Chapter 4 Thoth and the Relational Nature of Egyptian Rhetoric

Thoth’s myths might seem fragmentary to those accustomed to Sumerian, Greek, or other narrative myths. As was the case with Seshat, it is necessary to examine nonnarrative evidence to illustrate Thoth’s rhetorical nature in pre-Ptolemaic Egyptian contexts. Narrative myths came relatively late in Egyptian history (or, more likely, their recordations do not survive). However, ritual, cultic, magical, and inscriptive texts do, and if taken together, they represent a constellation of fragmentary mythic evidence that crystallizes to illustrate Thoth’s mythic dimension as a rhetorical god. Thoth appears in narratives in Egypt marked for their relatively recent appearance. However, he is a very mature god in the history of Egypt, though his association with rhetoric is comparatively more widespread than Seshat; this is also because Thoth was the patron of far more than writing or rhetoric, most notably magic, which appealed to Egyptians for its practical application. Thoth’s rhetorical mythology—and the fundamentally relational being of rhetoric as constructed by ancient Egypt—can be assembled by referencing mythemes that predate his appearance in narrative myth.

Goebs and Baines (2018) have handily summarized the concept of the mytheme (coined by Lévi-Strauss in 1955) in an Egyptian context: mythemes are the “building blocks” of mythic forms, including “mythical actors, objects, and Page 107 →locations, which may stand in varying relationships with one another” (p. 646). As mentioned in the previous chapter, mythemic analysis was most extensively applied by Assmann (1991) to Egyptian myth, who referred to mythemes in their constitutive form as mythical constellations and compositional icons; but others have termed mythemes “mythologems” (see, e.g., Sternberg-el-Hotabi, 1985) or mythical allusions or statements (mythische Aussagen or mythische Anspielungen; Schott, 1945, p. 25ff). These mythemes can be understood as constellations of composite meaning, around which a figure such as Thoth is constructed. A conceptual representation of rhetoric and other relational forms of knowledge can be reassembled regardless of any contextual storyline. By reassembling these constellations of mythemes, a mythic pattern emerges from which one can deduce that Thoth’s role was analogical for certain concepts in rhetoric as a relational series of processes: recall that mythic figures in Egyptian culture could stand for conceptual abstractions or intellectual and social processes, as in the case of the goddesses Seshat and Ma’at. Goebs and Baines (2018) posited that numerous distinct mythemes suggest the possibility of diverse combinations that can create multiple versions of the connections among deities, their attributes, and the places, items, and ideas linked to them (p. 647). Therefore, the constellation of the collective presence of these mythemes conveys the idea of rhetoric in relation to Thoth. Taken as a whole, this constellation of properties illustrates an Egyptian conception of rhetoric that derives its ontology from Thoth’s relational powers.

Goebs (2013) has argued that “individual mythical figures” such as Thoth functioned “as classifiers in thought and representation”; such representations operate based on a cognitive metaphorical function. Thoth’s cognitive function is categorized in determinative systems (p. 129). Goebs has applied this concept to the example of the god Horus, who represents a categorically prototypical myth of a “god in need,” or, later in his myth, that of a prototypical hero who overcomes adversity as one example (p. 130). Thoth is a prototypical representation of a god who is wise and a god whose wisdom is centrally concerned with relations to the other: Thoth is the prototypical messenger deity, which is why the Greeks found in him an analogy to Hermes (p. 132). Thoth’s mythical role in Egyptian rhetoric as a relational exemplar was not merely functional but referential and social. Most central to this book, Thoth’s role was of a higher categorical order that governed all of these because his nature was rhetorical. In terms of Thoth’s activities, no single aspect of him represents his conceptual personification, but all of his attributes are fundamentally relational. Therefore, Thoth was designated as the Page 108 →“writing god” because of the fugitive nature of rhetorical activity between persons; writing symbolizes this interactive concept in action between persons, dependent on their relations. Rhetorical relations in ancient Egypt were likewise hierarchical if we accept Van Dijk’s definition of Egyptian myth in this context. Van Dijk (1995) asserted that myth constitutes “a statement that seeks to explain social reality and human existence in symbolic terms by referring to a world outside the human world and to events outside human time, but that makes the present situation meaningful and acceptable and provides a perspective on the future” (p. 1700). When this definition is added to Goebs’s theoretical framework—that the structure of mythemes assumes their meaning because of their relational nature—the evidence for Thoth as a relational god understood in ontological terms who represented rhetorical action becomes more distinct. Goebs and Baines (2018) stated that “the purpose of the text,” whether it is “a ritual or magical effect” or “a work of entertainment or instructional literature,” has as its focus “the structural relationships between actors” (p. 45). This structural relationship is what makes Egyptian mythemes a composite “in a variety of contexts” (p. 45). The following analysis draws from multiple mythemes and contexts to show the relational ontology of Thoth’s rhetorical roles.

Thoth’s presence was represented at almost every stage of Egyptian life. In “The Prayer to Thoth,” he is introduced as “the letter-writer of the Ennead” (Lichtheim, 2006b, p. 113). Lichtheim classified “The Prayer to Thoth” as an Egyptian school text. The petitioner prays that Thoth offer him counsel and “make me skillful in your calling” (p. 113). Thoth’s rhetorical offices thus immediately derive from the mediating act of writing and counseling others. His nature is therefore rhetorical and relational as its primary characteristic, and the petitioner’s goal in entreating him is to make himself skillful in his scribal calling. The calling of Thoth was to scribal activity, at least in the author’s context, as the author is presumably a scribal student. But I would posit that the “calling” of Thoth transcended the transcriptive act we often associate with scribal activity and is more accurately described as rhetorical activity.

A school text in ancient Egypt was a student’s introduction to Thoth. One such exercise outlines Thoth’s relational role at what is presumably an introductory level. The repetitive phrasing is likely for pedagogical ends, but it is Page 109 →no less illustrative of Thoth’s rhetorically relational nature in the life of the student, particularly when potentiating his future.

Come to me and give me counsel,

Make me skillful in your calling;

Better is your calling than all callings,

It makes (men) great.

He who masters it is found fit to hold office,

I have seen many whom you have helped;

They are (now) among the Thirty,

They are strong and rich through your help.

You are he who offers counsel,

Fate and Fortune are with you,

Come to me and give me counsel,

I am a servant of your house. (Lichtheim, 2006b, p. 113)

The prayer excerpt highlights Thoth’s profound influence as a mediating rhetorical figure in ancient Egyptian society, particularly within the context of scribal education and social mobility. The petitioner emphasizes Thoth’s role as a counselor and mediator through repetition, underscoring his persuasive nature and significance in shaping individual destinies. The tropical repetition emphasizes that Thoth mediated every stage of life: as a transitional figure through rhetorical education, as vital in vocational viability, and as instrumental in social mobility. The repetition of the plea for counsel from Thoth underscores the belief in his ability to impart wisdom and skill, elevating his calling above all others. By seeking Thoth’s guidance, individuals express their desire to attain greatness and mastery in their endeavors. The association between Thoth’s counsel and success suggests a deep-seated belief in the transformative power of his guidance in the rhetorical art that transcended technical advice and encompassed broader concepts of fate. The concept of fate interlaced with Thoth’s counsel speaks to the belief that his guidance could mitigate an indeterminate future’s social and material uncertainty. By aligning themselves with Thoth’s wisdom, individuals sought to exert some control over their destiny, transcending the limitations imposed by social status or circumstance through the mediation of rhetorical skill.

Thoth’s rhetorical nature was a fundamental element of his living participation in the life of the scribal student. A striking phrasal repetition in the prayer emphasizes Thoth’s persuasive nature in a consular role. Thus, even Page 110 →children were taught that the outcomes of one’s life depended upon the counsel of Thoth. As an intermediary, Thoth had a role that rhetorically mediated between social strata. Thoth’s “calling”—presumably a scribal trade—represented for the scribal student one of few possibilities in ancient Egypt for social and interpersonal mobility. Fate itself was connected to his counsel; presumably, to take Thoth’s counsel was to master the indeterminacy of the future. Thoth stood between the present and the future, as well as between strata of society, but most significantly, students were socialized by recitation and repetition to see Thoth as a mediator between an aspirant and his personal goals. Thoth exercised authority over transitional states of being, such as poverty and wealth, social position and lack thereof, wisdom and ignorance, power and powerlessness. The power that Thoth gave an aspirant was not magical to move between and among states of being; it was persuasive, linguistic, and consular.

A unique case study is presented in the devotional monuments of a figure known to us—alternately, as Horemheb or Haremhab, whose tomb was found at Saqqara and tragically looted. Haremhab seemed to be equally devoted to Thoth as to Amun and left behind many inscriptive prayers and depictions of himself in relation to Thoth. As a result, we see how a devotee of Thoth of the scribal class might have perceived Thoth in the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt (1550–1292 bce). But Haremhab’s life is an atypical one for a scribe: he began as a scribe and then became counselor and official ambassador to King Tutankhamun. Then he himself became Pharoah despite his lack of royal lineage. We see inscriptions from him related to every stage of life in which he mentions his kinship to and worship of Thoth, and it is from him—for at least this period—we see a unique perspective on Thoth’s rhetorical power.

From Haremhab, we see Thoth’s rhetorical role in the life of mature scribes. There exists memorial inscriptive evidence of Thoth’s role not intended for novitiates but composed by initiates that reveals his rhetorical nature. The granite statue “A Prayer of General Haremhab,” which can be found in the Metropolitan Museum of New York, portrays Haremhab in a scribal position with a scroll on his lap; the inscriptions regarding Thoth appears on the scroll in the hands of the figure and on the sides of the pediment (Figure 9).

An unexpurgated translation of the Haremhab inscriptions—apart from those appearing in the work of Miriam Lichtheim—was composed by its discoverer, H. E. Winlock (1924). I offer it in toto because of its significance to our knowledge of Thoth from an authentically Egyptian devotee ca. 1550–1295 bce, “who openest the place of the gods, who knowest the mysteries, who establishest their utterances, who distinguishest (one) report from another, who judgest for all men. Skilful in the boat of Millions of Years, waiting for mankind, knowing a man by his utterance; making the evil deed rise up against the doer; contenting Ra, reporting to the Sole Lord (reading?), and causing him to know all that happens. Day dawns when he summons (it) in heaven; he is not forgetful of the report of yesterday” (p. 3). I omit certain sections relevant to Thoth’s role in the Celestial Bark. Haremhab continues:

Page 111 →

Page 112 →The ennead of gods that is in the Evening Ship give praise to Thoth, they say to him, “Praise [to …], praised of Rel”, when(?) he recites praises to the gods, and they repeat what thy lea loves. “thou leadest the way to the place of the ship and thou art active against this fiend. Thou cuttest off his head … who maketh the place for the gods; who knoweth the mysteries and explaineth their Words. Let us praise Thoth, the exact plummet in the midst of the balance, who passeth by(?) sin, who accepteth him that inclineth not to do evil; the vizier who giveth judgment, who allayeth clamour in peace; scribe of the maat; who establisheth the book, who vanquisheth crime; who accepteth what is under the n’rms; sound of shoulder; learned within the ennead; who recalls all that is forgotten; wise for him who is in terror; the remembrancer of the moment and of infinity; who proclaims the hour(s) of the night; whose words abide for ever. (p. 3)

Lichtheim (2006b) summarized that Haremhab “likens himself to Thoth, the ancient Egyptian god of wisdom, writing, and knowledge” (p. 422).

From Haremhab we see the relational qualities of Thoth’s fundamentally rhetorical nature as an expression of rhetoric’s functional qualities, rather than its early developmental qualities. In the prayer, Thoth is first associated with the relation of ma’at to language as a determiner (p. 423). As a determiner, Thoth arbitrates matters of socially situated justice between parties. On a cosmic level, he transports Re, the sun god, through the night; Thoth himself is not the sun or the moon but the action of transition and relation between the two. The speaker illustrates how his own nature aligns with Thoth, beseeching that Thoth permit his “speech be answered for its rightness” (Lichtheim, 2006a, p. 421). Haremhab even helpfully gives an example of god-as-function in a rhetorical context: “I am a righteous one toward the courtiers/ If a wrong is told me, (My) tongue is skilled to set it right” (p. 422). Thus, Thoth, as the figurative representation of Egyptian rhetoric itself, was associated with the use of language to correct wrongdoing between parties. Furthermore, Haremhab’s assertion of being Page 113 →“wise in speech” and an “adviser of everyone” reflects Thoth’s instructive role in guiding individuals along their respective paths. Through wise counsel and insightful communication, Thoth—and by extension, Haremhab—empowers individuals to navigate the complexities of societal expectations and personal conduct. This instructional aspect of rhetoric highlights its function as a relational presence, shaping not only individual behavior but also the collective ethos of society.

The petitioner continues: “Wise in speech, there’s nothing I ignore. I am the adviser of everyone, who teaches each man his course” (p. 422). Thoth relates to human participants in social systems in an instructive role, applying wise speech to counsel. This counsel, as rhetorical function that derives its nature from the relations of social participants, is clearly a conceptual identification of the telos of rhetorical action. Thoth embodies this purpose and function, and it is from this knowledge of means that the offices of Egyptian rhetoric took its shape. Counsel is the end of this rhetorical action, which might maintain order and apply wisdom to future activity and social relations. Arguably, Thoth as “determiner” of Ma’at is the god who provides the means to know ma’at itself, much as Nisaba represented knowledge of the means of the technical art of rhetoric in Sumeria. Rhetoric is characterized as an application of speech to correct human purpose. Thoth’s function as a counselor highlights the transformative power of rhetoric in guiding individuals toward their intended destinies. Through the strategic use of wise speech, Thoth imparts guidance and direction, enabling individuals to navigate the complexities of life with clarity and purpose. This aspect of Thoth’s character underscores the intrinsic connection between rhetoric and personal development, as speech becomes a tool for shaping and refining human purpose.

Moreover, the petitioner’s assertion that Thoth “teaches each man his course” underscores the relational nature of rhetoric within social systems. Thoth fosters meaningful interactions and promotes harmonious relations among individuals by facilitating communication and imparting wisdom. In doing so, Thoth embodies the telos of rhetorical action, which is rooted in the cultivation of understanding, empathy, and cooperation within society. From this conceptual identification of Thoth’s purpose and function, the foundations of Egyptian rhetoric begin to take shape. Rhetorical action, as exemplified by Thoth, is not merely a means of expression but a vehicle for social cohesion and order. Through counsel, guidance, and the application of wisdom, rhetoric serves to correct human purpose and steer individuals toward virtuous behavior and harmonious social relations.

Page 114 →Just as Thoth determines the justice of outcomes to corresponding actions in a relational capacity, in a similar way he governs the orderly relation of the daily horological process. He measures and advises human conduct with counsel directed by wisdom to human affairs. Thoth represents the role of persuasion and counsel through proportional measure. The definition of rhetoric-as-Thoth would have no meaning except in the relations of persons and the proportionality of counsel and rejoinder to human action and purpose. Thoth’s relational purpose and function is likewise evident between geographies and the day-night cycle. Thoth mediates between fields of human speech and memory that unite to define another aspect of Egyptian rhetoric. However, the relational nature of this function has no meaning without Thoth providing the conceptual connection between the two. Ultimately, the invocation reveals the relational nature of Thoth’s role as both a personification of rhetoric and as a relational set of ideas in contextual action. The scribe’s self-identification with Thoth exemplifies the importance of maintaining balance and order through accurate information and wise counsel in ancient Egyptian society.

Haremhab offers a litany of expressions further illustrating Thoth’s relational nature and its connection to rhetoric in Egyptian culture. In a self-described “adoration of Thoth,” Thoth is said to be one “Who knows the secrets. Who records their expression, Who distinguishes one speech from another” (Lichtheim, 2006a, p. 423). This conjunction is important by distinction between the phrases it contains and bears examination. Thoth’s wisdom is the knowledge of categorical expression. As an expression of the relational ontology of rhetoric, Thoth has three related functions: knowledge, recordation, and the capacity to distinguish among categorical uses of language on a qualitative basis. Haremhab thus underscores that Thoth, as rhetoric in action, connects epistemic functions of communication to permanence. Likewise, rhetoric-as-Thoth connects the ability to evaluate utterances by making them permanent. In his patronage of the graphic medium, he makes the invisible visible and, therefore, subject to retrospective judgment. In other words, the function of Thoth as a relational actor is not merely to know, record, and evaluate statements, but to create a relationship between the activities, mental processes, and relative value of those records for use. This relational interaction is, therefore, one definition of rhetoric’s function in context, both social and intellectual. Thoth himself is characterized as one who speaks persuasively in a central rhetorical capacity in the host of gods; he “advises Re. Lets him know whatever happens,” underscoring rhetoric’s informative function among the gods, but just as centrally, he acts as a bridge between humans and gods.

Page 115 →Thoth is characterized as the “courier” of humankind. Haremhab seems to imply that he doesn’t carry the messages of humanity, but humanity itself from one world to the next. It is by virtue of his rhetorical capacities that moves human life, and by implication between one world and the next. Haremhab’s expression of conveyance is presumably not in the sense that Thoth conveys the dead to the next world but that he conveys people to the world of comprehension and intellectual action, creating a relationship between spheres of thought, existence, and action. Thoth “knows a man by his utterance” and “knows the secrets, Expounds their words”: he connects unspoken information to humans, subjects knowledge to retrospective examination, and permits humans to evaluate the knowledge and actions of one another (Lichtheim, 2006a, p. 423). Thus, the Egyptians recognized the fundamental power of rhetoric to convey symbolic form to processes that would otherwise be intangible and never subject to refinement. In this capacity, Thoth “changes turmoil to peace” as a personification of rhetorical judgment of all utterances (p. 424). Thoth is thereby the “judge of everyone,” and he is responsible for arbitrating disputes and ensuring that truth and justice prevail, representing the means of common social tranquility in action. His rhetorical embodiment lies not in discerning truth from falsehood or evaluating the comparative worth of persons by their utterance but in creating the means by which humans can evaluate the speech of one another to determine prospective action.

The remainder of the prayer underscores a uniquely Egyptian theory of rhetoric in their society and its relational ontology. Thoth’s calling to rhetorical skill, according to the petitioner, exceeds “all callings” because “It makes (men) great. He who masters it is found fit to hold office” (Lichtheim, 2006a, p. 435). That the goal of rhetoric, in part, was access to civic authority makes its telos analogous to ancient Graeco-Roman cultures. But the composition of the Haremhab inscription dated to the Middle Kingdom period, thereby preceding the emergence of Graeco-Roman rhetorical culture by 500 to 1,000 years. Thus, Thoth’s role was apparent at the beginning and in the midst of the life of an ancient Egyptian. Thoth’s role as relational rhetorical entia is notable in death, too.

Horemhab’s tomb at Saqqara is adorned with a vast array of scenes that depict his centrally rhetorical role in civic life. Martin (1989) has reproduced numerous plates that further show Haremhab venerating Thoth (pl. 139) in the central chapel, and sections of the wall relief show the scribal activity in the daily life of his court (Figure 10). There is another notable inscription regarding Thoth in the forecourt stela described by Martin (1989, p. 29), which contains “the longest surviving inscription in the Memphite tomb”: “Adoration to you, Thoth, lord of Hermopolis, who brought himself into being, who was not born, unique god, leader of the Netherworld, who gives instructions to the Westerners … who distinguishes the tongue of every foreign country; may you cause the royal scribe Horemheb to stand firmly by the side of the sovereign, as you were at the side of the lord of the universe” (p. 31). The inscription likewise reaffirms Horemheb’s consular role as akin to that of Thoth and Thoth as relational translator between humans and the divine world. Likewise, Thoth is the god of translation between persons and languages, as well as life and death, and provides relational distinction between them. Finally, he is portrayed as a teaching force and a consular force. Haremhab, as a scribe, diplomat, and leader of Egypt—as well as a social reformer—attributed every stage of his success, in some way, to Thoth. His inscriptions represent both a cross-section of Thoth’s perceived rhetorical power and his pervasive influence on the rhetorical culture of Egypt, at least in the Eighteenth Dynasty.

Page 116 →

Page 117 →Further evidence of Thoth’s pervasive role in the life and death of humans is found in the instructions of The Book of the Dead (Faulkner et al., 1994). They outline the manner in which, after death, the scroll’s user is given a set of instructions for his transition to the afterlife and must encounter various guards and wardens, one of whom is Thoth. At each stage, the deceased must name each entia. The episode involving Thoth is as follows: “ ‘I shall not announce you,’ Says the guard of the Hall, ‘Unless you tell my name,’ “ ‘Knower-of-hearts Examiner-of-bellies” is your name.’ ‘To which god present shall I announce you?’ ‘Tell it to the Interpreter of the Two Lands,’ ‘Who is the Interpreter of the Two Lands?’ ‘It is Thoth.’ ‘Come,’ says Thoth, ‘Why have you come?’ ‘I have come here to report’ ” (Lichtheim, 2006b, p. 131). Thoth’s role in the instructions of The Book of the Dead illuminates the nature of his rhetorical role. His role centralizes his position as the mediator between realms and the interpreter of the petitioner’s essence. As the deceased navigates the thresholds of the afterlife, encountering various guardians and challenges, Thoth emerges as a central figure, embodying the intricate dynamics of communication and transition (Figure 11). The episode involving Thoth unfolds as a dialogue imbued with symbolic significance. The guard of the Hall, representing a threshold between life and death, demands the petitioner’s acknowledgment through naming. By articulating Thoth’s epithets, such as “Knower-of-hearts” and “Examiner-of-bellies,” the petitioner identifies Thoth and acknowledges his multifaceted nature, which extends beyond mere linguistic representation. Thoth bridges life and death, but more significantly, he connects the state of being of the petitioner to the two only through naming and exposition. The petitioner announces himself, names Thoth, and is, in turn, announced and “translated” from death to life. Thoth as “the interpreter of the two lands” interprets both the language and the essence of the petitioner from one state of being to the next and from one “land” to the next. The transition of the deceased takes place in a process of announcement, interpolation, and persuasion through Thoth in a dialectical process.

Page 118 →Furthermore, the petitioner’s interaction with Thoth underscores the transformative power of language and communication. As the Interpreter of the Two Lands, Thoth serves as a bridge between the earthly realm and the afterlife, facilitating the transition of the petitioner’s being from one state of being to another (Nagel, 1942). Through the act of naming and exposition, the petitioner articulates their purpose and identity, inviting Thoth to interpret and facilitate their passage. Thoth’s crucial role as an interpreter extends beyond linguistic translation; it encompasses interpreting the petitioner’s essence and intention. By engaging in dialogue and persuasion, the petitioner communicates their presence and asserts their agency in a transitional process. Thoth in turn assumes the role of a guide and facilitator, orchestrating the petitioner’s journey across the liminal space between life and death. Thoth embodies the relational ontology inherent in transitioning from one state of being to another. Through the dynamic interplay of naming, exposition, and interpretation, he facilitates the petitioner’s passage, navigating the intricacies of identity and existence across the threshold of the afterlife. Thus, Thoth emerges as a relationally rhetorical figure even in the cosmological afterlife. His presence illuminates the transformative potential of rhetorical power in the liminal spaces of existence.

While the Haremhab inscription is authentic, early evidence of Thoth’s authentically Egyptian rhetorical nature, later artifacts and texts of mostly Demotic provenance present him in narrative form. One such piece of evidence that illuminates Egyptian perceptions of Thoth as a relationally rhetorical ontic figure is The Book of Thoth, assembled and translated into English by Richard Page 119 →Jasnow and Karl-Theodor Zauzich (2005). The Ancient Egyptian Book of Thoth is a late classical demotic text, placing it no later than Egypt’s gradual conversion to Coptic Christianity; however, copies of portions of the text exist in hieratic, which suggests it is a translation to Demotic Greek of a much earlier text. Its relevance to earlier periods is apparent because, as Bortolani (2019) pointed out, “the presence of Demotic and especially Hieratic cannot be explained outside an Egyptian priestly milieu” (p. 293). The absence of more hieratic versions is likely because the demotic corpus is often “the result of a long process of collection and reworking of earlier material which probably started before the first century” (p. 293). The Book of Thoth is a set of what appears to be scribal initiations into the cult of the House of Life, discussed in the previous chapter. The contents represent one point in a constellation of artifacts related to Thoth from which his fundamentally rhetorical nature can be understood. It is a set of questions and answers between disciples and an interlocutor generally identified as Thoth himself. Thus, predictably, Thoth plays a relational role in a (somewhat) linear narrative as a mediating guide to the initiates. Jasnow (2011) noted that The Book of Thoth “obviously deals with the hieroglyphs and writing in general” (p. 297). It thus contains numerous allusions to Thoth, his relationship to writing, and his relations to Egyptian novitiates.

The Book of Thoth contains an allusion to Thoth’s invention of writing, where “the signs revealed their forms” to Thoth and spoke to him (Jasnow & Zauzich, 2005, p. 282, emphasis in original). Thoth is not merely the mediator between humans and truth but also between humans, signs, and meaning. Westerfield (2019) has argued that “for Plato to attribute the invention of writing to the figure of Thoth-Hermes is perfectly consistent with Egyptian mythology, which had long identified Thoth as the scribe of the gods and the “lord of hieroglyph (nb mdw nṯr; p. 36). However, certain significant contextual clues provide a far more complete accounting of Thoth’s relationship to truth as a mediator. His patronage of writing may be simply an analogical expression because writing is a mediating act in which linguistic expression is an integral part. Moreover, writing mediates between the signified and signifier, which Egyptian texts seem to be expressly aware of: writing represents the thing between rhetorical intent and concretized expression. This corpus of texts demonstrates his character as a mediating intellectual force bridging language, the individual, and knowledge. Thoth’s gatekeeping function would strongly suggest that rhetoric was primary and writing secondary to his nature.

The Book of Thoth (Jasnow & Zauzich, 2005) explains that Thoth’s initiate “understands the difficult passages, and he elucidates the hieroglyphic signs” Page 120 → (p. 336). This understanding, to ancient Egyptians, transcended mere literacy because hieroglyphic signs did not just “stand for linguistic values”; instead, they “are inviolable things in their own right, implying a particular ontology” (Houston & Stauder, 2020, p. 9). It is explicitly stated in The Book of the Dead that Thoth writes what is true, making him a “master of laws who interprets writings” (Carrier, 2009, p. 183). Thus, Thoth’s power is immediately relational in the way he conveys signs to his disciples. But without Thoth as meditating rhetorical power, logically, this knowledge would be impossible. David Frankfurter (1994) has explained that Thoth stood above the signs he created, “bridging the vocal and written modes,” and that he existed as the mediating power between sign, sound, and meaning: the messenger (p. 193). As scribe of the gods, “Thoth symbolized the effective power of words as carried into the visual symbol and vice-versa,” making him the god of both “communication and signification” (p. 193). Another section of The Book of Thoth contains an allusion to the process of Thoth’s invention of writing: “The signs revealed their forms. He called out to them. They answered to him” (Jasnow & Zauzich, 2005, p. 338). Although the long poem is fragmented and the precise role of Thoth in the dialogue is somewhat in question, these passages bear scrutiny. They illustrate Thoth’s portrayal as a relational agent between words, ideas, and persons. First, if, as Jasnow and Zauzich contended, the interlocutor in the whole text is Thoth himself, he initiates the dialogue. He is the questioner who leads the pupils to knowledge. He is omnipresent and interstitial: nothing progresses without Thoth, although the nature of that progress contains ambiguous initiatory and mystical terminology.

Certain imagery suggests that Thoth acts as a relational force within the text itself and connects this force to writing. However, the collective textual evidence also suggests that Thoth was necessary in deriving meaning from written texts as an agent between signifier and signified. Thoth’s indispensability to semiotic operation in these liminal spaces would place an Egyptian worldview, where meaning derives from rhetorically relational contexts, as vital at both the semiotic and expressive levels. At one point the interlocutor Thoth states: “The document is a nest. The books [possible tr.’ Signs’] are its/his young ones” (p. 298), and later, “I desire to make an explanation (or “be a fisherman/bird-catcher”) of the signs” (p. 300). Another important detail of the Egyptian worldview is that Thoth is not the originator of the signs, but rather the figure who captures and organizes them. Thoth is a fowler whose quarry is the hieroglyphic signs. Thoth captures the fugitive signs and bridges the gap between signifier and signified, like a net that snares birds. He thus exists in a Page 121 →long continuum of rhetorical mythemes related to birds and netting. The image of Thoth as fowler suggests that he has a relational identity, combining signs as units into one meaningful whole. He is not a force representing the writing technology, but a force with a higher categorical set of rhetorical powers. Thoth serves as a description of the relation of things that created rhetorical meaning. Thoth is the inventor of writing as a sign of mediated knowledge, a critical part of his other multifaceted roles in ancient Egypt.

Thoth’s relation to hieroglyphic signs occurs in a similar netting image in The Book of Thoth, further illustrating the dichotomous nature. As Jasnow (2011) asserted, the author or compiler of The Book of Thoth seemed to “conceive, implicitly, if not explicitly, of writing as ‘capturing’ signs and, in a sense, subduing or ‘domesticating’ them” (p. 306). To use Jasnow’s parlance, Thoth the fowler is a mediator, catching and organizing the fugitive signs, and his role as fowler stands as a personified metaphor for the way language operates as a relational force in the Egyptian rhetorical imaginal. Jasnow explained that “Thoth has strong associations with trapping and nets,” and he cited several examples outside The Book of Thoth found as funerary art in discovered tombs (p. 306). Lichtheim (2006c) pointed out that Thoth’s temple at Hermopolis Magnae was referred to as “Mansion of the Net” (p. 101). We might conceive this “net” or web as a collating piece of Egyptian technology for ensnaring birds. However, this relational power exists between written signs, human participants, and comprehension. Thoth’s significance to Egyptian rhetoric was as a vital intermediary that pervaded even life itself; one passage testifies that “Thoth comes to the dead” and composes “the writing of breath with his fingers himself, so that your soul may breathe forever” (de Horrack, 1877, pp. 8–9).

Thus, in ancient Egyptian mythology, the gap between the signified and the signifier was a systemic and relational one imposed by Thoth as a totalizing contextual force. This force was rhetorical: it was from the abstract relation between units of being that signs assumed meaning. The net of Thoth the fowler was relational in the sense that while there may not be a direct relationship to the sign and the signifier, that meaning he facilitated is composed of the connections of units of meaning that have being. Thoth’s organizing rhetorical power is not merely between words but between and among humans and their associations with words. Suppose Thoth himself is this connective force, or invisible net of meaning and organization ordering the cosmos. In that case, the scribes are described as birds while determining their fitness to serve as his agents. Thoth’s “net” is the social practice of hermeneutic and rhetorical training associated with entering the service of Thoth. This netting is a mediating, Page 122 →organizing principle for an institution of earthly life. In The Book of Thoth, one of Thoth’s epithets is “he who has ordered the earth with his scribal palette” (Butler, 2013, p. 233). Thoth is not credited with creating the things of the earth but of organizing them into coherence. These epithets convey that the organizing principle at work through Thoth’s conceptual identity is not just in writing but reality itself, with a very unambiguous connection to a writing tool. By his instruction, Thoth again creates relational meaning between signs and persons, just as he is depicted as organizing and interpreting writings as a recurring theme in the corpus of Egyptian literature.

One more thing must be noted in this context: the fundamentally magical nature of Thoth’s structural power over all things, particularly language. Jacco Dieleman (2005) has pointed out the connection between texts and writing as a fundamental part of Egyptian magical practice (p. 235). He has noted that it seemed to be a prevailing belief by the time of the Hellenization of Egypt that the knowledge of magic originated from texts had to be authored by Thoth himself to be effective (p. 223). For example, at the outset of the Coffin Texts, spells for the passage of the dead into the next life always portray Thoth as the one who provides transit between worlds, a kind of cosmic mediator for the spirits of humans (Allen, 2013: ss. 359, ss. 470). Similarly, Thoth, as a relational agent between signs and the organization of the universe itself, conveyed semiotic meaning to the world. Assmann (2007) has explained, “Thoth, the god of script, only has to find, not invent, what is inherent in the structure of things. He copies the interior writing of the heart onto papyrus,” thus underscoring that theoretical concepts and reality interrelate in ancient Egypt only through the power of Thoth—and thereby language (p. 27). In the Memphite Theology, Thoth has unlimited access to the relational net of knowledge, as well as the essence of all meaning embodied in written signs. His control of relational knowledge places him as both the mediator of magical language and a messenger of truth; Assmann explained, “it is quite evident that ‘divine speech’ refers to the signs (and not to the sounds), which Thoth commands, which the sacred books contain and which constitute the sacred script” (p. 27).

The Tale of Setne illustrates that all magic available to humans must originate from Thoth’s hand and that the power of magic is so pervasively rhetorical as to have metaphysical consequences. The power rhetoric conveys on mortals is highly coveted and closely guarded; transgressing this knowledge without Page 123 →him can result in terrible consequences. The Tale of Setne was another late demotic collation of a myth in which Thoth plays a vital part. It therefore may have been another likely artifact from which Plato interpreted Thoth’s nature. In fact, Thoth’s appearance in Phaedrus seems less and less confounding if one considers that the episode recounted in Phaedrus may have been adapted from an early episode in the Setne narrative that is now lost. Setne and the Book of Thoth (Setne 1) is preserved completely except for the first two columns on P. Cairo 30646, and thus the beginning of the story is missing; Plato may have been referring to an episode therein (see, e.g., Griffith, 1900). However, more significantly, Setne illustrates some of the authentic qualities of Egyptian rhetoric as a form of relational ontology.

Setne and the Book of Thoth is the most narrative in character of all mythic examples of the relation of writing, magic, and Thoth’s power between them. In it, we see a protracted metaphorical narrative that is the story of the human search for truth in the form of the magical language of Thoth written in his hand. Thus, a connection to Thoth’s relational being as power is illustrated in the narrative. The relations of sign and meaning are characterized as only properly accessible through Thoth’s mediation. As a relational mediator, Thoth provides insight into the world of truth, which is shown in the small details of the narrative and its structural. Without reference to a number of details unrelated to Thoth and language, Dieleman (2005) described the narrative: “The main theme of Setne is the inevitable failure of any human endeavor to get hold of divine knowledge” for frivolous reasons such as “sheer curiosity” (p. 230). To do so otherwise blurs “the division between the divine and human spheres” (p. 230). It would be easy to conclude from Setne that Thoth was the only available means for humans to know truth, or that divine and human knowledge was categorically “separate” in the Egyptian worldview. Setne stands for the proposition that it was only rhetoric, in its relational operations, that permits a responsible use of meaning and language in harmony with the universe itself.

One episode from Setne bears particular examination. The tale relates to Prince Setne’s attempt to retrieve the magical Book of Thoth. But Setne’s intent is not to merely obtain a magical book but to recover it from the grave of Naneferkaptah. Naneferkaptah stole the Book of Thoth, later died, and was entombed with it. The episode describing the misadventure of Naneferkaptah stands as a cautionary tale concerning the human use of language without the relational ontology presumed by Egyptian rhetorical traditions. Unmediated access to language without the mediating principles of rhetoric results in an unnatural use of an uncontrollable—essentially magical—power. The episode Page 124 →of Naneferkaptah is the story of the consequences of the use of language without the contextually mediating power of Thoth-as-rhetoric. Setne learns that when Naneferkaptah first acquires the book, he read a spell from it and illicitly uses language without a relational understanding of its implications. The rhetorical “magic” of Thoth is a knowledge of the responsible use of meaning and language in harmony with the universe. Without Thoth, chaos then ensues when “He recited a spell from it; [he charmed the sky, the earth, the netherworld, the] mountains, the waters. He discovered what all the birds of the sky and the fish of the deep and the beasts of the desert were saying. He recited another spell; he saw [Pre appearing in the sky with his Ennead], and the Moon rising, and the stars in their forms. He saw the fish of the deep, though there were twenty-one divine cubits of water over them. He recited a spell to the [water; he made it resume its form]” (Lichtheim, 2006c, p. 130).

The narrative permits one to consider the categorically transgressive nature of Naneferkaptah’s crime; its dimensions permit a better understanding of Thoth as a representation of Egyptian rhetoric and the power of rhetoric as magic. Without the rhetorical judgment personified by Thoth, Naneferkaptah had direct access to magical knowledge. In an Egyptian context with its attendant rhetorical assumptions, Naneferkaptah thereby committed a much greater crime than an impermissible insight into a forbidden book. By placing himself in Thoth’s place in the natural order, Naneferkaptah not merely gains knowledge of the relation of things; he also acquires a direct power to circumvent their relational meaning. This is because “The existence of original knowledge” attributed to Thoth “written by his hand, was axiomatic” (Eyre 2013, p. 277). Naneferkaptah’s crime is against the fabric of the real itself. Without the mediation of Thoth’s rhetorical wisdom, the power of language itself disrupted the meaning and being of the human place in the universe. Naneferkaptah acts without the relational balance implicit among those things. In stealing from Thoth, who represents the rhetorical and ordered balance states of being, Naneferkaptah circumvents the cosmic order implicit in the relation of things. It was the relation of things that lent all meaning to the things themselves—especially language—and without that collective integrity, a crime was committed in the eyes of the gods. As a result, Naneferkaptah was horribly punished.

Thoth’s imposition of justice and order through rhetorical power among beings is a significant aspect of his character. This power, which is relational and personified, exists between words, ideas, and things. This power gave order to the human capacity to relate as individuals to the cosmos through language. The contrast is stark when considering Naneferkaptah’s trespass, representing Page 125 →a terrible inversion of that natural order. In discovering what the birds and beasts were “saying,” Naneferkaptah understood the ontological relationship of things—the rhetoric of nature. Instead of existing in his proper place in relation to “the sky, the earth, the netherworld,” Naneferkaptah “charms” them, gaining the power to change the form of the water itself. Naneferkaptah’s trespass is to exist in a world without the rhetorical order that establishes the proper relationship between the human world of values ordained through rhetoric and the world of the things in nature. Thus, his crime was a fundamentally magical one: his “crime against nature” is to blur the relations of humans and the cosmos without the necessary presence of the order and values created by Thoth-as-idea. To the Egyptians, the universe derives its meaning from the relation of the things in it, and those relations are ultimately ones that humans agree upon. Human rhetorical judgment regulates this consensus and therefore provides order and meaning. Thoth ultimately personified that rhetorical consensus.

Thoth’s legacy in the Hermetic tradition continued unabated for centuries; his identification as “the Egyptian Hermes” in later period of classical antiquity, in works strongly related to the origins of rhetoric, would reach a crescendo in periods long after the historical scope of this work. Diodorus Siculus (1989), in his Aegyptica, would identify him as the progenitor of writing, language, and pivotal technology in human history (1.15.9–16.2; A. T. Cole, 1967, p. 154). It was Thoth, the “Egyptian Hermes,” who expanded on the rudimentary ability of humans to articulate with the power of hermeneia (ἑρμηνεία), which he uses in the sense of the amplification and explanation of complex thoughts (1.1.16). In his commentary on Hesiod, Byzantine poet and Grammarian John Tzetzes identified the Egyptian Hermes as allegorically synonymous with the logos itself. (A. T. Cole, 1967, p. 21).

The profound and enduring cultural impact of Thoth’s representation bears note and can serve as a conclusion. The Latin West and Arab world continued to invoke Thoth, generally in name only, and his name was largely synonymous with magic in the Hermetic magical tradition for centuries. Hermetic magicians, at different times, even maintained the existence of an object known as the Emerald Tablet of Thoth. They mythologized it as an artifact of power; most occult works invoking Thoth exhibit limited understanding that Thoth’s magic was conceptual, categorical, and rhetorical. This fundamental misconception Page 126 →about the nature of Thoth left his name extant on textual and material evidentiary artifacts that were a byproduct of this strange occult tradition. As late as the last century, for example, occultist Maurice Doreal (1930) produced a book that alleged to contain Thoth’s secret knowledge, entitled The Emerald Tablets of Thoth the Atlantean. Doreal claimed that he discovered its contents in the Great Pyramid of Giza in 1925 and proceeded to establish a cult. Such misadventures are well outside this book’s historical scope, but they illustrate the enduring power of myth and its long shadow, with real cultural consequences when unmoored from their original context. Within the scope of this book, myths and the nature of the gods themselves began to be actively engaged in a wholly different cultural context. Thoth himself will make a Hellene appearance, along with many other notable rhetorical gods and heroes. Thoth would not only mediate between rhetoric and humanity in Egypt, but through Plato, function to metaphorically mediate Plato’s vie on rhetoric for the Greeks.