475 A NEW EDITION OF THE “BOOK OF NUT” 476 HOOFDARTIKELEN A NEW EDITION OF THE “BOOK OF NUT” DAVID KLOTZ, Yale University Abstract Review of the most recent edition of the cosmographic composi- tion “the Book of Nut,”*) a detailed outline of the movements of the sun, decan stars, and other celestial bodies, recounted within a mythological framework. First attested in the Osireion of Sety I at Abydos, this important text is attested in Pharaonic tombs as well as on Hieratic and Demotic papyri of the Roman Period, several of which are published for the first time. While the new parallels greatly advance our understanding of the Book of Nut, the difficult hieroglyphic texts, partially composed in enigmatic writing, still invite further study. *) Review article of: LIEVEN, A. von – The Carlsberg Papyri 8. Grundriss des Laufes der Sterne. Das sogenannte Nutbuch. Vol. I: Text; Vol. II: Tafeln. (CNI Publications 31). Museum Tusculanum Press, Copen- hagen, 2007. (Vol. I: 30,5 cm, 463; Vol. II: 40 cm, 25 Tafeln). ISBN 978-87-635-0406-5. ISSN 0907-8118; 0902-5499. / 121,-. 995014_Bior_2011_5-6_01.indd5014_Bior_2011_5-6_01.indd 469469 116/02/126/02/12 112:412:41 477 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXVIII N° 5-6, september-december 2011 478 The so-called “Book of Nut” is an important cosmographic (2) The synoptic edition has a confusing layout. All hiero- composition first attested in the Osireion of Sety I at Abydos, glyphic and Hieratic examples are reproduced in typeset with fragmentary versions in the tombs of Ramesses IV and hieroglyphs, without transliteration. Since PC1 employs both Mutirdis in Western Thebes. Over a large representation of the hieratic and demotic, the A. presents a transliteration of the sky goddess, Nut, are extensive hieroglyphic texts describing demotic and a transcription of the hieratic into hieroglyphs. the nocturnal voyage of Re and the thirty-six decan stars through This approach has its advantages, as it allows one to distin- the body of this celestial divinity. The Roman Period Papyrus guish between the original text and the demotic annotations. Carlsberg 1 (PC1), first published in 1940 by Helmut Lange and However, the resulting reading experience is awkward: to Otto Neugebauer, comes from Tebtunis and preserves copies of read a section of PC 1 one must first consult the demotic text these earlier inscriptions in hieratic, interspersed with lengthier in vol. 2, find the corresponding transliteration in the synop- commentary in both hieratic and demotic. tic edition, move backwards to the translation (where the The Author has identified additional hieratic papyri with transliteration is not repeated), and then skip forward to the copies of this fascinating text in the vast holdings of the separate commentary section. Carlsberg Institute (PC228, 496-497), along with additional Moreover, the lack of transliteration for the non-Demotic fragments in Oxford, London, Berlin, and Florence. Previ- sections leaves readers wondering how precisely the A. inter- ously, similar parallels have been published in short miscel- prets difficult passages. This omission is vexing for unusual lany articles.1) In this instance, the A. took the opportunity orthographies peculiar to late hieratic texts, none of which to create an updated synoptic edition of all relevant texts,2) are discussed in the section on transcribing late hieratic (pp. with translation, commentary, and detailed discussions of 35-36). Since no transliteration is provided, brief explanatory textual transmission and other related topics. notes could have been useful for non-specialists. As one expects from the series, this is an impressively produced book, featuring a meticulous description of the §13: papyri, extensive bibliography, and an excellent volume of The A. translates this group as “Rebellen” without further plates; the 1:1 photographs of all the papyri vastly improves comment; apparently this is to be transliterated sbí.w upon the small plates included in the PC1, editio princeps of (< ), a rarely attested value for the first sign.5) and one finds reproductions of the hieroglyphic copies from the Osireion and two tombs. Without a doubt, this volume §§14, 25, etc.: will remain the standard edition of these difficult texts, and This abbreviation for , “to say” is not uncommon in Late the A. is to be commended for collecting the various frag- ∂d Hieratic and Demotic,6) but it is still rare enough to merit a ments and producing this valuable work. footnote. Given the extraordinary relevance of the Carlsberg Papyri for both Egyptological and interdisciplinary studies, previous §§20, 25, 55: = or , “to look.” Based on the authors have taken pains to create lucid translations and well- nw m glossary, the A. would transliterate this group as organized commentary to render the material accessible to a m (p. 359), which is definitely possible.7) However, this verb wider intellectual community. The A. of the present volume rarely employs the preposition ( . II, 9, 7-8: “selten”), has unfortunately made several editorial decisions which r Wb whereas ( ) is the normal construction ( . II, 218, have rendered the text even more obscure and uninviting to nw r Wb 6-9), and continues this way into Demotic and Coptic. non-Egyptologists than necessary: Furthermore, m hardly occurs in Demotic outside of (1) In contrast to previous volumes of the series, the A. archaizing texts. insisted on using the Tübingen transliteration system (e.g. † for d, c for †, etc.), even for the demotic texts. While not really §§44 bis, 144: a problem for Egyptologists, this idiosyncrasy will undoubt- The A. reads these examples as a book entitled “die edly frustrate interdisciplinary scholars, since there are still no Auflösung (bnr/bl),” but the transliteration and explanation demotic grammars or dictionaries which employ this sys- only appears in a later chapter (p. 285). Since the pustule tem.3) Since the Tübingen system only approximates the pro- hieroglyph does not elsewhere have the value bnn or bnr/bl, nunciation of Egyptian until the early Middle Kingdom, its some discussion is necessary.8) Furthermore, other examples appropriateness for transcribing the present text — not of this book (according to the A.) are spelled (§§39, attested until the Nineteenth Dynasty and preserved primarily 47, 48, 143; also not explained on p. 49, n. 179), is an on papyri of the Roman Period — is unclear.4) 1) E.g. K. Ryholt, “A Parallel to the Inaros Story of P. Krall (P. Carls- 5) D. Kurth, Einführung ins Ptolemäische. Eine Grammatik mit Zeichen- berg 456 + P. CtYBR 4513): Demotic Narratives from the Tebtunis Tem- liste und Übungsstücken, I (Hützel, 2007), p. 400, n. 89, cites one example. ple Library (I),” JEA 84 (1998), pp. 151-169; J.F. Quack, “Ein neuer 6) Wb. V, 621, 16; 624, 9; G. Möller, Hieratische Päläographie III, p. Zeuge für den Text zum neunköpfigen Bes: (P.Carlsberg 475),” in K. 58; W. Erichsen, DG, p. 691 Ryholt (ed.), Hieratic Texts from the Collection. The Carlsberg Papyri 7, 7) The pupils have this value in the New Kingdom cryptography; J.C. CNIP 30 (2006), pp. 53-64. Darnell, The Enigmatic Netherworld Books of the Solar-Osirian Unity, 2) The A. decided not to translate or discuss the famous portion of the OBO 198 (Fribourg; Göttingen, 2004), p. 590; D.A. Werning, “Aenigma- Book of Nut (only preserved in the Osireion exemplar) detailing the con- tische Schreibungen in Unterweltsbüchern des Neuen Reiches: gesicherte struction and use of a shadow-clock, apparently because it was not recopied Entsprechungen und Ersetzungsprinzipien,” in C. Peust (ed.), Miscellanea in the later papyri (see briefly pp. 12-13). in honorem Wolfhart Westendorf, GM Beihefte 3 (Göttingen, 2008), p. 138. 3) This editorial decision also ignores previous attempts by Demotists 8) The A. cites a previous article by J.F. Quack, but that reference does to employ a standardized transliteration system; cf. the various essays in not explain the sign-value either. One could suggest confusion or inten- Enchoria 10 (1980). tional substitution with the “egg” sign, based on bnn(.t), both “egg” and 4) E.g. the relative form 톆.t, “that which is seized,” is spelled pho- “seed” (P. Wilson, A Ptolemaic Lexikon, p. 318; Cl. Traunecker, Coptos, netically as ítt (p. 439, §x+54 [S]), yet the A. transliterated ícc (p. 33). p. 152, n. e). 995014_Bior_2011_5-6_01.indd5014_Bior_2011_5-6_01.indd 470470 116/02/126/02/12 112:412:41 479 A NEW EDITION OF THE “BOOK OF NUT” 480 attested orthography for bnr/bl, “to release.”9) The A.’s commentary, and since J.F. Quack already published a short interpretation is plausible, but sound philological arguments article full of improved readings for the Demotic text,13) the are not advanced in the present book. A. has little to add to earlier sections; the commentary in the “Mondkapitel” and so-called “Planetenkapitel,” however, (3) In general, the A. omits to include basic citations to dic- are more substantive. Unfortunately, the A. rarely summa- tionaries, not to mention more recent lexical studies.10) This rizes the discussions and readings of previous commentators, causes some minor problems: but only provides brief references.14) In short, it is often quite difficult to read this book, under- p. 53, n. 215: stand obscure passages, or follow the general commentary The A. proposed reading the oddly specific translation for tít without constant recourse to the previous edition (EAT III) (“Standarte, die wie das tít-Zeichen aussieht”) without pro- and to the collected works of J.F. Quack and the A. As a viding any references. result, this very important text will have a harder time reach- ing scholars of Egyptian religion, Greek and Babylonian p. 147, n. 859: astrology, the history of science, and other related fields. The A. claims that terms such as r-¨-̨w, (“Ascendant”, lit.