Chapter 17: ; ⁂⁂⁂⁂,103 Ba, Chapter 110, by phonetic

dissimilation of _rr_ into _nr_). The usual form in later times is ⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂, but we find even shorter forms in ⁂⁂, B.M. 32, and ⁂⁂⁂. The determinative ⁂ of a reptile, indicates a _creeping_, _climbing_, _twining_ plant, such as the convolvulus, hop, or vine.[104]

The term ‘Garden’ implies in this connection nothing more than a cultivated enclosure.

The names of different localities which are invoked by the deceased and appear on the vignette of the chapter, have here been made prominent by means of heavy type.

1. _Rise in Hotepit_, or (later on) _Hotep_, ⁂⁂⁂⁂ is the name of one of the localities. The word ⁂ as I have often said, has the sense of _rising up_, _coming to light_, _making an appearance_, and like the Greek φαίνομαι is especially applicable to the appearance of daybreak, or the rise of the heavenly bodies.

2. _Turning_, ⁂. The group has the apparent sense of _building_, but the primitive sense is _turning_, as in the making of pottery. The preposition ⁂ which follows it in this place seems to show that building is not meant.

3. This, of course, sounds like nonsense, but so does the original as it has come down to us. The papyrus of Ani, which reads ⁂⁂⁂, forces the sense of _day_ upon the sign ⁂, which in the sense of _turn_ would have been far more intelligible. There was the ‘Portion of Sutu,’ and the ‘Portion of Horus,’ each being half the world, topographically, or half the twenty-four hours as regards time.

I suspect that ‘day’ is a faulty interpretation of the ambiguous ⁂, and that the true sense of the passage is that Sutu is satisfied with the share which comes to his turn, and thereupon delivers Horus from imprisonment in the lower world. The perplexity, or ignorance of the copyists is seen in the very next words. One has ‘he who is in Merit,’ others ‘he who is in my mouth,’ and two ‘he who is in the egg,’ if this be the sense of the very questionable group ⁂⁂⁂⁂, which looks like a mistake for ⁂⁂⁂, a well known title of Anubis.

4. _Again and again renewed_ ⁂⁂⁂⁂.

5. _His papyrus._ So the word ⁂ _meḥit_, which occurs in the rubric of Chapter 134, has hitherto been translated. But the vases ⁂ or ⁂, as determinatives, rather imply ‘inkstand’ or ‘palette for holding colour.’ In this place it is the writing itself and not the material, paper, ink or inkstand, which is meant. And from the entire context Thoth is the god who is spoken of.

6. _He reconcileth the two Warrior gods with each other_, ⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂. The final words _en ȧru-sen_ show the origin of the Coptic form ⲛ̀ ... ⲉⲣⲏⲟⲩ _invicem_.

7. _Grind_ ⁂⁂⁂, the Coptic from of which is ⲥⲓⲕⲓ. From the notion of ‘reducing to powder,’ that of the frequent word ⁂⁂⁂ ‘wearing away,’ ‘decay,’ is derived.

8. _Let my arteries be made fast, and let me have the enjoyment of the Breeze_, or _that I may have enjoyment_. The oldest meaning of the word _artery_, ἀρτηρία, in Hippocrates, Aristotle and the earlier Latin writers is _wind-pipe_, and, in the plural, _air-ducts_. But, even when the word was also applied to what we call arteries, these were supposed to convey _air_ whilst the veins conveyed _blood_. “Sanguis per venas in omne corpus diffunditur et spiritus per arterias” is the classic doctrine in Cicero (_de Natura Deorum_, 2, 55). Pliny says (_Nat. Hist._, XI, 89), “arteriae carent sensu: nam et sanguine.” This error is corrected by Galen, who has a treatise on the question “Whether Blood is _naturally_ (κὰτα φύσιν) contained in the arteries?” The error of the ancients arose from the arteries always being found empty after death. The blood flowing from a wound inflicted upon them was inferred to have been intruded into them by the rupture of the veins. The Egyptian doctrine of the ‘arteries’ ⁂⁂⁂ (Coptic ϩⲁⲛⲙⲟⲩⲧ) in the head, by means of which air is conveyed to all parts of the person, was first found by M. Chabas in the _Berlin Medical papyrus_. The passage of the Book of the Dead on which this note is written is no doubt the earliest allusion to the doctrine.

9. _Hesit_ [_the Cow-goddess_] ⁂⁂⁂, ⁂⁂⁂, ⁂⁂⁂⁂, ⁂⁂⁂ is one of the many names of Isis or Hathor. She is represented as suckling her son Horus (see picture in Lanzone, p. 844), and it is this which characterizes her and from which she derives her name. She is asked on the Louvre tablet (c. 14) for “the white liquor which the glorified ones love.” This is distinctly called ‘milk’ on the Florentine tablet 2567, and vases of her milk are mentioned (Dümichen, _Resultate_, 27, 6) in the inscriptions of Dendera. A picture of her given in Dümichen’s _Historische Inschriften_ (II, 32) identifies her with Hathor, and calls her “divine mother, mistress of heaven and sovereign of the gods,” while others call her “the divine mother and fair nurse.”

There can be no doubt about the right reading of the name which is _Ḥesit_; the ⁂ is written in so many texts (see _Pepi_, I, 306, _Amamu_, 21, 1, Lepsius, _Auswahl_, IX, and the form ⁂⁂⁂ at Philae), that there is no reason for confounding the name with that of _ḥetemit_. We must therefore attach no importance to this latter name when applied in the vignette of the Turin _Todtenbuch_ to one of the divine abodes which bears the name of the goddess, and is written exactly like it.

10. _Uach_ ⁂⁂⁂⁂ _blooming_, _flowering_.

11. _The winged things of Shu are given to me, and my Kau follow me._

⁂⁂⁂, ⁂⁂⁂, is a word of very rare occurrence. Birch and Naville understood it of the _netting_, and Brugsch, of the _pluming_ of birds. Both meanings may be disputed, but whatever Shu did, was done to birds, and these are said to be given to the deceased.

The prayer that a person may travel over the blissful parts, followed by his _kau_ ⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂, is repeatedly found on the early monuments. Several papyri say that the deceased is followed by ‘the gods and the _kau_.’

12. _T’efait_ ⁂⁂, an abode abounding in ⁂⁂⁂⁂ _delicacies_.

13. _He is in heaven_ ⁂⁂⁂. The reading ⁂ to which Brugsch at one time attached much importance, has turned out to be one of the many blunders of the text of Sutimes. But the true reading is not without its difficulties. If ⁂⁂ is taken as equivalent to ⁂⁂ we have a strange anticipation of a change in language of which the “enigmatical” texts of the royal tombs[105] give the first intimation, but which first becomes conspicuous in the demotic period. In a previous passage we have ⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂, where Nebseni has ⁂⁂⁂. But the important preposition ⁂ had already dropped out of the earlier text of Chāemhait. The demonstrative particle ⁂⁂ which occurs in both places may be rendered ‘there [he is],’ ‘le voilà.’

14. _I salute the stream of T’eserit_: a corrupt passage like so many others in this chapter. The first word ⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂ ‘salute’ is rare but correct and well attested. The proper name is but one of the contradictory readings. It has, however, the advantage of being a real name and suitable to the passage, being that of a goddess mentioned in connection with the next abode. ⁂⁂⁂ _T’eserit_ is a name corresponding to the classical Ἀγλαιαv or Clara.[106] In the texts of the Royal Tombs she is named as goddess in ⁂⁂ _Cher-āba_. And here[107] she is depicted as the goddess with long or flowing locks (εὐπλόκαμος) and armed with horns. She is one of the forms of Isis or Hathor.

15. _Kankanit_ is etymologically akin to the verb of _beating_ (_see_