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 § 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 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 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'être 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 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 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 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 Atômu, 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 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 and courtly; but whether law-abiding is another matter. We know nothing about their laws, but we know that the law-courts were busy, and that legal officials were numerous; and we know, further, that their duplicity and lack of straightforwardness were proverbial among the Greeks and Romans, and persists to this day.