The Image of Pharaoh:

Royal Ideology and Historical Reality

in the Light of Egyptian Wisdom Literature

NILI SHUPAK
University of Haifa

Ancient Egyptian sources frequently depict Pharaoh as god’s representative

on earth during his lifetime and as a god after his death. In his lifetime, the
king was identified with Horus, the god of heaven. After his death, he became
Osiris, the god of the dead. On occasion, he was also named after other gods—
for example, Montu, the war-god, Sekhemet, the plague-goddess, and Khnum,
the potter-god of creation. At times, he was also described as “the living image
of god x.”
According to Egyptian thought, those who sat on the royal throne were the
earthly successors of the gods who ruled Egypt during the primordial period.
The ruling king was called prt nṯr “seed of god” or nṯr “god.” On occasion, the
boundaries between king and god became so blurred that it is impossible to
determine whether the title “god” refers to the king or god.
When a king ascended the throne, he was given a five-fold name that in-
cluded divine epithets: “son of Re (the sun-god)” or “Horus.” 1 The king’s di-
vine lineage is clearly reflected in the illustrations portraying his birth and
the inscriptions accompanying them. Herein, the god was given the features
of the king’s father and coupled with his earthly mother. 2 The king was thus
regarded as god’s son in the literal, physical sense. 3

1. In the official literature, the title “god” when referring to king usually comes with
adjectives such as nfr “good,” wr “great,” wʿ “one, unique,” mnḫ “excellent,” etc.
2. Cf. Hathepsut at Deir el-Bahri, Amenhotep III at Luxor: see Marie-Ange Bon-
hême, “Kingship,” in The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egypt (3 vols.; ed. D. B. Redford;
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 2:241.
3. See Hellmut Brunner, Die Geburt des Gottkönigs: Studien zur Uberlieferung eines alt­
ägyptischen Mythos (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 10; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,1964); Jan
Assmann, “Die Zeugung des Sohnes: Bild, Spiel, Erzählungen und das Problem des ägyp-
tischen Mythos” in Funktionen und Leistungen des Mythos: Drei altorientalische Beispiele (ed.
J. Assmann, W. Burket, and F. Stolz; OBO 48; Fribourg: Universität Verlag / Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982).

239
240 NILI SHUPAK

Another important aspect of the ancient Egyptian king’s role indicating

his direct association with the god was his duty to preserve the cosmic or-
der—Maat (Egyptian MꜢʿt) —on earth. This order having been established
at the dawn of history by the creator-god, the king who fulfilled this function
by the eradication or punishment of the forces embodying evil in the world—
that is, Egypt’s enemies, predators, and criminals—reenacted the deeds of the
creator-god.
The figure of Pharaoh constitutes a central subject in various Egyptian lit-
erary genres, from royal inscriptions through odes to the gods to folktales.
Here, the ideal king is usually portrayed as a fearless warlord who defeats his
enemies and delivers his people or as a ruler who takes care of his subjects’
needs and safeguards the cult of the gods and their holy structures. 4
In this light, it is surprising that the king does not play a major role in
the Egyptian wisdom instructions, which reflect a two-thousand-year tradi-
tion from the middle of the third millennium to the first centuries BCE. Of
the approximately 20 extant instructions—which deal principally with the
counsel given by the aged father to his son-heir and were designed to serve
as practical aids for high-ranking officials in the king’s court—the king only
appears as a central figure in four. In two of these, the Instruction of a Man to
His Son and the Loyalist Instruction, apparently composed during the Twelfth
Dynasty (1976–1947 BCE), the king is presented as an ideal figure whom his
subjects are requested to honor and to whom they must pledge loyalty. The
other two, the Instruction Addressed to Merikare and the Instruction of Amen­
emhet (which will be examined below), contain a description unparalleled in
any of the other wisdom instructions. Alongside the ideal, official portrait of
an omnipotent “superman,” we also find a picture of a weak human king who
confesses to his mistakes and failures.
In addition to this aspect—to which I shall return below—these two in-
structions are also distinguished by the following features:
1. The identity of the speaker and addressee: while in the other wisdom
instructions, the speaker is generally a high-ranking official—a vizier or
scribe—who directs his words to his peers, the speaker in these instruc-
tions is the king, who addresses his heir.
2. The contents and circumstances of the composition: the king, repre-
sented as the author, is not content with dispensing sapiential advice

4. The king is also depicted in grotesque form in folktales that convey covert criticism
of him, however. Thus, for example, the mid-second-millennium story of King Nefer­ka­re
and General Sa­neset describes Pharaoh’s (probably Pepi II of the Sixth Dynasty) homo-
sexual bond with a top-ranking military officer. The Vandier Papyrus (end of the seventh /
beginning of the sixth century BCE) similarly portrays the king as weak and untrustworthy;
see Bonhême, “Kingship,” 243. Indirect criticism is also found in the speculative wisdom
literature, primarily in the Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, the Prophecies of Neferti, and the Ad­
monitions of Ipuwer: see my translations in The Context of Scripture (3 vols.; ed. W. W. Hallo
and K. L. Younger; Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002) 1:93–104, 106–10.
 The Image of Pharaoh 241

formulated as an address in the second-person singular typical of wisdom

instructions but provides a review of various events during his reign in
the first-person style characteristic of autobiographies in order to draw
lessons from them. These instructions are thus embedded in specific
political contexts and addressed to specific kings.
3. The king speaks after his death. In both texts, the king is represented
as the voice of authority who conveys words of counsel and advice from
the land of the dead. In other words, they are pseudepigraphical and
tendentious documents whose authors lived in a period later than the
events they describe. 5 My discussion here nonetheless proceeds from
the assumption that literary texts are not written in a vacuum and relate
to historical events as transmitted to—or remembered by—the author.
In this essay, I shall attempt to answer the following questions:
1. What events or deeds led Merikare’s father Khety, of the Ninth–Tenth
Dynasty (ca. 2145–2020 BCE) in Heracleopolis, and Amenemhet I, of
the Twelfth Dynasty, who lived several decades later (1976–1947 BCE),
to acknowledge their sin and admit their failures and weaknesses?
2. If the kings to whom the works were attributed were not in fact re-
sponsible for them, who was? Was it their sons seeking to establish the
legitimacy of their own rule? Was it later kings who had an interest in
criticizing earlier pharaohs or hostile factors opposed to their political
path?
3. Why precisely in these instructions given by kings to their sons are the
former portrayed as flesh-and-blood kings, a phenomenon found no-
where else in Egyptian wisdom literature?
Let me begin with an analysis of the relevant passages in each of the works.
I shall look first at the Instruction of Amenemhet which, although later from a
chronological perspective, contains simpler and clearer material.

The Instruction of Amenemhet

This document is attributed to Amenemhet I, founder of the Twelfth Dy-
nasty, who ruled at the beginning of the nineteenth century BCE. It was a
“classic,” serving for centuries as study material in scribal schools, being

5. In the Ramesside Chester Beatty IV papyrus, the Instruction of Amenemhet is at-

tributed to Khety, one of the famous Egyptian scribes, also known as the author of the Hymn
to the Nile and the Satire of the Trades. Contra Alan H. Gardner, “The Earliest Manuscripts
of the Instruction of Amenemmes 1,” in Mélanges Maspero (ed. P. Jougouet; Paris: Le Caire:
1935–1938) 479–96, and John A. Wilson, “The Instruction of King Amen-em-het,” ANET
418–19, I accept the Papyrus Chester Beatty IV witness as reliable. For an examination of
the details relating to the other famous authors of the wisdom compositions therein and
comparison with other Egyptian sources confirming this, see my “‘Canon’ and ‘Canoni-
zation’ in Ancient Egypt,” BO 58 (2001) 537–39.
242 NILI SHUPAK

particularly popular during the New Kingdom period. All the extant copies—
including P. Millingen (Mill), the most important and complete—are from
this period.
As was noted above, the instructions are placed in Amenemhet’s mouth
after his death. This is clear from the adjective attached to his name in the
opening lines: mꜢʿ xrw “the justified” (lit., “the justified of voice”[ 1b]), given
usually to the deceased who had successfully passed through the judgment of
the dead. It is also indicated by the reference to the fact that he has “gone
down in Re’s boat”—that is, has joined the entourage of the sun-god on the
voyage to the world beyond (15e).
The body of the text consists of an autobiographical monologue by the
king, divided into two sections. The first gives an account of his vicissitudes,
culminating in the attempt on his life. This contrasts sharply with the second
part, in which he is depicted in the conventional image of the ideal king who
rules in accordance with Maat, the cosmic order: expanding Egypt’s borders,
causing its economy to grow, defeating his enemies in the north and south,
and building a magnificent edifice.
I shall focus on the first section, which relates to our present concern. It
opens with Amenemhet’s pessimistic conclusion: “Do not trust in a brother,
do not know a friend.” This is based on the king’s personal experience—the
reward of his generosity and favor being betrayal:
I gave to the poor man, I raised the orphan, 6
I promoted the man with nothing (the poor) like him who has something (was
wealthy).
The one who ate my bread betrayed me,
The one to whom I stretched out my hands created terror ,
Those who wore my fine linen looked at me (as though I were) grass (or: as
shadows) 7
Those who anoint themselves with (my) myrrh pouring water under me (a
gesture of contempt).
My images (snnw.i) amongst (the living), my portions amongst men,
Make a lament over me whose like has not been heard,
A great battle whose like has not been seen! (Mill 3c–5c)

The last three lines constitute the first description in Egyptian literature of
people as bearing the image of the king. This declaration is exceptional in
light of the conventional view that men are “images (snnw) of him [i.e., god],
who come out from his body” (Instruction Addressed to Merikare, P133; cf. Gen

6. My translation and line division, is based on the recently published text-edition of

Faried Adrom, Die Lehre des Amenemhet (Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca XIX; Turnhout: Brepols,
2006).
7. The sense of the term šwyw (with the hieroglyphic sign of “grass”) is unclear. It may
be corrupt, being better read as the plural of šwit “shadow” in the sense of the “shades of the
dead” (Wb. 4:433,7–8). The rebels greet the king in Sheol as though he were dead. Cf. ‫רפאים‬
in Biblical Hebrew and the depiction in Isa 14:9.
 The Image of Pharaoh 243

1:27: ‫[ ויברא האלהים את האדם בצלמו בצלם אלהים ברא אותו‬cf. also Gen 9:6]). 8
It may be assumed that Amenemhet deliberately likens himself to the creator-
god in order to highlight the gravity of the evil perpetrated against him: his
offspring—whom he had created—who were meant to protect him had rather
made a “ lament” and “a great battle” over him—that is, sought his death and
fought him.
The key passage then follows, which describes the attempt on his life:
After supper, as night fell,
I took (spent) an hour of pleasure, 9
lying on my bed, for I was weary,
As my heart began to follow sleep.
Weapons were waved and men asking for me,
While I was acting like a desert snake. 10
I awoke to a battle, all alone, 11
And found that it was a combat of the guard.
Had I swiftly taken up weapons in my hand,
I would have made the cowards retreat to (their) holes,
But none is brave in the night, none can fight alone,
No act can succeed without my protector (or: helper). (Mill 6a–7f)

The translation of this passage, in particular the reference to Amenemhet’s

taking up of his weapons, is disputed, being dependent upon another question
to which no conclusive answer is available—namely, whether his son Sesos-
tris I was appointed as coregent in the twentieth year of Amenemhet’s reign
(which lasted thirty years in all). Those who believe Sesostris I to have been
made coregent in the wake of the failed attack translate the verse in the in-
dicative—that is, as a fact rather than as an unreal condition: “Hastily I took
up my weapons in my hand, I made the cowards retreat.” 12 But the last two
lines in the passage, which highlight the king’s isolation and lack of assistance,

8. See Boyo Ockinga, Die Gottebenbildlichkeit im Alten Ägypten und im Alten Testament
(ÄUAT 7; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1984) 53–54.
9. Lit., “an hour of goodness.” The reference appears to be a visit to his harem, the
continuation making it clear that women participated in the plot; see G. Burkard, “‘Der
König ist tot’: Die Lehre des ägyptischen Könings Amenemhet I,” in Grosse Texte alter
Kulturen: Literarische Reise von Gizeh nach Rom (ed. E. Mose; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 2004) 23.
10. The image of the snake is adduced in order to accentuate the fact that Amenemhet
was lying peacefully—whether paralyzed by fear or lying in wait for an opportunity to fight
back.
11. iw.i n ḥʿw.i—lit., “I belonged to my body.” This expression is unclear. The transla-
tion here is determined by the context; see F. L. Griffith, “The Millingen Papyrus (Teach-
ing of Amenemhat),” ÄZ 34 ( 1896) 42 n. 2. Others translate, following Anthes: “I was in
control of my limbs”—that is, “I was alert at once”: see Rudolf Anthes, “The Legal Aspect
of the Instruction of Amenemhet,” JNES 16 (1957) 189.
12. See Wolfhart Westendorf, “Die Menschen als Ebenbilder Pharaos: Bemerkungen
zur ‘Lehre des Amenemhet’ (Abschnitt V),” GM 46 (1981) 40; Elke Blumenthal, “Lehre des
244 NILI SHUPAK

suggest that the attempt succeeded. If so, it probably occurred in the thirtieth
year of Amenemhet’s reign. 13 Whether it was abortive or not, it appears to
have been an actual event, also alluded to in the Story of Sinuhe, which is at-
tributed to this period. An official in the royal harem, Sinuhe recounts that he
took to his heels and fled from Egypt after Amenemhet’s death. 14
The following passage, which describes the circumstances and those re-
sponsible for the attempted coup, is of particular importance in that it reveals
the identity of the authors and their purpose:
Behold, the attack happened when I was without you, 15
Before the courtiers had heard that I was about to hand over the throne to you,
Before I had sat with you (on the royal throne) in order to advance your
plans. 16
Because I was not ready for it and had not planned it,
And had not foreseen the slackness of servants.
Have women ever marshalled troops?
Are rebels nurtured in the palace?
Does someone open up the waters 17 in order to destroy the soil,
Deceiving the poor in their deeds? 18 (Mill 8a–9b)

The passage concludes with three rhetorical questions in the style characteris-
tic of wisdom literature. Although they are obscure, the context is clear—the
traitors belonged to the king’s court and included women from his harem.
Throughout Egyptian history, we in fact hear of minor women in the harem

Königs Amenemhet (Teil 1),” ZÄS 111 (1984) 101–7; Karl Jansen Winkeln, “Das Attentat
auf Amenemhet 1. und die erste ägyptische Koregentschaft,” SAK 18 (1991) 241–64.
13. See Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature (3 vols.; Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1973–1980) 1:135; Hellmut Brunner, Altägyptische Weisheit (Zürich-
Müchen: Artemis, 1988) 169.
14. For the connection between Amenemhet’s assassination and Sinuhe’s flight, see
J. Winand, “The Tale of Sinuhe: History of a Literary Text,” in Interpretations of Sinuhe (ed.
F. Feder, H. M. Hays, and L. D. Morenz; Eg. Uitg. 27; Leiden: NINO, 2014) 242–43.
15. That is, when the prince was not in the palace. He may have been on a military
campaign in Libya, as depicted in the Story of Sinuhe (cf. Burkard, “Der König ist tot,” 24) or
not yet coregent. The latter understanding fits the following lines.
16. That is, before Amenemhet had decided to pass the throne over to his son and
coopt him into power.
17. N. Grimal, “Le sage, l’eau et le roi,” in Les problèmes institutionnels de l’eau en Égypte
ancienne et dans l’Antiquité méditerranéenne (ed. B. Menu; BiEtud 110; Cairo: IFAO, 1994)
198–203 has demonstrated that the verb “open,” wbꜢ in Egyptian, occurs in the context of
boring wells and digging channels.
18. The final line is difficult. According to some of the Ramesside manuscripts, it is a
rhetorical question: “Does someone play tricks on the citizens in what is done to them? ”
Grimal (“Le sage, l’eau et le roi”), relates it to the ideology of the Egyptian king who, func-
tioning as creator-god, was responsible for regulating the Nile’s irrigation system. He main-
tains that the opposite picture is painted here—namely, of anarchy, reflected in the river
overflowing its banks and flooding the fields, thereby preventing tenant farmers from work-
ing their lands.
 The Image of Pharaoh 245

who sought to help their sons usurp the throne, the son of the king’s first wife
conventionally being the rightful heir. 19
To sum up:
1. This is the first—and rare—reference in Egyptian literature to an as-
sassination attempt on the king’s life. The portrayal of the king as
mortal, weak, and assailed by his intimates—his guards, servants, and
even women—is exceptional, casting doubt on the Egyptian king-god
ideology.
2. The king ascribes his deficiency to his isolated position and failure to
make his son coregent in a timely fashion: “Before the courtiers had
heard that I was about to hand over the throne to you.” He goes so far
as to apologize to his son for this miscalculation, suggesting that, had he
appointed him, the assassination would have been foiled: “No act can
succeed without my protector (or: helper).”
3. The emphasis placed on the king’s admission that he had failed to estab-
lish the prince’s legitimate right to the throne almost certainly evinces
that the composition was written during the reign and at the behest of
Sesostris I. Upon his rise to the throne following Amenemhet’s death,
Sesostris sought to strengthen his reign and clear himself of all suspicion
of involvement in the assassination attempt. In order to do so, he com-
posed a fictitious instruction attributed to his father—who returns to the
world of the living in order to proclaim the legitimacy of his son’s rule. 20
The portrayal of the king as weak and helpless that occurs in the Instruc­
tion of Amenemhet recalls the figure of another king, Khety, referred to in the
Instruction Addressed to Merikare. While Amenemhet is punished for no crime,
or at most for his failure to foresee his subjects’ treachery, Merikare’s father is
punished for his own offences. Please sup-
ply correct
character for
The Instruction Addressed to Merikare Merikare’s
father’s name;
Like the Instruction of Amenemhet, the majority of the extant copies of this it was not in
original MS
work date from the New Kingdom period. The most complete is the Peters- supplied to us
and apparently
burg Papyrus (verso A 1116; P). The name of the speaker, Merikare’s father, was not sent in
has been partially preserved, £ty probably referring to Khety Nebkare III, of Unicode. . . .
the Ninth–Tenth Dynasty of Heracleopolis.
The events this work depicts relate to the First Intermediate Period (2145–
2020 B.C.E.), during which Egypt was split into small kingdoms whose rulers

19. Cf., for example, Gay Robins, Women in Ancient Egypt (London: British Mu-
seum,1993) 38–39
20. Support for this conjecture can be found in the phraseology depicting the son,
which highlights his divine aspect vs. his father’s mortal helplessness. In the preface, he is
called nb r Dr “lord of all” and is commanded to xʿi m nṯr “appear like god”; in the epilogue,
he is described as the “seed of god”: see Elke Blumenthal, “Lehre des Königs Amenemhet
(Teil 2),” ZÄS 112 (1985) 107–9.
246 NILI SHUPAK

fought one another. The kings of Heracleopolis in the north, including Khety,
were thus engaged in warfare with the kings of Thebes in the south. Although
scholars dispute the accuracy of the various historical events alluded to herein
and their significance, most concur that the document reflects close-hand
knowledge of the period to which they refer. 21
In contrast to the Instruction of Amenemhet, which is marked by an autobio-
graphical tone and structured as a monologue, this text is primarily didactic
in nature, employing the second-person address typical of Egyptian wisdom
instructions. 22 One of its central themes is the ideal king. The traits this fig-
ure should exhibit are eloquence, wisdom acquired from the traditions of the
ancestors, generosity and forbearance toward his subjects and enemies, and, of
course, the establishment and maintenance of justice—Maat. Although this
picture closely resembles the portrait of the ideal king found in other com-
positions, the work is unique in presenting the king as utterly dependent on
god. While in the Instruction of Amenemhet, the king’s divine nature is self-
evident—the king being described as “god’s seed” and “manifests as god”—in
the Instruction Addressed to Merikare, the choice of the king is totally depen-
dent upon god. “God raises him from amongst a million people” (line 116)
and makes “rulers in the egg” (line 135)—that is, destines them for the throne
while still in the womb. God is appointed over matters of reward and punish-
ment in this world and the next, the link between him and the king being
based on the principle of do ut des (give and take). One of the king’s key roles
was to take care of the gods’ temples and cults, because god “will do the like”
for him, “recognizing the man who acts for him” (lines 129–130; cf. 66–67).
Although Khety devotes much of his counsel to the ideal king, he him-
self appears not to have been an example of such. Like Amenemhet, he is
portrayed as double-faced. On the one hand, he is shown as an astute politi-
cian in foreign and domestic affairs, a charismatic warlord who subdued the
north, brought peace to the west, and conquered the Asiatics in the east (lines
85–91). On the other, he is depicted as weak and human, a flesh-and-blood
king whose son is told to learn from his mistakes. We find here, moreover, an
expectation that occurs in no other text—namely, that his son will be a better
king than his predecessor: “May I see (says the old the king) a brave man who
will do the like, and who will do more than I have done!” (P90).
What mistakes caused Khety to humble himself in such way before his
son? The text contains a description of two failures for which the king takes
responsibility. The first is the destruction of the necropolis in the region of

21. Cf., for example, Pascal Vernus, Sagesses de L’Égypte pharaonique (2nd ed.; Paris:
Actes Sud, 2010) 180–81.
22. The author makes use of diverse literary genres to convey and vary his words. In
addition to the historical accounts and autobiographical style found in the Instruction of
Amenemhet, the Instruction Addressed to Merikare also contains a hymn to god, royal phrase-
ology, and references to the literature of the Dead.
 The Image of Pharaoh 247

Thinis occurring probably during the struggle between the inhabitants of He-
racleopolis and Thebes. This is mentioned twice:
Troops will fight troops, 23
As the ancestors foretold,
Egypt fights in the necropolis,
Destroying tombs, in an act of destruction (?) 24
I did such a thing, this happened to (me),
Just as is done to one who strays from the path by the hand of god (P68–71) 25

The king admits that the destruction of the necropolis was due to him and
that he has been punished for this act by god. His acknowledgment of his sin
and punishment is also clearly evident in the second passage. This explicitly
refers to Thinis as the region in which the necropolis was violated:
Behold, a vile deed occurred in my time,
The region of Thinis was destroyed.
Though this happened because of what I did [according to P. Carlsberg 6:
This did not happen because of what I did],
I learned of it after it had happened.
Behold my punishment (lit.: my shortcoming), out of what I did.
Destruction is vile . . . (P119–21) 26
The second event is only alluded to, possibly being linked to an earlier
violation of the necropolis:
Do not destroy the monument of another man,
Hew a stone in Tura! 27
Build not your tomb from what has been destroyed . . . (P78)

This may refer to materials taken from the destroyed necropolis used to build
new edifices. It may also be unlinked to the earlier event. In either case, the
king here denounces the well-known pharaonic practice of using building
materials from monuments erected by their predecessors to build their own,
decreeing that only newly-cut stones may be used for this purpose. The two
acts—the destruction of the necropolis and the use of old building materi-
als—are presented as particularly grave failures in the light of the following
injunction:

23. My translation, is based primarily on the textual edition of Joachim F. Quack,

Studien zur Lehre für Merikare (Göttinger Orientforschungen 23; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
1992). It also takes other textual editions into account, however.
24. Or: “Do not destroy tombs in an act of destruction(?).”
25. The last three lines here are obscure and rendered variously. Notwithstanding, the
text reflects the concept of retribution characteristic of the work.
26. Quack (Studien zur Lehre für Merikare, 85–86) acknowledges that, while lines 68–71
are difficult, no guilt is laid at the father’s feet. In lines 119–23, in contrast, he is portrayed
as responsible for the destruction of earlier tombs and monuments, perhaps for use in the
erection of his own.
27. A known quarry on the eastern bank of the Nile, close to Cairo.
248 NILI SHUPAK

Kingship is a goodly office,

It has no son, it has no brother who shall make its monuments endure. 28
Each acts on behalf of his predecessor,
Out of the desire that what he has done will be embellished,
By another who comes after him. (P116–118)

In this passage, Khety declares that kingship is a “goodly office”—that is, its
advantage lies in the fact that each king preserves the monuments of his pre-
decessor so that his successor will preserve his, in contrast to commoners, who
must rely on their families to take care of their tombstones. Solidarity between
rulers thus being stronger than familial responsibility, the king acknowledges
his guilt and failure to fulfil his duty in this respect.
To sum up:
1. Merikare’s father confesses his sin, taking responsibility for the violation
of the necropolis in the region of Thinis that occurred in his days—and
possibly also for using material from earlier monuments to build his own.
2. In contrast to Amenemhet, who asserts that he did no evil and stresses
the lack of human gratitude expressed toward him, Merikare’s father
acknowledges the concept of retribution, declaring that the punishment
he suffered at god’s hand was due to his failures (P71).
3. In his admission of his “sins,” the king opens himself up to criticism, an
act unknown in the other instructions. The critical tone that accompa-
nies the account of the old king’s deeds in the body of the work also finds
expression in the epilogue, in which he asks his son-heir to exhibit good
character so that he will also be remembered and known as “the one who
ended the time of suffering” (P142). This saying, which extols Merikare
as the one who puts an end to all the “suffering” that characterized his
father’s reign, strengthens the conjecture that this work was written by
a tendentious author after the old king’s death. 29 It is difficult to deter-
mine whether this author was Merikare, seeking to justify the political

28. Björkman has demonstrated that the term mnw, translated here as “monument,”
carries a broader meaning, serving as a key term in the royal dedicatory inscriptions in
the formula “to do (this) as his mnw for. . . .” This expression relates to every deed the
king performs on behalf of the gods, from offering sacrifices and giving tributes to building
temples and making statues. He also notes that the destruction of temples, sanctuaries, and
statues was regarded as a crime from the Old Kingdom onward, Khety’s ordering his son not
to use building materials from the monuments of other kings precedes the same decree by
his succcessors, Amehotep III, Thutmose III, etc.: Gun Björkman, Kings at Karnak: A Study
of the Treatment of the Monuments of Royal Predecessors in the Early New Kingdom (Uppsala:
Uppsala University Press, 1971) 16–25.
29. Contra Quack (Merikare, 90–92), who contends that there is no “negative verdict
against the king” in the document, including the declaration in the epilogue. He argues that
behind the latter lies the view that the beginning years of the reign of every king symbolized
an end to suffering and a time of redemption. He further posits that we have here a picture
of an ideal ruler whose return was expected by the people (lines 140ff.). Quack’s argument is
 The Image of Pharaoh 249

changes he introduced by attributing them to his father—like Sesostris,

who ascribed his composition to his father—or one of the kings of the
Twelfth Dynasty with a propaganda interest in describing this period. 30

Conclusion
The Instruction Addressed to Merikare and the Instruction of Amenemhet are
both pseudoepigraphical works written in the light of the deaths of the kings
to whom they are attributed. They reflect the political purposes of these kings’
sons—their successors to the throne—or of kings who ruled decades later.
Both contain a description of events and deeds that have no place in official
royal ideology: an assassination attempt on the king’s life and the destruction
and plunder of earlier structures. These passages, in which the king is pre-
sented as a weak, flesh-and-blood ruler dependent on the favor of his men
or as confessing his sins, are close in spirit to the biblical accounts of the
Israelite kings. The biblical wisdom literature (in particular Prov 28–29), the
Pentateuch (the law of the king in Deut 17), the historiography (‫משפט המלך‬
“the custom of the king” in 1 Sam 8), and many other texts portray the king
as human in all respects, afflicted with weaknesses and flaws and frequently
open to criticism. 31 A short text, close in sense to the message reflected in the

difficult, however, in light of the fact that the majority of the verses to which it appeals are
obscure and their meaning disputed.
30. For the former view, cf. Aksel Volten, Zwei altägyptische schriften (Analecta Aegyp-
tiaca 4; Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1945) 84–85; George Posener, “Philologie et archéologie
égyptiennes,” Extrait de l’annuaire du College de France 66 (1966–67) 344–45; idem, “Lehre
für Merikare,” LÄ 3 (1980) 986–87; Blumenthal, “Lehre für König Merikare,” ZÄS 107
(1980) 39–41; Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 1:97. Morenz maintains that the
wordplay referring to the name Khety indicates that it was composed in the Heracleopo-
lis period: Ludwig D. Morenz, “Ein Wortspiel mit den Names Chetys, des Assertors der
Lehre für Meri- kare? ” GM 159 (1997) 75–81. For the latter opinion, see Peter Seibert, Die
Carakteristik (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 17; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967) 1:88, who
assumes that it was penned in the days of Amenemhet I; and Quack (Merikare, 114–37),
who argues that it was written at the beginning of his son Sesostris I’s reign on the basis of
an extensive review of events, concepts, expressions, and formulations in texts from the
latter’s days that fit or parallel details in the Instruction Addressed to Merikare. Cf. also Syd-
ney H. Aufrère, “Un la première période intermédiaire à traverse vision en filigrane de la
l’enseignement à Mérikarê,” Égypte, Afrique et Orient 19 (2000) 3, who posits that the early
rulers of the Twelfth Dynasty had a propaganda interest in describing this period because
the problem of ruling continuity between the speaker king-father and his son in the Instruc­
tion Addressed to Merikare may have clarified a similar succession problem from Amenemhet
I to Sesostris; see also R. B. Parkinson, Tale of Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems,
1940–1640 BC (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) 212; Stephen Quirke, Egyptian
Literature 1800 BC: Questions and Readings (London: Golden House, 2004) 112.
31. According to Tavares, the chapters in Proverbs belong to the genre of the king’s
instruction to his son: Ricardo Tavares, Eine Königliche Weisheitlehre? Exegetische Analyse von
Sprüche 28–29 und Vergleich mit den ägyptischen Lehren Merikaras und Amenemhats (OBO 234;
Fribourg: Academic Press, 2007).
250 NILI SHUPAK

two Egyptian instructions I have addressed here, is found in Qohelet. Let me

conclude with his words: ‫טוב ילד מסּכֵן וחכם ממלך זקן וכסיל אשר לא יָדַ ע להיזהר‬
‫“ עוד‬Better a poor but wise youth than old but foolish king who no longer has
the sense to heed warnings” (Qoh 4:13).