of Brading, Isle of
Wight. This version, which first appeared in 1856, was ruined by the
translator's theory that the Prisse Papyrus contained references to the
Exodus, and was written by the 'Shepherd-King,' Aphobis. How he
obtained that name from Ptah-hotep, how he read the Exodus into his
book, or how he got three-fourths of his translation, it is not
possible to say. Written in a style which is in itself a matter for
decipherment, it is full of absurdities and gratuitous mistakes, and
{38} is entirely worthless. It is one more instance of the lamentable
results that arise when a person with a preconceived Biblical theory
comes into contact with Egyptian records. In the following year M.
Chabas did part of the papyrus into French, and, as might be expected
of an Egyptologist of such attainments, his version was infinitely more
accurate than the foregoing. In 1869 Herr Lauth made a
translation--also partial--into Latin, and in 1884; M. Philippe Virey
published a careful study and complete translation of both books. His
rendering[20] was subsequently translated into English and published
(with some alterations) in _Records of the Past_, 1890, and has
remained the only complete translation in English. It has been taken
bodily (even the footnotes) into Myer's _Oldest Books in the World_,
and has been put into charming verse by Canon Rawnsley in his _Notes
for the Nile_. Thus it appears to be, in a sense, the standard
version. Nevertheless, it leaves very much to be desired in point of
accuracy, although the general sense of each section is usually caught.
Of later years Mr. Griffith has done important work on this text, and I
am indebted to his translations for several readings.

As regards the version here offered, I will only say that it has been
done with considerable care, {39} without prejudice, and, it is
thought, in accordance with scientific methods of translation; and that
it has been compared with all previous renderings, and will be found to
be, on the whole, the most accurate that has yet appeared.

And now I will leave Ptah-hotep to speak for himself. It may be
thought that he has been introduced at too great length; but I would
point out that his book has been strangely overlooked by the educated
public hitherto, although it would be difficult to over-estimate its
importance, to literature as the oldest complete book known, to ethics
and theology as the earliest expression of the mystery we name