Appearance and Reality in Setne’s Dialogue with “Pharaoh” in First Setne 5.31-35
I was happy to be invited to contribute the perspective of Demotic to Aurore Motte and Victoria Almansa-Villatoro’s edited book (Im-)Politeness in Ancient Egyptian Texts, which will hopefully be out in 2024. Naturally I wrote about narrative literature.
Inspired by Richard Jasnow’s treatment of the novella of First Setna, especially his line that, “in Setne 1 almost no one behaves as they should, nor are what they seem” (“‘And Pharaoh Laughed ..’: Reflections on Humor in Setne 1 and Late Period Egyptian Literature,” Enchoria 27 (2001): 62–81), I did a close reading (some might say too close) of a small scene.
Here’s the abstract:
To demonstrate the relevance of politeness and facework for the analysis of ancient literary texts in Demotic, this paper focuses on a short, intriguing scene in the story of First Setne (pCairo 30646) where Setne, having just awoken from his hallucination about the beautiful Tabubu, speaks with a character who looks like the Pharaoh but whom the audience and, eventually, Setne realize is in fact Naneferkaptah. Nevertheless, Setne still addresses the character as the Pharaoh, and even the narrator of the scene continues to treat the appearances as if they were the reality. A close reading of this passage that focuses on politeness and elicits the nuances of the facework of the characters reveals that the text resolutely maintains a distinction between how the characters look and act and what they know about each other in order to depict an intricate meshing of motivations at an important juncture in the story. Setne is motivated to abide by the appearances—to treat Naneferkaptah as Pharaoh despite knowing that he is not—since this allows him to save as much face as possible. Nevertheless, whether Setne is being honest or calculated is left ambiguous. This subtle portrayal is enabled above all through the ancient audience’s familiarity with politeness formulae in everyday language as well as with popular storytelling motifs and even other literary texts.
Here is the scene in question (5.32-35, my trans.): “Some time later, Setne saw a ‘great person’ riding on a chariot with many people running beneath him, in the likeness of Pharaoh. Setne began to raise himself, but he could not raise himself on account of the shame that he had no clothing on him. Pharaoh said, “Setne, what is with the situation you are in?” He said, “Naneferkaptah is the one who has done all these things to me!” Pharaoh said, “Go to Memphis! As for your children, they are seeking you: they are standing in their place in the presence of Pharaoh.” Setne spoke in the presence of Pharaoh: “My great lord! O may he attain the lifetime of Pre! How can I go to Memphis without any clothing at all on me?” Pharaoh called to a servant standing by. He had him give clothing to Setne. Pharaoh said, “Setne, go to Memphis!””
What does this have to do with politeness and facework (Wiki)? This figure who looks like the pharaoh is clearly not him, but is Naneferkaptah, a ghost who is haunting Setna after he steals his magical scroll. Not only does the audience know this, but Setna himself. What makes this particularly interesting to me is that these characters continue to speak to each other under these appearances, with even the narrator of the story sticking to them. Both are in a vulnerable position: Setna has done something wrong, and Naneferkaptah has disguised himself before confronting him; and Naneferkaptah himself will eventually make a big “ask” of Setna: to rebury his wife and child, who currently rest in a different grave far away. Negotiating how one speaks and acts under such circumstances, where how you come across and how you treat the other person are equally important, is the essence of politeness and facework.
To cut a long story short, I argue in my reading that, by resolutely maintaining a distinction between how the characters look and act and what they know about each other…between appearance and reality…the text depicts an intricate meshing of character motivation and depicts the characters both giving face (that is, making sure the other person does not feel too vulnerable or put out) as well as saving it (trying to “look good” despite the circumstances). To me, this shows a significant amount of literary sophistication and ambiguity. I end the paper by reflecting, then, on what this can tell us about the audiences of Demotic literature.