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.

"The truth is that the poet is a very near kinsman of the orator"

Methinks I love Cicero. Easier to read than our previous adventures (does that make me lazy? I think not), he seems to have something to say about everything.

The title quotation, from De Oratore, page 299 in The Rhetorical Tradition, was an idea that I think I'd like to latch on to. Here in its entirety:

"The truth is that the poet is a very near kinsman of the orator, rather more heavily fettered as regards rhythm, but with ampler freedom in his choice of words, while in the use of many sorts of ornament he is his ally and almost his counterpart."

Not something that we think about a lot, especially if I pull the idea out of Cicero and implant it into today's society: poets and politicians are not always likened to one another, nevermind mentioned as allies and counterparts, in our modern political world. Although, now that I think about it, there are a lot of famous political speeches, but those that are most famous are from times past (that only follows linear time logic, since I can't know what someone will orate about in the future, but still, my argument stands, I think). For example, "Four score and seven years ago" is a familiar quotation, certainly, and I think most would agree it has some poetic qualities, but I don't think anyone would listen to George W. and think, "Ah...the sweet, sweet sounds of political poetry."

Where has that love of poetics gone? Does it exist somewhere and I'm just missing it? Words are chosen based on persuasive effectiveness, not much more. But, is that what poets do, too?

Some things to ponder, for certain.

"The following is a more detailed list of things that must be good."

I find Aristotle both infuriating and inspiring. The above is what started me on a rant to Kathleen about Aristotle's intentions in writing Rhetoric. Here's more of the quotation from above:

"Happiness, as being desirable in itself and sufficient by itself, and as being that for whose sake we choose many other things. Also justice, courage, temperance, magnanimity, magnificence, and all such qualities... Further, health, beauty... Wealth... Friends and friendship... Sciences and arts... And life: since, even if no other good were the result of life, it is desirable in itself."

These are all things that Aristotle says must be good. Must? What I'm not sure of here is whether Aristotle is trying to prove something, or if he's using these definitions as a way to show his students how to use these accepted definitions against/ for someone. For example, would he say these are greater, natural truths that cannot be disputed, or are they just perceived as natural truths by most people, and therefore can be used as a weapon in rhetoric? Aristotle does this with nearly everything he defines, spending pages giving us definitions of motives, goodness, irrefutable truths, and wrongdoing.

Later, he writes, "If the audience esteems a given quality, we must say that our hero has that quality, no matter whether we are addressing Scythians or Spartans or philosophers. Everything, in fact, that is esteemed we are to represent as noble. After all, people regard the two things as much the same" (RT 199).

Aristotle, you MUST SAY that, but why? In order to convince your audience of the goodness of your subject, regardless of whether you actually think he was good? And if, say, murderous behavior is an esteemed one to your audience, must you give that attribute to the subject? I think Aristotle would say yes, because rhetoric is about persuasion, but doesn't that go against what Aristotle believes about those irrefutable truths? Is the idea that "It's all relative" at odds with undeniable, irrefutable truths? Or are they not? It bothers me because I don't exactly see how they can be reconciled, and yet somehow they are in Aristotle's Rhetoric. Perhaps those turths that are fundamental ARE, indeed, irrefutable, BUT you have to cater to other untruthy (thanks Stephen Colbert) things in order to win over an audience, which, after all, is the goal of rhetoric.

Hm, afterthought: this might be solved by looking more closely at page 207, where A discusses particular law versus universal law. Ugh. I actually don't think it's solvable.

beginning

Here it is. A "commonplace" blog, all to myself. Purpose? To provide a place to expand on seeds of ideas that get planted in my brain while reading the material for EN 912: Rhetoric (and the history of it). As yet, there are no seeds, because I haven't really done any of the reading, but this is just the first entry.

I think I'll set it up like this: every time an idea strikes me, I will quote the passage (or some words of it) in the "title" for the day, and then use the body of the entry for my thought-puke. I'll empty the contents of my brain, and hopefully begin a kind of of journey to find that already-existent idea that is napping in my unconscious, ready to be discovered and explored.

I also cannot promise that this blog will ONLY be for the purposes I've already described. Occasional grumbles may erupt from my mind and find their way through my fingers to the keyboard, and that can't always be helped.