Egyptian Texts
Vol. XVII

Maxim Panov

The Manuscripts
of the Maxims of Ptahhotep

Novosibirsk
M. Panov
2021

УДК 94(32)
ББК 63.3(0)31
П–165

Серия основана в 2011 г.

Panov, M.
The Manuscripts of the Maxims of Ptahhotep. — Novosibirsk : M. Panov, 2021
(Egyptian Texts series, Vol. XVII). — 120 p.
ISBN 978-5-6045190-1-1
This paleographic research devoted to the hieratic manuscripts of “The Maxims of Ptahhotep”,
redefined hieroglyphic transcriptions of every source are provided, commentaries to the previous editions are
offered, and a synoptic table is created in a new format to enable the comparative analyses of the versions. The
study follows the photos and facsimiles of the sources from XIX–XIII centuries BC.
Recommended abbreviation: ET XVII.

Панов, М.В.
Манускрипты «Поучения Птаххотепа». — Новосибирск : М.В. Панов, 2021
(серия: Египетские тексты, Т. XVII). — 120 с.
ISBN 978-5-6045190-1-1
Это палеографическое исследование посвящено иератическим рукописям «Поучения
Птаххотепа», предложены уточненные иероглифические транскрипции к каждому источнику, сделаны
комментарии к предыдущим публикациям, в новом формате составлена синоптическая таблица для
сравнительного анализа разночтений. Работа основана на анализе фотографий и факсимиле
манускриптов, датируемых XIX–XIII вв. до н.э.
Монография обращена к египтологам. На английском языке.
Рекомендуемое сокращение: ET XVII.

ISBN 978-5-6045190-1-1

© Максим Вячеславович Панов, 2021

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 5
SUBJECT OF STUDY .......................................................................................................................................5
SOURCES ..........................................................................................................................................................7
EDITIONS ..........................................................................................................................................................8

HIEROGLYPHIC TRANSCRIPTIONS ................................................................................. 11
PAPYRUS P .....................................................................................................................................................11
PAPYRUS L1 ...................................................................................................................................................26
TABLET C .......................................................................................................................................................33
PAPYRUS L2 ...................................................................................................................................................35
PAPYRUS T .....................................................................................................................................................50
OSTRACA........................................................................................................................................................51

COMMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 52
NOTES TO P ....................................................................................................................................................52
NOTES TO L1..................................................................................................................................................61
NOTES TO C....................................................................................................................................................66
NOTES TO L2..................................................................................................................................................67
NOTES TO T....................................................................................................................................................72
NOTES TO OSTRACA....................................................................................................................................72

SYNOPTIC TABLE ................................................................................................................ 73
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................73
PROLOGUE .....................................................................................................................................................78
MAXIMS ..........................................................................................................................................................79
EPILOGUE.....................................................................................................................................................109
CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................................115

THE SELECTED HIERATIC FORMS................................................................................. 116
INDEXES............................................................................................................................... 118
BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................. 119

4

Pl. 1. Title page of the first edition

5

INTRODUCTION
SUBJECT OF STUDY
The current volume in the Egyptian Texts series is devoted to a literary ancient
Egyptian composition well-known since the mid-XIXth century — The Maxims of Ptahhotep.
In the present case, it is a newly-made critical publication of all sources given
separately. The need for an updated refined edition is based on the fact that a big number of
previous publications contain dozens of inaccuracies, many of which were compiled and
presented in my articles published in Göttinger Miszellen1. Both papers could be considered
as the first part of the in-depth research. The publication of this volume has been delayed for
many years while another larger project on the Memphite priestly families under Ptolemies
was undertaken followed by the series of other studies dealing with a fair amount of ancient
documents. In recent years favorable opportunities for a closer examination of the text have
arisen: in addition to the century-old black-and-white facsimiles color photos of the London
papyri have become available.
Critical notes in the current study are mainly related to paleography and deal only
partly with philological aspects. I specify the mistakes which have occurred in the earlier
editions with no references to the works where they have been discussed by other researchers,
as it has been already done in the aforesaid articles.
It should be stated that a certain number of my previous observations goes against the
original text, which is more distinct in the photos. The quality of the modern digital images is
much better than that of the black-and-white facsimiles. Especially it concerns the indication
of verse-points and deciphering faint ligatures. Therefore, the current commentaries are
enriched by dozens of new notes.
There are no doubts that E. Dévaud’s synoptic edition with the sources arranged in
columns is more favorable for study than that of Z. Žába, who gave a copy of sequent lines.
The Maxims of Ptahhotep is very likely the only literary composition cited more often by
verses (after E. Dévaud) than by lines of the sources. Thereafter, a large number of
discussions of the text contains references to the verses in particular. However, the numbering
introduced by E. Dévaud and Z. Žába should be reconsidered for a score of reasons.
The manuscripts differ substantially, line-order varies, a number of sentences in the
papyrus Prisse has no parallels in other sources; a verse consisting of two sentences in one
source can be found divided in the other. Accordingly, a serious discrepancy arises and
abruption of the text occurs, e.g. verses 1 and 4 are parts of the same sentence in the papyrus
Prisse, but were divided into different verses. In this case E. Dévaud’s presentation of the text
is more comprehensible than that of Z. Žába, since in the publication by E. Dévaud verses 2–3
which are non-existent in papyrus Prisse have been overlooked owing to the text arranged in
columns.

1

See Panov, 2007; Panov, 2008.

6

The problem is even more complicated. In a synoptic publication all parallel lines are
supposed to be put together. We find an opposite thing in verses 55 and 57, although there is
one verse only. In this case verse 57 should be removed and combine with verse 55 (replaced
verses and groups of verses already occur in both editions in question). One more example,
combination of verses 77 and 80 confuses the further line numbering. One extra number was
created for a phantom verse 104, inserted by E. Dévaud, not confirmed by any other source.
The desire to keep an order of lines in one papyrus and coincide it with another resulted in a
dozen of similar pairs. It is important to emphasize the necessity to include in the synoptic
edition three additional sheets of the papyrus BM 10509, introduced by R.A. Caminos in the
synoptic edition. The sentences with no parallels in the papyrus P should be numbered anew.
In the light of this, the previous verse-numeration probably needs to be dismissed in
the next synoptic edition, it preserves here only as an optional extra for references to the
works where it has been employed. Being uncertain about the format of a new edition which
would be more useful for researchers, I offer a two-column table: the papyrus Prisse separated
from the group of other sources. I do not suggest creating a new numbering system, the line
numbers have been kept unchanged for reference purpose, and I think the primary aim is to
make the collation of the text versions clear.
The Russian translation of this didactic composition will be offered later.

***
I am thankful to Prof. Dr. Junge (Göttingen) for the decision to publish my first article
dealing with “The Maxims of Ptahhotep” in GM.
I wish to express my thanks to Dr. D. Agyt (Nanterre) and Mr. M. Tilgner (Wedel) for
providing copies of rare books.
I am very grateful to Prof. Dr. G. Vittmann (Würzburg) for his notes.

7

SOURCES
1) Papyrus BnF 1862–194 (further P).
Facsimiles: Prisse d’Avennes, 1847, nos. IV–XIX; Jéquier, 1911, pl. III–X; Prisse d’Avennes
fils, 1926.
Photos: Mathieu, 2011; Carrier, 2016, pl. 1–25; BnF website.
Date: late Dyn. 123.
2) Papyrus BM 10371+10435, rt (further L1).
Facsimile: Jéquier, 1911, pl. XI–XV.
Photos: BM website.
Date: Dyn. 124.
3) Papyrus BM 10509 (further L2).
Facsimiles: Budge, 1910, pl. XXXIV–XXXVIII; Caminos, 1956, pl. 28–30.
Photos: BM website.
Date: late Dyn. 18.
4) Papyrus CGT 54014 (further T).
Facsimile: Hagen, 2012, fig. 10.
Photos: Vernus, 1996, pl. 1; ME website.
Date: Dyn. 19.
5) Tablet/Writing board Cairo JE 41790, vs (further C).
Facsimiles: Jéquier, 1911, pl. XVI; Carnarvon, Carter, 1912, pl. XXVII.
Date: late Dyn. 17 or early Dyn. 18.
6-8) Ostraca IFAO 1232 (further 32), IFAO 1233 (further 33), IFAO 1234 (further 34).
Facsimile: Posener, 1972, pl. 58A.
Photos: IFAO website.
Date: Dyn. 19.

2

Numbers: 183 for Kagemni, sheets 184 and 185 are not inscribed.
The first remark on a similar handwriting of papyrus Prisse and papyrus Hermitage 1115 see in
Golénischeff, 1913, 2. Cf. the position of Papyri L1 and P in Dévaud, 1924, 2.
4
Prob. Sesostris III, a handwriting bears a marked resemblance to the ligatures from “Illahun” in
G. Möller’s paleographic catalogue.
3

8

EDITIONS
I give a brief survey of the hieratic and main hieroglyphic editions of “The Maxims of
Ptahhotep”, hieroglyphic transcriptions for the papyrus P made in XIX century are not listed.
Prisse, 1847
É. Prisse d’Avennes published a colored facsimile of the papyrus with distinct rubrication in
contrast to the editions of 1911 and 1926.
Lange (beginning of XX cent.)
H.O. Lange transcribed papyri P and L1 for the Berlin dictionary slip-archive. It was done
before G. Jéquier’s edition had appeared, since letter numeration for L1 fragments varies. All
graphic forms in Wb references to this didactic composition are reproduction of H.O. Lange’s
transcription. Today this work is available in DZA 50.011.030–50.011.480.
Möller, 1909, 2–3
G. Möller included several fragments of the Instruction in his textbook of hieratic texts
(P lines 4,1–4,4; 9,7–9,12; 10,8–10,10; 13,9–13,12; 17,10–17,12).
Budge, 1910, XVII–XXI, pl. XXXIV–XXXVIII
The publication of the facsimile of papyrus ВМ 10509 (columns 1–6, for 6 only the right
side) introduced another important source of the text, in the Introduction the author made the
hieroglyphic transcriptions of this papyrus, C5 and P (corresponding to verses 1–154 by
E. Dévaud).
Jéquier, 1911
The facsimiles of P and L1 are made from the originals, the facsimile of C from the negative
supplied by A.H. Gardiner.
Carnarvon, Carter, 1912, pl. XXVII
A chapter contributed by F.Ll. Griffith dealt with a writing tablet containing the beginning of
the composition, the facsimile of the board was also published.
Dévaud, 1916
The facsimiles of E.A.W. Budge and G. Jéquier provided a favorable base for making a
synoptic edition of the Maxims that was released by E. Dévaud (with numerous references to
the readings by A.H. Gardiner). The principal aim of the work was to arrange the lines of
three sources — С, L1, L2 — in accordance with the corresponding lines of the manuscript P.
The line order follows that of the manuscript P, hence a number of lines are missing in the
individual publication of the sources, thereafter, similar lines got the same number. This
approach gives the opportunity to view the variations of the text. Besides, E. Dévaud offered
5

After the transcription in Maspero, 1909, 146–147.

9

a special transcription of L1. Undoubtedly, the parallel arrangement of lines is a notable
advantage of the edition enabling easy reading. All insertions or replacement in the
hieroglyphic text are always accompanied by comments, indication of lines follows the
original. The hieroglyphic text contains only few errors. A.H. Gardiner published the review
on that work in 1917. The practice to study the text ignoring E. Dévaud’s edition, to my mind
is really a sad thing.
Sethe, 1924, 36–42
K. Sethe published a hieroglyphic transcription of the papyrus P in 1924 and comments in
1927. No line indication of pages and verses, and some omitted passages are obviously
imperfection of the work (that can be referred to Ägyptische Lesestücke edition in whole).
Also numerous lines are missed: 6,4–6,10 (= 84–118), 7,2–7,3 (= 135–145), 9,12–10,1
(= 292–297), 10,5–10,8 (= 316–323), 10,10–11,8 (= 329–360), 11,12–13,6 (= 370–428),
14,1–15,8 (= 450–506), 15,9–16,3 (= 509–532), 16,13–17,4 (= 564–574), 18,1–18,12 (= 596–
617). An occasional ignoring of rubrication also can be considered one of the edition’s faults.
The weak points of the hieroglyphic copy are insertion of a line from L2, lack of references
for restored places, replacement of hieroglyphs intended to ease reading. The format of
K. Sethe’s textbook required certain types of abridgement and simplifying.
Prisse d’Avennes fils, 1926
É. Prisse d’Avennes fils published a book devoted to the life of his father. This edition also
includes the facsimile of the papyrus gifted by É. Prisse d’Avennes to the Royal Library in a
fascicle titled Album.
Caminos, 1956, pl. 28–30
R.A. Caminos published the fragments originated from W. Golénischeff’s collection and kept
earlier in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, identified by A.H. Gardiner as the 6th, the 7th and
the 8th pages of the manuscript L2. The verse numeration follows E. Dévaud’s edition. The
work is undoubtedly of much practical value and the fact that the first five pages of the
manuscript L2 have not been published in a similar manner is really subject for pity.
Žába, 1956
Even nowadays Z. Žába’s work serves as the basic edition for the most students and scholars.
In terms of presentation of the hieroglyphic text it seems to be rather “out-of-date” or
retrogressive in comparison with the convenient edition by E. Dévaud with its consequent
arrangements of lines. Z. Žába introduced a new reading of some particular passages. Unlike
E. Dévaud’s work, hieroglyphic transcription is accompanied by commentaries and French
translation. However, Z. Žába made a number of scribal errors6. Three pages of L2 published
in the same year by R.A. Caminos are not included (but mentioned). It is worthy of note that
arrangement of the hieroglyphic signs in transcriptions does not correspond the original in
many cases.

6

The critical notes can be found in many works, see e.g. J.L. Foster (1977), G. Burkard (1977),
A. Heyne (2007), M. Panov (2007, 2008), P. Dils (TLA), F. Hagen (2012).

10

Posener, 1972, pl. 58–58A
The publication of three ostraca from Deir el-Medineh was done by G. Posener.
Vernus, 1996
This is a new collated publication of the sources bearing the beginning of the text. It was the
first publication of the papyrus CGT 54014, though the manuscript had been obtained before
the discovery of papyrus P, preserved in the Turin museum since 1824 (from D. Drovetti
collection). It should be mentioned that in P. Vernus’s synoptic edition the lines of the parallel
sources are not indicated.
Fischer-Elfert, 1997, 18–23
The study contains hieroglyphic copy of two ostraca after G. Posener, transliteration and
commented German translation.
Lacombe-Unal, 1999
The beginning of the papyrus P is presented as an individual hieroglyphic transcription along
with the copy of facsimile of the 4th and 5th pages (G. Jéquier).
Mathieu, 2011
Exhibition catalogue “Visions d’Égypte. Émile Prisse d’Avennes (1807–1879)” contains a
chapter contributed by B. Mathieu dealing with papyrus P accompanied by photos of the
manuscript and French translation.
Allen, 2015, 167–227
The literary compositions from the papyrus P are presented in hieroglyphic transcription
(disputable in some cases), transliteration, and English translation, accompanied by notes.
Carrier, 2016
A recent monograph by C. Carrier provides the photos of the papyrus P, its hieroglyphic
transcription, transliteration, and French translation. Practically everywhere throughout the
text the hieroglyphs duplicate sign for sign Z. Žába’s reading including almost all mistakes
already commented in the reviews on his edition of 19567, multiplied with newly made
omissions, misinterpreting Z. Žába’s transcription (not original) has resulted in occurrence of
improper signs8.

7

Exept P, 13,12, 14,9.
See e.g. notes to P, 8,8, 10,2, 16,11.
The author constantly indicates the correspondence between his hieroglyphic transcription and the
plates in G. Jéquier’s edition, although he consults neither the facsimile, nor color photos available for him.
8

11

HIEROGLYPHIC TRANSCRIPTIONS
PAPYRUS P

Pl. 2. Papyrus BnF 186

12

Pl. 3. Papyrus BnF 187

13

Pl. 4. Papyrus BnF 188

14

Pl. 5. Papyrus BnF 189

15

Pl. 6. Papyrus BnF 189

16

Pl. 7. Papyrus BnF 190

17

Pl. 8. Papyrus BnF 190

18

Pl. 9. Papyrus BnF 191

19

Pl. 10. Papyrus BnF 191

20

Pl. 11. Papyrus BnF 192

21

Pl. 12. Papyrus BnF 192

22

Pl. 13. Papyrus BnF 193

23

Pl. 14. Papyrus BnF 193

24

Pl. 15. Papyrus BnF 194

25

Pl. 16. Papyrus BnF 194

26

PAPYRUS L1

Pl. 17. Papyrus BM 10371+10435

27

Pl. 18. Papyrus BM 10371+10435

28

Pl. 19. Papyrus BM 10371+10435

29

Pl. 20. Papyrus BM 10371+10435

30

Pl. 21. Papyrus BM 10371+10435

31

Pl. 22. Papyrus BM 10371+10435

32

Pl. 23. Papyrus BM 10371+10435

33

TABLET C

1

29

2

30

3

31

4

32

6

33

7

34

8

35

9

36

12

37

13

38

14

39

15

40

16

41

17

42

22

43

23

45

24

46

25

47

26

48

27

49

28

50

34

Pl. 24. Tablet Cairo JE 41790

35

PAPYRUS L2

Pl. 25. Papyrus BM 10509

36

Pl. 26. Papyrus BM 10509

37

Pl. 27. Papyrus BM 10509

38

Pl. 28. Papyrus BM 10509

39

Pl. 29. Papyrus BM 10509

40

Pl. 30. Papyrus BM 10509

41

Pl. 31. Papyrus BM 10509

42

Pl. 32. Papyrus BM 10509

43

Pl. 33. Papyrus BM 10509

44

Pl. 34. Papyrus BM 10509

45

Pl. 35. Papyrus BM 10509

46

Pl. 36. Papyrus BM 10509

47

Pl. 37. Papyrus BM 10509

48

Pl. 38. Papyrus BM 10509

49

Pl. 39. Papyrus BM 10509

50

PAPYRUS T

Pl. 40. Papyrus CGT 54014

51

OSTRACA

Pl. 41. Ostraca IFAO 1232, 1233, 1234

52

COMMENTS
NOTES TO P
In hieroglyphic transcription I do not preserve a position of certain horizontal signs
regarding a height of the line, e.g., for

(15,6) I arrange three signs not in

the middle
, but at the bottom
. The hieratic sign
is transcribed not
as
, but
, since the papyrus is dated to Dyn. 12, when this sign already occurred in
in P / L1 and
in C / L2 causes excessive graphic forms in
inscriptions. Use of
hieroglyphic transcription, which correspond to a single sign in hieratics. I do not point out
errors in cases where the author arranges the signs ignoring the strict sign-order of the
original, e.g.
, not like that
by Carrier (P, 5,1).
***
4,1: the initial phrase
Žába, Allen, Carrier the preposition
photo).
4,2: facsimile9:
=>
Unal, Carrier). The signs for
“Prisse”) proposed

is in red ink, contra Vernus: black, by
is in black ink (see the first edition of 1847 and the

or
and

for

(Allen), not
(Dévaud, Žába, Lacombeare in P distinct for certain. G. Möller (I, no. 528,

: in rmT, cf.

(2,4),

(6,8 etc.), in Tss, cf.

(17,6, by Möller the line number 17,5), in Ttf, cf.
Möller I, no. XLIV); cf. wsTn (8,14); in 7,8, 8,12 and 17,6 is clearly with
Thus, the scribe wrote
(19,2) =
=

/

in

(9,1),
and

9

(17,2),
=

(1,3 [Kagemni]), as for

5,2: facsimile:
18,11: facsimile:

.

, see

=
=

Hereinafter the text P follows the facsimile of Jéquier, 1911.

(12,3),
=

.
.

(7,8, 8,12,

(5,2).

53

as
, suggesting in both
Dévaud, Žába, Lacombe-Unal, Carrier interpreted the group
cases a scribal error instead of
(like in 4,4, 7,2). However, in this papyrus the sign for
is
always one ligature, see examples

(4,4),

(5,7) and Möller I, no. 111.

to fill space,
I propose (also see Allen’s transcription) that the scribe might use the sign
cf. a stroke after preposition before the suffix to fill space in
(7,9, 14,9, 15,1, 17,9) and
its omission in
=

(8,14). For separate writing of

, cf.

(8,4),

,

=

=

(4,1, 5,4),

(12,4).

4,4: an unfair comment by Heyne on the determinative by Žába (verse 12 after jb): Heyne
compared (fig. 13) a determinative
(P, 4,4) and discovered a mistake.

after wrd (L2, 1,4) with the properly transcribed

=

5,2, 6,11, 8,2: facsimile:
= (cf. Möller II, no. 66), contra Sethe, Žába, Allen, Carrier:
. See Gardiner, 1946, pl. XIV, no. 1,3a: “the scribe of Prisse consistently assimilates the
det. of Hms to that of msi...” (cf. 1,3:
Xnms with

, 1,8:

, 2,7:

). Cf. 11,9 and a note below on

(9,9).
, Vernus omitted one sign .

5,3: facsimile:
5,4: facsimile:

=

, contra Vernus:

5,6: the words
5,6: facsimile:
5,10: facsimile:

are in red ink, contra Vernus: black.
=

, Vernus omitted
=

.

, contra Žába, Allen, Carrier:
=

5,10: facsimile (1847):
5,11: <r>mn, Sethe inserted

.

, cf. the photo, Allen rubricated all signs.

.

6,1: Žába did not indicate the beginning of a new line.
6,1: facsimile:

=

.

, Carrier omitted

.

54

6,3: the verse 81
should end with jb (so Lange, Dévaud,
Sethe, Žába), that corresponds to the parallel in L2:
. For the
; for
construction tw r sDm, see GG, § 333 referred to the next verse
Hwrw-jb, see Wb III, 55.10; the word Hwrw-jb in L2 is ensured not only by this verse-point
but also by the following pronoun sw (unlike tw in P), which could hardly provide
a grammatically correct construction with jb. The scribe of L2 did not put any verse-point by
mistake10, except several missed or apparently excessive. Another recent reading for P: the
beginning of a new sentence with jb as a verb “to wish” in passive, for comments, see Stauder
(2013, 94; 2016), the same arrangement by Allen, Carrier.
6,6: facsimile:

=>

(Dévaud, Žába, Carrier) or

(Lange in DZA

=
(L2, 2,8). A
50.011.080, Allen; cf. Gardiner, 1946 for 2,8), cf.
determinative in hieratic was unchanged in the period from Dyn. 12 to 18, but in the
hieroglyphic transcriptions for in P one should transcribe (see Möller I, no. 472) and in L2
– (cf. Möller II, no. 457, no similar sample in II, no. 472). As a result, we have two different
hieroglyphic writings in the synoptic table. For in Dyn. 12, see Wb II, 73: “seit M(ittleres
Reich)
”.
=

6,9:

, Carrier omitted

6,11: facsimile:

=

.

, Allen omitted the determinative

.

=>
, for reading Tt, see Gardiner, 1938, 171, cf. L2, 2,13:
6,11: facsimile:
Transcription in P is disputable, the sign Möller I, no. 551 missed for P, cf. Žába:
transcribed

, probably, after Möller II, no. 551:

6,11: fn<D>, Sethe inserted
6,11: facsimile:

=
.
, Allen

(Dyn. 18).

.
=

, cf. Möller I, no. 96, Allen transcribed with

.

=
(GG, sign K2), the determinative of fish after bwt, cf.
7,1, 7,5, 7,9: facsimile:
Möller I, no. 256 (for P, 7,5), contra Žába:
(in P and L2 versions), who used this
hieroglyph with no difference between jn (9,13:
10

, cf. Möller I, no. 253) and bwt.

I do not agree with Fecht (1981, 148f.) on “Falschsetzung des Verspunktes” in L2, 69 and need to
place m gr at the beginning of the next verse 71 as vetative “schweige nicht”. The group m gr “by keeping silent
/ in silence” gives an fine example how a man could achieve superiority.

55

7,2: facsimile (verses 135, 140), 7,3 (verse 146), 7,4 (verses 150, 160), 8,13 (verse 254), 12,6
(verse 388), 12,9 (verse 399):
=

7,2: facsimile:
7,2: facsimile:

=

=

7,4: facsimile:

(7,2), Carrier:

instead of

.

, Žába, Carrier omitted the suffix.

, contra Carrier: determinative .
=

, Carrier omitted

.

(12,9) => , cf. Möller I, no. 298 (a hieroglyph similar to bnr for
7,5, 12,9: facsimile:
rd, followed by Dévaud, Žába, Carrier); the same sign occurs in P in w#H and sk (see Möller I,
no. 398–399).
=

7,5: facsimile:

, Žába, Carrier omitted
=

7,6: facsimile:

/

, contra Allen:

.
, cf. Möller I, no. 30,

(14,4).
7,7: facsimile:
. In my opinion the sign
= is omitted by a scribe,
therefore for readers I put a mark “sic!” in 7,7 (verse 173). For the writing of wD, see 6,4, 7,2:
. For the construction, see 16,7–16,8: jn jb sXpr nb=f; Loyalist., § 9.7:
; for the verb sXpr in P without the determinative of papyrus, see 10,8,
12,10, with papyrus: 16,7. The restoration w<D> nTr is possible. In 11,7 (verse 357) spXrw
opens the sentence (
reading easy.

), but the same variant sXpr w<D> does not make

7,7: facsimile:
7,8: facsimile:

=
=

7,9: facsimile:
7,9: facsimile:

, Allen omitted
, contra Allen:
=

=

.

.
, contra Žába, Carrier:

, contra Žába, Carrier:

.

(after tr).

56

7,10: facsimile:

=

, contra Žába, Carrier:

7,10: facsimile:
Allen:

=

, Carrier:

=

.

=

, Allen omitted

.

=>
, cf. Žába, Carrier:
in P, see the note above (4,2).

8,6, 10,12: facsimile:
to P, but see “Illahun”
8,8: facsimile:
contra Carrier:

, the word has the same determinative as in

(8,8), the bird-sign by Žába is difficult to identify, contra

8,1: facsimile:
8,5: facsimile:
transcription of

.

(8,6),
); Allen:

instead of

=
.

, Allen:

, for

(10,12) =>
, cf. Möller I, no. 334 (no reference
(in transliteration: mr).
, the bird-sign by Žába is difficult to identify,

(8,11),
(9,12),
(12,9) =
(determinative to
8,11, 9,12, 12,9: facsimile:
(A1 with Z1 in hand), this
Xftj), see Möller I, no. 49 (to “Prisse 9,12, 12,9”), contra Allen:
hieroglyph is not listed in GG, its meaning and occurrence in the inscriptions of Dyn. 12 were
not commented.
8,12: verse 252 begins with
previous sentence).
9,2: facsimile:

=

9,2: facsimile:
9,5: facsimile:

, so by Dévaud, contra Žába, Carrier (at the end of the

, contra Allen:
=

=

9,8: the determinatives after Xnms:

.

, contra Carrier:

instead of

, contra Žába, Carrier:
(9,8) =>

,

(9,9) =

.
.
,

(14,7) =>

,

(15,3) => , the sign Möller I, no. 67 occurs in 9,9, cf. the note above
(14,10) => ,
on the influence of ms on Hms, contra Žába: (with one arm), Allen, Carrier: .

57

9,13: facsimile:

=

(in wjn), see the above (7,1), contra Carrier:

instead of

.

10,1, 12,5, 17,9: sp, Allen used a wrong determinative “village with cross-roads”.
10,2: facsimile:

=

10,2: facsimile:

, contra Carrier: determinative (!)

=
=

10,3: facsimile:

, contra Carrier:

, contra Žába, Carrier:

10,5:

.

.
.

, Carrier omitted this verse, verse 313 is given twice.

10,7: facsimile:

=

, contra Žába, Carrier:

10,8: facsimile:

=

10,11: facsimile:
(10,11), contra Allen:

=

10,11: facsimile:

=

11,2: facsimile:
Möller I, no. 267).

, contra Allen:

.
.

, cf. nearby the words #Ht
(10,10), sw#H
(the preposition m in transliteration uncommented).
, the sign is in wrong direction by Žába, Carrier.

(Möller I, no. 267), the determinative to o#bt: contra Allen:

=

11,5: facsimile (1847):
contra Allen: red.

, the sign

(after

is in black ink,

probably starts a new verse (cf. Allen and Quack, 2005, 16), it ends verse
11,6: the sign
353 by Dévaud, Žába, Carrier.
11,7: facsimile:
11,9:

=

, Žába, Carrier omitted

(after jb), contra Žába, Carrier:

, the signs
11,12: facsimile (1847):
contra Dévaud, Žába, Allen, Carrier: black.

.

.
(after snD) are in red ink (cf. the photo),

58

, Dévaud, Žába, Allen, Carrier used a determinative
after Möller
12,3, 15,7, 16,10:
I, no. 83, but see the determinative in Wb I, 190 (DZA 21.727.910) and a note to L2, 2,14. Cf.
by Golénischeff (papyrus Hermitage 1115, 48).
12,3: facsimile:
=
(cf. Žába, Allen), contra Dévaud:
identified dubiously by Möller I, nos. 22 and 57.
12,6: facsimile:
12,8: facsimile:

=
=

=
=

, Žába, Carrier omitted
, contra Allen:

12,13: facsimile:

.

.

.

=

, Allen omitted the suffix.
is in red ink, by Žába, Carrier the determinatives

13,1: the verse

are in black ink (see the first edition of 1847:
=>

13,2: facsimile:
natives

),

, Allen omitted .

, contra Dévaud, Žába, Allen, Carrier:

12,10: facsimile:
12,12: facsimile:

(for Hwj cf. 6,3:

and/or the photo).
(m#Dw nw <wD>o), the determi-

should be three horizontal signs (plural), in any case neither

(questioned in

Žába’s transcription; hieroglyphs unacceptable for determinatives) nor

(in Žába’s

(Carrier). The same word
occurs in PT 300,
comments, see also HL 5, 1019) and
Unas (Wb II, 35.7, HL 4, 506, the determinatives by Hannig differ from the original) in the
phrase m#Dw jpn nw smjt “these m#Dw of the desert”, thereby the determinatives
used in transcription for both manuscripts, in L1 they are half-damaged.
N.B.! The second case of m#Dw (L1, m6) is not recorded in HL 5, 1019.
13,4:
13,5: facsimile:

, contra Žába: the dual determinatives, Carrier (“2-<nw.t>”).
=

, Žába, Carrier omitted

.

can be

59

13,8: facsimile:

=

, Allen omitted
=

13,8: facsimile:

, Carrier omitted
=

13,9: facsimile:

14,3: facsimile:
14,5:

=

=

.

, Žába, Carrier omitted .

=

13,12: facsimile:

.

, Žába omitted

.

, Žába, Carrier omitted the suffix.

, Allen omitted

.

14,9:
=
, the same determinative
as in bwt, cf. 7,5 (Möller I, no.
(likewise in L1, s1, Möller I, no. 254).
256), contra Žába:
14,9 (twice), 14,11, 14,12: Allen:
15,2: facsimile:

=

15,3: facsimile:

=>

Möller I, no. 527,

instead of

.

, contra Allen: a wrong preposition
, the ligature
=

resembles

, but I prefer

15,6:
15,7:

=
=

=

15,12: facsimile:

, contra Allen:

, contra Cannuyer:

.

, cf. 6,2:

.

,
=

and changed

.

, contra Cannuyer:

15,8, 18,13: facsimile:

, cf.

(13,3); Žába inserted the suffix (following

for wDb=f, Carrier followed Žába, Allen read
Dévaud’s note):
.
(emended a scribal error) the initial sign:
15,5: facsimile:

.

, Allen omitted

=
.

, Allen omitted

twice.

60

16,7: facsimile:

=

16,8: facsimile:

, Carrier omitted
=

, Allen omitted .
=

16,11: facsimile:
16,11: facsimile:

=

, Allen omitted

, contra Carrier:
=

17,8: facsimile:

.

after sDm.

.

, contra Carrier:

.

18,1: facsimile:
=>
, the transcription
(by Žába and Carrier with O.K.
form
instead of ) is quite possible; two lower signs are similar and I think, it is hardly
plural strokes, but erroneous insertion of the first
; further, the determinative
is more
(Allen); the sign

preferable for oD than

=>

18,2: facsimile:
, Žába, Allen, Carrier:
18,4: facsimile:

=

, Carrier omitted

18,6: facsimile:
18,13: facsimile:

=

=

”, Žába, Carrier:

, cf. Allen:

(19,1),
=

, Allen omitted
=

cf. Dévaud:

. Cf. tpj in 8,3:

, cf.
=

(18,11).

.

.

=

(see his note to verse 602): “ Ms.

=

, for

, Virey (1887):

18,4: facsimile:

Cf.

is suitable for qn below:

, contra Dévaud
.

(19,3).
.

, contra Allen:

instead of

.

It should be pointed out particularly that in Allen’s transcription the sign “eye” is always
rotated by 180 degrees opposite the direction of reading. A proper sign position is in
paleographic textbooks by Möller and Goedicke. For backward form in Allen’s publication
regarding the “Eloquent Peasant”, see ET XV, 9, n. 20.

61

NOTES TO L1
A verso fragment (verses 75, 78, 79) published by Dévaud is missing in the photos on the

website of the museum:
Jéquier are not available online.

a0: certain traces

a6: facsimile:

of

=

. The fragments e, f, h, i, j, k, q, r published by

in [hnw]=&f \ and in [S]&w\, omitted by Dévaud and Žába.

, Žába omitted the suffix.

(a determinative in mTn), the sign is for
, cf. o6:
b1: photo:
no. 208 (“Sinuhe”), Goedicke, 1988, 15b, no. G29 (“Reisner”).
c2:

, Žába omitted the determinative

c7: photo:
=>
, the lower sign: clearly not for
see a note by Dévaud).
d2, l4: photo:
determinative
for

in l6.

,

=

(for this sign see

=

=

, see Möller I,

.

(Dévaud, Žába) or for

(Gardiner,

(cf. Möller I, no. 35 “Illahun, Sinuhe”), contra Žába: the
(c4 etc.)), cf. e.g. a proper transcription

by Žába

62

f2: facsimile:

(after jqr) =

, contra Žába: the determinative

f6 (= fragment 22): all signs before

.

by Žába do not correspond to the facsimile.

i3+j1: for sw, see a note in TLA.

k1: facsimile:

, an upper part of the column is not transcribed by Lange, Dévaud,

Žába (verse 396), two horizontal signs can be interpreted as

l4: facsimile:
HD in r3:

m2: photo:

=>

, cf. Dévaud, with

for

.

by Žába, that is also possible, cf.

.

=>

, for a determinative, see Möller I, no. 595 (sjH for s#H, Wb IV,

21.12, 40), see a note by Dévaud on a determinative of s#H after Gardiner:
. The
determinative and its meaning by Dévaud, Žába are obscure:
N.B.! One line, cf. verses 409 and 412, not 411 (s. a note by Žába), the brackets [...] for
lacuna in 411 and 412 by Dévaud, Žába are improper.
m3: facsimile:
, the sign above is damaged, the reading
correspond to P, 12,13.
m4: facsimile:

=

, Žába omitted the plural strokes.

by Dévaud, Žába does not

63

=

n’5: photo:

, apparent traces of

, [mjt]w=k.

o1: the right and middle parts of this column are damaged, no brackets for restoration
Sm) and (in nmo) by Dévaud (in synopsis), Žába.

o2: facsimile:

=

, Žába omitted

o4: facsimile:

=

, Žába omitted the suffix.

(after

.

p1: the sign for is in lacuna, given by Dévaud (in synopsis), Žába.
p2: the upper part of the column has a lacuna, the reading
based on P version.

(in jtnw) by Dévaud, Žába is

q4: facsimile:
, see Möller I, no. XIX, II, no. XX for
(no graphics for the ligature
), so Lange, but the reading by Dévaud and Žába
is preferable after the verbal form in
P, 14,2 (verse 453) and the writing of
abnormale”.
q6: lacuna before , contra Žába:
r2:

, contra Žába:

r5: facsimile:
not

=>

(in tkn):

(q2),

(r5), cf. Dévaud: “forme

.

.
, see Möller I, no. 32 (“Sin 54”), the determinative after [Xnm]s is

(Dévaud, Žába), for the same error, see in s16:

=

(or

according to Möller).

=>
, the first determinative is hardly a variant of (Möller I, no. 298)
r7: facsimile:
by Dévaud, Žába, but
(Möller I, no. 268). This determinative occurs in rd in Late Period
(see Wb II, 462–463), the second determinative is for rwD (Wb II, 412f).

64

s4: photo:
=
, Žába omitted the suffix. The restored
beginning of the column has no parallel in P.

(Dévaud, Žába) at the

=>
(Lange, cf. P and L2 versions) or
(Dévaud (with question),
s13: photo:
Žába).
The suffix (verse 487) is obscure (printing mistake) in Žába’s edition.
s18: photo:

(emend to

), the traces (after the first kjj) are for

, not

(Žába).

=
, the sign follows [q]d, not (Žába), the restoration of
s’1: photo:
possible only after P version, does not based on the traces, Žába:
.

s’4: photo:
s’6:

(after hp) =

, contra Žába:

.

s’’1: no traces of the sign

=

s’’3: photo:

t5: photo:

=

t’’’3: lacuna, Žába:

, Žába omitted the plural strokes, followed by Cannuyer.

(Žaba, Cannuyer).

, contra Žába:

, Žába omitted
.

.

.

is

65

=
u4: photo:
preceding word wn).

, lacuna, Žába omitted and filled the lacuna with a sign

(from the

u5: lacuna, Žába: .

v0: photo:

(with nfr from v1):

. No traces of

(Dévaud, Žába) before the suffix,

cf. the writing of Hr=f with a stroke in the parallel text (P 17,9):

v4: photo:

=

v’’2: lacuna, Žába:

.

, Žába omitted the suffix.
.

v’’’2: photo:
=>
, the fragment 29 is published upside down by Jéquier, the second
column of the colophon was commented only in Dévaud, 1916, 12, no. to v’’2, not included
in the synoptic tables by Dévaud and Žába. I propose to add the plural strokes (see the sign
).
The fragment 21 is placed upside down in “sheet 8” on BM website [accessed: 11.08.2021],
cf. correctly by Jéquier. Jéquier published 32 unclassified fragments, “sheet 8” on BM
website has three new fragments: nos. 33, 34 and “verso” (the latter contains only small traces
in red ink). Please note, the fragments 8+20, 14, 15, 18, 21, 23, 33, 34 are not included in my
synoptic table, the transcriptions above. For comments, see Panov, 2007, 53.

66

NOTES TO C

2: facsimile:

=

2: facsimile:

=>

, contra Dévaud and Žába: with determinative
(Budge, Dévaud and Žába) or

(Burkard,

=

(7),

Vernus), both transcriptions are acceptable, cf.
=

(4),

=

.

(1),

=

(3).

2: facsimile:
=
, cf. nbt in line, a scribal error instead of nb, Dévaud
(1916, 16, with reference to Möller I, no. 510B), Žába, Vernus omitted .
3: position of plural strokes (in dpt):
4:

=

by Vernus instead of

, Dévaud, Žába omitted

.

.

4: the verse-point after jmjw-H#t by Vernus is wrong, missed in L2 parallel verse.

6: facsimile:
7:

=

, Žába omitted the phrase.

, the sign for Dr is in a damaged area, contra Dévaud and Žába.

67

NOTES TO L2

1,1: the verse
lacuna, contra Dévaud, Žába.

is in red ink, contra Vernus: black. The verse-point is in the

=
,
=
(cf. 1,11:
), the first case: no
1,1:
traces of the verse-point, given by Dévaud, Žába, Vernus; the second: the point is half-visible,
omitted by Žába, Vernus.
, given by Dévaud, Žába, Vernus.

1,1: no traces of the verse-point before

is in red ink, contra Vernus: black, with the sign

1,5: the verse
omitted.
1,6:

, contra Dévaud, Žába:

1,8: the verse
point.

.

=>

, for traces of the sign

(final signs in msjj) =

1,12:

=

, Žába omitted the determinative

1,6, 1,10, 4,2: with a determinative to Hmst:
(1,4, in wrd), contra Dévaud, Žába:

1,17 (the verse added under this line): photo:
of papyrus, cf.

cf.

, Žába, Vernus omitted the determinative

1,12: photo:
=>
(2,2).
Panov, 2007, 48; for n+sDm cf.

unlike

.

is in red ink, contra Vernus: black, he omitted the verse-

1,9: photo:
contra Žába:

1,11: photo:

, Vernus omitted the signs after

(1,12). Contra Dévaud, Žába.

. The sign

(1,6)

(1,8),

.

.

is uncertain, see my note in

(1,10),

(2,13)

(4,2) for

,

.
. No traces of plural strokes below the sign

68

=

2,2: photo:

, contra Žába:

2,5: photo:

, Žába omitted
, Žába omitted

2,7: photo:

.

.

, contra Dévaud, Žába:

2,8:

=

2,8: photo:

2,9: photo:
Heyne:

=>

.

.

, Žába omitted the verse-point.

, cf.

=

, cf.

2,10: the preposition Hr is faded:
2,12:

.

(2,3), contra Dévaud, Žába,

(2,13), contra Dévaud, Žába.

, Žába omitted the verse-point.

2,13: Žába indicated the line as 1,3;
2,14: photo:
5,8) Žába used

=
instead of

, Žába omitted the verse-point.

, contra Žába: the determinative
, see Möller II, n. 83.

, hereafter (2,14, 2,15,

2,15, 3,5, 5,11:
(the determinative after bwt, cf. Möller II, no. 256), contra Žába:
the note above on P, 7,1.
2.16:
2,16: photo:

, Žába omitted the verse-point.
=

, cf.

(3,2), Žába questioned the sign , cf. irt

(3,7).

is in red ink, contra Žába: black.

2,17: the verse
3,2: facsimile:

. Cf.

=>

be restored in the lacuna without a question mark (Žába);
(verses 145, 146, 147), Žába omitted the verse-points.

. Theoretically the signs
,

,

can

69

=

3,3: photo:
[n]=k.

, cf. for n=k

=

3,8: photo:

, Žába omitted .

3,8: photo:
omitted .
3,12:

(3,17), contra Dévaud, Žába: n=k instead of

=

, contra Dévaud, Žába:

instead of

, Žába also

, Žába omitted the verse-point.

3,12: photo:

=

3,12: photo:
4,1: photo:
4,8: photo:

, Žába omitted .
=

=

, Žába omitted the suffix after grg.
, contra Žába:

, a verse-point after

.

by Dévaud, Žába, probably damaged.

4,10: photo:
=
, reading
is beyond doubt (with question by
Žába, who proposed an alternative ), not for plural, the sign
is never used for plural
strokes in this manuscript, the word hrw has a determinative Z1.
4,11: photo:

=

.

is in black, contra Žába: in red ink.

4,11: the verse
4,12: photo:

=

4,14: photo:

=

4,16:

, contra Žába:

, Žába omitted .
, Žába omitted the suffix.

, Žába omitted the verse-point.

4,16: photo:

=

4,16: photo:

=

, Žába omitted the prefix.
, Žába omitted .

70

is in a damaged area,
5,2 (end of line): a verse-point supposed by Dévaud and Žába after
which is larger than for only sign
(cf. by Žába in verse 314), no less than for five groups of
signs (quadrate), cf. the photo and the length of lines 5,5–5,8 at the end.
5,6: the verse

is in red ink, contra Žába: black.
=

5,7: photo:
5,8: photo:
5,9:

=

, Žába omitted .

, Žába omitted the verse-point.

5,9: photo:

=>

, cf. the sign

for restoration.

, Žába omitted the verse-point.

5,10:
5,11: photo:

=

5,13:

, the lacuna is too small for

(Žába), cf.

(4,5).

, Žába omitted the verse-point.

5,14:
6,1:

, Žába put a verse-point after Hmwt.

, Žába omitted the verse-point.
, contra Caminos:

6,2: photo:
6,3: photo:

=
=>

.

, cf. Möller II, no. 379, contra Heyne (fig. 15):
, cf.

6,4: for the initial in

(4,3), contra Caminos:

, cf. the sign

=

.
in this line.

, see Caminos, 1956, pl. 28a, no. 2: “lost in remounting”.

6,5:
,
=>
, cf.
=
(6,3), for m##, see Quack,
1994, 38–39; number 361 given to this verse in L2 was still unknown, the sentence in
in the parallel text (P 11,6 = verse 353); for
question follows the verse 352, cf. the verb
n m## n sDm in this period, see Urk. IV, 57.4–5.

71

6,4: photo:
Caminos.
6,6: photo:

, there is no verse-point after

=

, contra Caminos:

6,6: photo (after s#q):

, probably erased in modern times, given by

.

, contra Caminos:

, cf. a common writing of the sign “papyrus”:

(6,5). A scribal error.
7,2: photo:

=

, contra Hagen (2009, 133):

.

72

NOTES TO T

.

1–2: the fragment, discussed but unpublished in Vernus, 1996, pl. 1:
2:
2:

, here the point (cf. after H#tj-o in line 11) is for

, missed by Vernus.

, the verse-point stands before the suffix, after by Vernus.

=
, the sign
is for , cf. the same sign for plural strokes after Ho
3: photo:
(3) and after mdw (4), contra Vernus:
, cf. Möller II, no. 430.
5: the signs
7:

are in red ink, contra Vernus: black.

, Vernus omitted

7: traces of the sign

.

are visible, missed by Vernus.

NOTES TO OSTRACA

32, 2: photo:
sign.

, the determinative:

32, 6:

, omitted by Vernus.

32, 7: photo:

=>

33, 1:

, contra Posener:

, Posener copied a hieratic

.

, omitted by Vernus.

33, 2: photo:

=>

34, 3 photo:

, the determinative:

34, 5:

, contra Vernus:

, by Posener and Vernus:

, omitted by Vernus.

, but cf.

, contra Vernus:

.

(2),

(3).

73

SYNOPTIC TABLE
The order of the sentences (verse by verse) follows the papyrus P. For the consecutive
lines of other sources, see transcriptions above. The verse numbers are after Dévaud, Žába
and Caminos (disagreement in some cases).
INTRODUCTION
№
1, 4

P

№

Other sources

1

C

1

L2
T
32
34

2

C

2

L2
T
32
34

3

C

3

L2
T
32
34

5

6

C

6

L2
T
34

74

6

4

C

4

L2
T
32
34

7

8

7

C

7

L2

8

C

8

L2
T
33

9

9

C

9

L2
T

10

15

C

15

L2
T
33
33

11

14

C

14

L2
T
32
33

75

12

12

C

12

L2
33

13

13

C

13

L2
T

16

16

C

16

L2
T
33

17

17

C

17

L2
T
32

18

24

C

24

L2
33

19

25

C

25

L2
T
32

20

26

C

26

L2
T

21

27

C

27

L2

76

22

22

C

22

L2
T
32
33

23

23

C

23

L2
33

28

28

C

28

L2

29

C

29

L2
T
32

30

30

C

30

L2
T

31

32

31

C

31

L2

32

C

32

L2
T

33

33

C

33

L2
T

77

34

35

36

34

C

34

L2

35

C

35

L2

36

C

36

L2
T

37

37

C

37

L2
T

39

40

38

C

38

L2

39

C

39

L2

40

C

40

L2
T

41

41

C

41

L2

78

PROLOGUE
42

43

42

C

42

L2

43

C

43

L2
T

44

46

45

C

45

L2

46

C

46

L2
T

47

47

C

47

L2
T

48

49

50

48

C

48

L2

49

C

49

L2

50

C

50

L2
T

79

MAXIMS
1
51

51

L2

52

52

L2

53

L2

54

54

L2

55

57

L2

56

56

L2

58

58

L2

59

59

L2

2
60

60

L2

61

61

L2

62

62

L2

63

63

L2

64

64

L2

65

65

L2

66

66

L2

67

67

L2

80

3
68

68

L2

69

69

L2

70

70

L2

71

71

L2

72

72

L2

73

73

L2

4
74

74

L2

75

75

L1

75

L2

76

76

L2

77

80

L2

78

78

L1

78

L2

79

L1

79

L2

81

81

L2

82

82

L2

83

83

L2

79

81

5
84

84

L2

85

85

L2

86

86

L2

87

87

L2

88

88

L2

89

89

L2

90

90

L2

91

91

L2

92

94

L2

93

93

L2

97

97

L2

98

98

L2

95
96

82

6
99

99

L2

100

100

L2

101

109

L2

102

110

L2

103

113

L2

106

L2

107

L2

108

L2

105

L2

114

L2

115

115

L2

116

116

L2

117

117

L2

118

118

L2

107

111
112

83

7
119

119

L2

120

120

L2

121

121

L2

122

L2

123

123

L2

124

124

L2

125

125

L2

134

L2

128

L2

129

L2

131

L2

132

L2

130

133

L2

135

135

L2

136

136

L2

138

143

L2

139

141

L2

140

140

L2

142

142

L2

144

144

L2

126
127

129

137

84

8
145

145

L2

146

146

L2

147

147

L2

148

148

L2

153

L2

154

L2

149

157

L2

150

158

L2

151

155

L2

152

156

L2

159

159

L2

160

160

L2

85

9
161

161

L2

162

162

L2

165

165

L2

166

166

L2

167

167

L2

168

168

L2

169

164

L2

170

163

L2

171

195

L2

172

196

L2

173
174

86

10
175

175

L2

176

176

L2

177

177

L2

178

178

L2

179

179

L2

180

180

L2

181

181

L2

182

182

L2

183

183

L2

184

184

L2

185

185

L2

11
186

186

L2

187

187

L2

188

188

L2

194

L2

189
190
191
192
193

87

12
197

197

L2

198

198

L2

199

199

L2

200

L2

201

L2

202

202

L2

203

203

L2

204

204

L2

205

205

L2

206

206

L2

207

207

L2

208

L2

209

L2

210

210

L2

211

211

L2

212

L2

213

L2

214

L2

215

215

L2

216

216

L2

217

217

L2

218

L2

219

L2

219

88

13
220

220

L2

221

221

L2

222

222

L2

223

223

L2

224

226

L2

225

225

L2

227

227

L2

228

228

L2

229

229

L2

230

L2

231

L2

231

89

14
232

232

L2

233

233

L2

234

234

L2

235

235

L2

236

L2

237

L2

238

L2

239

239

L2

240

240

L2

241

241

L2

242

242

L2

243

243

L2

244

244

L2

245

245

L2

246

L2

247

247

L2

248

248

L2

237

90

15
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256

16
257

257

L2

258

258

L2

259

259

L2

260

260

L2

261

261

L2

262

262

L2

263

L2

91

17
264

264

L2

265

265

L2

266

266

L2

267

267

L2

268

268

L2

269

269

L2

270

L2

271

L2

272

L2

273

273

L2

274

274

L2

275
276

92

18
277

277

L2

278

278

L2

279

279

L2

280

280

L2

281

281

L2

282

282

L2

289

L2

290

L2

291

L2

285

L2

286

L2

287

287

L2

288

288

L2

292

292

L2

293

293

L2

294

L2

295

L2

296

296

L2

297

297

L2

283

284

93

19
298

299

300

301

302

303

298

L1

298

L2

299

L1

299

L2

300

L1

300

L2

301

L1

301

L2

302

L1

302

L2

303

L1

307

L2

305

L1

305

L2

306

L2

308

L1

308

L2

311

L2

312

L1

312

L2

313

L1

304

308

309
310
312

313

94

314

315

314

L1

314

L2

315

L1

315

L2

20
316

316

L2

317

317

L2

318

318

L2

319

319

L2

320

L1
320

L2

324

L1

321

L2

322

322

L2

323

323

L2

321

95

21
325

326

327

328

325

L1

325

L2

326

L1

326

L2

327

L1

327

L2

328

L1

328

L2

330

L1

330

L2

329
330

331

L2

332
333

335

336

337

338

333

L2

334

L1

334

L2

335

L1

335

L2

336

L1

336

L2

337

L1

337

L2

338

L1
L2

96

22
339

L1

339

L2

340

L1

340

L2

341

L1

341

L2

342

L1

342

L2

345

L1

345

L2

344

L1

344

L2

346

L1

346

L2

347

347

L2

348

348

L2

349

349

L2

339

340

341

342

343

344

346

97

23
350

351

352

353

350

L1

350

L2

351

L1

351

L2

352

L1

352

L2

361

L2

355

L1

355

L2

358

L1

358

L2

359

L1

359

L2

360

L1

360

L2

354

355

356
357

359

360

98

24
362

362

L1

362

L2

363

L1

363

L2

364

L1

364

L2

365

L1

365

L2

366

366

L2

367

367

L2

368

368

L2

369

369

L2

363

364

365

99

25A
370
371
372
373

373

L2

379

L2

381

381

L2

382

382

L2

385

385

L1

386

386

L1

387

387

L1

374
375
376
377
378
379
380

383
384

25B
L2
L2
L2
L2

100

26
388

389

391

392

388

L1

388

L2

389

L1

389

L2

390

L1

390

L2

391

L1

391

L2

392

L1

395

L1

395

L2

393
394
395

L1
396

L1
L2

397

397

a

a
397
a

397

397

b

b
397
b

398

L1
L2
L1
L2

398

L1

398

L2

101

27
399

399

L1

400

400

L1

401

401

L1

402

L1

403

L1

405

L1

406

L1

411

L1

404

406
407
408
409
410
411

410
a
410
b

L1
L1

412

412

L2

413

413

L1

413

L2

414

L1

414

L2

414

102

28
415

416

417

418

415

L1

415

L2

416

L1

416

L2

417

L1

417

L2

418

L1

418

L2

419
420
421
L2
L2
L2
L2

29
422

422

L1

423

423

L1

424

424

L1

425

425

L1

103

30A
428

428

L1

429

429

L2

430

L1

432

L1

432

L2

433

L1

433

L2

434

434

L1

435

435

L1

431
432

433

436

30B
L2
L2

30C
437

L1

438

L1

439

L1

440

L1

104

31
441

441

L1

442

442

L1

442

L2

443

L1

443

L2

444

L1

444

L2

446

L1

446

L2

445

L1

449

L1

449

L2

450

L1

443

444

446

447
448

450

L2
451

451

L1

451

L2

452

L1

453

453

L1

454

454

L1

455

455

L1

455

L2

456

L1

456

105

32
457

457

L1

458

458

L1

460

L1

461

L1

462

L1

459
460

462

33
463

463

L1

463

L2

464

464

L1

465

465

L1

466

466

L1

466

L2

467

L1

468

L1

469

L1

470

L1

472

472

L1

473

473

L1

474

474

L1

474

L2

467

470
471

106

475

L1

475

L2

476

L1

478

L1

479

479

L1

480

480

L1

475

476
477

34
481

482

483

484

481

L1

481

L2

482

L1

482

L2

483

L1

483

L2

484

L1

484

L2

487

L1

487

L2

488

L1

488

L2

485
486
487

488

107

35
489

489

L1

489

L2

490

L1

490

L2

491

491

L1

492

492

L1

492

L2

494

L1

494

L2

490

493
494

36
426

L1

497

497

L2

498

427

L1

495
496

108

37
499

499

L1

499

L2

500

L1

500

L2

501

501

L1

502

502

L1

503

503

L1

504

L1

504

L2

500

L2
506

506

L1

109

EPILOGUE
1
507

507

L1

508

508

L1

511

513

L1

512

512

L1

514

514

L1

515

515

L1

520

L1

509
510

516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530

110

531
532

2
533

L1

534

534

L1

535

535

L1

cf. L1, 534

536
537

537

L1

538

538

L1

539

L1

545

545

L1

546

555

L1

547

L1

549

L1

550

550

L1

551

551

L1

552

548

L1

554

L1

540
541
542
543
544

553
554

111

556
557

557

L1

559

L1

558
560
561
562
563

3
564
565
566
567
568
569
570

570

L1

570

L2

571

L1
L2
L2

572

572

L1

573

573

L1

574

574

L1

112

4
575
576
577

577

L1

578

578

L1

582

L1

583

L1

587

L1

579
580
581
582

584
585
586
587

5
588

588

L1

589

589

L1

590

590

L1

591

591

L1

595

L1

592
593
594
595

113

6
596

596

L1

597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607

7
608

608

L1

610

L1

611

611

L1

612

612

L1

614

L1

609

613
614
615
616
617

114

8
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627

115

CONCLUSION

628
629

629

L1

630

630

L1

633

L1

641

L1

643

643

L1

644

644

L1

631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642

COLOPHON
645
646

646

L1

647

L1

116

THE SELECTED HIERATIC FORMS
The discussed manuscripts contain a lot of impressive hieratic forms, though only the
papyrus P was included in the Paläographie by G. Möller, and a number of signs was left or
unclassified, e.g. sign 286 in L2 is not listed in the second volume of his edition.
I offer here a small selection of graphics. The sign numeration follows G. Möller’s and
A.H. Gardiner’s lists.
M

G

32

A7

Hieroglyph

Value

P

L1

C

L2

(2)

(1,4)

wrd
(4,4)

32

A7

Hms

-

A3

Hms

(3)
(1,10)

(f5)
67

B4

Hms
(5,2)
(14,7),

-

A3

Xnms

(14,10),

(r5),
(s16)

(15,3)
67

B4

Xnms

11

A21

Xnms

67

B4

ms

22
57

A35

qd

83

D6

on, dg#

201

G23

rXjjt

(9,9)

(5,7)
,
(7,6) (19,1)
(12,3)
(2,14)

(12,3)
(5,4)

(5)

(1,9)

T

117

218

G38

wf#

219

G42

Df#

219

G42

sf#

221/2

G41

p#

268

M2

Hn, rd

286

M19

o#bt

298

M32

rd

334

N36
+
N23

mr

(5,14)
(8,8)
(7,10)
(6,6)

(s6)

(10,6)

,
(r7) (s10)

(4)

(2,8)
(8,1)

(11,2)

(3)

(5,13)

(12,9)
(1,2),
(8,6),

(4,5)

(10,12)
472

T14

mnj

486
608

U24

Hmw

551

-

Tt

563

Z3

w

584

V11

pX#

(6,6)

(2,8)

,
(5,9) (15,11)

(1,15)

(6,11)

(9,10)
594

AA18

D6311

s#
(6)

(2,11)

s#H, sjH
(14,1)

11

(3) (4)

(5,16)

(7,5)
595

,

(4)

(m2)

Since Dyn. 18 (GG, 458), although used by E. Dévaud and Z. Žába, cf. by W. Golénischeff (papyrus
Hermitage 1115, 34).

118

INDEXES
Series and periodicals
BIFAO

Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale. Le Caire

CRIPEL

Cahiers de recherches de l’Institut de papyrologie et Égyptologie de Lille. Lille

ET

Египетские тексты/ Egyptian Texts. Novosibirsk

GM

Göttinger Miszellen. Göttingen

JEA

Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. London

KÄT

Kleine ägyptische Texte. Wiesbaden

KaW

Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt. Mainz

LingAegStudMon

Lingua Aegyptia – Studia Monographica. Göttingen, Hamburg

MDAIK

Mitteilungen des deutschen archäologischen Instituts. Abt. Kairo. Wiesbaden

OBO

Orbis biblicus et orientalis. Freiburg, Göttingen

OLA

Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. Leuven

RecTrav
WdO

Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archéologie égyptiennes et
assyriennes. Paris
Die Welt des Orients. Berlin, Göttingen

ZÄS

Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde. Leipzig, Berlin

Museums and collections
BM

British Museum, London, Great Britain

BnF

Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris, France

Cairo JE

Journal d’Entrée, Musée égyptien du Caire, L’Égypte

CGC

Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, L’Égypte

CGT, ME

Catalogo del Museo Egizio di Torino, Italia

IFAO

Institut français d’archéologie orientale, Le Caire, L’Égypte

References
ET XV

Панов, 2021.

GG

Gardiner, 1957.

HL 4

Hannig, 2003.

HL 5

Hannig, 2006.

Möller I–II

Möller, 1965.

Urk. IV

Sethe, 1927–1930.

Wb

Erman, Grapow, 1971.

Online Sources
DZA / TLA

Das digitalisierte Zettelarchiv. Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae
URL: http://www.aaew.bbaw.de <version: 31 Oktober 2014>
URL: http://aaew2.bbaw.de/tla/servlet/DzaBrowser

119

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Панов, 2021
Allen, 2015
Budge, 1910
Burkard, 1977
Caminos, 1956
Cannuyer, 1986
Carrier, 2016
Carnarvon, Carter, 1912
Dévaud, 1916
Dévaud, 1924
Erman, Grapow, 1971
Fecht, 1981
Fischer-Elfert, 1997
Foster, 1977
Gardiner, 1917
Gardiner, 1938
Gardiner, 1946
Gardiner, 1957
Goedicke, 1988
Golénischeff, 1913
Hagen, 2009
Hagen, 2012
Hannig, 2003
Hannig, 2006
Heyne, 2007

Панов М.В. Литературные и историко-биографические надписи (II тыс. до
н.э.) / ET. 2021. Т. XV.
Allen J.P. Middle Egyptian Literature. Eight Literary Works of the Middle
Kingdom. Cambridge, 2015.
Budge E.A.W. Facsimiles of Egyptian Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum
with Descriptions, Translations, Etc. London, 1910.
Burkard G. Textkritische Untersuchungen zu ägyptischen Weisheitslehren des
Alten und Mittleren Reiches. Wiesbaden, 1977.
Caminos R.A. Literary Fragments in the hieratic Script. Oxford, 1956.
Cannuyer C. L’obèse de Ptahhotep et de Samuel. Pour une meilleure
compréhension de la maxime 37 de Ptahhotep // ZÄS. 1986. Bd. 113. S. 92–
103.
Carrier C. L’enseignement de Ptahhotep de l’Égypte ancienne (d’après le
papyrus Prisse). Brest, 2016.
The Earl of Carnarvon, Carter H. Five Years’ Explorations at Thebes. Oxford,
1912.
Dévaud E. Les Maximes de Ptahhotep d’après le Papyrus Prisse, les Papyrus
10371/10435 et 10509 du British Museum et la Tablette Carnarvon : Texte.
Fribourg, 1916.
Dévaud E. L’âge des papyrus égyptiens hiératiques d’après les graphies de
certains mots de la XIIe dynastie à la fin de la XVIIIe dynastie. Paris, 1924.
Erman A., Grapow H. [Hrsg.] Wörterbuch der aegyptischen Sprache im
Auftrage der Deutschen Akademien. Neudruck. Bd. I–V. Berlin, 1971.
Fecht G. Ptahhotep und die Disputierer (Lehre des Ptahhotep nach Pap. Prisse,
Max. 2–4, Dév. 60–83) // MDAIK. 1981. Bd. 37. S. 143–150.
Fischer-Elfert H.-W. Lesefunde im literarischen Steinbruch von Deir elMedineh / KÄT 12. 1997. Bd. 12.
Foster J.L. Thought Couplets and Clause in a Literary Text: the Maxims of
Ptah-hotep. Toronto, 1977.
Gardiner A.H. Review on: Les Maximes de Ptahhotep d’après le Papyrus Prisse,
les Papyrus 10371/10435 et 10509 du British Museum et la Tablette Carnarvon.
Texte by Eugène Dévaud // JEA. 1917. Vol. 4. P. 66–67.
Gardiner A.H. The House of Life // JEA. 1938. Vol. 24. No. 2. P. 157–179.
Gardiner A.H. The Instruction addressed to Kagemni and his Brethren // JEA.
1946. Vol. 32. P. 71–74. Pl. XIV.
Gardiner A.H. Egyptian Grammar. 3d ed. Oxford, 1957.
Goedicke H. Old Hieratic Paleography. Baltimore, MD, 1988.
Golénischeff W. Les papyrus hiératiques №№ 1115, 1116A et 1116B de
l’Ermitage Impérial à St. Pétersbourg. SPb., 1913.
Hagen F. Echoes of “Ptahhotep” in the Greco-Roman Period? // ZÄS. 2009. Bd.
136. S. 130–135.
Hagen F. An Ancient Egyptian Literary Text in Context: The Instruction of
Ptahhotep. Leuven, 2012.
Hannig R. Ägyptisches Wörterbuch I. Altes Reich und Erste Zwischenzeit /
KaW. 2003. Bd. 98.
Hannig R. Ägyptisches Wörterbuch II. Mittleres Reich und Zweite Zwischenzeit
/ KaW. 2006. Bd. 112.
Heyne A. The Teaching of Ptahhotep: the London Versions // Cannata M. (ed.).
Current Research in Egyptology: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual
Symposium which took place at the University of Oxford, April 2006. Oxford,
2007. P. 85–98.

120

Jéquier, 1911
Lacombe-Unal, 1999
Maspero, 1909
Mathieu, 2011
Möller, 1909
Möller, 1965
Panov, 2007
Panov, 2008
Posener, 1972
Prisse d’Avennes, 1847
Prisse d’Avennes fils,
1926
Quack, 1994
Quack, 2005
Sethe, 1924
Sethe, 1927
Sethe, 1927–1930
Stauder, 2013
Stauder, 2016
Vernus, 1996
Virey, 1887
Žába, 1956

Jéquier G. Le Papyrus Prisse et ses variantes. Paris, 1911.
Lacombe-Unal F. Le prologue de Ptahhotep: interrogations et propositions //
BIFAO. 1999. T. 99. P. 283–297.
Maspero G. L’ostracon Carnarvon et le papyrus Prisse // RecTrav. 1909.
T. XXXI. P. 146–153.
Mathieu B. L’Enseignement de Ptahhotep // Visions d’Égypte. Émile Prisse
d'Avennes (1807–1879). Exposition 1er mars – 5 juin 2011. BnF. Paris, 2011.
P. 62–85.
Möller G. Hieratische Lesestücke für den akademischen Gebrauch. Hft. 1.
Leipzig, 1909.
Möller G. Hieratische Paläographie. Bd. 1–2. Neudruck der zweiten
verbesserten Auflage 1936. Osnabrück, 1965.
Panov M. Some Remarks on Editors’ Errors in Ptahhotep and Other Texts //
GM. 2007. Hft. 213. S. 39–57.
Panov M. Ptahhotep’s Editions. New Observations // GM. 2008. Hft. 218.
S. 107–109.
Posener G. Catalogue des ostraca hiératiques littéraires de Deir el-Médineh
(1227–1266). T. II. Fasc. 3. Le Caire, 1972.
Prisse d’Avennes É. Fac-similé d’un papyrus égyptien en caractères hiératiques,
trouvé à Thèbes et donné à la Bibliothèque Royale de Paris. Paris, 1847.
Prisse d’Avennes fils É. Le Papyrus A l’Époque Pharaonique et Fac-Similé du
plus Ancien Manuscrit du Monde entier en Caractères Hiératiques Archaïques
ou Papyrus Prisse d’Avennes trouvé à Thèbes. Album. Avesnes, 1926.
Quack J.F. Die Lehren des Ani. Ein neuägyptischer Weisheitstext in seinem
kulturellen Umfeld / OBO. 1994. Bd. 141.
Quack. J.F. Ein neuer Zugang zur Lehre des Ptahhotep? // WdO. 2005. Bd. 35.
S. 7–21.
Sethe K. Ägyptische Lesestücke zum Gebrauch im akademischen Unterricht.
Texte des Mittleren Reiches. Leipzig, 1924. S. 36–42.
Sethe K. Erläuterungen zu den Ägyptischen Lesestücken. Texte des Mittleren
Reiches. Leipzig, 1927. S. 45–58.
Sethe K. Urkunden der 18. Dynastie. Hft. 1–4. 2. Aufl. Leipzig, 1927–1930.
Stauder A. Linguistic Dating of Middle Egyptian Literary Texts /
LingAegStudMon. 2013. Bd. 12.
Stauder A. Ptahhotep 82 P // Collombert Ph., Lefèvre D., Polis S., Winand J.
[eds] Aere Perennius. Mélanges égyptologique en l’honneur de Pascal Vernus /
OLA. 2016. T. 242. P. 779–810.
Vernus P. Le début de l'enseignement de Ptahhotep: un nouveau manuscrit //
CRIPEL. 1996. T. 18. P. 119–140.
Virey P. Études sur le papyrus Prisse: le livre de Kaqimna et les leçons de PtahHotep. Paris, 1887.
Žába Z. Les Maximes de PtaHHotep. Prague, 1956.

СЕРИЯ ЕГИПЕТСКИЕ ТЕКСТЫ
Том I
Обзор переводов с египетского языка на русский (1882 – 2010).
Новосибирск, 2011. ISBN 978-5-9902788-1-3.

Том II
Надписи на целительной статуе Хорхебе.
Новосибирск, 2014. ISBN 978-5-9902788-2-0

Том III
Источники по истории жреческих семей Мемфиса и Летополя в поздний период.
Часть 1: Исследование и перевод.
Новосибирск, 2015. ISBN 978-5-9902788-3-7
Новосибирск, 2017. ISBN 978-5-9902788-8-2

Том IV
Источники по истории жреческих семей Мемфиса и Летополя в поздний период.
Часть 2: Каталог и справочник имен.
Новосибирск, 2015. ISBN 978-5-9902788-4-4

Том V
Письма мертвым. Избранные тексты 18–20-й династий. Рецензии.
Новосибирск, 2016. ISBN 978-5-9902788-5-1

Том VI
Историко-биографические и мифологические надписи позднего времени.
Новосибирск, 2017. ISBN 978-5-9902788-6-8

Том VII
Надписи на памятниках Уннуфра, Паинму и Хорсаисета (30-я династия).
Новосибирск, 2017. ISBN 978-5-9902788-7-5

Том VIII
Легенды, мифы и гимны. Доклады.
Новосибирск, 2018. ISBN 978-5-9902788-9-9

Том IX
История о семи годах голода и бедствий при Нечерихете-Джосере.
Новосибирск, 2018. ISBN 978-5-6040692-0-2
Новосибирск, 2020. ISBN 978-5-6040692-8-8

Том X
Women in the Inscriptions of the Late Period
Novosibirsk, 2018. ISBN 978-5-6040692-1-9

Том XI
Письма, наставления и документы эпохи Рамессидов.
Новосибирск, 2019. ISBN 978-5-6040692-2-6
Новосибирск, 2021. ISBN 978-5-6040692-9-5

Том XII
Документы персидского и греко-римского периодов.
Новосибирск, 2019. ISBN 978-5-6040692-3-3

Том XIII
Историко-биографические надписи классического периода.
Новосибирск, 2019. ISBN 978-5-6040692-4-0

Том XIV
Исторические надписи из Куша и Кемета (I тыс. до н.э.).
Новосибирск, 2020. ISBN 978-5-6040692-5-7

Том XV
Литературные и историко-биографические надписи (II тыс. до н.э.).
Новосибирск, 2021. ISBN 978-5-6040692-6-4

Том XVI
Источники по древнеегипетской истории в переводах на русский язык. Каталог.
Новосибирск, 2021. ISBN 978-5-6040692-7-1

Том XVII
The Manuscripts of The Maxims of Ptahhotep.
Novosibirsk, 2021. ISBN 978-5-6045190-1-1