Registros del pasado, 2.ª serie, Vol. III

RECORDS OF THE PAST

[figure]

BEING ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS

OF THE

ANCIENT MONUMENTS OF EGYPT AND WESTERN ASIA

NEW SERIES

EDITED BY A. H. SAYCE

Hon. LL.D. Dublin; Hon. D.D. Edinburgh

VOL. III

[figure]

Multæ terricolis linguæ, cœlestibus una.

LONDON

SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS, LIMITED

15 PATERNOSTER ROW

[1890]

[Cover]

Click to enlarge
Cover

[Title Page]

Click to enlarge
Title Page

PREFACE

[figure]

p. v

PREFACE

In presenting a new volume of the Records of the Past to the public, I feel it my duty to remind the reader of certain words which I wrote in the Preface to the first volume. I there said that "the writer who wishes to make use of a translation from an Egyptian or Assyrian text for historical or controversial purposes ought to know where it is certain, and where it is only possible, or at most probable." I therefore promised that "in the present series of volumes doubtful words and expressions should be followed by a note of interrogation, the preceding word being put into italics where necessary"; that is to say, that the reader should be forewarned whenever the translator was himself in doubt as to the correctness of his rendering.

So far as lies within the power of an editor, this promise has been fulfilled. But it must be remembered that in many cases a translator may consider that the version he proposes admits of no question, whereas another scholar may take a different view, and hold the version to be incorrect. Such cases occur even in translations from Latin and Greek

p. vi

authors, still more so in the translation of the Old Testament. It is impossible for all men to think alike even in matters of philology. Gradually, no doubt, with the progress of knowledge, approach is made to unanimity of opinion; but after all it is only approach. It is only young scholars who think themselves qualified to set all the world right.

In the decipherment and translation of what may be termed the monumental languages of the past—Egyptian, Assyrian, Phœnician, and the like—much depends upon the nature of the text. Historical texts are fortunately the simplest, and are naturally the first to attract the notice of the decipherer. Consequently the historical texts of Egypt or of Assyria can now be read with almost as much ease and certainty as the historical books of the Hebrew Scriptures. The case is different when we come to deal with texts of a more complicated character, and when we recollect how uncertain is the translation of much of the language in the non-historical books of the Old Testament, we need not wonder that the Egyptian or Assyrian translator should intersperse his renderings of religious and mythological texts with notes and queries, or should improve upon them from time to time as his materials increase. In one respect, however, he possesses an advantage over the Old Testament student; he generally has to deal with texts which are fairly free from the corruptions of copyists. The Assyrian translator, moreover, has

p. vii

at his disposal an enormous mass of literature, much exceeding that contained in the Old Testament, though it is true that but a comparatively small part of it has as yet been examined.

Like all other branches of inductive science, the science of decipherment is one of probabilities. Absolute certainty is unattainable, whether we are translating an inscription of Sennacherib or the book of Genesis. But for all practical purposes a high probability amounts to absolute certainty, and it is this high probability that the decipherment of the ancient monuments of Egypt and Assyria or Babylonia has now attained. Scholars may dispute about the exact meaning of certain words or phrases, as they do in the case of the Hebrew Bible, but it is seldom that anything of importance turns upon the dispute, at all events so far as regards the historical inscriptions. And in the present series of volumes due notice is given to the reader of the occurrence of such disputed words and phrases.

When once we have settled the philological signification of a historical text there begins the equally important work of critically examining it. We have first to ask whether it is contemporaneous with the event or events which it professes to record, and if not, whether its authorities or its interpretation of its authorities are trustworthy.

This is more especially the case as regards chronology—the skeleton and framework of history. I do not think, therefore, that it will be out of place

p. viii

even in a preface, to examine some of the data we possess at present for determining the chronology of Babylonia and Assyria. Translations of the documents upon which it rests have been given in the two previous volumes of this series.

Nothing can be more satisfactory than the chronology of Assyria so far as it extends. The Assyrians were a people of business, and they carried their business habits into their mode of reckoning time. Each year was distinguished by the name of a particular officer, the limmu or "eponym," after whom it was called, and as the names of the eponyms were recorded on the accession of each to office and registers of them were kept, there was no difficulty in determining the exact year in which an event occurred or anew king ascended the throne. 1

In Babylonia, however, the custom of counting the years by eponyms does not seem to have existed, at all events in early times. From the era of Nabonassar (B.C. 747) downwards Babylonian chronology was fixed by means of astronomy; before that period it appears to have been determined by the reigns of the kings and the duration of dynasties. In legal documents of the time of Khammuragas (or Khammurabi) deeds are not even dated by the regnal years of the sovereign, but by such occurrences as a war, the construction of a canal, or the capture of a

p. ix

city. Under such circumstances it is plain that the historian who endeavoured to restore the early chronology of Babylonia had an extremely difficult task before him.

Our materials for reconstructing the chronology of Babylonia are given at the beginning of the present series of Records of the Past. I have already noted the suspicious character of the ciphers attached to the first dynasty of Babylon, in what may be termed the dynastic tablet, and the discrepancy in two of our documents between the length of reign assigned to the kings of the dynasties of the Sea and of Bit-Bazi. Other facts go to show that the tablet of dynasties was drawn up by a compiler who lived at a comparatively late date and extracted a system of chronology from older materials. Contemporaneous documents lately discovered at Niffer prove that the true name of Ebisum, who is made the eighth king of the first dynasty, was really Abesukh. A seal in the possession of Mr. R. P. Greg, belonged to a librarian who calls himself "the servant of the king Abé-sukh" or "Abi-esukh," and contract-tablets make it clear that the name is really compounded with the word abi, "father," and has nothing to do with ebisum, "an actor." It is questionable, moreover, whether Khammu-ragas or Khammu-rabi—the exact reading of the last syllable is still doubtful—was the son of Sin-muballidh, as is stated by the author of the Dynastic List. At all events the name he gives to his father in one of his inscriptions seems to have

p. x

been different, 1 and the compiler of the document which contains Assyrian translations of the names of early Babylonian kings evidently regarded him as of foreign origin. In this document, accordingly, he is classed, like Ammi-sadugga, 2 with Kur-galzu, Simmas-sipak, and other Kassite princes.

From a strictly philological point of view the classification is incorrect. The Kassite language was non-Semitic, whereas the names of Ammi-sadugga and Khammu-rabi are Semitic, though not Assyro-Babylonian. Along with those of Samsu-satana, and probably also Samsu-iluna and Abi-esukh, they belong to the Semitic dialects spoken by tribes of Arabian descent on the western and eastern frontiers of Babylonia. It is only geographically, therefore, and not philologically, that the names of Khammurabi and Ammi-sadugga can be grouped with those of the Kassite kings.

The Babylonians had some difficulty in pronouncing and writing the second element in the name of Ammi-sadugga, and in contemporaneous inscriptions it appears under various forms, the most correct of which is zaduga. 3 It represents, in fact, the Hebrew tsadoq, and belongs to a root which is not found in Assyrian. We now have evidence, however, that it was known at an early date to the Minæan language, which extended from the southern

p. xi

coast of Arabia to the borders of Palestine and Chaldæa. Among the inscriptions discovered by M. Halévy in the south of Arabia is one in which mention is made of ’Ammi-tsadiqa, who was appointed by the Minæan king, Abi-yada’, governor of the fortress of Zar on the Egyptian frontier, as well as of the neighbouring district of Ashur (see Gen. xxv. 3). Prof. Hommel, to whom the discovery of these facts is due, points out that the inscription must belong to a very early epoch indeed, probably to that of the Hyksos in Egypt. However this may be, the name ’Ammi-tsadiqa is identical with that of the Babylonian king Ammi-zadugga. 1 The author of the explanatory list of Babylonian royal names renders both ammi and khammu by the Assyrian kimtu, "family." It is more probable that in both instances it is really the name of a god. Ben-Ammi was the "father of the children of Ammon," according to Gen. xix. 38, and the Old Testament presents us with names like Ammiel, Amminadab, Balaam, and Jeroboam, while Assur-bani-pal tells us of Ammu-ladin, king of the Kedarites. The more correct rendering of Numb. xxii. 5 would be "Pethor, which is by the river (Euphrates) of the land of the children of ’Ammo," and it is stated in a cuneiform text (W. A. I., ii. 54. 65) that Emu—the exact equivalent of the Hebrew ’ammo—was the name given to the god Nergal by the Shuhites on the western banks of

p. xii

the Euphrates. The fact that in Khammu-rabi the initial ayin of ’ammo is represented by kh, pointing to a pronunciation with ghain, is indicative of dialectal differences, and implies that the dialects to which the names of Khammu-rabi and Ammi-zadugga belonged were not the same.

We may conclude, therefore, that "the first dynasty of Babylon" had been formed out of the reigns of kings who did not belong to the same nationality, much less to the same family, and that consequently the relationship assumed by the compiler of the dynastic tablet to have existed between them was imaginary. The first four or five kings of the dynasty were probably local rulers of Babylon; Khammu-rabi, as we know, conquered the other states of Babylonia and made it a united kingdom, with Babylon as its centre; it is with him, therefore, that the first dynasty of Babylon ought properly to commence. The earlier kings of the dynasty owe their inclusion in it to local vanity. It is possible, however, that they claimed precedence over the other Semitic princes of Babylonia, since we know that the power of one of them, Zabu, extended as far as Sippara, and he may accordingly have claimed to have been the representative of the ancient Semitic empire of Sargon which had its seat in the close neighbourhood of Sippara.

The relation of the Babylonian dynasties given by the native compiler to those which have been excerpted by George the Synkellos from the Chaldean

p. xiii

history of Berossos cannot be determined at present. It is difficult to find any agreement between them before the time of Nabonassar. On the other hand, the statements of Berossos have been verified by the monuments in several important particulars. His account of the deluge was taken from native documents, and his history and chronology of the period which begins with the era of Nabonassar show a close acquaintance with the actual facts. It is of course possible that the numbers, whether of reigns or of years, given by the Synkellos, are corrupt and erroneous. But even so, the scheme of dynasties proposed by Berossos does not agree with the scheme found on the cuneiform tablets. It is clear that more than one system of chronology and dynastic arrangement must have been current in Babylonia.

In one point, however, I think I can show that Berossos had good authority at his back. This is the statement that, almost at the beginning of assured Babylonian history, Babylon was captured by "Medes," who ruled the country for eight generations. Now the inscriptions of Nabonidos and Kyros have proved that the subjects of Istuvegu or Astyages, who were called Medes" by the Greeks, were called "Manda" by the Babylonians. The Greeks in fact confounded the two words Madâ, "Medes," and Manda, led thereto by the fact that both Madâ and Manda alike came from the mountains on the northeast of Babylonia. Manda, however, was not a

p. xiv

proper name in the same sense as Madâ. It is usually preceded by tsab, "soldier," and though not Assyrian, I believe it to have had its origin among the Semitic tribes on the eastern side of Chaldæa, and to be related to the Hebrew nûd, "to wander." Tsab manda will therefore be the equivalent of the Biblical erets nôd or "nomad-land" (Gen. iv. 16). The title is applied by Esarhaddon to Teuspa the Kimmerian, the Gimirrâ or Kimmerians, the Gomer of the Old Testament, being further distinguished from the Madâ or "Medes."

The title, however, was much older than the age of Esarhaddon. It occurs several times in the astrological tablets. The most important example of its use is in W. A. L, iii. 61. 21, 22, where we read: "The tsab manda comes and governs the land. The altars of the great gods are taken away. Bel goes to the land of Elam. It is prophesied that after thirty years the smitten shall be restored (and that) the great gods shall return with them." The same catastrophe is referred to in another passage of the great work on astrology (W. A. I., iii. 64. 7, 8). "The tsab manda invades the land and rules over the country." The prophecy is interesting on account of its analogy to the prophecy of the restoration of the Jews after seventy years of exile (Jer. xxv. 11). But what is equally interesting is that while Bel, the national god of Babylon, flies for refuge to Elam, his country is handed over to the rule of the Manda and its altars

p. xv

are broken down. I cannot but think that in these Manda we ought to see the "Medes" of Berossos who captured Babylon and founded there the first historical dynasty. They will represent Khammu-rabi, Ammi-sadugga, and the other kings whose names betray their origin among the nomad Semites on the frontiers of Chaldæa. Berossos was right rather than the compiler of the dynastic tablet in making Khammu-rabi the founder of the dynasty under which Babylon became for the first time the capital of a united Babylonia.

If the Synkellos can be trusted Berossos reckoned eight kings to his Median dynasty. The compiler gives Khammu-rabi only five successors. But it is questionable whether he has collected the names of all the kings who followed him. At all events I possess a contract-tablet from Niffer, which belongs to the age of Khammu-rabi and Ammi-sadugga, but is dated in the reign of a king whose name does not occur in the compiler's list. It reads Am(?)-mu-’SI-DI-DU-an, perhaps Ammu-e’sir-yukan. It is possible, moreover, that classical mythology has preserved the name of another prince of the same period. In Ovid's Metamorphoses, iv. 212, mention is made of the Babylonian monarch Orchamus, of whom it is said that he was seventh in descent from Belus. Orchamus is not an Assyro-Babylonian name. It actually occurs, however, under the form of Yar-khamu on contract-tablets which are dated in the

p. xvi

reign of Samsu-iluna. 1 Whether it is to be compared with the Biblical name of Jerahmeel (1 Chr. ii. 25), or whether it is a mimmated form of the Minæan name of the Moon-god, I do not know; but its origin must be referred to the dialects of the Arabian tribes on the borders of Babylonia, and not to the Assyrian language itself. In any case the name is found on documents of the time of Khammu-rabi, and consequently it is by no means impossible that the myth repeated by Ovid may have incorporated the name of a real king.

We must not forget that the passage I have quoted from the astrological tablet associates the invasion of Babylonia by the Manda with the departure of the god Bel to Elam. Now about B.C. 2285, or just before the date assigned by the compiler of the dynastic tablet to the accession of Khammu-rabi, the goddess Nana of Erech was carried to Elam by the Elamite king Kudur-nankhundi (see Records of the Past, New Series, i. p. 10). A mutilated text (W. A. I., iii. 38, No. 2) couples Kudur-nankhundi with the otherwise unknown Babylonian kings [Bel?]-sum-iddina and Bel-nadin-akhi, but it is probably a later Kudur-nankhundi to whom reference is here made. What is certain is that, as the contemporaneous contract-tablets

p. xvii

inform us, Khammu-rabi made himself master of Babylonia by the overthrow of Rim-Sin of southern Chaldæa and his ally "the king of Elam." It was this event which made Babylonia a homogeneous kingdom, and so constituted an era of high importance in the annals of the country.

A. H. SAYCE.

Queen's College, Oxford,
September 1890.

Footnotes

viii:1 The etymology of the word limmu is doubtful. In the bilingual (Assyrian and Aramaic) tablets it is written ‏לם‎ and ‏לאם‎ in the Aramaic text. In the Kappadokian cuneiform tablets the "limmu" is frequently named.

x:1 Ummu-banit, though Hommel would read Sin-mubanit.

x:2 My reading Ammi-didugga (Records of the Past, New Ser., i. p. 32) must be thus corrected, as well as the translation of the Assyrian interpretation in which kittu means "justice" and not "established."

x:3 In a contract-tablet from Niffer we even find Ammi-ziduga.

xi:1 In other Minæan inscriptions occur the names of ’Ammi-tsaduq and his son ’Ammi-karib, as well as of the king Waqah-il-tsaduq.

xvi:1 See Strassmaier: Die altbabylonischen Verträge aus Warka in the Verhandlungen des fünften internationalen Orientalisten-Congresses (1882), ii. x, pp. 95, 98, 100. Among the interesting proper names met with in the tablets published by Dr. Strassmaier I may notice that of Sabâ, "the Sabæan," as well as some which exhibit traces of nunnation; e.g. Inun-Ea, "the eye of Ea," Ilun-ka-Rammanu, "thy god is Rimmon."

TABLE OF

[figure]

p. xviii p. xix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

I.

The Precepts of Ptah-Hotep: The Oldest Book in the World. By M. Philippe Virey

1

II.

The Daughter of the Prince of Bakhtan, and the Spirit that Possessed her. By Professor G. Maspero, Member of the Institute

36

III.

Hymn to the Nile. By M. Paul Guieysse

46

IV.

Letters to Egypt from Babylonia, Assyria, and Syria, in the Fifteenth Century B.C. By the Editor

55

V.

Ancient Babylonian Agricultural Precepts. By Mr. G. Bertin

91

VI.

The India House Inscription of Nebuchadrezzar The Great. By the Rev. C. J. Ball

102

VII.

Contract-Tablets Relating to Belshazzar. By the Editor

124

EQUIVALENTS OF THE HEBREW LETTERS IN THE TRANSLITERATION OF ASSYRIAN NAMES MENTIONED IN THESE VOLUMES.

[figure]

p. xx p. xxi

EQUIVALENTS OF THE HEBREW LETTERS IN THE TRANSLITERATION OF ASSYRIAN NAMES MENTIONED IN THESE VOLUMES.

‏א‎

a, ’

‏ל‎

l

‏ב‎

b

‏מ‎

m

‏ג‎

g

‏נ‎

n

‏ד‎

d

‏ס‎

’s, s

‏ה‎

h

‏ע‎

e

‏ו‎

u, v

‏פ‎

p

‏ז‎

z

‏צ‎

ts

‏ח‎

kh

‏ק‎

q

‏ת‎

dh

‏ר‎

r

‏י‎

i, y

‏ש‎

s, sh

‏כ‎

k

‏ט‎

t

N.B.—Those Assyriologists who transcribe ‏ש‎ by sh use s for ‏ס‎. The Assyrian e represents a diphthong as well as ‏ע‎.

________

In the Introductions and Notes W. A. I. denotes The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, in five volumes, published by the Trustees of the British Museum. Doubtful words and expressions are followed by a note of interrogation, the preceding words being put into italics where necessary. Lacunæ are denoted by asterisks or by the insertion of supplied words between square brackets. Words needed to complete the sense in English, but not expressed in the original, are placed between round brackets. The names of individuals are distinguished from those of deities or localities by being printed in Roman type, the names of deities and localities being in capitals.

THE ASSYRIAN CALENDAR

[figure]

p. xxii

THE ASSYRIAN CALENDAR

CORRESPONDING MONTHS

1.

Ni’sannu (Nisan)

March—April.

2.

Aaru (Iyyar)

April—May.

3.

’Sivanu (Sivan)

May—June.

4.

Dûzu (Tammuz)

June—July.

5.

Abu (Ab)

July—August.

6.

Ululu (Elul)

August—September.

7.

Tasritu (Tisri)

September—October.

8.

Arakh-savna (Marchesvan)
"the 8th month"

October—November.

9.

Ki’silivu (Chisleu)

November—December.

10.

Dhabitu (Tebet)

December—January.

11.

Sabadhu (Sebat)

January—February.

12.

Addaru (Adar)

February—March.

13.

Arakh-maqru (Ve-Adar), the intercalary month.

p. xxiii

EGYPTIAN CALENDAR

Months.

Sacred
Year begins

Alexandrine 1
Year begins

Thoth

July 20

August 29

Paophi

August 19

September 28

Athyr

September 18

October 28

Khoiak

October 18

November 27

Tybi

November 17

December 27

Mekhir

December 17

January 26

Phamenoth

January 16

February 25

Pharmuthi

February 15

March 27

Pakhons

March 17

April 26

Payni

April 16

May 26

Epeiphi

May 16

June 25

Mesorê

June 15

July 25

The Epagomenæ

August 24–28

Footnotes

xxiii:1 The Alexandrine year began B.C. 25.

THE PRECEPTS OF PTAH-HOTEP

[figure]

p. 1

THE PRECEPTS OF PTAH-HOTEP

Translated by Philippe Virey

The most ancient book in the world, the Papyrus Prisse, now preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, has furnished us with the text of a treatise, famous on account of its antiquity, of the glimpse that it gives us into the moral ideas of ancient Egyptian society, and of the difficulties it offers to the translator. I have studied it perseveringly since 1881, and have made it the subject of a philological essay, which I presented to the École des Hautes-Études in 1884–85 and published in 1887. 1 In this I gave the history of the manuscript, an account of the labours of my predecessors, a transcription of the hieratic text in hieroglyphic characters, and a translation accompanied by numerous critical observations and an index of the words employed in the Papyrus; but I did not intend to offer in it more than a purely philological study. In spite of its dry simplicity, however, the essay met with acceptance, and in the following year

p. 2

[paragraph continues] Mr. Howard Osgood did me the honour to publish an English translation of it in the Bibliotheca Sacra (Oct. 1888), along with a good commentary and an interesting comparison of the work with the Precepts of Ani. In my turn I now undertake to present my work under another form; not that the translation can be very new, since after so short a lapse of time I could not greatly improve a work on which I have bestowed all my thought and care 1; but what can be remodelled is the commentary. The philological part of my previous publication can be reduced without inconvenience, as the reader who wishes to study this side of the subject can refer to my essay; on the other hand, the philosophical and historical portion of the commentary will be considerably increased. I shall utilise for this purpose some of the texts which I copied at Thebes in 1886 in the tomb of Rekhmara, who exercised at a later period the same functions as Ptah-hotep.

Both were feudal lords of the Egyptian empire, nomarchs or prefects, and were specially honoured with the royal favour. Rekhmara 2 is called hesi n nuter nofer, 3 "favourite of the good god" (Thothmes III); Ptah-hotep, who dates his treatise in the reign of Assa of the Fifth Dynasty, boasts at the end of it

p. 3

that he had enjoyed above all others the favour of the king, and in a text published by Lepsius (Denkmäler, ii. 115) we read: Assa hesi Ptah-hotep, "the favourite of Assa, Ptah-hotep."

In the preface of Ptah-hotep's treatise he even seems to declare that he was of royal descent, for he calls himself "the royal son, first-born, legitimate" (ch. v. ll. 6, 7); but I have elsewhere noticed that this title must not be interpreted too literally. We may ask why the elder and legitimate son of the king never reigned if he lived, and Ptah-hotep did not die young, since he was already 110 years old 1 when he published his work. We must attribute an extraordinary longevity to Assa if we hold that Ptah-hotep was his son and died before him.

But Prof. Maspero has already shown that we must not give too literal an interpretation to the titles "royal mother," "royal wife," "royal daughter," and that it was possible to be "royal wife" by right of birth before being married. Such titles served only to determine the rank occupied by a princess at court in questions of etiquette and precedence.

If the appellation "royal wife" were only an honorary title, we may infer that "royal son" also might be the same and signify nothing more than "prince." In this case, "the eldest legitimate son of the king" would be equivalent to "prince of the blood royal." That such a title can be given to a person not belonging to the royal family is not unexampled

p. 4

even in our own days in the West; all the more could it be given in the East, where the most pompous titles are so easily accumulated. At the court of Egypt, where everything was referred to the king, the source of all honour, it is possible that a claim to nobility consisted in attaching oneself, at all events nominally, to his family, or even in making oneself part of it. The relations of the king enjoyed the highest titles, but even the "royal nurses" gloried in "the suckling which had mingled their blood with Horus." 1

If Rekhmara does not, like Ptah-hotep, bear the title of royal prince, he was perhaps of even higher rank, since he is called "the double of the Pharaoh," animated by his spirit, taking his place in his absence, governing all Egypt like him, addressed by the same titles, 2 and saluted like him by the courtiers. We must not be astonished therefore at the royal title given to Ptah-hotep; the prefect of the capital was next to the king the first person in the kingdom.

Although an interval of many centuries separated the two prefects, it is probable that both governed according to the same rules, and that little change had taken place in the social state and ideas of the Egyptian people. Rekhmara, after exercising the

p. 5

viceroyalty in the absence of Thothmes III, insists before all else on the conservative character of his government. 1 The temples, the laws, the principles on which society rested, all remained unshaken; the children of the nobility succeeded their fathers regularly; everything, in short, continued as if the king remained perpetually in his capital, and the same hand had governed Egypt since the mythical age of Horus. All its kings and their ministers were only the images and substitutes of the god who had been the first to reign over the country; the principles of government, like the principles of morality, were of divine origin; nothing could be changed. Ptah-hotep had asserted this of the past and predicted it of the future; innovators had no place in Egypt, and their ephemeral success had always been followed by reaction. "Let none make innovations," he had said, "in the precepts of his father; let the same precepts form his instruction to his children." 2 Doubtless innovators sometimes made themselves heard by the uninstructed multitude and influenced the public for a moment, but their triumph was momentary. Nothing, then, must be taken away or added, nothing changed in established principles, and whoever found contrary ideas growing up in himself must be careful to root them out. 3 Thus, in order to discover the earliest trace of the struggle between established custom and new ideas, between the conservative and the radical,

p. 6

it is necessary to go back to the oldest book in the world.

Thanks to this horror of change in the government and society of ancient Egypt, the documents which relate to the occupations of the prefect Rekhmara doubtless give us sufficient information in regard to the occupations of the prefect Ptah-hotep. Interesting resemblances, moreover, between certain chapters of the Papyrus Prisse and the texts of the Tomb of Rekhmara authorise us in making this comparison. These texts depict to us the divan of the Pasha or Prefect of Thebes: "He sits in the divan, in order to hear the petitions … to give peace to the whole country, dispensing justice without paying attention to bribes, applications, (or) offerings, and he who has petitioned him has not wept." 1 … From early dawn he has been up to listen all day to the petitions of the provinces of the South and the provinces of the North. He has not repelled small or great; the evil done to the poor, the aged, or the afflicted is requited by Horus to its author. 2 ... There is no inattention in him to the matters about which he has been petitioned; he estimates the poor equally with the rich, appearing as peace-maker." 3

Ptah-hotep also tells us how the prefect ought to apply himself to fill the office of "leader of peace," with what care he ought to hear the explanations offered by the parties to a suit, with what patience lie

p. 7

should try to unravel the truth from obscure statements and . useless details: "When thou art a leader of peace, listen well to the words of the petitioner. Be not abrupt with him; that would trouble him. Do not say to him: Thou hast [already] said this. Indulgence will encourage him to do that for the sake of which he is come. As for being abrupt with the plaintiff because he describes what happened when the injury was done instead of complaining of the injury itself, let it not be! The way to obtain a clear explanation is to listen with kindness." 1

With the object of maintaining peace among their subordinates by means of justice, one of the chief cares of the prefects was to provide subsistence for the people and to preserve them from want. Every centre of population accordingly possessed a larit or assemblage of magazines, where corn, wine, and all sorts of provisions were stored and thoroughly well guarded. No place, in fact, could have been more secure, and we shall see how strictly all access to it was forbidden to the stranger.

The word larit appears to mean a well-guarded enclosure 2; among the duties which Ptah-hotep insists upon in his Precepts, one of those to which he attaches most importance is that of vigilantly guarding

p. 8

the larit: "If," he says, "thou art employed at the larit, stand or sit rather than walk about. Determine from the first not to absent thyself even when weariness overtakes thee. Keep an eye on him who enters, declaring that the object of his request is secret; what is consigned to thee is above appreciation, and all contrary argument is to be rejected. He is a god who penetrates into a place where no relaxation (of the rules) is made for the privileged." 1

Am-n-teh, overseer and director of the larit, tells us that there was no repose for him, and that he never closed his eyes during the night. 2

The presentation of the seal of the prefect alone could open the door. 3 Thus Rekhmara caused the storehouses to be constantly inspected by officials to whom he deputed his powers. 4 Well guarded as they were, he was constantly on the watch to assure himself that nothing was wanting to their safety. But only himself or his deputy could enter them; for all others the doors were carefully closed, and it was he who consigned the care of them to the guards. 5 The officials were empowered to strike even a delegate of the government who had not presented the seal and produced his authorisation to enter. 6

But the prefect did not confine himself to the superintendence of the storehouses; he also saw that they were filled, since on his supervision depended for his subordinates abundance or death. When Egypt

p. 9

had become a conquering, maritime, and commercial power, foreign countries further contributed to the support of the larit; the tombs of Rekhmara and Am-n-teh show us the wines of Syria, the essences and woods of Comal imported from afar and passing through the bazaars of Coptos. But it was still the taxes which furnished corn, the most necessary of provisions, and it is probable that under Ptah-hotep Egypt was engaged solely in filling with it its magazines. The tomb of Rekhmara depicts for us the labourers presenting the agents of the prefect with their crop of wheat, in order that the government might receive its share. They empty their baskets and form a heap, from which the delegate of the treasury measures out the amount due to the State. 1 The tax must have been somewhat heavy. The Bible tells us that Joseph took from the agricultural population the fifth part of their grain to store the larits in view of a famine (Gen. xlvii. 24). In any case the taxpayers who came so humbly before Rekhmara, with their faces to the ground, must in reality have been less submissive than they appeared to be through fear of the stick. Even Ptah-hotep mistrusted the tendency to revolt which might lie hid under such forced humility, and it was not enough for him that the taxpayer should put on a submissive air when paying his tax, it was necessary that his manner should be gay. "Let thy countenance be cheerful," he says, "during the time of thy

p. 10

existence. When we see one leaving the storehouse who has entered in order to bring his moiety of provisions, with the countenance contracted, it shows that his stomach is empty and that authority is offensive to him. Let not this be thy case." 1 He is continually recalling the services rendered by the Government and declaring that it is not sufficient to serve it; it is necessary to love it and cause it to be loved. 2 If there are superiors and inferiors, it is because God has so willed it; 3 all authority, all governors, are entitled to respect; when things are prosperous, the absence of submission to authority may endanger them. 4 The inferior ought to obey blindly and execute all commands without discussing them; 5 however he may act in obeying a superior, his conscience is clear before God; 6 the superior alone is responsible.

In return for the submission which it exacts, the Government takes care of the wants of the people; it supports and enables them to live. In the tomb of Rekhmara we see the workmen of foreign race presenting themselves before the storehouses with sacks to be filled with grain; 7 jars of oil, wine, etc., are also distributed among them. In a similar

p. 11

fashion the sons of Jacob came to fill their sacks in the storehouses organised by Joseph. But Ptah-hotep reminds the great of the earth that their duty is not only to protect in this way those whom God has confided to their authority. He who is placed in front, at the head of a large number of men, must be without reproach, and in spite of his power never forget that there are laws. The forgetfulness of this principle is the cause of revolutions; when the great neglect their duty, why should not the small take their place? 1 It is not of the counsels of the flatterers of to-day that it is needful to take heed; it is of the judgment of posterity, which renders justice to righteous actions. 2 To appear before it with honour, it is necessary to reverence knowledge and wisdom; to observe in everything a just moderation; 3 not to abuse one's powers; and to seek to inspire love rather than fear. For God forbids us to terrify the feeble; 4 on the contrary, we are as gods to the inferiors, whose confidence we have known how to gain. 5 The great man should remember that he is only the dispenser of the gifts of God, and if, being of low origin, He has attained to high honour, he must not, as is too often the case, be puffed up by his good fortune, but should consider the new duties which his rank imposes on him. 6 His position makes of

p. 12

him a steward of God, but a responsible steward. For if the inferior has no responsibility in obeying, the superior has in commanding and cannot avoid it. God has imposed different duties according to different stations in life. Thus the inferior who carries the message of a superior to a superior must transmit it faithfully and exactly, even if he thinks that the communication will not be well received. 1 On his side, the superior who sits in the council must declare candidly what he believes best, even in presence of the president, however exalted he may be, and not twist his words so as not to compromise himself. 2 He must only see that he does not deceive himself, since to deliberate in the council is not a pastime, 3 and he must for that end work hard and devote himself to his task. 4 Responsibility and continuous labour is the lot of him who watches over the public weal. In return it is right that he should obtain some compensations. His life is not subject to the discretion of any one; within the limits of his conscience he is the master of his own actions; but it is the reward of his labours; moreover, if the conditions of life differ in this world, it is because God has so willed it. 5

There are of course duties common to all men, at least to all who can read Ptah-hotep, for his book is addressed to the educated classes. 6 Thus the great must abstain from plundering as the small from

p. 13

thieving; 1 each must love his household and his wife, 2 making her happy; 3 must treat his people well, being recompensed in return by their good will; 4 must avoid licentiousness; 5 must listen without anger to a just observation and feel no resentment towards him who has made it; 6 must shun bad temper and walk in loyalty and frankness; 7 must exercise his power of criticism in judging himself rather than others; 8 must speak pleasantly, and refer to that which is bad by showing that it is bad, but without passion; 9 must argue with courtesy, answering with kindness him who deceives himself, and not be rude to him should he display ignorance. 10

But among all other duties there is one on which the book insists specially; every one should labour to make his son a true gentleman, and not allow the authority given him by God to be weakened. 11 The father ought to command, the son to obey, in order that he may be worthy of governing one day in his turn the children which may be born to him. 12 "Good when he obeys and good when he commands, whoever has obeyed has profited, and it is profitable to obey him who has obeyed. The son who accepts the word of his father will attain old age on that account. God wishes us to obey; disobedience is abhorrent

p. 14

to Him." 1 Accordingly the father must display no weakness; a son without principles will bring grief to his parents; 2 on the other hand, when the son is obedient to his father, it is a double joy for both. 3

It is not astonishing that Ptah-hotep paid so much attention to paternal authority; the family is the foundation of society, and the school of obedience is the family. Docile children will not be turbulent subjects to the prefect.

The whole system of morality is practical. "Moreover," says Professor Maspero, "we must not expect to find in this work deep profundity of conception.… Ptah-hotep does not trouble himself to invent or to draw conclusions." 4 This pleases God; that displeases Him; such is the ordinary argument, at least when the author does not offer, as the sanction of his morality, the hope of a good place for the laborious and docile student, 5 the hope of a long life for the obedient son, 6 and the hope of being faithfully served by his domestics for the good master. 7

The artlessness which we find in these counsels should not make us inattentive to the spirit of refinement which also appears in the writings of Ptah-hotep. He is not the author of the precepts which he gives; his practical philosophy has been bequeathed to him by his ancestors, 8 but he has put the

p. 15