Chapter 17; ⁂⁂⁂⁂,[103] _Ba_, Chapter 110, by phonetic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. _Again and again renewed_ ⁂⁂⁂⁂.

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

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

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

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

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

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

10. _Uach_ ⁂⁂⁂⁂ _blooming_, _flowering_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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