 147 (2), 148 (2), 149 (3), 151 (2), 153, 154 (2); see also Ligatures (D21+N35, D46+X1+N35, E34+N35, N35+G37, N35+I9, N35+N5, N35+V31, N35+X1, N35+Aa1)

N35a

333

47, 48, 65, 67, 69, 72, 88, 137

N37

335

4, 30, 55, 60, 61, 63, 69, 74, 76, 80, 84, 85, 86, 88, 97, 102, 135

N40

336

7, 33, 126

N42

98

34, 73, 75, 81, 83, 97, 98, 133, 135, 151

O1

340

17, 27, 37, 53, 58, 59, 70, 71, 73, 77, 82, 83, 109, 131, 138, 141, 145

O4

342

10, 11, 15, 18 (2), 53, 68, 88, 90, 107, 121, 126, 131, 134

O24

371

33, 42, 61

O29

363

151

O34

366

*25, *28, 6, 8, 18, 24, 26 (2), 27, 31, 44, 46 (2), 48, 49, 56, 58 (2), 67, 68, 74, 76, 79 (2), 80, 90, 94,

214

APPENDIX FOUR

GARDINER MÖLLER

SIGN )

OCCURRENCES

(O34

366

98, 105, 107, 110 (2), 112, 119, 121, 122, 135, 137, 139 (2), 141, 142, 143 (2), 145, 154

O43

368

89

O50

403

see Ligatures (Q3+O50)

P1

374

26, 38, 70, 71, 72, 137

P3

376

144

P5

379

46, 72, 134

P6

380

7, 16, 33, 42, 53, 144

P8

381

76

Q1

383

37, 109

Q3

388

*13, 3, 14, 16, 17 (2), 20 (2), 21, 23, 32, 38, 39, 41, 50, 53, 55, 57 (2), 58, 67, 69, 76, 85 (2), 88, 89, 90, 92, 108, 126, 127, 149, 152, 154; see also Ligatures (Q3+O50, Q3+X1)

Q5

387

37

Q6

372

56

Q7

394

13 (2), 47, 88, 90, 149

R4

552

see Ligatures (R4+X1)

R8

547

24, 30, 63, 142

R14

579

*27, 20, 38, 41, 51, 77, 151, 152

R50

549

55

S29

432

*9, *14, *15, *26, 3, 7, 10, 12 (2), 13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 31, 38, 43, 47, 51, 54 (2), 56, 57,

SIGN LIST

GARDINER MÖLLER

SIGN

215

OCCURRENCES

(S29

432

S29+I9

432n

115

S34

534

18, 21, 32 (2), 37, 80, 142, 150

S36

406

43, 45

S42

451

63

S43

456

5, 25, 66, 147

T12

438

22, 28, 128

T18

443

68

T19

460

15, 20

T22

596

52, 103, 112, 114, 117, 120, 149

T25

462

3

T27

464

139

T28

397

see Ligatures (T28+D21)

T34

585

2, 3, 104

U2

469

*12, 8, 13, 22, 25, 59, 61, 122, 128, 141; see also Ligatures (U2+D4)

U7

465

64, 75, 97, 104, 135, 150, 151

U9

470

69

U13

468

69

U15

489

46, 119

U17

467

99

)

61, 62, 66, 68 (2), 69, 70 (3), 72, 75, 77 (2), 78 (2), 80, 81 (2), 82 (2), 84 (3), 87 (2), 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 (2), 97, 99, 101, 104, 110 (3), 115, 123, 125, 130 (2), 132, 133, 135 (2), 138, 141, 144, 146, 152

216

APPENDIX FOUR

GARDINER MÖLLER

SIGN

OCCURRENCES

U20

480

9, 35, 65

U21

481

144

U23

484

42, 61, 131

U23

485

141

U28

391

54, 112

U30

393

*14, 12, 30, 40, 47, 70, 88, 90, 113, 133

U32

402

28, 149

U35

473

24, 26, 29, 143, 146

U40

405

48, 72

V1

518

9 (2), 35

V2

519

12, 70

V4

524

22, 51, 92, 137

V7

521

9, 74, 102

V14

528

48, 82, 84

V15

529

36; see also Ligatures (V15+X1)

V23

459

32, 68, 72, 78

V28

525

6, 9, 16, 18, 22, 23, 40, 41, 46, 49, 51, 54, 71, 72, 73, 75, 79, 80, 87, 89, 91, 93, 96 (2), 98, 99, 101, 112, 114, 119, 126, 129, 133, 137, 152 (3)

V29

398

22, 51

V30

510

33, 35, 105, 108, 109, 111, 112, 119

V31

511

*12, *27, 15, 31 (2), 32 (2), 35, 36 (2), 44 (3), 46 (2), 49 (2), 50, 51 (2), 52, 54, 56, 59, 67, 71, 78, 83, 86,

SIGN LIST

GARDINER MÖLLER

SIGN )

217

OCCURRENCES

(V31

511

87, 88, 89, 91 (2), 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 127, 139, 149, 150 (2), 151, 152 (2), 153; see also Ligatures (D21+V31, N35+V31)

V32

513

64, 128

V48

480

54, 133, 139

W3

512

71

W12

395

6, 26, 36, 64, 128; see also Ligatures (W12+D21)

W14

502

46

W18

504

79, 62, 131

W19

509

5, 6, 16, 33, 38, 41, 63, 66, 83, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 110, 112, 113, 115, 116, 118, 120, 122, 123, 125, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132 (2), 133, 134, 135 (2), 136 (2), 137, 138 (2), 139, 140, 141, 150 (2), 154, 155

W23

506

133, 136

W24

495

*13, 9 (2), 16, 35, 45, 60, 63, 65, 70 (2), 89, 95, 103, 104, 117, 120, 135; see also Ligatures (D46+W24, W24+G43)

W25

496

17, 57, 117, 124

W79

551

150

X1

575

*9 (2), *13, *14, *25, *26, *27, 6, 7, 8, 9 (2), 11 (3), 12 (2), 13 (2), 14, 15, 19 (2), 20 (2), 21, 22, 23, 30 (2), 31, 32 (2), 34 (3), 35, 36 (3), 37 (2), 38, 40 (3), 41, 43, 45, 47, 50, 51, 53 (2),

218

APPENDIX FOUR

GARDINER MÖLLER

SIGN )

OCCURRENCES

(X1

575

54, 57 (2), 61, 62, 64 (2), 66 (2), 67 (2), 70, 71 (2), 72 (2), 73, 75, 77 (4), 78, 79, 80, 81 (2), 83, 87, 88 (3), 90 (3), 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97 (2), 98 (2), 102, 105, 106, 107, 109 (2), 110, 112, 113, 115, 116 (2), 117, 118 (2), 121, 123, 124, 125, 127, 130, 131, 132, 133 (2), 135 (3), 136 (2), 137 (2), 139 (2), 141, 142, 144 (2), 146, 147, 151, 152, 155 (2); see also Ligatures (D21+X1, D36+X1, D46+X1+N35 , G1+X1, G43+X1, L1+D21+X1, N35+X1, Q3+X1, V15+X1, X1+R4)

X4

555

81

Y1

538

*12, *22, 3, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 40, 41, 45, 50, 51, 54, 61, 62, 76, 84, 106, 118, 122, 126, 139, 145, 146, 149, 154, 155

Y3

537

25, 155

Y5

540

14

Z1

558

*14, *25, *28, 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 30 (2), 31, 32, 34 (2), 35, 38 (2), 39, 40, 42 (2), 43, 47, 52, 53 (2), 54, 55, 57, 58 (4), 59, 60, 63, 64 (3), 68, 69, 73, 74 (2), 76, 78 (3), 79, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 88, 90, 92, 95 (3), 97, 102, 103, 104, 105 (3), 107, 108, 109, 110, 112 (2), 114, 118 (2), 119 (3), 120, 121 (3), 122, 124, 126,

SIGN LIST

GARDINER MÖLLER

SIGN )

219

OCCURRENCES

(Z1

558

128, 129, 130, 131 (2), 132, 134 (2), 135 (2), 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141 (2), 143, 144, 145 (2), 146, 148, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154, 155

Z2

561

*27, 1, 2, 3 (2), 11, 15, 21 (2), 22, 24, 30 (2), 33, 35, 39, 44, 57, 60 (2), 61 (3), 62 (2), 63 (2), 64 (2), 66 (2), 67, 69, 74, 75, 79, 80, 81, 85, 87, 88, 90, 92 (2), 93, 95 (3), 96, 97 (2), 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 111, 113, 117 (2), 118, 120 (3), 122, 123 (2), 133 (2), 135, 138, 141 (3), 144, 145 (2), 146, 152, 154

Z4

560

23, 42, 49, 53 (2), 63, 65, 66, 79, 104, 130, 142, 144, 145, 155

Z5

559

25, 82, 116

Z6

49B

4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 17, 19, 31 36, 39, 44, 46, 49, 50, 52, 55, 64, 86, 130, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140, 148

Z7

200B

*14, *25, *26, *27, *28, 2, 3, 5, 9 (2), 20, 34 (2), 35, 45, 57 (2), 58, 59, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 76, 78, 79, 80, 83, 85, 87, 89, 100, 101, 102, 104, 107 (3), 109, 111, 112 (2), 117, 121, 123 (2), 124, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, 134 (2), 135, 136, 138, 143, 149

Z9

565

3, 4, 55, 56, 76, 79, 85, 86, 95

Z49

615

8, 106

Aa1

574

*27, 13, 18, 21 (2), 24 (2), 26, 29, 35, 37, 45, 51, 56, 61, 68, 71, 104,

220

APPENDIX FOUR

GARDINER MÖLLER

SIGN )

OCCURRENCES

(Aa1

574

106, 107, 115, 124, 125, 136, 139, 140, 143, 146 (2), 147, 148, 153, 154; see also Ligatures (D36+Aa1, N1+Aa1)

Aa2

566/582

44, 57, 87, 91, 94, 96, 132, 135

Aa8

604

61, 97

Aa11

477

25, 122

Aa14

327

148

Aa16

328

16

Aa17

594

14, 28, 84, 103, 131, 152, 153

Aa21

583

23

Aa28

488

60, 62, 70

2. ligatures

GARDINER

MÖLLER

SIGN

OCCURRENCES

D2+D21

80C

7, 24, 27, 42, 51, 59, 64, 121

D21+F22

—

155

D21+N35

XXVI

101

D21+V31

—

*26, 21, 67, 148

D21+X1

XXIX

62

D21+Aa1

XXVIII

145

D36+N5

—

60, 147

D36+X1

II

25, 27, 53, 122, 144 (2)

D36+Aa1

—

149

D46+W24

—

62

SIGN LIST

221

GARDINER

MÖLLER

D46+X1

XLVI

30, 58, 147

D46+X1+N35

—

56

D46+X1+ N35 +I9

—

4, 86

E34+N35

—

105, 130, 142, 143, 145

G1+X1

—

44, 48, 82, 92, 115, 141

G17+D21

X

61, 131

G17+X1

XI

12, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140 (2)

G43+X1

III

*9, 71, 148

L1+D21

—

10, 62

L1+D21+X1

—

52

M36+D21

294

9, 75, 117 (2), 142

N29+D21

XXXIV

43, 49

N35+G37

—

103

N35+I9

XVI

12, 29, 71

N35+N5

—

103, 104, 105, 108, 110, 112, 113, 115, 116, 118, 120, 122, 123, 125, 129, 130, 132, 134, 136, 140

N35+V31

XIX

36, 59

N35+X1

XX

9, 10, 14, 15, 20, 21, 31, 37 (2),

SIGN

OCCURRENCES

222

APPENDIX FOUR

GARDINER

MÖLLER

(N35+X1

XX

N35+X1+X1

XXII

28

N35+Aa1

XVIII

18, 21, 32 (2), 37, 80, 142, 150

Q3+O50

403n

110, 122, 154

Q3+X1

VII

70, 72, 139

R4+X1

552n

23, 108

T28+D21

—

75, 93, 97 (2), 119, 128, 133

U2+D4

—

71, 79, 103

V15+X1

—

65, 105, 141

V15+X1+X1

—

112

W12+D21

—

75, 98

W24+G43

495n

106, 112

SIGN )

OCCURRENCES 38 (2), 42, 47, 49, 51, 57, 72, 79, 82, 92, 118, 131, 136, 142, 144, 145, 146

APPENDIX FIVE

LEXICON AND GRAMMAR 1. lexicon

This section lists all instances of all the individual words that either survive or can be restored in the papyrus (suffix pronouns are listed under “Pronoun, personal, suffix” in Section Two, below). Words are arranged by their roots, in transcription, usually according to the order used in the Wörterbuch. The spellings and forms that appear in the papyrus are listed under each root, with references to column numbers of the text. Derivatives are listed after their root rather than strictly alphabetically: e.g., ms “child” after msj “give birth.” æt “moment, time” (noun: Wb. I, 1–2):

82, 116

æjs “offal” (noun: Wb. I, 20, 10–13; Wb.med., 3; Wb. Drogennamen, 1): 87 æsw æbj “long” (verb: Wb. I, 6–7):

141 æbb

æpd “bird” (noun: Wb. I, 9):

92 æp«d»w

æh “misery” (verbal noun: Wb. I, 12):

18

æq “perish” (verb: Wb. I, 21):

74 æq.(w), 107 æq.(w)

æïp “load” (verb: Wb. I, 22–23): 127–28 ætp.kw

69 æp.f ;

jæãw “sunlight” (noun: Wb. IV, 430–31): jj “come” (verb: Wb. I, 37):

65

12 jjt.(j), 19 jjt.j

jw (particle: Wb. I, 42–43): 1 [j]w.n, 6 (2), 20, 21, 31 jw.k, 36, 36 jw.j, 40 jw.f, 43 jw.j, 45 jw.f, 55, 81 (2), 82 jw.f, 83 jw.f, 132, 140; *28, 2, 5, 34, 68, 69 jw.f, 80, 85, 101 jw.f, 107, 112, 123, 127 jw.j, 130 (added), 134, 136, 138

224

APPENDIX FIVE

jwj “come” (verb: Wb. I, 44–45):

137, 154 jw.f

jw “misdeed” (noun: Wb. I, 48):

jw 111 jw.f, 143

jwëw “heir” (verbal noun: Wb. I, 50):

52

jb “heart” (noun: Wb. I, 59–60): jb 38, 40 jb.f, 52 jb.k, 57, 85, 114 ëq-jb, 118, 121, 124 ëq-jb, 126 hr-jb, 128–29 ëq-jb; jbw 105, 120 jm (preposition with suffix pronoun and adverb): see m jmj (nisbe): see m jmj “put” (imperative: Wb. I, 76–77): jmnt “West” (noun: Wb. I, 86):

148 *27, 20, 38, 41, 51, 77, 151, 152

jn (particle, interrogative: Wb. I, 89): jnj “get” (verb: Wb. I, 90–91): —

jn 20 17 jn.f, 57 jnt

117 jnn.tw, 124 jnn.tw

jnr “stone” (noun: Wb. I, 97–98):

60

jr “if, as for”: see r jrj “thereto”: see r jrj “make, do” (verb: Wb. I, 108–12): 116, 116 jr.t(w), 141 jr.n.f, 154 jr.n; —

*9 jrt, 16 jr, 43 jrt, 45 jrt, jrw 123

114 jrr, 143 jrr

jhm “prod” (verb): see hjm jhmt “mourning” (verbal noun: Wb. I, 12 æhmt): hjmt jã “and, then” (particle: Wb. I, 123): jãt “thing” (noun: Wb. I, 123–25):

131–32

45, 154 106 ãwt, 146 rã-ãwt

jãrw “hostile nature” (verbal noun):

*27

jzft “disorder” (noun: Wb. I, 129):

22, 123

js (particle: Wb. I, 130):

17, 31

jst “place” (noun: Wb. IV, 1–6 st):

37, 109

jsdz “Isdes” (proper name: Wb. I, 134): jty “Sire” (noun: Wb. I, 143):

102 (error for

27 )

225

LEXICON AND GRAMMAR

jïj “take, rob” (verb: Wb. I, 149–50): (added); 105 jtt, 112 jtt ë “arm” (noun: Wb. I, 156, 9–13): ët “room” (noun: Wb. I, 160):

36 jtt, 65 jt.n, 141 jt

10 m ë.f 27

ëæ “here” (adverb: Wb. I, 164):

151

ëwn “be greedy” (verb: Wb. I, 172):

105, 120 ëwn.(w)

ëbæ “dedicate” (verb: Wb. I, 177):

63 ëbæw

ëbë “exaggerate” (verb: Wb. I, 177):

6

ëfdt “storage-chest” (noun: Wb. I, 183, 15–17): ënn “turn” (verb: Wb. I, 188–89):

37

83 ënn.f

ënã “live” and “life” (verb and verbal noun: Wb. I, 193–200): ënã 8?, 18, 21, 32, 32 ënã.t(j), 37 ënã.(w), 142 ënã.(w), 150; 80 ënãt.sn ëntjw “myrrh” (noun: Wb. I, 206–207): ëœæ “fight” (verb: Wb. I, 215–16):

132–33 150 ëœæ.k

ëœë “stand up” (verb: Wb. I, 218–20): ëœë.n, 144; 53 ëœët(j).fj

7 ëœë.f, 16 ëœë.f, 42

ëœë “heap” (verbal noun: Wb. I, 220–21): in nb-ëœëw ëã “brazier” (noun: Wb. I, 223):

33

49

ëšæ ”many” (adjective-verb: Wb. I, 228–29): ëq “enter” (verb: Wb. I, 230–32):

141 ëšæt

73

ëq-jb “intimate” (compound noun: Wb. I, 231, 181–19): 114, 124, 128–29 ëÿw “slaughter” (noun):

97

wæj “become far” (adjective-verb: Wb. I, 245–46): wæœ “lay aside, set” (verb: Wb. I, 253–57): 22, 51

wæt 137 *12 [wæœ].k,

226

APPENDIX FIVE

wj (dependent pronoun 1s: Wb. I, 270–71):

8, 19, 23, 50, 150

wjæ “bark” (noun: Wb. I, 271–72):

26;

wjn “reject” (verb: Wb. I, 272): wpj “part” (verb: Wb. I, 298–301):

144

8?, 151 3–4 wp.n.j, 55 wp.n, 85 wp.n.j

wpwtj “householder” (nisbe: Wb. I, 304): wnn “be” (verb: Wb. I, 308–309): 28 [wnt] —

85 wpwtjw

wn 121, 127 wn.(w), 130;

wnn 142, 143, 145

wnwt “hour” (noun: Wb. I, 316–17):

*13

wrr “great” (adjective-verb: Wb. I, 326–28):

5 wr.(w), 6 wr

wrÿ “become weary” (verb: Wb. I, 337–38): wãt “darkness” (verbal noun: Wb. I, 352):

153 wrd.k 71–72

wãæ “foolish” (adjective-verb: Wb. I, 354): wzf “ignore” (verb: Wb. I, 357): wš “raze, strip” (verb: Wb. I, 368): wšb “answer” (verb: Wb. I, 371–72): 86 wšb.j

18 wãæ.(w) 6–7 wzf 63 wš.w;

4 wšb.j, 55–56 wšb.f,

wdn “heavy” (adjective-verb: Wb. I, 390): wdn “offer” (verb: Wb. I, 391): wÿë “judge” (verb: Wb. I, 404–406):

85

28 wdn.(w) 149 wdn.k 23

bæ “soul” (noun: Wb. I, 411–12): 4 bæ.j, 5 bæ.j, 7 bæ.j, 11 bæ.j, 17–18 bæ.j, 31 bæ.j, 39 bæ.j, 44, 46, 49, 52 bæ.j, 55 bæ.j, 86 bæ.j, 148 bæbæt ”inundation” (noun: Wb. I, 419):

47–48

bjn “bad” (adjective-verb and verbal noun: Wb. I, 442–44): 103 bjn.(w), 108, 110, 117 bjn.(w) bëœj “reek” (verb: Wb. I, 448–49): 98, 99, 101

87, 89, 91, 93, 96,

bw-nb “everyone” (nominal compound: Wb. I, 452): 108, 111

107–

227

LEXICON AND GRAMMAR

bw nfr “goodness” (nominal compound: Wb. II, 254): bwæt “rise” (verbal noun: Wb. I, 454):

109

92

bšïw “sedition” (verbal noun: Wb. I, 479):

102 bštw

btæ “transgression” (verbal noun: Wb. I, 483–84):

40

btw “who should be avoided” (verbal noun: Wb. I, 484): pt “sky” (noun: Wb. I, 490–91):

113

88, 90, 139

pæ “that” (demonstrative pronoun: Wb. I, 492):

17;

pw “it, that” (demonstrative pronoun: Wb. I, 505): 38, 154; 20, 57 (2), 58

*13, 17, 21,

pf, pfæ “yon, he” (demonstrative pronoun: Wb. I, 507): 126 pfæ

16;

pn “oh” (demonstrative pronoun: Wb. I, 507–508): pr “house” (noun: Wb. I, 511–13): 138 pr.sn

149

58 pr.f, 141 pr.sn;

prj “go out” (verb: Wb. I, 518–25): pr.f; 71 prt, 77 prt, 131 prt —

50

83 pr.f,

59 pr.n.k, 73 pr.(w), 82

17 prr

pœ “reach” (verb: Wb. I, 533–35):

41 pœ.f, 152 pœ.k

pœwj “end” (noun: Wb. I, 535–36): pœw.fj

65 pœ.fj, 155 pœ.fj;

põrt “cycle” (verbal noun):

20

pšš “spread out” (verb: Wb. I, 560–61):

76 pzš.f

ptr “what” (interrogative pronoun: Wb. I, 506): fæj “lift” (verb: Wb. I, 572–73):

130

14, 32

29

m “in, with,” etc. (preposition: Wb. II, 1–2): [1] (2), [2], 5, 9 (2), 10, 15, 16, 25, 27, 42, 45, 50, 51, 57, 58, 60, 61 (2), 62, 66, 72, 74, 76, 77, 79, 88, 90, 109, 110, 113, 115, 116, 117, 119, 124 (2), 130 (2), 132, 134, 136, 137, 138, 140, 142 (2), 144, 145 (2), 155

228

APPENDIX FIVE

(m “in, with,” etc.) —

15 jm.j

—

(adverb: Wb. I, 72) 140, 142, 144, 145 (2)

—

(nisbe: Wb. I, 72–76) 7 jmt.f

mææ “see” (verb: Wb. II, 7–10): mæw —

59 mæ.k, 71 mæ.n.f;

mææ 103, 141

mæët “Maat” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 18–20):

[1], 25

mæëtj “orderly” (nisbe: Wb. II, 21):

122 mæëtjw

mær “misery” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 30, 4): mæ[jr.j], 22 mæjr.j, 128 mæï “granite” (noun: Wb. II, 34):

*12 mæt 61

mj “who” (interrogative pronoun: Wb. II, 4): 103, 105, 108, 109, 111, 113, 115, 116, 118, 120, 122, 123, 125, 127, 129 mj “look” (particle: Wb. II, 4–5): mj.k 67, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91 (2), 93, 94, 95, 96, 98 (2), 99, 100, 101, 102; mj.tn 11 mj “come” (verb imperative: Wb. II, 35):

*26

mj “like” (preposition: Wb. II, 36–38): 6, 16, 33, 41, 63, 83, 131, 132, 133, 135 (2), 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 150 (2), 155; omitted 130 mjtt “likeness” (nisbe: Wb. II, 40–41):

66

mjn “today” (noun: Wb. II, 43): 5, 103, 104, 105, 108, 110, 112, 113, 115, 116, 118, 120, 122, 123, 125, 127, 129, 130, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140 mër “fortunate” (adjective-verb: Wb. II, 48–49):

41

mwt “die” and “death” (verb and verbal noun: Wb. II, 165–66 mt): mt 12, 19, 36 mt.(tj), 50, 130, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140; mtw 64 mnt “suffering” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 67): mr “pyramid” (noun: Wb. II, 94):

14 mnt.f 42, 61

229

LEXICON AND GRAMMAR

mr “ail” (verb: Wb. II, 95):

131

mrj “desire” (verb: Wb. II, 98–100):

104 mr.nj, 150, 151

mryt “riverbank” (noun: Wb. II, 109–10):

64, 135

mryt “riverbankers” (noun: Wb. II, 110): 97

75;

mœj “care” (verb and verbal noun: Wb. II, 120): 32 mœy.k, 78 mœy.j

68;

mœyt “norther” (nisbe: Wb. II, 125):

72

mzœ “crocodile” (noun: Wb. II, 136):

96 msœw

ms “surely” (particle: Wb. II, 142):

142, 143, 145

msj “give birth” (verb: Wb. II, 137–38):

77 mst

ms “child” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 139–40): 78 msw.s

74 msw.f;

msyt “brood” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 140, 15): msyt “supper” (noun: Wb. II, 142): msÿj “hate” (verb: Wb. II, 154): mšë “expedition” (noun: Wb. II, 155):

93 81 101 msdw.f 138

mšrwt “evening meal” (noun: Wb. II, 158):

80–81

mtt “middle” (noun: Wb. II, 168):

118

mdwj “speak” (verb: Wb. II 179):

5, 66, 147

mdw “speech” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 180):

25–26 mdw.j

n “to, for” (preposition: Wb. II, 193–94): 4, 7 n.j, 12 n.f (2), 19 n.f, 20 n.j, 29 n.f and n.j, 30 n.j, 39 n.j, 40 [n].j, 55, 55 n.j, 64, 66 n.sn, 67 n.j, 67, 77, 77 n.s, 81 n.f, 84 n.f (2), 84 n.s, 85, 86, 95 n.sn, 101, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 111, 113, 115, 116 (2), 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125 n.f, 125, 127, 128, 129, 143, 145, 146, 147 n.j, 151 n.k, 154 nj “of, belonging to” (nisbe: Wb. II, 196–97): n *27, 60, 67, 79, 99, 102, 121; nt 37, 38, 72, 92, 118, 136; nw 95, 104

230

APPENDIX FIVE

nj-sw “belonger” (compound noun: Wb. II, 197, 4): 49 nsw

148–

næ “this” (demonstrative pronoun: Wb. II, 199): nj “no, not” (particle: Wb. II, 195): 76, 80, 84, 104, 115, 116, 146

5

2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 19, 31, 33,

njæj “awning” (noun: Wb. II, 202, 5):

43, 45

njnj “inert” (adjective-verb: Wb. II, 203, 7; 275 nnj): 63–64 nnw njnw “inertness” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 275 nnw): nwj “consider” (verb: Wb. II, 220):

45 nnw

35 nwt.k

nwy “waters” (noun: Wb. II, 221):

65

nwœ “rope” (noun: Wb. II, 223):

9

nb “all, every” (quantifier: Wb. II, 234–36): bw-nb, 111 bw-nb, 112, 119; nbt 109

35, 105, 107–108

nbw “owner” (noun: Wb. II, 228, 5–11):

33 nb-ëœëw

nf “injustice” (noun: Wb. II, 252):

129

nfæ “that, yonder” (demonstrative pronoun: Wb. II, 251): nfr “fine, good” (adjective-verb: Wb. II, 253–56): bw nfr; nfrt 62; nfr.w 61

34, 37 67, 68, 109

2 nmë.n, 3 nmë.n

nmë “show bias” (verb: Wb. II, 267): nn “no, not” (particle: Wb. II, 195): 122, 125, 126, 130

8, 9, 34, 39, 50, 59, 77, 121,

nœæt “ache” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 291, 4; Wb.med. 471–72): 56–57 nœmn “in fact” (particle: Wb. II, 297):

34

nœnw “eulogy” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 297):

16

nãwt “complaint” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 305): nãt “force” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 316–17): ns “tongue” (noun: Wb. II, 320):

148 107 nãt-œr “sternness”

2 ns.[s]n, 3 ns.sn

231

LEXICON AND GRAMMAR

ntj “who, which” (nisbe: Wb. II, 351–53): nt(j) 47; / ntt 9, 28

42, 49, 142, 145;

ntk “you” (pronoun independent, 2ms: Wb. II, 357): nïr “god” (noun: Wb. II, 358–62): also õrj-nïr

142;

31

nïrw 24, 30, 63; see

nÿm “sweet” (adjective-verb: Wb. II, 378–80):

29

nÿrj “capture” (verb: Wb. II, 382–83):

142 nÿrt

nÿs “little man” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 385):

68, 80

r “with respect to” (preposition: Wb. II, 386–88): *26 r.k, 1, 2, 5 r.j, 6, 8 r.j, 12, 13, 14, 17 r.f, 18, 19, 21 r.k, 34, 36, 41, 43, 45, 50, 52, 59, 67 r.k, 70, 78, 81, 82, 83 r.s, 82, 83, 87, 91, 92, 94 (2), 96, 97, 98, 99 r.s, 100, 100 r.f, 102, 109 r.f, 109, 118, 119 (2), 125, 131, 131 r sæ, 138, 140, 148 r.k, 153 r sæ, 155; omitted 89 —

jr “as to, if” (Wb. I, 103) 8 [jr], 49, 56

—

jrj (adverb: Wb. I, 104, 19–20) 63, 66;

r “mouth” (noun: Wb. II, 389–90):

39 jr(j)

4 r.j, 55 r.f, 86 r.j

r-pr “temple” (compound noun: Wb. II, 397):

145 rw-prw

rëw “Sun” (noun: Wb. II, 401): 60 rëw

73, 147;

25;

rwj “leave” (verb: Wb. II, 406–407):

10 rwj.f

rm “fish” (noun: Wb. II, 416):

66 rmw

rmj “weep” (verb: Wb. II, 416–17):

76 rm.j

rmyt “tears” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 417): rmï “people” (noun: Wb. II, 421–24):

57 67

rn “name, identity” (noun: Wb. II, 425–28): 36 rn.k, 87 rn.j, 89 rn.j, 91 rn.j, 93 rn.j, 96 rn.j, 98 rn.j, 100 rn.j, 101 rn.j rnpt “year” (noun: Wb. II, 429–30): rhnj “rely” (verb: Wb. II, 440):

141 rnpwt 121 rhn.tw

232

APPENDIX FIVE

rã “learn” (verb: Wb. II, 442–45): in “knower of things” (Wb. II, 443, 29–30) rzf “catch” (noun: Wb. II, 449):

144–45 rã-ãwt

90

rs “awaken” (verb: Wb. II, 449–51):

72 rs.(w)

rdj “give, put, cause” (verb: Wb. II, 464–68): 14 [rdjt], 144 —

41 rdj.j, 109;

8, 144 dj.t(w)

hæj “descend” (verb: Wb. II, 472–74):

107 hæ.w

hjm “prod” (verb: Wb. II, 490, 6 hmw): 18–19 jhm

49–50 hjm.k;

hjmt “mourning” (verbal noun): see jhmt hrj “calm” (adjective-verb: Wb. II, 496–97): in hearted” 126 hrww “day” (noun: Wb. II, 498–500): 90, 134; hrww 88 œæt “tomb” (noun: Wb. III, 12): œæt “front” (noun: Wb. III, 19–24):

hr-jb “calmhrw 10, 15, 53, 68,

53 155 Ͼt.f

œæb “festival” (noun: Wb. III, 57–58 œb):

71 œb.f

œæm “fowl” (verb: Wb. III, 31–32):

95

œæmw “fowling” (verbal noun):

94

œjmt “wife” (noun: Wb. III, 76–78 œmt): 98 zt-œjmt; 81 œjm.f

73 œjmt.f, 83 œjmt.f,

œë “body” (noun: Wb. III, 37–39):

152 ϑ.k

œëÿæ “plunder” (verb: Wb. III, 43):

112 ϑؾ.tw

œwj “hit” (verb: Wb. III, 46–48):

129 œw

œwyt “flood” (verbal noun: Wb. III, 49, 4): œm “also” (particle: Wb. III, 78):

151

137

233

LEXICON AND GRAMMAR

œmsj “sit” (verb: Wb. III, 96–98): 133, 135

75 œms.(w);

œmst “site” (noun: Wb. III, 99, 3):

œmst 97

œnë “with” (preposition: Wb. III, 110–11): 73, 114 œnë.f, 126 œnë.f

œmst

6 œnë.j, 40 œnë.j,

œnkyt “bed” (noun: Wb. III, 119–20):

54

œr “face, sight” (noun: Wb. III, 125–29): 39, 79, 107, 119, 130 œr.j, 132 œr.j, 134 œr.j, 136 œr.j, 138 œr.j, 140 œr.j; 118 œrw œr “upon, over” (preposition: Wb. III, 131–32): *14, 11, 12, 13 (2), 14, 18, 22, 32, 34, 35, 42, 43, 47, 53, 58, 64, 73, 76, 78 (2), 84, 105, 108, 112, 135, 143, 144, 146, 148, 149, 150; 7 œr.s, 24 œr.j, 27 œr.j, 51 œr.s; 121 œr.f œrj-tæ “survivor” (compound noun: Wb. III, 136): œrw “up” (noun: Wb. III, 142–43):

42, 64–65

59

œsj “be cold” (verb: Wb. III, 166):

46 œsw

œqr “hunger” (verb: Wb. III, 174–75):

49 œqr.(w)

œtæw “sail” (noun: Wb. III, 182):

133

œtp “content” (adjective-verb: Wb. III, 188–92): œtm “negate” (verb: Wb. III, 199): ãt “fire” (noun: Wb. III, 217–18):

23; 119 œtm.(w)

13

ãæë “throw” (verb: Wb. III, 227–28):

13, 58 ãæë.(w)

ãæz “channel” (noun: Wb. III, 293, 19):

94–95 ãæzw

ãwzw “construction” (verbal noun: Wb. III, 249, 8): ãpr “happen, become, grow up” (verb: Wb. III, 260–65): 62, 114 ãpr.(w); 52 ãprt ãft “when” (preposition: Wb. III, 275):

147

ãftj “opponent” (nisbe: Wb. III, 276–77):

115 ãft(j)

ãm “not know” (verb: Wb. III, 278–80):

140 ãmt.n.f

—

124 ãmm

108

61 ãws 10,

234

APPENDIX FIVE

ãnj “land” (verb: Wb. III, 287): ãnt, 51 ãnt.k

153 ãny.j;

35

ãnms “friend” (noun: Wb. III, 294–95): ãnmsw

104

ãnr “deprived one” (verbal noun: Wb. III, 296):

35 ãnrj

ãnsw “Khonsu” (proper name: Wb. III, 300):

24

ãntj “Khenti” (proper name: Wb. 3, 308, 4):

79

ãntw “outside” (noun: Wb. III, 303, 6): 131

82;

ãnd “tread” (verb: Wb. III, 312–13): ãr “fall” (verb: Wb. III, 319–21): ãrw “voice” (noun: Wb. III, 324–25):

21 ãn{t}d 21 ãr.sn 76

ãsf “bar, intercede, punish” (verb: Wb. III, 335–36): 143; 29–30, 146 ãsf.n.t(w).f ãt “tree” (noun: Wb. III, 339–41): õt “belly” (noun: Wb. III, 356–57):

24, 26,

21 ãtw 9 õt.j, 30 õt.j

õæt “(corporeal) remains” (noun: Wb. III, 359): õææ “stake” (noun: Wb. III, 361):

44 õæt.k

148

ãæj “resist, thwart” (verb: Wb. III, 361):

8

õæb “crooked” (adjective-verb: Wb. III, 361): õæ[b]

2

õnw “inside” (noun: Wb. III, 370–72):

70

õnj “row” (verb: Wb. III, 374–75):

38 õn.t

õr “under, with” (preposition: Wb. III, 386–88): 133 õrw “down” (noun: Wb. III, 392–93):

75, 93, 97, 128, 119

õrj-nïr “necropolis” (compound noun: Wb. III, 394): õrd “lad” (noun: Wb. III, 396–98):

100

55

235

LEXICON AND GRAMMAR

zj “man” (noun: Wb. III, 404–406): 112, 119, 121, 137, 139, 141

*28, 31, 58 (2), 105, 110,

zt-œjmt “married woman” (noun: Wb. III, 407):

98

zæw “guard” (verb: Wb. III, 416–17):

*25 zæw.t(j)

zwr “drink” (verb: Wb. III, 428):

47 swrj.j

zbnw “eel” (verbal noun):

89

zp “deed, occasion” (noun: Wb. III, 435–38): zpj “be left over” (verb: Wb. III, 439): zf “be kind” (verb: Wb. III, 442):

110 zp.f, 154 122 zp.(w)

107

zõæ “write” and “writing” (verb and verbal noun: Wb. III, 475–79 zš): 25; 155 zš “nest” (noun: Wb. III, 483–85):

95 zšw

zšnj “lotus” (noun: Wb. III, 485–86):

135 zšnw

st “place” (noun): see jst sæ “back” (noun: Wb. IV, 8–12):

14 sæ.f, 103 sæ.f, 131 r sæ, 153 r sæ

sæm “burn” (verb: Wb. IV, 18):

13 smæmt.j

sær “need” (verbal noun: Wb. IV, 18–19):

28 sær.j

sæœ “touch” (verb: Wb. IV, 20–21): sæï “offend” (verb: Wb. IV, 27 sæt):

152 84 sï.(w)

sjnd “sadden” (verb: Wb. IV, 40):

57–58

sw “him, himself, he, it” (dependent pronoun 3ms: Wb. IV, 59): 17; *14, 83, 126, 143 swœt “egg” (noun: Wb. IV, 73):

79

sbæ “instruct” (verb: Wb. IV, 83–84): spt “lip” (noun: Wb. IV, 99–100):

*26 sbæ.j 67

spr “appeal” (verb: Wb. IV, 103–104):

146

spd “sharp” (adjective-verb: Wb. IV, 108–10): sf “yesterday” (noun: Wb. IV, 113):

115

39 spdw

236

APPENDIX FIVE

smã “forget” (verb: Wb. IV, 140–41):

68

snnw “second” (noun: Wb. IV, 149–50): snnw.f

8 [snnw].j, 106

sn “brother” (noun: Wb. IV, 150–51): 14–15 [sn].f, 52, 114, 149 sn.j; snw 103, 112–13 snw.f, 117, 120 snw.f snb “get well” (verb: Wb. IV, 158–59):

130

snÿm “sweeten” (verb: Wb. IV, 185–86):

19–20

srã “make known” (verb: Wb. IV, 199):

125 srãt

sãæ “call to mind” (verb: Wb. IV, 292–94): 115 sãæ.t(w)

56 sãæ.k;

sãër “anger” (verb: Wb. IV, 238):

110

sãt “enmesh” (verb: Wb. IV, 262–63):

139

szbï “make laugh” (verb: Wb. IV, 274):

ssbt.f

sšæ “plead” (verb: Wb. IV, 281):

84

sqd “commission (building)” (verb: Wb. IV, 310): 62 sqdw sqdwt “(sailing) voyage” (verbal noun: Wb. IV, 309): 71 skæ “plow” (verb: Wb. IV, 315–16): sgr “still” (verb: Wb. IV, 323):

69 skæ.f 26

st “it” (dependent pronoun 3n: Wb. IV, 325):

*9

stpt “choice cut” (verbal noun: Wb. IV, 396–97): sï (particle: Wb. I, 134 jsï):

70–

144 stpwt

82

sïæs “drag” (verb: Wb. IV, 351–53 sïæ): sïæs.j; 70 sïæs.f sïj “smell” (noun: Wb. IV, 349): sdœj “sink” (verb: Wb. IV, 371): sÿ “break” (verb: Wb. IV, 373–75):

*14 sïæ[s.j], 12

st 87, 91, 94, 96, 132, 135 18 79 sdw

sÿæ “make sound” (verb: Wb. IV, 78–81 swÿæ):

54 sÿæy.f

237

LEXICON AND GRAMMAR

sÿm “listen” (verb: Wb. IV, 384–87): 84 sÿm.n.f

11 sÿm.n.j, 25, 39, 67 (2),

sÿdm “make jealous” (verb: Wb. IV, 396): 46 sÿdm.k; 49 sÿm.k

44 sÿdm.k,

šj “depression” (noun: Wb. IV, 397–98):

74

šw “empty” (adjective-verb: Wb. IV, 426–27):

123–24

šwjw “dryness” (verbal noun: Wb. IV, 482):

48

šmj “go” (verb: Wb. IV, 462–65):

7, 33 šm.j, 126

šmw “harvest” (noun: Wb. IV, 481):

69 šmw.f

šmw “Harvest (season)” (noun: Wb. IV, 480):

88

šmsj “follow” (verb: Wb. IV, 482–84)

: 68

šnj “encircle” (verb: Wb. IV, 489–91):

74

šnj “plot” (verb: Wb. IV, 496):

102 šnn

šnw “net” (verbal noun: Wb. IV, 609): šzp “trap” (noun):

9

89

štæw “secret” (verbal noun: Wb. IV, 553–54): šdj “take” (verb: Wb. IV, 560–62):

30

58 šdt

šdw “plot (of land)” (noun: Wb. IV, 568):

69 šdw.f

qææ “height” (verbal noun: Wb. V, 5):

59

qj “manner” (noun: Wb. V, 15–16): qn “finish” (verb: Wb. V, 49):

61 qn

qnj “brave” (adjective-verb: Wb. V, 41–43): qrs “burial” (verbal noun: Wb. V, 63–64): 55; 56 qsn “difficult” (adjective-verb: Wb. V, 69–70): 10, 15 qsnwt qd “build” (verb: Wb. V, 72–73):

50 100 43 qrs.f; 20 qsnt; 60 qdw

238

APPENDIX FIVE

kæt “work” (noun: Wb. V, 98–101):

62 kæwt

ky “other” (noun: Wb. V, 110–14): kt 78

44, 46, 49;

kfj “clear” (verb: Wb. V, 119):

139 kft

km “gain” (verb: Wb. V, 128–30):

32 km.k

gæw “lack” (verbal noun: Wb. V, 152):

64, 128

gmj “find” (verb: Wb. V, 166–69): gmyt

51 gm.k;

grt “also, as well” (particle: Wb. V, 178–79): grœ “night” (noun: Wb. V, 183–85):

155

6, 36 grt.k 75

grg “lie” (verbal noun: Wb. V, 189–90): gs “side” (noun: Wb. V, 191–94):

98–99

16

tæ “that” (demonstrative pronoun: Wb. V, 211–12): tæ “land” (noun: Wb. V, 212–16): 109, 122, 129, 152

116

34, 42 œrj-tæ, 64 œrj-tæ, 78,

tæ “hot” (adjective-verb: Wb. V, 229): 88 tæ.t(j), 90 tæ.t(j)

47 tæ.w;

twt “agree” (verb: Wb. V, 256–57):

40 tt

tp “on” (preposition: Wb. V, 273–76):

74

tfæ “that” (demonstrative pronoun: Wb. V, 297): tfj “uproot” (verb: Wb. V, 297–98):

77 34 tfyt

tm “not” (negative verb: Wb. V, 302–303): tr (particle: Wb. V, 316–17):

83;

46 tm.f

31

tr “reed” (noun: Wb. V, 318): thj “mislead” (verb: Wb. V, 319–20): tãj “get drunk” (verb: Wb. V, 323–24): in tãt “Bank of Inebriation” 135–36

92 trjw 11 tht.j mryt-nt-

239

LEXICON AND GRAMMAR

tk/tkn “come near” (verb: Wb. V, 333–35): tkn.(w)

15 tk.f;

ïæy “male (lover)” (verb: Wb. V, 344–45): ïæww “wind” (noun: Wb. V, 350–52):

99 134

ïw “you” (dependent pronoun 2ms: Wb. V, 357–58 ïw):

tw *26, 34

ïzj “raise” (verb: Wb. V, 405–407):

48 ïzy.j

dbœ “ask” (verb: Wb. V, 439–40):

80 dbœ.f

dpt “boat” (noun: Wb. V, 446):

71

70, 72

dmj “harbor” (noun: Wb. V, 455–56):

38, 102, 154

drp “present offerings” (verb: Wb. V, 476):

53 drpt.fj

ÿæÿæt “court” (noun: Wb. V, 528–29):

1?

ÿwj “evil” (adjective-verb: Wb. V, 545–47):

111 ÿw.(w)

ÿwt “evil” (verbal noun: Wb. 5, 547–48):

*9

ÿbæw “exchange” (verbal noun: Wb. V, 558–60): ÿr “since” (preposition: Wb. V, 592–93): ÿr “end up” (verb: Wb. V, 595):

3

9, [28] ÿr ntt

75 ÿr.jn.f

ÿrÿr “stranger” (verbal noun: Wb. V, 604): ÿœwtj “Thoth” (proper name: Wb. V, 606): ÿsr “sacred” (adjective-verb: Wb. V, 610–14):

117 ÿrÿrw 23 27 ÿsr[t]

ÿd “say” (verb: Wb. V, 618–25): 1, 33, 35, 76, 81 ÿd.s, 98, 100, 103 ÿd.j, 104 ÿd.j, 108 ÿd.j, 109 ÿd.j, 111 ÿd.j, 113 ÿd.j, 115 ÿd.j, 116 ÿd.j, 118 ÿd.j, 120 ÿd.j, 121 ÿd.j, 123 ÿd.j, 125 ÿd.j, 127 ÿd.j, 129 ÿd.j, 150 ÿd.k; 4 ÿdt.n.f, 30 ÿdt.n, 56 ÿdt.n.j, 86 ÿdt.n.f, 147 ÿdt.n 2. grammatical forms and constructions

Adjective: see Participle, active Apposition: 7, 8, 18–19, 19–20, 37–38, 52, 149

240

APPENDIX FIVE

Clause — adverbial: 8, 17 (2), 28–29, 34, 36–37, 62 (initial), 70–71, 71, 71 (initial), 73, 76, 82, 83 (initial), 83–84, 84, 85, 88, 90, 110 (initial), 111, 141, 141–42 — noun: 8, 9, 10, 28, 29–30, 41, 130–31, 137, 141, 144, 147, 150 (2), 152 (2), 153, 154 — purpose/result: *26, 4, 14, 23–24, 32–33, 44, 46, 49, 55–56, 59– 60, 86, 149, 150, 153 — relative: 42, 47, 49, 142, 144, 145 Conditional: 40, 49–50 Coordination: 72, 73–74 Copula (pw): *13, 17, 20, 21, 38, 57 (2), 58, 154 Emphatic: see Relative, non-attributive Genitive — direct: 9, 10, 15, 30, 53–54, 56–57, 57, 57–58, 58, 64, 66–67, 69, 71–72, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91–92, 94, 96, 105–106, 106, 107, 112–13, 126, 128–29, 132–33, 134, 135, 139 — indirect: see nj “of, belonging to” in Section One, above Imperative: *26 [m]j, 21 ãnd, 22 wæœ, 51 wæœ, 67 sÿm, 68 šms, 68 smã, 148 jmj, 150 mr, 151 wjn, 151 mr Infinitive: *9 jrt, *14 stæ[s.j], 1 ÿd, 2 õæ[b], 6 ëbë, 6–7 wzf.j, 11 tht.j, 12 stæs.j, 12 mt, 13 ãæë, 13 smæmt.j, 14 [rdjt], 18 sdœ, 18 ënã, 19 mt, 21 ënã, 34 tfyt, 35 nwt.k, 35 ÿd, 36 jït.k, 41 mër, 43 qrs.f, 43 jrt, 45 jrt, 50 mt, 56 sãæ.k, 56 qrs, 57 jnt, 57–58 sjnd, 58 šdt, 61 ãws, 67 sÿm, 71 prt, 73 ëq, 76 ÿd, 77 prt, 84 šsæ, 90 rzf, 105 jtt, 108 œtp, 108 bjn, 112 jtt, 125 srãt, 130 mt, 130 snb, 131 prt, 132 mt, 133 œmst, 134 mt, 135 œmst, 136 mt, 137 wæt, 138 mt, 139 kft, 140 mt, 141 mææ, 142 nÿrt, 143 ãsf, 144 rdjt, 146 spr, 150 ënã, 155 zõæ — after m: 57–58, 142, 155 — after r: 6, 12, 13, 18, 19, 50, 56, 125; see also Predicate, adverbial — after œr: *14, 12, 13, 14, 18, 76, 143, 144, 146, 150; see also Predicate, adverbial

LEXICON AND GRAMMAR

241

Interrogative: 14, 20, 32, 104–105, 108, 109–10, 111–12, 113, 115, 116, 118, 120, 121–22, 123, 125, 127, 129 Negation — nj [wnt]: 28–29; nj sÿm.f: 5, 33, 76, 115, 116; nj sÿm.n.f: 2, 3, 11, 84, 104, 146; nj sÿmt.f: 12, 19, 80; nj … js: 31 — nn with adverbial predicate: 39–40, 77; nn NOUN: 34–35 (infinitive); 122, 125–26; nn sÿm.f: 8, 9–10, 50–51, 121, 130; nn sÿm.n.f: 59; nn SUBJECT–stative: 126–27 — tm: 46 Negatival complement: 46 œsw Object, unstated: 29 Participle — active: 7 wzf, 8 w[jn], 18–19 jhm, 19–20 snÿm, 20 qsnt, 25 zõæ, 26 sg, 27 ÿsr[t], 29 nÿm, 33 ÿd, 38–39 spdw, 60 qdw, 61 nfrw, 62 nfrt, 62 sqdw, 63–64 nnw, 64 mtw, 68 nfr, 87 bëœ, 89 bëœ, 91 bëœ, 93 bëœ, 96 bëœ, 98 bëœ, 99 bëœ, 100 qn, 101 bëœ, 105 ëwn, 110 bjn, 114 ëq-jb, 124 ëq-jb, 128–29 ëq-jb, 131 mr, 141 ëšæt, 142 ënã (or stative), 145–46 rã-ãwt — imperfective active: 17 prr, 102 šnn, 143 jrr — imperfective passive: 103 mææ, 114 jrr — future: 53 drpt.fj, 53 ëœët.fj — passive: 61 qn, 63 ëbæw, 95 œæm, 126 šm, 139 sãt — perfective active: 6 wr, 16 jr, 29 fæ, 79 mæw, 116 jr, 123 jrw, 126 hr-jb, 129 œw — perfective passive: 77 mst, 79 sdw, 124 ãmm, 155 gmyt Predicate — adjectival: 6, 29, 67, 81, 87, 89, 91, 93, 95–96, 97–98, 99–100, 101, 105 — adverbial: 6–7, 9, 34, 39–40, 42, 83, 100–101, 113–14, 119, 130, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140; SUBJECT r sÿm: 1, 2, 36, 40–41, 43, 45 — SUBJECT œr sÿm: 11, 34, 35, 73, 83–84, 105, 112 — nominal: *13, 17, 20, 20–21, 31, 37, 38, 56–57, 57, 58, 154

242

APPENDIX FIVE

Pronoun — demonstrative: 16 pf, 17 pæ, 34 nfæ, 37 nfæ, 50 pæ, 77 tfæ, 116 tæ, 126 pfæ, 149 pn — interrogative: 14 ptr, 32 ptr, 103 mj, 105 mj, 108 mj, 109 mj, 111 mj, 113 mj, 115 mj, 116 mj, 118 mj, 120 mj, 122 mj, 123 mj, 125 mj, 127 mj, 129 mj — personal, dependent: 1s wj 8, 19, 23, 50, 150; 2ms tw *26, 34; 3m sw *14, 17, 83, 126, 143; 3n st *9 — personal, independent: 2ms ntk 31 — personal, suffix, 1s ( ): *12 mæ[jr.j], *12 [ÿdt.n.j], *12 [bæ.j], *14 stæ[s.j], *26 sbæ.j, 4 wp.n.j, 4 r.j, 4 bæ.j, 4 wšb.j, 5 r.j, 5 bæ.j, 6 œnë.j, 7 bæ.j, 7 n.j, 8 [snnw].j, 9 õt.j, 11 bæ.j, 11 tht.j, 11 sÿm.n.j, 12 stæs.j, 13 smæmt.j, 15 jmj.j, 17–18 bæ.j, 19 jjt.j, 20 n.j, 22 mæjr.j, 24 œr.j, 25–26 mdw.j, 27 œr.j, 28 sær.j, 29 n.j, 30 õt.j, 30 n.j, 31 bæ.j, 33 šm.j, 36 jw.j, 39 n.j, 39 bæ.j, 39–40 [n].j, 40 œnë.j, 41 rdj.j, 43 jw.j, 45 jw.j, 47 swrj.j, 48 ïzy.j, 52 bæ.j, 52 sn.j, 55 n.j, 55 bæ.j, 56 ÿdt.n.j, 67 n.j, 76 rm.j, 78 mœy.j, 85 wp.n.j, 86 r.j, 86 bæ.j, 86 wšb.j, 87 rn.j, 89 rn.j, 91 rn.j, 93 rn.j, 96 rn.j, 98 rn.j, 100 rn.j, 101 rn.j, 103 ÿd.j, 104 ÿd.j, 108 ÿd.j, 109 ÿd.j, 111 ÿd.j, 113 ÿd.j, 115 ÿd.j, 116 ÿd.j, 118 ÿd.j, 120 ÿd.j, 121 ÿd.j, 123 ÿd.j, 125 ÿd.j, 127 ÿd.j, 129 ÿd.j, 127 jw.j, 130 œr.j, 132 œr.j, 134 œr.j, 136 œr.j, 138 œr.j, 140 œr.j, 147 n.j, 153 ãny.j; unwritten 12 jjt.(j), 13 ãæë.(j), 53 jwëw.(j). — personal, suffix, 2ms: *12 [wæœ].k, *26 r.k, *27 [ … ].k, 21 r.k, 31 jw.k, 32 km.k, 32 mœy.k, 35 nwt.k, 36 jït.k, 36 grt.k, 37 rn.k, 44 õæt.k, 44 sÿdm.k, 46 sÿdm.k, 49–50 hjm.k, 51 gm.k, 51 ãnt.k, 52 jb.k, 56 sãæ.k, 59 pr.n.k, 59 mæ.k, 67 r.k, 67 mj.k, 86 mj.k, 87 mj.k, 88 mj.k, 89 mj.k, 91 mj.k (2), 93 mj.k, 94 mj.k, 95 mj.k, 96 mj.k, 97 mj.k, 98 mj.k, 99 mj.k, 100 mj.k, 101 mj.k, 102 mj.k, 148 r.k, 149 wdn.k, 150 ëœæ.k, 150 ÿd.k, 151 n.k, 152 pœ.k, 152 œë.k, 153 wrd.k — personal, suffix, 3ms: 4 ÿdt.n.f, 7 jmt.f, 7 ëœë.f, 8 [ënã].f, 8 ãæ.f, 9 ntt.f, 10 ë.f, 10 rwj.f, 12 n.f (2), 14 mnt.f, 14 [ …f], 14 sæ.f, 14–15 [sn].f, 15 tk.f, 16 ëœë.f, 17 jn.f, 17 r.f¸ 19 n.f, 29 n.f, 40 jw.f, 41 pœ.f, 43 qrs.f, 46 tm.f, 54 sÿæy.f, 55 r.f, 55–56 wšb.f, 58 pr.f, 65 pœ.fj, 69 skæ.f, 69 šdw.f, 69 jw.f, 69 æp.f, 69–70 šmw.f, 70 stæs.f, 71 œb.f,

LEXICON AND GRAMMAR

243

(Pronoun, personal, suffix, 3ms) 71 mæ.n.f, 73 œjmt.f, 74 msw.f, 75 ÿr.jn.f, 76 pzš.f, 80 dbœ.f, 81 œjm.f, 81 n.f, 82 jw.f, 82 pr.f, 83 ënn.f, 83 pr.f, 83 jw.f, 83 œjmt.f, 84 n.f (2), 84 sÿm.n.f, 86 ÿdt.n.f, 100 r.f, 100 jw.f, 101 jw.f, 101 msdw.f, 103 sæ.f, 109 r.f, 110 zp.f, 110–11 ssbt.f, 111 jw.f, 112–13 snnw.f, 114 œnë.f, 120 snw.f, 121 œr.f, 125 n.f, 126 œnë.f, 130 pœw.fj, 141 jr.n.f, 146 ãsf.n.t.f, 147 mdw.f, 154 jw.f, 155 œæt.f, 155 pœ.fj — personal, suffix, 3fs ( ): 7 œr.s, 51 œr.s, 77 n.s, 78 msw.s, 81 ÿd.s, 82 r.s, 84 n.s, 99 r.s — personal, suffix, 1pl ( ): 1 [j]w.n, 153 jr.n — personal, suffix, 2pl (

): 11 mj.tn

— personal, suffix, 3pl ( ): 2 ns.[s]n, 3 ns.sn, 21 ãr.sn, 66 n.sn, 80 ënãt.sn, 95 n.sn, 138 pr.sn, 141 pr.sn Relative: 121 rhn.tw — imperfective: 66 mdw — perfective: 38 õn.t, 51 ãnt.k, 101 msdw.f — non-attributive: 7 šm, 10 rwj.f, 29–30 ãsf, 40 tt, 62 ãpr, 71 mæ.n.f, 78 mœy.j, 83 ënn.f, 103 ÿd.j, 104 ÿd.j, 108 ÿd.j, 109 ÿd.j, 111 ÿd.j, 113 ÿd.j, 115 ÿd.j, 116 ÿd.j, 118 ÿd.j, 120 ÿd.j, 121 ÿd.j, 123 ÿd.j, 125 ÿd.j, 127 ÿd.j, 129 ÿd.j, 110 sãër, 117 jnn.tw, 124 jnn.tw, 137 jw, 141 æbb, 147 mdw.f, 150 ëœæ.k, 150 ÿd.k, 153 wrd.k, 154 jw.f — sÿm.n.f: *12 [ÿdt.n.j], 4 ÿdt.n.f, 30 ÿdt.n, 42 ëœë.n, 56 ÿdt.n.j, 65 jt.n, 140 ãmt.n.f, 147 ÿdt.n — virtual: 74 and 139 (stative), 98 and 100 (passive sÿm.f ), 146 (nj sÿm.n.f ) sÿm.f — imperfective:17 jn.f, 21 ãr.sn, 69 skæ.f, 69 æp.f, 70 stæs.f, 76 pzš.f, 80 dbœ.f, 81 ÿd.s, 82 pr.f, 110–11 ssbt.f, 112 œëÿæ.tw, 152 sæœ — SUBJECT–sÿm.f: 21, 68–69, 69, 80–81, 81, 82 — passive: 98 ÿd, 100 ÿd, 109 rdj — perfective: 5 mdw, 33 šm.j, 115 sãæ.t, 116 jr.t — prospective: 41 rdj.j, 142 wnn, 143 wnn, 145 wnn

244

APPENDIX FIVE

(sÿm.f ) — prospective or subjunctive: 32 mœy.k, 47 swrj.j, 48 ïzy.j, 49–50 hjm.k, 54 sÿæy.f, 152 pœ.k, 153 ãny.j — subjunctive: *12 [wæœ].k, *26 sbæ.j, 7 ëœë.f, 8 dj.t õæ.f, 10 ãpr, 14 [ …f], 15 tk.f, 16 ëœë.f, 23 wÿë, 23 œtp, 24 ãsf, 25 sÿm, 26 ãsf, 39 sÿm, 41 pœ.f, 44 sÿdm.k, 46 tm.f, 46 sÿdm.k, 49 sÿm.k, 51 gm.k, 55–56 wšb.f, 59 mæ.k, 86 wšb.j, 121 wn, 130 wn, 144 dj.t, 149 wdn.k, 153 jr.n sÿm.jn.f: 75 ÿr.jn.f sÿm.n.f: 2 nmë.n, 3 nmë.n, 3–4 wp.n.j, 11 sÿm.n.j, 55 wp.n, 59 pr.n.k, 84 sÿm.n.f, 85 wp.n.j, 104 mr.nj, 141 jr.n.f, 146 ãsf.n.t.f sÿmt.f: 12 jjt.(j), 19 jjt.j, 52 ãprt, 80 ënãt.sn Stative: *25 zæw.t (2s), 5 wr (3ms), 18 wãæ (3ms), 28 wdn (3ms), 32 ënã.t (2s), 36 mt (2s), 37 ënã (3ms), 47 tæ.w (3ms), 49 œqr (3ms), 58 ãæë (3ms), 63 wš.w (3pl), 71 tkn (3ms), 72 rs (3ms), 73 pr (3ms), 74 æq (3pl), 74 šn (3ms), 75 œms (3ms), 84 sï (3ms), 85 wš (3ms), 88 tæ.t (3fs), 90 tæ.t (3fs), 103 bjn (3pl), 107 æq (3ms), 107 hæ.w (3ms), 111 ÿw (3ms), 114 ãpr (3ms), 117 bjn (3pl), 119 œtm (3pl), 120 ëwn (3pl), 122 zp (3ms), 123–24 šw (3ms), 127 wn (3ms), 127–28 ætp.kw (1s), 141 jt (3ms), 142 ënã (3ms, or participle), 144 ëœë (3ms) — SUBJECT–stative: 5, 17–18, 28, 36, 36–37, 47, 49, 63, 71, 88, 90, 103, 107 (2), 111, 114, 117, 118–19, 120, 126–27, 127–28 Subject — preposed: 56, 60–62, 104 — unstated: 2, 6 (2), 10, 81, 123–24 Vocative: 52 bæ.j sn.j, 148–49 nsw pn sn

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. translations and studies * Assmann, Jan. “A Dialogue between Self and Soul: Papyrus Berlin 3024.” In Self, Soul and Body in Religious Experience, ed. by A.I. Baumgarten et al. (Studies in the History of Religions 88; Leiden, 1998), 384–403. ————. Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt, translated from Tod und Jenseits im alten Ägypten (Munich, 2001) by D. Lorton. Ithaca, 2005. Badawy, Alexander. “Two Passages from Ancient Egyptian Literary Texts Reinterpreted.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 86 (1961), 144–45. Barta, Winfried. Das Gespräch eines Mannes mit seinem Ba (Papyrus Berlin 3024). MÄS 18. Berlin, 1969. ————. Review of Goedicke 1970. Bibliotheca Orientalis 27 (1972), 23–26. Blackman, Aylward M. “Notes on Certain Passages in Various Middle Egyptian Texts.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 16 (1930), 63–72. ————. “A Note on Lebensmüder 86–88.” Orientalia 7 (1938), 67–68. Bresciani, Edda. “Il dialogo del disperato con la sua anima.” In idem, Letteratura e poesia dell’antico Egitto: Cultura e società attraverso i testi, new ed. (Turin, 1999), 198–205. Brunner-Traut, Emma. “Der Lebensmüde und sein Ba.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 94 (1967), 6–15. ————. “Ein Gedicht des ‘Lebensmüden’.” In idem, Pharaonische Lebensweisheit (Freiburg, 1985), 82–83. De Buck, Adriaan. “Inhoud en achtergrond van het gesprek van den levensmoede met zijn ziel.” Mededelingen en Verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux” 7 (1947), 19–32. Burkard, Günter. “Das Gespräch des Lebensmüden mit seinem Ba.” In Einführung in die altägyptische Literaturgeschichte, I: Altes und Mittleres Reich, ed. by G. Burkard and Heinz J. Thissen, 3rd ed. (Münster, 2008), 154–60. Cannuyer, Christian, and Gilles Delpech. “La dernière demeure du Désespéré: note de traduction (P. Berlin 3024, l. 153–154).” Göttinger Miszellen 172 (1999), 11–16. Chioffi, Marco E., and Giuliana Rigamonti. Antologia della letteratura egizia del Medio Regno, vol. I. Turin, 2007.

————— *

These works are referenced in the text by author and year: e.g., Assmann 1998.

246

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Derchain, Philippe. “Le Dialogue du Désespéré: à propos d’un livre récent.” Göttinger Miszellen 125 (1991), 17–19. Donnat, Sylvie. “Le Dialogue d’un homme avec son ba à la lumière de la formule 38 des Textes des Sarcophages.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 104 (2004), 191–205. Erman, Adolf. Gespräch eines Lebensmüden mit seiner Seele, aus dem Papyrus 3024 der Königlichen Museen. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1896. Berlin, 1896. ————. “Der Streit des Lebensmüden mit seiner Seele.” In idem, Die Literatur der Aegypter; Gedichte, Erzählungen und Lehrbücher aus dem 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Leipzig, 1923), 122–30. Faulkner, Raymond O. “The Man Who Was Tired of Life.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 42 (1956), 21–40. ————. “The Man Who Was Tired of Life.” In The Literature of Ancient Egypt: an Anthology of Stories, Instructions, and Poetry. New ed., ed. by William Kelly Simpson (New Haven and London, 1973), 201–209. Foster, John L. “The Debate between a Man Tired of Life and His Soul.” In idem, Echoes of Egyptian Voices: an Anthology of Ancient Egyptian Poetry (Oklahoma Series in Classical Culture 12; Norman, 1992), 11–18. Frantsev, Y.P. “Filosofskoe znaqenie ‘Beseda pazoqarovannogo’” (The philosophical meaning of the ‘Dialogue of a disheartened man’). In Drevniï Egupet, Sbornik stateï, ed. by V. Struve et al. (Moscow, 1960), 206–15. Garnot, Jean Saint Fare. “Le vie et la mort d’après un texte égyptien de la haute époque,” Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 127 (1944), 18–29. Gilbert, Pierre. “Le désespéré.” In idem, La poésie égyptienne, 2nd ed. (Brussels, 1949), 84–88. Goedicke, Hans. The Report about the Dispute of a Man with His Ba: Papyrus Berlin 3024. Baltimore and London, 1970. ————. Review of Renaud 1991. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 87 (1992), 23–26. Griffiths, J. Gwyn. “Lebensmüde 83.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 53 (1967), 157–58. Guilmot, Max. “Un désastre familial en Égypte ancienne (Lebensmüde 68–80).” Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves 20 (1968–72), 253–266. Haller, Friedrich. Papyrus Berlin 3024: Gespräch eines Lebensmüden mit seinem Lebenswillen. Bonn, 2004. Hannig, Rainer. “Die erste Parabel des ‘Lebensmüden’ (LM 68–80).” Journal of Ancient Civilizations 6 (1991), 23–31. Hermann, Alfred. “Das Gespräch eines Lebensmüden mit seiner Seele.” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 42 (1939), 345–52. Herrmann, Siegfried. “Das Gespräch des Menschen mit seinem Ba.” In idem, Untersuchungen zur Uberlieferungsgestalt mittelägyptischer Literaturwerke (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung, Veröffentlichungen 33; Berlin, 1957), 62–79. Hornung, Erik. “Die Gedichte des ‘Lebensmüden’.” In idem, Gesänge vom Nil: Dichtung am Hofe der Pharaonen (Zurich and Munich, 1990), 113–17.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

247

Jacobsohn, Hellmuth. “Der Papyrus des Lebensmüden.” In Proceedings of the 7th Congress for the History of Religions, Amsterdam, 4th–9th September 1950, ed. by C.J. Bleeker et al. (Amsterdam, 1951), 106–108. ————. “Das Gesprach eines Lebensmüden mit seinem Ba.” In Zeitlose Dokumente der Seele, ed. by C.A. Meier (Studien aus dem C.G. Jung-Institut Zürich, 3; Zürich, 1952), 1–48. Junker, Hermann. “Die Lösung im ‘Streit des Lebensmüden mit seiner Seele’.” Anzeiger der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 85, no. 17 (1948), 219–27. Kitchen, Kenneth A. “Poems in Praise of Death: ‘A Man Tired of Life,’ c. 2100 BC.” In idem, Poetry of Ancient Egypt (Documenta Mundi: Aegyptiaca, 1; Jonsered, 1999), 79–88. Lalouette, Claire. “Les chants du désespéré.” In idem, Textes sacrés et textes profanes de l’ancienne Égypte, des pharaons et des hommes (Connaissance de l’Orient: Collection UNESCO d’Œuvres Représentatives: Série Égypte Ancienne; Paris, 1984), 221–26 and 334–35 nn. 110–31. Lanczkowski, Günter. “Zur ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte des Mittleren Reiches II: Der ‘Lebensmüde’ als antiosirianische Schrift.” Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 6 (1954), I, 1–18. Lepsius, Carl Richard. “Hieratischer Papyrus No III.” In idem, Denkmaeler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien (Berlin, 1859), VI, pls. 111–12. Letellier, Bernadette. “De la vanité des biens de ce monde: l’évocation d’un personnage de fable dans le ‘Désespéré’ (P. Berlin 3024, col. 30–39).” Cahier de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Égyptologie de Lille 13 (1991), 99–105. Lichtheim, Miriam. “The Dispute Between a Man and His Ba.” In idem, Ancient Egyptian Literature, a Book of Readings, I. The Old and Middle Kingdoms. (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1973), 163–69. Lohmann, Katherina. “Das Gespräch eines Mannes mit seinem Ba.” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur 25 (1998), 207–36. Lurie, I.M. “Beseda razoqarovannogo so svoim duhom (k datirovke krest|]nskogo vostanni] v Drevnem Egipte)” (The Dialogue of a disheartened man with his spirit: on the dating of a peasant uprising in Ancient Egypt). Gosudarstbennyï {rmitaj, Trudy Otdela Vostoka 1 (1939), 141–53. Maspero, Gaston. “Un dialogue philosophique entre un égyptien et son âme.” In idem, Causeries d’Égypte (Paris, 1907), 125–31. Mathieu, Bernard. “Le dialogue d’un homme avec son âme: un débat d’idées dans l’Égypte ancienne.” Égypte, Afrique et Orient 19 (2000), 17–36. Meshcherskiy, Nikita. “K perevodu Beseda razoqarovannogo s svoim duhom” (Toward a translation of the Dialogue of a disheartened man with his spirit). Zapiski Kollegii Vostokovedov pri Aziatskom Muzee Rossiïskoï Akademii Nauk 2 (1927), 365–72. Müller, Dieter. Review of Goedicke 1970. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32 (1973), 353–54.

248

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Osing, Jürgen. “Gespräch des Lebensmüden.” Lexicon der Ägyptologie II (1977), 571– 73. ————. “Gleichnis.” Lexikon der Ägyptologie II (1977), 618–24. Ouellet, Brigitte. “Le Désillusionné et son ba du Papyrus Berlin 3024: l’herméneutique d’une experience ontophanique.” PhD dissertation: Université de Montréal. Montreal, 2004. ————. “L’enseignement du ba à l’homme désillusionné: une praxis en rapport avec le sens de la vie.” In Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists, Grenoble, 6–12 septembre 2004, ed. by J.-C. Goyon (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 150; Leuven, 2007), II, 1437–41. Parkinson, Richard B. “The Dialogue of a Man and His Soul.” In idem, The Tale of Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems, 1940–1640 BC. (Oxford, 1997), 151– 65. ————. “The Missing Beginning of ‘The Dialogue of a Man and His Ba’: P. Amherst III and the History of the ‘Berlin Library’.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 130 (2003), 120–33. ————. “Manuscript 4 (The Dialogue of a Man and His Soul, followed by a fragment of The Tale of the Herdsman).” In idem, Reading Ancient Egyptian Poetry, Among Other Histories (Chichester, 2009), 315–21. Pieper, Max. “Das Gespräch eines Lebensmüden mit seiner Seele.” In idem, Die ägyptische Literatur (Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft; Wildpark-Potsdam, 1927), 26– 30. Potapova, Vera. “Spor razoqarovannogo so svoeï dušoï” (The dispute of a disheartened man with his soul). In Lirika drevnogo Egupta, ed. by I. Katsnel’son (Moscow, 1965), 77–83. Quack, Joachim. Review of Renaud 1991. Die Welt des Orients 26 (1995), 184–86. Quirke, Stephen. “The Dialogue of a Man with his Soul.” In idem, Egyptian Literature 1800 BC: Questions and Readings (GHP Egyptology 2: London, 2004), 130– 34. Ranke, Hermann. “Das Gedicht vom Lebensmüden.” In Altorientalische Texte zum Alten Testament, 2nd ed., ed. by Hugo Gressmann (Berlin and Leipzig, 1926), 25–28. Renaud, Odette. Le dialogue du Désespéré avec son âme: une interprétation littéraire. Cahiers de la Société d’Égyptologie, Genève 1. Geneva, 1991. Scharff, Alexander. Der Bericht über das Streitgespräch eines Lebensmüden mit seiner Seele. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophischhistorische Klasse 1937, 9. Munich, 1937. Schenkel, Wolfgang. “Ist der Wortschatz des ‘Lebensmüden’ grösser als der des ‘Sinuhe’?” Göttinger Miszellen 5 (1973), 21–24. Schmidt, John D. Review of Goedicke 1970. Journal of the Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 3 (1970–71), 129–32. Sethe, Kurt. “6. Aus dem Bericht des Lebensmüdens über den Streit mit seiner Seele.” In idem, Erläuterungen zu den aegyptischen Lesestücken (Leipzig, 1927), 61– 67.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

249

————. “6. Aus dem Bericht des Lebensmüdens über den Streit mit seiner Seele.” In idem, Ägyptische Lesestücke zum Gebrauch im akademischen Unterricht, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1928), 43–46. Shinnie, Peter L. Review of Goedicke 1970. American Historical Review 77 (1972), 750–51. Smither, Paul C. “A New Reading of Lebensmüde, 131–2.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 25 (1939), 220. Spiegel, Joachim. “Das Gespräch des Lebensmüden.” In idem, Soziale und Weltanschauliche Reformbewegung im Alten Ägypten (Heidelberg, 1950), 48–56. Suys, Émile. “La dialogue du désespéré avec son âme.” Orientalia 1 (1932), 57–74. Thausing, Gertrud. “Betrachtungen zum ‘Lebensmüden’.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 15 (1957), 262–67. Tobin, Vincent. “A Re-assessment of the Lebensmüde.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 48 (1991), 341–63. ————. Review of Renaud 1991. Bibliotheca Orientalis 50 (1993), 122–25. ————. “The Man Who Was Weary of Life.” In The Literature of Ancient Egypt: an Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry, ed. by William Kelly Simpson, 3rd ed. (New Haven and London, 2003), 178–87. Van de Walle, Baudoin. “Scharff, Der Bericht über das Streitgespräch eines Lebensmüden mit seiner Seele.” Chronique d’Égypte 28 (1939), 312–17. ————. Review of Goedicke 1970. Chronique d’Égypte 47 (1972), 126–29. Weill, Raymond. “Le livre du ‘désespéré’: le sens, l’intention et la composition littéraire de l’ouvrage.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 45 (1947), 89–154. von der Wense, Jürgen. “Der Lebensmüde, ein Fragment aus dem Ägyptischen (2200 v. Chr.).” Die Sammlung 4 (1949), 65–73. Williams, Ronald J. “Reflections on the Lebensmüde.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 48 (1962), 49–56. Wilson, John A. “A Dispute over Suicide.” In Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. by James B. Pritchard, 3rd ed. (Princeton, 1969), 405– 407.

2. other works Adrom, Faried. Die Lehre des Amenemhet. Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca XIX. Turnhout, 2006. Allen, James P. The Inflection of the Verb in the Pyramid Texts. Bibliotheca Aegyptia 2. Malibu, 1984. ————. The Heqanakht Papyri. Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition 27. New York, 2002. ————. The Egyptian Coffin Texts, VIII. Middle Kingdom Copies of Pyramid Texts. Oriental Institute Publications 132. Chicago, 2006. Cited as CT VIII. ————. Middle Egyptian: an Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs, 2nd ed. Cambridge, 2010.

250

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anthes, Rudolf. Die Felsinschriften von Hatnub. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens 9. Leipzig, 1928. Blackman, Aylward M. Middle Egyptian Stories. Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 2. Brussels, 1932. ————.The Story of King Kheops and the Magicians Transcribed from Papyrus Westcar (Berlin Papyrus 3033), ed. by W.V. Davies. Reading, 1988. Borchardt, Ludwig. Denkmäler des Alten Reiches, II. Cairo, 1964. de Buck, Adriaan. The Egyptian Coffin Texts, 7 vols. Oriental Institute Publications 34, 49, 64, 67, 73, 81, 87. Chicago, 1935–61. Cited as CT, with reference to volume and page numbers. ————. “The Fear of Premature Death in Ancient Egypt.” In Pro Regno Pro Sanctuario: een bundel studies en bijdragen van vrienden en vereerders bij de zestigste verjaardag van Prof. Dr G. van der Leeuw, ed. by W.J. Kooiman (Nijkerk, 1950), 79–88. Caminos, Ricardo A. Literary Fragments in the Hieratic Script. Oxford, 1956. Çerný, Jaroslav. Paper and Books in Ancient Egypt. London, 1952. ————, and Alan H. Gardiner, Hieratic Ostraca I. Oxford, 1957. Clère, Jacques Jean. “Sur un passage de la Stèle Louvre C 1,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 24 (1938), 242. Collier, Mark, and Stephen Quirke. The UCL Lahun Papyri, [II]: Religious, Literary, Legal, Mathematical and Medical. BAR International Series 1209. London, 2004. von Deines, Hildegard, and Hermann Grapow. Grundriss der Medizin der Alten Ägypter, VI. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Drogennnamen. Berlin, 1959. Cited as Wb. Drogennamen. ————, and Wolfhart Westendorf. Grundriss der Medizin der Alten Ägypter, VII. Wörterbuch der medizinischen Texte, 2 vols. Berlin, 1961-62. Cited as Wb. med. Derchain, Philippe. “L’aiguade sous un palmier.” Revue d’Égyptologie 29 (1977), 61– 64. Doret, Eric. The Narrative Verbal System of Old and Middle Egyptian. Cahiers d’Orientalisme 12. Geneva, 1986. Edel, Elmar. Altägyptische Grammatik, 2 vols. Analecta Orientalia 34 and 39. Rome, 1955 and 1964. Cited as Edel, AäG, with reference to paragraph numbers. Enmarch, Roland. The Dialogue of Ipuwer and the Lord of All. Griffith Institute Publications. Oxford, 2005. Erman, Adolf, and Hermann Grapow, eds. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache im Auftrage der deutschen Akademien, 7 vols. Berlin, 1971. Cited as Wb. ————. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache im Auftrage der deutschen Akademien: die Belegstellen, 3 vols. Berlin, 1971. Cited as Wb. Belegstellen. Faulkner, Raymond O. The Egyptian Coffin Texts. 3 vols. Warminster, 1973–78. Fecht, Gerhard. “Die Form der altägyptischen Literatur: Metrische und stilistische Analyse.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 91 (1964), 11–63. ————. “Die Belehrung des Ba und der ‘Lebensmüde’.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 47 (1991), 113–26.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

251

Fischer-Elfert, Hans-Werner, Die Lehre eines Mannes für seinen Sohn: eine Etappe auf dem „Gottesweg“ des loyalen und solidarischen Beamten des Mittleren Reiches. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 60. Wiesbaden, 1999. Foster, John L. “Thought Couplets in Khety’s ‘Hymn to the Inundation’.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 34 (1975), 1–29. Franke, Detlef. “Kleiner Mann (nÿs) — was bist Du?” Göttinger Miszellen 167 (1998), 33–48. Gardiner, Alan H. The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage from a Hieratic Papyrus in Leiden (Pap. Leiden 344 Recto). Leipzig, 1909. ————. Notes on the Story of Sinuhe. Paris, 1916. ————. Egyptian Grammar, Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, 3rd ed. Oxford, 1964. Cited as Gardiner, EG, with reference to paragraph numbers. ————, and Kurt Sethe, Egyptian Letters to the Dead, Mainly from the Old and Middle Kingdoms. London, 1928. Germer, Renate. Handbuch der altägyptischen Heilpflanzen. Philippika: Marburger altertumskundliche Abhandlungen 21. Wiesbaden, 2008. Gunn, Battiscombe. Studies in Egyptian Syntax. Paris, 1924. El-Hamrawi, Mahmoud. “ tr/tí als Kennzeichen für subjektiv-modale Satzkerne im Ägyptischen. Lingua Aegyptia 15 (2007), 11–46. Helck, Wolfgang, Eberhard Otto, and Wolfhart Westendorf, eds. Lexikon der Ägyptologie, 7 vols. Wiesbaden, 1972–92. Cited as LÄ. Hoch, James E. Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period. Princeton, 1994. Janssen, Jac. J. “Marriage Problems and Public Reactions (P. BM 10416).” In Pyramid Studies and Other Essays Presented to I.E.S. Edwards, ed. by J. Baines et al. (Egypt Exploration Society Occasional Publications 7; London, 1988), 134–37 and pls. 25–28. Janssen, Jozef. De traditioneele egyptische autobiografie vóór het Nieuwe Rijk, 2 vols. Leiden, 1946. Koch, Roland. Die Erzählung des Sinuhe. Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 17. Brussels, 1990. Lefebvre, Gustave. Grammaire de l’égyptien classique. 2nd ed. Bibliothèque d’Étude 12. Cairo, 1955. Cited as Lefebvre, GEC. Leitz, Christian. Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, 8 vols. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 110-116, 129. Leuven, 2002-2003. Cited as LäGG. Lichtheim, Miriam. “The Songs of the Harpers.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 4 (1945), 178–212 and pls. 1–7. ————. Moral Values in Ancient Egypt. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 155. Fribourg and Göttingen, 1997. Luiselli, Maria M. “Fiktionale Dialog? Zur Interaktion zwischen Gott und Mensch in der altägyptischen Literatur.” Göttinger Miszellen 206 (2005), 39–47.

252

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Malaise, Michel and Jean Winand, Grammaire raisonnée de l’égyptien classique. Aegyptiaca Leodiensia: Université de Liège, Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres, Travaux publiés par le Centre Informatique de Philosophie et Lettres 6. Liège, 1999. Möller, Georg. Hieratische Paläographie: die aegyptische Buchschrift in ihrer Entwicklung von der fünften Dynastie bis zur römischen Kaiserzeit, 3 vols. 2nd ed. Osnabrück, 1965. Osing, Jürgen. Die Nominalbildung des Ägyptischen, 2 vols. Mainz, 1976. Otto, Eberhard. “Die Anschauung vom Bæ nach Coffin Texts Sp. 99–104.” In Miscellanea Gregoriana: raccolta di scritti pubblicati nel I centenario dalla fondazione del Pont. Museo egizio (1839–1939) (Vatican City, 1941), 151–60. ————. “Die beiden vogelgestaltigen Seelenvorstellungen der Ägypter.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 77 (1942), 78–91. Pamminger, Peter. “Das Trinken von Überschwemmungswasser: eine Form jährlichen Regeneration des Verstorbenen.” Göttinger Miszellen 122 (1991), 71–75. Parkinson, Richard B. The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant. Oxford, 1991. ————. Poetry and Culture in Middle Kingdom Egypt, a Dark Side to Perfection. Athlone Publications in Egyptology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies. London and New York, 2002. Piankoff, Alexandre. Le “cœur” dans le textes égyptiens depuis l’ancien jusqu’à la fin du nouvel empire. Paris, 1930. Satzinger, Helmut. Die negativen Konstruktionen im Alt- und Mitttelägyptischen. Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 12. Berlin, 1968. Sethe, Kurt. Die altägyptischen Pyramidentexte nach den Papierabdrücken und Photographien des Berliner Museums, 4 vols. 2nd ed. Hildesheim, 1960 and 1969. The text of vols. I–II is cited as Pyr., with reference to Sethe’s paragraph numbers. ————. Übersetzung und Kommentar zu den altägyptischen Pyramidentexten, 6 vols. 2nd ed. Hamburg, 1962. Shirun, Irene. “Parallelismus membrorum und Vers.” In Fragen an die altägyptischen Literatur: Studien zum Gedenken an Eberhard Otto, ed. by J. Assmann et al. (Wiesbaden, 1977), 463–92. Silverman, David P. Interrogative Constructions with jn and jn-jw in Old and Middle Egyptian. Bibliotheca Aegyptia 1. Malibu, 1980. Smither, Paul C. “An Old Kingdom Letter Concerning the Crimes of Count Sabni,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 28 (1942), 16–19. Toro Rueda, María Isabel. “Das Herz in der ägyptischen Literatur des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr.: Untersuchungen zu Idiomatik und Metaphorik von Ausdrücken mit jb und œætj.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, 2003. Available online in Adobe Acrobat form at http://webdoc.sub. gwdg.de/diss/2004/toro_rueda/index.html. Vandier, Jacques. La famine dans l’Égypte ancienne. Recherches d’Archéologie, de Philologie et d’Histoire 7. Cairo, 1936. ————. Moëalla. Bibliothèque d’Étude 18. Cairo, 1950. Vernus, Pascal. Future at Issue. Tense, Mood and Aspect in Middle Egyptian: Studies in Syntax and Semantics. Yale Egyptological Studies 4. New Haven, 1990.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

253

————. “La date du Paysan Éloquent.” In Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichtheim, ed. by S. Israelit-Groll ( Jerusalem, 1990), 1033–47. Ward, William A. The Four Egyptian Homographic Roots b-æ: Etymological and EgyptoSemitic Studies. Studia Pohl: Series Maior 6. Rome, 1978. Westendorf, Wolfhart. “Beiträge zum Wörterbuch.” Göttinger Miszellen 29 (1978), 153–56. Žába, Zbynek. Les maximes de Ptaœœotep. Prague, 1956. Žabkar, Louis V. A Study of the Ba Concept in Ancient Egyptian Texts. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, 34. Chicago, 1968. ————. “Ba.” Lexicon der Ägyptologie I (1973), 588–90. Zonhoven, Louis. “Studies on the sÿm.t=f Verb Form in Classical Egyptian, III: The Active n sÿm.t=f Construction.” In Essays on Ancient Egypt in Honour of Herman te Velde, ed. by J. van Dijk. 2 vols. Egyptological Memoirs 1. Groningen, 1997.

INDEX This index contains references to major themes (Section One) and to other texts translated or discussed (Section Two). In the general index, references to grammatical forms and constructions are minimal; for these, see also the comprehensive list in Appendix Five, above. Egyptian terms in transliteration are listed according to the English alphabet, after other references with the same initial consonant. 1. general index Adjectival predicate—125 n. 8, 126 n. 10 Adjective—126 n. 10 Adultery—85 Adverb—112 Afterlife—6, 138, 141–42, 153 Alliteration—130–31 Amduat—39 Amenemhat III—8 Antithesis—131–32, 141, 145 Aorist—67, 117–18 Assonance—131 Audience—3, 30, 134, 137–38 Ba—see Soul Basin—71 Circumstantial clause—118–19 Clitic—124–25 Coffin—53 Cola—122 Contrast—see Antithesis Coptic—124–25 Copying—111 Corrections—12–16 Damned—138 Date—8, 120

Dative, pronominal—126 n. 9, 197 Direct address—142 Dittography—17 Divisions of the text—18 Drowning—55, 65 Duat—138 Eel—80 Emphatic construction—52, 64, 73, 92, 114 Execution—107, 154 Festival—68 First Present—117–18, 124, 195–96 Fowling—28, 82–83, 133 Funeral—34, 60–61, 138, 141–45 Future—53, 114; see also Prospective Gapping—119 Heart—3–4, 6 Hegel—155 Homosexuality—87 Hyperbole—74 Imperfect—118 Inundation—57, 102, 152 Irony—63, 140

256

INDEX

Judgment—4–6, 39, 134, 136, 139–40

Reversal of roles—142, 145, 147, 155

Khonsu—40, 140

Sarcophagus—61 Scribal errors—16–17 Simile—104, 132, 152 Soul—3–6, 6 n. 6, 134 representation of—3 n. 4, 28 Spelling—16, 25, 44 n. 41, 64 n. 73 Stative—114 of result—62 Suicide—1, 32, 138, 156 Subject, nominal—126 n. 10 Sÿm.f, imperfective—117–19 Sÿm.f, perfective—113 Sÿm.f, prospective—53, 113–16 Sÿm.f, subjunctive—115, 117 Sÿm.n.f—114

Lexeme—112 Litany—121–28, 132, 148–54 Literature—121, 156–57 Metaphor—32–33, 49, 89, 101, 104 n. 125, 133, 138, 146–47, 149, 153–54 Metathesis—131 Metrics—see Versification Negation—32, 44, 71–72 Night—146 Nisbe—112 Noun—112 Osiris—2, 140 Paleography—10–12, 195 Papyrus (pBerlin 3024)—8–10 Participle—114 Particle—112–13 Preposition—112–13 Pronoun—112–13 Prospective—115–17 Quantifier—112–13, 126 n. 10 Reconciliation—154 Relative, non-attributive—114 Repetition—131

Temple—106 Tercet—121–22, 129–30 Third Future—116–17 Thoth—39, 140 Thought couplet—127–28 Tomb biography—138 Verb—112–13 Versification—121–30, 176–93 Vocalization—131 Woman—84–85 Word division—11–12

2. other texts Admonitions (Adm.) 2, 2—156 5, 3–4—150 5, 9–10—150 5, 12–13—151 6, 5—95 n. 115 6, 12–13—151 n. 6 Badawy, Nyhetep-Ptah Pl. 61—42 n. 36 Book of the Dead (BD) 18—140 99—48

Caminos, Literary Fragments Pl. 13A, 7—28 n. 10 Coffin Texts (CT) III, 391e—66 n. 77 IV, 45j—66 n. 77 IV, 54d–e—49 VI, 209d–f—140 Destruction of Mankind 25—77 n. 88 Herdsman—9 Eloquent Peasant—8 B1 126–27—44 n. 41

INDEX (Eloquent Peasant) B1 134–35—93 B1 153/154—48 B1 198–99—90 B1 270—68 n. 79 Harper’s Song BM 10060 6, 4–9—144–45 Hatnub Gr. 9, 8—63 n. 71 Heqanakht I vo. 2—45 I vo. 9—136 n. 1 II 26—45 II 28—35 n. 24 II 43—58 n. 65 Khakheperre-seneb ro. 7—4 ro. 13–14—4 vo. 1—4 vo. 5–6—4 Louvre C1 17–19—29 n. 12 oGardiner 369—21, 194–97 pBerlin 8869 11—39 n. 29

pUCL 32157 2, 18—58 n. 63 Poe, The Raven—135 Ptahhotep 95/96/107—104 n. 125 184–85—40 n. 31 624–25—59 n. 66 Pyramid Texts Pyr. 587c—126 n. 9 Shipwrecked Sailor (ShS) 21–23—29 n. 12 70–72—53 Sinuhe—8, 44 n. 41 B 38—103 B 58—88 n. 107 B 62—29 n. 11 B 130—55 n. 56 B 148–49—30 B 202—30–31 B 230 31 B 233–34—55 n. 58 B 248—31 n. 18 B 252–56—7 B 255—6 n. 6 B 264—31 n. 18

257