Egyptian Rhetoric

Reading about ancient Egyptian rhetoric in comparison to the Greek rhetoric we have read all semester was very interesting. Some notable differences and similarities I picked up on are listed below.

Differences:

·       The time difference – Classical Greek rhetoric began in the 5^th century, while ancient Egyptian rhetoric began in 2200 BC – 1500 BC

·       The difference between concrete examples of rhetoric and lessons about it – Greeks seemed to offer more oral examples of rhetoric and the power of speech while Egyptians have more general concepts and theories about eloquent speech

·       Egyptian lessons in rhetoric included daily behavior, ethics, etiquette and speech lessons, while Greek lessons focus mostly on speech strategies

·       The Egyptian lesson books show educational relationships between fathers and sons, rather than instructor and students in Greek rhetoric

·       The definition of Egyptian rhetoric is “the principle of fine speech.” It suggests nothing about persuasion or influencing others through language, which is the heart of Western definitions of rhetoric

·       Silence is a virtue of Egyptian rhetoric and not a practice of Western rhetoric

·       Egyptian rhetoric focuses on the ethos of a speaker without any mention of paths and logos appeals. Western rhetoric uses the rhetorical triangle to show the equal importance of ethos, pathos, and logos

·       Much of Egyptian rhetoric references God and becoming closer to Him through eloquent speech, Western rhetoric is not religious besides Plato’s attempts to reach true knowledge and the perfection that only God has

Similarities:

·       Both recognize the power of language

·       Both focus a lot of attention on the audience --- tailoring your speech to appeal to the specific crowd you are addressing

·       Both have idea of kiaros, the ideal time to speak

·       Both highly regard style in speech

·       Both use rhetoric for political purposes – to maintain order and to represent yourself

“The Prophecies of Neferti” is a great representation of Egyptian rhetoric used for political purposes. It helps maintain the political order by praising the King and describing the devastation that would occur without him. It includes emotional appeals in the descriptions of all the terrible things that could happen in the future. It uses parallel structure to organize the negative images saying, “I show you….” “I show you….” The same repetitive structure is used saying, “See, that (now) exists … See, the great one … See, they are before your eyes … See, there are great men …” This kind of repetition makes oral speeches more memorable. It reminds me of Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech.

“The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant” is a different rhetorical piece because it demonstrates a member breaking the political and social order, rather than reiterating the importance of maintaining to the order like “The Prophecies of Neferti.” The peasant’s eloquence saves him. He appeals to ethos and pathos in his speeches by first demonstrating respect for the chief steward and then speaking about his personal sorrows and suffering. Just as the article suggests, the speaker in this rhetorical situation does not follow the virtue of silence. Rather, he boldly shares his opinions about the unfair system and questions those superior to him. This story reminded me of the story that was included in the opening of Victor essay last week. Just as the peasant surprised the chief stewards with his eloquent speech, the Incan shocked the Franciscans with his speech. However, the peasant was rewarded in this story, unlike the Incans.

Questions:

1.     How does silence appear to the public today? Consider political debates, what would happen to the reputation of a candidate who was silent instead of debating back and forth?

2.     Which piece, “The Prophecies of Neferti” or “The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant” did you find more rhetorically pleasing? Which was most similar to Western rhetoric?