1. None of the oldest papyri yet known contain this chapter. This of itself is not an argument against its antiquity, and there is really no reason for supposing it to be less ancient than the chapter which precedes it. The latter portion of the text is, however, very corrupt and we have unfortunately no means as yet of correcting it. 2. _O Rā._ The name of the god is sometimes omitted in MSS. The context, however, requires its presence. It may nevertheless be asked: how can the Sun-god be said to be shining in the night? The question might as pertinently be asked: how can Horus (in the very same line) be said to come forth in the night? The answer to both these questions is that the Sun, whether as Rā or as Horus or Osiris, shines in the night through the agency of Thoth, the Moon. For further information see Notes to next chapter. 3. _Warriors_ ⁂⁂⁂. I take this group as = ⁂⁂ or ⁂⁂⁂. But a papyrus gives the variant ⁂⁂⁂⁂. 4. _He putteth on Hu._ This, is certainly obscure; but it is not the less in conformity with the doctrine of the Pyramid texts. The deceased (_Pepi_ I. 432, _Merira_ 618) is borne to a region where he is fed from night till daybreak, and then seizes upon the god Hu, ⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂. And according to other texts (_Unas_, 446, _Teta_, 250) the deceased seizes (⁂) upon Hu, and after Sau has been fastened to his feet enters the bark and seizes upon (⁂) the Mount of Glory. 5. _Mehenit_ ⁂⁂⁂⁂, or in the masculine form ⁂⁂, is the name of the mythological serpent which personifies the subterranean path from West to East of the Sun’s nightly course. In the _Book of Hades_ (_e.g._ on the Sarcophagus of Seti, _passim_) it is represented as extending over the back, top and front of the shrine in which the Sun-god is borne in his Bark. The many folds of the serpent are symbolical of the turnings and windings of the river or canal (⁂) over which the god is conveyed. This river is here described as infinite in length. This is one of the instances from which it is clear ⁂⁂⁂, like the corresponding Coptic ⲟⲩⲉⲓ, has the meaning of _length_. See _P.S.B.A._, XVII, 190. The length ‘from West to East’ is described as ‘from _Amur_ to _Taur_’ ⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂. _Amur_ is known from many texts to signify the West (see _supra_, Chapter 64, note 13). The East is known as _Ta-ur_ or _Ta-urit_. The royal Ritual at Abydos (Mariette, I. 37) says ⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂⁂. And as one of the values of the sign ⁂ is _ta_ as in ⁂⁂ (Louvre, B. 14), I feel sure that we should read _Ta-ur_ (or in the feminine _Ta-urit_) rather than _Nif-ur_ or _Nif-urit_, even in such passages as those quoted _supra_ in Chapter 128, notes 1 and 2, which have no necessary references to earthly geography. 6. There is a corrupt passage here, which I have at present no means of correcting by manuscript authority. M. Pierret thus renders it: “Le dieu qui partage les paroles y fait son chemin de millions d’années, seigneur sans égal, dont le chemin est dans le feu.”