Late-Egyptian miscellanies. [Ricardo Augusto Gardiner, Alan H. Caminos] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Get this from a library! Late-Egyptian miscellanies.. [Ricardo Augusto Caminos; Alan H Gardiner]. Late-Egyptian miscellanies. Main Author: Caminos, Ricardo Augusto, Related Names: Gardiner, Alan H. , ed. Language(s): English.
|Published (Last):||10 November 2010|
|PDF File Size:||19.49 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.15 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up. Literature, Transmission and the Late Egyptian Miscellanies. Agency, identity and the individual in ancient Egyptian texts Y. Wordplay in Ancient Egypt Emi Shirakawa Why is there so little consideration of gender in Egyptology?
A further unfinished example can be found on an ostracon in the British Museum, number EApublished in Demaree43 and plate egypfian Anastasi 1 Fischer-Elfertis not included here, although it shares some of the aspects of transmission and provenance with the LEM – it was included in the family archive of Qenherkhepshef from Deir el-Medina see Figure 4 along with miscellany-texts. Anastasi 1 has been characterised as a satiric commentary on the educational system Fischer- Elfert, but it can also be read “as a self-mockery and a learned joke among equals” Parkinson, and has much in common with the compositions in the LEM dealing with the unattentive student.
Latf the LEM the Anastasi I text seems to have been transmitted as a textual unity, and it is attested in different regional redactional traditions Fischer-Elfert Geographically it shares the area of its dissemination with the LEM. Gardinerxiii-xxibut most of the manuscripts were bought by individuals rather than excavated, so the archaeological context is now lost Gardinerxii-xxi.
Catalog Record: Late-Egyptian miscellanies | Hathi Trust Digital Library
The LEM were published by Alan Gardinerand later Ricardo Caminos published a translation volume with a philological commentary, but neither addressed the issue of what the texts actually were. The manuscripts had been known to Egyptologists for some time, and the German Egyptologist Adolf Erman made them the subject of his Die Altagyptische Schiilerhandschriften as early as At that stage the manuscripts were not properly published, and the quality of his work, although admirable for his time, suffered somewhat as a result of this.
As his title indicates, Erman thought the manuscripts represented scribal exercises, and his interpretation has been accepted implicitly e. Nordhor explicitly e. Brunner; McDowellby later scholars.
Despite the general acceptance of his theory, some scholars have occasionally expressed doubts e. Gardiner45; Quirke, but no coherent and detailed re-appraisal of Erman’s work has yet appeared.
I will concentrate on the arguments presented by Erman in support of his classification, but the subject is broad and undoubtedly deserves a more thorough investigation than is possible here: Roller Berlin 19th Dynasty P. Leiden 19th Dynasty Ramesses 11?
Rainer 52 21 st Dynasty? The Late Egyptian Miscellanies manuscripts.
Erman’s theory of the ‘Schiilerhandschriften’ Erman’s theory rested on his interpretation of four main aspects of the manuscripts: Ill and Koller Unknown Unknown An.
Erman’s eight pairs of ‘teachers ‘ and ‘students’ and their manuscripts 86 Fredrik Hagen The manuscripts have not received much attention since Erman’s published his book, apart from the publication proper of the manuscripts by Gardiner Erman’s interpretation has, as mentioned, been broadly accepted by later scholars, and this acceptance has led to conclusions that have far reaching consequences regarding our view of the education of scribes and the transmission of literary texts in ancient Egypt.
For example, Andrea McDowell, in a well argued article on the colophons found on literary ostraca from Deir el-Medinahas pointed out that none of camijos relate to the early stages in the education of ancient Egyptian scribes, but that they are the product of the training of “advanced students”, people who are “assistants” hry-r like those responsible for the egyptina, and not schoolboys.
She then points out that “[the] evidence that such texts belonged to the apprentice stage of education undermines all the work done on elementary education in the New Kingdom.
Literature, Transmission and the Late Egyptian Miscellanies | Fredrik Hagen –
All of the conclusions about where schools were located, what was taught in the schools, and how students learned to read and write must be reexamined” I agree that to see all literary ostraca as relating to an educational context is a simplistic and undifferentiated approach which underestimates the complex issues involved Parkinson; Janssen86; McDowell ; In other words, the interpretation of those ostraca which have so far been considered most plausibly to relate to the education of Egyptian scribes is at least in part dependent on our interpretation of the LEM.
Central aspects of the manuscripts a Contents The contents of the manuscripts are, as the modern English term given to them indicates, miscellaneous.
Compositions appearing on the same manuscript as the “instructions of letters” but not included under that heading range from didactic classical works like The Instruction of Amenemhat I.
Under the title sbiyt srMi very diverse compositions are gathered: Gardiner93, and 99a term denoting extracts and notes of an administrative character, in addition to drawings e. The distribution of the different compositions varies considerably from manuscript to manuscript: There is little in the contents themselves to suggest that the manuscripts were simply exercises in copying, and much of the contents have a significant literary value in their own right see below.
Among the most popular pieces appear to be variations on the theme of the superiority of the scribal profession, echoing the classic Middle Kingdom composition The Midcellanies of Khety also called The Satire of the TradesLate Egyptian Miscellanies 87 but showing considerable diversity from manuscript to manuscript in variations upon the theme Guglielmi The popularity of this particular theme is perhaps understandable as the author, copyist and probably the intended audience belonged to the literary elite whose status and existence is being expounded by the compositions.
The hymns and praises for gods, kings, superiors and towns may be more alien as a genre egyptiwn modern readers than for example Ramesside love poetry, but a lack of immediate appreciation and understanding of the genre and its social contexts see in general Spalinger should not obscure the point that an ancient Egyptian’s taste and preference may have differed substantially from our own. Some of the model letters may lack this literary value but note that letters both in prose and in verse have been very popular as a literary genre in the past – examples from the classical world include Pliny, Cicero and Horace: Williams; Dilke, but they, alqng with the onomastic lists, probably added to the manuscripts’ value as textual resources see under Miscellanies: Letters concerning the well-known literary topos of the unattentive student e.
Bologna3, As Iversen remarks, these compositions are ” The same handwriting normally occurs throughout the lqte, indicating that the texts were copied by a single individual, probably over a period of time. Noteworthy is Anastasi IV. Perhaps an interval of time elapsed before pp. The quality of miscellaniew handwriting did not form an integral part of the argument of Erman, and 1 refrain from commenting further on it here: They occur in both black normally at the top of the page and in red normally over the relevant line of the text.
Miscellanes term ‘correction’ is perhaps a bit misleading in itself, as most are simply “efforts to improve the shapes of the rarer signs” Gardiner These corrections were thought by Erman to have been done by a teacher, but there is an alternative and more probable explanation. As Alan Gardiner pointed out in his publication of the Chester Beatty papyri, number IV of that collection, which is also a miscellany-text, displays similar corrections to those camins in other miscellanies.
The same is true of Anastasi IV, where the handwriting of the corrections is identical to that of the copyist of the rest of the manuscript, Caminoss Gardinerxv. Such auto-correction may seem alien to someone who is a product of the European school system where all corrections are made by teachers, and with some of the same colour codes red correction of black writing ; this may go some way towards explaining the interpretation of early Egyptologists but cf. Moller’s comment in Erman6 n. The use of such auto-correction was widespread in ancient Egypt, and even the well written New Kingdom papyrus BM EA with The Instruction lats Ptahhotep, which to my knowledge no-one has ever suggested is a scribal exercise, displays this practice in 3,6; 4, 4 and 4, Other egtptian traditions display similar examples of self-correction: Traditionally in the Egyptian manuscript tradition, and more specifically in those manuscripts containing instructions sbiytthe title e.
Instruction of Hordedef Instruction of Ptahhotep belongs to the composition and does not vary from manuscript to manuscript. A colophon, on the other hand, refers to the transmission of the manuscript itself, often emphasising that it is an accurate copy and occasionally naming the copyist Parkinson; Quirke; Luiselli Lhe title sbiyt is a used to denote a genre of texts that, at least in its early use, deal with the transmission of wisdom in some form or another Shupak These compositions are usually called “instructions” or “teachings” by Egyptologists, and they have traditionally been seen as closely associated with the education and training of scribes.
This interpretation has lately been questioned by Parkinsonwho argues convincingly that they are primarily literary compositions whose use in the training of scribes should be seen as secondary: The title “Beginning of the instruction made by N.
The titles differ from manuscript to manuscript, unlike earlier instructions, but this is not surprising as each manuscript appears to be a unique composition or compilation. Although many of them incorporate the same passages, sometimes with variants, none duplicate all the texts found on another manuscript.
This individuality would appear to justify the use of different names in the titles, a development that perhaps continues the trend of the more personalised wisdom instructions that appear in the early 19th Dynasty at Deir el-Medina e. McDowell; Guglielmi However, if one accepts that the titles of the LEM reflect genuine authorship, or at least the redactional activity of compiling, one should still keep in mind that this information pertains to the origins and transmisssion of the manuscript.
In other words, the titles may supply information about who composed the text and for whombut they offer no explicit evidence as to the attitudes of the individuals involved towards the specific manuscript in question its statusor to its potential uses. It is uncertain to what extent the titles should be taken literally as referring to a primary function of teaching epistolographic skills: However, although the manuscript appears complete, the text itself is unfinished, and the copyist may have intended to include more letters: The traces on Anastasi IV and Lansing suggest that they were composed or at least assembled by the senior scribe “for his assistant” w p!
The first two examples may be compatible with an interpretation of the compositions as instructions in letter writing from a superior to his inferior, but it is difficult to reconcile the latter example with this interpretative model. A literal interpretation of the title would in any case not offer any decisive evidence as it could be understood to refer to both a reference work a manual of letter-writing and an exercise.
The dates mentioned in the titles above may relate either to the act of composition or to the act of copying. Anastasi IV, Lansing and Sallier I lack dates throughout the rest of the manuscript, unlike BolognaAnastasi V and Sallier IV see under dates below which, although of comparable length, have sequential dates inserted every pages.
None of the latter ccaminos manuscripts preserve titles, however, so how dates found in titles might relate to the sequential ones in the main body of manuscripts is impossible to say. Misceolanies further interesting aspect of the contents of the manuscripts was noted by Quirke, namely that there is an overlap between Theban and Memphite miscellanies in terms of individual passages employed, and these examples “indicate a textual base available at different periods and places within Ramesside Egypt” miscellanies, Those oate read as follows: The first and most extensive example, from Sallier IV, is found in a rather cqminos position.
It occurs on the back of page 21 of the recto, after a number of memoranda relating to work and accounting, as well as drawings and sketches which probably do not belong to the “instruction of letter-writing”, and so it is unlikely that the colophon refers to the copying of this manuscript the colophon is followed by two titularies of Ramesses II and the titles of a scribe: Its presence in Sallier IV may be better explained as a colophon encountered by the copyist elsewhere, and then inscribed in his miscellany roll with a view to cmainos it himself in another manuscript i.
Anastasi III contains two misceplanies, and although both name the scribe Amenemope in their dedications, the first, unusually, appears in the middle of the instruction, so there is a possibility that it originated in the original source consulted by the copyist, and thus need not refer to csminos instruction itself the insertion of the name of the master is not surprising as this appears to be common practice when copying texts, and in particular model letters, into the miscellanies.
Late-Egyptian miscellanies ( edition) | Open Library
The last of the two colophons from Anastasi III occupies the expected position at the very end of the manuscript, and so may refer to the “instruction of letter-writing”.
The colophon from Bologna appears near the end of that manuscript, but it precedes the remains of another letter, so again it is doubtful if it relates to the miscellany text as a whole. The relationship between the colophons egyptizn the manuscripts is thus problematic – the colophons are contingent on practices that are egyltian understood see in general Luiselli The formula employed in these colophons, i n ki n N.
The formula is now known to be simply dedicatory in function, similar to that found egpytian modern books “Dedicated to my teacher N. The latter commented that “Cet hommage In another colophon, this from P. Chester Beatty IV recto 7, 1, so not associated with the miscellany on the versothe gods Horus and Re are named as beneficiaries in addition to a draughtsman of Amun, Mersekhmet: Gardiner31 thought the copyist egyptia composer was the very same draughtsman of Amun, Mersekhmet, which would mean that he dedicated the manuscript to himself: A egyptiann from the part of P.
The individual who copied the miscellanies of Anastasi IV and VI, the scribe Inena, is also responsible for other preserved manuscripts, most notably the d’Orbiney papyrus which contains the Stoty of the Two Brothers.