THE ROLE OF THE KING

In their work on ancient states, Goldstone and Haldon (2009: 11) write that the success of long-term state formation requires ‘acceptance of the state as normatively desirable ... by the broader populace from which it draws its resources’. The theologian Launderville (2003: 1-3) agrees, noting that royal authority demands the support of the people, and stresses the place of public perception of the king. This emphasises the importance of public acceptance of the political and social status quo, including the place of the elite and the ruler; without this the state will not function in the long-term. It is important, then, to understand the concepts that underlie the power of the elite, and the ways in which this can be promulgated on a popular level. The next section will look at theories of kingship, both specifically relating to ancient Egypt and more general, to examine more fully the role of the king as well as how Egyptian beliefs can be understood as part of a wider scholarship.

102

33

1.8.1.1. THE ‘TWO BODIES’ OF THE KING

The concept of the ruler as having both mortal and immortal aspects, and the importance of dynastic continuity, feature strongly in literature about kingship in both early and modern societies.103 This is most clearly set out in Kantorowicz’s (1997) work ‘The King’s Two

Bodies’.104 Originally published in English in 1957, it looks at political theory of the medieval period and the role of the king. The central tenet is the dual nature of the king; while his natural body is mortal and, as such, is born and dies, the royal persona is immortal. Boureau (2001: 192-195) also cites the importance of the political body of the king as ‘an embodiment of the state’ in early modern France;105

this further emphasises the role of the political body in representing and acting for the good of the country or community. Boureau (2001: 195) does note, however, that in absolutist regimes, the idea of two bodies can be superseded by a complete absorption of the person of the king into the one, political figure; the king becomes entirely subsumed into the state, as Louis XIV demonstrated when he claimed, ‘l’état, c’est moi’.

The concept of an immortal king contained in a mortal body can be easily found in Egyptian culture, wherein the pharaoh possessed the royal kA106 and his divinity was renewed regularly

103

See, for example, Boureau (2001), Lecoq (2001) S. Price (1984), L. Bell (1998), Bommas (2013). 104

Bommas (2013: 198-201) also looks at theories of kingship put forward by Kantorowicz in the context of ancient Egypt, focusing on the developing of the concept of the two bodies. He writes (2013: 198-199) that ‘the king has a natural and therefore mortal, personal body and a supernatural and political body’.

105

He notes favourably Kantorowicz’s concept of the two bodies of the king, suggesting that it can be traced back to Louis IX, who embodied this duality, acting in his private life as a ‘devout Christian’, and in his public life as sovereign king (Boureau 2001: 192-193).

106

34

through rituals.107 The king’s divinity should not, therefore, be seen as being unconditional but as needing regular re-affirmation. D. Redford (1995: 160-161) places emphasis on the king as one chosen by the gods as an ‘earthly surrogate’, but who needed instruction from them in his role and would face judgement after death as a human. This, again, emphasises the connection between the mortal and the divine as set out by Kantorowicz. In studies of

Egyptian kingship, the focus tends to be on the divine, political body as this was the ‘public’ face of the king (Bommas 2013: 203). But, unlike Boureau’s understanding of absolute kingship,108 the individual nature of the king was not unimportant; the king was only ‘divine’ after he had gone through the necessary rituals. The conditional nature of the ‘divine’ king, therefore, must not be forgotten; it plays an important role, in particular, in instances wherein the pharaoh has been officially rejected. Kantorowicz agrees that the division of the two bodies of the king allows for such events as regicide and civil war, as the mortal king can fail and, in failing, can no longer bear claim to the immortal body of the king;109 if this happens then he may be punished as a mortal.

107

See, for example, Bommas (2013: 198), who discusses the Investiturritual which daily renewed the pharaoh’s divine and immortal self. In this understanding the pharaoh has two natures; the human, which is his natural form, and the divine, which is restored each morning through specific rituals.

108

See previous paragraph. 109

Kantorowicz (1997: 369) highlights the case of Richard II in England in the Fourteenth century AD. Redford’s recognition of the need for the pharaoh to face judgement after death as a human suggests that this concept was a feature of ancient Egyptian culture; as a king he is protected by his role, but as a human he is fallible (D. Redford 1995: 160).

35

1.8.1.2. THE ‘PERPETUITY OF THE REALM’

The continued existence of the king, according to Kantorowicz (1997: 316), relies on three things; ‘the perpetuity of the dynasty, the corporate nature of the crown, and the immortality of the royal dignity’.110

These ideas are particularly pertinent to the present study. The continuation of the dynasty, which lends legitimacy to the current ruler, is underlined by the commemoration of royal ancestors; Kantorowicz (1997) emphasises the increased importance of effigies in medieval Europe and the place of deceased kings as objects of worship. The ‘crown’ included in Kantorowicz’s second criterion refers to the whole body politic rather than to the individual king. The emphasis here is on the immortality of the crown; as Kantorowicz (1997: 337), following the medieval Italian jurist Baldus,111 writes that in addition to the physical crown worn by the king there is an ‘invisible and immaterial Crown – encompassing all the royal rights and privileges indispensible for the government of the body politic – which was perpetual and descended either from god directly or by the dynastic right of inheritance’. Within the ‘crown’, therefore, are included aspects of dynastic continuity as well as divine right.

110

While these are not directly comparable to the bases of kingship set out by D. Redford (1995), they share a common thread; the dual nature of the king as straddling the mortal and the divine worlds. Redford (1995: 164) discusses the place of the king as the earthly representative of the god Amun; emphasis is placed on the king as descended from the gods, and as the holder of divine favour, but who carries out his purpose in the mortal realm. These two aspects are central to Kantorowicz’ work.

111

Baldus di Ubaldis (1327-1400) studied and taught law, writing various works on the legalities of the schism in the Catholic Church, feudal and canon law among other things (see, for example, Canning (1987)). Canning (1987: 216) translates a quotation from Baldus’ 1575 writing, ‘Consilium’, which reads, ‘two things coincide in the king: his human person and what he signifies [i.e. his dignitas] ... The king certainly fills the place of two persons’; here, an early version of Kantorowicz’s theory of the two bodies can certainly be found.

36

In his third criterion Kantorowicz looks at the immortality of the ‘royal dignity’, thus incorporating the concepts contained in the first two criteria. This royal dignity transcended that of the individual king, referring instead to ‘the singularity of the royal office, to the sovereignty vested in the king by the people, and resting individually in the king alone’ (Kantorowicz 1997: 384).112 The royal ‘dignity’ passed from one king on his death to the next, thus incorporating the immortal aspect of kingship. Again, in the current study, the concept of the royal kA in ancient Egypt can be related to the idea of royal dignity.

The transference of royal dignity through the dynasty means that remembrance of the past plays a key role in the legitimation of the king; the rightful place of the king is underscored by the memory of his predecessors. The link between memory and political power can be found in other scholarly works. Connerton (1989: 1) writes that ‘control of a society’s memory largely conditions the hierarchy of power’. He writes, furthermore, that images of the past can be used to legitimise the current social order (Connerton 1989: 3). This emphasises the role that memory plays in supporting the status quo; it is, therefore, important for the political elite to develop links between shared memory and their own position in society. Morrissey (2001) discusses the memory of Charlemagne in supporting the place of the king in early modern France; he cites (2001: 139), for example, the use of ‘le grand’ by Louis XIV which harked back to Charlemagne, the only other king to have used this suffix, as well as Napoleon’s statement that ‘I am Charlemagne’ at his coronation (Morrissey 2001: 155). Morrissey (2001: 140) suggests that the importance of Charlemagne was that he represented a break with the past, ‘the beginning of a new era’. Boureau (2001: 184) supports Morrissey’s viewpoint, calling the king an important ‘lieu de mémoire’. Again, clear links can be drawn with ancient

112

The ‘dignity’ had not only be used in relation to royal authority, but was a known concept in early medieval Europe, having been vested in religious figures as well (see Giesey (1960: 177-192), Kantorowicz (1997: 383- 450) for more discussion of the ‘dignity’).

37

Egypt, where royal ancestors guaranteed political and even economic stability, thus emphasising the important role of the king even after death (see Bommas (2008: 59)).

Symbols can also play an important role in supporting the ruling elite. Lecoq (2001: 217), for example, looks at outward representations of power such as symbols, signs and gestures; these distinguish the king from other people and can help to perpetuate a sense of royal

legitimacy.113 She suggests that such symbols may play a role in the development of memory relating to the king, with ‘histories’ being created about symbols such as the royal coat of arms (Lecoq 2001: 230-235). The role of symbolic objects is not only found in more modern societies; similar objects, such as crowns, amulets and clothing, also supported kingship in ancient Egypt (see Bommas (2013: 217)). These memory aides, again, help to perpetuate the legitimacy of the ruling family in the minds of their subjects.114 Performance itself also played a role in this. Gasnier (2006: 261) discusses the importance of history plays in supporting the formation and development of local patrimonies, again emphasising the role of memory in supporting social structures. He goes further, suggesting that historical festivals could ‘place the local past in the past of the nation’ (Gasnier 2006: 277). It is important, therefore, to connect local experience with the national structure; histories and memory can only be effective in legitimising the state if they engage the subjects of that state. Festivals and rituals which draw the local into the national play an important part in this, ensuring that the king is constantly visible, and that the memories which relate to him are accessible.115