In section this week we will be discussing the roles of the government officials, namely the vizier and other high officials like those whose autobiographies you will read in Simpson If we have time I hope we can get to the king as well!
We have a lot of ground to cover so please read the primary sources carefully. They are the autobiographies of Weni, Harkhuf and Qar, the instructions for Rekhmire the Vizier, Cycle of Songs in Honor of Senwosret III, and the Loyalist Instruction from the Sehetepibre Stela.
We will be going over as much of this material as we can on Tuesday so make notes and bring any questions from the readings or lecture to section.
For this week feel free to write write about what whatever sparked your interest from the PRIMARY sources only. Here are some ideas to get your brains going!
How do the texts reflect the political situation at the time (if at all?)
What is the proper decorum (moral behavior) for these particular roles?
How do officials represent themselves and why (self presentation and purpose of the texts)?
What kind of language/imagery is used to illustrate the divine aspects of the king?
In what ways do officials and the king interact and support each other?
What did Professor Morris mean when she said the king could be "so powerful he was powerless" and do you see that in any of the texts assigned for this week?
I will bring in some slides and provide a little historical background for the Old Kingdom autobiographies and texts relating to Senwosret III as well.
Have a great weekend!
As Professor Morris constantly reminds us in lecture, the king is intimately related to divinity. He is considered to be the son of the sun god Re, who is the supreme god of all Egyptian gods. I think the king's power must come from this notion that he is, in fact, not mortal and therefore he must be pleased in order for the lives of everyone else to be prosperous. In the "Songs in Honor of Senworsret III", the Pharaoh is said to have "[enclosed] the Two Lands with the deeds of your hands...slaying the bowmen, without striking a blow, shooting an arrow, without drawing a bow." Further, the king is closely related to the agricultural climate on which the bulk of Egyptian population relied on: "How great is the Lord for his City! Yea, hje is a shade [in] the Inundation season, a cool place in Summer...a warm, dry corner in time of Winter". Somehow, according to Egyptian political ideology, the king is able to attribute many natural phenomenons to himself. This makes me wonder whether the majority of the population knew deep down, on some level, that the king really was just a mortal or that he was actually someone with divine powers. In "The Loyalist Instructions", the father tells the son that "[the king] is the one who makes (the land) green, even more than a high inundation; he has filled the Two Lands with victory and life." This might serve as an explanation for why people may have deeply and truly believed that the king possessed some kind of supernatural powers because this wisdom is passed down from father to son and based on the diction of the father, he really seems to believe what he says and considers those words to be important enough to pass down to his son.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Linjia that the king's power centers on his divine status. This also serves as an explanation for the power/responsibility given to the king's viziers and other high officials who work closely with him. Much of their significance derives from menial tasks related to the king (i.e. royal sandal-bearer). Sometimes, however, particular royal servants are favored who bypass the relatively insignificant conventions and instead, take on the role of an "agent" of the king.
ReplyDeleteWeni, by his own account, acts as the king's count, sandal-bearer, army general, tutor, overseer of officials, judge, lector priest, warden of Nekhen, and royal servant. In many instances, the king simply gave him a title and expected him to act appropriately. Even in circumstances where much more qualified leaders were present (i.e. royal sealbearers, chieftains, estate rulers) to head the army, Weni was instead appointed. Of course, this implies a meaningful relationship between Weni and the king, which he himself admits: "...the heart of His Majesty was filled with me".
This makes me wonder how technically capable certain kings are to lead and control Egypt, when particular servants of theirs are so wholly needed to do nearly everything for them. Without Weni, its unclear how well the king would have ruled. On the other hand, it certainly brings home the point that kings were elevated to divine levels, because their demands would simply not be met otherwise. It seems the power to delegate becomes the only real, actionable power of the king. Maybe this is what Professor Morris meant when she said, "the king could be so powerful he was powerless".
I had two texts really strike me. The first was that of Weni. Weni, unlike many Egyptians, was able to work his way up the ranks. He began as a mere overseer of the store house, and he recognizes this. Throughout his autobiography he discusses his various promotions and how much the king loved him. I found this to be a bold move. Every paragraph or so, Weni is mentioning that the "heart of his majesty is filled with me". He asked the king to get him a sarcophagus from Tura, which had the best limestone in Egypt. This seems like a bold request also. This was usually something meant for the king, not someone in a lesser position. Weni was also constantly bragging about his accomplishments. He says of his men that "not one of them struck his fellow, so that not one of them took away a loaf of break of a pair of sandals", ect. He talks of his army returning safely after burning crops and slain troops. Weni was surely accomplished, but his story is almost certainly embellished.
ReplyDeleteThe second story the struck me was that of Amenemhet, who was a Nomarch. He, much like Weni, brags of his accomplishments. He says there were no losses in his army and they returned safely and he accomplished everything that he was asked to do. He also brags about his high moral character saying he didn't violate anyone, or punish anyone and that no one was poor or hungry under him. Often, this is something that the pharaohs would say so the fact that Amenemhet is crediting himself shows how much power he has as a nomarch. This would have been a huge problem for the pharoah as Amenemhet tried to immortalize himself.
Reading the primary texts this week, I was most struck by the amount of responsibility and hope invested in the person of the king. In the Loyalist Instruction, it says that the Pharaoh is he who "makes (the land) green, even more than a high inundation”, as well as being identified with Khnum, Bastet, and Sakhmet later on in the Instruction. It seems that, despite the great privileges that the king enjoyed in Egypt, there was also a lot of pressure to conform to a very specific image of a strong, all-powerful leader. For me, this was particularly emphasized in the secondary text by Erik Hornung, when he suggested that during the reigns of weaker kings cults of sacred animal worship and worship of the dead often dominated (p.313). It is as though when a king was unable to live up to these high expectations, his worship was abandoned.
ReplyDeleteI found this theme repeated in the Senwosret III Cycle of Songs, particularly in the third song when “How great is the Lord for his City!” is constantly followed by different claims of the king’s power. As Professor Morris mentioned in lecture on Wednesday, it seems that the pharaoh was not as powerful as he seemed to be, because he was constricted by not only various rituals and taboos, but also by the expectations to expand the boundaries of Egypt, serve the gods, and protect Egypt from its enemies. Although, from our study of government officials, it is most likely that almost all of these responsibilities were delegated to others, the pharaoh was ultimately seen as responsible for all of this.
In some ways the role of the pharaoh reminds me of that of a president or other modern-day head of state - as an individual President Obama is often held responsible for all actions performed by his government, and yet in reality much of what goes on has been delegated to sub-committees and other officials within the government.
As Professor Morris stressed, royal officials of Ancient Egypt were often ‘jacks of all trades’ because they truly acted as stand-ins for the king. I couldn’t help but notice the irony of a king regarded as so awesomely powerful needing so much help. This concept, to me, describes what the Professor meant when she said ‘the king was so powerful he was powerless.’ The instructions for Rekhmire the Vizier were a great example of the vast amount of tasks a high royal official performed and also continued the theme of Royal supremacy that was so common among all aspects of Egyptian life.
ReplyDeleteWhile I initially thought I was aware of the amount of power the Vizier had, I was surprised after reading this by the vast array of duties he was entrusted. Among his duties, he had to keep in constant contact with the treasury, keep track of all those entering/exiting the palace, listen to the affairs going on in all districts, take complaints, help gather troops, dispatch mayors their plows for harvest-time, and more. I was struck by the immense amount of power, and responsibility, entrusted to the Vizier/s of the time. The king may have been the official power holder, but I certainly found the Vizier to have more overall control of the land.
Other than giving insight into the Vizier’s wide array of duties, this passage continued the theme of the Royal wealth and supremacy. The Vizier got to enjoy a lavish home and workplace, described as being filled with rare leather books, a high chair, a baton, and many servants. The Vizier was not only above commoners in his wealth, but also in his duties. Ultimately, he is described as ‘bringing evil to him who committed it.’ This is obviously quite a big task. Hence, to summarize, the Vizier had a wide range of arduous jobs, but along with this, he certainly got to enjoy Royal power and wealth. -- Caroline Miller
Last week in class, Professor Morris thoroughly expressed the different responsibilities that royal officials held in the social ladder. However, these duties were greatly emphasized in the readings this week. Professor Morris stated last week that the king could be "so powerful he was powerless." This is greatly portrayed in the Duties of the Vizier when the various tasks are explained. The king acts purely as a figurehead by delegating all of his obligations to the royals, nobles, and overseers. The king gains his respect by taking the credit for all of the successes of his kingdom like when a battle is won or when the suffering from natural disasters is alleviated.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed in the text that when the king is being referred to, the first letter K is lower case. However, Pharaoh has a capital P. I thought this signified that this notion of a higher all-mighty Pharaoh was god-like and praise-worthy. However, the word king was not as highly noted, since it was just the person fulfilling that role in that moment in time. I thought this lettering depicted great symbolism to their actual role in society.
Royal officials such as the vizier must follow very meticulous rituals when performing their duties. For example, it states that when dealing with the governor, the arrangement shall have "a rug upon the floor, and a dais upon it, a cushion under his back, a cushion under his feet...and a baton at his hand." Their roles and actions are significant in the functioning of society and it is clearly demonstrated when the officials are portrayed with the king’s seal around their neck.
I found it very interesting how the pharaoh was given so much responsibility - involving him in everything from natural occurrences (like the sun rising) to catering to every god, to keeping Egypt running on a day-to-day basis. Obviously, one man could not realistically do even a fraction of all the responsibilities Egyptians placed upon him. I would assume that they also knew this, which brings up a question of mine. Why did they continue to support this image of an all-powerful Pharaoh (with a capital P, as explained by Samantha)? Or is that just how the elite chose to portray the king to the masses, to inspire awe - and quell any thought of rebellion?
ReplyDeleteThis ties back into Professor Morris' phrase that the king was so powerful that he was powerless. From the vizier text, it seems that it was he who did most of the political duties of the king. He was given all the knowledge privileges as the king, and all the officials were commanded to listen to his "justice." This leads me to believe that the king was merely a figurehead to inspire the people, and he delegated the vast majority of actual responsibilities to his carefully selected high officials.
In the autobiographies in Simpson, the officials such as Weni and Harkhuf show how they rose in status and came into the good graces of the King. They repeatedly talk about how they are below others in position but when it comes to the King, they are more popular than those who are, in rank, above them. This shows a unique relationship between king and official. Though one may not be the highest official possible, they can gain a close tie to the king through good deeds and personality. This fact raises the question of whether Weni or Harkhuf or other officials for that matter had good intentions when forming this close relationship with the king or if it was “sucking up” or for personal benefit. Eyre, who analyzed Weni’s career, comments on his personality: “’From his own account he fitted the Egyptian ideal of the selfless, self-effacing, effective royal servant . . . reality is likely to have involved a degree of ruthless opportunisms’” (Simpson 402).
ReplyDeleteThe king “could be so powerful, he was powerless”. The best way I can explain this, with the help of the readings and lecture, is that the king has so many responsibilities, is looked at as divine, and is in the highest position of power in all of Egypt that it is impossible for him to be in control of all these aspects. When he appoints others to do things in his place, is that a sign of weakness? Do the officials below him see this as weakness? Officials may take the power given to them by the king and use it for the good of Egypt or for the good of themselves. In any case, if the king appoints others to do tasks for him, he is giving up some of his power, and if he gives a lot of his power away for other officials to take, he is essentially powerless except for the fact of his divinity, which sets him apart from those who try and overthrow him.
What stood out to me the most in Knumhotep II's autobiography was his continued use of the word "effective." When describing his rule over Menat-Khufu, Knumhotep writes "...I made it effective" (Simpson, 422). There is no kind of elaboration as to just how Knumhotep was effective as a ruler. Throughout the text, there does not seem to be any solid event, plan, or decision that made Knumhotep as effective as he says he was.
ReplyDeleteThe only tangible achievement which Knumhotep mentions is that he "taught all the crafts which had disappeared within this town" (424). The vagueness of this statement leads me to believe that he may not have actually done much for his people, concerning craftsmanship. It would make him seem like a more “effective” nomarch if he had written about a specific craft, rather than simply saying he had restored all crafts. We find that the real reason for this was so his “name might be effective on every memorial… established for [him]…” (424). We can conclude from this that Knumhotep was concerned with others’ perception of him, rather than performing the duties that his position entailed. At least half of the text is dedicated to describing individuals other than himself, but who have relation to him. This not only draws the attention of the reader away from his inadequacy, but also shows that he was an important man despite that. In addition to Knumhotep II’s apparent ineffectiveness, he writes that both his father and his son “brought back into order that which [they] had found laid waste” (421, 423), but does not write that about himself. About the position of a nomarch such as Knumhotep II during the Middle Kingdom, one may conclude a) that he personally did not effect a specific change in his nome, b) that his good relationship with the king allowed for nepotistic action, and c) that his posthumous appearance of effectiveness may have memorialized him as just that, to an uncritical eye.
The thing that interested me the most was the extent of hope and trust the people had in their pharaohs. My reaction was ‘wow. Really?’ when reading Cycle of Songs in Honor of Senwosret III (302) where they credit their Godlike Pharaoh for everything good that is happening, such as protecting its borders “Who has protected the land, and has extended its borders” (302). Also, they say things such as that the rivers are happy for him “How jubilant are the two river banks in awe of you” (303) and compare him to Sekhmet the goddess of plague and warfare. This comparison also reminded me of the Greek myth and reminded me how similar Egyptians and Greeks were in the way they praise their lords. It also questioned me what the common people would have thought when good things that credit their pharaoh was not happening but the opposite. What if the land was under attack by others all the time, suffering? what if the pharaoh passed away quickly? Would the common people still believe it or would they just pretend to believe him as the divine pharaoh? I guess it was a great responsibility for the pharaoh to take a very good care of the land and the people, that he is at a divine status.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Weni’s autobiographie, which I felt strange intimacy between he and the pharaoh, because he says that he was all about the Pharaoh and he was all about him too, I doubted if he was telling the truth. It made me feel less of the Pharaoh because Weni was demanding stuff from the Pharaoh quite boldly, which could be indeed true if they were that close. It is without doubt that Weni was a good servant, if all the accomplishments he had listed in the paper were true, but it weird that I can sort of picture him as one pompous servant who likes to exaggerate stuff when telling others.
In both “Cycle of Songs in Honor of Senwosret III” and “The Loyalist Instruction from the Sehetepibre Stela” the king is revered in the most sacred manner. It is clear from these texts, that the Pharaoh was seen as super-human, a deity. Even considering the what was lost in translation, the language used in both documents parallels that of the bible, expressing the importance of this central being. The four songs which honor Senwosret III stress, not only his power, but his prominence in keeping Egypt stable. “Who has protected the land,” “who takes possession of the Two Lands as one vindicated,” “How jubilant are the Two lands because of your vigor, For you have protected their ramparts,” are just a few of lines that mention the king’s great ability to unite the two kingdoms of Egypt.
ReplyDeleteThe instructions form a loyalist had the same tone of utter reverence, as it too mentions the Pharaoh's power to united the Two Lands. What I found interesting about the instructions is that it is formatted as a lesson to the writer's son, instructing him how to honor the kings. He tells his son, “Adore the king....Place His Majesty in friendly fashion in your thoughts.” This illustrates that honoring the king wasn’t solely an individual belief but one that was passed through a family, from father to son. And, even more so in this text, do the writings feel very Biblical, with the mention of how the king “has filled the Two Lands with victory and life” and how “he is one who makes (the land) green”. These passages can easily be compared to the creation of earth in the Old Testament.
I noticed a few similarities between the Three Autobiographies of the Old Kingdom (Weni the Elder, Harkhuf, and Qar). First, the phrase “I gave bread to the hungry and I clothed the naked” (408 and 415) appears multiple times throughout the autobiographies – specifically in Harkhuf’s and Qar’s. This “I can do all” attitude seems to be extremely prevalent in the writings of Egyptian culture (especially for people of higher social status). Both Harkhuf and Qar also write about being beloved by their families as well. This makes me wonder what is the relationship between work and family? Which was more important?
ReplyDeleteAlso, Weni the Elder, Harkhuf, and Qar seem to have many different titles. For example, Weni the elder describes himself as overseer of the store house, sole companion and overseer of the palace, body guard, judge, overseer of the officials of the palace, head of the army, tutor of the Great Estate, sandal bearer, and overseer of the southland (402-407). At first, I thought Weni the Elder was bragging (which he probably was), but I also remember Professor Morris explaining in class that even if a person carries out a job only once then they can add that job title to their name. Weni the Elder writes, “His Majesty had me go down to judge, my being singled out, there not being any vizier or any official there except for me, because of my excellence, because of my being rooted in the estimation of His Majesty and because of His Majesties heart being filled with me (403). This further illustrates the pride Weni feels toward serving His Majesty. Weni the Elder sees himself as the best and most excellent and brags about these accomplishments. It is also notable that His Majesty is capitalized. This highlights the importance and significance of the king in Egypt.
I don't know if I should be amazed by how much some of these men who are very close to the king had done, or why they did so much for him. As far as I can tell from mainly Weni's biography, he seems to be an incredibly talented man who had been a scribe, a tutor, a sandal-bearer, an official, and a vizier. He was the overseer of the officials of the palace, and he claims that "I was excellent in the estimation of His Majesty, for I was rooted in the heart of His Majesty, for His Majesty filled his heart with me" (405). Weni must have been a very talented man - but what I don't understand is why and how everyone followed the king to this extent. I understand that he was a god, a god-human, and a vessel for gods to act upon Earth, but it is difficult for me to understand how a faith can influence and control a vast number of people, both rich and poor, old and young.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that interested me was how similar Weni is to us when it came to self-praising. He concludes his autobiography with "I was one indeed beloved of his father, praised of his mother, and favored by his brothers. The count, true overseer of the southland, venerated before Osiris, Weni" (407). However, this seems to contradict how he is depicted in the introduction to his autobiography: "From his own account he fitted the Egyptian ideal of the selfless, self-effacing, effective royal servant" (402). Does selflessness not include boasting about his achievements in his autobiography?
Regarding what Professor Morris said about how the king could be "so powerful he was powerless", I agree with everyone who has written above; the king in reality had no power because he was too divine to suffer any political, religious, or physical damage from his personal actions.
I think an interesting way to analyze these texts is to do so by keeping a close eye on the language and imagery that they are using. The Cycle of Songs in Honor of Senwosret III is the first piece that I read, and is a series of 6 songs “composed for the arrival of the king at a town south of Memphis” (Simpson 301). They are all written differently, but in similar formats with a specific phrase repeated throughout each. All of the poems showcase the king’s divinity and absolute power; speaking incessantly about the “fixing of boundaries” and protection of Egyptian citizens. All the poems focus greatly on natural imagery, something we have come to learn as common practice in Ancient Egypt; poem number 3 is a great example of this. Each line beings with: “How great is the Lord for his City!” and ends with a comparison of the king to some powerful, natural occurrence, like “he is a mountain which wards off the stormwind at the time of tempest” (Simpson 304).
ReplyDeleteThe Loyalist Instruction From the Sehetepibre Stella is a short piece “admonishing the author’s children to respect and obey the king” (Simpson 172). This piece also represents the king as beyond divine, stating that “He is Perception, which is in all hearts, and his eyes pierce through every being” (Simpson 173). This statement grants the king powers beyond worldly abilities or natural occurrences; past conscious admiration into the realm of the human soul. Also exploring natural imagery, the piece describes him as Re: a ray of sunlight who “illuminates the Two Lands even more than the sun disk” (Simpson 173). Ancient Egyptians were, in many ways, slaves to nature as much as they were to their gods and kings. Living in a society so greatly dependent on natural forces beyond their control, they came to compare powerful figures to those mighty forces. This created dominant leaders with command beyond the sphere of normal human authority; kings with temperaments like nature. This idea of natural imagery and symbolism is an idea I find extremely compelling, and frequent among Ancient Egyptian literature.
In ancient Egyptian society, it's pretty obvious by the two primary texts this week that the pharaoh was put first in all respects.
ReplyDeleteThe king was addressed by a myriad of titles ranging from "Lord of the City" (Simpson 304), the five-part titulary, and the names of the actual deities themselves. To his people, he was the embodiment of the god on earth as was stated in lecture. The key thing to note here though is that the Egyptians weren't comparing the kings to gods. When the texts say something such as "He is Sakhmet against those who disobey his orders, and the one with whom he disagrees will be laden with sorrows" (Simpson 173), "like or "as" are intentionally left out. This would set the royals down a notch from divine, therefore making the act of ruling over the country more difficult. Citizens would be less likely to fear questioning the king's decisions if they knew it was a "human ruling over human" relationship.
The songs dedicated to pharaoh credited the nation's victories to him alone. They also noted his ability to "[slay] bowmen, without striking a blow, [shoot] an arrow, without drawing a bow,...[and] whose slaughtering [caused] thousands to die among the barbarians (Simpson 302). He also was in charge of natural occurrences such as "warding off storm winds", "illuminating the Two Lands", and "making (the land) green" (Simpson 304,173). During his reign, the pharaoh was expected to keep nature in check and bring prosperity. If he wasn't doing a good job on the throne, the elements would be sure to make it known.
The country looked to the kings not only as providers but as protectors as well. "The one who praises him will be protected by his arm" (Simpson 173). The military campaigns sought to secure the country's already existing boundaries and expand them farther. Above all, he was the unifier, who kept both sides of the country together under his control.
The various names displaying status, the supernatural powers, and an almost paternal duty to his country were the main components revolving around Pharaoh.
What I can't seem to wrap my head around is the main reason behind the Egyptians' conviction that the pharaoh was divine, a point appropriately brought up earlier by my peers. Was it because the Egyptians were just that uneducated, that they didn't know mortals were mortals and incapable of being anything else? Or was it because they valued tradition so much that whatever they learned via word of mouth was the absolute truth? Was it because they respected the king so much out of fear rather than love that they dared not deny his claims to power for fear of execution? "Nostrils are cool when he starts to rage, but when he sets in peace, one can breathe the air" (Loyalist Instruction). Drawing on from what we know about the actual futility of the king's power, this line alone conjures up the image of the king's high officials and how they are really the ones to set the tone for the king's demeanor; those who acted on behalf of the king struck fear in the people, yet interestingly enough, it is the king who likewise struck fear in his overseers.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, what happened when the kingdom still had political and economic plights despite having worked devotingly? Did this ever lead to suspicion that there was fault with the king, whether with his being or with corruption he may have been practicing? What about the magicians? Considering their diagnoses to ailments, it wouldn't appear that the inflicted were so often cured. What I'm more interested in are the texts that may have pointed to these suspicions. There are always the skeptics in every society, so I want to know what their thoughts were. Moreover, I want to know the Egyptians' thoughts on truth, as mentioned earlier...Egyptian philosophy as comparable to the philosophies of their contemporaries that we seem to know considerably more about, perhaps because we relate to a more logical, rational procession of thought as that found, for instance, in Greek philosophy versus the reliance on the supernatural, the superstitious and the heart in Egyptian thought.
Additionally, I had brought up this point in an earlier discussion, but in lieu of the diction and syntax of, for instance, "The Loyalist Instruction from the Sehetepibre Stela," I wonder how much Christianity played a role in Egyptian literature, or vice versa. The way points are brought up about the king in the excerpt is reminescent of the way points are brought up about God himself in the Bible's Book of Proverbs.
I'm sorry, my computer's clock was one hour slow so I didn't notice that it was already almost 6... Hope my doesn't count as a late submit :(...
ReplyDeleteFor last week, we have read Weni’s three different autobiographies of high officials, and the fact that they strongly believed that they were King’s favorites beyond their rank was very interesting to me The source says, “I acted so that His Majesty praised me in carrying out bodyguard service, in preparing the royal road, and in carrying out the royal stations. I acted to perfection, so that His Majesty praised me because of it more than anything,” and it appears to be that the praise from king was regarded as the highest honor that the officials could get. A phrase like “reached the sky” to praise the king even shows a superficial, saccharine aspects of those officials as well. This one-sided belief enabled me to easily understand how the officials perceived their gods as well. The unprecedented boons and over-respect even seem over-exaggerating but it is understandable because they believed the king is the god. It seems that they wanted to portray themselves in this manner so that they could live a sort of eternal glory as an important historical figure and not be forgotten and hand over good environments to future generations. Comparing this with today’s politics, I think there is no difference. Officials suck up to their bosses to get more rich. The essential greed and desire have been always same as I suppose to say.