NOTES ON THE STORY OF SINUHE
227
perliaps as hostages(?) ; a diffîcult passage (B219-223). Hc then goes on to spoak of
Jiis flight; this, lie pleads, was no cleed of his own devising, but was prompted by
some irrational heaven-sent impulse (B223-230). In conclusion Sinuhe humbly sub-
mits himself to the mighty will of Pharaon; let the latter deal with him according
to his good pleasure (B230-238).
204-205. — ^ -m Jftn n ^ m()V§ ^ " the servant of the Palace (?)
v__1^0 I-1 aaaaaa il ri <=^> \
Sinuhe says". Tliis is, matatis mutandis, the normal beginning of a Middle Kingdom
letter. Such introductory words are usually written vertically, the bulk of the letter
following in horizontal lines ; so at least in the latter half of the Xllth. Dynasty.
Between equals the ordinary formula was S* 2& n^î N "^V'the servant of the
n---^ aaaaaa -V c^ïl \
estate N says", where blk n dt is evidently substituted for the true title by a polite
fiction winch represents the writcr as the serf of the récipient1 (so Pap. Kahun, 29,
1; 35, 1.29; 37, 14; a letter from ^Sakkarah in the Cairo collection adds a title,
beginning blk n pr dt ss A7 ht). In similar manner when the king was addressed a
gênerai term for "servant of the Palace" may have been substituted for the précise
title of the writer. In my German édition of Sinuhe I read S* ^ _n
x-----^> La aaaaaa Ci u r I
basing this suggestion on the mistaken supposition that a definite title belonging to
1. The name and litle of the addressee may be added in the vertical column, inlroduced by the préposition
aaaa^a ; cf. Griffith, Kahun Papyri, 29, 31 ; 30, 25 ; 31, 30, etc.— In support of m y contention wiih regard to this
phrase it is particularly to be noted lhat it is only the writer of the letter who bears the title b\k n pr-dt; the
person addressed is correlatively called \__y jQ£ " his lord
2. Griffith translates pr dt by the Arabie term ^_Ji.sj wakf" pious bequest ". Erman, Glossar, gives sub
voce d-t ^% : " Stiftung (zum Unterhalt von Giàbern usw.) ; auch pr-dt. " 1 have the gravest doubts as to
the accuracy of thèse renderings. It is not of course denied that the great lords of the Old Kingdom set apart
fields and labourers for the contiriuance of their funerarv cuit (see for example the contracts Urk., 1, 11. 36) ;
the question here is whether Ihe spécifie term in Egyptian for such funerary endowments was ^ 1.
When for example Zau inspects the carpenters. boat-builders etc., of his pr-dt (Deir el Gebrâwi, II, 10), are
we to believe that ail thèse men were artisans belonging solely to the funerary estate? When Ptahhotep counts
up thirteen ^=T| from which ofïerings were brought to his tomb (Davies, Ptahhetep, II, 13),
are we to imagine ihat ihese were separated off from the rest of his property to serve a purely funerary pur-
pose, and that they did not descend to his heirs ? Miss Murray's article Proc. S. B. A., 17, ;.'40-24,"> seems to
contradict ihis supposition. To turn from such a priori considérations to ihe philological évidence; it should
be carefully noted that <=l~==!| ^^T^^ is ofien employed alone and is completely synonymous with ^ ,
Mereruka, A 12, S. wall, compared with ^ aa/v,aa
cf
O
Quibell, Ramesseum, 36 (Ptahhotep); further V^V^Vyû Deir el Gebrawi, I, 7, 23;
^Tl op. cit., I, 13; VfovfoVvà op. cit., II, 7; and many similar examples
I
■f\ et-css^ _ c=oo=: Q Q Q. /VV'WVX ^
aaaaaa v\ ])
From this we may conclude at ail events that pr dt does not mean simply " maison éternelle " Maspero
Etudes de Mytji. et d'Arcli. égypt., IV, p. 351), but that means " property " of one kind or another;
there may be an etymological connection with " eternity ", but if so, only in the sensé that property is
conceived of as a permanent, not a temporary, possession. It seems certain that the Greek staternent that the
Egyptiaus called th. >ir tombs " et-ernal habitations" (àtStouç olv.ov; Diodoru*, I, 51) has greatly inflnenced the
d aaaaaa o o © aaaaaa
meaning assigned to j>r-dt ; there are however many Egyptian expressions (e. g.
<Ci aaaaaa f
? 0
n o ?
£3 I CZ.
227
perliaps as hostages(?) ; a diffîcult passage (B219-223). Hc then goes on to spoak of
Jiis flight; this, lie pleads, was no cleed of his own devising, but was prompted by
some irrational heaven-sent impulse (B223-230). In conclusion Sinuhe humbly sub-
mits himself to the mighty will of Pharaon; let the latter deal with him according
to his good pleasure (B230-238).
204-205. — ^ -m Jftn n ^ m()V§ ^ " the servant of the Palace (?)
v__1^0 I-1 aaaaaa il ri <=^> \
Sinuhe says". Tliis is, matatis mutandis, the normal beginning of a Middle Kingdom
letter. Such introductory words are usually written vertically, the bulk of the letter
following in horizontal lines ; so at least in the latter half of the Xllth. Dynasty.
Between equals the ordinary formula was S* 2& n^î N "^V'the servant of the
n---^ aaaaaa -V c^ïl \
estate N says", where blk n dt is evidently substituted for the true title by a polite
fiction winch represents the writcr as the serf of the récipient1 (so Pap. Kahun, 29,
1; 35, 1.29; 37, 14; a letter from ^Sakkarah in the Cairo collection adds a title,
beginning blk n pr dt ss A7 ht). In similar manner when the king was addressed a
gênerai term for "servant of the Palace" may have been substituted for the précise
title of the writer. In my German édition of Sinuhe I read S* ^ _n
x-----^> La aaaaaa Ci u r I
basing this suggestion on the mistaken supposition that a definite title belonging to
1. The name and litle of the addressee may be added in the vertical column, inlroduced by the préposition
aaaa^a ; cf. Griffith, Kahun Papyri, 29, 31 ; 30, 25 ; 31, 30, etc.— In support of m y contention wiih regard to this
phrase it is particularly to be noted lhat it is only the writer of the letter who bears the title b\k n pr-dt; the
person addressed is correlatively called \__y jQ£ " his lord
2. Griffith translates pr dt by the Arabie term ^_Ji.sj wakf" pious bequest ". Erman, Glossar, gives sub
voce d-t ^% : " Stiftung (zum Unterhalt von Giàbern usw.) ; auch pr-dt. " 1 have the gravest doubts as to
the accuracy of thèse renderings. It is not of course denied that the great lords of the Old Kingdom set apart
fields and labourers for the contiriuance of their funerarv cuit (see for example the contracts Urk., 1, 11. 36) ;
the question here is whether Ihe spécifie term in Egyptian for such funerary endowments was ^ 1.
When for example Zau inspects the carpenters. boat-builders etc., of his pr-dt (Deir el Gebrâwi, II, 10), are
we to believe that ail thèse men were artisans belonging solely to the funerary estate? When Ptahhotep counts
up thirteen ^=T| from which ofïerings were brought to his tomb (Davies, Ptahhetep, II, 13),
are we to imagine ihat ihese were separated off from the rest of his property to serve a purely funerary pur-
pose, and that they did not descend to his heirs ? Miss Murray's article Proc. S. B. A., 17, ;.'40-24,"> seems to
contradict ihis supposition. To turn from such a priori considérations to ihe philological évidence; it should
be carefully noted that <=l~==!| ^^T^^ is ofien employed alone and is completely synonymous with ^ ,
Mereruka, A 12, S. wall, compared with ^ aa/v,aa
cf
O
Quibell, Ramesseum, 36 (Ptahhotep); further V^V^Vyû Deir el Gebrawi, I, 7, 23;
^Tl op. cit., I, 13; VfovfoVvà op. cit., II, 7; and many similar examples
I
■f\ et-css^ _ c=oo=: Q Q Q. /VV'WVX ^
aaaaaa v\ ])
From this we may conclude at ail events that pr dt does not mean simply " maison éternelle " Maspero
Etudes de Mytji. et d'Arcli. égypt., IV, p. 351), but that means " property " of one kind or another;
there may be an etymological connection with " eternity ", but if so, only in the sensé that property is
conceived of as a permanent, not a temporary, possession. It seems certain that the Greek staternent that the
Egyptiaus called th. >ir tombs " et-ernal habitations" (àtStouç olv.ov; Diodoru*, I, 51) has greatly inflnenced the
d aaaaaa o o © aaaaaa
meaning assigned to j>r-dt ; there are however many Egyptian expressions (e. g.
<Ci aaaaaa f
? 0
n o ?
£3 I CZ.