In the introduction to A Serious Proposal, we learn that Mary Astell's "writings are filled with a genuine love of women and concern for their welfare" (846), establishing her ethos to the max. It seems to be less of projecting one's knowledge for the sake of self-recognition, as seems to be the method of some of our previous rhetoricians, and more of enlightening a group to help them become capable of much more. "for Human Nature is for the most part much alike in all, and that which has a good effect on us, will generally speaking have the same on others. So that to guess what success we are like to have, we need only suppose our selves in the place of those we Address to, and consider how such a Discourse wou'd operate on us, if we had their Infirmities and Thoughts about us" (854: 2nd column). Walk a mile in someone's shoes, says Astell, and you'll learn how best to write something to appeal to them. She understands the kairos of the situation, the context being of utmost importance in her case, and does well to mold her ideas around who she's writing to, rather than pushing for others to try to wrap their heads around and fully grasp everything she could simply drop on the page.
I particularly enjoyed Astell's thoughts on page 854, starting with the second to last paragraph on the left. She writes of individual style, but goes on to specify certain universal elements: "One is for Easiness, a second for Plainness, a third for Strength, and a fourth for Politeness. And perhaps the great secret of Writing is the mixing all these in so just a proportion that every one may tast what he likes without being disgusted by its contrary." This metaphor of writing as cooking presents a wonderful visual, and still seems to be in play today: carefully scooping and measuring just enough of each ingredient to satisfy our hungry customers. Do we sacrifice voice/individuality, though, when we are too careful to please everyone? And must we always be conscious of these four elements when writing to be as successful as possible? I could play devil's advocate and name authors who aren't quite as cautious as Astell would prefer, but perhaps in an era of newly emerging feminism, a slight timidity is the best method of making one's name known.
We should consider the feasibility of actually pleasing “everyone”; trying to please everyone pleases no one. Astell was bound to realize that her very text would inevitably displease some people, so I’m not so sure she literally, idealistically meant that the end of writing should please *everyone.* Astell seems to think that there are particular people (audiences) whom we shouldn’t waste our efforts on: “’tis to no purpose to harp to an Ass, or to chant forth our Charms in the Ears of a deaf Adder…we can only afford them our Pity for our Advice will do no good” (850). According to my interpretation, Astell appears to believe that some people are lost causes—and if so, then why would she recommend that writing be pleasing to everyone?
ReplyDeletePerhaps by “every one” she means “as many people as possible.” So she recommends “mixing all these [styles] in so just a proportion that every one may tast what he likes without being disgusted by its contrary” (854). At first reading, it sounds as though each binary style would be *equally* complemented by its opposite; after all, someone could taste “what he likes without being disgusted by its contrary” only if the contrary doesn’t overwhelm his taste of preference. And since it’s likely there are two fellows with opposite tastes, we’d assume that the two flavors/styles should be dealt with equally so as not to overwhelm the other.
But maybe we can interpret Astell’s main idea as something like this: you should vary your writing style just enough so that as many people as possible may taste what they like without being disgusted by its contrary *as opposed to tasting the contrary in absence of the favored taste.* (Sorry for the quick logic leap; I just realized this comment is already too long). This interpretation allows room for a writer to pursue a very definite, individualistic style while also cautioning one not to make that style too overbearing. If I remember correctly, someone we read earlier stated that grand, middle, and simple styles are not exclusively set apart in a text, that though the *overall* style may be “grand,” the text inevitably incorporates elements of middle and simple styles as well. Well, if I’m not misremembering this, perhaps Astell was trailing along this same concept as well. Thanks for writing; you pose excellent questions!
I agree with Sadie in her assertion that even Astell would have realized that (to quote the old adage) "you can't please all of the people all of the time." But I think she would have been content to please some of the people some of the time. And what I find even more impressive is that she acknowledges the possiblity of attempting to persuade such a diverse audience with varied preferences. While this is certainly a continuation of the styles listed in in Rhetorica Ad Herennium, which were also important in Cicero's work, Astell's definition of style seems to go much further. Much like Cicero's efforts to expand the definition of rhetoric to include the sciences, Astell seems to be making an effort to extend rhetoric to include an allowance for a much wider audience.
ReplyDelete