Ladies of the Court

I find Christine de Pizan's little excerpt very interesting – especially when we think about what it is actually doing and then what it says between-the-lines about rhetoric. It's got a lot going on. 

This was actually kind of funny to read, as well as a little sad, because of its audience. De Pizan is writing to the ladies of the court, and their hand-maidens, as well as any woman who was literate (which almost immediately puts them in a higher class, as stated in the intro) in order to help them conduct themselves and be dutiful to their husbands and fathers. However, there is a whole portion of women left out – those who were either illiterate and/or not as wealthy, who would (perhaps) have no need for this type of discourse about slander, virtues, duties, etc. So while this article gives us a peek at what was going on in Medieval France, it is still very isolated toward a certain class. I suppose I include this note because it affects how we define rhetoric in a large way – just as the idea of gender or homosexuality is historically defined by the discourse that has surrounded/created it, we get a definition of rhetoric and its uses based on who was talking about it at the time, which can limit how we want to use rhetoric.

Anyway, getting into the actual text:

I feel that de Pizan's definition of rhetoric would have to deal with something along these lines: “charity exists in many modes and is not to be understood as helping another person only with money from your purse but also with help and comfort by your speech and advice wherever the need arises and with all the good that you can do” (my emphasis, 546). Like Augustine, Quintilian, Cicero, Aristotle: there is an emphasis that language can do good, and it does good because the orator, rhetor, or lady has the ambition to conduct themselves in a manner that is “good” - and good things will come from it.

At the beginning of Part One, I feel like de Pizan is talking a little about the ethos or conduct of the rhetor, as well as different dimensions of the audience. For instance, she says that “The subjects will realize that their lady is full of pity, goodness and charity, and will come to her and very humbly beseech her to represent them...” (546). We get a little bit of both with this quote; when the lady (or rhetor) acts in the certain way she later describes, then the audience will react in a favorable way, in a way that we could almost say that they believe and trust in her and in her speech. This is what we want to do in rhetoric; we want to say things that people will agree with and believe. For me, it kind of gives a recognition to the audience, that they interpret things differently and must be attended to in manner and in speech.

I also think she makes interesting points about truth in later sections about slander. Going on with the idea of considering your audience, you must also consider the good that would come out of making such a claim towards slander, and whether you should make the claim at all. Specifically, “the third reason is that those who hear someone who bears a grudge slandering her adversaries or enemies will not believe her. They will say that she is saying it out of hatred and ought not to be believed” (549). Making slanderous statements comes back to harm you, the rhetor, instead of its intended target, just like “arrows returned on to his own head” (549). De Pizan also mentions that it may be better to “just keep quiet about it and pretend that you do not see the least thing and that you notice nothing” (550). This last quote for me gets more into the idea of “lying” to your audience, or persuading an audience towards believing something else in order for a greater good to arise, as Cicero mentions.