English 5361: Week 8 Post - Women Rhetors of the Renaissance
While the female rhetors of the Renaissance do not, for the most part, have the big names that are known today, like Artistotle, Cicero, Erasmus, and Ramus, they did contribute to the rhetoric of the Renaissance, although in a somewhat limited fashion.
I chose to focus on the female rhetors of the Renaissance, principally because I was shocked that they existed. In a time when Henry VIII of England got rid of wives like women were disposable and men bartered their daughters away as parts of peace treaties or land bargains, it would seem unlikely that any women exorcise the power of rhetoric.
Women of the time, however, were more likely to be educated than in previous years, perhaps hearkening back to the ideal that educated mothers were more likely to produce educated sons. Despite this increase in education, Herrick notes "women's access to education, and especially the social mobility such education afforded women, should not be overstated" (p 153).
The female rhetors listed in Chapter 7 of Herrick were Joanna Vaz, Publia Hortencia de Castro, Christine de Pisan, Margaret Cavendish, and Madame de Scudéry. Each one of them broke through some boundary or provided something to the field of rhetoric. Joanna Vaz "enters the history of the Renaissance based on her reputation for eloquence" (Herrick, p 153). At the time, there was "considerable opposition to women actually speaking in public" (Herrick, p. 153). Vaz served as a tutor to a princess of Portugal. Like Vaz, Publia Hortencia de Castro was known for speaking, though no written record of either Vaz or de Castro's speeches remain for us today.
Christine de Pisan was well-educated, and she read a great deal. According to Herrick, de Pisan's "life was unusual for a woman of her day" (p 154). She used her writing to defend women against the woman bashing prevailing during the day (original sin and leading man astray). de Pisan wrote in French so that her work was more accessible to the women she was defending. Unlike Vaz and de Castro, de Pisan's works were available in the written record.
Margaret Cavendish was the Duchess of Newcastle. Like Vaz, de Castro, and de Pisan, she was educated and could read and write. Cavendish wrote and published her works, something almost unheard of for a woman. She published works outside the realm of women and stretched the boundaries of what was permitted for a female rhetor.
Madam de Scudéry "was a novelist and essayist of the mid-seventeenth century, a late Renaissance woman withe a decided interest in the interpersonal and social potential of rhetoric" (Herrick, p 164). de Scudéry, according to Jane Donaworth, wrote "the first fully elaborated early modern theory of rhetoric by a woman" (Herrick, p 164). She opened the door for later female rhetors and added to the theory of rhetoric for both men and women.
Each step these women took helped to ease some of the bonds constraining women to the home and the background and cracking the door for future female rhetors.
I chose to focus on the female rhetors of the Renaissance, principally because I was shocked that they existed. In a time when Henry VIII of England got rid of wives like women were disposable and men bartered their daughters away as parts of peace treaties or land bargains, it would seem unlikely that any women exorcise the power of rhetoric.
Women of the time, however, were more likely to be educated than in previous years, perhaps hearkening back to the ideal that educated mothers were more likely to produce educated sons. Despite this increase in education, Herrick notes "women's access to education, and especially the social mobility such education afforded women, should not be overstated" (p 153).
The female rhetors listed in Chapter 7 of Herrick were Joanna Vaz, Publia Hortencia de Castro, Christine de Pisan, Margaret Cavendish, and Madame de Scudéry. Each one of them broke through some boundary or provided something to the field of rhetoric. Joanna Vaz "enters the history of the Renaissance based on her reputation for eloquence" (Herrick, p 153). At the time, there was "considerable opposition to women actually speaking in public" (Herrick, p. 153). Vaz served as a tutor to a princess of Portugal. Like Vaz, Publia Hortencia de Castro was known for speaking, though no written record of either Vaz or de Castro's speeches remain for us today.
Christine de Pisan was well-educated, and she read a great deal. According to Herrick, de Pisan's "life was unusual for a woman of her day" (p 154). She used her writing to defend women against the woman bashing prevailing during the day (original sin and leading man astray). de Pisan wrote in French so that her work was more accessible to the women she was defending. Unlike Vaz and de Castro, de Pisan's works were available in the written record.
Margaret Cavendish was the Duchess of Newcastle. Like Vaz, de Castro, and de Pisan, she was educated and could read and write. Cavendish wrote and published her works, something almost unheard of for a woman. She published works outside the realm of women and stretched the boundaries of what was permitted for a female rhetor.
Madam de Scudéry "was a novelist and essayist of the mid-seventeenth century, a late Renaissance woman withe a decided interest in the interpersonal and social potential of rhetoric" (Herrick, p 164). de Scudéry, according to Jane Donaworth, wrote "the first fully elaborated early modern theory of rhetoric by a woman" (Herrick, p 164). She opened the door for later female rhetors and added to the theory of rhetoric for both men and women.
Each step these women took helped to ease some of the bonds constraining women to the home and the background and cracking the door for future female rhetors.
posted by Jessica Badger at
7:32 PM
5 Comments:
Part I: As the blog won't let me post a comment over 4096 characters. :)
I am glad you chose to focus on the female rhetors Jessica. It's easy to dismiss the female perspective because, let's be real, how many people did these women actually affect in their day? While a few do seem to have had supporters in their education, it is highly likely that many did not have full support from those around them. They ventured far outside of the norm for women and likely challenged the expectations of what a woman "should" know. (Think of quotes that characterize the female mind as delicate and not able to handle too much knowledge or gore or anything weighty. Cereta confirms this notion.) Then again, the female bashing of the day might have been a springboard giving women the opportunity to present themselves as something other than the stereotype. I don't know for certain, but I do see how this is a great example of the tensions of perspective and well as how you can respond rhetorically to whatever you see as social injustices in the world.
The question has been over time, "How are you going to do that?" We have so many examples of rhetoricians who don't start out saying, "Hum, I think I'll be a rhetorician." Instead, they are standing for something...and their speech, whether done poorly or done brilliantly, persuades. On this point, I have to agree with Ramus (and others) that rhetoricians that have both good and not so good motives can be persuasive. But it's not so cut and dry. Most people have some good and some selfish intentions. Even when they are speaking to, say, save the city-state, they are still persuading to save their own life. The point I want to emphasize is that rhetorician/philosophers who say that a true rhetoricians is only the one who has the purest of motives may really mean that it is those rhetoricians that have the most lasting impact.
Part II
Each day we have opportunities to speak. How do we do it? I think that's where these readings mean the most to me. How do I choose words and express them to others? What are my motives? Where am I thinking of people around me and what is best for the greater good? Where is there an injustice (even a teeny one as my life may seem in the grand scheme of things) where I can be a rhetorician for something better? And where am I thinking primarily of myself when I try to persuade?
Both women and men have become rhetoricians this way, and some likely didn't intent or want to. (Though others, especially the Greeks and Romans, may have had that intention all along considering it was a livelyhood.) By standing for some injustice and using their words as defenders, I think of how education both advanced this possibility and how the rhetorical act itself perpetuated more educational opportunities. Consider that a rhetorical act itself may increase our knowledge and prompts problem-solving thought processes and more debate.
I'll close with bringing this thought back to the women rhetoricians. When they embraced the gift that they'd been given of being allowed to be educated and chose to speak out/write out -- when that combination came together -- I wonder what the reaction of the men immediately around them was. Afterall, what was the point of educating these women? Was it essentially for the men (as you point out in your post -- to have better mothers for better sons)? What was their reaction when women broke the expectations by becoming rhetoricians (as opposed to just smart(er) mothers)?
In too few and simplified words, I think that they set an example for men and women: to embrace the opportunities in front of you. I have no problem with the notion of educating women to be smarter mothers. I do think that smarter mothers give the gift of greater education to their sons...and their daughters. And those daughters may give that gift forward. But for me, it's not so much about the men and the women as it is about taking opportunities to speak and write about virtues, a word we don't discuss as much today as they did back then, and about the lesson of embracing the gift.
It is interesting to see how many women were in the public forum speaking their opinions. These women must have had supportive husbands and fathers to be allowed to seek education and develop the rhetoric talents they possessed.
Jessica,
These women clearly do not have the impact of the "major players," but as you say, we needed them to crack open the door for women later in decades/centuries. The fact that they "made the cut" for an introductory rhetoric book shows that they did contribute something noteworthy.
Excellent post. Good discussion about women rhetors of the Renaissance. We use de Pisan in lit crit today. Excellent comment by Emily, also.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home