Monday, March 10, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
As we enter into the question of whether women had a Renaissance, we are today looking at the fate of female humanists, those who aspired to learning, those who courted the favor of powerful humanist men, and those who briefly broke through the glass ceiling. We have already read Bruni's letter to Battista Malatesta, in which Bruni shows great respect for his correspondent, but also lets her know what her limits are. Women, he says, have no place in the world of public affairs, which would include public speaking, and so rhetoric is not a field they should try to master. And in an aside to my women students, I'd like you to think of how much better it is to be taking a class where you have to engage in public speaking, than to want to do so and be told you can't (although our first choice might always be to do what we want, whatever!). But seriously, the men of the Renaissance valued one quality above all others in their wives, and that was chastity. This, in fact, is the sole source of female honor--not going out in the world and doing great things, but guarding their chastity.
Chastity to women of the Renaissance meant much more than simply remaining faithful to their husbands. It meant not ever giving onlookers a chance to imagine that they might be unfaithful. Honor is a public virtue, depending not on what we do or are as much as on what other people perceive us to be. If a man or woman has reason to suspect that another woman is too eager to see and be seen, or dressed too suggestively, or too forward in speaking with men, then he or she can conclude that that woman might be of easy virtue. Once people get that idea in their heads, they believe that anything is fair game with such a woman: if she allows the hint of suspicion that another man might be enjoying her, then she by extension is regarded as being available to all men. Her husband, or in the case of unmarried women, father and brothers, will in turn suffer dishonor, because the woman's menfolk can't keep her in line.
In today's reading we find that some women were able to write and even speak publicly in spite of these limitations. In addition to the homework and discussion questions, for the purpose of class discussion I'd like you to consider what might be the reasons for such exceptional women. What were their families like, as well as their networks of support?
Homework and Discussion Questions
Since a sound foundation in the facts is necessary before you can work out an analysis, you should begin by doing a summary of the main arguments on both sides of Nogarola’s debate on the equal or unequal sin of Adam and Eve.
What is your reaction to and assessment of Nogarola’s defense of Eve? Do you think, for example, that with defenders like her women hardly need detractors? Do you think she is being clever in putting her defense in the terms she does?
Laura Cereta takes a similarly ambiguous position in her curse against the ornamentation of women. Is she lapsing into contempt, or even misogyny (hatred of women), or do her remarks help lift up the female sex? What about her letter to Lucilia Vernacula (a made-up name, not a real person)? Looking at her letter to Bibulus Sempronius, explain the basis for her anger at Bibulus (which is also a made-up name that means “Drunkard”). Do you sympathize with her or do you believe she’s being unfair?
Next, the premier humanist of his generation, Coluccio Salutati, uses his substantial rhetorical gifts to lambaste a woman over her desire to leave her convent and marry. What deeper, underlying attitudes toward women does he display in his rebuke?
Laurel Carrington carringt@stolaf.edu
Most recent update: January 23, 2008