the eloquence of advocates _very often darkened the truth, and misled
the judge_. They were unwilling to expose the ministers of justice to
the deceitful charms of pathetic, affecting orations. The Egyptians
avoided this by making each party draw up the statement of his own case
in writing, and they allowed a competent time for that purpose.[8] But
to prevent the protracting of suits too long, each party was only
allowed one reply. When all the evidence necessary for their information
was given to the judges, they began their consultation. When the affair
was thoroughly canvassed, the president gave the signal for proceeding
to a sentence, by taking in his hand a little image adorned with
precious stones, which hung to a chain of gold about his neck. This
image had no eyes, and was the symbol with which the Egyptians used to
represent Truth. Judgment being given, the president touched the party
who had gained the cause with this image. This was the form of
pronouncing sentence. According to an ancient law, the kings of Egypt
administered an oath to the judges at their installation, that if the
king should command them to give an unjust sentence, they would not obey
him.

[8] All this must be understood with some limitations, otherwise
we must suppose that all the inhabitants of Egypt had not only
learned to write, but that they had sufficient talents and
knowledge of the laws, to draw up their own defences, which is
not to be supposed. This law then must have been liable to some
exceptions and modifications. We must say the same thing of
other countries where they tell us there are no advocates, and
that all trials are carried on in writing, as in Siam, China,
Bantam, &c. _Origin of Laws, G.M. Gognet_.

* * * * *