Simon Hochberg

ARCH 2740: Social Life in Egyptomania

10 November 2013

Response Paper: “The Eloquent Peasant”

This Middle Kingdom text tells the story of a wronged and well-spoken commoner who petitions the chief steward for redress of a crime. The peasant, Khunanup, had one of his donkeys seized by a cruel official after the donkey ate an ear of the official’s barley. The official refused to return the donkey, and Khunanup took up his case with the official’s superior. The chief steward, and in turn, the pharaoh were so impressed with the peasant’s articulacy that the pharaoh ordered the chief steward to not relent to Khunanup’s pleas so that the commoner would continue to petition him and his speeches could be recorded and brought to the pharaoh for his enjoyment. Khunanup’s pleas certainly are enjoyable, but they offer plenty of insight into the Middle Kingdom legal system or, at least, the societal expectations of conduct. In working with this text, I used translations by Miriam Lichtheim (1973) and Vincent A. Tobin (2003). Unless otherwise cited, the citations in the rest of this response paper refer to Tobin’s translation, a link for which is posted on the course wiki.

The most prevalent theme running through the petitions of Khunanup is the ancient Egyptian idea of ma’at (25). Lichteim translates ma’at as “justice,” but Tobin elects to not translate it. In the classes I have taken, ma’at has usually been explained as “the way the world should be,” or “order.” It is an integral part of the Egyptian world order. If ma’at were preserved, the world would be the way it should be. Therefore, crimes and wrongdoings are in opposition to ma’at, and, the peasant claims, they should be punished and set right so as to preserve and uphold ma’at (29). He asks the chief steward to right his being wronged by the official because doing so would “fulfill Ma’at” (29). Khunanup stresses the importance of law ma’at as a defense of the poor and not powerful, saying, “If law is subverted and integrity destroyed, there is no poor man who will be able to live. For he will be cheated, and Ma’at will not support him.” (40) In my previous classes, I always understood ma’at as a religiously significant idea and something that was connected to the king. One of the duties of kingship is defending ma’at by maintaining order and dispelling chaos. It is therefore a little atypical, for me at least, to see ma’at described as a protector of the less powerful. What this does suggest, however, is that ma’at was a part of the Egyptian worldview across the strata of society, and that there were societal expectations of not mistreating the poor.

Another glimpse into the Egyptian legal system comes from Khunanup’s assorted descriptions of the position of chief steward. The peasant tells the chief steward that he “was appointed to judge complaints, to judge between two (disputants), and to curb the thief when he steals.” (38) The later is responsible for justice in his role of “punisher of the thief, defender of the distressed” (34). It seems that the chief steward is an arbiter for people of all classes in Middle Kingdom Egypt. Khunanup’s petitions make it appear that the chief steward is responsible for dispensing punishment to wrongdoers and protected those to whom the bad deeds were done. This text suggests that in the Egyptian legal system, the office of chief steward existed in order to serve as arbiter and to ensure justice and uphold ma’at. Furthermore, this justice seems to have included protections for the poor against mistreatment from higher social classes.

This text offers interesting and contradictory accounts of the rights and privileges of commoners in society. Khunanup is beaten on several occasions throughout the story. Both the thieving official and the chief steward beat him, there never seems to be perceived wrongdoing in the physical abuse (28, 36). Perhaps this is an indication of social superiors’ ability to treat commoners as they chose. This idea is further substantiated by the thieving official’s statement of a “well-known proverb” that “a poor man’s name is pronounced (only) for the sake of his master.” (28) These examples suggest that commoners had no rights or protections and that societal higher-ups could do what they wanted to the poor. However, the above examples of ma’at defending the poor from chaos and abuse at the hands of the rich and the job of the chief steward being to look out for injustice seem to indicate that commoners did have some protections.

The themes for this week are law and religion in ancient Egypt. Both run rampant throughout “The Eloquent Peasant.” Various gods are invoked in the peasant’s petitions to the chief steward, though none more often than ma’at. This religious idea of order, justice, and the right way for things provides the backbone for all of Khunanup’s arguments. While it would not be right to translate ma’at as “law,” it is evident that ma’at is the basis for the laws or expectations of Middle Kingdom Egypt; therefore, any crime or injustice is a violation of ma’at. “The Eloquent Peasant” gives us insight into the social expectations of conduct of the Middle Kingdom and the people whose job it was to enforce those laws.