I
wsx pr
n innw
nn.ir.i isftw
Hail, Be wide- (who) goes forth- in- On! I have not sinned (lit. I have not done sins)
I
Hpt sDt
pr m XraH nn.awA.i
Hail, Embracer -(of)- flame who goes forth in Kheraha! I have not plundered.
I
fndyw
pr m
xmn(w)
n tAw.i
Hail, he of the nose (ie Thoth) who goes forth in Hermopolis! I have not robbed
Note: what is the difference between awA and tAw? According to Budge (AED v1 p114), the former is the more violent of the two.
Comment: it is interesting to note that the first among the “Declarations of Innocence”, as Budge calls them (previously I’ve only know this part of the Book of the Dead as the Negative Confession), is the statement that one has not stolen. This reminds me of a recent documentary I saw (on A&E or the History Channel) about a man being executed at Stonehenge during the early Christian era (circa 700s A.D.) for a crime, probably (land) theft, which was also among the Anglo-Saxons one of the most heinous crimes.
I
amtt
pr m
qrt nn.smA
dm.i
rmt
Hail, Swallower who goes forth in the tomb (ie Amentet)! I have not slain people.
(Cf Gardiner H4 Egyptian
Grammar p474 )
I
nHA -Hr
pr rsTAw
n wD wr
dbH
Hail, rough-(dangerous, hard)-of-face (who) goes forth in the necropolis! (I have) not commanded much (alms*)
in place of
denotes ‘that which is received from begging’ ie alms. According to
Budge though the passage
reads:”I have not stolen grain.”
sSr
‘corn’ (Gard
cf p.519) as a ref, meaning that Budge interpreted this as a not as a det.
for the previous word sign
grouping, but as an independent word. Which leads as to how to
translate wD wr dbH as ‘to steal’
One
mistake I can already see I made-it’s really quite subtle- the swallow
hieroglyph wr isn’t really a
swallow hieroglyph at all but rather a sparrow , which according to Gardiner is
a det. for ‘small’, ‘narrow’, ‘bad’, ‘defective’, ‘empty’
and ‘diseased’. Phonetically it has many interpretations, only one of which
(Gardiner) shows as being abbreviated to just the single hieroglyph
nDs,
which btw is distinguished from
-wr
by having a rounded tail. They do look very nearly the same.
How does the following transliterate?
After Gardiner: V 24 (I 10, Z9, G 36, 37[?]) D58 (F18,U16) Z13. Note: the signs in normal parentheses are grouped vertically; G36 is probably G37.
I Rwty
pr m pt
n xbt.i
Hail, the two-lion god who goes forth in heaven! Not am I guilty.
Note
the similarity: cf Gardiner p 584.
xbn
(be) guilty, xbnt crime;
xbnty criminal
and
xbd
criminal.
Question: How and why does Budge translate this as “I have not purloined offerings”? Does he see hbt as referring to above?.
Mercer’s
translation of xbnty even gives
my translation more credence: cf Egyptian Grammar p. 178. Where are the
signs for offering in
?
My
stumbling at the hieroglyph
in the previous two sentences (v 5
and 6) are indications of just how poor my understanding of AE is. I need to
study things like verb endings more and make it at least past Chapter 10 of
Gardiner’s Grammar.
I irfy m xt pr
m sAwt n
TA (?)
.i xt
nTr
Hail (lit. His-two-eyes-as-flame) who goes forth in Asyut!
I have not (literally: fingered?) robbed the holy things of God.
I nbi
pr m
xt xt
n Dd.i
grgw
Hail
Flame (Neb
cf Budge V1 p367, one of the 42 assessors in the Hall of Osiris)
who goes forth in the (lit. Tree [of] Retreat(?), cf Budge V1 pp.
567-568: xt-xt to follow, march
after, pass away, slip behind, drop out, drop, alienation (of property); also cf
Gardiner p 586 at bottom of entry for
: xtxt
retreat, be reversed)!
I have not told lies.
Another possible interpretation: ‘who goes forth as a follower!’
Budge:
Hail Neb
who comes and goes, I have not told lies.
Note:
this makes sense if
are seen as a compound verb. Only
why isn’t the det. reversed as in Gardiner’s example (above)?
