The Egyptian Book of the dead by P. Le Page Renouf and Edouard Naville

its elucidation. No copy of the chapter is known of more ancient date than the eighteenth dynasty, but the oldest papyri contain the three parts of which the chapter consists. That the chapter is of much earlier date than the eighteenth dynasty is quite certain from the nature of the corruptions which had already made their appearance in the earliest copies which have come down to us. But the three parts are not necessarily of the same antiquity. The second part seems to have grown out of the first and to have been suggested by the mention of the “Forty-two” gods and the “negative confession,” as it is called, of certain sins. It is a tabulated form in which the gods are named and a sin is mentioned in connection with each god. The number of sins in this form is therefore forty-two; a higher number than in Part I. The two catalogues agree to a certain extent, but they also disagree, and the second is evidently the result of a different process of thought than that which gave birth to the first. The author of Part I is not the author of Part II, unless perhaps at a different and later period. Nor is there any indication in Part I of the extraordinary examination to which the deceased person is subjected in Part III. This in itself would not be a serious objection, but the matter becomes more complicated if we remember that the picture of the Psychostasia has the right to be considered as a part of the chapter. The texts which are written upon it differ, indeed, according to the taste of the artist, and can therefore claim no canonical authority. But the question as to the order of succession in the trials, or the precise moment at which the deceased person is finally freed from all anxiety as to his fate, cannot be satisfactorily solved on the supposition that all these documents form parts of a consistent whole. It seems much more natural to consider them as really independent compositions brought together in consequence of their subject matter. The artists of the Ramseside period (in the papyri of Hunefer and Ani) add another scene[111] in which the deceased is judged not by the forty-two assessors of Osiris but by a smaller company of gods (twelve or fourteen), sitting on thrones and bearing the names of well known divinities. The essential notion was that of a trial before Osiris, in which the man’s conduct or conscience was weighed in the Balance. This trial is referred to in various chapters of the Book of the Dead and in other texts which prove that, with reference to the details, free scope was allowed to the imagination of the scribes or artists. The number of the Forty-two assessors might be thought connected with that of the Nomes of Egypt. But this number is only certain for the later periods of Egyptian history, and is not true for earlier times. Moreover the localities in which the gods are said to make their appearances do not correspond to the nomes, or places within them. Some of the localities occur more than once, and some of them, if not all, are localities not upon earth. Heaven occurs twice, the eleventh god makes his appearance at Amenta and the forty-second in the Netherworld. But the names which have a more earthly sound may have a mystical meaning. The first god makes his appearance in Annu, so does the seventeenth and so does the twenty-fourth. But does this mean Heliopolis of Egypt? On referring to an important text in Mariette’s _Monuments Divers_, pl. 46, it will be seen that Annu is the Eastern _Solar Mountain_ ⁂⁂⁂, where the sun rises, and where he is saluted by the Powers of the East. There cannot be a more striking illustration of “the Divine Babe who maketh his appearance in Annu” (the twenty-fourth Assessor), than the _picture_ I refer to.[112] And Chemunnu, ⁂⁂⁂⁂, is surely not the Hermopolis of Egypt, but the place _of the Eight gods_ ⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂, four to the Left and four to the Right of the rising sun, who hail his coming and help him to rise; where Shu, according to the MSS. of the 17th Chapter, raises up the Sky, and where “the children of Failure,” (that is, shades of darkness) are exterminated. It is not simply of Hermopolis nor yet of Lake Moeris that one may say ⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂ ‘it is the place of the Eight deities where Rā riseth’ (_Zeitschr._, 1872, p. 8). The same considerations apply to such names as those of Sutenhunen and Tattu. The presence of the divine “Babe,” of the god “of long strides” (Rā), of the god “of Lion form,” of the goddess Bast, of Nefer-tmu, of the “Striker” (_Ahi_, a name of Horus), and of Nehebkau, not to mention others, among the Assessors, would of itself be sufficient to convince us that, in spite of the strange and terrific names of some of these personages, they are not to be looked upon as fiends, like Malacoda, Scarmiglione, and the rest of the demon crew in the Inferno of Dante. They are not evil spirits, but gods, all of them, “subsisting on righteousness;” there is “nothing _wrong_ about them.”[113] They are the gods who accompany Osiris, and, according to Egyptian theology, are his Names, his Limbs, his Body. If the names of some of them appear harsh or cruel, it is because strict Justice is inexorable, and Mercy is a quality never thought of in Egyptian theology. The exact notion of Maāt in Egyptian texts is discussed in another part of the present work. In this chapter I have translated it _Righteousness_, because the question here is about _moral conduct_: and conformity to the strict Rule of Right towards one’s fellow men, one’s own self and the heavenly powers is what is meant by Righteousness. And here it is opposed to moral transgression or sin, not to physical evil, which itself is a very frequent result from the operation of the inexorable Maāt. But in the expression, “Hall of Righteousness,” the word in Egyptian is used in the dual number: hence the erroneous or inadequate translations, “the Two Truths,” or “Double Justice,” and the guesses which have been made as to their meaning. A very important determinative of the Egyptian word is found not only in the papyri but in the very earliest mention yet known of the Hall. The great inscription of the tomb of Peher at El Kab, calls it the ⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂. The repetition of the sign ⁂ indicates a locality in which the Sun-god is _present_, as in the cases of ⁂, ⁂, ⁂⁂ and many others. Space is divided into two parts; one on the Southern and one on the Northern side of the god as he proceeds on his course. And when we have for determinatives two Uræi ⁂⁂, or two ostrich Feathers ⁂⁂, we have to understand two goddesses Maāt, one to the Left and one to the Right side of Osiris. These goddesses are Isis and Nephthys, who play very conspicuous parts in a symbolism discussed in note 2 of the present chapter. It would be well if evidence could be brought with equal facility to bear upon all the difficulties with which the chapter abounds. But though a very lively interest was attracted to it ever since Champollion quoted extracts from it in his Grammar, the difficulties with which he did not attempt to cope have only increased with our knowledge of the language and its scientific treatment. The text is extremely doubtful in many important parts, the forty-two sins are not the same in all the manuscripts, and they are not assigned to the jurisdiction of the same gods. So important a papyrus as that of Sutimes omits some sins of which an Egyptian would certainly be expected to give an account. The same word is made to appear with different meanings in the same passage of the papyri when they are compared together. And there are not a few important words of which the meaning was first only guessed at by the first translators, but has been retained without sufficient warrant by their successors. The present translation is presented under the full consciousness of all its imperfections, and of the difficulties which have yet to be overcome before a version can be called satisfactory. A very admirable contribution towards our acquaintance with the first part of the chapter was made as far back as 1866 by Dr. Pleyte in his _Etudes Egyptologiques_. Since then other versions have appeared by MM. Devéria, Lefébure and Pierret. The Demotic text of the chapter, first published by Brugsch, and now more recently, with a complete translation, by M. Revillout, is in itself most interesting, but written, as it is, in the days of imperial Rome, cannot always be appealed to as to an authoritative exposition of the ancient text.