[Home] [Commentary p. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] [Hieroglyph P8]

Commentary for pWestcar, AEL Page 8, Lines 1 - 29

This discusses hieroglyphic page 8 (= de Buck's Page 85).
The full transliteration of page 8 is here. The 'clickable' vocabulary is here.
 
Go to Line:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7-8 9 10-11 12 13 14 15-16 17-18 19 20-21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
 
LINE 1 [next] [top]
aHa.n Dd.n=s ; " n.y-sw.t iri.ty=fy n.y.t-sw.t m tA pn r Dr=f !"
...then she said, "A king who will exercise the kingship of this entire land!"
 
[MDS, 20/10/97, AEL Westcar P8 L1]
I looked at P8, line 1 for a while in
utter despair. As luck would have it, I stumbled across a translation in one
of my books, and then it made sense.
Notes:
 aHa.n Dd.n=f
- Narrative verb form meaning "Then she said..."
 n.y-sw.t - noun, "a/ the king"
 iri.ty=fy - a future participle (the sDm.ty=fy form, see Gr #363; Hoch #125) from the verb iri "do, make, etc." Means "(he) who will do/ make/ exercise".
 n.y.t-sw.t - feminine (neutral) form of this word, meaning the abstract position, "kingship".
 m tA pn r Dr=f  - lit." in this land to its end"
 
Now, is the goddess Meskhenet making a prediction or is she deciding the boy's future?
 
[G.Graham, 20/10/97, RE>AEL Westcar P8 L]
I could not say for sure. In other stories it is the "seven Hathors" who perform this task and with them it is clear that any fate they pronounce cannot be avoided no matter how much one might try. However, it is not clear that these prophesies are always fulfilled in the way one might guess, and ironic twists can make them take surprising turns. However, the end of the Tale of the Doomed Prince is not preserved, so we do not know how it turns out, while that of the Two Brothers makes the fabricated woman come to a terrible end, just as predicted. The seven Hathors can be found in the Ptolemaic and Roman Mammisi reliefs, where they all carry what appear to be tambourines, unless they are full moons, which seems less likely.
 
LINE 2 [next] [prev] [top]
Xnm.w Hr s-wDA Ha.w=f .
 
[M.Vygus, 27/10/97, AEL Westcar P8 / L1-6]
"Khnum was causing his limbs to be healthy"
[G.Graham28/10/97, RE>AEL Westcar P8 / L1-6]
Yes. I like to take a little liberty and say "activating his limbs".
 
LINE 3 [next] [prev] [top]
rdi.in sy As.t xft Hr=s , nb.t-Hw.t HA=s ,
 
[M.Vygus, 27/10/97, AEL Westcar P8 / L1-6]
"Isis placed herself in front of her, Nephthys behind her, "
[G.Graham28/10/97, RE>AEL Westcar P8 / L1-6]
 
 
LINE 4 [next] [prev] [top]
Hq.t Hr s-xAx msi.w.t
 
[M.Vygus, 27/10/97, AEL Westcar P8 / L1-6]
"Heket was hastening the birth"
 
 
LINE 5 [next] [prev] [top]
Dd.in As.t , imi=k sAH m X.t=s m rn=k
 
[M.Vygus, 27/10/97, AEL Westcar P8 / L1-6]
"Said by Isis, "You will not kick in her belly in (this) your name"
[G.Graham28/10/97, RE>AEL Westcar P8 / L1-6]
The jn in this construction does probably come from the same jn as "by", however it is its own construction, and could be translated simply as "then Isis said".
jmj is an imperative form of the neegative verb, so you would need to make it imperative rather than future: "do not kick..."
 
LINE 6 [next] [prev] [top]
pwy n.y sAH.w-ra
 
[M.Vygus, 27/10/97, AEL Westcar P8 / L1-6]
"... (this) of Sahure [Re the kicker ?]
[G.Graham28/10/97, RE>AEL Westcar P8 / L1-6]
... maybe more like "Re strides"?
 
LINE 7 - 8 [next] [prev] [top]
war.in Xrd pn tp a.wy=s m Xrd n.y mH wa rwD qs.w=f
 
[Mark Vygus, 1/11/97, AEL Westcar P8/L7-12]
"This child rushed forth before her, a child of 1 cubit (in length), His Bones were strong"

[G.Graham, 3/11/97, RE>AEL Westcar P8/L7-12]
tp a.wy=s means "upon her hands", but otherwise this is good.
 
LINE 9 [next] [prev] [top]
nxbt a.w.t=f (m nbw) afn.t=f m xsbD mAa
 
[Mark Vygus, 1/11/97, AEL Westcar P8/L7-12]
"his limbs were covered in gold, his Royal headdress of real lapis-lazuli"
[G.Graham, 3/11/97, RE>AEL Westcar P8/L7-12]
afn.t can be coiffure too. It means his hair.
 
LINES 10 - 11 [next] [prev] [top]
iai.in=sn sw Sad XpA=f rdi Hr ifd.y m Db.t
 
[Mark Vygus, 1/11/97, AEL Westcar P8/L7-12]
"They washed him, cut his umbilical cord, (then) placed (him) upon a cloth on bricks"
[G.Graham, 3/11/97, RE>AEL Westcar P8/L7-12]
Now, we are back to this line with the strange forms again. I know we went over it before, but the only thing sticking in my head is the passive sDm.w=f form of Sad, then the rest still eludes me. What did James Hoch finally suggest again for rdi? I think it means "his umbilical cord was cut, and (he) was placed upon a brick-shaped pillow".
 
[S.Rosmorduc, 3/11/97, RE>AEL Westcar P8/L7-12]
Well, after some thought:
Sad XpA=f
sDmw=f passive, with accomplished value. I think James Hoch meant that you'd probably wash the baby after cutting the umbilical cord, and so the sDmw=f here is not a continuative form, but means 'when his umbilical cord had been cut'.
 
rdi Hr ifdy - an old perfective, its subject being either the baby or the cord.
[G.Graham, 4/11/97, RE>AEL Westcar P8/L7-12]
You then mean the "preterite" or the pluperfect? [referring to the sDmw=f passive form of Sad that Serge stated was with accomplished (ie. completed) value]
[5/11/97, Serge responded, "The pluperfect."]
 
[G.Graham, 4/11/97, RE>AEL Westcar P8/L7-12]
[responding to Serge; rdi Hr ifdy - an old perfective, its subject being either the baby or the cord.]
Yet isn't it particularly disturbing that the subject of this stative would either already have been functioning as the subject of Sad or be so far removed in position? I think it is extremely odd, and this leads me to believe that it cannot be a stative. Yet, my suggestion that it were a participle bothered James, who pointed out that there were no nouns around for it to modify. Wouldn't the situation really be the same for a stative? You kind of need a noun for it to work, and all the nouns are already performing other functions here. A subjectless stative would be even odder than a subjectless participle in my opinion.
[5/11/97, Serge: Well, if it's a participle, you have a noun group there. How do you attach it to the rest of the sentence ?]
To me there are only two potential subjects for whatever rdi is:
jaj.jn=sn sw Sad.w Xp3=f rdj Hr jrd.y m Db.t
Either "they" or "his umbilical cord". [5/11/97, Serge: or sw, if it is the child.]
The umbilical cord is already used as a subect for the sDm.w=f. Is it really possible for it to also function as the subject of a stative at the same time?
[5/11/97, Serge:Yes it is possible. This kind of construction has even got a name : "construction enchâssée" or "construction nexale". An example,
aHa.n in.n=f sw rd n Hnwt=f ("Snefrou refreshes his heart's" tale)
Here, we have no problem to decide who is who : sw is the fish of mefekat, and the translation is "Then he fetched it, and it was given to his owner", or better : "Then he fetched it, and gave it to his owner".
We basically find : aHa.n in.n=f sw
          sw rd=w n Hnwt=f
But I admit that these examples sound better than the current one. ]
 
Yet, with "they", it is also a bit far away from rdi, and it could not be stative, but maybe a participle. One wants it to be "the child", yet the child has not been mentioned in any recent part of the text where it could be the subject of rdi.
 
If there were only one example of this, I would have decided that the scribe made an error, but this papyrus repeats this line THREE times! What on earth is going on? It just does not seem like any good Egyptian with which I am familiar. But then, the entire Papyrus Prisse with Ptahhotep's maxims seems to be just like it, utterly unintelligible Middle Egyptian where every translator has basically had to make it up as he goes along, otherwise it means nothing at all.
 
[S. Rosmorduc, 5/11/97, RE>AEL Westcar P8/L7-12]]
An interesting point about Prisse P. Vernus has pointed out in his seminar is that the 18th dynasty versions tend to differ a lot from the Prisse version in the obscure parts, which shows that new kingdom scribes had problems there.
[G.Graham, 5/11/97, RE>AEL Westcar P8/L7-12]
Yes, Faulkner himself says that the papyrus is virtually incomprehensible.
 
[Antonio Loprieno, 5/11/97, RE>AEL Westcar P8/L7-12]
I think the following is the way I would proceed: "Then they washed him, after having cut his umbilical cord, and he was placed upon a cushion in (the form of) a brick."
The passive sDm(.w)=f Sad XpA=f is probably anterior to the event described in the initial form, whereas the Stative rDj(.w), whose subject is clearly the object sw of the initial form omitted through "gapping," is temporally neutral, but aspectually perfective. Therefore my translation "and he was placed," the connection with the preceding portion of discourse being guaranteed by the gapping of the subject, as I said above.
 
This use of the stative is probably not to be found in every Egyptian sentence, but it is not infrequent either. An example at random: CT I 223g-224b B10Cc: Dj=f a.wj=f(j) Hr nb nTr.w Ha.y xa.y m ns.t gb rD.y jA(.w) m-Xnw ddw "May he (=Anubis) place his arms on the Lord of the Gods (=Osiris), who has rejoiced having appeared on the throne of Geb, to whom praise is given in Busiris." in order to be properly understood, the two dependent clauses Ha.y xa.y m ns.t gb and rD.y jA(.w) m-Xnw ddw need to be referred to the subject nb nTr.w in the main clause.
 
I would exclude the participial interpretation for rDj(.w) in the Westcar passage, since (1) either the participle is a qualifier, in which case it must follow the noun it refers to, which is not the case here, or (2) if predicative, the participle must appear in a nfr sw construction, which is also not what our passage displays.

 

LINE 12 [next] [prev] [top]
aHa.n mzA.n sy msi-xn.t r=f
 
[Mark Vygus, 1/11/97, AEL Westcar P8/L7-12]
"Then Meskhenet approached him"
[G.Graham, 3/11/97, RE>AEL Westcar P8/L7-12]
more like "leaned over". Literally "extended herself toward him".
LINE 13 [next] [prev] [top]
aHa.n Dd.n=s n.y-sw.t iri.ty=fy n.y.t-sw.t m tA pn r Dr=f
"Then she said, "A king who will exercise the kingship of this entire land!"
LINE 14 [next] [prev] [top]
wn.in Xnmw Hr s-wDA a.w.t=f
"Then Khnum was activating his limbs"
 
LINE 15-16 [next] [prev] [top]
rdi.in sy As.t xft Hr=s nb.t-Hw.t HA=s Hq.t Hr s-xAx msi.w.t
"Isis placed herself in front of her, Nephthys behind her, Heket was hastening the birth"
 
LINE 17-18 [next] [prev] [top]
Dd.in As.t imi=k kkw m X.t=s m rn=k pwy n.y kkw
 
[MDS, 13/11/97, RE>AEL pWestcar, p8 cont'd]
"Then Isis said, "Do not be dark in her body/womb in this your name of 'darkness' [or perhaps 'the dark one'?].
[What is] the meaning of dark/darkness here. Is it literal, or does it denote anger, evil, etc.??
 
[G.Graham, 13/11/97, RE>AEL pWestcar, p8 cont'd]
This is a folk etymology for the name of Neferirkare Kakai. The word kkw was felt to sound like it, so the author has used that as the origin for this name which is otherwise obscure, either some nickname or a name not of (obviously) Egyptian origin. Of course, all three children are the first kings of the Fifth Dynasty, as the text has told us, and they should be Userkaf (rendered "Usereref"), Sahure, and Neferikare also known as Kakai (rendered "Keku"). The use of kkw is simply a device explaining the name, and not too much ought to be made over its associations with real phenomena.
 
This text has given rise to a theory that children were named by the process of conjuring them out of the womb and that names were called until one of them worked. Another thought is that some detail of the birth of a person would give them their names. This might well have been true of people in New Kingsom Thebes because we see names like Amunpena`ef (jmn-pna=f) "Amun made him upsidedown", i.e. his was a breech-birth by grace of Amun. There are hardly any other explanations for names like these which might seem silly or unsettling in other contexts. Even names like Ramesses or Tuthmosis might be examples of such, since it makes little sense to say that a male god "gave birth" to someone, but rather it might indicate that it was upon the recitation of THAT god's particular name that the baby finally was delivered. There is no way to test such theories but these names are suggestive of something culturally relevant and this is one explanation.

LINE 19 [next] [prev] [top]
war.in Xrd pn tp a.wy=s m Xrd n.y mH wa
"Then this child rushed out *onto* her two arms as a child of one cubit,"
[ed., note we skipped L.19-27 because it is a repetition of the previous 2 births]
 
LINE 20-21 [next] [prev] [top]
rwD qs.w=f nxbt a.w.t=f m nbw afn.t=f m xsbD mAa
"... and his bones were sturdy, and his limbs plated with gold,
and his hair-do was of real lapis lazuli!"
 
LINE 22 [next] [prev] [top]
aHa.n mzA.n sy msi-xn.t r=f
"Then Meskhenet extended herself toward him (leaned over him)."
 
LINE 23 [next] [prev] [top]
aHa.n Dd.n=s n.y-sw.t iri.ty=fy n.y.t-sw.t m tA pn r Dr=f
"Then she said, "A king who will exercise the kingship of this entire land!"
 
LINE 24 [next] [prev] [top]
wn.in Xnmw Hr s-wDA a.w.t=f
 
LINE 25-26 [next] [prev] [top]
iai.in=sn sw Sad XpA=f
"Then they washed him, cutting his umbilical cord, ...
 
LINE 27 [next] [prev] [top]
rdi Hr ifd.y m Db.t
... placing (him) upon a couch/cushion in (the form of) a brick"
 
Lines 28 - 29 [prev] [top]
pri.t pw iri.n nn nTr.w s-msi.n=sn rd-Dd.t m pA-Xrd.w xmt
"Then these gods left, having delivered rd-Dd.t of the 3 children."
[MDS, 13/11/97, AEL Westcar, P8, L28-29]
Notes:
a) pri.t pw iri.n nn nTr.w; lit. "What these gods did was to go out" is a literary past tense form used with verbs of motion. See the discussion of page 1, line 1. pri.t is the infinitive of the verb 'go, go out'. 'iri.n' is the relative form of the verb 'do, make'.
 
b) s-msi.n=sn, the verb means 'to deliver' but the suffix pronoun =sn refers back to 'these gods'. How does this work?
 
[G. Graham, 18/11/97, AEL Westcar, P8, L28-29]
This is a circumstantial sDm.n=f, a dependent clause form... after/when/because or some such transitional word connects it to the main clause of the sentence.
 
<< Prev Page | Next Page >>
Up to Line: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-8 9 10-11 12 13 14 15-16 17-18 19 20-21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
[Home] [Commentary p. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] [Hieroglyph P8] [top]