PARA GARANTIZAR EL DEBIDO CUMPLIMIENTO DE LOS CONTRATOS

From the late Saite period onwards, a gradual change in the concept of kingship, which sharply contrasts the normative royal ideology, begins to take root.259 _{What seems to have happened is that the} disorder and fragmentation of central authority beginning with the Saite period demolished the divine quality surrounding the king. The Saite period was the last in Egyptian history with native rule. It began with a great deal of political unrest between the Assyrians, the Kushites and local Egyptian rulers, all fighting for control over Egypt till the 26th _{dynasty was established in 664 BC.}260 _{Subsequently, Egypt} fell under Persian domination (on two occasions), then Ptolemaic rule, and finally it became a Roman province. This resulted in the notion that the king could fail in the sight of the gods themselves, thus bringing him nearer the mere mortals and the moral codes that applied to them. Just as man could violate the divine order, incur divine wrath, and be punished, so could the king.261 _{This transformation} is mostly identifiable in the self-presentation of private inscriptions from the period, while only a few examples may be offered from the iconographical records. This circumstance, obviously, lies in the nature of the respective types of texts, but also because the king was not formally stripped of all his worth; it was his power that was now considered earthly and reliant on the gods, rather than being inherent in his character. An example of this principle in the iconographic portrayals is the 30th _dynasty       

258 _{C. Eyre, "The Semna Stela: Quotation, Genre, and Functions of Literature," In Studies in Egyptology Presented to}

Miriam Lichtheim, 138-49.

259 _{The following outline draws from: A. B. Lloyd, "The Late Period: 664-323 BC," In Ancient Egypt: A Social}

History; A. B. Lloyd, "Egypt: 404–332 BC," In The Cambridge Ancient History VI: The Fourth Century BC, 337–345;

E. Otto, Die biographischen Inschriften der ägyptischen Spätzeit: ihre geistesgeschichtliche und literarische

Bedeutung; A. B. Lloyd, "Nationalist Propaganda in Ptolemaic Egypt," Historia 31, (1982): 33-55.

260 _{For more detail on the events of the Saite period cf. A. Spalinger, "The Concept of the Monarchy during the Saite} Epoch: An Essay of Synthesis," Orientalia 67, (1978): 12-36; K. Jansen-Winkeln, "Bild und Charakter der ägyptischen 26. Dynastie," AoF 28, (2001): 165–82. For the two Persian dominations, see: P. Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse de

Cyrus à Alexandre. See also Lloyd, "Egypt: 404–332 BC," In The Cambridge Ancient History VI: The Fourth Century BC. The literature with a Saite historical setting is discussed in §(4.4).

261 _{Lloyd, "Nationalist Propaganda in Ptolemaic Egypt," 41.}

statue of king Nectanebo II (360-343 BC) from Heliopolis, which is similar to the statue of king Khafra from the Old Kingdom, where the king is sitting on the throne as the Horus embraces him. While both statues evoke the traditional concepts of the link between god and king, the actual scale of the Falcon god on the statues reveals a contrast in the extent to which that link stretches. Khafra’s statue acknowledges the king’s role as the incarnation of Horus, as the god embraces him, thus asserting his individual majestic power. Nectanebo’s statue, on the other hand, acknowledges his total reliance on the god as the king is portrayed on a very small scale standing between the legs of the Falcon god.262

Although earlier texts and inscriptions did occasionally address the concept of royal fallibility, e.g.

Instruction to Merikara,263 _{and that independency from the king was reflected in private inscriptions of} earlier periods of political unrest, the distinction lies in the fact that ideal kingship was restored as the political situation was re-stabilized. This was not the case in the period here discussed. On the contrary, autobiographical inscriptions continue to express a marked determination to emphasize the official’s autonomy of royal control, allowing any royal influence to fall in the background. These texts further highlight the officials’ own part in specific achievements, such as guaranteeing the well-being of their towns, claiming the king’s dependence upon their efforts, and even going so far as to use terminology drawn from royal inscriptions.264 _{One example is the biographical inscription of Peftuaneith from the} reign of Amasis (570-526 BC) who was sent to Abydos to carry out the reconstruction of its temple and reorganize its revenues.265 _{Peftuaneith donated land and other revenues to the temple of Osiris to} increase its income, and he rebuilt the House of Life after its ruin due to political unrest, thus, establishing “sustenance of Osiris.” He further “suppressed crime in Tawer” and guarded it for its lord, as he “protected” all the people, and gave income from Tawer’s desert to the temple so the “Abydenes would have burials” (lines 7-9). In short, Peftuaneith performed the part of the king who grants land and revenues, reinstalls order and protects his people. Another example is the inscription of Nesuhor,266 _{the viceroy of Kush, who prides himself on having prevented foreign mercenaries from}       

262 _{This example is discussed in: Lloyd, "The Late Period: 664-323 BC," In Ancient Egypt: A Social History, 291.} 263 _{Recent edition: J. F. Quack, Studien zur Lehre für Merikare. The text represents the advice of a FIP king to his son} and successor Merikara. In his council are the customary aspects of kingship; i.e. enact justice, protect the people, and defend Egypt’s borders, but he also stresses the notion that even a king will be judged for his actions after death. As the teaching progresses, it appears that the king himself has violated the gods for which he will have to answer: the cemetery of the sacred city of Abydos was desecrated during his authority. 

264 _{Lloyd, "The Late Period: 664-323 BC," In Ancient Egypt: A Social History, 298.}

265 _{Louvre A93: Publication: P. Pierret, Recueil d'inscriptions inédites du Musée Égyptien du Louvre, 39-41. Also: H.} Brugsch, Altaegyptischer Denkmaeler. Bautexte und Inschriften, 1252-54. Translation: Otto, Die biographischen

Inschriften der ägyptischen Spätzeit: ihre geistesgeschichtliche und literarische Bedeutung, 164-66. M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature. Volume III: The Late Period, 34-6.

266 _{Publication: G. Maspero, "Notes sur quelques points de grammaire et d'histoire," ZÄS 22, ( 1884): 88ff; H. Brugsch,} "Beiträge zu §LVII der vorstehenden Mittheilungen," ZÄS 22, (1884): 93-7. Translation: Otto, Die biographischen

deserting to Nubia during the reign of Apries (589-570 BC).267 _{The distinction in terms of rhetoric is} striking; the king was in a state of fear, from which Nesuhor managed to relieve him through the god’s help:

Let my name abide in your (i.e. the god’s) house, let my Ka be remembered after my life, let my  statue abide and my name endure upon it imperishable in your temple. For you (i.e. the gods)  rescued  me  from  an  evil  plight,  from  the  mercenaries  [Libyans  (?)],  Greeks,  Asiatics,  and  foreigners, who had it in their hearts to […], who had it in their hearts to go to Shas­heret. His  Majesty feared because of the evil which they did. I re­established their heart in reason by advice,  not permitting them to go to Nubia (tA-pd.t), (but) bringing them to the place where His Majesty  was; and His Majesty executed their punishment. 

Some officials even fail to mention the king in their inscriptions and solely ascribe their fortunes to the god. Petosiris, for example, the high priest of Thoth at Hermopolis Magna (between the 4th _{and 3}rd century BC) left out any mention of the king when he praised the gods for his fortunes.268 _{In the same} spirit, Wennefer, the royal scribe and prophet of Osiris in the Ptolemaic period, described on his inscription that when a “conspiracy” was made against him and he was tried before the king, he was exonerated exclusively due to the grace of the gods.269

The conception of royal fallibility established the major principle of historical causation.270 _For example, the biographical inscription of Somtutefnakht (30th _dynasty)271 _{contains a definite implication} that the defeat of Nectanebo II by the Persians was the result of divine hostility. This, in its own right, implies that Nectanebo himself was considered to have fallen from divine grace and was thus a king not in harmony with the divine will.272 _{A later example that is very explicit on this doctrine is the}

Demotic Chronicle from the early Ptolemaic period, which consists of a series of oracles with their

Inschriften der ägyptischen Spätzeit: ihre geistesgeschichtliche und literarische Bedeutung, 162-64. Present English

translation in ARE, I, § 989-95.

267 _{The account of the mercenaries’ desertion into Nubia is also attested in Herodotus, 2: 30, but here the ruling king is} Psametik I (664-525 BC); cf. H. Schäfer, "Die Auswanderung der Krieger unter Psammetich I. und der Söldneraufstand in Elephantine unter Apries," Klio 4, (1904): 152-163; A. B. Lloyd, Herodotus. Book II. Commentary 1-98, 129-32. 268 _{Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature. Volume III: The Late Period, 44ff; Otto, Die biographischen Inschriften der}

ägyptischen Spätzeit: ihre geistesgeschichtliche und literarische Bedeutung, 174ff. Tomb: G. Lefebvre, Le tombeau de Petosiris.

269 _{Text: H. Brugsch, Altaegyptische Inschriften. Mythologische Inschriften, 741-43. Translation: Otto, Die}

biographischen Inschriften der ägyptischen Spätzeit: ihre geistesgeschichtliche und literarische Bedeutung, 194-6;

Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature. Volume III: The Late Period, 54-8.

270 _{Lloyd, "Nationalist Propaganda in Ptolemaic Egypt," 241ff; Lloyd, "The Late Period: 664-323 BC," In Ancient}

Egypt: A Social History, 299.

271 _{Text: Urk II, 1-6. Translation: Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature. Volume III: The Late Period, 41-45.} Lichtheim notes that no king is mentioned in the biography and that Somtutefnakht probably began his career under Nectanebo II (360-343 BC) then passed into the service of the Persians who re-conquered Egypt in 343 BC. He then witnessed, from the Persian side, the battles in which Alexander the Great defeated Darius III.

272 _{Lloyd, "The Late Period: 664-323 BC," In Ancient Egypt: A Social History, 299.}

interpretations relating to kings of Egypt from Amyrtaeus (c. 404-399) to Nectanebo II (c. 358-41).273 The texts theme is that only those kings who live in accordance with the will of the gods will prosper and it explains recent disasters in Egyptian history as illustrations of this principle. Accordingly, the concept of royal dependence evolved into a perception that the king could fail in the sight of heaven itself, and stand directly responsible for periods of disasters. The divine king as the provider of good fortune for private individuals falls in the background; Gods not kings are addressed as the sole responsible entities for these fortunes.274

(3.4) Kings in Middle and Late Egyptian Literary Traditions‐ From Khufu to