Once again, the art of persuasion rears its head. Sweeney’s
article “Law, Rhetoric, and Gender in Ramesside Egypt” allows us to make
comparisons between our rhetoric and law and Egyptian law and rhetoric. First, our
rhetoric to persuade a court relies much more heavily on forensic evidence
while Egyptian rhetoric relied more heavily on swearing oaths and the gods
intercepting on the innocent’s behalf. I guess we have a similar view of
justice, but it holds in our religious views that we attempt to keep separate from
our judicial system, even if we do not always succeed.
One interesting point I saw in the book was that everyone
had to speak for themselves. In the US, the right to defense is pretty new and
leads me to believe that either most (male) Egyptians were at least decently
eloquent, well reasoning, the judges were extremely fair, or the poor defenders
were fed to the wolves. However, since the prosecution also had to speak for
themselves, if the defense was guilt yet persuasive, then they probably were
released. I realize as I’m typing this that our legal system works the same
way. Overlap is expected since this judicial system likely provided the
foundation for ours.
One difference we have made between those times
and present time is less discrimination towards women. While I recognize that
we have not eradicated discrimination, it exists at a much lower level than the
article suggests it did back then. The rhetoric for women today gives women
more of a voice. Instead of just theoretically equal rights, women are
demanding being treated like they have equal rights. Luckily for women today,
unlike the ancient Egyptian women, we have more education and opportunities to
speak in public than they did. However, if Barbra Lesko is correct and women
really did assert themselves in Egyptian court, then they may not have been
quite as behind as we assume from ancient cultures.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBeing an exchange student here in the US, it is very interesting to see differences and different views on things such as the court of law. It is interesting to learn that you find these similarities between the US legislative system and the ancient Egyptian system. Having only the Norwegian system as reference, I find it fascinating that religion is sometimes a part of the US system. Perhaps not the best example to use, but I have watched TV programs like Judge Judy, where religion is surprisingly often used as a way to claim one’s innocence. Religion is never used in the Norwegian court system, as it is both frowned upon in formal settings, and is also not allowed to use in the court at all.
ReplyDeleteLike Erlend commented, it is really interesting for me as an exchange student to see how different we relate to this text, because of the views on legislative system. I do not completely agree with him when he says that religion is never used in the Norwegian court system, because we do have some similarities with the US system, just not to the same degree. I don’t know if I completely agree with that the rhetoric of women today gives them more of a voice. I would rather think that the rhetorical situation has changed and their ethos, and that’s what makes it more powerful.
ReplyDelete