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!
What really interested me was the description of the Duties of the Vizier, which talked about the regulations placed on Rekhmire while he assisted the Pharaoh.
ReplyDeleteThe vizier played an extremely important and influential role in Egyptian society, as he was responsible for making most economic, judicial, and governmental decisions and was responsible for updating the Pharaoh and relaying information to him.
In this article, someone, presumably the Pharaoh, is laying out a list of rules telling Rekhmire not so much what jobs he has, but how he should go about doing them in a noble manner. After all, the vizier had to "be watchful over all that is done...support the whole land" and be the copper protecting the Pharaoh's gold (Duties 1).
Two of the questions mentioned above seem to apply directly to this article. What is the proper decorum for these particular roles and how do officials represent themselves and why? The proper decorum for viziers was to remain both aloof and invested in the matters they handled. They were responsible for being bitter and cold when needed, including an assumption of guilt for defendants in judicial cases rather than innocence (3). The viziers were one of the highest members of the Egyptian administration, often times second only to the Pharaoh himself. Because of that, they were expected to act as such, but also had to be careful because of the threat they posed to the king if they became too powerful. In regards to the second question, officials were very concerned with they way they were viewed because they were expected to maintain order and control. In order to do that, they had to be respected, and sometimes even feared. As Amenhotep II states, "Be not enraged toward a man unjustly, but be thou enraged concerning that about which one should be enraged, show forth the fear of thee; let one be afraid of thee, (for) a prince is a prince of whom one is afraid" (1).
The vizier was also responsible for keeping documents recorded and sending information to other officials through his personal messengers. In addition to the power of his presence at different events, the vizier was also able to extend his power through the written word. He had the influence to say certain things to different people and frame information in the way he saw fit. People also had to go through the vizier to seek an audience with the Pharaoh. If the vizier felt the matter was trivial, the Pharaoh would never even know about what happened. The vizier had the power to tell the king what he wanted him to know, which again goes to show how powerful they were.
Overall, the vizier was a very important position. Whoever was appointed had to act in an official and sophisticated matter, because they were the head of daily occurrences in society and the "mouth" or spokesperson of the king (4).
Weni the Elder undoubtedly occupied many high positions during his lifetime leading to his self-aggrandizing autobiography. The various duties he acquired through his lifetime include “The count and overseer of the southland, overseer of the storehouse, elder lector priest, bodyguard, sole companion and overseer of the palace” etc (Simpson, 402-403). There is a gradual climb throughout his career, signifying a growing closeness with the Pharaoh, and ultimately an increase in his power.
ReplyDeleteWhen Weni discusses his position “at the head of this army”, the word “this” indicates that he does not believe that the army is in possession of the Pharaoh (404). He tries to appear modest when he states “I used to effectuate (military) plans for them, my office being (only) that of the overseer…”, but goes on to repeatedly state that “this army” is actually in his control through the repeated usage of the word “mine” (404). Weni is therefore equating himself with the Pharaoh by claiming ownership of the army.
This theme is not only present in Weni’s autobiography, but is resonant within Harkhuf and Qar’s autobiographies as well. Harkhuf states that he “gave bread to the hungry and…clothed the naked”, which resemble the function of the Pharaoh (408). The Pharaoh is supposed to be credited with providing for his kingdom, even if he did not in actuality. Harkhuf also mentions how he brought foreign goods to Egypt, which were not previously available in Egypt and does not hesitate to credit himself with this achievement (409). Qar similarly asserts that he “gave bread to the hungry and clothing to the naked”, with no reference to the Pharaoh ascribed with this deed (413).
From reading The Loyalist Instruction (172-174), it seems obvious that Ancient Egyptians considered Pharaoh as a god-like figure (or god). Author tells children that the king is the one who makes the land green, the one who illuminates the Two Lands, the one who gives nourishment. His eyes pierce through every being. He is Re, He is Ka, He is Khnum, He is Bastet, and He is Sakhmet. Pharaohs seem to earned respect from people coming from their “innermost parts.”
ReplyDeleteIt seems possible that not only King himself, but also the people chosen by the King earned respect from the people. In page 173, author writes, “the one whom he brought up is one who will be somebody.” I am not sure if “the one whom he brought up” refers to the King’s offspring or the officials elected by the King. Either way, I imagine both King’s children and elected officials were believed to be “somebody.”
Other readings suggest that nepotism was a common practice in Ancient Egyptian society. And often the officials seem to occupy several titles in their lifetime. The word “hereditary” seem to appear quite frequently: “Hereditary prince, count, king’s eldest son,” “Hereditary lord, count, overseer of the city, the vizier,” “hereditary lord and count, royal acquaintance, one beloved of his god, overseer.” (419-420)
And of course, there is Weni. Weni, without a doubt, had a several title during his lifetime. He also writes that the King himself has appointed him to certain officials: “His Majesty appointed me as sole companion and overseer of the officials of the palace.” If that is what it means to be “brought up” by the King, I imagine he earned great respect and expectations from his people.
The majority of the high officials presented in the primary sources — Weni the Elder, Harkhuf, and Amenemhet — display an inclination to play up their own significance and achievements, especially in relation to the king. In the summary for “Weni the Elder,” the author states, “From his own account he fitted the Egyptian ideal of the selfless, self-effacing, effective royal servant” (Simpson 402). In the actual text, however, it was hard for me to pinpoint instances in which Weni was self-effacing. On the contrary, he seems eager to proclaim his achievements and his wonderful relationship with his majesty. Weni claims, “the heart of His Majesty was filled with me more than that of any official of his, any noble of his, and any servant of his” (402). It’s hard to detect much modesty in any of the texts about Weni, or any other officals, for that matter.
ReplyDeleteI think that there must have been a reason the officials stated so proudly of their accomplishments, other than for the pleasure of boasting. They must have believed that if they only recorded their successes, that those will be what they are remembered for, and that their good name will live on forever. I guess they didn’t consider the possibility that people can become skeptical of the officials’ inflated claims, and simply lose trust in officials’ claims of what they did.
Another theme prevalent throughout the texts is that of giving to those in need. In Qar’s text, Qar states, “I gave bread to the hungry and clothing to the naked of those I found in my nome, I gave jugs of milk” (413). Karkhuf also declares, “I gave bread to the hungry and I clothed the naked” (408). The officials’ made sure to made known that they did not ignore the hungry and needy, that they took the time to care for those who were “worse off.” These statements are probably employed to in the hopes that if commoners read their autobiographies, they will be grateful for the supposedly wonderful things they did for the commoners, and that the officials can, again, maintain their good name.
In Khnumhotep II’s text, he reveals a primary reason for creating his tomb chapel. Khnumhotep explains, “My primary distinction consisted of making for myself (this) rock-cut tomb chapel, for a man emulates that which his father has done, as my father made for himself a ka-chapel” (423-424). In addition to the longing for being remembered for eternity, the officials might have been spurred to create a tomb for themselves due to family tradition.
After reading the primary sources, I noticed some underlying themes present when describing the Pharaohs. Considered to be the closest connection to the gods, the pharaohs undoubtedly had tremendous power as they were looked to for sources of inspiration and hope.
ReplyDeleteDue to their influential position, the pharaohs are often described as having both strong military backgrounds as well as having benevolent qualities, two seemingly different and intertwining qualities. This duality is what the pharaoh strives to be remembered by.
In the Songs in Honor of Senwosret III, the king is praised for “shooting an arrow as Sekhmet does” (303). Sekhmet, as indicated in the notes, is the goddess of plague and warfare, so it seems necessary for a military hero to encapsulate the qualities of a praised war goddess. Later in the Songs, the pharaoh is described as “Sekhmet against the enemies who tread upon [his] border” (304). In these descriptions, Senwosret III is remembered as a military hero. Because of his military conquests and bravery, his people are “jubilant.”
This comparison to Sekhmet can also be found in the Loyalist Instruction from the Sehetepibre Stela. In this text, Sehetepibre is constructing his children to respect and obey the king Amenemhet III. He describes the king as being “Bastet, who protects the Two Lands” and as “Sekhmet against those who disobey his orders, and with the one whom he disagrees will be laden with sorrows” (173). In both texts, the pharaoh is seen as this kind ruler who makes the people happy, but also as this relentless military hero who will protect his name and land at all costs. The duality of the pharaoh is what will make the king be remembered in times to come. His duality is his legacy.
The king being so powerful he was powerless refers to the fact that almost every task that we think a pharoah would do was delegated to another. Though it was the Pharoah who was supposed to talk with the gods, we see that that duty is given to the high priest. Though being the leader of the army, the Pharoah rarely actually went out himself; instead, his commander did his work. In both of these cases, however, the legacy left behind is that the Pharoah did the famous army manuevers or that the Pharoah is the one talking to the gods. In this sense, he is powerful. But one look at the list of tasks for the vizier - taking care of petitioners, figuring out lands, gathering troops - and it's a wonder what's left for the king to do. It's almost as if he is just the representation for all the things that must be done, and his only duty is to give the things to others.
ReplyDeleteReading about the Egyptian officials makes me see the importance of maintaining order within their society. Rank and duties were bestowed to those who proved capable of handling the power and trustworthy of being given it.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to regulating Egyptian life by way of their title those in power had regulations placed upon them. In "Regulation laid upon the Vizier Rekhmire" I was struck by just how important and influential the role of Vizier was in Egyptian society. Because the vizier is responsible for making a slew of economic, judicial, and governmental decisions and works directly under the Pharaoh there is a standard of behavior and if that standard is met "official who does this will flourish greatly in the place."
Besides meeting/exceeding this high expectation, viziers were expected to remain aloof and objective. Probably since they could be empowered to be a literal judge and rule to punish or absolve other officials. The vizier attends events and moves about the town in an active way-- but any event or act must be recorded (3). The written word was valued tremendously and used to keep a record of things that transpired and minimize mistakes: "every petition in writing, not permitting that he petition orally" (3).
The relationship between the King and the Vizier is interesting since the King needs to trust the Vizier to be loyal and allow the public to view the vizier as a very high authority. The vizier had to "be watchful over all that is done...support the whole land" and maintain a rational mind even in moments of distress(Duties 1).
From the autobiographies of Weni, Harkhuf and Qar we can see that these high officials greatly praise themselves in their autobiographies. Weni being the best example, seems to constantly portray himself as somewhat of a hero, even in the eye or heart of the king. In Weni's autobiography, we are constantly reminded by how "firmly rooted [Weni was] in the heart of His Majesty" (Simpson 402-403). Not only is he constant on the King's mind but the King trusts him so much that he asked Weni to take an army and fight against the people of Aamu. After the part of the autobiography where the King forms an army for Weni, Weni becomes somewhat of a hero. He no longer regards the army the King gathers for him, the King's army but instead "this army of mine (Weni)" (404-405). Weni mentions how he was able to keep his army safe and utterly destroy the opposing army and their people. Weni writes a great deal about his accomplishments, and spare no details on how amazing he was in order to make a place for himself in history. He wants all who gaze upon his tomb to see how important he was.
ReplyDeleteWeni's autobiography is also very well connected with the Loyalist Instruction. Weni is a great follower of the Loyalist Instruction. He constantly praises the King but also never fails the King. By being not only the model servant of the King but also a model admirer Weni was able to create for himself a reputation almost as powerful as the King. For it says in the Loyalist Instruction, "The one whom the king loves shall be a well-provided spirit" (174). As Weni constantly reminds us, he is constantly being praised by the King, and is always in the King's heart. When I read those words, I do not think of Weni as a servant, but someone who is very close to the King, someone who could be a vizier.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Three Autobiographies of the Old Kingdom clearly depicted the relationship between officials and kings through first person point of views. The defined levels of the social hierarchy were shown through the autobiographies of Weni, Harkhuf, and Qar. The officials and the kings were dependent of each other. The kings probably would not be able to survive without the officials running errands and doing work to them. Vice versa, the officials would not have lived a great life without the kings’ compensations and praise. Reading Weni’s autobiography, I noticed his praiseful tone. It seemed that every other sentences he was praising himself, the king was praising him, or he was praising the king. This showed that officials took great pride in their duty and paid great respect to the king. Officials and kings seemed to have a close relationship, especially in Weni’s piece. “His majesty appointed me as sole companion…” (Simpson 403). In addition to being the king’s sole companion, Weni was appointed to many different position and titles. Weni emphasized his many titles throughout the piece to show the importance of status to Egyptians and pride in oneself. At times, I felt he exaggerated his accomplishments and everything seemed too good to be true. Likewise, He was very obedient to the king and followed all instructions. However, it seemed like there was no direct compensation from the king to his officials. This illustrated importance of social order. It is interesting how kings had the most power, yet they were considered powerless since the officials carried all of their duties and work out. Without the officials doing all of their dirty work, would the Egyptian kings be as powerful as they seemed to be? Also wondered: were the kings especially nice and praiseful to their officials in order to get them to do work or did the kings actually cared and respected their officials?
ReplyDeleteSimilarly in Harkhuf’s and Oar’s autobiographies, they praised their many titles given by the king and his goodness to the public. At one point, Harkhuf described “If you arrive at the royal Residence, this pigmy being with you, living, sound and healthy, My Majesty will do for you something greater than that which was done for the god’s sealbearer Wer-djed-ba…” (411). A sense of urgency and bribery was shown through his words. It made wonder if this ‘something greater’ compensation was worth the effort, or was it simply a praise by the king and his family?
The three autobiographies described three boastful officials. They all stressed the importance of being good and dutiful to the king. This showed their value of immortality. They put emphasis on their achievements because they all wanted to feel important and to be remembered. Let’s face it, who doesn’t want those things?
Throughout the primary sources, it becomes very obvious that these men of importance view themselves very highly. In the text about Weni the Elder, he constantly repeats how he was in the King’s heart and this made him above all the other men in the kingdom. Similarly, Harkhuf speaks of the King’s pride in him even at an early age. This seems to illustrate that not just the position that the men hold is important but how they king perceives them and treats them.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I found interesting was how these individuals viewed themselves in terms of the people that they were stationed to command. For instance, Amenemhet mentions how fairly the people in his Nome were governed. Contrasting this behavior is Weni’s treatment towards people in war, where the safety of the troops was most important and the villages were plundered. This demonstrates that not only did the person have to be favorable in the King’s eye but also he had to be fair to those beneath him and preservative to those fighting with him.
I noticed, especially after reading the primary source of “Weni the Elder” in Simpson, that the pharaoh had seemingly no power, he was only powerful in theory. The ancient Egyptians didn’t view him that way, but looking back now at how power was distributed among high officials, this is clear. The pharaoh was supposed to act as the high priest, the chief general, and the chief of legal authority, among other titles as well. Of course though, he could not perform all of these duties at once, so he dispersed the power among certain people in Egypt. Viziers and other high officials themselves seemed to brag often of their power and viewed themselves highly. Weni, for example was a vizier, which was a position that was held by a mortal with the highest amount of power besides the king, and speaks often of how he “acted for him (the king) as an overseer” (p.406). My question is, wasn’t the king supposed to act as the overseer? Also, Weni repeats on p.405 “this army of mine returned safely.” Again, wasn’t it the king’s army? Through quotes like these, we are able to see how the king’s power is truly distributed.
ReplyDeleteThe king though did set rules for the viziers so that they would not gain too much power and so that their duties were carried out properly, as seen in the “Duties of the Vizier” pdf. According to the king’s set of rules, the vizier was supposed to remain truly invested in whatever task he was doing. The vizier was granted much power and was both respected and feared among the Egyptians because of the amount of power he held.
This week's readings definitely gave me a sense of how important order was in Ancient Egypt. I also learned how the viziers played many and important roles to remain an orderly society in Ancient Egypt. As I read the primary source of Rekhmire, it immediately starts off with how regulation depended on him as a vizier. The level of social status viziers had really stuck out to me when the document stated that "the overseers of hundreds shall report" to the vizier. The vizier seemed to be the only one who can have frequent direct contact with the kings. At the end of the third page going onto the next page, the document proceeds to list all the responsibilities of the vizier, such as sealing documents and appointing positions. After reading this and the Weni document, it seemed to me that the kings and pharaohs actually didn't have as much power as I thought they did. Their power seemed to be distributed among the high officials, but of course, did not exceed the king's authority.
ReplyDeleteTwo things I thought were very interesting in the Duties of the Vizier. The first was that the vizier seemed to act as a sort of intermediary between the King and the people. It is interesting to not how close his contact with the people was. He was the one that had to listen to all of their complaints and to deal with all of their problems. He inspects the water supplies, levies taxes, etc. The extent of the duties attributed to the Vizier is impressive. It is also interesting that it is stressed that he maintains justice when dealing with the people. He also has to listen to all of their concerns and treat everybody equally. He must listen to what they have to say before punishing them.
ReplyDeleteThe second thing that was interesting to me is that the Vizier is told to be tough and to be seen as tough by the people. It is a good thing that he be feared by the people, but at the same time, later on, the Vizier is told to not be proud hearted, because the king loves those that are fearful instead. This seems almost contradictory, but it stresses the power the King had over every single Egyptian.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrom the primary texts, it is obvious that when one is in the king’s favor, he is really in the king’s favor. Weni, for examples seemed to be very beloved by the king and thus received many rewards, favors, and luxuries. This in turn then fills his head with some gas as he starts to think very highly of himself. Who could blame him? Anyone who finds favor with the king deserves some amount of bragging rights. From looking at Weni it seems that the high officials (especially those like Weni who were very close to the king on a daily basis), were more of the king’s proxies than anything else. They did a lot of the work the king would do and went places and did things on his behalf. Weni himself says that “His Majesty had me go down to judge,…” rather than the king doing so himself.
ReplyDeleteWe also see that the pharaoh Is very revered and loved. The loyalist instruction talks about fight on behalf of the king and even worships him as “He is Re…He is one who makes (the land) green… Nostrils are cool when he starts to rage, but when he sets in peace, one can breathe the air (again).” I’ve only seen Amun himself worshipped this much. This also intrigues me because it bears a striking resemblance to biblical praises and worships. The pharaoh is praised in the same manner and with the same respect as God is in the Bible. So the king isn’t just another god, or a minor god, etc., but is in fact a major god; one of the big three: Amun, Pharaoh, Horus (Zeus, Poseidon, Hades if this were Greek mythology).
The Three Autobiographies were of particular interest to me in this reading, because they showed three distinct views of nobility (or, is it aristocracy?) and their relationship with the central power in Egypt, the King. Weni's autobiography illustrated a more traditional view of what a “normal” relationship between the ruler and high officials. Weni's description mentions “His Majesty” more than anything else. Seems like he was making clear who was in charge. It may have been Weni who actually performed the accomplishments he writes about, but it is by the will of the King is any of this possible, which makes Weni's accomplishments, the Kings accomplishments. Harkhuf seemed to think of his relationship to the King slightly differently than Weni. Harkhuf mentions the King and the power given to him by the King, but mentions himself and his accomplishments more directly than Weni. The lines, “I gave bread to the hungry and I clothed the naked. I brought to land the one who had no rowboat.” indicate he wanted people to know it was his sole actions that helped so many. Qar mentions the King less than the previous two autobiographies. That may be because we only have the last fragment of the hieroglyphics, but the general message I get from the inscription is that Qar wants others to know of his accomplishments, same as Harkhuf. And, that it was by his actions, his compassion and hard work that these accomplishments came to pass. It must be difficult to know that your life as a public servant , your accomplishments, and the stories of those you have helped might all be credited to a King that rarely left the capital. Their tombs and the inscription of them were their only chance for something of themselves (not the King's) to be left behind.
ReplyDeleteFrom the autobiography of Weni the Elder I can see that he has a very close relationship with the King at that time. He is efficient and selfless in helping the King dealing with political matters. The King likes him because he has won many battles. In his autobiography, he praises himself as a man who makes no mistakes. For example, “I acted to perfection”, “because of my excellence, because of my being rooted in the estimation of His Majesty, and because of His Majesty’s heart being filled with me,” and “because of my excellence in the estimation of His Majesty more than any official of his.” He portrays himself as the closed royal servant to the King who wins King’s trust. In the second part of his autobiography, I am surprised that he does not say how bravery he is. Instead, he describes the events and battles he leads in a poem on page 405. He chases back the lost lands and defeats all King’s enemies. Therefore, it is not surprising why King has trusted him so much. Weni the Elder has made the King look so powerful in other people’s eyes, the King who is able to govern his country. In fact, “the King is so powerful that he is powerless,” because the King is not the person who does all these things. It is Weni the Elder, in general it is the King’s royal servants, the vizier, the general, etc. If they do not devote themselves into their work, the King would have nothing in his hand that becomes powerless.
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting aspect of the two sets of readings we did was how they intertwined, showing the relationship between the king and his officials. As we’ve said many times before, everything in ancient Egypt practically revolved around the king. Much of an individual’s status within the bureaucracy depended highly on how well liked they were by the king. This was evident in the three autobiographies we read; all three made sure to include in their writings multiple times that they were well liked by the king and praised themselves on their duties within the nobility. For example, in Weni’s autobiography he states “the heart of His Majesty was filled with me more than that of any official of his, any noble of his, and any servant of his” (Simpson 402).
ReplyDeleteFollowing this same idea of the country revolving around the king, I found it particularly interesting that any job associated with the king was held in the highest regard. Even jobs that seem totally insignificant to us, for example the “royal butler” or sandal barer, were the greatest honors to them.
However, like Professor Morris said, the kings were given way more credit than they actually deserved. In reality, it was mostly the people under them that made them look like they did a lot more than they actually did. All of the roles that kept the country running were delegated to another individuals. This idea is evident in the “Regulation laid upon the vizier” text. Many roles that actually keep the country running smoothly (regulation of the land, regulation of other nobilities, punishment, etc) were all overseen by the vizier. It even states “he shall go in to take counsel in the affairs of the king” (2), showing really how much power the vizier had in regulating affairs we would think would be run by the king himself.