i'll take this opportunity to post my first paragraph. it's still really rough--i'm not really arguing anything yet. so that's why i think anybody who has questions about it, or thinks of something they wish the paragraph would do that it isn't doing, should probably leave a comment. thanks!

“Thus our Lady is our Mother in whom we are all enclosed and of her born, in Christ: (for she that is Mother of our Saviour is Mother of all that shall be saved in our Saviour;) and our Saviour is our Very Mother in whom we be endlessly borne, and never shall come out of Him” (Revelations 139-140). These words, written by Julian of Norwich, illustrate the impossibility of separating male and female from each other within the context of Christianity, and are indicative of Julian’s struggle to find meaning for women in a religious world that was (and as we will see, still is) so man-centered. Here, Julian first refers to the Virgin Mary as “our Lady” who is “our Mother,” and then, in the same sentence, refers also to Christ as “our Very Mother” out of whom we never “shall come out,” entwining the sexes into one Godly figure of Christ; by bestowing Christ with both male and female identities, Julian not only alters the traditional all-male trinity, but also attempts to find a place for women in the Christian power structure. Julian of Norwich, in writing her Divine Revelations, began a tradition of niche-carving, a tradition that continues today in the writings of Ruether, Kristeva, Clement, and in the lives of ordinary religious women everywhere.

"from the days of Eve to the present time, the aim of man has been to crush her"

Here again, more strong women! Sarah Grimke, though not as crazy (crazy not the right word, but maybe not as well known?) as her sister Angelina, is still quite fervent in her beliefs in her letters on the equality of the sexes and the condition of woman.

what i like about this grimke sister is that she uses letters--writing, that is--to fight back against the man (in this case, literally men). man's own tool is subverted for feminist uses. grimke does, perhaps, join the symbolic order (will lacan ever leave me alone?) by learning the "language" or adopting the language of men, thereby allowing herself access to their world. once she has access she is able to release the deluge of reasons women should not be treated as the currently are. She goes through the Bible, the ultimate patriarchal text, and finds examples of women who are not only strong, but capable and, most importantly, integral agents in the spread and success of Christianity.

She even finds in Paul reasons why it's acceptable for women to preach.

"Here Paul admits the prophesying of women in public assemblies, and, of course, could have had no intention in his Epistle to Timothy to forbid that sort of teaching which stood in connection with the exercise of the gift of prophesy." (1104).

She issues her plea over and over again with different examples:

"Again we repeat that it is our most solemn conviction that the use of a gift of power delgated to the Church as a specialty of the last days has been neglected--a gift which, if properly recognized, would have hastened the latter-day glory." (1105).

What she fights for is total equality, and recognition withing the Church that women have had a place in the lines of christian soldiers, as it were. More militant than any of the other women we've read so far, and, i would argue, perhaps the most persuasive of the others we've read, as well. She doesn't put men down to bring women up (cough cough jane anger), she simply states that putting women down and then saying it's church doctrine doesn't fly, when, in fact, the Bible has all kinds of powerful women if you just look for them.

"From woman sprang man's salvation"

title quote from jane anger, an angry woman.

not all of this week's readings were angry, but a few of them were. it's refreshing to finally get a female perspective who doesn't seem to be kowtowing to male sensibilities. that anger can say, "from woman sprang man's salvation" signifies not just that she's had enough of men telling her she's crap, but also some more religious sentiment, something akin to what my friend julian of norwich might say. julian wouldn't be so angry about it, but that salvation is got from a woman (christ the MOTHER) seems pretty well documented in her writing. the time for women has come (maybe)!

since mentioning julian, it seems only fair to also talk about the other religious lady i covered in my presentation: sor juana ines de la cruz. her assertion that "in me the desire for learning was stronger than the desire for eating" coupled with her candid thoughts on why she went in to the convent at all (to learn more...religious reasons were nearly terciary) make her another strong woman, and provide yet another connection to julian. here, though, the "religious" woman is not all about having visions and reporting them. instead, sor juana envisions a world where women might not have to go to the convent if all they want to do is learn, especially when they, like her, enjoy the pleasures of life outside the convent walls. both working at a kind of "equality," though julian's is solely religious, and sor juana's seems quite the opposite.

peter denies christ, or, ramus proves to be pretty b.a.

peter ramus is my new best friend! again we are confronted with sass, and again, i love it. the way he addresses those he argues against is, of course, severely arrogant. it is also pretty hilarious.

"O Quintilian, although you say that moral virtue fashions good, respectable, and praiseworthy followers, nevertheless you do not give sufficient thought to what you say... For the future I expect better words than this, or you should think up better advice" (686). Woo! a direct address from ramus to q. seems so harsh. the "o" is my favorite part, and made me laugh out loud, partly because that is how i approach texts (as if i'm in conversation with them), but also partly because i agree with him.

ramus argues that the rhetorician does not have to be a "good" person, and i tend to agree here. what ramus refers to as q's "worthless ideas" sometimes seem just as useless to me. rhetoric is not a moral virtue. i stand by this.

Update from November 2: what would Julian think about this? does she consider herself involved in a kind of rhetoric? i think for her, the act of creating a story for herself and for women within christianity (in other words, the act of engaging in the rhetoric) IS a virtuous experience. it is how she gets closer to god, AND how she gets her point across. Revelations of Divine Love is rhetoric as moral virtue. the good woman speaking well. hm.

"I understand three ways of seeing motherhood in God..."

i think just some notes will do for today. i wrote kind of a lot in my class notes, so here i'll just highlight what i think is so interesting (and what i think i'll write my paper on).

motherhood is, for julian of norwich, a state of doing. for this reason can christ be called a "mother"-- he, too, performs works similar to those a mother would perform for her children. julian perceives god's will as action. this seems to be at odds with the traditional (but what tradition? i guess this just comes from some knowledge base i've assumed) view of women as passive. how can you both be passive and active at the same time? if to be a good christian means to be active, is it possible for women to be good christians? i think julian would say yes, because she equates action, or activeness, with women specifically.

"Help me Obi Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope."

First and foremost, today is a good day. Why? Because I threw a piece of trash from across the room towards the garbage barrel, and it actually went in. In technical terms, we call that a swish or a swoosh. Success? I think so.

Also, because I think I like Augustine. I like his wild and crazy previous life, and I like how when he converted he just didn't forget about his former self. As Joan Didion says in On Keeping a Notebook, "I think we are well advised to keep on nodding terms with the people we used to be whether we find them attractive company or not." Indeed, and so it is with Augustine.

This is the first time I've written in my commonplace about the subject we just had a class conversation on, and I find I'm thinking about it in many different ways than usual. I'll take this opportunity to disagree with some points raised in class regarding the following passage: "That you consider yourself adorned and beautified, this is an insult to the divine work, a violation of truth." And later, "If you are beautiful, why do you hide it? If ugly, why do you pretend to be beautiful, enjoying neither peace in your own conscience, nor satisfaction in misleading others?"

I think it's easy to get caught up in thinking that all these guys hated women, and hold ourselves up upon some pedestal of feminist righteousness, but when we really look at the words of the text, I don't think he's saying women are bad. I think he's saying that you shouldn't mask the beauty God has given you with artificial means. His is a holy argument, not necessarily an aesthetic one: by putting makeup on you cheapen His works. I like thinking about things like that. I also like that if you're ugly, you aren't fooling anyone by painting yourself up. Call me judgemental, but when I see an ugly person with tons of makeup on trying to hide it, I mentally call her out. Does this make me a bad person? Probably, but I can't help what I think (not even think, really: these are usually visceral reactions).

Anyway, that was pretty much a giant tangent about nothing but I felt that if I said it in class people would think that I hate women, which I don't, and they would attack me if I admitted I occasionally wear makeup, which I do. I've had about 100,000 crises of faith, but one thing I do like thinking about is each person as a work of art personally designed by God. You wouldn't try and put a little rouge on the Mona Lisa (hmm, but why not? I guess that's a different topic...I suppose it goes into the question of what art is, who makes art, and why art is "Art.").

Some things did confuse me though. Augustine seems a little militant when it comes to "winning" his audience. However you have to do it is fine, as long as in the end an audience has been won. In this case, the winning has everything to do with being on the "Good" side of things. It brings to mind Obi Wan Kenobi, and his pursuit of the good. He has to teach Luke to fight using the Force, and here, the "Force" might be understood as "rhetorical strategies." As a soldier for the good (a soldier for God, in Augustine's case), he's got to use everything he has, even if he has to use methods that can also be used for bad purposes (like Luke learning how to fight). I wonder if I could draw this Star Wars theme out longer? Probably not. But it certainly does call for an inspirational Obi Wan picture.

"...whatever he may say bears a likeness to the written word...

From Cicero, De Oratore, yet again. This guy is just full of good bits (not to be confused with naughty bits). I'm fascinated by his zeroing-in on the importance of writing and the written word--this may be the first time we've come across this in class. Here's everything that I think is fascinating:

"But the chief thing is what, to tell the truth, we do least (for it needs great pains which most of us shirk)--to write as much as possible. The pen is the best and most eminent author and teacher of eloquence, and rightly so."

Later...

"...the actual marshalling and arrangement of words is made perfect in the course of writing, in a rhythm and measure proper to oratory as distinct from poetry."

Later...

"...he too who approaches oratory by way of long practice in writing, brings this advantage to his task, that even if he is extemporizing, whatever he may say nears a likeness to the written word..."

All found on page 309 in Rhetorical Tradition, 2nd Ed.

What I love about it is the marriage between the two things which up until now have seemed separate to our authors/philosophers. Writing and oratory go together so nicely, and complement each other so well. In fact, I might go so far as to say that you cannot have one without the other. For clearly it's possible to speak without writing, but is it possible to be an orator, per se? You have to have some clear goal, you have to be just, you have to speak well, as Quintilian would say. Writing helps us do that. And obviously the people from whom we get all this information penned their thoughts on rhetoric.

The oral histories get passed down, but changed, and lost, and misconstrued. Written history has a permanence that is both reassuring and, at times, frightening, but its lasting power cannot be under-valued. That we no longer think of rhetoric without thinking, in one way or another, of writing, speaks not only to the value of written language, but to the staying power of Cicero's thinking (and writing...had he not written it down, we might never have had these snippets to ponder).

Oh, and so I don't forget, "eloquence" is of the utmost importance to Cicero and everyone, and I find myself feeling pretty triumphant on behalf of writing that to become an eloquent speaker one must first be an eloquent writer.

P.S. "eloquence" is a really beautiful word.