The achievement of abstraction in the treatment of society emerges more clearly in The Teaching of Amenemope (Laisney 2007) than in the Anii. However, this is due not so much to a big difference in content to Anii, but rather to the clearly recognizable form of the teaching, already visible in the physical layout of the text. As well as being arranged in stanzas, the majority of the manuscripts are written stichically and thus point forward to later Demotic wisdom (Lichtheim 1983). Apart from this poetic form, it is the relation to the Old Testament Proverbs (Romheld 1989) which have given rise to the modern perception of the text as being one of the most significant wisdom texts of the New Kingdom.
Amenemope is transmitted in its entirety in a papyrus from the Twenty-sixth Dynasty (P. BM 10474), as well as in partial copies on another papyrus, four writing boards, and one ostracon which all originate from an educational environment. The ostracon dates perhaps to the Twentieth Dynasty and, if so, is the oldest testimony. The text’s date of composition is estimated to be the Twentieth Dynasty. It begins with an extensive prologue, in which the corn-scribe Amenemope states the purpose and goal of his teaching, as well as introducing himself and the addressee, his son, Horemmaakheru, with titles and genealogy. There follow 29 stanzas of teachings, which, unlike Anii, uniformly take the shape of admonitions with accompanying justifications, as well as an epilogue-like 30th stanza, which summarizes the worth of the teaching for the person instructed. Although the text may have initially been exactly the same kind of individual product as Anii, its implied audience is normally regarded as a large segment of society, which, on the basis of
Amenemope’s titles, is identified as the lower and middle provincial official elite (Laisney 2007: 233-4). The themes of the teaching are familiar in Egyptian wisdom: correct exercise of official duties, considered and appropriate speech, avoidance of short-sighted greed and addiction to success, as well as humility in the face of the great and benevolence in the face of the disadvantaged. Although Amenemope, in contrast to Anii, seems to be more thematically structured and assembles diverse stanzas into smaller thematic blocks (Shirun-Grumach 1991: 224), a clear thematic structure is hard to discern (but see Laisney 2007: 9). The text frequently varies its themes and illuminates one and the same basic statement from different perspectives. Without any clear intertextual dependence on Anii (Quack 1994: 201-3), Amenemope positions its themes in the same way against the background of personal piety but draws, in part, different conclusions. The central motif in Amenemope is the ‘‘true silent one,’’ a monument of selfrenunciation, who in silent prayer (P. BM 10474 VII,7-8 = ch. 5, 14-16) and conscious inwardness, embraces the fate that god has intended and which remains inexplicable to himself (P. BM 10474 XIX,16-17 and XX,5-6 = ch. 18, 6-7 and 18-19). His opposite is the ‘‘ardent one’’ (smm), described as greedy, unrestrained, and hungry for advancement, to whom every means to success is right, but who also pays the price when judged by god (P. BM 10474 XIX,22 - XX,2 = ch. 18, 12-15). The clearest verbalization of god's omnipotence and the helplessness of the man is found in the image of god as an all powerful potter who creates and destroys as he wishes, poor and powerful alike (P. BM 10474 XXIV,13-18 = ch. 25, 6-10).
In this text, like Anii, the causal relationship, familiar from the Middle Kingdom teachings, between one’s own actions and the resulting success is uncoupled. Unlike Anii, however, Amenemope does not opt pragmatically for an individualized utilitarian maximizing of profit suited to the conditions but develops, through the symbol of the ‘‘true silent one,’’ a case for a withdrawn and modest handling of individual possibilities. This becomes especially clear in the passages where the apparently commonly used possibility of abusing one's office is specifically argued against. Likewise, there are warnings against the forging of entries in the cadastre or the use of false measures and weights (chs. 6, 13, and 15-17), as well as against the god-like insolence of retrospectively correcting an oracle (ch. 20). In direct opposition to Anii, Amenemope even warns its audience against excluding foreigners from charity (P. BM 10474 XXVI,11 = ch. 28, 3). Therefore, although Amenemope clearly takes the same individualized society as its starting point as Anii, it develops for its audience, imagined as being socially isolated, different conclusions which to the modern observer appear more humanitarian and, therefore, ‘‘wiser.’’ This appearance of contemplative wisdom may have contributed just as much to the fame of the teachings as their function as a model for Proverbs 22.17-24.22, which have incorporated parts of the teachings (Romheld 1989; Laisney 2007: 239-46). However, the significance of the text is also overrated. Amenemope is, in its original Egyptian context, nothing more than a comparatively marginal school text whose treatment in Proverbs should be interpreted not so much as an important intercultural exchange, but rather as drawing on a stock of themes available in a socially common milieu. It is the influence of the Biblical master-narrative which has led to the modern elevation of the text to a position which it did not enjoy in antiquity.
World History
