(M247) When the intervention of a judge was deemed essential, one of the parties “complained.” The word really means to “cry out,” “protest”; but it is used in the freest way as equivalent to bringing the action. There is no evidence that anyone then submitted to wrong “under protest.” Whether the people were naturally litigious, or simply because access to the courts was so easy, a protest usually involved a suit. (M248) The plea was made by the principals to the suit. There is no mention of an advocate, or solicitor. But the verb generally used of the plea _ragâmu_, gives rise to _targumânu_, the original of the modern dragoman. He usually appears in later texts as the “interpreter,” but may originally have been the “advocate.” At any rate, in the bilingual days he might well have combined the offices. Another verb common at this period, _pakâru_, gave rise to _pâkirânu_, later the usual word for “plaintiff,” or “claimant.” (M249) Here may be noted a peculiarity of the scribe’s conception of the case. It will be found that, as he puts the case, the plaintiff generally loses. This is because the scribe will not prejudge the case by saying who was right. He writes “A claimed the property of B.” In actual fact it may have been that B laid claim to what he proved was his. But that excludes the scribe from saying that B claimed the property of A, because it never was A’s. Hence, writing after the event, he ascribes the property to the rightful owner from the start of his document, and regards the wrongful holder as laying claim to it. Hence, we must not assume that the parties were not both claimants. In fact, both parties agreed, as a rule, so far as to submit their case to a judge. This is clear from the statements which follow the statement of the cause of dispute. Both parties “went to the judges,” or rather quaintly, “they captured a judge.” The preliminary discussion between the parties resulted in agreement to submit the case to a judge. Both were willing to abide by the decision. Once, it is true, the plaintiff is said to have caught the defendant;(101) but there is no evidence of unwillingness to submit. So too, when the parties are said to “receive a judge,” they evidently both sought him. (M250) Sometimes affairs did not go so smoothly. One party had to act and bring the other before the judges(102) or “caused them to come before the judge.” There are indications that the judges sometimes had to summon a party before them, or as the scribe puts it, “bring him before the other party.” This is also expressed by the judges “sending up” a party.(103) (M251) There is considerable evidence that cases might be sent before the judges by a higher party, the king himself. These cases were probably on the suit of a plaintiff. In the letters of the First Dynasty we have examples of the king sending to the local judges his own decision on the case, which they had to carry out; or in other cases he simply sent the case for trial.(104)