Christine de Pizan

Pizan writes about charity being more than giving the money from one's pocket book, that it can be given by the offering up of "help and comfort by your speech and advice" (546). I believe she is suggesting that the power of rhetoric moves beyond persuasion for personal benefit or for the discovery of truth but to advance humanity and kindness. As part of the in-class work, we were supposed to pass along the passage that we wanted to explore to one of our classmates. After I passed this along to Amy, she offered me a few questions in return:

"So is this a feminine thing? Women are stereotypically more compassionate. So is Pizan offering a woman's touch to rhetoric? How is charity tying to rhetoric here? Speech is as valid a form of charity as traditional alms-giving."

These are good questions that I hope to be able to adequately answer.

I think that Pizan is expressing a rhetoric of compassion that enable acts of charity not associated with money. I also think that the stereotype during her time was that women are inherently more compassionate than men. In keeping with her time, this would be considered "offering a woman's touch to rhetoric," as Amy put it, but I don't think that is fair. Now I don't suggest the Amy's question meant to diminish value of feminine rhetoric but more of a prompt to get me thinking about the nature what would be considered feminist rhetoric in Pizan's terms. I think the question that should be asked is: Can Pizan's ideas be considered feminist rhetoric is she still operates within the constraints placed upon women during her era?

Early in her book, The Treasure of the City of Ladies, Pizan writes about the proper method by which a princess must speak on behalf of her people when attempting to "make peace" between her husband, the prince, and them. The lady is seen as "an advocate and mediator" (546), but one who must address her husband in the presence of a gentleman escort. While the lady is given to power to speak for her subjects, she is still kept within the constraints of the patriarchal system. I don't believe that this is a full-fledged offering of feminist rhetoric, but I think it's a start. The lady may not be allowed to fully express herself without being subjugated by the patriarchy, but it is significant that she is put in a position that holds some sway over the fate of many lives. If she can speak eloquently enough to elicit compassion from her husband, why are we denying her the right to speak out on all accounts? I think Pizan's work is one step closer to the latter.