I think the our ancient Greek rhetoricians would have a lot of respect for what Fell was doing. Minus, of course, those who spoke outright against a woman's ability to engage in rhetoric. (Even they, however, may not have been against her cause.) Except for the sophists, the general consensus amongst the ancients seemed to be that rhetoric is to be used as a tool of knowledge, and persuading people of what is true and right, rather than a tool of manipulation.
Is this what Fell does? To say she does not engage at all in manipulation would be a stretch, since she definitely manipulates the text and meanings of the bible to suit her needs. However, I don't think she does so beyond the scope of persuading a large audience, men, of the Truth. Especially since it is based on the bible, an indisputable source at the time.
Also to the liking of Cicero and Quintilian, especially, is the fact the Fell does not simply hammer her point into the ground. In fact, she seems almost dispassionate about the topic. This is because she bases her argument not upon emotion, but upon fact. She is knowledgable not only about women's' issues but also about the Bible, and this allows her to use pure logos in framing her argument. Hence, she does not turn away her audience with anger or frustration that would come from someone who had only passion, but rather intrigues them laying out an argument full of facts and evidence that is quite indisputable, especially in her time.
I agree that Fell manipulated her text, though she did support the meanings she found within them. We all construct our own meanings based on the different reasons we need them. Anyone who says they have never manipulated a text is a liar. We as students do it with every paper we write. We utilize the meaning of a specific portion of text to speak to the greater issue we are trying to address. I enjoyed reading Fell, but got lost in a lot of the biblical referencing. I thought the piece would have been more powerful if she had chosen a select number of biblical quotations instead of cramming as many in as possible to prove her point. It gets tiring reading the word of the Apostles.
ReplyDeleteLooking at John's comment and your post I think it is important to try to remember historical context and location. Fell was extremely religious and her main point in her writings was to have equal right for women inn regards to speaking in Church. This is why there are so many Biblical references. She is trying to convey hard concrete evidence based on the text of the Bible. In Fells time this was the only explanation of most of the unknowns of society. It is funny to me how when we read this now is seems drawn on with to many biblical references and not enough fact. But in Fells day these biblical references must have been viewed with strange insight because she gives examples of Women being treated well and examples of God saying women are not equal. So is she saying God is a hypocrite? I am getting a little off topic but the point I am trying to make is that I agree ancient greek rhetoricians would approve of Fell's essay. Especially in regards to her connection with the audience and her overall knowledge of her argument.
ReplyDelete