scribeofseshat:

starsandepithets:

sphinxliike:

starsandepithets:

sphinxliike:

starsandepithets:

starsandepithets:

sphinxliike:

Question: would cursing be going against Ma’at?

In my opinion upholding Ma’at is defending against Isfet. Many deities are describes and have epithets implying they violently remove Isfet where it is found… so personally. If the object of your curse is Isfet or an object or benign that promotes Isfet – curse away.

There are also examples of Ancient Egyptian curses;

Breaking the red pot – the red pot is usually inscribed with bad things and then smashed. It is commonly associated with Wep Ronpet and destroying Isfet in the comming year, but I don’t see any reason why it can’t be used year round.

Destroying an image of a/p/-/p – the bad snake, the embodiment of Isfet. An image of the snake was created in wax and then burned. Modern kemetics make the snake of different materials. It was performed throughout the year to defend Ra against the snake.

Written on a sandal – writing a persons name or drawing a picture of the thing you want destroyed or weakened on the bottom of your shoe. This treads on the thing with each step, hurting it. The most common example was Pharaohs sandals would be inscribed with an image of the nine bows – which represented the enemies of Egypt.

Bronze tablet – inscribing a name on a bronze tablet and then crossing it out while cursing the name and associated person. Hundreds of Ptolemaic bronze tablets have been found across Egypt. A modern reconstruction was used in the TV show Rome at one point I think. (Can probably be substituted for paper if you don’t have accessed to bronze tablets).

This is great information and I definitely agree with it! My question came from one of the ma’at laws, which is “I have not cursed”. I didn’t know if that meant like saying curse words or the magick type.

Before I give a full answer, can I double check what you mean by Ma’at’s Law?

I have a few ideas of what you might be referring to, but because I’m not exactly sure I want to double check

I mean the 42 negative confessions yes!

Thank you!! 😀

So…

As far as I am concerned the 42 negative confessions are part of a magic spell spoken after dead in order to make a path in the afterlife. It was never intended as a way to live, rather part of a series of spells that were performed in order to make the soul new/clean/perfect, so that the odds would be better stacked, to enter the afterlife. (Most of the things were things that it was expected that most people had done)

Also the 42 negative confessions are not comparable to say… the Ten Commandments. They are not rules by which to live your life. They are rather things that it was fully expected that a human may do in their life, and that it was a spell to tell the heart to tell these lies to proof some kind of purity to the gods.

I also have a UPG on the matter, but this response is purely research based.

There is also the question of translation. I have seen another translation that I remember being ‘I have not sworn/blasphemed’.

And finally archaeologically, there is evidence that the AEs cursed 🙂

I’m going to second @starsandepithets on the 42 negative confessions. They were not rules to live by. The context in which they appear isn’t a guide or instruction on how to live life, it’s a book of spells intended to assist entry to the afterlife: a funerary text. They include things like “I have not diverted the course of water” and “I have not polluted” (from memory, quotes may be inaccurate).

For advice on living life, I’d recommend looking into the didactic literature and moral tales. The Eloquent Peasant has a lot on what is and isn’t mꜥꜣt, and reads like a tale intended to teach correct and moral behaviour. The Dispute Between a Man and His Bꜣ is also a good text for discussion of mꜥꜣt; it discusses things which are not mꜥꜣt. Most of the instructional literature also discussion correct and moral behaviour, though some of it is specific to official positions, and some translations are disputed. In some cases the translator may push interpretations, especially involving homosexuality, that seem unlikely or lack a logical connection — take these translations with a grain of salt; such an example came up in one of my classes last semester — not one person in a class of about 60 people could see how the passage could possibly be understood as a condemnation of homosexuality. Other examples tend to relate to official positions in the administration, and probably relate more to maintaining image, rather than actual condemnation (I could go on for a while about some of these, but my brain isn’t awake yet and it’s probably better in a new post)