Rhetoric Beyond the Mediterranean
The Greeks may have created many of the foundations of modern rhetoric, but there were civilizations that discussed similar themes of rhetoric and composition before them. Unfortunately, the Greeks did not credit them properly as they wanted their ideas to seem autonomous and unique. The Egyptians only began appearing in literature on rhetoric during the mid-1980’s, and this is a common trend for many African countries as many Western thinkers saw it as a mysterious land (the “dark continent”).
The first Egyptian piece we read is “Teaching of Ptahhotep”. I believe the author we could compare this closely to is Quintillian’s “The Institutes of Oratory” because of its main argument that the young are not born with wisdom, but they must cultivate this throughout their lives. Quintillian makes this argument in his own work, and he exemplifies the importance of key figures in one’s life to cultivating a good person. However, it is also a poetic piece, and reflective of the poem by Lu Ji last week. If anything, I think the poetic nature actually translated better in this version because there are some close rhymes in this piece and the format is closer to current poetry styles with short lines, like when Ptahhotep claims, “Eyes are grown small, ears deaf. . . Bones ache his whole length.” The argument the author wishes to make here is that he is ready for retirement, and it is integral to note that the audience is a king in a court/legal setting. The worker paints his life as bleak now that he is older and withering, but he wishes his son to take his status. The king in the narrative then gives great advice on how to approach situations for the son to utilize in his work, because the young are not born with wisdom but must be taught. One note I thought had a lot of compassion is when the king states, “be patient in your hearing when the petitioner speaks, do not halt him until his belly is emptied. . . if a petition is halted, people say 'but why did he break that rule?'. Not everything for which he petitions can come to be, but a good hearing is soothing for the heart.” I don’t recall any other piece we read this semester that had that much emotional understanding of victim mentality, and I appreciate the advice that one should allow everyone to relay all they wish in a court before they are convicted if they did something wrong due to pain/an injustice. It is healing for a victim or defendant to make their entire case, especially if they suffered at the hands of another who is involved with the crime. It may not serve as a good justification, but to be inclusive, all must have their chance to speak.
I also wanted to note the formatting, as each stanza is focused on a different piece of wisdom, very similar to “The Wisdom of Amenemope” and the organization in that work. This wisdom is more focused on the judicial setting, but it again relays the same themes of finding the truth and being good.
One example of an Egyptian rhetorical exercise is “The Instructions of Dua-Khety”. It is meant to persuade readers to continue an education in writing, as it satirically pinpoints negative aspects of other careers. I found some of them humorous, such as, “I see the coppersmith at his toil at the mouth of his furnace his fingers like crocodile skin his stench worse than fish eggs.” This is informative, but also entertaining in nature so it will stick in one’s head with the illustrative similes. I could picture rhetoric students rewriting this over and over to keep them inspired in their studies, and maybe we should try this exercise to keep us inspired during finals time ha!
The argument in “The Instructions of Dua-Khety” is framed with the beginning focused on some of the positives of the writing profession, such as “He accomplishes the wish of another when he is not succeeding I do not see a profession like it that you could say that phrase for.” I found this in particular kind of interesting because it is true in rhetorical arguments that somebody will succeed regardless of who wins in the end. However, I believe even this is a bit satirical, as most of the time, you don’t want the other side to succeed (but it is true). Next, the piece shifts into examples of professions that do not have any of these or other benefits. One of the examples that stood out to me was because of its sexist nature, when the author states, “The mat-weaver (lives) inside the weaving-house he is worse off than a woman, with his knees up to his stomach, unable to breathe in any air.” I need to understand the role women had in Egyptian society to fully understand this reference/quote, and after doing a little research, I found that women did have some of the worst jobs in society as they were expected to be dutiful mothers/wives and do all of the chores and work of the home alongside a hard labor job (weaving, perfume making, etc.)
Additionally, the “The Wisdom of Amenemope” is very reminiscent of the philosophy pieces of the Greeks, and I wonder if this inspired some of the Greek pieces we read in class. However, I also find this piece very similar to Lu Ji’s “The Art of Writing” because of its poetic nature, and the way it utilizes general similes/metaphors to describe how to live life justly. Each section heading has a piece of wisdom/advice such as “Time Changes All” and “Be Generous Towards Others”.
One sentiment the author shares is reflective of “The Difficulties of Persuasion” by Han Fei Tzu, as he explains, “Keep your tongue from answering your superior, And take care not to insult him. Let him not cast his speech to catch you, Nor give free rein to your answer. Converse with a man of your own measure, And take care not to offend him.” Although it may have been more important to appeal to someone as powerful as an emperor or a pharaoh, it is good general advice across culture and time to understand power hierarchies and how one must be persuasive subtly towards those who are above them, so as not to offend them. If you offend these people, even by accident, then they may not bother to listen at all to what you have to say afterwards or they may even punish you.
Another integral piece of advice that is important in the history of rhetoric in this piece is the idea that the truth is the most important part to an argument as it leads to goodness and righteousness. As the piece suggests, one should “not confound a man in the law court, In order to brush aside one who is right.” Socrates and Quintillian would have likely agreed, but most of all, Plato would have backed up this argument as it has the same reasoning as the use of dialectic debates where acquiring the truth is integral above all else.
The next culture we analyzed this week was India through the textbook, “The Argumentative Indian” by Amartya Sen. The preface discloses that this is only one way to analyze the works of argumentation in Indian history, as the culture is widely diverse and full of various heterodoxical ideas. Some of these major concepts are separated by two groups: one who praises ancient India (primarily Hindus) and contemporary India (integrationists). Essentially, the argument is whether ancient religious texts should dictate governance or if India should be more secular in nature in regards to the law. India is so diverse, with various religions living within its borders, so I personally hope they can adhere to more secular rulings and reasoning. The Vedas and Ramayana are important texts that should be studied, respected, and considered, but I do not believe they should be the dictating text of the government, due to the high percentage of Muslims in the country who have other beliefs of how the world should be run. The Hindutva activists also must consider, “It is necessary also to see how much heterodoxy there has been in Indian thoughts and beliefs from very early days. Not only did Buddhists, Jains, agnostics and
atheists compete with each other and with adherents of what we now call Hinduism (a much later term) in the India of the first millennium BCE, but also the dominant religion in India was Buddhism for nearly a thousand years.” These believers must recognize that India has always been a diverse state full of a blend of cultural identities (including a dominant religion that was NOT Hinduism), if they wish to truly adhere to their doctrine. The Buddhist emperor Ashoka relayed some ways to handle disputes and debates in regards to tolerance, while Akbar further cemented this belief (Muslim emperor). These traditions also focus on the importance of the voice of the orator/rhetorician/speaker, and how this helps social justice initiatives. Furthermore, there is a battle between Eastern and Western beliefs, with many cultural theorists being against the Western styles of sympathism and rationalism, rather than Eastern’s focus on adherence to faith and reasoning.
In chapter 1, various works are discussed, and the note is made that many Indian works are lengthier than their Greek counterparts of the time. One major work discussed is the Bhagavad Gita, which I did get to read in my undergraduate class on mythology. I did find it a little problematic that Krishna argued so forcefully that there must be violence in order to come to a conclusion, but then he would go on to preach the importance of yoga and meditation for peace. I understand that God may have specific roles for individuals, such as warriors, but Aryuna had reasonable doubts– his family members were on the opposing side, and he definitely would not feel pleasure in doing this. This text does highlight a more Eastern thought of not bending one’s message to appease others, and to execute what must be done without sympathy or reluctance. As long as one is doing it for a just cause and there is justification, then I suppose I have to agree, but one must debate reasonably to avoid making a mistake (such as how Oppenheimer felt about the atomic bomb).
Another topic to recognize is that, “ India has had deep inequalities along the lines of gender, class, caste and community (on which more presently)”, so there is not equal representation in the literature/canon (which is primarily males with power and money). The BrihadaraNyaka Upanisad does have one famous debate between the main character and a woman where Gargi (the female character),“as an intellectual and pedagogue, is no military leader. . . her use of imagery is strikingly militant.” She is a strong speaker, and she does end up agreeing with the main speaker and is appeased with his answer. In this same story, the main character’s wife, Maitreyi, pushes the speaker to think about whether wealth truly is important if it does not make one immortal. This one question has been repeated throughout religious discourse to explain the fickle nature of material goods and wealth. To add, Draupadi is a female character in the Kiratarjun"iya who doubts men as “The kings of your race, brave as Indra, have for a long time ruled the earth without a break. But now with your own hand you have thrown it away.” She demands action to be made by men to fix the problems they caused on their own (take accountability!)– a very progressive thing to say at this time.
Next, the author credits India’s use of debates as inspiring and developing their current state of democracy that is uniquely non-Western. Public discussions created it, and it is through ballots that these discussions are put to use at creating change. However, I do want to pull out this note from the text where the author states, “It is very important to avoid the twin pitfalls of (I) taking democracy to be just a gift of the Western world that India simply accepted when it became independent, and ( 2) assuming that there is something unique in Indian history that makes the country singularly suited to democracy.” Democracy in India is not necessarily the same or even derived from the Greek democracy society typically credits. The Buddhist councils of the early days is accredited to this development, because they wanted to discuss the differences between religions and schools of thought to promote social progress. Ashoka in particular fought for this progress, and he desired there to be no violence in this pursuit of truth and balance.
Lastly, the heterodoxy of the past did lead to India’s secularism today, as I stated in an earlier note. Although I already discussed Buddhism, I also wanted to mention Jainism which has, “ survived as a powerful Indian religion over two and a half millennia”. There were also waves of Jewish communities throughout India’s history, and Muslim Arab traders. All of this diversity bred the current environment of India today.