Much like Lipson's essay in this book, I found Sweeney's essay extremely engaging. It's not an 'easy read' yet it is still comparatively easy to follow. A great example that something doesn't have to be unduly difficult and over-worded to be interesting and challenging!
What fascinates me most in this text is the rhetoric of the ancient Egyptian justice system and court procedure. The similarities to most modern 'western' courts is quite striking, though there are some significant variances. on page 101 - "Professional Lawyers did not exist...generally everyone spoke for themselves." This indicates that people as a whole were capable of rhetoric within the laws of the time. The ability to defend oneself in a court room today would seem completely overwhelming for most people, the rhetoric used in the courts by lawyers and judges not to mention the rhetoric of the laws themselves are so complex today. I makes me wonder if laws and the rhetoric connected to them were more simple in ancient Egypt, or if people were simply more educated to understand them on a whole?
The most glaring difference between the practices of these ancient Egyptian courts and current ones is the following, also on page 101 - "In interrogations...culprits and witnesses were placed under oath to speak the truth...If they refused to speak, they were tortured by beating and by having their hands and feet mangled, either until they gave evidence or until it was plain they had nothing to say."
Yikes. Not exactly humane. Because of this it must be rather impossible to know whether these individuals gave
honest testimony or just said anything to cease the torture.
No doubt, there is a practice of torturing people to gain information that still goes on in the world today (and a whole set of rhetoric that surrounds it) but it is generally not practiced out in the open - if someone robs a house and is put on trial they're not going to have their hands and feet mangled because they won't talk - I'm obviously referring to 'western' courts because its the realm that I understand and have reference to the most.
Another thing I noticed is how intrinsically linked the rhetoric of the court and laws are with the rhetoric of religion. On page 102- "The gods were also considered to intervene of their own accord, by inflicting illness, nightmares, or twinges of bad conscience to encourage witnesses rescind false evidence or to come forth with information they had previously withheld."
In this information about ancient Egypt and its cultural rhetoric, there's always the overhanging theme of eternal consequence if one does not do what is 'right' as viewed by the culture of the time. The man made laws were supported and made more powerful by the idea of everlasting consequences. A very powerful rhetoric. No one wants to be damned forever and so the rhetoric of religion uses pathos and preys on emotions to create motivation for the ancient Egyptians to 'do right'.
I agree that Sweeney's chapter was quite engaging and I like the rhetorical devices you chose to focus on in your post. I think that pain and torture are still widely used today in interrogation situations all over the world. And even here in the states although, instances here likely don't receive much attention. I have heard that in some places around Europe, you just don't mess with the law. The police can take out their night sticks and beat the crap out of you, and sometimes there are no court proceedings, just a quick beating instead. I also find interest in religion as a rhetorical device because, while in a fairly closed off culture like Ramesside Egypt religion was probably a legitimate rhetorical, and while religion is still found in modern court systems, it seems less applicable in this age because of the ways in which cultures have sort of mixed. There are many people of science these days and swearing an oath over a bible may not have any moral effect on them.
ReplyDeleteResponding to your first question, I think that courtrooms were more straightforward, but not necessarily more simple. Our law system today is designed to generate money not justice. As you pointed out, lawyers and judges have their own rhetoric, which creates the specialty-for-profit environment. I see ancient Egyptian courtrooms as a lesson in speaking for yourself and being prepared to do so at any given moment. In today’s society, we can plead the 5th or simply allow another to do all our talking.
ReplyDeleteThe rhetoric of religion was another interesting point. I like your interpretation and analysis of the use of religion in ancient Egyptian courtroom. It made me immediately think of our own culture. How many times have I been dissuaded from doing something because of the possible eternal consequences? Probably too many times to count… And I’m not even religious. The rhetoric of eternity (which I think spans multiple genres) is a fascinating field of study from ancient times to current times and across cultural boundaries.