The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep and the Instruction of Ke'Gemni
made friends of them; the well-bred diner-out, lightly passing on his
favourite dish, contenting himself with plain fare, and the _gourmand_
who visits his friends at meal-times, departing only when the larder is
entirely exhausted.
Not only do we find such characters as these in Ptah-hotep's hand-book,
but interesting scenes are brought near to us by the writing-reed of
that primaeval Chesterfield. We find ourselves taking supper at the
table of a great man. His subordinates sit round, scarcely daring to
raise their eyes from their food, not speaking to their host until
spoken to. He serves the food that is before him according to his
liking for each guest; and the less favoured find solace in the
reflection that even the distribution of food is {28} according to
Providence. We pass on. Now we are in the hall of council with the
other overseers and officials of the province, and our overlord
presiding. We notice with astonishment the extreme solemnity and
strict observance of custom and precedence in this archaic period.
Many of those who have met report on the matters under their charge,
and others debate on them. The one now speaking is discussing a trade
about which he knows nothing, and an expert rises and makes very short
work of his opponent's arguments. Now we are among some people
dividing up property. One of them has tried, of course, to bully his
friends into giving him more than his due share, and, having failed,
leaves the house in a rage. He will regret it later. And so on.
Nothing definite is known concerning these two nobles beyond what is
said of them in their works. A fine tomb of a certain Ke'gemni exists
at Memphis; his titles, so far as can be ascertained,[11] are: _Judge
of the High Court: Governor of the Land unto its Limit, South and
North: Director of every Command_. He has sometimes been supposed to
be identical with our Ke'gemni; {29} but I am assured by those most
competent to judge that this tomb cannot be earlier than the Fifth
Dynasty (a good three hundred years from the date assigned to the
moralist), so that the theory that they are one person may be dismissed
as highly improbable. No other person of the name is known.
The position is much the same with Ptah-hotep. There are near Memphis
the tombs of several nobles of this name, of whom two lived in the
reign of Isosi; and in this case, again, it has been assumed that
one[12] of these two must be the writer of the Instruction. But in
neither instance do the titles coincide with or include those assigned
to him. The highest title which he bears, _Eldest Son of the King_,
does not anywhere appear in these tombs. It is true that one of these
contemporaries was _Hereditary Chief_; but we know that Ptah-hotep was
a common name at this time, and in the absence of more certain proof it
will be well to abstain from the identification of like names upon
insufficient grounds. Thus it is only by the chance discovery of this
{30} scroll that these two princes of old time, whose bodies are blown
about the desert dust these many centuries, are secured from utter
oblivion; men '_such as did bear rule in their kingdoms, men renowned
for their power, giving counsel by their understanding, and declaring
prophecies: Leaders of the people by their counsels, and by their
knowledge of learning meet for the people, wise and eloquent in their
instructions_.' And against such as these, that from remote years
'_have left a name behind them, that their praises might be reported,_'
how many are there '_which have no memorial; who are perished, as
though they had never been; and are become as though they had never
been born; and their children after them_.'[13]
I had intended to make a detailed analysis of the moral sense of
Ptah-hotep and Ke'gemni, but it appears unnecessary; since they give
their advice so clearly and simply, they may safely be left to speak
for themselves. But as especially noteworthy I would point to the
gracious tolerance of ignorance enjoined in Sec. 1 (Ptah-hotep), and the
fine reason given for that injunction, in contrast with the scorn
expressed for the obstinate fool (Ph. 40); the care due to a wife (Ph.
21), which is in signal contrast to the custom of other Eastern nations
in this {31} respect;[14] the great stress laid on filial duties (Ph.
38, 39, 41, 42, 43); the enthusiasm for obedience, expressed in a
jargon of puns (Ph. 38), which, once the high-watermark of style among
Egyptian _literati_, has long since lost its savour; the interesting
matter on manners at table (Kg. 2, 3, Ph. 7, 9), in society (Kg. 4, Ph.
14, 18, 20, 34), and in official positions (Ph. 5, 8, 13, 15, 16, 17,
24, 28). A rough classification including many sections is here given:
Duties toward superiors (Ph. 2, 7, 8, 10, 16, 27, 31).
Duties toward equals (3, 6, 14, 18, 20, 26, 29, 33, 35, 37).
Duties toward inferiors (1, 4, 5, 16, 17, 22). The whole teaching
resolves into the maxim, "Be good, and you will be happy;" not at all
in the sense that virtue is its own reward--I do not think that that
would have seemed an adequate return to Ptah-hotep--but in the sense of
material welfare rewarding, as a matter of course, an honourable life.
Following his reasoning, if a man be obedient as a son, punctilious as
a servant, generous and gentle as a master, and courteous as a friend,
then all good things shall fall to him, he shall reach a green old age
honoured by the King, and his memory shall be long in the land. This
theory, which is not {32} found satisfactory in our day, is insisted on
by most of the ancient moralists, who appear to regard it, not as a
substitute for conscience, but rather as a _raison d'etre_ or
justification thereof. Yet, centuries before a King of Israel had seen
all things that are, and found them vanity, a King of Egypt had left it
on record that he had done all good things for his subjects, and that
'there was no satisfaction therein.'
It has been said with some truth of codes of morals and laws that what
is omitted is almost as important as what is included. But we must not
carry this too far; we should be foolish indeed did we assert that
those things omitted from such a code as Ptah-hotep's were not
practised or not held to be important in his day. For example, he
'knows nothing'--as a Higher Critic would say--of kindness to animals;
but we know from many things that the Egyptians treated animals kindly
and made much of them as pets. In the very tomb of that Ptah-hotep
mentioned above,[15] who may be our author, is depicted the bringing of
three dogs and a tame monkey to him while he is dressing; possibly so
that he may feed them himself. And this kindly feeling obtained
throughout Egyptian history. They treated animals more as 'dumb
friends' in those days than might have been {33} _a priori_ expected,
and more, perhaps, than any other nation of antiquity. Again, he
'knows nothing' of duties to the mother, although he is so insistent on
duties to the father; but the high position of women and their
matriarchal privileges oppose any deduction that Egyptian manners were
somewhat to seek in this direction. Ke'gemni says of the unsociable
man that he is a grief to his mother, and another moralist of uncertain
date (perhaps Twelfth Dynasty, about B.C. 2700), named 'Eney, is
explicit on this matter. He says to his son, '_I gave thee thy mother,
she that bore thee with much suffering.... She placed thee at the
Chamber of Instruction for the sake of thine instruction in books; she
was constant to thee daily, having loaves and beer in her house. When
thou art grown, and hast taken to thee a wife, being master in thy
house, cast thine eyes on the one that gave thee birth and provided
thee with all good things, as did thy mother. Let her not reproach
thee, lest she lift up her hands to the God, and He hear her prayer._'
And, most remarkable of all omissions, there is nothing said as to
duties to the Gods. In Egypt, whose Gods are beyond counting, where
almost everybody was a priest, Ptah-hotep--himself a 'Holy Father' and
'Beloved of the God'--has no word to say on religious obligations,
devoting his work entirely to the principles of charity and duty to
one's neighbour. It is {34} seemingly sufficient to him that one do
the right in this world, without thinking overmuch about the other.
This is the more curious in that other writers of the same class have
many injunctions regarding worship and sacrifice; and so complete is
his reserve touching this matter, so important in the eyes of other
Egyptians, that it is easy to believe that it was intentional. We may
even discern in him a protagonist of the modern 'Ethical School,' whose
adherents may be interested to find their views implicitly held so long
ago.
Notwithstanding this singularity, he is by no means unmindful of Deity.
We notice that he has occasion to speak several times of 'the God'[16]
in His relation to humanity and human affairs. If we collect these
references to the God, we shall find that the following qualities are
attributed to Him. He rewards diligence (9, 10) and punishes sin (6,
10; also Kg. 5); He is the giver of good things (Ph. 22, 30, 43),
dispenses fate and preordains events (6, 7, 9, 26), loves His creation
(26), observes men's actions (10), desires them to be fruitful and
multiply (12). All this is in complete accord with the belief of other
religions--including Christianity--regarding the Godhead. And here we
touch another pleasing characteristic of this most ancient of
books--its catholic spirit and disregard of those {35} mythological and
esoteric riddles that most Egyptian works propound to us continually.
It will be noticed that 'the God' is not anywhere mentioned by name.
Osiris (5) and Horus (41) are alluded to, but only historically, in
respect of their rule upon earth, not as present powers. The reason is
this, that at that time the Gods, even the great Gods, were only local,
that is to say, their worship was confined to certain towns or
districts ('nomes'), and beyond the boundaries of these their names
lost that power and influence which they exerted in their peculiar
provinces. A book, therefore, which spoke of one God only--by
name--would have been found much limited as to popularity and use.
Hence the old moralists and didactic writers, whatever God they might
themselves worship, forebore to mention Him, since by many readers He
would not be recognised as paramount; they wrote instead, 'The God,'
that is, 'the God of your allegiance, whoever He may be.' Thus, were
the reader a native of Heliopolis, his God would be Atomu, the Setting
Sun; of Memphis, Ptah, the Revealer; of Hermopolis, Thoth, Master of
Divine Words and Chief of the Eight. It was for this reason that the
unknown author of what is called the 'Negative Confession'[17] makes
the deceased say, '_I have not scorned the {36} God of my town_.' And,
indeed, so simply and purely does Ptah-hotep speak of the God that the
modern reader can, without the least degradation of his ideals,
consider the author as referring to the Deity of monotheism, and if he
be of Christendom, read God; if of Islam, read Allah; if of Jewry,
Jehovah.[18]
No doubt the gulf fixed between teaching and practice was as great then
as now. We have the teaching, we know that the teaching was current
all over Egypt in various forms, but of the practice we know very
little. Human nature being much the same at all times and places, we
must beware of measuring the one by the other, the unknown by the
known, and must be content to take such counsels as showing the
Egyptian--
Not what he was, but what he should have been.
It is established that they were a kindly, peace-loving people, genial