Read Ebook: The Egyptian Book of the dead by Naville Edouard Translator Renouf P Le Page Peter Le Page Translator

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 2224 lines and 161745 words, and 45 pages

Authors: P. Le Page Renouf E. Naville

Transcriber's Note

Most importantly, the notes for each chapter contain hieroglyphic images, which cannot be represented here. Each is denoted by '?'.

Footnotes have been moved to follow the paragraphs in which they are referenced.

Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please see the transcriber's note at the end of this text for details regarding the handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation.

THE EGYPTIAN BOOK OF THE DEAD. TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY,

BY THE LATE SIR P. LE PAGE RENOUF, KNT.

PRIVATELY PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 37, GREAT RUSSELL STREET, BLOOMSBURY, LONDON, 1904.

LONDON: HARRISON AND SONS, PRINTERS IN ORDINARY TO HIS MAJESTY, ST. MARTIN'S LANE.

LADY RENOUF

THIS WORK IS DEDICATED

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPRESSED WISH OF

HER LATE HUSBAND

SIR PETER LE PAGE RENOUF.

INDEX TO THE CHAPTERS AND REFERENCES TO THE VIGNETTES.

CHAPTERS. | VIGNETTES.

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, 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.

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.

However, it is from a text generally considered as Sa?tic, but which I believe to be of the Ptolema?c 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."

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 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 extremely corrupt. The unsatisfactory condition of the text is owing to different causes. The reasons which writers on Hebrew, Greek or Latin palaeography 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 Roug? 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."

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 have no 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.

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.

EDOUARD NAVILLE.

Footnote 1:

Footnote 2:

The Hibbert Lectures, 1879, p. 172.

Footnote 3:

Footnote 4:

BOOK OF THE DEAD.

O 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 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 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 House of the Prince, which is in Heliopolis.

I am 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 Rechit, and who effect the triumph of Osiris over his adversaries.

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

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet