Chapter 2

Not only do we find such characters as these in Ptah-hotep's hand-book, but interesting scenes are brought near to us by the writing-reed of that primaeval Chesterfield. We find ourselves taking supper at the table of a great man. His subordinates sit round, scarcely daring to raise their eyes from their food, not speaking to their host until spoken to. He serves the food that is before him according to his liking for each guest; and the less favoured find solace in the reflection that even the distribution of food is {28} according to Providence. We pass on. Now we are in the hall of council with the other overseers and officials of the province, and our overlord presiding. We notice with astonishment the extreme solemnity and strict observance of custom and precedence in this archaic period. Many of those who have met report on the matters under their charge, and others debate on them. The one now speaking is discussing a trade about which he knows nothing, and an expert rises and makes very short work of his opponent's arguments. Now we are among some people dividing up property. One of them has tried, of course, to bully his friends into giving him more than his due share, and, having failed, leaves the house in a rage. He will regret it later. And so on.

Nothing definite is known concerning these two nobles beyond what is said of them in their works. A fine tomb of a certain Ke'gemni exists at Memphis; his titles, so far as can be ascertained,[11] are: _Judge of the High Court: Governor of the Land unto its Limit, South and North: Director of every Command_. He has sometimes been supposed to be identical with our Ke'gemni; {29} but I am assured by those most competent to judge that this tomb cannot be earlier than the Fifth Dynasty (a good three hundred years from the date assigned to the moralist), so that the theory that they are one person may be dismissed as highly improbable. No other person of the name is known.

The position is much the same with Ptah-hotep. There are near Memphis the tombs of several nobles of this name, of whom two lived in the reign of Isôsi; and in this case, again, it has been assumed that one[12] of these two must be the writer of the Instruction. But in neither instance do the titles coincide with or include those assigned to him. The highest title which he bears, _Eldest Son of the King_, does not anywhere appear in these tombs. It is true that one of these contemporaries was _Hereditary Chief_; but we know that Ptah-hotep was a common name at this time, and in the absence of more certain proof it will be well to abstain from the identification of like names upon insufficient grounds. Thus it is only by the chance discovery of this {30} scroll that these two princes of old time, whose bodies are blown about the desert dust these many centuries, are secured from utter oblivion; men '_such as did bear rule in their kingdoms, men renowned for their power, giving counsel by their understanding, and declaring prophecies: Leaders of the people by their counsels, and by their knowledge of learning meet for the people, wise and eloquent in their instructions_.' And against such as these, that from remote years '_have left a name behind them, that their praises might be reported,_' how many are there '_which have no memorial; who are perished, as though they had never been; and are become as though they had never been born; and their children after them_.'[13]

I had intended to make a detailed analysis of the moral sense of Ptah-hotep and Ke'gemni, but it appears unnecessary; since they give their advice so clearly and simply, they may safely be left to speak for themselves. But as especially noteworthy I would point to the gracious tolerance of ignorance enjoined in § 1 (Ptah-hotep), and the fine reason given for that injunction, in contrast with the scorn expressed for the obstinate fool (Ph. 40); the care due to a wife (Ph. 21), which is in signal contrast to the custom of other Eastern nations in this {31} respect;[14] the great stress laid on filial duties (Ph. 38, 39, 41, 42, 43); the enthusiasm for obedience, expressed in a jargon of puns (Ph. 38), which, once the high-watermark of style among Egyptian _literati_, has long since lost its savour; the interesting matter on manners at table (Kg. 2, 3, Ph. 7, 9), in society (Kg. 4, Ph. 14, 18, 20, 34), and in official positions (Ph. 5, 8, 13, 15, 16, 17, 24, 28). A rough classification including many sections is here given:

Duties toward superiors (Ph. 2, 7, 8, 10, 16, 27, 31).

Duties toward equals (3, 6, 14, 18, 20, 26, 29, 33, 35, 37).

Duties toward inferiors (1, 4, 5, 16, 17, 22). The whole teaching resolves into the maxim, "Be good, and you will be happy;" not at all in the sense that virtue is its own reward--I do not think that that would have seemed an adequate return to Ptah-hotep--but in the sense of material welfare rewarding, as a matter of course, an honourable life. Following his reasoning, if a man be obedient as a son, punctilious as a servant, generous and gentle as a master, and courteous as a friend, then all good things shall fall to him, he shall reach a green old age honoured by the King, and his memory shall be long in the land. This theory, which is not {32} found satisfactory in our day, is insisted on by most of the ancient moralists, who appear to regard it, not as a substitute for conscience, but rather as a _raison d'être_ or justification thereof. Yet, centuries before a King of Israel had seen all things that are, and found them vanity, a King of Egypt had left it on record that he had done all good things for his subjects, and that 'there was no satisfaction therein.'

It has been said with some truth of codes of morals and laws that what is omitted is almost as important as what is included. But we must not carry this too far; we should be foolish indeed did we assert that those things omitted from such a code as Ptah-hotep's were not practised or not held to be important in his day. For example, he 'knows nothing'--as a Higher Critic would say--of kindness to animals; but we know from many things that the Egyptians treated animals kindly and made much of them as pets. In the very tomb of that Ptah-hotep mentioned above,[15] who may be our author, is depicted the bringing of three dogs and a tame monkey to him while he is dressing; possibly so that he may feed them himself. And this kindly feeling obtained throughout Egyptian history. They treated animals more as 'dumb friends' in those days than might have been {33} _a priori_ expected, and more, perhaps, than any other nation of antiquity. Again, he 'knows nothing' of duties to the mother, although he is so insistent on duties to the father; but the high position of women and their matriarchal privileges oppose any deduction that Egyptian manners were somewhat to seek in this direction. Ke'gemni says of the unsociable man that he is a grief to his mother, and another moralist of uncertain date (perhaps Twelfth Dynasty, about B.C. 2700), named 'Eney, is explicit on this matter. He says to his son, '_I gave thee thy mother, she that bore thee with much suffering.... She placed thee at the Chamber of Instruction for the sake of thine instruction in books; she was constant to thee daily, having loaves and beer in her house. When thou art grown, and hast taken to thee a wife, being master in thy house, cast thine eyes on the one that gave thee birth and provided thee with all good things, as did thy mother. Let her not reproach thee, lest she lift up her hands to the God, and He hear her prayer._'

And, most remarkable of all omissions, there is nothing said as to duties to the Gods. In Egypt, whose Gods are beyond counting, where almost everybody was a priest, Ptah-hotep--himself a 'Holy Father' and 'Beloved of the God'--has no word to say on religious obligations, devoting his work entirely to the principles of charity and duty to one's neighbour. It is {34} seemingly sufficient to him that one do the right in this world, without thinking overmuch about the other. This is the more curious in that other writers of the same class have many injunctions regarding worship and sacrifice; and so complete is his reserve touching this matter, so important in the eyes of other Egyptians, that it is easy to believe that it was intentional. We may even discern in him a protagonist of the modern 'Ethical School,' whose adherents may be interested to find their views implicitly held so long ago.

Notwithstanding this singularity, he is by no means unmindful of Deity. We notice that he has occasion to speak several times of 'the God'[16] in His relation to humanity and human affairs. If we collect these references to the God, we shall find that the following qualities are attributed to Him. He rewards diligence (9, 10) and punishes sin (6, 10; also Kg. 5); He is the giver of good things (Ph. 22, 30, 43), dispenses fate and preordains events (6, 7, 9, 26), loves His creation (26), observes men's actions (10), desires them to be fruitful and multiply (12). All this is in complete accord with the belief of other religions--including Christianity--regarding the Godhead. And here we touch another pleasing characteristic of this most ancient of books--its catholic spirit and disregard of those {35} mythological and esoteric riddles that most Egyptian works propound to us continually. It will be noticed that 'the God' is not anywhere mentioned by name. Osiris (5) and Horus (41) are alluded to, but only historically, in respect of their rule upon earth, not as present powers. The reason is this, that at that time the Gods, even the great Gods, were only local, that is to say, their worship was confined to certain towns or districts ('nomes'), and beyond the boundaries of these their names lost that power and influence which they exerted in their peculiar provinces. A book, therefore, which spoke of one God only--by name--would have been found much limited as to popularity and use. Hence the old moralists and didactic writers, whatever God they might themselves worship, forebore to mention Him, since by many readers He would not be recognised as paramount; they wrote instead, 'The God,' that is, 'the God of your allegiance, whoever He may be.' Thus, were the reader a native of Heliopolis, his God would be Atômu, the Setting Sun; of Memphis, Ptah, the Revealer; of Hermopolis, Thoth, Master of Divine Words and Chief of the Eight. It was for this reason that the unknown author of what is called the 'Negative Confession'[17] makes the deceased say, '_I have not scorned the {36} God of my town_.' And, indeed, so simply and purely does Ptah-hotep speak of the God that the modern reader can, without the least degradation of his ideals, consider the author as referring to the Deity of monotheism, and if he be of Christendom, read God; if of Islam, read Allah; if of Jewry, Jehovah.[18]

No doubt the gulf fixed between teaching and practice was as great then as now. We have the teaching, we know that the teaching was current all over Egypt in various forms, but of the practice we know very little. Human nature being much the same at all times and places, we must beware of measuring the one by the other, the unknown by the known, and must be content to take such counsels as showing the Egyptian--

Not what he was, but what he should have been.

It is established that they were a kindly, peace-loving people, genial and courtly; but whether law-abiding is another matter. We know nothing about their laws, but we know {37} that the law-courts were busy, and that legal officials were numerous; and we know, further, that their duplicity and lack of straightforwardness were proverbial among the Greeks and Romans, and persists to this day.

I have noted above the resemblance of the Egyptian Instructions to the Jewish didactic books (_Proverbs and Ecclesiastes_ in the _Old Testament_, _Wisdom of Solomon_ and _Ecclesiasticus_ in the _Apocrypha_); this will be obvious to all readers. Compare, e.g., the opening of Ptah-hotep (§B) with the opening of Proverbs. It is not necessary to point out all the parallels in detail.

I come, lastly, to speak of other translations.[19] The first into any language was that of the Rev. D. I. Heath, Vicar of Brading, Isle of Wight. This version, which first appeared in 1856, was ruined by the translator's theory that the Prisse Papyrus contained references to the Exodus, and was written by the 'Shepherd-King,' Aphobis. How he obtained that name from Ptah-hotep, how he read the Exodus into his book, or how he got three-fourths of his translation, it is not possible to say. Written in a style which is in itself a matter for decipherment, it is full of absurdities and gratuitous mistakes, and {38} is entirely worthless. It is one more instance of the lamentable results that arise when a person with a preconceived Biblical theory comes into contact with Egyptian records. In the following year M. Chabas did part of the papyrus into French, and, as might be expected of an Egyptologist of such attainments, his version was infinitely more accurate than the foregoing. In 1869 Herr Lauth made a translation--also partial--into Latin, and in 1884; M. Philippe Virey published a careful study and complete translation of both books. His rendering[20] was subsequently translated into English and published (with some alterations) in _Records of the Past_, 1890, and has remained the only complete translation in English. It has been taken bodily (even the footnotes) into Myer's _Oldest Books in the World_, and has been put into charming verse by Canon Rawnsley in his _Notes for the Nile_. Thus it appears to be, in a sense, the standard version. Nevertheless, it leaves very much to be desired in point of accuracy, although the general sense of each section is usually caught. Of later years Mr. Griffith has done important work on this text, and I am indebted to his translations for several readings.

As regards the version here offered, I will only say that it has been done with considerable care, {39} without prejudice, and, it is thought, in accordance with scientific methods of translation; and that it has been compared with all previous renderings, and will be found to be, on the whole, the most accurate that has yet appeared.

And now I will leave Ptah-hotep to speak for himself. It may be thought that he has been introduced at too great length; but I would point out that his book has been strangely overlooked by the educated public hitherto, although it would be difficult to over-estimate its importance, to literature as the oldest complete book known, to ethics and theology as the earliest expression of the mystery we name Conscience, and to lovers of antiquity as one of the most instructive and touching relics of a people and a power that once were great and are now brought to nothing. By a happy chance the words of our sage have been justified, in that he said, '_No word that hath here been set down shall cease out of the land for ever_.' Would indeed that we had more of such books as this, whereby we may a little lighten the darkness that lies behind the risings of a million suns; and learn how little the human heart, and the elements of human intercourse, alter throughout the ages. And what of the other writers of that time, whose works and whose very names are entirely swept away? To this there is no better answer made than in the lamentation made by the harper close upon five {40} thousand years ago, which was written up in the tomb of King 'Entef:

_Those that built them tombs_, he sang, _have now no resting-place. Lo! what of their deeds? I have heard the words of Yemhotep and of Hardedef, whose sayings men repeat continually. Behold! where are their abodes? Their walls are over-thrown, and their places are not, even as though they had not been._'

The burden of Egypt.

BATTISCOMBE G. GUNN.

3, PARK HILL ROAD, CROYDON.

[1] Much ingenuity has been expended to show that Egyptian manners and customs, books, and other things, were "much the same" as our own, as though the supposed similarity reflected any credit either on them or on us. Except in customs which are common to all times and places, as drinking beer, writing love-letters, making wills, going to school, and other things antecedently probable, the Egyptian life can show very few parallels to the life of to-day.

[2] The monuments leave no doubt of this. Pen and ink were used in the First Dynasty, and speech had been reduced to visible signs before that.

[3] About B.C. 1770. In all Egyptian dates given in this book I follow Professor Petrie's chronology.

[4] These are round figures, of course, and in the case of Solomon and Moses traditional dates. Modern criticism places _Genesis_ and _Proverbs_ much later than 1500 and 1000 B.C.

[5] See Appendix for the literature of this papyrus.

[6] These were kings of the Eleventh Dynasty, about 2986 B.C.

[7] In the translation these divisions are indicated, for purposes of reference, by numbers and letters, which are not, of course, in the original. So also in the Instruction of Amenemhê'et (Appendix).

[8] Pwenet: the identification is not certain.

[9] Fragments of another are in the British Museum.

[10] It has been thought to be as late as the Seventeenth (about 1600 B.C.), but the balance of opinion favours the above-mentioned period.

[11] The inscriptions and sculptures from this tomb have not yet been published, but a work dealing with it will shortly appear. The above titles, excepting the first, are from Lepsius, _Denkmäler aus Ägypten und Äthiopien_, Abth. II. 48, Berlin, 1849-68.

[12] Called Ptah-hotep I. by Egyptologists. For a description of his tomb, see Mariette, A., _Les Mastabas de l'Ancien Empire_, Paris, 1889, D. 62. For the other Ptah-hotep under Isôsi, see Quibell, J. E., and Griffith, F. L., _Egyptian Research Account; The Ramesseum and the Tomb of Ptah-Hotep_, London, 1898. Also Davies, N. de G., and Griffith, F. L., _Egypt Exploration Fund; The Mastaba of Ptahhetep and Akhethetep at Saqqara_, 2 vols., London, 1900, 1901. The little figure on the cover of this book is from this tomb.

[13] _The Wisdom of the Son of Sirach_, chap. xliv.

[14] The Egyptians were monogamists at this time, and the wife enjoyed social equality with her husband.

[15] Page 29, footnote.

[16] _Nôter_.

[17] This is an arbitrary name not existing in the original. It would be better named 'The Declaration of Innocence.'

[18] It has been thought by many Egyptologists that 'the God' mentioned in this and other texts is a nameless monotheistic abstraction transcending all named gods. Although this theory has the support of many great names, I venture to say that the evidence for such an important doctrine is in the highest degree unsatisfactory.

[19] The books mentioned here are set forth in detail in the Bibliography.

[20] Only of Ptah-hotep.

{41}

THE INSTRUCTION OF PTAH-HOTEP

The Ethics of Argument--Manners for Guests--From Father to Son--A Just Judge--The Treatment of Servants--Duties of the Great--The Test of Friendship--The Beauty of Obedience--One Generation to Another--Whom the King Honoureth

The Instruction of the Governor of his City, the Vizier, Ptah-hotep, in the Reign of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Isôsi, living for ever, to the end of Time.

A. The Governor of his City, the Vizier, Ptah-hotep, he said: 'O Prince, my Lord, the end of life is at hand; old age descendeth [upon me]; feebleness cometh, and childishness is renewed. He [that is old] lieth down in misery every day. The eyes are small; the ears are deaf. Energy is diminished, the heart hath no rest. The mouth is silent, and he speaketh no word; the heart stoppeth, and he remembereth not yesterday. The bones are painful throughout the body; good turneth unto evil. All taste departeth. These things doeth old age for mankind, being evil in all things. The nose is stopped, and he breatheth not for weakness (?), whether standing or sitting.

'Command me, thy servant, therefore, to make over my princely authority [to my son]. Let me speak unto him the words of them that hearken to the counsel of the men of old time; those that {42} hearkened unto the gods. I pray thee, let this thing be done, that sin may be banished from among persons of understanding, that thou may enlighten the lands.'

Said the Majesty of this God:[1] 'Instruct him, then, in the words of old time; may he be a wonder unto the children of princes, that they may enter and hearken with him. Make straight all their hearts; and discourse with him, without causing weariness.'

B. Here begin the proverbs of fair speech, spoken by the Hereditary Chief, the Holy Father,[2] Beloved of the God, the Eldest Son of the King, of his body, the Governor of his City, the Vezier, Ptah-hotep, when instructing the ignorant in the knowledge of exactness in fair-speaking; the glory of him that obeyeth, the shame of him that transgresseth them.

He said unto his son:

1. Be not proud because thou art learned; but discourse with the ignorant man, as with the sage. For no limit can be set to skill, neither is there any craftsman that possesseth full advantages. Fair speech is more rare than the emerald that is found by slave-maidens on the pebbles.

2. If thou find an arguer talking, one that is well disposed and wiser than thou, let thine arms {43} fall, bend thy back,[3] be not angry with him if he agree (?) not with thee. Refrain from speaking evilly; oppose him not at any time when he speaketh. If he address thee as one ignorant of the matter, thine humbleness shall bear away his contentions.

3. If thou find an arguer talking, thy fellow, one that is within thy reach, keep not silence when he saith aught that is evil; so shalt thou be wiser than he. Great will be the applause on the part of the listeners, and thy name shall be good in the knowledge of princes.

4. If thou find an arguer talking, a poor man, that is to say not thine equal, be not scornful toward him because he is lowly. Let him alone; then shall he confound himself. Question him not to please thine heart, neither pour out thy wrath upon him that is before thee; it is shameful to confuse a mean mind. If thou be about to do that which is in thine heart, overcome it as a thing rejected of princes.

5. If thou be a leader, as one directing the conduct of the multitude, endeavour always to be gracious, that thine own conduct be without defect. Great is Truth, appointing a straight path; never hath it been overthrown since the {44} reign of Osiris.[4] One that oversteppeth the laws shall be punished. Overstepping is by the covetous man; but degradations (?) bear off his riches, for the season of his evil-doing ceaseth not. For he saith, 'I will obtain by myself for myself,' and saith not, 'I will obtain because I am allowed.' But the limits of justice are steadfast; it is that which a man repeateth from his father.

6. Cause not fear among men; for [this] the God punisheth likewise. For there is a man that saith, 'Therein is life'; and he is bereft of the bread of his mouth. There is a man that saith, 'Power [is therein]'; and he saith, 'I seize for myself that which I perceive.' Thus a man speaketh, and he is smitten down. It is another that attaineth by giving unto him that hath not; not he that causeth men dread. For it happeneth that what the God hath commanded, even that thing cometh to pass. Live, therefore, in the house of kindliness, and men shall come and give gifts of themselves.