| Contents > “Silent Partners”. The Horse and Chariot and the Image of the King by Susan Turner |
Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  |
“Silent Partners”.
The Horse and Chariot and the Image of the King
The manipulation of the perception of power was vital to both the concept and the reality of kingship in ancient Egypt. The king had to carry out the duties of his office but he also needed to be seen to be doing so conscientiously and successfully. Most ancient Egyptians, with the exception of the elite official classes and the members of the royal court, rarely if ever personally set eyes on their king, at a distance, much less in close proximity, or over an extended period. So their understanding of his efficacy had to be realised by other means.
Egypt was an absolute monarchy, but no absolute monarch can afford to actually lose control, be ineffective or even appear incapable or vulnerable. Absolute monarchy requires compliance from the ruled, either voluntarily or through coercion. In Egypt, in the absence of a fascist type of coercion, compliance rested on far more subtle factors. The most subtle but influential factor (in the broadest sense) was, through the preservation of stability, prosperity and order in the country. This was the monarch’s responsibility. ( Schneider. 1998:323) When these elements broke down, the state itself fragmented and the area of the king’s power was reduced to only part of the original whole. Egypt was plunged into chaos, kings rapidly appeared and disappeared and separate dynasties ruled concurrently. The control of both the perception and the reality had failed.
The king’s success in executing his duties could be perceived in a concrete and widely observable fashion through the obvious well being of the state. That was when Egypt was united under a strong central government, enjoyed freedom from enemy incursion, freedom from internal chaos and when tradition, truth and normality prevailed- when all was as it should be. The perception of the proper exercise of power reinforced the reality of power.
The second major factor was far more deliberate and quite propagandistic. It comprised the large scale, public blazoning of the king fulfilling and possibly exceeding his responsibilities – it was advertising, a planned effort to influence the perception of power and validate its possession and use by the monarch.
The institution of kingship emerged very early in Egypt’s history, it came complete with titulary, duties, responsibilities and iconography. ( Baines 1995 : 6) At first glance it would appear from that time to be immutable but that was not the case. It was a role vastly important to the state and it had enormous capacity to endure and adapt to the requirements of the times. The horse and chariot took part in the events that necessitated the adaptation of the role of kingship and the increase in its power in both reality and perception.
In ancient Egypt all power on earth devolved directly from the king. It had been given into his care by the gods and he laid claim to pre-eminent domain both practically and theoretically. (Pardey. 1998: 357) All lands, titles, offices, wealth, resources, produce and prestige were bestowed, enjoyed, and perpetuated at his behest (Schneider. 1998: 323).
He was the head of the central government which controlled every aspect of the country and whose officials held their posts and exercised their authority only through the delegation of his power. ( Pardey. 1998: 357) As there was no separation of administrative and judicial function, the administration and maintenance of law was also the king’s responsibility, and again it was exercised through his officials. The king was the ultimate lawgiver and judge on earth. (Pardey. 1998: 358)
In military affairs he was supreme commander. ( Gutgesell 1998:365) He made decisions concerning external war and peace, guaranteed internal peace and cohesion and was charged with the expansion of the borders of Egypt and the defeat of its traditional enemies. In many cases the king took the role of field commander, actually went on campaign and was involved in personal combat.
In matters religious he was the conduit through which the gods received nourishment and through whom they dispensed their favour. Technically he was the chief priest of all the cults of all the gods in Egypt, practically, he delegated this power to the priests of the cults of the various gods. He was the “embodiment of the connection between the world of men and the world of the gods.” (Watterson 1999: 16) Should he not carry out all his responsibilities the gods could turn away from Egypt. The divinity of the king has been much debated over the years and he has been variously understood as a human occupying divine office or as a god himself. “ By the 18th Dynasty the deification of the living king was an established practice.” ( Shafer. 1991:64) This if anything made him even more responsible for everything.
There is a particularly Egyptian concept, the concept of “Maat”. Maat was represented in Egyptian iconography by a goddess wearing a feathered crown. Maat represented something difficult to translate into our understanding. She was truth, justice, and normality, probably best interpreted as “Order”. She stood at the diametric opposite of “Chaos”, often represented by the god Seth. ( Baines. 1991:34). The king’s most central role, which was coalescence of all his roles, was to maintain Maat. He presented it to the gods “so that they might live on it.” (Shafer: 1991: 63) He did this through the successful administration of Egypt. The king ensured the offerings to the gods, kept the temples in good order and built new ones, controlled corruption and criminality, ensured the flow of resources and prosperity, defeated the enemies of Egypt and extended its borders. If he failed to nourish the gods in this way, chaos would triumph, political and civil instability would prevail, the Nile would fail and the land be stricken by famine and war. (Wilkinson. 2000: 88)
Everyone in Egypt could see clearly how well the king carried out his duties merely by looking around themselves. From the peasant farmer to the Vizier from the royal court to the furthest reaches of the valley and the Delta. If Maat was being maintained, everything was as it should be and there was a clear perception of the effective power of the king.
Occasionally though things went wrong. The Nile flood was too high or too low, an epidemic broke out, surrounding peoples raided Egyptian territory or crops failed. The image needed to be reinforced against the exigencies of life. The kings did this through active propagandising.
There were, of course, many reasons for the depiction of the king on monumental architecture not the least of which was the display of individual ego, to which any who have seen the efforts of Ramses 11 can attest. But one of the major reasons was for the king to reinforce his power through the large-scale depiction of his success in maintaining Maat.
| Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Contents > “Silent Partners”. The Horse and Chariot and the Image of the King by Susan Turner |