Anthes_Meaning of Maa Xrw_JNES 13 (1954)

8/13/2019 Anthes_Meaning of Maa Xrw_JNES 13 (1954)

1/32

The Original Meaning of M rwAuthor(s): Rudolf AnthesSource: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Jan., 1954), pp. 21-51Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/543004.

Accessed: 30/10/2013 13:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toJournal

of Near Eastern Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 134.58.253.30 on Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:07:59 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/543004?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/543004?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/32

THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF M3c HIRWRUDOLF ANTHES

I. QUESTION AND PROPOSALHE expression m3c irw occurs as averb to be justified, a noun justi-fication, and an adjective justi-fied. The latter is one of the most com-mon words in Egyptian, since it is addedto the name of every deceased personfromthe Middle Kingdom on. It has been dis-cussed at length by Maspero.1He quotesthe earlier explanations, the translationsof the adjective being justifi6 (Cham-

pollion), v6ridique, persuasif (D6v6ria),and vrai de parole (Gr6baut). Masperoin opposition to them stresses that 6rw isnot parole, discours, but voix ; mDc6rw would be l'homme qui a la voixjuste with the magical meaning ofvoice which would also be found in pr6rw.2 Griffith3 has rejected Maspero'stranslation in favor of, as he says, theold rendering 'triumphant,' 'justified'-the words m3c rwliterally expressing thatthe person named is proved 'true of state-ment,' 'true of claim.' He continues: Itis quite possible that in this ancient for-mula 6rw should have had a special mean-ing not found elsewhere. * As for themodern standard works of Egyptian phi-lology, WB, II, 15-18, translates theverbal expression m3c brw die Stimmejmds. ist richtig, seine Aussage ist richtigbefunden (vor Gericht)5 = er ist gerecht-

fertigt, er triumphiert, but the nouns andthe adjective are translated Rechtferti-gung, Triumph and gerechtfertigt, Ge-rechtfertigter -the editors have avoidedliteral translation of these nominal formsand assumed a secondary fixed meaningwhich latter in general seems indisputablyright. On the other hand, Gardiner,Egyp-tian Grammar2,? 55, literally translatesand explains the adjective as follows.M3c-hrw 'true of voice,'6an epithet addedto the names of dead persons and henceoften practically equivalent to our 'de-ceased.' Originally applied to Osiris withreference to the occasion when his regalrights, being disputed by Seth, were vindi-cated before the tribunal in Heliopolis.The same epithet is also used in connec-tion with Horus as the 'triumphant'avenger of the wrongs done to Osiris.This explanation avoids a clear decision inregard to the exact meaning of voice.Two basic questions have to be raised.First, are we sure that the use of m3c irwin connection with Osiris indicates itsorigin? Breasted's answer to this questionseems to express the view which is ac-cepted in general-m3 hrw is the verdictrendered in favor of Osiris, 7 and, likeOsiris, the dead king receives the predi-cate 'righteous of voice.' I This view willbe discussed below.9Further, Breasted as-sumes that m3c rw must have been a1 Etudes de mythologie et d'archeologie, I (Paris,1893), 93-114, Sur l'expression ma-khrou.2 WB, I, 528, auf den Ruf hervorkommen; Toten-

opfer.3 PSBA, XVIII (1896), 200 f.4 Reference to some more discussions of mIC irwis given by Drioton and Vandier, L'Egypte (Ist ed.),p. 126. The studies of Stern (1877) and Bleeker (1929)which are mentioned in n. 18 include also rather ex-

haustive discussions of m3 C~rw.

SErman, Religion3, p. 224, expresses his opinionin the following words: dass die Gotter sein (desOsiris) Wort wahr machten, d.h. ihn unschuldig be-fanden, ihn rechtfertigten.6 Cf. Breasted, Development of Religion and Thoughtin Ancient Egypt, p. 35, true, right, just, or righteousof voice.Ibid., p. 35.

s Ibid., p. 147. 9 Sec. III and Postscript.21

This content downloaded from 134.58.253.30 on Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:07:59 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/32

22 JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIESlegal term already in use when this episode(scil. the verdict concerning Osiris) tookform. '1 This conclusion will also be re-ferred to later. The way in which we inter-pret it has undergone, however, somechange in the forty years that haveelapsed since its appearance. Now it hasbeen seen that the Egyptian mythologywas the product of the early Old King-dom; Breasted's assumption would meantherefore that m3cIjrwwas a legal term inthis period and not in the predynastic pe-riod, when, according to the myth, thecontest of Osiris and Seth took place. Thesecond basic question must be answeredfirst, however: What could possibly be themeaning of the voice is true or, as weshould prefer to translate, the voice isright in accordance with Maat ? OnlyMaspero has answered this question clear-ly and without compromise when he ex-plained it by the magic value of the voice.But even if we think of the meaning of&rwas outcry, 12 we could hardly findany evidence in the myths of Osiris whichwould point to his voice or outcry havingjustified him by means of magic or evenwithout magic at all. On the other hand,if we think that, in m3ebrw, hrw, voice,means an apologetic speech 1of Osiris be-fore the divine tribunal, a meaningspeech in brwwould be involved whichseems to be otherwise unknown. Here-with we have reached the very pointstated by Griffith and quoted above,namely, the assumption that the krw ofm3cbrwwould have a special meaning notfound elsewhere. Therefore, whether we

prefer the idea of the magic value of voiceor the special meaning of hrw as state-ment, Aussage, d6claration, eitherchoice would not be much more than mereguess.A third interpretation of m3~Crw wasoffered, however, by Drioton and Vandierin 1938:14 Le sens complet de l'expressionm:c hrw est 'justifi6 par sentence,' le mothrw 'voix' se r6ferant la promulgation,peut-6tre par crieur public, de cette sen-tence. The basically new idea of this in-terpretation is that, in a case of lawsuit forinstance, the hrw in mc 4rw is not thevoice of the defendant but that of anotherperson who pronounces the sentence. Thesame interpretation is proposed also in thepresent study, which was prepared beforeI knew of this earlier statement. I may feelfree, however, to publish this paper eventhough the idea is not new. I am very gladto be supported by those who first pro-posed it, but I do not think it is useless todeliver a thorough examination.The proposal is based upon the under-standing of the genitive or the suffix inm3c irw (n), the irw of someone is rightin accordance with Maat, as a genitivusobjectivus rather than genitivus subjecti-vus. irw.f in this phrase would be theoutcry (salute, acclaim) given to him, orwe might even think of the German wordRuf, which means outcry as well asreputation. Thereforewe might literallytranslate the acclaim given to him isMaat or the reputation given to him isMaat. When we use the word right,we should translate the acclaim (reputa-tion) given to him is 'right' -the quota-tion marks with right would eliminate10 Breasted, op. cit., p. 35.11 S. Schott in Handbuch der Orientalistik, I, 2, p.

71; cf. the same author's Mythe und Mythenbildungim alten Aegypten (1945).

12 WB, III, 324 gives 6rw under the heading,Stimme, Gerausch but the translation Ausruf,Ruf, exclamation, apparently is justified at leastin ibid., A I, d and f.13 WB, II, 15 seine Aussage-bei Gericht ;Lefebvre. Grammaire, ? 52, d6claration.

14L'Egypte (1st ed.), p. 126. Professor Drioton,who is the author of the paragraph in question, kindlywrote to me: C'est une id6e que j'ai depuis long-temps, sans avoir l'impression, qu'elle me soit per-sonnelle. Il me semble bien que Moret l'enseignait bses cours A la fin de sa carriere. He explains his inter--pretation by referring to the expression Am3 rw(below, n. 35), to which I refer likewise below.



4/32

THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF M3c HRW 23the meaning of this word as well de-served ; right is the term applied to theperson acclaimed.15As long as we are notable to decide whether acclaim or rep-utation is the better translation, I preferto paraphrase both with he is calledright.There seems to exist no objection in re-gard to grammar. The genitivus objec-tivus is often used in Egyptian, e.g.,mrwt.f, his love, meaning the love ten-dered him; cbw.f, his purification, mean-ing the purification given to him; wpwt.f(ipwt.f) in certain cases means the com-mission given by him and the commissionordered to him.16The meaning of the suf-fix as either subject or object is clearlyrecognizable with the verb.17 Moreover,the conception of genitivus objectivus inm3c lrw n closely corresponds to the samein mdw n Wnj8, word of Unas, andmdw.f, his word, in Pyr. 462 a and c,respectively--Sethe understands them asgenitivus objectivus with the meaningword against Unas (against him), and Ido not see any other satisfactory explana-tion.The conception of mgerw.f as he iscalled right has been caused by my work-ing hypothesis concerning the develop-ment of the idea of individual Maat. Thusit has come the wrong way, i.e., not out ofthe texts, which indeed are somewhat am-biguous in this matter, but out of a the-ory. I am going to defend it the samewrong way-first explaining the generalconsiderations and only thereafter show-ing that the contexts of the few earliestdecisive occurrences of mac rw do not dis-prove the proposed translation but to myunderstanding support it most valuably.The theory might be roughly sketched

as follows.18The idea of Maat primarilymeans the divine order of the world in-cluding the political, theological, and so-cial order of Egypt.19Therefore, from thebeginning the rightness of man, his beingm~c,depends upon the question whetheror not he fits this order. This is a socialquestion and therefore not answered by

15Cf. below n. 35.16Cf. WB, I, 303, wpwt nsw, the king's commis-

sion, and (late Egyptian) wpwt n wcw, the office asa wcw officer.17See Sethe, Verbum, II, ? 581.

18 As for the Old Kingdom it is based upon theInstructions of Ptahhotep, which in my understand-ing reflect the highly developed society of the OldKingdom. This understanding had arisen out of myearly discussion (1933) in Lebensregoln und Lebens-weisheit der alten Aegypter. In 1950 I was calledupon to re-examine it when I prepared lectures to bedelivered in the Interconnection Seminar of the De-partment of Oriental Studies at the University ofPennsylvania. The clearly Middle Egyptian languageof Ptahhotep had led me to doubt the early date ofthis literary work. The opinion that it originates inthe Middle Kingdom, however, apparently is wrong.There is no allusion in Ptahhotep to the problemswhich had arisen and were discussed during the periodof the nomarchs, nor is there any evidence for assum-ing that he declines to discuss them. On the otherhand, we do have good reason for dating Ptahhotepin the Old Kingdom--the language, after all, mayhave changed in the process of transmission. A re-examination of my conception concerning the OldKingdom was also made necessary by the reading ofH. Junker, Pyramidenzeit (Ziirich-K61n, 1949). Thisbook has contributed much to my understanding,though I am not able to follow Junker in some decisiveconclusions concerning Maat. Since I shall not givean over-all proof of my conception in this paper, Imust discuss Junker's proofs in these cases in whichwe have a different understanding. This will be donein some of the succeeding notes. My working hy-pothesis concerning the development of an individualMaat after the Old Kingdom was worked out for theaforementioned lectures and has, I think, stood thetest up to now. To present exact proof, however, ishardly possible.

19In Maat des Echnaton, p. 2 with n. 3, I wronglystated that there did not exist a comprehensive studyabout Maat. Unfortunately I did not think then ofthe dissertation of C. J. Bleeker, De Beteekenis van deEgyptische Godin Maat (Leiden, 1929). I have hadthe opportunity of reading it only after this manu-script was out of my hands. The primary merit ofBleeker's study is, in my opinion, that he has stressedthe cosmic meaning of Maat and the fact that Maatin its cosmic, liturgical, and ethical or social aspectsis one inseparable concept. I have the impression thatBleeker has led to the present interpretation of Maatas it is explained here above and in Maat des Echnaton,p. 2 with n. 4 (in which the clear and concise definitionof H. Frankfort, Ancient Egyptian Religion, pp. 53 if.,62 if. should be added to my quotations). I should liketo mention also what is probably the earliest mono-graph on Maat, which was delivered by L. Stern inZAS (1877), pp. 72-88, 113-24, with the title Hiero-glyphisch-Koptisches.



5/32

24 JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIESwhat he thinks of himself or by his ownconscience directing him but by his repu-tation with his king and fellow-citizens.On the other hand, only rightness enabledman to live after death. Any accusationbrought forth against his life on earth wasto be examined and judged in the court ofthe Great God.20Further it has to be men-

tioned that living by Maat apparentlywas no matter of education: Maat lies asa path even in front of him who knowsnothing. 21 This means it is individualconscience and not knowledge which hasto fit the rules of social order. But when,after the breakdown of the Old Kingdom,the social order in Egypt had vanished,man was limited to his conscience; thiswas to fit the divine order, which was nolonger mirrored on earth. As a poor de-fendant everybody had to answer for hisdeeds before the trial of the Great God.The idea of individual Maat had beenorderedby god from the beginning; there-fore, it had always been a religious one.But now the social value of this religiousidea became a very ethical one,22 houghin practice right and wrong behavior werethe same as before-the custom was re-tained that tomb inscriptions addressedthe survivors and protested the rightnessof the deceased. The merciless and un-bearable idea, however, of man answeringfor his earthly deeds before the highestgod without any advocate called for somekind of support. First of all, it was backedby the myth. The ideas that the deceasedking was acknowledged by the gods; thathe was called Osiris; that Osiriswas justi-fied in a case which was disputed before adivine trial23-these ideas gradually, in

20 The tomb inscriptions apparently evidence noactivity of the judge in the beyond other than in casesof lawsuit; this has been rightly stated by Kees,Totenglauben (1926), pp. 152-53. I am not ready tofollow Junker's further conclusion that a blanketacquittal of the deceased was demanded, as it wasaccording to the conception transmitted mainly in the125th chapter of the Book of the Dead. While myunwillingness to acknowledge Junker's conclusiondoes not have to be proved in regard to the well-known tomb inscriptions of the Old Kingdom, I amobliged to defend it in regard to the Pyramid Texts.We are indebted to Junker for the grouping and in-terpreting which he has made (op. cit., pp. 81-85)of those spells of the Pyramid Texts which would showthe idea of Totengericht in the understanding of the125th chapter of the Book of the Dead. In so doing, hehas followed the translations published by Sethe. Thetranslations and interpretations of some of thesespells which are offered in Sec. II of this paper, how-ever, differ in respect to this question from those ofSethe and Junker. Therefore, I should like to examinebriefly also the remainder of the group in support ofmy conception. First I list the references to thosespells which are dealt with by Junker and also dis-cussed here in the different parts of Sec. II as follows:Junker, op. cit., p. 81, Pyr. 309, see II, Part 3 digres-sion; p. 84, Pyr. 316, see II, Part 2; p. 85, Pyr. 361,see II, Part 1; pp. 83, 93, Pyr. 2029, is discussed below,n. 24 of this section. There remain four spells whichJunker deals with on pp. 81-83. Pyr. 461-462 and383-386 include the statements that there is neitherword nor accuser, respectively, against the de-ceased. This denial of any accusation clearly corre-sponds to the conception of lawsuits in the beyondwhich is known from the tomb inscriptions; we mightunderstand it in either of two ways, that in this specialcase there is no accuser or (which after all seems moreprobable) that in general the rightness of the king can-not be debated-he is not subjected to lawsuit. Pyr.891-892 and 2082-2083, according to Junker, repre-sent the statement of the deceased that he did notcommit certain transgressions during his lifetime. Wemay assume that this interpretation is correct, thoughI am not certain in regard to Pyr. 2082-83. In eithercase, however, the context certainly cannot lead uswith any certainty to the conclusion that these state-ments of guiltlessness were to be spoken by the de-fendant before a divine trial-the acknowledgment ofrightness is a matter of public consensus but notnecessarily the verdict of a court. The same holdsgood for Pyr. 1450 and Pyr. 1238, which latter isdiscussed below, Sec. III with n. 165; they have notbeen quoted by Junker. I do not wish to be misunder-stood-Junker's opinion may be right, but the evi-dence of both the Pyramid Texts and the tomb in-

scriptions points only to lawsuits resulting fromaccusations and not to a divine trial to which every-body would have been subjected even when there wasno accuser.

21 Literally (Maat) is the path before him whoknows nothing (Wilson): Ptahhotep, ed. D6vaud,1. 91 (Pap. Brit. Mus. 10509).22The conception of this change is rejected byJunker, op. cit. I may refer to my review in DeutscheLiteraturzeitung, LXXII (1951), 98. In the course ofmy discussions I try to point out this change byadopting the following difference of translation.Rightness is Maat including the individual Maatof the Old Kingdom conception; righteousness isthe individual Maat from the end of the Old King-dom on.23Cf. the last paragraph of this paper and the finalrectification of the latter assumption in the Postscript.



6/32

THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF M'c HRW 25the process of sinkendes Kulturgut,were applied to everybody. Further, theideas of individual Maat and divine trialjoined the popular magical conceptions oflife after death;24 eventually the magicvalue of the protestation of guiltlessness,the 125th chapter of the Book of theDead, permitted even the worst sinner tobe justified in the god's trial. Third, in theEighteenth Dynasty the individual Maatwould again be backed by the order ofstate and king--this conception culmi-nated in the terrible equation of righteous-ness with following the leadership ofAkhenaten.25 In the midst of these mostpopular branches of conception, however,existed the securing of individual right-eousness in piety-naturally examples ofthis are not often forthcoming.26If the theory is right that in the earlierperiod the individual Maat primarily hasa social value, it is the acknowledgment ofMaat by the public which matters first ofall. Therefore the declaration of rightnessin the tomb inscriptions of the Old King-dom would be addressed to one's fellow-men in order that they might concede ap-proval; the expressionm3c rwwould meanacknowledged as right rather thanbeing right in one's own declaration.The question must now be asked whetheror not the earliest occurrences of m3chrwharmonize with this conclusion. This willbe discussed in Sections II and III. The

different directions of the idea of individu-al Maat during the Middle and NewKingdom, however, were included in thesummary which I gave above not onlyfor the sake of completeness. In theseperiods two special expressions appearwhich I wish to discuss first.The causative verb 'm3c rw is knownfrom the periods of the nomarchs on, per-haps, first in the coffin text equivalent ofthe 20th chapter of the Book of theDead:27 wdh.wtj m3c.f

hrw W'jr r iftjw.fand in r.f dhwtj (Sm )28 6rw.j r Iftjw.j,Thoth causes that Osiris is (var. I am)justified against his (var. my) enemies. 29In examining the literal meaning of thisexpression, we refer to the noncausativephrase Osiris (NN.) is justified againsthis male and female enemies, the men andwomen that act against him, (irtj.fn wdcmdw6ft.f=) them that are going to fighthim in trial:30 the variant hrw.f m3c riftjw.fJ1 instead of m3c rw.f shows thatthe preposition depends upon m)c but not(which after all hardly could be expectedfrom the grammatical point of view) uponhrw.As for the explanation of r we shouldnot translate his hrw is more righteousthan (that of) his enemies, because dif-ferent degrees of rightness would hardlybe suited, either to the sentence of a courtor to the idea of Maat.32 Probably themeaning of triumphant, justified,here involved had influencedthe construc-tion: his irw is right (in triumph) over4Instruction Merika-Re, 11. 53 fr. does not haverecourse to magic when it considers the trial of thegod. Junker, op. cit., pp. 91-93, wishes to show thatthe idea of a trial and that of magic in the beyond weremixed together in the Pyramid Texts, i.e., in the OldKingdom, as they were later in the Book of the Dead,chap. 125. The sole and decisive proof, as he calls it,for this thesis, however, is his translation of Pyr. 2029-2030, which I am sorry to say I cannot acknowledgeat all. This evidently is a magic spell addiressed to twobeings of a lower class that act as ferrymen accordingto Pyr. 1382 (see Sethe's commentary of Pyr. 1102a),and no accusation is mentioned.

26Maat des Echnaton, e.g., pp. 28, 31.26One of the finest prayers in regard to righteous-ness, from the decades after Amarna, has been trans-lated loc. cit., p. 36.

27Grapow, Religi6se Urkunden, pp. 100 f.; 107.28 m3c,omitted in this MS, has to be inserted ac-cording to chap. 18 (Grapow, op. cit., p. 134).29 The succeeding line in Grapow, ibid., p. 100 sub-stitutes the deceased in place of Thoth NN. justifieshim(self?) against his enemies -this secondary ideadoes not have to be considered here.so De Buck, Cofin Texts, I, 9, 10 and more oftenin different variations; cf. additional him who hatesyou in I, 13d.31Ibid., I, 25c, 37b, etc.32 See, however, m3c.f r.j in the late Egyptian taleof Horus and Seth 14.1 and its explanation as givenin n. 37.



7/32

26 JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIEShis enemies. These phrases clearly referto the triumph of the defendant beforethe divine trial. While, however, on theone hand, the trial -concerning any ene-mies and accusers against the dead is re-ferred to, in accordance with the con-ception of the Old Kingdom, on the otherhand, the trial against Osiris is alluded towhich, according to the myth, concernedonly one case and was looked on as proto-type of the trial against the dead in theMiddle Kingdom.33In this trial, accord-ing to the 20th chapter of the Book of theDead, Thoth caused the hrw of Osiris tobe right. Let us assume that frw meansthe voice or an outcry or even a declara-tion or statement of Osiris, which wouldbe in accordance with Maat by means ofits magic value or its content. In thiscase the action of Thoth (i.e., his causingthe voice, etc., of Osiris to be right)would be a supplementary idea and hard-ly compatible with the first one thoughpossibly so.A4On the other hand, if weaccept my proposal for translating m3cWhrw,he sentence in the 20th chapter of theBook of the Dead would mean Thothcauses that Osiris is called righteous (intriumph) over his enemies and would re-fer to the effect which is attributed toThoth concerning the sentence of thedivine trial Seth is wrong, Osiris isright. 35In the Eighteenth and Nineteenth dy-nasties we find a few36cases of m3c rwas an apposition with officials, in which

reference to the divine trial hardly couldbe understood: mc) hrw in the house ofthe king and in the house of his lord.We might be inclined to assume that themeaning of m3c rw was worn out in thisperiod-in some expressions it apparentlyhas the same meaning as m3c.37 Butthough expressions like m3:to the kingoccur often enough in the EighteenthDynasty and make good sense,38phrasessuch as m'c in the house of the king orin the house of his lord are unknown39to me, as is m hrw to the king. There-fore m3eFtrwn the house of the king,etc., probably has some special meaning,which would emerge from the translation

33This incongruity seems to be cleared by theconclusion which is dealt with in the Postscript; theidea of the trial against Osiris apparently is secondary.W4e might think of a phrase like Thoth, givemy Maat unto me and readiness (?) of mouth-open itfor Maat in my behalf (Theban Tomb 157, RamessesII, from the files of the Wbrterbuch) or the appositionof Thoth, he that gives Maat to him that has doneMaat (Berlin 6910 G b 3 in Inschr. Berl. II, 65; Dyn.19). This idea of giving Maat has been discussed in mypaper Die Maat des Echnaton, p. 10. I am not sure,

however, whether or not it is already found as earlyas the Middle Kingdom, and, after all, giving Maatis not the same as Am:c brw.

35Drioton in relating 6rw to the sentence of thejudge as proclaimed by the crieur public discussesit in his letter (see n. 14) as follows: Ce serait dans cesens que Thoth, qui jouait ce r6le (scil. du crieurpublic) auprs du tribunal divin serait AmeCLrw pourOsiris et Horus: le 9 factitif aurait ici le sens d6claratif,qu'il a quelquefois en 6gyptien, comme le Hiphils6mitique. I wish to add this precisely stated explana-tion to mine, though I hesitate to accept it entirelyI am not sure if m~Cn this connection really has themeaning it is 'right' -I think it has the usual mean-ing it is right, though I put right in quotationmarks for the purpose of facilitating the translation.6I was not able to augment the quotations givenin WB, II, 18, Belegst. 10. Bleeker, Beteekenis, p. 70(cf. above, n. 18) however, quotes Urk. IV, 77, 1. 6,I traveled unto the north with the tributes of theWawat-land to the king, every year, (prr.j Im m m:C6rw =) and I came forth from there as one that had beencalled right; there has been found nothing for whichI did not account ( =~3wt.j).

37 Compare m:C in heaven and on earth (Sand-man, Texts from the Time of Akhenaton, p. 159, 3,coffin of a king) with meChrw, in heaven and on earth(Naville, Totb., 134,15, Osiris); ink m3C p t3, I wasa righteous one upon earth (Sandman, op. cit., p. 99,3) with Ink tI m3C brw tp t3 (Urk. IV, 67); in Horusand Seth, 14, 1, m~cseems to be used instead ofm3C rw (m~c.f r.j and m3c[kwj?] r.f). Further, cf. mc6r ntr righteous with the god (i.e., the king) (Urk.IV, 1198, 17) to the well-known phrase m3C rw with(= r) the Great God (or some other god). Supple-mentary note: The close relation between m~C andm~3C rw which is exemplified above was not onlydeveloped in the New Kingdom; apparently it isgenuine.

ss Die Maat des Echnaton, p. 28.39 M3Cm ht Pth, righteous in the temple of Ptah(PSBA, XXXV, 169 f., after Gardiner in JEA,XXXII [1946], 52 [p]) might have some differentmeaning; cf. m3Cnb n bt ntr, every righteous one inthe house of the god (Instruction Amenemope, VII,7).



8/32

THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF M'CHRW 27he that is called 'right' in the house ofthe king. If we accept this, we are not

yet able to decide whether it refers to someacclamation, to a statement of the king,or more generally to the reputation of thisofficial with his king and his fellow-offi-cials. Certainly, however, it does not referto any divine trial in the world beyond.These quotations from the MiddleKingdom and the New Kingdom wouldbe characteristic of the respective con-ceptions of individual Maat which de-veloped in these periods according to thetheory which I have explained above.Anyway they point to three different con-ceptions of m3c hrw. The first thoughlatest one most probably does not referto any trial at all. The second and thirdone, from the Coffin Texts, do refer to thedivine trial-for the sake of clearness letus distinguish them as referring to thetrial against Osiris and that in which theaccusations against any dead person arejudged; though these two trials have be-come mixed up and in most cases cannotbe separated from each other, we shouldrather assume that they originated fromdifferent sources. These three conceptionsperhaps had been involved in m3e ijrwfrom the beginning; therefore we mustconsider them when we now start examin-ing the earliest quotations of this expres-sion. In one case it might refer to the trialfor the two contestants in the myth; inanother case, to the trial for the dead;further it might refer to governmentaltrial in this world, or it even refers to notrial at all. We have to examine the quo-tations without any prejudice.

ii. Ma3erwIN THEPYRAMIDEXTSThis section deals with those eleven

quotations of the Pyramid Texts in whichthe word m3c rw occurs. They are trans-lated and commented on in six parts ofthis section which are quoted as Part 1

or Quotation 1, Quot. 1 for instance.These parts are the following.Part 1 contains Pyr. 354 a; 356 c, 357 c,361 c,40 929 a, 935 a-the various utter-ances (Spriche) to which these sectionsbelong are listed in the cross-index onpage 32; Part 2: Pyr. 316 d in Utt. 260;Part 3: Pyr. 1042 d in Utt. 486; Part 4:Pyr. 1462 d in Utt. 570; Part 5: Pyr.2089 a in Utt. 689; Part 6: Pyr. 1327 c inUtt. 539.

It is only with some hesitation that Ipublish my translations and notes. Ingeneral, I have restricted the notes tothose phrases and words which, to myunderstanding, are likely to influence ourconception of m3c rw and which are com-mented upon by Sethe41either differentlyor, Parts 4-6, not at all. And I must im-pose another limitation. I am fully awarethat the many spells of the Pyramid Textswhich concern the ascension to heavenand transfiguration of the deceased areclosely correlated to each other; their fullunderstanding can be reached thereforeonly on a much larger basis than thatwhich is afforded by the few spells which,more or less by chance, include the wordm3c ijrw. I do think, however, that, instarting a discussion like this, it is usefulto limit one's self to one special question,supposing one avoids hasty generaliza-tions. I need not say how much thislimited discussion was assisted by Sethe'scommentary, in which the various corre-lations are extensively noted. In spite ofthese restrictions, however, the notes inthis paper are still fairly extensive. Thisis due to the fact that Sethe's understand-ing of the spells in question is based on the

40 Speleers, Les Textes des Pyramides, Vocabulaire,40, erroneously mentions also Pyr. 360 as an occur-rence of mC rw. I do not think he has quoted it inplace of some other section which I have overlooked.41 Sethe, Uebersetzung und Kommentar zu den

Pyramidentexten, Vols. I-IV covering Utterances 213-506 (Pyr. 134-1101).



9/32

28 JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIESvery presupposition which I am going todebate; in view of his superiorknowledge,I have questioned my objections againand again and in a few cases have feltcompelled to revise them. I certainly donot feel happy in proposing so many morealterations of Sethe's translation than Ihad expected at first; I do not think, how-ever, that the number of my objectionswill be interpreted as lack of respect tothe great scholar who has made such im-portant and decisive steps toward ourunderstanding of the Pyramid Texts. Imay express my hope that my attemptsto go a little further in some particulari-ties will not be considered as a step back-ward.PART 1. Pyr. 354 a, 356 c, 357 c, 361 c,929 a, 935 a in Utterances 265 and vari-ants (see cross-index on p. 32)

These occurrences are found in a seriesof utterances which are characterized bymention of the shnw rafts which ferry thedeceased king to heaven, his being rebornas a star, and the four messengers thatannounce his worthiness to Re and Nhb-k3w. Sethe has gathered these Spriichevom Hinlegen der Schilfbiindel in hiscommentary of Utterance 263. Each ofthem in some degree contributes to ourunderstanding; therefore they must becommented upon as a unit. In Utt. 265the phrase in which mac rw occurs seemsunwantedly repeated, but it is the mostcomplete version and reasonably ar-ranged. This spell is translated here anddiscussed with reference to the other ver-sions. The cross-index shows the degreeof completeness and the arrangement ofthe spells in question and their relationto each other in respect to their sections;the designation of sections as paragraphsA-H has been introduced only for thepurpose of this study.

TRANSLATION OF UTTERANCE 265 (PYR. 351-357)(A = 351-352; the content of this

paragraph is the following: by means ofthe s6nw-rafts the deceased king (NN)crosses the mnc and nhb waters and thei3rw fields toward the horizon unto Reand Harakhty.)B (353a-c) NN crosses toward theeastern side of heaven to that place inwhich the gods are born. NN is bornthere with them, as Horus, as Akhty.C (354a-b) NN is called right (= m3chjrwNN). Acclamation (is made) untoNN (= hn n NN), acclamation unto theKa of NN.D (355a-c) They are summoned forNN, they are brought to him (namely)the four guardsbearing the curl (of youth)that stand on their dcmw staffs at theeastern side of heaven.E (356a-b) They say the name ofNN (as) of one that is good to Re andraise the name of NN (as) of one thatis good to Nhb-k3w.F (356c-d) NN is called right. Accla-mation (is made) unto NN, acclamationunto the Ka of NN.G (357a-b) Sothis is the sister of NN,the morning star is the mftw relative ofNN. He who is below the body of heavenis NN.H (357c-d) NN is called right. Ac-clamation (is made) unto NN, acclama-tion unto the Ka of NN.

NOTESad A. This paragraphwith its differentversions does not concernus. It is precededby the call to the ferryman n Utt. 481 and

507;42 similarcalls are separated rom para-graphA in Utt. 519 and556.43ad B. In Utt. 26644Akhty is replacedbyDat, the phrasebeingassimilated o paragraphG, whichsucceedsB immediately--cf.Dat inparagraphG of Utt 26345--- (in Hr ih 36tj ;42Pyr. 999a and 1102a.43Pyr. 1201a and 1382b.c,

44Pyr. 362b'.4 Pyr. 341C.



10/32

THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF M3cCRW 29also in Utt. 266; 473.1, 2) implies a statementof identity ( as, German als ) rather thana simile ( as though he was '; als waireer ).AUtt. 26447 and Utt. 55648 add an enumerationof days to the statement concerning the birth;this subject will not be discussed here.ad C. This paragraph occurs three times inUtt. 265 (paragraphs C, F, and H) in almostthe same wording but only once in each ofthree other utterances (paragraph C in Utt.473.1 and Utt. 473.2; paragraph F in Utt.266). Sethe regards it as a parenthetical chal-lenge unto those who hear the recitals: Ge-rechtfertigt is NN; jauchzet zu NN, jauchzetzu dem Ka des NN. The idea of taking hn asan imperative was prompted by the imperativehnjj in Utt. 266;49this is taken below as anexceptional case and is explained by its con-text (ad paragraph F). I should prefer tounderstand hn (935b N hnw) as a noun, asusual. Sethe's further idea that these linesrepresent an interjected address to the by-standers certainly was influenced by the con-sideration that as a whole these utterances donot show any connection with the justificationof Osiris; on the other hand, the justificationof Osiris seemed doubtless to be alluded to inm3c rw. I do not feel able to accept this view.Further objections against Sethe's under-standing of C may be stated here. Pyr. 316d,50which evidently is related to this paragraph C,fits its context and cannot be separated fromit as a digression. Further in rejecting the con-ception of challenge to the hearers I am sup-ported by Schott; according to him Utterances263-266 were recited in the Verehrungs-tempel to which the public was not ad-mitted.51Utterances 473.1 and 473.252 introduce theKa of the king into the phrase of m3cbrw NNis called right, the Ka of NN is called right, inassimilation to the following acclamation

unto the Ka of NN (which, however, isomitted in Utt. 473.1); likewise in paragraphF, Utt. 266,53the Ka is called right with theaddition with (= r) the god. 54 I do notthink that the idea of the Ka being justified(=m3c rw) is involved in the idea of thedivine trial.55It would fit Sethe's conceptionof these verses as an appeal to the bystanders(which, however, has been refuted above) sup-posing we could assume that mc' rw alreadywas worn-out and apt to be transferred fromOsiris to his Ka in certain circumstances, butthere does not seem to exist any evidence forthis assumption. There seems, however, to beno difficulty in assuming that the Ka of theking is hailed as being right when he becomesgod and star. On the contrary, the idea of theKa called right excellently fits paragraph C inUtt. 263:57 NN (finally?) has been pleased58together with his Ka; NN lives together withhis Ka. His leopard skin is upon him, his staffis in his arm, his scepter in his hand. He causesthat he who has gone away acclaims him(?). 59The last phrase probably refers to the

46This holds good also for Pyr. 1348b.47Pyr. 345a-b; 346c.48 Pyr. 1382f; 1383b.49 Pyr. 361b.60 In Utt. 260; see below, Part 2.f1 Schott, Bemerkungen zum Pyramidenkult, pp.196 and 181.52Pyr. 929 a and 935 a.

53Pyr. 361c.54 As to this addition see below, Part 6, note b.55Cf. Sethe, Uebersetzung und Kommentar, II, 38to Pyr. 338a (der Ka,) zu dem er ja erst im Todegeht, wie so viele Stellen zeigen ; the Ka ascends toheaven with him, however (cf. Pyr. 2081a). Breasted,Development, p. 174, to my understanding quotes thispassage which introduces the Ka as a confirmation ofhis conclusion that this justification is established bythe sun-god and not by Osiris.56 Cf. Sethe's commentary of Pyr. 354a-b.57 Pyr. 338a-339a.58

, = nfrn n NN; Sethe wohl gefallenhat es dem NN (zu sein) mit seinem Ka. My insertionof finally? is prompted by Sethe's remarks and thesuggestion concerning the meaning of nfr as given byH. Stock, Ntr nfr =der Gute Gott? p. 5; it mightbe misleading, however-my point is only to stressthat nfr(n) n is certainly not simply (he) is pleased-just as little as nfr tw, Sinuhe B 31 quoted by Sethe,is you feel well. The parallel phrase Pyr. 908a-b asquoted by Sethe is interesting: NN (finally?) ispleased together with his name; NN lives togetherwith his Ka.

59The questionable translation of this last phrase(nhnj.f n.f sj r.9) is based upon Sethe's assumptionthat nhnj is related to the hn, acclaiming, used inthe other versions. For the translation of sj r.6 in thesingular (though it is possibly the plural) and withoutrelation to the horizon, cf. Pyr. 1555b and 662e. Thisexpression, according to Sethe, might indicate thedead; cf., however, sj ij in Part 2, n. 94.



11/32


12/32

THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF M3C HIRW 31version-its writinghnjjdoes not occur n anyotherversion of paragraphsC, F, andH.81adG. The firstphraseof thissection s foundalso in Utterances473.1; 473.2; 609; 263.82This latter,however,names Dat instead ofmorning tar and thereforerepresents heoriginal ext, accordingo Sethe.Sothisas thesisteris substitutedby the moonas brotherorfather of NN in Utt. 481 and, with differentcontext, in Utt. 507.83The secondphraseofthis section s a little different, NN stands asthis star which is below the body of heaven,in Utt. 264 and Utt. 556.84The version asDat, as the star which lluminates he heavenin Utt. 26685s influenced y the preceding;eeabovethe note to paragraphB concerninghecontext.ad H. This paragraph,which in this utter-ance repeatsparagraphsC and F, is furtherrepresentedby two quite differentversions:Utt. 264,86 he judgesthe case as a god afterhe hasheard he case as a Brofficial, nd Utt.609,87 yousit betweenthem (i.e., Sothis andthe morningstar) on the great seat which isbeside the two enneads. Thesethree versionsin differentways supplement he indicationofthe finalstatusof the deceased s agodandstarwhichwasgiven in paragraphG.

CONCLUSIONIn these utterances the phrase contain-ing m3e rw.f and the hnw acclaim of theking occurs three times in Utt. 265 butonly once in three other versions, respec-tively. It refers to the fact that the de-ceased king is newly born in heaven andhas become a god together with stars andsun (paragraphs C and H) and that he is

introduced as a god to Re and Nh.b-k)w(paragraphF). The spell evidently is whatwe might call a Heliopolitan one; once(Utt. 266)88Heliopolis is mentioned in afinal phrase. There is no allusion to thedivine trial, however, the less so as thisidea would hardly fit the expression theKa of NN is m3ce rw (see note to para-graph C). On the other hand, it is under-stood that Sethe's conception of para-graphs C, F, and H as parenthetical can-not be maintained.In spite of this evidence we might welltry to understand hrw.f in mC jrw.fashis statement (rather than voice ).Certainly the idea that the word of thedeceased king opens the way to him inthe beyond is well known in the PyramidTexts, e.g., the word addressed by him tovarious gods when he is newly born as agod,89or discussions like those with theythat have become equipped spirits bymeans of their mouth. 90or with Horusand Seth. 9No less certainly, however,would we be misled if we assumed thatm3c 6rw referred to whatever magicalword might save the deceased in the be-yond. Therefore we should prefer to un-derstand mc ~rw.f with genitivus objec-tivus as given in the translation. If weaccept it, we should not think of translat-ing his reputation is 'right' but theacclamation given to him is 'right.'

s81Cf. note to paragraph C for writing hn and hnw.82 Pyr. 929b, 935c, 1707a, 341c.83Pyr. 1001b and 1104a-b.84 Pyr. 347a and Pyr. 1384a.85Pyr. 362b.86Pyr. 347b.87 Pyr. 1707b-c.

88 Pyr. 363 f. Sethe suggests the possibility ofassuming that in the lacuna of Pyr. 363d a new, shortFiihrmannsspruch begins. On the other hand, heshows that there are similarities between Pyr. 363and Utt. 570, in which latter the phrases Pyr. 1455c,1458e, and 1457a (1458a) correspond to Pyr. 363c, d,and f, respectively; this should deter us from dividingPyr. 363 into two sections.89 Utt. 570 (Pyr. 1443-1448; 1461).90Utt. 473 (Pyr. 930-931).91 Pyr. 473.



13/32

CROSS INDEX TO PART 1PYRAMID TEXTS UTTERANCES 265 AND VARIANTS

Utterances 265 P 263 W 264 T 266 P 473.1 473.2 481 P M N 507 P M NPMN PMNParagraph A Pyr. 351- Pyr. 337; Pyr. 342- Pyr. 358- Pyr. 926- Pyr. 932- Pyr. 999-1000 b Pyr. 1102-352 340 c-d 343 360 a 927 933 1103ParagraphB Pyr. 353 Pyr. 341 Pyr. 344- Pyr. 362 Pyr. 928 Pyr. 934 Pyr. 1000ca-b 346 c a-b'Paragraph C Pyr. 354 Cf. Pyr. ---- Pyr. 929 a Pyr. 935338-339 a a-bParagraph D Pyr. 355 Pyr. 339 Pyr. 348 a-b Pyr. 360 Cf. Pyr. 1000 d- Pyr. 1104 c-b-c b-d 1001a 1105Paragraph E Pyr. 356 Pyr. 340 Pyr. 348 c; cf. Pyr. 361a -- - _-a-b a-b Pyr. 346 aParagraph F Pyr. 356 Pyr. 361 -c-d b-cParagraphG Pyr. 357 Pyr. 341c Pyr. 347a Pyr. 362 b - Pyr. 929 b Pyr. 935 c Pyr. 1001b Pyr. 1104a-b 363 a a-bParagraph H Pyr. 357 Cf. Pyr. 347 bc-d



14/32

THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF M:c FRW 33PART 2. Pyr. 316 d in Utterance 260 (W)

According to Sethe, Utterance 260seems to be composed of two sections(Pyr. 316-319 and 320-323). Whateverthe connection between these sectionsmay be, only the first one concerns thepresent question. This must be translatedand discussed in extenso. The first fewphrases (316 a-c) are transmitted also inCofin Texts, Spell 1, ed. De Buck.After I had prepared the translation ofand the notes to this spell, I received twovaluable remarks concerning the text ina letter from S. Schott which I am veryglad to add to the present notes. Theyenable us to answer two questions whichhad hitherto remained unsolved.92 Fur-thermore, to my understanding they elu-cidate the arrangement of this spell; ap-parently Pyr. 316 alludes to the funeralrites, Pyr. 317 deals with the past, andPyr. 318-319 with the new eternal life.

TRANSLATION(316 a) 0 Geb, the bull of Nut, NN isHorus, the heir of his father. (316 b) Hethat goes and comesa is NN, the fourthof those four godsb (316 c) that havebrought water and have caused purifica-tion(?),c they that make acclamation withthe foreleg(s) of their fathers.d (316 d)He wishes to be called right by means ofwhat he has done.e (317 a) Indeed, NNjudged' between male and female or-

phan(?);g indeed, he who is in accordwith Maat (= mCtj)h held hearing;(317 b) indeed, there was no witness; in-deed, he who is in accord with Maat gaveorder (scil. that the sentence be carriedout). (317 c) He passed throughi theseats of Geb (but now?) he raises himselfunto what he has wished. (318 a) Hislimbs, which are in the secret place, areunited;J (318 b) he joins them that are inthe Nunu; he terminates the dispute in

Heliopolisk (318 c) while he has comeforthltoday in the right form (= m irw mic) ofa living spirit. (319 a) NN breaks (up)fighting and cuts (off) insurrection;(319 b) NN comes forth (as he) who is re-lated to Maat,m he brings her with him;n(319 c) the wrathful run about for hissake, they tfiat are in the Nunu turn lifeunto him.NOTES

a (316b) i-qq qq; Sethe der gegangenundgekommenst ; I do thinkthat the inter-pretation of both the perfect and imperfectactive participlecanbe defended.This phraseis discussed n the followingnote b.b (316b)Setherefers o differentquadruplesof gods and other groups to which the de-ceased belongs. He accepts as possible theconnectionbetween he fourgodsof this text,and both the corporation f Heliopolisn Pyr.104119 nd the fourgodsof the Nunu,the cir-cumpolarstars that go throughthe Libyanland and are d8ron their dcmwstaffs in Pyr.1457-1458. Above in Part 1, notes to para-graphD, I have pointedto the close relationbetween Pyr. 1457-1458 and 1000d-1001a,while the context of the latter, on the otherhand, indicates that it belongsto the phrasesconcerning he four youths. Thus there ap-parentlydoes exista relationbetween he fourgodsmentionedn this spellPyr.316bandthefour youths in Quotation 1, paragraphD.Thisassumptionmightbe corroboratedy thetwo following acts. Sj ij, one who goes andcomes (see above,note a), seemswell to fitthe character f the fouryouthsas messengers(and perhapsno less the restlesscircumpolarstars in Pyr. 1000dand 1457-5894).Further

92See notes d and i.

93See below, Part 3, digression.94Sj fi occurs in a similar context Pyr. 1193b andmight be compared with Pyr. 541c; on the other hand,it should be connected with si-Ajn (Pyr. 1532a and1539c) and sj-phr (Pyr. 1991a), which indicate therunning of the messengers that announce the deceasedto Re. The same running is indicated by sj-bt in Pyr.1861a; it should be noticed that, in the same context(Pyr. 1861b), the messengers (hwwtjw according toWB, III, 44) carry the ostrich feather with them,which otherwise indicates Maat (though first of all as

a headdress in the Old Kingdom and Pyr. 1768-1775[N]); I wonder whether or not this might have somesignificance in respect to the announcement of the



15/32

34 JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIESthe sequence of the four gods, the acclamation,and mac rw in Pyr. 316b-d correspondsto thesame sequence of paragraphs D(-E)-F inUtt. 265 and variants.

c (316c) inw mw wdw cbcbt; Sethe under-stands the perfect active participle in the pasttense, referring to the creation of the world.The Coffin Texts, however, have the imperfectactive participle (De Buck, op. cit., I, 4-5, b.c).For the relation of this phrase to the funeralrites cf. Schott's remark below in note d.d (316c) irrw hjj m hpSn itw.in; Sethe, dieeinen Jubel machen iiber die Kraft ihrerViAter. The meaning of hjj (hjj hnw and hjjhnjj in Cofin Texts, I, 4-5, d) to my under-standing points to hail, acclaim, ratherthan to jubilate about something, as doeshknwlso. I should prefer to translate hps fore-leg, arm, literally,95 all the more as, tobegin with, the meaning of this phrase certain-ly is not clear; further, the Coffin Texts de-mand a literal translation, as indicated by thedeterminative 4 of Plh. In addition someCoffin Text versions write the plural hpsw nwitw.gn, the forelegs of their fathers, there-fore the understanding of n as genitival adjec-tive must be preferred to the preposition n.While I was not ready to accept Sethe's con-ception of this phrase, I was not able to ex-plain the exact meaning of mine. The follow-ing short remark in Schott's letter, however,leads, I think, to a very sensible explanation:Zu 316c 'Jubel machen mit dem Schenkel'gibt es Bilder, so in Grab 55 (Ramose) eineGruppe im Klagezug. Dort sind es kleineModelle von Schenkeln, im A.R. noch die

Schenkel selbst, die bei der Bestattung vonPriestern (in der Rolle der Horuskinder, sohier) dargebracht werden. Dazu wird Wassergeschitttet wie auch sonst beim Schlachten.'I am very glad to see that Schott's under-standing of the Pyramid Texts and of the con-nection between mythological allusions andactual rites confirms and decisively comple-ments my mere philological considerations.Furthermore, this explanation given by Schottis elucidated by a striking parallel in NewBritain. In one tribe living in the northernsection of this Melanesian island until recent-ly, the upper arm bones of a dead man weretaken from his body and kept as familyfetishes, and in another one the upper armbone of an important man no longer is used inhis funeral rites, but a cassowary thigh bonehas been substituted. 96

e (316d) imr.f m3c brw.f m irtn.f; Sethe erwill, dass er gerechtfertigt werde in Bezug aufdas, was er (selbst) getan hat. He explainsthis conception as follows: Rechtfertigung indem, was er selbst im Leben getan hat, stehtder Freude fiber die Leistungen der Vorfahren(as expressed in the preceding phrase Pyr.316c) gegentiber. This explanation dependsupon Sethe's interpretation of 316c, which hasbeen refuted above. Some contrast betweenthe fathers and the king's (own?) deedsmight be involved, however; perhaps imr.f,he wishes, points to this. On the other hand,the parallel between hjj and mz3c rw remindsus of that between hn and m:C&rw n Part 1,paragraphs C, F, and H as discussed above:acclaim from the gods means rightness, justi-fication of the deceased king.97 For the exactmeaning of macBrw this phrase seems to beinstructive. In literal translation (which mustalways be tried) m irtn.f does not depend uponhrw but upon m~c. If we apply Sethe's transla-tion of m, in Bezug auf, neither his voice (orstatement) nor the acclamation given to

rightness of the deceased king; see Sec. III with n. 165.(Supplementary note: Cf. the feather which appearedin the land of the god and was put by Osiris at thehead of Horus as a certification of triumph: CoffinTexts, I, 29 a-c). If sj iij does refer to the celestialmessengers we might assume the same for sj r.8 inPyr. 339a (see Part 1, paragraph C with n. 59).95Likewise I prefer a literal translation in Urk. I,151, 3 quoted by Sethe having acted with my ownarm ; the more extended meaning of 6ps as strength,however, might be somewhat involved in these laterphrases. The same holds good for the similar phrasesin other texts of the period of the nomarchs. I shouldlike to quote the stela Philadelphia 40-19-1 line 3

(Ranke in The University Museum Bulletin, XII, No.3, p. 24): I was (ndAcr fr m 6ps.f=) an excellentcommoner that acted with his (own) arm.

96 W. H. Goodenough in University Museum Bulle-tin (Philadelphia), XVII, No. 1 (September, 1952),15, 16.97Supplementary note: Cf. the discussion of theform imr.j in the Old Kingdom inscriptions by Edelin Untersuchungen (Mitteilungen des Deutschen

Instituts, XIII), ? 27E. I wonder whether or not themeaning since (or: while) he wishes may be appliedto this imr.f.



16/32

THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF M'c jRIW 35him could possibly be understood as rightin regard to what he has done ; this restrictionof rightness can hardly be accepted. If weunderstand m as instrumentalis, the phrase,

his voice (statement) corresponds to Maat(=is right) by means of what he has done,does not seem to make good sense either; itwould mean that the magical power of thevoice is effected by the deeds of the deceased,or that the power of his statement is effectednot by its content, which after all might wellrefer to his deeds, but by the deeds themselves.There seems, however, to be no question thatthe following translation is most convincing,the acclamation given to him (or his reputa-tion) corresponds to Maat by means of whathe has done. We might paraphrase the sen-tence as follows: He wishes that it be hisgood deeds which bring about that the acclaimgiven to him is (not crime 98ut) 'rightness.'f (317a) iw wdcnNN tfn hnctfnt; iw intro-duces each of the four phrases in 317 a and band is indicated by my translation indeed.The question if these phrases should be under-stood as present or past tense is discussedbelow in note h.

g (317a) The Egyptian text is quoted innote f. Sethe translates NN hat als kleinesWaisenkind (or, according to his commentary,possibly Tfn ) mit der Schwester (or Tfnt )gerechtet. His understanding of wdc as liti-gate instead of the usual judge is basedmainly on Pyr. 317c; this, according to him,would point to the result of the trial, in whichtherefore the dead king would be consideredas one of the parties. As will be shown in noteh, however, I want to propose a different in-terpretation of 317c; therefore I am not ableto accept his conclusion. In support of histranslation of wdc he refers to the formulasexpressing threat in the Old Kingdom tombinscriptions. Lately E. Edel99has shown, how-ever, that in these formulas wdc is evidentlypassive, e.g., I shall be judged with him, notI shall litigate with him. The translation oftfn and tfnt as orphan is not much more thana guess: for its meaning cf. further note hbelow.

h (317a) m3ctj; Sethe, die beiden Wahr-heiten. For some time I have rejected theidea of a dual in favor of that of a singularhe who belongs to Maat. 100Later studies ofthis text, however, have led me to the conclu-sion that both translations would be ac-ceptable: m3ctj meaning either the doubleMaat or the king himelf as Maaty;101n eithercase this phrase would mean that the king NNhas acted as judge, examiner, and he whoorders the sentence to be carried out, all with-out any interference of witnesses and officials,depending upon nothing other than Maat.This conclusion seems to be corroborated byPyr. 347b:102 NN judges the case as a god,after he made the hearing of the case as a Brofficial. In view of this statement we shouldprefer to translate m:ctjas a singular designat-ing the king.If we accept the interpretation of section317a-b as an allusion to a kind of totalitariancourt procedure, we might ask ourselveswhether this refers to kingship on earth or tothat in the beyond, to the king's role as ajudge in the necropolis, for example. The?dmn.f-form with preceding iw in this contextpoints to the past, i.e., to his kingship onearth; on the day of the king's transfiguration(Pyr. 318c) the judging he does in the beyondcould hardly be referred to by means of thisgrammatical form. The fact that the afore-mentioned similar allusion in Pyr. 347b evi-dently points to the beyond would not affectthis conclusion.10' Whatever the exact mean-

98 Cf. hbn hrw and m: ' rw below, Part 3.99 In Mitteilungen des Deutschen Instituts, XIII,9-10.

100 Maat des Echnaton, II, n. 207; I thought ofMaaty as a designation for the highest god as the onewho directed the trial. As for the writing cf. hntjwith eg., in Pyr. 481d (W); 800d.

101Supplementary note: Neither double Maat norMaaty are known to me elsewhere in the Old Kingdominscriptions. The orthography of this m3ctj s the samein W, Si-ese, and Sen-wosret.102This phrase appears as one of the versions ofUtt. 265, paragraph H; see above, Part 1. Cf. furtherthe reference to Pyr. 1189e-f in Sec. III n. 189.103The further question might be asked if possiblyfw wdn, etc., refers to the earlier status of the de-ceased king as Osiris before his transfiguration inheaven; cf. the reference to the contrast between thesetwo conditions of the deceased, which follow eachother, below in Part 4, digression, and Part 6, con-clusion. The meaning would be that the dead kingalready, i.e., before his transfiguration, has been act-ing as judge in the necropolis, which activity, of



17/32

36 JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIESing of tfn and tfnt might be, these designationsapparently refer to human society thereforeand not to a myth.i (317c) phrn.f nawt Gb Isj.f bw n mrtn.f;Sethe understands this phrase as dependingupon the preceding iw wdn m3ctj: Die beidenWahrheiten haben befohlen, dass ihm dieThrone des Geb zufallen sollten (=phr n.f);und dass er sich erheben diirfte zu dem was erwollte. According to my understanding of thepreceding, this phrase must not be understoodas the order resulting from the trial. The newinterpretation also carries with it the ad-vantage that apparently it dismisses once andfor all the meaning of phr n as jmdm. zuteilwerden lassen, 104which in any case seemshardly satisfactory. Though I was going topropose the translation, he passed throughthe seats of Geb (with the alternative theseats of Geb serve him ), I was completely inthe dark about the exact meaning. My ques-tion about this particular point was verykindly answered by Schott: 'Throne desGeb' wAre dann eine Bezeichnung der 'Resi-denzen' des Landes und stAnde etwa ftir 'dieGaue.' 105

j (318a) dmd cwt.f imt taw; Sethe, ver-einige seine Glieder, die im Verborgenen seinsollen ; the imperative would refer to Geb whois invoked in Pyr. 316a.k (318b) rdj.f phw mdww m 'Iwnw is trans-lated in accordance with Schott;106 Sethe's

translation in the present, er liAsstdas Endeder Worte (d.h. seinen letzten Willen) inHeliopolis, would not fit my translation ofthe following old perfective clause in the per-fect (see below, note 1). The complete sectionPyr. 318 evidently refers to the time after theking's death.

1 (318c) AkNN pr; Sethe, wenn er heraus-geht.m (319b) prj NN irj (?) mact; I followSethe's interpretation of q= as the adjectiveirj because to my understanding it fits thecontext very well. On the other hand, I fail tounderstand the reasoning which leads him toreject the possible interpretation of ir as apreposition; he comes forth to Maat wouldcorrespondto (m prt.f ir pt =) when he comesforth (i.e., goes up) to heaven in Pyr. 464c;cf. Pyr. 1378b, etc.n (319b) int.f yj w.8 r.f; the reading iw.'of q in this phrase and in Pyr. 323c (see be-low in this note) is proposed by De Buck andaccepted by Sethe; Sethe translates er bringtsie, indem sie bei ihm (d.h. in seinem Besitze)ist. We are compelled to wonder what theexact meaning of iw.8 r.f can be; it is cer-tainly more significant than Polonius' havewhile she is mine. On the other hand, thetranslation by means of two independent sen-tences (e.g., he fetches her, she stays withhim ) would wrongly disregard the idea of aparenthetical clause which according toGardiner's analysis'07 is involved in iw.B r.f.In my translation I have followed Henry G.Fischer's suggestion that perhapsthis construc-tion provides that meaning which in hr ( bringto ) alone could not have: he brings her withhim. '18 Formerlyo19I had read and trans-

course, would not have to cease with his ascension toheaven. Presumably, however, this opinion cannot beaccepted. Apparently the idea of Osiris as a judge didnot exist in this early period; and the deceased king'sactivity as a judge in the necropolis is certainlynothing else than that in heaven, which is establishedonly by his transfiguration. See Sec. III on this latterquestion.

lo4 WB, I, 547, Belegst. 5 quotes two occurrencesof this meaning in addition to the present text Pyr.317c. One of them, Pyr. 408, however, has been differ-ently understood by Sethe later in his commentary; asfor the other one, Siut I 289, it would not be difficultto find a translation which better fits the usual mean-ing of pbr.

105Supplementary note: The chronological order ofthe facts mentioned in 316d-318c which is proposedabove is corroborated by Coffin Texts, I, 37a ff.: Look(ye gods) at him when he has come forth (pr) in peacewhile he is triumphant ( = rw.f m3c)over his enemiesafter he seized the wrrt crown and sailed north(through?) the seats of Geb ( =bntn.f newt Gb) andtook away Wd.fkj.

106 Bemerkungen zum dgyptischen Pyramidenkult,p. 195.107 Gardiner, Grammar, ? 117, obs.108The addition of with him, mit sich, iw.g

6r.f, to bringing, bringen, nt, anyway seemsstrange to me-what is the difference between theseexpressions and the simple verbs? Supplementarynote: He takes (something) with him perhaps isexpressed by in.f hnc.fin Urk. I, 137, 2.109Before I knew Sethe's reading and commentaryof this spell, which had not been accessible to me forsome time. I am very glad to have this good oppor-

tunity to correct an earlier wrong statement of mine.In Maat des Echnaton, IV, n. 1, I have quoted thisphrase Pyr. 319b as possible evidence of an otherwise



18/32


19/32

38 JOURNALOF NEAR EASTERN STUDIESwe been enabled to understand the mean-ing of m3c rw.f in Pyr. 316 b with somecertainty. Geb, the king of earliest times,is summoned (Pyr. 316 a). The deceasedking is accounted one of the four gods;he is acclaimed by them and, in conse-quence of his deeds, called one who isright (Pyr. 316 b-d), just as he is ac-claimed and called right in Utt. 265 andvarr. He has proved his rightness on earthas a just judge and as the occupant ofthe seats of Geb (Pyr. 317). He has comeforth (gone up to heaven?) and hasbeen transfigured so that he assumes theright appearance of a living spirit; he endsthe troubles and brings peace to.the world(Pyr. 318-319).

MM3c w in this text apparently doesnot refer to any justification in trial. Itdoes refer to the acclamation of the de-ceased king and his rightness as do Utt.265 and its variants, though in this spellthe legality of his kingship on earth andin heaven117 eems to be stressed ratherthan his reception among the gods. Onthe other hand, nothing suggests that thevoice or any statement of the king him-self is to be expected at this occasion. '8Furthermore, grammatical analysis (seeabove note e) has led us to the conclusionthat the interpretation of m3c jrw.f ashe is called right is the best if not theonly possible in this utterance; this wouldhold good likewise for Utt. 265 and itsvariants.PART 3. Pyr. 1042 d in Utterance 486(PN)

This utterance addresses the waterwhich, apparently, was used in the courseof the funeral rites (Pyr. 1039), and re-

fers to the fact that the deceased kingwas born in the Nunu ocean before thecreation of the world (Pyr. 1040). Therefollows another version of the earliest ori-gin of the deceased; this is translated anddiscussed below (Pyr. 1041-1043). Theconcluding sentences state that the kingdescends into the water and the earth butthat he is raised out of them and takeshis seat of a god (Pyr. 1044-1045; thisspell is dealt with below in the digression).The section Pyr. 1041-1043 is as fol-lows.

TRANSLATION(1041 a) The(?) onea is NN, who be-longs to that great corporation which wasborn in primeval age in Heliopolis, (b)(the one of) those that are not seized inbehalf of the king (c) nor taken away inbehalf of the Arofficials, (d) that are notpunished,b and that are not called crimi-nals.c (1042 a) This (kind of being) is NN.He is not punished, (b) he is not seized inbehalf of the king, (c) he is not takenaway in behalf of the Sr officials, (d) andthe enemies of NN are not called right

(m'c 6rw; var. N, and his enemy is notcalled right [in triumph]d over him);(1043 a) NN is not made poor,ehis finger-nails are not drawn up(?), (b) no bone isbroken in NN.NOTES

a (1041a)NN pw wcn(j) ht tw cit;Sethe,einer von jener grossen Kdrperschaft ;nhis commentary,however, he stresses thepoint that wcn (insteadof wcm) probablyhassomespecialmeaning. f we accept he opinionthat a corporationof men is referred o andnot a corporation f gods (see digressionandconclusionbelow), we might translate theone stressing the prominenceof the kingamongthe othermembers.b (1041d) itmjw njk; Sethe, die nichthingerichtet werden. The more indefinitemeaning bestraft werden is adopted inWB,II, 205,Belegst.13. Theidea of killingmightbe involved,but theredoes not seemto

117 Sethe in his commentary of Pyr. 316a rightlypoints to the fact that the heaven is not mentionedin this utterance. Perhaps he raises himself and hecomes forth (=goes up), however, refer to theascension to heaven.118 This is discussed above in Part 1, conclusion.



20/32

THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF M3c HRW 39be any evidence for assuming executing,hinrichten.c (1041d) itmjw hbn 6rw.?n.Sethe in hiscommentary o Pyr. 462b (s.v.bbnt, crime )refers to D6vaud's reading of ?bn and histranslation, ceux qui ne sont pas damn6s,in contrastto m3chrw;consequently, e trans-lates die nicht schuldiggesprochenwerdenor die nicht unterliegenim Rechtsstreitalternatively.Neither D6vaud nor Sethe hasproposedany grammatical xplanationof hbnbrw.f. The translation his voice (or state-ment) is criminal would not seem to beplausible. 9On the otherhand,the translation,the salute given to him is 'crime,' he iscalled criminal, does not presentany diffi-culty either of explanationor of understand-ing.d (1042d)mc'hrwhftj.f ir.f. The meaningof the prepositionr, (in triumph) over, istreatedabovein SectionI in the discussionofmm3crw with n. 32.e (1043a)8w3NN. The translation n thepassive rather than intransitive (Sethe andWB, verarmen )s arbitrary; he sentencePyr. 1043 is thereby understood o indicatesomeformof injury.

DIGRESSION CONCERNING THE CORPORATIONMENTIONEDN PYR.1041a IN UTT.486This digression may be justified in thatit sheds light on the understanding ofmWcrw. If we presume that Utt. 486 isthe product of conscious composition, itsarrangement seems to be fairly clear.The rites concern purification with water

(Pyr. 1039). This leads to a reference tothe conception that the deceased kingwas born in the Nunu ocean in the pri-meval age (Pyr. 1040). This theme istaken up once more in the first sentenceof the final section: (Pyr. 1044 a) WhenNN descends into the water (b) Osirisraises him, the two enneads carry him, (c)Re stretches his arm towards NN (withthe purpose of leading him) unto the

place where the god is. This descent intothe water means purification and at thesame time seems to refer to the death ofhim who is born in the Nunu and vanishesin it like the rising and setting stars. Thestatement of Pyr. 1040 and its continua-tion in Pyr. 1044 are paralleled by thestatement in Pyr. 1041-1043, which istranslated and discussed above, and itscontinuation in Pyr. 1045, which em-ploys the same wording as Pyr. 1044 withonly two alterations: When NN de-scends into the earth (instead of intothe water ) and Geb (instead ofOsiris ). We would then have in Pyr.1040-1045 an arrangement which followsthe scheme a-b-a-b, with a as theconception of the king being born in theprimeval age in the Nunu ocean and there-after submerged into, and raised out of,the water unto Re, and with b as theconception of the king being born in pri-meval age as the most prominent memberof the oldest corporation in Heliopolis andthereafter buried and raised out of theearth unto Re. In this light Pyr. 1045would mean that the deceased king hasleft his seat in the corporation and afterburial and transfiguration shares the seatof, or is united with, Re.This seems to make good sense. Theking, as the god, is the most prominentmember of the corporation of Heliopolisthroughout eternity from the mythicalperiod on, in a world which knows neitherpast nor present nor future. Now his tem-porary body has left the corporationwhich is an earthly institution, and isreunited with Re as the most promienntmember of the corporation which is thetimeless aspect of the earthly one. Theconception that the deceased king leavesthe corporation seems to be corroboratedby Pyr. 1462 c in Utt. 570, the runnerruns out from among you, which is dis-cussed in Part 4.119WB, III, 251, bbj, VI a reads bbj n brw.f, wegenseiner Stimme geschm vlert werden ; this explanationwas given before Sethe's commentary was written.



21/32

40 JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIESIt might be considered whether the ear-ly status of the deceased in the corpora-tion of Heliopolis and his subsequent de-

parture from it by means of the burialand his ultimate union with the sun-godis likewise alluded to in Pyr. 309 d =313 f. The context, Utt. 258, 259,120dealswith the fact that the deceased king issaved, as Osiris, from the destruction ofhis body and promptly ascends to heaven,where he joins (and is united with) Re.The linking passage between the descrip-tion of his status as Osirisand as Re (withthe phrases which join its beginning andits end) runs as follows: (309 a) Hissister the mistress of Buto has bewepthim. (b) NN is going to heaven, NN isgoing to heaven, with the wind, with thewind; (c) he is not hindered, there is nonethat would hinder him. (d) (n hmb(w).fm d3d3tntr =) he is not (any longer?)seated in the council of the god (e) (but)the brj-wc.f (= he that is upon his'one'?)121 is NN, the eldest of the gods.(310 a) His p3d cake is above with Re,his c3bt ood is in the Nunu. The secondversion Utt. 259 includes the only re-markable change of two lines (Pyr. 313 e-f), the hrj-rd.f (= he that is upon hisfoot)122 is NN, the eldest of the gods, andNN is not (any longer?) seated in thecouncil of the god. The phrase in ques-tion (Pyr. 309 d = 313 f) has been trans-lated by Sethe, though hesitantly andwith a question mark in his notes: Nichtwird eine Sitzung sein um seinetwillen imGericht des Gottes ; he prefers this trans-lation to the normal one, er sitzt nichtim Gericht des Gottes, because he takesthe meaning as klar, der Tote brauchtnicht das Totengericht zu passieren andemphasizes that the defendant would not

be seated in a trial. In comparing Sethe'sconception, nicht wird eine Sitzung ab-gehalten um seinetwillen im Gericht desGottes, and mine, he is not (anylonger?) seated (as a member) in thecouncil of the god, we may say, first ofall, that in either case the introduction ofthe

_d~_~tcouncil (i.e., court) of the godin the context seems to be surprising. Ifwe accept Sethe's conception, it would beexplained, however, as contrasting thenewly acquired position of the deceasedto that of Osiris, with whom he wasidentified only in his former status.123To my mind, however, the transitionfrom the earthly status into the heavenlyone would involve leaving the corporationin Heliopolis, as I understand Utt. 486.This conception may receive some slightsupport from the circumstance that thetwo decisive lines in Utt. 258 and 259

possibly contrast the numerousness of themembers of the council with the sole hewho is upon his 'one'(?)124 and, still morequestionably, being seated with himthat stands on his foot. 125The comparison of the corporationmentioned in Pyr. 1041 a and Pyr. 1462 d,on the one hand, and the council of thegod in Pyr. 309d (= 313 f), on theother, has shown some similarities. To be-gin with, there is a transition from earthlyto heavenly conditions in both Pyr. 309(= 313) and 1041; further, there seemsto be the mutual idea that the deceasedis no longer(?) seated in the council ofthe god (Pyr. 309 = 313), that his mem-bership in the corporation is terminatedwith his burial (Pyr. 1041), and that heruns out of the corporation (Pyr. 1462).The question whether or not we may12o Pyr. 308-311 and 312-315.121 Sethe suggests some such meaning as der eine

Sonderstellung einnimmt.122 Sethe suggests der auf eignen Ftissen steht orthe like.

123 Though Sethe does not speak of the trial towhich Osiris was subdued but of the Totengericht.124Pyr. 309d,e; cf., however, Pyr. 1041a (seeabove, note a) where the one belongs to thecorporation before he leaves it.

125Pyr. 313e.f.



22/32

THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF M'c IJRW 41legitimately identify the conceptions ofthese three passages, however, is not an-swered with certainty here.126The pointof this long digression is to make the fol-lowing warning. We need not assume thatthe introduction of the corporation ofHeliopolis in Pyr. 1041 a and 1462 d refersto the divine trial, nor can Pyr. 309 d anylonger be taken as proof that the idea ofjudgment of the dead is alluded to in thePyramid texts.

CONCLUSIONThe great corporation born in pri-meval age in Heliopolis is an actual insti-tution of ancient origin, though it is con-sidered as identical with the corporationof Heliopolis which exists in the world ofthe myths and the gods. The members ofthis earthly (and mythical) corporationare exempted from the governmentalduties and restrictions to which every-body else is bound. In this understanding&bnthrwand m3chrw point to a procedurein lawsuits in the social order of the Old

Kingdom; concerning a member of thiscorporation the sentence of the judgewould always be he is right, his enemyis criminal. The context, however,might equally well be understood to meanthat the members of the corporation werenot subjected to trial at all.'27 The phrasesin question would then mean: whateverhappens, they are acknowledged byeverybody as right, their enemies ascriminals. In this case 6rw might meaneither the salute or reputation givena man; if, however, the phrases refer to atrial the meaning salute has to be as-sumed. Though the expression macbrwin this utterance refers to the deceasedking and to a corporation which had its

origin in myth, we are therefore permittedor rather compelled to assume that it isan expression of civilian life in the gov-ernmental and social order of earliestEgypt. The parallel of m3c rw with6bn hrw almost certainly excludes themeaning of brw either as voice or asstatement (see above, note c). Themeaning acclamation seems more prob-able than reputation.PART 4. Pyr. 1462 d in Utterance 570(P' P M)The long Utt. 570 is introduced by ref-erence to the birth of the new god (Pyr.1443 b) and concluded by that to his ap-pearance in the eastern heaven (Pyr.1465 d). To my understanding its mainsections include an appeal by the king tovarious gods (Pyr. 1444-1448), his beingacknowledged by gods and men, with anallusion to Heliopolis (Pyr. 1449-1452),and his immortality (Pyr. 1453-1458).The succeeding section Pyr. 1459-1464 isintroduced by the statement that theking takes the white and the red crownand concluded by the assertion that he isoccupant of the seat (4tj)of Re. Its middleand main part is translated here and dis-cussed in respect to mPctrw.

TRANSLATION(1460 b) The eye of Horus is NN, ithas not chewed, it spits out,a (c) he hasnot chewed, he spits out. (1461 a) Listento it (namely) the word, 0 Re, whichNN says to you; (b) your body (= _dt)sin NN, 0 Re, (you) cause your body tolive on NN, 0 Re. (1462 a) The baboonsare killed by the knmtbeast, (b) the knmtbeast is killed by the baboons. (c) 0 thatS'tt(j), 0 this man (tQj),b the runner runsout from among you two0 (d) that be-longd to that first corporation of idrwte(and?) of the acclamation being 'right,'f(1463 a) (the corporation) which wasborn before there was wrath, (b) which

126Pyr. 1462d valuably supports the identificationof the council of the god and the corporation ;see below, Part 4, conclusion.127Below in Part 4, conclusion, it is shown thatthis corporation was probably itself the court.



23/32

42 JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIESwas born before there was outcry (= trw),(c) which was born before there was af-front, (d) which was born before therewas disturbance, (e) which was born be-fore the eye of Horus was hurt, before thetesticles of Seth were damaged.

NOTESa (1460b)The translation ollowsP'; boththe varr.are: Theeye of Horus s NN, whichchews andspits out; he chews andspits out.Translatingin the passive ( it is chewed,etc. ) would seemto make bettersense,but Ido not see any way out grammatically.b (1462c)The ideogramsof ?htt(j) n P Mare listed s.v. hitj, eunuch(?), n WB, IV,264;the spelling ?]htt s givenin P erroneous-ly is omitted,however.As for the meaningof

Shtt(j),we shouldconsider he i~deogramf theUpper Egyptianitrt first of all, whichis com-mon to all three versions; 3j, man, accor-dingly might have some special meaning.Cf.below,SectionIII, n. 168.c (1462c) j*jn n im.tnj n(j)w ht tw tpt ntidrwt nt m3c rw. The first three words mightbe understooddifferently: the runnerrunsinamongyou, therunnerrunsin the midst ofyou ; presumablynot he that is the (quick-est) runneramongyou runs.d (1462d)The contextis quotedin note c.Var. M. reads n(j) ht tw tpt NN, NN is onewho belongs to that first corporation ; hisversion evidently indicates that the runnermentionedbefore s NN.e (1462d) idrwtis unintelligible n everyrespect.Probablyt is a noun(so WB,I, 155).f (Pyr. 1462d) The context is quoted innote c. m3chrw dependsas a genitive (nt)eitheruponidrwtor, parallel o idrwt,uponht.Since m3c hrw occurs in the Pyramid Textsneither as the noun and adjective justifiednoras the noun justification, t is preferableto understandt as Adm.f-formn the presentcontext. This grammaticalconclusionvalu-ably supports heidea that hrw s a pronounce-ment madeby this corporation nd notby thedefendant n a trial whichis held by the cor-poration.

CONCLUSIONThat first corporation of idrwt (and?)of the acclamation being right apparent-

ly is the same as that corporation bornin primeval age in Heliopolis mentionedin Pyr. 1041 a128 and discussed above inPart 3, digression. Such an identificationis indicated, first, by the mention of He-liopolis and of Re with the baboons; sec-ond, by the birth of the corporation inearliest times and the designation of itas first ; finally, by the fact that, to myunderstanding, the deceased king leavesthe corporation in both cases.'29Thoughit is not possible to present a clear trans-lation of 1462 d, this phrase evidentlyshows that the corporation in question isconcerned with m3c trw. This hardly re-fers to the statement of Pyr. 1041 d and1042 d that they are not called criminalsand their enemies are not called right.Grammatical analysis, on the other hand,has shown that 6rw here is their voice orthe acclamation given by them (see abovenote f). When all is said and done, we areleft with the conclusion that it was thiscorporation which was empoweredto givean acclamation that was m3c.Therefore itwas the court of trial. This significantfeature does not emerge in Pyr. 1041-43.It affords valuable support for the pro-posed identification of this corporationwith the council (or court) of the god inPyr. 309d = 313 f which is discussedabove in Part 3, digression.The verb m3c rw, the acclaim isright, in Pyr. 1462 d means the sentencewhich confirms the rightness of someonein trial; it is proffered by the oldest cor-

128 Utt. 486.129 Further relationship might be found also as fol-lows. Sethe, in introducing his commentary of Utt.486, refers to Utt. 571 as being closely related to Utt.468; and Utt. 571 is in tarn closely related to the

present Utt. 570, though the relation does not applyto this section Pyr. 1459-1464 in particular.



24/32

THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF M3c iRW 43poration of Heliopolis, which is not amere mythical conception.PART5. Pyr. 2089 a in Utterance 689 (N)

The initial section of Utt. 689, Pyr.2087-2089, is clearly understandable initself as far as m3c rw is concerned;we donot have to bother about the succeeding.TRANSLATION

(2087 a) Geb has raised the eye ofHorus, which is k02, (b) which is on thearms of his great Kas and upon his manyKas; (2088 a) hea gives your head (toyou, i.e., the eye) that you may beholdHorus. He (i.e., Geb)b has taken his seat.... (b) a lawsuit takes place. (2089 a)Isis comes after she has seized for herselfher breasts in behalf of her divine son,Cand (thus) he is right by acclaim.d(b) NNhas found the eye of Horus.

NOTESa (2088a)A o my understandings either

?dm.f-form ith the suffixomitted,whichcon-tinues?tsnGb n Pyr.2087a,orpart. perf.act.likewisereferringo Geb.b (2088a)irn.f hm?(therefollowsa shortlacuna); Schott'3

Anthes_Meaning of Maa Xrw_JNES 13 (1954)

Documents

Transcript of Anthes_Meaning of Maa Xrw_JNES 13 (1954)