Stadler, Martin

Propylaeum-DOK

1 2 8 Journal of the American Oriental Society 1 2 5 . 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) 
Die Lehre Ptahhoteps und die Tugenden der dgyptischen Welt. By FRIEDRICH JUNGE. Orbis Biblicus et 
Orientalis, vol. 193. Freiburg, Switzerland: UNIVERSITATSVERLAG, 2003. Pp. 286. FS85. 
Returning to a well-known Egyptian text, Friedrich Junge has examined the Instruction of Ptah-
hotep and presented a monograph on Egypt's oldest wisdom text (dating most probably to the eleventh 
dynasty/early second millennium B.C.). In a short excursus into the history of philosophy, Junge raises 
the question of how Ptahhotep fits into Jaspers' idea of the Achsenzeit, according to which a revolution 
in thinking took place in fifth-century Greece, whereas before that period ethics were basically vulgar. 
Junge's thesis is that Ptahhotep stands on a higher evolutionary plane and is very complex, despite 
predating the Achsenzeit. As Junge admits, he is not the first Egyptologist to raise doubts about the 
Achsenzeit-conceyt, which Jan Assmann has already rejected (Ma 'at: Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit 
im Alten Agypten [Munich: C. H. Beck, 1995], esp. 24-28, 273-88). 
Any reader who expects a summary of previous research on Ptahhotep, a contextualization of the 
text within the culture of Middle Kingdom Egypt, or a description of the further development of the 
genre of wisdom texts in Egypt after Ptahhotep will be disappointed, as Junge has chosen to reach his 
conclusions through "close reading," i.e., an approach without premises intended to explain the text 
through itself. 
According to Junge, this is legitimate because the instruction follows its own rules and aims at par­
ticular goals. The instruction is designed to concretize the abstract and empty principle of the cosmic 
world order (ma 'at) that also regulates human and social life. The first five chapters of the book present 
the sections of the instruction, the maxims following a thematic order according to the lines of Junge's 
argument. In this way he cites from Ptahhotep where appropriate for his reading and comments on the 
translations by reformulating the messages. 
Junge states that the instruction aims at instilling respect toward fellow human beings. This teaching 
is not just altruistic, making sure that everyone's dignity—even that of those who are subordinate—­is 
preserved, but is intended to protect one's own dignity, which can be damaged if a superior mistreats 
a person who stands on a lower hierarchical level. However, this practical attitude does not turn the in­
struction into vulgar ethics, as Junge points out, because Ptahhotep argues rationally from the truth and 
justice of the cosmic order that is to be perceived. The text is therefore a precursor of ethics—only a 
precursor, for a terminological discussion is lacking and the Egyptian does not give a theory of morals­
Although secular in the sense that the teaching sees the results of ethical behavior in this world rather 
than the hereafter, this does not imply that the instruction is devoid of God. Rather the contrary is d1L' 
case: God is perceived as the ultimate power ruling the world, potentially without consideration of—° r 
even against—human rational planning. 
Junge then undertakes the development of an Egyptian psychology or anthropology as deducible 
from Ptahhotep (chapter six). Key­words are the "sense, mind" (Junge's translation for the Egyp"1"1 
term jh), the body (h.t) and the ka (hi). The jb is identified as the thinking element of the Egyp l ' a n 
psychological apparatus which controls the desires that spring forth from the body. In this concept the 
role of the ka, which Junge translates as "the se l f " ("das Selbst"), remains somewhat unclear. Junge 
suggests understanding it as the identity, the consciousness which the heart has formed. 
Originalveröffentlichung in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 125, 2005, S. 128-129
R e v i e w s of B o o k s 1 2 9 
Throughout the book, by comparing Ptahhotep with later concepts, Junge implies that Ptahhotep 
contains ideas that have been developed in the thought of later philosophers and theologians, up to 
and including the psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud (cf. the conceptualization of active entities in a 
human being's psyche). In chapters seven and eight this becomes more explicit, when Junge expounds 
his view that the basic assumption of the Egyptian instruction is that human beings are weak and need 
guidance, and that therefore evil can be removed by education. Thus Ptahhotep stands alongside the 
works of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Spinoza, as well as aspects of modern political science. 
Before the limits of these analogies are discussed—Ptahhotep lacks a philosophical argument and 
does not have any genetic relationship to the teachings of classical antiquity and thereafter (chapter 
eight)—Junge leaves the text's framework and briefly investigates how the instruction is to be seen 
within the historical context of the centralized Egyptian state of the Middle Kingdom that required 
guidelines for the elite. A full German translation and a detailed philological commentary end the book. 
Junge, who wants to study the Instruction of Ptahhotep by the method of close reading, must have 
assumed that every reader is unbiased. Therefore it would have been appropriate to give the transla­
tion and commentary before beginning the textual discussion. This would, of course, have required 
an accessible and intelligible translation. However, it must be said—despite his own claim (p. 14)— 
Junge fails to deliver such a translation (see, for example, the eighth maxim, pp. 25/175, U, 180­85; 
Pp. 46/175, 11. 596­607; pp. 104/204). Various reasons can be adduced for this failure, including idio­
syncratic or literal translations and occasional German grammatical mistakes. All three faults touch 
upon further criticisms. The book gives the impression of a certain incompleteness through repetition 
of ideas and discussions (e.g., pp. 26 and 41) and inconsistencies in rendering Egyptian words: some­
times these appear as unvocalized transliterations, and sometimes as vocalized reconstructions (e.g.Jb 
vs. jab, hft.j vs. haft.ej, h.tlhi.t vs. HQ'.at—passim in chapter six. Readers who are not Egyptologists 
might be confused. In general, Junge's language oscillates between colloquialisms and higher registers 
'n coining extravagant terms such as Zuwendigkeit and Wohlhahenheit. These stylistic features may 
Present obstacles for readers who are not native speakers of German, since they will hardly find these 
Words in a dictionary. 
Another problem with Junge's approach is that it ignores other Egyptian texts while citing later 
Philosophers. Thus his translations of jh "mind" (otherwise generally rendered as "heart") or Ki as 
"self" are perhaps valid for Ptahhotep, but not necessarily elsewhere. The difficulty with taking Ki as 
"se l f" becomes apparent when the plural Ki.w is assigned to a single person. Here Junge must render 
the expression as "Selbstkriifte" and re­introduce the old idea of the Ki as vital power. As much as 
'he translation, Junge's analysis of the ^ ­ p h e n o m e n o n remains unsatisfactory, for its role within the 
Psychological apparatus does not become clear. Here Junge is terminologically vague (pp. 130­32). 
Do the Ki and the jh operate on the same level or is the Ki to be placed above the jb—or vice versa? 
Finally, it must be asked whether it does justice to the Egyptian thinking to call it a precursor 
("Vorform") of philosophical ethics, because it did not develop a terminology and therefore does not 
reflect problems in an abstract manner. Egyptian law, for instance, is casuistic in the best sense: rules 
a r e deduced from very concrete cases, and in this it is similar to the English and American juristic 
O stein based on customary law. Junge himself makes the comparison with England and America. But, 
°f course, English and American law is not a precursor, but the way of organizing a juristic system 
l n a particular culture. Thus the thinking in concrete cases that characterizes both Ptahhotep and the 
Egyptian law cannot be called a precursor, but must be taken as a method of thinking in its own right. 
Despite these criticisms, Junge's attempt to connect the oldest Egyptian wisdom text with occidental 
Philosophical traditions must be warmly welcomed. Now specialists in the history of philosophy are 
"ivited to take the Instruction of Ptahhotep into account and to consider Egyptian thinking of the early 
S e cond millennium B.C. 
MARTIN ANDREAS STADLER 
WURZBURG 


Friedrich Junge. Die Lehre Ptahhoteps und die Tugenden der ägyptischen Welt.Orbis Biblicus et

Orientalis, vol. 193

http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeumdok/2533/1/Stadler_REZ_Junge_Die_Lehre_Ptahhoteps_2005.pdf

Friedrich Junge. Die Lehre Ptahhoteps und die Tugenden der ägyptischen Welt.Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, vol. 193

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Propylaeum-DOK