This past week we focused on two groups that had access to various types of information: scribes and priests. These professional identities overlap in many ways as they required specialized knowledge bound up in literacy and in some cases, communication through supernatural channels.
For this week I want you to try focusing on one or two lines from one of the primary sources and using your chosen evidence as a platform for discussing a larger theme talked about in class thus far. This will be good practice for your final papers in which you will tackle broad subjects like ethics or religion and have to support your arguments with details from several types of texts. You can also uses primary texts quoted in the Donadoni volume and Pinch PDF as well.
Feel free to tackle whichever topics spark your interest but here are some suggestions if you are feeling stuck:
access to wisdom/knowledge
overlap between scribes and priests (ie lector priests)
relationship between these professions and the king
social hierarchy as evidenced by these professions
importance of the written word and names
relationships between religion and politics
and many, many more....
Egyptian society was, like other societies in history, built upon a social caste system where different people were entitled to things befitting their stations in life. In other words, there was a rank of people, determined by who their parents were and what profession they held. Money and wealth also played an important factor in establishing reputation and class.
ReplyDeleteIn Egypt, scribes were also subject to rankings and a hierarchy. Some of the scribes were considered more important than others. For example, a scribe of the king was considered far more important and influential than a scribe who recorded things in the market place or for farmers.
In the PDF, Papyrus Anastasi I: A Satirical Letter, Wentz talks about the rank of a military scribe, someone who took on the position of a writer but who also took part in making certain military decisions and was on the inside of all information passed along by the Pharaoh. One line that really stuck out to me was this:
"See here, you are the scribe who issues commands to the army. Men hear what you have to say, and you are not bypassed. You are expert as a scribe, and there is nothing which you are not ignorant of " (Wentz 102).
Although the this quote is very simply written, it is definitely apparent that this adds to the idea of a social hierarchy in Egypt. It basically shows that someone at this level of rank demanded respect and was given as much by almost everyone. In addition to the aspect of being literate, scribes also had this reputation for being all knowing, which added to their overall significance and even game them a sense of divinity.
On a side note, because scribes were one of the few who were able to read and write in Egyptian society, they were sometimes able to take advantage of those they provided for or advised. Not only could they influence lower members of society and tell them what to do, but in some rare circumstances could even have a large influence on the King, who didn't always know how to read or right. Intelligence can get people places in life, if only they know how to use it correctly and appropriately.
Just like the other professions though, there had to be a sense of rank in order to ensure that society was run efficiently. In a way, this hierarchy of scribes could be said to have mimicked that of the rest of society. Without farmers, there wouldn't have been artists and merchants and laborers. Without the laborers, there wouldn't have been any pyramids, tombs, or temples. Without temples and tombs, there would have been no resting places for the gods and the pharaohs. Each person had a role to play in society in order for it to run smoothly and continue advancing.
Those who questioned authority and their superiors were punished for disrupting the hierarchy they lived in. Did they do something wrong? Where was their freedom of speech and religion? Unfortunately, there was no such thing in Egypt at the time, which is what made it both so great and so different from the society we know of today.
Obviously, scribe was a very important part of Egyptian life. It seems like writing was conceived as a form of art in the early Egyptian history, then became mere necessity, a device to record. According to the text, “the word used to describe the work of the scribe is related to the primary meaning of “to paint”” (80). Later days, as more scribes were needed, “literate clerks responsible for administrative registers” wrote in an “increasingly cursive, though less elegant, script” (79). I feel like the word “elegant” describes scripts as form of art, more than just words.
ReplyDelete“In any case, the figurative character of Egyptian script, at least that used on monuments, required not only the ability to write but also experience in drawing and, often, painting. In this context the social position of the scribe was essentially the same as that of the salaried craftsmen” (80)
It’s also interesting how copyists, not even aㅜ original author, put signatures on their works to guarantee its quality, as if artists use their signatures on their own works.
Scribes were grouped with other artisans, but as time goes, the importance of writing and recording has increased. And in the New Kingdom, educations were encouraged and scribes acquired precise social connotations: “Scribes became a genuine intellectual class, no longer necessarily producing culture on behalf of the palace but also producing it for their own privileged “caste”” (77) Being a scribe seems to be a way out of their caste for the lower caste people, since the scribes often got a position of higher officials, often that does not even require any writing skills.
Scribal training was a “preliminary for more elevated careers.” People with scribal training later serves as a general, priest, author, and other jobs, even Pharaoh, in extreme cases. And title of scribe must have been acknowledged title since a lot of figures in different positions kept the titles of scribe.
More and more texts were needed. Writing is essential for theology and sciences. Language was needed everywhere, and there were only so many scribes, to help all the illiterate people. Scribes wrote written messages, prepare reports and draft legal documents. Good thing that education was encouraged and people in general kept record of things. Otherwise, we would’ve been left with no records of Egyptian history at all, and had to guess their lives according to archaeological findings, as we do with history of Egyptian Peasants.
Throughout the scribal readings, there seems to be a recurring theme of older scribes attempting to highlight the positive aspects of a scribe's life. Apparently, the older scribes often tried to persuade the younger scribes to stay in scribal school. This suggests that many of the younger scribes wished to leave scribal school, either to become soldiers, or to pursue a profession that seemed more exciting and enticing. In “The Hardships of the Soldier’s Life,” a supposedly older scribe inquires a young scribe what he sees in being a soldier, since, as the older one states that a soldier’s “head is split open with a wound. He is laid down and he is beaten like papyrus. He is struck with torments” (Simpson, 441).
ReplyDeleteWhile the older scribe’s depiction of a soldier’s life is not entirely fictional, I believe that some aspects were exaggerated or highlighted in order to try to scare off the younger scribe from becoming a soldier. This demonstrates that there must have been many scribes who wished to leave scribal school, and that the older scribes were desperate to keep them there, instead of going off to be soldiers or farmers. I think this indicates that the life in scribal school must have been demanding and tiresome, since it led to so many scribes wanting to leave. The scribes who wanted to become soldiers or farmers must have known of the hardships that soldiers and farmers face, yet the scribes still wanted to leave. The older scribes, seeing this, must have conjured up ghastly and gory tales of the supposedly miserable lives the soldiers and farmers led.
It is understandable that the scribes were adamant about keeping the younger scribes in scribal school, since the art of recording things into the written word was a very valued trait in Egypt. Alessandro Roccati describes the importance of scribes in Egypt stating, “[t]o possess writing was also to possess the only language” (Donadoni 63). Evidently, scribes played a central role in deciphering important topics in Egypt, which explains the need of the older scribes to keep the younger scribes in scribal school.
It is interesting to note the similarities and differences between priests and scribes, particularly as lector priests are described in the Pinch reading. Both scribes and lector priests are regarded fairly highly in the social hierarchy yet are somehow removed from society. The lector priests, as Pinch says, do not participate in the main events priests do; they are somewhat removed. This is likely in deference to their importance, but still may have been isolating. Scribes also felt this, as their duty was to document daily life across ancient Egypt without participating in it.
ReplyDeleteThe prestige of scribes and lector priests and the advantages these positions give is also of note. Both are privy to information that no one else can see. Scribes, however, seem to get mostly political information, whereas lector priests get access to holy books and magic volumes. Scribes cannot really profit off of the information they read; however, Pinch implies that by performing certain magic rites, priests may have been able to get paid for their services and receive a bit more for their work.
When I first read about the scribes it seemed like they had a lot of power socially and a lot of responsibility to their community. The term “lector priest” or hri-tp assumed the skills of the scribe but was considered superior still, since there was a ritual component connected to the title holder. Teasing apart the differences between the written word and names used reveal the values that underlie Egyptian society.
ReplyDeleteThe title of lector priest came from the word for leader. Titles listed on the papyri of Abusir seem to refer exclusively to the need for documentation and the use of hieratic administrative writing (Donadoni, 67). The written word was important for Egyptians and they believed the moon god Thoth created languages and writing---he created hieroglyphic writing and hieratic. Thoth was said to have a figure of a baboon which soon represented the word “scribe” and Thoth is said to be the scribe and “lector priest” of the gods. I read the word used to describe the work of the scribe is related to the primary meaning of “to paint” which evokes a comparison to the work of a scribe to the work of a painter: creating. The priests are also working to create a platform for their land’s virtues and a sounding board for its vices.
What is also interesting is that the priest hierarchy was completely up to the individual’s fate and therefore we can’t speak of Egyptian priesthoods but of each one instead. The stretch of time that a priest climbs the hierarchy is dotted with title changes: from wab-priest to those entrusted with the reading of the scared texts. Those who are high in the rank are given the title magician, who echoes my earlier observation that the titles given to roles and words used were very important—so we learn that magic was almost as prestigious as affiliation with the king. One scribe, Amenophis, moved from low-ranking position of royal scribe to highest-ranking royal scribe and became an overseer of all works of the king. Both priests and scribes have duties to document daily life across ancient Egypt with varying degrees of acceptable participation in it.
Scribes and priests are both expected to uphold high standards, regardless of rank. “You are expert as a scribe, and there is nothing which you are not ignorant of " is a line that encapsulates this sentiment (Wentz 102). A line that also sticks out to me as a marker of exclusivity is “it is clear, therefore, that access to the temples were reserved to a restricted group of specialists: priests and their auxiliaries” (Donadoni, 136).
The idea of hierarchy is a serious and prominent theme throughout all of Egyptian culture. It is true that Egyptian culture was formed on this idea of hierarchy, in that the pharaoh was at the top, then priests, scribes. etc. Even at these specific levels, there were still hierarchies in professions. There were different priests, primary, secondary, etc, and many soldiers, for example, had different roles as dictated through the corvee. However, the true hierarchy in Egyptian culture is religion and the sense of security. The Egyptian gods are the highest power. All the actions of the Egyptians are to please the gods
ReplyDeleteAs stated by Poryphory, “But these (philosophic priests), having relinquished every other employment, and human labours, gave up the whole of their life to the contemplation and worship of divine natures and to divine inspiration; through the latter, indeed, procuring for themselves honor, security, and piety” (Donadoni 124). This outlook on priesthood concentrates on spirituality, but several words seem to dictate more than just spirituality and belief.
The three words he uses, honor, security, and piety, are the essential goals behind all aspects of Egyptian life. Kings, priests, and scribes, all dictate their lives for the honor of the afterlife and that their actions will be remembered, even through their deaths. Honor, coupled with determination, could help a person emerge as a hero in society and help them gain advancements. Security, brought upon by this honor, would guarantee the people’s longevity in history—their inevitable place with the gods.
What is curious to note is that the king, himself or herself, was considered a god. Because of this fact, the pharaoh had a special relationship with the gods, although it was not exclusive. If the king did, in fact, have this special relationship with the gods, why was it necessary to even have these priests? The king was the high priest to the gods, and was, thus, in charge of maintaining peace and maat. This is where the line between religion and politics not only seems blurry, but does not exist at all. Because all Egyptians wished to live forever, their politics, thus, had to correspond to this belief. Therefore, much of political life and stability was through the reliance and faith in religion and the various gods.
One thing we can see in the ancient Eygptian society is that that many of the viziers of the Pharaoh had a religious background, and most held both a position as a priest, the head of the religious world, and a position as the vizier, the head of the secular world. This holding of dual positions can be seen in the tomb inscription of Padineit: "he who judges foreign lands as Egypt, the eyes of the king of Upper Egypt, the ears of the king of Lower Egypt, trusted by Horus in his palace, divine father and beloved of the god, sam-priest, prophet of Ptah and servant of Horus war-wagety, way-priest of the gods" (Donadoni, 127). From this inscription we can see that Padineit was once a trusted personnel of Horus, which may also refer to the Pharaoh, since the Pharaoh was suppose to be Horus in flesh and blood. Padineit was also trusted with being the eyes and ears of the Pharaohs of Upper and Lower Egypt. This must have meant that he held an extremely high position, a position that allows him to see and hear everything the king does. Along with being a person with high political standing, Padineit was also the a "priest, prophet of Ptah and servant of Horus." This shows that not only is Padineit politically powerful, but also spiritually.
ReplyDeleteOne reason the vizier holds both political and religious power is because he is the second man in charge. He is directly under the king and there for should have similar standings as the king. The king is god himself, but the vizier is the prophet of god. The king is the political ruler and the vizier is the one directly under him. Having the vizier hold two positions allow the king to keep tabs on both the political world and the religious world. If the two positions were split between two people the king would have to keep an eye on both person. It may also cause a conflict between religion and politics. By having one person in charge of both politics and religion it allows the king to better keep a hold to his kingdom and prevent any disagreements between religion and politics.
Last class Professor Morris mentioned that the aristocracy desired to have their personal statues constructed as scribes, to relay that they possessed the ability to gain access to infinite knowledge. Among scribes, one was expected to attain a level of perfection in their task. The recipient of the “Papyrus Anastasi I” is obviously being attacked for his terrible grammar and inability to express sentiment in his writing as stated in “…I discovered that it comprised neither praises nor insults. Your sentences are jumbled, this one with that one, and all your words are turned about and disconnected” (101). There is a repetition of the phrase …”is nothing of which he is ignorant” to showcase that the scribe must not fail at his duties, otherwise he will be deemed “more foolish than Kasa, the reckoner of cattle” (103).
ReplyDeleteThe writer’s critique of the recipient of this letter is justifiable because as scribes, they have the ability to excel in their departments and rise to higher statuses and all those who do not take advantage of their opportunities can be cast as possibly being lazy. The author states “You are a Maher-warrior who is experienced in heroic deeds. A Maher-warrior such as yourself should be found qualified at the head of an army” indicating that his incompetence as a scribe has hindered his candidacy for position at the head of the army (107). By lecturing the recipient of the letter, the composer wishes to instruct him to a greater path abundant with riches. He is disappointed with how the recipient can “go to sleep each evening with only a piece of sack-cloth” when many scribes are in much more comfortable surroundings. By being content with modesty this scribe in particular is defiling the status of the scribe.
After reading different texts about scribes, it is certain that scribes were proud of their professions. “Indeed, anyone capable of adopting writing is safer than the mummies enclosed in their luxurious tombs” (Donadoni 61). This shows that possession of scribal skills was the wisest path to take. The idea of scribes as inventors of words did not become prominent until the third millennium. From this period on, scribes continued to climb up the hierarchy of profession. At first scribes were needed through administrative means; they were merely a highly proclaimed profession Since reading and writing were rare skills, many people who possessed those skills were recruited for governmental jobs. Later, they were known as intellectuals. They became more than just a profession. They were known as their own caste. “’Being a scribe,’ at this point, acquired precise social connotations, and it has been observed that the authors of maims during this period (Ani, Amennakhte, Amenemope) all bear the specific title of ‘scribe’’ (77). I wonder if scribes’ pride were due to their high social statuses or their possession of their exceptional skills? Still, scribes made up one of the smallest percentage of all professions. This fact always made me wonder why? Why didn’t people teach each other the skills, or why didn’t they all attended schools if they had the chance?
ReplyDeleteFor the scribes themselves, they become more absorbed into other people’s point of views than their ideal purpose of being creators of words. The concept of superiority within a profession group grew. “This archive reveals the existence of numerous scribes organized into hierarchies according to the increasingly specialized natures of duties performed” (66). This type of grouping became natural. It is part of human nature to desire to become better than friends and/or enemies. In order to be noticed, social hierarchies were created.
Even though there may have been a shift in the true meaning of being a scribe, writing and reading continued to shape Egyptian society. “To possess writing was also to possess the only language. Together they formed an unbreakable bond” (63). Written words were so important to the Egyptians that most of their stories and ideas of the cultures are preserved until today. Preservation and the idea of immortality emerge from the long lasting words painted by the scribes.
While reading Setna Khaemuas and The Mummies, I was struck by a couple of lines halfway through the tale. When the scroll of Thoth is stolen from its repository beneath the sea and its guardian killed, the god Thoth is complaining to Pre, and how he should be entitled to legally pursue the ones that have wronged him. Thoth says, “Ascertain my legal rights and my judgment with Naneferkaptah, the son of Pharoh Mernebptah”. To me, this is pretty incredible that the religious, mythological, political, and legal systems were not exclusive from one another. Nothing in Egyptian culture seems to exist in a vacuum, so within that framework a major deity demanding legal justification for revenge makes sense. This relationship is further evidenced by the gods “mortal” side. Gods ate, partied, drank, procreated, etc.
ReplyDeletePerhaps another way to read this is that the gods were the prototypes, and after they had evolved and developed sophisticated religion, politics, and culture, they created man and transferred all of this into mortal world. Although I'm assuming the laws apply differently to mortals (I doubt a mortal could legally pursue a god, even in a literary sense), there is this solid connection between the laws/politics that mortals follow on Earth and the ones the gods follow in Heaven.
In Ancient Egyptian society, separation between church and state did not exist. It was unheard of to separate these two, for they went hand in hand. Politics were merely controlled by the gods and was delivered to the people through the pharaohs, priests, and scribes. So far in our discoveries of Egypt, my favorite has been about priests and their rituals. I particularly enjoyed the Pinch article and found it interesting to observe the parallels between scribes and lector priests, and the differences between lector priests and main priests. Both scribes and lector priests had to be literate of course, but there was a distinction between the forms of literature in which the two dealt with. Scribes dealt more with the political aspect of reading and writing, for they recorded certain things like who paid taxes, who owned land, etc., whereas lector priests dealt with religious texts. Lector priests held such a high power, for they nearly went crazy with the divine knowledge and texts that they had access to. Lector priests were considered above scribes on the social hierarchy too, for they dealt more with the gods and religion than scribes did.
ReplyDeleteI also found Professor Morris’ comparison of the education of scribes to graduate students to have a lot of truth to it. Scribes required much schooling, like a graduate student, and because of this, they seemed to be behind in “starting their lives.” They married and started a family later than most men did at the time. Yet, it was their choice to be a scribe and to spend a large portion of their life at school, and later received much respect for doing so. Scribes were seen as people with infinite knowledge, considering that they were the small portion literate people in Egypt. This respect that scribes earned is seen in the PDF of Papyrus Anastasi I, when it states “Such a scribe in every respect that there is nothing of which he is ignorant, whose response is sought after in order to ascertain what is best” (p.100). In this document, it is seen how highly viewed a scribe is, simply for just being a scribe.
Scribes were quite obviously important to ancient Egyptian life and to our modern day research of Egyptian history. Without them, record keeping in Egypt would have been non-existent, making order nearly impossible to achieve and who knows what knowledge we'd have of Egyptian culture today? I'd say very little.
I loved reading the Pinch document. I thought it was so informative and written coherently, although some of it did require prior knowledge. Thankfully, after Professor Morris' lecture today, more of the reading made sense to me.
ReplyDeleteTo me, Khaemwaset was the most interesting person to read about and learn about in lecture. The fact that he was so dedicated to the temple and religion of Egypt really stood out to me. It emphasized the point that religion was indeed a very important aspect in their lives. I thought it was also interesting to see how the priests were so interrelated with the gods as well. Everything the Egyptians believed the gods did, the priests and often kings, would have to somehow imitate them. I found out that many kings and royalty were often priests as well, like Prince Khaemwaset. He restored temples and pyramids to please the gods.
I also saw that there was a significant importance of lector priests who "were an important link between the temples and the outside world because they were allowed to use their knowledge to officiate at funerals." This clearly showed the difference between the standards of priests and scribes. Scribes could not really put their knowledge from their readings into use but priests, who often used magic as well, were allowed to use it in religious ceremonies and festivals.
A concept that I find interesting and reoccurring is the strange dynamic that exists between religion and the Pharaoh. Although the Pharaoh is the ruler of the land, he answers to a higher power, leaving him susceptible to manipulation as evidence in the Simpson text. A high priest alone has the potential to be destructive to the Pharaoh, and for that purpose, the high priest is often someone close to the king that can be trusted. However, if a priest has the ability to scribe an entirely new form of betrayal is introduced as is the case in the Simpson text. In the Simpson text, the Pharaoh bestows upon Naneferkaptah everything that he requests. Naneferkaptah challenges the Gods by pursuing Thoth’s scroll, he requests the Pharaoh for the royal yacht and this is bestowed upon him. He then in turn takes his takes his wife and child on this adventure and when the Gods spite him for stealing the scroll of Thoth by attempting to kill him and all of his men he saves himself and does not have the courage to inform the Pharaoh of the loss of his wife and child.
ReplyDeleteIn my perspective, I see this tale as an opposition to the Egyptian religion. It illustrates that a man who serves the Gods and who learns and practices magic can defend himself against the wrath of the Gods and can place himself above the Pharaoh, or at least he can exploit him. It also shows that those with access to wisdom and knowledge can overcome obstacles by manipulating people with this wisdom, as shown in the case of Setna who was not wise enough to discover that Tabubu. Overall, the concept of religion overruling the Pharaoh is one seen often as the Pharaoh is only the hand of the Gods, this probably why Akhenaton outlawed worship. It is safe to say that religion can be manipulated and exploited in almost every culture.
When it comes to the separation of church and state in ancient Egypt, there typically isn’t any separation. The majority of the priests that serve in the temples of the gods also serve officially for the king. For example, “the first prophet of Amun” would also be called the “prince of the city.” This in turn shows the relationship between church and state as well as references the reoccurring Egyptian theme of duality (the fact that a priest isn’t purely ecclesiastical demonstrates this). In Donadoni we see that Padineit, an Egyptian who lived during the Thirtieth Dynasty, held many titles that listed both his ecclesiastical and secular posts. He was prophet of Horus, Bastet, and Ptah while at the same instance “he who judges foreign lands as Egypt,” and “the eyes of the king of Upper Egypt.”
ReplyDeleteIt is correct to say that the relationship between religion and politics in ancient Egypt was a bittersweet one. These two functions go hand in hand and each other’s cooperation is essential. Yet despite this fact they still but heads with one another. For this reason there is an overseer of the prophets who is appointed by the king. There was even an instance where a prophet wanted his authority to supersede that of the king’s. As powerful as religion might be, it appears that politics is still the greater of the two. This is evident from the order of importance that priests give their titles. Montuemhet, who held the position of both fourth prophet of Amun and prince of the city, views his appointment as prince of the city more favorably than his post as fourth prophet of Amun (which at the time the fourth prophet of Amun was a highly regarded position). Thus, in this case and in Montuemhet’s time period, the religious title was devalued by the post of prince of the city.
On another note we can look back at the theme of duality that seem s to be ubiquitous in ancient Egypt. Just as there is heaven and earth as well as there is Upper and Lower Egypt, there also exists religion and politics. Religion and politics thus serve as two sides of the same coin. The coin in this case would be the entire nation of Egypt. In terms of the priest, religion is no more important to them than politics is. Politics are just as essential to the priest and even provide for the better half of his standard of living. As Donadoni puts it, this split between religion and politics, church and state, heaven and earth, actually exemplify the concept of Maat. In this sense, there is a balance between the visible world (that of politics) and the world of the gods (that of religion). One cannot be a part of the former without the latter, or the latter without the former and the Egyptian priest are no exception to this rule.
Based on the readings so far, the link between religion and politics is clearly evident. There is clearly a power struggle between the two. This can be seen in two lines from the Donadoni readings. The first line states, "It was in fact, the king who delegated this function to the high priest of each temple, who was effectively no more than a stand-in for the ruler" (133). The fact that the kings appointed the priests can be explained by the fact that "the first prophet of a god like Amen, Ptah, or Re was a very high-ranking individual who, in certain periods at least, possessed not only the prestige deriving from his religious position but also considerable political power."
ReplyDeleteIt can be infered that the reason the kings were able to revoke or assign the nomination of priests help them maintain their power over the priests. By choosing a representative that benefits them, they can prevent a priest from claiming too much power. Furthermore, the pharaoh themselves are supposed to serve as high priests, and the fact that they are simply "delegating" their power to a priest brings down the priest's status. It can be seen that there is a struggle to maintain the power of the priests under the power of the ruler, but that is hard to do, especially when secular and political authority are so tied in together in Egyptian life.
As I have mentioned before in some of my prior blog posts, social class seems to be a constant factor within ancient Egyptian society. Back then, priests were held in very high regard. In some cases, priests were almost the equivalent of kings, if not actually kings, themselves. The primary function of priests in general were to serve the gods and to keep them happy and content. Within the category of priests, the group is further subdivided into smaller divisions-- one of which is the lector priest.
ReplyDeleteLector priests played somewhat the roles of both scribe and priest-- they had the skills of a scribe, but they were seen as superior because of their abilities to perform rituals and their active roles within the religious community. Also, like other priests and scribes of the time, lector priests were usually fairly wealthy. According to the main text, lector priests were “entrusted with the reading of sacred texts during religious ceremonies” (140). This means they also had access to immense amounts of information and knowledge, and in ancient Egypt, knowledge was power.
The thing I found interesting about lector priests was that they had no real part in the temple hierarchy. However, they were considered an “important link between the temples and the outside world” (Pinch). The primary role that both the main text as well as the Pinch text discussed was that of the lector priests’ contribution to magic in the ancient world. They were often seen primarily as magicians and performed many magical rituals for both the general people as well as kings. Many of these rituals were performed on the priest’s own time, allowing him to reap all of the benefits for himself.
“All written words had power, so all authors might acquire a reputation for magical knowledge” (49).
ReplyDeleteAccording to Pinch, Imhotep is identified as the god of medicine, Aesclepius. he becomes a priest magician who is able to read the books in royal library. Like the scribes, he is able to recognize words and know the meaning of them. Because most of the Egyptian population are illiterate back then, they would especially respect scribes and pistes and see them as magicians who can espresso God's command. This quote also shows that the scribes who know how to writ and read are well acknowledged. Priests and scribes gained the most reputation and respect.
Good reputation of priests is also shown in Prince Khaemwaset’s story in Pinch, 49. During his tenure as High Priest, he dig out impressive underground tombs that existed long time ago and restore many pyramids and temples which had already existed for thousand years at that time. His achievements led others view him as magical "seeker of ancient knowledge" (50).
Because a king is the ruler of the country, he is also seen as magicians, holding impressive powers to rule the country.
Priests and scribes are the bridge between common people and God. Indeed, priests decided the God’s movements in some festivals when the statue of God is brought out for people to ask questions. Scribes, on the other hand, have the responsibility to pass down divine texts. However, in some cases, High Priest’s power even surpasses the King’s power. The King and the priests used the image of God to manipulate common people.