its elucidation.
No copy of the chapter is known of more ancient date than the eighteenth
dynasty, but the oldest papyri contain the three parts of which the
chapter consists. That the chapter is of much earlier date than the
eighteenth dynasty is quite certain from the nature of the corruptions
which had already made their appearance in the earliest copies which
have come down to us. But the three parts are not necessarily of the
same antiquity. The second part seems to have grown out of the first and
to have been suggested by the mention of the “Forty-two” gods and the
“negative confession,” as it is called, of certain sins. It is a
tabulated form in which the gods are named and a sin is mentioned in
connection with each god. The number of sins in this form is therefore
forty-two; a higher number than in Part I.
The two catalogues agree to a certain extent, but they also disagree,
and the second is evidently the result of a different process of thought
than that which gave birth to the first. The author of Part I is not the
author of Part II, unless perhaps at a different and later period. Nor
is there any indication in Part I of the extraordinary examination to
which the deceased person is subjected in Part III. This in itself would
not be a serious objection, but the matter becomes more complicated if
we remember that the picture of the Psychostasia has the right to be
considered as a part of the chapter. The texts which are written upon it
differ, indeed, according to the taste of the artist, and can therefore
claim no canonical authority. But the question as to the order of
succession in the trials, or the precise moment at which the deceased
person is finally freed from all anxiety as to his fate, cannot be
satisfactorily solved on the supposition that all these documents form
parts of a consistent whole. It seems much more natural to consider them
as really independent compositions brought together in consequence of
their subject matter. The artists of the Ramseside period (in the papyri
of Hunefer and Ani) add another scene[111] in which the deceased is
judged not by the forty-two assessors of Osiris but by a smaller company
of gods (twelve or fourteen), sitting on thrones and bearing the names
of well known divinities.
The essential notion was that of a trial before Osiris, in which the
man’s conduct or conscience was weighed in the Balance. This trial is
referred to in various chapters of the Book of the Dead and in other
texts which prove that, with reference to the details, free scope was
allowed to the imagination of the scribes or artists.
The number of the Forty-two assessors might be thought connected with
that of the Nomes of Egypt. But this number is only certain for the
later periods of Egyptian history, and is not true for earlier times.
Moreover the localities in which the gods are said to make their
appearances do not correspond to the nomes, or places within them. Some
of the localities occur more than once, and some of them, if not all,
are localities not upon earth. Heaven occurs twice, the eleventh god
makes his appearance at Amenta and the forty-second in the Netherworld.
But the names which have a more earthly sound may have a mystical
meaning. The first god makes his appearance in Annu, so does the
seventeenth and so does the twenty-fourth. But does this mean Heliopolis
of Egypt? On referring to an important text in Mariette’s _Monuments
Divers_, pl. 46, it will be seen that Annu is the Eastern _Solar
Mountain_ ⁂⁂⁂, where the sun rises, and where he is saluted by
the Powers of the East. There cannot be a more striking illustration of
“the Divine Babe who maketh his appearance in Annu” (the twenty-fourth
Assessor), than the _picture_ I refer to.[112]
And Chemunnu, ⁂⁂⁂⁂, is surely not the Hermopolis of
Egypt, but the place _of the Eight gods_ ⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂,
four to the Left and four to the Right of the rising sun, who hail
his coming and help him to rise; where Shu, according to the MSS. of
the 17th Chapter, raises up the Sky, and where “the children of
Failure,” (that is, shades of darkness) are exterminated. It is not
simply of Hermopolis nor yet of Lake Moeris that one may say
⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂
‘it is the place of the Eight deities where Rā riseth’ (_Zeitschr._,
1872, p. 8).
The same considerations apply to such names as those of Sutenhunen and
Tattu.
The presence of the divine “Babe,” of the god “of long strides” (Rā), of
the god “of Lion form,” of the goddess Bast, of Nefer-tmu, of the
“Striker” (_Ahi_, a name of Horus), and of Nehebkau, not to mention
others, among the Assessors, would of itself be sufficient to convince
us that, in spite of the strange and terrific names of some of these
personages, they are not to be looked upon as fiends, like Malacoda,
Scarmiglione, and the rest of the demon crew in the Inferno of Dante.
They are not evil spirits, but gods, all of them, “subsisting on
righteousness;” there is “nothing _wrong_ about them.”[113] They are the
gods who accompany Osiris, and, according to Egyptian theology, are his
Names, his Limbs, his Body. If the names of some of them appear harsh or
cruel, it is because strict Justice is inexorable, and Mercy is a
quality never thought of in Egyptian theology.
The exact notion of Maāt in Egyptian texts is discussed in another part
of the present work. In this chapter I have translated it
_Righteousness_, because the question here is about _moral conduct_: and
conformity to the strict Rule of Right towards one’s fellow men, one’s
own self and the heavenly powers is what is meant by Righteousness. And
here it is opposed to moral transgression or sin, not to physical evil,
which itself is a very frequent result from the operation of the
inexorable Maāt.
But in the expression, “Hall of Righteousness,” the word in Egyptian is
used in the dual number: hence the erroneous or inadequate translations,
“the Two Truths,” or “Double Justice,” and the guesses which have been
made as to their meaning.
A very important determinative of the Egyptian word is found not only in
the papyri but in the very earliest mention yet known of the Hall. The
great inscription of the tomb of Peher at El Kab, calls it the
⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂. The repetition of the sign ⁂ indicates a
locality in which the Sun-god is _present_, as in the cases of ⁂,
⁂, ⁂⁂ and many others. Space is divided into two parts; one
on the Southern and one on the Northern side of the god as he proceeds
on his course. And when we have for determinatives two Uræi ⁂⁂, or
two ostrich Feathers ⁂⁂, we have to understand two goddesses Maāt,
one to the Left and one to the Right side of Osiris.
These goddesses are Isis and Nephthys, who play very conspicuous parts
in a symbolism discussed in note 2 of the present chapter.
It would be well if evidence could be brought with equal facility to
bear upon all the difficulties with which the chapter abounds. But
though a very lively interest was attracted to it ever since Champollion
quoted extracts from it in his Grammar, the difficulties with which he
did not attempt to cope have only increased with our knowledge of the
language and its scientific treatment. The text is extremely doubtful in
many important parts, the forty-two sins are not the same in all the
manuscripts, and they are not assigned to the jurisdiction of the same
gods. So important a papyrus as that of Sutimes omits some sins of which
an Egyptian would certainly be expected to give an account. The same
word is made to appear with different meanings in the same passage of
the papyri when they are compared together. And there are not a few
important words of which the meaning was first only guessed at by the
first translators, but has been retained without sufficient warrant by
their successors. The present translation is presented under the full
consciousness of all its imperfections, and of the difficulties which
have yet to be overcome before a version can be called satisfactory.
A very admirable contribution towards our acquaintance with the first
part of the chapter was made as far back as 1866 by Dr. Pleyte in his
_Etudes Egyptologiques_. Since then other versions have appeared by MM.
Devéria, Lefébure and Pierret.
The Demotic text of the chapter, first published by Brugsch, and now
more recently, with a complete translation, by M. Revillout, is in
itself most interesting, but written, as it is, in the days of imperial
Rome, cannot always be appealed to as to an authoritative exposition of
the ancient text.