THE MYTH OF OSIRIS IN THE

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN PYRAMID

TEXTS

A STUDY IN NARRATIVE MYTH

David Stewart

BA (Hons)/MA University of Auckland

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Centre for the Study of Ancient Cultures

School of Philosophical, Historical and International Studies

Monash University

December 2014

ii

Under the Copyright Act 1968, this thesis must be used only under the normal

conditions of scholarly fair dealing. In particular no results or conclusions should be

extracted from it, nor should it be copied or closely paraphrased in whole or in part

without the written consent of the author. Proper written acknowledgement should be

made for any assistance obtained from this thesis.

I certify that I have made all reasonable efforts to secure copyright permissions for third-

party content included in this thesis and have not knowingly added copyright content

to my work without the owner's permission

iii

ABSTRACT

This thesis intervenes in the longstanding debate concerning the late development of

myth in ancient Egypt by testing the notion that a myth is essentially narrative, and by

challenging the belief that during the Old Kingdom, narrative myth only existed in the

oral sphere, if at all. It does so by investigating the appearance and use of the myth of

Osiris in the Pyramid Texts. Focussing on the form that mythic thought took during the

Old Kingdom, it examines how this was actualised in the royal mortuary literature.

This thesis argues that the unhelpful divergence of scholarship on myth,

conceptualising it as either narrative, following a sequential or coherent pattern, or non-

narrative, as a network of associations and connections between gods, is a result of

scholars’ adherence to narrow definitions of myth. The multifaceted nature of myth

prevents the effective use of definitions to delineate its conceptual borers. Through a

contextualising approach, this thesis looks beyond a definition as a primary analytical

tool.

This study has three major directions of investigation. The first is the collection,

translation and analysis of the core material relating to the Osiris myth. The emphasis of

this aspect of the study is on the relationships between deities, which comprise the

building blocks of the mythic ideas in the Pyramid Texts. The second direction of this

study involves the idea of the fluidity of the Egyptian pantheon; that different gods

could undertake the same roles within the actions or events of the myth. This facet of

the study will test the idea that before a canon was set, mythic ideas were fluid and

subject to variation. The spatial and temporal patterns of distribution comprise the

third course of analysis in this study, aimed at developing a deeper understanding of

the interplay between text and monument.

This thesis demonstrates that a low level of narrativity in the Pyramid Texts does not

preclude the existence of a narrative mythic structure. Variability is shown to be an

operative force in the Pyramid Texts, which prioritise the inclusion of different

traditions over their exclusion, without concern for strict coherence. The way in which

individuals chose to arrange the texts informs us about their religious priorities. The

increased incorporation of the myth, reflected in the spatial and temporal distribution of

the texts, shows the changing religio-political landscape of the Old Kingdom, as the

Heliopolitan priesthood rose in prominence.

Myth emerges from this thesis as an ever changing phenomenon, subject to the ebbs and

flows of social, religious and political currents. If we are to understand its complexity

we must situate it in its cultural and temporal milieu.

iv

STATEMENT

This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other

degree or diploma in any university or other institution. To the best of my knowledge

this thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person,

except where due reference is made in the text of the thesis.

David Stewart

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It would not have been possible to complete this doctoral thesis without the

encouragement and support of those around me. First and foremost I would like to

thank my principal supervisor Associate Professor Colin Hope, for supporting and

educating me throughout these past five years. Colin has been a consummate

supervisor and he is one of the smartest people I know. He is the kind of academic I one

day hope to become. His constant support, advice and encouragement have been

instrumental throughout the process of my doctoral candidature and this project would

not have been completed without him. I will be forever indebted to him for the

knowledge he has bestowed upon me, be both professionally and personally. I am also

very grateful to my second supervisor Dr Gillian Bowen, whose attention to detail drove

me to finally learn to punctuate prose. Her insightful comments have been influential in

the development and execution of this project.

I would also like to thank my fellow postgraduate students, who helped to create a fun

and intellectually stimulating environment every day. We have all been there for each

other at one time or another, and I am grateful to have had such a wonderful group of

people to share this time with. I will always remember the many wonderful lunches

and fun activities we have had. Special thanks must go to Johanna Petkov; in an often

lonely journey with many peaks and troughs, her friendship and guidance have been

appreciated beyond words. I will always be thankful for our many talks over coffee,

during which we discussed any and all issues, from writing and the frustrations of

higher degree research, to politics and changing fashion trends. She provided me with

distraction when needed and the motivation to finish my thesis, when I could not

muster it myself. For that, and reasons too numerous to commit to writing, I will be

forever in her debt. I must also extend my gratitude to Caleb Hamilton, for his

unrelenting energy and enthusiasm, which has been a source of inspiration for me; Dr

Charlotte Greenhalgh, for her invaluable advice and support during this last year; and

Amy Pettman, for our many chats and her wealth of knowledge about Old Kingdom

Egypt. Thank you all so very much.

I will be eternally thankful for all of my family, their unconditional love and support

mean the world to me, and I would never have come this far without their

encouragement to chase my dreams. Mere words on a page cannot express the thanks I

have to be the son of Allan and Nicky Stewart. They have sacrificed so much to afford

me the opportunities they did not have, I am grateful every day because of it. I can

never repay the amount of love, care and support they have given me, even separated

vi

by thousands of kilometres. I will spend the rest of my life trying. My sister, Ashleigh,

has been my best friend all my life and I love her dearly. She has undoubtedly been my

rock, ever-present and steadfast in her support. She is a constant source of inspiration

to me and the strength she has shown in a difficult life has given me strength in my

own. Her drive and determination seem inexhaustible. I thank her for her love,

friendship, guidance, numerous skype calls, and above all else her unwavering belief in

me, even if and especially when I did not believe in myself. She will never comprehend

just how important she has been to the successful completion of this thesis. In the time

it has taken me to write my thesis, my brother Iain and his wife Rebecca have created a

wonderful and loving family with their two children, Ella and Oscar. Their love and

support have been no small contribution to this project.

Finally I must thank my friends in both Australia and New Zealand, without them I

would have surely gone insane. In particular, thanks must go to my flatmate Raf, who

has put up with me through this long process, always being there to listen and pour me

a glass of wine at the end of the day. Thank you.

A doctoral thesis is as much an individual achievement as it is a testament to the

support system of the candidate. In the second regard I have been blessed and will be

forever thankful.

vii

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................... ii

STATEMENT ................................................................................................................................... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................. v

CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................... vii

ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................................................. x

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1

: History of Scholarship .......................................................................................... 3 1.2

: Monomythic Interpretations of Myth ................................................................. 5 1.2.1

: Egyptological Studies: The Problem of Narrative .......................................... 11 1.2.2

: The Aims of the Present Study .......................................................................... 18 1.3

: Theory and Methodology. ................................................................................. 22 1.4

CHAPTER TWO THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

: Introduction ......................................................................................................... 28 2.1

: Osiris – Seth.......................................................................................................... 29 2.2

: Seth – Kills – Osiris ............................................................................................. 30 2.2.3

: Seth – Bears – Osiris ............................................................................................ 33 2.2.4

: Osiris – Located in – Nedit ................................................................................. 36 2.2.5

: Osiris – Protected/Saved/Defended - Seth ....................................................... 38 2.2.6

: Osiris – Horus ...................................................................................................... 41 2.3

: Horus – Son of – Osiris ....................................................................................... 42 2.3.1

: Horus – Saves/Protects – Osiris ......................................................................... 46 2.3.2

: Horus – Revives – Osiris .................................................................................... 49 2.3.3

: Horus – Successor of – Osiris ............................................................................ 52 2.3.4

: Horus – Acts for - Osiris ..................................................................................... 55 2.3.5

: Osiris – Isis and Nephthys ................................................................................. 58 2.4

: Isis and Nephthys – Mourn – Osiris ................................................................. 59 2.4.1

viii

: Isis and Nephthys – Search for – Osiris ........................................................... 63 2.4.2

: Isis and Nephthys – Find – Osiris ..................................................................... 65 2.4.3

: Isis and Nephthys – Join/Unite/Assemble – Osiris ......................................... 68 2.4.4

: Isis – Conceives Horus – Osiris ......................................................................... 70 2.4.5

: Isis and Nephthys – Call out/Summon – Osiris .............................................. 72 2.4.6

: Horus – Seth ......................................................................................................... 74 2.5

: Horus – Acts against – Seth ............................................................................... 74 2.5.1

: Seth – Injures – Horus ......................................................................................... 78 2.5.2

: Horus – Contends with - Seth ........................................................................... 84 2.5.3

: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 87 2.6

CHAPTER THREE VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 113 3.1

: Osiris – Seth........................................................................................................ 114 3.2

: Seth – Kills – Osiris ........................................................................................... 114 3.2.1

: Seth – Bears – Osiris .......................................................................................... 115 3.2.2

: Osiris – Located in – Nedit ............................................................................... 117 3.2.3

: Osiris – Protected/Saved/Defended – Seth .................................................... 119 3.2.4

: Osiris – Horus .................................................................................................... 119 3.3

: Horus – Son of – Osiris ..................................................................................... 119 3.3.1

: Horus – Saves/Protects – Osiris ....................................................................... 121 3.3.2

: Horus – Revives – Osiris .................................................................................. 125 3.3.3

: Horus – Successor of – Osiris .......................................................................... 130 3.3.4

: Horus – Acts for – Osiris .................................................................................. 133 3.3.5

: Osiris – Isis and Nephthys ............................................................................... 134 3.4

: Isis and Nephthys – Mourn – Osiris ............................................................... 134 3.4.1

: Isis and Nephthys – Search for – Osiris ......................................................... 134 3.4.2

: Isis and Nephthys – Find – Osiris ................................................................... 136 3.4.3

: Isis and Nephthys – Join/Unite/Assemble – Osiris ....................................... 138 3.4.4

: Isis – Conceives Horus – Osiris ....................................................................... 141 3.4.5

: Isis and Nephthys – Call out/Summon – Osiris ............................................ 141 3.4.6

: Horus - Seth ....................................................................................................... 143 3.5

: Horus – Acts against – Seth ............................................................................. 143 3.5.1

: Seth – Injures – Horus ....................................................................................... 144 3.5.2

ix

: Horus – Contends with – Seth ......................................................................... 146 3.5.3

: Discussion .......................................................................................................... 146 3.6

CHAPTER FOUR TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 160 4.1

: The Number of Texts within the Pyramids ................................................... 161 4.2

: The Groups of Texts within the Pyramids ..................................................... 164 4.3

: Osiris – Seth........................................................................................................ 164 4.3.1

: Osiris – Horus .................................................................................................... 166 4.3.2

: Osiris – Isis and Nephthys ............................................................................... 168 4.3.3

: Horus – Seth ....................................................................................................... 170 4.3.4

: The Types of Texts within the Pyramids ....................................................... 171 4.4

: Osiris – Seth........................................................................................................ 171 4.4.1

: Osiris – Horus .................................................................................................... 172 4.4.2

: Osiris – Isis and Nephthys ............................................................................... 173 4.4.3

: Horus – Seth ....................................................................................................... 174 4.4.4

: The Locations of Texts within the Pyramids ................................................. 175 4.5

: Osiris – Seth........................................................................................................ 175 4.5.1

: Osiris – Horus .................................................................................................... 179 4.5.2

: Osiris – Isis and Nephthys ............................................................................... 184 4.5.3

: Horus – Seth ....................................................................................................... 188 4.5.4

: Discussion .......................................................................................................... 193 4.6

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION

: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 200 5.1

: Findings and Implications ............................................................................... 201 5.2

: Limitations and Further Study ........................................................................ 207 5.3

: Concluding Remarks ........................................................................................ 211 5.4

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 212

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................ 239

x

ABBREVIATIONS

GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS:

ÄA Ägyptologische Abhandelungen

APAW Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften

ARA Annual Review of Anthropology

Archéo-Nil Archéo-Nil: Bulletin de la société pour l’étude des cultures prépharaoniques

de la vallée du Nil

ASCS Australasian Society for Classical Studies

BIFAO Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale

CR Centennial Review

DE Discussion in Egyptology

ENiM Égypte nilotique et méditerranéenne

GM Göttinger Miszellen

HTR Harvard Theological Review

HR History of Religions

JAA Journal of African Archaeology

JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion

JANER Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions

JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society

JARCE Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt

JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

JEOL Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap ‘Ex Oriente Lux’

VI

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JSAS Journal of the Serbian Archaeological Society

JSRC Jerusalem Studies in Religion and Culture

JSSEA Journal of the society of the Study of Egyptian Antiquities

LÄ Lexikon der Ägyptologie

LingAeg Lingua Aegyptia

MÄS Münchner Ägyptologishce Studien

MDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts

MIFAO Mémoires publies par les membres de L’Institut français d’archéologie

orientale du Caire

OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis

OIP Oriental Institute Publications

OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta

RdE Revue d’Égyptologie

RHR Revue de l'Histoire de Religions

SAK Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur

SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilisation

xi

SAWW Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil.hist.

Klasse

SPAW Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil-hist.

Klasse

UGAÄ Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens

VA Varia Aegyptiaca

ZÄS Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskude

ABREVIATIONS OF PYRAMID TEXT LOCATIONS:

ROOMS: B Burial chamber

Bs Burial chamber, sarcophagus

P Passageway between the burial chamber and the antechamber

A Antechamber

SP Passageway between the antechamber and the serdab

C Corridor

Cs Corridor, south section

Cm Corridor, middle section

Cn Corridor, north section

V Vestibule

APs Ascending passageway, south section

APn Ascending passageway, north section

WALLS, SECTIONS, REGISTERS: /E East wall

/Eg East wall, gable

/Eh East wall, horizontal

/iB Interior bottom

/iE Interior east wall

/iL Interior lid

/iN Interior north wall

/iS Interior south wall

/iW Interior west wall

/N North wall

/Ne North wall, east end

/Nw North wall, west end

/Nwh North wall, west end, horizontal

/S South wall

/Se South wall, east end

/Sw South wall, west end

/Swh South wall, west end, horizontal

/W West wall

/Wg West wall, gable

/Wh West wall, horizontal

A-F Sections

i-v Registers

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

: INTRODUCTION 1.1

During the late Old Kingdom the pyramids of the kings and queens were inscribed with

a set of texts designed to maintain their existence in the afterlife for all eternity. These

are now known as the Pyramid Texts. They remained in use from the reign of Unis in

Dynasty 5 until the end of the Old Kingdom and also are attested in private tombs of the

Middle Kingdom.1 They have been found in the pyramids of ten kings and queens thus

far at Saqqara; Unis, Teti, Pepi I, Ankhesenpepi II, Merenre, Pepi II, Neith, Iput II,

Wedjebetni and Ibi.2 Comprising the oldest corpus of Egyptian religious texts they are

the most important textual source for the study of early Egyptian thought, belief and

cult practice. The Pyramid Texts appear in the reign of Unis essentially fully formed,

with alterations and additions made to each corpus, particularly during the reign of

Pepi I. Their origins lie in the oral discourse of the Memphite and Heliopolitan

theologians, although some texts surely predate this, and through a process of

entextualisation were made concrete in the pyramids. This appears to have coincided

with the rise in Heliopolitan thought, which is central to the Pyramid Texts overall. The

process of entextualisation3 is crucial for understanding their origins. It refers to any

practice of transforming oral discourse into a textual form. This transformed the

1 Antonio Morales, “The Transmission of the Pyramid Texts into the Middle Kingdom:

Philological Aspects of a Continuous Tradition in Egyptian Mortuary Literature” (PhD diss.,

University of Pennsylvania, 2013). 2 Due to the state of preservation and publication of the majority of the Queen’s pyramids this

study has focussed on the pyramids of the kings and also that of Neith, the best preserved

pyramid of a queen. The texts of all the pyramids have been included in the appendicies of this

study for completeness. 3 This process is expanded upon in 1.4: Theory and Methodology.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

2

mortuary recitations of both Memphite and Heliopolitan origins into writing during the

Fifth Dynasty. This appears to have been initiated by the priestly class for the benefit of

the king’s existence in the afterlife. The majority of texts analysed in this study reflect

the Heliopolitan sacerdotal tradition. That is, the priestly oral discourse, which made its

primary concern the events surrounding Osiris.

The function of the Pyramid Texts, in common with all mortuary literature, was to

enable the deceased, primarily the king, to become an akh through the uniting of the ba

and the ka after their separation from the body.4 Their ritual origin has imposed upon

them a form that lends itself to short statements without specific details. Indeed much

of the cultural knowledge needed to understand the Pyramid Texts is lacking.5

Nevertheless, it must be kept in mind that the monumentalisation of the texts separated

them from their ritual. They were primarily a silent codification of well-known ritual,

designed to encapsulate the tomb of the king but not necessarily be read aloud.6 The

thoughts rather than the ritual actions of the ancient Egyptians take precedence in this

study, while keeping in mind their ritual nature, which affects their form and function.

4 Harold Hays, The Organization of the Pyramid Texts: Typology and Distribution, 2 vols. (Leiden and

Boston: Brill, 2012), 1; James Allen, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Writings from the Ancient

World 23 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 7-8; Winfried Barta, Die Bedeutung der

Pyramidentexte für den verstorbenen König (München: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1981), 104-105. 5 Chris Eyre, The Cannibal Hymn: A Cultural and Literary Study (Liverpool: Liverpool University

Press, 2002), 3 suggests that a solution could be sought in anthropological studies focusing on the

choice and meaning of words, mythical allusions, symbolic forms of reference and ideological

context. 6 On the connection between the Pyramid Texts and the funeral see Hartwig Altenmüller, Die

Texte zum Begräbnisritual in den Pyramiden des Alten Reiches, ÄA 24 (Wisenbaden: Otto

Harrassowitz, 1972). See also Hays, Organization, 1:36; Harold Hays, “Funerary rituals (Pharaonic

Period),” in UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, ed. Jacco Dieleman and Willeke Wedndrich, Los

Angeles 2010. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1r32g9zn; Jennifer Hellum “The Presence of Myth

in the Pyramid Texts,” in Egyptology in Australia and New Zealand 2009: Proceedings of the

Conference held in Melbourne September 4th-6th, ed. Christian Knoblauch and James Gill (Oxford:

BAR 2012), 41-46.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

3

This study seeks to intervene in the long standing debate concerning the late

development of myth in ancient Egypt. Myth is a difficult phenomenon to understand

in many cultures but it proves especially so for ancient Egypt. The juxtaposition of a full

pantheon of gods, and the absence of narrative myths about them in the textual record,

has created the perception that the ancient Egyptians had no myth until at least the

Middle Kingdom, and more likely the New Kingdom. While scholarship has begun to

recognise the complex nature of myth in ancient Egypt, even exploring the idea of non-

narrative myth, widespread agreement on the form of mythic thought and its

appearance in textual sources is lacking. This study provides a mediating voice to the

divergent scholarship, in which the usefulness of restrictive definitions to our

understanding is challenged. The centrality of the myth of Osiris to the Pyramid Texts

enables a detailed study of its form and the mechanisms of its incorporation into the

royal mortuary religious texts of the Old Kingdom. In undertaking a re-examination of

the material present in the Pyramid Texts, one of the primary aims of this study is to

determine to what extent the existence of a mythic structure can be determined, and

what form it took.

: HISTORY OF SCHOLARSHIP 1.2

The Pyramid Texts have been the subject of ongoing study7 since their discovery in 1880

by Maspero8 and original publication by Sethe.9 More recently, there has been much

7 The most comprehensive bibliography on the Pyramid Texts is Hays, Organization, 2:691-712.

See also, Allen, Pyramid Texts, 419-420; Erik Hornung, The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife,

trans. David Lorton (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999), 159-162, Nadine Gilhou and Bernard

Mathieu, “Cent dix ans d’étude des Textes des Pyramides (1882-1996). Bibliographie,” in Études

sur l’Ancien Empire et la nécropole de Saqqâra dédiées à Jean-Philippe Lauer, ed. Catherine Berger and

Bernard Mathieu (Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry, 1997), 233-244. 8 Gaston Maspero, Les Inscriptions des Pyramides de Saqqarah (Paris: Bouillon, 1894). See also,

Miroslav Verner, The Pyramids. The Mystery, Culture, and Science of Egypt’s Great Monuments (New

York: Grove Press, 2001) 39-41; Ronald Ridley, “The Discovery of the Pyramid Texts,” ZÄS 110

(1983): 74-80.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

4

work on reconstructing the fragmentary pyramids by the MAFS.10 This work has added

a wealth of information to the largely fragmentary nature of the Pyramid Texts;

however, it must be noted that the full publication of the texts of the pyramid of

Merenre is still lacking. With this new information regarding the Pyramid Texts,

studies such as the current project are in a far better position to analyse the material.

Additionally, there have been numerous translations of the texts.11 A review of the

literature is instructive before this study commences, in order to understand fully the

theory with which this project engages. First, the treatment and definition of myth will

be explored from the perspective of general studies. The task of defining myth has been

attempted many times over and so an overview of these attempts is needed. Then, the

concept of myth can be analysed from an Egyptological point of view, highlighting the

problems that have arisen from past analyses and definitions of myth in ancient Egypt.

9 Kurt Sethe, Die Altägyptischen Pyramidentexte nach den Papierabdrücken und Photographien des

Berliner Museums (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1908). 10 Jean Leclant et al., Les Textes de la Pyramide de Pépy Ier, 2nd ed. MIFAO 118 (Le Caire: Institut

Français d'Archéologie Orientale, 2010); Élise Bène, “Les Textes de la paroi nord de la chamber

funéraire de la pyramide de Téti,” in Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists,

ed. Jean Claude Goyon and Christine Cardin (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 1:167-182; Catherine Berger-

El Naggar, “Des Textes des Pyramides sur papyrus dans les archives du temple funéraire de Pépy

Ier,” in D’un monde à l’autre: Texts des pyramides et textes des sarcophages, ed. Susanne Bickel and

Bernard Mathieu (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 2004), 85-88; Bernard Mathieu,

“Modifications de texte dans la pyramide d’Ounas,” BIFAO 96 (1996): 289-311; Jean Leclant, “Pépi

Ier, VI: à propos des §§ 1726 a-c, 1915 et *2223 a-c des Textes des Pyramides,” in Mélanges Gamal

Eddin Mokhtar, ed. P. Posner-Kriéger (Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1985), 2:83-

92; Jean Leclant, “À la pyramide de Pépi I, la paroi Nord du passage A-F,” RdE 27 (1975): 137-149. 11 Claude Carrier, Textes des Pyramides de l’Égypte ancienne. 6 vols (Paris: Éditions Cybele, 2009-

2010); Allen, Pyramid Texts; Raymond Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts (Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1969); Alexandre Piankoff, The Pyramid of Unas (Princeton: Princeton University

press, 1968); Samuel Mercer, The Pyramid Texts in Translation and Commentary I-VI (New York:

Longmans, 1952); Kurt Sethe, Übersetzung und Kommentar zu den Altägyptischen Pyramidentexten, 4

vols. (Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1935). It should be noted that all translations in this study are the

authors’.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

5

: MONOMYTHIC INTERPRETATIONS OF MYTH 1.2.1

Mythic discourse truly exploded in the late Nineteenth Century with the Victorian

preoccupation with the ‘savage’, the Other, who was seen as the antithesis to the

advanced culture of Western Europe. In order to understand the ‘savage’ their myths

were most commonly analysed. This in turn led to five major approaches in dealing

with myth that are still utilised in modern myth scholarship.

- Comparativism

- Psychoanalysis

- Functionalism

- Ritualism

- Structuralism

Comparativism seeks material from different cultures in order to explain the origins of

myth, excluding any explanation of the social or symbolic content. This school of

thought, most notably evident in the work of Frazer,12 lacks context for the explanation

12 James Frazer, Folklore in the Old Testament (London: Macmillan, 1919); James Frazer, The Golden

Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion (London: Macmillan, 1959). See also William Robertson

Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (Edinburgh: A. and C. Black, 1889), who follows the

comparative method but on a regional scale before moving global unlike the purely global scale

of Frazer. Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces (Princeton: Princeton University

Press, 1968) undertakes a comparative analysis of myths in order to ascertain the universal

symbolism contained within them. F. Max Müller, Chips from a German Workshop, (London:

Longmans, 1868) reflects a subset of the comparative approach often termed the mythopoeic as

he focuses on the mythic language of the Vedas in order to understand Greek myths. Likewise,

Ernst Cassirer, The Logic of the Cultural Sciences, trans. S. G. Lofts (New Haven: Yale University

Press, 2000) who argues that the creation of myth was an end in itself as myth was just a way of

using language for expressive purposes. While the comparative approach has come under heavy

criticism it still remains in modern scholarship. Alan Dundes “The Anthropologist and the

Comparative Method in Folklore,” Journal of Folklore Research 23, 2/3 (1986): 125-146, asserts the

usefulness of the Finnish method of comparative study and Robert Segal, “In Defense of the

Comparative Method,” Numen 48, 3 (2001): 339-373 who offers a persuasive argument for the

usefulness of Frazer and Smith’s version of comparativsim. See also, Howard Eilberg-Scwartz,

The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism, (Bloomington:

Indiana University Press, 1990); Wendy Doniger, The Implied Spider: Politics and Theology in Myth

(New York: Columbia University Press, 1998).

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

6

of myth, assuming that all societies develop in the same way across space and time.

More troubling is the insistence on the sameness of myth, the implication that all myth

is derived from the same ideas that the existence of an Ur-myth implies. Freudian and

Jungian thought have pervaded myth scholarship with the notion that myth is reflective

of the unconscious.13 While the two approaches differ remarkably in their focus either

on the individual in Freudian thought, or on society as a whole in Jungian scholarship,

they both see in myth the psychological workings of people. The value of this approach

is clear,14 but used in isolation it fails to take into account the disparity of cognitive

function in different myths, that some might bear upon psychological matters more than

others.15

13 Sigmund Freud, The Interpretations of Dreams, (New York: Macmillan, 1951); The Standard Edition

of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, ed. James Strachey et al., vol. 9, Delusions and

Dreams in Jensen’s Gradvia (1907 [1906]) (London: Hogarth Press, 1959), 141-154; The Collected

Works of C. G. Jung, ed. Gerhard Adler et al., trans. R. F. C. Hull, vol. 9/2, Aion: Researches into the

Phenomonology of the Self (London: Routledge and Kegan, 1959); The Collected Works of C. G. Jung,

vol. 6, Psychological Types (London: Routhledge and Kegan, 1971), 510-523. See also Robert Segal,

Jung on Mythology (London: Routledge, 1998); Andrew Samuels, Jung and the Post Jungians

(London: Routledge, 1985). For cogent critiques on the theories see Susan Sontag, Against

Interpretation and Other Essays (New York: Picador, 1966) and Jack Carloye, “Myth as Religious

Explanations,” JAAR 48, 2 (1980): 175-189. 14 Alan Dundes, “Earth Diver: Creation of the Mythopoeic Male,” American Anthropologist: New

Series 64, 5 (1962): 1032-1051 who clearly shows the value that a psychological approach can

contribute to the understanding of a myth. 15 The dialogue between A. Dundes and S. Hollis regarding the Late Egyptian story of the Two

Brothers is indicative of the importance placed on psychology to the exclusion of all other modes

of interpretation. Alan Dundes, “Projective Inversion in the Ancient Egyptian “Tale of the Two

Brothers”,” Journal of American Folklore 115, 457/458 (2002): 378-394; Susan T. Hollis, “Continuing

Dialogue with Alan Dundes Regarding the Ancient Egyptian “Tale of the Two Brothers”,” Journal

of American Folklore, 116, 460 (2003): 212-216.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

7

The function of myth on a sociological level has been the focus of Functionalism since its

development by Durkheim.16 Instead of studying myths for their content, functionalism

seeks to explain their use within a society. In this way they reflect social values and

structures and thus help to codify morality and maintain the solidarity of a group of

people. Myth strengthens tradition within a society by tracing its roots back to a higher

supernatural reality. These theories often over-emphasise the sociological level of a

myth and lose the individual.17 They also cannot account for social customs that

continue even after the meaning behind them is lost.18

The primacy of ritual in its relationship with myth has been the focus of Ritualism.19

16 Émile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, trans. Joseph Swain (New York:

Dover Publications, 1915) who argued that myth expressed in word what ritual did through

action and that myth reflected social values. Bronislaw Malinowski, Magic, Science and Religion

and Other Essays (New York: Doubleday, 1954) follows the functionalist views of Durkheim but

differs by focussing on a pragmatic view of myth in that it served as a foundation for and warrant

of its customs and institutions. See also William Goode, Religion Among the Primitives (London:

Collier-Macmillan, 1951); Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic books,

1973); Clyde Kluckhohn, “Myths and Rituals: A General Theory,” HTR 35, 1 (1942): 45-79; W.

Comstock, The Study of Religion and Primitive Religion (New York: Harper and Row, 1972). 17 For critiques of the functionalist approach see Ian Jarvie, The Revolution in Anthropology

(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964) who states that functionalism cannot account for

social change. Hans Penner, “The Poverty of Functionalism,” HR 11, 1 (1971): 91-97 argues that

the theory is not a valid theory of religion at all. 18 J. Cocker, “Ceremonial Masks,” in Celebration: Studies in Festivity and Ritual, ed. Victor Turner

(Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1982), 78. 19 The likes of Smith, The Religion of the Semites; Frazer, The Golden Bough and Aylward Blackman

and Samuel Hooke, Myth and Ritual: Essays on the Myth and Ritual of the Hebrews in Relation to the

Culture pattern of the Ancient Near East (London: Oxford University Press, 1933) can be seen as

precursors to ritualism proper. The clearest framing of the school of thought is given by Jane

Harrison, Themis: A Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion (New York: Meridian Books, 1963).

Harrison provides a complex account of myth as an explanation for ritual arising at a time after

the original reason is lost. See also, Jane Harrison, The Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1908); Edmund Leach, Political Systems of Highland

Burma: A study of Kachin Social Structure (London: Athlone Press, 1954) who argues that myth and

ritual are both different methods of communicating the same message; Lord Raglan, “Myth and

Ritual,” in Myth: A Symposium, ed. Thomas Sebeok (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1958),

76-83 defends the position of the ritual school arguing that myth is needed to validate rite though

the stating of the details of the rite; Robert Graves, The Greek Myths (Harmondsworth: Penguin,

1960) states that myth can only be defined as the reduction to narrative shorthand of ritual. A

broadening of ritualism can be seen in Kluckhohn, “Myths and Rituals” and Dabney Townsend

Jr., “Myth and Meaning,” CR 16, 2 (1972): 192-203.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

8

Myths considered this way are explanations of ritual. They provide a reason for

performing a rite, often arising in response to the disappearance of the original reason.

The strict correlation between myth and ritual asserts the dominance of ritual that it

does not necessarily deserve. The high degree of variability between societies will

inevitably mean that the importance of ritual and myth will differ greatly between

them.20 If ritualism highlights an important aspect of myth, it cannot provide the only

reason for its existence; myth could have an efficacy of its own.

Structuralism attempts to analyse myth in terms of the way in which its message is

conveyed, its medium rather than its message.21 This approach focusses on finding the

‘deep’ or embedded structures that underlie those on the ‘surface’. The significance of a

myth is seen not in the narrative itself but in the structure. This type of analysis is based

on the assumption that myth is a misunderstood language and needs decoding.22 It

20 For a critique of the ritual approach see Joseph Fontenrose, The Ritual Theory of Myth (Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1971) who argues against the strict correlation between myth and

ritual using the Enuma Elish text read during the Babylonian New Year festival to demonstrate

that it has no correlation with ritual acts. See also Paul Veyne, Did the Greek Believe their Myths?:

An Essay on the Constitutive Imagination (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983) who states

that very few myths actually explain rites; Geoffrey Kirk, The Nature of Greek Myths

(Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974) who argues the great variability of societies means that the

importance of ritual would vary between them. 21 The first formulation of structuralism comes from Vladimir Propp, Morphology of the Folktale

(Austin: University of Texas Press, 1968) who looked at folktales proper and noticed that different

content could perform the same function in stories. The classic formulation of the theory is by

Claude Lévi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology, trans. Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest

Schoepf (Middlesex: Penguin, 1993). See also, Claude Lévi-Strauss, “The Structural Study of

Myth,” in Myth: A Symposium, ed. Thomas Sebeok (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1958),

50-66; Claude Lévi-Strauss, “The Story of Asidiwal,” in Structuralism in Myth: Lévi-Strauss, Barthes,

Dumézil and Propp, ed. Robert Segal (New York: Garland, 1996), 135-183; Bob Scholte, “The

Structural Anthropology of Claude Lévi-Strauss,” in Handbook of Social and Cultural Anthropology,

ed. John Honnigman (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973), 637-716 who gives a worthy summary of

the theory. 22 Peter Munz, When the Golden Bough Breaks: Structuralism or Typology? (London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul, 1973), 16

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

9

imposes its own logic onto texts, rather than discovering it in them.23 The insistence that

myth behaves in this way at all times assumes too much sameness between societies.

Despite their differences these approaches share one similarity, they each insist upon

one single definition of myth; for example, myth contains aspects of the psyche, or myth

is ritual. Their multiplicity, on the other hand, points to the diversity of myth itself and

that there can be no one definition.24 Myths differ greatly in their form and function

across societies and the same text can be read by different people with different

approaches and result in different interpretations.25 A restrictive definition leads to a

restrictive view of myth characterised by the statement “myth is”. Myth can perform

different functions simultaneously and be instilled with multiple layers of meaning

designed to increase its effectiveness. More recently, scholars have identified the

diverse functions and flexible nature of myth in their approaches, termed

polyfunctionality. Myths may undergo many transformations during their transmission

resulting in several classifications at one time.26 This suggests a need to move away

from monomythic interpretations. Kirk27 argues for the multifunctionality of Greek

myth, emphasising the fact that there can be no single comprehensive theory of myth.

Similarly, Birrell says of Chinese myth that it can be read in many different ways and at

23 William Doty, Mythography: The Study of Myths and Rituals (Tuscaloosa and London: The

University of Alabama Press, 2000), 282. For other critiques see Geoffrey Kirk, Myth, Its Meaning

and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), 49 who

argues that Lévi-Strauss only uses myths from totemistic societies rather than Semitic, pre-

Hellenic or Indo-European societies where myth might work differently; Jack Goody, The

Domestication of the Savage Mind (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1977), 105, who argues

that a system of interpretation, such as a list, can only be rendered through writing and is thus

transformed. In describing myth Lévi-Strauss does not account that his own system of

interpretation is also a product of language and is thus transformed through language. 24 Kirk, Nature of Greek Myths, 7. 25 Lawrence Grossberg, “Is There a Fan in the House? The Affective Sensibility of Fandom,” in The

Adoring Audience, ed. Lisa Lewis (London: Routledge, 1992), 52. 26 Doty, Mythography, 37 27 Kirk, Nature of Greek Myths, 171

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

10

different levels.28 The forward to her volume on the problem of Chinese myth reads like

a coherent statement of the problem in Egypt:

For a long time…people had thought that China had a dearth of myth, or they even

considered that China was a nation that had no myths at all…. China did not enjoy

the phenomenon of gifted poets like Homer and Hesiod of the ninth and eighth

centuries B.C., who retold ancient myths in an eloquent literary mode. In the

Chinese case, myths at first appeared in a piecemeal fashion, in a variety of versions,

fragmented and truncated, and were collated as mythological material only fairly

late, if at all…In their very diversity,…the myths have been used by a great many

different authors. Significantly, they have been used piecemeal, and so they have

not suffered a complete reworking at the hands of literary authors or others. One

might argue that in their present fragmentary state, preserved in a large number of

classical books, they must appear as Greek and Roman myths once did before

Homer, Hesiod or even Ovid transformed, reshaped, and rewrote them. 29

Likewise, Goebs sees in Egyptian myth a flexible nature that could adapt and change

depending on the context, but that was nevertheless contingent on an underlying

structure.30 This variability and adaptability allowed myth to be useful in a variety of

contexts. Thus, a definition must be kept broad reflecting the variable nature of myth;31

although it must be kept in mind that an over broad definition can run the risk of

28 Anne Birrell, Chinese Mythology: an Introduction (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins

University Presss, 1993), 20. On the polyfunctionality of myth see Christianne Sourvinou-

Inwood, “Myths in Images: Theseus and Medea as a Case Study,” in Approaches to Greek Myth, ed.

Lowell Edmunds (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), 393-445; Morton Klass,

Ordered Universe: Approaches to the Anthropology of Religion (Boulder, Westview, 1995), 126. 29 Yuan K’o, forward to Chinese Mythology, by Anne Birrell (Baltimore and London: The Johns

Hopkins University Press, 1993), xi-xii. 30 Katja Goebs, “A Functional Approach to Egyptian Myth and Mythemes,” JANER 2, 1 (2002): 42. 31 An example of this type of definition can be found in Doty, Mythography, 33-34.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

11

straying to the opposite extreme of the monomythic, skating over the significant

differences between myths.32 By their very nature definitions are restrictive by being

exterior to the phenomenon they seek to explain.33 The definition of Fishbane, from his

work on Rabbinic myth, provides an example of a definition that is both broad enough

and restrictive enough to describe the phenomenon adequately:

We shall understand the word ‘Myth’ to refer to sacred and authoritative accounts

of the deeds and personalities of the gods and heroes during the formative events of

primordial times, or during the subsequent historical interventions or actions of

these figures which are constitutive for the founding of a given culture and its

rituals.34

EGYPTOLOGICAL STUDIES: THE PROBLEM OF NARRATIVE 1.2.2

Within Egyptology, a significant amount of scholarship has been devoted to attempting

to understand myth. Early treatments assumed the existence of myth, endeavouring to

reconstruct cults and their myths based on the fragmentary evidence.35 Later

scholarship has suggested a late development of Egyptian myth; an idea which has only

recently begun to change. Schott was the first to formulate this notion, arguing that

there was no myth in Egypt during predynastic times, and that only traces could be

32 Milton Scarborough, Myth and Modernity: Postcritical Reflections (New York: The State University

or New York Press, 1994), 29. 33 Lawrence Hatab, Myth and Philosophy: A Contest of Truths (La Salle: Open Court, 1990), 17. 34 Michael Fishbane, Biblical and Rabbinic Mythmaking (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 11. 35 Heinrich Brugsch, Religion und Mythologie der alten Aegypter (Leipzig: J.C. Heinrichs 1891); Kurt

Sethe, Urgeschichte und älteste Religion der Ägypter (Leipzig: DMG, 1930), who argues that myths

could be mapped onto actual historical events. This has been largely criticised but has received

some positive attention from J. G. Griffiths, The Conflict of Horus and Seth from Egyptian and

Classical Sources: A Study in Ancient Mythology (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1960);

Herman Kees, Der Götterglaube im alten Ägypten (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1941); Rudolf Anthes,

“Remarks on the Pyramid Texts and the Early Egyptian Dogma,” JAOS 74, 1 (1954): 35-39; Rudolf

Anthes, “Egyptian Theology in the Third Millenium B.C.,” JNES 18, 3 (1959): 169-212, who argues

that the Osiris cycle originates from the family tree of the gods in turn originating from the

coronation ritual; J. G. Griffiths, The Origin of Osiris and his Cult (Leiden: Brill, 1980), who assumes

the existence of the myth and analyses it using classical sources.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

12

found in the Pyramid Texts.36 Schott examined the use of demonstrative pronouns in

the Pyramid Texts, observing that the later corpora used pronouns indicating a further

distance ‘there’, compared to the earlier use indicating a close distance ‘here’. For Schott

this was proof that over time the gods withdrew from being immediate in ritual, to

existing in a mythical realm, which was established at the same time.37 He imposed a

chronological order on different genres of early religious38 texts but failed to recognise

that all of the genres he identified were already present in the Pyramid Texts of Unis.

Ultimately his exposition of early Egyptian religion is based on the unfounded

assumption of the distancing of the world of the gods. Otto39 differs in his approach,

questioning the assumptions held by Schott and focusing on the actual usage of myth in

ritual. Although differing from Schott in the reasons for the operation of myth, he

nevertheless ascribes to a similar theory. For Otto, myth explains ritual, once the

original meaning was changed or forgotten. Rituals begin without reference to myth

and over time incorporate myth until they become re-enactments in the Late Period.

Despite this weakness, the most important contribution of Otto’s work is his notion of

permanent or fixed aspects within a flexible mythology. These mythic schemata or

constellations encapsulate the relations between actors, for example in the Mother-Son

scheme.40

36 Siegfried Schott, “Spruen der Mythenbildung,” ZÄS 78 (1942): 1-27; Siegfried Schott, Mythe und

Mythenbildung im alten Ägypten, UGAÄ 15 (Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1964). See also, Günter

Rudnitsky, Die Aussage über "das Auge des Horus": eine altägyptische Art geistiger Äusserung nach

dem Zeugnis des Alten Reiches (Copenhagen: Munksgaard,1956); Hubert Roeder, “Ägyptisches und

Ägyptologisches zum “Auge des Horus”,”GM 138 (1994): 37-69, who all align with Schott in his

assertion of the primacy of ritual over myth. 37 Schott, Mythe und Mythenbildung, 33-34. See also Hanna Jenni, “The Old Egyptian

Demonstratives pw, pn and pf,” LingAeg 17 (2009): 119-137, who concludes differently. 38 Schott, Mythe und Mythenbildung, 28-54. 39 Eberhard Otto, Das Verhältnis von Rite und Mythus im Ägyptischen, SAHW. 1958, no. 1

(Heidelberg: Winter 1958). 40 Otto, Das Verhältnis von Rite, 26.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

13

The work of Assmann has had the most profound effect on scholarship. He argues that

none of the allusions to myth found in the early literature have a fixed structure that

would allow the identification of myth.41 Assmann attempts a rethinking of the concept

of myth as it applies to Egypt, rather than using preconceived model of interpretation

based on literary myths from Greek and Roman sources. He rigidly defines myth as

narrative. Furthermore, the narrative qualities he imposes on myth are considerable;

myth must be told in sequential episodes that are logically or causally linked through

the actions of the actors or gods, who must have motives for their actions. In order for

this to happen, the gods must be anthropomorphic or at least have human motives and

since myths are set in the past, there must be an ontological distance between the

human world and the gods. For Assmann, these conditions are only met in the Middle

Kingdom, and then only fully in the late New Kingdom, the period in which the

Contendings of Horus and Seth originated; this text satisfies all the criteria for it to be

considered myth by Assmann. While most scholars have accounted for the limited

number of mythic narratives by postulating the existence of an oral tradition, Assmann

rules out myth entirely even in the oral domain. Instead of myth, he opts to use his own

formulation of the constellation; groupings of deities and the relations between them.42

According to Assmann these constellations do not amount to narrative themselves but

might be used as episodes in a mythic narrative. An example would be the Father-Son

constellation, which is structured around the funerary cult, where the duties of the

funeral were taken care of by the eldest son of the deceased.43 Mythically, this is

41 Jan Assmann, “Die Verborhenheit des Mythos in Agypten,” GM 25 (1977): 7-43 42 Assmann, “Die Verborgenheit,” 14. This term is adopted from Otto but defined differently.

This conception changed slightly in a later article to be termed Icon, Jan Assmann, “Die Zeugung

des Sohnes: Bild, Spiel, Erzählung und das Problem des ägyptischen Mythos,” in Funktionen und

Leistungen des Mythos: Drei altorientalische Beispiele, ed. Jan Assmann, Walter Burkert and F. Stolz,

OBO 48 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1982). 43 Jan Assmann, Stein und Zeit Mensch und Gesellschaft im alten Ägypten (München: Wilhelm Fink

Verlag, 1991), 128-134.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

14

expressed in statements referring to Osiris and Horus, but what differs between the

mythical constellation and a narrative myth is that the action takes place in the present.

Assmann is not clear how mythical narratives are supposed to have developed from

this. Evidently, once the identities of the gods filling the roles in the constellation

became fixed and several constellations were ordered and thought of as being in the

past, then mythical narratives could exist. This does not happen on the level of the text

but on a new higher order structure called the genotext, which can then be realised on

the level of the phenotext as a non-narrative mythical statement or eventually as

narrative myth.44 Rather than narrative myths appearing as a new way of explaining

older concepts, Assmann stresses the notion that narrative myths were a completely

new phenomenon in the Middle Kingdom. They rethought the entire notion of the

divine world. Into this system Assmann later introduces the notion of the icon instead

of constellation.45 In his later article, iconicity refers to the non-narrative core of myths,

the exact opposite of constellations in his first article. Myths are made of icons and

myths take the form of stories.46 Assmann is variously criticised for his narrow

definitions and appraisal of early evidence.47

44 Assmann, “Die Verborgenheit,” 39. 45 Assmann, “Die Zeugung.” See also Jan Assmann, Egyptian Solar Religion in the New Kingdom: Re,

Atum and the Crisis of Polytheism, trans. Anthony Alcock (London and New York: Kegan Paul

International, 1995), 38-39. 46 Jan Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, trans. David Lorton (Ithaca: Cornell

University Press, 2001), 112. 47 See the critique of John Baines, “Egyptian Myth and Discourse: Myth, Gods and the Early

Written and Iconographic Record,” JNES 50 (1991): 83-92.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

15

Building upon his work on the concept of decorum,48 the rules governing what could be

depicted or written, where, and by whom, Baines proceeds to discuss the idea of myth.

He counters the arguments of Assmann, effectively arguing that anthropomorphism

and a distance between the world and the gods were not needed in order for myths to

exist.49 Baines also differs in his conception of myth, calling it a centrally sacred

narrative.50 In this he dispenses with the restrictive notions of Assmann, preferring to

say that narrative is transitive; that the situation at the end differs from the situation at

the beginning.51 Baines questions the importance of myth to the overall religious

schema of the Old Kingdom, when ritual texts show a preference for lists, tables and

encyclopedic knowledge. Further to this, in his discussion of the relationship of myth

and literature, Baines asserts the importance of narrative as a quality for the

identification of possible examples of myth; however, he goes on to say that the form of

a myth’s realisation does not need to display much narrative coherence. He thus makes

a distinction between a myth and its realisation.52

48 The term was first used in Egyptology by John Baines, “Temple Symbolism,” Royal

Anthropological Institute News 15 (1976): 10-15. See also, John Baines, “Restricted Knowledge,

Hierarchy, and Decorum: Modern Perceptions and Ancient Institutions,” JARCE 27 (1990): 20

where decorum is defined as “a set of rules and practises defining what may be represented

pictorially with caption, displayed, and possibly written down”; John Baines, “Society, Morality,

and Religious Practise,” in Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths and Personal Practise, ed. Byron

Shafer (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1991), 123-200; John Baines, “Prehistories of

Literature: Performance, Fiction, Myth,” in Definitely: Egyptian Literature: Proceedings of the

symposium “Ancient Egyptian literature: history and forms”, Los Angeles, March 24-26, 1995, ed.

Gerald Moers (Göttingen: Lingua Aegyptia, 1995), 17-41; Heather Lee McCarthy and Heather

McCarthy, “The Osiris Nefertari: A Case Study of Decorum, Gender, and Regeneration,” JARCE

39 (2002): 173-195. 49 Baines, “Egyptian Myth,” 91-92; 97-98. 50 Baines, “Egyptian Myth,” 91. See also his comments in John Baines, “Myth and Literature,” in

Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, ed. Antonio Loprieno. (New York: E. J. Brill, 1996),

361-377. 51 Baines, “Egyptian Myth,” 94. 52 Baines, “Myth and Literature,” 362-363.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

16

Continuing this line, Baines offers three criteria of myth: first, myths do not frequently

incorporate humanity, instead they explain how current world came to be and so their

temporal setting must precede the present. Second, the context of the cosmos as a whole

must also include its eventual destruction. Third, material central to the Egyptian

understanding of the world did not have a narrative character.53 These points do not

relate directly to the existence of myth, as Baines assumes its existence for early periods,

but argues that it was not the primary vehicle for the transmission of fundamental

beliefs and values. Instead, a pantheon in which variable, yet complementary, identities

could exist, provided a different way of comprehending reality. If the existence of myth

in the Old Kingdom appears solid, it remains to be seen how mythic thought was

actually characterised. Baines argues that we can have no access to myth, that any

single realisation of the narrative or the core elements transforms the myth.54 Some texts

might exhibit a large transformation, while others show relatively little and the task left

would be to investigate the variable relationship between myth and literature. Baines’

analysis focuses on literary texts rather than religious material and so the situation he

describes might not necessarily apply to the Pyramid Texts. Nevertheless, his assertion

of the primacy of narrative has had a lasting effect on scholarship,55 which might need

revision.

Bickel rejects the notion that a myth is inseparable from its narration, arguing for a

tableau of ideas.56 The formulations within the Pyramid Texts, such as speeches or

53 Baines, “Myth and Literature,” 365. 54 Baines, “Myth and Literature,” 375. 55 See for example, Vincent Tobin, “Divine Conflict in the Pyramid Texts,” JARCE 30 (1993): 93-

110; Jürgen Zeidler, “Zur Frage der Spätentstehung des Mythos in Ägypten,” GM 132 (1993): 85-

109. The prevalence of this notion has lead scholars such as Hays, Organization, 1:120 n. 485, to

comment “this is not at all to assert that the Pyramid Texts embody proper myths.” 56 Susanne Bickel, La Cosmogonie Égyptienne avant le Nouvel Empire, OBO 134, (Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1994), 263-273.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

17

epithets, give details about the gods, but do not need to follow a structured and

immutable sequence as narrative would. Coherent mythological discourse is pointed to

by Willems as unnecessary, as each mythological statement should be studied in its own

context.57 Van Dijk disregards narrative in his definition of myth as:

A statement that seeks to explain social reality and human existence in symbolic

terms by referring to a world outside the human world and to events outside human

time, but that makes the present situation meaningful and acceptable and provides a

perspective on the future. 58

Myth is thus more complex and meaningful than a narrative. More recently Goebs,

following Assmann’s conceptions of the genotext and phenotext,59 suggests that a lack

of coherence on the phenotextual level would not preclude the idea of a coherent

genotext; although, this does not necessarily need to be the case.60 In using the idea of

cultural memory,61 she argues that myths could extract and adapt information from the

sum of cultural knowledge, which did not need to be formulated in a coherent

manner.62 Hellum alternatively suggests that myth in the Pyramid Texts comprised the

interaction between the physical walls of the pyramids and the writings upon them,

creating a sacred space within which mythic ideas could operate. In this formulation,

57 Harco Willems, The Coffin of Heqata (Cairo JdE 36418): A Case study of Egyptian Funerary Culture of

the Early Middle Kingdom (Leuven: Peeters, 1996), 324. 58 Jacobus Van Dijk, “Myth and Mythmaking in Ancient Egypt,” in Civilisations of the Ancient Near

East, ed. Jack Sasson (New York, 1995), 3:1699. 59 Assmann, “Die Verborgenheit,” 37-39. It should be noted that her conception differs slightly

from that of Assmann. 60 Katja Goebs, “Functional Approach to Myth,” 32. See also Katja Goebs, “Egyptian Mythos as

Logos: An Attempt at a Redefinition of ‘Mythical Thinking’,” in Decorum and Experience: Essays in

Ancient Culture for John Baines, ed. Elizabeth Frood and Angela McDonald (Oxford: Griffith

Institute, 2013), 127-134, in which she argues, using cognitive brain mapping, that mythical

thinking uses similar brain functions to the use of language and by extension that ‘mythical

thinking’ existed well in advance of narrative myth. 61 Jan Assmann, Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in früen

Hochkulturen (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1992). See also Jan Assmann, Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten

Studies, trans. Rodney Livingstone (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006). 62 Katja Goebs, “Functional Approach to Myth,” 33.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

18

each aspect (religious, semiotic, architectural and literary), is vital to the function of the

texts overall in creating a non-narrative ‘metamyth’.63 This seems an attractive prospect

as it unifies the textual with the architectural in a cohesive statement, but it does not

allow for the texts to be myth in their own right. It is only in conjunction with the

architectural sacred space that the mythic allusions functioned.

The supposed late development of myth is based purely on the preserved literary

record, which makes it fundamentally implausible.64 The existence of myth in the Old

Kingdom seems to be on firm ground, what remains is the question of the form of myth

and mythic thought. The preceding discussion has demonstrated that definitions of

myth are numerous and varied, reflecting the nature of myth itself. Definitions are

largely exterior to the phenomena they describe and their usefulness can be quite

limited. More importantly, the discussion has highlighted the need to question the

notion that a myth is at its core, narrative. Mythic thought during the Old Kingdom

could have been comprised mainly of constellations, without the need for a narrative on

the textual or oral level. Conversely, it could have been characterised by narrative

structures on the oral level but non-narrative formulations on the textual. The question

remains open.

THE AIMS OF THE PRESENT STUDY 1.3

The shift in scholarship from the identification of myth within the Pyramid Texts, to the

exploration of its use has opened many avenues of research. A comprehensive study of

63 Jennifer Hellum, “Toward an Understanding of the Use of Myth in the Pyramid Texts,”

(forthcoming), Hellum makes three mythic ideas the focus of her investigation, the cosmography

of the sky, the aetiological perception of the sun’s movement through the sky and the myth of the

king’s ascent and progress through the sky. See also Jennifer Hellum, “Myth in the Pyramid

Texts”; Jennifer Hellum, “The Presence of Myth in the Pyramid Texts” (PhD diss., University of

Toronto, 2001). 64 Eyre, The Cannibal Hymn, 33 n. 12.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

19

the myth of Osiris, arguably the most important myth in Egyptian religion, is lacking in

regards to its appearance in the Pyramid Texts. In response to the above discussion, this

study sets out to investigate the appearance and use of the myth of Osiris in the

Pyramid Texts. More specifically, this study will test the notion that a myth is

essentially narrative. The primary focus will be an understanding of the mechanism of

incorporation of Osiris and events surrounding his death into the Pyramid Texts,

focussing on the form they take. Three research questions are central to this

examination:

- To what extent do the Pyramid Texts contain the myth of Osiris?

- What form does mythic thought take in the non-narrative texts?

- How was the myth of Osiris conceptualised in the Old Kingdom?

In order to answer these research questions this study has three major directions of

investigation. The first is the collection, translation and analysis of all the Pyramid Texts

pertaining to the events about the death of Osiris, particularly those mentioning his

relationships with other deities. This aim comprises the main analysis of this study and

has a further three research questions directing it:

- Which are the Pyramid Texts that convey the events and actions concerning

Osiris?

- What are the patterns of content seen within this group of texts?

- What information do the texts reveal about the events and actions surrounding

Osiris?

This collection of texts is unique within scholarship and allows the possibility of a

textual analysis in relation to myth and narrative. The analysis of the content of the

texts involves the establishing of criteria, for the classification of the texts within a wider

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

20

schema. The emphasis of this aspect of the study is on the relationships between deities

that can be identified. These relationships comprise the building blocks, so to speak, of

the mythic ideas in the Pyramid Texts and are fundamental to our understanding of

mythic thought. It is understood that this form of classification is exterior to the internal

structure of the Pyramid Texts65 but it is proposed that grouping the texts in this way

may aid in understanding the importance that mythic motifs held.

The second direction of this study involves the notion that the identities in the Pyramid

Texts were fluid and variable; that different gods could undertake the same roles within

the actions or events being described.66 This section has two research questions:

- To what extent do the relationships between the deities exhibit variation?

65 There has been debate over the internal structure of the Pyramid Texts and how they are to be

read. Joachim Spiegel, Das Auferstehungsritual der Unas-Pyramide (Wisenbaden: Harrassowitz,

1972) developed the theory that the epigraphic chambers within the pyramid represented the

journey of the king to the sky with the burial chamber being equated to the Duat and the

antechamber to the Akhet. This is followed and expanded upon by James Allen, “Reading a

Pyramid,” in Hommages à Jean Leclant, ed. Jean Leclant et al. (Cairo: Institut Français

d’Archéologie Orientale, 1994), 1:5-28, who divides the corpus of texts in those which appear in

the burial chamber and consist of an offering ritual and resurrection texts and those that appear

in the antechamber and consist of texts designed to help the king in his journey to the Akhet;

David O’Connor, “The Interpretaion of the Old Kingdom Pyramid Complex,” in Stationen:

Beitra ge zur Kulturgeschichte A gyptens, Rainer Stadelmann gewidmet, ed. Heike Guksch and Daniel

Polz (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1998), 135-144 who applies the same reading to the above

ground complex; Deborah Vischak, “Common Ground between Pyramid Texts and Old

Kingdom Tomb Design: The Case of Ankhmahor,” JARCE 40 (2003): 133-157 argues that the elite

during the Old Kingdom used the design of the tomb in order to reflect their views on the

afterlife and their journey through it; this idea was applied to anepigraphic royal pyramids by

Nils Billing, “Monumentalizing the Beyond: Reading the Pyramid before and after the Pyramid

Texts,” SAK 40 (2011): 53-66, following the ideas of Allen, Billing analyses the anepigraphic

pyramids pre and post-dating the use of the Pyramid Texts for mythological significance with the

conclusion that “mute” chambers would have had the same significance despite the lack of texts.

See also Harold Hays, “Unreading a Pyramid,” BIFAO 109 (2009): 195-220, who argues against

the interpretation of Allen as there are texts concerning the Duat and Akhet in both the burial

chamber and the antechamber rendering a cosmological reading of the tomb complex untenable. 66 Goebs, “Functional Approach to Myth”, who emphasises that the variability of myth in the

Pyramid Texts was underpinned by a structure that remained the same despite the differing

identities used within the texts. See also Baines, “Myth and Literature,” 364; Erik Hornung,

Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many (London: Routledge and Keegan Paul,

1983).

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

21

- How does this variation, or lack of variation, inform on the use of the

relationships within the Pyramid Texts?

This aspect of the study will test the conception that before a canon was set down,

mythic ideas were fluid, and subject to variation during their initial formation.67 The

degree of variation, or non-variation, can point to the relative fixity or fluidity that an

idea held within the theology of priesthood. The reasons for this variation can inform

upon the purpose and form of myth in the Old Kingdom.

The study’s third course of analysis focuses on the patterns of distribution of these texts.

It is assumed that they were not placed randomly on the walls of the pyramid

substructure, and so through an in-depth analysis of the different groupings of texts as

well as their placement on the walls of the tombs, patterns can be discerned. Two

research questions inform this direction of study:

- What are the patterns of distribution that the texts concerning Osiris exhibit

within the Pyramid Text corpora?

- What do these patterns indicate about the use of the myth of Osiris?

This area of analysis relates primarily to the purpose of the texts within the Pyramid

Texts as well as within a wider context of elite Egyptian society. The consistency or

inconsistency of these patterns informs on the position that myth held within the texts

overall, in particular where the efficacy of the texts was felt to be most potent within the

tomb. These aspects of this study will converge to answer the main research questions

67 Doty, Mythography, 138. Doty distinguishes between three phases of vitality; primary myth,

implicit myth and rationalised myth. The first myth addresses itself to the needs of a society to

answer significant problems, there is no narrative and inconsistencies are often present. Implicit

myth sees the core story become widespread as orthodoxy is established. Rationalised myth

occurs when the original is no longer accepted, with new myths challenging the old world view,

the old myth is preserved through incorporation into the new understanding.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

22

regarding the form of myth and its purpose within the Pyramid Texts.

THEORY AND METHODOLOGY 1.4

In studying the appearance and use of myth in the Pyramid Texts, the process by which

the Pyramid Texts were founded provides a useful framework for the study overall.

This is the process of entextualisation, first used by Bauman and Briggs.68 It refers to

any process of transforming oral discourse into a textual form. In the case of the

Pyramid Texts this transformed the mortuary recitations associated with the funeral into

writing, fundamentally changing the use of the texts. According to Hays,69 neither the

sacerdotal nor the personal70 texts were composed for the purpose of tomb decoration.

They were derived from scripts to be recited in a ritual setting, and so their origins lay

in the cultic practise of ritual recitation on a collective (sacerdotal), and individual

(personal) level. 71 Through the process of editing, the primary aim of the texts shifted

from an oral, operative form, to a mute, static form. Their efficacy came not from the

68 Richard Bauman and Charles Briggs, “Poetics of Performance as Critical Perspectives of

Language and Social Life,” ARA 19 (1990): 59-88. The idea is utilised by Andrey Rosowsky,

“Religious Classical Practise: Entextualisation and Performance,” Language in Society 42 (2013):

307-330 with regards to religious classical practises in the United Kingdom. For its use in relation

to the Pyramid Texts see Harold Hays, Organization, 1:90-92 and 1:198-203; Morales,

“Transmission of the Pyramid Texts,” 10. 69 Hays, Organization, 1:202. 70 The distinction between these two types of texts is given below. 71 Hays, Organization, 1:252.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

23

power of the spoken word, but from the visual properties of the hieroglyphs.72 As such,

they are representations of ritual acts, a monumentalisation that takes the text into a

non-performative role.73 This is demonstrated effectively by Hays for the Offering

Ritual (Group A) and so by extension, the entire corpus of texts.74 This contradicts the

assertions of Assmann in his division of the Pyramid Texts into two categories,

Totenliturgien and Totenliteratur.75 The process by which the Pyramid Texts were

transformed from oral script to monumental inscription is important for understanding

their purpose, and thus any mythic thought held within them. The decision to adorn

the pyramid substructure of Unis at the end of Dynasty 5 signalled a shift in thought

and understanding by the priesthood. The choices made for the inclusion of material

72 Jan Assmann, “Creation through Hieroglyphs: The Cosmic Grammatology of Ancient Egypt,”

in The Poetics of Grammar and the Metaphysics of Sound and Sign ed. Sergio La Porta and David

Shulman, JSRC 6 (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2007), 17-34, who explores the power of creation that

language, spoken but above all written, had in ancient Egypt. See also Robert Ritner, The

Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, SAOC 54 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1993), 36-

38, who makes the link between Egyptian magic and writing; Mark Smith, Traversing Eternity:

Texts for the Afterlife from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 64-65

and 212, who argues that in Ptolemaic and Roman times, the presence of recitation spells in a

tomb was a guarantee of the ritual act. In anthropology it was Bronislaw Malinowski, Coral

Gardens and Their Magic: A Study of the Methods of Tilling the Soil and of Agricultural Rites in the

Trobriand Islands I (New York: American Book Company, 1935), 76-77, who first identified the

power of performative speech, followed by John Austin, How to do Things with Words, The

William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University 1955 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962).

Other scholars have followed the views of Austin about the illocutionary function of the word;

John Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (London: Cambridge Press, 1969),

Stanley Tambiah, Culture, Thought, and Social Action: An Anthropological Perspective

(Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1985), 123-126 and Stanley Tambiah, “The Magical

Power of Words,” Man n.s. vol. 3 no. 2 (1968): 175-208. 73 That is not to say that the texts were not performed. It is highly likely that the oral

performative aspect of the texts was preserved in the cultic practise of the priesthood situated

above ground level. In the below ground context the Pyramid Texts were separated from this

tradition and so lost their performative aspect. 74 Hays, Organization, 1:90-92. 75 Jan Assmann, “Verklärung,”in LÄ 6, ed. Wolfgang Helck, Eberhard Otto and Wolfhart

Wetendorf (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, 1986), 998-1006; Jan Assmann, “Egyptian Mortuary

Liturgies,” in Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam Lichtheim, ed. Sarah Israelit-Groll

(Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1990) 1:2; Jan Assmann, Images et rites de la mort dans l’Égypte ancienne

l’apport des liturgies funéraires (Paris: Cybele, 2000) 31-32; Jan Assmann, Tod und Jenseits im alten

Ägypten (Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck, 2001) 322, 335 and 338; Jan Assmann, Altägyptische

Totenliturgien Band 1. Totenliturgien inden Sargtexten des Mittleren Reiches (Heidelberg:

Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 2002) 13 and 18.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

24

and placement on the walls of specific texts can help determine the relations between

content and the belief behind them. It is thus crucial for this study to maintain an

understanding of this theory and how it relates to mythic thought in the Old Kingdom.

The preceding discussion, on the history of Egyptological discussions on myth, has

highlighted a particular problem in the defining of the concept. That is, the primary

attribute of narrative. The growing scholarship exploring non-narrative myth suggests

that as a theoretical and methodological framework, narrative is inappropriate as a

defining characteristic of myth. This is the origin of the problem of the theory of the late

development of myth in ancient Egypt, and while much work has been done to rectify

this conception, the notion of narrative myth remains in much of scholarship. As a

means of testing this notion, in relation to the primary aim of this study, the approach

taken here has been to dispense with the concept of narrative as a means of testing its

applicability to religious thought in the Old Kingdom Egypt. This method has been

informed primarily by the theoretical formulation of Goebs.76 Her grouping of texts into

structural relationships between two actors and an action that relates them, serves as a

valuable analytical tool for non-narrative texts. These structural parameters are

employed in this study to facilitate a content based analysis, which seeks to group

spatially distinct texts together based on their content. It is acknowledged that this

structure is exterior to the Pyramid Texts themselves and is thus imposed upon them by

the author, it nevertheless allows for modes of interpretation otherwise unavailable.

76 Goebs, “Functional Approach to Myth.” See more recently Martin Pehal, Interpreting Ancient

Egyptian Narratives: A Structural Analysis of the Tale of Two Brothers, The Anat Myth, The Osirian

Cycle, and The Astarte Papyrus (Fernelmont: EME, 2014) who extends the idea of an underlying

structure to his own structural formulation of “configurational coherence” that superseded the

need for strict narrative coherence.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

25

The notion of relationships77 has been utilised within a classification system, allowing

the grouping of similar textual material despite its physical separation within the textual

corpus. The Pyramid Texts identified as relevant to this study are thus first grouped

into one of four sets, denoting a series of relationships between two deities; that is Osiris

– Seth, Osiris – Horus, Osiris – Isis and Nephthys and Horus – Seth. Within these sets

the various relationships are identified, typically taking the form of an action between

the two deities and it is these relationships that form the basis of the investigation. This

analysis focusses on the content of the texts, rather than their form, and emphasises how

the relationship is established and characterised in the Pyramid Texts overall. Relating

this back to the key criterion of narrative will allow a more definitive stance on the

applicability of the characteristic to the conception of myth.

The second area of enquiry comprises a study of the notion of variability with regards to

the Pyramid Texts. Again here the work of Goebs78 has been beneficial in providing a

framework of analysis. She demonstrates that the Pyramid Texts are subject to

variability in the relationships that comprise the mythic material. More than one deity

could perform the same action without contradiction or incoherence. This largely has to

do with the non-narrative nature of the Pyramid Texts and their lack of an overriding

temporal logic, which would dictate the need for consistency in the identification of

roles. Additionally, the combination of various regional theologies could account for

such discrepancies. The methodology employed in this section is an in-depth study of

the different deities that could replace the core relationships established in the second

chapter. These texts comprise the variant text corpus referred to throughout this study

77 This idea is akin to the constellations of Assmann, but is utilised in a different manner in this

study. 78 Goebs, “Functional Approach to Myth.”

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

26

and provide the opportunity to evaluate the extent to which myth in the Pyramid Texts

exhibits variation.

The methodology used in the third area of investigation incorporates a statistical

analysis of the groupings and placement of the Pyramid Texts identified as related to

Osiris. For this analysis the divisions within the Pyramid Texts provide a valuable

framework for the identification of distribution patterns. In particular the work of

Hays79 has provided the most comprehensive conceptual tools with which to work. The

distinction of the performance settings of sacerdotal and personal, the former being

identifiable primarily in the burial chamber while the latter appear mainly in the

antechamber, has been invaluable to this study and has revealed much about the mythic

thought.80 The identification of these original settings of performance relies on the

analysis of the edited texts establishing whether they were originally in the first or

second person. Sacerdotal texts were recited by priests for the benefit of the deceased

and refer to him or her in the third person. They are identical to the performance of

rituals such as the Opening of the Mouth where the ritual was performed on behalf of

the beneficiary, who could not play a vocal role themselves. Personal texts on the other

hand were performed by the beneficiary themselves and refer to him or her in the first

person. In addition, the framework surrounding the further division of Pyramid Texts

into groups81 has been utilised effectively by this study. This division of texts is based

on the placing of the same texts next to each other in different pyramids. While there

are borrowings and editing changes, certain groupings are identifiable, which can

provide a further frame of reference when searching for patterns of distribution. For the

79 Hays, Organization; Harold Hays, “Old Kingdom Sacerdotal Texts,” JEOL 41 (2009): 47-94. 80 This distinction was first observed by Assmann, “Egyptian Mortuary Liturgies,” 14. See also

Allen, “Reading a Pyramid,”18; Jan Assmann, Tod und Jenseits. 81 Hays, Organization, 1:79-123

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

27

analysis, these distinctions are combined with a more general search for patterns within

the pyramids themselves. The numbers of each set82 of texts across the pyramids is

analysed in order to gauge patterns over time. The groups (A-O) and types (sacerdotal

or personal) of texts are analysed within each set separately in order to ascertain the

patterns of use of particular elements. Last, a comprehensive analysis of the locations of

the texts within each set is unertaken both as an entire corpus combining all the

pyramids and also each pyramid separately. Here, the location divisions given by

Allen83 have proved the most up-to-date and are utilised throughout this study. In all

cases both the core and variant texts84 have been analysed in the same fashion.

82 The term ‘set’ here refers to all the texts relating to two gods, for example those that relate

Osiris and Seth or Osiris and Horus. This is formulated in this study using the formula Osiris –

Seth. 83 James Allen, A New Concordance of the Pyramid Texts, 6 vols. (Brown University, 2013), available

at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0xo88uy04urnz0v/o16_ojF8f_ 84 The term ‘core’ relates to the texts which have been determined to compose the major idea

within the Pyramid Texts while the ‘variants’ are those which identify a different deity in the

same role.

28

CHAPTER TWO: THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

: INTRODUCTION 2.1

The identification of the textual material from the Pyramid Texts that relates to Osiris is

the primary task of this study. Due to the lack of an easily recognisable coherence to the

text corpora, the study of the textual material is complicated. In order to facilitate

analysis, the content itself has been the guiding criterion for grouping textual material

together. The primary aim of this chapter is thus to establish what patterns of content

can be observed and categorise the texts accordingly. Similar to the constellations of

Assmann, this categorisation system revolves around whom the deities involved are

and what actions they perform. The larger textual units, which incorporate all the texts

referring to a specific deity, have been labelled as ‘sets’. There have been four such sets

identified in this study:

- Osiris – Seth

- Osiris – Horus

- Osiris – Isis and Nephthys

- Horus – Seth

Within these sets a further distinction is made regarding the actions taken between the

two deities involved. These actions can be taken by one of the actors towards the other

or towards an object.85 These actions have been labelled as the ‘relationships’ and it

85 This categorisation follows the work of Goebs, “Functional Approach to Myth,” 44, where the

structural relationships in the Pyramid Texts are classified according to three criteria. Either

Actor A performs and action for Actor B, Actor A stands in a kinship, social or geographical

relationship with Actor B, or Object A stands in relationship of need, location or similar to Actor

B.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

29

these that form the basis of analysis in this study. Analysis will take the form of a

detailed study of the content in the individual texts and what they can reveal about the

actions and events surrounding Osiris. A broader analysis is undertaken at the end of

this chapter in regards to the textual material in its entirety. Of particular interest here

is the problem of narrative, discussed in the introduction. The approach taken here has

been to analyse the textual material without narrative in mind as a defining

characteristic of myth. Its applicability to the concept can thus be investigated through

an understanding of the form of the textual corpus. The extent to which these texts do,

or do not, reflect a narrative structure is of primary importance to a discussion about the

form and function of myth during the Old Kingdom in Egypt.

: OSIRIS – SETH 2.2

Texts that relate Osiris and Seth together are dominated by the negative actions taken by

Seth towards Osiris. This idea was entrenched in the rules of decorum, which made its

appearance limited and convoluted. Additionally texts have been identified that were

aimed at the denial of the actions Seth took towards Osiris and the protection of Osiris

from further harm. There are four relationships identified in this set:

- Seth – Kills – Osiris

- Seth – Bears – Osiris

- Osiris – Located in – Nedit

- Osiris – Protected/Saved – Seth

The relationships between Osiris and Seth are predicated on the notion of the death of

Osiris at the hands of Seth to which other relationships either contribute more

information or aim at remedying the situation.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

30

: SETH – KILLS – OSIRIS 2.2.3

In the relationship Seth – kills – Osiris the action of murder on the part of Seth is

analysed. There are 15 texts86 that are concerned with this action, which is relatively

small given the overall corpus of Pyramid Texts.

NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

SETH – KILLS – OSIRIS

PYRAMID CORE TEXTS

UNIS 3

TETI 5

PEPI I 13

MERENRE 7

PEPI II 12

NEITH 4

This is not unsurprising due to the restrictions of decorum, which did not allow for the

dissemination of such an event. The number of texts87 that appear in each pyramid is

detailed in the table above. Texts appear in every pyramid from the reign of Unis with a

significant increase in the number of texts in those of Pepi I and Pepi II. The most

schematic of the texts are PT 280 and 380, identical in form, which simply mention an

evil deed being attributed to an anonymous actor. Presumably this could refer to the

murder of Osiris by Seth in an indirect way. Both texts appear as personal texts in the

antechamber of the pyramids and thus fall into the minority of this group overall, which

could explain the lack of any specific details. Similarly PT 306 also mentions this event

indirectly:

86 PT 218, 280, 306, 357, 380, 419, 474, 477, 478, 532, 576, 580, 606, 664E, 670. 87 Note that a more detailed discussion of the significance of the number of texts is given in

section 4.2 of this study.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

31

Has he killed you, his heart having said that you would die for him? Behold, you

have become a more permanent wild bull than he.

As does PT 474:

He has come against you having said that he would kill you. He will not kill you,

this Pepi is the one who will kill his opponent and he will establish himself against

him as the most established wild bull.

Both texts mention the actual act of killing but lack the identification of the specific actor

involved, although again a strong assumption would be Seth. PT 580 lies in this same

vein identifying the killer of Osiris as “Father-striker, killer of one greater than you.”88

Placed in the mouth of Horus, the text goes on to detail the actions of striking, killing

and cutting up, taken by Horus against the killer of his father. Elsewhere Horus is also

mentioned in response to an un-named attacker as in PT 670:

He (Horus) has hit for you the one who hit you as a Bull, and he has killed for you

the one who killed you, as a wild bull.

And PT 664E:

Osiris NN, I am Horus. I have come that I may protect you from your opponent

because of what he has done to you.

Horus is named as the one who must respond to the attack in either an offensive or

defensive way while the attacker, Seth, remains unidentified. In PT 357 this anonymity

changes as Horus is again charged with helping Osiris but Seth is named as the attacker:

It is Horus who will redeem what Seth did against you.

This identification also occurs in PT 218:

It is what Seth and Thoth have done, your brothers who do not weep for you.

88 This title only appears in this text and refers to Seth indirectly as the one who killed the father

of Horus. The sign used for the word strike hwi is the twist of flax with a stick attached to the top,

which gives the determination for the action of striking or beating.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

32

Although Seth is mentioned specifically as the one who acts against Osiris, the specific

action, the murder, is lacking. Presumably this was already clear given the status of the

deceased. The identification here of Thoth in the same role as Seth is unusual as the god

is normally a helper of Osiris akin to Horus. PT 419 also mentions Seth directly;

however he is the one trying to correct what he has done:

Seth has annulled that which he did to Teti on his 8th day.

In an almost identical text, PT 670, it is Horus rather than Seth who acts in this capacity:

He (Horus) has annihilated what was done against him on his 8th day.

These are most likely references to the mummifying process89 with the indirect mention

of the murder of Osiris. Other texts are far more explicit in their mention of the death of

Osiris and only appear in the pyramids of Pepi I, Merenre or Pepi II indicating that the

idea of the murder may have lost some of the taboo associated with it in previous

editions of the texts. PT 478 mentions the search by Isis and Nephthys for Osiris adding

the detail that “his brother Seth having cast him down on his side in Ghesti.” Similarly

PT 532:

They have found Osiris after his brother Seth threw him down in Nedit.

While the locality changes90, Seth is still identified as the one who kills Osiris as is also

the case in a similar text PT 576:

Osiris was placed on his side by his brother Seth, but he in Nedit moved for his

head was raised by the sun, his abomination is sleep, he hates weariness.

89 Griffiths, Origin of Osiris, 56-57. The origins of mummification could be very early: Françoise

Dunand and Roger Lichtenberg, Mummies and Death in Egypt (Ithaca and London: Cornell

University Press, 2006), 5-12; Salima Ikram and Aidan Dodson, The Mummy in Ancient Egypt:

Equipping the Dead for Eternity (London: Thames and Hudson, 1998), 15. The natural desiccation of

bodies in contact with the dry conditions once buried is pointed to as being the catalyst for the

emergence of mummification proper. The practise may actually date as far back as the Neolithic

Period according to Jana Jones et al., “Evidence for Prehistoric Origins of Egyptian

Mummification in Late Neolithic Burials,” PLoS ONE 9, 8 (2014): e103608,

doi: 10.1317/journal.pone.0103608. 90 See sections 2.2.3 and 3.2.3 for the relevant discussion on the location of the death of Osiris.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

33

Lastly, PT 606 identifies Osiris indirectly as “the one to whom what is painful was done

to him by his brother Seth.” A further text, PT 477, is a long and detailed text and

framed much like a court proceeding with Seth91 apparently trying to defend himself

against the charges of murdering Osiris. Horus and Thoth appear as the helpers of

Osiris as they make him stand before the Dual Ennead. Geb then speaks a curse against

Seth:

This curse which was made by the gods against you in the official’s enclosure in

Heliopolis, because you threw Osiris to the earth.

Although Seth makes claims that Osiris was the one who attacked Seth, Osiris gains

governance over the sky, the Horus mounds and the Seth mounds. This is probably the

most detailed text which concerns the death of Osiris at the hands of Seth as it includes

not only the event itself but also the repercussions and outcomes.

: SETH – BEARS – OSIRIS 2.2.4

The next relationship concerning Osiris and Seth sees Seth charged with bearing Osiris

most likely as a punishment for his actions. There are 12 texts92 which name Seth in the

role of bearing Osiris. Interestingly the pyramid of Unis has no texts, which could be

reflective of the relative importance of this idea to the text editors at the time. In this

relationship Osiris is the active participant in making Seth carry him in only one case,

PT 71B which reads:

Osiris NN, seize him for yourself. (Seth) go under Osiris NN.

In this case Seth is named and Osiris is commanded to make Seth bear him.

91 For an analysis of the text from the perspective of a courtroom scene see Bernard Mathieu, “Un

épisode du procès de Seth au tribunal d’Héliopolis,” GM 164 (1998), 71-78. 92 PT 71B, 71C, 356, 357, 366, 368, 369, 371, 372, 593, 606, 673.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

34

NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

SETH – BEARS – OSIRIS

PYRAMID CORE TEXTS

UNIS 0

TETI 7

PEPI I 14

MERENRE 8

PEPI II 11

NEITH 8

In PT 71C Horus commands Osiris to place Seth under himself:

Horus in Osiris NN, seize him. (Seth) go under this NN. Slaughter the one who

has stood up. Seize him. Take for I have given him to you. Place him under you

and do not let him be far from you.

While Osiris is the one doing the action it is commanded by Horus who takes the active

role in the spell, in fact it is most often Horus who is more active in these spells, such as

in PT 356:

Horus has seized Seth and placed him for you under you that he might lift you up

and tremble under you in the earth’s trembling.

Similarly PT 368 and 369 have Horus placing the opponent of Osiris under him. While

the opponent is not named, the identification of Seth is likely given his naming in other

texts of this sort. PT 371 and 372 follow the same lines with PT 372 identifying Thoth as

a helper as well:

Horus has caused that Thoth get your opponent and he has placed you on his back

so that he will not thwart you.

Apart from Horus, the Ennead is also responsible for Seth bearing Osiris as in PT 366:

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

35

The Great Ennead will protect you, they have given to you your opponent under

you. “Bear the one who is greater than you”, they said against him in your

identity of the Great Saw Shrine.

And PT 606:

“We will not let him be free of bearing you forever father Osiris NN” says the

Dual Ennead about you, father Osiris NN. 93

PT 593 is similar in its identification of the Ennead placing Seth under Osiris with only

slight phrasing differences. These texts are framed in the same way but merely seem to

switch who actually places Seth under Osiris. In other texts Seth is not placed under

Osiris but is simply identified in the role. PT 357 says:

He will swim under you, as he bears the one who is greater than he.

Seth having to swim under Osiris could be in reference to Osiris’ power of the

inundation or possibly an indirect reference to his drowning mentioned elsewhere in

the Pyramid Texts. Lastly, PT 673 simply says that:

Nor can Seth be free of bearing your burden.

The inertness of Osiris in the action of this relationship suggests that the carrying of

Osiris by Seth was a punishment for his crime, although this is not made clear in the

texts themselves. The importance of the event is demonstrated by the appearance of the

Great and Dual Enneads who take charge in making Seth perform his duties and the

designation of Osiris as “greater than” Seth is indicative of the relative positions of the

deities to each other following the successful prosecution of Seth. Thus the Pyramid

93 The term Ennead (psDt) refers generally to a group of nine gods, although their number could

exceed this. In the Pyramid Texts the Great Ennead is most often referred to but the Lesser

Ennead is also mentioned. The Dual Ennead is a combination of these two. See R. Weill, “Le

verbe d’existence PA et ses dérives,” RdE 6 (1951): 49-88; J. G. Griffiths, “Some Remarks on the

Enneads of Gods,” Orientalia 28 (1959): 34-56; Anthes, “Egyptian Theology,” 194-97. See also

Winfried Barta, Untersuchungen zum Götterkreis der Neunheit, MÄS 28 (München, Deutscher

Kunstverlag, 1973); Winfried Barta, “Bemerkungen zum Götterkreis der Neunheit,” Bibliotheca

Orientalis 33 (1976): 131-34.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

36

Texts not only contain the action of the murder itself but also the consequences of the

action.

: OSIRIS – LOCATED IN – NEDIT 2.2.5

The relationship Osiris – Located in – Nedit relates to a series of texts that place Osiris in

the geographical location of Nedit, which is described as being the place where Osiris

dies or is found dead.94 There are 10 texts95 overall which mention Osiris being in Nedit

but they do not appear significantly until the reign of Pepi I.

NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

OSIRIS – LOCATED IN – NEDIT

PYRAMID CORE TEXTS

UNIS 1

TETI 1

PEPI I 10

MERENRE 5

PEPI II 8

NEITH 7

The appearance of at least one text in the pyramids of Unis and Teti shows that the

locality was at least known as the place of the death of Osiris but, due to decorum, could

not be mentioned in detail. The majority of the texts identify Osiris as being in Nedit,

94 The exact location of Nedit is unknown and is generally thought to be a mythical place name. It

could also be linked to the verb ndj which means “to throw down”. See Reinhard Grieshammer,

“Nedit,” in LÄ 4, ed. Wolfgang Helck, Eberhard Otto and Wolfhart Wetendorf (Wiesbaden: Otto

Harrasowitz, 1982) 372. See also Karola Zibelius-Chen, Ägyptische Siedlungen nach Texten des Alten

Reiches (Reichert: Wiesbaden, 1978), 134 who argues a connection between the name Nedit and

Abydos. 95 PT 247, 412, 422, 442, 468, 482, 532, 576, 690, 701A.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

37

sometimes without much further information. PT 247, only appearing in the pyramid of

Unis says:

You, the one who hates sleep but were made weary. Stand up one who is in

Nedit.

Osiris being described as weary is used here as a euphemism for death, the connection

between Nedit and the death of Osiris being tentatively hinted at. PT 690 merely

identifies Osiris as “this ba who is in Nedit” while PT 422 replaces the identification of

the ba with the akh. PT 468 proclaims the revivification of Osiris saying:

Osiris shall live, the akh who is in Nedit shall live, this NN shall live.

PT 576 uses the same phrase as PT 468 but provides much more information:

Osiris was placed on his side by his brother Seth but he who is in Nedit moved as

his head was tied on by the Sun, his abomination is sleep and he hates weariness.

This text only appears in the pyramid of Pepi where in most cases more detail is given

in other groupings as well. Some texts provide the same information but are phrased in

a different way. PT 412, which appears in all the pyramids after Teti, is typical here

saying:

When the Great One fell on his side, when he in Nedit trembled, his head was

raised by the Sun, for his abomination is sleep and he hates slackness.

Despite the slight phrase change the texts communicates much of the same information.

Similarly PT 442 is formulated as a question:

So has the Great One fallen upon his side, and he in Nedit been thrown down.

PT 701A differs a little simply identifying Nedit as the place where Osiris, who is named

the Great One, fell. PT 482 provides slightly different information introducing the

sisters Isis and Nephthys as the ones who found Osiris on the shore of Nedit. This

added detail regarding where exactly in Nedit he was found is unique among these

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

38

texts. Lastly, PT 532 is the only text in this grouping to mention Seth in relation to the

geographical location of Osiris:

Isis has come, Nephthys has come, one of them from the west, one of the from the

east, one of them as a wailing bird and one of them as a kite and they have found

Osiris after his brother Seth threw him down to the earth in Nedit.

This text gives the most amount of mythic information combining Isis and Nephthys,

Seth and the location of Nedit all in one sentence. The connection between Nedit and

the death of Osiris is very clear in the Pyramid Texts. It was the location where Osiris

was found dead. Interestingly the texts do not reveal if Osiris was killed in Nedit or

simply placed there by Seth. The most important information was prioritised by the text

editors, the location and the fact that Osiris was dead. All other information was

secondary and could be left out.

: OSIRIS – PROTECTED/SAVED - SETH 2.2.6

The relationship Osiris – Protected/Saved – Seth details the actions taken on the part of

different deities to save Osiris from Seth. Texts identified in this relationship refer

directly or sometimes indirectly to Seth as the focus of the beneficial action.96 There are

12 texts97 where Seth is mentioned in relation to Osiris being protected from him. The

pyramid of Unis has no texts indicating that particular choice was made on the part of

the text editors away from this idea. Once the relationship was included in the Pyramid

Texts in the reign of Pepi I, it maintained its importance indicated by the relatively little

difference in the number of texts in the subsequent pyramids. In regards to the content

of the relationship, PT 485 is a long text involving the search for Osiris who is found in

Ghesti, in relation to this Osiris is commanded to:

96 This is in contrast to the Horus – Saves/Protects – Osiris relationships were the focus is on the

identity of Horus as the one who does the saving. 97 PT 71C 357, 422, 427, 485, 541, 592, 593, 606, 664E, 665B, 690

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

39

Stand up for your father Geb that he may save you from Seth.

NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

OSIRIS – PROTECTED/SAVED – SETH

PYRAMID CORE TEXTS

UNIS 0

TETI 1

PEPI I 11

MERENRE 9

PEPI II 10

NEITH 9

PT 357 and PT 541 place Horus in the protagonist role, striking Seth in order to save

Osiris:

He (Horus) has struck Seth bound for you, you are his ka. Horus will turn him

away for you.

While PT 541 reads:

Strike Seth and save this Osiris NN from him until dawn. Horus has become

powerful in his saving of his father, this Osiris NN, himself.

In PT 593 it is the Ennead and Nut who take up the protective roles:

Geb has wiped your mouth for you, the Ennead has protected you. They have

placed Seth under you so that he is burdened with you. They have stopped him

from expectorating his spit at you. Nut has fallen over her son who is in you, she

has protected you, joining you, assembling you and raising you, for you are the

eldest of her children.

It is interesting that the expectoration of spit is seen to be negative, where in another text

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

40

it appears to have a restorative role in relation to Horus and Seth.98 PT 427 has Nut

hiding Osiris from Seth as a means of protection.

Nut, spread yourself upon your son Osiris NN that you may conceal him from

Seth. Join him, Nut who comes to you that you may conceal your son as he who

comes to you. You should join this great one.

In other texts, Seth is only mentioned through indirect references; PT 606 is a good

example of this as Horus protects Osiris saying:

For I am Horus who saves his father, I have struck for you the one who struck you

so that I have saved you, my father Osiris NN, from the one who did ill against

you.

Seth is also called the opponent of Osiris,99 often with Horus as the main protector.

Horus is also the one who protects Osiris in PT 664E:

Osiris NN, I am Horus. I have come that I may protect you from your opponent

because of what he has done to you.

Likewise in PT 422:

The son has saved his father, Horus has saved Osiris, Horus has saved this Pepi

from his opponents.

Geb is also mentioned in this role in PT 592 where he is commanded to protect Osiris.

In PT 665B and 690 texts the deceased as Osiris is commanded to save themselves from

the opponent while finally, PT 71C has Horus saving himself from his opponent instead

98 PT 455 “The spittle that came forth from Horus’ mouth, the saliva that came forth from Seth’s

mouth, Horus has become clean through it, and the evil that was against him after Seth acted

against him was released to the ground. Seth has become clean through it and the evil that was

against him after Horus acted against him was released to the ground. ” The restorative role of

Seth’s spit in this text could occur in order to maintain the reciprocity between the two deities

seen throughout the Horus – Seth texts. 99 A duplicate copy of PT 357 in the pyramid of Pepi I reads “He has struck your opponent bound

for you, you are his ka. Horus will turn him away for you.” This makes the identification of Seth

as the opponent of Osiris in other texts much more likely.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

41

of Osiris specifically. The different deities employed to undertake the protecting of Seth

show the importance that the action held in the texts, it was not just the responsibility of

one deity to make sure Osiris was safe but many, ensuring the successful outcome of the

action. Interestingly the protection of Osiris seems to only occur after he is already dead

as seen in PT 606 where Horus struck Seth who is described as the one who struck

Osiris. The protection; therefore, was not aimed at preventing the death of Osiris but

protecting him from further harm, a second more permanent death.

: OSIRIS – HORUS 2.3

In contrast to the largely negative texts of the Osiris – Seth set the texts that relate the

Osiris and Horus reflect positive actions as well as familial ties between the two deities.

Horus being the son of Osiris and the implications this has for the inheritance of the

throne are stressed throughout the Pyramid Texts. The majority of the texts provide

details about the beneficial actions which Horus takes on behalf of his father. There are

five relationships discussed below:

- Horus – Son of – Osiris

- Horus – Saves/Protects – Osiris

- Horus – Revives – Osiris

- Horus – Successor of – Osiris

- Horus – Acts for – Osiris

At the core of these texts is the relationship between the father and son. Osiris and

Horus provide the prototypical father and son relationship and the actions taken by

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

42

Horus are indicative of the role the son had to play on the death of his father.100

: HORUS – SON OF – OSIRIS 2.3.1

The relationship Horus – Son of – Osiris is relatively simply as it does not characterise

action but familial relationship. There are 16 texts101 which identify Horus as the son of

Osiris.

NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

HORUS – SON OF – OSIRIS

PYRAMID CORE TEXTS

UNIS 6

TETI 6

PEPI I 16

MERENRE 5

PEPI II 15

NEITH 10

As shown in the table, the texts appear in all the pyramid corpora but reflect a

significant increase during the reign of Pepi I and Pepi II indicating that more attention

100 This role was taken by the Sem-priest who was originally the eldest son of the king and later a

priest standing in his role. See Hays, “Funerary Rituals,” 8; Jan Assmann, Death and Salvation in

Ancient Egypt, trans. David Lorton (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 2001) 303; Jan Assmann,

“Das Bild des Vaters im Alten Ägyten,” in Das Vaterbild in Mythos und Geschichte: Ägypten,

Griechenland, Altes Testament, Neues Testament, ed. Hubertus Tellenbach (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,

1976), 12-49. See also Susan Tower Hollis, “Anubis’s Mortuary Functions in “The Tale of Two

Brothers”,” in Hermes Aegyptiacus: Egyptological Studies for B H Stricker on his 85th Birthday, ed.

Terence DuQuesne (Oxford: DE Publications, 1995), who links the role of Anubis in the late

Egyptian Tale of The Two Brothers with the Sem-priest and his actions as the royal son. The Sem-

priest as Horus also provides the archetype of the eldest son whose responsibility it was to

prepare the funeral and maintain the mortuary cult of their parents, see Sandra Lippert,

“Inheritance,” in UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, ed. Willeke Wendrich et al. Los Angeles 2013.

http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz002hg0w1; Elizabeth Frood, “Social

Structure and Daily Life: Pharaonic,” in A Companion to Ancient Egypt, ed. Alan B. Lloyd

(Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 1:469-490. 101 PT 21, 32, 173, 247, 305, 416, 418, 540, 553, 605, 612, 659, 665D, 690, 748, 760

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

43

was given to this idea during these reigns.102 The identification of Horus as the son of

Osiris is found in two forms: either the deceased is likened to Osiris with an action of

Horus being described as performed for his father, or Horus performs an action which

is done towards his father Osiris. PT 32 is a short text of the first type found on the

north wall of the burial chamber of every pyramid103 repeated many times:

These cool waters Osiris; these cool waters NN have come from your son, have

come from Horus.

With reference to the regenerative powers of the inundation this text simply identifies

Horus as the son of the deceased who is Osiris. Three similar texts all mention the

“goings” of the deceased and Horus. PT 612 reads:

Indeed this going of you, my father NN, is like when Horus went to his father

Osiris.

Likewise PT 659:

Indeed, this your going; indeed these goings of yours, are the goings of Horus in

seeking his father Osiris.

And PT 665D:

Indeed this going of yours, NN, is that which Horus said to his father Osiris.

While the texts are slightly different they all relate the action of Horus seeking Osiris

who is identified as his father with the action of going, which the deceased must

102 The lower number of texts in the pyramid of Merenre is not taken as a lowering of the attention

paid to the idea but a consequence of lack of preservation of texts from the pyramid. 103 The pyramid of Merenre has this text on the east wall of the burial chamber with no repetition

throughout the pyramid.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

44

perform in order to leave the tomb. In PT 21 Horus opens the mouth of the deceased104

which is likened to the action he performed for Osiris:

Horus has opened the mouth of this NN, Horus has parted the mouth of this NN

with that with which he parted the mouth of his father, with that with which he

parted the mouth of Osiris.

This is similar to PT 540 where the mouth of the deceased is opened by the little finger

of Horus who also opens the mouth of his father Osiris in the same way. PT 605

mentions the green eye-paint placed on the deceased which is linked to the same action

by Horus for his father Osiris. PT 690 identifies Horus coming to the aid of the deceased

in the same way that he did for his father, the implication being that he will revive him

in the same way. Lastly, PT 418 differs slightly in that it identifies the action of the

deceased in relation to the action of Horus towards Osiris:

Greetings to you unguent, greetings to you who is before Horus whom Horus has

put on the brow of his father Osiris. NN will put you on his brow like Horus put

you on the brow of his father Osiris.

Here the deceased places the unguent on his own brow, which is likened to the action of

104 PT 21 occurs as part of the Offering ritual just before the Opening of the Mouth ritual. Ann

Macy Roth, “The psS-kf and the ‘Opening of the Mouth’ Ceremony: A Ritual of Birth and

Rebirth,” JEA 78 (1992): 113-147, argues that the Opening of the Mouth ritual was based on a

ritual sequence aimed at ensuring newborns and young children could be nourished. See also

Ann Macy Roth, “Fingers, Stars, and the ‘Opening of the Mouth’: The Nature and Function of the

nTrwj-Blades,” JEA 79 (1993): 57-79; Ann Macy Roth, “Buried Pyramids and Layered Thoughts:

The Organisation of Multiple Approaches in Egyptian Religion,” in Proceedings of the Seventh

International Congress of Egyptologists ed. Chris Eyre (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1998), 991-1003.

The idea of nourishment was also applied to statues and the bodies of the deceased with the

connotation of birthing or re-birthing. The deceased would thus come to life or the statue be born

through the Opening of the Mouth ritual. The role of Horus as the son was thus to help revive

his father. See also Harold Hays, “The Worshipper and the Worshipped in the Pyramid Texts,”

SAK 30, (2002): 153-167, who argues that like the Pyramid Texts, the Opening of the Mouth ritual

was understood to be fluid in its operation. Texts within the Pyramid Texts could move position

and placement within the corpora and the Opening of the Mouth could be effective in both a

temple and mortuary setting which themselves sat in a wider ritual milieu from which aspects

could be drawn upon as needed.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

45

Horus doing the same for Osiris who is identified as his father. In other texts, Horus is

related to Osiris more simply with an action of Horus simply identified as being

performed for his father. PT 173 places Horus in the role of gathering up the dead

Osiris with the added detail that he is his father:

Osiris NN, Horus has come that he might gather you, you are his father.

PT 247 is more schematic simply identifying Horus as “the one who is commanded to

act for his father.” The identity of the one making the command is omitted while the

familial relationship is made clear indicating its importance. PT 416 is another simple

text that mentions a garment made by Horus for his father and, likewise PT 760, which

reads:

That Horus equips the gate of his father Osiris.

While the action being undertaken is different, the focus is on the family relationship

behind the action. PT 748, an offering text, mentions the eye paint which is placed on

Osiris by Horus but, in contrast to PT 605, this text does not mention the deceased in the

same context, rather it refers to the eye paint itself, which is identified as the paint used

by Horus on his father. Lastly, PT 305 is a personal text which reads:

A ladder has been tied by Horus in front of his father Osiris.

This simple text again mentions the action of Horus for his father but its origin in the

personal texts highlights that this idea was important not just for the priestly texts but

also for the personal knowledge which would have allowed the deceased to transform

into the next life. These texts place Horus in different contexts; however, they

emphasise the family relationship constantly, which could be the motivation behind the

action being taken. It is not simply on behalf of Osiris that this is done but on behalf of

the father of Horus.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

46

: HORUS – SAVES/PROTECTS – OSIRIS 2.3.2

The relationship Horus – Saves/Protects – Osiris is characterised by the actions of Horus

in protecting his father from Seth or from unnamed assailants. There are 18 texts105 that

place Horus in this role. They only appear from the pyramid of Teti, indicating the idea

was a later addition.

NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

HORUS – SAVES/PROTECTS – OSIRIS

PYRAMID CORE TEXTS

UNIS 1

TETI 6

PEPI I 13

MERENRE 12

PEPI II 18

NEITH 10

This is also apparent in the much higher number of texts in the pyramid of Pepi II where

the notion of Horus saving and protecting Osiris seems to have become much more

important. In just over half of the texts in this relationship, Osiris is named specifically

as the recipient of the protection and saving of Horus. PT 541 is the most detailed in

this:

Strike Seth and save this Osiris NN from him until dawn. Horus has become

powerful in his saving of his father, this Osiris NN himself.

The more active side of Horus is shown here, as he strikes Seth in order to save Osiris

from him. The important temporal detail of dawn is given as a cut off for when Seth

must be held at bay until. In other texts, Seth is not mentioned by name but simply as

105 PT 357, 364, 366, 367, 368, 371, 422, 468, 541, 589, 593, 606, 611, 620, 636, 649, 664C, 664E.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

47

the opponent of Osiris. PT 357 also reflects the active nature of Horus in this endeavour:

He has struck your opponent bound for you, you are his ka. Horus will turn him

away for you.

PT 606 is less descriptive simply indicating the action of protection and saving:

For I am Horus who saves his father, I have struck for you, the one who struck

you and so I have saved you, father Osiris NN from him who did what is painful

against you.

Here Horus is not active in his actions against Seth, but the outcome is described as

Horus is identified as the one who does the saving or protecting. Seth is only

mentioned indirectly as the one who does ill; a referral to his role as the murderer of

Osiris. More simplistic texts name Osiris while identifying Horus as his saviour of his

father. PT 422 also mentions the opponents of Osiris in this context:

The son has saved his father, Horus has saved Osiris, Horus has saved this NN

from his opponents.

The plurality of opponents here does not make an identification of Seth possible as it is

most likely a general reference to any opponent, including Seth, who Osiris might have

faced. Other texts are more general, providing less detail about the situation in

preference for identifying Horus as the saviour of his father. PT 593 reads:

Horus cannot be far from you for Horus has saved his father who is in you.

And PT 611:

Since Horus has saved his father and since his father, this NN has saved himself.

The focus on this aspect of the event highlights its importance. Three more texts name

Osiris in the same context as Horus who saves him, but they differ from previous texts

in that they refer to Osiris in the third person. PT 368 reads:

Ah Osiris NN, Horus is within your two arms, him saving you.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

48

PT 620:

I am Horus, Osiris NN, I will not cause that you suffer. Come forth and awake to

me that I might save you.

PT 371:

He has saved you as the one who is to be saved in his time.

There are no details surrounding the situation in which the saving occurs, or who Osiris

is being saved from, showing again the importance of the detail that Osiris was in need

of saving. Additional information beyond this fact was evidently unnecessary to

expand upon. The other texts in this relationship do not mention Osiris specifically but

place Horus in the role of saviour and refer to someone being saved in the third person

‘you’. Given the details of the previous texts it is a fair assumption that the texts refer to

Osiris here. PT 366 provides some extra additions reading:

Him saving you in his name of ‘Horus the son who saves his father. ’

PT 593 ends with a similar section of text:

Horus has saved you in his name of ‘Horus, the son who saves his father.’

The identifying epithet here places Horus and Osiris clearly in this context, again

without any added detail. As well as providing detail of the opponent of Osiris

discussed above, PT 357 and 364 add:

Horus has saved you, he could not delay saving you.

PT 636 contains a similar passage with Horus in the first person instead of the third:

I have come that I may protect you. I will save you; I cannot delay in saving you.

The remaining texts are very short identifications of Horus in the role of the one who

saves or protects ‘you’. Thus there are two types of texts evident in this relationship;

those that name Osiris specifically and those that do so indirectly. It was probably

enough for the text editors to refer to Osiris as ‘you’ given the context of the texts

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

49

referring to the deceased who was thought of as Osiris. As ritual recitations, the texts

would have been effective in identifying the priest as Horus who had come to save or

protect the deceased as the father of Horus. As Pyramid Texts, the voice may have been

lost but not the efficacy which would have still been felt despite the lack of identity

being named.

: HORUS – REVIVES – OSIRIS 2.3.3

The resurrection of Osiris was an extremely important idea and the relationship Horus –

Revives – Osiris reflects the responsibility of Horus in this action. There are 18 texts106 in

this relationship. The majority appear in the pyramids of Pepi I and II, indicating a later

inclusion of the idea in the corpora. There is at least one attestation in each pyramid

meaning that it must have had some importance throughout the time of inscription.

NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

HORUS – REVIVES – OSIRIS

PYRAMID CORE TEXTS

UNIS 2

TETI 4

PEPI I 16

MERENRE 6

PEPI II 16

NEITH 5

The content of the texts reveals different aspects of the resurrection of Osiris. Horus

either causes Osiris to rise up, stand up or awaken. While each of these terms is

different, the implication of the resurrection of Osiris remains the same. There are six

106 PT 223, 357, 369, 370, 437, 477, 532, 547, 593, 610, 620, 636, 662, 665A, 670, 729, 735, 767,

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

50

texts in all which mention the raising of Osiris. PT 223 and 547 are the most

straightforward reading:

Make yourself rise up to me!

Placed in the mouth of Horus, these texts command the deceased as Osiris to rise up

and in doing so the implication is that they will live again. Other texts show minor

differences in form. PT 357 and 370 command the deceased in the third person to “rise

up to Horus.” Horus being named specifically in the texts reveals his importance for the

process of resurrection as it is merely his appearance without any specific action on his

part which causes the deceased to rise. It was not just the deceased as Osiris but Osiris

himself who was resurrected. PT 477 places Horus and Thoth together in this role:

Horus has come and Thoth has appeared that they might raise Osiris from upon

his side.

The appearance of the two gods together is not surprising as Thoth is often the helper of

Horus in situations. 107 In other texts Osiris is caused to stand up as a euphemism for

resurrection. PT 369 reads:

Ah Osiris NN, stand up for Horus has cause that you stand up.

That Horus is responsible for the resurrection is made clearer than the texts which use

the word “rise”. PT 593 continues this with a different formulation:

Stand up and give your arm to Horus that he may cause that you stand up.

Similarly, PT 636 places this idea in the mouth of Horus in the first person

Give to me your arm that I may cause that you stand up.

In both texts the actions of Horus are made more explicit with the idea of giving one’s

arm in order to be helped up. PT 662 is a more simple command in the mouth of Horus

telling his father to “stand up!” and PT 670 refers to the actions of Horus alluded to in

107 PT 359, 372, 477, 524, 542, 708 all place Thoth in the role of a helper towards Osiris often in

conjunction with Horus.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

51

other texts:

Stand up and see what your son has done for you.

Awaken is also used to describe the resurrection of Osiris. PT 437, 532, 610 and 729

place Horus and Seth together in role of helpers reading:

Awaken to Horus, stand up for Seth. Raise yourself this Osiris NN, the firstborn

son of Geb.

The words used for Horus and Seth are different as Osiris is commanded to awaken to

Horus while he stands up for Seth; however, the implication that they could both be

responsible for Osiris being revived is evident. This is in opposition to the identification

of Seth as the murderer of Osiris and the one against whom Osiris needs to be protected.

This reflects the idea that Seth was not only thought of in negative terms but also had

positive attributes. 108 The fact that there are four texts which utilise this idea signifies

that it was not a deviation from common thought but part of it. PT 620 and 665 are

similar starting with the simple phrase “Awaken to me!” PT 665 adds more detail:

Awaken to me! I am Horus who awakens you.

Likewise, PT 620:

I am Horus, Osiris NN. I will not let you suffer. Come forth! Awaken to me that I

might tend you.

PT 735 takes the same form but names Horus rather than using the personal “me” in the

text. Lastly, PT 767 is a text in the mouth of Horus commanding his father to:

108 Philip Turner, Seth: A Misrepresented God (Oxford: BAR, 2013), 40-43 gives an account of the

positive, negative and neutral pyramid texts that mention Seth. See also H. Te Velde, Seth, God of

Confusion (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 27-108; Eugene Cruz-Uribe, “Seth, God of Power and Might,”

JARCE 45 (2009): 201-226; Mark Smith, “The Reign of Seth: Egyptian Perspectives from the First

Millennium BCE,” in Egypt in Transition: Social and Religious Development of Egypt in the First

Millennium BCE. Proceedings of an International Conference Prague, September 1-4, 2009, ed. Ladislav

Bareš et al. (Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague,

2010), 412 who argues that while Seth might be portrayed in negative terms he clearly had

support other deities or personalities.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

52

Awaken, awaken O my father Osiris as Anubis who is atop his tent.

The connection to Horus is made clear with the identification of Osiris as a father and

the appearance of Anubis here although odd, is not unexpected given his association

with mummification and resurrection. Thus this relationship makes it apparent that the

responsibility for the resurrection of Osiris fell to Horus. The texts employ euphemisms

but are clear in their context of resurrection.

: HORUS – SUCCESSOR OF – OSIRIS 2.3.4

The succession of the kingship is the focus of the relationship Horus – Successor of –

Osiris. There are 12 texts109 that are concerned with this idea. Their appearance is

mainly in the pyramids of Pepi I and II, with only one iteration before Pepi I appearing

in the pyramid of Unis. This indicates that the notion of succession was only a later

inclusion was not seen as important by the early text editors.

NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

HORUS – SUCCESSOR OF – OSIRIS

PYRAMID CORE TEXTS

UNIS 1

TETI 0

PEPI I 8

MERENRE 7

PEPI II 10

NEITH 4

The content of the texts reveals three ways in which Horus is identified as the heir of

Osiris; he actively takes his inheritance, the text is formulated as a wish or more simply

109 PT 225, 260, 422, 436, 487, 511, 519, 553, 557, 662, 665B, 693

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

53

through the stating of the identification. PT 519 mentions Horus taking the inheritance

for himself:

Just as Horus took the house of his father from the brother of his father Seth in the

presence of Geb.

Horus actively takes his inheritance rather than being passively given it by a senior god.

The mention of Seth here clearly refers to the illegitimate seizing of the throne by Seth

after the death of Osiris. All this takes place in front of Geb as a type of arbitrator or

divine council. Geb, as the one who originally held the throne, appears frequently as

the one who allocates the throne to the next in line. PT 693 is similar and reads:

The god’s prince having seized the inheritance that was taken

Again Horus is active in this text but a break in the text makes it difficult to reconstruct

the exact situation. Allen translates the end as “by Seth”, which is an attractive prospect

given that this would include a reference to the taking of the inheritance by Seth from a

young Horus. Interestingly, PT 519 is a personal text whereas PT 693 is a sacerdotal text.

The same relationship was thus important to both the priestly and personal domain of

the mortuary texts. PT 225 expresses a wish for Horus to be on the throne:

That your son may be upon your throne.

PT 422 has two such expressions:

May your son arise upon your throne, equipped in your form (of Horus).

And:

That he (the Sun) may place you upon the throne of Osiris.

Despite the differences in how Horus might get the throne, each of these texts expresses

a wish for this to happen and importantly identifies the inheritance as coming from

Osiris. Other texts simply identify Horus in the role of successor. PT 260 is a longer

text:

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

54

O Geb, bull of Nut, Horus is NN, heir of his father…Shu has judged NN with

Tefnut, the Dual Maat heard, Shu witnessed and the Dual Maat commanded that

the thrones of Geb serve him and that he raise himself to what he desired, that his

limbs that were hidden be re-assembled, that he unite those who are in Nun and

that he put an end to disruption in Heliopolis.

The deceased is identified as Horus, rather than Osiris in this text and given the

inheritance of his father through a divine judgement of the senior gods Shu and Tefnut,

as well as the Dual Maat. The dismembering of Osiris is mentioned in this context,

referring to the hidden limbs needing re-assembly. This is the only mention in the

Pyramid Texts of the dismembering of Osiris. Whether this was a tradition within the

Pyramid Texts, which was transformed over time, or whether this should be thought of

as a simple reference to the body being placed together is unclear. The level of detail

and context in this text suggest that the dismembering of Osiris may have been

conceived of already at this point in time. The disruption in Heliopolis is presumably a

reference to the tumultuous situation whereby Seth was ruling in the place of Horus.

The implication is clear that when the rightful heir Horus is appointed this disruption

will end. PT 260 only appears in the pyramid of Unis, which is interesting given the

detailed nature of the text. This could indicate that the tradition of dismembering was

omitted purposefully from the later corpora. The idea would have been known within

the priesthood and was not chosen for inclusion for a specific reason, such as decorum.

PT 511 similarly identifies the deceased in the role of Horus as the heir:

For NN is your son, NN is your heir.

PT 557 differs slightly:

Your (Osiris) heir is upon your throne.

Two identical texts, PT 487 and 662 appear in the first person in the mouth of Horus

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

55

who identifies himself as the heir of Osiris:

I am your son, I am your heir.

Horus is also named as the successor rather than heir of Osiris in PT 422:

You have gone that you may become an akh and have power as a god, as the

successor of Osiris.

PT 436 and 553 also name Horus in this way reading:

This, your going is as the successor of Osiris.

Finally, PT 665B has Osiris actively placing Horus onto the throne rather than Geb being

responsible for this as in other texts. The relationship of Horus – Successor of – Osiris

associates Horus with the succession of kingship in different ways, which could reflect

the existence of different traditions, or that the relationship could change depending on

the context it was being used in.

: HORUS – ACTS FOR - OSIRIS 2.3.5

The last relationship between Horus and Osiris reflects in general the beneficial actions

taken by Horus towards Osiris. They have been grouped together here, as they are less

specific than the actions of Horus in reviving or protecting Osiris. There are 13 texts110

in this relationship. There is at least one text from each of the pyramids; however, like

in other relationships, there is a marked difference in the number of texts between the

pyramids of Teti and Pepi II. This reflects the increased relevance of this relationship

within the corpora of the Pyramid Texts as time elapsed.

110 PT 33, 247, 355, 356, 357, 364, 419, 423, 542, 670, 690, 701A, 703.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

56

NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

HORUS – ACTS FOR – OSIRIS

PYRAMID CORE TEXTS

UNIS 1

TETI 5

PEPI I 17

MERENRE 6

PEPI II 13

NEITH 5

The content of the texts reveals different relationships between Horus and Osiris. There

are six texts which have Horus taking account of Osiris.111 PT 33 appears only in the

pyramids of Pepi I and II and reads:

Let Horus take account of you, you being rejuvenated in your name of ‘fresh

water’.

Referring to the aspect of Osiris as water and fertility here, the implication of the act of

taking account, is that Osiris will be rejuvenated. The same text appears in PT 437 and

PT 357, which appears in the pyramids of Teti, Merenre and Neith and adds the line:

Horus has come that he may take account of you.

PT 356 refers to a different aspect of Osiris being the father of Horus:

Horus has become a ba, taking account of his father in you, in your name of The

father’s ba.

PT 364 implies that the taking account of Osiris will place him among the gods where he

belongs. Lastly, PT 542, which appears in the vestibule of Pepi I reads:

It is Horus (who speaks) he has come that he might reckon his father Osiris NN.”

You are harmful for him when the King travels to the place of Anubis” anyone

111 The verb used here is ip meaning “reckon” or “count up”.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

57

who hears this will not live. Thoth, do not have pity on all who hate my father.

Thoth, go and see him who would get my father when he journeys, the one who is

dangerous for him.

This passage clearly shows that the act of taking account was undertaken so that Osiris

would be kept from harm, in this case to keep Seth away from him. Horus enlists the

help of Thoth in order to make this happen, which is to be expected as Thoth is the

quintessential ‘helper’ of Horus in the Pyramid Texts. Other texts reveal a specific

action taken by Horus rather than a general one. PT 419 reads:

Horus has repelled the evil that done to NN on his 4th day, Seth has annulled that

which he did to NN on his 8th day.

PT 670 is similar with minor differences. It is possible that this refers to a stage of the

mummification process where an action needed to be taken on the 4th and 8th days

respectively. Horus must diminish the evil act of the murder by Seth who in turn must

try to cancel out his own actions. PT 703 also has Horus removing something bad from

Osiris:

Horus has come to you and shall sever your shackles and throw off your hobbles.

Horus has removed your impediment and the horizons shall not seize you.

There are very few references to Osiris being shackled or tied down in the Pyramid

Texts. This is probably a reference to death as something that keeps one from moving

on to the next world until help is given. Horus, as the son of the deceased, was

responsible it seems for making sure this took place. PT 355 refers to the act of tending

Osiris:

You should come to me, you should come to me, you should come to me, Horus

who tends his father Osiris.

While the mode of tending is not mentioned, the positive act must be undertaken by

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

58

Horus who is commanded by Osiris himself to do it. PT 701A also refers to this act of

tending:

Clean Horus has come, that he might tend his father Osiris.

Lastly, PT 247 mentions Horus being commanded to “act for” his father Osiris. This is

the most general text as it does not mention any specific action at all but merely the

action of acting for. The text does not mention who commands Horus to do this but

given PT 355 it could be assumed to be Osiris. Thus this relationship reflects the

positive role Hours had in caring for Osiris. His duties went beyond the very important

reviving and protecting seen in previous relationships to include simply actions as well.

: OSIRIS – ISIS AND NEPHTHYS 2.4

The relationships between Osiris and the pair of deities Isis and Nephthys are similar to

the relationships between Osiris and Horus discussed previously in that they detail the

many positive actions taken by the goddess towards Osiris. In particular, their roles as

the prototypical mourners of the deceased as well as the ones who search for and find

Osiris are emphasised in the Pyramid Texts. Much like Horus they have a role to play

in the resurrection of Osiris as they unite to body of the deceased back together and call

out to the deceased. There are six relationships in the Osiris – Isis and Nephthys set:

- Isis and Nephthys – Mourn – Osiris

- Isis and Nephthys – Search for – Osiris

- Isis and Nephthys – Find – Osiris

- Isis and Nephthys – Join/Unite/Assemble – Osiris

- Isis – Conceives Horus – Osiris

- Isis and Nephthys – Call out/Summon – Osiris

Given the context of the Pyramid Texts it is expected that the mortuary role of the

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

59

goddesses is emphasised within the relationships present.

: ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – MOURN – OSIRIS 2.4.1

The first relationship between Isis, Nephthys and Osiris concerns their mourning of

him. One of the most characteristic roles of the two deities, as mourning women, is

detailed here. There are 20 texts112 in this relationship.

NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – MOURN – OSIRIS

PYRAMID CORE TEXTS

UNIS 0

TETI 4

PEPI I 18

MERENRE 6

PEPI II 18

NEITH 12

The texts are attested from the pyramid of Teti, but the majority are found in the

pyramids of Pepi I and II. Their role as mourners was thus emphasised in the later

corpora possibility indicating an increase in its importance. The texts range in length

from very short excerpts to long more elaborate paragraphs. PT 461, 468, and 619

contain the same phrase, which names Isis and Nephthys in the context of a wish that

they mourn for the deceased:

Let Isis wail for you and let Nephthys call out to you.

Similarly PT 633 names Nephthys in the action of mourning:

You (Nephthys) are the one who mourns over him.

112 PT 259, 337, 412, 461, 466, 468, 482, 535, 553, 619, 633, 665A, 667A, 670, 674, 676, 690, 701A, 728,

767.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

60

Isis is identified as the Mourning Goddess in three texts. PT 667A has the Mourning

Goddess “summoning” the deceased as Isis. PT 674 and PT 728 are of the same form

but use a different action:

Let the Mourning Goddess call out to you as Isis.

Nephthys, on the other hand, is only identified specifically in the role of Mourning

Goddess once. PT 665A reads:

Let the Mourning Goddess call out to you as Nephthys.

This could indicate that a greater importance was placed on Isis in this role over

Nephthys. In addition there are three texts, PT 412, PT 553, and PT 676, which mention

the Mourning Goddess without any specific identification. PT 412 expresses a wish:

Let the Mourning Goddess call out to you.

PT 553 and 676 are identical, reading:

Let the Mourning Goddess wail for you.

PT 412 appears from the pyramid of Teti while PT 553 and PT 676 appear from the

pyramid of Pepi I with PT 676 only being attested in the pyramids of Pepi II and Neith.

This suggests that the action of wailing itself was a later addition or change to the

corpora. PT 466 is different again, naming the “Great Mooring Post” rather than the

Mourning Goddess who “wails” for Osiris, his state of suffering, referenced in the text is

presumably a reference to death. PT 259, which only appears in the pyramid of Teti,

identifies Isis and Nephthys as the two attendants:

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

61

It is the sister of NN, the Lady of Pe113, who cries out for him and the two

attendants (Isis and Nephthys) who mourned for him having mourned Osiris.

PT 482 adds more detail to the situation by describing the sound of Isis and Nephthys

crying in their mourning for Osiris:

They114 have come to Osiris on account of the noise of the crying of Isis and

Nephthys.

A similar text, PT 670, expands on this further:

They have come to Osiris NN at the sound of Isis weeping, at Nephthys’

screaming, at the lamentations of those two Akhs for the Great One who comes

from the duat.

PT 701A identifies Isis and Nephthys as the sisters of the deceased Osiris and describes

their actions of mourning saying that they will “bewail” and “awaken” the deceased.

The resurrecting of Osiris by Isis and Nephthys is thus linked with his being mourned.

PT 767 also uses the term “wail” to describe the mourning of Osiris. PT 535 is a longer

text in the form of a recitation by Isis and Nephthys:

113 The Lady of Pe also appears in PT 258 “It is his sister, the Lady of Pe who cries out for him.”

Pe appears to have been a semi mythological place akin to Nedit of Ghesti as is associated with

the site of Buto in the Delta see Hartwig Altenmüller, “Buto,” in LÄ 1, ed. Wolfgang Helck and

Eberhard Otto (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, 1975), 887; Madeleine Cody, “Wadjyt, Wadjet,” in

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, 1st ed, ed. Roger Bagnall et al. (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell,

2012), 7036-7037,

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15412. The Lady of Pe is associated with

Wadjet owing to the name of Buto as pr-wADit literally “The house of Wadjet.” In a later tradition

at the temple of Hathor at Dendera Wadjet takes the role of the nurse of Horus as he is raised at

Khemnis, Barbara Lesko, The Great Goddesses of Egypt (Norman: The University of Oklahoma

Press, 1999), 75. Horus is also associated with Pe in later traditions becoming “Horus of Pe” with

clear links to the Osiris myth in the Late Period as the son of Isis/Wadjet at Buto or sometimes

Khemnis, see J. G. Griffiths Plutarchs De Iside et Osiride (Cambridge, Universtiy of Wales Press,

1970) 47, 54, esp. 18, 357F; Jacques Vandier, Ouadjet et l’Horus léontocéphale de Bouto. À propos d’un

bronze de Musée de Chaalis (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1976), 54-58, Anaïs Tillier, “Sur

la place d’Horus dans l’ennéade héliopolitaine,” ZÄS 140 (2013): 72; The clear association with

Isis and Wadjet makes the appearance of the later in the Pyramid Texts in connection with Isis

and mourning warranted. It is interesting that this identity is not followed through after the

reign of Teti possibly indicating that the name of Isis more specifically became more important. 114 “They” are identified in the text as the gods of Pe, but their exact identities are left unknown.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

62

Recitation by Isis and Nephthys. The Wailing Bird has come, the Kite has come;

it is Isis and Nephthys. They have come in search of their brother Osiris, in

search of their brother, this NN. Haste, Haste! Weep for your brother Isis, weep

for your brother Nephthys, weep for your brother. Isis sat down with her two

arms on her head, Nephthys has grasped the tip of her breasts for their brother

NN, baby-like on his belly.

Here, Isis and Nephthys are identified in their most well-known guise of the kite115 and

the wailing bird as they weep for Osiris. The added details of the texts place Osiris in a

familial relationship with Isis and Nephthys as he is called their brother. More

important are the details surrounding the situation of the mourning. It is after they had

searched for Osiris and found him that they mourn him. This provides a temporal

coherence, not apparent in other relationships. The women adopt the typical mourning

pose of women in ancient Egypt, placing their arms on their head or grasping their

breasts.116 PT 535 is the only text that provides details about the physical actions of the

women associated with mourning rather than the sounds. Lastly, a number of very

short texts, 337, and 690 mention mourning in a more general way and do not mention

Isis or Nephthys specifically. They are placed in this set due to the context of mourning

and probably related to Isis and Nephthys rather than another deity. The relationship

115 The kite is a bird of prey with a very shrill cry which is thought to have been suggestive of the

cries of mourning women. See Richard Wilkinson, The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient

Egypt (New York: Thames and Hudson, 2003), 147-48. 116 As part of the funeral, particularly during the New Kingdom, visible mourning had to be

undertaken by women. See Lynn Meskell, Private Life in New Kingdom Egypt (Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 2002), 189-193; Salima Ikram, Death and Burial in Ancient Egypt (Harlow:

Longman, 2003), 184-85; Emily Millward, “Visual and Written Evidence for Mourning in New

Kingdom Egypt,” in Current Research in Egyptology 2011: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual

Symposium Durham University 2011, ed. Heba Abd El Gawad et al. (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2012),

141-46. The mythic prototype for mourning was Isis and Nephthys, see C. J. Bleeker, “Isis and

Nephthys as Wailing Women,” Numen 5 (1958): 1-17; Assmann, Death and Salvation, 115-18, 167-

68, 268-69 and 288-89; Hartwig Altenmüller, “Zum Ursprung von Isis und Nephthys,” SAK 27

(1999): 1-26; Emily Teeter, Religion and Ritual in Ancient Egypt (New York: Cambridge University

Press, 2011), 138-139.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

63

Isis and Nephthys – Mourn – Osiris shows a varied amount of detail from simple

identifications of the deities as mourning goddesses to longer texts providing the actual

situation in which the mourning is said to have occurred. It clearly shows the

importance of the role of Isis and Nephthys in the death of Osiris and by extension the

death of any individual.

: ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – SEARCH FOR – OSIRIS 2.4.2

The relationship Isis and Nephthys – Search for – Osiris provides details about the

search for Osiris after his death. The texts are typically longer and situate Osiris as the

brother of Isis and Nephthys. There are four texts 117 in this relationship, which is fairly

low considering the importance placed upon this aspect in later traditions.118

NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – SEARCH FOR – OSIRIS

PYRAMID CORE TEXTS

UNIS 0

TETI 0

PEPI I 6

MERENRE 1

PEPI II 4

NEITH 0

The texts only appear from the reign of Pepi II indicating that the relationship, if it

existed before this time, was not the subject of attention by the text editors. Due to the

117 PT 482, 535, 694A, 767. 118 The role Horus and Geb perform in this relationship will be discussed in 3.4.2 of this study. It

is difficult to discern a core relationship and variant due to the low numbers of texts which could

speak to the variability of the idea. As Isis and Nephthys are more commonly placed in this role

from the Middle Kingdom onwards this tradition has been maintained in this study. This issue

will be more fully explored in 3.4.2 when the variant texts are discussed.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

64

nature of the texts dealing with the death of Osiris, it is presumed that the rules of

decorum could have prohibited the inclusion of the texts; although, this does not

necessarily have to be the case. The content of the texts reveals some interesting details.

PT 767 identifies both Isis and Nephthys as Elder and Great Goddesses before

mentioning their search:

The two Elder Goddesses shall speak, the two Great Goddesses shall wail, they are

Isis and Nephthys who sought you and found you.

Not only the search, but also the logical consequence, the finding, is mentioned here. In

PT 482, Isis acts alone indicating her relative importance to Nephthys. As was noted in

the relationship Isis and Nephthys – Mourn – Osiris, the goddesses can both take the

role individually, but here it is only Isis who assumes a role in the action:

Your eldest sister who collected your flesh and folded your hands, who sought you

and found you upon your side on the shore of Nedit.

Once again the combination of the search and the outcome of it are combined into one

text, with the added detail here of the location of Nedit. This links with the relationship

Osiris – Located in – Nedit and provides the geographical backdrop for the search. PT

535, already cited above, is less detailed and has the pair of goddesses searching for

Osiris who is identified as their brother:

They have come in search of their brother Osiris, in search of their brother, this

NN.

Lastly, having already found Osiris, in PT 694A the sisters command him to stand up, a

phrase commonly used with reference to the deceased waking up from death:

’I have found (him), I have found (him)’ said Isis, ‘I have found (him)’, said

Nephthys when they saw Osiris on his side in the riverbank. O Osiris raise

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

65

yourself for me said Isis, stand up for me said Nephthys… my brother I have

searched for you.

PT 694A provides the most vivid account of the search describing the shock of Isis and

Nephthys at finding Osiris on the side of a river and their desire to resurrect him. The

geographical location of Osiris is lacking in the text, which leaves the question of

whereabouts of the river open. This relationship provides a great deal of information

about Isis and Nephthys and their search for Osiris, despite the fewer number of texts.

Rather than simple identifications, the texts are longer and use detailed scenes to

describe how the search is undertaken and the eventual finding of Osiris.

: ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – FIND – OSIRIS 2.4.3

The logical conclusion of the search for Osiris is the finding of him by Isis and

Nephthys, which is detailed in the relationship Isis and Nephthys – Find – Osiris. This

has been treated as separate from Isis and Nephthys – Search for – Osiris, because of the

inclusion within this relationship of texts that describe the finding independent of the

search. There are eight texts119 within this relationship. Every text appears in the

pyramid of Pepi II and there is only one occurrence of a text before this time. The search

for Osiris was thus known before the time of Pepi I despite a lack of texts in the

relationship Isis and Nephthys – Search for – Osiris, but it was only deemed important

enough for inclusion in a major way from the reign of Pepi I. Turning to the texts

themselves, PT 357 is the only text to appear in every pyramid, except that of Unis, and

reads:

Isis and Nephthys have seen you, they have found you.

119 PT 357, 482, 532, 534, 593, 694A, 732, 767.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

66

Found on the east wall of the burial chamber in most attestations,120 this brief text lacks

detail beyond the act of finding. Its placement around the deceased speaks to the

importance of the mere act of finding Osiris.

NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – FIND – OSIRIS

PYRAMID CORE TEXTS

UNIS 0

TETI 1

PEPI I 9

MERENRE 3

PEPI II 6

NEITH 3

Similar in their brevity, PT 534 and 732 reports the finding of Osiris by Isis and

Nephthys generally. PT 534 does not name the two goddesses specifically but the

plurality of finders makes Isis and Nephthys the most likely identities:

You having been found by them as one who shakes.

PT 732 does name Isis but has her finding Osiris on his mother’s thighs, which is unlike

any other text in this relationship:

Your sister Isis finding you upon the thighs of your mother.

PT 593 gives more details in a longer text:

Your two sisters Isis and Nephthys have returned to you after having retreated

from where you are. Your sister Isis has taken hold of you, having found you

black in your name of Great Black.

120 The pyramid of Neith differs in the placement of this text, housing it on the west wall of the

burial chamber instead.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

67

No location is given for Osiris but again the act of finding him is of primary importance

and Isis takes action against Osiris’ feeble state once this is done. Interestingly, Isis and

Nephthys are said to have left Osiris and come back to him. This is only seen in PT 593

and could indicate a detail absent from other texts, or possibly a different tradition

entirely regarding the events that took place. PT 694A is different again in that it gives

the direct speech of Isis and Nephthys upon finding Osiris:

“I found, I found” said Isis, “I found” said Nephthys when they saw Osiris on his

side on the riverbank. Ho Osiris raise yourself for me said Isis, stand up for me

said Nephthys… “my brother I have searched for you.”

Osiris is found dead on a riverbank in this case, which could be an allusion to his death

by drowning. The manner of his death is not detailed due to the rules of decorum and

also that it may not have been as important to the texts as the action of finding itself.

Similar to other texts, the first action taken by the sisters is to resurrect him. PT 482

provides a location for the death of Osiris saying that Isis found him in Nedit:

Your eldest sister who collected your flesh and folded your hands, who sought you

and found you upon your side on the shore of Nedit.

Similarly, PT 767 identifies Isis and Nephthys together with the phrase “sought you and

found you” but lacks the geographic detail of PT 482. Lastly, PT 532 adds not only

geographic detail but identifies Seth as the murderer of Osiris:

Isis and come, Nephthys has come, one of them from the west, one of them from

the east, one of them as a wailing bird and one of them as a kite. They have found

Osiris after his brother Seth threw him down to the earth in Nedit.

This text, only found in the pyramids of Pepi I and II, gives the most detail about the

situation and clearly identifies that the search for and finding of Osiris occurred because

of his murder by Seth. PT 532 demonstrates that the relationships were inextricably

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

68

linked. It is not just that Osiris died and was found that was important. It was that he

died at the hands of Seth, was placed in Nedit and was searched for and found by Isis

and Nephthys that was important as well.

: ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – JOIN/UNITE/ASSEMBLE – OSIRIS 2.4.4

In the relationship, Isis and Nephthys – Join/Unite/Assemble – Osiris the situation

described is the bringing together of the body parts of Osiris as part of the resurrection

process. As was noted previously there is only one mention of Osiris being

dismembered, meaning that these references could be reflective of the need of the

deceased to gather themselves together in order to go into the next life. PT 606121 leaves

the interpretation of these texts as references to the dismembering of Osiris open;

although, it is important to note that none of the texts in this relationship bear the idea

of dismembering out.122 There are four different words123 used to describe this situation

and texts have been grouped here due to the similarity of meaning. Seven texts124 relate

Isis, Nephthys and Osiris in this way. The majority of texts are attested in the pyramids

of Pepi I and II but there is less of a difference in the number of texts than in previous

relationships. Focussing on the content of the texts, PT 218 is the most schematic;

appearing in every pyramid except Merenre, it commands Isis and Nephthys to gather

and unite Osiris:

Isis and Nephthys, gather (him) together, gather (him) together! Unite (him),

unite (him)!

121 “I have come for you that I might clean you, cleanse you, make you live, gather your bones for

you, collect for you your loose parts, and assemble for you your dismembered parts”. 122 A possible interpretation could be a reference to the Predynastic burial practice of pre-burial

dismemberment, see David Wengrow and John Baines, “Images, Human Bodies and the Ritual

Construction of Memory,” in Egypt at its Origins: Proceedings of the International Conference “Origins

of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt”, Kraków, 28th August – 1st September 2002, ed.

Stan Hendrickx et al. OLA 138 (Dudley: Peeters, 2004), 1097-1100. 123 The words used in this relationship are Xnm, dmD, iab, inq. 124 PT 218, 357, 364, 366, 482, 631, 670.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

69

NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

ISIS AN NEPHTHYS – JOIN/UNITE/ASSEMBLE – OSIRIS

PYRAMID CORE TEXTS

UNIS 1

TETI 4

PEPI I 7

MERENRE 4

PEPI II 7

NEITH 2

Likewise PT 357, which simply states “Isis has united you.” In PT 482 Isis is identified

as the eldest sister of Osiris and reads:

Your eldest sister who collected your flesh and folded your hands, who sought you

and found you upon your side on the shore of Nedit.

Coupled with the notions of searching, finding and the location of Osiris’ death, this text

introduces the idea of collecting the parts of Osiris although any mention of putting

Osiris back together is lacking. Nephthys is identified in PT 364 as the one who gathers

the limbs of Osiris together:

Nephthys has gathered all your limbs for you, in her identity of Sheset, Lady of

Builders, and made them sound for you.

The added detail of making the limbs of Osiris sound implies further action beyond

merely gathering but putting Osiris back to a healthy state of being. PT 631 also has

Nephthys acting alone joining the limbs of Osiris together:

I (Nephthys) have united my brother and joined together his limbs.

PT 366 has the sisters working together as they guard Osiris:

Isis and Nephthys have guarded for you in Asyut…gathering you so that you do

not become angry.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

70

More detailed is PT 670:

Your libation has been libated by Isis and Nephthys has cleaned for you, your two

elder and great sisters who have collected your flesh, raised your limbs and caused

your eyes to appear on your head.

Isis and Nephthys not only collect together the parts of Osiris, but they make the limbs

live again through raising and cause Osiris to have eyes, thus bringing all the

constituent parts of the deceased god back to life.125 The texts of the relationship imply

the dismemberment of Osiris even if they do not make it explicit. The inclusion of Isis

and Nephthys into this idea further solidifies their mortuary role in helping the

deceased god live again in the next life.

: ISIS – CONCEIVES HORUS – OSIRIS 2.4.5

The family relationship between Horus and Osiris was explored earlier in this chapter

showing that Horus as the son of Osiris is emphasised to a great extent within the

Pyramid Texts.

NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

ISIS – CONCEIVES HORUS – OSIRIS

PYRAMID CORE TEXTS

UNIS 0

TETI 1

PEPI I 3

MERENRE 3

PEPI II 3

NEITH 2

125 Salvation from death was thought of in terms of piecing the body back together, Assmann,

Death and Salvation, 31-38.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

71

The conception of Horus by comparison receives relatively little attention. There are

three texts126 that detail the conception of Horus by Isis and Osiris. This could be

attributed to the rules of decorum as there are more texts under Pepi I, Merenre, Pepi II

and Neith than the earlier pyramids. The overall low number of texts indicates that it

was not as important for the Pyramid Texts than other relationships. Turning to the

content of the texts, they are generally long texts giving many details about the situation

of the conception. PT 366 and PT 593 are almost identical, with the former containing

more detail, reading:

Your sister Isis has come to you aroused for your love, you have placed her on

your phallus so that your seed might come into her, sharp as Sothis and Sharp

Horus has come out of you as Horus in Sothis.

Here the actual event is described in detail rather than simply alluding to it, showing

that a notion of the how it happened existed and could be used within the Pyramid

Texts.

PT 518 is less detailed merely referring to the event:

Stand up for yourself Osiris and command NN to those on the causeway Sound of

Heart north of the Marshes of Rest, like you commanded Horus to Isis on the day

you impregnated her.

The conception was given a great deal of detail, meaning its lack of inclusion in the

Pyramid Texts was probably a purposeful edit rather than a lack of thought on the

matter. There are still details missing from the account such as its relative timing to

other events; the tradition of a post-mortem conception from later sources could have

been a later addition to the story, but the question must remain open. Clearly the

importance of the text lay not in its chronological placement, but in the event itself. The

126 PT 366, 518, 593.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

72

conception of the rightful heir to the throne and the embodiment of the living king was

enough detail to include.

: ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – CALL OUT/SUMMON – OSIRIS 2.4.6

The last relationship between Isis, Nephthys and Osiris details the actions taken by the

goddesses in calling out to or summoning Osiris. There are 20 texts127 in the

relationship. They are almost exclusively attested in the pyramids of Pepi I and II,

which coincides with other relationships about Isis and Nephthys. The disparity

between the pyramids of Teti and Pepi I is similar here compared to Isis and Nephthys –

Mourn – Osiris and shows a later increase in the importance of the idea.

NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – CALL OUT/SUMMON – OSIRIS

PYRAMID CORE TEXTS

UNIS 0

TETI 1

PEPI I 18

MERENRE 7

PEPI II 17

NEITH 11

The texts within this relationship are characteristically short simply identifying a

goddess specifically or indirectly as one who calls out to the deceased. In PT 422 the

goddesses are identified together in a wish:

Let Isis speak to you and Nephthys call to you.

In all other instances of a goddess being named in this manner it is only Nephthys who

127 PT 412, 422, 437, 458, 461, 463, 468, 483, 553, 610, 619, 665A, 665D, 667A, 674, 676, 711, 728, 729,

760.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

73

is mentioned. PT 461 and 619 are similar, simply identifying Nephthys reading:

Nephthys will call out to you.

PT 468 is an anomaly as it firstly details the action of Nephthys, before identifying her as

Horus in the role of saving Osiris:

Let Nephthys call out to you as Horus, saviour of his father.

In other texts, Isis and Nephthys are identified as either the Mooring Post or the

Mourning Goddess. PT 458 names both deities but identifies Isis as the Great Mooring

Post and Nephthys as the West:

With the Great Mooring Post speaking to you as Isis and the West calling out to

you as Nephthys.

Isis is given the same identify in PT 665D:

The Mooring Post summoning you as Isis.

Here, the slightly different action is used but the same identification remains. Nephthys

is not identified in the role of Mooring Post indicating that is was a unique role for Isis.

This is not the case for the role of the Mourning Goddess, where both deities are

identified separately in the same role. PT 665A has Nephthys in the role:

Let the Mourning Goddess call out to you as Nephthys.

PT 674 and 728 identify Isis in the role instead. PT 674 reads:

Let the Mourning Goddess call out to you as Isis.

PT 728 only differs slightly with the same identification remaining. Different again, PT

412 names the mourning goddess without any indication as to the identity:

Let the Mourning Goddess call out to you.

The majority of the texts mention the Mooring Post, without any specific identity being

given. 128 They are all of similar form with a simple statement about the Mooring Post

128 PT 437, 463, 483, 553, 610, 676, 711, 729, 760.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

74

calling out to the deceased. The only deviation from this is PT 729, which adds more

detail on the situation:

While the Great Mooring Post calls out to him, as to he who stands tirelessly,

resident of Abydos.

As PT 458 names Isis as the Mooring Post it seems likely that she was thought of as the

Mooring Post in the context of these texts as well. The word moor is used as a

euphemism for death elsewhere in the Pyramid Texts, reinforcing the mortuary role of

Isis in this context. The sharing of the identity of Mourning Goddess suggests that both

goddesses could fill the role at any time. The function of calling out to the deceased is

not given in the texts, simply the action. It could be connected to the search for Osiris

and subsequent resurrection but in exactly what context remains unknown.

: HORUS – SETH 2.5

The relationship between Horus and Seth is characterised by the negative actions taken

by these deities towards each other, in particular the reciprocal injuries imparted. While

these texts do not mention Osiris directly, the relationships are linked with those that do

due to the sometimes indirect connotation with the right to rule. The struggle between

Horus and Seth can be seen as the struggle for the throne and so is a vital aspect of the

actions resulting from the death of Osiris.

: HORUS – ACTS AGAINST – SETH 2.5.1

The relationship Horus – Acts against – Seth is a fairly general relationship expounding

the actions taken by Horus against Seth. Horus takes a very active role in acting against

Seth on behalf of his father Osiris. There are 15 texts129 mentioning the role of Horus in

this way. The majority of the texts are attested in the pyramid of Pepi I, with only a few

129 PT 61, 100, 356, 357, 372, 385, 482, 543, 545, 580, 593, 606, 658A, 670, 723.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

75

attestations before this time. Similar to other relationships, this received more attention

by the text editors from the reign of Pepi I onwards.

NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

HORUS –ACTS AGAINST – SETH

PYRAMID CORE TEXTS

UNIS 0

TETI 4

PEPI I 15

MERENRE 6

PEPI II 9

NEITH 6

In many of the texts in this grouping Horus is said to smite Seth, often in retaliation for

his actions against Osiris. PT 606 is in the first person with Horus declaring his actions:

For I (Horus) have smitten for you the one who smote you.

PT 670 and 482 are almost identical to PT 606 with only a change in person from first to

third person. PT 356 identifies Horus as the son of Osiris before placing him in the role

of smiting Seth. PT 357 is different again, adding the information that Seth was

restrained after being smitten:

He has smitten Seth for you, he being fettered.

PT 100 and PT 385 are the most simplified in this vein with a short statement identifying

Horus and the action he takes with no extra detail. PT 100 reads:

He has smitten the other.

None of these texts specifically identifies Seth as the one who is being smitten although

it can be safely assumed as Seth was the opponent of Osiris. Evidently, the same rules

that governed his lack of identification in the role of the murderer of Osiris also meant

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

76

that he could not be identified here. PT 580 combines the idea of smiting with another

form, which the retaliation of Horus takes, that of cutting up Seth:

Father-striker, killer of one greater than you. You have struck my father. You

have smitten one who is greater than you. Father Osiris Pepi, I have struck for

you as an ox the one who struck you, I have smitten for you as a wild bull the one

who smote you. I have cut up for you as a long horned bull the one who cut you

up.

Seth is identified as “Father-Striker” and his crime of killing Osiris is referred to only in

general terms. The actions of Horus are retribution for the murder and go beyond the

“striking” which Seth is said to have done against Osiris. Horus strikes back, smites and

then cuts up Seth, who is identified as an ox, wild bull and long-horned bull

respectively. PT 61 is more explicit, describing one of the many offerings as being a part

of Seth:

Osiris, NN, accept the foreleg of Seth, which Horus has torn off.

Likewise PT 372, which describes the same action in a priestly recitation instead:

Horus has butchered the forelegs of your enemies and Horus has brought them to

you cut up.

This text is much less specific as the plural “enemies” is used possibly in reference to

general enemies of the deceased. The similarity between PT 372 and the other texts

allows its inclusion within the relationship here; although, it must be said that PT 372

pre-dates the other texts in its inclusion into the corpora of the Pyramid Texts, allowing

for the possibility that the general enemies of the deceased were refined a later date into

the singular enemy, Seth. Without more detail the problem remains. PT 545 describes

Horus bringing Seth to Osiris in pieces:

To you have I brought the one who slew you, he being cut apart.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

77

The implication is that Horus has cut Seth up in order to prevent any further injury to

Osiris. In other texts, Horus also brings Seth to Osiris. In PT 356 and 658A Horus

brings Seth in order for him to bear Osiris as punishment for his actions:

Horus has seized Seth and put him under you that he might bear you and tremble

under you in the earth’s trembling.

Likewise in PT 723, which is in the first person and refers generally to Seth as the enemy

of Osiris:

I am Horus, Osiris NN, I have brought for you your enemy under you.

Two general texts, PT 543 and 593, refer to Horus giving or bringing Seth to Osiris

without much added detail. Finally, PT 372 combines the base relationship including

Horus but also identifies Thoth in the role of acting against Seth:

Horus has caused that Thoth bring you your enemy.

It has thus been included as both a base text and variant text as Horus is the one who

causes the action to be taken, but Thoth actually carries it out. The relationship between

Horus and Seth reveals the more active and vengeful side of Horus, in contrast to the

more passive Horus seen in his relationship to Osiris. Horus here seeks out Seth and

takes vengeance on him rather than simply protecting Osiris. This could be reflective of

a different tradition involving Horus in physical fight with Seth; however, an

amalgamation of a different tradition here is difficult to discern and could also be

interpreted as a dual personality of Horus, who acts passively to save Osiris and

actively to punish Seth.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

78

: SETH – INJURES – HORUS 2.5.2

The relationship Seth – Injures – Horus describes the injuries received by Horus,

particularly to his eye, at the hands of Seth. There are 51 texts 130 detailing this

relationship, which is a much larger number of texts than in other relationships.

NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

SETH – INJURES – HORUS

PYRAMID CORE TEXTS

UNIS 27

TETI 32

PEPI I 49

MERENRE 5

PEPI II 45

NEITH 40

The texts appear in all the pyramid corpora and while Pepi I has the highest number,

the pyramid of Unis has a significant number of texts. This is in contrast to other

relationships discussed so far, where the pyramid of Unis typically has very few

numbers. The low number of texts in the pyramid of Merenre here can be attributed to

a lack of preservation. The injury of Horus was important to the Pyramid Texts

throughout their inscription and despite its violent nature, was not affected by the

restrictions of decorum to the same degree as the murder of Osiris. The injury of Horus

is described in many different ways within the texts from general texts referring to an

injury, to more specific texts describing the actions of Seth. The general texts provide

many references to the injury with only some details. PT 255 refers to the deceased as

130 PT 47, 54, 56, 74, 78, 88, 89, 90, 97, 111, 112, 119, 121, 124, 126, 135, 141, 145, 154, 156, 159, 160,

163, 164, 168, 182, 186, 188, 192, 255, 271, 277, 327, 356, 357, 359, 386, 455, 475, 501C, 524, 562, 570,

652, 653B, 653C, 658A, 667A, 686, 696A, 708.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

79

Horus “who became strong through the injury that was done to him” without reference

to what the injury was or who inflicted it. PT 271 provides more detail:

Horus and Seth shall take the arms of NN and take him to the Duat. He who has

been dealt an eye injury, protect from the one of the command.

This text identifies Horus as having received an eye injury. PT 277 and PT 386 are

similar in form, reading:

Horus has fallen on account of his eye.

PT 356 and 357 mention Horus taking his eye back from Seth, implying that he was the

culprit of the injury. PT 327 is equally as vague saying:

Horus’s fetcher desire NN for he has fetched his eye.

PT 455 refers to the curative powers of the spittle of the gods, which helped cure Horus

of the “evil that was against him after Seth acted against him” while PT 667A refers to

the outflow from Osiris in the same capacity:

Supply the outflow that comes from Osiris that Horus may be cleaned from what

his brother Seth has done to him.

PT 570 mentions a time “when Horus’s eye had not be ripped out”, and finally, PT 475,

PT 686, PT 97 and PT 163 mention Horus getting or acquiring his eye, referring to the

injury which saw it removed in the first place. All of these texts are very general and

only mention the injury of Horus without too much detail. This may have been because

the detail was already known and not necessarily important to elucidate in each text.

There are many more texts, mostly appearing in the offering ritual, which deal with the

different actions that Seth takes against the Eye of Horus. The most numerous texts

mention Seth taking the eye of Horus. PT 78 simply states:

Osiris NN, I have fetched for you Horus’s Eye to your forehead, which he took.

PT 119, PT 159 and PT 188 use the phrase “carried off” to refer to Seth taking the Eye of

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

80

Horus, while PT 192 gives the same sense with a different phrase:

Here is Horus’s Eye which he ran away with. Horus has given it to you.

These texts give the sense of movement in that Seth removed the Eye of Horus and then

took it somewhere else rather than just referring to the act itself. PT 186 does refer to the

act alone, reading:

Osiris NN, here is Horus’s green Eye131 which he seized. Horus has given it to

you.

This is echoed in PT 524 and 708, which are close to identical:132

NN has become clean in the purification which Horus made for his Eye. NN is

Thoth who protected it, NN is not Seth who seized it.

Seth also captures or traps the Eye of Horus as in PT 156:

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye, which he captured. Open your mouth

with it.

Or PT 182:

Here is Horus’s Eye which he entrapped. Horus has given it to you.

In PT 168 Osiris is commanded to “prevent him from snaring it”, which also gives the

sense of trapping the Eye of Horus. Lastly, two texts refer indirectly to Seth taking the

Eye of Horus. PT 653C mentions Osiris seeing half of the Eye of Horus in Seth’s hand

and PT 696A refers to the linen, which was used to wipe the Eye of Horus after it was

“torn out of Seth’s fingers”. Although slightly different, each of these texts refers to the

taking of the Eye of Horus by Seth. A number of texts refer to the action of Seth as

“pulling out” rather than taking. PT 89, PT 112, PT 121, and PT 124 all read the same:

131 The colour green was associated with purification and revival. The eye of Horus was thus an

offering through which Osiris would live again. It was connected with the maintenance of

cosmic order and harmony, Tatiana Sherkova, “The Birth of the Eye of Horus: Towards the

Symbolism of the Eye in Predynastic Egypt,” in Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of

Egyptologists, Cambridge 3-9 September 1995, ed. Chris Eyre (Leuven: Uitgeverij, 1998), 1064. 132 PT 708 differs slightly referring to Osiris directly as “you” rather than indirectly.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

81

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye, which he pulled out.

The same text being repeated four times suggests that this act was important to the

relationship between Horus and Seth and may have comprised the primary action

thought to have been taken by Seth. Differing slightly, PT 163 and PT 164 command

Osiris to prevent Seth from tearing the Eye out:

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye, prevent him from tearing it out.

PT 126 refers to the Eye of Horus being stolen by Seth. Rather than offering the Eye, as

in other texts, here the culprit is offered up to Horus:

Osiris NN, here is the one who stole Horus’s Eye.

The exact nature of the offering is unclear but the actions of Seth are made explicit.

Once the Eye was taken from Horus by Seth there are texts which detail what was done

to it Seth. PT 111 refers to Seth trampling the Eye:

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye which Seth trampled.

While PT 88 commands the protection of the Eye against this action. In two texts, PT 90

and PT 145, Seth eats the Eye of Horus:

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s little Eye, which Seth ate.

The intention behind this action is not made clear in the text, but there was enough of a

concern for PT 154 to command that Osiris prevent Seth from swallowing the Eye. PT

501C is a longer text not from the offering ritual:

Horus groaned on account of his eye of his body, when he had eaten it and

swallowed it and the Ennead saw it. Seth rasped on account of his testicles.

Horus conveyed his semen into the anus of Seth. Seth conveyed his semen into

the anus of Horus.

Here the injuring of Horus is given much more detail further indicating that the

swallowing of the eye of Horus by Seth was an important aspect of the events. The text

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

82

goes on to detail the so-called homosexual episode between Horus and Seth.133 This

event is known from later sources in much more detail, but its appearance here shows

the antiquity of the idea. Put together, these texts detail the different actions which Seth

took against the Eye of Horus both during the act of taking as well as after. Three

additional texts do not fit into any distinguishable category or action. PT 562 simply

says that the Eye will not be given over to the “wrath” of Seth, without any details as to

what this wrath would entail. PT 74 describes the actions of Seth as causing

“devastation” upon the Eye of Horus, and lastly, PT 653B says that Seth “calculated” on

the Eye of Horus. It is unclear as to what this action might actually be. Lastly, there are

texts which deal with the escape or rescue of the Eye of Horus from Seth. PT 135 has the

Eye of Horus presented to Osiris with the added detail that it came from Seth’s

forehead. It has been included here given that the Eye is being taken from Seth and

given to Osiris. The exact meaning of the text is unclear but may be related to Seth

swallowing the Eye of Horus and it escaping by bursting from his head.134 PT 56 is

more explicit reading:

NN, Take to yourself Horus’s Eye which was rescued for you. It cannot be far

from you.

PT 652 mentions Seth as the one whom the Eye is being rescued from and Horus, with

the first person “I”, as the one who does the rescuing. PT 658A provides the same detail

133 This episode has its antecedents here in the Pyramid Texts but is more fully developed in later

sources, particularly the Contendings of Horus and Seth preserved on Papyrus Chester Beatty I, 11,

2-12. For the most recent treatment of the ‘homosexual’ interaction between the gods see Alessia

Amenta, “Some reflections on the ‘Homosexual’ Intercourse between Horus and Seth,” GM 199

(2004): 7-21; See also, Michèle Broze, Mythe et roman en Égypte ancienne: les aventures d’Horus et Seth

dans le papyrus Chester Beatty I. OLA 76 (Leuven: Peeters, 1996); Griffiths, Horus and Seth, 41-46. 134 Alan Gardiner, Late-Egyptian Stories (Bruxelles: Édition de la Fondation égyptologique Reine

Élisabeth, 1932). In the Late Egyptian story of The Contendings of Horus and Seth the same

situation occurs at 12,11-12,12“Then Thoth said to it “Come out from the top of his head. ” And it

emerged as a golden solar disk upon Seth’s Head.” The slight difference is that it is not the Eye of

Horus being mentioned here but the semen of Horus, nevertheless the similarity in the latter

version may derive from the situation in the Pyramid Texts.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

83

in a different form:

Horus has rescued his eye from Seth and given it to you.

There are also three texts which mention the Eye of Horus escaping from Seth of its own

accord. PT 47 and 54 use the same formula of the offering texts, reading:

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye, which escaped from Seth.

Finally, PT 359 is a long text which details the escape of the Eye of Horus from Seth:

Horus has wailed for his eye, Seth has wailed for his testicles. Horus’s eye jumped

and it made landfall on the other side of the Winding Canal so that it might save

itself from Seth, having seen Thoth on the other side of the Winding Canal.

Horus’s eye jumped up on the other side of the Winding Canal and it made

landfall on Thoth’s wing on the other side of the Winding Canal to the eastern

side of the sky in order to contend against Seth over that eye of Horus. NN will

cross with you on Thoth’s wing to the other side of the Winding Canal to the

eastern side of the sky for NN will be contending against Seth over that eye of

Horus.

While Thoth appears as a helper god making sure that the Eye escapes Seth, it is the eye

that saves itself, giving it an agency of its own that is not seen in other texts. While the

causality between the actions of Seth and the injury of the eye of Horus is made evident

in the texts, the reasons for this are left out entirely. Whether this made up a separate

tradition, or whether this was thought of as part of the Osirian action, is uncertain from

the texts themselves due to their lack of contextual detail. The relationship was

obviously important to the offering ritual from the conception of the Pyramid Texts and

remained important throughout their use in the Old Kingdom. The lack of detail was

probably unimportant to the editors who would have known its place in the wider

thought on divine actions.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

84

: HORUS – CONTENDS WITH - SETH 2.5.3

The relationship Horus – Contends with – Seth concerns the actual struggle between

Horus and Seth. There are 10 texts135 in this relationship.

NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

HORUS – CONTENDS WITH – SETH

PYRAMID CORE TEXTS

UNIS 4

TETI 7

PEPI 7

MERENRE 2

PEPI II 4

NEITH 1

They appear in all the pyramids, with the majority being attested in Teti and Pepi I.

This shift in the concentration of the texts towards the earlier corpora signifies that the

relationship was important from the beginning of the Pyramid Text’s formation. Over

time it seems to have been included less possibly indicating a diminishing in its

importance over time. The content of the texts reveals some specific details about the

contending of Horus and Seth.

PT 359, mentioned above, for its content about the Eye of Horus also refers to the

deceased as Horus contending with Seth over his Eye:

NN will cross with you on Thoth’s wing to the other side of the Winding Canal to

the eastern side of the sky for NN will be contending against Seth over that Eye of

Horus.

PT 524, which only appears in the pyramid of Pepi I, identifies a location for the contest

135 PT 252, 254, 258, 259, 308, 359, 407, 510, 524, 669

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

85

to have happened:

NN is the one who prevents the gods from turning away from embracing Horus’s Eye.

This NN sought it in Pe and found it in Heliopolis and then NN removed it from the

head of Seth in the place where they fought there.

As discussed above, Pe is identified as Buto and is associated with an infantile Horus. 136

Pe was thus known to have been the place where Horus spent his childhood from the

Old Kingdom. That the gods would contend in Heliopolis makes sense as well, given

that it was the seat of power for the creator god Atum and the place where judgement

was made. 137 Osiris is identified in other texts as the judge between Horus and Seth. PT

254 identifies him clearly in this role:

NN shall judge between the two contestants in the Great Immersion for his power is the

power of Tebi’s eye and his strength is the strength of Tebi’s eye. 138

PT 407 is similar but simply says:

NN will judge cases and will part the two.

136 Altenmüller, “Buto,” 887-889. 137 The high court was located in Heliopolis and thus would have been well known to be the seat

of judgement in Egypt, Susanne Bickel, “Héliopolis et le tribunal des dieux,” in Études sur l’Ancien

Empire et la nécropole de Saqqâra dédiées à Jean-Philippe Lauer, ed. Catherine Berger and Bernard

Mathieu (Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry-Montpellier III, 1997), 113-122. See also Shafik

Allam, “Egyptian Law Courts in Pharaonic and Hellenistic Times,” JEA 77 (1991): 109-127; Sandra

Lippert, “Law Courts,” in UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, ed. Willeke Wendrich et al. Los

Angeles 2012.

http://digital2.library.ucla.edu.viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz002djg21; Caleb Hamilton, “Aspects of

the Judiciary in the Egyptian Old Kingdom,” (forthcoming). On the use of judgement in the

Pyramid Texts see Caleb Hamilton, “I Judge Between Two Brothers, To Their Satisfaction:

Biographies and the Legal System in the Old Kingdom,” in ASCS 32 Selected Proceedings, ed. Anne

Mackay (ascs.org.au/news/ascs32/Hamilton.pdf, 2011); Caleb Hamilton, “Judgement in the

Pyramid Texts,” (unpublished manuscript, November 1, 2014), Microsoft Word file. 138 The eye of Tebi is associated most with the lunar eye, particularly the injured eye that must be

restored. See Kurt Sethe, “Die Sprüche für das Kennen der Seelen der heiligen Orte (Totb. Kap.

107-109, 111-116),” ZÄS 57 (1922): 30; Alexandre Piankoff, The Tomb of Ramesses VI: Texts, (New

York: Pantheon Books, 1954): 38; Erik Hornung, Das Amduat. Die Schrift des verborgenen Raumes,

ÄA 7 (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1963), 2:45; Dimitri Meeks, “L’Horus de Tby,” in Egyptian

Religion: The Last Thousand Years. Studies dedicated to the Memory of Jan Quaegebeur, ed. W.

Clarysse, A. Schoors and H. Willems (Leuven: Peeters, 1998): 1188; Gyula Priskin, “Coffin Texts

Spell 155 on the Moon,” Birmingham Egyptology Journal 1 (2013): 42.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

86

While Horus and Seth are not named in these texts, it is assumed that they are being

referred to here. The remaining texts mention the contest and the reconciliation of the

gods. PT 252, which only appears in the pyramid of Unis, identifies the deceased as

making his throne with Osiris who “parted the two gods.” PT 669 is more detailed:

For that NN is (your) brother who comes forth as a wise one, who parts the two brothers

and separates the two fighters and who can split your heads, gods.

PT 510 differs slightly, in saying that Osiris will make Horus and Seth content:

He will content the two gods so that they are content, he will content the two gods

when they are angry.

Differing again, PT 258 and PT 259 are identical texts using the word pacify instead:

NN will spend this day and night pacifying the two adzes in Hermopolis.

The identification of Horus and Seth as adzes is unique here, as is the location of

Hermopolis139 for their contending. This could reflect two different traditions within the

Pyramid Texts and it is telling that these two texts are only found in the pyramid of

Unis and Teti. With the edition of the texts under Pepi I, the location of the competition

may have been moved to Heliopolis to better align with the priesthood. Lastly, PT 308

simply calls Horus and Seth “reconciled gods”, referring to the situation after the

competition where Horus gained ascendancy over Seth. Unlike the other relationships

139 Perhaps by the New Kingdom the theologians of Hermopolis had developed a cosmogony

distinct from that of Heliopolis or Memphis. It centred around four pairs of gods and goddesses

called the Ogdoad who were responsible for the creation of the world and the maintenance of the

rising of the sun and the flowing of the Nile. It is possible this idea was present as early as the

Old Kingdom as Hermopolis was given the name “eight-city”. Kurt Sethe, Amun und die acht

Urgötter von Hermopolis: Eine Untersuchung über Ursprung und Wesen des ägyptischen Götterkönig

(Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften: Berlin, 1929) who collected the evidence for the

ogdoad. See also Lucia Gahlin, “Creation Myths,” in The Egyptian World, ed. Toby Wilkinson

(London and New York: Routledge, 2010), 303-306; Leonard Lesko, “Ancient Egyptian

Cosmogonies and Cosmology,” in Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths and Personal Practice,

ed. Byron Shafer (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1991), 94-96; James Allen,

Genesis in Egypt: The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts (New Haven: Yale

Egyptological Seminar, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilisations, The Graduate

School, Yale University, 1988), 20-21; Hornung, Conceptions of God, 221.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

87

between Horus and Seth, a link is made here between the contendings and the

involvement of Osiris who acts as the judge between them. The use of the word judge

in PT 407 places the contendings in the realm of the legal proceedings much like the

prosecution of Seth for the murder of Osiris.

: DISCUSSION 2.6

This chapter has presented the core set of texts identified in the various relationships

between Osiris, Seth, Horus, Isis and Nephthys. The primary aim of this chapter was to

identify the texts and provide a structure to facilitate analysis. The content of the texts

has revealed aspects of the relationships and the patterns within them.

The Osiris – Seth set is the most important set of texts due to their concern with the

death of Osiris. In this, it is fundamentally different in content than any other

relationship. The murder of Osiris at the hands of Seth was the primary event,

providing the impetus for every other event or action. In all cases within this set Osiris

is the passive participant in the relationship. This is expected given his inert status, but

it highlights the fact that no relationship was concerned with an event prior to his death.

The death of Osiris was the origin point for the texts and all others were dependant on

that event. Every relationship in the Osiris – Seth set is concerned with either the

murder itself or the direct consequences of it. The exception to this is the Osiris –

Protected/Saved – Seth relationship, which is more akin to relationships in other sets in

its aims of remedying the situation of the deceased. The murder is mostly described in

vague terms, with euphemisms for death used rather than explicit details being given.

Even the identities of the deities involved, particularly Seth, are not given in the texts.

The rules of decorum governed the use of the texts so heavily that despite the

importance of the event, it could not be mentioned in a specific way due to its violent

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

88

nature. These rules seem to loosen under the reign of Pepi I as more explicit texts

appear in his pyramid and continue to be used in the subsequent corpora. Closely

linked to the murder itself was the location of the death of Osiris, encapsulated in the

relationship Osiris – Located in – Nedit. This relatively simple relationship provides a

key detail about the events of the death of Osiris. These texts give details about the

geographical location in which the death occurred, going beyond the mere statement of

the event. The location itself is mythic in nature and it indicates a coherent thought

process on the part of the text editors and theologians regarding the event. The fact that

the location was important enough for inclusion within the Pyramid Texts speaks to its

importance within the religious discourse of the Old Kingdom. The aftermath of the

death of Osiris, the eventual punishment of Seth, is also detailed in the relationship Seth

– Bears – Osiris. While it is not stated explicitly that this action was undertaken as part

of a punishment, the fact that it is often done at the command of other deities, such as

Horus and the Dual Ennead, makes the situation of punishment highly likely. The

placing of Seth under Osiris, both physically and metaphorically would have protected

Osiris from the harmful actions of Seth, but also situated him rightfully in the senior and

dominant position. 140

Connected with the murder but less directly related is the protection of Osiris from Seth

in the relationship Osiris – Protected/Saved – Seth. This relationship is very similar to

many others in detailing a situation where Osiris is protected from the general actions of

140 Note that Seth also has positive connotations in relation to the protection of Osiris. In the

Pyramid Texts he helps protect Osiris from snakes, for the collection of texts see Turner, Seth: A

Misrepresented God. Seth is well known as the protector of Osiris and Re from Apophis; David

Fabre “La dieu Seth de la fin du Nouvel Empire à l’époque gréco-romaine entre mythe et

histoire,Ӄgypte, Afrique & Orient 22 (2001): 19-40; Te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion, 99-108. The

distinction between good and evil can be seen as theologically motivated by the struggle of Re

against Apophis and also Osiris and Seth, see Jan Assmann, “Gottes willige Vollstrecker: zur

politischen Theologie der Gewalt,” Saeculum 51 (2000): 161-174.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

89

Seth. This is done with very general texts using unspecific terminology, as well as very

specific texts mentioning Seth by name. The temporal location of this relationship after

the death of Osiris points to a situation where even after his initial death Osiris was still

in need of protection from Seth. This aligns with the mortuary beliefs of the Egyptians

in other periods, where the deceased had to avoid a second death, which would cease

their existence in the afterlife.141 The dangers of the daily journey to the afterlife are

well attested in the Amduat of the New Kingdom.142 In the Old Kingdom, Seth seems to

represent all the harmful forces that the deceased needed protection from. The Osiris –

Seth texts thus have at their core the murder of Osiris, which provided the reason for the

rest of the events to take place. It was the fundamental motivation behind the mortuary

beliefs and practices of the ancient Egyptians and so would naturally be of utmost

concern in the mortuary literature of the Old Kingdom. The content of the texts reflect

an anxiety about the death of a god, the prototypical king of Egypt, which is reflective of

their complex worldview. The texts seek to provide a divine archetype for a troubling

event, the death of a king.

In the Osiris – Horus set of texts there are two specific ideas presented: the succession

patterns of the Egyptian kingship, and the positive actions taken by Horus towards

Osiris. Regarding the succession patterns, the family relationship between Osiris and

141 The Judgement of the Dead in the New Kingdom represented Seth, the enemy, as both split

into the guilt of the deceased and the heart-swallowing monster. Fail the judgement, that is fail to

be protected from the enemy Seth, and the deceased suffered a second death, ceasing to exist. See

Assmann, Death and Salvation, 76. 142 Andreas Schweizer, The Sungod’s Journey through the Netherworld: Reading the Ancient Egyptian

Amduat, ed. David Lorton (Ithaca and New York: Cornell University Press, 2010); Barbara Richter,

“The Amduat and its Relationship to the Architecture of Early 18th Dynasty Royal Burial

Chambers,” JARCE 44 (2008): 73-104; Erik Hornung, “Das Amduat,” in In Pharaos Grad: die

verborgenen Stunden der Sonne, ed. Erik Hornung et al. (Basel: Factum Arte, 2006), 21-27; Erik

Hornung, “The Amduat,” in Immortal Pharaoh: The Tomb of Thutmose III, ed. Erik Hornung et al.

(Madrid: Antikenmuseum, 2005); Hornung, Books of the Afterlife.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

90

Horus is stressed in Horus – Son of – Osiris. Horus is referred to as the son of Osiris

constantly throughout the Pyramid Texts, and the idea is inescapably linked to the idea

of hereditary succession, even though the texts do not mention succession specifically.143

This family relationship is not the only one to appear in the Pyramid Texts, as the entire

family tree of the Heliopolitan gods is present, albeit with some incongruities. The

inclusion of the Horus and Osiris relation in this study is focussed upon the implications

it has for the succession of the kingship from Osiris to Horus. The existence of a

coherent pantheon of gods remains an important point, as it indicates a level of

coherence to the religious thoughts about the gods at the time. The implication of the

hereditary succession is made clear in the relationship Horus – Successor of – Osiris,

where texts are dedicated to detailing the situation of Horus attaining the kingship in

preference to Seth. One text, PT 519, even explicitly says that Horus took the kingship

143 Kingship succession was hereditary and thus up held the relationship seen in the Pyramid

Texts where Horus succeeds as the son of the deceased king over Seth as the brother, see Henri

Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society

and Nature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 110. The hereditary nature of Egyptian

kingship is included in the definition of John Baines and Norman Yoffee, “Order, Legitimacy and

Wealth in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia,” in Archaic States, ed. Gary Feinman and Joyce

Marcus (Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 1998), 205; this definition is utilised with

reference to Old Kingdom kingship by Miroslav Bárta, “Egyptian Kingship during the Old

Kingdon,” in Experiencing Power, Generating Authority: Cosmos, Politics and the Ideology of Kingship

in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, ed. Jane Hill et al. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2013), 259. On royal succession and the eventual

desacralisation of Egyptian kingship and succession see Paul Frandsen, “Aspects of Kingship in

Ancient Egypt,” in Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond, ed. Nicole

Brisch (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2008), 62-65. Frandsen argues

that the increasing use of legal terminology such as the imyt-pr to describe the succession of the

new king shows the increasing awareness of the humanity of the king at the expense of his

divinity. The divinity of the king is explored extensively in scholarship, Ronald J. Leprohon,

“Royal Ideology and State Administration in Pharaonic Egypt,” in Civilisations of the Ancient Near

East, ed. Jack Sasson et al. (New York: Scribner, 1995), 1:273-287, who argues that the king was not

thought of a divinity or as a god incarnate but rather the recipient of a divine office. John Baines,

“Ancient Egyptian Kingship: Official Forms, Rhetoric, Context,” in King and Messiah in Israel and

the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day (Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 16-53, who explores the idea of the King as a token of the divine

in the real world. See also John Baines, “Kingship, Definition of Culture, and Legitimation,” in

Ancient Egyptian Kingship, ed. David O’Connor and David Silverman (Leiden and New York:

Brill, 1995), 3-47, for a dated but worthy summary of scholarship on the topic.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

91

from Seth, providing a temporal location for the event after Seth had killed Osiris and

taken the kingship illegitimately. This is echoed in PT 260 where the disorder in the

world caused by the wrongful king is referenced as the “disruption in Heliopolis.” That

Horus should inherit because he is the son of Osiris was at the core of Egyptian

succession patterns, which prioritised the son over the paternal uncle.144 The

relationships are thus aetiological in nature providing an explanation for hereditary

succession, a primary explanation of the myth of Osiris overall. It reflects a concern for

the rightful succession to be upheld and indicates the importance of the idea to the

Egyptian kingship.

The other relationships concern the beneficial actions taken by Horus on behalf of

Osiris. The most important of these is probably the resurrection of Osiris. Given the

important role that Isis and Nephthys have as mortuary deities and their singular

involvement in the resurrection of Osiris in later traditions, it is surprising that Horus

takes this role in the Pyramid Texts. This could indicate an early tradition that was

edited to allow for an infant Horus to be born after the resurrection of Osiris, rather than

before, as it seems is the case in the Pyramid Texts. Additionally, Horus also saves,

protects and acts for Osiris, which solidifies his role as a helper deity. Osiris, as the

typical god in need, requires Horus in order to maintain his existence. The particular

role Horus takes is in protecting Osiris from Seth, as well as providing generally for

Osiris, where not much detail is given as to what the provision actually is, shows that

the action itself was more important. The different ways Horus protects Osiris from

144 This idea shows itself to be particularly relevant during the 19th Dynasty when the hereditary

succession pattern was disturbed. The late Egyptian story of the Contendings of Horus and Seth

has thus been interpreted as a legitimisation of the correct succession pattern upheld for

Ramesses V, see Ursula Verhoeven, “Ein historischer “Sitz in Leben” für die Erzählung von

Horus und Seth des Papyrus Chester Beatty I,” in Wege Öffnen Festschrift für Rolf Grundlach zum

65. Geburtstag, ed. Mechthild Schade-Busch (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996), 347-363.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

92

Seth indicates that it was the amassing of many texts that would ensure the success of

the action, an idea that is reflected elsewhere in the Pyramid Texts. Much like the

succession of Horus, the other roles he plays are linked to his family relationship with

Osiris. In this, he plays the role of the prototypical son, who must take care of his father

and provide for him after his death. Thus he is used as a divine archetype for a real

world situation. The role of Horus throughout the Pyramid Texts is thus the role of the

son who must care, maintain a mortuary cult for, and inherit from, his father.

The Osiris – Isis and Nephthys set emphasises the mortuary roles of the deities, while

including details about the beneficial actions they perform for Osiris. Three out of the

six relationships within the set situate the goddesses specifically in the mortuary realm.

Most characteristic of Isis and Nephthys is their role as the mourners of the deceased.

They are associated with this role in general terms, with simple identifications, as well

as longer more detailed texts, which describe the situation of Osiris needing to be

mourned and how the mourning is actually performed. This relationship is linked

closely to Isis and Nephthys – Call out/Summon – Osiris, as many of the texts are

attested in both relationships. In combination with the identification of the Mourning

Goddess or Mooring Post, both associated with death and mourning, the goddesses are

said to call out to or summon the deceased. The texts do not provide the detail of what

Osiris is being summoned to, which could indicate it was a general action to help in the

resurrection of the deceased. This calling out could also have been part of the visible

mourning, which had to take place with women wailing and yelling. The relationship

Isis and Nephthys – Join/Unite/Assemble – Osiris also associates the two deities with the

mortuary realm as they are identified in the role of re-assembling Osiris. Much like

Horus – Saves/Protects – Osiris, the plurality of words used in this relationship with the

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

93

same meaning indicates that the effectiveness of the texts was linked to the number of

texts. If there were many texts all aimed at the same idea then it was more likely to

succeed. The assembly of the parts of Osiris, either because of active dismemberment or

as a general part of the mortuary beliefs of the Egyptians, was a very important part of

the resurrection process, and so its success had to be ensured. Horus might have been

named specifically in relation to resurrection, but Isis and Nephthys had a far greater

role in the mortuary aspect of the events and actions for Osiris.

Isis and Nephthys are also associated with beneficial actions taken on behalf of Osiris.

The two notions of searching for and finding Osiris situate Isis and Nephthys as helper

deities, much like Horus. Rather than aimed at the protection of Osiris from Seth, the

texts here have the search for the body of Osiris as their subject. The Pyramid Texts

themselves do not mention specifically that Osiris is missing or lost but instead focus on

the actions necessary to remedy the situation, which is implied. The lack of situational

detail could be due to decorum, which did not allow detailed reference to the death of

Osiris; although some of the later texts do include references to the actions of Seth in

throwing Osiris down on his side in Nedit. The importance, despite this, was placed on

the beneficial action, rather than the negative action. The two ideas are obviously linked

as one cannot find without first searching. Similar to the idea of succession, the two

ideas are often connected in the texts themselves where the search for and discovery of

Osiris are referenced at the same time. The commonality between all these relationships

here is that they have as their direct cause the murder of Osiris. Whether situated in a

mortuary setting or referencing an action, the relationships are predicated on the notion

that Osiris was killed and needs help in order to survive in the afterlife. They provide a

divine archetype not just for one person or situation, but multiple situations that needed

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

94

to occur for the deceased to live in the next life properly. The exception to this rule is

the conception of Horus, by Isis and Osiris. The texts here relate an event between the

gods, but it is not aimed at helping Osiris like other relationships, nor does it sit in the

mortuary realm. It is a necessary part of the events related in the Pyramid Texts if

Horus is to succeed Osiris as the king of Egypt, but it does not necessarily have a

purpose in the ritual texts aimed at providing an existence for the deceased in the next

life. Its minimal yet detailed treatment in the Pyramid Texts points towards its

importance as an event in its own right. This reflects the choices made by the editors of

the texts to include every facet of the events about Osiris, indicating a concern and

engagement with, the overarching cycle of events.

The Horus – Seth set of texts reveals the more active side of Horus in his actions

towards Seth, as well the harmful side of Seth in relation to Horus, rather than Osiris.

Far different from the passive Horus who protects Osiris without mention of how this is

accomplished, the Horus depicted in the relationship Horus – Acts against – Seth is far

more forceful in his actions towards Seth. It is unclear from the texts themselves

whether this was done in the context of protecting Osiris, retribution on behalf of Osiris,

or as a separate event altogether. The inclusion of Osiris as the recipient of the cut-up

pieces of Seth suggests an act of retribution and protection. This is also indicated by the

texts that mention the actions of Horus in relation to the actions of Seth, where Horus

cuts Seth up, just like Seth cut up Osiris. Thus Horus exacts a physical punishment on

Seth by doing to him what he did to Osiris. Interestingly, the offering of Seth to Osiris is

most often done in priestly recitation texts rather than offering texts as might be

expected given their nature. This could indicate that the parts of Seth were not thought

of as offerings in the same way as the eye of Horus was. In the relationship Seth –

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

95

Injures – Horus the injury of the eye of Horus is described in many different ways and

in many different texts. They are characterised by short simple sentences referring to

the eye of Horus as something that was hurt or taken. The texts in this relationship are

almost exclusively from the offering ritual, and the eye of Horus was thought of as a

metaphorical offering, which could stand in the place of the actual offering being given

to the deceased. Most often the context of the action is missing in the texts, indicating

that the simple reference to the event was important enough and effective as an offering

text. The fact that the eye of Horus was taken, injured or pulled out was the most

important aspect, without the need for more detail, which would have been known and

not required specific treatment. Its use as an offering shows how the divine was used as

a model for the real world in the same way as in other relationships, but in a different

context. Very little detail is given in the relationship about the contendings of Horus

and Seth, other than the fact that the deities contended. Presumably this was done over

the kingship; although this is not borne out in the texts directly, apart from one indirect

reference to disruption in Heliopolis, doubtless caused by Horus not being on the

throne. We know a great deal about the contendings of Horus and Seth from later

traditions but the struggle here is only referred to, indicating a lesser importance or

possibly an idea in its infancy.

Within the relationships between Horus and Seth, Osiris is not mentioned to a great

extent. A link between the events about Osiris and those about Horus and Seth is

missing, begging the question if one existed. The active role of Horus, the injury of the

eye of Horus and the contendings of Horus and Seth as a standalone event, could be

reflective of a separate tradition surrounding the struggle between these two deities,

which was amalgamated with the Osirian tradition as the Pyramid Texts were edited.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

96

That one god could have multiple personas was not uncommon in ancient Egypt and

the active nature of Horus here could just be a second aspect of the god. One cannot

forget that the pantheon of the gods was an ever changing entity and the identification

of Horus as the son of Osiris brought his struggle with Seth into relevance within the

Pyramid Texts. The Horus – Seth set could thus reflect the process of change as the

relationships between the gods were aligned with each other.

The difference between the length and the level of detail in some texts compared to

others is a striking aspect of the Pyramid Texts discussed in this chapter. The vast

majority of the texts are very short, often consisting of a simple identification of a deity

in a specific role, without much detail as to the situation, or the reasons for the situation

occurring. They prioritise information over exposition. The entire text might not

necessarily be short in these cases but the insertion of the Osirian element is. This

disparity indicates a purposeful editing of the divine into a short form for use within the

Pyramid Text corpora. The importance of the texts lay not in the context of the actions

or identifications, with all the details explained, but in the actions and events

themselves. A deity was thus equated with an action or role in a constant and

consistent manner with multiple texts referring to the same idea. This established and

maintained the identification throughout the Pyramid Texts and ensured the success of

the action that was being undertaken for the deceased. On an individual level this built

up the identity of each deity, situating them within the pantheon of gods. On a

collective scale the interrelations between the deities linked them through actions and

events, providing a more dynamic divine world with which to engage. The association

itself was more effective than a full exposition of the context of the events, characterised

by a full narrative. It provided a flexible way to utilise the important religious ideas

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

97

contained within the relationships between the deities, without the need for extended

narrative, which would be out of place within a corpus of texts not designed for this

purpose. As ritual recitations in their original form, they were designed to be

performed by a priest at the funeral, or learned by the deceased prior to death. Shorter,

simple texts lend themselves better to reciting and memorisation. Thus the inclusion of

short, excerpt-like texts, allowed the requirements of the texts to be attained more easily,

while maintaining the divine aspect.

In contrast to this, there are a number of texts145 that are much longer. These texts are

characterised by more detail, which display a concern for the context of the actions

being described. All of what might be considered the major events of the Osirian cycle

are present in some way in a longer version with the notable exception of the death of

Osiris. The search for Osiris is covered in much more detail in PT 535 where Isis and

Nephthys are commanded to hasten their search and weep for Osiris when they find

him. It provides detail of their mourning postures, painting a vivid image of the scene.

This is echoed in PT 694A where Isis and Nephthys scream out in delight when they

find Osiris, a point that would sit well in a retelling of the events, providing colour and

extra detail to an otherwise stark scene. PT 477 describes the court scene in which Seth

tries to defend himself against the charges of murder, eventually being found guilty by

the divine tribunal. Rather than a simple statement about the judgement and guilt of

Seth seen elsewhere in the Pyramid Texts, PT 477 has a sequence to the events, which

comes close to a narrative without using narrative linguistic forms. The way the scene is

described with quoted speech and the dialogue between Seth and the Dual Ennead is

suggestive of a known event within religious discourse. The punishment of Seth is

145 There are 13 texts; PT 260, 359, 366, 477, 485, 501C, 535, 542, 570, 580, 593, 641, 694A.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

98

described in detail in PT 366 and 593. PT 366 identifies Nut and Geb as the parents of

Osiris before relating that the Great Ennead will protect him by placing his opponent,

Seth, under him. Likewise, PT 593 gives the same details of the parentage of Osiris and

the protection being afforded him in placing Seth under him. The beneficial actions of

Horus towards Osiris are also given more detail in PT 485, 542 and 580. In PT 485 the

search by Geb for Osiris, a variant on the relationship Isis and Nephthys – Search for –

Osiris to be discussed in more detail in the subsequent chapter, provides the backdrop

to Osiris being saved. PT 542 describes a scene of Horus acting to protect Osiris by

commanding Thoth to kill anyone who hates Osiris and wants to see him hurt. In PT

580 the active side of Horus is again seen, where he saves Osiris by killing Seth;

although, it must be said that this text is still relatively undetailed compared to others.

In PT 260 the inheritance of Horus is described in terms of a court hearing with Shu and

Tefnut bearing witness and judging the righteousness of Horus’ rule, with the end result

of an end to the chaos in Heliopolis caused by Seth. PT 641 has less detail about the

inheritance but nevertheless, relates it with a concern for the entire scene being

described. The conception of Horus is treated in a similar way in PT 366; despite not

much detail being given, the text relates the event as a complete scene rather than a

simple identification. PT 359 describes the escape of the eye of Horus from Seth, as it

rides on the wing of Thoth to the far side of the Winding Canal, where apparently Seth

could not reach. PT 501C situates the injury of Horus in relation to the mutual sexual

violation between Horus and Seth. Rather than referring to the injury in isolation as is

done in other texts in the relationship, the whole scene is detailed. Lastly, PT 570 refers

to the injury of the eye of Horus in reference to a time before the event had happened,

before wrath, noise and strife had come into being. This temporal situating of an event

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

99

is mostly absent from the Pyramid Texts; its use here shows that it was known about,

despite not being referred to.

The difference in length of the texts identified in this chapter shows that the full details

of events were known to the text editors, but that more often than not they were

distilled into the most important aspect. This has to do with the context of ritual texts

where shorter events were more effective than long exposition. The majority of the

longer texts appear from the pyramid of Pepi I, PT 366 and 359 are attested in Teti’s

pyramid and PT 260 is only attested in the pyramid of Unis, suggesting that over time

the specific details of the events became more important as the space within the

pyramid complex, that was dedicated for inscriptions, was increased.

The development and evolution of the Pyramid Texts over time is also evident in the

corpora overall, where generally it is only in the pyramid of Pepi I where explicit detail

is forthcoming. In addition to more texts being attested in the pyramid of Pepi I across

all the relationships, the texts themselves are far more detailed in their treatment of the

events and actions. The fact that Seth was not explicitly identified as the murderer of

Osiris until Pepi I has already been commented upon as a consequence of the rules of

decorum not allowing the writing down of such an event, and the apparent lessening of

these rules. This same explanation can apply to the location of Osiris in Nedit and his

protection from Seth. It is only from the pyramid Pepi I where the opponent of Osiris is

mentioned in relation to protection, indicating that before this time it was not allowed to

be presented. In most relationships there are some texts from earlier pyramids, but they

are generally more simple statements or identifications, while the later texts from the

pyramid of Pepi I onwards are more elaborate and show more detail generally. The

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

100

relationships Horus – Revives – Osiris and Isis and Nephthys – Mourn – Osiris are good

examples of this. The resurrection of Osiris is put in general terms in earlier pyramids

such as in PT 223 and 357, which simply command the deceased to raise themselves. In

the texts from the pyramid of Pepi I, Horus is named in relation to the action. Likewise,

it is only from the pyramid of Pepi I where Isis and Nephthys are named specifically in

relation to the action of mourning. The relationship Isis and Nephthys – Search for –

Osiris does not occur at all until the pyramid Pepi I. While most of the relationships

might have been restricted by decorum due to their connection with the death of Osiris,

the injuries of Horus and Seth were not subjected to the same rules despite their violent

nature. The injury of the eye of Horus is referred to constantly during the offering

ritual, meaning the rules of decorum were not applied to everything violent. The

conception of Horus only appears from the pyramid of Teti and is referred to more often

after this time. It did not necessarily fall under the rules of decorum, yet it exhibits the

same kind of editing as other relationships thus the need for restriction alone cannot

easily account for the increase in detail over time. The reign of Pepi I evidently

signalled a change in religious thought and an increased engagement with the events of

the gods. A combination of the lessening of decorum, an increase in the importance of

the events of the gods and an increase in the space allowed for inscriptions in the

pyramid complex, allowed for much more detail to be included in the Pyramid Texts.

The core set of relationships identified in the Pyramid Texts link specific deities to

actions taken for, or against each other. They constantly and consistently refer to an

established event or action that must have been known in detail, despite them lacking

somewhat in the texts themselves. They prioritise information over exposition in order

to remain effective in a ritual setting but nonetheless detail a full account of the death of

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

101

Osiris and the events that occurred afterwards.

Having identified the textual material that is concerned with the death of Osiris in the

Pyramid Texts, the discussion here turns to the problem of narrative. In the

introduction to this study it was observed that the main criterion for the definition of

myth in Egyptology has been narrative. While this conception has begun to change,

with a growing number of scholars exploring the possibilities of non-narrative myth, the

issue requires investigation here. The conception of narrative in Egyptology has been

dominated by the works of Assmann146 and Baines,147 who variously interpret what a

narrative requires: a strict beginning, middle and end structure or the more elusive,

transitive conception. The narrative qualities of myth are well established in the

analytical schools of comparativism, psychoanalysis, functionalism, ritualism and

structuralism, but its application within Egyptology has had the effect of denying

mythical status to any text that does not exhibit these narrative qualities. Baines dates

the emergence of mythical narratives to the Middle Kingdom, when narrative literature

also appears in the written record.148 Compositions such as the Shipwrecked Sailor, the

Herdsman’s Story, the Instruction for Merikare, the Destruction of Mankind, Isis and Re

as well as the Great Hymn to Osiris all reflect usages of myth. They are not myth in

themselves but are instead considered partial myths being used within a wider literary

narrative. The Shipwrecked Sailor is the strongest example of this, where the story

within a story construction reflects a myth about the destruction of the world.149 This

application of narrative to Egyptological discussion has had the effect of denying

mythical status to texts based on their form rather than content. Dating myth earlier

146 Assmann, “Die Verborgenheit,” 20-21; Assmann, “Zeugung,” 30-31. 147 Baines, “Egyptian Myth,” 94. 148 Baines, “Myth and Literature,” 365. 149 Baines, “Interpreting the Story of the Shipwrecked Sailor,” JEA 79 (1990): 65-67.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

102

than the Middle Kingdom becomes impossible based on the preserved written record;

although Baines assumes the existence of myth in the Old Kingdom.150

In order to test this notion, the analysis of the textual material has not been concerned

with narrative qualities thus far. Taken individually, a single Pyramid Text cannot

encapsulate an entire myth, but taken collectively, the texts discussed in this study can

form a narrative picture of the events after the death of Osiris. Laid out in the most

logical sequence, a coherent story can be reconstructed as follows:

- Horus is conceived and born to Isis and Osiris

- Seth murders Osiris for reasons that are unclear, possibly jealousy.

- Seth hides the body of Osiris in Nedit and possibly dismembers him in the

process.

- Isis and Nephthys search for Osiris.

- They find him and mourn his loss.

- Isis and Nephthys join the body of Osiris back together and Horus resurrects

Osiris.

- With his father safe, Horus challenges Seth for the throne of Egypt. In the

conflict Horus and Seth injure each other.

- Horus eventually wins the battle before the Ennead and is given the throne, his

rightful inheritance.

- As punishment for his crime, Seth is charged with carrying the now inert Osiris.

While this construct is artificial to the Pyramid Texts and would include incongruities

depending on the placement of the conception of Horus,151 it nevertheless demonstrates

150 Baines, “Myth and Literature,” 365.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

103

that a full account, if not sequential narrative, of the events is present in the Pyramid

Texts.

While this reconstruction is based upon the texts identified in this study, the influence of

later accounts of the myth are ever-present. The extent to which the account preserved

in the Pyramid Texts can be divorced from the later narrative accounts is an inescapable

problem. Narrative is a primary form of comprehending reality, and so separating the

earlier account from a narrative conception, which is more recognisable as myth, is

difficult. The Great Hymn to Osiris,152 much like the Pyramid Texts, does not contain a

full narrative account of the myth but comes very close. In the initial sections of the text

Osiris is referred to as “Geb’s heir in the kingship of the Two lands” with other

references to his family lineage; however, the most vivid account is of the search for him

by Isis and the crowning of Horus:

His sister was his guard, she who drives off the foes, who stops the deeds of the

disturber by the power of her utterance. The clever-tongued whose speech does

not fail, effective in the word of command. Mighty Isis who protected her brother,

who sought him without wearying, who roamed the land lamenting, not resting

till she found him, who made a shade with her plumage and created breath with

her wings, who jubilated and joined her brother, raised the weary one’s inertness,

received the seed, bore the heir, raised the child in solitude, his abode unknown,

who brought him when his arm was strong into the broad hall of Geb. The

151 If the conception was placed after the search for Osiris as in later accounts, it would be difficult

to reconcile the importance of Horus to the resurrection of Osiris because he would not have been

born yet. The active nature of Osiris in the conception texts leaves the placement of the

conception of Horus at the beginning of the sequence, possibly as a motive for the murder by

Seth, as a viable option. 152 Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: Volume II The New Kingdom (Berkeley: University

of California Press, 1976), 81-86; Alexandre Moret, “La légende d'Osiris à l'époque thébaine

d'après l'hymne à Osiris du Louvre,”BIFAO 30 (1931): 725-750.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

104

Ennead was jubilant “Welcome, son of Osiris, Horus firm hearted, justified, son

of Isis, heir of Osiris.” The council of Maat assembled for him, the ennead, the

All-lord himself, the lords of Maat, united in her, who eschew wrongdoing. They

were seated in the hall of Geb, to give the office to its rightful owner. Horus was

found justified. His father’s rank was given to him and he came out crowned by

Geb’s command and received the rule of the two shores.

This account sequentially orders the events and describes them vividly, reflecting a

desire to relate the story in a coherent and effective manner. Lacking is any mention of

Seth in reference to the death of Osiris or the contending before the Ennead.

Presumably the situation was known to anyone reading the stela and the background

and specifics of the succession of Horus were unnecessary. This text dates to the

Eighteenth Dynasty153 and is the earliest account that shows a clear concern for ordering

the events and presenting them in a coherent narrative. Likewise, the Memphite

Theology154 shows the same concern. The text is heavily broken, but what is preserved

is an account of Geb giving Upper Egypt to Seth and Lower Egypt to Horus before

changing his mind and allotting Upper and Lower Egypt to Horus alone. Included is a

reference to Osiris drowning and the location of his tomb in the House of Sokar in

Memphis. The motivation of the text was not to present a full narrative of the events

but to combine major theological traditions into a pantheistic worldview in light of the

153 Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature II, 81. 154 J. H. Brestead, “The Philosophy of a Memphite Priest,” ZÄS 39 (1901): 39-54; Adolf Erman, “Ein

Denkmal memphitischer Theologie,” SPAW 43 (1911): 916-917; Hermann Junker, Die politische

Lehre von Memphis, APAW 1941, Phil.-hist. Kl. No. 6 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1941).

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

105

Amarna period, which this text postdates.155 Nevertheless, the text provides an account

of the events in a much more detailed and story-like manner. The final Egyptian source

worth discussing is the Contendings of Horus and Seth, which presents a full narrative

story of the battle between Horus and Seth for the kingship. This account is incredibly

detailed and satisfies any conception of narrative myth discussed in this study. The

details in the text differ remarkably from any other account reflecting the motivation

behind the text as primarily for entertainment; although, similarities remain,

particularly in the ‘homosexual’ episode, which is first attested in the Pyramid Texts.

The most notable source on the myth of Osiris is the narrative account of Plutarch,

which was constructed based on Egyptian accounts, which are no longer extant. The

details in this account show a similarity with the earlier Pharaonic traditions, but the

time span between them is such that the myth would have changed greatly.

Admittedly, the later sources differ from the Pyramid Texts but the similarities are

enough to suggest that, while the full narrative conception of the Osiris myth was only

recorded in the New Kingdom, it could date earlier than this. The writing down of

155 Boyo Ockinga, “The Memphite Theology – Its Purpose and Date,” in Egyptian Culture and

Society: Studies in Honour of Naguib Kanawati, ed. Alexandra Woods et al. Supplément aux annales

service des antiquités de l’Égypte 38 (Cairo: Conseil suprême des antiquités de l’Égypte, 2010),

107-113. The text has been variously dated from the Old Kingdom to the Twenty-fifth Dynasty,

for the earlier dates see Hartwig Altenmüller, “Denkmal memphitischer Theologie,” in LÄ 1, ed.

Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, 1975), 1065; Miriam

Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: Volume I The Old and Middle Kingdoms (Berkeley: University

of California Press, 1973), 51. F. Junge, “Zur Fehldatierung des sog. Denkmals memphitischer

Theologie oder Der Beitrag der ägyptischen theologie zur Geistesgeschichte der Spätzeit,”

MDAIK 29 (1973): 195-204, argued for the much later composition of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty.

Hermann Schlögl, Der Gott Tatenen. Nach Texten und Bildern des Neuen Reiches, OBO 29 (Gottingen:

Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1980), 112-117, instead dated the text to the Nineteenth Dynasty.

More recent studies have favoured the later dating, Vincent A. Tobin, “Myths: Creation Myths,”

in Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, ed. Donald Redford (New York: Oxford University Press,

2000), 2:470 and also the earlier dating Alexandre Von Lieven, Grundriß des Laufes der Sterne. Das

sogenannte Nutbuch, The Carlsberg Papyri 8, The Carsten Niehbuhr Institute of Near Eastern

Studies Publications 31 (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2007), 255-257.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

106

narrative in the New Kingdom does not preclude its existence before this time. The

appearance in the Pyramid Texts, of all the major events known from later sources,

shows that the full account was known and possibly had a level of sequential coherence,

which was not borne out in the Pyramid Texts themselves owing to their nature as ritual

texts. The situation seems to be more complex than an evolution from non-narrative to

narrative.

Instructive to the discussion here is the field of narratology.156 Similar to the concept of

myth, definitions of narrative are numerous.157 Prince prioritises the narrator and the

narratee in his definition:

Narrative is the representation…of one or more real or fictive events

communicated by one, two or several…narrators to one, two or several

narratees.158

156 The study of narratology has seen a revival in the last fifteen years. For summaries of

scholarship within the discipline see David Herman, “Introduction,” in The Cambridge Companion

to Narrative, ed. David Herman (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 3-

21; Gerald Prince, “Surveying Narratology,” in What is Narratology? Questions and Answers

Regarding the Status of a Theory, ed. Tom Kindt and Hans-Harald Müller (Berlin and New York:

Walter de Gruyter, 2003), 1-16. Prince has been a major contributor to the field of narratology, see

Gerald Prince, Narratology: The Form and Functioning of Narrative (Berlin: Mouton, 1982); Gerald

Prince, A Dictionary of Narratology (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1987); Gerald Prince,

“On Narrative Studies and Narrative Genres,” Poetics Today 11 (1990): 271-82; Gerald Prince,

“Reviewing Narratology,” Comparative Literature 44 (1992): 409-14; Gerald Prince, “Remodeling

Narratology,” Semiotica 90 (1992): 259-66; Gerald Prince, “On Narratology: Criteria, Corpus,

Context,” Narrative 3 (1995): 73-84; Gerald Prince, “Revisiting Narrativity,” in

Grenzüberschreitungen: Narratologie im Kontext ed. Walter Grünzweig and Andreas Solbach

(Tübingen: Narr, 1999), 43-51; Gerald Prince, “A Narratological Approach: The Narrator in Le Père

Goriot,” in Approaches to Teaching Balzac’s “Le Père Goriot,” ed. Michal Ginsburg (New York: MLA

Publications, 2000), 90-97; Gerald Prince, “A Commentary: Constants and Variables of

Narratology,” Narrative 9, No. 2 (2001): 230-233. 157 Marie-Laure Ryan, “Toward a Definition of Narrative,” in The Cambridge Companion to

Narrative, ed. David Herman (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 22-

38. Ryan questions the usefulness of a definition as the phenomena is variable, definition is not

always implicitly related to interpretation. 158 Gerald Prince, Dictionary of Narratology, Rev. ed. (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska

Press, 2003), 58.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

107

The need of a narrator is questionable as there are narrative texts that do not employ

them. This is reflected in a broader definition from Abbott in defining narrative as the

representation of an event159 or a series of events.160 Without an event or action there is

just description indicating the primacy of events to the existence of a narrative.

Narrative has its own time and order and must proceed chronologically from the

earliest to the latest; however, the order events take in a story can be quite different from

the order of events in the narrative discourse.161 The universality of narrative to human

conceptions of the world is commented on by Abbott, who writes that:

As soon as we follow a subject with a verb, there is a good chance we are engaged

in narrative discourse. 162

This aspect of narrative was already noted by Barthes in his seminal work:

Moreover, in this infinite variety of forms, it is present at all times, in all places,

in all societies; indeed narrative starts with the very history of mankind; there is

not, there has never been anywhere, any people without narrative.163

In a more complex definitional schema, Bal discerns three characteristics of narrative:164

- That there are two types of speakers in a narrative text. One does not play a role

in the story whereas the other does.

- There are three layers to a narrative text: the text, the story and the fabula.165

159 On the term event see Peter Hühn, “Event and Eventfullness,” in Handbook of Narratology, ed.

Peter Hühn et al. Narratologia 19 (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009), 80-97. An

event refers to a change of state and has become a defining characteristic in most definitions of

narrative and narrativity. 160 H. Porter Abbott, The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2002), 12 161 Abbott, Introduction to Narrative, 15 162 Abbott, Introduction to Narrative, 1. 163 Roland Barthes, “An Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative,” New Literary History

6 no. 2 (1975): 237-272. See also Mieke Bal, Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, 2nd

ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 220, “Not that everything ‘is’ narrative; but

practically everything in culture has a narrative aspect to it, or at the very least, can be perceived,

interpreted as narrative.” 164 Bal, Narratology, 9

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

108

- The contents of narrative are a series of events caused or experienced by actors

presented in a specific manner.

In this conception Bal admits that there can be texts which display all of the features

listed but are still not considered narrative texts. The narrative theory used can only

describe the narrative aspect of a text, which need not be the overriding aspect. The

narrative qualities of the text need not be the dominating characteristic for it to have

narrative qualities.166 In this view narratology defines and describes narrativity not

narrative. That is, it describes the extent to which an object has narrative properties;

narrativity is thus a cultural mode of expression rather than a static genre.167 Ryan also

discerns three characteristics of narrative:168

- Narrative involves the construction of the mental image of a world populated

with individuated agents and objects.

- This world must undergo not fully predictable changes that are caused by non-

habitual physical events.

- In addition to being linked with physical states by causal relations, the physical

events must be associated with mental states and events. This network of

connections gives coherence, motivation, closure and intelligibility and turns

them into a plot.

165 For Bal, the text consists of the words themselves, the use of a medium. The story, is an abstract

idea related to the ordering of events. The fabula is the product of the imagination, the events and

actions themselves. 166 Bal, Narratology, 10. 167 Bal, Narratology, 222. 168 Marie-Laure Ryan, “On the Theoretical Foundations of Transmedial Narratology,” in

Narratology beyond Literary Criticism: Mediality, Disciplinarity, ed. Jan Christoph Meister,

Narratologia 6 (Berlin and New York: Water de Gruyter, 2005), 4.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

109

She also makes the distinction between narrative and narrativity.169 Narrative can be

achieved by any semiotic object so long as it is produced in order to evoke a narrative.

The audience’s experience of the text is the defining characteristic of narrative; whereas,

narrativity evokes the narrative without intention to do so.170 Narrativity is thus a

variable descriptor of a text, in that different texts can have varying levels of narrative;

in contrast to narrative, which is a fixed class that a text either belongs to or does not.

Ryan notes that questions comparing narrativity are far more likely to illicit broad

agreement than questions asking if a text is narrative or not.171 As a concept, narrativity

is a more effective analytical tool than the concept of narrative alone. A fully narrative

text has sufficient levels of both these attributes, but the degree of narrativity is

subjective and varies greatly from object to object. This variability of narrative presents

itself in definitions as well, as Genette describes the situation of a minimal narrative

occurring:

For me, as soon as there is an action or an event, even a single one, there is a story

because there is a transformation, a transition from an earlier to a later and

resultant state.172

Such minimal narrative can consist of short simple statements such as “the boy ran,”

certainly not very interesting or detailed, but still a narrative under Genette’s

conception.

169 Maire-Laure Ryan, Avatars of Story: Narrative Modes in Old and New Media (Minneapolis:

University of Minneapolis Press, 2006), 10-11. See also, H. Porter Abbott, “Narrativity,” in

Handbook of Narratology, ed. Peter Hühn et al. (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009),

309-328. 170 Ryan, “Transmedial Narratology,” 6-7. 171 Ryan, “Toward a Definition,” 30. 172 Gérard Genette, Narrative Discourse Revisited, trans. Jane Lewin (Ithaca: Cornell University

Press, 1983), 18.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

110

Two consequences arise from this brief overview of narratology; first is that narrative

does not need to be the dominating characteristic in a text for narrative to occur and

second, narrative can occur in very short segments of text. The situation in the Pyramid

Texts maps onto these concepts very well. Embedded within a largely non-narrative

scheme, the texts that detail the events after the death of Osiris are still reflective of

narrative; or rather they exhibit characteristics of narrativity. Each short text, in so far as

they describe an event or action, can be thought of as having narrative qualities. They

may not satisfy a strict definition such as that of Prince in his insistence of the existence

of a narrator and narratee, but the broader definitions espoused by Abbott and Genette

all the identification of narrative. The texts discussed in this chapter describe events and

actions to do with the Heliopolitan gods, which reflect a level of transitivity required of

narrative. This is exemplified by Osiris, who dies and is revived; a transition from

living to dying to living again. The texts present a world, populated by actors, which

undergoes unpredictable change, the impetus for which was emotive. This satisfies the

three criteria of Ryan for narrative despite the level of narrativity being quite low.173

This low level of narrativity does not preclude the idea of the existence of the narrative

itself and is attributable to the primary function of the Pyramid Texts, as non-narrative

ritual texts. The level of narrativity in texts dealing with the myth of Osiris varies

greatly and it seems that the Egyptians were not concerned with the issue. Full

narrative myth, which displays a high level of both narrative and narrativity, would not

have been appropriate for the Pyramid Texts, but narrative myth did have efficacy to

173 For a study into a text with low levels of narrativity see, Brian McHale, “Weak Narrativity: The

Case of Avant-Garde Narrative Poetry,”Narrative 9 no. 2 (2001): 161-167. See also Brian Richarson,

“What is Unnatural Narrative Theory,” in Unnatural Narratives – Unnatural Narratology, ed. Jan

Alber and Rüdiger Heinze (Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2011), 23-40, who studies narratives,

which are not naturally classed as such.

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

111

some extent. They are embedded within a non-narrative ritual schema but nevertheless

retain their individual status as narrative.

The implications of this line of enquiry go beyond the Pyramid Texts themselves. The

narrative qualities present in the Pyramid Texts imply that mythic thought within

religious discourse was also narrative. The analytical distinction between a genotext

and phenotext illustrates this point further. On the phenotextual level the appearance of

the myth of Osiris in the Pyramid Texts is in a narrative format. It displays a level of

coherence and a possible sequence of events despite the low level of narrativity. This

would imply that on the genotextual level, that is, within the wider religious discourse,

which includes the oral sphere, the myth of Osiris was most likely thought of in a

narrative format as well. Mythic thought did not take the form of non-narrative

constellations, allusive entities, which would have had little efficacy in religious

discourse. As a primary way of conceiving the world, narrative would have been a

more effective tool for describing the world and the changes it went through.

This study approached myth without narrative as a guiding principle as a means of

testing its validity to the discussion of religious discourse in Old Kingdom Egypt.

Contrary to this approach it has been found that as a theoretical and methodological

framework, narrative is important when discussing myth. The universality of narrative

to human expression and thought is inescapable, and it is natural that the Egyptians

utilised narrative in their thoughts about Osiris and his death. This narrative

conception of myth is reflected in the religious textual material of the Old Kingdom,

which despite being predominantly non-narrative exhibits narrative qualities in relation

to events and actions of the Heliopolitan gods. Definitions of myth, in so far as they are

useful, should incorporate narrative, or more correctly narrativity, into them. Under

CHAPTER TWO

THE CORE RELATIONSHIPS

112

such a definition the texts discussed in this chapter should be considered narrative

myth, albeit with a low level of narrativity. They reflect a worldview, ordered

sequentially, which underwent change with events and actions related in enough detail

in order to evoke a known narrative.

113

CHAPTER THREE: VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

: INTRODUCTION 3.1

Having examined the core relationships in the Osiris myth and shown that their form

approaches narrative, this study now turns to the issue of variability. This aspect of the

investigation focusses on the appearance and use of other deities in the same roles as

those discussed in Chapter Two. Flexible identities or plot lines seem inimical to the

concept of narrative myth as they could cause incongruities in the story, rendering it

incomprehensible and ineffective. The possibility of a low level of narrativity, discussed

in Chapter Two, leaves the question of the purpose of variability in the Pyramid Texts

open. The mutable nature of the Egyptian pantheon has been commented on variously

by scholars174 and shown to allow the Egyptians a flexible and powerful way of

comprehending their world beyond static relationships.175 Goebs effectively

demonstrated the fixed structure that underlined many of the variations in the Pyramid

Texts, commenting that the lack of a fixed structure on the textual level allowed myth to

be adapted to different contexts.176 In general discourse on myth, variability is often

attributed to an early phase of myth before a canon is set down in a fully narrative

174 Goebs, “Functional Approach to Myth,” where the variable nature of Egyptian myth is

analysed and shown to have an underlying structure. The different identities occurring within

myth to perform the same action or role are thus not understood as inconsistencies but rather as a

characteristic of Egyptian myth, which allowed it to be adapted to a variety of different contexts

and purposes. See also Baines, “Myth and Literature,” 364-365; Erik Hornung, Conceptions of God,

125-128. 175 Baines, “Myth and Literature,” 364. 176 Goebs, “Functional Approach to Myth,” 58.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

114

form.177 This idea remains a possible explanation for the situation in the Old Kingdom,

as later accounts do seem to show a higher degree of narrative coherence. The purpose

of variability in relation to the Osiris myth in the Pyramid Texts deserves further

examination. In particular, the implication for the narrative aspects identified in

Chapter Two requires investigation. This chapter identifies and explores the variant

texts in each set in order to examine these concepts with three foci in mind. First, an

identification of which relationships exhibit variation. Not all relationships may diverge

and while the appearance of variant texts is of primary importance for this analysis, the

absence of change can be just as informative for discussing the use of myth in the

Pyramid Texts. Second, the extent to which variation occurs. Some relationships might

vary to a large degree, while others very little. Understanding possible reasons for this

will help enlighten the purpose of variability overall. In particular, the extent to which

some relationships were already concrete in the minds of the Egyptians and which ones

were fluid can help to show an evolution in the canonisation of the myth, if such a

process was in effect. Finally, the wider implications of variability can be considered.

Its purpose for myth and the interplay between variability and narrative will be

discussed in order to ascertain a deeper understanding of the complexity of the issue of

myth in the Pyramid Texts.

: OSIRIS – SETH 3.2

: SETH – KILLS – OSIRIS 3.2.1

The relationship Seth – Kills – Osiris exhibits no variation at all. In the Pyramid Texts it

is only ever Seth who kills Osiris. It has been shown that the exact identity of the

177 Doty, Mythography, 138, argues for three phases of the vitality of myth moving from the most

potent to the most rationalised. The first phase, primary myth, shows no developed mythic

narratives and inconsistencies occur due to this being the initial formation period. See also

Richard E. Moore, Myth America 2001 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 19-20.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

115

attacker is not always stated, but the lack of any other individuals specifically identified

leaves Seth as the only viable candidate in these situations. Likewise, Osiris is the only

deity whom Seth attacks in this way. It was shown in Chapter Two that Horus is also

the victim of the actions of Seth in their contendings; however, this should not be treated

as a variation on the Seth – Kills – Osiris relationship but rather as a separate and

distinct relationship. This lack of flexibility indicates that the ideas surrounding the

death of Osiris at the hands of Seth were well established by the time the Pyramid Texts

were inscribed and could not be modified for any purpose. This is to be expected given

the nature of the act that was committed and the inappropriateness of having more than

one murderer of Osiris. When one considers the level of constraint shown in the

pyramids of Unis and Teti in particular, it follows that the composers of the texts would

not associate other deities with this act.

: SETH – BEARS – OSIRIS 3.2.2

The relationship Seth – Bears – Osiris shows some minor variation in both the

individual who is borne, as well as the one who performs the act of bearing.

NUMBER OF VARIANT TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

SETH – BEARS – OSIRIS

PYRAMID VARIANT TEXTS

UNIS 1

TETI 1

PEPI I 2

MERENRE 1

PEPI II 3

NEITH 1

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

116

There are five variant texts,178 of which at least one is found in each of the pyramids

analysed as shown in the table above. In four of the texts,179 it is not Seth who bears

Osiris but rather the children of Horus. PT 368 and PT 648 have Horus giving his

children to Osiris so that they can bear him. PT 648 reads:

Osiris NN, Horus has given you his children so that they might bear you and you

might have control over them.

PT 544 and PT 644 differ in that they voice a command that the children should bear

Osiris. PT 644 reads:

Horus’s children, you should go under NN. Carry him. Let there be none of you

who turn back as you carry Osiris NN.

PT 247 deviates in a different way, describing a situation where Seth bears Atum rather

than Osiris:

Seth, he will bear you, he is the one who will bear Atum.

The substitution of Atum into this dynamic could be attributed to his role as the

Heliopolitan creator god. The fact that this text only appears in the pyramid of Unis

indicates that it may have been an early idea, which was subsequently edited out of

later iterations of the Pyramid Texts. Its early inclusion could reflect the importance of

Atum to the overall theology presented in the Pyramid Texts. As the punishment of

Seth became more important to Osirian tradition, the need to include the action of Seth

bearing Atum was superseded. This relationship shows relatively little flexibility as

there are more texts identifying Seth and Osiris in their roles than there are deviations.180

The fact that the variant texts were, for the most part, copied through all of the corpora

means that despite their fewer number, their actions were still important within the

178 PT 247, 368, 544, 644, 648. 179 PT 368, 544, 644, 648. 180 There are 12 core texts: PT 71B, 71C, 356, 357, 366, 368, 369, 371, 372, 593, 606, 673, and 5

variants: PT 247, 368, 544, 644, 648.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

117

Pyramid Texts overall. They could indicate a peripheral idea within the knowledge

about the divine that had to be acknowledged, if only briefly.

: OSIRIS – LOCATED IN – NEDIT 3.2.3

The relationship Osiris – located in – Nedit also deviates from the core texts. There are

three variant texts181 found only from Pepi I till Pepi II as shown in the table below.

THE NUMBER OF VARIANT TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

OSIRIS – LOCATED IN – NEDIT

PYRAMID VARIANT TEXTS

UNIS 0

TETI 0

PEPI I 2

MERENRE 2

PEPI II 3

NEITH 0

In all the texts it is the location that is subject to variation, rather than being in Nedit

when he dies, it is Ghesti where Osiris is found dead. PT 478 is similar to the core texts

in form reading:

You have come in search of your brother Osiris, his brother Seth having cast him

down on his side in Ghesti.

While the identity of the ‘you’ is unspecified, the context of the rest of the text182 leaves

181 PT 478, 485, 637 182 The beginning of PT 478 reads “Greetings, god’s ladder. Greetings, Seth’s ladder. Greetings

Seth’s Ladder. Stand up, god’s ladder. Stand up Seth’s ladder. Stand up Horus’s ladder made

for Osiris that he might go up on it to the sky and escort the sun, for you have come in search of

your brother Osiris, his brother Seth having cast him on his side in Ghesti.” After this section

Horus is the focus of the text as he speaks in it, and receives his eye making the identification of

Horus here most likely.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

118

Horus as the best choice. PT 637 names Horus specifically in relation to searching for

Osiris in Ghesti:

Horus comes, the one who fills with oil having searched for his father Osiris and

found him on his side in Ghesti.

Lastly PT 485 names Geb in the role of searching:

Geb has come with his striking power atop him and his yellow awe at his face, so

that he may strike you and inspect the desert hills in search of Osiris and he found

him placed on his side in Ghesti.

Te Velde notes the connection between Ghesti, which literally means the Land of the

Gazelles, and the desert. He argues that the appearance of the Seth animal in hunting

scenes in the tombs at Beni Hasan indicate his association with the desert.183 This

interpretation provides a link between the connotations of Seth and the geographical

location of the death of Osiris. The use of Ghesti could thus be attributed to a different

conception of the death of Osiris, connected to the iconography of Seth rather than a

play on words, as was observed with Nedit. Conversely, the use of Ghesti could have

been associated with the identity of the searcher of Osiris. Isis and Nephthys, who are

most commonly associated with the search for Osiris, are notably absent from the

variant texts, in preference for Horus and Geb. The location of Ghesti therefore seems to

be associated to the tradition of Horus or Geb searching for Osiris, while Nedit was

associated with Isis and Nephthys. The appearance of both traditions, without any

apparent thought for inconsistency seems to reflect an attempt at incorporating two,

possibly regional, ideas into the one theology. Much like the others in this set so far, this

relationship has a low degree of variation showing that Nedit was clearly favoured as

the location for the deceased Osiris. From the reign of Pepi I, with the expansion of the

183 Te Velde, Seth, God of Confusion, 111.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

119

Pyramid Text corpus as a whole, the location of Ghesti could have been added to the

Pyramid Texts presumably adding to their efficacy overall.

: OSIRIS – PROTECTED/SAVED – SETH 3.2.4

The identities in the relationship Osiris – Protected/Saved – Seth are immutable. While,

the individuals who perform the actions are numerous,184 Osiris is only ever protected

or saved from the actions of Seth.185 In the relationship Seth – Kills – Osiris, Seth was

singular in his actions against Osiris. This lack of fluidity in the role of Seth is thus

reflected in Osiris – Protected/Saved – Seth. It maintains the idea, discussed earlier, that

the relationship between Osiris and Seth was already established by the time of the

inscription of the Pyramid Texts. Once the rules of decorum allowed its use, it was

utilised consistently throughout the corpora.

: OSIRIS – HORUS 3.3

: HORUS – SON OF – OSIRIS 3.3.1

The genealogical relationship between Horus and Osiris is subject to some variation.

This is not the only familial relation to exhibit contradictions but is discussed here

particularly due to its importance for the myth of Osiris.186 There are three variant

texts187 the distribution of which is shown in the table below.

184 A point that will be discussed in 3.3.2 in regards to the relationship Horus – Saves/Protects –

Osiris. 185 There are texts which mention the action of saving, protecting or defending in general. The

lack of a context which might point to another individual taking the place of Seth has meant that

they cannot be reliably counted as variations. 186 For example Horus and Seth being brothers and also uncle and nephew, Griffiths, Horus and

Seth, 12-13. See also Assmann, The Search for God, 134-135. The confusion in genealogy is

attributed to different traditions as Horus and Seth are brothers in relation to their contendings

and uncle and nephew in relation to Osiris cycle. 187 PT 461, 465, 478.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

120

THE NUMBER OF VARIANT TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

HORUS – SON OF – OSIRIS

PYRAMID VARIANT TEXTS

UNIS 0

TETI 1

PEPI I 3

MERENRE 2

PEPI II 3

NEITH 0

Atum is identified in the role of the father of Horus in two texts, PT 461 and PT 465. The

former reads:

You shall set course to the Marsh of Reeds, (where you will) farm emmer, reap

barley and make your yearly supplies for them like Horus, Atum’s son.

PT 465 relates more specifically to the succession patterns:

NN will take the crown there like Horus, Atum’s son.

This relationship differs again in PT 478 where Geb is placed in this role twice within

the text:

Horus has come with his wrath atop him, his face greeting his father Geb.

And later in the same text:

Like Horus’ becoming excited at meeting his eye when his eye was given to him in

the presence of his father Geb.

While there are many more texts that place Osiris in this role than any other deity, these

differences in the genealogy are interesting. The genealogy most often adhered to is the

Heliopolitan cosmogony, versions of which are preserved in PT 219 and PT 600, where

Atum creates Shu and Tefnut who give birth to Geb and Nut who then give birth to

Osiris, Seth, Isis and Nephthys, while Horus is the son of Osiris and Isis. The possibility

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

121

of differing traditions where Atum and Geb were substituted for Osiris should not be

discounted, but it seems more likely that their appearance rests on the use of the word

for son (sA) as also meaning grandson or descendant.188 This is supported by PT 219

where Osiris is named as the “son of” Atum, Shu, Tefnut, Geb and Nut all within the

same text. This allowed an ease of expression within the texts while still remaining

coherent in terms of a genealogy. The variant texts thus reflect a desire to collect a

comprehensive genealogy of the Heliopolitan gods.

: HORUS – SAVES/PROTECTS – OSIRIS 3.3.2

In addition to Horus, Geb, Nut, the Ennead and the deceased himself are placed in the

role of saving and protecting. There are 15 variant texts189 appearing from the pyramid

of Teti onwards.

THE NUMBER OF VARIANT TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

HORUS – SAVES/PROTECTS – OSIRIS

PYRAMID VARIANT TEXTS

UNIS 0

TETI 2

PEPI I 11

MERENRE 12

PEPI II 11

NEITH 12

The similarity in the number of core and variant texts demonstrates the highly flexible

nature of this relationship. Geb is mentioned in the most variant texts protecting and

saving Osiris. PT 368 mentions protection generally:

188 This is noted in Griffiths, Horus and Seth, 13 note 2. 189 PT 254, 368, 427, 428, 485, 588, 592, 593, 611, 619, 665B, 665D, 690.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

122

Geb has become satisfied with you since he has loved you and he has protected

you.

PT 611 and PT 665D both add the family relationship that exists between the two gods:

Enter into the house of protection, your father Geb having protected you.

And:

Your father Geb having protected you.

Only one text mentions what Osiris is being protected against, PT 592:

You (Geb) have come to this Osiris NN that you protect him from his enemy.

The enemy here, although not named, is most likely to have been Seth. Geb also saves

Osiris in PT 485:

Osiris, stand up for your father Geb that he may save you from Seth. I am the one

who placed Seth on his side, bound his two feet and bound his two arms and

placed him in Tarou. Horus, take him with you to the sky. I am the one who will

save your father, who will save Osiris from his brother Seth.

This text goes beyond a simply identification, describing the scene and action in detail.

In particular, the actions of Geb actions towards Seth show a desire for retribution,

echoing the language of Seth – Kills – Osiris in placing Seth on his side rather than

Osiris. The place for this action, Tarou190 (tA-rw), is unique to this text and an exact

location for this site in unknown. Allen suggests that it could be a variant of the name

for the nome of Abydos, Great-Land (tA-wr).191 This is an interesting idea, given the

association of Abydos as the location for the tomb of Osiris; however, this metathesis

would have to be the result of an error on the part of the inscriber. Alternatively, the

word rw could come from the verb rwi, to expel or drive off. This would make it a play

190 This place name has also been translated as Lion-Land, Allen, Pyramid Texts, 132-133, but the

lack of a lion determinative casts doubt on this. The rendering of Tarou is thus used here to avoid

any imposition of meaning onto the name. 191 Allen, Pyramid Texts, 435. See also Zibelius, Siedlungen nach Texten, 255.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

123

on words, like the name for Nedit. The lack of a lion determinative and the context of

the statement make this association a possibility; Tarou could thus have been connected

with the driving away of Seth in saving Osiris. When Nut is mentioned in this

relationship, it is only ever in relation to protection, rather than saving. The texts are

usually short and lack detail about the situation behind the action. PT 368 reads:

She, encircling you from everything adverse, in her name of Great Encircler. You

are the eldest of her children.

Likewise PT 588:

She has encircled you from everything adverse, in her name of Great Encircler.

You are the eldest of her children.

Rather than protecting from a specific threat, the responsibility of Nut was general

protection from anything that was bad or potentially threatening towards Osiris. PT 593

is shorter simply stating:

Nut has fallen over her son who is in you that she may protect you.

PT 428 is similar, being a command for Nut to “encircle him.” The only text that gives

any detail is PT 427, which mentions Seth directly as the cause of Nut extending her

protection:

Nut, spread yourself upon your son Osiris NN that you may conceal him from

Seth. Join him, Nut who comes to you that you may conceal your son as he who

comes to you. You should join this great one.

This suggests that the other smaller texts could also have concerned Seth but naming

him specifically was not necessary. Seth is named in PT 593, but in relation to the

Ennead:

Geb has wiped your mouth for you, the Ennead has saved you. They have placed

Seth under you so that he is burdened with you. They have stopped him

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

124

expectorating his spit at you. Nut has fallen over her son who is in you that she

may protect you.

This is the only text that mentions the Ennead, but their appearance shows that the

responsibility of protection extended to a variety of deities. Last, a group of texts

concerns the deceased, who saves himself. PT 254, appearing only in the pyramids of

Unis and Teti, reads:

NN has saved himself from those who would have done this against him.

The identities from whom he is saving himself are not mentioned, although the early

use of the text could suggest a tradition of a plurality of enemies, which was less

important. PT 690 also mentions the deceased saving himself:

Saving yourself from your opponent.

An indirect reference to Seth is used here as it is done in other texts. PT 619 differs in

that it is formulated as a command:

Save yourself against those who would act against you.

Similarly PT 665B:

NN, you shall exercise control there, for the god has commanded that you save

yourself from the claim of your opponent.

In these texts the deceased is commanded by an unknown personality to save

themselves, either from many enemies, as in PT 254, or from a single enemy in PT 690.

While many of the variant texts share a form similar to the core texts generally, the

variant texts reference a perceived threat by an opponent or enemy, as opposed to the

core texts, where Horus is charged with saving Osiris from the state of death or just

generally without any further details. This suggests that different threats to Osiris were

taken care of by different deities, but Horus was the primary protector. As Osiris

needed saving not only from Seth but also death and possible other enemies, the

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

125

multitude of deities would ensure that this protection was maintained.

: HORUS – REVIVES – OSIRIS 3.3.3

The responsibility of reviving Osiris was shared among many different individuals as

well. There are 78 variant texts192 the distribution of which is shown in the table below.

THE NUMBER OF VARIANT TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

HORUS – REVIVES – OSIRIS

PYRAMID VARIANT TEXTS

UNIS 4

TETI 14

PEPI I 70

MERENRE 35

PEPI II 64

NEITH 28

Of the variant texts the most prolific are those which place the deceased as Osiris, in the

role of reviving himself. This is done using the euphemisms ‘stand up’, ‘raise yourself’,

and ‘awaken’. The deceased is most often commanded to “Raise yourself this NN”,193

with other texts adding detail such as PT 711:

Raise yourself to those who are greater than you.

And PT 714:

Raise yourself upon your metal bones and your golden limbs!

These texts usually appear in the burial chamber or the west wall of the antechamber,

192 PT 223, 246, 247, 260, 262, 355, 364, 365, 366, 372, 373, 412, 413, 419, 422, 436, 437, 440, 451, 452,

453, 457, 459, 460, 462, 468, 477, 482, 483, 487, 498, 504, 512, 513, 515, 523, 532, 536, 537, 540, 545,

546, 553, 556, 561B, 593, 596, 603, 604, 606, 610, 612, 619, 662, 664E, 665A, 665B, 666, 667B, 670, 674,

675, 676, 677, 688, 690, 694A, 700, 701A, 711, 714, 729, 733, 735, 760, 767, 793, 794. 193 PT 365, 373, 436, 437, 460, 462, 477, 483, 504, 512, 532, 536, 553, 603, 604, 606, 610, 665A, 667B,

675, 676, 677, 694A, 701A.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

126

which suggests their importance in surrounding the body with texts designed to help

with the reviving of the deceased.

Some texts differ in the use of the command such as PT 412, which reads:

Raise yourself from upon your left side and sit upon your right side.

This idea is found in seven other texts194 with only minor differences, as well as PT 487

and 760, which use “stand up” rather than “raise yourself”. These texts clearly link the

left side of the body with the state of being dead and the right side with living. The act

of turning to the right side was thus a move towards living again. PT 247 uses this idea

as well but does not mention a specific side:

NN raise yourself from upon your side! Perform the command, you, the one who

hates sleep but were made weary.

The general reference to the side of the body, combined with the euphemism for death,

reinforces the idea of the state of death being remedied through the act of changing the

position of the body.195 PT 537 and 545 command the deceased to “stand up!” without

any other details given. Most often, the motif is combined with some other aspect such

as PT 223:

Stand up and take to yourself this bread that is yours in my hand.

And PT 246:

Stand up this NN as one upon whom are horns, the double wild bull!

The use of bread is also found in PT 482, commanding the deceased to raise himself onto

his right side “towards this fresh bread which I have made for you.” The deceased

needing sustenance speaks to their revived status. Finally there are texts that use the

word “awaken” in reference to the deceased being made to live. Being mostly simple

194 PT 482, 619, 662, 666, 700, 733, 793, 794. 195 In Predynastic burials at Naqada the body was generally placed on the left side facing west, see

Alice Stevenson, “Predynastic Burial Rituals,” in Egypt: Ancient Histories, Modern Archaeologies, ed.

Rachael Dann and Karen Exell (Amherst and New York: Cambria Press, 2013), 21.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

127

commands, PT 498 and 561B are typical:

Awaken Osiris! Awaken!

PT 690 adds more detail:

May NN awaken, the inert god wake up.

The apparent implication is that through the awakening the deceased is made to live

again. While each of these ideas occurs separately, they also occur in conjunction with

each other, which may have served to increase their effectiveness. PT 355, 366, 459 and

612 simply combine standing and raising in the following formula:

Stand up and raise yourself!

PT 419 uses the combination in a different way, while referencing the deceased getting

up and shaking off dust and earth:

Stand up! Throw off your earth! Cast off your dust! Raise yourself!

This could refer to the Predynastic period, when simple burials in the sand were more

common than monumental tombs, which meant that the deceased was literally buried

under earth and dust.196 PT 413 commands the deceased to awaken and raise himself

with the added detail that they should receive their head197 in doing so while PT 451

differs again:

Awaken and raise yourself, stand up so that you may purify yourself and you

may be pure.

The grouping of references to reviving could have been done in order to make them

more effective, as the combination of many references surrounding the body ensured

196 Carol A. R. Andrews, introduction to The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, trans. Raymond O.

Faulkner, ed. Carol Andrews, rev. ed. (London: Published for the Trustees of the British Museum

Publications, 1985), 11; Alice Stevenson, “Aesthetics of Predynastic Egyptian Burial,”

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 22 (2007): 80. The aspiration of movement in the next life

existing in the Early Dynastic Period is pointed to by Wengrow and Baines, “The Ritual

Construction of Memory,” 1105. 197 This could be a similar reference to the dismemberment of the body in predynastic times. See

Wengrow and Baines, “Ritual Construction of Memory.”

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

128

their purpose was successful. In addition to the deceased as Osiris reviving himself,

other individuals are identified in the role as well. Seth is placed in this role in four

texts. PT 437, 532 and 610 are all similar reading:

Awaken for Horus, stand up for Seth!

While PT 729 omits Horus:

Stand for Seth as Osiris, as an akh, the son of Geb, one at whom the Ennead

trembles.

The combination of Horus and Seth in a positive situation could be reflective of an

earlier tradition before Seth had taken on the villainy associated with the murder of

Osiris.198 The texts identifying Horus outnumber those of Seth, suggesting that the

change in roles over time was clear to those who composed and edited the texts for

inscription. Nut is also mentioned as one who revives Osiris. PT 364 identifies Nut as

the tomb who the deceased rises up to:

You being made to rise up to her in her name of the Tomb.

PT 593 and 664E read the same:

That she may raise you.

The title given to Nut as the tomb is akin to her title of sarcophagus which appears more

regularly. Both titles associated Nut with the protection of the deceased as well as their

rebirth through the symbolic identification of the tomb or sarcophagus as the body or

198 Bernard Mathieu, “Seth polymorphe: le rival, le vaincu, l’auxiliaire,” ENiM 4 (2011): 137-158,

who argues for the polysemic nature of Seth as his characteristic as the murderer of Osiris is

superimposed on the already existing tradition of the god of Ombos.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

129

womb of the goddess.199 PT 546 also names Nut as she commands Osiris to rise to her:

I am Nut. Make this Osiris NN rise up to me!

PT 553 is formulated in the same way as the two later Nut texts but names Geb instead:

Let Geb raise you.

Thoth is linked to the actions of Horus in PT 477:

Horus has come and Thoth has appeared that they raise Osiris from upon his side.

It seems the combined actions of Horus and Thoth were needed in order to make Osiris

live again. Thoth appears as the helper of Horus in many of the Pyramid Texts. The

Dual Ennead is mentioned in PT 468, while an individual called the “Foremost of

Letopolis” is placed in this same role as the one who raises the deceased. Lastly PT 262

reads:

It is the Hieroglyphs which make him rise up.

This could be a reference to the Pyramid Texts themselves, or possibly their antecedents,

which were ascribed with the power to make someone live on in the next life. It is

interesting that this text is from a personal origin implying that the idea of the power of

writing was part of the personal knowledge that had to be held by the individual in

order for them to live on. Overall, the relationship shows a high level of deviation from

199 Nut was considered a personification of the sarcophagus and was thus vital in the protection of

the deceased, a role which was explored in more detail earlier in this study. Additionally Nut is

described more regularly as the sarcophagus which served as the body or womb of the goddess

allowing the deceased to be reborn through her Lesko, Great Goddesses, 28; Nils Billing, Nut the

Goddess of Life in Text and Iconography (Uppsala: Uppsala University, 2002), 25-76; 181-184; Nils

Billing, “Text and Tomb: Some Spatial Properties of Nut in the Pyramid Texts,” in Egyptology at

the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists

Cairo 2000, ed. Zahi Hawass (Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2003), 2:133, who

argues that the introduction of Nut as the sarcophagus in the Pyramid Texts allowed the

deceased access to the sky without the need for ascension. See also Mahmoud Hussein,

“Anatomy of the Egyptian Tomb: “The Egyptian Tomb as a Womb”,” DE 49 (2001): 25-33. Her

protective and regenerative role in this guise is also noted by Amanda-Alice Maravelia, “Cosmic

space and Archetypal time: Depictions of the sky-goddess Nut in Three Royal Tombs of the New

Kingdom and her Relation to the Milky Way,” GM 197 (2003): 58. While these concepts were

mostly related to the sarcophagus, the tomb could have been used in the same way as noted by

Vincent Tobin, “Gender Symbolism in the Pyramid Texts,” JSSEA 37 (2010): 101 n. 28.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

130

the core texts, with many texts identifying different individuals in the role of reviver.

The vast majority of these references refer to the deceased himself and the texts make it

unclear who, if anyone, might be commanding him. For this reason they have been

included as variants of Horus rather than as the core element. The multitude of deities

included in this relationship indicates that the identity of the deity was not of primary

importance, but rather the action being performed for Osiris. The greater the number of

instances of the action that could be included would ensure the success of the action.

: HORUS – SUCCESSOR OF – OSIRIS 3.3.4

The flexibility seen in the relationship of succession is different to others, in that variant

texts do not identify another deity in the same role as Horus being the heir of Osiris.

Instead, they identify the wider succession pattern of the Heliopolitan gods from Atum

through Geb to Osiris. There are 14 variant texts200 and they appear across every

pyramid as seen in the table below.

THE NUMBER OF VARIANT TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

HORUS – SUCCESSOR OF – OSIRIS

PYRAMID VARIANT TEXTS

UNIS 3

TETI 4

PEPI I 14

MERENRE 8

PEPI II 14

NEITH 7

200 PT 3, 9, 256, 306, 307, 356, 371, 468, 574, 578, 592, 606, 641, 677.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

131

The majority of variant texts identify Osiris as the heir of Geb, as PT 256 simply states:

NN has inherited from Geb! NN has inherited from Geb!

This exclamation places the deceased in the role of Osiris, who is said to inherit the

throne from Geb, his father.

Similarly, Osiris takes his inheritance in PT 606:

Seize your father Geb’s inheritance in the presence of the Ennead in Heliopolis

like one similar to him.

The family relationship between Geb and Osiris, as father and son, is emphasised

lending justification to the act of taking the inheritance. This is also done in front of a

divine presence, in this case the Ennead, making the succession legitimate. In PT 468

and 641 Osiris is given the inheritance in much the same way as Horus is given his in

the core texts. The text has the Ennead giving the ‘great seat’ to the deceased, who is

then identified with Geb, Osiris, and Horus successively highlighting the rightful

succession that was thought to have taken place. PT 641 is a text in the mouth of Horus

who speaks to Osiris:

I have come that I might speak on your behalf for I am your son. Osiris NN you

are the eldest son of Geb his first born, his heir. Osiris NN you are the one who

appears after him, for the inheritance has been given to you by the Ennead.

Once again the family relationship is emphasised and the Ennead is identified as the

group, who gives the inheritance to Osiris because of his relationship to Geb. As the

father of Osiris, Geb is also identified as the one who gives the inheritance to Osiris. PT

3 reads:

He has given to him his inheritance on the presence of the Great Ennead. All the

gods are rejoicing saying “how good is this NN with whom his father Geb is

content.”

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

132

The giving of the inheritance is done in the presence of the Ennead as was Osiris’ taking

his inheritance, lending the same legitimacy to the act. The difference in action makes it

unclear whether the inheritance was thought of as primarily given to the recipient or

taken by them; it is possible it was thought of as one action. PT 356 and 371 are identical

simply reading:

Geb has seen your form and he has put you in your place.

Without any other divine overseeing, apparently the nature of Osiris was enough to

guarantee his inheritance. PT 306 expresses the same idea, in a slightly different way,

simply stating that Geb acted for Osiris in the same way the he was acted for. The

implication is that just as Geb was given his inheritance, so too was Osiris and that this

was a necessary step in the succession process. The wish for Osiris to be on the throne is

also expressed as it was for Horus, for example PT 578 reads:

May you stand before the gods, eldest son, as the heir, as the one upon the throne

of Geb.

PT 677 is similar in its expressing a wish for Osiris to be “upon the throne of Osiris.” In

other texts Osiris is simply identified as the heir or successor of Geb. PT 9 is a short text

which simply read:

Son of Re, Geb’s heir.

This text has Osiris as the son of Re rather than Geb but still maintains the identification

of Osiris as the heir of Geb. The occurrence of Re in this context is to be expected; the

use of the epithet “Son of Re” stretches back to the Fourth Dynasty and Re had in

essence become the state god of Egypt by the Fifth Dynasty. These texts are prolific in

the pyramids appearing multiple times in each from Pepi I onwards reflecting the

importance of Re as well as the relationship of succession. PT 307 describes the birth of

Osiris as a Heliopolitan god when Re was at the head of the Ennead, finishing with the

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

133

identification “the heir of his father Geb.” Finally, PT 574 reads:

This NN has come to you Horus, Geb’s heir of whom Atum says “All is for you.”

In addition to Osiris being the heir of Geb one text, PT 592, describes the succession of

Geb:

Ah Geb, this is Osiris NN, gather him to you that what is against him might end.

You alone are the Great God for Atum has given to you his inheritance.

This text maintains the lineage of Geb. This established a succession from Horus back to

the beginning of time. The variant texts show that the relationship exhibited a relatively

high degree of mutability but not in the same way as in others. Rather than being a

deviation in the strictest sense, the relationship shows the different ways in which the

idea of succession was utilised between deities. The identities of the deities differ

according to which succession pattern is being referred to here. Taken together, the core

and variant texts establish a line of true succession from Atum, through Geb and Osiris

to Horus. This idea of the rightful succession was not only at the core of the Osiris myth

but the core of Egyptian kingship, making its appearance in the Pyramid Texts vital to

their efficacy.

: HORUS – ACTS FOR – OSIRIS 3.3.5

Within the relationship of acting generally for Osiris there are no variant texts, which

could be identified either placing another individual in the role of Horus or Osiris. The

core texts are very specific in their identification of the actions taken on behalf of Osiris

by Horus, rather than being about saving or protecting they are in the vein of tending or

taking care of Osiris. It is thus fitting that only Horus performs these actions and it is

reflective of the expectations of the relationship between the son and the father. The

lack of any variant texts could point to fixity in this specific aspect of the relationship

between Horus and Osiris. Given that the protecting of Osiris was the most important it

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

134

seems fitting that it would receive the most attention and need the highest number of

iterations to ensure its success. The tending of Osiris was not as vital and so could be

identified with Horus alone.

: OSIRIS – ISIS AND NEPHTHYS 3.4

: ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – MOURN – OSIRIS 3.4.1

The relationship of mourning exhibits no variation in the texts. It is only Isis and

Nephthys who are identified in role of mourning Osiris. This action was clearly

reserved for these particular deities and could only be effective when they were

performing it. This makes sense as it is typically women identified in this role, as

discussed in the previous chapter, and Isis and Nephthys became the quintessential

mourners for the deceased. By the time the Pyramid Texts were inscribed then, the

relationship linking Isis and Nephthys to Osiris through mourning was already

established and concrete enough to not warrant any other individuals being identified

in the same way.

: ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – SEARCH FOR – OSIRIS 3.4.2

Unlike the previous relationship the searching for Osiris was not only performed by Isis

and Nephthys. There are nine variant texts201 and they appear in every pyramid expect

for Unis as shown in the table below. The majority of texts mention Horus in the role of

the searcher, PT 20 is an offering text in the mouth of Horus:

I have come in search of you for I am Horus.

PT 356, 636 and 667A are similar, the latter reading:

When he seeks his father Osiris.

201 PT 20, 356, 478, 485, 579, 636, 637, 659, 667A.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

135

THE NUMBER OF VARIANT TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – SEARCH FOR – OSIRIS

PYRAMID VARIANT TEXTS

UNIS 0

TETI 1

PEPI I 7

MERENRE 3

PEPI II 10

NEITH 3

The family relationship between the two gods is referenced in this context in other texts

as well. PT 478 reads:

You have come in search of your brother Osiris, his brother Seth having cast him

down upon his side in Ghesti.

While the identity of the searcher is not identified explicitly, the context of the rest of the

text leaves Horus as the best candidate rather than Isis and Nephthys, given that they

are not mentioned in the text in any capacity. The identification of Horus as the brother

of Osiris, rather than the son, can be explained by a desire on the part of the text editors

to maintain symmetry in the texts, which can be seen throughout the Pyramid Texts. PT

637 mentions the offering of oil to the deceased with the added detail of the search:

Horus comes, the one who fills with oil having searched for his father Osiris and

found him on his side in Ghesti.

PT 659 simply mentions the search in the context of the family relationship:

Indeed, this your going; indeed these goings of yours, are the goings of Horus in

seeking his father Osiris.

PT 579 is similar in form but lacks the family relationship. Lastly, PT 485 contains two

different identifications; the deceased, acting as Horus, searches for Osiris:

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

136

NN is the one who came in search of your son Osiris and found him placed on his

side.

Later in the same text Geb is placed in this role:

Geb has come with his wrath atop him and his yellow awe at his face, tramping

the mountain ranges and scouting the desert hills in search of Osiris.

This is the only text that identifies Geb in this role indicating the priority accorded

Horus in the regard. It seems then, that the searching for Osiris was subject to much

variation. Not only do Isis and Nephthys perform the action, which they typically

became known for in later traditions, Horus and Geb both do this in various situations.

This high degree of variation shows that this relationship was fluid and could be

manipulated to fit different contexts or traditions.

: ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – FIND – OSIRIS 3.4.3

Similar to the searching for Osiris, the relationship of finding is also not confined to Isis

and Nephthys. There are five variant texts202 mentioning Osiris being found by a

different god. Like the previous relationship, they appear in all the pyramids except

that of Unis. The most general texts are PT 364 and 371, which appear in almost every

corpus and read:

Horus has found you and has become an akh through you.203

PT 637, discussed above, has Horus finding Osiris in Ghesti after searching for him:

Horus comes, the one who fills with oil having searched for his father Osiris and found

him on his side in Ghesti.

202 PT 364, 371, 485, 637, 674 203 PT 371 has a minor difference reading “Horus has found you and become akh in you.”

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

137

THE NUMBER OF VARIANT TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – FIND – OSIRIS

PYRAMID VARIANT TEXTS

UNIS 0

TETI 2

PEPI I 3

MERENRE 3

PEPI II 5

NEITH 2

Written in the first person rather than the third, PT 674 identifies Horus in the role of

finding, who simply says that he will find Osiris and tie his face on. Lastly, PT 485,

mentioned above, has Horus in the role of the deceased, where after searching for Osiris

it states that he “found him placed on his side.” The text also mentions Geb in the same

passage quoted above, where he finds Osiris in Ghesti as well. The same variation seen

in the relationship of searching is also seen here with finding. This is to be expected

given the intertwined nature of the two actions. What is noteworthy is that where there

were many variant texts in the searching relationship compared to the core texts, there

are less in the finding. This could mean that while the searching for Osiris was shared

almost equally between Isis and Nephthys and Horus, with Geb also appearing, the

finding of Osiris was not so equal. Isis and Nephthys are clearly dominant in this,

which could be attributed to the mortuary aspects of their nature. Horus being included

here in a lesser way suggests that the relationship, while still fluid, was less so then its

counterpart and Isis and Nephthys were thought of as the main performers of this role.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

138

: ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – JOIN/UNITE/ASSEMBLE – OSIRIS 3.4.4

The relationship concerning the joining, uniting or assembling of Osiris has many

variations. There are 30 variant texts204 appearing mostly from the pyramid of Teti

onwards. Focussing on the content of the texts, PT 357 appears in all the corpora except

for Unis and states simply that:

Horus has united you.

PT 364 and PT 367 build on this, mentioning that Horus gathered the limbs of the

deceased and then “assembles” them.

THE NUMBER OF VARIANT TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – JOIN/UNITE/ASSEMBLE – OSIRIS

PYRAMID VARIANT TEXTS

UNIS 1

TETI 11

PEPI I 26

MERENRE 16

PEPI II 26

NEITH 14

PT 606, which only appears from Pepi I to Pepi II, gives more detail again saying:

I have come for you that I might clean you, cleanse you, make you live, gather

your bones for you, collect for you your loose parts, and assemble for you your

dismembered parts.

The details that appear to be added for this later text firstly, concern the reason for the

assembling of the body, in that it will cause the deceased to live again and secondly, that

204 PT 271, 356, 357, 364, 365, 367, 368, 370, 373, 413, 415, 447, 448, 450, 451, 452, 457, 478, 546, 606,

637, 649, 664D, 665B, 665D, 667B, 676, 700.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

139

the parts of the body were dismembered. The word here dmAwt, is derived from the

verb dmA ‘to cut’ and is one of the few instances where the dismembering of Osiris is

specified. Nut is also identified in this role, often being referring to as the mother of the

deceased. The texts do not appear in the corpora until the pyramid of Pepi I, with one

exception, PT 271, which appears in the corpus of Unis and continues until that of Pepi

II; although, it is missing from the pyramid of Merenre. This text identifies the mother

of the deceased as the “Great Wild Bull,” who “gathers” the deceased. The Great Wild

Bull is identified as Nut and could be a reference to her appearing as a celestial cow

before the need for a human mother of the divine king was established.205 Under this

interpretation this text could predate the inscription of the Pyramid Texts by many

years. PT 546 is the most explicit text naming Nut herself:

I am Nut, elevate this Osiris NN to me! Give him to me that I may gather him

together.

PT 447 and 450 are less specific referring to Nut in the third person, PT 450 reads:

She shall join you and protect you from needing, and place your head for you.

She shall unite for you your bones and assemble for you your limbs.

PT 447 is similar, albeit much shorter:

She shall gather for you your bones.

Additionally, Geb is identified in this role of uniting the deceased. PT 451 reads:

Your bones have been united for you and you have received your head on account

of Geb.

This is virtually identical in PT 452 with the order of the verbs transposed. While these

texts do not necessarily make it clear that Geb is the actor, his being named provides

enough connection to imply that he is responsible. PT 448 places Thoth as the god who

205 Lesko, Great Goddesses, 35.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

140

assembles the deceased, adding that it is done “so that he might live and that which is

against him might end.” Similar to PT 606, this text only appears from Pepi I onwards

and alludes to the death of Osiris, for which a remedy is sought. PT 368 instead has

Horus causing Thoth to unite the deceased. Likewise, in PT 356 and 370, Horus causes

the non-specific “gods” to assemble the deceased, reflecting the multiplicity of identities

involved in this action. In addition to this, 4 texts206 command the deceased to collect

their own limbs with only one of these, PT 413, appearing before Pepi I. The texts either

command the deceased to “Collect your bones!” as in PT 457 or “Collect your limbs!” in

PT 667B, with other variations appearing as well. These short segments of text give little

additional detail beyond the command itself. Finally there are 7 texts207 in which no

actor is specified behind the assembling of the deceased; for example PT 373 takes the

same form of many of the texts with a defined actor:

You have received your head and your bones have been assembled for you, your

limbs collected for you.

Similarly PT 667B:

Your bones have been assembled for you and your limbs collected for you.

PT 664D, which only appears in Pepi II’s corpus, adds the detail that the heart was also

placed in the body, something that is missing from any of the other variant texts. This

relationship exhibits a great degree of variation with many different deities given the

responsibility of uniting Osiris. As they all have the same aim at their core, that is the

reassembly of Osiris, the variation in the individuals involved suggests that this is

another example where the identity was not as important as the action, the greater the

number of texts with this aim, the greater the chance that it would have been successful.

206 665B, 665D, 676, 700. 207 365, 373, 415, 478, 637, 649, 664D, 667B.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

141

This highlights the importance of variability to the effectiveness of the Pyramid Texts

overall.

: ISIS – CONCEIVES HORUS – OSIRIS 3.4.5

The conception of Horus lacks variation. There are only a few core texts, which mention

the conception of Horus and there are no variant texts that identify another mother of

Horus in the Pyramid Texts. This event between Isis, Osiris and Horus was thought of

only in these terms with no chance for another deity to take the place of any of the

characters. As the mother of the divine king, Hathor is notably missing from this

conception. She is mentioned in the Pyramid Texts, but only rarely, suggesting that she

did not take an important role is religion until later.208 In establishing the birth of Horus

these texts established the correct succession pattern, which could not be altered and

therefore it would not have made sense to have variations to the texts.

: ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – CALL OUT/SUMMON – OSIRIS 3.4.6

Within the relationship Isis and Nephthys – Call out/Summon – Osiris, there is some

minor variation. There are four variant texts209 that mention summoning by individuals

other than Isis and Nephthys. They all originate in the personal category of texts,

indicating an origin outside of the priestly domain, unlike the majority of the core texts.

Furthermore, they mostly appear in the pyramid of Pepi II indicating that they may

have been a peculiarity to his reign, which was edited out afterwards.

208 Lesko, Great Goddesses, 82. See also, Alison Robert, My Heart My Mother. Death and Rebirth in

Ancient Egypt (Rottingdean: Northgate Publishers, 2000), who explores the role of Hathor-

Sakhmet in the mysteries of Osiris in the New Kingdom. 209 PT 265, 514, 517, 524

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

142

THE NUMBER OF VARIANT TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – CALL OUT/SUMMON – OSIRIS

PYRAMID VARIANT TEXTS

UNIS 0

TETI 0

PEPI I 4

MERENRE 1

PEPI II 1

NEITH 0

Two of the texts are very general, lacking any identification at all. PT 265 refers to

“them”:

Let them make summons for NN.

PT 517 simply refers to the summoning of the deceased:

On this day of your being summoned in order to hear commands.

Without any indication of who is doing the summoning it is difficult to ascertain

whether these texts refer to a different deity at all. Nevertheless they are different in

form to the core texts, which warrant their inclusion here. PT 514 mentions Geb as the

one who summons the deceased:

And Geb has summoned him.

While PT 524 identifies Atum instead:

Let Atum summon NN to the sky for life.

There is no mention of the calling out to the deceased, seen in the core texts, which

could be reflective of that action being ascribed to Isis and Nephthys alone. The low

level of variation in this relationship suggests that this action was mostly thought of as

being performed by Isis and Nephthys and that during the reign of Pepi I when the

number of Pyramid Texts was expanding this idea was expanded slightly to include

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

143

Geb and Atum before being abandoned in later pyramids.

: HORUS - SETH 3.5

: HORUS – ACTS AGAINST – SETH 3.5.1

There is only slight variation in the relationship of Horus acting against Seth, with just

two variant texts.210 They appear in every pyramid and multiple times in that of Pepi I.

THE NUMBER OF VARIANT TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

HORUS – ACTS AGAINST – SETH

PYRAMID VARIANT TEXTS

UNIS 1

TETI 2

PEPI I 3

MERENRE 1

PEPI II 1

NEITH 2

PT 372, already mentioned in the previous chapter, combines the core relationship of

Horus acting against Seth with Thoth:

Horus has caused that Thoth bring you your enemy.

It has thus been identified as both a core text and a variant text as Horus is the one who

causes the action to be taken but it is Thoth who actually carries it out. The only other

variant texts identified, PT 82, also mentions Thoth:

It is Thoth who brought him while carrying it.

This is an offering text and part of the offering ritual. It places Thoth in the role of

bringing Seth, as the enemy of Osiris, to him. Thoth, as the helper god of Horus, is seen

210 PT 82, 372

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

144

throughout the Pyramid Texts and his appearance here is in keeping with that role. It is

interesting that PT 372 appears from the pyramid of Unis and is only missing from

Merenre probably due to lack of preservation. Thoth as the helper god in this role was

thus well established from before the inscribing of the Pyramid Texts. The limited

amount of variation present in the identities involved here suggests that the core of this

relationship was established by the time the Pyramid Texts were inscribed.

: SETH – INJURES – HORUS 3.5.2

The variation that occurs in the relationship concerning the injuries of Horus and Seth is

peculiar, in that it revolves around the idea of reciprocation. Not only is Horus injured

by Seth, but Seth is also injured by Horus. There are 12 variant texts,211 appearing in

every pyramid.

THE NUMBER OF VARIANT TEXTS IN THE RELATIONSHIP

SETH – INJURES – HORUS

PYRAMID VARIANT TEXTS

UNIS 4

TETI 7

PEPI I 11

MERENRE 3

PEPI II 9

NEITH 6

Due to the reciprocal nature of the relationship, many of the texts appear as

counterparts to those discussed in the previous chapter. After warning Horus about

Seth, PT 271 also warns Seth about Horus:

211 PT 215, 222, 271, 277, 327, 359, 386, 455, 475, 501C, 570, 667A

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

145

You of the command beware the one who has been dealt an eye injury.

In PT 277 Seth is identified as a snake, which “slithers off on account of his testicles” just

as Horus fell because of his eye. PT 359 is in the same vein but simply mentions the

injuries given to each of the gods:

Horus as wailed for his eye, Seth has wailed for his testicles.

Likewise, PT 386:

Horus has fallen on account of his eye, Seth has felt pain on account of his

testicles.

PT 327 and 475 follow this same pattern but differ slightly in the way they refer to the

injuries. PT 327 refers to the fetcher of Horus and Seth as someone who fetched for

them their injured body part. PT 475 simply commands an unnamed identity, possibly

the deceased, to get the injured body part of the god for them. PT 570 is different in that

it refers to a time when Horus and Seth had not been injured:

That was born before disturbance had come into being, when Horus’s eye had not

been ripped out and Seth’s testicles had not been tied off.

In addition to the injuries, the healing of the gods is mentioned in PT 455 where the

curative powers of the saliva of the gods are shown:

Seth has become clean through it and the evil that was against him after Horus

acted against him was released to the ground.

Equally, PT 667A where the outflow of Osiris is used as a curative force to heal the gods:

That Seth may be cleaned from what his brother Horus has done to him, that this

NN may be cleaned from everything bad against him.

After mentioning that Seth swallowed Horus’ eye PT 501C also refers to Seth rasping in

pain because of his testicles. These texts all give equal importance to both injuries

focusing on the reciprocal nature of them; however, two texts mention the injury of Seth

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

146

by itself. PT 215 simply states:

May you snare the testicles of Seth.

And PT 222:

Being provided as Seth whose raw testicles were pulled off.

While the majority of the texts here show equal attention being paid to both gods with

regards to their injuries, there are many more texts which mention the actions by Seth

taken against Horus and his eye, which suggests that the injury of Horus was of a

higher concern for the text editors. The fact that the injury of Horus always precedes the

injury of Seth in the texts points to its principal position and that the injury of Seth may

have been thought of as retaliation. So, while there is some variation to the relationship,

it mostly focuses on the reciprocal injury rather than Seth being injured in his own right.

: HORUS – CONTENDS WITH – SETH 3.5.3

The last relationship relating the contending of Horus and Seth has no variations. There

are differences in the way the two gods are said to contend, but their identities remain

the same with no other deities taking their place. This makes sense given that this idea

was central to the understanding of the kingship overall. Horus had to contend with

Seth, and only Seth, in order to get the kingship which was rightfully his. Thus no other

deities could take Seth’s place and vice versa.

: DISCUSSION 3.6

This chapter has presented the deviations on the core texts, which were identified in

Chapter Two, in order to understand the concept of variation in the Pyramid Texts. It

has highlighted, in particular, that some relationships vary and some do not, and that

the extent to which the relationships vary differs remarkably. Overall, there are more

relationships that exhibit flexibility, indicating that generally, the relationships

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

147

surrounding Osiris were fluid and could adapt to different contexts and needs.

Of immediate concern to the discussion are the different individuals, who take the role

of other deities in the core relationships. When a different individual is substituted,

most often in relation to an action being taken, the variation only occurs within the

Heliopolitan tradition. This is particularly true of Geb, who appears in almost any

situation, performing any action. He is in involved in genealogical and succession

concerns, he searches for and finds Osiris and he performs all the beneficial actions of

protection, revivification, and joining together of Osiris. His consort Nut also figures

heavily, but only in contexts of beneficial action such as protecting, reviving, and joining

Osiris. This more limited role, compared to Geb, is not unexpected given her primary

attributes of protection and encircling, particularly in relation to her association with the

tomb. Geb it seems, as the patrilineal leader of the Heliopolitan gods, could be inserted

into a wider array of situations and remain effective. Horus, who has a primary role in

the core texts, also appears in the variants. When Horus appears in a variant text he

often takes the roles associated with Isis and Nephthys. Horus searches for and finds

Osiris and also takes part in the joining of him, much like Geb. Conversely, Isis and

Nephthys do not appear in other relationships indicating that the actions they were

effective in were known and static, but the actions in themselves could be shared with

other deities. Atum also figures in the genealogy and succession patterns contained

within the Pyramid Texts, which is expected given his nature as the Heliopolitan creator

god. His minor appearance in other relationships such as the bearing of and calling out

to Osiris indicates a concern during the early iterations of the Pyramid Texts to include

him in other areas as well. Thoth appears in a minor way in the relationships

concerning resurrection and Horus acting against Seth. His inclusion in the Osiris myth

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

148

at this stage is fairly minor and he mostly appears as a counterpart to Horus. It

nevertheless shows the antiquity of his links to the Osiris myth, which can be seen in a

much more significant way in the New Kingdom, particularly in the Contendings of

Horus and Seth. This variation within the Heliopolitan tradition highlights the fact that

different regional traditions did not cross over each other. They were thought of as

distinct cycles in themselves that could flex and change within their own spheres of

influence, but not cross their borders.

The appearance of variation differs between the relationships in that either the first,

second or both elements could change, and they do so to very different extents. This

suggests that there were multiple purposes to the inclusion of disparate aspects. The

changing of the main actor in the relationship generally occurs when the action is

beneficial for Osiris. His protection, searching for, finding and resurrection are all

shared by various deities; however, two relationships show an extremely high level of

divergence in the number of texts and also the identities included. The resurrection of

Osiris by Horus is also performed by Geb, Nut, Seth, Thoth, the deceased themselves

and in one text the hieroglyphs are mentioned in this context. Similarly, the actions of

Isis and Nephthys in the joining together of Osiris are also performed by Geb, Nut,

Horus, Thoth and the deceased. Both of these relationships also have a much larger

number of variant texts than core texts with over a 300% increase in each. The highest

flexibility in the myth was thus related to the beneficial actions performed for Osiris,

particularly in relation to his resurrection. The responsibility of the performance of

these actions was not thought of as being attached to one deity but could be performed

by multiple actors. Given the nature of Horus – Revives – Osiris and Isis and Nephthys

– Join/Unite/Assemble – Osiris, it is understandable that they would have a very high

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

149

number of variant texts. The accumulation of as many attestations of reviving would

have ensured the success of the action where a small number of texts might have been

unsuccessful. The resurrection of the deceased was the primary purpose of the Pyramid

Texts themselves and so this action could not be allowed to fail. The purpose of the

statements remained the same despite the difference in the identity of the actor

involved.212 Flexibility in the nature of identities allowed the full range of statements to

be explored while concurrently making sure they would be effective in achieving their

purpose.

Horus’ protection of Osiris and also the calling out to Osiris by Isis and Nephthys can

also be thought of in this category, although they do not vary to the same extent. The

number of variant texts concerned with the protection of Osiris is fewer than the

number of core texts, but when compared to other relationships it still exhibits a

relatively high level of flexibility. In addition to Horus, Geb, Nut, the deceased and the

Ennead are all involved in this action. The calling out to Osiris, identified as part of the

actions of resurrection, is the exception as the relationship shows a very low level of

flexibility despite being concerned with a beneficial action for Osiris. This suggests that

Isis and Nephthys were thought of singularly in this role. Variation could thus be

utilised in order to increase the efficacy of the Pyramid Texts, apparent inconsistencies

were not only accepted but necessary as part of the purpose of the statements about the

gods.

The changes to a number of relationships point to a very different purpose of variation,

namely the inclusion of alternative traditions. The location of Osiris’ body, the search

212 The continuity of purpose despite differing identities involved is identified by Goebs, “A

Functional Approach to Myth.”

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

150

for and finding of it all display changes suggestive of a different sequence of events in

the myth of Osiris. In the well-known accounts from later periods, as early as the New

Kingdom, the searching and finding of Osiris is done only by Isis and Nephthys. In the

Pyramid Texts, this action is shared primarily with Horus and to a much lesser extent

Geb. Rather than having the same underlying purpose, these texts indicate the existence

of a different tradition where Horus sought for and found his father. This is particularly

evident when analysing the location of Osiris’ body. The variant location of Ghesti is

only seen in texts in which Horus is involved in the searching. Conversely, Nedit is

only used in relation to Isis and Nephthys. This correlation between the location of

Osiris and the identities of the searchers indicates that they existed as two separate

traditions of thought on the events of the Osiris myth. Their inclusion together in the

Pyramid Texts displays a concern on the part of the text editors to represent the two

traditions, but not combine them. Much like the resurrection and joining relationships,

the searching for Osiris has more variant texts than core but involves fewer deities. The

relatively similar number of texts involving Isis and Nephthys and Horus suggests that

he was just as important to the event. This is not reflected in the finding of Osiris, in

which there are fewer variant than core texts. Isis and Nephthys were clearly dominant

in this action, suggestive of the eventual move towards their singular role in later

accounts. The lack of texts identifying Ghesti as the location of Osiris’ body also points

to the dominance of Isis and Nephthys. If the location of Nedit was associated primarily

with the goddesses, its preference in the Pyramid Texts is reflective of an overall

predilection for the inclusion of the tradition involving Isis and Nephthys.

The relationship Seth – Bears – Osiris also shows the presence of possible different

traditions involving the children of Horus and Atum. The lack of appearance after the

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

151

reign of Teti suggests a purposeful editing out of the ideas. The punishment of Seth,

presented in this way, was thus preferred in later pyramids. Likewise, the relationship

Horus – Acts against – Seth in which Thoth appears minimally, indicating the existence

of a tradition including Thoth in the actions against Seth. Overwhelmingly, it is Horus

who appears in this context. The representation of different traditions does not seem to

have had an adverse effect on the efficacy of the Pyramid Texts and, following the

reasoning applied to the resurrection of Osiris, it might have had the opposite effect.

The inclusion of other traditions demonstrates the operative force of variability in

allowing different versions of the myth of Osiris to exist and function together, side by

side. Their existence is highly suggestive of an early stage in the formulation of myth,

before a set chronological order of the events had been established. Just as the

amalgamation of the aspects of the gods resulted in multiple roles, the bringing together

of separate traditions in the Pyramid Texts resulted in multiple versions.

The third purpose of variation is not strictly variation at all. The familial and succession

relationships include other deities such that a full line of descendants is present in the

Pyramid Texts. They are not reflective of a divergent tradition because there is no

inherent contradiction in the statements. The father-son relationship is emphasised

throughout the Pyramid Texts, tracing a line of succession from Horus back to Atum.

The importance of the patrilineal succession to the concept of Egyptian kingship was

thus maintained through the inclusion of not only the most important succession, from

Osiris to Horus, but the entire succession pattern. The link between the Pyramid Texts

and kingship is undeniable, and allowing the various relationships encapsulated in

these texts to exist side by side was a powerful statement about the rightful kingship

succession.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

152

The relationship Seth – Injures – Horus shows a different sort of variation again. The

majority of the core texts, which were not part of the offering ritual, also appear as

variant texts as they contain the reciprocal idea in one text. Horus is injured by Seth and

then Seth is injured by Horus. The flexibility in the relationship Seth – Injures – Horus is

also not reflective of a divergence in tradition but rather shows the nature of the event

as reciprocal. While there are texts that describe the actions separately, the texts

describing them together clearly show they were thought of as one event. The injury of

Horus was probably more important, as it receives much more attention when

compared to the injury of Seth.

While some relationships vary, others do not, which is equally as informative about the

use of myth. Of the four relationships between Osiris and Seth, two show no variation.

The first is the relationship Seth – Kills – Osiris. It is only Seth who kills Osiris and it is

only Osiris who is killed by Seth. As the primary motivation for most of the

relationships concerning Osiris, the lack of variation makes sense. The heinous nature

of the event and its importance in the Osirian tradition precluded it from being

manipulated. Any variation within the Heliopolitan gods would have had the effect of

creating an incomprehensible myth, rather than a variable and effective statement about

the world of the gods. It would not have been appropriate, for example, to have Thoth

kill Osiris when he is also in the role of helper god for him. This begs the question of the

dual nature of Seth, who has both positive and negative aspects to his character. The

negative aspects of Seth do seem more pronounced in the Pyramid Texts due to his

central role in the Osiris myth, but his dual is not unique. Osiris shows a similar

bifurcation; his origins as a fertility god, connected with the inundation, were

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

153

amalgamated with the attributes of other gods as the cult of Osiris spread.213 It seems

the singular identification of the murderer of Osiris as Seth was well established by the

time the Pyramid Texts were inscribed, it was a part of his nature that was accepted as a

necessity in Egyptian theology. The relationship Osiris – Protected/Saved – Seth also

lacks any variation. As has already been discussed, the identities of those doing the

protecting could vary to a great extent, but the recipient of, and the reason for, the action

did not. This relationship is closely linked to the murder of Osiris, as avoiding the

violence of Seth for a second time was the primary motivation for the protection being

undertaken. In much the same way as the murder, it would make little sense to

substitute another deity for either of these roles.

Where Osiris and Horus are concerned, the majority of the relationships between them

exhibit some variation; the only exception to this is Horus – Acts for – Osiris. Unlike

other relationships in this set, the beneficial actions undertaken in here are less specific.

They refer to actions such as “acting for,” tending,” or “taking account of.” The actions

themselves would not impede the identification of another deity, other than Horus,

performing them, which suggests that it is their general nature that linked them to

Horus. In addition to searching for, finding, reviving and protecting Osiris, Horus was

also responsible for the general wellbeing of Osiris. This is in keeping with his role as

the eldest son, who would have taken primary care of his father and the upkeep of his

mortuary cult. Variation was thus not random, as it might appear on reading the

Pyramid Texts, but purposefully applied for a specific reason.

213 Wilkinson, Complete Gods and Goddesses, 118-119.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

154

Similar to the Osiris – Horus set, in Osiris – Isis and Nephthys the majority of

relationships change, with two exceptions. Isis and Nephthys – Mourn – Osiris involves

no deviation of either element. As a direct consequence of the murder of Osiris, the

lack of variation in his identity should be expected, but the static nature of the identities

of the mourners as Isis and Nephthys speaks to their established roles as mortuary

goddesses. Depictions of funerals often show a multitude of mourners, so the singular

identification here of Isis and Nephthys suggests that their roles as the prototypical

mourning women, was established by the time the Pyramid Texts were inscribed. The

few texts that mention the conception of Horus only identify Isis and Osiris in these

roles. The conception of Horus, similar to the murder of Osiris, was a crucial event in

the myth and thus could not be changed. The Heliopolitan family tree was well

established and identifying any other deity, within this schema, as the parent of Horus

would not have been appropriate. Further to this, the succession pattern from Osiris to

Horus needed to be maintained; variation to this would have complicated the situation

to the point of absurdity.

Within the last set of texts, Horus – Contends with – Seth only places Horus and Seth in

these roles. The lack of variation stems from the action being described, the contending

of Horus and Seth over the kingship necessarily had to include only Horus and Seth or

risk inconsistency in the overall mythic situation.

Turning to the wider implications of variation, the fundamental problem of this study,

narrative, becomes more complicated. Variability seems to be contrary to narrative in

implying a lack of coherence, in that it infers the existence of different temporal

situations and events. In all theories of narrative, coherence is implicitly or explicitly a

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

155

primary feature214 but an understanding of the concept, much like narrative itself,

differs. Approaching this in the same way narrative was, from a theoretical point of

view, can clarify understanding.215 Prince does not define coherence specifically,

instead referring to order, in which he makes the distinction between the order in which

events are said to occur, and the order in which they are recounted on the textual

level.216 He notes that the two need not be the same, that a story can be recounted in a

number of different chronological patterns to the understood, logical version.

Sequential ordering can thus be imposed by the reader even if the text presents it out of

order.217 A story can even be told backwards and still retain coherence.218 McAdams

provides the most current thought on this concept, arguing that a listener expects a

story to have a beginning, middle and end. If the narrator does not order the events, the

listener may do it for themselves. They can impose a coherent temporal structure,

where one is lacking in the text.219 Reinhart elicits three conditions for coherence to

exist; connectedness (cohesion), consistency and relevance.220 She focusses in particular

on the linear nature that coherence implies. Sentences must be connected in a formal

and linear pattern for the text to remain coherent or cohesive. This form of coherence

would have been irrelevant for the Pyramid Texts, where there is not a continuous texts

214 Michael Toolan, “Coherence,” in Handbook of Narratology ed. Peter Hühn et al. (Berlin and New

York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009), 45. For a comprehensive, bibliography on the topic of coherence

see Uta Lenk, Sarah Gietl and Wolfram Bublitz, “A Bibliography of Coherence and Cohesion,” in

Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to Create it and How to Describe it, ed. Wolfram

Bublitz et al. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 63 (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John

Benjamins, 1997), 267-295. 215 It must be admitted that this theoretical understanding originates in western discourse and is

not concerned with the cultural traditions of Near-Eastern civilisation. Its inclusion here is used

only as a backdrop for the comprehension of the situation in Egypt. 216 Prince, Dictionary of Narratology, 69. 217 Bal, Narratology, 80-81. 218 Abbott, Introduction to Narrative, 30. 219 D. McAdams, “The Problem of Narrative Coherence,” Journal of Constructivist Psychology 19

(2006): 112. See also Jean Mandler, Stories, Scripts and Scenes: Aspects of Schema Theory (Hillsdale:

Erlbaum, 1984). 220 Tanya Reinhart, “Conditions for Text Coherence,” Poetics Today 1 (1980): 164.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

156

relating to the myth. The necessity of event sequencing is highlighted by Herman in his

definition of narrative.221 For Herman

Narrative traces paths taken by particularized individuals faced with decision

points at one or more temporal junctures in a storyworld; those paths lead to

consequences that take shape against a larger backdrop in which other possible

paths might have been pursued, but were not.222

Conversely, temporal logic is absent in the definition of a coherent narrative by

Trabasso:

The construction of a coherent representation of a story follows from inferring

relations between state and actions, integrating these events into episodes,

integrating episodes by relating their actions or states, and organizing episodes

into higher-order structures.223

The complexity of the issue of coherence is highlighted particularly well by Giora, who

argues that coherence is independent of cohesion.224 The linear nature implied by

cohesion, as understood by Reinhart, should not be associated with coherence, as

analysis on the textual level, sentence by sentence, is irrelevant.225 Coherence is not

linear, but linked to the coherence of the overall discourse topic.226 The concept of

coherence might not even be applicable to the text, as Givón argues that coherence is not

an objective property of the produced text. Coherence is situated in the mental

processes of discourse production and discourse comprehension, the by-product of

221 David Herman, Basic Elements of Narrative (Chichester and Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 9;

18-19. 222 Herman, Elements of Narrative, 19. 223 Tom Trabasso, “The Development of Coherence in Narratives by Understanding Intentional

Action,” in Text and Text Processing, ed. Guy Denhiere and Jean-Pierre Rossi, Advances in

Psychology 79 (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1991), 297. 224 Rachel Giora, “Notes Towards a Theory of Text Coherence,” Poetics Today 6 (1985): 700. 225 Giora, “Notes Towards a Theory,” 700. 226 Giora, “Notes Towards a Theory,” 710-711

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

157

which is the text.227 Coherence is thus particularly associated with temporality, but this

does not necessarily have to be reflected on the textual level.

The different types of variability in the Pyramid Texts have different implications for

coherence and thus narrative. The variable nature of the beneficial actions aimed at

ensuring success does not seem to imply a lack of coherence. The different individuals

in the Pyramid Texts do not create inconsistency or incoherence, as they do not change

the temporal logic of the myth. Incoherence occurs when a story defies understanding

of how the world works.228 The multitude of deities involved in beneficial action for

Osiris created a powerful statement about the nature of the gods and the resurrection of

Osiris, which superseded the need for coherence. Narrative coherence in the strictest

sense was not appropriate to this kind of religious discourse. Variability seems to have

been accepted as it allowed for different versions to exist and operate side by side, not in

conflict. The preference for Horus over the other deities, and in particular the lack of

Isis and Nephthys in the variants of Horus – Revives – Osiris, points to a known mythic

situation that would have allowed an understanding of the temporal logic of the myth,

despite it lacking on the textual level. The main problem for the cohesion of the Osiris

myth in the Pyramid Texts stems from the appearance of Horus in the searching for and

finding of Osiris. The nature of these texts, as distinct from those of Isis and Nephthys,

suggests the existence of different narrative, which creates an altered temporal sequence

of the Osiris myth. In the same way that a reconstruction of the core texts can result in a

narrative sequence, the variant texts in this case can create a different sequence.

- Horus is conceived and born to Isis and Osiris

227 T. Givón, “Coherence in Text vs. Coherence in Mind,” in Coherence in Spontaneous Text, ed.

Morton Ann Gernsbacher and T. Givón, Typological Studies in Language 31 (Amsterdam and

Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1995), 60. 228 McAdams, “The Problem of Narrative Coherence,” 112.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

158

- Seth murders Osiris for reasons that are unclear, possibly jealousy.

- Seth hides the body of Osiris in Ghesti and possibly dismembers him in the

process.

- Horus searches for Osiris.

- He finds him.

- Horus resurrects Osiris and Isis and Nephthys join the body of Osiris back

together.

- With his father safe, Horus challenges Seth for the throne of Egypt. In the

conflict Horus and Seth injure each other.

- Horus eventually wins the battle before the Ennead and is given the throne, his

rightful inheritance.

- As punishment for his crime, Seth is charged with carrying the now inert Osiris.

The existence of such an account is difficult to prove, as it disappears from the written

record in later sources. The possibility of the existence of this account in the Pyramid

Texts implies that for the Egyptians, narrative coherence was not a concern. Again, a

known narrative outside of the Pyramid Texts would have allowed the imposition of a

temporal logic on the texts. When understood as part of the cultural and religious

milieu of Old Kingdom Egypt, this apparent inconsistency does not imply a lack of

narrativity; an inconsistency of thought. Rather it is more suggestive of the co-existence

of two ideas. This is more apparent when one considers the lack of variability in some

events. When considered as a whole, the variation and non-variation reveals a myth in

flux, some aspects were already crystallised by the inscription of the Pyramid Texts,

such as Seth’s identity as the murderer of Osiris, while others were yet to be canonised,

such as the identities of the searchers of Osiris.

CHAPTER THREE

VARIABILITY IN THE RELATIONSHIPS

159

The Pyramid Texts show a concern for recounting all the different possibilities in a

comprehensive, although not always coherent, statement of the myth of Osiris. Similar

to the situation described in the previous chapter regarding narrative and narrativity,

the relationship between coherence and narrative is not precise. The impact of the

textual context, that is ritual, cannot be understated. Coherence on the level of a full

narrative would not have been effective in a ritual setting due to the low level of

narrativity in the texts and the Egyptians do not appear to have been concerned with the

issue. The texts can still be thought of as acting on the level of narrative despite the

apparent inconsistencies. An audience, if there was one, would have been aware of the

story and its multiplicity so that a temporal ordering of the events could have taken

place. The inconsistency in the Pyramid Texts regarding the myth of Osiris does not

negate the existence of a narrative myth. Instead, it reveals a highly complex and

evolving phenomenon.

160

CHAPTER FOUR: TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

: INTRODUCTION 4.1

This study has had the content of the Pyramid Texts as its primary focus, revealing a

complex narrative scheme of the Osiris myth, which was nevertheless subject to

variability. This chapter now turns to their distribution, in order to deepen the

understanding of the use of myth in Pyramid Texts. Different levels of analysis are

presented here in order to identify what, if any, patterns exist in the textual distribution

of the Osiris myth. First, the numbers of both core and variant texts are analysed

diachronically by set. This aspect of the analysis seeks to ascertain how the Osiris myth

was utilised over time in successive pyramids. Changes in the number of texts included

can be informative for how the use of myth may have changed, indicating different

trends in religious thought. Second, the groups of texts identified by Hays229 are

analysed. The groups constitute the units by which a Pyramid Text corpus was made

up, and concentrations of texts within these units can show how the myth of Osiris was

incorporated into the Pyramid Texts. Third, the categories of texts to which the myth of

Osiris belonged, either sacerdotal or personal, speak to their context of performance.

Finally, the spatial distribution of the texts on the walls of the pyramid chambers can

show where the myth of Osiris was deemed to be most effective. This statistical analysis

goes beyond the issue of the identification of myth in the Pyramids, which was the

subject of the previous chapters, and moves towards a better understanding of the

mechanisms of incorporation to which the myth of Osiris was subjected. This approach

seeks to place the Pyramid Texts in their spatial and temporal context. They did not

229 Hays, Organization, 1:79-123.

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

161

exist in a vacuum but rather had location, in a pyramid, room or wall, and agency in

relation to specific themes.

: THE NUMBER OF TEXTS WITHIN THE PYRAMIDS 4.2

The results of the diachronic analysis of the number of core texts that occur in each

group are presented in the table below.

THE NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN EACH SET BY PYRAMID

PYRAMID OSIRIS – SETH OSIRIS – HORUS OSIRIS – ISIS AND

NEPHTHYS

HORUS - SETH

UNIS 4 11 1 31

TETI 14 21 11 43

PEPI I 48 70 61 71

MERENRE 29 36 24 13

PEPI II 41 72 55 58

NEITH 28 34 30 47

Generally, there was a pattern of expansion in the number of texts included in each

pyramid over time.230 The Pyramid of Unis always has the lowest number of texts in

each set, which might be expected given the relative smaller size of his corpus, when

compared to the later pyramids; 231 however, decorum might have also played a factor.

While reference to certain events appears to be prohibited or restricted by decorum

more than others, in particular the murder of Osiris, the entire narrative of the myth

might have been considered inappropriate to commit to writing at this early stage in the

230 The exception is the Pyramid of Merenre which exhibits a lower number of texts than Pepi I

and II. This is attributed to a lack of preservation rather than a lack of actual texts. 231 Unis has about 230 texts, Teti has about 300, Pepi I has about 740, Merenre has about 422, Pepi

II has about 682 and Neith has about 308 texts. The number of Pyramid Texts in total has been

estimated at about 900 as this is subject to change with the discovery of new texts.

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

162

evolution of the Pyramid Texts. No matter the cause, by the reign of Pepi I it appears to

have lessened, or disappeared entirely. This suggests that there was an increased

interest in incorporating the Osiris myth into the Pyramid Texts under the reign of Pepi

I. This might have been motivated by an increase in the space made available for

inscription, a move that permitted the enlargement of the corpus of texts overall.

Conversely, it could point to a larger influence of the foundation myth associated with

the Heliopolitan priesthood, which required incorporation into the religious discourse

of the Old Kingdom. Due to the fragmentary nature of our knowledge, we may never

know the specific motivation for the change. The number of texts in the pyramid of

Pepi I appears to have been considered the standard as the numbers are roughly

maintained until the reign of Pepi II.232 The pyramid of Neith has fewer texts than that

of Pepi I, owing to the different architecture of her tomb but in all sets there are more

than in that of Teti, indicating the engagement with the Osiris myth was maintained in

the tomb of at least one queen. The state of preservation of the tombs of the other

queens has precluded a meaningful analysis in this way. If Neith is representative, then

it suggests that the Osiris myth was utilised beyond the realm of the ruling king despite

its importance for issues of kingship. 233 Succession may have emphasised paternity but

it also acknowledged maternal links234 and in later periods the queen was thought of as

the embodiment of Isis.235 The efficacy of the Osiris myth may have been felt in the

tombs of the queens during the Old Kingdom in this way. The Horus – Seth set differs

232 If the full corpus of texts was preserved for Merenre it would approximate the same number as

Pepi I. 233 The limited number of texts in the appendices of this study from the tombs of the queens hints

at this interesting prospect. 234 Lesko, Great Goddesses, 157-158, suggests that the representation of Isis with the throne

determinative on her head reflects an early role of the queen mother as the carrier of legitimate

rulership. While the change to a patrilineal succession line is evident in the Osiris myth, the

interplay between the tombs of the queens and the myth could reveal more about succession at

this time. 235 Lesko, Great Goddesses, 170.

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

163

to the others in displaying a remarkable level of continuity in the number of texts in

each pyramid. The pyramid of Unis has a much greater number in this set compared to

others; although, the number of additions in the pyramid of Pepi I is still quite high.

This is attributable to the importance of these texts to the offering ritual, which appears

to be relatively fixed by this time.236 This could point to a standardised version of the

offering ritual in which the relationship between Horus and Seth took primary place.

The core texts thus reflect a general pattern of expansion over time.

When looking at the variant texts, many of the same patterns can be discerned. In all

the sets of texts there is an increase over time in the number of texts included in the

corpora. The standard is again set down in the pyramid of Pepi I, which is followed

until the pyramid of Pepi II.

THE NUMBER OF VARIANT TEXTS IN EACH SET BY PYRAMID

PYRAMID OSIRIS – SETH OSIRIS – HORUS OSIRIS – ISIS

AND NEPHTHYS

HORUS – SETH

UNIS 1 7 1 5

TETI 1 21 14 9

PEPI I 4 98 40 14

MERENRE 3 57 23 4

PEPI II 6 92 42 10

NEITH 1 47 19 8

236 The similarity with the offering rituals known from several Old Kingdom tombs was noted

from the discovery of the Pyramid Texts by Gaston Maspero, “La Table d’offrandes des

tombeaux égyptiens,” RHR 35 (1897): 276-77. The Tomb of Debheni is the earliest example of an

intact Offering Ritual scene, Selim Hassan, Excavations at Gîza, Vol. IV 1932-1933 (Cairo:

Government Press, 1943): 159-184, esp. 176.

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

164

The level of variability in each set has already been noted in the previous chapter but it

is particularly evident in the comparison here. The core texts show a similar level of

engagement with all the sets of texts, particularly true in the pyramids of Pepi I and II.

The variant texts, on the other hand, differ remarkably in the number of texts in each set.

This highlights once again the nature of variability in the Pyramid Texts.

: THE GROUPS OF TEXTS WITHIN THE PYRAMIDS 4.3

The primary units through which a Pyramid Text corpus could be constructed were

identified by Hays. The groupings and inclusions of texts are not absolute due to the

variations between pyramids, but they provide a structural level on which to analyse

the appearance of the myth of Osiris. Concentrations of texts in certain groupings over

others could point to how the myth was incorporated into the Pyramid Texts, and

where it was most effective. The division of the texts into groups was based largely on

the placing of the same texts together across the pyramids, but evident from the titles

given to them, they also correlate with the content of the texts.237

: OSIRIS – SETH 4.3.1

The core and variant texts of the Osiris – Seth set are presented in the table below. The

core generally shows a large spread of texts across almost all of the groups, while the

variants, owing to their small number, are concentrated in a few groups. The largest

concentration occurs in Groups B, C, D and J. The higher iterations of texts in these

groups can be associated to the concerns of the groups themselves. They deal with the

transfiguration of the spirit, the resurrection of the deceased by Horus, the aggregation

with the gods and the perpetuation of the cult of the deceased.

237 Groups A-O are identified as: Offering Ritual, Transfiguration, Perpetuation of Cult, Horus

Resurrects, Isis and Nephthys Lament, Anointing and Wrapping, Provisioning, Isis and

Nephthys Summon, Aggregation with the Gods, Apotropaia, Transformation, Ascent to the Sky,

The Celestial Circuit and Mixed.

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

165

THE NUMBER OF TEXTS IN THE OSIRIS – SETH SET BY GROUP

GROUP CORE TEXTS VARIANT TEXTS

A 3 3

B 8 0

C 7 1

D 9 1

E 3 1

F 4 0

G 4 0

H 0 0

I 1 0

J 8 3

K 2 0

L 3 0

M 3 0

N 5 0

O 6 1

The commonality between these groups is their concern with providing for the deceased

in various forms, as well as the protection of the deceased. The events between Osiris

and Seth situate well in these contexts, particularly the death of Osiris. Most of the

other groups have between three and six texts associated with them and there is only

one group, H, which lacks any texts. This indicates that while some groups may have

been more important to the relationship between Osiris and Seth, its effectiveness could

be felt in almost any group or context in the pyramid. The low number of variant texts

makes discerning a pattern difficult. There are two groups with a higher concentration

of texts, A and J. These are the offering ritual and the aggregation with the gods

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

166

respectively. Group J also appears significantly in the core texts and so its importance in

the variants is not out of place. Overall the variant texts do not show any significant

pattern of distribution in the groups.

: OSIRIS – HORUS 4.3.2

The distribution of the Osiris – Horus set of texts across the groups is presented in the

table below. Similar to the Osiris – Seth set, their distribution is also quite varied.

The highest number of texts is in Group O. This is a relative oddity, considering that the

identification of the group is fairly tenuous and does not appear to have any overriding

theme.238 Other concentrations of texts appear in groups more associated with the

relationship of Osiris and Horus. Group D, Horus Resurrects, is mortuary in nature and

it is no surprise that it should have a high number of texts. Group B concerns the

transfiguration of the dead and has been linked to the appearance of mortuary

liturgies.239 As priestly recitations their appearance as part of the Osiris – Horus set is to

be expected. Likewise, Group G, which concerns the anointing and wrapping, and

Group A as the offering ritual, where Horus is often portrayed as the enactor of the

offering to Osiris.

238 Hays, Organization, 1:110. 239 Assmann, “Verklärung,” 1000; Asmann, “Egyptian Mortuary Liturgies,” 9-14; Jan Assmann,

Altägyptische Totenliturgien. Band 3. Osirisliturgien in Papyri der Spätzeit (Heidelberg:

Universitätsverlag Winter, 2008), 227- 234 and 417-422; Jan Assmann and Andre Kucharek,

Ägyptische Religion. Totenliteratur (Frankfurt: Verlag der Weltreligionen, 2008), 18-66 and 680-707.

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

167

THE NUMBER OF TEXTS IN THE OSIRIS – HORUS SET BY GROUP

GROUP CORE TEXTS VARIANT TEXTS

A 11 4

B 13 17

C 8 13

D 14 13

E 4 8

F 3 5

G 12 12

H 0 2

I 1 6

J 7 15

K 0 2

L 3 6

M 4 3

N 5 9

O 15 22

There are smaller numbers of texts throughout the other groups as well, except groups

H and K, suggesting that the importance of the relationship between Horus and Osiris

was felt throughout the Pyramid Texts. The patterns in the variant texts of Osiris –

Horus differ only slightly. Group O is still the largest, and in fact the variants reflect a

larger appearance in Group O than the core. The major difference between the core and

variant texts is the significant decrease in the number of texts in Group A. This is

attributable to the lack of appearance of Horus in the variants, meaning that the number

of texts in the offering ritual would have decreased. Groups I and J show the largest

increase in number from the core to the variant texts, which could be reflective of the

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

168

concern of Group I with Isis and Nephthys, who share many of the their roles with

Horus. The increase in the number of texts in Group J could be due to its concern with

the aggregation of the deceased with the gods. In particular the resurrection of Osiris by

Horus mentions a wide variety of deities in the variant texts. There is at least one text in

every group suggesting that the variations of the Osiris – Horus set were also effective

to most parts of the Pyramid Texts.

: OSIRIS – ISIS AND NEPHTHYS 4.3.3

Within the Osiris – Isis and Nephthys set, the texts are more concentrated in fewer

groups, with a limited spread of texts overall. There is a high concentration of texts in

Groups B, C, G, J and O. The frequency of those appearing in Group G is due to its

mortuary nature, concerning the anointing and wrapping of the deceased. In particular,

the mourning of the deceased takes place in this group making the appearance of Isis

and Nephthys expected. The relatively low numbers of texts in Groups F and I is an

anomaly as they are to do with the lamentations of Isis and Nephthys and their actions

in summoning the deceased. There are many texts identified with the summoning of

Isis and Nephthys that do not appear in this group.240 The overall concern of these texts

may have gone beyond the summoning of the deceased. Their appearance in other

groups must therefore be tied to other aspects of the texts. The appearance of five texts

in group D seems anomalous as well. It is concerned primarily with Horus, but

probably owes much to Isis and Nephthys being present in many of the same situations

as Horus.

240 PT 412, 422, 437, 458, 461, 468, 483, 553, 610, 619, 665, 666A, 667A, 718, 721B, 1004, 1006 and

1058.

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

169

THE NUMBER OF TEXTS IN THE ISIS – NEPHTHYS SET BY GROUP

GROUP CORE TEXTS VARIANT TEXTS

A 0 6

B 16 4

C 10 8

D 5 8

E 0 9

F 3 1

G 10 4

H 0 0

I 5 2

J 11 7

K 0 0

L 1 0

M 7 2

N 5 4

O 12 5

There are more groups with no texts appearing in them than other sets indicating a

relative low level of efficacy across the entire range of Pyramid Texts. Isis and

Nephthys, it seems, were most effective in certain situations rather than being generally

effective. The distribution of texts changes in the variant texts, primarily in the increase

in texts in Group E, Nut Protects. Groups involving other deities such as D and E have

higher numbers of variants than core texts and generally, the variant texts exhibit a

wider array of appearances in the different groups. This indicates that the high level of

variation to which the relationship was subjected, affected its efficacy in different

groups.

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

170

: HORUS – SETH 4.3.4

The distribution of the Horus and Seth texts across the different groups of Pyramid

Texts is shown in the table below.

THE NUMBER OF TEXTS IN THE HORUS – SETH SET BY GROUP

GROUP CORE TEXTS VARIANT TEXTS

A 37 1

B 4 3

C 6 0

D 1 1

E 3 1

F 2 0

G 1 0

H 1 0

I 1 1

J 10 2

K 4 3

L 4 0

M 2 1

N 6 1

O 8 3

While there is at least one core text in every group, the distribution is very concentrated.

The overwhelming majority of texts appear in Group A, the Offering Ritual. The

importance of the eye of Horus as an offering to the deceased, and as a consequence the

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

171

importance of its injury by Seth, is clearly reflected here.241 The relative spread of the

rest of the texts indicates that like other sets it was effective in many different contexts in

the Pyramid Texts. The variant texts are spread between the groups with no clear

pattern of concentration in one particular area. This is attributable to the low number of

variant texts overall, making patterns difficult to discern.

: THE TYPES OF TEXTS WITHIN THE PYRAMIDS 4.4

The Pyramid Texts have as their antecedents, the ritual texts that supported the

religious practices from both the collective and individual domains. They were derived

from operative scripts to be read aloud by priests on behalf of the deceased or learnt by

the deceased themselves. They can thus fall into one of two categories, Sacerdotal or

Personal, each of which has sub categories to do with their specific purpose.242

Sacerdotal texts fall into either priestly recitations or offering texts, while Personal texts

fall into apotropaic, transition or provisioning texts. The use of the Osiris myth in these

categories speaks to its importance either for the priestly or personal spheres.

: OSIRIS – SETH 4.4.1

The categories of the texts in the Osiris – Seth set are summarised in the table below. In

both the core and variant texts the majority belong to the Sacerdotal category. This is far

more pronounced in the core texts, as 84% of their total are Sacerdotal with 78% being

priestly recitations and 6% being offering texts. This is compared to 16% of the core

texts belonging to the Personal category, with 12% transition and 4% being apotropaic.

241 Harco Willems, “The Social and Ritual Context of a Mortuary 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. OLA 103 (Leuven:Uitgeverij Peeters, 2001), 350. 242 Hays, Organization, 1:125-203.

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

172

THE NUMBER OF TEXTS IN THE OSIRIS – SETH SET BY TYPE

TYPE CORE TEXTS VARIANT TEXTS

PRIESTLY RECITATION 38 6

OFFERING 3 0

APOTROPAIC 2 0

TRANSITION 6 2

PROVISIONING 0 0

This pattern is continued in the variant texts with 75% coming from the Sacerdotal and

the remaining 25% from the Personal. Priestly recitations are the only Sacerdotal type to

appear in the variant texts. This shows that the Sacerdotal category was the most

important for both the core and variant texts. The appearance of both Sacerdotal and

Personal texts illustrates the effectiveness, to some extent, of the Osiris myth in both the

collective and individual settings of ritual.

: OSIRIS – HORUS 4.4.2

Within the texts in the Osiris – Horus set the same pattern emerges in a more

pronounced way.

THE NUMBER OF TEXTS IN THE OSIRIS – HORUS SET BY TYPE

TYPE CORE TEXTS VARIANT TEXTS

PRIESTLY RECITATION 67 88

OFFERING 6 0

APOTROPAIC 0 0

TRANSITION 4 14

PROVISIONING 0 0

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

173

Again, most core texts are of the Sacerdotal category. Of the total number of texts, 95%

of the core is Sacerdotal. Within that, it is the priestly recitation type that dominates. In

the limited Personal texts, they all come from the transition type. This pattern is echoed

in the variant texts, with a slight shift towards the Personal category. Of the total

variant texts 86% of them are Sacerdotal, all of which are priestly recitations. The

remaining 14% are all transition texts. Despite different content, the Osiris – Horus texts

clearly originated in the priestly domain of recitations for the deceased, but also have a

limited efficacy in the personal sphere as well.

: OSIRIS – ISIS AND NEPHTHYS 4.4.3

In the Osiris – Isis and Nephthys texts, the same pattern remains with a concentration of

priestly recitation texts. Of the total core texts, 97% are Sacerdotal, all of which are

priestly recitations. The remaining 3% are transition texts of the Personal category.

THE NUMBER OF TEXTS IN THE ISIS – NEPHTHYS SET BY TYPE

TYPE CORE TEXTS VARIANT TEXTS

PRIESTLY RECITATION 60 33

OFFERING 0 4

APOTROPAIC 0 0

TRANSITION 2 9

PROVISIONING 0 0

The variants maintain the same pattern with the addition of offering texts. Of the total

variant texts 80% are Sacerdotal and 20% are Personal. While there are some offering

texts the vast majority are of the priestly recitation type. The Personal texts only come

from the transition type, indicating a selective use within this context. Between the core

and variant texts there are a much higher proportion of Personal texts indicating that

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

174

their effectiveness was tied to this area to some extent. Overall the same pattern seen in

the other sets is maintained here.

: HORUS – SETH 4.4.4

The texts in the Horus – Seth set differ in the distribution within the categories,

reflecting a concentration in the offering and transition texts as well as priestly

recitations. While Sacerdotal texts remain the dominant category in the core texts with

70% of the total, this is not the case for the variants where Sacerdotal texts make up 42%

of the total. In the core texts it is the offering texts that have the highest number of

attestations and even the transition texts outnumber the priestly recitations. This shows

the importance once again of the Horus – Seth relationship to the offering ritual, and

also a much higher efficacy in the personal domain than other sets.

THE NUMBER OF TEXTS IN THE HORUS – SETH SET BY TYPE

TYPE CORE TEXTS VARIANT TEXTS

PRIESTLY RECITATION 17 5

OFFERING 35 1

APOTROPAIC 4 3

TRANSITION 19 5

PROVISIONING 0 0

Despite this shift in texts it is still the Sacerdotal category that outnumbers the Personal

in the core texts, maintaining the general pattern of concentration in the collective

setting of performance.

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

175

: THE LOCATIONS OF TEXTS WITHIN THE PYRAMIDS 4.5

The distribution of texts throughout the tomb complex can provide meaningful detail

about the purpose of the texts in the tomb specifically. 243 It is assumed that the texts

were placed purposefully and so patterns of distribution relate directly to

understanding where within the tomb the myth of Osiris was most effective. A specific

reading order of the Pyramid Texts has been under debate for some time now,244 and it

is more likely that no specific order existed. One cannot forget that the Pyramid Texts

are decontextualized ritual and were not meant to be read on the walls. The placement

of the texts therefore, relates to their power and efficacy as Pyramid Texts rather than to

an order or purpose of reading. This analysis treats the Pyramid Texts as a holistic

corpus as well as treating each corpus separately, with the aim of a comprehensive

understanding of the material.

: OSIRIS – SETH 4.5.1

The distribution of the core and variant texts of the Osiris – Seth set of texts is presented

in the tables below. It reveals a general pattern of concentration of texts towards the

burial chamber and also the western walls of the tomb complex. Of the 164 core texts in

total, 62% are in the burial chamber. Within this, there is a clear concentration of texts

on the western wall. A possible reason for this could be the content of the texts

themselves, which are to do with the death of Osiris. The conventional association of

the west and death in Egyptian mortuary belief was thus reflected in the text placement.

There are relatively similar numbers of texts appearing on the south and east walls, and

the north wall has the fewest attestations probably due to the placement of the offering

ritual there. The antechamber has the next highest number of texts with 21% of the core

243 The designations used by Allen, Concordance, have been utilised here with a key difference in

the treatment of the corridor as one section due to the number of texts being discussed in each

section. 244 See note 65 above.

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

176

appearing here. Almost all of these are found on the west wall continuing the

association generally with the west and death. The proximity of the western wall to the

burial chamber could also indicate a desire to place the texts as close to the deceased as

possible, in effect surrounding them. In the corridor, which has 10% of the overall core

texts, again there are more texts on the western side than the eastern side. The texts in

the vestibule are fairly spread across the walls, and the low number of texts in this part

of the tomb makes discerning a pattern difficult. The remaining texts are found in the

passageway, serdab passage and the ascending passageway indicating that while the

burial chamber and the western wall were of the utmost importance to the core of the

Osiris – Seth set, their efficacy could be felt throughout the entire tomb complex.

Analysing the data of each pyramid separately, the overall pattern of the holistic data is

maintained, but only from the pyramid of Pepi I. The pyramid of Unis does not have

enough texts to permit a meaningful comment but the pyramid of Teti does have a

higher number of texts on the western wall of the antechamber than any other wall. The

pyramid of Teti reflects a more limited distribution throughout the tomb complex as

only a few texts appear in the burial chamber and none appear beyond the

antechamber. It is the pyramid of Pepi I that establishes the pattern to be adhered to in

later pyramids. The concentration of texts on the western walls of the burial chamber,

antechamber and the corridor is echoed in the pyramids of Pepi I, Merenre and Pepi II.

It is also only in these three pyramids that texts appear in the corridor and beyond;

however, the different architectural layout of Neith’s tomb precluded a wide

distribution of texts. It must be said that these patterns are quite general and that the

distribution of the core texts seems to have varied to some extent from pyramid to

pyramid reflecting the choices of the text editors.

177

CH

AP

TE

R F

OU

R

TE

XT

UA

L D

IST

RIB

UT

ION

THE NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE OSIRIS – SETH SET BY LOCATION

LOCATION UNIS TETI PEPI MERENRE PEPI II NEITH TOTAL

B/S 1 1 9 1 6 10 28

B/W - - 11 9 9 10 39

B/N - - 3 - 4 3 10

B/E - 4 5 6 5 5 25

P/S - - - - 1 - 1

P/N - - - - - - 0

A/S - - - 1 1 - 2

A/W 1 5 6 5 5 - 22

A/N 1 - - - 2 - 3

A/E 1 2 1 3 1 - 8

SP/S - 1 - - - - 1

SP/N - 1 - - - - 1

C/W - - 5 3 3 - 11

C/E - - 3 - 2 - 5

V/S - - 1 - - - 1

V/W - - 3 - - - 3

V/N - - - 1 - - 1

V/E - - - - 2 - 2

AP/W - - 1 - - - 1

AP/E - - - - - - 0

178

CH

AP

TE

R F

OU

R

TE

XT

UA

L D

IST

RIB

UT

ION

THE NUMBER OF VARIANT TEXTS IN THE OSIRIS – SETH SET BY LOCATION

LOCATION UNIS TETI PEPI MERENRE PEPI II NEITH TOTAL

B/S - - - 1 - - 1

B/W - - 1 - 1 1 3

B/N - - - - 3 - 3

B/E - - - - 1 - 1

P/S - - - - - - 0

P/N - - - - - - 0

A/S - - - 1 - - 1

A/W 1 1 2 1 1 - 6

A/N - - - - - - 0

A/E - - - - - - 0

SP/S - - - - - - 0

SP/N - - - - - - 0

C/W - - - - - - 0

C/E - - - - - - 0

V/S - - 1 - - - 1

V/W - - - - - - 0

V/N - - - - - - 0

V/E - - - - - - 0

AP/W - - - - - - 0

AP/E - - - - - - 0

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

179

The number of variant texts in the Osiris – Seth set prevents a detailed analysis of

distribution. There are equal numbers of texts on the west and north walls of the burial

chamber, but the highest number is found on the western wall of the antechamber. This

could indicate that the proclivity for placement of texts concerning the death of Osiris

was maintained in the variations. When the holistic data are broken down by pyramid,

the western walls of the burial chamber and antechamber do show the highest spread of

texts across the corpora. The antechamber contains texts from the pyramid of Unis until

that of Pepi II.

: OSIRIS – HORUS 4.5.2

The distribution of the core and variant Osiris – Horus texts are presented in the tables

below and reflect similar pattern to Osiris – Seth despite their different content. The

majority of core texts in this set, 64% of the total, are located on the walls of the burial

chamber. The distribution of the texts within the burial chamber is fairly spread, with

relatively consistent numbers on each wall. The western wall dominates maintaining

the focus on the death of Osiris but the remaining walls differ only slightly. The varied

content of the texts might have played a role in this distribution as the texts are not just

concerned with death, but succession patterns and family relationships. The

concentration of texts in the burial chamber overall suggests their efficacy was tied to

their proximity to the body of the deceased. The antechamber holds 16% of the total

core texts, which are mostly found on the western wall. The antechamber thus reflects a

similar pattern to the Osiris – Seth set. The east wall as well, has a relatively high

concentration of texts, which seems to be an anomaly caused by texts appearing on this

wall only in the pyramids of Merenre and Pepi II. This could reflect a choice by the

editors to associate Horus with both the west and east sides of the tomb in general

rather than solely the west as in other pyramids. The corridor shows similar numbers

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

180

on both the west and east walls but in the vestibule it is the east wall that has the highest

number of texts followed by the south wall. The proximity of the corridor to the

entryway of the tomb and thus the sky, the eventual destination of the deceased, could

explain the concentration of texts on the eastern side of the vestibule, indicating a focus

on living over dying in this area of the tomb.

The patterns of textual distribution differ somewhat from the holistic approach when

looking at the pyramids individually. The pyramids of Unis and Teti have no texts on

the west or south walls of the burial chamber, but they do have texts on the north and

east walls. It is only from the pyramid of Pepi I that the core texts of Osiris – Horus

appear on the south and west walls, and this occurs in fairly consistent numbers. It

seems that Horus was not thought effective in the association of the west, with death,

until the pyramid of Pepi I. This coincides with the increased concern with the specific

nature of the death of Osiris. The general spread of texts does seem to indicate the

varied nature of Horus and that he was important to aspects of the death of the

deceased as well as their resurrection. The concentration on the west wall of the

antechamber generally is echoed in the individual corpora. Merenre is an exception

here with many more texts on the eastern wall, possibly indicating a different editing

scheme was in place under Merenre. Pepi II also differs slightly, having an even spread

of texts throughout the antechamber. Texts only appear in the corridor from the

pyramid of Pepi I and reflect the holistic trend of similar numbers of texts on both walls.

Likewise, the general pattern of distribution in the vestibule is reflected on the

individual level with more texts appearing on the east walls of the pyramids of Pepi I

and Pepi II.

181

CH

AP

TE

R F

OU

R

TE

XT

UA

L D

IST

RIB

UT

ION

THE NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE OSIRIS – HORUS SET BY LOCATION

LOCATION UNIS TETI PEPI MERENRE PEPI II NEITH TOTAL

B/S - - 15 1 7 8 31

B/W - - 13 9 15 11 48

B/N 3 4 10 - 16 6 39

B/E 1 6 6 9 11 6 39

P/S 1 - 1 - - - 2

P/N 1 - - - - - 1

A/S - - - - 1 - 1

A/W 4 8 3 3 3 - 21

A/N 1 - 1 - 3 - 5

A/E - - - 8 4 - 12

SP/S - 3 2 - - - 5

SP/N - - - - - - 0

C/W - - 4 2 2 2 10

C/E - - 4 1 2 1 8

V/S - - 4 3 1 - 8

V/W - - - - - - 0

V/N - - - - 1 - 1

V/E - - 7 - 6 - 13

AP/W - - - - - - 0

AP/E - - - - - - 0

182

CH

AP

TE

R F

OU

R

TE

XT

UA

L D

IST

RIB

UT

ION

THE NUMBER OF VARIANT TEXTS IN THE OSIRIS – HORUS SET BY LOCATION

LOCATION UNIS TETI PEPI MERENRE PEPI II NEITH TOTAL

BS - 1 1 2 2 - 6

B/S - 1 20 2 15 17 55

B/W - - 18 18 17 13 66

B/N - 1 6 - 4 4 15

B/E 1 2 9 10 7 11 40

P/S - 1 2 - - - 3

P/N - - 2 - 6 - 8

A/S 1 1 1 1 2 - 6

A/W 3 9 9 7 9 - 37

A/N 2 2 1 - 3 - 8

A/E - - 1 6 6 - 13

SP/S - 1 - - - - 1

SP/N - 2 - - - - 2

C/W - - 7 4 6 - 17

C/E - - 4 1 3 2 10

V/S - - 3 3 2 - 8

V/W - - 3 - - - 3

V/N - - - 3 - - 3

V/E - - 10 - 10 - 20

AP/W - - - - - - 0

AP/E - - 1 - - - 1

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

183

The importance of the burial chamber is also noticeable in the variant texts of Osiris –

Horus. Of the total number, 57% of them appear in the burial chamber. These are

concentrated on the west, south and east walls with few texts appearing on the north

wall. The lower number of texts on the north wall reflects the importance of Horus to

the offering ritual. Unlike any other set, there are some texts found on the sarcophagus

itself. Generally though, the variants were effective in surrounding the deceased, much

like the core texts. The antechamber, which houses 20% of the variant texts, shows the

same pattern as the core texts but in a more pronounced way. There are far more on the

western wall of the antechamber than any other in this part of the tomb indicating its

importance as a placement for the variant texts. Similarly, there is a greater disparity

between the walls of the corridor, with the west wall containing a higher number of

texts than the east. The vestibule follows the same pattern as the core texts, with the

east wall having many more texts than the others. With the exception of the north wall

in the burial chamber, it seems that the existence of variations in the Osiris – Horus set

of texts did not affect their placement on the walls. The same general pattern of textual

distribution exhibited by the core texts is also evident in the variants. This highlights

the importance of the action itself for the placement of the texts over the identity of the

deity involved.

Analysing the corpora separately, the concentration of texts in the burial chamber only

occurs from the pyramid of Pepi I and is continued consistently until the pyramid of

Neith. The only exception to this is a lack of texts on the south wall of the burial

chamber in the pyramid of Merenre. The antechamber by contrast, seems to have been

important for the placement of texts from the pyramid of Unis onwards with the

majority of texts always appearing on the west wall. The high number of texts on the

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

184

east wall seen in the holistic data is only reflected in the pyramids of Merenre and Pepi

II indicating that it could have been anomalous to these pyramids. In the corridor and

the vestibule the pattern seen in the overall analysis is also present on the individual

level. The pyramid of Merenre is again the exception to this with no texts appearing on

the eastern wall of the vestibule.

: OSIRIS – ISIS AND NEPHTHYS 4.5.3

The distribution of the core and variant texts of Osiris – Isis and Nephthys are presented

below and reflect a very different pattern. Osiris – Isis and Nephthys also has the

majority of core texts in the burial chamber with 53% of the total. The distribution of

those within the burial chamber is different in that the south wall contains most of the

texts, with the remaining three walls containing similar numbers. The possible reasons

for this concentration remain unclear, but it is most likely linked to the actions that the

goddesses undertake in the relationships. The antechamber contains 23% of the core

texts and reverts to what seems to be the standard distribution of texts on the west and

east walls. The west wall dominates reflecting its importance, while the spread of texts

over the two walls is suggestive of the role of Isis and Nephthys in both aspects of the

dying and reviving of Osiris. The corridor by contrast, has the vast majority of texts on

the east side possibly linking Isis and Nephthys as the revivers of Osiris to a greater

degree than their other aspects. This is echoed in the vestibule.

185

CH

AP

TE

R F

OU

R

TE

XT

UA

L D

IST

RIB

UT

ION

THE NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE OSIRIS – ISIS AND NEPHTHYS SET BY LOCATION

LOCATION UNIS TETI PEPI MERENRE PEPI II NEITH TOTAL

B/S 1 1 21 - 9 17 49

B/W - 1 5 4 4 4 18

B/N - - 2 - 4 9 15

B/E - 2 5 4 4 - 15

P/S - - - - 1 - 1

P/N - - 3 - 4 - 7

A/S - 1 - - - - 1

A/W - 4 9 7 9 - 29

A/N - - - - 1 - 1

A/E - - - 5 5 - 10

SP/S - - - - - - 0

SP/N - 2 - - - - 2

C/W - - 2 - - - 2

C/E - - 6 1 5 - 12

V/S - - - 1 3 - 4

V/W - - - - - - 0

V/N - - - 2 - - 2

V/E - - 8 - 6 - 14

AP/W - - - - - - 0

AP/E - - - - - - 0

186

CH

AP

TE

R F

OU

R

TE

XT

UA

L D

IST

RIB

UT

ION

THE NUMBER OF VARIANT TEXTS IN THE OSIRIS – ISIS AND NEPHTHYS SET BY LOCATION

LOCATION UNIS TETI PEPI MERENRE PEPI II NEITH TOTAL

B/S - - 6 1 5 4 16

B/W - - 12 11 13 11 47

B/N - - 1 - 7 4 12

B/E - 3 5 3 5 - 16

P/S - - - - - - 0

P/N - - 1 - 2 - 3

A/S 1 1 - 2 - - 4

A/W - 8 5 2 4 - 19

A/N - - - - - - 0

A/E - - - 2 2 - 4

SP/S - 1 1 - - - 2

SP/N - 1 - - - - 1

C/W - - 4 1 1 - 6

C/E - - 1 1 1 - 3

V/S - - 1 - - - 1

V/W - - 1 - 1 - 2

V/N - - - - - - 0

V/E - - 2 - 1 - 3

AP/W - - - - - - 0

AP/E - - - - - - 0

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

187

Looking at the pyramids individually, the burial chamber does not contain significant

numbers of texts until the pyramid of Pepi I. The higher number of texts on the south

wall of the burial chamber is mostly reflected by the pyramid of Pepi I and Neith;

although, Pepi II does have a comparably high number on the south wall. The

importance of the antechamber is only apparent from the pyramid of Teti onwards, but

is relatively consistent throughout the corpora. The east wall of the antechamber is only

inscribed with texts from Osiris – Isis and Nephthys in the pyramid of Merenre and Pepi

II, indicating a possible anomaly akin to that seen in the Osiris – Horus set. In the

corridor and vestibule the placement of texts on the east wall is echoed on the

individual level, particularly in the pyramid of Pepi I and II. Generally then, the pattern

of placement set down in the pyramid of Pepi I is followed in later pyramids where

possible, reflecting a desire to place texts to do with Isis and Nephthys on various walls

throughout the tomb complex.

The variant texts in the Osiris – Isis and Nephthys set are much more uniform in their

distribution throughout the tomb complex showing a concentration generally on the

west side. The burial chamber as a whole houses the majority of the texts, with 65% of

the variants occurring in this room. The vast majority are found on the west wall of the

burial chamber. This is probably reflective of the change in identity in the variant texts.

As Isis and Nephthys were no longer involved, the placement on the west wall, seen in

particular in the core of the Osiris – Horus set, was more important. The remaining

walls have similar numbers of texts showing the effectiveness of the variants in

surrounding the deceased. The antechamber and corridor both echo this pattern and

differ remarkably from the core text placement. This suggests that for the Osiris – Isis

and Nephthys set, the placement of the texts was linked to the identity of the actors,

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

188

rather than simply the action being undertaken. Evidently, the different sets of texts

were not subject to the same rules of placement as each other. The vestibule has only a

few texts, which are relatively spread across the east, west and south walls.On the

individual level the same general patterns of distribution can be seen. Similar to the

core texts, the burial chamber was not inscribed with a significant number of texts until

the pyramid of Pepi I. The concentration of texts on the west wall is continued from the

pyramid of Pepi I until that of Neith. The placement of texts on the walls of the

antechamber only began in the pyramid of Teti but was also maintained throughout the

corpora where possible. In the corridor the preference for the west wall seen in the

holistic data is only reflected in the pyramid of Pepi I, indicating the choice of the text

editors responsible for his corpus. In other pyramids the corridors have the same

number of texts on both walls, albeit in very low numbers.

: HORUS – SETH 4.5.4

The distribution of the core and variant texts of the Horus – Seth set differ again from

the other sets. The distribution of the core texts, like the other sets, shows a general

concentration of texts in the burial chamber with 76% of the total appearing in this

room. Within this room the spread of texts is relatively low, mostly being concentrated

on the north wall. This is undoubtedly due to the importance of the Horus – Seth to the

offering ritual. The remaining walls of the burial chamber do contain some texts,

particular the east wall, suggesting that while the north wall was clearly the most

effective area for the relationship between Horus and Seth, it was also important

generally for the burial chamber. The antechamber reverts to the standard distribution

towards the west wall of the room. The content of the texts, or the proximity to the

burial chamber could equally account for the concentration here but it is noteworthy

that texts do appear on all four walls of the antechamber, suggesting the importance

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

189

overall of the Horus – Seth set to this room. The corridor shows relatively even

numbers of texts on the walls, while the vestibule shows a slight concentration on the

west wall, echoing the antechamber.

On the individual level the pattern seen in the burial chamber is reflected throughout

the corpora. The Horus – Seth set is the only one with texts in the burial chamber of

Unis, and they are only found on the north wall. The concentration of the texts on the

north wall is seen in all the pyramids, except that of Merenre, indicating that the

importance of Horus and Seth to the offering ritual began with the earliest iterations of

the Pyramid Texts. The number of texts seen on the north wall also increases over time

showing a growth in the importance of Horus and Seth. Where the other walls of the

burial chamber are concerned, the pyramid of Teti shows a relative similarity in the

number of texts on the north and east walls, while from the pyramid of Pepi I the east,

west and south walls all have consistently low numbers of texts. This is reflective of the

canonisation of the placement of the texts under Pepi I. Within the antechamber the

singular focus on the west wall seems to lessen over time. In the pyramids of Unis and

Teti there is a distinct concentration of texts but from the pyramid of Pepi I they appear

to be more spread, particularly evident in the pyramid of Pepi II. The west wall seems

to have maintained a certain level of significance while the treatment of the other walls

varied from pyramid to pyramid. The focus on the west wall of the vestibule in the

holistic data is anomalous as it is only evident in the pyramid of Pepi I, reflecting the

individuality of his corpus.

190

CH

AP

TE

R F

OU

R

TE

XT

UA

L D

IST

RIB

UT

ION

THE NUMBER OF CORE TEXTS IN THE HORUS – SETH SET BY LOCATION

LOCATION UNIS TETI PEPI MERENRE PEPI II NEITH TOTAL

B/S - - 5 - 5 1 11

B/W - 1 5 2 3 7 18

B/N 24 16 32 - 34 34 140

B/E - 12 5 6 4 4 31

P/S - - - - - - 0

P/N - 2 - - - - 2

A/S 1 1 1 - 1 - 4

A/W 4 6 3 2 3 - 18

A/N 1 1 3 - 2 - 7

A/E 1 4 1 - 1 - 7

SP/S - - - - - - 0

SP/N - - - - - - 0

C/W - - 4 1 1 1 7

C/E - - 2 1 2 - 5

V/S - - 2 - - - 2

V/W - - 5 - 1 - 6

V/N - - - - 1 - 1

V/E - - 1 1 - - 2

AP/W - - 1 - - - 1

AP/E - - 1 - - - 1

191

CH

AP

TE

R F

OU

R

TE

XT

UA

L D

IST

RIB

UT

ION

THE NUMBER OF VARIANT TEXTS IN THE HORUS – SETH SET BY LOCATION

LOCATION UNIS TETI PEPI MERENRE PEPI II NEITH TOTAL

B/S 1 2 4 - 3 3 13

B/W - 1 3 2 1 2 9

B/N 1 1 1 - 2 1 6

B/E 1 - - - - 2 3

P/S - - - - - - 0

P/N - 1 - - - - 1

A/S 1 1 - - - - 2

A/W - 1 1 1 2 - 5

A/N - - - - - - 0

A/E 1 2 1 - - - 4

SP/S - - - - - - 0

SP/N - - - - - - 0

C/W - - - - - - 0

C/E - - - - - - 1

V/S - - - - - - 0

V/W - - 2 - 1 - 3

V/N - - 1 - - - 1

V/E - - - - - - 0

AP/W - - 1 - - - 1

AP/E - - - 1 - - 1

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

192

The importance of the burial chamber is also seen in the variant texts with 62% of the

total variant texts appearing here. Unlike the core, the south wall has the highest

concentration of texts, followed by the west wall and north walls. The relative

distribution between the core and variant texts is almost opposite of each other,

suggesting the effectiveness of the variant texts were felt in different parts of the burial

chamber. The antechamber has similar numbers of texts on the west and east walls.

This differs from the core in showing less of a focus on the west overall, possibly

reflective of the choices of the editors but for what reason remains unclear. The low

number of texts in the vestibule, mean that patterns are difficult to discern but there is a

slight concentration of texts on the west wall, echoing the core texts. The variant texts of

the Horus – Seth set show generally the same trends as the core texts with a focus on the

burial chamber and the west walls of the antechamber and vestibule.

The number of variant texts in each pyramid is small making a diachronic analysis

difficult but some broad patterns can be discussed. The burial chamber contained some

variant texts of the Horus – Seth set from the pyramid of Unis through till that of Neith.

Like the holistic data suggest, the south wall does appear to be the focus of most of the

pyramids; although, the difference in numbers across the different walls is somewhat

negligible. Overall, the significance of the burial chamber was maintained in each

pyramid, showing a sustained importance over time. The antechamber sees a fairly

high spread of texts until the pyramid of Pepi I, when the west wall takes and maintains

precedence. The pyramid of Pepi I has more texts in the vestibule than that of Pepi II,

possibly indicating a wider significance of the variant texts throughout the tomb

complex, but the variation is very small and might not demonstrate a purposeful choice

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

193

on the part of the editors. The number of texts in the vestibule precludes meaningful

analysis.

: DISCUSSION 4.6

The patterns of distribution of the Pyramid Texts, identified in this study, reveal more

aspects about the use of the myth of Osiris. Over time there appears to have been a

deeper engagement with the myth of Osiris. The number of both core and variant texts

in all the sets increases from the reign of Unis until Pepi I, when the number of texts are

generally maintained. This increase coincides well with the increase in the Pyramid

Text corpora generally, but it is telling that additional texts appear to have come from an

increased desire to include the Osiris myth in the Pyramid Texts, rather than other

topics of concern. The increase in the number of texts overall correlates to a rise in the

frequency of attestations identified in the location analysis. A distinct difference can be

seen between the pyramids of Unis and Teti, to that of Pepi I. The pyramids of Unis and

Teti are characterised by a low spread of texts, particularly evident by the lack of texts

appearing beyond the antechamber. The pyramid of Pepi I changes radically in this

regard, showing not only an increase in the number of texts but also an increase in their

spread throughout the tomb complex. The incorporation of mythological elements into

the Pyramid Texts was thus not a gradual process of increase but a surge in interest

under the reign of Pepi I. The number and placement of texts appears to have been

modelled on the pyramid of Pepi I from then on, creating, to some extent, a canon. This

appears to have been maintained through the reign of Merenre and Pepi II. Despite the

change in architecture in the tomb of Neith, which precluded a wide distribution of texts

throughout, there are still high numbers overall, suggesting that the desire to

incorporate the myth of Osiris may have also applied to the tomb of this queen at least.

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

194

The motivation for this sudden growth in mythological engagement is uncertain. The

problem was noted by Hellum, that we cannot know whether Pepi I was a devout

follower of the Heliopolitan religion or just aware of his royal obligations to the gods. 245

Alternatively, if his father, Teti, had been assassinated his increased involvement with

the Osiris myth may indicate a desire to emphasis his devotion to the gods in a

preventative effort against the same occurrence. The Pyramid Texts seem to point to the

former, that during the reign of Pepi I the significance of the myth of Osiris was

emphasised more than in earlier reigns. At the very least it points to a change in the

religious discourse of the Old Kingdom, from minimal to maximal inclusion of the gods.

It also indicates that there was a lessening of the constraints placed upon the myth of

Osiris. The appearance of aspects of the myth from the time of Unis shows that the

people responsible for the editing of the texts were aware of its intricacies. It is thus

possible that not only reference to the death of Osiris was restricted by decorum but also

the entirety of the narrative surrounding his death. This could account for the omission

of aspects such as the conception of Horus. The nature of the action would not

necessarily have precluded it from being part of the Pyramid Texts but it nevertheless

only appears in later corpora. Decorum probably determined the exposition of the

entire narrative rather than certain aspects of it; although, some events, more than

others, were affected by it. This changed under the reign of Pepi I and was maintained

afterwards. The maintenance of the number and placement of texts from that time

suggests the importance of his corpus in creating a canon for the Pyramid Texts, and the

use of myth within them. It appears that once the restrictions of decorum were

lessened, allowing the myth of Osiris to be used in the Pyramid Texts in a concentrated

way, this idea was maintained. It must be said that in almost all cases the pyramid of

245 Jennifer Hellum, “Pepi I: A Case Study of the Royal Religious Devotion in the Old Kingdom,”

in ASCS 32 Selected Proceedings, ed. Anne Mackay (ascs.org.au/news/ascs32/Hellum.pdf, 2011).

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

195

Pepi I has more texts than any other, but the pyramid of Pepi II has a relatively similar

number and distribution of texts as well. This does not just apply to the myth of Osiris,

as the placement of the Pyramid Texts in general was maintained after the reign of Pepi

I, but it suggests that the priesthood responsible for the selection and inscription of the

texts was also responsible for establishing how the myth of Osiris was incorporated into

the Pyramid Texts.

Similar to the issue of decorum, the reasons for this change are unclear. Assmann points

to canonisation as the institutionalisation of permanence and the most favoured cultural

mechanism of creating something that transcends time.246 This attempt at permanence

could lie at the heart of establishing a canon but the question remains open.

Nevertheless, it clearly shows a shift in the religious thought about the myth of Osiris

and the Pyramid Texts in general. The corpus of Pepi I reflect a conscious effort to

incorporate all the different components of the myth of Osiris into the Pyramid Texts,

which is preserved from then on. It highlights the increased importance of the myth of

Osiris, as well as, a concern for utilising the entire narrative.

The distribution of the Osiris myth texts also reveals information about the efficacy of

myth in the Pyramid Texts. The concentration of texts in the different groups in the

Pyramid Texts indicates a link between the content of the texts and their efficacy. The

content played a role in the placement of texts within certain groups. In the Osiris –

Horus set the texts were mostly found in the Anointing and Wrapping, Mixed, Horus

Resurrects, Transfiguration, and Offering Ritual groups. These groups were where the

relationships between Horus and Osiris were most effective. Likewise, Isis and

246 Jan Assmann, The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs, trans. Andrew

Jenkins (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003), 65.

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

196

Nephthys were most effective for the Transfiguration, Perpetuation of Cult, Anointing

and Wrapping, Mixed and Aggregation with the Gods groups. It is odd that Isis and

Nephthys have only three texts from group F, Isis and Nephthys Lament; however, the

group itself is small and not well attested throughout the Pyramid Texts.247 The

relationship between Horus and Seth shows a distinct concentration in group A due to

its importance to the Offering Ritual, which has been already noted. Conversely, the

Osiris – Seth set shows the least amount of concentration in groups, but rather a high

spread of texts throughout all of the groups. That said, there are higher numbers of

texts from Transfiguration, Perpetuation of cult, Horus Resurrects, Anointing and

Wrapping and Aggregation with the Gods. Generally then, the myth of Osiris appears

to have been most effective for the Transfiguration, Anointing and Wrapping and

Perpetuation of Cult groups. While the concentration of texts might suggest a higher

degree of efficacy in these groups, in all cases there are texts in each set in almost all the

groups. This indicates that the efficacy of the Osiris myth may have been concentrated

in some groups but also felt throughout the Pyramid Texts overall.

This can also be seen in a comparison of the distribution of texts in the tomb complex.

In all cases it is the burial chamber that houses the majority of the texts. This is evident

on the collective scale of the Pyramid Texts corpora and also the individual level,

particularly when analysing Pepi I and Pepi II. The efficacy of the myth of Osiris was

thus tied to the proximity of the texts to the deceased. Moving away from the deceased

the number of texts diminishes, the antechamber has the next highest concentration

followed by the corridor and vestibule. Just as certain groups were more important for

the myth, so too were certain areas in the tomb. The considerable variation in

247 Hays, Organization, 1:103.

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

197

placement of the texts within these rooms suggests that while there may have been a

deliberate placement of certain groups of texts, others may have been positioned where

it suited the priests responsible for the inscriptions. The overall significance of the

burial chamber is to be expected, given that the myth is primarily about death and more

so resurrection. Surrounding the deceased with texts aimed at resurrection and

emphasising the importance of the actions of the other gods, would have been the most

effective use of the myth overall. Going beyond this, certain sets also concentrate on

certain walls. The Osiris – Seth set has the majority of texts on the west walls of the

burial chamber, antechamber and corridor. Osiris – Horus is far more spread

throughout the burial chamber but concentrates on the west wall of the antechamber.

Most of the texts in Osiris – Isis and Nephthys are found on the south wall of the burial

chamber and west wall of the antechamber, while Horus – Seth shows a very high

concentration on the north wall of the burial chamber and also the west wall of the

antechamber. The different aspects of the myth of Osiris were linked to different areas

in the tomb. The only commonality between all the sets is a focus on the west wall of

the antechamber. Without paratextual information it is difficult to discern why this

might be, but the proximity of the west wall to the burial chamber as well as the general

association with the west and death could account for the higher numbers of texts on

this wall. Much like the groups, there is also a spread of texts throughout the tomb

complex, most notably in the pyramid of Pepi I. As the incorporation of the myth of

Osiris into the Pyramid Texts was increased, the efficacy of the myth was also expanded

beyond the burial chamber and antechamber. These areas remained the most important

for the myth but not solely, as the other areas in the pyramid also began to be associated

with the myth. Again this shows a change, during the reign of Pepi I, in thought about

the myth of Osiris and how it was incorporated into the Pyramid Texts.

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

198

The distribution of the Osiris myth texts in the categories of Pyramid Texts relates

primarily to the context of performance of the myth. In all the sets the vast majority of

texts are of the Sacerdotal category. With the exception of the Horus – Seth set, there are

normally only a few texts associated with the Personal category. The implications of

this are important for our understanding of myth in the Pyramid Texts. The distinction

between Sacerdotal and Personal texts is one between texts designed for cultic service

by a priest and those designed for individual use by the deceased themselves.248 This

implies that the myth of Osiris was predominantly known and used within the priestly

environment. It was most effective as part of the above-ground rituals performed on

behalf of the deceased and formed a major aspect of the priestly religious discourse of

the Old Kingdom. Within this, the Osiris myth was more operative as part of priestly

recitations, as opposed to offering texts. The exception to this is again the Horus – Seth

set, which has a majority of texts of the offering type. The heavy focus on priestly

recitations is reflective of their primary purpose in the resurrection of the deceased.249

Where Personal texts are used, they are almost exclusively of the transition type,

corresponding to texts aimed at the deceased’s exalted position, attributes, actions,

identity as well as their transition through the sky with the gods.250 This is in keeping

with the essence of the Osiris myth, as is the minor appearance of apotropaic texts in

sets involving the enemy of Osiris, Seth. The myth of Osiris was thus known and used

in both the individual and collective arenas of ritual but was most effective for the

priestly texts recited on behalf of the deceased.

248 Hays, Organization, 1:125. 249 Hays, Organization, 1:270-71. 250 Hays, Organization, 1:282.

CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTUAL DISTRIBUTION

199

This correlates well with the rise in the Heliopolitan priesthood during the Old

Kingdom.251 It seems no coincidence that the increase in the significance of the myth of

Osiris occurred at the same time as the cult of Re and the Heliopolitan priesthood were

gaining prominence in Egypt. The myth was clearly more important to the priestly

domain, which could have been a direct consequence of the incorporation of

Heliopolitan ideas into the royal mortuary texts. The increase in that incorporation,

attaining its zenith under Pepi I, might be attributable to a changed religious and

political landscape in Egypt. The peak of the significance of the cult of Re was during

the Fifth Dynasty with the erection of the sun temples at Abu Gurob; however, the

abandonment of this tradition did not result in the renunciation of the solar religion,

which still remained important during the Sixth Dynasty.252 Indeed, the political

statement of the incorporation of the myth of Osiris must have been powerful, given the

purpose of the myth with links to kingship, succession patterns and above all else the

notion of maat. The increased royal engagement with the political ideology of the

Heliopolitan priesthood speaks significantly about their relationship. The use of the

myth of Osiris in the Pyramid Texts, shown by the different distribution patterns, is thus

reflective of a purposeful engagement with the foundation myth of the Heliopolitan

priesthood as they were rising in religious and political importance.

251 Stephen Quirke, The Cult of Ra: Sun-Worship in Ancient Egypt (Thames and Hudson: London,

2001). See also Wilkinson, Complete Gods and Goddesses, 209; Rosalie David, Religion and Magic in

Ancient Egypt (London: Penguin, 2002), 77-136; Jaromir Malek, “The Old Kingdom,” in The Oxford

History of Ancient Egypt, ed. Ian Shaw (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 98-99; Jaromir

Malek, In the Shadow of the Pyramids: Egypt During the Old Kingdom (Norman: University of

Oklahoma Press, 1986), 106-105; Rosalie David, Cult of the Sun: Myth and Magic in Ancient Egypt

(London: Dent and Sons, 1980), 36-57. 252 Quirke, Cult of Ra, 84-85. See also Michel Baud, “The Old Kingdom,” in A Companion to Ancient

Egypt, ed. Alan B. Lloyd (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 1:75-77.

200

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION

: INTRODUCTION 5.1

This study set out to explore the appearance and use of the myth of Osiris in the ancient

Egyptian Pyramid Texts. This was motivated primarily by the lack of a comprehensive

understanding of the concept of myth in the cultural context of Old Kingdom Egypt.

Egyptological studies on myth have tended to focus on later periods in Egyptian

history, in which narrative myth is clearly evident. Treatment of the early evidence has,

on the whole, resulted in the conclusion that the Old Kingdom lacked myth entirely253 or

that narrative was not of importance to religious discourse.254 On the other hand, more

recent treatments have tended to favour to the opposite end of the spectrum, arguing for

the existence of non-narrative myth. This dichotomy in the scholarship reveals the

complexity of the issue under investigation and that there can be no simple answer. To

understand the intricacies of myth in ancient Egypt this thesis has analysed the content

of the Pyramid Texts through different lenses of enquiry. Its three sections address the

textual content, aspects of variation and the spatial and temporal distribution of the

textual material. These sections define the motivations of this study to move from an

understanding of the core of the myth of Osiris to all of its varying aspects, and the

implications, for myth, of the interplay between text and monument. They indicate the

scope of this project, and its concerns with a deeper comprehension of the ways in

which the divine world was conceived and discussed in Old Kingdom Egypt.

253 Assmann, “Die Verborgenheit.” 254 Baines, “Myth and Literature.”

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

201

FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS 5.2

Myth emerges from this study more sharply defined as a complex social, religious and

political phenomenon. As a concept, its borders stretch beyond our definitional

frameworks of narrative, story or network. If we are to understand the complexity of

myth we must situate myth in the cultural and social milieu in which it is found, and

look beyond those definitional frameworks that can be restrictive. The employment of

the latter in Egyptological studies has, contrary to the purpose of a definition in

demarcating the limits of a concept, created a mixed understanding of myth in Egypt as

scholarship divides in two directions, characterised by an understanding of myth as

primarily narrative or non-narrative. Rather than advocating a unifying approach to the

topic, which would stultify our understanding of the concept, this study seeks to

demonstrate the problem of restriction created by definitions. The introduction to this

study highlighted the plurality of characterisations, in general discourse on myth as

well as in Egyptological studies. It was shown that in prioritising a single aspect of

myth, the nuances and complexities of the concept were lost. Moving beyond this, this

study has sought to provide an alternative way of comprehending myth beyond the

narrative versus non-narrative debate. The stripping away of narrative as a primary

mechanism of order motivated this study to utilise a system of classification that was

not confined to those borders of coherence and logical order, but rather the grouping of

similar content together in a system of relationships. Despite this analytical framework,

aimed at an understanding of a primarily non-narrative text, the implications of the

analysis pointed at narrative underpinnings. The fact that a coherent whole could be

constructed from the disjointed parts indicates the existence of that whole. Yet in a

series of non-narrative ritual texts, the imposition of a narrative structure might go too

far, saying more about how the modern world is ordered rather than the ancient.

Nevertheless, our understanding of myth, as a product of human discourse, is

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

202

inescapably tied to narrative. The key concept of narrativity appears to mediate

effectively between the seemingly opposed concepts of narrative and non-narrative.

That a narrative structure could have a low level of narrativity, and still retain its core

essence, describes the situation in the Pyramid Texts remarkably well. The logical

definitional trait of myth as narrative is thus upheld, even in a non-narrative context.

The narrative and the non-narrative can co-exist in the text through the idea of

narrativity. This leads this study to conclude that myth during the Old Kingdom in

Egypt was conceived of in narrative terms, correlating with the concept of a genotext, in

the oral sphere. The narrative conception was not reflected to a great extent on the

textual level, the phenotext, due its own concerns for ritual in which a full narrative

would not have been effective.

This conception is further complicated by the occurrence of variation in the Pyramid

Texts. A logical understanding of narrative includes the idea of coherence, that the

events and actions of the narrative have a fixed order to them. The existence of

apparently competing notions of the events and actions in the myth of Osiris, presented

concurrently in the Pyramid Texts, can lead to a conclusion that a lack of stability in the

form of the myth existed, precluding its actualisation as narrative. But this conclusion

does not necessarily follow. This study has shown variability to be an operative force in

the Pyramid Texts, essential to their success in maintaining the deceased in the afterlife.

The accumulation of multiple texts with the same purpose appears to have been an

overriding characteristic of the Pyramid Texts, which superseded the need for temporal

coherence. Sequential ordering could be imposed by the reader rather than the author,

and strict coherence might have only existed in the mental processes of religious

thought. The genotext, known to those privileged enough, would have provided the

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

203

understanding necessary to order the events presented in the Pyramid Texts, if such an

order was desired. A lack of textual coherence does not necessarily imply a lack of

narrative, but speaks to the purpose of the Pyramid Texts as primarily ritual. The most

significant conclusion from the investigation into variability concerns the existence of

more than one narrative in the Pyramid Texts. The dual nature of Horus as the young

child conceived between Osiris and Isis, who must grow up in order to contend with

Seth, and as a god old enough to search for, find and resurrect his father, is suggestive

of two different accounts, each of which can produce a slightly different narrative. The

maintenance of one fixed narrative does not appear to have been a concern for the

editors of the Pyramid Texts. The texts prioritise inclusion over exclusion and reflect a

desire to incorporate all the different traditions about the world of the gods, including

those beyond the purview of the myth of Osiris. In understanding the different uses to

which variability was put in the Pyramid Texts, this study has shown myth during the

Old Kingdom to be an evolving phenomenon, primordial in nature and more complex

than a singular narrative conception was capable of explaining.

While the content analysis of this study pursued an understanding of the concept of

myth itself, the study of the textual distribution of the myth of Osiris sought to

understand its use and has a number of important wider implications. It was found that

the myth of Osiris, like the Pyramid Texts themselves, was subject to a programme of

expansion over time, reaching its peak during the reign of Pepi I. The utilisation of

myth in the Pyramid Texts during the reign of Unis and Teti appears to have been more

reserved, with minimal references to events concerning the death and resurrection of

Osiris. References to such heinous actions as the murder of Osiris would naturally be

restricted by decorum, but this does not adequately explain the lack of the entire myth.

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

204

It was thus the myth in its entirety, explaining the death, search for, finding of and

resurrection of Osiris that was not appropriate for writing down. This does not imply a

lack of existence, as the few references found in the pyramids of Unis, and particularly

Teti, illustrate that the narrative was at least known. It rather points to the purposeful

editing of the Pyramid Texts to not include a full account of the narrative. The

exception to this rule appears to have been the injury of Horus by Seth, as it appears in

the Offering Ritual from the inception of the use of the Pyramid Texts. The differences

in treatment of the Osirian elements from those about Horus and Seth are highly

suggestive of another tradition external to the Osiris myth. Just as the Osiris myth

appears to have had different versions, the contendings of Horus and Seth seems to

have been originally apart from the Osiris myth and was subject to different

programmes of editing.

One of the most fascinating conclusions of this area of enquiry is the changing situation

under Pepi I. The vast expansion in the number of texts about the myth of Osiris, the

spread of their use throughout the tomb complex, and their higher level of detail all

point to the fact that the reign of Pepi I was revolutionary in terms of religious thought.

There was more freedom to utilise the foundation myth of the Heliopolitan theology

and an increased desire to incorporate it into the royal mortuary texts. The fact that the

number and placement of the texts appears to have been maintained in subsequent

pyramids speaks to the importance of the reign of Pepi I, in creating a relative canon for

the Pyramid Texts. This could be reflective of a standardisation of religious practices

during his reign or his importance for later kings to emulate. The question remains open

and further investigations into the motivations behind this move would be enlightening.

The increased use of the myth of Osiris also points to the increase in the influence of the

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

205

Heliopolitan priesthood. It was observed that the myth of Osiris in the Pyramid Texts

originated primarily in the priestly domain of mortuary practices, rather than the

personal. The rise of the solar religion centred at Heliopolis is thus reflected in the use

of the Osiris myth in the Pyramid Texts. The statement made by the ruling class

through this increased incorporation of the myth of Osiris reflects the changing religious

and political landscape of Egypt during the Old Kingdom.

This study is now in a position to answer the research questions laid out in the

introduction.

- To what extent do the Pyramid Texts contain the myth of Osiris?

- What form does mythic thought take in non-narrative texts?

- How was the myth of Osiris conceptualised in the Old Kingdom?

Within the corpora of the Pyramid Texts, the entire myth of Osiris is contained. The

death, search for, finding of, resurrection of Osiris and the succession of Horus are all

present in some form. The texts lack extraneous detail in preference for brevity and

sometimes allusion, but this has more to do with the form of ritual texts than the form of

myth. The core of what was important, the essence of the myth, is presented rather than

a full account with every detail explained. On the individual level the Pyramid Text

corpora show different levels of incorporation of the myth. This reflects the changing

dynamics of religious thought in the Old Kingdom and reveals the shifting political

climate caused by the rise in prominence of Heliopolitan theology. Moreover, on closer

examination the Pyramid Texts as a whole not only contain a full account of the Osiris

myth, but a varied account. The myth of Osiris was thus conceptualised as a multivalent

narrative, with a core element and variations. The examination of the variations to

which the myth was subjected has highlighted its primordial nature. In particular, it

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

206

has shown that for the theologians of the Old Kingdom, the desire to create a single

narrative of the events was less important than assembling the different strands of

thought into a comprehensive collection. The knowledge required to understand the

competing ideas and variations was undoubtedly known to those who created the texts

and one cannot escape the fact that a language, beyond the confines of linguistic

devices, is being used here that we do not fully understand.

In a corpus of non-narrative, ritual texts, one might expect to find mythic thought

approaching something of a non-narrative form. Like the constellations of Assmann or

the tableau of Bickel, these conceptions provide an attractive lens of analysis for the

scholar. The form of the Pyramid Texts, as ritual, cannot be forgotten and the form of

myth was inserted into this scheme rather than being a founding principle. Ritual texts

are fundamentally incapable of housing the most recognisable form of myth, a full

unbroken narrative. This study has shown the concept of a non-narrative myth to be

insufficient in explaining the situation in the Pyramid Texts. Narrative myth, albeit with

a low level of narrativity, provides the best explanation of the form of myth in the

Pyramid Texts. The lack of coherence, often used as an indictment against narrative,

does not necessarily imply a lack of narrative thought. Instead it shows the

phenomenon to be more complex and multi-faceted than a singular narrative

conception could contain.

From the perspective of methodology this study points to a number of implications for

research into myth in ancient Egypt. The most important of these is the

inappropriateness of strict definitional frameworks. As a concept, myth is multi-

faceted, multi-purpose and can exist in a plurality of forms in different cultures. The

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

207

universality to myth in all cultures should not be denied, but this should not be

confused with the universality of the idea itself. Definitions at their core seek to limit a

concept, but if the concept is almost without limit this task serves only to highlight one

aspect, one form, or one purpose of myth. Inspired by the vast body of literature on

myth, this thesis has revealed the danger of treating myth as a static phenomenon, and

what can be achieved when the limiting notion of a definition is disregarded in favour

of a culturally, and temporally specific understanding. The vastness of the scholarship

on myth generally is testament to its nature as a highly important and variable vehicle

for cultural belief. This nature should be reflected in the approach taken in

understanding myth, exploring its complexity rather than creating dividing categories

into which texts can be placed and analysed.

This study has shown that even within a relatively short lapse of time the appearance

and use of myth changed within Egypt. This study challenges the way in which

scholars have understood the temporality of myth. The use of the Pyramid Texts in the

Old Kingdom spanned some 200 years, during which time they changed and evolved.

The appearance of myth also developed as concepts changed, traditions were

amalgamated and the core narrative was formed. Closer attention to the evolution of

myth over time, rather than using an encompassing definition for all time periods, has

repaid this study through deeper understanding of myth in its temporal and cultural

setting. This methodology would repay other studies as well, honing understanding in

incremental steps rather than through broad sweeping generalisations.

: LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER STUDY 5.3

This study is just one piece of the puzzle and while its implications are far reaching for

the study of myth in ancient Egypt and religion in the Old Kingdom, it will no doubt

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

208

not be the final word on the topic. There are limitations to what could be accomplished

in the confines of a thesis and also in the source material utilised. Much work is still

required both in understanding the development of religious thought during the Old

Kingdom and also the periods that surround it. The primary limit placed upon this

study was borne from the disagreement in the scholarship that was the inspiration for

its undertaking. The discussion of the late development of myth in ancient Egypt has,

more often than not, had the Pyramid Texts as its starting point. In order to address this

issue, the source material chosen for analysis was naturally this body of texts. This

naturally excluded any source material that was not a part of the mortuary texts of the

kings of the 5th and 6th Dynasties.255 The earliest representations of Osiris date back to

the 5th Dynasty showing that his iconography was probably established well before the

Pyramid Texts were inscribed.256 The main reason for the limitation to the Pyramid

Texts in the Old Kingdom concerned the scope and depth of the study being

undertaken. An overarching study of the Osiris myth through Pharaonic history would

not accord enough priority to one body of evidence, and would also lack the detail

required to make a significant contribution to scholarship. This study has argued

against treating myth, and by extension Egyptian thought, as a fixed phenomenon

through history and by limiting this study it is more effective in delineating religious

thought of a specific time period.

255 As a full publication of the pyramid of Merenre becomes available more information could be

added to this study. Likewise, a study of pyramids of the queens could be undertaken as they are

published, which would enlighten scholarship further on the use of the Osiris myth beyond the

kings. 256 Marianne Eaton-Krauss, “The Earliest Representation of Osiris?” VA 3 (1987): 233-236. Eaton-

Krauss argues that a fragmentary block from the funerary temple of Djedkare-Isesi is the earliest

representation of Osiris. David Lorton had questioned the identification in “Considerations on

the Origin and the Name of Osiris,” VA 1 (1985): 122. See also David Cintron, “Theology in the

time of Djoser,” JSSEA 34 (2007): 19-20.

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

209

In light of this study, further research is still in need regarding myth in ancient Egypt.

As narrative myth was in existence during the Old Kingdom its origins could lie further

back in time. The Early Dynastic257 and Predynastic Periods could be studied with this

in mind. Tomb T100 at Hierakonpolis258 and the rock art at Gebel Tjauti provide some

early examples of possible kingship rituals and mythological associations.259 Study into

this area could provide a deeper understanding of how myth was conceived at the

foundation of the Egyptian state and in the earliest periods of Pharaonic history. The

level of coherence and awareness of the overall sequence of events suggests that there

must have been an earlier formation of the ideas found in the Pyramid Texts. This has

257 For the early dynastic period see Kathryn Bard, “Toward an Interpretation of the Role of

Ideology in the Evolution of Complex Society in Egypt,” JAA 11 (1992): 1-24; Orly Goldwasser,

“The Narmer Palette and the “Triumph of Metaphor”,” LingAeg 2 (1992): 67-85; Stan Hendrickx

and Frank Förster, “Early Dynastic Art and Iconography,” in A Companion to Ancient Egypt, ed.

Alan B. Lloyd (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 1:826-852; Stan Hendrickx et al., “Iconographic

and Paleographic Elements Dating a Late Dynasty 0 Rock Art Site at Nag el-Hamdulab (Aswan,

Egypt),”in The signs of which times? Chronological and Paleoenvironmental Issues in the Rock Art of

Northern Africa, Royal Academy for Overseas Sciences International Colloquium, Brussels, 3-5 June 2010,

ed. D. Huyge et al. (Brussels: Royal Academy for Overseas Sciences, 2012), 295-326; Ellen Morris,

“Propaganda and Performance at the Dawn of the State,” in Experiencing Power, Generating

Authority, Generating Power: Cosmos, Politics and the Ideology of Kingship in Ancient Egypt and

Mesopotamia, ed. Jane A. Hill et al. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 33-64. 258 On tomb T100 at Hierakonpolis see Humphrey Case and Joan Crowfoot Payne, “Tomb 100:

The Decorated Tomb at Hierakonpolis,” JEA 48 (Dec., 1962): 5-18; Krzysztof Ciałowicz, “Once

more the Hierakonpolis Wall Painting,” in Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of

Egyptologists, ed. Chris Eyre (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1998), 273-279. 259 John Darnell, with the assistance of Deborah Darnell and contributions by Deborah Darnell,

Renee Friedmann and Stan Hendrickx, Theban Desert Road Survey in the Egyptian Western Desert

Volume 1, OIP 119 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute of Chicago, 2002), 10-19; Stan Hendrickx and

Renee Friedman, “Gebel Tjauti Rock Inscription 1 and the Relationship between Abydos and

Hierakonpolis during the Early Naqada III Period,” GM 196 (2003): 95-109. See also; Bruce

Williams, Thomas Logan and William Murnane, “The Metropolitan Museum knife handle and

aspects of Pharaonic imagery before Narmer,” JNES 46 no. 4 (1987): 245-285; Stan Hendrickx et

al, “Late Predynastic Falcons on a Boat,” JSAS 24 (2008): 371-384; John Darnell, “Iconographic

Attraction, Iconographic Syntax, and Tableaux of Royal Ritual Power in the Pre- and Proto-

Dynastic Rock Inscriptions of the Theban Western Desert,” Archéo-Nil 19 (2009): 83-107, esp 97-98.

See also Miroslav Bárta, Swimmers in the Sand (Prague: Dryada, 2010) who explores possible

origins of Pharaonic mythology in the Western Desert; Ludwig Morenz, “Texts before Writing:

Reading (Proto-) Egyptian Poetics of Power,” in Experiencing Power, Generating Authority: Cosmos,

Politics and the Ideology of Kingship in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, ed. Jane A. Hill et al.

(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), 121-149.

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

210

been shown generally by Hays,260 but not specifically for the concept of myth.

The results of this study also point towards a formal analysis of the appearance of Osiris

in the Coffin Texts, the next stage in the evolution of the mortuary literature of Egypt.

No formal analysis of this sort has been undertaken for the Coffin Texts, yet such a

study would allow the beginnings of a chronological development of the myth of Osiris

through Pharaonic history. This does not need to be limited to the Coffin Texts as the

extant corpus of literature dating to the Middle Kingdom is much larger, which could

shed light on the expanding use of the Osiris myth. The Book of the Dead and other

mortuary literature, literary texts, as well as archaeological material from the New

Kingdom could all be avenues of research for a systematic study of the appearance of

the myth of Osiris. These studies, when put together, could form a compendium of

research in to the changing use of the myth of Osiris through the history ancient Egypt.

This study also highlights further questions for the Old Kingdom. The Pyramid Texts

are by no means fully understood and further study into the incorporation of other

divinities outside of the Osiris myth would help ascertain if the appearance of myth

shown in this study, also applied to other deities, or if the Osiris myth was more

singular in its treatment in the Pyramid Texts. Furthermore, this study has indicated the

importance of the reign of Pepi I for the expansion of religious ideas and their

incorporation into the mortuary literature. The motivations behind this are scarcely

understood and the question deserves treatment.

260 Hays, Organization.

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

211

: CONCLUDING REMARKS 5.4

The Pyramid Texts dating to the Old Kingdom in Egypt contain a narrative of the myth

of Osiris. Its appearance in short, segmented texts is in keeping with its incorporation

into a body of textual material not suited to a full narrative. The Pyramid Texts

preserved all the different traditions within the Osiris myth, side by side, without the

need to accord privilege of one account over the other. In this regard, they provide the

scholar with an insight into the development of myth from a plurality of traditions to

the more standardised versions known from later sources. It also speaks to the religious

thought of the Old Kingdom when inclusion of tradition was prioritised over the need

for strict coherence, a notion that appears to originate in western discourse rather than

eastern. If we are to fully understand the concept of myth in ancient Egypt, or indeed

any society, we must strip away the strict definitional frameworks that constrict

understanding and reveal myth for the complex and variable phenomenon that it is.

212

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, Porter H. The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2002.

––––––. “Narrativity.” In Handbook of Narratology, edited by Peter Hühn, John Pier, Wolf

Schmid and Jörg Schönert, 309-329. Naratologia 19. Berlin and New York: Walter de

Gruyter, 2009.

Allam, S. “Law Courts in Pharaonic and Hellenistic Times.” JEA 77 (1991): 109-127.

Allen, James. Genesis in Egypt: The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts. Yale

Egyptological Studies 2. New Haven: Yale Egyptological Seminar, Department of

Near Eastern Languages and Civilisations, The Graduate School, Yale University,

1988.

––––––. “Reading a Pyramid.” In Hommages à Jean Leclant, edited by Jean Leclant, Gisèle

Clerc, Nicolas-Christophe Grimal and Catherine Berger, 1:5-28. Cairo: Institut

Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1994.

––––––. The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. Writings from the Ancient World 23.

Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005.

––––––. A New Concordance of the Pyramid Texts, 6 vols. Brown University, 2013.

Available at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0xo88uy04urnz0v/o16_ojF8f_

Altenmüller, Hartwig. Die Texte zum Begräbnisritual in den Pyramiden des Alten Reiches.

ÄA, vol. 24. Wisenbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1972.

––––––. “Buto.” In LÄ 1, edited by Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto, 887-889.

Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1975.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

213

––––––. “Denkmal memphitischer Theologie.” In LÄ 1, edited by Wolfgang Helck and

Eberhard Otto, 1065-1069. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, 1975.

––––––. “Zum Ursprung von Isis und Nephthys.” SAK 27 (1999): 1-26.

Amenta, Alessia. “Some Reflections on the ‘Homosexual’ Intercourse between Horus

and Seth.” GM 199 (2004): 7-21.

Andrews, Carol A. R. Introduction to The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, by Raymond

O. Faulkner, edited by Carol Andrews. London: Published for the Trustees of the

British Museum Publications, 1985.

Anthes Rudolf. “Remarks on the Pyramid Texts and the Early Egyptian Dogma.” JAOS

74, 1 (1954): 35-39.

––––––. “Egyptian Theology in the Third Millenium B.C.” JNES 18, 3 (1959): 169-212.

Assmann, Jan. “Das Bild des Vaters im Alten Ägyten.” In Das Vaterbild in Mythos und

Geschichte: Ägypten, Griechenland, Altes Testament, Neues Testament, edited by

Hubertus Tellenbach, 12-49. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1976.

––––––. “Die Verborghenheit des Mythos in Agypten.” GM 25 (1977): 7-43.

––––––. “Die Zeugung des Sohnes: Bild, Spiel, Erzählung und das Problem des

ägyptischen Mythos.” In Funktionen und Leistungen des Mythos: Drei altorientalische

Beispiele, edited by Jan Assmann, Walter Burkert and F. Stolz, OBO 48, 13-61.

Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1982.

––––––. “Verklärung.” In LÄ 6, edited by Wolfgang Helck and Wolfhart Wetendorf, 998-

1006. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, 1986.

––––––. “Egyptian Mortuary Liturgies.” In Studies in Egyptology Presented to Miriam

Lichtheim, edited by Sarah Israelit-Groll, 1:1-45. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1990.

––––––. Stein und Zeit: Mensch und Gesellschaft im alten Ägypten. München: Wilhelm Fink

Verlag, 1991.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

214

––––––. Das kulturelle Gedächtnis: Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen

Hochkulturen. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1992.

––––––. Egyptian Solar Religion in the New Kingdom: Re, Atum and the Crisis of Polytheism.

Translated by Anthony Alcock. London and New York: Kegan Paul International,

1995.

––––––. Images et rites de la mort dans l’Égypte ancienne l’apport des liturgies funéraires. Paris:

Cybele, 2000.

––––––. “Gottes willige Vollstrecker: zur politischen Theologie der Gewalt.” Saeculum 51

(2000): 161-174.

––––––. Tod und Jenseits im alten Ägypten. Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck, 2001.

––––––. The Search for God in Ancient Egypt. Translated by David Lorton. Ithaca: Cornell

University Press, 2001.

––––––. Altägyptische Totenliturgien Band 1. Totenliturgien inden Sargtexten des Mittleren

Reiches. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 2002.

––––––. The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs. Translated by

Andrew Jenkins. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2003.

––––––. Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005.

––––––. Religion and Cultural Memory: Ten Studies. Translated by Rodney Livingstone.

Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006.

––––––. “Creation through Hieroglyphs: The Cosmic Grammatology of Ancient Egypt.”

In The Poetics of Grammar and the Metaphysics of Sound and Sign, edited by Sergio La

Porta and David Shulman, 17-34. JSRC 6. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2007.

––––––. Altägyptische Totenliturgien. Band 3. Osirisliturgien in Papyri der Spätzeit.

Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 2008.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

215

Assmann Jan and Andre Kucharek. Ägyptische Religion. Totenliteratur. Frankfurt: Verlag

der Weltreligionen, 2008.

Austin, Justin. How to do Things with Words. The William James Lectures delivered at

Harvard University 1995. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962.

Baines, John. “Temple Symbolism.” Royal Anthropological Institute News 15 (1976): 10-15.

––––––. “Restricted Knowledge, Hierarchy, and Decorum: Modern Perceptions and

Ancient Institutions.” JARCE 27 (1990): 1-23.

––––––. “Interpreting the Story of the Shipwrecked Sailor.” JEA 79, (1990): 55-72.

––––––. “Egyptian Myth and Discourse: Myth, Gods and the Early Written and

Iconographic Record.” JNES 50, 2 (1991): 81-105.

––––––. “Society, Morality and Religious Practice.” In Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods,

Myths and Personal Practice, edited by Byron Shafer, 123-200. Ithaca and London:

Cornell University Press, 1991.

––––––. “Prehistories of Literature: Performance, Fiction, Myth.” In Definitely: Egyptian

Literature: Proceedings of the symposium “Ancient Egyptian literature: history and forms”,

Los Angeles, March 24-26, 1995, edited by Gerald Moers, 17-41. Göttingen: Lingua

Aegyptia, 1995.

––––––. “Kingship, Definition of Culture, and Legitimation.” In Ancient Egyptian

Kingship, edited by David O’Connor and David Silverman, 3-47. Leiden and New

York: Brill, 1995.

––––––. “Myth and Literature.” In Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms, edited

by Antonio Loprieno, 361-377. New York: E. J. Brill, 1996.

––––––. “Ancient Egyptian Kingship: Official Forms, Rhetoric, Context.” In King and

Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament

Seminar, edited by John Day, 16-53. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

216

Baines, John, and Norman Yoffee. “Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient Egypt and

Mesopotamia.” In Archaic States, edited by Gary Feinman and Joyce Marcus, 199-

260. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 1998.

Bal, Mieke. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. 2nd ed. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press, 1997.

Bard, Kathryn. “Towards an Interpretation of the Role of Ideology in the Evolution of

Complex Society in Egypt.” JAA 11 (1992): 1-24.

Bárta, Miroslav. “Egyptian Kingship during the Old Kingdom.” In Experiencing Power,

Generating Authority: Cosmos, Politics and the Ideology of Kingship in Ancient

Egypt and Mesopotamia, edited by Jane A. Hill, Philip Jones and Antonio Morales,

257-283. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013.

––––––. Swimmers in the Sand: On the Neolithic Origins of Ancient Egyptian Mythology and

Symbolism. Prague: Dryada, 2010.

Barta, Winfried. Untersuchungen zum Götterkries der Neunheit. MÄS 28. München,

Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1973.

––––––. “Bemerkungen zum Götterkries der Neunheit.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 33 (1976):

131-134.

––––––. Die Bedeutung der Pyramidentexte für den verstorbenen König. MaeS 39. München:

Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1981.

Barthes, Roland. “An Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative.” New Literary

History 6 no. 2 (1975): 237-272.

Baud, Michel. “The Old Kingdom.” In A Companion to Ancient Egypt, edited by Alan B.

Lloyd, 1:63-80. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

Bauman Richard and Charles Briggs. “Poetics of Performance as Critical Perspectives of

Language and Social Life,” ARA 19 (1990): 59-88.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

217

Bène, Élise. “Les Textes de la paroi nord de la chambre funéraire de la pyramide de

Téti.” In Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists, edited by Jean

Claude Goyon and Christine Cardin, 1:167-182. Leuven: Peeters, 2007.

Berger-El Naggar, Catherine. “Des Textes des Pyramides sur papyrus dans les archives

du temple funéaire de Pépy Ier.” In D’un monde à l’autre: Textes des pyramides et textes

des sarcophages, edited by Susanne Bickel and Bernard Mathieu, 85-88. Cairo: Institut

Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 2004.

Bickel, Susanne. La cosmogonie égyptienne avant le Nouvel Empire. OBO 134. Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1994.

––––––. “Héliopolis et le tribunal des dieux.” In Études sur l’Ancien Empire et la nécropole

de Saqqâra dédiées à Jean-Philippe Lauer, edited by Catherine Berger and Bernard

Mathieu, 113-122. Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry-Montpellier III, 1997.

Billing, Nils. Nut the Goddess of Life in Text and Iconography. Uppsala: Uppsala University,

2002.

––––––. “Text and Tomb: Some Spatial Properties of Nut in the Pyramid Texts.” In

Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century: Proceedings of the Eighth

International Congress of Egyptologists Cairo, 2000, edited by Zahi Hawass 2:129-136.

Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2003.

––––––. “Monumentalizing the Beyond: Reading the Pyramid before and after the

Pyramid Texts.” SAK 40 (2011): 53-66.

Birrell, Anne. Chinese Mythology: an Introduction. Baltimore and London: The Johns

Hopkins University Presss, 1993.

Blackman, Aylward, and Samuel Hooke. Myth and Ritual: Essays on the Myth and Ritual of

the Hebrews in Relation to the Culture pattern of the Ancient Near East. London: Oxford

University Press, 1933.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

218

Bleeker, C. J. “Isis and Nephthys as Wailing Women.” Numen 5 (Jan., 1958): 1-17.

Breastead, J. H. “The Philosophy of a Memphite Priest.” ZÄS (1901): 39-54.

Broze, Michèle. Mythe et roman en Égypte ancienne : les aventures d’Horus et Seth dans le

papyrus Chester Beatty I. OLA 76. Leuven: Peeters, 1996.

Brugsch, Heinrich. Religion und Mythologie der alten Aegypter. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1891.

Campbell, Joseph. The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Princeton: Princeton University Press,

1968.

Carloye, Jack. “Myth as Religious Explanations.” JAAR 48, 2 (1980): 175-189.

Carrier, Claude. Textes des Pyramides de l’Égypte ancienne. 6 vols. Paris: Éditions Cybele,

2009-2010.

Case, Humphrey and Joan Crowfoot Payne. “Tomb 100: The Decorated Tomb at

Hierakonpolis.” JEA 48 (Dec., 1962): 5-18.

Cassirer, Ernst. The Logic of the Cultural Sciences. Translated by S. G. Lofts. New Haven:

Yale University Press, 2000.

Ciałowicz, Krzysztof. “Once more the Hierakonpolis Wall Painting.” In Proceedings of the

Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists, edited by Chris Eyre, 273-279. Leuven:

Uitgeverij Peeters, 1998.

Cintron, David. “Theology in the time of Djoser.” JSSEA 34 (2007): 15-22.

Cocker, J. “Ceremonial Masks.” In Celebration: Studies in Festivity and Ritual, edited by

Victor Turner, 77-88. Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1982.

Cody, Madeleine. “Wadjyt, Wadjet.” In the Encyclopedia of Ancient History, 1st ed, edited

by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and

Sabine R. Huebner, 7036-7037. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.

doi:10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah15412.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

219

Comstock, W. The Study of Religion and Primitive Religion. New York: Harper and Row,

1972.

Cruz-Uribe, Eugene. “Seth, God of Power and Might.” JARCE 45 (2009): 201-226.

Darnell, John “Iconographic Attraction, Iconographic Syntax, and Tableaux of Royal

Ritual Power in the Pre- and Proto-Dynastic Rock Inscriptions of the Theban

Western Desert.” Archéo-Nil 19 (2009): 83-107.

Darnell, John with the assistance of Deborah Darnell and contributions by Deborah

Darnell, Renee Friedmann and Stan Hendrickx. Theban Desert Road Survey in the

Egyptian Western Desert Volume 1, OIP 119. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of

Chicago, 2002.

David, Rosalie. Cult of the Sun: Myth and Magic in Ancient Egypt. London: Dent and Sons,

1980.

––––––. Religion and Magic in Ancient Egypt. London: Penguin, 2002.

Doniger, Wendy. The Implied Spider: Politics and Theology in Myth. New York: Columbia

University Press, 1998.

Doty, William. Mythography: The Study of Myths and Rituals. Tuscaloosa and London: The

University of Alabama Press, 2000.

Dunand, Françoise and Roger Lichtenberg, Mummies and Death in Egypt. Translated by

David Lorton. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2006.

Dundes Alan. “Earth Diver: Creation of the Mythopoeic Male.” American Anthropologist:

New Series 64, 5 (1962): 1032-1051.

––––––. “The Anthropologist and the Comparative Method in Folklore.” Journal of

Folklore Research 23, 2/3 (1986): 125-146.

––––––. “Projective Inversion in the Ancient Egyptian “Tale of the Two Brothers”.”

Journal of American Folklore 115, 457/458 (2002): 378-394.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

220

Durkheim, Émile. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. Translated by Joseph Swain

New York: Dover Publications, 1915.

Eaton-Krauss, Marianne. “The Earliest Representation of Osiris?” VA 3 (1987): 233-236.

Eilberg-Scwartz, Howard. The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and

Ancient Judaism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990.

Erman, Adolf. “Ein Denkmal memphitischer Theologie.” SPAW 43 (1911): 916-917.

Eyre, Chris. The Cannibal Hymn: A Cultural and Literary Study. Liverpool: Liverpool

University Press, 2002.

Fabre, David. “La dieu Seth de la fin du Nouvel Empire à l’époque gréco-romaine entre

mythe et histoire.Ӄgypte, Afrique & Orient 22 (2001) : 19-40.

Faulkner, Raymond. The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969.

Fishbane, Michael. Biblical and Rabbinic Mythmaking. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2003.

Fontenrose, Joseph. The Ritual Theory of Myth. Berkeley: University of California Press,

1971.

Frandsen, Paul. “Aspects of Kingship in Ancient Egypt.” In Religion and Power: Divine

Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond, edited by Nicole Brisch, 47-74. Chicago:

The Institute of the University of Chicago, 2008.

Frankfort, Henri. Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the

Integration of Society and Nature. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1978.

Frazer, James. Folklore in the Old Testament. London: Macmillan, 1919.

––––––. The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. London: Macmillan, 1959.

Freud, Sigmund. The Interpretations of Dreams. New York: Macmillan, 1951.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

221

––––––. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Edited

by James Strachey, Anna Freud and Angela Richards. 24 vols. London: Hogarth

Press, 1953-1975.

Frood, Elizabeth. “Social Structure and Daily Life: Pharaonic.” In A Companion to Ancient

Egypt, edited by Alan B. Lloyd, 1:469-490. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

Gahlin, Lucia. “Creation Myth.” In The Egyptian World, edited by Toby Wilkinson, 296-

309. London and New York: Routledge, 2010.

Gardiner, Alan. Late-Egyptian Stories. BA 1 Bruxelles: Édition de la Fondation

égyptologique Reine Élisabeth, 1932.

Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic books, 1973.

Genette, Gérard. Narrative Discourse Revisited. Translated by Jane Lewin. Ithaca: Cornell

University Press, 1983.

Guilhou, Nadine and Bernard Mathieu. “Cent dix ans d’étude des Textes des Pyramides

(1882-1996). Bibliographie.” In Études sur l’Ancien Empire et la nécropole de Saqqâra

dédiées à Jean-Philippe Lauer, edited by Catherine Berger and Bernard Mathieu, 233-

244. Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry, 1997.

Giora, Rachel. “Notes Towards a Theory of Text Coherence.” Poetics Today 6 (1985): 699-

715.

Givón, T. “Coherence in Text vs. Coherence in Mind.” In Coherence in Spontaneous Text,

edited by Morton Ann Gernsbacher and T. Givón, 59-116. Typological Studies in

Language 31. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1995.

Goebs, Katja. “A Functional Approach to Egyptian Myth and Mythemes.” JANER 2, 1

(2002): 27-59.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

222

––––––. “Egyptian Mythos as Logos: An Attempt at a Redefinition of ‘Mythical

Thinking’.” In Decorum and Experience: Essays in Ancient Culture for John Baines,

edited by Elizabeth Frood and Angela McDonald, 127-134. Oxford: Griffith

Institute, 2013.

Goldwasser, Orly. “The Narmer Palette and the “Triumph of Metaphor”.” LingAeg 2

(1992): 67-85.

Goode, William. Religion Among the Primitives. London: Collier-Macmillan, 1951.

Goody, Jack. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1977.

Graves, Robert. The Greek Myths. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1960.

Grieshammer, Reinhard. “Nedit.” In LÄ 4, edited by Wolfgang Helck and Wolfhart

Wetendorf, 372. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz, 1982.

Griffiths, J. G. “Some Remarks on the Enneads of Gods,” Orientalia 28 (1959): 34-56.

––––––. The Conflict of Horus and Seth from Egyptian and Classical Sources: A Study in

Ancient Mythology. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1960.

––––––. Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1970.

––––––. The Origin of Osiris and his Cult. Leiden: Brill, 1980.

Grossberg, Lawrence. “Is There a Fan in the House? The Affective Sensibility of

Fandom.” In The Adoring Audience, edited by Lisa Lewis, 50-65. London: Routledge,

1992.

Hamilton, Caleb. “I Judge Between Two Brothers, To Their Satisfaction: Biographies and

the Legal System in the Old Kingdom.” In ASCS 32 Selected Proceedings, edited by

Anne Mackay. ascs.org.au/news/ascs32/Hamilton.pdf, 2011.

––––––. “Aspects of the Judiciary in the Egyptian Old Kingdom.”(forthcoming).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

223

––––––. “Judgement in the Pyramid Texts.” Unpublished manuscript, November 1, 2014.

Microsoft Word file.

Harrison, Jane. The Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1908.

––––––. Themis: A Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion. New York: Meridian Books,

1963.

Hassan, Selim. Excavations at Gîza, Vol. IV. 1932-1933. Cairo: Government Press, 1943.

Hatab, Lawrence. Myth and Philosophy: A Contest of Truths. La Salle: Open Court, 1990.

Hays, Harold. “The Worshipper and the Worshipped in the Pyramid Texts.” SAK 30

(2002): 153-167.

––––––. “Unreading a Pyramid.” BIFAO 109 (2009): 195-220.

––––––. “Old Kingdom Sacerdotal Texts.” JEOL 41 (2009): 47-94.

––––––. “Funerary rituals (Pharaonic Period).” In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology,

edited by Jacco Dieleman and Willeke Wedndrich, Los Angeles, 2010.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1r32g9zn.

––––––. The Organization of the Pyramid Texts: Typology and Disposition. 2 vols. PAe 31.

Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012

Hellum, Jennifer. “The Presence of Myth in the Pyramid Texts.” PhD diss., University of

Toronto, 2001.

––––––. “Pepi I: A Case Study of the Royal Religious Devotion in the Old Kingdom.” In

ASCS 32 Selected Proceedings, edited by Anne Mackay.

ascs.org.au/news/ascs32/Hellum.pdf, 2011.

––––––. “The Presence of Myth in the Pyramid Texts.” In Egyptology in Australia and New

Zealand 2009: Proceedings of the Conference held in Melbourne September 4th-6th, edited

by Christian Knoblauch and James Gill, 41-46. Oxford: BAR 2012.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

224

––––––. “Toward an Understanding of the Use of Myth in the Pyramid Texts,”

(Forthcoming)

Hendrickx, Stan, and Renée Friedman. “Gebel Tjauti Rock Inscription 1 and the

Relationship between Abydos and Hierakonpolis during the Early Naqada III

Period.” GM 196 (2003): 95-109.

Hendrickx, Stan, John Darnell, Maria Gatto and Merel Eyckerman. “Iconographic and

Paleographic Elements Dating a Late Dynasty 0 Rock Art Site at Nag el-Hamdulab

(Aswan, Egypt).” In The signs of which times? Chronological and Paleoenvironmental

Issues in the Rock Art of Northern Africa, Royal Academy for Overseas Sciences

International Colloquium, Brussels, 3-5 June 2010, edited by D Huyge, Francis van

Noten and Danielle Swinne, 295-326. Brussels: Royal Academy for Overseas

Sciences, 2012.

Hendrickx, Stan and Frank Förster. “Early Dynastic Art and Iconography.” In A

Companion to Ancient Egypt, edited by Alan B. Lloyd, 1:826-852. Chichester: Wiley-

Blackwell, 2010.

Hendrickx, Stan, Merel Eyckerman and Frank Förster. “Late Predynastic Falcons on a

Boat (Brussels E.7067).” JSAS 24 (2008): 371-384.

Herman, David. “Introduction.” In The Cambridge Companion to Narrative, edited by

David Herman, 3-21. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

––––––. Basic Elements of Narrative. Chichester and Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

Hollis, Susan T. “Anubis’s Mortuary Functions in “The Tale of Two Brothers”.” In

Hermes Aegyptiacus: Egyptological Studies for B H Stricker on his 85th Birthday, edited

by Terence DuQuesne, 87-99. Oxford: DE Publications, 1995.

––––––. “Continuing Dialogue with Alan Dundes Regarding the Ancient Egyptian “Tale

of the Two Brothers”.” Journal of American Folklore, 116, 460 (2003): 212-216.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

225

Hornung, Erik. Das Amduat. Die Schrift des verborgenen Raumes, vol 2. ÄA 7. Wiesbaden:

Otto Harrassowitz, 1963.

––––––. Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many. Translated by John

Baines. Routledge and Kegan Paul: London, 1971.

––––––. The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife. Translated by David Lorton. Ithaca:

Cornell University Press, 1999.

––––––. “The Amduat.” In Immortal Pharaoh: The Tomb of Thutmose III, edited by Erik

Hornung, Christian E. Loeben, Adam Lowe and André Wiese, 23-32. Madrid:

Antikenmuseum, 2005.

––––––. “Das Amduat.” In In Pharaos Grab: die verborgenen Stunden der Sonne, edited by

Erik Hornung, Christian E. Loeben, Adam Lowe and André Wiese, 21-27. Basel:

Factum Arte, 2006.

Hühn, Peter. “Event and Eventfullness.” In Handbook of Narratology, edited by Peter

Hühn, John Pier, Wolf Schmid and Jörg Schönert, 80-97. Narratologia 19. Berlin and

New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009.

Hussein, Mahmoud. “Anatomy of the Egyptian Tomb: “The Egyptian Tomb as a

Womb”.” DE 49 (2001): 25-33.

Ikram, Salima. Death and Burial in Ancient Egypt. Harlow: Longman, 2003.

Ikram, Salima and Aidan Dodson. The Mummy in Ancient Egypt: Equipping the Dead for

Eternity. London: Thames and Hudson, 1998.

Jarvie, Ian. The Revolution in Anthropology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964.

Jenni, Hanna. “The Old Egyptian Demonstratives pw, pn and pf.” LingAeg 17 (2009): 119-

137.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

226

Jones, Jana, Thomas F G. Highman, Ron Oldfield, Terry P. O’Connor and Stephen A.

Buckley. “Evidence for Prehistoric Origins of Egyptian Mummification in Late

Neolithic Burials.” PLoS ONE 9, 8 (2014) e103608.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1317/journal.pone.0103608.

Jung, Carl. The Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Edited by Gerhard Adler, Michael Fordham

and Herbert Read. 20 vols. London: Routledge and Kegan, 1953-1990.

Junge, F. “Zur Fehldatierung des sog. Denkmals memphitischer Theologie oder Der

Beitrag der ägyptischen theologie zur Geistesgeschite der Spätzeit.” MDAIK 29

(1973): 195-204.

Junker, Hermann. Die politische Lehre von Memphis. APAW 1941, Phil.-hist. Kl. No. 6.

Berlin: De Gruyter, 1941.

Kees, Herman. Der Götterglaube im alten Ägypten. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1941.

Kirk Geoffrey. Myth, Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1971.

––––––. The Nature of Greek Myths. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974.

Klass, Morton. Ordered Universe: Approaches to the Anthropology of Religion. Boulder,

Westview, 1995.

Kluckhohn, Clyde. “Myths and Rituals: A General Theory.” HTR 35, 1 (1942): 45-79.

K’o, Yuan. Forward to Chinese Mythology, by Anne Birrell, xi-xiii. Baltimore and London:

The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

Leach, Edmund. Political Systems of Highland Burma: A study of Kachin Social Structure.

London: Athlone Press, 1954.

Leclant, Jean. “À la pyramide de Pépi I, la paroi Nord du passage A-F.” RdE 27 (1975):

137-149.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

227

––––––. “Pépi Ier, VI: à propos des §§ 1726 a-c, 1915 et *2223 a-c des Textes des

Pyramides.” In Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar, edited by P. Posner-Kriéger, 2:83-92.

Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 1985.

Leclant, Jean, Catherine Gerger-El Nagger, Iasabelle Pierre-Croisiau and Bernard

Mathieu. Les Textes de la Pyramide de Pépy Ier, 2nd ed. 2 vols. MIFAO 118, Le Caire:

Institut Francais d'Archéologie Orientale, 2010.

Lenk, Uta, Sarah Gietl and Wolfram Bublitz. “A Bibliography of Coherence and

Cohesion.” In Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse: How to create it and How to

Describe it, edited by Wolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk and Eija Ventola, 267-295.

Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 63. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John

Benjamins, 1997.

Leprohon, Ronald J. “Royal Ideology and State Administration in Pharaonic Egypt.” In

Civilisations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack Sasson, John Baines, Gary

Beckman and Karen S. Rubinson, 1:273-287. New York: Schribner, 1995.

Lesko, Barbara S. The Great Goddesses of Egypt. Norman: The University of Oklahoma

Press, 1999.

Lesko, Leonard. “Ancient Egyptian Cosmogonies and Cosmology.” In Religion in

Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths and Personal Practise, edited by Byron Shafer, 88-122.

Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1991.

Lévi-Strauss, Claude. “The Structural Study of Myth.” In Myth: A Symposium, edited by

Thomas Sebeok, 50-66. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1958.

––––––. Structural Anthropology. Translated by Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest

Schoepf. Middlesex: Penguin, 1993.

––––––. “The Story of Asidiwal.” In Structuralism in Myth: Lévi-Strauss, Barthes, Dumézil

and Propp, edited by Robert Segal, 135-183. New York: Garland, 1996.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

228

Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature: Volume I the Old and Middle Kingdoms.

Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.

––––––. Ancient Egyptian Literature: Volume II The New Kingdom. Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1976.

Lippert, Sandra. “Law Courts.” In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, edited by Willeke

Wendrich, Jacco Dieleman, Elizabeth Frood, and John Baines. Los Angeles, 2012.

http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz002djg21.

––––––. “Inheritance.” In UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, edited by Willeke Wendrich,

Jacco Dieleman, Elizabeth Frood, and John Baines. Los Angeles, 2013.

http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz002hg0w1.

Lorton, David. “Considerations on the Origin and the Name of Osiris.” VA 1 (1985): 122.

Malek, Jaromir. In the Shadow of the Pyramids: Egypt During the Old Kingdom. Norman:

University of Oklahoma Press, 1986.

––––––. “The Old Kingdom.” In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, edited by Ian Shaw,

83-107. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Malinowski, Bronislaw. Coral Gardens and Their Magic: A Study of the Methods of Tiling the

soil and of Agrictultural Rites in the Trobriand Islands I. New York: American Book

Company, 1935.

––––––. Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays. New York: Doubleday, 1954.

Mandler, Jean. Stories, Scripts and Scene: Aspects of Schema Theory. Hillsdale: Erlbaum,

1984.

Maspero, Gaston. Les Inscriptions des Pyramides de Saqqarah. Paris: Bouillon, 1894.

––––––. “La Table d’offrandes des tombeaux égyptiens.” RHR 35 (1897): 276-77.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

229

Maravelia, Amanda-Alice. “Cosmic Space and Archetypal Time: Depictions of the sky-

Goddess Nut in Three Royal Tombs of the New Kingdom and her Relation to the

Milky Way.” GM 197 (2003): 55-72.

Mathieu, Bernard. “Modifications de texte dans la pyramide d’Ounas.” BIFAO 96 (1996):

289-311.

––––––. “Un episode du procès de Seth au tribunal d’Héliopolis.” GM 164 (1998): 71-78.

––––––. “Seth polymorphe : le rival, le vaincu, l’auxiliare.” ENiM 4 (2011): 137-158.

McAdams, D. “The Problem of Narrative Coherence.” Journal of Constructivist Psychology

19 (2006): 109-125.

McCarthy, Heather Lee. “The Osiris Nefertari: A Case Study of Decorum, Gender, and

Regeneration.” JARCE 39 (2002): 173-195.

McHale, Brian. “Weak Narrativity: The Case of Avant-Garde Narrative Poetry.”

Narrative 9 no. 2 (2001): 161-167.

Meeks, Dimitri. “L’Horus de Tby.” In Egyptian Religion: The Last Thousand Years. Studies

dedicated to the Memory of Jan Quaegebeur, edited by W. Clarysse, A. Schoors and H.

Willems, 1181-1190. OLA 84. Leuven: Peeters, 1998.

Mercer, Samuel. The Pyramid Texts in Translation and Commentary I-IV. New York:

Longmans, 1952.

Meskell, Lynn. Private Life in New Kingdom Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press,

2002.

Millward, Emily. “Visual and Written Evidence for Mourning in New Kingdom Egypt.”

In Current Research in Egyptology 2011: Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Symposium

Durham University 2011, edited by Heba Abd El Gawad, Nathalie Andrews, Maria

Correas-amador, Veronica Tamorri and James Taylor, 141-46. Oxford: Oxbow

Books, 2012.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

230

Moore, Richard E. Myth America 2001. Phildelphia: Westminster Press, 1972.

Morales, Antonio. “The Transmission of the Pyramid Texts into the Middle Kingdom:

Philological Aspects of a Continuous Tradition in Egyptian Mortuary Literature.”

PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2013.

Morenz, Ludwig, D. “Texts Before Writing: Reading (Proto-) Egyptian Poetics of

Power.” In Experiencing Power, Generating Authority: Cosmos, Politics and the Ideology

of Kingship in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, edited by Jane A. Hill, Philip Jones and

Antonio Morales, 121-149. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013.

Moret, Alexandre. “La légende d’Osiris à l’époque thébaine d’après l’hymne à Osiris du

Louvre.” BIFAO 30 (1931) : 725-750.

Morris, Ellen, D. “Propaganda and Performance at the Dawn of the State.” In

Experiencing Power, Generaing Authroity: Cosmos, Politics and the Ideology of Kingship

in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, edited by Jane A. Hill, Philip Jones and Antonio

Morales, 33-64. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013.

Müller, F. Max. Chips from a German Workshop. London: Longmans, 1868.

Munz, Peter. When the Golden Bough Breaks: Structuralism or Tyopology? London:

Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973.

Ockinga, Boyo. “The Memphite Theology – Its Purpose and Date.” In Egyptian culture

and Society: Studies in Honour of Naguib Kanawati, edited by Alexandra Woods, Ann

McFarlane and Susanne Binder, 2:107-113. Supplément aux annales service des

antiquités de l’Égypte 38. Cairo: Conseil suprême des antiquités de l’Égypte, 2010.

O’Connor, David. “The Interpretation of the Old Kingdom Pyramid Complex.” In

Stationen: Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Ägyptens, Rainer Stadelmann gewidmet, edited

by Heike Guksch and Daniel Polz, 135-144. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1998.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

231

Otto, Eberhard. Das Verhältnis von Rite und Mythus im Ägyptischen. SAHW. 1958, no. 1.

Heidelberg: Winter, 1958.

Pehal, Martin. Interpreting Ancient Egyptian Narratives: A Structural Analysis of the Tale of

Two Brothers, The Anat Myth, The Osirian Cycle, and The Astarte Papyrus. Fernelmont:

EME, 2014.

Penner, Hans. “The Poverty of Functionalism.” HR 11, 1 (1971): 91-97.

Piankoff, Alexandre. The Tomb of Ramesses VI: Texts. New York: Pantheon Books, 1954.

––––––. The Pyramid of Unas. Princeton: Princeton University press, 1968.

Prince, Gerald. “Surveying Narratology.” In What is Narratology? Questions and Answers

Regarding the Status of a Theory, edited by Tom Kindt and Hans-Harald Müller, 1-16.

Berling and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2003.

––––––. Narratology: The Form and Functioning of Narrative. Berlin: Mouton, 1982.

––––––. A Dictionary of Narratology. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1987.

––––––. “On Narrative Studie and Narrative Genres.” Poetics Today 11 (1990): 271-82.

––––––. “Reviewing Narratology.” Comparative Literature 44 (1992): 409-14.

––––––. “Remodeling Narratology.” Semiotica 90 (1992): 259-66.

––––––. “On Narratology: Criteria, Corpus, Context.” Narrative 3 (1995): 73-84.

––––––. “Revisiting Narrativity.” In Grenzüberschreitungen: Narratologie im Kontext, edited

by Walter Grünzweig and Andreas Solbach, 43-51. Tübingen: Narr, 1999.

––––––. “A Narratological Approach: The Narrator in Le Père Goriot.” In Approaches to

Teaching Balzac’s “Le Père Goriot,” edited by Michael Ginsberg, 90-97. New York:

MLA Publications, 2000.

––––––. “A Commentary: Constants and Variables of Narratology.” Narrative 9, no. 2

(2001): 230-233.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

232

––––––. Dictionary of Narratology, revised edition. Lincoln and London: University of

Nebraska Press, 2003.

Priskin, Gyula. “Coffin Texts Spell 155 on the Moon.” Birmingham Egyptology Journal 1

(2013): 25-63.

Propp, Vladimir. Morphology of the Folktale. Translated by Laurence Scott. Austin:

University of Texas Press, 1968.

Quirke, Stephen. The Cult of Ra: Sun-Worship in Ancient Egypt. London: Thames and

Hudson, 2001.

Raglan, Lord. “Myth and Ritual.” In Myth: A Symposium, edited by Thomas Sebeok, 76-

83. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1958.

Reinhart, Tanya. “Conditions for Text Coherence.” Poetics Today 1 (1980): 161-180.

Richardson, Brian. “What is Unnatural Narrative Theory.” In Unnatural Narratives –

Unnatural Narratology, edited by Jan Alber and Rüdiger Heinze, 23-40. Berlin and

Boston: De Gruyter, 2011.

Richter, Barbara. “The Amduat and its Relationship to the Architecture of Early 18th

Dynasty Royal Burial Chambers.” JARCE 44 (2008): 73-104.

Ridley, Ronald. “The Discovery of the Pyramid Texts.” ZÄS 110 (1983): 74-80.

Ritner, Robert. The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice. SACO 54. Chicago: The

Oriental Institute, 1993.

Robert, Alison. My Heart My Mother. Death and Rebirth in Ancient Egypt. Rottingdean:

Northgate Publishers, 2000.

Roeder Hubert. “Ägyptisches und Ägyptologisches zum “Auge des Horus”.” GM 138

(1994): 37-69.

Rosowsky, Andrey. “Religious Classical Practice: Entextualisation and Performance.”

Language in Society 42 (2013): 307-330.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

233

Roth, Ann Macy. “The psS-kf and the ‘Opening of the Mouth’ Ceremony: A Ritual of

Birth and Rebirth.” JEA 78 (1992): 113-147.

––––––. “Fingers, Stars, and the ‘Opening of the Mouth’: The Nature and Function of the

nTrwj-Blades.” JEA 79 (1993): 57-79.

––––––. “Buried Pyramids and Layered Thoughts: The Organisation of Multiple

Approaches in Egyptian Religion.” In Proceedings of the Seventh International

Congress of Egyptologists: Cambridge, 3-9 September 1995, edited by Chris Eyre, 991-

1003. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1998.

Rudnitzky, Gunter. Die Aussage über "das Auge des Horus": eine altägyptische Art geistiger

Äusserung nach dem Zeugnis des Alten Reiches. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1956.

Ryan, Marie-Laure. “On the Theoretical Foundations of Transmedial Narratology.” In

Narratology beyond Literary Criticism: Mediality, Disciplinarity, edited by Jan

Christoph Meister, 1-24. Narratologia 6. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter,

2005.

––––––. Avatars of Story: Narrative Modes in Old and New Media. Minneapolis: University

of Minneapolis Press, 2006.

––––––. “Toward a Definition of Narrative.” In The Cambridge Companion to Narrative,

edited by David Herman, 22-38. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University

Press, 2007.

Samuels, Andrew. Jung and the Post Jungians. London: Routledge, 1985.

Scarborough, Milton. Myth and Modernity: Postcritical Reflections. New York: The State

University or New York Press, 1994.

Schlögl, Hermann. Der gott Tatenen. Nach Texten und Bildern des Neuen Reiches. OBO 29.

Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprect, 1980.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

234

Scholte, Bob. “The Structural Anthropology of Claude Lévi-Strauss.” In Handbook of

Social and Cultural Anthropology, edited by John Honnigman, 637-716. Chicago:

Rand McNally, 1973.

Schott, Siegfried. “Spuren der Mythenbildung.” ZÄS 78 (1942): 1-27.

––––––. Mythe und Mythenbildung im alten Ägypten. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1945.

Schweizer, Andreas. The Sungod’s journey through the Netherworld: Reading the Ancient

Egyptian Amduat, edited by David Lorton. Ithaca and New York: Cornell University

Press, 2010.

Searle, John. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Cambridge

Press, 1969.

Segal, Robert. Jung on Mythology. London: Routledge, 1998.

––––––. “In Defense of the Comparative Method.” Numen 48, 3 (2001): 339-373.

Sethe, Kurt. Die altägyptischen Pyramidentexte nach den Papierabdrücken und Photographien

des Berliner Museums, 4 vols. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1908-22.

––––––. “Die Sprüche für das Kennen der Seelen der heiligen Orte (Totb. Kap. 107-109,

111-116).” ZÄS 57 (1922): 1-50.

––––––. Amun und die acht Urgötter von Hermopolis: Eine Untersuchung über Ursprung und

Wesen des ägyptischen Götterkönig. APAW 4. Verlag der Akademie der

Wissenschaften: Berlin, 1929.

––––––. Urgeschichte und älteste Religion der Ägypter. Abh.K.M 18,4. Leipzig: DMG, 1930.

––––––. Übersetzung und Kommentar zu den Altägyptischen Pyramidentexten I-VI, 4. vols.

Glückstadt: J. J. Augustin, 1935.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

235

Sherkova, Tatiana. “The Birth of the Eye of Horus: Towards the symbolism of the Eye in

Predynastic Egypt.” In Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of

Egyptologists, Cambridge 3-9 September 1995, edited by Chris Eyre, 1061-1065.

Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1998.

Smith, Mark. Traversing Eternity: Texts for the Afterlife from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

––––––. “The Reign of Seth: Egyptian Perspectives from the First Millennium BCE.” In

Egypt in Transition: Social and Religious Development of Egypt in the First Millennium

BCE. Proceedings of an International Conference Prague, September 1-4, 2009, edited by

Ladislav Bareš et al, 396-430. Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology, Faculty of Arts,

Charles University in Prague, 2010.

Smith, William. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. Edinburgh: A. and C. Black, 1889.

Sontag, Susan. Against Interpretation and Other Essays. New York: Picador, 1966.

Sourvinou-Inwood, Christiane. “Myths in Images: Theseus and Medea as a Case Study.”

In Approaches to Greek Myth, edited by Lowell Edmunds, 393-445. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University Press, 1990.

Spiegel, Joachim. Das Auferstehungsritual der Unas-Pyramide. ÄA 23. Wisenbaden:

Harrassowitz, 1972.

Stevenson, Alice. “The Aesthetics of Predynastic Egyptian Burial: Funerary

Performances in the Fourth Millennium BC.” Archaeological Review from Cambridge

22 (2007): 76-92.

––––––. “Predynastic Burial Rituals.” In Egypt: Ancient Histories, Modern Archaeologies,

edited by Rachael Dann and Karen Exell, 9-50. Amherst and New York: Cambria

Press, 2013.

Tambiah, Stanley. “The Magical Power of Words,” Man n.s. vol. 3 no. 2 (1968): 175-208.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

236

––––––. Culture, Thought, and Social Action: An Anthropological Perspective. Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press, 1985.

Teeter, Emily. Religion and Ritual in Ancient Egypt. New York: Cambridge University

Press, 2011.

Te Velde, H. Seth, God of Confusion. PAe 6. Leiden: Brill, 1977.

Tillier, Anaïs. “Sur la place d’Horus dans l’ennéade héliopolitaine.” ZÄS 140 (2013): 70-

77.

Tobin, Vincent. “Divine Conflict in the Pyramid Texts.” JARCE 30 (1993): 93-110.

––––––. “Myths: Creation Myths.” In Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, edited by

Donald Redford, 2:469-72. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

––––––. “Gender Symbolism in the Egyptian Pyramid Texts.” JSSEA 37 (2010): 91-111.

Toolan, Michael. “Coherence.” In Handbook of Narratology, edited by Peter Hühn, John

Pier, Wolf Schmid and Jörg Schönert, 44-62. Narratologia 19. Berlin and New York:

Walter de Gruyter, 2009.

Townsend Jr., Dabney. “Myth and Meaning.” CR 16, 2 (1972): 192-203.

Trabasso, Tom. “The Development of Coherence in Narrative by Understanding

Intentional Action.” In Text and Text Processing, edited by Guy Denhiere and Jean-

Pierre Rossi, 297-316. Advances in Psychology 79. Amsterdam: North-Holland,

1991.

Turner, Philip. Seth: A Misrepresented God. Oxford: BAR, 2013.

Van Dijk, Jacobus. “Myth and Mythmaking in Ancient Egypt.” In Civilisations of the

Ancient Near East, edited by Jack Sasson, 3:1697-1709. New York, 1995.

Vandier, Jacques. Ouadjet et l’Horus léontocéphale de Bouto. À propos d’un bronze de Musée

de Chaalis. Paris : Presses universitaires de France, 1967.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

237

Verhoeven, Ursula. “Ein historischer “Sitz in Leben” für die Erzählung von Horus und

Seth des Papyrus Chester Beatty I.” In Wege Öffnen: Festschrift für Rolf Grundlach

zum 65. Geburstag, edited by Mechthild Schade-Busch, 347-363. AeUAT 35.

Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996.

Verner, Miroslav. The Pyramids. The Mystery, Culture, and Science of Egypt’s Great

Monuments. New York: Grove Press, 2001.

Veyne, Paul. Did the Greek Believe their Myths?: An Essay on the Constitutive Imagination.

Translated by Paul Wissing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983.

Vischak, Deborah. “Common Ground between Pyramid Texts and Old Kingdom Tomb

Design: The Case Study of Ankhmahor.” JARCE 40 (2003): 133-157.

Von Lieven, Alexandra. Grundriß des Laufes der Sterne. Das sogenannte Nutbuch, The

Carlsberg Papyri 8. The Carsten Niehbuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies

Publications 31. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2007.

Weill, R. “Le verbe d’existence PA et ses derives.” RdE 6 (1951): 49-88.

Wengrow, David and John Baines. “Images, Human Bodies and the Ritual Construction

of Memory.” In Egypt at its Origins: Proceedings of the International conference “Origins

of the State. Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt,” Kraków, 28th August – 1st September

2002, edited by Stan Hendrickx, R. Friedman, K. M. Ciałowicz and M. Chłodnicki,

1097-1100. OLA 138. Leuven: Peeters, 2004.

Willems, Harco. The Coffin of Heqata (Cairo JdE 36418): A Case study of Egyptian Funerary

Culture of the Early Middle Kingdom. OLA 70. Leuven: Peeters, 1996.

––––––. “The Social and Ritual Context of a Mortuary Liturgy of the Middle Kingdom

(CT Spells 30-41).” In Social Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle

Kingdoms, edited by Harco Willems., 253-372. OLA 103. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters,

2001.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

238

Williams, Bruce, Thomas Logan and William Murnane. “The Metropolitan Museum

knife handle and aspects of Pharaonic imagery before Narmer.” JNES 46 no. 4

(1987): 245-285.

Wilkinson, Richard. The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. New York:

Thames and Hudson, 2003.

Zeidler, Jürgen. “Zur Frage der Spätentstehung des Mythos in Ägypten.” GM 132

(1993): 85-109.

Zibelius-Chen, Karola. Ägyptische Siedlungen nach Texten des Alten Reiches. Reichert:

Wiesbaden, 1978.

239

APPENDICES

Listed below are the translations of the Pyramid Texts used in this study. They are

grouped according to the content as it discussed in this study, firstly by set and then

also by the different relationships. Multiple occurrences of the same text have been

duplicated in order to facilitate the use of the appendices when referring to specific sets

of texts. The numbering and location system follows the most recent system of James

Allen in his concordance of the Pyramid Texts cited throughout this study. Each spell is

listed with the Pyramid Text number followed by all of the occurrences the spell has in

the pyramids of Unis (W), Teti (T), Pepi I (P), Ankhesenpepi II (An), Merenre (M), Pepi

II (N), Neith (Nt), Iput (Jp) and Wedjebetni (Wd). Each occurrence is followed by a code

denoting the location of the spell within the pyramid complex by rooms, walls, sections,

registers and column numbers. Further classification is added according to which

group and type the text belongs to following the work of Harold Hays.

APPENDICES

240

OSIRIS – SETH

CORE TEXTS:

SETH – KILLS – OSIRIS

PT 218

W B/S 28–35

T B/S 24–29

P B/Se B 11–14

N B/Se B 15–18

Nt B/Se i 33–41

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

mk irt.n stS hna DHwty sn.wy=k i.xmw rm Tw

It is what Seth and Thoth have done,

your brothers who do not weep for you

PT 280

W A/E 3

T A/E 7–8

P A/E 27

N A/E 48

Nt B/E i 62

Group: K

Personal – Apotropaic

irti irti

You of the (evil) deed, you of the (evil)

deed.

PT 306

W A/N 18–24

M V/N 8–37

N V/E 70–74

Group: L, O

Personal – Transition

in smA. n=f Tw Dd.n ib=f mt=k n=f mk ir=k Tw xpr.ti ir=k ir=f m imnw n smA

Has he killed you, his heart having said

that you would die for him? Behold,

you have become a more permanent

wild bull than he.

PT 357

T B/E ii 38–45

P B/E 4–8

P Cn/E 26–40

M B/Eg 29–36

N B/E 4–8

Nt B/W 51–59

Wd B/W 38–48

Group: C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

in Hrw nD=f irt=n stS ir=k

It is Horus who will redeem what Seth

did against you

PT 380

T A/E 13

Group: K

Personal – Apotropaic

irti irti

You of the (evil) deed, you of the (evil)

deed.

PT 419

T SP/S 12–25

M A/Eg 25–32

N A/S C 1–2

Group: G, J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.xm.n stS irt.n=f ir NN m xmnt=f

Seth has annulled that which he did to

NN on his 8th day.

APPENDICES

241

PT 474

P A/W 22–24

P APn/W 13–22

M A/Wg 30–36

N A/W 8–11

Nt B/Nw 18–23

Group: J, M

Personal – Transition

i.n=f ir=f Dd.n=f smA=f Tw n smA=f Tw in NN pn smA=f xft=f smn=k Tw ir=f m imnw n smA.

He has come against you having said

that he would kill you. He will not kill

you, this NN is the one who will kill his

opponent and he will establish himself

against him as the most established

wild bull.

PT 477

P A/W 27–32

M A/W 29–45

N A/W 15–27

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

aD pt nwr tA i Hrw xa DHwti Ts=sn wsir Hr gs=f di=sn aHa=f m xnt psDt sxA stS di ir ib=k mdw pw Dd.n gbb fAw pw ir.n nTrw ir=k m Hwt sr m iwnw Hr ndi=k wsir ir tA m Dd=k stS n ir.n(=i) is nw ir=f sxm=k im nHm.ti sxm=k n Hrw m Dd=k stS i=f wnnt ik.n=f wi xpr rn=f pw n ikw tA m Dd=k stS i=f wnnt sAH.n=f wi xpr rn=f pw n sAH Aw rd pD nmtt xnti tA Smaw Ts Tw wsir Ts.n sw stS sDm.n=f fAw nTrw mdw Hr it nTr a=k n ist wsir Drt=k n nbt-Hwt Sm=k imiwti=sn rdi n=k pt rdi n=k tA sxt iArw iAwt Hrwt iAwt stS rdi n=k niwwt dmD n=k spAwt in tm mdw Hr=s pw gbb

The sky is dishevelled the earth has

trembled, Horus has come, Thoth has

appeared that they might raise Osiris

from his side and cause that he stand

before the Dual Ennead. Remember,

Seth, and place in your heart this speech

which was said by Geb, this curse

which was made by the gods against

you in the official’s enclosure in

Heliopolis, because you threw Osiris to

the earth. When you said, Seth, “It was

not against him that I did this” so that

you might prevail thereby when your

control was taken away by Horus.

When you said, Seth, “indeed he has

been attacking me” and his name of

Earth-Hacker came into being. When

you said “indeed he has been kicking

me” and his name of Orion came into

being, wide of foot, spread of stride,

and foremost of the Nile-Valley. Raise

yourself Osiris for Seth has raised

himself having heard the curse of the

gods who spoke on behalf of the father

of the god. Your arm to Isis, Osiris,

your hand to Nephthys and you will go

between them. You have been given the

sky, you have been given the earth, the

Marsh of Reeds, the Horus mounds, the

Seth mounds, you have been given the

town and the country side has been

joined for you by Atum. Geb is the one

who argued for it.

PT 478

P A/W 33–37

M A/W 48–53

N A/W 33–42

Group: J

Personal – Transition

i.n=T m HH sn=T wsir nii.n sw sn=f stS Hr gs=f m gs pf n ghsti

You have come in search of your

brother Osiris, his brother Seth having

cast him down on his side in Ghesti.

APPENDICES

242

PT 532

P Cn/W 85–93

N Cn/E 1–10

Group: N

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

gm.n=sn wsir ndi.n sw sn=f stS r tA m ndit

They have found Osiris after his brother

Seth threw him down in Nedit.

PT 576

P V/W 59–66

Group: O

Personal – Transition

di wsir Hr gs=f in sn=f stS nmnm imi ndit Ts dp=f in ra bwt=f qdd msD=f bAgi

Osiris was placed on his side by his

brother Seth, but he in Nedit moved for

his head was raised by the sun, his

abomination is sleep, he hates

weariness.

PT 580

P V/W 75–77

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Hw it smA wr ir=f Hw.n=k it(=i) smA.n=k wr ir=k it wsir NN pn hw.n(=i) n=k Hw Tw m iH smA.n(=i) n=k smA Tw m smA ngA.n(=i) n=k ngA Tw m ng

Father-striker, killer of one greater than

you. You have struck my father. You

have killed one who is greater than you.

Father Osiris NN, I have struck for you

as an ox the one who struck you, I have

killed for you as a wild bull the one

who killed you. I have cut up for you as

a longhorned bull the one who cut you

up.

PT 606

P Cs/W 1–21

M Cm/W 1–22

N Cn/W 14–31

Group: N

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i n=n irii mrt r=f in sn=f stS in sn psDt

“The one to whom what is painful was

done to him by his brother Seth has

come to us” says the Dual Ennead.

PT 664E

N B/Sw iii 5-7

Group: F

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

[wsir] NN ink Hrw iw.n(=i) xw(=i) Tw i[r xft=k] Hr irt.n=f ir=k

Osiris NN, I am Horus. I have come that

I may protect you from your opponent

because of what he has done to you.

PT 670

P B/Sw A 4–18

N B/Se B 100–106

Group: B, M

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Hw.n=f n=k Hw Tw m iH smA.n=f n=k smA Tw m smA

He (Horus) has hit for you the one who

hit you as [a Bull], and he has killed for

you the one who killed you, as a wild

Bull.

Xm.n=f irt=f m xmnnw=f hrw

He (Horus) has annihilated what was

done against him on his 8th day

APPENDICES

243

CORE TEXTS:

SETH – BEARS – OSIRIS

PT 71B

P B/Ne iv 21–27

N B/Ne B ii 87–93

Nt B/Ne B v 32–36

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering

wsir NN nDr n=k sw i. si xr wsir NN

Osiris NN, seize him for yourself.

(Seth) go under Osiris NN.

PT 71C

N B/Ne B ii 94-97

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering

[Hrw im wsir NN pn nDr] sw i.si xr NN pn [npD aHa nDr sw im rd.n(=i) n=k sw di.n=k sw xr=k m] wA=f im=k

[Horus in Osiris NN, seize] him. (Seth)

go under this NN. [Slaughter the one

who has stood up. Seize him. Take for

I have given him to you. Place him

under you and do not let] him be far

from you.

PT 356

T B/E ii 32–38

P B/W 53–56

P B/E 1–4

M B/Eg 20–28

N B/W 35–42

Nt B/W 37–44

Group: C, E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

nDr.n Hrw stS di.n=f n=k sw xr=k wTs=f Tw nwr=f xr=k m nwr tA

Horus has seized Seth and placed him

for you under you that he might lift you

up and tremble under you in the earth’s

trembling.

PT 357

T B/E ii 38–45

P B/E 4–8

P Cn/E 26–40

M B/Eg 29–36

N B/E 4–8

Nt B/W 51–59

Wd B/W 38–48

Group: C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation nbi=f xr=k wrs=f wr ir=f im=k

He will swim under you, as he bears the

one who is greater than he

PT 366

T A/W 37–41

P B/Wg 25–31

M B/Wg 36–42

N B/Wh i 3–6

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

hA wsir NN aHa Ts Tw ms.n Tw mwt=k nwt sk.n n=k gbb r=k nD Tw psDt aAt di.n=sn n=k xft=k xr=k fA n=k wr ir=k in sn ir=f m rn=k n tA-wr

Ho Osiris NN, stand up and raise

yourself. Your mother Nut has given

birth to you and Geb has wiped for you

your mouth. The Great ennead will

protect you, they have given to you

your opponent under you.” Bear the

one who is greater than you” they said

against him in your identity of the Great

Saw Shrine.

APPENDICES

244

PT 368

T A/W 42–44

P B/Wh 1–3

M B/Wg 26–30

N B/W 14–17

Nt B/W 15–18

Group: D, E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

n di.n Hrw snw=k di.n n=k Hrw xft=k xr rdwi=k anx=k

Horus cannot let you suffer; Horus has

placed your opponent under your feet

so that you might live.

PT 369

T A/W 44–46

P B/Nw i 1–3

N B/W 60–62

Group: B, D, F

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

di.n n=k Hrw xft=k xr=k wTs=f Tw m sfxx=k im=f

Horus has put your opponent under

you so that he might bear you

PT 371

T A/W 48–50

P B/Wg 34–37

M B/Wg 42–46

N B/Wh i 2–3

Nt B/W 62–64

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

di.n Hrw wTs=f Tw m rn=k n wTs wr

Horus has caused that he lift up in your

name of the Great lifted one.

PT 372

T A/W 50–51

P B/Wg 37–40

P B/W 62–63

M B/Wg 47–51

Nt B/W 64–66

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

di.n Hrw int n=k DHwti xft=k di.n=f kw Hr Sa=f im=f xAw kw

Horus has caused that Thoth get your

opponent and he has placed you on his

back so that he will not thwart you.

PT 593

P B/Se B 39–42

M B/Eg 1–20

N B/E 1–4

Nt B/W 44–51

Nt B/E i 12–19

Group: B, C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

nD.n Tw psDt di.n=sn n=k stS xr=k Hnk=f xr=k

The Ennead has tended you. They have

placed Seth under you so that he is

burdened with you.

PT 606

P Cs/W 1–21

M Cm/W 1–22

N Cn/W 14–31

Group: N

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

n Hm rdi. n Swii stS m wTs=k Dt it NN in sn psDt ir=k it wsir NN

“We will not let him be free of bearing

you forever father Osiris NN” says the

Dual Ennead about you, father Osiris

NN.

APPENDICES

245

PT 673

P B/E 33–34

N P/S 21–25

Group: C, I

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

n Hm Sw.n stS m wTs wdnw=k

Nor can Seth be free of bearing your

burden

VARIANT TEXTS:

SETH – BEARS – OSIRIS

PT 247

W A/Wg 1–11

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

stS wTs=f Tw swt wTz=f tm

Seth, he will bear you, he is the one who

will bear Atum.

PT 368

T A/W 42–44

P B/Wh 1–3

M B/Wg 26–30

N B/W 14–17

Nt B/W 15–18

Group: D, E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

di.n n=k Hrw msw=f i.sA=sn xr=k

Horus has given his children to you so

that they might go beneath you.

PT 544

P V/S 35–36

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

ms Hrw i.Sm n wsir NN pn ms Hrw i.si i.sA=Tn xr wsir NN pn m Hmwt=f im=Tn fA sw

Horus’s children go to this Osiris NN.

Horus’s children, go and place

yourselves under this Osiris NN, let

there be none of you who will be away.

PT 644

N B/Ne B v 65–68

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

[msw Hrw] i.sA=Tn xr [NN] [fA=Tn] sw im Hmwt=f im=Tn [fA=Tn wsir NN]

[Horus’s children], you should go under

[NN]. [Carry him]. Let there be none of

you who turn back as [you carry Osiris

NN].

PT 648

N B/Ne B v 76–80

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

wsir NN rdi.n n=k Hrw msw=f wTs=sn kw sxm=k im=sn

Osiris NN, [Horus has given you his

children so that they might bear] you

and you might have control over them.

APPENDICES

246

CORE TEXTS:

OSIRIS – LOCATED IN – NEDIT

PT 247

W A/Wg 1–11

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

msDD qdd sbAgii aHa imi ndit

You who hates sleep but were made

weary. Stand up one who is in Nedit.

PT 412

T SP/N 1–22

P B/Sw A 27–37

N B/Nw ii 35–43– B/W 1

Nt B/Sw 19–30

Nt B/Se ii 59–71

Group: G, M

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.xr wr Hr gs=f nmnm imi ndit Ts dp=f in ra bwt=f qdd msD=f bAgi

When the Great One fell on his side,

When He in Nedit trembled, his head

was raised by the Sun, for his

abomination is sleep and he hates

slackness.

PT 422

P B/Wg 1–21

M B/Wg 1–23

N B/W 42–52

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i Axi pw imi ndit sxm imi tA-wr

This akh who is in Nedit comes, the

power who is in the Thinite Nome.

PT 442

P B/W 52–55

P B/W 32–35

M B/Wh i 6–7

N B/Wg 47–53

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

xr r=f ti wr pw Hr gs=f ndi r=f imi ndit

So has the Great One fallen upon his

side, and he in Nedit been thrown

down?

PT 468

P A/W 6–9

M A/W 1–8

N A/Wg 1–26

Nt B/Sw 7–19

Nt B/Se ii 45–59

Nt B/E i 19–34

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

anx wsir anx Axi imi ndit anx NN pn

Osiris shall live, the akh who is in Nedit

shall live, this NN shall live.

PT 482

P A/W 46–48

M A/W 20–29

N A/Wg 42–52

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

snt=k wrt sAqt if=k qfnt Drwt=k sxnt Tw gmt Tw Hr gs=k Hr wDb ndit

Your eldest sister who collected your

flesh and folded your hands, who

sought you and found you upon your

side on the shore of Nedit.

APPENDICES

247

PT 532

P Cn/W 85–93

N Cn/E 1–10

Group: N

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i ist i nbt=Hwt wat=sn m imnt wat=sn m iAbt wat=sn m Hat i wat=sn m Drt gm.n=sn wsir ndi.n sw sn=f stS r tA m ndit

Isis has come, Nephthys has come, one

of them from the west, one of them

from the east, one of them as a wailing

bird and one of them as a kite and they

have found Osiris after his brother Seth

threw him down to the earth in Nedit.

PT 576

P V/W 59–66

Group: O

Personal – Transition

di wsir Hr gs=f in sn=f stS nmnm imi ndit Ts dp=f in ra bwt=f qdd msD=f bAgi

Osiris was placed on his side by his

brother Seth but he who is in Nedit

moved as his head was tied on by the

sun, his abomination is sleep and he

hates weariness.

PT 690

P B/Se B 82–89

M A/E 17–29

N A/N 35–51

Nt B/Se ii 1–20

Nt B/Se ii 74–76

Group: B, G, L

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

wsir is bA pw imi ndit sxm pw imi niwt wrt

Osiris, this ba who is in Nedit, this

power who is in the Great City.

PT 701A

P B/Se B 46–48

N V/E 81–84

Group: B, O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.Xr wr m ndit wHa ist in Tniw=s

When the Great One fell in Nedit, the

place where is happened was disowned

by its mountain range.

VARIANT TEXTS:

OSIRIS – LOCATED IN – NEDIT

PT 478

P A/W 33–37

M A/W 48–53

N A/W 33–42

Group: J

Personal Text - Transition

i.n=T m HH sn=T wsir nii.n sw sn=f stS Hr gs=f m gs pf n gHsti

You have come in search of your

brother Osiris, his brother Seth having

cast him down on his side in Ghesti.

PT 485

P A/W 53–58

M A/S 1–8

Group: J

Personal – Transition

i gbb At tp=f qniwt=f ir Hr=f i.H=f Tniw ipp=f xAswt m sxnw wsir gm.n=f sw di.i Hr gs=f m gHst

Geb has come with his striking power

atop him and his yellow awe at his face,

so that he may strike you and inspect

the desert hills in search of Osiris and

he has found him placed on his side in

Ghesti.

APPENDICES

248

PT 637

N B/Ne B iv 87–94

N B/E 50–52

Group: A, C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i Hrw mH (m) mDt sxn.n=f it=f wsir gm.n=f sw Hr gs=f m ghsti

Horus comes, the one who fills with

[oil] having searched for his father

Osiris and found him on his side in

Ghesti.

APPENDICES

249

CORE TEXTS:

OSIRIS – PROTECTED/SAVED

FROM – SETH

PT 71C

N B/Ne B ii 94–97

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering

[nD.n sw Hrw ma xft=f]

Horus has saved himself from his

opponent

PT 357

T B/E ii 38–45

P B/E 4–8

P Cn/E 26–40

M B/Eg 29–36

N B/E 4–8

Nt B/W 51–59

Wd B/W 38–48

Group: C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

H.n=f n=k stS261 qAs Twt kA=f sHm.n n=k sw Hrw

He (Horus) has struck Seth bound for

you, you are his ka. Horus will turn

him away for you.

PT 422

P B/Wg 1–21

M B/Wg 1–23

N B/W 42–52

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

nD.n sA it=f nD.n Hrw wsir nD.n Hrw NN pn ma xftyw=f

The son has saved his father, Horus has

saved Osiris, Horus has saved this NN

from his opponents.

261 In a duplicate copy of the text in the

Pyramid of Pepi I stS is replaced by xft.

PT 427

P B/Wh 3–4

M B/W 14–15

N B/W 19–20

Nt B/W 20–21

Group: E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

nwt pSS Tn Hr sA=T wsir NN sdx=T sw ma stS Snm sw nwt iw.n=T sdx=T sA=T iw.n=T is Snm=T wr pn

Nut, spread yourself upon your son

Osiris NN that you may conceal him

from Seth. Join him, Nut who comes to

you that you may conceal your son as

he who comes to you. You should join

this great one.

PT 485

P A/W 53–58

M A/S 1–8

Group: J

Personal – Transition

i gbb At tp=f qniwt=f ir Hr=f i.H=f Tniw ipp=f xAswt m sxnw wsir gm.n=f sw di=I Hr gs=f m gHst wsir aHa n it=k gbb i.nD=f Tw ma stS [ink nw d] stS Hr gs=f qAs rdwy=f qAs awy=f d sw Hr ds=f m tA-rw Hrw Sd sw Hna=k ir pt ink nw i.nD=f i[t]=k i.nD=f wsir ma sn=f stS

Geb has come with his striking power

atop him and his yellow awe at his face,

so that he may strike you and inspect

the desert hills in search of Osiris and

he found him placed on his side in

Ghesti. Osiris, stand up for your father

Geb that he may save you from Seth. I

am the one who placed Seth on his side,

bound his two feet and bound his two

arms and placed him in Tarou. Horus,

take him with you to the sky. I am the

one who will save your father, who will

save Osiris from his brother Seth.

APPENDICES

250

PT 541

P V/S 29–31

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.H stS i.nDi wsir NN pn ma=f Dr HDt tA sxm Hrw i.nD=f it=f wsir NN pn Ds=f

Strike Seth and save this Osiris NN

from him until dawn. Horus has

become powerful in his saving of his

father, this Osiris NN, himself.

PT 592

P B/Nw iii 1–6

M B/W 58–61

N B/Se A 1–7

Nt B/Ne C iv 3–11

Group: D, F

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iwt=k n wsir NN pn xw=k sw ma xft=f

Come (Geb) to this Osiris NN and

protect him from his opponent.

PT 593

P B/Se B 39–42

M B/Eg 1–20

N B/E 1–4

Nt B/W 44–51

Nt B/E i 12–19

Group: B, C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Sk.n n=k gbb r=k nD.n Tw psDt d.n=sn n=k stS Xr Hnk=f Xr=k xw.n=sn aAa isd=f ir=k nwt i.xr=t Hr s Aim=k xw=s Tw Snm=s Tw inq=s Tw Ts=s Tw Twt wr imi msw=s

Geb has wiped your mouth for you, the

Ennead has protected you. They have

placed Seth under you so that he is

burdened with you. They have stopped

him from expectorating his spit at you.

Nut has fallen over her son in you, she

has protected you, joining you,

assembling you and raising you, for you

are the eldest of her children.

PT 606

P Cs/W 1–21

M Cm/W 1–22

N Cn/W 14–31

Wd B/W 9–30

Group: N

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

n ink is Hrw nD it=f H.n(=i) n=k H Tw iw nD.n=i Tw it wsir NN ma ir mrt ir=k

For I am Horus who saves his father, I

have struck for you the one who struck

you so that I have saved you, my father

Osiris NN, from the one who did ill

against you.

PT 664E

N B/Sw iii 5–7

Group: F

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

[wsir] NN ink Hrw iw.n(=i) xw(=i) Tw i[r xft=k] Hr irt.n=f ir=k

Osiris NN, I am Horus. I have come that

I may protect you from your opponent

because of what he has done to you.

PT 665B

P B/Se B 56–58

M B/Sw i 5

N B/Se B 55–58

Nt B/Sw 30–35

Nt B/E ii 7–12

Wd B/Sw 20–29

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

NN pw sxm=k im wD.n nTr nD=k Tw ma mdwt=k NN pw

APPENDICES

251

NN, you shall exercise control there, for

the god has commanded that you save

yourself from the claim of your

opponent.

PT 690

P B/Se B 82–89

M A/E 17–29

N A/N 35–51

Nt B/Se ii 1–20

Nt B/Se ii 74–76

Wd B/Ne A 4–7

Group: B, G, L

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Sxm=k m Dt=k nD=k Tw ma xft=k

You shall take control of your body and

save yourself from your opponent.

APPENDICES

252

OSIRIS – HORUS

CORE TEXTS:

HORUS – SON OF – OSIRIS

PT 21

N B/Ne A 5–7

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering

[wn.n Hrw r n NN pn wp.n Hrw r n NN pn m wpt.n=f r n it=f im m wpt.n=f r n wsir im

Horus has opened the mouth of this

NN, Horus has parted the mouth of this

NN with that which he parted the

mouth of his father, with that which he

parted the mouth of Osiris.

PT 32

W B/N i 10–13

W B/N i 32–36

W B/N ii 24–27

W P/N 3–6

T B/N i 9–12

T B/N i 43–48

T B/N ii 21–23

P B/Ne i 17–19

P B/Ne i 48–51

P B/Ne ii 34–36

P B/Ne iii 30–32

M B/E 2

N B/Ne B ii 15–17

N B/Ne B ii 41–43

N B/Ne B iii 36–38

N B/Ne B v 100–103

Nt B/Ne B i 10–13

Nt B/Ne B i 38–41

Nt B/Ne B ii 38–44

Nt B/Se ii 42–43

Jp B/N A i 7–9

Jp B/N A i y+8–10

Wd B/Ne B i 39–42

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering

qbH=k ipn wsir qbH=k ipn hA NN prw xr sA=k prw xr Hrw

These cool waters Osiris; these cool

waters NN have come from your son,

have come from Horus.

PT 173

T B/E ii 15–17

N B/Ne B v 3

Nt B/Ne B iv 1

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering

wsir NN iw.n Hrw iab=f kw it=f

Osirs NN, Horus has come that he

might gather you, you are his father.

PT 247

W A/Wg 1–11

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Hrw pw wD n=f irt n it=f

It is Horus, the one who is commanded

to act for his father.

PT 305

W A/N 13–17

P A/N 46–48

N A/N 13–14

Nt C/W 22–26

Group: L

Personal – Transition

TAz mAqt in Hrw xft it=f wsir

A ladder has been tied by Horus in

front of his father Osiris.

PT 416

T SP/S 7

P SP/S 1

Group: G

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

APPENDICES

253

wDAt pw nw ir.n Hrw n it=f wsir

This is a garment which Horus made for

his father Osiris.

PT 418

T SP/S 10–12

M A/Eg 33–34

N B/E 63

N A/E 7–8

Group: G

Sacerdotal – Offering

i.nD Hr=T HAtt i.nD Hr=T imt HAt Hrw dit.n Hrw m wpt it=f wsir d Tn NN m wpt=f mr wdt Tn Hrw m wpt it=f wsir

Greetings to you unguent, greetings to

you who is before Horus whom Horus

has put on the brow of his father Osiris.

NN will put you on his brow like Horus

put you on the brow of his father Osiris.

PT 540

P V/S 23–29

Nt C/E 18–22

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

wp r=k in Hrw m Dba=f pw nDsw wp.n=f r n it=f im=f wp.n=f r n wsir im=f

Your mouth was opened by Horus with

his little finger, with which he opened

the mouth of his father, with which he

opened the mouth of Osiris.

PT 553

P V/E 1–7

N V/E 1–11

Wd B/Se 29–30

Wd B/Se 30–31

Wd B/Se 41–49

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

ir n=f irt n it=f wsir hrw pw n TAs qsw

Do for him what was done for his father

Osiris on that day of binding bones.

PT 605

M A/Eg 35–36

N B/E 62

Group: G

Sacerdotal - Offering

D=iTw n it NN mr wdt Tw Hrw n it=f wsir

I will place you (green eye-paint) on my

father NN like Horus put you on his

father Osiris.

PT 612

P V/E 78–81

M V/S 35–40

N V/E 67–70

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iws Smt=k tn it NN mr Sm Hrw n it=f wsir

Indeed this going of you, my father NN,

is like when Horus went to his father

Osiris.

PT 659

P B/E 34–38

N B/E 13–15

Group: C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iwsw Smt=k tn iwsw Smii miwt=k iptn Smii miwt Hrw m sxn it=f wsir

Indeed, this your going; indeed these

goings of yours, are the goings of Horus

in seeking his father Osiris.

APPENDICES

254

PT 665D

P B/Nw ii 2–21

P B/Se B 59–67

N B/Se B 59–68

Nt B/E ii 13–39

Wd B/Sw 33–52

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iAsi Smt=k tw NN pw Ddt.n Hrw n it=f wsir

Indeed this going of yours, NN, is that

which Horus said to his father Osiris.

PT 690

P B/Se B 82–89

M A/E 17–29

N A/N 35–51

Nt B/Se ii 1–20

Nt B/Se ii 74–76

Wd B/Ne A 4–7

Group: B, G, L

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i n=k Hrw NN pw ir=f n=k irt.n=f n it=f wsir

Horus has come to you NN that he may

do for you that which he did for his

father Osiris.

PT 748

P SP/S 10–13

Group: G

Sacerdotal - Offering

[wAD] wAD n it=i sp 2 sdm=f it=f im wsir

Fresh is the green eye-paint of my

father, fresh is the green eye-paint of

my father, with which he painted his

father Osiris.

PT 760

P Cs/E 1–10

P V/E 26–29

Group: N, O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Hn.n Hrw arwt nt it=f [ws]ir

That Horus equips the gate of his father

Osiris.

VARIANT TEXTS:

HORUS – SON OF – OSIRIS

PT 461

P B/E 22–23

M A/Eg 18–23

N A/W 63–64

Group: C, G, J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iT=k Hpt r sxt iArw skA=k it Asx=k bdt ir=k rnpwt=k im mr Hrw sA tm

You shall set course to the Marsh of

Reeds and you will farm emmer, reap

barley and make your yearly supplies

from them like Horus, Atum’s son.

PT 465

T A/S A 2–4

P A/W 2–3

N A/S A 4–5

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iT NN wrrt im mr Hrw sA tm

NN will take the crown there like

Horus, Atum’s son.

APPENDICES

255

PT 478

P A/W 33–37

M A/W 48–53

N A/W 33–42

Group: J

Personal - Transition

i r=f Hrw At=f tp=f xsf Hr m it=f gbb NN pw sA=k NN pw Hrw

Horus has come with his wrath atop

him, his face greeting his father Geb

mr Hat Hrw m xsfw irt=f di n=f irt=f m bAH it=f gbb

Like Horus’ becoming excited at

meeting his eye when his eye was given

to him in the presence of father Geb.

APPENDICES

256

CORE TEXTS:

HORUS – PROTECTS/SAVES –

OSIRIS

PT 357

T B/E ii 38-45

P B/E 4-8

P Cn/E 26-40

M B/Eg 29-36

N B/E 4-8

Nt B/W 51-59

Wd B/W 38–48

Group: C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

H.n=f n=k stS qAs Twt kA=f sHm.n n=k sw Hrw

He (Horus) has struck Seth bound for

you, you are his ka. Horus will turn

him away for you

nD.n Tw Hrw n Dd.n nD=f Tw

Horus has saved you, he could not

delay saving you.

PT 364

T A/W 28–35

P B/Sw B 1–30

M A/Eg 40–63

N A/E 9–14

Group: D, G, M

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

nD.n Tw Hrw n Dd.n nD=f Tw

Horus has saved you, he could not

delay saving you.

PT 366

T A/W 37–41

P B/Wg 25–31

M B/Wg 36–42

N B/Wh i 3–6

Wd B/W 48–57

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.nD=f Tw m rn=f n Hrw sA nD it=f

Him saving you in his name of ‘Horus

the son who saves his father’

PT 367

T A/W 41–42

P B/Wh 1

M B/Wg 24–26

N B/W 12–14

Nt B/W 13–15

Wd B/W 57–60

Group: D, E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

hA wsir NN in.n n=k gbb Hrw i.nD=f Tw

Ah Osiris NN, Geb has fetched Horus

for you so that he may save you.

PT 368

T A/W 42–44

P B/Wh 1–3

M B/Wg 26–30

N B/W 14–17

Nt B/W 15–18

Group: D, E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

hA wsir NN Hrw nwi m Xnw awy=k i.nD=f Tw

Ah Osiris NN, Horus is within your two

arms, him saving you.

PT 371

T A/W 48–50

P B/Wg 34–37

M B/Wg 42–46

N B/Wh i 2–3

Nt B/W 62–64

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

nD.n=f Tw m nDD m tr=f

He (Horus) has saved you as the one

APPENDICES

257

who is to be saved in his time

PT 422

P B/Wg 1-21

M B/Wg 1-23

N B/W 42-52

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

nD.n sA it=f nD.n Hrw wsir nD.n Hrw NN pn ma xftyw=f

The son has saved his father, Horus has

saved Osiris; Horus has saved this NN

from his opponents.

PT 468

P A/W 6–9

M A/W 1–8

N A/Wg 1–26

Nt B/Sw 7–19

Nt B/Se ii 45–59

Nt B/E i 19–34

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.nD Tw Hrw NN pn

Let Horus save you this NN

PT 541

P V/S 29-31

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.H stS i.nDi wsir NN pn ma=f Dr HDt tA sxm Hrw i.nD=f it=f wsir NN pn Ds=f

Strike Seth and save this Osiris NN

from him until dawn. Horus has

become powerful in his saving of his

father, this Osiris NN himself.

PT 589

M B/W 12–13

N B/W 17–18

Nt B/W 19

Group: E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

nD.n Tw Hrw xpr.ti m kA=f

Horus has saved you, you having come

to be as his Ka.

PT 593

P B/Se B 39–42

M B/Eg 1–20

N B/E 1–4

Nt B/W 44–51

Nt B/E i 12–19

Group: B, C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

n biA.n Hrw ir=k nD.n Hrw it=f im=k

Horus cannot be far from you for Horus

has saved his father who is in you.

nD.n Tw Hrw m rn=f n Hrw sA nD it=f

Horus has saved you in his name of

‘Horus, the son who saves his father.’

PT 606

P Cs/W 1-21

M Cm/W 1-22

N Cn/W 14-31

Wd B/W 9–30

Group: N

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

n ink is Hrw nD it=f H.n(=i) n=k Tw iw nD.n=i Tw it wsir NN ma ir mrt ir=k

For I am Horus who saves his father, I

have struck for you, the one who struck

you and so I have saved you, father

Osiris NN from him who did what is

painful against you.

PT 611

P V/E 76–78

M V/S 24–35

N V/E 63–67

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

APPENDICES

258

n Hrw nD.n=f it=f n it NN pn nD n=f Dt=f

Since Horus has saved his father and

since his father, this NN has saved

himself.

PT 620

N B/Wg 61–63

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

ink Hrw wsir NN n di(=i) snw=k pr rs ir(=i) i.nD(=i) kw

I am Horus, Osiris NN, I will not cause

that you suffer. Come forth and awake

to me that I might save you.

PT 636

N B/Ne B iii 75–78

N B/Ne B iv 85–87

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iw.n(=i) xw(=i) Tw i.nD(=i) kw n Dd.n nD(=i) kw

I have come that I may protect you. I

will save you; I cannot delay in saving

you.

PT 649

N B/Ne B v 80–86

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

nD.n kw Hrw xpr.ti [m xpr kA=f]

For Horus has saved you and you came

into existence as his Ka.

PT 664C

N B/Sw iii 2–3

Group: F

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Hrw nw m Xnw awy i.nD=f Tw

Horus is within your two arms, him

saving you.

PT 664E

N B/Sw iii 5–7

Group: F

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

[wsir] NN ink Hrw iw.n(=i) xw(=i) Tw i[r xft=k] Hr irt.n=f ir=k

Osiris NN, I am Horus. I have come that

I may protect you from your opponent

because of what he has done to you.

VARIANT TEXTS:

HORUS – PROTECTS/SAVES –

OSIRIS

PT 254

W A/W 1–18

T A/W 1–12

Group: J

Personal - Transition

iw nD.n sw NN ma irw nn ir=f

NN has saved himself from those who

would have done this against him.

PT 368

T A/W 42–44

P B/Wh 1–3

M B/Wg 26–30

N B/W 14–17

Nt B/W 15–18

Group: D, E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Snm=s Tw ma xt nb Dwt m rn=s n Snmt wrt Twt wri imi msw=s Htp n=k gbb i.mr.n=f Tw Xw.n=f Tw

She, encircling you from everything

adverse, in her name of Great Encircler.

You are the eldest of her children. Geb

has become satisfied with you since he

APPENDICES

259

has loved you and he has protected you.

PT 427

P B/Wh 3–4

M B/W 14–15

N B/W 19–20

Nt B/W 20–21

Group: E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

nwt pSS Tn Hr sA=T wsir NN sdx=T sw ma stS Snm sw nwt iw.n=T sdx=T sA=T iw.n=T is Snm=T wr pn

Nut, spread yourself upon your son

Osiris NN that you may conceal him

from Seth. Join him, Nut who comes to

you that you may conceal your son as

he who comes to you. You should join

this great one.

PT 428

P B/Wh 4

P B/W 38–39

M B/W 1

M B/W 15

N B/W 2

N B/W 20

Nt B/W 21

Group: E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Snm sw Snmt wrt wr

Encircle him, Great Enclircler.

PT 485

P A/W 53-58

M A/S 1-8

Group: J

Personal – Transition

i gbb At tp=f qniwt=f ir Hr=f i.H=f Tniw ipp=f xAswt m sxnw wsir gm.n=f sw di=I Hr gs=f m gHst wsir aHa n it=k gbb i.nD=f Tw ma stS [ink nw d] stS Hr gs=f qAs rdwy=f qAs awy=f d sw Hr ds=f m tA-rw Hrw Sd sw Hna=k ir pt ink nw i.nD=f i[t]=k i.nD=f wsir ma sn=f stS

Geb has come with his striking power

atop him and his yellow awe at his face,

so that he may strike you and inspect

the desert hills in search of Osiris and

he found him placed on his side in

Ghesti. Osiris, stand up for your father

Geb that he may save you from Seth. I

am the one who placed Seth on his side,

bound his two feet and bound his two

arms and placed him in Tarou. Horus,

take him with you to the sky. I am the

one who will save your father, who will

save Osiris from his brother Seth.

PT 588

M B/W 1

Nt B/W 1–2

Group: E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Snm.n=s kw ma Xt nb Dwt m rn=s n Snmt wrt Twt wr imi msw=s

She has encircled you from everything

adverse, in her name of Great Encircler.

You are the eldest of her children.

PT 592

P B/Nw iii 1–6

M B/W 58–61

N B/Se A 1–7

Nt B/Ne C iv 3–11

Group: D, F

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iwt=k n wsir NN pn Xw=k sw ma xft=f

You (Geb) have come to this Osiris NN

that you protect him from his enemy.

APPENDICES

260

PT 593

P B/Se B 39–42

M B/Eg 1–20

N B/E 1–4

Nt B/W 44–51

Nt B/E i 12–19

Group: B, C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Sk.n n=k gbb r=k nD.n Tw psDt d.n=sn n=k stS Xr=k Hnk=f Xr=k xw.n=sn aAa=f isd=f ir=k nwt xr.t Hr sA=s im=k xw=s Tw

Geb has wiped your mouth for you, the

Ennead has saved you. They have

placed Seth under you so that he is

burdened with you. They have stopped

him expectorating his spit at you. Nut

has fallen over her son in you that she

may protect you.

PT 611

P V/E 76–78

M V/S 24–35

N V/E 63–67

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.aq r=k ir pr xwt xw Tw it=k gbb

Enter into the house of protection, your

father Geb having protected you.

PT 619

M V/N 37–40

N V/E 52–55

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.nD=k Tw ma ir nn ir=k

Save yourself against those who would

act against you!

PT 665B

P B/Se B 56–58

M B/Sw i 5

N B/Se B 55–58

Nt B/Sw 30–35

Nt B/E ii 7–12

Wd B/Sw 20–29

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

NN pw sxm=k im wD.n nTr nD=k Tw ma mdwt=k xft

NN, you shall exercise control there, for

the god has commanded that you save

yourself from the claim of your

opponent.

PT 665D

P B/Se B 67–73

N B/Se B 68–76

Nt B/E ii 39–53

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

aqt m xwt Xw.n Tw it=k gbb

Enter into the protection, your father

Geb having protected you

PT 690

P B/Se B 82–89

M A/E 17–29

N A/N 35–51

Nt B/Se ii 1–20

Nt B/Se ii 74–76

Wd B/Ne A 4–7

Group: B, G, L

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

nD=k Tw ma xft=k

Saving yourself from your opponent

APPENDICES

261

CORE TEXTS:

HORUS – REVIVES – OSIRIS

PT 223

W B/E 34–36

T B/N iia 42–77

P B/Ne iii 22–27

N B/Ne B v 29–36

Nt B/Ne C i 1–8

Wd B/Ne B iv 29–36

Wd B/Ne B iv 52–57

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.sa kw n(=i)

Make yourself rise up to me!

PT 357

T B/E ii 38–45

P B/E 4–8

P Cn/E 26–40

M B/Eg 29–36

N B/E 4–8

Nt B/W 51–59

Wd B/W 38–48

Group: C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

hA wsir NN pw sia kw n Hrw

Ah Osiris NN, Make yourself rise up to

Horus!

PT 369

T A/W 44–46

P B/Nw i 1–3

N B/W 60–62

Group: B, D, F

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

hA wsir NN aHa rdi.n Hrw aHa=k

Ah Osiris NN stand up, for Horus has

caused that you stand up.

PT 370

T A/W 46–48

P B/Wg 48–55

M B/Wg 30–32

N B/Wh i 1–2

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

sia kw n Hrw

Make yourself rise up to Horus!

PT 437

P B/W 25–40

P B/W 4–19

M B/W 32–46

N B/Wg 1–28

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.rs n Hrw aHa ir stS Ts Tw m wsir Axis A gbb dpi=f

Awaken to Horus, stand up for Seth.

Raise yourself this Osiris NN, the

firstborn son of Geb.

PT 477

P A/W 27–32

M A/W 29–45

N A/W 15–27

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i Hrw xa DHwti Ts=sn wsir Hr gs=f

Horus has come and Thoth has

appeared that they might raise Osiris

from upon his side.

PT 532

P Cn/W 85–93

N Cn/E 1–10

Wd B/W 1–9

Group: N

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

APPENDICES

262

rs n Hrw aHa ir stS Ts Tw ir=k wsir NN pn sA gbb dpi=f

Awaken to Horus! Stand up for Seth.

Raise yourself this Osiris NN, the

firstborn son of Geb.

PT 547

P V/S 37

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Sia.n(=i) kw

Make yourself rise up to me!

PT 593

P B/Se B 39–42

M B/Eg 1–20

N B/E 1–4

Nt B/W 44–51

Nt B/E i 12–19

Group: B, C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

aHa di.n=k a=k n Hrw di=f aHa=k

Stand up and give your arm to Horus

that he may cause that you stand up.

PT 610

M V/S 1–24

N V/E 55–63

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

rs n Hrw aHa n stS

Awaken to Horus, stand up for Seth!

Raise yourself, first born son of Geb.

PT 620

N B/Wg 61–63

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

ink Hrw wsir NN n di(=i) snw=k pr rs ir(=i) i.nD(=i) kw

I am Horus, Osiris NN. I will not let you

suffer. Come forth! Awaken to me that I

might tend you.

PT 636

N B/Ne B iii 75–78

N B/Ne B iv 85–87

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Di n(=i) a=k d(=i) aHa=k

Give to me your arm that I may cause

that you stand up.

PT 662

N B/E 59–62

Group: G

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

it NN aHa

Father NN, stand up!

PT 665A

P B/Se B 52–56

N B/Se B 50–55

Nt B/E i 1–12

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.rs n=i ink Hrw

Awaken to me! I am Horus who

awakens you.

PT 670

P B/Sw A 4–18

N B/Se B 100–106

Group: B, M

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

aHa mA=k irt.n n=k sA=k

Stand up and see what your son has

done for you.

APPENDICES

263

PT 729

P B/Se B 89–92

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.rs n Hrw [aHa n stS]

Awaken to Horus! Stand up for Seth!

PT 735

P P/S 13-20

Group: I

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.rs n Hrw

Awaken to Horus!

PT 767

P V/E 71–75

N V/S 14–26

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.rs i.rs it wsir m inpw dpi mniw=f

Awaken, awaken O my father Osiris as

Anubis who is atop his tent.

VARIANT TEXTS:

HORUS – REVIVES – OSIRIS

PT 223

W B/E 34–36

T B/N iia 42–77

P B/Ne iii 22–27

N B/Ne B v 29–36

Nt B/Ne C i 1–8

Wd B/Ne B iv 29–36

Wd B/Ne B iv 52–57

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

aHa Ssp n=k t=k pn ma(=i)

Stand up and take to yourself this bread

that is yours in my hand.

PT 246

W P/S 8–19

T B/S 72–75

P B/Se B 35–36

N B/Se B 47–50

Nt B/E ii 2–7

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

mA aHat NN pn m bA abwi dp=f m smAwy

Stand up, this NN as one upon whom

are horns, the double wild bull!

PT 247

W A/Wg 1–11

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

NN pi NN Ts Tw Hr gs=k ir wD msqDD qdd sbAgii aHa imi ndit

It is NN! NN raise yourself from upon

your side! Perform the command you

who hates sleep but was made weary.

Stand up, one who is in Nedit!

PT 260

W A/W 37

Group: J

Personal – Transition

Tsii=f sw n mrt.n=f

Let him raise himself up to that which

he desires.

PT 262

W A/S 10–19

T P/S 1–13

P A/S 23–28

N B/Sw ii 26–37

Group: F, J

Personal – Transition

mdw-nTr sia sw

APPENDICES

264

It is the Hieroglyphs which make him

rise up.

PT 355

T B/E ii 18–32

P B/E 20–21

M B/Eg 44–50

N B/E 41–44

Group: C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

aHa Ts tw mr wsir

Stand up and raise yourself like Osiris!

PT 364

T A/W 28–35

P B/Sw B 1–30

An B/E i 1–11

M A/Eg 40–63

N A/E 9–14

Jp B/E 16–26

Group: D, G, M

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

hA wsir NN pw aHa r=k

Ah this Osiris NN, stand up!

wsir NN rs r=k in.n n=k gbb Hrw ip=f Tw

Osiris NN, awaken! Geb has brought

Horus to you that he may reckon you.

i.sia.ti n=s m rn=s n ia

You being made to rise up to her (Nut)

in her name of Tomb

PT 365

T A/W 35–37

P B/Wg 22–25

M B/Wg 32–36

N B/W 52–55

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Tz Tw NN pw

Raise yourself this NN

aHa Axi NN pn

Stand up this akh NN

PT 366

T A/W 37–41

P B/Wg 25–31

M B/Wg 36–42

N B/Wh i 3–6

Wd B/W 48–57

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

hA wsir NN aHa Tz Tw

Ah this Osiris NN, Stand up and raise

yourself!

PT 372

T A/W 50–51

P B/Wg 37–40

P B/W´ 62–63

M B/Wg 47–51

Nt B/W 64–66

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

hA wsir NN i.rs ir=k

Ah, Osiris NN awaken!

PT 373

T A/W 51–54

M B/Wh i 4–6

N B/W 55–60

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw NN pw

Raise yourself this NN!

APPENDICES

265

PT 412

T SP/N 1–22

P B/Sw A 27–37

N B/Nw ii 35–43 (171–179) – B/W 1 (71)

Nt B/Sw 19–30

Nt B/Se ii 59–71

Group: G, M

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.dr Tw Hr gs=k iAb Hms Hr gs=k imn NN

Raise yourself from upon your left side

and sit upon your right side NN.

PT 413

T SP/N 23–27

Group: G

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.rs NN Ts Tw Ssp n=k tp=k

Awaken NN, raise yourself and receive

your head.

PT 419

T SP/S 12–25

M A/Eg 25–32

N A/S C 1–2

Group: G, J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

aHa i.dr tA=k wxA xmw=k Ts Tw

Stand up! Throw off your earth! Cast off

your dust! Raise yourself!

PT 422

P B/Wg 1–21

M B/Wg 1–23

N B/W 42–52

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

aHa=k NN pn nD.ti Htm.ti m nTr

May you stand up this NN being saved

and provided as a god.

PT 436

P B/W 1–4

M B/E 2–3

N B/Wg 33–36

Group: A, D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation Ts Tw

Raise yourself!

PT 437

P B/W 25–40

P B/W 4–19

M B/W 32–46

N B/Wg 1–28

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.rs n Hrw aHa ir stS Ts Tw m wsir Ahi sA gbb dpi=f aHa=k m sAb Hr minw

Awaken for Horus, stand up for Seth!

Raise yourself as Osiris an akh, the

firstborn son of Geb. Stand up as

Anubis master of the herdsman’s tent.

PT 440

T A/N 66–68

P B/W 28–30

M B/W 48–51

N B/Wg 53–60

Group: D, L

Personal - Transition

Sia=f NN n nTr aA

Let him make NN rise up to the great

god.

PT 451

P B/W 46–49

M B/W 9–12

N B/W 9–12

Nt B/W 11–13

Group: E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

APPENDICES

266

hA NN pw i.rs Ts Tw aHa wab=k wab kA=k

Awaken and raise yourself, stand up so

that you may purify yourself and your

may be pure.

PT 452

P B/W 49–52

P V/E 50–51

M B/W 27–30

N B/W 31–34

Nt B/W 33–35

Group: E, O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

hA NN pw aHa wab=k wab kA=k

Ah this NN, stand up so that you may

purify yourself and your ka may be

pure.

PT 453

P B/W 52–53

P V/E 51–52

M B/W 30–31

N B/W 34–35

Nt B/W 35–37

Group: E, O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

hA NN pw aHa ir=k wnx n=k irt Hrw

Ah this NN, stand up and clothe

yourself in the Eye of Hours

PT 457

P B/E 12–14

N A/Wh

Group: C, J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts tw NN pn Ssp n=k mw=k sAq n=k qsw=k aHa r=k Hr rdwy=k Axt xnt Axiw

Raise yourself this NN. You have

received your water and your bones

have been collected for you. Stand up

upon your two feet, you have become

an akh at the head of the akhs.

PT 459

P B/E 16–18

M B/Eg 50–59

N B/E 45–48

Group: C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation aHa Ts Tw

Stand up and raise yourself!

PT 460

P B/E 18–20

M B/Eh

N A/Eg 22–25

Group: C, G

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw

Raise yourself!

PT 462

P P/N 1–14

N P/N 1–7

Nt B/Se ii 20–26

Group: C, G, J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw

Raise yourself!

PT 468

P A/W 6–9

M A/W 1–8

N A/Wg 1–26

Nt B/Sw 7–19

Nt B/Se ii 45–59

Nt B/E i 19–34

Wd B/Sw 1–20

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

HA NN pn Ts Tw aHa

Ah this NN raise yourself, stand up!

APPENDICES

267

Ts=sn Tw NN pn

Let them (Dual Ennead) raise you this

NN.

PT 477

P A/W 27–32

M A/W 29–45

N A/W 15–27

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw wsir

Raise yourself, Osiris!

I Hrw xa DHwti Ts=sn wsir Hr gs=f

Horus has come and Thoth has

appeared that they might raise Osiris

from upon his side.

PT 482

P A/W 46–48

M A/W 20–29

N A/Wg 42–52

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iA it NN Ts Tw Hr gs=k iAbi d Tw Hr gs=k wnmi ir mw ipn rnpw rdiw.n(=i) n=k iA it wsir Nn pn Ts Tw Hr gs=k iAbi d Tw Hr gs=k imn ir t=k pn srf ir.n(=i) n=k

Ah, my father this NN. Raise yourself

from upon your left side and place

yourself upon your right side towards

this fresh water which I have given to

you. Ah my father this Osiris NN.

Raise yourself from upon your left side

and place yourself upon your right side

towards this fresh bread which I have

made for you.

Rs.n=k sDr.n=k mn.ti m anx aHa mA=k nn aHa sDm=k nn

Awaken, having passed the night

enduring in life! Stand up and see this,

stand up and hear this!

PT 483

P A/W 48–50

M A/W 13–20

N A/Wg 27–34

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw wsir

Raise yourself, Osiris!

PT 487

P A/W 60

M A/Wg 55–61

N A/Wg 26–27

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

aHa Hr gs=k iAbi d Tw Hr gs=k imn

Stand up from upon your left side and

place yourself upon your right side.

PT 498

P A/E 20–21

Group: K

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.rs wsir i.rs

Awaken, Osiris! Awaken!

PT 504

P Cm/E 10–22

M Cm/W 22–32

N Cs/W 1–9

Nt C/E 22–30

Group: N

Personal - Transition Ts=f sw ir=f

And thus he raises himself.

APPENDICES

268

PT 512

P Cm/W 55–63

N Cm/W 66–73

Group: N

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw

Raise yourself!

PT 513

P Cm/W 63–72

N Cn/W 31–36

Group: N

Personal – Transition

sia=k i.wAw

For you have been made to rise up to

the ways

PT 515

P Cn/W 1–7

M Cm/E 1–10

N Cm/E 1–10

Group: N

Personal – Transition

sqbHw=s Hat n nTr aA im Hrw=f n rs

That she may libate the heart of the

great god there on his day of

awakening.

PT 523

P Cn/W 58–60

M Cm/W 97–99

N Cm/W 42–45

Group: N

Personal – Transition

aHa.ti xnt Axiw mr aha Hrw xnti anxw

Stand up before the akhs, just as Horus

foremost of the living standards.

PT 532

P Cn/W 85–93

N Cn/E 1–10

Group: N

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Rs n Hrw aHa ir stS Ts Tw ir=k wsir NN pn sA gbb tpi=f

Awaken to Horus! Stand up for Seth.

Raise yourself this Osiris NN, the

firstborn son of Geb.

PT 536

P Cn/E 57–67

Group: C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw

Raise yourself!

PT 537

P B/Se B 80–82

P Cn/E 68–72

N B/Se B 85–87

Group: B, C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

aHa

Stand up!

PT 540

P V/S 23–29

Nt C/E 18–22

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

She who provides has raised you.

PT 546

P V/S 37

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

ink nwt sia n(=i) wsir NN pn

APPENDICES

269

I am Nut. Make this Osiris NN rise up

to me!

PT 545

P V/S 36–37

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

aHa

Stand up!

PT 553

P V/E 1–7

N V/E 1–11

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw gbb

Let Geb raise you

Ts Tw

Raise yourself!

PT 556

P V/E 11–15

N V/S 1–14

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw it wsir NN…aHa=k r=k

Raise yourself my father Osiris

NN…May you stand up.

PT 561B

P V/E 22–23

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.rs i.rs wsir NN

Awaken, Awaken Osiris NN!

PT 593

P B/Se B 39–42

M B/Eg 1–20

N B/E 1–4

Nt B/W 44–51

Nt B/E i 12–19

Group: B, C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts=s Tw

That she (Nut) may raise you.

PT 596

P B/E 24

M B/Eg 43–44

N B/E 41

Group: C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.rs Ts Tw

Awaken! Raise yourself!

PT 603

P B/E 30–32

M B/E 57–60

N B/Sw ii 40–43

Group: C, F, H

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw

Raise yourself!

PT 604

P B/E 38

M B/E 60

N B/E 15–16

Group: C, H

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw

Raise yourself!

APPENDICES

270

PT 606

P Cs/W 1–21

M Cm/W 1–22

N Cn/W 14–31

Group: N

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw

Raise yourself!

PT 610

M V/S 1–24

N V/E 55–63

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation i.rs n Hrw aHa n stS Ts Tw Hrw sag bb tpi=f

Awaken for Horus, stand up for Seth!

Raise yourself, the first born son of Geb.

Ts Tw xnt xm

Let the foremost of Letopolis raise you.

PT 612

P V/E 78–81

M V/S 35–40

N V/E 67–70

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

aHa Ts Tw

Stand up and rise yourself!

PT 619

M V/N 37–40

N V/E 52–55

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw Hr iAb=k d Tw Hr imn=k

Raise yourself from upon your left and

place yourself upon your right.

PT 662

N B/E 59–62

Group: G

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw Hr gs=k iAb srw Tw Hr gs=k imnt

Raise yourself from upon your left side

and upraise yourself upon you right

side.

PT 664E

N B/Sw iii 2–3

Group: F

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts n=T sw

That she (Nut) may raise you

PT 665A

P B/Se B 52–56

N B/Se B 50–55

Nt B/E i 1–12

Wd B/Ne C 1–16

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw

Raise yourself!

aHa.ti Hr rd[=k r gs] wAD-wr

Stand up upon your two feet in the

Great Green.

PT 665B

P B/Se B 56–58

M B/Sw i 5

N B/Se B 55–58

Nt B/Sw 30–35

Nt B/E ii 7–12

Wd B/Sw 20–29

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw…aHa.ti m xnt itrti m xnt nTrw sAbw

APPENDICES

271

Raise yourself…Stand up before the two

chapel rows, before the jackal gods!

PT 666

P B/Se B 67–73

N B/Se B 68–76

Nt B/E ii 39–53

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.dr Tw Hr gs=k iAb Hms r=k Hr gs=k imnt

Remove yourself from upon your left

side and sit upon your right side.

PT 667B

P B/Se B 76–80

N B/Se B 80–85

Nt B/E ii 61–65

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw

Raise Yourself!

PT 670

P B/Sw A 4–18

N B/Se B 100–106

Group: B, M

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

sDr=k i.rs=k

May you pass the night, may you

awaken.

PT 674

P P/N 1–14

N P/N 1–7

Nt B/Se ii 20–26

Group: I

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

aHa=k xnti snwt mnw is

May you stand up before the chapels as

Min.

PT 675

P P/S 2–13

N P/N 7–12

Nt B/Se ii 26–32

Group: I

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw

Raise yourself!

PT 676

N P/N 12–21

Nt B/Se ii 32–41

Group: I

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw

Raise yourself!

PT 677

N P/N 21–27

Group: I

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw

Raise yourself!

PT 688

T A/N 57–64

P A/N 34–40

P APn/E 65–74

N A/N 25–31

Nt B/Nw 23–31

Group: L, O

Personal – Transition

isa=sn NN n xprr

They making NN rise up to Khperer.

APPENDICES

272

PT 690

P B/Se B 82–89

M A/E 17–29

N A/N 35–51

Nt B/Se ii 1–20

Nt B/Se ii 74–76

Wd B/Ne A 4–7

Group: B, G, L

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

rs NN pn nhs nTw i.bAgi

May NN awaken, the inert god wake

up.

hA NN pn aHa i m Htp

Ah this NN, stand up and go in peace!

Ts Tw Hr nxt=k

Raise yourself up upon your strength!

PT 694A

P V/E 68–71

N A/Eg 25–30

Group: G, O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation Ts Tw Ahi

Raise yourself O akh!

PT 700

N V/E 77–80

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw Hr gs=k imnt srw Tw Hr gs=k iAb

Raise yourself upon your right side,

raise yourself from upon your left side.

PT 701A

P B/Se B 46–48

N V/E 81–84

Group: B, O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts [Tw]

Raise yourself!

PT 711

N A/E 14–17

Group: G

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw r wrw ir=k

Raise yourself to those who are greater

than you.

PT 714

P B/Se B 42–43

M A/E 15–16

N A/E 18–19

Nt B/Se ii 71–74

Group: B, G

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw Hr qsw=k biAw awt=k nbwt

Raise yourself upon your metal bones

and your golden limbs!

PT 729

P B/Se B 89–92

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

a[ha n s]tS [wsir i]s Axi is sA gbb sdAw n[=f psDt]

Stand for Seth as Osiris, as an akh, the

son of Geb, one at whom the Ennead

trembles.

PT 733

P B/Se B 97–98

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

rs rs ws[ir NN Ts Tw Hr] gs=k pw iAb d Tw Hr gs=k [pw wnmi]

Awaken, Awaken Osiris NN. Raise

APPENDICES

273

yourself from upon this your left side

and place yourself upon your right side.

PT 735

P P/S 13–20

Group: I

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.rs n Hrw aHa [m inpw Hr mniw]

Stand up as Anubis, master of the

herdsman’s tent.

PT 760

P Cs/E 1–10

P V/E 26–29

Group: N, O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

aha i.[dr] Tw Hr gs=k pw iAbi

Stand up! Remove yourself from your

left side.

PT 767

P V/E 71–75

N V/S 14–26

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw i[r]=k Hms=k Hr Sw [n] ixt

Raise yourself and sit upon the shade.

PT 793

N A/E 61–64

Group: K

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ts Tw Hr gs=k iAb d Tw Hr gs=k imnt

Raise yourself from upon your left side

and place yourself upon your right side.

PT 794

N Cs/E 16–19

Group: Unidentified

Ts Tw Hr gs=k pw iAb di Tw Hr gs=k pw wnm

Raise yourself from upon your left side

and place yourself upon your right side.

APPENDICES

274

CORE TEXTS:

HORUS – SUCCESSOR OF – OSIRIS

PT 225

P B/Ne iii 56–62

N B/Ne B v 46–53

Nt B/Ne C ii 4–14

Wd B/Ne B iv 45–49

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

sA=k Hr nst=k

That your son may be upon your throne

PT 260

W A/W 37 (452) – A/S 1–8

Group: J

Personal – Transition

i gbb kA nwt Hrw pi NN iwa it=f… iw wDa n NN tfn Hna tfnt iw sDm.n mAati iw Sw m mtrw iw wD.n mAati pSr n=f nswt gbb Tsii=f sw n mrt.n=f dmD awt=f imt StAw smA=f imw nw rD=f pHw mdw m iwnw

O Geb, bull of Nut, Horus is NN, heir of

his father…Shu has judged NN with

Tefnut, the Dual Maat heard, Shu

witnessed and the Dual Maat

commanded that the thrones of Geb

serve him and that he raise himself to

what he desired, that his limbs that

were hidden be re-assembled, that he

unite those who are in Nun and that he

put an end to disruption in Heliopolis.

PT 422

P B/Wg 1–2

M B/Wg 1–23

N B/W 42–52

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Sm.n=k Ax=k Szm=k m nTr isti is wsir

You have gone that you may become an

akh and have power as a god, as the

successor of Osiris.

wd=f Tw Hr nst wsir

That he (the Sun) may place you upon

the throne of Osiris.

aHa bA=k Hr nst=k nst=k apr m irw=k

May your son arise upon your throne,

equipped in your form.

PT 436

P B/W 1–4

M B/E 2–3

N B/Wg 33–36

Group: A, D

Sacerdotal Priestly Recitation

Smt=k tn isti wsir is

This going of yours is as the successor

of Osiris

PT 487

P A/W 60

M A/Wg 55–61

N A/Wg 26–27

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

ink sa=k iwa=k

I am you your son, I am your heir.

PT 511

P Cm/W 35–52

M Cs/W 1–16

N Cs/W 10–24

Nt C/W 1–13

Group: N

Personal – Transition

NN pw sA=k NN pw iwaw=k

For NN is your son, NN is your heir.

APPENDICES

275

PT 519

P Cn/W 22–47

M Cm/E 34–68

N Cm/E 32–65

Group: N

Personal - Transition

mr iTt Hrw pr n it=f ma sn it=f stS m bAH gbb

Just as Horus took the house of his

father from the brother of his father

Seth in the presence of Geb.

PT 553

P V/E 1–7

N V/E 1–11

Wd B/Se 29–30

Wd B/Se 30–31

Wd B/Se 41–49

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Smt=k t wist is wsir

This going of yours is as the successor

of Osiris.

PT 557

P V/E 15–16

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iwaw=k Hr nst=k

Your (Osiris) heir is upon your throne.

PT 662

N B/E 59–62

Group: G

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ink sA=k ink iwa=k

I am your son, I am your heir

PT 665B

P B/Se B 56–58

M B/Sw i 5

N B/Se B 55–58

Nt B/Sw 30–35

Nt B/E ii 7–12

Wd B/Sw 20–29

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

n twt is wd.n wsir Hr nst=f

Indeed you are the one whom Osiris

put upon his throne.

PT 693

P B/Se B 37–38

M A/E 9–11

N A/Eg 18–22

Group: B, G

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

rpa nTrw iT.n=f iwct nHm

The god’s prince having seized the

inheritance that was taken

VARIANT TEXTS:

HORUS – SUCCESSOR OF – OSIRIS

PT 3

T Bs/iB

Group: Unidentified

NN mrii(=i) wtwti Hr nst gbb Htp.n=f Hr=f di.n=f n=f wat=f m bAH psDt aAt nTrw nbw m Haawt Dd=sn nfrw NN Htp it=f gbb Hr=f

NN is the one whom I (Nut) love,

created on the throne of Geb who was

content with him. He has given to him

his inheritance in the presence of the

Great Ennead. All the gods are

rejoicing saying “How good is NN with

whom his father Geb is content.”

APPENDICES

276

PT 9

P Bs/E 1–2

P B/Nw i 7

P B/Nw iii 7

P B/Sw Ah ii 1

P B/Nw i 7 + Wh 7 (65)

M Bs/W

M Bs/E

M Bs/L

N Bs/W

N Bs/E

N B/Nw v 1 (136)

N B/Wh ii 1 (134)

N B/Sw iv 1 (136+1)

Nt B/Wh

Group: Unidentified

sA ra iwa gbb

Son of Re, Geb’s heir

PT 256

W A/W 24–28

T A/W 15–16

Group: J

Personal – Transition wa.n NN pn gbb wa.n NN pn gbb iw wa.n=f tm i=f Hr nst Hrw smsw

NN has inherited from Geb! NN has

inherited from Geb! NN has inherited

from Atum because he is on the throne

of Horus the Elder.

PT 306

W A/N 18–24

M V/N 8–37

N V/E 70–74

Group: L, O

Personal – Transition

ir.n n=f gbb mr qd irii n=f im

Geb acted for him like he was acted for

in the same event

PT 307

W A/N 25–31

P V/W 51–53

Group: L, O

Personal – Transition

mwt nt NN iwnwt it n NN iwnw NN Ds=f iwnw msii m iwnw Sk ra Hr tp psDwt Hr tp rxwt nfr tm iwt snnw=f iwaw it=f gbb

The mother of NN is a Heliopolitan, the

father of NN is a Heliopolitan, NN

himself is a Heliopolitan, he was born in

Heliopolis when Re was at the head of

the Dual Ennead and at the head of the

subjects, totally perfect, without equal,

the heir of his father Geb.

PT 356

T B/E ii 32–38

P B/W 53–56

P B/E 1–4

M B/Eg 20–28

N B/W 35–42

Nt B/W 37–44

Group: C, E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

mA.n gbb qdw=k d.n=f kw m ist=k

Geb has seen your form and he has put

you in your place

PT 371

T A/W 48–50

P B/Wg 34–37

M B/Wg 42–46

N B/Wh i 2–3

Nt B/W 62–64

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

mA.n gbb qdw=k d.n=f kw m ist=k

Geb has seen your form and he has put

you in your place

APPENDICES

277

PT 468

P A/W 6–9

M A/W 1–8

N A/Wg 1–26

Nt B/Sw 7–19

Nt B/Se ii 45–59

Nt B/E i 19–34

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

ip.n Tw psDt aAt imt iwnw ir ist=k wrt Hms=k NN pw xnt psDt gbb is rpa nTrw wsir is xnt sxmw Hrw is nb pawt nTrw

The Great Ennead who is in Heliopolis

has assigned you to your great seat.

You shall sit down, NN at the fore of

the Ennead as Geb the god’s prince, as

Osiris at the fore of the controlling

powers, as Horus lord of the god’s

prince.

PT 574

P V/W 53–56

N V/E 16–20

Group: O Personal - Transition

iw.n NN pn xr=k Hrw iwaw gbb Ddw tm n=k tm

This NN has come to you Horus, Geb’s

heir of whom Atum says “All is for

you.”

PT 578

P V/W 70–73

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

aHa=k r=k m xnt nTrw sA smswii iwaw is Hr nst gbb is

May you stand before the gods, eldest

son, as the heir, as the one upon the

throne of Geb.

PT 592

P B/Nw iii 1–6

M B/W 58–61

N B/Se A 1–7

Nt B/Ne C iv 3–11

Group: D, F

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

hA gbb wsir NN pw nn iab n=k sw i.tm irt=f Twt nTr aA wa.ti di.n n=k tm iwat=f

Ah Geb, this is Osiris NN, gather him to

you that what is against him might end.

You alone are the Great God for Atum

has given to you his inheritance.

PT 606

P Cs/W 1–21

M Cm/W 1–22

N Cn/W 14–31

Wd B/W 9–30

Group: N

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iT n=k iwat it=k gbb m bA Xt psDt m iwnw m twt n=f

Seize your father Geb’s inheritance in

the presence of the Ennead in Heliopolis

like one similar to him.

PT 641

N B/Ne B iv 102–108

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

wsir NN iw.n(=i) m [xsf]=k ink Hrw iw.n(=i) mdw(=i) Hr tp=k ink sa=k wsir NN Twt saw r n gbb w[t]wt=f iwaw=f wsir NN pn Twt xai m xt=f Di n=k wawt in psDt

APPENDICES

278

Osiris NN, I have come to [meet] you, I

am Horus. I have come that I might

speak on your behalf for I am your son.

Osiris NN you are the eldest son of Geb,

his first born, his heir. Osiris NN you

are the one who appears after him, for

the inheritance has been given to you by

the Ennead.

PT 677

N P/N 21–27

Group: I

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

wn=k Hr nst wsir m sti xnt imnt

That you may be upon the throne of

Osiris as the successor the foremost of

the westerners.

APPENDICES

279

CORE TEXTS:

HORUS – ACTS FOR – OSIRIS

PT 33

P B/Ne i 20–24

P B/Ne i 51–56

N B/Ne B ii 17–20

N B/Ne B iii 39–43

N B/Ne B v 104–108

Jp B/N A i 10–13

Wd B/Ne B ii 41–44

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

ip Tw Hrw rnpt rnpt rnpw m rn=k n mw rnpw

Let Horus take account of you, you

being rejuvenated in your name of

‘fresh water’.

PT 247

W A/Wg 1–11

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Hrw pw wD n=f irt n it=f

It is Horus the one who is commanded

to act for his father.

PT 355

T B/E ii 18–32

P B/E 20–21

M B/Eg 44–50

N B/E 41–44

Group: C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iw.k xr(=i) iw=k xr(=i) iw=k A xr(=i) Hrw is nD n=f it=f wsir

You should come to me, you should

come to me, you should come to me,

Horus who tends his father Osiris.

PT 356

T B/E ii 32–38

P B/W 53–56

P B/E 1–4

M B/Eg 20–28

N B/W 35–42

Nt B/W 37–44

Group: C, E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

bA ir=f Hrw ip=f it=f im=k m rn=k n bA-it

Horus has become a ba, taking account

of his father in you, in your name of The

father’s ba.

PT 357

T B/E ii 38–45

P B/E 4–8

P Cn/E 26–40

M B/Eg 29–36

N B/E 4–8

Nt B/W 51–59

Wd B/W 38–48

Group: C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iw.n Hrw ip=f kw

Horus has come, that he may take

account of you

i Hrw ip=f it=f im=k rnp.ti m rn=k n mw rnpw

Horus has come that he may take

account of his father in you, you being

rejuvenated in your name of ‘fresh

water’.

APPENDICES

280

PT 364

T A/W 28–35

P B/Sw B 1–30

An B/E i 1–11

M A/Eg 40–63

N A/E 9–14

Jp B/E 16–26

Group: D, G, M

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i Hrw ip=f Tw ma nTrw

Horus has come that he may reckon you

among the gods.

PT 419

T SP/S 12–25

M A/Eg 25–32

N A/S C 1–2

Group: G, J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dr.n Hrw Dwt irt NN m ifdt=f i.xm.n stS irt.n=f ir NN m xmnt=f

Horus has repelled the evil that was

done to NN on his 4th day, Seth has

annulled that which he did to NN on

his 8th day.

PT 423

P B/Wg 31–34

P B/W´ 58–59

N B/Wg 37–41

Nt B/W 59–61

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

ip kw Hrw rnpt rnpt rnpwt m rn=k pw m mw rnpw

Let Horus has come that he may take

account of you, you being rejuvenated,

in this your name of ‘fresh water’.

PT 542

P V/S 31–33

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Hrw pw iw.n=f ip=f it=f wsir NN Sw n=f na nswt Hr iswt inpw sDm nb nn n anx=f DHwti m xAtb=k i.msDw nb it DHwti i.si mA=k inw it nA=f sw n=f

It is Horus (who speaks) he has come

that he might take account of his father

Osiris NN.” You are harmful for him

when the King travels to the place of

Anubis” anyone who hears this will not

live. Thoth do not have pity on all who

hate my father. Thoth go and see him

who would get my father when he

journeys, the one who is dangerous for

him.

PT 670

P B/Sw A 4–18

N B/Se B 100–106

Group: B, M

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

mdw wsir n Hrw fd.n=f Dwt [ir] NN pn m fdnw=f hrw xm.n=f irt ir=f m xmnnw=f h[r]w

Osiris shall speak for Horus because he

has forcibly removed the bad that was

against NN on his 4th day and has

annihilated what was done against him

on his 8th day.

PT 690

P B/Se B 82–89

M A/E 17–29

N A/N 35–51

Nt B/Se ii 1–20

Nt B/Se ii 74–76

Wd B/Ne A 4–7

Group: B, G, L

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

APPENDICES

281

i n=k Hrw NN pw ir=f n=k irt.n=f n it=f wsir

That he (Horus) may do for you what

he did for his father Osiris.

PT 701A

P B/Se B 46–48

N V/E 81–84

Group: B, O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i Hrw wab nD=f wsir

Clean Horus has come, that he might

tend his father Osiris.

PT 703

P B/Se B 45–46

N V/N 36–38

Group: B, O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i n=k Hrw wDa=f sArw=k xAa=f mDwt=k dr.n Hrw imi rd=k n nDrw Tw Akrw

Horus has come to you and shall sever

your shackles and throw off your

hobbles. Horus has removed your

impediment and the horizons shall not

seize you.

APPENDICES

282

OSIRIS – ISIS AND

NEPHTHYS

CORE TEXTS:

ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – MOURN

FOR – OSIRIS

PT 259

T A/W 23–27

Group: J

Personal – Transition

in snt NN nbt-p rmt sw qmA.n sw xnmtt qmSAti wsir

It is the sister of NN, the Lady of Pe,

who cries out for him and the two

attendants (Isis and Nephthys) who

mourned for him having mourned

Osiris.

PT 337

T B/Wg 53–58

P A/W 1

N Cn/E 46–48

Group: J, M, N

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

rmii sw ikii sw HAii sw

Cry for him, wail for him, mourn him!

PT 412

T SP/N 1–22

P B/Sw A 27–37

N B/Nw ii 35–43 – B/W 1

Nt B/Sw 19–30

Nt B/Se ii 59–7

Group: G, M

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dsw n=k smntt

Let the mourning goddess call out to

you.

PT 461

P B/E 22–23

M A/Eg 18–23

N A/W 63–64

Group: C, G, J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

sbH n=k ist Dsw n=k nbt-Hwt

Let Isis wail for you and let Nephthys

call out to you.

PT 466

T A/S A 4–6

P A/W 3–4

M A/Eg 36–40

N A/E 8–9

Group: G, J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

sbH n=k mint wrt wsir is m ist awi=f

While the Great Mooring Post wails for

you as (for) Osiris in his suffering.

PT 468

P A/W 6–9

M A/W 1–8

N A/Wg 1–26

Nt B/Sw 7–19

Nt B/Se ii 45–59

Nt B/E i 19–34

Wd B/Sw 1–20

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

sbḥ n.k ist ḏsw n.k nbt-ḥwt

Let Isis wail for you and let Nephthys

call out to you.

PT 482

P A/W 46–48

M A/W 20–29

N A/Wg 42–52

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation iw=sn n wsir Hr xrw sbH n ist Hna nbt-Hwt

APPENDICES

283

They have come to Osiris on account of

the noise of the crying of Isis and

Nephthys.

PT 535

P B/Nw i 3–6

P B/Sw Ah i 2–6

P Cn/E 40–57

N Cn/E 35–46

Group: C, F, N

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dd-mdw in ist Hna nbt=Hwt i Hat I Drt ist tw Hna nbt-Hwt iw.n=sn m sxnhw sn=sn wsir m sxnw sn=sn NN pn wnt=T wnt=T rm sn=T ist r msn=T nbt-Hwt r msn=T Hms ist Awi=s tpi=s ndt-Hwt i.ndr.n=s n=s tp n mnDwy=sny n sn=sn NN inp Hr Xt=f

Recitation by Isis and Nephthys. The

Wailing Bird has come, the kite has

come; it is Isis and Nephthys. They

have come in search of their brother

Osiris, in search of their brother, this

NN. Haste, Haste! Weep for your

brother Isis, weep for your brother

Nephthys, weep for your brother. Isis

sat down with her two arms on her

head, Nephthys has grasped the tip of

her breasts for their brother NN, baby-

like on his belly.

PT 553

P V/E 1–7

N V/E 1–11

Wd B/Se 29–30

Wd B/Se 30–31

Wd B/Se 41–49

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

sbH n=k smntt

Let the Mourning Goddess wail for you.

PT 619

M V/N 37–40

N V/E 52–55

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

sbH n=k ist Dswi n=k nbt-Hwt

Let Isis wail for you and let Nephthys

call out to you.

PT 633

N B/Nw iii 12

Group: M

Sacerdotal Priestly Recitation

Tmt Hat Hr=f

You (Nephthys) are the one who

mourns over him.

PT 665A

P B/Se B 52–56

N B/Se B 50–55

Nt B/E i 1–12

Wd B/Ne C 1–16

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dsw n=k smntt nbt=Hwt is

Let the Mourning Goddess call out to

you as Nephthys.

PT 667A

P B/Se B 73–76

N B/Se B 76–80

Nt B/Sw 35–42

Nt B/E ii 53–60

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

nis n=k smntt is

The Mourning Goddess summoning

you as Isis.

APPENDICES

284

PT 670

P B/Sw A 4–18

N B/Se B 100–106

Group: B, M

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iw=sn n wsir NN [Hr x]rw rmm ist Hr sbH nbt-Hwt Hr iww Axti iptwt [n wr pn p]r m dAt

They have come to Osiris NN at the

sound of Isis weeping, at Nephthys’

screaming, at the lamentations of those

two Akhs for the Great One who comes

from the duat.

PT 674

P P/N 1–14

N P/N 1–7

Nt B/Se ii 20–26

Group: I

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dsw n=k smntt ist

Let the Mourning Goddess call out to

you as Isis.

PT 676

N P/N 12–21

Nt B/Se ii 32–41

Group: I

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

sbH n=k smntt

Let the Mourning Goddess wail for you.

PT 690

P B/Se B 82–89

M A/E 17–29

N A/N 35–51

Nt B/Se ii 1–20

Nt B/Se ii 74–76

Wd B/Ne A 4–7

Group: B, G, L

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

HA.n(=i) Tw Hr HAt

I have mourned you at the tomb.

PT 701A

P B/Se B 46–48

N V/E 81–84

Group: B, O

Sacerdotal Priestly Recitation

ip.n(=i) Tw NN [i]n snty=k i.mrti Tw n ist n nbt-Hwt rm=sn Tw srs=sn Tw

“I have taken account of you, NN”, said

your two sisters who have desired you,

said Isis, said Nephthys, bewailing you

and awakening you.

PT 728

P B/Se B 48–52

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dsw n=k smntt ist is

And the Mourning Goddess calls out to

you as Isis.

PT 767

P V/E 71–75

N V/S 14–26

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

mdwi wrty sbH aAty ist [t]i Hna nbt-Hwt sxnt Tw gmti Tw

The two Elder Goddesses shall speak,

the two Great Goddesses shall wail,

they are Isis and Nephthys who sought

you and found you.

APPENDICES

285

CORE TEXTS:

ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – SEARCH

FOR – OSIRIS

PT 482

P A/W 46–48

M A/W 20–29

N A/Wg 42–52

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

snt=k wrt sAqt it=k qnft Drwt=k sxnt Tw gmt Tw Hr gs=k Hr wDb ndit

Your eldest sister who collected your

flesh and folded your hands, who

sought you and found you upon your

side on the shore of Nedit.

PT 535

P B/Nw i 3–6

P B/Sw Ah i 2–6

P Cn/E 40–57

N Cn/E 35–46

Group: C, F, N

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dd-mdw in ist hnA nbt-Hwt i Hat I Drt ist tw Hna nbt-Hwt iw.n=sn m sznw sn=sn wsir m sxnw sn=sn NN pn

Recitation by Isis and Nephthys. The

wailing bird has come, the kite has

come. It is Isis and Nephthys. They

have come in search of their brother

Osiris, in search of their brother, this

NN.

PT 694A

P V/E 68–71

N A/Eg 25–30

Group: G, O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

gm=i gm=i [it in ist] gm.n(=i) it nbt=hwt mA.n=sn wsir Hr gs=f m id[Hw hA wsir Ts T]w n(=i) [i]n ist aHa n(=i) i[n nbt-

Hwt] […] sn=I HH.n(=i) Tw

“I have found (him), I have found

(him)” said Isis, “I have found (him)”,

said Nephthys when they saw Osiris on

his side in the riverbank. Ho Osiris

raise yourself for me said Isis, stand up

for me said Nephthys…my brother I

have searched for you.

PT 767

P V/E 71–75

N V/S 14–26

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

mdwi wrty sbH aAti ist [t]i Hna nbt-Hwt sxnt Tw gmti Tw

The two Elder Goddesses shall speak,

the two Great Goddesses shall wail,

they are Isis and Nephthys who sought

you and found you.

VARIANTS TEXTS:

ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – SEARCH

FOR – OSIRIS

PT 20

N B/Ne A 3–4

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering

iw.n(=i) m sxn=k ink Hrw

I have come in search of you for I am

Horus.

PT 356

T B/E ii 32–38

P B/W 53–56

P B/E 1–4

M B/Eg 20–28

N B/W 35–42

Nt B/W 37–44

Group: C, E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

APPENDICES

286

iw.n Hrw sxn=f Tw

Horus has come seeking you.

PT 478

P A/W 33–37

M A/W 48–53

N A/W 33–42

Group: J

Personal – Transition

i.n=T m HH sn=T wsir nii.n sw sn=f stS Hr gs=f m gs pf n ghsti

You (Horus) have come in search of

your brother Osiris, his brother Seth

having cast him down upon his side in

Ghesti.

PT 485

P A/W 53–58

M A/S 1–8

Group: J

Personal – Transition

NN nw iw m sxnw sA=k wsir gm.n=f sw di=I Hr gs=f

NN is the one [who] came [in] search of

your son Osiris and found him placed

on his side.

i gbb At tpi=f qniwt=f ir Hr=f i.H=f Tniw ipp=f xAswt m sxnw wsir gm.n=f sw di=I Hr gs=f m gHst

Geb has come with his striking power

atop him and his yellow awe at his face,

so that he may strike you and inspect

the desert hills in search of Osiris and

he found him placed on his side in

Ghesti.

PT 579

P V/W 73–75

N V/W 52–54

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation prt=k tn m pr=k wsir NN pn

This, your coming forth from your

house, this Osiris NN, is Horus’s

coming forth in search of you this Osiris

NN.

PT 636

N B/Ne B iii 75–78

N B/Ne B

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iw.n(=i) [sxn(=i)] kw

I (Horus) have come only in seeking

you

PT 637

N B/Ne B iv 87–94

N B/E 50–52

Group: A, C

Sacerdotal – Offering

i Hrw mH (m) m[Dt] sxn.n=f it=f wsir gm.n=f sw Hr gs=f m gHsti

Horus comes, the one who fills with oil

having searched for his father Osiris

and found him on his side in Ghesti.

PT 659

P B/E 34–38

N B/E 13–15

Group: C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iwsw Smt=k tn iwsw Smii miwt=k iptn smii miwt Hrw m sxn it=f wsir

Indeed, this your going; indeed these

goings of yours, are the goings of Horus

in seeking his father Osiris.

APPENDICES

287

PT 667A

P B/Se B 73–76

N B/Se B 76–80

Nt B/Sw 35–42

Nt B/E ii 53–60

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

sxn=f it wsir

When he (Horus) seeks his father Osiris.

APPENDICES

288

CORE TEXTS:

ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – FIND –

OSIRIS

PT 357

T B/E ii 38–45

P B/E 4–8

P Cn/E 26–40

M B/Eg 29–36

N B/E 4–8

Nt B/W 51–59

Wd B/W 38–48

Group: C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

mA.n Tw ist Hna nbt-Hwt gm.n=sn Tw

Isis and Nephthys have seen you, they

have found you.

PT 482

P A/W 46–48

M A/W 20–29

N A/Wg 42–52

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

snt=k wrt sAqt it=k qnft Drwt=k sxnt Tw gmt Tw Hr gs=k Hr wDb ndit

Your eldest sister who collected your

flesh and folded your hands, who

sought you and found you upon your

side on the shore of Nedit.

PT 532

P Cn/W 85–93

N Cn/E 1–10

Wd B/W 1–9

Group: N

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i ist i nbt-Hwt wat=sn m imnt wat=sn m iAbt wat=sn m HAt i nbt-Hwt wat=sn m Drt gm.n=sn wsir ndi.n sw sn=f stS r tA m ndit

Isis has come, Nephthys has come, one

of them as a wailing bird and one of

them as a kite and they have found

Osiris after his brother Seth threw him

down to the earth in Nedit.

PT 534

P Cn/E 1–26

Group: C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

gmw=k n=sn m nwr

You having been found by them as one

who shakes.

PT 593

P B/Se B 39–42

M B/Eg 1–20

N B/E 1–4

Nt B/W 44–51

Nt B/E i 12–19

Group: B, C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i n=k snty=k ist Hna nbt-Hwt Hm.n sn m bw Xr=k im nDr.n snt=k ist im=k gm.n=s Tw kmt wrt m rn=k n km-wr

Your two sisters Isis and Nephthys have

returned to you after having retreated

from where you are. Your sister Isis has

taken hold of you, having found you

black in your name of Great Black.

PT 694A

P V/E 68–71

N A/Eg 25–30

Group: G, O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

gm=i gm=i [it in ist] gm.n(=i) it nbt=hwt mA.n=sn wsir Hr gs=f m id[Hw hA wsir Ts T]w n(=i) [i]n ist aHa n(=i) i[n nbt-Hwt] […] sn=I HH.n(=i) Tw

APPENDICES

289

“I found, I found” said Isis, “I found”,

said Nephthys when they saw Osiris on

his side on the riverbank. Ho Osiris

raise yourself for me said Isis, stand up

for me said Nephthys…“my brother I

have searched for you.”

PT 732

P B/Se B 95–97

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

gmt Tw snt=k ist Hr mnti mwt=k

Your sister Isis finding you upon the

thighs of your mother.

PT 767

P V/E 71–75

N V/S 14–26

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

mdwi wrty sbH aAti ist [t]i Hna nbt-Hwt sxnt Tw gmti Tw

The two elder goddesses shall speak,

the two great goddesses shall wail, they

are Isis and Nephthys who sought you

and found you.

VARIANTS TEXTS:

ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – FIND –

OSIRIS

PT 364

T A/W 28–35

P B/Sw B 1–30

An B/E i 1–11

M A/Eg 40–63

N A/E 9–14

Jp B/E 16–26

Group: D, G, M

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

gm.n Tw Hrw Ax.n=f im=k

Horus has found you and has become

an akh through you.

PT 371

T A/W 48–50

P B/Wg 34–37

M B/Wg 42–46

N B/Wh i 2–3

Nt B/W 62–64

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

gm.n Tw Hrw Ax.n=f im=k

Horus has found you and become an

akh in you.

PT 485

P A/W 53–58

M A/S 1–8

Group: J

Personal – Transition

NN nw iw m sxnw sA=k wsir gm.n=f sw di=I Hr gs=f

NN is the one who came in search of

your son Osiris and found him placed

on his side.

i gbb At tpi=f qniwt=f ir Hr=f i.H=f Tniw ipp=f xAswt m sxnw wsir gm.n=f sw di=I Hr gs=f m gHst

Geb has come with his striking power

atop him and his yellow awe at his face,

so that he may strike you and inspect

the desert hills in search of Osiris and

he found him placed on his side in

Ghesti. Osiris, stand up for your father

Geb that he may save you from Seth.

APPENDICES

290

PT 637

N B/Ne B iv 87–94

N B/E 50–52

Group: A, C

Sacerdotal – Offering

i Hrw mH (m) m[Dt] sxn.n=f it=f wsir gm.n=f sw Hr gs=f m gHsti

Horus comes, the one who fills with

[oil] having searched for his father

Osiris and found him on his side in

Ghesti.

PT 674

P P/N 1–14

N P/N 1–7

Nt B/Se ii 20–26

Group: I

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation gm(=i) Tw TAs(=i) Hr=k m sAb

I find you and tie on your face as a

Jackal

APPENDICES

291

CORE TEXTS:

ISIS AND NEPHTHYS –

JOIN/UNITE/ ASSEMBLE – OSIRIS

PT 218

W B/S 28–35

T B/S 24–29

P B/Se B 11–14

N B/Se B 15–18

Nt B/Se i 33–41

Jp B/S B 22–27

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

ist Hna nbt-Hwt inq it=Tn inq ir=Tn iab it=Tn iab ir=Tn

Isis and Nephthys, gather (him)

together, gather (him) together! Unite

(him), unite (him)!

PT 357

T B/E ii 38–45

P B/E 4–8

P Cn/E 26–40

M B/Eg 29–36

N B/E 4–8

Nt B/W 51–59

Wd B/W 38–48

Group: C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

ip.n s ist=f

Isis has united you

PT 364

T A/W 28–35

P B/Sw B 1–30

An B/E i 1–11

M A/Eg 40–63

N A/E 9–14

Jp B/E 16–26

Group: D, G, M

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

inq.n n=k nbt=Hwt awt=k nbt m rn=s pw n sSAt nbt i.qdw

sDA.n n=k sn

Nephthys has gathered all your limbs

for you, in her identity of Sheset, Lady

of Builders, and made them sound for

you.

inq.n=s Tw m rn=s n qsrw

She has gathered you in her identity of

the Coffin.

PT 366

T A/W 37–41

P B/Wg 25–31

M B/Wg 36–42

N B/Wh i 3–6

Wd B/W 48–57

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

sA.n n=k ist hna nbt=Hwt m sAwt… iab=sn Tw im=k Dnd

Isis and Nephthys have guarded for

you in Asyut…gathering you so that

you do not become angry.

PT 482

P A/W 46–48

M A/W 20–29

N A/Wg 42–52

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

snt=k wrt sAqt if=k qfnt Drwt=k sxnt Tw gmt Tw Hr gs=k Hr wDb ndit

Your eldest sister who collected your

flesh and folded your hands, who

sought you and found you upon your

side on the shore of Nedit.

PT 631

N B/Nw iii 8–10

Group: M

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iab.n(=i) sn(=i) dmD.n(=i) awt=f

APPENDICES

292

I (Nephthys) have united my brother

and joined together his limbs.

PT 670

P B/Sw A 4–18

N B/Se B 100–106

Group: B, M

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

sT sT=k in is[t] wab[.n] Tw [nbt-Hwt snty]=k wrt aAti sAqti if=k Tsti awt=k i.sxati irty=k m tp=k

Your libation has been libated by Isis

and Nephthys has cleaned for you, your

two elder and great sisters who have

collected your flesh, raised your limbs

and caused your eyes to appear on your

head.

VARIANTS TEXTS:

ISIS AND NEPHTHYS –

JOIN/UNITE/ ASSEMBLE – OSIRIS

PT 271

W A/S 40–42

T A/S 8–10

P V/E 16–18

N A/W 60–61

Group: J, O

Personal – Transition

NN pw dmD mwt=f smAt wrt

The one whom his mother, the Great

Wild Bull, gathered is NN.

PT 356

T B/E ii 32–38

P B/W 53–56

P B/E 1–4

M B/Eg 20–28

N B/W 35–42

Nt B/W 37–44

Group: C, E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

rdi.n Hrw dmD Tw nTrw

Horus has caused that the gods

assemble you

PT 357

T B/E ii 38–45

P B/E 4–8

P Cn/E 26–40

M B/Eg 29–36

N B/E 4–8

Nt B/W 51–59

Wd B/W 38–48

Group: C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iab.n Tw Hrw

Horus has united you

PT 364

T A/W 28–35

P B/Sw B 1–30

An B/E i 1–11

M A/Eg 40–63

N A/E 9–14

Jp B/E 16–26

Group: D, G, M

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iab.n n=k Hrw awt=k n rdi.n=f snw=k dmD.n=f kw n Xn.n.ti im=k

Horus has gathered your limbs for you,

for he could not cause that you suffer.

He has assembled you and nothing of

you can be disturbed.

PT 365

T A/W 35–37

P B/Wg 22–25

M B/Wg 32–36

N B/W 52–55

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

dmD=sn Tw

As they assembled you.

APPENDICES

293

PT 367

T A/W 41–42

P B/Wh 1

M B/Wg 24–26

N B/W 12–14

Nt B/W 13–15

Wd B/W 57–60

Group: D, E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iab.n n=k Hrw awt=k dmD.n=f Tw

Horus has gathered your limbs for you

and he has assembled you

PT 368

T A/W 42–44

P B/Wh 1–3

M B/Wg 26–30

N B/W 14–17

Nt B/W 15–18

Group: D, E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

rdi.n=f iab Tw DHwti

He (Horus) having caused that Thoth

unite you.

PT 370

T A/W 46–48

P B/Wg 48–55

M B/Wg 30–32

N B/Wh i 1–2

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

rdi.n Hrw dmD Tw nTrw

Horus has caused that the gods

assemble you.

PT 373

T A/W 51–54

M B/Wh i 4–6

N B/W 55–60

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ssp n=k tp=k inq n=k qsw=k sAq n=k awt=k

You have received your head and your

bones have been assembled for you,

your limbs collected for you.

PT 413

T SP/N 23–27

Group: G

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ssp n=k tp=k sAq n=k qsw=k wxA n=k xmw=k

Receive your head, collect your bones,

and clear away your dust.

PT 415

T SP/S 3–7

P SP/S 6–9

Group: G

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

sAq=T qsw NN im=sn snw

And collect the bones of NN so that

they will not pass away.

PT 447

P B/W 39–42

M B/W 2–5

N B/W 2–5

Nt B/W 3–6

Group: E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iab=s n=k qsw=k

She (Nut) shall gather for you your

bones

APPENDICES

294

PT 448

P B/W 42

M B/W 5

N B/W 5

Nt B/W 6

Group: E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

DHwti iab I NN anx=f i.tm irt=f

Thoth, gather NN so that he might live

and that which is against him might

end.

PT 450

P B/W 42–46

M B/W 5–9

N B/W 5–9

Nt B/W 6–10

Group: E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Snm=s Tw xw=s gAw=k d=s n=k tp=k iab=s n=k qsw=k dmD=s n=k awt=k

She (Nut) shall join you and protect you

from needing, and place your head for

you. She shall unite for you your bones,

and assemble for you your limbs.

PT 451

P B/W 46–49

M B/W 9–12

N B/W 9–12

Nt B/W 11–13

Group: E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i n=k mwt=k I n=k nwt Snmy wrt sab=s Tw NN pw Snm=s Tw NN pw

Your mother has come to you, Nut the

Great Encirlcer has come to you and she

will cleanse you NN and she will join

you NN.

hA NN pw iab n=k qsw=k Ssp n=k tp=k xr gbb

Ah this NN, your bones have been

united for you and you have received

your head on account of Geb.

PT 452

P B/W 49–52

P V/E 50–51

M B/W 27–30

N B/W 31–34

Nt B/W 33–35

Group: E, O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Ssp n=k tp=k iab n=k qsw=k xr gbb

You have received your head and your

bones have been united for you on

account of Geb.

PT 457

P B/E 12–14

N A/Wh

Group: C, J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation sAq n=k r qsw=k

Collect your bones!

PT 478

P A/W 33–37

M A/W 48–53

N A/W 33–42

Group: J

Personal – Transition

dmD n NN qsw sAq.n=f awt=f

Who assembles the bones of NN and

collects his limbs for him.

APPENDICES

295

PT 546

P V/S 37

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

ink nwt sia n(=i) wsir NN pn di n(=i) sw inq(=i) sw

I am Nut. Elevate this Osiris NN to me!

Give him to me that I may gather him

together.

PT 606

P Cs/W 1–21

M Cm/W 1–22

N Cn/W 14–31

Wd B/W 9–30

Group: N

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.n(=i) ir=k wcb(=i) Tw sab(=i) Tw sanx=f Tw inq=f n=k qsw=k sAq(=i) n=k nbt=k inq(=i) n=k dmAwt=k

I (Horus) have come for you that I

might clean you, cleanse you, make you

live, gather your bones for you, collect

for you your loose parts, and assemble

for you your dismembered parts.

PT 637

N B/Ne B iv 87–94

N B/E 50–52

Group: A, C

Sacerdotal – Offering

TAs=s qsw=k dmD=s n=k awt=k sAq=s n=k if=k

It will tie your bones for you, it will

assemble your limbs for you, it will

collect your flesh for you.

PT 649

N B/Ne B v 80–86

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

[dmD]=sn kw

They may assemble you

PT 664D

N B/Sw iii 3–5

Group: F

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

ws[ir] NN TAs [n]=k qsw[=k] dmD n=k awt=k wAH n=k ib=k m ist=f

Osiris NN, your bones have been tied

together for you, your limbs have been

joined together for you, and your heart

has been set in its place for you.

PT 665B

P B/Se B 56–58

M B/Sw i 5

N B/Se B 55–58

Nt B/Sw 30–35

Nt B/E ii 7–12

Wd B/Sw 20–29

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

sAq n=k qsw=k wDb n=k awt=k

Collect your bones, take up your limbs.

PT 665D

P B/Nw ii 2–21

P B/Se B 59–67

N B/Se B 59–68

Nt B/E ii 13–39

Wd B/Sw 33–52

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iab n=k awt=k

APPENDICES

296

Join your limbs to yourself

PT 667B

P B/Se B 76–80

N B/Se B 80–85

Nt B/E ii 61–65

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

sAq n=k awt=k

Collect your limbs!

Your bones have been assembled for

you and your limbs collected

PT 676

N P/N 12–21

Nt B/Se ii 32–41

Group: I

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

sAq n=k qsw=k

Collect your bones

PT 700

N V/E 77–80

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation sAq n=k if=k

Collect your flesh.

APPENDICES

297

CORE TEXTS:

ISIS – CONCEIVES HORUS –

OSIRIS

PT 366

T A/W 37–41

P B/Wg 25–31

M B/Wg 36–42

N B/Wh i 3–6

Wd B/W 48–57

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i n=k snt=k ist Haat n mrwt=k d.n=k s tpi Hms=k pr mtwt=k im=s spdt m spdt Hrw spd p rim=k m Hrw imi spdt

Your sister Isis has come to you aroused

for your love, you have placed her on

your phallus so that your seed might

come into her, sharp as Sothis and

Sharp Horus has come out of you as

Horus in Sothis

PT 518

P Cn/W 16–22

M Cm/E 23–34

N Cm/E 22–32

Group: N

Personal – Transition

aHa ir=k wsir wD=k NN pn n Hrw smx pw wDA ib mHti sxt Htp mr wD=k Hrw n ist hrw swr.n=k s im

Stand up for yourself Osiris and

command this NN to those on the

causeway Sound of Heart north of the

Marshes of Rest, like you commanded

Horus to Isis on the day you

impregnated her.

PT 593

P B/Se B 39–42

M B/Eg 1–20

N B/E 1–4

Nt B/W 44–51

Nt B/E i 12–19

Group: B, C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i n=k ist iHaat n mrwt=k pr mtwt=k im=s spdt m spdt Hrw spd p rim=k m rn=f n Hrw imi spdt

Isis has come to you aroused for your

love, and your seed has come forth into

her sharp as Sothis and Sharp Horus

has come forth in his identity of Horus

who is in Sothis.

APPENDICES

298

CORE TEXTS:

ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – CALL OUT

TO/SUMMON – OSIRIS

PT 412

T SP/N 1–22

P B/Sw A 27–37

N B/Nw ii 35–43 – B/W 1

Nt B/Sw 19–30

Nt B/Se ii 59–71

Group: G, M

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dsw n=k smntt

Let the Mourning Goddess call out to

you

PT 422

P B/Wg 1–21

M B/Wg 1–23

N B/W 42–52

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

mdw n=k ist Dsw n=k nbt-Hwt

Let Isis speak to you and Nephthys call

to you

PT 437

P B/W 25–40

P B/W 4–19

M B/W 32–46

N B/Wg 1–28

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dsw n=k mnt wrt

With the Great Mooring Post calling to

you

PT 458

P B/E 14–16

N B/Sw ii 37–40

Group: C, F

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

mdw n=k mint wrt ist is Dsw n=k imntt nbt-Hwt is

With the Great Mooring Post speaking

to you as Isis and the West calling out to

you as Nephthys

PT 461

P B/E 22–23

M A/Eg 18–23

N A/W 63–64

Group: C, G, J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dsw n=k nbt-Hwt

Let Nephthys call out to you

PT 463

P P/N 14–20

An B/E i 21–23

N P/S 18–21

Group: I

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dswiw n=k Hnmmt

The Mooring Post will call out to you

PT 468

P A/W 6–9

M A/W 1–8

N A/Wg 1–26

Nt B/Sw 7–19

Nt B/Se ii 45–59

Nt B/E i 19–34

Wd B/Sw 1–20

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dsw n=k nbt-Hwt Hrw is nD it=f wsir

APPENDICES

299

Let Nephthys call out to you as Horus,

saviour of his father Osiris.

PT 483

P A/W 48–50

M A/W 13–20

N A/Wg 27–34

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dsw n=k mnt wrt

With the Great Mooring Post calling out

to you.

PT 553

P V/E 1–7

N V/E 1–11

Wd B/Se 29–30

Wd B/Se 30–31

Wd B/Se 41–49

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dsiw n=k mint wrt

The Great Mooring Post calling out to

you.

PT 610

M V/S 1–24

N V/E 55–63

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dsw mint wr[t]

With the Great Mooring Post calling

out.

PT 619

M V/N 37–40

N V/E 52–55

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dswi n=k nbt-Hwt

Let Nephthys call out to you

PT 665A

P B/Se B 52–56

N B/Se B 50–55

Nt B/E i 1–12

Wd B/Ne C 1–16

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dsw n=k smntt nbt=Hwt is

Let the Mourning Goddess call out to

you as Nephthys.

PT 665D

P B/Se B 67–73

N B/Se B 68–76

Nt B/E ii 39–53

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

nis Tw mnt ist is

The Mooring Post summoning you [a]s

Isis.

PT 667A

P B/Se B 73–76

N B/Se B 76–80

Nt B/Sw 35–42

Nt B/E ii 53–60

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

nis n=k smntt is

The Mourning Goddess summoning

you as Isis.

PT 674

P P/N 1–14

N P/N 1–7

Nt B/Se ii 20–26

Group: I

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dsw n=k smntt ist

APPENDICES

300

Let the Mourning Goddess call out to

you as Isis.

PT 676

N P/N 12–21

Nt B/Se ii 32–41

Group: I

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dsw n=k mnit wrt

Let the Great Mooring Post call out to

you.

PT 711

N A/E 14–17

Group: G

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dsw n=k mint wrt

While the great mooring post calls out

to you.

PT 728

P B/Se B 48–52

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dsw n=k smntt ist is

And the Mourning Goddess will call

out to you as Isis.

PT 729

P B/Se B 89–92

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

[Dsw] n=f mnt wrt mr aHa n wrD.n=f Hr ib AbDw

While the Great Mooring Post calls out

to him, as to he who stands tirelessly,

resident of Abydos.

PT 760

P Cs/E 1–10

P V/E 26–29

Group: N, O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Dsw n=k mint wrt

While the Great Mooring Post calls out

to you.

VARIANT TEXTS:

ISIS AND NEPHTHYS – CALL OUT

TO/SUMMON – OSIRIS

PT 265

P A/W 11–13

Group: J

Personal – Transition

nis=sn n NN pn

Let them make summons for this NN

PT 514

P Cm/W 74–75

Group: N

Personal – Transition

nis.n gbb r[=f]

And Geb has summoned him.

PT 517

P Cn/W 11–15

M Cm/E 15–23

N Cm/E 15–22

Group: N

Personal – Transition

hrw pw n nis=k ir sDm wDt mdw

On this day of your being summoned in

order to hear commands.

APPENDICES

301

PT 524

P Cn/W 60–72

Group: N

Personal – Transition

nis tm ir NN pn ir pt n anx

Let Atum summon NN to the sky for

life.

APPENDICES

302

HORUS – SETH

CORE TEXTS:

HORUS – ACTS AGAINST – SETH

PT 61

N B/Ne B ii 68–69

Nt B/Ne B v 15–16

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering

wsir NN m-n=k xpS n stS fd.n Hrw

Osiris, NN, accept the foreleg of Seth,

which Horus has torn off.

PT 100

N B/Ne B iii

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering

H.n=f kt

He has smitten the other.

PT 356

T B/E ii 32–38

P B/W 53–56

P B/E 1–4

M B/Eg 20–28

N B/W 35–42

Nt B/W 37–44

Group: C, E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

H.n sw sA=k Hrw

Your son Horus having smitten him.

nDr.n Hrw stS d.n=f n=k sw Xr=k wTs=f Tw nwr=f Xr=k m nwr tA

Horus has seized Seth and put him

under you that he might bear you and

tremble under you in the earth’s

trembling.

PT 357

T B/E ii 38–45

P B/E 4–8

P Cn/E 26–40

M B/Eg 29–36

N B/E 4–8

Nt B/W 51–59

Wd B/W 38–48

Group: C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

H.n=f n=k stS qAs Twt kA=f

He has smitten Seth for you, him being

fettered.

PT 372

T A/W 50–51

P B/Wg 37–40

P B/W 62–63

M B/Wg 47–51

Nt B/W 64–66

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

rdi.n Hrw int n=k DHwti xfty=k

Horus has caused that Thoth bring you

your enemy.

stp.n Hrw xpSw xftyw=k in.n n=k Hrw Saw

Horus has butchered the forelegs of

your enemies and Horus has brought

them to you cut up.

PT 385

T A/E 17–20

Group: K

Personal – Apotropaic

gbgb.n Tw Hrw

Horus has felled you.

APPENDICES

303

PT 482

P A/W 46–48

M A/W 20–29

N A/Wg 42–52

Group: J

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

H=f n=k H Tw

He smote for you the one who smote

you.

PT 543

P V/S 33–35

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

in.n(=i) n=k smA kw

To you have I brought the one who slew

you.

PT 545

P V/S 36–37

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

In.n(=i) n=k smA kw Sa

To you have I brought the one who slew

you, he being cut apart.

PT 580

P V/W 75–77

Group: O

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

H.n=k it smA.n=k wr ir=k it wsir NN pn H.n(=i) n=k H Tw m iH smA.n(=i) n=k smA Tw m smA ngA.n(=i) n=k ngA Tw ng

Father-striker, killer of one greater than

you. You have struck my father. You

have smitten one who is greater than

you. Father Osiris Pepi, I have struck

for you as an ox the one who struck

you, I have smitten for you as a wild

bull the one who smote you. I have cut

up for you as a longhorned bull the one

who cut you up.

PT 593

P B/Se B 39–42

M B/Eg 1–20

N B/E 1–4

Nt B/W 44–51

Nt B/E i 12–19

Group: B, C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

in.n n=k Hrw stS rdi.n=f n=k sw

Horus has brought Seth to you; he has

given him to you.

PT 606

P Cs/W 1–21

M Cm/W 1–22

N Cn/W 14–31

Wd B/W 9–30

Group: N

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

H.n=I n=k H Tw

For I (Horus) have smitten for you the

one who smote you.

PT 658A

P B/Ne iii 67–86

N B/Sw i 1–7

Group: A, F

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

[nDr.n Hrw stS d.n=f n=k sw Xr=k wTs=f Tw nwr=f Xr=k] m nwr tA

Horus has seized Seth for you and put

him under you, so that he might bear

you and tremble under you in the

earth’s trembling.

APPENDICES

304

PT 670

P B/Sw A 4–18

N B/Se B 100–106

Group: B, M

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

[smA].n=f n=k smA Tw m smA

He has smitten for you the one who

smote you as [as bull].

PT 723

P B/Ne iv 90–93

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

ink Hrw ws[ir NN in.n=f n]=k xft=k Xr=k

I am Horus Osiris NN, [I have brought

for] you your enemy under you.

VARIANT TEXTS:

HORUS – ACTS AGAINST – SETH

PT 82

W B/N ii 28

T B/N ii 24–25

P B/Ne ii 37–38

N B/Ne B iii 44–45

Nt B/Ne B ii 45–46

Jp B/N A ii 1–2

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering

DHwti in sw Xr=s

It is Thoth who brought him while

carrying it.

PT 372

T A/W 50–51

P B/Wg 37–40

P B/W 62–63

M B/Wg 47–51

Nt B/W 64–66

Group: D

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

rdi.n Hrw int n=k DHwti xfty=k

Horus has caused that Thoth bring you

your enemy.

APPENDICES

305

CORE TEXTS:

SETH – INJURES – HORUS

PT 47

W B/N i 43–44

T B/N i 61–62

P B/Ne i 88–89

N B/Ne B ii 52

Nt B/Ne B i 50–51

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw hpt ma stS iTt=k ir r=k wppt=k r=k im=s

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye,

which escaped from Seth, which you

should take to your mouth, with which

you should open your mouth.

PT 54

W B/N i 52

T B/N i 70

P B/Ne i 97

N B/Ne B ii 60

Nt B/Ne B i 60–61

Wd B/Ne B i 61

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

NN m-n=k irt Hrw hpt m a stS nHmt n=k wp r=k im=s

NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye which

escaped from Seth and which was

rescued for you. Open your mouth

with it.

PT 56

W B/N i 54

T B/N i 72

P B/Ne i 99

N B/Ne B ii 62

Nt B/Ne B i 63

Wd B/Ne B i 63

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

NN m-n=k irt Hrw Htm Tw im=s

NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye which

was rescued for you. It cannot be far

from you.

PT 74

W B/N ii 3

T B/N ii 3

N B/Ne B iii 3

Nt B/Ne B ii 3

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw i.sfkkt.n=f Hr=s

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye,

upon which he caused devastation

PT 78

W B/N ii 10

T B/N ii 10

N B/Ne B iii 11

Nt B/Ne B ii 14

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN in.n(=i) n=k irt Hrw iTt.n=f

Osiris NN, I have fetched for you

Horus’s Eye to your forehead, which he

took.

PT 88

W B/N ii 34

T B/N ii 31

P B/Ne ii 44

N B/Ne B iii 51

Nt B/Ne B ii 52

Jp B/N A ii 8

Wd B/Ne B ii 52

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw xw n=k ti=f s

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye

and protect it from being trampled.

APPENDICES

306

PT 89

W B/N ii 35

T B/N ii 32

N B/Ne B iii 52

Nt B/Ne B ii 53

Wd B/Ne B ii 53

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw iHt.n=f

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye,

which he pulled out.

PT 90

W B/N ii 36

T B/N ii 33

P B/Ne ii 46

N B/Ne B iii 53

Nt B/Ne B ii 54

Wd B/Ne B ii 54

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw nDs wnmt.n stS im=s

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s

little Eye, which Seth ate.

PT 97

N B/Ne B iii 64–66

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN irt tn tw nt Hrw dbHt.n=f ma stS

Osiris NN, this is Horus’s Eye, which he

asked for from Seth.

PT 111

W B/N ii 50

T B/N ii 46

P B/Ne ii 60

N B/Ne B iv 4

Nt B/Ne B iii 4

Wd B/Ne B iii 4

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw tit stS

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye,

which Seth trampled.

PT 112

W B/N ii 51

T B/N ii 47

P B/Ne ii 61

N B/Ne B iv 5

Nt B/Ne B iii 5

Wd B/Ne B iii 5

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw itHt.n=f

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye,

which he pulled out.

PT 119

W B/N iii 3

T B/N ii 54

P B/Ne ii 68

N B/Ne B iv 12

Nt B/Ne B iii 12

Jp B/N A ii 32

Wd B/Ne B iii 12

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw xnft.n=f

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye,

which he carried off.

APPENDICES

307

PT 121

W B/N iii 5

T B/N ii 56

P B/Ne ii 70

N B/Ne B iv 14

Nt B/Ne B iii 14

Jp B/N A ii 34

Wd B/Ne B iii 14

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw itHt.n=f

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye,

which he pulled out.

PT 124

W B/N iii 8

T B/N ii 59

P B/Ne ii 73

N B/Ne B iv 17

Nt B/Ne B iii 17

Wd B/Ne B iii 17

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw itHt.n=f

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye,

which he pulled out.

PT 126

W B/N iii 10

T B/N ii 61

P B/Ne ii 75

P B/Ne v 25

N B/Ne B iv 19

Nt B/Ne B iii 19

Jp B/N A ii 39

Wd B/Ne B iii 19

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m xpx irt Hrw

Osiris NN, here is the one who stole

Horus’s Eye.

PT 135

W B/N iii 19

T B/N ii 71

P B/Ne ii 84

P B/Ne v 34

N B/Ne B iv 28

Nt B/Ne B iii 28

Wd B/Ne B iii 28

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m irt Hrw imt Hat stS

Osiris NN, here is Horus’s Eye which is

from Seth’s forehead.

PT 141

W B/N iii 25

T B/N ii 77

P B/Ne ii 90

N B/Ne B iv 34

Nt B/Ne B iii 34

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw itHt.n=f

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye,

which he pulled out.

PT 145

W B/N iii 29

T B/E i 4

P B/Ne ii 94

P B/Ne v 44

N B/Ne B iv 38

Nt B/Ne B iii 38

Jp B/N A iii 2

Wd B/Ne B iii 38

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw nDs wnmt.n stS im=s

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s

little Eye, which Seth ate.

APPENDICES

308

PT 154

W B/N iii 38

T B/E i 13

P B/Ne v 53

N B/Ne B iv 47

Nt B/Ne B iii 47

Wd B/Ne B iii 47

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw bSt.n=sn xw am=f s

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye,

which they spit out. Prevent him from

swallowing it.

PT 156

W B/N iii 40

T B/E i 15

P B/Ne iii 6

P B/Ne v 55

N B/Ne B iv 49

Nt B/Ne B iii 49

Wd B/Ne B iii 49

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw Himt.n=f wp r=k im=s

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye,

which he captured. Open your mouth

with it.

PT 159

W B/N iii 43

T B/E i 18

P B/Ne v 58

N B/Ne B iv 52

Nt B/Ne B iii 52

Wd B/Ne B iii 52

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw xnft.n=f

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye,

which he carried off.

PT 160

W B/N iii 44

T B/E i 19

P B/Ne iii 10

P B/Ne v 59

N B/Ne B iv 53

Nt B/Ne B iii 53

Wd B/Ne B iii 53

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw Sdt.n=f ma stS

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye,

which he took from Seth.

PT 163

W B/N iii 47

T B/E i 22

P B/Ne iii 13

P B/Ne v 62

N B/Ne B iv 56

Nt B/Ne B iii 56

Wd B/Ne B iii 56

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw xw sxs=f s

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye,

prevent him from tearing it out.

PT 164

W B/N iii 48

T B/E i 23

P B/Ne iii 14

N B/Ne B iv 57

Nt B/Ne B iii 57

Wd B/Ne B iii 57

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw xw sxs=f s

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye,

prevent him from tearing it out.

APPENDICES

309

PT 168

W B/N iii 52

T B/E i 27

P B/Ne iii 18

N B/Ne B iv 61

Nt B/Ne B iii 61

Jp B/N A iii 25

Wd B/Ne B iii 61

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw xw aH=f s

Osiris NN, take to yourself Horus’s Eye,

prevent him from snaring it.

PT 182

N B/Ne B v 12

Nt B/Ne B iv 10

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

m irt Hrw aHt.n=f di.n n=k Hrw

Here is Horus’s Eye which he

entrapped. Horus has given it to you.

PT 186

P B/Ne v 74b–75b

N B/Ne B v 16

Nt B/Ne B iv 14

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

wsir NN m irt Hrw wADt iTt.n=f di.n n=k Hrw

Osiris, NN, here is Horus’s green Eye

which he seized. Horus has given it to

you.

PT 188

P B/Ne v 78b–79b

N B/Ne B v 18

Nt B/Ne B iv 16

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

m irt Hrw xnft.n=f di.n n=k Hrw

Here is Horus’s eye which he carried

off. Horus has given it to you.

PT 192

P B/Ne v 85b

N B/Ne B v 22

Nt B/Ne B iv 20

Wd B/Ne B iv 22

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering Text

m irt Hrw sxst n=f di.n n=k Hrw

Here is Horus’s Eye which he ran away

with. Horus has given it to you.

PT 255

W A/W 18–24

T A/W 12–14

Group: J

Personal – Transition

i xbD pw xbD qd xbD irw i.dr Tw Hr ist=k wAH=k saH=k r tA n NN ir tm=k dr Tw Hr ist=k wAH=k saH=k r tA n NN iw.kA NN Hr=f m wr pw nb At wsr m nknt im=f rD.kA[=f] nsr n irt=f pSr=s HA=Tn d=s nSn mm irw irwt xfxft=s m pAwtyw ipw

O one who is hateful, hateful of

character and hateful of form. Remove

yourself from your place and lay down

your rank to the land of NN. If you do

not remove yourself from your place

and lay down your rank to the land,

NN will come, his face being of the

APPENDICES

310

Great God who is Lord of Striking

Power. Who became strong through the

injury that was done to him. He will

give the flame of his eye so that it

surrounds you and places a storm in

those who do evil and its flood in those

primeval gods.

PT 271

W A/S 40–42

T A/S 8–10

P V/E 16–18

N A/W 60–61

Group: J, O

Personal – Transition

nDr Hrw stS ma n NN Sd=sn sw r dAt ii-n=f sA Tw wD-n=f wD-n=f sA Tw ii-n=f

Horus and Seth shall take the arms of

NN, and take him to the Duat. He who

has been dealt an eye injury, protect

from the one of the command. You of

the command beware the one who has

been dealt an eye injury.

PT 277

W A/E 1

T A/E 6–7

Nt B/E i 55

Group: K

Personal - Apotropaic

xr Hrw n irt=f sbn kA n Xrwi=f

Horus has fallen because of his eye, the

serpent has slithered off because of his

testicles.

PT 327

T B/Wg 30–32

P B/Sw A 1–3

N B/Nw iii 13–22

Group: M

Personal – Transition

in.n-w Hrw mr=f NN in.n=f irt=f in.n-w stS mr=f NN in.n=f Xrwy=f

Horus’s fetcher desires NN for he has

fetched his eye. Seth’s fetcher desires

NN for he has fetched his testicles.

PT 356

T B/E ii 32–38

P B/W 53–56

P B/E 1–4

M B/Eg 20–28

N B/W 35–42

Nt B/W 37–44

Group: C, E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

nHm.n=f irt=f ma=f rdi.n=f n=k s

He has taken his eye from him and he

has given it to you.

PT 357

T B/E ii 38–45

P B/E 4–8

P Cn/E 26–40

M B/Eg 29–36

N B/E 4–8

Nt B/W 51–59

Wd B/W 38–48

Group: C

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

nHm.n Hrw irt=f ma stS

Horus has taken his eye from Seth.

PT 359

T P/N 1–16

P V/W 45–50

N Cn/E 21–35

Group: I, N, O

Personal – Transition

ihi.n Hrw n irt=f ihi.n stS n Xrwy=f sTp irt Hrw xr m pf gs n mr-n-xA i.nD=s Dt=s ma stS mA.n=s DHwti m pf gs n mr-n-xA

APPENDICES

311

sTp irt Hrw m pf gs n mr-nxA xr tpi DnH DHwti m pf gs n mr-n-xA nTrw ipw DAAw tpi DnH DHwti ir pf gs n mr-n-xA ir gs iAbti n pt ir mdt xft stS Hr irt tw nt Hrw DA NN Hna=Tn tpi DnH DHwti ir pf gs n mr-n-xA ir gs iAbti n pt iw NN mdw=f xft stS Hr irt tw nt Hrw

Horus has wailed for his eye, Seth has

wailed for his testicles. Horus’s eye

jumped and it made landfall on the

other side of the Winding Canal so that

it might save itself from Seth, having

seen Thoth on the other side of the

Winding Canal. Horus’s eye jumped up

on the other side of the Winding Canal

and it made landfall on Thoth’s wing on

the other side of the Winding Canal to

the eastern side of the sky in order to

contend against Seth over that eye of

Horus. NN will cross with you on

Thoth’s wing to the other side of the

Winding Canal to the eastern side of the

sky for NN will be contending against

Seth over that eye of Horus.

PT 386

T A/E 20

Group: K

Personal – Apotropaic

Xr Hrw Hr irt=f pAs stS Hr Xrwy=f

Horus has fallen on account of his eye,

Seth has felt pain on account of his

testicles.

PT 455

P B/W 58–63

M B/W 24–27

N B/W 29–31

Nt B/W 30–33

Group: E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iSS pr m r Hrw isd pr m r stS wab Hrw im=f sfx Dwt irt=f ir t Aim=f ir.n stS ir=f wab stS im=f

sfx Dwt irt=f ir tA it.n Hrw ir=f

The spittle that came forth from Horus’s

mouth, the saliva that came forth from

Seth’s mouth, Horus has become clean

through it, and the evil that was against

him after Seth acted against him was

released to the ground. Seth has

become clean through it and the evil

that was against him after Horus acted

against him was released to the ground.

PT 475

P A/W 24–25

An B/E ii 53–56

M A/Wg 36–41

N A/W 11–12

Group: J

Personal – Transition

in nw n Hrw in irt=f in nw n stS in Xrwy=f

Get that for Horus, get his eye. Get that

for Seth, get his testicles.

PT 501C

P A/E 30–31

Group: K

Personal – Apotropaic

bnbn Hrw Hr irt=fnt Dt=f wnm.n=f s am.n=f s mA.n s psDwt sHsH stS Hr Xrwy=f na.n Hrw mtwt=f m art stS na.n stS mtwt=f m art Hrw

Horus groaned on account of his eye of

his body, when he had eaten it and

swallowed it and the Ennead saw it.

Seth rasped on account of his testicles.

Horus conveyed his semen into the

anus of Seth. Seth conveyed his Semen

into the anus of Horus.

APPENDICES

312

PT 524

P Cn/W 60–72

Group: N

Personal – Transition

wab NN m abw ir.n Hrw n irt=f NN pw DHwti nD Tn n NN is pw stS iT s

NN has become clean in the purification

which Horus made for his eye. NN is

Thoth who protected this, NN is not

Seth who seized it.

PT 562

P V/W 1–2

P APn/E 38–41

N V/N 20–28

Group: O

Personal - Transition

nxx.n irt Hrw xr=Tn n rdi=s n Dnd stS

Horus’s Eye will endure with you and it

will not be given to the wrath of Seth.

PT 570

P V/W 23–34

P APs/W 29–71

M V/E 52–75

N V/W 9–21

Group: O

Personal - Transition

sxt pf TA pn sin sin im=Tni nw Xt w tpt nt idmrwt nt mAa xrw mswt n xprt Dnd mswt n xprt xrw mswt n xprt snTt mswt n xprt Xnnw mswt n qnit irt Hrw n sAdt xrwy stS

You caught one, this male, the one who

runs from you belongs to that first body

of the herd of justification that was born

before wrath had come into being, that

was born before noise had come into

being, that was born before strife had

come into being, that was born before

disturbance had once into being, when

Horus’s Eye had not been ripped out

and Seth’s testicles had not been tied

off.

PT 652

N B/Ne B i 99–100

Nt B/Ne B v 5

Nt B/Ne B v 9

Nt B/Ne B v 12

Group: A

Sacerdotal - Offering

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw nHmt.n(=i) ma stH xnp.n=f s

Osiris NN, accept Horus’s Eye, which I

have rescued from Seth after he

snatched it.

PT 653B

N B/Ne B i 103–104

Nt B/Ne B v 7

Group: A

Sacerdotal - Offering

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw Tpnpnt.n stS Hr=s

Osiris NN, accept Horus’s Eye on which

Seth calculated.

PT 653C

Nt B/Ne B v 8

Group: A

Sacerdotal – Offering

wsir NN m-n=k irt Hrw mAt.n=f gs=s ma stS

Osiris NN, accept Horus’s Eye, half of

which he saw in Seth’s hand.

PT 658A

P B/Se B 52–56

N B/Se B 50–55

Nt B/E i 1–12

Group: A, F

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

nHm.n Hrw irt=f ma stS di.n=f n[=k] s

APPENDICES

313

Horus has rescued his eye from Seth

and given it to you.

PT 667A

P B/Se B 73–76

N B/Se B 76–80

Nt B/Sw 35–42

Nt B/E ii 53–60

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i Axt i.wAg rDw pr m wsir wab Hrw ma irt.n sn=f stS r=f wab stS ma irt.n sn=f Hrw ir=f wab NN pn ma xt nb Dwt irt=f

Supply the outflow that comes from

Osiris, that Horus may be cleaned from

what his brother Seth has done to him,

that Seth may be cleaned from what his

brother Horus has done to him, that this

NN may be cleaned from everything

bad against him.

PT 686

N A/N 22–23

Group: L

Sacerdotal - Offering

iT.n Hrw irt=f nHm.n=f s m xftyw=f

Horus has acquired his eye and taken it

from his opponents, there is no

property right of Seth in it.

PT 696A

P A/N 40–42

N A/Eg 44–55

Group: G, L

Personal – Transition

iw NN Xr ssf pn n itiw skk [irt Hrw im=f] Sx[s ir Dbaw stS]

This NN has fetched the towel of the

sovereign’s linen with which Horus’s

Eye, which was torn out of Seth’s

fingers, was wiped.

PT 708

P A/S 39–43

N A/S A 6–10

Group: J

Type Unknown

hA ws[ir NN wabt m abw ir.n Hrw n irt=f] Twt DHwti nD s n Twt is stS iT s

Ho Osiris, this NN, you have become

clean in the cleaning which Horus made

for his eye, you are Thoth who saved it,

you are not Seth who seized it.

VARIANT TEXTS:

SETH – INJURES – HORUS

PT 215

W B/S 7–15

T B/S 5–13

P B/Se B 3–6

N B/Se B 3–8

Nt B/Se i 7–17

Jp B/S B 5–11

Wd B/Se 15–20

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i.aH=k Xrwy n stS

May you snare the testicles of Seth.

PT 222

W B/E 16–33

T B/S 58–69

P B/Se B 28–33

N B/Se B 39–45

Nt B/Se i 78–89

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

Htm.ti m stS SbSb wADwy Hs.n ist

Being provided as Seth whose raw

testicles were pulled off.

APPENDICES

314

PT 271

W A/S 40–42

T A/S 8–10

P V/E 16–18

N A/W 60–61

Group: J, O

Personal – Transition

nDr Hrw stS ma n NN Sd=sn sw r dAt ii-n=f sA Tw wD-n=f wD-n=f sA Tw ii-n=f

Horus and Seth shall take the arms of

NN, and take him to the Duat. He who

has been dealt an eye injury, protect

from the one of the command. You of

the command beware the one who has

been dealt an eye injury.

PT 277

W A/E 1

T A/E 6–7

Nt B/E i 55

Group: K

Personal – Apotropaic

xr Hrw n irt=f sbn kA n Xrwi=f

Horus has fallen because of his eye, the

serpent has slithered off because of his

testicles.

PT 327

T B/Wg 30–32

P B/Sw A 1–3

N B/Nw iii 13–22

Group: M

Personal – Transition

in.n-w Hrw mr=f NN in.n=f irt=f in.n-w stS mr=f NN in.n=f Xrwy=f

Horus’s fetcher desires NN for he has

fetched his eye. Seth’s fetcher desires

NN for he has fetched his testicles.

PT 359

T P/N 1–16

P V/W 45–50

N Cn/E 21–35

Group: I, N, O

Personal – Transition

ihi.n Hrw n irt=f ihi.n stS n Xrwy=f

Horus has wailed for his eye, Seth has

wailed for his testicles.

PT 386

T A/E 20

Group: K

Personal – Apotropaic

Xr Hrw Hr irt=f pAs stS Hr Xrwy=f

Horus has fallen on account of his eye,

Seth has felt pain on account of his

testicles.

PT 455

P B/W 58–63

M B/W 24–27

N B/W 29–31

Nt B/W 30–33

Group: E

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

iSS pr m r Hrw isd pr m r stS wab Hrw im=f sfx Dwt irt=f ir t Aim=f ir.n stS ir=f wab stS im=f sfx Dwt irt=f ir tA it.n Hrw ir=f

The spittle that came forth from Horus’s

mouth, the saliva that came forth from

Seth’s mouth, Horus has become clean

through it, and the evil that was against

him after Seth acted against him was

released to the ground. Seth has

become clean through it and the evil

that was against him after Horus acted

against him was released to the ground.

APPENDICES

315

PT 475

P A/W 24–25

M A/Wg 36–41

N A/W 11–12

Group: J

Personal – Transition

in nw n Hrw in irt=f in nw n stS in Xrwy=f

Get that for Horus, get his eye. Get that

for Seth, get his testicles.

PT 501C

P A/E 30–31

Group: K

Personal – Apotropaic

bnbn Hrw Hr irt=fnt Dt=f wnm.n=f s am.n=f s mA.n s psDwt sHsH stS Hr Xrwy=f na.n Hrw mtwt=f m art stS na.n stS mtwt=f m art Hrw

Horus groaned on account of his eye of

his body, when he had eaten it and

swallowed it and the Ennead saw it.

Seth rasped on account of his testicles.

Horus conveyed his semen into the

anus of Seth. Seth conveyed his Semen

into the anus of Horus.

PT 570

P V/W 23–34

P APs/W 29–71

M V/E 52–75

N V/W 9–21

Group: O

Personal - Transition

sxt pf TA pn sin sin im=Tni nw Xt w tpt nt idmrwt nt mAa xrw mswt n xprt Dnd mswt n xprt xrw mswt n xprt snTt mswt n xprt Xnnw mswt n qnit irt Hrw n sAdt xrwy stS

You caught one, this male, the one who

runs from you belongs to that first body

of the herd of justification that was born

before wrath had come into being, that

was born before noise had come into

being, that was born before strife had

come into being, that was born before

disturbance had come into being, when

Horus’s eye had not been ripped out

and Seth’s testicles had not been tied

off.

PT 667A

P B/Se B 73–76

N B/Se B 76–80

Nt B/Sw 35–42

Nt B/E ii 53–60

Group: B

Sacerdotal – Priestly Recitation

i Axt i.wAg rDw pr m wsir wab Hrw ma irt.n sn=f stS r=f wab stS ma irt.n sn=f Hrw ir=f wab NN pn ma xt nb Dwt irt=f

Supply the outflow that comes from

Osiris, that Horus may be cleaned from

what his brother Seth has done to him,

that Seth may be cleaned from what his

brother Horus has done to him, that this

NN may be cleaned from everything

bad against him

APPENDICES

316

CORE TEXTS:

HORUS – CONTENDS WITH – SETH

PT 252

W A/Wg 26–32

Group: J

Personal – Transition

Dd NN r idb pw wab ir.n=f Hms=f im Hna wp nTrwy

NN shall speak at the clean shore where

he has made his seat with the one who

parted the two gods.

PT 254

W A/W 1–18

T A/W 1–12

Group: J

Personal – Transition

wDa Nn mdw m mHt-wrt imwt Xnwy sk wrs=f m wsrw irt tbi nxt=f nxtw irt tbi

NN shall judge between the two

contestants in the Great Immersion for

his power is the power of Tebi’s eye and

his strength is the strength of Tebi’s eye.

PT 258

W A/W 32–36

T A/W 20–23

T A/W 23–27

Group: J

Personal – Transition

wrS NN sḏr.f sḥtp.f nwtj m wnw

NN will spend this day and night

pacifying the two adzes in Hermopolis.

PT 259

T A/W 23–27

Group: J

Personal – Transition

wrS NN sḏr.f sḥtp.f nwtj m wnw

This NN will spend the day and night

pacifying the two adzes in Hermopolis.

PT 308

W A/N 31–34

T A/N 32–36

P A/N 48–50

N A/N 15–16

Nt C/W 26–31

Wd B/E A 2–3

Group: L

Personal – Transition

i.nD Hr.Tn tti ib sAti fd nTrw xntiw Hwt aAt

Greetings you two reconciled gods,

twin children of the foremost of the

gods of the Big Enclosure.

PT 359

T P/N 1–16

P V/W 45–50

N Cn/E 21–35

Group: I, N, O

Personal – Transition

ihi.n Hrw n irt=f ihi.n stS n Xrwy=f sTp irt Hrw xr m pf gs n mr-n-xA i.nD=s Dt=s ma stS mA.n=s DHwti m pf gs n mr-n-xA sTp irt Hrw m pf gs n mr-nxA xr tpi DnH DHwti m pf gs n mr-n-xA nTrw ipw DAAw tpi DnH DHwti ir pf gs n mr-n-xA ir gs iAbti n pt ir mdt xft stS Hr irt tw nt Hrw DA NN Hna=Tn tpi DnH DHwti ir pf gs n mr-n-xA ir gs iAbti n pt iw NN mdw=f xft stS Hr irt tw nt Hrw

Horus has wailed for his eye, Seth has

wailed for his testicles. Horus’s eye

jumped and it made landfall on the

other side of the Winding Canal so that

it might save itself from Seth, having

seen Thoth on the other side of the

Winding Canal. Horus’s eye jumped up

on the other side of the Winding Canal

and it made landfall on Thoth’s wing on

the other side of the Winding Canal to

APPENDICES

317

the eastern side of the sky in order to

contend against Seth over that eye of

Horus. NN will cross with you on

Thoth’s wing to the other side of the

Winding Canal to the eastern side of the

sky for NN will be contending against

Seth over that eye of Horus.

PT 407

T A/E 49–51

P B/E 11–12

P A/W 44–45

An B/E i 23–27

M B/Eg 36–40

N B/E 8–10

Group: C, H, J

Personal – Transition

wDa NN mdw wpi=f snw

NN will judge cases and will part the

two.

PT 510

P Cm/W 1–34

M Cm/E 68–94

Group: N

Personal – Transition

fA Hrw NN sTs sw stS ir NN wdHw wdH sbA sHtp=f nTrwy Htp.wii sHtp=f nTrwy Spt.wii

Horus will lift NN, Seth will elevate

him and NN will make an offering and

a star outpouring. He will content the

two gods so that they are content, he

will content the two gods when they are

angry.

PT 524

P Cn/W 60–72

Group: N

Personal – Transition

NN pw xw nnw nTrw m sxnw irt Hrw HH.n=s NN m p gm.n s m iwnw Sd.n=s NN pn m tp stS m bw pw aHA.n=sn im

NN is the one who prevents the gods

from turning away from embracing

Horus’s Eye. This NN sought it in Pe

and found it in Heliopolis and then NN

removed it from the head of Seth in the

place where they fought there.

PT 669

P A/N 20–24

N B/Se B 95–100

Group: B, L

Personal – Transition

n ntt NN is pw ns pr m sbq wp snwy pSn aHAwy pSn tpw=Tn Ntrw

For that NN is (your) brother who

comes forth as a wise one, who parts the

two brothers and separates the two

fighters and who can split your heads,

gods.