Because Fell did not specifically address rhetoric or rhetorical theory in the text, I tried to analyze the way she used rhetoric (in terms of other rhetorician's theories) throughout it. These are my findings.
She primarily uses logos and invention by composing logical arguments from interpretations of scriptures. She does a nice job explaining thoroughly how she believes certain scriptures are being misused and misrepresented by men. She presents her arguments in a compelling fashion, and she uses really pertinent scriptures as examples for why women are justified in speaking at church. I know I would have a hard refuting her arguments because they are strong, and well-researched.
She speaks in a sort of condescending way towards those who hold that women should not speak in church. She makes them seem like idiots who have never read the Bible, though it seems like her primary audience for this text is religious leaders. She seems to speak with an authoritative voice, that most would agree, she did not have at the time. An example of this can be found on page 753."Let the word of the Lord, which was from the beginning, stop the mouths of all that oppose womens speaking in the power of the Lord."
She uses a lot of rhetorical questions throughout the text which serve as compelling support for her advocacy. Also, by asking rhetorical questions, she again resumes an authoritative tone, as if she is talking down to her audience. A cluster of these questions can be found on page 760. ". . . and so is not the Bride the Church? and doth the church only consist of Men? you that deny Womens speaking, answer: Doth it not consist of Women as well as men?"
No comments:
Post a Comment