INTRODUCTION.

When, in the year 1892, Sir Peter Le Page Renouf began the publication of his translation of the Book of the Dead, his intention was that the work, once completed, should be preceded by an elaborate Introduction, giving, besides all the information concerning the form and the history of the book, his views as to its sense and its religious value.

As with the unfinished part of the translation,[1]so here, we are left without any notes or any clue whatever as to the form which this introduction was to have taken, and we are obliged to resort to the fifth of the Hibbert lectures, given by Renouf in 1879, in order to know his views about the book.[2]

Before speaking of its contents, we have to state briefly under what form the book has come down to us. It is hardly necessary to repeat that it is no book at all in the ordinary sense of the word. It is neither a unity nor a whole, it is a collection which has grown by degrees, at various epochs. Undoubtedly part of it goes back as far as the Old Empire; the texts of the Middle Empire show already that there were various editions, and we are forced to admit that its origin is not much later than the beginning of Egyptian civilization, as we see that some of the rubrics attribute certain chapters to a king of the 1st dynasty. In the course of centuries the original text was modified and enlarged, new chapters were added, revisions were made, without casting these detached fragments into a whole. The various parts of the book were always independent, like the Hebrew Psalms; the acceptance of a chapter does not necessarily imply the acceptance of the next chapter, and it seems as if the relatives of the deceased chose in the collection which was at their disposal what they liked best, and the number of chapters which corresponded to the price they wished to pay for a papyrus.

This description applies chiefly to the texts of the Book of the Dead of the period prior to the XXVIth dynasty. Under the Saïte kings it seems that a complete revision of the text was made; a definite order was adopted, which was not rigidly binding on the writers, but to which they generally adhered; various chapters were added, especially the last ones, 162-165, which are never found in the older copies. It seems also that something like what we should call an authorized version was adopted; and this was done by men to whom the book washardly intelligible. A great many glosses were introduced, which were copied afterwards in all the hieroglyphic and hieratic texts. Although we do not find the strict accuracy of Hebrew manuscripts, the number of variants in the Saïte, Ptolemaïc or Roman texts is considerably smaller than in the manuscripts of the Theban period, and a collation of the hundreds of papyri of late epoch which fill our museums would lead to no great result.

However, it is from a text generally considered as Saïtic, but which I believe to be of the Ptolemaïc epoch, that the Book of the Dead has been first made known in all its extent. In 1842 Lepsius published the long papyrus in the Turin Museum, a document which he called “the largest piece of Egyptian literature which has been preserved.”

Before him Champollion had seen it, and had noticed that a great number of repetitions of the same text existed in various museums. He made use of it in his grammar, quoted here and there a sentence taken from it, but he did not make a special study of the document. Lepsius understood at once the importance of the book, which was thevade-mecumof the deceased, and seeing how much more extensive the Turin Papyrus was than the short copies which had been published before, he traced the whole document and published it two years afterwards.

Lepsius gave to this work the name ofTodtenbuch, “Book of the Dead,” in opposition to the name of “Ritual” adopted by Champollion, which is certainly incorrect. It is no Ritual; a few chapters with a ritualistic character have been introduced into it; for instance, the chapter connected with the ceremony of “opening the mouth of the deceased,” which is occasionally met with, or Chapter 171, “chapter of wrapping up (the deceased) in a pure garment;” but these are rare exceptions. On the whole the Book of the Dead differs widely from a Ritual. It is not the priest who speaks, there are no minute prescriptions as to how a ceremony is to be performed; all the prayers and hymns are put in the deceased’s mouth, it is he whose speech is supposed to be heard in the other world.

Todtenbuch, Book of the Dead, is not a translation of the Egyptian title, which is: book of⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂pert m hru. As Renouf says, “Three simple words, perfectly unambiguous when taken singly, but by no means easy of explanation when taken together without a context;” and in fact at the present day no final translation has been given of these three words. Renouf translates, “coming forth by day,” as will be seen in the numerous examples which occur in this volume; but several objections may be raised against this interpretation, to which we should prefer, “coming out of the day,” the day being the period of a man’s life, having its morning and its evening.

The book is divided into fragments called⁂, to each of which Lepsius has given a number, following the order of the great Turin Papyrus, and which he calls chapters. Although his numbering is not quite correct, it has been adhered to in all the subsequent editions.

In his lecture[3]on the Book of the Dead, Renouf insists on the difficulty of translating it: “Nothing can exceed the simplicity and the brevity of the sentences; and yet the difficulties which a translator has to overcome are very great. In the first place, the text is extremelycorrupt. The unsatisfactory condition of the text is owing to different causes. The reasons which writers on Hebrew, Greek or Latin palæography have enumerated for the purpose of accounting for mistakes in manuscripts, apply with much greater force to the funereal manuscripts of the Egyptians; for as these were not intended to be seen by any mortal eye, but to remain for ever undisturbed in the tomb, the unconscientious scribe had no such check upon his carelessness as if his work were liable to be subjected to the constant inspection of the living. But the most conscientious scribe might easily commit numerous errors. Many of them are to be traced to a confusion between signs which resemble each other in the cursive, or as it is called, the hieratic character, but not in hieroglyphic writing.

“Besides the errors of copyists, there are different readings, the origin of which is to be traced to the period during which the chapters were handed down by word of mouth only. There are copies which bear evidence that a critical choice has been made between the different readings of a passage, but the common practice was to admit the inconsistent readings into the text itself....

“Some of the variants have unquestionably arisen from the difficulty of understanding the ancient texts. I have no doubt whatever that some of the chapters of the Book of the Dead were as obscure to Egyptians living under the eleventh dynasty as they are to ourselves.... The most accurate knowledge of the Egyptian vocabulary and grammar will however not suffice to pierce the obscurity arising from what M. de Rougé called symbols or allegories, which are in fact simple mythological allusions. The difficulty is not in literally translating the text, but in understanding the meaning which lies concealed beneath familiar words.”

These words of Renouf have still a very great force, although in the last twenty years some progress has been made towards a better understanding of the text. When Renouf gave the above description of the difficulties of the translation, the main source from which he could derive his information was what he called “the corrupt Turin text.” Since then a critical edition has been made.[4]It is based on texts of the XVIIIth and XIXth dynasties, written at a time when the intelligence of the book was not lost to the same extent as under the Saïtes or the Ptolemies, as may be ascertained from the considerable number of glosses introduced into the Turin text which are absent from the older versions. This edition has been compiled from various papyri, as the older ones are much shorter than the later ones; it is not a single document like Lepsius’sTodtenbuch; most of the chapters have been found in their old form; a few are missing, but a good number have been added to the list which have fallen out of the late versions. Generally it is from this critical text that Renouf made his translation. Occasionally he may choose an older version from a tomb, or perhaps a papyrus of the British Museum, but he hardly ever reverts to the TurinTodtenbuchunless he has no other resource at his disposal.

Nevertheless the difficulties which Renouf enumerates are only partly removed. We are still very far from being able to give a final translation of the Book of the Dead, and I haveno doubt that Renouf would repeat about his own work what he says of Dr. Birch’s translation, “Many parts of it, where most faithful to the original, must in consequence of that very fidelity be utterly unintelligible to an English reader.”

No doubt Renouf’s translation is a great step towards making the book more intelligible; still the reader may often stumble over sentences out of which it is hardly possible to make a reasonable sense, in spite of their grammatical correctness, and which at first sight will seem childish, not to say, with Renouf, “outrageous nonsense.” But we may say with certainty that they were not so to the old Egyptians. Under this extraordinary or even ridiculous garment may be hidden some very simple, or even elementary truths. Let us remember that we have not yet unravelled all the intricacies of the Egyptian mythology, which plays such an important part in the book. Moreover, we only begin now to understand how the Egyptians expressed abstract ideas. When we speak of passion, shame, remorse, hope, we have so thoroughly lost sight of the concrete element in these words, that we are apt to forget that originally they must have been metaphors, and that they must have expressed something striking the senses, and connected with the material world. An instance will illustrate the difficulty in this translation.

Chapter 112 relates how, owing to an imprudent request, Horus was the victim of Sutu, who inflicted a wound on his eye, which caused him great suffering, and the text adds:⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂,lo! he ate his heart. Renouf translates, “and wrath devoured his heart.” I should prefer, “he regretted sorely (his foolish request).” I believe to eat one’s heart to mean, “to feel regret, repentance, or remorse.” There the abstract meaning is not difficult to find out; but in other cases, as long as we have not discovered the key to the metaphor, we may go far astray, or if we do not go beyond the literal explanation, we miss the abstract sense, which is the true one.

However, because the work will not bear the character of finality, because some obscurities will not be removed, and some difficulties remain unsolved, there is no reason why a scholar like Renouf should have shrunk from attempting the translation of the Book of the Dead, a work which he had before his eyes for years, and which he considered as the crown of his Egyptological labours.

The lecture quoted above gives us Renouf’s ideas as to the purpose and the sense of the book: it is the beatification of the dead considered in three aspects:

The renewed existence “as upon earth.” The deceased enjoys an existence similar to that which he has led upon earth; he has the use of his limbs, he eats and drinks and satisfies every one of his physical wants exactly as in his former life. The gods themselves minister to him occasionally, and contribute to his welfare and to his pleasures. The bliss of the future state consists chiefly in the pleasures of agricultural life.

Transformation. The deceased has the range of the entire universe in every shape and form he desires. He can assume any appearance he likes. But these transformations are not forced upon him; he has no definite series to go through; they depend simply on his pleasure.

Identification with Osiris and other gods. The identification with Osiris, which is already mentioned in the earliest parts of the book, is taken for granted later on, since the name of the deceased is always preceded by “Osiris.” He may be assimilated to other gods; for instance, in the 42nd chapter every limb is assimilated to a different deity. This Osirian nature gives the deceased the power to triumph over the numerous enemies whom he has to face.

To these three benefits which the book confers on the deceased we should add a fourth: viz., complete preservation from dismemberment and decay. There is evidently in some of the prayers a remembrance of a time when the deceased were dismembered at their burial; and this way of treating the corpse is for the deceased an object of horror. The frequent mention of reconstituting the body, the promises that no part of it shall be taken away, all this shows of what supreme importance it was for him that his body should remain intact. Without a well preserved body there could be no life in the other world; its destruction implies the destruction of the whole individual. This belief is the origin of mummification, for decay is the strongest agent of dismemberment and the certain ruin of the body.

These are the outlines of the principal tenets of the Book of the Dead. If we inquire where they originated, there is no doubt that the bulk of the book came from Heliopolis. It is the doctrine of that ancient city and of its priests. Some of the chapters may be attributed to the priests at Abydos, as M. Maspero suggests; but it seems certain that, except for a small part, the birthplace of the Book of the Dead is the city of Ra Tmu, the place connected with the oldest religious traditions of the country, and which may rightly be called the religious capital of Egypt.

January, 1904.Edouard Naville.

January, 1904.

Edouard Naville.

1. SeeIntroductory Note to Chapter CXL.

2. The Hibbert Lectures, 1879, p. 172.

3. See alsoLife Work, t. III, p. 51, “The title of the Book of the Dead,” and p. 59, “The Egyptian Book of the Dead.”

4.Das Aegyptische Todtenbuch der XVIII bis XX Dynastie, zusammengestellt und herausgegeben von Edouard Naville, Berlin, 1886.

BOOK OF THE DEAD.

CHAPTER I.

(1)The Beginning of the Chapters of Coming forth by Day, of the(2)Words which bring about Resurrection and Glory, and of Coming out of and entering into Amenta. Said upon the Day of Burial ofN,the Victorious,(3)who entereth after coming forth.(4)Here isNthe Victorious. He saith—

O (5)Bull of Amenta, It is Thoth, the everlasting King, who is here.

I am the great god in the Bark, who have fought for thee.

I am one of those gods, the (6)Powers who effect the triumph of Osiris over his adversaries on the day of the Weighing of the Words: I am thy kinsman, Osiris.

I am one of those gods to whom Nut hath given birth, who slay the adversaries of Osiris and imprison the (7)Sebau, on his behalf: I am thy kinsman, Horus.

I have fought for thee, and have prevailed for thy name.

I am Thoth who effect the triumph of Osiris over his adversaries on that day of Weighing of the Words in the (8)House of the Prince, which is in Heliopolis.

I am (9)Tatti, the son of Tatti, conceived in Tattu and born in Tattu; and Tattu is my name.

I am with the mourners and weepers who wail over Osiris in (10)Rechit, and who effect the triumph of Osiris over his adversaries.

Rā issued the mandate to Thoth, that he should effect the triumph of Osiris against his adversaries, and the mandate is what Thoth hath executed.

I am with Horus on the day of covering (11)Teshtesh and of opening the fountains for the refreshment of (12)the god whose heart is motionless, and closing the entrance to the hidden things in (13)Restau.

I am with Horus, as the avenger of that left arm of Osiris which is in (14)Sechem.

I enter in, and I come forth from the (15)Tank of Flame on the day when the adversaries are annihilated at Sechem.

I am with Horus on the day when the festivals of Osiris are celebrated, and when offerings are made [to Rā], on the Feast of the Sixth day of the Month, and on the Feast of Tenait(16) in Heliopolis.

I am the Priest(17) in Tattu and exalt him who is on the Height.(18)

I am the Prophet in Abydos on the day when the earth is raised.

I am he who seeth what is shut up at Restau.(19)

I am he who reciteth the liturgies of the (20)Soul who is Lord of Tattu.

I am the Sem-priest in all that pertaineth to his office.

I am the Arch-Craftsman, on the day in which the Ship of Sokaru is laid upon its stocks.(21)

I am he who seizeth the mattock, on the day of the Feast of Hoeing in Suten-henen.(22)

O ye who bring beneficent souls into the house of Osiris, do ye bring the soul ofNtogether with you into the house of Osiris; let him see as you see, let him hear asyouyouhear, let him stand as you stand, and sit as you sit [in the house of Osiris].

O ye who give bread and beer to beneficent souls in the house of Osiris, do you give bread and beer at the two periods to the soul ofNwho is with you.

O ye who unclose the ways and open the roads to beneficent souls in the house of Osiris, unclose then the ways and open the roads to the soul ofNwho is with you, let him enter boldly and come forth in peace at the house of Osiris, without hindrance and without repulse. Let him enter at his pleasure and go forth at his will, triumphantly with you; and let that be executed which he shall order in the house of Osiris.

No lightness of his in the scale has been found and the Balance is (23)relieved of his case.

PLATE I.PLATE II.

PLATE I.

PLATE II.

Notes.

The text taken for the basis of the translation of Chapter I is that of the papyrus of Huneferu;Agof M. Naville’s edition.

1.The title here translated is that usual in all the papyri representing the third period of the text. It occurs however in the papyrusAgof Huneferu, who lived in the days of Seti I, at the beginning of the XIXth dynasty. It is also found in the papyrus of Ani. The most common title of Chapter I in the older manuscripts is⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂, “Chapter of coming to the divine Powers attached to Osiris.” These divine Powers are Amsta, Hapi, Tuamautef and Qebehsenuf, the children of Horus, who stand upon the lotus which springs from the water beneath the throne of Osiris, in pictures of the Psychostasia. Chapter 124 bears the same title in the older manuscripts, which sometimes begin with it.

2.⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂. These are two very difficult words, and very different meanings have been assigned to them. But when the entire evidence is examined the result is plain enough. Each of the words has for determinative the sign,⁂, expressive of some kind of utterance. It is a λόγος of some kind has for its first letter the causative⁂. The question therefore is, what are the meanings of the simpler forms⁂⁂,tes, and⁂⁂⁂,ḫu?

The most common, indeed the only true, meaning of⁂⁂is ‘rising,’ and even ‘raising.’ This is too well-known to require proof.⁂⁂is ‘causing to rise.’ The Pyramid text of Teta says (l. 270), “Horus hath given his children that they may raise thee up⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂.” In the same religious text, l. 248,⁂⁂is therising from the funereal couchafter the⁂⁂, the recitations made over the dead.

The ‘raising up’ or ‘resurrection’ here spoken of is said not only of the soul but of the body of the deceased person. The papyrus of Nebseni has preserved two chapters, to which M. Naville has assigned the numbers 177 and 178.

177.⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂.

Chapter of raising up the Chu, and giving life to the Soul in the Netherworld.

178.⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂.

Chapter of raising up the body, of giving it eyes and the possession of ears, and establishing the head, made firm on its props.

⁂,ḫat, is not simply the body; it is thedead body, that which hasfallen, like the Latincadaver, the Greek πτῶμα, the Hebrewמַפֶלֶח. (SeeTransactions Soc. Bib. Arch., Vol. VIII, p. 221, note 2.)

The true meaning of⁂⁂⁂ḫuis not ‘luminous’ but ‘clear, distinct, glittering,‘coruscans,’and hence ‘bright, splendid, illustrious, glorious,’ and the like. Like the Greek λαμπρός, the Latinclarus, the Hebrewעהל, or the Frenchéclat, it is applied to sound as well as to light. It is said of Thoth (in the wretched orthography[5]of a tablet of the XIXth dynasty)⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂“he glorified them with the clear utterances of his mouth.”⁂⁂⁂corresponds to the Greek λαμπροφωνία. As a verb⁂⁂isclareo, and is⁂⁂⁂clarifico,glorifico.

There are, it is true, variants in the title of Chapter 17, giving the form⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂. In spite of the excellent authority of these variants, they must be considered as giving an erroneous reading. The words⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂‘remember,’ and⁂⁂⁂are different in origin and meaning. The latter signifies ‘confer glory,’ and the⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂are religious formularies recited by priests, identifying the deceased person with Osiris and other divinities. There are numerous pictures in the tombs representing priests performing this office.[6]

3.M. Déveria has produced excellent evidence showing that⁂maāt-ḫeruhas the sense of ‘victorious, triumphant.’ But the sense ofvéridiqueis untenable.⁂⁂⁂ḫeruis ‘voice’ not ‘speech.’ InProceedings S.B.A., Vol. VI, p. 192, note, I have quoted a passage from a chapter (now numbered 181 in M. Naville’s edition) in which⁂⁂⁂⁂signifies ‘want of success, failure.’

⁂⁂⁂⁂maāt ḫerureally signifies “one whose voice is Law.” It is essentially adivinetitle (see “Altar at Turin,”Transactions, III, pl. II,line10, appended to Mr. Bonomi’s article), and innoEgyptian text is it used of mortals supposed to be living. The translation“juste de voix,”limits the conception ofmaāttooneof its secondary acceptations.

⁂⁂⁂⁂semaāt ḫeruis also, and necessarily so, a divine act, that of Thoth; and it is done through his utterances.

4.⁂ȧnin this place as in very many others is not a preposition,still less is it a verb. It is a demonstrative particle, like the Latinen,ecce, or the Hebrewהֵו. Nothing is more common than this particle followed only by a proper name,e.g., on the funereal figures. There is not the slightest reason for supposing that there is an ellipse of the verb ‘saith.’ The particle is used like the corresponding Latin one under the Scottish picture of Edward I—

‘En rex Edwardus debacchans ut leopardus.’

When I translate⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂, “It is Thoth—who is here,” I do not wish to imply that⁂⁂is the verbto be, any more than I should in the frequent expression⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂“It is his son who revives his name.”⁂is a demonstrative particle and nothing else.

Instead of looking out for moods and tenses and paradigms, Egyptologists ought to wake to the consciousness that the Egyptians never rose to the conception of what we mean by averb.

5.The Bull of Amenta is Osiris. Bull, like Lion or Hawk, was one of the figurative names of gods or kings, and Osiris is sometimes represented with a Bull’s head.

6.⁂⁂⁂⁂T’at’at. This word is often wrongly translated ‘judges.’ The divine judges are calledt’at’at, but the proposition is not simply convertible. There were the⁂⁂⁂⁂not only of Osiris, but (Todt., 22, 2) also of every god and every goddess. And all the ancient towns of Egypt had their divine⁂⁂⁂⁂. It is a term used (cf.p. 55) as exactly synonymous with⁂⁂. In a mythological system like the Egyptian no god stood alone; every god involved others in close connection with himself, and every act of his necessitated corresponding acts on their part.

7.Thesebȧuare the enemies of theSun, either as Rā or Osiris. I believe that under this mythological name the dark clouds are personified.

8.Het Saru, ‘House of the Prince,’ is the name of the great Sanctuary at Heliopolis. It must be remembered however that many of the geographical localities named in the Book of the Dead have their counterparts in the Egyptian heaven.

9.⁂⁂⁂⁂or⁂⁂⁂, the ‘firm, stable, unalterable, abiding, eternal one,’ whose origin and progress are in eternity. The city⁂⁂⁂⁂or⁂⁂⁂⁂has a name like the Palestinianעַוָֹה, Gazah, the ‘strong’ city, and many other Hebrew names connected with the rootעזז.

10.Rechit, a locality in the north of Egypt. The mourners and weepers alluded to are chiefly Isis and Nephthys.

11.Teshteshis one of the names of Osiris; perhaps, as might be inferred from a text at Dendera, of his molten image.

12.The god “whose heart is motionless” is Osiris.

13.⁂⁂Re-stau, one of the gates of the Netherworld. Its situation is specified in Chapter 17, line 19.

14.Sechem.Letopolis, where the arm of Osiris had been deposited, when the other limbs of the god were dispersed throughout the cities of Egypt.

15.TheTank of Flame, as may be inferred from the vignettes of the papyri, is where the sun rises or sets.Cf., Unas, 393, 506.

16.Tenait.Feast of the seventh day of the month.

17.The speaker now assumes the persons of various priests in succession, the⁂⁂āb, the⁂⁂⁂ḥen nutȧr(prophet), the⁂⁂⁂sem, and the⁂⁂⁂⁂ura ḫerp ḥem;[7]and he describes himself as performing certain religious ceremonies. It must never be forgotten when reading these texts that the Egyptian priests haddivine titles, and that their ceremonies were dramatic, and symbolical of the acts performed by the gods.

18.The text here is hopelessly corrupt. The translation given followsAg.

Instead of⁂⁂⁂exalt, several MSS. have⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂, which has been renderedanoint with oil. One might translate the Turin text, “I lustrate with water in Tattu and with oil in Abydos, exalting him who is in the heights (in excelsis),” for this text combines different readings. But⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂, as it is written, may have another meaning.⁂⁂⁂beq, signifies ‘clear, bright, shining,’ and the olive tree derives its name from this. The determinative⁂and the causative⁂furnish the sense, ‘I make bright, illustrious, glorious,’ ‘I celebrate or glorify.’ ‘He is who on the height’ (=עליון) is, according to Chapter 17, the Sun.

19.This is perhaps supposed to be said by the priest called⁂⁂, the ‘Arch-seer,’ at Heliopolis.

20.One of the designations of Osiris. Perhaps the wordBashould be translated Ram, for in the Mendesian Nome Osiris was worshipped under this form, and was called⁂⁂⁂ḣeru šefit, ‘god of the strong face.’ The fact is that whether applied to thesoulor to aram, the wordbais expressive of ‘power, force.’ The same word under the form⁂⁂⁂⁂is used in Chapter 120, 2 (= 12, 2) in the sense of ‘splitting up.’ And this is clearly the Egyptian concept of the soul—‘the internal force, that which works within us,’ τὸ ἐνεργοῦν.

The word is ideographically written⁂or⁂,[8]both the Ram and the cranelike bird being calledba. Some have cleverly inferred that the Egyptians thought that the soul was of a birdlike form, and others have not hesitated to considerbaas expressive of the cry of theram. The odd thing is that only the ram has this name, not thesheepor thelamb, who nevertheless indulge in the same cry. The truth is that in spite of appearances the wordbais not onomatopoeic here. Whether applied to the ram or to the heron, the word is expressive of human action and signifies ‘digging through, cleaving, piercing, splitting.’ The hieroglyphic variants are very expressive:⁂⁂⁂,⁂⁂⁂⁂,⁂⁂⁂⁂,⁂⁂⁂,⁂⁂⁂,⁂⁂(the last is already found inDenkm.II, 51).

The Ram is called in Egyptianbaon account of the digs which he makes with his head, and a force which has occasioned the name of ‘ram’ to be given to powerful engines.

The Heron is also calledbabecause with its bill itcleavesthe fishes which it attacks.

And the word whichwetranslate Soul or Spirit is calledba, because it is conceived as something which ‘pierces, penetrates and divides.’

It is right to point out (to those who may wonder at this Egyptian etymology) that the Latinscio‘I know’ is etymologically akin toseco‘cut,’securis‘an axe,’ and the Greek κείω, κεάζω ‘split, cleave.’

21.The⁂⁂⁂sem, and the⁂⁂⁂urȧ ḫerp ḥem, were priests in the service of Ptah. The latter, who held perhaps the highest sacerdotal office in Egypt, as high priest of Ptah at Memphis, is repeatedly found combining with his own special office that of thesem. The ceremony which is here referred to consisted in a grand procession round the walls of the great sanctuary of Ptah, conveying upon a sledge the bark⁂in which the coffin of the god was supposed to rest. Sokaru signifies ‘the coffined,’ and Ptah Sokaru is only a form of Osiris. Abundant details of the ceremony will be found in the plates of M. Mariette’sAbydos, I, pl. 36 and following. The king Seti I is represented as a Sem priest presiding at the festival.

22.⁂⁂⁂⁂Suten-ḥenenwas called by the Greeks Heracleopolis.

23.Or ‘rid of his business.’ The word⁂sep, ‘turn,’ has the different significations of the Latin ‘vices.’

In the later recensions this chapter is lengthened out by other petitions. The deceased asks, among other things, to appear “before thee, O Lord of the gods, to attain the region ofMaāt, may I rise up a living god, let me shine like the divine host which is in heaven, let me be as one of you. Let my steps be lifted up in Cher-ābaut. Let me see the ship[9]of the holy Sahu [Orion], traversing the sky; let me not be prevented from seeing the lords of the Tuat [the Netherworld], smelling the fragrance of the sacrificialofferings made to the divine host, and sitting with them. Let the Cher-heb [the priestly ministrant] make invocation over my coffin. Let me hear the prayers of propitiation. Let the divine ship Neshemet advance for me, let not my soul and its possessor suffer repulse.”

An invocation to Osiris follows.

“Hail to thee, Prince of Amenta, Osiris, lord of Nifura; grant that I may advance in peace towards Amenta, and that the Lords of Tasert may receive me and say to me, ‘Salutation! Salutation! in Peace!’ let them make for me a seat by the Prince of the divine Powers, let the two Chenemta goddesses [Isis and Nephthys] receive me, in presence of Unneferu, the Victorious. Let me be a follower of Horus in Re-stau, and of Osiris in Tattu. Let me assume all forms for the satisfaction of my heart in every place that my Genius [Ka] wisheth.”

The following rubric is found as early as the XIXth dynasty in connection with this chapter, but it seems to have originally been attached to Chapter 72.

“If this discourse is learnt upon earth, or is written upon the coffin, he (the deceased) may come forth upon every day that he pleaseth and again enter his house without impediment. And there shall be given to him bread and beer and flesh meat upon the table of Râ: he shall receive allotment in the Fields of Aarru [the Elysian fields of Egyptian mythology], and there shall be given to him there wheat and barley, for he shall be flourishing as when he was upon earth.”

Chapter 1 is followed in M. Naville’s edition by another, which the learned editor calls 1 B. This chapter is found in so very few copies that the text cannot as yet be restored. The two texts published by M. Naville differ widely from each other. It was known however down to the Roman period, though not inserted into copies of the Book of the Dead.

It is calledChapter of introducing the Mummy into the Tuat on the day of burial. The 124th chapter bears a similar title. The word here translated mummy is probably not to be understood of the visible mummy, but of the living personality which it enclosed. The chapter opens with an invocation, “Hail to thee, who art in the sacred region of Amenta, the Osiris, [the deceased] knows thee and thy name, defend him from those Worms which are in Restau,who live upon the flesh of men and swallow their blood.” The names of the Worms were given, but in consequence of the gaps in the text they cannot now be recovered. The chapter finished with prayers in which the deceased identifies himself with Horus, who has taken possession of the throne which his father has given him; he has taken possession of heaven, and inherited the earth, and neither heaven nor earth shall be taken from him, for he is Râ, the eldest of the gods. His mother suckles him and offers him her breast, which is on the horizon at Dawn.

Back to Index Next