The Oxford History of the Ancient Near

East Volume V: The Age of Persia

Karen Radner (Eds.)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-history-of-the-ancient-near-east-volume-v-t
he-age-of-persia-karen-radner-eds/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East: Age of

Persia Karen Radner

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-history-of-the-ancient-
near-east-age-of-persia-karen-radner/

The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East: Volume IV:

The Age of Assyria Karen Radner

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-history-of-the-ancient-
near-east-volume-iv-the-age-of-assyria-karen-radner/

The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East, Volume

III: From the Hyksos to the Late Second Millennium BC
Karen Radner

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-history-of-the-ancient-
near-east-volume-iii-from-the-hyksos-to-the-late-second-
millennium-bc-karen-radner/

The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East, Volume II:

From the End of the Third Millennium BC to the Fall of
Babylon Karen Radner

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-history-of-the-ancient-
near-east-volume-ii-from-the-end-of-the-third-millennium-bc-to-
the-fall-of-babylon-karen-radner/
A History of Ancient Persia Maria Brosius

https://ebookmass.com/product/a-history-of-ancient-persia-maria-
brosius/

Ancient Near East: A Captivating Guide to Ancient

Civilizations of the Middle East, Including Regions
Such as Mesopotamia, Ancient Iran, Egypt, Anatolia, and
the Levant Captivating History
https://ebookmass.com/product/ancient-near-east-a-captivating-
guide-to-ancient-civilizations-of-the-middle-east-including-
regions-such-as-mesopotamia-ancient-iran-egypt-anatolia-and-the-
levant-captivating-history/

Evolution of a Taboo: Pigs and People in the Ancient

Near East Max D Price

https://ebookmass.com/product/evolution-of-a-taboo-pigs-and-
people-in-the-ancient-near-east-max-d-price/

Reconstructing the Temple: The Royal Rhetoric of Temple

Renovation in the Ancient Near East and Israel Andrew
R. Davis

https://ebookmass.com/product/reconstructing-the-temple-the-
royal-rhetoric-of-temple-renovation-in-the-ancient-near-east-and-
israel-andrew-r-davis/

An Ethical View of Human-Animal Relations in the

Ancient Near East 1st Edition Idan Breier

https://ebookmass.com/product/an-ethical-view-of-human-animal-
relations-in-the-ancient-near-east-1st-edition-idan-breier/
i

The Oxford History of the Ancient

Near East
ii

The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East

Editors: Karen Radner, Nadine Moeller, and D. T. Potts

This groundbreaking, five-volume series offers a comprehensive, fully

illustrated history of Egypt and Western Asia (the Levant, Anatolia,
Mesopotamia, and Iran), from the emergence of complex states to the
conquest of Alexander the Great. Written by a highly diverse, interna­
tional team of leading scholars, whose expertise brings to life the people,
places, and times of the remote past, the volumes in this series focus
firmly on the political and social histories of the states and communities
of the ancient Near East. Individual chapters present the key textual and
material sources underpinning the historical reconstruction, paying par­
ticular attention to the most recent archaeological finds and their impact
on our historical understanding of the periods surveyed.
Volume 1: From the Beginnings to Old Kingdom Egypt and the Dynasty
of Akkad
Volume 2: From the End of the Third Millennium bc to the Fall of
Babylon
Volume 3: From the Hyksos to the Late Second Millennium bc
Volume 4: The Age of Assyria
Volume 5: The Age of Persia
iii

The Oxford
History of the
Ancient Near East
Volume V: The Age of Persia
z
Edited by
KAREN RADNER
NADINE MOELLER
D. T. POTTS

1
iv

1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2023

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress

ISBN 978–​0–​19–​068766–​3

DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780190687663.001.0001

Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America

v

Contents

Preface  vii
Time Chart  xiii
The Contributors  xvii
Abbreviations  xxiii

49. Saite Egypt (Alexander Schütze)  1

50. The Neo-​Babylonian Empire (Michael Jursa)  91

51. The Kingdom of Lydia (Annick Payne)  174

52. The Southern Levant and Northern Arabia in the Iron Age
( Juan Manuel Tebes)  231

53. Early Saba and Its Neighbors (Norbert Nebes)  299

54. The Persian Empire under the Teispid Dynasty: Emergence

and Conquest (Matt Waters)  376

55. The Persian Empire under the Achaemenid Dynasty, from

Darius I to Darius III (D. T. Potts)  417
vi

vi Contents

56. The Satrapies of the Persian Empire: Persia and Elam

(Gian Pietro Basello)  521

57. The Satrapies of the Persian Empire: Media and Armenia

(Giusto Traina)  556

58. The Satrapies of the Persian Empire in Asia Minor: Lydia,

Caria, Lycia, Phrygia, and Cappadocia (Hilmar Klinkott)  592

59. The Satrapies of the Persian Empire: Babylonia and Assyria

(André Heller)  649

60. The Satrapies of the Persian Empire: Ebir-​nari/​Syria

(Peter R. Bedford)  689

61. The Satrapies of the Persian Empire in Egypt

(Damien Agut-​Labordère)  737

62. The Northeastern Regions of the Persian Empire:

Bactriana, Sogdiana, Margiana, Chorasmia, Aria, Parthia,
the Sakas, and the Dahae (Michele Minardi)  784

63. The Southeastern Regions of the Persian Empire on the

Indo-​Iranian Frontier: Arachosia, Drangiana, Gedrosia,
Sattagydia, Gandhara, and India (Pierfrancesco Callieri)  837

64. The Persian Empire in Contact with the World

(Robert Rollinger)  887

65. The Persian Empire: Perspectives on Culture and Society

(Maria Brosius)  949

Index  1015
vi

Preface

The fifth and final volume of the Oxford History of the Ancient
Near East deals with the Persian Empire and its immediate predecessor
states: Saite Egypt, the Neo-​Babylonian Empire, and the kingdom of
Lydia, as well as the kingdoms, chiefdoms, and tribal alliances shaping
the political geography of the southern Levant and northern and south-
ern Arabia, the roots of many of which go back to times covered by the
previous volumes in this series. The areas covered include Egypt, Nubia
and Ethiopia, the Caucasus, Anatolia and the Aegean, the Levant and
the Arabian Peninsula, Mesopotamia and Iran, and for the first time in
the series, Central Asia and the Indo-​Iranian borderlands in what are
today Afghanistan and Pakistan. The chronological scope of the volume
extends from the second half of the seventh century bc until the cam-
paigns of Alexander III of Macedon (336–​323 bc) brought an end to the
Achaemenid Dynasty and the Persian Empire.
This book’s cover depicts the fifth and final specimen in our col-
lection of beautiful cylinder seals selected from different parts of the
Near East to grace the individual covers of the Oxford History of the
Ancient Near East. The brown chalcedony seal from the collection of the
Morgan Library & Museum, New York (accession number 0837) shows
a solitary, striding zebu bull (Bos indicus). Acquired by Pierpont Morgan
between 1885 and 1908, the seal shows an animal most often associated
with South Asia, where the easternmost provinces of the Persian Empire
were located. By the fifth century bc, however, when this seal was prob-
ably manufactured, the zebu was found across the Near East, and was
thus no longer unfamiliar or exotic to the peoples of the region.
vi

viii Preface

The fourth volume of the Oxford History of the Ancient Near East
closes with the collapse of the Assyrian Empire and some of its contem-
porary states, including the kingdom of Phrygia in central Anatolia and
the kingdom of Mannea in northwestern Iran, and the formation of its
successor states, most importantly the Median kingdom, the kingdom
of Lydia, the Neo-​Babylonian Empire, and a reunited and independent
Egyptian state under the Saite Dynasty (in Manetho’s sequence, the
Twenty-​sixth Dynasty). While the short-​lived and poorly documented
Median kingdom is covered in the fourth volume (­chapter 43) as a
coda to the discussion of the history of the Median chiefdoms in the
shadow of the Assyrian Empire, the present volume starts with chapters
dedicated to the other three states that contributed to and/​or benefited
from the end of that empire. They are joined by a chapter on the king-
dom of Saba centered on what is today Yemen and a chapter on the
tribes and chiefdoms of the southern Levant and northern Arabia that
successfully carved an existence out of the harsh desert environment
and made an essential contribution to the long-​distance trade and com-
munication network that linked the Mediterranean coast, the southern
regions of the Arabian Peninsula, and southern Mesopotamia. Whereas
the chapters on Saite Egypt and the Neo-​Babylonian Empire draw on
a wealth of locally produced textual sources in the traditional writing
systems of the core regions, those on Lydia and the desert-​dwelling
polities rely to a much greater extent on archaeological information,
and frequently also on much more recent texts. In the case of Lydia this
means the works of classical writers, and for the southern Levant and
northern Arabia, the Bible. On occasion, the alphabetic scripts used in
these areas were used for monumental inscriptions on durable materials
(see ­figure 51.4 for an example of a Lydian inscription and figure 53.3 for
a South Arabian example) but most of the written documentation was
recorded on organic surfaces and materials that have not survived. As a
consequence, these first chapters illustrate a wide range of approaches
to history-​writing as enabled, constrained, or demanded by the avail-
ability of sources and their respective challenges and advantages.
Such drastically different approaches also characterize the group of
twelve chapters dealing with the Persian Empire, which was created by
ix

Preface ix

two members of the Teispid Dynasty: Cyrus II (the Great; 559–​530 bc)
and his son and successor Cambyses II (530–​522 bc), and consolidated,
after a succession conflict that brought the young state to the brink
of collapse, by Darius I (the Great; 522–​486 bc) and his descendants,
who constituted the Achaemenid Dynasty. Two chapters are therefore
dedicated to the two constituent dynasties of the Persian Empire. The
next eight chapters have a regional focus. The first six of these deal with
the core region of the Persian Empire (Parsa and Elam); the moun-
tainous regions shaped by the Zagros and the Caucasus (Media and
Armenia); Asia Minor (Lydia, Caria, Lycia, Phrygia, and Cappadocia);
Mesopotamia (Babylonia and Assyria); Syria and the Levant (known
as Ebir-​nari, “Across-​the-​River,” referring to the Euphrates); and Egypt
with Nubia and Libya. With the next two chapters, we enter areas
that have not enjoyed prominence in any of the previous volumes of
the Oxford History of the Ancient Near East: eastern Iran and Central
Asia (Bactriana, Sogdiana, Margiana, Chorasmia, Aria, Parthia, and
the steppe-​dwelling Sakas and Dahae) and the Indo-​Iranian border-
lands (Arachosia, Drangiana, Gedrosia, Sattagydia, Gandhara, and
Hinduš/​“India”). Depending on the region, a diverse range of textual
sources stand in the center of the narrative that engender very different
approaches: from the careful consideration of a region’s climatic and
geographical characteristics, to the study of various text genres recorded
on stone, clay, papyrus, and wood (for an example, see ­figure 64.3), to
the analysis of diverse expressions of material culture such as seals, coins,
or pottery, to the interpretation of monumental, domestic, and funerary
architecture. The final two chapters of the volume focus on the cultural
and social history of the Persian Empire, on the one hand, and its inter-
action with the wider world, on the other hand, thus continuing a format
already used in previous volumes for the most influential of the ancient
Near Eastern states.
The following time chart presents a concise overview of the chrono-
logical coverage of this volume. The earlier parts of this chart may be
consulted together with the time chart given in the fourth volume of the
Oxford History of the Ancient Near East, as there is some chronological
overlap.
x

x Preface

Our editorial work on the Oxford History of the Ancient Near East
was supported by the Center for Advanced Studies of LMU Munich
(CASLMU), which awarded fellowships to Nadine Moeller and Dan
Potts in July 2016, 2017, and 2018, and again in 2020 and 2021, although
these could not be taken up because of the impact of the still ongoing
COVID-​19 (Sars-​CoV-​2) pandemic on travel and all forms of physical
interaction. However, the weeks spent together in Munich in 2016–​2018
enabled us to lay the groundwork that underpins this volume, in par-
ticular structuring the book and recruiting the scholars who would take
on the individual chapters. Just as the previous volumes of the Oxford
History of the Ancient Near East did, this book combines the talent and
expertise of distinguished scholars from across the globe, each a recog-
nized expert in their subject area, in order to offer new and often also
complementary perspectives on the history of northeastern Africa, the
eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East, and Central Asia from the sev-
enth to the fourth century bc. We are fortunate that these scholars have
made space in their busy schedules to contribute the seventeen chap-
ters that constitute the present volume, covering “The Age of Persia.”
Draft manuscripts for the chapters were received between May 2019 and
August 2021. All of the joint editorial work on the chapters of this fifth
volume had to be accomplished without the ability to meet and discuss
issues in person. That the process was nevertheless productive and invari-
ably smooth is owed to our joint GoogleDrive folders and our WhatsApp
group, and to the trust and solid routines we have established in the five
years since we started working on this large-​scale publication project in
2016 at the behest of our friend and editor at Oxford University Press,
Stefan Vranka.
In transcribing Egyptian proper nouns, we follow the conventions
of The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, edited by Ian Shaw (OUP 2004,
rev. ed.). We do not use hyphenation to separate the components of
Greek, Persian, and other Indo-​European personal names, but we fol-
low normal practice in marking the individual words within Akkadian
proper nouns (e.g., Bel-​uṣuršu; Nabû-​tattannu-​uṣur). Whenever a per-
son or place is widely known by a conventional spelling, we use that
(e.g., Nabopolassar instead of Nabû-​aplu-​uṣur, Nebuchadnezzar instead
of Nabû-​kudurrī-​uṣur, Cutha instead of Kutiu). We do not use long
xi

Preface xi

vowels in proper nouns, including modern Arabic and Farsi place names.
The abbreviations used for classical authors and their works follow The
Oxford Classical Dictionary, edited by Simon Hornblower, Antony
Spawforth, and Esther Eidinow (OUP 2012, 4th ed.).
We are very grateful that the generous funding of the Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation, granted in the form of the International Award
for Research in Germany to Karen Radner in 2015–​2020 and, since
2020, funds made available by LMU Munich, afforded us the help of
several individuals whose expertise and attention to detail greatly facili-
tated the editing of this book. At LMU Munich, Denise Bolton carefully
and cheerfully language-​edited most of the chapters; Thomas Seidler
checked and consolidated the chapter bibliographies, as well as standard-
ized the references to classical authors; Philipp Seyr (now Liège) harmo-
nized the Egyptian names and spelling; and Dr. Andrea Squitieri created
the cartography for the individual chapters. The index was again expertly
prepared by Luiza Osorio Guimarães da Silva (Chicago), who was also
instrumental in harmonizing proper nouns across chapters and volumes.
On this final volume and on all others before it, our editor Stefan Vranka
supported our work at every step. To all of them, and also and especially
to our authors, we owe heartfelt thanks for contributing to the realiza-
tion of this book, despite the various challenges to our personal and pro-
fessional lives that so many of us experienced especially in 2020 and 2021.
During the final stages of proof reading, Amélie Kuhrt died on
January 3rd, 2023, aged 78 years. The doyenne of modern research on the
Persian Empire and a pioneer in the comprehensive study of the ancient
world from the Mediterranean to Central Asia, her work is referenced in
almost all chapters of the present book. The five volumes of The Oxford
History of the Ancient Near East survey the history of Egypt, the Levant,
Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and Iran, and the neighboring regions, from the
emergence of complex states to the conquests of Alexander the Great,
and thus share the geographical and temporal scope of Amélie’s ground-
breaking The Ancient Near East, c. 3000−330 BC (Routledge, 1995). As
an analysis offered by a single scholar with an encyclopedic knowledge,
a clear vision and a distinct voice, her work remains unsurpassed. A bril-
liant, generous and inspirational scholar and human being, Amélie is
greatly missed.
xi
 xi

Time Chart
Mesopotamia Anatolia /​Aegean Iran South Arabia
Egypt
Assyria Babylonia Lydia Media Persia Saba
...
Sargon II (721–​705) Yiṯa‘’amar Watar
700 BC Sennacherib (704–​681) Karib’il Watar
Dynasty 26 (664–​525) Esarhaddon (680–​669)
Nekau I (672–​664)
Ashurbanipal (668–​631) ...
Psamtek I (664–​610) Gyges
Ardys /​Alyattes II
Aššur-​etel-​ilani (630–​627)
Sîn-​šarru-​iškun (626–​612) Nabopolassar (625–​605) Sadyattes Cyaxares
(624–​585)
Nekau II (610–​595) Aššur-​uballiṭ II (611–​609) Alyattes III /​Walwates
600 BC Nebuchadnezzar II Croesus
(604–​562)
Psamtek II (595–​589) Astyages
(585–​549)
Apries (589–​570)
Ahmose III /​Amasis (570–​526)
 xvi

Amel-​Marduk (562–​560) ...

Neriglissar (560–​556) Cyrus II (559–​530)
Labaši-​Marduk (556)
Nabonidus (555–​539)

Psamtek III (526–​525) Cambyses II (529–​522)

Bardiya /​Smerdis (522)
Petubastis IV Nebuchadnezzar III Darius I (521–​486)
500 BC Psamtek IV Nebuchadnezzar IV
Xerxes I (485–​465)
Inaros Artaxerxes I
(464–​424/​423)

Xerxes II (424/​423)
Sogdianus (424/​423)
Cyrus the Younger Darius II (423–​405)
Artaxerxes II
(404–​359)
 xv

Dynasty 28 (404–​399)
400 BC Amyrtaeus /​Psamtek V
(404–​399)
Dynasty 29 (399–​380)
Nepherites I (399–​393)
Achoris /​Hakor (393–​380)
Dynasty 30 (379–​343)
Nectanebo I /​Nakhtnebef
(379–​361)
Teos /​Tachos /​Djedhor
(361–​359)
Nectanebo II /​Nakhthorheb Artaxerxes III (358–​338)
Macedon
(359–​343)
... Artaxerxes IV (337–​336)
Alexander III (336–​323) Darius III (335–​330)
xvi
xvi

The Contributors

Damien Agut-​Labordère is a permanent researcher at the Centre

National de la Recherche Scientifique and a member of the Archéologies
et Sciences de l’Antiquité (ArScAn) team based in Nanterre (France).
Since 2017, he heads the Programme Achemenet (http://​www.acheme​
net.com/​), a digital resource offering a wide range of tools, publications,
and sources for the study of the Persian Empire. His research focuses
on Persian Egypt and on the history of the Egyptian Western Desert
in the first millennium bc. His numerous publications include Le
sage et l’insensé: la composition et la transmission des sagesses démotiques
(Champion, 2011); L’Égypte des pharaons: de Narmer à Dioclétien, 3150
av. J.-​C.–​284 apr. J.-​C. (Belin, 2016; with Juan Carlos Moreno García);
and Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes: les camélidés dans l’Antiquité
(Camelus dromedarius et Camelus bactrianus) (MOM éditions, 2020;
with Bérangère Redon).
Gian Pietro Basello was appointed Associate Professor of Elamite
Language at Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale” in 2020, after
having taught there since 2010. Together with Javier Álvarez-​Mon and
Yasmina Wicks, he edited the volume The Elamite World (Routledge,
2018). Since 2003, he has participated in the Iranian–​Italian joint proj-
ect “Digital Achaemenid Royal Inscription Open Schema Hypertext”
(DARIOSH). Beyond Elamite and Achaemenid studies, his research
focuses on ancient calendars and systems for recording time.
Peter R. Bedford (PhD University of Chicago) is John and Jane Wold
Professor of Religious Studies at Union College, New York. He has
xvi

xviii The Contributors

published on the history and economy of imperial regimes in ancient

Western Asia in the first millennium bc, and on Jewish history in the
Achaemenid Persian period. His current research focuses on the politi-
cal theology of imperial rule in ancient Western Asia and its effects on
concepts of governance among subjugated peoples.
Maria Brosius was Associate Professor at the Department of Near
and Middle Eastern Civilizations at the University of Toronto, from
where she retired in 2019. Her research focuses on the history of pre-​
Islamic Persia, especially the Achaemenid period, as well as on the
cultural, intellectual, and religious connections between Greece and
the eastern Mediterranean. Her interest in the role of Persian women
is reflected in many articles and especially her monograph Women in
Ancient Persia (559–​331 bc) (Oxford University Press, 1996, reprinted
2000, 2002). Further books include A history of ancient Persia: The
Achaemenid Empire (Wiley-​Blackwell, 2021); The Persians: an intro-
duction (Routledge 2006); and the edited volume Ancient archives and
archival traditions: concepts of record-​keeping in the ancient world (Oxford
University Press, 2003).
Pierfrancesco Callieri is Professor of the Archaeology of Ancient Iran
at the Department of Cultural Heritage of the University of Bologna’s
Ravenna Campus. His work concerns Iran and the Indo-​Iranian border-
lands in the historic, pre-​Islamic periods, with a particular focus on these
regions’ seals and ceramics. After taking up fieldwork in Pakistan in 1977
with the Italian Archaeological Mission in the Swat (Istituto italiano per
il Medio ed Estremo Oriente), he initiated in 1984 the excavations at
Barikot, now acknowledged as an archaeological key site for the north-
west of the Indo-​Pakistan subcontinent. Since 2005, when he was invited
by Iran’s Cultural Heritage Handicrafts and Tourism Organization to
undertake fieldwork in the Fars province, he has served as the Italian
co-​director of the Iranian-​Italian Joint Archaeological Mission in Fars
(University of Bologna and IsMEO) whose main activities concern the
Achaemenid period, most importantly with the excavation of the gate
complex of Tol-​e Ajori near Persepolis.
xi

The Contributors xix

André Heller (PhD University of Erlangen-​Nürnberg 2010, Habilitation

University of Bamberg 2020) is a Lecturer at the Julius-​Maximilians-​
Universität at Würzburg. The author of Das Babylonien der Spätzeit
(7.–​4. Jh.) in den klassischen und keilschriftlichen Quellen (Verlag Antike,
2010), a study comparing the image of Babylonia in the Greco-​Roman
sources with the cuneiform tradition, his research focuses on the Ancient
Near East in the first millennium bc and its cultural exchange with the
Greek world, the Hellenistic kingdoms (especially the Seleucids), and
the history of the Roman Empire.
Michael Jursa is Professor of Assyriology at the University of Vienna and
a member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. His principal research
interest is Babylonian socioeconomic history. His numerous publica-
tions include Neo-​Babylonian legal and administrative documents: typol-
ogy, contents and archives (Ugarit-​Verlag, 2005); Aspects of the economic
history of Babylonia in the first millennium BC: economic geography, eco-
nomic mentalities, agriculture, the use of money and the problem of eco-
nomic growth (Ugarit-​Verlag, 2010); and Letters and documents from the
Eanna Archive (Yale University Press, 2011).
Hilmar Klinkott (PhD University of Tübingen) is Professor of
Ancient History at the Christian Albrechts University at Kiel. His
research focuses on Greek and Ancient Near Eastern history, and he
has published monographs on the administration and history of the
Persian Empire (Der Satrap: ein achaimenidischer Amtsträger und seine
Handlungsspielräume, Verlag Antike, 2005), as well as of Alexander the
Great and the Hellenistic monarchies (Die Satrapienverwaltung der
Alexander-​und Diadochenzeit, Franz Steiner, 2000).
Michele Minardi (PhD University of Sydney) is Assistant Professor
of Iranian Archaeology at the University of Naples “L’Orientale”. He
is Field Director of the Karakalpak-​Australian Expedition to Ancient
Chorasmia (since 2010) and of the IsMEO / Ca’ Foscari Italian
Archaeological Mission in Pakistan (since 2020). As a grantee of the
White-​Levy Program for Archaeological Publications, he is currently
working on an archaeological reappraisal of Old Kandahar, based on
x

xx The Contributors

unpublished data from the British excavations conducted from 1976

to 1978.
Nadine Moeller (PhD University of Cambridge) is Professor of Egyptian
Archaeology at Yale University. Her research focuses on ancient Egyptian
urbanism, on which she has published the monograph The archaeology of
urbanism in ancient Egypt (Cambridge University Press, 2016). She has
participated in numerous fieldwork projects in Egypt and since 2001, she
has been directing excavations at Tell Edfu in southern Egypt.
Norbert Nebes (PhD LMU Munich), recently retired Professor of
Semitic Philology and Islamic Studies, is Head of the Research Center
Ancient South Arabia and Northeast Africa at the Friedrich Schiller
University of Jena. His main areas of research are Classical and Ancient
South Arabic. Working on the language, society, and culture of pre-​
Islamic South Arabia, he has regularly been involved as an epigraphist in
the excavations and expeditions of the German Archaeological Institute
in Yemen and Ethiopia. His recent publications, such as Der Tatenbericht
des Yiṯa‘’amar Watar bin Yakrubmalik aus Ṣirwāḥ (Wasmuth, 2016), deal
with the political history of South Arabia in the early first millennium
bc, as well as the immigration of Sabean populations to the northern
Horn of Africa.
Annick Payne is a Lecturer in Ancient Near Eastern languages at the
University of Bern as well as an associated researcher of its Center for
Global Studies. Her research focuses on Anatolian languages and writ-
ing systems, especially Anatolian hieroglyphic and alphabetic writing.
She is the epigrapher of the excavations at Sirkeli Höyük and Adana-​
Tepebağ. Her books include Hieroglyphic Luwian texts in translation
(SBL Press, 2012); Hieroglyphic Luwian: an introduction with original
texts (Harrassowitz, 2014); and Schrift und Schriftlichkeit: die anatolische
Hieroglyphenschrift (Harrassowitz, 2015).
Daniel T. Potts (PhD Harvard University) is Professor of Ancient
Near Eastern Archaeology and History at the Institute for the Study of
the Ancient World, New York University. A Corresponding Member
of the German Archaeological Institute, he has worked in Iran, the
xxi

The Contributors xxi

United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Armenia, and the Kurdish
Autonomous Region of Iraq. His numerous books include The archae-
ology of Elam: formation and transformation of an ancient Iranian state
(Cambridge University Press, 2015, 2nd ed.) and Nomadism in Iran: from
antiquity to the modern era (Oxford University Press, 2014).
Karen Radner (PhD University of Vienna) holds the Alexander von
Humboldt Chair of the Ancient History of the Near and Middle East at
LMU Munich. A member of the German Archaeological Institute and
the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities, her numerous books
include Ancient Assyria: a very short introduction (Oxford University
Press, 2015) and A short history of Babylon (Bloomsbury, 2020), as well as
editions of cuneiform archives from Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.
Robert Rollinger (PhD University of Innsbruck) is Full Professor at
the Department of Ancient History and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
of the Leopold-​Franzens Universität Innsbruck since 2005. From 2011
to 2015, he also served as a Finland Distinguished Professor at the
Department of World Cultures of the University of Helsinki. He cur-
rently holds a Visiting Professorship at the University of Wrocław as part
of the NAWA Chair 2020 Programme “From the Achaemenids to the
Romans: contextualizing empire and its longue-​durée developments,”
funded by the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange (NAWA)
from 2021 to 2025. His main research interests are Greek historiography,
the history of the first millennium bc, and comparative empire studies.
Alexander Schütze (PhD University of Leipzig) is currently
Akademischer Rat auf Zeit at the Institute of Egyptology and Coptology
at LMU Munich. His research focuses on the administrative, legal, and
economic history of Egypt in the Late Period. He has published on the
administration of Persian-​period Egypt and contributes to the publica-
tion of the finds from the excavations at Tuna el-​Gebel in Middle Egypt.
In his ongoing Habilitation project, he is investigating the administra-
tion of the Twenty-​sixth Dynasty, based on the titles held by the officials.
Juan Manuel Tebes specializes in the history and archaeology of
the southern Levant and northwestern Arabia in the Iron Age. He is
xxi

xxii The Contributors

Professor of Ancient Near Eastern History at the Catholic University of

Argentina and Researcher at the Argentinian National Research Council
(CONICET). A former editor-​in-​chief of the journal Antiguo Oriente,
he is co-​editor of the Society of Biblical Literature’s Ancient Near East
Monographs series. He was a visiting professor at Université Paris 1
Panthéon Sorbonne and has held fellowships at the Albright Institute of
Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, the American Center of Oriental
Research in Amman, the Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie in
Paris, the University of Sydney, New York University, the University of
Michigan, Ruhr-​Universität Bochum, Ludwig-​Maximilians-​Universität
München, Université Toulouse, and at the Stellenbosch Institute for
Advanced Study.
Giusto Traina is a Professor of Ancient History at Sorbonne Université
in Paris, editor-​in-​chief of the Revue internationale d’Histoire militaire
ancienne (Presses Universitaires de Franche-​Comté) and joint editor of
the journal Iran and the Caucasus (Brill). His research interests focus on
Armenian history and philology, as well as the military history of the
ancient world. He is currently preparing a comprehensive political his-
tory of the kingdom of Greater Armenia.
Matt Waters (PhD University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia) is Professor
of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Wisconsin-​
Eau Claire. With his research focusing on the ancient Near East and
Greece, Waters is the author of A survey of Neo-​Elamite history (The
Neo-​Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2000); Ancient Persia (Cambridge
University Press, 2014); Ctesias’ Persica and its Near Eastern context
(University of Wisconsin Press, 2017); and King of the world: the life of
Cyrus the Great (Oxford University Press, 2022), as well as several dozen
articles and related publications.
xxi

Abbreviations

AAE Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

ABADY Archäologische Berichte aus dem Yemen
ACSS Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia
ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan
AfO Archiv für Orientforschung
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures
AMIT Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan
AnSt Anatolian Studies
AoF Altorientalische Forschungen
ARTA Achaemenid Research on Texts and Archaeology
ASAE Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte
AWE Ancient West and East
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BIFAO Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale
BMSAES British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan
BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
BSFE Bulletin de la Société Française d’Égyptologie
CdE Chronique d’Égypte
CRAIBL Comptes-​rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et
Belles-​Lettres
HS Historische Sprachforschung
IrAnt Iranica Antiqua
JAC Journal of Asian Civilizations
JANER Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
xvi

xxiv Abbreviations

JARCE Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies
JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
MDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
Abteilung Kairo
NABU Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires
OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology
OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
PSAS Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies
RA Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale
RdÉ Revue d’Égyptologie
RlA Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen
Archäologie
SAAB State Archives of Assyria Bulletin
SAK Studien zur altägyptischen Kultur
SHAJ Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan
TA Tel Aviv
UF Ugarit-​Forschungen
WdO Die Welt des Orients
ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische
Archäologie
ZAR Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische
Rechtsgeschichte
ZÄS Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde
ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft
ZOrA Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie
ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

The abbreviations used for classical authors and their works follow The Oxford
Classical Dictionary, edited by S. Hornblower, A. Spawforth, and E. Eidinow
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, 4th ed.).

Ael. VH Aelianus, Varia Historia

Aesch. Pers. Aeschylus, Persae
xv

Abbreviations xxv

App. Syr. Appian, Syriaca

Ar. Eq. Aristophanes, Equites
Archil. Archilochus
Arist. Pol. Aristoteles, Politica
Arist. Rh. Aristoteles, Rhetorica
Arr. An. Arrian, Anabasis
Arr. Ind. Arrian, Indica
Ath. Athenaeus
Bacchyl. Bacchylides
Callim. Aet. Callimachus, Aetia
Cic. Flac. Cicero, Pro Flacco
Curt. Q. Curtius Rufus, Historiae Alexandri Magni
Democr. Democritus
Diod. Sic. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica
Diog. Laert. Diogenes Laertius
Dion. Halic. Dionysius Halicarnassensis
Eur. Bacch. Euripides, Bacchae
Euseb. Chron. Eusebius, Chronica
Eust. Il. Eustathius, Ad Iliadem
FGrH Numbers according to Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der
griechischen Historiker. Berlin: Weidmann, 1923− and
Worthington, I. (ed.), Brill’s New Jacoby. Leiden:
Brill, 2006−. Retrieved from https://​ref​eren​cewo​rks.
bril​lonl​ine.com/​bro​wse/​brill-​s-​new-​jac​oby
(last accessed January 16, 2021).
Harp. Harpocration, Lexicon of the Ten Orators
Hdt. Herodotus, Histories
Hieron. Hieronymus
Hom. Il. Homer, Iliad
Hsch. Hesychius
Isid. Isidorus
Isoc. Isocrates
Joseph. AJ Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae
Just. Epit. Justinus, Epitome (of Trogus)
Luc. Alex. Lucan, Alexander
Lyd. Mens. Lydus, De Mensibus
Nep. Nepos
Nic. Dam. Nicolaus Damascenus
Paus. Pausanias, Hellados Periegesis
xvi

xxvi Abbreviations

Phot. Bibl. Photius, Bibliotheca

Pind. Ol. Pindar, Olympian Odes
Pl. Leg. Plato, Leges
Pl. Resp. Plato, Respublica
Plin. HN Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia
Plut. Cim. Plutarch, Cimon
Plut. De Is. et Os. Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride
Plut. De Pyth. or. Plutarch, De Pythiae Oraculis
Plut. Mor. Plutarch, Moralia
Plut. Quaest. Graec. Plutarch, Quaestiones Graecae
Plut. Vit. Ages. Plutarch, Vitae Parallelae: Agesilaus
Plut. Vit. Alc. Plutarch, Vitae Parallelae: Alcibiades
Plut. Vit. Alex. Plutarch, Vitae Parallelae: Alexander
Plut. Vit. Artax. Plutarch, Vitae Parallelae: Artaxerxes
Plut. Vit. Them. Plutarch, Vitae Parallelae: Themistocles
Poll. Onom. Pollux, Onomasticon
Polyaenus Strat. Polyaenus, Strategemata
Procop. Pers. Procopius, De Bello Persico
Ps. Arist. Oec. Pseudo Aristotle, Oeconomica
Ptol. Geog. Ptolemaeus mathematicus, Geographia
Steph. Byz. Stephanus Byzantius, Ethnika
Str. Strabo, Geographika
Suda Greek Lexicon formerly known as Suidas
Tac. Ann. Tacitus, Annales
Theophr. Hist. pl. Theophrastus, Historia Plantarum
Thuc. Thucydides, Histories
Val. Max. Valerius Maximus, Facta et Dicta Memorabilia
Varro Rust. Varro, De Re Rustica
Verg. Aen. Virgil, Aeneid
Vitr. Vitruvius, De Architectura
Xen. Ages. Xenophon, Agesilaus
Xen. An. Xenophon, Anabasis
Xen. Cyr. Xenophon, Cyropaedia
Xen. Hell. Xenophon, Hellenica
Xen. Oec. Xenophon, Oeconomicus
1

49

Saite Egypt
Alexander Schütze

49.1. Introduction
The Saite period is the period of ca. 130 years between the reunification
of Upper and Lower Egypt in Year 9 of Psamtek I in 656 bc and the con-
quest of Egypt by the Persian imperial forces in Year 4 of Cambyses in
526 bc when the Saite Dynasty controlled Egypt (figure 49.1). The city of
Sais, situated in the western Nile delta and the hometown of Psamtek I,
the dynasty’s founder, gives the dynasty and the respective period its
name.
The Saite period is regarded as a phase of great prosperity for
Egypt, concluding a time of political turmoil and foreign rule that had
lasted almost four centuries: the so-​called Third Intermediate Period
(­chapter 35 in volume 4). After the New Kingdom came to an end in
1069 bc with the death of Rameses XI (1099–​1069 bc; see ­chapter 27 in
volume 3), Egypt initially disintegrated into two political regions, with
Tanis as the center in the north and the Theban Gottesstaat in the south.
Over time, powerful Libyan clans came to form ruling dynasties of their
own in Lower and Middle Egypt. By the eighth century bc, when the
Kushite rulers of Nubia (­chapter 36 in volume 4) had conquered Egypt
from the south, the land along the Nile had disintegrated into a multi-
tude of local principalities. In the seventh century bc, after a series of

Alexander Schütze, Saite Egypt In: The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Karen
Radner, Nadine Moeller, and D. T. Potts, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2023.
DOI: 10.1093/​oso/​9780190687663.003.0049
2

2 Oxford History of t he Ancien t N ear East

Figure 49.1. Sites mentioned in c­ hapter 49. Prepared by Andrea Squitieri

(LMU Munich).

invasions starting in 672 bc, the Assyrian Empire succeeded in extend-

ing its sphere of influence into Egypt and installed local princes as cli-
ent rulers. During a period of political instability for both the Kushite
and Assyrian states, Psamtek I of Sais was able to extend his influence
decisively into Lower and Middle Egypt, eventually integrating the terri-
tory under his control with Upper Egypt. Thus, Egypt was again unified
3

Saite Egypt 3

and ruled by one king of local extraction. In the service of reintegrating

the lands on the Nile, the Saite kings undertook an extensive temple-​
building program all over Egypt, and especially in the Nile delta. They
also significantly expanded their traditional residence of Sais, now the
state capital, whereas the southern city of Thebes, which had continued
to play an important role under Kushite rule (­chapter 36 in volume 4),
increasingly lost its influence under the Saite rulers.
In the course of his extraordinarily long reign, Psamtek I (664–​
610 bc) succeeded in consolidating his power in Egypt and was able
to break the influence of the remaining local dynasts. Not only did he
secure Egypt’s borders, but in the last years of his reign, he proved able
to expand his territory into the southern Levant. After the collapse of
the Assyrian Empire from 612 bc onward (­chapters 38 and 39 in volume
4), Egypt competed with the Neo-​Babylonian Empire (­chapter 50 in
this volume) for control over the lands on the eastern Mediterranean
coast, losing its hold on the Levant under Psamtek’s son and successor,
Nekau II (610–​595 bc). However, when Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon
(604–​562 bc) attempted a conquest of Egypt, this initiative thoroughly
failed.
Against the eastern threat posed first by the Neo-​Babylonian Empire
and later the Persian Empire (­chapters 51 and 64 in this volume), the Saite
rulers, and Amasis (Ahmose III; 570–​526 bc)1 in particular, organized
an extensive network of diplomatic relations with the Greek world. In
addition to trade agreements, the recruitment of mercenaries was central
to these efforts. The founder of the dynasty, Psamtek I, had already relied
on Ionian and Carian mercenaries to secure his power in Egypt and later
in the southern Levant. Greek contingents were an important part of a
campaign to Nubia under Psamtek II (595–​589 bc) and later played a
decisive role in the dynastic conflicts between Apries (589–​570 bc) and
the eventual usurper Amasis.
During the Saite period, Egypt underwent extensive administrative
reforms. Under Psamtek I, a new cursive script was introduced, which
is today called Demotic. A new elite formed by the highest officials of

1. For the first two rulers called Ahmose, see ­chapter 24 in volume 3.
4

4 Oxford History of t he Ancien t N ear East

the central administration emerged, with its members exceptionally

well attested by numerous monuments, such as their tombs, as well
as hundreds of temple statues. On the other hand, the Saite period
was ­characterized by an intensive preoccupation with the legacies of
Egyptian culture. Monuments of earlier eras were copied, and religious
texts were collected and recompiled. In sculpture, the outstanding crafts-
manship in evidence in tomb reliefs and temple statues testifies to the
high level of artistic creation in the Twenty-​sixth Dynasty. The Saite
period served not only as a model for the Thirtieth Dynasty founded by
Nectanebo I (399–​383 bc; see c­ hapter 61 in this volume), but some of
the institutions established by the Saite Dynasty survived intact into the
time of the conquests of Alexander the Great and the Ptolemaic period
(332–​30 bc).
After briefly discussing the primary sources (section 49.2), this chap-
ter focuses on different aspects of the foreign and domestic policies pur-
sued by the various Saite kings from reunification until the eve of the
Persian conquest (sections 49.3–​49.10) and outlines the key features of
their strategies vis-​à-​vis the temples (section 49.11), before considering
the significance of the Saite Dynasty and the “Renaissance” associated
with it within Egyptian cultural history (section 49.12).

49.2. The sources for the Saite period

The reconstruction of the political history of Egypt under the Twenty-​
sixth Dynasty relies to a large extent on non-​Egyptian sources, including
the Assyrian annals, the Babylonian chronicles, and the Bible, as well as
classical authors, most notably Herodotus, who devoted an entire book
of his Histories to Egypt, including the history of the Saite period.2
In contrast to this wealth of outside sources, the number of avail-
able Egyptian royal inscriptions is limited. The so-​called Adoption
Stele of Nitiqret, as well as the so-​called Victory Stele of Amasis, were

2. For recent overviews, see Perdu 2010; Forshaw 2019; Leahy 2020; Payraudeau
2020: 227–​274; also Kienitz 1953 is still valuable. On the chronology of the
Twenty-​sixth Dynasty, see Depuydt 2006.
5

Saite Egypt 5

commissioned by Psamtek I and Amasis with the explicit intent to mark

key milestones in Egypt’s political history. Military successes such as
the campaign of Psamtek I in order to subdue a Libyan rebellion and
the campaign of Psamtek II against Nubia are attested in steles erected
to commemorate these events.3 Recent discoveries, such as the Victory
Stele of Apries at Tell Defenna,4 demonstrate that our picture of the
political history of the Saite period gains greater nuance as new finds
become available. But for many events, such as the engagement of the
Saite kings in the Levant, we are entirely dependent on non-​Egyptian
sources, which are shaped by their authors’ perspectives on these events
and in whose narratives Egyptian agency plays a marginal role at best. To
give an example, the Bible refers to the Saite kings only with regard to the
fate of the kingdom of Judah (section 49.5).
Herodotus’s book on Egypt in the Histories offers a coherent narra-
tive of the political history of the Twenty-​sixth Dynasty and is there-
fore especially relevant in this context.5 Herodotus presumably traveled
through Egypt in person in the mid-​fifth century bc, when the Nile
region was under Persian imperial rule. He therefore was in a position to
incorporate Egyptian narratives into his work, and indeed, specific ele-
ments in Herodotus’s account, such as the description of King Amasis’s
legendary boozing or Psamtek II’s campaign against Nubia, find echoes
in the available Egyptian sources. While events such as the coronation
of Psamtek I seem to have been narratively reshaped and information
about his successors is sporadic in Herodotus’s writing, he dedicated a
huge part of the narrative to Amasis, the penultimate Saite king.6 To
some extent, this may be the case because Amasis was particularly well-​
known in the Greek world due to the complex diplomatic relationships
he entertained there. Indeed, Greek involvement in Egypt during the

3. For the royal inscriptions, including those mentioned here, see Jansen-​
Winkeln 2014a.
4. Abd el-​Maqsoud and Valbelle 2013.
5. Hdt. 2.152−182; see Lloyd 1975–​1988; also De Meulenaere 1951.
6. Müller 2006: 189–​224.
6

6 Oxford History of t he Ancien t N ear East

Saite period is a recurring theme in Herodotus, who primarily addressed

a Greek audience. There was much material to draw on, as Greek mer-
cenaries had played a central role in establishing Psamtek I’s rule over
Lower and Middle Egypt, routinely participated in military campaigns
of the Saite kings, and had been intimately involved in the dynastic con-
flicts between Apries and Amasis.
In addition to the Egyptian royal inscriptions, various genres of
hieroglyphic texts play a role in the reconstruction of not only Saite
Egypt’s political history, but also the religious politics of its rulers, as
well as more generally the administration and society of the Twenty-​
sixth Dynasty. Apart from a few exceptions, such as a freestanding shrine
(naos) in the sanctuary of Banebdjedet at Mendes in the western Nile
delta or the temple of Amun in Siwa oasis, hardly any extant temple
buildings bear witness to the extensive temple-​building projects pursued
by the kings of the Twenty-​sixth Dynasty. This is due to the fact that
many monuments were reused in later constructions or, as in the case of
Sais or Heliopolis in the Nile delta, were dismantled and transported to
other sites for reuse—​and in some cases, even were taken to Rome during
the time of Egypt’s integration into the Roman Empire. Extant temple
blocks, however, indicate that the focus of the kings’ building works
lay firmly on the Nile delta, while new edifices at Thebes in the south
are scarce, and dedicated to local forms of the god Osiris in particular.
Furthermore, increased building activity is also evident in the oases of
the Libyan desert.
A further important source for the relationship between crown and
temples are the so-​called donation steles, which document royal dona-
tions of agricultural lands and other production facilities to Egyptian
temples.7 In the Saite period, officials increasingly appeared to act as
intermediaries between the crown and the temples, stressing especially
in their biographical inscriptions how they had supported the Egyptian
cults.8 At the necropolis of Saqqara near Memphis, the steles installed

7. Meeks 1979; 2009.

8. Otto 1954; Heise 2007; Bassir 2014.
7

Saite Egypt 7

on behalf of Saite kings as well as officials and priests in the Serapeum,

where they were set up in the galleries of the burial place of the Apis bulls
that had been built under Psamtek I, represent a separate group (dubbed
the “Serapeum steles”) and document the biographies of the individual
Apis bulls.9
Quantitatively by far the largest body of Egyptian sources of
information at our disposal are the several hundred temple statues of
Egyptian officials and, to a lesser extent, of priests.10 While in the early
Saite period, such temple statues were often originally located at Thebes,
where many were found in a hoard (cachette) at the Karnak temple com-
plex, the sites of such monuments shifted noticeably northward during
the Twenty-​sixth Dynasty, and particularly to Sais and Memphis.11 The
officials also built the largest known, non-​royal tombs, initially mainly in
the form of temple tombs at Thebes and later monumental shaft tombs
in the Memphite necropoleis of Giza, Abusir, and Saqqara, and to a
lesser extent also at Sais and Heliopolis.12 The officials’ tombs contained
mostly religious texts drawing on the large corpora of Egyptian funerary
literature. However, there are a number of temple statues that combine
traditional texts such as offering formulas, appeals to the living, or the
so-​called Saitic Formula with biographical inscriptions, some of which
are relevant for our reconstruction of Egypt’s political history.13 Their
placement is primarily connected to the donations made to Egyptian
temples, which are frequently mentioned in these inscriptions.14 Most
importantly, these monuments provide the basis for the reconstruction
of the administration in the Saite period.
There are relatively few administrative sources available, and these are
of little importance for the reconstruction of the political history and

9. Vercoutter 1962; Malinine et al. 1968; see also Devauchelle 2011.

10. Cf. the non-​royal documents in Jansen-​Winkeln 2014a.
11. Coulon 2016a (Karnak cachette); El-​Sayed 1975 (Sais).
12. For overviews, see Eigner 1982; Stammers 2009; Wagdy 2020.
13. Jansen-​Winkeln 2008; 2016a.
14. Spencer 2010.
8

8 Oxford History of t he Ancien t N ear East

administration of Egypt in the Saite period. Although the official script

of Egypt had been fundamentally reformed by Psamtek I, Demotic may
not have replaced the old Abnormal Hieratic script at Thebes until as
late as the reign of Amasis. Only a handful of Abnormal Hieratic and
Demotic papyri are known, and these are mainly attributable to the
activity sphere of the local Theban funerary priests (choachytes), offering
insight into this social group.15 Among the Theban documents, the so-​
called Saite Oracle Papyrus stands out. An extensive text dating to Year
14 of Psamtek I (651 bc), it documents a group of more than fifty persons
with priestly functions, among them such notables as Montuemhat, the
mayor of Thebes.16 No less unusual is Papyrus Rylands 9 (written after 513
bc), a petition by a temple scribe from el-​Hiba in Middle Egypt, presum-
ably addressed to the Persian satrap of Egypt, that recounts his family
history over several generations, back into the time of Psamtek I.17 At
the heart of the petition are the priestly prebends that an ancestor of
Petiese had obtained under Psamtek I and that the family subsequently
had lost under Psamtek II; since then, the family had pursued all pos-
sible legal processes in order to regain them but had remained unsuc-
cessful. This petition not only offers unique insights into the history of a
priestly family, but also constitutes an important source for the adminis-
trative history of the Twenty-​sixth Dynasty, as it mentions a wide range
of administrative officials such as the “harbor master,” the “overseer of
the antechamber,” and the “planner,” as well as local officials such as the
governors, generals, or overseers of the fields in action. Moreover, it is the
only extant source of information about Psamtek II’s campaign to Syria
(section 49.7).18

15. E.g., Donker van Heel 1995; see also Vleeming 1995.
16. Parker 1962; see also De Meulenaere 1997.
17. Griffith 1909; Vittmann 1998; see also Hoffmann and Quack 2007: 22–​54, 331–​
333; Agut-​Labordère and Chauveau 2011: 145–​200, 332–​341; Vittmann 2015.
18. Due to the literary qualities of the petition (which are admittedly debatable), its
character as a legal document has been questioned in recent times; see, e.g., Jay
2015. However, this tends to overlook the fact that the petition was not only part
of an archive of legal documents but is itself genuinely documentary in character.
9

Saite Egypt 9

Research on the Saite period has been greatly advanced in the last
two decades by a number of important publications. Foremost among
these is Karl Jansen-​Winkeln’s systematic survey of the hieroglyphic
inscriptions of the Twenty-​sixth Dynasty, which provides the indispens-
able foundation for any research on the textual evidence of that period.19
New discoveries have only added a few new texts to the known corpus
of royal inscriptions in recent years, with the most prominent example
being the afore-​mentioned Victory Stele of Apries from Tell Defenna.20
Studies of temple-​building activity in the delta, the oases of the Libyan
desert, and the Osiris chapels at Karnak in particular, have allowed us to
develop a more nuanced understanding of the Saite kings’ involvement
in Egyptian religious practice.21 The vast majority of available sources
for the Twenty-​sixth Dynasty are monuments commissioned by officials,
and to a lesser extent priests, scattered now across many museum col-
lections, and these individuals have been the subject of several studies.22
The architecture of the monumental tombs of the high officials of the
Twenty-​sixth Dynasty at Thebes, as well as the necropoleis of Memphis
and Heliopolis, have been studied in some detail, although reliable edi-
tions of the funerary texts of these burials are still largely lacking.23 In
addition, there are a number of recent studies on sites in the Nile delta
that were of prominence in the Twenty-​sixth Dynasty, notably Sais,

19. Jansen-​Winkeln 2014a; for Psamtek I, see also Perdu 2002a.

20. Abd el-​Maqsoud and Valbelle 2013.
21. Leclère 2008 (Nile delta); Kaper 2012; 2018; Darnell et al. 2013 (oases of the
Libyan desert); Coulon 2016b; Coulon et al. 2018 (Osiris chapels at Karnak).
22. On Sais, see El-​Sayed 1975; on Thebes, see Vittmann 1978; Graefe 1981; 2012;
Broekman 2012; on the military, see Chevereau 1985; 1990; on the administra-
tion in general, see Pressl 1998; also Agut-​Labordère 2013; and on Psamtek II, see
Gozzoli 2017.
23. Eigner 1984 (Thebes); El-​Sadeek 1984; Zivie 1991 (Giza); Bareš 1999; Bareš and
Smoláriková 2008; 2011; Coppens and Smoláriková 2009 (Abusir); Bickel and
Tallet 1997; Wagdy 2020 (Heliopolis). For an overview, see Stammers 2009.
10

10 Oxford History of t he Ancien t N ear East

Naukratis, and Tell Defenna;24 but due to their generally poor state of
preservation, many questions must remain unanswered.

49.3. The unification of Upper and

Lower Egypt
In 664 bc, when Psamtek I was installed as ruler of Sais and Memphis
by the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (668–​631 bc), Egypt was divided
into various principalities that were either under Kushite or Assyrian
control.25 During the long reign of the Kushite king Taharqo, the local
princes of Libyan origin in the Nile delta had become increasingly inde-
pendent of Kushite rule. After a first failed attempt to conquer Egypt,
Esarhaddon of Assyria (680–​669 bc) finally conquered Memphis in
671 bc and even captured some members of the Kushite royal family,
while Taharqo managed to escape to his capital of Napata.26 Esarhaddon
allowed the local princes to continue to govern in their traditional
domains, including Nekau I, ruler of Sais and father of Psamtek I,
and Montuemhat, the mayor of Thebes.27 Two years later, in 669 bc,
Taharqo recaptured Memphis, but it was taken back by Ashurbanipal
in 667 bc, while Thebes surrendered without a fight during this new
Assyrian invasion.28 After the Delta princes unsuccessfully revolted
against the Assyrian domination, many of them were executed, whereas
Psamtek I, the son of Nekau I of Sais, was appointed lord of Athribis.
When Taharqo’s successor Tanutamani reconquered Memphis, Nekau
I was killed in a battle against the Kushite king and Psamtek I fled to

24. For an overview, see Leclère 2008.

25. Yoyotte 2012; Moje 2014.
26. Grayson 1975: 85–​86; Leichty 2011: no. 98: rev. 37–​50; no. 103; no. 1019; see also
Spalinger 1974a; Onasch 1994: 16–​60; Kahn 2006; Radner 2008.
27. On the predecessors of Psamtek I, see Perdu 2002b; Ryholt 2011b.
28. Novotny and Jeffers 2018: no. 2: iii 6–​iv 1´, no. 3: i 48–​i 90, no. 4: i 38–​75, no. 6: ii
4´–​2´´, no. 7: ii 1´–​19´´, no. 8: ii 1´–​32´, and no. 11: i 52–​117; see also Spalinger
1974b; Onasch 1994: 147–​154.
1

Saite Egypt 11

the Assyrian court at Nineveh.29 Ashurbanipal returned to Egypt and

recaptured Memphis in 664 bc, sacked Thebes, drove Tanutamani per-
manently out of Egypt, and installed Psamtek I (figure 49.2) as ruler of
Sais and Memphis.
In his first eight years of reign, Psamtek I achieved dominance over
the Nile delta, as more and more local princes recognized his rule or
were replaced by loyal governors. In Sebennytos, the “great chief and
commander” Akanosh (B) had already recognized Nekau I; and under
Psamtek I, his successor Akanosh (C) only held the titles of “count and
governor.”30 This was also true of Pamu, the governor of Busiris, whose
predecessor Sheshonq (F) had still called himself “great one of the Ma”
(a Libyan tribe). In Year 8 of Psamtek, a “great chief and commander” is
attested for the last time in Pharbaitos, whereas the holder of the title
“great one of the Ma” seems to have only had responsibility for policing
duties in Year 31 of Psamtek.31 Pamu, the governor of Busiris, was eventu-
ally replaced by a governor appointed by the Saite ruler, and this was also
the case for Leontopolis.32
In the enforcement of Psamtek I’s rule over the Nile delta, Greek and
other mercenaries from Asia Minor played a decisive role. The inscrip-
tions of Ashurbanipal of Assyria record that Gyges of Lydia sent troops
to Psamtek after the Assyrian Empire refused to support the Lydian king
with troops against the Cimmerians,33 and the role of Ionian and Carian
mercenaries is very much emphasized in Herodotus’s narrative concern-
ing the rise of Psamtek I.34 In the course of the Twenty-​sixth Dynasty,

29. Novotny and Jeffers 2018: no. 3: ii 5b-​24, no. 4: ii 1–​11´, no. iii 18´b-​57´, no. 7: iii
1´-​15´, no. 9: i 34–​54, no. 11: ii 22–​48, and no. 12: ii 7´-​14´a; see also Onasch
1994: 154–​158.
30. Perdu 2004.
31. Papyrus Rylands 9: 11; see Ritner 1990.
32. Perdu 2006.
33. Novotny and Jeffers 2018: no. 11: ii 112a–​115a; see also Spalinger 1976; Lloyd 2007.
34. Hdt. 2.151.
12

12 Oxford History of t he Ancien t N ear East

Figure 49.2. The colossal statue of Psamtek I, recently found at Heliopolis,

as digitally reconstructed by Christopher Breninek. Courtesy of the Heliopolis
Project, Leipzig University.

these mercenaries would play a key role in the fortunes of the Saite kings
(section 49.9).
In 656 bc, his ninth regnal year, Psamtek I integrated Upper
Egypt into his domain by causing the ruling God’s Wife of Amun,
Shepenupet II, to adopt his daughter Nitiqret (also known as Nitocris)
as her appointed heir. This event is attested in detail in the inscription
of the so-​called Adoption Stele of Nitiqret from the Karnak temple
13

Saite Egypt 13

complex.35 By doing so, Psamtek made use of a strategy that had previ-
ously been successfully employed by the Kushite kings, namely the close
involvement of members of the royal family in the cult of the God’s
Wife: Shepenupet II, e.g., was the daughter of the Kushite king Taharqo.
The appointment of Nitiqret was presumably the fruit of a long-​standing
strategy; as early as during the time of Nekau I, the Saite clan had man-
aged to have one of their princesses included in the cult of the God’s
Wife.36
As the last monument of the Kushite king Tanutamani in Egypt dates
to 657 bc, his eighth regnal year,37 it was presumably at that time that
the nominal rule of the Kushites over Upper Egypt officially ended. It
is disputed whether Nitiqret’s appointment was a purely political devel-
opment or perhaps even the result of a military coup. What is certain
from the stele is that Nitiqret sailed south with a large fleet led by the
harbor master and general Sematawytefnakht to take up her new posi-
tion, and the extensive contributions made from all parts of the country
to the cult of the God’s Wife illustrate that this was considered an event
of transregional significance.38 Nitiqret and her successor as God’s Wife
of Amun, Ankhnesneferibra, both erected a series of new buildings at
Thebes, especially Osiris chapels.39
The prominent role played by local rulers such as Sematawytefnakht,
the harbor master and governor of Herakleopolis, and Montuemhat,
the mayor of Thebes, in the Nitiqret Adoption Stele illustrates that in
his first years of rule, Psamtek I very much depended on their coop-
eration. Montuemhat had already held the office of mayor of Thebes
under Kushite rule and was listed among the petty rulers of Egypt in

35. Jansen-​Winkeln 2014a: no. 53.28; see Caminos 1964; Ritner 2009: 575–​582.
36. Coulon and Payraudeau 2015; Jansen-​Winkeln 2018.
37. Ritner 2009: 573–​574.
38. Blöbaum 2016.
39. On the institution of the God’s Wife of Amun, see Ayad 2009; Koch 2012;
Becker et al. 2016.
14

14 Oxford History of t he Ancien t N ear East

the Assyrian royal inscriptions.40 The high priests of Amun of Thebes

also remained in office after Psamtek’s takeover and are listed alongside
Montuemhat as late as Year 14 (651 bc) in the Saite Oracle Papyrus
among the more than fifty individuals acting as witnesses when a member
of the priesthood was transferred from one Theban temple to another.41
However, the status quo in Thebes changed by the time Nitiqret eventu-
ally succeeded Shepenupet II to the office of God’s Wife of Amun, which
probably coincided with the installation of Ibi as the God’s Wife’s chief
steward in Psamtek’s Year 26 in 639 bc. In the biographical inscription
on a statue, Ibi related how the king had appointed him to this office in
order to restore the institution of the God’s Wife, which had fallen into
disrepair over time as its resources had been misappropriated.42
In fact, the chief steward of the God’s Wife of Amun now took over
tasks that had traditionally been part of the remit of the vizier of Upper
Egypt, an office that had still fulfilled these functions under Kushite rule
(Twenty-​fifth Dynasty; ­chapter 35 in volume 4).43 The office of vizier
was the highest administrative post in the Egyptian state, and since the
time of the Old Kingdom, there had been a vizier for Upper Egypt and
another for Lower Egypt (­chapter 5 in volume 1). This apparently changed
early during the time of the Twenty-​sixth Dynasty: Nespakashuti (D),
who was buried in a rock tomb in the Theban necropolis during the
reign of Psamtek I, was the last Upper Egyptian vizier to be attested
under the Saite Dynasty, whereas viziers of Lower Egypt continue to
be attested until the reign of Amasis.44 That the viziers of Upper Egypt
served not only as administrators of the institution of the God’s Wife,
with her rather modest resources, is made clear by such additional titles

40. Leclant 1961; Blöbaum 2020; on the tomb, see Russmann 1994; Gestermann
et al. 2021.
41. Parker 1962; see also Vittmann 1978; Broekman 2012.
42. Jansen-​Winkeln 2014a: no. 59.47; Graefe 1994; Ritner 2009: 591–​592.
43. Vittmann 1978; Graefe 1981; 2012; 2017; Pressl 1998; Broekman 2012; Koch
2019; see also Jansen-​Winkeln 2014a (vol. 2).
44. Pischikova 1998.
15

Saite Egypt 15

as “Overseer of Upper Egypt,” an office that had experienced a revival

under the Twenty-​fifth Dynasty and had formerly been held by the
members of the family of Montuemhat, the mayor of Thebes. When
Montuemhat died around 648 bc, only a few years after the unification
of Upper and Lower Egypt under Psamtek, he bequeathed important
offices such as that of “mayor of Thebes” and “overseer of Upper Egypt”
to his son Nesptah (B). However, when Nesptah disappears from the
available sources around 639 bc, apparently without having appointed a
successor,45 the office of mayor of Thebes was taken over by Khonsuirdis,
the mayor of Edfu, while the position of “overseer of Upper Egypt” fell
to Ibi, the chief steward of the God’s Wife of Amun, and his successors
Pabasa, Padihorresnet, and Ankhhor.
The importance of the chief stewards of the God’s Wife is also
expressed by the monumental tombs built for them in the Theban
necropolis. Following in the tradition of dignitaries of the late Twenty-​
fifth and early Twenty-​sixth Dynasties such as Montuemhat, mayor of
Thebes, the chief steward of the God’s Wife Harwa, and the chief lec-
tor priest Padiamenope, Ibi was the first of several chief stewards who
constructed a monumental tomb for himself in the Theban necropolis
in the Asasif region, on the western bank of the Nile.46 These large com-
plexes, still very well visible from afar, correspond in form to the temple-​
tombs of the Ramesside period (­chapter 27 in volume 3): a widely visible
upper structure with an entrance pylon and three courtyards behind it,
an atrium reached via a side entrance, and a series of underground rooms
leading to the actual burial chamber and further underground enclosures,
sometimes imitating the tomb of the god Osiris. This type of temple-​
tomb is also attested in Memphis where, during the reign of Psamtek I,
the Lower Egyptian vizier Bakenrenef had a monumental tomb built in
Saqqara that was architecturally very similar to these Theban tombs.47

45. De Meulenaere 2008.

46. Eigner 1984; Kuhlmann and Schenkel 1983; Graefe 1990 (Ibi); Bietak and Reiser-​
Haslauer 1978 (Ankhhor); Graefe et al. 2003 (Padihorresnet).
47. Bresciani et al. 1983.
16

16 Oxford History of t he Ancien t N ear East

In Middle Egypt, we can observe a similar development as in Thebes

toward stronger control by the crown. At the beginning of the reign of
Psamtek I, Middle Egypt was ruled by a “harbor master,” who resided
in Herakleopolis. The office of harbor master is only attested from
the beginning of the Twenty-​sixth Dynasty, and according to Papyrus
Rylands 9, its holder was responsible for the collection of taxes in Upper
Egypt. This position may have been equivalent to the synonymous
Assyrian office (rab kāri) that concerned similar duties and it may there-
fore have been introduced into Egypt during the period of Assyrian
domination.48 Sematawytefnakht, who probably succeeded the harbor
master Petiese shortly before playing a prominent role in the unifica-
tion of Egypt, held several additional offices such as “overseer of the
Herakleopolites” and “great overseer of the troops,” as well as numer-
ous local priestly offices.49 He thus combined administrative, military,
and religious functions in one person, just like the Libyan local lead-
ers in the Nile delta had done before Psamtek’s rise. Like his contem-
porary Montuemhat at Thebes, Sematawytefnakht also held the title
of “overseer of Upper Egypt” and left monuments throughout Egypt
testifying to his sphere of influence. However, after Sematawytefnakht
had held it, the title of harbor master is no longer attested, and his
successor Paakhraef moreover only held the office of “overseer of the
Herakleopolites,” but no longer that of “great overseer of the troops,”
although he was “overseer of the Royal Fleet.”50 A further indication
that the Saite rulers were increasingly seeking to implement a separation
of powers in Middle Egypt is provided by Papyrus Rylands 9. While
the harbor master Sematawytefnakht still appears in Psamtek I’s Year
31 in a position of local judicial authority in Herakleopolis, in Year 4
of Psamtek II, and still in Year 15 of Amasis, it was the “chief of the
Herakleopolites” who assumed that role.

48. Leahy 2011: 216.

49. Leahy 2011; Pope 2015.
50. Jansen-​Winkeln 2014a: no. 53.333.
17

Saite Egypt 17

49.4. Securing the borders of Egypt

Shortly after the annexation of Upper Egypt into his domain, Psamtek I
undertook a campaign against some rebellious Libyan tribes who seem
to have advanced into Egyptian territory over a wide region stretching
from northern Middle Egypt up to the Mediterranean coast. This is evi-
denced by a fragmentary stele dated to Year 11 of Psamtek I (654 bc) that
was found together with other steles of that king at South Saqqara, where
they presumably served as boundary markers.51 Whether the insurgents
were Libyan local princes from the Nile delta, as the historian Diodorus
Siculus suggested much later,52 cannot be confirmed by contemporary
sources. In any case, establishing secure borders must have been a key
priority of the Saite king once he had gained control over Upper and
Lower Egypt.
Herodotus reports that Psamtek established garrisons at Marea in
the west, Daphnae in the east, and Elephantine in the south, and the
last two still existed in Persian imperial times.53 About the Saite fortifi-
cation of Marea (modern Kom el-​Idris), nothing is known archaeologi-
cally,54 and our knowledge about a garrison on the border with Libya
is therefore based solely on textual sources. Under Amasis, the inscrip-
tion on his statue mentions an “overseer of the Gate of the Foreigners
of Tjehenu” named Sematawytefnakht Wahibramen, who was at the
same time “overseer of the Asiatics,” an archaic term for peoples from
the Levant, i.e., at that time Phoenicians, Arameans, and Judeans.55 The
presence of Arameans on the western frontier of Egypt is also attested by
a stele with an Aramaic inscription that dates to the Persian period,56 and
the situation is similar for Elephantine on the southern frontier of Egypt,

51. Jansen-​Winkeln 2014a: nos. 53.22–​23; Ritner 2009: 585–​587.

52. Diod. Sic. 1.26.
53. Hdt. 2.30.
54. On Saite fortresses in general, see Smoláriková 2008.
55. Jansen-​Winkeln 2014a: no. 57.211.
56. Vittmann 2003: 106, 110 fig. 47.
18

18 Oxford History of t he Ancien t N ear East

where the existence of a Persian-​period garrison manned with Aramean

and Judean troops at Elephantine/​Syene is well attested from finds
of Aramaic papyri and ostraca (­chapter 61 in this volume). In his bio-
graphical inscription on a statue, Neshor, the “overseer of the Gate of the
Southern Foreigners,” reports a revolt of the “Bow Peoples,” “Asiatics,”
and “Greeks” at Elephantine in the reign of Apries,57 and it is therefore
certain that contingents of foreign mercenaries were stationed on Egypt’s
southern border already under the Twenty-​sixth Dynasty. Many Judeans
had probably come to Egypt after the destruction of Jerusalem by the
Neo-​Babylonian Empire in 586 bc during the reign of Apries and had
been settled across the country.58 However, as the Saite-​period headquar-
ters in Elephantine were replaced at the beginning of the Persian period
by new quarters for the Judean garrison, archaeological evidence for the
garrison in Saite times is lacking.
Securing Egypt’s southern border was not only necessary in
Elephantine. As early as during the reign of Psamtek I, the general
Djedptahiufankh undertook a campaign to Nubia, and a mission to
the south of a more diplomatic character was possibly undertaken by
Sematawytefnakht after the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt.59
Further evidence for the Egyptian presence in Nubia exists in the shape
of the Nile island fortress of Dorginarti at the northern end of the Second
Cataract, long associated with comparable Middle and New Kingdom
frontier forts in Nubia because of its wedge-​like shape.60 However,
Greek, Levantine, Egyptian, and Nubian pottery, as well as numerous
Phoenician amphorae, suggest that the fortress was in use from the
mid-​seventh century bc to the end of the fifth century bc and that it
was therefore probably founded by Psamtek I and was still in use under
Persian imperial rule (see also c­ hapter 61 in this volume). The continuing

57. Jansen-​Winkeln 2014a: no. 56.147.

58. Cf. Jer. 44.1: Migdol, Tahpanhes, Memphis, and Pathros (i.e., Upper Egypt); see
below in this section and section 49.7.
59. Djedptahiufankh: Jansen-​Winkeln 2014a: no. 53.334; Sematawytefnakht: Jansen-​
Winkeln 2014a: no. 53.31; Perdu 2011.
60. E.g. Heidorn 2013; 2018.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 CHAPITRE XXXIV
SPECTATEURS

Ils ont deux fauteuils de balcon, à un des jours d’abonnement.

Leur fortune leur donnerait droit à une loge. Mais, n’est-ce pas ? le
nombre des loges est limité. Les titulaires ne veulent pas s’en
dessaisir. Et ils ont été bien heureux d’avoir leurs deux fauteuils. Il a
fallu qu’un ancien ministre s’y employât.
M. Rencoulet n’a pas loin de soixante-dix ans, et sa femme doit
avoir dans ces prix-là, plutôt plus que moins. Ils sont petits tous les
deux, boulots, avec des têtes bien larges et des yeux bien
inoffensifs.
M. Rencoulet possède cinq millions. Il n’a pas d’enfants, pas de
neveux, pas d’amis, mais il a des relations : la personne à qui il a
vendu très cher son fonds de commerce, le notaire qui a dressé
l’acte, son banquier, et l’homme politique avec qui le hasard des
affaires l’a mis en rapport.
M. Rencoulet et sa femme sont très assidus à l’abonnement. Il
est difficile de voir sur leur visage ce qu’ils pensent de la pièce…
Ces larges visages sont tournés vers la scène, et, tout ce qu’on peut
dire, c’est que ni M. Rencoulet ni sa femme ne sommeillent.
Il est probable que, les premières fois, ils goûtaient au spectacle
une satisfaction béate de gens du peuple, qui se plaisent à n’importe
quoi, et qui trouvent tous les acteurs très bons.
 Mais, au bout de quelques représentations, ils ont commencé à
juger, non pas qu’ils se soient formé des opinions, mais ils en ont
acquis en dînant en ville.
Car ils sont invités chez leur notaire, chez leur banquier. On les
traite avec beaucoup de déférence. Comme les gens qui les
fréquentent ne veulent pas s’avouer la vérité, et se dire qu’ils les
fréquentent à cause de leur argent, ils leur ont découvert toutes
sortes de qualités. M. Rencoulet parle peu, mais avez-vous
remarqué que ce qu’il dit est toujours juste ? Mme Rencoulet est une
bonne femme. Certainement elle doit faire beaucoup de bien autour
d’elle ; mais elle n’irait pas s’en vanter.
Donc, quand on parle à table du Théâtre-Français, on pose
parfois des questions à M. Rencoulet. On lui a demandé par
exemple ce qu’il pense de Grand dans Simone, ou de Le Bargy dans
les Deux Hommes. Il a répondu quelque chose, et il s’est fait
désormais sur Grand, comme sur Le Bargy, comme sur Mlle Piérat,
comme sur Louis Delaunay, une opinion arbitraire, mais certaine.
Il traversa, je dois le dire, une période pénible, quand il s’aperçut
que le Théâtre-Français pouvait être discuté. Il s’était satisfait, les
premiers temps, de cette ancienne et célèbre formule qu’au Français
on passe toujours une bonne soirée. Pourquoi cette loi n’est-elle
plus en vigueur ? C’était pourtant bien commode pour certains
spectateurs que de pouvoir se dire, à l’issue de la représentation :
« Nous sommes contents », même si l’on n’avait pas été remué dans
les entrailles par le Mariage de Victorine, et si l’on ne s’était réjoui
que modérément à l’École des maris.
M. Rencoulet, lorsque sa foi aveugle dans le Théâtre-Français
eut été ébranlée par les discussions dont il fut témoin, et même
auxquelles il lui sembla qu’il prenait part, M. Rencoulet passa par
une phase de trouble, presque d’effroi, à l’idée qu’il faudrait porter un
jugement sur les pièces et les artistes du théâtre national, et que ce
jugement ne devait pas être immuablement favorable. Mais il
s’aperçut, au bout de peu de temps, qu’il était très facile de juger,
c’est-à-dire d’adopter une opinion. Il est rare que le spectateur du
mardi ou du jeudi ne trouve pas, avant de se rendre au théâtre, une
opinion à adopter. Si l’on n’a vu personne en ville, et si l’on n’a lu
aucun journal, on rencontre toujours, en arrivant à la Comédie,
quelqu’un qui vous renseigne. M. Rencoulet, après avoir installé sa
femme, ne manquait jamais d’aller faire un tour dans les couloirs. Il y
voyait son notaire, ou son banquier, puis il revenait à son fauteuil et
disait à Mme Rencoulet : « On dit que c’est mauvais. »
Il ne leur restait plus dans ce cas, qu’à trouver la pièce
mauvaise ; ce qu’ils faisaient consciencieusement. A l’entr’acte, M.
Rencoulet joignait le notaire au foyer, et fidèlement lui disait : « C’est
bien mauvais », au moment précisément où le notaire allait lui dire :
« Hé mais ! dites donc, c’est mieux que je ne croyais ! » Mais il
s’arrêtait, impressionné par l’opinion de M. Rencoulet, sans se
douter qu’il la lui avait fournie lui-même.
Si, d’aventure, le notaire avait le temps de prononcer sa phrase,
c’était à M. Rencoulet d’être influencé et de modifier ses
impressions.
Cependant, dans le foyer, l’auteur errait, comme une ombre du
Styx. Après l’accueil plutôt frais du public de la générale, après les
quelques gros applaudissements de la première, on lui avait dit : « Il
faudra voir les abonnés… » Il avait donc attendu fébrilement la fin de
l’acte.
— Hé bien, s’était écrié le premier artiste qu’il avait rencontré,
croyez-vous que ça marche ce soir ?… Mon mot de sortie, qui
n’avait fait aucun effet hier, a très bien porté aujourd’hui.
— Pourtant, dit l’auteur en prêtant l’oreille, il me semble que le
baisser de rideau est moins chaud.
— D’ici vous entendez mal : et d’ailleurs les abonnés
n’applaudissent pas.
… L’auteur renaît à l’espoir, mais l’un des protagonistes arrive
avec une figure longue.
— Durs, durs… Ils sont très durs…
Et, consolateur :
 — Ne vous occupez pas de ça, mon cher. Vous avez fait une
belle œuvre. Ils peuvent l’accueillir comme ils voudront. Ils ne
changeront pas la valeur de votre pièce.
Pendant le deux, l’auteur fait un effort héroïque. Il se rend dans la
salle, au fond d’une loge de galerie, de côté. Il regarde les
spectateurs…
Peu de temps avant la fin, il revient précipitamment au foyer pour
n’être pas aperçu dans les couloirs (non pas qu’il craigne d’être
porté en triomphe !)
Oh ! comme l’acte a fait peu d’effet !
Mais, cette fois, le protagoniste est enchanté :
— Vous étiez dans la salle ?
— Oui…
— Eh bien ! croyez-vous que ça portait !
— … Oui, oui…
— Mon cher, si nous avions eu cet effet-là à la générale et à la
première, votre pièce faisait deux cent cinquante représentations.
… L’auteur ne sait plus. Malgré les bonnes paroles du
protagoniste, il n’oublie pas l’attitude de certains spectateurs… Il
s’adresse à quelqu’un de l’administration :
— Vous ne savez pas qui c’est, ce vieux petit gros monsieur, et
cette vieille dame qui lui ressemble, au balcon ?… Ils n’ont pas
bougé ; ils faisaient une figure effrayante…
— Au balcon, un vieux monsieur et une vieille dame… Ce sont
les Rencoulet, l’ancien fondeur, des gens très riches. Il paraît qu’ils
sont très contents. Je viens de voir quelqu’un de leurs amis ; ils
aiment beaucoup votre pièce.
— Non ?
— Je vous dis qu’ils sont enchantés.
Et la personne de l’administration s’en va à ses affaires, laissant
l’auteur tout à la haute idée qu’il se forme de ce M. Rencoulet, une
des grandes figures de cette bourgeoisie française, si cultivée, si
judicieuse et si fine.
 CHAPITRE XXXV
QUÉMANDEURS

Si tu veux t’amuser, me dit mon ami Jérôme, le secrétaire du

Théâtre-Humain, viens donc passer une heure avec moi, dans mon
bureau, à regarder et à écouter simplement les gens qui viennent
me voir. Je ne dis pas que tu trouveras, dans cette contemplation, un
plaisir tumultueux ; mais tu t’amuseras, je te le garantis.
« Je sais très bien pourquoi ils me rendent triste. C’est toujours la
même raison : ils veulent des places. Quelques-uns d’entre eux, qui
ne sont pas des habitués, me posent la question simplement,
banalement, avec un peu de timidité : « Serait-il possible ?… » ou
avec une feinte audace…
« Mais ceux-là ne sont pas intéressants. Je leur donne ce qu’ils
demandent suivant le succès de la pièce, selon leur tête ou selon
mon humeur. Non, ceux que je préfère, ce sont les tapeurs de
profession, ceux qui sont obligés de jouer un jeu compliqué, parce
qu’on les a à l’œil, parce que ce sont des récidivistes.
« Il y a le bon garçon, tout rond, tout franc, qui s’écrie en entrant,
avec une jovialité de mauvais aloi : « Qui est-ce qui vient taper son
petit ami ? » A celui-là on répond avec un air de dépit aussi
affectueux : « Mon vieux, je suis désolé ; ordre de la direction,
aucune faveur aujourd’hui ! » Il faudra qu’il se donne un peu plus de
mal et qu’il trouve autre chose. Au fond, il n’a pas été très adroit.
Avec sa familiarité accorte, il vous a tout de suite mis à votre aise
pour pouvoir refuser.
« Il y a le nonchalant, l’homme très au-dessus des vaines joies
du spectacle. Celui-là passait simplement dans le quartier. Il est
entré pour me serrer la main. On parle de choses et d’autres. Assis
au fond d’un grand fauteuil de velours (riche épave d’une pièce
mondaine que nous avons jouée quatre soirs !), il me raconte les
histoires les plus infamantes qu’il a pu trouver. Pour obtenir un
coupon de deux fauteuils, il n’hésite pas à couvrir d’opprobre un
certain nombre de ses contemporains. Il fait entendre à tout instant
un rire exagéré. Puis tout à coup :
« — Vous faites de l’argent en ce moment ?
« — Pas mécontents.
« — Vous donnez tout de même des places ? »
« On se laisse aller à lui dire :
« — Pour vous !
« — Oh ! bien, alors ! je viendrai vous demander cela un de ces
jours… Voyons ! quand pourrais-je y aller ? Demain et les sept ou
huit jours suivants, je ne suis pas libre… Mais, au fait, il y a ce soir !
Je n’ai rien à faire, ce soir ?… Non, rien… Pouvez-vous me donner
quelque chose pour ce soir ? »
« Il est dans mon bureau depuis si longtemps que je n’ose lui
refuser. Je lui délivre son coupon… Il le prend sans précipitation, il le
met dans son portefeuille, puis tâche de ne pas s’en aller trop tôt.
Quand il sera levé après m’avoir dit mille choses agréables, il
semblera se rappeler soudain la conséquence, évidemment
imprévue et accessoire, de sa visite : « Merci pour les billets ! »
« Le tapeur triste, charmante variété ! C’est l’homme qui n’a que
des déboires, des chagrins, voire des douleurs morales… Il s’assoit
d’un air accablé. Il semble qu’une neurasthénie implacable l’accule
au suicide. Comment ne désirerais-je pas, de toutes mes forces,
consoler, distraire ce pauvre homme en détresse ?
 « Nous avons joué, l’année dernière, une pièce un peu
fantastique, où l’on conduisait les enfants. J’ai reçu une trentaine de
lettres d’enfants de tapeurs, de petits enfants mendiants dressés par
leurs pères.
« J’ai connu un tapeur émérite, un champion, qui, lui, jouait de
toutes les cordes : la joie ingénue du gentil gros garçon dont vous
pouvez, avec un billet, faire un heureux ; la passion d’un affamé
d’art, qui a besoin de vibrer, et à qui l’on se doit de procurer les
nobles bonheurs qui sont nécessaires à sa vie intellectuelle !
« Ce tapeur m’avait déjà fait tous les coups de son répertoire. Il
me parlait de ses parents de province. La province, sans relâche, lui
envoyait une famille intarissable, dont tous les membres adoraient le
théâtre.
« Il lui semblait que j’étais uniquement destiné à m’occuper de lui.
Je n’avais pas d’autres fonctions. On m’avait placé là pour sa plus
grande commodité, et le plus grand agrément des siens.
« Quand il eut épuisé toute ma bonne volonté, il s’attaqua à
l’auteur, à qui il écrivit des lettres enthousiastes sur sa pièce. Ça
donne toujours quelque chose. Mais il eut le tort de se montrer trop
vite conquis. Ses louanges ne portèrent plus, et l’illustre écrivain finit
par l’envoyer promener.
« Alors, il entreprit un haut personnage dont il n’avait jamais osé
affronter la sévérité légendaire, le patron lui-même ! Le patron
marcha deux ou trois fois. On lui servit les parents de province, la
dette de reconnaissance à payer à un bienfaiteur, les deux petits
fiancés qui seraient si ravis d’aller au théâtre ! Le patron donnait les
places, parce qu’il ne savait pas au juste à qui il avait affaire. Ce fut
par hasard seulement que nous eûmes l’occasion de parler du
bonhomme. Le patron, enfin éclairé, se mit à le regarder d’un œil
méfiant. Mais ce patron, avec son air à tout casser, est un homme
timide, qui ne sait pas refuser…
Cependant, ce champion du tapage était capable de lasser les
volontés les meilleures. Encore deux ou trois fois, et le patron ne
marcha plus.
 « Mon individu parvint un jour, malgré les consignes, à forcer la
porte directoriale.
— Comment, c’est vous !
— C’est moi. Oui, je vous ai déjà demandé trop de places, cette
année ; je m’en rends compte… Aujourd’hui, c’est une affaire très
grave qui m’amène. Il faut, ou que vous me prêtiez une somme de
quatre mille francs ou que vous me donniez une loge de six places.
L’offre de cette loge me permettra d’emprunter la somme. Je pense
que vous n’hésitez pas et que vous préférez me signer le
coupon ?… »
« Il disait cela gentiment, comme s’il eût consenti une
commutation de peine en faveur du malheureux directeur.
« Mais lui, cette fois, ne perdit pas la tête.
— Mon ami, il m’est impossible, vous vous en doutez, de vous
prêter la somme en question… Tout mon argent est placé, et je n’ai
aucune espèce de fonds disponibles… D’autre part, en raison du
succès de ma pièce, je ne puis donner, en ce moment, un seul billet
de faveur. Toutefois, pour vous obliger, je vais vous prêter trois louis,
avec lesquels vous passerez tout à l’heure au bureau, où vous
retiendrez une loge de six places…
« Et, ce qui est beau, c’est qu’on ne l’a plus revu. Bien entendu, il
n’a pas pris la loge à la location. Mais je le soupçonne de m’avoir fait
demander, une demi-heure plus tard, sous un nom supposé, une
autre loge de faveur où il a envoyé tout son monde.
« Le patron pensait que soixante francs, ce n’était pas cher pour
être débarrassé d’un tel homme. D’ailleurs, il eut l’heureuse chance
de tomber sur un individu un peu gêné. Bien souvent, le tapeur de
billets n’est ni gêné, ni avare. L’important pour lui, ce n’est pas
d’économiser de l’argent, c’est d’avoir des billets. Aime-t-il même le
théâtre ? Ce n’est pas sûr… Il aime les billets. »
 CHAPITRE XXXVI
LE PAYANT

On cherche en ce moment des moyens énergiques pour

reconstituer dans nos forêts une race presque disparue : il s’agit du
payant, dont l’espèce est menacée d’être détruite par d’autres
individus envahissants, désignés elliptiquement sous le nom de
« faveurs ».
Ne parlons pas ici du payant d’importation, le provincial et
l’étranger, le seul gibier qui, depuis nombre d’années, alimentait
notre marché théâtral.
Mais j’ai connu dans ma jeunesse un « payant » parisien, timide,
inquiet, aboulique…

— Madame, avez-vous quatre places, à côté l’une de l’autre…

pour demain soir ?
— A l’orchestre ?
— A l’orchestre ou au balcon… mais au balcon de face… Je ne
tiens pas au premier rang.
— … Voyons… En tout cas, nous n’avons rien au premier rang
de balcon…, et dans les autres rangs de face… rien non plus. A
l’orchestre, je n’aurais que quatre fauteuils tout au fond. Mais
pourquoi ne prendriez-vous pas une loge ? Le 47 de face, par
exemple. Elle est très bonne.
— Combien de places ?
— Six, à douze francs.
— Pas moyen d’en avoir quatre ?
— Nous n’avons pas le droit… Cependant, par exception…
— Mais si j’avais quatre places dans cette loge, nous ne serions
pas sûrs d’être seuls !
— Ah ! dame ! ça dépendra… En ce moment, nous avons
beaucoup de monde… Prenez donc la loge tout entière !
— Soixante-douze francs pour quatre places, ça fait dix-huit
francs par personne… Ce n’est pas possible !
— J’ai encore la loge 24, de côté. Elle est de trois places. Je
vous donnerai le balcon 78, tout devant.
— … Ce n’est pas pratique ! Et voit-on bien dans cette loge de
côté ?
— Dame ! les deux personnes devant ne seront pas mal. Mais
sûr et certain que la personne derrière sera forcée de se tenir
debout…
— … La personne derrière, ce sera moi… Mais enfin…
— Et puis, vous pourriez laisser un autre monsieur dans la loge,
et prendre le balcon ?
— Peut-être. Si je vous demandais de me garder les places une
demi-heure ? Je voudrais consulter ces dames.
— Une demi-heure juste.
— Dans une demi-heure, je reviens.

Le payant s’éloigne, torturé par l’indécision. Ce n’est pas « ces

dames » qu’il va consulter. C’est son propre cœur anxieux.
Quel parti prendra-t-il ?
 Rentrer chez lui, dire à sa femme : « Je n’ai pas de places ! » A
sa femme ! Impossible !…
Prendre la loge de côté et le balcon isolé… Quelles
complications !
Si c’est lui qui va au balcon, sa femme, par principe, lui fera la
tête. Elle ne fait rien de son mari ; mais elle veut l’avoir auprès d’elle,
à sa disposition.
Prendre quatre places dans la loge de six, et trouver deux dames
étrangères installées aux places de devant…
Se payer la loge entière, et dire à sa femme qu’on n’a payé que
quatre places… Mais l’autorité féminine exerce un contrôle si
minutieux sur les fonds de la communauté !… Et puis, on n’a pas le
droit, quand on aura peut-être un jour des enfants, de dépenser
soixante-douze francs pour quatre places.
Les marchands de billets… Notre payant timoré a peur des
marchands de billets…
Le payant que j’ai connu était un homme bien malheureux.

Mais j’ai connu aussi des « faveurs » très tourmentés.

Le sieur T… et sa femme, pourvus d’une belle fortune, adorent le
théâtre. Ils voudraient courir sans tarder aux pièces nouvelles, et
s’en repaître avidement… Malheureusement pour eux, ils
connaissent des journalistes. Et comme ces journalistes leur ont
donné plusieurs fois des billets, le sieur T… et sa femme n’osent
plus acheter de places de théâtre.
Ils ne sont pas avares et ils estiment que vingt ou trente francs
pour une bonne soirée, ce n’est pas trop cher. Mais comment
dépenser vingt ou trente francs pour un plaisir qu’on peut avoir à
l’œil ?
Alors, ils vont au théâtre à la cinquantième ou à la cent
cinquantième, selon le succès ; la salle est à moitié vide, et, souvent,
deux ou trois des protagonistes ont lâché leur rôle…
 En outre, le « faveur » souffre de la crainte d’être mal placé.
— As-tu reçu les deux places ?
— Il m’a envoyé sa carte : Prière de placer deux personnes…
Deux personnes… Deux anonymes… Deux humbles et
quelconques unités !
— Je ne vais plus au théâtre dans ces conditions-là ! dit la dame.
La dernière fois, ils nous ont donné un fauteuil et un strapontin. Qu’il
nous envoie deux places numérotées !…
— Il y consentira peut-être. Mais il nous les donnera mauvaises,
pour nous faire croire que les premiers rangs sont pris… Je vais me
mettre en habit, toi en décolleté. Ils nous placeront dans une avant-
scène.
Les « faveurs » finissent par être plus exigeants que les payants.
Et ça se comprend. On leur fait une politesse : il faut qu’elle soit
complète. Le payant, lui, fait une affaire. Qu’il se défende ! Si on lui
colle une mauvaise place, tant pis pour lui !
D’ailleurs, les payants (qui sont des êtres humains… après tout),
les payants ne veulent pas se dire qu’ils ont fait une mauvaise
affaire. Ils font leur possible pour être contents, heureux, et
manifester leur joie. Ils paient, donc ils chanteront !

Il existe une variété sauvage de « payants », très différente du

payant vulgaire, domestique et résigné. Nous voulons parler du
payant occasionnel, ce « faveur » qui s’est vu dans l’obligation de
conduire un soir déterminé, à un théâtre donné, soit une dame qu’il
veut conquérir, soit un monsieur qu’il veut rouler. Il a donc pris ses
places au bureau. Soyez tranquille, il le répétera plusieurs fois dans
la soirée.
Il se dédommage enfin de la longue contrainte où l’a réduit sa
condition de « faveur ».
D’ordinaire, c’est à voix basse qu’il est obligé de « chiner » le
spectacle… Et, quand le rideau tarde à se lever, c’est avec
précaution qu’il ajoute le bruit de ses pieds aux autres bruits de
pieds réclamant « des lampions », en cadence : tout en frappant
sournoisement le sol, il continue à parler à sa voisine de l’air le plus
détaché…
Aujourd’hui, il se rattrape : la foule impatiente n’a pas de plus
enragé meneur. Et si quelqu’un siffle, ne cherchez pas : c’est le
payant occasionnel. Il tient à profiter de tous les droits que, pour une
fois, il a achetés en entrant…

Dieu m’a permis, un soir de ma vie, d’assister à la confusion d’un

payant orgueilleux, insolent, despotique.
C’était dans un petit théâtre, alors en pleine vogue. Le samedi,
on refusait du monde.
Ce samedi, le payant en question, qui avait installé une dame
dans une loge, était redescendu au contrôle pour se plaindre de je
ne sais pas quoi, et empoignait le contrôleur dans des termes qui,
proférés à l’adresse du pain pourri lui-même, eussent paru
exagérés.
Les contrôleurs ne s’en inquiétaient que très peu. Leur contrôle
était assiégé ; ils avaient autre chose à faire qu’à répondre… Le
monsieur, comme manifestation suprême, posa son coupon sur le
comptoir, et s’écria : « Mon argent ! Je veux mon argent ! »
Il savait fort bien que ce n’est conforme ni au droit ni à l’usage, et
que, sauf dans des cas tout à fait graves, on ne reprend pas les
coupons délivrés.
Mais il y avait ce soir-là tellement de monde que l’administrateur,
présent au contrôle, saisit avec empressement le billet, qu’il rendit à
la buraliste, en lui disant froidement :
— Remboursez monsieur !
Et, séance tenante, le coupon fut revendu à d’autres clients.
… Le monsieur, déconfit, dut empocher son argent… puis
remonter, comme un calvaire, l’escalier des loges, pour aller
chercher sa femme… On les vit revenir tous deux quelques minutes
après, et tout le monde sentit que ce qu’avaient « pris » les
contrôleurs n’était rien certainement auprès de ce qu’allait prendre le
monsieur, qui, pour le moment, descendait aux côtés de sa
compagne, toute pâle, silencieuse et terrible comme le Silence.
 CHAPITRE XXXVII
LE MONSIEUR DE LA DAME AU GRAND
CHAPEAU

J’aime arriver de bonne heure au théâtre, et m’installer à ma

place au moment où la salle est vide, de façon à voir venir les
spectateurs un à un, et surtout pour ne pas manquer l’entrée d’un
personnage entre tous sympathique, le monsieur qui accompagne
une dame à grand chapeau.
… D’ordinaire, il la laisse pénétrer toute seule dans la salle afin
d’assister le moins possible à l’effet de cette entrée, au moment où
le regard des spectateurs avoisinants se lève vers le monument de
plumes. Quand le monsieur entre à son tour, sa figure pâle est d’un
calme effrayant. Il a l’air de ne pas penser du tout à ce chapeau
énorme. Il est d’une grande politesse avec les gens qu’il dérange,
mais c’est uniquement parce qu’il les dérange en passant.
Puis, la dame installée, le monsieur s’assoit à côté d’elle, l’air
plus digne et plus calme que jamais. Il s’efforce de ne point bouger,
pour ne pas gêner le spectateur qui se trouve derrière lui. On peut
être sûr que sa tenue, au spectacle, sera des plus correctes, qu’il
applaudira gentiment, sans exagération, et qu’il écoutera la pièce
avec une attention scrupuleuse. En attendant que le rideau se lève,
il a ouvert son programme et s’y plonge tout au fond… Pour rien au
monde, il ne voudrait jeter un regard derrière lui, et voir ce cortège
assis, mais plein de haine…
A un moment donné, la dame se penche légèrement pour lui
parler ; tout l’énorme écran parcourt un arc de cercle inquiétant… Le
monsieur avance l’oreille ; peut-être n’est-il pas fâché que les gens
qui murmurent puissent le croire un peu sourd…
Ce n’est pas la première sortie du grand chapeau. Le monsieur
est un résigné. Il a dit, au moment du départ : « Tu mets ce chapeau-
là ? » — « Oui, hé bien ? » — « Hé bien, rien… » — « Est-ce que ça
te gêne ? » — « Non, non. » — « Si ça te gêne, il faudrait le dire. »
Il n’a rien dit. Ou bien s’est-il rendu compte que ses protestations
étaient inutiles, ou bien n’a-t-il pas su ce qu’il aurait fallu dire. Et
même, s’il l’avait su, il n’aurait pas protesté davantage, car c’eût été
long, on serait arrivé en retard au spectacle, et on aurait dérangé
tout un rang. Il n’eût plus manqué que cela !

Voici une anecdote absolument authentique. C’était au Théâtre-

Antoine, à la première d’Anna Karénine. Regagnant ma place à la fin
d’un entr’acte, je la vis occupée par une dame à grand chapeau, qui
s’était trompée d’un fauteuil. Je lui fis remarquer son erreur.
— Oui, dit à haute voix une autre dame, placée à un rang
derrière, madame n’est pas à sa place. Et c’est fort heureux pour ma
petite fille, qui n’aurait absolument rien vu derrière ce chapeau… Je
ne comprends pas qu’on vienne au théâtre avec des chapeaux
pareils…
La dame au grand chapeau jeta les yeux derrière elle, regarda un
instant la petite fille, et trouva cette justification admirable :
— Anna Karénine n’est pas une pièce pour les enfants…

Moi, je pensai que cette dame était très gentille de donner au

moins cette explication. Il est probable que si le monsieur de la
dame au grand chapeau avait fait des observations à la compagne
de sa vie, elle ne lui aurait rien répondu du tout. La grande
supériorité des femmes sur les hommes, c’est que les hommes ont
beaucoup de choses à leur dire, et qu’elles n’ont rien à leur
répondre.
Le monsieur se fût lancé dans des argumentations abondantes et
pauvres. Qu’est-ce que peut faire un misérable être civilisé, avec sa
chétive raison humaine, contre une splendide princesse sauvage,
qui se met des plumes sur la tête ?
Gêner dix personnes, leur gâter un plaisir auquel elles ont rêvé
depuis plusieurs jours, voilà ce qu’un homme au faible cœur ne peut
pas supporter. Mais une femme n’a pas à s’occuper de cela ; ce
qu’elle fait s’appellerait pour un homme de la goujaterie ; pour elle,
ce sont « les droits de la beauté ».
Il y a des milliers d’années que les hommes ont la responsabilité
de leurs actes. La peur des coups qu’a raillée Courteline, la
bienfaisante « peur des coups » leur a appris à se soucier du bien-
être d’autrui. Que ce soit pour ce vil motif ou pour des raisons plus
nobles, il est incontestable que les hommes sont mieux élevés que
les femmes.
Au théâtre, ils ne prennent pas un plaisir complet, s’ils sentent
que ce plaisir n’est pas partagé par tout le monde. Plus d’un
anticlérical farouche est gêné, dans une salle de spectacle, s’il
entend dire du mal des curés. Il est gêné parce que ça gêne les
autres. Il n’est pas là pour discuter, mais pour s’amuser, et pour
sentir qu’on s’amuse autour de lui.
Dans une loge, il est souvent moins désagréable d’être à la
mauvaise place, tout au fond, que d’être devant, et d’avoir derrière
soi quelqu’un qui ne voit pas bien. Mais les dames, elles, trônent
superbement et sans remords aux meilleures places. Et les
messieurs des loges supportent alors qu’elles aient de grands
chapeaux, puisqu’elles ne gênent qu’eux…
 Tels sont les propos que ce philosophe de mes amis se tenait à
lui-même, et qu’il adressait, de loin et mentalement, à cette dame au
grand chapeau.
Il faut dire que ce philosophe, ce soir-là, était venu tout seul au
théâtre. Aussi faisait-il le malin.
 CHAPITRE XXXVIII
UN HABITUÉ

Percy Smith était, à Newmarket, un jockey de troisième ordre. Il

gagnait par an une quinzaine de courses, dont un certain nombre de
handicaps. Pouvant monter à sept stones, ce qui est un petit poids
pour un homme fait, il avait un sérieux avantage, en course, sur des
jockeys enfants.
Dockmaster partit grand favori dans le Lincolnshire. Son
propriétaire, le capitaine Howell, l’avait confié à Percy Smith. Le
cheval fit une si mauvaise course que Percy fut appelé devant les
commissaires. Il s’expliqua mal, et on lui retira sa licence de jockey.
Percy Smith dut s’expatrier. Il emportait, dit-on, un petit matelas
de banknotes, dont l’avaient pourvu quelques gros bookmakers, que
la victoire de Dockmaster eût désobligés. Percy Smith vint s’établir à
Paris et fréquenter les courses, où il exerça un vague petit métier de
donneur de pronostics. Il pariait aussi quelquefois.
En dehors de quelques lads anglais, qu’il rencontrait sur les
champs de courses, Percy, à Paris, n’avait aucune relation. Depuis
six ans qu’il s’était installé à l’étage le plus élevé d’un modeste hôtel
garni de la rue Saint-Honoré, il n’avait pas appris un seul mot de
français. Était-ce par timidité, par sauvagerie, par britannisme
irréductible ? Il payait sa note régulièrement le samedi soir, donnait
un pourboire à la bonne. Si, au restaurant, un client de passage lui