The Great Dedicatory Inscription of Ramesses II

Culture and History

of the

Ancient Near East

Founding Editor

M.H.E. Weippert

Editor-in-Chief

Thomas Schneider

Editors

Eckart Frahm, W. Randall Garr, B. Halpern,

Theo P.J. van den Hout, Irene J. Winter

VOLUME 33

The Great Dedicatory Inscription

of Ramesses II

A Solar-Osirian Tractate at Abydos

by

Anthony Spalinger

LEIDEN • BOSTON

2009

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Spalinger, Anthony John.

The great dedicatory inscription of Ramesses II : a Solar-Osirian Tractate at Abydos / by Anthony Spalinger.

p. cm. — (Culture and history of the ancient Near East ; v. 33)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-90-04-17030-8 (alk. paper)

1. Inscriptions, Hieroglyphic—Egypt—Abydos (Extinct city) 2. Egypt—Religion. 3. Ramses II, King of Egypt.

I. Title. II. Series.

PJ1531.D43S63 2008

493’.1—dc22

ISSN: 1566-2055ISBN: 978 90 04 17030 8

Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored ina 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 NVprovided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.Fees are subject to change.

printed in the netherlands

vcontents

To Gretchen

contentsvi

viicontents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Chapter One Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter Two The Text: Translation and Detailed Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Chapter Three Religious and Historical Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Selected Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

prefaceviii

preface ix

by the High-Priest of Amun Nebwenenef, from his Tomb in Thebes,” JEOL 18 (1964): 253-65. This situation is dis-cussed in Chapter III.

3 Andrej Niwinski, “The Solar-Osirian Unity as Principle of the Theology of the #State of Amun’ in Thebes in the 21st Dynasty,” JEOL 30 (1987-88): 89-106; and Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity.

4 The Coffin of Heqata (Cairo JdE 36418): A Case Study of Egyptian Funerary Culture of the Early Middle Kingdom (Leuven: Peeters en Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1996).

the intellectual combinations of the two profes-

sors, Erik Hornung and Antonio Loprieno, whose

own research has dealt with Egyptian religion,

especially that of the New Kingdom.

The sudden arrival of a newly published book,

nevertheless, affected my progress on this book

to no small extent. In 2003 I was asked to review

John Darnell’s work on the Solar-Osirian unity.1

This was by mere happenstance. Upon complet-

ing the study I could see now how significant

was this theme, or aspect, of Ramesside religious

behavior, and how neglected it had hitherto been

among many Egyptologists. True, various aspects

of this redirection in thinking had been discussed

on previous occasions, especially with regard to

the evidence from the Tomb of Nofretary. Addi-

tional material included references to Osiris being

the “Lord of Heaven” (in the tomb of Tawosret,

for example) and further iconographical traces

that Erik Hornung and Jan Zandee, among

others, had collected and studied.2 To be sure,

thanks to Andrzej Niwinski, we now know that

in Dynasty XXI this theology was predominant,

but with Darnell’s volume at hand I could analyze

yet another lengthy religious composition that

belonged to the written corpus of this religious

viewpoint.3

It is not surprising to me that the Egyptians

were faced with the task, on the surface a simple

one, of resolving life and death through rebirth.

They already had approached this dilemma in

earlier times, and the evidence for that may be

seen in the Coffin Text data so well marshaled

by Harco Willems.4 Equally, the important analy-

sis of Jan Assmann on time and eternity leads

immediately to the differentiation of Osiris (“yes-

terday”) and Re (“morning”, not “tomorrow”)

in Spell 17 of the Book of the Dead (Grapow’s

This work was begun in earnest in February 2002

when I was on sabbatical in Basel. At that time my

aim was to present a fully documented and histori-

cally based new edition of Ramesses II’s famous

Dedicatory Inscription at Abydos. Repeatedly,

this account has been employed as one of the

keystones for the chronology of Ramesses II’s

opening year as sole Pharaoh, and thus it was of

great interest to me. During the course of a few

weeks, however, I realized that the complexity of

the task did not stop with mere formal history.

The peculiarities of the opening section, so well

explained by Jan Assmann, led me to further and

further vistas, and soon I was encountering paths

of interpretation that were predominantly reli-

gious rather than chronological or even literary

in the narrow sense. In particular, I came to real-

ize that the composition was not only one of the

most important hieroglyphic documents dating

from the Ramesside period, but also revealed,

in a formal way to be sure, perspectives on New

Kingdom Egyptian religion that needed ampli-

fication.

Upon my return from leave I immediately

turned to other tasks, in particular a study of

Egyptian military affairs during the New King-

dom. As a result, this work was placed to the side.

This was fortunate. It is one thing to prepare a

critical edition of a text; it is another to understand

its spiritual aspects. By the end of an intense study

I came to realize that the king, the sun god Re,

and the god of the Afterworld, Osiris, interacted

in this composition in a way not foreseen, or per-

haps not even understood, by earlier students of

this lengthy inscription. In a nutshell, I was faced

with the combination of Re and Osiris. It was thus

fortunate that I had spent the first part of this

task at Basel, because there I could experience

PREFACE

1 John Coleman Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity: Cryptographic Compositions in the Tombs of Tutankhamun, Ramesses VI and Ramesses IX (Göttingen: Van-denhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004).

2 The studies of Erik Hornung are scattered through his compendia. In general, I can cite his Idea into Image: Essayson Ancient Egyptian Thought (trans. Elizabeth Bredeck; Prince-ton: Timken, 1992), New York (1992). For Jan Zandee, see his An Ancient Egyptian Crossword Puzzle: An Inscription of Neb-wenenef from Thebes (Leiden: Ex Orient Lux, 1966), and “Hymnical Sayings, Addressed to the Sun-God

prefacex

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

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

recently explicated by Darnell. In other words,

the Dedicatory Inscription presents a significant

religious concept in an open place.

Other factors permeate this study as well. Per-

haps I should point out the hidden fingers (or

hands) of the possible master composer. Whether

or not it was the High Priest Nebwennef, whose

role at Abydos was so crucial to Ramesses, must

remain an open question. Yet certain aspects

of this man’s tomb and his intellectual outlook

cannot be overlooked. The Dedicatory Inscription

opens with a Horus-Osiris backdrop that serves

almost as a historical/mythological section whose

purpose is to remind the readers where they are

and what they should expect. Then the style turns

to a Königsnovelle presentation, replete with the

expected eulogies of and to the Pharaoh as well as

some historical narrative. Dates suddenly appear.

There is a chronological as well as physical setting.

Ramesses then presents his outlook on his life up to

the arrival at Abydos, and his desire to finish the

work on his father’s temple. The historical narra-

tive then would appear to have been completed.

If this was a so-called “historical” document, in

the narrow definition of the sense, there would

be no need for it continue. Yet it does.

Suddenly we move to the spiritual domain, the

Re-Osiris combination, and this is the core and

indeed purpose of the narrative. All historical

timeframes are broken. Ramesses appears dutiful

and pietistic, especially with regard to his father

Seti, but now in a religious setting at total odds

with the historical one that has been narrated. Of

course, this was one of his tasks immediately after

being “crowned” Pharaoh at the Opet Feast. He

made sure that he would take care of his father

whose works (and at least one statue) at Abydos

were not completed.

But the emphasis is now given to the Solar-

Osirian unity rather than to the building activities.

This new orientation is too blatant and striking to

be overlooked. I believe that the purpose of the

third portion of the inscription has been, up to

now, ignored or not understood. Perhaps this is

due to a complex number of issues, among which

has been the reluctance of historians, epigraphers,

and philologists alike to deal with certain religious

matters in this composition. Because the universe

is spiritual—even Ranke believed that—I feel that

Abschnitt 5).5 Thereafter, the intermingling of

Re and Osiris in the well-known passage of the

two souls (Abschnitt 21) appears somewhat as an

afterthought.6

But with Tutankhamun and thereafter, per-

haps especially under Ramesses II, a major spiri-

tual turn became evident, one that would soon

“take off” by the close of the New Kingdom.

We now possess four such religious tractates on

this theology. Three were placed in royal tombs

(of Tutankhamun, Ramesses VI, and Ramesses

IX), and therefore span the historical interval

of Post Amarna New Kingdom society. More-

over, those “enigmatic” or “cryptographic” texts

allow us to consider seriously whether the term

“Late New Kingdom” is really applicable in this

context. If one major religious theme arises to

prominence soon after Akhenaton’s death and

continues with increasing importance to the end

of the New Kingdom, and if another (the Litany

of Re) suddenly reenters the sphere of the royal

burial by Seti I and also marches on through

the same period of time, what purpose is there

to employ this designation? With regard to these

two important religious cases the terminology is

not at all apt. I feel that better chronological dis-

tinctions must be found, ones that encompass

not merely artistic phenomena, or based solely

on royal lineages, but terms that also can indi-

cate the intellectual differences within centuries

of Egyptian life.

It is not my purpose to argue the validity or

utility of such terminology. Instead, I prefer to

emphasize the nature of this major religious

conception, the Solar-Osirian unity, a deep

and abiding intellectual exercise that is separate

from cosmology or cosmogony. Indeed, it passed

through the later New Kingdom and became

the major theological system of Dynasty XXI.

Of equal if not greater importance is the loca-

tion of Ramesses’ document. It was placed in a

very public area at Abydos. True, the Dedica-

tory Inscription has close links with two recon-

dite texts located deep in the temple of Seti. Yet

for the ancient Egyptians (and also for modern

tourists) the portico area of Seti’s temple was an

open space. We cannot consider the composition

to be a hidden one, as for example, one must

with regard to the three Solar-Osirian tractates

preface xi

sion should appear to be a self-evident fact. Most

surely, episteme is the higher criticism, and the

Dedicatory Inscription of Ramesses II cannot be

understood without this factor.

these researchers have lost a great deal whilst, to

be sure, having gained much in technical experi-

ence. But to the ancients and to us life is more

than techne, a point well stressed by Plato, and

to read Pharaonic texts with a religious dimen-

prefacexii

preface xiii

Faculty of Arts and its two Deans, Profs. Douglas

Sutton and John Morrow, for a liberal sabbati-

cal policy.

Prof. Erik Hornung kindly read over the first

draft of this manuscript and thereby saved me

from many an error. In addition, Dr. Stephen

Quirke took upon his shoulders the task of reading

through the final stage of this work and many of

his comments have been added to the text. Addi-

tional editing was accomplished by my Ph.D. can-

didate, Mr. Brett Heagren, with financial support

from the Faculty of Arts of Auckland University,

after some preliminary readings and improve-

ments were made by Tasha Dobbin, a former

Masters student in my Department.

Abbreviations follow the accepted practice

of the Lexikon der Ägyptologie (ed. Wolfgang Helck

and Eberhard Otto; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,

1972-92).

This study would not have been completed but for

the support of the excellent Egyptological facilities

at the University of Basel provided in 2002 and

2005-6 by Prof. Antonio Loprieno. To him as well

as his assistants I would like to offer these words of

thanks. Equally, I am in debt to the kind assistance

provided by Prof. John Baines of Oxford Univer-

sity. With his remarkably swift understanding of

my work he was able to supply me with excel-

lent photographs of the inscription from which

the accompanying facsimile has been made, the

latter under the auspices of Julia Hsieh, then a

Masters student in Egyptology at Auckland Uni-

versity. The Egypt Exploration Society is also to

be thanked in their context. The Research Com-

mittee of Auckland University supplied financial

support for her remarkable calligraphy, and a

word of thanks to this academic body is equally

in order. Likewise, I must thank in particular the

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

prefacexiv

introduction 1

Ramesses II’s great inscription at Abydos is one

of those ancient Egyptian texts that present to

the reader a complex series of motifs and liter-

ary approaches, many of which appear as inde-

pendent units that could stand by themselves.

First, a lengthy introduction precedes a relatively

straightforward narrative. Then comes the histori-

cal backdrop wherein the state of affairs at the

Abydene temple of Seti I is presented. Following

upon this we are faced with a series of speeches,

all of which indicate the purposeful thoughts of

the young king. Subsequently, Ramesses’ offerings

and other cultic requirements are set in place and

an official presentation to Seti by the Pharaoh

is described, the latter concluding with a final

speech of the youthful king to his deified father.

It is not surprising that previous scholarly work

has found this composition to be extremely dense

in presentation, vocabulary, and arrangement.

In fact, part of the difficulties in understanding

the religious thoughts in the composition has to

do with the text’s historical timeframe, original

purpose, and connection to the temple of Seti.

The following discussion attempts to provide a

unified approach in order to tackle the interwoven

motifs and concepts of the inscription as well as

various historical facets that are independent of

the narrative.

The location of the Dedicatory Inscription has

been discussed with great pertinence by Kitchen.1

It can be found just beyond of the Second Court

(to the west) of the temple of Seti I and forms a

significant part of the south half (exterior side)

of the back wall of the portico in that area. One

reaches the area by means of a short staircase

that is located in the center of the rear wall of

the Second Court. On the north side there is a

famous scene of the young Ramesses II receiving

his names and titles with the famous Ished tree,

the latter especially associated with Osiris.2 There

1 The text will be found in KRI II 323-36. For this study I have used the large and detailed photographic record now preserved at Oxford University under the auspices of Prof. John Baines, and I am in debt to him for kindly providing me access to this record. The facsimile at the end of the work (drawn by Julia Hsieh) is dependent upon these photographs.

The earliest edition, one that is still useful, remains Auguste Mariette, Abydos. Descriptions des fouilles exécutées sur l’emplacement de cette ville I (Paris: A. Franck, 1869), pls. 5-9.

For an up-to-date and well-presented translation we are now dependent upon Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated and Annotated: Translations, II (Oxford and Cambridge MA: Blackwell, 1996), 162-74. His detailed and useful commentary is located in the complementary work of Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated and Annotated: Notes and Comments, II (Oxford and Malden: Blackwell, 1999), 191-7. There is also a new translation by Claudia Maderna-Sieben, “Die Grosse Bauinschrift von Abydos,” in Egypt—Temple of the Whole World. Ägypten—Tempel der gesamten Welt: Studies in Honour of Jan Assmann (ed. Sibylle Meyer; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003), 237-82. An older edition is that of Deborah Sweeney, “The Great Dedicatory Inscription of Ramses II at Abydos (lines 1-79),” in Papers for Discussion. Presented by the Department of Egyptology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem II (ed. Sarah Groll and Frances Bogot; Jerusalem: Department of Egyptology, The Hebrew University, 1985), 134-327.

For the term “Dedication Text” see now B. J. J. Haring, Divine Households: Administrative and Economic Aspects of the New Kingdom Memorial Temples in Western Thebes (Leiden: Neder-lands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1997), 39-51. Nar-rowly speaking, the two words are not applicable to our inscription.

2 The standard analysis of the Ished tree and the rite of inscribing the royal cartouches is that of Wolfgang Helck, “Ramessidische Inschriften aus Karnak,” ZÄS 82 (1957): 117-40.

There are general but extremely pertinent comments on this matter in Donald B. Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books: A Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History (Mississauga: Benben, 1986), 82, 91, among other references. Mariette did not include the scenes in his monumental edition Abydos. For the connection to Osiris note the work of Joris Frans Borghouts, The Magical Texts of Papyrus Leiden I 348 (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 120 note 254. Naturally, Thoth is also present.

For additional references, see Jean Leclant, Recherches sur les monuments thébains de la XXVe dynastie dite éthiopienne (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1965), 274-9 (with Thoth, Osiris, Re, Ptah-Sokar-Osiris); Pierre Koemoth (who has written about the connection of the Ished tree and Osiris), Osiris et les arbres: Contribution à l’étude des arbres sacrés de l’Égypte ancienne (Liege: CIPL, 1994), 259-60; Émile Chassinat, Le mystère d’Osiris au mois de Khoiak I (Cairo: Insti-tut français d’archéologie orientale (1966), 234-48; Karol Mysliwiec, “Die Rolle des Atum in der íàd-Baum-Szene,” MDAIK 36 (1980): 349-56 (crucial for the role of creator god as well as Thoth); Eric Welvaert, “On the Origin of the Ished-scene,” GM 151 (1996): 101-07 (with Thutmose I hearkening back to Sesostris I); Salvador Costa, “El árbol Ished en la iconografía real: tres escenas de Rameses IV legitimando su ascenso al trono,” Aula Orientalis 21 (2003): 193-204; and Lászlo Kákosy, article “Ischedbaum,” in Lexikon der Ägyptologie III (ed. Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1980), 182-3.

For scenes at Abydos with the “annals” (gnwt): Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books, 71-2 (nos. 23-5:

chapter one

INTRODUCTION

chapter one2

of the chronology. Stephen Quirke also reminds me that inscription “panels” needed slightly less time to compose than figurative depictions plus inscriptions and labels.

William J. Murnane, “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” JNES 34 (1975): 153-90 maintained that a coregency between Seti I and Ramesses II could be proved from the extant data. Problems with his dating as well as with this hypothesis were presented by me in “Traces of the Early Career of Ramesses II,” JNES 38 (1979): 271-86. (One key difficulty facing Murnane, despite his marshalling of significant new epigraphic data, was his acceptance of an incorrect accession date of Ramesses.)

Additional remarks by Murnane will be found in his “Reconstructing Scenes from the Great Hypostyle Hall in the Temple of Amun at Karnak,” in Warsaw Egyptological Studies. I. Essays in Honour of Prof. Dr. Jadwiga Lipinska (Warsaw: National Museum in Warsaw, 1997), 107-17. The problem still remains: there is no unequivocal piece of evidence that supports a coregency. The present information appears to lead to the conclusion that the young man was designated to be the heir apparent and next Pharaoh before the death of his father. Moreover, Ramesses was placed as an equal to Seti when the latter was still alive. The latter point is the one that this inscription at Abydos stresses.

Murnane also discussed the chronological implications of the Dedicatory Inscription in his Ancient Egyptian Core-gencies (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1977), 57-87, to which we can now add his brief comments in “Egyptian Monuments and Historical Memory,” KMT 5.3 (Fall 1994): 14-24, 88.

The pertinent commentary of Gardiner is still useful in this context. In “A Pharaonic Encomium (II),” JEA 42 (1956): 9 note 3 he wrote: “It has perhaps not been suf-ficiently emphasized that the position of heir to the throne (r-p#t) was a definite appointment, see Two Brothers 19,1-2; Inscr. dédic. 44, as well as our own passage. In Harris, 75,10 Setnakhte is said to have promoted (dhn) Ramesses III to hold this post, and the same verb is used in connexion with Ramesses IV, ibid., 42,8.” He also observed that “this appears to have been the regular custom throughout the Ramesside period” (page 9).

In many ways, the Ramessides split with the XVIIIth Dynasty in a strong fashion. Reasons for this may be hypoth-esized: reaction to the immediate post-Amarna trauma; the increasing danger to the royal lineage (i.e., number of possible contenders at the end of Dynasty XIX); the lengthy conflict with Hatti; an even greater importance of Amun-Re of Karnak in command of the official designation of the heir; the age of Ramesses I; the lack of more than one male heir for Seti I; the lengthy reign of Ramesses II with the related large number of offspring.

For a handy overview, see Murnane, “The Kingship of the Nineteenth Dynasty: A Study in the Resilience of an Institution,” in Ancient Egyptian Kingship (ed. David O’Connor and David P. Silverman; Leiden, New York, and Cologne: Brill, 1995), 185-217. Striking is the presence of the numer-ous kings’ sons, especially those of Ramesses II, on the battlefield. See, for example, the evidence from the Battle of Kadesh.

4 This situation has been recently improved upon in the study of Vincent Rondot, La grande salle hypostyle de Karnak: les architraves (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les

Storerooms B and C and not in KRI I; no. 25 will be found in Jaroslav 1erný, Collations of Abydos, Unpublished Notebook 156 [no date], 16, now held at the Griffith Institute—I must thank Dr. Jaromir Malek for his kind assistance in enabling me to see it), 72 (no. 26; Amice M. Calverley, Myrtle F. Broome, and Alan H. Gardiner, The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos II [London and Chicago: The Egypt Exploration Society and The University of Chicago Press, 1935], Pl. 36), 77 (nos. 75 and 76; KRI I 189.14 and 187.2); 79 (no. 92; Alice M. Calverley, Myrtle F. Broome, and Sir Alan H. Gardiner, The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos IV [London and Chicago: The Egypt Exploration Society and The Uni-versity of Chicago Press, 1958], Pl. 15—Second Hypostyle Court, entrance to Chapel of Isis; one side ignored), 79 (no. 93; ibid., Pl. 37—Second Hypostyle Hall; entrance to hall of Nefertem and Ptah-Sokar; east jamb, Thoth and Seshat. For the last deity, see most recently Budde’s study cited at the end of this note; heb seds are specifically mentioned; east jamb with Sefekhtabwy ignored).

Other useful scenes with up-to-date references not cov-ered by Redford are: Calverley, Broome, and Gardiner, The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos II, Pl. 30 = Jean Capart, Abydos. Le temple de Séti Ier: étude générale (Brussels: Rossignol and Van den Bril, 1912), 26 fig. 5 and Helck, “Ramessi-dische Inschriften aus Karnak,” 119; Chapel of Seti with Seshat (Thoth in front of her unifying the Two Lands; gnwt not mentioned); Calverley, Broome, and Gardiner, The Temple of Sethos I at Abydos IV, Pl. 12 (Second Hypo-style Court; entrance to Chapel of Horus); ibid., Pl. 18 (Second Hypostyle Court, entrance to Chapel of Osiris); ibid., Pl. 21 (Second Hypostyle Court; entrance to Chapel of Amun-Re; destroyed); ibid., Pl. 24 (Second Hypostyle Court; entrance to Chapel of Re-Harachty); ibid., Pl. 27 (Second Hypostyle Court; entrance to Chapel of Ptah); and ibid., Pl. 32 (entrance to Chapel of Seti I).

The somewhat parallel depiction of Seti I involves Ptah (to the left, before whom Seti kneels) and Re-Harachty (right, inscribing the leaf of the Ished tree): Helck, “Ramessidische Inschriften aus Karnak,” 119.

We can add two more cases in Calverley, Broome, and Gardiner, The Temple of Sethos I at Abydos III (London and Chicago: The Egypt Exploration Society and The Univer-sity of Chicago Press, 1938), Pls. 7 (First Osiris Hall, West Wall) and 15 (First Osiris Hall, East Wall). The inscription is interesting in that the word gnwt contains a carved t that was added later. This is self-evident because it is not in raised relief. There is an additional slip: see àsp mnw.k written with a nb instead of the expected .k. 1erný in his notebook, Collations of Abydos, observed other cases of minor errors located in the First Osiris Hall.

Finally, let us not forget the connection of the goddess Seshat and the Ished tree insofar as in the Stairway Cor-ridor this deity (and Thoth) will appear; see our comments in Chapter III. For the goddess, there is now the recent study of Dagmar Budde, Die Göttin Seschat (Leipzig: Helmar Wodtke und Katharina Stegbauer, 2000). Pages 97-104 cover the Ished rite but her connections to coronation, the Sed Festival, “annals,” magic, and the foundation of temples are also discussed in this work. Documents 86-97 cover the presence of Seshat in Seti’s temple (pages 253-5).

3 Kitchen’s detailed commentary in his Ramesside Inscrip-tions: Notes and Comments II, 191-3 resolves the key problems

father were paramount in the Pharaoh’s mind.3

However, the date of the depictions might be later

than the Dedicatory Inscription because the king’s

name is spelled as R#-ms-sw and not R#-ms-ss.4

is no doubt that both sides are intellectually and

spiritually connected. This could imply that the

account of the king’s visit in year one and his

recollection of events when he was regent with his

introduction 3

sional Routes and Equipment,” in The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt: Essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor (ed. Zahi A. Hawass and Janet Richards; Cairo: Conseil suprême des antiquitiés de l’Égypte, 2007), 231-50.

Zippert’s preliminary analysis can now be consulted with the recent studies of Martina Ullmann, “Der Tempel Ramses’ II. in Abydos als #Haus der Millionen an Jahren’,” in 5. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung. Würzburg, 23-26. September 1999 (ed. Horst Beinlich et al.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002), 179-200; Martin Fitzenreiter, “Richtungsbezüge in ägyptischen Sakralanlagen—oder: Warum im ägyptischen Tempel das Sanktuar hinten links in der Ecke liegt (Teil I),” SAK 31 (2003): 132-5, who retraces many of Zippert’s analyses; Andrea-Claudia Binkowski, “Geier und Falke über dem König: Zu einem Motiv im Dekor ägyptischer Tempelreliefs,” in Begegnungen. Antike Kulturen im Niltal (ed. Caris-Beatrice Arnst et al.; Leipzig: Verlag Helmar Wodtke und Katharina Stegbauer, 2001), 83-9; Hans-Georg Bartel, “Über den ‘Spruch beim Fortziehen der Riegel’ in Sanktu-aren des Tempels Sethos I. in Abydos I. Teil,” ibid., 55-81; and El-Sawy, “A New Discovery at the Sety 1 Temple in Abydos,” in Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century I (ed. Zahi Hawass; Cairo and New York: American Uni-versity in Cairo Press, 2003), 425-30.

Additional studies discuss similar themes in this temple with special reference to the work of Ramesses II and Merenptah: Abd el Hamid Zayed, “The Archives and Treasury of the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” ASAE 65 (1983): 19-71; Ahmed el-Sawi, “Ramesses II completing a shrine in the temple of Sety 1 at Abydos,” SAK 10 (1983): 307-10; and Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 164-8.

6 Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 162-4; Notes and Comments II, 191-3; KRI II 323.9-4.8.

7 For all of this see the references in note 4 above. The location of the scene is significant for the dating: immedi-ately to the left (south) of the main opening to the Outer Hypostyle Court. Therefore, it was to be “read” first. The Dedicatory Inscription is further to its left. The king in both cases faces right and is thus directed to the central axis of the temple.

The prenomen of Ramesses, Wsr-mî#t-R Stp-n-R# allows

Civilizations, 1997), 119-22, where the previous literature will be met. See in particular Kitchen, “Historical Observa-tions on Ramesside Nubia,” in Ägypten und Kusch (ed. Erika Endesfelder et al.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (1977), 220 note 27. Rondot’s conclusions, some of which will be elaborated upon in the body of this discussion, are dependent upon the architraves of the Hypostyle Court at Karnak where one sees -sw instead of -ss.

The point to be stressed here, nonetheless, is that the original hieratic version of the Dedicatory Inscription must have always contained -ss whereas the cartouches in the scenes write -sw. The difference is striking.

5 On the relief work, a crucial factor in dating any portion of this temple, see our additional comments in Chapter III.

The recent analysis of Peter James Brand, The Monu-ments of Seti I: Epigraphic, Historical and Art Historical Analysis (Leiden, Boston, and Cologne: Brill, 2000) is basic. Pages 155-73 substantiate the earlier research of Zippert and Kitchen; see below.

These additional works can be referred to as they high-light the situation: Erwin Zippert, “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos” (Ph.D. diss., University of Berlin, 1931), 19-21 (a remarkable study); Keith C. Seele, The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I and the Date of the Great Hypo-style Hall at Karnak (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940), 45-9; Murnane, “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 162-5; and John Baines, “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” in Colour and Painting in Ancient Egypt (ed. W. Vivian Davies; London: British Museum, 2001), 145-57, with his more detailed study, “Recording the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos in Egypt,” Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo) 11 (1990): 65-95.

The unpublished work of Katherine Eaton, “The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment in the Temple of Seti I at Abydos” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 2004), passim, especially pages 14-17 covers the architectural and historical development (painting, carving) of this temple under Seti I; cf. her later summary “Memorial Temples in the Sacred Landscape Abydos: An Overview of proces-

performative section (his “Scene”) commences the

account.6 There, Ramesses presents the expected

symbol of Truth to Osiris and Isis. Because he

is the Horus of his father Seti I, the remaining

Abydene godhead, Osiris’ son Horus, does not

appear. (In theory, Ramesses and Horus could

have been present, but I believe that the death

of Seti automatically led to the simple juxtapo-

sition of Ramesses-Osiris.) Together with the

brother-sister pair is Ramesses II’s father, Seti I,

and he significantly stands behind the two deities.

Osiris speaks first and he is followed by Isis, with

Seti standing before Ramesses and addressing

him. The king only responds to Osiris so that

the father-son relationship is once more empha-

sized.

There is little difficulty outlying the temporal

aspect of both representations. The date is clearly

to be located within the first year of Ramesses’

sole reign.7 The cartouche of the king with its

In addition, the architectural components of the

two walls must be also analyzed, a subject that

will be covered later. The northern wall explicitly

indicates the rise to kingship of Ramesses, and

the name ritual involving Thoth and the Ished

tree is as overt a theme upon royal accession as

could be possible. Osiris receives Ramesses while

Thoth inscribes the official royal name on one of

the tree’s leaves.

The combination of two disparate methods

of representation must be discussed in detail at

this point. The Dedicatory Inscription, in sunken

relief, is located to the south, as the visitor turns

left from the main entrance to the Outer Hypo-

style Hall.5 It encompasses vertically oriented

hieroglyphs set within ninety-six columns, all to

be read from right to left, as well as twenty-four

additional ones associated with the accompa-

nying pictorial representation and three minor

notations at the end. Kitchen noted that a

chapter one4

rites of the íwn-mwt.f priest before the king’s statue) and 67-8 (chapel of Seti I, called a “sanctuary,” where offer-ings as well as the temple festival bark, the sàmw-Éw, were located).

N.B.: in this temple the chapels of divinities, very fre-quently depicted as naoi, are designated by the word tpÈt: Luc Gabolde, “Les temples #mémoriaux’ de Thoutmosis II et Toutânkhamon. (Un Rituel destinee à des statues sur barques),” BIFAO 89 (1989): 157 note 188.

9 David, Religious Ritual at Abydos, 10-11. Some of her conclusions must be revised in light of Murnane’s research in “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 162, 165. He argued that “it seems that Ramesses II both built and decorated the portico, the two courts and the pylon, thus completing his father’s temple” (page 165).

10 This would not have taken much time; see notes 21-2 below concerning Kitchen’s estimates. Following him, I place the carving of the Dedicatory Inscription ca. regnal years one to two of Ramesses as Pharaoh, and I see no overrid-ing reason to date its completion in the second year. In her Religious Ritual at Abydos Rosalie David provides a brief summary of Ramesses’ building program, but the reader should be aware that she adheres to a coregency.

11 Antonio Loprieno. Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Intro-duction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1995), 21-2; and Friedrich Junge, Einführung in die Grammatik des Neuägyptischen (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996), 27.

us to place the date of the written composition ca. the king’s second regnal year. The epithet of Stp-n-R # is first dated to year two: KRI II 339.12 (Sinai No 252). In that inscrip-tion we read “the one chosen of Re in the bark” (KRI II 339.14), a phrase that must imply a close relationship to Seth: Jean Yoyotte, “Religion de l’Égypte,” Annuaire École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve Section 73 (1965-6): 80. Add now the comments of Rondot in La grande salle hypostyle de Karnak, 119-20. Following his remarks, we can argue that this epithet was utilized on the architraves of Karnak (Hypostyle Court) somewhat later that the shorter pre-nomen, Wsr-mî#t-R.

8 A. Rosalie David, Religious Ritual at Abydos (c. 1300 BC) (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1973), 17. The author did not refer to Zippert’s work, “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos.”

Brand’s The Monuments of Seti I has already been referred to in the same note, and his analysis on pages 192-219 con-cerning the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak is a mine of detailed information. Note his remarks concerning the completion of the decoration by Ramesses II who usurped many of his father’s reliefs.

Dieter Arnold, Wandrelief und Raumfunktion in ägyptischen Tempeln des Neuen Reiches (Munich-Berlin: Bruno Hessling, 1962) may be consulted with profit. I refer in particular to pages 22-4 (the chapels to the immediate west of the Inner Hypostyle Court), 62-3 (an important section covering the

on the south side we find the Dedicatory Inscrip-

tion.9 In other words, the rebuilding ordered by

Ramesses appears to have begun in this area, and

the narrative account was carved soon after the

doorways on the south wall were filled in.10

The hieroglyphs are well ordered, not at all

resembling the more “hectic” or as some would

believe, newly developed system of the later

Ramesside Period. Recently both Junge and

Loprieno have turned to the arrangement of

monumental hieroglyphic writing at this time.11

To be sure, their comments are very lapidary,

merely serving as an introduction to their stud-

ies of ancient Egyptian. According to Loprieno

these changes affected the orthography of hiero-

glyphic writing. Specifically, in monumental texts

the older quadrant system was abandoned and a

newer method of spacing and arrangement came

into force. This can already be noted at the site of

Amarna under the heretic Pharaoh, Akhenaton.

The great Hymn to the Aten located in the tomb

of Ay provides an excellent precursor to the sub-

sequent wholesale jettisoning of the earlier “Clas-

sical” quadrant system.

Nonetheless, by Dynasty XIX a new struc-

ture in writing emerged even though it appears

to have been introduced slowly. This is not the

place to discuss the alterations in detail save to

state that Loprieno recognized a nine-fold system

of small fields into which each ideal square could

be placed. (Noteworthy is his use of the tomb

short early form in conjunction with the refer-

ences of regnal year one in the narrative support

this interpretation. In addition, the entire sec-

tion of the Second Court fits within the opening

years of the king. The later reliefs of the king, for

example, are located in the First Court that was

subsequently completed. As is well known, the

inner portions of this temple are virtually always

decorated with Seti I in mind, and there is little

to contradict his son’s own account in the Dedi-

catory Inscription. Namely, that he, Ramesses,

had found the temple unfinished, and it was his

task as the dutiful son—both to Osiris and to Seti

I—to effect the final touches.

The original plan of this part of the temple was

not completed when Seti I died. Nonetheless, we

can determine the specific character of the temple

when Ramesses II visited it on his way south

from Thebes. Rosalie David outlined the probable

visual setting: “When Sethos died, the façade, the

Courts, the Outer Hypostyle Hall and the rear

portions of the temple were incomplete,” although

the recent study of Peter Brand has refined many

of her conclusions.8 The limestone façade at the

rear of the Second Court originally consisted of

a wall with a cornice on top; there also were

seven doorways piercing this façade. Ramesses

II had those doorways filled with sandstone

blocks, and only the central entrance area was

not touched with two side doorways (north wall)

left alone. Then the façade was decorated, and

introduction 5

with the “lector priests” being the readers. In addition, see the sporadic instances of combinations of hry Èbt with sà qdwt. The issue needs further research, although see now Lutz Popko, Untersuchungen zur Geschichtsschreibung der Ahmosiden- und Thutmosidenzeit “-- damit man von seinen Taten noch in Millionen von Jahren sprechen wird” (Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, 2006), 51-7. Add Rita Freed, “The Development of Middle Kingdom Egyptian Relief Sculptural Schools of Late Dynasty XI with an Appendix on the Trends of Early Dynasty XII (2040-1878 B.C.)” (Ph.D. diss., New York University, 1984), 10-13.

15 N. de G. Davies, The Rock Tombs of El Amarna VI (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1908), Pl. xxvii. There are others to choose, of course, but I have taken this case as representative. Junge, however, chose one of Akhenaton’s Boundary Stela in his grammar, Einführung in die Grammatik des Neuägyptischen, 73-8.

16 The reader must take care to note that henceforth I will follow Kitchen’s numbering of the columns; see KRI II 323 under “Note.” For the importance of the opening Épr see Vernus, Essai sur la conscience de l’histoire dans l’Égypte pharaonique (Paris: Champion, 1995), 154 note 652 where he refers to the introduction of the Ahmose Stela from Abydos (Urk. IV 26.12): Épr swt sndm Èm.f.

12 Photos of the Battle of Kadesh (Abydos scenes) may be viewed in Charles Kuentz, La bataille de Qadech (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1928-34) and Walter Wreszinski, Atlas zur altaegyptiscnen Kulturgeschichte II (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1935). For those reliefs see as well Edouard Naville, Détails relevés dans les ruines de quelques temples égyptiens (Paris: P. Geuthner, 1930), Pls. v-xxv; the latter are hand copies but very well drawn.

13 John A. Wilson, “The Language of the Historical texts Commemorating Ramses III,” in Medinet Habu Studies 1928/29 (Oriental Institute Communications No. 7): 24-33.

A related question concerning the “production” of hieratic and demotic texts was presented by Friedhelm Hoffmann, “Beobachtungen zum ägyptischen Schreiberpensum in hier-atischen und demotischen Papyri,” in Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, Cambridge 3-9 September 1995, Abstracts of Papers (ed. Christopher Eyre; Oxford: Oxbow Books for International Association of Egyptologists, 1995), 84-5.

14 In this context see the interesting comments of Pascal Vernus, “Les ‘Espaces de l’écrit’ dans l’Égypte pharaonique,” BSFE 119 (1990): 39-43. The first ink on the wall, in black, would be in outline format. Hence, as Stephen Quirke stresses, the key draughtsman is called a “writer of outlines” (sà qdwt). There is a connection here

quadrant method? In comparing the results at

Medinet Habu in conjunction with the now dated

but still useful remarks of John Wilson, it is all

too easy to arrive at this conclusion.13 Yet the

growing discrepancy between sculptor-carvers,

who knew their task, and their use of the original

hieratic Vorlage, is but one issue. It was necessary

for the overseer to insure that the hieratic was

rendered into the correct hieroglyphs. From the

first transcription on a papyrus there would have

been drawn black line templates (or “sketches”)

of hieroglyphs in the wall either in hieratic or

sometimes paralleling the cursive forms often seen

in religious texts. The final monumental product

was then carved from these two-dimensional rep-

resentations.14

Ramesses II in his opening year at Abydos

did not follow the Amarna style. Consider, for

example, the layout of the Hymn to the Aten in

the tomb of Ay. There, one cannot but note the

“slippery” set-up of the hieroglyphs.15 Some are

too big for the quadrant system whereas others

are too small or else shoved away into corners.

At Abydos, on the other hand, there is a regular

and orderly fashion to the blocks of signs; indeed,

the arrangement is virtually the same as one may

find in royal inscriptions dated to the middle of

Dynasty XVIII. Consider the opening Épr swt sî

in column 25 and compare it with Ay’s mîíw nb

pr m rwty.f at the beginning of line four of his

Aten hymn.16 In the latter, the complements r

plus determinative (with the pr sign) are not as

well set as one would expect from a mid Dynasty

of Amenmose which is dated to Dynasty XIX.)

Independently, Junge observed the use of this new

arrangement in the so-called “Randinschriften” of

temples of this period and later. The hieroglyphs

were now placed in vertically oriented rectangles,

and good examples can be seen in the Hittite

Treaty, the Israel Stela of Merenptah, and finally

the texts of Ramesses III and IV.

Although a detailed analysis of this develop-

ment remains to be written, a few outstanding

points can be adumbrated here. The early texts

of Ramesses II—and by these I mean those up to

the middle of his second decade at least—do not

reveal this development. The change was grad-

ual, and if the later Hittite Treaty is invoked, we

must keep in mind that two decades had passed

from the start of Ramesses II’s reign until that

fateful and convivial rapprochement between the

two superpowers in the king’s twenty-first regnal

year. For the moment let me indicate that Junge

observed the gradual and original limited devel-

opment. At the opening of Dynasty XIX such

was not the case, and the Dedicatory Inscrip-

tion as well as the famous Battle of Kadesh texts

indicate that the older system was still in general

operation, or at least preferred for monumental

inscriptions.12

One final point can be explicated before I turn

to the hieroglyphs of the inscription. The time it

took to carve the signs has never been discussed.

Was it quicker or even easier to engrave temple

walls with the somewhat shallow and if not always

well-drawn hieroglyphs than to follow the older

chapter one6

327.10 with note 10 a-a, KRI II 334.4 with note 4a; and KRI II 336.1 with note 1b.

20 Note in this context Seele, The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I, and pages 12-22 in particular. All of his estimates are unsure. The one who commands, Ramesses II in our case, often determines the time.

17 See Spalinger, “Historical Observations on the Military Reliefs of Abu Simbel and Other Ramesside Temples in Nubia,” JEA 66 (1980): 83-99.

18 KRI II 325.5 with note 5 a-b; see as well his note 7c to KRI II 325.7.

19 KRI II 326.3-5 with notes 3a-b, 4a-b and 5a, KRI II

carefully planned carving are the names of the king in columns 78 and 79. In the first the design master has concluded the column with Seti’s pre-nomen plus “justified” whereas in the second it is Ramesses’ final name plus “given life” which concludes the vertical section. Column 102 pro-vides another parallel. I remain convinced that an extremely well thought out and slowly drawn up presentation lies at the heart of this matter, one justly reflecting the importance of the temple and the intimate religious concepts of king and earthly father (Ramesses-Seti) as well as king and father Osiris.

There is no inconsistency in the size of the hieroglyphs, and the spacing as well as the groups are organized into a “well tempered” presenta-tion. I cannot find any case of haste. Some cor-rections were later made and it is interesting to note that the date in column 30 was recarved in order to present a better grouping.18 At the end of column 46 a further retouching can be found; see as well columns 36, 37, 97, and 116.19 There are no intrusions of hieratic, or rather evidences of the hieratic master copy .

A crucial question must arise concerning the actual program of work. Simply put, how was it accomplished? Although this query moves us far from the theme of our argument, it is important to mention. Granted that the whole inscription was drawn up in a thoughtful and organized fashion, it nonetheless must have taken a relatively lengthy period of time to complete, if only as each word had to be set within the columns so that the last remaining space had to contain the end of a word. The master sculptor would have had to follow the instructions of the chief organizer of the work, a man who most certainly would have had in his possession the hieratic copy written for him by one of the chief royal scribes or lector priests, and approved by Ramesses II, most probably at the capital. In our case I believe that, when the newly crowned king sailed northwards from Thebes, this wall as well as the accompanying right one were either not yet built or, less probably, bare and hence ready for carving. However, the length of time it took to accomplish the task must remain an open question.20 I suspect that it took more

than a few months and that the carving probably

XVIII inscription and the heights of the signs

tend to vary more markedly. Indeed, throughout this hymn one can find other clear-cut cases of the loss of any regularized pattern of sculptural rendition.

Ramesses II eschews that approach. His group-ings are regular and any possibility of shrinking the signs to fit a small but nevertheless empty area is avoided. This clearly indicates that the Amarna arrangement, which was to influence the later development of monumental hieroglyphic writ-ing, was purposely not followed by Ramesses at the onset of his reign. In the Dedicatory Inscrip-tion his “blocks” are well coordinated and even the somewhat constricted combination of ms sw with three signs (ms + s + sw in column 25) was presented in a standard manner. This can equally be seen also in the Abydene version of the Kadesh battle, most probably the earliest rendition of that conflict.17

In order to achieve a deeper analysis it would be necessary to turn back in time to the reign of Seti I in order to explore this “sculptural reaction” to Amarna. Naturally, we might wish to avoid the carving in the royal tombs as well as the formal and extremely decorous religious texts of Seti. For the moment, however, I wish to stress the formal and conservative approach of Ramesses at the holy shrine of Abydos and the purposeful approach to carving the Dedicatory Inscription. The signs themselves are well proportioned. None appear to deviate from the pre-established norm either in size (height or width) or in location. As stated above, every one of them is “boxed in” in a neat and aesthetically pleasing manner.

This masterly presentation is most overt in the location of the real beginning to the text as well as its end. No space in the columns is left. Column 25 (the first of the “Main Text”) is self-contained and the commencement of the narrative, opening with #È#.n nb tîwy, is placed exactly at the beginning of the next column. Column 40 begins a new develop-ment in the account with wn.ín.sn Èr ht.sn. Clean-cut breaks at the end of each column insure that no word is incomplete; one moves to a new word at the top of each column. (Perhaps this is the reason for the somewhat abbreviated writing at the end of column 48.) Further examples of this

introduction 7

lichen Regierungszeit,” in Festschrift Arne Eggebrecht zum 65. Geburtstag am 12. März 2000 (ed. Bettina Schmitz; Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 2002), 1-10; the importance of the Abydos temple of Seti I is covered on pages 3-5.

Finally, the study of Budde cited in note 2 above is extremely useful in the context of Sehsat, especially in conjunction with coronation, the sed festival, Thoth, writ-ing, and rejuvenation (pages 150-1 and 200-6). Dominique Bastin “De la fondation d’un temple: #Paroles dites par Seshat au Roi Sethi Ier’,” in L’atelier de l’orfèvre: Mélanges offerts à Ph. Derchain (ed. M. Broze and Ph. Talon; Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 9-24 provides an equally useful analysis of the key text.

Jacques Parlebas’ rarely consulted “La déesse Seshat” (Ph.D. diss., 1976) can be cited here, but I only have seen in Basel the “résumé détaillé.” In the XVIIIth Dynasty she appears in the role of the “secretary” noting the divine jubilees (rituals of the divine birth). See Chapter 24 in particular, as it covers her role with jubilees and the Ished tree (Rames-seum example). Chapter 25 deals with her relationship to Thoth in which the latter remained the more important. He further discussed their connection to the foundation of temples because Seshat was the deity who traces out the foundations while Thoth served as the architect giving the instructions from his manuals.

25 The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I. Murnane followed him to some degree in positing a coregency. My arguments against this position are also cited in footnote 17; see now Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 300-35.

It was Helck who discovered and subsequently defended the accession date of III àmw 27 for Ramesses II: “Bemerkun-gen zu den Thronbesteigungsdaten im Neuen Reich,” Ana-lecta Biblica 12 (1959): 118-20, and in “Drei Ramessidische Daten,” SAK 17 (1990): 205-08.

26 See the references in the previous note, to which add Kitchen, review of John Schmidt, Ramesses II: A Chronological Structure for his Reign, JEA 61 (1975): 266, and 268-9.

21 Kitchen observes that one can argue for a final draft and the carving by year two of the king “at earliest” in Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 195.

22 See the references in notes 7, 10, 20-1 above; in particular, Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Com-ments II, 194. Seele’s earlier position will be found in his The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I, 47. Pages 47-9 cover his interpretation of this Abydos temple and the one solely built by Ramesses.

Note as well Seele’s pertinent remarks: “Ramses himself did not, however, decorate any of the walls of his father’s temple in the raised relief which we have now become accus-tomed to accept as a mark of his first period. The reason for this is quite obvious. He was at this time engaged in the erection of his own temple near by” (page 47). Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 194, 196, fol-lowed this conclusion. See now Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 155-70. On page 170 he pinpoints the artistic and architectural development of Seti’s temple by concluding that “the Gallery of Kings was among the last portion of the temple to be decorated before Seti’s death.” Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 15-17, follows Brand and Baines.

23 Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 194-6. (I am purposely ignoring most of the secondary literature that failed to come to grips with the regency situation.)

24 For handy references, see KRI I 176ff. In this case note as well KRI I 177.8-10 where Ramesses is íry-p#t, sî nswt smsw n ht.f, and logically has nary a cartouche.

As usual, we have to thank Kitchen for clarifying this designation and a related one. In “The Twentieth Dynasty Revisited,” JEA 68 (1982): 121 he proved the following analysis: sî nswt tpy = oldest surviving son and sî nswt smsw = heir apparent (male). I shall have recourse to this simple, clear, and sharply presented conclusion.

For Seshat and her connection to royalty, see Hartwig Altenmüller, “Sechat, Jri und Sdm als Garanten einer glück-

single out the work associated with the Gallery of

Kings, even though difficulties are encountered

if we link the text to the double speech of Thoth

and Seshat to Seti located in the Stairway Cor-

ridor.24 In the former, Ramesses is depicted in

scenes in which he offers before his father, and

as prince but not yet as a ruler. He invokes the

royal ancestors.

Seele, on the other hand, attempted a more

complex explanation, one that involved a core-

gency.25 With Kitchen, however, I cannot follow

this analysis. Indeed, some twenty years or so

earlier I had attempted to outline the early career

of Ramesses II on the basis of his war inscrip-

tions in conjunction with some new data proffered

by Murnane.26 Seele was the first to recognize

that the Abydene data from both Ramesses own

temple as well as his carvings in his father’s temple

fitted neatly into the broader picture that could be

seen at Karnak. Excluding his erroneous believe

in a coregency, a perspective which was bold for

its time but which has now outlived its useful-

ness, one nonetheless finds this judicious comment

lasted into the king’s second regnal year.21 Indi-

rect evidence for this might be derived from the

king’s prenomen. In the Dedicatory Inscription

we see the longer version (Wsr-mî#t-R Stp-n-R#),

one that replaced an earlier one (Wsr-mî#t-R# +/-

complements but never with Stp-n-R#).22

Again Kitchen’s perspicacious comments

must be read. He has pointed out that at Abydos

“much of the decoration in the rear part of his [=

Ramesses’] temple shows his early prenomen.”23

In order to explain the presence of the later or

“fixed” prenomen in the Dedicatory Inscription

(and, as well, in the accompanying scenes to the

right), Kitchen argued that during the regency

period of Seti I and Ramesses II the king had

organized the builders at Abydos to concentrate

their activities upon his own complex and, pre-

sumably, not that of his father’s. Hence, one can

see that the simpler prenomen of Ramesses else-

where in Seti’s temple makes sense. Namely, that

both he and his father, independently or together

as Pharaohs, were associated with the carving

activities of the local builders and artisans. We can

chapter one8

the case in the Dedicatory Inscription and other examples as well. Often the account is presented independent of any divine “prediction.”

The later study of Beate Hofmann, Die Königsnovelle: “Struk turanalyse am Einzelwerk” (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2004), can now be mentioned. On pages 324-9 the author outlines her new definition wherein various subsections of this “genre” could be written (e.g., eulogies, hymns, letter citations, royal decrees, oaths). I feel that any of these components could be added or omitted according to the predilection of the composer.

29 “The #King’s Novel’,” 277-95.30 This is why I avoided discussing them in detail in

Aspects of the Military Documents of the Ancient Egyptians (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1982), Chapter IV. Parts of military texts may reflect such settings, but they need not be included.

31 I differ with Piccato on this matter. See Spalinger, “Drama in History: Exemplars from Mid Dynasty XVIII,” SAK 24 (1997): 269-300; and Aldo Piccato, “The Berlin Leather Roll and the Egyptian Sense of History,” LingAeg 5 (1997): 137-59.

32 Recently, see Frédéric Servajean, Les formules des transformations du Livre des Morts à la lumière d’une théorie de la performativité (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 2004). I am following some pertinent remarks of Stephen Quirke at this point.

27 The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I, 48.28 Alfred Hermann, Die ägyptische Königsnovelle (Glückstadt,

Hamburg, and New York: J. J. Augustin, 1938), passim, but see page 13. There, he notes the completion of a “predic-tion” (announced through sr) of the “plans” (sÉrw).

It is not without coincidence that 1erný observed the connection between an “oracle” (bíît) and the “plans of god” (sÉrw ntr): Jaroslav 1erný, “Egyptian Oracles,” in Richard A. Parker, A Saite Oracle Papyrus from Thebes (Providence: Brown University Press, 1962), 35-48. I follow Georges Posener, “Aménémopé 21,13 et bjîj.t au sens d’#oracle’,” ZÄS 90 (1963): 98-102, but only some of the conclusions of Erhart Graefe, “Untersuchungen zur Wortfamilie bjî-” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cologne, 1971), 109-12. An excellent example of sr indicating a prediction from a god—i.e., “oracle,” is given by Dimitri Meeks in his Année Lexicographique III (Paris: Impr. de la Margeride, 1982), 261: sr ntr Épr Èr-#(wy).

Further remarks concerning the Königsnovelle are to be found in Antonio Loprieno, “The #King’s Novel’,” in Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms (ed. Antonio Loprieno; Leiden, New York, and Cologne: Brill, 1996), 281 with note 19 (and page 291): the argument of Shirun-Grumach being that the Königsnovelle should be “interpreted as the indirect rendition of an oracle.”

In her work, Offenbarung, Orakel und Königsnovelle (Wies-baden: Harrassowitz, 1993), perhaps she should have restricted herself to a certain number of these inscriptions in which it can be proved that an oracle took place. This is not

these non-military accounts from the war records

of the Pharaohs if only because in the latter the

response to the king’s query is always a weak

one, a plan that will inevitably be countered by

Pharaoh.)30

The presence of such “King’s Novels” in monu-

mental settings cannot be overlooked. First, and

here I follow the analysis of Loprieno, the com-

position was fixed at a specific location. It was

not circulated in papyrus copies throughout the

land. (The Berlin Leather Roll is not an excep-

tion to this.)31 Pegged to the wall, so to speak,

or carved on a block of free standing stone—a

stela—these compositions reveal varying methods

of presentation. On a few occasions the reply of

the king’s officials contain a perspective at vari-

ance to the king’s wish. But for building activities

this does not appear to be the case. The account

often contains different literary approaches, and

one might want to view the “whole” item as an

amorphous literary narrative in which varying

aspects could be presented, not all of which were

automatically required. These royal Königsnovelle

accounts were carved for the viewer alone, who

could either read or have the text read out for

him. Furthermore, there remains the question

whether the inscription was more than a simple

and solitary communicative entity. That is to say,

did it also serve as a performative text?32 More

than one copy could be made. The account of

relating to Ramesses: “Immediately upon his

father’s death Ramses began to date his monu-

ments by his own regnal year,” a conclusion with

which no one today would disagree.27 Hence, with

regard to the Dedicatory Inscription, no incon-

sistency in dates nor in historical reconstruction

should occur so long as we keep in mind that

Ramesses’ timing was separate from the com-

mencement of his earlier work at Seti’s temple.

Structurally, what type of text lies before us?

Many years earlier A. Hermann had placed this

inscription under his rubric of the Königsnovelle.28

The basic outline that Hermann enunciated for

this text included the speeches between the king

and high officials, the dated nature of the monu-

ment, the Sitz im Leben, and the trip of the king to

a specific region, here Abydos. Since Loprieno

has presented a detailed reevaluation of this so-

called genre, I need not present a lengthy explica-

tion of this kind of Egyptian narration.29 The key

aspects of this Egyptian presentation were to lay

emphasis upon royal deeds. The rather frequent

number of such inscriptions that deal with build-

ing activities, a point already remarked upon by

Hermann but also described anew by Loprieno,

is also worthy of attention. By and large, these

Königsnovelle texts deal with a non-threatening situ-

ation, one in which the monarch enunciates a

plan, hears praise for it, and then promulgates

his decision. (I believe that we have to separate

introduction 9

37 For Pn-tî-wrt, his northern location, and his colleagues in the treasury, see Chapter II in the previously cited work; add, however, the important comments of Stephen Quirke, “Archive,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, 379-401.

See now the work of Wolfram Grajetzki, Burial Customs in Ancient Egypt: Life in Death for Rich and Poor (London: Duck-worth, 2003), 66; and my related comments in “Encomia and Papyrus Anastasi II,” in Discovering Egypt from the Neva: The Egyptological Legacy of Oleg D Berlev (ed. Stephen Quirke; Berlin: Achet, 2003), 123 note 2.

38 Quirke, “Archive,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Lit-erature: History and Forms, 382-91.

33 KRI II 353.1-60.6; others could be added, military texts included. Commemoration was also crucial.

34 KRI II 233.5-256.4.35 As I will be referring to the specialized works of

Jan Assmann later in this discussion, it is sufficient here to refer to his summaries in Lexikon der Ägyptologie I-VI (ed. Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto; Wiesbaden: Harras-sowitz, 1975-86). See his contributions under “Aretalogien,” I, 425-34, “Eulogie, Königs-,” II, 40-6, “Hymnus,” III, 103-110, “Litanei,” III, 1062-6, “Stundenwachen,” VI, 104-06, and “Verklärung,” VI, 998-1006.

36 All of this is covered in my The Transformation of an Ancient Egyptian Narrative: P. Sallier III and the Battle of Kadesh (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002).

Related questions regarding the audience and

the effectiveness of the Königsnovelle can be brought

forward in this context. To take a case in point:

previously, would the audience have known any of

this information? Would the Egyptians who were

able to read or at least hear the account appre-

ciate the literary effort that went into the work?

Finally, was it always necessary to go to a temple

to see the text? I think that we can answer the

last query. After all, we have at our fingertips the

lengthy hieratic version of the Battle of Kadesh

drawn up by the treasury scribe Pn-tî-wrt.36 It is

clear that the copyist had no need to avail him-

self of a trip southwards to spend an incredible

effort in reading the texts; hieratic copies of that

military account were close by.37 In other words,

archives in the north existed; to whom were they

available is another question. But the existence

of libraries or archives where a middle-ranking

treasury officer could go is in itself significant.

The text of the Battle of Kadesh was meant

for temple walls. Moreover, it shows more than

just a few traces of a Königsnovelle presentation.

Indeed, there is a dispute in the record, one that,

in fact, parallels Kamose’s conversations with

his courtiers, Thutmose III’s heated discussion

with his military officers just before the Aruna

Pass, and in the literary story of Apophis and

Seqenenre. I am not the first to connect all four

military compositions or to lay emphasis upon

their literary aspects. Nevertheless, the fact that

one of them could have been consulted—indeed

copied—from a hieratic original opens the issue

whether any of the others could have. (Exclud-

ing, of course, Apophis and Seqenenre, which

belongs to the story tradition of the Ramesside

Period.) And we must not forget that the final

“resting place” of Pn-tî-wrt’s copy of the Kadesh

Poem was a tomb.38

Ramesses II dealing with goldmining is known

from at least two exemplars: one at Kubban and

the second in the temple precinct of Aksha.33 In

this case the remoteness of the former may have

played a great role in determining that at least

one more exemplar would be available for public

viewing, especially as the temple of Aksha lay not

too far from the site of Kubban.

The Hittite Marriage of Ramesses II with a

daughter of Hattusilis III of Hatti was of great sig-

nificance to Ramesses.34 Indeed, it formed the vis-

ible proof of the close interconnections, politically

and emotionally, between the two great powers.

At least five copies of this inscription have been

found, and all of them were originally located

within temples. (The Elephantine fragments

were later reused in the quay at Elephantine.)

Detailed and intricate, this account presents a

greater narrative structure than the Dedicatory

Inscription, yet it holds to the basic outline struc-

ture of the Königsnovelle. It also includes a relatively

long introductory encomium to Ramesses. The

various sections were overtly demarcated by the

names of the king unlike the Dedicatory Inscrip-

tion. Therefore, it is relatively easy to analyze its

internal structure. But this text of Ramesses also

reveals the non-rigid pattern of the Königsnovelle,

and perhaps we can interpret better this so-called

genre by allowing it to possess a high degree of

flexibility. Namely, that differing styles could be

employed, or at least that any such composition

could absorb a range of literary outlooks, as if the

form was sufficiently free from a rigid framework

and hence permitted divergent linguistic levels.

(E.g., formal or Classical narrative prose, hymns

or encomia, and direct speech with a more con-

temporary flavor.)35 In the same way some of these

accounts could indicate a dispute—or at least a

divergence—between the king’s wish and that of

his officials, but this aspect was not required.

chapter one10

contribution of P. W. Pestman, “Who were the Owners, in the #Community of Workmen’, of the Chester Beatty Papyri?,” in Gleanings from Deir el-Medîna (ed. R. J. Demarée and Jac. J. Janssen; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1982), 156-72; and Andrea McDowell, “Teach-ers and Students at Deir el-Medîna,” in Deir el-Medîna in the Third Millennium AD. A Tribute to Jac. J. Janssen (ed. R. J. Demarée and A. Egberts; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 2000), 217-33.

42 Georges Posener, Littérature et politique dans l’Égypte de la XIIe Dynastie (Paris: Champion, 1956), 6. The phrase also occurs in Ramesses II’s Kubban Stela. See now the remarks of Grajetzki indicated by Quirke, Egyptian Literature 1800 BC: questions and readings (London: Golden House, 2004), 179 where the Middle Kingdom tale of “The king and the spirit of Khentika son of Snefer” is discussed. In this case the introductory phrase covering the king’s speech to

39 Spalinger, The Transformation of an Ancient Egyptian Nar-rative, Chapter XI.

40 The same situation has been discussed with respect to the Ptolemaic royal decrees: Spalinger, Three Studies on Egyptian Feasts and their Chronological Implications (Baltimore: Halgo, 1992), Chapter II.

The two studies of Michel Chauveau and Willy Clarysse in Le décret de Memphis: Colloque de la Fondation Singer-Polignac à l’occasion de la célébration du bicentenaire de la découverte de la Pierre de Rosette, Paris, 1er juin 1999 (ed. Dominique Val-belle and Jean Leclant; Paris: Fondation Singer-Polignac: Diffusion, De Boccard, 1999), 25-39 and 41-65 present a complementary analysis of the transmission of royal edicts into stone; namely, the famous series of multi-lingual royal decrees of the Ptolemaic Period.

41 The evidence for this literary interest is too well known to document here. Nevertheless, let me refer to the significant

of the king’s personal associates, the courtiers,

for example, if not also his family.

The situation of a more extended audience

for these Königsnovelle inscriptions has rarely been

discussed. Perhaps it is easier for us to posit the

circulation of New Kingdom war deeds than

such accounts as the Dedicatory Inscription.

Most certainly, the Late Egyptian Stories had as

their readership a reasonable number of people.

Yet we often find that only one papyrus exemplar

has survived the ravages of time. Fortunately, the

workmen’s site of Deir el Medineh has given the

necessary empirical evidence with regard to lit-

eracy and literary awareness. We no longer have

to invoke the scholarly rule focused upon the lack

of explicit evidence.41 That is to say, the “reading

public” of New Kingdom literary products, and

in this context Ramesside literary ones, was rea-

sonably broad. It included middle-level workmen,

such as Qenherkhepshef at Deir el Medineh, who

were able to obtain copies of various literary and

magical productions, even Dream Books.

Military deeds of the Pharaoh were distrib-

uted outside of temple walls, and we have more

than one hieratic account of the New Kingdom

Pharaohs’ exploits abroad. But mythological tales

such as the Contendings of Horus and Seth could

be employed in an annual ritual (or “festival”) of

kingship. Events placed either in the past (Apophis

and Seqenenre) or in the present were written,

and even more ancient literary compositions were

readily accessible for use; for example, see Neferty,

Sinuhe, Satire of Trades, and the like. It is thus

no surprise that Posener placed some emphasis

upon the overt use of early Dynasty XII Königs-

novelle elements in the Dedicatory Inscription as

well as in the near contemporary Kubban Stela.42

Ramesside literary writers appear to have been

That famous and lengthy narrative text, one

that narrates a major military victory of the

Pharaoh, was written in a Königsnovelle format.

It was originally intended for the wall of tem-

ples. Yet a middle ranking bureaucrat from the

north obtained a hieratic copy of that account

and was able to complete the task of copying it.

He did this line by line, from beginning to end,

purely for his interest and also, one suspects, for

some of his colleagues. In this context it is less

interesting to speculate about the man’s motives;

more significant is the simple manner of acquisi-

tion. Evidently, Pn-tî-wrt found it relatively easy

to obtain the “software” and to finish making a

copy of the Kadesh Poem. He did not arrive at

a temple wall in order to copy the entire hiero-

glyphic version. The Poem account of the Battle

of Kadesh is a piece of literature, but it is much

more than a simple or relatively short Königsnovelle

document.39

We can thus propose the existence of archives

that contained secular literary compositions. To

be able to locate a lengthy copy of a text meant

for the walls of temples allows me to suppose that

other royal Königsnovelle productions were equally

accessible in archives. Naturally, the master cop-

ies—I mean those intended for the supervisors

of the carving—previously would have been sent

to the directors at each of the temples in which

the text was to be carved.40 Whether they were

ever returned to the capital is not the issue. (After

use, the workaday hieratic versions may have

been stored in the temple archives.) More than

one copy could have been made. And since the

composition had to have been of a high literary

quality—one explicitly commissioned and then

approved by the Pharaoh—it is hard to believe

that the narrative did not circulate among a few

introduction 11

assembled collection in Assmann, Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed. Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 511-39. I can refer the reader to my two studies “New Kingdom Eulogies of Power: A Preliminary Analysis,” in Es werde niedergelegt als Schriftstück. Festschrift für Hartwig Altenmüller zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Nicole Kloth et al.; Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 2003), 415-28, and “Encomia and Papyrus Anastasi II,” 123-44. Nikolaus Tacke discusses the use of verse points in such New Kingdom eulogies in his recent work, Verspunkte als Gliederungsmittel in ramessidischen Schülerhandschriften (Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 2001).

45 See Gardiner, Late Egyptian Stories (Brussels: Fondation égyptologique reine Élisabeth, 1932), ix. Pn-tî-wrt’s hand is not a literary one. In fact, he was a middle-ranking treasury scribe. In correspondence Quirke notes in contrast that the beautiful calligraphy of the bread documents of Seti I provide an excellent contrast to the writing of the Doomed Prince manuscript.

46 In general, see his Re und Amun, Die Krise des poly-theistischen Weltbilds im Ägypten der 18.-20. Dynastie (Freiburg-Göttingen: Üniversitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), Chapter 4.

47 “The #King’s Novel’,” 277-95, and see page 280: “they reveal a very immediate concern with the king’s activities.”

his sealbearer or other officials is the key issue. The paral-lel of that story to the Dynasty XIII Königsnovelle-oriented stela of Neferhotep I and others, including the Dedicatory Inscription, cannot be overlooked. Hence, we can argue that some contemporary New Kingdom scribes (and not only those at Deir el Medineh) knew these earlier Classical texts and used various embedded Königsnovelle elements for their royal compositions. It may be best to leave off any speculation concerned with a return to normalcy after the schism of the Amarna Period.

See Adriaan de Buck’s comments regarding the paral-lel of two Middle Kingdom phrases in the Berlin Leather Roll (temp. Sesostris I) in the Kubban Stela: “The Building Inscription of the Berlin Leather Roll,” Analecta Orientalia 17 (1938): 53 (note 3) and 57 (note 42).

43 Christopher J. Eyre, “Is Egyptian historical literature #historical’ or #literary’?,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Lit-erature: History and Forms, 415-33 provides a refreshing new outlook into the difficulties in extracting historical data from literary texts. One can mention the need to separate various linked stages in production such as the original historical background (conception), the writing of the com-position (creation) followed by royal approval (blessing), and finally the “publication” of these monumental royal literary inscriptions.

44 This would have been particularly appropriate with regard to the eulogies to the king; see the most usefully

ary texts that have been preserved. For example,

a great difference in physical presentation exists

between the daily output of a Papyrus Wilbour

scribe and the man associated with The Two

Brothers. (However, one must keep in mind that

our copy of the Doomed Prince is by no means

“beautiful” or even clear to read.)45

Naturally, this argument must deal with the

transformation of religious texts onto tomb walls.

The use of Coffin and Pyramid Texts in tombs

cannot be excluded from consideration, and

Dynasties XXV-XXVI provides us with suffi-

cient data to enable a serious evaluation of the

concept of (hieratic) religious literature in re-use.

To take a case in point, the sun hymns of the

XVIIIth Dynasty preceding the Amarna Period

have revealed an earlier funerary setting. Their

origins, however, are significant. Assmann showed

that we have to posit an extra-mortuary context

for those texts, and one in which various hieratic

copies of the hymns were readily available.46 And

the same is self-evident when we turn to some

of the pictorial representations in private tombs,

although here the question of propinquity—i.e.,

the close location of a desired scene in other tombs

or temples—cannot be overlooked.

Is it correct that a monumental Königsnovelle

inscription was “forgotten” soon after it was com-

pleted? This is, in essence, what Loprieno has

maintained.47 It is true that the original commis-

sioning and raison d’être had past. As soon as the

well versed in the literary corpus of the Middle

Kingdom and could draw upon those sources for

their own creations.

A commissioned written work such as this one

at Abydos would have required much preliminary

work on the part of the writer or writers.43 First

and foremost, the composer would have to receive

the ideas of his ruler and no doubt converse with

him concerning the structure and outlook for the

final version. Then too, the use of literary figures

of speech, stylistic maneuvers, and explicit signals

connected with the royal aspect would, for the

most part, have been approved by the reigning

king.44 Any such draft would have to be corrected

and improved with regard to the final wish of

the Pharaoh and also of the author. Therefore,

behind a final version were pre-existent models,

especially when the author wished to include a

series of epithets, lengthy praises (whether they

be poetical or not), and commonplace metaphors,

similes or the like.

The narrative scaffolding of a Königsnovelle

would have been learnt by the author at a time of

apprenticeship. The common temporal settings,

introductions, and transitional passages must have

been known to the composer. I suspect that they

were part and parcel of the highest level in the

literate sector of the society. We are, after all, not

discussing the question of writing by accountant

scribes or bureaucrats. Their script is easy to dis-

tinguish from the clear even hand of the few liter-

chapter one12

Köhler; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003), 77-98 presents an overview of the encomia of Dynasties XIX-XX. The Dedicatory Inscription is covered in this analysis.

51 These words are so crucial that a detailed bibliography of the subject is necessary: Constantin Emil Sander-Hansen, “Der Gebrauch des Verbums Épr als Hilfsverbum in Alt- und Mittelägyptischen,” in Miscellanea Gregoriana, raccolta di scritti pubblicati nel I centenario dalla fondazione del Pont. Museo egizio (1839-1939) (Vatican City: Tip. poliglotta vaticana, 1941), 193-4 is always useful; but see Hans Goedicke, The Protocol of Neferyt (Baltimore; Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), 53 and note his key reference to Urk. I 184.12. The Middle Kingdom use of the introduction is established.

Add Urk. IV 26.12 (Ahmose) with Posener, “Le conte de Néferkarè et du général Siséné. (Recherches littéraires VI),” RdE 11 (1957): 123 (the Story of Neferkare and the General Sisene) and pages 132-3 where he notes the Apophis-Seqenenre Story as well. But see as well the Berlin Leather Roll, the last major edition being that of Jürgen Osing, “Zu zwei literarischen Werken des Mittleren Reiches,” in The Heritage of Ancient Egypt. Studies in Honour of Erik Iversen (ed. Jürgen Osing and Erland Kolding Nielsen; Copenha-gen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1992), 109-19: Épr Èmst m d îdw.

There are two discussions of these opening clauses with Épr in Mark Collier’s studies “A note on the syntax of Épr and omitted impersonal subjects in late egyptian,” Wepwawet 2

48 Inter alia, see Assmann, “Kulturelles Gedächtnis als nor mative Erinnerung. Das Prinzip ‘Kanon’ in der Erin-nerungskultur Ägyptens und Israels,” Memoria als Kultur (ed. Otto Gerhard Oexle; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup-recht, 1995), 95-114, Das kulturelle Gedächtnis (Munich C. H. Beck, 1992), and Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism, Cambridge MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1997).

49 E.g., the Bentresh Stela, Greek traditions of “Sesostris,” and the account of Germanicus in Egypt. Some of these will be found in my analysis of the presumed spelling BÉtn in “On the Bentresh Stela and Related Problems,” JSSEA 8 (1977-78): 11-18. Note also Scott N. Morschauser, “Using History: Reflections on the Bentresh Stela,” SAK 15 (1988): 203-23; and now Loprieno, La pensée et l’écriture: pour une analyse sémiotique de la culture égyptienne (Paris: Cybèle, 2001), 81-4. Robert K. Ritner has recently given us a revised translation of the Bentresh Stela in The Literature of Ancient Egypt (3d ed.; ed. William K. Simpson; New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003), 361-6.

50 I have called these simple bimembral phrases “free variants,” following the research of Mario Liverani; see as well Chapter II notes 161-2. Claudia Maderna-Sieben, “Ausgewählte Beispiele ramessidischer Königseulogien,” in Das Königtum der Ramessidenzeit: Voraussetzungen, Verwirklichung, Vermächtnis: Akten des 3. Symposiums zur ägyptischen Königsideologie in Bonn 7.-9.6. 2001 (ed. Rolf Gundlach and Ursula Rößler-

was considered to be at the time of inauguration. Fur-

thermore, any event which was considered to be

extraordinary would have a strong effect within

the land.

There remains a nagging question. If older

texts could be found and subsequently either

reused or employed as a “quarry” for contem-

porary inscriptions, then someone must have had

the intellectual wherewithal to have known of

these earlier compositions and also where they

were. A professional cadre of scribal masters or

authors has to be posited in order to explain the

continual use of models for writing, literary or

otherwise. Mere school training would not be

enough, although I cannot but feel that the rep-

etitious practice of simple literary devices such

as A-B bimembral phrases, so common in the

introductions to royal texts of Dynasties XIX and

XX and especially in eulogies, quite possibly were

learnt by heart, if not readily available in some

“source book.”50

The Destruction of Mankind, a text that is as

well somewhat unorganized, has the same begin-

ning as the Dedicatory Inscription. Loprieno also

referred to this literary composition, but in the

context of the fluidity of mythological narrative

and Königsnovelle. It is sufficient to point out the

opening Épr swt (restored but certain) in both, a

facet that moves one into the arena of a non-dated

time.51 Given a date near the end of Dynasty

text was finished, perhaps signaled by an elabo-

rate festivity, its immediate import would have

ended. This implies that its historical resonance

had ceased to play an important role, outside of

possibly being renewed when someone arrived at

the specific location. Were the hieratic copies left

to wither away, so to speak, in archives or librar-

ies? The case of the deliberate activity of Pn-tî-

wrt is not an exception. After all, the campaign

of Ramesses II against the Hittites was of such

importance and significance that we can posit

its remembrance within the so-called “collective

mentality” of the Egyptians.48 This conclusion

is further supported by the later traditions con-

nected with the war of this Pharaoh.49 Moreover,

his foreign policy towards the Hittites remained

a source for later literary artists; see the Bentresh

Stela, for example.

But it is one thing to stress the heroic and remem-

bered deeds of a warrior Pharaoh as Ramesses

II or Thutmose III (cf. the Taking of Joppa) and

another to examine those deeds which were not

so tumultuous or epoch-making; i.e., Ramesses’

building activity at Abydos. Here, I feel, the local

and historically limited aspect of the event came

into play. At the specific site such involvement

would be remembered, if only through world of

mouth plus text (if not also picture). Loprieno’s

preliminary analysis can be retained so long as

we keep in mind the significance of the act as it

introduction 13

First Hittite Marriage account of Ramesses II and later cases (royal texts of Dynasty XXV; Satrap Stela).

The Destruction of Mankind composition should not be ignored in the context of this discussion; cf. Erik Hornung, Der ägyptische Mythos von der Himmelskuh (Freiburg and Göt-tingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 37 with note 1 on page 51 (read Épr swt wbn R #). He also discussed the common Ér m-Ét (later Ér ír m-Ét), a transitional passage that plays a crucial role in narrative stories as well.

54 “The #King’s Novel’,” 284.55 The Protocol of Neferyt, 53.56 Ibid.57 Urk. IV 26-9.5.58 KRI II 325.5-6.59 Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 191-4; cf.

Seele, The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I, 47-9.

(1985): 15-22, and “]pr and the #raising’ paradigm in middle egyptian,” Wepwawet 3 (1987): 1-10. Note that Épr.n swt > Épr swt, as expected.

There is now a new study by Sami Uljas, “]pr.n and the Genesis of Auxiliaries,” SAK 35 (2006): 327-36.

52 Urk. IV 1539a-44; with Andrea Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III (Brussels: Fondation égyptologique reine Élisabeth, 2002), 296-304.

53 A helpful commentary at this point is still that of Fritz Hintze, Untersuchungen zu Stil und Sprache neuägyptischer Erzäh-lungen I (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1950), 10-14. Monumental parallels in the XVIIIth Dynasty include this Thutmose IV example and the Restoration Inscription of Tutankhamun (Urk. IV 2025-32). Even the biography of Ahmose son of Ebana has to be brought into the discussion of literary forms contained within hieroglyphic inscriptions, although in this case the individual was not the king. Hintze also noted the

It occurred when the majesty of King Snefru,

justified,

was the benevolent (mnÉ) king in this entire

land.

One of these days came to pass when the …..

I am not sure if Goedicke’s supposition that “an

important idiomatic link” between Neferty and

the other example proffered by him is the right

conclusion.56 Nevertheless, his mention of the

Abydos stela of Ahmose deserves attention.57

The reason for this is simple. That text and the

Dedicatory Inscription are official royal monu-

ments both set up at Abydos and carved in hiero-

glyphs. By means of the opening, one is suddenly

or abruptly thrown into a non-dated temporal

framework, one in which the reader has to wait

until the full purport of the account is revealed.

In Neferty the narrative framework has as its hall-

mark the following “one of these days …..” With

Ramesses II we have to be patient because it was

felt necessary to outline the building activity of

the Pharaoh, and only in column 30 is there the

same transitional passage that allows the complete

date to be given.58 Before this, the background to

Ramesses’ visit to Abydos in year one is presented.

Not merely is a list of the planned activities of

construction given, but also the author reflects

on the actual temporal framework of the king’s

former visit. That earlier voyage, as Kitchen has

seen, predates the king’s official coronation at

Thebes and his important visit to Luxor.59

The style of the Late Egyptian Stories can be

brought into this discussion. The earlier Rames-

side ones, with their retention of older verbal

formations of a literary/narrative nature (e.g.,

the #È#.n combinations, later replaced by wn.ín.f Èr

sdm’s) reveal similar structures. One of them, Apo-

phis and Seqenenre, although palaeographically

XVIII for the destruction composition—this is

still partly controversial—we can place one of the

literary antecedents of the Dedicatory Inscription

to a time just after the reign of Akhenaton.

In similar fashion but from an earlier period of

time, the well-known Sphinx Stela of Thutmose

IV presents useful literary parallels to Ramesses

II’s Abydos text, not the least of which is its peace-

ful royal setting and the eventual building activi-

ties of the king in Giza.52 Particularly coincidental

is the king’s emphasis upon his rise to kingship.

But the Thutmose IV account contains a major

literary passage also present in Ramesses II’s nar-

rative—see in particular the section commencing

with “one of these days came to pass” (w# m nn

hrww Épr).53 Loprieno signaled the reference to this

aspect, an “episodic” one which was embedded in

a narrated mythological event.54 Once more he

linked these sections of a bare historical narrative

to a broader aspect; namely, the intertwining of

various themes within a set pattern.

Goedicke, on the other hand, paid some atten-

tion to the “literary Renaissance” in the Ramesside

Period by indicating other Egyptian compositions

that also contained this “frame-story” opening.

He turned to the Middle Kingdom story of Nefer-

kare and the General Sisene, for example, or

the better known Abydos Stela of King Ahmose

for his grandmother Tetishery, and even an

intriguing Old Kingdom text.55 His all-too-brief

comments were contained in a reedition of the

so-called Prophecy of Neferty, the beginning of

which places the ensuing account in a far away

time when Good King Snefru lived. The intro-

duction to the words of the lector Priest Neferty

establishes a quasi-mythological setting:

chapter one14

For the Astarte tale, now dated to the second half of Dynasty XVIII, see Philippe Collombert and Laurent Coulon, “Les dieux contre la mer. Le début du ‘papyrus d’Astarté’ (pBN 202),” BIFAO 100 (2000): 193-242.

63 I fail to see any major use in the Dedicatory Inscrip-tion of the Ramesside (and later) “langage de tradition” à la Pascal Vernus. See his classic study “Deux particularités de l’égyptien de tradition: nty íw + Présent I; wnn.f Èr sdm narratif,” in L’Égyptologie en 1979: Axes prioritaires de recher-ches I (Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1982), 81-9.

This composition is in many ways a masterpiece and must be examined on its own merits lest we too hastily categorize it as a commonplace Dynasty XIX royal monu-mental inscription.

64 Jean-Marie Kruchten, “From Middle Egyptian to Late Egyptian,” LingAeg 6 (1999): 1-97.

60 Hintze, Untersuchungen zu Stil und Sprache I, 8-19.61 One absence is the Non-Initial Main Sentence; note

as well the lack of Ér ír m-Ét. A wn.ín.f Èr sdm form occurs in column 40. See Hintze, ibid., 31-6 on the #È#.n- and wn.ín- forms; and pages 36-8 for sdm pw ír.n.f. Of course, the latter cases refer only to the narrative (past historical) portions of the composition.

62 Assmann hypothesized that those XVIIIth Dynasty stories published by Ricardo Caminos, Literary Fragments in the Hieratic Script (Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1956), might not go back to the Middle Kingdom: “Gibt es eine ‘Klassik’ in der ägyptischen Literaturgeschichte? Ein Beitrag zur Geistesgeschichte der Ramessidenzeit,” in XII Deutscher Orien-talistentag vom 21. bis 25. März 1983 in Tübingen: Ausgewählte Vorträge, ZDMG Supplement VI (ed. Wolfgang Röllig; Stutt-gart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1985), 48. Arguments against this position, however, remain strong; cf. Quirke, Egyptian literature 1800 BC, 206-07.

such texts as the Destruction of Mankind offer

the interested reader an important sidelight to the

present discussion, one which cannot but direct

our attention to the literary output of the early

Ramesside era.

I believe that such narrative literary patterns

such as “It occurred that …..” (Épr swt), the easy

to spot “one of these days came to pass” (column

30), or the overt use of the sdm.ín.f construction for

the commencement of speeches point to a style

that was somewhat out of date when Ramesses II

commissioned his inscription for Abydos.63 More-

over, the retention of a monumental verbal style

that can be dated to the Pre- Amarna Period has

to be noted. Although I shall go into this aspect

of the text later in Chapter II, it is sufficient to

mention the retention of the sdm.n.f in cases where

Kruchten’s “rule” applies.64 Namely, that the lin-

guistic level of the Dedicatory Inscription hear-

kens back to the Pre-Amarna epoch of Dynasty

XVIII but not considerably earlier.

The presumed fluid nature of all three com-

positions (Destruction of Mankind, Dedicatory

Inscription, and the Thutmose IV Sphinx Stela)

may be, in fact, a chimera. Can we not presuppose

a standard yet flexible use of certain key narrative

passages that served to advance the account? In

addition, could one not mix presumed genres or

subgenres in order to arrive at a linguistically ele-

vated account with strong literary aspects instead

of providing a simple bare-bones narrative? As

an example, let me cite the well-known account

of Ramesses II at Kadesh, the so-called Poem, if

only because the account comprises many units

(encomia, army daybook, etc.).

More important, I feel, is the type of literary

form employed in the Dedicatory Inscription.

dating to the reign of Merenptah but certainly

to be set earlier in Dynasty XIX, commences its

account with the rubricized Épr swt + wn.ín.60 It

is interesting, however, to see that the standard

narrative patterns in the Late Egyptian Stories are

not present in earlier Dynasty XVIII accounts,

nor for the most part in the Dedicatory Inscrip-

tion.61

Rather than a fluidity of intent on the part of

the Egyptian writers, I prefer to see a Verschmel-

zung, or better an imbedding, of one narrative style

within an account whose structure lay outside

of an narrowly defined and age-old established

genre. Perhaps it might be more correct to under-

stand the earlier Dynasty XVIII New Kingdom

exemplars (stories and certain historical accounts)

to reflect a period of time in which an established

or standard rule was still employed. This might

also apply to the first attempts of belles-lettres in sto-

ries (end Dynasty XVIII to early Dynasty XIX).

At a subsequent date, perhaps during the open-

ing years of Ramesses II for the Late Egyptian

Stories, a newer pattern took hold even though

the more formal and conservative monumental

hieroglyphic narratives still retained the Classical

literary approach. (See, for example, the opening

use of Épr swt in the Dedicatory Inscription.)

On the other hand, there is evidence of a formal

literary narrative outlook in Dynasty XVIII out-

side of hieratic literature (e.g., Thutmose IV’s

Sphinx Stela). Owing to this it might be better

to direct our attention away from the hitherto

assumed lack of contemporary literary stories in

Pre-Amarna Dynasty XVIII and to press forward

with the few but nonetheless useful “traces” of

narrative literary patterns in monumental hiero-

glyphic inscriptions of that era.62 Most certainly,

introduction 15

national in scope at an earlier date, Titles and bureaux of Egypt 1850-1700 BC (London: Golden House, 2004), 12.

68 See also note 51 above for the use of Épr. Kitchen’s translation is in his Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 164.

69 Urk. IV 1541.1; cf. Assmann, “Eulogie, Königs-,” Lexikon der Ägyptologie II 45 and note 33. For the text, see Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III, 223-34.

70 Urk. IV 2025-32.

65 See notes 53 and 61 above.66 A general summary will be found in Loprieno “The

#King’s Novel’,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: His-tory and Forms, 290-4.

67 Littérature et politique, 30. The Kubban Stela of Ramesses II parallels it exactly; see note 42 above. For this reason, among others, one can hypothesize that a careful use of the previous literary (or Classical) style was a hallmark of the early years of Ramesses II. As Quirke observes, the title “sealbearer of the king” indicated that the official was

Normally when royal inscriptions containing

a historical purport were written the beginning

commenced with a regal date (not necessarily

complete) followed immediately by the king’s

name. Then would follow a series of epithets,

the first often including the full titulary of the

Pharaoh. This became an increasingly larger and

larger component of the composition, till often—

especially in the Ramesside Period—it tended to

overwhelm the subsequent account. This intro-

ductory portion was followed by the historical

core that often continued to the end of the text.

Otherwise, one can find additional epithets or

at least non-narrative passages rounding off the

whole account.

Such was not followed here. The author of

the Dedicatory Inscription eschewed the standard

method of narrative presentation and eliminated

all such introductory elements. We do not find,

for example, the lengthy epithets of the king as

expressed by Amunhotep II in his Sphinx Stela

or in Ramesses’ First Hittite Marriage inscrip-

tions. Equally, the background is not enunciated

by the particle íst + subject (the king) with an

adverbial phrase indicating spatial location such

as: “Now his majesty was a youth as Horus in

Chemmis.”69

The Restoration Stela of Tutankhamun

reveals a similar process, earlier in time, which

was employed for such Königsnovelle accounts.70

Its arrangement and set-up reveal the standard

practice of an earlier age, albeit at a time after the

Amarna interlude, but it is useful to employ this

narration as a counterpoise to the Dedicatory

Inscription. The following is a sketchy outline of

the structure.

I. Date plus titulary. II. Series of Epithets. III. Narrative portion. a. Introduction with íst. b. Background to the ensuing king’s decision covered; the temporal aspect predates the purpose of the text. IV. Second narrative portion.

As indicated earlier, it follows earlier models

rather than contemporary ones. Those present

in the Late Egyptian Stories, so well analyzed by

Hintze many years ago, are virtually absent.65 As

previously stated, we are faced with forms that

hearken back to the preceding dynasty, indeed

within the Pre-Amarna Period. And even if we

posit a gradual development of the narrative style

in the Late Egyptian Stories—as Hintze did in

his lengthy study—one conclusion still remains.

Namely, that by the first year of Ramesses’ king-

ship, the arrangement for belles-lettres stories was

already in place. Moreover, the Destruction of

Mankind, as many have observed, presents its

historical/mythological account at the beginning.

Though not short, this narrative portion of the

work is followed by a more detailed etiology, an

explanatory section that, properly speaking, is out

of place within the total picture of the Königsno-

velle.66 Hence, the “episodic” nature of the com-

position, to employ Loprieno’s felicitous term, is

abandoned at a point for the description of the

creation of the heaven, the sky, and its related

components. In many ways one can view the

Destruction text as a first step, indeed a major

one, in the development of Egyptian (narrative)

mythology.

In contrast, the Dedicatory Inscription is so

regular in presentation, especially at the begin-

ning, that it is worthwhile to shed some new light

on the method employed by the author to orga-

nize his historical material. As has been seen, the

text hearkens back to earlier models. In fact, it

was Posener who was the first to note the Middle

Kingdom (Dynasty XII) reflex in column 37, the

point where the king addresses his “seal bearer”

(Étmty-bíty).67 We can place equal weight on the

opening two words, Épr swt, “now there came into

being.”68 The latter, often discussed, would at

first glance throw us immediately into the seem-

ingly story-like or even mythological aspect. The

context of the inscription, however, negates this

supposition.

chapter one16

71 See note 53 above for Hintze’s work.

Westcar. These are, in fact, two major points pre-

sented by Hintze when he described the style of

historical and literary narrative texts preceding his

own corpus, that of the Late Egyptian Stories.71

The movement from a royal to a private sphere

can be partly observed in the military account

of Ahmose son of Ebana, but we must keep in

mind that the soldier’s narrative is embedded in

the deeds of his Pharaohs, all of which serve as

a heading to the man’s own virile deeds. But at

that time, and most certainly down through the

entire XVIIIth Dynasty, we find no change in

the literary style of these accounts.

a. Introduction by the literary Ér m-Ét hrww swî(w) Èr nn.

b. Infinitive plus subject (the king) then follow; a spatial location is given. c. Epithets continue. d. Introduction with íst. e. Narrative formations advance the time frame; e.g., wn.ín Èr sdm; wnn.f Èr sdm.

I have cited this case to show how commonplace

were the standard or “Classical” narrative con-

structions at the close of the XVIIIth Dynasty.

Tutankhamun’s stela reflects earlier times by pre-

senting an approach that also can be seen in P.

the text: translation and detailed analysis 17

f. Participle (àrí ) g. Participle (Éws) h. Participle (nm#) g to i: 3 deeds for new construction i. Participle (smn) j. Concluding summary (s#È#) NAMES OF KING AND FATHER; END AND PAUSE l. Initial sdm.f (wîÈ.f ); performances done.

3 This backdrop sets us in a semi-mythical narrative akin to the commencement of the Destruction of Mankind text which was written ca. late Dynasty XVIII: see Hornung, Der ägyptische Mythos von der Himmelskuh; Nadine Guilhou, La Vieillesse des dieux (Montpellier: Publications de la recher-che, Université de Montpellier, 1989); and Spalinger, “The Destruction of Mankind: A Transitional Literary Text,” SAK 28 (2000): 257-82.

4 The structure of this triplet is simple. They refer to Osiris/Seti vis-à-vis Ramesses. The slightly different struc-ture of the third, purposely longer than the preceding two, serves as an effective balance to the preceding short phrases. The king’s name ends this opening. Then follows the more narrative presentation. Note the reflection of Ramesses “fashioning” the statue of his father Seti.

5 This is the situation which impressed Assmann. This small introduction section is in the eulogistic style, but it also highlights the building activities of the king. Hence, these columns form a detailed heading to the entire composition, and thus the date of the inscription was placed later in the composition. I regard this as supportive of Assmann’s discovery. Namely, that the presentation of the account didnot follow the standard Königsnovelle pattern.

One useful parallel to this intense filial piety can be

at the beginning of monumental hieroglyphic

inscriptions; no five-fold titulary is presented.

Instead, we read:2

It came to pass:

a son who avenges/d his father like Horus when

he avenged Osiris,3

who formed the one who formed him (qd qd

sw),

who fashioned the one who fashioned him (ms

ms sw),

who caused to live the name of the one who

begot him (s#nÉ rn n wtt sw),4

the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Woser-

maatre-setepenre the son of Re whom he loved,

the lord of diadems, Ramesses-meryamun,

given life like Re forever, beloved of Osiris,

the lord of Abydos.

The official titulary is absent but in its place is the

emphasis upon the filial aspect (Ramesses to Seti).5

This sentence is a carefully written and slowly

presented heading to the inscription. Serving

A. Introduction: Historical Setting and

Opening Encomia

The Dedicatory Inscription presents a system at

odds to every composition hitherto discussed. Not

only are there a number of the ritualized speeches

by Ramesses and Seti, but also the close atten-

tion which the king directs towards his father

automatically separates this lengthy composition

from other Königsnovelle productions. Ramesses

is not just a dutiful son following in the steps of

the one who engendered him. He is also a young

and virile ruler whose opening words in the text

overtly reveal his personal if not intimate rela-

tionship to his father. The commencement of the

account is therefore crucial for any understanding

of the purport because it announces this father-

son theme. Assmann, who remarked upon the

unusual “titulary” of the king, first pointed out

this unexpected situation.1 The text avoids the

expected names of the Pharaoh that one finds

1 “Das Bild des Vaters im alten Ägypten,” in Das Vaterbild in Mythos und Geschichte, (ed. Hubertus Tellenbach; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1976), 12-49 and page 36 for the analysis.

Assmann later discussed the eulogistic style with regard to royal inscriptions in “Zeitkonstruktion, Vergangenheits-bezug, und Geschichtbewußtstein im alten Ägypten,” in Der Ursprung der Geschichte (ed. Jan Assmann and Klaus E. Müller; Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2005), 139. (The monumental royal inscriptions present an eulogistic as well as a “reporting” section.) On page 141 he also points out one aspect of early Ramesside royal hieroglyphic inscriptions that dealt with the reigns of previous kings and the Dedicatory Inscription is included in his survey.

2 KRI II 324.10-11.The style is eulogistic, a fact which is implicitly indicated

in Kitchen’s translation in Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 164-5. But the presence of narrative formations after the king’s two names moves one into a different stylistic arrangement, but one still oriented to an eulogy.

The opening narrative passage operates through an initial nominal sdm.n.f—#È#.n nb tîwy—which provides the date, theme, and recent rise to kingship. This is followed by a series of continuative sdm.n.f forms (ms.n.f, and wÈm.n.f ) all of which stress the king’s physical activities. Note the two sdm.n.f Relative Forms as well: qd.n.f, mr.n.f.

With the renewal of restoration work come the data. 1. Outline a. Participle (s#nÉ) b. Participle (msí ) c. Participle (dít + Ètpw) d. Participle (àps) a to f: 6 deeds related to cult e. Participle (sdf î)

chapter two

THE TEXT: TRANSLATION AND DETAILED ANALYSIS

chapter two18

composition and the Dedicatory Inscription is thus clear. Ramesses II “awakens” Seti and speaks to him at Abydos. Moreover, the orientation is a positive rather than a nega-tive one. Yet the father-son connection remains.

For the pragmatic situation of a text’s performance, see now Loprieno, “Literature as Mirror of Social Institutions: The Case of the Eloquent Peasant,” LingAeg 8 (2000): 194.

8 Regarding the newer style of the Late Egyptian Stories: Hintze, Untersuchungen zu Stil und Sprache I, passim, especially pages 19-20 and 257. I place great emphasis on the grow-ing changes that saw the rise of wn.ín- and the end of the #È#.n- formations. The rise of the Conjunctive can be noted as well. A time frame after Seti I appears certain, and from the evidence that Hintze assembled (see the Two Brothers in particular), I would see the literary transformation in the Ramesside Stories complete by the reign of Merenptah.

seen in the Great Papyrus Harris, a document drawn upsoon after Ramesses IV became Pharaoh.

For the importance of the verb qd, literally “to build,” see Assmann, “Die ‘Loyalistische Lehre’ Echnatons,” SAK 8 (1980): 5-6 note 19. He discusses its relevance concerning the creation of a king through a divinity and its contrast to írí and sÉpr. The word qd has a personal connection that is associated with individuality. Most recently, note Vernus, “Une conspiration contre Ramsès III,” Égypte. Afrique et orient 35 (2004): 14, 19-20 note 27.

6 See Goedicke, Studies in “The Instructions of King Amenemhet I for His Son” (San Antonio: Van Siclen Books, 1988). The edition of John D. Foster, “The Conclusion to The Testament of Ammenemes, King of Egypt,” JEA 67 (1981): 36-47 provides the confirmation of the king’s assassination.

7 Foster, “The Testament of Ammenemes,” 46. The dead king is now in the bark of Re. The difference between this

that same basic constellation, but the theme in the

Dedicatory text, however, is very different. At the

minimum, negative attitudes are totally absent.

Moreover, the emphasis is spatially located at

Abydos and the temporal background, which took

place originally in the king’s first regnal year,

is an additional factor at odds with the Teach-

ing of Amenemhet. In the former composition

the events narrated describe Ramesses’ visit to

Abydos after his coronation. Subsequently, he

had his words memorialized in stone. Outside of

the final speech of dead king to living son in the

Middle Kingdom composition, no overt paral-

lel can be drawn between that literary piece and

Ramesses’.7

It would carry our speculations over and

beyond the border of plausibility to maintain

that there was a direct influence of this piece of

Dynasty XII classical literature upon Ramesses’

composition. On the other hand, the strong inter-

est in the framework of the Königsnovelle and the

specific resonances of an earlier literary style

indicate an effect outside that of contemporary

stories, post Amarna “blues,” and the newer

style of monumental writing that developed in

Dynasty XIX.8 Moreover, the persistence of the

Teaching of Amenemhet to Sesostris within a

literate cadre of society (Deir el Medineh) and

elsewhere cannot be swept aside. But the inti-

mate connection between Ramesses and Seti is

far greater than the relationship of father-son in

that Dynasty XII literary composition, and I have

little doubt that the impetus for the Dedicatory

Inscription must lie elsewhere than considering

it to be a revival of an older intellectual or emo-

tional framework. (Note that in his study on lit-

erature in the XIIth Dynasty Posener referred

to the Prophecy of Neferty rather than to the

Teaching of Amenemhet in the context of this

as a heading, albeit in an indirect manner, it

nonetheless is linked to the passages that imme-

diately follow, all of which lay out the desires of

the Pharaoh at Abydos, with the proposed build-

ing activity emphasized.

But we must place some weight upon the

absence of the official if not standard commence-

ment to royal monuments. This may have to do

with the cultic setting of much of the account;

namely, its eulogistic side. Yet I also feel that the

personal aspect of the king, his deep devotion

to his father, is not merely a by-product of the

actual setting, Abydos. We shall see that from the

central portion to the end the text concentrates

upon Seti’s relationship to his son (rather than

the inverse). That is to say, the now dead king is

brought onto the stage and his relationship to the

young Ramesses, his nominated heir and regent,

is presented. There, one finds a remarkable pic-

ture of the two men: the intense, almost romantic,

devoted son and the equally loving father. This

aspect, I feel, could not have been painted within

a standard, albeit Königsnovelle oriented, account.

For this reason alone the expected introduction

to the composition was avoided.

The only useful parallel that occurs within the

extant Egyptian literature that has been preserved

is the well-known Teaching of Amenemhet I to

Sesostris I.6 Unfortunately, there is no indication

in the Dedicatory Inscription of any direct or indi-

rect borrowing from that famous piece of Middle

Kingdom literature. It must be kept in mind that

the theme of the Teaching was on ingratitude

and the successful assassination of Amenemhet.

That is to say, the main aspect was negative; such

an attitude did not mesh with Ramesses’ goals.

The Middle Kingdom composition is also placed

within the common literary framework of a father

to son teaching. Granted that at Abydos we have

the text: translation and detailed analysis 19

and Legitimacy in Ancient Egypt (Chicago: The Oriental Insti-tute of the University of Chicago, 1997), 69-73 with 81-2 concerning the dí.n(.í ) n.k phrase. In this connection some of Kruchten’s conclusions may have to be revised.

11 KRI II 324.12-15.12 Here, I assume that the opening msy.n.f could be a

nominalized verbal formation.13 The term for these “images” or “statues,” sàmw, is a

most common one within the Dedicatory Inscription and elsewhere in Seti’s temple. I will later cover the signifi-cance of the term and its importance for understanding the cultic activities.

14 When Seti is referred to this way Ramesses wants to indicate a more personal connection to his father.

15 I will stress this passage later. For the moment see Kitchen’s comments in Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Com-ments II, 195-6 where he discusses the statuary building activities of the king.

The order of these phrases is significant: first Ramesses becomes king, then he “fashions” Seti’s images, and finally he commences work at Abydos.

16 Hence, it is claimed that Ramesses built two temples for Seti and that they both contained the sàmw cult stat-ues. This point will be reiterated below with respect to the account of columns 53 and 68, but observe that this must have started before the king’s visit to Abydos.

17 The incredibly long and somewhat intricate sen-tence cannot be overlooked. This is a key to understanding Ramesses’ personal feelings towards Abydos, Wenennefer, and Seti. But the newly crowned king also relates that his early building activity was in Memphis (Hutkaptah) and Thebes (only Waset is mentioned) and not at Abydos.

9 Littérature et politique, 30.10 KRI II 324.12; Kruchten, “From Middle Egyptian to

Late Egyptian.” His basic conclusions are as follows: (1) for the nominal(ized) sdm.n.f/mrr.f form he notes the change to sdm.f and disappearance of the reduplication ca. the end of Dynasty XVIII, “most probably around the Amarna period” (page 23); (2) for the predicative equivalents, one can date the loss of the -n- to the close of Dynasty XVII; and (3) for the sdm.n.f Relative Form the second rule applies. There is a summary presented on page 48.

One difficulty with the analysis is that it does not take into consideration the genre of the text or, in fact, the var-iegated subsections, each possessing its own linguistic mode that might occur within a single document. The Kadesh Poem of Ramesses II is a good case. In that narrative the opening praise, a eulogy, has to be separated from the lengthy narrative that immediately follows. Moreover, the latter must be spliced into at least two different portions as the sober Classical narrative alters to something else ca. P 91. At that point, the language becomes more colloquial, speeches occur, and the war diary no longer forms a skel-eton for the narrative.

In similar fashion, the Late Egyptian Miscellanies, so well explained by Edward Frank Wente—“The Syntax of Verbs of Motion in Egyptian” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1959), 74-9—must be treated differently than other Dynasty XIX texts, whether they are on papyri (Late Egyptian Stories) or on stone (royal monuments).

With respect to the use of the sdm.n.f in religious scenes, see L. V. Zabkar, “A Hymn to Osiris Pantocrator at Philae. A Study of the Main Functions of the Sdm.f Form in Egyp-tian religious Hymns,” ZÄS 108 (1981): 141-71 and the summary of Emily Teeter, The Presentation of Maat: Ritual

Here we reach the background of the narrative.

The style of the verbal formations hearkens back

to a previous epoch—one preceding the Amarna

Period—in the use of the sdm.n.f. See in particular:

#È#.n nb tîwy; msy.n.f ; wÈm.n.f. We can add here as

well the sdm.n.f Relative Forms in columns 26, 27,

and 28. Developed by the writer are short inter-

ruptions to the account, or to be more accurate,

brief interpolations, all of which serve to specify

the king’s decision making:11

I. Then it was in order to act as champion of

his father that the lord of the two land arose

as king, corresponding to regnal year one,

during his first voyage to Thebes.

II. When12 he fashioned images13 of his father

(Menmaatre was the king)14—one in

Thebes and the other15 in Memphis—

in the temple(s) that he built for them16,

and in excess of the perfection/beauty of

which is in Abydos of the Thinite Nome,

the district which he loved, the desire of

is heart since he was on earth, the ground

of Wenennefer.17

This approach serves to clarify the historical

setting. Otherwise we would be at a loss to

text.)9 All in all, I prefer to set the initial narrative

framework within the bygone Classical models of

pre-Amarna Dynasty XVIII or the Middle King-

dom, but I also place it in a category separate

from earlier historical “publications.”

The beginning of the Dedicatory Inscription,

narrowly speaking, does not present a major break

from earlier Königsnovelle inscriptions. The ideal-

ized and partly backgrounding through Épr swt

effects a useful non-temporal setting in which the

author can focus upon the father-son connec-

tion. Only after this opening passage is the son

(Ramesses) under specific scrutiny; his rise to king-

ship is immediately mentioned. Significantly, the

latter idea is conveyed through a sdm.n.f of a verb

of motion which, following Kruchten’s recent dis-

cussion, probably is be taken as a nominalized

form: “Then it was in order to act as champion

for/of his father that the lord of the two lands

arose as king …..” (#È#.n nb tîwy m nswt r írt ndty

Èr ít.f ).10 This presents the first narrative devel-

opment in the text and it significantly follows

upon the conclusion to column 25 that parallels

opening phrases in various royal stelae or other

similar inscriptions. (And once more the king’s

name forms an effective caesura.)

chapter two20

that Ramesses noted upon his arrival in Abydos was the need for this additional construction.

21 This is difficult to comprehend. I assume that the phrase “outside and inside” refers to Seti’s temple and its immediate environs.

22 The epithet should remind us of the military outlook of the Ramesside warrior Pharaohs (if not earlier) and the epithet of the new Delta Residence at Pi-Ramesses.

23 The overriding importance of the phrase “Osiris King” will be treated later in this discussion. For the moment, see the important remarks of Eberhard Otto, “Eine Darstel-lung der ‘Osiris-Mysterien’ in Theben,” in Festschrift für Siegfried Schott zu seinem 70. Geburtstag (ed. Wolfgang Helck; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1968), 99-105. It is closely con-nected to the theme of Seti as a “god.” See our comments later in this study. For the moment, the reader is directed to Otto’s comments on page 100 and note 6 of his study. He observed the combination “Osiris king” (nswt) in the Gournah temple of Seti, and laid emphasis upon the Osirian mysteries both in there and in Seti’s at Abydos.

24 Hence, these activities are assumed to have been completed. While I do not wish to maintain that all of the work was completed at the time that this document was “published,” it is noteworthy that Kitchen places the composition not later than year four of Ramesses (Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 194-5) and dates “the final draft and the carving to Year 2 at earliest.” I concur, but this would mean that the bulk of his architectural activity on Seti I’s Abydene temple was completed at around the same time. See also my comments in Chapter I with note 126 below, covering Kitchen’s earlier analysis of the date.

18 KRI II 324.15-325.4. If we follow Kruchten, we can convey a nominalized verbal formation here.

19 The past tense is clear. We must remember that the Dedicatory Inscription was written and later approved by Ramesses after he left Abydos. All of these building activi-ties must have been completed in the future. In addition, they are presented by means of the most general of terms with details subsequently included.

The mention of the “pillars” is also significant. Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 169, argued that Ramesses is refer-ring to pillars at the back of the first court instead of at the portico and the finishing of blank walls. Ramesses further informs us that he has resumed the monumental work for Seti. This indicates that previously work had been progress-ing until a cessation of that activity occurred. In this case the workmen were busy with Ramesses II’s own temple (and possibly the Osireion as well: Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 177); now this will change.

The later reference in column 34 is more clear: wîww r Épr m tp àw.

20 This is a common topos, especially within Königsnovelle texts. See Elke Blumenthal, “Die Koptosstele des Königs Rahotep (London U.C. 14327),” in Endesfelder et al., Ägypten und Kusch, 68-9. “Ruined” is actually not a correct transla-tion. Ramesses finished the work on his father’s temple and also expanded construction in the front (west side); see the remarks in column 34.

The aspects conveyed in the second half refer to building activities while in contrast the first covers statues and offer-ings and more inscriptional work. Among other deficiencies

declared program.24 It is noteworthy that the nar-

rative has yet to announce this fact; the royal

command has yet to be given. Hence, we are pre-

sented with an indirect method of presentation,

one in which the anticipation of the task’s completion

precedes the so-called Königsnovelle speech. This is

most easy to see in the repetition of the key Egyp-

tian words in columns 28 and 57-8: àrí wà (both);

nm# ínbw (both); àps pr.f and Èbs pr.f; Éws íwnw and

àp íwnw. One can add s#È# (columns 28 and 36, the

second with íwnw) and mnq (columns 36 and 56).

Although we shall find a greater communality of

vocabulary in other portions of this text, it must

still remain striking that the account persists in its

intent by repeating the building activities of the

king with almost the same terminology used.

This excerpt by no means ends so evenly. On

the contrary, the lengthy sentence, which some

might regard as replete with pauses, resembles a

developed periodic sentence. It continues with a

reference to Seti I whose name, not unexpectedly,

concludes this subsection. Ramesses points to his

father. But at this juncture a short series of sdm.f

formations follows. I prefer to regard them as

simple declarations of the past deeds of the king,

resulting from Ramesses’ performative activities,

and thus separate and distinct from the previous

determine when the event occurred and to/for

whom was it oriented.

The subsequent and third progression will

be found in column 27, also with an opening

wÈm.n.f .18

III. He repeated renewing the monument(s) for

his father who is in the cemetery,19

vivifying his name,

fashioning his images,

causing food offerings to remain for his ka,

enriching his house,

supplying his altars,

filling up that which was lacking in the

temple which he loved,

building up pillars in his shrine,

dressing its walls,

establishing its doors,

erecting what was “incomplete”20 in this seat

of his father in the district of O[siris …

which was done] outside and inside21

through everything which the Great of

Strength,22 the King of Upper and Lower

Egypt, Woser-maatre-setepenre the son

of Re Ramesses-meryamun, given life, does

for his father, Osiris, King [Menmaatre]

justified.23

At this point, the king’s activities are recounted,

and all of them form part of Ramesses’ officially

the text: translation and detailed analysis 21

prt-Érw et la filiation ms(t).n/ír(t).n comme critères de data-tion dans les textes du Moyen Empire,” in Individu, société et spiritualité dans l’Égypte pharaonique et copte (ed. Christian Cannuyer and Jean-Marie Kruchten; Ath, Brussels, and Mons: Illustra, 1993), 170-200.

29 The number of military men who were mn# n sî (or sît) nswt in Dynasty XVIII was first brought to attention by Wolfgang Helck, Der Einfluß der Militärführer in der 18. ägyptischen Dynastie, (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1939), 35-6.

30 Peter F. Dorman, The Monuments of Senenmut: Problems in Historical Methodology (London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1988), 171, appears to have difficulties in understanding the title ít mn# that Senenmut held. He prefers the general term “tutor” for mn#. Males, however, can be “nurses.” Betsy Bryan, “The Title ‘Foster Brother of the King’,” JSSEA 9 (1979): 117-23 added some per-tinent details concerning the presumed “foster brother of the king,” sn n mn# n nswt.

31 “Making” (írí ) is nonetheless not the same as “beget-ting” (msí ). Not surprisingly, the latter verb is employed with statues because the act of “fashioning” (msí ) involves “conception.” The lexical term msí is both literally and metaphorically connected to creation. After all, were not royal and private statues more than merely carved stone objects? In ancient Egypt did they not have a “soul”?

25 See my comments in note 10 above regarding Kruchten’s important study.

26 KRI II 325.4-5.The constant theme of the “heart” in this text, con-

nected to mind as well as spirit (and love). will be discussed below, but in this context see the summary analysis of Assmann, “Zur Geschichte des Herzens im alten Ägypten,” in Studien zur religiösen Anthropologie: Die Erfindung des inneren Menschen. Studien zum Verstehen fremder Religion 6 (ed. Jan Ass-mann; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1993), 81-112. Hellmut Brunner’s work avoids the Dedicatory Inscription even though its has important ramifications for this study; cf. his first three articles in Das hörende Herz: Kleine Schriften zur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte Ägyptens (ed. Wolfgang Röllig; Freiburg: Uni-versitätsverlag, 1988).

It is remarkable that this inscription is rarely covered from a human dimension. Cannot we claim that Ramesses truly and deeply “loves” his father? Cf. the commonly repeated lexical terms wtt (columns 25 and 30), mn#, msí, and qd.

27 Detlef Franke, Altägyptische Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen im Mittleren Reich Hamburg: Borg, 1983) is the definitive study concerned with family relations.

28 I am aware of the early Dynasty XII change with respect to the terms of filiation; i.e., the increasing use of írí for older msí. For this fact, see Claude Obsomer, “Dí.f

self solely with his father. His activities directed

towards Seti include the concepts of “fashioning”

(statues, with msí ), and constructing (walls, pillars).

The constant repetition of the theme of filial duty

and love cannot be overlooked.

Nonetheless, the word mn# is also employed.

To us today the concept of “rearing a child” is

no longer women’s work.29 But most certainly

the role of “wet nurse” (mn#/mn#t) was not purely

reserved to females; Senenmut is a prime coun-

terexample.30 Thus I find it not astounding that

Ramesses’ chief scribe and author of this compo-

sition has introduced the verb mn# parallel to wtt.

The first, basically female in outlook, nevertheless

is a very personal one. It connotates a relationship

of upbringing, a word that encompasses intimacy

and a temporal sequence; as such, it is to be con-

trasted to a brief act (írí ) of masculine engender-

ing, and most certainly contains within its locus

far more than mere production on the part of a

father (wtt; see column 57 as well).31

Ramesses in fact uses the word mn# on two other

occasions in this text. In columns 47-8 there is:

“It was Menmaatre who reared/nourished (mn#)

me; and it was when I was a child (hrd) until I

ruled that the All Lord himself made me great

(s#î).” The simple grammatical means of fronting

for emphasis indicates the king’s devout attention

upon the role of his father. Nowhere else in the writ-

ten record of Pharaonic Egypt is this concept so boldly

and so frequently stressed. A glance at column 61 is

useful, even if it is broken: “a [progeny/heir ??],

past oriented (and probably nominal) sdm.n.f ’s.25

The sentence is straightforward.26

He [set up] for him offerings, supplied with

food endowments for his names among

the kings;

his wish (íb) being <well> disposed (ímî) to

the one who begot (wtt) him,

his desire (Èîty) caring (phr) for the one who

reared (mn#) him.

The parallelism at this stage in the narration is

self-evident although I feel that a brief remark

upon the words in the above selection deserves

some explication.

The concepts of begetting and engendering

are a common refrain in this literature. Indeed,

whenever the father-son relationship comes to

be discussed such verbs as írí (the male activity)

and msí (the female activity) are de rigueur.27 But

the additional term mn#, “to succor,” “to rear,”

“to bring up,” has to be brought into the dis-

cussion. Granted that at Abydos we have two

fathers (Osiris and Seti) and two sons (Horus and

Ramesses). Therefore, the key terms of filiation are

automatic. See, for example, the repetition of qd

qd sw and ms ms sw right at the start in column 25.

And here msí instead of írí is employed, perhaps

indirectly pointing to Ramesses’ wish to “fashion”

(msí ) statues for his dead father.28 How much this

was due to a male point of view can be best left

to social historians. For the moment, however,

the issue remains that Ramesses connects him-

chapter two22

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

37 KRI II 325.5-6 with Kitchen’s remarks in Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 191-2.

32 KRI II 329.7; see Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Trans-lations II, 169.

33 Naturally, the question of “personal piety” can be brought into the argument. But in the Dedicatory Inscrip-tion we are faced with the deep filial attitude proclaimed by son to father. In general, see Assmann’s detailed con-tribution in “Weisheit, Loyalismus und Frömmigkeit,” in Studien zu altägyptischen Lebenslehren (ed. Erik Hornung and Othmar Keel; Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979), 11-72.

34 Urk. IV 14-24.6. See now Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III, 25-34.

35 Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 519-23; see “Eulogie, Königs-,” Lexikon der Ägyptologie, II 41; and “Zur Geschichte des Herzens,” 102 note 25.

of this one common word of filiation—the least

“romantic” if also the least “emotive” of all of

the aspects in a father-son relationship—cannot

be a result of mere happenstance. I believe that

Ramesses’ close and personal relationship towards

his father transcended any connection to the mere

fact of procreation. After all, words for heart, both

íb and Èîty, occur frequently (often with phr), and

so reveal this key intimate aspect of Ramesses.

A second inscription of the Pharaoh Ahmose,

which we shall have occasion to refer to later,

reveals a similar attitude.34 This text, a freestand-

ing stela, was erected at Karnak to commemo-

rate an official reception of the king and his wife

Ahhotep. The eulogistic nature of the key sections

was not ignored by Assmann who placed the com-

position into the same category of hymns as the

later eulogies in the Dedicatory text35 Additional

uses of the concept “heart” may be found in his

detailed study, although it is to be observed that

its metaphoric employment as well as its combi-

nation with other words was part and parcel of

royal eulogies. Indeed, two excellent cases may be

brought forwards from the late XVIIIth Dynasty

under Amunhotep III.36

But the Dedicatory Inscription is not quite

ready to move in this direction in such a whole-

hearted manner. Instead, by means of the transi-

tional passage of “One of these days came to pass

…..” the historical core of the account is presented

in which pre-existent “Classical” models rather

than contemporary ones were desired. In addi-

tion, the date now had to be given.37

One of this days came to pass in regnal year one,

the third month of Inundation, day 23, [when

his majesty ?] came after causing Amun to travel

south to Opet.

At least two sdm.n.f verbal formations, one in tran-

sitive (pr.n.f ) and one transitive ( fqî.n.f ), follow, with

it looks after its ‘nourisher’ (mn#).”32 Whatever the

exact wording of this sentence is, once more the

role of Ramesses towards his father is indicated

with the word mn#.

Other repetitions of vocabulary and set phrases

will be covered subsequently, but for the moment

I wish to throw some needed light upon this con-

cept of “upbringing.” Naturally, it can be coun-

tered that we are at Abydos, and where else is

the father (Osiris)-son (Horus) relationship so

intimate? Where else could Ramesses express

himself in this way? Father Amun most certainly

did not bring him up. Nor did Osiris. It was his

physical father Seti whose unfinished building

that Ramesses II now will undertake to complete

who is over and over again placed in the fore-

front. He is remembered, loved, and cared for

after his death.

The nourisher Seti—and he probably is

regarded that way even in the final speech of his

at the conclusion of this narrative (column 120,

unfortunately broken)—is at the heart of his son’s

thoughts and feelings. Repetition of vocabulary

assists in distinguishing this unexpected aspect

once more. For example, we can note the use of

íb with phr following upon Èîty with ímî in column

30 and turn to columns 45-6 (n[#t]; îms-íb; phr.f Èîty),

60 (Èr n#t), 62 (íb.k ímî), possibly 61 but there is a

break (phr.s n mn#t.s), 62 (sfn; íb.k ímî n), 101 (Èîty.í

phr), 106 (ndm íb), 107 (íb), 113 (íb, ndm íb), 114

(sbq Èîty), and 116 (… phr n.í íb.k). Some of these

references overtly indicate the two way direction

of father to son; others lay importance upon the

son’s filial activities and a series close to the end

indicates Seti’s reactions. All in all, the theme of

personal involvement is echoed by means of these

innermost feelings of either partner.33

Absent from these passages is the typical and in

fact ordinary word “to engender,” írí. This is an

observation that is pertinent because the absence

the text: translation and detailed analysis 23

of the Eleventh Dynasty,” MDAIK 14 (1956): 50; and Wolf-gang Schenkel, Memphis. Herakleopolis. Theben (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965), 240 with note b.

Irene Shirun-Grumach briefly discusses the phrase “beautiful ways” with relevance to funerary literature in Offenbarung, Orakel und Königsnovelle, 46 note 196. However, its connection to wars and expeditions is also present.

The passage in our inscription is covered by KRI II 325.9-10.

43 Junge, Einführung in die Grammatik des Neuägyptischen, 76 (top, lines 5-6). For Épr.n see now Vernus, Essai sur la conscience de l’histoire dans l’Égypte pharaonique, 86 note 324.

44 KRI II 325.10-11.45 Liturgische Lieder an den Sonnengott. Untersuchungen zur

altägyptischen Hymnik, I (Berlin: B. Hessling, 1969), 45-6; and Der König als Sonnenpriester: Ein kosmographischer Begleittext zur kultischen Sonnenhymnik in thebanischen Tempeln und Gräbern (Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1970), 31.

46 Urk. IV 1869.8. In our text the word wdyt is the same

38 “From Middle Egyptian to Late Egyptian.”39 KRI II 325.6-8. There are difficulties with the second

sentence. Kitchen provides a useful solution to the prob-lems in his translation on page 165 in Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II. My analysis is speculative.

40 KRI II 325.8-9.41 For the situation at Luxor, we have the analysis of

Lanny Bell, “ Luxor Temple and the Cult of the Royal Ka,” JNES 44 (1985): 251-94. There is a useful parallel in Seti’s temple as well, see our comments later in this discussion.

We must remember that our terms “crowning” and “coronation,” in a technical sense, are not Egyptian con-cepts. First there was accession, and this was followed by repeated “appearances” thereafter. Chapter I of Redford’s work, History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967) is always useful in this context.

42 Turin 1447: Gardiner, “The First King Mentuhotpe

of Kruchten makes perfect sense here. Perhaps of

some significance is the absence of any father-son

relationship at this point. The Pharaoh’s role at

Luxor was considerably different than his subse-

quent Abydene presentation. At the former, he

was united with his father Amun and, if we are to

follow modern scholarship, then he was officially

crowned.41 Later, he arrived at Abydos and there

his personal feelings emerged.

In the next passage the narrative progresses,

albeit without any key literary formations:

When (?) his majesty came <back> from the

Southern City then (?) […..].

I can single out the bare initial íí Èm.f (nominalized)

in addition to the following topos of àsp tp wît. The

second, represented by an Infinitive, can be seen

as early as the reign of Nebhepetre Mentuhotpe

II.42 In Dynasty XVIII there is the account on

two boundary stelae of Akhenaton which Junge

has recently discussed in the context of the phrase

Épr.n tp wît nfrt.43 The immediate subsequent

ac count of this inscription is once more infinitival

in nature.44

Commencing the journey,

making a sailing,

the king’s barks illuminating (Èr sÈd) the waters;

moving northwards to the seat of victory,

Pi-Ramesses, Great of Strength.

Assmann revealed that a large number of religious

texts including “program” texts for a ritual dealing

with existence on “this side” also contained the

phrase “commencing the journey.”45 One useful

example referred to by him may be found in the

tomb of Kheruef, and the narrative setting is as

clear as this one at Abydos.46 In the former case

two sdm.f constructions occurring immediately

afterward ( f î.f and [ír].f ?). Following Kruchten,38

I rendered the former distinct from the latter

although the second portion is difficult owing to

the broken section.39

It was with Amun-Atum in Thebes

that he came forth praised in power and

might.

It was with millions [of] years up to the lifetime

of Re in heaven that he (= Amun) rewarded

him (= Ramesses)

After [he] (= Amun) heard [his requests, he ?]

(= Ramesses) was rewarded with eternity and

everlastingness (nÈÈ and dt).

But then two sdm.f forms follow. If we adhere to

the conclusions of Kruchten, then both must be

reflexes of the Middle Egyptian non-nominal or

Predicative sdm.n.f. I would argue here that both

of them were also employed to indicate the per-

formative activity of the king.40

He raised his arm, bearing the incense censer

to the horizon of the one who is [living]

…..

And [he performed (ír.f ?)] his oblation, it

being effective and received [to/for] his

[father], the lord of love.

This small yet significant differentiation between

sdm.n.f and sdm.f must reflect a keen distinction

between the two. The former lead off this sec-

tion (pr.n.f, fqî.n.f ) while the latter continues the

account ( f î.f, [ír.]f ?). One begins with the descrip-

tion of Ramesses’ trip to Thebes and his associa-

tion with Amun (and the other Theban deities)

at Luxor whereas the second group specifies his

ritual activities and the obligations of his royal and

priestly functions. Hence, I feel that the analysis

chapter two24

51 A. St. G. Caulfeild, The Temple of the Kings at Abydos (Sety I.) (London: B. Quaritch, 1902), Pl. II = Calverley, Broome, and Gardiner, The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos I (London and Chicago: The Egypt Exploration Society and The University of Chicago Press, 1933), Pl. 11 = B. H. Stricker, “De Ark des Verbonds,” Mededelingen der Konink-lijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde N. R. 34.3 (1971): 125-47; and Gustave Jéquier, “L’Ennéade osirienne d’Abydos et les enseignes sacrées,” CRAIBL (1920): 409-17 (with Urk. IV 99, a crucial passage not covered by Andrea Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III, 59-64).

See as well Marie-Christine Lavier, Les Stèles abydéniennes relatives aux mystères d’Osiris (Doctorat de Troisième Cycle, University of Montpellier, 1983), 128-36. For the famous ímy-wt fetish: Thomas J. Logan, “The origins of the Jmy-wt Fetish,” JARCE 27 (1990): 61-9, to which we can now add Eaton’s comments concerning the important Osiris fetish on pages 112-15 of her dissertation, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment.

The reference “Shu son of Re” will be found in the Second Hypostyle Court (KRI I 131.10: the alley of Re-Harachty). “Onuris-Shu son of Re” occurs on column 8C of the Second Hypostyle Court ( first row, reading from north and in the same Re-Harachty alley: Zippert, “Der

one employed for military campaigns (Spalinger, Aspects of the Military Documents of the Ancient Egyptians, 227-8). Were the expedition accounts (military or otherwise), with their bare-bones narratives derived from diaries, the primary generators for the use of this infinitival format? In this context, let us remember that infinitival reports are also one of the bases of such war accounts (ibid., 124-6) even though they are derived from accounting practices.

47 Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments, II, 194-6. I can refer to the perspicacious remarks of Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 177 wherein he observed that the “decoration of the cenotaph [at the Osireion] would have drawn sculptors away from their work at the temple.” See note 19 above.

48 KRI II 325.11-13.49 The common spelling of mr is present: I. E. S. Edwards,

Oracular Amuletic Decrees of the Late New Kingdom I (London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1960), 10 note 16 (= Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum, Fourth Series).

50 For this canal, see now Beatrix Geßler-Löhr, Die heiligen Seen ägyptischer Tempel: Ein Beitrag zur Deutung sakraler Baukunst im alten Ägypten (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1983), 109-12, 140-1. Concerning the lake (à) at the Abydos temple of Seti we can also add the remarks of Zippert, “Der Gedächt-nistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 28-30 (based upon the Nauri Decree, KRI I 47.13-48.3).

precise temporal indications are avoided. In fact,

only one specific date is given.

The reason for this visit is then presented with

an opening predicative pattern, #q Èm.f r mîî ít.f

… r wîÈ Ét n Wnn-nfr ... r wàd [...] sn.f ín-Èr. At this

point the purpose of Ramesses is simply defined

and it is three fold: to see “his father,” to set up

offerings for him, and to greet Onuris. Appar-

ently at this point in time it was not the explicit

desire of Ramesses to redirect building activities

at Abydos. I believe that it is necessary to take

the king’s words to heart, for upon his arrival the

account indicates that the Pharaoh found more to

be done. Thereby we arrive at one of the kernels

in this lengthy text; namely, the physical situation

of Seti’s temple at Abydos. I do not feel it too far-

fetched to imagine the king, newly moored at the

Thinite dock, examining the incomplete nature

of the construction work and reflecting upon the

interrupted work at his father’s temple. Following

Kitchen, we can assume that Ramesses saw that

the building activity on Seti’s temple had been

abandoned, a point which is explicitly indicated

in the opening lines of the composition.47

The portion reads:48

His majesty entered

in order to see his father sailing the waters of

the canal49 of the Thinite nome;50

(and) in order to present offerings to Wenen-

nefer as a good thing that his ka wished;

(and) in order to address his …, his brother

Onuris, the son of Re in [tr]uth like him-

self.51

Amunhotep III celebrates his first heb sed festival

by transporting on water the gods associated

with the celebration. But the use of this phrase

in our composition indicates the importance of

the auspicious and successful event, one that had

never previously occurred to Ramesses. This

highlighting is brought forward through àsp tp wît

just as the foregrounding of Ramesses’ voyage to

Thebes as sole king is overtly marked by the phrase

“his first trip” in column 26 (wdyt.f tpyt r Wîst).

The account proceeds without linking the nar-

rative development by means of Middle Egyptian

literary formations. There are no sdm.n.f ’s, and

the two most common Middle Egyptian narra-

tive constructions of #È#.n sdm.n.f and sdm pw ír.n.f

are also lacking. One further notes the continual

absence of the style of the Late Egyptian Stories.

The Non-Initial Main Sentence is avoided and

the wn.ín.f Èr sdm’s are virtually absent. The latter

situation is not surprising as the inscription avoids

all recourse to the more contemporary narra-

tive structure of belles lettres. Yet equivalent weight

must be placed upon this bare bones method

narrative development. True, the account is no

story but instead a serious royal presentation on

stone. Although it has borrowed patterns from

earlier eras, in particular from Dynasty XVIII

(pre Amarna), it has not used them in order to

establish a story or a myth. The use of the Infini-

tive, on the other hand, befits the royal progress.

We view these rapid-fire occurrences as if the

king had set off on a campaign, even though the

the text: translation and detailed analysis 25

54 KRI II 325.13-15; the initial verbal formation can be seen to agree with Kruchten’s “rule.”

I wish to lay some emphasis upon the connection of Ramesses to Wenennefer and not to Osiris in portions of the lengthy narrative texts (Dedicatory Inscription, Staircase Corridor speeches of Thoth and Seshat). This I shall repeat below, but it is sufficient to point out that the deity Osiris had become more of a label of the dead king than anything else; Wenennefer is named deity of the underworld.

55 In other words, the Seti temple was not the only religious edifice that was not completely finished. I presume that those buildings still under construction comprised this one as well as the newly begun temple of Ramesses II. Those religious temples, partly “filled with earth,” would have been older ones. Nonetheless, I believe that there is much hyperbole present in these phrases.

56 KRI II 325.15-326.2.57 The writing is Classical: pî.n and not pw, as in the

Doomed Prince.58 Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 165.59 This is the problem that Kruchten dealt with; see note

10 above. He was attempting a more exact analysis of the material that Jean Winand also studied: Études de néo-égyptien 1. La morphologie verbale (Liege: C.I.P.L., 1992).

Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 80-1, 97; and Calverley, Broome, and Gardiner, The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos IV, Pl. 74 8.C; N).

This same location reveals the Heliopolitan Mut (ibid., Pl. 75 9.C, S): Yoyotte, “Héra d’Héliopolis et le sacrifice humain,” Annuaire École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve Section 89 (1980-81): 61.

52 This will be discussed later. For the moment let me refer to the vessels found in fragments (and other material) by Amélineau at the tomb of Djer in Abydos. They and other inscribed objects may be located in KRI III. These items, as Stephen Quirke indicates to me, show the pres-ence of the highest officials for ceremonies at the “tomb of Osiris.” The presence of these men is significant for their awareness of and contribution to the earliest kingly/divine monuments at Abydos. In this connection I can also refer to the study of Oleg Berlev, “The Heritage of Geb. Land Ownership as Viewed by the Egyptians under the Pharaohs,” in Podati i povinnosti na drevnem Vostoke (ed. M. A. Dandamaev; St. Petersburg: PV, 1999), 6-33.

53 Jéquier considered Onuris-Shu at Abydos to be equiva-lent to the Horus of Letopolis in “L’Ennéade osirienne d’Abydos et les enseignes sacrées,” 415.

were not finished and others were in a state of

ruination. It is not specified which ones were in

what physical condition.

We now face the situation of a series of nega-

tives within a more complicated description.56

And a brick did not touch its companion, and

what was on the foundation was (now) become

dirt.

And … never built his … which allows (it)

to endure by means of his plans since their

owners flew57 away to heaven.

Th[ere] was no son who renewed the monument

of his father who is in the cemetery.

All three of these independent yet intercon-

nected sentences commence with nn. The ques-

tion remains as to the significance of the writing.

Clearly, the third fits into the Middle Egyptian

writing system with no difficulty at all (nn wn +

sî, the Noun). Kitchen translated these passages

as if the other two nns’s represent the negation

of non-existence.58 The following -n- in Èpt + n+

dbît and qd + n, however, pose a problem. Should

we instead interpret the first two constructions

as reflexes of Middle Egyptian n sdm.n.f?59 Note

that the composition never uses bw sdm.n.f or

bw sdm.f in the narrative portions. If only for the

second reason I feel it best to interpret the open-

ing two negative formations as indicative of a

more Classical approach followed by the author

of this inscription, although I hesitate to call it the

“Narrative of Tradition.” Let us remember that if

Kruchten’s arguments hold for this text, then the

Clearly, the king’s original plans did not include

construction work at his father’s temple. Rather,

it would appear that he wished to partake in— or

at least view—the ceremonies at Abydos. Indeed,

as we shall see later on in this discussion, his

arrival at the area was specifically oriented to

the Triumph of Horus cycle in the final decade

of the third month of Achet.52 The mention of

Wenennefer and Onuris, both deities worshiped

in the Eighth Upper Egyptian Nome, should not

cause any surprise. Onuris, whose cult center was

at Thinis, is connected to the struggle against

Apophis, once more reminding us of the Abydene

mysteries.53

It is clear that account is not a mere building

inscription. Indeed, already we have observed

that the account presents Ramesses’ homage to

his father Seti right at the beginning. This attitude

applies to the god Osiris as well because Ramesses

performs the role of the latter’s son, Horus:54

And he found (gm.n.f ) that the chapels of the

Sacred Land, of the kings of aforetime, and

their tombs which are in Abydos had become

dilapidated, half of them were in a state of [con-

struction], and [the other half of them covered/

filled ?] with earth, and their walls [were lying

?] on the ground.55

These thoughts continue from this point. None-

theless, let me place some emphasis upon the

opening non-predicative gm.n.f. This is employed

in order to stress the unexpected physical con-

dition of these chapels (Èwwt) at Abydos: some

chapter two26

As K. A. Kitchen and G. A. Gaballa observed—“The Festival of Sokar,” Or 38 (1969): 40— day 23 of the fourth month of the civil year saw the finding and/or collection of the body (whole or dismembered) of Osiris, its return to the shrine, and then its embalming by Anubis, enacted ritually in the Mansion of Gold (\wt nbw) or w#bt. They also refer back to Middle Kingdom examples of the Man-sion of Gold.

At this date (early Ramesside Period) the rites and fes-tivals of Osiris had become combined with the ancient ones of Sokar at Memphis. The timing of both events had equally coincided: ca. days 18-30 of the fourth month of the year.

For the Mansion of Gold, see as well Eberhard Otto, Das ägyptische Mundöffnungsritual II (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1960), 2-6 where the connection of the “fashioning” (msí ) a statue and the subsequent wpt rî are discussed within the context of the \wt nbw. Additional remarks may be found in J. J. Janssen, Two Ancient Egyptian Ships’ Logs (Leiden: Brill, 1961) 32, referred to by Murnane, “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 165 note 42. The references of Janssen are very useful because they leave no doubt that the gold and silver statues of the gods were made there. The interesting study of Assmann, “Ein Gespräch im Goldhaus über Kunst und andere Gegenstände,” in Gegengabe: Festschrift für Emma Brunner-Traut (ed. Ingrid Gamer-Wallert and Wolfgang Helck; Tübingen: Attempto Verlag, 1992), 43-60, can be cited in this context.

A further important discussion of the Mansion of Gold is that by François Daumas, “Quelques textes de l’atelier des orfèvres dans le temple de Dendara,” in Livre du Centenaire, 1880-1980 (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1980), 109-18. He covered the Dedicatory Inscription as well as the significant term rÉ-n.f; see also note 311 below. According to him, the Mansion of Gold was where statues were constructed and the wpt r would occur. Daumas also discussed the association with the latter ritual, one that is directed to Sokar-Osiris. Hence, the connection to the temple of Abydos is clear. He interpreted the words sàmw and rÉ-n.f as follows (page 109 with note 9): the first is the cult statue and the second is a specific type of image, an “image-connaisante.” RÉ-n.f must designate a statue which was completed in the Mansion of Gold and which was bequeathed with “conaissance.” That is to say, the image probably had undergone the rite of wpt r.

Note as well that the Mansion of Gold was associated with Isis: Otto, Das ägyptische Mundöffnungsritual II, 88; add Hans-W. Fischer-Elfert, Die Vision von der Statue im Stein: Studien zum altägyptischen Mundöffnungsritual (Heidelberg: Uni-versitätsverlag C. Winter, 1998), passim, but see pages 8-10. The latter presents a convincing study of the sem priest

60 See note 57 above.61 KRI II 326.3-6.62 As in column 34; r-# kît. Note the corrections that are

signaled in KRI II 326.3 a-b, 4 a-b, and 5 a.63 See this word (mnq) in column 56 as well; I read nn

mnq.tw with nn for n. The text is restored following KRI II 326.3; cf. Murnane, “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 165. I follow Kruchten (“From Middle Egyptian to Late Egyptian”) and consider #q.n.f to be a nominalized formation.

64 As in column 28 there is the word íwnw. This might imply that the pillars which later supported the portico had not yet been put into place; see David, Religious Ritual at Abydos, 16-17 for a general survey of the architectural elements. A more precise analysis is necessary. On page 169 of his The Monuments of Seti I Brand felt that these references to pillars indicated the area at the back of the first court.

Once more I read n for nn.65 The “terrace,” rwd, cannot be equated with the

“Terrace of the Great God,” well known from the Middle Kingdom. Concerning the latter, Miriam Lichtheim has proposed that the (earlier) “Terrace of the Great God” was “the Osiris-Wepwawet temple complex or a particular part of it”—Ancient Egyptian Autobiographies Chiefly of the Middle Kingdom: A Study and An Anthology (Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 131; the discussion is on pages 129-34.

I will return to this matter near the end of this study but Murnane’s comments in Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, 75-6 are worthwhile to read.

66 For the important word sàmw, see notes 287-8 below.

67 See as well note 303 below. The negative case, nn ms.n.tw.f is one of the many examples that support Kruchten’s analysis of the sdm.n.f in monumental inscriptions at this time; namely, that it is non-predicative. The form is clearly derived from ME n ms.n.tw.f.

Both Murnane (“The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 165 note 41) and Meeks (Année Lexicographique III, 173) have proposed “statue” or “sacred image,” and so read the key word as rÉ.n.f. This fits the context. The references given by Murnane are very useful. To Wb. II 445.11 we can add John Barns, “The Nevill Papy-rus: A late Ramesside Letter to an Oracle,” JEA 35 (1949): 70-1 (note 2) and Jaroslav 1erný, Hieratic Inscriptions from the Tomb of Tut‘ankhamun (Oxford: Oxford University Press for the Griffith Institute, 1965), 14 (bottom). Although I follow Murnane and Meeks at this point, Kitchen’s translation for rÉ-n.f, “specifications for it,” can be argued (Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 166).

Now there is a further description, one that is

more detailed and which lies at the center of the

account. The following is one possible interpre-

tation.61

Now (íst) the temple of Menmaatre, its front

and its rear, was in a state of construction.62

When he entered heaven, [one] had not

comple[ted]63 its monument.

Pillars64 were not erected on its terrace,65 and its

statue66 was on/at the ground.

It had not been fashioned as a cult image of

the Mansion of Gold,67 cessation having taken

place with its divine offerings, and the temple

grammatical style must be placed back in Dynasty

XVIII (if not earlier) rather than reflecting the

developments of the early Ramesside Period.

Additional support can be given to buttress

this argument. In column 35 there is the phrase

“since their owners flew away to heaven.” Here

the writing dr pî.n nbw.sn r pt reveals the earlier or

Classical writing of “to fly,” “to fly away” (pîí ) and

not the later one of pw as we find, for example,

in the Doomed Prince.60 Moreover, we can note

the persistence of the sdm.n.f at this point.

So far we are presented the historical back-

ground of what Ramesses II found at Abydos.

the text: translation and detailed analysis 27

Significantly, the idiom ít ín is found in regulations con-nected to temple priests: see J. J. Clère, “Deux statues ‘Gar diennes de Porte’ d’époque Ramesside,” JEA 54 (1968): 140-1; and Assmann, Das kulturelle Gedächtnis, 188. It was employed in a context that prohibited certain activities of malfeasance on the part of temple personnel. Hence, I believe that the core meaning of Gardiner stands.

If we follow Clère, the priests were “inconstant” or “unreliable,” with respect to the temple’s revenues. They did what they wanted, acting independently of the original regulations. Cf. the comments of Siegfried Morenz, Ägyp-tische Religion (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960), 235 with Hans Quecke, “Ich habe nichts hinzugefügt und nichts weggenom-men. Zur Wahrheitsbeteuerung koptischer Martyrien,” in Fragen an die altägyptische Literatur: Studien zum Gedenken an Eberhard Otto (ed. Jan Assmann, Erika Feucht, and Reinhard Grieshammer; Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1977), 414-5.

70 This is one sentence because of the concept expressed: the offerings were not regulated. The passage could be nn smnt tîàw.sn or n smn.tw tîàw.sn.

71 We shall return to this crucial point.72 Once more we must be careful when dealing with

these monumental Ramesside texts. Consistency was not one of their requirements, even in a beautifully written inscription such as this one.

73 The problem is noted by Kitchen, KRI II 326 note 3c: the restoration nn mnq[.tw] is due to Gauthier. Mari-ette, Abydos I, pl. 6, is not useful except that a strong arm determinative might be restored.

74 Kruchten’s work, often cited here, will be found referred to in note 10 above.

and his meditation on the proposed statue. The man sees a vision and then meditates on it. Subsequently, the lector priests follow his instructions.

Finally, there is the always-useful study of Wolfgang Waitkus concerning the Graeco-Roman evidence: “Zum funktionalen Zusammenhang von Krypta, Wabet und Gold-haus,” in 3. Ägyptologische Templetagung (ed. Dieter Kurth; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), 283-303.

For rÉ-n.f see now the general summary of Pierre Gran-det. Le papyrus Harris I (BM 9999) II (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1994), 28-9 note 128; and Fischer-Elfert’s lengthy note on page 33 of his Die Vision von der Statue im Stein.

68 This would imply that the temple was endowed but the economic activities had ceased, a very serious situation.

69 Kitchen reads “vacillated” in Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 166. He defends his new and exciting interpre-tation of ít + ín in Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 196 (with important references). Posener preferred “irregular” in “Philologie et archéologie égyptiennes,” Annuaire du Collège de France 63 (1963): 300 (as an adjective). Earlier, Gardiner had argued for the English translation of “to chop and change” in “The Idiom ít ín,” JEA 24 (1938): 124-5.

The situation was a serious one because the temple priests appear to have followed their own interest. Insofar as the endowments were not regularized (and recorded in documents), there was an immediate problem concerning the agricultural impost. To me, the word “vacillating” is too weak; the priests appear to have “seized” (ít) the produce as they thought fit. Then they “fetched/brought back” (íní ) the revenues. The following passage indicates that the field boundaries were not “set in stone.”

column 36 might allow one to understand the

passage as another case of nn + noun (Infinitive

in this case). This, however, runs up against the

original publication of Mariette.73 Compound-

ing the difficulties must be the significance of

#q.n.f pt. Kruchten would have us believe that the

form is emphatic; i.e., non-predicative. (Note that

the subsequent nn ms.n.tw < ME n ms.n.tw.) The

following retranslation brings together the two

negatives followed by the third, and interprets

the positive sdm.n.f as pluperfect.74

Now the temple of Menmaatre, its front and its

rear, was in a state of construction when he

entered heaven.

Its monuments were not completed.

There was no erecting of pillars on its terrace.

And its statue was on/at the ground.

It had not been fashioned as a cult image of the

Mansion of Gold.

And among its divine offerings cessation had

occurred.

The temple priesthood, likewise, who acted in an

irregular fashion with regard to its fields.

And their boundaries were not established on

the ground.

All of the details commence after the phrase

“when he entered heaven,” #q.n.f r pt. The negatives

priesthood likewise,68 who acted in an irregular

fashion69 with regard to its fields,

And their boundaries were not established on

earth.70

This aspect of the temple is interesting to survey.

The account commences with the “inner” details

of construction: the present state of incompletion,

pillars not erected, and even the statue of Seti not

properly finished.71 From an economic viewpoint

the lack of offerings is indicated. With that aspect

completed, the account moves “outside,” explic-

itly referring to the lack of any fiscal order with

regard to the economically supportive fields. All

of this is to have been the condition of the temple

when Ramesses took over as sole king upon the

death of his father.

I have attempted to follow Kruchten’s analysis

for the formation #q.n.f pt. Evidently, column 33

with its #q Èm.f has to be separated from the former

if his rules follow.72 There still, however, remains

the additional problem of whether the expected

interpretation of “after he entered heaven” (pred-

icative sdm.n.f ) is not correct. If so, then the fol-

lowing nn mnq.tw could reflect the simple Middle

Egyptian n sdm.tw. But can we trust any of these

possibilities? First, the restoration of [.tw] depends

upon Gauthier, and the spelling of just mnq in

chapter two28

6-7. Important ancillary comments on the first group will be found in Raedler, “Zur Struktur Hofsgellschaft Ramses’ II,” 43. She analyses these men in the framework of a Durkheimian “Ideal Type.”

78 The army would also have been in charge of insuring that the work went along according to the king’s wish. Often high-ranking military officials were involved in building activities, a point that Andrea Gnirs re-stressed in her Militär und Geselleschaft: Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte des Neuen Reiches (Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1996), 36-7. Not surprisingly, the recently appointed High Priest of Amun, Nebwennef, who was present at Abydos at this time, is referred to as the “chief of works” in his famous nomina-tion inscription (KRI III 285.1: ímy-rî kîwt).

79 For a contemporary list of (stone) workers, see the Man-shiyet es-Sadr Stela of Ramesses II, KRI II 360.8-362.12.

However, the text of Nebwennef (see note 75 above) provides very enlightening details. This man was inducted into the position of High Priest of Amun and Ramesses as well as Nebwenenef must have been at Abydos at this time. The courtiers (ànywt) and the Council of Thirty (m#bîyt) were also present as solemn witnesses of the new appointment; see KRI III 284.4-5. Both should correspond to the first two groups in the Dedicatory Inscription.

In an earlier passage of Nebwennef ’s text we hear the

75 KRI III 282.11-285.3; Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions. Notes and Comments: Translations III (Oxford and Malden: Blackwell, 2000), 201-03; and Kurt Sethe, “Die Berufung eines Hohenpriesters des Amon unter Ramses II.,” ZÄS 44 (1907-08): 30-5. On this man and his ceremony at Abydos, see now Christine Raedler, “Zur Struktur Hofgesellschaft Ramses’ II,” in Der ägyptische Hof des Neuen Reiches: seine Gesell-schaft und Kultur im Spannungsfeld zwischen Innen- und Außenpolitik (ed. Rolf Gundlach and Andrea Klug; Wiesbaden: Harras-sowitz, 2006), 53 and 60.

There is a new English translation of the main induc-tion text by Elizabeth Frood in her Biographical Texts from Ramessid Egypt (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 35-9. Nebwennef ’s career is analyzed in detail in her earlier work “Self-presentation in Ramessid Egypt” (Ph.D. diss., Oxford University, 2004), Chapter 5 (“Kingly Presence and Royal Space”).

76 See Chapter I note 42. There are some brief pertinent comments by Raedler (cited in the previous note, page 46) concerning the actual royal “order” of assembly through the royal sealbearer.

77 Such lists are summarized in my Aspects of the Mili-tary Documents, 210-20; see as well Jean Yoyotte and Jesus Lopez, review of Alan R. Schulman, Military Rank, Title, and Organization in the Egyptian New Kingdom, BiOr 26 (1969):

Advancing further, the style of the composition then moves into another Königsnovelle presentation. The king addresses his “seal bearer,” the Étmty bíty. Posener, who observed the reliance upon Middle Kingdom literary arrangements, did not fail to comment upon this passage.76 Ramesses (with dd.ín Èm.f ) orders the official to call together the high officials of the land. This subsection thus provides a list which is a helpful reflection upon

the hierarchy of the epoch:77

Courtiers(1) (ànywt). These are not specified by rank or title. The list follows the Königsnovelle pattern of avoiding names and specifications. It is assumed that the men who composed this body were the highest officials directly and personally involved with their ruler, and that they were always near to him. The notables of the king ((2) àpsw nswt). Here, I feel, the high ranking officials of the land were represented but perhaps not those always seeing and dealing with Pharaoh on a daily basis. A good example of such a person would be Neb-wennef himself. Note that I prefer to separate these men from the preceding group.All of the army commanders ((3) ímyw-rî mnf îyt). The Ramesside nature of the state is overtly revealed.78 Let us keep in mind that the mili-tary was often connected with building proj-ects and its role involved the distribution of manpower. Hence, this group might also be prominent here for the forthcoming organiza-tion of labor.The superintendents of works ((4) ímyw-r kîwt), as many as possible. These individuals would have been already at Abydos but there remains the possibility that others had come with the king.79

resemble each other with their simple nn. The first

might indicate nn + Infinitive but this is unclear

whereas the final could be if we read nn smnt tîàw.

sn m tî. The arrangement, likewise, is orderly.

Indeed, the central theme occurs exactly in the

middle: the problematical condition of Seti’s

statue. The above translation assumes a tripartite

division organized in the following manner:

A Heading: incomplete work (2 lines)

B Specific details

1) Pillars (1 line)

2) Statue (2 lines)

3) Offerings (1 line)

4) Field endowments (2 lines).

This portion announces the situation by focusing

upon that condition of Seti’s temple. Subsequent

to the death of his father Ramesses went to Thebes

and had been crowned. Returning northwards, he

then reached Abydos for the first time and person-

ally saw the lack of construction work. The fields

that supplied revenues for his father’s monument

had not even been regularized. Whether or not

the young king knew of this problem before he

reached the area is unclear. Yet he had recently

decided to appoint Nebwennef to the position of

High Priest of Amun, an influential and impor-

tant man.75 The detailed inscription of his life,

recorded in his Theban tomb (TT 157), reveals

that in the third month of inundation this was

done at Abydos, and the king’s first wife, Nofre-

tary, was also present. (His role in these affairs

will be covered later in Chapter III.)

the text: translation and detailed analysis 29

The standard narrative-literary formation in column 102 (KRI II 334.10-11; wn.ín nsw Mn-mî#t-R# mî# Érw) parallels column 40 (wn.ín.sn Èr hwt.sn Èr Èbnbn).

Nicholas-Christophe Grimal has discussed the section commencing with “pole of heaven” in his Les termes de la pro-pagande royale égyptienne de la XIXe dynastie à la conquête d’Alexandre (Paris: Institut de France, 1986), 240 with note 758.

88 Time is meant here. Kitchen translates the latter as “regular as clockwork” in his Ramesside Inscriptions: Transla-tions II, 166.

The core idea is close to Assmann’s study on time and eternity, but with Hornung’s additional analysis in “Zeitli-ches Jenseits im alten Ägypten,” Eranos 47 (1978): 281-6; see note 445 below.

The never-ending cycle (= phrt here) is that of nÈÈ; the never-ending permanence of the totality of “life” is dt. As nÈÈ is connected to #È#w and dt to drw (“boundaries,” “limits”), this section makes perfect sense because #È#w occurs. Therefore, the concept of a cycle must enter, and the latter image is carried by phrt.

NÈÈ is likewise always associated with Horus, the living king. This image in the eulogy to Ramesses II also fits per-fectly with the conclusions of Assmann, whose basic study is Zeit und Ewigkeit im alten Ägypten: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Ewigkeit (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1975).

It is interesting that Hannig, Großes Handwörterbuch Ägyptisch-Deutsch 2800-950 v. Chr.): Die Sprache der Phara-onen, Mainz: P. von Zabern, 1995), 292, understands rwd phrt as “long living.”

N.B.: íy.n Ér.k for the “classical” íy.n.n Ér.k.89 “Fate,” “abundance” or Renenutet, and Khnum are

bound together as in Assmann, “Die Inschrift auf dem äußeren Sarkophagdeckel des Merenptah,” MDAIK 28 (1972): 61, who further observes the connection of Chapter 30 of the Book of the Dead.

king’s words, “I set out for him [= Nebwennef] the [whole] court (ànywt) and the chief executive of the [infantry troops]” (KRI III 283.11). Ramesses, earlier at Thebes, claimed to have presented various names of candidates to the gran-dees of the realm as well as to the prophets and notables of Amun.

The court had traveled with Ramesses to Thebes and must have witnessed the coronation at Luxor. Sailing north, all then stopped at Abydos to confirm Nebwen-nef ’s appointment.

80 They would insure that the rites were performed according to law.

81 KRI II 326.6-10.82 Such scenes, though commonplace, are described in

as photographic a manner as possible.83 The following section is purposely repetitive, and its

theme is concerned with the officials’ verbal activities.84 It is no surprise the archaic sdm.n.f Relative Form

turns up once more in such traditional passages.85 This is obviously the second half of a verse couplet;

the structure is basically identical in both.86 These words render a very common concept in

Königsnovelle texts; see my Aspects of the Military Documents, 118 with note 76: it runs back to Dynasty XII. Laurent Collon, “La rhétorique et ses fictions: Pouvoirs et duplicité du discours à travers la littérature égyptienne du Moyen et du Nouvel Empire,” BIFAO 99 (1999): 121 covers the final three sentences wherein he deals with the verb stwt, “to related.” Kitchen preferred “vaunted” in Ramesside Inscrip-tions: Translations II, 166. The end of the column clearly reads m mî#t.

87 KRI II 326.10-327.2; the passage is discussed later. For Assmann’s analysis, see his Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 534-5. The ending clearly moves to the Pharaoh’s power over his foreign enemies.

knees on the ground in jubilation, kissing the

earth, their arms in praise to his majesty.82

And they adored this good god83 by magnifying

his beauty in the Presence;

And they reported according to what he had

done;84

And they related his power according as it had

happened;85

And every matter that came forth from their

mouths was that which the lord of the two

lands did in truth.86

At the exact beginning of column 40 the first case

of a wn.ín.f Èr sdm occurs, a fact that immediately

reminds us of the contemporary tales. A new scene

is to occur, and the style is overtly eulogistic. Here

are the words of the officials:87

Then they were on their bellies, spread out on

the ground before his majesty saying:

To you we have come—

Lord of heaven, lord of earth,

Living Re of the entire land.

Possessor of eternity, firm of course,88

Atum for the sun-folk.

Lord of fate, who creates wealth.89

Chiefs of the archive ((5) Èryw-tp pr md ît). In this case, the final rank is filled with the local Abydene “intellectuals.”80

The last two groups of men were directly con-

cerned with the building projects at Abydos,

and they would ultimately be responsible for the

building, carving, placement of inscriptions—

layout, location, and the like—and indirectly the

type of text and scene to be employed. All five

sectors are called before the Pharaoh and they are

ushered in (stî.ín.tw.w) exactly as in the early XIIth

Dynasty literary account of Neferty. The text then

utilizes a series of sdm.f formations. This entire

subsection presents a topos of congratulations

and expressions of praise to the Pharaoh.81

Then his majesty said to the sealbearer who was

at his side:

Call the courtiers, notables of the king, all the

army commanders, superintendents of works

—as many as possible, and the chiefs of the

archive.

Then they were ushered into the presence of his

majesty, their noses touching the earth, their

chapter two30

especially when its later economic and legal use became somewhat different from the original or core meaning of “youth.” Moreover, she appears not to have provided a clear-cut analysis of the mnÈ and the nmÈw. With regard to the latter, Shafik Allam’s general survey in his Hieratische Ostraka und Papyri aus der Ramessidenzeit (Tübingen: Selbstverlag, 1973), 265-7 and 270 note 5 may suffice. According to him the nmÈw were “Vollfrei,” but if we understand that their status was without superior control—i.e., the lack of superiors, and no required or forced “Zwangsarbeit,” then we come close to an economic understanding of their position.

92 A new idea occurs here.93 The verb is a Perfective Participle: Winand, “Le

verbe iy/iw: unité morphologique et sémantique,” LingAeg 1 (1991): 357-87.

94 A simple use of two verses to express, in a condensed form, justice.

95 Wente, “The Syntax of Verbs of Motion in Egyptian,” Chapters IV and V. Yet, to follow Stephen Quirke, was there a continuity in the role of kingship as a cultural kernel that has permitted the older style to continue?

“Wealth” might also be translated by “Renenutet” as in Jan Quaegebeur, Le dieu égyptien Shaï (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1975), 109. It is suggestive that Quaegebeur posits that an Amarna idea may be seen at this juncture.

90 The writing ms instead of mss should not be overlooked. Is this significant in a formal monumental hieroglyphic text of early Dynasty XIX? See the identical concepts expressed by the Participles in column 42: ír wrw qd nmÈw. But note as well the common use of the sdm.n.f Relative Form.

Incidentally, as Stephen Quirke informs me, this pas-sage recalls the heart scarabs regularly included in elite burial equipment at this time; cf. Wolfram Grajetzki, Burial Customs in Ancient Egypt: Life in Death for Rich and Poor, passim, especially pages 67 and 84.

91 The lowly (nmÈw) are merely “built,” “constructed,” qd. But remember the opening words in column 25: qd qd sw.

Bernadette Menu prefers the term “colon” for nmÈw in her work Recherches sur l’histoire juridique, économique et sociale de l’ancienne Égypte II (Versailles: B. Menu, 1998), 54, 190-1. There is no analysis given of the development of this term,

surely an ongoing (eternal) present, and perhaps

“who vivifies” (s#nÉ), both performed regularly by

Khnum. As a rule the past tenses predominate, a

conclusion that is easily recognized from the fol-

lowing: sÉpr.n mdwt.f, nd.n pÈty.f, mky.n Épà.f, and

dr.n Èryt.f. Most likely, the Perfective Participles

are employed in order to denote the creation (in

the past) of the mass of humankind, whereas in

dd tîw “who gives breath” is a straightforward

Imperfective Participle. Equally, see the earlier

passage “who made the great …..” where the past

tense serves well, if only as ír is employed.

The remainder of the eulogy, which is separate

from the preceding, is regular in import. The divi-

sion, though not overtly marked, can nonetheless

be determined by the sudden turn of the words

to the vocative as well as the personal pronoun

“our.” The image of Pharaoh is the sun god.

Our sovereign, our lord!

Living Re, Atum by means of the word[s

from] his mouth.

Behold!We are here in the presence of your majesty.

May you command to us life through that of

your giving.

O Pharaoh, l.p.h., the breath of our nostrils,

Every one lives after he has risen for them.

Encomia as the above, and in the Miscellanies,

reveal for the most part an older, more conser-

vative orientation.95 The earlier common phrase,

“Who came back, after he had triumphed,”

reveals one useful exception to Kruchten’s rule

that cannot be refuted. The first is a Perfective

Participle and the second a predicative sdm.n.f.

Yet see the passage:

Khnum,

who fashioned/s90 people,

who gives breath to every person (nose),

who vivifies the entire Ennead.

Pole of heaven, beam of earth,

Regulator who rectifies the two banks.

Possessor of sustenance, numerous of grain,

Abundance (Renenutet) is in his footsteps.

Who made the great,

Who fashioned the common-folk,91

Whose words caused provisions to occur.

Noble lord, vigilant when everyone sleeps,92

Whose strength has protected Egypt,

Who is victorious over foreign lands.

Who came back, after he had triumphed,93

Whose strong arm has protected the Egyp-

tians.

Who is beloved of Truth, in whom he lives,

It is his laws which protect the two banks.94

Doughty of years, great of strength,

Whose fear has destroyed the foreign lands.

The aspect of this hymn of praise is commonplace

but the tripartite division of Re-Atum-Khnum is

useful to notice if only because the first two deities

will reappear shortly. Perhaps the reference at the

beginning to Khnum, the creator and fashioner

can be highlighted, especially as the concept of

building and forming is a hallmark of the account;

note the verbs msí, írí, and qd. Then too, at the very

top of column 42 there is the pregnant couplet:

“who made (ír) the great (wrw), who fashioned

(qd) the common-folk (nmÈw).” The differences in

tense, if that is the best way to describe the subtle

differences in this encomium, might be searched in

the realm of the sdm.n.f Relative Forms and most

of the Participles which appear to be Perfective.

In contrast, however, see “who gives (dd) breath,”

the text: translation and detailed analysis 31

101 KRI II 327.8-11. I am including the following quote.

There are some slight problems with the text at this point, a situation that Kitchen has seen as well. In column 46 read Èr ír<t> írt. Cf. the formal Relative Form, írt.n.f in column 47.

For a short but significant study on îÉ, see Assmann and Bommas, Altägyptische Totenliturgien I, 21-3.

96 See note 10 above.97 Assmann, “Das Bild des Vaters,” 37; KRI II

327.4-7.98 Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 56-60.99 KRI II 327.7; the negative passage is nn smîwy mnw

wtt sw.100 KRI II 327.7-8; cf. the comments of Kitchen: Rames-

side Inscriptions: Translations II, 167.

If a son arose in the place of his father, there

was no one who renewed the monument of the

one who begot him.

Or “there did not exist the renewal …” (nn +

Infinitive). The theme of father son now enters

in a more explicit fashion. His subsequent words

expand upon this feeling.100

And I have thought over in (lit.: with) my heart

a fruitful deed (sp m#r) of embellishing those who

have passed away.

Kitchen’s translation for m#r, “fruitful,” is excel-

lent as it conveys both the core meaning of the

word while at the same time presenting the con-

trast of life/vegetative activity versus death, those

who have departed. I would also like to cite the

opening as it employed the Pseudo-Verbal Èr +

Infinitive to indicate a passage of time in the past.

As an aside, let me once more point out the repeti-

tive use of the concept of “heart” in this portion

of the inscription.

Now presented is a passage deliberately hear-

kening back to the opening section of columns

29-30.101

[Compassion] is beneficial and concern is

good of a son when he [concerns] (himself )

with his father;My heart is directing/directs me in order to (?)

do beneficial things for Merenptah.

The first portion juxtaposes the two general ethical

comments of îÉ [n#t ?] and nfr îms-íb. The second,

more lengthy, continues the “heart” aspect (sî phr.f

Èîty m-sî ít.f ). I believe that both can be joined to

form a simple couplet. The innermost thoughts

and feelings of Ramesses now come across in a

very compressed fashion. It is necessary to focus

at this point once more upon the father son

relationship although these ideas will be expanded

upon later. Ramesses adds:

And I shall cause that one say forever:

“It is his son who vivified his name.”

May my father Osiris reward/praise me with

O Pharaoh, l.p.h., the breath of our nostrils,

Every one lives after he has risen for them.

The second half, wbn.f n.sn, is a simple pluperfect

and clearly derived from wbn.n.f n.sn. Yet there

was also coalescence owing to the two n’s. By

and large, the eulogistic sections preserve older

forms of the language. To a degree this is what

Wente had realized when he covered the style of

the Late Egyptian Miscellanies and which later

Kruchten analyzed.96 In essence, the tone was

considerably more serious than mere colloquial

dialogue and the formal nature of its linguistic

register befits the ruler, Ramesses. Note as well

the return to the two major creator deities Re and

Atum, mentioned in the same order as is present

in the preceding section of the address.

The king then responds. At this point the Königs-

novelle presentation appears to effect a dialogue,

but it is without conflict and hence lacks any

dis cussion. The officials’ speech is composed of

passages of adulation whereas that of the king’s

is solely his plan.97

Then his majesty said (dd.ín Èm.f ) to them:

Behold.

I have caused (rdí.n.í ) that you be summoned

on account of a plan which is (now) before

me.

I have seen the temples of the [Sacred] Land

and the tombs which are in Abydos.

The work in them is <still> in a state of con-

struction since the times of their owners

until today.

This is written in virtually pure Middle Egyp-

tian. For example, “Behold. I have caused” = mtn

rdí.n.í and “I have seen” = íw mî.n.í, if not also the

compound preposition r-mn. The opening sen-

tence which brings out the Pharaoh’s own views is

what any good Middle Egyptian literary (or high

sounding) text would write. Then too, the opening

“Behold …..” fixes the previously “implied” spe-

cial or temporal reference, to employ Assmann’s

terminology.98 The same can be said with respect

to the following words.99

chapter two32

buches: Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte und Funktion eines Textes der altägyptischen Totenliteratur (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1979), 240, referring to Brigitte Altenmüller, Synkretismus in den Sargtexten (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1975), 272-3. But as the All Lord is Osiris and Osiris is the father of Horus, the father-son connection is made.

106 KRI II 327.13-14. The key studies relating to this period of Ramesses’ life are listed in note 3 to Chapter I. One can add Kitchen, review of Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, JNES 39 (1980): 170-1; and Spalinger, review of the same work, JARCE 16 (1979): 189-90.

102 KRI II 327.12-13.103 His work is listed in note 10 above.With regard to the interpretation that follows, there

remains the possibility that Re-king-Osiris (all three) are meant: Berlev, “Two Kings-Two Suns—on the worldview of the ancient Egyptians,” in Quirke, Discovering Egypt from the Neva: The Egyptological Legacy of Oleg D Berlev, 19-33.

104 See now Goedicke, Studies in “The Instructions of King Amenemhet I for his Son,” 64-72, although his interpretation differs from mine.

105 Ursula Rößler-Köhler, Kapitel 17 des ägyptischen Toten-

the chronological framework between Ramesses

and his father Seti.

At this point the results of Kruchten’s recent

analysis of the Ramesside monumental sdm.n.f

form hold up in a sharp and stark fashion.103 Is

there an antithesis, somewhat hidden perhaps,

between Seti as the nourisher (mn#) and the All

Lord as the enactor of Ramesses’ strength (via

s#î)? I believe so. There is an overlapping of

two consecutive and parallel concepts here, a

point that is clear once the physical location of

Abydos and its godhead Osiris are understood.

An inverse situation perhaps may be observed

in the Teaching of Amenemhet I to Sesostris I

where the opening presents the common “teach-

ing” introduction of: “Here begins the teaching

which … made for his son the All Lord.”104 One

possibly might see a further, albeit indirect, con-

nection between both texts at this point, espe-

cially because of the numerous Middle Kingdom

reflexes in the Dedicatory Inscription. Whether

this is maintained or not is not crucial. In the

present context two different ways of a father’s

role to his son are given, mn# and s#î, as are two

different methods of grammatical emphasis.

Ramesses now explicitly indicates that he was a

child.

Perhaps the text could make a fine distinc-

tion here if the “All Lord” refers to Osiris. In

the Middle Kingdom the term is employed for

Osiris, Atum, Thoth, or Re.105 Therefore, the

specific acknowledgement of Seti’s role via-à-vis

his son and heir can be examined even more

keenly. He is the one who took care of his male

child Ramesses. The reference to his “rearing,”

mn#, over s#î might be argued from its frontal posi-

tion. In other words, the personal relationship

of Ramesses with Seti is deliberately separated

from the All Lord’s involvement; “true” father

and creator god are split.

Further on there is:106

the great lifetime [of] his [son] Horus, as I am

one who did what [he has] done.

May it be/It will be beneficial for me as it was

beneficial for the one who bore me.

The concept expressed is that of the dual relation-

ship of Horus to Osiris and vice versa. The father-

son constellation emerges once more in full light

with Ramesses and Seti under scrutiny. Later,

there will be the repetition of îÉ in column 62; note

as well the subsequent use of n#t and phr in columns

60-1. But the sudden mention of Seti’s name in

the same location is somewhat unexpected. This

is, however, necessary because the account now

turns to a historical view in which the past events

of the younger Ramesses are related and his con-

nection to his “real” father Seti as well as to the

creator god come into play.102

It is from Re that I came forth [but] (Ér) you

say:

“It was Menmaatre who reared/nourished me

[= him].”

And when I was a child (hrd) until I ruled it was

the All Lord himself who made me great.

The word mn# returns, a key lexical item which

was already broadcast in column 30, but now

with the added factor that at this point the act

of írí, the creating of Ramesses, is far less impor-

tant that his childhood rearing, mn#. Perhaps the

focus no longer needed so much emphasizing,

but Ramesses II certainly throws this idea in front

of the high officials; the “you” (tn) refers to their

words in the previous eulogy. Seti (Mn-mî#t-R#)

took care of his son even though Ramesses came

forth from the creator god and sun. Moreover,

there is also the connection between Re and the

latter deity who must be Re as Atum, the “All

Lord.” Ramesses has provided these comments,

all of which are centered on his early life, not

as grist for the mill of chronologists. Yet the fol-

lowing remarks in the Dedicatory Inscription

are extremely useful for our reconstruction of

the text: translation and detailed analysis 33

son of a lesser wife of a king have precedence over a female of the main wife? Could not the lineage be bolstered in such a situation by means of a regency wherein the surviving main wife held the reins of power (cf. Hatshepsut)?

The Ramessides, undoubtedly following in the footsteps of their Dynasty XVIII predecessors (e.g., Thutmose III and Amunhotep II), appear to have regularized the transfer-ence of power by appointing the heir to the throne before the reigning king had died, as Gardiner stated in his “A Pharaonic Encomium (II).” They also endowed the suc-cessor with more power. Thus the situation parallels the transference of power under the first Capetians.

109 KRI II 327.14-15 with Kitchen’s accompanying notes.

110 KRI II 327.15-328.1.111 Here sfy is employed; see my review cited above

in note 106; add Franke, “Anchu, der Gefolgsmann des Prinzen (Grabrelief Boston MFA 191.403),” in Miscellanea Aegyptologica: Wolfgang Helck zum 75. Geburtstag (ed. Hartwig Altenmüller and Renate Germer; Hamburg: Archäologis-ches Institut der Universität Hamburg, 1989), 81-5 (on a similar term for young man, ínpw). Note the volume of Erika Feucht, Das Kind im alten Ägypten (Frankfurt and New York: Campus, 1995), Chapter 10.

107 A crucial word, see Spalinger, “The Calendrical Importance of the Tombos Stela,” SAK 22 (1995): 276 note 23.

108 And this was Gardiner’s conclusion, all too often for-gotten, in “A Pharaonic Encomium (II),” 9 with note 3.

Murnane, in his chapter “The Kingship of the Nineteenth Dynasty,” observed the “new dynasty’s unease” (page 199). But the power relations at court and the lack of a firm and strict rule for successorship appear to be contained within this situation. It was probably owing to the problem of suc-cession, especially when there was no direct male heir from the main or preferred wife, that the system arose to regulate any crisis. Kitchen’s remarks concerning sî nsw smsw and sî nswt tpy must be read to understand this problem more fully; see Chapter I note 24.

All of this deserves a separate study, but I cannot leave the issue without observing the rise of the female title Èmt wrt nswt. I suspect that it was established sometime in the late Middle Kingdom (Dynasty XIII) to fortify the claim of that wife of the king with regard to her son who would be the heir to the throne of Egypt.

And when we see crises of legitimacy arise—e.g., at the death of Thutmose II or at the time of Merenptah’s decease —were not those difficulties caused by the question of who, exactly, had the “right” to be Pharaoh? For example, did a

“affairs,” seems reasonable because there are such

brief descriptions elsewhere.) Is it suggestive of an

age-old ranking that the military background of

the young prince is placed after his non-warlike

responsibility as chief judge or the like?

Although the inscription contains a blatant slip

at the end of column 48, the following words

place us partly in the colloquial language of the

day with a healthy bit of Middle Egyptian syntax

contained as well.110

When my father appeared to the populace I was

(yet) a boy111 between his arm(s).

And [he said] concerning me:

Cause that he appear as king so that I might see

his beauty while I am (still) living.

I see no reason to deny the historical references in

these brief sentences. Seti had his son Ramesses

brought to an imposing and serious investiture

ceremony. The elder man attempted to maintain

the kingship and his bloodline by insuring that

all the key men—not merely a select group of

courtiers—were fully cognizant of the situation.

Whether such a “pre-election” had any prece-

dent is not important to this discussion. Following

the royal narrative it would appear that Seti was

approaching the end of his life. Otherwise, why

include the auspicious passage “while I am (still)

living.” It would appear that, following Ramesses’

account, Seti was growing extremely old and insur-

ing that his heir designate would be king.

Although additional information will be brought

forward later to buttress this interpretation,

When I was in the womb he gave to me the land,

and officials were kissing the earth before me

when I was inducted (bs.kwí )107

to the position of heir apparent (sî smsw) and

to the position of hereditary prince (íry p#t)

[on] the throne of Geb.

Once more the non-predicative use of the initial

sdm.n.f opens a narrative presentation. I see no

reason to translate swÈt as egg, as the Egyptians

were human as we are. The image, concrete in

its fullness as befits pregnancy, must indicate the

womb of the mother. The text explicitly indicates

that the king-to-be was publicly announced to be

the next ruler of Egypt.108 Indeed, the two titles

associated with Ramesses designate him as the

future Pharaoh, and they occurred at a time when

he was a boy. This was done at an official ceremony.

It is hard to fathom exactly the following por-

tion of the composition owing to the fragmentary

nature of column 49.109 The account appears to

use a Middle Egyptian present where a completed

past tense is necessary. One solution could be:

And I reported (íw.í <Èr> smí<t> Érwt tîwy) the

[affairs of the two lands as] chief of the infantry

and the chariotry.

Or is this correct: “while I reported the affairs of

the two lands …..”? In this case the first person

suffix (marked by the small stroke after íw) is

retained but the passage becomes a circumstantial

clause. I find the second very difficult to support

owing to the arrangement of the historical account

at this point. (The restoration of Gauthier, Érwt,

chapter two34

Dynasty (Jonsered: Paul Aströms Förlag, 1994), 155. See also KRI VI 25.8 (Abydos Stela of Ramesses IV; Peden prefers “rule”—ibid., page 173).

In the concept of kingship, this basic concept of ts goes back to Gardiner’s remarks in “A Pharaonic Encomium (II),” 16 (in another text of Ramesses IV where he followed the Wb.) note to line 3,5 of P. Turin Cat. 1882, recto: “to allot,” “to appoint.” Among other matters, all of these texts deal with the man’s rise to kingship; cf. as well Wb. V 397.23f. and Siegfried Schott, Der Denkstein Sethos’ I. für die Kapelle Ramses’ I. in Abydos (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964), 21 note 6 (top). The text citation will be found in KRI I 111.11. Gardiner also mentioned the case of Ramesses III in P. Harris 22.11-12.

These Ramesside examples (Seti I, Ramesses II, Ramesses III, and Ramesses IV) cover the rise of the heir to the throne of Egypt. As can be seen, the situation of kingship in Dynasties XIX-XX still had not yet been given a defini-tive legal arrangement.

116 KRI II 328.3-4.117 KRI II 327.15.

The opening verb is É## and one might assume it to be a nominal form as well.

112 Most recently, see Murnane, “The Kingship of the Nineteenth Dynasty,” 199-202. (He was reacting to Helck’s criticisms of his earlier analysis.) I do not see, however, any proof that Ramesses eliminated Mehy at the time he was a “prince” (Murnane, page 202) unless we argue that this event took place during the regency period. Cf. the recent commentary of Marjorie M. Fisher, The Sons of Ramesses II. Volume I: Texts and Plates (Wiesbaden: Harras-sowitz, 2001), 9.

113 KRI II 328.1-3. No “high officials,” army leaders, or the like are mentioned. The event most likely took place in the private compartments of the Pharaoh at the capital. Why are not the other grandees of the realm listed?

114 KRI II 328.3.115 Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 167 reads

ts as “govern” whereas on page 342 he prefers “adminis-ter” (referring to KRI II 531.15). See as well KRI VI 19.5 (Ramesses VI) where A. J. Peden translates the verb as “appoint” in his Egyptian Historical Inscriptions of the Twentieth

These three Prospective sdm.f ’s reflect upon the

internal nature of rule; order and stability are indi-

cated. The king’s son is now a king but his love

for his people has been placed aside.

But far more remarkable are the following

words, unfortunately presented in a very frag-

mentary passage.116 It begins, most probably, with

another sdm.n.f:

[He spoke thusly/these things ?] …

while his eyes were filled with] tears because

of the love of me inside of him.

“Love” and “tears” are the themes here. They

are personal, indeed extremely so, but above all

remarkable. Where else are Pharaohs ever said

to weep? The answer to this question must be in

the negative. Moreover, what was the reason for

this unusual exhibition of intense emotion? Was

it love alone, or love plus kingship? The neces-

sity of prolonging the kingship in the direct line

through one’s (eldest living) son must have been a

major reason. I believe that both factors enter into

Ramesses’ words concerning his father. Because

the intense father-son constellation remains the

kernel of this inscription, one cannot eliminate

Seti’s love towards his son and vice-versa. But

the role of monarch still remained and hence the

necessity of insuring a proper succession has to

be included in this analysis. But is this nothing

more than a further emphasis upon the continual

refrain of Seti concerning his own life? As he

states, he wanted to see Ramesses crowned when

he was alive. Perhaps life for him may have meant

not many more months or years. See how the

father “holds” or “embraces” his son (ímytw qny.f )

before the court.117 In my mind there is little doubt

let me add the following remarks. Ramesses was

quite young when he became sole ruler of Egypt.

His early texts indicate this and so do his royal

sculptures, if not also his long reign. This youthful

attitude can only be found in the opening years of

his reign, during which he appears to have elimi-

nated the memory of another person whom his

father liked. (I am explicitly referring to Mehy.)112

The Dedicatory Inscription takes pains to indicate

the early career of Ramesses and his crowning is

explicitly written. How, then, has it come about

that some Egyptologists refuse to see a crowned

Ramesses existing with his father?113

[He caused] the chamberlains [to be summoned]

in order to set the crowns on my brow.

‘Place the great uraeus on his head!’

So he said concerning me when he was on

earth.

Surely this brief account, composed with sdm.n.f ’s

and not using any sdm.ín.f formations, is to be

read with great care. The kernel of the historical

retrospective of Ramesses thus abandons its ear-

lier literary arrangements and instead moves to

a narrative in which the historical import of the

account is paramount. A story-narrative outlook

cannot fit this serious aspect.

Wherever the ceremony was, it most certainly

did not take place in Luxor. Nothing indicates

a royal procession of investiture there. On the

contrary, the setting is in the court; it is lay in

orientation rather than religious in spirit. Seti

speaks; Amun is not present.114

He will administer [= tie up]115 this land;

He will bring together [its boundaries ?];

He will give commands to the people.

the text: translation and detailed analysis 35

which see Del Nord, “hkrt-nswt = King’s Concubine,” Serapis 2 (1970): 1-16 and Rosemarie Drenkhahn, “Bemerkungen zu dem Titel hkr.t nswt,” SAK 4 (1976): 59-67, a further point that allows one to reject the hypothesis that these ladies were mere “concubines.”

Subsequently, Nord argued that the term Énr did not refer to a harem in the Old and Middle Kingdoms: “The Term Énr: ‘Harem’ or ‘Musical Performers’?,” in Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan (ed. William Kelly Simpson and Whitney M. Davis; Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1981), 137-45. This analysis purposely did not cover the evidence from the Ramesside Period.

The word prywt was long ago recognized as a collec-tive of pr: see Gardiner, “The Treaty of Alliance between ]attuàili, King of the Hittites, and the Pharaoh Ramesses II of Egypt,” JEA 6 (1920): 197 note 2. Here, the deter-minative insures the more precise meaning.

Fisher, The Sons of Ramesses II I, 11 briefly discusses the passage. But we can add here the remarks of Peter Lacovara, The New Kingdom Royal City (London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1997), 36-8 on “harem palaces.”

118 How could there be a coregency with double dating in the New Kingdom unless the accession days of both individuals were on the same day? The following discussion resumes our previous comments.

119 Prof. Hornung also reminds me that in the tomb of Ramesses II only raised relief was employed. To quote him: “(and even still in the entrance of Merenptah’s tomb) but this was of course a special case.”

120 For a useful summary, see Elfriede Reiser, Der königliche Harim im alten Ägypten und seine Verwaltung (Vienna: Verlag Notring, 1972). Barry Kemp, review of Reiser, Der königliche Harim im alten Ägypten und seine Verwaltung, JEA 62 (1976): 191-2 is crucial; cf. his study of “The Harim-Palace at Medinet el-Ghurab,” ZÄS 105 (1978): 122-33. Gardiner, “The Harem at Miwer,” JNES 12 (1953): 145-9 still remains important.

This section is in KRI II 328.4-6 and Reiser briefly notes the passage on page 16 of her work. But was the institution at Gurob/Miwer exceptional?

121 KRI II 328.4-5.122 The king has thus given his son a building separate

from the royal palace. There is no mention of hkrt nswt, for

that much of this subsection is formal, the passage

nevertheless opens up a vista that is rarely if ever

mentioned in the monumental texts.

Without doubt the Dedicatory Inscription goes

beyond the parameters of a simple Königsnovelle

account. It also exceeds the boundaries that were

commonplace in stories. Hitherto, the narrative

account contained a style that was borrowed from

earlier models, and the encomium as well as the

opening background are standard in format. But

when the king’s retrospective look is presented, it

is Seti who appears totally human. He no longer

is viewed as an omnipotent god-ruler.

The elder partner does not stop his support

for his son at this point. The composition indi-

cates additional benefactions given by the father

to Ramesses. The Pharaoh established a harem

or, more properly, a separate house for his son’s

women.120 Indeed, he set up an arrangement

similar to what New Kingdom kings (or at least

Ramesside ones) had; compare the evidence from

Miwer covered by Gardiner. It may not be out of

place to ask why this is this mentioned. Commenc-

ing with yet another narrative formation (grg.n.f ),

the point here indicated is that Ramesses must

appear as a Pharaoh and thus possess multiple

concubines or wives. Is this not virility talking?

(Of course, he already had one main wife at this

point in time and had sired at least one male

child.) Women were expressly “selected” (stp.f;

predicative) for him:121

He equipped/furnished me with a “female house-

hold,” a “royal harem,” identical to the beautiful

women of the palace.122

that an intense personal aspect crowns this section

of the inscription. The author under Ramesses’

orders explicitly writes this passage with great

feeling, and I cannot but conclude that the elder

man was worried about his own lifetime and the

necessity of insuring a designated heir.

Are these attitudes a reflection of hyper-emo-

tionality? This man, the Pharaoh, deeply con-

cerned with the royal succession and possessing

only one living son, had Ramesses appointed (if

that be the correct word) to the kingship. “Core-

gency” is the term which scholars normally have

used for such situations. This cannot be, how-

ever, as there was no double dating.118 The term

“regency,” as Kitchen saw some time ago, appears

to fit the situation better than any other. Although

this issue will be covered at the conclusion to this

chapter, I want to anticipate my analysis some-

what. The combined architectural, sculptural,

and inscriptional evidence that the Seti temple

presents, including the sculptural work in raised

relief and the early prenomen of Ramesses, argue

for a regency rather than a coregency.119

Despite the account being presented by

Ramesses, he consistently places himself extremely

close to his father in a very personal fashion.

Owing to this, I feel that it is not surprising to

encounter the unusual phrase concerned with the

“tears” of Seti. Considering the repetitive nature

of the father-son relationship embedded in this

inscription, it is only the emotively laden and

highly charged nature of the court appearance

of both men that should come as a surprise. The

concept of decorum, for what it is worth, surely

cannot be read into the account here. Granted

chapter two36

of John Schmidt, Ramesses II: A Chronological Structure for his Reign, JEA 61 (1975): 266. He remarked that the text could have been inscribed from year two onwards, undoubtedly basing himself on the internal nature of the composition plus the spellings and writings of the king’s two cartouches. I myself feel that it must have been carved (not written) later than year two, but this will be the subject of a later presentation. See as well the remarks in note 24 above.

127 KRI II 328.8-10.128 KRI II 328.9: wîÈ.í n.f Ètpw n kî.f.129 KRI II 328.10.130 KRI II 328.11-12. These ideas reoccur in the texts

of Ramesses IV at Abydos and may even be found located in a crucial one of Seti I. As I will turn to those composi-tions at the conclusion of this study, it is not necessary to cite the parallels here.

The íst signals the change and the following tenses are in the future; the word “child,” hrd, is repeated from column 48.

131 KRI II 328.13.

123 The other sense of “taking the reins” is in Meeks, Année Lexicographique III, 329. It does not apply here, but the whole passage is obscure. Further one reads: … t.f àdd (= his … who were suckled ?) íw pr-Énrwt Énmst. The significance of the latter designation, “female friend,” remains unclear.

Perhaps in the middle of column 52 we can read: “… while the harem house of a friend ?).”

124 KRI II 328.6-7.125 KRI II 328.7-8.The opening ínk st r [r-#], if the copy of Mariette is

followed, is rendered by Kitchen as “It was I who <set> them to [building ? …]: Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 168.

I have employed the word “until” in order to render adequately the verb msyt without having recourse to ignor-ing the final -t. On the other hand, the formation might be understood as a poorly written Late Egyptian Perfec-tive sdm.f.

126 And this is precisely what Kitchen argued in his review

Here, this first sdm.n.f appears to be predicative.

The now sole monarch recounts the early build-

ing and donation activities. Seti’s role has ended;

even the situation of his death is passed by in

silence.

Stylistically note the use of the imperfective

converter in column 49 (wn É## ít.í ) which may

reflect Late Egyptian stylistics. One can add

the following parallel of column 54 (mk wn Èwt.f

r-Ét.í ). In the second a mixing of linguistic pat-

ters reemerges despite the attempt to reject the

Amarna intrusions of the contemporary language.

(I must reiterate my feeling that this composition

is not, narrowly speaking, a good example of the

Ramesside monumental inscriptions presented in

the “langage de tradition.”) The second example

just cited still retains the past tense reflections of

Ramesses. The following italics are presented in

order to put attention upon the son’s personal

involvement.129

Behold. His temple was under my charge and

all of its work was under my care [since] (dr

wn) ……

Clearly, the building activity of young Ramesses is

now under consideration. The temporal transition

then occurs.130

Now/while (íst) I was a child [who …-ed ? …]

of my father.

I will now magnify it by renewing the monument

(s#î.í s<t>/s<w> m).

I will not neglect (nn mkÈî.í ) his seat/place as

those children (hrdw) who are ignorant of [their]

fathers …..

Once more the theme of father-son, once more

the hrd, and even further on the sî which acts

with îÉ:131

And he selected for me wives throughout …,

hisand females were taken … his123 … (?), and

the house of singing women of … (?)

The timing of this series of events is avoided;

hence, our conclusions must remain firmly fixed

to outside dating mechanisms. As for Ramesses,

he now reinvokes his listeners at Abydos:124

Behold.

I was Re over the people;

Upper and Lower Egyptians were under my

sandals …..

He was now in charge. Then there comes the first

reference to his building activity, an important

transitional link:125

They were mine [to the limit ….. (?)

until (?)] I fashioned my father out of gold

anew in the first year of my appearing.

A regency period is definitely indicated, even if

one feels that this double kingship was formal-

ized.126 On the other hand, the final brief note

could reflect upon Ramesses’ first major deed

after the death of his father. This point will be

elaborated upon below with respect to the “flash-

back” orientation of the narrative account in con-

junction with the re-emergence of the verb msí.

At least one predicative sdm.n.f resumes the

narration which is now focused upon the young

king’s newly established plan to rejuvenate of

Seti’s Abydene temple.127

I commanded (wd.n.í ) that his temple be set

up.

I established (smn.n.í ) his fields ……

I endowed (wîÈ.n.í ) for him offerings for his ka:128

[bread and beer, oxen and fowl], wine, incense,

every sort of fruit, [all types] of vegetables, and

orchards were flourishing for him.

the text: translation and detailed analysis 37

well as his youth. His determination to involve himself with architectural activities are directed to his father.

135 Thus the completion of his father’s building is con-nected with the construction of his own. Both names will persist owing to Ramesses’ orders.

136 KRI II 329.2-3; see also column 64.137 KRI II 329.3-5. The deities include Re-Osiris-Isis-

Horus (assumed, not named). There are 8 verses; 4 cou-

132 KRI II 328.13-14; mnq repeated from column 36. The verb grÈ (+ the expected m) is a very significant word. The word “child” should really be translated as “royal child” owing to the determinative.

133 KRI II 328.15-329.3.134 The emphasis is mine but the implication is clear.

Ramesses insures that he will determine the leader of the work. This point may in fact reflect both upon his piety as

The clarification of the final phrase of Ramesses

must depend upon Kitchen’s all-too-brief com-

mentary. Yet here the existence of both kings

side-by-side, or at least their names being cojoined

or juxtaposed, is underlined. Though the father

is dead his name, as well as Ramesses’, will be

carved. The reference to two deeds should refer

to the completion of Seti’s temple and perhaps

also to the ongoing work on Ramesses’ own

temple complex at Abydos. Physically and emo-

tionally the dual activity of the young monarch

remains centered upon the temple building and

the memory of Seti. This double aspect continues

up to the end of the inscription.136

At this point I prefer to stop and analyze this

lengthy speech of Ramesses, one that neatly folds

in upon itself with the final repetition of Éy. The

early years—indeed the earliest—of Ramesses are

specified. This backward looking aspect is not

hidden. Quite to the contrary, it is cleverly situ-

ated and contains at least one deliberate narra-

tive marker, the íst in column 54, and there is the

further temporal notation of Ramesses’ first year

as sole ruler. Some slight Late Egyptianisms have

been previously noted although none of them

diverge to any extent from the basic Classical

approach to this speech.

In a remarkable fashion the address of the king

has moved far from the stereotypical building

announcement. First, the king’s background as

a child under his loving father is described. Seti

(and not Osiris) is placed in the foreground of

this description. Second, I can direct the reader

to the insert of the following subsection: “Now/

while I was a child [who ….-ed …] of my father”

(columns 54-5). It is Ramesses who will renew

the monuments of Seti. Then come a series of

prospective announcements: he will do such-and-

such and such-and-such, all in honor and respect

to his father.

The officials respond. This fits the structure

of the Königsnovelle, and for the first time there is

a Late Egyptian negative. Is the reason because

we are in direct speech? (But see column 112

below.)137

One will say [concerning me (?)—he was (ntf

?) …]

a son who performed beneficial actions (îÉw).

In the present temporal framework Ramesses is

now grown up. Indeed, he is Pharaoh and no

longer merely the “son” of Seti who passively

received the benefactions from him. Ramesses

is able to carry out to a successful conclusion

the incomplete work. His present maturity is as

important as his childhood had been earlier.

All of this is placed within the arena of monu-

mental building activities.132

These my physical deeds for my father as a

child—

I will complete (mnq.í ) them while I am (now)

lord of the two lands.

And I will finish (grÈ) them extremely well. …..

The antithesis of Ramesses as regent and now

Ramesses as sole ruler is self-evident. But it is now

the successor, the designated heir, who is witnessing

the need for building activity in his father’s temple.

The style continues to remain personal, always

repeating the interwoven concepts of father Seti

and buildings at the sacred ground of Osiris.

Those crucial introductory words of columns

57ff. now reappear:133

I will [build up/dress] (nm#) walls in the

temple of the one who engendered me (pî

wtt <w>í ).

I will command (rdí + m + Èr) a man of my

choice to direct this work in it.134

I will fill up that [which was lack]ing on its

walls.

[I will …] its pylon out of …..

I will roof (Èbs) his house.

I will erect (àp) his pillars (íwnw; they now

return as a focus of attention).

And I will place (dí ) stones in the founda-

tion places.

It is good to make a monument after monu-

ment, two excellent things (îÉw again) at

one time, they being in my name and in

the name of my [father].135

So a [loving/acting] son, [so] the [one who

bore] him.

chapter two38

143 KRI II 329.7-8. Is such a royal phrase, stereotypical though it is, only possible within reported speech of a lite-rary nature? After all, it can be read as a criticism of all previous kings including Seti I. In essence, however, the sentence re-emphasizes Ramesses’ filial piety. Cf. Quirke, “Narrative Literature,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, 265 (with n sp).

144 The move to a narrative address is evident. It was undoubtedly for this reason that Kitchen altered his poeti-cal arrangement to prose on page 169 of his translation volume.

plets. Note the move to more complex verbal patterns.138 The passage is bw Épr Èqî mí-qd.k which should reflect

Middle Egyptian n sdm.n.f.139 Is ír.n.k to be understood as a nominal form?140 This second lengthy phrase is balanced by the pre-

ceding one.141 See KRI II 329 note 4a.142 KRI II 329.5-7. Although the passage is very broken,

stylistically there is a move to constructions using the Stative and a Pseudo-Verbal Construction. The present situation is under examination and the past events no longer apply. The emphasis is upon the “son” as ruler and his relation-ship to his father.

The following negative reintroduces us to the

more Late Egyptian writing. The text reads: bw

ír w# írrwt \r n ít.f r-mn hrw pn wpíw-Èr Èm.k mr[(y)

mî#t].143 This division of bw versus nn is worthwhile

to indicate once more.

One has not done what Horus did for his father

until today, except for your majesty, beloved of

[truth].

Middle Egyptian n sdm.n.f surely must be under-

stood, and one might have expected a sdm.n.f

Relative Form in the second half. Again, my

assumption is that this spoken passage is some-

what different from the previous one of the king

and, even more, it diverges from the opening

narrative portions.144

A reason for the intrusion of a more collo-

quial presentation—or at least one which reveals

a Late Egyptian presence—might be due to the

singularity of the narrative at this point. The

speech differs from Ramesses’ in that it is less

dependent upon earlier models and the theme, or

at least set phrases, perhaps could not be found

in standard eulogistic texts. On the other hand,

it might be a close reproduction of the original

address. This declaration, at any rate, contrasts

with the king’s own words wherein the style to

some extent remained set in the historical past,

and the future desires of Ramesses could be

recounted with the expected future tenses of the

Classical language. (Noteworthy is the absence

of the Third Future.)

B. The Eulogies and Physical Backdrop

A brief examination of the earlier eulogistic speech

of the grandees of the land to Ramesses shows this

distinction quite clearly if only owing to the pres-

ence of common bimembral phrases combined

into A-B formations, often called “kola,” following

Then the royal companions spoke (dd.ín) when

they responded to the good god:

“You are Re; your body is his body,

A ruler has not occurred like you.138

You are unique one like the son of Osiris,

You have done the equal of his [plans].139

[Mother] Isis has not [cherished ?] a king since Re,

except for you and her great/eldest son (?).

What you have done is greater than what he has

done, since he ruled after Osiris.”140

But if the small restoration is accurate there must

be a second completed/perfective verbal activity

that is negated; i.e., n[n Énms mwt] îst nswt dr R #.141

I find the section too fragmentary to utilize. One

should keep in mind that the other cases with nn

seem to reflect nn + Infinitive, nn wn + Noun,

or nn (= n) + sdm.f. They are, however, located

in the straightforward narrative portions of the

inscription.

At this stage in the composition the references

to Seti have been dropped with the rebirth of the

expected regularity of the universe. There is now

a new era:142

The law of the land has arrived at [its] place:a

son caring for the one who engendered him,

The divine seed […] of the one who created

him,

[A …] it cares for its nourisher.

This passage was encountered earlier when I

discussed the common vocabulary employed in

the text. All that I wish to add here is the fol-

lowing brief comment. For the first time the key

verbs indicate the masculine aspect of Ramesses

II’s father; see in particular írí. True, the section

concludes with the earlier theme of upbringing

through the lexical item mn#t. But this is somewhat

in antithesis to the preceding qmî. In column 30

the order was wtt (masculine) plus mn#, the latter

inherently feminine, and column 47 stressed the

childhood of Ramesses once more by means of

mn#, although on this occasion s#î follows.

the text: translation and detailed analysis 39

Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence, 2000), 9-23.

148 See Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 56-69. The later study is “Verkünden und Verklären. Grundformen hymnischer Rede im alten Ägypten,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, 313-34.

149 “Verkünden und Verklären,” 314, 321, 331; see as well his Liturgische Lieder, 105 with note 81. On page 353 in the second work Assmann emphasized the verbal nature (including Pseudo-Verbal Constructions) of these liturgies. The additional use of sdd provides yet another link to another compositional mode, the narrative: “Let me tell you what happened to me.”

145 In general, article “Hymnus,” in Lexikon der Ägyptologie III, 103-8; Liturgische Lieder, 1-13; and Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 10-16, 23-4 (nominal versus verbal style; being versus manifestation), and 56-69.

146 Liturgische Lieder, 4-5.147 For his early observations, see ibid., 6-13 (general

observations), 90-1 (litany style), 107 (participial apposi-tion in eulogies), 190-2 (ritual style). The text is covered on pages 15ff.

For a recent discussion of dwîw and íîw in connection with the lexicography of prayers and hymns, see Dimitri Meeks, “La prière en Égypte: entre textualité et oralité,” in Gilles Dorival and Didier Pralon, Prières méditerranéennes hier et aujourd’hui (ed. Gilles Dorival and Didier Pralon; Aix-en-

important, however, was his explanation for this

juxtaposition of two different styles of declara-

tion. In their development over time a point had

been reached when both were combined into

one hymn; originally the two styles were sepa-

rate. That is to say, they formed two different

genres: eulogies (non verbal presentations) and

others wherein a verbal enunciation was the rule.

Neither of these hymnic performative texts were

“prayers,” a vague modern term that is used for

Egyptian dwîw or íîw, as in rdít íîw. (Yet one can

find the key word, dwîw, outside of a funerary

setting—e.g., with the sun hymns—whereas rdít

íîw refers to an action of grace.)

Assmann expanded his understanding of the

ancient Egyptian eulogistic style in a lengthy study

concerned with “presentation” and “transforma-

tion” hymns.148 From the outset he outlined the

nominal style of the praise to a god, an eulogy.

There, pw sentences were the rule.149 This spe-

cific means of linguistic presentation served the

purpose of supporting the power and domination

of a god. These two sides were the aspects of the

communication, the goal. The form of nominal

and participial formations overtly served the case

of propaganda, and thus there is essentially no

difference at this point—at least in the Middle

Kingdom—between royal and divine hymns.

What connects them further is the cultic aspect,

one for the king and the other for a deity. Of great

importance, nonetheless, is the clear-cut differ-

ence between nominal and verbal style. The first

is regularly employed for hymns of presentation

or declaration (“Verkünden”) where everything

is atemporal. The king is “such-and-such,” and

always has been, and always will be. The specifi-

cally historically conditioned deed that he may

have been known for—for example, the building

activities of Ramesses at Abydos—still belongs to

this eternal and everlasting aspect.

the research of Fecht. I assume that this second

speech of the courtiers parallels Assmann’s con-

ceptions concerning hymns (dwîw) in which a pure

verbal structure can be observed.145 The entire

passage is an excellent case of an encomium to a

Pharaoh. But instead of a mythological setting—

which he sees to be the commonplace setting of

such hymns—this one is historical.

Perhaps the separation of both spheres is more

to our taste than the ancients. Yet it was the case

that mythological texts became more common

during the New Kingdom. The “edition” of the

Destruction of Mankind indicates that a some-

what lengthy narrative presentation of a mytho-

logical theme had been developed just before or

around the time of the Amarna Period. Therefore,

the division into mythological and historical had

already been partly erased by the time the Dedica-

tory Inscription was written. Perhaps Assmann’s

ideas can be adapted to this context.

A sharp separation between nominal versus

verbal formations does not provide much help

in organizing our viewpoints. The first speech of

the courtiers is mainly non verbal in arrangement

while the second is considerably more complex

as it involves a temporal background signaled by

means of verbal formations, among which the

Stative as well as the use of Èr + Infinitive are

common. These two fit within the modern Egyp-

tological concept of ancient eulogies although, to

be sure, the mental setting is not at all funerary.

It is suggestive that in his early work on hymns

Assmann stressed their verbal nature when the

sun was invoked; this was the original form of

those texts.146 To elucidate his points even more,

Assmann turned to a typical hymn of the early

XIXth Dynasty in which there were nominal

verses set beside verbal ones.147 He showed that

the latter approach indicated the mythological

background whereas the former did not. More

chapter two40

153 Ibid., 23-4 note 20.154 In general, see his “Eulogie, Königs-,” in Lexikon der

Ägyptologie II, 41-2.

150 Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 17-30.151 Ibid., 23.152 Ibid., 24-5.

of royal hymns of praise carved on temple walls.

Then too, many eulogistic free-standing stelae

dating to this period also remain.

Assmann presented an overview of the actual

style of these eulogies by noting the consistent use

of “virtual relative clauses,” following Gardiner’s

terminology, and further drew up certain basic

or characteristic attributes.154 This outline can be

examined carefully in light of the structure of the

Dedicatory Inscription.

(1) Titulary; full name of king.

(2) In apposition and following: nominal syntagms

referring to the king predominate.

(3) The characteristic of the activity comes

through the composition. The specific condi-

tions, activities, and events associated with

the king present the specific purport of the

hymn.

(4) Within these passages often “virtual relative

clauses” are employed.

(5) To move to a historical report the particle

íst is used.

(6) The nominal style in speeches will occur with

two forms:

a. “explicit” predication via pronouns

(ínk X; ntk X; X pw)

b. “implicit” predication

(mk sw m X and the like).

I am not convinced that the fifth characteristic

is quite accurate if only as it needs amplifica-

tion. The interruption of a historical section,

one separate from the hymn that preceded, can

employ íst. The Poem of the Battle of Kadesh,

for example, presents an introductory eulogy to

Pharaoh Ramesses. It neatly and nicely concludes

with the prenomen and nomen of the Pharaoh

in P 24. Then the historical setting commences

with íst in P 25. There, however, the focus of

attention is specific. Verbal forms now rise to the

fore and the background of Ramesses in Syria is

described. This subsection ends with P 33 and

then comes the transition literary Ér ír m-Ét of P

34, itself followed by a second íst to announce the

actual historical account in which there are nar-

rative literary verbal formations; e.g. #È#.n-.

In the Dedicatory Inscription such clear-cut

divisions are evident even if the organization is

not as straightforward as the Kadesh Poem. The

opening of the former eschews an eulogistic

According to Assmann the use of a verbal

style means a focus upon transformation hymns

(“Verklären”) is necessary.150 Whether or not a

strict division between “Being” and “Manifes-

tation” can be applied to this dichotomy—the

former in the nominal style and the latter repre-

sented by the verbal style—is somewhat unclear

to me, if only because the concept of “manifes-

tation” tends to indicate physical or mental rev-

elation. Royal eulogies use both but tended to

move towards a verbal presentation over time.

At least by the Ramesside Period both forms of

presentation in a royal monumental (hieroglyphic)

inscription can occur.151

Interestingly, when one turns to the New King-

dom sun hymns the verbal quality of expression

is the mainstay of the dramatic presentation.152

The transfiguration concept is clear, but there

is also the characteristic of generalized expres-

sions to take into account. The parallels to the

eulogies in the Dedicatory Inscription are now

self-evident. A useful sidelight on this matter can

be indicated by the following three simple verbal

patterns.153

(1) d î.k pt = “you cross over/sail over heaven,”

a general expression and timeless; this is

characteristic of the Transfigurations.

(2) d î.k pt = “may you cross over/sail over

heaven,” a wish.

(3) *íw d î(.n).k pt = “You cross over/have crossed

over heaven.”

It is easy to see how such a verbal style can be

conjoined with a nominal one, and generally with-

out many pw sentences. Of prime importance was

the atemporal nature or repetitive pattern of the

presentation; e.g., the sun rises every day, reaches

its zenith, and then dies in the evening. Eulogistic

addresses of praise in Dynasty XIX could include

hymns at the accession of a Pharaoh—many

still remain embedded in war inscriptions, a fact

that Assmann did not overlook—and likewise in

“royal novels,” such as the Dedicatory Inscription.

Whether or not there was an “explosion” of these

encomia during the Ramesside Period is unclear.

The so-called Late Egyptian Miscellanies, most of

which have come down to us on papyri, provide

one major source. Furthermore, because the mas-

sive building activity of the New Kingdom Pha-

raohs continued apace, there are a fair number

the text: translation and detailed analysis 41

As I do not intend to write a study of the Ramessides and Abydos from a theological-historical vantage point, this question will be left aside. Nevertheless, the study of the Dedicatory Inscription forms but one part of such an undertaking.

157 “Verkünden und Verklären,” 320.158 Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 56-60.

155 Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 52-6.156 Ibid., 54-5: “Wenn die Hymnen Osiris den ‘Herrscher

der Lebenden’ nennen, ist das Wort ‘Lebende’ kein Euphe-mismus für die Toten, sodern bezieht sich auf die Macht, die dem Totenherrscher über die Lebenden gegeben ist, die allesamt einmal zu ihm gelangen müssen.” This sentence reflects the great significance that Osiris had during the Ramesside Period and how different it was from earlier times.

and naturally also to the cultic sphere, but only

very rarely in the private tombs.”157

The structure of these royal hymns allows us

to examine more deeply Assmann’s three level

concept of Type-Form-Text.158 This analysis can

provide a useful backdrop to the internal struc-

ture of the Dedicatory Inscription and its con-

glomerate nature. Text, the “lowest” level, so

to speak, comprises a syntactic aspect in which

the basic organizational structure is found. His

example of Morning-Midday-Evening suits those

religious hymns and prayers which he discussed

to an exemplary degree. Form, the second level,

and semantic in outlook, is posited to involve the

complex of the internal characteristics to be enun-

ciated. For example, see the concept of the sun

god as creator, the guarantor of life, and its daily

experience. The uppermost level of Type involves

the complete hymn to the whole day’s activities.

With regard to Ramesses’ Dedicatory Inscrip-

tion there can be little doubt that its innermost

core deals with one or many aspects connected

to Abydos. The first hymn of homage (not wor-

ship) of the courtiers concerns the interrelation-

ship of Ramesses, as the son of Seti, with Horus,

the pious son of Osiris of Abydos. How this is

worked out is another question. The “Form,” to

follow Assmann, must be reflected in the specific

characteristics of this king: what he will do or what

he had done. Finally, the Type of praise relates

explicitly to the setting, historically in this case.

If the first eulogistic paean of praise to Ramesses

does not follow any of these premises the second,

in contrast, does. Owing to this it is probable that

the first address of the king’s courtiers was not

expressly drawn up for the actual historical Sitz

im Leben at Abydos. It was, as I shall emphasize

subsequently, merely part of the stock literary

“common property” that various authors could

use when preparing a royal encomium. This por-

tion of the composition works solely to provide an

introductory rhetorical section. Specific temporal

or personal aspects of the Pharaoh are expressly

shunned. This is not done in the second hymn of

presentation. Then comes the transition hall-

marked by the literary phrase or denominator

“one of these days …..” (column 30). A historical

presentation takes over and the useful íst marker

occurs soon thereafter in column 36. The pres-

ence of the king at Abydos is hallmarked by the

use of íst wí (column 54) with Ramesses located in

front of his officials and speaking to them about

his past; no hymnic presentation is given. Later

on, in his speech to Seti, the style is transformed

into a lengthy series of coordinated sdm.f ’s and

a few sdm.n.f ’s. For the moment, it is sufficient

to observe the conglomerate nature of the whole

composition and its avoidance of one specific

style.

The speeches in the Dedicatory Inscription

are radically different from the “transfiguration

hymns.” The latter have to be viewed from a

vantage point that is removed from a histori-

cally determined or narratively presented point

in time. Such is not the case here. It is true that

there arose an “intrusion,” so to speak, of pure

historically conditioned verbal elements within

such “transfigurations.” For example, Assmann

cites the Osiris hymns with their narrative account

of the condition of Egypt.155

He further expanded upon the idea of royal

hymns to include those directed to various dei-

ties. The question thus arises whether such divine

hymns also belonged to the literary communi-

cation of propaganda.156 Notwithstanding his

interest in the historical setting of these texts,

Assmann wisely stressed the difference between

royal hymns and hymns to gods. It is the former

with which we are presently concerned. Indeed,

it was not composed by a high official of the land

and placed within his tomb. Useful parallels to

our text dating from the Middle Kingdom can be

cited. The Berlin Leather Roll and the Semneh

Inscription of Sesostris III come immediately to

mind. By and large, such compositions are not

located within the setting of a private tomb unlike,

for example, divine hymns. To quote Assmann:

“The royal hymn essentially belongs to literature,

chapter two42

personnelle avant l’âge amarnien,” RdE 27 (1975): 195-210. I do not, however, concur with their statement that the sdd bîw and the sdd nÉtw are “largement interchangeables” (page 225 note 180). The sdd bîw are associated with gods and dead kings; the sdd nÉtw are associated with living kings. See notes 167 and 196 below for the important studies of Borghouts; and Chapter III note 205 for the phrase sdd pÈty.

Redford’s comments in Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals, and Day Books, 257 note 1 can be expanded. Sdd refers to a per -formance that was oral, but could quite possibly include gestures and other movements. The words, nonetheless, had to be memorized or read from a papyrus.

160 Assmann, “Die ‘Loyalistiche Lehre’ Echnatons,” 1-32; pages 4-9 in particular.

161 Spalinger, in “Remarks on the Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II: The ‘Bulletin’,” in Perspectives on the Battle of Kadesh (ed. Hans Goedicke; Baltimore: Halgo, 1985), Chapter II.

162 In addition to his summaries for the Lexikon der Ägyp-tologie cited in Chapter I note 35, see the various comments in his Liturgische Lieder, passim, especially page 91 where he covers the litanies and their specific linguistic arrangement. He also discusses the litany as a form and compares (not

159 The following discussion is based on two of my studies: “New Kingdom Eulogies of Power: A Preliminary Analysis” and “Encomia and Papyrus Anastasi II,” with both cited in Chapter I notes 37 and 44.

For the sdd bîw see in particular Assmann, article “Are-talogien,” 425-6 with note 5, and “Die ‘Loyalistiche Lehre’ Echnatons,” 6-7; with Andrea M. Gnirs, “Die ägyptische Autobiographie,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, 217, 235-6. Eyre, “Is Egyptian historical literature ‘historical’ or ‘literary’?,” ibid., 425 briefly covers the swîà. His study is useful in the context of the Dedica-tory Inscription.

The study of Collombert and Coulon, “Les dieux contre la mer. Le début du ‘papyrus d’Astarté’ (pBN 202),” is extremely important as the two authors have been able to reconstruct a papyrus of the mid to late XVIIIth Dynasty, which, however, goes back to the reign of Amunhotep II. The opening lines present an encomium to the king who is described as a child, a àrí. They also recognize a direct a personal relationship between the interlocutor and a god, noting the importance of the sdd bîw in texts of personal piety. They also point to the ostraca of personal piety that are linked to these recitations of bîw; see Posener, “La piété

Because Assmann followed a “pure pragmatic

genre definition” in his research, it is easy to avoid

the often intractable difficulties concerned with

the mixing of forms, contamination, reinterpreta-

tion, and wholesale alteration. What is important

is the use of these hymns. It is interesting that in

these opening sections of historical monumental

texts stock phrases can be added, subtracted, or

totally replaced by others. On another occasion

I referred to Liverani’s concept of “free variants”

when referring to various doublets present in the

Bulletin of the Battle of Kadesh.161 Should we

consider such simple cases to have been condi-

tioned by the sculptor right at the wall face or at

the front of the stela? Were the differences part

and parcel of the original (hieratic) texts them-

selves? Or did the earlier (hieratic) preliminary

copies already reflect these divergences? Granted

that an alteration of Seth for Ba’al or m ît.f for

m wnwt.f is not important, I still can point out in

the Kadesh Poem the alteration of n#t and wd î,

a situation that is not so simple. In some cases a

linguistic updating can be observed; in others the

reverse—the preference for an older more Clas-

sical form for a younger. For example, tnw hrw is

in variance with m mnt in the Kadesh Poem.

But even if these examples are of minor sig-

nificance, they nevertheless reflect the nature of

the eulogistic or rhetorical passages in which they

are located. The patterning is mainly bimem-

bral (A-B) and non-verbal. Thus they can be

fitted into the style of eulogistic hymns covered

by Assmann.162 They are also periodic. By this I

mean that there are heavy pauses after certain

praise to Ramesses. The first speech of the king’s

officials, poetical or hymnic though it may be,

performs the same role as do a series of metaphors

and similes. Further remarks concerning this situ-

ation will be addressed below in this section.

Furthermore, one can ask whether this elo-

quent and high-sounding verbiage, placed imme-

diately after the regnal year date of the king plus

his names, belongs to a subgenre of “praises to

the king.” That is to say, do they fit better into

the genre of the well-known swîà rather than the

sdd bîw?159 It also could have been the case that

the authors of this composition and other New

Kingdom royal inscriptions had at their fingertips

net collections of set patterns of speech available

for immediate use, and that these passages derived

from regular or standard hymns of homage to the

Pharaoh. The latter supposition would at least

allow us to concur with Assmann concerning the

difficulty in naming various subgenres of ancient

Egyptian hymnic literature. I am referring to his

statement that distinctions among such hymns

and prayers according to their actual use—for

example, sun hymns, Osiris hymns, or funerary

hymns—indicate specific situations, narrowly

speaking, and nothing more. According to his

analysis we are able to encounter the reality of

subcategories, or subgenres, even if the public

nature of the encomia connect with the idea of

a sdd denoting an official announcement; i.e.,

the actual event is taking place in the here and

now.160 Thus in the Dedicatory Inscription the

encomia were offered to the king upon his arrival

at Abydos.

the text: translation and detailed analysis 43

ers the earliest New Kingdom example (Urk. IV 14.1-24.6; Ahmose at Karnak) to be so detailed and full of literary expressions that one must see a lengthy tradition at work. Unfortunately, we are ignorant of this historical situation. See his entry “Eulogie, Königs-,” in Lexikon der Ägyptologie II 41 with note 18; add Peter Beylage, Aufbau der königlichen Stelentexte vom Beginn der 18. Dynastie bis zur Amarnazeit II (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002), Chapter 4.

These monumental eulogies record the praises (encomia) on the part of the king’s officials, high men, etc., or from the Pharaoh himself. They were presented in an official and formal setting, and the occasion was a serious one. Hence, the entire presentation reflects the solemnity of the event reflected through these non-verbal phrases. Surely it was slowly and accurately spoken.

165 Hermann Grapow, Die bildlichen Ausdrücke des Aegyp-tischen: Vom Denken und Dichten einer altorientalischen Sprache (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1924). One weakness of the pre-sentation was his inability to perceive what a metaphor “really” is, a point stressed by Gardiner in “The Eloquent Peasant,” JEA 9 (1923): 10 note 3 (the example was from the Dedicatory Inscription: sîw n tî).

166 Earlier, I had considered such texts to be rhetorical poems in “Two Ramesside Rhetorical Poems,” in Egypto-logical Studies in Honor of Richard A. Parker (ed. Leonard H. Lesko, Hanover and London: Brown University by Uni-versity Press of New England 1986), 136-64. The work of Grapow referred to in the following sentence is his Die bildlichen Ausdrücke.

contrasts) it with the nominal–oriented eulogy. As the ancient Egyptian liturgies utilized a series of evoking (“naming”) predicates concerned with the Being (“Wesen”) of a god, so too can we find such attributes in these eulogistic sections of the Dedicatory Inscription.

The reader will find Assmann’s detailed perspective on hymns, prayers, liturgies, and eulogies ably summarized and presented in the lengthy introduction to his Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.). Pages 56-60 contain the core of his theoretical analysis. “Egyptian Mortuary Liturgies,” in Studies in Egyptology: Presented to Miriam Lichtheim I (ed. Sarah Israelit-Groll; Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1990), 1-45.

The last major study of his on this subject is the detailed work of Assmann and Bommas, Altägyptische Totenliturgien.

163 Günter Burkard presents a conservative treatment of Egyptian metrics in “Metrik, Prosodie und formaler Aufbau ägyptischer literarischer Texte,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, 447-63. His documentation is useful, but the attempt at a synthesis is impossible owing to the divergence of theoretical bases offered.

Kitchen, in contrast, has presented a useful structural analysis of poetical expression in his Poetry of Ancient Egypt (Jonsered: Paul Åströms Förlag, 1999), xiii-xx. The concept of a tricolon is extremely important as it has been all too frequent the case that Egyptologists adhere to a system of a two-line unit.

164 This aspect of the eulogies must be considered before any analysis of the material can be written. Assmann consid-

historical narrative actually begins. (In this case

section 24 is the “name divider”). The vocabulary

employed within this portion of seventeen sections ably expresses the outlook of the entire composi-tion. Here is denoted the virility of Ramesses, his militaristic nature, and the power associated with the Pharaoh. All of these concepts fit in perfectly with the oncoming narration of the conflict. But it can be asked whether this encomium was cre-ated expressly for the written composition, the Poem, or whether it was taken from a previously compiled collection of royal eulogies. True, the tenor of the vocabulary and the virility of the metaphors fit perfectly with the text, but these lines are very standard and unoriginal. In essence, they reveal no brilliant poetical ability, and it is for that reason why I believe the subsection to be derived from a manual of encomia.

The Marriage Stela of Ramesses, which I have briefly touched upon earlier, is different. The names of Ramesses, to take a case in point, are used over and over again to separate sections (stanzas or perhaps groups of verses).166 There are many of these and the metonyms are also quite expressive; indeed, Grapow used this text more than once in his study. The “title” to the work actually appears close to, but not at the beginning,

of the text: “Beginning of this excellent monument

of exalting the might of the possessor of power,

magnifying the valor, and boasting of the strength

groupings. If we follow Fecht’s “kola” system or

organization, a regularized arrangement plays

a great and extraordinary role in working out

the eulogistic patterning. Rather than grammati-

cally complex, presenting paratactically composed

lengthy sentences (or verses), these kolas are short

and clipped. If one could speak them out loud, it

appears that they should be slowly enunciated.

Column 40 is an excellent case in point:

nb pt | nb tî || R# #nÉ n tî mí-qd.f

nb #È#w | rwd phryt || Tm n Ènmmt

The passage is commented upon below.163 Here,

I wish to concentrate only upon the pauses. If

spoken quickly they lose their impact. After all,

the words are fulsome with praise for Ramesses.

They are directed to him. Standard though they

may be, I still do not believe that they are col-

orless. Rather, they advance step by step in a

slow yet not leisurely manner.164 Many years ago

Grapow was able to use circumscribed passages

similar to the above in his groundbreaking work

on ancient Egyptian metaphors.165 One reason

why such portions of royal inscriptions of the

Ramesside era formed a useful source for his

work was that these passages had been greatly

employed at the beginning of the then contem-

porary royal monumental texts. For example,

the Poem of the Battle of Kadesh runs from sec-

tion 7 (Kuentz’s designation) to 23 before the

chapter two44

Fares” in… ir a buscar leña: Estudios dedicados al prof. Jesús López (ed. Joseph Cervelló Autuori and Alberto J. Quevedo Álvarez; Barcelona: Aula Ãegyptiaca, 2001), 99-102.

169 Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books, 82 note 37; see page 91 as well. The study of John Coleman Darnell is The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity: Cryptographic Compositions in the Tombs of Tutankhamun, Ramesses VI and Ramesses IX, 358-9.

The presence of Ptah may indicate the cult image of the sun god because we are concerned with the connection—if not the mingling— of Re with Osiris. Darnell emphasizes the offering of Maat to Ptah.

Note Darnell’s reference on page 355 to a portion of Ramesses II’s bandeau texts at Abydos (KRI II 532.7-8). In this case the king “becomes part of the eternal Re-Osiris cycle.”

170 “Ramessidische Inschriften aus Karnak.”171 Ibid., 140.

167 KRI II 235.13/14; there is a useful commentary in Borghouts, “The First Hittite Marriage Record: Seth and the Climate,” in Demareé and Jac. J. Janssen, Mélanges Adolphe Gutbub (Montpellier: Institut d’Égyptologie, Uni-versité Paul Valéry, 1984), 13-16; and for the word bîw in the composition, see his contribution “Divine Intervention in Ancient Egypt and its Manifestation (bîw),” in Gleanings from Deir el-Medîna, 1-70.

168 KRI II 258.1-81.15; with William F. Edgerton and John A. Wilson, Historical Records of Ramses III (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936), 119-36. Cf. Kitchen’s recent comments in Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 159-63 (Blessing of Ptah) and 163-5 (Second Hittite Marriage). On page 160 he points out that “this text always appears paired-off with the main account of the First Hit-tite Marriage.” Additional and very useful historical and poetical remarks will be found in this commentary.

An additional exemplar has been published by Sergio Donadoni, “Un frammento di stelle ramesside dai Kiman

Two other scenes occur, yet the focus upon the

newly crowned Ramesses and his connections to

Abydos, Seti, and the old ritual of coronation/

accession are what matters. Redford has also con-

sidered a Middle Kingdom case (temp. Sesostris I)

wherein the writing of a king’s name on the Ished

tree occurs. In his discussion he paid attention

to the newly crowned ruler as the kernel of the

performance; additional commentary by Darnell

can also be taken into consideration.169 All in all,

their remarks serve to buttress the importance of

Ramesses’ account of his Abydos visit in his self-

conception of kingship.

Helck, who was the first to cover the Ished

ritual in detail, pointed out that even though an

original northern geographic ceremony should be

recognized, the presence of the god Ptah of Mem-

phis was a later intrusion.170 He further main-

tained that there was no specific ritual activity

connected with these scenes. Rather, the pictures

—the accompanying inscriptions are extremely

laconic—have to be placed in the realm of the

other- or afterworld. They remain “in der Sphäre

der Götter.”171 The event might even be con-

sidered to be mythological insofar as a specific

event is temporally fixed (king’s accession) and

physically located (tree; deities). But Helck also

affirmed the presence of Thoth whose associa-

tion with the “rite” ought to predicate an event

set on a specific day. Difficulties in determining

the exact time in which such a ceremony should

have taken place still remain. Helck opted for

an interval between accession and a recorded

event seven months later but this, as he knew, was

dependent upon one account, that of Ramesses

III’s. The evidence is at best pictorial, albeit for-

mulaic, and the written data provide little grist

of the great and secret marvels which occurred to

the Lord of the Two Lands.”167 But then a hymn

of praise follows that runs for almost sixteen more

lines. As a result, the historical account is deferred

for a long time. (These introductions, such as the

one contained in the Blessing of Ptah, served a

very important function even if the opening sec-

tions may be felt by us to be window dressing.)168

Usually they reflect the historical circumstances

of the action to come, perhaps in a very indirect

if not muted fashion but nonetheless one directed

to the eventual actions of the king. In the Dedi-

catory Inscription, on the other hand, the open-

ing ( first) speech of the courtiers replaces these

expected eulogistic beginnings.

In this context let us return to the location

where this text was carved. At the time of carv-

ing the exterior southern front portion of the Seti

I building area was not part of an outer court,

and the eventual wall at the portico would only

somewhat later be part and parcel of the new

court. Can we conclude that there was an official

ceremony close to this area, one in which the

courtiers and king were involved and which took

place right in front of the unfinished building?

The accompanying scene on the right depicts

Ramesses before Osiris, Isis, and his father Seti;

the king offers the standard Maat to the three.

As we have seen, further to the right and across

the entrance the north wall is decorated with the

scene of the Ished tree; Seti, in front of and Horus,

is present. In addition, Ptah and Thoth (chief of

the pr md ît and of course the scribe and divine

intermediary) occur together, with the latter writ-

ing the new king’s name (Ramesses). In addition,

the king receives the kingship from the creator

god Re-Harachty; Ramesses is followed by Osiris.

the text: translation and detailed analysis 45

Osiris. This is not the case here. The second type involves an address (“Zuruf”) to the god in which the historical situ-ation of Egypt (mythologically speaking) is narrated. These mortuary hymns center upon the Triumph of Horus and the resultant happy condition of Egypt.

Naturally, the eulogies to the king contain ideas, but it is in the final section of the Dedicatory Inscription—the call of Ramesses to his father Seti and the latter’s response—that a situation similar (but by no means identical) to the mortuary hymns is encountered. The structure, however, is quite different.

176 See now now Suzanna Constanze Heinz, Die Feld-zugsdarstellungen des Neuen Reiches: Eine Bildanalyse (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2001).

172 In other words, the eulogy of the officials can be argued to be a “real” account of what they spoke.

173 Cf. Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books, 259-75.

174 KRI IV 2.8-12.6; see my comments in Aspects of the Military Documents, 211-13. See now Colleen Manassa, The Great Karnak Inscription of Merneptah: Grand Strategy in the 13th Century BC (New Haven and Oxford: Yale Egyptological Seminar and Oxbow, 2003).

175 This information derives from personal communica-tions. For the Osiris cult in the New Kingdom and the key eulogies, see the overview of Assmann, Ägyptische Hymnen Gebete (2d ed.), 52-6. He divides the Osiris hymns into two groups—those connected to the cult and the mortuary ones. The first involves the priest taking upon himself the role of

faces a relatively sober narrative presentation, but

this is placed side-by-side with other orientations.

The booty list, for example, interrupts the nar-

rative account even though it is not difficult to

separate these varying sections from each other.

In contrast, the three main dated accounts of

the wars of Ramesses III are written better. I do

not wish to discuss their “veracity” or their care-

fully presented “indirect” approach of narration.

Nonetheless, encountering these inscriptions we

meet well-developed and integrated presentations

that are systematically organized, ones that can be

read with great profit in contrast to Merenptah’s

Karnak war record.

The historical setting, the so-called “retrospec-

tive,” might have been a major hallmark of

Egyptian historical writing. On the other hand,

following some remarks of Kitchen, I view the

setup of these “historical inscriptions” compo-

sitions in a less rigorous manner.175 They may

be likened to the detailed reliefs of the king in

battle insofar as portions or subsections could

be included or not. It was not required that all

aspects of a king be depicted and certain scenes

could be omitted. Undoubtedly, constrictions of

space played a great role in selection, but was

that the only reason? Choice, as well, came into

play. It was not necessary that all of the following

pictorial narrative aspects be included: king pre-

paring to war, the march out, king in battle (with

chariot, horses, etc), counting the booty and the

dead, the return home, and the final presentation

to Amun or the Theban triad.176 Some could be

eliminated for whatever reasons that may be pos-

ited. Available space, a key determinant, always

played a major role in the physical arrangement

of wall depictions.

In the same way a written historical composi-

tions could be short or long, well arranged and

very sharply circumscribed. The two major texts

for the mill. Crucial, however, remains the con-

nected nature of this event and the king’s acces-

sion as Pharaoh.

The public nature of this location where the

Dedicatory Inscription stands cannot be underes-

timated. This court at Seti’s temple (the eventual

Second) remained open, thereby indicating the

more accessible nature of the area that was not

associated with the innermost mysteries and reli-

gious celebrations. Later in time Ramesses would

“usurp” most of the Outer Hypostyle Court from

his father Seti, but at the time of his accession

as sole Pharaoh this had not yet occurred. That

other inner portion of the temple, mainly com-

pleted under the reign of Seti, was in place when

Ramesses returned to Abydos after his coronation

at Thebes. Given that the outer area of the temple

of Seti remained more open to the “public,” the

location of the Dedicatory Inscription makes

sense. In addition, the official ceremony, mainly

directed to finishing Seti’s building work, could

very well have occurred here. But whether the

first speech of the courtiers, even if it follows stan-

dard literary practice of the Ramesside Period,

faithfully reproduces what was then spoken must

remain dubious.172

Within lengthy royal accounts the so-called

“historical” portions appear to have been woven

into the whole composition irregularly. One has

the feeling that the presumed “retrospectives,”

to employ Redford’s term, were not necessar-

ily an automatic part of the entire account.173

This is easier to see in the Königsnovelle inscrip-

tions than in the military accounts of kings, and

the Dedicatory Inscription reveals that situation

in a precise manner. A second example can be

highlighted. The extremely long version of the

Libyan war of Merenptah is not at all well orga-

nized.174 Various approaches were taken by the

composer in order to present his narrative. One

chapter two46

181 Urk. IV 1279.8. Assmann notes these important hallmarks in his contribution “Eulogie, Königs-,” Lexikon der Ägyptologie II, 45.

182 Urk. IV 1227-1243.8; see Aspects of the Military Docu-ments, 202-06.

183 Redford in Papyrus and Tablet, (ed. Donald B. Red-ford and A. Kirk Grayson; Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1973), 25-8.

184 KRI II 256.5-257.16.

177 Urk. IV 1299.14-1316.4; Helck, “Das Verfassen einer Königsinschrift,” in Assmann, Feucht, and Grieshammer, Fragen an die altägyptische Literatur, 241-56.

Note now Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III, 242-53 (Memphis Stela) and 260-70 (Karnak Stela).

178 See my study “The Historical Implications of the Year 9 Campaign of Amenophis II,” JSSEA 13 (1983): 89-101.

179 Urk. IV 1276-86.180 This is followed by Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit

von Ahmose bis Amenophis III, 223-41.

narrative organization, and the virile deeds of

the king, with separate historical backgrounding,

present neither a conversation between king and

officials nor any literary markers.

Other mid Dynasty XVIII royal inscriptions

could be brought forward to fortify this analysis of

selection. Carefully if not cleverly the Gebal Barkal

Stela of Thutmose III alters its approach from

a lengthy series of rhetorical paeans of praise—

akin to those of the later Ramesside epoch—to

a historical narrative.182 In this case the core of

the text follows a first person account of the Pha-

raoh, one that is, in fact, eventually succeeded

by a speech of the king to his courtiers. Redford

considered this later part of the text to be a copy

of an official address of Thutmose III at Gebel

Barkal in front of the elite of the land, or at least

those who were present.183 I agree with him on

this point, if only as the courtiers respond (lines

42ff.: smrw ípn; note the formal diction), the king

answers back, and the “people” present chant a

hymn to their monarch (line 48ff: sddt.n rmtt). The

transition to the “present,” the “here and now,”

is carefully written, and the text moves from the

introductory praises (which are not placed under

any rubric) to the first person account.

I believe it is best to view such non-narrative

portions from their potential aspect as possibilities

that an author might choose to include in his final

product. But I fail to see that they always had to

be placed within a text, and that some type of

historical core— whether it be called “retrospec-

tive” or not—need not have been an absolute

requirement for “publication.” For example, the

small alabaster stela of Ramesses II from the pre-

cinct of Mut presents an “abridged” version of the

First Hittite marriage of that king.184 This is an

excellent case for my analysis because it reveals

a highly condensed format wherein the details of

narrative were eschewed.

Therefore, no hard and fast organization of

material and presentation of facts were demanded

for many Egyptian “historical” inscriptions,

of Amunhotep II (Karnak and Memphis Stelae)

dealing with his year seven and nine campaigns

can be examined from this vantage point. I

think that there is more to say than what Helck

claimed.177 Mistakes, to be sure, are a problem

with the Karnak version, yet what do we do with

the dream segment on the Memphis Stela and

how does the developed ending of the latter fit

into the historical account? In both of these cases

it is better to view the arrangement of the text

as follows:

(1) Certain aspects of a war could be recounted,

others not.

This had nothing to do with a presumed

official Vorlage which these two versions were

derived.

(2) The dream sequence is overtly literary, and

hence was set apart from the standard nar-

rative structure of the campaign.

(3) The so-called “Freundschaftsangebote “ of

the great powers, which is placed at the end

of the Memphis version after the second war,

may or may not actually belong to the his-

torical development. I.e., it may have been

a subsequent to the war but independent,

and then added to the military record. A

similar possibility might concern the brief

passage concerning the king’s wife that is

included at the end of the first campaign.

(4) The troublesome record of captured foreign-

ers, the number of which is astounding,

must derive from a source separate from the

military campaign.178

Also useful for this analysis are the records that

the same king left standing at the Sphinx.179 Helck

labeled these stelae with the terms “ great” and

“small.”180 For our purposes it is sufficient to note

the lack of any historical section in the latter.

That exemplar contains a standard Dynasty

XVIII eulogy to the king; its fourteen lines are

merely a series of royal epithets in the A-B pattern

whereas the larger moves to a historical narration

introduced by íst in line eleven.181 From that point

on to the end the account presents a common

the text: translation and detailed analysis 47

As Gardiner showed (“A Pharaonic Encomium [II]”), the setting is Karnak, an oracle took place, and some type of “coronation” is to be understood. Peden covers this impor-tant text in his The Reign of Ramesses IV (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1994), 53-4; a useful translation will be found on pages 104-9.

188 Grandet, Le Papyrus Harris I (BM 9999) I, 77-80, 101-07. Stephen Quirke points out to me that the Great Papyrus Harris with its vignettes “seems very close compo-sitionally” to our text. The Kadesh account of Ramesses II may also provide another indication that the separation of the main block of writing (Poem) from the depictions is doing something on a new scale in Dynasty XIX. The Dedicatory Inscription has a major role to play in the typologizing of script-image relations.

189 Francesco Tiradritti, “‘I Have not Diverted my Inundation’. Legitimacy and the Book of the Dead in a Stela of Ramesses IV from Abydos,” in L’Impero Ramesside: Convegno Internazionale in Onore di Sergio Donadoni (Rome: Uni-versità degli studi di Roma “La Sapienza,” 1997) 193-203. He covers the previous analyses of A. J. Peden. A general analysis is also given by Lavier, Les Stèles abydéniennes relatives aux mystères d’Osiris, 137-44.

190 Ibid., 202.

185 KRI V 671.10-672; the latest discussion of the account will be found in in Stephan Johannes Seidlmeyer, “Epigra-phische Bemerkungen zur Stele des Sethnachte aus Elephan-tine,” in Stationen. Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens, Rainer Stadelmann gewidmet (ed. Heike Guksch and Daniel Polz; Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1998), 363-86.

186 The old comments of Gardiner, “A Pharaonic Enco-mium (II),” 9 and note 3 are worthwhile to reread.

187 Edward Wente, “The Syntax of Verbs of Motion in Egyptian,” Chapter V. Eyre, “Is Egyptian historical litera-ture ‘historical’ or ‘literary’?,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, 425 and note 66, quite rightly queries Grandet’s analysis in which the latter argued for a “giant public notice” for P. Harris: Le Papyrus Harris I, (BM 9999) I, 122-7.

This portion of P. Harris was added on to the preceding lengthy economic-religious document. It was copied from a pre-existent encomium that included historical details. Hence, it is literature, and a type that we see throughout the Ramesside Period. The crucial issue, however, is that such portions are often embedded in various types of composi-tions. The Dedicatory Inscription is one such case. I agree that the original Sitz im Leben is very difficult to determine, but such an undertaking is necessary. As an example, let me mention P. Turin Cat. 1882 recto (KRI VI 70-76.9).

round out the presentation, one that could stand alone and thus be independent from the entire manuscript of P. Harris.

With the above comment in mind it is neces-sary to return once more the focus of our topic, the Dedicatory Inscription. In order to achieve some deeper understanding of its Sitz im Leben in connection with the performative nature of the original event it might be useful to retrace Tiradritti’s analysis of the well-known Abydene stela of Ramesses IV.189 In a short study he turned his attention upon the “model reader” to whom the inscription is addressed. In his case the pres-ence of the so-called “Declaration of Innocence” (Chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead) was the outstanding peculiarity of the whole composi-tion. Tiradritti then discussed additional refer-ences from the Coffin Texts while noting that the Ramesses IV exemplar was not parallel to other royal stelae erected at Abydos before the XXth Dynasty. I follow him and reiterate one of his interesting conclusions; namely, that the royal

administration sent “messages in a way that comes

up to the reader’s expectations.”190

In this context the Dedicatory Inscription is

easier to define owing to the dating (the two sepa-

rate references to the king’s first year), the constant

reiteration of the father-son constellation, the his-

torical narrative core, and the series of addresses.

Moreover, the location of the inscription was out

in the public sphere and to a large degree still

remains so. The position on the exterior south

wall of the portico announces this aspect, one

including the Königsnovelle type. Kitchen’s astute realization that a historical backdrop need not be added to a historical text holds. To support his conclusions, one can now cite the very abbreviated Sethnakht Stela and its account of the “Interreg-num” at the close of Dynasty XIX.185 We can fur-ther add the all-too-short historical presentation in the Great Papyrus Harris. That small backdrop to the accession of Ramesses IV is a literary-his-torical account comprising a short description of the interregnum at the end of Dynasty XIX, the rise to power of a new ruling house, and the wars of Ramesses III. It connects the donations of Ramesses III with the new ruler of Egypt who was not the originally designated heir.186 This portion, vague though it may be, does not belong to the structure of the papyrus. Its clear purport, neither economic nor religious, is presented by means of a common narrative set-up, and its arrangement, which is overtly literary, follows for the most part the style of Ramesses III in his major war records

at Medinet Habu.187

Here then is a case in which a different type of

composition, a literary one, was included within

an incredibly long manuscript that was oriented

to the economic outlook of Egypt under Ramesses

III. Structurally separate from what precedes, the

historical portion reveals the other side of the

coin.188 This example highlights the inclusion of

material, which need not have been incorporated

into a text, whereas other examples show the exclu-

sion of material. In sum, Ramesses IV’s author or

authors utilized a historically based narrative to

chapter two48

and Caminos, Late Egyptian Miscellanies (London: Oxford University Press (1954), 37-8; for the word nÉtw in this context, see my Aspects of the Military Documents, 224-36, (also with sdd).

In P. Anastasi II is clear that the word nÉtw in this context does not merely signify military deeds but is rather more general. The new “villa,” a bÉn, is one of these deeds. Part II treats Ramesses as a warrior ( following Caminos’ title); III is a eulogy of Merenptah and the orientation is that of the victorious warrior-king; IV presents an identi-cal theme; V refers to the “villa” Sese; and VI, which also might belong to the same topic, covers a “letter of adula-tion” to the Pharaoh which, not surprisingly, is eulogistic. Only with section VII and following do we encounter a different perspective: hymn to Amun-Re; superiority of the scribe; etc.

I feel that the first five if not six subsections belong together as all of them cover the same broad concept of the king’s physical performances. Thus nÉtw is not merely a word employed for the Pharaoh’s military activities. On the other hand, I do not see any personal piety in these texts, and partly for that reason I do not equate the sdd bîw with the sdd nÉtw.

198 Spalinger, Aspects of the Military Documents, Chapter 7.

199 Late Egyptian Miscellanies, 40.

191 Columns 40 (beginning)-44 (beginning); KRI II 326.10-327.4.

192 Assmann, “Aretalogien,” 428-30.This situation is one among many reasons why the study

of Manfred Görg, Gott-König-Reden in Israel und Ägypten (Stutt-gart: W. Kohlhammer, 1975) was not successful. His article “Die Gattung des sogenannten Tempelweihespruchs (1Kön 8,12f.),” UF 6 (1974): 55-63 may be consulted for some helpful parallel evidence.

193 The words, although standard, need careful analy-sis.

194 But it has a significant definition role, a factor that did not escape Assmann, “Das Bild des Vaters,” 36-8.

195 This will be discussed later.196 Some recent observations of the literary use of sdd

with bîw may be found in Borghouts, “Divine Intervention in Ancient Egypt,” 8 and 27; Assmann, Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 10 with note 3; and Richard B. Parkinson, “Types of literature in the Middle Kingdom,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, 303.

But, as Assmann noted, sdd bîw is used explicitly with aretologies: “Aretalogien,” 430 note 5; Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 10 with note 3.

See note 159 above for a bibliography on sdd bîw and sdd nÉtw.

197 Gardiner, Late Egyptian Miscellanies (Brussels: Édition de la Fondation égyptologique reine Élisabeth, 1937), 12

speeches is a sdd bîw in which the manifestations

of a god were “proclaimed.”196

In contrast, these two encomia belong to the

New Kingdom sdd nÉtw, a specific subgenre that

is labeled at the beginning of P. Anastasi II.197

Certainly, the opening sections of that text can

be placed within the eulogistic compositions, as

defined by Assmann, but they are also connected

to the accounts of military nÉtw that we know were

popular in the New Kingdom.198 (The military

deeds of a Pharaoh were often labeled as nÉtw.)

On the other hand, the Anastasi II papyrus indi-

cates that we must extend the definition of the

word nÉtw to include activities of a non-warlike

nature. Caminos labeled the second section of

this papyrus a “Praise of Ramesses II as a War-

rior.”199 Yet the account is an encomium, a eulogy

in honor of the might and power of the king. The

time sphere is unbounded, eternal, and no battles

are recounted. Moreover, additional praises in P.

Anastasi II refer to the efficacy of the king over

the universe. We also can read a standard intro-

duction to a letter presenting the common theme

of the adulation to the Pharaoh. All in all, it is

reasonable to link many of the eulogies spoken

to the Pharaoh as a sdd of his nÉtw and eliminate

an automatic military or warlike setting.

Ursula Verhoeven’s comments concerning the

historical Sitz im Leben of the Horus and Seth Tale

are useful to mention in this context because there

that is balanced by the Ished tree scene rite that

also deals with a new reign. I suspect that the

original presentation of the courtiers’ first address

was not rapidly presented.191 This eulogistic wel-

come serves as a background to the ensuing royal

declaration while at the same time it provides the

first act in an official regal event.

I doubt if any one of the courtiers’ words in

the opening oral performance fits neatly in the

concept of a “general thanksgiving” which we

find typical of doxologies, or aretologies.192 But

let us remind ourselves that there are two sepa-

rate encomia. The first is a standard Königsnovelle

response by the high officials (columns 40-44).193

Both, nonetheless, reveal different roles in the

make-up of the composition although neither is

oriented to “thanking” a god. The opening enco-

mium lacks verbal structure and could have been

offered to any Pharaoh whereas the second (col-

umns 59-73) is closely associated with the present

king, Ramesses. The latter possesses a historical

Sitz im Leben relevant to the present ruler; the first

could have been used in almost any Ramesside

introduction to a lengthy text that was written on

a formal monumental stela or wall inscription.194

This address resembles better praises that a swîà

could offer to the king. Moreover, these words

presented by the royal companions (smrw nswt)

are considerably longer and more up-to-date.195

Yet, categorically speaking, neither of these two

the text: translation and detailed analysis 49

204 The god’s name introduces a new portion of the eulogy. This is, however, a difficult passage to interpret.

205 I view this verse in combination with the preceding.

Note the references to gods: Khnum and Renenutet.206 KRI II 327.1. As we have seen, this is a common

idiom: Aspects of the Military Documents, 98-100. This verse as well as the previous one end, at a caesura, with two separate names for “Egypt.” The structure is a simple A-B-C-A format.

207 These two attributes of the Pharaoh are reempha-sized later. I believe that both were recited in solemn high voice.

200 Ursula Verhoeven, “Ein historischer ‘Sitz im Leben’ für die Erzählung von Horus und Seth des Papyrus Ches-ter Beatty I,” in Wege öffnen: Festschrift für Rolf Gundlach (ed. Mechthild Schade-Busch; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996), 347-63.

201 See now KRI VI 227-29.2202 We can remind ourselves that at Abydos the Ished

scene on the right of the court complements the Dedicatory Inscription. Thoth, of course, is present in that depiction. But we should keep in mind that in the Solar-Osirian unity Thoth may be equivalent to the king: Darnell, The Enig-matic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity, 362. See the discussion in Chapter III.

203 Kruchten, “From Middle Egyptian to Late Egyp-tian.”

ing more weight to the simple A-B system that

preceded. I wonder if the intonation was that of

light—light—heavy, and when the sequence was

interrupted, the final was light.

nb pt nb tî, R# #nÉ n tî mí-qd.f,

nb #È# rwd phrt, Tm n Ènmmt.

nb àîy<t> sÉpr Rnnwt,

Hnm204 ms rÉyt.

dd tîw r fndw nbw, s#nÉ psdt tmm.tí,205

wÉî n pt sîy n tî, smíty s#qî ídbwy.

nb kîw #àî wÈîyt, rnnwt m st tbty.f,

ír wrw qd nmÈw, sÉpr.n mdwt.f df îw.

nb àps rs tp, Èr nb nm#,

nd.n pÈty.f Kmt, tnr Èr Éîswt,

íí Èb.n.f, mky.n Épà.f Tî-mrí.206

mry Mî#t #nÉ.f ím.s, m (= ín) hpw.f Éw ídbwy,

wsr rnpwt #î nÉtw, dr.n Èryt.f Éîswt.

(Columns 40-3)

Then comes the common phatic feature “Our

sovereign, our lord!”—which serves to announce

the conclusion of one subsection— “Living Re,

Atum by the means of the words from his mouth!”

(R# #nÉ Tm Èr mdwt m rî.f ). The ending recapitulates

the beginning where the same idea is expressed:

“Lord of heaven, lord of earth; living Re of the

entire land.”

íty.n nb.n,207

R# #nÉ Tm Èr mdwt m rî.f.

mk n #î m-bîÈ Èm.k,

wd.k n.n #nÉ n dd.k.

Pr-#î #nÉ wd î snb pî tîw n fnd.n,

#nÉ Èr nb wbn.n.f n.sn.

(Columns 43-4)

What needs to be highlighted are not the actual

words but rather the literary arrangement. This

address is commonplace and could have been

composed earlier because the courtiers have pre-

sented a standard effusive greeting to Ramesses in

a pattern that by early Dynasty XIX had become

is a similarity to the accession or coronation of the

new king in both that account and the Dedica-

tory Inscription.200 She concluded that this literary

composition was written for the inthronization of

king Ramesses V. According to Verhoeven, Text

B formed part of the coronation ceremony of

Ramesses.201 The structure is clearly eulogistic and

poetically structured, but not prose oriented. The

situation within and without Egypt is indicated.

The theme is a common one—the successful and

beneficent rule of the king, the connection of the

god Thoth to kingship,202 the unification of Egypt,

the powers of Min and Ba’al, and the figure of

Ramesses as a divine child. (The key terms sfy and

#dd are mentioned.) The mythic conceptions which

are covered indicate the common motif of Horus

as son of Osiris, Horus triumphant, and the role

of Thoth with the All Lord. Thus, the orienta-

tion is one of legitimatization, an aspect that is

also predominant in the Dedicatory Inscription.

From its style, arrangement, and orientation, I

feel that Text B represents a sdd nÉtw to the new

king Ramesses V, this time at or around the event

of his coronation. In similar fashion, the earlier

encomium to Ramesses II nested in his Dedica-

tory Inscription belongs to the very common sdd

nÉtw that were chanted to him, although in this

case the plausibility of a coronation ceremony is

historically excluded.

The organization of the first encomium in

this text—it best resembles a stately and majes-

tic hymn—is easy to determine. The verses break

neatly into separate portions, the first half of each

tending to operate with a pair of two A-B’s. In

verse eleven a common Dynasty XVIII theme is

renewed, and the presence of the sdm.n.f Rela-

tive Forms—still living—should make us cautious

when following Kruchten’s analysis to the let-

ter.203 As a rule, we find these formations in the

latter half of the presentation, seemingly provid-

chapter two50

receives “a nuance of permanence suitable for the expres-sion of universal truths.”

For the use of the Stative in hymns, see Assmann, Lit-urgische Lieder, 353-59.

I consider this verse to be separate from the preceding and I also interpret the following words as a heading to a new concept. At this point we move to the concept of the “son” and the vocabulary therefore becomes more oriented to the role of Horus.

215 Here, I understand the suffix .s as referring to a previous (lost) feminine noun.

216 I consider all of the words of the courtiers to be in the eulogistic style. The presence of the sdm.n.f formations is not a counterargument.

217 I argue for a triplet at this point.218 The ít must begin a new verse.219 I emphasize the “you” owing to the move to the

second person. Here, there are two such sdm.n.f ’s.220 The thorny term “god’s father” refers to Seti. Hence,

it need not always designate the father-in-law, a situation well known from Egyptological scholarship. A new sum-mary of the material on the “god’s father” will be found in Gnirs, Militär und Gesellschaft: Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte des Neuen Reiches, 95.

221 See note 214 above.

208 Therefore, sdm.n.f patterns and sdm.n.f Relative Forms are expected.

209 Columns 59-68; KRI II 329.3-330.8 (the highly “poeti-cal section”). I am following Kitchen’s understanding of this speech of the courtiers; see his translation on pages 169-70 of his Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II. Support for this interpretation will be presented below.

210 Kruchten, “From Middle Egyptian to Late Egyptian,” has also covered the problems of the negative formations n sdm.n.f, bw sdm.n.f, bw sdm.f, and the like.

211 Assmann, “Das Bild des Vaters,” 36-8. The entire study is important for the author’s concept of the “father-son constellation.”

212 KRI II 329.3-11.213 The bipartite nature is obvious here. The concepts

run through Re, the king as son of Osiris, mother Isis, the king first as Isis’ son and then as Osiris’s, and subsequently Horus. It may be that Ramesses is only explicitly referred to, as Horus ends the train of thought. See KRI II 329 note 5a for the possible reading “son.”

214 With Assmann, I do not see that it is necessary to understand the clause as circumstantial. The translation is simple: “The law of the land comes to his position” and the “his” refers to Ramesses. The concept is that of a timeless law. In Wente’s term it is a “gnomic narrative” (“The Syntax of Verbs of Motion in Egyptian,” 74). One

Here is the setup that is introduced by a formal

“Then the king’s companions spoke when they

answered the good god.”212

ntk R # dt.k dt.f, bw Épr Èqî mí-qd.k,

ntk w# mí sî Wsír, ír.n.k twt n sÉrw.f.213

[nn Énms mwt (?)] îst nswt dr R #, wpíw-Èr.k Èn# [sî. ?]s,

wr ír.n.k r írt.n.f, dr Èqî.f m-sî Wsír.

hpw n tî íw r #È#w.f,214 sî Èr n#t n ír sw.mw ntry … … qmî sw, … phr.s n mn#t.s.215

bw ír w# írrwt \r n ít.f r-mn hrw pn,216

wpíw-Èr Èm.k mry [mî#t], rdí.n.k Èîw Èr írywt.217

ít sp n îÉt …,218 sàm.n sw r dd.f r m-bîÈ.

ín-m íw sÉî.f, sàm.n.k rdí.n.k Ém r rwty.219

…..

[... Èîty.k ?] sfn íb.k ímî n ít.k

Mn-Mî#t-R# ít ntr mry ntr [Sty-Mr]-n-PtÈ mî#

Érw.220

(Columns 59-63)

You are Re, your body is his body,

A ruler like you did not occur.

You are unique like the son of Osiris,

And the equal of his plans you have per-

formed.

Mother (?) Isis did not nurse (?) a king since

Re,

Except for you and her son (?).

What you have done is greater than what he

did,

Since he ( = Horus) ruled after Osiris.

The law of the land comes to his position,221

A son who cares for the one who begot him.

age-old. The Classical style of such paeans of

praise has been well recognized in the scholarly

literature.208 In addition, there is no indication

that these statements are specifically related

to their king’s commandments at Abydos and

it appears that no expectation of a new royal

policy is advanced. On the contrary, we meet

with a non-historical presentation. The lack of

any temporal, spatial, and any contingent fact

within these words is sufficient to demonstrate

the independence of this opening encomium. I

feel that the first speech of the king’s courtiers

was derived from a common literary source in

which various passages (or verses) could be added,

juxtaposed, sorted, and redrawn for any needed

written account. It contains no historical setting

unique to the event at Abydos.

The second reply of these men to Ramesses is

different even though it is follows the common

eulogistic style as the earlier one.209 In contrast,

however, the mere occurrence of a negative verbal

construction (bw Épr Èqî mí-qd.k), situated right

at the start, places this eulogistic speech of the

Dedicatory Inscription on a plane different from

the preceding.210 In comparison to the first it is

more fluid, more colloquial, and above all more

personal. The officials overtly refer to the father-

son relationship, to Osiris, and even to his mother

Isis, as Ramesses is the living Horus.211 The poeti-

cal nature of the account does not predicate the

absence of a historical setting.

the text: translation and detailed analysis 51

225 Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 169. The phrase is standard in orations (eulogies) as well as in narratives. The text is KRI II 329.11-12.

226 The writing of the negative is not unexpected. Earlier see nn pw for bw pw; cf. column 68, KRI II 330.7

227 The use of Éy ntk Éy sî Wsír hearkens back to the ending of columns 58-9. A definite pause is indicated. But in the previous the situation is different. Here, we have Ramesses juxtaposed to his equivalent, the son of Osiris. Earlier the son-father (“the one who bore him”) connec-tion is presented. The short phrase “this Horus” definitely emphasizes Ramesses.

222 I feel that the system is A-B-A: the two interroga-tives circumscribe the middle verse. The literal translation of the final phrase is “you have placed ignorance outside.” It is possible that there are two couplets here possessing a structure of: A-B, A-C.

223 For the important words “god’s father, beloved of the god,” see Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1947), 50*; and Berlev, “The Elev-enth Dynasty in the Dynastic History of Egypt,” in Studies Presented to Hans Jakob Polotsky (ed. Dwight W. Young; Beacon Hill: Pirtle & Polson, 1981), 367.

224 There is also a common use of compound preposi-tions commencing verses.

following passage, conveniently set apart from

the last by the reference to Seti (end of column

62-beginning of column 63).

C. Movement to the King’s Deeds

Kitchen commences his translation of this next

section, which shall be called Part B, with a nar-

rative aspect indicated.225 “Kolas” immediately

follow, and refer back to the style that had been

interrupted in order to place the king to the fore.

The text literally reads:

Since the time of the god, a king (having) ap -

peared,

another like you did not occur —

without being seen on a face,

or being heard in speech …..

The effectiveness of the translation is limited by

the sharp and condensed nature of this transi-

tional passage. Noteworthy is the monumental

hieroglyphic reflex of bw pw.f sdm; the writing

presents nn pw ky Épr mí-qd.k. Then follow two

nn’s, the first with mîî and the second with sdm.

tw; a passive meaning for both is in order. The

ultimate purport of these brief sentences is that

Ramesses acts just as Horus does (or did)—he is

a dutiful son, one who truly loves his father.

Since the time of the god a king (having) ap -

peared,

Another like you did not occur —

Without being seen on a face,

Without being heard in speech.226

[There was no other ?] son who renewed monu-

ments for his father,

There was no one who arose so that he might

avenge his father.

Every man acts (írr ?) for himself except you

and this Horus,

So you, so the son of Osiris.227

The divine seed … the one who created him.

… it strives after its nourisher.

One did not do what Horus did for his father

until today,

Except for your majesty, Beloved of Truth,

You have exceeded what was done.

What deed of benefaction… ?,

That we should lead him/it to say it in the Pres-

ence.

Who is come that he will remember?,222

You have guided/led and you have rejected

ignorance.

….. [your heart ?] is kindly, your heart is well

disposed to your father,

Menmaatre, god’s father, beloved of the god,

Seti Merenptah justified.223

One notable aspect of this portion—which I shall

label A—is the presence of a more developed

verbal system than the previous speech.224 Both

positive and negative constructions abound, and

the use of interrogatives (see the Late Egyptian

ít) as well as more lengthy “kolas” signal the dif-

ferent style. In many ways a more serious nature

pervades, and the temporal aspect is likewise more

predominant. Equally, the kolas are heavier and

one might want to set up a system of equally

weighted portions per line.

Ignoring the standard metaphors, similes, and

images, we nevertheless arrive once more at the

purport of the inscription: Ramesses’ relation to

Seti and his planned works. This eulogy forms a

“correct” response (or acknowledgement) to the

speech of Ramesses immediately preceding. The

earlier address by the king’s courtiers lacked all

historical details, and even eschewed any attempt

to employ narrative verbal formations. Now that

the Pharaoh has stated his intention to renew the

building activity and has placed import upon his

role as dutiful son, one who was given all the

necessary experience by his father as a child, the

courtiers are clearer and more “up to date” in

their verbal reactions. This is most evident in the

chapter two52

is thus ordered to the afterworld and then back again.233 The .f in the following dd.f refers back to Wenen-

nefer.234 Osiris is the “lord of the underworld (àtîyt). There

are useful comments on àtîyt by I. E. S. Edwards, “The Shetayet of Rosetau,” in Lesko, Egyptological Studies in Honor of Richard A. Parker, 26-36. The crucial point is that the “gods of the Cemetery of the lord of the underworld” are those at Abydos. These include the kings buried there.

Edwards also points out that the shetayet of Sokar in Rosetau “had, in effect, become the counterpart in Lower Egypt of the Abydos tomb of Osiris.” More significant for our analysis, however, are his comments that follow: “we may suppose that the ceremonies conducted there before his [= Osiris’] triumphal progress to Memphis for his annual festival on the 26th day of 4th month of Akhet resembled those conducted at Abydos for Osiris at the same time of year.” Applied within an Abydene setting at this time, the shetayet must refer to the Cenotaph of Seti I, otherwise known as the Osireion.

228 KRI II 329.14-330.2.229 Assmann covers the use of mk + the m of predica-

tion in his “Eulogie, Königs-,” 42. According to him, the predication is one having a reference in time, a “Zustand.” It is not, however, an “implicit” predication. His ideas fit into the context of this example.

230 The anticipatory emphasis by fronting is resumed in the next verse by ír + noun. That is done in order to separate the two concepts/nouns from each other. The “he” and “his” refer to Seti.

231 KRI II 330.2-5.232 The creator gods are pleased with what the king has

done. The system moves from Re to Atum to Wenennefer and to gods of the afterworld (cf. the Lord of the Duat = Osiris). Previously we moved from Re to the Ennead and then to the gods of Egypt.

Wenennefer is introduced as well as other afterworld deities, all of who reflect the Abydene situation. At the end of this subsection we return to Re, or rather to his sun disk to which the king is likened. The movement

As for one who does what the god has done,

(ír írr írt.n ntr; I interpret the Participle as Imper-

fective)

Lifetime will belong to him of what he has

done.

(wnn n.f #È#w írt.n.f )

Re’s heart is [glad] in heaven and his Ennead

is in joy,

(R# m Èrt íb[.f îw ?] psdt.f m ràrà)

The gods are pleased for Egypt since you appeared

as king of the two lands.”

(ntrw Ètp n Kmt dr É#y.k m nswt tîwy)

Verbal patterns and repetition of words permeate

the account. See the use of the Stative, some-

times placed side-by-side with the Pseudo-Verbal

(“durative” and “incomplete”) íw.f Èr sdm as well

as the following two passages which commence

with simple adjective verbs.231

Good is [your …..]

(nfr ... … .k)

Beneficial is your righteousness—it has reached

heaven.

(îÉ mîty.k pÈ.n.s Èrt)

Your counsels are precise in the heart of Re,

Atum is happy [with you].232

(sÉrw.k #qîw Èr íb n R # Tm Éntàw [ím.k ?])

Wenennefer is the lord of justification on account

of what your majesty has done/does for his

soul.233

(Wnn-nfr m nb mî# Érw Èr írrwt Èm.k n kî.f )

[He] says—

…..,

[I will give to you ?] the duration of his two

heavens’.

([dí.í n.k] #È# n pty.fy)

The gods of the Cemetery/Shetayet of the lord

of the underworld234 say—

(ntrw àtîyt n nb dwît Èr <dd>)

dr rk ntr nswt Èr É#yt,

nn pw ky Èr Épr mí-qd.k.

nn mîî m Èr,

nn sdm.tw m dd.

[nn ky (?)] sî Èr wÈm mnw n ít.f,

nn #È# w# nd.f Èr ít.f.

ír(r ?) n.f s nb Èr rn.f,

wpíw-Èr.k Èn<#> \r pw.

Éy ntk Éy sî Wsír.

It is possible to place this small portion of the

speech into a narrative pattern, but one that must

be organized eulogistically:

Since the time of the god,

…

There was no other son (?) who renewed monu-

ments for his father,

There was no one who arose so that he might

avenge his father.

Surely the parallelism is self-evident.

Every man acts for himself,

Except you and this Horus.

So you; so the son of Osiris.

The kola system is strictly followed once more,

albeit with narrative passages and more fluid for-

mulations. But the theme is now more closely

concentrated upon Ramesses, and the writer has

marshaled various deities to indicate their approval

of the king’s piety towards his father.228

Behold.

You are the virtuous heir like him,

(tw m íw# nfr mí-qd.f )229

And his kingship—you perform it likewise.230

(nswt.f írr.k st m-mítt)

the text: translation and detailed analysis 53

rative of the second make it clear that the speech to the king had a logical pause. I suspect that the intonation of voice as well as the rapidity of speech must have altered as well. It is noteworthy that Kitchen (Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 170) also moves into prose. He separates his translation by a new paragraph.

239 The nn pw = Late Egyptian bw pw as above in column 63, KRI II 329.11; see note 226. Once more a regular and internally consistent system for the expression of the negative verbal constructions – indeed, the writing of the negatives – cannot be argued.

240 The general survey of this phrase and related mate-rial will be found in Ulrich Luft, Beiträge zur Historisierung der Götterwelt und der Mythenschreibung, Budapest: Az Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem (1978), 155-66.

Although the passage is a common topos, it still reveals the concept of the time dimension of myth; see most recently, Loprieno, “The ‘King’s Novel’,” in Loprieno, Ancient Egyp-tian Literature: History and Forms, 290-4; and Hornung, Der ägyptische Mythos von der Himmelskuh, 88-95.

The timing of this lengthy religious event, days 18-30 of the fourth month, may play an important role in the later “dialogue” between Ramesses II and his father Seti I. See Chapter III. Note Gaballa-Kitchen, “The Festival of Sokar,” especially Appendix A, pages 74-6 concerning the emphasis on Abydos at Medinet Habu (temp. Ramesses III and II).

235 KRI II 330.5. Seti is rejuvenated.236 These subsections are quite common in the later

Ramesside war inscriptions; see Aspects of the Military Docu-ments, 214-18, which is, however, an overview.

Assmann discusses the combination ndm + íb in his Lit-urgische Lieder, 111 with note 101. All of his examples refer to the Triumph of Horus and therefore they do not have the same orientation as that presented here. See our com-ments in the following chapter.

237 KRI II 330.5-7.238 KRI II 330.7-9. There is no overt grammatical marker

to separate this subsection from the preceding. But the poetical nature of the first in combination with the nar-

ndm, is located at the front whereas the second

intransitive verb, Épr, may be found as a Stative

after the subject. Finally, the image of the “heart”

is again invoked, but this time from the vantage

point of the father.237

You have fashioned him in gold and in real pre-

cious stones …..

(msyw[!].k sw m nbw Èr #ît mî# …..)

… his of electrum …..

(….f n d#m …..)

You have created him anew in your name.

(qd.k sw m mîw Èr rn.k)

See msí once more, although the context is that

of fashioning a statue; the verb “to build,” qd,

then follows after a break in the text: “You have

created him anew in your name.” Two indepen-

dent thoughts have unfortunately been lost at

this point, but the orientation remains clear. The

officials declare their joy over Ramesses’ devotion

to Seti which is evidenced by the commissioning

of his father’s statue.

We are next thrown partly outside of the poeti-

cal aspect with no clear means of demarcation.

This speech thus presents a parallel with Ramesses’

previous address. On the earlier occasion columns

47-52/3 covered the king’s life from his birth to

youth so that his upbringing by Seti I could be

reported. Now it is assumed that the king’s early

building activities needed recording, and they

reflect upon the pre-royal career of Ramesses.

All is deliberately set in the past.238

(As for) any king who is in heaven, their chapels

are (still) in a state of construction.

And a son did not do239 what you have done

(írt.n.k) since Re until [today].240

You will be upon earth like the sun disk.

(wnn.k tp tî mí ítn)

The gods who are at Abydos proclaim life here on

earth, illuminated by the sun’s disk. Re has also

the connection to the day’s sun and Atum as cre-

ator god likewise indicates life. But Wenennefer,

in third place, signifies the afterworld (Osiris)

and so do the gods of the cemetery. (Observe

once more the order of the deities: first Re, then

Atum, and finally in the afterworld Wenennefer.)

From this point on an overt turn to the role of

Abydos as a unit (not only Osiris alone) comes to

the fore. True, Osiris and his “Verschmelzung”

with Seti have appeared earlier. Yet the account

now pivots around the distinctive Abydene role of

the father as transferor of kingship and his rebirth

through his son. The last must be considered to

be extremely pertinent with respect to the ensu-

ing royal declaration. Logically, the numerous

predicates of kingship remain in this Abydene

setting and not a Karnak (Amun-Re) one.

At this point onwards the style should be

examined once more. Narrative constructions

are lacking. Instead, the gods, who have entered,

deliver their addresses and hence another differ-

ent manner of presentation reveals itself. Negative

constructions have ceased but there is no return

to the adulatory hymn at the beginning. Does

this whole address section belong to the subgenre

of a swîà?235

May the heart of Merenptah be happy,236 his

name having come into being, again alive.

A personal effect is brought through the mention

of the Pharaoh’s name. Stylistically, see as well

the inverse use of two adjective verbs. The first,

chapter two54

tion that the monarch indicates by pointing out the earlier “neglect.” Of course, the previous king (if not kings) had supported construction work. It was only that the projects were not completed. Ramesses II most certainly did not condemn himself.

The idea expressed is that these events of the past are not located in any book of learned lore but rather conveyed by oral accounts; see Kitchen’s restoration in Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 170: “one (only) hears of them, [they are not seen?].”

244 Probably restore with Kitchen (ibid.): “[But whe]n [your deeds ?] …..” The second half of the sentence is circumstantial (nfrw.k #rw; Stative) but the first is m + Infiniitive (m ts<t>). Note Kitchen’s question mark; the repetition of “deeds” seems improbable.

245 For this and the following passage: KRI II 330.13-331.2.

246 Goedicke, “The Location of ]nt-Èn-nfr,” Kush 13 (1965): 102-11. Its use as an elevated lexical item for the “southern limit,” especially within poetry, needs to be investigated. Cf. the scattered remarks of Claude Vandersleyen, Les guerres d’Amosis. Fondateur de la XVIIIe Dynastie (Brussels: Fondation

It should be added that our text does not deal with mythology, per se, even in the later speeches of Ramesses and Seti. At the beginning is very strictly historical and at the end performative.

241 This is a phrase typical of Königsnovelle addresses: Aspects of the Military Documents, 118 note 76.

242 Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 170; KRI II 330.10-11.

243 This is a very important idea. A very similar concept is expressed in the great Abydos Stela of Ramesses IV: KRI VI 17-20.7 and the references cited above, note 189. The following remarks of the king are worth citing: “This is in writing and not (just) mouth to mouth (oral tradition)” (Peden, Egyptian Historical Inscriptions of the Twentieth Dynasty, 161). The king has consulted various books of religious lore at Abydos.

Redford has also covered the theme of the “neglect of Osiris” in this text of Ramesses IV in his Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books, 270. I differ somewhat with his concept of “condemnation” of former kings. This is too strong an interpretation. The emphasis of the king (as also with Ramesses II) is on filial piety to Osiris, a siua-

This is now a fact.

As it is you who does/did beneficial things, your

heart being satisfied performing Truth.

A durative nature is expressed in these four lines

by Èr + Infinitive and the Stative. The continu-

ance of the king’s ritual activities is indicated in

the following “retrospective.”

The things which were done in the times of the

gods,

They were heard …..243

When (?) [the deeds ?] rise up [to] heaven, and

your goodness reaches (s#r) the horizon,244

Eyes see your goodly deeds before gods and

men.

In both cases the groupings of the lines come to

four, but as I have suspected earlier, it may be

best to read them as two narrative couplets con-

taining verbal activities.

It is you who will act;

it is you who will repeat/renovate monument

after monument

for the gods according as you father Re has

commanded

(wdt.n ít.k R #).245

The stress on the sun god as creator and the day

“father” is apparent. At this point there is no

reference to the night, death, and Osiris. The

opposite is implied.

The following subsection refers explicitly to

the political universe:

Your name [will be uttered ?] in every land,

beginning from the south, Khenet-hen-nefer,246

… your majesty [completed (?)] it.

What he has done (read írt.n.f ) you have remem-

bered (sÉî.n.k) when it was forgotten.

You have renewed (wÈm.n.k) monuments in the

Sacred Land.

All situations/plans which were neglected—

you have caused them to come into existence

(sÉpr.n.k) superbly.241

…..

The repetition of vocabulary aids us in recon-

structing the theme. The outlook refers to the ces-

sation of past building activity and then introduces

a new series of royal building works commissioned

by Ramesses. The narrative constructions place

us in a previous temporal setting: wÈm.n.k (prob-

ably non-predicative if we follow Kruchten); the

two earlier predicative forms of msyw.k and qd.k;

the writing nn pw sî ( for Late Egyptian bw pw sî;

Middle Egyptian n pî sî); írt.n.f (Relative Form);

írr.f (Relative Form; incorrectly written for írt.n.f

and referring back to Seti); sÉî.n.k; sÉpr.n.k (possibly

non predicative), and the converter wn (twice).

Moreover, the concepts of “forgetfulness” and

“neglect” effectively symbolize the present state

of affairs.

Breaks in the text prevent us from proceeding

in a smooth and interrupted manner from this

line. The following may be partly reorganized

according to the various strophes. I concur with

Kitchen in restoring the opening; note its liter-

ary flavor.242

[One generation ?] passes and another comes

into being, but (íw) your majesty is king of Upper

and of Lower Egypt.

the text: translation and detailed analysis 55

a “city” but a rather a “township” (Ramesside Inscriptions: Trans lations II, 170).

When a dmí is supplied with people by Egypt it was established by a Pharaoh and quite probably hitherto was not in existence. Important comments on these “villages” (wÈywt) in the Wilbour Papyrus are given by Gardiner, Papyrus Wilbour II, Oxford: Published for the Brooklyn Museum at the Oxford University Press, 1948), 32-3. Add now Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt. Anatomy of a Civilization (London and New York: Routledge, 1989), 312-3.

249 The verb employed is nhsí and we have a presenti-ment of Seti’s “awakening” in column 80.

250 Read perhaps a Relative Form, wdt.n ít.k ímn?251 KRI II 331.2-3; this indicates that the next subsection

is a pure narrative. The style is nevertheless literary.252 KRI II 331 note 2a.253 Column 74: KRI II 331.2-3. In column 26 (#È#.n nb

tîwy m nswt) it is not a helping verb.254 In this context the verb íwd means “to separate (to

work tasks).”255 Quarry expeditions as well as work projects would

often be lead by “army commanders” under whom army troops were enlisted. In those contexts the professional des-ignation “army” is inappropriate. It is significant that the highest-ranking army men are not listed as they were in column 38; see note 78 above.

256 For the kîwty, see B. J. J. Haring, Divine Households, 238 note 3.

257 KRI II 331.2-6.258 The use of pw for the demonstrative “these” indicates

a more serious tone to the narrative. For the pw in another context (“this Horus”), see column 64.

égyptologique reine Élisabeth, 1971), passim, especially page 55 and note 3.

The term is also in the Kubban Inscription (KRI II 354.10), a close contemporary document which thus provides a second parallel to the Dedicatory Inscription; see Chapter I notes 42 and 67. Hornung’s discussion of the territorial limits of Pharaohs as expressed in their inscriptions of Dynasty XVIII may be found in “Zur geschichtlichen Rolle des Königs in der 18. Dynastie,” MDAIK 15 (1957): 122-5.

247 See the word, pdswt and not spwt (“shores”). The former might be more poetical or recherché. Nonetheless, it refers to sand dunes at seashores or around swamps that one finds in the north of the Delta. The word needs further explanation, especially as the Wb. observes that it begins in Dynasty 18.

248 The area under consideration is Egyptian territory and thus under its control. This passage supplies a useful reference to Egyptian settlements in the north with the geo-graphic direction running from south to north, as expected. The end point is in Asia (Palestine).

The presence of wÈywt is intriguing insofar as the word is used in Egyptian texts with specific meaning. A detailed analysis of this term is in preparation. For the moment, however, the juxtaposition of wÈywt and nÉtw indicates a division between foreign semi-urban sites in very small settlements and the military camps/fortifications that the Egyptian state set up. Moreover, the inscription indicates that these two small centers of population were supplied with people by the Egyptian state. I interpret the word dmí that follows as constituting the previous wÈywt and nÉtw. Kitchen realized that dmí in this context did not indicate

formation is employed.253 The specific orders then

follow, and we can presume that the arrangements

for the new building activities were laid out in

front of the highest men of the land at Abydos.

The text thus moves into a simple narrative

description. This, by the way, is a part of the

building aspect of the composition that is never

remotely approached in Sesostris I’s account of

his Heliopolis undertaking as recounted on the

Berlin Leather Roll. The sequence operates as

follows:

íwd.n.f 254…..

r Éws Ém ít.f

r s#È# wîs m Tî Dsr …..

A complete list of builders is presented. Ramesses

separated out the “army” (which would be in

charge of the labor),255 workmen,256 engravers with

a chisel (i.e., sculptors), workmen with the qdwt

(?; outline draftsmen), and all others. They were

instructed to build his father’s shrine (Ém) as well

as to finish the work (specifically, to “erect”) that

which was not completed, and Seti’s own temple

(Èwt ít.f nt mî#-Érw) is specified.257

And after [these] words which these officials

[said] in the presence of their lord [had been

heard],258

north from/at the shores of the sea,247 and up

to the limit of the foreign lands of Retjenu, in

the settlements and strongholds of the king,248

towns founded and supplied with people …..

… [in ?] every city.

You are a god for all people who waken you249

to give you incense, through what your father

Atum commanded (wdt.n ít.k),

Who causes the Black Land and the Red Land

to praise you.250

I feel that these following sentences still adhere to

a formal address of a rhythmic and hymnic qual-

ity, but the arrangement may fit a verse sequence

better than a narrative one. The ending relates

the king to his people, the Pharaoh’s worship to

the Egyptians.

A further narrative switch then commences

(ír m-Ét; note that the contemporary Ér ír m-Ét is

avoided).251

And after [these] words which these courtiers [said]

in the presence of their lord [had been heard],

then his majesty (#È#.n wd.n Èm.f ) commanded the

order to the supervisors of works.

The possible suggestions of Gauthier were referred

to by Kitchen, and it is clear that something

akin to the above is correct.252 Here for the first

time the common Middle Egyptian #È#.n sdm.n.f

chapter two56

I also would expect Seti’s statues to have been set within the mortuary area of the Valley of the Kings only after the man had died. This is not final proof, however.

One final point. The Abydene temple of Seti I is particu-larly interesting insofar as there are seven chapels associated with the following divinities (south to north; just behind the inner hypostyle court): Seti I, Ptah, Re-Harachty, Amun-Re (center), Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Excluding the Osirian cult and Seti, we meet once more the three main religious centers of Egypt. See J. Gwyn Griffiths, Triads and Trinity (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1996), 92-3.

262 KRI II 331.6-13.263 Therefore, the following deeds as have just been

instituted. The opening is íst àî#.n.f264 Is this is the statue referred to in columns 36-7 that

was “on the ground”? The question remains open-ended.The spelling of “regnal year one” is clear and just “year

one” is inaccurate.265 For the statue alone?266 The verbal form is smn.f. It is too often the case that

smn.n.f automatically > smn.f. Cf. Urk. IV 1246.2 (smn.f wd n nÉtw) in comparison to 1246.5 (smn.n.f wd.f ). The situation is, however, readily explained through the presence of n in the third consonant.

267 The endowments are now regularized. This presumes both a required festival offering list (akin to a temple “cal-endar”) as well as the entire economic dependencies being given a set of regulations.

268 Dhn.n.f. the whole sequence is composed of sdm.n.f verbal formations.

269 The higher level priest (not a waab) carries the image of Seti.

259 Once more, Kitchen’s historical analysis of the docu-ment is de rigueur. The construction work on Seti’s temple is the goal of the text. We can also refer once more to the presence of “soldiers” in the construction activities.

260 The new development is signaled by íst.Ramesses’ reign is still in his first regnal year and not in

the presumed regency period; cf. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscrip-tions: Notes and Comments II, 191 (to column 76).

261 This is the problem that I alluded to earlier. Namely, did Ramesses actually have two separate statue building activities, one at Abydos and the other in the “national” cult centers of Thebes, Heliopolis, and Memphis? Or, should all be subsumed together and reflect the key building/religious orientation of a Ramesside Pharaoh?

The first reference (columns 26-7) states in general and summary terms that Ramesses fashioned one image for Seti I in Thebes and another in Memphis, in excess of what he did in Abydos. The second passage indicates that Ramesses repeated such work in Thebes, Heliopolis, and Memphis (column 79), and as well placed statues in the “way stations” of the valley (i.e., the Valley of the Kings).

Kitchen has seen the problem and wisely states that “Those of lines 26 and 79 (in various places in Egypt) may or may not be the same” (Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 195-6).

I believe that they are different for the following reasons: (1) the first group lacks Heliopolis; (2) the same group omits the way station statues; and (3) the verb employed in the second is wÈm. Ergo, this is the second (or third, or fourth, or … the nth act), not the first time of statue building. It must follow upon at least one earlier occasion, and column 26 should resolve the dispute.

is to say, the provisioning of the divine offerings,

endowments, priestly hierarchy, and economic

support would have been put into motion from

the day of the official inauguration onwards. The

orientation is neutral with respect to a high liter-

ary outlook, the sdm.n.f formation being the key

means of presenting the king’s new organization;

cf. the subsequent dhn.n.f and wÈm.n.f. A coda

concludes this short passage in which Ramesses

deals with the cult of his father’s ka at the three

“national” cult centers of Thebes, Heliopolis, and

Memphis.261 Obviously, the account provides a

resumé of these filial duties separated from what

occurs after by means of the king’s names.262

Now263 he [began] to fashion his image in regnal

year one,264 the offerings being doubled in the

presence of his ka,265 his temple being supplied

properly, so that he might enact his require-

ments.

He established266 his festival offering(s) with fields,

serfs (mrwt), cattle, …... (?)267

He [appointed]268 waab priests to their duties,

a prophet at his shoulders,269 … his people

(lit.: “heads”) bearing … (= food revenue ?)[controlling their] property for him,

his granaries abounding with corn …,

his great properties in the south and the north

then his majesty commanded the order to the

supervisors of works.

He assigned soldiers, workmen, sculptors, …..

outline draughtsmen (?), and all other profes-

sions of workmen

to build up the shrine of his father and

to erect what was in a state of dissolution in the

Sacred Land

in the temple (Èwt) of justification of his

father.259

We are therefore not surprised when the following

third person account commences. “Now (íst)260 he

began (àî#.n.f ) to fashion (mst) his (= Seti’s) image in

regnal year one …..” The commencement of the

work on the cult image is indicated and the basic

economic support for the temple of his father is

specified. This section, still in a straightforward

narrative framework, is somewhat ambiguous as

to timing. “Year one” is not specific enough, nor

is the following list of requirements. Perhaps this

narrative portion of the inscription was never part

of the official session of Ramesses at Abydos. I.e.,

it need not have occurred during the king’s visit

immediately after his coronation.

The passage follows upon the earlier royal com-

missions, but in a general fashion it also indi-

cates the revitalization of the Seti temple. That

the text: translation and detailed analysis 57

sical íw sdm.n.f occurs within the Dedicatory Inscription.275 Is the inclusion of nb É#w due to the fact that this is

a more serious (or formal) presentation? Or is it required for the ritual performance?

276 Note the use of the prenomen alone once more. For the use of the verb s#r in connection with Maat, see Teeter, The Presentation of Maat, 49-50. This word is relatively common in the texts of Seti I at Abydos.

277 See Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 194-5. Kitchen fixed regnal year four as the maximum limit.

278 In general, Assmann, “Das Bild des Vaters,” 37-8.279 KRI II 334.6-7.

270 The economic setup of Seti’s temple is controlled via the “steward.” This is a common situation in the Ramesside Period and need not be commented upon.

271 Likewise, Seti (the cult, the dead king) is “under the care” of Wenennefer, Osiris. Dead Pharaoh and dead Pharaoh’s temple are different.

272 WÈm.n.f. Of course, this is a deed separate from the building work at Abydos.

273 For Énywt, see the useful comments of Siegfried Schott, Kanais: Der Tempel Sethos I. im Wâdi Mia (Göttingen: Vanden-hoeck & Ruprecht, 1961), 145 note 4 to text (bottom).

274 KRI II 331.13-332.1. The opening is crucial: íw mdw.n nswt bíty ….. This is the only place where the Clas-

Equally important to emphasize is the differ-

ent outlook of this part of the composition. We

face the father-son combination again, but this

time in the setting of a specific ritual; no other

personages appear. The courtiers have departed

and will never return. Surely, the location of the

subsequent act of “wakening” was not in the outer

public area where the earlier narrative had taken

place. I suspect that we must now direct our physi-

cal and spiritual attention to the secret shrine area,

the so-called “holy-of-holies.” Because Ramesses

has completed the acts for Seti that he said he

would do, a date in his second regnal year is far

more probable for these events than the time of

his first visit.277

The formal declaration begins.278 The invo-

cation is easy to comprehend, being composed

of a first person narrative in the past. Should

we connect this address to the previous histori-

cal setting? As I indicated earlier, this possibility

seems remote. The purport of these additional

words of the Pharaoh reflects the completion of

the building activity. True, Ramesses states that

he has come to Abydos, and specifically to the

temple of Seti, “in person,” and this ought to (but

actually does not) imply the visit after the return

from Thebes. When it is further claimed that he,

Ramesses inquired “into your temple daily about

the state of your ka in everything.”279 I cannot but

conclude that we are dealing with the immedi-

ate after effects of the earlier inauguration. This

formal speech is an overt and official means of

indicating the king’s presentation of the temple

to his father. It is now fully endowed in fields

and cattle and the plots of lands supplying the

necessary food revenues have been officially and

rigorously recorded. The whole temple priesthood

is organized, picked and in operation, and the

necessary boat flotilla, crucial for the transporta-

tion of grain, also has been established. Lastly, the

carving has gone apace with Seti’s name being

under the care of his steward,270

through [what] the King of Upper and Lower

Egypt, Wosermaatre-setepenre, the son of Re,

Rames ses-meryamun, given life like Re forever

and ever, did [for] his father the king Men-

maatre, justified, under the care of Wenen-

nefer.271

He repeated272 making his statues for his ka in

Thebes, Heliopolis, Memphis, reposing in

their places in all of his way-stations273 of the

Valley.

D. Theological Addresses

At this point a different presentation is attached

to the account. Ramesses speaks to Seti within a

cultic setting.274

The King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Wos-

ermaatre-setepenre, the son of Re, lord of

appearances,275 Ra messes-meryamun given life,

spoke [while offering/presenting/raising] (s#r) what

he had done (írt.n.f ) [to] his father, the Osiris,

king Menmaatre justified.276

If the literal sense of the passage is arguably

“true,” then these actions of the king must have

taken place at a date later than his first voyage

to Abydos because the account specifies that the

Pharaoh already has done these things. In other

words, this portion of the Dedicatory Inscription

might be considered to be historically later and

hence narratively separate from what precedes.

The word “presenting” (s#r) indicates the deed of

the king, as is in fact depicted in the accompany-

ing scene to the right. Ramesses has completed

what he promised. Yet it equally can be supposed

that this “presentation” is somewhat metaphori-

cal and, in fact, a summary of the king’s act.

At Abydos, the young ruler promised work and

proper cultic arrangements for Seti. This has now

been promulgated.

chapter two58

282 Ibid., 195.283 See the remarks in note 261 above.284 Assmann, “Das Bild des Vaters,” 37-8.

280 Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 191-3.

281 Ibid., 194.

The first is located in columns 26-7 and states

that he, Ramesses, fashioned images for his father

in Memphis (\wt-kî-PtÈ) and Thebes, “over and

above” or “in excess” (Èîw-Èr) to what he did in

Abydos. This is a pertinent remark because it

indicates that the young monarch felt that he had

neglected the area of Abydos, a conclusion that fits

perfectly with Kitchen’s analysis of the absence of

Ramesses at that holy area and the lack of con-

struction work on Seti’s temple. Subsequently, just

before the speech of Ramesses to Seti at Abydos

and at the point of “awakening” him, a summary

of the king’s promulgations is reported.284 This

occurs immediately after the address of the king

to his officials and is introduced by the particle

íst at the end of column 75.

The account is in the third person instead of

the first: “Now he began to fashion his image

…..” This introduces a rather detailed summary

of the demands now promulgated by the king.

The work at Seti’s temple has begun. Recounted

in a standard narrative format, the words briefly

describe the immediate after effects of the king’s

visit to Abydos: offerings are set up, supplies are

established, and officials given their proper func-

tions. In sum, the temple is operating. Once more

we can leave off the question whether all of this

was one hundred percent accurate. Instead, I wish

to focus upon the past nature of the account,

one that, by nature, would have had to occur

after Ramesses had visited Abydos and spoken

his words. The following remark in column 79 is

of some historical and chronological importance

because one ascertains that the king had acted

for “his ka” in Thebes, Heliopolis, and Memphis.

Also, the statues of Seti are now “reposing” in

the “way stations” in the Valley; i.e., they are in

Western Thebes.

Should we connect this brief remark with the

one recounted earlier in column 26? Kitchen left

the question open. After all, the first comment is

located within a series of generalized statements

that are located at the beginning of this compo-

sition. Hence, they might reflect upon the entire

series of events and not merely refer to an earlier

action on the part of the king, one separate from

his later activities. Nonetheless, the later passage

is connected to the preceding resumé of the work

at Abydos in an effective manner. It concludes

placed where it should be; i.e., in his temple on

hitherto undecorated or incompletely carved

walls, pillars, and the like.

But nagging problems still persist. When and

where did this invocation to Seti by his son occur?

I find it hard to believe that the completed activity

on the part of the now sole Pharaoh can corre-

spond in time and place to the prospective state-

ments that he previously gave to his officials. After

his coronation Ramesses spoke to his officials in a

public ceremony at Abydos, and it was probably

the first time that he was there.280 On the other

hand, I do not automatically connect this address

and the reply of his father to the same event. As

we shall see, that later portion of the Dedicatory

Inscription places the king’s building activities

in the past. It further indicates that all aspects of

Seti’s temple, such as economic and administra-

tive support, were now completed. Granted that

we can doubt some of the ebullient and grandiose

statements of Ramesses. Nonetheless, how could

all the work have been finished soon after the

king’s visit to the sacred land of Osiris?

Kitchen, in fact, noted this. In one of his useful

comments to the text he indicated that Ramesses’

claims at Abydos “could easily be consistent in

principle with the composition of the great text

later in Year 1. Otherwise, in Year 4 after the

first Levant campaign.”281 The use of the com-

plete (and regular) prenomen, continued Kitchen,

“would date the final draft and the carving to

Year 2 at earliest.”282 I concur with this. In fact,

at the beginning of the discussion I pointed out

that the accompanying scenes at the right (north)

probably were carved after this major text. We

also have to take into consideration that in the

recent past the building activity at Abydos was

mostly devoted to Ramesses’ own temple and not

that of his father. Logically, the work in the new

Ramesses temple at Abydos can be placed into

the final year or years of Seti’s life and the short

time after the father’s death.

There is a related point that to my knowledge

has been brought into the chronological discus-

sion only once. I am referring to two passages in

the inscription that refer to other work projects

ordered by Ramesses.283 Kitchen briefly com-

mented upon them and left the question open

whether they referred to the same event or not.

the text: translation and detailed analysis 59

Subsequently, Boyo Ockinga presented an outline of the term sàmw in his Die Gottebenbildlichkeit im alten Ägypten und im Alten Testament (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1984), 40-51; add now Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 52, 138-40, with her “Types of Cult-Image Carried in Divine Barques and the Logistics of Performing Temple Ritual in the New Kingdom,” ZÄS 134 (2007): 15-25.

Additional remarks on statues in connection with mortu-ary temples will be found in Robert G. Morkot, “Nb-Mî#t-R#—United-With-Ptah,” JNES 49 (1990): 331-2. He deals with the words twt, hnty, and sàmw Éw. The third appears restricted to the processional statues carried with a bark-shrine. According to Morkot, the Énty is also associated with processions, a point that Hornung made earlier, showing that the image was intimately associated with the sun god. (Its earliest example in the literature dates from the reign of king Rahotpe of Dynasty XVII.) For a recent discus-sion concerning the terminology of statues, note as well Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 130-42, 146-8. In her summary on page 148 she observes that “most ‘sacred images’ (àps) were ‘images’ (twt)—though not all images were sacred.”

Daumas also covered this situation in his “Quelques textes de l’atelier des orfèvres dans le temple de Dendara,” 109-18 and page 109 with note 9 in particular. Add the later comments of Hornung in Das Buch der Anbetung des Re im Westen II (Geneva: Éditions de Belles-Lettres, 1976) 97 note 5, referring to Erika Schott, “Die heilige Vase des Amon,” ZÄS 98 (1970): 49 where the important remark is given that twt is not known in the New Kingdom as a term for a god’s statue. Instead, one finds #àmw or sàmw.

For the statues in the mortuary temples, see Gabolde, “Les temples ‘mémoriaux’ de Thoutmosis II et Toutânkhamon,” 127-78, especially pages 175-8. He discusses the connection with the Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus on page 177. Forgot-ten in Egyptological scholarship are the pertinent remarks of Yoyotte concerning the purpose of this composition: “Religion de l’Égypte ancienne,” Annuaire École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve Section 79 (1971-2): 179-80. He preferred to interpret the ritual as one dealing with the consecration of certain funerary statues of the dead king.

288 KRI II 332.5; cf. I 177.2 (ms sàmww). See as well Seti I to his son Ramesses I in KRI I 110.1-2 (also at Abydos, with msí [restored by Kitchen] and sàmw. The statue in the temple of Ramesses I was also a sàmw: KRI I 110.1, 112.4, and 114.11. We can refer to the interesting Leiden V 1 stela as well (KRI VII 26.14-29.13; a translation will be found in Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica I, 51-3). The account states: “I was introduced into the House of Gold in order to fashion the sàmw and the images (#Émw) of all the gods” (KRI VII 27.13-1, and compare Wolfgang Waitkus, “Zum funktionalen Zusammenhang von Krypta, Wabet und Goldhaus,” 283-303 for the late evidence). I suspect that the sàmw refer to the “forms,” as Hornung

285 KRI II 326.4.The words for “statue,” “image” are useful to outline. In

the Old Kingdom only two words are definitely known to exist, twt and rpwt: Marianne Eaton-Krauss, The Representa-tions of Statuary in Private Tombs of the Old Kingdom (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1984), Chapter 4. The first always referred to statues of men during the Old Kingdom, but male dei-ties and kings are included. The meaning may derive from “image” or “likeness,” although the verb “to collect” is not excluded. The second word, rpwt, is more rare, and refers to a queen’s statue.

A third designation, àzp, is first known from the Middle Kingdom. Its significance is close to but not identical with twt. The derivation of the word is clear because it derives from the verb “to receive.” Offerings are understood, and Eaton-Krauss, following Henry Fischer, suggests that the “word may well refer specifically to the completed statue’s capability of performing its intended function in the cult, viz., receiving offerings” (page 87). Hence, àzp and twt are not really synonymous. Finally, the word àzp may be quali-fied by #nÉ or r #nÉ, thereby indicating that the “image” or “statue” will receive life or is living. Twt #nÉ or àzp #nÉ indicate an ability to function as the divine prototype; the #nÉ does not mean that the images bears a physical resem-blance to a man or a deity.

286 KRI II 331.6.287 My interpretation of this passage is simple. The

old sàmw was constructed, and its necessary endowment of offerings instituted. Murnane points to this conclusion in “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 165 note 40 when he observes that the phrase “on the ground” perhaps could mean “neglected” or “aban-doned.”

The well-known case of Thutmose IV comes immediately to mind (Urk. IV 1550.2-9). The king found an obelisk of his grandfather still lying at the southern side of Karnak. In this case the word snfr is employed for the completion of the task.

The word sàmw means “manifestation of a divinity.” Hence, its transference to “statue,” “relic,” and the like; see the sàmw-Éw, the “divine bark” which can be carried. Cf. Haring, Divine Households, 46, on the difficulty of separating the terms for the royal and the divine bark; add Eaton’s remarks which are cited below in this note.

Erik Hornung covered in detail the various names and functions of Egyptian statues in his chapter, “Der Mensch als ‘Bild Gottes’ in Ägypten,” in Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen (ed. Oswald Loretz; Munich: Kösel, 1967), 123-56. It is significant that he observed the first appearance of the word sàmw in the Amduat, a New Kingdom text. During Dynasties XVIII to XX the word sàmw was especially common in the books of the underworld. (The Amduat may have been composed, or at least part of it, before the XVIIIth Dynasty, but this suggestion remains speculative.)

to fashion his image” (sàmw) in his first regnal

year. Furthermore, the offerings established for

its operation were doubled.286 This would imply

that the king’s orders were followed through.

Even though the exact timing is unclear, work

commenced soon after Ramesses’ address.287 The

new sàmw was completed as the king’s words indi-

cate. Later on, the Pharaoh speaks to his father

in column 82 and states: “I have fashioned

you” (msyw.n.í tw).288 Seti’s statue is finished;

the historical account and immediately precedes

a separate portion of the inscription.

There is one final point to be covered in this

context. Columns 36-7 describe the condition of

Seti’s statue, his sàmw.285 There, we learned that

upon the visit of Ramesses it was still lying on

the ground, and was in fact not “fashioned as a

divine image” according to the regulations of the

Mansion of Gold. Even its offerings had ceased.

Yet column 76 points out that the king “began

chapter two60

295 The serious problem with the Egyptian passage in column 53 is that the word “to appear” is employed: m rnpt tpyt n<t> É##.í. (The verb is a nominal form.)

Redford was faced with the identical situation with respect to Amunhotep II: “The Coregency of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II,” JEA 51 (1965): 117-8. Line 26 of the Sphinx Stela states with a passive sdm.f: “His majesty was caused to appear (sÉ#w Èm.f ) as king, the uraeus came to rest on his brow” (Urk. IV 1283.5-6). Hence, he was a Pharaoh. Line 11 states: “Now his majesty appeared as a king and as a beautiful youth” (Urk. IV 1279.8). With Redford, I place the latter section earlier in time and during the regency of Amunhotep II and Thutmose III. So does Peter Der Manuelian, Studies in the Reign of Amenophis II (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1987), 189-91.

Redford’s other discussion on the verb “to appear” (É#í ) will be found in the first chapter of his History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt: Seven Studies. His citation of a further passage from the Sphinx Stela of Amunhotep on page 16 (no. 80) must be corrected. The passage opens with a typical participle, as the section quoted belongs to the opening eulogy to the Pharaoh. It is not narrative.

296 KRI II 330.5-6.297 If so, a date in regnal year one is possible because

Ramesses became king immediately after Seti’s death, pre sumably in the north and before the young monarch’s coronation at Opet.

wished, and the #Émw indicate the actual images; see as well Eaton’s comments cited earlier in note 287. Her main interest surrounded the situation of processional images.

289 The first statue was the one referred to in column 36.

290 For this possible interpretation, see notes 125-6 above.

291 KRI II 328.7-8. The word “anew” need not imply the renewal of an older statue. I.e., in our context it indicates a new one; see Schott, Kanais: Der Tempel Sethos I. im Wâdi Mia, 139 note 4 to text. This is followed by Kitchen, Rames-side Inscriptions. Translated and Annotated: Notes and Comments I (Oxford and Cambridge MA: Blackwell, 1993), 61.

292 Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 168 note 1; see his Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 195-6.

293 There was no double dating during any coregency or regency during the New Kingdom. I have frequently observed the impossibility of the ancients working with two separate regnal year dating systems from Dynasties XVIII to XX. This must be seen because the anniversaries of a king’s regnal year (unless if was the first) took place on the same day 365 days later. The only case where total coincidence occurred in the New Kingdom is that of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, and then the senior reckoned her accession from the junior.

294 Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 195-6.The situation troubled Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregen-cies, 76.

argument that there were two additional stat-

ues, both crafted by the young man, or only one.

On the other hand, Ramesses indicates through

the use of the past tense that he had completed

this golden image, and this implies that the task

was done. A fortiori, the adjective “gold” never

appears with the word sàmw in any other part of

the Abydos temple, and perhaps we can make a

fine difference between the processional image of

the king and a golden statue. This interpretation

would allow us to keep the historical tenor of the

composition, because when Ramesses mentions

that he “fashioned his father out of gold,” the

words are located in a retrospective glance on

his earlier activities at the Abydos temple.295 It

would also coincide with the courtiers’ remarks

in column 67 when they claim that Ramesses

had also fashioned “him” (Seti) out of gold and

precious stones.296 It is hard to see the comple-

tion of this task at the time that Ramesses just

arrived in Abydos and oversaw the condition of

Seti’s building. The activity must have occurred

before this visit.

In column 53 the account does not tell us

where this golden statue was. In fact, at the begin-

ning of the Dedicatory Inscription we learn that

Ramesses, before arriving at Abydos, had already

fashioned statues for his father in Thebes and

Memphis. Perhaps the account is referring to one

of these in column 53.297 All of these references

hence, the time is later than Ramesses’ original

visit.289

But there remains the troublesome passage in

column 53: “ … [until ?]290 I fashioned ([r] msywt.í )

my father out of gold anew in the first year of my

appearing.”291 Kitchen sees this as having taken

place in the regency period.292 If this argument

is followed, then at a subsequent date Ramesses

must have prepared yet another statue, a third

(column 76). To simplify matters, and also to

avoid the pitfalls of any argument based upon

a regency period, one could link all the refer-

ences together. This, however, is both a tricky

and dangerous historical method. In Ramesses’

first year as Pharaoh, the period of time after

the new regnal year dating was in effect, he fin-

ished his work on the image.293 This was part of

his promise to the courtiers at Abydos, and, of

course, to Seti. But in column 76 the Dedicatory

Inscription also states that he “began to fashion

his image in his first regnal year.” This had to

have occurred before the visit to Abydos, and

the chronology fits neatly. But the statue had not

yet been finished at that time, only begun. The

difficult problem of this other statue, the one of

gold in column 53, was tackled by Kitchen in his

commentary on the composition.294

Perhaps of some use to the argument is that in

column 53 the word sàmw does not appear. This,

however, provides no conclusive support for the

the text: translation and detailed analysis 61

103 note 3 (nhs a name of Seth). See already CT VII 250 p: gm.n.í Sth m pr nhs[w].

For additional cases we can now add Harco Willems, The Coffin of Heqata (Cairo JdE 36418): A Case Study of Egyptian Funerary Culture of the Early Middle Kingdom (Leuven: Peeters en Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1996), 355 and note 2187. He feels that nhsí in one Middle Kingdom composition known to Hornung (but interpreted otherwise) appears to indicate wakefulness (P. Ram. VI 71-2). See also Willems’ comments in note 2190 and his commentary on page 355 as well. Unfortunately, the other cases of nhsí and snhs in the Coffin Texts do not help us at all (Rami van der Molen, A Hieroglyphic Dictionary of Egyptian Coffin Texts (Leiden, Boston, and Cologne: Brill, 2000). The volume of Kasia Szpak-owska, Behind Closed Eyes: Dreams and Nightmares in Ancient Egypt (Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales, 2003) has an excellent discussion of dreaming, dozing, and the like. Although the Opening of the Mouth ceremony is covered, her orientation is to the “other side” of wakefulness.

Yet see the use of nhsí with qrty (surely for qrrt, “cavern”) in Horst Beinlich, Das Buch vom Fayum I (Wiesbaden: Har-rassowitz, 1991), 244-5 (line 1070). The connection with Osiris is clear in this case as well.

303 See Daumas’ remarks in note 67 above. On page 117 of his analysis there is the useful analysis of the Mansion of Gold with the Opening the Mouth ( for Sokar-Osiris). Cf. Otto, Das ägyptische Mundöffnungsritual II, 2-6, 12 with regard to the “Herstellung” of the statue (mst and wpt-rî of a statue) and the connection to the Mansion of Gold. We can now add the very useful study of Fischer-Elfert, Die Vision von der Statue im Stein.

304 KRI III 288.2; Jan Zandee, An Ancient Egyptian Crossword Puzzle: An Inscription of Neb-wenenef from Thebes (Leiden: Ex

298 The presence stp-n-R# after Wsr-mî#t-R# is first dated to Ramesses’ second regnal year: see KRI II 339.12 (Sinai No. 252) and Chapter I note 7.

299 Liturgische Lieder, 309. See his subsequent comments in Der König als Sonnenpriester, 34 (sàmw #î nty m msktt). This image is directly connected to the role of Seti as expressed by his son in column 94 (KRI II 333.12-13).

300 Would this statue have been easy to carry to a more protected place? Moreover, why was it not completed? If it were made of stone, and the connection to the Mansion of Gold supports this contention, then the object would have been lying around, awaiting its completion.

301 “Der Mensch als ‘Bild Gottes’ in Ägypten,” 139-41. Add the useful reference to the sàmw in the Eleventh Hour of the Book of Gates: Hornung, Das Buch von den Pforten des Jenseits: nach den Versionen des Neuen Reiches I (Geneva: Éditions de Belles-Lettres, 1979), 363 with II (Geneva: Éditions de Belles-Lettres (1980), 253-4. The “great image” or the “secret image” is that of the sun god. Significantly, the Sixth Hour presents a parallel conception: see pages 162-5 in the second volume of Hornung’s edition plus his subsequent remarks in “Black Holes Viewed from Within: Hell in Ancient Egyptian Thought,” Diogenes 165 (1994): 136.

I can also signal the brief comments of Borghouts, The Magical Texts of Papyrus Leiden I 348, 174 and 182 con-cerning sàmw as a “figure” (to be drawn); he concurs with Hornung.

302 Ibid., 141 with note 29. Hornung refers to Amduat 205.3: Das Amduat: Die Schrift des Verborgenen Raumes III (Wies-baden: Harrassowitz, 1967), 18. Add Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity, 73, 155 and 409 (often with àtî)

N.B. Hornung regards the god Nhs as a deity separate from “awakening,” ibid., 22 no. 49 (connected to Seth) and

its core meaning came to include the concept

of a “cult image.” Sàmws turn up in underworld

books connected to Osiris, and can refer to the

mummy itself.302 All in all, the examples from

the Dedicatory Inscription support Hornung’s

position. Seti’s sàmw must be connected to that

dead king’s presence in the underworld, but also

it could represent the image of the sun god there

as well.

The commentary of Hornung is of great impor-

tance for our analysis. If we follow his evidence

garnered from the Amduat, the sàmw is connected

to Osiris and to the underworld but it is not car-

ried around in procession in the realm of the

dead.303 Instead, as a mummy, it remains enclosed

in its holy and secret place and cannot be seen.

(In this context let me remind the reader that the

Amduat was also carved at Abydos.) It is also note-

worthy that Hornung only knew of one Dynasty

XVIII citation where this word was metaphori-

cally associated with a king (Horemheb). Addi-

tional passages referring to the same situation

were assembled by Zandee, among which we can

signal out a reference in the Theban Tomb of

can be separated from one other, but the result

would entail a series of statues commissioned and

completed by Ramesses. Or, we may connect

some of them, especially the two described in

columns 53 and 76. But I do not believe any

of these references provides conclusive support

for a regency between Ramesses and Seti. The

evidence for that comes from the two factors of

raised versus sunken relief and the alteration of

Ramesses’ name after his first regnal year.298

Assmann interpreted the sàmw as a small

wooden statue of a god that could be carried in

a procession out from the deity’s shrine.299 This

does not fit the situation here: the image that was

“lying” on the ground was surely not made of

wood.300 Yet he also remarked that sàmw images

were connected to the underworld voyage of

the sun god. Hornung’s research extended this

analysis.301 Historically speaking, the connection

to small statues that were carried in processions

was a later one, and in the Amduat we have a

contrary situation. The sàmw is an “image,” one

that not surprisingly can occur in the underworld.

Hornung felt that later in time an expansion of

chapter two62

Papyrus: A late Ramesside Letter to an Oracle,” 70-1), I see no inherent difference between rÉ-n.f and rÉt-n.f.

311 Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 166.If we follow Cerny (see the last note for the reference),

then rÉ.f is the older form of rÉ-n.f. Hence, if the translation of “specification” for rÉt-n.f is followed, as Kitchen wishes, then the earlier word may be hypothesized to have been *rÉt.f. That is to say, the original meaning would turn out to be “its (.f ) specification (rÉt).”

312 KRI II 336.1.313 “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 22

with note 8: KRI I 167.14-15. It is of some interest that a similar door dedication, this time at the shrine of Isis (KRI I 168.9 = Zippert, ibid., note 3), presents the interesting passage: “How beautiful is your temple in the Thinite nome, the nome of eternity (spît nt dt), the eternal ‘lower heaven’ (níwt nÈÈ) of the lords of the underworld, the portal (sbî) of the cavern dwellers.” Kitchen has useful comments in his Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated and Annotated: Translations I (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), 144. The “lower heaven” is where Osiris went after his death and from where he returned after his rebirth.

The scene is best viewed by Calverley, Broome, and Gardiner, The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos III, Pl. 50. There, the reader will note that both the west and east entrance thicknesses record this singular phrase. But it is the west one that has the interesting correction observed only by Cerny in his notebook, Collations of Abydos, 2: for the word “eternity,” nÈÈ, the n was added later across the lower portions of the two È signs.

For the word “cavern dwellers” see Hornung’s com-mentary on “cavern,” qrrt, in Das Amduat II, 77 note 38 and 81 note 2; “Probleme der Wortforschung im Pfotenbuch,”

Oriente Lux, 1966), 21-24. Zandee has assembled many use ful examples for our analysis, but he inaccurately includes a passage from the First Hittite Marriage of Ramesses II (KRI II 237.11/13-14/15). The text actually reads twt #nÉ n R # mstyw (“offspring,” “incarnation,” etc., not sàmw) n ímy íwnw.

305 Zandee, ibid., 23. He discusses the intimate connec-tion of Re and Osiris in this inscription on pages 15, 23-8 (with Osiris as the ba of Re), 38, and 64.

306 He also was the High Priest of Hathor in Dendera. The extremely high literate perspective of Nebwennef can be seen in his crossword puzzle, the narrative of his nomina-tion to High Priest of Amun, his Copenhagen cube statue (with the unusual mention at this time of traditional feasts), and the solar hymns in his Theban tomb. See the end of Chapter III.

307 Kruchten, Les Annales des prêtres de Karnak (XXI-XXIIImes Dynasties) et autres textes contemporains relatifs à l’initiation des prêtres d’Amon (Leuven: Department Oriëntalistiek, 1989), 253-4.

308 James Hoffmeier, Sacred in the Vocabulary of Ancient Egypt: The Term DSR, with Special Reference to Dynasties I-XX (Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vanden-hoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 167-8; see now Vernus, Essai sur la conscience de l’histoire dans l’Égypte pharaonique, 100 note 399.

It must be kept in mind that Kruchten’s analysis referred to in the last note is dependent upon the cult at Karnak. He does not discuss Abydos, and the remarks of Assmann and Hornung were not included in his summary.

309 See the following discussion with notes 67 and 287 above.

310 Hieratic Inscriptions from the Tomb of Tut‘ankhamun, 14-15. Following Murnane, Zandee, and John Barns (“The Nevill

statue, and it is interesting that 1erný’s research

on this term focused upon Abydos.310 His insight

was directed to a wooden object found in the

tomb of Tutankhamun and which was called

rÉ.f, and he wondered whether the object could

be the so-called emblem of Abydos, of Osiris.

Once more our investigation turns unexpectedly

back to that major cult center. The writing in

the Dedicatory Inscription must indicate that the

meaning “cult image” is open to query if only

because the word lacks the statue determinative.

Kitchen’s interpretation, “specifications for it,”

can be argued because there was only one statue

that was still lying around, and it was not prop-

erly designed according to the required religious

specifications.311

But the statue that Ramesses awakens speaks,

and in the ceremony the father utters words that

were so remarkable to Assmann, “I have become

divine” (Épr.kwí ntr.kwí ).312 Where was this statue?

An out of the way reference on one of the doors

in the Osirian Hall might provide a clue. First

noted by Zippert, the words may indicate that

the statue might be found in Room N, the one

reserved for Osiris-Seth.313 The dedicatory text

presents Osiris speaking to Seti: “I will cause that

Nebwennef, the well-known High Priest of Amun

under Ramesses II.304 Here, Osiris is likened to

Re; he is, in fact the sàmw of the sun god.305 An

Abydene connection is once more clear, and we

cannot forget that Nebwennef was at Abydos with

Ramesses, previously having been the High Priest

of Onuris in Thinis.306

Nonetheless, the dichotomy between a cult

statue and a processional image is one of the most

important differences with respect to a religious

cult.307 Kruchten successfully argued that the

former remained hidden at the rear of the temple

and were thereby invisible to the public; some of

them were described with the epithet dsr. Hoff-

meier came to similar conclusions, but avoided

discussing the differentiation of cult images (sàmw)

from processional ones (ntr pn àpsy).308 Further-

more, only the prophets would take care of this

hidden image. And yet we are faced with the fact

that the all-important image of Seti had not been

set up within his temple. Considering this, could

the Abydene mansion of Seti operate properly?

There still remains the problem with the other

word rÉt-n.f, which can be understood as “cult

image.”309 This might designate the “specifi-

cations” for the sàmw rather than indicate the

the text: translation and detailed analysis 63

See now Jürgen Osing, “Zum Kultbildritual in Abydos,” in Gold of Praise: Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente (ed. Emily Teeter and John A. Larson; Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1999), 317-34; and Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equip-ment, 204-43 who covers the Daily Ritual and that of the Royal Ancestors at Abydos. The latter study partly replaces the summary of Hans-Georg Bartel, “Funktionale Aspekte des Täglichen Rituals im Tempel Sethos’ I. in Abydos,” in 5. Ägyptologische Tempeltagung: Würzburg, 23.-26. September 1999 (ed. Horst Beinlich et al.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002), 1-16.

The southernmost architrave in the Inner Hypostyle Court (south face) is oriented to Osiris whereas the north face of the same architectural support has Amun. Both deities are out of place as we would expect Seti I. (The order of the other six gods is oriented to the order of the chapels [north to south]: Horus; Isis; Osiris; Amun-Re; Re-Harachty; and Ptah). But since it is Seti who is always “beloved” by these gods and to whom he offers his monument, the disappear-ance of his name here makes perfect sense.

N.B. David saw that “In the Sethos aisle, the rites are performed for Sethos by Horus íwn.mwt.f” in her Religious Ritual at Abydos, 32, and 44-5.

Nikolaus Tacke, “Das Opferritual des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches,” in Rituals from Prehistory and Antiquity up to Modern Times. Studies in Near Eastern, Prehistoric and Classical Archaeology, Egyptology, Ancient History, Theology and Comparative Religion. Interdisciplinary Meeting in Berlin, February 1-2, 2002, (ed. Claus Dobiat and Klaus Leidorf; Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf, 2003), 27-36 summarizes some of the data from Seti’s temple.

318 “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 114; KRI I 162.12/14 (outer doorway thickness and outer jambs to the Osiris Suite; Zippert’s “t”).

319 “The Baptism of Pharaoh,” JEA 36 (1950): 3-12; with Calverley, Broome, and Gardiner, The Temple of Sethos I at Abydos IV, Pl. 42. The scene is located in the middle (second register) in the southeast. Note the presence of the king’s ka in the casket offering scene in the middle of the southern wall, top register: David, Religious Ritual at Abydos, 51 with Bell’s research cited above in note 41.

See as well Schott, Die Reinigung des Pharaos in einem mem-

GM 6 (1973): 57-9; and Das Buch von den Pforten des Jenseits: nach den Versionen des Neuen Reiches II, Geneva (1980) 52 note 10.

A further reference to the “cavern dwellers” in Seti’s temple will be found in the Stairway Corridor: KRI I 187.6.

Assmann in “Harfnerlied und Horussöhne: Zwei Blöcke aus dem verschollenen Grab des Bürgermeisters Amen-emhet (Theben Nr. 163) im Britischen Museum,” JEA 65 (1979) 62-3 has seen that the concept of “grave” or “tomb” may be represented by the following terms, among which is qrrt: íît (“mound”), qrrt (“cavern”); dbît (“sarcophagus”), and st hît (“place of the dead body”). He also covers the connection to the sun and the rites in the public forecourt of the private tomb.

314 KRI I 167.7: “King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Menmaatre, who sanctifies (sdsr) the palace (#È), and who magnifies the image (s#î àmw) of his father Osiris …..”

For the importance of Seti’s name without the cartouche, as this example reveals, see Zippert, “Der Gedächtnistem-pel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 111; for the use of the word #È, “palace,” in this context, ibid., 24-5.

Zippert also refers to the scene later published by Calver-ley, Broome, and Gardiner, The Temple of Sethos I at Abydos IV, Pl. 42 (middle right = south wall, west side).

315 Zippert, “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 92-4.

316 Ibid., 111-13.317 KRI I 129.16; see also 130.4. The determinative of

the word sàmw effectively clinches the argument: it is the portable bark.

For the daily rituals enacted in this chapel and the six others, see Aylward M. Blackman’s classical breakthrough study in “The sequence of the episodes in the Egyptian daily temple liturgy,” JMEOS 8 (1919) 27-53. (Zippert, who unfortunately does not refer to him, nonetheless has a very instructive analysis of the iconography of these cha-pels.) There is a summary of the previous Egyptological scholarship in David, Religious Ritual at Abydos, 104-19. She includes her own hypothetical ordering of the scenes, but Brigitte Altenmüller-Kesting’s analysis in “Reinigungsriten im ägyptischen Kult” (Ph.D. diss., University of Hamburg, 1968), 176-84, 192-8 needed to be added.

considerations, I feel it more probable that the

uncompleted sàmw of Seti belonged here. Then

too, Assmann’s conclusion that such images were

portable and would be carried in processions fits

as well. We can note in passing that two sàmw’s

are explicitly named on the south (outermost)

door in the axis or alleyway of Seti.317

The seven chapels, including Seti’s, each con-

taining seven portable images of the various gods,

were in a more accessible area of the temple than

the Osirian suite. Zippert’s analysis of the hidden

Chamber L (the first Osirian Hall) indicated that

it was dedicated to Osiris and that the portable

statue of Osiris, the sàmw-Éw, belonged here.318

One of the scenes on the southern wall of the

Inner Hypostyle Court presents the so-called

“baptism” of the Pharaoh, a ritual that Gardiner

linked with the Ès-purification rites and the role of

kingship, but not necessarily to coronation.319 Let

us not forget the fact that all of the cult images of

your majesty be like a godly one in the city of

Abydos.” The two passages are strikingly paral-

lel to one another. Perhaps it can be argued that

the previously unfinished image (sàmw) of Seti

was now in operation. This location, however,

is in the innermost area of the main axis of the

temple and is not associated with the regular cult

figure of Seti. But one of the doorway dedica-

tions to Chapel K ( for Seti) indicates this por-

table image.314

Chapel K was connected to Seti, and it was

here and not in the Osirian suites that the dead

king was linked with his heb seds and other attri-

butes of coronation.315 In addition, this chapel

served as a cult chamber for the dead king, an

aspect that Ramesses stresses in his address to

his father. Zippert also recognized that on the

south wall of the Inner Hypostyle Hall, the one

that runs up to Seti’s chapel, Seti is depicted as a

god, but not equated with Osiris.316 Owing to these

chapter two64

seven members of the Ennead: Religious Ritual at Abydos, 348. She has confused the seven main deities in Seti’s temple—those that occupied the seven chapels—with the Abydene Ennead.

321 Altenmüller-Kesting, “Reinigungsriten im ägyptischen Kult,” 90-5, 106, 149. Hence, the connection to the gnwt, “annals” is self-evident. She deals with the two forms such “baptisms” take, the second essentially being connected to the mortuary liturgy. Add now Budde’s volume, Die Göttin Seschat, and the references given in Chapter I notes 2 and 24.

322 PM VI 21-2.323 KRI I 139.16 (Second or Inner Hypostyle Hall). The

text states that “he [ = the king] has woken up those who are in the necropolis.” For a further use of the verb snhs, see KRI I 189.8 (Stairway Corridor). For this location and the crucial texts contained therein see our comments in Chapter III.

324 Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 195.

phitischen Tempel (Berlin P 13242) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957), 87-9.

320 This is too well known to be analyzed here. On the other hand, one useful reference in the Gallery of the Kings can be cited (KRI I 177.2-3): ms sàmw nb dt.sn rdít Ètp.sn Èwt.f. The entire inscription reveals that Seti had made images of his Ennead in this temple. We can add as well the sàm-Éw of Osiris (KRI I 162.12/14: access doorway to Osiris Suite; cf. our comments in note 318); note as well KRI I 197.14-15.

According to Schott, the reference to “his fathers, the Ennead” must indicate the principal deities worshipped within a temple: Schott, Kanais: Der Tempel Sethos I. im Wâdi Mia, 167-8 with 146 note 8 (bottom).

At Abydos the local Ennead consisted of nine deities: Osiris and the two Khnums, two Thoths, two Horuses, and two Wepwawets; cf. Jéquier, “L’Ennéade osirienne d’Abydos et les enseignes sacrées,” 409-17 with note 51 above.

David is wrong when she claims that there are only

these reasons may allow us to place the event in

Chapel K.

Let us now return to the direct address section

as a unit. It is composed of a speech of the king

to Seti and the father’s reply. I assume it to have

taken place in Abydos (as does also Kitchen) but

not at the same time as the forgoing declarations

of intent. The detailed summary of Ramesses’

deeds connects to it in an effective manner. When

the king’s speech to his advisors and high ranking

officials has concluded, a summary of the effects

of that announcement is given, among which we

read other actions of Ramesses on behalf of Seti.

But I do not see how the complete series of build-

ing work coupled with administration demands

(economic and theological) could have occurred

on the spot, so to speak. It is for this reason that

I place the completion of the king’s requirements

later in time than the trip to Abydos. The follow-

ing address of the king specifically assumes that

all has been done—i.e., the deeds are spoken

as finished activities and not as willed ones that

remain to be fulfilled. In other words, the com-

position includes events, religious to be sure, that

occurred later in time than the year one celebra-

tion at Abydos. This interpretation has the added

advantage of reinforcing Kitchen’s remarks con-

cerning the actual date of the inscription.

If, as he says, the full prenomen of Ramesses,

Wosermaatre-setepenre, is present—and it is—

then the final hieratic draft and the start of the

carving can be placed to “Year 2 at earliest.”324

We certainly cannot place it to a time after the

first victorious campaign of Ramesses in his fourth

regnal year. Both Kitchen and I refer to the time it

took to compose the account, the subsequent delay

in approval, the later dispatch of the account to

the chief gods of Seti’s temple were called sàmw.320

This purification rite of the Pharaoh was also

connected with the king’s arrival into a temple,

and both Thoth and Seshat were connected to

the performance.321

The relatively accessible location of the Dedi-

catory Inscription and the accompanying scenes

do not help us much. After all, their carving on the

outside of the newly finished portico wall merely

indicates that the acts (Ramesses before Osiris,

Isis and Seti; Ramesses “offering up”) and the

account (Ramesses before Seti) were made public.

Notwithstanding many difficulties, the following

scenario can be offered as a possible explanation

for the final section. First, Ramesses “awakens”

Seti. He asks his now divine and “excellent ba”

father for kingship. This is given after Seti has

dealt with the other key deities of kingship. The

scene on the right wall of the portico indicates

the king’s connection to the old rite of the Ished

tree. His insignia are recorded. In those scenes

Re-Harachty is present as well as Horus, Isis,

Osiris, and Ptah. The kingship ritual has moved

to the cementing of the earthly Pharaonic status

of Ramesses. In other words, I read the portico

text and scenes from left (south) to right (north).

Nothing is said about the death and resurrection

of Osiris. Hence, any connection to the second

Osiris hall, an area where Seti is not present,

should be eliminated.322 The location of the statue

of Seti in one of the seven chapels just behind the

Inner Hypostyle Court is not so closely associ-

ated that a connection to the sole role of Osiris

must be obligatory. Furthermore, does not one

of the ceiling decorations in the area refer to the

“awakening” (snhs) of gods, precisely in the aisle

connected to the Chapel of Seti?323 I believe that

the text: translation and detailed analysis 65

d’archéologie orientale, 1946), 120. We can also refer to Borghouts’ brief treatment of nhsí in his The Magical Texts of Papyrus Leiden I 348, 124 note 278.

For wts see Assmann, Der König als Sonnenpriester, 27-8. Briefly, no “arms” raise Seti up. See as well Assmann’s comments on the gesture of wts in Der König als Sonnenpriester, 43-4 note 4.

The morning ritual of awakening (with rs) is covered by Alliot, Le culte d’Horus à Edfou au temps des Ptolémées (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1949), 51-9 with Dimitri Meeks-Christine Favard-Meeks, La vie quotidienne des dieux égyptiens (Paris: : Hachette, 1993), 186-8. It is common enough in the Coffin Texts: see most recently, Willems, “The Embalmer Embalmed: Remarks on the Meaning of the Decoration of Some Middle Kingdom Coffins,” in Essays on Ancient Egypt in Honour of Herman te Velde (ed. Jacobus van Dijk; Groningen: Styx, 1997), 360 (commenting upon CT Spell 397). His analysis on pages 360-4 bears upon the account of Seti’s address to Ramesses in the Dedicatory Inscription. I will discuss this matter later, but we can note here the old study of Hermann Kees, “Göttinger Toten-buchstudien,” ZÄS 65 (1930): 65–83.

There is the still useful commentary of A. de Buck, De godsdienstige opvatting van den slaap inzonderheid in het oude Egypte (Leiden: Brill, 1939). He covers the connection to rebirth from sleep. Cf. note 68 ( from the Book of the Dead): stsw next to sîÉw. The important point in our text is that Seti is awakened; he does not “raise himself up.” De Buck summarizes the situation. The god is sleeping in the hidden and closed naos. He must be woken up, and the situation of his face is emphasized; see (wn Èr). Hornung has provided a useful commentary on this conception of sleep (sdr) in his unpublished work, “Nacht und Finsternis im Weltbild der alten Ägypter” (Ph.D. diss., Universität Tübingen, 1956), 63-6.

325 If the statue of Seti is equated with the image (sàmw) mentioned in column 36, then already it would have under-gone the wpt rî; see Daumas, “Quelques textes de l’atelier des orfèvres dans le temple de Dendara,” 117.

326 In general, Assmann, “Verklärung,” Lexikon der Ägyp-tologie VI, 998-1006.

327 Assmann, Ägypten. Theologie und Frömmigkeit einer frühen Hochkultur (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1984), 110, but see pages 108-12. Add his “Das Bild des Vaters,” 38-9; with Siegfried Schott, Mythe und Mythenbildung im alten Ägypten (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1945), 48-9.

These cases, which go back to the Pyramid Texts in the written literature, are “Verklärungen.” Schott’s contribution was to place emphasis upon the “I style” of such hymns; cf. Assmann, Images et rites de la mort dans l’Égypte ancienne: L’apport des liturgies funéraires (Paris: Cybele, 2000), 29-35.

One might expect such an event involving the “awak-ening” or “re-birth” of Seti to have taken place right at the end of the fourth month of Achet, at the close of the Sokar (later Choiak) festival, but see our comments at the end of this analysis.

328 Assmann, Ägypten. Theologie und Frömmigkeit einer frühen Hochkultur, 117-19. The key reference is given on page 110: PT 2127 (Spell 691B; not in Sethe).

Gilles Roulin covers the term nhs(y)w (“resuscitated ones”) in his volume Le Livre de la Nuit: Une composition égyptienne de l’au-dèla I (Fribourg and Göttingen: Éditions Universitaires and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 129. He refers to certain passages in the Book of the Dead where the defunct will see when the sun rises. The same situation is presented in the Dedicatory Inscription. Add Roulin’s discussion of the rsw (“awakened ones”) and the “sleepers” (sdrw); and A. Piankoff, “Le Livre des Quererts,” BIFAO 43 (1945): 46 for another nhs figure in the underworld (in the “Livre der Quererts”) = his Le Livre de Querets (Cairo: Institut français

tained, although I will sidestep this matter for the

moment.325 The section partly reflects the genre

of “Transfiguration” hymns (sîÉw), which are,

nonetheless, connected to the Egyptian mytho-

logical outlook.326 (One has but to mention the

well-known but poorly-named Dramatic Rames-

seum Papyrus as a case in point.) We should,

nonetheless, keep in mind that this concluding

section of the Dedicatory Inscription does not

concern itself with the names of objects or indi-

viduals even though there is a pertinent small

narrative report by Seti to the gods (or rather to

Re and Wenennefer in particular) on behalf of

his son Ramesses. Assmann specifically describes

the “sacramental interpretation” associated with

such sîÉw.327 The “Jenseits” orientation of such

hymns is a further aspect of their presentation

because they have nothing to do with the cult of

the dead. In one key spell the background of the

age-old cult is, of course, expressly indicated with

the word rs for wakening (but not nhsí or wts).328

The purpose of “awakening” the god—in this

case Seti – is historically conditioned by Ramesses’

activities at Abydos. He calls him up, so to speak,

to show him what a dutiful, pious, and true sî.f

Abydos, and the final act of carving. These events

must have occurred after the king left the temple

precinct. Given these chronological points, which

are rather fluid and amorphous, it makes some

sense to place the two royal addresses—king and

father to each other—at the same time. That is,

after the walls for the text were finished (built,

smoothed, and ready for carving). All of the stipu-

lations which the Pharaoh demanded were now

done. Hence, one might locate temporally the

following cultic act after the departure of Ramesses

from Abydos in his first year.

The address of the Pharaoh to his father is a

personal one. Nowhere is there indicated the pres-

ence of a large audience of officials, religious and

secular. The event appears to have been a private

rite and therefore separate from the public duties

of the king at Abydos. Some may wish to place

it in the open court of Seti’s temple at Abydos,

others not. The possibility of Chapel K for the

vent was discussed earlier, yet perhaps this perfor-

mance was located within the covered area of the

temple and suited better for the shrine area.

From the initial word “awake,” a connection

to the ritual of Opening the Mouth can be main-

chapter two66

332 Assmann, “Harfnerlied und Horussöhne,” 58-9 and note c. Cf. Assmann and Bommas, Altägyptische Totenliturgien I, 368-9.

333 Yet Kitchen has shown the way in his all-too-brief comments cited in note 330 above.

334 I am referring to Görg, Gott-König-Reden in Israel und Ägypten.

335 Urk. IV 1646-57.8; and Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III, 393-407.

336 Urk. IV 1655.15ff.

329 “Verklärungen,” 1006 note 49.330 Assmann, “Die Inschrift auf dem äußeren Sarkophag-

deckel des Merenptah,” 117. The comments of Kitchen, however, must be taken into consideration: Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 160-1. He observes the “conversation-pieces” that occur between the king and a deity which are prevalent in royal texts throughout the Ramesside Period.

331 Urk. IV 610.8-619.2; and now Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III, 111-20.

people “waken” (nhsí ) Seti to give him incense.

The ritual presentation by the living Ramesses

is indicated. Just as the daily recognition of the

Pharaoh is connected to the rising from sleep—

Atum is linked to Ramesses—so in an inverted

fashion is Seti’s revival by his son, Re being con-

nected to Seti.

The pattern of “conversations,” or Gespräche,

between gods and Pharaoh, a factor that the final

portion of our composition presents, remains a

broad field for further research.333 The unique

personal orientation of this inscription reveals

a feeling that is ever-present in the final two

addresses of Ramesses and Seti. Görg’s work on

such God-King Reden’s barely touched upon the

complex nature of genre, setting, style of lan-

guage, and date of inscription.334 Yet he managed

to connect some of these texts with the Königsno-

velle. Görg saw the historical backdrop, the curtain

of a here (Abydos in this case) and a now (regnal

year one of Ramesses). He referred to two paral-

lels to these Abydene addresses—a beautiful stela

of Amunhotpe III erected in his mortuary temple

and an additional one of his from the same area,

erected just behind the colossi of Memnon. In

both are speeches, but neither resemble in struc-

ture, outlook, or religious feeling the Dedicatory

account.

Amunhotep III’s larger stela presents the

account through a typical dedication section pre-

ceded by the normal eulogistic phraseology that,

I suspect, could be obtained from a preexisting

template.335 Within that portion we can recog-

nize an inserted encomium-eulogy. Then follows

a report of the king’s building activities in Luxor

(third person), as well as other work-related proj-

ects, all dedicated to Amun. When the descrip-

tion of the construction of the bark of Amun is

covered, the account moves to a first person nar-

ration, and the same may be said with respect to

a series of other royal declarations. According to

Görg the crucial passage is a response of Amun

to the king in which the godhead, at Karnak

I suspect, addressed his son, the living Horus.336

mr.f, has done. This is therefore not a sîÉw wherein

the chief lector priest recites his formulae. Nor are

we concerned with the presentation of offerings

to the dead individual, in this case the Pharaoh.

Because Ramesses expects favors, the purport of

the account, if not also its style, is considerably

different from what precedes. Truly, the constel-

lation of father-son has become paramount.

On more than one occasion Assmann observed

this context within a religious setting even if the

themes of the sîÉw are very different than those

in the Dedicatory Inscription. He referred to the

series of divine speeches, Götterreden, which stand

very close to the “transfiguration” hymns.329 One

very useful example brought forward by him is the

Blessing of Ptah.330 There, the situation concerns

the newly crowned Pharaoh and two speeches,

the first by the god Ptah of Memphis which is the

longer, and a second, the royal response. Equally,

one might turn to the “Poetical Stela of Thut-

mose III,” although there is a one-way street, so

to speak, which presents the arrival of the father

god to the king (íí.n.í ).331

At this point we have to deal with the style

in the Dedicatory text as well, insofar as the

two speeches of Ramesses and Seti are not at

all composed in the verse orientation of other

Egyptian hymns. The accounts are presented with

fully developed verbal formations (sdm.f prospec-

tive, sdm.f for the past, and sdm.n.f ). They con-

tain wishes, but not those that are typical of the

sîÉw. For example, the continual series of “may

you, …..; may you …..” are lacking. The king

nonetheless ends up asking his father for specific

powers. But I cannot avoid placing emphasis upon

the “awake” introduction, for here we have a

close parallel to the opening command that the

“transfiguration” hymns contain, wts tw.332 The

concentration upon this event in the Osirian cult

is too well known to describe in detail. Yet the

awakening of Seti in the Dedicatory Inscription

with nhsí is prefigured by the use of the same

verb in column 73. There, at the very close of

the speech of the king’s officials, it is stated that

the text: translation and detailed analysis 67

338 KRI II 332.9-10.337 Ibid., 1671.4-1677.4; and Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III, 376-83. She covers the northern companion on pages 384-90.

and state this in truth. He can ask his father for

“lifetime after lifetime” and Seti can reply to this

request by granting his son the desired wishes,

and I feel that this portion reflects an event later

than the king’s original journey to Abydos in his

first year.

But the whole event is marked by that preg-

nant phrase “I have come myself in order to see

your temple next to Wenennefer, the eldest one

(wr) of eternity.”338 The purport of this visit is at

odds with his earlier one. After the coronation

and celebrations at Karnak and Luxor, the young

Ramesses sailed downstream and completed his

official report at Abydos. Earlier, he had vis-

ited this religious area and began new buildings

and then there was a reorientation of the work.

Ramesses had previously, while regent, stressed

his own property. His attention was subsequently

focused upon Seti’s incomplete temple with its

field system of endowments that was poor at best

and the lack of an organized priesthood.

This new address of Ramesses, on the other

hand, indicates that those problems are now

solved. The tenor and import of this later pre-

sentation deals with the completion of the situa-

tion. Seti’s house is now in operation. As a pious

and father-loving son, Ramesses had seen to it

that Seti’s building at Abydos was to be finished.

But the actual construction and decorative activ-

ity could not have been done until he gave the

orders, and his official declaration occurred in

his first regnal year as sole Pharaoh. Let it not

be forgotten that at Abydos the proclamation of

Nebwennef as High Priest of Amun also took

place. (Up to that time he had been chief of the

prophets in the Thinite nome, and held other

sacerdotal positions.) More than one regal act of

dedication had taken place at Abydos in the first

year of Ramesses’ sole reign.

The Dedicatory Inscription moves forward in

time and, as a unit, recounts additional activities

of Ramesses. Hence, it does not merely refer to

one royal event or to a single act of commemora-

tion. Its structure is not homogenous because it

operated by an additive nature. The Dedicatory

Inscription is not merely a Königsnovelle. The com-

position is lengthy and comprises various styles of

presentation. A speech of the king to his father,

which we find at the conclusion, fits better into a

However, this poetically structured hymn does

not fit the style of the Dedicatory Inscription.

It is a formal presentation whose parallel can

be seen later in the Blessing of Ptah and earlier

in the Victory Poem of Amun to Thutmose III.

Moreover, the Sitz im Leben is quite different from

Ramesses’ composition. It lacks any historical

Königsnovelle presentation—there is not even an

opening date—the account travels in a direction

quite different than Ramesses’.

A second possible link to the Dedicatory

In scription can be found on a small stela com-

missioned by Amunhotep III.337 There, after the

opening five full-fold titulary (without a date),

the king suddenly addresses Amun: “Come.! O

Amun-Re …. So that you might see your temple

…..” The event surely was an official dedication of

the completed work (or near completed) in which

the king speaks to the great god of Karnak. He

invites his father to survey what he, Amun’s son

has done. One suspects that at this ceremony a

bark of Amun with the statue of the deity, all held

up by the officious priests, were present. The god

answers, but here again the eulogistic phraseol-

ogy is commonplace. Added to this is the next

response, this time by the Ennead of Karnak,

although they address Amun and not the king.

Once more an important caveat must be repeated.

For the researcher, it is a necessary but not suf-

ficient criterion for coincidence to examine the

internal structure of each composition. In this

case I am referring to speeches on stelae or on

walls. But in order to prove a common basis of

presentation, other elements have to be drawn

into the argument, among which is the simplest

one, the purpose of the text.

Leaving these questions of date and structure

to the side for the moment, I would like to repeat

my basic concepts concerning the structure of the

Dedicatory Inscription. The king’s later declara-

tion of completed activity lead me to stress the

conglomerate nature of the entire composition.

The text is, as I have stated earlier, additive in

nature. There are major sections (eulogies, Königs-

novelle, addresses) that must be analyzed separately

before we consider the account as a unity. And

among these is the distinct religious portion of

the conclusion. The physical work is now done

or at least planned. Ramesses can come to Seti

chapter two68

of sÉîw (Schott, ibid., 25 note 5). Schott further remarks that the composition explicitly indicates the context of a “transformation” (ibid., with various notes); add the com-ments of Assmann, Liturgische Lieder, 352 (section 19).

One major difference between the account of Seti and the later one of Ramesses II is the former’s apparent stress upon his (blood-)family. Note the key word îbwt which is employed more than once: Dimitri Meeks, “Notes de lexicog-raphie (§1),” RdE 26 (1974): 52-65; and Franke, Altägyptische Verwandtschaftsbezeichungen, 277-88.

Meeks felt with good reason that îbwt in the Seti I stela refers to “clients” rather than members of the king’s family (page 62). The difference in orientation between both texts, however, is still to be observed.

345 KRI II 332.2; Kruchten’s “rule” can apply here if one wishes.

346 Therefore, we might regard the passage (and others) reflecting an earlier stage in the stylistic verbal uses first explicated by Wente in his “The Syntax of Verbs of Motion in Egyptian.” On the other hand, I suspect any regularity of presentation in monumental hieroglyphic inscriptions of the Ramesside Period.

With Kruchten, can we argue that the following sdm.f must be circumstantial (and so “emphasized” by the open-ing sdm.n.f?

347 The famous discussion of Assmann is in his Litur-gische Lieder, 292-5; the entire study of this combination and others is presented in Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian, 196-8 (“balanced sentences”); a more detailed presentation is by Junge, ‘Emphasis’ and Sentential Meaning in Middle Egyptian (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1989), 24-6, 51-6, to which see his brief comment in Neuägyptische, 75-6 (to line 5). Cf. now Assmann and Bommas, Altägyptische Totenliturgien I, 225.

348 KRI II 332.2-4.349 There is little difficulty in understanding this sec-

tion. Assmann Liturgische Lieder, 101-6 provides a useful analysis.

339 KRI II 332.1-2. The root nhsí is resumed in column 112 with snhs. Ramesses (son) wakens Seti ( father) and Horus (son) awakens Wenennefer (as father Osiris). The assumption of the Solar-Osiris unity ought to be clear, and I can add a passage from the speech of Thoth in the Stairway Corridor that is even more explicit: “You cause(d) him [= Wenennefer, that is Osiris] to appear at the crack of dawn as Re next to every god” (KRI I 191.6-7). This issue will be discussed in Chapter III.

340 This statement indicates the physical performance: to see Re; to be alive. Seti, who is dead (and thus an Osiris) awakens and sees Re. Osiris is permeated with the light and rays of the sun god.

341 Assmann, “Das Bild des Vaters,” 37 with note 96 on page 159: nty m ntr. He refers to the earlier Abydene text of Seti I in a context not too different from this one: KRI I 113.14. But see as well KRI I 112.2-3: ntf pw àî# írt ntr and [sÉ#] dt.f m ntr, referring to the act of Seti. In this case Ramesses I, or to be more precise his statue constructed through the pious act of his son Seti, is a god. The same may be said for Ramesses II’s and his father Seti I: see the analysis in Chapter III. We can also add (in a different context), the account of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu: KRI V 116.15.

Ahmed el-Sawi, “The Deification of Sety Ist in his Temple of Abydos,” MDAIK 43 (1987): 225-7 repeats past scholarship. Dimitri Meeks, on the other hand, reveals his keen insight into the nature of “god” in ancient Egypt when he refers to the Ramesses I example, “Notion de ‘dieu’ et structure du panthéon dans l’Égypte ancienne,” RHR 205 (1988): 433.

342 Seti is thus revived.343 KRI I 110.11-114.15.344 See in this context Schott, Der Denkstein Sethos’ I. für

die Kapelle Ramses’ I. in Abydos, passim, especially pages 22, 29 (where the word “Verklärung” is employed), 55-6, and 67-8. This concept is explicitly indicated through the use

linked to an invoked statue).344 At the point which

is now reached, Ramesses invokes his father and

explains to him what he, the pious son, is per-

forming.345

I have avenged (nd.n.í ) you.

I paid attention (díw.í; while I paid attention ?)

to your temple, your [offerings] enduring.

Here, Kruchten’s analysis can be supported or sim-

plified as we observe the opening sdm.n.f followed

by a possible Perfective Late Egyptian sdm.f.346

One might, however, view the entire though short

passage as reflective of the combination sdm.n.f—

sdm.f, a formula that is found quite frequently in

hymnic settings.347 On the other hand, the clear

writing of the verb “to give,” díw, with the ending

of—w, reflects the common Ramesside writing

for Perfective (rather than nominal) sdm.f. This

situation will be discussed below. The account is

not interrupted.348

You rest in the afterworld like Osiris when I

appear as Re to the people,349

separate religious act, one in which the dedication

of the completed work for Seti took place.

Furthermore, this new portion of the account

places the address of Ramesses to Seti within a

cultic setting. The king addresses his father during

a formal rite of presentation. And the elder is

invoked through the pregnant word “awake.” The

son is now resuscitating Seti.339

He said:

Awake! (nhs tw)—your face to heaven340—so that

you may see Re, O my father Menmaatre who

is a god.341

Behold.

I am (now) vivifying your name.342

Seti is once more addressed as Menmaatre;

the close relationship of son to father occurs.

Ramesses’ words parallel the same role that his

father played out at Abydos some time earlier

when he erected a lengthy dedicatory stela for

his father Ramesses I.343 In that case the father

became a god through the filial duty of his son,

and hence he was “transfigured” (with a sense

the text: translation and detailed analysis 69

Inscriptions: Translations II, 171. One can understand the initial íw as a circumstantial marker; I interpret the passage as follows: íw<.í> m ír pî sp whí Èr.k; cf. note 362 below.

355 See above notes 10, 95, 187, and 346. For the Middle Egyptian narrative formation under discussion, I can do no better than refer to the study of Janet H. Johnson, “NIMS in Middle Egyptian,” Serapis 6 (1980): 69-73.

356 KRI II 332.8-10.For the first word Ètr, see now Haring, Divine House-

holds, 47 note 3 (“to provide”). Physical compulsory labor is indicated.

357 At this point Ramesses places emphasis upon his arrival at Abydos, stating that he is there to see Seti’s temple. Because the work is “stated to be finished,” surely this must also indicate a time after Ramesses’ voyage. Otherwise, we would have to assume that all of the king’s actions were completed by word instead of also by deed.

In the liturgic hymns and prayers addressed to Re the system is as follows. When Re the sun god sets in the west, he rests in Osiris in the underworld. Equally, Osiris rests in Re. The division between Re and Osiris is overt at this point. Re is living (the son) and Osiris is dead (the father). Yet the crucial verb Ètp + m is employed exactly as Ass-mann pointed out with respect to Horus and Re: they are frequently set beside each other (ibid., 101).

350 “To the people” Ramesses is Re.351 KRI II 332.4-5; the father is greeted. This sentence

forms a break as it separates the narrative portions of what precedes from those that follow. The Relative Form is írw.í.

352 KRI II 332.5–8.353 First and foremost in Ramesses’ mind and words is

the statue of his father.354 The passage is partly corrupt; cf. Kitchen, Ramesside

The opening is sdm.n.f and then two sdm.f ’s follow.

Again, I do not think that the interpretation of

Kruchten altogether fits here. Can one view these

patterns consisting of an initial narrative form and

a resulting or subsequent row of sdm.f ’s which

operate as continuatives? If so, then the consecu-

tive narrative presentations link up neatly. This

interpretation might parallel the situation wit-

nessed by Wente with respect to the Late Egyp-

tian Miscellanies, parts of P. Harris, the Kadesh

Inscriptions of Ramesses II, and a few additional

Ramesside royal inscriptions.355 His position was

that in some of the literary accounts of Dynas-

ties XIX and XX an unexpected verbal pattern

revealed itself. Instead of the colloquial First Pres-

ent + verb of motion/initial Perfective sdm.f, a dif-

ferent approach was employed: a series of sdm.f ’s

would be employed. Even though Wente did not

examine further the antecedents of his discovery,

it is sufficient to emphasize his conclusion that the

sequence of non-initial sdm.f ’s stood in for the col-

loquial Non-Initial Main Sentence. The latter had

replaced the series of (continuative, predicative)

sdm.n.f ’s that one finds, for example, in Classic

Middle Egyptian narrative passages.

With the above comments in mind, let us pro-

ceed further. There still are a series of sdm.f ’s to

analyze.356

And I have yoked (Ètrw.í ) servants for you [in

order to carry] (offerings) for your ka and to

spend water for you on the ground, with bread

and beer.

I myself have really (sp sn) come (íy.kwí ) in order to

see your temple beside Wenennefer, the eldest

of eternity.357

Now (while ?) I am (tí wí ) on the great throne

of Atum like Horus son of Isis who avenged

his father.

The style involves two main sentences of high

seriousness and probably also formal tonality.

Moreover, these words form the heading to the

actions and present the purpose of the text (deeds

in the past). This is nothing more than a royal

address, a cultic presentation spoken from son to

father. But the underworld or afterworld is the

setting; see Osiris and Atum. Ramesses appears as

Re; Seti is Osiris.350 Then follows a more specific

connection between father-son:351

How [exceed]ingly [good] is what I have done

for you (írw.í n.k).

Welcome as one who repeats life.

The concepts here are not difficult to reconstruct.

Seti invokes his father. The latter arrives and is

thus reborn.

The first half of the following passage is a fur-

ther example of the Egyptian paranomasia ably

described by Loprieno.352 It also repeats the com-

bination initial sdm.n.f—sdm.f; the ideas are dif-

ferent as they are more specific.

I have fashioned (msyw.n.í ) you.353

And (while ?) I have built (qd.í ) a temple which

you loved (mrt.n.k),

your image (sàmw.k) being in it in the Sacred

Land of Abydos, the eternal district.

And I have set up divine (wîÈw.í ) offerings [for]

your [imag]es, daily offerings being presented

to you,

while I was354 (?) the one who accomplished the

situation/case that you lacked (lit.: was lack-

ing for you)

so that I could do it for you, every wish of yours,

being beneficial for your name.

chapter two70

Households, with profit because he discusses virtually all of the economic stipulations that are listed here.

The following statement indicates that some supplies from Egypt’s territories outside of Egypt were directed to Abydos. This is well known from P. Harris, for example.

365 The troublesome word ínw is employed: Janssen, “Bîkw: From Work to Product,” SAK 20 (1993): 81-94; Spalinger, “From Local to Global: The Extension of an Egyptian Bureaucratic Term to the Empire,” SAK 23 (1996): 353-76; and Haring, Divine Households, passim, especially pages 48-9.

Observe that according to this account the “northern-ers” are not “serfs” or workers in this temple. Only the Nubians are.

366 KRI II 332.12-14. Following Kruchten, the opening verb ought to be non-predicative.

358 KRI II 332.10-11. From this point onwards, the open-ing statements of Ramesses with regard to the incomplete building activity in the temple are now resolved.

359 The opening sdm.f is followed by a sdm.n.f. I believe that Kruchten’s “rule” applies in the latter case.

360 See the remarks in the previous note.361 It appears best to interpret the ír as a passive rather

than as an Infinitive (“making every chapel of yours”). The difference is minimal. I follow Gauthier with regard to the opening verb. Kitchen prefers “I [have done ?] what you desired” (Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 171).

362 Read íw<.í> m ír; see the somewhat troublesome passage in column 83 (KRI II 332.7) and our comments in note 354.

363 See note 266.364 KRI II 332.11-12. The description moves to the temple

personnel. In general, one can read Haring’s volume, Divine

Behold.

I am now vivifying your name after I have

avenged (nd.n.í ) you.

And then follow a series of predicative sdm.f for-

mations. Subsequently, however, we are faced

with a second sdm.n.f in column 82: “I have fash-

ioned you” (msyw.n.í tw). Here I believe there are

more difficulties because the verbal formation

immediately following appears to be predicative

sdm.f: “I have build a temple which you loved.”

Hence, following Kitchen, I have rendered both

as simple English Present Perfects even though

the following could be argued:

How exceedingly [good] is what I have done

for you.

Welcome as one who repeats life.

after I have fashioned you.

Ramesses arranged that Seti’s statue be fashioned

and it is now in operation.

I have broken the text at this point, and insofar

as we are in the middle of a passage or subsec-

tion, the additional comments of the king have

to be recorded.364

And I gave (díw.í ) to you southerners offering

to your temple,

northerners [providing] revenues to your beauti-

ful face.365

Then a new idea commences that is concerned

with the temple workers but not the cultivators

who receive little attention from the king.366

I brought together (sÈwy.n.í ) your workers,

united together under the authority of the

prophet of your temple in order to cause that

your offerings/property come into being,

enduring all together and directed [to] your [temple] throughout eternity.

The latter sentence emphasizes Ramesses’ visit

to seer the completion of his orders. Now comes

the specificity.358

I have finished (grÈw.í ) the work in it.359

I have laid out (nm#w.n.í ) the ground.360

(because) I [knew/did ?; rÉ.kwí] what you

wished (mrt.n.k), that every chapel of yours be

made.361

I have established (smnw.í ) your name in them

forever, while <I> am one who acts for Truth

so that it may be strong.362

Let me stop at this point although by no means

is the speech over. (The last phrase exactly paral-

lels the earlier one of column 83.) My translation

is very literal, but I have preferred to render the

text this way in order to point out the verbal

formations. The series of sdm.f ’s, which should

be predicative, continue the king’s statement of

filial duty and loyalty. He has done this and this

and this. No nominal formations can be argued

for any of the following three: “I have finished

the work in it,” “I have laid out the ground,” and

“I have established your name in them forever.”

The presence of a verb of motion (“to come,” íí )

in the middle of the king’s statements provides

welcome support for this analysis, the temporal

setting preferring the simple older and more Clas-

sical approach ( first person Stative). Let us also

keep in mind that the last verbal construction,

smn.í may reflect an original smn.n.í.363

But this whole series of sdm.f ’s following one

after the other go back to an intitial sdm.n.f which

serves to opens up the new idea; i.e., the deeds of

work (construction) which Ramesses enacted at

Abydos and the interconnected sacerdotal require-

ments. It can be noted that the opening sdm.n.f in

this address (“I have laid out the ground”) perhaps

could be understood as a pluperfect:

the text: translation and detailed analysis 71

372 Hence, handworkers were associated with the flotilla of the temple.

373 See note 115 above for a more extensive meaning of the word.

374 KRI I 45.6-58.15. It is significantly dated to the first day of I Peret. From this fact we might hypothesize that Seti I immediately (and auspiciously) declared that temple to be completed on the second New Year’s Day.

For translations and commentary, see most recently Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated and Annotated: Transla-tions I, 38-50 with Notes and Comments I, 48-55; and Benedict G. Davies, Egyptian Historical Inscriptions of the Nineteenth Dynasty (Jonsered: Paul Aströms Förlag 1997), 277-308.

The preamble describes Seti’s arrangements for his Abydene temple, and the promulgation includes the basic economic set up there. In fact, the royal decree relating to the support of the temple is explicitly mentioned

375 KRI II 333.8-11. Gauthier argued for the initial verb sÉ##. In his translation Kitchen has queried the possibility (Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 172); Kruchten’s “rule” can apply here as well.

376 For the mrt, see Haring, Divine Households, 49-50; and for the smdt, ibid., 6-7 (workforce). The division of labor is clear.

367 KRI II 332.14-333.2. The temple’s revenues and modes of income are now covered. The opening àpss.n.í must also be understood by Kruchten’s analysis.

368 And this is the external trade, pace Vandersleyen, Ouadj our, wîd wr: Un autre aspect de la vallée du Nil (Brussels: Con-naissance de l’Égypte ancienne, 1999), 178 (example 8). Cf. Kitchen, review of Vandersleyen, Ouadj our, wîd wr, DE 46 (2000): 123-38. As Stephen Quirke points out to me, this passage supplies information on the “patronage” of ships circulating on commission in the Eastern Mediterranean Late Bronze Age trading circuit.

369 See now Haring, Divine Households, 15. He correctly indicates that these men were “commercial agents” in the service of institutions or estates of the high officials. In this context I regard them as dealing with trade outside of Egypt.

370 KRI II 333.2-8.The first point reflects back to the comments of column

37: see Kitchen’s remarks in Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 196. The field boundaries were definitely not set down “on paper.” It would have taken time to organize the entire agricultural support system of this temple. Hence, a temporal interval must be assumed, one that covered the events after Ramesses’ visit to Abydos.

371 For the field laborers, see now Haring, Divine House-holds, 287-8.

And I tied up/brought together (tsw.í )373 for you

cattle consisting of all small game in order to

endow your offerings in truth.

And I levied (Ètrw.í ) for you birds in the fen(s)

of capturing and other … live ro-geese and

young pregnant chicks.

And I placed (díw.í ) fishermen in the waters and

every pond in order to bring up for you the

products in the cargoes of the mnà boats.

It ought to be clear that this is an extremely

detailed account, reminiscent of Seti I’s Nauri

Decree but lacking in the legal precision of that

document.374 Ramesses most certainly had this

list made public at Abydos, and we might query

whether this portion of the composition was

actually read aloud to Seti in the sanctuary at

Abydos.

Let us continue with the account:375

I provided (sspd.n.í ) your temple with all posts

….. while (?) my majesty has [caused to app]

ear (sÉ## Èm.í ?) your temple priesthood filled of

personnel—mrt servants assessed with linen for

your garments, your smdt staff of the fields [from]

every district, and every man carrying their [work

products] in order to fill your temple.376

This entire lengthy passage rounds out the sec-

tion wherein Ramesses states to Seti what he has

accomplished for his father’s temple. The short

summary that preceded it merely told us what he

had done and, perhaps more importantly, when

these things took place, whereas the subsequent

I also believe that the next passage has a core

idea separate from a series of past narratives all

of which are connected to one another. Here, an

additional sdm.n.f formation opens the thought.367

I made grandiose (àpss.n.í ) your treasury,

it being filled with everything of desire which

I have given to you (rdy.í ) together with your

revenues.

And I gave (díw.í ) to you a mnà ship bearing

deliveries on the Great Green, bringing in for

you great [marvels of] God’s Land,368

while traders369 trade, carrying their orders, and

their work products consist of gold, silver,

copper.

The concept of the treasury of Seti I’s Abydene

temple appears to link up with the succeeding

descriptions of the normal or expected temple

revenues. And so does the next passage, albeit

more indirectly, even though it is overtly connected

with the previous one.370

And I made (írwy.í ) for you the land survey that

had been (only) oral …,

… on the high lands, reckoned according to/

in fields.

And I provided (#pr.í ) [them] with administrators

and field laborers

in order to provide the corn for your divine

offerings.371

And I gave (díw.í ) to you barges and crews, work-

men hewing

[lest] a delay occur in the [transporta]tion to your

temple.372

chapter two72

in his review of Gardiner, The Kadesh Inscriptions of Ramesses II, JNES 22 (1963): 207.

Kruchten, whose work “From Middle Egyptian to Late Egyptian” we have constantly utilized, later took up the challenge.

381 For a straightforward presentation of this “Historical Portion,” see now Grandet, Papyrus Harris I (BM 9999) I, 77-80. His title to the historical section—“Discours aux humains”—is an improvement upon earlier interpretations. Yet what type of literary-historical document was it?

377 For this material I refer once more to Chapter V in Wente, “The Syntax of Verbs of Motion in Egyptian.” But let us not forget that it was Ramesses IV who had the document drawn up.

378 Ibid.379 Ibid., 90, and for the following quote as well. While

outside of this discussion, all of these compositions must be considered from the communality of theme (kingship), linguistics, style, and historical import.

380 Ibid., 90 note 2. We can add his pertinent comments

of expressing narrative.” Perhaps in this part of

the Dedicatory Inscription an early Ramesside

monumental approach to narrative, one which

anticipates the latter method, can be seen. By

and large, the sdm.f is employed although there

are some sdm.n.f ’s, the latter normally placed at

the beginning of subsections.

In the context of Papyrus Harris Wente had

pondered whether “there is a discernable differ-

ence in usage between sdm.f and sdm.n.f in these

texts.”380 At a later date Kruchten strongly argued

that the latter formation was retained when a

non-predicate use is indicated. But is it possible

that all of the latter formations were emphatic;

i.e., non-predicative? Many of them are located

at the beginning of complex sentences; adver-

bial expansions hinging upon the main clause

can be found with no difficulty. Thus the cases

are not at all clear with regard to their emphatic

backgrounding. After all, one may go so far as to

claim that such compositions witness the increas-

ing disappearance of the sdm.n.f but not its com-

plete extinction. “Tradition,” to use that often

misused word, may very well have still played an

important literary role.

It is worthwhile to examine Wente’s study on

the verbal structure of P. Harris in more detail at

this point.381 The opening section of this address

of the king reveals a series of more colloquial

forms (75.6-76.4). Commencing with Ér ír plus

the First Present of <Èr> + Infinitive, a lengthy

introduction to the historical subsection is given.

This “addendum” to Harris totally differs in style

from its immediate environment. Subsequent

is the series of coordinated sdm.f ’s that I have

already mentioned. (Earlier the text employs past

tense devices relatively contemporary in outlook.)

But the middle of the account is remarkably up

to date. This is so striking that perhaps an evalu-

ation directed away from the arena of philology

and aimed instead at a concept of performance,

as in a ritual, might be more useful.

Wente ascertained in this different mode of

presentation the sdm.f could occur at any stage

address recounts in the first person those under-

takings. Once more we move from an introduc-

tory summary of the past deeds to the necessary

details, and the heading repeats the sdm.n.f for-

mation. For example, in the above passage the

focus is most definitely upon the temple workers

whereas earlier, the equivalent verbal construc-

tion (àpss.n.í ) heralds a different organization.

One helpful parallel to this subsection of the

Dedicatory Inscription may be found in those

series of narrative sdm.f ’s that almost run wild

close to the end of the Great Papyrus Harris.377

At a specific point the king presents an official

address to the magnates of Egypt. The compari-

son is worth making, if only as we are at the

beginning of a reign (that of Ramesses IV) as

we are here concerned with the opening year of

Ramesses II. In the former speech, the young

king moves from recounting his past and that of

the troubled time preceding his father’s reign to a

series of declarations concerned with internal mat-

ters. However, the orientation is different because

P. Harris presents a declaration of Truth, the

antecedents of which go back far into the past,

and to the Old Kingdom in particular. In addi-

tion, the king is dead, and the account transpires

from the afterworld. Is it possible that the speech

was addressed at an official convocation such as

a heb sed festival? Whatever is the answer to this

question, it remains the case that these past deeds

are presented in an address structurally close to

ours and perhaps orally given.

Earlier I maintained that all of the accom-

plished deeds of Ramesses II, listed one by one

in the Dedicatory Inscription, were placed within

a specific narrative setting, one that Wente first

revealed with respect to Papyrus Harris.378 He

observed that the colloquial Non-Initial Main

Sentence was not the method of moving through

time, and went on to state that “Such a narrative

sequence is completely lacking elsewhere in this

genre of texts.”379 The “coordinated” sdm.f forms,”

to employ Wente’s felicitous words, present a

“phraseology unrelated to the colloquial means

the text: translation and detailed analysis 73

386 Urk. IV 14.1-23.16; “Eulogie, Königs-,” 41. Assmann remarked that this eulogy is so detailed and well presented that we must suppose a lost literary development.

387 Urk. IV 21.4 and Vandersleyen, Les guerres d’Ahmosis, 135-76. On the other hand, \îw-nbw can mean the island of Crete and possibly mainland Greece. The inscription, however, reads: Ènwt ídbw Èîw nbt; see below.

388 Above all, see Urk. IV 19.6: dgg.tw.f, a very nice example of the nominal formation.

382 KRI II 332.9 (column 84).383 Loprieno, review of Eric Doret, The Narrative Verbal

System of Old and Middle Egyptian, “Verbal Forms and Verbal Sentences in Old and Middle Egyptian,” GM 102 (1988): 59-72. This is a significant analysis.

384 Ibid., 63 note 14.385 Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 519-23; see his

sentence on page 523: “Beachte den erstaunlich kunstvol-len Aufbau und die literarischen Qualitäten dieses Textes, die auf eine reiche Tradition höflicher Literatur schließen lassen.” The italics are mine.

be written with sdm.f, and there the preterit nature

of the syntagm was the point of departure. During

that time the first person indicated completed

activity by means of the suffix conjugation of the

Stative.383 But with the timeless form íí.n.f, or (if

you will) an initial Emphatic sdm.n.f, we enter a

different realm of activity.

Perhaps the difference is better explained in

the following way. According to Loprieno, the

Stative of any verbal root, adjectival or not, “is

more subject-centered, more truly ‘perfective’,

whereas the sdm.n=f is more action oriented, more

‘preterital’.”384 The lack of íí.n.í and the presence

of its Stative counterpart, íí.kwí, in the narrative

portion of Ramesses’ address to Seti support this

analysis. Ramesses “is come” to Abydos, and he

is there. What matters is his address to Seti, the

ritual invocation of his father who now (re)lives

in his son’s presence.

In a list of eulogistic hymns presented in 1975

Assmann included two very early Dynasty XVIII

examples that can throw some welcome light

on this speech of Ramesses.385 He located the

first example of a New Kingdom eulogy under

Ahmose.386 The monument, a free standing stela

found before the VIIIth Pylon of Karnak, may or

may not have anything to do with his eventual

success over the Hyksos at Avaris. The peculiar

reference to the king’s wife, Ahhotep, as “Mistress

of the banks of the \îw-nbw,” nevertheless, points

to a complete conquest over the Delta, and this

must have included the area to the extreme north-

east.387 There is an important dedicatory section

at the conclusion to the inscription and few nar-

rative formations occur in the eulogies, although

they are rare.388 The composition includes two

closely-knit but nonetheless separate hymns of

praise. One eulogy is addressed to the living king

Ahmose and a second to his wife. The prenomen

of Ahmose closes the first just as the title plus

name, “King’s Wife Ahhotep,” ends the second.

After this point the final portion arrives, and it is

structurally different than the preceding hymns.

in the past narrative. The same can be said for

this section of the Dedicatory Inscription. Why

was this done in the case of Harris? Ramesses III

concerns himself with his earlier activities by relat-

ing to his grandees, both secular and non-secular,

with the military among the latter, what he has

done. This non-vulgar narrative style appears to

have been employed for royal addresses. Other

examples can be given, but with Ramesses II

at Abydos, the situation is closely parallel. The

isolated importance of each act by the king is

brought to the fore. Each individual deed is mer-

ited its own place of importance, separate from

those which occur earlier or later. I feel that the

tonality must have been roughly equal for all of

these passages: “I did this; I did this; …; and I

did this.” Granted that this interpretation leaves

aside the vexed problem of the sdm.n.f ’s, it resolves

the difficulty of viewing the Harris example as

an isolated case.

The effect of such a presentation overtly signals

events set in the past, each one being independent

of the other. That is to say, their individuality

was important to the speaker or the writer and

the activity discussed was completed. Because

Wente read a partial Middle Kingdom style into

Ramesses III’s declarations in P. Harris, perhaps

a formal rather than colloquial presentation had

been demanded. In this portion of the Dedicatory

Inscription only with “I have come” (íy.kwí and

not íí.n.í; column 84) was the Stative employed

to herald a beginning, and in this case a predica-

tive syntagm was demanded. This passage further

indicates the king’s presence at Abydos in order to

survey the completions of his ordered tasks. None-

theless, the key narrative portions of the king’s

speech in this section of the Dedicatory Inscription

remain based upon sdm.f ’s with sdm.n.f ’s, at least

sometimes, serving as headings. Is this a result of

the performative aspect?382

In the Old Kingdom the sdm.f referred to a

completed activity and, temporally speaking, it

was a perfect. At that time the third person would

chapter two74

divided. Urk. IV 20.9-10 indicates that the p#t, Ènmmt, rÉyt, and Èrw nb (the last to fill up any that are previously missing) “hear” an eloquent conclusion to the eulogy. In Urk. IV 21.4 a second hymn of praise, this time directed to the king’s wife Ahhotep, includes the important phrase of Ahhotep, “Mistress of the ídbw and the Èîw nbt.”

392 Urk. IV 265.7-74.4393 Urk. IV 26.1-29.5. In the lunette the king alone is

depicted on the right and the left offering to Tetishery. The depiction thus reflects the religious setting of Tetishery’s chapel in Abydos and not the official court proclamation. See as well Klug, Königliche Stelen in der Zeit von Ahmose bis Amenophis III, 15-21.

394 I will once more refer to Wente, “The Syntax of Verbs of Motion in Egyptian,” 74-9. The text used here is P. Anastasi II. Add now: Stephan Jäger, Altägyptische Berufs-typologien, Göttingen (2004); Spalinger, “The Paradise of Scribes and the Tartarus of Soldiers”, in Five Views on Egypt, Göttingen (2006) 5-49.

389 Urk. IV 22.3ff.390 This is a royal command; see recently Dominique

Valbelle, “Les décrets égyptiens et leur affichage dans les temples,” in Valbelle and Leclant, Le décret de Memphis, 67-90 and pages 73-87 in particular.

391 Urk. IV 17.9ff. I prefer the useful if old-fashioned term “patricians,” one that goes back to Gardiner’s researches.

The divisions are (Urk. IV 20.9): p#t, Èr nb, Èîw nbw (which may not support Vandersleyen’s analysis for the text; the word originally represented the old inhabitants of the Delta but later—Middle Kingdom onwards—also the Aegean islands), and the tîw. Assmann’s translation in Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete (2d ed.), 520 appears perfect in this context.

For the direct speech I see speaking these three groups (Urk. IV 17.10, 12, and 14): Èr nb, Èîw nbw, and tîw. They are specifically distinguished from the first named, the “patricians.”

Subsequently, these sections of the population are neatly

rise to the throne after the death of Kamose. In

line 11 the “patricians” (p#t) praise their king.391

Subsequently in line 21 the king returns to his

address by referring to them as well as to three

other segments of Egyptian society.

Two additional early Dynasty XVIII com-

positions present the same nature of eulogistic

organization with, however, subtle differences.

One of them can be found on the Eighth Pylon

at Karnak in which Thutmose I presents himself

before the Theban triad and thanks Amun, with

emphasis placed upon his wife, Hatshepsut.392 An

earlier one, also dated to Ahmose, provides an

interesting contrast to the Dedicatory Inscrip-

tion.393 From the contents of this stela, set up at

Abydos, we can deduce an official ceremony. A

chapel was to be officially commemorated for

Tetisheri, the grandmother of the king. The sty-

listic approach is of a Königsnovelle nature. Indeed,

the beginning indicates this overtly: “A sitting

of his majesty occurred in the d îdw of the King

of Upper and Lower Egypt, Nebpehetyre.” His

wife, who was next to him, and undoubtedly on

another throne, speaks as well. The two converse

with one another. The declarations move from

the first person speech of the king through to the

response of Ahmose Nofretary and back once

more to Pharaoh. Finally, there is a third person

account in which the official actions of Ahmose

are described. This stela also reveals the inter-

connection of ceremony (speeches) and resultant

activity (ritual performance) as we have seen in

the Dedicatory Inscription.

The quasi “prepackaged” nature of the eulo-

gies to the king can be best viewed by perusing

a selection of the Late Egyptian Miscellanies.394

This is a dedication-offering list of Ahmose to

Amun in which the structure is very simple.389 It

opens with a past narrative—íw grt wd.n Èm.f írt

mnw n ít.f ímn-R#—and a further narrative forma-

tion at the close of line 32.390

This structure is overt as is its aim. New and

very unusual objects were donated to the temple

complex of Amun during an official ceremony in

Karnak. This followed the adulation of king and

queen. Therefore, it is reasonable to reconstruct

an official visit of the royal pair to Karnak. The

stylistic presentation of the stela involved a simple

rule: first come the eulogies and then follows

the narrative portion. In this case there was no

Königsnovelle setting owing to the structure and the

event. The king had not called into his presence

officials to discuss a matter but had decided on

his activity by himself. Nonetheless, the declaimed

phrases must refer back to the words of the cer-

emony. A narrative third person was added at the

end to complete the event. As with the Dedicatory

Inscription, a historical sequel was added, one in

which the donations followed the speeches.

In this stela the first eulogy, that directed to

king Ahmose, is not a unity. The opening is

composed of non-verbal passages, all basically

in apposition to the names of the king. There are

a few verbal characteristics, but essentially can be

described as timeless ones, to follow Assmann. In

lines 9-10 Ahmose is described by the following

important passage: “He has seized the inheri-

tance of the one who begot him.” Yet even here

the “all purpose” nature of the phrase is overt;

i.e., it could apply to any Pharaoh and not just

to Ahmose. In fact, it is unclear if that passage

indicates the king’s coronation in Thebes or his

the text: translation and detailed analysis 75

moved from the nÉtw of the king to a different perspective; see as well the prayers at the end of the miscellany.

400 See in particular note 159 above.401 The traditional divisions, sections 1 and 2 here, are

based on the research of Gardiner. That analysis runs back to the 19th century.

402 Caminos, Late Egyptian Miscellanies, 47: P. Anastasi II 5.5-6.

403 KRI II 3.2/5 (K1 is lost); see my Aspects of the Military Documents, 224-32.

395 Caminos, Late Egyptian Miscellanies, 40-3: P. Anastasi II 2.5-3.6.

396 Ibid., 37-8: P. Anastasi II 1.1-2.5. The title, sdd nÉtw, occurs right at the beginning.

397 Ibid., 48.398 Ibid., 153. Therefore, it ought to be clear that the

term nÉtw encompasses deeds of a physical nature that need not be military in nature.

399 P. Anastasi II is an excellent example. In section 7 (6.7-8.5: “The profession of a scribe is superior to all others”) the orientation of the scribe alters. At this point he has

At this point some clarifications can be made. P.

Anastasi II is for the most part a unity and not

to be regarded as a pastiche of separate praises

such as to the residence, to the king Ramesses,

to Merenptah, and the like. The heading in 1,1

explicitly tells us this. The “Lord of Egypt” is the

theme, and his nÉtw covers deeds both militaris-

tic and peaceful. They throw attention upon the

Pharaoh’s physical attributes and provide visible

demonstrations of his manly actions. The “villa”

as a topic seems to weigh as heavily in importance

as the king’s strength against enemies.401 Because

the miscellany scribe could praise both Ramesses

and his son, these factors reveal that such papyri

contain a gamut of these nÉtw. The specific foci are

different in each subsection even if all belonged to

a single literary. Thus the “villa of Sese” passage

follows upon two eulogies to Merenptah; it, too, is

of the same style and orientation as the former.402

Consider further the sixth portion of this papyrus.

To quote Caminos, we are faced with a (model)

“letter of adulation to the pharaoh.” Ready made,

it could be included in any eulogistic recitation.

When Amun-Re is addressed in section seven, the

theme moves away from the nÉtw encomia. The

style, nonetheless, remains homogeneous with the

preceding portions of the work. (This divergence

is made more explicit by the series of hymns to

Amun and well known and oft repeated claims

concerning the superior profession of the scribe

in section eight.)

From the opening six portions of P. Anastasi II

there is concrete evidence of a cohesive and read-

ily defined genre. The “recitations of nÉtw” make

one automatically think of those prose-oriented

texts of nÉtw that occur from Dynasties XVIII

to XX. I have in mind the opening title of the

Kadesh Poem where Ramesses is said to have

“performed” his nÉtw.403 As is well known, his

lengthy war record is a narrative presentation.

A fortiori, the up-to-date year eleven report of

Ramesses III at Medinet Habu commences with

a title as well: “Beginning of the nÉtw for/of Egypt

Among those scribal texts, many of which tend

to be didactic (hardships of a soldier’s life, the

poor scribe, or a collection of maxims) can be

found some that present praises to the king or

a series of epithets attached to the ruler’s name.

As an example, let me turn to one that is called

“Praise of Ramesses II as a warrior.”395 In this

brief encomium will be found all of the character-

istics that are included under the modern rubric

of eulogies: bimembral phrases, verbal formations

(especially the sdm.f ), and references to enemies.

The passage chosen follows upon a previous

hymn of praise to the Delta residence and thus

is joined neatly to a central theme. Immediately

thereafter we meet a second hymn to the Pha-

raoh, this time it is Merenptah, the contemporary

ruler of Egypt.396 Once more the same makeup

is presented. A fourth in the series continues the

same viewpoint and a short fifth praises the bÉn,

the “villa,” of the king. Last but not least the

miscellany of P. Anastasi II covers a “letter of

adulation,” to employ Caminos’ term, directed to

Pharaoh.397 Common expressions and structure of

the encomia are ever present; such scribal “books”

often contained these hymnic passages.

Another Miscellany, P. Anastasi IV, devotes

most of its attention to a somewhat different,

though related, series of joyous praise to the

capital in the Delta. Evidently, such eulogies

were considered a useful medium to provide

ebullient adorations on the subject of the Delta

Residence. See the heading to P. Anastasi IV 6.1,

for example.398 It is not difficult to conclude that

such eulogies belonged to part of the standard

“instruction of letter writing” that a scribe had

to know for his profession, or to be more specific,

that was required for his later correspondence

and the like. Eulogies could therefore be placed

within a professional setting, one that included

literary outputs but that was, nonetheless, more

based on rote than actual creativity.399

Earlier, I reflected upon the eulogistic style in

connection with concepts of sdd bîw and sdd nÉtw.400

chapter two76

This portion reveals the following system: heaven-Re; underworld-Wenennefer; heaven and earth-Atum (in barque).

Note the syntax. In this case the first Stative forma-tion (mk tw #q.tí ) is followed by the sdm.f of àms.k just as the adverbial phrase mí … continues on from the First Present plus Stative predicate tw.k Ètp.tí. Then the Pseudo-Verbal Construction enters (#wy.k Èr stî), indicating the durative nature of the action.

For Ètp m, see once more Assmann, Liturgische Lieder, 102-3.

404 KRI V 59.1. The temporal setting of the composition is explicit because it presents the year, month, and day. This is not the case with the other war compositions where only the regnal year is given. Reasons for this can be given; they would, however, overburden this presentation.

405 KRI V 67-71.406 KRI V 72.3-77 and add the rhetorical stela at Deir

el Medineh, KRI V 90-1.407 “Divine Intervention in Ancient Egypt,” 2.408 KRI II 333.11-13. Hence, the “behold” is a perfect

break.

miscellany-type “packages.” We must remember

that this composition of Ramesses II comprises

many portions each of which reflects a different

style and orientation. The lengthy eulogy pre-

sented by the king’s officials, however, could have

been easy to compose on demand as any con-

temporary author would have been well versed

in this art.

Two separate points of key importance concern

the tenor of the praise given and whether or not

there are any references to Sitz im Leben. Is the

encomium simple or complex? Is the vocabulary

specialized, rare, or unusual, and the syntax com-

plex by means of verbal oriented verses? On the

other hand, is the style simple, utilizing non-verbal

sentences? Eulogies appear to have been rela-

tively flexible but not unstructured, and it might

have been the case that the verbally oriented ones

were used for events occurring in the middle of

proclamations, commands, royal addresses, and

the like. That is to say, the simpler non-verbal

encomia may have been suited to introductory

addresses and perhaps final declarations. Origi-

nality was not shunned. Indeed, it might have

been demanded by the Pharaoh. Nevertheless,

I feel that praises similar to the ones present in

the Dedicatory Inscription were not difficult to

compose. In many cases the verses have the aspect

of “cookbook recipes” which might vary here to

there, but seem to have been a required part of

the master scribe’s background.

With these points in mind, we can resume

our discussion of Ramesses II’s speech to Seti. I

ended in the middle of column 93 because the last

sentence closed the series of sdm.f constructions.

Now the religious aspect enters even more so

with the king’s words, but in this case the diurnal

cycle (morning to evening to night) is indicated.

The historical deeds of Ramesses are over and

the living son now describes his father’s cosmic

role.408

which this king established …..”404 The so-called

Poem of Year Twelve avoids the title as it does

any narrative presentation.405 But it is a clear-cut

eulogy to the king focused upon the second suc-

cessful campaign against the Libyans. (It parallels

the two rhetorical stelae of year twelve which do

not include month or day.)406

If we extend Borghouts’ analysis of the sdd

bîw, then the difference between that term and

sdd nÉtw is revealed. The former concerns gods

and dead kings whereas the latter are for living

Pharaohs. Therefore, the nÉtw cover the powers

of the king in a physical sense (e.g., strength and

activities dependent upon what can be witnessed

as power) whereas the bîw are concerned with

the manifestations of power from a non-earthly

realm. Borghouts felt that “bîw especially denote

all possible forms and manners by which some

transcendental being by nature (such as a god

or a dead person) or by role (like the king) can

be imagined to make itself felt to the living.”407

When a king arrives at a temple and is praised for

his deeds, the realm is that of the living. Various

programs, such as the building work at Abydos

presented in the Dedicatory Inscription or dona-

tions to a god, remain within this sphere of activ-

ity. There is no “manifestation” (bîw) of a hidden

power but rather an ever-present recognition of

a spatially and temporally determined event. In

a nutshell, nÉtw expresses the attributes of power

which encompassed piety and respect for one’s

father.

It is not overly speculative to maintain that

encomia to the Pharaoh were in circulation for

many years. They appear to have been learnt and

used with a living king in mind, and belonged to

a series of other similarly oriented hymns aimed

at other royal aspects such as the king’s “villa,”

or the Residence. I do not necessarily believe that

all extant encomia (such as those written in the

Dedicatory Inscription) were copied from similar

the text: translation and detailed analysis 77

412 KRI II 333.14. The concept is simple: morning/evening. The Atum of the evening is Re. As this is self-evident, let me only cite Assmann’s second chapter in his Re und Amun.

413 See Loprieno’s study Ancient Egyptian, 196-9 and the other sources cited in note 347.

414 See note 347.415 Ibid.

409 Schott covers this section in his Die Schrift der ver-borgenen Kammer in Königsgräbern der 18. Dynastie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958), 335.

410 For #q in hymns to the sun, see Assmann, Liturgische Lieder, 97-8.

411 In general, ibid., 99. But, as Darnell has stressed, Éprw is best understood as “realization” or “manifestation.” See his The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity, 57 and 239 with 246-8 (where írw is “visible form”). A discussion of Darnell’s work will appear at the end of Chapter III.

are supposed. Atum, the third deity, fits neatly

in the tripartite constellation as he is neither the

lord of the underworld nor the sky god but one

who exists here and now, whether he is above,

with, or below us. This deity is also well known

from ritual performances of chanting to Re in

which he is given much attention. Atum is also

the manifestation (Éprw) of Re in the evening,

although that aspect is not highlighted at this

point.411 The grammatical distinctions are also

worthy of some attention. There is a clear-cut

difference between the atemporal àms.k and the

Pseudo-Verbal Èr + Infinitive with the subsequent

circumstantial clause marked by íw.

The following passage introduces us to an even

more overt hymnic presentation:412

As soon as Re rises (wbn R #) in the sky (Èrt) your

eyes are upon (Èr) his beauty;

As soon as Atum [enters] into the land (#q Tm),

you are (wn.tí ) in his following.

The passage is similar to the structure of the so-

called “balanced” sentence which is met within

hymns and elsewhere.413 A good “quasi Late

Egyptian” case has been brought forward by

Junge from the Amarna texts, and his example is

worth citing: wbn.f m îÉt mÈ.n.f tîwy m mrwt.f.414 Ass-

mann was the first to analyze this sdm.f—sdm.n.f

coupling in his volume on liturgical hymns to

the sun god.415 His conclusion was that the first

form was always employed with intransitives and

the second with transitives. The structure in the

Dedicatory Inscription is different although the

nature of the two phrases is extremely similar.

Junge’s discussion of the theme-rheme arrange-

ment of these balanced sentences is worth com-

paring with Kitchen’s independently presented

translation: “when Atum [enters] into the earth

you are in his following” suffices nicely. The last

clause is, in fact, the main focus of attention.

Can one draw a fine distinction between the

general word for “sky,” pt, and the other one

which is translated as “heaven,” Èrt? Since the

crucial verb wbn is almost always employed with

Behold.409

You have entered (tw #q.tí ) heaven.410

You follow/following (?) Re (àms.k R #), mingling

with the stars and the moon.

You are (now) at rest (tw.k Ètp.tí ) in the underworld

as those who are in it besides Wenennefer,

Lord of Eternity.

Your [arms] drag ([#wy].k Èr stî) Atum in heaven

and earth just as the indefatigable and inde-

structible stars, while you are the pilot of the

bark of millions (of years).

Both the “here” (heaven) and the “there” (the

afterworld, Wenennefer), are indicated. The

entire diurnal course of the king from morn-

ing to next morning, is succinctly narrated. The

expected gods go hand-in-hand with this progres-

sion: Re (daytime), Wenennefer (night), and Atum

(for both cycles) are present. The text parallels

the concluding words of Amenemhet I to his son

Sesostris in the Teaching wherein the dead king

enters the solar bark and therein proclaims final

words to his son. The image in both cases is the

same though their Sitz im Leben cannot be com-

pared. Observe that the dead father, Seti, is not

equated with any of the deities.

The tense arrangement of this section is dia-

metrically opposed to the previous set-up of

Ramesses. Instead of completed activities, we

encounter repetitive or eternal concepts associ-

ated with the daily passage of the sun. In fact, this

section parallels those sun hymns of the XVIIIth

Dynasty so well explicated by Assmann. The

opening pronoun plus Stative predicate could

easily serve as an announcement for a solar hymn.

Then follows a generalized, eternally recurrent,

attribute of Seti associated with Re in the sdm.f.

A First Present formation continues the thought

with the verb in the Stative. The process of intel-

lectual movement is simple: heaven, then after-

world, and finally a combination of both (pt and

tî). The gods, likewise, split. Commencing with the

expected sun god Re (who naturally will reappear

throughout the entire cycle), Wenennefer then

appears. For death, the underworld and night

chapter two78

419 The first reference is KRI II 333.14-15 (column 95); cf. KRI II 333.11 (column 93); the second is KRI II 333.14 (column 95).

420 KRI II 334.1-3. The description of Seti’s diurnal cycle is finished; the account now turns to the king’s prayer. It is evident that the sdm.f and the circumstantial clause fit perfectly into Kruchten’s analysis. The antithesis to the First Presents can be noted as well.

421 The performative act is indicated. The translation depends upon Kitchen’s analysis.

416 KRI II 333.14-15. We are now in the netherworld; the first and third verbal forms fit Kruchten’s “rule.”

417 The “Conclave of gods of the Necropolis” (the dei-ties that surround Osiris, his d îd ît): Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 172.

418 Hornung, Das Amduat II, 3 with note 2, with “Probleme der Wortforschung im Pfotenbuch,” 55-6. Schott maintains that in the New Kingdom the #t ímntt had become a syn-onym for the underworld: Die Schrift der verborgenen Kammer in Königsgräbern der 18. Dynastie, 335-6. He further commented upon the cosmic nature of this locality through which the sun god traveled in the night.

clusions are therefore not applicable. Kruchten’s,

however, can be argued. The concepts must refer

to the past. Seti, after all, is dead. His daily, indeed

eternal, peregrinations with Re and with Atum do

not yet concern us. Earlier, atemporality ruled;

here it is otherwise. The role of king Seti is very

close to that presented in the Amduat and also

parallels some concepts in the Litany of the Sun:

Seti commands the sun bark both during the day

and the night. He follows Re and Atum, and

he enters the #t ímnt.418 Observe one key differ-

ence:419

#q.n.k #t ímnt m-bîÈ nb.s

Seti has already departed to the underworld (cf.

the earlier mk tw #q.tí as well); see:

#q Tm m tî wn.tí m àmsw.f.

The first construction contains within it a spe-

cific quality of punctuality and completed activity

reaching to the here and now. (Cf. the punctual

perfective attribute of Vernus.) The second verbal

formation is employed to introduce the concept

of an inaccomplishment; it is punctually imper-

fective. The tense situation is far less important

than aspect at this point.

The prayer continues and is now concentrated

upon the living king’s continual remembrance

of his father, his constellation of duty to father

or filial piety. The section also assumes that

Ramesses is Pharaoh and thus the address is not

interested in kingship, the right to the throne, or

coronation. In addition, see the do ut des theme:

Seti is to provide his son Ramesses with expected

powers.

Then comes a second direct invocation of mk

which is used to provide an obvious thematic

division.420

Behold.

(Hereby) I [requ]est (mk wí <Èr> [nÈt]) breath for

your august nose.421

And I shall pronounce (dm.í ) your name repeat-

edly in the course of every day,

the former—as in “Re rises in the sky”—but not

usually with the latter, is the semantic difference

significant for this poem? I think that the answer

might be a positive one, if only because the second

indicates the essential physical “vault” through

which the king has passed. Yet Re merely rises

in heaven, Èrt, that which is above us, and the

concept seems to exclude one of coursing in a

boat through the sky. In its place there is a basic

description of the opening role of the sun god.

Of equal importance there is the concept of “fol-

lowing.” This occurs in second place and plays

an inverse role to the aspects located in heaven.

Stylistically, we can also point to the combination

of Èrt and with Èr and Tm with wn.tí; see as well

the antithesis of Pseudo-Verbal versus Stative.

These two sentences further provide an antith-

esis within their respective structure:

wbn R # m Èrt // írty.k Èr nfr.f

#q Tm m tî // wn.tí m àmsw

Just as Re rises in heaven Atum enters into the

earth. With regard to the first verse, since we are

in daytime with the sun shining, the dead king’s

eyes see the sun’s beauty. In similar fashion, Seti

is in the following of Atum at night. The imme-

diate nature of Re’s beauty is revealed, but in

the netherworld one does not see the chief god

but rather acts in Atum’s service. The antithesis

is neatly and succinctly drawn: two sdm.f ’s plus

two adverbial clauses.

With regard to the grammatical presentation,

a further hallmark of this hymn is the passage

immediately following:416

You have [entered] (#q.n.k) the hidden chamber

(#t ímnt) before its lord, and your step(s) is/are

broad inside the underworld.

You have united (snsn.n.k) with the Ennead of

the necropolis.417

It is immediately evident that a different formula-

tion rules: sdm.n.f + sdm.n.f. Both cases are with

verbs that can take direct objects; Assmann’s con-

the text: translation and detailed analysis 79

And, of course, it is the temple that is the key of the entire address.

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

422 Vernus, “‘Ritual’ Sdm.n.f and some Values of the ‘Accompli’,” in Pharaonic Egypt. The Bible and Christianity (ed. Sarah Israelit-Groll; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1985), 307-16.

423 Vernus, “Aspect and Morphosyntactic Patterns in Middle Egyptian,” in Crossroad: Chaos or the Beginning of a New Paradigm: Papers from the Conference on Egyptian Grammar, Helsingor, 28-30 May 1986 (ed. Gertie Englund and Paul John Frandsen; Copenhagen: Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Ancient Near East Studies, 1986), 375-88; see the comments of Junge, ‘Emphasis’ and Sentential Meaning, 33.

424 KRI II 334.3-6. The future meaning is overtly expressed through íÉ.

425 KRI II 334.6-7. The opening is significant through its use of Èr + Infinitive.

It is good for you that I am (wnn.í m) king for-

ever,

You will be … by a good son who [remembers]

his father.

Again, the personal aspect of the speech is reflected

through the solitary use of the prenomen. Last but

not least, Ramesses reaffirms his devotion.425

And I [inquir]ed (íw.í Èr ndnd) about your temple

daily on account of the state of your ka in every-

thing.

The king enunciates his two-fold approach. The

“temple” situation refers to its building and its

maintenance. The ka of Seti is the living-spiritual

aspect of the father which must be taken care of

as well. The use of the Pseudo-Verbal highlights

the continual aspect of the verbal activity. Let

us not forget that it was Vernus, among other

scholars, who reoriented traditional philological

Egyptology to the deep concept of Aktionsart by

setting up a useful schema in which the Stative

was a durative perfective (“accompli extensive”)

and the durative imperfective would be reckoned

by the use of Èr/m + Infinitive (“inaccompli exten-

sive”). The statement of Ramesses employs the

latter formation (íw.í Èr ndnd), and the reason for

this is easy to determine. He wants Seti (and his

listeners as well) to understand that his worth is

indicated by a continual ongoing durative mode

of inquiry. The piety of the son to his father has

been continual.

The prescriptions, always to follow, are then

presented. Once more the parallel to Seti’s Nauri

Decree ought to be kept in mind.426

If I hear that trouble [has come to pass],

I will command that it be removed immediately

in every respect.

You are (tw.k nty mí #nÉ.tí ) as one who lives, while

while I [care for] (íw.í [Èr]) my father as one who [comes] in [administering] (ts) …..

I shall [vaunt] (swhî.í ) your physical activity while

I am in the “desert” (= cemetery).

(Hereby) I establish (tw.í Èr wîÈ) for you prop-

erty,

my arm carrying offerings in your name for [your

ka] in every place of yours.

Let me stop here and analyze this newly enun-

ciated wish of Ramesses because the actual sig-

nificance of the sdm.f ’s need an explication. Are

they, following Kruchten, reflexes of the Middle

Egyptian sdm.n.f, but also indicating a performa-

tive use?422 On the other hand, the useful remarks

of Vernus concerning such ritual activities and the

verbal expression come to mind.423 Following him,

the sdm.f forms could indicate an “inaccompli”

involving repeated action and thus not be perfor-

mative in significance whereas the First Present

would be. There, the aspect refers explicitly to

what Ramesses is now doing; previously, the two

sdm.f ’s indicate the regular, continual, activity of

the monarch. Yet a future or prospective meaning

seem to fit these two formations better because

Ramesses is indicating that he now will perform

the activities of “pronouncing” Seti’s name and

“vaunting” his strength.

The dead father is expected to communicate

in the afterworld to Re, who in turn will grant

the king his desires; the father is thus the inter-

mediary between creator and sun god. Because

Seti is dead, he has to pass the wishes over to

Wenennefer.424

Please may you speak to Re … so that [he might

give (?)] life to his son, Wenennefer, with a

loving heart.

Grant lifetime upon lifetime, contained with heb

seds, for Wosermaatre-setepenre, given life.

chapter two80

the use of “heart” (Èîty) is typical; the form ought

to be a nominalized one.431 KRI II 334.10-13.432 The opening prefers the Late Egyptian literary style

of wn.ín nsw Mn-mî#t-R# ... È#w.433 Note the two m’s for the predication: m mî# and m

bî mnÉ.434 The verb is in the Stative, not Èr + Infinitive.435 The epithets now follow.436 The names of the king form the break.437 Here the second half of the mental activity of Seti

is conveyed through the Pseudo-Verbal Construction, Èr swhî.

427 This means that Seti I appears in his temple (rejuve-nated every day through his cult) and Ramesses “appears” in the land. That is to say, he “reigns” as Kitchen indicates in his translation. This fits neatly with the recent analysis of É#í by Loprieno, “On the contribution of phonology to Egyptian philology,” in Autuori and Álvarez, … ir a buscar leña, 110.

428 The “timeless” bw bgî.n.í … r# nb < ME n sdm.n.f.429 KRI II 334.9-10. The first half is directed against

malfeasance by others; the second directs attention to himself and now begins to worry about his father.

430 The opening verb àî# can take a direct object (noun) without m in the sense of “to begin with” (Wb. IV 407.3). But note the writing with the sdm.n.f: àî#w.n.í. In this case

ent before Pharaoh, his son Ramesses. It would

have been especially pleasant, speaking from a

literary vantage point, if the inscription stated

that the father was literally “before,” “in front

of,” or even “opposite” or “facing” (Éft) the son.

But this is not the case.

The king acts for his father and thereby receives

the expected long lifetime, “health” in the most

general sense. The orientation of the composi-

tion, the cultic setting, and this speech indicate

that Seti is there to receive his son’s wishes and

to pass them on to Re. The last deity will then

intercede with the god of the underworld, Wenen-

nefer. The importance of the solar god cannot

be ignored, and in fact is most prominent in the

second half of Ramesses’ address.

The switch to the response, Seti’s verbal reac-

tion to Ramesses, continues the specific cultic

orientation. This portion cannot be separated

from what proceeds; indeed, it is linked with it

by means of content as well as form. At this point

a simple transition wn.ín.f Èr sdm formation pro-

vides the syntactical link; the entire connecting

passage is somewhat lengthy.431

Then432 king Menmaatre as a justified one and

as an excellent spirit433 like Osiris,

was rejoicing434 on account of everything which [his] son did (írrwt)—

he who performs benefactions,435

the King of Upper and Lower Egypt;

the ruler of the [nine bows],

the lord of the two lands;

Wosermaatre-setepenre, [the son of Re], the lord

of diadems,

Ramesses-meryamun, given life like Re forever

and ever;436

and vaunting437 all his goodness to Re-Harachty

and to the gods who are in the underworld.

We now move to the other side of the conver-

sation. Note that Seti is specifically stated to be

I appear/am appearing (íw.í É#.kwí ).427

And I am [never] neglectful of your temple every

day.”428

The First Present tw.k nty mí #nÉ.tí is juxtaposed to

the circumstantial use of the Stative. Seti is alive

(and a god we must remember) while Ramesses is

the reigning king. The presence of a “mixed” Late

Egyptian negative (bw bgî.n.í ) has to be singled out

if only as it reveals the somewhat confused nega-

tive patterns of the “langage de tradition.”

And to make sure that his power will prevail,

Ramesses declaims that he will act in a vociferous

manner to insure his father’s well being. Perhaps

the opening àî#w.n.í highlights a new thought.429

I have (indeed) [com]menced (àî#w.n.í ) to be pre-

occupied with you.430

I will avenge your name while you are in the

underworld (dwît).

It will be really beneficial for you so long as I

am,

[Ramess]es-mery[amun], given life like Re, [the

son of] Re, living.

So we end up with the Pharaoh now advertising

as loud as possible his ability to recompense Seti

no matter what obstacle shall exist. He, Ramesses,

is alive “here” on earth while his father is with

Osiris.

To summarize this first speech by the king is not

a hard task. The performance is set into a direct

address. Included are subsections, each having a

different perspective, and each presenting a verbal

structure suitable for itself. We have noted the use

of the sdm.f and the sparing yet important role

that the sdm.n.f plays in this address. By and large,

this speech is original and set within a pious and

hymnic role, albeit one that addresses the cultic

activities which the ruler will perform/performs

in order to assure his father of ongoing devotion.

The address invokes the dead king Seti and his

son has woken him. Alive again, Seti is now pres-

the text: translation and detailed analysis 81

43. The image fits the Abydene connection to a tee, and as Vernus saw, it also indicates the reciprocal relationship of father to son and vice-versa.

442 KRI II 334.14-335.2. The dual system of sky (the sun god) and the underworld (Osiris) is once more the theme.

443 The ndm + íb returns; cf. note 236.444 See the commentary of Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions:

Notes and Comments II, 197. But the construction is strange. Read: m [=ín] [P î]-R# Èr (sic.) dít n.k?

438 Assmann summarizes the commonly understood inter-connection between the ba and Maat in Ma‘at. Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit im alten Ägypten (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1990), 114-6. Let us not forget that Ramesses II offers Maat to Osiris in the scene directly juxtaposed to the Dedicatory Inscription.

439 See note 393 above and the accompanying discus-sion.

440 Urk. IV 270.12: tí sw dd.f Ér ms sw.441 KRI II 334.13-14. In particular, see the comments of

Vernus, Essai sur la conscience de l’histoire dans l’Égypte pharaonique,

Two points can be covered here. The first con-

cerns the use of mdt. Should we regard it as a mere

synonym for dd, “to say,” or instead consider the

lexical difference to indicate the importance of

the conversation which is extremely significant? I

believe so. The eulogistic inscription of Thutmose

I referred to previously recounts the king’s address

to his chief god Amun with dd. (It also uses the

same introductory particle tí as in the Dedicatory

Inscription.) That passage arranges a formalized

setting, one in which the god Amun was Pha-

raoh’s divine father, remains separate from the

living Pharaoh, Thutmose. Although filial duty is

indicated in this text as well, the ensuing praise

(dwîw) is not directed from the innermost portions

of the soul, the heart, a factor that is prominent

in Ramesses’ feelings at Abydos. Lacking as well

is the intimate cross-fertilization of personality

traits that we can see in the Dedicatory Inscrip-

tion. Yet the earlier narration presents both Amun

and Thutmose I without the intense aspect of

“begotteness,” a truly pregnant theme running

through Ramesses’ account.

This is why I believe that Seti does not merely

“speak” to Ramesses. The issues said and unsaid

are too serious and too intimate to be covered

by the bland verb “to say.” There is a blanket-

ing of the normal or standard approach in the

Dedicatory Inscription, through a heightening of

personal intimacy. This prevents the father from

simply responding (wàb) to his son’s address as

in an ordinary dialogue. Now comes the speech,

once more with dd.442

He said:

Let your heart be greatly happy O my beloved

son, Wosermaatre-setepenre given life.443

It is [P]re who gives444 to you [eternity] of years

and everlastingness on the Horus throne of

the living.

Osiris requested for you the lifetime (#È#w) of

heaven so that you might rise as Re in it at

dawn, life and prosperity with you,

…, truth, might, joy of their hearts, and richness

of years (?).

a ba, an “excellent spirit” (bî mnÉ).438 There is

no indication that the father has emerged out of

the underworld to stay on earth. The dead king

transfers his attention from the words of his son

to what Ramesses desires (via the nÈt of the king).

Seti speaks to the sun god as his son wished. We

do not hear of this because the import of the two

speeches is that of filial duty and paternal recom-

pense rather than a series of dialogues between

various participants in the events. The word, “to

boast,” or “to vaunt” (swhî), which may be found

in contexts completely antithetical to a religious

ceremony is repeated; cf. columns 97 and 103.

In the first case Seti claims to boast of his father

abroad; this is reflected in a passage indicating

the continual ongoing filial deeds of Ramesses.

Noteworthy is the location of the verb swhî in both

cases. In one setting Ramesses vaunts Seti while

he is abroad. In the second passage Seti praises

Ramesses “down there,” in the afterworld. The

arena of praise remains separate from the present

setting, Abydos, and the country of Egypt itself.

It is as if such fulsome adulation is meant solely

in a context to impress “others.”

One useful parallel to this speech was previ-

ously discussed in a brief sidelight upon royal

declarations and eulogies. In the Abydos Stela

of Pharaoh Ahmose the situation at the shrine

area of Osiris reflected the king’s wish to com-

memorate the memory of Tetishery.439 The king

spoke in front of (Éft) Ahhotep. In the Dedicatory

Inscription a similar but not identical situation

takes place. After receiving approval from Re-

Harachty, Seti addresses Ramesses; the com-

pound preposition Èw-ny-r-Èr is used here instead

of the more traditional Éft, or even Ér. (The latter,

however, is used to a superior; e.g., Thutmose I

before Amun at Karnak.)440

Now (tí ) [he] was conversing face to face (Èw-ny-

r-Èr) as whenever a father on earth converses

with his son.441

chapter two82

tomorrow, yesterday is Osiris. Tomorrow is the life (the sun, Re) whereas on tomorrow, yesterday is death (Osiris, the underworld).

447 But the passage is troublesome nonetheless.448 KRI II 335.2-3. There is a slight problem with the

opening íw in íw n.k qnt nÉt ….. Should we treat it as the Late Egyptian circumstantial marker or not? I feel that the style is more formal and the presentation fitting to that of royal eulogies of the XVIIIth Dynasty as well as the Miscellanies. In other words, a new concept is introduced.

449 See above, note 236.450 The commonplace nature of these bimembral phrases

lacking in narrative verbal formation is no more evident than here. A pause is effectively indicated by the reference to “O King.”

451 And yet the style, vocabulary, and arrangement are the same as if we were reading a eulogy to the Pharaoh by his courtiers. In other words there is no special and separate vocabulary or organization in the dead king’s eulogy of his son. Does this section, nonetheless, follow an established religious rite that required special verbal responses on the part of the father, Seti in this case?

452 KRI II 335.3-4.453 The passage is KRI II 335.4-7. The use of mk (plus

î) returns once more. Here, the two serve to split off the direct addresses.

The first phrase is commonplace, and Atum is here mixed with Re and vice-versa. Seti is in the underworld and he is an Osiris. Atum is the “all god,” the Urgott of Heliopolis, and thus is connected with kingship (and the íàd

445 For these concepts, see Assmann, Zeit und Ewigkeit im alten Ägypten, passim, especially page 12. According to him the opposition is between earthly existence (#È#w) and the life in the underworld (nÈÈ eternity). If we follow Assmann Osiris is requesting earthly lifetime (#È#w) and Re is giving unlimited eternity (dt).

On the other hand Hornung has argued that #È#w is a limited and defined life span, both on earth and beyond, in “Zeitliches Jenseits im alten Ägypten,” Eranos 47 (1978): 281-6.

As Prof. Hornung has indicated to me, in Books of the Underworld the #È#w-time is renewed in the hereafter; cf. Book of the Gates scene 31. According to him the other concept, nÈh/dt, designates unlimited time “which is hard to acquire on earth,” but which can be a Grenzewort for #È#w as in PT 412a.

Hence, Osiris requests #È#w-time which is always renewed where he is. The giving over of dt by Re thus refers to unlimited time and, not surprisingly, it is difficult to obtain here but not so in the Afterworld. Re’s dt can also be the “(time) limit” of what Osiris wishes.

446 See our comments in the previous note. Assmann, Zeit und Ewigkeit im alten Ägypten, 12-13 and 44-5 with note 156 cover the situation in more detail. NÈÈ = tomorrow, day, sun, Re and dt = yesterday, night, moon, Osiris. But the #È#w is nÈÈ (Assmann, ibid., 11). Hence, the connection to Osiris is made clearer.

In the antithesis of “yesterday” and “tomorrow” thereis no “today.” The reason for this presumed absence is simple. From “now,” tomorrow is Re. From “now” in

To you belongs might and power, O [Great]-

of-Victories,

And health belongs to your limbs like Re in

heaven.

May your heart be happy449 and exultation be

in/at every place of yours.

O king,450

Who protects Egypt, who subdues the foreign

lands.

The format is a simple A-B, A’-B’. The king is,

of course, an ever-present body of strength. The

populace at an official dedication ceremony could

have recited these and the following eulogistic

phrases. Here, the passages have been transferred

to the father even if the trajectory is straight-

forward: high to low or from father Seti to son

Ramesses. It is not low to high: from officials to

king.451 Thus the imperative is a necessary con-

stituent at this point.452

Spend an eternity of your lifetime as a King

of Upper and a King of Lower Egypt as Atum

flourishes, rising and setting.

The last invocation, properly speaking, belongs to

the preceding verses. I have separated it simply to

draw attention to the well-being of Seti’s address

to his son. Note that it is not the sun god Re

who rises and sets, but rather Atum, a reason-

able substitute.453

Re presents one eternity and Osiris does as well.

The latter god, who is connected with dt and

repetition, fulfills the wish of the Pharaoh.445

But death and the afterworld play no role for

the virile Ramesses. What he has requested and

what he receives is everlastingness, specifically

the nÈÈ eternity of Re for the living Pharaoh.

Osiris “requests” (dbÈ, well known from wishes

extracted from gods at offerings) but does not give

“the lifetime of heaven.” How could he? Osiris

is not in heaven; he is not Re.446

I have been very careful to interpret the verbal

constructions with the inherent religious point of

view in mind. For example, “It is Pre …” is not

presented with the common pattern ín + Noun +

Participle. The passage instead, and to my mind

surprisingly, employs a Pseudo-Verbal construc-

tion ín Pî-R# Èr dít n.k …… Hence, again we may

be faced with an attempt, faulty I believe, to pro-

vide a “durative perfective” nature in the formu-

lation.447 Osiris, on the other hand, “requests,”

and a punctual act, albeit one that is imperfec-

tive, is indicated. At least at this point I find it

useful to follow the linguistic analyses of Junge

and Vernus, and combine them with the religious

understanding of Assmann.

This stiff and formal blessing is not over.

Introduced through íw n.k …. comes the

following.448

the text: translation and detailed analysis 83

457 KRI II 335.7-11.458 It is as if we were observing Ramesses next to the

Ished tree. See Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books, 82 and Chapter I note 2. The theme remains centered upon kingship and not at all on the gnwt.

459 The account reflects the night as befits the Abydene-Osirian connection.

460 The text is unclear where the quote of the Ennead ends. Kitchen (Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations II, 173) cuts it off with “… has collected them for him.” There remains the possibility that the quote runs until the end of this passage.

461 KRI II 335.11-13.

tree), and the Lower Egyptian counterpart of Amun-Re. But he is also associated with the setting sun, in contradic-tion to Chepri of the morning sun; the simple dichotomy of west versus east is self-evident.

454 Ie., Ramesses will always appear in the morning as Chepri (Re at dawn) does. He will be rejuvenated forever. The use of nÈÈ is expected.

455 The dual nature is completed: Osiris to Horus; the “lifetime” (#È#w) is coupled with nÈÈ.

456 The Pseudo-Verbal form is repeated: mk î R # Èr dd. The location is to be expected as the composition reflects the Solar-Osirian unity. See Darnell’s analysis of this theol-ogy in Chapter III.

is linked with Horus. There is nothing unfamil-

iar with these concepts as they repeat themes

common in the Pre Amarna Period of Dynasty

XVIII. But now we move to Atum, the copartner

of Re in the religious constellation. Seti continues

his account.457

Atum has decreed for you (wd n.k Tm) [his] lifetime

as king, while power and strength are united

through your following.

And Thoth has written them (down) next to the

All Lord. (íw DÈwty Èr shî.w)458

And the great Ennead says: “Yes!”

Re, who is in his divine barge, the lord of the

night bark,459 has assembled them for him.

His eyes see what you have done (írt.n.f ) so

well.

As soon as he crosses (d îy.f ) heaven through the

wind in the course of every day,

a great joy follows him when he remembers

your goodness until Atum sets [in] the land of

the west, the love of you is in his body every

day.460

A series of effective deeds on the part of Seti

present the fulfillment of Ramesses’ speech to his

father. The section commences with a sdm.f and

then follows the now expected Pseudo-Verbal íw

DÈwty Èr shî.w ….. The following inserted speech

(psdt Èr <dd>) carries us further into the account,

presenting yet another sdm.f. Then the subsequent

combination of d îy.f ….. adverbial adjunct con-

tinues. The aspect of this subsection, however, is

different from the preceding two. At this point the

intimations of death and the afterworld rise. See,

for example, the phrases “Re, who is in his divine

barge, the lord of the night bark” and the overt

words in the ending “until Atum sets in the land

of the west.” The approach has now changed to

the conclusion of the day.

With the creator god affirming the earlier deci-

sion we are now ready to enter the realm of Osiris.

The particle mk returns as a heading.461

Behold.

I spoke (mk wí Èr dd) to Re with a loving heart—

Give to you eternity on earth as Chepri.’454

I repeated (wÈm.í ) to Osiris when I entered in

before him—

May you double for him the lifetime of your

son Horus.455

The first words of Seti’s account center on the

here and now world and not the afterworld. As

previously in this composition, the order of the

deities always commences with the sun god (Re)

and the moves to the god of the underworld,

Osiris.

Behold.

Re says/said (?) in the horizon of heaven456—

Grant eternity and everlastingness, with mil-

lions of heb seds

[to] the son of Re of his body, the beloved,

Ramesses-meryamun given life, who does ben-

eficial things.

Stopping at the caesura formed by the king’s

name is useful because we can witness the activi-

ties of Seti. This part almost resembles a mytho-

logical presentation in which one divine figure

(the dead king) takes part in a drama with the

gods assembled. Seti has done his part—he has

departed and spoken to the sun god, the creator

god. There, the Pseudo-Verbal construction is

employed to indicate the ongoing nature of the

account (mk wí Èr dd). The “repeating” is conveyed

through the wÈm.f, and the punctual nature of

the aspect is indicated; indeed, the Aktionsart of

that verb appears to be best expressed this way.

Lastly, once more note the use of the particle mk

as a simple device of separation in this text. The

new focus is Re’s response to Seti, the latter still

addressing his son Ramesses.

The progression of the request moves from

Seti to Re, then to Atum, and finally to the neth-

erworld. The sun god is associated with Chepri

in a manner as natural and expected as Osiris

chapter two84

464 Not the expected wd.n.f but wd.f.465 KRI II 335.13-15.466 KRI II 335.15-336.2.467 Again, sdm.f with wÈm. And thus it does not reflect

a (synchronous) present.468 KRI II 336.2-4.469 Once more see Assmann, “Das Bild des Vaters,” 37-8

with page 159 note 96. I believe we can resolve Assmann’s surprise over the Seti I Abydene example referring to his father, Ramesses I: ntf pw àî# írt ntr (KRI I 112.2). In each of our cases the two deceased kings ( first Ramesses I and then

462 See KRI II 335.12. Note the Èr írrwt n.f Èm.k. If we follow Mariette, the restored bw n mî#t is just for bw mî#t. This is no problem because Late Egyptian bw and Middle Egyptian n are essentially the same, or at least were pro-nounced similarly.

463 The verb is snhs, reminding us of nhsí in column 80; the sdm.n.f fits the analysis of Kruchten.

The relationship is now Ramesses to Wenennefer, the latter being awakened by Horus (not Ramesses). Seti, in addition, reflects back upon Ramesses because Wenennefer has given his son eternity, nÈÈ.

an avenger —

free <from> negligence (àw <m> mkÈî), who

knows what is pleasing (rÉ #nw<t>).

Seti states that all of his offerings are now in order.

The use of Èr + Infinitive once more turns us back

to the Classical mode of presentation for a narra-

tive within a speech. The short final eulogy cuts

short the dead king’s person statement of himself,

although it will be resumed in a moment.466

You renewed (wÈm.k)467 monument after monu-

ment for Osiris [under] my care as ….. [in the

middle] of the Thinite nome.

And I am (now) made great (tw.í s#î.kwí ) on

account of all which you have done (írt.n.k)

for (Ér) me;

I am placed (rdí.kwí ) as the leader of the cem-

etery;

I am become divine (Épr.kwí ntrw.kwí ) in e[xcess

of] my [goodness] since your heart cared for me

while I am in the underworld.

Stopping here, we can reemphasize our previous

comments concerning the oration. It employs the

expected Stative: one in the First Present and

the others with rdí and the intransitives Épr +

ntr; the sdm.f is confined to the beginning. The

use of the First Present cannot be overlooked.

If only because of that example I interpret the

following more Classical orientation of rdí.kwí +

Épr.kwí ntrw.kwí as indicating an English present

perfect, or an ongoing event in the here and now

conditioned by the past. Seti has now become

such-and-such owing to the beneficent deeds of

Ramesses. What is he now? He can only be a

completely “transfigured” individual, an “excel-

lent ba”, one whose cult in now full operation, and

naturally divine. The repetition of “monument

after monument” recalls an earlier statement of

Ramesses in column 58.

The dead king then turns to his happiness with

the use of the first person independent pronoun

signaling his person.468

Behold.

Wenennefer is lord of justification on account

of what your majesty has done (írrwt) for him [in] truth.462

[Horus] has caused him to awake (snhs.n) [by]

recalling your [goodness],463

And my heart is in great joy on account of the

eternity which he decreed464 (wd.f ) [for] you.

The resumption of the “heart” motif, last indi-

cated in column 105, is combined with another

of those problematic sdm.n.f ’s, snhs.n sw \r. We

have moved outside the here and now owing to

the setting sun or solar bark. The place of a deity

is now reserved for Osiris or his counterpart and

alter ego, Wenennefer, and the “wakening” con-

cept is reiterated.

Seti remains separate from his actions with the

gods and the beneficial results which he brought

to pass for Ramesses. Although the father of

Ramesses, he nonetheless remains as a passive

member of the decision-making. Even at the

beginning of this final subsection this character-

istic is indicated. More importantly, the duality

of Re-Osiris —in that order—is combined with

the account of Seti’s individual approach and

speech to both. As we have seen more than once,

the ubiquitous particle mk is required to signal

the alteration of focus. The order is always fixed

with Re followed by Wenennefer or Osiris. The

latter are naturally associated with Horus.

A fourth and final case reveals Seti’s acceptance

of Ramesses’ good deeds. The setting is cultic

and perhaps not an extraordinary one, except

that we hear the “other side” of the presenta-

tion ritual.465

Behold.

I receive (mk wí Èr àsp) the things

that you gave (rdí.n.k) to me,

my bread and my water,

with joy of heart and breath [for] my nose,

on account of what a son does (írrwt sî)—excel-

lent of disposition (sbq Èîty),

the text: translation and detailed analysis 85

manded to you (?) (wd n.k R #) for a [period] (?)

of eternity like …

You are the living … (?) (lifetime ?) of Atum,

and all words of yours come to pass like the

All Lord.

You are (ntk) the excellent egg of Chepri, the

divine seed [which came forth] from him.

What Re himself has done (írt.n R #) is your

birth.471

And he said to you: “… as what … did …..

nurse”.472

This is the conclusion with Ramesses equivalent

to the Re of the here and now:

Welcome! As the Living Re for the people, Upper

Egypt and Lower Egypt … [united under ?]

your feet.

[They have given ?] millions of heb seds to

Wosermaatre-setepenre, and

the lifetime of the All Lord when he rises [and

when he sets forever and ever].

The conclusion is apt, standard, and in fact typi-

cal of the eulogistic phraseology that one finds in

Königsnovelle texts. The references conclude with

Ramesses as the living sun god Re, thereby ending

any connection with Wenennefer, the underworld,

and Osiris. Ordinarily such adulation would have

come from the mouths of Ramesses’ advisors at

Abydos. Not here. The concluding words, which

are totally different, end with the final conclusive

declaration of the father to his son. The cult is

established. Seti lives as a god with Ramesses,

also a god, being the ever-present Re.473

I (ínk) am your true father who is a god.469

I mingle (àbn.kwí ) with the gods following the

sun disk.

[I was one who knew ?] (wn.kwí rÉ) what is in

[his] bark … like one …..

… since [I heard ?] that he [remembers your]

goodness …..

Seti has now become a god but he still remains

Ramesses’ eternal father, the “real” (mî#) one.

(Compare once more Amenemhet’s speech to his

son Sesostris I.) The intransitive verb àbn required

the first person of the Stative owing to the for-

mality of the speech and the ongoing activity set

in the present. The father is now in the bark

of the sun just as in the Dynasty XII Teaching

Amenemhet I stepped into it upon his death and

merged with the sun disk. But are we not con-

fronted, as Stephen Quirke has indicated to me,

with a tension between the primary and second-

ary roles for a central figure in a belief system?

That is to say, is the king Seti with (i.e., next to)

Re or is he part of Re? However we answer this

question, as expected from the solar orientation

and the previous words of the dead ruler, Re is

reintroduced in a major way to the theme of the

address.

Although partly broken, the final words of Seti

are worth quoting. The particle mk once more

indicates the switch. Its eulogistic nature is self-

evident.470

Behold.

You are in a great lifetime which Re has com-

common where the relationship between the deceased, beautiful West, and/or Osiris is at stake” (page 261 note 33). But the dead father is Horus in this case. See as well page 285 for Spell 34.

470 KRI II 336.4-9.471 Although not grammatically difficult the phrase ms.k

pw írt.n R # is extremely significant theologically.472 We return to the key words msí and mn# but this

time not directed by Ramesses to Seti.473 The situation of tension, adumbrated above, may

help explain some of the religious quandaries covered by Betsy Bryan in her “The statue program for the mortuary temple of Amenhotep III,” in The Temple in Ancient Egypt: New discoveries and recent research (ed. Stephen Quirke; London: British Museum Press, 1997), 57-81.

Seti I) have become gods insofar as their cult is completed with their statues endowed and operating. In other words, their cults are now ongoing. Assmann brought into his brief remarks the study of Eberhard Otto, “Zwei Bemerkungen zum Königskult der Spätzeit,” MDAIK 15 (1957): 193-207 in which the emotional as well as social grounds of the care for royal statues are indicated.

But the idea runs back at least to the Coffin Texts; cf. CT 30 (I 88-89b) and elsewhere in the mortuary liturgy spells 30-41. The deceased has become a “rejuvenated god.” See Willems, “The Social and Ritual Context of a Mortu-ary Liturgy of the Middle Kingdom (CT Spells 30-41),” in Social Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms (ed. Harco Willems; Leuven and Sterling: Uitgeverij Peeters and Dep. Oosterse Studies, 2001), 253-372. On pages 261-2 Willems points out that this epithet “is very

chapter two86

religious and historical implications 87

as well as the connection of the creator god Re.For additional aspects of Thoth and his relationship to

Osiris-Wennenefer, see Jan Quaegebeur, “Lettres de Thoth et décrets pour Osiris,” in Funerary Symbols and Religion (ed. J. H. Kamstra, H. Milde, and K. Wagtendonk; Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1988), 105-26.

2 See the latest discussion by Verhoeven referred to in Chapter II note 200 (“Ein historischer ‘Sitz im Leben’ für die Erzählung von Horus und Seth”).

3 See my comments below.

tion between the world above and the world under

in this connection because the two are inevitably

if not also ineluctably linked. Does not the sun

god himself traverse the underworld? Second, Seti

speaks to Osiris when he enters before him, and

thus Atum reemerges in this context. In addition,

we encounter Thoth for the first time, the chief

scribe and major official of the creator god.1 As

expected, he is depicted standing next to Re-Har-

achty with the Ennead also present. In the final

“act” we face Wenennefer through Seti’s descrip-

tion, and it is now Horus who intercedes with the

Lord of the Underworld on Ramesses’ behalf.

These references to various pleas on behalf of

the living Pharaoh need an additional discussion

which I will cover later in this chapter. For the

moment, however, let me note that they parallel

somewhat the “mythological narrative” of the

famous Late Egyptian Story Horus and Seth.2

There is no contesting between two brothers,

however. In the case of the Dedicatory Inscrip-

tion the theme is solely one of Ramesses’ success

as ruler. After all, he is already king. But the roles

of Re-Harachty, Osiris, the Ennead, and Thoth

have to be performed because these actors are

necessary requirements for the account. Heaven

and the afterworld are limned in our text whereas

in the Horus and Seth story the action is much

more detailed and the godly participants drawn

with a characteristic sharpness that is reflective

of a mythological situation. Nonetheless, I believe

that the entire Abydene concept of kingship is

presented from the same vantage point as in the

Dedicatory Inscription, and this setting must be

connected to the date of the Ramesses’ arrival at

Abydos; namely, the day preceding the cycle of

the Triumph of Horus.3

A. Outline

The speech ending to the Dedicatory Inscription,

presented by two forms (simple narrative plus

final short hymnic eulogy), acts as a well-formed

and pertinent coda to the entire inscription. The

formal “completion” depicts Ramesses speaking

to his father. It also performs the same role as an

end quote notation in a scene.

The conjoining of both addresses by father

and son emphasizes more powerfully the major

theological aim of this quasi-mythological presen-

tation. The first, that of Ramesses, has the shorter

arrangement in which Seti is awoken and soon

placed in heaven. Hence, the orientation is to

Re, the stars, and the moon. But equally, as the

king is dead, the focus must turn to the under-

or afterworld, to Wenennefer. Seti now becomes

the pilot of the solar bark, moving along Atum,

another image of the sun god but also introducing

life after death. Ramesses continues his address

with similar but generalized conceptions: Seti

sees Re in heaven and he follows Atum in the

netherworld. Finally, Ramesses asks his father

to speak to Re. The subsection reveals a simple

two-sided approach. As he, Ramesses, has taken

care of Seti’s cult (temple, etc.), so logically and

automatically will Seti arrange his son’s success

in the here and now.

The second address, that of the father, is more

specific as we learn of his movements and actions

in the entire universe. Here we face a situation

that bears upon the Abydene mythological con-

cept of kingship. Seti addresses Re-Harachty in

heaven. Re replies and adds that even Osiris has

granted Ramesses “the duration of heaven” so

that he can rise like Re. There is no sharp separa-

1 I will refer to Willems’ extremely important studies below concerning the unification of Re and Osiris. For the moment see his The Coffin of Heqata (Cairo JdE 36418); see my previous remarks in note 302 Chapter II. But the major work is now Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity.

There is a useful overview by Edmund Hermsen, Die zwei Wege des Jenseits (Göttingen and Freiburg: Universitäts-verlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 112-15, 182-3, 191-3 and 235-45. He covers the role of Thoth in these proceedings from an earlier period of time (Coffin Texts)

chapter three

RELIGIOUS AND HISTORICAL IMPLICATIONS

chapter three88

10 Assmann, Liturgische Lieder, 111 with note 101. Of course, the “triumph” is complete, but the acclamation of father Seti to son Ramesses still is present.

11 Gerhard Haeny, “New Kingdom ‘Mortuary Temples’ and ‘Mansions of Millions of Years’,” in Temples of Ancient Egypt (ed. Byron E. Shafer; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997), 112-15.

A recent summary is that of Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 26-7, 35-7. She presents a compelling argument that the adjunct phrase “within” (Èry-íb), referring to the Seti temple, does not necessarily indicate that the deity of that barque was just visiting “Temple X,” although the evidence does not prove the opposite contention (pages 34-5). The term Èry-íb “seems to be intended to indicate a deity’s association with a temple, without providing any definitive indication concerning the permanency or dura-tion of that association” (page 35). Her final conclusion is that the divine barques were housed in this temple on a day-to-day basis.

12 For the atef crown, see note 64 below. For the impor-tance of royal ka statues and popular devotion, see Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 141 and 160-3.

13 Haeny, “The New Kingdom ‘Mortuary Temples’ and ‘Mansions of Millions of Years’,” 112. But the Stairway Cor-ridor originally was to be partly connected to the stairway going up to the roof where the cult of Re was prominent. Cf. the remarks of Baines, “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 145-57 and “Recording the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos in Egypt,” 84-7. Hence, we can connect the two speeches of Thoth and Seshat to the sun god, just as their content indicates. The exit to the west, where the Cenotaph of Osiris was built, remains obvious in intent.

4 Note especially the data in Assmann, Liturgische Lieder.

5 Ibid., 92-112.6 Re has therefore traveled into the underworld and

met Wenennefer; i.e., Osiris.In addition to Assmann’s commentary in Liturgische Lieder,

96-8, see Philippe Derchain, Le papyrus Salt 825 (B.M. 10051), rituel pour la conservation de la vie en Égypte (Brussels: Palais des Académies, 1965), 35-7; and Bickel, “Die Jenseitsfahrt des Re nach Zeugen der Sargtexte,” in Ein ägyptisches Glasperlenspiel: ägyptologische Beiträge für Erik Hornung aus seinem Schülerkreis (ed. Andreas Brodbeck; Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1998), 41-56, especially pages 49-56. The detailed comments of Willems should be read in this context (see Chapter II note 302) but add the most recent analysis of Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity.

7 Liturgische Lieder, 96-8.8 Arnold has returned to the concept of an Osiris

Tomb in his Lexikon der ägyptischen Baukunst (Munich-Zürich:Patmos, 1994), 183 and 240. He follows the modern survey of Diethelm Eigner, Die monumentalen Grabbauten der Spätzeit in der thebanischen Nekropole (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1984). A useful overview is by Kemp in the entry “Osireion,” in Lexikon der Ägyptologie IV, 622-3 where he points out that because the dead Seti would be identified with Osiris, the identification of god and Pha-raoh is clear.

For the ancient ideas surrounding the Cenotaph of Seti, see as well Otto, Osiris und Amun. Kult und heilige Stät-ten (Munich: Hirmer, 1966), 50.

9 See Chapter II notes 36 and 236. Additional comments of the word “heart” can now be found in Rueda, Das Herz in der ägyptischen Literatur des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr.

B. Location and Purpose

The problem of the significance of Seti’s temple

at Abydos arose in Haeny’s study on the New

Kingdom “Temples of Millions of Years.”11 He

pointed out that this religious edifice was not

merely called a Èwt, a common enough term for

a religious edifice, but a Èwt ntr. The parallel to

the New Kingdom mortuary temples in Western

Thebes is straightforward. Naturally, the “god”

here is Seti, a point to which Assmann also gave

a brief overview in the context of his liturgies.

(Following Haeny, we may note the atef crown

and the royal ka in Seti’s Gournah temple.12)

Considering the Seti temple at Abydos, however,

he presented extremely important observations

that connect up with the Dedicatory Inscrip-

tion. Haeny noted the architectural design of

the Stairway Corridor, the “exit,” so to speak,

at the rear of Seti’s temple. This area, one of

the last to be decorated (see below), is associated

with the Osiride Cenotaph (the “Osireion”) at

the rear, the “tree-shaded mound covering an

underground cenotaph of exceptional design.”13

In the latter, ten granite pillars that were set on a

platform supported the heavy roof of the building.

The double connection of Re and Osiris to

the role of the living Pharaoh is one that is well-

known from many aspects of Pharaonic Egypt,

but is also noteworthy in many extant liturgi-

cal hymns which were read out to the sun god.4

Among those which are preserved, I prefer to turn

to one that Assmann regarded as singular.5 In a

relatively lengthy hymn we meet the mysterious

unification of Re and Osiris.6 The two sectors of

their control, the upper and the lower (or under)

world, are explicitly indicated in this religious

composition and elsewhere. The orientation to the

kingship of Horus is of equal importance, and it is

significant that in the context of liturgical hymns

Assmann referred to the association of Pharaoh

with the trinity of Re, Osiris, and Horus.7 He

also indicated a scene in the Cenotaph of Seti

at Abydos where the king stands before Osiris

and Horus bringing Truth for these two “Lords of

Maat.”8 Perhaps it is not out of place to remark

once more on the text’s common theme of the

“heart” (íb) that “rejoices” (ndm).9 The common

recitation of ndm íb.tn in such liturgies centered

upon the Triumph of Horus, and I believe that

the Dedicatory Inscription, at least at the end

with column 104, indicates this as well.10

religious and historical implications 89

17 Otto, Osiris und Amun, 55-6. Most recently, see Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 239-40.

18 Die monumentalen Grabbauten der Spätzeit, 169. The “hill” represents the Upper Duat as the subterranean chambers reflect the Lower Duat.

19 Ibid., 168-9.20 The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos, 432-46.

14 Stephen Harvey, “The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1998), 433-4; and Eigner, Die monumentalen Grabbauten der Spätzeit, 163-9.

15 In Chapter II note 65 I referred to the work of Licht-heim concerning this “Terrace” during the period of the Middle Kingdom.

16 This has been stressed in our discussion.

and its poor economic setup. Yet at the rear of

this unfinished building was the tomb of Osiris

to which Seti already must have been intimately

connected before the final work on his Abydene

building was completed. Its whole underground

edifice is perfectly suited for the Osirian cult. In

addition, because Seti will become an Osiris, the

additional link of Seti = Osiris and Ramesses =

Horus reenters.

If we follow Harvey, the “island,” extremely

important in the mortuary cult of Osiris, located

right behind the Osirian Halls of Seti’s temple,

represented the primeval mound and the grave

of Osiris. Here it is where the god will be res-

urrected.17 Eigner, who analyzed in detail these

Osirian connections with respect to the under-

world, concluded by maintaining that, whatever

concept one wants to apply to the rear edifice, it

need not imply that “the complete construction

was conceived as a tomb of Osiris.”18 The build-

ing seems to have expressed in an overt fashion

the Upper and the Lower Underworld (Duat).

Hence, the bark of Re is connected to Osiris.19

Re traverses the underworld and meets Osiris.

Thus the building “performs” the activities which

we have encountered in the speeches of Seti to

Ramesses as well as by an address of Thoth in the

Stairway Corridor. (This will be covered below.)

Significantly, the Cenotaph lay under the holy

Ished tree; rejuvenation and a new reign are once

more present. A further architectural quality of

this building cements the concept of the after-

world in a most blatant fashion. The transverse

chamber, now better named a sarcophagus room,

appears to have been sealed off from the rest of

the edifice.

Harvey’s additional comments should be taken

to heart and extended.20 If the “terrace” is located

within Ahmose’s temple at Abydos, the question

arises concerning its connection to the Seti com-

plex. He then noted that aspects of Ahmose’s cult

complex reflected the Osiris tomb while indicat-

ing a solar aspect as well. At first, column 36 of

the Dedicatory Inscription may be of some use.

The account states that the pillars of the temple

In addition, the entire subterranean edifice had

an exterior design that resembled an island, a

religious conception that was connected to Isis

and her sister Nepthys. These two are often seen

or described as wailing over the corpse of Osiris,

now buried.

In this context Harvey also discussed the “ter-

race temple” outline at Abydos.14 The subterra-

nean tomb in the Cenotaph can be viewed as an

expression of the tomb of Osiris, a place where

he eventually will be reborn. He also emphasized

the entire architectural and religious significance

of the format of the “Osiris grave.” The terrace

tomb of Ahmose may be conceived to be only

one part of the entire Osiris complex. We have

to add to the architecture of this entire religious

sector the grave itself (cave or cavern) and a sacred

grove. Hence, that conception represented the

“Terrace of the Great God.”15 Lest his analysis

appear too speculative, let me refer to Harvey’s

brilliant connection of the two sacred sparrows

which protect the mountain under which Osiris

lies. They are most certainly representations of

Isis and Nepthys. Finally, the solar conception

of the whole complex should not be ignored, an

aspect that is overtly present in Seti’s Abydos

temple as well.16

In other words, just as the Ahmose temple

and its dependencies relate to Osiris and Re,

so does Seti’s. Both have strong connections to

Osiris’ grave or subterranean tombs, and both

overtly indicate this concept with the caverns by

means of these associations. Therefore, it is not

surprising to read two speeches in the Stairway

Corridor that adumbrate this because they physi-

cally connect with the cult of Osiris/Wenennefer

as well as Re. These addresses also differ from

the simple daily cult of the king, Osiris, and the

other deities in Seti’s temple, and even in rela-

tion to heaven and the afterworld. Earlier I laid

some stress upon the active cultic activities that

must have been performed in Seti’s temple before

the visit of Ramesses. It is difficult to view this

religious building as not being in service before

Ramesses’ coronation, despite its incomplete state

chapter three90

bÉi. ht = the pylons, pages 192-6.rwtyj. = main entrance, page 201. But the reference is the Sokar-Nefertem suite: KRI I 171.1. Hence, the entrance should be to this room.sbk. î = doorways, pages 209-10.tl. îyt = gilded door of a shrine or a screening device, pages 211-12.ím. wn = the pillars, pages 234-5. The second refer-ence is to column 36 of the Dedicatory Inscrip-tion, but the text is not correct.wn. îdw = papyriform columns. In the Inner Hypo-style Court they would refer to the second and third rows of the twelve columns (reading from the east), page 239.

23 Zippert, “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 24-31. The key passage in the Nauri Decree is line 9: KRI I 47.8-10. In his editio princeps, F. Ll. Griffith also opted for a translation of “platform” for rwd in “The Abydos Decree of Seti I at Nauri,” JEA 13 (1927): 198.

Kitchen queried the word “terrace” on page 40 of his Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations I. Independent of Zippert he felt that “perhaps the raised terrace in the portico of the temple” has to be inferred: Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments I, 52; cf. his remarks on page 109 as well. The two other references in Seti’s temple are KRI I 133.13 and 134.13, both located in the Inner Hypostyle Court, Alley of Osiris and Alley of Isis. Here, the rwd ought to have been the internal portico that Zippert proposed in 1931.

24 Compare KRI I 47.9 with KRI II 326.4.25 The Dedicatory Inscription does not state that the

pillars were undecorated or needed redecoration. They were not (yet ?) erected on its “terrace” (nn s#È# íwnw Èr ríwd.s).

26 The Monuments of Seti I, 169. This reasonable specula-tion implies that the references of Seti I have to be regarded independently from Ramesses’ own comments in his Dedi-catory Inscription.

21 For the Middle Kingdom “Terrace,” see Lichtheim’s study cited in note 65 of Chapter II. It must not be forgot-ten that Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 169 argued that Ramesses II had erected these pillars at the back of the first court instead of the portico where the Dedicatory Inscrip-tion was later carved.

22 “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 26. Zippert referred only to the Nauri Decree reference. On page 25 he covers the identity of the words kîr, “shrine,” and #È, the latter not merely signifying “palace,” but rather “most holy shrine.”

The detailed study of Patricia Spencer, The Egyptian Temple: A Lexicographical Study (London and Boston: Kegan Paul International, 1984) presents the following analysis of Seti’s temple. Her work is not that useful for our analy-sis.

ía. wnyt = pillared halls of the Osiris suite, pages 67 and 235.sÉw w#bb. = the Butcher’s Annex with the wd îw the storerooms opening up to the Butcher’s Hall and the wsÉt probably main hall, page 76.m Èrt c. íb = the area of Sokar; unclear designa-tion, page 87.íd. wnn = temple of Seti (general term) as well as the Osiris suite within the building, page 102.Éme. + chapels (shrines) of Isis and Horus. Spencer has unfortunately confused the Gournah temple of Seti with the one at Abydos on page 108. She also mixes up the Osiris suite (inner hall) with the Chapel to Osiris: KRI I 165.16.st wrtf. = unclear, page 111.pg. r wr = shrine (chapel) of Seti; undoubtedly the same term for that of Amun, pages 111-12.sbÉth. = unclear, but refers to porches in the New Kingdom that were often screened, page 166. It is hard to believe that this term indicates the front portico, but I present this as a possibility.

somewhat unusual spelling is virtually the same

as in our text (ríwd).24

But the pillars on this platform, indeed all of

those in the Inner Hypostyle Court, belong to

the construction phase of Seti I. There was major

reworking by Ramesses II in the Outer Hypostyle

Court, and he carved over much of his father’s

scenes and inscriptions with sunken relief. It is

difficult to connect the Dedicatory Inscription’s

reference of Ramesses regarding the lack of pil-

lars in either hypostyle court.25 Indeed, Brand’s

conclusion was that “it is perhaps more likely

that he was referring to the one at the back of the

first court” instead of the pillars on the portico

wherein the lengthy text was carved.26

Therefore, we would have to argue that addi-

tional pillars were in need of moving, and that

they were not located in the two outer (hypo-

style) courts, but rather upon a terrace of the

temple. One could still opt for the public area

in front of the temple at the time of Seti’s death,

the later portico, but this position is not totally

were not erected “on its terrace.” The crucial

and subsequently repeated word is rwd, a term

that should remind us immediately of the Middle

Kingdom’s Abydene “Terrace of the Great God”

and the New Kingdom architectural elements

that represented it.21

The term surely indicates a terrace or a portico

of the temple. One was at the rear of the Second

Court. Ramesses II redesigned this, although the

platform was already in place. A second zone

faced outwards (to the east) from the seven cha-

pels. Perhaps we have to deal with this area that

was connected with the Presentation of Maat, a

zone that was also public as Teeter has argued.

Similarly, but for reasons separate than these,

Zippert felt that the “terrace” in Seti’s temple

referred to the platform that faced the seven cha-

pels.22 In this case he turned to the famous Nauri

Decree of Seti, an inscription that provides much

helpful information with regard to the architec-

tural layout and arrangement of Seti’s building.23

There, the inscription covers the “terrace” and its

religious and historical implications 91

Cenotaph of Seti I at Abydos II (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1933), Pl. I.

31 Paul Barguet, “Note sur le complexe architectural de Séti Ier à Abydos,” Kemi 16 (1962): 21-27 and pages 22-3 in particular. For a very helpful summary of Seti I’s work in this area, see Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 174-8. The second phase of work commenced in Seti’s sixth regnal year although the Cenotaph decoration was never completed. On page 177 Brand observes that this decoration “was largely, if not entirely, laid out in paint under Seti I,” and notes the parallel to the uncompleted work in Seti’s Abydos temple as analyzed by Baines—“Abydos, Temple of Sethos I: Preliminary Report,” JEA 70 (1984): 13-22, with “Tech-niques of Decoration in the Hall of Barques in the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos,” JEA 75 (1989): 13-28.

32 But we must remember that later work by Ramesses II altered the connection of the Stairway Corridor with the Upper Staircase (located to the south) that lead to the roof. See the analysis in the next paragraph.

33 Barguet, “Note sur le complexe architectural de Séti Ier à Abydos,” 24-5.

34 Baines, “Recording the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos in Egypt,” 87. The following remarks depend upon his research. Lucas Baqué has given a new interpretation of the scene of the lassoing of the long horned bull in “‘On that Day when the Long-horned Bull was Lassoed...’ (PT [254] 286). A Scene in the ‘Corridor of the Bull’ of the Cenotaph of Sethos I in Abydos: an Iconologic Approach,” SAK 30 (2002): 43-51.

Ahmed El-Sawy provides additional welcome infor-mation on this sector in “A New Discovery at the Sety 1 Temple in Abydos” (see Chapter I note 5). His conclusion is that that Stairway Corridor originally “was the third shrine in the sanctuary of Nefertem” (page 427).

35 For the quote: Baines, “Recording the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos in Egypt,” 87. See as well El-Sawy, “A New Discovery at the Sety 1 Temple in Abydos,” 425. A summary of the stages of decoration (mainly agreeing

27 This appears to be the conclusion of Kitchen in his Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments I, 52 (to the Nauri Decree). The area was a public one. As we have noted, Brand argues for the pillars at the back of the first court.

One way out of this dilemma is to argue that what Seti and Ramesses meant were two separate “terraces.” This, however, is too speculative.

28 Harvey, “The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos,” 434.

29 Murnane, Ancient Egyptian Coregencies, 75-6; and Darnell, “Two Notes on Marginal Inscriptions at Medinet Habu,” in Essays in Egyptology in Honor of Hans Goedicke (ed. Betsy M. Bryan and David Lorton; San Antonio: Van Siclen Books, 1994), 50. Brand’s position in The Monuments of Seti I, 169 needs additional research although I am sympathetic to his argument.

In the Gallery of the Lists we can find an offering “for clothing (mnÉt) in the gods’ house” as well as “for valued vessels” upon (Èr) the rwd: KRI I 183.5-6 and see Abd el Hamid Zayed, “The Staircase of the God in Abydos,” ASAE 62 (1977): 166. He gives no analysis of these two objects that occur in a list of gods; we assume that these special requirements for festivals—see in particular the mnÉt feast—were personified as deities. But this passage does not (indeed, can not) answer our questions.

The solution to this gods’ list was discovered by Yoyotte, “Religion de l’Égypte ancienne,” Annuaire École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve Section 85 (1976-1977): 198: the references indicate cults in various places in the Memphite region or around the city; cf. his additional remarks in “Études géographiques. I. La ‘cité des acacias’ (Kafr Ammar),” RdE 13 (1961): 86, and “Processions géographiques mention-nant le Fayoum et ses localités,” BIFAO 61 (1961): 122-4. In his standard translation and commentary volumes to KRI Kitchen provides the background data. According to Yoyotte, the list goes back to the VIth Dynasty.

30 There is a useful diagram of the architectural layout in H. Frankfort, A. de Buck, and Battiscombe Gunn, The

fashion owing to this additional small dividing wall.32 With regard to the seven chapels located within the main temple itself, his conclusion was that the one dedicated to Osiris was not a real chapel, but rather served as the entranceway to the Osirian suite in which the statue of Osiris was placed.33 All in all, Barguet properly saw that one could not separate the temple from the Cenotaph, a position with which Harvey would agree.

Subsequent analysis concerned with the archi-tectural and artistic purposes of the Stairway Cor-ridor and the related Corridor of the Bull has revised these conclusions to some degree. These two “vestibules” were probably introduced into the plan in order to provide access to the area behind the temple.34 Hence, a connection to Osiris-Wenennefer appears reasonable. At the same time “From the outside wall it was pos-sible to climb an additional staircase onto the temple roof,” and I would assume that the cult of Re had some importance here.35 But as Baines

indicates, the final destination remains uncertain

because under Ramesses II the plan was altered.

convincing.27 If we follow Harvey and maintain that that the terrace temple may represent, in symbolic fashion, the earlier “Terrace of the Great God,” surely this idea is separate from the problem of the pillars that were not (yet) erected.28 It might be best to consider the rwd as the terrace to the west of the Second Court simply because the inscription tells us that its pillars were not yet erected. But if we follow Brand in proposing the portico area at the rear of the first court, then this hypothesis has to be rejected.29

Connected to the rear (west) wall of the Seti I temple was a wall that surrounded the “hill” of the Cenotaph.30 Barguet discussed the “espla-nade” that one could see at the rear of the Seti temple, and further commented that the Stair-way Corridor effectively linked that magnificent building to the hill covering the Cenotaph of Seti (Osireion).31 But there was yet another wall, a secondary one, that reached the rear wall of the Seti temple at precisely the area of this Stairway Corridor. As a result, one could proceed directly to the Cenotaph area in a somewhat constricted

chapter three92

These depictions are in the Gallery of Kings (Corridor X), and were treated in detail by Murnane in “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 162-5 (with important corrections to Seele’s earlier work).

There are more recent observations by Fisher, The Sons of Ramesses II I, 43-6, which have to be taken into consider-ation, although they mainly concern the role of Ramesses II’s first-born son, Amunherkhepeshef. In the Corridor of the Bull the name of king Ramesses (with cartouches of course) is written with the double ss (KRI II 509.11—no prenomen and 510.11—with prenomen Wsr-mî#t-R# Stp-n-R#). According to Baines, the “wall was probably carved some years into the reign of Ramesses II” (cf. Fisher, ibid., 43). Fisher presents additional remarks concerning the differ-ence between Ramesses II as prince in Seti’s temple (see especially the Gallery of Kings) and Ramesses II’s sons (in particular his first born in the Corridor of the Bull). Cf. note 50 below.

with Baines) will be found in Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 155-70; and Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equip-ment, 15-17.

36 In this context it may be useful to cite the companion scene of Seti I offering truth to Osiris in Capart, Abydos, 22 fig. 3. Note that the spelling of “Ramesses” is with -sw. This is present only in the scenes accompanying the Dedicatory Inscription and not in the composition.

37 See Rondot’s analysis in La grande salle hypostyle de Karnak at this point; I can refer the reader to my remarks in Chapter I notes 3 and 4.

38 Ibid., 119-22.We can add the variant spellings of Ramesses II at

Abydos when he was depicted with Seti I as the crown prince. See KRI I 177.10 (R#-ms-s(w) with no cartouche); 179.10 (R#-ms-sw with no cartouche); 179.15 (R#-ms-s(w) with no cartouche); and 180.7 (R#-ms-sw with no cartouche). I am ignoring the two names (in cartouches) later engraved on Ramesses’ robe: KRI I 180.8.

composition it is clear that he does not “read

aloud” the text. Nonetheless, he raises his right

hand and offers the written composition to Osiris.

The spelling of the prenomen and nomen follow

the practice of the earlier scene; they reflect the

system later adopted by the Pharaoh by regnal

year two. I believe that both were carved after the

Ur-Text of the Dedicatory Inscription was com-

pleted and sent in its hieratic format to Abydos.

Yet the depiction of Ramesses raising his right hand

in respect and dedication may have been designed

if not completed somewhat later than regnal year

one of Ramesses.

We must now turn to the actual state of the

development of the final “affichage.” It must have

been known to Ramesses, and quite probably he

already declared his intention at Abydos during

the official commemoration in his first regnal

year. The use of the later prenomen plus nomen,

and especially the rapid (and early) move to R#-

ms-sw from R#-ms-s(s) at Karnak, present additional

support for this supposition.37 In the Dedicatory

Inscription only -ss is written although Wsr-mî#t-

R# is present. The accompanying pictorial repre-

sentations write R#-ms-sw, leading one to suspect

that they might have been designed subsequent

to the lengthy composition. There are no earlier

known writings of the prenomen extant in those

reliefs.

With regard to the chronological framework for

the king’s two last names, a recent study of Rondot

enables us to present a more cohesive survey of

this intriguing matter.38 Yet it was Kitchen’s bril-

liant discovery of the alteration from -ss to -sw

that first enabled many working Egyptologists to

reconstruct the sequence of undated monuments

The door to the Upper Staircase was subsequently

blocked up and a new way to it from the inside

the Stairway Corridor was constructed. Nonethe-

less, the connection to the roof was maintained,

and therefore the solar aspect of this area was

not abandoned.

C. Chronological and Architectural Background

The accompanying two scenes on the south and

north of the rear of the second court were carved

to complement the written composition of the

Dedicatory Inscription. The main one is located

to the right of the Dedicatory Inscription and

flanks the central entrance to the Outer Hypo-

style Court. The king, facing right, has his brief

formal speech written with hieroglyphs directed,

as expected, from right to left, whereas those of

the deities (Osiris, Isis, and the dead Seti, not

a statue) are in the opposite direction because

they face Ramesses; i.e., they speak to the left.

An identical scene within the inner hypostyle

court parallels the king’s presentation of Maat

to Osiris.36 The final two names of the king are

later “standard” ones: Wsr-mî#t-R# Stp-n-R# R #-

ms-sw mry-ímn. There has been a slight alteration

above both cartouches. The king is depicted in his

early youthful manner, as befits the time frame of

the composition; the relief work is sunken. None

of this should surprise the scholar as the carving of

the inscription had to have taken place within the

opening regnal years of Ramesses at the latest.

The end scene at the extreme left (south) shows

just Ramesses. The figure of the king faces right,

as do the hieroglyphs. From the words of the

religious and historical implications 93

end of Seti’s life, although I can also refer to Hornung’s remarks in Chapter II note 119.

In the Abydene version of the Litany of the Sun, which is an abbreviated version, the full name Wsr-mî#t-R# stp-n-R # appears: Hornung, Das Buch der Anbetung des Re im Westen I, 91.

44 Christophe Barbotin and Christian Leblanc, Les Monu-ments d’éternité de Ramsès II: nouvelles fouilles thébaines (Paris: Éditions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 1999), 50; with Leblanc, “Les récentes découvertes dans la tombe de Ramsès II,” BSFE 141 (1998): 22-3. The ostracon is CGC 25676.

In the second study Leblanc states that the decoration of the tomb of Ramesses II began soon after the com-mencement of work of the excavation. He allows for ca. 10 to 12 years at the most for the completion of the rock cut tomb (but not the decoration).

Naturally, the Litany of the Sun was copied from a papyrus. Hence, its date (and so the writing of the king’s name) reflects the time it was copied down in hieratic and not the time of the transposition to the walls of the king’s tomb.

In a private communication Hornung mentions that the change in Ramesses’ name from -ss to -sw can be seen on the walls as one moves further into the tomb.

45 Ibid.; the ostracon is CGC 25676; the nomen is miss-ing due to a break.

39 KRI II 790.3. The following argument traces my study in Chapter II of The Transformation of an Ancient Egyptian Narrative: P. Sallier III and the Battle of Kadesh (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2002).

40 Thomas von der Way, Die Textüberlieferung Ramses’ II. zur Qadeà-Schlacht: Analyse und Struktur (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1984), 34-5. It is easy to refute because the copy of Pn-tî-wrt (P. Sallier III + P. Raifé) came from the north (Saqqara), not Thebes. It was copied from a papyrus.

41 La grande salle hypostyle de Karnak, 119-22.42 KRI III 347.11 (with queries on the writing although

sw may be restored) with the date on 348.3.43 Christian Leblanc, “Quatrième campagne de fouille

dans la tombe de Ramsès II (KV 7),” Memnonia 8 (1997): 167 and note 25 with Pls. XLVI-XLVII; see his additional remarks cited in the following reference. For a comparison, we can mention the sunken relief cartouches of Ramesses with his early name Wsr-mî#t-R# R#-ms-s(w)-mry-ímn: Guy Lecuyot, “Le sanctuaire du Ramesseum. Campagnes de fouilles 1997-1999,” Memnonia 11 (2000): 119-20 and Pl. XXI. (As expected, because the text is arranged vertically, the last sign in the prenomen is the s.)

The block on which the names were carved served as a cover of one of the foundation deposits at the Ramesseum. Therefore, despite the use of sunken relief we ought to date the text to the king’s first regnal year. It would appear that Ramesses was sole Pharaoh at this time. See our subsequent comments on the possible use of sunken relief at the very

where most of his building activity occurred in

his early years.

To the evidence of the Louvre Leather Roll can

be added additional data independent of Ron-

dot’s recent evaluation of the Hypostyle Court

at Karnak.41 The first example is partly open to

interpretation as a graffito of a certain ímn-tîy-nÉt

presents an unclear spelling. Kitchen, following

the editor of the text, queried the readings, and

left open the conjectural restoration of Wsr-mî#t-R#

stp-n-R# for the prenomen.42 The date is regnal

year two and we would expect that the full Wsr-

mî#t-R# to be written, although the reading with

-sw must remain sub judice. In Ramesses’ tomb at

Thebes the abbreviated Litany of the Sun does

not include Stp-n-R#.43 This should enable us to

date the carving (and the papyrus Vorlage) to a time

within the first year of the king.44 This meets with

added confirmation because, as Leblanc pointed

out, an ostracon found by Baraize at the Rames-

seum refers to the commencement of work on the

king’s tomb in year two.45 The date is the second

regnal year, II prt, day 13. Given the probable

accession of Ramesses to the throne on III àmw,

day 27, one can place the time in the late sixth

month of the king’s second regnal year when some

of the work in the first corridor of his tomb had

begun. According to Leblanc, the decoration must

have soon followed owing to the writings of the

king’s name in the Litany.

and the numerous scenes of this king. I followed

in his footsteps when covering the historical back-

ground of Ramesses’ first and second decades.

But there was one nagging inconsistency that

I subsequently found occurring in the fifth regnal

year of Ramesses. In the Louvre Leather Roll,

a non-royal administrative document, the first

line to column II contains R#-ms-sw mry-ímn, yet

the date is clearly year five of the monarch.39 If

Kitchen’s argument holds, as I believe it does,

then perhaps for hieratic texts the alteration had

already come into place before the expected time

frame of the middle-end of the king’s second

decade for monumental hieroglyphic texts.

This argument is reiterated in detail in order

to clarify the misdating of the hieratic account

of the Battle of Kadesh (P. Sallier III), which

unfortunately has been placed in his ninth regnal

year.40 In all of the monumental copies of that

campaign we encounter only R#-ms-s(s). The date

of regnal year five fits Kitchen’s theory to a tee,

although it must be remarked that he detected a

slow and steady change oriented to a south-north

direction. If the writing was ordered or at least

approved of by Ramesses, then we can surmise

that most of his early decoration work occurred in

the south before the north. This conclusion seems

most reasonable considering Ramesses’ activities

at Karnak, Abydos, and Nubia (e.g., Abu Simbel

and Beit el Wali), to mention three key localities

chapter three94

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

51 Or were different sculptors working?52 See note 38 above.

46 Hornung, Das Buch der Anbetung des Re im Westen; volume II contains the commentary and translation. See volume I page 88 for the king’s name at Thebes: Wsr-mî#t-R# (with the single -s underneath wsr and mî#t) and after a short interval R#-ms-s(w)-mry-ímn.

47 Ibid., II, 13.48 Ibid., I 88 (R#-ms-s(w) mry-ímn) and 91 (Wsr-mî#t-R#

Stp-n-R).49 Ibid., II 12. This does not apply to Abydos.50 Mariette, Abydos II, pls. 14-7. If we add up the two

cases and exclude the scene with the eight bulls (plus king offering) the statistics are: -ss is 16; -sw is 22. The second reaches 26 if those exceptions are included. Cf. note 38 above.

not regular in the series of cartouches located in

the lowest register.50 There, one can read -sw as

well as -ss. Yet both tend to be grouped, as if the

sculptors had not fixed upon a single method of

transcription.51

Restricting himself to the architraves of the

Hypostyle Court at Karnak, Rondot observed

many peculiar and unexpected idiosyncrasies in

the writings of Ramesses’ name. It is useful to

summarize them here as they fit into rather well

with our analysis of the second half of the Dedica-

tory Inscription.52 He observed the “game” (jeu)

that was played there between the two writings

in which there was an alternation between the

double s and a single one; symmetry appears to

have been the rule. In addition, Rondot claimed

that the decision to unify all the varying preno-

mens under one, Wsr-mî#t-R# Stp-n-R#, had taken

place in the course of the decoration work in the

Hypostyle. Indeed, one can even find the rare

early name Wsr-mî#t-R# íw#-n-R# in this area of

Karnak.

We can still be assured that just at the end

of his first year, or at the latest in the following,

Ramesses established a norm for his two final

names: Wsr-mî#t-R# Stp-n-R# sî R # R #-ms-s(s). I feel

that this was done owing to the circumstances

surrounding his rise to the throne as sole Pha-

raoh. He was first regent, and thus a ruler in

his own might. In other words, the son of Seti

was a Pharaoh before his father died. Questions

concerning what he wished to be called, or what

to name him, would have been of paramount

importance, if only because all official documents

would come to be dated by his name. (One might

also assume that he knew at this time that Seti

had not long to live.) Of particular import to any

reigning monarch of Egypt was the titulary. At

the minimum it indicated a program, divinely

oriented or not, which he wished to follow. Any

later change in design would indicate a deviation

Two copies of the Litany of the Sun were drawn

up for Ramesses. The first, at Thebes, was placed

within his tomb.46 The second, at his temple in

Abydos, contains the useful remark dí #nÉ after the

king’s name next to the cartouche whereas in the

Valley of the Kings mî#-Érw is written instead.47

In addition, the prenomen and nomen at Abydos

are presented as Wsr-mî#t-R# Stp-n-R# and R#-ms-

s(w)-mry-ímn.48 The location of Abydos and not the

royal tomb might lead us to a different perception

of the then living king. But more pertinent to this

analysis are Hornung’s comments concerning the

resemblance between Seti I’s Litany in the Valley

of the Kings and that of his son Ramesses in

the same area. Both are extremely close in writ-

ing and organization.49 Hornung stated that the

text and accompanying figures are “very similarly

divided,” and we cannot but conclude that either

the same book (i.e., papyrus roll) was used for

both or that the physical setup of the Litany in

Ramesses’ tomb was directly copied from Seti’s

at the latter’s death. (The time frame allows for

such a reconstruction of the events owing to the

writing of the prenomen.)

At the time of the Pharaoh’s visit, the con-

struction work had been undertaken at his temple

rather than that of his father’s. This would have

ceased by the time the Ramesses left Abydos,

and the sculptors, gravers, architects, and masons

directed their attention to the completion of the

Seti temple. Subsequently, they would have moved

their work at Abydos to another site or sites. In

this case I believe that they returned to Ramesses’

own religious edifice. To be sure, walls can be

decorated while other projects are in process, and

the time of this activity has yet to be calibrated

in man-hours (or even in months). Nonetheless,

I feel it reasonably secure to date the carving of

the Litany at Abydos in the Seti temple to a time

after regnal year one, say ca. year two or so. The

earlier writing with the double -ss is, however,

religious and historical implications 95

A scene in the Hall of Lists is also to be dated to the same time period. To quote him: “These seem to be the only places in the temple of Sety I where Ramesses appears with the early prenomen” (pages 162 and 165), and the bulk of his efforts “were concentrated on the front of the building.”

The reason why this corridor was left unfinished at the time of Seti’s death is not so easy to explain. The archi-tectural layout of the southwest area (Nefertem-Ptah-Sokar Hall) was altered and it became smaller. One chapel was converted to the Stairway Corridor and a second series of three columns to the south were readjusted; the latter were included in the south wall of this Nefertem-Ptah-Sokar Hall. See David, Religious Ritual at Abydos, 166-8 for a summary; and now Baines, “Abydos, Temple of Sethos I: Preliminary Report,” 16-18. Zippert, “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 18, was the first to analyze the architectural situation of this area by noting the change of design.

Baines, however, indicated that the plan (with six columns and not the four argued by Zippert) was changed before any decoration was executed in his “Abydos, Temple of Sethos I: Preliminary Report,” 16-18. He further pointed to the later work of Ramesses II such as the access to the Upper Staircase on to the roof: from within the Stairway Corridor “without leaving the temple.” Subsequently, this king had the outer door into the Upper Staircase walled up.

58 “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 165.

59 KRI I 189.1-92.12; Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations I, 163-6 with his Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and

53 Many examples could be provided, but in the Rames-side Period one classic case is Ramesses IV: Peden, The Reign of Ramesses IV, 15. For Ramesses II: Yoyotte, “Le Nom de Ramsès “Souverein d’Héliopolis’,” in Mit Rahineh 1956 (ed. Rudolf Anthes; Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1965), 66-7. Siptah, as well, can be added, for his names changed by his third regnal year. In general, see Kitchen, “The Titularies of the Ramesside Kings as Expression of their Ideal Kingship,” ASAE 71 (1987): 131-41.

54 Conveniently, Mariette, Abydos I, pls. 5 and 9; cf. KRI II 323.14 (restored), 324.4, 336.11, and 336.14 (yet see the crucial note 14a).

55 William Kevin Millor, “The Genealogy and Chronol-ogy of the Ramesside Period” (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota Ann Arbor, 1986), 32 and 35. He also discusses the Abydos temple of Seti I and observes that Ramesses “completed the decoration only after his father’s death and at a time when he had adopted his final prenomen. This decoration is confined to the front of the temple” (pages 38-9). He emphasizes the use of raised relief in contrast to sunken relief. See our brief comment in Chapter II note 119 with regard to the use of raised relief in the tomb of Ramesses II.

56 The Sons of Ramesses II I, 28.57 Ibid. Murnane, “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II

and His Coregency with Sety I,” 162 and 165, provides a well-reasoned study this area. He observed that the scenes of the Corridor Stairway were carved earlier owing to the presence of the early prenomen and the use of raised relief.

tural stages of construction at Seti’s temple.56

She observed that in the third stage the reliefs

were carved, and this occurred during the reign

of Ramesses II. She also placed great emphasis

upon the scenes in the Corridor of the Bull owing

to the use of sunken relief, traces of the prelimi-

nary grid lines, and the texts themselves.57 Fol-

lowing Baines, she highlighted four stages in the

architectural and decorative program at Abydos.

When the final reliefs were carved, Seti I had

already died. Indeed, Murnane, whose study on

the epigraphic material from this temple is well

worth rereading, observed that the independent

work on Seti’s temple by Ramesses was “done

only after Ramesses had become ‘Userma’atrê

Setepenre’.”58

D. The Stairway Corridor

There is an additional text at Abydos that helps

to clarify further these problems. Located in the

Stairway Corridor will be found two speeches of

Thoth and Seshat to the king Seti I.59 The date of

the carving in this area has been clarified by Mur-

nane, who paid particular attention to the use of

raised relief and the early prenomen of Ramesses

on the part of the reigning king from his previous

self-conception. In Ramesses’ case we can wit-

ness a major one within his fourth decade; other

Pharaohs went even further.53 In general, these

developments operated as follows. On non-royal

documents (letters and the like) the -sw enters

before the switch on monuments. The Stp-n-R#

is permanently established by year two at the

latest. Other earlier ones were discarded at the

close of his first year—I am referring to variant

names such as Wsr-mî#t-R# íw# n R # which end

with a solitary s in R#-ms-s(w).

The evidence of the Dedicatory Inscription fits

perfectly within the established scholarly position.

Namely, that the account was composed in the

opening year of Ramesses soon after the death

of his father. On the other hand, the dialogue

between Seti I and Ramesses II must be placed

somewhat later than the original festive occasion

at Abydos, and the “intrusion” of the -sw might

point to a time somewhat later than year one.

(Remember that this writing will be found only

in the scenes and not within the body of the nar-

rative composition.)54 I do not think that the text

is a later composition which was retrospectively

dated to Ramesses’ first year” as Millor claims.55

The last discussion on this matter is that of Fisher,

who provided a short analysis of the architec-

chapter three96

finds its parallel in this speech of Seshat. In order to limit the extent of this discussion, I will avoid any analysis of the religious significance of this portion of the composition. Willems places the Sitz im Leben of the liturgy into festivities at Abydos (pages 287-8).

63 KRI I 188.8-16 (north wall) and 192.13-15 (Ramesses as crown prince offers Maat); cf. David, Religious Ritual at Abydos, 210-13. David’s translation on page 210 may help us to decipher a broken passage in this text. See KRI I 191.14: psd.k n.f R # Èr ímy-wrt r-#qî [àtî]yt.f (?). Should we read: “You shine for him, Re on the West, opposite his àtîyt”? The latter would be, of course, the so-called Ceno-taph of Seti at Abydos, located to the west of this temple. See Edwards, “The Shetayet of Rosetau,” 32-4. I feel that this restoration is reasonable, especially if we consider the link between the Osirian cult and the feast of Sokar in the New Kingdom (cf. Gaballa and Kitchen, “The Festival of Sokar,” 43-6 and passim). These two authors did not over-look the connection to the Mansion of Gold with respect to the body of Osiris (page 40).

64 The atef crown also enters the account: KRI I 191.14; see Assmann, Liturgische Lieder, 307 with note 29. It is con-nected to Osiris even though it is “the atef of Re” (Book of the Dead 183). See our brief remarks in note 12 above.

The next phrase is indicative of the setting.65 KRI I 189.14 (with gnwt: Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists,

Annals and Day Books, 77); cf. KRI I 187.2 (with gnwt).66 KRI I 189.10 (with s#r).67 KRI I 190.1-2 with Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes

and Comments I, 127.

Comments I, 126-8. In Budde’s work, Die Göttin Seschat cited in Chapter I notes 2 and 24, this text is Document 97 (page 255 with cross references). See now Raedler, “Zur Struktur des Hofgesellschaft Ramses’ II.,” 70.

Bastin’s study, “De la fondation d’un temple: ‘Paroles dites par Seshat au Roi Sethi Ier’,” cited above in Chapter I note 24, is a crucial study on this inscription.

60 “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 162 and 165. He corrects Seele, The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I, 48. For the key text naming Ramesses in the Stairway Corridor, see KRI I 188.8-16 with line 9 in particular. Ramesses offers before Seti, Isis (= wife of Seti if Seti = Osiris), and the Ennead.

See Hornung’s remarks in Chapter II note 119 concern-ing the use of raised relief in the tomb of Ramesses II

61 Let me refer to KRI I 190.11 (“daily offerings,” II 332.6); 190.10 (ts.n.k); 190.7 (solar bark with its crew, the íswt; the king a pilot in II 333.13); 190.4-5 (and 192.6—sÉî; II 335.10); 189.10 (s#r; II 331.14 with I 186.10); 190.10 (Maat; see the scene of Ramesses offering Maat to Seti); and 189.8, 191.4, and 191.9 (“to awake,” snhs and nhsí: both words are used with respect to the underworld).

62 KRI I 192.11 ( for Éy), and see the shrine of Osiris-Seti as well, KRI I 167.1. Opening of the Mouth: KRI I 191.11.

Once more reference to Willems’ analysis of CT Spells 30-41 is useful: see Chapter II note 469. He indicated that this entire group of spells deals with the protection of Osiris and that the deceased is unified with the rejuve-nated god. The stress upon curing the wounds of Osiris(see in particular pages 283 and 305 in Willems’ study)

Horus and Seth and all too briefly in the Dedi-

catory Inscription. The deity’s address, in which

the heavenly conclave as well as the gods in the

under/afterworld welcome the king, is presented

to Seti. Thoth, in his expected role, enunciates the

words on behalf of Re-Harachty, whose “beloved

son” is Seti. The latter, in fact, is placed daily

in heaven, “like Atum” and “alongside Re.”64

Thus the aspects present here parallel to no small

degree the account of Ramesses at Abydos. More-

over, the king’s annals are engraved, exactly as

is done for Ramesses on the exterior wall of the

northern portico.65

The following details, though different, deserve

emphasis:

Thoth travels with Re-Harachty from ((1) íí ) the sky. Or, as the account states in a different manner, the two have come (prí ) from “heaven” to Egypt. Then he relates that the gods in heaven are overjoyed with their son Seti owing to his plans, goodness, and fame. Equally, the lords of the underworld offer up goodness (nfrw) to the shrine of Re.66

The completion of the temple at Abydos is (2) recognized. I assume that the reference to the red ink in lines 9-10 might refer to the outline drafts made on the wall(s). I.e., his temple is being engraved.67

The re(3) ason for the trip is due to Seti’s “concerns,” his Ért. The crew of the sun

II.60 There is no doubt that this area was carved

under Ramesses’ regency with his father. If this

argument is followed, we can therefore presume

that it was completed earlier than Ramesses’ visit

and not far back in the past.

The content of Thoth’s address far outweighs

its presumed historical dating. The account

supplements and dovetails the speech of Seti to

his son contained in the Dedicatory Inscription.

For example, we meet Re, Osiris (by name only),

Wenennefer, Thoth, the Ennead, the All Lord,

and Atum (also by name only). The communal-

ity of vocabulary, as well, cannot be overlooked.

See, for example, the use of “daily offerings,”

ts, “to govern/administer,” the solar bark, “to

remember,” the verb “to promote,” the stress

on Maat, and once more the verb “to awake.”61

Even the idea of the king as a child,” a Éy in this

case, is reminiscent of the Dedicatory composi-

tion, and the Opening of the Mouth ceremony is

explicit.62 The accompanying ritual scenes make it

clear that Ramesses (as crown prince and regent)

offers before Seti and the same may be said with

regard to the scenes on the south wall.63

The purport of this very interesting text can

be summarized as follows. Thoth speaks, and his

role is that of the All Lord’s scribe and aman-

uensis, exactly as we find him in the Story of

religious and historical implications 97

72 KRI I 192.1 and 3: íw.k mí R # m-hnw.s.73 See Chapter II note 1; KRI I 192.4: íw Èm.k m ntr.74 Assmann, “Grundstrukturen der ägyptischen Got-

tesvorstellungen,” Biblische Notizen 11 (1980): 55 with “Die Verborgenheit des Mythos in Ägypten,” GM 25 (1977): 7-43.

75 Verhoeven, “Ein historischer ‘Sitz im Leben’ für die Erzählung von Horus und Seth.”

76 Following Willems, we should connect the encounter (or embrace) with the location of msqt: The Coffin of Heqata, 264. This would be at the eastern horizon and at the time that the sun god rises.

77 “Eine Darstellung der ‘Osiris-Mysterien’,” 104. Ass-mann has challenged Otto’s interpretation to some degree in “Die Verborgenheit des Mythos in Ägypten,” and espe-cially on pages 12 and 39-40. Nonetheless, on page 41 he agrees with Otto concerning the “breakthrough” in the post Amarna Period.

Not surprisingly, this inscription contains a superflu-ity of heavenly images as befits the connection to Re or Re-Harachty. Inter alia, see “Atum in his heavens,” KRI I 189.15-16-190.1. The two heavens are meant and in fact written: the one above the earth and below the earth, the latter being the underworld. Read as well the “firmament” (KRI I 190.3) and the “starry sky” (KRI I 189.12 to 14; a beautiful image).

68 And the nyny gesture is mentioned: KRI I 190.7 with Assmann, Liturgische Lieder, 270: see the connection with the coronation ritual.

69 KRI I 190.8 with 189.10 (with s#r).70 KRI I 191.7ff. (with nhsí ). The image of the flying ba is

aptly discussed by Niwinski in “The Solar-Osirian Unity as Principle of the Theology of the ‘State of Amun’ in Thebes in the 21st Dynasty,” JEOL 30 (1987-88): 89-106.

71 In general, see Wolfhart Westendorf, Altägyptische Dar -stellungen des Sonnenlaufes auf der abschüssigen Himmelsbahn (Berlin: Hessling, 1966), 54 (Osiris), and 83 (general sum-mary).

This speech thus presents the nightly encounter

of Thoth with Wenennefer. Interestingly, even

though the sun god is with Thoth—have not they

both descended from heaven?—he is not the main

actor. Yet the combination of Wenennefer and

Re at the crack of dawn is one of the hallmarks

of this composition. In addition, Seti has allowed

Wenennefer to be awakened. In this case there is

a clear contrast with the Dedicatory Inscription.

In the latter, Ramesses performs the awakening

of Seti; here, Seti acts upon Wenennefer. I.e., the

intimate, personal, and physical relationship of

father-son is not present.

This account, directed from the mouth of

Thoth can be linked with the verbal conclusion

to the Dedicatory Inscription. On the south

wall of the Stairway Corridor we encounter Re

traveling down from his starry realm, viewing

first the results of Seti’s pious deeds to the gods,

and then witnessing the results of these actions

among mankind. Re with Thoth then descend

further and encounter Wenennefer.76 This god

of the underworld is awakened and he immedi-

ately sees Re. In this context the significant words

of Ramesses II to his father in the Dedicatory

Inscription should be recalled: “Awake! Your

face to heaven” (column 80). In reading both

inscriptions, the scenario becomes clearer. And

to employ Otto’s words, both of the presentations

reflect the new, apparently Ramesside-developed,

presentation of “mythological ritual” or “drama-

tized myth.”77 The double presence at Abydos

further reminds us of their connection with the

“annals” (gnwt) of the king and his rejuvenating

god are greeted by Seti.68 There is a further reference to the solar shrine.69

Thoth outlines the great deeds which Seti has (4) done, and he specifies the success of Egypt’s population as well.Thoth then descends ((5) hîí ) to the underworld, meets Wenennefer, and points out that Seti’s nfrw have woken him. Here, the success of Seti is also recorded, and the emphasis placed upon the “transformations” (Éprw) of Wenennefer. Note the key references to the Solar-Osirian unity: Wenennefer “sees” Re in the underworld and the latter flies, as he must, over the sarcophagus, two key images in that theology.70 I presume that Thoth enters the underworld in the west, but we must not forget that he is the moon god as well, and thus can be seen in the night.71

There is one interconnected theme running

through these words, that of the sun god Re.

King Seti is indeed divine as is Re.72 He is a god,

that all important fact which we have seen was

one of Assmann’s starting points when he ana-

lyzed the Dedicatory Inscription in light of the

father-son constellation.73 This account, however,

is not a narrative one, but simply the speech of

a god. As such, the role and status of the deities

are emphasized and no tale, account, or even a

story is related.74 The situation also reflects a ritual

and perhaps fits closely to Verhoeven’s analysis

of the performance Sitz im Leben of the Story of

Horus and Seth as well as the cultic activities of

the Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus.75

The verbal description centers upon Thoth’s

descent from heaven (with Re present). First,

we are on earth and then in the underworld.

chapter three98

effective break to the calendar. The later composition was abbreviated because of space reasons; cf. KRI II 526.13-29.2. Kitchen has observed that the second and later copy omitted the section dealing with “the personal care of Osiris, and so less relevant to the R.II context of a temple calendar” (Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments I, 127; Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations I, 163 note 7).

The different location of the second version is equally important. In Ramesses II’s temple at Abydos the inti-mate father-son relationship in Seti’s edifice is not present. Moreover, the stress of Seti as a god is far less impressive in Ramesses’ own building.

Thus the importance of this speech (here by Seshat) for the cult was considerably less than the role it had in Seti’s temple. From its location in the latter building (Stairway Corridor to the rear; connection to the Cenotaph; link with Osiris and his adjacent suite) and contents, an overt connection to the cult of the dead, the now dead father of the ruling monarch, Osiris, Re, and the unity between these two gods was present. None of those concepts are appropriate to the physical setting of Seshat’s address in Ramesses II’s temple. That is to say, the location of the transformed speech ensured that it had lost its original cultic meaning.

82 Jan Quaegebeur, “Diodore I, 20 et les mystères d’Osiris,” in Hermes Aegyptiacus: Egyptological studies for B. H. Stricker on his 85th birthday (ed. Terence DuQuesne; Oxford: DE Publications, 1995), 157-81. See as well, M. Coenen and J. Quaegebeur, De Papyrus Denon in het Museum Meermanno-Westreenianum, Den Haag of het Boek van het Ademen van Isis (Leuven: Peeters, 1995). Quirke emphasizes to me that the

78 In other words, their location in the corridor of egress (leading to the Cenotaph of Seti I) cannot be overlooked; Seti is being “reborn.”

79 I will ignore the subsequent revival of Wenennefer, although it is useful to pay attention to at least one important word, íwtyw “digestion products” > “decomposition”: KRI I 191.6; and Zandee, Death as an Enemy according to Ancient Egyptian Conceptions Leiden: Brill, 1960), 73 and note 7. This portion of the speech moves on to a theme very different than that expressed in the speech of Seti.

And Wenennefer is Re at the crack of dawn, every day: KRI I 191.6-7.

80 “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 9-10; and Caulfeild, The Temple of the Kings at Abydos, 3 and 14 (Petrie). In The Cenotaph of Seti I I, 24-5 the three editors (Frankfort, de Buck, and Gunn) disputed this hypothesis. They presented a theory that this building was constructed at the same time as the temple in front of it, and also recognized that the latter edifice is extremely abnormal in layout.

81 Ramesses II surely had the workers use the same hieratic papyrus roll that contained the speech of Thoth to carve it on the southern wall of Abydene temple. In this case, however, the text is spoken by Seshat.

A temple calendar was also carved in the same area, just as many years later Ramesses III placed his calendar on the southern wall of Medinet Habu. (The last king was merely following the plan of the Ramesseum, and in fact used most of the hieratic Vorlage for his festival calendar.)

The location of Ramesses II’s inscription was to the immediate west of the west side door, and thus forms an

Corridor speech of Thoth as only Seti and the underworld god are involved.

The interweaving of royalty with pious duty of a son is present in both of these inscriptions. Even if the work on the Cenotaph forced the altera-tion of the architectural design of Seti’s temple, a point that was first made with great clarity by Zippert, the connection of Horus to Osiris was maintained.80 In his cultic act recorded at the end of the Dedicatory Inscription, Ramesses presents a personal and emotionally charged scenario that strongly emphasizes these concepts, and the inher-ent differences between both accounts overtly reveal themselves in the role of Seti, the father. In the Dedicatory Inscription the entire situation is one of Ramesses imploring his father to speak on his behalf to Re-Harachty and Wenennefer. In the other text Re has already seen the benefac-tions of the king; hence, he is the primal mover in that composition. Both deities remain separate and independent.81

The function of Thoth as scribal deputy deserves more than a brief glance. Quaegebeur has brought into focus the activities of the god with respect to various funerary texts, especially that of the Books of Respirations.82 (There have

been problems in identifying the “writer” or

heb sed festivals, factors that must be connected

to the locality of the inscriptions.78

Stairway Corridor Dedicatory Inscription

Speech of Thoth Speech of Seti

1. Re and his deputy scribe Thoth 1. Seti is the actor; he has

are the actors. been awakened and is a

ba.

2 Re with Thoth reflects on Seti’s 2. Seti speaks with Re; the

deeds. The gods in heaven and deeds of Ramesses are re-

underworld are pleased. lated.

3. Seti asks for favors from

Re on behalf of Ramesses.

They are granted. Thoth

writes them down; the

Ennead is in acclamation.

3. Thoth descends to the under- 4. Seti meets Wenennefer in

world and meets Wenennefer. the underworld. Horus

The latter is awake because of (that is Ramesses) has

Seti’s nfrw. woken him up.

The benefactions are then listed. Wenennefer is happy

Wenennefer notes the results of because of Ramesses’ good

Seti’s actions and he emphasizes deeds. He grants the king

the excellent results that have the attributes of a success-

come to pass.79 The ba of Re ful kingship and reflects

passes over Wenennefer and he upon the results of Re’s simi-

sees the sun god. lar act.

The similarity between the two accounts should

be obvious. Ramesses has roused Seti, and Seti

has done the same for Wenennefer. But there is

no strong father-son constellation in the Stairway

religious and historical implications 99

39 (2002): 173-95. Note as well, Colette J. Manouvrier, Ramsès: le dieu et les dieux ou La théologie politique de Ramsès II I (Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 1996), 168-71.

85 A helpful study on this matter with regard to the Ptolemaic temple of Edfu will be found in Sylvie Cauville, La théologie d’Osiris à Edfou (Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1983), 187-9; see pages 190-3 for the location of Osiris in the temple of Edfu.

Add the pertinent comments of Hornung in “Black Holes Viewed from Within: Hell in Ancient Egyptian Thought,” 136 where he refers to the sixth hour in the Amduat text: the cadaver of Osiris is also the cadaver of Re. Hornung also laid emphasis upon an identical conception in the Litany of the Sun, lines 176-8 (Das Buch der Anbetung des Re im Westen II, 83)

86 Willems, “The Shu-Spells in Practice,” in The World of the Coffin Texts: Proceedings of the Symposium Held on the Occasion of the 100th birthday of Adriaan de Buck, Leiden, December 17-19, 1992 (ed. Harco Willems; Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1996), 197-209 presents a help-ful reinterpretation. He centers his remarks upon the role on the Shu priest as the deceased’s son, the mythological interpretation of the social pattern, and the deceased as a rejuvenated being in the role of Horus, who then sustains Osiris.

87 “The Embalmer Embalmed,” 359-64.88 “The Social and Ritual Context of a Mortuary Lit-

urgy,” 370-2. He ably resolved the apparent difficulty of Horus sending a form of Horus to Osiris in Spell 312, a “dramatic composition.” Spells 30-41 (a liturgy) provide the schema outlined here.

distinction “Books of Isis” versus “Books of Thoth” rests on a false antithesis as it is based on a misreading of titles based on two possible ways of abbreviating “document made (= written) by Thoth for Isis” as “Thoth document” or “Isis document.” Hence, there is no change in substance as argued by some Egyptologists.

83 For the deity Seshat and her close connection to Thoth (and the Ished tree), see Budde’s Die Göttin Seschat, cited and referred to in the particular context of Seti’s temple in Chapter I notes 2 and 24 above. The connection with Isis is covered on pages 163-9 of her work.

Nonetheless, Dominique Bastin, “De la fondation d’un temple: ‘Paroles dites par Seshat au Roi Sethi Ier’,” (see Chapter I note 24) provides the details pertinent to our analysis.

84 “The Embalmer Embalmed” and “The Social and Ritual Context of a Mortuary Liturgy.” There are some interesting points to be found in Dieter Müller’s old analysis in “Die Zeugung durch das Herz in Religion und Medizin der Ägypter,” Or 35 (1966): 267-69. But the summary in Hornung, Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many (trans. John Baines; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982), 93-96 remains standard: union of Re and Osiris (Middle and New Kingdoms). Cf. his The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife (trans. David Lorton; Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1999), 142 ( fig. 86: tomb of Nefertari, wife of Ramesses II); add Winfred Barta, “Osiris als Mutterleib des unterweltlichen Sonnengottes in den Jenseitsbüchern des Neuen Reiches,” JEOL 29 (1985-86): 98-105 where the key lexical items are presented; and now Heather Lee McCarthy, “The Osiris Nefertari: A Case Study of Decorum, Gender, and Regeneration,” JARCE

This aspect is reflected in our two Abydos texts

as well as in other New Kingdom material, espe-

cially those compositions dated to the Ramesside

Period.85 Moreover, the expected Horus-Osiris

constellation is very frequent. The father is asleep

and the son awakens him. In the Shu spells the

passive (dead) god is Atum and the active one his

son Shu.86 According to Willems, it is Re who

plays the major role in the merging of Re and

Osiris during the night. Hence, these concepts

are closely related to the same theological ideas

prevalent in the Dedicatory Inscription and the

speech of Thoth.87 I do not have to present a

lengthy discussion of this matter as Willems has

written a fine overview of the matter. Suffice it

to say that Re brings Osiris to life. In the Thoth

speech it is Re who is the mover and not Wenen-

nefer, whereas in the Seti speech the dead father

does all the pleading, to Re in this case.

Willems’ extremely useful analysis can help

us clarify matters even more. He set up two

schemas:88

1. Living son (Horus) acts upon dead father (Osiris).

2. a. Living son (Horus) acts upon dead father (Osiris); dead father then becomes a re- vived father (Horus).

“creator” of these religious texts.) In the funer-

ary literature of the Late Period he showed that

Thoth, Re, and Isis were all too frequently con-

nected. Some refer to a decree of (Amun-)Re in

favor of Osiris or the deceased. Others frequently

mention Thoth’s role with respect to Osiris. But

in the latter case it is relatively clear that the ibis-

headed god is in the service of the supreme deity.

Quaegebeur summarized the New Kingdom situ-

ation, in which Thoth, being the secretary of Re

(or Amun-Re or Re-Atum), copies out the decree

of the creator god. We can also find this role of

Thoth as an assistant expressed at an earlier time

in the Coffin Texts. Later, however, Isis appears

in the constellation. There is even a close rela-

tionship between Isis and Seshat, a factor that is

of some use in explaining the latter’s speech in

the Stairway Corridor (see below).83 Yet despite

Quaegebeur’s interpretation, Re/Amun/Atum

remains the authority, Thoth writes down the

commands etc., Isis acts as the petitioner request-

ing the document, and Osiris is the beneficiary.

The background to this description bears a fur-

ther look if only because Willems has recently pre-

sented a series of painstaking studies of the Coffin

Text material that are considerably enlightening,

especially in the context of my analysis.84 The

merger of Re and Osiris is one of the themes.

chapter three100

reader should be forewarned that Willems sets the begin-ning of the Egyptian day at sunrise (page 362 note 73). This is not proven.

92 Ibid., 363-4.93 Assmann, Re und Amun, 243-6.94 Ibid., 196.95 Hornung, Der Eine und die Vielen (Darmstadt: Wissen-

schaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1971), 85 (KRI VI 22.16-23.1); see his discussion on pages 85-7 which I follow here.

96 Assmann, Liturgische Lieder, 81, 110-11.97 The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity.

The following discussion is based upon his important analysis. A recent short follow-up is that of Terrence DuQuesne, “Osiris with the Solar Disk,” DE 60 (2004): 21-5.

89 Evidence from the Book of the Gates (Eleventh and Twelfth Hour) is useful to cite in this context: Hornung, Das Buch von den Pforten des Jenseits, I. The following events are important: the raising up (s#È#), then the facing towards the sun (Re), which is followed by seeing the face of Re, and finally the elevation (s#r) of Maat. All of these themes are present in these two speeches, as well as that of Seshat described below.

90 KRI I 191.4/5-6: Épr.tí m dbîw n \r dr smî tî #î. Kitch-en’s excellent translation is “you [Seti] having become the equivalent of Horus since the great internment” (Ramesside Inscriptions: Translations I, 165). The use of dbîw indicates that “replacement” is the core meaning.

91 Willems, “The Embalmer Embalmed,” 360-4. The

occurs between heaven and the underworld comes

to pass in the middle of the night: the unification

of both gods, the unification of the ba and the

mummy.94 Ramesses IV at Abydos, for example,

describes the unified ba as “with one mouth.”95

Both Hornung and Assmann have provided the

evidence for the relatively late synchronism of Re

and Osiris, and the evidence from Dynasty XIX

is clear enough for us to bring into the discussion

these two texts from the Abydos temple of Seti.

In the Dedicatory Inscription Seti “mingles” with

the gods in the sky just as he is with Atum and

Wenennefer. Osiris is the night sun, as the texts

say. Heaven and underworld are set beside one

another as realms separate but at the same time

connected.96

E. The Solar-Osirian Unity

These two religious compositions reverberate

with many ideas that are contained in the Solar-

Osirian unity. This connection is best viewed

from a survey of three large religious composi-

tions recently edited by Darnell.97 Those tractates,

dated to the reigns of Tutankhamun, Ramesses

VI, and Ramesses IX, may in fact derive from late

Dynasty XVIII exemplars if not earlier. By and

large, their theme is the same: Re and Osiris are

united in the afterworld. Darnell argued that the

three treatises are based on a common template

in which the solar-Osirian fusion is the striking

if not paramount theme. The reiteration of the

living Re as Horus emerging from the corpse of

Osiris must form the fundamental substructure

which lay underneath many of the images and

religious motifs prevalent in the Abydene texts.

Moreover, the role of Amun-Kamutef, also noted

by Darnell, fits perfectly with our texts.98 The uni-

fied Re-Osiris remains in the netherworld, just as

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

This is essentially the same situation in the Dedi-

catory Inscription. In that composition the living

son is Ramesses and the dead father is Seti, who

is in his temple also equated with Osiris. Seti

is awakened and then acts for his son.89 The

father meets with Re-Harachty in heaven (Re

role) and then Wenennefer in the underworld

(Wenennefer-Osiris role). In the inscription the

dead father, now “alive,” reports that Wenennefer

has been woken up: “Behold… [Horus ?] caused

him to awake by recalling your goodness.” As the

“your” refers to Ramesses, the latter cannot be

the “Horus.” Therefore, we are faced with a situ-

ation identical to that explained by Willems. His

analysis of the funerary liturgy CT spells 30-41

show the father as the active partner who deals

with the dead god Osiris.

This is in contrast to the role of Re in the

speech of Thoth. There, the sun god leaves

heaven and eventually meets Wenennefer in the

underworld. Seti already has awakened the latter,

and the equation of the dead king with Horus is

indicated.90 But the meeting of Re and Wenen-

nefer in the same speech can be found in the

Coffin Texts as well.91 Willems mentioned the

familiar theme of the merger of Re and Osiris

during the night. The meeting takes place in

the eastern horizon and so the event must have

occurred around sunrise. The merging of the two

in which “the one with the two bas came into

being,” and a further spell (CT 75) reveals that

such events involved the transmission of kingship

and not merely the mummification of the dead

father and his royalty.92

The double role of Re and Wenennefer were

part and parcel of the Ramesside Period. Next to

heaven and the ba we find the underworld and

the mummy.93 The most secret of all things that

religious and historical implications 101

Die Göttin Seschat and our comments on her important role cited in Chapter I notes 2 and 24. She provides a good backdrop to aspects connected directly to the king, his temple, writing, and his rejuvenation. See as well, Domi-nique Bastin “De la fondation d’un temple: ‘Paroles dites par Seshat au Roi Sethi Ier’.”

The sàmw: KRI I 186.11-12 (sàmw-Éw) and 14 (but add the #hmw [written as #àmw] of I 187.1: Hornung, “Der Mensch als ‘Bild Gottes’,” 128—only for gods, but in the books of the underworld used for a divine being); “rejoicing” (186.2 with 190.8); “annals” (gnwt; 187.2 with 189.14); “nurse” (187.16); “awake” (nhsw; 187.5); “enjoyment” (wnf; 187.5 with 190.5); “remember” (sÉî; 187.7 with 190.4-5 and 192.6; cf. KRI II 335.10) and “elevating beauty” (s#rt nfrw: 186.10 with 189.10).

For the references to images in Ramesses II’s temple at Abydos, see KRI II 512.3 (sàm-Éw), 512.5-6 (sàm), 514.11 (sàm-Éw), 515.10 (sàm-Éw), 532.2-3 (sàm), 532.8 (sàm), and 541.15 (sàm-Éw).

98 Darnell, ibid., 322. Kamutef is the primeval form of Amun; see the recent comments of Tamás Bács, “A Royal Litany in a Private Context,” MDAIK 60 (2004): 6 and note 26.

99 Darnell, ibid., passim, especially pages 101, 160-2, 245, 322, 347, and 359.

100 Ibid., 347. Darnell explicitly refers to the speech of Thoth/Seshat to the king in Seti’s I’s Abydene temple on page 434 (note 40) of his work; see his brief comments on page 279 note 18. Budde, Die Göttin Seschat, is more detailed.

101 Hornung, “Echnaton und die Sonnenlitanei,” BSEG 13 (1989): 65-8. He also refers to the well-known crypto-graphic protocol of Seti I in his Abydos temple: Étienne Drioton, “Les protocoles ornementaux d’Abydos,” RdE 2 (1936):2 (doorway to hall of Sokar and Nefertem) with KRI I 170.2—the falcon headed sun god is Sokar-Osiris.

102 KRI I 185.14-188.7.103 For Seshat- Sefkhtabwy in this connection, see Budde,

à-vis Osiris. The compositions also reveal different

viewpoints on the concept of Osiris-Wenennefer

at the temple of Seti. And if the emphasis placed

by Ramesses on his filial duty to his father is

overpowering in the Dedicatory Inscription, it

nevertheless did not “interfere” with the religious

viewpoints concerning Re, Osiris, and their asso-

ciation. The dating of the Dedicatory Inscription

and Thoth’s speech fits well with the apparent

“sudden” return of this Osiris-Re equation under

the reign of Seti I, a theological viewpoint that also

can be seen in the Litany to the sun god Re.101

That religious text, which is known to us as early

as Thutmose III and his vizier Useramun, subse-

quently disappears in Dynasty XVIII royal tombs

only to “reemerge” under Seti. In other words,

a major theological tractate that stresses Re plus

Osiris became prevalent again in a royal setting

around the same time that Seti’s inscriptions in

the Stairway Corridor were carved.

A third text of Seti, also located in the Stairway

Corridor but on the north wall, can be brought

into the discussion.102 Traditionally, this compo-

sition and the accompanying figures have been

dated to the regency period owing to its raised

relief. It is Seshat-Sefkhtabwy, the companion

and sister of Thoth, who now addresses king Seti.

The same basic orientation of the Thoth speech

and the ending of the Dedicatory Inscription is

presented. Not unexpectedly, a similar vocabulary

can be found: the sàmw image, “rejoicing,” the

“annals,” the use of the word “nurse” as in the

Dedicatory Inscription, the verb “awake,” “enjoy-

ment,” “remember,” and “elevating beauty.”103

The goddess reports to Seti that everything is

perfect. The Pharaoh has performed wonderful

deeds and the gods are happy, in particular Re

Seti I does.99 But Re as Horus is resurrected from

the corpse of Osiris. In the cryptographic text in

the tomb of Ramesses IX “Re places the Pharaoh

with him, that the king might enquire after him

… yet it is Osiris after whom one enquires.”100

Our Abydene texts refer to this same concept.

Finally, in the concluding scene within the same

tractate the ithyphallic Osiris represents the emer-

gent solar-Osirian unity when Re and Osiris are

mystically united at the eastern horizon.

Temporally speaking, the three New Kingdom

royal compositions analyzed by Darnell precede

and follow the Abydene inscriptions. How far

each of them represents a more developed con-

centration of Egyptian religious thought than

what was present in the pre-Amarna period of

Dynasty XVIII must remain an open question.

Notwithstanding earlier intellectual antecedents—

see Willems’ research on this matter as well as

Darnell’s later contribution—a developed and

well-organized series of religious conceptions con-

cerning the fusing of Re and Osiris was present

at the time that Ramesses II visited Abydos. I

assume that the locality and the cult of Osiris

was the automatic catalyst for the Stairway Cor-

ridor text of Seti and the somewhat later report

of Ramesses II in his Dedicatory Inscription. See,

for example, the clear-cut designation of Osiris

as Re in the Staircase text of Thoth—“You have

caused him to appear at very dawn as Re.” But

that such ideas can be found in the Theban mor-

tuary region both earlier and later is worthy of

mention.

Both texts, the Dedicatory and the one in the

Stairway Corridor, present this important reli-

gious viewpoint. The interlacing between the two

helps us to focus upon the role of the sun god vis-

chapter three102

444-6. We meet the problem that this chapel is called a Èwt kî as well as a “Temple of Millions of Years.”

109 KRI I 112.3; see Schott, ibid., 22 and 72-6.110 E.g., in the speech of Seshat: KRI I 186.14; additional

references may be found in note 112 below.111 Cf. KRI I 167.14-15 (Doorway dedication).112 KRI I 110.1, 112.4, and 114.11. (KRI I 114.2 refers

to the sàmw of Osiris at the mound of Behdet.)In passing let me reemphasize once more the com-

munality of vocabulary: sÉî (KRI I 112.10, 113.2, 113.13); wtt (restored; 112.10); gnwt (114.12); phr + “heart” (113.12, 114.1); wnf (114.1). We can add the all-important theme of Ramesses I as a “god” when he appears (112.3; i.e., when the statue of Ramesses appears).

104 KRI I 187.10-11: hnhn ntrw r-gs.k ntk w# ím.sn with the circumstantial addition of íw.k #î mí R # m Èrt mí Wnn-nfr m dwît. Once more the duality of Re (heaven) and Wenennefer (underworld) is made obvious. But Seti is with both gods.

105 In this context see Budde, Die Göttin Seschat, 145 (regarding KRI I 188.1) where she has a translation differ-ent than Kitchen’s.

106 The description commences with the “here and now,” not with heaven.

Seshat also refers to Seti’s statues in KRI I 186.16.107 KRI I 187.13.108 Schott, Der Denkstein Sethos’ I. für die Kapelle Ramses’ I. in

Abydos. A brief yet useful study of this complex is presented by Harvey in his “The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos,”

complementary distribution in space (north and

south wall of the Stairway Corridor), but also due

to their textual similarities.

Lest I be misunderstood, I believe that all three

Abydene compositions indicate the same religious

event. Whether or not a specific ceremony took

place that connects them together is another

matter. The Dedicatory Inscription describes

the statue (sàmw) of Seti reinvigorated by his son

Ramesses. There, the movement of cultic activ-

ity involves son and father. In the two Stairway

Corridor speeches the aim also focuses upon Seti

even if the divine setting (or religious background)

of the speeches of Thoth and Seshat indicate a

time before Seti’s death when Ramesses was not

sole ruler. One has to wait for his independent

kingship in order that the father-son constellation

take place. The latter is, after all, the underlying

theme of the Dedicatory composition.

In the Chapel of Ramesses I at Abydos similar

ideas pervade.108 In this case, however, the date

of the construction followed the major building

activity of Seti. Here, Seti narrates that he built

this memorial chapel to the north of his temple.109

(The cult of Ramesses I came to pass after he had

died.) But with the Abydene temple of Seti it is

self-evident that some type of royal cult existed

previously to the king’s decease. Otherwise, how

could we explain the references to a sàmw image

of his in texts predating the Dedicatory Inscrip-

tion?110 A fortiori, observe that in one inscription,

located in the chamber of Osiris and carved at a

time before his death, Seti is a god.111 The com-

munality of royal cult images, nonetheless, can

be seen. In the Chapel of Ramesses I the king’s

statue is a sàmw; in Seti’s temple the same word

is repeated many times with respect to the king’s

images.112

and Wenennefer. Lastly, the gods are “beside

Seti” and he is, in fact, “one of them.”104

The “action” of the set piece or, to be more

precisely, the descriptive setting links up with the

preceding two accounts:

Seshat reports on the completion of the 1. temple.She describes the work, but from a viewpoint2. mainly concerned with the planning and execution and not the physical labor involved.Seshat further adds that the economic and 3. spirit ual organizations of the edifice are now running smoothly.Re “in his forms” (4. Éprw) is repeatedly born inthis temple, and his “mysterious image” (sàm.f àtî) remains there.The cultic paraphernalia are also in order.5. Seti is a king in his temple. He awakens Osiris6. (the “weary of heart,” wrd-íb), but also revives the inhabitants of the underworld.Seshat likens Seti to Re in heaven and Wenen-7. nefer in the underworld. She interestingly com-pares him to Amun and Geb. Seti is also one of the gods.Seshat writes down what the chief deity Re 8. has commanded. Her role is thus parallel to Thoth’s.105

Earth is happy and so is the underworld. 9. Abydos as well is overjoyed.106

At the conclusion Seshat sends a greeting 10. to Seti from Atum.

The speech of Seshat complements that of her

“brother” Thoth. But its ritual activity emerges

when we read “Life to your nose!” in line 28.107

The statue of Seti has been awoken. Is it not the

case that the same rite, reported in the Dedica-

tory Inscription, had to have taken place when

the ritual priest spoke the account of Thoth and

also the address of Seshat. The latter two texts

must belong together, not only owing to their

religious and historical implications 103

117 Fisher, The Sons of Ramesses II I, 45 (b., the Sokar bark scene).

118 I have already placed great emphasis upon the role of these two deities with respect to the “baptism” of Pharaoh and the “annals” (gnwt).

119 Religious Ritual at Abydos, 213-16.120 KRI I 192.14.121 Let us not forget that Thoth is also connected to the

Ished Tree; see Chapter I note 2. The scene of that event is, of course, juxtaposed to the Dedicatory Inscription.

113 La grande salle hypostyle de Karnak, 3-4 and 119-22. Cf. Ramesses II’s tomb: Chapter II note 119.

114 See KRI I 188.9: “Invocation by prince-regent (shown as King).”

115 Murnane, “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 162 and 165. He states that Ramesses is “king” here.

116 Ibid., 165 with note 37. The key inscriptions are in KRI II 509.7-511.4 (Corridor of the Bull). Fisher, The Sons of Ramesses II I, 28 and 43-6, discussed some of these scenes.

the regency period nonetheless connects a king

Ramesses to the cult of his father. In particular,

I can point out the Speech of Thoth as well as the

second inscription in the same corridor, Seshat’s

address.118 Moreover, the words of Thoth on the

south wall connect neatly with the latter portion of

the Dedicatory Inscription, and the goddess She-

sat’s on the north wall provides helpful parallels

in vocabulary. These three compositions betray

the mark of a single overriding purpose. Indeed,

the two speeches, each located at the eastern half

of their respective walls in the Stairway Corridor,

link up with the final phase of Seti’s decorative

program. But the hardest nut to crack, and one

which David could not resolve, is the exact date

of these raised relief depictions.

In this context it is instructive to examine

further David’s conclusions with regard to the

dating of the Stairway Corridor.119 She observed

the presence of Ramesses II on both the north

and south walls. He is offering to the Ennead

and Isis in both cases, but on the north wall we

find Isis whereas the south has Maat. (The con-

nection between the goddess and Truth is well

known.) But her analysis overlooked the connec-

tion of the Maat scene with that of the Dedicatory

Inscription. Furthermore, David tended to waver

in her belief whether Ramesses, at the time of

the completion of Seti’s temple, may or may not

have been a sole ruler. Yet we must keep in mind

that on the south wall of the Stairway Corridor

Ramesses II is depicted in “full-royal dress,” to

quote Kitchen.120

Most certainly, the close interweaving between

Thoth’s speech to Seti and Ramesses’ own one to

his father in the Dedicatory Inscription cannot be

overlooked. Indeed, only Ramesses’ role as one

who offers is the clear mark of differentiation.121

In both, the vocabulary is highly formalized with

much duplication of words. The two compositions

also possess vocabularies that are close in spirit

to each other. In fact, the positioning of these

inscriptions is very significant. Physically, we are

F. Timing

The dating of the raised reliefs in Seti’s Stairway

Corridor needs more careful analysis in light of

Rondot’s study of the architraves in the Hypos-

tyle Court at Karnak.113 In his analysis, Rondot

proved that one major dating criterion relating

to Ramesses that Egyptologists have hitherto

used (-s(w) > -sw) has to be revised somewhat.

In addition, the prenomen Wsr-mî#t-R# alone is

to be found. Rondot further noticed the use of

raised and also sunken relief during the reign of

Seti I, and he thereby concluded that two sepa-

rate groups of artisans were involved in the work

at Karnak. Once more a clear-cut differentia-

tion in time between raised and bas-relief cannot

be made; some of Ramesses’ texts still used the

older raised style. Chronologically, Rondot’s work

revealed that it is no longer possible to argue the

equations of: all sunken relief = Ramesses II, all

raised relief = Seti I, and -s(s) > -s(w). Hence, it

appears impossible to establish a sharp temporal

differentiation between “regency” and “sole rule”

solely on the basis of these artistic and inscrip-

tional details.

The scenes in the Stairway Corridor tend to

conform to his analysis. We have already men-

tioned that the sculpture is in raised relief. But

Ramesses appears as a king (i.e., regent) and not

merely as a crown prince.114 The only support for

a regency in these reliefs is the use of raised relief

and his cartouche, which is devoid of epithets.115

But unlike the scenes of Ramesses II with Seti in

the Corridor of Lists (Corridor X), in this area

Ramesses is alone. Even Murnane pointed out

that there were places in this rear (and south)

part of the temple where Ramesses used sunken

relief with the final prenomen.116

Fisher dated one section of these scenes of

Ramesses II to around year two of the Pha-

raoh. This is a depiction which she placed into

a “transitional style” from Seti to his son.117 It is

significant that the area presumed to belong to

chapter three104

Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 163 ( fig. 5 b): Wsr-mî#t-R# R #-ms-s(w).

127 Murnane, ibid., 162; the same conclusion is made by Seele, The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I, 48. See now Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 164 and his comments that “the Gallery of Kings was among the last portion of the temple to be decorated before Seti’s death, and its southern end remained uncarved” (page 170).

128 KRI I 188.9-14. Note the spelling of the prenomen; cf. Murnane, “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 162 and 165. See Brand, The Monu-ments of Seti I, 166—Seti may have completed the vignettes that contained the speeches of Thoth and Seshat-Sefekhtabwy but two other scenes and a titulary “in the chamber” point to Ramesses II as Pharaoh.

129 See note 116 above for the references.

122 The Sons of Ramesses II, 28. I am frankly somewhat con-fused by this analysis and the following on pages 43-6.

123 Caulfeild, The Temple of the Kings at Abydos, P. XXV.

124 The following discussion depends upon the analysis of Baines, “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 145-57. We can add his earlier remarks in “Abydos, Temple of Sethos I: Preliminary Report,” 18-21 concerning the Upper Gallery (painted decoration in the reign of Seti I).

See as well the important analysis of Brand, The Monu-ments of Seti I, 164-6.

125 KRI I 177.10, 179.10 and 15. In the three cases the prince is sî nswt smsw and íry-p#t. His name is spelled as R#-ms-s(w) (KRI I 177.10 with 179.15) and R#-ms-sw (KRI I 179.10).

126 KRI I 180.8 with Murnane, “The Earlier Reign of

The three significant places at the rear (south-

west) of this temple that were to be decorated and

later carved are as follows:124

a. Gallery of Kings b. Stairway Corridor c. Corridor of the Bull.

A summary of the data contained in each helps

to clarify the intricate chronological problems of

dating. The first shows Ramesses and Seti offering

to their predecessors. The former is depicted as a

prince and designated heir, and his name is not in

a cartouche.125 On his robe, however, we find in

sunken relief the earlier prenomen plus nomen and

the expected cartouches.126 Murnane concluded

that Ramesses was already king “since the sash, as

an element of the figure’s dress, is apparently an

integral part of the original decoration.” Brand,

writing somewhat later, asserted that Ramesses

did this minor work here “sometime after year

two.”127

The second of the three, the Stairway Cor-

ridor, contains raised relief. On the north wall

Ramesses’ name is in a cartouche (Wsr-mî#t-R#)

and he offers to his father.128 The correspond-

ing south wall lacks the cartouches owing to the

poor state of preservation, and we have already

signaled the royal nature of Ramesses. Hence,

there is little doubt that this area was carved after

the first, notwithstanding the cartouches on the

sash. The full name Wsr-mî#t-R# Stp-n-R# is not

present.

The final carving in the third area is definitely

to be dated to the reign of Ramesses after the

death of his father; the relief is sunken. Ramesses’

crown prince Amunherkhepeshef is present.129

He is now a sî smsw. The reliefs were originally

intended for Seti but obviously some delay

at the exact point when one is about to leave the temple and enter the rear (western) yard that sur-rounds the Cenotaph of Seti. This might provide the reason why this back area was not carved until very late. That is to say, not until Seti died was it required to engrave these texts here. Otherwise, we would have to posit a reason why this area was left blank until the very end of the decoration program. It has to be indicated, however, that the southern extension of the temple was the last to be carved, even if this final task was never com-pleted. Nevertheless, in Seti’s temple it is a “rule” that both the architectural and carving program on the main axis moved generally from rear to front, a point made many years ago by Zippert, who in turn followed Mariette. I have no difficulty in viewing a continuance of raised relief at the commencement Ramesses’ reign as sole ruler. That this swiftly was altered to sunken relief is another matter. Perhaps Fisher’s brief comment is worthwhile to quite here: “it was important for a king to complete the work of his father early in his reign in order to maintain continuity.”122

Difficulties in dating the Thoth speech as well as the accompanying scene on the northern wall of the Stairway Corridor have been mentioned. If the use of carving (raised relief ) and the presence of Ramesses’ early cartouche in the scene where he offers before Seti and Isis (son to father and mother) are taken into consideration, then a date in the final year of Seti’s life can be argued. More-over, the connection to the Cenotaph cannot be overlooked if only because the western exit from the temple can be found right here. (Petrie spe-cifically indicated this in his hypothetical original design of the temple.)123 The association of this corridor to the cult of the dead Seti in addition to the father (Seti)-son (Ramesses) connection is

therefore understandable.

religious and historical implications 105

in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 146-7, and “Recording the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos in Egypt,” 88-91. Fig. 6 on page 85 in the last article provides an excellent case where the partly sunken relief (reign of Ramesses II as sole Pharaoh) is present, but the entire scene (originally painted under Seti I) was not completed. As Baines makes clear, the king is actually a composite figure of two Pharaohs that combines the original layout in paint of Seti with the subsequent sunken relief carving of Ramesses. (He also refers to “pious reeditions” of Seti’s work by Ramesses II.) Note, as well, the incomplete series of sunken hiero-glyphic inscriptions. The more difficult signs were left in paint probably to be carved later by a more experienced master supervisor.

138 “Colour Use and the distribution of relief and paint-ing in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 146-7. He main-tains that this room was “probably never painted.” Time, clearly, was at a premium. The specific evidence for the dating is that the name (cartouche) of Seti was carved in sunken relief.

139 The evidence might be refuted if one maintains that Ramesses, as sole ruler, left the original design in place. That is to say, the later designers did not alter the original plan.

140 Ibid., 148 with KRI I 188.9.

130 Fisher, The Sons of Ramesses II I, 28. She points out the preliminary grids and designs, a point that Zippert made in 1931.

131 Ibid., 44; she states that this was “the original design.” But the captions are definitely associated with Amunherkhepeshef.

132 Ibid., 45.133 “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting

in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 145-57, with “Record-ing the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos in Egypt,” 82-4. His research may be read in tandem with Brand, The Monuments of Seti I, 164-6; and Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 15-17.

134 Baines, “Abydos, Temple of Sethos I: Preliminary Report,” 18-21.

135 “Colour use and the distribution of relief and paint-ing in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 151 (sunk relief style under Ramesses II).

136 Ibid., 146. Earlier, in “Recording the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos in Egypt,” 84 he felt that this cartouche indicates a date that “probably spans the death of Sethos I.”

The cartouche is the one in raised relief that we dis-cussed earlier; see KRI I 188.9 or note 128 above for the reference.

137 “Abydos, Temple of Sethos I: Preliminary Report,” 24-8; “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting

Dedicatory Inscription, was left to the side in the

analysis of Baines.

Providing even more grist for the mill, Baines

presented details concerned with the stages of

painting and carving at the Abydos temple of

Seti. In the Hall of Barques, for example, the

provisional painting accomplished under the reign

of Seti was then replaced by the sunken relief

work by Ramesses.137 Furthermore, the South-

east Court reveals the use of sunken relief at “the

end of the reign of Sety I.”138 The revelation that

some of this sunken carving might be dated to

the elder ruler throws unexpected light upon one

assumption made by previous scholars concerning

a regency period. Namely, that all raised relief

work dates either to the reign of Seti or else to the

regency with his son, Ramesses II. This has now

been argued not to be the case at Abydos.139

To recapitulate the conclusions of Baines. He

felt that four areas were left unfinished at the

death of Seti. The southern extension of the Stair-

way Corridor is one in which the use of raised

relief with a cartouche of Ramesses II is present.140

There, as we have seen, Ramesses is depicted as

king. The scene needs further explication as the

accompanying speech of Seshat is joined to it.

Ramesses presents an offering to his father. The

latter is seated with Isis and behind them is the

Ennead. The son addresses his father in seven

columns of speech that are directed to the left.

(The hieroglyphs run from the left to the right

and are set in the area of the young ruler.) The

occurred, not the least was the architectural re-

arrangement of this area.130 Noteworthy is the

incomplete nature of the bull-lassoing scene on

the north wall. Apparently the presence of the son

was not originally intended, and Fisher has argued

that originally we would have Ramesses II with

his father Seti I.131 The Sokar bark scene on the

north wall is dated by her to the second year of

Ramesses; his eldest son is also present.132 Last,

the fowling scene has the new Pharaoh Ramesses

and his son once more.

Baines’ recent reevaluation of the use of color

and painting in conjunction with the style of carv-

ing allows a more sophisticated (and hence more

detailed) appreciation of these “late” areas. The

sequence and dating listed above, nonetheless,

remain the same.133 First, the use of raised relief

carving in the northern end of the Gallery of

Kings is seen to be late Seti I.134 This fits perfectly

with the last work of Seti I at this temple. (The

southern end reveals provisional decoration with

some relief carving.). The Corridor of the Bull

witnessed raised relief work under Seti I on the

architraves. Later, Ramesses II commissioned his

artists to recommence the carving after his father

had died.135 The date of the Stairway Corridor is

recognized by Baines as encompassing both “the

end of the reign of Sety I and the very begin-

ning of Ramesses II’s reign.”136 The historian will

note that the question of the regency between the

two Pharaohs, though extremely important for

any reconstruction of the events surrounding the

chapter three106

upon the relationship between Seti and Re/Wenennefer. Therefore, none are truly “mythological.” See as well Domi-nique Bastin “De la fondation d’un temple: ‘Paroles dites par Seshat au Roi Sethi Ier’.”

145 Seele, The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I, 47, fol-lowing Zippert. Kitchen supports this contention as well: Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 194.

146 The nomen is R#-ms-s(s). I am aware of Murnane’s comments with respect to the sunken relief of the prenomen and nomen on the robe of the prince in “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency with Sety I,” 163, figure 5b. This will be covered immediately below.

147 “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Core-gency with Sety I,” 162.

148 “Colour use and the distribution of relief and paint-ing in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 148.

149 See in particular his analysis in “Recording the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos in Egypt,” 82-92.

141 KRI I 188.8-9.142 KRI I 192.15 augmented by Mariette, Abydos I, 51b

whom I follow.143 KRI I 188.12-13. The Ennead states: “You indeed

are the Horus who avenged his father, the representative of Geb, the heir (smsw), …..” Whatever we consider his true role at this point, these designations appear to indicate that Ramesses was still a “junior.”

144 But the accounts of all three do not fit Otto’s remarks concerning myths and mythology in his Das Verhältnis von Rite und Mythus im Ägyptischen (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1958). Instead, they provide a background in short narrative struc-tures. In the Dedicatory Inscription they explain the relation-ship of the dead Seti to his son and present an afterworld approach to Seti’s connection to the key gods of heaven (the sun god) and of the afterworld (Wenennefer). These words describe Seti’s role as a resuscitated being (and as a ba) and they also show his activity with the gods for his son. In the Stairway Corridor the speeches concentrate

Ramesses is depicted as a king in the Stair-(b) way Corridor.The texts of Thoth and Seshat connect with (c) the Dedicatory Inscription. All three reflect a similar quasi-mythological backdrop embed-ded within a Solar-Osirian setting.144

Ramesses II had already begun work at his (d) own temple at Abydos before Seti died.145

When king Seti and his son invoke the royal (e) ancestors in the Gallery of Kings, Ramesses lacks the cartouche around his name in the texts.146 He is still a prince and not yet a king.

There is no proof that the sunken cartouches

plus prenomen and nomen of Ramesses in (e)

were carved at the same time as the relief. We

can assume this, but a definitive conclusion is

impossible to make without a scientific analysis

of this small carving. On the other hand, the use

of sunken relief in the Southeast Court might

appear to indicate that Seti I was alive when this

style was introduced in his temple. Hence, the

use of sunken relief as a firm and infallible cri-

terion for these chronological matters should no

longer be held.

Murnane, in the discussion of the name of

Ramesses on his robe in the Gallery of Kings,

maintained that the sunken relief of the king’s

name on his robe was an integral part of the

design of the original decoration.147 But as we

have seen, following the later research of Baines,

this a priori reasoning is moot. Let us remember

his analysis of Ramesses’ name on the fans in the

Chapel of Osiris.148 There are two tiny painted

cartouches that were added later to the Seti I

raised relief. Baines also described a number of

additional retouchings under Ramesses but after

his father’s death.149 Indeed, 1erný observed later

Ennead presents its joint oral presentation separate from the words of Ramesses, and the hieroglyphs run right to left above the nine gods. These gods respond to Ramesses because of the beneficent deeds that he has performed for his father Seti. Except for the presence of raised relief there is nothing to indicate an incontrovertible joint rule between Ramesses and Seti. Kitchen significantly noted the role of the younger man by writing that he is “Prince-Regent” and “shown as a King.”141 The figure of Seshat is directed towards Seti as well, and her depiction with the notched staffs linked with the heb sed sign focuses the activity upon Seti. The depiction with Thoth, located on the south wall, balances this raised relief scene. This god faces Seti, and Isis once more accom-panies the king. The young Ramesses (again as a king) offers to him. The short inscription describ-ing the offering states “[bringing the good god Menmaatre] to his meal.”142 The speech of the Ennead is broken and only three of the deities

can now be seen.

Additional points of comparison among all of

these three locations can now be stated. In a.

and c. the sons Ramesses and Amunherkhepeshef

are provided with crown prince’s titles and the

significant title “hereditary prince.” With b. the

cartouches of Ramesses are in their early form;

owing to this a regency has been argued. This

conclusion receives some support through the

additional remark addressed by the Ennead to

Ramesses: the young man is now the “representa-

tive of Geb” (sîty Gb) and a smsw as well.143 These

five aspects are worth stressing:

Ramesse(a) s offers to his father in the Stair-way Corridor. At first, it would appear that Seti is dead.

religious and historical implications 107

cf. Baines, “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 148. Note that the name on the right example is very abraded.

155 In particular see Calverley, Broome, and Gardiner, ibid., Pls. 6, 7 and 11 (but the presumed name on the fan in last case is impossible to determine).

156 I.e., were they added during the regency period or after Seti’s death?

157 “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 147-50.

158 Ibid., 152.159 Ibid., 152-3.160 To be fair, he never discusses the regency situation,

150 For this example and those immediately following I am dependent upon the collations of Jaroslav 1erný. They may be found in his notebook, Collations of Abydos.

151 This situation already has been discussed by Baines.

152 Baines, “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 147 (and number 4 in his list).

153 Ibid., 148 and 152.154 Calverley, Broome, and Gardiner, The Temple of King

Sethos I at Abydos I, Pls. 6 (no color) and 7. The name is Wsr-mî#t-R# with the -s at the bottom. Pl. 6 shows the presence of the two painted cartouches while Pl. 7 shows only one;

but exactly when they were accomplished is a

thorny point.156

The decorative style in the Southeast Court

was not finished in relief. Following Baines, we

can see that this work was of a provisional nature

and distinguish it from the fully painted raised

relief work in the rear of the temple (west; Osiris

area).157 When this was done is unclear. I concur

with his dating at the end of Seti’s life, if only

as the presence of sunken relief work indicates

a very late phase of activity. (Remember that

Baines felt that this chamber probably was never

painted.) The evidence from the Hall of Barques

indicates that the walls were provisionally painted

but the relief work not accomplished until the

independent reign of Ramesses. If we examine

the southwest area of the building, it is evident

that work continued apace in this corner (paint-

ing mainly) while at the same time the Second

Hypostyle Court saw the artists steadily moving

down the north wall.

Yet the Southeast Court is one that poses the

most severe dating problem. The carving, how-

ever, resembles the work of Ramesses and not

that of Seti.158 Surely either we must conclude

that this area was begun during the presumed

regency or else immediately after Seti’s death.

The problem concerning the inferior nature of

the work—in paint as well as technically and

aesthetically—is one that Baines highlighted.159

But if we recollect Kitchen’s remarks concern-

ing the construction work on Ramesses’ own

temple, then the decline in quality coupled with

the speed of activity (painting and sunken relief )

makes perfect sense. In other words, the workers

had been preoccupied with the northern temple of

Ramesses but suddenly were redirected to Seti’s

by order of the newly crowned monarch. All of

the reasonable evaluations of Baines hinge upon

the acceptance of a regency. If not, then we would

have no qualms in placing most of his singular

examples after the death of Seti.160

hieroglyphic improvements in his copies of the

rear north and the south rooms at this temple.150

Some signs were originally forgotten but added

later; others were not carved in relief but subse-

quently incised. Slight corrections by a master

“checker” may be found in the area of the Inner

Osiris Hall. Rough writings can be spotted as well.

They too were only painted within carved relief.

All in all, it appears that some additions to Seti’s

reliefs were accomplished after he died, and so

we cannot automatically accept the conclusion

of Murnane with respect to his case in the Gal-

lery of Kings.151

The second major problem arises with respect

to the dating of the Southeast Court. There, the

carving in sunken relief probably was not pre-

ceded by painting.152 But as I pointed out earlier, it

is just possible that this carving was accomplished

after the death of Seti—despite the presence of

his cartouche—but before there was a wholesale

switch to sunken relief under Ramesses. Other-

wise, we would have to reject the use of sunken

relief as a criterion for supporting the regency

hypothesis, or at the minimum conclude that the

evidence from this temple of Seti is no longer a

firm buttress for that interpretation.

Baines also covered the parallel situations in

three other locations where it appears that the

work was suspended after Seti’s death. The situ-

ation is clear with regard to the north wall of the

Second Hypostyle Court.153 There, the painting

of the raised relief ceased suddenly. A more prob-

lematic section is the Chapel of Osiris. There

are two miniature cartouches of Ramesses in

one scene as well as another pair. (They are on

fans.) The relief work is Seti’s, and from Baines’

remarks I believe that these two names in paint

(with the early spelling of Wosermaatre)154 were

added after the main scenes had been carved in

raised relief if not painted. Support for this can

be derived from the presence of some sunken

relief in the key scenes wherein Ramesses’ name

is present.155 I believe that these were additions,

chapter three108

tion of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 146-7. The Ante Room saw some later work done by Merenptah.

163 By itself the Seti temple can provide no firm and definitive evidence for a regency. We who propose and argue for a regency must employ the presence of Ramesses as king in this area as a buttress for our arguments.

164 Baines, “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 145-57.

but it is implied. How else could the presence of the raised relief cartouches of Ramesses be explained?: “Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 148. Either one accepts the regency (Ramesses as king with his father) or rejects it.

Manouvrier, Ramsès le dieu et les dieux, 331-3 is not help-ful in this matter.

161 In this case Ramesses’ names (on the fans) appear in paint.

162 Once more see Baines, “Colour use and the distribu-

have to have been carved as Seti intended, but

now in sunken relief. (Ramesses does not appear

there.)

One must then proceed further and conclude

that the Stairway Corridor was then completed

in raised relief in order to allow the presence of

Ramesses as king, but the Corridor of the Bull

partly redrawn. The latter (excluding the archi-

traves which are in raised relief and so deco-

rated under Seti) reveals the use of provisional

painting under Seti replaced by the sunken relief

of Ramesses. Significant, as well, are the other

rooms to the south. There we find the provisional

painting work of Seti in the Ante Room, the two

storerooms which lead off it to the north, and

the Storage Hall.162

How do the above architectural and deco-

rative aspects of Seti’s temple connect with the

three Osirian-Re presentations—end of Dedica-

tory Inscription, speech of Thoth, and speech of

Seshat? Do they have as their intellectual basis a

major ritual performed by Ramesses to his dead

father? The raised relief work in the Stairway

Corridor, for example, could then be argued to

support a date before and after Seti’s death.163

The offerings of Ramesses to Seti in the Stairway

Corridor, however, avoid any depiction of the son

“awakening” his father. Yet this new interpreta-

tion would have to allow for final raised relief

carving in the Stairway Corridor and sunken relief

work in the Southeast Court, a very troublesome

state of affairs. Hence, it seems best to reject the

second hypothesis.

Does the temple of Seti I at Abydos provide

incontrovertible proof for a regency between the

two men? Whereas I believe there was one, the

architectural, sculptural, and textual evidence

cannot, by themselves, prove this historical conten-

tion. The data at Seti’s temple need other sup-

port, and the general state of affairs regarding

the work in progress at Abydos is open to mul-

tiple interpretations if it is treated separate from

other evidence.164 In fact, Ramesses’ words in his

Let me expand upon this interpretation. The

general consensus has been to argue for a regency

of approximately one year. The main support for

this rests upon the use of raised relief (Seti sole

king, then later regency period) and the early

name of Ramesses. By year two the prenomen

is fixed at Wst-mî#t-R# Stp-n-R#. Rondot’s newly

presented data—albeit solely dependent upon the

architraves of Hypostyle Hall at Karnak—indi-

cate a more complicated situation, but one that

still can be accommodated with the presumed

regency period. That is to say, Ramesses’ use of

varying epithets (and -ss) would indicate a transitional

phase, one in which he was king with his father

still alive or else sole ruler. This hypothesis there-

fore covers his first regnal year. The definitive

break can still be placed after the decease of his

father but somewhat later. This conclusion is still

able to be maintained on the basis of the analysis

of Baines, especially with his study of sunken relief

in the Southeast Court, but the older theory of

Seele and others cannot be followed. We have to

argue that some use of sunken relief took place

during the regency period and furthermore that

Ramesses had not decided upon a final writing

of his name during that brief span of time. There

is no other possible solution unless we abandon

entirely the argument for a regency.

For the sake of argument, let us agree with

the second hypothesis and act as a devil’s advo-

cate. The following must be presented. After

visiting Abydos, Ramesses’ craftsmen and art-

ists proceeded quickly with their work at Abydos,

moving to sunken relief, if only because it was

quicker to accomplish than the more laborious

raised relief practice. At the same time additional

inscriptions were altered slightly in order that

the name of Ramesses could appear; e.g., in the

Osiris chamber.161 The ongoing work in the Hall

of Barques was stopped and then rebegun. From

the original provisional painting under Seti almost

all of the unfinished scenes were then carved in

sunken relief. The Southeast Court would then

religious and historical implications 109

168 Jürgen Osing and Gloria Rosati, Papiri geroglifici e Ieratici da Tebtynis (Florence: Istituto Papirologico ‘G. Vitelli,’ 1998), 55-100.

169 Perhaps I should have added at the end of the sen-tence “as we are.” See now Quirke, Egyptian literature 1800 BC: questions and readings.

165 Column 36 in the Dedicatory Inscription, KRI II 326.3.

166 Liturgische Lieder, 15-27.167 See my “Remarks on the Kadesh Inscriptions of

Ramesses II: The ‘Bulletin’,” in Goedicke, Perspectives on the Battle of Kadesh, 43-75.

these texts. It is self-evident that they have been

purposely included within private tombs even

though the latter were not the original setting for

“publication.” A further useful example revealed

by Osing is the presence of Roman papyri copies

of inscriptions found in some Assiut tombs (First

Intermediate Period and Dynasty XII), written

in hieroglyphic (with Roman Period forms) and

arranged in columns and lines as in the origi-

nals.168

One acquires the feeling that the ancient Egyp-

tians were not rigid believers in genres, strict

textual transmission, and textual fidelity.169 Com-

pared to civilizations of the printed word, perhaps

this is true. It is not the case, however, that they

abused their literary (religious or secular) books,

hymns, prayers, and the like. Quite to the con-

trary, as many of them appear to have circulated

within the upper levels of Egyptian society, at

least during the XVIIIth Dynasty, I do not find

it unusual to come across religious texts in places

where “they should not be.” In similar fashion,

the fidelity in reproducing a text has bothered

many. Mistakes have been laid upon lazy scribes,

poor students, damaged exemplars, and so forth.

Furthermore, the inherent problems of textual

transmission throw up, at least in the Egyptologi-

cal world, the conundrum of oral versus written

transmission.

Often it is the case that the historical back-

ground of these literary products is ignored.

Astoundingly, the record of the Battle of Kadesh

is one of these. Remarkable interpretations have

been presented in which the recorded event is

deemphasized by hypercritical literary interpreta-

tions. The campaigns of the Pharaohs provide a

good case in point as it has become apparent in

scholarship that the violent, indeed nasty side of

war coupled with the preening superiority of the

military man have been lost in the dense thicket

of literary criticism.

But if it is necessary to anchor our ship at a

specific point, then by all cases let it be, on first

blush, set at the actual time in which the com-

position was drawn up. In our case, at least six

firm and set conditions are at hand: the time of

the young king Ramesses II, the religious site

Dedicatory Inscription are proved to be correct:

the “front and rear” of the temple were still under

construction when he died.165

G. Format of the Dedicatory Inscription

Up to now and in a somewhat piecemeal fashion

I have analyzed the sections of the composition

on their own merits. The divergent strands of

presentation in the account are all too evident. Is

this inscription a mere pastiche of different liter-

ary approaches, artificially composed from vary-

ing strands of presentations? This question is not

that easy to answer, either in the affirmative or in

the negative. Texts that are preserved often bear

witness to divergent underlying traditions. One

excellent case in point is the corpus of liturgical

songs. Assmann spent a lengthy amount of time

discussing one portion of the Book of the Dead

and its connection to the liturgies of the New

Kingdom.166 He revealed the multi-faceted nature

of the composition. An original but hypothesized

origin lay in the sun cult that was later expanded

to include funerary rites, and finally altered for use

in the corpus of hymns and prayers of the Book

of the Dead. Various religious performances lay

behind this one solitary case. One can mention

the hour ritual, for example, which was trans-

formed into the royal mortuary cult, which in turn

entered the XVIIIth Dynasty recension of the

Book of the Dead. Then too, an unknown ritual

appears to have been utilized, this time turning

up at Seti I’s Cenotaph and later in the Dynasty

XIX to XXI Books of the Dead. In fine, not one

systematic approach to textual composition was

followed by the ancients.

I am of this persuasion and in fact have com-

mented negatively upon the idea that we can

reconstruct an Ur-Text by stemmatics.167 Ass-

mann’s other examples, which he presented in

1969, revealed similar cases of conglomeration,

adoption, borrowing, and transformation, all

within a religious hymnic boundary. The use of

solar hymns in the XVIIIth Dynasty is a further

case in point. A large number of private stelae and

wall inscriptions have preserved which include

chapter three110

171 Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books.172 See once more Assmann, “Weisheit, Loyalismus und

Frömmigkeit,” 27-31, for praises.

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

not have occurred. Instead, the narrative would

have commenced with an expected arrangement

that included the date, epithets, physical setting

(introduced somewhere through íst Èm.f m), and

perhaps opening praises.172 On the contrary, the

author of the inscription preferred to announce

his theme early—through an initial series of com-

pleted deeds of Ramesses—and not start off with

a list of generalized eulogistic royal epithets. To

be sure, speeches are to be expected in “royal

novels.” Still, the ever-present shifts in grammati-

cal presentation coinciding with varying facets

of style in the Dedicatory Inscription must be

kept in mind.

Whereas the joining together of divergent sub-

sections in our text is easy to discern, the actual

historical progression is less so. The reason for

this must be due to the celebratory nature of the

lengthy event. The king arrives, proclaims, and

then acts. The final deeds are reported directly to

his father, and Seti later returns thanks to his son.

Expected, as well, are the wishes of Ramesses and

their completion through the role of his father,

now in the afterworld. Therefore, the account is

not a simple narration of a royal plan, commented

upon by the “folk,” and then set into action. Quite

to the contrary, the Dedicatory Inscription focuses

upon Ramesses with Seti and proceeds to move

to the result as quickly as possible. Whereas the

Berlin Leather Roll indicates the beginning of a

project, for example, this inscription covers a con-

siderable number of temporal aspects.

I have had occasion in this study to turn to the

vexing problem of the copying of texts onto walls

(or stelae), and the Abydos Dedicatory Inscription

is an excellent case in point. Beautifully carved,

regular in format with a well-designed arrange-

ment of hieroglyphs, the composition easily allows

room for two accompanying scenes. It is a master

product of the royal imagination. To be able to

plan and execute a text such as this was no easy

task. Everything fits neatly: signs, pictures, and

words. The text even shows evidence of later

inspection, as there are enough recarvings to

prove that a supervisor went over the entire work

and improved on it, albeit rarely. The excellent

sunken relief of the composition also bears wit-

ness both to the style of Ramesses’ early work

of Abydos, the first year of a sole reign, a blank

wall, the outer part of Seti’s temple, and the use

of the king’s early name. Coupled with these

points are the equally important characteristics

of the father-son constellation, a repetition of

vocabulary (especially with respect to the heart),

the use of the name “Menmaatre” for Seti, and

the presence of singular epithets associated with

Ramesses at the beginning of the composition.

Granted that these tendencies are hallmarks of

a coherent and integrated composition, the situ-

ation remains concerning whether this text can

be viewed as a unity.

The question concerning whether the so-called

“historical” texts of ancient Egypt—in particular

the royal monumental ones—follow a set pattern

is one that has been discussed for over a cen-

tury.170 In Redford’s significant contribution to

the historiography of Pharaonic Egypt one will

find numerous subsections of such compositions

treated with great care and perspicacity.171 Yet

an awareness of the method of composition and

the related aspect of literariness are avoided. Is

it automatically the case that some sections were

part and parcel of a historical account? The so-

called themes that he covers—dissolution and

rebirth is one—need not have been included in

all texts that covered the rise of a new dynasty

or a new king, especially after a war, invasion,

or catastrophe. I side with Kitchen and regard

these divergent thematic units as not necessar-

ily required for a royal presentation. Just as the

military depictions could avoid certain (standard)

aspects—and not merely for reasons of space—

so could the royal hieroglyphic compositions. As

the Dedicatory Inscription reveals, a single text

might allow various strands of presentation and

appear, at least from our point of view, quite

disorganized.

On more than one occasion we have laid

stress upon the additive or composite nature of

Ramesses’ Dedicatory Inscription, pointing out

that its narrative progress was less important than

the focus of attention of the living son to dead

father. For this reason the Königsnovelle elements

are not at all that prominent, apparently serving

to place the historical action within Abydos. If the

style and arrangement of the “royal novel” had

been followed, the lack of an opening date would

religious and historical implications 111

review of Spalinger, The Transformation of an Ancient Egyptian Narrative: P. Sallier III and the Battle of Kadesh, JEA 90 (2004): 45 (Reviews Supplement).

Murnane further placed some importance upon the man’s name: it is a hypocoristic.

175 “The Kingship of the Nineteenth Dynasty,” 200-03.

173 This is why I have brought into the discussion some key inscriptions of Seti I and Ramesses IV, also from Abydos. To combine all of them into a whole would make this study enormous.

174 “Der ‘Geheimnisvolle’ Mehy,” SAK 15 (1988): 143-8. See now Brand’s comments on page 334-55 of his The Monu-ments of Seti I. Yet there remains the intriguing situation of the Mehy of the love poetry; most recently see Kitchen,

and the lineage was but new; barely over one

decade had it ruled the Two Lands.

H. Ramesses, Seti, and Mehy

How much this stress on the father-son relation-

ship has to do with Abydos and how much was

separate—or “real” as some might wonder—can-

not be resolved.173 Lacking is additional material

that could buttress a reasonable working hypoth-

esis concerning these early years of Ramesses as

sole Pharaoh. Yet in this context it is important

to note that as king he arranged the erasure of

the name and picture of one of Seti’s stalwart

military henchmen, a certain Mehy. This aspect

of the king’s character remains puzzling. Helck,

who devoted some of his time to the problem,

likened Mehy to the next ruler of Egypt after

Seti.174 I believe that his analysis went too far in

one direction, though I support him in his partial

answer to the puzzle that Murnane tackled.175 It

seems better to consider this non-royal person-

age as a very important warrior of the day, at

least during Seti’s first half decade as Pharaoh. In

this context, Ramesses, perhaps too young, may

have been in second place. Mehy, who became a

high-ranking member of the armed forces, cam-

paigned with his monarch Seti and was justly

rewarded by his presence (more than once) on

the series of war scenes carved on the exterior

northern walls of the Hypostyle Court at Karnak.

Ramesses was not.

How are we to connect the presumed favors

shown by Seti to prince Ramesses with this other

aspect of the king? Ramesses was delegated first to

non-military matters; see his activities at Aswan,

for example. Later, when the Nubian campaign of

Seti came to the fore (regnal year eight) Ramesses

was old and experienced enough to participate

in it. (We assume that his Beit el Wali reliefs

indicate a participation in Seti’s Nubian war.)

But later, as sole Pharaoh, he had all memory

of the “competitor” removed. Murnane’s most

elsewhere as well as to the careful design on the

part of the carvers.

Among the various stylistic methods present is

the infinitival style in columns 32-3. It is employed

to present a non-emotional—and not purposive—

backdrop. But the predominate method of tempo-

ral progress is the use of the sdm.n.f and the sdm.f.

Major narrative literary formations are avoided.

For example, immediately thereafter in column

33 the king boldly “enters” (#q Èm.f ) to see “his

father.” At this point the account is cold if not

impersonal. The voyage is drawn from the van-

tage point of a royal progress or of a military

campaign. Then we proceed to move faster, and

eventually the situation of Seti’s temple is high-

lighted through the particle íst three columns later.

In this portion of the account the literary format

of a story is present, a passage that reflects the

XVIIIth Dynasty approach to similar composi-

tions which highlight the story-like nature of the

presentation. But as soon as Ramesses (physically)

reaches the temple of Seti, this approach is cast

aside. The king’s purpose has now to be revealed

and the “story-like” narrative is abandoned.

The words of Ramesses II ring far louder than

the physical condition of the inscription itself.

The crying father, the successful youth, the pious

son, the wise Pharaoh—all of these motifs enter

into a successfully organized whole, one that is

remarkable in its personal orientation as it is in

his detailed account of filial love. Its uniqueness

lies as well within Ramesses’ details concerning

his youth before he was sole Pharaoh. Personal

details, including human reflections upon Seti, are

broadcast. What matters here first and foremost is

Ramesses vis-à-vis Seti, not royalty as an institu-

tion. All is personalized; the office of Pharaoh is

not at issue. Rather, Seti’s delegation of Phara-

onic status to Ramesses is, with reasons that are

both intimate and remarkable. I feel that there

the transference of power was conditioned by the

looming end of Seti’s life. Ramesses as heir and

successor had to be confirmed and appointed,

especially as there were no other male offspring

chapter three112

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

176 Ibid., 202.177 Ibid., 201. Yet can we compare Mehy and Ramesses

II with Maiherperi and Amunhotep II? As Quirke indicates

Period of Dynasty XVIII than, for example, the

accounts of the king’s battle at Kadesh, the later

Karnak war record of Merenptah as well as the

Medinet Habu accounts of Ramesses III. How-

ever, this text is not a military report. It directs

our attention to an entirely different sphere and

cannot be placed side-by-side with the approach

taken by Ramesses II when he had his Kadesh

record drawn up. The Dedicatory Inscription fol-

lowed, at least at the beginning, a tried and true

practice whose orientation was formal in struc-

ture: opening setting, announcement of plans,

speech of officials, and the king’s response or dec-

laration of intent. At the minimum, the unusual

beginning and the address of Ramesses to Seti

and the father’s verbal reaction indicate a plan

different than required for a shorter and more

formal presentation such as the Königsnovelle. The

reader or listener is taken to Abydos. He or she

is there, and this aspect is unlike those shorter

accounts of royal declarations.

Nonetheless, might this presentation be still

regarded as inherently antithetical to the Amarna

belief structure? Or to put it another way, does this

composition reflect the rejection of the Amarna

norm of religion as it overtly does in language

and carving? I doubt if such an interpretation

holds much water. After all, the return in style

and format to the pre-Amarna method of writing

was first undertaken by Seti in Dynasty XIX and

even earlier by Horemheb and Tutankhamun.

The Dedicatory Inscription reveals that a deep

conservatism with respect to royal narratives per-

sisted at this time. Perhaps of more importance

is the meticulous approach to arrangement and

scene, and in this respect the Dedicatory Inscrip-

tion breaks with the shorter Königsnovelle format.

But the composition also shows how much literary

knowledge was available to the author. The har-

kening back to Middle Kingdom patterns is one

of the attitudes that comes through the account,

a return not only to pre-Amarna but also to an

older “Classical” age. I would emphasize more

the application of previous literary formats and

structures than argue for any overt intellectual

response to Amarna.

The logical focus upon the site of Abydos with

its strong association with kingship (Osiris-Horus)

cannot to be overlooked. Otto, for example,

recent discussion of this matter still adhered to

the presupposition of an “unease” within the new

Dynasty.176 On the other hand, the evidence can

be better explained as one of personal jealousy

and vindictiveness rather than any fear of usur-

pation. Notwithstanding Helck’s position on the

matter, Mehy only reached the military positions

of “group marshaller” and “fanbearer.” He was

never a general or a generalissimo. True, both of

the former ranks in the military hierarchy were

high, but they were not at the apex of the elite war

arm of the state. It is my opinion that Mehy was a

successful warrior under Seti and that he achieved

deeds of renown that reverberated through the

court of the day. Hence, he was able to be pres-

ent at Karnak, but only with respect to the time

of the wars depicted there.

It is now recognized that Mehy had himself

superimposed on the east wing of Seti’s war mon-

ument. On the west, which is better preserved, his

figure was carved over the standard epitaphs. His

presence can, therefore, be interpreted as an after-

thought. Perhaps Murnane was correct to write

that his roles at Karnak “suggest a loftier standing

than his titles otherwise imply.”177 Much more

ambiguous, if not speculative, was his conclusion

that Mehy was a “pretender” to the role of “big

man” or “chief subject” under Seti. I am uneasy

with this interpretation, feeling that his later dis-

appearance was somehow linked with Ramesses’

publicly avowed attitude towards his father. The

most dutiful son remains always first, and a subse-

quent ruler can brook no rival, non-royal though

he might be. Indeed, even Murnane noted that

Ramesses II later superimposed his own title of

íry-p‘t (rp‘t) over Mehy’s, thereby publicizing his

descent from his father and emphasizing his ear-

lier position as heir apparent.

I. Historical Implications of the Dedicatory Inscription

Does the Dedicatory Inscription reveal an antith-

esis to the earlier Amarna texts? In language, it

most certainly reflects models of Dynasty XVIII

if not earlier. The “langage de tradition” is mini-

mal and a vulgar “dialect” is shunned. On the

other hand, the grammatical elements are non-

colloquial, and they fit better into the pre-Amarna

religious and historical implications 113

1954), 55-6. Yet the argument is fairly weak. After all, the title “king’s son” was not used until Dynasty IV. Hence, our knowledge of what occurred earlier is extremely unclear.

185 The specific words employed are sdr and qdd; nhsí unfortunately does not occur. I can add Helck’s comments in “Einige Bemerkungen zum Mundöffnungsritual,” MDAIK22 (1967): 29, where the sm “sleeps” (sdr and qdd) in the House of Gold. In Fischer-Elfert’s comments in Die Vision von der Statue im Stein, 64-72, a new and more convincing analysis is given. The sem priest sees a vision, meditates on it, and has his instructions carried out by the lector priests.

Helck also states that in the Osirian myth the “transfor-mation” addresses replace the ritual acts, but the Opening of the Mouth does not take place. See as well Otto, Das ägyptische Mundöffnungsritual II, 57; and Peter Munro, “Die Nacht vor der Thronbesteigung,” in Studien zu Sprache und

178 “Eine Darstellung der ‘Osiris-Mysterien’,” 104. In this temple the theme of royal legitimacy is further devel-oped by Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 303-07.

179 For the latter, see the key stelae in KRI VI 17.1-25.16.

180 Angelika Lohwasser, Die Formel ‘Öffnen des Gesichts’ (Vienna: AFRO-PUB, 1991). The connection of Re and Osiris is present there. See as well the comments of Fischer-Elfert, Die Vision von der Statue im Stein, 29-31.

181 See Chapter II note 189.182 Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-

Osirian Unity, 101.183 Das ägyptische Mundöffnungsritual, 12-13.184 Untersuchungen zu den Beamtentiteln des ägyptischen Alten

Reiches (Glückstadt, Hamburg, and New York: J. J. Augustin,

the temple of Seti was “reasonably” completed by

his son Ramesses. Most certainly, the overriding

concept at the close of the inscription is one of

resurrection. If an official performance took place

this ought to have occurred physically before the

statue of Seti. I am unable to find any other expla-

nation, and conclude that this rite (if that is the

correct word) ought to have taken place between

that physical representation, the dead Seti now

alive, and Ramesses, the living Horus. The image,

which is more than once referred to in the main

text, is called a sàmw.

A similar father-son orientation to the ritual

can be traced back to the old rite of Opening the

Mouth. With regard to the New Kingdom per-

formances of this ritual, Otto further indicated

that we have to consider seriously the role of the

inheritance of the throne of Egypt.183 According to

him, the age-old íry-p#t/rp#t priest was connected to

the Mansion of Gold, and in the Pyramid Texts

the scene is “son = Horus.” In our text at Abydos

the same characteristics appear. It is also well

known that the íry-p#t (rp#t) was associated with two

other important functions, that of the sm priest of

Memphis and the sî.f mr.f. These two roles have a

direct and intimate connection to the Osirian cult,

and all three were traced back in time by Helck

who showed that the íry-p#t (rp#t) from Dynasty I

down to the Late Old Kingdom was a common

rank for princes.184 He also brought into consider-

ation the connection of the role or “office” to the

“regents” of living kings as well as to non-royal

high officials of the Late Old Kingdom. For our

purposes, however, the close association of the

íry-p#t/rp#t in the Mansion of Gold, the sî.f mr.f,

and the sm are connected to the Abydene cult; all

are present in the Dedicatory Inscription.185

indicated the need of the new dynasty to but-

tress its legitimacy after the Amarna debacle and

to reinvigorate the age-old cult of Osiris with a

newly developed perception of the Abydene cult

and its father-son relationship.178 He had a strong

point if only because the Ramesside monarchs

gave particular attention to this holy area, com-

mencing with Seti I (a temple for Ramesses I) and

continuing down to his son and finally ending

with Ramesses IV.179

The final two portions of the composition ought to remain the most interesting. There, the king is shown in a cultic nature. He “awakens” his father and then records what he had done for him. The Abydene and Re-Osiris connections are self-evident; the wn-Èr ritual is completed.180 The two striking addresses do not parallel the other extant royal accounts at Abydos, such as that of Ramesses IV. (See in particular Tiradritti’s attempt to explain the purpose of the famous

Abydene stela of that Pharaoh.)181 At the same

time the Dedicatory Inscription continues to circle

around the Solar-Osirian unity, a theme that was

written down in the lengthy cryptographic com-

positions of Tutankhamun, Ramesses VI, and

Ramesses IX. The orientation to a specific theo-

logical conception involving the netherworld is

ideally suited to Abydos, and it is not surprising

that the two Stairway Corridor speeches reflect this religious constellation. After all, that area leads out of the temple to the Cenotaph of Osiris. The resurrection of Re as Horus from the corpse of Osiris resumes the roles of live king (Ramesses) and dead father (Seti), although in this case Seti speaks to Osiris in order to allow benefits to be given to Ramesses.182

Perhaps we witness, at a time later than the

initial visit, the personal “union” between father

and son. If so, this would have taken place after

chapter three114

187 Helck, “Die Herkunft des abydenischen Osirisritu- als,” ArOr 20 (1952): 72-85. He posited the connection of the Opening of the Mouth with the Abydene mysteries, especially the Hîkr festival; and Munro, “Nacht vor der Thronbesteigung,” 907-28. I have the feeling that Murno’s supposition is too shaky and prefer Helck’s. Zippert came to a similar conclusion when he compared a passage of Seti I’s Nauri Stela that describes the Abydene temple with the Abydene festivals (especially in connection with the nàmt bark): “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos,” 29-30 with KRI I 48.1.

188 Der Denkstein Sethos’ I. für die Kapelle Ramses’ I. in Abydos, 72-4.

189 See our comments below for a discussion of this chapel. To repeat, the key references for the sàmw of Ramesses I are KRI I 110.1, 112.4, and 114.11.

190 Harvey, “The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos,” 433.

191 KRI I 192.4. Following Berlev, “Two Kings-Two Suns—on the worldview of the ancient Egyptians,” in Quirke, Discovering Egypt from the Neva: The Egyptological Legacy of Oleg D Berlev, 19-33, he must be a “junior (sun-)god.”

The Ramesses II parallel places these words in the mouth of Seshat.

Religion Ägyptens II (ed. Friedrich Junge; Göttingen: F. Junge, 1984), 914 and 921. But the study of Fischer-Elfert, Die Vision von der Statue im Stein, remains the best analysis.

186 Otto, “An Ancient Egyptian Hunting Ritual,” JNES 9 (1950): 164-77 and pages 172-3 in particular. A more detailed analysis is presented in his Das ägyptische Mundöff-nungsritual II, 73-6. I agree with him with regard to the supposed prehistoric origin of this hunting ritual. It also is to be found in the Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus and on fragments in the sun temple of Niuserre.

I can also refer to Gabolde, “Les temples ‘mémoriaux’ de Thoutmosis II et Toutânkhamon,” 177 on the possible connection of this text with the rise of a new king; cf. Helck, “Bemerkungen zum Ritual des Dramatischen Ramesseum-papyrus,” Or 23 (1954): 383-411 (end of Choiak Feast) with Hartwig Altenmüller, “Zur Lesung und Deutung des Dramatischen Ramesseumpapyrus,” JEOL 19 (1965-66): 421-42. Nonetheless, the remarks of Yoyotte have yet to enter the historiography on this subject of the purpose of the Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus in “Religion de l’Égypte ancienne,” Annuaire École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve Sec-tion 79 (1971-2): 179-80. Cf. Eaton’s comments in her The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 333-7 (Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus) and 342-3 (the butchering reference in the Corridor of the Bull).

Following Schott’s position, it is of some inter-

est to return to the vexed question whether or not

Seti’s statue, his sàmw, was actually in operation

before he died. We have seen that the Dedica-

tory Inscription seems to indicate the opposite

because a sàmw was lying on the ground when

Ramesses visited the site (columns 36-7). More-

over, it was not fashioned correctly. Partly because

of this, I placed the “encounter” between Seti

and Ramesses (witnessed through the two final

speeches) later in time than Ramesses’ original

visit to Abydos, and at a date after the comple-

tion of Seti’s work. The two inscriptions in the

Stairway Corridor are partly supportive of the

quasi-mythological nature of the account in the

Dedicatory Inscription, although they raise con-

trasting issues. The speech of Thoth, for example,

avoids discussing any statue of Seti. There is no

reference to a sàmw in the address and king Seti

solely deals with the underworld.

According to Thoth Seti is the equivalent of

Horus. Seti’s beauty has woken up Wenennefer.

The king wipes out the sores of the latter, and

most important of all Seti also has caused Re to

fly over the sarcophagus of Wenennefer. More-

over, he has caused him to see Re at the crack

of down. (The solar-Osirian unity is extremely

blatant here.) Indeed, Seti has now become a

god.191 This final point is the one that Assmann

noted when he covered the Dedicatory Inscrip-

tion; namely, that Ramesses II has allowed his

father to become divine.

On the other hand, the Corridor of the Bull

reflects the Opening of the Mouth ceremony

as well as the rise of a new king, and we have

to thank Otto even further for a series of pen-

etrating studies on this connection.186 Helck and

Munro subsequently placed this association to the

renewal of kingship, and both saw the interwoven

nature between segments of the Ritual of Open-

ing the Mouth and the newly arisen Pharaoh.187

The first scholar, in fact, indicated an ancient

Abydene Osiris-ritual that lay at the core of the

resuscitation of the father. Munro, on the other

the hand, preferred a more speculative hypoth-

esis, even though his position does not differ in

key points from that of Helck’s. Schott, as well,

came to virtually identical conclusions, when he

discussed the Abydene temple of Ramesses I built

by Seti.188 In this case he felt that the “image”

(sàmw) in the Chapel of Ramesses I played the

same religious role there as Seti’s sàmw did in his

later temple.189 Schott further argued that the cult

in these memorial temples at Abydos would be

inaugurated first after the death of its “owner,”

and he referred to PT 422 where the dead king

takes upon himself the form of Osiris. He then

maintained that the old ritual of Opening the

Mouth would have occurred before this statue

and likewise any in Seti’s temple. It is self-evident

that in Ramesses I’s Abydene building the cultic

owner is Osiris, Seti’s mother is Isis, and he (Seti)

performs the role of Horus.190

religious and historical implications 115

Thoutmosis II et Toutânkhamon,” 127-78.197 Ibid., 26-9. I can add an evaluation of Quirke because

the passage needs to be qualified. The same institution could have more than one name. Compare, for example, cities. Analogously, Khemenu is Per-Djehuty, etc.

198 Most recently, see Haring, Divine Households.199 Schott, Kanais: Der Tempel Sethos I. im Wâdi Mia, 178-80

brought into focus the evidence for Seti’s Abydos temple vis-à-vis the one in Wadi Mia. Note that the main deities worshipped there were the same as at Abydos: Amun-Re, Re, Ptah, Osiris, Isis, Horus, and the king. Interesting is the presence of the crucial verb nhsí in the Great Inscription at Kanais (KRI I 67.7; nhs Èr Érwt). In that context, however, it means something closer to “awake” or “alert” (Kitchen). The context, however, is different than that at Abydos.

At Kanais, it is useful to observe that Amun remains at the front of all the gods: Schott, 150 note 2 (bottom) and KRI I 68.3. The same may be said for Seti’s temple at Abydos; cf. KRI I 186.12.

200 Leonard H. Lesko, review of David, Religious Ritual at Abydos, CdE 49 (1974): 104.

192 KRI I 186.14; 186.11-12 specifically indicates the portable barque.

193 See the phrase “His sàmw-Éw is uplifted and Amun is at the head of them” (KRI I 186.11-12).

194 KRI I 167.14-15.195 “Colour use and the distribution of relief and paint-

ing in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos,” 146.196 For the latest analysis of such temples, see Haring,

Divine Households, 23-6. The following commentary retraces his detailed argumentation. Not only Seti’s Abydos temple but also those of Ramesses I and II built in the same location were designated by the same term. See as well Christian Leblanc, “Quelques reflexions sur le programme iconographique et la fonction des temples de ‘millions d’années’,” in Quirke, The Temple in Ancient Egypt, 49-56; and Haeny, “New Kingdom Mortuary Temples’,” in Shafer, Temples of Ancient Egypt, 86-126. We can add Rainer Stadelmann’s comments in “Totentempel und Millionenjahrhaus in Theben,” MDAIK 35 (1979): 303-21. On page 306 he covers the situation of Dynasty XVIII Abydos and the “Terrace of the Great God.” But note Gabolde, “Les temples ‘mémoriaux’ de

and, in fact, lay on the ground; the father’s cult

had to be reinvigorated.

Let us not forget that the edifice of Seti was

a “temple of millions of years.”196 According to

Haring those identically labeled religious build-

ings—the Èwwt or “mansions” at Western The-

bes—logically contained a major funerary aspect.

If it is true that every king wished for himself

such a religious center, the associated cults in

each were concentrated upon the founder. The

“mansions” of Abydos were no exception to these

concepts. Processions connected with the “owner”

Pharaoh belonged to the ritual highlighting of the

king’s cult. Haring in fact laid emphasis upon the

designation Èwt, and argued that these religious

edifices must not be confused with temples or

other religious foundations that were specified

by pr plus a royal name.197 For the most part

Egyptological scholarship has concentrated on

the economic wealth of these mortuary institu-

tions even if the theological implications of these

cults are of equal if not greater importance.198 Let

us also not forget the control that Seti’s Abydos

temple had over the Wadi Mia edifice in Nubia

and the detailed economic control evinced in the

Nauri Decree.199

Seti’s “mansion” at Abydos was connected

to the royal cult and the king was rejuvenated

there on a daily basis. Moreover, there are spe-

cific ceremonies establishing the kingship of Seti

after his death just as there are at Medinet Habu

for Ramesses III.200 The Second Osiris Hall, for

example, probably served as the center of the

most important rituals; i.e., the secret rites for the

deceased king. Barbara Lesko maintained that

This address of Seshat also refers to the sàmw of

Seti.192 Perhaps this image resided in his personal

Chapel of Seti (Zippert’s K), located to the south

of the six other chief gods.193 Unless we wish to

separate this statue from a hypothetical second

(which then would have to be placed within the

Osiris Chamber leading off from the First Osiris

Hall), a major problem arises. Let it not be for-

gotten that the refrain of Seti being a “god” is

repeated in this chamber where the sàmw is men-

tioned.194 The references on the south wall of the

Stairway Corridor must have been carved soon

after the death of king Seti and, of course, before

Ramesses’ first visit to Abydos. (Baines dated this

area to “the end of the reign of Sety I and the

very beginning of Ramesses II’s reign.”)195 This

speech indicates the portable bark (sàmw-Éw) and

the sàmw; the two are identical here. Finally, the

ritual connection to Seti was also written down

in this corridor.

But the Dedicatory Inscription indicates that

the entire temple was not well run. This may

have been far more frequently the usual pattern

than we suspect. Namely, as soon as one ruler

died, mutatis mutandis, everyone dropped his tools

and rushed to the new projects of the succes-

sor, above all the work on the new royal tomb.

(This is well known from an earlier date at the

Menkaura pyramid complex at Giza.) When Seti

died, at a time before Ramesses’ visit, the cult

in his Abydene temple needed to be organized

properly. Indeed, we have seen that previously

the building activity at Abydos had been directed

to Ramesses’ temple before his father died. The

statue of Seti, his sàmw, was not properly designed

chapter three116

Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1999), 197-208.Note the additional factors of the king as a youth (nÉn),

the use of rubrics, and the phrase “recitation of the august might,” sdd pÈty àpsy.

206 Cf. Teeter, The Presentation of Maat, 10 with the impor-tant remark that the prenomen of the king is presented. The theme became common during the Ramesside Period but is first depicted in the reign of Seti I. It is nonetheless connected with royal legitimacy, a point that fits perfectly with the role of Ramesses in Seti’s temple.

Additional comments that Teeter presents in her volume are worthwhile to summarize. She observes on page 36 that the number of cases of these presentation scenes in Seti’s temple is very large, twenty-five to be exact. The reliefs on the Inner Hypoystyle Hall appear to be for “public consumption” and this area has a “far greater number of scenes of the presentation of Maat” than any other area (pages 5 and 40; see page 47 for a summary). On page 86 she opposes Assmann’s concept of Maat and personal

201 Barbara Switalski Lesko, “Royal Mortuary Suites of the Egyptian New Kingdom,” AJA 73 (1969): 458. Note the presence of astronomical motifs.

202 The review of Leonard Lesko cited in note 200 above is particularly critical of David’s 1973 volume, Religious Ritual at Abydos.

203 “Ein historischer ‘Sitz im Leben’ für die Erzählung von Horus und Seth,” 347-63.

204 Ibid., 359-62.205 Fischer-Elfert, Lesefunde im literarischen Steinbruch von

Deir el-Medineh, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (1997), 78-89. The heading tp rd n ….. indicates that we have the instruc-tion for an eulogy, except that it is in the first person. This is why the editor has indicated that the work might be an “Autobiography of a Divine King” rather than a “Recitation from the Deir el Medineh Royal Cult.” Add his study “Ostrakon DeM 1610. ‘Autobiographie d’un roi divin?’,” in Literatur und Politik im pharaonischen und ptolemäi-schen Ägypten, (ed. Jan Assmann and Elke Blumenthal; Cairo:

I feel that these words could have been acted

out at Abydos and so might present a situation

partially similar to what Ursula Verhoeven argued

with respect to the Horus and Seth Story.203 Con-

necting the accounts of that story with other por-

tions of P. Chester Beatty I, she showed that one

of the associated encomia was related to various

commentaries present in another source. Hence,

she was able to reconstruct sections of a reli-

gious-mythical performance, all of which were

connected to the Triumph of Horus and the coro-

nation of the king. These literally appear to have

been played out; i.e., performed.204

An additional oral recitation to a king is to be

found on a Deir el Medineh ostracon that appears

to be concerned with accession or, more prop-

erly, “coronation.”205 From this text the first two

lines are informative: “Instruction for Upper and

Lower Egypt: Appearance of the King,” and from

the contents the rise of a new Pharaoh is indicated.

This example is particularly useful in the context

of the ending to the Dedicatory Inscription, and

we can now view a system of royal eulogies under

a broader spectrum than hitherto argued. The

“recitation,” sdd, of the words is commanded, and

the text is called one of “might,” pÈty. Owing to

the use of the first person, I believe that we pos-

sess part of a general eulogy given by the king to

his officials at his coronation. The Abydos case

of Ramesses parallels this one but here the result

of the son’s deeds is the theme, not the accession

or coronation of a new Pharaoh.

In the scene accompanying the Dedicatory

Inscription it is the statue of Osiris that receives

the Maat offering held forward by Ramesses.206

rooms 10-12 which adjoin that hall, “seem to be

devoted particularly to the king’s funeral,” and

a direct connection can be made to room 25 of

the Osiris complex at Medinet Habu.201 Was it

here that Ramesses met his father? Once more,

we are thrown back upon the lack of specific data

concerned with this aspect in Seti’s temple. If only

because this temple is parallel in outlook to the royal mortuary ones on the west of Thebes an up-to-date study is needed.202 Such an analysis, however, would vastly extend the limitation of this study.

Was the religious performance covered by the Dedicatory Inscription acted out, and if so, how? I believe that we can give a positive answer to the first part of this question. The king and his father speak. The event is an official cultic set-ting in which the completion of the tasks set by Ramesses is announced. The words of father and son are not space fillers, ones that merely reflect the pious attitudes of the living Pharaoh. Quite

to the contrary, they indicate the fulfillment of

the son’s promises and the father’s acceptance of

them. At the same time the oral declarations pin-

point the desire of Ramesses to be granted a life-

time forever and the successful completion of his

request through the intercession of Seti. The gods

enter as participants: Re and Wenennefer ( from

the son’s vantage point), Osiris, Atum, Thoth,

the “great conclave,” and Horus. The key deities

associated with accession and coronation—Re,

Atum, and Thoth—lead us back once more to the

twin concepts of accession and coronation. Even

more important are the final results. At the end

Ramesses has been granted everlasting kingship

whereas Seti has become divinized.

religious and historical implications 117

(tomb of Iamunedjeh, TT 84), 377-8 and 398-402 (tomb of Imiseba, TT 65); with Zandee, “Hymnical Sayings Addressed to the Sun-God by the High-Priest of Amun Nebwenenef, from his Tomb in Thebes,” JEOL 18 (1964): 253-65 and especially page 256. A general summary is in Hornung, Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt, 93-6.

These references to Nebwennef are now surpassed by Assmann, Sonnenhymnen in thebanischen Gräbern (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1983), 186-201. He presents the standard edition of Nebwennef ’s sun hymns which have now been reproduced in KRI VII 131.1-133.11. Assmann, referring to one hymn of Nebwennef (Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete [2d ed.], 252 note to lines 17-20), considers the reflection of Osiris as the son of the sun god and notes the possible connection of the latter with Horus. Add Zandee’s discussion in An Ancient Egyptian Crossword Puzzle referred in Chapter II notes 304-05.

210 I am purposely ignoring the socio-historical reasons for the emergence of the Solar-Osirian Unity at a time immediately after Akhenaton’s demise. For the Dynasty XXI data see Niwinski, “The Solar-Osirian Unity as Principle of the Theology of the ‘State of Amun’ in Thebes in the 21st Dynasty,” and especially page 91. Cf. Assmann’s related comments on page xv of his Sonnenhymnen in thebanischen Gräbern and those of Hornung, Idea into Image: Essays on Ancient Egyptian Thought (trans. Elizabeth Bredeck; Princ-eton: Timken, 1992), 109-12. Hornung refers to two key passages in the Dedicatory Inscription. This work refers back to his study of “Die Tragweite der Bilder: altägyp-

piety in the Ramesside Period; page 38 summarizes the difficulties in interpreting the scenes in the six chapels of Seti’s temple. Finally, she covers the use of the word s#r on pages 49-50.

207 Let us not forget that he is now divine: KRI II 335.16-336.1.

208 The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity. The reader is specifically directed to his conclusion in Chapter 8. In general, see Hornung, Akhenaten and the Religion of Light (trans. David Lorton; Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1999), 123-4 with figure 19. Add now DuQuesne, “Osiris with the Solar Disk,” 21-5; and McCarthy, “The Osiris Nefertari: A Case Study of Deco-rum, Gender, and Regeneration,” 173-95.

Hornung provides a useful introduction to this religious unity in his The Tomb of Pharaoh Seti I. Das Grab Sethos’ I. (Zurich and Munich: Artemis Verlag, 1991), 19. The Litany of Re is the key religious text that he considers.

209 For many of these cases, see Niwinski, “The Solar-Osirian Unity as Principle of the Theology of the ‘State of Amun’ in Thebes in the 21st Dynasty.” Add Boyo G. Ockinga and Yahya al-Masri, Two Ramesside Tombs at El Mashayikh I (Sydney: Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1988), Pl. 10e (the Anhur-mose case); cf. Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity, 451.

Additional source material may be found in Zandee, An Ancient Egyptian Crossword Puzzle, 24 (the Ramesses II example) and specifically pages 23-8; Darnell, ibid., 383

the driving factor for its existence. The charac-

teristics of king Ramesses are revealed, and we

can draw our own conclusions about him from

the orientation of the text if only because they are

freely given. The young man’s act of homage to

his father is painted in an overt and consciously

revealing manner, and one that is both careful

and well written.

But the Dedicatory Inscription and the evi-

dence from the Stairway Corridor also provide

evidence concerning the growing religious trend

of the Solar-Osirian unity in the Post Amarna

Period. Darnell covered some of the key texts

and scenes in his publication of the cryptographic

“books” in three royal tombs.208 We can supple-

ment that historical analysis by referring to such

well-known examples as one depiction in the

Tomb of Nofertary, wife of Ramesses II, another

scene of the solar Osiris in the tomb of Anhur-

mose at El Mashayikh (temp. Merenptah), an

interesting case from the tomb of Ramesses II,

Darnell’s own notes concerning the Theban tomb

of Iamunedjeh, the hymn in the tomb of Imiseba

(temp. Ramesses IX), and the evidence from the

tomb of Nebwennef.209 This progression in the

record of the Solar-Osirian unity finally reaches

a pinnacle in the XXIth Dynasty at which time

a “complete solar-Osirian unity became indisput-

able.”210 Owing to the connection of Nebwennef

Fortunately, the living king’s words are simple

and direct. He “answers for” (wàb; almost in a

legal fashion) his father Seti, who is now in the

underworld. Osiris is given Maat and in return

bequeaths to Ramesses the kingship. The “true”

father, Seti, stands behind Osiris and reflects upon

his eternal rejuvenation. “I have come,” the father

states, “as one who repeats life,” and this is the

result of Ramesses’ performance in awakening

him. To reiterate: the father has now become an

“excellent ba” (bî mnÉ).207

J. Dating and Social Implications

The date of the inscription remains important,

especially in the context of one crucial fact. This

is Ramesses II’s first hieroglyphic composition

of any import and it was extraordinarily well

designed. Drawn up after the death of his father

but not too late in his first regnal year, the Dedica-

tory Inscription is the announcement of a brand

new king. Ramesses looks back to his early life and

the previous king, his father, even as he moves

ahead. The text is programmatic in nature as

well, advancing to the future with the concept

of father-son solidarity as it hallmark. We are at

the beginning of a new era, a new reign, and the

leitmotif of this intense personal relationship is

chapter three118

increasing importance of the Abydene cult in early Dynasty XIX. Both events, nonetheless, aptly reflect the concept of kingship in the New Kingdom.

For the celebration of the Choiak festival at this tem-ple: Eaton, The Ritual Functions of Processional Equipment, 404-46.

215 KRI I 46.2.216 I have returned to this issue in “Chronological

Remarks,” BSEG 22 (1998): 56. Darnell, in his The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity, 190, has seen that the “Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity appear to concern themselves with the union of Re and Osiris during the time of the regeneration of the year.” That is to say, at the close of the “standard” 360 days of the civil calendar.

217 The question whether the Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus is to be linked with this crucial New Year’s Day must remain open. Helck commented upon the overt Osirian nature of the religious account, a conclusion with which all Egyptologists have recognized, in “Bemerkungen zum Ritual des Dramatischen Ramesseum-papyrus,” 383-4. But if the temporal connection is accepted, then the days preceding I prt 1 have to be considered; i.e., the period of the Choiak feast (ideally IV prt 22 to 30), the timeframe for which Helck argued (pages 408-9) but eventually discarded in favor of an earlier ceremony connected to the night preceding the Sed Festival (pages 410-11). Altenmüller followed his perspective in “Zur Lesung und Deutung des dramatischen Ramesseumpapyrus,” 441-2. Yoyotte, however, did not: “Religion de l’Égypte ancienne,” Annuaire École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve Section 79 (1971-2): 179-80.

The death and rebirth of Osiris are nevertheless cov-ered. On the other hand, one may prefer the Triumph of Horus phase of the year that was at the end of III prt: see Verhoeven’s commentary in “Ein historischer ‘Sitz im Leben’ für die Erzählung von Horus und Seth.”

218 Leitz, Tagewählerei, 136-7, but in the presence of Re. See Teeter’s volume The Presentation of Maat.

tische Bildaussagen,” Eranos 48 (1979): 215-16 where earlier comments concerning the unified image of Re and Osiris are stressed. Compare this with the general summary of Wolfgang Wettengel, Die Erzählung von den beiden Brüdern: Der Papyrus d’Orbiney und die Königsideologie der Ramessiden (Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 204-8.

Additional comments can be found in Jean Yoyotte, “Héra d’Héliopolis et le sacrifice humain,” 71 and 100-101 (where the connection is revealed in the Book of the Gates). I shall return to his analysis at the end of this work.

211 Sonnenhymnen in thebanischen Gräbern, 197-8. He discusses the major hymn of Nebwennef and stresses its solar aspect, one that is devoid of the god Amun. See as well Zandee, “Hymnical Sayings Addressed to the Sun-God by the High-Priest of Amun Nebwenenef, from his Tomb in Thebes,” 254 and 265 and Assmann’s later comments on page 131 of his Egyptian Solar Religion in the New Kingdom: Re, Amun and the Crisis of Polytheism (trans. Anthony Alcock; London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1995).

It might not be mere coincidence that one of Nebwen-nef ’s hymns contains the word snhs which as we have seen is quite common in the Dedicatory Inscription as well as those parallels covered earlier; cf. Assmann, Sonnenhymnen in thebanischen Gräbern, 186 (text 148 line 8). Among the large corpus of New Kingdom sun hymns this verb only occurs twice, and both in a Ramesside context; nhsí, on the other hand is more common.

212 See Verhoeven, “Ein historischer ‘Sitz im Leben’ für die Erzählung von Horus und Seth.” Add Christian Leitz, Tagewählerei: Das Buch Èît nÈÈ pÈ.wy dt und verwandte Texte (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1994), 140-1.

213 Ramesside Inscriptions: Notes and Comments II, 192. The crucial days in Leitz’s calendars are III îÉt 24 to 29.

214 The first event is related to Amun-Re and the role of that deity as the father, progenitor of kingship, and the complex situation revolving around the royal ka. The second event is linked with the myth of Horus, and reveals the

days twenty-four to thirty of III Achet as those concerned with the king’s affairs at Abydos.213 But as the voyage covered a time close to the festival of Choiak commencing in IV Achet, we can wonder if the king remained through the end of that month in that sacred region. Perhaps it is not stretching the evidence to conclude that Ramesses was “crowned” in Luxor but also could have received his inheritance at Abydos.214

Possibly connected with these events is the timing of Seti’s Nauri Decree on I prt 1.215 This day marked the commencement of the second season and was, as well, commemorated by the Nehebkau festival, an extremely important reli-gious event that paralleled the civil New Year’s Day of I îÉt 1.216 It was, in fact, another New Year. I feel that the timing is not coincidental and that at the end of the age-old coronation of Horus, Seti arranged for an official dedicatory at this other temple which is, in fact, the hallmark of that decree.217

The act of presenting Maat (s#r mî#t), however,

is placed on day twenty-two of the third month.218

with Abydos and later with Thebes, is it mere speculation to argue that he had a direct influence in stressing this religious belief with his monarch? Whatever our opinions are on this matter, it is likely that Nebwennef was personally responsi-ble for many of the unusual religious poetical thoughts that one finds in his tomb.211

Following Verhoeven’s analysis, we can fur-ther emphasize the timing of Ramesses’s visit. He arrived at Abydos in the third month of the civil year, day twenty-three. We are thereby set within the mythic time of the occasion of Horus’ coronation, and I believe that the voyage north by the king was purposely arranged so that he would set foot in Abydos before the following day. On the twenty-fourth of the third month Horus is said to have been given the kingship of Egypt. Was it mere coincidence that the young king’s purpose in visiting Abydos occurred at the same time?212 Previously, Ramesses was “crowned” in Thebes (Luxor). Subsequently, he could have performed the age-old ritual of the Triumph of Horus in Abydos. I find it striking that Kitchen outlines

religious and historical implications 119

of the Amduat, the Book of Gates, and the Litany of the Sun were not present. The latter is included in Ramesses II’s temple. Regarding the last, see the comments of Hornung, Das Buch der Anbetung des Re im Westen II, 31-5.

Some figures from this Litany in the Osireion are dated to Merenptah as Prof. Hornung discerned: Frankfort, de Buck, and Gunn, The Cenotaph of Seti I at Abydos I, 66 and II, Pls. LXXI-II. I can also refer to Hornung’s study “Zum könglichen Jenseits,” in Studies in Honor of William Kelly Simp-son I (ed. Peter Der Manuelian, Boston: Dept. of Ancient Egyptian, Nubian, and Near Eastern Art, Museum of Fine Arts, 1996), 410.

225 KRI V 176.7, the Medinet Habu Calendar with Ished tree festival on 1 prt 6. But this example is a Theban one.

226 Leclant, Recherches sur les monuments thébains de la XXVe dynastie dite éthiopienne, 277-8; and Chassinat, Le mystère d’Osiris au mois de Khoiak I, 205-6 and 234-48.

219 If so, the event could be placed at a time when Seti’s statue in his chapel, his sàmw, was being “consulted” by Ramesses. I.e., the new statue was dedicated and brought to life. Nonetheless, I find the portico area in Seti’s temple a far more significant location for Ramesses II.

220 Hornung, Das Buch von den Pforten des Jenseits II, 283 (Scene 96).

221 Architecturally, the southern side of the portico before the Outer Hypostyle Court corresponds to the area of Seti. The north is linked to Horus. Hence, the scenes on the external northern wing reveal the Ished tree rite for Ramesses.

222 And Sia is mentioned in the nocturnal event of the unification of Re and Osiris: Hornung, Das Buch der Anbetung des Re im Westen II, 83 and 137 note 404.

223 Liturgische Lieder, 219-20. On page 190 see the difficulty of interpreting one key verb: is it sr or it is s#r?

224 At the Abydos temple of Seti the major religious texts

ceremony which probably took place in the Inner

Hypostyle Court if not at the Chapel of Seti.

The dead king’s rebirth is effected. Seti awakens

and sees Re. He is at the end of his underworld

existence. It is thus not surprising to witness the

offering of Maat in this case, if only as the Book

of Gates places this action close to the comple-

tion of Re’s underworld voyage. The connection

to kingship is present. For additional material,

the detailed study by Teeter can be consulted,

to which we can add Assmann’s useful remarks

concerning the importance of the commencement

of light and the beginning of day.223

The evidence from the New Kingdom Tri-

umph of Horus indicates that on day twenty-two

of the third civil month the act of “offering up”

(s#r) Maat occurred. Since Ramesses did not reach

Abydos then, perhaps that reference might refer

to a later visit, after everything that Ramesses had

ordered for Seti was completed.224 On the other

hand, the rite of the Ished tree, a solemn event

connected to the rise to the throne of Egypt, can

perhaps be placed not too long after. The Medinet

Habu calendar places it on I prt 6, and whether

we take that solitary dated source to heart or

not, the timing is significant because it is about

six days after the conclusion of the Choiak Feast

and five days after Nehebkau.225 On the other

hand, the last day of the Osirian Choiak festival

(IV Achet 30) connects this sacred tree with the

final celebration.226 By means of this, one immedi-

ately grasps the interweaving of Osiris and rebirth,

although no rite of inscribing the king’s name on

this tree is indicated.

Although it is speculative to link all of these reli-

gious dates together, a relatively cohesive frame-

work results if we consider every chronological

reference. The newly crowned Pharaoh arrives at

Was this done in the Inner Hypostyle Court, an

area that Teeter has seen was a public one?219 This

idea is visually expressed in one scene at Abydos

directly connected to the Dedicatory Inscription

where Ramesses is located before Osiris. In the

composition the Pharaoh speaks to Seti “while

presenting what he had done.” The two Abydene

cases should represent an identical situation. But

the act of presenting Maat is also connected to

the voyage of Re in the underworld, a twelve-

hour navigation that sees him united with Osiris.

Finally, when the last nocturnal hour is reached,

four goddesses appear, the “crowned ones,” who

offer up Maat (s#r mî#t).220

This event also can be connected to some of

the references that occur with Ramesses and Seti

at Abydos.

Scene of Ramesses at the southern side of 1. the Portico. He appears before Osiris with Isis and Seti present.221

Dedicatory Inscription columns 79-80. 2. Ramesses speaks to the Osiris-Seti while offering up (s#r) everything that he had done to Seti.Speech of Thoth. The lords of the under-3. world offer up goodness (nfrw) to the shrine (kîr) of Re.Speech of Seshat. Sia exalts (4. s#r) the good-ness/beauty (nfrw) of the temple.222

The connection to the offering of Maat and the

end of the night has already been noted. To this

can be added a Books of Gates’ reference to that

ritual occurring at the chapel (kîr) of the sun god

Re. To put it as succinctly as possible, the theme

of “offering up” or “elevating,” which is prevalent

in all of these linked Abydene texts as well as in

one pictorial representation, can be associated

with this other information. The presentation of

Maat by Ramesses at Abydos occurred at a

chapter three120

230 Yoyotte, “Héra d’Héliopolis et le sacrifice humain,” 100-01. He discusses the connection of these verbal images to the Book of Gates.

231 After all, both at Thebes and Amarna Akhenaton erected a \wt bnbn. So Osiris was present with the new solar religion of Akhenaton after all. The recent book of Alfred Grimm and Hermann A. Schlögl, Das thebanische Grab Nr. 136 und der Beginn der Amarnazeit (Wiesbaden: Harras-sowitz, 2005) provides exciting new data that cannot but help us to reevaluate the theological system of the Rames-side Period.

227 For many reasons it is tempting to see Nebwennef as either the writer or the prime mover of the composi-tion. At the moment, we know that he was connected with the Solar-Osirian unity because some of the hymns in his Theban tomb reflect that viewpoint, a point made decades ago by Zandee. In addition, he was erudite and clever, two factors that are reflected by the crossword puzzle in his tomb. I cannot but assume that his knowledge of the native literature was very high.

228 “Héra d’Héliopolis et le sacrifice humain.”229 In general, see the studies assembled in “Le sacrifice

humain en contexte funéraire,” Archéo-Nil 10 (2000).

Abydos, including the Solar-Osirian Unity, and

one that had the literary background in order

to compose a royal narrative. I wonder whether

the final product was pulled together from dis-

parate sources of a literary and religious nature,

and quite possibly was written by more than

one man whom the king ordered to provide the

account.227 Questions of the ultimate foundations

of this inscription, however intriguing, remain

speculative whereas the resounding literary and

emotionally charged qualities remain striking and

stand out for us to appreciate.

A final point can serve as a coda to this study.

In an epoch-making work that I have referred to

a few times in this analysis Yoyotte presented an

enormous amount of information with respect

to human sacrifice in Egypt.228 Subsequently,

archaeologists and other textual experts have

performed admirably in elucidating this factor

in predynastic as well as early dynastic times.229

For our purposes, however, Yoyotte’s analysis

of the Osirian connection at Heliopolis and the

combination or unity of the sun god with Osiris

in hour six of the night cannot be left aside. In

the \wt-bnbn at Heliopolis the “mystery” of Re,

hidden in the earth, was nothing other than the

corpse (hît) of the sun.230 Following these theologi-

cal concepts, when the sun traversed the under-

world at night, it was in the sixth hour that he

commenced to be revived. That this was also pres-

ent during the Amarna Period ought to come as

no surprise.231 The Solar-Osirian connection, with

which has occupied a great deal of this work, had

its resonance in the key center of solar worship

for a long time, centuries before Ramesses visited

Abydos. And yet it was promulgated here and

in a context that was considerably more public

than a royal tomb.

Abydos for the Triumph of Horus, an occasion

that included the presentation of Maat. He also

had his name connected to the Ished Tree. (I am

of the opinion that the right hand [northern side]

Ished tree scene belongs to this event.) The stay

at Abydos may have entailed more than a week.

Most certainly, the historical indications in the

Dedicatory Inscription indicate a completion of

tasks that the young king had ordered. It is pos-

sible to connect the second half of the composition

to a return visit—although the event could have

been cultically performed without the presence

of Ramesses—and attach the first to a celebra-

tion of kingship when the king went north from

Luxor. At any rate, the date, the Maat scene and

the transference of power to the new Pharaoh are

indicated. Note that the depiction of the Presen-

tation of Maat does not reveal any evidence of

an awakening of Seti.

The Dedicatory Inscription and the few scenes

accompanying it have to be placed within a broad

constellation of religious ideas, many of which are

intimately associated with legitimacy of rule. The

composition also reveals Re-Osirian connections.

They are reflected in other texts and scenes of

the temple and where the “mystical” union is at

least limned. All in all, the lengthy hieroglyphic

text reveals a complex unity, one that moves away

from an expected “pure” historical narrative of

the king’s visit to a more theological underpin-

ning of kingship. As a dutiful son, the youthful

Ramesses has set himself the task of completing

his father’s work at Abydos. Perhaps because the

account reveals more than his piety towards his

progenitor it shows us a side of Ramesses’ char-

acter that is striking in its personal nature. The

commissioning of this work depended upon a

writer well versed with the theological aspects of

bibliography 121

Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated and Annotated: Translations, II. Oxford and Cambridge MA: Blackwell, 1996.

Ramesside Inscriptions. Translated and Annotated: Notes and Comments II. Oxford and Malden: Blackwell, 1999.

Kruchten, Jean-Marie “From Middle Egyptian to Late Egyptian.” Lingua

Aegyptia 6 (1999): 1-97. Lesko, Leonard H. Review of A. Rosalie David. Religious Ritual At Abydos.

Chronique d’Égypte 49 (1974): 103-05.Maderna-Sieben, Claudia “Die Grosse Bauinschrift von Abydos.” Pages 237-82

in Egypt –Temple of the Whole World. Ägypten—Tempel der Gesamten Welt: Studies in Honour of Jan Assmann. Edited by Sibylle Meyer. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003.

Mariette, Auguste Abydos. Descriptions des fouilles exécutées sur l’emplacement de

cette ville I. Paris: A. Franck, 1869.Murnane, William J. “The Earlier Reign of Ramesses II and His Coregency

with Sety I.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 34 (1975): 153-90.

Ancient Egyptian Coregencies. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1977.

“Egyptian Monuments and Historical Memory.” KMT 5.3 (Fall 1994): 14-24.

“Reconstructing Scenes from the Great Hypostyle Court.” Pages 107-17 in Warsaw Egyptological Studies. I. Essays in Honour of Prof. Dr. Jadwiga Lipinska. Warsaw: National Museum in War saw, 1997.

Niwinski, Andrzej “The Solar-Osirian Unity as Principle of the Theology of the ‘State of Amun’ in Thebes in the 21st Dynasty.” Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap Ex Oriente Lux 30 (1987-88): 89-106.

Redford, Donald B. Pharaonic King-Lists, Annals and Day Books: a Contribution to the Study of the Egyptian Sense of History. Mississauga: Benben, 1986.

Rondot, Vincent La grande salle hypostyle de Karnak: les architraves. Paris:

Éditions Recherche sur les Civilizations, 1997.Seele, Keith C. The Coregency of Ramses II with Seti I and the Date

of the Great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940.

Spalinger, Anthony “Traces of the Early Career of Ramesses II.” Journal of

Near Eastern Studies 39 (1980): 271-86.Sweeney, Deborah “The Great Dedicatory Inscription of Ramses II

at Abydos (lines 1-79).” Pages 134-327 in Papers for Discussion. Presented by the Department of Egyptology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem II. Edited by Sarah Groll and Frances Bogot. Jerusalem: Department of Egyptology, Hebrew University, 1985.

Tiradritti, Francesco “‘I Have not Diverted my Inundation’. Legitimacy and

the Book of the Dead in a Stela of Ramesses IV from Abydos.” Pages 193-203 in L’Impero Ramesside. Convegno Internazionale in Onore di Sergio Donadoni. Rome: Università degli studi di Roma “La Sapienza,” 1997.

Zippert, Erwin “Der Gedächtnistempel Sethos’ I. zu Abydos.” Ph.D.

diss., University of Berlin, 1931.

Assmann, Jan Liturgische Lieder an den Sonnengott. Untersuchungen zur alt-

ägyp tischen Hymnik, I. Berlin: B. Helssling, 1969. “Das Bild des Vaters im alten Ägypten.” Pages 12-49 in

Das Vaterbild im Mythos und Geschichte. Edited by Huber tus Tellenbach. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1976.

“Zur Geschichte des Herzens im Alten Ägypten.” Pages 81-113 in Studien zur religiösen Anthropologie: Die Erfindung des inneren Menschen. Studien zum Verstehen fremder Religion 6. Edited by Jan Assmann. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1993.

Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete. 2d ed. Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999.

Baines, John “Abydos, Temple of Sethos I: Preliminary Report.”

Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 70 (1984): 13-22. “Techniques of Decoration in the Hall of Barques in

the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos.” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 75 (1989): 13-28.

“Recording the Temple of Sethos I at Abydos in Egypt.” Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum (Tokyo) 11 (1990): 65-95.

“Colour use and the distribution of relief and painting in the Temple of Sety I at Abydos in Egypt.” Pages 145-57 in Colour and Painting in Ancient Egypt. Edited by W. Vivian Davies. London: British Museum, 2001.

Brand, Peter J. The Monuments of Seti I. Epigraphic, Historial, and Art His-

torical Analysis. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2000.Calverley, Alice M., Broome, Myrtle F., and Gardiner, Alan

H. The Temple of King Sethos I at Abydos I-IV. London and Chicago: The Egypt Exploration Society and The University of Chicago Press, 1933-58.

Capart, Jean Abydos. Le temple de Séti Ier: étude générale. Brussels: Ros- signol and Van den Bril, 1912.

Caulfeild, A. St. G. The Temple of the Kings at Abydos (Sety I.). London: B. Quaritch, 1902.

1erný, Jaroslav Collations of Abydos. Unpublished Notebook, n.d. Darnell, John Coleman. The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity:

Cryptographic Compositions in the Tombs of Tutankhamun, Ramesses VI and Ramesses IX. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.

David, A. Rosalie Religious Ritual at Abydos (c. 1300 BC). Warminster: Aris &

Phillips, 1973. Harvey, Stephen P. “The Cults of King Ahmose at Abydos.” Ph.D. diss.,

University of Pennsylvania, 1998. Hornung, Erik “Der Mensch als ‘Bild Gottes’ in Ägypten.” Pages

123-56 in Die Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen. Edited by Oswald Loretz Munich: Kösel, 1967.

Jéquier, Gustave “ L’Ennéade osirienne d’Abydos et les enseignes sa -

crées.” Comptes rendus des Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres (1920): 409-17.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. Ramesside Inscriptions, Historical and Biographical I-II.

Oxford: Blackwell: 1975-79.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

bibliography122

index 123

Chepri 83, 85Chiefs of the Archive 29Choiak (Feast of) 119Coffin Texts 11, 47, 99, 100(Contendings /Story/Tale of) Horusand Seth 10, 48, 87, 96, 116Corridor/Hall of Lists 103Corridor of the Bull 91, 95, 104, 105, 108, 114Courtiers 9, 19, 29, 33, 39, 41, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51,

55, 57, 60

Darnell ( John) ix, x, 44, 100, 101, 117David (Ann Rosalie) 4, 103Deir el Medineh 10, 18, 116Destruction (of Mankind) 12, 13, 14, 15, 39Dobbin (Tasha) xiiiDoomed Prince 11, 26Doxologies 48Dramatic Ramesseum Papyrus 65Dream Books 10

Eighth (VIIIth) Pylon (at Karnak) 73, 74Eigner (Diethelm) 89Elephantine 9, 11El Mashayikh 117Encomium/Encomia 9, 14, 17, 30, 35, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43,

48, 49, 50, 66, 75, 76, 116Ennead 30, 52, 67, 78, 83, 87, 96, 98, 103, 105, 106Eulogy/Eulogies/Eulogistic x, 12, 18, 22, 29, 30, 31, 32,

38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 66, 67, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 110, 116

Fecht (Gerhard) 39, 43First Court 4, 90First Osiris Hall 115First Present 69, 72Fisher (Marjorie) 95, 103, 104, 105

Gallery of Kings 7, 104, 105, 106, 107Gardiner (Alan) 35, 40, 63Gauthier (Henri) 27, 33, 55Geb 33, 102, 106Gebel Barkal Stela 46Giza 13, 115Goedicke (Hans) 13Görg (Manfred) 66Grapow (Hermann) ix, 43Great Papyrus Harris 47, 69, 72, 73Gournah (Temple) 88

Haeny (Gerhard) 88Hall of Barques 105, 108Hall of Lists see Corridor of ListsHaring (Ben) 115Harvey (Stephen) 89, 91Hatshepsut 74Hattusilis III 9, 11Heagren (Brett) xiii

Abu Simbel 93Abydos Stela of Ahmose 13Ahhotep 22, 73, 81Ahmose (Pharaoh) 13, 22, 73, 74, 89Ahmose Nofretary 74Ahmose son of Ebana 16Akhenaton x, 4, 13, 23Aksha 9All Lord 21, 32, 49, 83, 85, 96Amarna 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 24, 36, 39, 77, 83, 101,

112, 113, 117, 120Amduat 61, 78Amenemhet (I) 18, 32, 77, 85Amenmose 5Amun/Amun-Re 22, 23, 28, 34, 45, 53, 62, 66, 67, 73, 74,

75, 81, 99, 100, 102Amunherkhepshef 104, 106Amun-Kamutef 100Amunhotep II 15, 46Amunhotep III 22, 24, 66, 67(P.) Anastasi II 48, 75(P.) Anastasi IV 75Ante Room 108Apophis 25Apophis and Seqenenre (Tale of) 9, 10, 11, 13Aretologies 48Army Commanders 28Aruna Pass 11Assmann (Jan) ix, 11, 17, 22, 23, 31, 39, 40, 41, 42, 48, 61,

63, 65, 73, 74, 77, 78, 82, 97, 100, 109, 114, 119Aten 4, 5Atum 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, 49, 52, 53, 69, 77, 78, 82, 83, 85,

87, 96, 99, 100, 116Avaris 73Ay (Pharaoh) 4, 5

Baal 42, 49Baines (John) xiii, 91, 95, 105, 106, 107, 108, 115Baraize (Émile) 93Barguet (Paul) 91Battle of Kadesh 5, 6, 9, 10, 42, 43, 93, 109, 112Beit el Wali 93, 111Bentresh Stela 12Berlin Leather Roll 8, 41, 55, 110Blessing of Ptah 44, 66, 67Book of the Dead ix, 47, 109Book of Gates 119Book of Respirations 98Borghouts (Joris) 76Brand (Peter) 4, 90, 91, 104

Caminos (Ricardo) 48, 75Cenotaph 88, 89, 91, 98, 104, 109, 113; see Osireion1erný (Jaroslav) 62, 106Chamber L 63Chapel K 63, 64, 65Chapel of Osiris 106, 107Chapel of Seti 64, 115, 119

INDEX

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

index124

Memphis 21, 44, 46, 56, 57, 58, 60, 66, 67Menkaura 115Mentuhotep II (Nebhepetre) 23Merenptah (Pharaoh, Son of Ramesses II) 5, 14, 45, 75,

112, 117Millor (William) 95Min 49Mingle/mingles 85, 100Miscellanies see Late Egyptian MiscellaniesMiwer 35Morrow (John) xiiiMunro (Peter) 114Murnane (William) 7, 95, 106, 107, 111, 112Mut 46

Names (of Ramesses II) 2, 3-4, 7, 58, 61, 64, 92, 93, 94, 95, 103, 104, 107, 108

Nauri Decree 71, 79, 90, 115, 118Nebwennef x, 28, 62, 65, 67, 117, 118Neferkare and General Sisene 13Neferty 10, 13, 18, 29Nehebkau 119Nepthys 89Niwinski (Andrzej) ixNofretary ix, 28, 117Non-Initial Main Sentence 24, 69, 72Notables of the King 28Nubia/Nubians/Nubian 93, 111, 115

Opening of the Mouth 65, 96, 113, 114Opet (place and festival) x, 22Onuris 24, 25, 62Osing (Jürgen) 109Osiris Chamber 115Osireion 88, 91Otto (Eberhard) 97, 112, 113, 114Outer Hypostyle Hall/Court 3, 4, 45, 90, 92, 93, 108

P. Chester Beatty I 116P. Harris see Great Papyrus HarrisP. Sallier III 93P. Westcar 16Papyrus Wilbour 11Petrie (Willliam) 104Pi-Ramesses 23Poem of Year Twelve (Ramesses III) 76Poetical Stela of Thutmose III 66Portico x, 1, 44, 48, 64, 90, 91, 96, 119Posener (Georges) 10, 15, 18, 28Ptah 44, 64, 66, 67Pyramid Texts 11, 113

Qenherkhepeshef 10Quaegebeur (Jan) 98, 99Quirke (Stephen) xiii, 85

Ramesses I 68, 101, 113, 114Ramesses III 5, 44, 45, 47, 73, 75, 115Ramesses IV 5, 47, 100, 113Ramesses V 49, 72Ramesses VI x, 100, 113Ramesses IX x, 100, 101, 113, 117Re 9, 10, 17, 20, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32. 36, 38, 49, 50, 52, 53,

65, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 113, 114, 116, 119, 120

Re-Amun-Atum 99Re-Atum(-Khnum) 30, 99Re-Harachty 44, 64, 80, 87, 96, 98, 100

Helck (Wolfgang) 44, 46, 111, 112, 113, 114Heliopolis 55, 56, 57, 58, 120Hermann (Alfred) 8Hintze (Fritz) 15, 16Hittite Marriage 9, 11, 15, 43, 46Hittite Treaty 5Hittites 12Hoffmeier (James) 62Horemheb 61, 112Hornung (Erik) ix, xiii, 61, 94, 100Horus x, 3, 10, 15, 17, 21, 22, 25, 32, 41, 50, 51, 52, 64,

66, 69, 83, 84, 87, 88, 92, 96, 99, 100, 101, 112, 113, 114, 116, 118, 119, 120

Hsieh (Julia) xiiiHyksos 73Hypostyle Hall (Karnak) 93, 94, 103, 108, 111Hymn to the Aten 4, 5

Iamunedjeh 117Imiseba 117Inner Hypostyle Hall 63, 64, 90, 119Inner Osiris Hall 107Ished (tree) 1, 3, 44, 48, 89, 119, 120Isis 3, 38, 44, 50, 64, 69, 89, 92, 99, 103, 104, 105, 106,

114, 119Israel Stela 5

Junge (Friedrich) 4, 5, 23, 77, 82

Kadesh see Battle of Kadesh, Kadesh Bulletin, Kadesh Inscriptions, or Kadesh Poem

Kadesh Bulletin 42Kadesh Inscriptions 69Kadesh Poem 9, 10, 11, 14, 40, 42, 43, 75Kamose 74Karnak 7, 22, 46, 53, 66, 67, 73, 74, 81, 93, 94, 103, 108,

111, 112Khenet-hen-nefer 54Kheruef 23Khnum 30Kitchen (Kenneth) 1, 3, 7, 13, 24, 25, 31, 35, 37, 45, 47,

51, 54, 55, 58, 60, 62, 64, 70, 77, 92, 93, 103, 106, 107, 108, 110, 118

Kola/Kolas 38, 43, 51, 52Königsnovelle x, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 28, 31, 35,

37, 45, 47, 48, 67, 73, 85, 110, 112Kruchten (Jean-Marie) 14, 19, 23, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32, 49,

54, 62, 68, 69, 72, 78, 79Kubban/Kubban Stela 9, 10Kuentz (Charles) 43

Langage de tradition 36, 80, 112Late Egyptian Miscellanies 30, 31, 40, 69, 74, 75Late Egyptian Stories 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24Leblanc (Christain) 93Lesko (Barbara) 115Libya/Libyans 45, 76Litany of Re/of the Sun x, 78, 93, 94, 101Liverani (Mario) 42Louvre Leather Roll 93Luxor 13, 23, 34, 66, 118, 120Loprieno (Antonio) xiii, 4, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 69, 73

Maat 44, 88, 90, 92, 96, 103, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120Mansion of Gold 26, 27, 59, 113Mariette (Auguste) 27, 104Medinet Habu 5, 75, 115, 116, 119Mehy 34, 111, 112

index 125

Thebes 4, 6, 13, 19, 23, 24, 28, 45, 56, 57, 58, 60, 74, 88, 93, 94, 115, 116, 118

Terrace 26, 27, 89, 90, 91Terrace of the Great God 89, 90, 91Thinis/Thinite (Nome) 24, 25, 62, 67Third Future 38Thoth 3, 7, 32, 44, 49, 64, 83, 87, 89, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99,

100, 101, 102, 103, 106, 108, 114, 116, 119Thutmose I 74, 81Thutmose III 12, 46, 66, 67, 101Thutmose IV 13, 14Tiradritti (Francesco) 47, 113Transfiguration Hymns 65, 66Transformation Hymns 39, 40, 41Triumph of Horus 25, 87, 88, 116, 118, 119, 120Tutankhamun x, 15, 16, 62, 100, 112, 113Two Brothers (Tale of) 11

Upper Staircase 92Useramun 101

Verhoeven (Ursula) 48, 49, 97, 116Verklären 40Verkünden 39Vernus (Pascal) 78, 79, 82Victory Poem of Thutmose III 67Villa of Sese 75

Wadi Mia 115Wenennefer 19, 25, 52, 65, 67, 77, 79, 84, 85, 87, 89, 91,

96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 114, 116Wente (Edward) 31, 69, 72, 73Willems (Harco) ix, 99, 100, 101Wilson (John) 5

Yoyotte (Jean) 120

Zandee (Jan) ix, 61

Zippert (Erwin) 62, 63, 98, 104, 115

Re-Osiris 84Redford (Donald) 44, 45, 46, 110Renenutet 30Restoration Inscription of Tutankhamun 15Rondot (Vincent) 92, 94, 103Room N (for Osiris-Seth) 62Royal Companions 38, 48

Satire of Trades 10Schott (Siegfried) 114Seal Bearer 15, 28Second Court 1, 4, 90Second Hypostyle Court 107Second Osiris Hall 115Seele (Keith) 7, 108Semneh Inscription of Sesostris III 41Seshat 7, 64, 95, 99, 101, 102, 103, 106, 108, 115, 119Seshat-Sefkhtabwy 101Sesostris I 18, 32, 41, 44, 55, 77, 85Sesostris III 41Seth 10, 42, 48, 87, 96, 116Sethnakht Stela 47Shu 99Sinuhe 10Snefru 13Sokar 105Southeast Court 106, 107, 108Sphinx 13, 14, 15, 46Sphinx Stela of Amenhotep II 15Sphinx Stela of Thutmose IV 13, 14Stairway Corridor 7, 88, 89, 91, 92, 95, 97, 98, 99, 101,

102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 114, 115, 117Storage Hall 108Superintendents of Works 28Sutton (Douglas) xiii

Taking of Joppa 12Teaching of Amenemhet I (to Sesostris I) 18, 32, 77, 85

(indirectly)Teeter (Emily) 90, 119Tetishery 13, 74, 81

Egyptian Names, Words, and Phrases of Importance

îms (in îms-ïb) 22, 31

ïîw (with or without rdït) 39ïwnw (with Éws, àp, and s#È#) 20, 37ïb 21, 22, 31, 88ïmî 22ïmyw-r mnf îyt (army commanders) 28ïmyw-r kîwt (superintendents of works) 28ïrï 21, 22, 30, 38ïst 15, 16, 36, 37, 40, 41, 46, 56, 58, 110, 111#È#.n + Formations 6, 13, 19, 20, 24, 40, 55#È#.n nb tîwy 6#dd 49

wn.ïn.f (Èr) + Formations 6, 13, 14, 16, 20, 24, 29, 80wàb 81, 117wts 65, 66

bî mnÉ 81, 117bîw 42, 48, 75, 76bw pw.f sdm Formations 51, 54bw sdm.f Formations 25

bw sdm.n.f Formations 25, 80bÉn 73

Pn-tî-wrt 9, 10, 12pr (with àps and Èbs) 20phr 21, 22, 31, 32

m#r 31mn# 21, 22, 32mn#/mn#t (“nurse”) 21, 22, 38, 50mnq 20, 27, 36msï/mst/msyw (“to fashion,” etc.) 6, 17, 21, 27, 30, 36, 53,

54, 56, 59, 60, 69, 70

n sdm.n.f Formation 25, 38n#t 22, 32nhs/nhsï 65, 66, 68nÈÈ 23, 82nÉtw 48, 49, 75, 76ndm 22, 53, 88

rwd/rïwd (“terrace”) 91

index126

sdm.ïn.f Formations 14, 28, 29, 30, 34, 38sdm.n.f Formations 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27,

30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 41, 54, 56, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 111

sdm pw ïr.n.f Formations 24sdd 42, 46 (sddt.n rmtt), 48, 49, 75, 76, 116sdd bîw 42, 48, 75, 76sdd nÉtw 48, 49, 75, 76

àbn 85àpsw nswt (notables of the king) 28ànywt (courtiers) 28àrï wà 20àsp tp wît 23, 24

qd 17, 21, 30, 53, 54, 69

kîr 119

ts 79, 96

dwîw 39, 81dbÈ 82

dt 23, 82

rÉt-n.f 62

\îw-nbw 73Èîty 21, 22, 31Èryw-tp pr mdît (chiefs of the archive) 29

Épr swt 5, 12, 14, 15, 19Éprw 77, 97, 102Ér m-Ét 16Ér ïr m-Ét 40, 55Étmty bïty 15, 28

sîÉw 65, 66s#r 54, 57, 118, 119s#r m#ît 118, 119s#È# 20swîà 42, 48, 53swhî 81sfy 49smrw 46, 48snhs 64sàmw 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 101, 102, 113, 114, 115sàmw-Éw 63, 115sdm.f Formations 20, 23, 27, 29, 31, 34, 35, 41, 54, 66, 68,

69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 111