such perfectly preserved rolls as the great Papyrus Harris, which was long ago accurately published, the same remark is in general true of the papyri also. 32. The result of all this is that many of the most important documents of ancient Egypt are at present accessible to the Egyptologist only in publications so incorrect that in many cases they are absolutely unusable. It will be evident, therefore, that he who wishes to know exactly what the original documents of ancient Egypt state cannot work exclusively in his library, but must go behind the publications and turn back to the originals themselves, in Egypt and the museums of Europe. 33. For the purposes of these volumes it was therefore absolutely indispensable in most cases to go back of the publications. The author, therefore, made and repeatedly revised his own copies of practically all the historical monuments in Europe, before the originals themselves. In the few cases where the original was not accessible, good squeezes and photographs supplied the deficiency, or professional colleagues furnished from the originals specially collated readings of doubtful passages. Of the monuments in Egypt the author copied a great many at all the more important sites, especially Thebes and Amarna, where he made a complete copy of all the historical inscriptions; and in the museum at Cairo (formerly Gizeh). Of monuments in Egypt not included in the author's copies, squeezes were in most cases found in the enormous collection made by Lepsius, and now in the Berlin Museum. Where none of these sources furnished the desired monument, the author had access to the extensive collations made for the Berlin Egyptian Dictionary; and where these failed, he was able, in all important cases, to secure large-scale photographs of the originals. The final remainder of monuments for which the author was dependent upon the publications alone is very small, and in most such cases the publication was one made on modern methods and almost as good as the original itself. 34. Nevertheless, it must not be supposed that the old publications, however inaccurate, can be ignored. Some monuments have perished entirely since publication, and almost all have lost more or less important portions of the text. In the case of all the longer and more important texts, often reproduced in the old folios, the author took the best copy as a basis and collated with it all the other publications, noting in parallel columns all the variant readings. By this laborious means, some readings were secured which have since disappeared from the original, and all that is now available, whether in publications or in the original, was thus incorporated in the final composite copy, from which the translation was made. In a few cases the author was spared this labor by the industry of a modern editor of the document, as in the publication of the Benihasan tombs or those of Siut; but ordinarily the modern editor has not given himself this trouble, as in the last publication of Der el-Bahri. 35. The dangers involved in such neglect are evident. Thus so careful a scholar as Chabas discussed the so-called 'eclipse inscription" (IV, 756 ff.) of Takelot II, using only the publication of Lepsius; whereupon Goodwina called his attention to the fact that the very conscientious plate of Lepsius had nevertheless introduced confusion into the text by the accidental misplacement of a piece of the paper squeeze from which his copy was made, thus inverting the proper order of two sections of the very obscure text. Had Chabas also employed Young's otherwise obsolete copy of the original, this embarrassing error would not have occurred. aZeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache, 1868, 25 ff. 36. Chabasa himself convicted Lenormant of a similar error in discussing Ramses II's victory over the Hittites at Kadesh. Lenormant employed only the Abusimbel version of the report of the battle, not noticing that the ancient Egyptian scribe had omitted an entire line of the document, as is shown by the Ramesseum version. This omitted line happens to be of vital importance to a proper understanding of the battle, and the failure to observe its omission is fatal to any discussion of the conflict. The same error, nevertheless, has since been repeated in at least one notable modern treatise on the same battle." Further examples might be adduced in illustration of the danger incurred in making a study of any inscription as found in a single publication of the text. 37. The translations in the following volumes, we repeat, are therefore based upon all the available material for the reconstruction of each document, whether in the original or in old publications made at a time when the original was possibly in a better state of preservation. In no other way can all the available material be obtained, and scholars who would compare the renderings herein with the original documents themselves will in many cases be able to do so only by reconstructing the text in the same way. a Revue archéologique, XV2 (1858–59), 573 ff., 701 f. bCorrespondant, VII (February, 1858), second article. cSee my Battle of Kadesh, 4, 5. |