Eloquence Non Vaine: the Search for Suitable Style in Early Modern France

Eloquence non vaine: The Search for Suitable Style in Early Modern France By Stacey Elizabeth Battis A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in French in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Timothy Hampton, Chair Professor Nicholas Paige Professor Dylan Sailor Fall 2014 Eloquence non vaine: The Search for Suitable Style in Early Modern France Copyright 2014 By Stacey Elizabeth Battis Abstract Eloquence non vaine: The Search for Suitable Style in Early Modern France by Stacey Elizabeth Battis Doctor of Philosophy in French University of California, Berkeley Professor Timothy Hampton, Chair This dissertation examines the fate of Classical theories of eloquence in early sixteenth-century France. Eloquence is a treasured commonplace inherited by the humanists from ancient Greece and Rome. It denotes the potent combination of elegant speech and irresistibly persuasive power, whether in oral or written form. Early modern writers were eager to translate this linguistic force into their vernacular to strengthen both their language and their literature. The twin projects of fashioning a French eloquence and a strong French language– in other words, “making eloquence French” and “making French eloquent” – participate in a growing sense of nationalism that is mediated by discourses on national language and literature. At the same time, however, imaginative writing shows itself to be less interested in the success stories of an eloquent France and more in the failures of eloquence. The process of domesticating eloquence sparks an ideological divide between imaginative writing and prescriptive texts such as treatises on rhetoric and poetry. The writers of my corpus mostly evoke the tradition of rhetorical theory to undermine it and, in so doing, they expose the vanity of eloquence. What are the stakes behind the representation of such a failure in the larger scope of the humanist project, at the heart of which is this kind of language? What does the failure of eloquence tell us about vernacular literary production in the early modern period? Taking these questions as a point of departure, this dissertation investigates how Classical and Renaissance concepts of eloquence are dissected in three major prose works published before the publication of Joachim Du Bellay’s Deffence et illustration de la langue française in 1549. These works cannot be defined by one, single genre: instead, they are textual hybrids, borrowing discursive practices from history, fable, chronicle, autobiography, romance, and novel. It is the contention of this dissertation that the writers of my corpus fully utilize the manifold possibilities of hybrid imaginative writing in order to question eloquence and, more specifically, to expose the impossibility of a perfect eloquence. Such writing provides both a defective and an ideal space for this exploration. It is defective in that imaginative writing cannot account for the traditional requirements of an oral eloquent speech, namely, persuading by adapting according to the needs of the moment and by exploiting proximity to the audience to gain sway over their affective response. An eloquent speech set into print cannot recreate the speech-act of the orator. However, imaginative writing uses its fixity precisely to create situations in which eloquence can be closely scrutinized. It becomes important to set the reading audience at a safe distance from 1 the performance of eloquence being read, for eloquence is often framed as a harmful contagion. The ideal reader of written eloquence is one who is in the know about how eloquence works, and is thus immune to its effects. The dissertation consists of three chapters, each dedicated to a major prose writer of the early sixteenth century in France: Jean Lemaire de Belges, François Rabelais, and Hélisenne de Crenne. An historical and conceptual introduction chapter precedes the analysis, and I end with a conclusion that looks forward to the later stylistic experiments of Michel de Montaigne. The dissertation contributes to the history of rhetoric in Renaissance France, and engages debates about the emergence of modern ‘literature’ from earlier rhetorical traditions. 2 For Mater and Pater, and in the memory of those we have lost i Table of Contents Dedication i Table of Contents ii Acknowledgements iii Chapter One Language Contests: Eloquence, Humanist Culture, and French Prose 1 Chapter Two Mercury’s Band: Jean Lemaire de Belges’s Illustrations and Dangerous Persuasion in Epic/History 22 Chapter Three Poinct fin ny canon: Eloquence in François Rabelais’s Educational Programs 38 Chapter Four Reserved for Mercury: Hélisenne de Crenne’s Broken Quill and Borrowed Eloquence 76 Coda “Est-ce pas ainsi que je parle par tout?” Michel de Montaigne’s Praise of Jacques Amyot 114 References 116 ii Acknowledgements My greatest debt is to my mentor and chair, Timothy Hampton, who both shaped me as a scholar and helped me cultivate this project from its inception. I do not have eloquence enough to express my gratitude properly. Nicholas Paige has been an indispensable source of kind and critical ministrations, and my special thanks to him as well. Thank you to my outside reader, Dylan Sailor. No scholar writes in a vacuum, and I am certainly no exception. I would like to express my deepest thanks to all those who instructed, guided, and supported me throughout this process: Seda Chavdarian, without whom I would not be the teacher I am today; Ann Smock, for showing me the playful side of the literary; and a quick thank you to Richard Cooper, who introduced me to François Rabelais in the first place. I have sincere appreciation and admiration for my students, muses all, whose thoughtful questions and discussions helped me give Hélisenne de Crenne a voice. I give particular thanks to my colleagues and friends: Daniel Hoffmann, for silent lunch, companionship, and formalism; Anna Skrzypczynska, for her indomitable skill at pun-making and unwavering support, particularly in the last stretch; Alani Hicks-Bartlett, for her compassion and last-minute crucial editing work; and Billy Heidenfelt, Richard Cooluris, and Zelda Juddah Coolfelt, for much-needed respites at the Hideback. To my dissertation writing group, thank you for the snacks and severity, without which this project would have never been finished: Margo Meyer, for soup, cake, and sympathy; Livi Yoshioka-Maxwell, for everything; and Maria Vendetti, my fellow fist of iron. Thank you for your friendship. My eternal gratitude to my dear friend and life coach, Carol Dolcini, for always keeping the office door open for me. Thank you, Mary Ajideh, for your grace, advice, and candy. Special thanks go out to the kind and hard-working people at the University of California, Berkeley libraries, Interlibrary Services, and the Northern Regional Library Facility, for keeping me equipped with the finest ink-and-paper arms a woman of letters could need. Now that I’ve thanked my West Coast family, I now turn to my East Coast family. To my soul sister, travel companion, and spiritual ladder, Wendeline A. Hardenberg: you are the very model of what friends should be; thanks for not asking too often what my dissertation was about; and many thanks to my best-friend-in-law Aaron for letting me monopolize her time. And, finally, to my parents: thanks for letting me wander so far away. Et manu et corde. iii Chapter One Language Contests: Eloquence, Humanist Culture, and French Prose I. Eloquence and Failure In the middle section of Jean Lemaire de Belges’s Les Illustrations de Gaule et Singularitéz de Troye, the part generally known today as the “roman de Troie,” the gods designate the shepherd Paris Alexandre as the judge of the infamous beauty contest between Juno, Minerva, and Venus that instigates the Trojan War.1 As Mercury informs Paris of this decision, the three goddesses make their arrivals on scene, rendering the shepherd completely mute by their divine beauty; Paris will remain silent until well after each of the three goddesses try to convince their “Iuge pastoral” to choose her as the most beautiful over the other two, plying him with gifts and promises befitting their natures (1: 230-249). Paris will, of course, choose Venus. Like other versions of this Homeric myth, Lemaire takes great care to describe each goddess’s beauty, attire, and divine prerogative, meaning royal power, wisdom, and love, respectively. What is particularly striking about his retelling is how the contest becomes just as overtly about oratorical prowess as it is about physical beauty. As such, the contest brings to the foreground two of the questions central to this dissertation: how can a divine, idealized eloquence, as that represented by Minerva in this scene, fail to persuade its intended audience? What are the stakes behind the representation of such a failure in the larger scope of the humanist project, of which this language is the very center? The goddesses make long speeches that are engineered to persuade Paris and to neutralize what the others will say. This tricky calculus involves standard rhetorical techniques, among which is the criticism of each speaker’s character: Juno and Minerva each warn Paris against Venus’s seductive lasciviousness, for instance. It also takes the form of three different positions toward rhetoric itself. Briefly, these positions are anti-rhetoric as a claim to sincerity and believability (Juno), an ideal, humanist-inspired eloquence that is ethically and responsibly used (Minerva), and a dangerous, ethically irresponsible, and sophistic eloquence (Venus). Each goddess is therefore beautiful and persuasive in her own distinct way, and has her own code of ethics represented in and by her rhetorical choices. Moreover, Lemaire targets Minerva’s eloquence as the most vital of the three, the one that demands the most pointed attacks from the others and the one that pulls our focus.

Load more