The Maxims of Good Discourse
or the Wisdom of Ptahhotep
ca.2200 BCE

the art of hearing, listening & excellent discourse
the plumb-line of the scales & the state of veneration

the Scribe of Saqqara
IVth or Vth Dynasty (ca.2600 - 2348 BCE) - Louvre E 3023

Adjacent Pages :

plain text of the Maxims
notes on the translation
lexicon of special concepts
hieroglyphic text of the Maxims

by Wim van den Dungen

Introduction

1 Did the historical Ptahhotep write the Maxims of Good Discourse ?

2 Philological & Historical remarks and options.

2.1 Papyrus Prisse, the British Museum Papyri and the Carnarvon Tablet.
lexicon of major concepts, notes to the text, plain text, hieroglyphic text
2.2 Hermeneutics of Ancient Egyptian.
2.3 A few points of importance concerning the Memphite Kingdom.

3 The Memphite Philosophy of Order through Just Speech.

3.1 Various perspectives on Maat.
3.2 The hermeneutics of the Weighing Scene.
3.3 Hearing versus listening, ignorance versus wisdom.

Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

The Maxims of Good Discourse, named after the 37 wisdom sayings which make out the bulk of this ancient text, is indeed a literary composition, i.e. a text which shows deliberate cognitive design beyond that of a record, list or collection of moral ideas. This ancient text (ca. 4400 years old), written by a man called "Ptahhotep" ("ptH-Htp"), has been labelled a "moral" text which does not "amount to a comprehensive moral code", nor are its precepts "strung together in any local order" (Lichtheim, 1975, vol 1, p.62) ... 

Is the category "logical order" (in its Greek sense) applicable to the context of Ancient Egyptian thought, writing and verbalisation ? Besides morality, Ptahhotep also teaches, by example, anthropology, politics and the emancipation of everyman. Indeed, he touches "upon the most important aspects of human relations" (Lichtheim, 1975, vol 1, p.62). Moreover, the compositional backbone of this remarkable text, written as early as the late VIth Dynasty (ca.2200 BCE), is "discourse" and its dynamics, which is suggestive of the verbal philosophy of Memphis. Furthermore, an "ascetical" approach to divinity is present, for none of the gods (except for his Majesty the Pharaoh, Osiris, Maat and the "Followers of Horus") are mentioned by name. "Netjer" ("nTr", "god") is mentioned as one flagpole without determinative. The "netjeru" ("nTrw", the plural of "god" or "the gods") are invoked by that word only once (line 24), and are next referred to as "they". 

This absence of constellational elements contrasts with the contemporay royal texts, such as the Unis-Texts and will remain typical for didactical literature as a whole. There we read that "gods" (like Pharaoh) "fly" and ordinary men "hide" (Sethe, 1908/1960, Utterance 302, § 459a, vol.1, p.236). Ptahhotep thus also offers the Old Kingdom solution to the soteriology of the non-royal officials and commoners. The teaching itself however, can be recommended to everybody, Pharaoh and non-royals alike.

In the expression "tjesu en medjet neferet" (line 33 - "Tsw n md.t nfr.t"), usually translated as "the maxims of good discourse", the word "tjes" ("Ts"), "maxim" can also mean "speech, utterance" or "phrase, sentence" (Faulkner, 1999, p.308). The determinative of a papyrus roll (writing and thinking) is added. 

The word "nefer" ("nfr") has a complex field of semantical connotations, being of use in more than one context. It shares this characteristic with other important Egyptian words, such as "hearing", "truth", "justice", "becoming" etc. These "special" coordinated schemes, pre-concepts and concrete concepts define the fundamental semantics of the edifice of Egyptian philosophy was construed, i.e. notions & (pre-)concepts which elucidate the origin & the continuity of creation and humanity in it. Other meanings of "nefer" are "beautiful of appearence, kind of face, good, fine of quality, necessary, happy of condition" (Faulkner, 1999, p.131). So a broader context is suggested. The maxims describe a kind of discourse which produces a happy life. Although actions are important, proper speech is even more. An element of necessity is invoked, so that one may say that if a "good" discourse is made, the enduring effects will be generated "de opere operato". Morality (good or evil actions) is hence rooted in thought & speech (good or bad speech), and this in accord with the theology of Memphis).

In the mythical, neolithic mind, stability and order were sacred. Natural cycles manifested the enduring as part of creation. Cycles related to birth, growth, death & rebirth became the domain of the "great goddess" of the sacred (in Ancient Egypt, ca. 4000 BCE). The notion that the human skeleton represents the enduring within man is (still) part of Shamanism, the natural, unorganized, religious culture of the hunters & early settlers, so prominent in the Neolithic. Mummification takes the conservation of the ephemeral a step further, for here that which is meant to disappear (flesh & blood), is sustained, to allow for an everlasting existence of the personality ("Ka") and the soul ("Ba") with its mummy, i.e. a "second birth" in the kingdom of Osiris. To challenge the process of decay was one of the essential features of funerary preoccupations, indeed, characteristic of the Ancient Egyptian mentality as a whole. The mummified viscera prove the point.

The message of Ptahhotep seeks to transmit that which endures in the realm of the heart, the abode of consciousness, free will, conscience, thought and speech (in short, the "mind"). The maxims exemplify Maat. By truly understanding each "example", the "son" (pupil, disciple), who heard and listened, acquires rectitude of mind, affect and action, the proper balance and steering capacities to navigate the heart in such a way that efficient and luminous results ensue and evil, injustice and irrationality flee. As a true Memphite, Ptahhotep puts all his trust in the cognitive capacities, especially in speech. The wise acquires just speech. The hierarchy of justice typical for the Old Kingdom is of course presupposed :

Besides Pharaoh, nobody addressed the spirits (of the gods & goddesses who abide in the sky) directly. He alone mediated between heaven and earth because he was the only god on earth. In particular, his voice-offerings were the performance of rectitude, so that through them Pharaoh returned Maat to its creator, his father Re and by doing so guaranteed an order which could at any time be disrupted. He (and his representatives) were the only one able to do so. Pharaoh embodied Egypt and the Nile embodied Egypt. This grand river, flowing from South to North, yearly fed Egypt by inundating the Two Lands. The circulation of goods along it, had been essential in the process of unification of the land, and the establishment in the "House of Ptah" at Memphis ("Men-nefer") of the "Balance of the Two Lands", as the Memphis Theology claims : 

"Then Heru stood over the land. He is the uniter of this land, proclaimed in the great name : Tanen, South-of-his-Wall, lord of eternity. Then sprouted (14c) the two Great in Magic upon his head. He is Heru who arose as king of Upper and Lower Egypt, who united the Two Lands in the Nome of the (White) Wall, the place in which the Two Lands were united. (15c) Reed (heraldic plant for Upper Egypt) and papyrus (heraldic plant for Lower Egypt) were placed on the double door of the House of Ptah. That means : Heru and Seth, pacified and united. They fraternized so as to cease quarreling (16c) wherever they may be, being united in the House of Ptah, the 'Balance of the Two Lands' in which Upper and Lower Egypt had been weighed."
Memphis Theology : lines 13c - 16c

Endurance was also the motivation behind inscribing the divine words in stone (another activity ruled by Ptah). To writing was attributed the capacity to abolish the temporal limitations of speech and to extend the latter infinitely. The texts were inscribed on the walls of the tomb, the sarcophagus (coffin) and the mummy (in the form of amulets & talismans). The deceased was not supposed to "read" these words, but he or she remained in the vincinity of their sacramental "sekhem" (power), eternalized through writing & ritual.

Old Kingdom religion envisaged two ways to explain the world. Either through self-creation or as a product of divine cognition & speech. 

The Heliopolitans (Heliopolis, "Iunu") taught that order (creation) was self-caused ("kheper" - "xpr") in the midst of undifferentiated chaos, darkness and oblivion (the "Nun", or primordial water, a cultless deity). Chaos continued to lurk in the darkness of the deep, and might be encountered during sleep (bad dreams) or in the netherworld (when born again like Osiris). Its most horrible manifestation in creation was the annihilation of a person's name ("ren"), which might happen to the deceased if judgement was negative and the person was not justified (its heart eaten by the monsterous devouress of the dead or "am mwt", which had the head and the jaws of a crocodile, the hind quaters of a hippopotamus and the middle part of a lion).

In the beginning, creation unfolded out of a point of absolute singularity. This alternation-point ("Atum", "tm", suggestive of completion, totality) was conceived by the Heliopolitans (the dominant royal theology of the Old Kingdom) as "causa sui" and fugal. Atum created himself by masturbating, taking his own seed into his mouth and spitting out (sneezing) the constituents of creation (the nine basic elements of creation, Atum -the monadic principle- included). Together with Pharaoh (the 10th element or pyramideon), the sacred decad of order was realized, both in the sky (the Ennead) as on earth (the Residence of Pharaoh).

This primordial creative activity was imagined to "happen" in a realm which existed in-between pre-creation and creation, situated as the "first time", the "beginning" ("zep tepy" - "zp tpii"), absolute time (or no-time). Creation was the ejection (cf. Big Bang) out of this point of singularity (Atum and his mythical deed of self-impregnation). This Crown of creation permanently oscillated between the order of creation and the mythical "first time". This monad simultaneously split into two fundamental creative principles (space -Shu- and time -Tefnut-), out of which the multitudes orderly emerged.

The Memphites taught that Ptah was the creator of the universe. He was the creator of chaos and of Atum. In their theology, the whole Heliopolitan process happens in the "form" or "image" of events in the heart and on the tongue of Ptah. "Atum" is a creative verb, image, scheme or model. Its functionality (and that of other important deities such as Horus and Thoth) is not denied, but seen as an outward manifestation (theophany) of the all-encompassing cognitive activity of the speaking Ptah (cf. the creative verb). This focus on manifestation through speech can also be found in the royal funerary texts (largely Heliopolitan) and in "Khemenu" (Hermopolis, the city of Thoth & magic), were the sacred Ibis dropped the creative word in the primordial ocean, therewith creating the universe.

These cosmogonic speculations, essential to understand the broader context of any discourse on wisdom, belong to the order of creation (the deities) and to the order of Egypt (Pharaoh). Ptahhotep's work, adhering to the Memphite accent on discourse, aims to propose a "way of life" valid for everybody. Although the base of the pyramid offers no panorama, its fundamental role is unmistaken, for it carries everything above it. What can be said of the situation of everybody ? Ptahhotep does not deny the existence of higher types of rectitudes. The deities ("god" and "the gods") and Pharaoh are mentioned by name, but are not aimed at in the maxims, although the proper circulation of Maat depends on them. But what can be done by someone with no divine soul ("Ba") ? How far does wisdom alone take such a person ?

The Weighing Scene
Papyrus of Ani - XIXth Dynasty - British Museum

One of the motivations behind these studies is the clarification of the distinction between Egyptian and Greek philosophy, between ante-rationality (and its irrational foundation in mythical thought) and rationality. Indeed, Greek philosophy emerged as a culture of rational debate at the heart of the "polis", the city-state. The conflicts between systems of thought were much like political differences : they needed to be solved in public through argument & dialogue, and logic and/or rhetorics were the means to realize this. By realizing that pre-Greek, ante-rational speculation existed and by investigating these philosophical strands, one may disentangle the polemic nature of Greek philosophy from general philosophy, which is the persuit of wisdom by all possible means (i.e. it is not exclusively rational, although never irrational, i.e. purely mythical).

In Egypt's Old Kingdom, the wisdom of the didactical texts dealt with the continuity of truth and justice. These wisdom texts can and should be distinguished from schemata, pre-concepts & concepts related to natural philosophy (the origin of the world - cosmogony, which mainly flourished in the New Kingdom - cf. Amun-Re & the Aten) and verbal philosophy (the idea that words are creative). Although Marxist, atheist and humanist philosophers claimed that Ancient Egypt only produced a "cosmic" moral code unable to separate "is" from "ought", the difference between the natural (descriptive - how things are) and moral (normative - how thing should be) order was indeed part of Ancient Egyptian philosophy (cf. infra). That their moral theory was in accord with their cosmology, does not reduce the Ancient Egyptian sense of justice to their ontological scheme of how things are. It is thanks to the hard work of post-war egyptologists of all disciplines and nationalities that philosophers today may try to understand the cognitive, philosophical, spiritual, religious & theological implications of the Ancient Egyptian heritage and its profound, complex influence on all cultures of the Mediterranean.

Hence, the words "wisdom" and "philosophy", although applicable in the general sense as a conceptualized, practical investigation of the being of creation and man, do not have dialogal & polemic associations. And of course, pre-Greek philosophies never worked with the "tabula rasa" principle, neither with the Razor of Ockham, but rather with a multiplicity (complementarity) of approaches (as evidenced by the different cosmogonies). Different answers were as it were put on top of each other. Wisdom was tradition embedded in context. This absence of debate and lively discussions does not imply the absence of philosophy, i.e. the quest for a comprehensive understanding (within the limitations of the given modes of cognition) of the universe and the situation of humanity, as shown by the Maxims of Good Discourse. That proto-rational thought is not a priori devoid of philosophical inclinations, may well a discovery which balances the Hellenocentric approach of wisdom, so fashionable in the West since the Renaissance.

In what follows, Ptahhotep and his text are highlighted. My translation was inspired by the work of Dévaud (1916), Zába (1956), Lichtheim (1975), Lalouette (1984), Brunner (1991) & Jacq (1993) and distances itself from an approach which deviates too much from the original text, such as the questionable translation of Laffont (1979), or which limits itself to the translation of only a few maxims.

1 Did the historical Ptahhotep
write the Maxims of Good Discourse ?

The mastaba of Ptahhotep is a double mastaba which he shared with his father, Akhti-hotep. His room is quite similar to Ptahhotep's, although less decorated. The tomb suggests that Ptahhotep must have held a very important position during the reign of Pharaoh Djedkare (ca. 2411 - 2378 BCE), the predecessor of Unis (cf. the Cannibal Hymn).  In his tomb, Ptahhotep describes himself as a priest of Maat. He was also the vizier, the chief of the treasury and the granary, as well as a judge. The reliefs found inside are not all completed. The main corridor has reliefs on both sides. On the left are what appear to be preliminary drawings in red. Over the red are corrections in black made by the master artist.

Other reliefs show fowl being carried by servants to Ptahhotep. Mastaba of Ptahhotep - Saqqara

At the end of the corridor to the right of a pillard hall and then left is Ptahhotep's burial chamber. The reliefs there are the best preserved of the Old Kingdom. The ceilings are imitations of the trunks of palm trees. Back into the pillard hall and to the left is the chamber of Akhti-hotep. Through a passageway to the left is a chamber that contains a mummy that has not been identified. The passageway leads to the pillard hall and the entrance corridor.

The word "vizier" is the French spelling of the Turkish "vezir", which was the title of the Sultan's prime minister. This in turn comes from the Arabic "wazir", or "porter". In Ancient Egypt, the vizier wore a special garment which remained unchanged for thousands of years. It was a plain smock made of pure white cotton which symbolized his impartiality.

The mastaba of Ptahhotep, East Wall, drawing Davies, N. de G., 1900.
Notice above the young Ptahhotep the cartouche of Pharaoh Izezi (top of second column),
whereas above the older Ptahhotep we read "in front of Maat" (third column).

The vizier was the head of the administration, but at various times, and particularly at Thebes, the vizier might also be the chief priest. In the Old Kingdom, the role of the Egyptian state was organizational : preventing local famines by bringing in the surplus, lessening the effect of calamities (irregular inundations), arbitration and security. Irrigation works were the responsibility of the local responsible. Viziers heard all domestic territorial disputes, maintained a cattle and herd census, controlled the reservoirs and the food supply, supervised industries and conservation programs, and were also required to repair all dikes. The bi-annual census of the population came under their authority, as did the records of rainfall and the varying levels of the Nile during its inundation. All government documents used in Ancient Egypt had to bear the seal of the vizier in order to be considered authentic and binding. Tax records, storehouse receipts, crop assessments and other necessary agricultural statistics were kept in the offices of the viziers. In addition, young members of the royal family often served under the vizier. In this capacity, they received training in government affairs.

It is probable that throughout Egyptian history, the viziers were some of Pharaoh's most trusted allies. The vizier was usually in constant contact with him, consulting him on many important matters. Family members, particularly those who might hold a claim to kingship, could often not be trusted. But viziers, even though at times did elevate themselves to kingship, were probably most often selected not only for their skills, but because Pharaoh could trust them to carry out his will without the fear they might overthrow his rule.

In the tombs of viziers we see various crafts at work in different tasks. His responsibility was not little. In the tomb of the vizier Rekhmire (XVIIIth Dynasty), the latter is installed by Pharaoh Thutmose III with the words :

"His Majesty said to him : 'Look to the office of vizier. Watch over all that is done in it. Lo, it is the pillar for the whole land. Lo, being vizier, Lo, it is not sweet, Lo, it is bitter as gall. Lo, he is the copper that shields the gold of his master's house, Lo, he is not one who bends his face to magistrates and councillors, not one who makes of anyone his client."
The Installation of Rekhmire, his tomb at Thebes (N.de G.Davies, 1944, pp.84-88 & plates xiv - xv).

Was Ptahhotep, besides vizier, also a teacher of wisdom ?

Papyrus Prisse, belonging to the Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris), contains the only complete version of the Maxims we currently possess. It is in Middle Egyptian, the language of the Middle Kingdom, and was probably manifactured in the XIth Dynasty (in this First Intermediate Period, between ca. 2198 and 1938 BCE, another interesting work of literature saw the light : the Discourse of a Man with his Ba). The text itself situates the wisdom-teaching in the late Vth Dynasty, when Old Egyptian was still in use. If the teachings were indeed Ptahhotep's and he originally wrote them in Old Egyptian, then we are forced to assume considerable linguistic alterations to explain how the Old Egyptian text became a Middle Egyptian one. For Miriam Lichtheim, this is one of the strong arguments in favour of the idea that the Maxims are pseudo-epigraphic (Lichtheim, 1975, vol.1, p.6).

Interestingly, these wisdom-teachings do not stand alone. The "earliest" instruction is the Teaching of Prince Hordedef (son of Pharaoh Khufu, IVth Dynasty, ca. 2571 - 2548). Only a fragment of the text has survived (namely the beginning - Lichtheim, 1975, pp.58-59). It has been pieced together using relatively late copies, namely 9 ostraca of the New Kingdom and one wooden tablet of the Late Period (Brunner-Traut, 1940). The text is archaic enough to be (late) Old Egyptian, i.e. a text supposedly transmitted (copied) without major alterations. If compared with the language of the monumental record, scholars situate its composition in the Vth Dynasty. The tomb of Hardjedef, as he is also known, has been located at Giza, to the east of the pyramid of his father Khufu. Hardjedef also appears later in stories compiled during the Middle Kingdom. A lot of wisdom-teachings are attributed to him, but time has left us nothing but a few ostraca.

The reconstructed fragment (Lichtheim, 1975, pp.58-59) reads :

The third Old Kingdom instruction is that to Kagemni (serving under Huni & Snefru, IIIth to IVth Dynasty). Of this Instruction to Kagemni only the final portion is preserved and the name of the sage is lost. But, the text is part also of Papyrus Prisse and (after a blank stretch) it is followed by the Maxims of Ptahhotep. Clearly, the fact that Papyrus Prisse contains both texts makes it the oldest compendium of wisdom teachings extant on papyrus. Although the context of the teaching (to Kagemni) claims to be late IIIth Dynasty, its language is characterized by the schematics of Middle Egyptian encountered in the text of the Maxims, which claims to be late Vth Dynasty. As the record makes the point of the difference between late IIIth Dynasty and late Vth Dynasty literature, the "tangibly fictional nature of this attribution" (Lichtheim, 1975, vol 1, p.67) must be acknowledged. As only the wisdom teachings were transmitted in the name of a famous sage (all other literature being anonymous), we may presume that this name is indicative of a school of thought initiated by a historical figure of importance (another excellent example is Imhotep and later Amenhotep).

"Aus der in die Lehre genannten Zeit, den Regierungen des Königs Snofru, ist ein Wesir mit Namen Kagemni nicht bekannt, dagegen existiert in Saqqara das Grab eines solchen aus der frühen 6.Dynastie, und es ist sehr wahrscheinlich, dass dieser Mann mit dem Empfänger der Lehre gemeint ist, zumal sich am Grab Spuren seiner Verehrung gefunden haben. Die Lehre wäre dann, wie mache ägyptischen Literaturwerke, in eine berühmde Vergangenheit zurückdatiert worden. Dass sie noch im Alten Reich, wenn auch gegen dessen Ende, verfasst worden ist, dürfen wir nach Inhalt und Sprache annehmen."
Brunner (1991, p.133).

Because we know that : (a) many of the forms characteristic of Middle Egyptian can already be found in the biographical inscriptions from VIth Dynasty tombs and (b) the Maxims (together with the Instruction to Kagemni) fit "into the ambiance of the late Old Kingdom" (Lichtheim, 1975, vol 1, p.7) and its monumental inscriptions, the author of the Maxims was most likely at work ca.150 years after vizier Ptahhotep, who indeed worked at the court of Pharaoh Djedkare Izez or Issa, died (namely after Pepi II). And as the period between the probable first redaction in the late VIth Dynasty and the extant Middle Kingdom versions is rather small (the end of the VIth and the beginning of the XIth are only a century apart), only minor textual alterations have to be conjectured to bridge the gap between the first redaction and the extant copy. The other line of thought, which suggests a Vth Dynasty original (composed before the Unis Texts !), has to cope with the difficulty of explaining how an Old Egyptian text got copied and was altered to become the early Middle Egyptian text of Papyrus Prisse ?

Although at present no consensus among scholars exists, I agree with Lichtheim that the texts of Kagemni & Ptahhotep are pseudo-epigraphic. This does not exclude the possibility of a line of transmission going back to the historical author. In the case of Ptahhotep, this would be suggestive of a "Memphite school" or a community of scribes working in the House of Life of the temple of Ptah at Memphis. Of this however, we only have circumstancial evidence and no direct proof.

The actual redaction of this age old wisdom at the end of the Old Kingdom, could also point to an attempt to exorcise the fortcoming collapse of the Memphite Kingdom under the pressure of the provinces and their enriched nomarchs. Was it the aim of the unknown author to summarize the best of what the past had given, because of the crisis of today, which needed to be solved so that the generations of tomorrow might endure ? The same method would be used, much later, by Pharaoh Shabaka when he rescued the "worm-eaten" Memphite theology. 

In the Maxims, Pharaoh and pantheon play a passive part in the literary setting of the teaching, whereas the discourse of the commoners was elucidated in the context of the avoidance of the collapse of the natural order and its rectitude by doing Maat for Pharaoh (who offered it for creation). 

We shall treat the Maxims of Good Discourse as a pseudo-epigraphic wisdom-text written by an unknown author who, by means of a set of literary devices (such as a pseudo-epigraphic attribution, a compositional context, a narrative structure, a "count" of good examples, etc.), tried to impart the non-polemic, moral philosophy of the Old Kingdom. This author saw in the historical vizier Ptahhotep a recent, grand example of Maat everybody still knew, would recognize and might adhere to.

These considerations point to the following redactional levels :

• extant text : to be found on the oldest papyrus extant, dating XIth Dynasty (ca. 2081 - 1938 BCE) ;

• original text : probably written in early Middle Egyptian in the late VIth Dynasty (ca. 2348 - 2198 BCE) ;

• original ideas : not later as the period proposed in the extant text ? Pharaoh Djedkare of the late Vth Dynasty, reigned between ca. 2411 and 2378 BCE. The legend of wisdom-teachers goes back to Imhotep, the architect of Pharaoh Djoser of the IIIth Dynasty, ca.2654 - 2635 BCE.

But is remains difficult to establish how far these wisdom teachings really go back. For example, in the early days of research, egyptologists dated the Pyramid Texts as early as possible. For Sethe they were Predynastic ! Most contemporary egyptologists go to the other extreme, and date the origin of texts close to the time of their extant textualization (even if the assumption of earlier copies of the same text is not unreasonable or even mentioned in the copy). The more we study the Predynastic Period (i.e. before 3000 BCE), the more it can be shown that important elements of the Egyptian cultural form were already present before the Dynasties started. But the introduction, in the Early Dynastic Period (Dynasty I and II, ca. 3000 - 2670 BCE), of Pharaoh (the "Followers of Horus") was essential to the process of consolidating the elements of the unification of the Two Lands and its various deities. The advancement of language ran parallel with Pharaoh's outstanding achievements. By the IVth Dynasty, Old Egyptian was written down.

As the language of the Maxims is indeed suggestive of the VIth Dynasty, the most reasonable earliest date is the one proposed by the extant text itself, namely de reign of Pharaoh Djedkare. Indeed, these instructions embody teachings on justice & truth (Maat) which must have existed long before the VIth Dynasty. On the walls of the tomb of the pyramid of Pharaoh Unis (Vth Dynasty) and the rulers of the VIth, we read : 

"To say : 'May you shine as Re, repress wrongdoing, cause Maat to stand behind Re, shine every day for him who is in the horizon of the sky. Open the gates which are in the Abyss."
Pyramid Texts, utterance 586 (§ 1582), translated by Faulkner (1969, p.238). 

"Collect what belongs to Maat, for Maat is what the King says."
Pyramid Texts, utterance 758 (§ 2290), translated by Faulkner (1969, p.318). 

Wisdom as a literary genre is the fruit of a society which knows leisure, peace & prosperity. When cultures are only surviving, no higher, less material and more spiritual values concerning life and oneself are possible. That this profound literary genre emerged more than 4000 years ago, is highly remarkable and should mobilize more attention than it has. So the wisest sages of Ancient Egypt were pre-philosophers ? True, they did not argue in abstract, discursive categories. Their schemes, pre-concepts and concrete conceptualizations allow us to understand thought from an unexpected, ante-rational perspective, so that the aim of cognitive philosophy is realized : an integrated rationality in harmony with ante-rationalist (and its instincts) & intellectual perception (and its intuitions). This is a rationality with a global perspective, working in the local context of everyday. It fosters sustainable harmonization instead of sustainable development, for enduring growth is an illusion. Only the balance itself endures, not what lies in its scales.

Wisdom-literature remained a genre in Ancient Egypt from its legendary start (Imhotep of the IIIth Dynasty who allegedly wrote the first "wisdom-teaching") untill the advent of the Christian era.

2 Philological & Historical remarks and options.

2.1 Papyrus Prisse, the British Museum Papyri and the Carnarvon Tablet.

It is impossible to say, how early the Egyptians began to cut and press the stalks of the papyrus plant in order to make a material for the use of the scribe. But we know that papyrus was already employed for literary purposes in the time of the IIIth Dynasty (ca. 2670 - 2600 BCE), whereas uninscribed papyrus has been found in tombs of the first Dynasty (ca. 3000 BCE) ! We also know that it was used for cursive hieroglyphs (reserving stone for the lasting constructions of Pharaoh).

The Maxims have survived in four copies :

• Papyrus Prisse (P) : this is the most precious & oldest papyrus known (XIth Dynasty - ca. 2081 - 1938 BCE). It has been well styled "the oldest book in the world" (Chabas, 1858). It was bought by E.Prisse d'Avennes (1807 - 1879), a French engineer, painter and master draughtsman who lived in Luxor. He was passionate about Arabic and Egyptian Art (cf. Histoire de l'Art Égyptien, 1878) and also a distinguished scholar who, with the documentation collected during his many travels in the Middle East, gave a decisive contribution to the knowledge of Arabian Art. On the East side of the Nile (ancient Thebes - Drah Abou'l Negga), he acquired the papyrus which would immortalize his name. It contained the end of the "teaching" of Kagemni and a complete version of that of Ptahhotep. It clearly appeared to be a Middle Kingdom copy of earlier copies. For Jéquier (1911), this was "le texte littéraire égyptien le plus difficule à traduire". Breasted, Erman & Gardiner agreed ;

• Papyri BM (L₁) : British Museum Papyri n^os 10371 - 10435 (published by Jéquier, 1911) of the XIIth Dynasty - it consists of two series of fragments and is incomplete (no beginning) ;

• Papyrus BM (L₂) : British Museum Papyrus n° 10409 (Budge, 1910), bought at Thebes of the XVIIIth Dynasty - New Kingdom, is incomplete (only the beginning), but gives some clues as to punctuation ;

• Carnarvon Tablet (C) : found in 1908 by Lord Carnarvon (Cairo Museum N° 41790, published by Jéquier, 1911) is of the XVIIth or XVIIIth Dynasty - New Kingdom and also incomplete (only the beginning).

In 1956, Zába realized a decisive translation and also reproduced the hieroglyphs of these four sources in a comprehensive and clear way (which was absent in the work of Dévaud, 1916). It is this publication which I used and reproduced, i.e. Zába's hieroglyphs published more than 40 years ago by the "Academie Tchécoslovatique des Sciences" of Prague (under the academician Lexa), i.e. in former Czechoslovakia.

The translation of the American egyptologist Wilson, published by Prichard (1950 & 1958) made use of all extant copies and as a result he worked from a text of his own. Recently, Brunner (1991) followed a comparative course. Other scholars like Lichtheim (1975) use Papyrus Prisse only, which is logical, for it is the oldest as well as a complete version. 

The present translation follows Papyrus Prisse and takes Papyrus L₁ in account (for both are Middle Egyptian). L₂ is used to understand punctuation, not contents. C is helpful to analyze the linguistic evolution of the text (being the extant terminus). My translation was directly influenced by the work of Zába (French), Lichtheim (English), Brunner (German) & Jacq (French), but always returned to the hieroglyphs.

plain text
lexicon of major concepts
notes to the text
hieroglyphic text

2.2 Hermeneutics of Ancient Egyptian.

Besides the general principles developed in the context of my study of Flemish mysticism (cf. the Seven Ways of Holy Love of Beatrice of Nazareth (1200 - 1268), and the last part of the Spiritual Espousals by Jan of Ruusbroec (1293 – 1381), called The Third Life), Ancient Egyptian literature calls for special considerations :

1. semantic circumscription (Gardiner) : to those unaware of the semantical problem in mythical, pre-rational and proto-rational thought and its literary products, the differences between various translations may be disconcerting. Ancient Egyptian literature is a treasure-house of this ante-rational cognitive activity, and its "logic" is entirely contextual, pictoral, artistic and practical. The meaning or conception of the sense of certain words, especially in sophisticated literary context, is prone to large discrepancies. Gardiner spoke of "interpretative preferences" (Gardiner, 1946). Furthermore, despite major grammatical discoveries, Egyptian writing is ambiguous qua grammatical form. Some of its defects can not be overcome and so a "consensus omnium" among all sign interpreters is unlikely. The notion of "semantic circumscription" was derived from this quote by Gardiner : "If the uncertainty involved in such tenuous distinctions awake despondency in the minds of some students, to them I would reply that our translations, though very liable to error in detail, nevertheless at the worst give a roughly adequate idea of what the ancient author intended ; we may not grasp his exact thought, indeed at times we may go seriously astray, but at least we shall have circumscribed the area within which his meaning lay, and with that achievement we must rest content." (Gardiner, 1946, pp.72-73, my italics). To the latter, more attention to lexicography (a discussion of individual words) and the rule that at least one certain example of the sense of a word must be given were considered as crucial. Personally I would add the rule that one has to take into consideration all hieroglyphs (also the determinatives) and try to circumscribe the meaning by assessing the context in which words and sentences appears ;

2. the benefit of the doubt (Zába) : amendments should be introduced with great caution and for very good reasons. Indeed, some egyptologists change the original text with great ease, and consider that Egyptian scribes were careless and prone to mistakes. This is not correct. Zába (1956, p.11)) prompted us to respect the original text and made it his principle. He wrote : "Pour ce qui est la traduction d'un texte égyptien dans une langue moderne, l'étude de divers textes (...) m'a amené au principe dont je me suis fait une règle, à savoir de considérer a priori un texte égyptien comme correct et de m'en expliquer chaque difficulté tout d'abord par l'aveu de ne pas connaître la grammaire ou le vocabulaire égyptien aussi bien qu'un Egyptien. (...) et ce n'est donc qu'après avoir longement, mais en vain, consulté d'autres textes et ne pouvant expliquer la difficulté autrement, que je suis enclin à croire que le texte est altéré."

3. multiple approaches (Frankfort) : this notion implies that one has to assimilate the Egyptian way of thinking before engaging in explaining anything. Their "method" being not linear, axiomatic (definitions & theorema) or linea recta. Frankfort (1961, pp.16-20) explains : ""... the coexistence of different correlation of problems and phenomena presents no difficulties. It is in the concrete imagery of the Egyptian texts and designs that they become disturbing to us ; there lies the main source of the inconsistencies which have baffled and exasperated modern students of Egyptian religion. (...) Here then we find an abrupt juxtaposition of views which we should consider mutually exclusive. This is what I have called a multiplicity of approaches : the avenue of preoccupation with life and death leads to one imaginative conception, that with the origin of the existing world to another. Each image, each concept was valid within its own context. (...) And yet such quasi-conflicting images, whether encountered in paintaings or in texts, should not be dismissed in the usual derogatory manner. They display a meaningful inconsistency, and not poverty but superabundance of imagination. (...) This discussion of the multiplicity of approaches to a single cosmic god requires a complement ; we must consider the converse situation in which one single problem is correlated with several natural phenomena. We might call it a 'multiplicity of answers'."

4. integral acceptation (Zimmer) : in his study of Eastern religions and exegesis of Hindu thought, the German scholar Heinrich Zimmer introduced a principle which implies that before one studies a culture one has to accept that it exists or existed as it does and claims. One should approach and interprete its cultural forms as little as possible using standards which does not fit in, which focus on subjects which were of no interest to it (like the colour of the hair of royal mummies) or which reduces it to what is already known. This means that one, as does comparative cultural anthropology with its methodology of participant observation, accepts the culture at hand without prejudices and projections. Zimmer (1972, p.3) explains himself : "La méthode -ou, plutôt, l'habitude- qui consists à ramener ce qui n'est pas familier à ce que l'on connaît bien, a de tout temps mené à la frustration intellectuelle. (....) Faute d'avoir adopté une attitude d'acceptation, nous ne recevons rien ; nous nous voyons refuser la faveur d'un entretien avec les dieux. Ce n'est point notre sort d'être submergés, comme le sol d'Egypte, par les eaux divines et fécondantes du Nil. C'est parce qu'elles sont vivantes, possédant le pouvoir de faire revivre, capables d'exercer une influence effective, toujours revouvelée, indéfinissable et pourtant logique avec elle-même, sur le plan de la destinée humaine, que les images du folklore et du mythe défient toute tentative de systématisation. Elles ne sont pas des cadavres, mais bien des esprits possesseurs. Avec un rire soudain, et un brusque saut de côté, elles se jouent du spécialiste qui s'imagine les avoir épinglées sur son tableau synoptique. Ce qu'elles exigent de nous ce n'est pas de monologue d'un officier de police judiciaire, mais le dialogue d'une conversation vivante."

5. non-abstraction : egyptologists are aware that the cognitive abilities of the Ancient Egyptians were not the same as the Greeks. Thanks to Piaget's description of the genesis of cognition, we can assess the Egyptian heritage with the standards of ante-rational thought, to wit : the mythical, pre-rational and proto-rational modes of thoughts, which each have their specific modus operandi. Hence, when we try to interprete a text, the question before us is : in what mode or modes of thought was this written (which kind of text is this) ? Indeed, because of the multiplicity of approaches, the Ancient Egyptians left old strands of thought intact, with an amalgam of approaches placed next to each other without interference as a result ;

6. spatial semantics : Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic writing was more than a way to convey well-formed meaning (i.e. language), but tried to invoke the magic of the "numen praesens", involving the use of space (a contemporary equivalent is the Zen garden) as a additional element in the composition of meaning. The Shabaka Stone, discussed earlier, is only one (late) example of the principles of spatial organization which governed Egyptian from the start (besides honorific or graphic transpositions). Unsightly gaps and disharmonious distributions were rejected. Groupings always involved the use of imaginary squares or rectangles ensuring the proportioned arrangement. This allowed for slight imperfections. Furthermore, important hieroglyphs were given their architectonic, monumental or ornamental equivalent. Spatial semantics was at work in large monumental constructions as well as in small stela or tiny juwelery and important tools (for Maat is at work in both the big and the small) ... Egyptologists have not given this aspect of Egyptian "sacred geometry" the attention it deserves (besides Schwaller de Lubicz), leaving the horizon wide opened to wild stellar, historical & anthropological speculations.

7. metaphorical inclination : Ancient Egyptians "spoke in images". This holds true in a linguistic sense (namely their use of pictograms), but also with regard to their literary inclinations. When somebody grabbed his meat violently, the Egyptian thought of the voracious crocodile who has no tongue and who has to grab his food with his teeth and swallow it in one piece. When they saw the Sun rise and heared the baboons sing, they associated this activity with praise and the glorification of light, etc. Some hymns speak in images, poetical phrases, metaphors and other sophisticated literary devices. Literary and metaphorical meaning overlapped and interpenetrated (for example : "He who spits to heaven sees his spittle fall back on his face.) ... The epithets of the deities too are full of visual elements. Some egyptologists tend to rewrite this to comfort the contemporary readers. This offends the fluid nature of the texts and makes them dry and gray. The contrary (leaving these images intact) works confusing when Egyptian literature is new. As a function of their intention to try to really grasp the sense, translators make a compromize between literal and analogical renderings. I myself tend towards the analogical (which was closer to the Egyptian way of life), leaving room for explicative notes and comments.

It goes without saying, that all the hermeneutical rules-of-tumb in the world will not guarantee a perfect translation, which simply does not exist. The Italian dictum "traduttore traditore" (the translator is a traitor), is especially true for Egyptian. As with all texts of antiquity, large scale comparison is the best option. Not only has the text to be contextualized, but one has to acquire the habit of looking up the same word or expression in various contexts across time (lexicography). But even then, one should be content with Gardiner's view that to circumscribe sense is the best one can do. At times, my guess is as good as any other ...

"Although we can approach its grammar in an orderly fashion (...) we are often puzzled and even frustrated by the continual appearance of exceptions to the rules. Middle Egyptian can be especially difficult in this regard ..."
Allen (2001, p.389).

So the best one can do, given these difficulties -which can not be taken away- is to publish the original hieroglyphic text along with new translations, influenced as they are by consulting the original texts along with those of the most published specialists at work in the field for the last century, i.e. people like Breasted, Sethe, Gardiner, Faulkner, Lichtheim, Allen, Hornung, Assmann, Grimal and other dedicated contemporary scholars. In this way, alternative translations can be made by the competent sign interpreter. This process is unending. I wholeheartedly admit to be an amateur compared with professional linguists like Gardiner, Lichtheim or Allen. The scope & intention of my work is however different. Genuine philosophical hermeneutics tries to make use of authentic, historical texts, which makes serious studies of the original languages at hand unavoidable (cf. my Seven Ways of Holy Love and The Third Life, based on Middle Dutch, the Yoga-sûtra, based on Sanskrit, and Q1, The Gospel of Thomas, the Didache and The Mystical Theology based on Greek & Latin sources). Next, the various ideas expressed in these texts serve as references in a philosophical inquiry for its own sake. The philosopher has to be able to read the original text to the point of a good understanding of the signs present. This is not the same as to have an overall, detailed view of all grammatical rules with their exceptions and examples. But to gain a good understanding of the context and its problem (the reason why the original text had to be invoked), the amateur has to know all available linguistic tools well enough to identify a possible rule at work, and he must have the time to think all possible solutions over many times to "untie the knot" ...

2.3. A few points of importance concerning the Memphite Kingdom.

The following points should be kept in mind regarding the Old Kingdom :

• population : Hassan (1993) estimated the population about 1.2 million persons - the earlier semi-autonomous villages lost their independence and all land was owned by royal estates ;

• cultural density : the great edifices of cultural life were all erected in or near Memphis - the major centres of population became capitals of administrative districs or provinces (nomes), with the capital of the country at the vertex of the Delta ;

• royal residence : at the center of Egyptian civilization stood the "great house", an expression which referred to the monumental presence of the rule of the kings of Egypt, but which is also suggestive of the "great household" which characterized the Old Kingdom, i.e. the corporate organization & administration - the precise location of the White Wall ("Ineb-hedj"), on the west bank of the Nile, south of modern Cairo, the capital founded by Menes, has not yet been established (scholars suggest Abusir in the Nile Valley, north-east of Djoser's complex) - during the Old Kingdom, the royal residence did not move away from Memphis ("Men-netjeret" was a stone building south-west of Djoser's pyramid).

A culture (or a sustained meaningful form) consists of social formations, an economy, common values, beliefs & practices, art, philosophy and religion. To faithfully recreate the picture of any culture of antiquity, we must know the shape of every layer. For this, we depend on physical evidence, ranging from archaeological, monumental & funerary evidence to linguistic, hermeneutical & philosophical studies of the available texts. 

Linguistically, several stages may be discerned in Ancient Egyptian :

• schematic : as economy changes from hunting and gathering to communal agriculture, humans make a much deeper impact on their environments. They leave much more artefacts (deliberate, because they are sedentary & as waste). Gerzean ware-design revealed the activity of mythical schemata (Czerwinski, 1995). The "great cow-goddess" (Hathor) dominated (Hassan, 1992). We can consider this to be the beginning of our understanding of Egypt's earliest myths. In Predynastic Egypt, the first communities start between 5000 and 4100 BCE (cf. Merimda Beni Salama) ;

• archaic : political unification & literacy (a written script) are achieved 3000 BCE, although there are few extant literary sources for the first 4 or 5 centuries - the scarcity of texts from these earliest times seems to indicate that the written language (the script) was not yet widely used ;

• early Old Egyptian : the first statues of scribes appear during the IVth Dynasty, possibly indicating that the ability to write was still something reserved to the very limited few. Hence, the vast stratum of scribes that later formed a social class in Egyptian society did not yet exist - this early Old Egyptian gives expression to the pre-rational mode of thought ;

• Old Egyptian : in a few generations time, the script evolved considerably - extant since the end of the Vth Dynasty (Pyramid Texts, i.e. ca. 650 years after the unification), it confronts pre-rationality with early proto-rationality, leaving however the contradictions intact ;

• Classical Egyptian : manifesting on papyri of the XIth Dynasty (Prisse), but probably emerging at the end of the Old Kingdom (ca. 2200 BCE), Middle Egyptian develops and becomes the standard of literacy (Middle Kingdom) - it continued to be the language of the monumental, funerary & priestly record.

The long period of economical stability enjoyed by Egypt in the Old Kingdom, unassailed and living in plenty, explains why a considerable number of people could be taken out of the production of food, housed, fed and -if necessary- healed to erect the pyramids. It is clear that this must have pressured the slaveless and moneyless Egyptian economy. 

"The treasury and its functions. The chart shows the principal operations carried out by the treasury in the Early Dynastic period (based upon information from contemporary sources : seal-impressions, inscribed stone vessels, and the Third Dynasty tomb inscription of Pehernefer)."
Wilkinson, 2001, pp.126-127.

Three factors were of important in the Memphite economy :

• it was slaveless, so it had to be workable (rotation-system, chain-labour, unit labour) ;

• Pharaoh owned everything and could give parts of his land away (and so loose its surplus) ;

• there was no money : economical transactions involved commerce "in natura".

The fact that these formidable Old Kingdom constructions were built, can only be explained by a yearly overall surplus large & varied enough to compensate for these "great works", and this without emptying the reserves needed for eventual local shortages, protection and administration (for production-techniques remained largely the same). These ongoing activities of Pharaoh and his court changed Egypt profoundly. Finally, they heralded the end of the "old" Memphite system, for as soon as the yearly overall surplus was smaller than the actual losses (and/or not varied enough), local shortages & famines could cause uprise and civil disorder ... As, by the end of the VIth Dynasty, Pharaoh had given away too much of his own surplus (to his representatives, the temples and the nobles), direct means to compensate were lacking and the overall good distribution of goods was lost, as well as Pharaoh's power to act as a "deus ex machina" (he was bound by his own contracts). The end of the Old Kingdom would thus prove to be the outcome of a negative economical balance-sheet hand in hand with a commanding bureaucracy dominating an economically weakened Pharaoh. A falling apart caused by loosening the cords and avoiding the standard of the plumb-line, spoiling the equilibrium of the scales ? Add to this a world-wide climate change, causing drought and extremely low Nile floods for several decades, and the collapse of the Old Kingdom was at hand.