Whereas hieroglyphic inscriptions on temple walls and on stelae mention the king as sole ruler and judge, other texts make it clear that the actual head of government administration was the tjaty, ‘‘the vizier.’’ This translation, traditionally used by Egyptologists, arises from the notion that his official status has some superficial resemblance to that of the vizier in the Ottoman Empire and so is technically anachronistic. Similarly anachronistic is the term ‘‘prime (or chief) minister’’ which is sometimes used to refer to the same person. Many Egyptian texts present the tjaty as the highest administrative and juridical functionary and as the executor of the king’s decisions. He appears in texts from the Third Dynasty onwards. In the early Old Kingdom he was a relative of the king, but in the Fifth Dynasty the office of vizier became formally detached from the royal family. We have very little information about his precise tasks in this early period, but it is assumed that government officials reported to him. In the Old and Middle Kingdom the vizier was also the director of royal building projects, and in the New Kingdom he was still directly responsible for the workers who constructed the royal tombs. In the Ramesside Period he was the chairman of the ‘‘Great Council’’ (kenbet aat), the administrative and judicial council of the capital.
From the time of the Old Kingdom there was just one vizier responsible for the entire nation, but after the beginning of the New Kingdom, possibly even earlier, there was one residing in the north (in Memphis, Heliopolis, or Pi-ramesse), and one in the south (in Thebes). Only during the last years of Ramesses III and (possibly) the reign of Akhenaten was the vizirate an undivided office in Egypt. At the end of the New Kingdom the prestige of the title seems to have weakened; for tjaty is just one of several titles, such as ‘‘King’s Son of Kush,’’ ‘‘High Priest of Amun,’’ and ‘‘General of the Army,’’ ascribed to Piankhy, Herihor, and Pinedjem (Haggmann 2002: 315-317). In the Third Intermediate and
Late Periods the title is still attested, but it is very unclear what responsibilities the persons thus designated held.
What is known of the vizier’s activities comes mainly from the text Duties of the Vizier (see Van den Boorn 1988), which is found in the tombs of several viziers of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The fullest version comes from the Theban tomb of Rekhmire (TT 100), the vizier under Thutmose III and Amenhotep II. In the same tomb there was a related text, Installation of the Vizier, which is a code of conduct declared by the king for the newly appointed vizier. It emphasizes attitudes such as impartiality and the protection of the weaker parties in judicial conflicts. The text of the Duties probably dates from earlier than the preserved copies; it may have been composed first in the reign of Ahmose (Van den Boorn 1988: 333-76), or even in the late Middle Kingdom. It is also possible that the text as preserved is the result of a longer period of evolution (James 1984: 68). It refers to the residence in Thebes (the ‘‘Southern City’’), implying that a separate vizier of the south lived there, which sheds some light on its historical background.
The Duties indicate that the vizier was the king’s representative and executive, as well as his principal source of information. In these capacities, he seems to have had two main tasks. One was directing per nesu, ‘‘the house of the king,’’ the palace and its personnel, in close cooperation with the overseer of the royal treasury. These two functionaries held daily meetings, after which the vizier would give his orders with regard to all persons and goods entering and leaving the palace. His responsibilities also extended to the residential city beyond the palace compound. The second task was to control government administration, the individual departments and the functionaries. The vizier inspected his subordinates, registered administrative neglects and abuses and took steps against these; one possible measure he could adopt was to withdraw the sources of income from an official. In short he seems to have acted as a judge for administrative procedures. The following extracts are typical (version TT 100):
He shall daily enter and greet the lord - life, prosperity, health - in his house when the condition of the Two Lands has been reported to him.
He shall enter the Great House when the treasurer stands at the northern flagpole. Then the vizier will proceed from the east(?) through the door of the Great Double Gate and the treasurer will come to greet him, and report to him as follows:
‘‘All your business is safe and prospering!
All responsible persons have reported to me:
‘All your business is safe and prospering; the Palace is safe and prospering!’ ’’
Then the vizier shall report to the treasurer as follows:
‘‘All your business is safe and prospering!
Every place of the Residence is safe and prospering.
The sealing on time of the sealed rooms and their opening on time have been reported to me by all responsible persons.’’
After the two functionaries have reported to each other, the vizier shall give a command to open every door of the Palace, to make everything that comes in, come in, likewise everything that goes out.
It is his messenger who makes it happen by a written statement. (cols. 5-8)
Figure 12.1 Office of the vizier as depicted in TT 100 (Davies 1943: pl. XXV).
As for everything the vizier does during a hearing in his office:
As for anyone who is [not] functioning properly [... on] any duty about which he is questioned [lit. heard],
And who shall fail to counter an objection when he is questioned about it, he shall be entered into the criminal register that is in the Great Prison; likewise anyone who shall fail to counter an objection of his messenger.
If their deeds come to pass again, it will be reported,
And it will be made known that they are in the criminal register;
The matter for which they have been entered in the register will be communicated
According to their offences. (cols. 13-15)
It is he [the vizier] who orders trees to be cut according to what is said in the Palace.
It is he who sends out the district councillors to construct canals in the entire country.
It is he who sends out the mayors and overseers of domains for ploughing and harvesting. (cols. 24-25)
It is he who sends out the army and the scribes of the mat to carry out the lord’s instructions.
A district register shall be in his office at every hearing concerning all fields.
It is he who establishes the borders of every estate, every pasture, every temple estate, and all that is sealed(?).
It is he who effects every decision. (cols. 26-27)
Apart from describing the daily administrative and legal tasks of the vizier, the text also shows us two important characteristics of Egyptian state administration prevailing at the time the text was composed. One is the importance of protocol, of minutely prescribed actions by the vizier and his subordinates. This is an indication of bureaucracy in a Weberian sense, with formal structures and prescriptions taking precedence over personal influence and motives. This bureaucratic impression is strengthened by the role of written text: not only are the duties themselves laid down in writing, but documents also play a vital role in the daily actions of the vizier. We read that instructions were conveyed in writing and that documents were deposited in an administrative or legal archive (that of the so-called ‘‘Great Prison,’’ khenret-wer) where they could be consulted. Another important characteristic is the vizier’s supervision ofthe various administrative departments and their functionaries, who had been carrying out their tasks without interference on his part. This post-event control appears to have been the main way in which the vizier acted; it shows him to have been as much a judge as an executive administrator. This feature of Pharaonic state administration explains why it is often hard to distinguish administration from jurisdiction in Ancient Egyptian texts. Any official could assume the role of a judge whenever problems arose in the department under his authority. The position of a specialist judge does not seem to have existed before the Late Period (see below, Law).
The Duties of the Vizier indicates that the responsibilities of the vizier were not restricted to departments and functionaries in the central administration and the residence, but in some respects penetrated to a local level, such as concerns of agriculture and irrigation. It is stated that the vizier could order canals to be dug and send people to cultivate land, but it is doubtful if this means that he was responsible for all irrigated fields in Egypt. State interference with irrigation has been the subject of a fierce debate in Egyptology. According to the ‘‘hydraulic hypothesis,’’ there was a need for supra-local irrigation networks to enable early states to develop, but since the rulers’ responsibility for irrigation does not figure at all in texts predating the First Intermediate Period (Schenkel 1978; Endesfelder 1979), this has been shown to be untenable for Ancient Egypt. The vizier’s responsibility for irrigation as expressed in the Duties does seem at first sight to indicate that it was very much a concern of the state, at least in later periods, but the text may actually be referring to specific agricultural domains belonging to the government and to temples; for it is explicitly stated that the vizier is responsible for temple estates. A similarly restrictive interpretation may be required when it is stipulated that every title-deed (imyt-per; col. 19) is to be sealed by the vizier. This does not necessarily mean that every confirmation of land ownership, public or private, was to be authorized by the vizier, but that he was probably involved whenever public interest was at stake (as in the case of the lawsuit of Mose; see below, Law). Alternatively, it is possible that only very limited categories of property (such as that belonging to the state or very wealthy individuals) was the subject of written title-deeds at this time.
World History
