Rhetoric and Culture

"They therefore seldom record rhetoric of the density that appears in literary texts." (Pg. 107) It is very interesting to me how conclusions are drawn in this article. Throughout this article the author comes to many conclusions about just how rhetoric was used in this Ramesside Egypt. We see many instances of how people talked in court and why. On the same hand however, we are told that most of what was used as evidence was mere factual records. I am confused then as to how we can pull inferences such as the one that women could speak freely in court but most likely the women who are in court are somewhat desperate, or braver than other women without looking beyond just a court or factual records.

            It also interests me how women and people were treated and how people acted in this society, or in other words, how rhetoric was used in people’s every day lives. We see some hints of this throughout the text. For example we see that people did not talk negatively about other people, and we see that women were not given the kind of rhetorical training men were.

            I think in order to gain some of the claims we see in this text and in other texts; one must look at more than just one instance or circle of rhetoric. In order to draw claims, an author is forced to look at society and culture outside of the immediate circle they want to observe. There is no way, for example, to understand the cruel punishment and torture of the time for people with potential knowledge of the crime without understanding the culture. Without this being culturally acceptable, something like this would not be tolerated.

            I would argue, in order to understand any part of rhetoric, one must first start to understand the culture, as every single rhetor is born out of a culture and views the world because of the culture and society around them.