I've been trying to usefully incorporate Christine de Pizan's concepts into the material that we have read so far. She talks very differently than the Greek and Roman men have that we have been studying so far, but I'm making a few useful connections.
First of all, Christine is concerned with persuasion. She wants to teach women how they can influence men through speaking and language. (I had a mini flashback to Aspasia.) She urges that women must be peacekeepers because men are "hotheaded." (My favorite line.) She validates women's usefulness to her medieval society, because of their ability to persuade the men in power.
She is also concerned with the "good" lady or woman. This brings me back to Quintilian. She lists some of the things that good, wise women do (such as be helpful and bring honor to their husbands.) It is very much implied in her writing, just as Quintilian advocated, that a bad women, or a woman without virtue, won't do well in her persuasion. If Christine is considered one of the pioneers of women's rhetoric, these are the points I would assume she emphasized as important to the field of rhetoric.
Christine takes a considerable amount of space to discuss slander. When I read about her views on slander, I had to laugh. The public education system should probably make every girl read this before she graduates from middle-school. In other words, it looks like, unfortunately, nothing has changed about human nature since the time Christine first put pen to paper. She tells us that the wise and virtuous woman does not slander, for slandering another is slandering oneself. I dig it.
I really like your connection with Pizan's virtuous woman and Quintilian's "good [woman] speaking well". It is interesting that both of these rhetors use private discourse situations (in milady's bedchamber between gossipy maids and in the classroom between instructor and student) as central themes of detailing proper behavior. It also seems thematic for a majority of our rhetors to describe the character of the individual as a means of promoting mindful use of rhetoric, rather than simply stating the rules. It might be easier to read a rule-book, but Pizan's approach seems to have a much different effect. In other words, she might say, "Here are the rules to being a good handmaid: 1. Don't slander your lady. 2. Give your enemy the benefit of the doubt. 3. Don't ..." but instead, she says, "God wishes you and expressly commands you to love your enemey..." (548). Do you think that this choice of delivery is rhetorically intentional?
ReplyDeleteI think at this time, Christianity was starting to be widely accepted, and perhaps Christine thought that if she convinced her audience that following these "rules" would please God, that they might be more likely to do it. This, then suggests that whatever Christine considers good, she probably learned from the Bible. It is, however, a different story with Quintilian because of his time frame. What he considered good came from philosophers who studied virtue.
ReplyDeleteIt gets really interesting when you start to consider factors like that, and I am excited to learn more about the affects Christianity had upon rhetoric as a whole. I'm starting to notice a shift between the marriage of rhetoric and philosophy into the marriage of rhetoric and religion.