(Culture and History of The Ancient Near East 44) James P. Allen - The Debate Between A Man and His Soul - A Masterpiece of Ancient Egyptian Literature-BRILL (2010)

The Debate between a Man and His Soul
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 44
The Debate between a
Man and His Soul
A Masterpiece of Ancient Egyptian Literature
By
James P. Allen
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2011
pBerlin 3024, cols. 151–155 (scale 3:4)
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
ISSN 1566-2055
ISBN 978 90 04 19303 1
Copyright 2011 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.
CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .......................................................... vii

PREFACE ................................................................................. ix
CHAPTER ONE. Introduction ...................................................... 1
1. Previous Studies ............................................................ 1
2. The Characters ............................................................. 3
CHAPTER TWO. Epigraphic Analysis ............................................ 9
1. Scribal Practice ........................................................... 11
2. Corrections ................................................................. 13
3. Uncorrected Errors and Omissions .............................. 17
CHAPTER THREE. Philological Analysis ..................................... 19
1. Introduction and the Soul’s First Speech (cols. *1–*12) 20
2. The Man’s First Speech (cols. *12–y) ........................... 21
3. The Soul’s Second Speech (cols. y–3) ........................... 22
4. The Man’s Second Speech (cols. 3–55) ........................ 25
5. The Soul’s Rebuttal (cols. 55–68) ................................ 62
6. The Soul’s First Parable (cols. 68–80) ........................... 67
7. The Soul’s Second Parable (cols. 80–85) ....................... 75
8. The Man’s First Litany (cols. 85–103) .......................... 78
9. The Man’s Second Litany (cols. 103–30) ...................... 90
10. The Man’s Third Litany (cols. 130–42) ....................... 100
11. The Man’s Fourth Litany (cols. 142–47) ..................... 106
12. The Soul’s Fourth Speech (cols. 147–54) .................... 108
13. The Colophon (cols. 154–55) .................................... 112
CHAPTER FOUR. Grammatical Analysis .................................. 113
1. The Lexicon ............................................................ 113
2. Verb Forms .............................................................. 114
3. Synthetic and Analytic Prospectives .......................... 116
4. Synthetic and Analytic Imperfectives ......................... 118
viii CONTENTS
CHAPTER FIVE. Stylistic Analysis ............................................. 123

1. Versification in the Litanies ....................................... 123
2. Versification in the Text ............................................ 129
3. Other Stylistic Devices ............................................. 132
CHAPTER SIX. Textual Analysis ............................................... 137
1. Introduction and the Soul’s First Speech ................... 137
2. The Man’s First Speech ............................................ 138
3. The Soul’s Second Speech ........................................ 139
4. The Man’s Second Speech ........................................ 140
5. The Soul’s Third Speech ........................................... 146
6. The Man’s Third Speech ........................................... 151
7. The Soul’s Final Speech ............................................ 157
8. Conclusion .............................................................. 158
APPENDIX ONE. The Text ....................................................... 162
APPENDIX TWO.Versification .................................................. 180
APPENDIX THREE. oGardiner 369 .......................................... 199
APPENDIX FOUR. Sign List ..................................................... 203
1. Individual Signs ......................................................... 203
2. Ligatures ................................................................... 220
APPENDIX FIVE. Lexicon and Grammar .................................. 223
1. Lexicon .................................................................... 223
2. Grammatical Forms and Constructions ..................... 239
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................... 245
1. Translations and Studies ............................................. 245
2. Other Works ............................................................. 249
INDEX ................................................................................... 255
1. General Index ........................................................... 255
2. Other Texts ............................................................... 256
PHOTOGRAPHS AND HIEROGLYPHIC TRANSCRIPTION ......... 260
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
pBerlin 3024, cols. 151–155

Photograph by Lisa Baylis, British Museum ......... Frontispiece
Fig. 1. The Final Judgment (Papyrus of Ani, BM EA 10470)
© Trustees of the British Museum ........................................ 5
Fig. 2. The Ba Returning to the Burial Chamber (Papyrus of Nebqed)
T. Devéria, Le papyrus de Neb-qed (exemplaire hiéroglyphique du
Livre des Morts) (Paris, 1872), pl. 3 ........................................ 5
Fig. 3. The Deceased Drinking from the Inundation
Tomb of Pashed (TT 33): author’s photograph .................. 58
Fig. 4. oGardiner 369
Çerný and Gardiner 1957, pl. 91, 2 .................................. 199
Fig. 5. oGardiner 369, hieratic of line 3
Çerný and Gardiner 1957, pl. 91, 2 .................................. 201
pBerlin 3024, photographs and hieroglyphic transcription
photographs © Morgan Library and Museum, New York,
and Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum
und Papyrussämmlung ............................................. 260–311
PREFACE
The subject of this book is one of the most intriguing, and difficult,
works of ancient Egyptian literature. Since 1859, when its sole surviving
copy was first published, it has been transliterated, discussed, and de-
bated possibly more than any other Egyptian literary text. Attempts to
understand its conundrums and meaning have been hampered in part
by the fact that the papyrus has been published only in an early fac-
simile (Lepsius 1859) and three sets of black and white photographs
(Erman 1896, Barta 1969, and Goedicke 1970), none of which is clear
enough to allow detailed examination of damaged or obscure sections
of the papyrus.
Although I have wrestled with the text myself over several dec-
ades, the present study owes its existence to the recent collaboration of
several colleagues. Thanks to Dietrich Wildung, former director of the
Egyptian Museum and Papyrus Collection in Berlin, I was able to ex-
amine the original papyrus briefly a few years ago. I was also allowed
to study the fragments in the Morgan Library and Museum, New
York, identified by Richard Parkinson (2003) as belonging to the lost
beginning of the papyrus, through the courtesy of their keeper, Wil-
liam Voelkle. In 2009, a request by my graduate student, Emily Russo,
to read the text with her led me to think about the composition once
again. I have also been inspired by Richard Parkinson’s recent study of
the papyrus (2009) and have benefited greatly from his generous
comments on an early draft of my manuscript.
In addition to first-hand observation, I have also made use of
high-resolution digital images in studying the papyrus, which have
made possible a number of new readings and interpretations. For
permission to publish the new images included here, I am grateful to
the current director of the Berlin Museum, Friederike Seyfried; to
Verena Lepper, Curator and Collection Keeper of the Berlin Museum;
xii PREFACE
and to William Voelkle, Curator of Medieval and Renaissance Manu-

scripts, the Morgan Library. The excellent black and white images of
the Berlin papyrus published here were made by the Museum’s pho-
tographer, Sandra Steiss. A full-color photographic record of the
papyrus was made by the British Museum photographer, Lisa Baylis,
in 2007; these images will shortly be published in CD format by her
and Richard Parkinson.
Finally, I am grateful to Brill’s editors, and especially to Thomas
Schneider, editor of the series in which this book appears, for their
acceptance and rapid publication of my manuscript.
This study can hardly be regarded as definitive. Debate about the
translation and larger meaning of the text will undoubtedly continue
into the future. It is my hope that I have been able to contribute in
some measure to a better understanding of this monument of ancient
Egyptian thought.
Providence, 2010
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The ancient Egyptian literary work that is the subject of this study was
first entitled by Adolf Erman (1896) Gespräch eines Lebensmüden mit
seiner Seele and is often referred to as the Lebensmüde, or in French, Le
désespéré. English speakers have had to make do with more cumbersome
titles such as The Man Who Was Tired of Life and The Dialogue of a Man
and His Ba. The present work has adopted a slightly revised title, The
Debate between a Man and His Soul, because it accurately reflects the
theme of the work, which is an inner debate about death versus life.
Previous Studies
The Debate is universally regarded as one of the masterpieces of Middle

Kingdom literature. It appears in every anthology of ancient Egyptian
literature, with at least twenty-six full translations, and a number of par-
tial ones, available to scholars and the general public. It is also perhaps
the most widely discussed and debated of all Egyptian literary works,
the subject of six books and more than seventy articles and translations
(see the Bibliography, Section 1, below). No other work of Egyptian
literature has inspired as many diverse and antithetical opinions, not all
of which have been equally well informed or considered.
Erman, who first published a transcription, translation, and com-
mentary to the Debate (1896), understood it as partly autobiographical.
This line of thought was developed by Alfred Hermann (1939), who
postulated that the man was dying of an illness, and Joachim Spiegel
(1950), who saw the work as the post-suicide memoir of a leader of a
failed uprising, written by a disciple.
Other scholars acknowledge the poem’s fictionality but disagree
equally in their interpretation of it. Émile Suys (1932) saw it as a dis-
2 CHAPTER ONE
pute about the value of traditional funeral arrangements, a view

adopted by a number of subsequent scholars, most notably Alexander
Scharff (1937) and Adriaan de Buck (1947). Richard Parkinson (1997)
and Katherina Lohmann (1998) have understood the debate in more
general terms, as a discussion of the value or concept of death, while
Jan Assmann (1998) analyzed the poem as an encomium of death, in
contrast to traditional Egyptian values. For Raymond Weill (1947), it
was a more fundamental debate about the reality of an afterlife, and
Sylvie Donnat (2004) has argued that it concerns the relationship be-
tween the living and the dead. I. M. Lurie (1939) pointed out the
absence of any mention of Osiris and used this as a criterion for propos-
ing that the poem was composed before the first appearance of that god
in non-royal funerary monuments of the First Intermediate Period;
Günter Lanczkowski (1954) took this a step further, characterizing the
work as a reactionary diatribe against Osirian views of the afterlife.
Y. Frantsev (1960) saw the poem more abstractly as debating ma-
terialism versus idealism and Hans Goedicke (1970), as hedonism
versus spirituality. Bernard Mathieu (2000) has argued that the debate
takes place at the final judgment and concerns the role of Maat in the
next life, while for Friedrich Haller (2004) it is about the value of
Maat for the non-elite members of Egyptian society. A few scholars
have emphasized the psychological nature of the man’s inner struggle,
including Hermann Junker (1948), Hellmuth Jacobsohn (1954), and
especially Odile Renaud (1954), who described the man as neurotic
and the poem as his “auto-therapy.” Renaud, however, has empha-
sized that his neurosis is merely the subject matter of what was
intended primarily as a work of literature; the literary quality of the
poem has been championed by Vincent Tobin (1991 and 2003) and
Parkinson, who see the work as a dramatic monologue.
These differences of opinion arise, in part, from numerous ambigu-
ities in the work itself. It is preserved in only a single manuscript,
whose beginning is lost, and understanding of the surviving text is
made difficult by a number of lacunae, words of unknown or uncertain
meaning, and grammatical constructions or references that are capable
INTRODUCTION 3
of more than one interpretation. The present study offers its own view
of the Debate, but its primary purpose is less to offer yet another inter-
pretation than to address these philological conundrums, which have
exercised scholars since Erman. It has benefited from access to excellent
digital images of the papyrus as well as a brief first-hand examination of
the papyrus in the Berlin Museum. These have made possible a number
of new or improved readings and restorations, which hopefully will
enhance future discussions—though they undoubtedly will not obviate
further debate about the poem’s meaning and significance.
The Characters
The preserved text of the Debate is a dialogue between two charac-

ters, an unnamed Man and his Soul.1 With a single, perhaps
irrelevant, exception,2 they address only each other. The lost begin-
ning of the poem may have provided an audience of some sort, as
well as the context of the debate, but the composition can be unders-
tood coherently without either, and perhaps intentionally so: the
anonymity of the Man and his isolation—the latter lamented in the
second litany—enhance the conceit of what was clearly designed as
the transcript of one man’s internal debate with himself.
The dominant character in the composition, however, is not the
Man but his Soul. It is the Soul that first takes the active role, urging
death, while the Man’s initial response is conservative and defensive,
and it is the Soul who is given the final word.
In Egyptian literature, the Soul’s role as the Man’s interlocutor is
unique to this text. Elsewhere in Egyptian texts, literary and other, it
is the heart that serves to personify one side of an internal conversa-
tion, most notably in the Lamentations of Khakheperre-seneb:
—————
1 The terms “Man” and “Soul” (or “Ba”) are capitalized in this study when they
refer to the two main characters. Justification for the translation of the term bæ as
“Soul” is presented below.
2 The second-person plural pronoun of mj.tn “look” (col. 11). This is discussed in
Chapter Three, along with another supposed instance of the same pronoun in col. 1.
4 CHAPTER ONE
œæ æ rã.j … tmmt wœmt

ÿd.j st wšb n.j jb.j (ro. 7)
Would that I knew … what has not been repeated,
that I might say it and my heart might respond to me.
jr jb qn m st qsnt
snnw pw n nb.f
œæ n.j jb m rã wœdw
kæ jry.j sãnj œr.f
ætp.j sw m mdwt nt mæj (ro. 13–14)
As for a brave heart in a difficult situation,
it is the second of its owner.
Would that I had a heart that knew how to bear up:
then I would make a landing on it
and load it with the words of misery.
mj mj jb.j mdw.j n.k
wšb.k n.j ïæzw.j (vo. 1)
Come, then, my heart, that I might speak to you
and you answer to me my phrases.
ÿd.j n.k jb.j wšb.k n.j
nj gr.n jb pœ (vo. 5–6)
Let me speak to you, my heart, and you answer me.
A heart that has been reached cannot remain silent.3
Apart from its uniqueness as a literary conceit, the conversation of

the Man and his Soul (Ba) is also unusual because the ba is primarily
associated with the afterlife. It both accompanies (or personifies) the
deceased at the final judgment (Fig. 1) and then represents the form in
which the deceased leaves the tomb in the morning and returns to it at
night (Fig. 2).4
—————
3 Gardiner, Admonitions, pls. 17–18. For the heart as interlocutor, see Piankoff,
Le “cœur,” 91–92, and Todo Rueda, Das Herz, 121–22.
4 The representation of the ba as a human-headed bird first appears in the New
Kingdom (Žabkar, A Study of the Ba Concept, 75–85), but the ba’s avian nature is
reflected earlier both in the imagery of col. 9 of the Debate (see the next paragraph)
and in the hieroglyph with which the word bæ is written. Since the human ba has a
human nature, the New Kingdom representation undoubtedly reflects earlier con-
cepts of the ba as well.
INTRODUCTION 5
Fig. 1. The Final Judgment

The deceased and his wife view the weighing of his heart against the symbol of Maat.
The ba is shown as a human-headed bird next to the scale.
Fig. 2. The Ba Returning to the Burial Chamber.

The ba is shown flying down the tomb shaft with sustenance for the mummy.
6 CHAPTER ONE
The ancient Egyptian concept of the human ba has been under-

stood either as that of an entity immanent in the individual during life
and then surviving in non-physical form after death or as a mode of
existence associated with the afterlife.5 The first interpretation, akin to
the more recent notion of the soul, underlies most interpretations of
the Debate, as an inner dialogue. The second has been adopted by Ma-
thieu (2000), who argues that the debate is projected into the afterlife,
at the moment of the final judgment, when the Soul has emerged as
an independent being after the Man’s death.
With the new reading of col. 9 as ÿr ntt.f m õt.j m šnw nwœ “since
he is in my belly in rope net” (see Chapter Three), it seems clear that
the Man is speaking of an entity immanent in his body. This validates
not only the understanding and translation of the Egyptian term bæ as
“soul” but also the interpretation that the debate takes place within
the context of this world rather than the afterlife.6
Since the Man speaks to his Soul rather than his heart, the choice
must reflect a characteristic of the one that is absent in the other. This
can only be the soul’s identity as a mode of existence, whereas the
heart is inextricably bound to the body—so much so, that it was left
in the mummified corpse to remain with the body for eternity. The
Soul’s intention to leave the Man (col. 7 šm bæ.j “my soul’s going”)
implies an independence that the heart does not possess. It is also im-
plies, and threatens, the Man’s death—or at least his inability to live
normally, as indicated by Sinuhe’s description of himself losing con-
sciousness in the king’s presence:
—————
5 For the first, Otto, in Miscellanea Gregoriana, 151–60, and ZÄS 77 (1942), 78–
91; for the second, Žabkar, A Study of the Ba Concept, 113–14. See also Allen, in Ox-
ford Encyclopedia I, 161–62. Žabkar discusses the Ba of the Debate in A Study of the Ba
Concept, 120–23. Goedicke (1970, 32–37) has synthesized the two views, arguing not
only that the Egyptian concept of the ba encompassed both but that the “clash of
these two attitudes is the topic” of the poem.
6 This may seem at odds with the consistent writing of the term bæ “soul” with
the “dead” determinative in the text, but the same determinative is used in Si-
nuhe B 255 with respect to the ba of a living person.
INTRODUCTION 7
gm.n.j œm.f œr st wrt

m wmtw nt ÿëm
wn.k r.f dwn.kw œr õt.j
ãm.n.(j) wj m bæœ.f
nïr pn œr wšd.j õnmw
jw.j mj z jtw m ëããw
bæ.j zj.w œëw.j æ(h)d.w
œætj.j nj ntf m õt.j
rã.j ënã r mt (Sin. B 252–56)7
Once I had found His Incarnation on the great seat,
in the doorway of electrum,
and I myself was stretched out on my belly,
I no longer knew myself in his presence.
That god was addressing me amicably,
but I was like a man taken by obscurity,
my soul gone, my body limp.
My heart, that is not what was in my body,
that I might know life from death.
Sinuhe describes both his soul and his heart as having left his body. The
first absence leaves his body “limp,” as if lifeless, while the second de-
prives him of mental ability. In the case of the Debate, it is clearly the
first of these states that is envisioned in the soul’s threatened departure,
albeit a real death rather than a metaphorical one.
—————
7 Koch, Sinuhe, 73–74.
CHAPTER TWO
EPIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
The DEBATE BETWEEN A MAN AND HIS SOUL survives in a single

papyrus, now in the Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, Ber-
lin (pBerlin 3024), four fragments of which are now in the Morgan
Library and Museum, New York (pAmherst III).1 It was discovered
around 1830 in Thebes together with three other papyri now also in
Berlin: manuscripts B1 and B2 of the Tale of the Eloquent Peasant
(pBerlin 3023 and 3025, respectively), and manuscript B of the Story
of Sinuhe (pBerlin 3022).2 The four papyri were written by three dif-
ferent scribes (pBerlin 3022–3023 by a single scribe), probably during
the reign of Amenemhat III (ca. 1859–1813 BC).3 The correction in
cols. 113–15 of the papyrus and apparent misreadings of a hieratic
original in cols. 26 and 113 (see Section C, below) indicate that the
scribe copied this work from an earlier manuscript.4 The date of the
original composition is unknown, but features of its grammar place it
somewhat earlier than the extant papyrus, probably within the first half
of the Twelfth Dynasty (see Chapter Four).
The papyrus of the Debate varies in height from 15.9–16.4 cm
and is currently 326 cm long; an estimated 66 cm have been lost from
the beginning of the roll, giving an original length of some 392 cm.5
Only the first (right-hand) 284 cm were used for the text of the Debate.
—————
1 The analysis in this chapter is based on digital images, notes from a first-hand
inspection of the papyrus in the Berlin Museum and the fragments in the Morgan
Library and Museum, and the extensive discussion in Parkinson 2009, 88–89 and 107–
11. The Amherst fragments were published and analyzed by Parkinson (2003).
2 Parkinson 2009, 77–83.
3 Parkinson 2009, 76 and 89–90.
4 See Parkinson 2009, 107–109.
5 Parkinson 2009, 88; Parkinson 2003, 126–27. A height of 16 cm seems to have
been standard for Middle Kingdom literary papyri: Çerný 1952, 15.
10 CHAPTER TWO
That portion of the papyrus was constructed from one or two account
papyri originally some 32 cm high, cut in half horizontally.6 The ac-
counts were washed off, with the exception of some horizontal ruling
lines still visible in places. The reconstituted roll in this portion con-
sisted of eight sheets, inscribed with some 184 columns of text:7
1 blank margin of 21 cm and cols. *1–*15 (15 columns of text)
2 cols. *16–*29 and 1–14 (27½ columns of text)8
3 cols. 14–42 (28½ columns of text)
4 cols. 43–54 (12 columns of text)
8 cols. 137–155 (19 columns of text) and blank margin of 13 cm.
Sheets 1–4 are from the top half of an account papyrus; sheets 5–8,
from the bottom half of the same or another account papyrus. The end
of the papyrus consists of 2¼ additional sheets, 95 cm long, cut from a
papyrus containing the Tale of the Herdsman, partly erased.9 The scribe
may have intended to use this portion for a second, shorter text.10
Following Goedicke’s analysis, Parkinson has estimated the amount
of text lost at the beginning of the papyrus as some 29 columns.11 Part
of that text survives in the four fragments of pAmherst III. If Parkin-
son’s suggested placement of those fragments is correct, some eight
columns are missing before the first preserved column, *9 (Parkin-
—————
6 Parkinson 2009, 89. A height of 32 cm is standard for Middle Kingdom ac-
counts: Çerný 1952, 15.
7 All the text is written vertically, in columns. Column numbers with an asterisk
are those reconstructed as preceding col. 1 of the Berlin papyrus.

8 Col. 14 is written across the join between sheets 2 and 3.
9 See the facsimile in Lepsius 1859, pl. 112.
10 The entire roll was probably assembled at a single time: Parkinson 2009, 89.
Since the Berlin papyrus shows evidence of being copied from another literary manu-
script, the scribe would presumably have been able to estimate the approximate
length of papyrus he would need for his copy of the Debate.
11 Goedicke 1970, 83–84; Parkinson 2003, 126–27.
EPIGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 11
son’s Frag. I). The other three fragments contain parts of cols. *12–
*15 (Frag. L), *21–*23 (Frag. H), and *25–*28 (Frag. J–K).
1. scribal practice
The hieratic text of the Debate contains 3,260 preserved or partly-

preserved signs representing 215 separate hieroglyphs (see Appendix
Four).12 A few hieroglyphs have two hieratic counterparts:
FULL ABBREVIATED
(A1) (col. 64) (col. 74)
(B1) (col. 73) (col. 67)
(G1) (col. 77)

(col. 74 only)
(G17) (col. 67) (col. 68)13
(G41) (col. 50 only) (col. 92)
The consonant w is represented by both and , the former more

often than the latter (98 and 61 instances, respectively), and the latter
only with another sign in a group. Ligatures are relatively infrequent,
involving only 10% of all signs: 153 instances of 38 groups of two to
four signs, a total of 314 ligatured signs. Signs most often ligatured are
(72 instances), (70), (36), and (22); the other signs oc-
cur in ligatures from one to ten times each.
The text is written entirely in black ink, with the exception of
the colophon, which is in red (cols. 154–55). Vertical strokes made
with the scribe’s brush are generally 2 mm thick. Tall signs and hori-
—————
12 Including three monograms: , , and . Ten signs account for 43% of
the total: (254 instances, including ligatures), (210), (178), (123),
(full version, 119), (108), (107), (105), (99), and (full version, 99).
13 Only with another sign in a group.
12 CHAPTER TWO
zontal signs are usually slightly more than 1 cm high and wide, re-
spectively, but larger signs are not infrequent: for example, the seated
man at the end of col. 76 (3.5 cm high) and the crocodile in col. 75
(4.4 cm wide). The scribe dipped his pen on average once per column,
sometimes more. Re-inked signs are visible in cols. *26 (final ),14 100
( of ÿd), 131 (stroke of ), 132 ( at top), and 143 ( ).
The text is arranged in columns, as typically for Middle Kingdom
literary compositions. In hieroglyphic transcription, the full columns
vary from 15 to 29 signs (lowest and highest in cols. 153 and 141, re-
spectively), with an average of 21 signs per column. Words generally
are not divided between columns; in col. *25, the scribe has written
the final sign of the last word to the left of the column to avoid such a
split. In the 159 columns for which the end, beginning, or both, are
preserved, there are 31 instances of words divided between two col-
umns, slightly less than twenty percent of the total. These include:
division within the consonantal signs of a word:15
38–39 – spdw
47–48 – bæbæt
55–56 – wšb.f
56–57 – nœæt
57–58 – sjnd
70–71 – sqdwt
71–72 – wãt
80–81 – mšrwt
127–28 – ætp.kw
131–32 – hjmt
132–33 – ëntjw
148–49 – nsw
—————
Parkinson 2003, 125.
14
There are also two instances of division between the elements of a compound
15
word: 107–108 bw-nb and 145–46 rã-ãwt.

division between a word and one or more of its determinatives:
18–19 – jhm
19–20 – snÿm
29–30 – ãsf
63–64 – nnw
64–65 – œrj-tæ
94–95 – ãæzw
98–99 – grg
123–24 – šw
128–29 – ëq-jb
149–50 – ëã
division between a word and its determinatives and suffix:
6–7 – wzf.j
25–26 – mdw.j
49–50 – hjm.k
110–11 – ssbt.f
112–13 – snw.f
division between a word and its suffixes:
3–4 – wp.n.j
14–15 – [sn].f
17–18 – bæ.j
39–40 – [n].j
69–70 – šmw.f
2. corrections
The scribe made at least 52 emendations in the course of writing cols.

1–155 (none is visible in the fragments of cols. *1–*29). Most of
these (78%) appear in the final two-fifths of the text (cols. 94–155):
14 CHAPTER TWO
COLUMNS CORRECTIONS
1–31 0 (0%)
32–62 2 (4%)
63–93 10 (19%)
94–124 18 (35%)
125–155 22 (42%)
The majority of corrections occurs in the poems of cols. 86–147,
and some of the errors in this section probably derive from the repeti-
tive nature of the verses.16 The overall distribution, however, suggests
that the scribe was becoming tired or hasty, or both, as he neared the
end of his copy, and this in turn indicates that the papyrus was most
likely written in a single sitting.
Most of the corrections were made by erasing the erroneous signs,
but in some cases the scribe simply overwrote them. A number of the
emendations show that he reviewed his copy and checked it against his
original as he wrote. Observable corrections are the following:
47 erasure under mw œr
56 erased under , probably to allow insertion
of after subsequent signs were written
65 corrected to by erasing and overwriting
before writing following šw
67 second written over unerased
74 determinative of æq changed to by overwriting
77 of mst erased and overwritten with , probably after
the determinative was written
81 below erased and overwritten with , added
next to
86 erased below and overwritten with before
continuing
86 erased below and overwritten with before con-
tinuing
—————
16 As noted by Parkinson 2009, 109.

tinuing
92 incomplete erased below of bwæt and overwritten
with before continuing
93 erased below the of bëœ and overwritten with :
the scribe began rn.j too low in the column to accomodate
the 1s suffix, erased the r and wrote the word higher in the
column, re-inking part of the back arm of as well
94 altered to by eras-
ing and overwriting the last four signs before continuing
94 written over an erased — the scribe probably be-
gan the next verse, m(j.k bëœ rn.j), before realizing he had
omitted r ãæzw nw zšw œæm n.sn
96 first determinative of bëœ written over erased be-
fore continuing with
100 of rn.j written over erased before continuing with
mj.k
100 of jw.f written over erased
101 changed to by erasing and
overwriting second
102 determinative of bštw written over erased
106 erased below snnw.f — probably the beginning of 107 j(w
zf æq): the scribe “wrote the first sign, half washed it out
and left the line blank before writing the following verses”
(Parkinson 2009, 109)
107 of 107–108 bw-nb written over erased
111 the scribe wrote the left half of below the determinative
of jw, erased it and wrote the suffix before con-
tinuing with
112–13 snnw.f changed to snw.f by adding a third stroke to
113–15 a three-column erasure under btæw of 113 through ÿd.j of
115; Parkinson reads the erased words as those of 120–21
jbw ëwn nn wn jb n z rhn.tw œr.f (Parkinson 2009, 109)
16 CHAPTER TWO
117 changed to by erasing and overwriting be-

fore continuing with
118 erasure under ÿd.j
118 erasure at bottom of column — probably , aborted be-
ginning of 119 œtm (Parkinson 2009, 107)
120 of mjn written over erased
122 altered to by erasing and over-
17
writing with before continuing with
127 erasure under
128 erased and replaced by as determinative of mæjr
129 erased under
130 behind of pœw.fj erased (cf. the correction in col. 65)
130 inserted secondarily to the right of the of pœw.fj
131 corrected to by erasing and overwriting
131 of 131–32 hjmt written over erased
132 erased under mjn
133 erased after , overwritten by large plural strokes
136 of mjn written over erased — initially omitted
137 written over erased — the
scribe initially omitted jw (Parkinson 2009, 109)
tinuing
139 begun below , erased and overwritten with
before continuing with (Parkinson 2009, 109)
141 after æbb the scribe wrote , then erased
and overwrote it with ; he later
18
erased the second , leaving
—————
17 Parkinson offers a more complex analysis (2009, 107), perhaps based on the
spacing of the emended bookroll. The main part of this sign, however, is often posi-
tioned fairly far below the preceding one, to accommodate the dot representing the
ties: e.g., the determinative of mtt in col. 118.
18 This differs from Parkinson 2009, 109, where the erasure is analyzed as mææ jr.n.f
rnpwt ëšæt jt, to the bottom of the column. There is no erasure below the suffix sn, and
141 inserted secondarily to the left of the column end

142 final written over an aborted
145 first changed to by erasing the top
145 after wnn erased and overwritten with
147 of ÿdt.n written over erased ( initially omitted)
19
149 after erased and overwritten with
152 original after sæœ erased and overwritten with
153 original after ãny erased and overwritten with
153 original after wrd erased and overwritten by (Par-
kinson 2009, 111).
The greatest number of these corrections (18) involve altered spel-
lings, including five in which a verb-form has been emended: 94 œæm
to œæmw, 101 msdd.f to msdw.f, 117 jn.t(w) to jnn.tw, 131 pr to prt, and
147 ÿd.n to ÿdt.n. Another fourteen reflect errors in copying.
3. uncorrected errors and omissions
In addition to his corrections, the scribe also seems to have made a

number of errors that were not emended. Most of these involve
omissions:
49 sÿm.k written for sÿdm.k (as in cols. 44 and 46)
81 œjm.f written for œjmt.f
89 the preposition r, and probably also the noun st(j) omitted
before sbnw
—————
the right-hand tips of the original are still visible. Parkinson suggests that the
scribe intended to replace the erased second z with a pronominal suffix (mææ.f ), but
the erasure of the second z is less thorough than that of the original phrase.
19 Cf. Parkinson 2009, 109. I see no trace of the correction in 148 õææ noted by
Parkinson (2009, 109).

18 CHAPTER TWO
102 the preposition r omitted before dmj

102 the second and probably a determinative omitted in jty
106 ÿd.j n mj mjn omitted, despite space left for it (cf. Parkinson
2009, 109)
131 the preposition mj omitted before snb (note also the inser-
tion of an omitted jw earlier in the same column, discussed
in Section 2, above).
There are also six instances of clearly or possibly omitted or un-
written 1s suffixes (as opposed to 84 instances of written ). The
likeliest omission occurs in 12 jjt.(j), as indicated both by the context
and by the parallel in 19 jjt.j, where the suffix is written. Possible in-
stances are 13 ãæë.(j), 16 nœnw.(j), 52 jwëw.(j), 148 bæ.(j), and 148–49
nsw.(j), although these can be understood as written, without the suf-
fix (see the discussions in Chapter Three). The 1s suffix of 52
sn.j was added secondarily.20
In three instances there are also clear or possible errors in spelling
in the papyrus:
17 for — the scribe has omitted the ticks
(representing wings) that distinguish the abbreviated ver-
sion of from in his hand
92 perhaps for — æpsw is
otherwise unknown, and the scribe may have been influ-
enced by col. 82
113 for through misreading of a hieratic
original.
There is also one instance of dittography: jw.f at the bottom of
col. 100 repeated at the top of col. 101. The error may have been
conditioned by the erased under the jw.f of col. 100 (see Section
2, above), or by the change of columns, or both.
—————
Erman 1896, 38; overlooked by Faulkner 1956, 23, and in the transcriptions of
20
Barta 1969 and Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 45.

CHAPTER THREE
PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
The preserved text of the Debate contains four interchanges between

its two characters, the Man and his Soul. The missing beginning had
perhaps three more sections, including an introductory passage that
was probably spoken by the Man.1 In all, the divisions of the text can
be analyzed as follows:
*1–x Introduction (lost)
x–*12 The Soul’s first (preserved) speech
*12–y The Man’s first (preserved) speech2
y–3 The Soul’s second speech
3–55 The Man’s second speech
55–68 The Soul’s third speech: rebuttal
68–80 The Soul’s third speech: first parable
80–85 The Soul’s third speech: second parable
85–103 The Man’s third speech: first litany
103–30 The Man’s third speech: second litany
130–42 The Man’s third speech: third litany
142–47 The Man’s third speech: fourth litany
147–54 The Soul’s fourth speech
154–55 Colophon
The remainder of this chapter provides a hieroglyphic transcription,
transliteration, and relatively literal translation of each of these sec-
tions, with philological commentary. Epigraphic features, treated in
Chapter Two, are noted only where they have a bearing on the in-
terpretation of the text.
—————
1 Since the transitions in the text are all spoken by the Man, the same was prob-
ably true for the missing introduction.
2 Ending perhaps in col. *24 (see below).
20 CHAPTER THREE
1. introduction and the soul’s first speech (*1–*12)
*1–*8 (lost)
*9
[ … ÿ]wt
[ … ] evil.
(*9)
jrt st [ … ]
Doing it [ … ]
Assuming that the first word of col. *9 is correctly restored as [ÿ]wt,
that the final two signs are the dependent pronoun st, and that the
word preceding is the infinitive jrt rather than the imperfective parti-
ciple jrr, the preserved signs probably contain the end of one sentence
and the beginning of another, with st “it” referring to ÿwt “evil.”
*10–*12 (lost)
In Parkinson’s reconstruction (2003, 126), there is a gap of per-
haps two columns between his Frags. I and L, the latter containing
part of the final four columns of the first sheet.
(*12)
[ … wæœ].k mæ[jr.j]
[ … ] that you might set down my misery.
The suffix pronoun in this column may be the subject of a verb,
and the sign following, part of the word mæjr “need” that recurs in cols.
22 and 128. In col. 22, the “misery” is that of the Soul, while in col.
128 it is the Man’s. Both because the first of these is more proximate to
col. *12 and because of the dynamic of the text (discussed in Chapter
Six), it is possible that col. *12 contains the speech of the Soul, with
the suffix pronoun k addressed to the Man: thus, perhaps, as restored
here, based on col. 22 wæœ mæjr.j “set down my misery” (discussed in
Section 4, below). In that case, the trace above the suffix pronoun
belongs to a bookroll rather than to the r suggested by Parkinson.
PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS 21
2. the MAN’s first speech (cols. *12–Y)
*12–*13
[ÿdt.n.j n bæ.j]
What I said to my soul:
(*13)
wnwt pw [ … ]
It is the hour [ … ]
*14
[ … ] sw œr stæ[s.j … ]
[ … ] him, dragging me [ … ]
*15
[ … ]s[ … ]
[…]
*16–*24 (lost; traces in cols. *21 and *23; one sign and a trace pre-
served in *22)
If *14 stæ[ … ] is the verb meaning “drag,” as in col. 12 (there
written stæs), the parallel of the latter column suggests that the Man is
speaking here, in which case *14 sw may refer to the Soul (who is
also referred to in the third person in col. 12). A transitional text of
some sort is then lost in the lacuna of cols. *12–*13 or that of *13–
*14. There is not enough space in either lacuna for a full transition
such as that of cols. 3–4 and 85–86 jw wp.n.j r.j n bæ.j wšb.j ÿdt.n.f
“And I opened my mouth to my soul, that I might answer what he
had said,” but a shorter text such as that restored above would fit easily
(cf. 147–48 ÿdt.n n.j bæ “What the soul said to me”). Given the possi-
ble third-person reference to the Soul in *14, the transition to the
Man’s speech is likelier to have come in cols. *12–*13, making *13
wnwt pw [ … ] “It is the hour [ … ]”—or perhaps wnwt pw [næ nt … ]
“This is the hour of [ … ]”—the beginning of the Man’s statement.
In Parkinson’s reconstruction, col. *15 is the last on the first sheet
of the papyrus, and the first fourteen columns on the second sheet are
22 CHAPTER THREE
lost before col. 1 of pBerlin 3024 (the fifteenth column on the second
sheet). Within these fourteen columns, Parkinson has placed his Frags.
H (*21–*23) and J–K (*25–*28), with a gap of five columns before
Frag. H (*16–*20), one between Frags. H and J–K (*24), and one
(*29) between Frag. J–K and the Berlin papyrus. His placement of the
two fragments within the lost fourteen columns is conjectural but
feasible given the reconstructed location of his Frags. I and L: the two
sets of fragments would probably have been contiguous on the papy-
rus when it was rolled and could therefore have survived together.
3. the soul’s second speech (cols. Y–3)
Gardiner characterized oGardiner 369 as “Part of an unidentified lite-

rary text” and asked “could it be a lost part of that known as the
Lebensmüde …?”3 The text makes reference to a bæ “soul” (6b) and has
several intriguing statements that could easily belong to the Debate: jw.j
jsq.kw “I am hindered” (3b–4b), jw.j r õrt-nïr (4b) “I am for the necro-
polis,” mj.k æbj jb pæ ëœë œr tæ (4b–5b) “Look, what the heart desires is
the lifetime on earth,” and pæ bæ m õnw.st [œr ëq]w pr mr.[f] “The soul
inside it enters and emerges as it wants” (5b–6b). But its language is
literary Late Egyptian, pointing to a date of composition later than that
of the Debate. If the text is a later version of the Debate, however, it
most likely belongs to the Soul’s speech preceding col. *25: see below.
*25–*26
[ … ] œr zæw.t [ … ]
[ … ] face. Guard [ … ]
Parkinson (2003, 130–31) reads zæw.t(j) “Beware you,” but the
nouns zæwt “guard” or zæwt[j] “guardian” are also possible. He de-
scribes the traces above the first sign of this word as “Apparently a
single stroke (as at the top of 24), preceded by a sign ending in a di-
agonal stroke” (2003, 129). These likely represent (cf. col. 143).
—————
3 Çerný and Gardiner 1957, 24: see Appendix Three, below.
The two words could be part of the final phrase of oGardiner 369: œr
zæw r n.[j] “guarding the mouth for me.” Col. *25 zæwt, however, is
not the infinitive of 3ae-inf. zæj/zæw, which is zæt in Old and Middle
Egyptian (Urk. I, 278, 10, and 290, 3; CT VI, 70b, 83c, 84l). This
indicates that the parallel is illusory, and that *25 [œr] and zæw.t(j) be-
long to two separate clauses or sentences.
*26–*27
m]j r.k sbæ.j tw [ …
Come, then, that I may instruct you [ …
(*27)
… ].k jãrw n jmnt
… ] you [ … ] the hostile nature of the West.
The initial statement is most likely part of a speech of the Soul,
since the Man’s role in the text is defensive rather than didactic. The
sentence may have continued in col. *27 with [r … ] “about [ … ]”
(Wb. IV, 84, 8–12).
The reference in col. *27 to jãrw n jmnt “the hostile nature of the
West” (for which, see Parkinson 2003, 131–32) might seem better
suited to the Man’s rejection of death at this point in the text, but the
lost verb could have been something such as [nn snÿ].k “you shall not
fear” (for snÿ used transitively, see CT IV, 123b; VII, 263b). Col. *25
then probably belongs to the Soul’s speech as well, and a transitional
statement as in cols. 55–56 occurred somewhere between *15 and *25.
*28 (beginning lost)
*28–*29
jw z [ … ]
For a man [ … ]
*29 (lost)
1
[j]w.n r ÿd [m mæët m ÿæÿæt]
We are to speak truly in the tribunal:
24 CHAPTER THREE
The traces at the beginning of col. 1 have been read previously as

those of the 2pl pronoun . Some instances of are very large in
this scribe’s hand (e.g., col. 11 mj.tn), but the spacing indicates that if
the first preserved sign is , another low sign has been lost at the top
of the column above it. Compared with other examples of , the trace
in col. 1 also has a less acute angle. Both that feature and the spacing
indicate that the sign is instead , probably with a reed-leaf lost to its
right (compare the arrangement of jw grt in col. 6), yielding the adver-
bial-predicate future [j]w.n r ÿd “we are to speak.” The restoration of
the remainder of the column is purely conjectural (cf. Wb. V, 620, 20;
CT VII, 112t), based on the preserved text, the size of the lacuna, and
the need for a referent of the 3pl pronoun of ns.sn in cols. 2 and 3.
2
nj nmë.n [ns.s]n
their tongue cannot be biased.
2–3
[j]w r õæ[b m] dbæw
It would be crooked in return.
(3)
nj nmë.n ns.sn
Their tongue cannot be biased.
The word ÿbæw “exchange” normally appears as object of the pre-
position m, which can be restored at the bottom of col. 2; with õæ[b],
the column would have been about as long as col. 18. Most translations
have accepted Faulkner’s restoration õæ[bb] (1956, 30 n. 2), based on
Peas. B1 138 and preferable to Goedicke’s õæ (1970, 86–87),4 which
seems to mean “resist” (Wb. I, 361, 6) rather than his “rebuke.” The
word may be the infinitive, however, rather than Faulkner’s noun. The
unexpressed subject is probably the situation of partiality, and the un-
—————
Followed by Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 23. Their restoration [j]w r õæ[y] is
4
too short for the available space.

expressed referent of [m] dbæw, “speaking truly” or the like (see the
preceding note). For the tribunal speaking, cf. CT V 209e/k/o.
4. the man’s second speech (cols. 3–55)
3–4
jw wp.n.j r.j n bæ.j
And I opened my mouth to my soul
(4)
wšb.j ÿdt.n.f
that I might answer what he had said:
5
jw næ wr r.j m mjn
This has become too much for me today:
5–6
nj mdw bæ.j œnë.j
my soul has not spoken in accord with me.
Most translations have followed Erman (1896, 20) in understanding
mdwj œnë as “converse with” (Wb. II, 179, 9). Suys, however, inter-
preted it as “agree with” (1932, 59 and n. 1, followed by Scharff 1937,
12 and 13 n. 2; van de Walle 1939, 312; Weill 1947, 116; Junker 1948,
220; Jacobsohn 1952, 10 and 11 n. 1; Parkinson 1997, 155; Tobin
2003, 179; Haller 2004, 14). This is superior both to the usual interpre-
tation and to Faulkner’s “argue with” (1956, 21 and 30 n. 4; also
Goedicke 1970, 88–89; Mathieu 2000, 23). Scharff points out that the
Soul is in fact “speaking with” the Man, and Faulkner himself notes
that “arguing is apparently just what the soul has been doing.” Al-
though mdwj œnë normally denotes a conversation, with the extended
connotation of argument (as English “have words with”), the context
seems to demand Suys’s interpretation of œnë as “in accord with.” This
sense appears elsewhere in the text: 40 twt œnë “be in accord with,” 114
jrj œnë “act (in accord) with,” 126 šm œnë “walk (in accord) with.”
26 CHAPTER THREE
(6)
jw grt wr r ëbë
It is also too much to exaggerate:
6–7
jw mj wzf jmt.f šm bæ.j
my soul going is like one who ignores what he is in.
As Erman noted (1896, 19 n. 3), the space at the top of col. 7 is
too small for the sign that normally determines wzf before the
walking legs, unless that sign projected abnormally high above the adja-
cent column tops. The two preserved traces suit (for ), which
is a feasible determinative for the transitive sense of the verb, although
apparently not attested elsewhere.
The group below the seated man is almost certainly jm; the m is
lower than the reed-leaf because of the bottom flourish of the seated-
man sign above. The traces below jm have been read as ever
since Sethe’s suggested restoration (1927, 44, 2). The papyrus, how-
ever, shows a clear, free-standing below the reed-leaf of jm,
with a short horizontal trace to its left, below the m of the same
group. These cannot represent : they are separated by a preserved
blank space and are written too close to jm to accommodate the
“hump” of the sign. The right-hand trace can only represent
(cf. col. *13). The left-hand one is most likely the head of (cf. the
arrangement in col. 146): the two traces below and to its left, extend-
ing into col. 8, are part of the tail; the latter accounts for the gap that
intervenes before the šm-sign that follows.
The resulting jmt.f must be a nisbe and the object of the preced-
ing verb. Since it is the Soul who is “ignoring” the Man, the verb
must be participial wzf “one who ignores” rather than infinitival wzf.j
“my ignoring”; the seated man occurs as determinative of a participle
in 25 zõæ, 117 jr, 131 mr, and 139 sãt; also plural 60 qdw, 62 sqdw, and
63–64 nnw. The nisbe can mean both “what is in him” and “what he
is in,” but the latter makes more sense in the context, probably refer-
ring to the qsnwt “difficulties” cited in cols. 10 and 15.
Given both the context and the following clause, šm bæ.j is not
likely to mean “my soul should go.” Instead, it is probably a noun
clause in apposition to the unexpressed subject of the preceding clause.
The unusual construction may have been conditioned by the fact that
jw šm bæ.j could be understood as “My soul goes” (at least, in writing).
(7)
ëœë.f n.j œr.s
He should attend to it for me,
The spelling of the preposition œr indicates that the following s is
a suffix pronoun, the referent of which is probably the preceding jmt.s.
Translations have generally regarded the relationship between ëœë.f
and n.j as primary, most following Erman (1896, 20) in understanding
the passage to connote support (“stand by me, stand for me”), with
others opting for the alternate sense “wait for me”5 (Suys 1932, 59;
Wilson 1969, 405; Bresicani 1999, 199). Faulkner saw œr.s as the pri-
mary adjunct, translating “that it may attend to it for me” (1956, 21
and 30 n. 7; followed by Lichtheim 1973, 104; Renaud 1991, 23;
Mathieu 2000, 23).6 This is supported by the clear use of ëœë œr with
this meaning in cols. 42–43 (see below).
8
[snnw].j w[jn ënã].f
my second, who [rejects] his [life].
The upper half of col. 8 is lost except for traces. The first was hesi-
tantly read by Faulkner as (1956, 22). The traces below it are almost
certainly the right and left sides of the seated-man sign. Since there
seems to be no word ending in that would be followed directly by
the seated man (either as determinative or 1s suffix pronoun), Faulk-
—————
Wb. I, 220, 5: identified there as “Nä.,” but clear or likely earlier examples are
5
Pyr. 439a, 671a–b, Nt 708; also, later, pWestcar 8, 4.

6 Variant translations are those of Goedicke (1970, 89 “it shall respect me in-
stead”: Wb. I, 218, 11), Haller (2004, 8 “er soll mir in dieser Sache Rede und
Antwort stehen”), and Quirke (2004, 130 “but resists me for it”).
28 CHAPTER THREE
ner’s reading is doubtful. The traces may represent instead , which

suggests the noun snnw “second”; the spelling in col. 106 would fill
the lacuna to the top of the column, with the seated man as 1s suffix.
Below the seated man is a clear, though faint, -shaped trace at
the right of the column, most likely for . The position suggests a
sign to its left. Of various possibilities, the likeliest is perhaps a reed-
leaf, which suggests in turn the verb wjn “reject,” albeit with a slightly
different grouping than in col. 151; a trace below would suit the upper
right tip of the -sign.7 This leaves about one group before the top
of the preserved , too little for sn “brother” but sufficient for the
restoration suggested here, which would also suit the traces to the
column’s right and left.
(8)
nn dj.t õæ.f wj
He will not be allowed to resist me,
The signs following are clear as regards , , , ,
8
and the final ; the preserved sign before is almost certainly
rather than Faulkner’s suggested (1956, 22). The crux of
the passage is the traces between and (drawn at
right). Goedicke’s proposed of ëÿæ (1970, 90) is impossible
(cf. col. 112), and there is no other verb ë…æ (or ë…m) that
suits the traces. The likeliest alternative is that belongs to a sepa-
rate word, undoubtedly dj; the trace just below it can be read as the
of the passive suffix t(w). The remaining trace best suits the -sign
(cf. cols. 96 and 99) of the verb õæj “resist, thwart” (Wb. III, 361, 6: cf.
CT I, 154c). Since this verb takes a direct object, the small trace just
above the final seated man is most likely the tail of the of wj; the
sign is tucked under and right of the diagonal of the preceding .
—————
7 The verb is used with reflexive dative in col. 151, but there is no trace of the
tail of a reflexive n.f here.
8 The last seen by Goedicke (1970, 90), though not included in his hieroglyphic
transcription. The fragment at the bottom left of col. 8 is mounted a millimeter too
low. Its uppermost trace is the tail of .
9
ÿr ntt.f m õt.j m šnw nwœ
since he is in my belly in a rope mesh:
Goedicke (1970, 91) restored the traces at the top of col. 9 as
, accepted in some studies (Tobin 1991, 345; Foster 1992,
11; Parkinson 1997, 155). The initial vertical trace could well be part
of , but those following (before that of , which is clear) do not
suit Goedicke’s reading. The horizontal that he saw as part of
does not have the angled back of all other instances of that sign in the
papyrus, and the two strokes he read as those of do not match
those of the nine examples of that sign in the papyrus (particularly its
right-hand stroke, which is always thin, long, and angled right to left).
Since the horizontal trace is not part of , the initial vertical
probably does not belong to , which is always followed by in
this text. Similar verticals, with the tapered bottom seen in this in-
stance, occur in examples of , , , the second reed-leaf of , the
single vertical stroke (Z1), and the ligature representing ; the hori-
zontal trace below looks most like the left end of or . Of these
possibilities, the only combination that seems feasible here is fol-
lowed by . The right-hand element of the third set of traces is
then most likely part of a ligatured (cf. col. 15), and the left-hand
stroke represents a second , yielding the conjunction ÿr ntt.9
The literal meaning of m šnw nwœ is clear, undoubtedly referring
to the net in which birds were captured.10 This in turn identifies the
referent of the pronoun f as most likely the Soul (reflecting both its
avian nature and its hieroglyphic spelling). The passage is a metaphor
for the relationship of the Soul to the Man during life.
—————
9 For ÿr ntt with a suffix pronoun, cf. Malaise and Winand, Grammaire, § 138. ntt
also appears in col. 28 as a ligature of three vertical signs, but in that instance it is
followed by a noun rather than a suffix pronoun.
10 Cf. Caminos, Literary Fragments in the Hieratic Script, pl. 13A, 7 (šnw nw jædt.k
“the meshes of your net”); also CT 474, which speaks of the nwœw “ropes” of the
jædt “net” used for œæm “fowling” (CT VI, 17e/18i; 23 l–m/24j).
30 CHAPTER THREE
9–10
nn ãpr m ë.f rwj.f hrw qsnwt
that he leave on a day of difficulties will not happen to him.
The verb rwj is normally intransitive in Middle Kingdom texts
(Wb. II, 406, 2) but can also be used transitively (Wb. II, 406, 16–17).
Translations have adopted one or the other of these senses: the for-
mer, first by Erman (1896, 20); the latter, which Erman suggested as
an alternative (1896, 21), first by Faulkner (1956, 21 and 31 n. 9).11
The expression ãpr m ë can denote what happens to someone as well
as through their agency (Wb. III, 262, 19/21).12 Although either inter-
pretation is defensible here, the second has been generally adopted.
The initial verb ãpr has usually been understood as a sÿm.f with
the rwj.f clause as its subject and the pronouns referring to the Soul:
e.g., “It shall not happen to him that he flees on the day of affliction”
(Assmann 1998, 390). Gunn, however, saw it as the participial subject
of a negative existential statement, to which the pronouns then refer:
i.e, “There is no one through whose agency it will happen that he
leave on” (or “deflect”) “a day of difficulties.”13 The parallel of col. 8
nn dj.t õæ.f wj “He will not be allowed to resist me” favors the more
usual interpretation, and that of col. 7 šm bæ.j “my soul going,” the
intransitive meaning of rwj.f.
—————
11The transitive use, however, does not have the sense of “escape” proposed by
Faulkner, but rather that of “leave” with respect to a place or office (Wb. II, 406, 16–
17) or with causative sense, as in Sin. B 62 nn wn rwj ëœæw.f “there is no one who can
deflect his arrows”: Koch, Sinuhe, 36, 1. This sense also suits the instance cited by
Faulkner (1956, 31 n. 9): TR 19, 21 = CT IV, 117a. In his subsequent translation of
the CT passage, Faulkner opted for the intransitive: Coffin Texts, I, 241.
12 E.g., ShS. 21–23 sÿd.j r.f n.k mjtt jrj ãpr m ë.j ÿs.j “So, let me relate to you
something similar that happened to me myself”; Louvre C1 17–19 jr mdt t(n) nt wÿt
pn mtt pw nt ãprt m ë.j jrt.n.(j) pw m wn mæë “As for this speech of this stela, it is the
witness of what happened through my agency: it is what I actually did”: Blackman,
Middle Egyptian Stories, 42, 7; Clère, JEA 24 (1938), 242.
13 Gunn, Studies, 145 and n. 1; followed by Scharff 1937, 14 n. 9; van de Walle
1939, 312; von der Wense 1949, 67.

The phrase hrw qsnwt “day of difficulties” has generally been seen
as a euphemism for death.14 The evidence assembled by Vandier, how-
ever, does not indicate that it is anything more than an expression for
times of hardship, like the analogous term rnpt qsnt “difficult year,”
which cannot be interpreted as a similar euphemism.15 Cols. 7–10 as a
whole record the Man’s determination that the Soul not abandon him
but face hardship with him.
11
mj.tn bæ.j œr tht.j
But look, my soul is leading me astray.
This is the only demonstrable instance of the second-person plural
pronoun in the papyrus and, since Erman’s initial study (1896, 8), it
has long been thought to reflect an audience to the debate, established
in the poem’s now-lost beginning. Although it is conceivable that
such an audience was specified in the missing portions of cols. *1–
*11, the beginning of this section (cols. 3–4) clearly indicates that the
Man is speaking only to the Soul. Since the plural pronoun has no
obvious referent, it is probably used here to avoid the specificity of
the singular, as Sethe suggested (1927, 61), perhaps also with the
poem’s “readership” in mind. A similar usage of mj.tn occurs in the
context of an address to one person in MuK 1, 7.16
The verb thj used transitively with the object of a person can
mean either “assail, violate” (Wb. V, 319, 20) or “lead astray” (Wb.
V, 320, 5). Early translations rendered it with the first of these mean-
ings, but since Faulkner (1956, 21) it has usually been translated with
the second, based on two clear passages in the Story of Sinuhe: th.n.f r
kt ãæst (Sin. B 148–49) “one whom he led astray to a different land,”
bæk th.n jb.f r ãæswt ÿrÿryt (Sin. B 202) “a servant whom his heart led
—————
First proposed by Scharff 1937, 14 n. 10. See especially Goedicke 1970, 92,
14
and Parkinson 1997, 161 n. 4.

15 Vandier, Famine, 61–64. Brunner-Traut (1967, 7–8) reached a similar conclusion.
16 A. Erman, Zauberspruch für Mutter und Kind aus dem Papyrus 3027 des Berliner
Museums (APAW; Berlin, 1901), 10.

32 CHAPTER THREE
astray to strange lands.”17 This sense is indicated by the remainder of

the Man’s second speech, which the statement of col. 11 introduces.
11–12
nj sÿm.n.j n.f
I cannot listen to him
(12)
œr stæs.j r mt nj jjt.(j) n.f
because of dragging me to death before I have come to it,
Since Erman (1896, 22), the verb stæs here and in col. 70 has been
generally interpreted as a variant of sïæ “drag,” despite its final s. The
verb also occurs with this writing and meaning in Sin. B 230 nïr šæw
wërt tn œr stæs.j “the god who decided this flight was dragging me,” for
which the parallel in AOS 34 has stæ.18 Suys’s suggestion that the verb
here is an error for æs “hasten” (1932, 59 n. 2; followed by Lurie 1939,
143; Weill 1947, 116, and Quirke 2004, 131) requires an unnecessary
emendation. Scharff’s “strive” (1937, 12; also van de Walle 1939, 312;
Junker 1948, 220; von der Wense 1949, 67; Foster 1992, 12) demands
an intransitive use, not attested for sïæ before the New Kingdom (Wb.
IV, 353). As noted by Scharff (1937, 15 n. 13), the verb’s determina-
tives do not support a form of sï(æ)z “lie on the back” (Wb. IV, 362, 9–
12; Wb. med. 822–23), though understood as such by Jacobsohn (1952,
11) and Goedicke (1970, 93). Since the verb is transitive, stæs.j must be
the infinitive with pronominal object, as it is commonly understood.
The prepositional phrase œr stæs.j r mt has been universally taken as
a second predicate parallel to 11 œr tht.j (“and dragging me to death”),
but the intervening nj sÿm.n.j n.f is normally an independent construc-
—————
Koch, Sinuhe, 54, 1, and 63, 9. There is no evidence to recommend the singular
17
renderings of Brunner-Traut 1967, 10 “rebelliert”; Goedicke 1970, 92 “disobeying”;

Lalouette 1984, 221 “m’abandonnait”; Foster 1992, 12 “defames”; Assmann 1998,
390 “resists”; Lohmann 1998, 214 “übergehen”; and Tobin 2003, 179 “deceive.”
18 Koch, Sinuhe, 68, 1–2. The verb appears as stæ in Sin. B 248 (stæw) and as ideo-
graphic in Sin. B 248 (stæ.j = AOS [st]æs.j) and B 264. Faulkner (1956, 31 n. 11) has
suggested that the final s is spurious.
tion, making this less likely than a phrase giving the reason why “I
cannot listen to him.” A parenthetic aside, however, is also possible,
along the lines of Parkinson’s “though I do not listen to him” (1997,
155), in which case the usual understanding of œr stæs.j r mt is feasible.
Both the context and the parallel in col. 19 indicate that the first-
person suffix pronoun is omitted after jjt.19 The text observes the nor-
mal Middle Egyptian distinction between the negations nj and nn,
which rules out an infinitival expression “without coming” as well as
Lohmann’s “ohne daß ein Unwillkommenes meiner dabei möglich
wird” (1998, 214–15 and n. 36).
13
œr ãæë.(j) œr ãt r smæmt.j
because of throwing me on the fire to incinerate me.
The suffix pronoun of smæmt.j implies an unwritten one in
ãæë.(j), as generally understood.20 This clause can also be understood
as a reason for 11–12 nj sÿm.n.j n.f, although here the circumstantial
“throwing me” is also possible. The parallel with 12 stæs.j r mt indi-
cates that the Soul is to be understood as the agent of the infinitive, as
also generally understood.
Scharff interpreted the passage as a statement of the Man’s inten-
tion to commit suicide by self-immolation (1937, 12), understanding
the 1s suffixes as reflexive. This has not won general support (followed
only by Lurie 1939, 143; van de Walle 1939, 312; Junker 1948, 220;
von der Wense 1949, 67; Jacobsohn 1952, 11; Foster 1992, 12). The
rest of this section, which clearly describes the Man as resisting death,
demands a metaphorical interpretation rather than a literal one, as in
—————
19See L. Zonhoven, in Essays in Honour of Herman te Velde, II, 396–98. Goedicke’s
interpretation (1970, 94 nj jjt.n.f ) is grammatically impossible. The 1s suffix is normally
written in this text but is perhaps also omitted in 13 ãæë.(j) and 53 jwëw.(j) (see below).
20 Williams’s “offering sacrifice” (1962, 53) has been accepted only by Lohmann
(1998, 215) and makes little sense here. Goedicke interprets ãæë as the infinitive with
passive sense, also without the first-person pronoun (1970, 94–95 “being cast”). This
is possible grammatically but less likely in the context.
34 CHAPTER THREE
col. 9 ÿr ntt.f m õt.j m šnw nwœ “since he is in my belly in a rope

mesh.” The “fire” determinative identifies smæmt.j as a form of caus.
2-lit. sæm “burn” rather than of 3-lit. smæ “kill”; the same spelling
occurs in CT IV, 263a. The verb form could be the sÿmt.f “until I am
burned up” (as understood by Williams 1962, 53; Goedicke 1970, 95;
and Mathieu 2000, 23) rather than the infinitive.
14
ptr mnt.f [ …f]
What is his suffering, that he should [ … ],
14–15
œr [rdjt] sæ.f r [sn].f
giving his back to his brother?
Goedicke’s reading of the second word in col. 14 as mnt.f “his
suffering” (1970, 96, based on Erman 1896, 21) makes eminent sense
of the traces.21 The first word, however, is not Goedicke’s jwtt “with-
out that” but the interrogative ptr “what,” as Quack has seen (1995,
185); there is not enough space for the initial [ãr] suggested by Chioffi
and Rigamonti (2007, 28).
The lacuna that follows probably contained two verbal expres-
sions before sæ.f, the first perhaps a subjunctive sÿm.f and the second
œr [rdjt] “giving.”22 The lacuna at the bottom of col. 14 requires a
word large enough to postpone the 3ms suffix to the next column: sn
“brother,” written as in col. 52, fits the space and the common use of
rdj sæ r and provides an antithesis for the next sentence.
(15)
tk.f jm.j hrw qsnwt
He should be near me on a day of difficulties,
—————
21As understood by Tobin (1991, 346, but not 2003, 179–80), Foster (1992, 12),
Parkinson (1997, 155), and Quirke (2004, 131). Parkinson’s translation “What is he
like” indicates that he has read the determinative as rather than , but the
trace is better suited to the latter.
22 There is a trace of the right edge of . For the idiom, see Wb. IV, 9, 11.
16
ëœë.f m pf gs mj jr-nœnw
that he may stand on yon side like a eulogy-maker,
Pyr. 326b and 355c provide a parallel for ëœë m gs “stand on a side”
of the river. Goedicke’s reading of the final word in col. 16 as nœnw
“eulogy” (1970, 97) is undoubtedly correct (followed by Lalouette
1984, 221; Tobin 1991, 346; Foster 1992, 12; Parkinson 1997, 155;
Mathieu 2000, 23). The seated-man sign at the end is probably the de-
terminative of a compound jr-nœnw “eulogy-maker,” although it could
also represent the 1s suffix of jr nœnw.j “one who makes my eulogy.”
As in cols. 7–10, the Man is arguing that the Soul should not abandon
him; the sense her is apparently that he will then be able to welcome
the Man after death (“yon side”) as a friend rather than antagonist.
17
pæ js pw prr
for that is the sort who goes forth
(17)
jn.f sw r.f
and brings himself to it.
The sense of this passage is unclear, in part because of the “charac-
teristically Egyptian ambiguity” of its four pronouns (Faulkner 1956, 31
n. 16). Since js links the statement to the preceding as a dependent
clause, the demonstrative pæ may refer to the kind of soul described in
those clauses, as most studies have assumed. Its more immediate refe-
rent, however, is jr-nœnw “eulogy-maker.” The imperfective participle
prr implies either repetitive or normative action. In the first instance,
the statement may refer to the soul’s daily emergence from the tomb,
as understood by Faulkner (1956, 31 n. 16), Tobin (1991, 345 n. 24),
and Mathieu (2000, 34 n. 14). If the referent is jr-nœnw, however, the
context here indicates normative action: i.e., a reference to “going
forth” from east to west by the “eulogy-maker” at the funeral, mirror-
ing the preceding ëœë.f m pf gs “that he may stand on yon side.”
36 CHAPTER THREE
The verb jn.f has usually been understood to express either conco-
mitant action or purpose or result, but its form suits only the first of
these.23 If pæ … prr refers to jr-nœnw, the pronominal subject of jn.f must
do so as well. The referent of r.f is probably col. 16 pf gs “yon side,”
since jnj r normally is used of “bringing” something “to” a place (e.g.,
ShS. 71, 84, 109, 114); the pronominal object sw, then, can only be
reflexive. The verb jnj is attested with a reflexive pronoun in the sense
of “conduct oneself,”24 but the present instance seems to demand the
more literal sense “bring oneself.”
The passage as a whole expounds on the Soul’s desire for death as a
release from a “day of difficulties” and reiterates the theme of the “soul
going” in cols. 6–10. It argues that the Soul should “stand on yon side”
only at the proper time, like a eulogist at a funeral.
17–18
bæ.j wãæ r sdœ æh œr ënã
My soul has become too foolish to suppress pain in life,
The initial bæ.j wãæ has been understood in three ways: as a voca-
tive followed by an adjectival predicate (Scharff 1937, 12 “Meine
Seele, es ist töricht”; similarly, Lurie 1939, 143; van de Walle 1939,
312; Weill 1947, 106; von der Wense 1949, 68; Jacobsohn 1952, 11;
Thausing 1957, 263; Barta 1969, 21; Lalouette 1984, 221; Renaud
1991, 23; Lohmann 1998, 215), as a vocative with modifying adjec-
tive (Faulkner 1956, 27 “O my soul, who art too stupid”; similiarly,
Williams 1962, 53; Wilson 1969, 405; Lichtheim 1973, 164; Parkin-
son 1997, 155; Bresciani 1999, 199; Haller 2004, 14; Quirke 2004,
—————
23Lichtheim (1973, 164) and Goedicke (1070, 97–98) understood it as a state-
ment of past action, but the spelling does not suit the sÿm.n.f and the perfective sÿm.f
is normally used only after the negation nj in Middle Egyptian. Jacobsohn interpreted
jn.f sw r.f as relative “und zu dem er sich bringen soll” (1952, 11 and 12 n. 11; similarly,
Haller 2004, 14), with jn.f sw referring to the Soul and r.f referring to Erman’s nœpw
(1896, 23) at the end of col. 16. The reading nœnw, however, makes this interpreta-
tion unlikely.
24 E.g., Heqanakht II 28 jnn.ïn ïn m jb qn “you should conduct yourselves with
diligent heart”: Allen, Heqanakht, 17.

131), or as a subject–stative construction (Suys 1932, 60 “Mon âme

est insensée”; similarly, Goedicke 1970, 98–99; Tobin 1991, 345;
Assmann 1998, 390; Mathieu 2000, 23; Tobin 2003, 180; Chioffi and
Rigamonti 2007, 30).25 The interpretation depends largely on how
18–19 jhm and 19–20 snÿm are understood (discussed below).
The verb sdœ is undoubtedly causative “sink” (Wb. IV, 371, 6–7),
despite its determinative, as noted first by Weill (1947, 106 n. 1); the
determinative reflects the mental or verbal nature of the action in this
context. The phrase æh œr ënã was initially understood as participial
(Erman 1896, 25 “einen Trauernden im Leben”), but since Faulkner’s
study it has been largely interpreted as his “misery in life” (1956, 27),
which is partly supported by the fact that æh does not have a seated-
man determinative. Parkinson’s understanding of œr as causal (“the
sorrow which is due to life”: 1997, 155) is also possible.
18–19
jhm wj r mt nj jjt.j n.f
one who prods me toward death before I have come to it,
The verb jhm/hjm (Wb. I, 118, 18) occurs with this determinative
only in this text (also 40–50 hjm.k wj r mt). Its sense has been inter-
preted in two different ways, largely dependent on whether the Man
is viewed as rejecting or advocating death at this point: persuasion
(Erman 1896, 25, and most subsequent studies) or dissuasion (Sethe
1927, 63; Scharff 1937, 12; van de Walle 1939, 312; von der Wense
1949, 68; Faulkner 1956, 27; Goedicke 1970, 98–99; Foster 1992, 12;
Assmann 1998, 390, and 2005, 385; Bresciani 1999, 199; Chioffi and
Rigamonti 2007, 30). Of the two, the first is almost certainly correct.
The verb from which Scharff derived the second, “go slowly” (Wb. I,
118, 19), is not used transitively and has a different determinative (
); a better correlate is the later verb “prod” (Wb. II, 490,
6). The clause nj jjt.j n.f “before I have come to it” makes less sense
—————
25 Erman (1896, 25) and Maspero (1907, 126) interpreted bæ.j wãæ as a voca-
tive followed by an imperative but were not aware of the meaning of the verb.
38 CHAPTER THREE
with the notion of dissuasion, and the clear parallel of col. 12 argues
for the more common reading. The verb form jhm is best understood
as a participle appositive to the initial bæ.j, as seen by Faulkner (1956,
27) and most subsequent studies.26
19–20
snÿm n.j jmnt
who sweetens the West for me:
This clause has been understood as an imperative addressed to the
Soul, with a few exceptions “me faire une peinture agréable l’Hadès”
(Maspero 1907, 126); “elle m’adoucit (la perspective de) l’Occident”
(Suys 1932, 60); “The West can cause (only) pleasantness to me”
(Goedicke 1970, 99–100; followed by Tobin 2003, 180); “But the
West will be made pleasant for me” (Tobin, 1991, 346; followed by
Mathieu 2000, 23, and Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 30–31). None
of these interpretations, however, suits the context in this part of the
composition, where the Man is clearly arguing against death.27 Rather
than an imperative, snÿm can be understood as a participle describing
the Soul: the clause is then a parallel expression to the preceding jhm
wj r mt. In that case, the initial bæ.j is not vocative, and wãæ is most
likely the stative rather than an adjective or adjectival predicate.
(20)
jn jw qsnt pw
“Is it something difficult?
—————
Understood as an imperative by Erman (1896, 25), Weill (1947, 1906), Jacob-
26
sohn (1952, 11), Lalouette (1984, 221), Foster (1992, 12), Assmann (1998, 390), and
Lohmann (1998, 215). Thausing (1957, 263) understood the participle as referring to
æh rather than bæ.j: “die Lebensmüdigkeit, die mich zu Tode treibt.” Cols. 11–13,
however, clearly indicate that it is the Soul who is prodding the Man toward death.
Haller’s “ein Bekümmerter bin ich” (2004, 14) is grammatically impossible.
27 Although Thausing (1957, 263) suggests that the Man is urging the Soul to
“sweeten the West” by letting him die at the proper time rather than prematurely.
20–21
põrt pw ënã
Life is a cycle;
(21)
jw ãtw ãr.sn
trees fall.
21–22
ãnd r.k œr jsft
Tread, then, on disorder,
(22)
wæœ mæjr.j
set down my misery.
Since these lines are an argument for death, at this point in the text
they are more appropriate to the Soul than the Man and therefore best
understood as the content of the Soul’s “prodding” and “sweetening,”
cited without an introductory m ÿd “saying” or the like. The question
jn jw qsnt pw is a rare Middle Egyptian example of jw before a sentence
with nominal predicate;28 pw undoubtedly refers to 19 mt “death.”
The final clause is capable of several interpretations. The verb
may be transitive “lay, set, offer, add” or intransitive “last” (Wb. I,
253–57); the noun could be mær “miserable one” (Wb. II, 30, 2) or
mær.j “my misery” (Wb. II, 30, 4). Most translations have understood
the verb as intransitive (exceptions are Weill 1947, 116; Lichtheim
1973, 164; Lalouette 1984, 221; Renaud 1991, 23; Tobin 1991, 346;
Foster 1992, 12; Parkinson 1997, 155; Haller 2004, 14; Quirke 2004,
131; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 31). The noun was first under-
stood as mær, without suffix, but since Faulkner (1957, 27) has largely
been translated like his “my misery” (except by Herrmann 1957, 72;
Williams 1962, 54; Lohmann 1998, 215). Most studies since Lich-
theim have followed the sense of her translation “put down my
—————
28 See Silverman, Interrogative Constructions, 85–86.
40 CHAPTER THREE
misery,” which seems best suited to the context. The use of wæœ with
an abstract noun is also attested in an Old Kingdom letter.29
23–24
wÿë wj ÿœwtj œtp nïrw
Let Thoth judge me and the gods become content;
Cols. 23–27 contain a series of four statements referring to the
judgment after death, and therefore probably also part of the Soul’s
“prodding.” As part of his argument, he urges the Man to let the gods
decide whether his wish for death is wrong.
Thoth appears as recorder in the judgment scene of the Book of
the Dead but also as judge: the text in front of Thoth in Fig. 1 reads,
in part, jw wÿë.n.(j) jb n jsjrt jw bæ.f ëœë m mtr r.f “I have judged the
heart of Osiris, as his soul stood in witness to him.”30
Following Erman (1896, 28), translations have generally inter-
preted œtp nïrw as transitive “who pacifies the gods” (cf. Wb. III, 192,
1), but that expression is attested elsewhere only as an epithet of a god
in the fifth hour of the Amduat (LäGG V, 575–76), although Thoth
is called jmj œtp nïrw in CT I, 27c. As Goedicke has sensed (1970,
104–105), it makes better sense in the context as referring to the out-
come of Thoth’s judgment, but probably as a parallel subjunctive
sÿm.f rather than Goedicke’s adjectival statement (as seen by Mathieu
2000, 23, and Haller 2004, 14).
24–25
ãsf ãnsw œr.j zõæ m mæët
let Khonsu, who writes truly, intervene for me;
The expression ãsf œr has been translated as “defend” in the legal
sense (since Erman 1896, 28), and that sense is clear in the context; its
specific meaning, however, is most likely Goedicke’s “intervene on
—————
29pBerlin 8869, 11 nfr n wæœ œætj-ë pn ëwæ jr.n.f r tæ “that this high official shall
not lay down the robbery he has done”: Smither, JEA 28 (1942), 17.
30 Or “against him.” For Thoth in connection with judgment, cf. also Peas. B1
179–81 and 299–300.

behalf of” (1970, 105).31 The mention of Khonsu, like that of Isdes in
cols. 26–27, parallels that of Thoth in the preceding statement (see
LÄ I, 962; III, 185). The term zõæ is probably participial rather than
the noun “scribe” (for the determinative, cf. 117 jr, 131 mr, 139 sãt;
also plural 60 qdw, 62 sqdw, 63–64 nnw).32 The epithet undoubtedly
refers to the role of recorder in the judgment.
25–26
sÿm rë mdw.j sg wjæ
Let the Sun, who stills the sun-bark, hear my speech;
The final verb has been interpreted mostly in one of two ways:33
either as a hapax sg, perhaps for sg(r), meaning “still, silence” (Sethe
1927, 62; Scharff 1937, 13 and 19 n. 35; van der Walle 1939, 312;
Jacobsohn 1952, 11; Barta 1969, 21; Goedicke 1970, 103; Lichtheim
1973, 164; Assmann 1998, 390; Lohmann 1998, 216; Haller 2004,
14; Quirke 2004, 131; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 33); or as a ha-
pax sg meaning “command” or the like, in other studies. The latter is
more in line with the Sun’s usual role in his bark, but the former is
more likely. The verb sgr appears with the same determinative in CT
I, 321b Bh2C; with an omitted r in CT V, 217b B2Bo, and VII, 369a
B2Bo/B1L; and with for in CT I, 378c B1C and V, 217d
B1C. There is evidently a verb sgj “astonish” (ancestor of NK sgæ: Wb.
IV, 320, 5), which appears once in the Coffin Texts (VI, 276g) and
otherwise in the noun sgw/sgwt “astonishment,” but this is less likely
as an epithet of the Sun in relationship to his bark.34 The contrast
with mdw.j “my speech” also supports the reading sg(r) “who stills”:
cf. cols. 145–47.
—————
31 Also in Ptahhotep 184–85 jn nïr jr jqr.f ãsf.f œr.f jw.f sÿr “The god is the one who
made him successful, intervening for him while he was asleep”: Žába, Ptaœœotep, 30.
32 Khonsu is called zõæ mæët in CT VI, 272c; see also LäGG VI, 600.
33 Weill (1947, 119 n. i) saw it as a causative of gwæ “assemble,” but misread the w
of wjæ as part of the word. The Late Egyptian verb sg, first noted and rejected by Erman
1896, 28 n. 2, is a New Kingdom loan word: Hoch, Semitic Words, 269 no. 383.
34 In CT 160 it is the Sun’s enemy that causes sgwt in the bark: CT II, 378c–380b.
42 CHAPTER THREE
26–27
ãsf jsdz œr.j m ët ÿsr[t]
let Isdes intervene for me in the sacred room—
28
[ÿr] ntt sær.j wdn
since my need has become heavy
Based on the size of the lacuna and the other occurrence in col. 9
(see above), the lost preposition at the top of col. 28 was probably ÿr
rather than œr. Like the word at the end of col. 22, the word after ntt
can be read either as sær.j “my need” or sær “needy one” (Wb. IV, 19,
6). Faulkner (1956, 32 n. 24) understood it as the second, though he
admitted that this presents difficulties in understanding the line. With
the exception of Bresciani (1999, 200) and Chioffi and Rigamonti
(2007, 34), other translations have adopted the first, which makes better
sense here.
28–29
nj [wnt] fæ n.f n.j
and [there is] no one to lift to himself for me.”
The lacuna at the bottom of col. 28 has presented difficulties in

understanding the text at the top of the next column. Faulkner (1956,
27 and 32 n. 24) was the first to suggest a reading of the trace below
wdn as m and to restore a word (æïpw “burden”) in the lacuna (fol-
lowed in most subsequent translations). Both this and his translation
of the preceding noun as sær “needy one” were based in part on the
lack of an obvious referent for the pronominal suffix f in col. 29, al-
though most studies have seen it as the Soul (understanding cols. 20–
29 to represent the Man’s viewpoint). In the interpretation suggested
here, however, the words are those of the Soul, and there is no indi-
cation that the Soul views the Man as the source of his anguish.
Faulkner’s restoration is also questionable: the final trace lies some-
what too close to the preceding signs to be the tail of an , there is
no trace below of what should be the tail of Faulkner’s ,35 and the
lacuna does not offer sufficient space for ætp (cf. cols. 69 and 127).
In the restoration suggested here, fæ is a perfective active parti-
ciple, referent of the following 3ms pronoun: “one who might lift to
himself.”36 The arm is probably a second determinative of fæ rather
than part of a separate dj.n.f; the same combination of determinatives
is used in the writing of ætp in cols. 69 and 127.37
The final trace at the bottom of col. 28 could belong to the nega-
tive arms, as suggested by Quack (1995, 185). If so, the negation must
be nj rather than nn, because there is no trace of an below it,
which always extends as far to the left as in this scribe’s writing
of nn. Since this text observes the normal Middle Egyptian distinction
between nj and nn, nj alone cannot serve as a negative existential.
There is space in the lacuna for wnt, which would have extended as
low as the bottom of the last sign in col. 30 (for the lack of traces be-
low nj here, cf. the alignment of wn below nn in col. 121). The scribe
uses nn wn elsewhere as a negative existential (cols. 121 and 130), but
only as an independent statement, whereas the clause here is probably
adverbial, a common use of nj wnt.38
29–30
nÿm ãsf nïrw štæw õt.j
The gods’ barring my belly’s secrets would be sweet,
—————
35 The same objections apply to the restored m[j.ïn] of Chioffi and Rigamonti
(2007, 34).
36 For the use of fæj with reflexive dative and without object, see A. Badawy, The
Tomb of Nyhetep-Ptah at Giza and the Tomb of ëAnkhmaëhor at Saqqara (University of

California Publications: Occasional Papers 11: Archaeology; Los Angeles, 1978), 35
and pl. 61: fæ.(j) n.(j) jqr “I will left to myself excellently” (for jqr used adverbially, see
Wb. I, 137, 17; Wb. I, 137, 18–19 r jqr, m jqr seems to rule out Badawy’s interpreta-
tion n jqr “readily”).
37 Relative dj.n.f would presumably modify a noun fæ “burden.” That word, how-
ever, is invariably feminine fæt (Wb. I, 574, 9–12), and the pronoun of a relative dj.n.f
has the same lack of obvious referent as fæ.n.f.
38 Gunn, Studies, 164–67; Satzinger, Negativen Konstruktionen, 33.
44 CHAPTER THREE
This may also be part of the cited “prodding” of the Soul, but it
makes better sense as an utterance of the Man himself. Since the Soul
in this text represents one side of an internal debate, the “secrets” of
the Man’s “belly” (seat of thought: Wb. III, 357, 3) are his inner
thoughts of a premature death, detailed in the preceding lines, as ex-
pressed by the Soul, who is in the Man’s “belly” (col. 9). The verb ãsf
here has the basic sense of prevention (Wb. III, 336, 5–7).
30–31
ÿdt.n n.j bæ.j
what my soul said to me:
This has generally been seen as a transitional such as those in cols.
3–4, 55–56, 85–86, and 143–48, marking the end of the Man’s
speech and the beginning of a short speech of the Soul (cols. 31–33).
In that case, either 33 ÿd.j serves alone as the transition to the Man’s
reply, if it begins in col. 33, or a transitional statement has been omit-
ted, if the reply begins in col. 39 (clearly spoken by the Man). Both
of these alternatives are problematic (see below).
Goedicke (1970, 109–10) suggested that the statement is paren-
thetic, introducing a citation of the Soul’s words as part of the Man’s
second speech, which does not end until the clear transition of cols.
55–56 (followed by Mathieu 2000, 23/25). Apart from the content of
cols. 33–39 (discussed below), this has some support in the consistency
of the transitional statements within the body of the text—jw wp.n.j
r.j n bæ.j wšb.j ÿdt.n.f “And I opened my mouth to my soul, that I
might answer what he had said” (3–4 and 85–86) and jw wp.n n.j bæ.j
r.f wšb.f ÿdt.n.j “And my soul opened his mouth to me, that he might
answer what I had said” (55–56), all of which introduce long dis-
courses—in contrast to the shorter ÿdt.n n.j bæ “What the soul said to
me” (cols. 147–48), which introduces the Soul’s short final speech,39
—————
And perhaps mirrors [ÿdt.n.j n bæ.j] “What I said to my soul” (cols. *12–13),
39
introducing the Man’s short first speech (ending between cols. *12–15: see above).
Goedicke’s notion that the longer transitions introduce “a statement made before the
court” (1970, 109) is merely speculative.
Mathieu has understood the phrase here as topical (2000, 23 “(Quant

à) ce que mon ba m’a dit”), but it makes somewhat better sense as ap-
positive to, and explicative of, 30 štæw õt.j “my belly’s secrets.”
(31)
nj ntk js z
“You are not a man,
The opening line of the Soul’s cited speech has usually been un-
derstood as a rhetorical question, but also as a negative statement.40 If
it is a question, it can only be so virtually—“You are not a man?”—
which does not have the same meaning as the common translation
“Are you not a man?”41 In the present context, however, either kind
of question makes less sense than a negative statement. As part of his
argument for death, the Soul points out that the Man himself is in
dire straits. The implication is probably less one of social inferiority
(first suggested by Sethe 1927, 62) than “You are barely human,” as
indicated by what follows.
31–32
jw.k tr ënã.t
even though you are alive.
This clause has also been understood as an interrogative, largely
due to the presence of the particle tr, which is most often found in
—————
40 The latter by Erman 1896, 30; Suys 1932, 61; Lurie 1939, 143; Barta 1969, 21;
Foster 1992, 12; Assmann 1998, 391; Lohmann 1998, 216; Haller 2004, 15; Quirke
2004, 131. Von der Wense’s “Sei doch ein Mann” (1949, 68) does not reflect the
Egyptian, and Goedicke’s “Aren’t you (now), O man?” (1970, 109–10) is senseless.
41 Cf. Peas. B1 126–27 nj jw js pw jwsw gsæ.w “A tilted balance-arm is not a
wrong?”: Parkinson, Peasant, 23, 4. Although is well-attested as a spelling of

interrogative jn, the latter is spelled in col. 20, and nominal-predicate sentences
with jn are not subordinated by js: Silverman, Interrogative Constructions, 62–64. Sin. B
230 nj jnk js qæ sæ “I am not one who is arrogant” can only be a statement in the
context, even though AOS interprets the negative arms as interrogative jn jw (as also
in B 114 and B 267): Koch, Sinuhe, 68, 1–2; 47, 5/7; 76, 9/10. The B manuscript of
Sinuhe uses as the interrogative (B 35, 115, 120, 123, 126, 133, 162).
46 CHAPTER THREE
questions (Gardiner, EG, § 256). If so, it can only be rhetorical: e.g.,

Foster’s “Are you even alive?” (1992, 12; followed by Quirke 2004,
131, and Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 35–36).42 The probable declar-
ative sense of the preceding sentence, however, makes a question less
likely than a statement.43 The presence of tr serves to distinguish this
clause from a more straightforward jw.k ënã.t(j) “you being alive.”
The sentence as a whole is antithetical to normal Egyptian values, as
expressed by Heqanakht: nfr gs n ënã r mt m zp wë “Half of life is better
than death in full.”44
(32)
ptr km.k
What is your gain,
32–33
mœy.k œr ënã mj nb-ëœëw
if you will care about life like an owner of riches
The expression mœj œr also appears in col. 78, where it aptly illu-
strates the primary meaning “care about” (Wb. II, 120, 13). The form
supports the subjunctive (or prospective) sÿm.f rather than the imper-
fective used circumstantially (“caring about”).
33–34
ÿd nj šm.j jw nfæ r tæ
who says, ‘I have not gone,’ when all those are down?
The initial verb form has usually been rendered as simple past “I
said” in most translations, introducing a change of voice from the
Soul to the Man. Such a use of the bare initial (perfective) sÿm.f,
—————
42El-Hamrawi, LingAeg 15 (2007), 19, interprets the value of tr in this passage as
interrogative, with a connotation of reproach: “Bist du denn kein Mann?”
43 As understood by Faulkner (1956, 27), Barta (1969, 21), Goedicke (1970, 111),
Tobin (1991, 347; 2003, 180), Parkinson (1997, 156), Bresciani (1999, 200), and Haller
(2004, 15). Maspero (1907, 127) saw it as the verb twr “reject” (Wb. V, 252 = NK try,
Wb. V, 318, 12; followed by Lohmann 1998, 216), but this is grammatically impossible.
44 II 26: Allen, Heqanakht, 17, 41–42, pls. 30–31.
however, is highly unlikely before Late Egyptian. Subjunctive “I will

say, let me say” is possible, as understood by Mathieu (2000, 25), but
as such it would have to be part either of the Soul’s cited speech or of
the resumption of the Man’s speech. The first alternative does not suit
the Soul’s evident desire to “go” (col. 7) and the second is inconsis-
tent with the text of cols. 34–39 (see below). In that light, the form is
better understood as a participle modifying the preceding nb-ëœëw
“owner of riches” (as suggested by Letellier 1991, 102 and 103 n. 4;
followed by Foster 1992, 13; Tobin 2003, 180). The scribe occasion-
ally uses the seated man as determinative of participles (see the
discussion of cols. 6–7, above). Though often translated as future, nj
šm.j can only be past in this text, which observes the standard Middle
Kingdom distinction between nj and nn.45
The pronoun nfæ refers to the West in col. 37 and has occasionally
been understood with the same sense here (Scharff 1937, 21; van de
Walle 1939, 313; von der Wense 1949, 68). As Faulkner saw, how-
ever (1956, 33 n. 32), the referent here is more likely the preceding
ëœëw “riches” of col. 33. The use of r tæ “to earth” to express an un-
desirable state is paralleled in Heqanakht I vo. 2 nj ãr nfr ïw œr wnm jtj
mœ nfr jw.j r tæ “Don’t you have it good, eating fresh full barley while
I am down?”46 The sense of the line is that the Man is clinging to life
despite his wretched state, like a rich man unreasonably attached to
his possessions, even when deprived of them.
34–35
nœmn tw œr tfyt nn nwt.k
In fact, you are being uprooted, without considering your-
self,
—————
45 Goedicke translates “I would say to someone (ready) to go” (1970, 111–12),
followed by Tobin (1991, 347). Goedicke saw rather than before šm, noting
that the central “hump” that distinguishes the latter from the former is illusory here,
caused by the lower flourish of the preceding seated-man sign touching the horizon-
tal of (1970, 195 n. 96). The two signs do touch, but there is a clear “hump”
visible nonetheless (confirmed by first-hand observation; cf. Letellier 1991, 101).
46 See Allen Heqanakht, 30.
48 CHAPTER THREE
As Faulkner first realized (1956, 33 n. 33), the signs preceding œr

represent the proclitic particle nœmn “in fact” followed by the 2ms
dependent pronoun tw, rather than a form of the verb nœm.47 The
second determinative of tfyt is rather than Erman’s (1896, 32),
followed in all transcriptions. What Erman saw as plural strokes is the
normal bottom of the sign; the arm attaches close to the top, as in
col. 36. The basic meaning of the verb is transitive “uproot”; the use
here is probably passive, describing the Man’s misfortune and imply-
ing that, like a tree (Wb. V, 298, 1), he is being separated from life
even if he does not realize it.48
The form in nn nwt.k has usually been understood as the infinitive,
but also as subjunctive nw.t(w).k “you will not be cared for” (Faulkner
1957, 27; Lalouette 1984, 222; Renaud 1991, 24; Parkinson 1997,
156; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 37).49 Either interpretation is de-
fensible, but the contrast with the preceding statement attributed to
the rich man suggests a circumstantial clause, like jw nfæ r tæ.
35–36
ãnrj nb œr ÿd jw.j r jït.k
while everyone deprived is saying, ‘I shall rob you,’
The exact sense of this statement is unclear, in part because the
meaning of ãnrj is uncertain. The noun normally denotes a prisoner
(Wb. III, 296, 8). The “speaking man” determinative also appears in
Peas. B1 153 and 154, where the noun has been understood as “evil-
doer, robber” (Wb. III, 296, 11). The context of those two passages,
however, supports Parkinson’s interpretation of a reference to some-
—————
Followed in most subsequent translations, with the exception of Wilson (1969,
47
405), Goedicke (1970, 112), Foster (1992, 13), and Lohmann (1998, 216). Letellier’s
understanding of tw as the impersonal pronoun (1991, 103; followed by Mathieu
2000, 25) is less likely in the context.
48 Intransitive use (“tearing off”) is not attested until Late Egyptian: Wb. 5, 298,
10–11 (the latter a NK text); Janssen, in Pyramid Studies, 135 n. a.

49 Also as a relative form: Letellier 1991, 104 “Il n’est rien que tu puisses
protéger”; followed by Mathieu 2000, 25.

one who is “deprived” (1997, 64): in B1 153 it is contrasted with nb-t

“possessor of bread,” and in B1 154 it is parallel to jwt(j) ãwt.f “one
who has no things.” The notion of deprivation also suits the content
of the ãnrj’s speech here, which is probably to be understood with the
sense of 112–13 z nb œr jtt snnw.f “every man robbing the other” (see
below), as Letellier has seen (1991, 103).
36–37
jw grt.k mt rn.k ënã
and you dead as well, while your name is alive.
Faulkner cites Urk. V, 148, 3 (BD 99) n mj tr.k jj “who are you
who has come?” as a parallel for the order jw grt.k mt (1956, 33–34 n.
34). This statement recapitulates and clarifies the Soul’s description of
the Man as being “uprooted.”
(37)
st nfæ nt ãnt
Yonder is a place of alighting,
Following Scharff (1937, 21 and 23 n. 2), the pronoun has been
understood to designate the West, with the exception of Letellier
(1991, 102 and 104 n. 12), who saw it as “l’état du défunt,” requiring
a rendition of st … nt ãnt not as “place” but as “une situation de re-
pos.” The verb ãnj, however, means primarily “land” and only
secondarily “remain” in a place (Wb. III, 287). The primary meaning
is almost certainly intended here, reflecting the soul’s avian nature.
37-38
ëfdt nt jb
storage-chest of the heart.
The reading of the final word in col. 37 has been a matter of some
discussion. Scharff’s ëfd (1937, 24 n. 9) has generally been accepted,
though Goedicke read the first sign as rather than (1970,
114–15) and Letellier, following Goedicke, suggested n fdq jb “pour le
désesperé” (1991, 100–102 and 104–105; similarly, Mathieu 2000, 25).
50 CHAPTER THREE
The sign at the top of col. 38 must represent , even though the
does not have the downward turn found in all other examples of the
ligature; it cannot represent the that Letellier saw as determinative
of fdq, which is smaller and has a pronounced downward slant of the
bottom element in all other examples. The left end of the initial sign
of the word at the end of col. 37 is damaged, but the horizontal has a
slight dip, more like than ; although normally has a dis-
tinct upward projection on the left, absent here, this is sometimes
minimal (e.g., col. 129), which could also have been the case here.
The ink marks below the are . This does not have the
downward turn at the right characteristic of other examples of the
bookroll, nor does it look like other examples of . Instead, it ap-
pears to be a rectangle with a projection on the right, similar to the
one example of Q5 in Möller’s Paläographie I (188). With the preceding
consonantal signs it suggests ëfdt “storage-chest,” as seen by Quirke
(2004, 131 “treasure-chest”). The upper stroke in Möller’s example
represents the top of the chest but here it may be for (although the
feminine t is also omitted in 81 œjm.f ). The imagery seems unique but
is perhaps reflected in CT IV 54d–e pr.n.j m ëfdt r sktt jn.n.j jb.j m æãt
ãn.n.j m ënÿt “I have emerged from the chest to the Night-Bark,
bringing my heart from the Akhet; I have landed in the Day-Bark.”
(38)
dmj pw jmnt
The West is a harbor,
38–39
õn.t spdw œr jr
which the perceptive should be rowed to.”
The first half of this passage presents little difficulty. The noun
dmj has been understood to refer both to a settlement and to a harbor.
The latter is probably meant here, both because of the nautical meta-
phor that follows and because it is the regular sense of the term in the
Middle Kingdom.
The verb õnj clearly has the determinative of a boat, and col. 38
clearly ends in a final . The sign or signs between these, and the
traces at the top of col. 39 before œr, have usually been left untrans-
lated. Erman (1896, 32) read the signs below the boat as but
noted that these were probably not part of qs[n] “difficult,” since the
is not grouped with as in cols. 10, 15, and 20. Despite this, a few
scholars have understood that word following (Suys 1932, 61;
Foster 1992, 13; Assmann 1998, 391; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007,
39; and perhaps also Parkinson 1997, 156). Goedicke (1970, 115) saw
in place of Erman’s and restored õnt nj s[wæ.s n] œr “the
voyage—it does not go beyond.” Letellier suggested instead,
reading r.s (1991, 100; 101–102 n. g; and 102 “naviguer jusqu’à lui (?)
est [ … ]”; evidently followed by Mathieu 2000, 25).
The ink marks between the boat and the final s consist of a cen-
tral “blob” (which Goedick saw as the “hump” of ) and a
horizontal. Letellier perceptively noted that the boat sign in this hand
normally consists of two parts, the boat itself and a horizontal below it
representing the water on which the boat sails (cols. 71, 72, 137); the
horizontal is omitted in col. 70, and in col. 26 it is replaced by a smaller
sign more like . The sign in col. 38 has been seen as analogous to
that of col. 70 but it is probably more like that of col. 26, with the
“blob” below equivalent to the -like mark of the latter. The hori-
zontal has a pronounced, though faint, upward projection on the left
and undoubtedly represents (in place of , as always in this
papyrus), which is sometimes used as a second determinative of õnj
(Wb. III, 374).
This leaves the final s of col. 38 as either a suffix of or
the first sign of a word continued at the top of col. 39. Together with
the following œr, the traces in col. 39 are best suited to the plural of
the common expression spd-œr “perceptive” (Wb. IV, 109, 14–15).
Two interpretations of the resulting phrase are possible. If the verb
form is feminine, it must be a relative modifying jmnt with spdw œr as
its subject: “The West, which the perceptive should row, is a harbor”
52 CHAPTER THREE
(for the transitive use of õnj, see Wb. III, 374, 25–26). The notion of
the West as a navigable body of water, however, is at odds with both
the determinative of jmnt here and the normal Egyptian concept of
the West. More likely, therefore, the verb form is masculine, modify-
ing dmj; the therefore represents the passive suffix tw (placed before
the determinatives as in 115 sãæ.t).
The resulting “which the perceptive should be rowed” is incom-
plete, indicating that the word following œr must represent the adverb
jr(j) “toward” (Wb. III, 374, 11; Gardiner, EG, § 113, 2) rather than
the initial jr “if” that has been universally understood to introduce the
next sentence. In the context of cols. 31–38, the sense of the passage
is the Soul’s attempt to convince the Man that anyone perceptive
enough to understand the reality of his dire situation should consider
death as preferable to life. The text that follows shows that the cita-
tion attributed to the Soul in cols. 31–39 ends here.
(39)
sÿm n.j bæ.j
My soul should listen to me instead:
This clause has been universally understood with the preceding jr
as the protasis of a conditional sentence—“If my soul listens to
me”50—but the interpretation argued above indicates an independent
sÿm.f. The form is perhaps subjunctive, with jussive sense, but more
likely “emphatic,” stressing the dative n.j, as an explicit contrast to the
preceding text (30–31 ÿdt.n n.j bæ.j “what my soul said to me”).
39–40
n[n n].j [b]tæ
I have no transgression.
Sethe (1927, 63) restored the initial word in col. 40 as [b]tæ, sug-
gesting “ohne daß ich ein Unrecht (btæ ?) begehen muß.” The
—————
Lohmann 1998, 217, interpreted it as jr sÿm.n.j “if I had heard.” Suys rejected
50
the reading of the verb as sÿm (1932, 61 n. 8) but offered no alternative.

translation indicates that Sethe also understood n[n jrt].j in col. 39–40,
but that restoration probably requires more space than is available in
the lacuna at the bottom of col. 39 and has not been adopted in sub-
sequent studies. Scharff followed Sethe in reading [b]tæ in col. 40, as
have all scholars since, and restored jw[tj] in cols. 39–40, giving jw[tj
b]tæ “den Schuldlosen (?)” (1937, 21 and 25 n. 12), a common ex-
pression (Wb. I, 484, 6) that has also been generally adopted.
Goedicke pointed out that the seated-man determinative should fol-
low the entire phrase rather than its first element (1970, 116), but his
suggested bæ.j [s]n [b]tæ “my ba, that neglectful companion” (followed
by Foster 1992, 13 “my foolish brother,” and Tobin 2003, 181 “my
stubborn brother”) is incompatible with the clear following bæ.j
and stretches the sense of btæ, which denotes a legal, moral, or reli-
gious transgression (Wb. I, 483–84) rather than “neglect.” In the
context, the seated man at the top of col. 40 most likely represents a 1s
suffix pronoun and suggests either the restoration above or perhaps nj
[jr].j [b]tæ “I have committed no crime” (Wb. I, 484, 8), based on
Sethe. The sense probably reflects the notion of the later btæ ëæ n mt
“big crime worthy of death” (Wb. I, 484, 11) and is an explicit con-
trast with the Soul’s desire for judgment (cols. 23–27).
40–41
tt jb.f œnë.j jw.f r mër
Should his heart be in accord with me, he will be fortunate,
Faulkner (1956, 23 n. 40b) corrected the previous reading of the
first word as , although the ligature he saw between the second
and the bookroll below the group does not exist. The interpretation
argued above for the preceding clause identifies the initial clause here
as part of an independent sentence rather than the second condition
or circumstantial clause found in previous translations.51 It is most
likely an “emphatic” construction expressing an initial condition.
—————
51 It also excludes the result clause of Goedicke (1970, 115), the apodosis of Fos-
ter (1992, 13), and the relative clause of Lohmann (1998, 217).
54 CHAPTER THREE
41–42
rdj.j pœ.f jmnt mj ntj m mr.f
for I will make him reach the West like one in his pyramid,
The initial rdj.j is an instance of the prospective sÿm.f, as in ShS.
70–72 jr wdfj.k m ÿd n.j jn tw r jw pn rdj.j rã.k tw jw.k m zz “If you delay
telling me who brought you to this island, I will make you find your-
self in ashes.”52 The alternation between rdj.j “I will make” and the
preceding jw.f r mër “he will succeed” illustrates Vernus’s distinction
between subjective and objective expressions of the future, respectively,
the prospective suggesting an action over which the speaker has control
(here rdj.j) while the “pseudo-verbal” construction denotes one that is
necessary or external to the speaker, as in the preceding jw.f r mër.53
42–43
ëœë.n œrj-tæ œr qrs.f
to whose burial a survivor has attended.
The verb form is almost certainly the relative sÿm.n.f: the cir-
cumstantial of Barta (1969, 22), Goedicke (1970, 117), Assmann
(1998, 391, and 2001, 385), and Haller (2004, 15), and the present
tense of Renaud (1970, 24) and Quirke (2004, 181), would require
different verb forms, and the participle of Tobin’s “Which stands
above his grave in the sight of his descendants” (2003, 181, following
Foster 1992, 13) is ungrammatical. The determinative of qrs reflects
the wood coffins of Middle Kingdom burials.
43–44
jw.j r jrt njæj œr õæt.k
I shall make an awning over your remains,
The pseudo-verbal construction with first-person subject here, in
contrast to the sÿm.f of col. 41, most likely expresses inevitability.
—————
Blackman, Middle Egyptian Stories, 43, 11–12. For the form, see Allen, Middle
52
Egyptian, § 21.2.1. Chioffi and Rigamonti’s r ë.j “grazie a me” (2007, 40) is improbable.
53 Vernus, Future at Issue, 24–27. See also Chapter 4, Section C.
Scharff (1937, 25–26 n. 17) conjectured the meaning of njæj,

which occurs only here and in col. 45, as “Schatten” or “Kühlung”
from the context and the determinative, which is certainly the sun-
shade or fan (Möller, Paläographie I, 406), as well as from the term in
col. 48, which Scharff read as šwjt “shade” (see below). Without ex-
planation, von der Wense (1949, 68) rendered it as “ein Dach aus
Palmen,” adopted as “shelter, abri” in most subsequent studies.
Herrmann (1957, 74) translated “Atemluft(?),” probably relating the
word to the later næw/njw “breeze, breath of air” (Wb. II, 200, 5) as
Barta has done (1969, 33 n. 40; followed by Lohmann 1998, 217).
The translation “cooling, Kühlung” was adopted by Assmann (1998,
391) and Burkard (2008, 156); Parkinson has combined Scharff’s two
suggestions as “cool shelter” (1997, 156). Other translations, purely
speculative, are Foster’s “sacred fan” (1992, 13), Bresciani’s “offerte”
and “una tomba” (1999, 200), and Mathieu’s “receptacle” (2000, 25).
Absent further evidence, the meaning must remain conjectural.
Both jrt “make” and cols. 45–46 jã tm.f œsw “and it won’t get cold”
(see below), suggest a structure rather than a less substantial term such
as “shade.” The noun may be an n-preformative from the root jæj, a
term for hair in Pyr. 1221e and 1223d, perhaps related to the noun
jææ, denoting a kind of plant (Wb., I, 27, 9), also found in jææt (a scep-
ter: Wb. I, 27, 10).54
The word at the bottom of col. 43, which must be a preposition, is
damaged, but the preserved traces suit œr, as seen by Scharff (1937, 26
n. 18). Goedicke’s reading jrj n (1970, 117) does not suit the left-hand
trace and is based on an erroneous reading of col. 45 jã (see below).
His translation of the final noun, õæt.k, as “your remains” aptly re-
flects the plural strokes (and the “body parts” used as determinative in
Pyr. 548b T õæt = P jf qsw), but the noun is singular (cf. CT VI, 74g),
perhaps a collective, rather than plural as he suggests (1970, 117–18).
—————
54 The last often with the determinative of a plant in the Coffin Texts. Note also
Pyr. 264a jææw(j) “two combatants,” with similar determinative: see Sethe, Überset-
zung und Kommentar I, 264. For n-preformatives, see Osing, Nominalbildung, 211.
56 CHAPTER THREE
44–45
sÿdm.k ky bæ m nnw
and you will make jealous another soul in inertness.
The verb sÿdm appears only in this text (the same form in cols. 46
and 49). As Scharff saw (1937, 26 n. 20), it describes the Soul’s action
with respect to another one less well provided for, and could therefore
conform to either of the Wörterbuch’s suggested translations “despise” or
“pity” (Wb. IV, 396, 9); the former was adopted in most early studies,55
as well as by Wilson (1969, 405). Faulkner (1956, 27 and 34 n. 40)
analyzed it as a causative of ÿdb/ÿdm “sting” (Wb. V, 632, 8–9, and
634, 19–635, 1) with the meaning “make envious,” which has largely
been adopted since.56 Although the verb here has the determinative of
the speaking man rather than the knife or fire of ÿdb/ÿdm “sting,” this
seems the most reasonable interpretation, with the intransitive mean-
ing of the root (Wb. V, 635, 1). The determinative here probably
reflects the mental rather than physical nature of the “sting.”
The final nnw has been understood as both a participle (first by
Erman 1896, 36 “als Müde”) and an abstract (first by Weill 1947, 120
“en faiblesse”); the lack of a seated-man determinative argues for the
latter, adopted in most studies since Weill’s. In cols. 63–64, where the
same root is used as a participle with seated man and plural strokes,
the term refers to the drowned, who have no proper burial.57 The par-
allels ky bæ nt(j) tæ.w (46–47) and ky bæ ntj œqr (49) indicate that m nnw
here modifies ky bæ.58
—————
55Jacobsohn opted for “pity” (1952, 20; followed by Lohmann 1988, 217).
56Foster’s “attract” (1992, 13) apparently derives from the verb in Sin. B 130
ÿdb.n.s œwyt.s (Koch, Sinuhe, 49, 12), which has been translated “It had assembled its
tribes” (e.g., Lichtheim 1973, 228; Wb. V, 632, 13). The use of ÿdb meaning “assem-
ble” is unattested until the Ptolemaic Period, however, and Gardiner proposed
“incite,” an extended meaning of ÿdb “sting” (Notes on the Story of Sinuhe, 50).
57 See G. Meyer, SAK 17 (1990), 272–73.
58 Barta’s nisbe (j)m(j) nnw (1969, 33 n. 42) is unnecessary. A parallel for the attri-
butive use of a prepositional phrase occurs in Sin. B 233–34 mw m jtrw swrj.t.f mr.k
“water in the river, it is drunk when you like”: Koch, Sinuhe, 68, 7.
45–46
jw.j r jrt njæj jã tm.f œsw
I shall make an awning and it won’t get cold,
46–47
sÿdm.k ky bæ nt tæ.w
and you will make jealous another soul who is hot.
Pace Goedicke (1970, 119; not reflected in his transcription of the
column), jã is clear at the bottom of col. 45. Its subordinate use denotes
future sequentiality, which suits the present context.59
Scharff (1937, 26 n. 22) emended tm.f to tm.k. a suggestion adop-
ted by van de Walle (1939, 313), Weill (1947, 120), von der Wense
(1949, 69), Faulkner (1956, 34 n. 42), Renaud (1991, 24), Parkinson
(1997, 156), and Mathieu (2000, 25). The emendation, however, is
unnecessary: as Barta saw (1969, 33 n. 43), the masculine pronoun
refers to njæj. The is overwritten by the top of the œs-vase in the
group below but does not seem to have been canceled; the scribe
dipped his brush after writing it and before writing the œs group.
Quack (1995, 185) has proposed understanding œsw as “get hot,”
based on the preceding line and Westendorf’s suggestion that the verb
may express both extremes of temperature.60 The determinative,
however, indicates coolness, and there is no clear evidence for the
opposite meaning until the Roman Period.61 The “soul who is hot”
seems a non sequitur with the notion of a warm shelter, but the similar
opposition between swrj.j mw and bæ ntj œqr in the next sentence indi-
cates that the contrast is intentional.
47–48
swrj.j mw œr bæbæt
I will drink water at the flood
—————
59Vernus, Future at Issue, 106–11.
60Westendorf, GM 29 (1978), 153–54.
61 M.-T. Derchain-Urtel, “Zum besseren Verständnis eines Textes aus Esna,”
GM 30 (1978), 27–34.
58 CHAPTER THREE
The term bæbæt has been understood

as a watering place, with the exception
of Erman (1896, 36 “aus dem Strom”),
Lurie (1939, 143 из потска “from the
stream”), von der Wense (1949, 69 “aus
dem Strome”), Mathieu (2000, 25 “du
courant”), and Chioffi and Rigamonti
(2007, 44 “l’acqua corrente”), following
Wb. I, 419 “Stelle des Flusses, aus der
(œr) man trinkt.” Ward, however, has
demonstrated that it refers to the waters
of the inundation, and Pamminger has
collected evidence for the act of drink-
ing these waters as a means of daily Fig. 3.
rejuvenation of the dead.62 The Deceased Drinking
(48) from the Inundation
ïzy.j šwjw
and shall lift away dryness,
49
sÿ<d>m.k ky bæ ntj œqr
and you will make jealous another soul who is hungry.
Erman (1896, 36) transcribed the final word in col. 48 as
and noted a “verwischtes o. ä.” below the circle. Scharff (1937, 27
n. 27) tentatively read , adopted by Faulkner (1956, 23 n. 48a).
Goedicke (1970, 120) proposed . Of these, Erman’s transcrip-
tion is the most accurate. The sun determinative is clear; it has the shape
used elsewhere in the papyrus in the group but also centrally in
col. 88 and cannot be Goedicke’s ; the plural strokes are also visible
upon close inspection. Scharff and Goedicke misread the right half of the
—————
Ward, Four Egyptian Homographic Roots, 101–103; Pamminger, GM 122 (1991),
62
71–75.
sun sign as a second reed-leaf; the separation of in two groups is

improbable. The word is probably not šw “sunlight” nor šwt “shade,”
which has a final t and uses the sunshade as sole determinative until
the New Kingdom (Wb. IV, 432). Instead, it is most likely a noun
from the root šw “dry” (Wb. IV, 429); this adjective-verb is often
written with plural strokes as well as the sun sign, but the strokes here
may represent the common ending w of verbal nouns.63
This reading of the noun šwjw is ill-suited to normal meaning of
the verb ïzj “raise up” (Wb. V, 405–407). In this context, however,
the sense is “lift away”: analogous usages occur in CT V, 379a, and
VII, 110h, parallel to šdj “take away,” and CT IV, 238–39b, 242–43c.
The notion of “lifting away dryness” is more coherent with the pre-
ceding clause than the generally accepted “raise a shade.”64
49–50
jr hjm.k wj r mt m pæ qj
If you prod me to death in that manner,
50–51
nn gm.k ãnt.k œr.s m jmnt
you will not find a place to land on in the West.
For hjm “prod,” see the note to cols. 18–19, above. The adjunct m
pæ qj can be read with either mwt (“death in this manner”) or hjm.k (“if
you prod … in this manner”).65 Of studies with unambiguous transla-
tions or explicit commentary, most have adopted the former (first Sethe
—————
63 The same word probably appears in pUCL 32157 2, 18 (hymn in praise of
Senwosret III): Collier and Quirke, UCL Lahun Papyri II, pl. 2. Collier and Quirke
transcribe , but a better reading is . The frequent writing of the verb as
šww, and the Coptic reflexes S šooue / L šauie, suggest a root šwj (infinitive šwjt).
64 Lichtheim’s relative “over which I made shade” (1973, 165; followed by La-
louette 1984, 222, and Assmann 1998, 391) would require a resumptive. Derchain’s
suggestion in RdE 29 (1977), 63 n. 33, that the verb is an error for ïs “sit” would re-
quire emendation of two determinatives and a missing preposition.
65 Goedicke’s statement that qj denotes physical form (1970, 121) is contradicted
by uses such as Heqanakht II 43 ptr qy n wnn.j œnë.ïn m ït wët “What is the manner of
my being with you in one community?”: Allen, Heqanakht, 47.
60 CHAPTER THREE
1927, 63). The latter, however, is preferable, as understood by Erman

(1896, 38), Jacobsohn (1952, 20), Thausing (1957, 264), and Foster
(1992, 13). Although the prior use of the verb in 18–19 jhm wj r mt nj
jjt.j n.f “who prods me toward death before I have come to it” supports
the former, the apodosis in cols. 50–51 is an explicit threat to counter
the Soul’s prodding: i.e., “if you keep pushing me toward death as you
have been, I won’t have time to make all the preparations for the after-
life I just described” (in cols. 41–49). This, in turn, provides the
background for the Man’s closing statement in cols. 51–55.
51–52
wæœ jb.k bæ.j sn.j
Set your heart, my soul, my brother,
The final three signs of col. 51 are indicated in transcriptions as
lost, but traces of all three are preserved. The semi-detached fragment
with the right side of these signs is currently mounted too close to the
rest of the papyrus on the left, distorting the shape of the final bookroll.
The idiom wæœ jb has usually been understood in this passage as
“patient,” but also as “friendly” or “well-disposed,” the meaning given
in the Wörterbuch (Wb. I, 256, 15–18) (Jacobsohn 1952, 20; Faulkner
1956, 27; Thausing 1957, 264; Williams 1962, 54; Goedicke 1970,
121–22; Lalouette 1984, 222; Lohmann 1998, 218; Bresciani 1999,
201). Its basic sense, however, is attentiveness or determination, simi-
lar to that of the English idiom “set one’s mind” toward something.66
The Man is apparently urging his Soul to stand up to the difficulties
he faces instead of avoiding them by dying.
52–53
r ãprt jwëw drpt.fj
until the heir has grown up who will present offerings,
—————
66Lichtheim, Moral Values, 78–82. The sense is particularly clear in Ptahhotep
624–25 wæœ jb.k tr n mdwy.k ÿd.k ãwt tnw “Set your mind at the time of your speak-
ing, that you may say things of distinction”: Žába, Ptaœœotep, 64. The same sense is
reflected in the translations of cols. 51–52 by Foster (1992, 13) and Haller (2004, 15).
53–54
ëœët.fj œr œæt hrw qrs
who will attend to the tomb on burial-day
The verb-form ãprt is undoubtedly the sÿmt.f; there is no need to
emend r ãpr m “so as to become,” as Faulkner suggested (1956, 34 n.
46; similarly, Erman 1896, 39; Lurie 1939, 143; Lalouette 1984, 222;
Lohmann 1998, 218; Bresciani 1999, 201). The signs are clear and the
following clauses undoubtedly describe a human survivor. The verb
here certainly has the sense of maturing (Wb. III, 262, 1) rather than
merely “coming into being” (as seen by Suys 1932, 64; Brunner-Traut
1967, 10; Barta 1969, 23): the Man is urging his Soul to wait for death
at least until he has an adult heir to see to his proper burial. The single
seated man at the end of col. 52 is probably the determinative of jwëw
rather than the 1s suffix pronoun. The noun could therefore mean “an
heir,” as understood by de Buck (1947, 23), Goedicke (1970, 121–22),
Foster (1992, 13), Parkinson (1997, 156), Lohmann (1998, 218), Tobin
(2003, 181), Quirke (2004, 131), and Chioffi and Rigamonti (2007,
45). The participles drpt(j).fj and ëœët(j).fj in col. 53, however, point to a
defined antecedent: thus, either jwëw.(j) “my heir” or “the heir who
will …,” as understood by Thausing (1967, 264). Although the 1s suf-
fix could well have been omitted at the end of the column, Thausing’s
reading has the benefit of understanding the word as written.
The before the suffix in Faulkner’s transcription of drpt.fj (1956,
23) is more likely the “horns” of the , as indicated by Erman’s
transcription (1896, 38). The determinatives of qrs “burial” in col. 54
indicate that the author (or scribe) understood the word here as the
act of interring the mummy, as opposed to the “wood” determinative
of the same word in col. 43, which reflects the coffin (see above).
54–55
sÿæy.f œnkyt n õrj-nïr
and will transport a bed for the necropolis.
The sign read as by Erman (1896, 38), and universally accepted
as such since, does not have the leftward “hook” at the top found in
62 CHAPTER THREE
all other examples of in the papyrus: from its form and the follow-
ing , it is undoubtedly instead. The verb is clearly caus. 2-lit.
sÿæj “transport” (in this case, across the river) (Wb. IV, 397–98), nor-
mally written with walking legs or a boat as determinative but
occasionally also with the bookroll.67
The word at the top of col. 55 is n rather than nt and therefore
the preposition rather than the genitival adjective. For the deceased’s
bed, cf. CT VI, 218k–m, 358f/p, 359k, 360f, 362f. The reference is
probably to the bier rather than an item of funerary furniture.
5. the soul’s rebuttal (cols. 55–68)
(55)
jw wp.n n.j bæ.j r.f
And my soul opened his mouth to me
55–56
wšb.f ÿdt.n.j
that he might answer what I had said:
56–57
jr sãæ.k qrs nœæt jb pw
As for your bringing to mind burial, it is heartache;
The jr of col. 56 is topical rather than conditional, since the claus-
es following are not apodoses of “bringing to mind” but elaborations
on the notion of qrs “burial.” The determinative of qrs in this case is
the sarcophagus: as opposed to col. 43, where a survivor “attends at”
the wood (coffin) and col. 54, where the act of interment seems in-
tended, it suggests that the author (or scribe) had in mind the ultimate
finality of burial. The reading of the determinative of qrs and the
of nœæt jb were first suggested by Gardiner, and the translation of the
—————
CT I, 109b; II,41e; III 240b, 254a; V, 48e, 363e, 364c, 377d, 381d/l; VI,
67
152e, 331j; VII, 396c. The bookroll may be influenced by sÿæ/swÿæ “make sound”
(cf. CT III, 240b), but the ending y rules out that verb in col. 54.
phrase as “heartache,” first by Junker (1948, 220).68 The meaning

seems clear, both from the context and from the use of the term in
the medical papyri with reference to disorders of the stomach and
eyes (Wb. med. I, 471–72).
57–58
jnt rmyt pw m sjnd z
it is bringing tears by saddening a man;
58–59
šdt z pw m pr.f ãæë œr qææ
it is taking a man from his house so that he is left on the hill:
Since it has no object, ãæë is more probably the stative than an in-
finitive. It clearly expresses an action subsequent to “taking a man from
his house” and is therefore best understood as the stative of result,69 as
first seen by Jacobsohn (1952, 23 n. 2).
59–60
nn pr.n.k r œrw mæ.k rëw
you won’t be able to go up and see Suns.
The construction nn sÿm.n.f is a future counterpart of nj sÿm.n.f as
an expression of inability (Gunn, Studies, 127–30). The plural strokes
after rë are clear; the plural reflects the notion of the spirit’s daily emer-
gence from the tomb at sunrise, as first noted by Ranke (1926, 26 n. b).
60–61
qdw m jnr n mæt
Those who build in stone of granite,
(61)
ãws qn
the construction finished,
—————
68 Gardiner, Admonitions, 82. See also A.B. Lloyd, JEA 61 (1975), 63.
69 Lefebvre, GEC, § 350. Lloyd has “so that he is laid up on the hill”: JEA 61
(1975), 63.
64 CHAPTER THREE
As Goedicke has seen (1970, 126), the signs following ãws un-
doubtedly represent the three hieroglyphs with which the verb qn
“finish” is usually written (Wb. V, 49), rather than the of
70
previous transcriptions. The lack of plural strokes argues against ei-
ther ãws or qn being a participle like the preceding qdw, as ãws has
been understood since Erman (1896, 43) and as Goedicke understood
qn. In the context, ãws probably represents the noun ãwzw (Wb. III,
249, 8), which occurs in a Hatnub graffito also as object of qd,71 with
qn the 3ms stative. The point of the circumstantial clause, that the
building “in stone of granite” was actually completed, strengthens the
irony of the main clause in col. 63.
61–62
mrw nfrw m kæwt nfrt
fine pyramids as fine works—
The noun following qn has usually been transcribed as singular but
translated as plural.72 What has been understood as the pyramid’s base,
however, consists of two strokes, an upper horizontal and a lower -
shaped element whose left end overlaps that of the horizontal. The
form without the lower element is attested as a hieratic version of the
pyramid (Möller, Paläographie I, 371) and is identical to the sign used
as determinative of ëœëw “(heaps of) riches” in col. 33. The lower
element should therefore probably be read as plural strokes.
With Goedicke’s reading of qn, mrw must be either a second ob-
ject of qdw or, more likely, appositive to the preceding ãws qn. The
following nfrw is probably an adjective modifying mrw (as understood
by van de Walle 1939, 313; Faulkner 1956, 27; Barta 1969, 23; Licht-
—————
Goedicke’s reading was accepted by Mueller (1973, 354), Tobin (1991, 348,
70
and 2003, 182), and Foster (1992, 14).

71 Anthes, Hatnub, pl. 13, Gr. 9, 8: jw qd.n.j ãwzw jm “I built a construction there.”
72 Plural transliteration in Lohmann 1998, 218. Translation as singular in Erman
1896, 43, and 1923, 125; Maspero 1907, 127; Ranke 1926, 26; Suys 1932, 65; Lurie
1939, 143; Weill 1947, 121; Jacobsohn 1952, 23; Lanczkowski 1954, 4; Frantsev
1960, 209; Wilson 1969, 405; Goedicke 1970, 126.
heim 1973, 165; Lalouette 1984, 222; Renaud 1991, 25; Tobin 1991,
348; Parkinson 1997, 157; Assmann 1998, 392, and 2005, 385; Loh-
mann 1998, 219; Bresciani 1999, 201; Mathieu 2000, 25; Haller
2004, 16; Quirke 2004, 132; and Burkard 2008, 156) rather than an
independent adjective appositive to col. 60 qdw.73
62–63
ãpr sqdw m nïrw
once the building commissioners become gods,
This has usually been interpreted as an initial dependent clause
(i.e., with an “emphatic” verb form) but also as a clause of purpose
(the latter by Sethe 1927, 64; Lanczkowski 1954, 4; Parkinson 1997,
157; Tobin 2003, 182; Haller 2004, 16; Burkard 2008, 156).74 The
former offers better sense in the context. The use of the sÿm.f rather
than the sÿm.n.f suggests non-past reference and implies in turn that
col. 60 qdw is aorist rather than past. Although it refers to the same sub-
jects as qdw “those who built,” the causative participle sqdw clearly
denotes “those who caused building”: hence, the deceased who
commissioned the funerary structures.
(63)
ëbæw jrj wš.w
what are dedicated to them are razed,
The spelling of ëbæw does not suit the universal translation of the
term as a noun referring to an offering stone or stela (Wb. I, 177, 7–
9). Instead, it may be a passive participle of the verb ëbæ, used both of
directing ships and presenting offerings (Wb. I, 177, 1–2). The mascu-
line plural reflects the gender of the preceding ãws and mrw.
—————
73 It is possibly a 3pl stative mrw nfr.w “the pyramids being fine” if col. 61 ãws qn
is subject-stative. Elsewhere in the papyrus, however, the 3pl stative is written with-
out plural strokes (63, 74, 103, 117, 119, 120), while masculine plural adjectives and
participles usually have them (38–39, 60, 63, 63–64, 64, 79, 123).
74 Also as a declarative statement (Maspero 1907, 27; Herrmann 1957, 67; Frantsev
1960, 209; Lalouette 1984, 222; Renaud 1991, 25; Tobin 1991, 347). Foster’s trans-
lation (1992, 14) bears little relation to the original.
66 CHAPTER THREE
As Faulkner noted (1956, 35 n. 53), the verb of the plural stative

wš.w “razed” implies destruction rather than terms such as “empty” or
“desolate,” with which it is otherwise translated. It is used elsewhere
of depilation (Wb. I, 368, 6) and defoliation, and as such suits a refe-
rent of buildings rather than single stones.75
63–64
mj nnw mtw œr mryt
like the inert who have died on the riverbank
64–65
n gæw œrj-tæ
for lack of a survivor,
For nnw “the inert,” see the discussion of cols. 43–45, above. The
phrase is a comparison to the preceding sqdw “building commission-
ers” rather than to ëbæw, as Lichtheim has seen (1973, 165 “as if they
were the dead”).
65–66
jt.n nwy pœ.fj jæãw m mjtt jrj
the waters having taken his end, or Sunlight similarly—
66–67
mdw n.sn rmw spt n mw
they to whom the fish and the lip of the water speak.
For pœwj used of the end of life, see Wb. I, 536, 14; an analogous
use occurs in col. 130 nn wn pœw.fj “it has no end.” The suffix of pœ.fj
must refer to œrj-tæ, unless it resumes nnw mtw in the singular.76 The
ideogram for “Sunlight” probably represents jæãw (Wb. I, 33, 3) rather
than šw (Wb. IV, 430, 7).
—————
75For wš used of defoliation, see H. Junker, Gîza XI: Der Friedhof südlich der
Cheopspyramide, Ostteil (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-
historische Klasse, Denkschriften 74, 2; Vienna, 1953), 187 Fig. 74a, 191. For the verb
used of destroying structures, see Gardiner and Sethe, Letters to the Dead, pl. 6, 4–5.
76 Assmann’s “The water has taken its share” (2005, 385) is unsupported.
The suffix of n.sn probably refers to nwy and šw rather than to nnw
mtw. The final rmw spt n mw has usually been interpreted as a single
genitival phrase “fish of the water’s lip,”77 but is more likely coordi-
nate, with the rmw speaking to nwy and spt n mw to jæãw. The image
is apparently that of a body lying in the shallows at the riverbank.
(67)
sÿm r.k n.j
Listen, then, to me:
(67)
mj.k nfr sÿm n rmt
look, listening is good for people.
68
šms hrw nfr smã mœ
Follow a good time, forget care.
Despite its inordinately large size, the final consonant of col. 67 is
rather than , since the latter is distinguished by a tick (see the
note to col. 82, below). Similarly large signs appear elsewhere in
this manuscript (e.g., 78 kt, 146 ãt). The prepositional phrase n rmt
has occasionally been understood as governed by sÿm (“listening to
people”: Foster 1992, 14; Parkinson 1997, 157; Mathieu 2000, 27;
Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 51), but this is less likely than the more
common translation in which it is governed by nfr, as above.
6. the soul’s first parable (cols. 68–80)
68–69
jw nÿs skæ.f šdw.f
A little man plows his plot,
—————
77The masculine genitive n may not be an error. Though normally feminine, spt
is occasionally treated as masculine: e.g., CT III, 391e spt n twj (cf. CT IV, 45j spt
twj). This may be the origin of Coptic spotou,which evidently derives from a mas-
culine dual *sptwj.
68 CHAPTER THREE
69–70
jw.f æ<t>p.f šmw.f r õnw dpt
and he loads his harvest inside a boat,
Franke has established the meaning of nÿs as denoting a man of
means but in need of protection from the powerful.78 The trace below
the seated man determinative of this word at the end of col. 68 does
not seem to be part of an erased sign and cannot belong to a word be-
tween nÿs and skæ.f; it may remain from the palimpsest.
The use of the subject–sÿm.f construction here and in the next
parable presents a problem. Both the context and the continuation of
the narrative with the sÿm.n.f in cols. 71–75 rule out the usual aorist
meaning in Middle Egyptian, which the construction has elsewhere
in this text (see Chapter Four). Since the subject, nÿs, is undefined, it
might be possible to understand the first sentence as existential “There
was a little man who plowed his plot” (Weill 1947, 124; Guilmot
1969–72, 260; Renaud 1991, 25; Foster 1992, 14; Lohmann 1998,
219; Tobin 2003, 182), but the next sentence indicates that the sÿm.f
is part of the subject–sÿm.f construction and not a virtual relative. As
this and the following story are parables rather than true narratives,
the construction here probably expresses a non-specific present (as
understood by Erman 1896, 45, and most translations since), although
that use is evidently not attested elsewhere.
The of 69 ætp.f is omitted in error. The sign before the suffix is
certainly (for ) rather than , which does not curve up to
the left in this hand. It is possible that the word is a conflation of fæ.f
and ætp.f, although the latter is expected in the context.
70–71
stæs.f sqdwt
and drags a sailing,
—————
78 GM 167 (1998), 33–48. The term is nearly synonymous with the English “little
man”: e.g., “unless we limit the size of the big man so as to give something to the
little man, we can never have a happy or free people” (from a speech of Huey Long
in the US Senate, as reported in the Congressional Record of January 14, 1935).
The verb of stæs.f is identical with that meaning “drag” in col. 12

(see above). The phrase stæs.f sqdwt clearly refers to a voyage by ship.
Two interpretations of the syntax are possible. If stæs is transitive, the
expression “drag a sailing” (Erman “schleppt die Fahrt”: 1896, 45) must
be an idiom for making such a voyage: probably not by towing the
boat (first suggested by Suys 1932, 68 “tandis qu’il la hale et la traîne”),
since 72 rs m dpt later places the man of the parable in the boat (see
below). Alternatively, the verb may be intransitive “flow,”79 in which
case the verbal noun sqdwt “sailing” is used adverbially. The verb-form
stæs.f is used either circumstantially (imperfect) or as a clause of purpose
(subjunctive). It can be understood as “emphatic,” but in view of the
past tense of the following mæ.n.f clause, the sÿm.n.f would more prob-
ably have been employed if an initial circumstance had been intended.
(71)
œb.f tkn
his festival near.
The man’s “festival” has been explained in several ways: as “la fête
de la mise au grenier” (Maspero 1907, 128), as a time of mourning
(Suys 1932, 69 n. 1; Hannig 1991, 27–28) or rejoicing (Tobin 1991,
348), as a time of liberty (Scharff 1937, 35 n. 6), and as returning home
(Jacobsohn 1952, 26 n. 1).80 Of these, the notion of personal celebra-
tion after the harvest seems likeliest: it both reflects the preceding
exhortation šms hrw nfr “follow a good time” (col. 68)81 and enhances
the pathos of the tragedy that follows.
—————
79 Wb. IV, 353–54, there characterized as “belegt seit D. 18,” but possibly in
Peas. B1 270 šj stæw “flowing basin”: Parkinson, Peasant, 34, 7. I owe this reference to
Richard Parkinson.
80 Goedicke’s “accounting” (1970, 134), followed by Foster (1992, 14) and To-
bin (2003, 182 “taxation”), is entirely speculative. The interpretation œæb f “la festa
del 12o distretto” offered by Chioffi and Rigamonti (2007, 52) requires a highly un-
likely use of without determinative as a place name.
81 Cf. the expression zj n œæb “man of festival” (Wb. III, 58, 12), which is used in
parallel with zmæy n hrw nfr “associate of a good time”: Janssen, Autobiografie, 144 Ao.
70 CHAPTER THREE
71–72
mæ.n.f prt wãt nt mœyt
When he saw the darkening of a norther’s emergence,
The Soul’s parable continues from her as a past narrative, with
mæ.n.f perhaps expressing an initial circumstantial clause. The rest of
the clause has been understood to describe the onset of a storm, but the
next two clauses seem to describe the man watching the sunset (see
below), arguing against that interpretation. As indicated by the follow-
ing rë œr ëq “as the Sun was going in,” the wãt “darkening” is that of
evening (Wb. I, 6/11), when the wind (prevailing northerly in Egypt)
picks up as the land cools. The final “water” sign is undoubtedly an
unusual second determinative of mœyt “north-wind,”82 though not
necessarily indicative of a rainstorm. The image is probably that of
twilight accompanied by a northerly breeze that darkens the water.
72–73
rs m dpt rë œr ëq
he watched in the boat as the Sun was going in,
Faulkner (1956, 35 n. 59) has interpreted the initial verb as an el-
lipsis for rs.n.f, as also 73 pr and 74 æq, but these can be understood as
written, as statives expressing the past tense of an intransitive verb.
Goedicke’s reading of the preposition as (1970, 135) is mis-
taken: the bird’s back and “ears” (which he saw as ) are clearly
joined to the base (which he saw as ), and is never ligatured
by this scribe (cols. 7, 29, 84). The verb rs can mean merely “awake”
but here more likely has the extended sense “watchful” (Wb. II, 450,
7; see Hannig 1991, 29). The phrase rë œr ëq refers to the sunset (cf.
Pyr. 1469b–c) rather than to the sun’s disappearance behind storm
clouds. There seems to be a subtle word-play between 71 prt and 73
ëq, and again between 73 pr.(w) and 74 æq.(w).
—————
Probably not a separate rectum of nt, which would most likely be expressed as
82
nt mœyt œnë mw. Osing’s interpretation of mw as subject to rs.(w) is improbable: see

Hannig 1991, 28–29.
73–74
pr œnë œjmt.f msw.f
disembarked with his wife and his children,
The reading rather than Goedicke’s (1970, 135) is

clear; prj is consistently written with in this text. Goedicke’s in-
terpretation of the verb as a second object of œr—“while the sun sets
and comes up (again)”; followed by Hannig (1991, 29–31), Tobin
(1991, 348, and 2003, 182), Lohmann (1998, 219), and Mathieu
(2000, 27)—is therefore improbable. The verb form is most likely the
stative, as in col. 72 rs.
The verb’s sense has been understood as “escape” (Scharff 1937, 35
n. 11; van de Walle 1939, 314; Weill 1947, 124; von der Wense 1949,
69; Jacobsohn 1952, 23; Faulkner 1956, 27; Guilmot 1968–72, 259;
Barta 1969, 24; Wilson 1969, 406; Osing 1977b, 620; Bresciani 1999,
202), but in the interpretation argued above for cols. 71–72, there is
nothing to “escape” from. The preceding clauses indicate that the man
is on deck (watching the sun set). Therefore, pr “went up” probably
refers to disembarking (as seen by Renaud 1991, 25 n. 13), antonym
of hæj “go down” used of boarding a boat (Wb. II, 472, 9–10). For
msw.f as coordinate with œjmt.f, see the note to col. 76–77, below.
(74)
æq tp š
and they perished atop a depression
The initial æq is probably the third-person plural stative (Barta

1969, 35 n. 57) rather than a plural active participle (Hannig 1991,
31): the absence of an ending or plural strokes is typical for the 3pl
stative in this text, but not for the (masculine) plural participle (see n.
73, above; a 3pl stative ending appears in 63 wš.w).
If šj means “lake, pool,” the preposition tp implies location “atop”
a body of water (Wb. V, 274, 9–11), which is inconsistent with that of
the wife and children indicated by the preceding clause: it is improba-
ble that the crocodiles climbed into the boat (which was large enough
72 CHAPTER THREE
to carry a cargo of grain). The noun šj, however, can refer to a dry
“depression” as well as one full of water (Wb. IV, 398, 5–9)—in par-
ticular, the natural “basins” of the Nile Valley that filled with water
during the inundation.83 The spelling of the word here, with the same
determinative used for tæ “land” (e.g., col. 78), suits such a reference.
74–75
šn m grœ õr mryt
ringed by night with riverbankers.
Given its undefined antecedent, šn is probably the stative rather
than a passive participle. The verb is undoubtedly šnj “ring, encircle”:
the determinative84 merely specifies the agent of the action. Judging
from its spelling (also in col. 97), the noun mryt is probably a collec-
tive rather than a nisbe.
75–76
ÿr.jn.f œms pzš.f m ãrw
So, he ended up seated and spreading out by voice,
Despite its bookroll determinative, the verb of pzš.f is probably
not psš “divide, share,” which makes no sense in this context, but pšš
“spread out,” which is commonly written pzš in Middle Kingdom
texts (Wb. I, 560); the determinatives are borrowed from psš “divide,
share” (cf. CT VIII, 388–89). The expression pzš m ãrw is evidently
an idiom for “cry aloud, broadcast.”
76–77
œr ÿd nj rm.j n tfæ mst
saying, “I have not wept for that one who was born,
The negation here has usually been understood as present but also
as future (Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 54; similarly, Mathieu 2000,
27), and perfect or past (Jacobsohn 1952, 23; Williams 1962, 55; Osing
—————
83 See Allen, Heqanakht, 150.
84 Also found in Peas. B1 161 and R 25, 2: Parkinson, Peasant, 26, 5–6.
1977b, 620; Foster 1992, 14; Quirke 2004, 132). 85 The normal Middle
Egyptian past negation, however, suits the context: the initial ÿr.jn.f
œms “So, he ended up seated” implies a passage of some time between
the death of the wife and children and the man’s “spreading out by
voice.” There is no compelling reason to assume an exceptional use
of nj sÿm.f or an older negated prospective “I shall not weep.”
The demonstrative tfæ perhaps reflects the separation between the
man and the dead mst (on pf gs “yon side” and nfæ “yonder”: cols. 16
and 37). The determinative of mst is clearly , as seen by Erman
(1896, 47), rather than the of other transcriptions. The word has
usually been interpreted as an active participle but is more likely a
passive one (as understood by Barta 1969, 35 n. 62; Hannig 1991, 26;
Assmann 1998, 393; and Burkard 2008, 156), contrasting the mother,
who has experience life, with her children (below), who have not.
Scharff’s interpretation of mst as referring to a deceased daughter
(1937, 37 n. 20, perhaps anticipated by Suys 1932, 69) was adopted in
subsequent translations (with the exception of de Buck 1947, 26) until
effectively countered by Faulkner (1956, 36 n. 64). This was based in
part on Scharff’s understanding of 74 msw.f alone as subject of æq “pe-
rished”—in other words, both husband and wife surviving while the
children died—but the following reference to the mst as being in “the
West” rules it out.
77–78
nn n.s prt m jmnt r kt œr tæ
though she has no emerging from the West to another one
on earth.
Wilson (1969, 406 n. 12) noted that prt m jmnt may reflect the
notion of “coming forth by day,” denied the wife because of the
manner of her death, but this is unlikely in view of the following pre-
positional phrases. Those have commonly been understood to refer to a
—————
85 For the present tense, see Gunn, Studies, 99. Goedicke (1970, 137) argues for
past tense but his translation “I would not weep” is more appropriate of the future.
74 CHAPTER THREE
second lifetime. Gunn’s interpretation of the preposition r with com-

parative sense (“more than another woman”) is possible if œr tæ is to
be understood with prt m jmnt (“emerging from the West on earth”)
but not, as Gunn translated, with r kt, since someone “on earth” does
not “emerge from the West.”86 Mathieu understood r with antagonistic
meaning (2000, 27 “pour s’opposer à une autre, sur terre”), as a refer-
ence to the spirit’s possible opposition to her husband’s remarriage (35
n. 30), but this seems extraneous to the narrative.
The interpretation hinges on what kt “another one” was meant to
denote. Neither the commonly understood “time” or “life” is likely,
because both terms would probably have been reflected by a mascu-
line kj (ënã, zp). Lalouette saw it as referring to the wife: “pour devenir
une autre (femme) sur la terre” (1984, 223). More likely, however, is
a reference to the notion of birth (mswt) inherent in the term mst.87
78–79
mœy.j œr msw.s sdw m swœt
But I care about her children, broken in the egg,
Since this statement is contrastive with the preceding one, mœy.j
is probably “emphatic,” focusing œr msw.s (as understood by Tobin
1991, 340): the point is not the fact that the man cares but those he
cares about. Faulkner (36 n. 64) suggested that msw.s refers to “the
potential offspring whom the husband had hoped his wife would bear
in the future.” This overlooks the more obvious reference to the
children mentioned in col. 74, who perished with the wife (and
would otherwise be unmourned).
—————
86Gunn, Studies, 143 “not more than another woman (who is) upon earth”; fol-
lowed by Suys 1932, 69; Scharff 1937, 34; van de Walle 1939, 314; Weill 1947, 124;
von der Wense 1949, 70; Goedicke 1970, 138; Renaud 1991, 25; Foster 1992, 14. A
reading rk “time” is unlikely, both grammatically and because the sun sign in
this papyrus is always round with a central “dot” when it stands alone in the column.
87 Guilmot understood it as referring to the phrase prt œr tæ (1968–72, 59: “pour
une autre (sortie) sur terre”; followed by Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 55), but this is
unlikely, since the infinitive (prt) is grammatically masculine.
79–80
mæw œr n ãntj nj ënãt.sn
who saw the face of Khenti before they lived.”
The qualifications “broken in the egg” and “before they lived” are
hyperbolic, reflecting the children’s death at a young age (see Williams
1962, 55 n. 2). The determinative of ãntj is probably the crocodile over
a standard, although the latter may have been erased (Erman 1896, 47).
7. the soul’s second parable (cols. 80–85)
80–81
jw nÿs dbœ.f mšrwt
A little man asks for an afternoon meal,
(81)
jw œjm<t>.f ÿd.s n.f jw r msyt
and his wife says to him, “It will be supper,”
For the sense of the subject–sÿm.f construction in this parable, see
the note to cols. 68–69, above. The nature of jw r msyt as a sentence
with impersonal subject was first reflected in de Buck’s translation
(1947, 26) “het zal zijn voor het avondmaal,” which also expresses
the future implications of the preposition r (similarly, van de Walle
1939, 314; Weill 1947, 124; Lalouette 1984, 223; Foster 1992, 15;
Lohmann 1998, 200; Bresciani 1999, 202; Tobin 2003, 182; Chioffi
and Rigamonti 2007, 56). There is no need to assume a textual omis-
sion, as some scholars have done (Faulkner 1956, 36 n. 66; Barta
1969, 34 n. 64; Renaud 1991, 25; and Lohmann 1998, 220).
82
jw.f pr.f r ãntw r.s
and he goes outside at it,
(82)
sï r æt
only for a moment.
76 CHAPTER THREE
The signs between ãntw and r æt have puzzled translators since

Erman. The sign before the preposition is clearly ; the tick that
distinguishes the latter from is also visible in 48 ïzy.j and is placed
differently from that of the bookroll. All translations have understood
the signs as r ssï, with ssï the infinitive of “an obscure causative verb”
(Faulkner 1956, 36 n. 67), without determinative. A number provide
no translation (Erman 1896, 49; Faulkner 1956, 27; Lichtheim 1973,
166; Lalouette 1984, 223; Lohmann 1998, 220). Suys was first to sug-
gest a meaning, “pleurer(?)” (1932, 69). Scharff offered “schimpfen”
(1937, 40 n. 7), followed in most translations. Barta (1969, 35 n. 66)
suggested a causative of wzï “wasted” (Wb. I, 358, 5); Goedicke
(1970, 141), a causative of sæt (Wb. IV, 27, 5: see the note to cols. 84–
85, below); and Badawy, a form of sïj “shoot” referring to urination
(1961, 145; followed by Parkinson 1997, 157, and Bresciani 1999,
202). None of these offers a reasonable interpretation of the passage,
and any of the verbs suggested should have a determinative.
Rather than r ssï, the signs are undoubtedly to be read r.s sï. The
prepositional phrase could mean “from her,” with reference to the
wife (literally, “with respect to her”), but prj r otherwise means “go out
against” a person (Wb. I, 520, 2); it is therefore more probably “at it,”
referring to the wife’s rejection of his request (cf. Wb. II, 387, 25).
The word sï is the subordinating proclitic particle (Gardiner, EG, §
231) and belongs with the following r æt “for a moment”; its presence
is evidently meant to distinguish this phrase from a less-marked ad-
junct (“he goes out at this for a moment”).
83
ënn.f sw r pr.f jw.f mj ky
When he turns back to his house, he is like another man
The spelling with both signs before the determinative argues
against an interpretation of the initial verb form as the sÿm.n.f (Faulkner
1956, 27; Griffiths 1967, 157; Lichtheim 1973, 166; Tobin 1991, 348,
and 2003, 183; Lohmann 1998, 219). In either case, it functions as an
initial circumstantial clause, as Erman first understood (1896, 49).
Griffiths suggested emending ky “another,” with the seated-man

determinative, to ky “baboon”: “he returned to his house (acting) like
an ape” (1967, 157). This has found no acceptance and is unneces-
sary: the remainder of the story does not necessarily indicate rage (see
the note to cols. 84–85, below).
83–84
œjmt.f œr šsæ n.f
his wife pleading to him.
The verb šsæ here has usually been understood as Scharff’s “kündig
sein” (1937, 41 n. 9) or Faulkner’s “reasoned (?) with” (1956, 27),
despite the fact that the preposition n rather than œr or m does not suit
this meaning, as Scharff realized. Better sense is given by Lichtheim’s
“beseeches” (1973, 166; followed by Lalouette 1984, 223; Parkinson
1997, 157; Quirke 2004, 132; and similarly, Osing 1977b, 620, and
Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 56). The verb is most likely a metathesis
of sšæj “plead” (Wb. IV, 281, 2), with the determinative influenced by
šsæ “gain experience” (Wb. IV, 543–44). The lack of an introductory
jw suggests that the clause is circumstantial to the preceding one, with
the subject–œr-sÿm construction indicating the imperfect.
(84)
nj sÿm.n.f n.s
He doesn’t listen to her,
84–85
sï n.f wš jb n wpwtjw
offended and unreceptive to those of the household.
The word sï (here with determinative) is most likely a form of the

later sæt (Wb. IV, 27, 5), as suggested by Goedicke (1970, 141). The
later verb is used both transitively and intransitively. The former use
occurs with both human and divine objects and is rendered by the
Wörterbuch as “slur, blaspheme”; the latter occurs only in a single in-
stance in the Destruction of Mankind, where it is translated as “suffer
78 CHAPTER THREE
damage.”88 The root meaning may be “offend, be offended.” In the

present context, it refers to the commoner’s reaction to his wife’s re-
jection and is probably the stative with a following reflexive dative.
The expression wš jb appears only here. The verb is undoubtedly
the same as that in col. 63, despite the difference in determinatives
(here perhaps reflecting the more abstract nature of the action). The
literal translation “stripped of heart” (see cols. 62–63, above) presents
an image of emotional barrenness, hence, lack of receptivity.
The term wpwtjw is either the plural of wpwtj “messenger” or a
plural nisbe of wpwt “household” (Wb I, 303, 4–6). The latter, first
suggested by Lichtheim (1973, 166; followed by Tobin 1991, 348,
and 2003, 183; Parkinson 1997, 157; and Bresciani 1999, 202) is more
likely in the context. This in turn indicates that the preceding n is the
preposition rather than the indirect genitive (pace Faulkner 1956, 36
n. 71). Goedicke’s interpretation of the term as “the spirits of the de-
mons” (1970, 142–43; similarly, Foster 1992, 15, and Mathieu 2000,
35 n. 24) is unnecessarily speculative.
8. the man’s first litany (cols. 85–103)
85–86
jw wp.n.j r.j n bæ.j
And I opened my mouth to my soul,
(86)
wšb.j ÿdt.n.f
86–87
mj.k bëœ rn.j
Look, my name is reeking:
—————
88E. Hornung, Der ägyptische Mythos von der Himmelskuh: eine Ätiologie des Unvoll-
kommenen, 3rd ed. (OBO 46; Freiburg, 1997), 25: nj sæt.n ërryt.f “his portal cannot
suffer damage.”
(87)
mj.k r st æsw
look, more than carrion’s smell
88
m hrww šmw pt tæ.t
on Harvest days, when the sky is hot.
The verb-form bëœ, which occurs in this writing only in the papy-
rus, was initially interpreted as “despised” (Erman 1896, 51; followed
by Maspero 1907, 129; Ranke 1926, 26; Pieper 1927, 27; Blackman
1930, 70; van de Walle 1939, 314; Garnot 1944, 22; Weill 1947, 125;
Faulkner 1956, 27; Thausing 1957, 265; Potapova 1965, 77; Lohmann
1998, 220; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 58). Scharff suggested “offen-
sive” (1937, 44; followed by von der Wense 1949, 70; Spiegel 1950,
48; Brunner-Traut 1967, 9; Barta 1969, 25; Hornung 1990, 113 ; Re-
naud 1991, 26; Tobin 1991, 349, and 2003, 183; Lohmann 1998, 220).
Lurie (1939, 144) was the first to suggest “stink,” which has been fol-
lowed in other translations. That sense seems likeliest, both from the
determinatives and from the comparison to sïj “smell” throughout the
litany; the usual meaning of bëœj, “overwhelm,” suggests the connota-
tion of an overpowering smell. In any case, it is clear that bëœ rn.j
denotes the Man’s bad reputation. The comparative r indicates that
bëœ has adjectival value and is therefore probably an active participle.
Erman’s understanding of the second of each stanza as a
repetition of the initial mj.k has been followed by Maspero (1907, 129),
Ranke (1926, 26), Weill (1947, 125), Spiegel (1950, 48), Faulkner
(1956, 27), Frantsev (1960, 210), Guilmot (1968–72, 255), Lichtheim
(1973, 166), Lalouette (1984, 223), Renaud (1991, 26), Tobin (1991,
349, and 2003, 183), Parkinson (1997, 158), Assmann (1998, 394),
Lohmann (1998, 220), Bresciani (1999, 202), and Chioffi and Riga-
monti (2007, 58). Other scholars have adopted Sethe’s interpretation of
it (1927, 65; also Pieper 1927, 27) as the compound preposition m ë.k
“through you,” identifying the Soul as the cause of the Man’s ill re-
pute. Faulkner (1956, 36 n. 73) noted, however, that there is nothing
80 CHAPTER THREE
in the text to indicate that the Soul was the source of the Man’s
troubles. The repetition of mj.k “look” serves to divide the first com-
parison in each stanza as a line of verse separate from the initial one.
Mathieu (2000, 27) translated “mon nom serait odieux à cause de
toi,” with the conditional reflecting his view (2000, 35 n. 36) that the
Man is thinking of the final judgment, when his name would be
odious if he acceded to the Soul’s desire for a premature death. The
remaining litanies, however, clearly indicate that the Man at this
point has given up his resistance and has adopted the Soul’s point of
view. This obviates Mathieu’s conditional as well as the occasional
translation of bëœ as future (first by Scharff 1937, 43).
The noun æsw is unattested elsewhere with this determinative.
Most translations have followed either Scharf’s suggestion that it refers
to bird droppings (1937, 44) or Blackman’s interpretation of it as a
term for bald-headed vultures (1938, 67–68). Goedicke, who adopted
Scharff’s surmise, proposed a connection with æs (1970, 146–477),
more fully æjs, a general term for offal (Wb. I, 20, 10–13; Wb. Drogen-
namen, 1). The determinative here, in place of the usual “pustule,”
suggests an image of carrion, as understood by a few scholars (Licht-
heim 1973, 166; Lalouette 1984, 223; Assmann 1998, 394; Haller
2004, 17; Quirke 2004, 132).
88–89
mj.k bëœ rn.j
(89)
mj.k <r st> šzp sbnw
look, more than an eel-trap’s smell
90
m hrw rzf pt tæ.t
on catch day, when the sky is hot.
Before šzp, the scribe inadvertently omitted the preposition r, and
probably also the word st(j), which is used in the other four of the
first five stanzas. The word šzp has been interpreted universally as a
form of the verb meaning “receive” (not “catch,” as often understood
here), but this makes little sense in the context, either as a participle
(“one who receives a sbnw”) or as an infinitive (“receiving a sbnw”). A
participle denoting a human being is out of place in the first five stan-
zas, where the comparison is otherwise to the smell of things or
animals, and is also unlikely in view of the lack of a seated-man de-
terminative. It is also improbable that the “receiving” of something
would reek, rather than the thing itself. In that light, šzp more likely
is a noun; its meaning is dependent on that of the following noun.
The hapax sbnw has uniformly been translated as “fish,” from its
determinative. As Scharff pointed out (1937, 45), the term derives
from zbn “glide,” which can have the same determinative (Wb. III,
433). It may be merely a more colorful term for fish than the common
rmw, but the basic sense of the verb suggests it may be the otherwise
unknown word for “eel”.89 Despite the absence of a relevant deter-
minative, the word šzp may then denote the trap in which eels have
traditionally been caught, which can smell rancid both from the kind
of bait used and from the dead eel itself.90
The term rzf has sometimes been translated as an activity: “catch-
ing” (Lurie 1939, 144; Faulkner 1956, 28; Frantsev 1960, 210;
Potapova 1965, 77; Parkinson 1997, 158), “fishing” (Lichtheim 1973,
166; Tobin 1991, 349, and 2003, 183; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007,
59), “hunting” (Goedicke 1970, 148), “angling” (Foster 1992, 15),
and “trawling” (Quirke 2004, 132). The noun, however, refers not to
the act of catching but to the catch itself (Wb. II, 449, 4–6), as reflected
in most translations.
—————
89 For eels in the Nile, see D. Brewer and R.F. Friedman, Fish and Fishing in
Ancient Egypt (The Natural History of Egypt 2; Warminster, 1989), 71.
90 The word possibly derives from the lattice-work of which the trap was
constructed: cf. šzpt “gazebo” (Wb. IV, 535). “The earliest recorded eel traps con-
sisted of sticks and branches held together with sinew and the basic design has
remained fairly consistent since those times”; “The traps are always baited to attract
eels, with some believing the more the bait stinks the better due to the eels’ keen
sense of smell” (www.eeltraps.com).
82 CHAPTER THREE
91
mj.k bëœ rn.j
91–92
mj.k r st æp«d»w
look, more than ducks’ smell
92–93
r bwæt nt trjw õr msyt
at a rise of reeds with a brood.
The hapax æpsw has been related to 87 æsw (Scharff 1937, 43; Van
de Walle 1939, 314; Garnot 1944, 23; von der Wense 1949, 70; Spie-
gel 1950, 48; Jacobsohn 1952, 31; Wilson 1969, 406; Kitchen 1999,
81) but it is almost certainly an error for æpdw “ducks” (Erman 1896,
54), perhaps influenced by æsw, as Faulkner suggested (1956, 37 n. 77).
Ducks themselves are not notoriously malodorous, although their
droppings often are. This suggests that the initial preposition of the
third line does not denote a second comparative, as universally under-
stood, but rather has locative sense (Wb. II, 387, 22).
Blackman’s interpretation of bwæt as “covert” (1930, 70) has been
followed in most translations. Weill (1947, 126 n. d) pointed out, how-
ever, that the word is obviously related to bwæ “stand out” (Wb. I,
454) and therefore probably refers to a rise of ground, as Erman orig-
inally saw (1896, 53; followed by Maspero 1907, 129; Ranke 1926,
26; Lurie 1939, 144; Lalouette 1984, 223; Foster 1992, 15; Haller
2004, 17); that sense is also more compatible with the determinative.
As Faulkner noted (1956, 37 n. 79), Erman’s original understanding
of trjw as “willows” (followed by Blackman 1930, 70) is in error.91
The final msyt has usually been interpreted as a term for waterfowl
(after Wb. II, 143) but is probably the same as the collective for child-
ren and foals (Wb. II, 140, 11–13 and 15), as Haller (2004, 17) and
—————
See L. Keimer, BIFAO 31 (1931), 227–29. The spelling in col. 92 clearly reflects
91
a word originally ending in r rather than the feminine ïrt “willow” (Wb. V, 385).
Quirke (2004, 132) realized.92 The image seems to be that of a mound

of dry ground within a reed marsh, where birds have nested.
(93)
mj.k bëœ rn.j
94
mj.k r st œæmw
look, more than fowling’s smell
94–95
r ãæzw nw zšw œæm n.sn
at the channels of the nests fowled for them.
The verb œæm is used of fishing and fowling (Wb. III, 31, 12–13
and 18); the reference to zšw “nests” indicates the latter activity here.
The lack of a seated man and plural strokes identifies œæmw as a verbal
noun rather than the plural “fishermen” (Wb. III, 32, 3) of most
translations.93 As in the previous stanza, the preposition r in the third
line may indicate locale rather than another comparison: “fowling”
may not be malodorous in itself but probably was so in marshes full of
bird nests. Gardiner has established the probable meaning of ãæzw.94
The final word of the stanza has usually been understood as
œæm.n.sn, either a relative form “which they have fowled” (most
translations) or the sÿm.n.f used circumstantially “when they have
fowled” (Erman 1896, 54; Ranke 1926, 26; Lurie 1939, 144; La-
louette 1984, 223; Foster 1992, 15).95 Since col. 94 œæmw is a verbal
—————
92See also R. Caminos, Late Egyptian Miscellanies (Brown Egyptological Studies 1;
London, 1954), 348; W. Helck, Materialien zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Neuen Reiches
III (AAWLM 1963 no. 2; Mainz, 1963), 309.
93 Exceptions are the singular “pêcheur” of Weill (1947, 125) and Mathieu
(2000, 29), and Potapova’s unsubstantiated bolotna] tina “marsh-slime” (1965, 79).
94 A.H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica (Oxford, 1947), I, *9 no. 43.
95 Von der Wense’s “der Unrat auf dem Schlamm“ (1949, 70) and Potapova’s
rybaq|i otrep|] i nevod “fishermen’s rags and net” (1965, 79) unfounded.
84 CHAPTER THREE
noun, however, the only possible referents of the suffix pronoun are
ãæzw “channels” or zšw “nests,” neither of which are appropriate
subjects of œæm.n.sn. This indicates the reading œæm n.sn “fowled for
them,” with a passive participle. The participle modifies ãæzw “chan-
nels” and the pronoun refers to zšw “nests.”
95–96
mj.k bëœ rn.j
(96)
mj.k r st msœw
look, more than crocodiles’ smell
97
r œmst õr ëÿw õr mryt
at a site of slaughter with riverbankers.
Although œmst could be the infinitive of cols. 133 and 135, as it is
normally understood, here it is more likely a noun denoting a place of
sitting (as Wb. III, 99, 3), as Barta sensed (1969, 25; followed by Lich-
theim 1973, 166; “hut”). Together with the fact that crocodiles
themselves do not have an inherently unpleasant smell,96 this suggests
that the preposition r at the head of the third line is locative, as in the
two preceding stanzas.
The noun appears to be either ëÿw “desert edges” (of the
cultivation: Wb. I, 239, 6) or spæwt “areas of cultivation.”97 The second
is unlikely in view of the spelling without , and spæt is not used else-
where as a general term for “region” (as understood by Goedicke 1970,
150; Hornung 1990, 113; Tobin 1991, 349; Lohmann 1998, 221;
Haller 2004, 17; Quirke 2004, 132). The first does not appear else-
—————
www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/crocs/wrestling/wrestling3.html.
96
For the latter (Goedicke, 1970, 151; Lohmann, 1998, 220; Quirke 2004, 132),
97
see Allen, Heqanakht, 150. The reading ÿæÿæt argued by Scharff (1937, 46 n. 11; fol-
lowed by van de Walle 1939, 315; von der Wense 1949, 71; Spiegel 1950, 49; Jacob-
sohn 1952, 31; Potapova 1965, 79; Wilson 1969, 406) is improbable.
where as a term for the riverbank, as often translated here (Lurie 1939,
144; Barta 1969, 25; Lalouette 1984, 224; Parkinson 1997, 158; Bres-
ciani 1999, 203; Kitchen 1999, 81; Mathieu 2000, 29; Tobin 2003,
183). Faulkner’s “sandbanks” (1956, 28; followed by Renaud 1991,
26; Foster 1991, 15, and 2001, 60) is conjectural; in any case, one
does not sit õr “under” sandbanks.98 The other sense of ëÿw is also ill-
suited to the context, since they were not frequented by crocodiles.99
In light of these difficulties, the word may represent in-
stead a verbal noun of the verb ëÿ “hack up, slaughter” (Wb. I, 238:
cf. Wb. I, 239 æÿt “bloodbath”): that verb appears as in CT
100
VI, 413l r-ëÿ “slaughter.” The first õr-phrase qualifies œmst; the
second qualifies ëÿw, with the agentive sense of col. 74–75 šn … õr
mryt. The third sign of mryt is undoubtedly (for ) rather than
a second : its shape is different from that of the preceding and
similar to that of most example of in this papyrus.
97–98
mj.k bëœ rn.j
(98)
mj.k r zt-œjmt
look, more than a married woman
98-99
ÿd grg r.s n ïæy
about whom the lie of a lover has been told.
The exact connotation of zt-œjmt in the Middle Kingdom, as op-
posed to the separate terms zt “woman” and œjmt “woman, wife,” is
—————
98 Faulkner translated “by sandbanks” (1956, 28), but this meaning is not attested
for the preposition õr. In addition, the Egyptians would undoubtedly have avoided
“sandbanks full of crocodiles.”
99 Weill (1947, 125) translated “la lisière de l’inondation,” but ëÿ does not seem
to have this meaning elsewhere.

100 Cf. ShS. 114–16 jw … mœ õr nfrwt nbt “island … full of all good things.”
86 CHAPTER THREE
unclear. Goedicke (1970, 151) saw it as a term for “a sexually mature

maiden,” but evidence is lacking. The nature of this passage would
seem to support Scharff’s interpretation of the phrase as referring to a
married woman (1937, 46). The word œjmt is used in the text for a
woman in relation to her husband, as usually elsewhere, so the com-
pound term here evidently denotes a woman who is a wife. The use of
the attributive ÿd (passive sÿm.f ) rather than a passive participle ÿdt or
ÿddt indicates that zt-œjmt is undefined, as reflected in most translations.
The term ïæy denotes both “male” and “husband” (Wb. V, 344–
45). The latter meaning has been accepted in some translations (Erman
1896, 53; Maspero 1907, 129; Ranke 1926, 26; Weill 1947, 125; Pota-
pova 1965, 79; Lichtheim 1973, 166; Lalouette 1984, 224; Tobin
1991, 349, and 2003, 184; Foster 1992, 15; Parkinson 1997, 158; Ma-
thieu 2000, 29; Quirke 2004, 132; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 61),
but as Blackman noted (1930, 71), the lack of a third-person feminine
singular suffix argues against it. “Male” probably has the extended sense
of “lover” here, like the New Kingdom term ëœæwtj, which denotes
both a “male” (particularly with reference to virility) and a “lover.”101
The preceding n has been understood either as “to” or “on ac-
count of.” If ïæy refers to a lover rather than a husband, the first is not
likely. Faulkner’s argument that the second meaning would more
likely have been expressed by œr (1956, 37 n. 82) was countered by
Barta (1969, 35 n. 73), citing Edel, AäG, § 757d, and Gardiner, EG,
§ 164, 5. Those references, however, describe the use of the preposi-
tion n to express cause, a meaning ill-suited to the present passage,
since the lover is the subject of the lie, not its cause. Rather than the
preposition, n is probably the indirect genitive, modifying the preced-
ing singular grg “lie”; for the word order, see Gardiner, EG, § 86.102
99–100
mj.k bëœ rn.j
—————
101 E.g., A.H. Gardiner, Late-Egyptian Stories (BA 1; Brussels, 1932) 10, 1; 12, 9–10.
102 Goedicke’s emended jw.s “She belonged” (1970, 152) is unnecessary.
(100)
mj.k r õrd qn
look, more than a brave boy
100–101
ÿd r.f jw.f {jw.f} n msdw.f
about whom has been said, ‘He is for one he should hate.’
A few scholars have understood õrd qn as a direct genitive (Spiegel
1950, 49; Barta 1969, 25; Hornung 1990, 113; Lohmann 1998, 221),
but the absence of a seated-man determinative after qn makes this less
likely than the common interpretation of qn as an adjective (or 3ms
stative) modifying õrd. As such, qn is usually rendered as “brave” or the
like, but also as “sturdy, healthy, able, vigorous” (Blackman 1930, 71;
Lichtheim 1973, 166; Foster 1992, 15; Parkinson 1997, 158; Chioffi
and Rigamonti 2007, 62), “good, fine” (Scharff 1937, 44; van de Walle
1939, 315; Tobin 1991, 349; Haller 2004, 17), and “difficult” (Jacob-
sohn 1952, 31). All but the first, which is the standard meaning of the
adjective (Wb. V, 42), derive from the various ways in which the sense
of the following relative clause has been understood (discussed below).
The initial ÿd is undoubtedly the passive sÿm.f, as in the preceding
stanza, with r.f “about whom”103 referring to õrd qn. The following jw.f
n has been understood as “he belongs to” or the like, but that carries an
aorist connotation, more likely to have been rendered by the adjectival
predicate nj sw. The construction jw.f n may have a less aorist con-
notation, as Sethe sensed (1927, 65 “er soll … gehören”; followed by
Scharff 1937, 44; Jacobsohn 1952, 31; and Hornung 1990, 113).
The final msdw.f has occasionally been understood as a noun of
agent “his hater” (meaning “one who hates him”: Ranke 1926, 26;
Lichtheim 1973, 166; Lalouette 1984, 224; Renaud 1991, 27; Parkin-
—————
103As understood by all except Quirke (2004, 132 “told”). The expression ÿd r
means either “say against” or “say about” (Wb. V, 620, 5–6). The meaning “say to”
(Wb. V, 620, 7) is probably spurious; all of the pre-Ptolemaic examples cited for that
meaning can be understood with the sense of Wb. V, 620, 5–6.
88 CHAPTER THREE
son 1997, 158; Haller 2004, 17). Such a noun is not attested else-
where, however, and the active sense would have been rendered
more probably by an active participle (cf. the feminine msddt: Wb. II,
154, 12; Wb.med., 394). It is undoubtedly a perfective relative form,
as interpreted by most scholars and as suggested by the scribe’s correc-
tion from the imperfective msdd (see Chapter Two, Section 2).104
Blackman understood the sense of the passage as referring to a child of
adultery (1930, 71; first suggested by Maspero 1907, 129 “dont on dit
un mensonge auprès de ses parents”), which has generally been fol-
lowed since: in that case, msdw.f refers either to the boy’s true father
or to the cuckolded husband. Goedicke (1970, 153–54) noted the
possibility of a reference to the boy’s illicit homosexual lover (fol-
lowed by Tobin 2003, 184 n. 15, and possibly Foster 1992, 15).105
There is no compelling rationale in the context for Blackman’s
interpretation, but Goedicke’s bears consideration. It would provide a
male counterpart to the theme of female sexual misbehavior in the
preceding stanza, to which it is linked by the repeated relative ÿd r. It
would also explain the use of jw.f n rather than nj sw, and is more
compatible with the usual prospective sense of the perfective relative
form. The adjective qn suggests a contrast to what is said about the
boy,106 paralleling the more explicit ÿd grg r.s “about whom the lie has
been said” of the previous stanza. Both refer to the damaged reputa-
tion of innocent victims: a married woman and a boy with no
homosexual transgressions.
(101)
mj.k bëœ rn.j
—————
104 Quirke’s translation “told that he is hated” (2004, 132) implies a passive sÿm.f,
which overlooks the preceding n.
105 Barta’s “Sünde” (1969, 26; followed by Lohmann 1998, 224) and Mathieu’s
“l’amant” (2000, 29) refer to adultery (Barta 1969, 35 n. 74; Mathieu 2000, 35 n. 37).
106 A õrd qn “brave boy” was presumably considered the antithesis of a homosex-
ual œjmt õrd “woman boy” (Ptahhotep 457: Žába, Ptaœœotep, 52): cf. R.B. Parkinson,
JEA 81 (1995), 66–70.
102
mj.k <r> dmj n jt<y>
look, more than the harbor of the Sire
102–103
šnn bštw mææ sæ.f
that plots sedition but whose back is seen.
For dmj, see the note to cols. 38–39, above. The two signs fol-
lowing it have been understood as a defective writing of 74 šn (all
studies before Faulkner 1956; also Potapova 1965, 79, and Wilson
1969, 406), as n mzœ “of a/the crocodile” (Goedicke 1970, 154; Fos-
ter 1992, 16; Haller 2004, 17; and Quirke 2004, 133), and n jty “of
the Sire” (Faulkner 1956, 28 and 37 n. 85, and most studies since).
All three interpretations require an emendation: the first, of a missing
šn sign; the second, of a missing or omitted stroke following the cro-
codile; and the third, of a second crocodile and probably also a
determinative. Of these, the second is likeliest epigraphically, but the
term bštw “sedition” that follows presupposes a reference to the king
and therefore argues for Faulkner’s reading.
The word šnn is clearly an imperfective active participle modifying
dmj “harbor.” The phrase mææ sæ.f has been understood as a passive
sÿm.f with nominal subject, with the suffix pronoun referring to jty:
e.g., Barta’s “wenn sein Rücken gesehen wird” (1969, 26). If so, how-
ever, it can only be the prospective passive (sÿmm.f ) “his back will be
seen,” which makes no sense here.107 An active participle like šnn also
makes no sense if the referent of sæ.f is jty (“which sees his back”).108
—————
107 See Allen, Middle Egyptian, §§ 21.2.2. The usual circumstantial translation, such
as that of Barta, requires either the passive sÿm.f (mæ sæ.f “when his back has been
seen”) or the tw-passive of the imperfective sÿm.f (mææ.tw sæ.f “when his back is
seen”). “Seeing the back” is probably not a metaphor for the king’s absence but for
cowardice: note Sin. B 58 nj rdj.n.f sæ.f “he does not give his back” (Koch, Sinuhe,
34; describing Senwosret I) and cf. Parkinson, JEA 81 (1995), 66.
108 An active participle has been understood by Scharff (1937, 44; followed by van
de Walle 1939, 315; Jacobsohn 1952, 31; and possibly also Haller 2004, 17, and Quirke
2004, 133), but with a different referent of sæ.f.
90 CHAPTER THREE
Instead, the pronoun refers to dmj and mææ is a passive participle

“whose back is seen.” This is undoubtedly a metaphor for cowardice,
as in the comparable idiom rdj sæ “give the back” (Wb. IV, 9, 10).
9. the man’s second litany (cols. 103–30)
(103)
ÿd.j n mj mjn
To whom can I speak today?
(103)
snw bjn
Brothers have become bad;
104
ãnmsw nw mjn nj mr.nj
the friends of today, they do not love.
104–105
ÿd.j n mj mjn
(105)
ëwn jbw
Hearts are greedy,
105–106
z nb œr jtt ãwt snnw.f
every man taking the other’s things.
(106)
<ÿd.j n mj mjn>
107
jw zf æq
For kindness has perished
107–108
nãt œr hæ.w n bw-nb
and sternness has descended to everyone.
The partial col. 106 seems to reflect a hiatus before col. 107. The
scribe wrote a reed-leaf after snnw.f—presumably the first sign of the
clause in col. 107, the second line of the next stanza—and subse-
quently erased it (Parkinson 2009, 109), leaving the rest of the
column blank, with enough space for the missing refrain.109
The clause in col. 107–108 recurs in Adm. 5, 10, in almost iden-
tical spelling, with the exception of in place of before the walking
legs: i.e., hæb “has been sent” instead of hæ.w “has descended.”110 The
phrase nãt œr, again spelled as in col. 107, occurs also in Peas. B1 198–
99 jr œb<s>.k œr.k r nãt œr nmj jr.f ãsf.f bw œwrw “if you cloak your face
so as to be stern, who then will bar poverty?”111 The phrase, literally
“force of face” (as a verb in the last passage), is an antonym to zf, sug-
gesting a reference to sternness. Since it does not have the seated-man
determinative, it is more probably an abstract here (and in Adm. 5,
10) than the participial “one who is stern” that has been adopted in
some translations (see Barta 1969, 36 n. 79). For hæj n “descend to (a
person),” see Wb. II, 472, 23; the sense is obviously that everyone has
become stern.
(108)
ÿd.j n mj mjn
—————
109 Parkinson suggests that the area of the erased reed-leaf was “probably still too
moist to be written over immediately, and he neglected to come back and fill in the
right refrain.” While this is conceivable, it seems unlikely for such a minor erasure,
and the papyrus has numerous examples of erasures probably overwritten immediately
(see Chapter Two, Section Two). The gap remains inexplicable.
110 Enmarch, Ipuwer, 35. Quirke (2004, 133) adopts the verb from this parallel in
col. 107, but there is no compelling rationale for such an emendation.

111 Parkinson, Peasant, 29, 10.
92 CHAPTER THREE
(108)
œtp œr bjn
There is contentment with the bad,
109
rdj r.f bw nfr r tæ m st nbt
in that goodness has been put down in every place.
Translations of the clause œtp œr bjn have offered nearly every possi-
ble interpretation of its three words. Erman (1896, 59) understood œtp
œr as a participial compound serving as subject of a 3ms stative bjn:
“Der mit ruhigem Gesicht ist elend” (followed by Ranke 1926, 27;
Scharff 1937, 49; Lurie 1939, 144; Van de Walle 1939, 315; Weill
1947, 127; von der Wense 1949, 71; Jacobsohn 1952, 34; Lanczkowski
1954, 2; and Goedicke 1970, 160–61). De Buck (1947, 28) saw œtp as
an impersonal sÿm.f with œr bjn a prepositional phrase: “Men is inge-
nommen med schlechtheid” (followed in most subsequent studies).
Barta (1969, 26) understood œr bjn as subject of an adjectival œtp: “das
Gesicht der Bosheit ist zufrieden” (perhaps following Spiegel 1950,
50 “Zufrieden ist der Schlechte”; followed by Hornung 1990, 114 ;
Renaud 1991, 27; Lohmann 1998, 222; and Haller 2004, 17).
Of these interpretations, de Buck’s is likeliest to be correct (as re-
flected in the degree of its acceptance): the absence of a seated-man
determinative argues against a participle, and bw nfr in the following
clause is evidently contrastive with an abstract bjn. The verb œtp is prob-
ably an “emphatic” sÿm.f with unexpressed subject stressing œr bjn.
The enclitic r.f in col. 109 relates its clause to the preceding (refe-
rent of the pronoun) more closely than a less-marked circumstantial
(rdj bw nfr r tæ “goodness having been put down”). Goedicke (1970,
161) read the r of r.f as t, but it is difficult to tell from his translation
(“he is willing to abandon goodness”) what verb form he had in
mind. His reading was adopted by Tobin (1991, 350, and 2003, 184),
who understood the form as a future participle rdjt(j).f (“which will
cast goodness to the earth”), but this makes less sense than the more
common reading.
109–10
ÿd.j n mj mjn
(110)
sãër z m zp.f bjn
When a man causes anger by his bad deed,
110–11
ssbt.f bw-nb jw.f ÿw
he makes everyone laugh, though his misdeed is evil.
Most scholars have understood sãër z m zp.f bjn as a participial
clause anticipatory to the pronominal subject of ssbt.f, as rendered by
Erman (1923, 128 “wer einen (guten) Mann durch seine
Schlechtigkeit wütend macht, der bringt alle Leute zum lachen”).
Erman originally understood the clause as an initial circumstantial
(1896, 59; followed by Lurie 1939, 144; von der Wense 1949, 71;
Wilson 1969, 406; Goedicke 1970, 161; Kitchen 1999, 83; Tobin
2003, 184; and similarly, Tobin 1991, 350, and Foster 1992, 16),112
which is somewhat likelier in view of the absence of a seated-man
determinative of sãër. The verb is then “emphatic,” with ssbt.f the
same form in a balanced clause or, more probably, the imperfective.
The final jw.f ÿw is usually rendered as a noun with following ad-
jective, governed by an omitted preposition m, but it is better
analyzed as a circumstantial subject–stative construction, as first seen
by Ranke (1926, 27; followed by Sethe 1927, 65; Scharff 1937, 49;
Van de Walle 1939, 315; De Buck 1947, 28; von der Wense 1949,
71; Jacobsohn 1952, 34; Wilson 1969, 406; Lalouette 1984, 224; and
Kitchen 1999, 83). The sentence as a whole describes a prevalent in-
sensitivity to wrongdoing.
—————
112 The renderings of von der Wense (1949, 71 “Wenn man sich empört”), Tobin
(1991, 350 “For a man is enraged”; 2003, 184 “Though a man be woeful”), and
Foster (1992, 16 “A man is maddened”) do not reflect the transitive value of the
causative.
94 CHAPTER THREE
111–12
ÿd.j n mj mjn
(112)
jw œëÿæ.tw
For one plunders,
112–13
z nb œr jtt snw.f
every man robbing his brothers.
The group at the top of col. 113 has universally been read as
(i.e., snnw.f “his second”), but there is a clear third stroke partly over-
lying the two signs. The ink of this stroke is lighter than that of and
, indicating that the stroke was made after them, perhaps after the
scribe wrote the suffix .
The second and third lines of this stanza have been universally
analyzed as here, with jw œëÿæ.tw one clause and z nb œr jtt snnw.f a
second. It is also possible to read jw œëÿæ.tw z nb “For every man is
plundered” as the first clause and œr jtt snw.f “because his brothers
take” as the second,113 but this is less likely: all tercets in this litany
have the second and third lines as paired statements.
A few scholars have followed Erman (1896, 60) in supplying an
omitted ãwt before snnw.f, as in 105–106 z nb œr jtt ãwt snnw.f “every
man taking the other’s things,” (Ranke 1926, 27; Scharff 1937, 49;
Van de Walle 1939, 315; de Buck 1947, 28; Weill 1947, 127; Wilson
1969, 406). As Lurie (1939, 144) and others have seen, however, an
emendation is unnecessary. The verb jïj is used with the sense of
“take from” in col. 36 (see above) as well as in Peas. B1 134–35 jn ëæt
pw n.k jmy œr jb.k r jt tw šmsw.j “Is anything of yours something bigger
in your mind than my follower robbing you?”114
—————
113 For œr sÿm.f, see Gardiner, EG, § 165.11.
114 Parkinson, Peasant, 23, 11–12.
(113)
ÿd.j n mj mjn
113–14
btw m ëq-jb
The one who should be avoided is an intimate,
114–15
sn jrr œnë.f ãpr m ãft
the brother one used to act with become an opponent.
As Faulkner has seen (1956, 38 n. 94), the of btw is an error for
, with which this word is normally written (Wb. I, 485, 11–14).
The two signs are somewhat similar in hieratic (cf. in col. 112),
and the position of above the indicates that btæw was not in-
tended (pace Faulkner). The word btw is probably a passive participle
(Wb.med., 255), normally used with reference to a serpent but here
undoubtedly with a human referent (antonym of the following sn),
despite the lack of a seated-man determinative.
(115)
ÿd.j n mj mjn
(115)
nj sãæ.t sf
Yesterday has not been remembered;
116
nj jr.t n jr m tæ æt
no one in this time has acted for one who has acted.
The expression m tæ æt has usually been understood as an adjunct
to nj jr.t(w) n jr, with its regular meaning “in this time, now” (Wb. I,
1, 17). De Buck rendered it as “op het eigen ogenblik” (1947, 28),
adopted by Lohmann with the phrase as an adjunct to jr (1998, 223
96 CHAPTER THREE
“der im rechten Augenblick gehandelt hat”). Parkinson followed Loh-

mann’s syntactic analysis but interpreted tæ with past reference (1997,
159 “him who gave help then”). Of these, the common interpretation
is most probably correct. The usual temporal and present reference of
tæ æt argues against the three variant interpretations,115 and the use of
the demonstrative pfæ for past reference in col. 126 (see below) indi-
cates that the author would have used tfæ rather than tæ if that sense had
been intended here. The phrase is thus contrastive to the preceding sf.
(116)
ÿd.j n mj mjn
117
snw bjn
117–18
jnn.tw m ÿrÿrw r mtt nt jb
one brings only strangers into the middle of the heart.
The scribe has omitted the strokes representing the arms (raised in
greeting or homage) of the sign that is commonly used as deter-
minative of ÿrÿr “stranger” (Wb. V, 604).
The word mtt has been understood as related to mtr “witness” or
“exact” (Wb. II, 171–73). The phrase mtt nt jb “middle of the heart,”
however, is attested elsewhere as a term for innermost thoughts or
feelings (Wb. II, 168, 4–6) and can be understood as such here. Al-
though jnn.tw m … r has the sense of “resort to … for” in the similar
verse of cols. 124–25, the meaning here is probably closer to jnj r
“bring” a person “to” something (Wb. I, 90, 3–4). The passage evi-
dently decries the need to take strangers into one’s confidence.
—————
115 Past reference is possible in Adm. 6, 5 œæ r.f jr.n.j ãrw.j m tæj æt “If only I had
used my voice at that time” (Enmarch, Ipuwer, 37), but the context better supports the
reading œæ r.f jr-n.j-ãrw m tæj æt “If only there were someone to use the voice for me
in this time,” with the seated man after ãrw a determinative to the phrase jr-n.j-ãrw.
(118)
ÿd.j n mj mjn
118–19
œrw œtm
Faces are obliterated,
119–20
z nb m œr r õrw r snw.f
every man with face down to his brothers.
Pace Hornung (1990, 115) and Quirke (2004, 133), the word at
the bottom of col. 118 is clearly œrw “faces” and not jbw “hearts”: cf.
the form of the latter in col. 120.
The sense of œrw œtm.(w) as connoting unwillingness or inability
to look (Wb. III, 197, 19) is clear from the line that follows. The
meaning of the stative œtm.(w), however, is stronger than the terms
such as “averted” or “blank” with which it is usually rendered. The
notion is that of the eradication of face-to-face encounters, as seen by
Erman (1896, 63 “die Gesichter vergehen”), Spiegel (1950, 51 “Die
Gesichter sind verschwunden”), Wilson (1969, 406 “Faces have dis-
appeared”), Foster (1992, 16 “Faces are wiped out”), and Haller
(2004, 18 “Die Gesichter sind vernichtet”). The absence of an initial
jw suggests that the final line is a circumstantial clause.
(120)
ÿd.j n mj mjn
(120)
jbw ëwn
Hearts have become greedy;
121
nn wn jb n z rhn.tw œr.f
there is no man’s heart one can depend on.
98 CHAPTER THREE
121–22
ÿd.j n mj mjn
(122)
nn mæëtjw
There are no righteous;
122–23
tæ zp n jrw jsft
the land left to disorder-doers.
(123)
ÿd.j n mj mjn
123–24
jw šw m ëq-jb
There is lack of an intimate;
124–25
jnn.tw m ãmm r srãt n.f
one resorts only to an unknown to make known to.
As Faulkner pointed out (1956, 38 n. 101), the verb srã is com-
monly used of making complaints. In this case, however, its literal
meaning is probably intended, in contrast to the preceding ãmm “an
unknown,” as sensed by Lohmann (1998, 223), Haller (2004, 18), and
Chioffi and Rigamonti (2007, 71).
(125)
ÿd.j n mj mjn
125–26
nn hr-jb
There is no calm-hearted;
126–27
pfæ šm œnë.f nn sw wn
the one once walked with, he is no more.
The demonstrative pfæ implies a distance from the speaker, here
temporal: “often applied to things and persons belonging in the past”
(Gardiner, EG, § 112).116 Erman understood šm as an active participle,
with the suffix pronoun of œnë.f referring to hr-jb: “jener, der mit ihm
ging” (1923, 123). This has been followed in a few translations
(Ranke 1926, 28; Lurie 1939, 145; Faulkner 1956, 29; Bresciani
1999, 204; Kitchen 1999, 85; Haller 2004, 18) but is less likely than
the passive participle first recognized by Scharff (1937, 54 n. 34) and
accepted in most other studies.117 Erman’s reading implies that both
the “calm-hearted” and the one who once associated with him have
vanished, which is a paler statement than that implied by the passive
participle, that the disappearance of the “calm-hearted” leaves no one
who can be associated with.
(127)
ÿd.j n mj mjn
127–29
jw.j ætp.kw õr mæjr n gæw ëq-jb
For I am loaded with need for lack of an intimate.
(129)
ÿd.j n mj mjn
129–30
nf œw tæ nn wn pœw.fj
The injustice that has hit the land, it has no end.
—————
116 So also tfæ in col. 77. Jacobsohn (1952, 36 n. 6) is alone in understanding pfæ
here as modifying hr-jb, which makes little sense in this context.
117 Quirke (2004, 133) saw the form as a relative with (unwritten) 1s subject.
100 CHAPTER THREE
Erman’s rendering of nf œw tæ as “das Böse schlägt das Land”

(1896, 66) has been followed in some translations (Lurie 1939, 145;
Weill 1947, 127; Spiegel 1950, 51; Frantsev 1960, 210; Potapova
1965, 81; Goedicke 1970, 171; Lichtheim 1973, 168; Lalouette 1984,
225; Renaud 1991, 28; Tobin 1991, 351; Foster 1992, 17; Parkinson
1997, 159; Assmann 1998, 395; Lohmann 1998, 223; Kitchen 1999,
85; Tobin 2003, 185; Haller 2004, 18; Quirke 2004, 133), but the
syntax allows only for a noun modified by a participial clause, as Er-
man later saw (1923, 129 “die Sünde, die das Land schlägt”) and as
recognized in other translations.
Following a suggestion of Gunn, Blackman identified the expres-
sion œwj tæ as an idiom for “roam the earth,” a meaning it clearly has in
the Story of Sinuhe, and applied that meaning to the present passage.118
This interpretation has been followed in a number of translations (de
Buck 1947, 29; Faulkner 1956, 29; Wilson 1969, 407; Goedicke 1970,
171; Lichtheim 1973, 168; Tobin 1991, 351; Parkinson 1997, 159;
Assmann 1998, 395; Kitchen 1999, 85; Tobin 2003, 185), but the
more literal meaning also makes sense here, as generally understood.
As Erman saw (1896, 66), the dual strokes behind the of
pœw(j).fj, recorded in other transcriptions, were erased. The same
word was also emended in col. 65, from pœw.f to pœ.fj (see Chapter
Two, Section 2).
10. the man’s third litany (cols. 130–42)
(130)
jw mt m œr.j m mjn
Death is in my sight today,
130–31
<mj> snb mr
like a sick man gets well,
—————
118 A.M. Blackman, JEA 22 (1936), 38.
131–32
mj prt r ãntw r sæ hjmt
like going outside after mourning.
The scribe has added the initial jw to the right of mt. This is the
only stanza in which the final mjn “today” of the first verse is preceded
by the preposition m; in the others, mjn is used adverbially. The scribe
has also omitted the preposition mj “like” before the second verse.
The correct transcription of hjmt was determined by Smither
(1939, 220), who suggested its meaning as “detention.” Smither’s read-
ing, however, was not accepted until Faulkner’s study (1956, 29), and
thereafter only sporadically (Guilmot 1968–72, 256; Wilson 1969, 407;
Goedicke 1970, 173; Lichtheim 1973, 168; Tobin 1991, 351; Parkinson
1997, 159; Assmann 1998, 398; Bresciani 1999, 204; Kitchen 1999, 87;
Mathieu 2000, 31; Burkard 2008, 157; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007,
74). Other translations have largely adopted the conjectured meanings
“sickness” (Erman 1896, 67) or “accident” (Scharff 1937, 56 n. 4).
While Smither’s transcription is correct, the meaning of the word
as “detention” is debatable. Its determinative does not support a rela-
tionship with 18–19 jhm and 49–50 hjm.k, which in any case do not
mean “restrain” (see the note to cols. 18–19 above). As Quirke rea-
lized (2004, 133), hjmt is most likely derived from the verb jhm
“mourn,” which has the same determinative (Wb. I, 118); the noun
appears as æhmt in the New Kingdom (Wb. I, 12, 8).
(132)
jw mt m œr.j mjn
132–33
mj st ëntjw
like myrrh’s smell,
133–34
mj œmst õr œtæw hrw ïæw
like sitting under sails on a windy day.
102 CHAPTER THREE
Blackman (1930, 71) proposed “awning” as the meaning of œtæw,

based on a Demotic parallel, and this has been accepted in some
translations (Scharff 1937, 55; Lurie 1939, 145; Van de Walle 1939,
316; Garnot 1944, 24; De Buck 1947, 29; Gilbert 1949, 85; Spiegel
1950, 53; Jacobsohn 1952, 36; Lanczkowski 1954, 3; Faulkner 1956,
29; Barta 1969, 28; Wilson 1969, 407; Mathieu 2000, 31; Burkard
2008, 157). In the Middle Kingdom, however, the noun has the
meaning “sails” (singular œtæ),119 indicated here by the adjunct hrw ïæw
“on a windy day” (see Goedicke 1970, 174).
(134)
jw mt m œr.j mjn
135
mj st zšnw
like lotuses’ smell,
135–36
mj œmst œr mryt-nt-tãt
like sitting on the Bank of Inebriation.
The “mountain-range” determinative after tãt “inebriation” sug-
gests that the entire phrase mryt nt tãt was understood as a region
outside Egypt. “Sitting on the Bank of Inebriation” is therefore a meta-
phor for translation from the world of everyday reality to one of
intoxication, reverie, and bliss.
(136)
jw mt m œr.j mjn
—————
119 Clearly in Peas. B1 87 = R 14, 4: Parkinson, Peasant, 17, 7–8. The meaning
“sail” is also the primary one in Demotic: CDD œ (09.1), 288 (The Demotic Dictionary
of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, ed. by J.H. Johnson, available online
at http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/cdd/).
136–37
mj wæt œwyt
like the flood’s ebbing,
137–38
mj jw z m mšë r pr.sn
like a man comes home from an expedition.
The phrase wæt œwyt has been interpreted mostly as the infinitive
of wæj “become far” (Wb. I, 245–46) with the noun œwyt “rain” (Wb.
III, 49, 1–3) as its subject (first by Sethe 1927, 66 “das Entfernen des
Regens”), but also as the noun wæt “path” modified by the perfective
passive participle of œwj “hit” (first by Erman 1923, 129 “ein
betretener Weg”), or a direct genitive with œwyt either as “rain” (first
by Erman 1896, 68–69 “Regenweg”) or “inundation” (Foster 1992,
17; Tobin 2003, 186; Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 74).120 All these
interpretations can be justified, but the first is perhaps the most accu-
rate: the “water” determinative argues against the identification of
œwyt as a passive participle of œwj “hit,” and the parallel verse mj kft pt
in the next stanza offers some support both for the analysis of wæt as
the infinitive and for the image of an earthly counterpart to “the sky’s
clearing” here (the last suggested by Barta 1969, 37 n. 90).
The noun œwyt, however, is perhaps better understood with ref-
erence to the inundation than as “rain.” This use seems to appear
otherwise first in the New Kingdom (Wb. III, 49, 4), but the verb
from which it is derived is attested earlier (Wb. III, 48, 16), and the
annual flood was a more familiar phenomenon than rain.121 The im-
age is a metaphor both for the end of a spate of troubles and the
promise of new life. It also offers a stylistic antonym to the line fol-
lowing: “going away” versus “coming home.”
—————
120 The last perhaps the source of Haller’s unique “ein Gang im Überschwang des
Glücks” (2004, 18).
121 The use of œwyt to refer to the inundation may also appear in CT VII, 370f: cf.
B. Backes, Das altägyptische “Zweiwegebuch”: Studien zu den Sargtext-Sprüchen 1029–

1130 (ÄA 69; Wiesbaden, 2005), 342.
104 CHAPTER THREE
Scharff (1937, 57 n. 8) pointed out that the determinative of mšë

suggests an expedition by ship, but as Goedicke noted (1970, 176), the
same determinative is used where the excursion was clearly terrestrial:
e.g., Sin. B 38 mšë «r» tæ tmœw “expedition to the (Libyan) Temehu’s
land,” with the same spelling as in col. 137.122
(138)
jw mt m œr.j mjn
138–39
mj kft pt
like the sky’s clearing.
139–40
mj z sãt jm r ãmt.n.f
like a man enmeshed thereby to what he has not known.
The sense of sãt jm has eluded most scholars. Erman (1896, 69)
and a number of others left it untranslated. Scharff (1937, 57 n. 10)
concluded that a verb had been omitted before z(j) (followed by Van
de Walle 1939, 316; Garnot 1944, 24; Spiegel 1950, 53), and Jacob-
sohn (1952, 37 n. 3) suggested that the passage has been garbled from
an original mj sãt zj. Of those who attempted a translation of the text
as it stands, most have followed the sense of Sethe’s “hingeleitet,
aufmerksam gemacht” (1927, 66), despite the fact that sãt is not at-
tested elsewhere with those meanings.
Except for the bookroll determinative, the verb with this spelling
means either “trap” (Wb. IV, 262–63) or “weave” (Wb. IV, 263),
both probably reflecting a root meaning “enmesh.” A number of
translations have attempted to reflect the first of these meanings: “be-
greift” (Brunner-Traut 1985, 83; Barta 1969, 28), “fowling” (Wilson
1969, 407), “grasping” (Parkinson 1997, 160), “auffängt” (Lohmann
1998, 224), “trapping” (Kitchen 1999, 87), “tracking down” (Quirke
—————
122 Koch, Sinuhe, 27, 8.
2004, 133), and “un uomo che ha compreso un tranello” (Chioffi and
Rigamonti 2007, 75). The root meaning, however, offers better sense
in this context, as a passive participle.123 The adverb jm refers to the
preceding kft pt “the sky’s clearing.”124 The passage as a whole uses
the image of a man entranced by the clearing of the sky, which re-
veals things he could not see before.125 As such, it is a powerful simile
for the sudden attraction of death that is the subject of the third litany.
(140)
jw mt m œr.j mjn
141
mj æbb z mææ pr.sn
like a man longs to see home,
141–42
jr.n.f rnpwt ëšæt jt m nÿrt
when he has spent many years taken in captivity.
The scribe added jt “taken” to the left of rnpwt ëšæt at the bottom
of col. 141. Erman saw this as intended for insertion between the jm
and m of col. 142, but left it untranslated.126 Faulkner regarded it as
“inexplicable” (1956, 26), but Sethe (1927, 66, and 1928, 46, 13)
—————
123 The undefined antecedent might suggest the stative (as seen by Sethe 1927,
66), but the seated man makes a participle likelier.
124 Barta’s reading m r “durch einen Spruch” (1969, 18, 28, and 37 n. 92; followed
by Lohmann 1998, 224) ignores the reed-leaf and the absence of a stroke after
that normally distinguishes the noun “mouth, spell” from the preposition. Goedicke’s
“searcher here” (1970, 176) is dubious.
125 The bookroll determinative may reflect the metaphorical use of the word here.
It also appears in Ptahhotep 95, 96, and 107, all of which can represent similar meta-
phorical uses of the verb.
126 Erman 1896, 70–72. This interpretation was reflected in Erman 1923, 130, and
followed by Ranke (1926, 28), who also left the word untranslated. The stroke be-
low jm that Erman saw as signaling the insertion point is more likely an aborted
overwritten by the following m: see Chapter Two, Section 2.
106 CHAPTER THREE
recognized it as a stative meant to be read with the end of col. 141

and before col. 142. His translation, “in Gefangenschaft gehalten,” has
been followed by a few scholars (Scharff 1937, 56 and 57 n. 15; von
der Wense 1949, 72; Jacobsohn 1952, 37; Barta 1969, 28; Wilson
1969, 407; Lohmann 1998, 224; Quirke 2004, 133; Chioffi and Ri-
gamonti 2007, 76), but most translations have ignored the word.
11. the man’s fourth litany (cols. 142–47)
(142)
wnn ms ntj jm m nïr ënã
Surely, he who is there will be a living god,
143
œr ãsf jw n jrr sw
punishing the misdeed of him who does it.
In contrast to all other translations, Junge has analyzed the second
verse of this stanza as predicate to the first: “Wer dort als lebender
Gott ist, verwehrt das Übel dem, der es tut.”127 This is possible syn-
tactically but unlikely in view of the third stanza of the litany, in which
the prepositional phrase m rã-ãwt after wnn ms ntj jm must be the predi-
cate. The same parallel also argues against Scharff’s analysis of the
second line as governed by wnn ms ntj jm: “Wer dort ist, fürwahr, der
wird ein lebender Gott sein und strafen die sünde an dem der sie tut”
(1937, 58 and 59 n. 4; followed by Van de Walle 1939, 316; Junker
1948, 221; von der Wense 1949, 72; Spiegel 1950, 54; Jacobsohn
1952, 37; and Lanczkowski 1954, 3). Goedicke (1970, 178–79) inter-
preted œr ãsf as “because of having refuted” (followed by Tobin 1991,
352, and 2003, 186) rather than the expression of concomitant action
understood in other translations. This too is possible syntactically, but
unlikely in view of the parallel in the second stanza, which can only
express concomitance.
—————
127 F. Junge, JEA 72 (1986), 122.
The sense of ãsf has generally been understood as “punish” (first

by Erman 1896, 71) but also as “repel, avert, bar, suppress” (Maspero
1907, 130; Jacobsohn 1952, 37; Faulkner 1956, 30; Renaud 1991, 29;
Mathieu 2000, 33).128 The former is likelier in this context, in part
because the aorist sense of the participle is incompatible with the no-
tion of preventing misdeeds. The n before jrr sw is then the
preposition rather than an indirect genitive modifying jw (Wb. III,
336, 15): literally, “punishing the misdeed to the one who does it.”
143–44
wnn ms ntj jm ëœë m wjæ
Surely, he who is there will be standing in the bark,
144–45
œr rdjt dj.t stpwt jm n rw-prw
having choice cuts given from it to the temples.
The second verse of this stanza illustrates the use of r-pr as a term
for “temple” specifically in association with offerings.129 Goedicke’s
reading of the second as (1970, 180 nt-stpwt) is improbable:
the sign’s left end has a clear upward projection.
145–46
wnn ms ntj jm m rã-ãwt
Surely, he who is there will be a knower of things,
146–47
nj ãsf.n.t.f œr spr n rë ãft mdw.f
not barred from appealing to the Sun when he speaks.
Although the final pronoun could refer to rë “the Sun,” in the
context it undoubtedly denotes the deceased.
—————
128 Goedicke’s “having refuted” (1970, 178), Tobin’s “has rejected” (1991, 352) and
“purged away” (2003, 186), Bresciani’s “scansa” (1999, 205), Haller’s “rächt” (2004,
18), and Quirke’s “avenging” (2004, 134) go beyond the attested uses of the verb.
129 P. Spencer, The Egyptian Temple, a Lexicogaphical Study (London, Boston, Mel-
bourne and Henley, 1984), 41.

108 CHAPTER THREE
12. the soul’s fourth speech (cols. 147–54)
147–48
ÿdt.n n.j bæ
What the soul said to me:
All previous references to the Soul have the 1s suffix (bæ.j), but
the pronoun may be intentionally omitted here rather than simply
unwritten. If so, the difference may reflect the impending resolution,
in which the Man is no longer arguing with himself (“my soul”).
(148)
jmj r.k nãwt œr õææ
Put, then, complaint on the stake,
The determinative of the hapax õææ indicates that it denotes a
wood object of some kind.130 Faulkner was the first to propose a
translation, “peg,” suggesting that the image may be that of discarding
“misery like an unwanted garment” and hanging it on a “peg” (1956,
39 n. 111). This was adopted in most subsequent translations, al-
though Lichtheim suggested “wood-pile” (1973, 169; followed by
Quirke 2004, 134) and Tobin, “garbage heap” (1991, 352). Parkin-
son’s “fence” (1997, 160) is based on a suggestion of Gardiner that
the later hapax õæyt, rendered as “palisade,” may be a
collective of õææ.131 Goyon suggested that õææ is related to another
later hapax, õæwj, which he rendered as “brindille, bâton-
132
net.” If either of these is correct, the term in col. 148 may denote a
wood upright, and the image is perhaps that of putting “complaint”
to death by impaling it, as in the New Kingdom punishment of major
criminals rdj œr tp ãt “putting on top of the stick” (Wb. III, 341, 1).
—————
130 And therefore not a form of Wb. I, 361, 6 õæj as argued by Goedicke (1970,
183).
131 A.H. Gardiner, Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum, Third Series, Chester Beatty
Gift (London, 1935), I, 43 n. 2; II, pl. 20, 6, 4; followed by Mathieu (2000, 35 n. 43).
132 J.-C. Goyon, Confirmation du pouvoir royal au nouvel an (BdE 52; Cairo, 1972),
I, 112 n. 261; rejected by W.A. Ward, SAK 5 (1977), 273 n. 34.

148–49
nsw pn sn.j
O belonger, my brother.
Since sn.j “my brother” is written with two seated-man signs,
nsw, with only one, was perhaps not intended to be understood with a
1s suffix. The term, literally “he belongs to,” is used uniquely as a
noun here (see the discussion of Scharff 1937, 61–62 n. 2), and clearly
denotes a relationship closer than mere companionship, as seen first
by Erman (1896, 74 “du Angehöriger”).
149–50
wdn.k œr ëã
You should make offering on the brazier
(150)
mj ëœæ.k œr ënã
in accord with your fighting for life,
150–51
mj ÿd.k r wj ëæ
in accord with your saying, “Desire me here.”
Faulkner’s understanding of the first clause as urging the Man to
offer to the gods (1956, 39 n. 113) is undoubtedly accurate, in contrast
to Scharff’s “Du sollst dich aufs Feuer werfen” (1937, 60), accepted
until Faulkner’s study and occasionally thereafter (Thausing 1957,
266; Wilson 1969, 407; Foster 1992, 18). The offering is presumably
intended to encourage the gods to alleviate the Man’s misfortune.
The sign at the top of col. 150 has been read as (of dmj
“cling”) except for Goedicke’s (1970, 183–84). Neither is com-
pletely satisfactory, because of the clear “bump” in its lower middle,
not present in other examples of and in the papyrus. Goe-
dicke’s r mjœæ.k “in order to be adamant” is impossible, since mëœæ is
otherwise attested only as a noun (Wb. II, 49, 5–6). The verb dmj is
also problematic in view of the sign before the striking man. Faulk-
ner’s reading of this as (1956, 26 and 39 n. 114) rather than
110 CHAPTER THREE
Erman’s (1896, 75) is correct; identical forms are recorded by

Möller, Paläographie I, 113. Since the sign is unlikely to be a deter-
minative of dmj, it must represent the verb ëœæ “fight,” as usual.
This leaves the sign at the top of the column to be accounted for.
The best explanation is probably a form of the brazier with which ëã
is often determined. No exact parallels exist for the form here (cf.
Möller, Paläographie I, 551), but somewhat similar signs occur in CT
IV, 413 (309a); VI, 206e and 308m.
The first mj in col. 150 is then a preposition governing ëœæ.k, as in
the subsequent mj ÿd.k. Faulkner’s emendation of ÿd.k to ÿd.j (1956,
39–40 n. 115; followed by Bresciani 1999, 205) is unnecessary; the
passage makes sense as written. The verb has usually been translated as
present (first by Erman 1896, 75 “wie du sagst”) but also as past (Lurie
1939, 145 podobno tomu kak ty skazal “as you said”), future (Jacob-
sohn 1952, 39 “wie du sagen wirst”), and perfect (Faulkner 1956, 30
“according as I have said,” followed by Bresciani 1999, 205, and with
2s subject by Brunner-Traut 1967, 11; Lohmann 1998, 225; and Tobin
2003, 187). Of these, Jacobsohn’s future is improbable and the past or
perfect would more likely have been expressed by the relative ÿdt.n.k.
The verb forms in mj ëœæ.k and mj ÿd.k are either the infinitive or a
non-attributive relative, but in either case have no specific tense.
Jacobsohn was also the first to understand mr here and in col. 151
as the imperative (1952, 39 “Wünsche, daß ich hier bleibe”) in place
of Scharff’s hypothetical “sei es … sei es” (1937, 62–63 n. 4; see also
Faulkner 1956, 40 n. 117). The sense is clearly that of Jacobsohn’s
translation, as generally understood. The command, however, is most
likely that of the Man to the Soul rather than vice versa, and therefore
a direct quotation introduced by mj ÿd.k, with wj referring to the
Man. Together with the probable non-past sense of mj ÿd.k, it reflects
the Man’s argument in the beginning of the text. Though seemingly
at odds with the Man’s position in the litanies, it establishes one side
of the debate for the resolution that follows. The sense of the passage
as a whole can be paraphrased: “Insofar as you prefer to fight for life
and have me remain here, you should ask the gods for assistance.”
(151)
wjn n.k jmnt
Reject the West for yourself,
The verb of this clause has usually been interpreted as a sÿm.n.f
expressing prior circumstance (Scharff’s “nachdem du den Westen ab-
gelehnt hast” 1937, 60). Faulkner, however, saw it as an imperative
with “ethical” dative (1956, 30 “thrust thou aside the West”; fol-
lowed by Foster 1992, 18; Lohmann 1998, 225;133 Bresciani 1999, 205;
Tobin 2003, 187; Haller 2004, 19; Quirke 2004, 134;134 and Chioffi
and Rigamonti 2007, 80). Although either is arguable syntactically,
the latter gives better sense in the context of the clause that follows.
151–52
mr œm pœ.k jmnt
but desire too that you reach the West
(152)
sæœ œë.k tæ
when your body touches the earth,
The second clause has been understood both as parallel to pœ.k
jmnt (e.g., Jacobsohn 1952, 39 “wünsche auch, daß du den Westen
erreichst und dein Leib zur Erde gelangt”) and as circumstantial to it
(e.g., Faulkner 1956, 30 “but desire that thou mayest attain the West
when thy body goes to earth”). Either interpretation is possible, but
the second is clearly more germane to the immediate context, as seen
by Renaud (1999, 29–30 “Ne désire atteindre l’Occident que lorsque
ton corps aura rejoint la terre”; similarly, Lohmann 1998, 225; Tobin
2003, 187; Haller 2004, 19).
153
ãny.j r sæ wrd.k
and I will alight after your weariness.
—————
133 Transcribed as wjn.n.k but translated as “stelle für dich den Westen zurück.”
134 With the inexplicable translation “hold up the West for yourself.”
112 CHAPTER THREE
154
jã jr.n dmj n zp
Thus we will make harbor at the same time.
The expression jrj dmj “make harbor” seems not to be attested
elsewhere, but jrj is used with an object of place in the sense of “travel
to” (Wb. I, 111, 12); cf. also jrj st “take a position” (Wb. IV, 6, 6–10).
The final prepositional phrase has usually been interpreted as a vari-
ant of the more common m zp “together, at one time” (Wb. III, 438,
8–9). This understanding has been challenged by Goedicke (1970,
186), who renders it “for the occasion,” and Cannuyer and Delpech
(1999), who translate it as “de survivant.” The preceding lines, in
cols. 150–53, however, indicate that the author had in mind both the
Man and the Soul reaching the West (described as dmj “a harbor” in
col. 38) in tandem. Together with the clear sense of reconciliation in
this section, this argues for the usual interpretation of n zp as denoting
commonality. The expression n zp wë is attested elsewhere in the
Middle Kingdom with the closely related meaning “on one occa-
sion.”135
13. the colophon (cols. 154–55)
154–55
jw.f pw œæt.f r pœ.fj mj gmyt m zõæ
That is how it comes, its beginning to its end, as found in
writing.
The colophon, written in red, follows the standard form of Mid-
dle Kingdom literary texts. It undoubtedly indicates that the text was
copied from another manuscript.
—————
135 Anthes, Hatnub, pl. 6, 8.
CHAPTER FOUR
GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS
1. the lexicon
The preserved and restorable text of the Debate contains 346 lexemes
and 1,028 words.1 The lexemes can be divided into eleven categories:
adverbs, nisbes of prepositions and nouns, common nouns, com-
pound nouns,2 proper nouns,3 nouns with a verbal root (abstracts,
nouns of agent, etc.), particles, simple prepositions, pronouns, the
quantifier nb, and verbs. Their distribution is as follows:
CATEGORY NUMBER PERCENTAGE OCCURRENCES PERCENTAGE
Adverbs 3 1% 9 1%
4
Nisbes 7 2% 30 3%
Common nouns 99 29% 246 24%
Compound nouns 7 2% 14 1%
Proper nouns 4 1% 4 < 1%
Verbal nouns 48 14% 69 7%
—————
1 This count differs somewhat from that of Barta (1969, 122–25) and Schenkel
(1973) because of the inclusion of the fragments published by Parkinson (2003) and
additional restorations.
2 Noun phrases viewed as a single noun, as indicated by a common determina-
tive or usage elsewhere. These include bw-nb “everyone”; the direct genitive r-pr
“temple”; the nisbe compounds nj-sw “belonger,” œrj-tæ “survivor,” and õrj-nïr “necro-
polis”; and the participial phrases ëq-jb “intimate” and hr-jb “calm-hearted.” The phrase
mryt-nt-tãt in cols. 135–36 also has a common final determinative but is considered as
three separate lexemes because it is not attested as a compound elsewhere. The ele-
ments of the phrases bw nfr “goodness” (109) and nãt œr “sternness” (107) are also
considered as separate lexemes because they lack a common determinative.
3 Not including the noun rëw “sun” used as a proper name.
4 Not including the nisbes œrj and õrj, which occur only in the compounds œrj-tæ
“survivor” and õrj-nïr “necropolis,” respectively.

114 CHAPTER FOUR
CATEGORY NUMBER PERCENTAGE OCCURRENCES PERCENTAGE

Particles 13 4% 96 9%
Prepositions 10 3% 228 22%
Pronouns 15 4% 52 5%
Quantifier 1 < 1% 5 < 1%
Verbs 138 40% 271 26%
The percentage of occurrences in each category corresponds to the

category’s weight in the lexicon of the text, with the exception of ver-
bal nouns and verb forms, which have a substantially lower number of
occurrences than their lexical weight, and particles and prepositions,
with a higher proportion of occurrences than their distribution in the
lexicon. Verbs and nouns as a whole account for the greatest number of
both lexemes and occurrences, with 271 occurrences (26%) of various
forms of 138 verbs (40% of the lexicon) in the text, and 337 occur-
rences (33%) of 159 nouns of all types (46% of the lexicon).
2. verb forms
The text of the Debate is written in classical Middle Egyptian. It con-

tains most of the verb forms used in that stage of the language (see the
Indices, Section 2), with the exception of the rarer ones: prospective
passive (sÿmm.f ), sÿm.ãr.f, sÿm.kæ.f, and complementary infinitive.
The perfective sÿm.f is restricted to the negation nj sÿm.f, as in
standard Middle Egyptian. The prospective active (sÿmw.f ) appears
not only in the frequent future wnn (142, 143, 145) but also as a more
unusual alternant of the subjunctive in clause-initial position:
rdj.j pœ.f jmnt mj ntj m mr.f (41–42)
I will make him reach the West like one who is in his pyramid.
This use of the form is paralleled in older Middle Egyptian texts, in-
cluding the Coffin Texts, the letters of Heqanakht, and the Tale of the
Shipwrecked Sailor.5 Other possible examples of the form are cols. 47–
—————
5 See also Allen, Heqanakht, 91–96.
GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS 115
48 hjm.k, after conditional jr, an environment in which the prospec-

tive is occasionally used instead of the subjunctive in Middle
Egyptian;6 and 32 mœy.k, 47 swrj.j, 48 ïzy.j, 152 pœ.k, and 153 ãny.j,
with prospective reference. All six, however, could also be instances
of the more common subjunctive (see Section 3, below).
The text observes the standard Middle Egyptian preference for
the stative as the intransitive counterpart of the transitive sÿm.n.f. The
stative is used with reference to the past not only in the subject-stative
construction (107 jw zf æq and nãt œr hæ.w, 114 sn … ãpr) but also in-
itially with third-person subject in past narrative (72 rs, 73 pr, 74 æq), a
relatively rare use.7 The sÿm.n.f of intransitive verbs, or of transitive
verbs in intransitive use, occurs only after a negation (2–3 nj nmë.n,
11 nj sÿm.n.j, 59 nn pr.n.k, 84 nj sÿm.n.f ).
The perfective passive participle of verbs with biliteral roots
shows both the older geminated form (124 ãmm) and the ungemi-
nated form more common in Middle Egyptian (79 sdw). The text has
perhaps one instance of the sÿm.n.f relative in non-attributive use
(“emphatic” or “nominal”)—71 mæ.n.f, as an initial circumstantial—
but a fairly large number of examples of the sÿm.f form in this function:
as an initial conditional or circumstantial (40 tt, 62 ãpr, 83 ënn.f, 110
sãër); with a focused adverbial adjunct (78 mœy.j, 103–29 ÿd.j, 117
and 124 jnn.tw); as object of a preposition (130 snb, 137 jw, 141 æbb,
147 mdw.f, 150 ëœæ.k, 150 ÿd.k, 153 wrd.k),8 subject of another predi-
cate (10 rwj.f, 29–30 ãsf ), and nominal predicate (154 jw.f ). Where
the form is clear it is the imperfective (æbb, ënn.f, jw/jw.f, jnn.tw), but
the perfective is possible in 10 rwj.f and 78 mœy.j.9
—————
6 Allen, Middle Egyptian, § 21.6.
7 For this use in Middle Egyptian, see Allen, Middle Egyptian, § 17.17. Past narra-
tive uses of the intransitive stative are generally restricted to the first person singular:
Doret, Narrative Verbal System, 58–61.
8 130 snb, 150 ëœæ.k and ÿd.k, and 153 wrd.k could be infinitives.
9 The perfective relative in “emphatic” use is attested in Sin. B 202 jr.tw nn mj
mj “How was this done?” (Koch, Sinuhe, 63, 9).

116 CHAPTER FOUR
3. synthetic and analytic prospectives
For statements with prospective reference, the text uses the prospec-
tive and subjunctive forms of the sÿm.f and the periphrastic jw.f r sÿm.
Four instances of the prospective and three of the subjunctive can be
identified morphologically: prospective rdj.j (41) and wnn (142, 143,
145); and subjunctive mæ.k (59) and wn (121, 130). The subjunctive
can also be identified in a number of syntactic environments for
which it is the only or dominant form in Middle Egyptian: as an ini-
tial jussive or optative (7 ëœë.f, 15 tk.f, 23 wÿë, 24 ãsf, 25 sÿm, 26 ãsf,
39 sÿm, 149 wdn.k), in the negation nn sÿm.f (8 dj.t, 9–10 ãpr, 51
gm.k, 121 wn, 130 wn), after the particle jã (46 tm.f, 153 jr.n),10 in
clauses of purpose or result (16 ëœë.f, 23 œtp, 44 sÿdm.k, 46 sÿdm.k, 49
sÿ<d>m.k, 55–56 wšb.f, 59 mæ.k, 86 wšb.j, 150 ëœæ.k), to continue an
imperative (*26 sbæ.j), and as object of rdj (8 õæ.f, 41 pœ.f, 144 dj.t).
In other environments, the sÿm.f with prospective reference could
be either form. Both are attested after conditional jr (47–48 hjm.k), as
noted above, and as object of the verb mrj “desire” (152 pœ.k).11 One
environment in which the prospective is normally used instead of the
subjunctive is the clause of future circumstance.12 This use may be
attested in the Debate in five passages:
ptr km.k
mœy.k œr ënã mj nb-ëœëw (32–33)
What is your gain,
if you will care about life like an owner of riches?
tt jb.f œnë.j jw.f r mër
rdj.j pœ.f jmnt mj ntj m mr.f (40–41)
Should his heart be in accord with me, he will be fortunate,
for I will make him reach the West like one is in his pyramid.
—————
10 See Vernus, Future at Issue, 101–15.
11 For the subjunctive after mrj, see Gardiner, EG, § 452.1a; for the prospective,
Pyr. 977a ( jw).
12 Allen, Middle Egyptian, § 21.6.
swrj.j mw œr bæbæt
ïzy.j šwjw (47–48)
and shall lift away dryness.
ëœët.fj œr œæt hrw qrs
sÿæy.f œnkyt n õrj-nïr (53–55)
who will attend at the tomb on burial-day
mr œm pœ.k jmnt sæœ œë.k tæ
ãny.j r sæ wrd.k (151–53)
But desire too that you reach the West when your body touches the
earth,
In these cases, the verb form in question is either clearly prospective

rather than subjunctive (41 rdj.j) or shows an ending y (32 mœy.j, 48
ïzy.j, 54 sÿæy.f, 153 ãny.j), which is typical of the prospective of final-
weak verbs although also found in the subjunctive of such verbs.13
The periphrastic prospective subject–r-sÿm (“Third Future”) is
used in independent statements or initial clauses and as the apodosis of
an initial “emphatic” conditional:
[ … j]w.n r ÿd [ … ] (*29–1)
[ … ] we are to speak [ … ]
[j]w r õæ[b m] dbæw (2–3)
It would be crooked in return.
jw.j r jït.k (36)
I shall rob you.
tt jb.f œnë.j jw.f r mër (40–41)
Should his heart be in accord with me, he will be fortunate.
—————
13 Allen, Middle Egyptian, §§ 21.2 (prospective) and 19.2 (subjunctive). The pros-
pective active rdj does not have an ending. The ending y of the final-weak
prospective derives from an original –jw: Allen, Inflection, § 20. Apart from the non-
attributive (perfective?) relative mœy.j (78), these are the only examples of the 3ae-inf.
sÿm.f with this ending. It does not appear in this text in the final-weak subjunctive (8
dj.t õæ.f, 51 gm.k, 144 dj.t, 153 jr.n).
118 CHAPTER FOUR
jw.j r jrt njæj (43, 45)

I shall make an awning.
The prospective or subjunctive sÿm.f is also used as an initial future

(47 swrj.j, cited above). In this case, the usage illustrates Vernus’s dis-
tinction between internal and external expressions of the future: thus,
swrj.j “I will drink” vs. jw.j r jït/jrt “I shall rob/make.”14
4. synthetic and analytic imperfectives
A comparable alternation involves the subject–sÿm.f and subject–œr-

sÿm constructions. In this case, the distinction is between what Vernus
has termed “unachieved non-extensive” and “unachieved extensive”
expressions, respectively.15
In the Debate, subject–sÿm.f, with the imperfective, is used for aor-
ist statements. These typically hold true regardless of context—jw ãtw
ãr.sn (21) “Trees fall”—but also more narrowly within the context of
a parable, a usage apparently unique to this text:
jw nÿs skæ.f šdw.f
jw.f æ<t>p.f šmw.f r õnw dpt (68–70)
and he loads his harvest inside a boat.
jw nÿs dbœ.f mšrwt
jw.f pr.f r ãntw r.s sï r æt (80–82)
and his wife says to him, ‘It will be supper,’
and he goes outside at it, only for a moment.
The subject–œr-sÿm construction (“First Present”) is used in the Debate

to describe actions contemporary with another action or with a situa-
tion, including the situation of the speech event itself (moment of
speaking):
—————
14 Vernus, Future at Issue, 24–27.
15 Vernus, Future at Issue, 163–93.
mj.tn bæ.j œr tht.j (11)

nœmn tw œr tfyt nn nwt.k
ãnrj nb œr ÿd jw.j r jït.k (34–36)
In fact, you are being uprooted, without considering yourself,
while everyone deprived is saying, “I shall rob you.”
rs m dpt rë œr ëq (72–73)
He watched in the boat as the Sun was going in.
ënn.f sw r pr.f jw.f mj ky
œjmt.f œr šsæ n.f (83–84)
When he turns back to his house, he is like another man,
ëwn jbw
z nb œr jtt ãwt snnw.f (105–106)
Hearts are greedy,
jw œëÿæ.tw
z nb œr jtt snnw.f (112–13)
For one plunders,
every man robbing the other.
Both uses of the subject–sÿm.f construction correspond to comparable

uses of the simple present in English (aorist and historical present),
while subject–œr-sÿm can usually be rendered best by the English im-
perfect, both as an immediate present (“is leading”) and in non-present
contexts (“was going in”).
These aspectual differences extend to the use of the two predi-
cates in circumstantial clauses without initial subjects. The
imperfective sÿm.f appears in aorist statements (17 jn.f and 110–11
ssbt.f, both governed by an imperfective attributive in the preceding
clause, and 70 stæs.f, following a subject–sÿm.f clause) and other non-
extensive environments (152 sæœ, describing a single event):
pæ js pw prr jn.f sw r.f (17)
that being the one who goes forth and brings himself to it.
120 CHAPTER FOUR
sãër z m zp.f bjn

ssbt.f bw-nb jw.f ÿw (110–11)
jw.f æ<t>p.f šmw.f r õnw dpt
stæs.f sqdwt œb.f tkn (69–71)
and he loads his harvest inside a boat
and drags a sailing, his festival near.
mr œm pœ.k jmnt
sæœ œë.k tæ (151–52)
But desire too that you reach the West
when your body touches the earth.
The example in col. 70 can also be analyzed as an instance of gapping,

where stæs.f is to be understood as governed by 69 jw.f, like æ<t>p.f.
Gapping also explains the use of the imperfective sÿm.f in 76 pzš.f,
which might otherwise appear to be an extensive use of the form, like
the circumstantial œr ÿd that follows:
ÿr.jn.f œms pzš.f m ãrw
œr ÿd nj rm.j n tfæ mst (75–77)
saying, “I have not wept for her who was born.”
In this case, pzš.f is governed by the initial (non-extensive) ÿr.jn.f, like
the stative œms, while œr ÿd indicates an action that is contemporary
(co-extensive) with the situation described by the three preceding
verb forms.
This value of œr plus the infinitive also applies to three or four
other instances of the construction in the Debate:
ptr mnt.f [ …f]
œr [rdjt] sæ.f r [sn].f (14–15)
What is his suffering, that he should [ … ],
giving his back to his brother?
bæ.j wãæ r sdœ æh œr ënã (17–18)
My soul has become too foolish to suppress misery while living.

œr ãsf jw n jrr sw (142–43)
punishing the misdeed of the one who does it.
wnn ms ntj jm ëœë m wjæ
œr rdjt dj.t stpwt jm r rw-prw (143–45)
Surely, he who is there will be standing in the bark,
Only the last of these is a clear example of circumstantial œr plus infi-

nitive: the first is conjectural, the second may involve a verbal noun
rather than the infinitive (“because of life”); the third was perhaps
intended as a virtual relative (“who bars”), although its aspectual value
is the same in both cases.16 As Vernus notes,17 the use of œr plus the
infinitive as an extensive represents a grammaticalized construction, as
distinct from other examples in which œr has the value of a “full prepo-
sition”: 12 œr stæs.j “because of dragging me” (possibly also *14), 13 œr
ãæë.(j) “because of throwing me,” 146 œr spr “from petitioning” (Wb.
III, 335, 10), and perhaps also 150 ëœæ.k œr ënã “your fighting for
life” if ënã is the infinitive rather than a verbal noun.
The clear distinction between subject–sÿm.f and subject–œr-sÿm in
the Debate represents the third stage (Dynasty XI–XII) in Vernus’s
analysis of the history of these two constructions in Middle Egyp-
tian.18 It identifies the probable date of the text’s composition as the
first half of Dynasty XII, perhaps a hundred years earlier than the
copy that has been preserved.19
—————
16 For œr plus infinitive as a virtual relative after an undefined antecedent, see
Allen, Middle Egyptian, § 15.10.2.
17 Future at Issue, 164.
18 Future at Issue, 191.
19 See also P. Vernus, in Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichtheim, 1033–
47. For the date of the papyrus itself, see Chapter Two, above.
CHAPTER FIVE
STYLISTIC ANALYSIS
The Debate between a Man and His Soul is one of the great compositions
of Middle Egyptian literature. As such, it employs the conventions
found in other such works, including versification, metaphor, simile,
and devices such as alliteration and word-play.1 Not all of these fea-
tures are recoverable to the same degree, and the means by which
some are analyzed is the subject of ongoing debate. To the extent that
stylistic features can be discerned, however, they are crucial to the
way in which the work is understood.
1. versification in the litanies
The key stylistic feature of the text is its verse structure. Although
much of the composition has usually been translated as prose, there is
general agreement that at least the litanies in the Man’s third speech
are in verse.2 The stanzas of the first three litanies have been under-
stood most often as tercets and those of the fourth as couplets.3 This
reflects the structure that seems logically innate in each litany, based
on its repetitive elements:
—————
1 See Parkinson, Poetry and Culture, 112–28.
2 The composition apart from the litanies has been treated as verse by Ranke
1926 (cols. 55–68), von der Wense 1949, Barta 1969, Renaud 1991 (cols. 5–30 and
33–55), Tobin 1991 (cols. 5–30), Foster 1992, Parkinson 1997, Assmann 1998, Bre-
sciani 1999, Mathieu 2000, Tobin 2003, and Burkard 2008. The term “litany” has
been adopted here to distinguish the four poems of the Man’s third speech (cols. 85–
147) from the rest of the poem proper.
3 The fourth litany is treated as a tercet by Erman 1923, Spiegel 1950, Potapova
1965, Wilson 1969, Foster 1992, and Mathieu 2000. Von der Wense 1949 treats the
third and fourth litanies as quatrains. Lohmann 1998 and Burkard 2008 treat all the
litanies as couplets. The versification of Barta 1969 is discussed below.
124 CHAPTER FIVE
1 mj.k bëœ rn.j Look, my name is reeking:

mj.k r … look, more than …
… … (8 stanzas)
2 ÿd.j n mj mjn To whom can I speak today?
… …
… … (16 stanzas)
3 jw mwt m œr.j mjn Death is in my sight today,
mj … like …
mj … like … (6 stanzas)
4 wnn ms ntj jm … Surely, he who is there will be …
… … (3 stanzas).
Acceptance of this logical structure, however, requires modification of

the prevailing theory of Egyptian metrics, developed by Gerhard Fecht.4
In Fecht’s analysis, lines of ancient Egyptian verse regularly con-
sist of two or three groups of words (cola), each of which has a single
primary stress. This system works well for some of the lines of the
four litanies: for example,5
3 ÿd.j n–mj mjn
2 jw–šw m–ëq-jb
3 jnn.tw m–ãmm r–srãt–n.f (123–25)
3 jw–mwt m–œr.j mjn
2 mj–æbb–zj mææ–pr.sn
3 jr.n.f–rnpwt–ëšæt jt.w m–nÿrt (140–42)
—————
4 Initially, Fecht, ZÄS 91 (1964), 11–63, supplemented by several later studies.
See Parkinson, Poetry and Culture, 113–14.
5 Based on Barta 1969, 16–18, where the Debate is analyzed according to Fecht’s
system. In the transcription, full forms of all verb forms are used. The words of each
colon are joined by a dash; the numbers on the left indicate the number of cola per line.
STYLISTIC ANALYSIS 125
2 wnn–ms–ntj–jm m–nïr–ënã
2 œr–ãsf–jw n–jrr–sw (142–43)
In most cases, however, retaining the logical verse structure produces

cola that are shorter or longer than those regarded by Fecht as norma-
tive: for instance,
1 mj.k–bëœ–rn.j
2 mj.k–r–dmj n–jty
2 šnn–bštw mææ–sæ.f (101–103)
3 ÿd.j n–mj mjn
1 snw–bjn.w
4 jnn.tw m–ÿrÿrw r–mtt nt–jb (116–18)
1 mj–wæt–œwyt
3 mj–jw–zj m–mšë r–pr.sn (136–38)
2 wnn–ms–ntj–jm m–rã–ãwt
4 nj–ãsf.n.tw.f œr–spr n–rë ãft–mdw.f (145–47)
Surely, he who is there will a knower of things,
who cannot be barred from appealing to the Sun when he speaks.
Fecht’s norm of two or three cola can only be maintained in such

cases by reanalyzing the lines, as Barta has done. But this often results
in a violation of the logical integrity of each line:
3 ÿd.j n–mj mjn
2 snw–bjn.w jnn.tw
3 m–ÿrÿrw r–mtt nt–jb
126 CHAPTER FIVE

Brothers have become bad; one brings only
strangers into the middle of the heart.
2 mj–wæt–œwyt mj–jw–zj
2 m–mšë r–pr.sn
like the flood’s ebbing, like a man comes
home from an expedition.
Barta’s analysis also disrupts the logical stanza structure, producing a

somewhat random pattern of tercets and couplets in the litanies.6
Fecht’s system is based on Coptic, where stress can be deduced
from spelling, but it also entails a somewhat subjective supposition that
groups of words have only a single primary stress.7 That supposition is
borne out by Coptic in some cases: for example, the Coptic circum-
stantial First Present with pronominal subject and stative—e.g.,
efsotp “he chosen”—has a single stress (efsótp), indicating that the
same was probably true for its Middle Egyptian ancestor, jw.f stp.w.
Fecht extrapolates the same stress pattern for the form with nominal
subject—e.g., 36–37 rn.k ënã “your name is alive”—but Coptic indi-
cates that this construction had two stresses—pekšEre onh “your
son is alive” (Jn 4:50 pekšére ónh)—and there is no reason to believe
that the situation was different in Middle Egyptian. Such discrepan-
cies suggest that the cola identified by Fecht’s rules may not always
reflect the true metrical structure of a Middle Kingdom text.
Coptic generally shows a single fully stressed vowel in nouns (in-
cluding the descendants of some original adjectives), independent
pronouns, adverbs, prepositional phrases with a noun or suffix pro-
noun, and verbal compounds with pronominal subject (such as
efsotp); other elements normally function as clitics, without full
—————
6 Barta retains consistent tercets only in the third litany. In the first, he has three
tercets and five couplets; in the second, ten tercets and six couplets; and in the fourth,
two couplets and a tercet.
7 Fecht’s rules defining these stress units are elaborated in ZÄS 91 (1964), 30–36.
stress. For elements that are usually fully stressed, reduction to a clitic
is largely restricted to three syntactic environments: the independent
pronoun as subject in a non-verbal sentence with nominal predicate,
original direct genitive or noun-adjective constructions that have be-
come lexicalized, and the infinitive and conjunct participle with nom-
inal object: e.g., ntok (ntók) “you” vs. ntk nim (ntk-ním) “Who are
you?”; rwme (róme) “man” vs. rm+me (rmtíme) “villager” (from rmï
dmj “man of a village”); stoi (stói) “smell” vs. s+noufe (stinúfe)
“perfume” (from sïj nfr “good smell”); swtm (sótm) “hear” vs. setm-
hroou (setmhróu) “hear noise” (from sÿm ãrw “hearing of noise”).
These features provide a somewhat more objective basis than
Fecht’s cola for deducing the metrics of a Middle Kingdom verse
composition. Not surprisingly, lines analyzed in this way turn out to
have meters not too different from those in Fecht’s analysis, with two
or three feet per line the norm (see Appendix Two). In the first litany,
for example, half of the stanzas have a 3–2–3 meter, as in stanza one:
3 mj.k bëœ rn.j
2 mj.k r–stj–æsw
3 m–hrww–šmw pt tæ.tj
on Harvest days, when the sky is hot.8
In the last two stanzas of the litany, the second line has three feet:
mj.k r–õrd qn.w (100) “look, more than a brave boy” and mj.k r–dmj
n–jty (102) “look, more than the harbor of the Sire.” Lines with four
feet also occur at the end of three stanzas: r–ãæzw nw–zšw œæm n.sn
—————
8 Fecht analyzes proclitic particles as clitics but mj.k followed by a dependent
pronoun as one colon: ZÄS 91 (1964), 34. The particle mj.k itself, however, may have
been fully stressed, as suggested by its origin in mj plus a dependent pronoun (mj-kw:
e.g., Pyr. 162c). Fecht also analyzes an adjectival predicate with nominal subject as a
single colon: ZÄS 91 (1964), 34 and 36. This was perhaps true for common adjec-
tives such as nfr, as indicated by Coptic nefr–noun, but examples such as Sin. B 82
wr n.f jrp r mw “wine was greater for it than water,” where the adjective and noun are
separated, suggest that in other cases both carried full stress.
128 CHAPTER FIVE
(94–95) “at the channels of the nests for which they are fowled,”9 ÿd
grg r.s n–ïæy (98–99) “about whom the lie of a lover has been told,”
and šnn bštw mææ sæ.f (102–103) “that plots sedition but whose back is
seen.”10 This suggests a conscious attention to meter on the part of
the author, with variation from the normal pattern used for stylistic
effect. The overall pattern is 3–2–3 (stanzas 1–3 and 5), 3–2–4 (stanzas
4 and 6), 3–3–3 (stanza 7), and 3–3–4 (stanza 8).
The pattern is less regular in the second litany. Its lines have not
only two to four feet but also one and five. A single foot appears in the
second line of stanzas six, twelve, and fourteen: jw–œëÿæ.tw (112) “For
one plunders,” nn–mæëtjw (122) “There are no righteous,” and nn–hr-jb
(125–26) “There is no calm-hearted.” A line with five feet occurs at
the end of the seventh stanza: sn jrr œnë.f ãpr.w m–ãftj (114–15) “the
brother one used to act with become an opponent.” Ten meters appear
in the litany as a whole: 3–1–2 (stanza 6), 3–1–3 (stanza 14), 3–1–4
(stanza 12), 3–2–2 (stanza 2), 3–2–3 (stanzas 1, 3, 8, 13), 3–2–4 (stanzas
—————
9 The pronominal dative is fully stressed in Coptic, at least bisyllabic n.ïn >
nEtn, and therefore probably also Middle Egyptian n.sn. In Middle Egyptian, how-
ever, it may have been clitic when preceding verbal objects and nominal subjects:
e.g., Pyr. 587c sœm.n–n.k–sw œrw “Horus has turned him away for you,” with two
feet rather than three (sœm.n n.k–sw œrw). A similar bivalence may have existed for
clitic r.f/r.k: e.g., col. 109 rdj–r.f bw–nfr r–tæ m–st–nbt vs. cols. 98–99 ÿd grg r.s n–ïæy.
10 Fecht analyzes the sÿm.f with nominal subject as a single colon: ZÄS 91 (1964),
36. This is based, however, on adjectival predicates, which may not have had the
same prosody as the sÿm.f. The fact that a nominal subject can be separated from the
verb by a number of elements suggests that it bore a separate stress. The same argu-
ment applies to the nominal object of active participles, complement of passive
participles, and subject of relative forms. The fact that attributive forms can have such
complements indicates that they were probably separate cola, as Fecht recognized at
least for relative forms: ZÄS 91 (1964), 35. The prosody of adjectives is uncertain.
Fecht treats a noun with following adjective as a single colon: ZÄS 91 (1964), 32.
Coptic, however, also shows full stress of both elements—Bohairic sToy noufe
(sthói núfe) “perfume”—which suggests that they should normally be analyzed as two
cola except for common (probably lexicalized) phrases such as hrw nfr “good time.”
The quantifier nb, however, was likely only enclitic, as shown by its occasional pres-
ence in direct genitives: e.g., Urk. I, 12, 9 œm-kæ nb ÿt “every ka-servant of the
funerary estate.”
4, 9, 10, 11),11 3–2–5 (stanza 7), 3–3–4 (stanza 5),12 3–3 (stanza 15),
and 3–4 (stanza 16). Although its length indicates that this litany was
intended as the most important of the four, the irregularity of its me-
ter suggests that prosody was less important here than content.
In the third litany, the poem returns to a more regular meter. Its
first three stanzas have a 3–1–3 pattern.13 This is altered in stanzas four
and five by lengthening the final line by one foot (3–1–4), and the final
stanza has a unique 3–4–5 meter. This pattern suggests that the author
may once again have been devoting attention to prosody in his compo-
sition, with a deliberate lengthening of stanzas toward the litany’s end.
Of the 94 lines in the litanies, there are 8 with one foot, 19 with
two, 48 with three, 16 with four, and 3 with five. In the first three lita-
nies, lines of more than three feet occur only at the end of a stanza.
The couplets of the fourth litany, however, use lines of more than
three feet as the first of stanzas one and two and the last of stanzas two
and three (4–2, 4–5, 3–4). This may also be a conscious stylistic de-
vice on the author’s part: the longer lines are associated with finality,
as in the ends of the three preceding litanies.
1. versification in the text
There is general agreement that the literary corpus of the Middle

Kingdom was composed as verse.14 This is undoubtedly true in the
case of the Debate as well, and has been recognized in a number of
translations (see n. 2, above). In other Middle Kingdom literary
works, the primary organizing feature is the two-line unit that Foster
has called the “thought couplet,” defined by him as “a pair of verse
lines which form an independent unit of thought, syntax, and rhet-
—————
11 The final line of stanza nine may have three feet rather than four, if the phrase
mtt nt jb had only one stress: for indirect genitive phrases with a single stress, see
Fecht, ZÄS 91 (1964), 33.
12 Or 3–4–4, if the final bjn of the second line had independent stress.
13 Perhaps 3–2–3 in the first stanze if snb z is a sÿm.f with nominal subject.
14 Parkinson, Poetry and Culture, 114.

130 CHAPTER FIVE
oric.”15 Each line is normally “end-stopped,” coinciding with a

grammatical clause, and the couplets contain no final “run-on lines,
where the grammatical or rhetorical, or thought content continues
without break into the next couplet.”16
The litanies, of course, demonstrate the use of tercets in addition
to couplets. These can be analyzed as a stylistic extension of Foster’s
basic unit. In the verses of the first and second litanies, a common
initial line, or “refrain,” is followed by a couplet; the verses of the
third litany consist of an initial couplet (with a common first line)
expanded by an additional line. These show that adjuncts or attribu-
tives of a single clause can extend over two lines of a couplet (or three
of a tercet, as in the third litany), and that a single line can contain
more than one grammatical clause: e.g., 110–11 ssbt.f bw-nb jw.f ÿw.w
“he makes everyone laugh, though his misdeed is evil” and 141–42
jr.n.f rnpwt ëšæt jt.w m nÿrt “when he has spent many years taken in
captivity,” both of which have a second, circumstantial clause with
stative predicate.
Although the verse structure in the body of the poem is not as
self-evident as it is in the litanies, these criteria can be used to analyze
it. Unlike the litanies, the division between lines in the rest of the
poem is not always clear: for example, 20–21 põrt–pw ënã jw–ãtw
ãr.sn “Life is a cycle; trees fall,” can be analyzed as a single line with
four feet or a couplet with two feet per line.17 In such cases, the
choice usually comes down to individual preference.
The text seems to have been composed largely in couplets, and
most lines have two or three feet, as in the litanies. There are, how-
ever, some probable exceptions to both of these patterns.
Although the litanies have a few lines of five feet, the rest of the
poem may have had none: possible instances can also be analyzed as
—————
15 Foster, JNES 34 (1975), 9.
16 Foster, JNES 34 (1975), 7–8.
17 Treated as a single line by Renaud (1991, 23), Tobin (1991, 346, and 2003,
180), and Mathieu (2000, 21), and as a couplet in other verse translations.
couplets with two feet in one line and three in the other. As in the
litanies, however, a number of lines probably have one foot or four:
for example,
3 twt jb.f œnë.j
1 jw.f–r–mër (40–41)
Should his heart be in accord with me,
he will be fortunate.
3 jr–hjm.k–wj r–mwt m–pæ–qj

4 nn–gm.k ãnt.k œr.s m–jmnt (49–51)
As in the litanies, lines of one foot do not occur in the poem as the
first line of a couplet or tercet. Those with four feet can appear in any
line, or both of a couplet, and are not limited to the beginning or end
of a section (see Appendix Two).
The poem also has nine instances in which an “independent unit
of thought” extends over three lines rather than two—that is, ex-
pressed as a true tercet. Seven mark the end of a section. The Man’s
second speech begins with two symmetrical sections, each of which
has three couplets and a closing tercet. A third tercet marks the end of
the first part of this speech, in which the Man speaks of the Soul in
the third person, and a fourth occurs as the last stanza of the “mini-
litany” of cols. 43–49, in which he addresses the Soul directly for the
first time. Three more tercets appear in the Soul’s third speech: one at
the end of its first section, before the two-couplet injunction of cols.
67–68, and the other two in the Soul’s first parable, marking the end
of the first section of the story and the end of the tale itself. The final
two tercets occur in the Soul’s concluding speech.
These observations indicate that meter can be both incidental to
content and an intentional stylistic feature. In the first case, the prosody
probably reflects the normal metric length of an Egyptian clause, two
or three feet. In the second, the use of lines shorter or longer than the
norm suggests a conscious pacing to give variety to the composition
132 CHAPTER FIVE
and as an index of thematic change. Coupled with the occasional use

of tercets in place of the usual couplets, this indicates that the parame-
ters of composition were capable of greater variation than that dictated
by Fecht’s system of metrics and Foster’s uniform couplets.
The poem’s structure, as versified in Appendix Two, is also con-
sciously constructed. The Soul’s second speech (cols. x-–*29 and 1–3)
ends with two couplets whose second line is identical. The Man’s
second speech has seven discrete sections, with the following themes
and structure:
5–10 the Soul’s disagreement: 3 couplets and 1 tercet
11–17 the Soul’s enticement to death: 3 couplets and 1 tercet
17–29 the Soul’s “sweetening the West”: 9 couplets18
29–39 the Soul’s disparagement of the Man’s situation: 8 couplets
39–43 proper burial, introduction: 2 couplets and 1 tercet
41–49 proper burial, “mini-litany” (first address to the Soul): 3 coup-
lets and 1 tercet
49–55 proper burial, conclusion: 3 couplets.
The Soul’s third speech has four sections:

56–67 disparagement of proper burial: 7 couplets and 1 tercet
67–68 injunction to enjoy life: 2 couplets
68–80 first parable: 3 couplets and 1 tercet plus 2 couplets and 1 tercet
81–85 second parable: 4 couplets.
The Soul’s fourth speech, which ends the poem, has a symmetrical
structure, with an opening couplet, two tercets, and a closing couplet.
3. other stylistic devices
Apart from meter, the only other phonological device recoverable

from the text of the Debate is consonantal alliteration. There is nothing
to indicate whether this feature is a deliberate device employed by the
author or merely accidental, but the following seem to be clear ex-
amples with a single consonant:
—————
18 Or 8 if cols. 19–21 is a 3–4 couplet rather than two short couplets (2–1 and 2–2).
2/3 nj nmë.n ns.sn

17 pæ js pw prr
21 jw ãtw ãr.sn
116–17 nj sãæ.tw sf nj jr.tw n jr
More complex alliterations appear in other instances where similar

consonants are repeated:
17–18 bæ.j wãæ.w r sdœ æh œr ënã
23 wÿë wj ÿœwtj
24 ãsf ãnsw œr.j
53–54 ëœëtj.fj œr œæt hrw qrs
68 smã mœ
114–15 sn jrr œnë.f ãpr.w m ãftj
118–19 œrw œtm.w
133–34 õr œtæw hrw ïæw
129–30 nf œw tæ nn wn pœwj.fj.19
A particularly sophisticated instance of complex alliteration occurs in

149–50 wdn.k œr ëã … ëœæ.k œr ënã, where similar groups of conso-
nants are used in each clause. In this case, the approximate vocalization
can be recovered from Coptic, illustrating assonance as well: *wadnák
œi–ëáã and ëaœæák œi–ëánaã. Alliteration involving metathesis occurs
in 25–26 sÿm rë mdw.j (probably sdm … mdw) and between the
second and third lines of the tercet in 96–97 (r stj msœw and r œmst).
Rhetorical devices are more self evident. An unusual feature of
the composition is its use of repeated lines or phrases outside the lita-
nies, producing “mini-litanies” in the text. These include nj nmë.n
ns.sn “their tongue cannot be biased” as the second line in each of the
final two couplets of the Ba’s second speech (cols. 1–3), and the
phrase sÿdm.k ky bæ “and you will make jealous another ba” in the
beginning of the second line of the first three couplets in the final
section of the Man’s second speech (cols. 43–49).
A number of the second and third lines in the tercets of the lita-
nies employ contrastive words or images: bjn “the bad” and bw nfr
—————
19A similar alliteration appears in the second and third lines of the tercet in cols.
89–90, between šzp and rzf.
134 CHAPTER FIVE
“goodness” (108–109), sãër zj “a man causes anger” and ssbt.f “he

makes laugh” (110–11), sf “yesterday” and tæ æt “this time” (116–17),
mæëtjw “righteous” and jrw jsft “disorder-doers” (122–23), wæt œwyt
“the flood’s ebbing” and jw zj … r pr.sn “a man comes home” (136–
38); also within a single line in 124–25 jnn.tw m ãmm r srãt n.f “one
resorts only to an unknown to make known to.”
Simile is used throughout the first and third litanies as well as in
the rest of the poem (cols. 6–7, 32–33, 41–43, 63–65). The Egyptian
predilection for metaphorical expressions is illustrated by phrases such
as štæw õt.j “my belly’s secrets” (30), wš.w jb “unreceptive” (85: liter-
ally, “stripped of heart”), nãt œr “sternness” (107: literally, “force of
face”), ëq-jb “intimate” (114, 124, 128–29: literally, “one who enters
the heart”), and mryt-nt-tãt “Bank of Inebriation” (135–36). Longer
metaphors are also employed throughout the composition:
ÿr ntt.f m õt.j m šnw nwœ (9)
since he is in my belly in a rope mesh
ãæë.(j) œr ãt r smæmt.j 13)
throwing me on the fire to incinerate me
nœmn tw œr tfyt nn nwt.k (34–35)
In fact, you are being uprooted, without considering yourself
st nfæ nt ãnt ëfdt nt jb (37–38)
Yonder is a place of alighting, storage-chest of the heart
dmj pw jmnt õn.t spdw œr jr (38–39)
The West is a harbor, which the perceptive should be rowed to
mdw n.sn rmw spt n mw (66–67)
to whom the fish and the lip of the water speak
msw.s sdw m swœt
mæw œr n ãntj nj ënãt.sn (78–80)
her children, broken in the egg,
who saw the face of Khenti before they lived.
jmj r.k nãwt œr õææ (148)
Put, then, complaint on the stake
jã jr.n dmj n zp (154)
Then we will make harbor at the same time.
A number of metaphors reflect the imagery of the soul as avian in na-

ture. Cols. 37, 50–51, and 153 use the verb ãnj “alight” with
reference to the soul’s destination in the West, and the metaphor of
the šnw nwœ (9) “rope mesh,” cited above, derives from the practice
of snaring wild birds in a clap-net.
CHAPTER SIX
TEXTUAL ANALYSIS
When I hear somebody sigh, “Life is hard,”

I am always tempted to ask, “Compared to what?”
Sydney J. Harris
The Debate is presented as a discussion about life and death between

two protagonists: the Man, speaking in the first person, and his Soul.
As discussed in Chapter One, the concept of the soul is essentially
that of a complete individual residing, during life, in a physical shell
(the body). The debate is therefore the Man’s inner struggle with
himself. It is developed in a series of coherent sections, each devoted
to one side of the debate, before the final resolution.
1. introduction and the soul’s first speech
[…]
[ … ] evil.
Doing it [ … ]
[…]
[that] you [might set down my] misery.
The lost beginning of the Debate can only be the subject of

speculation. Presumably it contained an introductory section, spoken
by the narrator, setting the background of the debate. It has been sug-
gested that it was set in the context of an audience of some sort
(Parkinson 1997, 152), perhaps a court of the gods (Goedicke 1970,
40) or the final judgment (Mathieu 2000, 20), but there is no evi-
dence of this in the surviving text other than the second-person plural
pronoun in 11 mj.tn “look,” and this may be merely generic (see the
discussion in Chapter Three, above).
138 CHAPTER SIX
The Man’s mention of a “day of difficulties” (cols. 10 and 15),

the Soul’s words cited in the Man’s second speech (cols. 31–37), and
the theme of the first two litanies all indicate that the debate takes
place in a time of great hardship for the Man. The opening words of
the poem undoubtedly made reference to this in some way—perhaps
analogous to the beginning of Edgar Allan Poe’s The Raven (“Once
upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary”), with
the Man pondering over his sorry state rather than Poe’s “many a
quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore.”
Poe’s raven is not introduced until the seventh stanza of his
poem. The loss before the Soul’s first speech is shorter (some ten
columns of text) but sufficient for the Man’s initial lament and the
introduction of the Soul (also avian, like Poe’s raven) as his
interlocutor. The first two fragments of the papyrus preserve what
may be a few of the words from the Soul’s opening speech. If [wæœ].k
mæ[jr.j] “that you might set down my misery” is restored correctly, it
is the first intimation of the Soul’s role in the first part of the poem,
giving voice to the Man’s thoughts of death as a means of release
from his troubles. The words suggest that the Soul begins his role in
the debate as an advocate for death as a release from hardship.
2. the man’s first speech
[What I said to my soul]:

[ … ] him,
dragging [me … ]
[…]
[…]
In the reconstruction suggested in Chapter Three, cols. *12–

*15+x contained the Man’s first response to the Soul’s opening re-
marks, with a short heading [ÿdt.n.j n bæ.j] mirroring that which
introduces the Soul’s final words at the end of the poem. The phrase
œr stæ[s.j] “dragging me,” if restored correctly, suggests the Man’s re-
TEXTUAL ANALYSIS 139
sistance to the Soul’s argument. In that case, his opening words wnwt
pw [ … ] may have been part of a statement such as wnwt pw [nt wæœ
jb] “It is the hour for being resolute.”1
3. the soul’s second speech
[And my soul opened his mouth to me

that he might answer what I had said]:
[…]
[ … ] face.
Guard [ … ].
Come, then, that I may instruct you [ … ]
[ … ] you [ … ] the hostile nature of the West.
[…]
For a man [ … ].
We are to speak [truly in the tribunal]:
It would be [crooked in return]:
The Soul’s response to the Man’s objections began between cols.

*15 and *25 and was probably introduced by the same two clauses
that head the Soul’s third speech (cols. 54–56). Although the first part
of the speech is lost, the Soul’s exhortation “Come, then, that I may
instruct you [ … ] the hostile nature of the West” may be part of an
attempt to convince the Man not to fear death. The final two coup-
lets of his speech may refer to the judgment after death, with the
repeated clause “their tongue cannot be biased” indicating the gods’
verdict. If so, the import of these couplets is evidently that the gods
will understand and forgive the desire for death. As such, they are an
initial statement of the theme reiterated in the Soul’s cited words in
the Man’s second speech.
—————
1Based on the use of the expression wæœ jb in cols. 51–52 (see the discussion in
Chapter Three). For the sentence, cf. Heqanakht I, vo. 9 mj.k rnpt næ nt jrr z n nb.f
“Look, this is the year for a man acting for his master”: Allen, Heqanakht, pl. 28.
140 CHAPTER SIX
4. the man’s second speech

This has become too much for me today:
my soul has not spoken in accord with me.
my soul going is like one who ignores what he is in.
my [second, who [rejects] his [life].
since he is in my belly in a rope mesh:
that he leave on a day of difficulties will not happen to him.
In his second speech, the Man does not address his Soul directly
until the very end, but speaks about it in the third person (as he may
have done in his first speech as well, if col. *14 sw refers to the Soul).
This characteristic could indicate an address before an audience of
some sort, but it may also be a more subtle device on the part of the
text’s ancient author, meant to reflect the Man’s attempt to disown
his own inner thoughts, to which he initially expresses opposition.
The initial section of the speech has three couplets and a final ter-
cet. The first couplet describes the Man’s reaction to the Soul’s
preceding speech: frustration that the Soul persists in his wish for
death despite the Man’s misgivings. In other words, the Man has not
been able to dispel his own thoughts of death as a release. In the
second and third couplets, the Man decries the Soul’s desire to “go”
as facile solution to his problems (“what he is in”): the Man himself
rejects death at this point and instead wants the Soul to help him face
his troubles (“He should attend to it for me”). The final tercet returns
to the theme of disagreement, with the Man making the point that
his Soul cannot in fact choose death on his own, because the two are
inseparable (“since he is in my belly in a rope mesh”). This a further
expression of frustration, that the Man cannot resolve the inner di-
chotomy that prevents him from dealing resolutely with his problems.

I cannot listen to him
because of throwing me on the fire to incinerate me.
What is his suffering, that [he] should [ … ]
[giving] his back to his [brother]?
He should be near me on a day of difficulties,
for that is the sort who goes forth and brings himself to it.
The second section, like the first, has three couplets with a final
tercet. Addressed to a general audience (mj.tn), the opening couplets
expand on the theme of the preceding section: instead of helping the
Man to face his problems, the Soul is tempting him to avoid them by
dying. The words “dragging me to death before I have come to it” are
a clear intimation of morbid thoughts, but the phrase “throwing me on
the fire to incinerate me” is most likely metaphorical rather than an
indication of the mode of death that the Man contemplates, as argued
initially by Scharff (1937, 15–16). The image reflects the Man’s fear,
perhaps expressed in his first speech, that an unnatural death will deny
him a happy afterlife, which is dependent on the Soul’s continued
association with his mummy but is threatened by his wish to separate
himself from the Man. It is clearly a metaphor for total annihilation,
but may also reflect the notion of the damned being burnt in the
Duat, as depicted in the netherworld books of the New Kingdom.
In the closing couplet and tercet, the Man reiterates his argument
that the Soul should remain with him and see him through “a day of
difficulties.” The Soul’s desire to leave prematurely for “yon side” is
contrasted with the normal separation of the soul at death, when it
welcomes the deceased’s mummy in the West. The final lines of the
tercet seem to reflect an otherwise unknown funeral rite (recitation of
the deceased’s tomb biography?), but their primary purpose is to serve
as a contrast to the Soul’s wish to go to the West prematurely. In addi-
tion, they introduce for the first time the notion of a proper burial,
which is elaborated at the end of the Man’s second speech.
142 CHAPTER SIX
My soul has become too foolish to suppress misery in life,

one who prods me toward death before I have come to it,
who sweetens the West for me:
Life is a cycle;
trees fall.
Tread, then, on disorder,
set down my misery.
Let Thoth judge me
and the gods become content;
let Khonsu intervene for me,
he who writes truly;
let the Sun hear my speech,
he who stills the sun-bark;
let Isdes intervene for me
in the sacred room—
since my need has become heavy
and [there is] no one to lift to himself for me.”
The next section is the first of two in which the Man cites the
Soul’s words (which are, of course, his own inner thoughts). They
may reiterate, in part, elements of the Soul’s first speech, now lost.
Both lines of the opening couplet have a four-foot meter, reinforcing
the beginning of a new section. The text then continues with shorter
lines of one to three feet. Its nine couplets fall thematically into three
sub-sections, two of four couplets each and a concluding couplet.
The first four couplets open with a reprise of the Man’s description
of the Soul as advocating death instead of persevering in “misery in
life,” with the change of “dragging” to “prodding”—both images re-
flecting the Man’s own inability to dismiss a nagging desire for death.
The next three couplets provide the content of his persistent thoughts,
“sweetening” the idea of death as a natural part of existence.
With the four statements in the second set of couplets, the Soul
returns to the theme of the final judgment sounded at the end of his
second speech. In essence, the Man tells himself to let the gods decide
whether his thoughts of death are wrong, countering the trepidation
expressed in the preceding section. The judgment is described in
terms of the god who records the verdict, in the form of Thoth,
Khonsu, and Isdes, and the judge, the Sun. This differs from the quar-
tet of gods specified in the later “Book of the Dead”: jr ÿæÿæt ëæt jmt
wæt mtw ÿœwtj pw jsjrt pw jnpw pw jsdz pw (BD 18) “As for the great
tribunal that is in the path of the dead, it is Thoth, it is Osiris, it is
Anubis, it is Isdes.” Lanczkowski (1954, 12–13) used the difference as
part of his argument for the text of the Debate as “anti-Osirian.” The
absence of Osiris here, however, probably has little significance. In
the more contemporary Coffin Texts, the ÿæÿæt is described as that of
Osiris (CT II, 243c–244a; IV, 304b; V, 229f, 230n, 232f), Thoth (CT
I, 27c–28a; IV, 92k), and both gods (CT VII, 449a–b), but also as that
of the Sun (CT I, 76g–h, 199e–f; III, 149e; VI, 264o); Thoth and the
Sun appear together in CT VI, 209d–f j.nÿ œr.k ÿœwtj … šzp rë r.f œms
ÿæÿæt ëæt r wÿë-mdw “Greetings, Thoth … whose speech the Sun
receives when the great tribunal sits for judgment.”
The final couplet, in which the Soul bemoans the fact that he is
alone in his travail, is an ironic counter to the theme of the first sec-
tion of the Man’s speech.
The gods’ barring my belly’s secrets would be sweet,
what my soul said to me:
even though you are alive.
What is your gain,
if you will care about life like an owner of riches
who says, ‘I have not gone,’
when all those are down?
In fact, you are being uprooted, without considering yourself,
while everyone deprived is saying, ‘I shall rob you,’
and you dead as well,
while your name is alive.
storage-chest of the heart.
which the perceptive should be rowed to.”
144 CHAPTER SIX
The opening couplet of this section serves both to interrupt the

Soul’s cited words and to counter his request for divine judgment. Its
initial nÿm “sweet” contrasts deliberately with the Soul’s description
as snÿm “sweetening” in the previous section: instead of the Soul
“sweetening the West,” the Man says, it would be better if the gods
made things “sweet” by removing his nagging thoughts of death.
The couplets that follow also contrast with the preceding section:
instead of “sweetening the West,” the Soul now in effect “sours the
East” by pointing out how miserable the Man’s life is. Antitheses also
occur within the Soul’s cited words: in the two lines of the first coup-
let, in the contrast between the “owner of riches” and the “deprived”
in the three that follow, and again in the two lines describing the
Man himself as both “dead” and “alive,” the latter in name only. In
the final couplets, the Soul argues that anyone in the Man’s wretched
state should be perceptive enough to consider death as an alternative
to a miserable life.
I [have] no transgression.
he will be fortunate,
for I will make him reach the West
like one who is in his pyramid,
to whose burial a survivor has attended.
In this short section, the Man returns to opposing the Soul’s argu-
ments. The opening couplet is a statement of the Man’s superior moral
position: he has done nothing to merit death. In the final couplet and
tercet, the Man attempts to dissuade the Soul from “going” premature-
ly by offering him the prospect of a happy afterlife that follows on a
death in the natural course of things, when a proper tomb has been
prepared and the Man’s “survivor” can see to the funerary rites.
The final tercet serves a dual purpose. In view of the distinctive
section that follows, it presents a coda more prominent than the other
concluding device used in the poem, a line of four feet; it also stresses
the theme of the final two sections, a proper burial.
I shall make an awning over your remains,

and you will make jealous another soul in inertness.
I shall make an awning and it won’t get cold,
and you will make jealous another soul who is hot.
and you will make jealous another soul who is hungry.
Set your heart, my soul, my brother,
until the heir has grown up who will present offerings,
who will attend to the tomb on burial-day
These last two sections continue the theme sounded at the end of
the preceding section but are marked as distinct by the change in the
Man’s reference to the Soul, from the third person to direct address.
Although the Soul speaks directly to the Man throughout the poem,
this is the only place in the surviving text, and perhaps in the original
composition as a whole, where the Man clearly does the same to the
Soul. This externalizes the opposing side of what had previously been
an internal debate. The change is certainly intentional, both setting
these lines off from the preceding text and foreshadowing the reversal
of roles in the second half of the poem.
The two sections are divided both thematically and stylistically.
The first, in litany form, elaborates on the theme of proper prepara-
tions for the afterlife, with each verse contrasting the fate of a soul
who will enjoy such provisions and that of one whose body died
without them: a funeral structure versus “inertness” (“Zustand des
nicht richtig Begrabenen”: Wb. II, 275, 11), the absence of cold versus
heat, and the slaking of thirst versus hunger. The second section
summarizes the Man’s argument to this point, that untimely death
destroys the chance for a happy afterlife.2 The final couplet reprises
the theme that ended the section before the litany.
—————
2 On this point, see A. de Buck, in Pro Regno Pro Sanctuario, 79–88.
146 CHAPTER SIX
The features that make this group of seven verses stand out sug-
gests that it is focal to the composition and one of the poem’s key
themes. Weill (1947, 132–39) argued that the conflict between the
Man and the Soul reflects, in part, disillusionment (expressed by the
Soul) with the need for the traditional protocol of burial (expressed
by the Man). In the context of the poem to this point, however, the
Man’s insistence on the need for proper preparations for the afterlife
has less to do with defending such provisions than with pointing out
that premature death will obviate them. The protocol of burial as
such is viewed as a moot point: it is presented not as a subject of de-
bate but as an argument for the Man’s point of view. Its presence as a
theme here, at the end of the Man’s long second speech, both marks
the end of the first part of the poem and serves as a transition to the
Soul’s rebuttal that follows.
5. the soul’s third speech

that he might answer what I had said:
As for your bringing to mind burial, it is heartache;
it is bringing tears by saddening a man;
it is taking a man from his house
so that he is left on the hill:
you won’t be able to go up
and see Suns.
Those who build, in stone of granite,
fine pyramids
with fine works—
once the building commissioners become gods,
like the inert who have died on the riverbank
for lack of a survivor,
the waters having taken his end,
or Sunlight similarly—
they to whom the fish and the lip of the water speak.
The first section of the Soul’s third speech deals with the futility of
funeral arrangements, and directly counters the argument of the Man in
the last two sections of his second speech with two themes: the sadness
of burial and the futility of traditional funeral arrangements. The Soul’s
opening words, “As for your bringing to mind burial,” refer to the term
“burial day” in the last couplet of the Man’s preceding speech. The dis-
tinction in the spellings of qrs “burial” in these lines may be intentional.
The determinatives of , at the end of the Man’s speech, re-
flect the act of interring the mummy and the Man’s character as the
corporeal shell in which the Soul resides; this is the theme of the first
three couplets in this section (“taking a man from his house so that he
is left on the hill”). That of , in the Soul’s speech, prefigures
the material arrangements that are described in the rest of the section.
Follow a good time,
forget care.
This short section states the primary theme of the Soul’s third
speech. As first noted by Weill (1947, 122 n. c), it and the preceding
sextion are thematically identical to the later Harper’s Song, which it
may have inspired:
nïrw ãprw õr œæt
œtpw m mrw.sn
sëœw æãw m mjtt
qrsw m mrw.sn
qd œwwt nn wn swt.sn …
jnbw.sn fã.w nn wn
swt.sn mj ntt nj ãpr.sn …
wÿæ jb.k r.s
mhj jb.k œr.s
æã n.k šmsj jb.k wnn.k 3
—————
3BM 10060 6, 4–9: E.A.W. Budge, Facsimiles of Egyptian Hieratic Papyri in the British
Museum, 2nd Series (London, 1923), pl. 45. See M. Lichtheim, JNES 4 (1945), 191–95.
148 CHAPTER SIX
The gods who existed previously,

who rest in their pyramids;
the effective privileged likewise,
who rest in their pyramids—
their enclosures were built, but their places are no more …
their walls are lost and no more,
their places like that which has not come into being …
Let your heart be informed about it,
but let your heart forget about it:
it is useful for you to follow your heart while you exist.
Following Weill (1947, 132–39), the Soul’s attitude at this point

in the Debate is often described as critical of traditional funerary proto-
col. In the context, however, the Soul’s remarks serve two purposes:
to dismiss the Man’s argument about the need for such arrangements
and, as in the Harper’s Song, to provide a rationale for the final exhor-
tation. The first couplet counters the Man’s previous statement sÿm
n.j bæ.j “My soul should listen to me instead.”
The Soul’s words at the beginning of his third speech can there-
fore be understood as continuing the debate that has been the poem’s
subject thus far. The final couplet, however, is directly antithetical to
the Soul’s previous role in the debate. Instead of “dragging” and
“prodding” the Man toward death, the Soul now exhorts him to for-
get about his troubles and enjoy life.
Together with the opening of the Soul’s third speech, these words
represent a profound reversal in the Soul’s attitude, one that is paral-
leled by a change in the Man’s attitude, as reflected in his own third
speech. Each party now adopts the other’s position, the Soul advocat-
ing life and the Man, death. The beginning of the Soul’s third speech
provides the impetus for this reversal: the realization that death may
be an answer to life’s misery but that it also has drawbacks of its own.
The remainder of the speech consists of two parables that the
Soul narrates. These are in some ways the most obscure part of the
poem, but they evidently serves to illustrate the value of the Soul’s
exhortation to “follow a good time, forget care.”

and he loads his harvest inside a boat,
and drags the sailing,
his festival near.
When he saw the gloom of a norther’s emergence,
he watched in the boat as the Sun was going in,
disembarked with his wife and his children,
ringed by night with riverbankers.
saying, “I have not wept for that one who was born,
though she has no emerging from the West
to another one on earth.
But I care about her children,
broken in the egg,
who saw the face of Khenti before they lived.”
The first of the Soul’s two parables carries a relatively transparent

message, illustrating the point of his exhortation to enjoy life. The
tale begins in seemingly happy circumstances. The farmer’s hard labor
of plowing, sowing, and harvesting has culminated in a crop that he
and his family are transporting—presumably to a granary, perhaps to
sell. In any case, the man anticipates enjoying the fruits of his labor:
“his festival near.” Into this happy scene comes the ominous approach
of night (a time of fear and danger in ancient Egypt),4 and the man
watches as the sun sets—a detail that not only enhances the narrative
but also carries metaphorical intimations of impending death. The
family disembarks to spend the night ashore, and the man’s wife and
children are killed by crocodiles.
The moral of the story seems to be, “Appreciate life while you
have it, because you cannot know when death will come.” It is rein-
forced by the farmer’s lament at the end of the tale, which contrasts
the loss of his wife, who has lived a productive life, with that of his
children, deprived of the same opportunity by an untimely death.
—————
4 E. Hornung, “Nacht,” LÄ IV, 291–92.
150 CHAPTER SIX

and he goes outside at it,
only for a moment.
When he turns back to his house, he is like another man
He doesn’t listen to her, offended
and unreceptive to those of the household.
The message of the Soul’s second parable is as obscure as that of

the first one is clear. Parkinson (1997, 163 n. 23) has perceptively
noted that the initial first couplet parallels the wish for death (the
man’s request for a late afternoon meal) before the proper time (the
wife’s reply). The wife’s “pleading” with her husband may also be an
oblique reference to the debate in the first part of the poem. In this
respect, it is perhaps germane that snt “sister” was commonly used
with reference to a man’s wife (Wb. IV, 151, 8–9), analogous to the
Man’s evocation of the Soul as sn.j “my brother” at the end of his
second speech. Here, however, the “pleading” wife is an avatar of the
Soul and her husband, who refuses to listen, that of the Man. The
reversal of roles is reflected in the final speech of the poem, in which
the Soul addresses the Man as sn.j “my brother.”
The two key points in the end of the narrative seem to be jw.f mj
ky “he is like another man” and the final couplet. As in the first parable,
the former may be intended to illustrate the fact that a happy situation
can change in an instant (sï r æt “only for a moment”). The final line
apparently reflects the obstinacy of one side of the debate (here, the
Man) in refusing to listen to reason. The idiom wš.(w) jb “stripped of
heart” must have been particularly evocative for an agricultural socie-
ty, connoting fallow land devoid of all growth.
The Soul’s third speech stands approximately at the center of the
poem and is one of the central messages of the entire composition, if
not the primary one. Along with its exhortation to enjoy life, it intro-
duces the reversal of roles in the second half of the poem and in doing
so, it illustrates the possibility of a change of heart through persuasion.
6. the man’s third speech
The Man’s response to the Soul’s exhortation is presented in a series

of four litanies, the first of which is evidently addressed directly to the
Soul:5
1 Look, my name is reeking:
on Harvest days, when the sky is hot.
look, more than an eel-trap’s smell,
on catch day, when the sky is hot.
look, more than ducks’ smell,
at a rise of reeds with a brood.
look, more than fowling’s smell,
at the channels of the nests fowled for them.
look, more than crocodiles’ smell,
at a site of slaughter with riverbankers.
about whom the lie of a lover has been told.
about whom has been said, ‘He is for one he should hate.’
The eight sets of similes in this litany are arranged in what appears
to be a logical progression from death to life, water to land, and lower
to higher orders of life. The first tercet evokes death with its image of
carrion. The next four are based on nature, with references to the river
—————
5 The stanzas of this and the following litanies are numbered for ease of reference.
152 CHAPTER SIX
(stanza two), marshland (stanzas three and four), and the shore (stanza
five). In the second tercet, the simile of an eel-trap, with its dead bait
or eel, provides a bridge between the opening stanza and these four,
and the theme of carrion is reprised in the fifth stanza. The sixth and
seventh tercet move to the realm of human beings and society, with
the “stench” in each case deriving from an affront to societal mores.
The final tercet involves both humanity in more general terms (the
“harbor”) and the pinnacle of Egyptian society, the king.
In beginning his response with this litany, the Man answers the
Soul’s exhortation on the personal level, in effect protesting, “How
can I enjoy life when I am in disrepute?” The metaphor of the Man’s
name carries with it connotations not only of reputation but also of
identity and reflects the Soul’s earlier statement, cited in the Man’s
second speech, “and you dead as well, while your name is alive.”
1 To whom can I speak today?
the friends of today, they do not love.
Hearts are greedy,
For kindness has perished
and sternness descended to everyone.
in that goodness has been put down in every place.
For one plunders,
every man robbing the other.
The one who should be avoided is an intimate,
the brother one used to act with become an opponent.
Yesterday has not been remembered,
no one in this time has acted for one who has acted.

Faces are obliterated,
every man with face down to his brothers.
there is no man’s heart one can depend on.
There are no righteous,
the land left to disorder-doers.
There is no calm-hearted;
the one once walked with, he is no more.
For I am loaded with need for lack of an intimate.
The injustice that has hit the land, it has no end.
As noted in Chapter Five, the length of this litany, with its four-
teen tercets and two final couplets, indicates that it was intended as
the most important of the four. Lurie (1939, 146) was the first to dis-
cuss the affinities between it and the later Admonitions of Ipuwer, which
is also composed in litany form and has several parallels with, and one
quotation from, the Debate:
jw ms [mæët] ãt tæ m rn.s pwy
jsft pw jrr.sn œr grg œr.s (Adm. 5, 3–4)
Surely, Maat is throughout the land in that name of its,
but what they do is disorder, while lying about it.
jw ms kæ[ … ] ãt tæ
nãt œr hæb n bw-nb (Adm. 5, 9–10)
Surely, [ … ] is throughout the land,
sternness sent to everyone.
154 CHAPTER SIX
jw ms nfæ æq.w mææ sf

tæ zp.w n gnwt.f (Adm. 5, 12–13)
Surely, that which was seen yesterday has perished,
the land left to its weakness.6
Unlike the first litany, this has no discernible order in its stanzas.
Several themes are repeated, but only one verbatim, snw bjn “Brothers
have become bad” in stanzas one and nine, clearly intentionally: the
line is the second of the tercets at the beginning and midpoint of the
litany, respectively. Other instances are slightly reworded: ëwn jbw
“Hearts are greedy” (stanza 2, line 2) and jbw ëwn.(w) “Hearts have
become greedy” (11, 2); z nb œr jtt ãwt snnw.f “every man taking the
other’s things” (2, 3) and z nb œr jtt snw.f “every man robbing his
brothers” (6, 3); jnn.tw m ÿrÿrw r mtt nt jb “one brings only strangers into
the middle of the heart” (9, 3) and jnn.tw m ãmm r srãt n.f “one resorts
only to an unknown to make known to” (13, 3); btw m ëq-jb “The one
who should be avoided is an intimate” (7, 2), jw šw m ëq-jb “There is
lack of an intimate” (13, 2), and jw.j ætp.kw õr mær n gæw ëq-jb “For I
am loaded with need for lack of an intimate” (15, 2). This brings a cer-
tain cohesiveness to what might otherwise seem a simple list of woes.
The tribulations are societal in every case, broadening the Man’s
argument from the personal level of the first litany: he now asks,
“How can I enjoy life when all around me are evil?” Apart from the
general theme of injustice, the dominant motif is the lack of someone
to turn to for aid and comfort (reprising the adage in the Man’s
second speech: “There is no one who can deflect a day of difficulties
by himself”), which is reflected not only by the initial question “To
whom can I speak today?” but also in such terms as sn/snw “brother/
brothers” (1, 2; 4, 2; 6, 3; 7, 3; 10, 3), ãnmsw “friends” (1, 3), ëq-jb
“intimate” (7, 2; 13, 2; 15, 2), btw “the one who should be avoided”
(7, 2), ÿrÿrw “strangers” (9, 3), and ãmm “an unknown” (13, 3). This
—————
6 Enmarch, Ipuwer, 35. For the parallel in Adm. 5, 10, see the discussion to col.
107–108 in Chapter Three, above. The Admonitions also has a line adapted from the
Instruction of Amenemhat (Adm. 6, 12–13): Enmarch, Ipuwer, 37; Adrom, Amenemhet,
75–76.
continues the theme of the unresponsiveness of the Soul (the Man’s

sn “brother”) sounded at the beginning of the Man’s second speech.
1 Death is in my sight today,
like a sick man gets well,
like going outside after mourning.
like myrrh’s smell,
like sitting under sails on a windy day.
like lotuses’ smell,
like sitting on the Bank of Inebriation.
like the sky’s clearing,
like a man enmeshed thereby to what he had not known.
To modern sensibilities, this litany is clearly the most lyrical of

the four. Its similes, however, stand not in isolation but in reference
to the long second speeches of the Man and the Soul, as Parkinson
has seen (1997, 164 nn. 32–37). The tercets are also intricately related
to one another. In stanzas two and three, the second lines are con-
nected by the simile of scent (now pleasant, as opposed to the first
litany, as Parkinson has noted: 1997, 164 n. 33) and the third, by the
notion of sitting on the shore after sailing. Stanza four parallels the
simile of inebriation with that of the flood, and its final line continues
the “narrative” of the two preceding in its image of returning home.7
The natural simile of the sky clearing in stanza five is analogous to
that of the flood ebbing in stanza four. The phrase jt.(w) m nÿrt “taken
in captivity” in the last line of stanza six reflects the term sãt.(w) “en-
—————
7 This association may also be reflected in the “ship” determinative of the word
mšë “expedition.”
156 CHAPTER SIX
meshed” in the final line of stanza five, and the notion of returning
home brings an end to the metaphorical voyage that began with
“going outside” in the first stanza.
The theme of the litany as a whole also follows logically on those
of the two litanies that precede it. Since the Man’s personal situation,
the “injustice that has hit the land,” and the “lack of an intimate” all
make it impossible to “follow a good time” and “forget care,” death is
the only alternative.
1 Surely, he who is there will be a living god,
2 Surely, he who is there will be standing in the bark,
3 Surely, he who is there will be a knower of things,
not barred from appealing to the Sun when he speaks.
The thematic logic of the litanies culminates in these three short

couplets, moving from the theme of death in the third litany to the
afterlife. The first two stanzas reflect the first two litanies, contrasting
the sublime state of the deceased as a “living god” with that of the
Man’s malodorous reputation and identity in the first litany, and
promising redress for the ills detailed in the second litany. The second
stanza is analogous: “standing in the (Sun’s) bark” implies divine sta-
tus, and the provision of offerings is part of the proper function of
society (Parkinson 1997, 164 n. 39). The final stanza is contrastive
with the debate expounded in the poem as a whole: as a “knower of
things,” the Man will no longer be subject to the doubts about the
afterlife that have kept him from accepting the notion of premature
death, and by “appealing to the Sun when he speaks” he will have
not only the vindication that the Soul sought (“let the Sun hear my
speech”) but also the sympathetic ear denied him by the Soul and the
rest of society (the last point, Parkinson 1997, 164 n. 40).
The four litanies together form a coherent whole and clearly ref-
erence and advance the arguments in the text that precedes them.
The relationship is complex and detailed enough to rule out the sug-
gestion that the litanies were inserted into the poem from another
source (Weill 1947, 134). There can be no doubt that they were
composed as part of the poem by a single author.
7. the soul’s final speech
What the soul said to me:

O belonger, my brother.
in accord with your fighting for life,
in accord with your saying, “Desire me here.”
but desire too that you reach the West
Thus we will make harbor at the same time.
The conclusion of the poem clearly bespeaks reconciliation. The

Soul, who is given the role of apologist for life in the poem’s second
half, proposes a final compromise that reflects and reconciles the two
sides of the debate.
The opening couplet mentions the Man’s “complaint,” which
most likely refers to his lamentations in the first two litanies. The im-
age of putting “complaint on the stake” is an alternative to the death
that he wished for himself in the third and fourth litanies (see the dis-
cussion in Chapter Three). The tercet that follows reflects the Man’s
initial position, in his second speech. Making “offering on the brazier”
is both an alternative to the metaphor of “throwing me on the fire to
incinerate me” in the Man’s second speech and a means of entreating
the gods to end the Man’s tribulations. Together, these establish the
two opposing sides of the debate and set stage for the reconciliation
that follows.
In the second tercet, the injunction to “reject the West for your-
self” counters both the Soul’s initial desire to “go” and the Man’s
wish for death as expressed in the third and fourth litanies. The final
158 CHAPTER SIX
compromise exhorts the Man to reject not death per se but rather,
prematurely. The acceptance of death in the natural order of things
permits both a happy afterlife (“and I will alight after your weariness”)
and reconciliation (“Thus we will make harbor at the same time”).
The metaphor in the final line reprises, in a different sense, the Soul’s
earlier description of the West as “a harbor.”
8. conclusion
The Debate between a Man and His Soul presents the inner struggle of a
man who is attracted by the thought of death as a release from great
personal distress but uncertain and fearful of the consequences a prema-
ture death might have for his afterlife. The two sides of this debate are
voiced by the characters of the Man and his Soul.
Initially, the Soul argues for death, pointing out the Man’s
wretched state and exhorting the Man to let the gods decide the jus-
tice of his desire. The Man resists these entreaties, protesting that,
among other things, premature death will rob him of the opportunity
to provide for his afterlife (and the Soul’s) in the proper fashion.
The thought of those provisions, however, awakens doubts about
their permanence, and this serves as the catalyst for a reversal of the
two roles. The Soul now urges the Man to forget about his cares and
relish life, using two parables to illustrate how brief and uncertain life
is. In a series of litanies, the Man replies by describing the wretchedness
of his life, the general injustice of society and the lack of someone to
turn to for comfort and aid, the attraction of death, and the happy
state of the afterlife—each directly countering the Soul’s arguments.
The Soul is given the final speech, in which he proposes a com-
promise: to turn to the gods for assistance and to accept death as the
ultimate end of life rather than a more immediate solution. Only in
this way can the man resolve his inner turmoil, so that both he and
his soul reach the West in harmony. The poem’s presentation of the
two sides of this mental conflict and its final resolution anticipate He-
gel’s classic pattern of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.
Except in its ending, the death envisioned in the poem is clearly a

premature one, and is even explicitly stated as such twice: “dragging
me to death before I have come to it” (12) and “who prods me to
death before I have come to it” (18–19). This has often been inter-
preted as a reflection of the man’s intention to commit suicide, even by
those who (rightly) rejected Scharff’s interpretation of the line “because
of throwing me on the fire to incinerate me” (13) as literal (1937, 12:
“und wenn ich mich ins Feuer stürze, um mich zu verbrennen”) rather
than metaphorical. As Thausing saw, however, there is in fact nothing
specific in the poem to indicate thoughts of suicide, only a general
wish for death as a release: “Der Lebensmüde will ja sterben—was er
nicht will, ist der Selbstmord, ist ein Tod ohne Bestattung” (1957,
264).8 The man’s thoughts are of death but not of the way to achieve
it, as unspecific as those reflected in the later Admonitions of Ipuwer:
jw ms wr šrj (œr) mr.j mt.j
Surely, great and small are saying, “I wish I could die.”9
Although it is a debate about death, in its conclusion the poem is an

affirmation of life.
Renaud (1991) has argued that the primary motive of the Debate
was artistic, to create a work of dramatic, rather than instructional,
literature. The literary quality of the poem is unquestionable, but it is
doubtful that the rationale of a work such as this could have been
viewed by its author in isolation from its message; the notion of in-
struction is even explicit in the Soul’s words in cols. *26–*27 [m]j r.k
sbæ.j tw “Come, then, that I may instruct you” (which Renaud was
unaware of). The struggle and resolution in the poem is more than
just a literary motif; it is also, and fundamentally, a lesson intended to
teach its audience the value of “clinging to life” in the midst of tur-
moil. As such, it belongs squarely in the Middle Kingdom tradition of
didactic literature.
—————
8 Maspero (1907, 125–26) was the first to cast doubt on the notion of suicide,
although he admitted “Les deux façons de comprendre le text sont possibles.”
9 Adm. 2, 2: Enmarch, Ipuwer, 31.
160 CHAPTER SIX
As a work of literature, the Debate has few peers in the canon of

Middle Kingdom texts. Despite its missing beginning, its lacunae, and
its difficult or obscure passages, its sole surviving text exhibits subtlety
and sophistication in composition coupled with beauty in imagery
and language. These features place it at the acme of Middle Kingdom
literature, where it is equaled perhaps only by the language of the
Eloquent Peasant—with the major papyrus of which, coincidentally, it
was discovered.
Appendices
APPENDIX ONE
THE TEXT
This appendix presents the text of the Debate between a Man and His
Soul in its entirety, with transliteration and relatively literal translation,
as established in Chapter Three, on facing pages. Numbers to the left
of each line are those of the columns of the papyrus. Indentation
marks the second line of couplets and the third of tercets.
introduction and the soul’s first speech
*1–*8 (lost)
*9 [ … ÿ]wt
jrt st [ … ]
*10–*12 (lost)
[wæœ].k mæ[jr.j]
the man’s first speech
*12–*13 [ÿdt.n.j n bæ.j]

wnwt pw [ … ]
*14 [ … ] sw
œr stæ[s.j … ]
*15 [ … ]s[ … ]
*15–x […]
the soul’s second speech
x–y [jw wp.n n.j bæ.j r.f

wšb.f ÿdt.n.j]
THE TEXT 163
APPENDIX ONE
THE TEXT
as established in Chapter Three, on opposing pages. Numbers to the
left of each line are those of the columns of the papyrus. Indentation
*1–*8 […]
*9 [ … ] evil.
Doing it [ … ]
*10–*12 […]
[that] you [might set down my] misery.
*12–*13 [What I said to my soul]:

*14 [ … ] him,
dragging [me … ]
*15 […]
*15–x […]
x–y [And my soul opened his mouth to me

that he might answer what I had said]:
164 APPENDIX ONE
*25 [ … ] œr
*25–*26 zæw..t [ … ]
*26–*27 [m]j r.k sbæ.j tw [ … ]
[ … ].k jãrw n jmnt
*28 […]
*28–29 jw zj [ … ]
1 [j]w.n r ÿd [m mæët m ÿæÿæt]
2 nj nmë.n [ns.s]n
2–3 [j]w r õæ[b m] dbæw
nj nmë.n ns.sn
the man’s second speech
3–4 jw wp.n.j r.j n bæ.j

wšb.j ÿdt.n.f
5 jw næ wr r.j m mjn
5–6 nj mdw bæ.j œnë.j
jw grt wr r ëbë
6–7 jw mj wzf jmt.f šm bæ.j
ëœë.f n.j œr.s
8 [snnw].j w[jn ënã].f
nn dj.t õæ.f wj
9 ÿr ntt.f m õt.j m šnw nwœ
9–10 nn ãpr m ë.f rwj.f hrw qsnwt
11 mj.tn bæ.j œr tht.j
11–12 nj sÿm.n.j n.f
œr stæs.j r mt nj jjt.( j) n.f
13 œr ãæë.( j) œr ãt r smæmt.j
14 ptr mnt.f [ … f]
14–15 œr [rdjt] sæ.f r [sn].f
tk.f jm.j hrw qsnwt
16 ëœë.f m pf gs mj jr-nœnw.
17 pæ js pw prr jn.f sw r.f
THE TEXT 165
*25 [ … ] face.
*25–*26 Guard [ … ].
*26–*27 Come, then, that I may instruct you [ … ]
[ … ] you [ … ] the hostile nature of the West.
*28 […]
*28–*29 For a man [ … ].
1 We are to speak [truly in the tribunal]:
2 their tongue cannot be biased.
2–3 It would be [crooked in return]:
3–4 And I opened my mouth to my soul

5 This has become too much for me today:
5–6 my soul has not spoken in accord with me.
6–7 my soul going is like one who ignores what he is in.
8 my [second, who [rejects] his [life].
9 since he is in my belly in a rope mesh:
9–10 that he leave on a day of difficulties will not happen to him.
11 But look, my soul is leading me astray.
11–12 I cannot listen to him
13 because of throwing me on the fire to incinerate me.
14 What is his suffering, that [he] should [ … ]
14–15 [giving] his back to his [brother]?
16 He should be near me on a day of difficulties,
17 for that is the sort who goes forth and brings himself to it.
166 APPENDIX ONE
17–18 bæ.j wãæ r sdœ æh œr ënã

18–19 jhm wj r mt nj jjt.j n.f
19–20 snÿm n.j jmnt
jn jw qsnt pw
20–21 põrt pw ënã
jw ãtw ãr.sn
21–22 ãnd r.k œr jsft
wæœ mær.j
23 wÿë wj ÿœwtj
23–24 œtp nïrw
ãsf ãnsw œr.j
25 zõæ m mæët
25–26 sÿm rë mdw.j
sg wjæ
26–27 ãsf jsdz œr.j
m ët ÿsr[t]
28 [ÿr] ntt sær.j wdn
28–29 nj [wnt] fæ n.f n.j
29–30 nÿm ãsf nïrw štæw õt.j
30–31 ÿdt.n n.j bæ.j
nj ntk js zj
31–32 jw.k tr ënã.t
ptr km.k
32–33 mœy.k œr ënã mj nb-ëœëw
ÿd nj šm.j
34 jw nfæ r tæ
34–35 nœmn tw œr tfyt nn nwt.k
35–36 ãnrj nb œr ÿd jw.j r jït.k
jw grt.k mt
36–37 rn.k ënã
st nfæ nt ãnt
37–38 ëfdt nt jb
dmj pw jmnt
38–39 õn.t spdw œr jr
THE TEXT 167
17–18 My soul has become too foolish to suppress pain in life,

18–19 one who prods me toward death before I have come to it,
19–20 who sweetens the West for me:
20–21 Life is a cycle;
trees fall.
21–22 Tread, then, on disorder,
set down my misery.
23 Let Thoth judge me
23–24 and the gods become content;
let Khonsu intervene for me,
25 he who writes truly;
25–26 let the Sun hear my speech,
he who stills the sun-bark;
26–27 let Isdes intervene for me
in the sacred room—
28 since my need has become heavy
28–29 and [there is] no one to lift to himself for me.”
29–30 The gods’ barring my belly’s secrets would be sweet,
30–31 what my soul said to me:
31–32 even though you are alive.
What is your gain,
32–33 if you will care about life like an owner of riches
who says, ‘I have not gone,’
34 when all those are down?
34–35 In fact, you are being uprooted, without considering yourself,
35–36 while everyone deprived is saying, ‘I shall rob you,’
and you dead as well,
36–37 while your name is alive.
37–38 storage-chest of the heart.
38–39 which the perceptive should be rowed to.”
168 APPENDIX ONE
sÿm n.j bæ.j

39–40 n[n n].j [b]tæ
tt jb.f œnë.j
40–41 jw.f r mër
rdj.j pœ.f jmnt
41–42 mj ntj m mr.f
42–43 ëœë.n œrj-tæ œr qrs.f
43–44 jw.j r jrt njæj œr õæt.k
44–45 sÿdm.k ky bæ m nnw
45–46 jw.j r jrt njæj jã tm.f œsw
46–47 sÿdm.k ky bæ nt tæ.w
47–48 swrj.j mw œr bæbæt
ïzy.j šwjw
49 sÿ<d>m.k ky bæ ntj œqr
49–50 jr hjm.k wj r mt m pæ qj
50–51 nn gm.k ãnt.k œr.s m jmnt
51–52 wæœ jb.k bæ.j sn.j
52–53 r ãprt jwëw drpt.fj
53–54 ëœët.fj œr œæt hrw qrs
54–55 sÿæy.f œnkyt n õrj-nïr
the soul’s third speech
jw wp.n n.j bæ.j r.f

55–56 wšb.f ÿdt.n.j
56–57 jr sãæ.k qrs nœæt jb pw
57–58 jnt rmyt pw m sjnd z
šdt z pw m pr.f
58–59 ãæë œr qææ
nn pr.n.k r œrw
59–60 mæ.k rëw
60–61 qdw m jnr n mæt
ãws qn
THE TEXT 169

39–40 I [have] no transgression.
40–41 he will be fortunate,
for I will make him reach the West
41–42 like one who is in his pyramid,
42–43 to whose burial a survivor has attended.
43–44 I shall make an awning over your remains,
44–45 and you will make jealous another soul in inertness.
45–46 I shall make an awning and it won’t get cold,
46–47 and you will make jealous another soul who is hot.
47–48 I will drink water at the flood
49 and you will make jealous another soul who is hungry.
49–50 If you prod me to death in that manner,
50–51 you will not find a place to land on in the West.
51–52 Set your heart, my soul, my brother,
52–53 until the heir has grown up who will present offerings,
53–54 who will attend to the tomb on burial-day
54–55 and will transport a bed for the necropolis.

55–56 that he might answer what I had said:
56–57 As for your bringing to mind burial, it is heartache;
57–58 it is bringing tears by saddening a man;
it is taking a man from his house
58–59 so that he is left on the hill:
you won’t be able to go up
59–60 and see Suns.
60–61 Those who built, in stone of granite,
170 APPENDIX ONE
mrw nfrw
61–62 m kæwt nfrt
62–63 ãpr sqdw m nïrw
ëbæw jrj wš.w
63–64 mj nnw mtw œr mryt
64–65 n gæw œrj-tæ
jt.n nwy pœ.fj
65–66 jæãw m mjtt jrj
66–67 mdw n.sn rmw spt n mw
sÿm r.k n.j
mj.k nfr sÿm n rmt
68 šms hrw nfr
smã mœ
68–69 jw nÿs skæ.f šdw.f
69–70 jw.f æ<t>p.f šmw.f r õnw dpt
70–71 stæs.f sqdwt
œb.f tkn
71–72 mæ.n.f prt wãt nt mœyt
72–73 rs m dpt rë œr ëq
73–74 pr œnë œjmt.f msw.f
æq tp šj
74–75 šn m grœ õr mryt
75–76 ÿr.jn.f œms pzš.f m ãrw
76–77 œr ÿd nj rm.j n tfæ mst
nn n.s prt m jmnt
78 r kt œr tæ
mœy.j œr msw.s
79 sdw m swœt
79–80 mæw œr n ãntj nj ënãt.sn
80–81 jw nÿs dbœ.f mšrwt
82 jw.f pr.f r ãntw r.s
sï r æt
THE TEXT 171
fine pyramids
61–62 with fine works—
62–63 once the building commissioners became gods,
63–64 like the inert who have died on the riverbank
64–65 for lack of a survivor,
the waters having taken his end,
65–66 or Sunlight similarly—
66–67 they to whom the fish and the lip of the water speak.
68 Follow a good time,
forget care.
68–69 A little man plows his plot,
69–70 and he loads his harvest inside a boat,
70–71 and drags a sailing,
his festival near.
71–72 When he saw the gloom of a norther’s emergence,
72–73 he watched in the boat as the Sun was going in,
73–74 disembarked with his wife and children,
74–75 ringed by night with riverbankers.
75–76 So, he ended up seated and spreading out by voice,
76–77 saying, “I have not wept for that one who was born,
though she has no emerging from the West
78 to another one on earth.
But I care about her children,
79 broken in the egg,
79–80 who saw the face of Khenti before they lived.”
80–81 A little man asks for an afternoon meal,
82 and he goes outside at it,
only for a moment.
172 APPENDIX ONE
83 ënn.f sw r pr.f jw.f mj ky

83–84 œjmt.f œr šsæ n.f
nj sÿm.n.f n.s sï n.f
85 wš jb n wpwtjw
the man’s third speech
85–86 jw wp.n.j r.j n bæ.j

wšb.j ÿdt.n.f
86–87 mj.k bëœ rn.j
mj.k r st æsw
88 m hrww šmw pt tæ.t
mj.k <r st> šzp sbnw
90 m hrw rzf pt tæ.t
91 mj.k bëœ rn.j
91–92 mj.k r st æp«d»w
92–93 r bwæt nt trjw õr msyt
mj.k bëœ rn.j
94 mj.k r st œæmw
94–95 r ãæzw nw zšw œæm n.sn
mj.k r st msœw
97 r œmst õr ëÿw õr mryt
mj.k r zt-œjmt
98–99 ÿd grg r.s n ïæy
mj.k r õrd qn
100–101 ÿd r.f jw.f {jw.f} n msdw.f
mj.k bëœ rn.j
102 mj.k <r> dmj n jt<y>
102–103 šnn bštw mææ sæ.f
THE TEXT 173
83 When he turns back to his house, he is like another man,

83–84 his wife pleading to him.
He doesn’t listen to her, offended
85 and unreceptive to those of the household.
85–86 And I opened my mouth to my soul

86–87 Look, my name is reeking:
88 on Harvest days, when the sky is hot.
look, more than an eel-trap’s smell
90 on catch day, when the sky is hot.
91–92 look, more than ducks’ smell
92–93 at a rise of reeds with a brood.
94 look, more than fowling’s smell
94–95 at the channels of the nests fowled for them.
look, more than crocodiles’ smell
97 at a site of slaughter with riverbankers.
98–99 about whom the lie of a lover has been told.
100–101 about whom has been said, ‘He is for one he should
hate.’
102 look, more than the harbor of the Sire
102–103 that plots sedition but whose back is seen.
174 APPENDIX ONE
ÿd.j n mj mjn
snw bjn
104 ãnmsw nw mjn nj mr.nj
104–105 ÿd.j n mj mjn
ëwn jbw
105–106 z nb œr jtt ãwt snnw.f
<ÿd.j n mj mjn>
107 jw zf æq
107–108 nãt œr hæ.w n bw-nb
ÿd.j n mj mjn
œtp œr bjn
109 rdj r.f bw nfr r tæ m st nbt
sãër z m zp.f bjn
110–11 ssbt.f bw-nb jw.f ÿw
jw œëÿæ.tw
112–13 z nb œr jtt snw.f
ÿd.j n mj mjn
113–14 btw m ëq-jb
114–15 sn jrr œnë.f ãpr m ãftj
ÿd.j n mj mjn
nj sãæ.t sf
116 nj jr.t n jr m tæ æt
ÿd.j n mj mjn
117 snw bjn
117–18 jnn.tw m ÿrÿrw r mtt nt jb
ÿd.j n mj mjn
118–19 œrw œtm
119–20 z nb m œr r õrw r snw.f
ÿd.j n mj mjn
jbw ëwn
121 nn wn jb n zj rhn.tw œr.f
THE TEXT 175

104 the friends of today, they do not love.
104–105 To whom can I speak today?
Hearts are greedy,
105–106 every man taking the other’s things.
107 For kindness has perished
107–108 and sternness descended to everyone.
109 in that goodness has been put down in every place.
110–11 he makes everyone laugh, though his misdeed is evil.
For one plunders,
112–13 every man robbing his brothers.
113–14 The one who should be avoided is an intimate,
114–15 the brother one used to act with become an opponent.
Yesterday has not been remembered,
116 no one in this time has acted for one who has acted.
117 Brothers have become bad;
117–18 one brings only strangers into the middle of the heart.
118–19 Faces are obliterated,
119–20 every man with face down to his brothers.
121 there is no man’s heart one can depend on.
176 APPENDIX ONE

nn mæëtjw
122–23 tæ zp n jrw jsft
ÿd.j n mj mjn
123–24 jw šw m ëq-jb
124–25 jnn.tw m ãmm r srãt n.f
ÿd.j n mj mjn
125–26 nn hr-jb
126–27 pfæ šm œnë.f nn sw wn
ÿd.j n mj mjn
127–29 jw.j ætp.kw õr mær n gæw ëq-jb
ÿd.j n mj mjn
129–30 nf œw tæ nn wn pœw.fj
jw mt m œr.j m mjn
130–31 <mj> snb mr
131–32 mj prt r ãntw r sæ hjmt
jw mt m œr.j mjn
132–33 mj st ëntjw
133–34 mj œmst õr œtæw hrw ïæw
jw mt m œr.j mjn
135 mj st zšnw
135–36 mj œmst œr mryt-nt-tãt
jw mt m œr.j mjn
136–37 mj wæt œwyt
137–38 mj jw z m mšë r pr.sn
jw mt m œr.j mjn
138–39 mj kft pt
139–40 mj zj sãt jm r ãmt.n.f
jw mt m œr.j mjn
141 mj æbb z mææ pr.sn
141–42 jr.n.f rnpwt ëšæt jt m nÿrt
143 œr ãsf jw n jrr sw
THE TEXT 177

There are no righteous,
122–23 the land left to disorder-doers.
123–24 There is lack of an intimate;
124–25 one resorts only to an unknown to make known to.
125–26 There is no calm-hearted;
126–27 the one once walked with, he is no more.
127–28 For I am loaded with need for lack of an intimate.
129–30 The injustice that has hit the land, it has no end.
130–31 like a sick man gets well,
131–32 like going outside after mourning.
132–33 like myrrh’s smell,
133–34 like sitting under sails on a windy day.
135 like lotuses’ smell,
135–36 like sitting on the Bank of Inebriation.
136–37 like the flood’s ebbing,
137–38 like a man comes home from an expedition.
138–39 like the sky’s clearing,
139–40 like a man enmeshed thereby to what he has not known.
141 like a man longs to see home,
141–42 when he has spent many years taken in captivity.
143 punishing the misdeed of him who does it.
178 APPENDIX ONE
143–44 wnn ms ntj jm ëœë m wjæ

144–45 œr rdjt dj.t stpwt jm n rw-prw
145–46 wnn ms ntj jm m rã-ãwt
146–47 nj ãsf.n.t.f œr spr n rë ãft mdw.f
the soul’s final speech
147–48 ÿdt.n n.j bæ

jmj r.k nãwt œr õææ
148–49 nsw pn sn.j
wdn.k œr ëã
150 mj ëœæ.k œr ënã
150–51 mj ÿd.k mr wj ëæ
wjn n.k jmnt
151–52 mr œm pœ.k jmnt
sæœ œë.k tæ
153 ãny.j r sæ wrd.k
154 jã jr.n dmj n zp
the colophon
154–55 jw.f pw œæt.f r pœ.fj

mj gmyt m zõæ
THE TEXT 179
143–44 Surely, he who is there will be standing in the bark,

144–45 having choice cuts given from it to the temples.
145–46 Surely, he who is there will be a knower of things,
146–47 not barred from appealing to the Sun when he speaks.
147–48 What the soul said to me:

148–49 O belonger, my brother.
150 in accord with your fighting for life,
150–51 in accord with your say, “Desire me here.”
151–52 but desire too that you reach the West
153 and I will alight after your weariness.
154 Thus we will make harbor at the same time.
the colophon
154–55 That is how it comes, its beginning to its end,

as found in writing.
•
APPENDIX TWO
VERSIFICATION
This appendix presents the preserved and restored text of the Debate
versified as discussed in Chapter Five, with full transliteration and
translation on facing pages. Numbers to the left of each line represent
its putative feet. The translation is free instead of literal, because it is
also designed to reflect the meter of the original.
(lost)
x+1 [ … ] ÿwt
1+x jrt–st [ … ]
(lost)
2 wæœ.k mæj.j
2 ÿdt.n.j n–bæ.j
1+x wnwt–pw [ … ]
x+1 [ … ]–sw
1+x œr–stæs.j [ … ]
[ … ]s[ … ]
[…]
3 jw–wp.n–n.j bæ.j r.f

2 wšb.f ÿdt.n.j
VERSIFICATION 181
APPENDIX ONE
THE TEXT
as established in Chapter Three, on opposing pages. Numbers to the
left of each line are those of the columns of the papyrus. Indentation
[…]
x+1 [ … ] evil.
1+x Doing–it [ … ]
[…]
2 and–allay my–pain.
2 What–I–said to–my–soul:
1+x It’s–the–hour [ … ]
x+1 [ … ]–him,
1+x dragging–me [ … ]
[…]
[…]
3 And–my–soul opened his–mouth

2 to–answer what–I–said:
182 APPENDIX TWO
x+1 [ … ] œr
1+x zæw.tj [ … ]
2+x mj–r.k sbæ.j–tw [ … ]
x+3 [ … ].k jãrw n–jmnt
[…]
1+x jw–zj [ … ]
3 jw.n–r–ÿd m–mæët m–ÿæÿæt
2 nj–nmë.n ns.sn
2 jw–r–õæb m–dbæw
2 nj–nmë.n ns.sn
3 jw–wp.n.j r.j n–bæ.j

2 wšb.j ÿdt.n.f
4 jw–næ wr.w r.j m–mjn
3 nj–mdw bæ.j œnë.j
3 jw–grt wr.w r–ëbë
4 jw–mj–wzf jmt.f šm bæ.j
2 ëœë.f–n.j œr.s
3 snnw.j wjn ënã.f
2 nn–dj.tw õæ.f–wj
3 ÿr–ntt.f m–õt.j m–šnw–wœ
4 nn–ãpr m–ë.f rwj.f hrw–qsnwt
3 mj.tn bæ.j œr–tht.j
2 nj–sÿm.n.j n.f
4 œr–stæs.j r–mt nj–jjt.j n.f
3 œr–ãæë.j œr–ãt r–smæmt.j
3+x ptr mnt.f [ … ].f
3 œr–rdjt sæ.f r–sn.f
3 tk.f jm.j hrw–qsnwt
3 ëœë.f m–pf–gs mj–jr-nœnw.
4 pæ–js–pw prr jn.f–sw r.f
VERSIFICATION 183
x+1 [ … ] face.
1+x Guard [ … ].
2+x Come–then: I–will–teach–you [ … ]
x+3 [ … ] you [ … ] the–enmity of–the–West.
[…]
1+x For–a–man [ … ].
3 We–must–speak the–truth in–the–court:
2 their–ruling is–not–biased—
2 would–be–crooked in–return:
2 their–ruling is–not–biased.
3 And–I–opened my–mouth to–my–soul

2 to–answer what–he–said:
4 This–is too–much for–me today:
3 my–soul not–agreeing with–me.
3 Too–much as–well to–exaggerate:
4 like–ignoring his–plight, my–soul’s going.
2 He–should–attend–to–it for–me,
2 my–other, who–rejects his–life.
2 He–cannot resist–me,
3 since–he–is enmeshed inside–me:
4 he–won’t be–able to–escape in–hard–tiimes.
3 But–look, my–soul is–misleading–me.
2 I–can’t–listen to–him
4 for–dragging–me to–death before my–time,
3 for–throwing–me on–the–fire to–incinerate–me.
3+x What–is his–suffering, [that]–he–should–[ … ],
3 giving his–back to–his–brother?
3 He–should–stay beside–me in–hard–times,
3 and–stand on–yon–side like–a–eulogist,
4 for–that’s who–goes–off and–winds–up over–there.
184 APPENDIX TWO
4 bæ.j wãæ.w r–sdœ–æh œr–ënã

4 jhm–wj r–mt nj–jjt.j n.f
2 snÿm–n.j jmnt
1 jn–jw–qsnt–pw
2 põrt–pw ënã
2 jw–ãtw ãr.sn
2 ãnd–r.k œr–jsft
2 wæœ mær.j
2 wÿë–wj ÿœwtj
2 œtp nïrw
3 ãsf ãnsw œr.j
2 zõæ m–mæët
3 sÿm rë mdw.j
2 sg wjæ
3 ãsf jsdz œr.j
2 m–ët ÿsrt
3 ÿr–ntt sær.j wdn.w
3 nj–wnt fæ–n.f n.j
4 nÿm ãsf nïrw štæw–õt.j
2 ÿdt.n–n.j bæ.j
2 nj–ntk–js zj
1 jw.k–tr–ënã.tj
2 ptr km.k
3 mœy.k œr–ënã mj–nb-ëœëw
2 ÿd nj–šm.j
2 jw–nfæ r–tæ
3 nœmn–tw œr–tfyt nn–nwt.k
3 ãnrj–nb œr–ÿd jw.j–r–jït.k
2 jw–grt.k mwt.tj
2 rn.k ënã.w
3 st nfæ nt–ãnt
2 ëfdt nt–jb
2 dmj–pw jmnt
3 õn.tw spdw–œr jrj
VERSIFICATION 185
4 But–my–soul is–too–foolish to–suppress life’s–pain,

4 prodding–me to–death before my–time
2 and–sweetening the–West:
1 “Is–it–hard?
2 Life is–a–cycle;
2 trees fall.
2 So–tread on–disorder,
2 allay my–pain.
2 Let–Thoth judge–me
2 and–the–gods be–content;
3 let–Khonsu intervene on–my–behalf,
2 he–who–writes the–truth;
3 let–the–Sun hear my–speech,
2 he–who–stills the–bark;
3 let–Isdes intervene on–my–behalf
2 in–the–sacred room—
3 since–my–need has–become so–heavy
3 and–no–one will–lift–it away.”
4 Better the–gods bar–the–thoughts inside–me,
2 what–my–soul has–told–me:
2 “You–are–less–than a–man,
1 though–alive.
2 What–is your–gain,
3 if–you–care for–life like–a–rich–man
2 who–says, ‘I–can’t–leave,’
2 when–all is–lost?
3 In–fact, you’re–uprooted unnoticed,
3 the–deprived planning to–rob–you,
2 and–you–good as–dead,
2 alive but–in–name.
3 Yonder is–the–place to–alight–on,
2 storage-chest of–the–heart.
2 The–West is–a–harbor,
3 to–which the–perceptive should–be–rowed.”
186 APPENDIX TWO
2 sÿm–n.j bæ.j
2 nn–n.j btæ
3 twt jb.f œnë.j
1 jw.f–r–mër
3 rdj.j pœ.f jmnt
1 mj–ntj–m–mr.f
3 ëœë.n œrj-tæ œr–qrs.f
3 jw.j–r–jrt njæj œr–õæt.k
3 sÿdm.k ky–bæ m–nnw
4 jw.j–r–jrt njæj jã–tm.f œsw
3 sÿdm.k ky–bæ ntj–tæ.w
3 swrj.j mw œr–bæbæt
2 ïzy.j šwjw
3 sÿdm.k ky–bæ ntj–œqr.w
3 jr–hjm.k–wj r–mwt m–pæ–qj
4 nn–gm.k ãnt.k œr.s m–jmnt
4 wæœ jb.k bæ.j sn.j
3 r–ãprt jwëw drptj.fj
3 ëœëtj.fj œr–œæt hrw–qrs
3 sÿæy.f œnkyt n–õrj-nïr
3 jw–wp.n–n.j bæ.j r.f

2 wšb.f ÿdt.n.j
3 jr–sãæ.k qrs nœæt–jb–pw
2 jnt–rmyt–pw m–sjnd–zj
2 šdt–zj–pw m–pr.f
2 ãæë.w œr–qææ
2 nn–pr.n.k r–œrw
2 mæ.k rëw
3 qdw m–jnr n–mæt
2 ãws qn.w
VERSIFICATION 187
2 Let–my–soul heed–me:
2 I–have no–transgression.
3 Should–his–heart agree with–mine,
1 he’ll–succeed,
3 for–I’ll–make–him reach the–West
1 as–a–pyramid–owner,
3 to–whose–burial a–survivor has–attended.
3 I–shall–make a–shelter for–your–corpse
3 to–make–jealous a–soul in–death.
4 I–shall–make a–shelter and–it–won’t get–cold,
3 to–make–jealous a–soul who–is–hot.
3 I–will–drink at–the–flood’s waters,
2 and–dispel dryness,
3 to–make–jealous a–soul who–is–hungry.
3 But–prod–me to–death in–that–way,
4 and–you–won’t find–a–place to–alight in–the–West.
4 Set your–heart, my–soul, my–brother,
3 til–an–heir has–grown–up to–offer,
3 attend to–the–tomb on–burial-day,
3 and–provide a–bed for–the–necropolis.
3 And–my–soul opened his–mouth

2 t0–answer what–I–said:
3 As–for–thinking of–burial, it–is–heartache,
2 bringing–tears and–sadness,
2 taking–one from–his–house
2 to–be–left on–the–hill.
2 You’ll–never go–up
2 and–see the–sunrise.
3 Builders in–stone of–granite,
2 when–construction is–finished—
188 APPENDIX TWO
2 mrw nfrw
2 m–kæwt nfrt
3 ãpr sqdw m–nïrw
3 ëbæw jrj wš.w
3 mj–nnw mwtw œr–mryt
2 n–gæw œrj-tæ
3 jt.n nwy pœwj.fj
3 šw m–mjtt jrj
4 mdw–n.sn rmw spt n–mw
2 sÿm–r.k n.j
3 mj.k nfr–sÿm n–rmt
2 šms hrw–nfr
2 smã mœ
3 jw–nÿs skæ.f šdw.f
3 jw.f–ætp.f šmw.f r–õnw–dpt
2 stæs.f sqdwt
2 œæb.f tkn.w
3 mæ.n.f prt–wãt nt–mœyt
4 rs.w m–dpt rë œr–ëq
3 pr.w œnë–œjmt.f msw.f
2 æq.w tp–šj
3 šn.w m–grœ õr–mryt
4 ÿr.jn.f œms.w pzš.f m–ãrw
4 œr–ÿd nj–rm.j n–tfæ–mst
3 nn–n.s prt m–jmnt
2 r–kt œr–tæ
2 mœy.j œr–msw.s
2 sdw m–swœt
4 mæw œr n–ãntj nj–ënãt.sn
3 jw–nÿs dbœ.f mšrwt
3 jw–œjmt.f ÿd.s–n.f jw–r–msyt
3 jw.f–pr.f r–ãntw r.s
1 sï–r–æt
VERSIFICATION 189
2 fine pyramids
2 with–fine works—
3 and–the–buildings’ commissioners are–gods,
3 what–was–made for–them is–razed,
3 like–the–dead who–lie on–the–riverbank
2 for–lack of–a–survivor,
3 the–waters having–ended–him too
3 or–sunlight in–equal measure—
4 they–to–whom the–fish and–the–water’s–lip speak.
2 Listen–then to–me:
3 to–listen is–good for–people.
2 Follow a–good–time,
2 forget care.
3 A–little–man plows his–plot,
3 and–loads his–harvest on–a–boat,
2 and–drags a–sailing,
2 his–festival near.
3 When–he–saw a–dark–norther come–up,
4 he–watched in–the–boat as–the–Sun went–down,
3 disembarked with–his–wife and–his–children,
2 and–they–perished by–a–lake
3 ringed by–night with–riverbankers.
4 So–he–ended–up seated and–spreading his–voice,
3 saying, “I–wept–not for–her–born,
3 who–will–have no–emergence from–the–West
2 to–another on–earth.
2 But–I–care for–her–children,
2 broken in–the–egg,
4 who–saw Khenti’s–face before they–had–lived.”
3 A–little–man asks for–lunch,
3 and–his–wife tells–him, “It’s–for–supper,”
3 and–at–that he–goes outside,
1 just–a–moment.
190 APPENDIX TWO
3 ënn.f–sw r–pr.f jw.f–mj–ky

3 œjmt.f œr–šsæ n.f
3 nj–sÿm.n.f–n.s sæï.w n.f
3 wš.w jb n–wpwtjw
3 jw–wp.n.j r.j n–bæ.j

2 wšb.j ÿdt.n.f
3 mj.k bëœ rn.j
2 mj.k r–stj–æsw
3 m–hrww–šmw pt tæ.tj
3 mj.k bëœ rn.j
2 mj.k r–stj–šzp–sbnw
3 m–hrw–rzf pt tæ.tj
3 mj.k bëœ rn.j
2 mj.k r–stj–æpdw
3 r–bwæt nt–trjw õr–msyt
3 mj.k bëœ rn.j
2 mj.k r–stj–œæmw
4 r–ãæzw nw–zšw œæm n.sn
3 mj.k bëœ rn.j
2 mj.k r–stj–msœw
3 r–œmst õr–ëÿw õr–mryt
3 mj.k bëœ rn.j
2 mj.k r–zt-œjmt
4 ÿd grg r.s n–ïæy
3 mj.k bëœ rn.j
3 mj.k r–õrd qn
3 ÿd r.f jw.f–n–msdw.f
3 mj.k bëœ rn.j
3 mj.k r–dmj n–jty
4 šnn bštw mææ sæ.f
VERSIFICATION 191
3 He–turns–back to–his–house but–is–changed

2 and–his–wife is–pleading with–him.
3 He–won’t–listen to–her, offended,
3 unreceptive to–those of–the–household.
3 And–I–opened my–mouth to–my–soul

2 to–answer what–he–said:
3 Look, my–name is–reeking:
2 look,–more–than carrion’s–smell
3 on–Harvest–days, when–the–sky is–hot.
2 look,–more–than an–eel-trap’s–smell
3 on–catch–day, when–the–sky is–hot.
2 look,–more–than ducks’–smell
3 at–a–rise of–reeds with–a–brood.
2 look,–more–than fowling’s–smell
4 at–the–channels of–nests in–which they–are–fowled.
2 look,–more–than crocodiles’–smell
3 at–a–site of–slaughter with–riverbankers.
2 look,–more–than a–wife
4 about–whom the–lie of–adultery has–been–told.
3 look,–more–than a–brave young–boy
3 said–to–be for–one he–should–hate.
3 look,–more–than the–harbor of–the–Sire
4 that–plots sedition but–whose–back is–seen.
192 APPENDIX TWO
3 ÿd.j n–mj mjn

2 snw bjn.w
3 ãnmsw nw–mjn nj–mr.nj
3 ÿd.j n–mj mjn
2 ëwn jbw
2 zj–nb œr–jtt–ãwt–snnw.f
3 ÿd.j n–mj mjn
2 jw–zf æq.w
3 nãt–œr hæ.w n–bw-nb
3 ÿd.j n–mj mjn
2 œtp œr–bjn
4 rdj–r.f bw–nfr r–tæ m–st–nbt
3 ÿd.j n–mj mjn
3 sãër zj m–zp.f–bjn
4 ssbt.f bw-nb jw.f ÿw.w
3 ÿd.j n–mj mjn
1 Jw–œëÿæ.tw
2 zj–nb œr–jtt–snw.f
3 ÿd.j n–mj mjn
2 btw m–ëq-jb
5 sn jrr œnë.f ãpr.w m–ãftj
3 ÿd.j n–mj mjn
2 nj–sãæ.tw sf
3 nj–jr.tw n–jr m–tæ–æt
3 ÿd.j n–mj mjn
2 snw bjn.w
4 jnn.tw m–ÿrÿrw r–mtt nt–jb
3 ÿd.j n–mj mjn
2 œrw œtm.w
4 zj–nb m–œr r–õrw r–snw.f
3 ÿd.j n–mj mjn
2 jbw ëwn.w
4 nn–wn–jb n–zj rhn.tw œr.f
VERSIFICATION 193
3 To–whom can–I–speak today?

2 Brothers are–now–bad;
3 the–friends of–today do–not–love.
2 Hearts are–greedy,
2 each–stealing from–the–other.
2 For–kindness has–perished
3 and–sternness descended on–everyone.
2 There’s–content with–what’s–bad,
4 for–goodness has–been–put aside in–each–place.
3 When–a–man causes–anger by–bad–acts,
4 he–makes–everyone laugh, though–his–misdeed is–evil.
1 There–is–plundering,
2 each–robbing his–brothers.
2 The–pariah is–an–intimate,
5 the–brother with–whom one–used to–act is–an–enemy.
2 There’s–no–thought of–the–past,
3 no–doing for–the–doer these–days.
2 Brothers are–now–bad;
4 only–strangers to–take to–the–depths of–one’s–heart.
2 Faces are–turned,
4 each–man with–his–face down to–his–brothers.
2 Hearts are–now–greedy;
4 there’s–no–heart of–a–man on–which to–depend.
194 APPENDIX TWO
3 ÿd.j n–mj mjn

1 nn–mæëtjw
4 tæ zp.w n–jrw jsft
3 ÿd.j n–mj mjn
2 jw–šw m–ëq-jb
3 jnn.tw m–ãmm r–srãt–n.f
3 ÿd.j n–mj mjn
1 nn–hr-jb
3 pfæ–šm œnë.f nn–sw–wn.w
3 ÿd.j n–mj mjn
3 jw.j–ætp.kw õr–mær n–gæw–ëq-jb
3 ÿd.j n–mj mjn
4 nf œw tæ nn–wn–pœwj.fj
3 jw–mwt m–œr.j m–mjn
1 mj–snb–mr
3 mj–prt r–ãntw r–sæ–hjmt
1 mj–stj–ëntjw
3 mj–œmst õr–œtæw hrw–ïæw
1 mj–stj–zšnw
3 mj–œmst œr–mryt nt–tãt
1 mj–wæt–œwyt
4 mj–jw zj m–mšë r–pr.sn
1 mj–kft–pt
4 mj–zj sãt jm r–ãmt.n.f
4 mj–æbb zj mææ pr.sn
5 jr.n.f rnpwt ëšæt jt.w m–nÿrt
4 wnn–ms ntj–jm m–nïr ënã.w
2 œr–ãsf–jw n–jrr–sw
VERSIFICATION 195

1 No–righteous,
4 for–the–land has–been–left to–those who–do–wrong.
2 There–is–lack of–an–intimate;
3 only an–unknown to–complain–to.
1 No–peaceful;
3 the–associate of–old is–no–more.
3 I–am–laden with–need for–an–intimate.
4 The–injustice that–has–hit the–land has–no–end.
3 Death is–before–me today,
1 like–getting–well,
3 like–going outside after–mourning.
1 like–myrrh–scent,
3 like–sitting under–sails in–the–wind.
1 like–lotus–scent,
3 like–sitting on–the–Bank of–Inebriation.
1 like–flood–ebb,
4 like–a–man comes–home from–a–trip abroad.
1 like–sky–clear,
4 like–a–man entranced by–what was–not–known.
4 like–a–man longing to–see his–home,
5 when–taken and–held as–a–captive year after–year.
4 Surely, one–there will–be–a–living god,
2 punishing the–miscreant.
196 APPENDIX TWO
4 wnn–ms ntj–jm ëœë.w m–wjæ

5 œr–rdjt dj.tw stpwt jm n–rw-prw
3 wnn–ms ntj–jm m–rã-ãwt
4 nj–ãsf.n.tw.f œr–spr n–rë ãft–mdw.f
2 ÿdt.n–n.j bæ
3 jmj–r.k nãwt œr–õææ
2 nsw–pn sn.j
3 wdn.k œr–ëã
2 mj–ëœæ.k œr–ënã
3 mj–ÿd.k mr–wj ëæ
2 wjn–n.k jmnt
3 mr–œm pœ.k jmnt
3 sæœ œë.k tæ
3 ãny.j r–sæ wrd.k
3 jã–jr.n dmj n–zp
VERSIFICATION 197
4 Surely, one–there will–be–standing in–the–bark,

5 having–cuts of–meat given from–it to–the–temples.
3 Surely, one–there will–be–wise,
4 not–barred from–appealing to–the–Sun when–he–speaks.
2 What the soul said to me:

3 Put–then complaint on–the–stake,
2 O–belonger, my–brother.
3 You–should–offer on–the–brazier
2 as–you–fight for–life,
3 as–you–say, “Desire–me here.”
2 Reject the–West,
3 but–desire to–reach the–West
3 when–your–body touches the–earth,
3 and–I’ll alight once–you–pass.
3 Thus we’ll–make–harbor together.
APPENDIX THREE
oGARDINER 369
Fig. 4. oGardiner 369
1 [ … ] œr ÿd mr.n.f •
1–2 pæ mj[õ]nw[tj … ] mj mæët •
2–3 b pæ ÿæy n tæ [ … ] mjk m sæ.f •
 p?æ šmt mjwt.tf t.f ãft
3b–4b jw.j jsqæ.kw •
jw.j r õrt-nïr
4b–5b mj.k æbj jb pæ ëœë œr tæ •
bwt.f ÿæ[t] •
5b–6b pæ bæ m õnw.st [œr ëq]w pr mr.[f]
200 APPENDIX THREE
3a–5a [ … ] jb.f œr [ … ]
5a–6a jnk wÿæ [ … ] ÿdtw mr.f
6a–7 jw [ … ] m œmyt • œr zæw r n.[j] •
The ferryman [ … ] like Maat.

[ … ] saying what he wanted.
The ship of the land [ … ] protected behind him,
the going of his mother and his father accordingly,
while I am hindered.
I am bound for the necropolis.
Look, what the heart desires is the lifetime on earth.
Its abomination is to cross.
The soul inside it enters and emerges as it wants,
[ … ] his heart on [ … ].
I am one sound [ … ] who says what he wants,
while [ … ] at the rudder, guarding the mouth for me.
The ostracon’s language and hieratic paleography are clearly of New
Kingdom date (see below). Since line 7 is evidently the end of the
text, the inscription probably began on the reverse side, now lost.1 The
apparent sequentiality of lines 4b–5b and perhaps also 5b–6b suggests
that the left side is relatively intact, with perhaps a single determina-
tive (of the speaking man) lost at the end of line 4b and a suffix
pronoun at the end of 6b. The gap before mj at the start of line 2 in-
dicates that the beginnings of lines 1–6b are also preserved. The scribe
apparently wrote six lines on the main surface of the stone, beginning
near the right-hand edge of the top. He then wrote the remainder of
his text to the right of lines 3b–6b and below line 6b and drew a red
line to the right of lines 3b–6b and below line 6b to separate this text
from the preceding (see the textual note to lines 5b–6b, below).
The text’s language appears to be Late rather than Middle Egyp-
tian, as indicated by the frequent use of the definite article pæ (lines 1,
2, 3b?, 5b) the First Present construction (lines 1, 5b–6b?, 6a–7, per-
—————
1
See Çerný and Gardiner 1957, 24.
oGARDINER 369 201
haps also 3a–5a), and the A B nominal-sentence pattern (line 4b–5b).

The superfluous æ in jsqæ.kw (line 3b), the writing of the 3fs suffix as st
(line 6b) and the active participle of ÿd as ÿdtw (line 6a) are also typical
of Late Egyptian, as is the use of the masculine relative in place of the
feminine (lines 1, 3b, 6a).2 The words ÿæy (line 2) “ship” and œmyt (line
7) “rudder” are first attested in the New Kingdom.3 The absence of
verb forms with prothetic j and the use of the sÿm.n.f relative (line 1)
identify the text as literary rather than colloquial Late Egyptian.
Fig. 5. oGardiner 369, hieratic of line 3
Textual notes
3b The following sæ.f is evidently part of a definite article

with the first sign omitted, more probably pæ than tæ,4 or per-
haps plural næ.
The damaged signs following šmt, which Černý and Gardiner
left untranscribed, may be those of mjwt (see Fig. 5, above, and
cf. Möller, Paläographie II, 194 Abbott), followed by the seated
woman above a ligatured .
Černý and Gardiner read the final sign in the line as . Since
there is little or nothing lost at the end of the line and 4b
jsqæ.kw follows directly, the resulting jæ yields little sense. The
form of the sign is also somewhat different from that of the
other in the line. The sign may instead be above ,
yielding jw.j. In view of the resulting jw.j jsqæ.kw, ãft would
—————
2
J. Černý and S.I. Groll, A Late Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed. (Studia Pohl 4; Rome,
1984), 1, 27, 464, 485.
3
Wb. V, 515, 6; III, 81, 11–13.
4
Černý and Groll, A Late Egyptian Grammar, 182.
202 APPENDIX THREE
appear to be used adverbially rather than as a preposition or

conjunction.
5b Since only the hieratic of line 3 has been published, it is im-
possible to judge the validity of the -sign that Çerný and
Gardiner have transcribed with a question mark. If correct, it
can only be a writing of the definite article without , un-
less it is an unusual literary Late Egyptian variant of the copula
pw. The sign below is most likely the initial of ëœë.
5b–6b Although the scribe’s dividing line has grouped jw with line
6b, the particle is out of place following 5b pæ. In the hiero-
glyphic transcription, the bæ-sign aligns vertically with the
beginnings of the two lines above. These features indicate that
jw probably belongs with lines 6a–7, and therefore that the red
dividing line was drawn after all the text had been entered.
The referent of m õnw.st is probably 4b õrt-nïr.
7 The “verse point” at the end of the line indicates that the
text is complete (to that point) and not simply aborted. In
that light, and judging from the size of the final damage trace
in the hieroglyphic transcription, the lost sign can only have
been the seated man of the 1s suffix pronoun. The resulting
n.[j] is out of place both for Middle Egyptian and Late Egyp-
tian, but was perhaps conditioned by an understanding of
zæw-r as a compound expression.5
—————
5
The expression occurs in CT VI, 206g zææw r.j “those who guard my mouth.”
For the position of the dative in Late Egyptian, see Leo Depuydt, “Four Thousand
Years of Evolution: on a Law of Historical Change in Ancient Egyptian,” JNES 56
(1997), 21–35.
APPENDIX FOUR
SIGN LIST
1. individual signs
GARDINER MÖLLER SIGN OCCURRENCES

A1 full 33 4 (4), 5, 6, 7 (2), 8, 9, 11 (2), 12,
13, 15, 16, 18, 19 (2), 20, 22, 23,
24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 (2), 31, 33
(4), 35, 36, 39 (2), 40 (2), 41, 42,
43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52 (2), 55 (2),
56, 64, 65, 67, 76, 78, 80, 83, 85
(2), 86 (3), 87, 89, 91, 96, 98, 99,
100 (2), 101, 103, 104, 106, 108,
114 (2), 115, 116, 122, 124, 126,
128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 138,
139, 146, 147, 149 (2), 153
A1 abbr. 33 *26, *28, 5, 7, 8, 11, 25, 31, 46, 52
(2), 58 (2), 60, 68, 74, 78, 93, 103,
104, 105, 108, 109, 110, 111 (2),
112, 113 (2), 116, 117 (2), 118,
119, 120 (2), 121 (2), 123, 125, 127
(2), 129, 136, 137, 139, 141, 143,
145, 149, 150
A2 35 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 16, 18, 26, 31, 32, 35,
44, 47, 49, 56 (2), 66, 68, 76, 78, 80,
87, 89, 91, 93, 96, 98, 99 (2), 101 (2),
102 (2), 104, 107, 110, 111, 115, 125,
141, 142, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151
A7 32 45, 64, 104
204 APPENDIX FOUR

A9 42 29, 62, 69, 127
A12 44 137
A13a 49 115
A15 52 21
A17 30 74, 75, 77, 97, 100, 133, 135, 153
A24 15 *25, *26, 8, 13, 19, 24, 26, 30, 34,

36, 40, 48, 54, 58, 60, 61, 65, 94,
95, 100, 105 (2), 107, 112 (2),
120, 141, 142, 143, 146, 150
A25 16 129, 137
A26 11 26
A28 4 59
A30 2 60, 62, 117 ( )

A47 48 *25
A53 10 40, 50, 54
B1 full 61 73, 98
B1 abbr. 61B 67, 74, 78, 81, 83, 108, 111
D1 79 74
D2 80 *14, 11, 12, 13 (2), 14, 18, 22, 32,
34, 35, 39, 42, 43, 47, 53, 58, 64,
73, 76, 78 (2), 79, 84, 105, 107,
108, 112, 118, 119, 130, 132, 134,
135, 136, 138, 140, 143, 144, 146,
148, 149, 150; see also Ligatures
(D2+D21)
D3 81 63
SIGN LIST 205

D4 82 *9, 16, 43, 45, 57, 59, 72, 76, 114,
116 (2), 123, 141 (2), 143, 154;
see also Ligatures (U2+D4)
D20 90 35, 102, 107
D21 91 *27, 1, 2, 4, 5 (2), 6 (3), 7, 10 (2),
12, 13, 14 (2), 15, 17 (3), 18, 19,
20, 21, 22, 25, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35,
36 (3), 39, 41 (3), 42, 43, 45, 47, 49
(2), 50, 52, 53 (2), 54, 55 (2), 56
(2), 57, 59 (2), 60 (2), 61, 63, 64, 66
(2), 67 (2), 68 (2), 70, 71, 72, 73
(2), 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82 (4),
83, 86, 87 (2), 88, 89, 90 (2), 91 (2),
92 (2), 93, 94 (2), 96 (2), 97 (2), 98
(2), 99, 100 (5), 104, 109 (4), 110,
114 (2), 118, 119, 121, 125 (2), 126,
128, 131 (3), 134, 135, 138, 140,
143, 144, 145 (2), 146, 147, 150,
151, 153 (2); see also Ligatures
(D2+D21, D21+F22, D21+N35,
D21+V31, D21+X1, G17+D21,
L1+D21, L1+D21+X1, M36+D21,
N29+D21, T28+D21, W12+D21)
D25 92 67
D28 108 62, 69
D33 112 38
D34 113 150

D35 111/332 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 19, 28, 33, 34,
39, 50, 59, 68, 76, 77, 80, 84, 104,
115, 116, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126,
130, 140, 146
206 APPENDIX FOUR

D36 99 2, 3, 6 (3), 7 (2), 8, 10, 11, 13, 16,
23, 25, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38,
40, 41 (2), 42, 50, 52, 53, 58 (2), 61,
63, 67, 68, 69 (2), 73 (2), 78, 80, 83,
86, 87 (2), 88, 89 (3), 91 (3), 93 (2),
94, 95, 96 (2), 97, 98 (2), 99 (2), 100,
101 (2), 102, 103, 105 (2), 108, 109
(2), 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115,
116, 118, 120 (2), 122, 123, 125,
126, 127 (2), 129 (2), 132, 139, 144,
148, 151 (2), 152; see also Ligatures
(D36+N5, D36+X1, D36+Aa1)
D39 104 54
D41 101 121, 151
D45 107 27
D46 114 1, 3, 5, 18, 21, 25, 27, 28, 33, 35,
37, 38, 39, 44, 46, 53, 58, 60, 66,
69, 70 (2), 72, 76, 79, 80, 81, 98,
100 (2), 101, 102, 103, 104, 108,
109, 111, 113, 115, 116, 118, 120,
121, 123, 125, 127, 129, 147, 149,
150 (2), 153, 154; see also Liga-
tures (D46+W24, D46+X1,
D46+X1+N35)
D50 117 118 (2)
D52 95 118
D53 96 99
D54 119-20 *26, 7 (3), 10, 11, 12 (2), 15, 16,
17, 19, 21, 33, 37, 41, 42, 51, 53,
59, 68, 70, 71 (2), 73 (2), 77, 82,
107, 114, 124, 126, 128, 131, 137,
SIGN LIST 207

(D54 119-20 ) 144, 152 (2), 153, 154
D55 121 83
D56 122 11, 21, 34
D58 124 *26, 3, 4, 6, 47, 48, 56, 63, 71, 80,

86, 87, 89 (2), 91, 92, 93, 96, 98,
99, 101, 102, 103, 107, 108, 109,
110 (2), 111, 113, 117, 130, 141
(2)
D63 595 152
E9 142 52, 111, 143
E23 125 *27, 81
E34 132 *13, 120, 121, 127; see also Liga-
tures (E34+N35)
F2 175 146
F4 146 155
F5 151 84
F13 155 3, 55, 85 (2)

F16 157 80, 111
F20 161 2, 3, 148
F21 158–59 11, 25, 39, 67 (2), 84
F22 163 41, 65, 130, 152; see also Ligatures
(D21+F22)
F26 165 70
F30 517 58, 69
F31 408 74, 77, 78, 81, 93, 101, 142, 143,
145
F32 169 9, 20, 30, 100
F34 179 38, 40, 52, 57, 85, 105, 114, 118,
120, 121, 124, 126, 128
208 APPENDIX FOUR

F35 180 61, 62, 67, 68, 109
F44 — 52
F48 526 20
F51 177–78 3, 152
G1 full 192 74
G1 abbr. 192B *25, 2, 3, 5, 8, 12, 13 (2), 17, 18

(2), 22 (2), 26, 28, 29, 30, 34, 37,
40, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54,
56, 57, 58, 59 (3), 61, 62, 63, 64, 69
(2), 70, 71, 77, 79, 84, 87, 88, 90,
92, 94 (2), 95, 99, 103 (2), 107 (2),
112, 116 (2), 126, 127, 128 (2), 133,
137, 141 (2), 144, 148 (2), 151,
152; see also Ligatures (G1+X1)
G4 190 85, 122, 133
G7 188 23, 24, 25, 27, 60, 65, 73, 147
G14 193 131
G17 full 196 5, 7, 9 (2), 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19 (2),
25, 27, 32, 33, 34, 36, 41, 42 (2), 44,
45, 46 (2), 49, 50 (2), 51, 57 (2), 58,
60, 61, 62, 64, 66 (2), 67, 72, 74, 76
(2), 77, 79, 80, 86, 87, 88 (2), 89, 90,
91 (2), 93, 94 (2), 95 (2), 96 (2), 97,
98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 108,
109 (2), 110, 111, 113 (2), 115, 115,
116, 117, 118, 119 (3), 120, 122, 123,
124 (4), 125, 126, 127, 129, 130 (3),
132, 134, 136, 137, 138, 140, 142
(2), 144, 145 (2), 151, 155; see also
Ligatures (G17+D21, G17+X1)
SIGN LIST 209

G17 abbr. 196B 2, 3, 7, 11, 15, 25, 29, 39, 49, 51,
67 (2), 68, 84, 104, 140, 142, 144,
145, 148, 155
G21 229 16
G26 207 23
G28 205 51, 155
G29 208 2, 47, 48, 63
G29a 209 4, 5, 7, 11, 17, 31, 39, 44, 46, 49,
52, 55, 86, 148
G35 215 73, 114, 124, 128
G36 198 5, 6, 47, 153
G37 197 *9, *27, 10, 14, 15, 18 (2), 20, 22
(2), 28, 49, 58, 64, 68, 74, 80, 84, 85,
107, 108, 110, 111 (2), 117, 119,
123, 124, 128 (2), 129, 131, 132,
143; see also Ligatures (N35+G37)
G39 216–17 *25, 17 (for G41), 119
G41 full 222 50
G41 abbr. 222 37, 51, 87, 90, 92, 93, 153
G43 200 *13, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 (3), 8 (2), 10 (2), 15,
16, 17 (2), 18, 19, 20, 21 (2), 23 (2),
24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 36 (2), 38, 39, 40,
43, 45, 47, 50, 52, 53, 55 (2), 60, 61
(2), 62, 63 (3), 66 (2), 68, 69, 71, 74,
79 (2), 81 (3), 82 (2), 83, 85 (2), 86,
88, 90, 92, 94 (2), 101, 103, 111 (2),
113, 117 (2), 119, 120, 123, 128, 129,
130, 132, 133, 134, 137, 140, 143,
144, 147, 149, 150, 151, 154 (2); see
also Ligatures (G43+X1, W24+G43)
210 APPENDIX FOUR

G47 224 99
G49 226 95
G51a 214 94, 95
H6 237 48, 123
H8 238 79
I1 240 141
I3 241 74, 75, 96, 97, 102

I3+R12 — 79
I6 392 32
I9 263 6, 7 (2), 8 (2), 9, 10 (2), 12, 14 (2),
15 (2), 16 (2), 17 (2), 19, 22, 24, 26,
29 (3), 34 (2), 37 (2), 40 (2), 41, 42,
43, 46, 53 (2), 54, 55, 56, 58, 61,
62, 65, 67, 68, 69 (4), 70 (2), 71, 73,
74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81 (2), 82 (2), 83
(4), 84 (3), 90, 100 (2), 101 (2), 103,
106, 107, 109 (2), 110, 111 (2), 113,
114, 115, 120, 121, 123, 125, 126
(2), 129, 130, 139, 140, 141, 143,
146 (2), 147 (2), 154, 155 (2); see
also S29+I9; see also Ligatures
(D46+X1+N35 +I9, N35+I9)
I10 250 1, 4, 8, 19, 23, 29, 30, 33, 35, 44,
46, 49, 56, 68, 76, 80, 81, 86, 98,
100, 103, 104, 108, 109, 111, 113,
115, 116, 118, 120, 121, 123, 125,
127, 129, 147, 150
I14 248 113
K1 253 57, 151
SIGN LIST 211

K4 257 2, 8, 44, 66, 87, 89 (2), 91, 93, 96,
98, 99, 101, 148
L1 258 114; see also Ligatures (L1+D21,
L1+D21+X1)
M2 268 54, 92, 135
M3 269 21, 43, 107, 148
M4 270 141
M6 271 31, 32, 92
M12 277 13, 18, 56, 58, 94, 115
M16 279 53, 57, 94, 95
M17 282 *26, *27, *28, 3, 5, 6 (3), 7, 10, 12,

15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 (2), 21, 22 (2),
26, 27, 31 (2), 33, 34, 35, 36 (2), 38,
39, 40, 41, 43 (3), 45 (4), 47, 48, 49
(2), 50, 55, 56, 57, 60, 63 (2), 66,
68, 69, 75, 80, 81 (2), 82, 83 (2), 85,
92, 100, 101, 102, 103, 107, 108,
110, 112, 117, 123 (2), 127, 128,
130, 131 (2), 132 (2), 133, 134, 135
(2), 136 (2), 137, 138 (2), 139, 140
(2), 141, 142, 144 (2), 145 (2), 148,
150 (2), 151, 154 (2), 155
— 283 32, 34, 44, 46, 48, 49, 54 (2), 57,
64, 65, 72, 75, 78, 81, 83, 93, 97,
99, 135, 137, 153, 155
M18 284 12, 19
M22a 288 45, 63
M23 289 *14, 17, 24, 83, 126, 143, 149

212 APPENDIX FOUR

M29 296 19, 29
M30 297 41
M36 294 see Ligatures (M36+D21)

N1 300 42, 59, 64, 88, 90, 139
N2 301 72, 75
N5 303 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 26, 48, 53, 68,
73, 81, 82, 88 (2), 90, 115, 116,
127, 134, 138; see also Ligatures
(D36+N5, N35+N5)
N8 305 65
N14 314 *13, *26

N16 317 34, 42, 64, 78, 109, 122, 129, 152
N23 324 34, 38, 42, 59, 64 (2), 69, 74, 78,
82, 92, 95 (2), 97, 102, 109, 119,
122, 129, 131, 135, 152, 154
N25 322 *27, 20, 38, 41, 51, 55, 77, 136,
151, 152
N26 320 111
N28 307 110
N29 319 10, 15, 20, 50, 54, 56, 59, 73, 74,
100, 107, 114, 124, 128; see also
Ligatures (N29+D21)
N31 326 137, 151
N35 331 *13, *27, 1, 2 (3), 3 (3), 4 (2), 5 (2),
6, 8, 9 (3), 11 (2), 12, 16 (2), 17, 19
(2), 20 (2), 21, 24, 28, 29 (2), 30 (2),
34 (4), 35 (2), 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45
(3), 50, 52, 54, 55 (3), 56, 58, 59, 60
(2), 61, 63, 64, 65 (2), 66 (2), 67 (3),
SIGN LIST 213

(N35 331 ) 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 77 (3), 79, 80
(2), 81, 83 (2), 84 (4), 85 (2), 86, 87,
89 (2), 91, 93, 95 (2), 96, 98, 99,
100 (2), 101, 102 (3), 103 (2), 104
(2), 105, 107 (2), 108 (2), 109, 110,
111, 112, 113, 114 (2), 115, 116 (2),
117 (4), 118, 120 (3), 121 (5), 122
(2), 123, 124 (2), 125 (3), 126 (2),
127 (3), 128, 129 (2), 130, 132, 135,
138 (2), 140, 141 (2), 142 (2), 143
(2), 145 (3), 146, 147 (2), 148 (2),
149 (3), 151 (2), 153, 154 (2); see
also Ligatures (D21+N35,
D46+X1+N35, E34+N35,
N35+G37, N35+I9, N35+N5,
N35+V31, N35+X1, N35+Aa1)
N35a 333 47, 48, 65, 67, 69, 72, 88, 137
N37 335 4, 30, 55, 60, 61, 63, 69, 74, 76,
80, 84, 85, 86, 88, 97, 102, 135
N40 336 7, 33, 126
N42 98 34, 73, 75, 81, 83, 97, 98, 133,
135, 151
O1 340 17, 27, 37, 53, 58, 59, 70, 71, 73,
77, 82, 83, 109, 131, 138, 141, 145
O4 342 10, 11, 15, 18 (2), 53, 68, 88, 90,
107, 121, 126, 131, 134
O24 371 33, 42, 61
O29 363 151

O34 366 *25, *28, 6, 8, 18, 24, 26 (2), 27,
31, 44, 46 (2), 48, 49, 56, 58 (2),
67, 68, 74, 76, 79 (2), 80, 90, 94,
214 APPENDIX FOUR

(O34 366 ) 98, 105, 107, 110 (2), 112, 119,
121, 122, 135, 137, 139 (2), 141,
142, 143 (2), 145, 154
O43 368 89
O50 403 see Ligatures (Q3+O50)
P1 374 26, 38, 70, 71, 72, 137
P3 376 144
P5 379 46, 72, 134
P6 380 7, 16, 33, 42, 53, 144
P8 381 76
Q1 383 37, 109
Q3 388 *13, 3, 14, 16, 17 (2), 20 (2), 21,

23, 32, 38, 39, 41, 50, 53, 55, 57
(2), 58, 67, 69, 76, 85 (2), 88, 89,
90, 92, 108, 126, 127, 149, 152,
154; see also Ligatures (Q3+O50,
Q3+X1)
Q5 387 37
Q6 372 56
Q7 394 13 (2), 47, 88, 90, 149
R4 552 see Ligatures (R4+X1)

R8 547 24, 30, 63, 142
R14 579 *27, 20, 38, 41, 51, 77, 151, 152
R50 549 55
S29 432 *9, *14, *15, *26, 3, 7, 10, 12 (2),

13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29,
31, 38, 43, 47, 51, 54 (2), 56, 57,
SIGN LIST 215

(S29 432 ) 61, 62, 66, 68 (2), 69, 70 (3), 72, 75,
77 (2), 78 (2), 80, 81 (2), 82 (2), 84
(3), 87 (2), 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96
(2), 97, 99, 101, 104, 110 (3), 115,
123, 125, 130 (2), 132, 133, 135 (2),
138, 141, 144, 146, 152
S29+I9 432n 115
S34 534 18, 21, 32 (2), 37, 80, 142, 150
S36 406 43, 45
S42 451 63
S43 456 5, 25, 66, 147
T12 438 22, 28, 128

T18 443 68
T19 460 15, 20
T22 596 52, 103, 112, 114, 117, 120, 149
T25 462 3
T27 464 139

T28 397 see Ligatures (T28+D21)
T34 585 2, 3, 104
U2 469 *12, 8, 13, 22, 25, 59, 61, 122, 128,

141; see also Ligatures (U2+D4)
U7 465 64, 75, 97, 104, 135, 150, 151
U9 470 69
U13 468 69
U15 489 46, 119
U17 467 99
216 APPENDIX FOUR

U20 480 9, 35, 65
U21 481 144
U23 484 42, 61, 131
U23 485 141
U28 391 54, 112
U30 393 *14, 12, 30, 40, 47, 70, 88, 90,
113, 133
U32 402 28, 149
U35 473 24, 26, 29, 143, 146
U40 405 48, 72
V1 518 9 (2), 35
V2 519 12, 70
V4 524 22, 51, 92, 137
V7 521 9, 74, 102
V14 528 48, 82, 84
V15 529 36; see also Ligatures (V15+X1)
V23 459 32, 68, 72, 78
V28 525 6, 9, 16, 18, 22, 23, 40, 41, 46, 49,
51, 54, 71, 72, 73, 75, 79, 80, 87,
89, 91, 93, 96 (2), 98, 99, 101,
112, 114, 119, 126, 129, 133, 137,
152 (3)
V29 398 22, 51
V30 510 33, 35, 105, 108, 109, 111, 112, 119
V31 511 *12, *27, 15, 31 (2), 32 (2), 35, 36
(2), 44 (3), 46 (2), 49 (2), 50, 51 (2),
52, 54, 56, 59, 67, 71, 78, 83, 86,
SIGN LIST 217

(V31 511 ) 87, 88, 89, 91 (2), 93, 94, 95, 96, 97,
98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 127, 139, 149,
150 (2), 151, 152 (2), 153; see also
Ligatures (D21+V31, N35+V31)
V32 513 64, 128
V48 480 54, 133, 139
W3 512 71
W12 395 6, 26, 36, 64, 128; see also Liga-
tures (W12+D21)
W14 502 46
W18 504 79, 62, 131
W19 509 5, 6, 16, 33, 38, 41, 63, 66, 83, 102,
103, 104, 105, 108, 110, 112, 113,
115, 116, 118, 120, 122, 123, 125,
127, 129, 130, 131, 132 (2), 133,
134, 135 (2), 136 (2), 137, 138 (2),
139, 140, 141, 150 (2), 154, 155
W23 506 133, 136
W24 495 *13, 9 (2), 16, 35, 45, 60, 63, 65,
70 (2), 89, 95, 103, 104, 117, 120,
135; see also Ligatures (D46+W24,
W24+G43)
W25 496 17, 57, 117, 124
W79 551 150

X1 575 *9 (2), *13, *14, *25, *26, *27, 6, 7,
8, 9 (2), 11 (3), 12 (2), 13 (2), 14, 15,
19 (2), 20 (2), 21, 22, 23, 30 (2), 31,
32 (2), 34 (3), 35, 36 (3), 37 (2), 38,
40 (3), 41, 43, 45, 47, 50, 51, 53 (2),
218 APPENDIX FOUR

(X1 575 ) 54, 57 (2), 61, 62, 64 (2), 66 (2), 67
(2), 70, 71 (2), 72 (2), 73, 75, 77 (4),
78, 79, 80, 81 (2), 83, 87, 88 (3), 90
(3), 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97 (2), 98
(2), 102, 105, 106, 107, 109 (2),
110, 112, 113, 115, 116 (2), 117,
118 (2), 121, 123, 124, 125, 127,
130, 131, 132, 133 (2), 135 (3), 136
(2), 137 (2), 139 (2), 141, 142, 144
(2), 146, 147, 151, 152, 155 (2); see
also Ligatures (D21+X1, D36+X1,
D46+X1+N35 , G1+X1,
G43+X1, L1+D21+X1, N35+X1,
Q3+X1, V15+X1, X1+R4)
X4 555 81
Y1 538 *12, *22, 3, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29,
30, 32, 33, 40, 41, 45, 50, 51, 54,
61, 62, 76, 84, 106, 118, 122, 126,
139, 145, 146, 149, 154, 155
Y3 537 25, 155
Y5 540 14
Z1 558 *14, *25, *28, 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 30 (2),
31, 32, 34 (2), 35, 38 (2), 39, 40, 42
(2), 43, 47, 52, 53 (2), 54, 55, 57, 58
(4), 59, 60, 63, 64 (3), 68, 69, 73, 74
(2), 76, 78 (3), 79, 81, 82, 84, 85,
86, 88, 90, 92, 95 (3), 97, 102, 103,
104, 105 (3), 107, 108, 109, 110,
112 (2), 114, 118 (2), 119 (3), 120,
121 (3), 122, 124, 126,
SIGN LIST 219

(Z1 558 ) 128, 129, 130, 131 (2), 132, 134 (2),
135 (2), 136, 137, 138, 139, 140,
141 (2), 143, 144, 145 (2), 146, 148,
149, 150, 152, 153, 154, 155
Z2 561 *27, 1, 2, 3 (2), 11, 15, 21 (2), 22,
24, 30 (2), 33, 35, 39, 44, 57, 60
(2), 61 (3), 62 (2), 63 (2), 64 (2), 66
(2), 67, 69, 74, 75, 79, 80, 81, 85,
87, 88, 90, 92 (2), 93, 95 (3), 96,
97 (2), 103, 104, 105, 106, 108,
111, 113, 117 (2), 118, 120 (3),
122, 123 (2), 133 (2), 135, 138, 141
(3), 144, 145 (2), 146, 152, 154
Z4 560 23, 42, 49, 53 (2), 63, 65, 66, 79,
104, 130, 142, 144, 145, 155
Z5 559 25, 82, 116
Z6 49B 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 17, 19, 31 36, 39,
44, 46, 49, 50, 52, 55, 64, 86, 130,
132, 134, 136, 138, 140, 148
Z7 200B *14, *25, *26, *27, *28, 2, 3, 5, 9
(2), 20, 34 (2), 35, 45, 57 (2), 58,
59, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 76, 78,
79, 80, 83, 85, 87, 89, 100, 101,
102, 104, 107 (3), 109, 111, 112
(2), 117, 121, 123 (2), 124, 126,
127, 128, 130, 131, 134 (2), 135,
136, 138, 143, 149
Z9 565 3, 4, 55, 56, 76, 79, 85, 86, 95
Z49 615 8, 106
Aa1 574 *27, 13, 18, 21 (2), 24 (2), 26, 29,
35, 37, 45, 51, 56, 61, 68, 71, 104,
220 APPENDIX FOUR

(Aa1 574 ) 106, 107, 115, 124, 125, 136, 139,
140, 143, 146 (2), 147, 148, 153,
154; see also Ligatures (D36+Aa1,
N1+Aa1)
Aa2 566/582 44, 57, 87, 91, 94, 96, 132, 135
Aa8 604 61, 97
Aa11 477 25, 122
Aa14 327 148
Aa16 328 16
Aa17 594 14, 28, 84, 103, 131, 152, 153
Aa21 583 23
Aa28 488 60, 62, 70
2. ligatures

D2+D21 80C 7, 24, 27, 42, 51, 59, 64, 121
D21+F22 — 155
D21+N35 XXVI 101

D21+V31 — *26, 21, 67, 148
D21+X1 XXIX 62
D21+Aa1 XXVIII 145
D36+N5 — 60, 147
D36+X1 II 25, 27, 53, 122, 144 (2)

D36+Aa1 — 149
D46+W24 — 62
SIGN LIST 221

D46+X1 XLVI 30, 58, 147
D46+X1+N35 — 56
D46+X1+
— 4, 86
N35 +I9
E34+N35 — 105, 130, 142, 143, 145
G1+X1 — 44, 48, 82, 92, 115, 141
G17+D21 X 61, 131
G17+X1 XI 12, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140

(2)
G43+X1 III *9, 71, 148
L1+D21 — 10, 62
L1+D21+X1 — 52
M36+D21 294 9, 75, 117 (2), 142
N29+D21 XXXIV 43, 49
N35+G37 — 103
N35+I9 XVI 12, 29, 71

N35+N5 — 103, 104, 105, 108, 110, 112,
113, 115, 116, 118, 120, 122,
123, 125, 129, 130, 132, 134,
136, 140
N35+V31 XIX 36, 59
N35+X1 XX 9, 10, 14, 15, 20, 21, 31, 37 (2),
222 APPENDIX FOUR

(N35+X1 XX ) 38 (2), 42, 47, 49, 51, 57, 72,
79, 82, 92, 118, 131, 136,
142, 144, 145, 146
N35+X1+X1 XXII 28
N35+Aa1 XVIII 18, 21, 32 (2), 37, 80, 142,

150
Q3+O50 403n 110, 122, 154
Q3+X1 VII 70, 72, 139

R4+X1 552n 23, 108
T28+D21 — 75, 93, 97 (2), 119, 128, 133
U2+D4 — 71, 79, 103
V15+X1 — 65, 105, 141
V15+X1+X1 — 112
W12+D21 — 75, 98
W24+G43 495n 106, 112

APPENDIX FIVE
LEXICON AND GRAMMAR
1. lexicon
This section lists all instances of all the individual words that either
survive or can be restored in the papyrus (suffix pronouns are listed
under “Pronoun, personal, suffix” in Section Two, below). Words
are arranged by their roots, in transcription, usually according to the
order used in the Wörterbuch. The spellings and forms that appear in
the papyrus are listed under each root, with references to column
numbers of the text. Derivatives are listed after their root rather than
strictly alphabetically: e.g., ms “child” after msj “give birth.”
æt “moment, time” (noun: Wb. I, 1–2): 82, 116

æjs “offal” (noun: Wb. I, 20, 10–13; Wb.med., 3; Wb. Drogennamen,
1): 87 æsw
æbj “long” (verb: Wb. I, 6–7): 141 æbb
æpd “bird” (noun: Wb. I, 9): 92 æp«d»w
æh “misery” (verbal noun: Wb. I, 12): 18
æq “perish” (verb: Wb. I, 21): 74 æq.(w), 107 æq.(w)
æïp “load” (verb: Wb. I, 22–23): 69 æ<t>p.f ;
127–28 ætp.kw
jæãw “sunlight” (noun: Wb. IV, 430–31): 65

jj “come” (verb: Wb. I, 37): 12 jjt.(j), 19 jjt.j
jw (particle: Wb. I, 42–43): 1 [j]w.n, 6 (2), 20, 21, 31 jw.k, 36, 36
jw.j, 40 jw.f, 43 jw.j, 45 jw.f, 55, 81 (2), 82 jw.f, 83 jw.f, 132, 140;
*28, 2, 5, 34, 68, 69 jw.f, 80, 85, 101 jw.f, 107, 112, 123, 127
jw.j, 130 (added), 134, 136, 138
224 APPENDIX FIVE
jwj “come” (verb: Wb. I, 44–45): 137, 154 jw.f

jw “misdeed” (noun: Wb. I, 48): jw 111 jw.f, 143
jwëw “heir” (verbal noun: Wb. I, 50): 52
jb “heart” (noun: Wb. I, 59–60): jb 38, 40 jb.f, 52 jb.k, 57, 85, 114
ëq-jb, 118, 121, 124 ëq-jb, 126 hr-jb, 128–29 ëq-jb; jbw 105, 120
jm (preposition with suffix pronoun and adverb): see m
jmj (nisbe): see m
jmj “put” (imperative: Wb. I, 76–77): 148
jmnt “West” (noun: Wb. I, 86): *27, 20, 38, 41, 51, 77, 151, 152
jn (particle, interrogative: Wb. I, 89): jn 20
jnj “get” (verb: Wb. I, 90–91): 17 jn.f, 57 jnt
— 117 jnn.tw, 124 jnn.tw
jnr “stone” (noun: Wb. I, 97–98): 60
jr “if, as for”: see r
jrj “thereto”: see r
jrj “make, do” (verb: Wb. I, 108–12): *9 jrt, 16 jr, 43 jrt, 45 jrt,
116, 116 jr.t(w), 141 jr.n.f, 154 jr.n; jrw 123
— 114 jrr, 143 jrr
jhm “prod” (verb): see hjm
jhmt “mourning” (verbal noun: Wb. I, 12 æhmt): 131–32
hjmt
jã “and, then” (particle: Wb. I, 123): 45, 154
jãt “thing” (noun: Wb. I, 123–25): 106 ãwt, 146 rã-ãwt
jãrw “hostile nature” (verbal noun): *27
jzft “disorder” (noun: Wb. I, 129): 22, 123
js (particle: Wb. I, 130): 17, 31
jst “place” (noun: Wb. IV, 1–6 st): 37, 109
jsdz “Isdes” (proper name: Wb. I, 134): 27
jty “Sire” (noun: Wb. I, 143): 102 (error for )
LEXICON AND GRAMMAR 225
jïj “take, rob” (verb: Wb. I, 149–50): 36 jtt, 65 jt.n, 141 jt

(added); 105 jtt, 112 jtt
ë “arm” (noun: Wb. I, 156, 9–13): 10 m ë.f

ët “room” (noun: Wb. I, 160): 27
ëæ “here” (adverb: Wb. I, 164): 151
ëwn “be greedy” (verb: Wb. I, 172): 105, 120 ëwn.(w)
ëbæ “dedicate” (verb: Wb. I, 177): 63 ëbæw
ëbë “exaggerate” (verb: Wb. I, 177): 6
ëfdt “storage-chest” (noun: Wb. I, 183, 15–17): 37
ënn “turn” (verb: Wb. I, 188–89): 83 ënn.f
ënã “live” and “life” (verb and verbal noun: Wb. I, 193–200):
ënã 8?, 18, 21, 32, 32 ënã.t(j), 37 ënã.(w), 142 ënã.(w), 150;
80 ënãt.sn
ëntjw “myrrh” (noun: Wb. I, 206–207): 132–33
ëœæ “fight” (verb: Wb. I, 215–16): 150 ëœæ.k
ëœë “stand up” (verb: Wb. I, 218–20): 7 ëœë.f, 16 ëœë.f, 42
ëœë.n, 144; 53 ëœët(j).fj
ëœë “heap” (verbal noun: Wb. I, 220–21): in 33
nb-ëœëw
ëã “brazier” (noun: Wb. I, 223): 49
ëšæ ”many” (adjective-verb: Wb. I, 228–29): 141 ëšæt
ëq “enter” (verb: Wb. I, 230–32): 73
ëq-jb “intimate” (compound noun: Wb. I, 231, 181–19):
114, 124, 128–29
ëÿw “slaughter” (noun): 97
wæj “become far” (adjective-verb: Wb. I, 245–46): wæt 137
wæœ “lay aside, set” (verb: Wb. I, 253–57): *12 [wæœ].k,

22, 51
226 APPENDIX FIVE
wj (dependent pronoun 1s: Wb. I, 270–71): 8, 19, 23, 50, 150

wjæ “bark” (noun: Wb. I, 271–72): 26; 144
wjn “reject” (verb: Wb. I, 272): 8?, 151
wpj “part” (verb: Wb. I, 298–301): 3–4 wp.n.j, 55 wp.n, 85 wp.n.j
wpwtj “householder” (nisbe: Wb. I, 304): 85 wpwtjw
wnn “be” (verb: Wb. I, 308–309): wn 121, 127 wn.(w), 130;
28 [wnt]
— wnn 142, 143, 145
wnwt “hour” (noun: Wb. I, 316–17): *13
wrr “great” (adjective-verb: Wb. I, 326–28): 5 wr.(w), 6 wr
wrÿ “become weary” (verb: Wb. I, 337–38): 153 wrd.k
wãt “darkness” (verbal noun: Wb. I, 352): 71–72
wãæ “foolish” (adjective-verb: Wb. I, 354): 18 wãæ.(w)
wzf “ignore” (verb: Wb. I, 357): 6–7 wzf
wš “raze, strip” (verb: Wb. I, 368): 63 wš.w; 85
wšb “answer” (verb: Wb. I, 371–72): 4 wšb.j, 55–56 wšb.f,
86 wšb.j
wdn “heavy” (adjective-verb: Wb. I, 390): 28 wdn.(w)
wdn “offer” (verb: Wb. I, 391): 149 wdn.k
wÿë “judge” (verb: Wb. I, 404–406): 23
bæ “soul” (noun: Wb. I, 411–12): 4 bæ.j, 5 bæ.j, 7 bæ.j, 11 bæ.j,

17–18 bæ.j, 31 bæ.j, 39 bæ.j, 44, 46, 49, 52 bæ.j, 55 bæ.j, 86 bæ.j, 148
bæbæt ”inundation” (noun: Wb. I, 419): 47–48
bjn “bad” (adjective-verb and verbal noun: Wb. I, 442–44):
103 bjn.(w), 108, 110, 117 bjn.(w)
bëœj “reek” (verb: Wb. I, 448–49): 87, 89, 91, 93, 96,
98, 99, 101
bw-nb “everyone” (nominal compound: Wb. I, 452): 107–
108, 111
bw nfr “goodness” (nominal compound: Wb. II, 254): 109

bwæt “rise” (verbal noun: Wb. I, 454): 92
bšïw “sedition” (verbal noun: Wb. I, 479): 102 bštw
btæ “transgression” (verbal noun: Wb. I, 483–84): 40
btw “who should be avoided” (verbal noun: Wb. I, 484): 113
pt “sky” (noun: Wb. I, 490–91): 88, 90, 139

pæ “that” (demonstrative pronoun: Wb. I, 492): 17; 50
pw “it, that” (demonstrative pronoun: Wb. I, 505): *13, 17, 21,
38, 154; 20, 57 (2), 58
pf, pfæ “yon, he” (demonstrative pronoun: Wb. I, 507): 16;
126 pfæ
pn “oh” (demonstrative pronoun: Wb. I, 507–508): 149
pr “house” (noun: Wb. I, 511–13): 58 pr.f, 141 pr.sn; 83 pr.f,
138 pr.sn
prj “go out” (verb: Wb. I, 518–25): 59 pr.n.k, 73 pr.(w), 82
pr.f; 71 prt, 77 prt, 131 prt
— 17 prr
pœ “reach” (verb: Wb. I, 533–35): 41 pœ.f, 152 pœ.k
pœwj “end” (noun: Wb. I, 535–36): 65 pœ.fj, 155 pœ.fj; 130
pœw.fj
põrt “cycle” (verbal noun): 20
pšš “spread out” (verb: Wb. I, 560–61): 76 pzš.f
ptr “what” (interrogative pronoun: Wb. I, 506): 14, 32
fæj “lift” (verb: Wb. I, 572–73): 29
m “in, with,” etc. (preposition: Wb. II, 1–2): [1] (2), [2], 5, 9 (2),
10, 15, 16, 25, 27, 42, 45, 50, 51, 57, 58, 60, 61 (2), 62, 66, 72,
74, 76, 77, 79, 88, 90, 109, 110, 113, 115, 116, 117, 119, 124 (2),
130 (2), 132, 134, 136, 137, 138, 140, 142 (2), 144, 145 (2), 155
228 APPENDIX FIVE
(m “in, with,” etc.)

— 15 jm.j
— (adverb: Wb. I, 72) 140, 142, 144, 145 (2)
— (nisbe: Wb. I, 72–76) 7 jmt.f
mææ “see” (verb: Wb. II, 7–10): 59 mæ.k, 71 mæ.n.f;
mæw
— mææ 103, 141
mæët “Maat” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 18–20): [1], 25
mæëtj “orderly” (nisbe: Wb. II, 21): 122 mæëtjw
mær “misery” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 30, 4): *12
mæ[jr.j], 22 mæjr.j, 128
mæï “granite” (noun: Wb. II, 34): mæt 61
mj “who” (interrogative pronoun: Wb. II, 4): 103, 105, 108,
109, 111, 113, 115, 116, 118, 120, 122, 123, 125, 127, 129
mj “look” (particle: Wb. II, 4–5): mj.k 67, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91
(2), 93, 94, 95, 96, 98 (2), 99, 100, 101, 102; mj.tn 11
mj “come” (verb imperative: Wb. II, 35): *26
mj “like” (preposition: Wb. II, 36–38): 6, 16, 33, 41, 63, 83, 131,
132, 133, 135 (2), 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 150 (2), 155; omitted
130
mjtt “likeness” (nisbe: Wb. II, 40–41): 66
mjn “today” (noun: Wb. II, 43): 5, 103, 104, 105, 108, 110,
112, 113, 115, 116, 118, 120, 122, 123, 125, 127, 129, 130, 132,
134, 136, 138, 140
mër “fortunate” (adjective-verb: Wb. II, 48–49): 41
mwt “die” and “death” (verb and verbal noun: Wb. II, 165–66 mt):
mt 12, 19, 36 mt.(tj), 50, 130, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140;
mtw 64
mnt “suffering” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 67): 14 mnt.f
mr “pyramid” (noun: Wb. II, 94): 42, 61
mr “ail” (verb: Wb. II, 95): 131

mrj “desire” (verb: Wb. II, 98–100): 104 mr.nj, 150, 151
mryt “riverbank” (noun: Wb. II, 109–10): 64, 135
mryt “riverbankers” (noun: Wb. II, 110): 75;
97
mœj “care” (verb and verbal noun: Wb. II, 120): 68;
32 mœy.k, 78 mœy.j
mœyt “norther” (nisbe: Wb. II, 125): 72
mzœ “crocodile” (noun: Wb. II, 136): 96 msœw
ms “surely” (particle: Wb. II, 142): 142, 143, 145
msj “give birth” (verb: Wb. II, 137–38): 77 mst
ms “child” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 139–40): 74 msw.f;
78 msw.s
msyt “brood” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 140, 15): 93
msyt “supper” (noun: Wb. II, 142): 81
msÿj “hate” (verb: Wb. II, 154): 101 msdw.f
mšë “expedition” (noun: Wb. II, 155): 138
mšrwt “evening meal” (noun: Wb. II, 158): 80–81
mtt “middle” (noun: Wb. II, 168): 118
mdwj “speak” (verb: Wb. II 179): 5, 66, 147
mdw “speech” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 180): 25–26 mdw.j
n “to, for” (preposition: Wb. II, 193–94): 4, 7 n.j, 12 n.f (2), 19

n.f, 20 n.j, 29 n.f and n.j, 30 n.j, 39 n.j, 40 [n].j, 55, 55 n.j, 64, 66
n.sn, 67 n.j, 67, 77, 77 n.s, 81 n.f, 84 n.f (2), 84 n.s, 85, 86, 95
n.sn, 101, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 111, 113, 115, 116 (2),
118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125 n.f, 125, 127, 128, 129, 143, 145,
146, 147 n.j, 151 n.k, 154
nj “of, belonging to” (nisbe: Wb. II, 196–97): n *27, 60, 67, 79,
99, 102, 121; nt 37, 38, 72, 92, 118, 136; nw 95, 104
230 APPENDIX FIVE
nj-sw “belonger” (compound noun: Wb. II, 197, 4): 148–

49 nsw
næ “this” (demonstrative pronoun: Wb. II, 199): 5
nj “no, not” (particle: Wb. II, 195): 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 19, 31, 33,
76, 80, 84, 104, 115, 116, 146
njæj “awning” (noun: Wb. II, 202, 5): 43, 45
njnj “inert” (adjective-verb: Wb. II, 203, 7; 275 nnj):
63–64 nnw
njnw “inertness” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 275 nnw): 45 nnw
nwj “consider” (verb: Wb. II, 220): 35 nwt.k
nwy “waters” (noun: Wb. II, 221): 65
nwœ “rope” (noun: Wb. II, 223): 9
nb “all, every” (quantifier: Wb. II, 234–36): 35, 105, 107–108
bw-nb, 111 bw-nb, 112, 119; nbt 109
nbw “owner” (noun: Wb. II, 228, 5–11): 33 nb-ëœëw
nf “injustice” (noun: Wb. II, 252): 129
nfæ “that, yonder” (demonstrative pronoun: Wb. II, 251): 34, 37
nfr “fine, good” (adjective-verb: Wb. II, 253–56): 67, 68, 109
bw nfr; nfrt 62; nfr.w 61
nmë “show bias” (verb: Wb. II, 267): 2 nmë.n, 3 nmë.n
nn “no, not” (particle: Wb. II, 195): 8, 9, 34, 39, 50, 59, 77, 121,
122, 125, 126, 130
nœæt “ache” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 291, 4; Wb.med. 471–72):
56–57
nœmn “in fact” (particle: Wb. II, 297): 34
nœnw “eulogy” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 297): 16
nãwt “complaint” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 305): 148
nãt “force” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 316–17): 107 nãt-œr “sternness”
ns “tongue” (noun: Wb. II, 320): 2 ns.[s]n, 3 ns.sn
ntj “who, which” (nisbe: Wb. II, 351–53): 42, 49, 142, 145;
nt(j) 47; / ntt 9, 28
ntk “you” (pronoun independent, 2ms: Wb. II, 357): 31
nïr “god” (noun: Wb. II, 358–62): 142; nïrw 24, 30, 63; see
also õrj-nïr
nÿm “sweet” (adjective-verb: Wb. II, 378–80): 29
nÿrj “capture” (verb: Wb. II, 382–83): 142 nÿrt
nÿs “little man” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 385): 68, 80
r “with respect to” (preposition: Wb. II, 386–88): *26 r.k, 1, 2, 5

r.j, 6, 8 r.j, 12, 13, 14, 17 r.f, 18, 19, 21 r.k, 34, 36, 41, 43, 45,
50, 52, 59, 67 r.k, 70, 78, 81, 82, 83 r.s, 82, 83, 87, 91, 92, 94
(2), 96, 97, 98, 99 r.s, 100, 100 r.f, 102, 109 r.f, 109, 118, 119 (2),
125, 131, 131 r sæ, 138, 140, 148 r.k, 153 r sæ, 155; omitted 89
— jr “as to, if” (Wb. I, 103) 8 [jr], 49, 56
— jrj (adverb: Wb. I, 104, 19–20) 63, 66; 39 jr(j)
r “mouth” (noun: Wb. II, 389–90): 4 r.j, 55 r.f, 86 r.j
r-pr “temple” (compound noun: Wb. II, 397): 145 rw-prw
rëw “Sun” (noun: Wb. II, 401): 25; 73, 147;
60 rëw
rwj “leave” (verb: Wb. II, 406–407): 10 rwj.f
rm “fish” (noun: Wb. II, 416): 66 rmw
rmj “weep” (verb: Wb. II, 416–17): 76 rm.j
rmyt “tears” (verbal noun: Wb. II, 417): 57
rmï “people” (noun: Wb. II, 421–24): 67
rn “name, identity” (noun: Wb. II, 425–28): 36 rn.k, 87 rn.j, 89
rn.j, 91 rn.j, 93 rn.j, 96 rn.j, 98 rn.j, 100 rn.j, 101 rn.j
rnpt “year” (noun: Wb. II, 429–30): 141 rnpwt
rhnj “rely” (verb: Wb. II, 440): 121 rhn.tw
232 APPENDIX FIVE
rã “learn” (verb: Wb. II, 442–45): in 144–45 rã-ãwt

“knower of things” (Wb. II, 443, 29–30)
rzf “catch” (noun: Wb. II, 449): 90
rs “awaken” (verb: Wb. II, 449–51): 72 rs.(w)
rdj “give, put, cause” (verb: Wb. II, 464–68): 41 rdj.j, 109;
14 [rdjt], 144
— 8, 144 dj.t(w)
hæj “descend” (verb: Wb. II, 472–74): 107 hæ.w

hjm “prod” (verb: Wb. II, 490, 6 hmw): 49–50 hjm.k;
18–19 jhm
hjmt “mourning” (verbal noun): see jhmt
hrj “calm” (adjective-verb: Wb. II, 496–97): in hr-jb “calm-
hearted” 126
hrww “day” (noun: Wb. II, 498–500): hrw 10, 15, 53, 68,
90, 134; hrww 88
œæt “tomb” (noun: Wb. III, 12): 53

œæt “front” (noun: Wb. III, 19–24): 155 œæt.f
œæb “festival” (noun: Wb. III, 57–58 œb): 71 œb.f
œæm “fowl” (verb: Wb. III, 31–32): 95
œæmw “fowling” (verbal noun): 94
œjmt “wife” (noun: Wb. III, 76–78 œmt): 73 œjmt.f, 83 œjmt.f,
98 zt-œjmt; 81 œjm<t>.f
œë “body” (noun: Wb. III, 37–39): 152 œë.k
œëÿæ “plunder” (verb: Wb. III, 43): 112 œëÿæ.tw
œwj “hit” (verb: Wb. III, 46–48): 129 œw
œwyt “flood” (verbal noun: Wb. III, 49, 4): 137
œm “also” (particle: Wb. III, 78): 151
œmsj “sit” (verb: Wb. III, 96–98): 75 œms.(w); œmst

133, 135
œmst “site” (noun: Wb. III, 99, 3): œmst 97
œnë “with” (preposition: Wb. III, 110–11): 6 œnë.j, 40 œnë.j,
73, 114 œnë.f, 126 œnë.f
œnkyt “bed” (noun: Wb. III, 119–20): 54
œr “face, sight” (noun: Wb. III, 125–29): 39, 79, 107, 119, 130
œr.j, 132 œr.j, 134 œr.j, 136 œr.j, 138 œr.j, 140 œr.j; 118 œrw
œr “upon, over” (preposition: Wb. III, 131–32): *14, 11, 12, 13
(2), 14, 18, 22, 32, 34, 35, 42, 43, 47, 53, 58, 64, 73, 76, 78 (2),
84, 105, 108, 112, 135, 143, 144, 146, 148, 149, 150; 7 œr.s,
24 œr.j, 27 œr.j, 51 œr.s; 121 œr.f
œrj-tæ “survivor” (compound noun: Wb. III, 136): 42, 64–65
œrw “up” (noun: Wb. III, 142–43): 59
œsj “be cold” (verb: Wb. III, 166): 46 œsw
œqr “hunger” (verb: Wb. III, 174–75): 49 œqr.(w)
œtæw “sail” (noun: Wb. III, 182): 133
œtp “content” (adjective-verb: Wb. III, 188–92): 23; 108
œtm “negate” (verb: Wb. III, 199): 119 œtm.(w)
ãt “fire” (noun: Wb. III, 217–18): 13

ãæë “throw” (verb: Wb. III, 227–28): 13, 58 ãæë.(w)
ãæz “channel” (noun: Wb. III, 293, 19): 94–95 ãæzw
ãwzw “construction” (verbal noun: Wb. III, 249, 8): 61 ãws
ãpr “happen, become, grow up” (verb: Wb. III, 260–65): 10,
62, 114 ãpr.(w); 52 ãprt
ãft “when” (preposition: Wb. III, 275): 147
ãftj “opponent” (nisbe: Wb. III, 276–77): 115 ãft(j)
ãm “not know” (verb: Wb. III, 278–80): 140 ãmt.n.f
— 124 ãmm
234 APPENDIX FIVE
ãnj “land” (verb: Wb. III, 287): 153 ãny.j; 35

ãnt, 51 ãnt.k
ãnms “friend” (noun: Wb. III, 294–95): 104
ãnmsw
ãnr “deprived one” (verbal noun: Wb. III, 296): 35 ãnrj
ãnsw “Khonsu” (proper name: Wb. III, 300): 24
ãntj “Khenti” (proper name: Wb. 3, 308, 4): 79
ãntw “outside” (noun: Wb. III, 303, 6): 82;
131
ãnd “tread” (verb: Wb. III, 312–13): 21 ãn{t}d
ãr “fall” (verb: Wb. III, 319–21): 21 ãr.sn
ãrw “voice” (noun: Wb. III, 324–25): 76
ãsf “bar, intercede, punish” (verb: Wb. III, 335–36): 24, 26,
143; 29–30, 146 ãsf.n.t(w).f
ãt “tree” (noun: Wb. III, 339–41): 21 ãtw
õt “belly” (noun: Wb. III, 356–57): 9 õt.j, 30 õt.j

õæt “(corporeal) remains” (noun: Wb. III, 359): 44 õæt.k
õææ “stake” (noun: Wb. III, 361): 148
ãæj “resist, thwart” (verb: Wb. III, 361): 8
õæb “crooked” (adjective-verb: Wb. III, 361): 2
õæ[b]
õnw “inside” (noun: Wb. III, 370–72): 70
õnj “row” (verb: Wb. III, 374–75): 38 õn.t
õr “under, with” (preposition: Wb. III, 386–88): 75, 93, 97, 128,
133
õrw “down” (noun: Wb. III, 392–93): 119
õrj-nïr “necropolis” (compound noun: Wb. III, 394): 55
õrd “lad” (noun: Wb. III, 396–98): 100
zj “man” (noun: Wb. III, 404–406): *28, 31, 58 (2), 105, 110,
112, 119, 121, 137, 139, 141
zt-œjmt “married woman” (noun: Wb. III, 407): 98
zæw “guard” (verb: Wb. III, 416–17): *25 zæw.t(j)
zwr “drink” (verb: Wb. III, 428): 47 swrj.j
zbnw “eel” (verbal noun): 89
zp “deed, occasion” (noun: Wb. III, 435–38): 110 zp.f, 154
zpj “be left over” (verb: Wb. III, 439): 122 zp.(w)
zf “be kind” (verb: Wb. III, 442): 107
zõæ “write” and “writing” (verb and verbal noun: Wb. III, 475–79
zš): 25; 155
zš “nest” (noun: Wb. III, 483–85): 95 zšw
zšnj “lotus” (noun: Wb. III, 485–86): 135 zšnw
st “place” (noun): see jst

sæ “back” (noun: Wb. IV, 8–12): 14 sæ.f, 103 sæ.f, 131 r sæ, 153 r sæ
sæm “burn” (verb: Wb. IV, 18): 13 smæmt.j
sær “need” (verbal noun: Wb. IV, 18–19): 28 sær.j
sæœ “touch” (verb: Wb. IV, 20–21): 152
sæï “offend” (verb: Wb. IV, 27 sæt): 84 sï.(w)
sjnd “sadden” (verb: Wb. IV, 40): 57–58
sw “him, himself, he, it” (dependent pronoun 3ms: Wb. IV, 59):
17; *14, 83, 126, 143
swœt “egg” (noun: Wb. IV, 73): 79
sbæ “instruct” (verb: Wb. IV, 83–84): *26 sbæ.j
spt “lip” (noun: Wb. IV, 99–100): 67
spr “appeal” (verb: Wb. IV, 103–104): 146
spd “sharp” (adjective-verb: Wb. IV, 108–10): 39 spdw
sf “yesterday” (noun: Wb. IV, 113): 115
236 APPENDIX FIVE
smã “forget” (verb: Wb. IV, 140–41): 68

snnw “second” (noun: Wb. IV, 149–50): 8 [snnw].j, 106
snnw.f
sn “brother” (noun: Wb. IV, 150–51): 14–15 [sn].f, 52, 114,
149 sn.j; snw 103, 112–13 snw.f, 117, 120 snw.f
snb “get well” (verb: Wb. IV, 158–59): 130
snÿm “sweeten” (verb: Wb. IV, 185–86): 19–20
srã “make known” (verb: Wb. IV, 199): 125 srãt
sãæ “call to mind” (verb: Wb. IV, 292–94): 56 sãæ.k;
115 sãæ.t(w)
sãër “anger” (verb: Wb. IV, 238): 110
sãt “enmesh” (verb: Wb. IV, 262–63): 139
szbï “make laugh” (verb: Wb. IV, 274): ssbt.f
sšæ “plead” (verb: Wb. IV, 281): 84
sqd “commission (building)” (verb: Wb. IV, 310):
62 sqdw
sqdwt “(sailing) voyage” (verbal noun: Wb. IV, 309): 70–
71
skæ “plow” (verb: Wb. IV, 315–16): 69 skæ.f
sgr “still” (verb: Wb. IV, 323): 26
st “it” (dependent pronoun 3n: Wb. IV, 325): *9
stpt “choice cut” (verbal noun: Wb. IV, 396–97): 144 stpwt
sï (particle: Wb. I, 134 jsï): 82
sïæs “drag” (verb: Wb. IV, 351–53 sïæ): *14 sïæ[s.j], 12
sïæs.j; 70 sïæs.f
sïj “smell” (noun: Wb. IV, 349): st 87, 91, 94, 96, 132, 135
sdœj “sink” (verb: Wb. IV, 371): 18
sÿ “break” (verb: Wb. IV, 373–75): 79 sdw
sÿæ “make sound” (verb: Wb. IV, 78–81 swÿæ): 54 sÿæy.f
sÿm “listen” (verb: Wb. IV, 384–87): 11 sÿm.n.j, 25, 39, 67 (2),
84 sÿm.n.f
sÿdm “make jealous” (verb: Wb. IV, 396): 44 sÿdm.k,
46 sÿdm.k; 49 sÿ<d>m.k
šj “depression” (noun: Wb. IV, 397–98): 74

šw “empty” (adjective-verb: Wb. IV, 426–27): 123–24
šwjw “dryness” (verbal noun: Wb. IV, 482): 48
šmj “go” (verb: Wb. IV, 462–65): 7, 33 šm.j, 126
šmw “harvest” (noun: Wb. IV, 481): 69 šmw.f
šmw “Harvest (season)” (noun: Wb. IV, 480): 88
šmsj “follow” (verb: Wb. IV, 482–84) : 68
šnj “encircle” (verb: Wb. IV, 489–91): 74
šnj “plot” (verb: Wb. IV, 496): 102 šnn
šnw “net” (verbal noun: Wb. IV, 609): 9
šzp “trap” (noun): 89
štæw “secret” (verbal noun: Wb. IV, 553–54): 30
šdj “take” (verb: Wb. IV, 560–62): 58 šdt
šdw “plot (of land)” (noun: Wb. IV, 568): 69 šdw.f
qææ “height” (verbal noun: Wb. V, 5): 59

qj “manner” (noun: Wb. V, 15–16): 50
qn “finish” (verb: Wb. V, 49): 61 qn
qnj “brave” (adjective-verb: Wb. V, 41–43): 100
qrs “burial” (verbal noun: Wb. V, 63–64): 43 qrs.f;
55; 56
qsn “difficult” (adjective-verb: Wb. V, 69–70): 20 qsnt;
10, 15 qsnwt
qd “build” (verb: Wb. V, 72–73): 60 qdw
238 APPENDIX FIVE
kæt “work” (noun: Wb. V, 98–101): 62 kæwt

ky “other” (noun: Wb. V, 110–14): 44, 46, 49; 83;
kt 78
kfj “clear” (verb: Wb. V, 119): 139 kft
km “gain” (verb: Wb. V, 128–30): 32 km.k
gæw “lack” (verbal noun: Wb. V, 152): 64, 128

gmj “find” (verb: Wb. V, 166–69): 51 gm.k; 155
gmyt
grt “also, as well” (particle: Wb. V, 178–79): 6, 36 grt.k
grœ “night” (noun: Wb. V, 183–85): 75
grg “lie” (verbal noun: Wb. V, 189–90): 98–99
gs “side” (noun: Wb. V, 191–94): 16
tæ “that” (demonstrative pronoun: Wb. V, 211–12): 116

tæ “land” (noun: Wb. V, 212–16): 34, 42 œrj-tæ, 64 œrj-tæ, 78,
109, 122, 129, 152
tæ “hot” (adjective-verb: Wb. V, 229): 47 tæ.w;
88 tæ.t(j), 90 tæ.t(j)
twt “agree” (verb: Wb. V, 256–57): 40 tt
tp “on” (preposition: Wb. V, 273–76): 74
tfæ “that” (demonstrative pronoun: Wb. V, 297): 77
tfj “uproot” (verb: Wb. V, 297–98): 34 tfyt
tm “not” (negative verb: Wb. V, 302–303): 46 tm.f
tr (particle: Wb. V, 316–17): 31
tr “reed” (noun: Wb. V, 318): 92 trjw
thj “mislead” (verb: Wb. V, 319–20): 11 tht.j
tãj “get drunk” (verb: Wb. V, 323–24): in mryt-nt-
tãt “Bank of Inebriation” 135–36
tk/tkn “come near” (verb: Wb. V, 333–35): 15 tk.f; 71

tkn.(w)
ïæy “male (lover)” (verb: Wb. V, 344–45): 99

ïæww “wind” (noun: Wb. V, 350–52): 134
ïw “you” (dependent pronoun 2ms: Wb. V, 357–58 ïw): tw *26, 34
ïzj “raise” (verb: Wb. V, 405–407): 48 ïzy.j
dbœ “ask” (verb: Wb. V, 439–40): 80 dbœ.f

dpt “boat” (noun: Wb. V, 446): 70, 72
dmj “harbor” (noun: Wb. V, 455–56): 38, 102, 154
drp “present offerings” (verb: Wb. V, 476): 53 drpt.fj
ÿæÿæt “court” (noun: Wb. V, 528–29): 1?

ÿwj “evil” (adjective-verb: Wb. V, 545–47): 111 ÿw.(w)
ÿwt “evil” (verbal noun: Wb. 5, 547–48): *9
ÿbæw “exchange” (verbal noun: Wb. V, 558–60): 3
ÿr “since” (preposition: Wb. V, 592–93): 9, [28] ÿr ntt
ÿr “end up” (verb: Wb. V, 595): 75 ÿr.jn.f
ÿrÿr “stranger” (verbal noun: Wb. V, 604): 117 ÿrÿrw
ÿœwtj “Thoth” (proper name: Wb. V, 606): 23
ÿsr “sacred” (adjective-verb: Wb. V, 610–14): 27 ÿsr[t]
ÿd “say” (verb: Wb. V, 618–25): 1, 33, 35, 76, 81 ÿd.s, 98, 100,
103 ÿd.j, 104 ÿd.j, 108 ÿd.j, 109 ÿd.j, 111 ÿd.j, 113 ÿd.j, 115 ÿd.j,
129 ÿd.j, 150 ÿd.k; 4 ÿdt.n.f, 30 ÿdt.n, 56 ÿdt.n.j, 86 ÿdt.n.f,
147 ÿdt.n
2. grammatical forms and constructions
Adjective: see Participle, active

Apposition: 7, 8, 18–19, 19–20, 37–38, 52, 149
240 APPENDIX FIVE
Clause
— adverbial: 8, 17 (2), 28–29, 34, 36–37, 62 (initial), 70–71, 71, 71
(initial), 73, 76, 82, 83 (initial), 83–84, 84, 85, 88, 90, 110 (ini-
tial), 111, 141, 141–42
— noun: 8, 9, 10, 28, 29–30, 41, 130–31, 137, 141, 144, 147, 150
(2), 152 (2), 153, 154
— purpose/result: *26, 4, 14, 23–24, 32–33, 44, 46, 49, 55–56, 59–
60, 86, 149, 150, 153
— relative: 42, 47, 49, 142, 144, 145
Conditional: 40, 49–50
Coordination: 72, 73–74
Copula (pw): *13, 17, 20, 21, 38, 57 (2), 58, 154
Emphatic: see Relative, non-attributive
Genitive
— direct: 9, 10, 15, 30, 53–54, 56–57, 57, 57–58, 58, 64, 66–67, 69,
71–72, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91–92, 94, 96, 105–106, 106, 107,
112–13, 126, 128–29, 132–33, 134, 135, 139
— indirect: see nj “of, belonging to” in Section One, above
Imperative: *26 [m]j, 21 ãnd, 22 wæœ, 51 wæœ, 67 sÿm, 68 šms, 68 smã,
148 jmj, 150 mr, 151 wjn, 151 mr
Infinitive: *9 jrt, *14 stæ[s.j], 1 ÿd, 2 õæ[b], 6 ëbë, 6–7 wzf.j, 11 tht.j,
12 stæs.j, 12 mt, 13 ãæë, 13 smæmt.j, 14 [rdjt], 18 sdœ, 18 ënã, 19
mt, 21 ënã, 34 tfyt, 35 nwt.k, 35 ÿd, 36 jït.k, 41 mër, 43 qrs.f, 43
jrt, 45 jrt, 50 mt, 56 sãæ.k, 56 qrs, 57 jnt, 57–58 sjnd, 58 šdt, 61
ãws, 67 sÿm, 71 prt, 73 ëq, 76 ÿd, 77 prt, 84 šsæ, 90 rzf, 105 jtt, 108
œtp, 108 bjn, 112 jtt, 125 srãt, 130 mt, 130 snb, 131 prt, 132 mt,
133 œmst, 134 mt, 135 œmst, 136 mt, 137 wæt, 138 mt, 139 kft, 140
mt, 141 mææ, 142 nÿrt, 143 ãsf, 144 rdjt, 146 spr, 150 ënã, 155 zõæ
— after m: 57–58, 142, 155
— after r: 6, 12, 13, 18, 19, 50, 56, 125; see also Predicate, adverbial
— after œr: *14, 12, 13, 14, 18, 76, 143, 144, 146, 150; see also Pre-
dicate, adverbial
Interrogative: 14, 20, 32, 104–105, 108, 109–10, 111–12, 113, 115,
116, 118, 120, 121–22, 123, 125, 127, 129
Negation
— nj [wnt]: 28–29; nj sÿm.f: 5, 33, 76, 115, 116; nj sÿm.n.f: 2, 3, 11,
84, 104, 146; nj sÿmt.f: 12, 19, 80; nj … js: 31
— nn with adverbial predicate: 39–40, 77; nn NOUN: 34–35 (infini-
tive); 122, 125–26; nn sÿm.f: 8, 9–10, 50–51, 121, 130; nn
sÿm.n.f: 59; nn SUBJECT–stative: 126–27
— tm: 46
Negatival complement: 46 œsw
Object, unstated: 29
Participle
— active: 7 wzf, 8 w[jn], 18–19 jhm, 19–20 snÿm, 20 qsnt, 25 zõæ, 26
sg, 27 ÿsr[t], 29 nÿm, 33 ÿd, 38–39 spdw, 60 qdw, 61 nfrw, 62 nfrt,
62 sqdw, 63–64 nnw, 64 mtw, 68 nfr, 87 bëœ, 89 bëœ, 91 bëœ, 93
bëœ, 96 bëœ, 98 bëœ, 99 bëœ, 100 qn, 101 bëœ, 105 ëwn, 110 bjn,
114 ëq-jb, 124 ëq-jb, 128–29 ëq-jb, 131 mr, 141 ëšæt, 142 ënã (or
stative), 145–46 rã-ãwt
— imperfective active: 17 prr, 102 šnn, 143 jrr
— imperfective passive: 103 mææ, 114 jrr
— future: 53 drpt.fj, 53 ëœët.fj
— passive: 61 qn, 63 ëbæw, 95 œæm, 126 šm, 139 sãt
— perfective active: 6 wr, 16 jr, 29 fæ, 79 mæw, 116 jr, 123 jrw, 126
hr-jb, 129 œw
— perfective passive: 77 mst, 79 sdw, 124 ãmm, 155 gmyt
Predicate
— adjectival: 6, 29, 67, 81, 87, 89, 91, 93, 95–96, 97–98, 99–100,
101, 105
— adverbial: 6–7, 9, 34, 39–40, 42, 83, 100–101, 113–14, 119, 130,
132, 134, 136, 138, 140; SUBJECT r sÿm: 1, 2, 36, 40–41, 43, 45
— SUBJECT œr sÿm: 11, 34, 35, 73, 83–84, 105, 112
— nominal: *13, 17, 20, 20–21, 31, 37, 38, 56–57, 57, 58, 154
242 APPENDIX FIVE
Pronoun
— demonstrative: 16 pf, 17 pæ, 34 nfæ, 37 nfæ, 50 pæ, 77 tfæ, 116 tæ,
126 pfæ, 149 pn
— interrogative: 14 ptr, 32 ptr, 103 mj, 105 mj, 108 mj, 109 mj, 111
mj, 113 mj, 115 mj, 116 mj, 118 mj, 120 mj, 122 mj, 123 mj, 125
mj, 127 mj, 129 mj
— personal, dependent: 1s wj 8, 19, 23, 50, 150; 2ms tw *26, 34; 3m
sw *14, 17, 83, 126, 143; 3n st *9
— personal, independent: 2ms ntk 31
— personal, suffix, 1s ( ): *12 mæ[jr.j], *12 [ÿdt.n.j], *12 [bæ.j], *14
stæ[s.j], *26 sbæ.j, 4 wp.n.j, 4 r.j, 4 bæ.j, 4 wšb.j, 5 r.j, 5 bæ.j, 6 œnë.j,
7 bæ.j, 7 n.j, 8 [snnw].j, 9 õt.j, 11 bæ.j, 11 tht.j, 11 sÿm.n.j, 12 stæs.j,
13 smæmt.j, 15 jmj.j, 17–18 bæ.j, 19 jjt.j, 20 n.j, 22 mæjr.j, 24 œr.j,
25–26 mdw.j, 27 œr.j, 28 sær.j, 29 n.j, 30 õt.j, 30 n.j, 31 bæ.j, 33 šm.j,
36 jw.j, 39 n.j, 39 bæ.j, 39–40 [n].j, 40 œnë.j, 41 rdj.j, 43 jw.j, 45
jw.j, 47 swrj.j, 48 ïzy.j, 52 bæ.j, 52 sn.j, 55 n.j, 55 bæ.j, 56 ÿdt.n.j, 67
n.j, 76 rm.j, 78 mœy.j, 85 wp.n.j, 86 r.j, 86 bæ.j, 86 wšb.j, 87 rn.j, 89
rn.j, 91 rn.j, 93 rn.j, 96 rn.j, 98 rn.j, 100 rn.j, 101 rn.j, 103 ÿd.j, 104
ÿd.j, 108 ÿd.j, 109 ÿd.j, 111 ÿd.j, 113 ÿd.j, 115 ÿd.j, 116 ÿd.j, 118
ÿd.j, 120 ÿd.j, 121 ÿd.j, 123 ÿd.j, 125 ÿd.j, 127 ÿd.j, 129 ÿd.j, 127
jw.j, 130 œr.j, 132 œr.j, 134 œr.j, 136 œr.j, 138 œr.j, 140 œr.j, 147 n.j,
153 ãny.j; unwritten 12 jjt.(j), 13 ãæë.(j), 53 jwëw.(j).
— personal, suffix, 2ms: *12 [wæœ].k, *26 r.k, *27 [ … ].k, 21 r.k, 31
jw.k, 32 km.k, 32 mœy.k, 35 nwt.k, 36 jït.k, 36 grt.k, 37 rn.k, 44
õæt.k, 44 sÿdm.k, 46 sÿdm.k, 49–50 hjm.k, 51 gm.k, 51 ãnt.k, 52
jb.k, 56 sãæ.k, 59 pr.n.k, 59 mæ.k, 67 r.k, 67 mj.k, 86 mj.k, 87 mj.k,
88 mj.k, 89 mj.k, 91 mj.k (2), 93 mj.k, 94 mj.k, 95 mj.k, 96 mj.k, 97
mj.k, 98 mj.k, 99 mj.k, 100 mj.k, 101 mj.k, 102 mj.k, 148 r.k, 149
wdn.k, 150 ëœæ.k, 150 ÿd.k, 151 n.k, 152 pœ.k, 152 œë.k, 153 wrd.k
— personal, suffix, 3ms: 4 ÿdt.n.f, 7 jmt.f, 7 ëœë.f, 8 [ënã].f, 8 ãæ.f, 9
ntt.f, 10 ë.f, 10 rwj.f, 12 n.f (2), 14 mnt.f, 14 [ …f], 14 sæ.f, 14–15
[sn].f, 15 tk.f, 16 ëœë.f, 17 jn.f, 17 r.f¸ 19 n.f, 29 n.f, 40 jw.f, 41 pœ.f,
43 qrs.f, 46 tm.f, 54 sÿæy.f, 55 r.f, 55–56 wšb.f, 58 pr.f, 65 pœ.fj, 69
skæ.f, 69 šdw.f, 69 jw.f, 69 æ<t>p.f, 69–70 šmw.f, 70 stæs.f, 71 œb.f,
(Pronoun, personal, suffix, 3ms)

71 mæ.n.f, 73 œjmt.f, 74 msw.f, 75 ÿr.jn.f, 76 pzš.f, 80 dbœ.f, 81
œjm<t>.f, 81 n.f, 82 jw.f, 82 pr.f, 83 ënn.f, 83 pr.f, 83 jw.f, 83 œjmt.f,
84 n.f (2), 84 sÿm.n.f, 86 ÿdt.n.f, 100 r.f, 100 jw.f, 101 jw.f, 101
msdw.f, 103 sæ.f, 109 r.f, 110 zp.f, 110–11 ssbt.f, 111 jw.f, 112–13
snnw.f, 114 œnë.f, 120 snw.f, 121 œr.f, 125 n.f, 126 œnë.f, 130 pœw.fj,
141 jr.n.f, 146 ãsf.n.t.f, 147 mdw.f, 154 jw.f, 155 œæt.f, 155 pœ.fj
— personal, suffix, 3fs ( ): 7 œr.s, 51 œr.s, 77 n.s, 78 msw.s, 81 ÿd.s, 82
r.s, 84 n.s, 99 r.s
— personal, suffix, 1pl ( ): 1 [j]w.n, 153 jr.n
— personal, suffix, 2pl ( ): 11 mj.tn
— personal, suffix, 3pl ( ): 2 ns.[s]n, 3 ns.sn, 21 ãr.sn, 66 n.sn, 80
ënãt.sn, 95 n.sn, 138 pr.sn, 141 pr.sn
Relative: 121 rhn.tw
— imperfective: 66 mdw
— perfective: 38 õn.t, 51 ãnt.k, 101 msdw.f
— non-attributive: 7 šm, 10 rwj.f, 29–30 ãsf, 40 tt, 62 ãpr, 71 mæ.n.f,
78 mœy.j, 83 ënn.f, 103 ÿd.j, 104 ÿd.j, 108 ÿd.j, 109 ÿd.j, 111 ÿd.j,
125 ÿd.j, 127 ÿd.j, 129 ÿd.j, 110 sãër, 117 jnn.tw, 124 jnn.tw, 137
jw, 141 æbb, 147 mdw.f, 150 ëœæ.k, 150 ÿd.k, 153 wrd.k, 154 jw.f
— sÿm.n.f: *12 [ÿdt.n.j], 4 ÿdt.n.f, 30 ÿdt.n, 42 ëœë.n, 56 ÿdt.n.j, 65
jt.n, 140 ãmt.n.f, 147 ÿdt.n
— virtual: 74 and 139 (stative), 98 and 100 (passive sÿm.f ), 146 (nj
sÿm.n.f )
sÿm.f
— imperfective:17 jn.f, 21 ãr.sn, 69 skæ.f, 69 æ<t>p.f, 70 stæs.f, 76
pzš.f, 80 dbœ.f, 81 ÿd.s, 82 pr.f, 110–11 ssbt.f, 112 œëÿæ.tw, 152 sæœ
— SUBJECT–sÿm.f: 21, 68–69, 69, 80–81, 81, 82
— passive: 98 ÿd, 100 ÿd, 109 rdj
— perfective: 5 mdw, 33 šm.j, 115 sãæ.t, 116 jr.t
— prospective: 41 rdj.j, 142 wnn, 143 wnn, 145 wnn
244 APPENDIX FIVE
(sÿm.f )
— prospective or subjunctive: 32 mœy.k, 47 swrj.j, 48 ïzy.j, 49–50
hjm.k, 54 sÿæy.f, 152 pœ.k, 153 ãny.j
— subjunctive: *12 [wæœ].k, *26 sbæ.j, 7 ëœë.f, 8 dj.t õæ.f, 10 ãpr, 14
[ …f], 15 tk.f, 16 ëœë.f, 23 wÿë, 23 œtp, 24 ãsf, 25 sÿm, 26 ãsf, 39
sÿm, 41 pœ.f, 44 sÿdm.k, 46 tm.f, 46 sÿdm.k, 49 sÿ<d>m.k, 51 gm.k,
55–56 wšb.f, 59 mæ.k, 86 wšb.j, 121 wn, 130 wn, 144 dj.t, 149
wdn.k, 153 jr.n
sÿm.jn.f: 75 ÿr.jn.f
sÿm.n.f: 2 nmë.n, 3 nmë.n, 3–4 wp.n.j, 11 sÿm.n.j, 55 wp.n, 59 pr.n.k,
84 sÿm.n.f, 85 wp.n.j, 104 mr.nj, 141 jr.n.f, 146 ãsf.n.t.f
sÿmt.f: 12 jjt.(j), 19 jjt.j, 52 ãprt, 80 ënãt.sn
Stative: *25 zæw.t (2s), 5 wr (3ms), 18 wãæ (3ms), 28 wdn (3ms), 32
ënã.t (2s), 36 mt (2s), 37 ënã (3ms), 47 tæ.w (3ms), 49 œqr (3ms),
58 ãæë (3ms), 63 wš.w (3pl), 71 tkn (3ms), 72 rs (3ms), 73 pr
(3ms), 74 æq (3pl), 74 šn (3ms), 75 œms (3ms), 84 sï (3ms), 85 wš
(3ms), 88 tæ.t (3fs), 90 tæ.t (3fs), 103 bjn (3pl), 107 æq (3ms), 107
hæ.w (3ms), 111 ÿw (3ms), 114 ãpr (3ms), 117 bjn (3pl), 119 œtm
(3pl), 120 ëwn (3pl), 122 zp (3ms), 123–24 šw (3ms), 127 wn
(3ms), 127–28 ætp.kw (1s), 141 jt (3ms), 142 ënã (3ms, or parti-
ciple), 144 ëœë (3ms)
— SUBJECT–stative: 5, 17–18, 28, 36, 36–37, 47, 49, 63, 71, 88, 90,
103, 107 (2), 111, 114, 117, 118–19, 120, 126–27, 127–28
Subject
— preposed: 56, 60–62, 104
— unstated: 2, 6 (2), 10, 81, 123–24
Vocative: 52 bæ.j sn.j, 148–49 nsw pn sn
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. translations and studies *
Assmann, Jan. “A Dialogue between Self and Soul: Papyrus Berlin 3024.” In Self,
Soul and Body in Religious Experience, ed. by A.I. Baumgarten et al. (Studies in
the History of Religions 88; Leiden, 1998), 384–403.
————. Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt, translated from Tod und Jenseits im
alten Ägypten (Munich, 2001) by D. Lorton. Ithaca, 2005.
Badawy, Alexander. “Two Passages from Ancient Egyptian Literary Texts Reinter-
preted.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 86 (1961), 144–45.
Barta, Winfried. Das Gespräch eines Mannes mit seinem Ba (Papyrus Berlin 3024). MÄS
18. Berlin, 1969.
————. Review of Goedicke 1970. Bibliotheca Orientalis 27 (1972), 23–26.
Blackman, Aylward M. “Notes on Certain Passages in Various Middle Egyptian
Texts.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 16 (1930), 63–72.
————. “A Note on Lebensmüder 86–88.” Orientalia 7 (1938), 67–68.
Bresciani, Edda. “Il dialogo del disperato con la sua anima.” In idem, Letteratura e
poesia dell’antico Egitto: Cultura e società attraverso i testi, new ed. (Turin, 1999),
198–205.
Brunner-Traut, Emma. “Der Lebensmüde und sein Ba.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische
Sprache und Altertumskunde 94 (1967), 6–15.
————. “Ein Gedicht des ‘Lebensmüden’.” In idem, Pharaonische Lebensweisheit
(Freiburg, 1985), 82–83.
De Buck, Adriaan. “Inhoud en achtergrond van het gesprek van den levensmoede
met zijn ziel.” Mededelingen en Verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Ge-
nootschap “Ex Oriente Lux” 7 (1947), 19–32.
Burkard, Günter. “Das Gespräch des Lebensmüden mit seinem Ba.” In Einführung in
die altägyptische Literaturgeschichte, I: Altes und Mittleres Reich, ed. by G. Burkard
and Heinz J. Thissen, 3rd ed. (Münster, 2008), 154–60.
Cannuyer, Christian, and Gilles Delpech. “La dernière demeure du Désespéré: note de
traduction (P. Berlin 3024, l. 153–154).” Göttinger Miszellen 172 (1999), 11–16.
Chioffi, Marco E., and Giuliana Rigamonti. Antologia della letteratura egizia del Medio
Regno, vol. I. Turin, 2007.
—————
* These works are referenced in the text by author and year: e.g., Assmann 1998.
246 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Derchain, Philippe. “Le Dialogue du Désespéré: à propos d’un livre récent.” Göttinger
Miszellen 125 (1991), 17–19.
Donnat, Sylvie. “Le Dialogue d’un homme avec son ba à la lumière de la formule 38
des Textes des Sarcophages.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale
104 (2004), 191–205.
Erman, Adolf. Gespräch eines Lebensmüden mit seiner Seele, aus dem Papyrus 3024 der
Königlichen Museen. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Preußischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1896. Berlin, 1896.
————. “Der Streit des Lebensmüden mit seiner Seele.” In idem, Die Literatur der
Aegypter; Gedichte, Erzählungen und Lehrbücher aus dem 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v.
Chr. (Leipzig, 1923), 122–30.
Faulkner, Raymond O. “The Man Who Was Tired of Life.” Journal of Egyptian Ar-
chaeology 42 (1956), 21–40.
————. “The Man Who Was Tired of Life.” In The Literature of Ancient Egypt: an
Anthology of Stories, Instructions, and Poetry. New ed., ed. by William Kelly Simp-
son (New Haven and London, 1973), 201–209.
Foster, John L. “The Debate between a Man Tired of Life and His Soul.” In idem,
Echoes of Egyptian Voices: an Anthology of Ancient Egyptian Poetry (Oklahoma Series
in Classical Culture 12; Norman, 1992), 11–18.
Frantsev, Y.P. “Filosofskoe znaqenie ‘Beseda pazoqarovannogo’” (The philosophical
meaning of the ‘Dialogue of a disheartened man’). In Drevniï Egupet, Sbornik
stateï, ed. by V. Struve et al. (Moscow, 1960), 206–15.
Garnot, Jean Saint Fare. “Le vie et la mort d’après un texte égyptien de la haute épo-
que,” Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 127 (1944), 18–29.
Gilbert, Pierre. “Le désespéré.” In idem, La poésie égyptienne, 2nd ed. (Brussels, 1949),
84–88.
Goedicke, Hans. The Report about the Dispute of a Man with His Ba: Papyrus Berlin
3024. Baltimore and London, 1970.
————. Review of Renaud 1991. Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 87 (1992), 23–26.
Griffiths, J. Gwyn. “Lebensmüde 83.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 53 (1967), 157–58.
Guilmot, Max. “Un désastre familial en Égypte ancienne (Lebensmüde 68–80).” Annu-
aire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves 20 (1968–72), 253–266.
Haller, Friedrich. Papyrus Berlin 3024: Gespräch eines Lebensmüden mit seinem Lebenswillen.
Bonn, 2004.
Hannig, Rainer. “Die erste Parabel des ‘Lebensmüden’ (LM 68–80).” Journal of An-
cient Civilizations 6 (1991), 23–31.
Hermann, Alfred. “Das Gespräch eines Lebensmüden mit seiner Seele.” Orientalis-
tische Literaturzeitung 42 (1939), 345–52.
Herrmann, Siegfried. “Das Gespräch des Menschen mit seinem Ba.” In idem, Unter-
suchungen zur Uberlieferungsgestalt mittelägyptischer Literaturwerke (Deutsche Aka-
demie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung, Veröffent-
lichungen 33; Berlin, 1957), 62–79.
Hornung, Erik. “Die Gedichte des ‘Lebensmüden’.” In idem, Gesänge vom Nil: Dich-
tung am Hofe der Pharaonen (Zurich and Munich, 1990), 113–17.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 247
Jacobsohn, Hellmuth. “Der Papyrus des Lebensmüden.” In Proceedings of the 7th Con-
gress for the History of Religions, Amsterdam, 4th–9th September 1950, ed. by C.J.
Bleeker et al. (Amsterdam, 1951), 106–108.
————. “Das Gesprach eines Lebensmüden mit seinem Ba.” In Zeitlose Dokumente
der Seele, ed. by C.A. Meier (Studien aus dem C.G. Jung-Institut Zürich, 3;
Zürich, 1952), 1–48.
Junker, Hermann. “Die Lösung im ‘Streit des Lebensmüden mit seiner Seele’.” Anzeiger
der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 85,
no. 17 (1948), 219–27.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. “Poems in Praise of Death: ‘A Man Tired of Life,’ c. 2100
BC.” In idem, Poetry of Ancient Egypt (Documenta Mundi: Aegyptiaca, 1; Jon-
sered, 1999), 79–88.
Lalouette, Claire. “Les chants du désespéré.” In idem, Textes sacrés et textes profanes de
l’ancienne Égypte, des pharaons et des hommes (Connaissance de l’Orient: Collec-
tion UNESCO d’Œuvres Représentatives: Série Égypte Ancienne; Paris, 1984),
221–26 and 334–35 nn. 110–31.
Lanczkowski, Günter. “Zur ägyptischen Religionsgeschichte des Mittleren Reiches
II: Der ‘Lebensmüde’ als antiosirianische Schrift.” Zeitschrift für Religions- und
Geistesgeschichte 6 (1954), I, 1–18.
Lepsius, Carl Richard. “Hieratischer Papyrus No III.” In idem, Denkmaeler aus Aegyp-
ten und Aethiopien (Berlin, 1859), VI, pls. 111–12.
Letellier, Bernadette. “De la vanité des biens de ce monde: l’évocation d’un person-
nage de fable dans le ‘Désespéré’ (P. Berlin 3024, col. 30–39).” Cahier de Re-
cherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d’Égyptologie de Lille 13 (1991), 99–105.
Lichtheim, Miriam. “The Dispute Between a Man and His Ba.” In idem, Ancient
Egyptian Literature, a Book of Readings, I. The Old and Middle Kingdoms. (Berkeley,
Los Angeles, and London, 1973), 163–69.
Lohmann, Katherina. “Das Gespräch eines Mannes mit seinem Ba.” Studien zur
Altägyptischen Kultur 25 (1998), 207–36.
Lurie, I.M. “Beseda razoqarovannogo so svoim duhom (k datirovke krest|]nskogo
vostanni] v Drevnem Egipte)” (The Dialogue of a disheartened man with his spirit:
on the dating of a peasant uprising in Ancient Egypt). Gosudarstbennyï {rmi-
taj, Trudy Otdela Vostoka 1 (1939), 141–53.
Maspero, Gaston. “Un dialogue philosophique entre un égyptien et son âme.” In

idem, Causeries d’Égypte (Paris, 1907), 125–31.
Mathieu, Bernard. “Le dialogue d’un homme avec son âme: un débat d’idées dans
l’Égypte ancienne.” Égypte, Afrique et Orient 19 (2000), 17–36.
Meshcherskiy, Nikita. “K perevodu Beseda razoqarovannogo s svoim duhom” (Toward a
translation of the Dialogue of a disheartened man with his spirit). Zapiski Kolle-
gii Vostokovedov pri Aziatskom Muzee Rossiïskoï Akademii Nauk 2 (1927),
365–72.
Müller, Dieter. Review of Goedicke 1970. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32 (1973),
353–54.
248 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Osing, Jürgen. “Gespräch des Lebensmüden.” Lexicon der Ägyptologie II (1977), 571–
73.
————. “Gleichnis.” Lexikon der Ägyptologie II (1977), 618–24.
Ouellet, Brigitte. “Le Désillusionné et son ba du Papyrus Berlin 3024:
l’herméneutique d’une experience ontophanique.” PhD dissertation: Université
de Montréal. Montreal, 2004.
————. “L’enseignement du ba à l’homme désillusionné: une praxis en rapport
avec le sens de la vie.” In Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptolo-
gists, Grenoble, 6–12 septembre 2004, ed. by J.-C. Goyon (Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 150; Leuven, 2007), II, 1437–41.
Parkinson, Richard B. “The Dialogue of a Man and His Soul.” In idem, The Tale of
Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems, 1940–1640 BC. (Oxford, 1997), 151–
65.
————. “The Missing Beginning of ‘The Dialogue of a Man and His Ba’: P. Am-
herst III and the History of the ‘Berlin Library’.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache
und Altertumskunde 130 (2003), 120–33.
————. “Manuscript 4 (The Dialogue of a Man and His Soul, followed by a
fragment of The Tale of the Herdsman).” In idem, Reading Ancient Egyptian Poe-
try, Among Other Histories (Chichester, 2009), 315–21.
Pieper, Max. “Das Gespräch eines Lebensmüden mit seiner Seele.” In idem, Die ägyp-
tische Literatur (Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft; Wildpark-Potsdam, 1927), 26–
30.
Potapova, Vera. “Spor razoqarovannogo so svoeï dušoï” (The dispute of a dishear-
tened man with his soul). In Lirika drevnogo Egupta, ed. by I. Katsnel’son (Mos-
cow, 1965), 77–83.
Quack, Joachim. Review of Renaud 1991. Die Welt des Orients 26 (1995), 184–86.
Quirke, Stephen. “The Dialogue of a Man with his Soul.” In idem, Egyptian Litera-
ture 1800 BC: Questions and Readings (GHP Egyptology 2: London, 2004), 130–
34.
Ranke, Hermann. “Das Gedicht vom Lebensmüden.” In Altorientalische Texte zum
Alten Testament, 2nd ed., ed. by Hugo Gressmann (Berlin and Leipzig, 1926),
25–28.
Renaud, Odette. Le dialogue du Désespéré avec son âme: une interprétation littéraire. Cahiers
de la Société d’Égyptologie, Genève 1. Geneva, 1991.
Scharff, Alexander. Der Bericht über das Streitgespräch eines Lebensmüden mit seiner Seele.
Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-
historische Klasse 1937, 9. Munich, 1937.
Schenkel, Wolfgang. “Ist der Wortschatz des ‘Lebensmüden’ grösser als der des ‘Si-
nuhe’?” Göttinger Miszellen 5 (1973), 21–24.
Schmidt, John D. Review of Goedicke 1970. Journal of the Near Eastern Society of
Columbia University 3 (1970–71), 129–32.
Sethe, Kurt. “6. Aus dem Bericht des Lebensmüdens über den Streit mit seiner
Seele.” In idem, Erläuterungen zu den aegyptischen Lesestücken (Leipzig, 1927), 61–
67.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 249
————. “6. Aus dem Bericht des Lebensmüdens über den Streit mit seiner Seele.”
In idem, Ägyptische Lesestücke zum Gebrauch im akademischen Unterricht, 2nd ed.
(Leipzig, 1928), 43–46.
Shinnie, Peter L. Review of Goedicke 1970. American Historical Review 77 (1972),
750–51.
Smither, Paul C. “A New Reading of Lebensmüde, 131–2.” Journal of Egyptian Arc-
haeology 25 (1939), 220.
Spiegel, Joachim. “Das Gespräch des Lebensmüden.” In idem, Soziale und Weltan-
schauliche Reformbewegung im Alten Ägypten (Heidelberg, 1950), 48–56.
Suys, Émile. “La dialogue du désespéré avec son âme.” Orientalia 1 (1932), 57–74.
Thausing, Gertrud. “Betrachtungen zum ‘Lebensmüden’.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 15 (1957), 262–67.
Tobin, Vincent. “A Re-assessment of the Lebensmüde.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 48
(1991), 341–63.
————. Review of Renaud 1991. Bibliotheca Orientalis 50 (1993), 122–25.
————. “The Man Who Was Weary of Life.” In The Literature of Ancient Egypt: an
Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry, ed. by William
Kelly Simpson, 3rd ed. (New Haven and London, 2003), 178–87.
Van de Walle, Baudoin. “Scharff, Der Bericht über das Streitgespräch eines Lebens-
müden mit seiner Seele.” Chronique d’Égypte 28 (1939), 312–17.
————. Review of Goedicke 1970. Chronique d’Égypte 47 (1972), 126–29.
Weill, Raymond. “Le livre du ‘désespéré’: le sens, l’intention et la composition litté-
raire de l’ouvrage.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale 45 (1947),
89–154.
von der Wense, Jürgen. “Der Lebensmüde, ein Fragment aus dem Ägyptischen (2200
v. Chr.).” Die Sammlung 4 (1949), 65–73.
Williams, Ronald J. “Reflections on the Lebensmüde.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
48 (1962), 49–56.
Wilson, John A. “A Dispute over Suicide.” In Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to
the Old Testament, ed. by James B. Pritchard, 3rd ed. (Princeton, 1969), 405–
407.
2. other works
Adrom, Faried. Die Lehre des Amenemhet. Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca XIX. Turnhout, 2006.
Allen, James P. The Inflection of the Verb in the Pyramid Texts. Bibliotheca Aegyptia 2.
Malibu, 1984.
————. The Heqanakht Papyri. Publications of the Metropolitan Museum of Art
Egyptian Expedition 27. New York, 2002.
————. The Egyptian Coffin Texts, VIII. Middle Kingdom Copies of Pyramid Texts.
Oriental Institute Publications 132. Chicago, 2006. Cited as CT VIII.
————. Middle Egyptian: an Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs,
2nd ed. Cambridge, 2010.
250 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anthes, Rudolf. Die Felsinschriften von Hatnub. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und
Altertumskunde Ägyptens 9. Leipzig, 1928.
Blackman, Aylward M. Middle Egyptian Stories. Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 2. Brussels,
1932.
————.The Story of King Kheops and the Magicians Transcribed from Papyrus Westcar
(Berlin Papyrus 3033), ed. by W.V. Davies. Reading, 1988.
Borchardt, Ludwig. Denkmäler des Alten Reiches, II. Cairo, 1964.
de Buck, Adriaan. The Egyptian Coffin Texts, 7 vols. Oriental Institute Publications
34, 49, 64, 67, 73, 81, 87. Chicago, 1935–61. Cited as CT, with reference to
volume and page numbers.
————. “The Fear of Premature Death in Ancient Egypt.” In Pro Regno Pro Sanc-
tuario: een bundel studies en bijdragen van vrienden en vereerders bij de zestigste verjaardag
van Prof. Dr G. van der Leeuw, ed. by W.J. Kooiman (Nijkerk, 1950), 79–88.
Caminos, Ricardo A. Literary Fragments in the Hieratic Script. Oxford, 1956.
Çerný, Jaroslav. Paper and Books in Ancient Egypt. London, 1952.
————, and Alan H. Gardiner, Hieratic Ostraca I. Oxford, 1957.
Clère, Jacques Jean. “Sur un passage de la Stèle Louvre C 1,” Journal of Egyptian Ar-
chaeology 24 (1938), 242.
Collier, Mark, and Stephen Quirke. The UCL Lahun Papyri, [II]: Religious, Literary,
Legal, Mathematical and Medical. BAR International Series 1209. London, 2004.
von Deines, Hildegard, and Hermann Grapow. Grundriss der Medizin der Alten
Ägypter, VI. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Drogennnamen. Berlin, 1959. Cited as Wb.
Drogennamen.
————, and Wolfhart Westendorf. Grundriss der Medizin der Alten Ägypter, VII.
Wörterbuch der medizinischen Texte, 2 vols. Berlin, 1961-62. Cited as Wb. med.
Derchain, Philippe. “L’aiguade sous un palmier.” Revue d’Égyptologie 29 (1977), 61–
64.
Doret, Eric. The Narrative Verbal System of Old and Middle Egyptian. Cahiers d’Ori-
entalisme 12. Geneva, 1986.
Edel, Elmar. Altägyptische Grammatik, 2 vols. Analecta Orientalia 34 and 39. Rome,
1955 and 1964. Cited as Edel, AäG, with reference to paragraph numbers.
Enmarch, Roland. The Dialogue of Ipuwer and the Lord of All. Griffith Institute Publi-
cations. Oxford, 2005.
Erman, Adolf, and Hermann Grapow, eds. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache im
Auftrage der deutschen Akademien, 7 vols. Berlin, 1971. Cited as Wb.
————. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache im Auftrage der deutschen Akademien: die
Belegstellen, 3 vols. Berlin, 1971. Cited as Wb. Belegstellen.
Faulkner, Raymond O. The Egyptian Coffin Texts. 3 vols. Warminster, 1973–78.
Fecht, Gerhard. “Die Form der altägyptischen Literatur: Metrische und stilistische
Analyse.” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 91 (1964), 11–63.
————. “Die Belehrung des Ba und der ‘Lebensmüde’.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 47 (1991), 113–26.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 251
Fischer-Elfert, Hans-Werner, Die Lehre eines Mannes für seinen Sohn: eine Etappe auf
dem „Gottesweg“ des loyalen und solidarischen Beamten des Mittleren Reiches. Ägypto-
logische Abhandlungen 60. Wiesbaden, 1999.
Foster, John L. “Thought Couplets in Khety’s ‘Hymn to the Inundation’.” Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 34 (1975), 1–29.
Franke, Detlef. “Kleiner Mann (nÿs) — was bist Du?” Göttinger Miszellen 167 (1998),
33–48.
Gardiner, Alan H. The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage from a Hieratic Papyrus in Leiden
(Pap. Leiden 344 Recto). Leipzig, 1909.
————. Notes on the Story of Sinuhe. Paris, 1916.
————. Egyptian Grammar, Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, 3rd ed.
Oxford, 1964. Cited as Gardiner, EG, with reference to paragraph numbers.
————, and Kurt Sethe, Egyptian Letters to the Dead, Mainly from the Old and Middle
Kingdoms. London, 1928.
Germer, Renate. Handbuch der altägyptischen Heilpflanzen. Philippika: Marburger alter-
tumskundliche Abhandlungen 21. Wiesbaden, 2008.
Gunn, Battiscombe. Studies in Egyptian Syntax. Paris, 1924.
El-Hamrawi, Mahmoud. “ tr/tí als Kennzeichen für subjektiv-modale Satzkerne

im Ägyptischen. Lingua Aegyptia 15 (2007), 11–46.
Helck, Wolfgang, Eberhard Otto, and Wolfhart Westendorf, eds. Lexikon der Ägyp-
tologie, 7 vols. Wiesbaden, 1972–92. Cited as LÄ.
Hoch, James E. Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Interme-
diate Period. Princeton, 1994.
Janssen, Jac. J. “Marriage Problems and Public Reactions (P. BM 10416).” In Pyramid
Studies and Other Essays Presented to I.E.S. Edwards, ed. by J. Baines et al. (Egypt
Exploration Society Occasional Publications 7; London, 1988), 134–37 and pls.
25–28.
Janssen, Jozef. De traditioneele egyptische autobiografie vóór het Nieuwe Rijk, 2 vols. Lei-
den, 1946.
Koch, Roland. Die Erzählung des Sinuhe. Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 17. Brussels, 1990.
Lefebvre, Gustave. Grammaire de l’égyptien classique. 2nd ed. Bibliothèque d’Étude 12.
Cairo, 1955. Cited as Lefebvre, GEC.
Leitz, Christian. Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, 8 vols.
Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 110-116, 129. Leuven, 2002-2003. Cited as
LäGG.
Lichtheim, Miriam. “The Songs of the Harpers.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 4
(1945), 178–212 and pls. 1–7.
————. Moral Values in Ancient Egypt. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 155. Fribourg
and Göttingen, 1997.
Luiselli, Maria M. “Fiktionale Dialog? Zur Interaktion zwischen Gott und Mensch in
der altägyptischen Literatur.” Göttinger Miszellen 206 (2005), 39–47.
252 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Malaise, Michel and Jean Winand, Grammaire raisonnée de l’égyptien classique. Aegyptiaca
Leodiensia: Université de Liège, Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres, Travaux pub-
liés par le Centre Informatique de Philosophie et Lettres 6. Liège, 1999.
Möller, Georg. Hieratische Paläographie: die aegyptische Buchschrift in ihrer Entwicklung von
der fünften Dynastie bis zur römischen Kaiserzeit, 3 vols. 2nd ed. Osnabrück, 1965.
Osing, Jürgen. Die Nominalbildung des Ägyptischen, 2 vols. Mainz, 1976.
Otto, Eberhard. “Die Anschauung vom Bæ nach Coffin Texts Sp. 99–104.” In Miscella-
nea Gregoriana: raccolta di scritti pubblicati nel I centenario dalla fondazione del Pont.
Museo egizio (1839–1939) (Vatican City, 1941), 151–60.
————. “Die beiden vogelgestaltigen Seelenvorstellungen der Ägypter.” Zeitschrift
für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 77 (1942), 78–91.
Pamminger, Peter. “Das Trinken von Überschwemmungswasser: eine Form jährlichen
Regeneration des Verstorbenen.” Göttinger Miszellen 122 (1991), 71–75.
Parkinson, Richard B. The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant. Oxford, 1991.
————. Poetry and Culture in Middle Kingdom Egypt, a Dark Side to Perfection. Ath-
lone Publications in Egyptology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies. London and
New York, 2002.
Piankoff, Alexandre. Le “cœur” dans le textes égyptiens depuis l’ancien jusqu’à la fin du
nouvel empire. Paris, 1930.
Satzinger, Helmut. Die negativen Konstruktionen im Alt- und Mitttelägyptischen.
Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 12. Berlin, 1968.
Sethe, Kurt. Die altägyptischen Pyramidentexte nach den Papierabdrücken und Photographien
des Berliner Museums, 4 vols. 2nd ed. Hildesheim, 1960 and 1969. The text of
vols. I–II is cited as Pyr., with reference to Sethe’s paragraph numbers.
————. Übersetzung und Kommentar zu den altägyptischen Pyramidentexten, 6 vols.
2nd ed. Hamburg, 1962.
Shirun, Irene. “Parallelismus membrorum und Vers.” In Fragen an die altägyptischen
Literatur: Studien zum Gedenken an Eberhard Otto, ed. by J. Assmann et al. (Wies-
baden, 1977), 463–92.
Silverman, David P. Interrogative Constructions with jn and jn-jw in Old and Middle
Egyptian. Bibliotheca Aegyptia 1. Malibu, 1980.
Smither, Paul C. “An Old Kingdom Letter Concerning the Crimes of Count Sabni,”
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 28 (1942), 16–19.
Toro Rueda, María Isabel. “Das Herz in der ägyptischen Literatur des zweiten
Jahrtausends v. Chr.: Untersuchungen zu Idiomatik und Metaphorik von Aus-
drücken mit jb und œætj.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Georg-August-Universität,
Göttingen, 2003. Available online in Adobe Acrobat form at http://webdoc.sub.
gwdg.de/diss/2004/toro_rueda/index.html.
Vandier, Jacques. La famine dans l’Égypte ancienne. Recherches d’Archéologie, de Phi-
lologie et d’Histoire 7. Cairo, 1936.
————. Moëalla. Bibliothèque d’Étude 18. Cairo, 1950.
Vernus, Pascal. Future at Issue. Tense, Mood and Aspect in Middle Egyptian: Studies in
Syntax and Semantics. Yale Egyptological Studies 4. New Haven, 1990.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 253
————. “La date du Paysan Éloquent.” In Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam

Lichtheim, ed. by S. Israelit-Groll ( Jerusalem, 1990), 1033–47.
Ward, William A. The Four Egyptian Homographic Roots b-æ: Etymological and Egypto-
Semitic Studies. Studia Pohl: Series Maior 6. Rome, 1978.
Westendorf, Wolfhart. “Beiträge zum Wörterbuch.” Göttinger Miszellen 29 (1978),
153–56.
Žába, Zbynek. Les maximes de Ptaœœotep. Prague, 1956.
Žabkar, Louis V. A Study of the Ba Concept in Ancient Egyptian Texts. Studies in An-
cient Oriental Civilization, 34. Chicago, 1968.
————. “Ba.” Lexicon der Ägyptologie I (1973), 588–90.
Zonhoven, Louis. “Studies on the sÿm.t=f Verb Form in Classical Egyptian, III: The
Active n sÿm.t=f Construction.” In Essays on Ancient Egypt in Honour of Herman
te Velde, ed. by J. van Dijk. 2 vols. Egyptological Memoirs 1. Groningen, 1997.
INDEX
This index contains references to major themes (Section One) and to

other texts translated or discussed (Section Two). In the general in-
dex, references to grammatical forms and constructions are minimal;
for these, see also the comprehensive list in Appendix Five, above.
Egyptian terms in transliteration are listed according to the English
alphabet, after other references with the same initial consonant.
1. general index
Adjectival predicate—125 n. 8, 126 n. 10 Dative, pronominal—126 n. 9, 197

Adjective—126 n. 10 Direct address—142
Adultery—85 Dittography—17
Adverb—112 Divisions of the text—18
Afterlife—6, 138, 141–42, 153 Drowning—55, 65
Alliteration—130–31 Duat—138
Amduat—39
Eel—80
Amenemhat III—8
Emphatic construction—52, 64, 73, 92,
Antithesis—131–32, 141, 145
114
Aorist—67, 117–18
Execution—107, 154
Assonance—131
Audience—3, 30, 134, 137–38 Festival—68
First Present—117–18, 124, 195–96
Ba—see Soul
Fowling—28, 82–83, 133
Basin—71
Funeral—34, 60–61, 138, 141–45
Circumstantial clause—118–19 Future—53, 114; see also Prospective
Clitic—124–25
Gapping—119
Coffin—53
Cola—122 Heart—3–4, 6
Contrast—see Antithesis Hegel—155
Coptic—124–25 Homosexuality—87
Copying—111 Hyperbole—74
Corrections—12–16
Imperfect—118
Damned—138 Inundation—57, 102, 152
Date—8, 120 Irony—63, 140
256 INDEX
Judgment—4–6, 39, 134, 136, 139–40 Reversal of roles—142, 145, 147, 155
Khonsu—40, 140 Sarcophagus—61
Scribal errors—16–17
Lexeme—112
Simile—104, 132, 152
Litany—121–28, 132, 148–54
Soul—3–6, 6 n. 6, 134
Literature—121, 156–57
representation of—3 n. 4, 28
Metaphor—32–33, 49, 89, 101, 104 n. Spelling—16, 25, 44 n. 41, 64 n. 73
125, 133, 138, 146–47, 149, Stative—114
153–54 of result—62
Metathesis—131 Suicide—1, 32, 138, 156
Metrics—see Versification Subject, nominal—126 n. 10
Sÿm.f, imperfective—117–19
Negation—32, 44, 71–72 Sÿm.f, perfective—113
Night—146 Sÿm.f, prospective—53, 113–16
Nisbe—112 Sÿm.f, subjunctive—115, 117
Noun—112 Sÿm.n.f—114
Osiris—2, 140 Temple—106
Paleography—10–12, 195 Tercet—121–22, 129–30
Papyrus (pBerlin 3024)—8–10 Third Future—116–17
Participle—114 Thoth—39, 140
Particle—112–13 Thought couplet—127–28
Preposition—112–13 Tomb biography—138
Pronoun—112–13 Verb—112–13
Prospective—115–17 Versification—121–30, 176–93
Quantifier—112–13, 126 n. 10 Vocalization—131
Reconciliation—154 Woman—84–85
Relative, non-attributive—114 Word division—11–12
Repetition—131
2. other texts
Admonitions (Adm.) Caminos, Literary Fragments

2, 2—156 Pl. 13A, 7—28 n. 10
5, 3–4—150 Coffin Texts (CT)
5, 9–10—150 III, 391e—66 n. 77
5, 12–13—151 IV, 45j—66 n. 77
6, 5—95 n. 115 IV, 54d–e—49
6, 12–13—151 n. 6 VI, 209d–f—140
Badawy, Nyhetep-Ptah Destruction of Mankind
Pl. 61—42 n. 36 25—77 n. 88
Book of the Dead (BD) Herdsman—9
18—140 Eloquent Peasant—8
99—48 B1 126–27—44 n. 41
INDEX 257
(Eloquent Peasant) pUCL 32157

B1 134–35—93 2, 18—58 n. 63
B1 153/154—48 Poe, The Raven—135
B1 198–99—90 Ptahhotep
B1 270—68 n. 79 95/96/107—104 n. 125
Harper’s Song 184–85—40 n. 31
BM 10060 6, 4–9—144–45 624–25—59 n. 66
Hatnub Pyramid Texts
Gr. 9, 8—63 n. 71 Pyr. 587c—126 n. 9
Heqanakht Shipwrecked Sailor (ShS)
I vo. 2—45 21–23—29 n. 12
I vo. 9—136 n. 1 70–72—53
II 26—45 Sinuhe—8, 44 n. 41
II 28—35 n. 24 B 38—103
II 43—58 n. 65 B 58—88 n. 107
Khakheperre-seneb B 62—29 n. 11
ro. 7—4 B 130—55 n. 56
ro. 13–14—4 B 148–49—30
vo. 1—4 B 202—30–31
vo. 5–6—4 B 230 31
Louvre C1 B 233–34—55 n. 58
17–19—29 n. 12 B 248—31 n. 18
oGardiner 369—21, 194–97 B 252–56—7
pBerlin 8869 B 255—6 n. 6
11—39 n. 29 B 264—31 n. 18

(Culture and History of The Ancient Near East 44) James P. Allen - The Debate Between A Man and His Soul - A Masterpiece of Ancient Egyptian Literature-BRILL (2010)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Culture and History of The Ancient Near East 44) James P. Allen - The Debate Between A Man and His Soul - A Masterpiece of Ancient Egyptian Literature-BRILL (2010)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Debate between a Man and His Soul

Culture and History of the

Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated,

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .......................................................... vii

CHAPTER FIVE. Stylistic Analysis ............................................. 123

pBerlin 3024, cols. 151–155

and to William Voelkle, Curator of Medieval and Renaissance Manu-

The Debate is universally regarded as one of the masterpieces of Middle

pute about the value of traditional funeral arrangements, a view

The preserved text of the Debate is a dialogue between two charac-

œæ æ rã.j … tmmt wœmt

Apart from its uniqueness as a literary conceit, the conversation of

Fig. 1. The Final Judgment

Fig. 2. The Ba Returning to the Burial Chamber.

The ancient Egyptian concept of the human ba has been under-

gm.n.j œm.f œr st wrt

The DEBATE BETWEEN A MAN AND HIS SOUL survives in a single

3 Parkinson 2009, 76 and 89–90.

4 See Parkinson 2009, 107–109.

5 Parkinson 2009, 88; Parkinson 2003, 126–27. A height of 16 cm seems to have

are those reconstructed as preceding col. 1 of the Berlin papyrus.

9 See the facsimile in Lepsius 1859, pl. 112.

The hieratic text of the Debate contains 3,260 preserved or partly-

(A1) (col. 64) (col. 74)

(B1) (col. 73) (col. 67)

(G1) (col. 77)

(G17) (col. 67) (col. 68)13

(G41) (col. 50 only) (col. 92)

The consonant w is represented by both and , the former more

word: 107–108 bw-nb and 145–46 rã-ãwt.

division between a word and one or more of its determinatives:

The scribe made at least 52 emendations in the course of writing cols.

88 erased below and overwritten with before con-

117 changed to by erasing and overwriting be-

141 inserted secondarily to the left of the column end

3. uncorrected errors and omissions

In addition to his corrections, the scribe also seems to have made a

Parkinson (2009, 109).

102 the preposition r omitted before dmj

Barta 1969 and Chioffi and Rigamonti 2007, 45.

The preserved text of the Debate contains four interchanges between

1. introduction and the soul’s first speech (*1–*12)

2. the MAN’s first speech (cols. *12–Y)

3. the soul’s second speech (cols. Y–3)

Gardiner characterized oGardiner 369 as “Part of an unidentified lite-

The traces at the beginning of col. 1 have been read previously as

too short for the available space.

4. the man’s second speech (cols. 3–55)

Pyr. 439a, 671a–b, Nt 708; also, later, pWestcar 8, 4.

ner’s reading is doubtful. The traces may represent instead , which

1939, 312; von der Wense 1949, 67.

and Parkinson 1997, 161 n. 4.

Museums (APAW; Berlin, 1901), 10.

astray to strange lands.”17 This sense is indicated by the remainder of

renderings of Brunner-Traut 1967, 10 “rebelliert”; Goedicke 1970, 92 “disobeying”;

col. 9 ÿr ntt.f m õt.j m šnw nwœ “since he is in my belly in a rope

diligent heart”: Allen, Heqanakht, 17.

131), or as a subject–stative construction (Suys 1932, 60 “Mon âme

179–81 and 299–300.

The lacuna at the bottom of col. 28 has presented difficulties in

Tomb of Nyhetep-Ptah at Giza and the Tomb of ëAnkhmaëhor at Saqqara (University of

1. introduction and the soul’s first speech (1–12)