Human Traits of Ancient Egyptian Kings El Men Shaw y

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/279333076
Notes on the Human Characteristics of Ancient Egyptian Kings
Article in Archiv Orientální · January 2014
CITATION READS
1 1,028
1 author:
Sherine Abd el Aziz El- Menshawy

Qatar University
15 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Sherine Abd el Aziz El- Menshawy on 04 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Human Traits of Ancient Egyptian Kings I*
Dr / Sherine El-Menshawy
Assistant professor - Guidance Department
Faculty of Tourism and Hotels
Alexandria University
Egyptian texts and monuments neither embody or nor allow

us immediate access to the individual characters and
personalities of the kings.1 As Hornung2 stated, “The king’s
individuality receded completely into the background
behind the role he had to play.” The aim of this article is to
cast light on the “manners of behavior”3 of some of the
Ancient Egyptian kings based on written documents and
archeological evidence.
Egyptian literature has focused on kings as Khufu, Pepi II,
Nebkaure, Amasis, as acquiring special personalities
* Thanks are extended to Dr. Christopher Eyre, Dr. Patricia O’Connor,

Dr. Nancy Allen and Dr. Khaled Daoud for comments and reading
draft. Appreciation is towards colleagues from Alexandria, Helwan,
Qatar and Fayoum Universities and to Mrs/ Munira Al-Dossri, Library
Assistance at Qatar University.
1
B. Gunn, “Notes on two Egyptian kings”, JEA 12 (1926), 250; H.
Frankfort, Ancient Egyptian Religion An Interpretation (New York,
1948), 46; E. Hornung, “The Pharaoh”, in S. Donadoni (ed.), The
Egyptians (Chicago, 1997), 288- 89; J. Baines, “Ancient Egyptian
concepts and uses of the past: 3rd to 2nd millennium BC evidence”, in
R. Layton (ed.), Who needs the past? Indigenous values and
archaeology (London, 1989), 133.
2
Hornung, in S. Donadoni (ed.), The Egyptians, 288; cf. Frankfort,
Ancient Egyptian Religion, 46- 7.
3
Cf. a consequent contribution to the debate by G. Posener, De la
divinité du Pharaon (Paris, 1960); L. Postel, Protocole des souverains
égyptiens et dogme monarchique au début du Moyen Empire
(Turnhout, 2004).
(1) 9002 ‫مجلة كلية السياحة و الفنادق – جامعة اإلسكندرية – العدد السادس سبتمبر‬
with individual character, such as cruelty, homosexuality,
injustice and excess in drinking. Evidence for these human
characteristics will be discussed, followed by analytical
argument.
CRUELTY
Cruelty is a harsh way to be remembered, but this was most
memorable human trait for a number of Egyptian kings.
Among these kings was Khufu of the Fourth Dynasty, who
reigned between 2589-2566 B.C. In Papyrus Westcar,4 a late
Middle Kingdom literary text composed of five episodes
told by the sons of King Khufu in his court in order to
entertain him. Here the story of The Magician Djedi relates:5
“There is a fellow called Djed. He can tie a served head.”
The king asked Djedi to be summoned. The text continues:6“
‘Here I am arrived.’ Then his Power said, ‘Is it true what
4
For the text see A. M. Blackman, W. V. Davies (ed.) The Story of
King Kheops and the Magicians: Transcribed from Papyrus Westcar
(Berlin Papyrus 3033), (Reading, 1988); M. Lichtheim, Ancient
Egyptian Literature Volume I: The Old and Middle Kingdoms
(Berkeley, 1975), 215-22; S. Quirke, “Narrative Literature”, in A.
Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature: History and Forms
(Leiden, 1996), 271-72; Parkinson, The Tale of Sinuhe, 102-127; W.
K. Simpson (ed.), The Literature of Ancient Egypt An Anthology of
Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry (New
Haven, 2003), 13- 24; S. Quirke, Egyptian Literature 1800BC:
Questions and Readings (London, 2004), 77-89.
5
pWestcar, column 6, line 22 to column 7, line 6, translation after
Quirke, Egyptian Literature, 83.
6
pWestcar, column 8, lines 5 to 22 translation after Quirke, Egyptian
Literature 1800BC, 84-5.
9002 ‫مجلة كلية السياحة و الفنادق – جامعة اإلسكندرية – العدد السادس سبتمبر‬ (2)
they say, that you can tie a severed head?’ Djedi said, ‘Yes,
I can, Sovereign.’ So His Power said, ‘Have brought to me
the captive who is in the camp, and inflict the injury on
him.’ But Djedi said, ‘Not to people, Sovereign. See it is not
ordered that a fraction of that be done to the noble flock.’
And a goose was brought to him, and its head cut off.”
Khufu’s cruel reputation is further reflected in
Herodotus’ Histories II (translated by G. Rawlinson):
“Cheops succeeded to the throne, and plunged into all
manner of wickedness. He closed the temples, and forbade
the Egyptians to offer sacrifice, compelling them instead to
labour, one and all, in his service.”7 Herodotus added, “The
Egyptians so detest the memory of these kings [including
Khnum-Khufu]8 that they do not much like even to mention
their names.”9 In another version in his Histories, Herodotus
speaks about Cheops sending daughter to bring money in an
immoral way. The text runs, “The wickedness of Cheops
reached to such a pitch that, when he had spent all his
treasures and wanted more, he sent his daughter to the
stews, with orders to procure him a certain sum...She
7
Herodotus: The Histories of Herodotus II, translated by G.
Rawlinson (London, 1997), CH. 124, 189. For commentary see A. B.
Lloyd, Herodotus Book II Commentary 99-182 (Leiden, 1988) and
Reviewed work of C. Eyre, Herodotus Book II Commentary 99-
182 by Alan B. Lloyd in JEA 77 (1991), 223-25; cf. Baines, in R.
Layton (ed.), Who needs the past?, 136.
8
Herodotus also alluded to the hatred of the people to king Khafra.
See Herodotus II, 191, CH. 127.
9
Herodotus II, 191, CH. 128.
required each man to make her a present of a stone towards
the works which she contemplated. With these stones she
built the pyramid which stands midmost of the three that are
in front of the great pyramid.”10
DISCUSSION
Edwards11 stressed that Khufu was tyrannical and
dictatorial, hatred by later generations, though there is no
clear verification for such a reputation.12 In pWestcar, King
Khufu is presumably blamed for dealing arrogantly with
Djedi, who was one hundred and ten years old, and Khufu
blamed him because they had not met before. Djedi wisely
replied that he would only come to the court upon an order
from the king.
The king is also accused for his cruel order to
decapitate a prisoner’s head in order to view Djedi’s magical
marvel in restoring ‘severed heads,” although he lacked the
information as to whether Djedi would be able to restore the
head or not. This would support Herodotus’ claims that
Khufu was cruel. Djedi acted more gently than the king
10
Herodotus II, 191, CH. 126.
11
I.E.S. Edwards, The Pyramids of Egypt (London, 1985), 135; cf. B.
Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilization (1991, London), 24;
P. A. Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs The Reign-by Reign record
of the Rulers and Dynasties of Ancient Egypt (London, 1995), 56; I.
Shaw and P. Nicholson, The British Museum Dictionary of Ancient
Egypt (London, 2003) ,152.
12
Cf. argument of M. Rice, Who’s Who in Ancient Egypt (New York,
1999), 99; Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs, 56.
when he insisted that the demonstration be done on a goose
instead of a person.13 Actually, the act Khufu is suggesting,
that of sacrificing prisoners, seems to have been well known
in ancient Egyptian history, possible related to warfare.14
One would suggest that the pWestcar is not
supporting this negative attitude about Khufu, as the King
apparently did not inflict punishment upon Djedi when he
contradicted the king’s desire to perform his magic on a
prisoner. Instead the king agreed to allow this act to be
inflicted upon a goose. This scenario does not, then, portray
dictatorial behavior from a cruel king. (But it does imply
that Khufu is not taking properly his duty to look after ‘the
noble flock’ - the king as good shepherd is an important
Middle Kingdom theme).
The question that arises is what is the source of
Khufu’s reputation for cruelty? Is it because of his
13
Cf. N. Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt (USA, 1995), 70-1; P.
Derchain, “Deux notules à propos du Papyrus Westcar”, GM 89
(1986), 15-21.
14
For the motif and ritual of killing prisoners see H. Willems, “Crime,
cult and capital punishment (Mo‘alla Inscription 8)”, JEA 76 (1990),
46-51. Also see treatment of C. Eyre, The Cannibal Hymn A Cultural
And Literary Study (Liverpool, 2002), 162-163 and FN (48) & (49). In
one of the texts dated to the reign of Amenhotep II 1427-1400 B.C.
Shaw and Nicholson stated that Amenhotep II “claims to have
executed seven Syrian princes in the temple of Amun at Karnak,
displaying the bodies of six of them on its walls, and hanging the body
of the seventh on the walls of Napata.” See Shaw and Nicholson,
British Museum Dictionary, 13.
constructing a scale pyramid? Hawass15 stressed the theory
that dire publicity concerning Khufu may have been a result
of the fact that Khufu assigned himself as Re at this time.
Rice16 argued against this negative opinion of Khufu, stating
that Khufu was regarded as a supporter of his people.
Evidence for this comes from an inscription on a limestone
group statue of Memi and his wife Aku, probably from
Giza. The statue dates back to the Thirteenth Dynasty, and
the text reads:17 “A boon which the King gives (is) for the
wab -priest Memi. A boon which the King gives (is) for the
lady of the house Aku, possessor of honour.” Supporting the
statuettes is a stela where the text reads: “A boon which the
King gives (to) King Cheops that he may gives (to) King
Cheops, that he may give invocation-offering of bread and
beer, oxen and fowl for the ka of the we’eb-priest Memi. A
thousand (of portions) in bread and beer for the ka of Aki,
born of Hetep. A boon which the King gives (to) King
Cheops, that he may give invocation-offerings consisting of
bread and beer, oxen and fowl for the ka of the lady of the
house Aku.”
15
For evidence supporting this hypothesis see Z. Hawass. "The great
sphinx: Date and function", Sixth International Congress of Egypt,
Vol. II (Italy, 1994); ‫ عائلة الملك خوفو تاريخ و أسرار األسرة الرابعة‬,‫زاهي حواس‬
.601 -58 ,)9002 ,‫(الدولة القديمة) (الدار المصرية اللبنانية‬
16
Rice, Who’s Who in Ancient Egypt, 99, 107.
17
Translation after S. Hodjash and O. Berlev, The Egyptian Reliefs
and Stelae in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Art, trans. O. Berlev, St
Petersburg (Leningrad, 1982), no. 42, 93.
Memi held the office of a wab priest of the cult of
18
Khufu during the Thirteenth Dynasty, most likely at Giza.
The prayer on the statue is appealing to Khufu to supply the
provisions needed in the afterlife for both of them, not
surprising since Khufu’s cult continued after his death for
nearly a thousand years. The text highlights Khufu’s role as
guardian and sponsor for the wellbeing of his people in the
afterlife. Does the evidence on this statue thus refute
Herodotus’ claims?
In the Twenty Sixth-Dynasty, the cult of Khufu was
revived almost two thousand years after his death, showing
that he was venerated as a god. This is evident from Khufu’s
name being inscribed on scarabs.19 Since Herodotus visited
Egypt in the second half of the Fifth Century B.C, some two
thousand years after Khufu’s reign,20 it is difficult to accept
his tale. The tale about Khufu’s daughter is also suspicious.
George Rawlinson,21 in his comments on Herodotus, stated
18
For another person who held the same office dating to the Middle
Kingdom see J. E. Quibell, Excavations at Saqqara (Cairo, 1907), 113,
pl. 57.
19
Z. Hawass, “The Khufu Statuette: Is it an Old Kingdom Sculpture?
in Mèlanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar I (Cairo, 1985), 390. For scarabs
collected by Petrie and bearing the name of Khufu see W. M. F. Petrie,
Scarabs and Cylinders with Names (London, 1917), no. 412-2-4.
20
Hawass mentioned that Herodotus’ “stories were based on tales
passed down through many centuries from the end of the IVth dynasty
on through several dark ages by people who had forgotten much of
their history”. See Hawass, in Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar I, 384.
21
See Herodotus II, 191, FN (1).
that “The story of the daughter of Cheops is on a par with
that of the daughter of Rhampsinitus; and we may be certain
that Herodotus never received it from the “priests,” whose
language he did not understand, but from some of the Greek
“interpreters,” by whom he was so often misled.”
Saleh and Sourouzian22 also provided evidence
against Herodutus’ claims when commenting on the facial
features of the statute of Khufu now in Cairo Museum (J.E.
36143). This statue, discovered by Sir Flinders Petrie in
1903 in a temple at Abydos, is dedicated to the god
Khentamentiu, and “on Cheop’s face we find a hint of smile
which, while under certain lighting conditions seemingly
disdainful, is hardly cruel, as later legends of his character
would claim.” Petrie, after reading Khufu’s Horus name
carved on the right side of the throne, dated the statute to the
Fourth Dynasty. He based his proposed date and also “the
lack of evidence for the IVth dynasty temple” on Herodotus’
information that Khufu closed the temples and transferred
the Egyptians to labor in his tomb. Hawass rejected such a
dating, and argued that Petrie “depends again on Herodotus’
non-contemporary description of Khufu’s character.”23 In
opposition to Pertrie’s opinion, Hawass argued that Khufu’s
statute was carved in the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. He
22
M. Saleh and H. Sourouzian, Official Catalogue the Egyptian
Museum (Cairo, 1987), 28.
23
Hawass, in Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar I, 384.
proposed that in the Neo-Memphite24 period a revival of
Khufu’s cult emerged, in which he was worshipped as a
god. The fact that Petrie found scarabs in the Late Period
inscribed with Khufu’s name25 led Hawass to propose that
this statute was carved during the Twenty-Sixth dynasty as a
charming amulet, which was commonly utilized. Its poor
quality craftsmanship and small size might support his
argument. Hawass26 argued that Khufu statuette’s face is
“lacking entirely the look of a powerful man.” Attempting to
combine this conclusion with Saleh and Sourouzian
observation of Khufu slightly smiling suggests that he was
probably adorned during the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty, and
that he was regarded as having a kind disposition rather than
a cruel one.27
24
Drioton is the first who originated this term, see E. Drioton,
Egyptian Art (New York, 1950), 133.
25
Petrie, Scarabs and Cylinders, no. 412-2-4.
26
Hawass, in Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar I, 385.
27
Compare Khufu’s reputation with that of Gilgamesh, the fifth king
who ruled Uruk around 2600 B.C. as stated in the Sumerian king list.
See J. A. Black, G. Cunningham, E. Flückiger-Hawker, E. Robson, J.
Taylor, and G. Zólyomi, Translation of the Sumerian King List (1998,
Oxford). The beginning of the Epic starts with Gilgamesh regarded as
cruel and arrogant, he forced his people to build the most ancient wall
in Mesopotamia around the city of Uruk approx. 3x2.2 km., he thus
drove his people to tiredness and misery. The full account is conserved
on twelve clay tablets at the library of King Ashurbanipal, who
reigned between 668-627 B.C. cf. A. George, The Epic of Gilgamesh:
The Babylonian Epic Poem and other Texts in Akkadian and Sumerian
(Harmondsworth, 1999); R. J. Tournay and A. Shaffer, L’époppée de
Gilgamesh (Paris, 1994).
One possibility is that subsequent kings might have
associated the building of Khufu’s scale pyramid with
causing exhaustion to his people, and thus attributing to him
a cruel disposition. One further suggestion would be the
length of his reign which might have lead to such a
reputation. In another example,28 Manetho29 mentioned that
King Akhtoy from the Ninth Dynasty, was regarded as
“cruel and evil” by reports from later times. It is for that
reason, the story goes, that the gods punished him by driving
him mad and allowing him to be swallowed by a crocodile.
Grimal,30 however, argued that due to lack of archaeological
evidence, it would be quiet difficult to reach the real
narrative.
HOMOSEXUALITY
King Neferkara, Pepi II, was accused of having homosexual
behavior with general Sasenet in the Tale of King Neferkara
and General Sasenet.31 Quirke32 has proposed that the text
28
Also King Xerxes and his son Achaemenes of the Twenty-Seventh
Dynasty were hatred by Egyptians because of their cruelty. Cf. Rice,
Who’s Who in Ancient Egypt, 221; Clayton, Chronicle of the
Pharaohs, 200.
29
W. G. Waddell, Manetho (London, 1948), 61, 63; cf. Kemp,
Ancient Egypt, 25; Rice, Who’s Who in Ancient Egypt, 6; Clayton,
Chronicle of the Pharaohs, 71.
30
Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, 140-41.
31
R. Parkinson, Poetry and Culture in Middle Kingdom Egypt: A
Dark Side to Perfection (New York, 2002), 296-97; Richter-Ærøe,
“Sisenet und Phiops II”, LÄ V, 957.
dates to the Twelfth Dynasty, based on high officials’ titles
cited in one section of the tale, whereas Posener33 suggested
that it dates to the end of the Middle Kingdom based on
“linguistic features, prosopography and style.” Parkinson34
compared it in style with the Middle Kingdom Tale of King
Cheops’ Court. Fragmentary preserved sources are our
evidence for the tale; The Oriental Institute of Chicago
13539 writing-board, dated the text to the late Eighteenth or
early Nineteenth Dynasty, and Papyrus Chassinat I= Louvre
E 25351 dated it to a Twenty-Sixth Dynasty Papyrus.
The first fragment of the tale provides two pieces of
information. The first is that Iti, a noble, was aware of the
suspicious relation between the king and his general. The
text reads:35 “…Now a leader of no[bles…] His Power […]
called Ity […] love […] .. […] the general Sasenet.” The
second is the information that the General Sasenet was not
married. It continues: “who did not [have] a wife […]” and
read by Parkinson as: “in whose [entire house] there was no
wife.” The introduction stating that he was unmarried seems
to be paving the way for describing the affair and proving it
by Iti as witness for the case. Parkinson paraphrased
Greenberg’s opinion, stating that: “It is generally admitted
32
Quirke, Egyptian Literature 1800BC, 168-70.
33
G. Posener, “Le conte de Néferkarè et du Général Siséné
(Recherches littéraires IV)”, RdE 11 (1957), 132-33.
34
R. B. Parkinson, “ ‘Homosexual’ Desire and Middle Kingdom
Literature”, JEA 81 (1995), 71-2.
35
Quirke, Egyptian Literature 1800BC, 168.
that sexual activity between men can be contextually
inspired, by the lack of any female outlet for desire.”36
The second fragment suggested that there was a
witness of the affair, a petitioner from Memphis. In the
fragment, the petitioner wanted to criticize, or probably
accuse, the king and his general before the court, but the
petitioner’s action was frustrated by a great effort by the
court musicians to drown him out by singing, clapping, and
playing music whenever he tried to speak so that he would
not be able to announce the case. The text reads:37 “[…]
Now the [petitioner] of Mennefer arrived to […] […] of him
by the singing of the singer[s, by the chanting,] of the
chanter, by the clapping of the per[cussionists, by the flute]-
playing of the flautist[s until] the departure of the petitioner
of Mennefer, […] them […] finishing off.” At the end he
failed to denounce the case.
In the last fragment, Tjeti must have heard about the
rumor probably spread by the petitioner, decided to follow
the king in order to discover the truth. The text reads:38
“…Then […] the person of the dual king Neferkara went by
night on his own (?), no one with him, and he moved off
then without letting himself be seen. Hente’s son Tjeti stood
36
Parkinson, JEA 81 (1995), 73; cf. D. F. Greenberg, The
Construction of Homosexuality (Chicago, 1988), 30-1, 283.
37
Quirke, Egyptian Literature 1800BC, 168. Cf. Posener, RdE 11
(1957), 128, No. 11.
38
up in thought, saying: so that is it, that statement that he
goes out at night, it is the truth. Hente’s son Tjeti went hard
behind this god without letting him realize it, to see all that
he would do. Then he arrived at the house of the General
Sa[senet], and he threw a stone he had struck with his foot,
to have them let down for him [a ladder], and he climbed up.
The Hente’s son Tjeti stood until his Power proceeded.
After his Power had done what he desired, he then
proceeded to his palace, and Tjeti went after him.” Tjeti
surely confirmed the affair.39
DISCUSSION
The text reveals how secretly the king acts and how he
“enhances the secrecy” of the affair by hiding himself in the
dark, which probably refers to “scandalous behavior”.40
Contrary to this opinion is that of Goedicke,41 who
suggested that “homosexual relations [at this time] were not
considered morally wrong as long as they were based on
mutual consent.” However, the King’s behavior in climbing
in to the general’s house is surprising, when he throws a
stone to make the general realize that he is down the
window, so that the general then drops the ladder to help the
king ascend to his house. The king here is portrayed as
sneaking off; his behavior is far from that of a common man
39
Cf. Rice, Who’s Who in Ancient Egypt, 150-51.
40
Parkinson, JEA 81 (1995), 71-2.
41
H. Goedicke, “Unrecognized Sportings”, JARCE 6 (1967), 102.
much less a king. The text continues:42 “Now His Power
went to the house of the general (?) Sasenet as four hours
had rolled by in the night, and he spent another four hours in
the house of the general (?) Sasenet, going into the Great
House with four hours left till daybreak.”
Such irregular and inappropriate repeated behavior of
the king has led to his being regarded as immoral.43
Parkinson argued “the Tale of Neferkare and Sasenet places
the disorderly sexual act at the royal centre of society and
ideology.” However, Montserrat44 suggested that the king
was not being criticized for being homosexual, but rather for
being a bad ruler. Manniche45 suggested that although
documents were cautious to reveal such behavior, it seems
that such behaviors were “not alien to the Egyptians.”
However, evaluating the suitability of homosexual behavior
in relation to societal customs, was presumably controlled
by diverse methods of social regulations in Ancient
Egyptian society.
Would the story46 of Neferkari and Sisene imply royal
corruption and reflect political instability during that period?
42
43
D. Montserrat, Sex and Society in Graeco-Roman Egypt (London,
1996), 140-41, 144.
44
Montserrat, Sex and Society, 143.
45
L. Manniche, Sexual Life in Ancient Egypt (1997, London), 22-7.
46
Cf. the tale of Horus and Seth in F. LI. Griffith, Hieratic Papayri
from Kahun and Gurob (London, 1898) II, pl.3.
INJUSTICE
In a text written in mid-Twelfth Dynasty, evident from
copies p. Berlin 3023 (B1), pBerlin 3025 (B2), pBerlin
10499 (R) and pButler 527= pBritish Museum 10274, is
description of a human trait of King Nebkaure, Akhtoy II of
the Ninth Dynasty.47 The text is known as “The Eloquent
Peasant.” Khun-Anup, the peasant, related the injustice that
he suffered, as he was robbed of his goods by Nemty-
nakhet, a low-ranking official. The peasant decided to
complain to the king’s High Steward, Rensi, son of Meru,
the acting judge, seeking justice. The latter liked his
expressive speech, and therefore, after discussing the
situation with his official srw, he informed the king. The
king was impressed by the peasant’s fine speech,
consequently he ordered Rensi to ensure that the peasant to
keep on appealing, so that the narrative could be written
down to amuse the king. Finally, after his ninth petition, he
was given justice.48
47
For suggestions of date see O. D. Berlev, “The Date of the Eloquent
Peasant”, in J. Osing and G. Dreyer (eds), Form und Mass (Fs. Fecht)
Aegypten und Altes Testament 12 (1987), 78- 83. However, Brunner
suggested that the events explained in the story correlates with the
historical events in the Heracleopolitan period. See H. Brunner,
Altägyptische Weisheit (Zurich and Munich, 1988), 359; cf. W. K.
Simpson, “Belles Letters and Propaganda”, in A. Loprieno (ed.),
Ancient Egyptian Literature, 439.
48
A. H. Gardiner, “The Eloquent Peasant”, JEA 9 (1923), 5-25; M.
Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature I (London, 1975), 169; R. B.
Parkinson, Voices From Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Middle
The text reads:49 “Now this peasant made this speech
in the time of the majesty of King Nebkaure, the justified.
Then the high steward Rensi, the son of Meru, went before
his majesty and said, ‘“My lord, I have found one among
those peasants whose speech is truly beautiful. Robbed of
his goods by a man who is in my service, he has come to
petition me about it.’ Said his majesty, ‘As truly as you wish
to see me in health, you shall detain him here, without
answering whatever he says. In order to keep him talking, be
silent. Then have it brought to us in writing, that we may
hear it. …You shall let food given to him without letting
him know that it is you who gives it to him.’”50
DISCUSSION
Although the king demonstrates a protective attitude,
expressed by his demand to Rensi to supply provisions51 for
the peasant and his family, the chief intent was to listen to
Kingdom Writings (London, 1991), 64; R. B. Parkinson, The Tale of

the Eloquent Peasant (Oxford, 1991); R. B. Parkinson, The Tale of
Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems 1940-1640 BC (Oxford,
1997), 54-7; W. K. Simpson (ed.) The Literature of Ancient Egypt, 25-
44; J. Tyldesley, Tales From Ancient Egypt (London, 2004), 69-74; cf.
M. Lichtheim, “Didactic Literature”, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient
Egyptian Literature, 253.
49
Peas B1, 102-15.
50
Translation after Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature I, 172-3;
cf. Parkinson, Tale of Sinuhe, 62.
51
R. J. Leprohon, “The wages of the Eloquent Peasant”, JARCE 12
(1975), 97-8.
excellent dialogue from the peasant for amusement, rather
than for executing justice.52 Also, the king was distant, he
commanded that the petitions be put in writing to be read,
thus, delaying speedily returning the right to the peasant,
accordingly, acting corruptly in attaining his wish,53 which
suggests that the behavioral norm of the king would be
regarded as “ injustice” of the monarch. The text indicates
that the king behaved in an attitude contrary to mAat54, that
should be obtainable for the lower rank people55 as the
higher classes,56and instead of applying and defending this
legal principle57, he caused chaos, unfairness, and social
52
R. Faulkner, “The admonitions of an Egyptian sage”, JEA 51
(1965), 61; cf. Lichtheim, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian
Literature, 253.
53
H. Goedicke, “Comments concerning the story of the Eloquent
Peasant”, ZÄS 125 (1998), 119; cf. W. K. Simpson, “The political
background of the Eloquent Peasant”, GM 120 (1991), 96.
54
For discussion on the term see Helck, LÄ, vol 3, 1110-1119; see
also J. Assmann, Ma’at: Gerechtigkeit und Unsterblichkeit im alten
Ägypten (Munich, 1990), 58-91, 201-211, 260-67.
55
R. B. Parkinson, “Individual and Society in Middle Kingdom
Literature”, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 148- 49.
56
A.M. Gnirs, ‘The language of corruption: on rich and poor in the
Eloquent Peasant’, in Gnirs (ed.), Reading the Eloquent Peasant,
Lingua Aegyptia 8 (Göttingen, 2000), 125-55; For argument on
concepts of justice see R. VerSteeg, Law in Ancient Egypt (U.S.A,
2002), 28-36; R. VerSteeg, “Law in Ancient Egyptian Fiction”,
Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 24/1 (1994),
37-97.
57
For the role of the monarch consult Baines in R. Layton (ed.), Who
needs the past?, 132-33.
damage by not applying mAat. In this respect Eyre58 stated
“It is explicit and ferocious in the speeches of the Eloquent
Peasant, as he throws the failings of his judge into contrast
with proper behavior.” The king’s attitude is thus regarded
as a poor model of justice. It probably alludes to the lack of
an organized administration, which reflects lawlessness
during the reign of King Nebkaure of the Tenth Dynasty, as
a result of the Old Kingdom’s subsiding. Shupak59 wrote
that “The complaint is not directed at the rapacious official
but at the entire corrupt bureaucracy of Egypt.” He based his
argument on similar speeches that have been cited in other
literary works such as “The Complaints of Khakheperre-
sonb.” “Egyptian Sage,” “The Dispute between a Man and
his Ba,” “The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage,” and “The
Prophecies of Neferti.”
EXCESS OF DRINKING
Amasis II was accused of another negative trait. In the first
column on the verso of the “Demotic Chronicle” (Papyrus
215 of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris), the text reads:60
“A day occurred in the reign of Pharaoh Amasis when
58
C. Eyre, “Is Historical Literature “Political” Or “Literary”, in A.
Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 433.
59
N. Shupak, ‘A New Source for the Study of the Judiciary and Law
of Ancient Egypt: “The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant”’, JNES 51 no. 1
(1992), 4.
60
Translation after Simpson (ed.), The Literature of Ancient Egypt,
450- 51.
Pharaoh said to his great men: ‘I want to drink a vat of
Egyptian wine!’ They said: ‘Our great lord, drinking a vat of
Egyptian wine is overpowering.’ He said to them: ‘Do not
oppose what I shall say!’ …He drank an extremely large
quantity of wine because of the craving that Pharaoh had for
a vat of Egyptian wine. Pharaoh lay down at the sea shore
on that same night…and Pharaoh was unable to raise
himself because of the hangover that he had… The council
went to the place where Pharaoh was. They said: ‘Our
[great] lord! What is the sickness that Pharaoh is in?’
Pharaoh said: ‘I have a terrible hangover. It isn’t [in my]
power to do any work at all.’”
In his Histories, Herodotus61 related that: “The following
was the general habit of his life...during the remainder of the
day he drank and joked with his guests, passing the time in
witty and, sometimes, scare seemly conversation. It grieved
his friends that he should thus demean himself, and
accordingly some of them chide him on the subject, saying
to him, ‘Oh! King, thou dost but ill guard thy royal dignity
whilst thou allowest thyself in such levities. Thou shouldest
sit in a state upon a stately throne, and busy thyself with
affairs the whole day long. So would the Egyptians feel that
a great man rules them, and thou wouldst be better spoken
of. But now thou conductest thyself in no kindly fashion.’”
61
Herodotus II, CH. 172-74.
DISCUSSION
Amasis’s fondness for excessive drinking is recorded in the
fragmentary Demotic story of “Amasis and the Skipper,”
originally preserved in a copy dated to early Ptolemaic
period.62 LIoyd63 introduced two opinions; that Amasis’s
reputation might have been invented during the Greek
period and consequently accepted into Demotic literature, or
that the subject was present in Ancient Egyptian texts and
was used by Greeks latter. De Meulenaere and others64
argued, however, that since Demotic literature is least
influenced by foreign ideas, therefore it might be a purely
Greek story. LIoyd, however, accepted the second opinion
since monarch’s negative behaviors has been illustrated in
Ancient Egyptian literature.
The ancient Egyptians accepted drinking at feasts and
banquets occasions.65 Texts allude to the enjoyment of
getting drunk. This is evident in the victory stela of king
62
W. J. Tait, “Demotic Literature: Forms and Genres”, in A. Loprieno
(ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 182.
63
A. B. Lloyd, Herodotus Book II Commentary 99-182 (Leiden,
1988), CH. 173, 213.
64
H. De Meulenaere, Herodotos over de 26ste Dynastie (Bibliothèque
du Muséon 27) (Louvain, 1951), 95.
65
In the “Destruction of Mankind”, in the section known as “The
Book of the Cow of Heaven”, the goddess Hathor/Sakhmet was
tricked into getting drunk by red ochre put into beer, as human blood,
to avert her from destroying the human race. See M. Lichtheim,
Ancient Egyptian Literature II: The New Kingdom (Berkeley, 1976),
197-201.
Piye66 dated to the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, in which Tefnakht
announces his submission; the text reads: “I sit not at the
beer feast; the harp is not brought for me.” The text properly
alludes to the enjoyment of drinking beer which he has gave
up in order to punish himself. In a copy of a letter sent from
King Amenhotep II to Usersatet, at that time his Viceroy of
Kush, he criticizes how this administrator carried out his
office as Viceroy:67 “Copy of the order which His majesty
wrote himself, with his own hand, to the viceroy Usersatet.
His Majesty was in the [royal] Residence…he spent a
holiday sitting and drinking…”
Other texts have warned of the danger of excessive
drinking. In the Maxims of Ani, the text reads:68 “Don’t
indulge in drinking beer, lest you utter evil speech, and
don’t know what you’re saying. If you fall and hurt your
body, none holds out a hand to you. Your companions in the
drinking stand up saying: ‘Out with the drunk!’ If one
comes to seek you (10) and talk with you, one finds you
lying on the ground as if you were a little child.” Also, in a
damaged passage in pChester Beatty III,69 the text refers to
the characteristics of excessive drinking. This reflects
66
M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature III (Berkeley, 1980), 66,
79.
67
Urk IV, 1343: 10; translation after Hornung, in S. Donadoni (ed.),
The Egyptians, 291.
68
Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature II: The New Kingdom, 137.
69
The text reads: “He cannot distinguish a concubine from…..”. see
pChester Beatty III: 11,13.
worries that the disordered and unethical behavior that
might corrupt his lifestyle due to the extreme degree of
drinking, which leads to losing control physically and
mentally, which presumably was regarded as a negative
behavior.
Historically, Amasis’s reign, 570- 526 B.C., is
regarded as “successful one”, since one of his major projects
was developing Naukratis city in the delta to be an essential
trade center within the country, besides reinforcing the
relationship with the Greeks. He also gave special attention
to Egypt’s agricultural based economy. Therefore, one
would argue that it won’t be plausibly accepted that a king
with an excessive drinking behavior, would be acting as a
wise diplomat that kept good relations with the Greeks and
bringing the country to a level of wealth.70
CRITICISM OF KING’S NEGATIVE ATTITUDES

Ancient Egyptian texts allude to negative behaviors that
kings should avoid while ruling. This is addressed in the
idea of “criticism” of the kings. Hornung71 argued that
criticizing the king’s office “was never voiced, and personal
criticism of the sovereign was not openly expressed until
late sources like the Demotic Chronicle;” however, failing in
dealing with certain situations is addressed in two texts. In
70
E. Edel, “Amasis and Nebukadrezar II, GM 29 (1978), 13-70;
Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, 363-4.
71
Hornung, in Donadoni (ed.), The Egyptians, 284, 289.
Middle Kingdom Literature, preserved from mid to the end
of the Eighteenth-Dynasty papyri, Hermitage 1116A verso,
Moscow Pushkin 4658, Carlsberg VI and Ramesside
ostracon Deir el Medina 1476, known as the Instructions for
King Merikare72, the text falls under the category of
“wisdom texts.”73 The king of Egypt, probably, Khety,74 an
old wise father, is advising his son, the upcoming king
Merikare, to stay away from bad deeds. The text reads:75
“See a vile deed occurred in my time, the districts of Teni
were hacked up. It happened even as something I did,
though I learned of it after the deed.” Khety’s reign was
unstable, and he expressed his regret for his errors in the
72
G. Posener, “Lehre für Merikare”, LÄ III, 986- 89. For modern
edition see W. Helck, Die Lehre fur Konig Merikare (Wiesbaden,
1988); for translation see Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature I,
97-109; Parkinson, The Tale of Sinuhe, 212- 34; J. Quack, Studien zur
Lehre für Merikare (Wiesbaden, 1992); Simpson (ed.), The Literature
of Ancient Egypt, 152- 165; Quirke, Egyptian Literature 1800BC,
112- 20.
73
See Lichtheim, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 242-
62.
74
Only the name of Merikare was preserved, while the name of his
father was not preserved completely. Therefore, Von Beckerath argued
that he might be Khety-Nebkaure. See J. von Beckerath, “Die
Dynastie der Herakleopoliten”, ZÄS 93 (1966), 13-20; cf. Lichtheim,
Ancient Egyptian Literature I, 97- 8; Rice, Who’s Who in Ancient
Egypt, 7.
75
Translation after Quirke, Egyptian Literature 1800BC, 118; see
Parkinson, The Tale of Sinuhe, 212- 34; cf. the autobiography of
Ankhtifi at Mo’alla, Vandier, Mo‘alla: la Tombe d’Ankhtifi et la
tombe de Sebekhotep; Gnirs, in A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian
Literature, 198-99; Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, 142.
distruction of Thinis necropolis by the king’s troops during
the violence that occurred during the Eleventh Dynasty.76
Grimal,77 however, does not support the suggestion that the
text was composed during Merikare time. His evidence is
that Khetys’s terms resembles that of Ptahhotep and
Kagemni Maxims. Lichheim78 says that, “I believe the work
to be pseudepigraphic in the sense of not having been
composed by King Khety himself, but genuine in the sense
of being a work composed in the reign of King Merikare,
designed to announce the direction of his policy and
containing valid, rather than fictitious, historical
information.” Since the text was written in the Middle
Kingdom, this allowed the writer liberty to allude to the
faults of the Herakleopolis kings and “the limits of royal
authority.”79 Simpson80 stated that, “It is highly unlikely that
the text was in fact the work of this alleged Khety, but it
may have been written during the reign of Merikare as a
means of justifying his kingship and polices, or it may have
been composed at some later point during the Middle
Kingdom.” Parkinson81 suggested that, “The king, however,
76
Quirke, Egyptian Literature 1800BC, 112; Rice, Who’s Who in
Ancient Egypt, 7; Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, 139;
Parkinson, Voices From Ancient Egypt, 52.
77
Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, 146- 47.
78
Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature I, 97- 8.
79
Quirke, Egyptian Literature 1800BC, 112
80
Simpson (ed.), The literature of Ancient Egypt, 152.
81
Parkinson, The Tale of Sinuhe, 214.
takes his own misfortune as an indication not only that faults
are inevitable and are punished, but also that the gods are
watching over everything, and are not hostile to mankind.
The universe is, despite appearances, ‘bound together’
through laws of eternal justice.” The King, as suggested by
Lichtheim,82 “Speaks as a human being subject to failings
and free of claims to divine rank.”
In another Middle Kingdom text, preserved in the
Eighteenth Dynasty Papyrus Millingen and New Kingdom
three wooden tablets, papyrus fragments and Ostraca,
known as the Instruction of King Amenemhet I for his son
Sesostris,83 aged King Amenemhet criticizes himself before
his son Sesostris I, for his powerlessness before the betrayal
of his confidants. The text reads:84 “It was after the meal,
night had fallen, I took an hour of rest. I lay on my bed, for I
had grown weary. My heart began to follow sleep.
Suddenly, weapons of counsel were turns against me. I was
like a snake of the desert. I awoke to my bodyguard. I found
it was a body blow by a soldier. If I had swiftly taken
weapons in my hand, I would have turned the wretch back
in confusion, but there is no night champion, no-one who
82
Lichtheim, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 247- 48.
83
For sources of the text see W. Helck, Der Text der “Lehre
Amenemhets I. fur seinen shone” (Wiesbaden, 1986); Lichtheim,
Ancient Egyptian Literature I, 135- 139; Parkinson, The Tale of
Sinuhe, 203- 11; Simpson (ed.), The literature of Ancient Egypt, 166-
171; Quirke, Egyptian Literature 1800BC, 127- 29.
84
Quirke, Egyptian Literature 1800BC, 127- 28.
can fight alone. There can be no success without a
protector.”.
Lichtheim85 supports the fact that the text was written
during the reign of Amenemhet I’s son and successor
Sesostris I, since Amenemhet I was assassinated in the
Thirtieth Year of his reign. In previous narratives in which
the kings admit failures and present the errors and
imperfections that they performed during their ruling
showed their intention to pass knowledge, experience and
recommendations to their sons so that the sons would learn
from them, which reveals criticism of their negative
attitudes.
The recto of the Demotic chronicle manuscript,86
which dates back to the Third or Fourth century B.C.,
comprises chapters in which some statements address the
idea of criticizing the improper behaviors of the kings in a
narrative structure.87 It is been suggested that the time of
such written statements in the Demotic chronicle is not
85
Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature I, 135- 36; for the same
suggestion see Parkinson, Voices From Ancient Egypt, 48; Simpson
(ed.), The Literature of Ancient Egypt, 166.
86
For original publication see W. Spiegelberg, Die sogenannte
Demotische Chronik des Pap. 215 der Bibliothèque Nationale zu Paris,
Demotische Studien, 7 (1914). For translation see G. Roeder,
Altägyptische Erzählungen und Märchen (1927), 238- 249 and E.
Bresciani in Letteratura e Poesia dell Antico Egitto (1969), 551- 60.
87
See P. Kaplony, “Domotische Chronik”, LdÄ 1 (1975), 1057; J. H.
Johnson, “The Demotic Chronicle as a Statement of Theory of
Kingship”, SSEA 13, No. 2 (1983), 61-72.
long.88 Johnson89 suggested that “The facts presented in the
chronicle are seen to be quite reliable;” it was for this reason
it was used as a source of the history between the Twenty-
Eighteenth and Thirtieth Dynasty. The chronicle has been
exposed to the kings during their lives and has connected
their good or bad fate by the way they ruled their country. In
chapter 10, the character of king Amyrtaios, a ruler of the
Twenty-Eighth Dynasty who ruled between 404- 399 B.C.,90
is mentioned. The text reads:91 “Pharaoh Amyrtaios, when
violation of the law was done (in) his time, he was caused to
make the movements (of) yesterday; there was no rule by
his son after him.” And his fate was decided because he
abused the law. The text continues:92 “When he ordered
violation of the law, the things which were done for him
were seen; his son was not allowed to succeed him; but,
instead, he was caused to remove himself (from) upon his
throne while he was alive.” The fate of the son and
88
See evolution of E. Meyer, “Ägyptische Dokumente aus der
Perserzeit”, SPAW 16 (1915), 302.
89
Johnson, SSEA 13, No. 2 (1983), 63.
90
For the history of Amyrtaios see Grimal, A History of Ancient
Egypt, 371; Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs, 201- 2; Rice, Who’s
Who in Ancient Egypt, 20.
91
(3/ 18-19) Johnson, SSEA 13, No. 2 (1983), 66.
92
(4/1-2) Johnson, SSEA 13, No. 2 (1983), 66; against the same idea
righteous behavior of king Neferites I of the Twenty-Nine Dynasty
lead to long rule and succession by one’s son the text reads: “When he
did what he did conscientiously, his son was allowed to succeed him”.
(3/ 20-21) see Johnson, SSEA 13, No. 2 (1983), 66.
successor of Neferites I of the Twenty-Nine Dynasty, who
ruled between 399-393 B.C.,93 is stated in the text. It reads:94
“(Only) a few days are what were given to him, himself,
because of numerous sins which were done in his time.”
Historically, when Neferites I died his son Muthis reigned
only for few months then the throne was usurped by
Psammuthis.95 The text also alludes to the fate of Neferites
II of the Twenty-Nine Dynasty. The text reads:96 “Because
the law was abandoned under his father, a crime was made
to reach his son after him.” (4/12)
One of the negative behaviors for kings was not to
care for temples and gods. This would lead to their being
recognized as “bad kings,” and the gods would replace them
with rulers having good behavior. An appropriate act is
described through the following text. It reads:97 “The ruler
who will come into being will open [the doors] of the
temples; he will cause that divine offerings be given (to) the
gods.”
93
Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs, 201- 2.
94
(3/21) Johnson, SSEA 13, No. 2 (1983), 66.
95
Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, 372- 73.
96
(4/12) Johnson, SSEA 13, No. 2 (1983), 66 and see footnote (39).
97
Johnson, SSEA 13, No. 2 (1983), 67.
EXAMINING LITERATURE98 ELEMENTS
Loprieno,99 following Osing,100 designated the expression
“king’s novel,” a translation of “Königsnovelle” where the
king is regarded as the protagonist or first figure of the
narrative, responsible for decision-making process.
Loprieno101 suggested that some Egyptian texts, when
illustrating king’s deeds, contradicted the image that the
Pharaoh of Egypt should present; however, he added “The
kind of Königsnovelle which emerged from this perspective
can be identified as a narrative on the king’s human person.”
The central factors of literature are time – when the
narrative was issued – and location -- where it was issued.
Lack of these elements will preclude distinguishing that
narrative with its entire meaning.102 The following table
deals with the elements; when, where, text nature, author
and audience in the texts studied in this article.
98
L. Lesko, “Literacy”, in D. Redford (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia
of Ancient Egypt (Oxford, 2001), 297- 99; cf. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient
Egyptian Literature
99
A. Loprieno, “The King’s Novel”, in A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient
100
J. Osing, ‘Königdnovelle”, LÄ III, 556-57.
101
Loprieno, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 278-79.
102
Cf. argument of G. A. Gaballa, Narrative in Egyptian Art (Mainz
am Rhein, 1976), 6.
Name of
When Where Text nature Author Audience
text
pWestcar Late Setting is at Narrative Tale King

Middle king literature104 generated by
Kingdom Khufu’s “princes at
Literature court Khufu’s
105
court”103,
author
proposed to
be educated
high rank
officials
The Tale of 12th Narrative educated
King Dynasty- Unknown composition high rank Unknown
106
Neferkara end of officials
and general Middle
Sasenet Kingdom
Mid- 12th Setting Unknown educated King and
Eloquent Dynasty correspond high rank probably
Peasant s to the officials high rank
Herakleopo officials
litan
Period,107
at the
king’s
court108
Demotic Copy dated Narrative Author

Chronicle to early Unknown framework during the Low level
Ptolemaic reign of Teos of literate
period in mid-4th C. élite
BC109
103
Parkinson, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 143.
104
This is one of the texts dominated by narrative see Quirke, in
Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 270- 71.
105
Quirke, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 271-72.
106
107
Simpson, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 439.
108
Parkinson, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 141.
109
Tait, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 178.
Name of Text
When Where Author Audience
text nature
The Dated to Setting Wisdom A writer at Intellectual

Instructions the 12th correspond texts the court of élite110
for King Dynasty s the (didactic)112 Merikare
Merikare Herakleopo Or king’s
litan Dyn. royal
IX-X father111
The A Middle Unknown Wisdom Court writer Intellectual

Instruction Kingdom texts of Sesostris I élite
of King text, (didactic) on behalf of
Amenemhe preserved king
t I for his in the Amenemhet
son Eighteenth I named
Sesostris Dynasty ‘Khety’ or
documents written by
the king
himself
during his
life
The question of authorship in Egyptian literature is an

open loop, since authors do not normally mention their
names or are even identified.113 However Eyre114 argued,
110
A. Loprieno, “Loyalistic Instructions”, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient
111
Lichtheim, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 247; for
the class of the author see Parkinson in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient
112
Lichtheim, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature,243,
247-48.
113
Parkinson, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 146; cf.
H. U. Gumbrecht, “Does Egyptology need a “Theory of Literature”?”,
in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 14; A. M. Gnirs, “Die
Ägyptische Autobiographie”, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian
Literature, 195-198.
“Assessment of historical narrative raises a number of
questions, none of which can be given a direct answer,”
These include the text nature, the author, and the audience,
as it represent literature limitations.115 Parkinson,116
however, suggested that such written literature was being
written in an advanced degree of literacy (authorship) which
consequently been addressed to high rank classes, élite and
sub élite members (audiences). Baines117 suggested that such
texts were “familiar among educated members of the
community;” however, Parkinson118 claimed that such
literary documents could have been read by lower class of
society because this would be “appropriate for their role of
expressing problematic circumstances.” Gumbrecht,
however, suggested, “Egyptologists have come to postulate
that from the point of view of authorial agency Pharaoh may
have been regarded as the only and universal author of all
texts.”119 Yet, in our previous discussion, one might refer to
114
Eyre, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 417.
115
S. Quirke, “Archive”, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian
Literature, 399.
116
Parkinson, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 140-141,
145; cf. J. Baines, “Interpreting the Story of the Shipwrecked Sailor”,
JEA 76 (1990), 57, n. 9.
117
J. Baines, “Classicism and Modernism in the New Kingdom”, in
Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 167.
118
See argument of Parkinson, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian
Literature, 141, 143.
119
H. U. Gumbrecht, “Does Egyptology Need a “Theory of
Literature”?”, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 14
the person who commissioned writing the literacy work as
its author.
Finally, this is an attempt to approach kings as
humans throughout their individual characteristics,
nevertheless how far the assessment of Khufu’s cruelty, Pepi
II’s homosexual behavior and Nebkaure’s injustice is a
question that have no means of deciding explicitly, since
searching for reality in literature structure is difficult.120
However, historically, texts such as the pWestcar, the Tale
of Neferkare and Sasenet, the Eloquent Peasant, the
Instructions for King Merykara, and the Instruction of King
Amenemhet I for his son Sesostris were written in the
Middle Kingdom after a disorder period in which the king’s
figure was modified and the level of kingship was regarded
differently from the Old Kingdom.121 The literature was thus
featuring the chaos that occurred during the First
Intermediate Period and attempting to reduce the legal
authority of the Herakleopolitian kings. Consequently, such
texts sometimes disclosed a type of propaganda122 whose
purpose was to justify their rule, and that propaganda was
120
Cf. Quirke, Egyptian Literature 1800BC , 77.
121
G. Posener, Littérature et politique dans l’Égypte de la XIIe dynastie
(Paris, 1969), 13.
122
For exploring propaganda in one of the Middle Kingdom Egyptian
Literacy cf. C. A. Thériault, “Instruction of Amenemhet as
propaganda”, JARCE 30 (1993), 151-60. Cf. J. Assmann & E.
Blumenthal (eds), Literatur und Politik im pharaonischen und
ptolemäischen Ägypten (Cairo, 1999).
used “to help assure the loyalty of the administrative
class.”123 Such texts also introduced subjects that stressed
the people’s disapproval in opposition to the governmental
corruption and confusion of truth and justice during that
time. In their literature, they criticized in an aim to focus on
the weakness of what was happening.124 Yet, for Amasis’s
keenness for excessive drinking, one would raise the
possibility that what was mentioned about his trait was more
likely not supported, since it contradicts his prosperous reign
and his wise diplomatic way dealing with the Greek world at
his sovereignty.
123
Simpson, in Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature, 438 and
FN (22).
124
See G. P. Hornblower, “The Story of the Eloquent Peasant”, JEA
10 (1944), 44- 5. Cf. Parkinson’s discussion Parkinson, The Tale of
the Eloquent Peasant (Oxford, 1991); Parkinson, The Tale of Sinuhe,
54- 88; Gnirs, in Gnirs (ed.), Reading the Eloquent Peasant, Lingua
Aegyptia 8, 125- 55.
View publication stats

Human Traits of Ancient Egyptian Kings El Men Shaw y

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Traits of Ancient Egyptian Kings El Men Shaw y

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Notes on the Human Characteristics of Ancient Egyptian Kings

Article in Archiv Orientální · January 2014

Sherine Abd el Aziz El- Menshawy

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Egyptian texts and monuments neither embody or nor allow

* Thanks are extended to Dr. Christopher Eyre, Dr. Patricia O’Connor,

Kingdom Writings (London, 1991), 64; R. B. Parkinson, The Tale of

CRITICISM OF KING’S NEGATIVE ATTITUDES

pWestcar Late Setting is at Narrative Tale King

Demotic Copy dated Narrative Author

The Dated to Setting Wisdom A writer at Intellectual

The A Middle Unknown Wisdom Court writer Intellectual

The question of authorship in Egyptian literature is an

View publication stats

You might also like