Conduct and Class

There are major differences between the two essays written by Margaret Fell and Madeleine de Scudery. In these two piece we see women coming from different places, trying to attain different results, using different means of argumentation, and focusing on different literary aspects-writing and oratory.

I'm not a big fan of Margaret Fell's style of rhetoric. Maybe it's because of the time gap and the declining emphasis on church authority, or maybe because it seemed as if she had a serious chip on her shoulder. Either way, the style in which she pushed for equality equally distanced her character, and even though I saw the points she was making, I had a hard time getting on her side, mainly because she seemed argumentative and single-minded. She shows this by saying, "And how are the men of this generation blinded, that bring these Scriptures, and pervert the Apostles words, and corrupt his intent in speaking of them?" (756). It wouldn't be bad if she sprinkled phrases like these throughout the essay, but the point she makes to say something after every quoted Bible passage becomes too repetitive and declarative.I am all for repetition to make a point, and I frequently do this in my own writing, but I think there is a certain situation when it is acceptable and others when it is not. Being that the target audience is probably other clergy, this repetition of another's shortcomings and mistakes reeks of uncontrolled passion.

In contrast to Fell, we had the writings of de Scudery.I thoroughly enjoyed the style in which de Scudery writes. There is a certain casualness that lends "On Conversations" fun to read. It could be said that de Scudery is talking about topics that are trivial or unimportant, as opposed to Fell, who is pushing for equality and freedom, but it seems important to me that de Scudery was a respected woman of her time in France, winning awards and selling books solely on the basis of her reputation. I believe this reputation is maintained through three main style points: indirect persuasion, politeness, and framing the discussion based on the audience. Whereas Fell seemed to be confrontational and passionate, de Scudery seems laid back and reasonable. She seems to have no stake in whether or not we believe her, and we don't know the point of the essay until the end. After exhausting all forms of conversation and why each is wrong, she leaves us with the question-then what do we talk about? Her answer is, "We cannot speak but of what they do" (771). This was the only logical ending for me, but when she said I was still taken with it, and loved the fact that she made an argument by refuting all the examples, and then saying that they are all acceptable because conversations like these are bound to exist wherever we go. What is important, she goes on to say, is knowing when to say certain things and what role you have in the conversation. A major aspect of her rhetoric then seems to be kairos and audience. A speaker must also have a fair amount of something she calls Wit, and the patience and humility to make their point.