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 extremely corrupt. 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’s _Todtenbuch_; 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 Turin _Todtenbuch_ unless 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 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.

##