I felt that Sweeny’s article was much more intuitive than
the past ones I have read so far. I say so because she is tapping into
everyday rhetorics. She is using these historical texts to speculate on how
common layperson’s interact. So far, we have been only seeing rhetorical
contexts provided social elites who do not include the overwhelming majority. I
have always wanted to know about how regular people become rhetorical and how
well they fair in the rhetorical situation.
For that, I would like to speak on my favorite example from
the article. On page 104, she gives the example that, “ Naunakthe, a woman
living at Deir el-Medina, bequeathed her property to those of her children who
had supported her in old age cutting her ungrateful children out of her will.”
The woman she is describing is using antithesis and parallelism in this
rhetorical situation, (Sweeny said so a page earlier) The woman in question
made the case that she cared for her children and that not all of them cared
for her in return. Therefore, those who did not reciprocate do not deserve inheritance
(a gift of kinship).
The other thing that Sweeny did well to illustrate this was the
emphasis on pathos over the other two. It makes perfect sense because common
people did not have any sense of ethos in rhetorical situations like court
cases, nor did they (frankly) have much logos to use to their advantage. Sweeny
pointed out this as an example, “Culprits might also insist that false accusations
had been brought against them out of personal enmity….”. By placing someone in an untrustworthy light
the defendant evidently is constructing immoral motives on making him a
defendant in the first place. It does not prove him/her innocent or guilty, but
it sways the juror, emotionally.. What is interesting is that it is not too
uncommon for people to use this rhetorical tactic in civil disputes today.
I agree with you about Sweeney’s text being one of the more intuitive texts we have read up to this point. I also agree that it is largely because she explores the rhetoric of common people rather than exalted kings and emperors. It is interesting that pathos was so commonly used over the other two appeals, like you said, because there was no sense of ethos, and not much logos among the common people. There sure is a big flaw in that system, as many immoral and vengeful claims would be prevalent, and in court nonetheless. Still, it did give the common people a chance to redeem themselves and at least put up some kind of defense, like the woman you referred to who pleaded to remove her more ungrateful children from her will. The fact that this kind of rhetoric is being used today as well, luckily outside of court, is fascinating to me. I think we all are guilty of trying to persuade someone through pathos at some point or another, making them feel bad or take sympathy in you.
ReplyDeleteI like how she explores the rhetoric of the common, and I was interested in how this affected the society in general. Sweeney discusses how "professional lawyers did not exist in ancient Egypt; generally, everyone spoke for themselves" (Sweeny 101).
ReplyDeleteTo me what's intriguing about this is that I am inclined to think that most citizens were versed in some sort of persuasion, whether it be in court, or just in every day existence because they had no choice but to defend themselves. As such, they would be familiar to forms of persuasion just through simple interactions with others attempting to persuade as well.
A good example of this is: "women of slightly lower social standing engaged in small-scale trading and sold articles in the market, which would have given them some experience in negotiation" (Sweeney 106). So, there is no divide between the elite's rhetoric and the rhetoric of the common (at least not yet). All citizens interact and discuss things in similar ways, and that's what defines their rhetoric. As such, a society interacts with itself through a common form of discourse, that to me is interesting and certainly provides an understanding into why there was equality (apparent) between men and women.
I agree that Sweeny´s text was much more intuitive than the past ones, and I really enjoyed reading it, because it focused on the common. I found the example with Naunakthe interesting for many reasons. Her appeal is refreshing to read about and it lets the audience see a new way of applying pathos and reason. It is intriguing to read that even in the old times a common woman was able to plead for justice when wronged, and that they would listen to her. This shows how the Egyptian society was able to use pathos, without logos (which would be hard for a common woman). I like that you end your post with the statement: What is interesting is that it is not too uncommon for people to use this rhetorical tactic in civil disputes today. During the whole article I kept thinking the same, and it shows how much we, in our society rely on pathos.
ReplyDelete