The Great Dedicatory Inscription of Ramesses II: A Solar-Osirian Tractate at Abydos (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East, V. 33)

The Great Dedicatory Inscription of Ramesses II

Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Founding Editor

M.H.E. Weippert Editor-in-Chief

Thomas Schneider Editors

Eckart Frahm, W. Randall Garr, B. Halpern, Theo P.J. van den Hout, Irene J. Winter

VOLUME 33

The Great Dedicatory Inscription of Ramesses II A Solar-Osirian Tractate at Abydos

by

Anthony Spalinger

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2009

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Spalinger, Anthony John. The great dedicatory inscription of Ramesses II : a Solar-Osirian Tractate at Abydos / by Anthony Spalinger. p. cm. — (Culture and history of the ancient Near East ; v. 33) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17030-8 (alk. paper) 1. Inscriptions, Hieroglyphic—Egypt—Abydos (Extinct city) 2. Egypt—Religion. 3. Ramses II, King of Egypt. I. Title. II. Series. PJ1531.D43S63 2008 493’.1—dc22

ISSN: 1566-2055 ISBN: 978 90 04 17030 8 Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

contents

v

To Gretchen

vi

contents

contents

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xiii

Chapter One

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

Chapter Two

The Text: Translation and Detailed Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

Chapter Three Religious and Historical Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87

Selected Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

121

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

123

Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

127

viii

preface

preface

ix

PREFACE

This work was begun in earnest in February 2002 when I was on sabbatical in Basel. At that time my aim was to present a fully documented and historically based new edition of Ramesses II’s famous Dedicatory Inscription at Abydos. Repeatedly, this account has been employed as one of the keystones for the chronology of Ramesses II’s opening year as sole Pharaoh, and thus it was of great interest to me. During the course of a few weeks, however, I realized that the complexity of the task did not stop with mere formal history. The peculiarities of the opening section, so well explained by Jan Assmann, led me to further and further vistas, and soon I was encountering paths of interpretation that were predominantly religious rather than chronological or even literary in the narrow sense. In particular, I came to realize that the composition was not only one of the most important hieroglyphic documents dating from the Ramesside period, but also revealed, in a formal way to be sure, perspectives on New Kingdom Egyptian religion that needed amplification. Upon my return from leave I immediately turned to other tasks, in particular a study of Egyptian military affairs during the New Kingdom. As a result, this work was placed to the side. This was fortunate. It is one thing to prepare a critical edition of a text; it is another to understand its spiritual aspects. By the end of an intense study I came to realize that the king, the sun god Re, and the god of the Afterworld, Osiris, interacted in this composition in a way not foreseen, or perhaps not even understood, by earlier students of this lengthy inscription. In a nutshell, I was faced with the combination of Re and Osiris. It was thus fortunate that I had spent the first part of this task at Basel, because there I could experience

the intellectual combinations of the two professors, Erik Hornung and Antonio Loprieno, whose own research has dealt with Egyptian religion, especially that of the New Kingdom. The sudden arrival of a newly published book, nevertheless, affected my progress on this book to no small extent. In 2003 I was asked to review John Darnell’s work on the Solar-Osirian unity.1 This was by mere happenstance. Upon completing the study I could see now how significant was this theme, or aspect, of Ramesside religious behavior, and how neglected it had hitherto been among many Egyptologists. True, various aspects of this redirection in thinking had been discussed on previous occasions, especially with regard to the evidence from the Tomb of Nofretary. Additional material included references to Osiris being the “Lord of Heaven” (in the tomb of Tawosret, for example) and further iconographical traces that Erik Hornung and Jan Zandee, among others, had collected and studied.2 To be sure, thanks to Andrzej Niwinski, we now know that in Dynasty XXI this theology was predominant, but with Darnell’s volume at hand I could analyze yet another lengthy religious composition that belonged to the written corpus of this religious viewpoint.3 It is not surprising to me that the Egyptians were faced with the task, on the surface a simple one, of resolving life and death through rebirth. They already had approached this dilemma in earlier times, and the evidence for that may be seen in the Coffin Text data so well marshaled by Harco Willems.4 Equally, the important analysis of Jan Assmann on time and eternity leads immediately to the differentiation of Osiris (“yesterday”) and Re (“morning”, not “tomorrow”) in Spell 17 of the Book of the Dead (Grapow’s

1 John Coleman Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity: Cryptographic Compositions in the Tombs of Tutankhamun, Ramesses VI and Ramesses IX (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004). 2 The studies of Erik Hornung are scattered through his compendia. In general, I can cite his Idea into Image: Essays on Ancient Egyptian Thought (trans. Elizabeth Bredeck; Princeton: Timken, 1992), New York (1992). For Jan Zandee, see his An Ancient Egyptian Crossword Puzzle: An Inscription of Neb-wenenef from Thebes (Leiden: Ex Orient Lux, 1966), and “Hymnical Sayings, Addressed to the Sun-God

by the High-Priest of Amun Nebwenenef, from his Tomb in Thebes,” JEOL 18 (1964): 253-65. This situation is discussed in Chapter III. 3 Andrej Niwinski, “The Solar-Osirian Unity as Principle of the Theology of the #State of Amun’ in Thebes in the 21st Dynasty,” JEOL 30 (1987-88): 89-106; and Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity. 4 The Coffin of Heqata (Cairo JdE 36418): A Case Study of Egyptian Funerary Culture of the Early Middle Kingdom (Leuven: Peeters en Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1996).

x

preface

Abschnitt 5).5 Thereafter, the intermingling of Re and Osiris in the well-known passage of the two souls (Abschnitt 21) appears somewhat as an afterthought.6 But with Tutankhamun and thereafter, perhaps especially under Ramesses II, a major spiritual turn became evident, one that would soon “take off” by the close of the New Kingdom. We now possess four such religious tractates on this theology. Three were placed in royal tombs (of Tutankhamun, Ramesses VI, and Ramesses IX), and therefore span the historical interval of Post Amarna New Kingdom society. Moreover, those “enigmatic” or “cryptographic” texts allow us to consider seriously whether the term “Late New Kingdom” is really applicable in this context. If one major religious theme arises to prominence soon after Akhenaton’s death and continues with increasing importance to the end of the New Kingdom, and if another (the Litany of Re) suddenly reenters the sphere of the royal burial by Seti I and also marches on through the same period of time, what purpose is there to employ this designation? With regard to these two important religious cases the terminology is not at all apt. I feel that better chronological distinctions must be found, ones that encompass not merely artistic phenomena, or based solely on royal lineages, but terms that also can indicate the intellectual differences within centuries of Egyptian life. It is not my purpose to argue the validity or utility of such terminology. Instead, I prefer to emphasize the nature of this major religious conception, the Solar-Osirian unity, a deep and abiding intellectual exercise that is separate from cosmology or cosmogony. Indeed, it passed through the later New Kingdom and became the major theological system of Dynasty XXI. Of equal if not greater importance is the location of Ramesses’ document. It was placed in a very public area at Abydos. True, the Dedicatory Inscription has close links with two recondite texts located deep in the temple of Seti. Yet for the ancient Egyptians (and also for modern tourists) the portico area of Seti’s temple was an open space. We cannot consider the composition to be a hidden one, as for example, one must with regard to the three Solar-Osirian tractates

recently explicated by Darnell. In other words, the Dedicatory Inscription presents a significant religious concept in an open place. Other factors permeate this study as well. Perhaps I should point out the hidden fingers (or hands) of the possible master composer. Whether or not it was the High Priest Nebwennef, whose role at Abydos was so crucial to Ramesses, must remain an open question. Yet certain aspects of this man’s tomb and his intellectual outlook cannot be overlooked. The Dedicatory Inscription opens with a Horus-Osiris backdrop that serves almost as a historical/mythological section whose purpose is to remind the readers where they are and what they should expect. Then the style turns to a Königsnovelle presentation, replete with the expected eulogies of and to the Pharaoh as well as some historical narrative. Dates suddenly appear. There is a chronological as well as physical setting. Ramesses then presents his outlook on his life up to the arrival at Abydos, and his desire to finish the work on his father’s temple. The historical narrative then would appear to have been completed. If this was a so-called “historical” document, in the narrow definition of the sense, there would be no need for it continue. Yet it does. Suddenly we move to the spiritual domain, the Re-Osiris combination, and this is the core and indeed purpose of the narrative. All historical timeframes are broken. Ramesses appears dutiful and pietistic, especially with regard to his father Seti, but now in a religious setting at total odds with the historical one that has been narrated. Of course, this was one of his tasks immediately after being “crowned” Pharaoh at the Opet Feast. He made sure that he would take care of his father whose works (and at least one statue) at Abydos were not completed. But the emphasis is now given to the SolarOsirian unity rather than to the building activities. This new orientation is too blatant and striking to be overlooked. I believe that the purpose of the third portion of the inscription has been, up to now, ignored or not understood. Perhaps this is due to a complex number of issues, among which has been the reluctance of historians, epigraphers, and philologists alike to deal with certain religious matters in this composition. Because the universe is spiritual—even Ranke believed that—I feel that

5 Jan Assmann, Zeit und Ewigkeit im alten Ägypten: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Ewigkeit, AHAW, Phil.-hist Klasse 1975.1 (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1975).

6 This is rendered rather nicely in Constant de Wit, Le role et le sens du lion dans l’égypte ancienne (Leiden: Brill, 1951), 130.

preface these researchers have lost a great deal whilst, to be sure, having gained much in technical experience. But to the ancients and to us life is more than techne, a point well stressed by Plato, and to read Pharaonic texts with a religious dimen-

xi

sion should appear to be a self-evident fact. Most surely, episteme is the higher criticism, and the Dedicatory Inscription of Ramesses II cannot be understood without this factor.

xii

preface

preface

xiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study would not have been completed but for the support of the excellent Egyptological facilities at the University of Basel provided in 2002 and 2005-6 by Prof. Antonio Loprieno. To him as well as his assistants I would like to offer these words of thanks. Equally, I am in debt to the kind assistance provided by Prof. John Baines of Oxford University. With his remarkably swift understanding of my work he was able to supply me with excellent photographs of the inscription from which the accompanying facsimile has been made, the latter under the auspices of Julia Hsieh, then a Masters student in Egyptology at Auckland University. The Egypt Exploration Society is also to be thanked in their context. The Research Committee of Auckland University supplied financial support for her remarkable calligraphy, and a word of thanks to this academic body is equally in order. Likewise, I must thank in particular the

Faculty of Arts and its two Deans, Profs. Douglas Sutton and John Morrow, for a liberal sabbatical policy. Prof. Erik Hornung kindly read over the first draft of this manuscript and thereby saved me from many an error. In addition, Dr. Stephen Quirke took upon his shoulders the task of reading through the final stage of this work and many of his comments have been added to the text. Additional editing was accomplished by my Ph.D. candidate, Mr. Brett Heagren, with financial support from the Faculty of Arts of Auckland University, after some preliminary readings and improvements were made by Tasha Dobbin, a former Masters student in my Department. Abbreviations follow the accepted practice of the Lexikon der Ägyptologie (ed. Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972-92).

xiv

preface

introduction

1

chapter one INTRODUCTION Ramesses II’s great inscription at Abydos is one of those ancient Egyptian texts that present to the reader a complex series of motifs and literary approaches, many of which appear as independent units that could stand by themselves. First, a lengthy introduction precedes a relatively straightforward narrative. Then comes the historical backdrop wherein the state of affairs at the Abydene temple of Seti I is presented. Following upon this we are faced with a series of speeches, all of which indicate the purposeful thoughts of the young king. Subsequently, Ramesses’ offerings and other cultic requirements are set in place and an official presentation to Seti by the Pharaoh is described, the latter concluding with a final speech of the youthful king to his deified father. It is not surprising that previous scholarly work has found this composition to be extremely dense in presentation, vocabulary, and arrangement. In fact, part of the difficulties in understanding

the religious thoughts in the composition has to do with the text’s historical timeframe, original purpose, and connection to the temple of Seti. The following discussion attempts to provide a unified approach in order to tackle the interwoven motifs and concepts of the inscription as well as various historical facets that are independent of the narrative. The location of the Dedicatory Inscription has been discussed with great pertinence by Kitchen.1 It can be found just beyond of the Second Court (to the west) of the temple of Seti I and forms a significant part of the south half (exterior side) of the back wall of the portico in that area. One reaches the area by means of a short staircase that is located in the center of the rear wall of the Second Court. On the north side there is a famous scene of the young Ramesses II receiving his names and titles with the famous Ished tree, the latter especially associated with Osiris.2 There

1 The text will be found in KRI II 323-36. For this study I have used the large and detailed photographic record now preserved at Oxford University under the auspices of Prof. John Baines, and I am in debt to him for kindly providing me access to this record. The facsimile at the end of the work (drawn by Julia Hsieh) is dependent upon these photographs. The earliest edition, one that is still useful, remains Auguste Mariette, Abydos. Descriptions des fouilles exécutées sur l’emplacement de cette ville I (Paris: A. Franck, 1869), pls. 5-9. For an up-to-date and well-presented translation we are now dependent upon Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated and Annotated: Translations, II (Oxford and Cambridge MA: Blackwell, 1996), 162-74. His detailed and useful commentary is located in the complementary work of Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated and Annotated: Notes and Comments, II (Oxford and Malden: Blackwell, 1999), 191-7. There is also a new translation by Claudia Maderna-Sieben, “Die Grosse Bauinschrift von Abydos,” in Egypt—Temple of the Whole World. Ägypten—Tempel der gesamten Welt: Studies in Honour of Jan Assmann (ed. Sibylle Meyer; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003), 237-82. An older edition is that of Deborah Sweeney, “The Great Dedicatory Inscription of Ramses II at Abydos (lines 1-79),” in Papers for Discussion. Presented by the Department of Egyptology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem II (ed. Sarah Groll and Frances Bogot; Jerusalem: Department of Egyptology, The Hebrew University, 1985), 134-327. For the term “Dedication Text” see now B. J. J. Haring, Divine Households: Administrative and Economic Aspects of the New Kingdom Memorial Temples in Western Thebes (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1997), 39-51. Narrowly speaking, the two words are not applicable to our inscription.

2 The standard analysis of the Ished tree and the rite of inscribing the royal cartouches is that of Wolfgang Helck, “Ramessidische Inschriften aus Karnak,” ZÄS 82 (1957): 117-40. There are general but extremely pertinent comments on this matter in Donald B. Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books: A Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History (Mississauga: Benben, 1986), 82, 91, among other references. Mariette did not include the scenes in his monumental edition Abydos. For the connection to Osiris note the work of Joris Frans Borghouts, The Magical Texts of Papyrus Leiden I 348 (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 120 note 254. Naturally, Thoth is also present. For additional references, see Jean Leclant, Recherches sur les monuments thébains de la XXVe dynastie dite éthiopienne (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1965), 274-9 (with Thoth, Osiris, Re, Ptah-Sokar-Osiris); Pierre Koemoth (who has written about the connection of the Ished tree and Osiris), Osiris et les arbres: Contribution à l’étude des arbres sacrés de l’Égypte ancienne (Liege: CIPL, 1994), 259-60; Émile Chassinat, Le mystère d’Osiris au mois de Khoiak I (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale (1966), 234-48; Karol Mysliwiec, “Die Rolle des Atum in der íàd-Baum-Szene,” MDAIK 36 (1980): 349-56 (crucial for the role of creator god as well as Thoth); Eric Welvaert, “On the Origin of the Ished-scene,” GM 151 (1996): 101-07 (with Thutmose I hearkening back to Sesostris I); Salvador Costa, “El árbol Ished en la iconografía real: tres escenas de Rameses IV legitimando su ascenso al trono,” Aula Orientalis 21 (2003): 193-204; and Lászlo Kákosy, article “Ischedbaum,” in Lexikon der Ägyptologie III (ed. Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1980), 182-3. For scenes at Abydos with the “annals” (gnwt): Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books, 71-2 (nos. 23-5:

2

chapter one

is no doubt that both sides are intellectually and spiritually connected. This could imply that the account of the king’s visit in year one and his recollection of events when he was regent with his

father were paramount in the Pharaoh’s mind.3 However, the date of the depictions might be later than the Dedicatory Inscription because the king’s name is spelled as R #-ms-sw and not R #-ms-ss.4

Storerooms B and C and not in KRI I; no. 25 will be found in Jaroslav 1erný, Collations of Abydos, Unpublished Notebook 156 [no date], 16, now held at the Griffith Institute—I must thank Dr. Jaromir Malek for his kind assistance in enabling me to see it), 72 (no. 26; Amice M. Calverley, Myrtle F. Broome, and Alan H. Gardiner, The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos II [London and Chicago: The Egypt Exploration Society and The University of Chicago Press, 1935], Pl. 36), 77 (nos. 75 and 76; KRI I 189.14 and 187.2); 79 (no. 92; Alice M. Calverley, Myrtle F. Broome, and Sir Alan H. Gardiner, The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos IV [London and Chicago: The Egypt Exploration Society and The University of Chicago Press, 1958], Pl. 15—Second Hypostyle Court, entrance to Chapel of Isis; one side ignored), 79 (no. 93; ibid., Pl. 37—Second Hypostyle Hall; entrance to hall of Nefertem and Ptah-Sokar; east jamb, Thoth and Seshat. For the last deity, see most recently Budde’s study cited at the end of this note; heb seds are specifically mentioned; east jamb with Sefekhtabwy ignored). Other useful scenes with up-to-date references not covered by Redford are: Calverley, Broome, and Gardiner, The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos II, Pl. 30 = Jean Capart, Abydos. Le temple de Séti Ier: étude générale (Brussels: Rossignol and Van den Bril, 1912), 26 fig. 5 and Helck, “Ramessidische Inschriften aus Karnak,” 119; Chapel of Seti with Seshat (Thoth in front of her unifying the Two Lands; gnwt not mentioned); Calverley, Broome, and Gardiner, The Temple of Sethos I at Abydos IV, Pl. 12 (Second Hypostyle Court; entrance to Chapel of Horus); ibid., Pl. 18 (Second Hypostyle Court, entrance to Chapel of Osiris); ibid., Pl. 21 (Second Hypostyle Court; entrance to Chapel of Amun-Re; destroyed); ibid., Pl. 24 (Second Hypostyle Court; entrance to Chapel of Re-Harachty); ibid., Pl. 27 (Second Hypostyle Court; entrance to Chapel of Ptah); and ibid., Pl. 32 (entrance to Chapel of Seti I). The somewhat parallel depiction of Seti I involves Ptah (to the left, before whom Seti kneels) and Re-Harachty (right, inscribing the leaf of the Ished tree): Helck, “Ramessidische Inschriften aus Karnak,” 119. We can add two more cases in Calverley, Broome, and Gardiner, The Temple of Sethos I at Abydos III (London and Chicago: The Egypt Exploration Society and The University of Chicago Press, 1938), Pls. 7 (First Osiris Hall, West Wall) and 15 (First Osiris Hall, East Wall). The inscription is interesting in that the word gnwt contains a carved t that was added later. This is self-evident because it is not in raised relief. There is an additional slip: see àsp mnw.k written with a nb instead of the expected .k. 1erný in his notebook, Collations of Abydos, observed other cases of minor errors located in the First Osiris Hall. Finally, let us not forget the connection of the goddess Seshat and the Ished tree insofar as in the Stairway Corridor this deity (and Thoth) will appear; see our comments in Chapter III. For the goddess, there is now the recent study of Dagmar Budde, Die Göttin Seschat (Leipzig: Helmar Wodtke und Katharina Stegbauer, 2000). Pages 97-104 cover the Ished rite but her connections to coronation, the Sed Festival, “annals,” magic, and the foundation of temples are also discussed in this work. Documents 86-97 cover the presence of Seshat in Seti’s temple (pages 253-5). 3 Kitchen’s detailed commentary in his Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 191-3 resolves the key problems

of the chronology. Stephen Quirke also reminds me that inscription “panels” needed slightly less time to compose than figurative depictions plus inscriptions and labels. William J. Murnane, “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” JNES 34 (1975): 153-90 maintained that a coregency between Seti I and Ramesses II could be proved from the extant data. Problems with his dating as well as with this hypothesis were presented by me in “Traces of the Early Career of Ramesses II,” JNES 38 (1979): 271-86. (One key difficulty facing Murnane, despite his marshalling of significant new epigraphic data, was his acceptance of an incorrect accession date of Ramesses.) Additional remarks by Murnane will be found in his “Reconstructing Scenes from the Great Hypostyle Hall in the Temple of Amun at Karnak,” in Warsaw Egyptological Studies. I. Essays in Honour of Prof. Dr. Jadwiga Lipinska (Warsaw: National Museum in Warsaw, 1997), 107-17. The problem still remains: there is no unequivocal piece of evidence that supports a coregency. The present information appears to lead to the conclusion that the young man was designated to be the heir apparent and next Pharaoh before the death of his father. Moreover, Ramesses was placed as an equal to Seti when the latter was still alive. The latter point is the one that this inscription at Abydos stresses. Murnane also discussed the chronological implications of the Dedicatory Inscription in his Ancient Egyptian Coregencies (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1977), 57-87, to which we can now add his brief comments in “Egyptian Monuments and Historical Memory,” KMT 5.3 (Fall 1994): 14-24, 88. The pertinent commentary of Gardiner is still useful in this context. In “A Pharaonic Encomium (II),” JEA 42 (1956): 9 note 3 he wrote: “It has perhaps not been sufficiently emphasized that the position of heir to the throne (r-p#t) was a definite appointment, see Two Brothers 19,1-2; Inscr. dédic. 44, as well as our own passage. In Harris, 75,10 Setnakhte is said to have promoted (dhn) Ramesses III to hold this post, and the same verb is used in connexion with Ramesses IV, ibid., 42,8.” He also observed that “this appears to have been the regular custom throughout the Ramesside period” (page 9). In many ways, the Ramessides split with the XVIIIth Dynasty in a strong fashion. Reasons for this may be hypothesized: reaction to the immediate post-Amarna trauma; the increasing danger to the royal lineage (i.e., number of possible contenders at the end of Dynasty XIX); the lengthy conflict with Hatti; an even greater importance of Amun-Re of Karnak in command of the official designation of the heir; the age of Ramesses I; the lack of more than one male heir for Seti I; the lengthy reign of Ramesses II with the related large number of offspring. For a handy overview, see Murnane, “The Kingship of the Nineteenth Dynasty: A Study in the Resilience of an Institution,” in Ancient Egyptian Kingship (ed. David O’Connor and David P. Silverman; Leiden, New York, and Cologne: Brill, 1995), 185-217. Striking is the presence of the numerous kings’ sons, especially those of Ramesses II, on the battlefield. See, for example, the evidence from the Battle of Kadesh. 4 This situation has been recently improved upon in the study of Vincent Rondot, La grande salle hypostyle de Karnak: les architraves (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les

introduction

3

In addition, the architectural components of the two walls must be also analyzed, a subject that will be covered later. The northern wall explicitly indicates the rise to kingship of Ramesses, and the name ritual involving Thoth and the Ished tree is as overt a theme upon royal accession as could be possible. Osiris receives Ramesses while Thoth inscribes the official royal name on one of the tree’s leaves. The combination of two disparate methods of representation must be discussed in detail at this point. The Dedicatory Inscription, in sunken relief, is located to the south, as the visitor turns left from the main entrance to the Outer Hypostyle Hall.5 It encompasses vertically oriented hieroglyphs set within ninety-six columns, all to be read from right to left, as well as twenty-four additional ones associated with the accompanying pictorial representation and three minor notations at the end. Kitchen noted that a

performative section (his “Scene”) commences the account.6 There, Ramesses presents the expected symbol of Truth to Osiris and Isis. Because he is the Horus of his father Seti I, the remaining Abydene godhead, Osiris’ son Horus, does not appear. (In theory, Ramesses and Horus could have been present, but I believe that the death of Seti automatically led to the simple juxtaposition of Ramesses-Osiris.) Together with the brother-sister pair is Ramesses II’s father, Seti I, and he significantly stands behind the two deities. Osiris speaks first and he is followed by Isis, with Seti standing before Ramesses and addressing him. The king only responds to Osiris so that the father-son relationship is once more emphasized. There is little difficulty outlying the temporal aspect of both representations. The date is clearly to be located within the first year of Ramesses’ sole reign.7 The cartouche of the king with its

Civilizations, 1997), 119-22, where the previous literature will be met. See in particular Kitchen, “Historical Observations on Ramesside Nubia,” in Ägypten und Kusch (ed. Erika Endesfelder et al.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (1977), 220 note 27. Rondot’s conclusions, some of which will be elaborated upon in the body of this discussion, are dependent upon the architraves of the Hypostyle Court at Karnak where one sees -sw instead of -ss. The point to be stressed here, nonetheless, is that the original hieratic version of the Dedicatory Inscription must have always contained -ss whereas the cartouches in the scenes write -sw. The difference is striking. 5 On the relief work, a crucial factor in dating any portion of this temple, see our additional comments in Chapter III. The recent analysis of Peter James Brand, The Monuments of Seti I: Epigraphic, Historical and Art Historical Analysis (Leiden, Boston, and Cologne: Brill, 2000) is basic. Pages 155-73 substantiate the earlier research of Zippert and Kitchen; see below. These additional works can be referred to as they highlight the situation: Erwin Zippert, “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos” (Ph.D. diss., University of Berlin, 1931), 19-21 (a remarkable study); Keith C. Seele, The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I and the Date of the Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940), 45-9; Murnane, “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 162-5; and John Baines, “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” in Colour and Painting in Ancient Egypt (ed. W. Vivian Davies; London: British Museum, 2001), 145-57, with his more detailed study, “Recording the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos in Egypt,” Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo) 11 (1990): 65-95. The unpublished work of Katherine Eaton, “The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment in the Temple of Seti I at Abydos” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 2004), passim, especially pages 14-17 covers the architectural and historical development (painting, carving) of this temple under Seti I; cf. her later summary “Memorial Temples in the Sacred Landscape Abydos: An Overview of proces-

sional Routes and Equipment,” in The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor (ed. Zahi A. Hawass and Janet Richards; Cairo: Conseil suprême des antiquitiés de l’Égypte, 2007), 231-50. Zippert’s preliminary analysis can now be consulted with the recent studies of Martina Ullmann, “Der Tempel Ramses’ II. in Abydos als #Haus der Millionen an Jahren’,” in 5. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung. Würzburg, 23-26. September 1999 (ed. Horst Beinlich et al.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002), 179-200; Martin Fitzenreiter, “Richtungsbezüge in ägyptischen Sakralanlagen—oder: Warum im ägyptischen Tempel das Sanktuar hinten links in der Ecke liegt (Teil I),” SAK 31 (2003): 132-5, who retraces many of Zippert’s analyses; Andrea-Claudia Binkowski, “Geier und Falke über dem König: Zu einem Motiv im Dekor ägyptischer Tempelreliefs,” in Begegnungen. Antike Kulturen im Niltal (ed. Caris-Beatrice Arnst et al.; Leipzig: Verlag Helmar Wodtke und Katharina Stegbauer, 2001), 83-9; Hans-Georg Bartel, “Über den ‘Spruch beim Fortziehen der Riegel’ in Sanktuaren des Tempels Sethos I. in Abydos I. Teil,” ibid., 55-81; and El-Sawy, “A New Discovery at the Sety 1 Temple in Abydos,” in Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century I (ed. Zahi Hawass; Cairo and New York: American University in Cairo Press, 2003), 425-30. Additional studies discuss similar themes in this temple with special reference to the work of Ramesses II and Merenptah: Abd el Hamid Zayed, “The Archives and Treasury of the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” ASAE 65 (1983): 19-71; Ahmed el-Sawi, “Ramesses II completing a shrine in the temple of Sety 1 at Abydos,” SAK 10 (1983): 307-10; and Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 164-8. 6 Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 162-4; Notes and Comments II, 191-3; KRI II 323.9-4.8. 7 For all of this see the references in note 4 above. The location of the scene is significant for the dating: immediately to the left (south) of the main opening to the Outer Hypostyle Court. Therefore, it was to be “read” first. The Dedicatory Inscription is further to its left. The king in both cases faces right and is thus directed to the central axis of the temple. The prenomen of Ramesses, Wsr-mî#t-R Stp-n-R # allows

4

chapter one

short early form in conjunction with the references of regnal year one in the narrative support this interpretation. In addition, the entire section of the Second Court fits within the opening years of the king. The later reliefs of the king, for example, are located in the First Court that was subsequently completed. As is well known, the inner portions of this temple are virtually always decorated with Seti I in mind, and there is little to contradict his son’s own account in the Dedicatory Inscription. Namely, that he, Ramesses, had found the temple unfinished, and it was his task as the dutiful son—both to Osiris and to Seti I—to effect the final touches. The original plan of this part of the temple was not completed when Seti I died. Nonetheless, we can determine the specific character of the temple when Ramesses II visited it on his way south from Thebes. Rosalie David outlined the probable visual setting: “When Sethos died, the façade, the Courts, the Outer Hypostyle Hall and the rear portions of the temple were incomplete,” although the recent study of Peter Brand has refined many of her conclusions.8 The limestone façade at the rear of the Second Court originally consisted of a wall with a cornice on top; there also were seven doorways piercing this façade. Ramesses II had those doorways filled with sandstone blocks, and only the central entrance area was not touched with two side doorways (north wall) left alone. Then the façade was decorated, and

on the south side we find the Dedicatory Inscription.9 In other words, the rebuilding ordered by Ramesses appears to have begun in this area, and the narrative account was carved soon after the doorways on the south wall were filled in.10 The hieroglyphs are well ordered, not at all resembling the more “hectic” or as some would believe, newly developed system of the later Ramesside Period. Recently both Junge and Loprieno have turned to the arrangement of monumental hieroglyphic writing at this time.11 To be sure, their comments are very lapidary, merely serving as an introduction to their studies of ancient Egyptian. According to Loprieno these changes affected the orthography of hieroglyphic writing. Specifically, in monumental texts the older quadrant system was abandoned and a newer method of spacing and arrangement came into force. This can already be noted at the site of Amarna under the heretic Pharaoh, Akhenaton. The great Hymn to the Aten located in the tomb of Ay provides an excellent precursor to the subsequent wholesale jettisoning of the earlier “Classical” quadrant system. Nonetheless, by Dynasty XIX a new structure in writing emerged even though it appears to have been introduced slowly. This is not the place to discuss the alterations in detail save to state that Loprieno recognized a nine-fold system of small fields into which each ideal square could be placed. (Noteworthy is his use of the tomb

us to place the date of the written composition ca. the king’s second regnal year. The epithet of Stp-n-R # is first dated to year two: KRI II 339.12 (Sinai No 252). In that inscription we read “the one chosen of Re in the bark” (KRI II 339.14), a phrase that must imply a close relationship to Seth: Jean Yoyotte, “Religion de l’Égypte,” Annuaire École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve Section 73 (1965-6): 80. Add now the comments of Rondot in La grande salle hypostyle de Karnak, 119-20. Following his remarks, we can argue that this epithet was utilized on the architraves of Karnak (Hypostyle Court) somewhat later that the shorter prenomen, Wsr-mî#t-R. 8 A. Rosalie David, Religious Ritual at Abydos (c. 1300 BC) (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1973), 17. The author did not refer to Zippert’s work, “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos.” Brand’s The Monuments of Seti I has already been referred to in the same note, and his analysis on pages 192-219 concerning the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak is a mine of detailed information. Note his remarks concerning the completion of the decoration by Ramesses II who usurped many of his father’s reliefs. Dieter Arnold, Wandrelief und Raumfunktion in ägyptischen Tempeln des Neuen Reiches (Munich-Berlin: Bruno Hessling, 1962) may be consulted with profit. I refer in particular to pages 22-4 (the chapels to the immediate west of the Inner Hypostyle Court), 62-3 (an important section covering the

rites of the íwn-mwt.f priest before the king’s statue) and 67-8 (chapel of Seti I, called a “sanctuary,” where offerings as well as the temple festival bark, the sàmw-Éw, were located). N.B.: in this temple the chapels of divinities, very frequently depicted as naoi, are designated by the word tpÈt: Luc Gabolde, “Les temples #mémoriaux’ de Thoutmosis II et Toutânkhamon. (Un Rituel destinee à des statues sur barques),” BIFAO 89 (1989): 157 note 188. 9 David, Religious Ritual at Abydos, 10-11. Some of her conclusions must be revised in light of Murnane’s research in “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 162, 165. He argued that “it seems that Ramesses II both built and decorated the portico, the two courts and the pylon, thus completing his father’s temple” (page 165). 10 This would not have taken much time; see notes 21-2 below concerning Kitchen’s estimates. Following him, I place the carving of the Dedicatory Inscription ca. regnal years one to two of Ramesses as Pharaoh, and I see no overriding reason to date its completion in the second year. In her Religious Ritual at Abydos Rosalie David provides a brief summary of Ramesses’ building program, but the reader should be aware that she adheres to a coregency. 11 Antonio Loprieno. Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1995), 21-2; and Friedrich Junge, Einführung in die Grammatik des Neuägyptischen (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996), 27.

introduction

5

of Amenmose which is dated to Dynasty XIX.) Independently, Junge observed the use of this new arrangement in the so-called “Randinschriften” of temples of this period and later. The hieroglyphs were now placed in vertically oriented rectangles, and good examples can be seen in the Hittite Treaty, the Israel Stela of Merenptah, and finally the texts of Ramesses III and IV. Although a detailed analysis of this development remains to be written, a few outstanding points can be adumbrated here. The early texts of Ramesses II—and by these I mean those up to the middle of his second decade at least—do not reveal this development. The change was gradual, and if the later Hittite Treaty is invoked, we must keep in mind that two decades had passed from the start of Ramesses II’s reign until that fateful and convivial rapprochement between the two superpowers in the king’s twenty-first regnal year. For the moment let me indicate that Junge observed the gradual and original limited development. At the opening of Dynasty XIX such was not the case, and the Dedicatory Inscription as well as the famous Battle of Kadesh texts indicate that the older system was still in general operation, or at least preferred for monumental inscriptions.12 One final point can be explicated before I turn to the hieroglyphs of the inscription. The time it took to carve the signs has never been discussed. Was it quicker or even easier to engrave temple walls with the somewhat shallow and if not always well-drawn hieroglyphs than to follow the older

quadrant method? In comparing the results at Medinet Habu in conjunction with the now dated but still useful remarks of John Wilson, it is all too easy to arrive at this conclusion.13 Yet the growing discrepancy between sculptor-carvers, who knew their task, and their use of the original hieratic Vorlage, is but one issue. It was necessary for the overseer to insure that the hieratic was rendered into the correct hieroglyphs. From the first transcription on a papyrus there would have been drawn black line templates (or “sketches”) of hieroglyphs in the wall either in hieratic or sometimes paralleling the cursive forms often seen in religious texts. The final monumental product was then carved from these two-dimensional representations.14 Ramesses II in his opening year at Abydos did not follow the Amarna style. Consider, for example, the layout of the Hymn to the Aten in the tomb of Ay. There, one cannot but note the “slippery” set-up of the hieroglyphs.15 Some are too big for the quadrant system whereas others are too small or else shoved away into corners. At Abydos, on the other hand, there is a regular and orderly fashion to the blocks of signs; indeed, the arrangement is virtually the same as one may find in royal inscriptions dated to the middle of Dynasty XVIII. Consider the opening Épr swt sî in column 25 and compare it with Ay’s mîíw nb pr m rwty.f at the beginning of line four of his Aten hymn.16 In the latter, the complements r plus determinative (with the pr sign) are not as well set as one would expect from a mid Dynasty

12 Photos of the Battle of Kadesh (Abydos scenes) may be viewed in Charles Kuentz, La bataille de Qadech (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1928-34) and Walter Wreszinski, Atlas zur altaegyptiscnen Kulturgeschichte II (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1935). For those reliefs see as well Edouard Naville, Détails relevés dans les ruines de quelques temples égyptiens (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1930), Pls. v-xxv; the latter are hand copies but very well drawn. 13 John A. Wilson, “The Language of the Historical texts Commemorating Ramses III,” in Medinet Habu Studies 1928/29 (Oriental Institute Communications No. 7): 24-33. A related question concerning the “production” of hieratic and demotic texts was presented by Friedhelm Hoffmann, “Beobachtungen zum ägyptischen Schreiberpensum in hieratischen und demotischen Papyri,” in Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge 3-9 September 1995, Abstracts of Papers (ed. Christopher Eyre; Oxford: Oxbow Books for International Association of Egyptologists, 1995), 84-5. 14 In this context see the interesting comments of Pascal Vernus, “Les ‘Espaces de l’écrit’ dans l’Égypte pharaonique,” BSFE 119 (1990): 39-43. The first ink on the wall, in black, would be in outline format. Hence, as Stephen Quirke stresses, the key draughtsman is called a “writer of outlines” (sà qdwt). There is a connection here

with the “lector priests” being the readers. In addition, see the sporadic instances of combinations of hry Èbt with sà qdwt. The issue needs further research, although see now Lutz Popko, Untersuchungen zur Geschichtsschreibung der Ahmosiden- und Thutmosidenzeit “-- damit man von seinen Taten noch in Millionen von Jahren sprechen wird” (Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, 2006), 51-7. Add Rita Freed, “The Development of Middle Kingdom Egyptian Relief Sculptural Schools of Late Dynasty XI with an Appendix on the Trends of Early Dynasty XII (2040-1878 B.C.)” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1984), 10-13. 15 N. de G. Davies, The Rock Tombs of El Amarna VI (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1908), Pl. xxvii. There are others to choose, of course, but I have taken this case as representative. Junge, however, chose one of Akhenaton’s Boundary Stela in his grammar, Einführung in die Grammatik des Neuägyptischen, 73-8. 16 The reader must take care to note that henceforth I will follow Kitchen’s numbering of the columns; see KRI II 323 under “Note.” For the importance of the opening Épr see Vernus, Essai sur la conscience de l’histoire dans l’Égypte pharaonique (Paris: Champion, 1995), 154 note 652 where he refers to the introduction of the Ahmose Stela from Abydos (Urk. IV 26.12): Épr swt sndm Èm.f.

6

chapter one

XVIII inscription and the heights of the signs tend to vary more markedly. Indeed, throughout this hymn one can find other clear-cut cases of the loss of any regularized pattern of sculptural rendition. Ramesses II eschews that approach. His groupings are regular and any possibility of shrinking the signs to fit a small but nevertheless empty area is avoided. This clearly indicates that the Amarna arrangement, which was to influence the later development of monumental hieroglyphic writing, was purposely not followed by Ramesses at the onset of his reign. In the Dedicatory Inscription his “blocks” are well coordinated and even the somewhat constricted combination of ms sw with three signs (ms + s + sw in column 25) was presented in a standard manner. This can equally be seen also in the Abydene version of the Kadesh battle, most probably the earliest rendition of that conflict.17 In order to achieve a deeper analysis it would be necessary to turn back in time to the reign of Seti I in order to explore this “sculptural reaction” to Amarna. Naturally, we might wish to avoid the carving in the royal tombs as well as the formal and extremely decorous religious texts of Seti. For the moment, however, I wish to stress the formal and conservative approach of Ramesses at the holy shrine of Abydos and the purposeful approach to carving the Dedicatory Inscription. The signs themselves are well proportioned. None appear to deviate from the pre-established norm either in size (height or width) or in location. As stated above, every one of them is “boxed in” in a neat and aesthetically pleasing manner. This masterly presentation is most overt in the location of the real beginning to the text as well as its end. No space in the columns is left. Column 25 (the first of the “Main Text”) is self-contained and the commencement of the narrative, opening with #È#.n nb tîwy, is placed exactly at the beginning of the next column. Column 40 begins a new development in the account with wn.ín.sn Èr ht.sn. Cleancut breaks at the end of each column insure that no word is incomplete; one moves to a new word at the top of each column. (Perhaps this is the reason for the somewhat abbreviated writing at the end of column 48.) Further examples of this

carefully planned carving are the names of the king in columns 78 and 79. In the first the design master has concluded the column with Seti’s prenomen plus “justified” whereas in the second it is Ramesses’ final name plus “given life” which concludes the vertical section. Column 102 provides another parallel. I remain convinced that an extremely well thought out and slowly drawn up presentation lies at the heart of this matter, one justly reflecting the importance of the temple and the intimate religious concepts of king and earthly father (Ramesses-Seti) as well as king and father Osiris. There is no inconsistency in the size of the hieroglyphs, and the spacing as well as the groups are organized into a “well tempered” presentation. I cannot find any case of haste. Some corrections were later made and it is interesting to note that the date in column 30 was recarved in order to present a better grouping.18 At the end of column 46 a further retouching can be found; see as well columns 36, 37, 97, and 116.19 There are no intrusions of hieratic, or rather evidences of the hieratic master copy . A crucial question must arise concerning the actual program of work. Simply put, how was it accomplished? Although this query moves us far from the theme of our argument, it is important to mention. Granted that the whole inscription was drawn up in a thoughtful and organized fashion, it nonetheless must have taken a relatively lengthy period of time to complete, if only as each word had to be set within the columns so that the last remaining space had to contain the end of a word. The master sculptor would have had to follow the instructions of the chief organizer of the work, a man who most certainly would have had in his possession the hieratic copy written for him by one of the chief royal scribes or lector priests, and approved by Ramesses II, most probably at the capital. In our case I believe that, when the newly crowned king sailed northwards from Thebes, this wall as well as the accompanying right one were either not yet built or, less probably, bare and hence ready for carving. However, the length of time it took to accomplish the task must remain an open question.20 I suspect that it took more than a few months and that the carving probably

17 See Spalinger, “Historical Observations on the Military Reliefs of Abu Simbel and Other Ramesside Temples in Nubia,” JEA 66 (1980): 83-99. 18 KRI II 325.5 with note 5 a-b; see as well his note 7c to KRI II 325.7. 19 KRI II 326.3-5 with notes 3a-b, 4a-b and 5a, KRI II

327.10 with note 10 a-a, KRI II 334.4 with note 4a; and KRI II 336.1 with note 1b. 20 Note in this context Seele, The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I, and pages 12-22 in particular. All of his estimates are unsure. The one who commands, Ramesses II in our case, often determines the time.

introduction

7

lasted into the king’s second regnal year.21 Indirect evidence for this might be derived from the king’s prenomen. In the Dedicatory Inscription we see the longer version (Wsr-mî#t-R Stp-n-R #), one that replaced an earlier one (Wsr-mî#t-R # +/complements but never with Stp-n-R #).22 Again Kitchen’s perspicacious comments must be read. He has pointed out that at Abydos “much of the decoration in the rear part of his [= Ramesses’] temple shows his early prenomen.”23 In order to explain the presence of the later or “fixed” prenomen in the Dedicatory Inscription (and, as well, in the accompanying scenes to the right), Kitchen argued that during the regency period of Seti I and Ramesses II the king had organized the builders at Abydos to concentrate their activities upon his own complex and, presumably, not that of his father’s. Hence, one can see that the simpler prenomen of Ramesses elsewhere in Seti’s temple makes sense. Namely, that both he and his father, independently or together as Pharaohs, were associated with the carving activities of the local builders and artisans. We can

single out the work associated with the Gallery of Kings, even though difficulties are encountered if we link the text to the double speech of Thoth and Seshat to Seti located in the Stairway Corridor.24 In the former, Ramesses is depicted in scenes in which he offers before his father, and as prince but not yet as a ruler. He invokes the royal ancestors. Seele, on the other hand, attempted a more complex explanation, one that involved a coregency.25 With Kitchen, however, I cannot follow this analysis. Indeed, some twenty years or so earlier I had attempted to outline the early career of Ramesses II on the basis of his war inscriptions in conjunction with some new data proffered by Murnane.26 Seele was the first to recognize that the Abydene data from both Ramesses own temple as well as his carvings in his father’s temple fitted neatly into the broader picture that could be seen at Karnak. Excluding his erroneous believe in a coregency, a perspective which was bold for its time but which has now outlived its usefulness, one nonetheless finds this judicious comment

21 Kitchen observes that one can argue for a final draft and the carving by year two of the king “at earliest” in Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 195. 22 See the references in notes 7, 10, 20-1 above; in particular, Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 194. Seele’s earlier position will be found in his The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I, 47. Pages 47-9 cover his interpretation of this Abydos temple and the one solely built by Ramesses. Note as well Seele’s pertinent remarks: “Ramses himself did not, however, decorate any of the walls of his father’s temple in the raised relief which we have now become accustomed to accept as a mark of his first period. The reason for this is quite obvious. He was at this time engaged in the erection of his own temple near by” (page 47). Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 194, 196, followed this conclusion. See now Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 155-70. On page 170 he pinpoints the artistic and architectural development of Seti’s temple by concluding that “the Gallery of Kings was among the last portion of the temple to be decorated before Seti’s death.” Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 15-17, follows Brand and Baines. 23 Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 194-6. (I am purposely ignoring most of the secondary literature that failed to come to grips with the regency situation.) 24 For handy references, see KRI I 176ff. In this case note as well KRI I 177.8-10 where Ramesses is íry-p#t, sî nswt smsw n ht.f, and logically has nary a cartouche. As usual, we have to thank Kitchen for clarifying this designation and a related one. In “The Twentieth Dynasty Revisited,” JEA 68 (1982): 121 he proved the following analysis: sî nswt tpy = oldest surviving son and sî nswt smsw = heir apparent (male). I shall have recourse to this simple, clear, and sharply presented conclusion. For Seshat and her connection to royalty, see Hartwig Altenmüller, “Sechat, Jri und Sdm als Garanten einer glück-

lichen Regierungszeit,” in Festschrift Arne Eggebrecht zum 65. Geburtstag am 12. März 2000 (ed. Bettina Schmitz; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 2002), 1-10; the importance of the Abydos temple of Seti I is covered on pages 3-5. Finally, the study of Budde cited in note 2 above is extremely useful in the context of Sehsat, especially in conjunction with coronation, the sed festival, Thoth, writing, and rejuvenation (pages 150-1 and 200-6). Dominique Bastin “De la fondation d’un temple: #Paroles dites par Seshat au Roi Sethi Ier’,” in L’atelier de l’orfèvre: Mélanges offerts à Ph. Derchain (ed. M. Broze and Ph. Talon; Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 9-24 provides an equally useful analysis of the key text. Jacques Parlebas’ rarely consulted “La déesse Seshat” (Ph.D. diss., 1976) can be cited here, but I only have seen in Basel the “résumé détaillé.” In the XVIIIth Dynasty she appears in the role of the “secretary” noting the divine jubilees (rituals of the divine birth). See Chapter 24 in particular, as it covers her role with jubilees and the Ished tree (Ramesseum example). Chapter 25 deals with her relationship to Thoth in which the latter remained the more important. He further discussed their connection to the foundation of temples because Seshat was the deity who traces out the foundations while Thoth served as the architect giving the instructions from his manuals. 25 The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I. Murnane followed him to some degree in positing a coregency. My arguments against this position are also cited in footnote 17; see now Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 300-35. It was Helck who discovered and subsequently defended the accession date of III àmw 27 for Ramesses II: “Bemerkungen zu den Thronbesteigungsdaten im Neuen Reich,” Analecta Biblica 12 (1959): 118-20, and in “Drei Ramessidische Daten,” SAK 17 (1990): 205-08. 26 See the references in the previous note, to which add Kitchen, review of John Schmidt, Ramesses II: A Chronological Structure for his Reign, JEA 61 (1975): 266, and 268-9.

chapter one

8

relating to Ramesses: “Immediately upon his father’s death Ramses began to date his monuments by his own regnal year,” a conclusion with which no one today would disagree.27 Hence, with regard to the Dedicatory Inscription, no inconsistency in dates nor in historical reconstruction should occur so long as we keep in mind that Ramesses’ timing was separate from the commencement of his earlier work at Seti’s temple. Structurally, what type of text lies before us? Many years earlier A. Hermann had placed this inscription under his rubric of the Königsnovelle.28 The basic outline that Hermann enunciated for this text included the speeches between the king and high officials, the dated nature of the monument, the Sitz im Leben, and the trip of the king to a specific region, here Abydos. Since Loprieno has presented a detailed reevaluation of this socalled genre, I need not present a lengthy explication of this kind of Egyptian narration.29 The key aspects of this Egyptian presentation were to lay emphasis upon royal deeds. The rather frequent number of such inscriptions that deal with building activities, a point already remarked upon by Hermann but also described anew by Loprieno, is also worthy of attention. By and large, these Königsnovelle texts deal with a non-threatening situation, one in which the monarch enunciates a plan, hears praise for it, and then promulgates his decision. (I believe that we have to separate

27

The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I, 48. Alfred Hermann, Die ägyptische Königsnovelle (Glückstadt, Hamburg, and New York: J. J. Augustin, 1938), passim, but see page 13. There, he notes the completion of a “prediction” (announced through sr) of the “plans” (sÉrw). It is not without coincidence that 1erný observed the connection between an “oracle” (bíît) and the “plans of god” (sÉrw ntr): Jaroslav 1erný, “Egyptian Oracles,” in Richard A. Parker, A Saite Oracle Papyrus from Thebes (Providence: Brown University Press, 1962), 35-48. I follow Georges Posener, “Aménémopé 21,13 et bjîj.t au sens d’#oracle’,” ZÄS 90 (1963): 98-102, but only some of the conclusions of Erhart Graefe, “Untersuchungen zur Wortfamilie bjî-” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cologne, 1971), 109-12. An excellent example of sr indicating a prediction from a god—i.e., “oracle,” is given by Dimitri Meeks in his Année Lexicographique III (Paris: Impr. de la Margeride, 1982), 261: sr ntr Épr Èr-#(wy). Further remarks concerning the Königsnovelle are to be found in Antonio Loprieno, “The #King’s Novel’,” in Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms (ed. Antonio Loprieno; Leiden, New York, and Cologne: Brill, 1996), 281 with note 19 (and page 291): the argument of Shirun-Grumach being that the Königsnovelle should be “interpreted as the indirect rendition of an oracle.” In her work, Offenbarung, Orakel und Königsnovelle (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1993), perhaps she should have restricted herself to a certain number of these inscriptions in which it can be proved that an oracle took place. This is not 28

these non-military accounts from the war records of the Pharaohs if only because in the latter the response to the king’s query is always a weak one, a plan that will inevitably be countered by Pharaoh.)30 The presence of such “King’s Novels” in monumental settings cannot be overlooked. First, and here I follow the analysis of Loprieno, the composition was fixed at a specific location. It was not circulated in papyrus copies throughout the land. (The Berlin Leather Roll is not an exception to this.)31 Pegged to the wall, so to speak, or carved on a block of free standing stone—a stela—these compositions reveal varying methods of presentation. On a few occasions the reply of the king’s officials contain a perspective at variance to the king’s wish. But for building activities this does not appear to be the case. The account often contains different literary approaches, and one might want to view the “whole” item as an amorphous literary narrative in which varying aspects could be presented, not all of which were automatically required. These royal Königsnovelle accounts were carved for the viewer alone, who could either read or have the text read out for him. Furthermore, there remains the question whether the inscription was more than a simple and solitary communicative entity. That is to say, did it also serve as a performative text?32 More than one copy could be made. The account of

the case in the Dedicatory Inscription and other examples as well. Often the account is presented independent of any divine “prediction.” The later study of Beate Hofmann, Die Königsnovelle: “Strukturanalyse am Einzelwerk” (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004), can now be mentioned. On pages 324-9 the author outlines her new definition wherein various subsections of this “genre” could be written (e.g., eulogies, hymns, letter citations, royal decrees, oaths). I feel that any of these components could be added or omitted according to the predilection of the composer. 29 “The #King’s Novel’,” 277-95. 30 This is why I avoided discussing them in detail in Aspects of the Military Documents of the Ancient Egyptians (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1982), Chapter IV. Parts of military texts may reflect such settings, but they need not be included. 31 I differ with Piccato on this matter. See Spalinger, “Drama in History: Exemplars from Mid Dynasty XVIII,” SAK 24 (1997): 269-300; and Aldo Piccato, “The Berlin Leather Roll and the Egyptian Sense of History,” LingAeg 5 (1997): 137-59. 32 Recently, see Frédéric Servajean, Les formules des transformations du Livre des Morts à la lumière d’une théorie de la performativité (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 2004). I am following some pertinent remarks of Stephen Quirke at this point.

introduction

9

Ramesses II dealing with goldmining is known from at least two exemplars: one at Kubban and the second in the temple precinct of Aksha.33 In this case the remoteness of the former may have played a great role in determining that at least one more exemplar would be available for public viewing, especially as the temple of Aksha lay not too far from the site of Kubban. The Hittite Marriage of Ramesses II with a daughter of Hattusilis III of Hatti was of great significance to Ramesses.34 Indeed, it formed the visible proof of the close interconnections, politically and emotionally, between the two great powers. At least five copies of this inscription have been found, and all of them were originally located within temples. (The Elephantine fragments were later reused in the quay at Elephantine.) Detailed and intricate, this account presents a greater narrative structure than the Dedicatory Inscription, yet it holds to the basic outline structure of the Königsnovelle. It also includes a relatively long introductory encomium to Ramesses. The various sections were overtly demarcated by the names of the king unlike the Dedicatory Inscription. Therefore, it is relatively easy to analyze its internal structure. But this text of Ramesses also reveals the non-rigid pattern of the Königsnovelle, and perhaps we can interpret better this so-called genre by allowing it to possess a high degree of flexibility. Namely, that differing styles could be employed, or at least that any such composition could absorb a range of literary outlooks, as if the form was sufficiently free from a rigid framework and hence permitted divergent linguistic levels. (E.g., formal or Classical narrative prose, hymns or encomia, and direct speech with a more contemporary flavor.)35 In the same way some of these accounts could indicate a dispute—or at least a divergence—between the king’s wish and that of his officials, but this aspect was not required.

Related questions regarding the audience and the effectiveness of the Königsnovelle can be brought forward in this context. To take a case in point: previously, would the audience have known any of this information? Would the Egyptians who were able to read or at least hear the account appreciate the literary effort that went into the work? Finally, was it always necessary to go to a temple to see the text? I think that we can answer the last query. After all, we have at our fingertips the lengthy hieratic version of the Battle of Kadesh drawn up by the treasury scribe Pn-tî-wrt.36 It is clear that the copyist had no need to avail himself of a trip southwards to spend an incredible effort in reading the texts; hieratic copies of that military account were close by.37 In other words, archives in the north existed; to whom were they available is another question. But the existence of libraries or archives where a middle-ranking treasury officer could go is in itself significant. The text of the Battle of Kadesh was meant for temple walls. Moreover, it shows more than just a few traces of a Königsnovelle presentation. Indeed, there is a dispute in the record, one that, in fact, parallels Kamose’s conversations with his courtiers, Thutmose III’s heated discussion with his military officers just before the Aruna Pass, and in the literary story of Apophis and Seqenenre. I am not the first to connect all four military compositions or to lay emphasis upon their literary aspects. Nevertheless, the fact that one of them could have been consulted—indeed copied—from a hieratic original opens the issue whether any of the others could have. (Excluding, of course, Apophis and Seqenenre, which belongs to the story tradition of the Ramesside Period.) And we must not forget that the final “resting place” of Pn-tî-wrt’s copy of the Kadesh Poem was a tomb.38

33 KRI II 353.1-60.6; others could be added, military texts included. Commemoration was also crucial. 34 KRI II 233.5-256.4. 35 As I will be referring to the specialized works of Jan Assmann later in this discussion, it is sufficient here to refer to his summaries in Lexikon der Ägyptologie I-VI (ed. Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1975-86). See his contributions under “Aretalogien,” I, 425-34, “Eulogie, Königs-,” II, 40-6, “Hymnus,” III, 103-110, “Litanei,” III, 1062-6, “Stundenwachen,” VI, 104-06, and “Verklärung,” VI, 998-1006. 36 All of this is covered in my The Transformation of an Ancient Egyptian Narrative: P. Sallier III and the Battle of Kadesh (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002).

37 For Pn-tî-wrt, his northern location, and his colleagues in the treasury, see Chapter II in the previously cited work; add, however, the important comments of Stephen Quirke, “Archive,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, 379-401. See now the work of Wolfram Grajetzki, Burial Customs in Ancient Egypt: Life in Death for Rich and Poor (London: Duckworth, 2003), 66; and my related comments in “Encomia and Papyrus Anastasi II,” in Discovering Egypt from the Neva: The Egyptological Legacy of Oleg D Berlev (ed. Stephen Quirke; Berlin: Achet, 2003), 123 note 2. 38 Quirke, “Archive,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, 382-91.

10

chapter one

That famous and lengthy narrative text, one that narrates a major military victory of the Pharaoh, was written in a Königsnovelle format. It was originally intended for the wall of temples. Yet a middle ranking bureaucrat from the north obtained a hieratic copy of that account and was able to complete the task of copying it. He did this line by line, from beginning to end, purely for his interest and also, one suspects, for some of his colleagues. In this context it is less interesting to speculate about the man’s motives; more significant is the simple manner of acquisition. Evidently, Pn-tî-wrt found it relatively easy to obtain the “software” and to finish making a copy of the Kadesh Poem. He did not arrive at a temple wall in order to copy the entire hieroglyphic version. The Poem account of the Battle of Kadesh is a piece of literature, but it is much more than a simple or relatively short Königsnovelle document.39 We can thus propose the existence of archives that contained secular literary compositions. To be able to locate a lengthy copy of a text meant for the walls of temples allows me to suppose that other royal Königsnovelle productions were equally accessible in archives. Naturally, the master copies—I mean those intended for the supervisors of the carving—previously would have been sent to the directors at each of the temples in which the text was to be carved.40 Whether they were ever returned to the capital is not the issue. (After use, the workaday hieratic versions may have been stored in the temple archives.) More than one copy could have been made. And since the composition had to have been of a high literary quality—one explicitly commissioned and then approved by the Pharaoh—it is hard to believe that the narrative did not circulate among a few

of the king’s personal associates, the courtiers, for example, if not also his family. The situation of a more extended audience for these Königsnovelle inscriptions has rarely been discussed. Perhaps it is easier for us to posit the circulation of New Kingdom war deeds than such accounts as the Dedicatory Inscription. Most certainly, the Late Egyptian Stories had as their readership a reasonable number of people. Yet we often find that only one papyrus exemplar has survived the ravages of time. Fortunately, the workmen’s site of Deir el Medineh has given the necessary empirical evidence with regard to literacy and literary awareness. We no longer have to invoke the scholarly rule focused upon the lack of explicit evidence.41 That is to say, the “reading public” of New Kingdom literary products, and in this context Ramesside literary ones, was reasonably broad. It included middle-level workmen, such as Qenherkhepshef at Deir el Medineh, who were able to obtain copies of various literary and magical productions, even Dream Books. Military deeds of the Pharaoh were distributed outside of temple walls, and we have more than one hieratic account of the New Kingdom Pharaohs’ exploits abroad. But mythological tales such as the Contendings of Horus and Seth could be employed in an annual ritual (or “festival”) of kingship. Events placed either in the past (Apophis and Seqenenre) or in the present were written, and even more ancient literary compositions were readily accessible for use; for example, see Neferty, Sinuhe, Satire of Trades, and the like. It is thus no surprise that Posener placed some emphasis upon the overt use of early Dynasty XII Königsnovelle elements in the Dedicatory Inscription as well as in the near contemporary Kubban Stela.42 Ramesside literary writers appear to have been

39 Spalinger, The Transformation of an Ancient Egyptian Narrative, Chapter XI. 40 The same situation has been discussed with respect to the Ptolemaic royal decrees: Spalinger, Three Studies on Egyptian Feasts and their Chronological Implications (Baltimore: Halgo, 1992), Chapter II. The two studies of Michel Chauveau and Willy Clarysse in Le décret de Memphis: Colloque de la Fondation Singer-Polignac à l’occasion de la célébration du bicentenaire de la découverte de la Pierre de Rosette, Paris, 1er juin 1999 (ed. Dominique Valbelle and Jean Leclant; Paris: Fondation Singer-Polignac: Diffusion, De Boccard, 1999), 25-39 and 41-65 present a complementary analysis of the transmission of royal edicts into stone; namely, the famous series of multi-lingual royal decrees of the Ptolemaic Period. 41 The evidence for this literary interest is too well known to document here. Nevertheless, let me refer to the significant

contribution of P. W. Pestman, “Who were the Owners, in the #Community of Workmen’, of the Chester Beatty Papyri?,” in Gleanings from Deir el-Medîna (ed. R. J. Demarée and Jac. J. Janssen; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1982), 156-72; and Andrea McDowell, “Teachers and Students at Deir el-Medîna,” in Deir el-Medîna in the Third Millennium AD. A Tribute to Jac. J. Janssen (ed. R. J. Demarée and A. Egberts; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2000), 217-33. 42 Georges Posener, Littérature et politique dans l’Égypte de la XIIe Dynastie (Paris: Champion, 1956), 6. The phrase also occurs in Ramesses II’s Kubban Stela. See now the remarks of Grajetzki indicated by Quirke, Egyptian Literature 1800 BC: questions and readings (London: Golden House, 2004), 179 where the Middle Kingdom tale of “The king and the spirit of Khentika son of Snefer” is discussed. In this case the introductory phrase covering the king’s speech to

introduction

11

well versed in the literary corpus of the Middle Kingdom and could draw upon those sources for their own creations. A commissioned written work such as this one at Abydos would have required much preliminary work on the part of the writer or writers.43 First and foremost, the composer would have to receive the ideas of his ruler and no doubt converse with him concerning the structure and outlook for the final version. Then too, the use of literary figures of speech, stylistic maneuvers, and explicit signals connected with the royal aspect would, for the most part, have been approved by the reigning king.44 Any such draft would have to be corrected and improved with regard to the final wish of the Pharaoh and also of the author. Therefore, behind a final version were pre-existent models, especially when the author wished to include a series of epithets, lengthy praises (whether they be poetical or not), and commonplace metaphors, similes or the like. The narrative scaffolding of a Königsnovelle would have been learnt by the author at a time of apprenticeship. The common temporal settings, introductions, and transitional passages must have been known to the composer. I suspect that they were part and parcel of the highest level in the literate sector of the society. We are, after all, not discussing the question of writing by accountant scribes or bureaucrats. Their script is easy to distinguish from the clear even hand of the few liter-

ary texts that have been preserved. For example, a great difference in physical presentation exists between the daily output of a Papyrus Wilbour scribe and the man associated with The Two Brothers. (However, one must keep in mind that our copy of the Doomed Prince is by no means “beautiful” or even clear to read.)45 Naturally, this argument must deal with the transformation of religious texts onto tomb walls. The use of Coffin and Pyramid Texts in tombs cannot be excluded from consideration, and Dynasties XXV-XXVI provides us with sufficient data to enable a serious evaluation of the concept of (hieratic) religious literature in re-use. To take a case in point, the sun hymns of the XVIIIth Dynasty preceding the Amarna Period have revealed an earlier funerary setting. Their origins, however, are significant. Assmann showed that we have to posit an extra-mortuary context for those texts, and one in which various hieratic copies of the hymns were readily available.46 And the same is self-evident when we turn to some of the pictorial representations in private tombs, although here the question of propinquity—i.e., the close location of a desired scene in other tombs or temples—cannot be overlooked. Is it correct that a monumental Königsnovelle inscription was “forgotten” soon after it was completed? This is, in essence, what Loprieno has maintained.47 It is true that the original commissioning and raison d’être had past. As soon as the

his sealbearer or other officials is the key issue. The parallel of that story to the Dynasty XIII Königsnovelle-oriented stela of Neferhotep I and others, including the Dedicatory Inscription, cannot be overlooked. Hence, we can argue that some contemporary New Kingdom scribes (and not only those at Deir el Medineh) knew these earlier Classical texts and used various embedded Königsnovelle elements for their royal compositions. It may be best to leave off any speculation concerned with a return to normalcy after the schism of the Amarna Period. See Adriaan de Buck’s comments regarding the parallel of two Middle Kingdom phrases in the Berlin Leather Roll (temp. Sesostris I) in the Kubban Stela: “The Building Inscription of the Berlin Leather Roll,” Analecta Orientalia 17 (1938): 53 (note 3) and 57 (note 42). 43 Christopher J. Eyre, “Is Egyptian historical literature #historical’ or #literary’?,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, 415-33 provides a refreshing new outlook into the difficulties in extracting historical data from literary texts. One can mention the need to separate various linked stages in production such as the original historical background (conception), the writing of the composition (creation) followed by royal approval (blessing), and finally the “publication” of these monumental royal literary inscriptions. 44 This would have been particularly appropriate with regard to the eulogies to the king; see the most usefully

assembled collection in Assmann, Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed. Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 511-39. I can refer the reader to my two studies “New Kingdom Eulogies of Power: A Preliminary Analysis,” in Es werde niedergelegt als Schriftstück. Festschrift für Hartwig Altenmüller zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Nicole Kloth et al.; Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 2003), 415-28, and “Encomia and Papyrus Anastasi II,” 123-44. Nikolaus Tacke discusses the use of verse points in such New Kingdom eulogies in his recent work, Verspunkte als Gliederungsmittel in ramessidischen Schülerhandschriften (Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 2001). 45 See Gardiner, Late Egyptian Stories (Brussels: Fondation égyptologique reine Élisabeth, 1932), ix. Pn-tî-wrt’s hand is not a literary one. In fact, he was a middle-ranking treasury scribe. In correspondence Quirke notes in contrast that the beautiful calligraphy of the bread documents of Seti I provide an excellent contrast to the writing of the Doomed Prince manuscript. 46 In general, see his Re und Amun, Die Krise des polytheistischen Weltbilds im Ägypten der 18.-20. Dynastie (FreiburgGöttingen: Üniversitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), Chapter 4. 47 “The #King’s Novel’,” 277-95, and see page 280: “they reveal a very immediate concern with the king’s activities.”

chapter one

12

text was finished, perhaps signaled by an elaborate festivity, its immediate import would have ended. This implies that its historical resonance had ceased to play an important role, outside of possibly being renewed when someone arrived at the specific location. Were the hieratic copies left to wither away, so to speak, in archives or libraries? The case of the deliberate activity of Pn-tîwrt is not an exception. After all, the campaign of Ramesses II against the Hittites was of such importance and significance that we can posit its remembrance within the so-called “collective mentality” of the Egyptians.48 This conclusion is further supported by the later traditions connected with the war of this Pharaoh.49 Moreover, his foreign policy towards the Hittites remained a source for later literary artists; see the Bentresh Stela, for example. But it is one thing to stress the heroic and remembered deeds of a warrior Pharaoh as Ramesses II or Thutmose III (cf. the Taking of Joppa) and another to examine those deeds which were not so tumultuous or epoch-making; i.e., Ramesses’ building activity at Abydos. Here, I feel, the local and historically limited aspect of the event came into play. At the specific site such involvement would be remembered, if only through world of mouth plus text (if not also picture). Loprieno’s preliminary analysis can be retained so long as we keep in mind the significance of the act as it

48

Inter alia, see Assmann, “Kulturelles Gedächtnis als normative Erinnerung. Das Prinzip ‘Kanon’ in der Erinnerungskultur Ägyptens und Israels,” Memoria als Kultur (ed. Otto Gerhard Oexle; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 95-114, Das kulturelle Gedächtnis (Munich C. H. Beck, 1992), and Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism, Cambridge MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1997). 49 E.g., the Bentresh Stela, Greek traditions of “Sesostris,” and the account of Germanicus in Egypt. Some of these will be found in my analysis of the presumed spelling BÉtn in “On the Bentresh Stela and Related Problems,” JSSEA 8 (1977-78): 11-18. Note also Scott N. Morschauser, “Using History: Reflections on the Bentresh Stela,” SAK 15 (1988): 203-23; and now Loprieno, La pensée et l’écriture: pour une analyse sémiotique de la culture égyptienne (Paris: Cybèle, 2001), 81-4. Robert K. Ritner has recently given us a revised translation of the Bentresh Stela in The Literature of Ancient Egypt (3d ed.; ed. William K. Simpson; New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003), 361-6. 50 I have called these simple bimembral phrases “free variants,” following the research of Mario Liverani; see as well Chapter II notes 161-2. Claudia Maderna-Sieben, “Ausgewählte Beispiele ramessidischer Königseulogien,” in Das Königtum der Ramessidenzeit: Voraussetzungen, Verwirklichung, Vermächtnis: Akten des 3. Symposiums zur ägyptischen Königsideologie in Bonn 7.-9.6. 2001 (ed. Rolf Gundlach and Ursula Rößler-

was considered to be at the time of inauguration. Furthermore, any event which was considered to be extraordinary would have a strong effect within the land. There remains a nagging question. If older texts could be found and subsequently either reused or employed as a “quarry” for contemporary inscriptions, then someone must have had the intellectual wherewithal to have known of these earlier compositions and also where they were. A professional cadre of scribal masters or authors has to be posited in order to explain the continual use of models for writing, literary or otherwise. Mere school training would not be enough, although I cannot but feel that the repetitious practice of simple literary devices such as A-B bimembral phrases, so common in the introductions to royal texts of Dynasties XIX and XX and especially in eulogies, quite possibly were learnt by heart, if not readily available in some “source book.”50 The Destruction of Mankind, a text that is as well somewhat unorganized, has the same beginning as the Dedicatory Inscription. Loprieno also referred to this literary composition, but in the context of the fluidity of mythological narrative and Königsnovelle. It is sufficient to point out the opening Épr swt (restored but certain) in both, a facet that moves one into the arena of a non-dated time.51 Given a date near the end of Dynasty

Köhler; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003), 77-98 presents an overview of the encomia of Dynasties XIX-XX. The Dedicatory Inscription is covered in this analysis. 51 These words are so crucial that a detailed bibliography of the subject is necessary: Constantin Emil Sander-Hansen, “Der Gebrauch des Verbums Épr als Hilfsverbum in Alt- und Mittelägyptischen,” in Miscellanea Gregoriana, raccolta di scritti pubblicati nel I centenario dalla fondazione del Pont. Museo egizio (1839-1939) (Vatican City: Tip. poliglotta vaticana, 1941), 193-4 is always useful; but see Hans Goedicke, The Protocol of Neferyt (Baltimore; Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), 53 and note his key reference to Urk. I 184.12. The Middle Kingdom use of the introduction is established. Add Urk. IV 26.12 (Ahmose) with Posener, “Le conte de Néferkarè et du général Siséné. (Recherches littéraires VI),” RdE 11 (1957): 123 (the Story of Neferkare and the General Sisene) and pages 132-3 where he notes the ApophisSeqenenre Story as well. But see as well the Berlin Leather Roll, the last major edition being that of Jürgen Osing, “Zu zwei literarischen Werken des Mittleren Reiches,” in The Heritage of Ancient Egypt. Studies in Honour of Erik Iversen (ed. Jürgen Osing and Erland Kolding Nielsen; Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1992), 109-19: Épr Èmst m dîdw. There are two discussions of these opening clauses with Épr in Mark Collier’s studies “A note on the syntax of Épr and omitted impersonal subjects in late egyptian,” Wepwawet 2

introduction XVIII for the destruction composition—this is still partly controversial—we can place one of the literary antecedents of the Dedicatory Inscription to a time just after the reign of Akhenaton. In similar fashion but from an earlier period of time, the well-known Sphinx Stela of Thutmose IV presents useful literary parallels to Ramesses II’s Abydos text, not the least of which is its peaceful royal setting and the eventual building activities of the king in Giza.52 Particularly coincidental is the king’s emphasis upon his rise to kingship. But the Thutmose IV account contains a major literary passage also present in Ramesses II’s narrative—see in particular the section commencing with “one of these days came to pass” (w# m nn hrww Épr).53 Loprieno signaled the reference to this aspect, an “episodic” one which was embedded in a narrated mythological event.54 Once more he linked these sections of a bare historical narrative to a broader aspect; namely, the intertwining of various themes within a set pattern. Goedicke, on the other hand, paid some attention to the “literary Renaissance” in the Ramesside Period by indicating other Egyptian compositions that also contained this “frame-story” opening. He turned to the Middle Kingdom story of Neferkare and the General Sisene, for example, or the better known Abydos Stela of King Ahmose for his grandmother Tetishery, and even an intriguing Old Kingdom text.55 His all-too-brief comments were contained in a reedition of the so-called Prophecy of Neferty, the beginning of which places the ensuing account in a far away time when Good King Snefru lived. The introduction to the words of the lector Priest Neferty establishes a quasi-mythological setting:

(1985): 15-22, and “]pr and the #raising’ paradigm in middle egyptian,” Wepwawet 3 (1987): 1-10. Note that Épr.n swt > Épr swt, as expected. There is now a new study by Sami Uljas, “]pr.n and the Genesis of Auxiliaries,” SAK 35 (2006): 327-36. 52 Urk. IV 1539a-44; with Andrea Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III (Brussels: Fondation égyptologique reine Élisabeth, 2002), 296-304. 53 A helpful commentary at this point is still that of Fritz Hintze, Untersuchungen zu Stil und Sprache neuägyptischer Erzählungen I (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1950), 10-14. Monumental parallels in the XVIIIth Dynasty include this Thutmose IV example and the Restoration Inscription of Tutankhamun (Urk. IV 2025-32). Even the biography of Ahmose son of Ebana has to be brought into the discussion of literary forms contained within hieroglyphic inscriptions, although in this case the individual was not the king. Hintze also noted the

13

It occurred when the majesty of King Snefru, justified, was the benevolent (mnÉ) king in this entire land. One of these days came to pass when the …..

I am not sure if Goedicke’s supposition that “an important idiomatic link” between Neferty and the other example proffered by him is the right conclusion.56 Nevertheless, his mention of the Abydos stela of Ahmose deserves attention.57 The reason for this is simple. That text and the Dedicatory Inscription are official royal monuments both set up at Abydos and carved in hieroglyphs. By means of the opening, one is suddenly or abruptly thrown into a non-dated temporal framework, one in which the reader has to wait until the full purport of the account is revealed. In Neferty the narrative framework has as its hallmark the following “one of these days …..” With Ramesses II we have to be patient because it was felt necessary to outline the building activity of the Pharaoh, and only in column 30 is there the same transitional passage that allows the complete date to be given.58 Before this, the background to Ramesses’ visit to Abydos in year one is presented. Not merely is a list of the planned activities of construction given, but also the author reflects on the actual temporal framework of the king’s former visit. That earlier voyage, as Kitchen has seen, predates the king’s official coronation at Thebes and his important visit to Luxor.59 The style of the Late Egyptian Stories can be brought into this discussion. The earlier Ramesside ones, with their retention of older verbal formations of a literary/narrative nature (e.g., the #È#.n combinations, later replaced by wn.ín.f Èr sdm’s) reveal similar structures. One of them, Apophis and Seqenenre, although palaeographically

First Hittite Marriage account of Ramesses II and later cases (royal texts of Dynasty XXV; Satrap Stela). The Destruction of Mankind composition should not be ignored in the context of this discussion; cf. Erik Hornung, Der ägyptische Mythos von der Himmelskuh (Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 37 with note 1 on page 51 (read Épr swt wbn R #). He also discussed the common Ér m-Ét (later Ér ír m-Ét), a transitional passage that plays a crucial role in narrative stories as well. 54 “The #King’s Novel’,” 284. 55 The Protocol of Neferyt, 53. 56 Ibid. 57 Urk. IV 26-9.5. 58 KRI II 325.5-6. 59 Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 191-4; cf. Seele, The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I, 47-9.

chapter one

14

dating to the reign of Merenptah but certainly to be set earlier in Dynasty XIX, commences its account with the rubricized Épr swt + wn.ín.60 It is interesting, however, to see that the standard narrative patterns in the Late Egyptian Stories are not present in earlier Dynasty XVIII accounts, nor for the most part in the Dedicatory Inscription.61 Rather than a fluidity of intent on the part of the Egyptian writers, I prefer to see a Verschmelzung, or better an imbedding, of one narrative style within an account whose structure lay outside of an narrowly defined and age-old established genre. Perhaps it might be more correct to understand the earlier Dynasty XVIII New Kingdom exemplars (stories and certain historical accounts) to reflect a period of time in which an established or standard rule was still employed. This might also apply to the first attempts of belles-lettres in stories (end Dynasty XVIII to early Dynasty XIX). At a subsequent date, perhaps during the opening years of Ramesses II for the Late Egyptian Stories, a newer pattern took hold even though the more formal and conservative monumental hieroglyphic narratives still retained the Classical literary approach. (See, for example, the opening use of Épr swt in the Dedicatory Inscription.) On the other hand, there is evidence of a formal literary narrative outlook in Dynasty XVIII outside of hieratic literature (e.g., Thutmose IV’s Sphinx Stela). Owing to this it might be better to direct our attention away from the hitherto assumed lack of contemporary literary stories in Pre-Amarna Dynasty XVIII and to press forward with the few but nonetheless useful “traces” of narrative literary patterns in monumental hieroglyphic inscriptions of that era.62 Most certainly,

60

Hintze, Untersuchungen zu Stil und Sprache I, 8-19. One absence is the Non-Initial Main Sentence; note as well the lack of Ér ír m-Ét. A wn.ín.f Èr sdm form occurs in column 40. See Hintze, ibid., 31-6 on the #È#.n- and wn.ín- forms; and pages 36-8 for sdm pw ír.n.f. Of course, the latter cases refer only to the narrative (past historical) portions of the composition. 62 Assmann hypothesized that those XVIIIth Dynasty stories published by Ricardo Caminos, Literary Fragments in the Hieratic Script (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1956), might not go back to the Middle Kingdom: “Gibt es eine ‘Klassik’ in der ägyptischen Literaturgeschichte? Ein Beitrag zur Geistesgeschichte der Ramessidenzeit,” in XII Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 21. bis 25. März 1983 in Tübingen: Ausgewählte Vorträge, ZDMG Supplement VI (ed. Wolfgang Röllig; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1985), 48. Arguments against this position, however, remain strong; cf. Quirke, Egyptian literature 1800 BC, 206-07. 61

such texts as the Destruction of Mankind offer the interested reader an important sidelight to the present discussion, one which cannot but direct our attention to the literary output of the early Ramesside era. I believe that such narrative literary patterns such as “It occurred that …..” (Épr swt), the easy to spot “one of these days came to pass” (column 30), or the overt use of the sdm.ín.f construction for the commencement of speeches point to a style that was somewhat out of date when Ramesses II commissioned his inscription for Abydos.63 Moreover, the retention of a monumental verbal style that can be dated to the Pre- Amarna Period has to be noted. Although I shall go into this aspect of the text later in Chapter II, it is sufficient to mention the retention of the sdm.n.f in cases where Kruchten’s “rule” applies.64 Namely, that the linguistic level of the Dedicatory Inscription hearkens back to the Pre-Amarna epoch of Dynasty XVIII but not considerably earlier. The presumed fluid nature of all three compositions (Destruction of Mankind, Dedicatory Inscription, and the Thutmose IV Sphinx Stela) may be, in fact, a chimera. Can we not presuppose a standard yet flexible use of certain key narrative passages that served to advance the account? In addition, could one not mix presumed genres or subgenres in order to arrive at a linguistically elevated account with strong literary aspects instead of providing a simple bare-bones narrative? As an example, let me cite the well-known account of Ramesses II at Kadesh, the so-called Poem, if only because the account comprises many units (encomia, army daybook, etc.). More important, I feel, is the type of literary form employed in the Dedicatory Inscription.

For the Astarte tale, now dated to the second half of Dynasty XVIII, see Philippe Collombert and Laurent Coulon, “Les dieux contre la mer. Le début du ‘papyrus d’Astarté’ (pBN 202),” BIFAO 100 (2000): 193-242. 63 I fail to see any major use in the Dedicatory Inscription of the Ramesside (and later) “langage de tradition” à la Pascal Vernus. See his classic study “Deux particularités de l’égyptien de tradition: nty íw + Présent I; wnn.f Èr sdm narratif,” in L’Égyptologie en 1979: Axes prioritaires de recherches I (Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1982), 81-9. This composition is in many ways a masterpiece and must be examined on its own merits lest we too hastily categorize it as a commonplace Dynasty XIX royal monumental inscription. 64 Jean-Marie Kruchten, “From Middle Egyptian to Late Egyptian,” LingAeg 6 (1999): 1-97.

introduction As indicated earlier, it follows earlier models rather than contemporary ones. Those present in the Late Egyptian Stories, so well analyzed by Hintze many years ago, are virtually absent.65 As previously stated, we are faced with forms that hearken back to the preceding dynasty, indeed within the Pre-Amarna Period. And even if we posit a gradual development of the narrative style in the Late Egyptian Stories—as Hintze did in his lengthy study—one conclusion still remains. Namely, that by the first year of Ramesses’ kingship, the arrangement for belles-lettres stories was already in place. Moreover, the Destruction of Mankind, as many have observed, presents its historical/mythological account at the beginning. Though not short, this narrative portion of the work is followed by a more detailed etiology, an explanatory section that, properly speaking, is out of place within the total picture of the Königsnovelle.66 Hence, the “episodic” nature of the composition, to employ Loprieno’s felicitous term, is abandoned at a point for the description of the creation of the heaven, the sky, and its related components. In many ways one can view the Destruction text as a first step, indeed a major one, in the development of Egyptian (narrative) mythology. In contrast, the Dedicatory Inscription is so regular in presentation, especially at the beginning, that it is worthwhile to shed some new light on the method employed by the author to organize his historical material. As has been seen, the text hearkens back to earlier models. In fact, it was Posener who was the first to note the Middle Kingdom (Dynasty XII) reflex in column 37, the point where the king addresses his “seal bearer” (Étmty-bíty).67 We can place equal weight on the opening two words, Épr swt, “now there came into being.”68 The latter, often discussed, would at first glance throw us immediately into the seemingly story-like or even mythological aspect. The context of the inscription, however, negates this supposition.

65

See notes 53 and 61 above. A general summary will be found in Loprieno “The #King’s Novel’,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, 290-4. 67 Littérature et politique, 30. The Kubban Stela of Ramesses II parallels it exactly; see note 42 above. For this reason, among others, one can hypothesize that a careful use of the previous literary (or Classical) style was a hallmark of the early years of Ramesses II. As Quirke observes, the title “sealbearer of the king” indicated that the official was 66

15

Normally when royal inscriptions containing a historical purport were written the beginning commenced with a regal date (not necessarily complete) followed immediately by the king’s name. Then would follow a series of epithets, the first often including the full titulary of the Pharaoh. This became an increasingly larger and larger component of the composition, till often— especially in the Ramesside Period—it tended to overwhelm the subsequent account. This introductory portion was followed by the historical core that often continued to the end of the text. Otherwise, one can find additional epithets or at least non-narrative passages rounding off the whole account. Such was not followed here. The author of the Dedicatory Inscription eschewed the standard method of narrative presentation and eliminated all such introductory elements. We do not find, for example, the lengthy epithets of the king as expressed by Amunhotep II in his Sphinx Stela or in Ramesses’ First Hittite Marriage inscriptions. Equally, the background is not enunciated by the particle íst + subject (the king) with an adverbial phrase indicating spatial location such as: “Now his majesty was a youth as Horus in Chemmis.”69 The Restoration Stela of Tutankhamun reveals a similar process, earlier in time, which was employed for such Königsnovelle accounts.70 Its arrangement and set-up reveal the standard practice of an earlier age, albeit at a time after the Amarna interlude, but it is useful to employ this narration as a counterpoise to the Dedicatory Inscription. The following is a sketchy outline of the structure. I. Date plus titulary. II. Series of Epithets. III. Narrative portion. a. Introduction with íst. b. Background to the ensuing king’s decision covered; the temporal aspect predates the purpose of the text. IV. Second narrative portion.

national in scope at an earlier date, Titles and bureaux of Egypt 1850-1700 BC (London: Golden House, 2004), 12. 68 See also note 51 above for the use of Épr. Kitchen’s translation is in his Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 164. 69 Urk. IV 1541.1; cf. Assmann, “Eulogie, Königs-,” Lexikon der Ägyptologie II 45 and note 33. For the text, see Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III, 223-34. 70 Urk. IV 2025-32.

chapter one

16

a. Introduction by the literary Ér m-Ét hrww swî(w) Èr nn. b. Infinitive plus subject (the king) then follow; a spatial location is given. c. Epithets continue. d. Introduction with íst. e. Narrative formations advance the time frame; e.g., wn.ín Èr sdm; wnn.f Èr sdm.

I have cited this case to show how commonplace were the standard or “Classical” narrative constructions at the close of the XVIIIth Dynasty. Tutankhamun’s stela reflects earlier times by presenting an approach that also can be seen in P.

71

See note 53 above for Hintze’s work.

Westcar. These are, in fact, two major points presented by Hintze when he described the style of historical and literary narrative texts preceding his own corpus, that of the Late Egyptian Stories.71 The movement from a royal to a private sphere can be partly observed in the military account of Ahmose son of Ebana, but we must keep in mind that the soldier’s narrative is embedded in the deeds of his Pharaohs, all of which serve as a heading to the man’s own virile deeds. But at that time, and most certainly down through the entire XVIIIth Dynasty, we find no change in the literary style of these accounts.

the text: translation and detailed analysis

17

chapter two THE TEXT: TRANSLATION AND DETAILED ANALYSIS A. Introduction: Historical Setting and Opening Encomia The Dedicatory Inscription presents a system at odds to every composition hitherto discussed. Not only are there a number of the ritualized speeches by Ramesses and Seti, but also the close attention which the king directs towards his father automatically separates this lengthy composition from other Königsnovelle productions. Ramesses is not just a dutiful son following in the steps of the one who engendered him. He is also a young and virile ruler whose opening words in the text overtly reveal his personal if not intimate relationship to his father. The commencement of the account is therefore crucial for any understanding of the purport because it announces this fatherson theme. Assmann, who remarked upon the unusual “titulary” of the king, first pointed out this unexpected situation.1 The text avoids the expected names of the Pharaoh that one finds 1

“Das Bild des Vaters im alten Ägypten,” in Das Vaterbild in Mythos und Geschichte, (ed. Hubertus Tellenbach; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1976), 12-49 and page 36 for the analysis. Assmann later discussed the eulogistic style with regard to royal inscriptions in “Zeitkonstruktion, Vergangenheitsbezug, und Geschichtbewußtstein im alten Ägypten,” in Der Ursprung der Geschichte (ed. Jan Assmann and Klaus E. Müller; Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2005), 139. (The monumental royal inscriptions present an eulogistic as well as a “reporting” section.) On page 141 he also points out one aspect of early Ramesside royal hieroglyphic inscriptions that dealt with the reigns of previous kings and the Dedicatory Inscription is included in his survey. 2 KRI II 324.10-11. The style is eulogistic, a fact which is implicitly indicated in Kitchen’s translation in Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 164-5. But the presence of narrative formations after the king’s two names moves one into a different stylistic arrangement, but one still oriented to an eulogy. The opening narrative passage operates through an initial nominal sdm.n.f—#È#.n nb tîwy—which provides the date, theme, and recent rise to kingship. This is followed by a series of continuative sdm.n.f forms (ms.n.f, and wÈm.n.f ) all of which stress the king’s physical activities. Note the two sdm.n.f Relative Forms as well: qd.n.f, mr.n.f. With the renewal of restoration work come the data. 1. Outline a. Participle (s#nÉ) b. Participle (msí ) c. Participle (dít + Ètpw) d. Participle (àps) a to f: 6 deeds related to cult e. Participle (sdf î)

at the beginning of monumental hieroglyphic inscriptions; no five-fold titulary is presented. Instead, we read:2 It came to pass: a son who avenges/d his father like Horus when he avenged Osiris,3 who formed the one who formed him (qd qd sw), who fashioned the one who fashioned him (ms ms sw), who caused to live the name of the one who begot him (s#nÉ rn n wtt sw),4 the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Wosermaatre-setepenre the son of Re whom he loved, the lord of diadems, Ramesses-meryamun, given life like Re forever, beloved of Osiris, the lord of Abydos.

The official titulary is absent but in its place is the emphasis upon the filial aspect (Ramesses to Seti).5 This sentence is a carefully written and slowly presented heading to the inscription. Serving f. Participle (àrí ) g. Participle (Éws) h. Participle (nm#) g to i: 3 deeds for new construction i. Participle (smn) j. Concluding summary (s#È#) NAMES OF KING AND FATHER; END AND PAUSE l. Initial sdm.f (wîÈ.f ); performances done. 3 This backdrop sets us in a semi-mythical narrative akin to the commencement of the Destruction of Mankind text which was written ca. late Dynasty XVIII: see Hornung, Der ägyptische Mythos von der Himmelskuh; Nadine Guilhou, La Vieillesse des dieux (Montpellier: Publications de la recherche, Université de Montpellier, 1989); and Spalinger, “The Destruction of Mankind: A Transitional Literary Text,” SAK 28 (2000): 257-82. 4 The structure of this triplet is simple. They refer to Osiris/Seti vis-à-vis Ramesses. The slightly different structure of the third, purposely longer than the preceding two, serves as an effective balance to the preceding short phrases. The king’s name ends this opening. Then follows the more narrative presentation. Note the reflection of Ramesses “fashioning” the statue of his father Seti. 5 This is the situation which impressed Assmann. This small introduction section is in the eulogistic style, but it also highlights the building activities of the king. Hence, these columns form a detailed heading to the entire composition, and thus the date of the inscription was placed later in the composition. I regard this as supportive of Assmann’s discovery. Namely, that the presentation of the account did not follow the standard Königsnovelle pattern. One useful parallel to this intense filial piety can be

18

chapter two

as a heading, albeit in an indirect manner, it nonetheless is linked to the passages that immediately follow, all of which lay out the desires of the Pharaoh at Abydos, with the proposed building activity emphasized. But we must place some weight upon the absence of the official if not standard commencement to royal monuments. This may have to do with the cultic setting of much of the account; namely, its eulogistic side. Yet I also feel that the personal aspect of the king, his deep devotion to his father, is not merely a by-product of the actual setting, Abydos. We shall see that from the central portion to the end the text concentrates upon Seti’s relationship to his son (rather than the inverse). That is to say, the now dead king is brought onto the stage and his relationship to the young Ramesses, his nominated heir and regent, is presented. There, one finds a remarkable picture of the two men: the intense, almost romantic, devoted son and the equally loving father. This aspect, I feel, could not have been painted within a standard, albeit Königsnovelle oriented, account. For this reason alone the expected introduction to the composition was avoided. The only useful parallel that occurs within the extant Egyptian literature that has been preserved is the well-known Teaching of Amenemhet I to Sesostris I.6 Unfortunately, there is no indication in the Dedicatory Inscription of any direct or indirect borrowing from that famous piece of Middle Kingdom literature. It must be kept in mind that the theme of the Teaching was on ingratitude and the successful assassination of Amenemhet. That is to say, the main aspect was negative; such an attitude did not mesh with Ramesses’ goals. The Middle Kingdom composition is also placed within the common literary framework of a father to son teaching. Granted that at Abydos we have

that same basic constellation, but the theme in the Dedicatory text, however, is very different. At the minimum, negative attitudes are totally absent. Moreover, the emphasis is spatially located at Abydos and the temporal background, which took place originally in the king’s first regnal year, is an additional factor at odds with the Teaching of Amenemhet. In the former composition the events narrated describe Ramesses’ visit to Abydos after his coronation. Subsequently, he had his words memorialized in stone. Outside of the final speech of dead king to living son in the Middle Kingdom composition, no overt parallel can be drawn between that literary piece and Ramesses’.7 It would carry our speculations over and beyond the border of plausibility to maintain that there was a direct influence of this piece of Dynasty XII classical literature upon Ramesses’ composition. On the other hand, the strong interest in the framework of the Königsnovelle and the specific resonances of an earlier literary style indicate an effect outside that of contemporary stories, post Amarna “blues,” and the newer style of monumental writing that developed in Dynasty XIX.8 Moreover, the persistence of the Teaching of Amenemhet to Sesostris within a literate cadre of society (Deir el Medineh) and elsewhere cannot be swept aside. But the intimate connection between Ramesses and Seti is far greater than the relationship of father-son in that Dynasty XII literary composition, and I have little doubt that the impetus for the Dedicatory Inscription must lie elsewhere than considering it to be a revival of an older intellectual or emotional framework. (Note that in his study on literature in the XIIth Dynasty Posener referred to the Prophecy of Neferty rather than to the Teaching of Amenemhet in the context of this

seen in the Great Papyrus Harris, a document drawn up soon after Ramesses IV became Pharaoh. For the importance of the verb qd, literally “to build,” see Assmann, “Die ‘Loyalistische Lehre’ Echnatons,” SAK 8 (1980): 5-6 note 19. He discusses its relevance concerning the creation of a king through a divinity and its contrast to írí and sÉpr. The word qd has a personal connection that is associated with individuality. Most recently, note Vernus, “Une conspiration contre Ramsès III,” Égypte. Afrique et orient 35 (2004): 14, 19-20 note 27. 6 See Goedicke, Studies in “The Instructions of King Amenemhet I for His Son” (San Antonio: Van Siclen Books, 1988). The edition of John D. Foster, “The Conclusion to The Testament of Ammenemes, King of Egypt,” JEA 67 (1981): 36-47 provides the confirmation of the king’s assassination. 7 Foster, “The Testament of Ammenemes,” 46. The dead king is now in the bark of Re. The difference between this

composition and the Dedicatory Inscription is thus clear. Ramesses II “awakens” Seti and speaks to him at Abydos. Moreover, the orientation is a positive rather than a negative one. Yet the father-son connection remains. For the pragmatic situation of a text’s performance, see now Loprieno, “Literature as Mirror of Social Institutions: The Case of the Eloquent Peasant,” LingAeg 8 (2000): 194. 8 Regarding the newer style of the Late Egyptian Stories: Hintze, Untersuchungen zu Stil und Sprache I, passim, especially pages 19-20 and 257. I place great emphasis on the growing changes that saw the rise of wn.ín- and the end of the #È#.n- formations. The rise of the Conjunctive can be noted as well. A time frame after Seti I appears certain, and from the evidence that Hintze assembled (see the Two Brothers in particular), I would see the literary transformation in the Ramesside Stories complete by the reign of Merenptah.

the text: translation and detailed analysis text.)9 All in all, I prefer to set the initial narrative framework within the bygone Classical models of pre-Amarna Dynasty XVIII or the Middle Kingdom, but I also place it in a category separate from earlier historical “publications.” The beginning of the Dedicatory Inscription, narrowly speaking, does not present a major break from earlier Königsnovelle inscriptions. The idealized and partly backgrounding through Épr swt effects a useful non-temporal setting in which the author can focus upon the father-son connection. Only after this opening passage is the son (Ramesses) under specific scrutiny; his rise to kingship is immediately mentioned. Significantly, the latter idea is conveyed through a sdm.n.f of a verb of motion which, following Kruchten’s recent discussion, probably is be taken as a nominalized form: “Then it was in order to act as champion for/of his father that the lord of the two lands arose as king …..” (#È#.n nb tîwy m nswt r írt ndty Èr ít.f ).10 This presents the first narrative development in the text and it significantly follows upon the conclusion to column 25 that parallels opening phrases in various royal stelae or other similar inscriptions. (And once more the king’s name forms an effective caesura.)

9

Littérature et politique, 30. KRI II 324.12; Kruchten, “From Middle Egyptian to Late Egyptian.” His basic conclusions are as follows: (1) for the nominal(ized) sdm.n.f/mrr.f form he notes the change to sdm.f and disappearance of the reduplication ca. the end of Dynasty XVIII, “most probably around the Amarna period” (page 23); (2) for the predicative equivalents, one can date the loss of the -n- to the close of Dynasty XVII; and (3) for the sdm.n.f Relative Form the second rule applies. There is a summary presented on page 48. One difficulty with the analysis is that it does not take into consideration the genre of the text or, in fact, the variegated subsections, each possessing its own linguistic mode that might occur within a single document. The Kadesh Poem of Ramesses II is a good case. In that narrative the opening praise, a eulogy, has to be separated from the lengthy narrative that immediately follows. Moreover, the latter must be spliced into at least two different portions as the sober Classical narrative alters to something else ca. P 91. At that point, the language becomes more colloquial, speeches occur, and the war diary no longer forms a skeleton for the narrative. In similar fashion, the Late Egyptian Miscellanies, so well explained by Edward Frank Wente—“The Syntax of Verbs of Motion in Egyptian” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1959), 74-9—must be treated differently than other Dynasty XIX texts, whether they are on papyri (Late Egyptian Stories) or on stone (royal monuments). With respect to the use of the sdm.n.f in religious scenes, see L. V. Zabkar, “A Hymn to Osiris Pantocrator at Philae. A Study of the Main Functions of the Sdm.f Form in Egyptian religious Hymns,” ZÄS 108 (1981): 141-71 and the summary of Emily Teeter, The Presentation of Maat: Ritual 10

19

Here we reach the background of the narrative. The style of the verbal formations hearkens back to a previous epoch—one preceding the Amarna Period—in the use of the sdm.n.f. See in particular: #È#.n nb tîwy; msy.n.f ; wÈm.n.f. We can add here as well the sdm.n.f Relative Forms in columns 26, 27, and 28. Developed by the writer are short interruptions to the account, or to be more accurate, brief interpolations, all of which serve to specify the king’s decision making:11 I.

II.

Then it was in order to act as champion of his father that the lord of the two land arose as king, corresponding to regnal year one, during his first voyage to Thebes. When12 he fashioned images13 of his father (Menmaatre was the king) 14 —one in Thebes and the other 15 in Memphis— in the temple(s) that he built for them 16, and in excess of the perfection/beauty of which is in Abydos of the Thinite Nome, the district which he loved, the desire of is heart since he was on earth, the ground of Wenennefer.17

This approach serves to clarify the historical setting. Otherwise we would be at a loss to

and Legitimacy in Ancient Egypt (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1997), 69-73 with 81-2 concerning the dí.n(.í ) n.k phrase. In this connection some of Kruchten’s conclusions may have to be revised. 11 KRI II 324.12-15. 12 Here, I assume that the opening msy.n.f could be a nominalized verbal formation. 13 The term for these “images” or “statues,” sàmw, is a most common one within the Dedicatory Inscription and elsewhere in Seti’s temple. I will later cover the significance of the term and its importance for understanding the cultic activities. 14 When Seti is referred to this way Ramesses wants to indicate a more personal connection to his father. 15 I will stress this passage later. For the moment see Kitchen’s comments in Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 195-6 where he discusses the statuary building activities of the king. The order of these phrases is significant: first Ramesses becomes king, then he “fashions” Seti’s images, and finally he commences work at Abydos. 16 Hence, it is claimed that Ramesses built two temples for Seti and that they both contained the sàmw cult statues. This point will be reiterated below with respect to the account of columns 53 and 68, but observe that this must have started before the king’s visit to Abydos. 17 The incredibly long and somewhat intricate sentence cannot be overlooked. This is a key to understanding Ramesses’ personal feelings towards Abydos, Wenennefer, and Seti. But the newly crowned king also relates that his early building activity was in Memphis (Hutkaptah) and Thebes (only Waset is mentioned) and not at Abydos.

chapter two

20

At this point, the king’s activities are recounted, and all of them form part of Ramesses’ officially

declared program.24 It is noteworthy that the narrative has yet to announce this fact; the royal command has yet to be given. Hence, we are presented with an indirect method of presentation, one in which the anticipation of the task’s completion precedes the so-called Königsnovelle speech. This is most easy to see in the repetition of the key Egyptian words in columns 28 and 57-8: àrí wà (both); nm# ínbw (both); àps pr.f and Èbs pr.f; Éws íwnw and àp íwnw. One can add s#È# (columns 28 and 36, the second with íwnw) and mnq (columns 36 and 56). Although we shall find a greater communality of vocabulary in other portions of this text, it must still remain striking that the account persists in its intent by repeating the building activities of the king with almost the same terminology used. This excerpt by no means ends so evenly. On the contrary, the lengthy sentence, which some might regard as replete with pauses, resembles a developed periodic sentence. It continues with a reference to Seti I whose name, not unexpectedly, concludes this subsection. Ramesses points to his father. But at this juncture a short series of sdm.f formations follows. I prefer to regard them as simple declarations of the past deeds of the king, resulting from Ramesses’ performative activities, and thus separate and distinct from the previous

18 KRI II 324.15-325.4. If we follow Kruchten, we can convey a nominalized verbal formation here. 19 The past tense is clear. We must remember that the Dedicatory Inscription was written and later approved by Ramesses after he left Abydos. All of these building activities must have been completed in the future. In addition, they are presented by means of the most general of terms with details subsequently included. The mention of the “pillars” is also significant. Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 169, argued that Ramesses is referring to pillars at the back of the first court instead of at the portico and the finishing of blank walls. Ramesses further informs us that he has resumed the monumental work for Seti. This indicates that previously work had been progressing until a cessation of that activity occurred. In this case the workmen were busy with Ramesses II’s own temple (and possibly the Osireion as well: Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 177); now this will change. The later reference in column 34 is more clear: wîww r Épr m tp àw. 20 This is a common topos, especially within Königsnovelle texts. See Elke Blumenthal, “Die Koptosstele des Königs Rahotep (London U.C. 14327),” in Endesfelder et al., Ägypten und Kusch, 68-9. “Ruined” is actually not a correct translation. Ramesses finished the work on his father’s temple and also expanded construction in the front (west side); see the remarks in column 34. The aspects conveyed in the second half refer to building activities while in contrast the first covers statues and offerings and more inscriptional work. Among other deficiencies

that Ramesses noted upon his arrival in Abydos was the need for this additional construction. 21 This is difficult to comprehend. I assume that the phrase “outside and inside” refers to Seti’s temple and its immediate environs. 22 The epithet should remind us of the military outlook of the Ramesside warrior Pharaohs (if not earlier) and the epithet of the new Delta Residence at Pi-Ramesses. 23 The overriding importance of the phrase “Osiris King” will be treated later in this discussion. For the moment, see the important remarks of Eberhard Otto, “Eine Darstellung der ‘Osiris-Mysterien’ in Theben,” in Festschrift für Siegfried Schott zu seinem 70. Geburtstag (ed. Wolfgang Helck; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1968), 99-105. It is closely connected to the theme of Seti as a “god.” See our comments later in this study. For the moment, the reader is directed to Otto’s comments on page 100 and note 6 of his study. He observed the combination “Osiris king” (nswt) in the Gournah temple of Seti, and laid emphasis upon the Osirian mysteries both in there and in Seti’s at Abydos. 24 Hence, these activities are assumed to have been completed. While I do not wish to maintain that all of the work was completed at the time that this document was “published,” it is noteworthy that Kitchen places the composition not later than year four of Ramesses (Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 194-5) and dates “the final draft and the carving to Year 2 at earliest.” I concur, but this would mean that the bulk of his architectural activity on Seti I’s Abydene temple was completed at around the same time. See also my comments in Chapter I with note 126 below, covering Kitchen’s earlier analysis of the date.

determine when the event occurred and to/for whom was it oriented. The subsequent and third progression will be found in column 27, also with an opening wÈm.n.f .18 III. He repeated renewing the monument(s) for his father who is in the cemetery,19 vivifying his name, fashioning his images, causing food offerings to remain for his ka, enriching his house, supplying his altars, filling up that which was lacking in the temple which he loved, building up pillars in his shrine, dressing its walls, establishing its doors, erecting what was “incomplete”20 in this seat of his father in the district of O[siris … which was done] outside and inside 21 through everything which the Great of Strength,22 the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Woser-maatre-setepenre the son of Re Ramesses-meryamun, given life, does for his father, Osiris, King [Menmaatre]

justified.23

the text: translation and detailed analysis past oriented (and probably nominal) sdm.n.f ’s.25 The sentence is straightforward.26

21

The parallelism at this stage in the narration is self-evident although I feel that a brief remark upon the words in the above selection deserves some explication. The concepts of begetting and engendering are a common refrain in this literature. Indeed, whenever the father-son relationship comes to be discussed such verbs as írí (the male activity) and msí (the female activity) are de rigueur.27 But the additional term mn#, “to succor,” “to rear,” “to bring up,” has to be brought into the discussion. Granted that at Abydos we have two fathers (Osiris and Seti) and two sons (Horus and Ramesses). Therefore, the key terms of filiation are automatic. See, for example, the repetition of qd qd sw and ms ms sw right at the start in column 25. And here msí instead of írí is employed, perhaps indirectly pointing to Ramesses’ wish to “fashion” (msí ) statues for his dead father.28 How much this was due to a male point of view can be best left to social historians. For the moment, however, the issue remains that Ramesses connects him-

self solely with his father. His activities directed towards Seti include the concepts of “fashioning” (statues, with msí), and constructing (walls, pillars). The constant repetition of the theme of filial duty and love cannot be overlooked. Nonetheless, the word mn# is also employed. To us today the concept of “rearing a child” is no longer women’s work.29 But most certainly the role of “wet nurse” (mn#/mn#t) was not purely reserved to females; Senenmut is a prime counterexample.30 Thus I find it not astounding that Ramesses’ chief scribe and author of this composition has introduced the verb mn# parallel to wtt. The first, basically female in outlook, nevertheless is a very personal one. It connotates a relationship of upbringing, a word that encompasses intimacy and a temporal sequence; as such, it is to be contrasted to a brief act (írí ) of masculine engendering, and most certainly contains within its locus far more than mere production on the part of a father (wtt; see column 57 as well).31 Ramesses in fact uses the word mn# on two other occasions in this text. In columns 47-8 there is: “It was Menmaatre who reared/nourished (mn#) me; and it was when I was a child (hrd) until I ruled that the All Lord himself made me great (s#î).” The simple grammatical means of fronting for emphasis indicates the king’s devout attention upon the role of his father. Nowhere else in the written record of Pharaonic Egypt is this concept so boldly and so frequently stressed. A glance at column 61 is useful, even if it is broken: “a [progeny/heir ??],

25 See my comments in note 10 above regarding Kruchten’s important study. 26 KRI II 325.4-5. The constant theme of the “heart” in this text, connected to mind as well as spirit (and love). will be discussed below, but in this context see the summary analysis of Assmann, “Zur Geschichte des Herzens im alten Ägypten,” in Studien zur religiösen Anthropologie: Die Erfindung des inneren Menschen. Studien zum Verstehen fremder Religion 6 (ed. Jan Assmann; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1993), 81-112. Hellmut Brunner’s work avoids the Dedicatory Inscription even though its has important ramifications for this study; cf. his first three articles in Das hörende Herz: Kleine Schriften zur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte Ägyptens (ed. Wolfgang Röllig; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1988). It is remarkable that this inscription is rarely covered from a human dimension. Cannot we claim that Ramesses truly and deeply “loves” his father? Cf. the commonly repeated lexical terms wtt (columns 25 and 30), mn#, msí, and qd. 27 Detlef Franke, Altägyptische Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen im Mittleren Reich Hamburg: Borg, 1983) is the definitive study concerned with family relations. 28 I am aware of the early Dynasty XII change with respect to the terms of filiation; i.e., the increasing use of írí for older msí. For this fact, see Claude Obsomer, “Dí.f

prt-Érw et la filiation ms(t).n/ír(t).n comme critères de datation dans les textes du Moyen Empire,” in Individu, société et spiritualité dans l’Égypte pharaonique et copte (ed. Christian Cannuyer and Jean-Marie Kruchten; Ath, Brussels, and Mons: Illustra, 1993), 170-200. 29 The number of military men who were mn# n sî (or sît) nswt in Dynasty XVIII was first brought to attention by Wolfgang Helck, Der Einfluß der Militärführer in der 18. ägyptischen Dynastie, (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1939), 35-6. 30 Peter F. Dorman, The Monuments of Senenmut: Problems in Historical Methodology (London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1988), 171, appears to have difficulties in understanding the title ít mn# that Senenmut held. He prefers the general term “tutor” for mn#. Males, however, can be “nurses.” Betsy Bryan, “The Title ‘Foster Brother of the King’,” JSSEA 9 (1979): 117-23 added some pertinent details concerning the presumed “foster brother of the king,” sn n mn# n nswt. 31 “Making” (írí ) is nonetheless not the same as “begetting” (msí ). Not surprisingly, the latter verb is employed with statues because the act of “fashioning” (msí ) involves “conception.” The lexical term msí is both literally and metaphorically connected to creation. After all, were not royal and private statues more than merely carved stone objects? In ancient Egypt did they not have a “soul”?

He [set up ] for him offerings, supplied with food endowments for his names among the kings; his wish (íb) being <well> disposed (ímî) to the one who begot (wtt) him, his desire (Èîty) caring (phr) for the one who reared (mn#) him.

22

chapter two

it looks after its ‘nourisher’ (mn#).”32 Whatever the exact wording of this sentence is, once more the role of Ramesses towards his father is indicated with the word mn#. Other repetitions of vocabulary and set phrases will be covered subsequently, but for the moment I wish to throw some needed light upon this concept of “upbringing.” Naturally, it can be countered that we are at Abydos, and where else is the father (Osiris)-son (Horus) relationship so intimate? Where else could Ramesses express himself in this way? Father Amun most certainly did not bring him up. Nor did Osiris. It was his physical father Seti whose unfinished building that Ramesses II now will undertake to complete who is over and over again placed in the forefront. He is remembered, loved, and cared for after his death. The nourisher Seti—and he probably is regarded that way even in the final speech of his at the conclusion of this narrative (column 120, unfortunately broken)—is at the heart of his son’s thoughts and feelings. Repetition of vocabulary assists in distinguishing this unexpected aspect once more. For example, we can note the use of íb with phr following upon Èîty with ímî in column 30 and turn to columns 45-6 (n[#t]; îms-íb; phr.f Èîty), 60 (Èr n#t), 62 (íb.k ímî), possibly 61 but there is a break (phr.s n mn#t.s), 62 (sfn; íb.k ímî n), 101 (Èîty.í phr), 106 (ndm íb), 107 (íb), 113 (íb, ndm íb), 114 (sbq Èîty), and 116 (… phr n.í íb.k). Some of these references overtly indicate the two way direction of father to son; others lay importance upon the son’s filial activities and a series close to the end indicates Seti’s reactions. All in all, the theme of personal involvement is echoed by means of these innermost feelings of either partner.33 Absent from these passages is the typical and in fact ordinary word “to engender,” írí. This is an observation that is pertinent because the absence

of this one common word of filiation—the least “romantic” if also the least “emotive” of all of the aspects in a father-son relationship—cannot be a result of mere happenstance. I believe that Ramesses’ close and personal relationship towards his father transcended any connection to the mere fact of procreation. After all, words for heart, both íb and Èîty, occur frequently (often with phr), and so reveal this key intimate aspect of Ramesses. A second inscription of the Pharaoh Ahmose, which we shall have occasion to refer to later, reveals a similar attitude.34 This text, a freestanding stela, was erected at Karnak to commemorate an official reception of the king and his wife Ahhotep. The eulogistic nature of the key sections was not ignored by Assmann who placed the composition into the same category of hymns as the later eulogies in the Dedicatory text35 Additional uses of the concept “heart” may be found in his detailed study, although it is to be observed that its metaphoric employment as well as its combination with other words was part and parcel of royal eulogies. Indeed, two excellent cases may be brought forwards from the late XVIIIth Dynasty under Amunhotep III.36 But the Dedicatory Inscription is not quite ready to move in this direction in such a wholehearted manner. Instead, by means of the transitional passage of “One of these days came to pass …..” the historical core of the account is presented in which pre-existent “Classical” models rather than contemporary ones were desired. In addition, the date now had to be given.37

32 KRI II 329.7; see Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 169. 33 Naturally, the question of “personal piety” can be brought into the argument. But in the Dedicatory Inscription we are faced with the deep filial attitude proclaimed by son to father. In general, see Assmann’s detailed contribution in “Weisheit, Loyalismus und Frömmigkeit,” in Studien zu altägyptischen Lebenslehren (ed. Erik Hornung and Othmar Keel; Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 11-72. 34 Urk. IV 14-24.6. See now Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III, 25-34. 35 Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 519-23; see “Eulogie, Königs-,” Lexikon der Ägyptologie, II 41; and “Zur Geschichte des Herzens,” 102 note 25.

36 “Zur Geschichte des Herzens,” 102 note 26. There is now the useful work of Mariá Isabel Toro Rueda, “Das Herz in der ägyptischen Literatur des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr.: Untersuchungen zu Idiomatik und Metaphorik von Ausdrücken mit jb und Èîtj” (Ph.D. diss., University of Göttingen, 2003). Jan Assmann and Martin Bommas, Atlägyptische Totenliturgien I (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 2002), 123-5 present an up to date analysis of the two key lexical terms íb and Èîty. The former represents the inner emotions; it is therefore metaphoric and metonymic. But the core idea of íb concerns the physiological nature of a human being whereas the latter, also metonymic, concerns phenomena such a consciousness and remembrance. 37 KRI II 325.5-6 with Kitchen’s remarks in Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 191-2.

One of this days came to pass in regnal year one, the third month of Inundation, day 23, [when his majesty ?] came after causing Amun to travel south to Opet.

At least two sdm.n.f verbal formations, one intransitive (pr.n.f ) and one transitive ( fqî.n.f ), follow, with

the text: translation and detailed analysis two sdm.f constructions occurring immediately afterward ( f î.f and [ír].f ?). Following Kruchten,38 I rendered the former distinct from the latter although the second portion is difficult owing to the broken section.39 It was with Amun-Atum in Thebes that he came forth praised in power and might. It was with millions [of] years up to the lifetime of Re in heaven that he (= Amun) rewarded him (= Ramesses) After [he] (= Amun) heard [his requests, he ?] (= Ramesses) was rewarded with eternity and everlastingness (nÈÈ and dt).

But then two sdm.f forms follow. If we adhere to the conclusions of Kruchten, then both must be reflexes of the Middle Egyptian non-nominal or Predicative sdm.n.f. I would argue here that both of them were also employed to indicate the performative activity of the king.40 He raised his arm, bearing the incense censer to the horizon of the one who is [living ] ….. And [he performed (ír.f ?)] his oblation, it being effective and received [to/for] his [father], the lord of love.

This small yet significant differentiation between sdm.n.f and sdm.f must reflect a keen distinction between the two. The former lead off this section (pr.n.f, fqî.n.f ) while the latter continues the account ( f î.f, [ír.]f ?). One begins with the description of Ramesses’ trip to Thebes and his association with Amun (and the other Theban deities) at Luxor whereas the second group specifies his ritual activities and the obligations of his royal and priestly functions. Hence, I feel that the analysis

38

“From Middle Egyptian to Late Egyptian.” KRI II 325.6-8. There are difficulties with the second sentence. Kitchen provides a useful solution to the problems in his translation on page 165 in Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II. My analysis is speculative. 40 KRI II 325.8-9. 41 For the situation at Luxor, we have the analysis of Lanny Bell, “ Luxor Temple and the Cult of the Royal Ka,” JNES 44 (1985): 251-94. There is a useful parallel in Seti’s temple as well, see our comments later in this discussion. We must remember that our terms “crowning” and “coronation,” in a technical sense, are not Egyptian concepts. First there was accession, and this was followed by repeated “appearances” thereafter. Chapter I of Redford’s work, History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967) is always useful in this context. 42 Turin 1447: Gardiner, “The First King Mentuhotpe 39

23

of Kruchten makes perfect sense here. Perhaps of some significance is the absence of any father-son relationship at this point. The Pharaoh’s role at Luxor was considerably different than his subsequent Abydene presentation. At the former, he was united with his father Amun and, if we are to follow modern scholarship, then he was officially crowned.41 Later, he arrived at Abydos and there his personal feelings emerged. In the next passage the narrative progresses, albeit without any key literary formations: When (?) his majesty came from the Southern City then (?) […..].

I can single out the bare initial íí Èm.f (nominalized) in addition to the following topos of àsp tp wît. The second, represented by an Infinitive, can be seen as early as the reign of Nebhepetre Mentuhotpe II.42 In Dynasty XVIII there is the account on two boundary stelae of Akhenaton which Junge has recently discussed in the context of the phrase Épr.n tp wît nfrt.43 The immediate subsequent account of this inscription is once more infinitival in nature.44 Commencing the journey, making a sailing, the king’s barks illuminating (Èr sÈd) the waters; moving northwards to the seat of victory, Pi-Ramesses, Great of Strength.

Assmann revealed that a large number of religious texts including “program” texts for a ritual dealing with existence on “this side” also contained the phrase “commencing the journey.”45 One useful example referred to by him may be found in the tomb of Kheruef, and the narrative setting is as clear as this one at Abydos.46 In the former case

of the Eleventh Dynasty,” MDAIK 14 (1956): 50; and Wolfgang Schenkel, Memphis. Herakleopolis. Theben (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965), 240 with note b. Irene Shirun-Grumach briefly discusses the phrase “beautiful ways” with relevance to funerary literature in Offenbarung, Orakel und Königsnovelle, 46 note 196. However, its connection to wars and expeditions is also present. The passage in our inscription is covered by KRI II 325.9-10. 43 Junge, Einführung in die Grammatik des Neuägyptischen, 76 (top, lines 5-6). For Épr.n see now Vernus, Essai sur la conscience de l’histoire dans l’Égypte pharaonique, 86 note 324. 44 KRI II 325.10-11. 45 Liturgische Lieder an den Sonnengott. Untersuchungen zur altägyptischen Hymnik, I (Berlin: B. Hessling, 1969), 45-6; and Der König als Sonnenpriester: Ein kosmographischer Begleittext zur kultischen Sonnenhymnik in thebanischen Tempeln und Gräbern (Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1970), 31. 46 Urk. IV 1869.8. In our text the word wdyt is the same

24

chapter two

Amunhotep III celebrates his first heb sed festival by transporting on water the gods associated with the celebration. But the use of this phrase in our composition indicates the importance of the auspicious and successful event, one that had never previously occurred to Ramesses. This highlighting is brought forward through àsp tp wît just as the foregrounding of Ramesses’ voyage to Thebes as sole king is overtly marked by the phrase “his first trip” in column 26 (wdyt.f tpyt r Wîst). The account proceeds without linking the narrative development by means of Middle Egyptian literary formations. There are no sdm.n.f ’s, and the two most common Middle Egyptian narrative constructions of #È#.n sdm.n.f and sdm pw ír.n.f are also lacking. One further notes the continual absence of the style of the Late Egyptian Stories. The Non-Initial Main Sentence is avoided and the wn.ín.f Èr sdm’s are virtually absent. The latter situation is not surprising as the inscription avoids all recourse to the more contemporary narrative structure of belles lettres. Yet equivalent weight must be placed upon this bare bones method narrative development. True, the account is no story but instead a serious royal presentation on stone. Although it has borrowed patterns from earlier eras, in particular from Dynasty XVIII (pre Amarna), it has not used them in order to establish a story or a myth. The use of the Infinitive, on the other hand, befits the royal progress. We view these rapid-fire occurrences as if the king had set off on a campaign, even though the

precise temporal indications are avoided. In fact, only one specific date is given. The reason for this visit is then presented with an opening predicative pattern, #q Èm.f r mîî ít.f … r wîÈ Ét n Wnn-nfr ... r wàd [...] sn.f ín-Èr. At this point the purpose of Ramesses is simply defined and it is three fold: to see “his father,” to set up offerings for him, and to greet Onuris. Apparently at this point in time it was not the explicit desire of Ramesses to redirect building activities at Abydos. I believe that it is necessary to take the king’s words to heart, for upon his arrival the account indicates that the Pharaoh found more to be done. Thereby we arrive at one of the kernels in this lengthy text; namely, the physical situation of Seti’s temple at Abydos. I do not feel it too farfetched to imagine the king, newly moored at the Thinite dock, examining the incomplete nature of the construction work and reflecting upon the interrupted work at his father’s temple. Following Kitchen, we can assume that Ramesses saw that the building activity on Seti’s temple had been abandoned, a point which is explicitly indicated in the opening lines of the composition.47 The portion reads:48

one employed for military campaigns (Spalinger, Aspects of the Military Documents of the Ancient Egyptians, 227-8). Were the expedition accounts (military or otherwise), with their bare-bones narratives derived from diaries, the primary generators for the use of this infinitival format? In this context, let us remember that infinitival reports are also one of the bases of such war accounts (ibid., 124-6) even though they are derived from accounting practices. 47 Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments, II, 194-6. I can refer to the perspicacious remarks of Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 177 wherein he observed that the “decoration of the cenotaph [at the Osireion] would have drawn sculptors away from their work at the temple.” See note 19 above. 48 KRI II 325.11-13. 49 The common spelling of mr is present: I. E. S. Edwards, Oracular Amuletic Decrees of the Late New Kingdom I (London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1960), 10 note 16 (= Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum, Fourth Series). 50 For this canal, see now Beatrix Geßler-Löhr, Die heiligen Seen ägyptischer Tempel: Ein Beitrag zur Deutung sakraler Baukunst im alten Ägypten (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1983), 109-12, 140-1. Concerning the lake (à) at the Abydos temple of Seti we can also add the remarks of Zippert, “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 28-30 (based upon the Nauri Decree, KRI I 47.13-48.3).

51 A. St. G. Caulfeild, The Temple of the Kings at Abydos (Sety I.) (London: B. Quaritch, 1902), Pl. II = Calverley, Broome, and Gardiner, The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos I (London and Chicago: The Egypt Exploration Society and The University of Chicago Press, 1933), Pl. 11 = B. H. Stricker, “De Ark des Verbonds,” Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde N. R. 34.3 (1971): 125-47; and Gustave Jéquier, “L’Ennéade osirienne d’Abydos et les enseignes sacrées,” CRAIBL (1920): 409-17 (with Urk. IV 99, a crucial passage not covered by Andrea Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III, 59-64). See as well Marie-Christine Lavier, Les Stèles abydéniennes relatives aux mystères d’Osiris (Doctorat de Troisième Cycle, University of Montpellier, 1983), 128-36. For the famous ímy-wt fetish: Thomas J. Logan, “The origins of the Jmy-wt Fetish,” JARCE 27 (1990): 61-9, to which we can now add Eaton’s comments concerning the important Osiris fetish on pages 112-15 of her dissertation, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment. The reference “Shu son of Re” will be found in the Second Hypostyle Court (KRI I 131.10: the alley of ReHarachty). “Onuris-Shu son of Re” occurs on column 8C of the Second Hypostyle Court ( first row, reading from north and in the same Re-Harachty alley: Zippert, “Der

His majesty entered in order to see his father sailing the waters of the canal49 of the Thinite nome;50 (and) in order to present offerings to Wenennefer as a good thing that his ka wished; (and) in order to address his …, his brother Onuris, the son of Re in [tr]uth like himself.51

the text: translation and detailed analysis Clearly, the king’s original plans did not include construction work at his father’s temple. Rather, it would appear that he wished to partake in— or at least view—the ceremonies at Abydos. Indeed, as we shall see later on in this discussion, his arrival at the area was specifically oriented to the Triumph of Horus cycle in the final decade of the third month of Achet.52 The mention of Wenennefer and Onuris, both deities worshiped in the Eighth Upper Egyptian Nome, should not cause any surprise. Onuris, whose cult center was at Thinis, is connected to the struggle against Apophis, once more reminding us of the Abydene mysteries.53 It is clear that account is not a mere building inscription. Indeed, already we have observed that the account presents Ramesses’ homage to his father Seti right at the beginning. This attitude applies to the god Osiris as well because Ramesses performs the role of the latter’s son, Horus:54

25

were not finished and others were in a state of ruination. It is not specified which ones were in what physical condition. We now face the situation of a series of negatives within a more complicated description.56 And a brick did not touch its companion, and what was on the foundation was (now) become dirt. And … never built his … which allows (it) to endure by means of his plans since their owners flew57 away to heaven. Th[ere] was no son who renewed the monument of his father who is in the cemetery.

These thoughts continue from this point. Nonetheless, let me place some emphasis upon the opening non-predicative gm.n.f. This is employed in order to stress the unexpected physical condition of these chapels (Èwwt) at Abydos: some

All three of these independent yet interconnected sentences commence with nn. The question remains as to the significance of the writing. Clearly, the third fits into the Middle Egyptian writing system with no difficulty at all (nn wn + sî, the Noun). Kitchen translated these passages as if the other two nns’s represent the negation of non-existence.58 The following -n- in Èpt + n+ dbît and qd + n, however, pose a problem. Should we instead interpret the first two constructions as reflexes of Middle Egyptian n sdm.n.f?59 Note that the composition never uses bw sdm.n.f or bw sdm.f in the narrative portions. If only for the second reason I feel it best to interpret the opening two negative formations as indicative of a more Classical approach followed by the author of this inscription, although I hesitate to call it the “Narrative of Tradition.” Let us remember that if Kruchten’s arguments hold for this text, then the

Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 80-1, 97; and Calverley, Broome, and Gardiner, The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos IV, Pl. 74 8.C; N). This same location reveals the Heliopolitan Mut (ibid., Pl. 75 9.C, S): Yoyotte, “Héra d’Héliopolis et le sacrifice humain,” Annuaire École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve Section 89 (1980-81): 61. 52 This will be discussed later. For the moment let me refer to the vessels found in fragments (and other material) by Amélineau at the tomb of Djer in Abydos. They and other inscribed objects may be located in KRI III. These items, as Stephen Quirke indicates to me, show the presence of the highest officials for ceremonies at the “tomb of Osiris.” The presence of these men is significant for their awareness of and contribution to the earliest kingly/ divine monuments at Abydos. In this connection I can also refer to the study of Oleg Berlev, “The Heritage of Geb. Land Ownership as Viewed by the Egyptians under the Pharaohs,” in Podati i povinnosti na drevnem Vostoke (ed. M. A. Dandamaev; St. Petersburg: PV, 1999), 6-33. 53 Jéquier considered Onuris-Shu at Abydos to be equivalent to the Horus of Letopolis in “L’Ennéade osirienne d’Abydos et les enseignes sacrées,” 415.

54 KRI II 325.13-15; the initial verbal formation can be seen to agree with Kruchten’s “rule.” I wish to lay some emphasis upon the connection of Ramesses to Wenennefer and not to Osiris in portions of the lengthy narrative texts (Dedicatory Inscription, Staircase Corridor speeches of Thoth and Seshat). This I shall repeat below, but it is sufficient to point out that the deity Osiris had become more of a label of the dead king than anything else; Wenennefer is named deity of the underworld. 55 In other words, the Seti temple was not the only religious edifice that was not completely finished. I presume that those buildings still under construction comprised this one as well as the newly begun temple of Ramesses II. Those religious temples, partly “filled with earth,” would have been older ones. Nonetheless, I believe that there is much hyperbole present in these phrases. 56 KRI II 325.15-326.2. 57 The writing is Classical: pî.n and not pw, as in the Doomed Prince. 58 Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 165. 59 This is the problem that Kruchten dealt with; see note 10 above. He was attempting a more exact analysis of the material that Jean Winand also studied: Études de néo-égyptien 1. La morphologie verbale (Liege: C.I.P.L., 1992).

And he found (gm.n.f ) that the chapels of the Sacred Land, of the kings of aforetime, and their tombs which are in Abydos had become dilapidated, half of them were in a state of [construction], and [the other half of them covered/ filled ?] with earth, and their walls [were lying ?] on the ground.55

chapter two

26

grammatical style must be placed back in Dynasty XVIII (if not earlier) rather than reflecting the developments of the early Ramesside Period. Additional support can be given to buttress this argument. In column 35 there is the phrase “since their owners flew away to heaven.” Here the writing dr pî.n nbw.sn r pt reveals the earlier or Classical writing of “to fly,” “to fly away” (pîí ) and not the later one of pw as we find, for example, in the Doomed Prince.60 Moreover, we can note the persistence of the sdm.n.f at this point. So far we are presented the historical background of what Ramesses II found at Abydos. 60

See note 57 above. KRI II 326.3-6. 62 As in column 34; r-# kît. Note the corrections that are signaled in KRI II 326.3 a-b, 4 a-b, and 5 a. 63 See this word (mnq) in column 56 as well; I read nn mnq.tw with nn for n. The text is restored following KRI II 326.3; cf. Murnane, “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 165. I follow Kruchten (“From Middle Egyptian to Late Egyptian”) and consider #q.n.f to be a nominalized formation. 64 As in column 28 there is the word íwnw. This might imply that the pillars which later supported the portico had not yet been put into place; see David, Religious Ritual at Abydos, 16-17 for a general survey of the architectural elements. A more precise analysis is necessary. On page 169 of his The Monuments of Seti I Brand felt that these references to pillars indicated the area at the back of the first court. Once more I read n for nn. 65 The “terrace,” rwd, cannot be equated with the “Terrace of the Great God,” well known from the Middle Kingdom. Concerning the latter, Miriam Lichtheim has proposed that the (earlier) “Terrace of the Great God” was “the Osiris-Wepwawet temple complex or a particular part of it”—Ancient Egyptian Autobiographies Chiefly of the Middle Kingdom: A Study and An Anthology (Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 131; the discussion is on pages 129-34. I will return to this matter near the end of this study but Murnane’s comments in Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, 75-6 are worthwhile to read. 66 For the important word sàmw, see notes 287-8 below. 67 See as well note 303 below. The negative case, nn ms.n.tw.f is one of the many examples that support Kruchten’s analysis of the sdm.n.f in monumental inscriptions at this time; namely, that it is non-predicative. The form is clearly derived from ME n ms.n.tw.f. Both Murnane (“The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 165 note 41) and Meeks (Année Lexicographique III, 173) have proposed “statue” or “sacred image,” and so read the key word as rÉ.n.f. This fits the context. The references given by Murnane are very useful. To Wb. II 445.11 we can add John Barns, “The Nevill Papyrus: A late Ramesside Letter to an Oracle,” JEA 35 (1949): 70-1 (note 2) and Jaroslav 1erný, Hieratic Inscriptions from the Tomb of Tut‘ankhamun (Oxford: Oxford University Press for the Griffith Institute, 1965), 14 (bottom). Although I follow Murnane and Meeks at this point, Kitchen’s translation for rÉ-n.f, “specifications for it,” can be argued (Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 166). 61

Now there is a further description, one that is more detailed and which lies at the center of the account. The following is one possible interpretation.61 Now (íst) the temple of Menmaatre, its front and its rear, was in a state of construction.62 When he entered heaven, [ one ] had not comple[ted]63 its monument. Pillars64 were not erected on its terrace,65 and its statue66 was on/at the ground. It had not been fashioned as a cult image of the Mansion of Gold,67 cessation having taken place with its divine offerings, and the temple

As K. A. Kitchen and G. A. Gaballa observed—“The Festival of Sokar,” Or 38 (1969): 40— day 23 of the fourth month of the civil year saw the finding and/or collection of the body (whole or dismembered) of Osiris, its return to the shrine, and then its embalming by Anubis, enacted ritually in the Mansion of Gold (\wt nbw) or w#bt. They also refer back to Middle Kingdom examples of the Mansion of Gold. At this date (early Ramesside Period) the rites and festivals of Osiris had become combined with the ancient ones of Sokar at Memphis. The timing of both events had equally coincided: ca. days 18-30 of the fourth month of the year. For the Mansion of Gold, see as well Eberhard Otto, Das ägyptische Mundöffnungsritual II (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1960), 2-6 where the connection of the “fashioning” (msí ) a statue and the subsequent wpt rî are discussed within the context of the \wt nbw. Additional remarks may be found in J. J. Janssen, Two Ancient Egyptian Ships’ Logs (Leiden: Brill, 1961) 32, referred to by Murnane, “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 165 note 42. The references of Janssen are very useful because they leave no doubt that the gold and silver statues of the gods were made there. The interesting study of Assmann, “Ein Gespräch im Goldhaus über Kunst und andere Gegenstände,” in Gegengabe: Festschrift für Emma Brunner-Traut (ed. Ingrid GamerWallert and Wolfgang Helck; Tübingen: Attempto Verlag, 1992), 43-60, can be cited in this context. A further important discussion of the Mansion of Gold is that by François Daumas, “Quelques textes de l’atelier des orfèvres dans le temple de Dendara,” in Livre du Centenaire, 1880-1980 (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1980), 109-18. He covered the Dedicatory Inscription as well as the significant term rÉ-n.f; see also note 311 below. According to him, the Mansion of Gold was where statues were constructed and the wpt r would occur. Daumas also discussed the association with the latter ritual, one that is directed to Sokar-Osiris. Hence, the connection to the temple of Abydos is clear. He interpreted the words sàmw and rÉ-n.f as follows (page 109 with note 9): the first is the cult statue and the second is a specific type of image, an “image-connaisante.” RÉ-n.f must designate a statue which was completed in the Mansion of Gold and which was bequeathed with “conaissance.” That is to say, the image probably had undergone the rite of wpt r. Note as well that the Mansion of Gold was associated with Isis: Otto, Das ägyptische Mundöffnungsritual II, 88; add Hans-W. Fischer-Elfert, Die Vision von der Statue im Stein: Studien zum altägyptischen Mundöffnungsritual (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1998), passim, but see pages 8-10. The latter presents a convincing study of the sem priest

the text: translation and detailed analysis priesthood likewise,68 who acted in an irregular fashion69 with regard to its fields, And their boundaries were not established on earth.70

This aspect of the temple is interesting to survey. The account commences with the “inner” details of construction: the present state of incompletion, pillars not erected, and even the statue of Seti not properly finished.71 From an economic viewpoint the lack of offerings is indicated. With that aspect completed, the account moves “outside,” explicitly referring to the lack of any fiscal order with regard to the economically supportive fields. All of this is to have been the condition of the temple when Ramesses took over as sole king upon the death of his father. I have attempted to follow Kruchten’s analysis for the formation #q.n.f pt. Evidently, column 33 with its #q Èm.f has to be separated from the former if his rules follow.72 There still, however, remains the additional problem of whether the expected interpretation of “after he entered heaven” (predicative sdm.n.f ) is not correct. If so, then the following nn mnq.tw could reflect the simple Middle Egyptian n sdm.tw. But can we trust any of these possibilities? First, the restoration of [.tw] depends upon Gauthier, and the spelling of just mnq in

and his meditation on the proposed statue. The man sees a vision and then meditates on it. Subsequently, the lector priests follow his instructions. Finally, there is the always-useful study of Wolfgang Waitkus concerning the Graeco-Roman evidence: “Zum funktionalen Zusammenhang von Krypta, Wabet und Goldhaus,” in 3. Ägyptologische Templetagung (ed. Dieter Kurth; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), 283-303. For rÉ-n.f see now the general summary of Pierre Grandet. Le papyrus Harris I (BM 9999) II (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1994), 28-9 note 128; and FischerElfert’s lengthy note on page 33 of his Die Vision von der Statue im Stein. 68 This would imply that the temple was endowed but the economic activities had ceased, a very serious situation. 69 Kitchen reads “vacillated” in Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 166. He defends his new and exciting interpretation of ít + ín in Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 196 (with important references). Posener preferred “irregular” in “Philologie et archéologie égyptiennes,” Annuaire du Collège de France 63 (1963): 300 (as an adjective). Earlier, Gardiner had argued for the English translation of “to chop and change” in “The Idiom ít ín,” JEA 24 (1938): 124-5. The situation was a serious one because the temple priests appear to have followed their own interest. Insofar as the endowments were not regularized (and recorded in documents), there was an immediate problem concerning the agricultural impost. To me, the word “vacillating” is too weak; the priests appear to have “seized” (ít) the produce as they thought fit. Then they “fetched/brought back” (íní ) the revenues. The following passage indicates that the field boundaries were not “set in stone.”

27

column 36 might allow one to understand the passage as another case of nn + noun (Infinitive in this case). This, however, runs up against the original publication of Mariette.73 Compounding the difficulties must be the significance of #q.n.f pt. Kruchten would have us believe that the form is emphatic; i.e., non-predicative. (Note that the subsequent nn ms.n.tw < ME n ms.n.tw.) The following retranslation brings together the two negatives followed by the third, and interprets the positive sdm.n.f as pluperfect.74 Now the temple of Menmaatre, its front and its rear, was in a state of construction when he entered heaven. Its monuments were not completed. There was no erecting of pillars on its terrace. And its statue was on/at the ground. It had not been fashioned as a cult image of the Mansion of Gold. And among its divine offerings cessation had occurred. The temple priesthood, likewise, who acted in an irregular fashion with regard to its fields. And their boundaries were not established on the ground.

All of the details commence after the phrase “when he entered heaven,” #q.n.f r pt. The negatives

Significantly, the idiom ít ín is found in regulations connected to temple priests: see J. J. Clère, “Deux statues ‘Gardiennes de Porte’ d’époque Ramesside,” JEA 54 (1968): 140-1; and Assmann, Das kulturelle Gedächtnis, 188. It was employed in a context that prohibited certain activities of malfeasance on the part of temple personnel. Hence, I believe that the core meaning of Gardiner stands. If we follow Clère, the priests were “inconstant” or “unreliable,” with respect to the temple’s revenues. They did what they wanted, acting independently of the original regulations. Cf. the comments of Siegfried Morenz, Ägyptische Religion (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960), 235 with Hans Quecke, “Ich habe nichts hinzugefügt und nichts weggenommen. Zur Wahrheitsbeteuerung koptischer Martyrien,” in Fragen an die altägyptische Literatur: Studien zum Gedenken an Eberhard Otto (ed. Jan Assmann, Erika Feucht, and Reinhard Grieshammer; Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1977), 414-5. 70 This is one sentence because of the concept expressed: the offerings were not regulated. The passage could be nn smnt tîàw.sn or n smn.tw tîàw.sn. 71 We shall return to this crucial point. 72 Once more we must be careful when dealing with these monumental Ramesside texts. Consistency was not one of their requirements, even in a beautifully written inscription such as this one. 73 The problem is noted by Kitchen, KRI II 326 note 3c: the restoration nn mnq[.tw] is due to Gauthier. Mariette, Abydos I, pl. 6, is not useful except that a strong arm determinative might be restored. 74 Kruchten’s work, often cited here, will be found referred to in note 10 above.

chapter two

28

resemble each other with their simple nn. The first might indicate nn + Infinitive but this is unclear whereas the final could be if we read nn smnt tîàw. sn m tî. The arrangement, likewise, is orderly. Indeed, the central theme occurs exactly in the middle: the problematical condition of Seti’s statue. The above translation assumes a tripartite division organized in the following manner: A Heading: incomplete work (2 lines) B Specific details 1) Pillars (1 line) 2) Statue (2 lines) 3) Offerings (1 line) 4) Field endowments (2 lines).

This portion announces the situation by focusing upon that condition of Seti’s temple. Subsequent to the death of his father Ramesses went to Thebes and had been crowned. Returning northwards, he then reached Abydos for the first time and personally saw the lack of construction work. The fields that supplied revenues for his father’s monument had not even been regularized. Whether or not the young king knew of this problem before he reached the area is unclear. Yet he had recently decided to appoint Nebwennef to the position of High Priest of Amun, an influential and important man.75 The detailed inscription of his life, recorded in his Theban tomb (TT 157), reveals that in the third month of inundation this was done at Abydos, and the king’s first wife, Nofretary, was also present. (His role in these affairs will be covered later in Chapter III.) 75 KRI III 282.11-285.3; Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions. Notes and Comments: Translations III (Oxford and Malden: Blackwell, 2000), 201-03; and Kurt Sethe, “Die Berufung eines Hohenpriesters des Amon unter Ramses II.,” ZÄS 44 (1907-08): 30-5. On this man and his ceremony at Abydos, see now Christine Raedler, “Zur Struktur Hofgesellschaft Ramses’ II,” in Der ägyptische Hof des Neuen Reiches: seine Gesellschaft und Kultur im Spannungsfeld zwischen Innen- und Außenpolitik (ed. Rolf Gundlach and Andrea Klug; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006), 53 and 60. There is a new English translation of the main induction text by Elizabeth Frood in her Biographical Texts from Ramessid Egypt (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 35-9. Nebwennef ’s career is analyzed in detail in her earlier work “Self-presentation in Ramessid Egypt” (Ph.D. diss., Oxford University, 2004), Chapter 5 (“Kingly Presence and Royal Space”). 76 See Chapter I note 42. There are some brief pertinent comments by Raedler (cited in the previous note, page 46) concerning the actual royal “order” of assembly through the royal sealbearer. 77 Such lists are summarized in my Aspects of the Military Documents, 210-20; see as well Jean Yoyotte and Jesus Lopez, review of Alan R. Schulman, Military Rank, Title, and Organization in the Egyptian New Kingdom, BiOr 26 (1969):

Advancing further, the style of the composition then moves into another Königsnovelle presentation. The king addresses his “seal bearer,” the Étmty bíty. Posener, who observed the reliance upon Middle Kingdom literary arrangements, did not fail to comment upon this passage.76 Ramesses (with dd.ín Èm.f ) orders the official to call together the high officials of the land. This subsection thus provides a list which is a helpful reflection upon the hierarchy of the epoch:77 (1) Courtiers (ànywt). These are not specified by rank or title. The list follows the Königsnovelle pattern of avoiding names and specifications. It is assumed that the men who composed this body were the highest officials directly and personally involved with their ruler, and that they were always near to him. (2) The notables of the king (àpsw nswt). Here, I feel, the high ranking officials of the land were represented but perhaps not those always seeing and dealing with Pharaoh on a daily basis. A good example of such a person would be Nebwennef himself. Note that I prefer to separate these men from the preceding group. (3) All of the army commanders (ímyw-rî mnf îyt). The Ramesside nature of the state is overtly revealed.78 Let us keep in mind that the military was often connected with building projects and its role involved the distribution of manpower. Hence, this group might also be prominent here for the forthcoming organization of labor. (4) The superintendents of works (ímyw-r kîwt), as many as possible. These individuals would have been already at Abydos but there remains the possibility that others had come with the king.79

6-7. Important ancillary comments on the first group will be found in Raedler, “Zur Struktur Hofsgellschaft Ramses’ II,” 43. She analyses these men in the framework of a Durkheimian “Ideal Type.” 78 The army would also have been in charge of insuring that the work went along according to the king’s wish. Often high-ranking military officials were involved in building activities, a point that Andrea Gnirs re-stressed in her Militär und Geselleschaft: Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte des Neuen Reiches (Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1996), 36-7. Not surprisingly, the recently appointed High Priest of Amun, Nebwennef, who was present at Abydos at this time, is referred to as the “chief of works” in his famous nomination inscription (KRI III 285.1: ímy-rî kîwt). 79 For a contemporary list of (stone) workers, see the Manshiyet es-Sadr Stela of Ramesses II, KRI II 360.8-362.12. However, the text of Nebwennef (see note 75 above) provides very enlightening details. This man was inducted into the position of High Priest of Amun and Ramesses as well as Nebwenenef must have been at Abydos at this time. The courtiers (ànywt) and the Council of Thirty (m#bîyt) were also present as solemn witnesses of the new appointment; see KRI III 284.4-5. Both should correspond to the first two groups in the Dedicatory Inscription. In an earlier passage of Nebwennef ’s text we hear the

the text: translation and detailed analysis (5) Chiefs of the archive (Èryw-tp pr mdît). In this case, the final rank is filled with the local Abydene “intellectuals.”80

The last two groups of men were directly concerned with the building projects at Abydos, and they would ultimately be responsible for the building, carving, placement of inscriptions— layout, location, and the like—and indirectly the type of text and scene to be employed. All five sectors are called before the Pharaoh and they are ushered in (stî.ín.tw.w) exactly as in the early XIIth Dynasty literary account of Neferty. The text then utilizes a series of sdm.f formations. This entire subsection presents a topos of congratulations and expressions of praise to the Pharaoh.81 Then his majesty said to the sealbearer who was at his side:

29

knees on the ground in jubilation, kissing the earth, their arms in praise to his majesty.82 And they adored this good god83 by magnifying his beauty in the Presence; And they reported according to what he had done;84 And they related his power according as it had happened;85 And every matter that came forth from their mouths was that which the lord of the two lands did in truth.86

At the exact beginning of column 40 the first case of a wn.ín.f Èr sdm occurs, a fact that immediately reminds us of the contemporary tales. A new scene is to occur, and the style is overtly eulogistic. Here are the words of the officials:87

Call the courtiers, notables of the king, all the army commanders, superintendents of works —as many as possible, and the chiefs of the archive. Then they were ushered into the presence of his majesty, their noses touching the earth, their

Then they were on their bellies, spread out on the ground before his majesty saying: To you we have come— Lord of heaven, lord of earth, Living Re of the entire land. Possessor of eternity, firm of course,88 Atum for the sun-folk. Lord of fate, who creates wealth.89

king’s words, “I set out for him [= Nebwennef] the [whole] court (ànywt) and the chief executive of the [infantry troops]” (KRI III 283.11). Ramesses, earlier at Thebes, claimed to have presented various names of candidates to the grandees of the realm as well as to the prophets and notables of Amun. The court had traveled with Ramesses to Thebes and must have witnessed the coronation at Luxor. Sailing north, all then stopped at Abydos to confirm Nebwennef ’s appointment. 80 They would insure that the rites were performed according to law. 81 KRI II 326.6-10. 82 Such scenes, though commonplace, are described in as photographic a manner as possible. 83 The following section is purposely repetitive, and its theme is concerned with the officials’ verbal activities. 84 It is no surprise the archaic sdm.n.f Relative Form turns up once more in such traditional passages. 85 This is obviously the second half of a verse couplet; the structure is basically identical in both. 86 These words render a very common concept in Königsnovelle texts; see my Aspects of the Military Documents, 118 with note 76: it runs back to Dynasty XII. Laurent Collon, “La rhétorique et ses fictions: Pouvoirs et duplicité du discours à travers la littérature égyptienne du Moyen et du Nouvel Empire,” BIFAO 99 (1999): 121 covers the final three sentences wherein he deals with the verb stwt, “to related.” Kitchen preferred “vaunted” in Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 166. The end of the column clearly reads m mî#t. 87 KRI II 326.10-327.2; the passage is discussed later. For Assmann’s analysis, see his Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 534-5. The ending clearly moves to the Pharaoh’s power over his foreign enemies.

The standard narrative-literary formation in column 102 (KRI II 334.10-11; wn.ín nsw Mn-mî#t-R # mî# Érw) parallels column 40 (wn.ín.sn Èr hwt.sn Èr Èbnbn). Nicholas-Christophe Grimal has discussed the section commencing with “pole of heaven” in his Les termes de la propagande royale égyptienne de la XIXe dynastie à la conquête d’Alexandre (Paris: Institut de France, 1986), 240 with note 758. 88 Time is meant here. Kitchen translates the latter as “regular as clockwork” in his Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 166. The core idea is close to Assmann’s study on time and eternity, but with Hornung’s additional analysis in “Zeitliches Jenseits im alten Ägypten,” Eranos 47 (1978): 281-6; see note 445 below. The never-ending cycle (= phrt here) is that of nÈÈ; the never-ending permanence of the totality of “life” is dt. As nÈÈ is connected to #È#w and dt to drw (“boundaries,” “limits”), this section makes perfect sense because #È#w occurs. Therefore, the concept of a cycle must enter, and the latter image is carried by phrt. NÈÈ is likewise always associated with Horus, the living king. This image in the eulogy to Ramesses II also fits perfectly with the conclusions of Assmann, whose basic study is Zeit und Ewigkeit im alten Ägypten: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Ewigkeit (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1975). It is interesting that Hannig, Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch 2800-950 v. Chr.): Die Sprache der Pharaonen, Mainz: P. von Zabern, 1995), 292, understands rwd phrt as “long living.” N.B.: íy.n Ér.k for the “classical” íy.n.n Ér.k. 89 “Fate,” “abundance” or Renenutet, and Khnum are bound together as in Assmann, “Die Inschrift auf dem äußeren Sarkophagdeckel des Merenptah,” MDAIK 28 (1972): 61, who further observes the connection of Chapter 30 of the Book of the Dead.

30

chapter two Khnum, who fashioned/s90 people, who gives breath to every person (nose), who vivifies the entire Ennead. Pole of heaven, beam of earth, Regulator who rectifies the two banks. Possessor of sustenance, numerous of grain, Abundance (Renenutet) is in his footsteps. Who made the great, Who fashioned the common-folk,91 Whose words caused provisions to occur. Noble lord, vigilant when everyone sleeps,92 Whose strength has protected Egypt, Who is victorious over foreign lands. Who came back, after he had triumphed,93 Whose strong arm has protected the Egyptians. Who is beloved of Truth, in whom he lives, It is his laws which protect the two banks.94 Doughty of years, great of strength, Whose fear has destroyed the foreign lands.

surely an ongoing (eternal) present, and perhaps “who vivifies” (s#nÉ), both performed regularly by Khnum. As a rule the past tenses predominate, a conclusion that is easily recognized from the following: sÉpr.n mdwt.f, nd.n pÈty.f, mky.n Épà.f, and dr.n Èryt.f. Most likely, the Perfective Participles are employed in order to denote the creation (in the past) of the mass of humankind, whereas in dd tîw “who gives breath” is a straightforward Imperfective Participle. Equally, see the earlier passage “who made the great …..” where the past tense serves well, if only as ír is employed. The remainder of the eulogy, which is separate from the preceding, is regular in import. The division, though not overtly marked, can nonetheless be determined by the sudden turn of the words to the vocative as well as the personal pronoun “our.” The image of Pharaoh is the sun god. Our sovereign, our lord! Living Re, Atum by means of the word[s from] his mouth. Behold!

The aspect of this hymn of praise is commonplace but the tripartite division of Re-Atum-Khnum is useful to notice if only because the first two deities will reappear shortly. Perhaps the reference at the beginning to Khnum, the creator and fashioner can be highlighted, especially as the concept of building and forming is a hallmark of the account; note the verbs msí, írí, and qd. Then too, at the very top of column 42 there is the pregnant couplet: “who made (ír) the great (wrw), who fashioned (qd) the common-folk (nmÈw).” The differences in tense, if that is the best way to describe the subtle differences in this encomium, might be searched in the realm of the sdm.n.f Relative Forms and most of the Participles which appear to be Perfective. In contrast, however, see “who gives (dd) breath,”

Encomia as the above, and in the Miscellanies, reveal for the most part an older, more conservative orientation.95 The earlier common phrase, “Who came back, after he had triumphed,” reveals one useful exception to Kruchten’s rule that cannot be refuted. The first is a Perfective Participle and the second a predicative sdm.n.f. Yet see the passage:

“Wealth” might also be translated by “Renenutet” as in Jan Quaegebeur, Le dieu égyptien Shaï (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1975), 109. It is suggestive that Quaegebeur posits that an Amarna idea may be seen at this juncture. 90 The writing ms instead of mss should not be overlooked. Is this significant in a formal monumental hieroglyphic text of early Dynasty XIX? See the identical concepts expressed by the Participles in column 42: ír wrw qd nmÈw. But note as well the common use of the sdm.n.f Relative Form. Incidentally, as Stephen Quirke informs me, this passage recalls the heart scarabs regularly included in elite burial equipment at this time; cf. Wolfram Grajetzki, Burial Customs in Ancient Egypt: Life in Death for Rich and Poor, passim, especially pages 67 and 84. 91 The lowly (nmÈw) are merely “built,” “constructed,” qd. But remember the opening words in column 25: qd qd sw. Bernadette Menu prefers the term “colon” for nmÈw in her work Recherches sur l’histoire juridique, économique et sociale de l’ancienne Égypte II (Versailles: B. Menu, 1998), 54, 190-1. There is no analysis given of the development of this term,

especially when its later economic and legal use became somewhat different from the original or core meaning of “youth.” Moreover, she appears not to have provided a clear-cut analysis of the mnÈ and the nmÈw. With regard to the latter, Shafik Allam’s general survey in his Hieratische Ostraka und Papyri aus der Ramessidenzeit (Tübingen: Selbstverlag, 1973), 265-7 and 270 note 5 may suffice. According to him the nmÈw were “Vollfrei,” but if we understand that their status was without superior control—i.e., the lack of superiors, and no required or forced “Zwangsarbeit,” then we come close to an economic understanding of their position. 92 A new idea occurs here. 93 The verb is a Perfective Participle: Winand, “Le verbe iy/iw: unité morphologique et sémantique,” LingAeg 1 (1991): 357-87. 94 A simple use of two verses to express, in a condensed form, justice. 95 Wente, “The Syntax of Verbs of Motion in Egyptian,” Chapters IV and V. Yet, to follow Stephen Quirke, was there a continuity in the role of kingship as a cultural kernel that has permitted the older style to continue?

We are here in the presence of your majesty. May you command to us life through that of your giving. O Pharaoh, l.p.h., the breath of our nostrils, Every one lives after he has risen for them.

the text: translation and detailed analysis O Pharaoh, l.p.h., the breath of our nostrils, Every one lives after he has risen for them.

The second half, wbn.f n.sn, is a simple pluperfect and clearly derived from wbn.n.f n.sn. Yet there was also coalescence owing to the two n’s. By and large, the eulogistic sections preserve older forms of the language. To a degree this is what Wente had realized when he covered the style of the Late Egyptian Miscellanies and which later Kruchten analyzed.96 In essence, the tone was considerably more serious than mere colloquial dialogue and the formal nature of its linguistic register befits the ruler, Ramesses. Note as well the return to the two major creator deities Re and Atum, mentioned in the same order as is present in the preceding section of the address. The king then responds. At this point the Königsnovelle presentation appears to effect a dialogue, but it is without conflict and hence lacks any discussion. The officials’ speech is composed of passages of adulation whereas that of the king’s is solely his plan.97 Then his majesty said (dd.ín Èm.f ) to them: Behold. I have caused (rdí.n.í ) that you be summoned on account of a plan which is (now) before me. I have seen the temples of the [Sacred] Land and the tombs which are in Abydos. The work in them is <still> in a state of construction since the times of their owners until today.

This is written in virtually pure Middle Egyptian. For example, “Behold. I have caused” = mtn rdí.n.í and “I have seen” = íw mî.n.í, if not also the compound preposition r-mn. The opening sentence which brings out the Pharaoh’s own views is what any good Middle Egyptian literary (or high sounding) text would write. Then too, the opening “Behold …..” fixes the previously “implied” special or temporal reference, to employ Assmann’s terminology.98 The same can be said with respect to the following words.99

96

See note 10 above. Assmann, “Das Bild des Vaters,” 37; KRI II 327.4-7. 98 Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 56-60. 99 KRI II 327.7; the negative passage is nn smîwy mnw wtt sw. 100 KRI II 327.7-8; cf. the comments of Kitchen: Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 167. 97

31

If a son arose in the place of his father, there was no one who renewed the monument of the one who begot him.

Or “there did not exist the renewal …” (nn + Infinitive). The theme of father son now enters in a more explicit fashion. His subsequent words expand upon this feeling.100 And I have thought over in (lit.: with) my heart a fruitful deed (sp m#r) of embellishing those who have passed away.

Kitchen’s translation for m#r, “fruitful,” is excellent as it conveys both the core meaning of the word while at the same time presenting the contrast of life/vegetative activity versus death, those who have departed. I would also like to cite the opening as it employed the Pseudo-Verbal Èr + Infinitive to indicate a passage of time in the past. As an aside, let me once more point out the repetitive use of the concept of “heart” in this portion of the inscription. Now presented is a passage deliberately hearkening back to the opening section of columns 29-30.101 [

Compassion] is beneficial and concern is good of a son when he [concerns] (himself ) with his father;

My heart is directing/directs me in order to (?) do beneficial things for Merenptah.

The first portion juxtaposes the two general ethical comments of îÉ [n#t ?] and nfr îms-íb. The second, more lengthy, continues the “heart” aspect (sî phr.f Èîty m-sî ít.f ). I believe that both can be joined to form a simple couplet. The innermost thoughts and feelings of Ramesses now come across in a very compressed fashion. It is necessary to focus at this point once more upon the father son relationship although these ideas will be expanded upon later. Ramesses adds: And I shall cause that one say forever: “It is his son who vivified his name.” May my father Osiris reward/praise me with

101 KRI II 327.8-11. I am including the following quote. There are some slight problems with the text at this point, a situation that Kitchen has seen as well. In column 46 read Èr ír írt. Cf. the formal Relative Form, írt.n.f in column 47. For a short but significant study on îÉ, see Assmann and Bommas, Altägyptische Totenliturgien I, 21-3.

chapter two

32

the great lifetime [of] his [son] Horus, as I am one who did what [he has] done. May it be/It will be beneficial for me as it was beneficial for the one who bore me.

The concept expressed is that of the dual relationship of Horus to Osiris and vice versa. The fatherson constellation emerges once more in full light with Ramesses and Seti under scrutiny. Later, there will be the repetition of îÉ in column 62; note as well the subsequent use of n#t and phr in columns 60-1. But the sudden mention of Seti’s name in the same location is somewhat unexpected. This is, however, necessary because the account now turns to a historical view in which the past events of the younger Ramesses are related and his connection to his “real” father Seti as well as to the creator god come into play.102 It is from Re that I came forth [but] (Ér) you say: “It was Menmaatre who reared/nourished me [= him].” And when I was a child (hrd) until I ruled it was the All Lord himself who made me great.

The word mn# returns, a key lexical item which was already broadcast in column 30, but now with the added factor that at this point the act of írí, the creating of Ramesses, is far less important that his childhood rearing, mn#. Perhaps the focus no longer needed so much emphasizing, but Ramesses II certainly throws this idea in front of the high officials; the “you” (tn) refers to their words in the previous eulogy. Seti (Mn-mî#t-R #) took care of his son even though Ramesses came forth from the creator god and sun. Moreover, there is also the connection between Re and the latter deity who must be Re as Atum, the “All Lord.” Ramesses has provided these comments, all of which are centered on his early life, not as grist for the mill of chronologists. Yet the following remarks in the Dedicatory Inscription are extremely useful for our reconstruction of

102

KRI II 327.12-13. His work is listed in note 10 above. With regard to the interpretation that follows, there remains the possibility that Re-king-Osiris (all three) are meant: Berlev, “Two Kings-Two Suns—on the worldview of the ancient Egyptians,” in Quirke, Discovering Egypt from the Neva: The Egyptological Legacy of Oleg D Berlev, 19-33. 104 See now Goedicke, Studies in “The Instructions of King Amenemhet I for his Son,” 64-72, although his interpretation differs from mine. 105 Ursula Rößler-Köhler, Kapitel 17 des ägyptischen Toten103

the chronological framework between Ramesses and his father Seti. At this point the results of Kruchten’s recent analysis of the Ramesside monumental sdm.n.f form hold up in a sharp and stark fashion.103 Is there an antithesis, somewhat hidden perhaps, between Seti as the nourisher (mn#) and the All Lord as the enactor of Ramesses’ strength (via s#î)? I believe so. There is an overlapping of two consecutive and parallel concepts here, a point that is clear once the physical location of Abydos and its godhead Osiris are understood. An inverse situation perhaps may be observed in the Teaching of Amenemhet I to Sesostris I where the opening presents the common “teaching” introduction of: “Here begins the teaching which … made for his son the All Lord.”104 One possibly might see a further, albeit indirect, connection between both texts at this point, especially because of the numerous Middle Kingdom reflexes in the Dedicatory Inscription. Whether this is maintained or not is not crucial. In the present context two different ways of a father’s role to his son are given, mn# and s#î, as are two different methods of grammatical emphasis. Ramesses now explicitly indicates that he was a child. Perhaps the text could make a fine distinction here if the “All Lord” refers to Osiris. In the Middle Kingdom the term is employed for Osiris, Atum, Thoth, or Re.105 Therefore, the specific acknowledgement of Seti’s role via-à-vis his son and heir can be examined even more keenly. He is the one who took care of his male child Ramesses. The reference to his “rearing,” mn#, over s#î might be argued from its frontal position. In other words, the personal relationship of Ramesses with Seti is deliberately separated from the All Lord’s involvement; “true” father and creator god are split. Further on there is:106

buches: Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte und Funktion eines Textes der altägyptischen Totenliteratur (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1979), 240, referring to Brigitte Altenmüller, Synkretismus in den Sargtexten (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1975), 272-3. But as the All Lord is Osiris and Osiris is the father of Horus, the father-son connection is made. 106 KRI II 327.13-14. The key studies relating to this period of Ramesses’ life are listed in note 3 to Chapter I. One can add Kitchen, review of Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, JNES 39 (1980): 170-1; and Spalinger, review of the same work, JARCE 16 (1979): 189-90.

the text: translation and detailed analysis When I was in the womb he gave to me the land, and officials were kissing the earth before me when I was inducted (bs.kwí )107 to the position of heir apparent (sî smsw) and to the position of hereditary prince (íry p#t) [on] the throne of Geb.

Once more the non-predicative use of the initial sdm.n.f opens a narrative presentation. I see no reason to translate swÈt as egg, as the Egyptians were human as we are. The image, concrete in its fullness as befits pregnancy, must indicate the womb of the mother. The text explicitly indicates that the king-to-be was publicly announced to be the next ruler of Egypt.108 Indeed, the two titles associated with Ramesses designate him as the future Pharaoh, and they occurred at a time when he was a boy. This was done at an official ceremony. It is hard to fathom exactly the following portion of the composition owing to the fragmentary nature of column 49.109 The account appears to use a Middle Egyptian present where a completed past tense is necessary. One solution could be: And I reported (íw.í smí Érwt tîwy) the [affairs of the two lands as] chief of the infantry and the chariotry.

Or is this correct: “while I reported the affairs of the two lands …..”? In this case the first person suffix (marked by the small stroke after íw) is retained but the passage becomes a circumstantial clause. I find the second very difficult to support owing to the arrangement of the historical account at this point. (The restoration of Gauthier, Érwt, 107 A crucial word, see Spalinger, “The Calendrical Importance of the Tombos Stela,” SAK 22 (1995): 276 note 23. 108 And this was Gardiner’s conclusion, all too often forgotten, in “A Pharaonic Encomium (II),” 9 with note 3. Murnane, in his chapter “The Kingship of the Nineteenth Dynasty,” observed the “new dynasty’s unease” (page 199). But the power relations at court and the lack of a firm and strict rule for successorship appear to be contained within this situation. It was probably owing to the problem of succession, especially when there was no direct male heir from the main or preferred wife, that the system arose to regulate any crisis. Kitchen’s remarks concerning sî nsw smsw and sî nswt tpy must be read to understand this problem more fully; see Chapter I note 24. All of this deserves a separate study, but I cannot leave the issue without observing the rise of the female title Èmt wrt nswt. I suspect that it was established sometime in the late Middle Kingdom (Dynasty XIII) to fortify the claim of that wife of the king with regard to her son who would be the heir to the throne of Egypt. And when we see crises of legitimacy arise—e.g., at the death of Thutmose II or at the time of Merenptah’s decease —were not those difficulties caused by the question of who, exactly, had the “right” to be Pharaoh? For example, did a

33

“affairs,” seems reasonable because there are such brief descriptions elsewhere.) Is it suggestive of an age-old ranking that the military background of the young prince is placed after his non-warlike responsibility as chief judge or the like? Although the inscription contains a blatant slip at the end of column 48, the following words place us partly in the colloquial language of the day with a healthy bit of Middle Egyptian syntax contained as well.110 When my father appeared to the populace I was (yet) a boy111 between his arm(s). And [he said] concerning me: Cause that he appear as king so that I might see his beauty while I am (still) living.

I see no reason to deny the historical references in these brief sentences. Seti had his son Ramesses brought to an imposing and serious investiture ceremony. The elder man attempted to maintain the kingship and his bloodline by insuring that all the key men—not merely a select group of courtiers—were fully cognizant of the situation. Whether such a “pre-election” had any precedent is not important to this discussion. Following the royal narrative it would appear that Seti was approaching the end of his life. Otherwise, why include the auspicious passage “while I am (still) living.” It would appear that, following Ramesses’ account, Seti was growing extremely old and insuring that his heir designate would be king. Although additional information will be brought forward later to buttress this interpretation, son of a lesser wife of a king have precedence over a female of the main wife? Could not the lineage be bolstered in such a situation by means of a regency wherein the surviving main wife held the reins of power (cf. Hatshepsut)? The Ramessides, undoubtedly following in the footsteps of their Dynasty XVIII predecessors (e.g., Thutmose III and Amunhotep II), appear to have regularized the transference of power by appointing the heir to the throne before the reigning king had died, as Gardiner stated in his “A Pharaonic Encomium (II).” They also endowed the successor with more power. Thus the situation parallels the transference of power under the first Capetians. 109 KRI II 327.14-15 with Kitchen’s accompanying notes. 110 KRI II 327.15-328.1. 111 Here sfy is employed; see my review cited above in note 106; add Franke, “Anchu, der Gefolgsmann des Prinzen (Grabrelief Boston MFA 191.403),” in Miscellanea Aegyptologica: Wolfgang Helck zum 75. Geburtstag (ed. Hartwig Altenmüller and Renate Germer; Hamburg: Archäologisches Institut der Universität Hamburg, 1989), 81-5 (on a similar term for young man, ínpw). Note the volume of Erika Feucht, Das Kind im alten Ägypten (Frankfurt and New York: Campus, 1995), Chapter 10.

chapter two

34

let me add the following remarks. Ramesses was quite young when he became sole ruler of Egypt. His early texts indicate this and so do his royal sculptures, if not also his long reign. This youthful attitude can only be found in the opening years of his reign, during which he appears to have eliminated the memory of another person whom his father liked. (I am explicitly referring to Mehy.)112 The Dedicatory Inscription takes pains to indicate the early career of Ramesses and his crowning is explicitly written. How, then, has it come about that some Egyptologists refuse to see a crowned Ramesses existing with his father?113

These three Prospective sdm.f ’s reflect upon the internal nature of rule; order and stability are indicated. The king’s son is now a king but his love for his people has been placed aside. But far more remarkable are the following words, unfortunately presented in a very fragmentary passage.116 It begins, most probably, with another sdm.n.f: [He spoke thusly/these things ?] … while his eyes were filled with] tears because of the love of me inside of him.

He will administer [= tie up]115 this land; He will bring together [its boundaries ?]; He will give commands to the people.

“Love” and “tears” are the themes here. They are personal, indeed extremely so, but above all remarkable. Where else are Pharaohs ever said to weep? The answer to this question must be in the negative. Moreover, what was the reason for this unusual exhibition of intense emotion? Was it love alone, or love plus kingship? The necessity of prolonging the kingship in the direct line through one’s (eldest living) son must have been a major reason. I believe that both factors enter into Ramesses’ words concerning his father. Because the intense father-son constellation remains the kernel of this inscription, one cannot eliminate Seti’s love towards his son and vice-versa. But the role of monarch still remained and hence the necessity of insuring a proper succession has to be included in this analysis. But is this nothing more than a further emphasis upon the continual refrain of Seti concerning his own life? As he states, he wanted to see Ramesses crowned when he was alive. Perhaps life for him may have meant not many more months or years. See how the father “holds” or “embraces” his son (ímytw qny.f ) before the court.117 In my mind there is little doubt

The opening verb is É## and one might assume it to be a nominal form as well. 112 Most recently, see Murnane, “The Kingship of the Nineteenth Dynasty,” 199-202. (He was reacting to Helck’s criticisms of his earlier analysis.) I do not see, however, any proof that Ramesses eliminated Mehy at the time he was a “prince” (Murnane, page 202) unless we argue that this event took place during the regency period. Cf. the recent commentary of Marjorie M. Fisher, The Sons of Ramesses II. Volume I: Texts and Plates (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2001), 9. 113 KRI II 328.1-3. No “high officials,” army leaders, or the like are mentioned. The event most likely took place in the private compartments of the Pharaoh at the capital. Why are not the other grandees of the realm listed? 114 KRI II 328.3. 115 Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 167 reads ts as “govern” whereas on page 342 he prefers “administer” (referring to KRI II 531.15). See as well KRI VI 19.5 (Ramesses VI) where A. J. Peden translates the verb as “appoint” in his Egyptian Historical Inscriptions of the Twentieth

Dynasty (Jonsered: Paul Aströms Förlag, 1994), 155. See also KRI VI 25.8 (Abydos Stela of Ramesses IV; Peden prefers “rule”—ibid., page 173). In the concept of kingship, this basic concept of ts goes back to Gardiner’s remarks in “A Pharaonic Encomium (II),” 16 (in another text of Ramesses IV where he followed the Wb.) note to line 3,5 of P. Turin Cat. 1882, recto: “to allot,” “to appoint.” Among other matters, all of these texts deal with the man’s rise to kingship; cf. as well Wb. V 397.23f. and Siegfried Schott, Der Denkstein Sethos’ I. für die Kapelle Ramses’ I. in Abydos (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), 21 note 6 (top). The text citation will be found in KRI I 111.11. Gardiner also mentioned the case of Ramesses III in P. Harris 22.11-12. These Ramesside examples (Seti I, Ramesses II, Ramesses III, and Ramesses IV) cover the rise of the heir to the throne of Egypt. As can be seen, the situation of kingship in Dynasties XIX-XX still had not yet been given a definitive legal arrangement. 116 KRI II 328.3-4. 117 KRI II 327.15.

[He caused] the chamberlains [to be summoned] in order to set the crowns on my brow. ‘Place the great uraeus on his head!’ So he said concerning me when he was on earth.

Surely this brief account, composed with sdm.n.f ’s and not using any sdm.ín.f formations, is to be read with great care. The kernel of the historical retrospective of Ramesses thus abandons its earlier literary arrangements and instead moves to a narrative in which the historical import of the account is paramount. A story-narrative outlook cannot fit this serious aspect. Wherever the ceremony was, it most certainly did not take place in Luxor. Nothing indicates a royal procession of investiture there. On the contrary, the setting is in the court; it is lay in orientation rather than religious in spirit. Seti speaks; Amun is not present.114

the text: translation and detailed analysis that an intense personal aspect crowns this section of the inscription. The author under Ramesses’ orders explicitly writes this passage with great feeling, and I cannot but conclude that the elder man was worried about his own lifetime and the necessity of insuring a designated heir. Are these attitudes a reflection of hyper-emotionality? This man, the Pharaoh, deeply concerned with the royal succession and possessing only one living son, had Ramesses appointed (if that be the correct word) to the kingship. “Coregency” is the term which scholars normally have used for such situations. This cannot be, however, as there was no double dating.118 The term “regency,” as Kitchen saw some time ago, appears to fit the situation better than any other. Although this issue will be covered at the conclusion to this chapter, I want to anticipate my analysis somewhat. The combined architectural, sculptural, and inscriptional evidence that the Seti temple presents, including the sculptural work in raised relief and the early prenomen of Ramesses, argue for a regency rather than a coregency.119 Despite the account being presented by Ramesses, he consistently places himself extremely close to his father in a very personal fashion. Owing to this, I feel that it is not surprising to encounter the unusual phrase concerned with the “tears” of Seti. Considering the repetitive nature of the father-son relationship embedded in this inscription, it is only the emotively laden and highly charged nature of the court appearance of both men that should come as a surprise. The concept of decorum, for what it is worth, surely cannot be read into the account here. Granted 118

How could there be a coregency with double dating in the New Kingdom unless the accession days of both individuals were on the same day? The following discussion resumes our previous comments. 119 Prof. Hornung also reminds me that in the tomb of Ramesses II only raised relief was employed. To quote him: “(and even still in the entrance of Merenptah’s tomb) but this was of course a special case.” 120 For a useful summary, see Elfriede Reiser, Der königliche Harim im alten Ägypten und seine Verwaltung (Vienna: Verlag Notring, 1972). Barry Kemp, review of Reiser, Der königliche Harim im alten Ägypten und seine Verwaltung, JEA 62 (1976): 191-2 is crucial; cf. his study of “The Harim-Palace at Medinet el-Ghurab,” ZÄS 105 (1978): 122-33. Gardiner, “The Harem at Miwer,” JNES 12 (1953): 145-9 still remains important. This section is in KRI II 328.4-6 and Reiser briefly notes the passage on page 16 of her work. But was the institution at Gurob/Miwer exceptional? 121 KRI II 328.4-5. 122 The king has thus given his son a building separate from the royal palace. There is no mention of hkrt nswt, for

35

that much of this subsection is formal, the passage nevertheless opens up a vista that is rarely if ever mentioned in the monumental texts. Without doubt the Dedicatory Inscription goes beyond the parameters of a simple Königsnovelle account. It also exceeds the boundaries that were commonplace in stories. Hitherto, the narrative account contained a style that was borrowed from earlier models, and the encomium as well as the opening background are standard in format. But when the king’s retrospective look is presented, it is Seti who appears totally human. He no longer is viewed as an omnipotent god-ruler. The elder partner does not stop his support for his son at this point. The composition indicates additional benefactions given by the father to Ramesses. The Pharaoh established a harem or, more properly, a separate house for his son’s women.120 Indeed, he set up an arrangement similar to what New Kingdom kings (or at least Ramesside ones) had; compare the evidence from Miwer covered by Gardiner. It may not be out of place to ask why this is this mentioned. Commencing with yet another narrative formation (grg.n.f ), the point here indicated is that Ramesses must appear as a Pharaoh and thus possess multiple concubines or wives. Is this not virility talking? (Of course, he already had one main wife at this point in time and had sired at least one male child.) Women were expressly “selected” (stp.f; predicative) for him:121 He equipped/furnished me with a “female household,” a “royal harem,” identical to the beautiful women of the palace.122

which see Del Nord, “hkrt-nswt = King’s Concubine,” Serapis 2 (1970): 1-16 and Rosemarie Drenkhahn, “Bemerkungen zu dem Titel hkr.t nswt,” SAK 4 (1976): 59-67, a further point that allows one to reject the hypothesis that these ladies were mere “concubines.” Subsequently, Nord argued that the term Énr did not refer to a harem in the Old and Middle Kingdoms: “The Term Énr: ‘Harem’ or ‘Musical Performers’?,” in Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan (ed. William Kelly Simpson and Whitney M. Davis; Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1981), 137-45. This analysis purposely did not cover the evidence from the Ramesside Period. The word prywt was long ago recognized as a collective of pr: see Gardiner, “The Treaty of Alliance between ]attuàili, King of the Hittites, and the Pharaoh Ramesses II of Egypt,” JEA 6 (1920): 197 note 2. Here, the determinative insures the more precise meaning. Fisher, The Sons of Ramesses II I, 11 briefly discusses the passage. But we can add here the remarks of Peter Lacovara, The New Kingdom Royal City (London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1997), 36-8 on “harem palaces.”

chapter two

36

And he selected for me wives throughout …, hisand females were taken … his123 … (?), and the house of singing women of … (?)

The timing of this series of events is avoided; hence, our conclusions must remain firmly fixed to outside dating mechanisms. As for Ramesses, he now reinvokes his listeners at Abydos:124 Behold. I was Re over the people; Upper and Lower Egyptians were under my sandals …..

He was now in charge. Then there comes the first reference to his building activity, an important transitional link:125 They were mine [to the limit ….. (?) until (?)] I fashioned my father out of gold anew in the first year of my appearing.

A regency period is definitely indicated, even if one feels that this double kingship was formalized.126 On the other hand, the final brief note could reflect upon Ramesses’ first major deed after the death of his father. This point will be elaborated upon below with respect to the “flashback” orientation of the narrative account in conjunction with the re-emergence of the verb msí. At least one predicative sdm.n.f resumes the narration which is now focused upon the young king’s newly established plan to rejuvenate of Seti’s Abydene temple.127 I commanded (wd.n.í ) that his temple be set up. I established (smn.n.í ) his fields …… I endowed (wîÈ.n.í ) for him offerings for his ka:128 [bread and beer, oxen and fowl], wine, incense, every sort of fruit, [all types] of vegetables, and orchards were flourishing for him. 123

The other sense of “taking the reins” is in Meeks, Année Lexicographique III, 329. It does not apply here, but the whole passage is obscure. Further one reads: … t.f àdd (= his … who were suckled ?) íw pr-Énrwt Énmst. The significance of the latter designation, “female friend,” remains unclear. Perhaps in the middle of column 52 we can read: “… while the harem house of a friend ?).” 124 KRI II 328.6-7. 125 KRI II 328.7-8. The opening ínk st r [r-#], if the copy of Mariette is followed, is rendered by Kitchen as “It was I who <set> them to [building ? …]: Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 168. I have employed the word “until” in order to render adequately the verb msyt without having recourse to ignoring the final -t. On the other hand, the formation might be understood as a poorly written Late Egyptian Perfective sdm.f. 126 And this is precisely what Kitchen argued in his review

Here, this first sdm.n.f appears to be predicative. The now sole monarch recounts the early building and donation activities. Seti’s role has ended; even the situation of his death is passed by in silence. Stylistically note the use of the imperfective converter in column 49 (wn É## ít.í ) which may reflect Late Egyptian stylistics. One can add the following parallel of column 54 (mk wn Èwt.f r-Ét.í ). In the second a mixing of linguistic patters reemerges despite the attempt to reject the Amarna intrusions of the contemporary language. (I must reiterate my feeling that this composition is not, narrowly speaking, a good example of the Ramesside monumental inscriptions presented in the “langage de tradition.”) The second example just cited still retains the past tense reflections of Ramesses. The following italics are presented in order to put attention upon the son’s personal involvement.129 Behold. His temple was under my charge and all of its work was under my care [since] (dr

wn) …… Clearly, the building activity of young Ramesses is now under consideration. The temporal transition then occurs.130 Now/while (íst) I was a child [who …-ed ? …] of my father. I will now magnify it by renewing the monument (s#î.í s/s<w> m). I will not neglect (nn mkÈî.í ) his seat/place as those children (hrdw) who are ignorant of [their] fathers …..

Once more the theme of father-son, once more the hrd, and even further on the sî which acts with îÉ:131 of John Schmidt, Ramesses II: A Chronological Structure for his Reign, JEA 61 (1975): 266. He remarked that the text could have been inscribed from year two onwards, undoubtedly basing himself on the internal nature of the composition plus the spellings and writings of the king’s two cartouches. I myself feel that it must have been carved (not written) later than year two, but this will be the subject of a later presentation. See as well the remarks in note 24 above. 127 KRI II 328.8-10. 128 KRI II 328.9: wîÈ.í n.f Ètpw n kî.f. 129 KRI II 328.10. 130 KRI II 328.11-12. These ideas reoccur in the texts of Ramesses IV at Abydos and may even be found located in a crucial one of Seti I. As I will turn to those compositions at the conclusion of this study, it is not necessary to cite the parallels here. The íst signals the change and the following tenses are in the future; the word “child,” hrd, is repeated from column 48. 131 KRI II 328.13.

the text: translation and detailed analysis One will say [concerning me (?)—he was (ntf ?) …] a son who performed beneficial actions (îÉw).

In the present temporal framework Ramesses is now grown up. Indeed, he is Pharaoh and no longer merely the “son” of Seti who passively received the benefactions from him. Ramesses is able to carry out to a successful conclusion the incomplete work. His present maturity is as important as his childhood had been earlier. All of this is placed within the arena of monumental building activities.132 These my physical deeds for my father as a child— I will complete (mnq.í ) them while I am (now) lord of the two lands. And I will finish (grÈ) them extremely well. …..

The antithesis of Ramesses as regent and now Ramesses as sole ruler is self-evident. But it is now the successor, the designated heir, who is witnessing the need for building activity in his father’s temple. The style continues to remain personal, always repeating the interwoven concepts of father Seti and buildings at the sacred ground of Osiris. Those crucial introductory words of columns 57ff. now reappear:133 I will [build up/dress ] (nm#) walls in the temple of the one who engendered me (pî wtt <w>í ). I will command (rdí + m + Èr) a man of my choice to direct this work in it.134 I will fill up that [which was lack]ing on its walls. [I will …] its pylon out of ….. I will roof (Èbs) his house. I will erect (àp) his pillars (íwnw; they now return as a focus of attention). And I will place (dí ) stones in the foundation places. It is good to make a monument after monument, two excellent things (îÉw again) at one time, they being in my name and in the name of my [father].135 So a [loving/acting] son, [so] the [one who bore] him. 132 KRI II 328.13-14; mnq repeated from column 36. The verb grÈ (+ the expected m) is a very significant word. The word “child” should really be translated as “royal child” owing to the determinative. 133 KRI II 328.15-329.3. 134 The emphasis is mine but the implication is clear. Ramesses insures that he will determine the leader of the work. This point may in fact reflect both upon his piety as

37

The clarification of the final phrase of Ramesses must depend upon Kitchen’s all-too-brief commentary. Yet here the existence of both kings side-by-side, or at least their names being cojoined or juxtaposed, is underlined. Though the father is dead his name, as well as Ramesses’, will be carved. The reference to two deeds should refer to the completion of Seti’s temple and perhaps also to the ongoing work on Ramesses’ own temple complex at Abydos. Physically and emotionally the dual activity of the young monarch remains centered upon the temple building and the memory of Seti. This double aspect continues up to the end of the inscription.136 At this point I prefer to stop and analyze this lengthy speech of Ramesses, one that neatly folds in upon itself with the final repetition of Éy. The early years—indeed the earliest—of Ramesses are specified. This backward looking aspect is not hidden. Quite to the contrary, it is cleverly situated and contains at least one deliberate narrative marker, the íst in column 54, and there is the further temporal notation of Ramesses’ first year as sole ruler. Some slight Late Egyptianisms have been previously noted although none of them diverge to any extent from the basic Classical approach to this speech. In a remarkable fashion the address of the king has moved far from the stereotypical building announcement. First, the king’s background as a child under his loving father is described. Seti (and not Osiris) is placed in the foreground of this description. Second, I can direct the reader to the insert of the following subsection: “Now/ while I was a child [who ….-ed …] of my father” (columns 54-5). It is Ramesses who will renew the monuments of Seti. Then come a series of prospective announcements: he will do such-andsuch and such-and-such, all in honor and respect to his father. The officials respond. This fits the structure of the Königsnovelle, and for the first time there is a Late Egyptian negative. Is the reason because we are in direct speech? (But see column 112 below.)137

well as his youth. His determination to involve himself with architectural activities are directed to his father. 135 Thus the completion of his father’s building is connected with the construction of his own. Both names will persist owing to Ramesses’ orders. 136 KRI II 329.2-3; see also column 64. 137 KRI II 329.3-5. The deities include Re-Osiris-IsisHorus (assumed, not named). There are 8 verses; 4 cou-

38

chapter two Then the royal companions spoke (dd.ín) when they responded to the good god: “You are Re; your body is his body, A ruler has not occurred like you.138 You are unique one like the son of Osiris, You have done the equal of his [plans].139 [ Mother] Isis has not [cherished ?] a king since Re, except for you and her great/eldest son (?). What you have done is greater than what he has done, since he ruled after Osiris.”140

But if the small restoration is accurate there must be a second completed/perfective verbal activity that is negated; i.e., n[n Énms mwt] îst nswt dr R #.141 I find the section too fragmentary to utilize. One should keep in mind that the other cases with nn seem to reflect nn + Infinitive, nn wn + Noun, or nn (= n) + sdm.f. They are, however, located in the straightforward narrative portions of the inscription. At this stage in the composition the references to Seti have been dropped with the rebirth of the expected regularity of the universe. There is now a new era:142 The law of the land has arrived at [its] place:a son caring for the one who engendered him, The divine seed […] of the one who created him, [A …] it cares for its nourisher.

This passage was encountered earlier when I discussed the common vocabulary employed in the text. All that I wish to add here is the following brief comment. For the first time the key verbs indicate the masculine aspect of Ramesses II’s father; see in particular írí. True, the section concludes with the earlier theme of upbringing through the lexical item mn#t. But this is somewhat in antithesis to the preceding qmî. In column 30 the order was wtt (masculine) plus mn#, the latter inherently feminine, and column 47 stressed the childhood of Ramesses once more by means of mn#, although on this occasion s#î follows.

plets. Note the move to more complex verbal patterns. 138 The passage is bw Épr Èqî mí-qd.k which should reflect Middle Egyptian n sdm.n.f. 139 Is ír.n.k to be understood as a nominal form? 140 This second lengthy phrase is balanced by the preceding one. 141 See KRI II 329 note 4a. 142 KRI II 329.5-7. Although the passage is very broken, stylistically there is a move to constructions using the Stative and a Pseudo-Verbal Construction. The present situation is under examination and the past events no longer apply. The emphasis is upon the “son” as ruler and his relationship to his father.

The following negative reintroduces us to the more Late Egyptian writing. The text reads: bw ír w# írrwt \r n ít.f r-mn hrw pn wpíw-Èr Èm.k mr[(y) mî#t].143 This division of bw versus nn is worthwhile to indicate once more. One has not done what Horus did for his father until today, except for your majesty, beloved of [truth].

Middle Egyptian n sdm.n.f surely must be understood, and one might have expected a sdm.n.f Relative Form in the second half. Again, my assumption is that this spoken passage is somewhat different from the previous one of the king and, even more, it diverges from the opening narrative portions.144 A reason for the intrusion of a more colloquial presentation—or at least one which reveals a Late Egyptian presence—might be due to the singularity of the narrative at this point. The speech differs from Ramesses’ in that it is less dependent upon earlier models and the theme, or at least set phrases, perhaps could not be found in standard eulogistic texts. On the other hand, it might be a close reproduction of the original address. This declaration, at any rate, contrasts with the king’s own words wherein the style to some extent remained set in the historical past, and the future desires of Ramesses could be recounted with the expected future tenses of the Classical language. (Noteworthy is the absence of the Third Future.)

B. The Eulogies and Physical Backdrop A brief examination of the earlier eulogistic speech of the grandees of the land to Ramesses shows this distinction quite clearly if only owing to the presence of common bimembral phrases combined into A-B formations, often called “kola,” following

143 KRI II 329.7-8. Is such a royal phrase, stereotypical though it is, only possible within reported speech of a literary nature? After all, it can be read as a criticism of all previous kings including Seti I. In essence, however, the sentence re-emphasizes Ramesses’ filial piety. Cf. Quirke, “Narrative Literature,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, 265 (with n sp). 144 The move to a narrative address is evident. It was undoubtedly for this reason that Kitchen altered his poetical arrangement to prose on page 169 of his translation volume.

the text: translation and detailed analysis

39

the research of Fecht. I assume that this second speech of the courtiers parallels Assmann’s conceptions concerning hymns (dwîw) in which a pure verbal structure can be observed.145 The entire passage is an excellent case of an encomium to a Pharaoh. But instead of a mythological setting— which he sees to be the commonplace setting of such hymns—this one is historical. Perhaps the separation of both spheres is more to our taste than the ancients. Yet it was the case that mythological texts became more common during the New Kingdom. The “edition” of the Destruction of Mankind indicates that a somewhat lengthy narrative presentation of a mythological theme had been developed just before or around the time of the Amarna Period. Therefore, the division into mythological and historical had already been partly erased by the time the Dedicatory Inscription was written. Perhaps Assmann’s ideas can be adapted to this context. A sharp separation between nominal versus verbal formations does not provide much help in organizing our viewpoints. The first speech of the courtiers is mainly non verbal in arrangement while the second is considerably more complex as it involves a temporal background signaled by means of verbal formations, among which the Stative as well as the use of Èr + Infinitive are common. These two fit within the modern Egyptological concept of ancient eulogies although, to be sure, the mental setting is not at all funerary. It is suggestive that in his early work on hymns Assmann stressed their verbal nature when the sun was invoked; this was the original form of those texts.146 To elucidate his points even more, Assmann turned to a typical hymn of the early XIXth Dynasty in which there were nominal verses set beside verbal ones.147 He showed that the latter approach indicated the mythological background whereas the former did not. More

important, however, was his explanation for this juxtaposition of two different styles of declaration. In their development over time a point had been reached when both were combined into one hymn; originally the two styles were separate. That is to say, they formed two different genres: eulogies (non verbal presentations) and others wherein a verbal enunciation was the rule. Neither of these hymnic performative texts were “prayers,” a vague modern term that is used for Egyptian dwîw or íîw, as in rdít íîw. (Yet one can find the key word, dwîw, outside of a funerary setting—e.g., with the sun hymns—whereas rdít íîw refers to an action of grace.) Assmann expanded his understanding of the ancient Egyptian eulogistic style in a lengthy study concerned with “presentation” and “transformation” hymns.148 From the outset he outlined the nominal style of the praise to a god, an eulogy. There, pw sentences were the rule.149 This specific means of linguistic presentation served the purpose of supporting the power and domination of a god. These two sides were the aspects of the communication, the goal. The form of nominal and participial formations overtly served the case of propaganda, and thus there is essentially no difference at this point—at least in the Middle Kingdom—between royal and divine hymns. What connects them further is the cultic aspect, one for the king and the other for a deity. Of great importance, nonetheless, is the clear-cut difference between nominal and verbal style. The first is regularly employed for hymns of presentation or declaration (“Verkünden”) where everything is atemporal. The king is “such-and-such,” and always has been, and always will be. The specifically historically conditioned deed that he may have been known for—for example, the building activities of Ramesses at Abydos—still belongs to this eternal and everlasting aspect.

145 In general, article “Hymnus,” in Lexikon der Ägyptologie III, 103-8; Liturgische Lieder, 1-13; and Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 10-16, 23-4 (nominal versus verbal style; being versus manifestation), and 56-69. 146 Liturgische Lieder, 4-5. 147 For his early observations, see ibid., 6-13 (general observations), 90-1 (litany style), 107 (participial apposition in eulogies), 190-2 (ritual style). The text is covered on pages 15ff. For a recent discussion of dwîw and íîw in connection with the lexicography of prayers and hymns, see Dimitri Meeks, “La prière en Égypte: entre textualité et oralité,” in Gilles Dorival and Didier Pralon, Prières méditerranéennes hier et aujourd’hui (ed. Gilles Dorival and Didier Pralon; Aix-en-

Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence, 2000), 9-23. 148 See Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 56-69. The later study is “Verkünden und Verklären. Grundformen hymnischer Rede im alten Ägypten,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, 313-34. 149 “Verkünden und Verklären,” 314, 321, 331; see as well his Liturgische Lieder, 105 with note 81. On page 353 in the second work Assmann emphasized the verbal nature (including Pseudo-Verbal Constructions) of these liturgies. The additional use of sdd provides yet another link to another compositional mode, the narrative: “Let me tell you what happened to me.”

chapter two

40

According to Assmann the use of a verbal style means a focus upon transformation hymns (“Verklären”) is necessary.150 Whether or not a strict division between “Being” and “Manifestation” can be applied to this dichotomy—the former in the nominal style and the latter represented by the verbal style—is somewhat unclear to me, if only because the concept of “manifestation” tends to indicate physical or mental revelation. Royal eulogies use both but tended to move towards a verbal presentation over time. At least by the Ramesside Period both forms of presentation in a royal monumental (hieroglyphic) inscription can occur.151 Interestingly, when one turns to the New Kingdom sun hymns the verbal quality of expression is the mainstay of the dramatic presentation.152 The transfiguration concept is clear, but there is also the characteristic of generalized expressions to take into account. The parallels to the eulogies in the Dedicatory Inscription are now self-evident. A useful sidelight on this matter can be indicated by the following three simple verbal patterns.153 (1) dî.k pt = “you cross over/sail over heaven,” a general expression and timeless; this is characteristic of the Transfigurations. (2) dî.k pt = “may you cross over/sail over heaven,” a wish. (3) *íw dî(.n).k pt = “You cross over/have crossed over heaven.”

It is easy to see how such a verbal style can be conjoined with a nominal one, and generally without many pw sentences. Of prime importance was the atemporal nature or repetitive pattern of the presentation; e.g., the sun rises every day, reaches its zenith, and then dies in the evening. Eulogistic addresses of praise in Dynasty XIX could include hymns at the accession of a Pharaoh—many still remain embedded in war inscriptions, a fact that Assmann did not overlook—and likewise in “royal novels,” such as the Dedicatory Inscription. Whether or not there was an “explosion” of these encomia during the Ramesside Period is unclear. The so-called Late Egyptian Miscellanies, most of which have come down to us on papyri, provide one major source. Furthermore, because the massive building activity of the New Kingdom Pharaohs continued apace, there are a fair number 150 151 152

Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 17-30. Ibid., 23. Ibid., 24-5.

of royal hymns of praise carved on temple walls. Then too, many eulogistic free-standing stelae dating to this period also remain. Assmann presented an overview of the actual style of these eulogies by noting the consistent use of “virtual relative clauses,” following Gardiner’s terminology, and further drew up certain basic or characteristic attributes.154 This outline can be examined carefully in light of the structure of the Dedicatory Inscription. (1) Titulary; full name of king. (2) In apposition and following: nominal syntagms referring to the king predominate. (3) The characteristic of the activity comes through the composition. The specific conditions, activities, and events associated with the king present the specific purport of the hymn. (4) Within these passages often “virtual relative clauses” are employed. (5) To move to a historical report the particle íst is used. (6) The nominal style in speeches will occur with two forms: a. “explicit” predication via pronouns (ínk X; ntk X; X pw) b. “implicit” predication (mk sw m X and the like).

I am not convinced that the fifth characteristic is quite accurate if only as it needs amplification. The interruption of a historical section, one separate from the hymn that preceded, can employ íst. The Poem of the Battle of Kadesh, for example, presents an introductory eulogy to Pharaoh Ramesses. It neatly and nicely concludes with the prenomen and nomen of the Pharaoh in P 24. Then the historical setting commences with íst in P 25. There, however, the focus of attention is specific. Verbal forms now rise to the fore and the background of Ramesses in Syria is described. This subsection ends with P 33 and then comes the transition literary Ér ír m-Ét of P 34, itself followed by a second íst to announce the actual historical account in which there are narrative literary verbal formations; e.g. #È#.n-. In the Dedicatory Inscription such clear-cut divisions are evident even if the organization is not as straightforward as the Kadesh Poem. The opening of the former eschews an eulogistic

153

Ibid., 23-4 note 20. In general, see his “Eulogie, Königs-,” in Lexikon der Ägyptologie II, 41-2. 154

the text: translation and detailed analysis presentation. Then comes the transition hallmarked by the literary phrase or denominator “one of these days …..” (column 30). A historical presentation takes over and the useful íst marker occurs soon thereafter in column 36. The presence of the king at Abydos is hallmarked by the use of íst wí (column 54) with Ramesses located in front of his officials and speaking to them about his past; no hymnic presentation is given. Later on, in his speech to Seti, the style is transformed into a lengthy series of coordinated sdm.f ’s and a few sdm.n.f ’s. For the moment, it is sufficient to observe the conglomerate nature of the whole composition and its avoidance of one specific style. The speeches in the Dedicatory Inscription are radically different from the “transfiguration hymns.” The latter have to be viewed from a vantage point that is removed from a historically determined or narratively presented point in time. Such is not the case here. It is true that there arose an “intrusion,” so to speak, of pure historically conditioned verbal elements within such “transfigurations.” For example, Assmann cites the Osiris hymns with their narrative account of the condition of Egypt.155 He further expanded upon the idea of royal hymns to include those directed to various deities. The question thus arises whether such divine hymns also belonged to the literary communication of propaganda.156 Notwithstanding his interest in the historical setting of these texts, Assmann wisely stressed the difference between royal hymns and hymns to gods. It is the former with which we are presently concerned. Indeed, it was not composed by a high official of the land and placed within his tomb. Useful parallels to our text dating from the Middle Kingdom can be cited. The Berlin Leather Roll and the Semneh Inscription of Sesostris III come immediately to mind. By and large, such compositions are not located within the setting of a private tomb unlike, for example, divine hymns. To quote Assmann: “The royal hymn essentially belongs to literature,

155

Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 52-6. Ibid., 54-5: “Wenn die Hymnen Osiris den ‘Herrscher der Lebenden’ nennen, ist das Wort ‘Lebende’ kein Euphemismus für die Toten, sodern bezieht sich auf die Macht, die dem Totenherrscher über die Lebenden gegeben ist, die allesamt einmal zu ihm gelangen müssen.” This sentence reflects the great significance that Osiris had during the Ramesside Period and how different it was from earlier times. 156

41

and naturally also to the cultic sphere, but only very rarely in the private tombs.”157 The structure of these royal hymns allows us to examine more deeply Assmann’s three level concept of Type-Form-Text.158 This analysis can provide a useful backdrop to the internal structure of the Dedicatory Inscription and its conglomerate nature. Text, the “lowest” level, so to speak, comprises a syntactic aspect in which the basic organizational structure is found. His example of Morning-Midday-Evening suits those religious hymns and prayers which he discussed to an exemplary degree. Form, the second level, and semantic in outlook, is posited to involve the complex of the internal characteristics to be enunciated. For example, see the concept of the sun god as creator, the guarantor of life, and its daily experience. The uppermost level of Type involves the complete hymn to the whole day’s activities. With regard to Ramesses’ Dedicatory Inscription there can be little doubt that its innermost core deals with one or many aspects connected to Abydos. The first hymn of homage (not worship) of the courtiers concerns the interrelationship of Ramesses, as the son of Seti, with Horus, the pious son of Osiris of Abydos. How this is worked out is another question. The “Form,” to follow Assmann, must be reflected in the specific characteristics of this king: what he will do or what he had done. Finally, the Type of praise relates explicitly to the setting, historically in this case. If the first eulogistic paean of praise to Ramesses does not follow any of these premises the second, in contrast, does. Owing to this it is probable that the first address of the king’s courtiers was not expressly drawn up for the actual historical Sitz im Leben at Abydos. It was, as I shall emphasize subsequently, merely part of the stock literary “common property” that various authors could use when preparing a royal encomium. This portion of the composition works solely to provide an introductory rhetorical section. Specific temporal or personal aspects of the Pharaoh are expressly shunned. This is not done in the second hymn of

As I do not intend to write a study of the Ramessides and Abydos from a theological-historical vantage point, this question will be left aside. Nevertheless, the study of the Dedicatory Inscription forms but one part of such an undertaking. 157 “Verkünden und Verklären,” 320. 158 Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 56-60.

42

chapter two

praise to Ramesses. The first speech of the king’s officials, poetical or hymnic though it may be, performs the same role as do a series of metaphors and similes. Further remarks concerning this situation will be addressed below in this section. Furthermore, one can ask whether this eloquent and high-sounding verbiage, placed immediately after the regnal year date of the king plus his names, belongs to a subgenre of “praises to the king.” That is to say, do they fit better into the genre of the well-known swîà rather than the sdd bîw?159 It also could have been the case that the authors of this composition and other New Kingdom royal inscriptions had at their fingertips net collections of set patterns of speech available for immediate use, and that these passages derived from regular or standard hymns of homage to the Pharaoh. The latter supposition would at least allow us to concur with Assmann concerning the difficulty in naming various subgenres of ancient Egyptian hymnic literature. I am referring to his statement that distinctions among such hymns and prayers according to their actual use—for example, sun hymns, Osiris hymns, or funerary hymns—indicate specific situations, narrowly speaking, and nothing more. According to his analysis we are able to encounter the reality of subcategories, or subgenres, even if the public nature of the encomia connect with the idea of a sdd denoting an official announcement; i.e., the actual event is taking place in the here and now.160 Thus in the Dedicatory Inscription the encomia were offered to the king upon his arrival at Abydos.

Because Assmann followed a “pure pragmatic genre definition” in his research, it is easy to avoid the often intractable difficulties concerned with the mixing of forms, contamination, reinterpretation, and wholesale alteration. What is important is the use of these hymns. It is interesting that in these opening sections of historical monumental texts stock phrases can be added, subtracted, or totally replaced by others. On another occasion I referred to Liverani’s concept of “free variants” when referring to various doublets present in the Bulletin of the Battle of Kadesh.161 Should we consider such simple cases to have been conditioned by the sculptor right at the wall face or at the front of the stela? Were the differences part and parcel of the original (hieratic) texts themselves? Or did the earlier (hieratic) preliminary copies already reflect these divergences? Granted that an alteration of Seth for Ba’al or m ît.f for m wnwt.f is not important, I still can point out in the Kadesh Poem the alteration of n#t and wdî, a situation that is not so simple. In some cases a linguistic updating can be observed; in others the reverse—the preference for an older more Classical form for a younger. For example, tnw hrw is in variance with m mnt in the Kadesh Poem. But even if these examples are of minor significance, they nevertheless reflect the nature of the eulogistic or rhetorical passages in which they are located. The patterning is mainly bimembral (A-B) and non-verbal. Thus they can be fitted into the style of eulogistic hymns covered by Assmann.162 They are also periodic. By this I mean that there are heavy pauses after certain

159 The following discussion is based on two of my studies: “New Kingdom Eulogies of Power: A Preliminary Analysis” and “Encomia and Papyrus Anastasi II,” with both cited in Chapter I notes 37 and 44. For the sdd bîw see in particular Assmann, article “Aretalogien,” 425-6 with note 5, and “Die ‘Loyalistiche Lehre’ Echnatons,” 6-7; with Andrea M. Gnirs, “Die ägyptische Autobiographie,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, 217, 235-6. Eyre, “Is Egyptian historical literature ‘historical’ or ‘literary’?,” ibid., 425 briefly covers the swîà. His study is useful in the context of the Dedicatory Inscription. The study of Collombert and Coulon, “Les dieux contre la mer. Le début du ‘papyrus d’Astarté’ (pBN 202),” is extremely important as the two authors have been able to reconstruct a papyrus of the mid to late XVIIIth Dynasty, which, however, goes back to the reign of Amunhotep II. The opening lines present an encomium to the king who is described as a child, a àrí. They also recognize a direct a personal relationship between the interlocutor and a god, noting the importance of the sdd bîw in texts of personal piety. They also point to the ostraca of personal piety that are linked to these recitations of bîw; see Posener, “La piété

personnelle avant l’âge amarnien,” RdE 27 (1975): 195-210. I do not, however, concur with their statement that the sdd bîw and the sdd nÉtw are “largement interchangeables” (page 225 note 180). The sdd bîw are associated with gods and dead kings; the sdd nÉtw are associated with living kings. See notes 167 and 196 below for the important studies of Borghouts; and Chapter III note 205 for the phrase sdd pÈty. Redford’s comments in Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals, and Day Books, 257 note 1 can be expanded. Sdd refers to a performance that was oral, but could quite possibly include gestures and other movements. The words, nonetheless, had to be memorized or read from a papyrus. 160 Assmann, “Die ‘Loyalistiche Lehre’ Echnatons,” 1-32; pages 4-9 in particular. 161 Spalinger, in “Remarks on the Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II: The ‘Bulletin’,” in Perspectives on the Battle of Kadesh (ed. Hans Goedicke; Baltimore: Halgo, 1985), Chapter II. 162 In addition to his summaries for the Lexikon der Ägyptologie cited in Chapter I note 35, see the various comments in his Liturgische Lieder, passim, especially page 91 where he covers the litanies and their specific linguistic arrangement. He also discusses the litany as a form and compares (not

the text: translation and detailed analysis groupings. If we follow Fecht’s “kola” system or organization, a regularized arrangement plays a great and extraordinary role in working out the eulogistic patterning. Rather than grammatically complex, presenting paratactically composed lengthy sentences (or verses), these kolas are short and clipped. If one could speak them out loud, it appears that they should be slowly enunciated. Column 40 is an excellent case in point:

43

The passage is commented upon below.163 Here, I wish to concentrate only upon the pauses. If spoken quickly they lose their impact. After all, the words are fulsome with praise for Ramesses. They are directed to him. Standard though they may be, I still do not believe that they are colorless. Rather, they advance step by step in a slow yet not leisurely manner.164 Many years ago Grapow was able to use circumscribed passages similar to the above in his groundbreaking work on ancient Egyptian metaphors.165 One reason why such portions of royal inscriptions of the Ramesside era formed a useful source for his work was that these passages had been greatly employed at the beginning of the then contemporary royal monumental texts. For example, the Poem of the Battle of Kadesh runs from section 7 (Kuentz’s designation) to 23 before the

historical narrative actually begins. (In this case section 24 is the “name divider”). The vocabulary employed within this portion of seventeen sections ably expresses the outlook of the entire composition. Here is denoted the virility of Ramesses, his militaristic nature, and the power associated with the Pharaoh. All of these concepts fit in perfectly with the oncoming narration of the conflict. But it can be asked whether this encomium was created expressly for the written composition, the Poem, or whether it was taken from a previously compiled collection of royal eulogies. True, the tenor of the vocabulary and the virility of the metaphors fit perfectly with the text, but these lines are very standard and unoriginal. In essence, they reveal no brilliant poetical ability, and it is for that reason why I believe the subsection to be derived from a manual of encomia. The Marriage Stela of Ramesses, which I have briefly touched upon earlier, is different. The names of Ramesses, to take a case in point, are used over and over again to separate sections (stanzas or perhaps groups of verses).166 There are many of these and the metonyms are also quite expressive; indeed, Grapow used this text more than once in his study. The “title” to the work actually appears close to, but not at the beginning, of the text: “Beginning of this excellent monument of exalting the might of the possessor of power, magnifying the valor, and boasting of the strength

contrasts) it with the nominal–oriented eulogy. As the ancient Egyptian liturgies utilized a series of evoking (“naming”) predicates concerned with the Being (“Wesen”) of a god, so too can we find such attributes in these eulogistic sections of the Dedicatory Inscription. The reader will find Assmann’s detailed perspective on hymns, prayers, liturgies, and eulogies ably summarized and presented in the lengthy introduction to his Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.). Pages 56-60 contain the core of his theoretical analysis. “Egyptian Mortuary Liturgies,” in Studies in Egyptology: Presented to Miriam Lichtheim I (ed. Sarah Israelit-Groll; Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1990), 1-45. The last major study of his on this subject is the detailed work of Assmann and Bommas, Altägyptische Totenliturgien. 163 Günter Burkard presents a conservative treatment of Egyptian metrics in “Metrik, Prosodie und formaler Aufbau ägyptischer literarischer Texte,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, 447-63. His documentation is useful, but the attempt at a synthesis is impossible owing to the divergence of theoretical bases offered. Kitchen, in contrast, has presented a useful structural analysis of poetical expression in his Poetry of Ancient Egypt (Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag, 1999), xiii-xx. The concept of a tricolon is extremely important as it has been all too frequent the case that Egyptologists adhere to a system of a two-line unit. 164 This aspect of the eulogies must be considered before any analysis of the material can be written. Assmann consid-

ers the earliest New Kingdom example (Urk. IV 14.1-24.6; Ahmose at Karnak) to be so detailed and full of literary expressions that one must see a lengthy tradition at work. Unfortunately, we are ignorant of this historical situation. See his entry “Eulogie, Königs-,” in Lexikon der Ägyptologie II 41 with note 18; add Peter Beylage, Aufbau der königlichen Stelentexte vom Beginn der 18. Dynastie bis zur Amarnazeit II (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002), Chapter 4. These monumental eulogies record the praises (encomia) on the part of the king’s officials, high men, etc., or from the Pharaoh himself. They were presented in an official and formal setting, and the occasion was a serious one. Hence, the entire presentation reflects the solemnity of the event reflected through these non-verbal phrases. Surely it was slowly and accurately spoken. 165 Hermann Grapow, Die bildlichen Ausdrücke des Aegyptischen: Vom Denken und Dichten einer altorientalischen Sprache (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1924). One weakness of the presentation was his inability to perceive what a metaphor “really” is, a point stressed by Gardiner in “The Eloquent Peasant,” JEA 9 (1923): 10 note 3 (the example was from the Dedicatory Inscription: sîw n tî). 166 Earlier, I had considered such texts to be rhetorical poems in “Two Ramesside Rhetorical Poems,” in Egyptological Studies in Honor of Richard A. Parker (ed. Leonard H. Lesko, Hanover and London: Brown University by University Press of New England 1986), 136-64. The work of Grapow referred to in the following sentence is his Die bildlichen Ausdrücke.

nb pt | nb tî || R # #nÉ n tî mí-qd.f nb #È#w | rwd phryt || Tm n Ènmmt

44

chapter two

of the great and secret marvels which occurred to the Lord of the Two Lands.”167 But then a hymn of praise follows that runs for almost sixteen more lines. As a result, the historical account is deferred for a long time. (These introductions, such as the one contained in the Blessing of Ptah, served a very important function even if the opening sections may be felt by us to be window dressing.)168 Usually they reflect the historical circumstances of the action to come, perhaps in a very indirect if not muted fashion but nonetheless one directed to the eventual actions of the king. In the Dedicatory Inscription, on the other hand, the opening ( first) speech of the courtiers replaces these expected eulogistic beginnings. In this context let us return to the location where this text was carved. At the time of carving the exterior southern front portion of the Seti I building area was not part of an outer court, and the eventual wall at the portico would only somewhat later be part and parcel of the new court. Can we conclude that there was an official ceremony close to this area, one in which the courtiers and king were involved and which took place right in front of the unfinished building? The accompanying scene on the right depicts Ramesses before Osiris, Isis, and his father Seti; the king offers the standard Maat to the three. As we have seen, further to the right and across the entrance the north wall is decorated with the scene of the Ished tree; Seti, in front of and Horus, is present. In addition, Ptah and Thoth (chief of the pr mdît and of course the scribe and divine intermediary) occur together, with the latter writing the new king’s name (Ramesses). In addition, the king receives the kingship from the creator god Re-Harachty; Ramesses is followed by Osiris.

Two other scenes occur, yet the focus upon the newly crowned Ramesses and his connections to Abydos, Seti, and the old ritual of coronation/ accession are what matters. Redford has also considered a Middle Kingdom case (temp. Sesostris I) wherein the writing of a king’s name on the Ished tree occurs. In his discussion he paid attention to the newly crowned ruler as the kernel of the performance; additional commentary by Darnell can also be taken into consideration.169 All in all, their remarks serve to buttress the importance of Ramesses’ account of his Abydos visit in his selfconception of kingship. Helck, who was the first to cover the Ished ritual in detail, pointed out that even though an original northern geographic ceremony should be recognized, the presence of the god Ptah of Memphis was a later intrusion.170 He further maintained that there was no specific ritual activity connected with these scenes. Rather, the pictures —the accompanying inscriptions are extremely laconic—have to be placed in the realm of the other- or afterworld. They remain “in der Sphäre der Götter.”171 The event might even be considered to be mythological insofar as a specific event is temporally fixed (king’s accession) and physically located (tree; deities). But Helck also affirmed the presence of Thoth whose association with the “rite” ought to predicate an event set on a specific day. Difficulties in determining the exact time in which such a ceremony should have taken place still remain. Helck opted for an interval between accession and a recorded event seven months later but this, as he knew, was dependent upon one account, that of Ramesses III’s. The evidence is at best pictorial, albeit formulaic, and the written data provide little grist

167 KRI II 235.13/14; there is a useful commentary in Borghouts, “The First Hittite Marriage Record: Seth and the Climate,” in Demareé and Jac. J. Janssen, Mélanges Adolphe Gutbub (Montpellier: Institut d’Égyptologie, Université Paul Valéry, 1984), 13-16; and for the word bîw in the composition, see his contribution “Divine Intervention in Ancient Egypt and its Manifestation (bîw),” in Gleanings from Deir el-Medîna, 1-70. 168 KRI II 258.1-81.15; with William F. Edgerton and John A. Wilson, Historical Records of Ramses III (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936), 119-36. Cf. Kitchen’s recent comments in Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 159-63 (Blessing of Ptah) and 163-5 (Second Hittite Marriage). On page 160 he points out that “this text always appears paired-off with the main account of the First Hittite Marriage.” Additional and very useful historical and poetical remarks will be found in this commentary. An additional exemplar has been published by Sergio Donadoni, “Un frammento di stelle ramesside dai Kiman

Fares” in… ir a buscar leña: Estudios dedicados al prof. Jesús López (ed. Joseph Cervelló Autuori and Alberto J. Quevedo Álvarez; Barcelona: Aula Ãegyptiaca, 2001), 99-102. 169 Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books, 82 note 37; see page 91 as well. The study of John Coleman Darnell is The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity: Cryptographic Compositions in the Tombs of Tutankhamun, Ramesses VI and Ramesses IX, 358-9. The presence of Ptah may indicate the cult image of the sun god because we are concerned with the connection—if not the mingling— of Re with Osiris. Darnell emphasizes the offering of Maat to Ptah. Note Darnell’s reference on page 355 to a portion of Ramesses II’s bandeau texts at Abydos (KRI II 532.7-8). In this case the king “becomes part of the eternal Re-Osiris cycle.” 170 “Ramessidische Inschriften aus Karnak.” 171 Ibid., 140.

the text: translation and detailed analysis for the mill. Crucial, however, remains the connected nature of this event and the king’s accession as Pharaoh. The public nature of this location where the Dedicatory Inscription stands cannot be underestimated. This court at Seti’s temple (the eventual Second) remained open, thereby indicating the more accessible nature of the area that was not associated with the innermost mysteries and religious celebrations. Later in time Ramesses would “usurp” most of the Outer Hypostyle Court from his father Seti, but at the time of his accession as sole Pharaoh this had not yet occurred. That other inner portion of the temple, mainly completed under the reign of Seti, was in place when Ramesses returned to Abydos after his coronation at Thebes. Given that the outer area of the temple of Seti remained more open to the “public,” the location of the Dedicatory Inscription makes sense. In addition, the official ceremony, mainly directed to finishing Seti’s building work, could very well have occurred here. But whether the first speech of the courtiers, even if it follows standard literary practice of the Ramesside Period, faithfully reproduces what was then spoken must remain dubious.172 Within lengthy royal accounts the so-called “historical” portions appear to have been woven into the whole composition irregularly. One has the feeling that the presumed “retrospectives,” to employ Redford’s term, were not necessarily an automatic part of the entire account. 173 This is easier to see in the Königsnovelle inscriptions than in the military accounts of kings, and the Dedicatory Inscription reveals that situation in a precise manner. A second example can be highlighted. The extremely long version of the Libyan war of Merenptah is not at all well organized.174 Various approaches were taken by the composer in order to present his narrative. One

172

In other words, the eulogy of the officials can be argued to be a “real” account of what they spoke. 173 Cf. Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books, 259-75. 174 KRI IV 2.8-12.6; see my comments in Aspects of the Military Documents, 211-13. See now Colleen Manassa, The Great Karnak Inscription of Merneptah: Grand Strategy in the 13th Century BC (New Haven and Oxford: Yale Egyptological Seminar and Oxbow, 2003). 175 This information derives from personal communications. For the Osiris cult in the New Kingdom and the key eulogies, see the overview of Assmann, Ägyptische Hymnen Gebete (2d ed.), 52-6. He divides the Osiris hymns into two groups—those connected to the cult and the mortuary ones. The first involves the priest taking upon himself the role of

45

faces a relatively sober narrative presentation, but this is placed side-by-side with other orientations. The booty list, for example, interrupts the narrative account even though it is not difficult to separate these varying sections from each other. In contrast, the three main dated accounts of the wars of Ramesses III are written better. I do not wish to discuss their “veracity” or their carefully presented “indirect” approach of narration. Nonetheless, encountering these inscriptions we meet well-developed and integrated presentations that are systematically organized, ones that can be read with great profit in contrast to Merenptah’s Karnak war record. The historical setting, the so-called “retrospective,” might have been a major hallmark of Egyptian historical writing. On the other hand, following some remarks of Kitchen, I view the setup of these “historical inscriptions” compositions in a less rigorous manner.175 They may be likened to the detailed reliefs of the king in battle insofar as portions or subsections could be included or not. It was not required that all aspects of a king be depicted and certain scenes could be omitted. Undoubtedly, constrictions of space played a great role in selection, but was that the only reason? Choice, as well, came into play. It was not necessary that all of the following pictorial narrative aspects be included: king preparing to war, the march out, king in battle (with chariot, horses, etc), counting the booty and the dead, the return home, and the final presentation to Amun or the Theban triad.176 Some could be eliminated for whatever reasons that may be posited. Available space, a key determinant, always played a major role in the physical arrangement of wall depictions. In the same way a written historical compositions could be short or long, well arranged and very sharply circumscribed. The two major texts

Osiris. This is not the case here. The second type involves an address (“Zuruf”) to the god in which the historical situation of Egypt (mythologically speaking) is narrated. These mortuary hymns center upon the Triumph of Horus and the resultant happy condition of Egypt. Naturally, the eulogies to the king contain ideas, but it is in the final section of the Dedicatory Inscription—the call of Ramesses to his father Seti and the latter’s response— that a situation similar (but by no means identical) to the mortuary hymns is encountered. The structure, however, is quite different. 176 See now now Suzanna Constanze Heinz, Die Feldzugsdarstellungen des Neuen Reiches: Eine Bildanalyse (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2001).

46

chapter two

of Amunhotep II (Karnak and Memphis Stelae) dealing with his year seven and nine campaigns can be examined from this vantage point. I think that there is more to say than what Helck claimed.177 Mistakes, to be sure, are a problem with the Karnak version, yet what do we do with the dream segment on the Memphis Stela and how does the developed ending of the latter fit into the historical account? In both of these cases it is better to view the arrangement of the text as follows: (1) Certain aspects of a war could be recounted, others not. This had nothing to do with a presumed official Vorlage which these two versions were derived. (2) The dream sequence is overtly literary, and hence was set apart from the standard narrative structure of the campaign. (3) The so-called “Freundschaftsangebote “ of the great powers, which is placed at the end of the Memphis version after the second war, may or may not actually belong to the historical development. I.e., it may have been a subsequent to the war but independent, and then added to the military record. A similar possibility might concern the brief passage concerning the king’s wife that is included at the end of the first campaign. (4) The troublesome record of captured foreigners, the number of which is astounding, must derive from a source separate from the military campaign.178

Also useful for this analysis are the records that the same king left standing at the Sphinx.179 Helck labeled these stelae with the terms “ great” and “small.”180 For our purposes it is sufficient to note the lack of any historical section in the latter. That exemplar contains a standard Dynasty XVIII eulogy to the king; its fourteen lines are merely a series of royal epithets in the A-B pattern whereas the larger moves to a historical narration introduced by íst in line eleven.181 From that point on to the end the account presents a common

177 Urk. IV 1299.14-1316.4; Helck, “Das Verfassen einer Königsinschrift,” in Assmann, Feucht, and Grieshammer, Fragen an die altägyptische Literatur, 241-56. Note now Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III, 242-53 (Memphis Stela) and 260-70 (Karnak Stela). 178 See my study “The Historical Implications of the Year 9 Campaign of Amenophis II,” JSSEA 13 (1983): 89-101. 179 Urk. IV 1276-86. 180 This is followed by Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III, 223-41.

narrative organization, and the virile deeds of the king, with separate historical backgrounding, present neither a conversation between king and officials nor any literary markers. Other mid Dynasty XVIII royal inscriptions could be brought forward to fortify this analysis of selection. Carefully if not cleverly the Gebal Barkal Stela of Thutmose III alters its approach from a lengthy series of rhetorical paeans of praise— akin to those of the later Ramesside epoch—to a historical narrative.182 In this case the core of the text follows a first person account of the Pharaoh, one that is, in fact, eventually succeeded by a speech of the king to his courtiers. Redford considered this later part of the text to be a copy of an official address of Thutmose III at Gebel Barkal in front of the elite of the land, or at least those who were present.183 I agree with him on this point, if only as the courtiers respond (lines 42ff.: smrw ípn; note the formal diction), the king answers back, and the “people” present chant a hymn to their monarch (line 48ff: sddt.n rmtt). The transition to the “present,” the “here and now,” is carefully written, and the text moves from the introductory praises (which are not placed under any rubric) to the first person account. I believe it is best to view such non-narrative portions from their potential aspect as possibilities that an author might choose to include in his final product. But I fail to see that they always had to be placed within a text, and that some type of historical core— whether it be called “retrospective” or not—need not have been an absolute requirement for “publication.” For example, the small alabaster stela of Ramesses II from the precinct of Mut presents an “abridged” version of the First Hittite marriage of that king.184 This is an excellent case for my analysis because it reveals a highly condensed format wherein the details of narrative were eschewed. Therefore, no hard and fast organization of material and presentation of facts were demanded for many Egyptian “historical” inscriptions,

181 Urk. IV 1279.8. Assmann notes these important hallmarks in his contribution “Eulogie, Königs-,” Lexikon der Ägyptologie II, 45. 182 Urk. IV 1227-1243.8; see Aspects of the Military Documents, 202-06. 183 Redford in Papyrus and Tablet, (ed. Donald B. Redford and A. Kirk Grayson; Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1973), 25-8. 184 KRI II 256.5-257.16.

the text: translation and detailed analysis including the Königsnovelle type. Kitchen’s astute realization that a historical backdrop need not be added to a historical text holds. To support his conclusions, one can now cite the very abbreviated Sethnakht Stela and its account of the “Interregnum” at the close of Dynasty XIX.185 We can further add the all-too-short historical presentation in the Great Papyrus Harris. That small backdrop to the accession of Ramesses IV is a literary-historical account comprising a short description of the interregnum at the end of Dynasty XIX, the rise to power of a new ruling house, and the wars of Ramesses III. It connects the donations of Ramesses III with the new ruler of Egypt who was not the originally designated heir.186 This portion, vague though it may be, does not belong to the structure of the papyrus. Its clear purport, neither economic nor religious, is presented by means of a common narrative set-up, and its arrangement, which is overtly literary, follows for the most part the style of Ramesses III in his major war records at Medinet Habu.187 Here then is a case in which a different type of composition, a literary one, was included within an incredibly long manuscript that was oriented to the economic outlook of Egypt under Ramesses III. Structurally separate from what precedes, the historical portion reveals the other side of the coin.188 This example highlights the inclusion of material, which need not have been incorporated into a text, whereas other examples show the exclusion of material. In sum, Ramesses IV’s author or authors utilized a historically based narrative to 185

KRI V 671.10-672; the latest discussion of the account will be found in in Stephan Johannes Seidlmeyer, “Epigraphische Bemerkungen zur Stele des Sethnachte aus Elephantine,” in Stationen. Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens, Rainer Stadelmann gewidmet (ed. Heike Guksch and Daniel Polz; Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1998), 363-86. 186 The old comments of Gardiner, “A Pharaonic Encomium (II),” 9 and note 3 are worthwhile to reread. 187 Edward Wente, “The Syntax of Verbs of Motion in Egyptian,” Chapter V. Eyre, “Is Egyptian historical literature ‘historical’ or ‘literary’?,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, 425 and note 66, quite rightly queries Grandet’s analysis in which the latter argued for a “giant public notice” for P. Harris: Le Papyrus Harris I, (BM 9999) I, 122-7. This portion of P. Harris was added on to the preceding lengthy economic-religious document. It was copied from a pre-existent encomium that included historical details. Hence, it is literature, and a type that we see throughout the Ramesside Period. The crucial issue, however, is that such portions are often embedded in various types of compositions. The Dedicatory Inscription is one such case. I agree that the original Sitz im Leben is very difficult to determine, but such an undertaking is necessary. As an example, let me mention P. Turin Cat. 1882 recto (KRI VI 70-76.9).

47

round out the presentation, one that could stand alone and thus be independent from the entire manuscript of P. Harris. With the above comment in mind it is necessary to return once more the focus of our topic, the Dedicatory Inscription. In order to achieve some deeper understanding of its Sitz im Leben in connection with the performative nature of the original event it might be useful to retrace Tiradritti’s analysis of the well-known Abydene stela of Ramesses IV.189 In a short study he turned his attention upon the “model reader” to whom the inscription is addressed. In his case the presence of the so-called “Declaration of Innocence” (Chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead) was the outstanding peculiarity of the whole composition. Tiradritti then discussed additional references from the Coffin Texts while noting that the Ramesses IV exemplar was not parallel to other royal stelae erected at Abydos before the XXth Dynasty. I follow him and reiterate one of his interesting conclusions; namely, that the royal administration sent “messages in a way that comes up to the reader’s expectations.”190 In this context the Dedicatory Inscription is easier to define owing to the dating (the two separate references to the king’s first year), the constant reiteration of the father-son constellation, the historical narrative core, and the series of addresses. Moreover, the location of the inscription was out in the public sphere and to a large degree still remains so. The position on the exterior south wall of the portico announces this aspect, one As Gardiner showed (“A Pharaonic Encomium [II]”), the setting is Karnak, an oracle took place, and some type of “coronation” is to be understood. Peden covers this important text in his The Reign of Ramesses IV (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1994), 53-4; a useful translation will be found on pages 104-9. 188 Grandet, Le Papyrus Harris I (BM 9999) I, 77-80, 101-07. Stephen Quirke points out to me that the Great Papyrus Harris with its vignettes “seems very close compositionally” to our text. The Kadesh account of Ramesses II may also provide another indication that the separation of the main block of writing (Poem) from the depictions is doing something on a new scale in Dynasty XIX. The Dedicatory Inscription has a major role to play in the typologizing of script-image relations. 189 Francesco Tiradritti, “‘I Have not Diverted my Inundation’. Legitimacy and the Book of the Dead in a Stela of Ramesses IV from Abydos,” in L’Impero Ramesside: Convegno Internazionale in Onore di Sergio Donadoni (Rome: Università degli studi di Roma “La Sapienza,” 1997) 193-203. He covers the previous analyses of A. J. Peden. A general analysis is also given by Lavier, Les Stèles abydéniennes relatives aux mystères d’Osiris, 137-44. 190 Ibid., 202.

48

chapter two

that is balanced by the Ished tree scene rite that also deals with a new reign. I suspect that the original presentation of the courtiers’ first address was not rapidly presented.191 This eulogistic welcome serves as a background to the ensuing royal declaration while at the same time it provides the first act in an official regal event. I doubt if any one of the courtiers’ words in the opening oral performance fits neatly in the concept of a “general thanksgiving” which we find typical of doxologies, or aretologies.192 But let us remind ourselves that there are two separate encomia. The first is a standard Königsnovelle response by the high officials (columns 40-44).193 Both, nonetheless, reveal different roles in the make-up of the composition although neither is oriented to “thanking” a god. The opening encomium lacks verbal structure and could have been offered to any Pharaoh whereas the second (columns 59-73) is closely associated with the present king, Ramesses. The latter possesses a historical Sitz im Leben relevant to the present ruler; the first could have been used in almost any Ramesside introduction to a lengthy text that was written on a formal monumental stela or wall inscription.194 This address resembles better praises that a swîà could offer to the king. Moreover, these words presented by the royal companions (smrw nswt) are considerably longer and more up-to-date.195 Yet, categorically speaking, neither of these two

speeches is a sdd bîw in which the manifestations of a god were “proclaimed.”196 In contrast, these two encomia belong to the New Kingdom sdd nÉtw, a specific subgenre that is labeled at the beginning of P. Anastasi II.197 Certainly, the opening sections of that text can be placed within the eulogistic compositions, as defined by Assmann, but they are also connected to the accounts of military nÉtw that we know were popular in the New Kingdom.198 (The military deeds of a Pharaoh were often labeled as nÉtw.) On the other hand, the Anastasi II papyrus indicates that we must extend the definition of the word nÉtw to include activities of a non-warlike nature. Caminos labeled the second section of this papyrus a “Praise of Ramesses II as a Warrior.”199 Yet the account is an encomium, a eulogy in honor of the might and power of the king. The time sphere is unbounded, eternal, and no battles are recounted. Moreover, additional praises in P. Anastasi II refer to the efficacy of the king over the universe. We also can read a standard introduction to a letter presenting the common theme of the adulation to the Pharaoh. All in all, it is reasonable to link many of the eulogies spoken to the Pharaoh as a sdd of his nÉtw and eliminate an automatic military or warlike setting. Ursula Verhoeven’s comments concerning the historical Sitz im Leben of the Horus and Seth Tale are useful to mention in this context because there

191 Columns 40 (beginning)-44 (beginning); KRI II 326.10-327.4. 192 Assmann, “Aretalogien,” 428-30. This situation is one among many reasons why the study of Manfred Görg, Gott-König-Reden in Israel und Ägypten (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1975) was not successful. His article “Die Gattung des sogenannten Tempelweihespruchs (1Kön 8,12f.),” UF 6 (1974): 55-63 may be consulted for some helpful parallel evidence. 193 The words, although standard, need careful analysis. 194 But it has a significant definition role, a factor that did not escape Assmann, “Das Bild des Vaters,” 36-8. 195 This will be discussed later. 196 Some recent observations of the literary use of sdd with bîw may be found in Borghouts, “Divine Intervention in Ancient Egypt,” 8 and 27; Assmann, Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 10 with note 3; and Richard B. Parkinson, “Types of literature in the Middle Kingdom,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, 303. But, as Assmann noted, sdd bîw is used explicitly with aretologies: “Aretalogien,” 430 note 5; Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 10 with note 3. See note 159 above for a bibliography on sdd bîw and sdd nÉtw. 197 Gardiner, Late Egyptian Miscellanies (Brussels: Édition de la Fondation égyptologique reine Élisabeth, 1937), 12

and Caminos, Late Egyptian Miscellanies (London: Oxford University Press (1954), 37-8; for the word nÉtw in this context, see my Aspects of the Military Documents, 224-36, (also with sdd). In P. Anastasi II is clear that the word nÉtw in this context does not merely signify military deeds but is rather more general. The new “villa,” a bÉn, is one of these deeds. Part II treats Ramesses as a warrior ( following Caminos’ title); III is a eulogy of Merenptah and the orientation is that of the victorious warrior-king; IV presents an identical theme; V refers to the “villa” Sese; and VI, which also might belong to the same topic, covers a “letter of adulation” to the Pharaoh which, not surprisingly, is eulogistic. Only with section VII and following do we encounter a different perspective: hymn to Amun-Re; superiority of the scribe; etc. I feel that the first five if not six subsections belong together as all of them cover the same broad concept of the king’s physical performances. Thus nÉtw is not merely a word employed for the Pharaoh’s military activities. On the other hand, I do not see any personal piety in these texts, and partly for that reason I do not equate the sdd bîw with the sdd nÉtw. 198 Spalinger, Aspects of the Military Documents, Chapter 7. 199 Late Egyptian Miscellanies, 40.

the text: translation and detailed analysis is a similarity to the accession or coronation of the new king in both that account and the Dedicatory Inscription.200 She concluded that this literary composition was written for the inthronization of king Ramesses V. According to Verhoeven, Text B formed part of the coronation ceremony of Ramesses.201 The structure is clearly eulogistic and poetically structured, but not prose oriented. The situation within and without Egypt is indicated. The theme is a common one—the successful and beneficent rule of the king, the connection of the god Thoth to kingship,202 the unification of Egypt, the powers of Min and Ba’al, and the figure of Ramesses as a divine child. (The key terms sfy and #dd are mentioned.) The mythic conceptions which are covered indicate the common motif of Horus as son of Osiris, Horus triumphant, and the role of Thoth with the All Lord. Thus, the orientation is one of legitimatization, an aspect that is also predominant in the Dedicatory Inscription. From its style, arrangement, and orientation, I feel that Text B represents a sdd nÉtw to the new king Ramesses V, this time at or around the event of his coronation. In similar fashion, the earlier encomium to Ramesses II nested in his Dedicatory Inscription belongs to the very common sdd nÉtw that were chanted to him, although in this case the plausibility of a coronation ceremony is historically excluded. The organization of the first encomium in this text—it best resembles a stately and majestic hymn—is easy to determine. The verses break neatly into separate portions, the first half of each tending to operate with a pair of two A-B’s. In verse eleven a common Dynasty XVIII theme is renewed, and the presence of the sdm.n.f Relative Forms—still living—should make us cautious when following Kruchten’s analysis to the letter.203 As a rule, we find these formations in the latter half of the presentation, seemingly provid200

Ursula Verhoeven, “Ein historischer ‘Sitz im Leben’ für die Erzählung von Horus und Seth des Papyrus Chester Beatty I,” in Wege öffnen: Festschrift für Rolf Gundlach (ed. Mechthild Schade-Busch; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996), 347-63. 201 See now KRI VI 227-29.2 202 We can remind ourselves that at Abydos the Ished scene on the right of the court complements the Dedicatory Inscription. Thoth, of course, is present in that depiction. But we should keep in mind that in the Solar-Osirian unity Thoth may be equivalent to the king: Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity, 362. See the discussion in Chapter III. 203 Kruchten, “From Middle Egyptian to Late Egyptian.”

49

ing more weight to the simple A-B system that preceded. I wonder if the intonation was that of light—light—heavy, and when the sequence was interrupted, the final was light. nb pt nb tî, R # #nÉ n tî mí-qd.f, nb #È# rwd phrt, Tm n Ènmmt. nb àîy sÉpr Rnnwt, Hnm204 ms rÉyt. dd tîw r fndw nbw, s#nÉ psdt tmm.tí,205 wÉî n pt sîy n tî, smíty s#qî ídbwy. nb kîw #àî wÈîyt, rnnwt m st tbty.f, ír wrw qd nmÈw, sÉpr.n mdwt.f df îw. nb àps rs tp, Èr nb nm#, nd.n pÈty.f Kmt, tnr Èr Éîswt, íí Èb.n.f, mky.n Épà.f Tî-mrí.206 mry Mî#t #nÉ.f ím.s, m (= ín) hpw.f Éw ídbwy, wsr rnpwt #î nÉtw, dr.n Èryt.f Éîswt. (Columns 40-3)

Then comes the common phatic feature “Our sovereign, our lord!”—which serves to announce the conclusion of one subsection— “Living Re, Atum by the means of the words from his mouth!” (R# #nÉ Tm Èr mdwt m rî.f ). The ending recapitulates the beginning where the same idea is expressed: “Lord of heaven, lord of earth; living Re of the entire land.” íty.n nb.n,207 R # #nÉ Tm Èr mdwt m rî.f. mk n #î m-bîÈ Èm.k, wd.k n.n #nÉ n dd.k. Pr-#î #nÉ wdî snb pî tîw n fnd.n, #nÉ Èr nb wbn.n.f n.sn. (Columns 43-4)

What needs to be highlighted are not the actual words but rather the literary arrangement. This address is commonplace and could have been composed earlier because the courtiers have presented a standard effusive greeting to Ramesses in a pattern that by early Dynasty XIX had become 204

The god’s name introduces a new portion of the eulogy. This is, however, a difficult passage to interpret. 205 I view this verse in combination with the preceding. Note the references to gods: Khnum and Renenutet. 206 KRI II 327.1. As we have seen, this is a common idiom: Aspects of the Military Documents, 98-100. This verse as well as the previous one end, at a caesura, with two separate names for “Egypt.” The structure is a simple A-BC-A format. 207 These two attributes of the Pharaoh are reemphasized later. I believe that both were recited in solemn high voice.

50

chapter two

age-old. The Classical style of such paeans of praise has been well recognized in the scholarly literature.208 In addition, there is no indication that these statements are specifically related to their king’s commandments at Abydos and it appears that no expectation of a new royal policy is advanced. On the contrary, we meet with a non-historical presentation. The lack of any temporal, spatial, and any contingent fact within these words is sufficient to demonstrate the independence of this opening encomium. I feel that the first speech of the king’s courtiers was derived from a common literary source in which various passages (or verses) could be added, juxtaposed, sorted, and redrawn for any needed written account. It contains no historical setting unique to the event at Abydos. The second reply of these men to Ramesses is different even though it is follows the common eulogistic style as the earlier one.209 In contrast, however, the mere occurrence of a negative verbal construction (bw Épr Èqî mí-qd.k), situated right at the start, places this eulogistic speech of the Dedicatory Inscription on a plane different from the preceding.210 In comparison to the first it is more fluid, more colloquial, and above all more personal. The officials overtly refer to the fatherson relationship, to Osiris, and even to his mother Isis, as Ramesses is the living Horus.211 The poetical nature of the account does not predicate the absence of a historical setting.

Here is the setup that is introduced by a formal “Then the king’s companions spoke when they answered the good god.”212

208 Therefore, sdm.n.f patterns and sdm.n.f Relative Forms are expected. 209 Columns 59-68; KRI II 329.3-330.8 (the highly “poetical section”). I am following Kitchen’s understanding of this speech of the courtiers; see his translation on pages 169-70 of his Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II. Support for this interpretation will be presented below. 210 Kruchten, “From Middle Egyptian to Late Egyptian,” has also covered the problems of the negative formations n sdm.n.f, bw sdm.n.f, bw sdm.f, and the like. 211 Assmann, “Das Bild des Vaters,” 36-8. The entire study is important for the author’s concept of the “fatherson constellation.” 212 KRI II 329.3-11. 213 The bipartite nature is obvious here. The concepts run through Re, the king as son of Osiris, mother Isis, the king first as Isis’ son and then as Osiris’s, and subsequently Horus. It may be that Ramesses is only explicitly referred to, as Horus ends the train of thought. See KRI II 329 note 5a for the possible reading “son.” 214 With Assmann, I do not see that it is necessary to understand the clause as circumstantial. The translation is simple: “The law of the land comes to his position” and the “his” refers to Ramesses. The concept is that of a timeless law. In Wente’s term it is a “gnomic narrative” (“The Syntax of Verbs of Motion in Egyptian,” 74). One

receives “a nuance of permanence suitable for the expression of universal truths.” For the use of the Stative in hymns, see Assmann, Liturgische Lieder, 353-59. I consider this verse to be separate from the preceding and I also interpret the following words as a heading to a new concept. At this point we move to the concept of the “son” and the vocabulary therefore becomes more oriented to the role of Horus. 215 Here, I understand the suffix .s as referring to a previous (lost) feminine noun. 216 I consider all of the words of the courtiers to be in the eulogistic style. The presence of the sdm.n.f formations is not a counterargument. 217 I argue for a triplet at this point. 218 The ít must begin a new verse. 219 I emphasize the “you” owing to the move to the second person. Here, there are two such sdm.n.f ’s. 220 The thorny term “god’s father” refers to Seti. Hence, it need not always designate the father-in-law, a situation well known from Egyptological scholarship. A new summary of the material on the “god’s father” will be found in Gnirs, Militär und Gesellschaft: Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte des Neuen Reiches, 95. 221 See note 214 above.

ntk R # dt.k dt.f, bw Épr Èqî mí-qd.k, ntk w# mí sî Wsír, ír.n.k twt n sÉrw.f.213 [ nn Énms mwt (?)] îst nswt dr R #, wpíw-Èr.k Èn# [ sî. ?]s, wr ír.n.k r írt.n.f, dr Èqî.f m-sî Wsír. hpw n tî íw r #È#w.f,214 sî Èr n#t n ír sw. mw ntry … … qmî sw, … phr.s n mn#t.s.215 bw ír w# írrwt \r n ít.f r-mn hrw pn,216

wpíw-Èr Èm.k mry [mî#t], rdí.n.k Èîw Èr írywt.217 ít sp n îÉt …,218 sàm.n sw r dd.f r m-bîÈ. ín-m íw sÉî.f, sàm.n.k rdí.n.k Ém r rwty.219 ….. [... Èîty.k ?] sfn íb.k ímî n ít.k Mn-Mî#t-R # ít ntr mry ntr [Sty-Mr]-n-PtÈ mî# Érw.220 (Columns 59-63) You are Re, your body is his body, A ruler like you did not occur. You are unique like the son of Osiris, And the equal of his plans you have performed. Mother (?) Isis did not nurse (?) a king since Re, Except for you and her son (?). What you have done is greater than what he did, Since he ( = Horus) ruled after Osiris. The law of the land comes to his position,221 A son who cares for the one who begot him.

the text: translation and detailed analysis The divine seed … the one who created him. … it strives after its nourisher. One did not do what Horus did for his father until today, Except for your majesty, Beloved of Truth, You have exceeded what was done. What deed of benefaction… ?, That we should lead him/it to say it in the Presence. Who is come that he will remember?,222 You have guided/led and you have rejected ignorance. ….. [your heart ?] is kindly, your heart is well disposed to your father, Menmaatre, god’s father, beloved of the god, Seti Merenptah justified.223

One notable aspect of this portion—which I shall label A—is the presence of a more developed verbal system than the previous speech.224 Both positive and negative constructions abound, and the use of interrogatives (see the Late Egyptian ít) as well as more lengthy “kolas” signal the different style. In many ways a more serious nature pervades, and the temporal aspect is likewise more predominant. Equally, the kolas are heavier and one might want to set up a system of equally weighted portions per line. Ignoring the standard metaphors, similes, and images, we nevertheless arrive once more at the purport of the inscription: Ramesses’ relation to Seti and his planned works. This eulogy forms a “correct” response (or acknowledgement) to the speech of Ramesses immediately preceding. The earlier address by the king’s courtiers lacked all historical details, and even eschewed any attempt to employ narrative verbal formations. Now that the Pharaoh has stated his intention to renew the building activity and has placed import upon his role as dutiful son, one who was given all the necessary experience by his father as a child, the courtiers are clearer and more “up to date” in their verbal reactions. This is most evident in the

222 I feel that the system is A-B-A: the two interrogatives circumscribe the middle verse. The literal translation of the final phrase is “you have placed ignorance outside.” It is possible that there are two couplets here possessing a structure of: A-B, A-C. 223 For the important words “god’s father, beloved of the god,” see Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1947), 50*; and Berlev, “The Eleventh Dynasty in the Dynastic History of Egypt,” in Studies Presented to Hans Jakob Polotsky (ed. Dwight W. Young; Beacon Hill: Pirtle & Polson, 1981), 367. 224 There is also a common use of compound prepositions commencing verses.

51

following passage, conveniently set apart from the last by the reference to Seti (end of column 62-beginning of column 63).

C. Movement to the King’s Deeds Kitchen commences his translation of this next section, which shall be called Part B, with a narrative aspect indicated.225 “Kolas” immediately follow, and refer back to the style that had been interrupted in order to place the king to the fore. The text literally reads: Since the time of the god, a king (having) appeared, another like you did not occur — without being seen on a face, or being heard in speech …..

The effectiveness of the translation is limited by the sharp and condensed nature of this transitional passage. Noteworthy is the monumental hieroglyphic reflex of bw pw.f sdm; the writing presents nn pw ky Épr mí-qd.k. Then follow two nn’s, the first with mîî and the second with sdm. tw; a passive meaning for both is in order. The ultimate purport of these brief sentences is that Ramesses acts just as Horus does (or did)—he is a dutiful son, one who truly loves his father. Since the time of the god a king (having) appeared, Another like you did not occur — Without being seen on a face, Without being heard in speech.226 [There was no other ?] son who renewed monuments for his father, There was no one who arose so that he might avenge his father. Every man acts (írr ?) for himself except you and this Horus, So you, so the son of Osiris.227

225 Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 169. The phrase is standard in orations (eulogies) as well as in narratives. The text is KRI II 329.11-12. 226 The writing of the negative is not unexpected. Earlier see nn pw for bw pw; cf. column 68, KRI II 330.7 227 The use of Éy ntk Éy sî Wsír hearkens back to the ending of columns 58-9. A definite pause is indicated. But in the previous the situation is different. Here, we have Ramesses juxtaposed to his equivalent, the son of Osiris. Earlier the son-father (“the one who bore him”) connection is presented. The short phrase “this Horus” definitely emphasizes Ramesses.

chapter two

52 dr rk ntr nswt Èr É#yt, nn pw ky Èr Épr mí-qd.k. nn mîî m Èr, nn sdm.tw m dd. [nn ky (?)] sî Èr wÈm mnw n ít.f, nn #È# w# nd.f Èr ít.f. ír(r ?) n.f s nb Èr rn.f, wpíw-Èr.k Èn \r pw. Éy ntk Éy sî Wsír.

As for one who does what the god has done, (ír írr írt.n ntr; I interpret the Participle as Imperfective) Lifetime will belong to him of what he has done. (wnn n.f #È#w írt.n.f )

It is possible to place this small portion of the speech into a narrative pattern, but one that must be organized eulogistically:

Re’s heart is [glad] in heaven and his Ennead is in joy, (R # m Èrt íb[.f îw ?] psdt.f m ràrà) The gods are pleased for Egypt since you appeared as king of the two lands.” (ntrw Ètp n Kmt dr É#y.k m nswt tîwy)

Since the time of the god, … There was no other son (?) who renewed monuments for his father, There was no one who arose so that he might avenge his father.

Verbal patterns and repetition of words permeate the account. See the use of the Stative, sometimes placed side-by-side with the Pseudo-Verbal (“durative” and “incomplete”) íw.f Èr sdm as well as the following two passages which commence with simple adjective verbs.231

Surely the parallelism is self-evident. Every man acts for himself, Except you and this Horus. So you; so the son of Osiris.

The kola system is strictly followed once more, albeit with narrative passages and more fluid formulations. But the theme is now more closely concentrated upon Ramesses, and the writer has marshaled various deities to indicate their approval of the king’s piety towards his father.228 Behold. You are the virtuous heir like him, (tw m íw# nfr mí-qd.f )229 And his kingship—you perform it likewise.230 (nswt.f írr.k st m-mítt)

228

KRI II 329.14-330.2. Assmann covers the use of mk + the m of predication in his “Eulogie, Königs-,” 42. According to him, the predication is one having a reference in time, a “Zustand.” It is not, however, an “implicit” predication. His ideas fit into the context of this example. 230 The anticipatory emphasis by fronting is resumed in the next verse by ír + noun. That is done in order to separate the two concepts/nouns from each other. The “he” and “his” refer to Seti. 231 KRI II 330.2-5. 232 The creator gods are pleased with what the king has done. The system moves from Re to Atum to Wenennefer and to gods of the afterworld (cf. the Lord of the Duat = Osiris). Previously we moved from Re to the Ennead and then to the gods of Egypt. Wenennefer is introduced as well as other afterworld deities, all of who reflect the Abydene situation. At the end of this subsection we return to Re, or rather to his sun disk to which the king is likened. The movement 229

Good is [your …..] (nfr ... … .k) Beneficial is your righteousness—it has reached heaven. (îÉ mîty.k pÈ.n.s Èrt) Your counsels are precise in the heart of Re, Atum is happy [with you].232 (sÉrw.k #qîw Èr íb n R # Tm Éntàw [ím.k ?]) Wenennefer is the lord of justification on account of what your majesty has done/does for his soul.233 (Wnn-nfr m nb mî# Érw Èr írrwt Èm.k n kî.f ) [He] says— ….., [I will give to you ?] the duration of his two heavens’. ([dí.í n.k] #È# n pty.fy) The gods of the Cemetery/Shetayet of the lord of the underworld234 say— (ntrw àtîyt n nb dwît Èr ) is thus ordered to the afterworld and then back again. 233 The .f in the following dd.f refers back to Wenennefer. 234 Osiris is the “lord of the underworld (àtîyt). There are useful comments on àtîyt by I. E. S. Edwards, “The Shetayet of Rosetau,” in Lesko, Egyptological Studies in Honor of Richard A. Parker, 26-36. The crucial point is that the “gods of the Cemetery of the lord of the underworld” are those at Abydos. These include the kings buried there. Edwards also points out that the shetayet of Sokar in Rosetau “had, in effect, become the counterpart in Lower Egypt of the Abydos tomb of Osiris.” More significant for our analysis, however, are his comments that follow: “we may suppose that the ceremonies conducted there before his [= Osiris’] triumphal progress to Memphis for his annual festival on the 26th day of 4th month of Akhet resembled those conducted at Abydos for Osiris at the same time of year.” Applied within an Abydene setting at this time, the shetayet must refer to the Cenotaph of Seti I, otherwise known as the Osireion.

the text: translation and detailed analysis You will be upon earth like the sun disk. (wnn.k tp tî mí ítn)

The gods who are at Abydos proclaim life here on earth, illuminated by the sun’s disk. Re has also the connection to the day’s sun and Atum as creator god likewise indicates life. But Wenennefer, in third place, signifies the afterworld (Osiris) and so do the gods of the cemetery. (Observe once more the order of the deities: first Re, then Atum, and finally in the afterworld Wenennefer.) From this point on an overt turn to the role of Abydos as a unit (not only Osiris alone) comes to the fore. True, Osiris and his “Verschmelzung” with Seti have appeared earlier. Yet the account now pivots around the distinctive Abydene role of the father as transferor of kingship and his rebirth through his son. The last must be considered to be extremely pertinent with respect to the ensuing royal declaration. Logically, the numerous predicates of kingship remain in this Abydene setting and not a Karnak (Amun-Re) one. At this point onwards the style should be examined once more. Narrative constructions are lacking. Instead, the gods, who have entered, deliver their addresses and hence another different manner of presentation reveals itself. Negative constructions have ceased but there is no return to the adulatory hymn at the beginning. Does this whole address section belong to the subgenre of a swîà?235 May the heart of Merenptah be happy, 236 his name having come into being, again alive.

A personal effect is brought through the mention of the Pharaoh’s name. Stylistically, see as well the inverse use of two adjective verbs. The first,

The timing of this lengthy religious event, days 18-30 of the fourth month, may play an important role in the later “dialogue” between Ramesses II and his father Seti I. See Chapter III. Note Gaballa-Kitchen, “The Festival of Sokar,” especially Appendix A, pages 74-6 concerning the emphasis on Abydos at Medinet Habu (temp. Ramesses III and II). 235 KRI II 330.5. Seti is rejuvenated. 236 These subsections are quite common in the later Ramesside war inscriptions; see Aspects of the Military Documents, 214-18, which is, however, an overview. Assmann discusses the combination ndm + íb in his Liturgische Lieder, 111 with note 101. All of his examples refer to the Triumph of Horus and therefore they do not have the same orientation as that presented here. See our comments in the following chapter. 237 KRI II 330.5-7. 238 KRI II 330.7-9. There is no overt grammatical marker to separate this subsection from the preceding. But the poetical nature of the first in combination with the nar-

53

ndm, is located at the front whereas the second intransitive verb, Épr, may be found as a Stative after the subject. Finally, the image of the “heart” is again invoked, but this time from the vantage point of the father.237 You have fashioned him in gold and in real precious stones ….. (msyw[!].k sw m nbw Èr #ît mî# …..) … his of electrum ….. (….f n d#m …..) You have created him anew in your name. (qd.k sw m mîw Èr rn.k)

See msí once more, although the context is that of fashioning a statue; the verb “to build,” qd, then follows after a break in the text: “You have created him anew in your name.” Two independent thoughts have unfortunately been lost at this point, but the orientation remains clear. The officials declare their joy over Ramesses’ devotion to Seti which is evidenced by the commissioning of his father’s statue. We are next thrown partly outside of the poetical aspect with no clear means of demarcation. This speech thus presents a parallel with Ramesses’ previous address. On the earlier occasion columns 47-52/3 covered the king’s life from his birth to youth so that his upbringing by Seti I could be reported. Now it is assumed that the king’s early building activities needed recording, and they reflect upon the pre-royal career of Ramesses. All is deliberately set in the past.238 (As for) any king who is in heaven, their chapels are (still) in a state of construction. And a son did not do239 what you have done (írt.n.k) since Re until [today].240

rative of the second make it clear that the speech to the king had a logical pause. I suspect that the intonation of voice as well as the rapidity of speech must have altered as well. It is noteworthy that Kitchen (Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 170) also moves into prose. He separates his translation by a new paragraph. 239 The nn pw = Late Egyptian bw pw as above in column 63, KRI II 329.11; see note 226. Once more a regular and internally consistent system for the expression of the negative verbal constructions – indeed, the writing of the negatives – cannot be argued. 240 The general survey of this phrase and related material will be found in Ulrich Luft, Beiträge zur Historisierung der Götterwelt und der Mythenschreibung, Budapest: Az Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem (1978), 155-66. Although the passage is a common topos, it still reveals the concept of the time dimension of myth; see most recently, Loprieno, “The ‘King’s Novel’,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, 290-4; and Hornung, Der ägyptische Mythos von der Himmelskuh, 88-95.

54

chapter two … your majesty [completed (?)] it. What he has done (read írt.n.f ) you have remembered (sÉî.n.k) when it was forgotten. You have renewed (wÈm.n.k) monuments in the Sacred Land. All situations/plans which were neglected— you have caused them to come into existence (sÉpr.n.k) superbly.241 …..

The repetition of vocabulary aids us in reconstructing the theme. The outlook refers to the cessation of past building activity and then introduces a new series of royal building works commissioned by Ramesses. The narrative constructions place us in a previous temporal setting: wÈm.n.k (probably non-predicative if we follow Kruchten); the two earlier predicative forms of msyw.k and qd.k; the writing nn pw sî ( for Late Egyptian bw pw sî; Middle Egyptian n pî sî); írt.n.f (Relative Form); írr.f (Relative Form; incorrectly written for írt.n.f and referring back to Seti); sÉî.n.k; sÉpr.n.k (possibly non predicative), and the converter wn (twice). Moreover, the concepts of “forgetfulness” and “neglect” effectively symbolize the present state of affairs. Breaks in the text prevent us from proceeding in a smooth and interrupted manner from this line. The following may be partly reorganized according to the various strophes. I concur with Kitchen in restoring the opening; note its literary flavor.242 [One generation ?] passes and another comes into being, but (íw) your majesty is king of Upper and of Lower Egypt.

It should be added that our text does not deal with mythology, per se, even in the later speeches of Ramesses and Seti. At the beginning is very strictly historical and at the end performative. 241 This is a phrase typical of Königsnovelle addresses: Aspects of the Military Documents, 118 note 76. 242 Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 170; KRI II 330.10-11. 243 This is a very important idea. A very similar concept is expressed in the great Abydos Stela of Ramesses IV: KRI VI 17-20.7 and the references cited above, note 189. The following remarks of the king are worth citing: “This is in writing and not (just) mouth to mouth (oral tradition)” (Peden, Egyptian Historical Inscriptions of the Twentieth Dynasty, 161). The king has consulted various books of religious lore at Abydos. Redford has also covered the theme of the “neglect of Osiris” in this text of Ramesses IV in his Pharaonic KingLists, Annals and Day Books, 270. I differ somewhat with his concept of “condemnation” of former kings. This is too strong an interpretation. The emphasis of the king (as also with Ramesses II) is on filial piety to Osiris, a siua-

This is now a fact. As it is you who does/did beneficial things, your heart being satisfied performing Truth.

A durative nature is expressed in these four lines by Èr + Infinitive and the Stative. The continuance of the king’s ritual activities is indicated in the following “retrospective.” The things which were done in the times of the gods, They were heard …..243 When (?) [the deeds ?] rise up [to] heaven, and your goodness reaches (s#r) the horizon,244 Eyes see your goodly deeds before gods and men.

In both cases the groupings of the lines come to four, but as I have suspected earlier, it may be best to read them as two narrative couplets containing verbal activities. It is you who will act; it is you who will repeat/renovate monument after monument for the gods according as you father Re has commanded (wdt.n ít.k R #).245

The stress on the sun god as creator and the day “father” is apparent. At this point there is no reference to the night, death, and Osiris. The opposite is implied. The following subsection refers explicitly to the political universe: Your name [will be uttered ?] in every land, beginning from the south, Khenet-hen-nefer,246

tion that the monarch indicates by pointing out the earlier “neglect.” Of course, the previous king (if not kings) had supported construction work. It was only that the projects were not completed. Ramesses II most certainly did not condemn himself. The idea expressed is that these events of the past are not located in any book of learned lore but rather conveyed by oral accounts; see Kitchen’s restoration in Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 170: “one (only) hears of them, [they are not seen?].” 244 Probably restore with Kitchen (ibid.): “[But whe] n [your deeds ?] …..” The second half of the sentence is circumstantial (nfrw.k #rw; Stative) but the first is m + Infiniitive (m ts). Note Kitchen’s question mark; the repetition of “deeds” seems improbable. 245 For this and the following passage: KRI II 330.13-331.2. 246 Goedicke, “The Location of ]nt-Èn-nfr,” Kush 13 (1965): 102-11. Its use as an elevated lexical item for the “southern limit,” especially within poetry, needs to be investigated. Cf. the scattered remarks of Claude Vandersleyen, Les guerres d’Amosis. Fondateur de la XVIIIe Dynastie (Brussels: Fondation

the text: translation and detailed analysis north from/at the shores of the sea,247 and up to the limit of the foreign lands of Retjenu, in the settlements and strongholds of the king,248 towns founded and supplied with people ….. … [in ?] every city. You are a god for all people who waken you249 to give you incense, through what your father Atum commanded (wdt.n ít.k), Who causes the Black Land and the Red Land to praise you.250

I feel that these following sentences still adhere to a formal address of a rhythmic and hymnic quality, but the arrangement may fit a verse sequence better than a narrative one. The ending relates the king to his people, the Pharaoh’s worship to the Egyptians. A further narrative switch then commences (ír m-Ét; note that the contemporary Ér ír m-Ét is avoided).251 And after [these] words which these courtiers [said] in the presence of their lord [had been heard], then his majesty (#È#.n wd.n Èm.f ) commanded the order to the supervisors of works.

The possible suggestions of Gauthier were referred to by Kitchen, and it is clear that something akin to the above is correct.252 Here for the first time the common Middle Egyptian #È#.n sdm.n.f égyptologique reine Élisabeth, 1971), passim, especially page 55 and note 3. The term is also in the Kubban Inscription (KRI II 354.10), a close contemporary document which thus provides a second parallel to the Dedicatory Inscription; see Chapter I notes 42 and 67. Hornung’s discussion of the territorial limits of Pharaohs as expressed in their inscriptions of Dynasty XVIII may be found in “Zur geschichtlichen Rolle des Königs in der 18. Dynastie,” MDAIK 15 (1957): 122-5. 247 See the word, pdswt and not spwt (“shores”). The former might be more poetical or recherché. Nonetheless, it refers to sand dunes at seashores or around swamps that one finds in the north of the Delta. The word needs further explanation, especially as the Wb. observes that it begins in Dynasty 18. 248 The area under consideration is Egyptian territory and thus under its control. This passage supplies a useful reference to Egyptian settlements in the north with the geographic direction running from south to north, as expected. The end point is in Asia (Palestine). The presence of wÈywt is intriguing insofar as the word is used in Egyptian texts with specific meaning. A detailed analysis of this term is in preparation. For the moment, however, the juxtaposition of wÈywt and nÉtw indicates a division between foreign semi-urban sites in very small settlements and the military camps/fortifications that the Egyptian state set up. Moreover, the inscription indicates that these two small centers of population were supplied with people by the Egyptian state. I interpret the word dmí that follows as constituting the previous wÈywt and nÉtw. Kitchen realized that dmí in this context did not indicate

55

formation is employed.253 The specific orders then follow, and we can presume that the arrangements for the new building activities were laid out in front of the highest men of the land at Abydos. The text thus moves into a simple narrative description. This, by the way, is a part of the building aspect of the composition that is never remotely approached in Sesostris I’s account of his Heliopolis undertaking as recounted on the Berlin Leather Roll. The sequence operates as follows: íwd.n.f 254….. r Éws Ém ít.f r s#È# wîs m Tî Dsr …..

A complete list of builders is presented. Ramesses separated out the “army” (which would be in charge of the labor),255 workmen,256 engravers with a chisel (i.e., sculptors), workmen with the qdwt (?; outline draftsmen), and all others. They were instructed to build his father’s shrine (Ém) as well as to finish the work (specifically, to “erect”) that which was not completed, and Seti’s own temple (Èwt ít.f nt mî#-Érw) is specified.257 And after [these ] words which these officials [said] in the presence of their lord [had been heard],258

a “city” but a rather a “township” (Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 170). When a dmí is supplied with people by Egypt it was established by a Pharaoh and quite probably hitherto was not in existence. Important comments on these “villages” (wÈywt) in the Wilbour Papyrus are given by Gardiner, Papyrus Wilbour II, Oxford: Published for the Brooklyn Museum at the Oxford University Press, 1948), 32-3. Add now Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt. Anatomy of a Civilization (London and New York: Routledge, 1989), 312-3. 249 The verb employed is nhsí and we have a presentiment of Seti’s “awakening” in column 80. 250 Read perhaps a Relative Form, wdt.n ít.k ímn? 251 KRI II 331.2-3; this indicates that the next subsection is a pure narrative. The style is nevertheless literary. 252 KRI II 331 note 2a. 253 Column 74: KRI II 331.2-3. In column 26 (#È#.n nb tîwy m nswt) it is not a helping verb. 254 In this context the verb íwd means “to separate (to work tasks).” 255 Quarry expeditions as well as work projects would often be lead by “army commanders” under whom army troops were enlisted. In those contexts the professional designation “army” is inappropriate. It is significant that the highest-ranking army men are not listed as they were in column 38; see note 78 above. 256 For the kîwty, see B. J. J. Haring, Divine Households, 238 note 3. 257 KRI II 331.2-6. 258 The use of pw for the demonstrative “these” indicates a more serious tone to the narrative. For the pw in another context (“this Horus”), see column 64.

56

chapter two then his majesty commanded the order to the supervisors of works. He assigned soldiers, workmen, sculptors, ….. outline draughtsmen (?), and all other professions of workmen to build up the shrine of his father and to erect what was in a state of dissolution in the Sacred Land in the temple (Èwt) of justification of his father.259

We are therefore not surprised when the following third person account commences. “Now (íst)260 he began (àî#.n.f ) to fashion (mst) his (= Seti’s) image in regnal year one …..” The commencement of the work on the cult image is indicated and the basic economic support for the temple of his father is specified. This section, still in a straightforward narrative framework, is somewhat ambiguous as to timing. “Year one” is not specific enough, nor is the following list of requirements. Perhaps this narrative portion of the inscription was never part of the official session of Ramesses at Abydos. I.e., it need not have occurred during the king’s visit immediately after his coronation. The passage follows upon the earlier royal commissions, but in a general fashion it also indicates the revitalization of the Seti temple. That

259 Once more, Kitchen’s historical analysis of the document is de rigueur. The construction work on Seti’s temple is the goal of the text. We can also refer once more to the presence of “soldiers” in the construction activities. 260 The new development is signaled by íst. Ramesses’ reign is still in his first regnal year and not in the presumed regency period; cf. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 191 (to column 76). 261 This is the problem that I alluded to earlier. Namely, did Ramesses actually have two separate statue building activities, one at Abydos and the other in the “national” cult centers of Thebes, Heliopolis, and Memphis? Or, should all be subsumed together and reflect the key building/religious orientation of a Ramesside Pharaoh? The first reference (columns 26-7) states in general and summary terms that Ramesses fashioned one image for Seti I in Thebes and another in Memphis, in excess of what he did in Abydos. The second passage indicates that Ramesses repeated such work in Thebes, Heliopolis, and Memphis (column 79), and as well placed statues in the “way stations” of the valley (i.e., the Valley of the Kings). Kitchen has seen the problem and wisely states that “Those of lines 26 and 79 (in various places in Egypt) may or may not be the same” (Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 195-6). I believe that they are different for the following reasons: (1) the first group lacks Heliopolis; (2) the same group omits the way station statues; and (3) the verb employed in the second is wÈm. Ergo, this is the second (or third, or fourth, or … the nth act), not the first time of statue building. It must follow upon at least one earlier occasion, and column 26 should resolve the dispute.

is to say, the provisioning of the divine offerings, endowments, priestly hierarchy, and economic support would have been put into motion from the day of the official inauguration onwards. The orientation is neutral with respect to a high literary outlook, the sdm.n.f formation being the key means of presenting the king’s new organization; cf. the subsequent dhn.n.f and wÈm.n.f. A coda concludes this short passage in which Ramesses deals with the cult of his father’s ka at the three “national” cult centers of Thebes, Heliopolis, and Memphis.261 Obviously, the account provides a resumé of these filial duties separated from what occurs after by means of the king’s names.262 Now263 he [began] to fashion his image in regnal year one,264 the offerings being doubled in the presence of his ka,265 his temple being supplied properly, so that he might enact his requirements. He established266 his festival offering(s) with fields, serfs (mrwt), cattle, …... (?)267 He [appointed]268 waab priests to their duties, a prophet at his shoulders, 269 … his people (lit.: “heads”) bearing … (= food revenue ?) [ controlling their] property for him, his granaries abounding with corn …, his great properties in the south and the north

I also would expect Seti’s statues to have been set within the mortuary area of the Valley of the Kings only after the man had died. This is not final proof, however. One final point. The Abydene temple of Seti I is particularly interesting insofar as there are seven chapels associated with the following divinities (south to north; just behind the inner hypostyle court): Seti I, Ptah, Re-Harachty, AmunRe (center), Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Excluding the Osirian cult and Seti, we meet once more the three main religious centers of Egypt. See J. Gwyn Griffiths, Triads and Trinity (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1996), 92-3. 262 KRI II 331.6-13. 263 Therefore, the following deeds as have just been instituted. The opening is íst àî#.n.f 264 Is this is the statue referred to in columns 36-7 that was “on the ground”? The question remains open-ended. The spelling of “regnal year one” is clear and just “year one” is inaccurate. 265 For the statue alone? 266 The verbal form is smn.f. It is too often the case that smn.n.f automatically > smn.f. Cf. Urk. IV 1246.2 (smn.f wd n nÉtw) in comparison to 1246.5 (smn.n.f wd.f ). The situation is, however, readily explained through the presence of n in the third consonant. 267 The endowments are now regularized. This presumes both a required festival offering list (akin to a temple “calendar”) as well as the entire economic dependencies being given a set of regulations. 268 Dhn.n.f. the whole sequence is composed of sdm.n.f verbal formations. 269 The higher level priest (not a waab) carries the image of Seti.

the text: translation and detailed analysis under the care of his steward,270 through [what] the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Wosermaatre-setepenre, the son of Re, Ramesses-meryamun, given life like Re forever and ever, did [for] his father the king Menmaatre, justified, under the care of Wenennefer.271 He repeated272 making his statues for his ka in Thebes, Heliopolis, Memphis, reposing in their places in all of his way-stations273 of the Valley.

D. Theological Addresses At this point a different presentation is attached to the account. Ramesses speaks to Seti within a cultic setting.274 The King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Wosermaatre-setepenre, the son of Re, lord of appearances,275 Ramesses-meryamun given life, spoke [while offering/presenting/raising] (s#r) what he had done (írt.n.f ) [to] his father, the Osiris, king Menmaatre justified.276

If the literal sense of the passage is arguably “true,” then these actions of the king must have taken place at a date later than his first voyage to Abydos because the account specifies that the Pharaoh already has done these things. In other words, this portion of the Dedicatory Inscription might be considered to be historically later and hence narratively separate from what precedes. The word “presenting” (s#r) indicates the deed of the king, as is in fact depicted in the accompanying scene to the right. Ramesses has completed what he promised. Yet it equally can be supposed that this “presentation” is somewhat metaphorical and, in fact, a summary of the king’s act. At Abydos, the young ruler promised work and proper cultic arrangements for Seti. This has now been promulgated.

270

The economic setup of Seti’s temple is controlled via the “steward.” This is a common situation in the Ramesside Period and need not be commented upon. 271 Likewise, Seti (the cult, the dead king) is “under the care” of Wenennefer, Osiris. Dead Pharaoh and dead Pharaoh’s temple are different. 272 WÈm.n.f. Of course, this is a deed separate from the building work at Abydos. 273 For Énywt, see the useful comments of Siegfried Schott, Kanais: Der Tempel Sethos I. im Wâdi Mia (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961), 145 note 4 to text (bottom). 274 KRI II 331.13-332.1. The opening is crucial: íw mdw.n nswt bíty ….. This is the only place where the Clas-

57

Equally important to emphasize is the different outlook of this part of the composition. We face the father-son combination again, but this time in the setting of a specific ritual; no other personages appear. The courtiers have departed and will never return. Surely, the location of the subsequent act of “wakening” was not in the outer public area where the earlier narrative had taken place. I suspect that we must now direct our physical and spiritual attention to the secret shrine area, the so-called “holy-of-holies.” Because Ramesses has completed the acts for Seti that he said he would do, a date in his second regnal year is far more probable for these events than the time of his first visit.277 The formal declaration begins.278 The invocation is easy to comprehend, being composed of a first person narrative in the past. Should we connect this address to the previous historical setting? As I indicated earlier, this possibility seems remote. The purport of these additional words of the Pharaoh reflects the completion of the building activity. True, Ramesses states that he has come to Abydos, and specifically to the temple of Seti, “in person,” and this ought to (but actually does not) imply the visit after the return from Thebes. When it is further claimed that he, Ramesses inquired “into your temple daily about the state of your ka in everything.”279 I cannot but conclude that we are dealing with the immediate after effects of the earlier inauguration. This formal speech is an overt and official means of indicating the king’s presentation of the temple to his father. It is now fully endowed in fields and cattle and the plots of lands supplying the necessary food revenues have been officially and rigorously recorded. The whole temple priesthood is organized, picked and in operation, and the necessary boat flotilla, crucial for the transportation of grain, also has been established. Lastly, the carving has gone apace with Seti’s name being

sical íw sdm.n.f occurs within the Dedicatory Inscription. 275 Is the inclusion of nb É#w due to the fact that this is a more serious (or formal) presentation? Or is it required for the ritual performance? 276 Note the use of the prenomen alone once more. For the use of the verb s#r in connection with Maat, see Teeter, The Presentation of Maat, 49-50. This word is relatively common in the texts of Seti I at Abydos. 277 See Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 194-5. Kitchen fixed regnal year four as the maximum limit. 278 In general, Assmann, “Das Bild des Vaters,” 37-8. 279 KRI II 334.6-7.

chapter two

58

placed where it should be; i.e., in his temple on hitherto undecorated or incompletely carved walls, pillars, and the like. But nagging problems still persist. When and where did this invocation to Seti by his son occur? I find it hard to believe that the completed activity on the part of the now sole Pharaoh can correspond in time and place to the prospective statements that he previously gave to his officials. After his coronation Ramesses spoke to his officials in a public ceremony at Abydos, and it was probably the first time that he was there.280 On the other hand, I do not automatically connect this address and the reply of his father to the same event. As we shall see, that later portion of the Dedicatory Inscription places the king’s building activities in the past. It further indicates that all aspects of Seti’s temple, such as economic and administrative support, were now completed. Granted that we can doubt some of the ebullient and grandiose statements of Ramesses. Nonetheless, how could all the work have been finished soon after the king’s visit to the sacred land of Osiris? Kitchen, in fact, noted this. In one of his useful comments to the text he indicated that Ramesses’ claims at Abydos “could easily be consistent in principle with the composition of the great text later in Year 1. Otherwise, in Year 4 after the first Levant campaign.”281 The use of the complete (and regular) prenomen, continued Kitchen, “would date the final draft and the carving to Year 2 at earliest.”282 I concur with this. In fact, at the beginning of the discussion I pointed out that the accompanying scenes at the right (north) probably were carved after this major text. We also have to take into consideration that in the recent past the building activity at Abydos was mostly devoted to Ramesses’ own temple and not that of his father. Logically, the work in the new Ramesses temple at Abydos can be placed into the final year or years of Seti’s life and the short time after the father’s death. There is a related point that to my knowledge has been brought into the chronological discussion only once. I am referring to two passages in the inscription that refer to other work projects ordered by Ramesses.283 Kitchen briefly commented upon them and left the question open whether they referred to the same event or not.

280

Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II,

282 283

191-3. 281

The first is located in columns 26-7 and states that he, Ramesses, fashioned images for his father in Memphis (\wt-kî-PtÈ) and Thebes, “over and above” or “in excess” (Èîw-Èr) to what he did in Abydos. This is a pertinent remark because it indicates that the young monarch felt that he had neglected the area of Abydos, a conclusion that fits perfectly with Kitchen’s analysis of the absence of Ramesses at that holy area and the lack of construction work on Seti’s temple. Subsequently, just before the speech of Ramesses to Seti at Abydos and at the point of “awakening” him, a summary of the king’s promulgations is reported.284 This occurs immediately after the address of the king to his officials and is introduced by the particle íst at the end of column 75. The account is in the third person instead of the first: “Now he began to fashion his image …..” This introduces a rather detailed summary of the demands now promulgated by the king. The work at Seti’s temple has begun. Recounted in a standard narrative format, the words briefly describe the immediate after effects of the king’s visit to Abydos: offerings are set up, supplies are established, and officials given their proper functions. In sum, the temple is operating. Once more we can leave off the question whether all of this was one hundred percent accurate. Instead, I wish to focus upon the past nature of the account, one that, by nature, would have had to occur after Ramesses had visited Abydos and spoken his words. The following remark in column 79 is of some historical and chronological importance because one ascertains that the king had acted for “his ka” in Thebes, Heliopolis, and Memphis. Also, the statues of Seti are now “reposing” in the “way stations” in the Valley; i.e., they are in Western Thebes. Should we connect this brief remark with the one recounted earlier in column 26? Kitchen left the question open. After all, the first comment is located within a series of generalized statements that are located at the beginning of this composition. Hence, they might reflect upon the entire series of events and not merely refer to an earlier action on the part of the king, one separate from his later activities. Nonetheless, the later passage is connected to the preceding resumé of the work at Abydos in an effective manner. It concludes

Ibid., 194.

284

Ibid., 195. See the remarks in note 261 above. Assmann, “Das Bild des Vaters,” 37-8.

the text: translation and detailed analysis

59

the historical account and immediately precedes a separate portion of the inscription. There is one final point to be covered in this context. Columns 36-7 describe the condition of Seti’s statue, his sàmw.285 There, we learned that upon the visit of Ramesses it was still lying on the ground, and was in fact not “fashioned as a divine image” according to the regulations of the Mansion of Gold. Even its offerings had ceased. Yet column 76 points out that the king “began

to fashion his image” (sàmw) in his first regnal year. Furthermore, the offerings established for its operation were doubled.286 This would imply that the king’s orders were followed through. Even though the exact timing is unclear, work commenced soon after Ramesses’ address.287 The new sàmw was completed as the king’s words indicate. Later on, the Pharaoh speaks to his father in column 82 and states: “I have fashioned you” (msyw.n.í tw).288 Seti’s statue is finished;

285 KRI II 326.4. The words for “statue,” “image” are useful to outline. In the Old Kingdom only two words are definitely known to exist, twt and rpwt: Marianne Eaton-Krauss, The Representations of Statuary in Private Tombs of the Old Kingdom (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1984), Chapter 4. The first always referred to statues of men during the Old Kingdom, but male deities and kings are included. The meaning may derive from “image” or “likeness,” although the verb “to collect” is not excluded. The second word, rpwt, is more rare, and refers to a queen’s statue. A third designation, àzp, is first known from the Middle Kingdom. Its significance is close to but not identical with twt. The derivation of the word is clear because it derives from the verb “to receive.” Offerings are understood, and Eaton-Krauss, following Henry Fischer, suggests that the “word may well refer specifically to the completed statue’s capability of performing its intended function in the cult, viz., receiving offerings” (page 87). Hence, àzp and twt are not really synonymous. Finally, the word àzp may be qualified by #nÉ or r #nÉ, thereby indicating that the “image” or “statue” will receive life or is living. Twt #nÉ or àzp #nÉ indicate an ability to function as the divine prototype; the #nÉ does not mean that the images bears a physical resemblance to a man or a deity. 286 KRI II 331.6. 287 My interpretation of this passage is simple. The old sàmw was constructed, and its necessary endowment of offerings instituted. Murnane points to this conclusion in “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 165 note 40 when he observes that the phrase “on the ground” perhaps could mean “neglected” or “abandoned.” The well-known case of Thutmose IV comes immediately to mind (Urk. IV 1550.2-9). The king found an obelisk of his grandfather still lying at the southern side of Karnak. In this case the word snfr is employed for the completion of the task. The word sàmw means “manifestation of a divinity.” Hence, its transference to “statue,” “relic,” and the like; see the sàmw-Éw, the “divine bark” which can be carried. Cf. Haring, Divine Households, 46, on the difficulty of separating the terms for the royal and the divine bark; add Eaton’s remarks which are cited below in this note. Erik Hornung covered in detail the various names and functions of Egyptian statues in his chapter, “Der Mensch als ‘Bild Gottes’ in Ägypten,” in Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen (ed. Oswald Loretz; Munich: Kösel, 1967), 123-56. It is significant that he observed the first appearance of the word sàmw in the Amduat, a New Kingdom text. During Dynasties XVIII to XX the word sàmw was especially common in the books of the underworld. (The Amduat may have been composed, or at least part of it, before the XVIIIth Dynasty, but this suggestion remains speculative.)

Subsequently, Boyo Ockinga presented an outline of the term sàmw in his Die Gottebenbildlichkeit im alten Ägypten und im Alten Testament (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1984), 40-51; add now Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 52, 138-40, with her “Types of Cult-Image Carried in Divine Barques and the Logistics of Performing Temple Ritual in the New Kingdom,” ZÄS 134 (2007): 15-25. Additional remarks on statues in connection with mortuary temples will be found in Robert G. Morkot, “Nb-Mî#tR #—United-With-Ptah,” JNES 49 (1990): 331-2. He deals with the words twt, hnty, and sàmw Éw. The third appears restricted to the processional statues carried with a barkshrine. According to Morkot, the Énty is also associated with processions, a point that Hornung made earlier, showing that the image was intimately associated with the sun god. (Its earliest example in the literature dates from the reign of king Rahotpe of Dynasty XVII.) For a recent discussion concerning the terminology of statues, note as well Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 130-42, 146-8. In her summary on page 148 she observes that “most ‘sacred images’ (àps) were ‘images’ (twt)—though not all images were sacred.” Daumas also covered this situation in his “Quelques textes de l’atelier des orfèvres dans le temple de Dendara,” 109-18 and page 109 with note 9 in particular. Add the later comments of Hornung in Das Buch der Anbetung des Re im Westen II (Geneva: Éditions de Belles-Lettres, 1976) 97 note 5, referring to Erika Schott, “Die heilige Vase des Amon,” ZÄS 98 (1970): 49 where the important remark is given that twt is not known in the New Kingdom as a term for a god’s statue. Instead, one finds #àmw or sàmw. For the statues in the mortuary temples, see Gabolde, “Les temples ‘mémoriaux’ de Thoutmosis II et Toutânkhamon,” 127-78, especially pages 175-8. He discusses the connection with the Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus on page 177. Forgotten in Egyptological scholarship are the pertinent remarks of Yoyotte concerning the purpose of this composition: “Religion de l’Égypte ancienne,” Annuaire École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve Section 79 (1971-2): 179-80. He preferred to interpret the ritual as one dealing with the consecration of certain funerary statues of the dead king. 288 KRI II 332.5; cf. I 177.2 (ms sàmww). See as well Seti I to his son Ramesses I in KRI I 110.1-2 (also at Abydos, with msí [restored by Kitchen] and sàmw. The statue in the temple of Ramesses I was also a sàmw: KRI I 110.1, 112.4, and 114.11. We can refer to the interesting Leiden V 1 stela as well (KRI VII 26.14-29.13; a translation will be found in Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I, 51-3). The account states: “I was introduced into the House of Gold in order to fashion the sàmw and the images (#Émw) of all the gods” (KRI VII 27.13-1, and compare Wolfgang Waitkus, “Zum funktionalen Zusammenhang von Krypta, Wabet und Goldhaus,” 283-303 for the late evidence). I suspect that the sàmw refer to the “forms,” as Hornung

60

chapter two

hence, the time is later than Ramesses’ original visit.289 But there remains the troublesome passage in column 53: “ … [until ?]290 I fashioned ([r] msywt.í) my father out of gold anew in the first year of my appearing.”291 Kitchen sees this as having taken place in the regency period.292 If this argument is followed, then at a subsequent date Ramesses must have prepared yet another statue, a third (column 76). To simplify matters, and also to avoid the pitfalls of any argument based upon a regency period, one could link all the references together. This, however, is both a tricky and dangerous historical method. In Ramesses’ first year as Pharaoh, the period of time after the new regnal year dating was in effect, he finished his work on the image.293 This was part of his promise to the courtiers at Abydos, and, of course, to Seti. But in column 76 the Dedicatory Inscription also states that he “began to fashion his image in his first regnal year.” This had to have occurred before the visit to Abydos, and the chronology fits neatly. But the statue had not yet been finished at that time, only begun. The difficult problem of this other statue, the one of gold in column 53, was tackled by Kitchen in his commentary on the composition.294 Perhaps of some use to the argument is that in column 53 the word sàmw does not appear. This, however, provides no conclusive support for the

wished, and the #Émw indicate the actual images; see as well Eaton’s comments cited earlier in note 287. Her main interest surrounded the situation of processional images. 289 The first statue was the one referred to in column 36. 290 For this possible interpretation, see notes 125-6 above. 291 KRI II 328.7-8. The word “anew” need not imply the renewal of an older statue. I.e., in our context it indicates a new one; see Schott, Kanais: Der Tempel Sethos I. im Wâdi Mia, 139 note 4 to text. This is followed by Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated and Annotated: Notes and Comments I (Oxford and Cambridge MA: Blackwell, 1993), 61. 292 Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 168 note 1; see his Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 195-6. 293 There was no double dating during any coregency or regency during the New Kingdom. I have frequently observed the impossibility of the ancients working with two separate regnal year dating systems from Dynasties XVIII to XX. This must be seen because the anniversaries of a king’s regnal year (unless if was the first) took place on the same day 365 days later. The only case where total coincidence occurred in the New Kingdom is that of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, and then the senior reckoned her accession from the junior. 294 Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 195-6. The situation troubled Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, 76.

argument that there were two additional statues, both crafted by the young man, or only one. On the other hand, Ramesses indicates through the use of the past tense that he had completed this golden image, and this implies that the task was done. A fortiori, the adjective “gold” never appears with the word sàmw in any other part of the Abydos temple, and perhaps we can make a fine difference between the processional image of the king and a golden statue. This interpretation would allow us to keep the historical tenor of the composition, because when Ramesses mentions that he “fashioned his father out of gold,” the words are located in a retrospective glance on his earlier activities at the Abydos temple.295 It would also coincide with the courtiers’ remarks in column 67 when they claim that Ramesses had also fashioned “him” (Seti) out of gold and precious stones.296 It is hard to see the completion of this task at the time that Ramesses just arrived in Abydos and oversaw the condition of Seti’s building. The activity must have occurred before this visit. In column 53 the account does not tell us where this golden statue was. In fact, at the beginning of the Dedicatory Inscription we learn that Ramesses, before arriving at Abydos, had already fashioned statues for his father in Thebes and Memphis. Perhaps the account is referring to one of these in column 53.297 All of these references

295

The serious problem with the Egyptian passage in column 53 is that the word “to appear” is employed: m rnpt tpyt n É##.í. (The verb is a nominal form.) Redford was faced with the identical situation with respect to Amunhotep II: “The Coregency of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II,” JEA 51 (1965): 117-8. Line 26 of the Sphinx Stela states with a passive sdm.f: “His majesty was caused to appear (sÉ#w Èm.f ) as king, the uraeus came to rest on his brow” (Urk. IV 1283.5-6). Hence, he was a Pharaoh. Line 11 states: “Now his majesty appeared as a king and as a beautiful youth” (Urk. IV 1279.8). With Redford, I place the latter section earlier in time and during the regency of Amunhotep II and Thutmose III. So does Peter Der Manuelian, Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1987), 189-91. Redford’s other discussion on the verb “to appear” (É#í ) will be found in the first chapter of his History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies. His citation of a further passage from the Sphinx Stela of Amunhotep on page 16 (no. 80) must be corrected. The passage opens with a typical participle, as the section quoted belongs to the opening eulogy to the Pharaoh. It is not narrative. 296 KRI II 330.5-6. 297 If so, a date in regnal year one is possible because Ramesses became king immediately after Seti’s death, presumably in the north and before the young monarch’s coronation at Opet.

the text: translation and detailed analysis

61

can be separated from one other, but the result would entail a series of statues commissioned and completed by Ramesses. Or, we may connect some of them, especially the two described in columns 53 and 76. But I do not believe any of these references provides conclusive support for a regency between Ramesses and Seti. The evidence for that comes from the two factors of raised versus sunken relief and the alteration of Ramesses’ name after his first regnal year.298 Assmann interpreted the sàmw as a small wooden statue of a god that could be carried in a procession out from the deity’s shrine.299 This does not fit the situation here: the image that was “lying” on the ground was surely not made of wood.300 Yet he also remarked that sàmw images were connected to the underworld voyage of the sun god. Hornung’s research extended this analysis.301 Historically speaking, the connection to small statues that were carried in processions was a later one, and in the Amduat we have a contrary situation. The sàmw is an “image,” one that not surprisingly can occur in the underworld. Hornung felt that later in time an expansion of

its core meaning came to include the concept of a “cult image.” Sàmws turn up in underworld books connected to Osiris, and can refer to the mummy itself.302 All in all, the examples from the Dedicatory Inscription support Hornung’s position. Seti’s sàmw must be connected to that dead king’s presence in the underworld, but also it could represent the image of the sun god there as well. The commentary of Hornung is of great importance for our analysis. If we follow his evidence garnered from the Amduat, the sàmw is connected to Osiris and to the underworld but it is not carried around in procession in the realm of the dead.303 Instead, as a mummy, it remains enclosed in its holy and secret place and cannot be seen. (In this context let me remind the reader that the Amduat was also carved at Abydos.) It is also noteworthy that Hornung only knew of one Dynasty XVIII citation where this word was metaphorically associated with a king (Horemheb). Additional passages referring to the same situation were assembled by Zandee, among which we can signal out a reference in the Theban Tomb of

298 The presence stp-n-R # after Wsr-mî#t-R # is first dated to Ramesses’ second regnal year: see KRI II 339.12 (Sinai No. 252) and Chapter I note 7. 299 Liturgische Lieder, 309. See his subsequent comments in Der König als Sonnenpriester, 34 (sàmw #î nty m msktt). This image is directly connected to the role of Seti as expressed by his son in column 94 (KRI II 333.12-13). 300 Would this statue have been easy to carry to a more protected place? Moreover, why was it not completed? If it were made of stone, and the connection to the Mansion of Gold supports this contention, then the object would have been lying around, awaiting its completion. 301 “Der Mensch als ‘Bild Gottes’ in Ägypten,” 139-41. Add the useful reference to the sàmw in the Eleventh Hour of the Book of Gates: Hornung, Das Buch von den Pforten des Jenseits: nach den Versionen des Neuen Reiches I (Geneva: Éditions de Belles-Lettres, 1979), 363 with II (Geneva: Éditions de Belles-Lettres (1980), 253-4. The “great image” or the “secret image” is that of the sun god. Significantly, the Sixth Hour presents a parallel conception: see pages 162-5 in the second volume of Hornung’s edition plus his subsequent remarks in “Black Holes Viewed from Within: Hell in Ancient Egyptian Thought,” Diogenes 165 (1994): 136. I can also signal the brief comments of Borghouts, The Magical Texts of Papyrus Leiden I 348, 174 and 182 concerning sàmw as a “figure” (to be drawn); he concurs with Hornung. 302 Ibid., 141 with note 29. Hornung refers to Amduat 205.3: Das Amduat: Die Schrift des Verborgenen Raumes III (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967), 18. Add Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity, 73, 155 and 409 (often with àtî) N.B. Hornung regards the god Nhs as a deity separate from “awakening,” ibid., 22 no. 49 (connected to Seth) and

103 note 3 (nhs a name of Seth). See already CT VII 250 p: gm.n.í Sth m pr nhs[w]. For additional cases we can now add Harco Willems, The Coffin of Heqata (Cairo JdE 36418): A Case Study of Egyptian Funerary Culture of the Early Middle Kingdom (Leuven: Peeters en Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1996), 355 and note 2187. He feels that nhsí in one Middle Kingdom composition known to Hornung (but interpreted otherwise) appears to indicate wakefulness (P. Ram. VI 71-2). See also Willems’ comments in note 2190 and his commentary on page 355 as well. Unfortunately, the other cases of nhsí and snhs in the Coffin Texts do not help us at all (Rami van der Molen, A Hieroglyphic Dictionary of Egyptian Coffin Texts (Leiden, Boston, and Cologne: Brill, 2000). The volume of Kasia Szpakowska, Behind Closed Eyes: Dreams and Nightmares in Ancient Egypt (Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales, 2003) has an excellent discussion of dreaming, dozing, and the like. Although the Opening of the Mouth ceremony is covered, her orientation is to the “other side” of wakefulness. Yet see the use of nhsí with qrty (surely for qrrt, “cavern”) in Horst Beinlich, Das Buch vom Fayum I (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1991), 244-5 (line 1070). The connection with Osiris is clear in this case as well. 303 See Daumas’ remarks in note 67 above. On page 117 of his analysis there is the useful analysis of the Mansion of Gold with the Opening the Mouth ( for Sokar-Osiris). Cf. Otto, Das ägyptische Mundöffnungsritual II, 2-6, 12 with regard to the “Herstellung” of the statue (mst and wpt-rî of a statue) and the connection to the Mansion of Gold. We can now add the very useful study of Fischer-Elfert, Die Vision von der Statue im Stein. 304 KRI III 288.2; Jan Zandee, An Ancient Egyptian Crossword Puzzle: An Inscription of Neb-wenenef from Thebes (Leiden: Ex

62

chapter two

Nebwennef, the well-known High Priest of Amun under Ramesses II.304 Here, Osiris is likened to Re; he is, in fact the sàmw of the sun god.305 An Abydene connection is once more clear, and we cannot forget that Nebwennef was at Abydos with Ramesses, previously having been the High Priest of Onuris in Thinis.306 Nonetheless, the dichotomy between a cult statue and a processional image is one of the most important differences with respect to a religious cult.307 Kruchten successfully argued that the former remained hidden at the rear of the temple and were thereby invisible to the public; some of them were described with the epithet dsr. Hoffmeier came to similar conclusions, but avoided discussing the differentiation of cult images (sàmw) from processional ones (ntr pn àpsy).308 Furthermore, only the prophets would take care of this hidden image. And yet we are faced with the fact that the all-important image of Seti had not been set up within his temple. Considering this, could the Abydene mansion of Seti operate properly? There still remains the problem with the other word rÉt-n.f, which can be understood as “cult image.”309 This might designate the “specifications” for the sàmw rather than indicate the

statue, and it is interesting that 1erný’s research on this term focused upon Abydos.310 His insight was directed to a wooden object found in the tomb of Tutankhamun and which was called rÉ.f, and he wondered whether the object could be the so-called emblem of Abydos, of Osiris. Once more our investigation turns unexpectedly back to that major cult center. The writing in the Dedicatory Inscription must indicate that the meaning “cult image” is open to query if only because the word lacks the statue determinative. Kitchen’s interpretation, “specifications for it,” can be argued because there was only one statue that was still lying around, and it was not properly designed according to the required religious specifications.311 But the statue that Ramesses awakens speaks, and in the ceremony the father utters words that were so remarkable to Assmann, “I have become divine” (Épr.kwí ntr.kwí ).312 Where was this statue? An out of the way reference on one of the doors in the Osirian Hall might provide a clue. First noted by Zippert, the words may indicate that the statue might be found in Room N, the one reserved for Osiris-Seth.313 The dedicatory text presents Osiris speaking to Seti: “I will cause that

Oriente Lux, 1966), 21-24. Zandee has assembled many useful examples for our analysis, but he inaccurately includes a passage from the First Hittite Marriage of Ramesses II (KRI II 237.11/13-14/15). The text actually reads twt #nÉ n R # mstyw (“offspring,” “incarnation,” etc., not sàmw) n ímy íwnw. 305 Zandee, ibid., 23. He discusses the intimate connection of Re and Osiris in this inscription on pages 15, 23-8 (with Osiris as the ba of Re), 38, and 64. 306 He also was the High Priest of Hathor in Dendera. The extremely high literate perspective of Nebwennef can be seen in his crossword puzzle, the narrative of his nomination to High Priest of Amun, his Copenhagen cube statue (with the unusual mention at this time of traditional feasts), and the solar hymns in his Theban tomb. See the end of Chapter III. 307 Kruchten, Les Annales des prêtres de Karnak (XXI-XXIIImes Dynasties) et autres textes contemporains relatifs à l’initiation des prêtres d’Amon (Leuven: Department Oriëntalistiek, 1989), 253-4. 308 James Hoffmeier, Sacred in the Vocabulary of Ancient Egypt: The Term DSR, with Special Reference to Dynasties I-XX (Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 167-8; see now Vernus, Essai sur la conscience de l’histoire dans l’Égypte pharaonique, 100 note 399. It must be kept in mind that Kruchten’s analysis referred to in the last note is dependent upon the cult at Karnak. He does not discuss Abydos, and the remarks of Assmann and Hornung were not included in his summary. 309 See the following discussion with notes 67 and 287 above. 310 Hieratic Inscriptions from the Tomb of Tut‘ankhamun, 14-15. Following Murnane, Zandee, and John Barns (“The Nevill

Papyrus: A late Ramesside Letter to an Oracle,” 70-1), I see no inherent difference between rÉ-n.f and rÉt-n.f. 311 Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 166. If we follow Cerny (see the last note for the reference), then rÉ.f is the older form of rÉ-n.f. Hence, if the translation of “specification” for rÉt-n.f is followed, as Kitchen wishes, then the earlier word may be hypothesized to have been *rÉt.f. That is to say, the original meaning would turn out to be “its (.f ) specification (rÉt).” 312 KRI II 336.1. 313 “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 22 with note 8: KRI I 167.14-15. It is of some interest that a similar door dedication, this time at the shrine of Isis (KRI I 168.9 = Zippert, ibid., note 3), presents the interesting passage: “How beautiful is your temple in the Thinite nome, the nome of eternity (spît nt dt), the eternal ‘lower heaven’ (níwt nÈÈ) of the lords of the underworld, the portal (sbî) of the cavern dwellers.” Kitchen has useful comments in his Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated and Annotated: Translations I (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), 144. The “lower heaven” is where Osiris went after his death and from where he returned after his rebirth. The scene is best viewed by Calverley, Broome, and Gardiner, The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos III, Pl. 50. There, the reader will note that both the west and east entrance thicknesses record this singular phrase. But it is the west one that has the interesting correction observed only by Cerny in his notebook, Collations of Abydos, 2: for the word “eternity,” nÈÈ, the n was added later across the lower portions of the two È signs. For the word “cavern dwellers” see Hornung’s commentary on “cavern,” qrrt, in Das Amduat II, 77 note 38 and 81 note 2; “Probleme der Wortforschung im Pfotenbuch,”

the text: translation and detailed analysis

63

your majesty be like a godly one in the city of Abydos.” The two passages are strikingly parallel to one another. Perhaps it can be argued that the previously unfinished image (sàmw) of Seti was now in operation. This location, however, is in the innermost area of the main axis of the temple and is not associated with the regular cult figure of Seti. But one of the doorway dedications to Chapel K ( for Seti) indicates this portable image.314 Chapel K was connected to Seti, and it was here and not in the Osirian suites that the dead king was linked with his heb seds and other attributes of coronation.315 In addition, this chapel served as a cult chamber for the dead king, an aspect that Ramesses stresses in his address to his father. Zippert also recognized that on the south wall of the Inner Hypostyle Hall, the one that runs up to Seti’s chapel, Seti is depicted as a god, but not equated with Osiris.316 Owing to these

considerations, I feel it more probable that the uncompleted sàmw of Seti belonged here. Then too, Assmann’s conclusion that such images were portable and would be carried in processions fits as well. We can note in passing that two sàmw’s are explicitly named on the south (outermost) door in the axis or alleyway of Seti.317 The seven chapels, including Seti’s, each containing seven portable images of the various gods, were in a more accessible area of the temple than the Osirian suite. Zippert’s analysis of the hidden Chamber L (the first Osirian Hall) indicated that it was dedicated to Osiris and that the portable statue of Osiris, the sàmw-Éw, belonged here.318 One of the scenes on the southern wall of the Inner Hypostyle Court presents the so-called “baptism” of the Pharaoh, a ritual that Gardiner linked with the Ès-purification rites and the role of kingship, but not necessarily to coronation.319 Let us not forget the fact that all of the cult images of

GM 6 (1973): 57-9; and Das Buch von den Pforten des Jenseits: nach den Versionen des Neuen Reiches II, Geneva (1980) 52 note 10. A further reference to the “cavern dwellers” in Seti’s temple will be found in the Stairway Corridor: KRI I 187.6. Assmann in “Harfnerlied und Horussöhne: Zwei Blöcke aus dem verschollenen Grab des Bürgermeisters Amenemhet (Theben Nr. 163) im Britischen Museum,” JEA 65 (1979) 62-3 has seen that the concept of “grave” or “tomb” may be represented by the following terms, among which is qrrt: íît (“mound”), qrrt (“cavern”); dbît (“sarcophagus”), and st hît (“place of the dead body”). He also covers the connection to the sun and the rites in the public forecourt of the private tomb. 314 KRI I 167.7: “King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Menmaatre, who sanctifies (sdsr) the palace (#È), and who magnifies the image (s#î àmw) of his father Osiris …..” For the importance of Seti’s name without the cartouche, as this example reveals, see Zippert, “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 111; for the use of the word #È, “palace,” in this context, ibid., 24-5. Zippert also refers to the scene later published by Calverley, Broome, and Gardiner, The Temple of Sethos I at Abydos IV, Pl. 42 (middle right = south wall, west side). 315 Zippert, “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 92-4. 316 Ibid., 111-13. 317 KRI I 129.16; see also 130.4. The determinative of the word sàmw effectively clinches the argument: it is the portable bark. For the daily rituals enacted in this chapel and the six others, see Aylward M. Blackman’s classical breakthrough study in “The sequence of the episodes in the Egyptian daily temple liturgy,” JMEOS 8 (1919) 27-53. (Zippert, who unfortunately does not refer to him, nonetheless has a very instructive analysis of the iconography of these chapels.) There is a summary of the previous Egyptological scholarship in David, Religious Ritual at Abydos, 104-19. She includes her own hypothetical ordering of the scenes, but Brigitte Altenmüller-Kesting’s analysis in “Reinigungsriten im ägyptischen Kult” (Ph.D. diss., University of Hamburg, 1968), 176-84, 192-8 needed to be added.

See now Jürgen Osing, “Zum Kultbildritual in Abydos,” in Gold of Praise: Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente (ed. Emily Teeter and John A. Larson; Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1999), 317-34; and Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 204-43 who covers the Daily Ritual and that of the Royal Ancestors at Abydos. The latter study partly replaces the summary of Hans-Georg Bartel, “Funktionale Aspekte des Täglichen Rituals im Tempel Sethos’ I. in Abydos,” in 5. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: Würzburg, 23.-26. September 1999 (ed. Horst Beinlich et al.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002), 1-16. The southernmost architrave in the Inner Hypostyle Court (south face) is oriented to Osiris whereas the north face of the same architectural support has Amun. Both deities are out of place as we would expect Seti I. (The order of the other six gods is oriented to the order of the chapels [north to south]: Horus; Isis; Osiris; Amun-Re; Re-Harachty; and Ptah). But since it is Seti who is always “beloved” by these gods and to whom he offers his monument, the disappearance of his name here makes perfect sense. N.B. David saw that “In the Sethos aisle, the rites are performed for Sethos by Horus íwn.mwt.f” in her Religious Ritual at Abydos, 32, and 44-5. Nikolaus Tacke, “Das Opferritual des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches,” in Rituals from Prehistory and Antiquity up to Modern Times. Studies in Near Eastern, Prehistoric and Classical Archaeology, Egyptology, Ancient History, Theology and Comparative Religion. Interdisciplinary Meeting in Berlin, February 1-2, 2002, (ed. Claus Dobiat and Klaus Leidorf; Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf, 2003), 27-36 summarizes some of the data from Seti’s temple. 318 “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 114; KRI I 162.12/14 (outer doorway thickness and outer jambs to the Osiris Suite; Zippert’s “t”). 319 “The Baptism of Pharaoh,” JEA 36 (1950): 3-12; with Calverley, Broome, and Gardiner, The Temple of Sethos I at Abydos IV, Pl. 42. The scene is located in the middle (second register) in the southeast. Note the presence of the king’s ka in the casket offering scene in the middle of the southern wall, top register: David, Religious Ritual at Abydos, 51 with Bell’s research cited above in note 41. See as well Schott, Die Reinigung des Pharaos in einem mem-

64

chapter two

the chief gods of Seti’s temple were called sàmw.320 This purification rite of the Pharaoh was also connected with the king’s arrival into a temple, and both Thoth and Seshat were connected to the performance.321 The relatively accessible location of the Dedicatory Inscription and the accompanying scenes do not help us much. After all, their carving on the outside of the newly finished portico wall merely indicates that the acts (Ramesses before Osiris, Isis and Seti; Ramesses “offering up”) and the account (Ramesses before Seti) were made public. Notwithstanding many difficulties, the following scenario can be offered as a possible explanation for the final section. First, Ramesses “awakens” Seti. He asks his now divine and “excellent ba” father for kingship. This is given after Seti has dealt with the other key deities of kingship. The scene on the right wall of the portico indicates the king’s connection to the old rite of the Ished tree. His insignia are recorded. In those scenes Re-Harachty is present as well as Horus, Isis, Osiris, and Ptah. The kingship ritual has moved to the cementing of the earthly Pharaonic status of Ramesses. In other words, I read the portico text and scenes from left (south) to right (north). Nothing is said about the death and resurrection of Osiris. Hence, any connection to the second Osiris hall, an area where Seti is not present, should be eliminated.322 The location of the statue of Seti in one of the seven chapels just behind the Inner Hypostyle Court is not so closely associated that a connection to the sole role of Osiris must be obligatory. Furthermore, does not one of the ceiling decorations in the area refer to the “awakening” (snhs) of gods, precisely in the aisle connected to the Chapel of Seti?323 I believe that

these reasons may allow us to place the event in Chapel K. Let us now return to the direct address section as a unit. It is composed of a speech of the king to Seti and the father’s reply. I assume it to have taken place in Abydos (as does also Kitchen) but not at the same time as the forgoing declarations of intent. The detailed summary of Ramesses’ deeds connects to it in an effective manner. When the king’s speech to his advisors and high ranking officials has concluded, a summary of the effects of that announcement is given, among which we read other actions of Ramesses on behalf of Seti. But I do not see how the complete series of building work coupled with administration demands (economic and theological) could have occurred on the spot, so to speak. It is for this reason that I place the completion of the king’s requirements later in time than the trip to Abydos. The following address of the king specifically assumes that all has been done—i.e., the deeds are spoken as finished activities and not as willed ones that remain to be fulfilled. In other words, the composition includes events, religious to be sure, that occurred later in time than the year one celebration at Abydos. This interpretation has the added advantage of reinforcing Kitchen’s remarks concerning the actual date of the inscription. If, as he says, the full prenomen of Ramesses, Wosermaatre-setepenre, is present—and it is— then the final hieratic draft and the start of the carving can be placed to “Year 2 at earliest.”324 We certainly cannot place it to a time after the first victorious campaign of Ramesses in his fourth regnal year. Both Kitchen and I refer to the time it took to compose the account, the subsequent delay in approval, the later dispatch of the account to

phitischen Tempel (Berlin P 13242) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957), 87-9. 320 This is too well known to be analyzed here. On the other hand, one useful reference in the Gallery of the Kings can be cited (KRI I 177.2-3): ms sàmw nb dt.sn rdít Ètp. sn Èwt.f. The entire inscription reveals that Seti had made images of his Ennead in this temple. We can add as well the sàm-Éw of Osiris (KRI I 162.12/14: access doorway to Osiris Suite; cf. our comments in note 318); note as well KRI I 197.14-15. According to Schott, the reference to “his fathers, the Ennead” must indicate the principal deities worshipped within a temple: Schott, Kanais: Der Tempel Sethos I. im Wâdi Mia, 167-8 with 146 note 8 (bottom). At Abydos the local Ennead consisted of nine deities: Osiris and the two Khnums, two Thoths, two Horuses, and two Wepwawets; cf. Jéquier, “L’Ennéade osirienne d’Abydos et les enseignes sacrées,” 409-17 with note 51 above. David is wrong when she claims that there are only

seven members of the Ennead: Religious Ritual at Abydos, 348. She has confused the seven main deities in Seti’s temple—those that occupied the seven chapels—with the Abydene Ennead. 321 Altenmüller-Kesting, “Reinigungsriten im ägyptischen Kult,” 90-5, 106, 149. Hence, the connection to the gnwt, “annals” is self-evident. She deals with the two forms such “baptisms” take, the second essentially being connected to the mortuary liturgy. Add now Budde’s volume, Die Göttin Seschat, and the references given in Chapter I notes 2 and 24. 322 PM VI 21-2. 323 KRI I 139.16 (Second or Inner Hypostyle Hall). The text states that “he [ = the king] has woken up those who are in the necropolis.” For a further use of the verb snhs, see KRI I 189.8 (Stairway Corridor). For this location and the crucial texts contained therein see our comments in Chapter III. 324 Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 195.

the text: translation and detailed analysis

65

Abydos, and the final act of carving. These events must have occurred after the king left the temple precinct. Given these chronological points, which are rather fluid and amorphous, it makes some sense to place the two royal addresses—king and father to each other—at the same time. That is, after the walls for the text were finished (built, smoothed, and ready for carving). All of the stipulations which the Pharaoh demanded were now done. Hence, one might locate temporally the following cultic act after the departure of Ramesses from Abydos in his first year. The address of the Pharaoh to his father is a personal one. Nowhere is there indicated the presence of a large audience of officials, religious and secular. The event appears to have been a private rite and therefore separate from the public duties of the king at Abydos. Some may wish to place it in the open court of Seti’s temple at Abydos, others not. The possibility of Chapel K for the vent was discussed earlier, yet perhaps this performance was located within the covered area of the temple and suited better for the shrine area. From the initial word “awake,” a connection to the ritual of Opening the Mouth can be main-

tained, although I will sidestep this matter for the moment.325 The section partly reflects the genre of “Transfiguration” hymns (sîÉw), which are, nonetheless, connected to the Egyptian mythological outlook.326 (One has but to mention the well-known but poorly-named Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus as a case in point.) We should, nonetheless, keep in mind that this concluding section of the Dedicatory Inscription does not concern itself with the names of objects or individuals even though there is a pertinent small narrative report by Seti to the gods (or rather to Re and Wenennefer in particular) on behalf of his son Ramesses. Assmann specifically describes the “sacramental interpretation” associated with such sîÉw.327 The “Jenseits” orientation of such hymns is a further aspect of their presentation because they have nothing to do with the cult of the dead. In one key spell the background of the age-old cult is, of course, expressly indicated with the word rs for wakening (but not nhsí or wts).328 The purpose of “awakening” the god—in this case Seti – is historically conditioned by Ramesses’ activities at Abydos. He calls him up, so to speak, to show him what a dutiful, pious, and true sî.f

325 If the statue of Seti is equated with the image (sàmw) mentioned in column 36, then already it would have undergone the wpt rî; see Daumas, “Quelques textes de l’atelier des orfèvres dans le temple de Dendara,” 117. 326 In general, Assmann, “Verklärung,” Lexikon der Ägyptologie VI, 998-1006. 327 Assmann, Ägypten. Theologie und Frömmigkeit einer frühen Hochkultur (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1984), 110, but see pages 108-12. Add his “Das Bild des Vaters,” 38-9; with Siegfried Schott, Mythe und Mythenbildung im alten Ägypten (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1945), 48-9. These cases, which go back to the Pyramid Texts in the written literature, are “Verklärungen.” Schott’s contribution was to place emphasis upon the “I style” of such hymns; cf. Assmann, Images et rites de la mort dans l’Égypte ancienne: L’apport des liturgies funéraires (Paris: Cybele, 2000), 29-35. One might expect such an event involving the “awakening” or “re-birth” of Seti to have taken place right at the end of the fourth month of Achet, at the close of the Sokar (later Choiak) festival, but see our comments at the end of this analysis. 328 Assmann, Ägypten. Theologie und Frömmigkeit einer frühen Hochkultur, 117-19. The key reference is given on page 110: PT 2127 (Spell 691B; not in Sethe). Gilles Roulin covers the term nhs(y)w (“resuscitated ones”) in his volume Le Livre de la Nuit: Une composition égyptienne de l’au-dèla I (Fribourg and Göttingen: Éditions Universitaires and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 129. He refers to certain passages in the Book of the Dead where the defunct will see when the sun rises. The same situation is presented in the Dedicatory Inscription. Add Roulin’s discussion of the rsw (“awakened ones”) and the “sleepers” (sdrw); and A. Piankoff, “Le Livre des Quererts,” BIFAO 43 (1945): 46 for another nhs figure in the underworld (in the “Livre der Quererts”) = his Le Livre de Querets (Cairo: Institut français

d’archéologie orientale, 1946), 120. We can also refer to Borghouts’ brief treatment of nhsí in his The Magical Texts of Papyrus Leiden I 348, 124 note 278. For wts see Assmann, Der König als Sonnenpriester, 27-8. Briefly, no “arms” raise Seti up. See as well Assmann’s comments on the gesture of wts in Der König als Sonnenpriester, 43-4 note 4. The morning ritual of awakening (with rs) is covered by Alliot, Le culte d’Horus à Edfou au temps des Ptolémées (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1949), 51-9 with Dimitri Meeks-Christine Favard-Meeks, La vie quotidienne des dieux égyptiens (Paris: : Hachette, 1993), 186-8. It is common enough in the Coffin Texts: see most recently, Willems, “The Embalmer Embalmed: Remarks on the Meaning of the Decoration of Some Middle Kingdom Coffins,” in Essays on Ancient Egypt in Honour of Herman te Velde (ed. Jacobus van Dijk; Groningen: Styx, 1997), 360 (commenting upon CT Spell 397). His analysis on pages 360-4 bears upon the account of Seti’s address to Ramesses in the Dedicatory Inscription. I will discuss this matter later, but we can note here the old study of Hermann Kees, “Göttinger Totenbuchstudien,” ZÄS 65 (1930): 65–83. There is the still useful commentary of A. de Buck, De godsdienstige opvatting van den slaap inzonderheid in het oude Egypte (Leiden: Brill, 1939). He covers the connection to rebirth from sleep. Cf. note 68 ( from the Book of the Dead): stsw next to sîÉw. The important point in our text is that Seti is awakened; he does not “raise himself up.” De Buck summarizes the situation. The god is sleeping in the hidden and closed naos. He must be woken up, and the situation of his face is emphasized; see (wn Èr). Hornung has provided a useful commentary on this conception of sleep (sdr) in his unpublished work, “Nacht und Finsternis im Weltbild der alten Ägypter” (Ph.D. diss., Universität Tübingen, 1956), 63-6.

chapter two

66

mr.f, has done. This is therefore not a sîÉw wherein the chief lector priest recites his formulae. Nor are we concerned with the presentation of offerings to the dead individual, in this case the Pharaoh. Because Ramesses expects favors, the purport of the account, if not also its style, is considerably different from what precedes. Truly, the constellation of father-son has become paramount. On more than one occasion Assmann observed this context within a religious setting even if the themes of the sîÉw are very different than those in the Dedicatory Inscription. He referred to the series of divine speeches, Götterreden, which stand very close to the “transfiguration” hymns.329 One very useful example brought forward by him is the Blessing of Ptah.330 There, the situation concerns the newly crowned Pharaoh and two speeches, the first by the god Ptah of Memphis which is the longer, and a second, the royal response. Equally, one might turn to the “Poetical Stela of Thutmose III,” although there is a one-way street, so to speak, which presents the arrival of the father god to the king (íí.n.í ).331 At this point we have to deal with the style in the Dedicatory text as well, insofar as the two speeches of Ramesses and Seti are not at all composed in the verse orientation of other Egyptian hymns. The accounts are presented with fully developed verbal formations (sdm.f prospective, sdm.f for the past, and sdm.n.f ). They contain wishes, but not those that are typical of the sîÉw. For example, the continual series of “may you, …..; may you …..” are lacking. The king nonetheless ends up asking his father for specific powers. But I cannot avoid placing emphasis upon the “awake” introduction, for here we have a close parallel to the opening command that the “transfiguration” hymns contain, wts tw.332 The concentration upon this event in the Osirian cult is too well known to describe in detail. Yet the awakening of Seti in the Dedicatory Inscription with nhsí is prefigured by the use of the same verb in column 73. There, at the very close of the speech of the king’s officials, it is stated that 329

“Verklärungen,” 1006 note 49. Assmann, “Die Inschrift auf dem äußeren Sarkophagdeckel des Merenptah,” 117. The comments of Kitchen, however, must be taken into consideration: Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 160-1. He observes the “conversation-pieces” that occur between the king and a deity which are prevalent in royal texts throughout the Ramesside Period. 331 Urk. IV 610.8-619.2; and now Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III, 111-20. 330

people “waken” (nhsí ) Seti to give him incense. The ritual presentation by the living Ramesses is indicated. Just as the daily recognition of the Pharaoh is connected to the rising from sleep— Atum is linked to Ramesses—so in an inverted fashion is Seti’s revival by his son, Re being connected to Seti. The pattern of “conversations,” or Gespräche, between gods and Pharaoh, a factor that the final portion of our composition presents, remains a broad field for further research.333 The unique personal orientation of this inscription reveals a feeling that is ever-present in the final two addresses of Ramesses and Seti. Görg’s work on such God-King Reden’s barely touched upon the complex nature of genre, setting, style of language, and date of inscription.334 Yet he managed to connect some of these texts with the Königsnovelle. Görg saw the historical backdrop, the curtain of a here (Abydos in this case) and a now (regnal year one of Ramesses). He referred to two parallels to these Abydene addresses—a beautiful stela of Amunhotpe III erected in his mortuary temple and an additional one of his from the same area, erected just behind the colossi of Memnon. In both are speeches, but neither resemble in structure, outlook, or religious feeling the Dedicatory account. Amunhotep III’s larger stela presents the account through a typical dedication section preceded by the normal eulogistic phraseology that, I suspect, could be obtained from a preexisting template.335 Within that portion we can recognize an inserted encomium-eulogy. Then follows a report of the king’s building activities in Luxor (third person), as well as other work-related projects, all dedicated to Amun. When the description of the construction of the bark of Amun is covered, the account moves to a first person narration, and the same may be said with respect to a series of other royal declarations. According to Görg the crucial passage is a response of Amun to the king in which the godhead, at Karnak I suspect, addressed his son, the living Horus.336 332 Assmann, “Harfnerlied und Horussöhne,” 58-9 and note c. Cf. Assmann and Bommas, Altägyptische Totenliturgien I, 368-9. 333 Yet Kitchen has shown the way in his all-too-brief comments cited in note 330 above. 334 I am referring to Görg, Gott-König-Reden in Israel und Ägypten. 335 Urk. IV 1646-57.8; and Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III, 393-407. 336 Urk. IV 1655.15ff.

the text: translation and detailed analysis However, this poetically structured hymn does not fit the style of the Dedicatory Inscription. It is a formal presentation whose parallel can be seen later in the Blessing of Ptah and earlier in the Victory Poem of Amun to Thutmose III. Moreover, the Sitz im Leben is quite different from Ramesses’ composition. It lacks any historical Königsnovelle presentation—there is not even an opening date—the account travels in a direction quite different than Ramesses’. A second possible link to the Dedicatory Inscription can be found on a small stela commissioned by Amunhotep III.337 There, after the opening five full-fold titulary (without a date), the king suddenly addresses Amun: “Come.! O Amun-Re …. So that you might see your temple …..” The event surely was an official dedication of the completed work (or near completed) in which the king speaks to the great god of Karnak. He invites his father to survey what he, Amun’s son has done. One suspects that at this ceremony a bark of Amun with the statue of the deity, all held up by the officious priests, were present. The god answers, but here again the eulogistic phraseology is commonplace. Added to this is the next response, this time by the Ennead of Karnak, although they address Amun and not the king. Once more an important caveat must be repeated. For the researcher, it is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for coincidence to examine the internal structure of each composition. In this case I am referring to speeches on stelae or on walls. But in order to prove a common basis of presentation, other elements have to be drawn into the argument, among which is the simplest one, the purpose of the text. Leaving these questions of date and structure to the side for the moment, I would like to repeat my basic concepts concerning the structure of the Dedicatory Inscription. The king’s later declaration of completed activity lead me to stress the conglomerate nature of the entire composition. The text is, as I have stated earlier, additive in nature. There are major sections (eulogies, Königsnovelle, addresses) that must be analyzed separately before we consider the account as a unity. And among these is the distinct religious portion of the conclusion. The physical work is now done or at least planned. Ramesses can come to Seti

337 Ibid., 1671.4-1677.4; and Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III, 376-83. She covers the northern companion on pages 384-90.

67

and state this in truth. He can ask his father for “lifetime after lifetime” and Seti can reply to this request by granting his son the desired wishes, and I feel that this portion reflects an event later than the king’s original journey to Abydos in his first year. But the whole event is marked by that pregnant phrase “I have come myself in order to see your temple next to Wenennefer, the eldest one (wr) of eternity.”338 The purport of this visit is at odds with his earlier one. After the coronation and celebrations at Karnak and Luxor, the young Ramesses sailed downstream and completed his official report at Abydos. Earlier, he had visited this religious area and began new buildings and then there was a reorientation of the work. Ramesses had previously, while regent, stressed his own property. His attention was subsequently focused upon Seti’s incomplete temple with its field system of endowments that was poor at best and the lack of an organized priesthood. This new address of Ramesses, on the other hand, indicates that those problems are now solved. The tenor and import of this later presentation deals with the completion of the situation. Seti’s house is now in operation. As a pious and father-loving son, Ramesses had seen to it that Seti’s building at Abydos was to be finished. But the actual construction and decorative activity could not have been done until he gave the orders, and his official declaration occurred in his first regnal year as sole Pharaoh. Let it not be forgotten that at Abydos the proclamation of Nebwennef as High Priest of Amun also took place. (Up to that time he had been chief of the prophets in the Thinite nome, and held other sacerdotal positions.) More than one regal act of dedication had taken place at Abydos in the first year of Ramesses’ sole reign. The Dedicatory Inscription moves forward in time and, as a unit, recounts additional activities of Ramesses. Hence, it does not merely refer to one royal event or to a single act of commemoration. Its structure is not homogenous because it operated by an additive nature. The Dedicatory Inscription is not merely a Königsnovelle. The composition is lengthy and comprises various styles of presentation. A speech of the king to his father, which we find at the conclusion, fits better into a

338

KRI II 332.9-10.

chapter two

68

separate religious act, one in which the dedication of the completed work for Seti took place. Furthermore, this new portion of the account places the address of Ramesses to Seti within a cultic setting. The king addresses his father during a formal rite of presentation. And the elder is invoked through the pregnant word “awake.” The son is now resuscitating Seti.339 He said: Awake! (nhs tw)—your face to heaven340—so that you may see Re, O my father Menmaatre who is a god.341 Behold. I am (now) vivifying your name.342

Seti is once more addressed as Menmaatre; the close relationship of son to father occurs. Ramesses’ words parallel the same role that his father played out at Abydos some time earlier when he erected a lengthy dedicatory stela for his father Ramesses I.343 In that case the father became a god through the filial duty of his son, and hence he was “transfigured” (with a sense

339 KRI II 332.1-2. The root nhsí is resumed in column 112 with snhs. Ramesses (son) wakens Seti ( father) and Horus (son) awakens Wenennefer (as father Osiris). The assumption of the Solar-Osiris unity ought to be clear, and I can add a passage from the speech of Thoth in the Stairway Corridor that is even more explicit: “You cause(d) him [= Wenennefer, that is Osiris] to appear at the crack of dawn as Re next to every god” (KRI I 191.6-7). This issue will be discussed in Chapter III. 340 This statement indicates the physical performance: to see Re; to be alive. Seti, who is dead (and thus an Osiris) awakens and sees Re. Osiris is permeated with the light and rays of the sun god. 341 Assmann, “Das Bild des Vaters,” 37 with note 96 on page 159: nty m ntr. He refers to the earlier Abydene text of Seti I in a context not too different from this one: KRI I 113.14. But see as well KRI I 112.2-3: ntf pw àî# írt ntr and [sÉ#] dt.f m ntr, referring to the act of Seti. In this case Ramesses I, or to be more precise his statue constructed through the pious act of his son Seti, is a god. The same may be said for Ramesses II’s and his father Seti I: see the analysis in Chapter III. We can also add (in a different context), the account of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu: KRI V 116.15. Ahmed el-Sawi, “The Deification of Sety Ist in his Temple of Abydos,” MDAIK 43 (1987): 225-7 repeats past scholarship. Dimitri Meeks, on the other hand, reveals his keen insight into the nature of “god” in ancient Egypt when he refers to the Ramesses I example, “Notion de ‘dieu’ et structure du panthéon dans l’Égypte ancienne,” RHR 205 (1988): 433. 342 Seti is thus revived. 343 KRI I 110.11-114.15. 344 See in this context Schott, Der Denkstein Sethos’ I. für die Kapelle Ramses’ I. in Abydos, passim, especially pages 22, 29 (where the word “Verklärung” is employed), 55-6, and 67-8. This concept is explicitly indicated through the use

linked to an invoked statue).344 At the point which is now reached, Ramesses invokes his father and explains to him what he, the pious son, is performing.345 I have avenged (nd.n.í ) you. I paid attention (díw.í; while I paid attention ?) to your temple, your [offerings] enduring.

Here, Kruchten’s analysis can be supported or simplified as we observe the opening sdm.n.f followed by a possible Perfective Late Egyptian sdm.f.346 One might, however, view the entire though short passage as reflective of the combination sdm.n.f— sdm.f, a formula that is found quite frequently in hymnic settings.347 On the other hand, the clear writing of the verb “to give,” díw, with the ending of—w, reflects the common Ramesside writing for Perfective (rather than nominal) sdm.f. This situation will be discussed below. The account is not interrupted.348 You rest in the afterworld like Osiris when I appear as Re to the people,349

of sÉîw (Schott, ibid., 25 note 5). Schott further remarks that the composition explicitly indicates the context of a “transformation” (ibid., with various notes); add the comments of Assmann, Liturgische Lieder, 352 (section 19). One major difference between the account of Seti and the later one of Ramesses II is the former’s apparent stress upon his (blood-)family. Note the key word îbwt which is employed more than once: Dimitri Meeks, “Notes de lexicographie (§1),” RdE 26 (1974): 52-65; and Franke, Altägyptische Verwandtschaftsbezeichungen, 277-88. Meeks felt with good reason that îbwt in the Seti I stela refers to “clients” rather than members of the king’s family (page 62). The difference in orientation between both texts, however, is still to be observed. 345 KRI II 332.2; Kruchten’s “rule” can apply here if one wishes. 346 Therefore, we might regard the passage (and others) reflecting an earlier stage in the stylistic verbal uses first explicated by Wente in his “The Syntax of Verbs of Motion in Egyptian.” On the other hand, I suspect any regularity of presentation in monumental hieroglyphic inscriptions of the Ramesside Period. With Kruchten, can we argue that the following sdm.f must be circumstantial (and so “emphasized” by the opening sdm.n.f? 347 The famous discussion of Assmann is in his Liturgische Lieder, 292-5; the entire study of this combination and others is presented in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian, 196-8 (“balanced sentences”); a more detailed presentation is by Junge, ‘Emphasis’ and Sentential Meaning in Middle Egyptian (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989), 24-6, 51-6, to which see his brief comment in Neuägyptische, 75-6 (to line 5). Cf. now Assmann and Bommas, Altägyptische Totenliturgien I, 225. 348 KRI II 332.2-4. 349 There is little difficulty in understanding this section. Assmann Liturgische Lieder, 101-6 provides a useful analysis.

the text: translation and detailed analysis Now (while ?) I am (tí wí ) on the great throne of Atum like Horus son of Isis who avenged his father.

The style involves two main sentences of high seriousness and probably also formal tonality. Moreover, these words form the heading to the actions and present the purpose of the text (deeds in the past). This is nothing more than a royal address, a cultic presentation spoken from son to father. But the underworld or afterworld is the setting; see Osiris and Atum. Ramesses appears as Re; Seti is Osiris.350 Then follows a more specific connection between father-son:351 How [exceed]ingly [good] is what I have done for you (írw.í n.k). Welcome as one who repeats life.

The concepts here are not difficult to reconstruct. Seti invokes his father. The latter arrives and is thus reborn. The first half of the following passage is a further example of the Egyptian paranomasia ably described by Loprieno.352 It also repeats the combination initial sdm.n.f—sdm.f; the ideas are different as they are more specific. I have fashioned (msyw.n.í ) you.353 And (while ?) I have built (qd.í ) a temple which you loved (mrt.n.k), your image (sàmw.k) being in it in the Sacred Land of Abydos, the eternal district. And I have set up divine (wîÈw.í ) offerings [for] your [imag]es, daily offerings being presented to you, while I was354 (?) the one who accomplished the situation/case that you lacked (lit.: was lacking for you) so that I could do it for you, every wish of yours, being beneficial for your name.

In the liturgic hymns and prayers addressed to Re the system is as follows. When Re the sun god sets in the west, he rests in Osiris in the underworld. Equally, Osiris rests in Re. The division between Re and Osiris is overt at this point. Re is living (the son) and Osiris is dead (the father). Yet the crucial verb Ètp + m is employed exactly as Assmann pointed out with respect to Horus and Re: they are frequently set beside each other (ibid., 101). 350 “To the people” Ramesses is Re. 351 KRI II 332.4-5; the father is greeted. This sentence forms a break as it separates the narrative portions of what precedes from those that follow. The Relative Form is írw.í. 352 KRI II 332.5–8. 353 First and foremost in Ramesses’ mind and words is the statue of his father. 354 The passage is partly corrupt; cf. Kitchen, Ramesside

69

The opening is sdm.n.f and then two sdm.f ’s follow. Again, I do not think that the interpretation of Kruchten altogether fits here. Can one view these patterns consisting of an initial narrative form and a resulting or subsequent row of sdm.f ’s which operate as continuatives? If so, then the consecutive narrative presentations link up neatly. This interpretation might parallel the situation witnessed by Wente with respect to the Late Egyptian Miscellanies, parts of P. Harris, the Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II, and a few additional Ramesside royal inscriptions.355 His position was that in some of the literary accounts of Dynasties XIX and XX an unexpected verbal pattern revealed itself. Instead of the colloquial First Present + verb of motion/initial Perfective sdm.f, a different approach was employed: a series of sdm.f ’s would be employed. Even though Wente did not examine further the antecedents of his discovery, it is sufficient to emphasize his conclusion that the sequence of non-initial sdm.f ’s stood in for the colloquial Non-Initial Main Sentence. The latter had replaced the series of (continuative, predicative) sdm.n.f ’s that one finds, for example, in Classic Middle Egyptian narrative passages. With the above comments in mind, let us proceed further. There still are a series of sdm.f ’s to analyze.356 And I have yoked (Ètrw.í ) servants for you [in order to carry] (offerings) for your ka and to spend water for you on the ground, with bread and beer. I myself have really (sp sn) come (íy.kwí ) in order to see your temple beside Wenennefer, the eldest of eternity.357

Inscriptions: Translations II, 171. One can understand the initial íw as a circumstantial marker; I interpret the passage as follows: íw m ír pî sp whí Èr.k; cf. note 362 below. 355 See above notes 10, 95, 187, and 346. For the Middle Egyptian narrative formation under discussion, I can do no better than refer to the study of Janet H. Johnson, “NIMS in Middle Egyptian,” Serapis 6 (1980): 69-73. 356 KRI II 332.8-10. For the first word Ètr, see now Haring, Divine Households, 47 note 3 (“to provide”). Physical compulsory labor is indicated. 357 At this point Ramesses places emphasis upon his arrival at Abydos, stating that he is there to see Seti’s temple. Because the work is “stated to be finished,” surely this must also indicate a time after Ramesses’ voyage. Otherwise, we would have to assume that all of the king’s actions were completed by word instead of also by deed.

70

chapter two

The latter sentence emphasizes Ramesses’ visit to seer the completion of his orders. Now comes the specificity.358

Behold. I am now vivifying your name after I have avenged (nd.n.í ) you.

I have finished (grÈw.í ) the work in it.359 I have laid out (nm#w.n.í ) the ground.360 (because) I [knew/did ?; rÉ.kwí] what you wished (mrt.n.k), that every chapel of yours be made.361 I have established (smnw.í ) your name in them forever, while am one who acts for Truth so that it may be strong.362

And then follow a series of predicative sdm.f formations. Subsequently, however, we are faced with a second sdm.n.f in column 82: “I have fashioned you” (msyw.n.í tw). Here I believe there are more difficulties because the verbal formation immediately following appears to be predicative sdm.f: “I have build a temple which you loved.” Hence, following Kitchen, I have rendered both as simple English Present Perfects even though the following could be argued:

Let me stop at this point although by no means is the speech over. (The last phrase exactly parallels the earlier one of column 83.) My translation is very literal, but I have preferred to render the text this way in order to point out the verbal formations. The series of sdm.f ’s, which should be predicative, continue the king’s statement of filial duty and loyalty. He has done this and this and this. No nominal formations can be argued for any of the following three: “I have finished the work in it,” “I have laid out the ground,” and “I have established your name in them forever.” The presence of a verb of motion (“to come,” íí ) in the middle of the king’s statements provides welcome support for this analysis, the temporal setting preferring the simple older and more Classical approach ( first person Stative). Let us also keep in mind that the last verbal construction, smn.í may reflect an original smn.n.í.363 But this whole series of sdm.f ’s following one after the other go back to an intitial sdm.n.f which serves to opens up the new idea; i.e., the deeds of work (construction) which Ramesses enacted at Abydos and the interconnected sacerdotal requirements. It can be noted that the opening sdm.n.f in this address (“I have laid out the ground”) perhaps could be understood as a pluperfect:

358 KRI II 332.10-11. From this point onwards, the opening statements of Ramesses with regard to the incomplete building activity in the temple are now resolved. 359 The opening sdm.f is followed by a sdm.n.f. I believe that Kruchten’s “rule” applies in the latter case. 360 See the remarks in the previous note. 361 It appears best to interpret the ír as a passive rather than as an Infinitive (“making every chapel of yours”). The difference is minimal. I follow Gauthier with regard to the opening verb. Kitchen prefers “I [have done ?] what you desired” (Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 171). 362 Read íw m ír; see the somewhat troublesome passage in column 83 (KRI II 332.7) and our comments in note 354. 363 See note 266. 364 KRI II 332.11-12. The description moves to the temple personnel. In general, one can read Haring’s volume, Divine

How exceedingly [good] is what I have done for you. Welcome as one who repeats life. after I have fashioned you.

Ramesses arranged that Seti’s statue be fashioned and it is now in operation. I have broken the text at this point, and insofar as we are in the middle of a passage or subsection, the additional comments of the king have to be recorded.364 And I gave (díw.í ) to you southerners offering to your temple, northerners [providing] revenues to your beautiful face.365

Then a new idea commences that is concerned with the temple workers but not the cultivators who receive little attention from the king.366 I brought together (sÈwy.n.í ) your workers, united together under the authority of the prophet of your temple in order to cause that your offerings/property come into being, enduring all together and directed [to] your [ temple] throughout eternity.

Households, with profit because he discusses virtually all of the economic stipulations that are listed here. The following statement indicates that some supplies from Egypt’s territories outside of Egypt were directed to Abydos. This is well known from P. Harris, for example. 365 The troublesome word ínw is employed: Janssen, “Bîkw: From Work to Product,” SAK 20 (1993): 81-94; Spalinger, “From Local to Global: The Extension of an Egyptian Bureaucratic Term to the Empire,” SAK 23 (1996): 353-76; and Haring, Divine Households, passim, especially pages 48-9. Observe that according to this account the “northerners” are not “serfs” or workers in this temple. Only the Nubians are. 366 KRI II 332.12-14. Following Kruchten, the opening verb ought to be non-predicative.

the text: translation and detailed analysis I also believe that the next passage has a core idea separate from a series of past narratives all of which are connected to one another. Here, an additional sdm.n.f formation opens the thought.367 I made grandiose (àpss.n.í ) your treasury, it being filled with everything of desire which I have given to you (rdy.í ) together with your revenues. And I gave (díw.í ) to you a mnà ship bearing deliveries on the Great Green, bringing in for you great [marvels of] God’s Land,368 while traders369 trade, carrying their orders, and their work products consist of gold, silver, copper.

The concept of the treasury of Seti I’s Abydene temple appears to link up with the succeeding descriptions of the normal or expected temple revenues. And so does the next passage, albeit more indirectly, even though it is overtly connected with the previous one.370 And I made (írwy.í ) for you the land survey that had been (only) oral …, … on the high lands, reckoned according to/ in fields. And I provided (#pr.í ) [them] with administrators and field laborers in order to provide the corn for your divine offerings.371 And I gave (díw.í ) to you barges and crews, workmen hewing [lest] a delay occur in the [transporta]tion to your temple.372

367

KRI II 332.14-333.2. The temple’s revenues and modes of income are now covered. The opening àpss.n.í must also be understood by Kruchten’s analysis. 368 And this is the external trade, pace Vandersleyen, Ouadj our, wîd wr: Un autre aspect de la vallée du Nil (Brussels: Connaissance de l’Égypte ancienne, 1999), 178 (example 8). Cf. Kitchen, review of Vandersleyen, Ouadj our, wîd wr, DE 46 (2000): 123-38. As Stephen Quirke points out to me, this passage supplies information on the “patronage” of ships circulating on commission in the Eastern Mediterranean Late Bronze Age trading circuit. 369 See now Haring, Divine Households, 15. He correctly indicates that these men were “commercial agents” in the service of institutions or estates of the high officials. In this context I regard them as dealing with trade outside of Egypt. 370 KRI II 333.2-8. The first point reflects back to the comments of column 37: see Kitchen’s remarks in Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 196. The field boundaries were definitely not set down “on paper.” It would have taken time to organize the entire agricultural support system of this temple. Hence, a temporal interval must be assumed, one that covered the events after Ramesses’ visit to Abydos. 371 For the field laborers, see now Haring, Divine Households, 287-8.

71

And I tied up/brought together (tsw.í )373 for you cattle consisting of all small game in order to endow your offerings in truth. And I levied (Ètrw.í ) for you birds in the fen(s) of capturing and other … live ro-geese and young pregnant chicks. And I placed (díw.í ) fishermen in the waters and every pond in order to bring up for you the products in the cargoes of the mnà boats.

It ought to be clear that this is an extremely detailed account, reminiscent of Seti I’s Nauri Decree but lacking in the legal precision of that document.374 Ramesses most certainly had this list made public at Abydos, and we might query whether this portion of the composition was actually read aloud to Seti in the sanctuary at Abydos. Let us continue with the account:375 I provided (sspd.n.í ) your temple with all posts ….. while (?) my majesty has [caused to app] ear (sÉ## Èm.í ?) your temple priesthood filled of personnel—mrt servants assessed with linen for your garments, your smdt staff of the fields [from] every district, and every man carrying their [work products] in order to fill your temple.376

This entire lengthy passage rounds out the section wherein Ramesses states to Seti what he has accomplished for his father’s temple. The short summary that preceded it merely told us what he had done and, perhaps more importantly, when these things took place, whereas the subsequent

372

Hence, handworkers were associated with the flotilla of the temple. 373 See note 115 above for a more extensive meaning of the word. 374 KRI I 45.6-58.15. It is significantly dated to the first day of I Peret. From this fact we might hypothesize that Seti I immediately (and auspiciously) declared that temple to be completed on the second New Year’s Day. For translations and commentary, see most recently Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated and Annotated: Translations I, 38-50 with Notes and Comments I, 48-55; and Benedict G. Davies, Egyptian Historical Inscriptions of the Nineteenth Dynasty (Jonsered: Paul Aströms Förlag 1997), 277-308. The preamble describes Seti’s arrangements for his Abydene temple, and the promulgation includes the basic economic set up there. In fact, the royal decree relating to the support of the temple is explicitly mentioned 375 KRI II 333.8-11. Gauthier argued for the initial verb sÉ##. In his translation Kitchen has queried the possibility (Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 172); Kruchten’s “rule” can apply here as well. 376 For the mrt, see Haring, Divine Households, 49-50; and for the smdt, ibid., 6-7 (workforce). The division of labor is clear.

72

chapter two

address recounts in the first person those undertakings. Once more we move from an introductory summary of the past deeds to the necessary details, and the heading repeats the sdm.n.f formation. For example, in the above passage the focus is most definitely upon the temple workers whereas earlier, the equivalent verbal construction (àpss.n.í ) heralds a different organization. One helpful parallel to this subsection of the Dedicatory Inscription may be found in those series of narrative sdm.f ’s that almost run wild close to the end of the Great Papyrus Harris.377 At a specific point the king presents an official address to the magnates of Egypt. The comparison is worth making, if only as we are at the beginning of a reign (that of Ramesses IV) as we are here concerned with the opening year of Ramesses II. In the former speech, the young king moves from recounting his past and that of the troubled time preceding his father’s reign to a series of declarations concerned with internal matters. However, the orientation is different because P. Harris presents a declaration of Truth, the antecedents of which go back far into the past, and to the Old Kingdom in particular. In addition, the king is dead, and the account transpires from the afterworld. Is it possible that the speech was addressed at an official convocation such as a heb sed festival? Whatever is the answer to this question, it remains the case that these past deeds are presented in an address structurally close to ours and perhaps orally given. Earlier I maintained that all of the accomplished deeds of Ramesses II, listed one by one in the Dedicatory Inscription, were placed within a specific narrative setting, one that Wente first revealed with respect to Papyrus Harris.378 He observed that the colloquial Non-Initial Main Sentence was not the method of moving through time, and went on to state that “Such a narrative sequence is completely lacking elsewhere in this genre of texts.”379 The “coordinated” sdm.f forms,” to employ Wente’s felicitous words, present a “phraseology unrelated to the colloquial means

of expressing narrative.” Perhaps in this part of the Dedicatory Inscription an early Ramesside monumental approach to narrative, one which anticipates the latter method, can be seen. By and large, the sdm.f is employed although there are some sdm.n.f ’s, the latter normally placed at the beginning of subsections. In the context of Papyrus Harris Wente had pondered whether “there is a discernable difference in usage between sdm.f and sdm.n.f in these texts.”380 At a later date Kruchten strongly argued that the latter formation was retained when a non-predicate use is indicated. But is it possible that all of the latter formations were emphatic; i.e., non-predicative? Many of them are located at the beginning of complex sentences; adverbial expansions hinging upon the main clause can be found with no difficulty. Thus the cases are not at all clear with regard to their emphatic backgrounding. After all, one may go so far as to claim that such compositions witness the increasing disappearance of the sdm.n.f but not its complete extinction. “Tradition,” to use that often misused word, may very well have still played an important literary role. It is worthwhile to examine Wente’s study on the verbal structure of P. Harris in more detail at this point.381 The opening section of this address of the king reveals a series of more colloquial forms (75.6-76.4). Commencing with Ér ír plus the First Present of + Infinitive, a lengthy introduction to the historical subsection is given. This “addendum” to Harris totally differs in style from its immediate environment. Subsequent is the series of coordinated sdm.f ’s that I have already mentioned. (Earlier the text employs past tense devices relatively contemporary in outlook.) But the middle of the account is remarkably up to date. This is so striking that perhaps an evaluation directed away from the arena of philology and aimed instead at a concept of performance, as in a ritual, might be more useful. Wente ascertained in this different mode of presentation the sdm.f could occur at any stage

377 For this material I refer once more to Chapter V in Wente, “The Syntax of Verbs of Motion in Egyptian.” But let us not forget that it was Ramesses IV who had the document drawn up. 378 Ibid. 379 Ibid., 90, and for the following quote as well. While outside of this discussion, all of these compositions must be considered from the communality of theme (kingship), linguistics, style, and historical import. 380 Ibid., 90 note 2. We can add his pertinent comments

in his review of Gardiner, The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II, JNES 22 (1963): 207. Kruchten, whose work “From Middle Egyptian to Late Egyptian” we have constantly utilized, later took up the challenge. 381 For a straightforward presentation of this “Historical Portion,” see now Grandet, Papyrus Harris I (BM 9999) I, 77-80. His title to the historical section—“Discours aux humains”—is an improvement upon earlier interpretations. Yet what type of literary-historical document was it?

the text: translation and detailed analysis in the past narrative. The same can be said for this section of the Dedicatory Inscription. Why was this done in the case of Harris? Ramesses III concerns himself with his earlier activities by relating to his grandees, both secular and non-secular, with the military among the latter, what he has done. This non-vulgar narrative style appears to have been employed for royal addresses. Other examples can be given, but with Ramesses II at Abydos, the situation is closely parallel. The isolated importance of each act by the king is brought to the fore. Each individual deed is merited its own place of importance, separate from those which occur earlier or later. I feel that the tonality must have been roughly equal for all of these passages: “I did this; I did this; …; and I did this.” Granted that this interpretation leaves aside the vexed problem of the sdm.n.f ’s, it resolves the difficulty of viewing the Harris example as an isolated case. The effect of such a presentation overtly signals events set in the past, each one being independent of the other. That is to say, their individuality was important to the speaker or the writer and the activity discussed was completed. Because Wente read a partial Middle Kingdom style into Ramesses III’s declarations in P. Harris, perhaps a formal rather than colloquial presentation had been demanded. In this portion of the Dedicatory Inscription only with “I have come” (íy.kwí and not íí.n.í; column 84) was the Stative employed to herald a beginning, and in this case a predicative syntagm was demanded. This passage further indicates the king’s presence at Abydos in order to survey the completions of his ordered tasks. Nonetheless, the key narrative portions of the king’s speech in this section of the Dedicatory Inscription remain based upon sdm.f ’s with sdm.n.f ’s, at least sometimes, serving as headings. Is this a result of the performative aspect?382 In the Old Kingdom the sdm.f referred to a completed activity and, temporally speaking, it was a perfect. At that time the third person would

382

KRI II 332.9 (column 84). Loprieno, review of Eric Doret, The Narrative Verbal System of Old and Middle Egyptian, “Verbal Forms and Verbal Sentences in Old and Middle Egyptian,” GM 102 (1988): 59-72. This is a significant analysis. 384 Ibid., 63 note 14. 385 Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 519-23; see his sentence on page 523: “Beachte den erstaunlich kunstvollen Aufbau und die literarischen Qualitäten dieses Textes, die auf eine reiche Tradition höflicher Literatur schließen lassen.” The italics are mine. 383

73

be written with sdm.f, and there the preterit nature of the syntagm was the point of departure. During that time the first person indicated completed activity by means of the suffix conjugation of the Stative.383 But with the timeless form íí.n.f, or (if you will) an initial Emphatic sdm.n.f, we enter a different realm of activity. Perhaps the difference is better explained in the following way. According to Loprieno, the Stative of any verbal root, adjectival or not, “is more subject-centered, more truly ‘perfective’, whereas the sdm.n=f is more action oriented, more ‘preterital’.”384 The lack of íí.n.í and the presence of its Stative counterpart, íí.kwí, in the narrative portion of Ramesses’ address to Seti support this analysis. Ramesses “is come” to Abydos, and he is there. What matters is his address to Seti, the ritual invocation of his father who now (re)lives in his son’s presence. In a list of eulogistic hymns presented in 1975 Assmann included two very early Dynasty XVIII examples that can throw some welcome light on this speech of Ramesses.385 He located the first example of a New Kingdom eulogy under Ahmose.386 The monument, a free standing stela found before the VIIIth Pylon of Karnak, may or may not have anything to do with his eventual success over the Hyksos at Avaris. The peculiar reference to the king’s wife, Ahhotep, as “Mistress of the banks of the \îw-nbw,” nevertheless, points to a complete conquest over the Delta, and this must have included the area to the extreme northeast.387 There is an important dedicatory section at the conclusion to the inscription and few narrative formations occur in the eulogies, although they are rare.388 The composition includes two closely-knit but nonetheless separate hymns of praise. One eulogy is addressed to the living king Ahmose and a second to his wife. The prenomen of Ahmose closes the first just as the title plus name, “King’s Wife Ahhotep,” ends the second. After this point the final portion arrives, and it is structurally different than the preceding hymns.

386

Urk. IV 14.1-23.16; “Eulogie, Königs-,” 41. Assmann remarked that this eulogy is so detailed and well presented that we must suppose a lost literary development. 387 Urk. IV 21.4 and Vandersleyen, Les guerres d’Ahmosis, 135-76. On the other hand, \îw-nbw can mean the island of Crete and possibly mainland Greece. The inscription, however, reads: Ènwt ídbw Èîw nbt; see below. 388 Above all, see Urk. IV 19.6: dgg.tw.f, a very nice example of the nominal formation.

chapter two

74

This is a dedication-offering list of Ahmose to Amun in which the structure is very simple.389 It opens with a past narrative—íw grt wd.n Èm.f írt mnw n ít.f ímn-R #—and a further narrative formation at the close of line 32.390 This structure is overt as is its aim. New and very unusual objects were donated to the temple complex of Amun during an official ceremony in Karnak. This followed the adulation of king and queen. Therefore, it is reasonable to reconstruct an official visit of the royal pair to Karnak. The stylistic presentation of the stela involved a simple rule: first come the eulogies and then follows the narrative portion. In this case there was no Königsnovelle setting owing to the structure and the event. The king had not called into his presence officials to discuss a matter but had decided on his activity by himself. Nonetheless, the declaimed phrases must refer back to the words of the ceremony. A narrative third person was added at the end to complete the event. As with the Dedicatory Inscription, a historical sequel was added, one in which the donations followed the speeches. In this stela the first eulogy, that directed to king Ahmose, is not a unity. The opening is composed of non-verbal passages, all basically in apposition to the names of the king. There are a few verbal characteristics, but essentially can be described as timeless ones, to follow Assmann. In lines 9-10 Ahmose is described by the following important passage: “He has seized the inheritance of the one who begot him.” Yet even here the “all purpose” nature of the phrase is overt; i.e., it could apply to any Pharaoh and not just to Ahmose. In fact, it is unclear if that passage indicates the king’s coronation in Thebes or his 389

Urk. IV 22.3ff. This is a royal command; see recently Dominique Valbelle, “Les décrets égyptiens et leur affichage dans les temples,” in Valbelle and Leclant, Le décret de Memphis, 67-90 and pages 73-87 in particular. 391 Urk. IV 17.9ff. I prefer the useful if old-fashioned term “patricians,” one that goes back to Gardiner’s researches. The divisions are (Urk. IV 20.9): p#t, Èr nb, Èîw nbw (which may not support Vandersleyen’s analysis for the text; the word originally represented the old inhabitants of the Delta but later—Middle Kingdom onwards—also the Aegean islands), and the tîw. Assmann’s translation in Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 520 appears perfect in this context. For the direct speech I see speaking these three groups (Urk. IV 17.10, 12, and 14): Èr nb, Èîw nbw, and tîw. They are specifically distinguished from the first named, the “patricians.” Subsequently, these sections of the population are neatly 390

rise to the throne after the death of Kamose. In line 11 the “patricians” (p#t) praise their king.391 Subsequently in line 21 the king returns to his address by referring to them as well as to three other segments of Egyptian society. Two additional early Dynasty XVIII compositions present the same nature of eulogistic organization with, however, subtle differences. One of them can be found on the Eighth Pylon at Karnak in which Thutmose I presents himself before the Theban triad and thanks Amun, with emphasis placed upon his wife, Hatshepsut.392 An earlier one, also dated to Ahmose, provides an interesting contrast to the Dedicatory Inscription.393 From the contents of this stela, set up at Abydos, we can deduce an official ceremony. A chapel was to be officially commemorated for Tetisheri, the grandmother of the king. The stylistic approach is of a Königsnovelle nature. Indeed, the beginning indicates this overtly: “A sitting of his majesty occurred in the dîdw of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Nebpehetyre.” His wife, who was next to him, and undoubtedly on another throne, speaks as well. The two converse with one another. The declarations move from the first person speech of the king through to the response of Ahmose Nofretary and back once more to Pharaoh. Finally, there is a third person account in which the official actions of Ahmose are described. This stela also reveals the interconnection of ceremony (speeches) and resultant activity (ritual performance) as we have seen in the Dedicatory Inscription. The quasi “prepackaged” nature of the eulogies to the king can be best viewed by perusing a selection of the Late Egyptian Miscellanies.394 divided. Urk. IV 20.9-10 indicates that the p#t, Ènmmt, rÉyt, and Èrw nb (the last to fill up any that are previously missing) “hear” an eloquent conclusion to the eulogy. In Urk. IV 21.4 a second hymn of praise, this time directed to the king’s wife Ahhotep, includes the important phrase of Ahhotep, “Mistress of the ídbw and the Èîw nbt.” 392 Urk. IV 265.7-74.4 393 Urk. IV 26.1-29.5. In the lunette the king alone is depicted on the right and the left offering to Tetishery. The depiction thus reflects the religious setting of Tetishery’s chapel in Abydos and not the official court proclamation. See as well Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III, 15-21. 394 I will once more refer to Wente, “The Syntax of Verbs of Motion in Egyptian,” 74-9. The text used here is P. Anastasi II. Add now: Stephan Jäger, Altägyptische Berufstypologien, Göttingen (2004); Spalinger, “The Paradise of Scribes and the Tartarus of Soldiers”, in Five Views on Egypt, Göttingen (2006) 5-49.

the text: translation and detailed analysis

75

Among those scribal texts, many of which tend to be didactic (hardships of a soldier’s life, the poor scribe, or a collection of maxims) can be found some that present praises to the king or a series of epithets attached to the ruler’s name. As an example, let me turn to one that is called “Praise of Ramesses II as a warrior.”395 In this brief encomium will be found all of the characteristics that are included under the modern rubric of eulogies: bimembral phrases, verbal formations (especially the sdm.f ), and references to enemies. The passage chosen follows upon a previous hymn of praise to the Delta residence and thus is joined neatly to a central theme. Immediately thereafter we meet a second hymn to the Pharaoh, this time it is Merenptah, the contemporary ruler of Egypt.396 Once more the same makeup is presented. A fourth in the series continues the same viewpoint and a short fifth praises the bÉn, the “villa,” of the king. Last but not least the miscellany of P. Anastasi II covers a “letter of adulation,” to employ Caminos’ term, directed to Pharaoh.397 Common expressions and structure of the encomia are ever present; such scribal “books” often contained these hymnic passages. Another Miscellany, P. Anastasi IV, devotes most of its attention to a somewhat different, though related, series of joyous praise to the capital in the Delta. Evidently, such eulogies were considered a useful medium to provide ebullient adorations on the subject of the Delta Residence. See the heading to P. Anastasi IV 6.1, for example.398 It is not difficult to conclude that such eulogies belonged to part of the standard “instruction of letter writing” that a scribe had to know for his profession, or to be more specific, that was required for his later correspondence and the like. Eulogies could therefore be placed within a professional setting, one that included literary outputs but that was, nonetheless, more based on rote than actual creativity.399 Earlier, I reflected upon the eulogistic style in connection with concepts of sdd bîw and sdd nÉtw.400

At this point some clarifications can be made. P. Anastasi II is for the most part a unity and not to be regarded as a pastiche of separate praises such as to the residence, to the king Ramesses, to Merenptah, and the like. The heading in 1,1 explicitly tells us this. The “Lord of Egypt” is the theme, and his nÉtw covers deeds both militaristic and peaceful. They throw attention upon the Pharaoh’s physical attributes and provide visible demonstrations of his manly actions. The “villa” as a topic seems to weigh as heavily in importance as the king’s strength against enemies.401 Because the miscellany scribe could praise both Ramesses and his son, these factors reveal that such papyri contain a gamut of these nÉtw. The specific foci are different in each subsection even if all belonged to a single literary. Thus the “villa of Sese” passage follows upon two eulogies to Merenptah; it, too, is of the same style and orientation as the former.402 Consider further the sixth portion of this papyrus. To quote Caminos, we are faced with a (model) “letter of adulation to the pharaoh.” Ready made, it could be included in any eulogistic recitation. When Amun-Re is addressed in section seven, the theme moves away from the nÉtw encomia. The style, nonetheless, remains homogeneous with the preceding portions of the work. (This divergence is made more explicit by the series of hymns to Amun and well known and oft repeated claims concerning the superior profession of the scribe in section eight.) From the opening six portions of P. Anastasi II there is concrete evidence of a cohesive and readily defined genre. The “recitations of nÉtw” make one automatically think of those prose-oriented texts of nÉtw that occur from Dynasties XVIII to XX. I have in mind the opening title of the Kadesh Poem where Ramesses is said to have “performed” his nÉtw.403 As is well known, his lengthy war record is a narrative presentation. A fortiori, the up-to-date year eleven report of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu commences with a title as well: “Beginning of the nÉtw for/of Egypt

395 Caminos, Late Egyptian Miscellanies, 40-3: P. Anastasi II 2.5-3.6. 396 Ibid., 37-8: P. Anastasi II 1.1-2.5. The title, sdd nÉtw, occurs right at the beginning. 397 Ibid., 48. 398 Ibid., 153. Therefore, it ought to be clear that the term nÉtw encompasses deeds of a physical nature that need not be military in nature. 399 P. Anastasi II is an excellent example. In section 7 (6.7-8.5: “The profession of a scribe is superior to all others”) the orientation of the scribe alters. At this point he has

moved from the nÉtw of the king to a different perspective; see as well the prayers at the end of the miscellany. 400 See in particular note 159 above. 401 The traditional divisions, sections 1 and 2 here, are based on the research of Gardiner. That analysis runs back to the 19th century. 402 Caminos, Late Egyptian Miscellanies, 47: P. Anastasi II 5.5-6. 403 KRI II 3.2/5 (K1 is lost); see my Aspects of the Military Documents, 224-32.

76

chapter two

which this king established …..”404 The so-called Poem of Year Twelve avoids the title as it does any narrative presentation.405 But it is a clear-cut eulogy to the king focused upon the second successful campaign against the Libyans. (It parallels the two rhetorical stelae of year twelve which do not include month or day.)406 If we extend Borghouts’ analysis of the sdd bîw, then the difference between that term and sdd nÉtw is revealed. The former concerns gods and dead kings whereas the latter are for living Pharaohs. Therefore, the nÉtw cover the powers of the king in a physical sense (e.g., strength and activities dependent upon what can be witnessed as power) whereas the bîw are concerned with the manifestations of power from a non-earthly realm. Borghouts felt that “bîw especially denote all possible forms and manners by which some transcendental being by nature (such as a god or a dead person) or by role (like the king) can be imagined to make itself felt to the living.”407 When a king arrives at a temple and is praised for his deeds, the realm is that of the living. Various programs, such as the building work at Abydos presented in the Dedicatory Inscription or donations to a god, remain within this sphere of activity. There is no “manifestation” (bîw) of a hidden power but rather an ever-present recognition of a spatially and temporally determined event. In a nutshell, nÉtw expresses the attributes of power which encompassed piety and respect for one’s father. It is not overly speculative to maintain that encomia to the Pharaoh were in circulation for many years. They appear to have been learnt and used with a living king in mind, and belonged to a series of other similarly oriented hymns aimed at other royal aspects such as the king’s “villa,” or the Residence. I do not necessarily believe that all extant encomia (such as those written in the Dedicatory Inscription) were copied from similar

miscellany-type “packages.” We must remember that this composition of Ramesses II comprises many portions each of which reflects a different style and orientation. The lengthy eulogy presented by the king’s officials, however, could have been easy to compose on demand as any contemporary author would have been well versed in this art. Two separate points of key importance concern the tenor of the praise given and whether or not there are any references to Sitz im Leben. Is the encomium simple or complex? Is the vocabulary specialized, rare, or unusual, and the syntax complex by means of verbal oriented verses? On the other hand, is the style simple, utilizing non-verbal sentences? Eulogies appear to have been relatively flexible but not unstructured, and it might have been the case that the verbally oriented ones were used for events occurring in the middle of proclamations, commands, royal addresses, and the like. That is to say, the simpler non-verbal encomia may have been suited to introductory addresses and perhaps final declarations. Originality was not shunned. Indeed, it might have been demanded by the Pharaoh. Nevertheless, I feel that praises similar to the ones present in the Dedicatory Inscription were not difficult to compose. In many cases the verses have the aspect of “cookbook recipes” which might vary here to there, but seem to have been a required part of the master scribe’s background. With these points in mind, we can resume our discussion of Ramesses II’s speech to Seti. I ended in the middle of column 93 because the last sentence closed the series of sdm.f constructions. Now the religious aspect enters even more so with the king’s words, but in this case the diurnal cycle (morning to evening to night) is indicated. The historical deeds of Ramesses are over and the living son now describes his father’s cosmic role.408

404 KRI V 59.1. The temporal setting of the composition is explicit because it presents the year, month, and day. This is not the case with the other war compositions where only the regnal year is given. Reasons for this can be given; they would, however, overburden this presentation. 405 KRI V 67-71. 406 KRI V 72.3-77 and add the rhetorical stela at Deir el Medineh, KRI V 90-1. 407 “Divine Intervention in Ancient Egypt,” 2. 408 KRI II 333.11-13. Hence, the “behold” is a perfect break.

This portion reveals the following system: heavenRe; underworld-Wenennefer; heaven and earth-Atum (in barque). Note the syntax. In this case the first Stative formation (mk tw #q.tí ) is followed by the sdm.f of àms.k just as the adverbial phrase mí … continues on from the First Present plus Stative predicate tw.k Ètp.tí. Then the Pseudo-Verbal Construction enters (#wy.k Èr stî), indicating the durative nature of the action. For Ètp m, see once more Assmann, Liturgische Lieder, 102-3.

the text: translation and detailed analysis Behold.409 You have entered (tw #q.tí ) heaven.410 You follow/following (?) Re (àms.k R #), mingling with the stars and the moon. You are (now) at rest (tw.k Ètp.tí) in the underworld as those who are in it besides Wenennefer, Lord of Eternity. Your [arms] drag ([#wy].k Èr stî) Atum in heaven and earth just as the indefatigable and indestructible stars, while you are the pilot of the bark of millions (of years).

Both the “here” (heaven) and the “there” (the afterworld, Wenennefer), are indicated. The entire diurnal course of the king from morning to next morning, is succinctly narrated. The expected gods go hand-in-hand with this progression: Re (daytime), Wenennefer (night), and Atum (for both cycles) are present. The text parallels the concluding words of Amenemhet I to his son Sesostris in the Teaching wherein the dead king enters the solar bark and therein proclaims final words to his son. The image in both cases is the same though their Sitz im Leben cannot be compared. Observe that the dead father, Seti, is not equated with any of the deities. The tense arrangement of this section is diametrically opposed to the previous set-up of Ramesses. Instead of completed activities, we encounter repetitive or eternal concepts associated with the daily passage of the sun. In fact, this section parallels those sun hymns of the XVIIIth Dynasty so well explicated by Assmann. The opening pronoun plus Stative predicate could easily serve as an announcement for a solar hymn. Then follows a generalized, eternally recurrent, attribute of Seti associated with Re in the sdm.f. A First Present formation continues the thought with the verb in the Stative. The process of intellectual movement is simple: heaven, then afterworld, and finally a combination of both (pt and tî). The gods, likewise, split. Commencing with the expected sun god Re (who naturally will reappear throughout the entire cycle), Wenennefer then appears. For death, the underworld and night 409

Schott covers this section in his Die Schrift der verborgenen Kammer in Königsgräbern der 18. Dynastie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958), 335. 410 For #q in hymns to the sun, see Assmann, Liturgische Lieder, 97-8. 411 In general, ibid., 99. But, as Darnell has stressed, Éprw is best understood as “realization” or “manifestation.” See his The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity, 57 and 239 with 246-8 (where írw is “visible form”). A discussion of Darnell’s work will appear at the end of Chapter III.

77

are supposed. Atum, the third deity, fits neatly in the tripartite constellation as he is neither the lord of the underworld nor the sky god but one who exists here and now, whether he is above, with, or below us. This deity is also well known from ritual performances of chanting to Re in which he is given much attention. Atum is also the manifestation (Éprw) of Re in the evening, although that aspect is not highlighted at this point.411 The grammatical distinctions are also worthy of some attention. There is a clear-cut difference between the atemporal àms.k and the Pseudo-Verbal Èr + Infinitive with the subsequent circumstantial clause marked by íw. The following passage introduces us to an even more overt hymnic presentation:412 As soon as Re rises (wbn R #) in the sky (Èrt) your eyes are upon (Èr) his beauty; As soon as Atum [enters] into the land (#q Tm), you are (wn.tí ) in his following.

The passage is similar to the structure of the socalled “balanced” sentence which is met within hymns and elsewhere.413 A good “quasi Late Egyptian” case has been brought forward by Junge from the Amarna texts, and his example is worth citing: wbn.f m îÉt mÈ.n.f tîwy m mrwt.f.414 Assmann was the first to analyze this sdm.f—sdm.n.f coupling in his volume on liturgical hymns to the sun god.415 His conclusion was that the first form was always employed with intransitives and the second with transitives. The structure in the Dedicatory Inscription is different although the nature of the two phrases is extremely similar. Junge’s discussion of the theme-rheme arrangement of these balanced sentences is worth comparing with Kitchen’s independently presented translation: “when Atum [enters] into the earth you are in his following” suffices nicely. The last clause is, in fact, the main focus of attention. Can one draw a fine distinction between the general word for “sky,” pt, and the other one which is translated as “heaven,” Èrt? Since the crucial verb wbn is almost always employed with 412 KRI II 333.14. The concept is simple: morning/ evening. The Atum of the evening is Re. As this is selfevident, let me only cite Assmann’s second chapter in his Re und Amun. 413 See Loprieno’s study Ancient Egyptian, 196-9 and the other sources cited in note 347. 414 See note 347. 415 Ibid.

chapter two

78

the former—as in “Re rises in the sky”—but not usually with the latter, is the semantic difference significant for this poem? I think that the answer might be a positive one, if only because the second indicates the essential physical “vault” through which the king has passed. Yet Re merely rises in heaven, Èrt, that which is above us, and the concept seems to exclude one of coursing in a boat through the sky. In its place there is a basic description of the opening role of the sun god. Of equal importance there is the concept of “following.” This occurs in second place and plays an inverse role to the aspects located in heaven. Stylistically, we can also point to the combination of Èrt and with Èr and Tm with wn.tí; see as well the antithesis of Pseudo-Verbal versus Stative. These two sentences further provide an antithesis within their respective structure: wbn R # m Èrt // írty.k Èr nfr.f #q Tm m tî // wn.tí m àmsw

Just as Re rises in heaven Atum enters into the earth. With regard to the first verse, since we are in daytime with the sun shining, the dead king’s eyes see the sun’s beauty. In similar fashion, Seti is in the following of Atum at night. The immediate nature of Re’s beauty is revealed, but in the netherworld one does not see the chief god but rather acts in Atum’s service. The antithesis is neatly and succinctly drawn: two sdm.f ’s plus two adverbial clauses. With regard to the grammatical presentation, a further hallmark of this hymn is the passage immediately following:416 You have [entered] (#q.n.k) the hidden chamber (#t ímnt) before its lord, and your step(s) is/are broad inside the underworld. You have united (snsn.n.k) with the Ennead of the necropolis.417

It is immediately evident that a different formulation rules: sdm.n.f + sdm.n.f. Both cases are with verbs that can take direct objects; Assmann’s con-

416 KRI II 333.14-15. We are now in the netherworld; the first and third verbal forms fit Kruchten’s “rule.” 417 The “Conclave of gods of the Necropolis” (the deities that surround Osiris, his dîdît): Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 172. 418 Hornung, Das Amduat II, 3 with note 2, with “Probleme der Wortforschung im Pfotenbuch,” 55-6. Schott maintains that in the New Kingdom the #t ímntt had become a synonym for the underworld: Die Schrift der verborgenen Kammer in Königsgräbern der 18. Dynastie, 335-6. He further commented upon the cosmic nature of this locality through which the sun god traveled in the night.

clusions are therefore not applicable. Kruchten’s, however, can be argued. The concepts must refer to the past. Seti, after all, is dead. His daily, indeed eternal, peregrinations with Re and with Atum do not yet concern us. Earlier, atemporality ruled; here it is otherwise. The role of king Seti is very close to that presented in the Amduat and also parallels some concepts in the Litany of the Sun: Seti commands the sun bark both during the day and the night. He follows Re and Atum, and he enters the #t ímnt.418 Observe one key difference:419 #q.n.k #t ímnt m-bîÈ nb.s

Seti has already departed to the underworld (cf. the earlier mk tw #q.tí as well); see: #q Tm m tî wn.tí m àmsw.f.

The first construction contains within it a specific quality of punctuality and completed activity reaching to the here and now. (Cf. the punctual perfective attribute of Vernus.) The second verbal formation is employed to introduce the concept of an inaccomplishment; it is punctually imperfective. The tense situation is far less important than aspect at this point. The prayer continues and is now concentrated upon the living king’s continual remembrance of his father, his constellation of duty to father or filial piety. The section also assumes that Ramesses is Pharaoh and thus the address is not interested in kingship, the right to the throne, or coronation. In addition, see the do ut des theme: Seti is to provide his son Ramesses with expected powers. Then comes a second direct invocation of mk which is used to provide an obvious thematic division.420 Behold. (Hereby) I [requ]est (mk wí [nÈt ]) breath for your august nose.421 And I shall pronounce (dm.í ) your name repeatedly in the course of every day, 419 The first reference is KRI II 333.14-15 (column 95); cf. KRI II 333.11 (column 93); the second is KRI II 333.14 (column 95). 420 KRI II 334.1-3. The description of Seti’s diurnal cycle is finished; the account now turns to the king’s prayer. It is evident that the sdm.f and the circumstantial clause fit perfectly into Kruchten’s analysis. The antithesis to the First Presents can be noted as well. 421 The performative act is indicated. The translation depends upon Kitchen’s analysis.

the text: translation and detailed analysis while I [care for] (íw.í [Èr]) my father as one who [ comes] in [administering] (ts) ….. I shall [vaunt] (swhî.í ) your physical activity while I am in the “desert” (= cemetery). (Hereby) I establish (tw.í Èr wîÈ) for you property, my arm carrying offerings in your name for [your ka] in every place of yours.

Let me stop here and analyze this newly enunciated wish of Ramesses because the actual significance of the sdm.f ’s need an explication. Are they, following Kruchten, reflexes of the Middle Egyptian sdm.n.f, but also indicating a performative use?422 On the other hand, the useful remarks of Vernus concerning such ritual activities and the verbal expression come to mind.423 Following him, the sdm.f forms could indicate an “inaccompli” involving repeated action and thus not be performative in significance whereas the First Present would be. There, the aspect refers explicitly to what Ramesses is now doing; previously, the two sdm.f ’s indicate the regular, continual, activity of the monarch. Yet a future or prospective meaning seem to fit these two formations better because Ramesses is indicating that he now will perform the activities of “pronouncing” Seti’s name and “vaunting” his strength. The dead father is expected to communicate in the afterworld to Re, who in turn will grant the king his desires; the father is thus the intermediary between creator and sun god. Because Seti is dead, he has to pass the wishes over to Wenennefer.424 Please may you speak to Re … so that [he might give (?)] life to his son, Wenennefer, with a loving heart. Grant lifetime upon lifetime, contained with heb seds, for Wosermaatre-setepenre, given life.

422 Vernus, “‘Ritual’ Sdm.n.f and some Values of the ‘Accompli’,” in Pharaonic Egypt. The Bible and Christianity (ed. Sarah Israelit-Groll; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1985), 307-16. 423 Vernus, “Aspect and Morphosyntactic Patterns in Middle Egyptian,” in Crossroad: Chaos or the Beginning of a New Paradigm: Papers from the Conference on Egyptian Grammar, Helsingor, 28-30 May 1986 (ed. Gertie Englund and Paul John Frandsen; Copenhagen: Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Ancient Near East Studies, 1986), 375-88; see the comments of Junge, ‘Emphasis’ and Sentential Meaning, 33. 424 KRI II 334.3-6. The future meaning is overtly expressed through íÉ. 425 KRI II 334.6-7. The opening is significant through its use of Èr + Infinitive.

79

It is good for you that I am (wnn.í m) king forever, You will be … by a good son who [remembers] his father.

Again, the personal aspect of the speech is reflected through the solitary use of the prenomen. Last but not least, Ramesses reaffirms his devotion.425 And I [inquir]ed (íw.í Èr ndnd) about your temple daily on account of the state of your ka in everything.

The king enunciates his two-fold approach. The “temple” situation refers to its building and its maintenance. The ka of Seti is the living-spiritual aspect of the father which must be taken care of as well. The use of the Pseudo-Verbal highlights the continual aspect of the verbal activity. Let us not forget that it was Vernus, among other scholars, who reoriented traditional philological Egyptology to the deep concept of Aktionsart by setting up a useful schema in which the Stative was a durative perfective (“accompli extensive”) and the durative imperfective would be reckoned by the use of Èr/m + Infinitive (“inaccompli extensive”). The statement of Ramesses employs the latter formation (íw.í Èr ndnd), and the reason for this is easy to determine. He wants Seti (and his listeners as well) to understand that his worth is indicated by a continual ongoing durative mode of inquiry. The piety of the son to his father has been continual. The prescriptions, always to follow, are then presented. Once more the parallel to Seti’s Nauri Decree ought to be kept in mind.426 If I hear that trouble [has come to pass], I will command that it be removed immediately in every respect. You are (tw.k nty mí #nÉ.tí ) as one who lives, while

And, of course, it is the temple that is the key of the entire address. 426 KRI II 334.7-8. The connection to the detailed negative impositions recorded in the Nauri Decree might be worthwhile to examine. I earlier mentioned that the Dedicatory Inscription was surprisingly close in outlook to the Nauri Decree in the opening portions of Ramesses’s address to his father. At this point in the latter text there is a twopronged force in the king’s words to his father. First, the positive things that he has done are revealed. Subsequently, Ramesses briefly recounts what he will do if the stipulations for Seti’s Abydos temple are not followed through. This section, commencing with the ír particle, contains a partial juridical flavor without being so exacting and detailed as a “real” economically based temple decree was.

80

chapter two I appear/am appearing (íw.í É#.kwí ).427 And I am [never] neglectful of your temple every day.”428

The First Present tw.k nty mí #nÉ.tí is juxtaposed to the circumstantial use of the Stative. Seti is alive (and a god we must remember) while Ramesses is the reigning king. The presence of a “mixed” Late Egyptian negative (bw bgî.n.í ) has to be singled out if only as it reveals the somewhat confused negative patterns of the “langage de tradition.” And to make sure that his power will prevail, Ramesses declaims that he will act in a vociferous manner to insure his father’s well being. Perhaps the opening àî#w.n.í highlights a new thought.429 I have (indeed) [com]menced (àî#w.n.í ) to be preoccupied with you.430 I will avenge your name while you are in the underworld (dwît). It will be really beneficial for you so long as I am, [Ramess]es-mery[amun], given life like Re, [the son of] Re, living.

So we end up with the Pharaoh now advertising as loud as possible his ability to recompense Seti no matter what obstacle shall exist. He, Ramesses, is alive “here” on earth while his father is with Osiris. To summarize this first speech by the king is not a hard task. The performance is set into a direct address. Included are subsections, each having a different perspective, and each presenting a verbal structure suitable for itself. We have noted the use of the sdm.f and the sparing yet important role that the sdm.n.f plays in this address. By and large, this speech is original and set within a pious and hymnic role, albeit one that addresses the cultic activities which the ruler will perform/performs in order to assure his father of ongoing devotion. The address invokes the dead king Seti and his son has woken him. Alive again, Seti is now pres-

427 This means that Seti I appears in his temple (rejuvenated every day through his cult) and Ramesses “appears” in the land. That is to say, he “reigns” as Kitchen indicates in his translation. This fits neatly with the recent analysis of É#í by Loprieno, “On the contribution of phonology to Egyptian philology,” in Autuori and Álvarez, … ir a buscar leña, 110. 428 The “timeless” bw bgî.n.í … r# nb < ME n sdm.n.f. 429 KRI II 334.9-10. The first half is directed against malfeasance by others; the second directs attention to himself and now begins to worry about his father. 430 The opening verb àî# can take a direct object (noun) without m in the sense of “to begin with” (Wb. IV 407.3). But note the writing with the sdm.n.f: àî#w.n.í. In this case

ent before Pharaoh, his son Ramesses. It would have been especially pleasant, speaking from a literary vantage point, if the inscription stated that the father was literally “before,” “in front of,” or even “opposite” or “facing” (Éft) the son. But this is not the case. The king acts for his father and thereby receives the expected long lifetime, “health” in the most general sense. The orientation of the composition, the cultic setting, and this speech indicate that Seti is there to receive his son’s wishes and to pass them on to Re. The last deity will then intercede with the god of the underworld, Wenennefer. The importance of the solar god cannot be ignored, and in fact is most prominent in the second half of Ramesses’ address. The switch to the response, Seti’s verbal reaction to Ramesses, continues the specific cultic orientation. This portion cannot be separated from what proceeds; indeed, it is linked with it by means of content as well as form. At this point a simple transition wn.ín.f Èr sdm formation provides the syntactical link; the entire connecting passage is somewhat lengthy.431 Then432 king Menmaatre as a justified one and as an excellent spirit433 like Osiris, was rejoicing434 on account of everything which [ his] son did (írrwt)— he who performs benefactions,435 the King of Upper and Lower Egypt; the ruler of the [nine bows], the lord of the two lands; Wosermaatre-setepenre, [the son of Re], the lord of diadems, Ramesses-meryamun, given life like Re forever and ever;436 and vaunting437 all his goodness to Re-Harachty and to the gods who are in the underworld.

We now move to the other side of the conversation. Note that Seti is specifically stated to be

the use of “heart” (Èîty) is typical; the form ought to be a nominalized one. 431

KRI II 334.10-13. The opening prefers the Late Egyptian literary style of wn.ín nsw Mn-mî#t-R # ... È#w. 433 Note the two m’s for the predication: m mî# and m bî mnÉ. 434 The verb is in the Stative, not Èr + Infinitive. 435 The epithets now follow. 436 The names of the king form the break. 437 Here the second half of the mental activity of Seti is conveyed through the Pseudo-Verbal Construction, Èr swhî. 432

the text: translation and detailed analysis a ba, an “excellent spirit” (bî mnÉ).438 There is no indication that the father has emerged out of the underworld to stay on earth. The dead king transfers his attention from the words of his son to what Ramesses desires (via the nÈt of the king). Seti speaks to the sun god as his son wished. We do not hear of this because the import of the two speeches is that of filial duty and paternal recompense rather than a series of dialogues between various participants in the events. The word, “to boast,” or “to vaunt” (swhî), which may be found in contexts completely antithetical to a religious ceremony is repeated; cf. columns 97 and 103. In the first case Seti claims to boast of his father abroad; this is reflected in a passage indicating the continual ongoing filial deeds of Ramesses. Noteworthy is the location of the verb swhî in both cases. In one setting Ramesses vaunts Seti while he is abroad. In the second passage Seti praises Ramesses “down there,” in the afterworld. The arena of praise remains separate from the present setting, Abydos, and the country of Egypt itself. It is as if such fulsome adulation is meant solely in a context to impress “others.” One useful parallel to this speech was previously discussed in a brief sidelight upon royal declarations and eulogies. In the Abydos Stela of Pharaoh Ahmose the situation at the shrine area of Osiris reflected the king’s wish to commemorate the memory of Tetishery.439 The king spoke in front of (Éft) Ahhotep. In the Dedicatory Inscription a similar but not identical situation takes place. After receiving approval from ReHarachty, Seti addresses Ramesses; the compound preposition Èw-ny-r-Èr is used here instead of the more traditional Éft, or even Ér. (The latter, however, is used to a superior; e.g., Thutmose I before Amun at Karnak.)440 Now (tí ) [he] was conversing face to face (Èw-nyr-Èr) as whenever a father on earth converses with his son.441

438 Assmann summarizes the commonly understood interconnection between the ba and Maat in Ma‘at. Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit im alten Ägypten (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1990), 114-6. Let us not forget that Ramesses II offers Maat to Osiris in the scene directly juxtaposed to the Dedicatory Inscription. 439 See note 393 above and the accompanying discussion. 440 Urk. IV 270.12: tí sw dd.f Ér ms sw. 441 KRI II 334.13-14. In particular, see the comments of Vernus, Essai sur la conscience de l’histoire dans l’Égypte pharaonique,

81

Two points can be covered here. The first concerns the use of mdt. Should we regard it as a mere synonym for dd, “to say,” or instead consider the lexical difference to indicate the importance of the conversation which is extremely significant? I believe so. The eulogistic inscription of Thutmose I referred to previously recounts the king’s address to his chief god Amun with dd. (It also uses the same introductory particle tí as in the Dedicatory Inscription.) That passage arranges a formalized setting, one in which the god Amun was Pharaoh’s divine father, remains separate from the living Pharaoh, Thutmose. Although filial duty is indicated in this text as well, the ensuing praise (dwîw) is not directed from the innermost portions of the soul, the heart, a factor that is prominent in Ramesses’ feelings at Abydos. Lacking as well is the intimate cross-fertilization of personality traits that we can see in the Dedicatory Inscription. Yet the earlier narration presents both Amun and Thutmose I without the intense aspect of “begotteness,” a truly pregnant theme running through Ramesses’ account. This is why I believe that Seti does not merely “speak” to Ramesses. The issues said and unsaid are too serious and too intimate to be covered by the bland verb “to say.” There is a blanketing of the normal or standard approach in the Dedicatory Inscription, through a heightening of personal intimacy. This prevents the father from simply responding (wàb) to his son’s address as in an ordinary dialogue. Now comes the speech, once more with dd.442 He said: Let your heart be greatly happy O my beloved son, Wosermaatre-setepenre given life.443 It is [P]re who gives444 to you [eternity] of years and everlastingness on the Horus throne of the living. Osiris requested for you the lifetime (#È#w) of heaven so that you might rise as Re in it at dawn, life and prosperity with you, …, truth, might, joy of their hearts, and richness of years (?). 43. The image fits the Abydene connection to a tee, and as Vernus saw, it also indicates the reciprocal relationship of father to son and vice-versa. 442 KRI II 334.14-335.2. The dual system of sky (the sun god) and the underworld (Osiris) is once more the theme. 443 The ndm + íb returns; cf. note 236. 444 See the commentary of Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 197. But the construction is strange. Read: m [=ín] [P î ]-R # Èr (sic.) dít n.k?

82

chapter two

Re presents one eternity and Osiris does as well. The latter god, who is connected with dt and repetition, fulfills the wish of the Pharaoh. 445 But death and the afterworld play no role for the virile Ramesses. What he has requested and what he receives is everlastingness, specifically the nÈÈ eternity of Re for the living Pharaoh. Osiris “requests” (dbÈ, well known from wishes extracted from gods at offerings) but does not give “the lifetime of heaven.” How could he? Osiris is not in heaven; he is not Re.446 I have been very careful to interpret the verbal constructions with the inherent religious point of view in mind. For example, “It is Pre …” is not presented with the common pattern ín + Noun + Participle. The passage instead, and to my mind surprisingly, employs a Pseudo-Verbal construction ín Pî-R # Èr dít n.k …… Hence, again we may be faced with an attempt, faulty I believe, to provide a “durative perfective” nature in the formulation.447 Osiris, on the other hand, “requests,” and a punctual act, albeit one that is imperfective, is indicated. At least at this point I find it useful to follow the linguistic analyses of Junge and Vernus, and combine them with the religious understanding of Assmann. This stiff and formal blessing is not over. Introduced through íw n.k …. comes the following.448 445 For these concepts, see Assmann, Zeit und Ewigkeit im alten Ägypten, passim, especially page 12. According to him the opposition is between earthly existence (#È#w) and the life in the underworld (nÈÈ eternity). If we follow Assmann Osiris is requesting earthly lifetime (#È#w) and Re is giving unlimited eternity (dt). On the other hand Hornung has argued that #È#w is a limited and defined life span, both on earth and beyond, in “Zeitliches Jenseits im alten Ägypten,” Eranos 47 (1978): 281-6. As Prof. Hornung has indicated to me, in Books of the Underworld the #È#w-time is renewed in the hereafter; cf. Book of the Gates scene 31. According to him the other concept, nÈh/dt, designates unlimited time “which is hard to acquire on earth,” but which can be a Grenzewort for #È#w as in PT 412a. Hence, Osiris requests #È#w-time which is always renewed where he is. The giving over of dt by Re thus refers to unlimited time and, not surprisingly, it is difficult to obtain here but not so in the Afterworld. Re’s dt can also be the “(time) limit” of what Osiris wishes. 446 See our comments in the previous note. Assmann, Zeit und Ewigkeit im alten Ägypten, 12-13 and 44-5 with note 156 cover the situation in more detail. NÈÈ = tomorrow, day, sun, Re and dt = yesterday, night, moon, Osiris. But the #È#w is nÈÈ (Assmann, ibid., 11). Hence, the connection to Osiris is made clearer. In the antithesis of “yesterday” and “tomorrow” there is no “today.” The reason for this presumed absence is simple. From “now,” tomorrow is Re. From “now” in

To you belongs might and power, O [Great]of-Victories, And health belongs to your limbs like Re in heaven. May your heart be happy449 and exultation be in/at every place of yours. O king,450 Who protects Egypt, who subdues the foreign lands.

The format is a simple A-B, A’-B’. The king is, of course, an ever-present body of strength. The populace at an official dedication ceremony could have recited these and the following eulogistic phrases. Here, the passages have been transferred to the father even if the trajectory is straightforward: high to low or from father Seti to son Ramesses. It is not low to high: from officials to king.451 Thus the imperative is a necessary constituent at this point.452 Spend an eternity of your lifetime as a King of Upper and a King of Lower Egypt as Atum flourishes, rising and setting.

The last invocation, properly speaking, belongs to the preceding verses. I have separated it simply to draw attention to the well-being of Seti’s address to his son. Note that it is not the sun god Re who rises and sets, but rather Atum, a reasonable substitute.453 tomorrow, yesterday is Osiris. Tomorrow is the life (the sun, Re) whereas on tomorrow, yesterday is death (Osiris, the underworld). 447 But the passage is troublesome nonetheless. 448 KRI II 335.2-3. There is a slight problem with the opening íw in íw n.k qnt nÉt ….. Should we treat it as the Late Egyptian circumstantial marker or not? I feel that the style is more formal and the presentation fitting to that of royal eulogies of the XVIIIth Dynasty as well as the Miscellanies. In other words, a new concept is introduced. 449 See above, note 236. 450 The commonplace nature of these bimembral phrases lacking in narrative verbal formation is no more evident than here. A pause is effectively indicated by the reference to “O King.” 451 And yet the style, vocabulary, and arrangement are the same as if we were reading a eulogy to the Pharaoh by his courtiers. In other words there is no special and separate vocabulary or organization in the dead king’s eulogy of his son. Does this section, nonetheless, follow an established religious rite that required special verbal responses on the part of the father, Seti in this case? 452 KRI II 335.3-4. 453 The passage is KRI II 335.4-7. The use of mk (plus î) returns once more. Here, the two serve to split off the direct addresses. The first phrase is commonplace, and Atum is here mixed with Re and vice-versa. Seti is in the underworld and he is an Osiris. Atum is the “all god,” the Urgott of Heliopolis, and thus is connected with kingship (and the íàd

the text: translation and detailed analysis

83

Behold. I spoke (mk wí Èr dd) to Re with a loving heart— Give to you eternity on earth as Chepri.’454 I repeated (wÈm.í ) to Osiris when I entered in before him— May you double for him the lifetime of your son Horus.455

is linked with Horus. There is nothing unfamiliar with these concepts as they repeat themes common in the Pre Amarna Period of Dynasty XVIII. But now we move to Atum, the copartner of Re in the religious constellation. Seti continues his account.457

The first words of Seti’s account center on the here and now world and not the afterworld. As previously in this composition, the order of the deities always commences with the sun god (Re) and the moves to the god of the underworld, Osiris.

Atum has decreed for you (wd n.k Tm) [his] lifetime as king, while power and strength are united through your following. And Thoth has written them (down) next to the All Lord. (íw DÈwty Èr shî.w)458 And the great Ennead says: “Yes!” Re, who is in his divine barge, the lord of the night bark,459 has assembled them for him. His eyes see what you have done (írt.n.f ) so well. As soon as he crosses (dîy.f ) heaven through the wind in the course of every day, a great joy follows him when he remembers your goodness until Atum sets [in] the land of the west, the love of you is in his body every day.460

Behold. Re says/said (?) in the horizon of heaven456— Grant eternity and everlastingness, with millions of heb seds [to] the son of Re of his body, the beloved, Ramesses-meryamun given life, who does beneficial things.

Stopping at the caesura formed by the king’s name is useful because we can witness the activities of Seti. This part almost resembles a mythological presentation in which one divine figure (the dead king) takes part in a drama with the gods assembled. Seti has done his part—he has departed and spoken to the sun god, the creator god. There, the Pseudo-Verbal construction is employed to indicate the ongoing nature of the account (mk wí Èr dd). The “repeating” is conveyed through the wÈm.f, and the punctual nature of the aspect is indicated; indeed, the Aktionsart of that verb appears to be best expressed this way. Lastly, once more note the use of the particle mk as a simple device of separation in this text. The new focus is Re’s response to Seti, the latter still addressing his son Ramesses. The progression of the request moves from Seti to Re, then to Atum, and finally to the netherworld. The sun god is associated with Chepri in a manner as natural and expected as Osiris

tree), and the Lower Egyptian counterpart of Amun-Re. But he is also associated with the setting sun, in contradiction to Chepri of the morning sun; the simple dichotomy of west versus east is self-evident. 454 Ie., Ramesses will always appear in the morning as Chepri (Re at dawn) does. He will be rejuvenated forever. The use of nÈÈ is expected. 455 The dual nature is completed: Osiris to Horus; the “lifetime” (#È#w) is coupled with nÈÈ. 456 The Pseudo-Verbal form is repeated: mk î R # Èr dd. The location is to be expected as the composition reflects the Solar-Osirian unity. See Darnell’s analysis of this theology in Chapter III.

A series of effective deeds on the part of Seti present the fulfillment of Ramesses’ speech to his father. The section commences with a sdm.f and then follows the now expected Pseudo-Verbal íw DÈwty Èr shî.w ….. The following inserted speech (psdt Èr ) carries us further into the account, presenting yet another sdm.f. Then the subsequent combination of dîy.f ….. adverbial adjunct continues. The aspect of this subsection, however, is different from the preceding two. At this point the intimations of death and the afterworld rise. See, for example, the phrases “Re, who is in his divine barge, the lord of the night bark” and the overt words in the ending “until Atum sets in the land of the west.” The approach has now changed to the conclusion of the day. With the creator god affirming the earlier decision we are now ready to enter the realm of Osiris. The particle mk returns as a heading.461

457

KRI II 335.7-11. It is as if we were observing Ramesses next to the Ished tree. See Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books, 82 and Chapter I note 2. The theme remains centered upon kingship and not at all on the gnwt. 459 The account reflects the night as befits the AbydeneOsirian connection. 460 The text is unclear where the quote of the Ennead ends. Kitchen (Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 173) cuts it off with “… has collected them for him.” There remains the possibility that the quote runs until the end of this passage. 461 KRI II 335.11-13. 458

84

chapter two Behold. Wenennefer is lord of justification on account of what your majesty has done (írrwt) for him [ ] in truth.462 [Horus] has caused him to awake (snhs.n) [by] recalling your [goodness],463 And my heart is in great joy on account of the eternity which he decreed464 (wd.f ) [for] you.

The resumption of the “heart” motif, last indicated in column 105, is combined with another of those problematic sdm.n.f ’s, snhs.n sw \r. We have moved outside the here and now owing to the setting sun or solar bark. The place of a deity is now reserved for Osiris or his counterpart and alter ego, Wenennefer, and the “wakening” concept is reiterated. Seti remains separate from his actions with the gods and the beneficial results which he brought to pass for Ramesses. Although the father of Ramesses, he nonetheless remains as a passive member of the decision-making. Even at the beginning of this final subsection this characteristic is indicated. More importantly, the duality of Re-Osiris —in that order—is combined with the account of Seti’s individual approach and speech to both. As we have seen more than once, the ubiquitous particle mk is required to signal the alteration of focus. The order is always fixed with Re followed by Wenennefer or Osiris. The latter are naturally associated with Horus. A fourth and final case reveals Seti’s acceptance of Ramesses’ good deeds. The setting is cultic and perhaps not an extraordinary one, except that we hear the “other side” of the presentation ritual.465 Behold. I receive (mk wí Èr àsp) the things that you gave (rdí.n.k) to me, my bread and my water, with joy of heart and breath [for] my nose, on account of what a son does (írrwt sî)—excellent of disposition (sbq Èîty),

462 See KRI II 335.12. Note the Èr írrwt n.f Èm.k. If we follow Mariette, the restored bw n mî#t is just for bw mî#t. This is no problem because Late Egyptian bw and Middle Egyptian n are essentially the same, or at least were pronounced similarly. 463 The verb is snhs, reminding us of nhsí in column 80; the sdm.n.f fits the analysis of Kruchten. The relationship is now Ramesses to Wenennefer, the latter being awakened by Horus (not Ramesses). Seti, in addition, reflects back upon Ramesses because Wenennefer has given his son eternity, nÈÈ.

an avenger — free negligence (àw <m> mkÈî), who knows what is pleasing (rÉ #nw).

Seti states that all of his offerings are now in order. The use of Èr + Infinitive once more turns us back to the Classical mode of presentation for a narrative within a speech. The short final eulogy cuts short the dead king’s person statement of himself, although it will be resumed in a moment.466 You renewed (wÈm.k)467 monument after monument for Osiris [under] my care as ….. [in the middle] of the Thinite nome. And I am (now) made great (tw.í s#î.kwí ) on account of all which you have done (írt.n.k) for (Ér) me; I am placed (rdí.kwí ) as the leader of the cemetery; I am become divine (Épr.kwí ntrw.kwí ) in e[xcess of] my [goodness] since your heart cared for me while I am in the underworld.

Stopping here, we can reemphasize our previous comments concerning the oration. It employs the expected Stative: one in the First Present and the others with rdí and the intransitives Épr + ntr; the sdm.f is confined to the beginning. The use of the First Present cannot be overlooked. If only because of that example I interpret the following more Classical orientation of rdí.kwí + Épr.kwí ntrw.kwí as indicating an English present perfect, or an ongoing event in the here and now conditioned by the past. Seti has now become such-and-such owing to the beneficent deeds of Ramesses. What is he now? He can only be a completely “transfigured” individual, an “excellent ba”, one whose cult in now full operation, and naturally divine. The repetition of “monument after monument” recalls an earlier statement of Ramesses in column 58. The dead king then turns to his happiness with the use of the first person independent pronoun signaling his person.468

464

Not the expected wd.n.f but wd.f. KRI II 335.13-15. 466 KRI II 335.15-336.2. 467 Again, sdm.f with wÈm. And thus it does not reflect a (synchronous) present. 468 KRI II 336.2-4. 469 Once more see Assmann, “Das Bild des Vaters,” 37-8 with page 159 note 96. I believe we can resolve Assmann’s surprise over the Seti I Abydene example referring to his father, Ramesses I: ntf pw àî# írt ntr (KRI I 112.2). In each of our cases the two deceased kings ( first Ramesses I and then 465

the text: translation and detailed analysis I (ínk) am your true father who is a god.469 I mingle (àbn.kwí ) with the gods following the sun disk. [I was one who knew ?] (wn.kwí rÉ) what is in [his] bark … like one ….. … since [I heard ?] that he [remembers your] goodness …..

Seti has now become a god but he still remains Ramesses’ eternal father, the “real” (mî#) one. (Compare once more Amenemhet’s speech to his son Sesostris I.) The intransitive verb àbn required the first person of the Stative owing to the formality of the speech and the ongoing activity set in the present. The father is now in the bark of the sun just as in the Dynasty XII Teaching Amenemhet I stepped into it upon his death and merged with the sun disk. But are we not confronted, as Stephen Quirke has indicated to me, with a tension between the primary and secondary roles for a central figure in a belief system? That is to say, is the king Seti with (i.e., next to) Re or is he part of Re? However we answer this question, as expected from the solar orientation and the previous words of the dead ruler, Re is reintroduced in a major way to the theme of the address. Although partly broken, the final words of Seti are worth quoting. The particle mk once more indicates the switch. Its eulogistic nature is selfevident.470 Behold. You are in a great lifetime which Re has com-

Seti I) have become gods insofar as their cult is completed with their statues endowed and operating. In other words, their cults are now ongoing. Assmann brought into his brief remarks the study of Eberhard Otto, “Zwei Bemerkungen zum Königskult der Spätzeit,” MDAIK 15 (1957): 193-207 in which the emotional as well as social grounds of the care for royal statues are indicated. But the idea runs back at least to the Coffin Texts; cf. CT 30 (I 88-89b) and elsewhere in the mortuary liturgy spells 30-41. The deceased has become a “rejuvenated god.” See Willems, “The Social and Ritual Context of a Mortuary Liturgy of the Middle Kingdom (CT Spells 30-41),” in Social Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms (ed. Harco Willems; Leuven and Sterling: Uitgeverij Peeters and Dep. Oosterse Studies, 2001), 253-372. On pages 261-2 Willems points out that this epithet “is very

85

manded to you (?) (wd n.k R #) for a [period] (?) of eternity like … You are the living … (?) (lifetime ?) of Atum, and all words of yours come to pass like the All Lord. You are (ntk) the excellent egg of Chepri, the divine seed [which came forth] from him. What Re himself has done (írt.n R #) is your birth.471 And he said to you: “… as what … did ….. nurse”.472

This is the conclusion with Ramesses equivalent to the Re of the here and now: Welcome! As the Living Re for the people, Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt … [united under ?] your feet. [They have given ?] millions of heb seds to Wosermaatre-setepenre, and the lifetime of the All Lord when he rises [and when he sets forever and ever].

The conclusion is apt, standard, and in fact typical of the eulogistic phraseology that one finds in Königsnovelle texts. The references conclude with Ramesses as the living sun god Re, thereby ending any connection with Wenennefer, the underworld, and Osiris. Ordinarily such adulation would have come from the mouths of Ramesses’ advisors at Abydos. Not here. The concluding words, which are totally different, end with the final conclusive declaration of the father to his son. The cult is established. Seti lives as a god with Ramesses, also a god, being the ever-present Re.473

common where the relationship between the deceased, beautiful West, and/or Osiris is at stake” (page 261 note 33). But the dead father is Horus in this case. See as well page 285 for Spell 34. 470 KRI II 336.4-9. 471 Although not grammatically difficult the phrase ms.k pw írt.n R # is extremely significant theologically. 472 We return to the key words msí and mn# but this time not directed by Ramesses to Seti. 473 The situation of tension, adumbrated above, may help explain some of the religious quandaries covered by Betsy Bryan in her “The statue program for the mortuary temple of Amenhotep III,” in The Temple in Ancient Egypt: New discoveries and recent research (ed. Stephen Quirke; London: British Museum Press, 1997), 57-81.

86

chapter two

religious and historical implications

87

chapter three RELIGIOUS AND HISTORICAL IMPLICATIONS A. Outline The speech ending to the Dedicatory Inscription, presented by two forms (simple narrative plus final short hymnic eulogy), acts as a well-formed and pertinent coda to the entire inscription. The formal “completion” depicts Ramesses speaking to his father. It also performs the same role as an end quote notation in a scene. The conjoining of both addresses by father and son emphasizes more powerfully the major theological aim of this quasi-mythological presentation. The first, that of Ramesses, has the shorter arrangement in which Seti is awoken and soon placed in heaven. Hence, the orientation is to Re, the stars, and the moon. But equally, as the king is dead, the focus must turn to the underor afterworld, to Wenennefer. Seti now becomes the pilot of the solar bark, moving along Atum, another image of the sun god but also introducing life after death. Ramesses continues his address with similar but generalized conceptions: Seti sees Re in heaven and he follows Atum in the netherworld. Finally, Ramesses asks his father to speak to Re. The subsection reveals a simple two-sided approach. As he, Ramesses, has taken care of Seti’s cult (temple, etc.), so logically and automatically will Seti arrange his son’s success in the here and now. The second address, that of the father, is more specific as we learn of his movements and actions in the entire universe. Here we face a situation that bears upon the Abydene mythological concept of kingship. Seti addresses Re-Harachty in heaven. Re replies and adds that even Osiris has granted Ramesses “the duration of heaven” so that he can rise like Re. There is no sharp separa1 I will refer to Willems’ extremely important studies below concerning the unification of Re and Osiris. For the moment see his The Coffin of Heqata (Cairo JdE 36418); see my previous remarks in note 302 Chapter II. But the major work is now Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity. There is a useful overview by Edmund Hermsen, Die zwei Wege des Jenseits (Göttingen and Freiburg: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 112-15, 182-3, 191-3 and 235-45. He covers the role of Thoth in these proceedings from an earlier period of time (Coffin Texts)

tion between the world above and the world under in this connection because the two are inevitably if not also ineluctably linked. Does not the sun god himself traverse the underworld? Second, Seti speaks to Osiris when he enters before him, and thus Atum reemerges in this context. In addition, we encounter Thoth for the first time, the chief scribe and major official of the creator god.1 As expected, he is depicted standing next to Re-Harachty with the Ennead also present. In the final “act” we face Wenennefer through Seti’s description, and it is now Horus who intercedes with the Lord of the Underworld on Ramesses’ behalf. These references to various pleas on behalf of the living Pharaoh need an additional discussion which I will cover later in this chapter. For the moment, however, let me note that they parallel somewhat the “mythological narrative” of the famous Late Egyptian Story Horus and Seth.2 There is no contesting between two brothers, however. In the case of the Dedicatory Inscription the theme is solely one of Ramesses’ success as ruler. After all, he is already king. But the roles of Re-Harachty, Osiris, the Ennead, and Thoth have to be performed because these actors are necessary requirements for the account. Heaven and the afterworld are limned in our text whereas in the Horus and Seth story the action is much more detailed and the godly participants drawn with a characteristic sharpness that is reflective of a mythological situation. Nonetheless, I believe that the entire Abydene concept of kingship is presented from the same vantage point as in the Dedicatory Inscription, and this setting must be connected to the date of the Ramesses’ arrival at Abydos; namely, the day preceding the cycle of the Triumph of Horus.3

as well as the connection of the creator god Re. For additional aspects of Thoth and his relationship to Osiris-Wennenefer, see Jan Quaegebeur, “Lettres de Thoth et décrets pour Osiris,” in Funerary Symbols and Religion (ed. J. H. Kamstra, H. Milde, and K. Wagtendonk; Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1988), 105-26. 2 See the latest discussion by Verhoeven referred to in Chapter II note 200 (“Ein historischer ‘Sitz im Leben’ für die Erzählung von Horus und Seth”). 3 See my comments below.

chapter three

88

The double connection of Re and Osiris to the role of the living Pharaoh is one that is wellknown from many aspects of Pharaonic Egypt, but is also noteworthy in many extant liturgical hymns which were read out to the sun god.4 Among those which are preserved, I prefer to turn to one that Assmann regarded as singular.5 In a relatively lengthy hymn we meet the mysterious unification of Re and Osiris.6 The two sectors of their control, the upper and the lower (or under) world, are explicitly indicated in this religious composition and elsewhere. The orientation to the kingship of Horus is of equal importance, and it is significant that in the context of liturgical hymns Assmann referred to the association of Pharaoh with the trinity of Re, Osiris, and Horus.7 He also indicated a scene in the Cenotaph of Seti at Abydos where the king stands before Osiris and Horus bringing Truth for these two “Lords of Maat.”8 Perhaps it is not out of place to remark once more on the text’s common theme of the “heart” (íb) that “rejoices” (ndm).9 The common recitation of ndm íb.tn in such liturgies centered upon the Triumph of Horus, and I believe that the Dedicatory Inscription, at least at the end with column 104, indicates this as well.10

4

Note especially the data in Assmann, Liturgische Lieder. 5 Ibid., 92-112. 6 Re has therefore traveled into the underworld and met Wenennefer; i.e., Osiris. In addition to Assmann’s commentary in Liturgische Lieder, 96-8, see Philippe Derchain, Le papyrus Salt 825 (B.M. 10051), rituel pour la conservation de la vie en Égypte (Brussels: Palais des Académies, 1965), 35-7; and Bickel, “Die Jenseitsfahrt des Re nach Zeugen der Sargtexte,” in Ein ägyptisches Glasperlenspiel: ägyptologische Beiträge für Erik Hornung aus seinem Schülerkreis (ed. Andreas Brodbeck; Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1998), 41-56, especially pages 49-56. The detailed comments of Willems should be read in this context (see Chapter II note 302) but add the most recent analysis of Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity. 7 Liturgische Lieder, 96-8. 8 Arnold has returned to the concept of an Osiris Tomb in his Lexikon der ägyptischen Baukunst (Munich-Zürich: Patmos, 1994), 183 and 240. He follows the modern survey of Diethelm Eigner, Die monumentalen Grabbauten der Spätzeit in der thebanischen Nekropole (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1984). A useful overview is by Kemp in the entry “Osireion,” in Lexikon der Ägyptologie IV, 622-3 where he points out that because the dead Seti would be identified with Osiris, the identification of god and Pharaoh is clear. For the ancient ideas surrounding the Cenotaph of Seti, see as well Otto, Osiris und Amun. Kult und heilige Stätten (Munich: Hirmer, 1966), 50. 9 See Chapter II notes 36 and 236. Additional comments of the word “heart” can now be found in Rueda, Das Herz in der ägyptischen Literatur des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr.

B. Location and Purpose The problem of the significance of Seti’s temple at Abydos arose in Haeny’s study on the New Kingdom “Temples of Millions of Years.”11 He pointed out that this religious edifice was not merely called a Èwt, a common enough term for a religious edifice, but a Èwt ntr. The parallel to the New Kingdom mortuary temples in Western Thebes is straightforward. Naturally, the “god” here is Seti, a point to which Assmann also gave a brief overview in the context of his liturgies. (Following Haeny, we may note the atef crown and the royal ka in Seti’s Gournah temple.12) Considering the Seti temple at Abydos, however, he presented extremely important observations that connect up with the Dedicatory Inscription. Haeny noted the architectural design of the Stairway Corridor, the “exit,” so to speak, at the rear of Seti’s temple. This area, one of the last to be decorated (see below), is associated with the Osiride Cenotaph (the “Osireion”) at the rear, the “tree-shaded mound covering an underground cenotaph of exceptional design.”13 In the latter, ten granite pillars that were set on a platform supported the heavy roof of the building.

10

Assmann, Liturgische Lieder, 111 with note 101. Of course, the “triumph” is complete, but the acclamation of father Seti to son Ramesses still is present. 11 Gerhard Haeny, “New Kingdom ‘Mortuary Temples’ and ‘Mansions of Millions of Years’,” in Temples of Ancient Egypt (ed. Byron E. Shafer; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997), 112-15. A recent summary is that of Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 26-7, 35-7. She presents a compelling argument that the adjunct phrase “within” (Èry-íb), referring to the Seti temple, does not necessarily indicate that the deity of that barque was just visiting “Temple X,” although the evidence does not prove the opposite contention (pages 34-5). The term Èry-íb “seems to be intended to indicate a deity’s association with a temple, without providing any definitive indication concerning the permanency or duration of that association” (page 35). Her final conclusion is that the divine barques were housed in this temple on a day-to-day basis. 12 For the atef crown, see note 64 below. For the importance of royal ka statues and popular devotion, see Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 141 and 160-3. 13 Haeny, “The New Kingdom ‘Mortuary Temples’ and ‘Mansions of Millions of Years’,” 112. But the Stairway Corridor originally was to be partly connected to the stairway going up to the roof where the cult of Re was prominent. Cf. the remarks of Baines, “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 145-57 and “Recording the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos in Egypt,” 84-7. Hence, we can connect the two speeches of Thoth and Seshat to the sun god, just as their content indicates. The exit to the west, where the Cenotaph of Osiris was built, remains obvious in intent.

religious and historical implications

89

In addition, the entire subterranean edifice had an exterior design that resembled an island, a religious conception that was connected to Isis and her sister Nepthys. These two are often seen or described as wailing over the corpse of Osiris, now buried. In this context Harvey also discussed the “terrace temple” outline at Abydos.14 The subterranean tomb in the Cenotaph can be viewed as an expression of the tomb of Osiris, a place where he eventually will be reborn. He also emphasized the entire architectural and religious significance of the format of the “Osiris grave.” The terrace tomb of Ahmose may be conceived to be only one part of the entire Osiris complex. We have to add to the architecture of this entire religious sector the grave itself (cave or cavern) and a sacred grove. Hence, that conception represented the “Terrace of the Great God.”15 Lest his analysis appear too speculative, let me refer to Harvey’s brilliant connection of the two sacred sparrows which protect the mountain under which Osiris lies. They are most certainly representations of Isis and Nepthys. Finally, the solar conception of the whole complex should not be ignored, an aspect that is overtly present in Seti’s Abydos temple as well.16 In other words, just as the Ahmose temple and its dependencies relate to Osiris and Re, so does Seti’s. Both have strong connections to Osiris’ grave or subterranean tombs, and both overtly indicate this concept with the caverns by means of these associations. Therefore, it is not surprising to read two speeches in the Stairway Corridor that adumbrate this because they physically connect with the cult of Osiris/Wenennefer as well as Re. These addresses also differ from the simple daily cult of the king, Osiris, and the other deities in Seti’s temple, and even in relation to heaven and the afterworld. Earlier I laid some stress upon the active cultic activities that must have been performed in Seti’s temple before the visit of Ramesses. It is difficult to view this religious building as not being in service before Ramesses’ coronation, despite its incomplete state

and its poor economic setup. Yet at the rear of this unfinished building was the tomb of Osiris to which Seti already must have been intimately connected before the final work on his Abydene building was completed. Its whole underground edifice is perfectly suited for the Osirian cult. In addition, because Seti will become an Osiris, the additional link of Seti = Osiris and Ramesses = Horus reenters. If we follow Harvey, the “island,” extremely important in the mortuary cult of Osiris, located right behind the Osirian Halls of Seti’s temple, represented the primeval mound and the grave of Osiris. Here it is where the god will be resurrected.17 Eigner, who analyzed in detail these Osirian connections with respect to the underworld, concluded by maintaining that, whatever concept one wants to apply to the rear edifice, it need not imply that “the complete construction was conceived as a tomb of Osiris.”18 The building seems to have expressed in an overt fashion the Upper and the Lower Underworld (Duat). Hence, the bark of Re is connected to Osiris.19 Re traverses the underworld and meets Osiris. Thus the building “performs” the activities which we have encountered in the speeches of Seti to Ramesses as well as by an address of Thoth in the Stairway Corridor. (This will be covered below.) Significantly, the Cenotaph lay under the holy Ished tree; rejuvenation and a new reign are once more present. A further architectural quality of this building cements the concept of the afterworld in a most blatant fashion. The transverse chamber, now better named a sarcophagus room, appears to have been sealed off from the rest of the edifice. Harvey’s additional comments should be taken to heart and extended.20 If the “terrace” is located within Ahmose’s temple at Abydos, the question arises concerning its connection to the Seti complex. He then noted that aspects of Ahmose’s cult complex reflected the Osiris tomb while indicating a solar aspect as well. At first, column 36 of the Dedicatory Inscription may be of some use. The account states that the pillars of the temple

14 Stephen Harvey, “The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1998), 433-4; and Eigner, Die monumentalen Grabbauten der Spätzeit, 163-9. 15 In Chapter II note 65 I referred to the work of Lichtheim concerning this “Terrace” during the period of the Middle Kingdom. 16 This has been stressed in our discussion.

17 Otto, Osiris und Amun, 55-6. Most recently, see Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 239-40. 18 Die monumentalen Grabbauten der Spätzeit, 169. The “hill” represents the Upper Duat as the subterranean chambers reflect the Lower Duat. 19 Ibid., 168-9. 20 The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos, 432-46.

chapter three

90

were not erected “on its terrace.” The crucial and subsequently repeated word is rwd, a term that should remind us immediately of the Middle Kingdom’s Abydene “Terrace of the Great God” and the New Kingdom architectural elements that represented it.21 The term surely indicates a terrace or a portico of the temple. One was at the rear of the Second Court. Ramesses II redesigned this, although the platform was already in place. A second zone faced outwards (to the east) from the seven chapels. Perhaps we have to deal with this area that was connected with the Presentation of Maat, a zone that was also public as Teeter has argued. Similarly, but for reasons separate than these, Zippert felt that the “terrace” in Seti’s temple referred to the platform that faced the seven chapels.22 In this case he turned to the famous Nauri Decree of Seti, an inscription that provides much helpful information with regard to the architectural layout and arrangement of Seti’s building.23 There, the inscription covers the “terrace” and its

21

For the Middle Kingdom “Terrace,” see Lichtheim’s study cited in note 65 of Chapter II. It must not be forgotten that Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 169 argued that Ramesses II had erected these pillars at the back of the first court instead of the portico where the Dedicatory Inscription was later carved. 22 “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 26. Zippert referred only to the Nauri Decree reference. On page 25 he covers the identity of the words kîr, “shrine,” and #È, the latter not merely signifying “palace,” but rather “most holy shrine.” The detailed study of Patricia Spencer, The Egyptian Temple: A Lexicographical Study (London and Boston: Kegan Paul International, 1984) presents the following analysis of Seti’s temple. Her work is not that useful for our analysis. a. íwnyt = pillared halls of the Osiris suite, pages 67 and 235. b. sÉw w#b = the Butcher’s Annex with the wdîw the storerooms opening up to the Butcher’s Hall and the wsÉt probably main hall, page 76. c. m Èrt íb = the area of Sokar; unclear designation, page 87. d. íwnn = temple of Seti (general term) as well as the Osiris suite within the building, page 102. e. Ém + chapels (shrines) of Isis and Horus. Spencer has unfortunately confused the Gournah temple of Seti with the one at Abydos on page 108. She also mixes up the Osiris suite (inner hall) with the Chapel to Osiris: KRI I 165.16. f. st wrt = unclear, page 111. g. pr wr = shrine (chapel) of Seti; undoubtedly the same term for that of Amun, pages 111-12. h. sbÉt = unclear, but refers to porches in the New Kingdom that were often screened, page 166. It is hard to believe that this term indicates the front portico, but I present this as a possibility.

somewhat unusual spelling is virtually the same as in our text (ríwd).24 But the pillars on this platform, indeed all of those in the Inner Hypostyle Court, belong to the construction phase of Seti I. There was major reworking by Ramesses II in the Outer Hypostyle Court, and he carved over much of his father’s scenes and inscriptions with sunken relief. It is difficult to connect the Dedicatory Inscription’s reference of Ramesses regarding the lack of pillars in either hypostyle court.25 Indeed, Brand’s conclusion was that “it is perhaps more likely that he was referring to the one at the back of the first court” instead of the pillars on the portico wherein the lengthy text was carved.26 Therefore, we would have to argue that additional pillars were in need of moving, and that they were not located in the two outer (hypostyle) courts, but rather upon a terrace of the temple. One could still opt for the public area in front of the temple at the time of Seti’s death, the later portico, but this position is not totally

i. j.

bÉht = the pylons, pages 192-6. rwty = main entrance, page 201. But the reference is the Sokar-Nefertem suite: KRI I 171.1. Hence, the entrance should be to this room. k. sbî = doorways, pages 209-10. l. tîyt = gilded door of a shrine or a screening device, pages 211-12. m. íwn = the pillars, pages 234-5. The second reference is to column 36 of the Dedicatory Inscription, but the text is not correct. n. wîdw = papyriform columns. In the Inner Hypostyle Court they would refer to the second and third rows of the twelve columns (reading from the east), page 239. 23 Zippert, “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 24-31. The key passage in the Nauri Decree is line 9: KRI I 47.8-10. In his editio princeps, F. Ll. Griffith also opted for a translation of “platform” for rwd in “The Abydos Decree of Seti I at Nauri,” JEA 13 (1927): 198. Kitchen queried the word “terrace” on page 40 of his Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations I. Independent of Zippert he felt that “perhaps the raised terrace in the portico of the temple” has to be inferred: Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments I, 52; cf. his remarks on page 109 as well. The two other references in Seti’s temple are KRI I 133.13 and 134.13, both located in the Inner Hypostyle Court, Alley of Osiris and Alley of Isis. Here, the rwd ought to have been the internal portico that Zippert proposed in 1931. 24 Compare KRI I 47.9 with KRI II 326.4. 25 The Dedicatory Inscription does not state that the pillars were undecorated or needed redecoration. They were not (yet ?) erected on its “terrace” (nn s#È# íwnw Èr ríwd.s). 26 The Monuments of Seti I, 169. This reasonable speculation implies that the references of Seti I have to be regarded independently from Ramesses’ own comments in his Dedicatory Inscription.

religious and historical implications convincing.27 If we follow Harvey and maintain that that the terrace temple may represent, in symbolic fashion, the earlier “Terrace of the Great God,” surely this idea is separate from the problem of the pillars that were not (yet) erected.28 It might be best to consider the rwd as the terrace to the west of the Second Court simply because the inscription tells us that its pillars were not yet erected. But if we follow Brand in proposing the portico area at the rear of the first court, then this hypothesis has to be rejected.29 Connected to the rear (west) wall of the Seti I temple was a wall that surrounded the “hill” of the Cenotaph.30 Barguet discussed the “esplanade” that one could see at the rear of the Seti temple, and further commented that the Stairway Corridor effectively linked that magnificent building to the hill covering the Cenotaph of Seti (Osireion).31 But there was yet another wall, a secondary one, that reached the rear wall of the Seti temple at precisely the area of this Stairway Corridor. As a result, one could proceed directly to the Cenotaph area in a somewhat constricted 27

This appears to be the conclusion of Kitchen in his Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments I, 52 (to the Nauri Decree). The area was a public one. As we have noted, Brand argues for the pillars at the back of the first court. One way out of this dilemma is to argue that what Seti and Ramesses meant were two separate “terraces.” This, however, is too speculative. 28 Harvey, “The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos,” 434. 29 Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, 75-6; and Darnell, “Two Notes on Marginal Inscriptions at Medinet Habu,” in Essays in Egyptology in Honor of Hans Goedicke (ed. Betsy M. Bryan and David Lorton; San Antonio: Van Siclen Books, 1994), 50. Brand’s position in The Monuments of Seti I, 169 needs additional research although I am sympathetic to his argument. In the Gallery of the Lists we can find an offering “for clothing (mnÉt) in the gods’ house” as well as “for valued vessels” upon (Èr) the rwd: KRI I 183.5-6 and see Abd el Hamid Zayed, “The Staircase of the God in Abydos,” ASAE 62 (1977): 166. He gives no analysis of these two objects that occur in a list of gods; we assume that these special requirements for festivals—see in particular the mnÉt feast—were personified as deities. But this passage does not (indeed, can not) answer our questions. The solution to this gods’ list was discovered by Yoyotte, “Religion de l’Égypte ancienne,” Annuaire École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve Section 85 (1976-1977): 198: the references indicate cults in various places in the Memphite region or around the city; cf. his additional remarks in “Études géographiques. I. La ‘cité des acacias’ (Kafr Ammar),” RdE 13 (1961): 86, and “Processions géographiques mentionnant le Fayoum et ses localités,” BIFAO 61 (1961): 122-4. In his standard translation and commentary volumes to KRI Kitchen provides the background data. According to Yoyotte, the list goes back to the VIth Dynasty. 30 There is a useful diagram of the architectural layout in H. Frankfort, A. de Buck, and Battiscombe Gunn, The

91

fashion owing to this additional small dividing wall.32 With regard to the seven chapels located within the main temple itself, his conclusion was that the one dedicated to Osiris was not a real chapel, but rather served as the entranceway to the Osirian suite in which the statue of Osiris was placed.33 All in all, Barguet properly saw that one could not separate the temple from the Cenotaph, a position with which Harvey would agree. Subsequent analysis concerned with the architectural and artistic purposes of the Stairway Corridor and the related Corridor of the Bull has revised these conclusions to some degree. These two “vestibules” were probably introduced into the plan in order to provide access to the area behind the temple.34 Hence, a connection to Osiris-Wenennefer appears reasonable. At the same time “From the outside wall it was possible to climb an additional staircase onto the temple roof,” and I would assume that the cult of Re had some importance here.35 But as Baines indicates, the final destination remains uncertain because under Ramesses II the plan was altered. Cenotaph of Seti I at Abydos II (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1933), Pl. I. 31 Paul Barguet, “Note sur le complexe architectural de Séti Ier à Abydos,” Kemi 16 (1962): 21-27 and pages 22-3 in particular. For a very helpful summary of Seti I’s work in this area, see Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 174-8. The second phase of work commenced in Seti’s sixth regnal year although the Cenotaph decoration was never completed. On page 177 Brand observes that this decoration “was largely, if not entirely, laid out in paint under Seti I,” and notes the parallel to the uncompleted work in Seti’s Abydos temple as analyzed by Baines—“Abydos, Temple of Sethos I: Preliminary Report,” JEA 70 (1984): 13-22, with “Techniques of Decoration in the Hall of Barques in the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos,” JEA 75 (1989): 13-28. 32 But we must remember that later work by Ramesses II altered the connection of the Stairway Corridor with the Upper Staircase (located to the south) that lead to the roof. See the analysis in the next paragraph. 33 Barguet, “Note sur le complexe architectural de Séti Ier à Abydos,” 24-5. 34 Baines, “Recording the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos in Egypt,” 87. The following remarks depend upon his research. Lucas Baqué has given a new interpretation of the scene of the lassoing of the long horned bull in “‘On that Day when the Long-horned Bull was Lassoed...’ (PT [254] 286). A Scene in the ‘Corridor of the Bull’ of the Cenotaph of Sethos I in Abydos: an Iconologic Approach,” SAK 30 (2002): 43-51. Ahmed El-Sawy provides additional welcome information on this sector in “A New Discovery at the Sety 1 Temple in Abydos” (see Chapter I note 5). His conclusion is that that Stairway Corridor originally “was the third shrine in the sanctuary of Nefertem” (page 427). 35 For the quote: Baines, “Recording the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos in Egypt,” 87. See as well El-Sawy, “A New Discovery at the Sety 1 Temple in Abydos,” 425. A summary of the stages of decoration (mainly agreeing

92

chapter three

The door to the Upper Staircase was subsequently blocked up and a new way to it from the inside the Stairway Corridor was constructed. Nonetheless, the connection to the roof was maintained, and therefore the solar aspect of this area was not abandoned.

C. Chronological and Architectural Background The accompanying two scenes on the south and north of the rear of the second court were carved to complement the written composition of the Dedicatory Inscription. The main one is located to the right of the Dedicatory Inscription and flanks the central entrance to the Outer Hypostyle Court. The king, facing right, has his brief formal speech written with hieroglyphs directed, as expected, from right to left, whereas those of the deities (Osiris, Isis, and the dead Seti, not a statue) are in the opposite direction because they face Ramesses; i.e., they speak to the left. An identical scene within the inner hypostyle court parallels the king’s presentation of Maat to Osiris.36 The final two names of the king are later “standard” ones: Wsr-mî#t-R # Stp-n-R # R #ms-sw mry-ímn. There has been a slight alteration above both cartouches. The king is depicted in his early youthful manner, as befits the time frame of the composition; the relief work is sunken. None of this should surprise the scholar as the carving of the inscription had to have taken place within the opening regnal years of Ramesses at the latest. The end scene at the extreme left (south) shows just Ramesses. The figure of the king faces right, as do the hieroglyphs. From the words of the

with Baines) will be found in Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 155-70; and Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 15-17. 36 In this context it may be useful to cite the companion scene of Seti I offering truth to Osiris in Capart, Abydos, 22 fig. 3. Note that the spelling of “Ramesses” is with -sw. This is present only in the scenes accompanying the Dedicatory Inscription and not in the composition. 37 See Rondot’s analysis in La grande salle hypostyle de Karnak at this point; I can refer the reader to my remarks in Chapter I notes 3 and 4. 38 Ibid., 119-22. We can add the variant spellings of Ramesses II at Abydos when he was depicted with Seti I as the crown prince. See KRI I 177.10 (R #-ms-s(w) with no cartouche); 179.10 (R #-ms-sw with no cartouche); 179.15 (R #-ms-s(w) with no cartouche); and 180.7 (R #-ms-sw with no cartouche). I am ignoring the two names (in cartouches) later engraved on Ramesses’ robe: KRI I 180.8.

composition it is clear that he does not “read aloud” the text. Nonetheless, he raises his right hand and offers the written composition to Osiris. The spelling of the prenomen and nomen follow the practice of the earlier scene; they reflect the system later adopted by the Pharaoh by regnal year two. I believe that both were carved after the Ur-Text of the Dedicatory Inscription was completed and sent in its hieratic format to Abydos. Yet the depiction of Ramesses raising his right hand in respect and dedication may have been designed if not completed somewhat later than regnal year one of Ramesses. We must now turn to the actual state of the development of the final “affichage.” It must have been known to Ramesses, and quite probably he already declared his intention at Abydos during the official commemoration in his first regnal year. The use of the later prenomen plus nomen, and especially the rapid (and early) move to R #ms-sw from R #-ms-s(s) at Karnak, present additional support for this supposition.37 In the Dedicatory Inscription only -ss is written although Wsr-mî#tR # is present. The accompanying pictorial representations write R #-ms-sw, leading one to suspect that they might have been designed subsequent to the lengthy composition. There are no earlier known writings of the prenomen extant in those reliefs. With regard to the chronological framework for the king’s two last names, a recent study of Rondot enables us to present a more cohesive survey of this intriguing matter.38 Yet it was Kitchen’s brilliant discovery of the alteration from -ss to -sw that first enabled many working Egyptologists to reconstruct the sequence of undated monuments

These depictions are in the Gallery of Kings (Corridor X), and were treated in detail by Murnane in “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 162-5 (with important corrections to Seele’s earlier work). There are more recent observations by Fisher, The Sons of Ramesses II I, 43-6, which have to be taken into consideration, although they mainly concern the role of Ramesses II’s first-born son, Amunherkhepeshef. In the Corridor of the Bull the name of king Ramesses (with cartouches of course) is written with the double ss (KRI II 509.11—no prenomen and 510.11—with prenomen Wsr-mî#t-R# Stp-n-R#). According to Baines, the “wall was probably carved some years into the reign of Ramesses II” (cf. Fisher, ibid., 43). Fisher presents additional remarks concerning the difference between Ramesses II as prince in Seti’s temple (see especially the Gallery of Kings) and Ramesses II’s sons (in particular his first born in the Corridor of the Bull). Cf. note 50 below.

religious and historical implications and the numerous scenes of this king. I followed in his footsteps when covering the historical background of Ramesses’ first and second decades. But there was one nagging inconsistency that I subsequently found occurring in the fifth regnal year of Ramesses. In the Louvre Leather Roll, a non-royal administrative document, the first line to column II contains R #-ms-sw mry-ímn, yet the date is clearly year five of the monarch.39 If Kitchen’s argument holds, as I believe it does, then perhaps for hieratic texts the alteration had already come into place before the expected time frame of the middle-end of the king’s second decade for monumental hieroglyphic texts. This argument is reiterated in detail in order to clarify the misdating of the hieratic account of the Battle of Kadesh (P. Sallier III), which unfortunately has been placed in his ninth regnal year.40 In all of the monumental copies of that campaign we encounter only R #-ms-s(s). The date of regnal year five fits Kitchen’s theory to a tee, although it must be remarked that he detected a slow and steady change oriented to a south-north direction. If the writing was ordered or at least approved of by Ramesses, then we can surmise that most of his early decoration work occurred in the south before the north. This conclusion seems most reasonable considering Ramesses’ activities at Karnak, Abydos, and Nubia (e.g., Abu Simbel and Beit el Wali), to mention three key localities 39

KRI II 790.3. The following argument traces my study in Chapter II of The Transformation of an Ancient Egyptian Narrative: P. Sallier III and the Battle of Kadesh (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002). 40 Thomas von der Way, Die Textüberlieferung Ramses’ II. zur Qadeà-Schlacht: Analyse und Struktur (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1984), 34-5. It is easy to refute because the copy of Pn-tî-wrt (P. Sallier III + P. Raifé) came from the north (Saqqara), not Thebes. It was copied from a papyrus. 41 La grande salle hypostyle de Karnak, 119-22. 42 KRI III 347.11 (with queries on the writing although sw may be restored) with the date on 348.3. 43 Christian Leblanc, “Quatrième campagne de fouille dans la tombe de Ramsès II (KV 7),” Memnonia 8 (1997): 167 and note 25 with Pls. XLVI-XLVII; see his additional remarks cited in the following reference. For a comparison, we can mention the sunken relief cartouches of Ramesses with his early name Wsr-mî#t-R # R #-ms-s(w)-mry-ímn: Guy Lecuyot, “Le sanctuaire du Ramesseum. Campagnes de fouilles 1997-1999,” Memnonia 11 (2000): 119-20 and Pl. XXI. (As expected, because the text is arranged vertically, the last sign in the prenomen is the s.) The block on which the names were carved served as a cover of one of the foundation deposits at the Ramesseum. Therefore, despite the use of sunken relief we ought to date the text to the king’s first regnal year. It would appear that Ramesses was sole Pharaoh at this time. See our subsequent comments on the possible use of sunken relief at the very

93

where most of his building activity occurred in his early years. To the evidence of the Louvre Leather Roll can be added additional data independent of Rondot’s recent evaluation of the Hypostyle Court at Karnak.41 The first example is partly open to interpretation as a graffito of a certain ímn-tîy-nÉt presents an unclear spelling. Kitchen, following the editor of the text, queried the readings, and left open the conjectural restoration of Wsr-mî#t-R# stp-n-R # for the prenomen.42 The date is regnal year two and we would expect that the full Wsrmî#t-R # to be written, although the reading with -sw must remain sub judice. In Ramesses’ tomb at Thebes the abbreviated Litany of the Sun does not include Stp-n-R #.43 This should enable us to date the carving (and the papyrus Vorlage) to a time within the first year of the king.44 This meets with added confirmation because, as Leblanc pointed out, an ostracon found by Baraize at the Ramesseum refers to the commencement of work on the king’s tomb in year two.45 The date is the second regnal year, II prt, day 13. Given the probable accession of Ramesses to the throne on III àmw, day 27, one can place the time in the late sixth month of the king’s second regnal year when some of the work in the first corridor of his tomb had begun. According to Leblanc, the decoration must have soon followed owing to the writings of the king’s name in the Litany. end of Seti’s life, although I can also refer to Hornung’s remarks in Chapter II note 119. In the Abydene version of the Litany of the Sun, which is an abbreviated version, the full name Wsr-mî#t-R # stpn-R # appears: Hornung, Das Buch der Anbetung des Re im Westen I, 91. 44 Christophe Barbotin and Christian Leblanc, Les Monuments d’éternité de Ramsès II: nouvelles fouilles thébaines (Paris: Éditions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 1999), 50; with Leblanc, “Les récentes découvertes dans la tombe de Ramsès II,” BSFE 141 (1998): 22-3. The ostracon is CGC 25676. In the second study Leblanc states that the decoration of the tomb of Ramesses II began soon after the commencement of work of the excavation. He allows for ca. 10 to 12 years at the most for the completion of the rock cut tomb (but not the decoration). Naturally, the Litany of the Sun was copied from a papyrus. Hence, its date (and so the writing of the king’s name) reflects the time it was copied down in hieratic and not the time of the transposition to the walls of the king’s tomb. In a private communication Hornung mentions that the change in Ramesses’ name from -ss to -sw can be seen on the walls as one moves further into the tomb. 45 Ibid.; the ostracon is CGC 25676; the nomen is missing due to a break.

94

chapter three

Two copies of the Litany of the Sun were drawn up for Ramesses. The first, at Thebes, was placed within his tomb.46 The second, at his temple in Abydos, contains the useful remark dí #nÉ after the king’s name next to the cartouche whereas in the Valley of the Kings mî#-Érw is written instead.47 In addition, the prenomen and nomen at Abydos are presented as Wsr-mî#t-R # Stp-n-R # and R #-mss(w)-mry-ímn.48 The location of Abydos and not the royal tomb might lead us to a different perception of the then living king. But more pertinent to this analysis are Hornung’s comments concerning the resemblance between Seti I’s Litany in the Valley of the Kings and that of his son Ramesses in the same area. Both are extremely close in writing and organization.49 Hornung stated that the text and accompanying figures are “very similarly divided,” and we cannot but conclude that either the same book (i.e., papyrus roll) was used for both or that the physical setup of the Litany in Ramesses’ tomb was directly copied from Seti’s at the latter’s death. (The time frame allows for such a reconstruction of the events owing to the writing of the prenomen.) At the time of the Pharaoh’s visit, the construction work had been undertaken at his temple rather than that of his father’s. This would have ceased by the time the Ramesses left Abydos, and the sculptors, gravers, architects, and masons directed their attention to the completion of the Seti temple. Subsequently, they would have moved their work at Abydos to another site or sites. In this case I believe that they returned to Ramesses’ own religious edifice. To be sure, walls can be decorated while other projects are in process, and the time of this activity has yet to be calibrated in man-hours (or even in months). Nonetheless, I feel it reasonably secure to date the carving of the Litany at Abydos in the Seti temple to a time after regnal year one, say ca. year two or so. The earlier writing with the double -ss is, however,

not regular in the series of cartouches located in the lowest register.50 There, one can read -sw as well as -ss. Yet both tend to be grouped, as if the sculptors had not fixed upon a single method of transcription.51 Restricting himself to the architraves of the Hypostyle Court at Karnak, Rondot observed many peculiar and unexpected idiosyncrasies in the writings of Ramesses’ name. It is useful to summarize them here as they fit into rather well with our analysis of the second half of the Dedicatory Inscription.52 He observed the “game” (jeu) that was played there between the two writings in which there was an alternation between the double s and a single one; symmetry appears to have been the rule. In addition, Rondot claimed that the decision to unify all the varying prenomens under one, Wsr-mî#t-R # Stp-n-R #, had taken place in the course of the decoration work in the Hypostyle. Indeed, one can even find the rare early name Wsr-mî#t-R # íw#-n-R # in this area of Karnak. We can still be assured that just at the end of his first year, or at the latest in the following, Ramesses established a norm for his two final names: Wsr-mî#t-R # Stp-n-R # sî R # R #-ms-s(s). I feel that this was done owing to the circumstances surrounding his rise to the throne as sole Pharaoh. He was first regent, and thus a ruler in his own might. In other words, the son of Seti was a Pharaoh before his father died. Questions concerning what he wished to be called, or what to name him, would have been of paramount importance, if only because all official documents would come to be dated by his name. (One might also assume that he knew at this time that Seti had not long to live.) Of particular import to any reigning monarch of Egypt was the titulary. At the minimum it indicated a program, divinely oriented or not, which he wished to follow. Any later change in design would indicate a deviation

46 Hornung, Das Buch der Anbetung des Re im Westen; volume II contains the commentary and translation. See volume I page 88 for the king’s name at Thebes: Wsr-mî#t-R # (with the single -s underneath wsr and mî#t) and after a short interval R #-ms-s(w)-mry-ímn. 47 Ibid., II, 13. 48 Ibid., I 88 (R #-ms-s(w) mry-ímn) and 91 (Wsr-mî#t-R # Stp-n-R). 49 Ibid., II 12. This does not apply to Abydos. 50 Mariette, Abydos II, pls. 14-7. If we add up the two cases and exclude the scene with the eight bulls (plus king offering) the statistics are: -ss is 16; -sw is 22. The second reaches 26 if those exceptions are included. Cf. note 38 above.

It can be remarked that before Ramesses was king we find his name at Abydos (without cartouche) written two times as R#-ms-sw (KRI I 179.10 and 180.7) and as R#-ms-s(w) twice elsewhere (KRI I 177.10, 179.15). This will be seen in the Gallery of Kings where Ramesses is still a prince. But Murnane stressed the situation on the king’s robe where we find in sunken relief the prenomen and nomen of Ramesses with his original ( first) name in “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 162-3 and 165. There, the nomen is R #-ms-s(w) and the prenomen is the one common to the man’s first regnal year. 51 Or were different sculptors working? 52 See note 38 above.

religious and historical implications

95

tural stages of construction at Seti’s temple.56 She observed that in the third stage the reliefs were carved, and this occurred during the reign of Ramesses II. She also placed great emphasis upon the scenes in the Corridor of the Bull owing to the use of sunken relief, traces of the preliminary grid lines, and the texts themselves.57 Following Baines, she highlighted four stages in the architectural and decorative program at Abydos. When the final reliefs were carved, Seti I had already died. Indeed, Murnane, whose study on the epigraphic material from this temple is well worth rereading, observed that the independent work on Seti’s temple by Ramesses was “done only after Ramesses had become ‘Userma’atrê Setepenre’.”58

on the part of the reigning king from his previous self-conception. In Ramesses’ case we can witness a major one within his fourth decade; other Pharaohs went even further.53 In general, these developments operated as follows. On non-royal documents (letters and the like) the -sw enters before the switch on monuments. The Stp-n-R # is permanently established by year two at the latest. Other earlier ones were discarded at the close of his first year—I am referring to variant names such as Wsr-mî#t-R # íw# n R # which end with a solitary s in R #-ms-s(w). The evidence of the Dedicatory Inscription fits perfectly within the established scholarly position. Namely, that the account was composed in the opening year of Ramesses soon after the death of his father. On the other hand, the dialogue between Seti I and Ramesses II must be placed somewhat later than the original festive occasion at Abydos, and the “intrusion” of the -sw might point to a time somewhat later than year one. (Remember that this writing will be found only in the scenes and not within the body of the narrative composition.)54 I do not think that the text is a later composition which was retrospectively dated to Ramesses’ first year” as Millor claims.55 The last discussion on this matter is that of Fisher, who provided a short analysis of the architec-

There is an additional text at Abydos that helps to clarify further these problems. Located in the Stairway Corridor will be found two speeches of Thoth and Seshat to the king Seti I.59 The date of the carving in this area has been clarified by Murnane, who paid particular attention to the use of raised relief and the early prenomen of Ramesses

53 Many examples could be provided, but in the Ramesside Period one classic case is Ramesses IV: Peden, The Reign of Ramesses IV, 15. For Ramesses II: Yoyotte, “Le Nom de Ramsès “Souverein d’Héliopolis’,” in Mit Rahineh 1956 (ed. Rudolf Anthes; Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1965), 66-7. Siptah, as well, can be added, for his names changed by his third regnal year. In general, see Kitchen, “The Titularies of the Ramesside Kings as Expression of their Ideal Kingship,” ASAE 71 (1987): 131-41. 54 Conveniently, Mariette, Abydos I, pls. 5 and 9; cf. KRI II 323.14 (restored), 324.4, 336.11, and 336.14 (yet see the crucial note 14a). 55 William Kevin Millor, “The Genealogy and Chronology of the Ramesside Period” (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota Ann Arbor, 1986), 32 and 35. He also discusses the Abydos temple of Seti I and observes that Ramesses “completed the decoration only after his father’s death and at a time when he had adopted his final prenomen. This decoration is confined to the front of the temple” (pages 38-9). He emphasizes the use of raised relief in contrast to sunken relief. See our brief comment in Chapter II note 119 with regard to the use of raised relief in the tomb of Ramesses II. 56 The Sons of Ramesses II I, 28. 57 Ibid. Murnane, “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 162 and 165, provides a well-reasoned study this area. He observed that the scenes of the Corridor Stairway were carved earlier owing to the presence of the early prenomen and the use of raised relief.

A scene in the Hall of Lists is also to be dated to the same time period. To quote him: “These seem to be the only places in the temple of Sety I where Ramesses appears with the early prenomen” (pages 162 and 165), and the bulk of his efforts “were concentrated on the front of the building.” The reason why this corridor was left unfinished at the time of Seti’s death is not so easy to explain. The architectural layout of the southwest area (Nefertem-Ptah-Sokar Hall) was altered and it became smaller. One chapel was converted to the Stairway Corridor and a second series of three columns to the south were readjusted; the latter were included in the south wall of this Nefertem-Ptah-Sokar Hall. See David, Religious Ritual at Abydos, 166-8 for a summary; and now Baines, “Abydos, Temple of Sethos I: Preliminary Report,” 16-18. Zippert, “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 18, was the first to analyze the architectural situation of this area by noting the change of design. Baines, however, indicated that the plan (with six columns and not the four argued by Zippert) was changed before any decoration was executed in his “Abydos, Temple of Sethos I: Preliminary Report,” 16-18. He further pointed to the later work of Ramesses II such as the access to the Upper Staircase on to the roof: from within the Stairway Corridor “without leaving the temple.” Subsequently, this king had the outer door into the Upper Staircase walled up. 58 “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 165. 59 KRI I 189.1-92.12; Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations I, 163-6 with his Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and

D. The Stairway Corridor

96

chapter three

II.60 There is no doubt that this area was carved under Ramesses’ regency with his father. If this argument is followed, we can therefore presume that it was completed earlier than Ramesses’ visit and not far back in the past. The content of Thoth’s address far outweighs its presumed historical dating. The account supplements and dovetails the speech of Seti to his son contained in the Dedicatory Inscription. For example, we meet Re, Osiris (by name only), Wenennefer, Thoth, the Ennead, the All Lord, and Atum (also by name only). The communality of vocabulary, as well, cannot be overlooked. See, for example, the use of “daily offerings,” ts, “to govern/administer,” the solar bark, “to remember,” the verb “to promote,” the stress on Maat, and once more the verb “to awake.”61 Even the idea of the king as a child,” a Éy in this case, is reminiscent of the Dedicatory composition, and the Opening of the Mouth ceremony is explicit.62 The accompanying ritual scenes make it clear that Ramesses (as crown prince and regent) offers before Seti and the same may be said with regard to the scenes on the south wall.63 The purport of this very interesting text can be summarized as follows. Thoth speaks, and his role is that of the All Lord’s scribe and amanuensis, exactly as we find him in the Story of

Horus and Seth and all too briefly in the Dedicatory Inscription. The deity’s address, in which the heavenly conclave as well as the gods in the under/afterworld welcome the king, is presented to Seti. Thoth, in his expected role, enunciates the words on behalf of Re-Harachty, whose “beloved son” is Seti. The latter, in fact, is placed daily in heaven, “like Atum” and “alongside Re.”64 Thus the aspects present here parallel to no small degree the account of Ramesses at Abydos. Moreover, the king’s annals are engraved, exactly as is done for Ramesses on the exterior wall of the northern portico.65 The following details, though different, deserve emphasis:

Comments I, 126-8. In Budde’s work, Die Göttin Seschat cited in Chapter I notes 2 and 24, this text is Document 97 (page 255 with cross references). See now Raedler, “Zur Struktur des Hofgesellschaft Ramses’ II.,” 70. Bastin’s study, “De la fondation d’un temple: ‘Paroles dites par Seshat au Roi Sethi Ier’,” cited above in Chapter I note 24, is a crucial study on this inscription. 60 “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 162 and 165. He corrects Seele, The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I, 48. For the key text naming Ramesses in the Stairway Corridor, see KRI I 188.8-16 with line 9 in particular. Ramesses offers before Seti, Isis (= wife of Seti if Seti = Osiris), and the Ennead. See Hornung’s remarks in Chapter II note 119 concerning the use of raised relief in the tomb of Ramesses II 61 Let me refer to KRI I 190.11 (“daily offerings,” II 332.6); 190.10 (ts.n.k); 190.7 (solar bark with its crew, the íswt; the king a pilot in II 333.13); 190.4-5 (and 192.6—sÉî; II 335.10); 189.10 (s#r; II 331.14 with I 186.10); 190.10 (Maat; see the scene of Ramesses offering Maat to Seti); and 189.8, 191.4, and 191.9 (“to awake,” snhs and nhsí: both words are used with respect to the underworld). 62 KRI I 192.11 ( for Éy), and see the shrine of OsirisSeti as well, KRI I 167.1. Opening of the Mouth: KRI I 191.11. Once more reference to Willems’ analysis of CT Spells 30-41 is useful: see Chapter II note 469. He indicated that this entire group of spells deals with the protection of Osiris and that the deceased is unified with the rejuvenated god. The stress upon curing the wounds of Osiris (see in particular pages 283 and 305 in Willems’ study)

finds its parallel in this speech of Seshat. In order to limit the extent of this discussion, I will avoid any analysis of the religious significance of this portion of the composition. Willems places the Sitz im Leben of the liturgy into festivities at Abydos (pages 287-8). 63 KRI I 188.8-16 (north wall) and 192.13-15 (Ramesses as crown prince offers Maat); cf. David, Religious Ritual at Abydos, 210-13. David’s translation on page 210 may help us to decipher a broken passage in this text. See KRI I 191.14: psd.k n.f R # Èr ímy-wrt r-#qî [àtî]yt.f (?). Should we read: “You shine for him, Re on the West, opposite his àtîyt”? The latter would be, of course, the so-called Cenotaph of Seti at Abydos, located to the west of this temple. See Edwards, “The Shetayet of Rosetau,” 32-4. I feel that this restoration is reasonable, especially if we consider the link between the Osirian cult and the feast of Sokar in the New Kingdom (cf. Gaballa and Kitchen, “The Festival of Sokar,” 43-6 and passim). These two authors did not overlook the connection to the Mansion of Gold with respect to the body of Osiris (page 40). 64 The atef crown also enters the account: KRI I 191.14; see Assmann, Liturgische Lieder, 307 with note 29. It is connected to Osiris even though it is “the atef of Re” (Book of the Dead 183). See our brief remarks in note 12 above. The next phrase is indicative of the setting. 65 KRI I 189.14 (with gnwt: Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books, 77); cf. KRI I 187.2 (with gnwt). 66 KRI I 189.10 (with s#r). 67 KRI I 190.1-2 with Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments I, 127.

(1)

(2)

(3)

Thoth travels with Re-Harachty from (íí) the sky. Or, as the account states in a different manner, the two have come (prí) from “heaven” to Egypt. Then he relates that the gods in heaven are overjoyed with their son Seti owing to his plans, goodness, and fame. Equally, the lords of the underworld offer up goodness (nfrw) to the shrine of Re.66 The completion of the temple at Abydos is recognized. I assume that the reference to the red ink in lines 9-10 might refer to the outline drafts made on the wall(s). I.e., his temple is being engraved.67 The reason for the trip is due to Seti’s “concerns,” his Ért. The crew of the sun

religious and historical implications

(4) (5)

god are greeted by Seti.68 There is a further reference to the solar shrine.69 Thoth outlines the great deeds which Seti has done, and he specifies the success of Egypt’s population as well. Thoth then descends (hîí ) to the underworld, meets Wenennefer, and points out that Seti’s nfrw have woken him. Here, the success of Seti is also recorded, and the emphasis placed upon the “transformations” (Éprw) of Wenennefer. Note the key references to the Solar-Osirian unity: Wenennefer “sees” Re in the underworld and the latter flies, as he must, over the sarcophagus, two key images in that theology.70 I presume that Thoth enters the underworld in the west, but we must not forget that he is the moon god as well, and thus can be seen in the night.71

There is one interconnected theme running through these words, that of the sun god Re. King Seti is indeed divine as is Re.72 He is a god, that all important fact which we have seen was one of Assmann’s starting points when he analyzed the Dedicatory Inscription in light of the father-son constellation.73 This account, however, is not a narrative one, but simply the speech of a god. As such, the role and status of the deities are emphasized and no tale, account, or even a story is related.74 The situation also reflects a ritual and perhaps fits closely to Verhoeven’s analysis of the performance Sitz im Leben of the Story of Horus and Seth as well as the cultic activities of the Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus.75 The verbal description centers upon Thoth’s descent from heaven (with Re present). First, we are on earth and then in the underworld.

Not surprisingly, this inscription contains a superfluity of heavenly images as befits the connection to Re or Re-Harachty. Inter alia, see “Atum in his heavens,” KRI I 189.15-16-190.1. The two heavens are meant and in fact written: the one above the earth and below the earth, the latter being the underworld. Read as well the “firmament” (KRI I 190.3) and the “starry sky” (KRI I 189.12 to 14; a beautiful image). 68 And the nyny gesture is mentioned: KRI I 190.7 with Assmann, Liturgische Lieder, 270: see the connection with the coronation ritual. 69 KRI I 190.8 with 189.10 (with s#r). 70 KRI I 191.7ff. (with nhsí ). The image of the flying ba is aptly discussed by Niwinski in “The Solar-Osirian Unity as Principle of the Theology of the ‘State of Amun’ in Thebes in the 21st Dynasty,” JEOL 30 (1987-88): 89-106. 71 In general, see Wolfhart Westendorf, Altägyptische Darstellungen des Sonnenlaufes auf der abschüssigen Himmelsbahn (Berlin: Hessling, 1966), 54 (Osiris), and 83 (general summary).

97

This speech thus presents the nightly encounter of Thoth with Wenennefer. Interestingly, even though the sun god is with Thoth—have not they both descended from heaven?—he is not the main actor. Yet the combination of Wenennefer and Re at the crack of dawn is one of the hallmarks of this composition. In addition, Seti has allowed Wenennefer to be awakened. In this case there is a clear contrast with the Dedicatory Inscription. In the latter, Ramesses performs the awakening of Seti; here, Seti acts upon Wenennefer. I.e., the intimate, personal, and physical relationship of father-son is not present. This account, directed from the mouth of Thoth can be linked with the verbal conclusion to the Dedicatory Inscription. On the south wall of the Stairway Corridor we encounter Re traveling down from his starry realm, viewing first the results of Seti’s pious deeds to the gods, and then witnessing the results of these actions among mankind. Re with Thoth then descend further and encounter Wenennefer.76 This god of the underworld is awakened and he immediately sees Re. In this context the significant words of Ramesses II to his father in the Dedicatory Inscription should be recalled: “Awake! Your face to heaven” (column 80). In reading both inscriptions, the scenario becomes clearer. And to employ Otto’s words, both of the presentations reflect the new, apparently Ramesside-developed, presentation of “mythological ritual” or “dramatized myth.”77 The double presence at Abydos further reminds us of their connection with the “annals” (gnwt) of the king and his rejuvenating

72

KRI I 192.1 and 3: íw.k mí R # m-hnw.s. See Chapter II note 1; KRI I 192.4: íw Èm.k m ntr. 74 Assmann, “Grundstrukturen der ägyptischen Gottesvorstellungen,” Biblische Notizen 11 (1980): 55 with “Die Verborgenheit des Mythos in Ägypten,” GM 25 (1977): 7-43. 75 Verhoeven, “Ein historischer ‘Sitz im Leben’ für die Erzählung von Horus und Seth.” 76 Following Willems, we should connect the encounter (or embrace) with the location of msqt: The Coffin of Heqata, 264. This would be at the eastern horizon and at the time that the sun god rises. 77 “Eine Darstellung der ‘Osiris-Mysterien’,” 104. Assmann has challenged Otto’s interpretation to some degree in “Die Verborgenheit des Mythos in Ägypten,” and especially on pages 12 and 39-40. Nonetheless, on page 41 he agrees with Otto concerning the “breakthrough” in the post Amarna Period. 73

chapter three

98

heb sed festivals, factors that must be connected to the locality of the inscriptions.78 Stairway Corridor Speech of Thoth

Dedicatory Inscription Speech of Seti

1. Re and his deputy scribe Thoth 1. Seti is the actor; he has are the actors. been awakened and is a ba. 2 Re with Thoth reflects on Seti’s 2. Seti speaks with Re; the deeds. The gods in heaven and deeds of Ramesses are reunderworld are pleased. lated. 3. Seti asks for favors from Re on behalf of Ramesses. They are granted. Thoth writes them down; the Ennead is in acclamation. 3. Thoth descends to the under- 4. Seti meets Wenennefer in world and meets Wenennefer. the underworld. Horus The latter is awake because of (that is Ramesses) has Seti’s nfrw. woken him up. The benefactions are then listed. Wenennefer is happy Wenennefer notes the results of because of Ramesses’ good Seti’s actions and he emphasizes deeds. He grants the king the excellent results that have the attributes of a successful kingship and reflects come to pass.79 The ba of Re passes over Wenennefer and he upon the results of Re’s simisees the sun god. lar act.

The similarity between the two accounts should be obvious. Ramesses has roused Seti, and Seti has done the same for Wenennefer. But there is no strong father-son constellation in the Stairway

78

In other words, their location in the corridor of egress (leading to the Cenotaph of Seti I) cannot be overlooked; Seti is being “reborn.” 79 I will ignore the subsequent revival of Wenennefer, although it is useful to pay attention to at least one important word, íwtyw “digestion products” > “decomposition”: KRI I 191.6; and Zandee, Death as an Enemy according to Ancient Egyptian Conceptions Leiden: Brill, 1960), 73 and note 7. This portion of the speech moves on to a theme very different than that expressed in the speech of Seti. And Wenennefer is Re at the crack of dawn, every day: KRI I 191.6-7. 80 “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 9-10; and Caulfeild, The Temple of the Kings at Abydos, 3 and 14 (Petrie). In The Cenotaph of Seti I I, 24-5 the three editors (Frankfort, de Buck, and Gunn) disputed this hypothesis. They presented a theory that this building was constructed at the same time as the temple in front of it, and also recognized that the latter edifice is extremely abnormal in layout. 81 Ramesses II surely had the workers use the same hieratic papyrus roll that contained the speech of Thoth to carve it on the southern wall of Abydene temple. In this case, however, the text is spoken by Seshat. A temple calendar was also carved in the same area, just as many years later Ramesses III placed his calendar on the southern wall of Medinet Habu. (The last king was merely following the plan of the Ramesseum, and in fact used most of the hieratic Vorlage for his festival calendar.) The location of Ramesses II’s inscription was to the immediate west of the west side door, and thus forms an

Corridor speech of Thoth as only Seti and the underworld god are involved. The interweaving of royalty with pious duty of a son is present in both of these inscriptions. Even if the work on the Cenotaph forced the alteration of the architectural design of Seti’s temple, a point that was first made with great clarity by Zippert, the connection of Horus to Osiris was maintained.80 In his cultic act recorded at the end of the Dedicatory Inscription, Ramesses presents a personal and emotionally charged scenario that strongly emphasizes these concepts, and the inherent differences between both accounts overtly reveal themselves in the role of Seti, the father. In the Dedicatory Inscription the entire situation is one of Ramesses imploring his father to speak on his behalf to Re-Harachty and Wenennefer. In the other text Re has already seen the benefactions of the king; hence, he is the primal mover in that composition. Both deities remain separate and independent.81 The function of Thoth as scribal deputy deserves more than a brief glance. Quaegebeur has brought into focus the activities of the god with respect to various funerary texts, especially that of the Books of Respirations.82 (There have been problems in identifying the “writer” or

effective break to the calendar. The later composition was abbreviated because of space reasons; cf. KRI II 526.13-29.2. Kitchen has observed that the second and later copy omitted the section dealing with “the personal care of Osiris, and so less relevant to the R.II context of a temple calendar” (Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments I, 127; Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations I, 163 note 7). The different location of the second version is equally important. In Ramesses II’s temple at Abydos the intimate father-son relationship in Seti’s edifice is not present. Moreover, the stress of Seti as a god is far less impressive in Ramesses’ own building. Thus the importance of this speech (here by Seshat) for the cult was considerably less than the role it had in Seti’s temple. From its location in the latter building (Stairway Corridor to the rear; connection to the Cenotaph; link with Osiris and his adjacent suite) and contents, an overt connection to the cult of the dead, the now dead father of the ruling monarch, Osiris, Re, and the unity between these two gods was present. None of those concepts are appropriate to the physical setting of Seshat’s address in Ramesses II’s temple. That is to say, the location of the transformed speech ensured that it had lost its original cultic meaning. 82 Jan Quaegebeur, “Diodore I, 20 et les mystères d’Osiris,” in Hermes Aegyptiacus: Egyptological studies for B. H. Stricker on his 85th birthday (ed. Terence DuQuesne; Oxford: DE Publications, 1995), 157-81. See as well, M. Coenen and J. Quaegebeur, De Papyrus Denon in het Museum MeermannoWestreenianum, Den Haag of het Boek van het Ademen van Isis (Leuven: Peeters, 1995). Quirke emphasizes to me that the

religious and historical implications

99

“creator” of these religious texts.) In the funerary literature of the Late Period he showed that Thoth, Re, and Isis were all too frequently connected. Some refer to a decree of (Amun-)Re in favor of Osiris or the deceased. Others frequently mention Thoth’s role with respect to Osiris. But in the latter case it is relatively clear that the ibisheaded god is in the service of the supreme deity. Quaegebeur summarized the New Kingdom situation, in which Thoth, being the secretary of Re (or Amun-Re or Re-Atum), copies out the decree of the creator god. We can also find this role of Thoth as an assistant expressed at an earlier time in the Coffin Texts. Later, however, Isis appears in the constellation. There is even a close relationship between Isis and Seshat, a factor that is of some use in explaining the latter’s speech in the Stairway Corridor (see below).83 Yet despite Quaegebeur’s interpretation, Re/Amun/Atum remains the authority, Thoth writes down the commands etc., Isis acts as the petitioner requesting the document, and Osiris is the beneficiary. The background to this description bears a further look if only because Willems has recently presented a series of painstaking studies of the Coffin Text material that are considerably enlightening, especially in the context of my analysis.84 The merger of Re and Osiris is one of the themes.

This aspect is reflected in our two Abydos texts as well as in other New Kingdom material, especially those compositions dated to the Ramesside Period.85 Moreover, the expected Horus-Osiris constellation is very frequent. The father is asleep and the son awakens him. In the Shu spells the passive (dead) god is Atum and the active one his son Shu.86 According to Willems, it is Re who plays the major role in the merging of Re and Osiris during the night. Hence, these concepts are closely related to the same theological ideas prevalent in the Dedicatory Inscription and the speech of Thoth.87 I do not have to present a lengthy discussion of this matter as Willems has written a fine overview of the matter. Suffice it to say that Re brings Osiris to life. In the Thoth speech it is Re who is the mover and not Wenennefer, whereas in the Seti speech the dead father does all the pleading, to Re in this case. Willems’ extremely useful analysis can help us clarify matters even more. He set up two schemas:88

distinction “Books of Isis” versus “Books of Thoth” rests on a false antithesis as it is based on a misreading of titles based on two possible ways of abbreviating “document made (= written) by Thoth for Isis” as “Thoth document” or “Isis document.” Hence, there is no change in substance as argued by some Egyptologists. 83 For the deity Seshat and her close connection to Thoth (and the Ished tree), see Budde’s Die Göttin Seschat, cited and referred to in the particular context of Seti’s temple in Chapter I notes 2 and 24 above. The connection with Isis is covered on pages 163-9 of her work. Nonetheless, Dominique Bastin, “De la fondation d’un temple: ‘Paroles dites par Seshat au Roi Sethi Ier’,” (see Chapter I note 24) provides the details pertinent to our analysis. 84 “The Embalmer Embalmed” and “The Social and Ritual Context of a Mortuary Liturgy.” There are some interesting points to be found in Dieter Müller’s old analysis in “Die Zeugung durch das Herz in Religion und Medizin der Ägypter,” Or 35 (1966): 267-69. But the summary in Hornung, Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many (trans. John Baines; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982), 93-96 remains standard: union of Re and Osiris (Middle and New Kingdoms). Cf. his The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife (trans. David Lorton; Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1999), 142 ( fig. 86: tomb of Nefertari, wife of Ramesses II); add Winfred Barta, “Osiris als Mutterleib des unterweltlichen Sonnengottes in den Jenseitsbüchern des Neuen Reiches,” JEOL 29 (1985-86): 98-105 where the key lexical items are presented; and now Heather Lee McCarthy, “The Osiris Nefertari: A Case Study of Decorum, Gender, and Regeneration,” JARCE

39 (2002): 173-95. Note as well, Colette J. Manouvrier, Ramsès: le dieu et les dieux ou La théologie politique de Ramsès II I (Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 1996), 168-71. 85 A helpful study on this matter with regard to the Ptolemaic temple of Edfu will be found in Sylvie Cauville, La théologie d’Osiris à Edfou (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1983), 187-9; see pages 190-3 for the location of Osiris in the temple of Edfu. Add the pertinent comments of Hornung in “Black Holes Viewed from Within: Hell in Ancient Egyptian Thought,” 136 where he refers to the sixth hour in the Amduat text: the cadaver of Osiris is also the cadaver of Re. Hornung also laid emphasis upon an identical conception in the Litany of the Sun, lines 176-8 (Das Buch der Anbetung des Re im Westen II, 83) 86 Willems, “The Shu-Spells in Practice,” in The World of the Coffin Texts: Proceedings of the Symposium Held on the Occasion of the 100th birthday of Adriaan de Buck, Leiden, December 17-19, 1992 (ed. Harco Willems; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1996), 197-209 presents a helpful reinterpretation. He centers his remarks upon the role on the Shu priest as the deceased’s son, the mythological interpretation of the social pattern, and the deceased as a rejuvenated being in the role of Horus, who then sustains Osiris. 87 “The Embalmer Embalmed,” 359-64. 88 “The Social and Ritual Context of a Mortuary Liturgy,” 370-2. He ably resolved the apparent difficulty of Horus sending a form of Horus to Osiris in Spell 312, a “dramatic composition.” Spells 30-41 (a liturgy) provide the schema outlined here.

1. Living son (Horus) acts upon dead father (Osiris). 2. a. Living son (Horus) acts upon dead father (Osiris); dead father then becomes a revived father (Horus).

100

chapter three b. Revived father (Horus) acts on dead father god (Osiris).

occurs between heaven and the underworld comes to pass in the middle of the night: the unification of both gods, the unification of the ba and the mummy.94 Ramesses IV at Abydos, for example, describes the unified ba as “with one mouth.”95 Both Hornung and Assmann have provided the evidence for the relatively late synchronism of Re and Osiris, and the evidence from Dynasty XIX is clear enough for us to bring into the discussion these two texts from the Abydos temple of Seti. In the Dedicatory Inscription Seti “mingles” with the gods in the sky just as he is with Atum and Wenennefer. Osiris is the night sun, as the texts say. Heaven and underworld are set beside one another as realms separate but at the same time connected.96

This is essentially the same situation in the Dedicatory Inscription. In that composition the living son is Ramesses and the dead father is Seti, who is in his temple also equated with Osiris. Seti is awakened and then acts for his son. 89 The father meets with Re-Harachty in heaven (Re role) and then Wenennefer in the underworld (Wenennefer-Osiris role). In the inscription the dead father, now “alive,” reports that Wenennefer has been woken up: “Behold… [Horus ?] caused him to awake by recalling your goodness.” As the “your” refers to Ramesses, the latter cannot be the “Horus.” Therefore, we are faced with a situation identical to that explained by Willems. His analysis of the funerary liturgy CT spells 30-41 show the father as the active partner who deals with the dead god Osiris. This is in contrast to the role of Re in the speech of Thoth. There, the sun god leaves heaven and eventually meets Wenennefer in the underworld. Seti already has awakened the latter, and the equation of the dead king with Horus is indicated.90 But the meeting of Re and Wenennefer in the same speech can be found in the Coffin Texts as well.91 Willems mentioned the familiar theme of the merger of Re and Osiris during the night. The meeting takes place in the eastern horizon and so the event must have occurred around sunrise. The merging of the two in which “the one with the two bas came into being,” and a further spell (CT 75) reveals that such events involved the transmission of kingship and not merely the mummification of the dead father and his royalty.92 The double role of Re and Wenennefer were part and parcel of the Ramesside Period. Next to heaven and the ba we find the underworld and the mummy.93 The most secret of all things that

These two religious compositions reverberate with many ideas that are contained in the SolarOsirian unity. This connection is best viewed from a survey of three large religious compositions recently edited by Darnell.97 Those tractates, dated to the reigns of Tutankhamun, Ramesses VI, and Ramesses IX, may in fact derive from late Dynasty XVIII exemplars if not earlier. By and large, their theme is the same: Re and Osiris are united in the afterworld. Darnell argued that the three treatises are based on a common template in which the solar-Osirian fusion is the striking if not paramount theme. The reiteration of the living Re as Horus emerging from the corpse of Osiris must form the fundamental substructure which lay underneath many of the images and religious motifs prevalent in the Abydene texts. Moreover, the role of Amun-Kamutef, also noted by Darnell, fits perfectly with our texts.98 The unified Re-Osiris remains in the netherworld, just as

89 Evidence from the Book of the Gates (Eleventh and Twelfth Hour) is useful to cite in this context: Hornung, Das Buch von den Pforten des Jenseits, I. The following events are important: the raising up (s#È#), then the facing towards the sun (Re), which is followed by seeing the face of Re, and finally the elevation (s#r) of Maat. All of these themes are present in these two speeches, as well as that of Seshat described below. 90 KRI I 191.4/5-6: Épr.tí m dbîw n \r dr smî tî #î. Kitchen’s excellent translation is “you [Seti] having become the equivalent of Horus since the great internment” (Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations I, 165). The use of dbîw indicates that “replacement” is the core meaning. 91 Willems, “The Embalmer Embalmed,” 360-4. The

reader should be forewarned that Willems sets the beginning of the Egyptian day at sunrise (page 362 note 73). This is not proven. 92 Ibid., 363-4. 93 Assmann, Re und Amun, 243-6. 94 Ibid., 196. 95 Hornung, Der Eine und die Vielen (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1971), 85 (KRI VI 22.16-23.1); see his discussion on pages 85-7 which I follow here. 96 Assmann, Liturgische Lieder, 81, 110-11. 97 The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity. The following discussion is based upon his important analysis. A recent short follow-up is that of Terrence DuQuesne, “Osiris with the Solar Disk,” DE 60 (2004): 21-5.

E. The Solar-Osirian Unity

religious and historical implications

101

Seti I does.99 But Re as Horus is resurrected from the corpse of Osiris. In the cryptographic text in the tomb of Ramesses IX “Re places the Pharaoh with him, that the king might enquire after him … yet it is Osiris after whom one enquires.”100 Our Abydene texts refer to this same concept. Finally, in the concluding scene within the same tractate the ithyphallic Osiris represents the emergent solar-Osirian unity when Re and Osiris are mystically united at the eastern horizon. Temporally speaking, the three New Kingdom royal compositions analyzed by Darnell precede and follow the Abydene inscriptions. How far each of them represents a more developed concentration of Egyptian religious thought than what was present in the pre-Amarna period of Dynasty XVIII must remain an open question. Notwithstanding earlier intellectual antecedents— see Willems’ research on this matter as well as Darnell’s later contribution—a developed and well-organized series of religious conceptions concerning the fusing of Re and Osiris was present at the time that Ramesses II visited Abydos. I assume that the locality and the cult of Osiris was the automatic catalyst for the Stairway Corridor text of Seti and the somewhat later report of Ramesses II in his Dedicatory Inscription. See, for example, the clear-cut designation of Osiris as Re in the Staircase text of Thoth—“You have caused him to appear at very dawn as Re.” But that such ideas can be found in the Theban mortuary region both earlier and later is worthy of mention. Both texts, the Dedicatory and the one in the Stairway Corridor, present this important religious viewpoint. The interlacing between the two helps us to focus upon the role of the sun god vis-

à-vis Osiris. The compositions also reveal different viewpoints on the concept of Osiris-Wenennefer at the temple of Seti. And if the emphasis placed by Ramesses on his filial duty to his father is overpowering in the Dedicatory Inscription, it nevertheless did not “interfere” with the religious viewpoints concerning Re, Osiris, and their association. The dating of the Dedicatory Inscription and Thoth’s speech fits well with the apparent “sudden” return of this Osiris-Re equation under the reign of Seti I, a theological viewpoint that also can be seen in the Litany to the sun god Re.101 That religious text, which is known to us as early as Thutmose III and his vizier Useramun, subsequently disappears in Dynasty XVIII royal tombs only to “reemerge” under Seti. In other words, a major theological tractate that stresses Re plus Osiris became prevalent again in a royal setting around the same time that Seti’s inscriptions in the Stairway Corridor were carved. A third text of Seti, also located in the Stairway Corridor but on the north wall, can be brought into the discussion.102 Traditionally, this composition and the accompanying figures have been dated to the regency period owing to its raised relief. It is Seshat-Sefkhtabwy, the companion and sister of Thoth, who now addresses king Seti. The same basic orientation of the Thoth speech and the ending of the Dedicatory Inscription is presented. Not unexpectedly, a similar vocabulary can be found: the sàmw image, “rejoicing,” the “annals,” the use of the word “nurse” as in the Dedicatory Inscription, the verb “awake,” “enjoyment,” “remember,” and “elevating beauty.”103 The goddess reports to Seti that everything is perfect. The Pharaoh has performed wonderful deeds and the gods are happy, in particular Re

98 Darnell, ibid., 322. Kamutef is the primeval form of Amun; see the recent comments of Tamás Bács, “A Royal Litany in a Private Context,” MDAIK 60 (2004): 6 and note 26. 99 Darnell, ibid., passim, especially pages 101, 160-2, 245, 322, 347, and 359. 100 Ibid., 347. Darnell explicitly refers to the speech of Thoth/Seshat to the king in Seti’s I’s Abydene temple on page 434 (note 40) of his work; see his brief comments on page 279 note 18. Budde, Die Göttin Seschat, is more detailed. 101 Hornung, “Echnaton und die Sonnenlitanei,” BSEG 13 (1989): 65-8. He also refers to the well-known cryptographic protocol of Seti I in his Abydos temple: Étienne Drioton, “Les protocoles ornementaux d’Abydos,” RdE 2 (1936):2 (doorway to hall of Sokar and Nefertem) with KRI I 170.2—the falcon headed sun god is Sokar-Osiris. 102 KRI I 185.14-188.7. 103 For Seshat- Sefkhtabwy in this connection, see Budde,

Die Göttin Seschat and our comments on her important role cited in Chapter I notes 2 and 24. She provides a good backdrop to aspects connected directly to the king, his temple, writing, and his rejuvenation. See as well, Dominique Bastin “De la fondation d’un temple: ‘Paroles dites par Seshat au Roi Sethi Ier’.” The sàmw: KRI I 186.11-12 (sàmw-Éw) and 14 (but add the #hmw [written as #àmw] of I 187.1: Hornung, “Der Mensch als ‘Bild Gottes’,” 128—only for gods, but in the books of the underworld used for a divine being); “rejoicing” (186.2 with 190.8); “annals” (gnwt; 187.2 with 189.14); “nurse” (187.16); “awake” (nhsw; 187.5); “enjoyment” (wnf; 187.5 with 190.5); “remember” (sÉî; 187.7 with 190.4-5 and 192.6; cf. KRI II 335.10) and “elevating beauty” (s#rt nfrw: 186.10 with 189.10). For the references to images in Ramesses II’s temple at Abydos, see KRI II 512.3 (sàm-Éw), 512.5-6 (sàm), 514.11 (sàm-Éw), 515.10 (sàm-Éw), 532.2-3 (sàm), 532.8 (sàm), and 541.15 (sàm-Éw).

102

chapter three

and Wenennefer. Lastly, the gods are “beside Seti” and he is, in fact, “one of them.”104 The “action” of the set piece or, to be more precisely, the descriptive setting links up with the preceding two accounts:

The speech of Seshat complements that of her “brother” Thoth. But its ritual activity emerges when we read “Life to your nose!” in line 28.107 The statue of Seti has been awoken. Is it not the case that the same rite, reported in the Dedicatory Inscription, had to have taken place when the ritual priest spoke the account of Thoth and also the address of Seshat. The latter two texts must belong together, not only owing to their

complementary distribution in space (north and south wall of the Stairway Corridor), but also due to their textual similarities. Lest I be misunderstood, I believe that all three Abydene compositions indicate the same religious event. Whether or not a specific ceremony took place that connects them together is another matter. The Dedicatory Inscription describes the statue (sàmw) of Seti reinvigorated by his son Ramesses. There, the movement of cultic activity involves son and father. In the two Stairway Corridor speeches the aim also focuses upon Seti even if the divine setting (or religious background) of the speeches of Thoth and Seshat indicate a time before Seti’s death when Ramesses was not sole ruler. One has to wait for his independent kingship in order that the father-son constellation take place. The latter is, after all, the underlying theme of the Dedicatory composition. In the Chapel of Ramesses I at Abydos similar ideas pervade.108 In this case, however, the date of the construction followed the major building activity of Seti. Here, Seti narrates that he built this memorial chapel to the north of his temple.109 (The cult of Ramesses I came to pass after he had died.) But with the Abydene temple of Seti it is self-evident that some type of royal cult existed previously to the king’s decease. Otherwise, how could we explain the references to a sàmw image of his in texts predating the Dedicatory Inscription?110 A fortiori, observe that in one inscription, located in the chamber of Osiris and carved at a time before his death, Seti is a god.111 The communality of royal cult images, nonetheless, can be seen. In the Chapel of Ramesses I the king’s statue is a sàmw; in Seti’s temple the same word is repeated many times with respect to the king’s images.112

104 KRI I 187.10-11: hnhn ntrw r-gs.k ntk w# ím.sn with the circumstantial addition of íw.k #î mí R # m Èrt mí Wnn-nfr m dwît. Once more the duality of Re (heaven) and Wenennefer (underworld) is made obvious. But Seti is with both gods. 105 In this context see Budde, Die Göttin Seschat, 145 (regarding KRI I 188.1) where she has a translation different than Kitchen’s. 106 The description commences with the “here and now,” not with heaven. Seshat also refers to Seti’s statues in KRI I 186.16. 107 KRI I 187.13. 108 Schott, Der Denkstein Sethos’ I. für die Kapelle Ramses’ I. in Abydos. A brief yet useful study of this complex is presented by Harvey in his “The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos,”

444-6. We meet the problem that this chapel is called a Èwt kî as well as a “Temple of Millions of Years.” 109 KRI I 112.3; see Schott, ibid., 22 and 72-6. 110 E.g., in the speech of Seshat: KRI I 186.14; additional references may be found in note 112 below. 111 Cf. KRI I 167.14-15 (Doorway dedication). 112 KRI I 110.1, 112.4, and 114.11. (KRI I 114.2 refers to the sàmw of Osiris at the mound of Behdet.) In passing let me reemphasize once more the communality of vocabulary: sÉî (KRI I 112.10, 113.2, 113.13); wtt (restored; 112.10); gnwt (114.12); phr + “heart” (113.12, 114.1); wnf (114.1). We can add the all-important theme of Ramesses I as a “god” when he appears (112.3; i.e., when the statue of Ramesses appears).

1. Seshat reports on the completion of the temple. 2. She describes the work, but from a viewpoint mainly concerned with the planning and execution and not the physical labor involved. 3. Seshat further adds that the economic and spiritual organizations of the edifice are now running smoothly. 4. Re “in his forms” (Éprw) is repeatedly born in this temple, and his “mysterious image” (sàm.f àtî) remains there. 5. The cultic paraphernalia are also in order. 6. Seti is a king in his temple. He awakens Osiris (the “weary of heart,” wrd-íb), but also revives the inhabitants of the underworld. 7. Seshat likens Seti to Re in heaven and Wenennefer in the underworld. She interestingly compares him to Amun and Geb. Seti is also one of the gods. 8. Seshat writes down what the chief deity Re has commanded. Her role is thus parallel to Thoth’s.105 9. Earth is happy and so is the underworld. Abydos as well is overjoyed.106 10. At the conclusion Seshat sends a greeting to Seti from Atum.

religious and historical implications F. Timing The dating of the raised reliefs in Seti’s Stairway Corridor needs more careful analysis in light of Rondot’s study of the architraves in the Hypostyle Court at Karnak.113 In his analysis, Rondot proved that one major dating criterion relating to Ramesses that Egyptologists have hitherto used (-s(w) > -sw) has to be revised somewhat. In addition, the prenomen Wsr-mî#t-R # alone is to be found. Rondot further noticed the use of raised and also sunken relief during the reign of Seti I, and he thereby concluded that two separate groups of artisans were involved in the work at Karnak. Once more a clear-cut differentiation in time between raised and bas-relief cannot be made; some of Ramesses’ texts still used the older raised style. Chronologically, Rondot’s work revealed that it is no longer possible to argue the equations of: all sunken relief = Ramesses II, all raised relief = Seti I, and -s(s) > -s(w). Hence, it appears impossible to establish a sharp temporal differentiation between “regency” and “sole rule” solely on the basis of these artistic and inscriptional details. The scenes in the Stairway Corridor tend to conform to his analysis. We have already mentioned that the sculpture is in raised relief. But Ramesses appears as a king (i.e., regent) and not merely as a crown prince.114 The only support for a regency in these reliefs is the use of raised relief and his cartouche, which is devoid of epithets.115 But unlike the scenes of Ramesses II with Seti in the Corridor of Lists (Corridor X), in this area Ramesses is alone. Even Murnane pointed out that there were places in this rear (and south) part of the temple where Ramesses used sunken relief with the final prenomen.116 Fisher dated one section of these scenes of Ramesses II to around year two of the Pharaoh. This is a depiction which she placed into a “transitional style” from Seti to his son.117 It is significant that the area presumed to belong to

113

La grande salle hypostyle de Karnak, 3-4 and 119-22. Cf. Ramesses II’s tomb: Chapter II note 119. 114 See KRI I 188.9: “Invocation by prince-regent (shown as King).” 115 Murnane, “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 162 and 165. He states that Ramesses is “king” here. 116 Ibid., 165 with note 37. The key inscriptions are in KRI II 509.7-511.4 (Corridor of the Bull). Fisher, The Sons of Ramesses II I, 28 and 43-6, discussed some of these scenes.

103

the regency period nonetheless connects a king Ramesses to the cult of his father. In particular, I can point out the Speech of Thoth as well as the second inscription in the same corridor, Seshat’s address.118 Moreover, the words of Thoth on the south wall connect neatly with the latter portion of the Dedicatory Inscription, and the goddess Shesat’s on the north wall provides helpful parallels in vocabulary. These three compositions betray the mark of a single overriding purpose. Indeed, the two speeches, each located at the eastern half of their respective walls in the Stairway Corridor, link up with the final phase of Seti’s decorative program. But the hardest nut to crack, and one which David could not resolve, is the exact date of these raised relief depictions. In this context it is instructive to examine further David’s conclusions with regard to the dating of the Stairway Corridor.119 She observed the presence of Ramesses II on both the north and south walls. He is offering to the Ennead and Isis in both cases, but on the north wall we find Isis whereas the south has Maat. (The connection between the goddess and Truth is well known.) But her analysis overlooked the connection of the Maat scene with that of the Dedicatory Inscription. Furthermore, David tended to waver in her belief whether Ramesses, at the time of the completion of Seti’s temple, may or may not have been a sole ruler. Yet we must keep in mind that on the south wall of the Stairway Corridor Ramesses II is depicted in “full-royal dress,” to quote Kitchen.120 Most certainly, the close interweaving between Thoth’s speech to Seti and Ramesses’ own one to his father in the Dedicatory Inscription cannot be overlooked. Indeed, only Ramesses’ role as one who offers is the clear mark of differentiation.121 In both, the vocabulary is highly formalized with much duplication of words. The two compositions also possess vocabularies that are close in spirit to each other. In fact, the positioning of these inscriptions is very significant. Physically, we are

117

Fisher, The Sons of Ramesses II I, 45 (b., the Sokar bark scene). 118 I have already placed great emphasis upon the role of these two deities with respect to the “baptism” of Pharaoh and the “annals” (gnwt). 119 Religious Ritual at Abydos, 213-16. 120 KRI I 192.14. 121 Let us not forget that Thoth is also connected to the Ished Tree; see Chapter I note 2. The scene of that event is, of course, juxtaposed to the Dedicatory Inscription.

104

chapter three

at the exact point when one is about to leave the temple and enter the rear (western) yard that surrounds the Cenotaph of Seti. This might provide the reason why this back area was not carved until very late. That is to say, not until Seti died was it required to engrave these texts here. Otherwise, we would have to posit a reason why this area was left blank until the very end of the decoration program. It has to be indicated, however, that the southern extension of the temple was the last to be carved, even if this final task was never completed. Nevertheless, in Seti’s temple it is a “rule” that both the architectural and carving program on the main axis moved generally from rear to front, a point made many years ago by Zippert, who in turn followed Mariette. I have no difficulty in viewing a continuance of raised relief at the commencement Ramesses’ reign as sole ruler. That this swiftly was altered to sunken relief is another matter. Perhaps Fisher’s brief comment is worthwhile to quite here: “it was important for a king to complete the work of his father early in his reign in order to maintain continuity.”122 Difficulties in dating the Thoth speech as well as the accompanying scene on the northern wall of the Stairway Corridor have been mentioned. If the use of carving (raised relief ) and the presence of Ramesses’ early cartouche in the scene where he offers before Seti and Isis (son to father and mother) are taken into consideration, then a date in the final year of Seti’s life can be argued. Moreover, the connection to the Cenotaph cannot be overlooked if only because the western exit from the temple can be found right here. (Petrie specifically indicated this in his hypothetical original design of the temple.)123 The association of this corridor to the cult of the dead Seti in addition to the father (Seti)-son (Ramesses) connection is therefore understandable. 122 The Sons of Ramesses II, 28. I am frankly somewhat confused by this analysis and the following on pages 43-6. 123 Caulfeild, The Temple of the Kings at Abydos, P. XXV. 124 The following discussion depends upon the analysis of Baines, “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 145-57. We can add his earlier remarks in “Abydos, Temple of Sethos I: Preliminary Report,” 18-21 concerning the Upper Gallery (painted decoration in the reign of Seti I). See as well the important analysis of Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 164-6. 125 KRI I 177.10, 179.10 and 15. In the three cases the prince is sî nswt smsw and íry-p#t. His name is spelled as R #-ms-s(w) (KRI I 177.10 with 179.15) and R #-ms-sw (KRI I 179.10). 126 KRI I 180.8 with Murnane, “The Earlier Reign of

The three significant places at the rear (southwest) of this temple that were to be decorated and later carved are as follows:124 a. Gallery of Kings b. Stairway Corridor c. Corridor of the Bull.

A summary of the data contained in each helps to clarify the intricate chronological problems of dating. The first shows Ramesses and Seti offering to their predecessors. The former is depicted as a prince and designated heir, and his name is not in a cartouche.125 On his robe, however, we find in sunken relief the earlier prenomen plus nomen and the expected cartouches.126 Murnane concluded that Ramesses was already king “since the sash, as an element of the figure’s dress, is apparently an integral part of the original decoration.” Brand, writing somewhat later, asserted that Ramesses did this minor work here “sometime after year two.”127 The second of the three, the Stairway Corridor, contains raised relief. On the north wall Ramesses’ name is in a cartouche (Wsr-mî#t-R #) and he offers to his father.128 The corresponding south wall lacks the cartouches owing to the poor state of preservation, and we have already signaled the royal nature of Ramesses. Hence, there is little doubt that this area was carved after the first, notwithstanding the cartouches on the sash. The full name Wsr-mî#t-R # Stp-n-R # is not present. The final carving in the third area is definitely to be dated to the reign of Ramesses after the death of his father; the relief is sunken. Ramesses’ crown prince Amunherkhepeshef is present.129 He is now a sî smsw. The reliefs were originally intended for Seti but obviously some delay Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 163 ( fig. 5 b): Wsr-mî#t-R # R #-ms-s(w). 127 Murnane, ibid., 162; the same conclusion is made by Seele, The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I, 48. See now Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 164 and his comments that “the Gallery of Kings was among the last portion of the temple to be decorated before Seti’s death, and its southern end remained uncarved” (page 170). 128 KRI I 188.9-14. Note the spelling of the prenomen; cf. Murnane, “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 162 and 165. See Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 166—Seti may have completed the vignettes that contained the speeches of Thoth and Seshat-Sefekhtabwy but two other scenes and a titulary “in the chamber” point to Ramesses II as Pharaoh. 129 See note 116 above for the references.

religious and historical implications

105

occurred, not the least was the architectural rearrangement of this area.130 Noteworthy is the incomplete nature of the bull-lassoing scene on the north wall. Apparently the presence of the son was not originally intended, and Fisher has argued that originally we would have Ramesses II with his father Seti I.131 The Sokar bark scene on the north wall is dated by her to the second year of Ramesses; his eldest son is also present.132 Last, the fowling scene has the new Pharaoh Ramesses and his son once more. Baines’ recent reevaluation of the use of color and painting in conjunction with the style of carving allows a more sophisticated (and hence more detailed) appreciation of these “late” areas. The sequence and dating listed above, nonetheless, remain the same.133 First, the use of raised relief carving in the northern end of the Gallery of Kings is seen to be late Seti I.134 This fits perfectly with the last work of Seti I at this temple. (The southern end reveals provisional decoration with some relief carving.). The Corridor of the Bull witnessed raised relief work under Seti I on the architraves. Later, Ramesses II commissioned his artists to recommence the carving after his father had died.135 The date of the Stairway Corridor is recognized by Baines as encompassing both “the end of the reign of Sety I and the very beginning of Ramesses II’s reign.”136 The historian will note that the question of the regency between the two Pharaohs, though extremely important for any reconstruction of the events surrounding the

Dedicatory Inscription, was left to the side in the analysis of Baines. Providing even more grist for the mill, Baines presented details concerned with the stages of painting and carving at the Abydos temple of Seti. In the Hall of Barques, for example, the provisional painting accomplished under the reign of Seti was then replaced by the sunken relief work by Ramesses.137 Furthermore, the Southeast Court reveals the use of sunken relief at “the end of the reign of Sety I.”138 The revelation that some of this sunken carving might be dated to the elder ruler throws unexpected light upon one assumption made by previous scholars concerning a regency period. Namely, that all raised relief work dates either to the reign of Seti or else to the regency with his son, Ramesses II. This has now been argued not to be the case at Abydos.139 To recapitulate the conclusions of Baines. He felt that four areas were left unfinished at the death of Seti. The southern extension of the Stairway Corridor is one in which the use of raised relief with a cartouche of Ramesses II is present.140 There, as we have seen, Ramesses is depicted as king. The scene needs further explication as the accompanying speech of Seshat is joined to it. Ramesses presents an offering to his father. The latter is seated with Isis and behind them is the Ennead. The son addresses his father in seven columns of speech that are directed to the left. (The hieroglyphs run from the left to the right and are set in the area of the young ruler.) The

130 Fisher, The Sons of Ramesses II I, 28. She points out the preliminary grids and designs, a point that Zippert made in 1931. 131 Ibid., 44; she states that this was “the original design.” But the captions are definitely associated with Amunherkhepeshef. 132 Ibid., 45. 133 “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 145-57, with “Recording the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos in Egypt,” 82-4. His research may be read in tandem with Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 164-6; and Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 15-17. 134 Baines, “Abydos, Temple of Sethos I: Preliminary Report,” 18-21. 135 “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 151 (sunk relief style under Ramesses II). 136 Ibid., 146. Earlier, in “Recording the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos in Egypt,” 84 he felt that this cartouche indicates a date that “probably spans the death of Sethos I.” The cartouche is the one in raised relief that we discussed earlier; see KRI I 188.9 or note 128 above for the reference. 137 “Abydos, Temple of Sethos I: Preliminary Report,” 24-8; “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting

in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 146-7, and “Recording the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos in Egypt,” 88-91. Fig. 6 on page 85 in the last article provides an excellent case where the partly sunken relief (reign of Ramesses II as sole Pharaoh) is present, but the entire scene (originally painted under Seti I) was not completed. As Baines makes clear, the king is actually a composite figure of two Pharaohs that combines the original layout in paint of Seti with the subsequent sunken relief carving of Ramesses. (He also refers to “pious reeditions” of Seti’s work by Ramesses II.) Note, as well, the incomplete series of sunken hieroglyphic inscriptions. The more difficult signs were left in paint probably to be carved later by a more experienced master supervisor. 138 “Colour Use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 146-7. He maintains that this room was “probably never painted.” Time, clearly, was at a premium. The specific evidence for the dating is that the name (cartouche) of Seti was carved in sunken relief. 139 The evidence might be refuted if one maintains that Ramesses, as sole ruler, left the original design in place. That is to say, the later designers did not alter the original plan. 140 Ibid., 148 with KRI I 188.9.

106

chapter three

Ennead presents its joint oral presentation separate from the words of Ramesses, and the hieroglyphs run right to left above the nine gods. These gods respond to Ramesses because of the beneficent deeds that he has performed for his father Seti. Except for the presence of raised relief there is nothing to indicate an incontrovertible joint rule between Ramesses and Seti. Kitchen significantly noted the role of the younger man by writing that he is “Prince-Regent” and “shown as a King.”141 The figure of Seshat is directed towards Seti as well, and her depiction with the notched staffs linked with the heb sed sign focuses the activity upon Seti. The depiction with Thoth, located on the south wall, balances this raised relief scene. This god faces Seti, and Isis once more accompanies the king. The young Ramesses (again as a king) offers to him. The short inscription describing the offering states “[bringing the good god Menmaatre] to his meal.”142 The speech of the Ennead is broken and only three of the deities can now be seen. Additional points of comparison among all of these three locations can now be stated. In a. and c. the sons Ramesses and Amunherkhepeshef are provided with crown prince’s titles and the significant title “hereditary prince.” With b. the cartouches of Ramesses are in their early form; owing to this a regency has been argued. This conclusion receives some support through the additional remark addressed by the Ennead to Ramesses: the young man is now the “representative of Geb” (sîty Gb) and a smsw as well.143 These five aspects are worth stressing: (a) Ramesses offers to his father in the Stairway Corridor. At first, it would appear that Seti is dead.

141

KRI I 188.8-9. KRI I 192.15 augmented by Mariette, Abydos I, 51b whom I follow. 143 KRI I 188.12-13. The Ennead states: “You indeed are the Horus who avenged his father, the representative of Geb, the heir (smsw), …..” Whatever we consider his true role at this point, these designations appear to indicate that Ramesses was still a “junior.” 144 But the accounts of all three do not fit Otto’s remarks concerning myths and mythology in his Das Verhältnis von Rite und Mythus im Ägyptischen (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1958). Instead, they provide a background in short narrative structures. In the Dedicatory Inscription they explain the relationship of the dead Seti to his son and present an afterworld approach to Seti’s connection to the key gods of heaven (the sun god) and of the afterworld (Wenennefer). These words describe Seti’s role as a resuscitated being (and as a ba) and they also show his activity with the gods for his son. In the Stairway Corridor the speeches concentrate 142

(b) Ramesses is depicted as a king in the Stairway Corridor. (c) The texts of Thoth and Seshat connect with the Dedicatory Inscription. All three reflect a similar quasi-mythological backdrop embedded within a Solar-Osirian setting.144 (d) Ramesses II had already begun work at his own temple at Abydos before Seti died.145 (e) When king Seti and his son invoke the royal ancestors in the Gallery of Kings, Ramesses lacks the cartouche around his name in the texts.146 He is still a prince and not yet a king.

There is no proof that the sunken cartouches plus prenomen and nomen of Ramesses in (e) were carved at the same time as the relief. We can assume this, but a definitive conclusion is impossible to make without a scientific analysis of this small carving. On the other hand, the use of sunken relief in the Southeast Court might appear to indicate that Seti I was alive when this style was introduced in his temple. Hence, the use of sunken relief as a firm and infallible criterion for these chronological matters should no longer be held. Murnane, in the discussion of the name of Ramesses on his robe in the Gallery of Kings, maintained that the sunken relief of the king’s name on his robe was an integral part of the design of the original decoration. 147 But as we have seen, following the later research of Baines, this a priori reasoning is moot. Let us remember his analysis of Ramesses’ name on the fans in the Chapel of Osiris.148 There are two tiny painted cartouches that were added later to the Seti I raised relief. Baines also described a number of additional retouchings under Ramesses but after his father’s death.149 Indeed, 1erný observed later

upon the relationship between Seti and Re/Wenennefer. Therefore, none are truly “mythological.” See as well Dominique Bastin “De la fondation d’un temple: ‘Paroles dites par Seshat au Roi Sethi Ier’.” 145 Seele, The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I, 47, following Zippert. Kitchen supports this contention as well: Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 194. 146 The nomen is R #-ms-s(s). I am aware of Murnane’s comments with respect to the sunken relief of the prenomen and nomen on the robe of the prince in “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 163, figure 5b. This will be covered immediately below. 147 “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 162. 148 “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 148. 149 See in particular his analysis in “Recording the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos in Egypt,” 82-92.

religious and historical implications

107

hieroglyphic improvements in his copies of the rear north and the south rooms at this temple.150 Some signs were originally forgotten but added later; others were not carved in relief but subsequently incised. Slight corrections by a master “checker” may be found in the area of the Inner Osiris Hall. Rough writings can be spotted as well. They too were only painted within carved relief. All in all, it appears that some additions to Seti’s reliefs were accomplished after he died, and so we cannot automatically accept the conclusion of Murnane with respect to his case in the Gallery of Kings.151 The second major problem arises with respect to the dating of the Southeast Court. There, the carving in sunken relief probably was not preceded by painting.152 But as I pointed out earlier, it is just possible that this carving was accomplished after the death of Seti—despite the presence of his cartouche—but before there was a wholesale switch to sunken relief under Ramesses. Otherwise, we would have to reject the use of sunken relief as a criterion for supporting the regency hypothesis, or at the minimum conclude that the evidence from this temple of Seti is no longer a firm buttress for that interpretation. Baines also covered the parallel situations in three other locations where it appears that the work was suspended after Seti’s death. The situation is clear with regard to the north wall of the Second Hypostyle Court.153 There, the painting of the raised relief ceased suddenly. A more problematic section is the Chapel of Osiris. There are two miniature cartouches of Ramesses in one scene as well as another pair. (They are on fans.) The relief work is Seti’s, and from Baines’ remarks I believe that these two names in paint (with the early spelling of Wosermaatre)154 were added after the main scenes had been carved in raised relief if not painted. Support for this can be derived from the presence of some sunken relief in the key scenes wherein Ramesses’ name is present.155 I believe that these were additions,

but exactly when they were accomplished is a thorny point.156 The decorative style in the Southeast Court was not finished in relief. Following Baines, we can see that this work was of a provisional nature and distinguish it from the fully painted raised relief work in the rear of the temple (west; Osiris area).157 When this was done is unclear. I concur with his dating at the end of Seti’s life, if only as the presence of sunken relief work indicates a very late phase of activity. (Remember that Baines felt that this chamber probably was never painted.) The evidence from the Hall of Barques indicates that the walls were provisionally painted but the relief work not accomplished until the independent reign of Ramesses. If we examine the southwest area of the building, it is evident that work continued apace in this corner (painting mainly) while at the same time the Second Hypostyle Court saw the artists steadily moving down the north wall. Yet the Southeast Court is one that poses the most severe dating problem. The carving, however, resembles the work of Ramesses and not that of Seti.158 Surely either we must conclude that this area was begun during the presumed regency or else immediately after Seti’s death. The problem concerning the inferior nature of the work—in paint as well as technically and aesthetically—is one that Baines highlighted.159 But if we recollect Kitchen’s remarks concerning the construction work on Ramesses’ own temple, then the decline in quality coupled with the speed of activity (painting and sunken relief ) makes perfect sense. In other words, the workers had been preoccupied with the northern temple of Ramesses but suddenly were redirected to Seti’s by order of the newly crowned monarch. All of the reasonable evaluations of Baines hinge upon the acceptance of a regency. If not, then we would have no qualms in placing most of his singular examples after the death of Seti.160

150 For this example and those immediately following I am dependent upon the collations of Jaroslav 1erný. They may be found in his notebook, Collations of Abydos. 151 This situation already has been discussed by Baines. 152 Baines, “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 147 (and number 4 in his list). 153 Ibid., 148 and 152. 154 Calverley, Broome, and Gardiner, The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos I, Pls. 6 (no color) and 7. The name is Wsrmî#t-R # with the -s at the bottom. Pl. 6 shows the presence of the two painted cartouches while Pl. 7 shows only one;

cf. Baines, “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 148. Note that the name on the right example is very abraded. 155 In particular see Calverley, Broome, and Gardiner, ibid., Pls. 6, 7 and 11 (but the presumed name on the fan in last case is impossible to determine). 156 I.e., were they added during the regency period or after Seti’s death? 157 “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 147-50. 158 Ibid., 152. 159 Ibid., 152-3. 160 To be fair, he never discusses the regency situation,

108

chapter three

Let me expand upon this interpretation. The general consensus has been to argue for a regency of approximately one year. The main support for this rests upon the use of raised relief (Seti sole king, then later regency period) and the early name of Ramesses. By year two the prenomen is fixed at Wst-mî#t-R # Stp-n-R #. Rondot’s newly presented data—albeit solely dependent upon the architraves of Hypostyle Hall at Karnak—indicate a more complicated situation, but one that still can be accommodated with the presumed regency period. That is to say, Ramesses’ use of varying epithets (and -ss) would indicate a transitional phase, one in which he was king with his father still alive or else sole ruler. This hypothesis therefore covers his first regnal year. The definitive break can still be placed after the decease of his father but somewhat later. This conclusion is still able to be maintained on the basis of the analysis of Baines, especially with his study of sunken relief in the Southeast Court, but the older theory of Seele and others cannot be followed. We have to argue that some use of sunken relief took place during the regency period and furthermore that Ramesses had not decided upon a final writing of his name during that brief span of time. There is no other possible solution unless we abandon entirely the argument for a regency. For the sake of argument, let us agree with the second hypothesis and act as a devil’s advocate. The following must be presented. After visiting Abydos, Ramesses’ craftsmen and artists proceeded quickly with their work at Abydos, moving to sunken relief, if only because it was quicker to accomplish than the more laborious raised relief practice. At the same time additional inscriptions were altered slightly in order that the name of Ramesses could appear; e.g., in the Osiris chamber.161 The ongoing work in the Hall of Barques was stopped and then rebegun. From the original provisional painting under Seti almost all of the unfinished scenes were then carved in sunken relief. The Southeast Court would then

have to have been carved as Seti intended, but now in sunken relief. (Ramesses does not appear there.) One must then proceed further and conclude that the Stairway Corridor was then completed in raised relief in order to allow the presence of Ramesses as king, but the Corridor of the Bull partly redrawn. The latter (excluding the architraves which are in raised relief and so decorated under Seti) reveals the use of provisional painting under Seti replaced by the sunken relief of Ramesses. Significant, as well, are the other rooms to the south. There we find the provisional painting work of Seti in the Ante Room, the two storerooms which lead off it to the north, and the Storage Hall.162 How do the above architectural and decorative aspects of Seti’s temple connect with the three Osirian-Re presentations—end of Dedicatory Inscription, speech of Thoth, and speech of Seshat? Do they have as their intellectual basis a major ritual performed by Ramesses to his dead father? The raised relief work in the Stairway Corridor, for example, could then be argued to support a date before and after Seti’s death.163 The offerings of Ramesses to Seti in the Stairway Corridor, however, avoid any depiction of the son “awakening” his father. Yet this new interpretation would have to allow for final raised relief carving in the Stairway Corridor and sunken relief work in the Southeast Court, a very troublesome state of affairs. Hence, it seems best to reject the second hypothesis. Does the temple of Seti I at Abydos provide incontrovertible proof for a regency between the two men? Whereas I believe there was one, the architectural, sculptural, and textual evidence cannot, by themselves, prove this historical contention. The data at Seti’s temple need other support, and the general state of affairs regarding the work in progress at Abydos is open to multiple interpretations if it is treated separate from other evidence.164 In fact, Ramesses’ words in his

but it is implied. How else could the presence of the raised relief cartouches of Ramesses be explained?: “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 148. Either one accepts the regency (Ramesses as king with his father) or rejects it. Manouvrier, Ramsès le dieu et les dieux, 331-3 is not helpful in this matter. 161 In this case Ramesses’ names (on the fans) appear in paint. 162 Once more see Baines, “Colour use and the distribu-

tion of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 146-7. The Ante Room saw some later work done by Merenptah. 163 By itself the Seti temple can provide no firm and definitive evidence for a regency. We who propose and argue for a regency must employ the presence of Ramesses as king in this area as a buttress for our arguments. 164 Baines, “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 145-57.

religious and historical implications Dedicatory Inscription are proved to be correct: the “front and rear” of the temple were still under construction when he died.165

G. Format of the Dedicatory Inscription Up to now and in a somewhat piecemeal fashion I have analyzed the sections of the composition on their own merits. The divergent strands of presentation in the account are all too evident. Is this inscription a mere pastiche of different literary approaches, artificially composed from varying strands of presentations? This question is not that easy to answer, either in the affirmative or in the negative. Texts that are preserved often bear witness to divergent underlying traditions. One excellent case in point is the corpus of liturgical songs. Assmann spent a lengthy amount of time discussing one portion of the Book of the Dead and its connection to the liturgies of the New Kingdom.166 He revealed the multi-faceted nature of the composition. An original but hypothesized origin lay in the sun cult that was later expanded to include funerary rites, and finally altered for use in the corpus of hymns and prayers of the Book of the Dead. Various religious performances lay behind this one solitary case. One can mention the hour ritual, for example, which was transformed into the royal mortuary cult, which in turn entered the XVIIIth Dynasty recension of the Book of the Dead. Then too, an unknown ritual appears to have been utilized, this time turning up at Seti I’s Cenotaph and later in the Dynasty XIX to XXI Books of the Dead. In fine, not one systematic approach to textual composition was followed by the ancients. I am of this persuasion and in fact have commented negatively upon the idea that we can reconstruct an Ur-Text by stemmatics.167 Assmann’s other examples, which he presented in 1969, revealed similar cases of conglomeration, adoption, borrowing, and transformation, all within a religious hymnic boundary. The use of solar hymns in the XVIIIth Dynasty is a further case in point. A large number of private stelae and wall inscriptions have preserved which include 165

Column 36 in the Dedicatory Inscription, KRI II

326.3. 166

Liturgische Lieder, 15-27. See my “Remarks on the Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II: The ‘Bulletin’,” in Goedicke, Perspectives on the Battle of Kadesh, 43-75. 167

109

these texts. It is self-evident that they have been purposely included within private tombs even though the latter were not the original setting for “publication.” A further useful example revealed by Osing is the presence of Roman papyri copies of inscriptions found in some Assiut tombs (First Intermediate Period and Dynasty XII), written in hieroglyphic (with Roman Period forms) and arranged in columns and lines as in the originals.168 One acquires the feeling that the ancient Egyptians were not rigid believers in genres, strict textual transmission, and textual fidelity.169 Compared to civilizations of the printed word, perhaps this is true. It is not the case, however, that they abused their literary (religious or secular) books, hymns, prayers, and the like. Quite to the contrary, as many of them appear to have circulated within the upper levels of Egyptian society, at least during the XVIIIth Dynasty, I do not find it unusual to come across religious texts in places where “they should not be.” In similar fashion, the fidelity in reproducing a text has bothered many. Mistakes have been laid upon lazy scribes, poor students, damaged exemplars, and so forth. Furthermore, the inherent problems of textual transmission throw up, at least in the Egyptological world, the conundrum of oral versus written transmission. Often it is the case that the historical background of these literary products is ignored. Astoundingly, the record of the Battle of Kadesh is one of these. Remarkable interpretations have been presented in which the recorded event is deemphasized by hypercritical literary interpretations. The campaigns of the Pharaohs provide a good case in point as it has become apparent in scholarship that the violent, indeed nasty side of war coupled with the preening superiority of the military man have been lost in the dense thicket of literary criticism. But if it is necessary to anchor our ship at a specific point, then by all cases let it be, on first blush, set at the actual time in which the composition was drawn up. In our case, at least six firm and set conditions are at hand: the time of the young king Ramesses II, the religious site 168 Jürgen Osing and Gloria Rosati, Papiri geroglifici e Ieratici da Tebtynis (Florence: Istituto Papirologico ‘G. Vitelli,’ 1998), 55-100. 169 Perhaps I should have added at the end of the sentence “as we are.” See now Quirke, Egyptian literature 1800 BC: questions and readings.

110

chapter three

of Abydos, the first year of a sole reign, a blank wall, the outer part of Seti’s temple, and the use of the king’s early name. Coupled with these points are the equally important characteristics of the father-son constellation, a repetition of vocabulary (especially with respect to the heart), the use of the name “Menmaatre” for Seti, and the presence of singular epithets associated with Ramesses at the beginning of the composition. Granted that these tendencies are hallmarks of a coherent and integrated composition, the situation remains concerning whether this text can be viewed as a unity. The question concerning whether the so-called “historical” texts of ancient Egypt—in particular the royal monumental ones—follow a set pattern is one that has been discussed for over a century.170 In Redford’s significant contribution to the historiography of Pharaonic Egypt one will find numerous subsections of such compositions treated with great care and perspicacity.171 Yet an awareness of the method of composition and the related aspect of literariness are avoided. Is it automatically the case that some sections were part and parcel of a historical account? The socalled themes that he covers—dissolution and rebirth is one—need not have been included in all texts that covered the rise of a new dynasty or a new king, especially after a war, invasion, or catastrophe. I side with Kitchen and regard these divergent thematic units as not necessarily required for a royal presentation. Just as the military depictions could avoid certain (standard) aspects—and not merely for reasons of space— so could the royal hieroglyphic compositions. As the Dedicatory Inscription reveals, a single text might allow various strands of presentation and appear, at least from our point of view, quite disorganized. On more than one occasion we have laid stress upon the additive or composite nature of Ramesses’ Dedicatory Inscription, pointing out that its narrative progress was less important than the focus of attention of the living son to dead father. For this reason the Königsnovelle elements are not at all that prominent, apparently serving to place the historical action within Abydos. If the style and arrangement of the “royal novel” had been followed, the lack of an opening date would

170 Recently we have the chapter by Eyre, “Is Egyptian historical literature ‘historical’ or ‘literary’?,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, 415-33.

not have occurred. Instead, the narrative would have commenced with an expected arrangement that included the date, epithets, physical setting (introduced somewhere through íst Èm.f m), and perhaps opening praises.172 On the contrary, the author of the inscription preferred to announce his theme early—through an initial series of completed deeds of Ramesses—and not start off with a list of generalized eulogistic royal epithets. To be sure, speeches are to be expected in “royal novels.” Still, the ever-present shifts in grammatical presentation coinciding with varying facets of style in the Dedicatory Inscription must be kept in mind. Whereas the joining together of divergent subsections in our text is easy to discern, the actual historical progression is less so. The reason for this must be due to the celebratory nature of the lengthy event. The king arrives, proclaims, and then acts. The final deeds are reported directly to his father, and Seti later returns thanks to his son. Expected, as well, are the wishes of Ramesses and their completion through the role of his father, now in the afterworld. Therefore, the account is not a simple narration of a royal plan, commented upon by the “folk,” and then set into action. Quite to the contrary, the Dedicatory Inscription focuses upon Ramesses with Seti and proceeds to move to the result as quickly as possible. Whereas the Berlin Leather Roll indicates the beginning of a project, for example, this inscription covers a considerable number of temporal aspects. I have had occasion in this study to turn to the vexing problem of the copying of texts onto walls (or stelae), and the Abydos Dedicatory Inscription is an excellent case in point. Beautifully carved, regular in format with a well-designed arrangement of hieroglyphs, the composition easily allows room for two accompanying scenes. It is a master product of the royal imagination. To be able to plan and execute a text such as this was no easy task. Everything fits neatly: signs, pictures, and words. The text even shows evidence of later inspection, as there are enough recarvings to prove that a supervisor went over the entire work and improved on it, albeit rarely. The excellent sunken relief of the composition also bears witness both to the style of Ramesses’ early work

171

Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books. See once more Assmann, “Weisheit, Loyalismus und Frömmigkeit,” 27-31, for praises. 172

religious and historical implications elsewhere as well as to the careful design on the part of the carvers. Among the various stylistic methods present is the infinitival style in columns 32-3. It is employed to present a non-emotional—and not purposive— backdrop. But the predominate method of temporal progress is the use of the sdm.n.f and the sdm.f. Major narrative literary formations are avoided. For example, immediately thereafter in column 33 the king boldly “enters” (#q Èm.f ) to see “his father.” At this point the account is cold if not impersonal. The voyage is drawn from the vantage point of a royal progress or of a military campaign. Then we proceed to move faster, and eventually the situation of Seti’s temple is highlighted through the particle íst three columns later. In this portion of the account the literary format of a story is present, a passage that reflects the XVIIIth Dynasty approach to similar compositions which highlight the story-like nature of the presentation. But as soon as Ramesses (physically) reaches the temple of Seti, this approach is cast aside. The king’s purpose has now to be revealed and the “story-like” narrative is abandoned. The words of Ramesses II ring far louder than the physical condition of the inscription itself. The crying father, the successful youth, the pious son, the wise Pharaoh—all of these motifs enter into a successfully organized whole, one that is remarkable in its personal orientation as it is in his detailed account of filial love. Its uniqueness lies as well within Ramesses’ details concerning his youth before he was sole Pharaoh. Personal details, including human reflections upon Seti, are broadcast. What matters here first and foremost is Ramesses vis-à-vis Seti, not royalty as an institution. All is personalized; the office of Pharaoh is not at issue. Rather, Seti’s delegation of Pharaonic status to Ramesses is, with reasons that are both intimate and remarkable. I feel that there the transference of power was conditioned by the looming end of Seti’s life. Ramesses as heir and successor had to be confirmed and appointed, especially as there were no other male offspring

173 This is why I have brought into the discussion some key inscriptions of Seti I and Ramesses IV, also from Abydos. To combine all of them into a whole would make this study enormous. 174 “Der ‘Geheimnisvolle’ Mehy,” SAK 15 (1988): 143-8. See now Brand’s comments on page 334-55 of his The Monuments of Seti I. Yet there remains the intriguing situation of the Mehy of the love poetry; most recently see Kitchen,

111

and the lineage was but new; barely over one decade had it ruled the Two Lands.

H. Ramesses, Seti, and Mehy How much this stress on the father-son relationship has to do with Abydos and how much was separate—or “real” as some might wonder—cannot be resolved.173 Lacking is additional material that could buttress a reasonable working hypothesis concerning these early years of Ramesses as sole Pharaoh. Yet in this context it is important to note that as king he arranged the erasure of the name and picture of one of Seti’s stalwart military henchmen, a certain Mehy. This aspect of the king’s character remains puzzling. Helck, who devoted some of his time to the problem, likened Mehy to the next ruler of Egypt after Seti.174 I believe that his analysis went too far in one direction, though I support him in his partial answer to the puzzle that Murnane tackled.175 It seems better to consider this non-royal personage as a very important warrior of the day, at least during Seti’s first half decade as Pharaoh. In this context, Ramesses, perhaps too young, may have been in second place. Mehy, who became a high-ranking member of the armed forces, campaigned with his monarch Seti and was justly rewarded by his presence (more than once) on the series of war scenes carved on the exterior northern walls of the Hypostyle Court at Karnak. Ramesses was not. How are we to connect the presumed favors shown by Seti to prince Ramesses with this other aspect of the king? Ramesses was delegated first to non-military matters; see his activities at Aswan, for example. Later, when the Nubian campaign of Seti came to the fore (regnal year eight) Ramesses was old and experienced enough to participate in it. (We assume that his Beit el Wali reliefs indicate a participation in Seti’s Nubian war.) But later, as sole Pharaoh, he had all memory of the “competitor” removed. Murnane’s most

review of Spalinger, The Transformation of an Ancient Egyptian Narrative: P. Sallier III and the Battle of Kadesh, JEA 90 (2004): 45 (Reviews Supplement). Murnane further placed some importance upon the man’s name: it is a hypocoristic. 175 “The Kingship of the Nineteenth Dynasty,” 20003.

112

chapter three

recent discussion of this matter still adhered to the presupposition of an “unease” within the new Dynasty.176 On the other hand, the evidence can be better explained as one of personal jealousy and vindictiveness rather than any fear of usurpation. Notwithstanding Helck’s position on the matter, Mehy only reached the military positions of “group marshaller” and “fanbearer.” He was never a general or a generalissimo. True, both of the former ranks in the military hierarchy were high, but they were not at the apex of the elite war arm of the state. It is my opinion that Mehy was a successful warrior under Seti and that he achieved deeds of renown that reverberated through the court of the day. Hence, he was able to be present at Karnak, but only with respect to the time of the wars depicted there. It is now recognized that Mehy had himself superimposed on the east wing of Seti’s war monument. On the west, which is better preserved, his figure was carved over the standard epitaphs. His presence can, therefore, be interpreted as an afterthought. Perhaps Murnane was correct to write that his roles at Karnak “suggest a loftier standing than his titles otherwise imply.”177 Much more ambiguous, if not speculative, was his conclusion that Mehy was a “pretender” to the role of “big man” or “chief subject” under Seti. I am uneasy with this interpretation, feeling that his later disappearance was somehow linked with Ramesses’ publicly avowed attitude towards his father. The most dutiful son remains always first, and a subsequent ruler can brook no rival, non-royal though he might be. Indeed, even Murnane noted that Ramesses II later superimposed his own title of íry-p‘t (rp‘t) over Mehy’s, thereby publicizing his descent from his father and emphasizing his earlier position as heir apparent.

I. Historical Implications of the Dedicatory Inscription Does the Dedicatory Inscription reveal an antithesis to the earlier Amarna texts? In language, it most certainly reflects models of Dynasty XVIII if not earlier. The “langage de tradition” is minimal and a vulgar “dialect” is shunned. On the other hand, the grammatical elements are noncolloquial, and they fit better into the pre-Amarna

176

Ibid., 202. Ibid., 201. Yet can we compare Mehy and Ramesses II with Maiherperi and Amunhotep II? As Quirke indicates 177

Period of Dynasty XVIII than, for example, the accounts of the king’s battle at Kadesh, the later Karnak war record of Merenptah as well as the Medinet Habu accounts of Ramesses III. However, this text is not a military report. It directs our attention to an entirely different sphere and cannot be placed side-by-side with the approach taken by Ramesses II when he had his Kadesh record drawn up. The Dedicatory Inscription followed, at least at the beginning, a tried and true practice whose orientation was formal in structure: opening setting, announcement of plans, speech of officials, and the king’s response or declaration of intent. At the minimum, the unusual beginning and the address of Ramesses to Seti and the father’s verbal reaction indicate a plan different than required for a shorter and more formal presentation such as the Königsnovelle. The reader or listener is taken to Abydos. He or she is there, and this aspect is unlike those shorter accounts of royal declarations. Nonetheless, might this presentation be still regarded as inherently antithetical to the Amarna belief structure? Or to put it another way, does this composition reflect the rejection of the Amarna norm of religion as it overtly does in language and carving? I doubt if such an interpretation holds much water. After all, the return in style and format to the pre-Amarna method of writing was first undertaken by Seti in Dynasty XIX and even earlier by Horemheb and Tutankhamun. The Dedicatory Inscription reveals that a deep conservatism with respect to royal narratives persisted at this time. Perhaps of more importance is the meticulous approach to arrangement and scene, and in this respect the Dedicatory Inscription breaks with the shorter Königsnovelle format. But the composition also shows how much literary knowledge was available to the author. The harkening back to Middle Kingdom patterns is one of the attitudes that comes through the account, a return not only to pre-Amarna but also to an older “Classical” age. I would emphasize more the application of previous literary formats and structures than argue for any overt intellectual response to Amarna. The logical focus upon the site of Abydos with its strong association with kingship (Osiris-Horus) cannot to be overlooked. Otto, for example,

to me, it is not necessarily correct to view these young men as “rival princes.”

religious and historical implications

113

indicated the need of the new dynasty to buttress its legitimacy after the Amarna debacle and to reinvigorate the age-old cult of Osiris with a newly developed perception of the Abydene cult and its father-son relationship.178 He had a strong point if only because the Ramesside monarchs gave particular attention to this holy area, commencing with Seti I (a temple for Ramesses I) and continuing down to his son and finally ending with Ramesses IV.179 The final two portions of the composition ought to remain the most interesting. There, the king is shown in a cultic nature. He “awakens” his father and then records what he had done for him. The Abydene and Re-Osiris connections are self-evident; the wn-Èr ritual is completed.180 The two striking addresses do not parallel the other extant royal accounts at Abydos, such as that of Ramesses IV. (See in particular Tiradritti’s attempt to explain the purpose of the famous Abydene stela of that Pharaoh.)181 At the same time the Dedicatory Inscription continues to circle around the Solar-Osirian unity, a theme that was written down in the lengthy cryptographic compositions of Tutankhamun, Ramesses VI, and Ramesses IX. The orientation to a specific theological conception involving the netherworld is ideally suited to Abydos, and it is not surprising that the two Stairway Corridor speeches reflect this religious constellation. After all, that area leads out of the temple to the Cenotaph of Osiris. The resurrection of Re as Horus from the corpse of Osiris resumes the roles of live king (Ramesses) and dead father (Seti), although in this case Seti speaks to Osiris in order to allow benefits to be given to Ramesses.182 Perhaps we witness, at a time later than the initial visit, the personal “union” between father and son. If so, this would have taken place after

the temple of Seti was “reasonably” completed by his son Ramesses. Most certainly, the overriding concept at the close of the inscription is one of resurrection. If an official performance took place this ought to have occurred physically before the statue of Seti. I am unable to find any other explanation, and conclude that this rite (if that is the correct word) ought to have taken place between that physical representation, the dead Seti now alive, and Ramesses, the living Horus. The image, which is more than once referred to in the main text, is called a sàmw. A similar father-son orientation to the ritual can be traced back to the old rite of Opening the Mouth. With regard to the New Kingdom performances of this ritual, Otto further indicated that we have to consider seriously the role of the inheritance of the throne of Egypt.183 According to him, the age-old íry-p#t/rp#t priest was connected to the Mansion of Gold, and in the Pyramid Texts the scene is “son = Horus.” In our text at Abydos the same characteristics appear. It is also well known that the íry-p#t (rp#t) was associated with two other important functions, that of the sm priest of Memphis and the sî.f mr.f. These two roles have a direct and intimate connection to the Osirian cult, and all three were traced back in time by Helck who showed that the íry-p#t (rp#t) from Dynasty I down to the Late Old Kingdom was a common rank for princes.184 He also brought into consideration the connection of the role or “office” to the “regents” of living kings as well as to non-royal high officials of the Late Old Kingdom. For our purposes, however, the close association of the íry-p#t/rp#t in the Mansion of Gold, the sî.f mr.f, and the sm are connected to the Abydene cult; all are present in the Dedicatory Inscription.185

178 “Eine Darstellung der ‘Osiris-Mysterien’,” 104. In this temple the theme of royal legitimacy is further developed by Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 303-07. 179 For the latter, see the key stelae in KRI VI 17.125.16. 180 Angelika Lohwasser, Die Formel ‘Öffnen des Gesichts’ (Vienna: AFRO-PUB, 1991). The connection of Re and Osiris is present there. See as well the comments of FischerElfert, Die Vision von der Statue im Stein, 29-31. 181 See Chapter II note 189. 182 Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the SolarOsirian Unity, 101. 183 Das ägyptische Mundöffnungsritual, 12-13. 184 Untersuchungen zu den Beamtentiteln des ägyptischen Alten Reiches (Glückstadt, Hamburg, and New York: J. J. Augustin,

1954), 55-6. Yet the argument is fairly weak. After all, the title “king’s son” was not used until Dynasty IV. Hence, our knowledge of what occurred earlier is extremely unclear. 185 The specific words employed are sdr and qdd; nhsí unfortunately does not occur. I can add Helck’s comments in “Einige Bemerkungen zum Mundöffnungsritual,” MDAIK 22 (1967): 29, where the sm “sleeps” (sdr and qdd) in the House of Gold. In Fischer-Elfert’s comments in Die Vision von der Statue im Stein, 64-72, a new and more convincing analysis is given. The sem priest sees a vision, meditates on it, and has his instructions carried out by the lector priests. Helck also states that in the Osirian myth the “transformation” addresses replace the ritual acts, but the Opening of the Mouth does not take place. See as well Otto, Das ägyptische Mundöffnungsritual II, 57; and Peter Munro, “Die Nacht vor der Thronbesteigung,” in Studien zu Sprache und

114

chapter three

On the other hand, the Corridor of the Bull reflects the Opening of the Mouth ceremony as well as the rise of a new king, and we have to thank Otto even further for a series of penetrating studies on this connection.186 Helck and Munro subsequently placed this association to the renewal of kingship, and both saw the interwoven nature between segments of the Ritual of Opening the Mouth and the newly arisen Pharaoh.187 The first scholar, in fact, indicated an ancient Abydene Osiris-ritual that lay at the core of the resuscitation of the father. Munro, on the other the hand, preferred a more speculative hypothesis, even though his position does not differ in key points from that of Helck’s. Schott, as well, came to virtually identical conclusions, when he discussed the Abydene temple of Ramesses I built by Seti.188 In this case he felt that the “image” (sàmw) in the Chapel of Ramesses I played the same religious role there as Seti’s sàmw did in his later temple.189 Schott further argued that the cult in these memorial temples at Abydos would be inaugurated first after the death of its “owner,” and he referred to PT 422 where the dead king takes upon himself the form of Osiris. He then maintained that the old ritual of Opening the Mouth would have occurred before this statue and likewise any in Seti’s temple. It is self-evident that in Ramesses I’s Abydene building the cultic owner is Osiris, Seti’s mother is Isis, and he (Seti) performs the role of Horus.190

Following Schott’s position, it is of some interest to return to the vexed question whether or not Seti’s statue, his sàmw, was actually in operation before he died. We have seen that the Dedicatory Inscription seems to indicate the opposite because a sàmw was lying on the ground when Ramesses visited the site (columns 36-7). Moreover, it was not fashioned correctly. Partly because of this, I placed the “encounter” between Seti and Ramesses (witnessed through the two final speeches) later in time than Ramesses’ original visit to Abydos, and at a date after the completion of Seti’s work. The two inscriptions in the Stairway Corridor are partly supportive of the quasi-mythological nature of the account in the Dedicatory Inscription, although they raise contrasting issues. The speech of Thoth, for example, avoids discussing any statue of Seti. There is no reference to a sàmw in the address and king Seti solely deals with the underworld. According to Thoth Seti is the equivalent of Horus. Seti’s beauty has woken up Wenennefer. The king wipes out the sores of the latter, and most important of all Seti also has caused Re to fly over the sarcophagus of Wenennefer. Moreover, he has caused him to see Re at the crack of down. (The solar-Osirian unity is extremely blatant here.) Indeed, Seti has now become a god.191 This final point is the one that Assmann noted when he covered the Dedicatory Inscription; namely, that Ramesses II has allowed his father to become divine.

Religion Ägyptens II (ed. Friedrich Junge; Göttingen: F. Junge, 1984), 914 and 921. But the study of Fischer-Elfert, Die Vision von der Statue im Stein, remains the best analysis. 186 Otto, “An Ancient Egyptian Hunting Ritual,” JNES 9 (1950): 164-77 and pages 172-3 in particular. A more detailed analysis is presented in his Das ägyptische Mundöffnungsritual II, 73-6. I agree with him with regard to the supposed prehistoric origin of this hunting ritual. It also is to be found in the Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus and on fragments in the sun temple of Niuserre. I can also refer to Gabolde, “Les temples ‘mémoriaux’ de Thoutmosis II et Toutânkhamon,” 177 on the possible connection of this text with the rise of a new king; cf. Helck, “Bemerkungen zum Ritual des Dramatischen Ramesseumpapyrus,” Or 23 (1954): 383-411 (end of Choiak Feast) with Hartwig Altenmüller, “Zur Lesung und Deutung des Dramatischen Ramesseumpapyrus,” JEOL 19 (1965-66): 421-42. Nonetheless, the remarks of Yoyotte have yet to enter the historiography on this subject of the purpose of the Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus in “Religion de l’Égypte ancienne,” Annuaire École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve Section 79 (1971-2): 179-80. Cf. Eaton’s comments in her The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 333-7 (Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus) and 342-3 (the butchering reference in the Corridor of the Bull).

187 Helck, “Die Herkunft des abydenischen Osirisrituals,” ArOr 20 (1952): 72-85. He posited the connection of the Opening of the Mouth with the Abydene mysteries, especially the Hîkr festival; and Munro, “Nacht vor der Thronbesteigung,” 907-28. I have the feeling that Murno’s supposition is too shaky and prefer Helck’s. Zippert came to a similar conclusion when he compared a passage of Seti I’s Nauri Stela that describes the Abydene temple with the Abydene festivals (especially in connection with the nàmt bark): “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 29-30 with KRI I 48.1. 188 Der Denkstein Sethos’ I. für die Kapelle Ramses’ I. in Abydos, 72-4. 189 See our comments below for a discussion of this chapel. To repeat, the key references for the sàmw of Ramesses I are KRI I 110.1, 112.4, and 114.11. 190 Harvey, “The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos,” 433. 191 KRI I 192.4. Following Berlev, “Two Kings-Two Suns—on the worldview of the ancient Egyptians,” in Quirke, Discovering Egypt from the Neva: The Egyptological Legacy of Oleg D Berlev, 19-33, he must be a “junior (sun-)god.” The Ramesses II parallel places these words in the mouth of Seshat.

religious and historical implications

115

This address of Seshat also refers to the sàmw of Seti.192 Perhaps this image resided in his personal Chapel of Seti (Zippert’s K), located to the south of the six other chief gods.193 Unless we wish to separate this statue from a hypothetical second (which then would have to be placed within the Osiris Chamber leading off from the First Osiris Hall), a major problem arises. Let it not be forgotten that the refrain of Seti being a “god” is repeated in this chamber where the sàmw is mentioned.194 The references on the south wall of the Stairway Corridor must have been carved soon after the death of king Seti and, of course, before Ramesses’ first visit to Abydos. (Baines dated this area to “the end of the reign of Sety I and the very beginning of Ramesses II’s reign.”)195 This speech indicates the portable bark (sàmw-Éw) and the sàmw; the two are identical here. Finally, the ritual connection to Seti was also written down in this corridor. But the Dedicatory Inscription indicates that the entire temple was not well run. This may have been far more frequently the usual pattern than we suspect. Namely, as soon as one ruler died, mutatis mutandis, everyone dropped his tools and rushed to the new projects of the successor, above all the work on the new royal tomb. (This is well known from an earlier date at the Menkaura pyramid complex at Giza.) When Seti died, at a time before Ramesses’ visit, the cult in his Abydene temple needed to be organized properly. Indeed, we have seen that previously the building activity at Abydos had been directed to Ramesses’ temple before his father died. The statue of Seti, his sàmw, was not properly designed

and, in fact, lay on the ground; the father’s cult had to be reinvigorated. Let us not forget that the edifice of Seti was a “temple of millions of years.”196 According to Haring those identically labeled religious buildings—the Èwwt or “mansions” at Western Thebes—logically contained a major funerary aspect. If it is true that every king wished for himself such a religious center, the associated cults in each were concentrated upon the founder. The “mansions” of Abydos were no exception to these concepts. Processions connected with the “owner” Pharaoh belonged to the ritual highlighting of the king’s cult. Haring in fact laid emphasis upon the designation Èwt, and argued that these religious edifices must not be confused with temples or other religious foundations that were specified by pr plus a royal name.197 For the most part Egyptological scholarship has concentrated on the economic wealth of these mortuary institutions even if the theological implications of these cults are of equal if not greater importance.198 Let us also not forget the control that Seti’s Abydos temple had over the Wadi Mia edifice in Nubia and the detailed economic control evinced in the Nauri Decree.199 Seti’s “mansion” at Abydos was connected to the royal cult and the king was rejuvenated there on a daily basis. Moreover, there are specific ceremonies establishing the kingship of Seti after his death just as there are at Medinet Habu for Ramesses III.200 The Second Osiris Hall, for example, probably served as the center of the most important rituals; i.e., the secret rites for the deceased king. Barbara Lesko maintained that

192 KRI I 186.14; 186.11-12 specifically indicates the portable barque. 193 See the phrase “His sàmw-Éw is uplifted and Amun is at the head of them” (KRI I 186.11-12). 194 KRI I 167.14-15. 195 “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 146. 196 For the latest analysis of such temples, see Haring, Divine Households, 23-6. The following commentary retraces his detailed argumentation. Not only Seti’s Abydos temple but also those of Ramesses I and II built in the same location were designated by the same term. See as well Christian Leblanc, “Quelques reflexions sur le programme iconographique et la fonction des temples de ‘millions d’années’,” in Quirke, The Temple in Ancient Egypt, 49-56; and Haeny, “New Kingdom Mortuary Temples’,” in Shafer, Temples of Ancient Egypt, 86-126. We can add Rainer Stadelmann’s comments in “Totentempel und Millionenjahrhaus in Theben,” MDAIK 35 (1979): 303-21. On page 306 he covers the situation of Dynasty XVIII Abydos and the “Terrace of the Great God.” But note Gabolde, “Les temples ‘mémoriaux’ de

Thoutmosis II et Toutânkhamon,” 127-78. 197 Ibid., 26-9. I can add an evaluation of Quirke because the passage needs to be qualified. The same institution could have more than one name. Compare, for example, cities. Analogously, Khemenu is Per-Djehuty, etc. 198 Most recently, see Haring, Divine Households. 199 Schott, Kanais: Der Tempel Sethos I. im Wâdi Mia, 178-80 brought into focus the evidence for Seti’s Abydos temple vis-à-vis the one in Wadi Mia. Note that the main deities worshipped there were the same as at Abydos: Amun-Re, Re, Ptah, Osiris, Isis, Horus, and the king. Interesting is the presence of the crucial verb nhsí in the Great Inscription at Kanais (KRI I 67.7; nhs Èr Érwt). In that context, however, it means something closer to “awake” or “alert” (Kitchen). The context, however, is different than that at Abydos. At Kanais, it is useful to observe that Amun remains at the front of all the gods: Schott, 150 note 2 (bottom) and KRI I 68.3. The same may be said for Seti’s temple at Abydos; cf. KRI I 186.12. 200 Leonard H. Lesko, review of David, Religious Ritual at Abydos, CdE 49 (1974): 104.

116

chapter three

rooms 10-12 which adjoin that hall, “seem to be devoted particularly to the king’s funeral,” and a direct connection can be made to room 25 of the Osiris complex at Medinet Habu.201 Was it here that Ramesses met his father? Once more, we are thrown back upon the lack of specific data concerned with this aspect in Seti’s temple. If only because this temple is parallel in outlook to the royal mortuary ones on the west of Thebes an up-to-date study is needed.202 Such an analysis, however, would vastly extend the limitation of this study. Was the religious performance covered by the Dedicatory Inscription acted out, and if so, how? I believe that we can give a positive answer to the first part of this question. The king and his father speak. The event is an official cultic setting in which the completion of the tasks set by Ramesses is announced. The words of father and son are not space fillers, ones that merely reflect the pious attitudes of the living Pharaoh. Quite to the contrary, they indicate the fulfillment of the son’s promises and the father’s acceptance of them. At the same time the oral declarations pinpoint the desire of Ramesses to be granted a lifetime forever and the successful completion of his request through the intercession of Seti. The gods enter as participants: Re and Wenennefer ( from the son’s vantage point), Osiris, Atum, Thoth, the “great conclave,” and Horus. The key deities associated with accession and coronation—Re, Atum, and Thoth—lead us back once more to the twin concepts of accession and coronation. Even more important are the final results. At the end Ramesses has been granted everlasting kingship whereas Seti has become divinized.

I feel that these words could have been acted out at Abydos and so might present a situation partially similar to what Ursula Verhoeven argued with respect to the Horus and Seth Story.203 Connecting the accounts of that story with other portions of P. Chester Beatty I, she showed that one of the associated encomia was related to various commentaries present in another source. Hence, she was able to reconstruct sections of a religious-mythical performance, all of which were connected to the Triumph of Horus and the coronation of the king. These literally appear to have been played out; i.e., performed.204 An additional oral recitation to a king is to be found on a Deir el Medineh ostracon that appears to be concerned with accession or, more properly, “coronation.”205 From this text the first two lines are informative: “Instruction for Upper and Lower Egypt: Appearance of the King,” and from the contents the rise of a new Pharaoh is indicated. This example is particularly useful in the context of the ending to the Dedicatory Inscription, and we can now view a system of royal eulogies under a broader spectrum than hitherto argued. The “recitation,” sdd, of the words is commanded, and the text is called one of “might,” pÈty. Owing to the use of the first person, I believe that we possess part of a general eulogy given by the king to his officials at his coronation. The Abydos case of Ramesses parallels this one but here the result of the son’s deeds is the theme, not the accession or coronation of a new Pharaoh. In the scene accompanying the Dedicatory Inscription it is the statue of Osiris that receives the Maat offering held forward by Ramesses.206

201 Barbara Switalski Lesko, “Royal Mortuary Suites of the Egyptian New Kingdom,” AJA 73 (1969): 458. Note the presence of astronomical motifs. 202 The review of Leonard Lesko cited in note 200 above is particularly critical of David’s 1973 volume, Religious Ritual at Abydos. 203 “Ein historischer ‘Sitz im Leben’ für die Erzählung von Horus und Seth,” 347-63. 204 Ibid., 359-62. 205 Fischer-Elfert, Lesefunde im literarischen Steinbruch von Deir el-Medineh, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (1997), 78-89. The heading tp rd n ….. indicates that we have the instruction for an eulogy, except that it is in the first person. This is why the editor has indicated that the work might be an “Autobiography of a Divine King” rather than a “Recitation from the Deir el Medineh Royal Cult.” Add his study “Ostrakon DeM 1610. ‘Autobiographie d’un roi divin?’,” in Literatur und Politik im pharaonischen und ptolemäischen Ägypten, (ed. Jan Assmann and Elke Blumenthal; Cairo:

Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1999), 197-208. Note the additional factors of the king as a youth (nÉn), the use of rubrics, and the phrase “recitation of the august might,” sdd pÈty àpsy. 206 Cf. Teeter, The Presentation of Maat, 10 with the important remark that the prenomen of the king is presented. The theme became common during the Ramesside Period but is first depicted in the reign of Seti I. It is nonetheless connected with royal legitimacy, a point that fits perfectly with the role of Ramesses in Seti’s temple. Additional comments that Teeter presents in her volume are worthwhile to summarize. She observes on page 36 that the number of cases of these presentation scenes in Seti’s temple is very large, twenty-five to be exact. The reliefs on the Inner Hypoystyle Hall appear to be for “public consumption” and this area has a “far greater number of scenes of the presentation of Maat” than any other area (pages 5 and 40; see page 47 for a summary). On page 86 she opposes Assmann’s concept of Maat and personal

religious and historical implications Fortunately, the living king’s words are simple and direct. He “answers for” (wàb; almost in a legal fashion) his father Seti, who is now in the underworld. Osiris is given Maat and in return bequeaths to Ramesses the kingship. The “true” father, Seti, stands behind Osiris and reflects upon his eternal rejuvenation. “I have come,” the father states, “as one who repeats life,” and this is the result of Ramesses’ performance in awakening him. To reiterate: the father has now become an “excellent ba” (bî mnÉ).207

117

The date of the inscription remains important, especially in the context of one crucial fact. This is Ramesses II’s first hieroglyphic composition of any import and it was extraordinarily well designed. Drawn up after the death of his father but not too late in his first regnal year, the Dedicatory Inscription is the announcement of a brand new king. Ramesses looks back to his early life and the previous king, his father, even as he moves ahead. The text is programmatic in nature as well, advancing to the future with the concept of father-son solidarity as it hallmark. We are at the beginning of a new era, a new reign, and the leitmotif of this intense personal relationship is

the driving factor for its existence. The characteristics of king Ramesses are revealed, and we can draw our own conclusions about him from the orientation of the text if only because they are freely given. The young man’s act of homage to his father is painted in an overt and consciously revealing manner, and one that is both careful and well written. But the Dedicatory Inscription and the evidence from the Stairway Corridor also provide evidence concerning the growing religious trend of the Solar-Osirian unity in the Post Amarna Period. Darnell covered some of the key texts and scenes in his publication of the cryptographic “books” in three royal tombs.208 We can supplement that historical analysis by referring to such well-known examples as one depiction in the Tomb of Nofertary, wife of Ramesses II, another scene of the solar Osiris in the tomb of Anhurmose at El Mashayikh (temp. Merenptah), an interesting case from the tomb of Ramesses II, Darnell’s own notes concerning the Theban tomb of Iamunedjeh, the hymn in the tomb of Imiseba (temp. Ramesses IX), and the evidence from the tomb of Nebwennef.209 This progression in the record of the Solar-Osirian unity finally reaches a pinnacle in the XXIth Dynasty at which time a “complete solar-Osirian unity became indisputable.”210 Owing to the connection of Nebwennef

piety in the Ramesside Period; page 38 summarizes the difficulties in interpreting the scenes in the six chapels of Seti’s temple. Finally, she covers the use of the word s#r on pages 49-50. 207 Let us not forget that he is now divine: KRI II 335.16-336.1. 208 The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity. The reader is specifically directed to his conclusion in Chapter 8. In general, see Hornung, Akhenaten and the Religion of Light (trans. David Lorton; Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1999), 123-4 with figure 19. Add now DuQuesne, “Osiris with the Solar Disk,” 21-5; and McCarthy, “The Osiris Nefertari: A Case Study of Decorum, Gender, and Regeneration,” 173-95. Hornung provides a useful introduction to this religious unity in his The Tomb of Pharaoh Seti I. Das Grab Sethos’ I. (Zurich and Munich: Artemis Verlag, 1991), 19. The Litany of Re is the key religious text that he considers. 209 For many of these cases, see Niwinski, “The SolarOsirian Unity as Principle of the Theology of the ‘State of Amun’ in Thebes in the 21st Dynasty.” Add Boyo G. Ockinga and Yahya al-Masri, Two Ramesside Tombs at El Mashayikh I (Sydney: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1988), Pl. 10e (the Anhurmose case); cf. Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity, 451. Additional source material may be found in Zandee, An Ancient Egyptian Crossword Puzzle, 24 (the Ramesses II example) and specifically pages 23-8; Darnell, ibid., 383

(tomb of Iamunedjeh, TT 84), 377-8 and 398-402 (tomb of Imiseba, TT 65); with Zandee, “Hymnical Sayings Addressed to the Sun-God by the High-Priest of Amun Nebwenenef, from his Tomb in Thebes,” JEOL 18 (1964): 253-65 and especially page 256. A general summary is in Hornung, Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt, 93-6. These references to Nebwennef are now surpassed by Assmann, Sonnenhymnen in thebanischen Gräbern (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1983), 186-201. He presents the standard edition of Nebwennef ’s sun hymns which have now been reproduced in KRI VII 131.1-133.11. Assmann, referring to one hymn of Nebwennef (Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete [2d ed.], 252 note to lines 17-20), considers the reflection of Osiris as the son of the sun god and notes the possible connection of the latter with Horus. Add Zandee’s discussion in An Ancient Egyptian Crossword Puzzle referred in Chapter II notes 304-05. 210 I am purposely ignoring the socio-historical reasons for the emergence of the Solar-Osirian Unity at a time immediately after Akhenaton’s demise. For the Dynasty XXI data see Niwinski, “The Solar-Osirian Unity as Principle of the Theology of the ‘State of Amun’ in Thebes in the 21st Dynasty,” and especially page 91. Cf. Assmann’s related comments on page xv of his Sonnenhymnen in thebanischen Gräbern and those of Hornung, Idea into Image: Essays on Ancient Egyptian Thought (trans. Elizabeth Bredeck; Princeton: Timken, 1992), 109-12. Hornung refers to two key passages in the Dedicatory Inscription. This work refers back to his study of “Die Tragweite der Bilder: altägyp-

J. Dating and Social Implications

118

chapter three

with Abydos and later with Thebes, is it mere speculation to argue that he had a direct influence in stressing this religious belief with his monarch? Whatever our opinions are on this matter, it is likely that Nebwennef was personally responsible for many of the unusual religious poetical thoughts that one finds in his tomb.211 Following Verhoeven’s analysis, we can further emphasize the timing of Ramesses’s visit. He arrived at Abydos in the third month of the civil year, day twenty-three. We are thereby set within the mythic time of the occasion of Horus’ coronation, and I believe that the voyage north by the king was purposely arranged so that he would set foot in Abydos before the following day. On the twenty-fourth of the third month Horus is said to have been given the kingship of Egypt. Was it mere coincidence that the young king’s purpose in visiting Abydos occurred at the same time?212 Previously, Ramesses was “crowned” in Thebes (Luxor). Subsequently, he could have performed the age-old ritual of the Triumph of Horus in Abydos. I find it striking that Kitchen outlines

days twenty-four to thirty of III Achet as those concerned with the king’s affairs at Abydos.213 But as the voyage covered a time close to the festival of Choiak commencing in IV Achet, we can wonder if the king remained through the end of that month in that sacred region. Perhaps it is not stretching the evidence to conclude that Ramesses was “crowned” in Luxor but also could have received his inheritance at Abydos.214 Possibly connected with these events is the timing of Seti’s Nauri Decree on I prt 1.215 This day marked the commencement of the second season and was, as well, commemorated by the Nehebkau festival, an extremely important religious event that paralleled the civil New Year’s Day of I îÉt 1.216 It was, in fact, another New Year. I feel that the timing is not coincidental and that at the end of the age-old coronation of Horus, Seti arranged for an official dedicatory at this other temple which is, in fact, the hallmark of that decree.217 The act of presenting Maat (s#r mî#t), however, is placed on day twenty-two of the third month.218

tische Bildaussagen,” Eranos 48 (1979): 215-16 where earlier comments concerning the unified image of Re and Osiris are stressed. Compare this with the general summary of Wolfgang Wettengel, Die Erzählung von den beiden Brüdern: Der Papyrus d’Orbiney und die Königsideologie der Ramessiden (Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 204-8. Additional comments can be found in Jean Yoyotte, “Héra d’Héliopolis et le sacrifice humain,” 71 and 100-101 (where the connection is revealed in the Book of the Gates). I shall return to his analysis at the end of this work. 211 Sonnenhymnen in thebanischen Gräbern, 197-8. He discusses the major hymn of Nebwennef and stresses its solar aspect, one that is devoid of the god Amun. See as well Zandee, “Hymnical Sayings Addressed to the Sun-God by the HighPriest of Amun Nebwenenef, from his Tomb in Thebes,” 254 and 265 and Assmann’s later comments on page 131 of his Egyptian Solar Religion in the New Kingdom: Re, Amun and the Crisis of Polytheism (trans. Anthony Alcock; London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1995). It might not be mere coincidence that one of Nebwennef ’s hymns contains the word snhs which as we have seen is quite common in the Dedicatory Inscription as well as those parallels covered earlier; cf. Assmann, Sonnenhymnen in thebanischen Gräbern, 186 (text 148 line 8). Among the large corpus of New Kingdom sun hymns this verb only occurs twice, and both in a Ramesside context; nhsí, on the other hand is more common. 212 See Verhoeven, “Ein historischer ‘Sitz im Leben’ für die Erzählung von Horus und Seth.” Add Christian Leitz, Tagewählerei: Das Buch Èît nÈÈ pÈ.wy dt und verwandte Texte (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994), 140-1. 213 Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 192. The crucial days in Leitz’s calendars are III îÉt 24 to 29. 214 The first event is related to Amun-Re and the role of that deity as the father, progenitor of kingship, and the complex situation revolving around the royal ka. The second event is linked with the myth of Horus, and reveals the

increasing importance of the Abydene cult in early Dynasty XIX. Both events, nonetheless, aptly reflect the concept of kingship in the New Kingdom. For the celebration of the Choiak festival at this temple: Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 404-46. 215 KRI I 46.2. 216 I have returned to this issue in “Chronological Remarks,” BSEG 22 (1998): 56. Darnell, in his The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity, 190, has seen that the “Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity appear to concern themselves with the union of Re and Osiris during the time of the regeneration of the year.” That is to say, at the close of the “standard” 360 days of the civil calendar. 217 The question whether the Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus is to be linked with this crucial New Year’s Day must remain open. Helck commented upon the overt Osirian nature of the religious account, a conclusion with which all Egyptologists have recognized, in “Bemerkungen zum Ritual des Dramatischen Ramesseum-papyrus,” 383-4. But if the temporal connection is accepted, then the days preceding I prt 1 have to be considered; i.e., the period of the Choiak feast (ideally IV prt 22 to 30), the timeframe for which Helck argued (pages 408-9) but eventually discarded in favor of an earlier ceremony connected to the night preceding the Sed Festival (pages 410-11). Altenmüller followed his perspective in “Zur Lesung und Deutung des dramatischen Ramesseumpapyrus,” 441-2. Yoyotte, however, did not: “Religion de l’Égypte ancienne,” Annuaire École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve Section 79 (1971-2): 179-80. The death and rebirth of Osiris are nevertheless covered. On the other hand, one may prefer the Triumph of Horus phase of the year that was at the end of III prt: see Verhoeven’s commentary in “Ein historischer ‘Sitz im Leben’ für die Erzählung von Horus und Seth.” 218 Leitz, Tagewählerei, 136-7, but in the presence of Re. See Teeter’s volume The Presentation of Maat.

religious and historical implications Was this done in the Inner Hypostyle Court, an area that Teeter has seen was a public one?219 This idea is visually expressed in one scene at Abydos directly connected to the Dedicatory Inscription where Ramesses is located before Osiris. In the composition the Pharaoh speaks to Seti “while presenting what he had done.” The two Abydene cases should represent an identical situation. But the act of presenting Maat is also connected to the voyage of Re in the underworld, a twelvehour navigation that sees him united with Osiris. Finally, when the last nocturnal hour is reached, four goddesses appear, the “crowned ones,” who offer up Maat (s#r mî#t).220 This event also can be connected to some of the references that occur with Ramesses and Seti at Abydos. 1. Scene of Ramesses at the southern side of the Portico. He appears before Osiris with Isis and Seti present.221 2. Dedicatory Inscription columns 79-80. Ramesses speaks to the Osiris-Seti while offering up (s#r) everything that he had done to Seti. 3. Speech of Thoth. The lords of the underworld offer up goodness (nfrw) to the shrine (kîr) of Re. 4. Speech of Seshat. Sia exalts (s#r) the goodness/beauty (nfrw) of the temple.222

The connection to the offering of Maat and the end of the night has already been noted. To this can be added a Books of Gates’ reference to that ritual occurring at the chapel (kîr) of the sun god Re. To put it as succinctly as possible, the theme of “offering up” or “elevating,” which is prevalent in all of these linked Abydene texts as well as in one pictorial representation, can be associated with this other information. The presentation of Maat by Ramesses at Abydos occurred at a 219

If so, the event could be placed at a time when Seti’s statue in his chapel, his sàmw, was being “consulted” by Ramesses. I.e., the new statue was dedicated and brought to life. Nonetheless, I find the portico area in Seti’s temple a far more significant location for Ramesses II. 220 Hornung, Das Buch von den Pforten des Jenseits II, 283 (Scene 96). 221 Architecturally, the southern side of the portico before the Outer Hypostyle Court corresponds to the area of Seti. The north is linked to Horus. Hence, the scenes on the external northern wing reveal the Ished tree rite for Ramesses. 222 And Sia is mentioned in the nocturnal event of the unification of Re and Osiris: Hornung, Das Buch der Anbetung des Re im Westen II, 83 and 137 note 404. 223 Liturgische Lieder, 219-20. On page 190 see the difficulty of interpreting one key verb: is it sr or it is s#r? 224 At the Abydos temple of Seti the major religious texts

119

ceremony which probably took place in the Inner Hypostyle Court if not at the Chapel of Seti. The dead king’s rebirth is effected. Seti awakens and sees Re. He is at the end of his underworld existence. It is thus not surprising to witness the offering of Maat in this case, if only as the Book of Gates places this action close to the completion of Re’s underworld voyage. The connection to kingship is present. For additional material, the detailed study by Teeter can be consulted, to which we can add Assmann’s useful remarks concerning the importance of the commencement of light and the beginning of day.223 The evidence from the New Kingdom Triumph of Horus indicates that on day twenty-two of the third civil month the act of “offering up” (s#r) Maat occurred. Since Ramesses did not reach Abydos then, perhaps that reference might refer to a later visit, after everything that Ramesses had ordered for Seti was completed.224 On the other hand, the rite of the Ished tree, a solemn event connected to the rise to the throne of Egypt, can perhaps be placed not too long after. The Medinet Habu calendar places it on I prt 6, and whether we take that solitary dated source to heart or not, the timing is significant because it is about six days after the conclusion of the Choiak Feast and five days after Nehebkau.225 On the other hand, the last day of the Osirian Choiak festival (IV Achet 30) connects this sacred tree with the final celebration.226 By means of this, one immediately grasps the interweaving of Osiris and rebirth, although no rite of inscribing the king’s name on this tree is indicated. Although it is speculative to link all of these religious dates together, a relatively cohesive framework results if we consider every chronological reference. The newly crowned Pharaoh arrives at of the Amduat, the Book of Gates, and the Litany of the Sun were not present. The latter is included in Ramesses II’s temple. Regarding the last, see the comments of Hornung, Das Buch der Anbetung des Re im Westen II, 31-5. Some figures from this Litany in the Osireion are dated to Merenptah as Prof. Hornung discerned: Frankfort, de Buck, and Gunn, The Cenotaph of Seti I at Abydos I, 66 and II, Pls. LXXI-II. I can also refer to Hornung’s study “Zum könglichen Jenseits,” in Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simpson I (ed. Peter Der Manuelian, Boston: Dept. of Ancient Egyptian, Nubian, and Near Eastern Art, Museum of Fine Arts, 1996), 410. 225 KRI V 176.7, the Medinet Habu Calendar with Ished tree festival on 1 prt 6. But this example is a Theban one. 226 Leclant, Recherches sur les monuments thébains de la XXVe dynastie dite éthiopienne, 277-8; and Chassinat, Le mystère d’Osiris au mois de Khoiak I, 205-6 and 234-48.

120

chapter three

Abydos for the Triumph of Horus, an occasion that included the presentation of Maat. He also had his name connected to the Ished Tree. (I am of the opinion that the right hand [northern side] Ished tree scene belongs to this event.) The stay at Abydos may have entailed more than a week. Most certainly, the historical indications in the Dedicatory Inscription indicate a completion of tasks that the young king had ordered. It is possible to connect the second half of the composition to a return visit—although the event could have been cultically performed without the presence of Ramesses—and attach the first to a celebration of kingship when the king went north from Luxor. At any rate, the date, the Maat scene and the transference of power to the new Pharaoh are indicated. Note that the depiction of the Presentation of Maat does not reveal any evidence of an awakening of Seti. The Dedicatory Inscription and the few scenes accompanying it have to be placed within a broad constellation of religious ideas, many of which are intimately associated with legitimacy of rule. The composition also reveals Re-Osirian connections. They are reflected in other texts and scenes of the temple and where the “mystical” union is at least limned. All in all, the lengthy hieroglyphic text reveals a complex unity, one that moves away from an expected “pure” historical narrative of the king’s visit to a more theological underpinning of kingship. As a dutiful son, the youthful Ramesses has set himself the task of completing his father’s work at Abydos. Perhaps because the account reveals more than his piety towards his progenitor it shows us a side of Ramesses’ character that is striking in its personal nature. The commissioning of this work depended upon a writer well versed with the theological aspects of

Abydos, including the Solar-Osirian Unity, and one that had the literary background in order to compose a royal narrative. I wonder whether the final product was pulled together from disparate sources of a literary and religious nature, and quite possibly was written by more than one man whom the king ordered to provide the account.227 Questions of the ultimate foundations of this inscription, however intriguing, remain speculative whereas the resounding literary and emotionally charged qualities remain striking and stand out for us to appreciate. A final point can serve as a coda to this study. In an epoch-making work that I have referred to a few times in this analysis Yoyotte presented an enormous amount of information with respect to human sacrifice in Egypt.228 Subsequently, archaeologists and other textual experts have performed admirably in elucidating this factor in predynastic as well as early dynastic times.229 For our purposes, however, Yoyotte’s analysis of the Osirian connection at Heliopolis and the combination or unity of the sun god with Osiris in hour six of the night cannot be left aside. In the \wt-bnbn at Heliopolis the “mystery” of Re, hidden in the earth, was nothing other than the corpse (hît) of the sun.230 Following these theological concepts, when the sun traversed the underworld at night, it was in the sixth hour that he commenced to be revived. That this was also present during the Amarna Period ought to come as no surprise.231 The Solar-Osirian connection, with which has occupied a great deal of this work, had its resonance in the key center of solar worship for a long time, centuries before Ramesses visited Abydos. And yet it was promulgated here and in a context that was considerably more public than a royal tomb.

227 For many reasons it is tempting to see Nebwennef as either the writer or the prime mover of the composition. At the moment, we know that he was connected with the Solar-Osirian unity because some of the hymns in his Theban tomb reflect that viewpoint, a point made decades ago by Zandee. In addition, he was erudite and clever, two factors that are reflected by the crossword puzzle in his tomb. I cannot but assume that his knowledge of the native literature was very high. 228 “Héra d’Héliopolis et le sacrifice humain.” 229 In general, see the studies assembled in “Le sacrifice humain en contexte funéraire,” Archéo-Nil 10 (2000).

230 Yoyotte, “Héra d’Héliopolis et le sacrifice humain,” 100-01. He discusses the connection of these verbal images to the Book of Gates. 231 After all, both at Thebes and Amarna Akhenaton erected a \wt bnbn. So Osiris was present with the new solar religion of Akhenaton after all. The recent book of Alfred Grimm and Hermann A. Schlögl, Das thebanische Grab Nr. 136 und der Beginn der Amarnazeit (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005) provides exciting new data that cannot but help us to reevaluate the theological system of the Ramesside Period.

bibliography

121

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Assmann, Jan Liturgische Lieder an den Sonnengott. Untersuchungen zur altägyptischen Hymnik, I. Berlin: B. Helssling, 1969. “Das Bild des Vaters im alten Ägypten.” Pages 12-49 in Das Vaterbild im Mythos und Geschichte. Edited by Hubertus Tellenbach. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1976. “Zur Geschichte des Herzens im Alten Ägypten.” Pages 81-113 in Studien zur religiösen Anthropologie: Die Erfindung des inneren Menschen. Studien zum Verstehen fremder Religion 6. Edited by Jan Assmann. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1993. Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete. 2d ed. Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999. Baines, John “Abydos, Temple of Sethos I: Preliminary Report.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 70 (1984): 13-22. “Techniques of Decoration in the Hall of Barques in the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75 (1989): 13-28. “Recording the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos in Egypt.” Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo) 11 (1990): 65-95. “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos in Egypt.” Pages 145-57 in Colour and Painting in Ancient Egypt. Edited by W. Vivian Davies. London: British Museum, 2001. Brand, Peter J. The Monuments of Seti I. Epigraphic, Historial, and Art Historical Analysis. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2000. Calverley, Alice M., Broome, Myrtle F., and Gardiner, Alan H. The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos I-IV. London and Chicago: The Egypt Exploration Society and The University of Chicago Press, 1933-58. Capart, Jean Abydos. Le temple de Séti Ier: étude générale. Brussels: Ros- signol and Van den Bril, 1912. Caulfeild, A. St. G. The Temple of the Kings at Abydos (Sety I.). London: B. Quaritch, 1902. 1erný, Jaroslav Collations of Abydos. Unpublished Notebook, n.d. Darnell, John Coleman. The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity: Cryptographic Compositions in the Tombs of Tutankhamun, Ramesses VI and Ramesses IX. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. David, A. Rosalie Religious Ritual at Abydos (c. 1300 BC). Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1973. Harvey, Stephen P. “The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1998. Hornung, Erik “Der Mensch als ‘Bild Gottes’ in Ägypten.” Pages 123-56 in Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen. Edited by Oswald Loretz Munich: Kösel, 1967. Jéquier, Gustave “ L’Ennéade osirienne d’Abydos et les enseignes sacrées.” Comptes rendus des Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres (1920): 409-17. Kitchen, Kenneth A. Ramesside Inscriptions, Historical and Biographical I-II. Oxford: Blackwell: 1975-79.

Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated and Annotated: Translations, II. Oxford and Cambridge MA: Blackwell, 1996. Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated and Annotated: Notes and Comments II. Oxford and Malden: Blackwell, 1999. Kruchten, Jean-Marie “From Middle Egyptian to Late Egyptian.” Lingua Aegyptia 6 (1999): 1-97. Lesko, Leonard H. Review of A. Rosalie David. Religious Ritual At Abydos. Chronique d’Égypte 49 (1974): 103-05. Maderna-Sieben, Claudia “Die Grosse Bauinschrift von Abydos.” Pages 237-82 in Egypt –Temple of the Whole World. Ägypten—Tempel der Gesamten Welt: Studies in Honour of Jan Assmann. Edited by Sibylle Meyer. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003. Mariette, Auguste Abydos. Descriptions des fouilles exécutées sur l’emplacement de cette ville I. Paris: A. Franck, 1869. Murnane, William J. “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 34 (1975): 153-90. Ancient Egyptian Coregencies. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1977. “Egyptian Monuments and Historical Memory.” KMT 5.3 (Fall 1994): 14-24. “Reconstructing Scenes from the Great Hypostyle Court.” Pages 107-17 in Warsaw Egyptological Studies. I. Essays in Honour of Prof. Dr. Jadwiga Lipinska. Warsaw: National Museum in War saw, 1997. Niwinski, Andrzej “The Solar-Osirian Unity as Principle of the Theology of the ‘State of Amun’ in Thebes in the 21st Dynasty.” Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap Ex Oriente Lux 30 (1987-88): 89-106. Redford, Donald B. Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books: a Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History. Mississauga: Benben, 1986. Rondot, Vincent La grande salle hypostyle de Karnak: les architraves. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilizations, 1997. Seele, Keith C. The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I and the Date of the Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940. Spalinger, Anthony “Traces of the Early Career of Ramesses II.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 39 (1980): 271-86. Sweeney, Deborah “The Great Dedicatory Inscription of Ramses II at Abydos (lines 1-79).” Pages 134-327 in Papers for Discussion. Presented by the Department of Egyptology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem II. Edited by Sarah Groll and Frances Bogot. Jerusalem: Department of Egyptology, Hebrew University, 1985. Tiradritti, Francesco “‘I Have not Diverted my Inundation’. Legitimacy and the Book of the Dead in a Stela of Ramesses IV from Abydos.” Pages 193-203 in L’Impero Ramesside. Convegno Internazionale in Onore di Sergio Donadoni. Rome: Università degli studi di Roma “La Sapienza,” 1997. Zippert, Erwin “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos.” Ph.D. diss., University of Berlin, 1931.

122

bibliography

index

123

INDEX

General references such as Abydos, (Great) Dedicatory Inscription, Osiris, Ramesses II, Seti, and Solar-Osirian Unity have been omitted owing to their predominance in this work. The following pertain only to the main text.

Abu Simbel 93 Abydos Stela of Ahmose 13 Ahhotep 22, 73, 81 Ahmose (Pharaoh) 13, 22, 73, 74, 89 Ahmose Nofretary 74 Ahmose son of Ebana 16 Akhenaton x, 4, 13, 23 Aksha 9 All Lord 21, 32, 49, 83, 85, 96 Amarna 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 24, 36, 39, 77, 83, 101, 112, 113, 117, 120 Amduat 61, 78 Amenemhet (I) 18, 32, 77, 85 Amenmose 5 Amun/Amun-Re 22, 23, 28, 34, 45, 53, 62, 66, 67, 73, 74, 75, 81, 99, 100, 102 Amunherkhepshef 104, 106 Amun-Kamutef 100 Amunhotep II 15, 46 Amunhotep III 22, 24, 66, 67 (P.) Anastasi II 48, 75 (P.) Anastasi IV 75 Ante Room 108 Apophis 25 Apophis and Seqenenre (Tale of) 9, 10, 11, 13 Aretologies 48 Army Commanders 28 Aruna Pass 11 Assmann (Jan) ix, 11, 17, 22, 23, 31, 39, 40, 41, 42, 48, 61, 63, 65, 73, 74, 77, 78, 82, 97, 100, 109, 114, 119 Aten 4, 5 Atum 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, 49, 52, 53, 69, 77, 78, 82, 83, 85, 87, 96, 99, 100, 116 Avaris 73 Ay (Pharaoh) 4, 5 Baal 42, 49 Baines (John) xiii, 91, 95, 105, 106, 107, 108, 115 Baraize (Émile) 93 Barguet (Paul) 91 Battle of Kadesh 5, 6, 9, 10, 42, 43, 93, 109, 112 Beit el Wali 93, 111 Bentresh Stela 12 Berlin Leather Roll 8, 41, 55, 110 Blessing of Ptah 44, 66, 67 Book of the Dead ix, 47, 109 Book of Gates 119 Book of Respirations 98 Borghouts (Joris) 76 Brand (Peter) 4, 90, 91, 104 Caminos (Ricardo) 48, 75 Cenotaph 88, 89, 91, 98, 104, 109, 113; see Osireion 1erný (Jaroslav) 62, 106 Chamber L 63 Chapel K 63, 64, 65 Chapel of Osiris 106, 107 Chapel of Seti 64, 115, 119

Chepri 83, 85 Chiefs of the Archive 29 Choiak (Feast of) 119 Coffin Texts 11, 47, 99, 100 (Contendings /Story/Tale of) Horus and Seth 10, 48, 87, 96, 116 Corridor/Hall of Lists 103 Corridor of the Bull 91, 95, 104, 105, 108, 114 Courtiers 9, 19, 29, 33, 39, 41, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 55, 57, 60 Darnell ( John) ix, x, 44, 100, 101, 117 David (Ann Rosalie) 4, 103 Deir el Medineh 10, 18, 116 Destruction (of Mankind) 12, 13, 14, 15, 39 Dobbin (Tasha) xiii Doomed Prince 11, 26 Doxologies 48 Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus 65 Dream Books 10 Eighth (VIIIth) Pylon (at Karnak) 73, 74 Eigner (Diethelm) 89 Elephantine 9, 11 El Mashayikh 117 Encomium/Encomia 9, 14, 17, 30, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 48, 49, 50, 66, 75, 76, 116 Ennead 30, 52, 67, 78, 83, 87, 96, 98, 103, 105, 106 Eulogy/Eulogies/Eulogistic x, 12, 18, 22, 29, 30, 31, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 66, 67, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 110, 116 Fecht (Gerhard) 39, 43 First Court 4, 90 First Osiris Hall 115 First Present 69, 72 Fisher (Marjorie) 95, 103, 104, 105 Gallery of Kings 7, 104, 105, 106, 107 Gardiner (Alan) 35, 40, 63 Gauthier (Henri) 27, 33, 55 Geb 33, 102, 106 Gebel Barkal Stela 46 Giza 13, 115 Goedicke (Hans) 13 Görg (Manfred) 66 Grapow (Hermann) ix, 43 Great Papyrus Harris 47, 69, 72, 73 Gournah (Temple) 88 Haeny (Gerhard) 88 Hall of Barques 105, 108 Hall of Lists see Corridor of Lists Haring (Ben) 115 Harvey (Stephen) 89, 91 Hatshepsut 74 Hattusilis III 9, 11 Heagren (Brett) xiii

124 Helck (Wolfgang) 44, 46, 111, 112, 113, 114 Heliopolis 55, 56, 57, 58, 120 Hermann (Alfred) 8 Hintze (Fritz) 15, 16 Hittite Marriage 9, 11, 15, 43, 46 Hittite Treaty 5 Hittites 12 Hoffmeier (James) 62 Horemheb 61, 112 Hornung (Erik) ix, xiii, 61, 94, 100 Horus x, 3, 10, 15, 17, 21, 22, 25, 32, 41, 50, 51, 52, 64, 66, 69, 83, 84, 87, 88, 92, 96, 99, 100, 101, 112, 113, 114, 116, 118, 119, 120 Hsieh (Julia) xiii Hyksos 73 Hypostyle Hall (Karnak) 93, 94, 103, 108, 111 Hymn to the Aten 4, 5 Iamunedjeh 117 Imiseba 117 Inner Hypostyle Hall 63, 64, 90, 119 Inner Osiris Hall 107 Ished (tree) 1, 3, 44, 48, 89, 119, 120 Isis 3, 38, 44, 50, 64, 69, 89, 92, 99, 103, 104, 105, 106, 114, 119 Israel Stela 5 Junge (Friedrich) 4, 5, 23, 77, 82 Kadesh see Battle of Kadesh, Kadesh Bulletin, Kadesh Inscriptions, or Kadesh Poem Kadesh Bulletin 42 Kadesh Inscriptions 69 Kadesh Poem 9, 10, 11, 14, 40, 42, 43, 75 Kamose 74 Karnak 7, 22, 46, 53, 66, 67, 73, 74, 81, 93, 94, 103, 108, 111, 112 Khenet-hen-nefer 54 Kheruef 23 Khnum 30 Kitchen (Kenneth) 1, 3, 7, 13, 24, 25, 31, 35, 37, 45, 47, 51, 54, 55, 58, 60, 62, 64, 70, 77, 92, 93, 103, 106, 107, 108, 110, 118 Kola/Kolas 38, 43, 51, 52 Königsnovelle x, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 28, 31, 35, 37, 45, 47, 48, 67, 73, 85, 110, 112 Kruchten (Jean-Marie) 14, 19, 23, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32, 49, 54, 62, 68, 69, 72, 78, 79 Kubban/Kubban Stela 9, 10 Kuentz (Charles) 43 Langage de tradition 36, 80, 112 Late Egyptian Miscellanies 30, 31, 40, 69, 74, 75 Late Egyptian Stories 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24 Leblanc (Christain) 93 Lesko (Barbara) 115 Libya/Libyans 45, 76 Litany of Re/of the Sun x, 78, 93, 94, 101 Liverani (Mario) 42 Louvre Leather Roll 93 Luxor 13, 23, 34, 66, 118, 120 Loprieno (Antonio) xiii, 4, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 69, 73 Maat 44, 88, 90, 92, 96, 103, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 Mansion of Gold 26, 27, 59, 113 Mariette (Auguste) 27, 104 Medinet Habu 5, 75, 115, 116, 119 Mehy 34, 111, 112

index Memphis 21, 44, 46, 56, 57, 58, 60, 66, 67 Menkaura 115 Mentuhotep II (Nebhepetre) 23 Merenptah (Pharaoh, Son of Ramesses II) 5, 14, 45, 75, 112, 117 Millor (William) 95 Min 49 Mingle/mingles 85, 100 Miscellanies see Late Egyptian Miscellanies Miwer 35 Morrow (John) xiii Munro (Peter) 114 Murnane (William) 7, 95, 106, 107, 111, 112 Mut 46 Names (of Ramesses II) 2, 3-4, 7, 58, 61, 64, 92, 93, 94, 95, 103, 104, 107, 108 Nauri Decree 71, 79, 90, 115, 118 Nebwennef x, 28, 62, 65, 67, 117, 118 Neferkare and General Sisene 13 Neferty 10, 13, 18, 29 Nehebkau 119 Nepthys 89 Niwinski (Andrzej) ix Nofretary ix, 28, 117 Non-Initial Main Sentence 24, 69, 72 Notables of the King 28 Nubia/Nubians/Nubian 93, 111, 115 Opening of the Mouth 65, 96, 113, 114 Opet (place and festival) x, 22 Onuris 24, 25, 62 Osing (Jürgen) 109 Osiris Chamber 115 Osireion 88, 91 Otto (Eberhard) 97, 112, 113, 114 Outer Hypostyle Hall/Court 3, 4, 45, 90, 92, 93, 108 P. Chester Beatty I 116 P. Harris see Great Papyrus Harris P. Sallier III 93 P. Westcar 16 Papyrus Wilbour 11 Petrie (Willliam) 104 Pi-Ramesses 23 Poem of Year Twelve (Ramesses III) 76 Poetical Stela of Thutmose III 66 Portico x, 1, 44, 48, 64, 90, 91, 96, 119 Posener (Georges) 10, 15, 18, 28 Ptah 44, 64, 66, 67 Pyramid Texts 11, 113 Qenherkhepeshef 10 Quaegebeur (Jan) 98, 99 Quirke (Stephen) xiii, 85 Ramesses I 68, 101, 113, 114 Ramesses III 5, 44, 45, 47, 73, 75, 115 Ramesses IV 5, 47, 100, 113 Ramesses V 49, 72 Ramesses VI x, 100, 113 Ramesses IX x, 100, 101, 113, 117 Re 9, 10, 17, 20, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32. 36, 38, 49, 50, 52, 53, 65, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 113, 114, 116, 119, 120 Re-Amun-Atum 99 Re-Atum(-Khnum) 30, 99 Re-Harachty 44, 64, 80, 87, 96, 98, 100

index Re-Osiris 84 Redford (Donald) 44, 45, 46, 110 Renenutet 30 Restoration Inscription of Tutankhamun 15 Rondot (Vincent) 92, 94, 103 Room N (for Osiris-Seth) 62 Royal Companions 38, 48 Satire of Trades 10 Schott (Siegfried) 114 Seal Bearer 15, 28 Second Court 1, 4, 90 Second Hypostyle Court 107 Second Osiris Hall 115 Seele (Keith) 7, 108 Semneh Inscription of Sesostris III 41 Seshat 7, 64, 95, 99, 101, 102, 103, 106, 108, 115, 119 Seshat-Sefkhtabwy 101 Sesostris I 18, 32, 41, 44, 55, 77, 85 Sesostris III 41 Seth 10, 42, 48, 87, 96, 116 Sethnakht Stela 47 Shu 99 Sinuhe 10 Snefru 13 Sokar 105 Southeast Court 106, 107, 108 Sphinx 13, 14, 15, 46 Sphinx Stela of Amenhotep II 15 Sphinx Stela of Thutmose IV 13, 14 Stairway Corridor 7, 88, 89, 91, 92, 95, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 114, 115, 117 Storage Hall 108 Superintendents of Works 28 Sutton (Douglas) xiii

125

Thebes 4, 6, 13, 19, 23, 24, 28, 45, 56, 57, 58, 60, 74, 88, 93, 94, 115, 116, 118 Terrace 26, 27, 89, 90, 91 Terrace of the Great God 89, 90, 91 Thinis/Thinite (Nome) 24, 25, 62, 67 Third Future 38 Thoth 3, 7, 32, 44, 49, 64, 83, 87, 89, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 106, 108, 114, 116, 119 Thutmose I 74, 81 Thutmose III 12, 46, 66, 67, 101 Thutmose IV 13, 14 Tiradritti (Francesco) 47, 113 Transfiguration Hymns 65, 66 Transformation Hymns 39, 40, 41 Triumph of Horus 25, 87, 88, 116, 118, 119, 120 Tutankhamun x, 15, 16, 62, 100, 112, 113 Two Brothers (Tale of) 11 Upper Staircase 92 Useramun 101 Verhoeven (Ursula) 48, 49, 97, 116 Verklären 40 Verkünden 39 Vernus (Pascal) 78, 79, 82 Victory Poem of Thutmose III 67 Villa of Sese 75 Wadi Mia 115 Wenennefer 19, 25, 52, 65, 67, 77, 79, 84, 85, 87, 89, 91, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 114, 116 Wente (Edward) 31, 69, 72, 73 Willems (Harco) ix, 99, 100, 101 Wilson (John) 5 Yoyotte (Jean) 120

Taking of Joppa 12 Teaching of Amenemhet I (to Sesostris I) 18, 32, 77, 85 (indirectly) Teeter (Emily) 90, 119 Tetishery 13, 74, 81

Zandee (Jan) ix, 61 Zippert (Erwin) 62, 63, 98, 104, 115

Egyptian Names, Words, and Phrases of Importance

îms (in îms-ïb) 22, 31 ïîw (with or without rdït) 39 ïwnw (with Éws, àp, and s#È#) 20, 37 ïb 21, 22, 31, 88 ïmî 22 ïmyw-r mnf îyt (army commanders) 28 ïmyw-r kîwt (superintendents of works) 28 ïrï 21, 22, 30, 38 ïst 15, 16, 36, 37, 40, 41, 46, 56, 58, 110, 111 #È#.n + Formations 6, 13, 19, 20, 24, 40, 55 #È#.n nb tîwy 6 #dd 49 wn.ïn.f (Èr) + Formations 6, 13, 14, 16, 20, 24, 29, 80 wàb 81, 117 wts 65, 66 bî mnÉ 81, 117 bîw 42, 48, 75, 76 bw pw.f sdm Formations 51, 54 bw sdm.f Formations 25

bw sdm.n.f Formations 25, 80 bÉn 73 Pn-tî-wrt 9, 10, 12 pr (with àps and Èbs) 20 phr 21, 22, 31, 32 m#r 31 mn# 21, 22, 32 mn#/mn#t (“nurse”) 21, 22, 38, 50 mnq 20, 27, 36 msï/mst/msyw (“to fashion,” etc.) 6, 17, 21, 27, 30, 36, 53, 54, 56, 59, 60, 69, 70 n sdm.n.f Formation 25, 38 n#t 22, 32 nhs/nhsï 65, 66, 68 nÈÈ 23, 82 nÉtw 48, 49, 75, 76 ndm 22, 53, 88 rwd/rïwd (“terrace”) 91

126

index

rÉt-n.f 62 \îw-nbw 73 Èîty 21, 22, 31 Èryw-tp pr mdît (chiefs of the archive) 29 Épr swt 5, 12, 14, 15, 19 Éprw 77, 97, 102 Ér m-Ét 16 Ér ïr m-Ét 40, 55 Étmty bïty 15, 28 sîÉw 65, 66 s#r 54, 57, 118, 119 s#r m#ît 118, 119 s#È# 20 swîà 42, 48, 53 swhî 81 sfy 49 smrw 46, 48 snhs 64 sàmw 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 101, 102, 113, 114, 115 sàmw-Éw 63, 115 sdm.f Formations 20, 23, 27, 29, 31, 34, 35, 41, 54, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 111

sdm.ïn.f Formations 14, 28, 29, 30, 34, 38 sdm.n.f Formations 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 41, 54, 56, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 111 sdm pw ïr.n.f Formations 24 sdd 42, 46 (sddt.n rmtt), 48, 49, 75, 76, 116 sdd bîw 42, 48, 75, 76 sdd nÉtw 48, 49, 75, 76 àbn 85 àpsw nswt (notables of the king) 28 ànywt (courtiers) 28 àrï wà 20 àsp tp wît 23, 24 qd 17, 21, 30, 53, 54, 69 kîr 119 ts 79, 96 dwîw 39, 81 dbÈ 82 dt 23, 82