A Quack, How Unapproachable is a Pharaoh

7/23/2019 A Quack, How Unapproachable is a Pharaoh

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a-quack-how-unapproachable-is-a-pharaoh 1/24

History of the Ancient Near East / Monographs – XI ——————————————————————

——————————————————————S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria

Padova 2010

CONCEPTS OF KINGSHIPIN ANTIQUITY

PROCEEDINGS

OF THE EUROPEAN SCIENCE FOUNDATIONEXPLORATORY WORKSHOP

Held in Padova, November 28th

– December 1st, 2007

Edited by

GIOVANNI B. LANFRANCHI & ROBERT ROLLINGER



HANE / M – Vol. XI ——————————————————————

History of the Ancient Near East / Monographs

Editor-in-Chief : Frederick Mario Fales

Editor: Giovanni B. Lanfranchi

——————————————————————

ISBN978-88-95672-01-4

Publication grants

from the European Science Foundation

and from the Dipartimento di Scienze del mondo antico

dell'Università degli Studi di Padova

are acknowledged for this volume

© S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria

Via Induno 18B I-35134 Padova

[email protected] I edizione: Padova, maggio 2010

Proprietà letteraria riservata

Distributed by:Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana 46590-0275 USAhttp://www.eisenbrauns.com

Stampa a cura di / Printed by:Centro Copia Stecchini – Via S. Sofia 58 – I-35121, Padova



TABLE OF CONTENTS

GIOVANNI B. LANFRANCHI, R OBERT R OLLINGER , Introduction ........................... v

JOACHIM FRIEDRICH QUACK , How Unapproachable Is a Pharaoh ? ................. 1

BETINA FAIST, Kingship and Institutional Developmentin the Middle Assyrian Period ....................................................................... 15

K AREN R ADNER , Assyrian and Non-Assyrian Kingshipin the First Millennium BC ............................................................................ 25

SIMO PARPOLA, Neo-Assyrian Concepts of Kingship and Their Heritagein Mediterranean Antiquity ............................................................................ 35

R OCÍO DA R IVA, Dynastic Gods and Favourite Godsin the Neo-Babylonian Period ....................................................................... 45

R OBERT R OLLINGER , Das medische Königtum und die medische Suprematieim sechsten Jahrhundert v. Chr ...................................................................... 63

AMÉLIE K UHRT, Achaemenid Images of Royalty and Empire ........................... 87

BRUNO JACOBS, Herrschaftsideologie und Herrschaftsdarstellung

bei den Achämeniden ................................................................................... 107ALESSANDRA COPPOLA, The Kingship of Alexander and of the Seleucids ...... 115

EDWARD DĄBROWA, The Parthian Kingship ................................................... 123

JOSEF WIESEHÖFER , King and Kingship in the Sasanian Empire .................... 135

PIERRE CARLIER , Les conceptions de la royauté en Grèce classique .............. 153

R EINHOLD BICHLER , Über das Königtum der Inder, Araber und Aithiopenin der griechischen Ethnographie ................................................................ 163

BERNHARD LINKE, Kingship in Early Rome .................................................... 181

K AI R UFFING, Der römische Kaiser im 3. Jh. n. Chr. ...................................... 197

I NDEX

Divine Names .............................................................................................. 211

Personal, Dynastic and Familial Names ...................................................... 211

Toponyms and Ethnonyms ........................................................................... 215

Temple Names ............................................................................................. 218



INTRODUCTION

Giovanni B. Lanfranchi & Robert Rollinger

This volume presents the results of the European Science Foundation (ESF) Exploratory Workshopentitled Concepts of Kingship in Antiquity which was held in Padova from November 29th to Decem- ber 1st in 2007. The application for the organization of the Workshop was approved by the ESF Stand-ing Committee for the Humanities, and the Workshop was totally financed by the ESF according to theESF Exploratory Workshops scheme (see below).

According to the ESF Exploratory Workshops rules, Prof. Dr. Giovanni B. Lanfranchi, Universityof Padova, acted as the Convernor of the Workshop. Prof. Dr. Peter Funke, member of the StandingCommittee for the Humanities of the ESF, participated in the Workshop offering a presentation of theESF at the opening and chairing the final discussion where suggestions were put forward for develop-ing a research network. The Dean of the Faculty of Letters and Philosophy of the University of Pa-dova, Prof. Dr. Paolo Bettiolo, and the Director of the Department of Ancient World Sciences, Prof.Dr. Paolo Scarpi, addressed the convened scholars and introduced the Workshop.

According to the preliminary programme submitted to and approved by the ESF, the workshop was to be devoted to the discussion of the concepts of kingship and especially of divinely inspired or sanc-tioned kingship in the cultures of the Near East and of the central Mediterranean from the 4 th millen-nium BC up to late Antiquity. The Workshop was aimed at soliciting both a deep comparative discus-sion between scholars for singling out the channels of diffusion and the modalities of reception andadaptation of Near Eastern cultural elements in the Mediterranean West, and an intense interdiscipli-nary dialogue on intercultural relations. The discussion was to be focused on the aspects of kingshipwhich were developed and conceptualized in the various Near Estern and Mediteranean cultures, fromthe institutional, political, social, cultural, ideological, religious, monumental and literary points ofview. The main theme of the discussion was suggested to be the comparison between these concepts,aiming at singling out similarities and borrowings, adaptations and transformations, differences and especially direct oppositions, in the framework of an increasing cultural integration in the Mediterraneanworld at the dawn of the Middle Ages.

Accordingly, the Convenor invited 20 scholars, all specialists in their fields and in the historical pe-riods mentioned in the preliminary programme to present a 30 minutes speech about the specific topicthey had selected upon acceptation of the invitation, however submitting a draft of their papers in goodanticipation for facilitating discussion. Two of them were not able to participate in the meeting and itwas not possible to replace them due to time shortage. Since the ESF Exploratory Workshops are supposed to be substantially closed to public, only a handful of colleagues of the neighbouring Universi-ties of Verona, Venezia and Udine were allowed to listen to the papers and to assist to the discussion,however discussing with the participants in the various social occasions.



vi Giovanni B. Lanfranchi ‒ Robert Rollinger

The subject of the Workshop was chosen as an important component of a broader programme focus-sing on intercultural phenomena which was inaugurated in 2006 as a long-term scientific cooperation between Prof. Dr. Robert Rollinger, University of Innsbruck; Prof. Dr. Josef Wiesehöfer, University of

Kiel; Prof. Dr. Bruno Jacobs, University of Basel; Prof. Dr. Giovanni B. Lanfranchi, the Convenor.The main subject of the cooperation programme was and is the study of the interrelations between Eastand West in antiquity, and especially from the second half of the 2nd millennium BC to Late Antiquity;the programme is brought forward in strict cooperation with the International Research Programme

Melammu. The Intellectual Heritage of Assyria and Babylonia in East and West , founded in 1998 byProf. Dr. Simo Parpola, University of Helsinki, and chaired today by Prof. Dr. Tzvi Abusch, BrandeisUniversity.1 In the framework of the above mentioned long-term cooperation, a specific line ofresearch has been inaugurated and implemented, dealing with the broad field of the various modes ofrelationship between Greek Historiography and the Ancient Near East; accordingly, three internationalmeetings were organized up to now, dealing with individual Classical historiographers and specifictopics, in which a large group of international scholars participated with their papers. The meetings

were the following: 2006, May 17th

‒ 20th

, Salzau (Kiel), “Ktesias und der Orient”;2

2007, May 22nd

‒ 25th, Castelen (Basel), “Griechische Geschichtsschreibung und Altvorderasien: der Achaimeniden-hof ”;3 2008, November 24th

‒ 28th, Innsbruck, “Herodot und das Perserreich”.4 A fourth meeting aboutBerossus is to be held in July 2010 at the Durham University, convened by Prof. Dr. Johannes Hau- bold, Durham University.5

The basic conceptions of both the Exploratory Workshop and the scientific cooperation describedabove are, from the methodological point of view, interdisciplinarity, and from the areal point of view,a focus including the Aegean World as well as the Near East. In the mind of the managing researchers,a strict cooperation and intense debate is absolutely necessary between specialists of the various fields

and periods involved, requiring, on the one hand, a full comprehension of the basic methodologicalapproaches of the various specialties involved, on the other hand, a continuous exchange of data stem-ming from the specific researches and subjects performed by the various specialists. The target of suchinterdisciplinarity is the conscious attempt to develop a coherent set of interpretative patterns, whichshould be shared by the various specialists in their respective fields of research. In this view, antiquityis meant to be much more than classical Greece and Ancient Rome, as it would normally be expectedin a large part of contemporary research; it includes, however, the Ancient Near East as well as An-cient Egypt, starting from the beginnings of the Late Bronze Age and fixing as a rough limit the arrivalof the Muslim civilization.

Upon these premises, and in the framework of the long-term cooperation programme mentionedabove, the choice of kingship as the main focus of the ESF Exploratory Workshop was dictated by

some basic principles ackowledged by all the members of the research group. Kingship, actually, is avery broad historical phenomenon which is present in many ancient cultures, but which also showsspecific regional and cultural particularities. As such, its characteristcs can only be observed and duly

1. See http://www.aakkl.helsinki.fi/melammu/home/home.php.2. Josef Wiesehöfer, Robert Rollinger & Giovanni B. Lanfranchi (eds.), Ktesias’ Welt / Ctesias’ World

(Classica et Orientalia 1), Wiesbaden 2010 (in press)3. Bruno Jacobs & Robert Rollinger (eds.), Der achaimenidische Hof / The Achaemenid Court (Classica et

Orientalia 2), Wiesbaden 2010 (in press).4. Robert Rollinger, Brigitte Truschnegg & Reinhold Bichler (eds.), Herodot und das persische Weltreich /

Herodotus and the Persian Empire (Classica et Orientalia 3), Wiesbaden 2010/11, in preparation.5. See http://www.dur.ac.uk/mediterranean.centre/berossos/conference/.



Introduction vii

discussed within a comparative perspective, and the awareness of the existence of two different ap- proaches must be in the background of this perspective. One has to combine a strong competencewithin a given academic discipline, enabling to deal with the extant sources in an adequate manner.

The other has to broaden this perspective to a comparative view dealing with the phenomenon of king-ship in a general way.According to these basic principles, upon convening the invited participants total freedom was

given to concentrate on specific local and regional aspects of kingship, i.e. “sacred” versus/and “pro-fane” kingship; royal cult and court ceremonies; royal family and dynasty; the king at war and the kingin peace; king and palace; king and temple; kingship as fixed institution versus kingship as an ephem-eral phenomenon; kingship in the perspective of literature and of sources; kingship seen from insideand outside of a given culture; kingship as a conception and kingship as an idea; king and court as wellas king and courtiers; etc. This wide variety of subjects had not the effect of producing a fragmentedseries of contributions unconnected as regards methodology and content, but instead strongly en-hanced a vivid discussion between scholars of different subjects, and helped in singling out specific

parallelisms in the methodological approach and in the interpretation of historical phenomena. Sinceonly drafts were presented during the conference, the vivid discussions have highly stimulated and in-fluenced the final presentation of the papers published in this volume.

At the end of the Workshop, all participants agreed in asking Prof. Dr. Giovanni B. Lanfranchi andProf. Dr. Robert Rollinger to act as the editors of the Proceedings of the Workshop, to be published inthe series History of the Ancient Near East / Monographs thanks to the funding of the ESF, of the Uni-versity of Padova, and of the Department of Ancient World Sciences of the same University. The pre-sent volume contains 15 of the 18 papers read and discussed in the Workshop; the detailed original programme of the Workshop is given below. A short description of the main tasks of the ESF and of

the ESF Standing Committee for the Humanities are also appended.

The editors would like to thank Prof. Dr. Peter Funke, member of the Standing Committee for the Hu-manities of the ESF, for his participation in the discussion not only as a coordinating representative ofthe ESF, but also as a keen scholar who felt to be involved in the issues of the Workshop and offeredmany interesting points to the debate. Ms Valérie Allspach-Kiechel, ESF Exploratory Workshop Ad-ministrator, must be warmly thanked for her invaluable cooperation in making extremely easy and fastthe administration management and especially in preparing and diffusing the final programme of theWorkshop to be distributed to European scholars through the ESF. The editors wish to thank Prof. Dr.Frederick Mario Fales, University of Udine, for accepting to publish these Proceedings in the series

History of the Ancient Near East / Monographs as its Editor-in-Chief. Finally, many thanks are alsodue to Dr. Alessandro Greco, University of Padova, who participated in the organization and in themanagement of the practical aspects of the Workshop, and for accepting to print this volume c/o his publishing house S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria.

Giovanni B. Lanfranchi Robert Rollinger



viii Giovanni B. Lanfranchi ‒ Robert Rollinger

The European Science Foundation Exploratory WorkshopConcepts of Kingship in Antiquity

Padova, November 29th ‒ December 1st, 2007

Detailed Original Programme

Thursday, November 29th , 200709.00 ‒ 09.10 Opening of the Workshop. Institutional welcome: The Dean of the Faculty of Letters

and Philosophy of the University of Padova, Prof. Dr. Paolo Bettiolo; the Director ofthe Department of “scienze del mondo antico”, Prof. Dr. Paolo Scarpi

09.10 ‒ 09.30 Prof. Dr. PETER FUNKE, Standing Committee for the Humanities: Presentation of theEuropean Science Foundation

09.30 ‒ 10.00 Prof. Dr. Giovanni B. Lanfranchi: Introduction to the Workshop

10.00 ‒ 10.30 Prof. Dr. MARIO LIVERANI (Università di Roma “La Sapienza”): “Sumerian and Ak-kadian kingship”11.00 ‒ 11.30 Prof. Dr. HANS NEUMANN (Westfälische Wilhelmsuniversität Münster): “Kingship in

second millennium BC Mesopotamia”11.30 ‒ 12.00 Prof. Dr. Joachim Friedrich Quack (Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg):

“Kingship in ancient Egypt”.12.00 ‒ 12.30 Prof. Dr. StEFANO DE MARTINO (Università degli Studi di Trieste): “The Hittite king-

ship”.15.00 ‒ 15.30 Dr. BETINA FAIST (Freie Universität Berlin): “Kingship in the Middle Assyrian empire

(XVI-XI centuries BC)”.15.30 ‒ 16.00 Dr. K AREN R ADNER (University College London): “Assyrian and non-Assyrian

kingship in the first millennium BC”.16.30 ‒ 17.00 Prof. Dr. SIMO PARPOLA (Helsingin Yliopisto / University of Helsinki): “Neo-Assyrianconcepts of kingship and their heritage in Mediterranean antiquity”.

17.00 ‒ 17.30 Prof. Dr. MARIA DEL R OCIO DA R IVA MUÑOZ (Universitat de Barcelona): “Kingshipin the Neo-Babylonian empire (VI century BC)”.

17.30 ‒ 18.30 General discussion

Friday, November 30th , 200709.00 ‒ 09.30 Prof. Dr. R OBERT R OLLINGER (Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck): “Kingship

in the Median dominion (VI century BC)”.09.30 ‒ 10.00 Prof. Dr. AMÉLIE K UHRT (University College London): “Kinghsip in the Persian

Achaemenid empire (VI-IV centuries BC)”.10.00 ‒ 10.30 Prof. Dr. BRUNO JACOBS (Universität Basel): “Representations of Ancient NearEastern kingship in art”.

11.00 ‒ 11.30 Prof. Dr. PETER HAIDER (Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck): “Phoenician andCarthaginian kingship”.

11.30 ‒ 12.00 Prof. Dr. PIERRE CARLIER (Université Paris X Nanterre): “Concepts of kingship inClassical Greece”.

12.00 ‒ 12.30 Prof. Dr. R EINHOLD BICHLER (Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck): “Kingship inGreek historiography”.

15.00 ‒ 15.30 Prof. Dr. CHRISTOPH ULF (Leopold-Franzens-Universität Innsbruck): “Kingship inEarly Greece”.



Introduction ix

15.30 ‒ 16.00 Prof. Dr. ALESSANDRA COPPOLA (Università degli Studi di Padova): “The kingship ofAlexander the Great and of the Seleucids”.

16.30 ‒ 17.00 Prof. Dr. K AI R UFFING (Philipps-Universität Marburg): “Kingship in the Late Roman

Empire”.17.00 ‒ 17.30 Prof. Dr. EDWARD DĄBROWA (Uniwersytet Jagielloński Krákow / Jagellonian Univer-sity Krakow): “Kingship in the Parthian empire (III century BC - I century AD)”.

17.30 ‒ 18.30 General discussion

Saturday, December 1 st , 200709.00 ‒ 09.30 Prof. Dr. BERNHARD LINKE (Technische Universität Chemnitz): “Kingship in the

Early Roman Empire”.09.30 ‒ 10.00 Prof. Dr. JOSEF WIESEHÖFER (Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel): “Kingship in the

Arsacid and Sassanid empires”.10.30 ‒ 13.00 Final discussion and suggestions for developing a research network (with the partici-

pation of the ESF representative Prof. Dr. Peter Funke, Standing Committee for theHumanities).

The European Science FoundationThe European Science Foundation Standing Committee for the Humanities

The European Science Foundation (ESF) is an association of 76 Member Organisations devoted toscientific research in 30 European countries. The Mission of ESF is to provide a common platform forits Member Organisations in order to advance European research and to explore new directions forresearch at the European level. Through its activities, the ESF serves the needs of the Europeanresearch community in a global context. The main objectives of ESF for the years 2006-2010 as

defined by its current Strategic Plan are to promote Science Strategy and Science Synergy, paving theway for initiatives across disciplinary and geographic boundaries in the European Research Area(ERA).

The Exploratory Workshops scheme is one of the key instruments of the Science Strategy “pillar”.Each year, ESF supports approximately 50 Exploratory Workshops across all scientific domains. Thefocus of the scheme is on workshops aiming to explore an emerging and/or innovative field of researchor research infrastructure, also of interdisciplinary character. Workshops are expected to open up newdirections in research or new domains. It is expected that a workshop will conclude with plans forspecific follow-up research activities and/or collaborative actions or other specific outputs eitherwithin the frame of ESF (e.g. prepare the ground to develop a Forward Look, a Research NetworkingProgramme or a EUROCORES proposal; publication of a Policy Briefing …) or for submission to the

EU 7th

Framework Programme or to other European or international funding organisations.



x Giovanni B. Lanfranchi ‒ Robert Rollinger

The main tasks of the ESF Standing Committee for the Humanities (SCH) are:— to encourage interdisciplinary work through the independent evaluation of collaborative research

proposals emanating from the scholarly community;

—

to identify priority research areas and to play an integrative and co-ordinating role by creating links between research communities which in the Humanities are often small and fragmented;— to contribute to the development of the ESF science policy agenda and to provide expert advice on

science policy actions at the European level in the field of its responsibilities.The Committee is well aware that the ESF is the only European Agency where the Humanities have a place next to the other sciences and where European projects are reviewed, developed and subse-quently operated.

The Committee considers it all the more important to be heard as the voice of the Human Sciencesin Europe and to continue pleading for a more prominent place for the Humanities in the Europeanlandscape.



HOW UNAPPROACHABLE IS A PHARAOH ?

Joachim Friedrich Quack

There has been a vast amount of study on the Egyptian concept of kingship.1 The question of hisdivinity has been one of the principal problems. Earlier studies normally attribute a specific divinity tothe Egyptian King.2 Highly influential in bringing down such an approach was a study by GeorgePosener who presented evidence which, in his eyes, spoke against an authentic divinity of the Pha-raoh.3 Nowadays, there is a strong tendency to ascribe a more differentiated approach to the Egyptians:they are supposed to have considered the office itself as divine, but not the individual king. 4 Whilesuch a picture might seem reasonable, it raises, at least with me, some uneasiness. Doesn’t it smacktoo much like making the Ancient Egyptian civilisation palatable to a modern public by demolishingsuch a thing as the real divinity of a living human being which is so hard to swallow for modernminds? After all, the Egyptians themselves explicitly said about the king “he is not a man” (Edfou VI301, 13)

The framework of this workshop does not allow more than a relatively short discussion, but thatcan be turned to an advantage by focussing on one specific aspect which has not been all that much inthe focus of previous scholarship, instead of making a full-scale re-opening of the case on all fronts.

The guiding question for the following aspects will be the way the king can be approached anddealt with. Is he treated in a way so special that it suggests an ontological status different from human beings also as a person, not only as representing an office? To answer this, I will consider a number ofcases where the Pharaoh as a person and how to behave towards him is at stake.

1. Some of the principal ones are Goedicke 1960; Barta 1975; O’Connor – Silverman (eds.) 1995; Gund-lach 1998; Windus-Staginsky 2006. More specifically focused on phraseology are e.g. Blumenthal 1970; Grimal1986; Schade-Busch 1992. Recently, there has been a series of conferences, see Gundlach – Raedler (eds.) 1997;Gundlach – Seipel (eds.) 1999; Gundlach – Rößler-Köhler (eds.) 2003.

2. E.g. Frankfort 1948.3. Posener 1960.4. This seems to have originated with Goedicke 1960. Sceptic towards it: Posener 1960: 102–103. The

wide recognition of this paradigm can be seen e.g. in the fact that it is taken over in non-egyptological literaturelike Ahn 1992: 32; Edelmann 2007: 22.



2 Joachim Friedrich Quack

Pronouncing the name of Pharaoh

It is quite obvious that there were problems involved in simply pronouncing the actual name of thePharaoh.5 There are no less than three relevant admonitions in the Instruction of a Man for his Son, a

wisdom text of the Middle Kingdom (ca. 1900 BCE),6

showing the great importance of this topic.“The one who is free of his name will be an honoured one” (§ 6, 5), “sound of limbs is he who is freeof his name” (§ 7, 1) and “there is no tomb for the one who pronounces his name” (§ 7, 7). We have tokeep in mind that this instruction was more specifically written for an “average”, certainly not high-scale official.7 By contrast, in the Loyalist Teaching 8 coming from approximately the same time, butwritten for a high-level official, while it has much to say about the royal wrath against those who arenot loyal, pronouncing the name of the king is not among the punishable vices. What we have there israther a saying “fight for his name, be pure concerning his life” (§ 6, 1). This can be understood tomean an active participation against those who abuse the name of the king as well as engaging only intrue oaths (which are sworn by the life of the king), but in my opinion does not suggest real avoidanceof the name.

While these instructional texts operate more on a theoretical level, we can see the practical conse-quences of such rules of conduct in actual life. First to be considered are oath formulae. Already thefirst commentators of the Instruction of a Man for his Son drew a parallel between the avoidance ofthe name and oath formulae.9 There are some types of oaths in Ancient Egypt which are typicallysworn by the Pharaoh while in others the gods are invoked.10 In those invoking the king, the normalcase is that the actual name is not spoken by the accused one. There might be some evidence that theroyal name was only invoked by persons with authority, and not allowed to be spoken by criminalsand suspects.11 The few cases were the actual name is given are the king swearing by himself (Urk. I,180, 8), an official of the highest court rank (Hatnub 49),12 another courtier of the highest rank whomentions the names of kings also otherwise in his inscription (Stela of Khusobek)13 and a foreign prince (pHarris 500 vs. 1, 9; LES 82, 13). This evidence strongly suggests that pronouncing the actual

name of the reigning Pharaoh in an oath was only appropriate for people of a well-defined high levelof society. Invoking the name of a deity in an oath, however, was not a problem and is abundantlyattested. Still, under some conditions, also naming the gods could be problematic.14

Equally, there is at least a distinct possibility of saying impersonally “one” instead of naming theking as the active perpetrator of an act.15

Going further, we should pose the question of who could and would name the actual Pharaoh in histomb inscriptions. While some private autobiographies give the exact name(s) of the king(s) underwhom the person served, in many more cases, we do not have such indications. This phenomenon haslargely been seen, in Egyptology, as a dating problem — strategies had to be developed to find other

5. Schott 1953, esp. 278–280. See also Brunner-Traut 1975: 286, even though her actual examples are con-cerned with blasphemous use of the name, not with naming per se.

6. Edition in Fischer-Elfert 1999. For the image of the king as a god in these texts see further Wilke 2006:127–128.

7. Quack 2000a: 536-538 against Fischer-Elfert 1999: 295-316.8. Edition in Posener 1976.9. Posener 1976: 30; Fischer-Elfert 1999: 88.10. Quack 2008: 146–148.11. Wilson 1948: 153. See also Menu 1998, who does not take up this question.12. Anthes 1928: 76–78.13. Studied e.g. by Baines 1987.14. von Lieven 2007a: 127 and 162–164.15. Shirun-Grumach 1984.



How Unapproachable Is A Pharaoh? 3

criteria for determining the exact date of a monument.16 While such criteria are practically helpful,they tend to draw attention away from the really important question: was it the free choice of thetomb-owner not to mention the king, or would he have needed a special status or favour to be allowed

even to mention him?It is much less of a problem if what is spelled out is not really the king’s name as such. We have,especially in the Old Kingdom, the frequent phenomenon of agricultural domains whose name is com- posed with the one of the king (as their founder).17 In such cases, it is possible to write the king’s namewithout naming him as such, so his presence poses no violation of decorum (and, as a matter of fact, itis one of the most common means of dating tombs to look at the names of kings attested in the domainnames, supposing that the latest king among those attested by such names is likely to be not far awayfrom the actual date of construction of the tomb).18

Another point concerns the naming of the Pharaoh in dates. While official contracts drawn bynotaries tend to indicate the actual name of the reigning Pharaoh, private letters and other unofficialdocuments normally give only the year count without indicating the reigning Pharaoh. 19 I would

propose to see this also as sign of taboo, where an official permission was required for using the king’sname. An interesting indication of this can be found in the protocol of an investigation against tombrobbers (pLeopold II+pAmherst).20 The dating formula at the beginning, written by the official scribe,makes full use of the name and the title of the reigning king (1, 1). But when it comes to theconfession of a thief, he only says “but when the year 13 of Pharaoh, our lord, came about” (1, 17–18).For the question of the “buffers” used to avoid the actual name of the king, see below.

One very obvious point clearly connected with the restricted status of the name of the king is thewriting of the two most commonly used parts of the royal titles — the praenomen and the nomen — ina so-called cartouche, an encircling device going back to a rope laid around the name so that nothingcan touch it directly.21 This habit started with the beginning of the 4th dynasty.

Using Pharaoh in a name

Especially for the throne names of reigning Pharaohs, there might have been some sort of taboo. 22 Atleast it is conspicuous how private persons could have names looking like incomplete versions of suchnames. E.g. we have a king Men-kheper-Re and a private individual Men-kheper. Especially this phe-nomenon — omitting the name of the sun-god who was an almost obligatory part of the throne-nameof the king23 — is generally frequent during the Middle and New Kingdom.24

16. E.g., Cherpion 1989.17. Jacquet-Gordon 1962.18. Cherpion 1989: 139 and passim; for an evaluation of the feasibility of this procedure see Seidlmayer

1997.19. For the demotic documents, see the short remarks by Depauw 1997: 163.20. Capart – Gardiner – van de Walle 1936.21. von Beckerath 1984: 34–37.22. For personal names, nothing of this sort seems to have existed for all periods, but at least during the Old

Kingdom, there are no attestations that any private person had the same name as the king, see Windus-Staginsky2006: 73.

23. von Beckerath 1984: 27–31.24. Ranke undated: 95. During the Late Period, things seem to have changed according to Ranke (ibid.:

246), but it should be kept in mind that the names of older kings he adduces there and on p. 248 are better to beconsidered as names of deities since they concern only kings who had an ongoing cult (see von Lieven 2007b).




This should also be investigated further with regard to the complex of using the name of the king as part of a private name.25 There is a type of so-called “court-names”. Especially in the Ramesside period, we have cases of basilophoric names.26 Often, their carriers were foreigners who rose through

the favour of the king; they obviously received these names by royal decision (and in some cases can be documented also with their original Semitic names). How such an attribution of a new name cancome about is briefly hinted at in the fragments of the indictment of a criminal preserved in pVarzy.27 The preserved end of line reads “[…] the name which Pharaoh, his lord, said to him, while there wasalready the name of a slave, a common one, which he had” (l. 4; RAD 40, 4-5). From this, we can de-duce that the attribution of such a name was an act of royal initiative and would not have been up tofree private choice.28

By contrast, using a deity in a personal name was possible at all times without discernible limit-ation (except that the god Seth got definitely proscribed after the end of the New Kingdom). There areeven, from the end of the Old Kingdom onwards, cases where names of deities are as such used as per-sonal names.29

Depicting Pharaoh

During all of the Old Kingdom, there was not a single representation of the king in the tomb of a non-royal person. This extends even to tombs of wives or sons of kings. Things changed only in the MiddleKingdom, and even then it was quite rare.30 In the New Kingdom it becomes more frequent but is stilllimited to high-ranking courtiers.31 Late Period tombs sometimes depict the king although in a ratherdifferent context; no longer the tomb-owner presenting tribute or prisoners, or receiving rewards, butrather the king in interaction with the gods, with the tomb-owner standing at the side.32

This should be compared with the depiction of deities. In Old Kingdom private tombs, there isnone.33 On private stelae, it started during the Middle Kingdom, but then it was still rare (less than10% of all), and often not the deities themselves but their statues were depicted. 34 Only in the New

Kingdom did their depiction become widespread.

Getting access to the royal court and behaving correctly there

Unfortunately, we are very badly informed about the protocol of the royal court in Ancient Egypt.35 Wecan reasonable suppose that there was a fairly strict one, but we do not have it in its written form. 36

25. The overview in Ranke undated: 216–227 is too short and mixes theophoric and basilophoric names toomuch to be of real help for my question. Barta 1990 is limited to grammatical questions and does not deal withthe sociological points.

26. Helck 1958: 273–276; Schulman 1986; Schulman 1990.27. RAD 59, 14-60, 5; Loffet – Matoïan 1996.28. For the fact that a name is attributed by the king, there is also the evidence of Gen. 41, 45 where Joseph

is given a new name by the Pharaoh, even though in that case it is not a basilophoric name.29. Ranke undated: 234–235; 239; 246; 247.30. Vasiliević 2005.31. Radwan 1969; Hartwig 2004: 54-73.32. Kuhlmann – Schenkel 1983: 137–138, pl. 160.33. Herb 2006: 127–128.34. Bolshakov 2003: 135.35. While there are recent studies on the society of the royal court like Raedler 2004; Gundlach – Klug

(eds.) 2006, they do not focus on the points of primary interest for my question. More relevant is Coulon 2002.36. Some impression of how such rules of behaviour were set down can be gained from the so-called Duties

of the Vizier , see van den Boorn 1988.




Texts like the 13th maxim of the Teaching of Ptahhotep inform us that, for the audience-chamber, be-haviour exactly according to the allocated rank would be required.37 So, we are reduced to assemblingindividual points mainly from biographies, to some degree also from literary tales set at the court. The

biographies are the most informative evidence, since people in high positions stress how they couldget exclusive access to the king when others were kept outside.38 A key witness for the protocol at the royal court is also the hieroglyphic so-called “geographical”

papyrus from Tanis, a manual of fundamental knowledge.39 This contains a section naming the principal courtly functions, indicating their position to the right or left of the king, and sometimes definingtheir specific actions. In such a situation it is clear why in a literary description of a court session it issaid that one character leaves his position and comes in the middle before Pharaoh (pKrall 9, 5).40 How difficult it was to get the ear of the king is also well illustrated by the dealings of pRylands IX,16, 15-16 where it is discussed who the actual favourite to whom the Pharaoh hears is.41

For deities, getting access was also far from evident. An Egyptian temple had an elaborate systemwith levels of accessibility. Ordinary people were kept in the outer courts, and the innermost parts with

the chapel containing the cult-image of the deity were off limits for all except the highest priestlyranks.42 There was a possibility of getting a praying place at the rear of the temple where you could, insome sense, be near to the deity while at the same time not threatening to defile it in any way. 43 Thereis even a letter addressed to a god where the writer says how difficult it is for him to get access just toask the god to appear in a procession in order to render a verdict.44

Decision making

The question of court protocol and behaviour at the court brings us straight to the question of howactual political decision-making took place. Among Egyptologists, there is the model of the “king’snovel” which has dominated since its inauguration for about 50 years but by now has come increas-ingly into debate.45 Normally, the texts claimed for this genre depict court sessions where a decision is

at stake. The ordinary process is that either the royal view of action is adopted straightaway (some-times with special adulation by the court), or confirmed against eventual doubts by courtiers; in theend it always turns out to be correct. In my opinion, the main problem with this group of texts is that itis less a real genre category but rather a depiction of cultural conventions. Firstly, open debate withcontroversial sides is not often tolerated by the harmony-guided principles of the Egyptian culture.Secondly, it is not so much simple actual propaganda which is at stake here but more a fundamentalconviction that the royal insight is infallible. In any case, it should be stressed that mythological textssituating a process of decision-making among gods operate on almost identical parameters, e.g. the so-called “Book of the Heavenly Cow”.46

37. See e.g. Vernus 1999: 146–147.38. See e.g. Jansen-Winkeln 1985; Kloth 2002: 158–159.39. Edited by Griffith – Petrie 1889; see further Yoyotte 1960.40. See Hoffmann 1996: 212 with note 1090, who understands the formula differently.41. Vittmann 1998: 170–173 and 526–527.42. The best testimony for this is the Book of the Temple, see Quack 2000b; Quack 2004.43. Guglielmi 1994; Quaegebeur 1997.44. Papyrus Nevill, published in Barns 1949, recent translation in Wente 1990: 219.45. Original proposal in Hermann 1938; for recent discussions see e.g. Loprieno 1996; Jansen-Winkeln

1998; Hofmann B. 2004; Beylage 2002: 553–618. See my short remarks in Quack 2003: 607.46. Edited in Hornung 1982.




Telling of misfortune befalling the Pharaoh

There is a fairly well-attested phenomenon that it is not desirable to speak directly of misfortune befalling either the Pharaoh or the gods, sometimes also the land of Egypt as a whole. Instead, one

possible option is to say that something evil befell “the enemies” of the king/the gods/the country.47

Another one is to say that the king/god was “far from” a misfortune. 48 King and deities are treated onthe same level in this regard. Such a way of formulation is otherwise sometimes attested for sacredanimals or for the land of Egypt, but never for mortal men.

Pharaoh in tales

The role of the king in tales and belles-lettres was one of the principal cases adduced by Posener forshowing that the Egyptians did not consider their rulers to be divine.49 I would propose to re-open thecase. One first point which should be stressed is the limited possibility of using the king in such tales.Firstly, we encounter again the question of naming the king. Sometimes, the king is completely anony-mous, like in the story of the Doomed Prince or the Tale of the Two Brothers. In most cases, the king is

given with his name only once, at the beginning of a story, and afterwards tends to be alluded to by lo-cutions as “his majesty/Persona” (ḥm= ƒ in Middle and Late Egyptian texts) or “Pharaoh” ( pr-o# inDemotic stories).

This might be the right place to discuss these circumscriptions in general, especially since they arenot restricted to literary texts. Rather, ḥm= ƒ (when speaking of the king) or ḥm=| (when the king him-self speaks) is a frequent term for designating the king in action in royal as well as private monumentalinscriptions. For Goedicke, ḥm was the principal way of designating the king as a physical human person.50 An absolutely contrary position was defended by Hofmann.51 For him, this term originallydesignated the creative and authoritative aspect which was divine in origin but worked within theworld. Personally, I favour yet another alternative. The term is etymologically identical with the expression ḥm, “serve, slave”, but neither in the sense of an original meaning “body” (thus Spiegel52 and

Goedicke)53

nor in the sense of somebody who is acting and bringing things into motion (thus Hof-mann). The royal designation is literally “my/his servant”, but not in the sense of a self-depreciatingattitude, and also not as a simple stylistic device.54 In reality, it functions as a sort of buffer protectingthe acting king from any potentially dangerous involvement55 (if there was an actually damaging in-volvement, even stronger buffers were possible, see above). This explains also why it can sometimes be used not only for the king himself but also for the palace.

The expression pr-o# (from which our “Pharaoh” is etymologically derived) is originally a designa-tion “great house” serving to designate the royal palace. As a designation of the actual king, it is at-tested since the 18th dynasty.56 Here too its usage shows a reluctance to directly use the individualname of a king.

47. Posener 1970; Vittmann 1998: 509–510, and lastly Quack 2005a: 173.48. Quack 2003; wrongly disputed by Franke 1998 and Depuydt 1998.49. Posener 1960: 89-103; Posener 1985: 23.50. Goedicke 1960: 51–79. Contested already by Müller 1963: 196. Accepted by von Beckerath 1984: 39.51. Hofmann Th. 2001.52. Spiegel 1939.53. This seems still to be the base of the translation “embodiment” for ḥm used e.g. in the publications of

James P. Allen.54. Understood as such by Windus-Staginsky 2006: 165–195.55. Thus already Gardiner 1943; Posener 1970: 34.56. Von Beckerath 1984: 39.




Furthermore, the ruling Pharaoh can never be shown as the protagonist and main actor of any tale.He might be of some importance, or he might only be a minor player, but he never has the leading role.The closest we get to in any Egyptian text known to me are probably some fragments on the heroic ex-

ploits of Sesostris,57

but in the setting of the tale, he is still a prince while his father Amenemhet reigns.Some of the points highlighted by Posener as showing the lack of divinity can be explained imme-diately by this simple fact. For example, in the prophecy of Neferti, the fact that the king does notforetell the future himself but gets a specialist to do it has nothing to do with his lack of omniscience but simply with not breaking the genre rules.

Furthermore, Posener has probably applied to this material an all too theoretical image of what agod should be. We should remember that Egyptian gods also had their weaknesses, adverse times andsometimes did downright immoral things.58 As it is formulated in the demotic wisdom book preservedin papyrus Insinger:

So it happened in the beginning when the gods were on earth. Re became weak before the impi-

ous ones; they in turn became weak before him. Horus was hidden in the marshes, and then he be-came king of the country. Isis got happiness in sorrow at the end of what she had done. (pInsinger20, 16-19)59

Also, even gods needed protection against dangers, or, if going unprotected, were liable do get hurt. 60 So, it is not out of the ordinary if the king in the Second Story of Setne Chaemwase needs magical pro-tection against the magic of the Nubians.61

Perhaps we can take up some cases already adduced by Posener. The so-called Inaros-Petubastis-Cycle shows a king Petubastis who has some problems with his authority. Still, if we take the papyrusKrall62 and look closely, the image becomes slightly different. The king is the authority, and nobodyopenly disobeys him, even if not everything goes exactly as he wishes. To take an instructive example,

at one situation one of the protagonists stresses that only the respect before the king holds him backfrom being very rude in court towards his opponent (pKrall 9, 8-9). In another situation, the orders ofthe king are invoked by one hero against the other as a reason for not killing an opponent (pKrall 23,12-14).

Papyrus Spiegelberg63 might show greater problems for the king, but in this case they do not resultfrom the fact that kingship as such was less than a divine institution. As explicitly said, Petekhonswould not obey Petubastis simply because he has not recognised him as a king (pSpiegelberg 13, 15);and we can suppose that he would be quite obedient towards any king whom he recognises as legiti-mate overlord. Besides, we should not forget that king Petubastis is a Pharaoh of the late Libyan pe-riod, when a quite different model of rule and kingship than the traditional Egyptian one was prevalent.64

57. See Quack 2005b: 28.58. A large collection of sometimes really repulsive behaviour (killing the father, violating the mother, in-

cest with the daughter) can be gleaned from the papyrus published in Meeks 2006.59. Translation in Hoffmann – Quack 2007: 260.60. A case in point is the young Horus with his innumerable episodes of danger and wounds; his foolish

going without amulet is found in pBoulaq 6, rt. 5, 8; see Koenig 1981: 57–63.61. Adduced as argument against the divinity of the king by Posener 1960: 96.62. Edited in Hoffmann 1996.63. Edited by Spiegelberg 1910; recent translation in Hoffmann – Quack 2007: 88–107, 336–338.64. Jansen-Winkeln 1999; Jansen-Winkeln 2000.




Here too it seems appropriate to compare this picture with the one attested for gods. There are quitea lot of tales involving deities. Most especially, the conflict of Horus and Seth is again and againelaborated as a tale. Especially for the Graeco-Roman period, also the heroic exploits of the living

Osiris seem to be an important topic.65

In such tales, there is obviously no hesitation at all to make thegods the main heroes. As compared to the standing of the king in tales, the gods do not seem to be anymore infallible. The sun-god in the Contendings of Horus and Seth, although supposed to be the kingof the gods and chairman of the court, has serious authority problems, and the decision he wishes isnot the one which comes about.66 While Horus is supposed to be the main good guy, his character hasweaknesses (most of the important steps are not taken by himself but by his mother), and sometimeshe behaves even downright awful as when he beheads his mother; he is actually punished for this be-haviour (which a king never is in a tale). In the Tale of the Heavenly Cow, the sun-god wavers in hisdecisions and changes his mind, finally he more or less flees the field by ascending to heaven andleaving Thot in charge of the affairs of ruling on earth.67 For the sun-god, there is a significant traditionhow his rule is threatened by rebellions, sometimes driving him to temporary flight.68 To sum this up:

the way gods are presented in Egyptian narrative texts shows them, if anything, even weaker and mor-ally more problematic than kings. Thus, the narrative texts about kings cannot be adduced to argue thatthey were understood in them as being non-divine.

Conclusion

Looking at the points brought up so far, we gain some material illustrative of how the king was re-moved from the sphere of the ordinary, and how deities were treated in similar situations. Either, theyare treated alike, or the king has even more restrictions about him. The cases I have considered con-cern the actual persons being king, not the abstract office whose divinity is conceded generally. Still,they do not show clear evidence for the less-than-divine status of the individual royal person which is

nowadays the communis opinio of Egyptology. In my opinion, it would be worthwhile to compare theEgyptian material with that of far-eastern monarchies, especially China and Japan, were we have goodevidence for the divinity of living kings (the Japanese emperor gave up his claims of divinity onlyafter the defeat against the USA in the Second World War).

Postscript

It seems appropriate to illustrate the status of the king vis-à-vis the gods through the quotation of a li-turgical papyrus. The manuscript itself dates from the Late Ptolemaic period, even though it certainlygoes back to earlier models.69 The passage follows after a festival song to the god, and, like so often inEgyptian texts, it invokes the favour of the deity towards the king as a fitting end to a compositionwhich in the previous part centres around the figure of the god.

65. Overview of the attestations in Quack 2005b: 24–25.66. Text in Gardiner 1931; recent English translation e.g. in Lichtheim 1976: 214–223.67. Text in Hornung 1982.68. Smith 2000.69. The text is pStrasbourg 2, col. 4, 30-5, 18, published in a not always reliable way by Bucher 1928 and

1930; German translation in Assmann J. 1999: 351–361. My translation incorporates changes in the reading onthe basis of the published photographs, as well as new digital images provided by the Bibliothèque Nationale etUniversitaire de Strasbourg, augmented by a collation of some points on the original. I would like to thank Gise-la Bélot and Daniel Bornemann for the possibility to work with this papyrus. The more important philological points are indicated in the notes.




Oh come to the Pharaoh, in peace!Re, may you make him endure while overthrowing your enemy!He has driven back for you Apopis in his moment (of attack),

he has stabbed for you the one of evil character.70

Ptah, may you make Pharaoh endure 71 with your endurance,May you let him be powerful 72 with your power,He has given you life, his arms carrying truth.May you cause him to be revered 73 with it!

Shu, may you provide 74 the nose of the Pharaoh with life, endurance and power!Geb! He has equipped your food-offerings,He has planted for you this land and what is in it.The field produces for you everything which exists.75

Osiris! Enrich the limbs of the Pharaoh with everything which came forth from you!You shall not hide anything evil of his followers!His body is complete for life.May you protect Pharaoh on your throne!

Horus! May you give him eternity as king of the two lands,Everlastingness in guiding all countries!May you glorify the happiness of the Pharaoh in that your name of Sobek,May you render mysterious for him the products of this landIn that your name of He-of-Shedty!

You have united and copulated with the cows in that your name of Khnum.

Come to Pharaoh, oh Re in all his names!He has offered to you everything which has come forth from the abyss,Everything which came into being from your limbs.He has provided for the sanctuary of your image,He has found all your cult-orders in you,He has united for you your children against the godsAs … for their Kas together with your Ka.He has given you a collar on your neck,So that you may become high and develop into Khepri.

He has made for you your two feathers upon his 76

head,

70. Designation of a snake-shaped enemy of the gods.71. To be read @ ṭ = k , with causative force for the simplex.72. To be read wsr = k .73. What is written is | mnḫ=f , but with the determinative , thus it probably is a writing for | m# ḫ=f .74. ḥnk written for ḥn= k .75. The word wnn.t has the determinative of the goddess.76. So the manuscript according to my collation. We would rather expect “your head”, but perhaps the ac-

tual formulation brings out the close interaction between god and king especially well.




So that you may become sound against his breast.He has directed his arms with your offerings, he has made durable your bread,Pure and clean 77 on your offering-table,

With what I have said on you.78

Oh Sobek-Re, lord of Sumenu.May your heart be loving upon the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Pharaoh!He has adored you with your beautiful hymns,He has pacified you with all his (read: your) names,He has given praise to your crown,He has presented truth to you towards your nose.He has pacified you with the divine words,He has justified you against your rebel,He has pierced for you your enemy.

May you let him endure as king of the two landsWhile your enemies are fallen to your massacre!May you let him rejuvenate in order to overthrow your enemy,Kissing the ground (before him) as his chief.May Pharaoh be like the one who does everything which you wish as Re day by day.May he guide for me 79 the islands of the Hau-nebut 80 As my offering-cattle towards his palace,With all things for your Ka, due to the awe of your person.

Pharaoh, beloved of Sobek-Re, lord of Sumenu, he shall not perish in eternity.

May your beautiful face be benevolent towards Pharaoh!

Perhaps this passage — longer and more explicit than ordinary intercessory prayers at the end ofliturgical hymns — can serve to illustrate the interdependence between gods and king. We tend to seemainly the prayers for the benefit of the king. However, we should not overlook to which degree alsothe gods are dependent on the provision and ritual activities of the king, including overthrowing theenemies of the gods.

77. To be read wo b twr .78. According to a collation, to be read m @ ṭ .n=| | m= k .79. We would rather expect “for you”, but the reading is certain on the original. Still, it might be a mistake

in transmission, the two signs being fairly similar in this manuscript.80. A designation of a foreign people, most probably in the Aegean region, see Quack 2007.




BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahn G. 1992, Religiöse Herrscherlegitimation im achämenidischen Iran. Die Voraussetzungen und die Strukturihrer Argumentation ( Acta Iranica 31), Leiden.

Anthes R. 1928, Die Felsinschriften von Hatnub nach den Aufnahmen Georg Möllers (Untersuchungen zurGeschichte und Altertumskunde Ägyptens 9), Leipzig.

Assmann J. 1999, Ägyptische Hymnen und Gebete übersetzt, kommentiert und eingeleitet. Zweite, verbesserteund erweiterte Auflage (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis), Freiburg – Göttingen.

Baines J. 1987, “The Stela of Khusobek: Private and Royal Military Narrative and Values”, in J. Osing – G.Dreyer (eds.), Form und Mass. Beiträge zur Literatur, Sprache und Kunst des alten Ägypten. Festschrift fürGerhard Fecht zum 65. Geburtstag am 6. Februar 1987 ( Ägypten und Altes Testament 12), Wiesbaden, 43– 61.

Barns J.W. 1949, “The Nevill Papyrus: a Late Ramesside Letter to an Oracle”, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 35, 69–71.

Barta W. 1975, Untersuchungen zur Göttlichkeit des regierenden Königs. Ritus und Sakralkönigtum im Altägyp-

ten nach Zeugnissen der Frühzeit und des Alten Reiches ( Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 32), München –Berlin.

—— 1990, “Zur Konstruktion ägyptischer Personennamen mit einem Königsnamen als Komponente”, Zeit- schrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 117, 2–11.

Beylage P. 2002, Aufbau der königlichen Stelentexte vom Beginn der 18. Dynastie bis zur Amarnazeit ( Ägyptenund Altes Testament 54), Wiesbaden.

Blumenthal E. 1970, Untersuchungen zum ägyptischen Königtum des Mittleren Reiches, I. Die Phraseologie ( Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Phil.-hist. Kl. 61, 1), Berlin.

Bolshakov A. 2003, “Representation and Text, Two Languages of Ancient Egyptian Totenglauben”, Altorienta-lische Forschungen 30, 127–139.

Brunner-Traut E. 1975, “Anonymität (der Götter)”, Lexikon der Ägyptologie I, Wiesbaden, 281-291.Bucher P. 1928, “Les hymnes à Sobk-Ra, seigneur de Smenou des papyrus Nos 2 et 7 de la Βibliothèque

Nationale de Strasbourg”, Kêmi 1, 41–52, 147–166.Bucher P. 1930, “Les hymnes à Sobk-Ra, seigneur de Smenou des papyrus Nos 2 et 7 de la Βibliothèque Nationale de Strasbourg”, Kêmi 3, 1–19.

Capart J. – Gardiner A.H. – van de Walle B. 1936, “New Light on the Ramesside Tomb-Robberies”, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 22, 169-193.

Cherpion N. 1989, Mastabas et hypogées d’Ancien Empire. Le problème de datation, Bruxelles.Coulon L. 2002, “Cour, courtisans et modèles éducatifs au Moyen Empire”, Égypte, Afrique & Orient 26, 9-20.Depauw M. 1997, A Companion to Demotic Studies ( Papyrologica Bruxellensia 28), Brussels.Depuydt L. 1998, “ ‘Far Towards’: A Common Hieroglyphic Idiom”, Journal of Ancient Civilisations 13, 39–46.Edelmann B. 2007, Religiöse Herrschaftslegitimation in der Antike. Die religiöse Legitimation orientalisch-

ägyptischer und griechisch-hellenistischer Herrscher im Vergleich ( Pharos 20), St. Katharinen.Fischer-Elfert H.-W. 1999, Die Lehre eines Mannes für seinen Sohn. Eine Etappe auf dem „Gottesweg“ des lo-

yalen und solidarischen Beamten des Mittleren Reiches ( Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 60), Wiesbaden.

Franke D. 1998, “Das Entfernen eines Sprachtabus. Nochmals zur Konstruktion w# j r –”, Göttinger Miszellen 165, 51–56.

Frankfort H. 1948, Kingship and the Gods. A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of So-ciety and Nature, Chicago – London (reprint 1978).

Gardiner A.H. 1931, The Library of A. Chester Beatty. Description of a Hieratic Papyrus with a MythologicalStory, Love-Songs, and Other Miscellaneous Texts, London.

—— 1943, “The Word ḥm in ‘His Majesty’ and the Like”, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 29, 79.Goedicke H. 1960, Die Stellung des Königs im Alten Reich ( Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 2), Wiesbaden.Griffith F. Ll. – Petrie W.M.F. 1889, Two Hieroglyphic Papyri from Tanis, London.Grimal N.-P. 1986, Les termes de la propaganda royale égyptienne de la XIX e dynastie à la conquête d’Alexan-

dre, Paris.




Guglielmi W. 1994, “Die Funktion von Tempeleingang und Gegentempel als Gebetsort. Zur Deutung einigerWidder- und Gansstelen des Amun”, in R. Gundlach (ed.), Ägyptische Tempel – Struktur, Funktion und Pro- gramm. Akten der Ägyptologischen Tempeltagungen in Gosen 1990 und in Mainz 1992 ( Hildesheimer ägyp-tologische Beiträge 37), Hildesheim, 55–68.

Gundlach R. 1998, Der Pharao und sein Staat. Die Grundlegung der ägyptischen Königsideologie im 4. und 3. Jahrtausend , Darmstadt.

Gundlach R. – Klug A. (eds.) 2006, Der ägyptische Hof des Neuen Reiches. Seine Gesellschaft und Kultur imSpannungsfeld zwischen Innen- und Außenpolitik ( Königtum, Staat und Gesellschaft früher Hochkulturen 2),Wiesbaden.

Gundlach R. – Raedler Chr. (eds.) 1997, Selbstverständnis und Realität. Akten des Symposiums zur ägyptischen Königsideologie in Mainz 15.-17. 6. 1995 ( Ägypten und Altes Testament 36, 1), Wiesbaden.

Gundlach R. – Rößler-Köhler U. (eds.) 2003, Das Königtum der Ramessidenzeit. Voraussetzungen – Verwirkli-chung – Vermächtnis. Akten des 3. Symposions zur ägyptischen Königsideologie in Bonn 7.-9. 6. 2001 ( Ägyp-ten und Altes Testament 36, 3), Wiesbaden.

Gundlach R. – Seipel R. (eds.) 1999, Das frühe ägyptische Königtum. Akten des 2. Symposiums zur ägyptischen Königsideologie in Wien 24.-26.9.1997 ( Ägypten und Altes Testament 36, 2), Wiesbaden.

Hartwig M. 2004, Tomb Painting and Identity in Ancient Thebes, 1419–1372 BCE ( Monumenta Aegyptiaca 10),Turnhout.

Hatnub = Anthes 1928.Helck W. 1958, Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reiches ( Probleme der Ägyptologie 3), Leiden – Köln.Herb M. 2006, Ikonographie – Schreiben mit Bildern. Ein Essay zur Historizität der Grabdekoration des Alten

Reiches, in M. Fitzenreiter – M. Herb (eds.), Dekorierte Grabanlagen im Alten Reich. Methodik und Interpre-tation ( Internet Beiträge zur Ägyptologie und Sudanarchäologie VI), London, 111–213.

Hermann A. 1938, Die ägyptische Königsnovelle ( Leipziger ägyptologische Studien 10), Glückstadt – Hamburg – New York.

Hoffmann F. 1996, Der Kampf um den Panzer des Inaros. Studien zum P. Krall und seiner Stellung innerhalb des Inaros-Petubastis-Zyklus ( Mitteilungen aus der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer Nova Series 26), Wien.

Hoffmann F. – Quack J.F. 2007, Anthologie der demotischen Literatur ( Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie 4), Berlin.Hofmann B. 2004, Die Königsnovelle. „Strukturanalyse am Einzelwerk“ ( Ägypten und Altes Testament 62),

Wiesbaden.Hofmann Th. 2001, “Majestät und Diener – Zur Dialektik des Begriffes ḥm”, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache

und Altertumskunde 128, 116–132.Hornung E. 1982, Der ägyptische Mythos von der Himmelskuh. Eine Ätiologie des Unvollkommenen (Orbis Bi-

blicus et Orientalis 46), Freiburg – Göttingen.Jacquet-Gordon H.K. 1962, Les noms des domaines funéraires sous l’Ancien Empire Égyptien ( Bibliothèque d'é-

tude. Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale du Caire 34), Cairo.Jansen-Winkeln K. 1985, Ägyptische Biographien der 22. und 23. Dynastie ( Ägypten und Altes Testament 8),

Wiesbaden, 317–320. —— 1998, “Die ägyptische ‘Königsnovelle’ als Texttyp”, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes

83, 101–116. —— 1999, “Gab es in der altägyptischen Geschichte eine feudalistische Epoche? ”, Die Welt des Orients 30, 7–

20. —— 2000, “Die Fremdherrschaften in Ägypten im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr.”, Orientalia. Nova Series 69, 1-20Kloth N. 2002, Die (auto-)biographischen Inschriften des ägyptischen Alten Reiches: Untersuchungen zu Phra-

seologie und Entwicklung (Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur Beiheft 8), Hamburg.Koenig Y. 1981, Le papyrus Boulaq 6. Transcription, traduction et commentaire ( Bibliothèque d'étude. Institut

Français d'Archéologie Orientale du Caire 81), Cairo.Kuhlmann K.P. – Schenkel W. 1983, Das Grab des Ibi, Obergutsverwalter der Gottesgemahlin des Amun (The-

banisches Grab Nr. 36), Band I. Beschreibung der unterirdischen Kult- und Bestattungsanlage ( Archäologi- sche Veröffentlichungen 15), Mainz.

LES = A.H. Gardiner, Late-Egyptian Stories ( Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca 1), Bruxelles 1932.




Lichtheim M. 1976, Ancient Egyptian Literature. A Book of Readings. Volume II: The New Kingdom, Berkeley –Los Angeles – London.

Loffet H. – Matoïan V. 1996, “Le papyrus de Varzy”, Revue d'Égypte 47, 29-36Loprieno A. 1996, “The ‘King’s Novel’ ”, in A. Loprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Literature. History and Forms

( Probleme der Ägyptologie 10), Leiden – New York – Köln, 277–295.Meeks D. 2006, Mythes et légendes du Delta d’après le papyrus Brooklyn 47.218.84 ( Mémoires de l'Institut

Français d'Archéologie Orientale 125), Cairo.Menu B. 1998, “Le serment dans les actes juridiques de l’ancienne Égypte”, in B. Menu, Recherches sur l’histoi-

re juridique, économique et sociale de l’ancienne Égypte ( Bibliothèque d'étude. Institut Françaisd'Archéologie Orientale du Caire 122), Cairo, 27-43.

Müller D. 1963, Rev. of Goedicke 1960, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 113, 195–196.O’Connor D. – Silverman D.P. 1995, Ancient Egyptian Kingship ( Probleme der Ägyptologie 9), Leiden – New

York – Köln. pBoulaq 6 = Koenig 1981. pHarris 500 = LES, 82-85. pKrall = Edited in Hoffmann 1996.

pLeopold II+pAmherst = Capart – Gardiner – van de Walle 1936.Posener G. 1960, De la divinité du pharaon (Cahiers de la Société Asiatique 15), Paris. —— 1970, “L’emploi euphémique de ḫƒtj(w) « ennemi(s) » ”, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertums-

kunde 96, 30–35. —— 1976, L’enseignement loyaliste. Sagesse égyptienne du Moyen Empire, Geneva. —— 1985, Le papyrus Vandier , Cairo. pRylands IX = Edited in Vittmann 1998. pStrasbourg 2 = Edited in Bucher 1928; Bucher 1930. pVarzy = Leffet – Matoïan 1996.Quack J.F. 1993, “ Ein altägyptisches Sprachtabu”, Lingua Aegyptia: Journal of Egyptian Language Studies 3:

59–79. —— 2000a, “”, Bibliotheca Orientalis 57, coll. 536–538.

—— 2000b, “Das Buch vom Tempel und verwandte Texte. Ein Vorbericht”, Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 2, 1– 20. —— 2003, Rev. of Fisher – Elfert 1999, Bibliotheca Orientalis 60, 604-608. —— 2004, “Organiser le culte idéal. Le Manuel du temple égyptien”, Bulletin de la Société française d'Égypto-

logie 160, 9–25. —— 2005a, Rev. of S. Lippert, Ein demotisches juristisches Lehrbuch, Archiv für Papyrusforschung und ver-

wandte Gebiete 51, 171–174. —— 2005b, Einführung in die altägyptische Literaturgeschichte III. Die demotische und gräko-ägyptische

Literatur ( Einführungen und Quellentexte zur Ägyptologie 3), Münster —— 2007, “ Das Problem der Ḥ # w-nb.wt ”, in A. Luther – R. Rollinger – J. Wiesehöfer (eds.), Getrennte Wege?

Kommunikation, Raum und Wahrnehmung in der Alten Welt (Oikumene 3), Frankfurt, 331–362. —— 2008, “Göttliche Gerechtigkeit und Recht am Beispiel des spätzeitlichen Ägypten”, in H. Barta – R. Rollin-

ger – M. Lang (eds.), Recht und Religion. Menschliche und göttliche Gerechtigkeitsvorstellungen in den

antiken Welten ( Philippika 24), Wiesbaden, 135–153.Quaegebeur J. 1997, “L’appel au divin: Le bonheur des hommes mis dans la main des dieux”, in J.-G. Heintz

(ed.), Oracles et prophéties dans l’antiquité. Actes du colloque de Strasbourg 15-17 juin 1995, Paris, 15–34.RAD = A. H. Gardiner, Ramesside Administrative Documents, London 1948.Radwan A. 1969, Die Darstellungen des regierenden Königs und seiner Familienangehörigen in den Privatgrä-

bern der 18. Dynastie ( Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 21), Berlin.Raedler Chr. 2004, “Die Wesire Ramses’ II. – Netzwerke der Macht”, in R. Gundlach – A. Kluge (eds.), Das

ägyptische Königtum im Spannungsfeld zwischen Innen- und Außenpolitik im 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. ( König-tum, Staat und Gesellschaft früher Hochkulturen 1), Wiesbaden, 277–416.

Ranke H. undated, Die ägyptischen Personennamen, Band II. Einleitung. Form und Inhalt der Namen. Geschich-te der Namen. Vergleich mit andren Namen. Nachträge und Zusätze zu Band I. Umschreibungslisten , Glück-stadt – Hamburg – Locust Valley, NY.




Schade-Busch M. 1992, Zur Königsideologie Amenophis’ III. Analyse der Phraseologie historischer Inschriftender Voramarnazeit ( Hildesheimer ägyptologische Beiträge 35), Hildesheim.

Schott S. 1953, “Symbol und Zauber als Grundform altägyptischen Denkens”, Studium Generale 6, 1953, 278– 288.

Schulman A.R. 1986, “The Royal Butler Ramessessamiʿon”, Chronique d'Égypte. Bulletin périodique de la Fon-dation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth 61, 187–202.

—— 1990, “The Royal Butler Ramessessamiʿ on. An Addendum”, Chronique d'Égypte. Bulletin périodique de la Fondation Égyptologique Reine Élisabeth 65, 12–20.

Seidlmayer St. 1997, “Stil und Statistik. Die Datierung dekorierter Gräber des Alten Reiches – ein Problem derMethode”, in: J. Müller (ed.), Archäologie und Korrespondenzanalyse. Beispiele, Fragen, Perspektiven ( Internationale Archäologie 23), Rahden Westf., 17-51.

Shirun-Grumach I. 1984, “Sinuhe R 24 – Wer rief ? ”, in Studien zu Sprache und Religion Ägyptens zu Ehren vonWolfhart Westendorf überreicht von seinen Freunden und Schülern, Band 1. Sprache, Göttingen, 621–629.

Smith M. 2000, “P. Carlsberg 462. A Fragmentary Account of a Rebellion against the Sun God”, in P.J. Frandsen – K. Ryholt (eds.), The Carlsberg Papyri 3. A Miscellany of Demotic Texts and Studies (Carsten Niebuhr

Institute of Ancient Near Eastern Studies Publications 22), Copenhagen, 95–109.Spiegel J. 1939, “Die Grundbedeutung des Stammes ḥm”, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskun-

de 75, 112–121.Spiegelberg W. 1910, Der Sagenkreis des Königs Petubastis nach dem Strassburger demotischen Papyrus sowie

den Wiener und Paris Bruchstücken ( Demotische Studien 3), Leipzig.Urk. I = K. Sethe, Urkunden des Alten Reiches, Leipzig 1933.van den Boorn G.P.E. 1988, The Duties of the Vizier. Civil Administration in the Early New Kingdom , London –

New York.Vasiliević V. 2005, “Der König im Privatgrab des Mittleren Reiches”, Imago Aegypti 1, 132–144.Vernus P. 1999, “Le discours politique de l’ Enseignement de Ptahhotep”, in J. Assmann – E. Blumenthal (eds.),

Literatur und Politik im pharaonischen und ptolemäischen Ägypten ( Bibliothèque d'étude. Institut Françaisd'Archéologie Orientale du Caire 127), Cairo, 139–152.

Vittmann G. 1998, Der demotische Papyrus Rylands 9 ( Ägypten und Altes Testament 38), Wiesbaden.von Beckerath J. 1984, Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen ( Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 20),Munich – Berlin.

von Lieven A. 2007a, The Carlsberg Papyri 8. Grundriß des Laufes der Sterne. Das sogenannte Nutbuch (Car- sten Niebuhr Institute of Ancient Near Eastern Studies Publications Publications 31), Copenhagen.

—— 2007b, Heiligenkult und Vergöttlichung im Alten Ägypten, habilitation thesis FU Berlin.Wente E. 1990, Letters from Ancient Egypt , Atlanta, Georgia.Wilke A.F. 2006, Kronerben der Weisheit. Gott, König und Frommer in der didaktischen Literatur Ägyptens und

Israels, Tübingen.Wilson J. 1948, “The Oath in Ancient Egypt”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 7, 129–156.Windus-Staginsky E. 2006, Der ägyptische König im Alten Reich. Terminologie und Phraseologie ( Philippika

14), Wiesbaden.Yoyotte J. 1960, “La science sacerdotale égyptienne à l’époque gréco-romaine (le papyrus géographique de Ta-

nis) ”, Bulletin de la société Ernest Renan NS 9, 13–18 ( Revue de l'histoire des religions 159, 1961, 133–138).

A Quack, How Unapproachable is a Pharaoh

Documents

Transcript of A Quack, How Unapproachable is a Pharaoh