In section we will go over the readings from "Upheaval and Rebellion" and "Law and Ethics".
For your post pick ONE line from one of the primary source readings (all are in Simpson apart from the Nauri decree which is on Blackboard)and use that line as a foundation for your analysis of a larger topic.
One of the skills I hope you all develop in this course is close line reading: that is, pinpointing specific literary evidence for understanding the greater worldview or beliefs of the society that produced that literature.
Quote the line and the text it's from and then use the information provided in that line to address any topic you wish. You can focus on the two topics from this week or write about anything else we've touched upon in lecture and section.
No repeats please unless you have something completely different to say from your colleagues!!
The following are a line quoted from "The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage", also known as "The Admonitions of Ipuwer":
ReplyDelete"Where is (God) today? Does he indeed sleep?
Behold, his power is no more seen."
It could be argued that religion exerted a very heavy influence in ancient Egypt. The religious aspects of society could be seen in all forms and functions, as there is typically a deity for everything (literally, everything). Further, the sun-god Re is directly connected with the king himself by a father-son relationship and the king is a divine figure too. The entire existence of Egyptian society relied on the religious backdrop, which is why this particular line stood out to me. It can be imagined that such a question, "where is God today?" would not be asked in times of peace and abundant wealth, for in the Egyptians' belief it is the gods who determined the flood of the Nile and other ecological factors that might impact economy. This line also exemplifies the strength of this belief, for even in time of such troubles (during the First Intermediate Period), the people are still seeking out to the gods and religious powers to ameliorate the situation. However, on the contrary it also demonstrates the hopelessness of the situation at the time. Quite literally, without god and without their belief system, nothing seemed to make sense and the time seemed bleak indeed. This text of Ipuwer employed much anaphora, with the majority of the text beginning with "verily" and at some parts "behold" and "destroyed". The repetition of "verily" shows the extent to which Egyptians suffered from famine, the loss of ma'at, and the disintegration of what used to be a highly stratified social system. "Behold" and "destroyed" too provide specific examples of this transformation as a result of this political period. The anaphora is significant particularly when linked to this line from the text because one could argue that only when situation gets so terrible do Egyptians begin to question their belief system, which once again proves just important having a solid belief system was to the ancient Egyptians.
‘Of what use is a treasury without its income?
ReplyDeleteIndeed the heart of a king is content (only) when his tribute comes to him.’
Ipuwer spoke these words in the Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage, and they speak loud volumes about the King’s tight hierarchy and intense influence being contingent on tax collection. As occurred in the First Intermediate Period, famines could last so long that the king’s grain storehouses ran empty and the people starved. In turn, Egyptians couldn’t afford to pay taxes and grain growth was a rarity, only occurring on certain parts of the delta. This prompted mobs and upheaval (also evidenced in this text), which were only worsened by the King’s total lack of authority. During chaotic times like this, maat was not in balance and because the King lacked power and position, social mobility was not impossible. Two general routes could lead one to a high social status: robbery or a grand tomb. These two paths were very correlated. Because people weren’t paying taxes and social advancement was feasible, graves actually became very ornate during times of social upheaval. They were an arena for social mobility in the afterlife. However, with an influx of lavish tombs came more opportunity for robbery, a different way to advance social status by simply gaining wealth. The only other indicator of social mobility during this time ties back to the importance of income in society: owning grain. If you happened to own (or steal) the rare plot of land bearing grain, you were automatically in a power position. After all, even the King was having problems coming across grain at this time. However, one also had to be more careful; these areas were very susceptible to thievery. Overall, these examples show the immense control taxation had on Egyptian society and the feasibility for social movement when the King did not maintain taxation.
Caroline Miller
The following lines are from "The Teaching for King Merikare", on page 160, paragraph 4.
ReplyDelete"The Nile flood will cause you no worry by failing to come, And the revenues of the Delta are in your hand".
This reading contained many lines that gave insight into things we have studied in class, but I felt that this line shows the importance of the Nile. In Egypt, the Nile flood was everything.
The king was in charge of the flood. The king was a deity on earth, and it was his responsibility to communicate with the gods and make sure that the flood was prosperous. If it was a good flood year, the king was respected and followed, and if it was a bad year, the king was blamed. If there were many bad years in a row, the king risked rebellion. This pieced was written during the first intermediate period, a time of rebellion and upheaval. The king's power depended on a good flood. This meant his ability to collected taxes, and use that money to memorialize himself. Also, the king was a symbol of Egypt. If the king was weak, Egypt was weak.
The flood was also very important to peasant farmers. They depended on a good flood for all their crops and income. The need crops for food, and would then use crops to barter for other necessary material goods. Without the flood, everyone needed to depend on granaries for stored food. Farmers might have some left over, but many people would go hungry. A powerful king would have granaries and then distribute rations, but a weak king could do nothing but watch his people starve. In the case that many bad floods would happen in a row, people even resorted to killing their children. This is a perfect times for nomarchs to arise. Also, the perfect time for rebellion and upheaval. If people felt that the king was failing at his job, and wasn't being helped by the gods, they would rebel, and they did during this period. King Menikare was left specific instructions for this.
The lines above show how important the flood was. King Menikare was told that the flood will come, because he is king and he is powerful, and that the flood that comes will be prosperous.
"Promote your officials that they may fulfill your decrees,
ReplyDeleteFor he whose house is wealthy will not take sides (against you),
And he who wants for nothing is a wealthy man." -Teaching for King Merikare, pg156.
The idea that the king should keep his nobles within his reach is one that was best represented by Senwosret II, the king who united the nomarchs under the crown. By giving their sons well-paying, flashy positions in the government, when the nomarchs died, their sons had no reason to try to keep the territories, as they were already wealthy and powerful.
This can also be extrapolated to the general public under the rule of the king. In the text, it states, "He will be partial toward him who is generous to him." Often times, lesser-liked kings kept their rule revolt-free by having enough grain and supplies to supply the people when times got hard. This again shows the simple idea that satisfied people will not revolt.
Additionally, we learned in lecture that it was in the king's best interest to keep his most powerful officers completely dependent upon him being king, to reduce the risk of revolt. This promoted nepotism - and in times of jealousy and inter-family strife, the fact that the only reason these people were in their positions of power is because of the king, could save him.
“A single dissenter can disrupt the (entire) army, So let his end occur in the (same) confusion which he had brought about” is a key excerpt from “The Teaching for King Merikare”. The lines are a basic summation of a point the speaker has been stressing for many stanzas, the point being beware of rebellion. The point of crushing a rebellion before it gets too out of hand is arguably the most emphasized piece of advice in the entire text. Despite the fact that later, the speaker also says “Beware of punishing unjustly; Do no harm, for it will not benefit you” rebels should still have attention drawn to themselves early on and destroyed before they can gain any support. Transversely, no rebel can ever be punished unjustly. Furthermore, it is the king’s duty to punish any individual who tries to spread different ideas than the king’s or attempts to gain a following. For this point to be highlighted as much as it is shows just how unstable, both politically and socially, the First Intermediate Period in Ancient Egypt really was. The fact that it was advised to pay close attention to these “rebels” only showed how weak and insecure the institution of the king really was at that time. The king was not confident enough in his own reign to let individuals formulate and promote their own judgments. Additionally, to be as concerned with rebels as the text suggests the king should be, alludes to the fact that there was a real fear on the king’s part that somebody could potentially take away his position. This deduction works in conjunction with subsequent stanzas that advise the new king Merikare to honor and appreciate his officials.
ReplyDeleteA single dissenter may be able to disrupt the entire army, but according to the speaker, if you kill him before he can speak, chaos in the court may potentially be avoided.
The line that I chose to analyze is from “The Maxims of Ptahhotep” on page 132; stating, “Great is Ma’at, and its foundation is firmly established; It has not been shaken since the time of Osiris…. But in the long run it is Ma’at that endures, and an honest man may state: ‘this is my ancestral property.” I feel that this line is important because throughout this piece the idea of ma’at and the “doing of what is right” is stressed, an extremely critical and prevalent concept in the whole of ancient Egypt. Although not always directly referenced, we have seen the idea of ma’at in a large portion of our primary source readings and through the Donadoni writings/lecture discussions. It is the idea of balance, integrity and justice; a concept fashioned throughout the Old Kingdom, the time period when this particular source was written. The way ma’at is described portrays it as almost an inherent human longing, a piece of one’s ancestral property that is never to be forgotten or lost. What I found most noteworthy about this piece, however, is the actual advice given to the elderly vizier’s son (Ptahhotep the second); ideas that work well in theory but seem to be contradictory to the tangible actions of Egyptians (in my opinion).
ReplyDeleteTwo lines slightly after the first that I found particularly interesting were: ”Do not stir up fear in people, Or God will punish in equal measure,” and “Do not talk incessantly around your neighborhood, for it is important that one should practice the discretion appropriate the prudent man.” The first of these two lines advises Ptahhotep to avoid the evocation of fear in others; I find this of interest because “scare tactics” are frequently used by those in power (and this piece was written for the nobility) to keep the lower classes in line, rather than avoided. The second quote counsels the vizier’s son in the importance of prudence, a quality also seemingly lost on many Egyptians (specifically the pharaohs, who sometimes live 300 years and perform feats of inhuman proportion).
The Teaching for King Merikare
ReplyDeletePage 158, Paragraph 2
“Make no distinction between a well-born man and a commoner,
But take a man into your service because of his good deeds.”
In this traditional instructional literature, a father provides advice to his son and successor on the duties of kingship, however, the text is set in the First Intermediate period. The way the text is written shows the disorder of Egypt, how everything seems to be upside down and chaotic. The quote above is an example of the unstable order of Egypt at this time. Usually, Egyptians uphold the rigid class structure, where one could only be accepted as a “well-born man” if he was born into the upper class, carrying royal or noble blood. Here, we see how the king is instructing his son to make no distinction between a high official and a common farmer, worker, or craftsman. The second part of the line shows how climbing the social ladder can be accomplished by simply doing good deeds, when usually it is extremely difficult to attain status from a common or low position. This line suggests that anyone is capable of becoming a person of rank under the king; all one has to do is perform worthy and respectable actions.
This is not the only custom that is “backwards” in this text. There are suggestions that the king should show respect and become almost equal with those lower than him. Another line suggests that those who are servants to the king are like gods, giving divinity to those other than the king. Also, there are many references to rebellion; that the king needs to satisfy his people so that they do not revolt against his power and overthrow him. In other time periods, overthrowing the king was never a worry or even thought of. The First Intermediate Period caused social unbalance, fear in the highest officials, and the unraveling of Egyptian norms. It gave those who had no power, clout and those who had power became weak. The advice and instruction written in this text reflects how a natural occurrence (the Nile’s low flooding) could have so much impact in reshaping a culture. It shows one of the lowest points in Egyptian history and how the people acted and responded to it.
From “The Teaching for King Merikare”
ReplyDelete“Elevate your officials, promote your fighters;
Bestow wealth upon the young men of your followers,” (158)
This line suggests the same sentiment that has been expressed in lecture - that in order to gain and maintain power a king would need to surround himself with loyal servants. As was discussed in the lecture on foreigners, the king would often promote foreign men to high-ranking positions because their power would then be completely dependent upon his favor. In the primary sources regarding high officials, for example Weni’s autobiography, we saw that the king often promoted the same people to many lucrative positions. Potentially this was a method of both rewarding officials and making them indebted to him.
It is interesting that these methods of controlling influential individuals is laid out so explicitly in this text, and this may reflect the slightly more precarious position of the king when it was written. The notes on the text tell us that it was written during the First Intermediate Period, and so reflects the new instability of the ruling class. Unlike texts from the Old Kingdom, which seem to take the power of the king for granted, “The Teaching for King Merikare” acknowledges the duties of the king. Elsewhere in the text, it stresses the importance of providing for the Egyptians, to “Prosper” (156) them.
That this section avoids any religious or mythical analogy in order to legitimize kingship is interesting, and suggests that the king’s power in Egypt was not simply imposed upon the vast majority of people, but rather was accepted and approved as an efficient way of everybody getting what they wanted.
From "The Maxims of Ptahhotep"
ReplyDelete"Follow your heart as long as you live
And do not work beyond what is allocated (to you);
Do not waste the time of following the heart,
For wasting time is an annoyance of the spirit."
There has already been a post discussing the importance of ma'at in this source and throughout our lectures, but I want to focus on the emphasis on order, poise, and morals that that "The Maxims" describes. One could argue that these three aspects of social conduct are included in ma'at, but I think that there is a distinction between the justice and order in ma'at, and of the personal journey that is emphasized in the above excerpt.
The author repeatedly emphasizes the idea that an individual should strive for happiness in life while remaining composed and proper in society. In these lines the author suggests that our time in this life is limited and thus we should not waste it, in the sense that one should not worry about what one cannot control. In the context surrounding the excerpt, there is an emphasis on living life pertaining to the guidelines of "God" and according to his/their model.
In the material we have covered, there is also this sense of personal gain that is reinforced by the guidelines of the divine model and carried out through social interaction. We have also seen a rising sense of an inherent code of ethics that each individual should follow. This code is evidently embedded into each individual and is referred to as common sense.
On the whole, Egyptians (or at the very least, Egyptian elite) believed in the pursuit of personal happiness while constantly living by a strict code of conduct that pertained to both the interaction between human beings and that between humans and the gods. In this, we can see how one vizier would advise his son to "follow your heart as long as you live", while at the same time not overstepping one's social boundaries, i.e. "work beyond what is allocated to you".
“…any agent who shall violate (thy r) (the) boundary of fields belonging to the Foundation so as to move their boundaries, (I.B.3.b) punishment shall be done to him by cutting off his nose (and) his ears, (52) he being put as a cultivator in the Foundation. (I.B.4.a) Likewise any person who is in (the) whole land who shall 'drive off1 (hd) any catcher belonging to the Founda- tion (53) rfrom' his trapping marshes (or) rfrom' his fishing waters, (I.B.4.b) punishment shall be done to him by beating him with one hundred blows (and) five pierced wounds” – The Nauri Decree of Seti I pg 223 (51)
ReplyDeleteI chose this quote to examine the variety of punishments indicated for the different crimes mentioned. It states that the punishment for someone who “violate[s] the boundary of field belonging to the Foundation” is the physical removal of their nose and ears.” However someone who drives off any catcher belonging to the Foundation gets punished with physical violence. I thought it was ironic how two similar crimes would receive two very different punishments. Both criminals are faced with great physical pain however, the outcome of the first criminal is permanent damage to his face and head. For the rest of his life he will be publicly humiliated with this version of a scarlet letter that automatically brands him as a criminal. The Second criminal only faces the physical pain which with time will diminish. Although he is marked with the 5 pierced wounds, he can go on with his life with minor physical damages and even less emotional damage. This difference in punishments indicates how certain minor aspects of life held larger significance in comparison to other facets of life.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“The Maxims of Ptahhotep”
ReplyDeletePage 142-3
“Bow respectfully to him who is superior to you…then your household will be firm in its possessions…but wretched is he who opposes a superior, for one enjoys life (only) during the time when he is kindly disposed”
This line, originally written as general instruction for the succeeding vizier Ptahhotep, applies to high officials throughout Egypt as practical advice. In my interpretation, the phrase “bow respectfully to him who is superior to you” assumes a larger meaning – to consistently observe Ma’at (acting in moral, obedient, and righteous fashion). In this sense, high officials would do well to promote Ma’at with respect to the king. Weni, for example, received no formal training yet advanced to positions such as architect, army general, vizier, foreign liaison, priest, etc by expressing steadfast dedication and respect for his king. Indeed, Weni’s “household [was] firm in its possessions”, as evidenced by his collections of silver and gold, limestone tomb, and storehouses of grain.
This mindset is likely what maintained peace during the introduction of nomarchs and the decisive division of “power blocks” in the First Intermediate Period. Although they controlled large swaths of land and subsequently enjoyed vast regional power, they were convinced that having a king was necessary and good in order for them to keep their land and maintain their advantageous positions. Since they were “kindly disposed”, they found their lives enjoyable.
The deterioration of this mindset, however, caused the eventual fall of the central government. Those provincial rulers who amassed great power eventually began opposing their superiors. For example, many of them marked time periods by their own reigns. This resulted in nerve-racking anxiousness throughout Egypt that the state will collapse. By the 7th dynasty, this more or less materialized; 70 (ineffectual) kings ruled for 70 days, with provinces resolving their own issues on a local level. But the kings were not the only ones affected; nobility of all degrees (Iry-pat) perceived a decline in power while the lower classes (Rekhyet) discovered opportunities for social mobility, whatwith the ambiguity of fixed classes. This disruption, recorded in Ipuwer’s “Lamentation Literature”, can arguably be attributed to the change in mindset of the nobility.
The line that I chose is from "The Teaching for King Merikare" on page 160: "What had been governed by one man is now under the control of ten". This situation is a stark contrast to when pharaohs did not even allow their high priests to be depicted as the same size as them on the stone walls unless they were asking for some serious consequences.
ReplyDeleteThe line above shows the unstable conditions around the time of the First Intermediate Period. It is safe to assume that the pharaoh has lost the absolute power that his position had contained originally in the beginning of the Old Kingdom. It was no longer sufficient enough for the king to hide behind the image of a deity and all the characteristics that come with being described as "bull", "falcon", etc. He had to prove it. As his power was diminishing, the nomarchs' not to mention other families' were rising as they took hold of different parts of Egypt. The people of Egypt were discontent with all the civil war and famine going on. Egypt at this point was a long distance away from the ideal restoration of Ma'at as the reader can clearly tell by reading the lines surrounding this one. As the passage continues along, the disorder occurring during this time period is stressed more by the mention of the "vile Asiatics". They "[had] been fighting ever since the time of Horus"(SImpson, 161) and constantly threatened Egypt's borders. The remarkable thing as other people in the blog post have touched upon is the fact that the king was resulting to bribery pretty much when the older king tells his successor to keep his officials content in order for them to not take sides with the rebels. Therefore, the First Intermediate Period was obviously a time when pharaohs were not taking any chances and resorting to any means necessary to maintain their power, which could quickly switch hands in the blink of an eye.
"Emulate your fathers and your forefathers, and attain success through knowledge. Behold their words endure in writing; open and ream them, so that you may emulate their knowledge. On who is proficient will become knowledgeable" (Simpson 155).
ReplyDelete– From “The Teaching for King Merikare”
This text, “The Teaching for King Merikare,” accentuates the significance of Merikare acquiring knowledge and education during his reign. Here, Merikare is encouraged to follow those who came before him to be successful and powerful. Since Merikare is inherited to be a king, born into the royal family, he is already feared and respected due to the established system of power. Despite his social status, this line still instructs Merikare to act right and be a model to others so that he has adequate ability to be the sole beneficiary of the kingship. Additionally, the line of royalty maintained certain knowledge passed down through generations, and a king must be well educated in a full spectrum of areas. Here, I believe not only Egyptians did value inheritance and absolute religion (considering kings as gods), but also practical characteristics such as intellect in order for a king to be fully deserved as a king. They assumed that abundant knowledge was a requirement of a king to pursue a fearful, respectful, and powerful kingship and be suitable to his position. Also, they seemed to obey and revere their parents, especially their fathers. A king’s fathers and forefathers are both his families and previous kings. Thus, it seems critical to follow the path of Merikare’s ancestors.
The fact that he is educated much and literate makes him already special and differentiates him from others. Yet, the king needs to practice and possess sufficient knowledge to prevent normal people from revolting against him by reasoning that he is not that different to them. Therefore, Merikare is well-equipped with the knowledge that is unavailable to Egyptians, giving them another reason to lay greater dependency and trust upon the King to lead them to prosperity, and in turn, empowering the King.
“Great is the ruler whose officials are themselves great, Might is / the king who has a (loyal) entourage, and wealthy is he who is rich in officials.”
ReplyDeleteThis quote is from “The Teaching for King Merikare,” in which an older king is giving his successor guidance and advice for ruling an unstable kingdom. What I found interesting about this line and the text that surrounds it, was the focus on supporting members in the kingdom. So far, in the texts we have read, the attention is usually on the king and how he is all powerful and must maintain Ma’at. Contrastingly, in “The Teaching for King Merikare” older king really emphasizes the importance of having loyal officials, happy citizens, and just ruling. For once, we are seeing how the king needs to please both his workers and his people, illustrating that Ma’at can only be achieved when there is a balance of power between the king and the people of Egypt.
Now this mentality and appreciation for supporting workers was not seen all the time. The reason that it is stressed in this text, is because at this time Egypt is unstable. King Merikare, knowing this, is encouraging his successor to be a fair a just ruler. He knows that only by having loyal officials and satisfied citizens, will Egypt maintain its unity. This is further proven by the first two pages of the text, where the king repeatedly mentions squashing any rebellions and killing any man capable of starting a rebellion. First he talks to suppressing rebellions then of pleasing the people which only seems like advice that would come during a time of political instability.
This is a quote from The Teaching For King Merikare
ReplyDelete“your like a god”
When reading these pages, it made me feel like it was some sort of a computer game where you had to keep everything under control. Later in the text it mentioned what a king should do. As violent as, “Get rid of him, and slay his children, Obliterate his name, and destroy his supporters, Banish all memory of him and of the partisans who respect him”.
He says this then explains his reasons for teaching to do so. He reasons that such man will create two groups of malcontents among the youth, which will obviously cause trouble in the future. So he calls him ‘For he is indeed a rebel, one who disseminates talk is a disrupter of the city.’ He view that such a ‘small’ disruption can spread like a disease, powerful enough that he believes ‘a single dissenter can disrupt the entire army.’ As suggested in the pdf reading, it is mentioned that archaeological material evidences suggested some changes that occurred in the provinces during the late Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period. As provinces were more stressed than the country as a whole, it was important what was going on in the provinces and what their rulers could do. For example, the “great overlord of the nomes of Edfu and Hierakonpolis’ and ‘overseer of priests’ writes the things he had done as a ruler. ‘I gave bread to the hungry and clothing to the naked.’ Even marriages, ‘I have a wife to him who had no wife.’ Which is interesting. The First Intermediate Period was a time of disorder, during which upheaval and rebellion could have been very possible. Thus, the role of the ruler is stressed. Similarly like the Pharaoh, there were lots of expectations and responsibilities on the shoulders of the leaders. There are a bunch of them through 155~165. In short, and to list some of them, he has to be proficient in speech so you can sound strong and outsmart any rebel. One should respect his fathers for their knowledge is important. Do not treat your people in a bad way, do not punish unfairly, promote your officials who did good, do not kill ‘useful’ people, etc. This source, The teaching for King Merikare vividly conveyed the importance of the king’s duties and a number of them. This might tell us that this is the time when such roles were not fulfilled, not only the position of the ruler but the country as a whole could be at stake.
Vincent A. Tobin writes in his introduction to the 'Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage,' that the text falls into "the general category of of 'national calamity' (188). This is certainly demonstrated by one particular line of the text: "There is no end of death, / And the death-shroud summons, / Though one's time has not yet come" (§2.5, p 191). This presents a conflicting idea of destiny.
ReplyDeleteOn the one hand, this line presents the idea that the gods, or perhaps even Nature, have a set plan that encompasses the appropriate time of death for each Egyptian. This is emphasized by the section of the text that says that death will come even "though one's time has not come yet." This really points to the idea that there is indeed an underlying fate in which the Egyptians believe. On the other hand, the text also seems to present the idea that there is no underlying destiny which everyone must face, because death is a force that will overcome any mortal at any moment.
So, this certainly raises some questions as to the Egyptian conception of fate. I do not believe this is a topic that has been addressed directly in either lecture or section, but if somehow the true Egyptian idea of fate is a combination between the two options I mentioned in the above paragraph, then it would seem that Egyptian mortals are at the complete mercy of the gods. --Melanie Zelikovsky
Quote from The Nauri Decree:
ReplyDelete“Now as to any person who shall be found stealing any goods belonging to the Foundation, punishment shall be done to him (by) beating him with one hundred blows and exacting the property of the Foundation from him, together with a penalty at the rate of one hundred to one.”
This quote appealed to me for many different reasons. One thing that it reminded me of was when Professor Morris was talking about how the state and the King was the richest and has the most power in all of Egypt (for the most part, anyway). This quote and/or law definitely reinforces the idea and notion of the Pharaoh being at the top of the socio-economic pyramid in Egypt. It helps to protect the King’s wealth and vast amount of property that he has across his empire. The fact that for stealing one thing from the State results in having to pay back 100 of that item (which is impossible if you must resort to stealing) basically warns people not to do so because the consequences are severe.
This quote is interesting to me also because of the corrupt priest in Elephantine who stole many things from the State (and basically the King). The law clearly states that “any person found stealing” will be punished harshly, so this priest should’ve been included. However, as Professor Morris tells us in lecture, not only does this priest escape punishment through bribery, but he also repeats this offense numerous times with little or no consequences. This leads me to believe that these laws are not as effective as they seem to or were meant to be.