Cultural and literary texts

(1)

CULTURAL ANDLlTERARY TEXTS

JanAssmann

I. The literaryand thenon-literary a)Drawing thedistinction

There has scarcely ever been a doubt among Egyptologists whether a textshould be classified among literaryor non-literary texts.In practice, thisdistinction works extremely well, better perhaps thanin our postmodem days when we don’tknow whether toread Jacques Derrida as literatureor as phi- losophy,or Carlos Castaneda as fiction or ethnography. There are very few Egyptian borderline cases of thiskind. The best known istheaccount of Wenamun about his mission toLebanon. Itisso well cast in theformof an official reportthatwe are unable totellwhether thisis a piece of literatureor a document of bureaucracy.1 Another textwhich is imitatinga well known non-literary genre isthe autobiography of Sinuhe. A scholar of thestature of Georges Posener could seriously expect that some day theoriginal inscriptionof thehistorical Sinuhe would turnup.2 He did not exclude thepossibility thatthetextof Sinuhe was originally composed fora tombinscriptionand only afterwards copied on papyrus because of itsliterarymerits. There are examples of such a procedure. The victory inscriptionof Kamose appears on his twostelae and also on a hieratic tablet,3 and theso-called Poem of theBattle of Qadesh isattested on templewalls and a literarypapyrus; and theBerlin Leather Roll with itsbuilding inscriptionof Sesostris I. isobviously copied from a lostinscriptionaloriginal.4 There is also theinversecase: thata textcomposed forcirculation on papyms was copied on a tombstela, such as theEnseignement loyalistewhich appears on papyri and ostraca, but also on thefunerary stela of Ankhsehetepibre.5 A textlikethevictory poem of Piye which exceeds by fartheusual size of a stela-inscription might originally have been composed as a book-scroll forliterarycirculation. These borderline cases might leadtotheassumption thatin Egypt thedistinction between theliteraryand the non-literary refersnot totextsbut tomanuscripts and inscriptions.One and thesame textmight fulfill

1 The bureaucratic and non-literary character concerns not only style and languageof thetext,but also thelayoutof thewritten page; cf. Cerny, Paper and books, 22.

2 Posener,Litterature et politique, 90 f.

3 Helck,Historisch-biographische Texte der 2. Zwischenzeit, no. 119; Habachi, The second stela of Kamose\ Smith/Smith, “A reconsiderationof theKarnose texts”, inZAS 103 (1976), 48-76; Eyre, “The Semna stelae: quotation,genre, and functionsof literature”, inGroll (ed ), Studies Lichtheim, vol. 1, 134-165, 144 f.

4 Eyre,inStudies Lichtheim, vol 1, 143 f.; on thetextof theBerlin Leather RoUand itspoetical formcf. Osing, “Zu zwei literarischenTexten des Mittleren Reichs”, inOsing/Kolding Nielsen (eds ), Studies Iversen,101-120. 5 Posener,L 'Enseignementloyaliste.

Monographica 2), Göttingen 1999, S. 1-15

(2)

several different functions and itmight, therefore,be only theformof thewriting and not of thetext which is determined by thefunction. This would mean thatwe may not speak of literarytextsbut only of literarymanuscripts. As far as textsare concerned, therewould be no distinction between theliter- ary and thenon-literary. This distinction would only become visible when a textcomes tobe written down.

This extreme position, however, does not stand forthetest.In most cases, and especially in the case of Sinuhe, itis thetextand not themanuscript which decides about itsliteraryor non-literary character. A real tombinscriptionwould contain a different text.There is a clear-cut distinction; this distinction might be wilfully blurred in some exceptional cases but thisvery act of wilful blurring con- firms theexistence of thedistinction, otherwise therewould be no point in blurring it.

Our generation -1 am thinkingof the Egyptologistspresent in thisconference, and of Elke Blumenthal and others, who, unfortunately, are not -saw theirprimary taskin establishing thedistinction and in defming itsessence. The reasonforthisshiff of paradigm (if I may call itso) was thatthegeneration of our teachershad proved somewhat insensitivewith regard tothisdistinction between therealms of the literaryand thenon-literary within Egyptian textualculture and thattheHandbuch der Literatur which appeared in 1970 initssecond edition had codified thisstate of theart. It might be truethatmy review of theHandbuch which focused on thisindistinctionand thisobvious blindness for the“literaricity” of Egyptian literaturewas somehow triggeringa move in theopposite direction. Now, afler 20 years, the situation has completely changed, and it is now Antonio Loprieno’s article on “Defming Egyptian literature”6 which can be counted fora representativecodification of thenew state of theart.

However, thequestion iswhether we did not go toofar. When I wrote thereview of theHand- buch in1974 I was under theinfluenceof Russian formalistsand semioticians, especially Roman Ja- kobson, Jurij Tynjanow, and Jurij Lotman. From Jakobson I took(aseverybody else did at thattime) thenotion of “autoreflexivity” as thedistinctive feature of thepoetic fiinction, and from Tynjanow and Lotman I tookthenotion of “Ausgangstyp”, a non-literary typeserving as a model fora literarytext. The whole concept of a dichotomy between theliteraryand thenon-literary and theideathatthisdis- tinctionis constantly redefmed by every new literarytextbelongs totheformalistic tradition.Itmight be recalled thatGeorges Posener, thefirst one toemphasize thedistinction and toreflecton thespeci- ficity of textstobe qualified as literaryspent his early youth inSaint-Petersbourg ina house fre- quented by Victor Shklovsky and other leadingfigures of Russian literarytheory.7 Before I start vent- ingmy misgivings about thenew paradigm which I myself had been promoting, I would liketorecon- firm thoseof our points which, in my opinion, should not be given up. The great discovery of formal- ismwhich, I think,is still valuable was therejection of substantial definitions of literatureintermsof a specific language(“poetic diction”), theme,form (forinstance:metrical form) or “poetic devices” such

6 Loprieno, “Defming Egyptian literature:ancient textsand rnodern literarytheory”, inCooper/Schwartz (eds.), The study of theAncient Near East inthetwenty-firstcentury, 209-232 (reprintedinLoprieno (ed.), Ancient Egyptian literature,39-58).

7 Cf. theaccount of his brother Vladimir Pozner, Vladimir Pozner se souvient.

(3)

as metaphor in favourof relational or fiinctional definitions. Poetic formcannot count fora decisive criterion whether a textis tobe classified as literaryor non-literary. The difference between literary and non-literary textscan only befunctionally determined but not by criteria such as “dichterische Ge- staltung oder deren Abglanz”8 (poeticformulation or itsreflection) as used by theHandbuch. Non- literarytextssuch as fiinerary spells or royal inscriptions(cf. the“poetical stela” of Thutmosis III.9 or theSemna stelae of Sesostris III.10) may be poetically shaped tothehighest degree and literarytexts such as thetaleof theTwo Brothers may be absolutely negligent in thisrespect.11 Nevertheless, these textsare separated by a boundary lineand thisboundary linecan only be determined in termsof fimction.

b) The functional and thenon-functional. Genre and framing

The question iswhether literatureisa functionor rathera non-function, theabsence or negation of fimction. In my article of 1974 I had voted forthesecond alternative, and it isthisoption which I would liketomodify if not torevocate. I defrned thedistinction between literaryand non-literary texts as thedifference between thenon-functional and thefunctional and subsumed thewhole rangeof non- literarytextsunder thenotion of “Gebrauchsliteratur” (functional literature).The underlying problem was thedefmition of genreand thequestion of morphogenetic factors. In theHandbuch, Hermann Kees maintained theideathattheconcept of genre belonged tomodern literarytheoryand could not be applied toancient Egyptian literaturewithout creating gaps and disrupting continuities. Kees obviously understood by “genre” something likeepic, drama, and lyric. I wanted toshow thatthereare no universal genres, but also thatthereis no textualtraditionwithout genres and thatour taskshould consist in discovering and defming thespecific genres of Egyptian textualtradition.My thesiswas, thattheform-giving and genre-defining principle should be identifiedas a specific function or “Sitz im Leben”. Function determines theform of thetextaccording toparameters such as longor short, narrative or non-narrative, vernacular or classical languageor something in-between,poetical structuring: highly, or weakly, or nothing at all, and so forth. Moreover, and much more importantly,function determines themeaning of thetext.This was my decisive criterion fordistinguishing functional and non-fimctional literature.As far as meaning isconcerned, a fimctional textisalways a fragment, however well itswritten articulation might be preserved. Itis not complete, because an importantpart of itsmeaning is missing which is tobe provided by itsfimctional context. The meaning of a ritual spell such as (just togive an example) thefamous Cannibal Hymn will always remain obscure tous unless we are able toreconstructtheritual context, forinstancea fiimigation, or a libation,or another rite of thissort. The resultis thatany attempt at interpretingfimctional textshas tostart from identifyingthe genre, collecting a corpus of textspertaining tothisgenre, reconstructing thesituational or fimctional context on thebasis of thiscorpus and only thenexplain theindividualtext.With literarytexts,the

8 Brunner, Grundzilge einer Geschichte der nltdgyptischen Literatur, XI. 9 Assmann, Agyptische Hymnen und Gebete Nr. 233; text:Urk. IV, 610-624. 10 Eyre, inGroll (ed ), Studies Lichtheim, vol. 1.

11 Blumentlial, “Die Erzahlung des Papyrus d’Orbiney als Literaturwerk”, in7.AS 99(1972),1-17.

(4)

situation isdramatically different. The meaning of a literarytextdoes not seem tobe dependent on a specific functional context. The collection of a complete corpus of autobiographical inscriptionswould not decisively improveour understanding of Sinuhe, desirable as such a corpus in itself would be. And what would be thecorpus tobe collected inorder toelucidate textssuch as theThe Man who was Tired of Life or theEloquenl Peasant? Therefore, my thesiswas thatforliterarytexts,thereisno context thatwould be part of themeaning. The meaning is entirely within thetext.

Moreover, thereisa tendencytosupplement themissing context inliterarytextsby a frame of narrative which functions as a semantic determinative in thesame way as does thecontext in thecase of non-literary texts.All literarytextsof theMiddle Kingdom show such a framing. The frame can be very elaborate as inthecase of theEloquent Peasant or theInstructionsof Ptahhotep or itcan be re- duced tosome short allusions as in thecase of thelnstructionof Amenemhet /.,but itisalways there or itsoriginal presence must be conjectured inthecase of fragmentarilypreserved textssuch as the Admonitions and theThe Man who was Tired of Life.'2 The framing gives all theinformationthat would be provided by thecontext incase of fiinctional texts.The frame isa kind of textualizationof context in order torenderthetextindependentof anyspecific contextual embedding. This contextual independenceisthehallmark of literaturein ancient Egypt.

If function has tobe excluded as a morphogenetic principle in thecase of literarytexts,what then could account fortheirformal diversity? My ideawas thata literarytextfollowsthemodel either of a non-literary genre, in theway Sinuhe follows themodel of autobiographical inscriptions,theShip- wrecked Sailor thatof expedition reports,and so forth, or itreflectsa genre of oral traditionor

“Sprechsitte”1213 14in theway thelamentationsmake use of thedirge (orfunerary lamentation)or theSat- ireof theTrades reflectsderisory songs among workmen, and so forth, or, as a thirdpossibility, thata literarytext justfollows themodel of another literarytextin theway theLamentation of Khakheperre- seneb is modeled afterthe Prophecies of Neferli or theInstructionof Ptahhotep became themodel for all laterinstructions.In thiscase of literaryseries formation we can speak of intertextuality,another termthatderives from theschool of formalism.M Intertextuality is justanother device of achieving and affirming functionalindependence.Literature is born from literatureand not from lifeand itsfunctional necessities. So far my original position which I am now going tomodify.

12 Fecht, Der Vorwurf an Gott, proposes a speech before thetribunalof thejudgementof thedead as frameof the Admonitions; a similar framingseems tobe presupposed by theThe Man who was Tired ofLife.

13 Cf. Seibert, Charakteristik.

14 Loprieno, inCooper/Schwartz (eds ), The study of the Ancient Near East inthetwenty-firstcentury, 222-226, with referencetoBroich/Pfister (eds ), Intertextualitdt.

(5)

II. The theoryof cultural texts a) Texts beforetheera of literature

Let me start with theconcept of non-fiinctionality or “Situationsabstraktheit”. What could be theplace of non-functional textsin a traditionalsociety? The problem becomes clearer, perhaps, by theanalogy of images.Art could be deftned as themaking of non-functional images.Works of art fiinction intheir own way and determine thecontexts in which theyoccur, such as museums, galleries, and private collections.But how about non-functional imagesin ancient Egypt? There is,quite obviously, nothing of thissort. Would we define Egyptian art by non-fimctionality, we would have togive up theterm Egyptian art altogether. In order toavoid anachronistic concepts in dealing with early images,special- istsof medieval art such as Hans Belting have delimited the“era of art” totheRenaissance and afier. They speak of a “history of theimagebefore theera of art”.15 161 th 17inkwe should follow theirexample and speak of ahistory of thetextbefore theera of literature.The era of literaturestarts, as does the era of art, with theinstitutionalizationof a space outside of, and independentfrom thetraditional functions of culture. Museums, collections, an art market, private connaisseurship are typicalelements of such a space. With texts,thechange is even more dramatical, due totheinventionof theprinting press. We see publishers, libraries,book fares, a book market, and a culture of private reading devel- oping all over Europe. Such a de-functionalized space is characterized by unrestricted and ubiquitous accessibility. You can reada textor lookat an imagewhenever you choose, if it is in your possession or if thereis a libraryor a museum within reach. The notion of non-functionality impliestheideaof a space of such an indifferentaccessibility. In speaking of “literarycirculation”, we were takingtheex- istenceof such a space forgranted. But if we start seriously asking ourselves how such a space could have possibly been lookinglikein ancient Egypt, we are at a loss.There certainly was no book market. Manuscripts were circulating only within thefunctional institutionssuch as theschool, thetemple,and thedifferent departments of theadministration. Private book possession must have been ratherlimited. The threebest known examples are theRamesseum chest from thelateMiddle Kingdom,'6 thelibrary of Qenherkhepeshef from the20th dynasty,11 and theWilbour convolute at theBrooklyn Museum fromtheLate Period. All theseprivate librariesshow thesame mixture of liturgical,magical, medical, sapiential, and belletristic texts.Belles-lettres seem tobelong totheliteraryequipment of a priest or physician, somebody who needs writtentextsfortheperformance of his profession.

b) Storage and communication as functionsof writing

A re-assessmentof thequestion of theplace of belles-lettres within thetextualculture of ancient Egypt should start froma general survey regardingtheuse and development of writing in Egypt. Conceming theprimary functionsof writing I would liketostart with a very general reflexion. There seem tobe

15 Belting, Bild und Kult.

16 Cf. David, “Religious practices ina pyramid workmen’s townof thetwelfthdynasty”, inThe Buttetin of theAus- tralianCenter for Egyptology 2 (1991), 33-40, esp. 37 fif.

17 Pestman, “Who were theowners, inthe‘community of workmen’, of theChester Beatty Papyri?”, in Demaree/Janssen (eds.), Gleanings fromDeir el-Medina, 155-172.

(6)

twofundamentally different functionsof writing, namely storage and communication. They may be understood as extensions of twodifferent bodily capacities. As themedium of storage, writing extends therangeof human memory and as themedium of communication it extends therange of thehuman voice. Inthefirstcase, writing is employed in order topreserve data thatwould otherwise be forgotten,and in thesecond case toreach addressees who are distant inspace or time.Any lookat the early history of writing can teachus thatit is not communication but storage thatwas responsible for theinventionof systems of notation thatpreceded real scripts and thatmight thereforebe referred to as pre-writing. Systems of prewriting such as knotted cords, or calculi, or picture writing served as memory supports. The most typicalfunctional context forthedevelopment of such databases was economy. This has a very simple explanation. Economical data have no intrinsicmnemophilic quality. Because of theircontingency theydemand exterior notation. This istheorigin of thearchive. In Egypt, twoadditional macro-functions evolve togetherwith thefirst stages of political unification: therealms of thecult and of monumental inscriptions.Thus we may distinguish threemajor resortsof textual culture in archaic and Old Kingdom Egypt: thebnreaucratic archive, thecult, and therealm of monumental representation. These are thethreefiindamental fimctional domains where all themajor techniques,conventions, refmements, and sophistications of Egyptian writing culture such as theuse of red and black ink,thearrangement in tables,split columns, titlelines,illustrations,cryptography, and so forthwere developed. All thesecondary domains of writing such as funerary literature,belles- lettres,and scientific literaturefeed, as it were, on theknow-how of thescribes of thebureaucracy and thetemplescriptorium.

Except forsome lettersand dispatches, and forthesphere of themonumental which isa special case, writing functions in all theseareas as a means of storage and not of communication. You would not put a textintowriting in order topublish it, or toget it circulated. On thecontrary, publishing a textwould mean toretrieveit from thearchive and toread italoud toa group of people. The normal ways of circulation were oral, and writing was used only inthosecultural fields where communication required theuse of artificial storage. These were administration and ritual as exemplified by theAbusir Papyri and the Pyramid Texts. What I want toconvey by theseobservations isan ideaof themarginal- ityand improbabilityof writing. In thewhole sphere of cultural knowledge and communication, writ- ingappears at first as a ratherexceptional case. The disembodiment of knowledge, itsreferral towrit- ing,and itsstorage in archives occurs only where itsnatural form of embodiment inlivingmemories proves insufficientor where a form of visibility and permanence iswanted which only writing can pro- vide. Writing was employed where itwas indispensable.These were

1. thosefields of cultural practice which had grown toocomplex tobe handled by natural memory alone and had thereforedepend on an artificial memory of written archives: economy, administration, and royal funerary and mortuary ritual.

2. documents,acts, and edicts, where writing seems tofiilfill a performative fiinction, thatis, something has tobe written down in order tobecome “real” or socially/culturally efficient.

(7)

3. Monuments, where visibility of meaning was wanted and where writing was believed tobe a medium of self-immortalization, of carrying thevoice of thedeceased beyond thethresholdof death in order tocontinue a discourse with posterity.

c) The “identity function ” and the functionof literature

At thispoint I would liketointroducetheconcept of “cultural text”. Cultural textsformthecenter of what could be termedthetraditionaland relevant knowledge of a society. Cultural textsmay be other thanpurely linguisticphenomena. All kinds of ceremonies, rituals, festivals, customs, dances, images, symbols, “lieuxde memoire”, and so forthmay count as cultural textsas longas theyare important for, and expressive of theself-image and self-understanding of a given society, in short: if theyfiilfill an “identityfunction”.18 After all thathas been said regarding theearly fimctions of writing itmay be obvious thatcultural textswhich hold thecentral place in thecultural memory are thevery lastmate- rial which a society would thinkof entrusting totherealm of disembodied knowledge. Cultural texts formtheembodied knowledge par excellence. They are meant tobe learnedby heart and tobe thus embodied by every full member of thesociety. Writing or notational systems of prewriting might play a subsidiary roleforthespecialists in helping torememberlongstories or listsin therightorder. But memory remainsalways themain carrier of thecentral stock of cultural knowledge. The main function of cultural textsistoact as a kind of normative and formative cultural program which conveys and re- produces cultural identityfrom one generation totheother. This constitutes what I will call their

“identityfunction”.

The natural and traditionallocusof cultural textsis both theritual and thememory. The ritual provides thecontext fortheceremonial recitation,circulation, and communication of cultural texts.They are not ubiquitously accessible. Some tracesof thiskind of ritual performance or presentification of cultural textshave survived even in literatesocieties, for instancein Judaism where thefeastof Purim provides theoccasion of reading theBook of Esther, Passover thatof reading Song of Songs, Schavuot thatof Ruth, Yom Kippur thatof Jonah, and Sukkot thatof Qohelet. In Germany, where theChristmas Oratorio by J.S. Bach ranks among thecultural texts,you have towait until Christmas timefora public performance. Richard Wagner has strived forsomething similar. He notes tohave planned toburn thepartition score of Siegfried after thefirst performance in order toexclude any accessibility of thetextoutside theceremonial performance which should liveon inmemory alone. Thus, thecultural textis thevery opposite of a de-contextualized, situationally abstract, non-functional object of disinterested pleasure and lonelyreading. It is highly fiinctional in a normative and/or formative way and situationally highly determined.

18 Geertz,Dichte Beschreibung, 258, understands by "cultural texts” not only written textsbut also structured and re- peatable performances such as theBalinese cock fight. The cultural textisa semiotic unit whose repeatedactuali- zation intheformof reading, recitation,and performance informstheidentityof theparticipants ina normative and/or formativeway.

(8)

d) The school as theinstitutional frameof literarycultural texts

Cultural textsin general initiatethenovice intoculture ingeneral. There are, however, specialized fields of culture which requirespecial initiation.With regardtoancient Egypt, one would thinkin the very first place of theart of writing, which, in thissociety, istantamounttotheart of administration and all theother branches of political, legal,ritual, economical, mathematical, and technicalknowl- edge. Writing and reading formtheentrance totheruling class, theclass of “literatocracy” which, in Egypt, isnot recruitedby birth but by education. Itisevident thatthissubsystem developed itsown institutionsof recruitment, socialization, and structural reproductionwhich we became accustomed to subsume under thesomewhat anachronistic termof “school”. By using thisterm,we must not thinkof special buildings, largeclasses, and professional teachers.Classes existed only forthefirst fouryears of elementary education; theywere small and were taughtby priests or officials who held positions in thetempleor in thecivil administration. After thesefour years, education was continued on thebasis of individualapprenticeship. With thesenecessary changes, we may employ theterm“school” in order todenote thewhole system of socialization, education, training,cultural formation, and promotion. The Egyptian school inthisbroad sense isdesigned toimpartnot only special skills but above all fun- damentals of cultural and moral formationin thesense of musar, paideia, or Bildung. My thesisis that thisis thefunctionalframe for most of thosetextswhich we are used toclassify as “literature”. These texts,as well as theorally transmittedcultural texts,where meant tobe learnedby heart and tobe stored in memory. This is whatconstitutes theiridentityfunction. But at thesame timetheyserved the purpose of an initiationintotheart of writing. For thatpurpose theyhad tobe written down from memory after having been learntby heart. They impartedliterateand cultural competence, theknowl- edge how towrite inorder tobecome a scribe and how tolivein order tobecome a gentleman. We must not forgetthatthescribes did not justbelong toa specialized guild of crafl but thattheyrepre- sented theEgyptian aristocracy and theruling class. Things changed somewhat during theNew King- dom and so did literature,but thisdescription may apply fairly well totheMiddle Kingdom and, therefore,totheclassical age of Egyptian literature.Scribal culture was held representativeof culture in general. Unlike India, where every caste developed itsown system of values and code of honor, Egypt did not develop a stratified system of different cultural codes. The scribal class embodied in a representativeway all theculturally relevant values and moral codes. The scribe was theexemplary Egyptian.

Itseems as if thiseducational system did not yet exist during theOld Kingdom and thatit only developed in the12th dynasty and itsefforts tocreate a new class of priests and state oflficials.191 thinkit was in thefunctional frame of thiscultural and political project thatmost of thegreat textsof

19 This may be wrong. There isa very marked transitionfromthecourtly elite of thefirstfourdynasties which was founded on kinship toa bureaucratic elite founded on expertise as early as the5th dynasty. This transitionmight have generated a body of cultural textsserving as a codification of, and initiationinto,theethos of thenew elite. I cannot completely exclude thepossibility tliattheinstructionsof Hardjedef, Kagemni, and Plahhotep date fromthe Old Kingdom. But I prefer forreasons of plausibility a date inthe12th dynasty.

(9)

theMiddle Kingdom had been composed. They were meant as cultural textstofunctioninthespecific frame of textualor scribal culture and toform thecultural memory of thenew ruling elite.

I thinkthatPosener was basically right in ascertaining thepolitically supportive tendenciesof prac- ticallyall thetextsthatform thebody of Middle Kingdom literature,but I also agree with Stephen Quirke20 and others that“propaganda” might not be therighttermtodenote thepolitical function of thesetexts.The notion of propaganda istoospecific, toopejorative, and toounidirectional. These textswere meant toformand informnot only thefutureofficials but thefiiture kings as well (cf. the lnstruction for Merikare). The fundamentalsof culture and morals which theywere toimpartapplied tokings as well as topriests, judges,and administrators. It was thevery generality of thisknowledge and of thisfimctional context which conferred upon thetextstheirgeneral character, and itisthisgen- eral and fundamentalcharacter which makes themcomparable towhat we understand by literature.It is thegeneral and representativecharacter of thesetexts,theiridentityfunction, which gives themtheir public quality as opposed tothosedomains of Egyptian textualculture which are usually associated with thenotion of secrecy, such as funerary literature,magical texts,templerecitations,and rituals, and most kinds of what I have called “encyclopaedic literature”.21

At thispoint of theargument, it would be necessary toexamine thespecific textsthatform the body of Middle Kingdom literatureand todemonstratefor every single one of themhow itsthemeand structure corresponds tothisfunctional frame of general cultural formationor “identityfunction”. This demonstration, however, would takeus toofar, and I thinkthat,at leastforEgyptologists, thecase is tooevident as torequiredetailed argumentation. With theinstructionssuch as Ptahhotep, Hardjedef Kagemni, Merikare, Amenemhet /.,theSatire of Trades, thebook Kemit, theLoyalistic Instruction, theInstructionof a Man forhis Son, and theHymn totheNile thereisno problem as faras theirfor- mative and normative claims are concerned, and thesame applies tothedialogues and lamentations such as theThe Man who was Tired of Life, theEloquent Peasant, Si-Sobek, theProphecies of Neferti, Khakheperreseneb, and theAdmonitions. All thesetextswhich we usually subsume under the category of “wisdom literature” display and teachthefundamentals of Maat, theinstructionson the individualleveland thelamentationson thelevelof society. The didactic impactof thenarratives such as Sinuhe and theShipwrecked Sailor has already been shown by Eberhard Otto.22 The Shipwrecked Sailor even reflects thispurpose of moral orientation in itsframe narrative as well as in theencased narrative of theserpent which reproducesin theform of a mise en abime or self-reproduction the whole ina part. The story istoldby thehero toa high official in order toteachhim therightbehaviour vis a vis theking and theaddressee is summoned tolistentothestory by thesame formula thatthe wisdom textsuse toinstructthedisciple. The story of theserpent is toldtothehero in order toteach him how tosurvive a situation of abandonment and solitude.

20 Quirke, Review of Loprieno, inDE 16 (1990),92.

21 1am tryingtotranslatetheGerman term“Wissensliteratur” and I am thinkingnot only of theOnomastica, but of all kinds of manuals meant forconsultation, ratherthanrecitation.

22 Otto,“Sinuhe und der Schiffbruchige als lehrhafteStiicke”, inZAS 93 (1966), 100-111.

(10)

Insteadof going intodetails here, I would liketostress twopoints:

1. There are more “cultural texts” thanthosewhich form thebody of normative and formative literature. We must not forgetthatthebulk of cultural textswould have been entrusted tomemory ratherthantowriting even during theMiddle Kingdom and thattheremust have existed, besides the body of literatureof which we possess some small traces,a largeoral tradition.

2. Wemust not construct therelation between oral and written traditionintermsof translation. The written traditionis not justthetranslationof orally transmittedknowledge intotexts.Rather, it constitutes a cultural field of itsown and develops according toitsown rules. The textthatdraws this distinction and thatformulates themost importantof theserulesgoverning therealm of literatureis thefamousLamentations of Khakheperreseneb'.

Had I unknown phrases, Sayings thatare strange, Novel, untried words, Free of repetition; Not transmittedsayings, Spoken by theancestors!

I wring out my body of what it holds, In releasing all my words;

For whatwas said is repetition, When what was said is said.

Ancestor’s words are nothing toboast of, They are found by thosewho come after. Not speaks one who spoke,

There speaks one who will speak, May another find what he will speak!

Not ateller of talesafter theyhappen, This has been done before;

Nor a tellerof what might be said, This is vain endeavor, it is lies, And none will recall his name toothers. I say thisin accord with what I have seen:

From thefirst generation tothosewho come after, They imitatethatwhich is past.

Would thatI knew what others ignore, Such as has not been repeated, To say it and have my heart answer me.

(11)

To informitof my distress, Shift toittheloadon my back, The matters thatafflict me, Relate toitof what I suffer And sigh “Ah” with reliefl23

The sufferings of Khakheperreseneb are thoseof an author, a writer of textsin opposition toa singer of tales.The singer of talesis valued according tohis ability toembody and representthetradition.It isnot variation -letalone innovation-but faithful reproductionwhat thepublic expects fromhim. The traditiondoes not exist independentlyof his embodying it. He is theonly access tothetradition. The writer of textsis in a different situation. The traditionisalready thereinformof other textsand he has tocreate a textthatstands thecomparison. Itisnot re-embodiment,repetition, and reproduction thatthepublic expects of him but variation and innovation.The space of written traditionisgoverned by rules of competitionand variation in thesame way as thespace of oral traditionisgovemed by rules of faithful repetitionand reproduction. The writeris operating in thespace of discursive visibility. I have argued elsewhere thatin Egypt theconcept of visual discursive space is modelled upon the institutionsof themonumental tomband themonumental discourse. Khakheperreseneb alludes tothis sphere by expressions such as “boasting” and “recalling thename”. He thinksof a textas a means of immortality.In latertextsthisparallel will be spelled out in all detail. The institutionof themonumental tombis themodel of theEgyptian ideaof literature.The literarytextis immortalbecause itis meant tobecome a cultural textand tostay on in cultural memory. Literature is conceived as a kind of immaterialand imperishablenecropolis where tombsof all periods stand one besides theother ready to be visited by posterity, each of themtestifyingof an individualexperience and achievement which guarantees itsundiminishing significance and relevance. According tocritics such as George Steiner,24 thesituation has not much changed since. As far as this“immortalityfiinction” of literatureiscon- cerned, writing fimctions as an extension not of individualbut of social memory and isinthisrespect fiinctionally equivalent tothemonumental tomb.

23 BM EA 5645 rto., 1-9; translationLichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Hterature, vol. 1, 146 f.

24 “What iscentral toa trueculture isa certain view of therelationsbetween timeand individualdeath.

The thrustof will which engenders art and disinterested thought,theengaged responsewhich alone can ensure its transmissiontoother human beings, tothefuture, are rooted ina gamble on transcendence.The writer or thinker means thewords of thepoem, thesinews of theargument, tliepersonae of thedrama, tooutlast his own life,totake on themystery of autonomous presence and presentness. The sculptor commits tothestone thevitalities against and across timewhich will soon drain fromhis own livinghand. Art and mind address thosewho are not yet, even at therisk, deliberately incurred,of being unnoticed by theliving".See Steiner, In Bluebeard's castle, 71.

(12)

III.Entertainment and carnival

The functionaldefinition of literaturewhich I am proposing for ancient Egypt does not apply, however, toall thetextswhich we are accustomed toclassify as literature.The identityfiinction of cultural textsapplies only tothosetextswhich have an evident didactic impact,such as theMaat literatureof instructionsand lamentations,and thedidactic narratives. Besides thisbody of cultural textsthereis not only therealm of oral tradition butalso thecase of thosetextsthatcannot count as “cultural texts” because theylackthischaracter of general normativity and formativity. I am thinkingof monumental, documentary, encyclopaedic, and recitationliterature.These textsare not meant tobe leamedby heart but tobe consulted or ritually performed. We must not forgetthatthesedomains of Egyptian textual culture by far exceed therealm of literaturein thestrict sense of literarycultural textsas far as sheer material output isconcerned.

This picture seems toincludeall thetextsup totheAmarna age. After Amarna, however, thesituation changes fimdamentally. I will confine myself tosome very brief allusions. The great innovationof the Ramesside period is theappearance of “entertainment literature” within therealm of thewritten tradition.There had been allusions tothesocial and especiaily courtly function of entertainment al- readyinsome Middle Kingdom texts.Kings must be entertained when theysuffer from fits of anger, melancholy, or boredom. Sinuhe tellsus how theprincesses sing a song of reconciliationinorder to cure theking froma wave of anger which threatenstoget hold of him in a specific situation. Neferti is representedtorecitehis prophecies toa king who wants tobe entertained. The stories of Papyrus Westcar are set ina frame of courtly entertainment. We may safely assume thattheentertainment of kings and high officials constituted a major function and situational context forliteraryperformance in ancient Egypt. But normally, therequirementsof thissituational context would be fulfilled by oral traditioninthesame way as other situations of social lifesuch as courtly and forensic debate and rhetoric,therulesof which play such an importantrolein theinstructions.The great innovationof the Ramesside age isthetextualizationof some parts of oral traditionpertaining tothefunctionof pleasure and entertainment. Examples are lovesongs, harper’s songs, mythological tales,fables and fabli- aux, historical romances,fairy tales,and other forms of Iiterary narrative. Elke Blumenthal has pro- posed tosubsume thenarrative textsunder therubric of entertainment literature,25 and Iwould liketo enlarge thisnotion so as toincludethelovesongs and other genres of entertainmentas well and to associate thisfunctionwith theEgyptian notion of shmh jb, lit. “make theheart forget” (namely: the sorrow). There is a certain affmity of thisdomain towhat Mikhail Bakhtin has termedCamival; the character of theburlesque, theironic,thecomical, even thefrivolousand theobscene isratherpromi- nent in some of thesetexts.But thedemotic textknown as theMylh of theSolar Eye illustratesalso theroleof didactic textssuch as fables within thefunctionof courtly entertainment. The roleof the king is here played by thelion-goddessTefnut whosetemperoscillates between anger and gentleness.

25 Blumenthal, inZAS 99 (1972),1-17.

(13)

In theliterarytradition(oreven “system”) of theRamesside period, thiskind of textsrepresentthe

“modern” literatureas opposed towhat only now became tobe canonized as the“classical” tradition. Classical and modern literaturecomplement and presuppose each other inthesame wayas intheearly Hellenistic neoterism of Alexandria. This distinction isbuild upon thecultural split intothepast and thepresent, or theclassical languageand thevemacular, which characterizes theRamesside situation. In thisstage of cultural evolution, when theidentityfunctionof cultural textshas been shifted tothe canon of classical texts,we witness therise of a comparatively de-functionalized sphere of literary production and reception which we may classify as belles-lettres without making ourselves guilty of toomuch of anachronism.

archive literature monuments

encyclopaedic identity entertainment

(transmissionof knowledge) (education) (shmh-jb) recitation (templeand tomb) fig.l

communication storage (voice) (memory)

letters/dispatches monumental discourse administrative/juridic cultic educational

documents/acts encyclopaedic literature recitation-literature encyclopaedic literature fig.2

(14)

References:

Assmann, J. Agyptische Hymnen und Gebete (Ziirich-Munchen1975).

Belting, H. Bild und Kult. Eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst (Munchen1991). Blumenthal, E. “Die Erzahlung des Papyrus d’Orbiney als Literaturwerk”, in ZAS 99 (1972),1-17. Broich, U./Pfister, M. (eds.), Intertexlualitat.Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien.

Konzepte der Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft 35 (Ttibingen 1985).

Brunner, H. Grundziige einer Geschichte der altagyptischen Literatur. Grundzuge Bd. 8 (Darmstadt 41986).

Cerny, J. Paper and books in Ancient Egypt (London1952).

Cooper, J.S./Schwartz, G.M. (eds.),The study of theAncient Near East inthetwenty-firstcentury. The William Foxwell Albright centennialconference (Wynona Lake1996).

David, R.A. “Religious practices in a pyramid workman’s townof thetwelfthdynasty”, inThe Bul- letinof theAustralian Center forEgyptology 2 (1991), 33-40.

Demaree, R.J./Janssen J.J. (eds.),Gleanings fromDeir el-Medina. Egyptologische Uitgaven I (Leiden 1982).

Eyre, C.J. “The Semna stelae: quotation, genre, and functions of literature”, in Groll (ed.),Studies Lichtheim, vol. 1, 134-165.

Fecht, G. Der Vorwurf an Gott inden "Mahnworten des Ipuwer”. AHAW, phil.-hist. Klasse 1972,1 (Berlin1972).

Geertz, C. Dichte Beschreibung. Beitrdge zum Verstehen kuhureller Systeme (Frankfurt/M. 1983). Groll, S.I. (ed ), Studies inEgyptology presented toMiriam Lichtheim,2 vols. (Jerusalem 1990). Habachi, L. The second stela of Kamose and his struggle against theHyksos ruler and his capital.

ADAIK 8 (Gluckstadt1972).

Helck, W. Historisch-biographische Texte der 2. Zwischenzeit und neue Texte der 18. Dynastie. KAT (Wiesbaden 1983).

Lichtheim,M. Ancient Egyptian literature,vol. 1: The Old and Middle Kingdom (Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1973).

Loprieno, A. “Defming Egyptian literature:ancient textsand modern literarytheory”, in Cooper/Schwartz (eds), The study of theAncient Near East inthetwenty-firstcentury, 209-232 (reprintedin Loprieno (ed ), Ancient Egyptian literature,39-58).

Loprieno,A. (ed ), Ancient Egyptian literature:history andforms. PdA 10 (Leiden 1996).

Osing, J. “Zu zwei literarischenTexten des Mittleren Reichs”, in Osing/Kolding Nielsen (eds), Studies Iversen,101-120.

Osing, J./Kolding Nielsen, E. (eds.),The heritage of Ancient Egypt. Studies inhonour ofErik Iversen, CNI Publications 13 (Copenhagen1992).

Otto, E. “Sinuhe und der Schiffbruchige als lehrhafteStucke”, in ZAS 93(1966),100-111.

Pestman, P.W. “Who were theowners, inthe‘community of workmen’, of theChester Beatty Papyri?”, in Demaree/Janssen(eds), Gleaningsfrom Deir el-Medina,155-172.

Posener, G. Litterature et politique dans l ’Egypte de laXIT dynastie. BEHE 307 (Paris 1956).

—. L 'Enseignementloyaliste.Sagesse egyptienne dyMoyen Empire. Centre de recherchesd’histoire et de philologie 2. Hautes etudes orientales 5 (Geneve 1976).

(15)

Pozner, V. Vladimir Pozner se souvient (Paris1989).

Quirke, St. Review ofLoprieno, Topos undMimesis, in DE 16 (1990), 89-95.

Seibert, P. Die Charakteristik. Untersuchungen zu einer altdgyptischen Sprechsitte und ihren Auspragungen inFolklore undLiteratur. AgAbh. 17 (Wiesbaden 1967).

Smith, H.S./Smith, A. “A reconsiderationof theKamose texts”, in ZAS 103 (1976), 48-76. Steiner, G. InBluebeard’scastle. Some notes towardsthere-defmition of culture (London1971).