DOI Heft:
Nr. 1-2
DOI Artikel:Gardiner, Alan H.: The Installation of a vizier
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.12681#0029
THE INSTALLATION OF A VIZ1ER
19
In view of the uncertainties which attend this first attempt at translation, we may
refrain from expatiating further upon the subject matter of our text, and content our-
selves with a discussion of the historical problera connected therewith.
In its introductory Unes the inscription professes to record the actual words spoken
by Thutmosis III on the appointaient of Rekhmere to the office of Vizier. This pre-
tension is, at least in part, refuted by the fact that a second copy of the text lias been
found in the earlier tomb of Woser. The simplest theory would still regard the speech
as authentic, that is as a genuine record of what was said by Pharaoh, but would hold
the duplicates from the tombs of Rekhmere and the later Hepu, and perhaps also that
from the tomb of Woser, to bave been misappropriated from the tomb of the Vizier
to whom it was originally addressed. Against this hypothesis the internai évidence
weighs heavily. The advice given is entirely gênerai in character; there is notliing
more applicable to one Vizier than to another; nor is there any référence to current,
events. Moreover the document is written in an elaborate style : the qualifications
of the Vizier are detailed one by one, and the exhortations are explained by metaphors
and similes, and reinforced by appeals to public opinion and by argument. The whole
produces the impression rather of a rhetorical exercise, than of an actually delivered
speech.
Now it may be observed that both in the tomb of Rekhmere and in that of Woser,
our text occurs in company with another, which détails the spécifie functions of the
Vizier. The two inscriptions appear to supplément one another, the one being only
of gênerai import, the other only of spécifie import. The terra é%> occurs in the
title of both, and thus seems further to the link two together'. That each inscrip-
tion assumes the form most suitable to its matter is nothing strange. The technical
duties of the Vizier are naturally couched in the stifï terminology of the law-book'J,
the gênerai precepts which should guide his conduct are just as naturally put into the
mouth of the Pharaoh. If this supplementary character of the two inscriptions be no
illusion, then it is probable that they are the work of one and the same author. Tins
view is supported by the occurrence in both texts — despite the divergency of their
subject —of several uncommon words and modes of expression '. On this hypothesis,
the inscriptions were from the beginning destined for the tomb, and composed for the
glorification of the Vizier, whether Woser or another : the residuum of historical fact
in our document is the fact that the installation of the Vizier was a solemn ceremony,
wherein the Pharaoh addressed his newly-chosen Minister with some appropriate
words of advice.
1. Properly speaking, tp rd in II, 1, only refers to this and the two following Unes.
2. It is clear that the text on pl. II, III, is no mere excerpt from an oilicial document. The beginning is
very much extended in comparison to the latter part, which is scrappy to the point of being (inintelligible. It
is not contended here, however, that the document was composed without référence to any sources.
3. Vrt ssm, 11. 9, 10; cf. II, 11. G, 7 : lu», 11. 16, 17; cf. II, 1. 10 : lue titles in I. 24 aie alraost identical with
those II, 11. 4-5. The king is cited as M in both inscriptions : observe too the fréquent and peculiar use
in both of the particle ® .
19
In view of the uncertainties which attend this first attempt at translation, we may
refrain from expatiating further upon the subject matter of our text, and content our-
selves with a discussion of the historical problera connected therewith.
In its introductory Unes the inscription professes to record the actual words spoken
by Thutmosis III on the appointaient of Rekhmere to the office of Vizier. This pre-
tension is, at least in part, refuted by the fact that a second copy of the text lias been
found in the earlier tomb of Woser. The simplest theory would still regard the speech
as authentic, that is as a genuine record of what was said by Pharaoh, but would hold
the duplicates from the tombs of Rekhmere and the later Hepu, and perhaps also that
from the tomb of Woser, to bave been misappropriated from the tomb of the Vizier
to whom it was originally addressed. Against this hypothesis the internai évidence
weighs heavily. The advice given is entirely gênerai in character; there is notliing
more applicable to one Vizier than to another; nor is there any référence to current,
events. Moreover the document is written in an elaborate style : the qualifications
of the Vizier are detailed one by one, and the exhortations are explained by metaphors
and similes, and reinforced by appeals to public opinion and by argument. The whole
produces the impression rather of a rhetorical exercise, than of an actually delivered
speech.
Now it may be observed that both in the tomb of Rekhmere and in that of Woser,
our text occurs in company with another, which détails the spécifie functions of the
Vizier. The two inscriptions appear to supplément one another, the one being only
of gênerai import, the other only of spécifie import. The terra é%> occurs in the
title of both, and thus seems further to the link two together'. That each inscrip-
tion assumes the form most suitable to its matter is nothing strange. The technical
duties of the Vizier are naturally couched in the stifï terminology of the law-book'J,
the gênerai precepts which should guide his conduct are just as naturally put into the
mouth of the Pharaoh. If this supplementary character of the two inscriptions be no
illusion, then it is probable that they are the work of one and the same author. Tins
view is supported by the occurrence in both texts — despite the divergency of their
subject —of several uncommon words and modes of expression '. On this hypothesis,
the inscriptions were from the beginning destined for the tomb, and composed for the
glorification of the Vizier, whether Woser or another : the residuum of historical fact
in our document is the fact that the installation of the Vizier was a solemn ceremony,
wherein the Pharaoh addressed his newly-chosen Minister with some appropriate
words of advice.
1. Properly speaking, tp rd in II, 1, only refers to this and the two following Unes.
2. It is clear that the text on pl. II, III, is no mere excerpt from an oilicial document. The beginning is
very much extended in comparison to the latter part, which is scrappy to the point of being (inintelligible. It
is not contended here, however, that the document was composed without référence to any sources.
3. Vrt ssm, 11. 9, 10; cf. II, 11. G, 7 : lu», 11. 16, 17; cf. II, 1. 10 : lue titles in I. 24 aie alraost identical with
those II, 11. 4-5. The king is cited as M in both inscriptions : observe too the fréquent and peculiar use
in both of the particle ® .