Women and Literacy Local and Global Inquiries

for a New Century 1 Edition Beth Daniell

download

https://ebookname.com/product/women-and-literacy-local-and-
global-inquiries-for-a-new-century-1-edition-beth-daniell/

Get the full ebook with Bonus Features for a Better Reading Experience on ebookname.com
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Religion and Politics in the 21st Century Global and

Local Reflections 1st Edition Natalia Vlas

https://ebookname.com/product/religion-and-politics-in-the-21st-
century-global-and-local-reflections-1st-edition-natalia-vlas/

The Global Diffusion of Markets and Democracy 1st

Edition Beth A. Simmons

https://ebookname.com/product/the-global-diffusion-of-markets-
and-democracy-1st-edition-beth-a-simmons/

Dreamers of a New Day Women Who Invented the Twentieth

Century Sheila Rowbotham

https://ebookname.com/product/dreamers-of-a-new-day-women-who-
invented-the-twentieth-century-sheila-rowbotham/

Hospitaller Women in the Middle Ages Anthony Luttrell

https://ebookname.com/product/hospitaller-women-in-the-middle-
ages-anthony-luttrell/
Counselling for Anxiety Problems 2nd ed Edition Dr
Diana J Sanders

https://ebookname.com/product/counselling-for-anxiety-
problems-2nd-ed-edition-dr-diana-j-sanders/

Reinventing Gravity A Physicist Goes Beyond Einstein

John W. Moffat

https://ebookname.com/product/reinventing-gravity-a-physicist-
goes-beyond-einstein-john-w-moffat/

Proteases and Cancer Methods and Protocols 1st Edition

Nesrine I. Affara

https://ebookname.com/product/proteases-and-cancer-methods-and-
protocols-1st-edition-nesrine-i-affara-2/

The Language of Websites Intertext Series 1st Edition

Mark Boardman

https://ebookname.com/product/the-language-of-websites-intertext-
series-1st-edition-mark-boardman/

Toward Integrative Corporate Citizenship Research

Advances in Corporate Social Performance M. Orlitzky

https://ebookname.com/product/toward-integrative-corporate-
citizenship-research-advances-in-corporate-social-performance-m-
orlitzky/
Structure of Dairy Products Society of Dairy Technology
series 1st Edition Adnan Tamime

https://ebookname.com/product/structure-of-dairy-products-
society-of-dairy-technology-series-1st-edition-adnan-tamime/
 WOMEN
and LITERACY
Local and Global Inquiries for a New Century
 NCTE–LEA Research Series
Series Editors

Literacy
David Bloome, The Ohio State University
Arlette Ingram Willis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Composition
Malea Powell, Michigan State University
Duane Roen, Arizona State University

Alsup • Teacher Identity Discourses: Negotiating Personal and Professional Spaces*

Banks • Race, Rhetoric, and Technology: Searching for Higher Ground*

Daniell/Mortensen, Eds. • Women and Literacy: Local and Global Inquiries

for a New Century*

The NCTE–LEA Research Series, co-published by the National Council of

Teachers of English and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis
Group, comprises two distinct strands: (1) literacy studies in P–12 classroom
and related contexts and (2) composition studies. Volumes in this series are
invited publications that are primarily authored or co-authored works that
are theoretically significant and hold broad relevance to their respective
audiences. The series may also include occasional landmark compendiums of
research.

The scope of the series includes qualitative and quantitative methodologies;

a range of perspectives and approaches (e.g., sociocultural, cognitive, feminist,
linguistic, pedagogical, critical, historical, anthropological); and research on
diverse populations, contexts (e.g., classrooms, school systems, families,
communities), and forms of literacy (e.g., print, electronic, popular media).

For additional information about the NCTE–LEA Research Series and

guidelines for submitting proposals, visit www.taylorandfrancis.com or
www.ncte.org.

*Titles acquired and developed under Series Editors Andrea A. Lunsford and
Beverly J. Moss (2002–2005)
 WOMEN
and LITERACY
Local and Global Inquiries for a New Century

Edited by
Beth Daniell
Kennesaw State University

Peter Mortensen
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

National Council of Teachers of English

1111 W. Kenyon Road, Urbana, Illinois 61801-1096
Cover design by Tomai Maridou.

Cover art by Safia El-Wakil.

First published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

10 Industrial Avenue, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430
This edition published in 2012 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2007 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-8058-6007-8 (Softcover) 978-0-8058-6006-1 (Hardcover)

No part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming,
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the
publishers.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Women and literacy : local and global inquiries for a new century / edited by Beth
Daniell and Peter Mortensen.
p. cm.
(NCTE-LEA research series)
Includes index.
ISBN 978-0-8058-6006-1 (hbk)
ISBN 978-0-8058-6007-8 (pbk.)
1. Woman--Education. 2. Literacy. 3. Women--Books and reading. I. Daniell, Beth,
1947- II. Mortensen, Peter, 1961­

LC1481.L646 2006
302.2’244082--dc22 2006025578

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

http://www.taylorandfrancis.com

Visit the National Council of Teachers of English Web site at

http://www.ncte.org
 For
Maggie, Nancy, and Rae
and
Sarah and Ellen
Contents

Preface xi

Contributors xv

Introduction—Researching Women and Literacy: 1

Usable Pasts, Possible Futures
Peter Mortensen and Beth Daniell

I. WOMEN’S LITERACIES SITUATED LOCALLY:

PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE

1 Feeling Literate: Gender, Race, and Work in Dorothy 45

West’s “The Typewriter”
Donna Strickland

2 Crusader: Ethel Azalea Johnson’s Use of the Written 59

Word as a Weapon of Liberation
Rhea Estelle Lathan

3 Virginia Mountain Women Writing to Government 71

Officials: Letters of Request as Social Participation
Katrina M. Powell

4 Reconsidering Power, Privilege, and the Public/ 91

Private Distinction in the Literacy of Rural Women
Kim Donehower

vii
viii CONTENTS

5 Sponsoring Clubs: Cultivating Rural Identities 109

through Literacy
Charlotte Hogg

6 Literacy on the Margins: Louisa May Alcott’s 125

Pragmatic Rhetoric
Hephzibah Roskelly and Kate Ronald

7 “Diverse in Sentiment and Form”: Feminist Poetry 137

as Radical Literate Practice, 1968–1975
Kathryn T. Flannery

8 Branded Literacy: The Entrepreneurship of Oprah’s 157

Book Club
Bonnie Kathryn Smith

II. WOMEN’S LITERACIES IN A GLOBALLY

INTERDEPENDENT WORLD

9 Professing “Western” Literacy: Globalization and 173

Women’s Education at the Western College for Women
Shevaun Watson and Morris Young

10 Considering the Meanings of Literacy in a Postcolonial 189

Setting: The Case of Tunisia
Keith Walters

11 Women and the Global Ecology of Digital Literacies 207

Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe, with Kate Coffield
and Safia El-Wakil

12 The Emotional Effects of Literacy: Vietnamese Women 229

Negotiating the Shift to a Market Economy
Ilene Whitney Crawford

13 Post-Apartheid Literacies: South African Women’s 243

Poetry of Orality, Franchise, and Reconciliation
Mary K. DeShazer
CONTENTS ix

14 Gender and Literacies: The Korean “Comfort 259

Women’s” Testimonies
Gwendolyn Gong

15 The Outlook for Global Women’s Literacy 275

Catherine L. Hobbs

Segue 291

Afterword: Reading Literacy Research Against 297

the Grain of Fast Capitalism
Min-Zhan Lu

Author Index 319

Subject Index 325

Preface

The calligraphy on the cover of this book was created by Safia El-Wakil,
one of the contributors to Women and Literacy: Local and Global Inquiries
for a New Century. Safia teaches at the American University in Cairo
along with Kate Coffield, and both are co-authors with Gail Hawisher
and Cynthia Selfe of “Women and the Global Ecology of Digital
Literacies,” a chapter that examines how two women, Safia and Kate,
learned to use computers to write and to teach writing. But El-Wakil
also uses the computer to create intricate calligraphy, an example of
which she has generously shared with us. El-Wakil explains:

The vortex recapitulates the whirling dance movement performed by the

mystic dervishes of the thirteenth-century Mevlevi Sufi Order of Konya
(Turkey) founded by Jalaluddin Rumi .… As the Mevlevi dervish whirls
and rotates in celebration of his Creator, he represents the earth revolving
on its own axis while orbiting the sun. His dance thus aspires to capture
the splendor of the creation, to spread the rapture of love, and to evoke the
feelings of joy and compassion that will ultimately unite him with his
spiritual essence.
The written words at the center of the vortex are “He is Alive” (meaning
God, the Creator), and the rose petals flowing out of the vortex and be­
yond are the symbolic petals of love. (Private correspondence, 9 Feb.
2006)

El-Wakil tells us that the whirling movement of the dervishes recreated

in her calligraphy imitates “the fundamental condition of our existence
from the cosmic swirl of stars and planets above to the minutest rotation
of the protons and electrons around the nucleus of an atom.”
El-Wakil’s artwork is an appropriate cover for this collection of es­
says about women and literacy, for, as you will find, the women readers
and writers whose stories, tragedies, and hopes are told in this volume
xi
xii PREFACE

are indeed part of the swirling life of the universe. Yet it was not so long
ago, we remember, that women’s stories were not told, that they were
not considered a part of the universe. We hope you will discover, as we
have, that the women whose stories are told here use their literacies in
the service of life—to make life better for themselves, other women,
their families, their communities, their nation, and their world. This is
not to say that all of the women documented in this book have pre­
vailed. Nonetheless, we would argue that they have used their literacies
to join the cosmic swirl El-Wakil writes of so eloquently.
We hope you will see, as well, the love that brought the essays we have
collected to fruition. The contributors to Women and Literacy committed
not just to telling stories or theorizing about them, but also to the women
whose stories they report and analyze. The researchers have come to feel
what Jacqueline Jones Royster calls “passionate attachments” to their
subjects, whether historical figures like Louisa May Alcott, Dorothy
West, Ethel Azalea Johnson, the Appalachian women of Depression-era
Virginia, or feminist writers of the sixties and seventies; or women in
other parts of the world, such as those in Vietnam struggling with English
and Japanese or in South Africa dealing with the legacy of apartheid; or
contemporary women in the mountains of North Carolina, the plains of
Nebraska, the cities of Tunisia; or women in the aftermath of war, such as
college students at Western College in Ohio meeting peers from around
the globe, or old women in Korea finally telling stories of their sexual ex­
ploitation during World War II.
We are grateful to the scholars whose work we present here. They
have been good-natured about our requests for revisions, especially our
pleas to trim and compress. In addition, they have been enormously pa­
tient with the sheer time the editorial process has taken. Making this
book occurred through one birth and two interstate moves, in addition
to our usual tasks running composition and rhetoric programs. We
thank all the contributors for sticking with us, and we hope that our
readers will see the effort, the time, the love these researchers have ex­
pended in writing about research that is dear to them.
We are grateful as well to Andrea Lunsford and Beverly Moss for
their commitment to include Women and Literacy in the NCTE–LEA Re­
search Series. They found two anonymous manuscript readers who not
only appreciated our effort, but also asked hard questions of us and of
our contributors. These readers, along with Beverly and Andrea, of­
fered valuable suggestions for making the volume better. Too, editors at
both NCTE and Erlbaum have guided us in important ways, and we
thank Zarina Hock and Naomi Silverman for their keen advice. Others
whose early interest in the project was most encouraging are Jean
Ferguson Carr, Angela Crow, Suellynn Duffey, Karl Kageff, Mary P.
Sheridan-Rabideau, Christine Skolnik, and Katherine Kelleher Sohn.
PREFACE xiii

Our British colleagues who study literacy—David Barton, Roz Ivanic4,

and Anna Robinson-Pant—were helpful as well, offering thoughtful sug­
gestions at a critical juncture. Two of Peter’s colleagues at Illinois, Susan
Koshy and Zohreh Sullivan, were similarly generous with advice when
consulted.
Graduate students in Writing Studies at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign checked sources for us, and we are grateful to
them: Patrick Berry, Samantha Looker, Christa Olson, Janine Solberg,
and Martha Webber. And it was Berry who applied his extraordinary
graphic talents to the task of designing a cover that would showcase
El-Wakil’s calligraphic artwork.
The idea for this collection originated at the annual convention of the
Conference on College Composition and Communication in 2001. After
participating in several panels at CCCC about literacy research, we real­
ized—at the 2001 WPA Breakfast, to be precise—that we knew enough
people doing research on women’s literacy to make a book. We began
immediately by organizing a roundtable for the 2002 meeting in Chi­
cago, calling it “Advances in the Study of Women’s Literacies: New Di­
rections on Current Research.” In addition to Kim Donehower, Keith
Walters, Rhea Estelle Lathan (who all show up in this volume), and the
two of us, we also included Janet Carey Eldred, Mary Trachsel, and Gesa
Kirsch. In the summer of 2001 we wrote a call for papers, which we sent
to a list of possible contributors.
But then September 11 happened.
Like many other Americans, we began to see how crucial it is that we
begin to think more comprehensively—some would say “globally”—if
we are to appreciate how our culture and our interests are connected to
those of our fellow human beings around the world. Stories about
women in Afghanistan who risked the wrath of the Taliban to provide
literacy for their daughters moved us to consider the price women
around the world have been willing to pay for literacy. Our notion of di­
versity expanded. We still believed that looking at the literacy practices
of various U.S. women was very important, but now we wanted to
broaden our vision to include studies of women’s literacy in other parts
of the world.
So we revised the call for papers and sent copies to everyone we knew
who was working on literacy. We asked our colleagues in literacy stud­
ies to pass our flyers on to their graduate students. Both Deborah Brandt
and Robert Brooke did so, and we are pleased to present here the work
of some exciting young scholars. We also circulated our flyers at confer­
ences. We soon had confirmation of what we had hoped: that a vital
group of researchers within CCCC takes seriously the idea of examin­
ing not just literacy in general but specifically the literacy practices of
women and girls.
xiv PREFACE

And so we ended up with far more papers than any publisher would
allow us to present. It was a genuine heartbreak to lose some essays, but
we are confident that they will find their way into print elsewhere. We
want to thank all those researchers who answered our initial call. And
we want to encourage those scholars, as well as all whose work appears
in this volume, to continue looking at what happens when women read
and write.
This encouragement, this invitation, extends of course to those who
read this volume. We wish you to join the researchers whose work we
present here—and the women they write about—in the whirl of active
inquiry that emulates both the cosmic course of the stars and the invisi­
ble dance of the slightest small matter.

—B. D., Kennesaw, Georgia

—P. M., Urbana, Illinois
Contributors

Kate Coffield, an English major, was introduced to computers while work­

ing at MIT in the early 1970s. Later, she earned an MA in Teaching English as
a Foreign Language and taught first-year composition at the American Uni­
versity in Cairo, where she was also coordinator of the computer classroom
in the English department. As a participant at Computers and Writing con­
ferences, she met Gail Hawisher and Cindy Selfe and became interested in
their research. She is currently director of web communications at AUC.

Ilene Whitney Crawford is associate professor of English and women’s stud­

ies at Southern Connecticut State University in New Haven, where she
teaches undergraduate courses in rhetoric and composition and graduate
courses in feminist and rhetorical theory. Her previous work on the intersect­
ing rhetorics of race and emotion appears in Composition Forum, JAC, and,
with Donna Strickland, in the collection A Way to Move: Rhetorics of Emotion
and Composition Studies. Her work in progress includes a piece with Donna
Strickland on feminist WPA work, as well as an essay on how metaphors
emergent in her research on Vietnam inform her composition pedagogy.

Beth Daniell is associate professor of English and director of composition at

Kennesaw State University in the Atlanta suburbs. She teaches a variety of
graduate and undergraduate courses in writing, rhetoric, and literacy the­
ory. Her work has appeared in Pre/Text, College Composition and Communica­
tion, JAC, and the Journal of Teaching Writing, as well as in various collections,
most recently Teaching Rhetorica, Rhetorica Teaching, edited by Kate Ronald
and Joy Ritchie. She is the author of A Communion of Friendship: Literacy, Spir­
itual Practice, and Women in Recovery, a study of the uses of literacy among
women in one Al-Anon group; the book appeared in the CCCC Studies in
Writing and Rhetoric series, published by Southern Illinois University
Press.

xv
xvi CONTRIBUTORS

Mary K. DeShazer is professor of English and women’s studies at Wake

Forest University. She is the author of Fractured Borders: Reading Women’s
Cancer Literature (2005), A Poetics of Resistance: Women Writing from El
Salvador, South Africa, and the United States (1994), and Inspiring Women: Re-
Imagining the Muse (1987). She edited The Longman Anthology of Women’s
Literature (2001). Her current research focuses on literature written in re­
sponse to hearings conducted by South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation
Commission.

Kim Donehower is assistant professor of English at the University of

North Dakota, where she directs the Red River Valley Writing Project. She
has researched rural literacy in Southern Appalachia and in North Dakota
and Minnesota. Her book Rural Literacies, co-written with Charlotte Hogg
and Eileen Schell, is forthcoming in the CCCC Studies in Writing and Rhet­
oric series from Southern Illinois University Press. She is currently at work
on a project on rural autodidacts.

Safia El-Wakil holds three degrees in English language and literature: a

BA from Cairo University, Egypt; an MA from the American University of
Beirut, Lebanon; and an MLitt from St. Hugh’s College, Oxford University,
UK. Her teaching experience has been at the American University of
Beirut, the Arab University of Beirut, and the American University in
Cairo, where she helped initiate and develop computer and web-based in­
struction in the writing program. El-Wakil practices the art of calligraphy
and illumination (both traditional and digital) and holds exhibitions in
Cairo. She has most recently trained to deliver a Cisco Systems Business
Essentials online course for trainers and learners.

Kathryn T. Flannery is professor of English and director of women’s

studies at the University of Pittsburgh, where she enjoys teaching
courses in literacy studies (including first-year writing), women’s stud­
ies, and literature. She is the author of Feminist Literacies, 1968–1975
(2005), The Emperor’s New Clothes: Literature, Literacy, and the Ideology of
Style (1995), and articles on literacy, performance pedagogy, and teaching
women writers.

Gwendolyn Gong is a professor in the English Department at The Chinese

University of Hong Kong and founding editor of the Asian Journal of Eng­
lish Language Teaching. She teaches discourse analysis, sociolinguistics,
gender, psycholinguistics, and writing courses. With Sam Dragga, she
wrote Editing: The Design of Rhetoric, recipient of the 1990 NCTE Achieve­
ment Award for Best Book of the Year. Gong and Dragga have also pub­
lished A Writer’s Repertoire and A Reader’s Repertoire.
CONTRIBUTORS xvii

Gail E. Hawisher is professor of English and founding director of the Cen­

ter for Writing Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Her work probes the many connections between literate activity and new
information technologies and is reflected in her most recent book with
Cynthia Selfe, Literate Lives in the Information Age. In 2004, she was honored
to receive the Lynn Martin Award for Distinguished Women Faculty and
the Campus Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching. In 2005, she
was named a University Distinguished Teacher/Scholar.

Catherine L. Hobbs is professor of English at the University of Oklahoma,

where she teaches in the composition/rhetoric/literacy program and di­
rects the first-year composition program. She most often writes on histori­
cal issues in literacy, having edited and introduced Nineteenth-Century
Women Learn to Write (University Press of Virginia, 1995) and published
Rhetoric on the Margins of Modernity (Southern Illinois University Press,
2002). She has also published Elements of Autobiography and Life Narrative
(Longman, 2005).

Charlotte Hogg is assistant professor of English at Texas Christian Univer­

sity. Her work includes From the Garden Club: Rural Women Writing Commu­
nity (University of Nebraska Press, 2006) and, with Kim Donehower and
Eileen Schell, the forthcoming Rural Literacies, a part of the CCCC Studies
in Writing and Rhetoric series, published by Southern Illinois University
Press. Her work has been published in Western American Literature, Great
Plains Quarterly, and elsewhere.

Rhea Estelle Lathan is an assistant professor at Michigan State University

in the Writing, Rhetoric, and American Cultures Department. She is devel­
oping a manuscript entitled Writing a Wrong: A Case of African American
Adult Literacy Action in South Carolina, 1957–1962, which investigates how
literacy is defined and the way it functions in the context of the Adult Liter­
acy Campaign of the civil rights movement. Her research interests include
literacy in non-academic communities, writing instruction, African Amer­
ican studies, and women’s studies.

Min-Zhan Lu is professor of English at the University of Louisville, where

she teaches courses in composition theory and pedagogy, life writing, criti­
cal and cultural theory, and creative nonfiction. Her work includes “The
Politics of Critical Affirmation” (CCC, 1999), Shanghai Quartet: The Cross­
ings of Four Women of China (Duquesne University Press, 2001), and “An Es­
say on the Work of Composition: Composing English Against the Order of
Fast Capitalism,” which received the 2005 CCCC Richard Braddock
Award for best article in CCC.
xviii CONTRIBUTORS

Peter Mortensen is an associate professor of English at the University of Illi­

nois at Urbana-Champaign, where he was director of rhetoric from 1999 to
2006. He is co-author, with Janet Carey Eldred, of Imagining Rhetoric: Com­
posing Women of the Early United States (2002) and co-editor, with Gesa E.
Kirsch, of Ethics and Representation in Qualitative Studies of Literacy (1996).
Currently, he is completing a book on rhetorics of illiteracy.

Katrina M. Powell is associate professor at Virginia Tech. She teaches

courses in rhetorical theory, literacy studies, feminist autobiography, and
pedagogy. The research in this collection is part of a larger project, Rhetorics
of Displacement: The Politics of Literacy, Letters, and Relocation in Shenandoah
National Park, forthcoming from University of Virginia Press in 2007. Based
on this project, she received a National Endowment for the Humanities
Fellowship for 2005–2006.

Kate Ronald is the Roger and Joyce L. Howe professor of English at Miami
University, where she teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in
composition and rhetoric and directs the Howe Writing Initiative in the
School of Business. Her recent publications include Reason to Believe: Ro­
manticism, Pragmatism, and the Possibility of Teaching, co-authored with
Hephzibah Roskelly (State University of New York Press, 1998), and Avail­
able Means: An Anthology of Women’s Rhetoric(s) (University of Pittsburgh
Press, 2001), and Teaching Rhetorica: Theory, Pedagogy, Practice (Boynton/
Cook, 2006), both co-edited with Joy Ritchie.

Hephzibah Roskelly is professor of English at University of North

Carolina at Greensboro where she teaches courses in women’s rhetoric,
composition theory, and American literature. She directs the undergradu­
ate program in women’s and gender studies. Her most recent book is Ev­
eryday Use: Rhetoric at Work in Reading and Writing with David Jolliffe. She is
from Louisville, Kentucky, and received her PhD from the University of
Louisville in 1985. She is a former high school English teacher.

Cynthia L. Selfe is Humanities Distinguished Professor in the Depart­

ment of English at The Ohio State University and co-editor of Computers
and Composition: An International Journal. Selfe is an EDUCOM Medal
award winner—the first woman and the first English teacher ever to re­
ceive this award for innovative computer use in higher education. Her nu­
merous publications about computer use in educational settings include
Literacy and Technology in the 21st Century: The Perils of Not Paying Attention.
Selfe has served as the chair of the Conference on College Composition
and Communication and the chair of the college section of the National
Council of Teachers of English.
CONTRIBUTORS xix

Bonnie Kathryn Smith is assistant professor of English at Belmont Uni­

versity in Nashville, Tennessee. She received her BA from the University of
the South in 1997 and her PhD from the University of Wisconsin–Madison
in 2003. Both her teaching and her research explore ways literacy informs
life in community. Currently, she is investigating literacy among a group of
women who are in recovery from prostitution and drug abuse.

Donna Strickland is assistant professor of English at the University of

Missouri-Columbia. Her work has appeared previously in a variety of
journals, including College English, JAC, and Works and Days, as well as in
the collections A Way to Move: Rhetorics of Emotion and Composition Studies
and Tenured Bosses, Disposable Teachers: Writing Instruction in the Managed
University. She is currently completing a book on the managerial affect of
composition studies.

Keith Walters, a sociolinguist, teaches in the Applied Linguistics depart­

ment at Portland State University. Much of his research focuses on lan­
guage and identity in North Africa, and Tunisia in particular. He is
co-author of two textbooks, Everything’s an Argument, with Readings and
What’s Language Got to Do with It? Volunteer work with a local hospice
helps remind him that the world is larger than the view from his office
window.

Shevaun Watson is assistant professor of English at the University of

South Carolina where she teaches advanced writing, rhetorical theory and
criticism, American literature, and African American rhetoric. Her current
book project explores the role of testimony in the A.M.E. Church in Phila­
delphia in the late-eighteenth century and the Denmark Vesey slave con­
spiracy in Charleston in 1822. Her other research interests include slave/
plantation literacy, rhetoric in the eighteenth-century South, writing cen­
ters, and writing program administration.

Morris Young is associate professor of English at Miami University in

Oxford, Ohio, where his research and teaching focus on composition and
rhetoric, literacy studies, and Asian American literature. His book Minor
Re/Visions: Asian American Literacy Narratives as a Rhetoric of Citizenship
(Southern Illinois University Press, 2004) received the 2004 W. Ross
Winterowd Award for the most outstanding book in composition theory
from JAC and the Association of Teachers of Advanced Composition; and
in 2006, it received the Outstanding Book Award from the Conference on
College Composition and Communication.
Introduction—
Researching Women and Literacy:
Usable Pasts, Possible Futures

Peter Mortensen
Beth Daniell

I.
HERE AND NOW

Several years ago, Patricia Bizzell characterized the preceding decade

of historical work in rhetorical studies as one that had yielded astound­
ing new knowledge about women rhetors. This resulted, she argues, as
much from the savvy application of “traditional tools of research” as
from the use of “methods which violate some of the most cherished con­
ventions of academic research” (“Feminist” 16). We believe the same is
true of the scholarship on women’s literacy that appeared in the final
years of the twentieth century. Those years saw publication of such
path-breaking books as Caroline Heller’s Until We Are Strong Together
(1997), Anne Ruggles Gere’s Intimate Practices (1997), Shirley Wilson
Logan’s “We Are Coming” (1999), and Jacqueline Jones Royster’s Traces
of a Stream (2000), as well as important edited collections such as
Catherine Hobbs’s Nineteenth-Century Women Learn to Write (1995).1 All
demonstrate a sustained intellectual commitment to understanding
women’s literacy by both observing established conventions of re­
search in literacy studies and by advancing innovative methods that
push the making of knowledge into new spaces of inquiry.
Taking these accomplishments as a point of departure, this collection
of original essays emphasizes the variety of approaches and subject

1
2 MORTENSEN AND DANIELL

matter that will characterize the next generation of research on women

and literacy. Building on and critiquing scholarship in literacy studies,
composition studies, rhetorical theory, gender studies, postcolonial
theory, and cultural studies, contributors necessarily discuss at length
what literacy is—or, rather, what literacies are. Yet their strongest inter­
est is in documenting and theorizing women’s lived experience of these
literacies. In the chapters that follow, contributors answer questions
that focus on:

• the expansive diversity of women’s literacies within the United

States, including, but not limited to, the dynamic relations that ex­
ist among women, literacy, economic position, class, race, sexual­
ity, and education;
• relations among women, literacy, and capitalism in the United States
and abroad, including changes in women’s private and domestic
literacies, the evolution of technologies of literacy, and women’s ex­
perience of the commodification of literacies; and
• the emergent role of women in a globally interdependent world,
including the global commercialization of literate experience, the
possibility of generalizing about women’s literacy, and covert
scenes of literate activity achieved despite huge obstacles.

We have arranged the collection’s fifteen chapters in two parts:

“Women’s Literacies Situated Locally: Past, Present, and Future” and
“Women’s Literacies in a Globally Interdependent World.” In doing so,
we do not mean to suggest that there exists a significant boundary
between the local and the global, conceptually or materially. Rather, we
see the division as heuristic. It emphasizes possible articulations
between the complexities we encounter when we choose to study seem­
ingly indigenous performances of gender and literacy, and those com­
plexities that become apparent when we consider the social, economic,
and political networks that link place to place and time to time.
It is commonplace to arrange an edited collection into sections, with
chapters sequenced appropriately therein. To be sure, such sequencing
encourages one way of reading while discouraging others. Conse­
quently, the logic of the table of contents should not be trusted as the
best guide to a truly generative encounter with chapters whose argu­
ments emerge from the multiple intelligences of contributors who are
themselves far from one mind on the subjects of gender and literacy.
Thus, we provide three additional ways into the chapters that follow,
two of them elaborated in the remainder of our introduction, and one
that appears in the book’s afterword.
INTRODUCTION 3

In the next section, Usable Pasts, we examine antecedents to the

scholarship represented in Women and Literacy. We do this with a two­
fold purpose. First, we track trends in composition and rhetoric that
have, over the past half-century, either enabled or disabled the study
of women and literacy in relation to one another. We also selectively
survey relevant influences exerted by other disciplines in the human­
ities and humanistic social sciences. Our account of the past often
moves briskly; it is a prolegomenon to a more extensive history of
women and literacy yet to be written. But it is sufficient for an imme­
diate purpose: to help readers locate the contributions to this collec­
tion in a larger project of disciplinary “self-understanding,” a project
that demonstrates, as Thomas Miller and Joseph Jones have put it,
that “the discipline has changed as it has become more broadly en­
gaged with the arts of exercising power through language in every­
day life” (434).
In the introduction’s third section, Possible Futures, we read the
book’s chapters with and against one another. This happens in two
ways. First, we illuminate two critical problems emergent across
chapters. We are particularly interested in how authors take up, mod­
ify, and critique Deborah Brandt’s notion of literacy sponsorship as it
relates to women and gender. And in a similar vein, we explore how
contributors treat the rewards of literacy, comparing accounts of
emotional and material change. Second, we provide a comparative
analysis of our authors’ treatment of major issues in literacy studies:
economy, technology, language, geography, and politics. The intro­
duction culminates with a subsection that speculates on next steps
for research on women and literacy.
Min-Zhan Lu extends this speculation in her provocative afterword.
She searches out the connections contributors make to the processes of
“fast capitalism” that are rapidly reshaping the global economy. In
many chapters she finds evidence that it is not just literacy, and not just
English-language literacy, but English-language literacy of a very spe­
cific type, that is influencing the life prospects of women and girls in de­
veloping nations worldwide. Lu is dubious of claims that mastery of
English in oral and written forms will bring these women anything like
the material wealth or emotional succor they deserve. She doubts, too,
that scholars of literacy and gender can be of much practical help in im­
proving the situation. Still, she asserts, only when the rhetoric of devel­
opment and the logic of fast capitalism are pried apart—as many
authors in this collection do—can we find the conceptual space for in­
quiry that might lead women to leverage literacy (not necessarily in
English) against social and economic forces that run counter to their
best interests.
4 MORTENSEN AND DANIELL

II.
USABLE PASTS
Locating Histories
When the journal College Composition and Communication—and, argu­
ably, the field of composition studies—celebrated its golden anniver­
sary in 1999, CCC editor Joseph Harris filled two issues with articles he
hoped would “construct a usable past” that might aid in “reshaping our
actions as writers, teachers, intellectuals, activists, and administrators”
(343). Certain keywords recur across the pages of both issues: literacy
and gender are among the most prominent. In fact, literacy is referenced
directly in all but three of the 17 articles Harris assembled, and two of
those three invoke the word in a related form. Likewise, gender is wo­
ven into a majority of the articles that make up the CCC retrospective.
Yet these terms, so important now, were not yet part of the field’s regu­
lar lexicon a half-century before.2 A brief foray into the CCC archive sets
the stage for rereading two articles in Harris’ special issues.
Literacy, as such, did not enter the literature of composition and
rhetoric until Dudley Bailey complained in 1954 of the “overwilling­
ness of English departments to assume the responsibility for college-
level literacy” (40), and then it was many more years before literacy
(apart from “writing” and “reading”) became an object of analysis.
Fleeting mention of Richard Hoggart’s The Uses of Literacy in James
Steel Smith’s “Popular Culture and the Freshman: Three Questions”
(CCC, December 1959) and his “Readership Scholarship” (CCC, Octo­
ber 1964) presage the serious questions about literacy raised at the
1971 CCCC Annual Meeting in Cincinnati. At that meeting, partici­
pants in a workshop titled “Is Literacy Enough?” sought to describe
the “relative contributions of literacy to life,” in which discussion “it
became clear that the word ‘literacy’ needed itself to be defined” (284).
Working toward a definition, participants agreed that “functional lit­
eracy” should be understood “as distinct from cultural literacy,” and
all participants reportedly “accepted the idea that everyone—not just
English instructors—be challenged constantly to push upward to­
ward new frontiers of literacy” (284). With regard to this challenge,
one participant suggested that all persons preparing for teaching ca­
reers should minor in English, and that “all English majors should be
required to take a minor in anthropology” (284). This latter recommen­
dation resonates with scholarship informed by anthropological and
sociological notions of literacy whose influence began to be felt
throughout the field a decade later.
Gender has a more conspicuous early history in composition studies,
though strictly as a term of art in discussions of English grammar.3 Yet it
INTRODUCTION 5

is precisely these discussions that turned, in the late 1970s and early
1980s, to sexist language, and specifically to the use of the male pronoun
to refer to collectivities that included women; for example, see Mary
DeShazer’s “Sexist Language in Composition Textbooks: Still a Major
Issue?” (CCC, February 1981). Laying the groundwork for such argu­
ments, however, were earlier deliberations, such as those in a workshop
at the 1971 Annual Meeting that grew out of “[i]nformed papers about
the Women’s Liberation Movement in general, and about women in the
academic profession in particular” that were delivered by Marian
Musgrave and Florence Howe (”The Position” 283). Making gender in­
clusive on the page and in the profession was formidable and defining
work, indeed. In 1960, Edwin Sauer could quote with approval—and
without printed rejoinder—a student composition in which the author
asserted, “The woman that works is the neuter gender in a language
that doesn’t recognize one” (8). By 1978, when William Coles bristled
that passages in the “man(or woman)uscript” of his “Teaching the
Teaching of Composition” had been subjected to “desexing or unsexing
or non-sexing” (207), Julia Stanley and Susan Robbins Wolfe could re­
ply by claiming, “Since Coles evidently equates gender and sex, his con­
tinual use of the masculine pronoun amounts to little more than
homosexual prose; the editor’s annoying intrusion of the feminine pro­
noun must have resulted in coitus interruptus” (405). Stanley and
Wolfe’s indictment of Coles’ conflation of gender and sex, not to men­
tion the sexual politics of the insult they hurl, foreshadow theoretical
contributions to the literature of composition studies that would reach
critical mass after a decade’s more work.
The “usable pasts” commemorated in the fiftieth volume of CCC are
significant for their explicit theorizing of those pasts, theorizing that
draws extensively from critical vocabularies that had evolved in the field
over the preceding fifteen years or so. Of particular interest in this regard,
and germane to the aims of this book, are two articles: Joy Ritchie and
Kathleen Boardman’s “Feminism in Composition: Inclusion, Metonymy,
and Disruption,” and Beth Daniell’s “Narratives of Literacy: Connecting
Composition to Culture.” It would be a stretch to say that these articles
are in dialogue, yet there is an unmistakable, though largely implicit,
confluence of interest in the authors’ theorizing of gender and literacy.
Making this confluence visible, as we do in the remainder of this section,
is an important step toward our later framing of contributors’ ap­
proaches to gender and literacy.
The thirty-year history of feminism in composition that Ritchie and
Boardman survey is characterized by compositionists’ encounters with
social constraints on women qua women, followed by the naming of
these constraints, followed by collective efforts to disrupt the language
6 MORTENSEN AND DANIELL

and logic that normalize such constraints.4 They conclude that, in com­
position studies, “feminism has been most challenging and disruptive
and also provided a sense of alliance and inclusion when it has main­
tained a dialogical relationship between theory and experience” (602).
Ritchie and Boardman round out their retrospective by remarking that
colleagues in composition, particularly feminist colleagues, “have only
begun to explore effective ways to connect our research to wider public
concerns and debates about literacy” (603). We understand these de­
bates to be social forums in which the terms of women’s gendered per­
formance as writers and readers are negotiated. What is being
negotiated are answers to questions of agency: Who writes and is read?
What is writing allowed to do—when and for whom? The agency de­
fined by answering these questions entails, according to Ritchie and
Boardman, “inclusion and proliferation of difference, multiplicity, and
uncontainable excess”—all of which is embodied and localized, judg­
ing by the examples they offer (603). Thus, when Ritchie and Boardman
posit “accounts of agency that exceed limited ideas of the determined
subject,” we appreciate these accounts as narratives of literacy that con­
struct realities whose complexity owes much (but certainly not all) to
the particularities of place and time (603).
Daniell, for her part, expresses distrust of literacy narratives that are
not carefully located in place and time. In this spirit, she critiques the
“great leap” theory of orality and literacy that composition studies ap­
propriated from anthropology, sociology, classics, and literary theory.
The “great leap” theory suggests that so-called primitive and modern
peoples (and their cultures) differ fundamentally owing to the cogni­
tive and social transformations that occur when oral language practices
yield to literate ones. Daniell describes efforts within composition stud­
ies to refute the great leap theory, but she worries that compositionists’
cultural materialist remedy risks substitution of one grand narrative for
another, the new narrative touting to extremes the liberatory promise of
literacy. As a counter to both great leap and liberatory narratives,
Daniell offers the notion of “little narratives,” which “seldom make the­
oretical statements that claim to be valid for literate persons in general
or literate cultures in general” (403). Instead, studies that advance little
narratives of literacy assume “that literacy is multiple, contextual, and
ideological,” and that the “relationship between literacy and oppres­
sion or freedom is rarely as simple” as great leap or liberatory narratives
insist (403). Such studies, Daniell observes, tend to take gender seri­
ously: “many of the little narratives—but not all—are written by
women, and many of their subjects—but not all—are women” (403). In
contrast, we would add, liberatory narratives often end up subordinat­
ing gender to class, and great leap theorizing typically ignores gender
altogether—though, as Marianna Torgovnick reminds us, “Sooner or
INTRODUCTION 7

later those familiar tropes for primitives become the tropes convention­
ally used for women” (17).
Reflecting on the intersection of Daniell’s argument with Ritchie and
Boardman’s, then, we see how composition studies’ current theorizing
of gender and literacy occupies overlapping conceptual space, wherein
both constructs are mutually constituted in relation to power, and
where power is conditioned in part by local and temporal circum­
stances of enormous complexity.

Borrowing Histories

Many of the articles in the CCC fiftieth anniversary issues take notice of
particular ideas—questions and methods—that have been adapted
from other disciplines. Some of these ideas have had a lasting influence
on how colleagues treat gender and literacy in their research. It is there­
fore worth scrutinizing these ideas, as well as the processes by which
they have been borrowed and put to use. This section examines borrow­
ings that have been well documented; the next section takes up borrow­
ings that are less frequently recognized. In both sections, the links
between gender and literacy are not always obvious, so they must be
teased out with some analytical effort.
Like themed issues of scholarly journals, edited essay collections
are usually intended to intervene in ongoing disciplinary conversa­
tions: to summarize, interpret, evaluate, forecast, and connect. As arti­
facts viewed retrospectively, essay collections also reflect particular
moments of intellectual ferment. Such is the case with Perspectives on
Literacy (1988), edited by Eugene Kintgen, Barry Kroll, and Mike Rose.
The editors express concern that “[l]iteracy as a cover term is so broad
that it must almost be defined for each occasion on which it is used,” to
which they add, “Just as a single definition of literacy is insufficient, so
is scrutiny from within the confines of a single academic discipline”
(xv). They explain that the collection isolates “essential background
reading” (xix), while advancing no “privileged perspective, but rather
various ways of investigating a complicated and multidimensional
topic” (xix).
Prominent in the first two sections of Perspectives on Literacy are
works from beyond the realm of composition studies that either ad­
vance or critique the “literacy thesis.” 5 It is introduced by its primary
exponents: Eric Havelock in “The Coming of Literate Communication
to Western Culture,” a 1980 Journal of Communication article that ex­
tends an argument begun in Preface to Plato (1963), and Jack Goody and
Ian Watt in their 1963 Comparative Studies in Society and History article,
“The Consequences of Literacy.” Goody and Watt begin by observing
that “man’s biological evolution shades into prehistory when he
8 MORTENSEN AND DANIELL

becomes a language-using animal; add writing, and history proper be­

gins” (304), and conclude that “[i]t is probable that it is only the ana­
lytic process that writing itself entails, the written formalization of
sounds and syntax, which make possible the habitual separating out
into formally distinct units of the various cultural elements whose in­
divisible wholeness is the essential basis of the ‘mystical participa­
tion’ … characteristic of the thinking of non-literate peoples” (345).
There is little in these foundational expressions of the literacy thesis
that speaks directly to gender, save the ubiquity of male pronouns and
the occasional sexist reference. Still, it is possible to draw some infer­
ences. For example, Goody and Watt maintain, “on the whole there is
less individualization of personal experience in oral cultures” com­
pared with literate ones, such that “the techniques of reading and writ­
ing are undoubtedly of very great importance” in establishing the
“complicated set of complementary relationships between individu­
als in a variety of roles” that is characteristic of literate cultures (339).
Further, Goody and Watt venture that “writing, by objectifying words,
and by making them and their meaning available for much more pro­
longed and intensive scrutiny than is possible orally, encourages pri­
vate thought,” a type of cognition that is essential to “personal
awareness of individualization” (339). For evidence that Goody (if not
Watt) might have imagined such individualization as governing the
lived experience of gender, consider Goody’s contemporaneous “On
Nannas and Nannies,” in which he reports on how the terms in his title
evolved in literate English culture to structure related roles for grand­
mothers (tied by kinship) and nannies (female caregivers situated in a
labor market). Further, Goody asserts that the derivative term
“nancy,” when applied to men, is meant to impugn their masculinity. It
would seem, then, that among the consequences specified by the liter­
acy thesis are linguistic constructs that have the power to impose and
enforce a gendered social order.
Some years later, Walter Ong adopted this line of reasoning in his fu­
sion of humanistic and social scientific theorizing of literacy. In Inter­
faces of the Word (1977), for example, Ong associates literacy with the
rational cognition he believes is characteristic of men, and ascribes the
emotion and immediacy of orality to women (22–29). Then, in Fighting
for Life (1981), published a year before Orality and Literacy, Ong contends
that the agonistic rhetoric of antiquity that persists in literate cultures
today arose “to counterbalance the overwhelming femininity of earlier
stages of human existence” (188). Indeed, Ong positions “[f]ulsome
public praise” as “a kind of public mothering … in oral and residually
oral cultures around the globe” (110).
As we hope is obvious by now, linking literacy to gender in the con­
text of the literacy thesis is a strenuous activity that pays marginal re­
INTRODUCTION 9

turns, and so it is unsurprising that gender is not foregrounded in the

texts that Perspectives on Literacy presents as critical responses to
Havelock, Goody, and Watt. 6 Indeed, most critical engagements with
their work, as well as with important elaborations by Walter Ong and
David Olson, downplay gender as a category of analysis.

Forgotten Influences

But what do we see when we look back before the years of the field’s en­
gagement with the literacy thesis, roughly 1963 through the early
1990s? We see, in a word, women. Not in abundance, of course, but over
the decades from 1900 through the early 1960s, women do in fact popu­
late a number of studies wherein literacy and gender matter together. A
good starting point for a brief retrospective is the sociolinguist Dell
Hymes’ critique of “The Consequences of Literacy,” which character­
ized Goody and Watt’s argument, and several others, as “oversimpli­
fied, where not simply wrong, in the light of what little ethnographic
base we have” (25). Typifying this base for Hymes is Leonard
Bloomfield’s “Literate and Illiterate Speech” (1927), an essay widely re­
membered in composition studies for the irritating claim that “writing,
of course, is merely a record of speech” (433). Bloomfield contends that
in distinguishing between “good” and “bad” language—that is, “liter­
ate” and “illiterate” speech—it is “by a cumulation of obvious
superiorities, both of character and standing, as well as of language”
that “some persons are felt to be better models of conduct and speech
than others. Therefore, even in matters where the [linguistic] preference
is not obvious, the forms which these same persons use are felt to have
the better flavor” (439). Bloomfield anchors this argument in his study
of the Menomini of Wisconsin, a “compact” community of 1,700 with no
written language, among whom the most “literate” (according to
Bloomfield’s reckoning of literacy) was Red-Cloud-Woman, a woman
in her sixties. She “speaks a beautiful and highly idiomatic Menomini.
She knows only a few words of English, but speaks Ojibwa and
Potawatomi fluently, and, I believe, a little Winnebago. Linguistically,
she would correspond to a highly educated American woman who
spoke, say, French and Italian in addition to the very best type of culti­
vated, idiomatic English” (437).
Bloomfield, though dismissive of writing, makes several instructive
points. First, he imagines an ethos inherent in literacy: whether one is
deemed literate depends in part on who one is, not merely how one
speaks. Second, in Bloomfield’s view, a woman can possess the ethos
requisite to be appraised the most literate person in her community. A
third point, enabling of the first two, is that the operative binary in
Bloomfield’s structural analysis is literacy versus illiteracy, not literacy
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
The text on this page is estimated to be only 8.28%
accurate

39 Eefauarto blieb Rtiegsbautneiftet balb bet ©forja, t'1 *.i

1 1 1 1 bei Raiferlidvn, bann bei ßtabt 32lai(anb unb roitb iip di 1537
als Settat am S)ombau bottfelbft genannt, für ben et 1535 midi bas
nötbticbe ©eitenpottal jeiebnete. 2lu etftattet lapt ibn fpgar in
Jtoferei ftetben, ba et in £omo fo fcblecbt für fein Sebenstoetl
belohnt routbe1). :in 5ö. $>ic erften SBobnbauten, 33itruo 2. 5Hid\
Saporali, ^Perugia 1536, ita(ienifd), nacb, Cefatiano, Cotno 1521,
itiilicuiidi. äbb. 58. (Sn'tc :nitumg nacb r.'uidiacrppiäum latcinifd»,
frei na* Sefarlano, £cmho 1521. t>es ,ycucrs, 33itrur». 2. 3Mi*
(Kiff). etraßburg 1543, 9(bb. 57. Etfte 3tu$ung bes feuere, S5itruo 2.
25ucb, Eaporali, Perugia 153p, italicnij*, nad) Sefatiano, (ionic 1521,
italienifcb. Duranrino. ©ie näcbften hilbgcfohtnücftcn
33itrut>ausgaben etfcbjenen 1 522 -) nnb 23-'). 93eibes
Neuauflagen ber Bearbeitung bes Jtatet gueunbus. ©ann folgten
1524:1) nnb i535') jn>ei 2lusgaben bes 5 *•' a n c e s c o £ u t i o
55 u r a n t i ii p , II r b i n a t e b i S a ft e I 9 u t n a t e , etwas
beffet im gtalienifa) als bie Somo-Slusgabe, fonft aber auf beten
Scbultetn ftchenb, bie Slbbilbungen finb nacb bor iateinifeben
Stusgabe bes 5ucunbusfaftnicbtuntetfcbeibbarnacbgef($nitten, Sie
Überfettung ftammt nad; bem SBottlaut bet93ottcbe »cm einem
ungenannten, bnreb Zugenb nnb 33erebfamteit ausgezeichneten
JHanne. ') 93afaticr wähnt ihn 3. 814. (Sb. F, 26) SuttbatM, Eiccrone,
Sbicmc, »Hg. £cjr. b; bilb. f?. 25b. 6, 6. 312. ) Sammlung Sbbacbt,
Seit« 68. 3) Sammlung €bb,atbt, vscite 68.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 10.45%
accurate

40 '?; Saporali. Snblid; 1556 bie Ausgabe bes£aporali (Slbb.

67.u. 55—57). 9R. ©ior>anbatifta £ a p o r a l i , genannt 33itti, roar
2Rakx unb 2lrd>itett, in Perugia um 1476 geboren, geborte er 1519
311 ben „3cfm Scannern" feiner 33aterftabt. 33afari nennt ibn unter
ben ©cbülern bes r mit cpinturecd)ic> unb ©ignorelli. ©eben 1492
ift ein von ibm Oobme 2?ta unterjeiebnetes 23ilb (beute in £itta bi
Saftello) naebgerrnefen, eine 9ftabonna mit geiligen1). Cfaporali
überfeine ben 93itrtu>, von bem 1535 bie erften fünf 33ücbct
erfdiieuen2) — ins Stalienifcb/e, bie SBibmüng an ben ©rafen
95igojätni untertrieb er am 1. 9tot>ember 1532. ©ie Slbbilbungeu,
§otjfcbmtte, niebt (Stiebe, finb nid>t, rote ^3affapant annimmt,
aud; nur ber Srftnbung nacb bem Saporali jujufcbteiben, fonbetu
fdilcchtc Scadibilbuugeu ber 23ilber ber gemeausgabe 2lbb. 60.
©orifchet Säulenfuß, IMtrups 5. 25ucb, nadi ^bilanbcr. i'iirii 1552,
(ateinifch. 5lbb. 59. ©orifdics portal mit runbem Siebet, 33itcut>6 3.
23udi, ^büanber, Soon 155'?, Iateinifd>, nadiCüff, ©tra&burg 1543,
[ateinifeb. Don 1521. — 98as bjnjugetan ift, ba$ Titelblatt (Slbb. 7)
unb ba$ 33ilbnis bes ©rafen 23iga33tni, tonnte nacb bem
befeblagattigen Ornament oielleidit bem 1533 geftorbenen 53tubet
Sapotalis 311gefebtieben toerben, ber ©olbfcbmieb war. ©et
©rudiftungefcbicft,bie®rlauteruugen nehmen tocit mehr '•piatj ein
als ber SSorttaut. Johann 93aptift ftarb 1560. ©er berühmte
©alea^äo Slleffi, ber 1512 in ^Perugia geboren uuirbe (t 1572) unb
bort roie in Sftailanb unb 9?ologna, namentlich aber in ©enua
unpergänglicbe©entmäler D. Gualtherü H.Riuium Medi.öcMath. J)
Sbicmc, Slltg. Sex., £b. 5, e. 546. 2) £amm(g.®bbacbt,6.69. 3) 9Uff
(?\ipiu&) wirb nuc auf beut Eitel eines Seiles ber ©rüde oon 1543,
bei beneu pon sjf>b. 61. litelblatt ber Slusgabe bes KJaltet sV Kiff
(9ti»iu8). 1550 gurnicht genannt, Nürnberg 154!?, beutjd». jcbuf,
toirb ah feimSduiler bejeiebnet. ©aa,rci?o. 1542 erfebien in £0lebo
eine fpanifebe 2lbtürjung bc3u\ 2lusjüge ausälteren33earbeitungen
pon ©ibacus pon öagrebo bei Suborncus ?\obrigueaueb Sfomttcßät
bc$ aücr namfiafftiaf* (t>cr ron brr 3r4ir«flir vnt> f änfUicVnt
'Saiwn. £111 ©H?ra|f(( t^^ rinb9ang aD« 5DTjt^rrtwti(dj( frt
07^cr^aitifcf)«n f dn|1/ todjjrpffftnnrgrr fln|T'Äf''n^frJ£tttin3Dt>f2
fpttuljtion f li.ijiluN r (Tircf / 3lu» )old>nn hohm ra|Tjiif. r(ffttan
grunb 1-.1c.rn pnD ge« cpi|Ttrn fnn&anmil jtlrr MfclirfjTn f un|l/-©cr
mjffo ilberXp^J felumg berausgegeben >-' unirbe. Dviff, ?7?
achacropacuö (©ehmertitfeger). 2^un folgt ber Seit nad> bie
lateiuifdie, 1545 erfdMenene Ausgabe bes SKalter ?viff3), © e 0 r g
„Machaeropaeum" (v5d)toerbtfeger'?). ©ie erfte Stusgabe^ „nunc
prilnuni in Germania", r»on SxnobUuid) in Strasburg meifterbaft
gebrudt-), beffer toie bie Seifrungen bes berühmten ivloreutiners
©iunta. — Slicnt bem
The text on this page is estimated to be only 12.75%
accurate

41 Saporali, ber felbft nur ein fcblecbtet ?uutabmer ^cv

Silber bei £omo-2(u6gabe roar, unb aueb, nur bie erften fünf Sücber
Verausgab, fonbern biefer leiteten unb ber gueunbus - 2lusgabe oon
1511 finb bie Silber luicbgeabmt, ebne biefünjtleriiebe^yreibeit ber
3tuliener 511 erreichen (2lbb. 12 unb 58). 93latt 152 nab. 47). 1550
erfebjen eine jdume 9leuauflage mit Spbjlanbers Erläuterungen,
■l>hi (anber, Scbon ein Safcr fpätet trat bann ber SJranjofeSBtlfcel
m ^ b i l a u b e r mit einer lateinifi(anber roibmet bie Erläuterungen
1544 i n ?{ 0 m bem 5*an8 v. 93alois, König von ftranfreieb, bejto.
beffen ©efanbten: Mecaenate Buo Georgio Armeniaco Ruthenorum
Episcopo. tum regio ad I'aulum III Pont. Max. Legate Seine M. tat.
8°2lusgabe ') Samml. Ebbarbt, ©. 69. 3lbb. 62. „9lugenf4>einlk&e
auffreiffung t>cr abtbeilung, i>cr -portal minb IlniriKJtcll nacb
gtalianifcfcet manier in ber goniföen art", SJitru» 4. 23ud), iRiff
(SUoua), Kümberg 1548, beutf . 2lbb.cö. SOagen mit JSegemeffet
bütdb Mc acbfenbre&ung, 33irmo 10. 3Jud>, Riff, Nürnberg 154?,
beutjdj, frei nach Sefariano. (Eomo 1521, italienifd). ift mit fcblid)ten
Silbern ivrieben; bie fpäteren 2luflagen enthalten erbclmdi
coertopllere 3eicbnungen uadi ^an ©pujon. 2lbbängigleiten ppnben
Strafeburger Stusgaben bleiben erkennbar; bae Safct 1541 am
Scbjufe ift tcobl ale Snbe ber Arbeit ettPäbnt. ©ebrueft tpurbe ber
Meine Sanb ju 9tom bei Smbreae ©offena Ibauriueu. (Surin) 1544,
eine fpätere Sluflage erjdüen 1545 in SParie. ©ulielmus
(2BilbelnO^bilanber.Castilionua (aus geboren in beffen Sanbe
bezeichnet, er ftammte aue ßtyatillon in Surgunb. 2Uö fein
Schrmeiftcr ir>irb Sebaftian Serlio genannt, bei bem er in Nom
arbeitete. Er coar ©ciftlicfcer unb courbe (iborberr in ?\ebe^ in
Sübroeftfrantreid). 5>e la 3Raire, 1699, SRitgliebbetfranjöfifc^en
SHabemie, nennt ben ^Pbilanbet mertroürbigerroeife einen tragen
Scharlatan, ber oiele Schriften beraiu- zugeben pcripraeh, uvldvi-. er
aber
The text on this page is estimated to be only 14.43%
accurate

42 enttocbcr nidpt tonnte ober nidpt trollte1). — $Jreftel

[ptid>t anbcccrfcits feiner Arbeit bauernbe 23c&eutuns 5U' Martin
unÖ ©oujon. 3 e a n 93? a t t i n, bei- 1547 feine Slusgabe in ftolio
ftanjöftfcb erfdpeinen tiefe unb 3ucunbus, ^bjlanbers unb anbetet
2lrbeit jugrunbe legte, roar „©ccrctairc" bes S?arbinals oon
Senoncourt unb bes STlarimilian ©fotja. Sc mar in^atis geboren unb
roibmete feine Arbeit bem König ^einridp II. r>on ftranfreidp. Martin
überfeitte audp eine Neüpc anberer 5Berfc, forootpl aus bem
gtaüenifcben roie aus bem Satcinifdpcn, angeblich, audp fünf
93üdpcr bes ©etlio. - - Nadp allem tr>ar Sftattin ©elebrtet, aber
fein Saufünftier. — Am Sdpluffe bes 23udpes fdpreibt ber Übetfe^er,
ba[, er bie Jlbetfetjung unternommen habe für bie 93auleute
(onvrieis) unb anbete, bie fein Satein oerftanben. ftn ber Stuflage
r>on 1618 bringt NJartin auf einem SDibmungsblatt an ^bilauber
bejfen ©eifte Verehrung bar. 33on 160 Abb. ftammt ein Seil oon
bem Ardpitcttcn, ffranj I. unb fxinridp II., 3. ©oujon, beffen
r>or,üglidpe geidpnungen übertagen bie genau aus ben ausgaben
bes Sucunbus oon 1511 ujtr>. entnommenen ganj erbeblich (Slbb.
75). 1618 erfebien eine ftarf r>on ber Ausgabe bes epipilauber
beeinflußte, in Srud unb Ausftattung febr viel minbetroettigere
Neuauflage. »Sogar bas Titelblatt ift genau oon tettfetem
übernommen. SKijf CfRiöiu«. llber bie erftc beutfdpe Slusgabe (Abb.
61 3Titelbl.), bie 1 548 in Nürnberg bei golpan arfteIlung erun'ibnt.
^bvc Stadpt ift aber bei Nioius frei nadpgejeidpnet. Stellung unb
©ejamt') ffuefeli, 2tl(g. Sünfil.-Sey. 498. 2) Sammlung Sbfjatbt, Seite
70. 3) Sbicme, eiligem. Sejifon ber bilbeuben ßünftler, 93b. 12, S.
113 naeft ?5. 93ebaims Katalog ift bem ^lötuer eine Keibj von
s)c(jfcl)iiitteu jujufcbretben, fein 8>-'id,ieii, ty. J. ift auf 931att 198
9mdfeite bet Slusgabe oon 1548 gu fiubeu. ') „33urguuut", 3abrg.
XI, Seite 149. ©erftenbetg, S^ie 93itruPOUsgaben ber Sammlimg
Sbborbt. 1912.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 9.93%
accurate

43 auffajfung (Spiegelbilb bet §älfte) ift Eigentum bet

itatieniföen Ausgabe« ?>ie fünf iu'id;ftcn Äatpatiben ftnb bagegen
»öllig anbete aufgefaßt wie in bet Eomo-Siusgabe. S>ann tommen
a>iebec jtoei leilabbilbungen nach Blatt EU bet Eomo-9tusgabe,
bann noefc ein Eeil aus Eomo Blatt EU, auf Kioiue Seite 361), bann
Seite 37 unb 39 bei 9tipius 2 paar Jaun-ftatpatiben (2lbb. 38) unb
Jiguten mit ganj mobetnet batodet SJotmbe&ettfcfcung, bie in bet
Eomo Ausgabe feblen. Sbenfo fcblt bie Sltcbjtcttut bet Seite 4Jftpius
in bei Eomo-Slusgabe ganj. nt 3lbb. ö5. ©ppätbros („unbebeetter" -
Tempel), Sitcuo 3. 311$, nach Sarbaco ßßalfabio). ßenebig I5ö7,
lateinifeb. unb J^lccfctt" an. 5>ic näcbfte Seite ift neue Sutat. —
®ac> 93ilb bet 95utg in 9Raiianb fehlt5) in ber GomeSuisgabe. 3m
Spiegelbilb faft genau übernommen finb bann triebet bie
9Rauetn>etfcbilbet Seite 86—87, tvabrenb Me fehöne Stabtanficht
(Seite 88) echt betitfch ift. Se|>t Derebelt ijt bie beutfehe
SOiebetgabe bei Öei&tDaffetbampfgefä&e (Seite 97, Stbb. 40, 41),
bie in bet Eomo-Slusgabe Diel roher batgeftellt finb. So fetjt fieb &te
SBiebetgabe fort; in bem jroeiten lUichc finb bie ^Jerfonenbilbet
ftarf oereinfadjt, ') 5>ie Seitcnjablen begießen fid> auf bie
Kiiriusausgabe oon 1575. :) ?lbb. [iebe 2*obc> (Sbbarbt ,,©ie
Bürgen gtalicns", 2?b. 1, Seite 31.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 11.58%
accurate
 44 9lbb. 66. ®as ftocintt)iid;c Sempeltpr, 93itcuo 4. 93udi,
nad; 23urbaio (-poUobip). S3enebig 155*3, ihilicnifdi. aber gut unb
felbftänbtg ge3cicbnet. 53icle neue 33lattcr finb bjnjugelommen, fo
bie 3eicbnungen ber römifeben 93afen (Seite 170)1). Oft erfährt bie
©arftellung eine uutr>illfürliche 33erbeutld)ung— j.23. bes Hafens
r>on S)cüifarnaf3(?\ir.ius Seite 178 unb 33lattXLI domo, 2lbb. 51),
&effen Iatib[cf)aftlid;cr §intergrunb bei bem beutfd;en Sttetfter
bebeuteub ftcfjcrer unb bilbmiifu'g richtiger gejeidpnet ift. ~ Qm
brüten 23ud; fd;iebeu jicb jroifc^en bie uair-en
Jrü(>renatffancebaubarftelluugen bei 9\ir>ius einige
Siuilcnorbtumgen reiferer ©arftellung, aud; eine fd)öne ?
lfantbiiCHHi|e. Steifer ift auch bie SBiebergabe (??it>iu6 Seite 270
£omo 23latt LX) bes gonifdpen ©ehalte, beffen 93erfürjung einc?
vcibe reijenbgejeid;neter3ftenfd;en betrachten (2lbb. 17 u. 49). $m
fünften 93ucb, (Xbeater unb 23äber) fehlt bie turmartige ©arftellung
bes Soloffeiims, bereu finblicbe ©cftalt bem 9\ir>ius nid>t mehr
einleuchten mochte, ©agegen ift bas S)auptbabeblatt (?vir>ius Seite
396, Scnnc 23latt LXXXVII) (2lbb. 55 nad) (iappraü)faft ganj
übernommen. — £>as iiafenhilb (?viDius S.403, Somo 23latt XC)
jeigt lieber bie Überlegenheit bei1, beutfdieu^lbjeidnierö. 3in
fed)ften 33ud> fehlt bei 9vir>ius bat große Sinnblatt „mundi
electiva", bas in ber Sat mit ber Sad;e nichts 311 tun hat (li'omo
23latt XCI1), bagegeu ift (Seite 420) eine ©arfteüung ber
Strahleuuurhmg bjnjugefügt. 2Ule genauen SBiebergabeu fiub bei ?
\ir>ius im Spiegelhilb abgcbrud't. ©egen Crube bes 93ud;e6 mel;reu
fieb, bie genauer übernommenen 93ilber. 3mmer freiließ fühlt man
aud) in ben beutfd;en Slbjetdpnungen bie fünftlerifd; fclbftanbige
S)anb (2lbb. 8, 9, 17, 36, öS, 40, 41, 42, 45, 62, 63, 64) eines
3Hciftcrs bes Stiftes unb bes §o!jfd;nitte8, ber nid)t8 ocrfcblcdrtcrt,
oieles perbeffert. ') ©iefce »egen »eiteret 2lb$ängtgteiten bes
9\if"fid;en Seitfmers bie Schriften: SJeinricfc 9töttinger, bie §pljf
The text on this page is estimated to be only 7.88%
accurate

45 2lbl\ o7. ©jene bes römtföen £beatera, öitcuo 5. 95ucb,

nach Sarbaro CBaltabio). Benebig 1556, itaüenifö. SSarbaro. ©et
nun folgenbe itolicuifcbc Bearbeiter, © a n i e 1 93 a c b a t o , ber
feine berühmt gebliebene Ausgabe bes 33itru» 1556 (2lbb. 69) juerfi
erfcf>einen liefe, gehörte einem Dorne&men rte an, bas her
Stepublit Diele hohe ©eamte, 5. 23. Sprofuratoren, ber Qtabi ?
lauileja aber iehoii im 16. ^abrbunbert 4 Patriarchen gab. — ©as
Safcr feiner ©eburt wirb »erfcbjeben angegeben1), 1528 unb 1514,
bie älbb. 68. i^n'ilifa, Bitruo 5. Bud\ nacb, Barbaro (13aIIaMo).
Benebig 155ö, italientfö. ') spoleni, eeite 74, ffue&li, »Ugem. Küiijtl.-
Scr., 3üridi :77J. 36$ec, »Hg. (Selebct.-Scr. £e!p»fg 1750.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 14.40%
accurate

46 2Öabvi"d?cinüd>Ectt fpricbt für letzteres 3a|>r.

JJrü^reif tt>ic fo Diele 32litglie5er bes hoben renetianifeben 2lbcls,
man beute an 0anuto, fdprieb et nach erfolgreichen Stubien in
tyabua fdpon oor bem 22. 3al;re einen ©ialog über bic 33crebfam?
eit, ber berühmt rourbc. S>ann überlebte er 5ciblreid;e 2Qerte ber
Slltcn, fo <5d>riften bes Slriftoteles. 1540 ttmrbe er ©ottor Slttiutn
in fpabua, roar auch "-prorebitore (154S) in beliebig unb ©ejanbter
ber Kepublit beim ftönig Sjkiuridi r>ou Snglanb. 3\ad> ber 1556
erfebienenen ©ituunibcrfefcung1) liefe er brei 3irb fowobl 1569 nüe
1570 roie 1574 angegeben. — fir wax einer jener boebgebitbeten
33orneI)inen feiner Seit, bie neben @taatsgefebäften unb
glänjcnbcm Ceben noch 3cit für bebeutunge>r>olle
roiffenfdpaftlidpe £ätigteit fauben. @eine 93itrut>ausgabe ift - ein
unge21bb. 69. ©innbüb in ber Jolioausgabe bet 10 35üchcr bes
93itruD mui) ^atbaro. 93cncbig 1556, italicnifch. beurer Jyortfdnitt
gegen oiele Vorgänger — au6gejeid;net bureb, ijeroorragenb feböne
f)ol3)'d;nitte (?lbb. e 2lrd)ite£tureu, mit bödpft reiaüollen Sictfiguren
((Seite 80/81) (Slbb. >Ö5 u. 67), bie bis in bie Steuäcit hinein faft
unerreicht geblieben finb. ©er SHeifter biefer getebnungen ijt ni*t
23arbaro fclbft. 0ie ftammen r>on feinem (geringeren als ^allabio.
33um oergleicbe beffen Sjoljfcbnitte in ben 4 33üd)ern ber
Slrcbjtettur mit ben 2lrcbitefturblättern in Sarbaroe ödnift, bann roirb
man nidit baran stoeifeln. Sluslegung unb Überfettung ber llrfdu-ift
werben faft ftets mit t)öchftcr 2ld;tung genannt. QSertano. Gin
weiterer Italiener, btefesmal ein ftadunann, 93ertano2), 95ertani,
Cmooanni, 23attifta bi (Sgibio, ber 1558 bie feböngebruefte
ftoliofdnüft mit §oIjfd;nitten über „GH oscrnri et dificili passi del ')
Sommlung (fhbarbt, ©. 71. -) Sbiemc, 2lüg. S.e%. »b. ö, 4S4. ?lbb.
70. ?ic ö Säulenotbnungen am fiploffeum, Bitruo 5. 3Mid\ int*
Satbato («Paüabio). Benebig 1550, italienifö.
The text on this page is estimated to be only 11.53%
accurate

47 l'operaioi ica di Vitruvio" ') (?lbh. 'Je) Verausgab, roar

1516 in SRantua geboren unb ftarb 1576 am 2. Stpril. - Sc nennt fich
in feinet Schrift felbft ben ftäbtifeben unb ftaatlicpen Sauten
SRantuas poiacfcit (rooju ibn S}er$c>g 3iMlhclm lll. oonSonjaga
berufen hatte), bejiebungsroeife ricehitctt feines erlaubten ©önners,
bes&arbinals oonSRantua, Herchule di Gonzaga. Sertano roar ein
Schüler bes ©iulio Romano, beffen Sauten er jum Teil pollenbete.
Selbftänbig baute er 1562 1565 bie ftirebe S. Barbara unb ihren
©lodenturm mit ben riet- Orbnungen in SRantua laut ber 3nfd;rift:
IV, Baptista Bertano Ar cluteetus, ex (ml. Mantoo Ducis 111 seilt ent
in et templum et fcurriro extruarit, MDLXV. Sertano Bannte bie
römifd)en ©entmälet aus eigener Slnfdjauung, ba er 1540
Gelegenheit hatte, in Korn 311 roeilen. St fd)reibt bas Setbienft an
feiner Srflärung ber ionifeben Solute als geroanbter Höfling bem
SSarbinal felbft 311, ber „einige ©runbfäfee bes wahren Sinnes (bei-
amtlichen Be beutung) unb bei „eleganten" .Uür-,e ber gelehrten
Schrift biefes Berfaffers (Sitruos) entbedt habe, bie oerbunfelt roar
burd; bie Sänge ber 3ent". — Chumbrc en Unu. :ibi\ Slbb. 72.
98afferorge(, Bitruc 10. Sud), nacb Satbarp. 3?enebig 1556,
italienifd). Bertano feprieb aud; einen in feiner fteit bctübmtt
geroorbenen Brief an ben ?lrebitcftcu SJtattino Baffi über bie bamals
fcbioebenbcn Streitfragen heim Sftcülänbet SVmhau. ©ar&ef unb
SBertirt. 1559 erfdj>ien ein Slusjug2), Spitome, aus bem Bitruo oon
fian ©arbet unb Dominique Bertin. Per eine ber Herausgeber,
Dominique Bertin3), ein franjöfifcper SlrcbJtelt bes fed;je&nten
ga^rfcunberts, crfebeiut 1552—1556 in Itrrunben, bie ihn umäd;ft
als JBertmeiftet unb $?unfttifcf>let in Eoulbufe erwähnen. 3üs folget
arbeitete er jroei ,"\abre an einem S^orgeftüpl für bie ftathchrale ju
?luch. gm ^ahre 1553, alfo neben obigem auftrage bes Sifcpofs oon
Slucp, ift et am Barlamenis! gebäubeoon
£ouloufebefcbäftigt,wäbrenber l554Sntwurfs3eicbnungen für bie
Saufbrunnen berfclbcn .Uathebiale pon ^hici? anfertigt. Pas ftabr
1556, in bem Bertin mit gobann ©arbet feine perfürjte
Bitrupausgabe Verausgab, ficht ihm imSlmte eines
„Superintenbenten" »on siippcl unb gewölbte SVtfe. 33ittut> 7. Sud),
ttacii JRartin. R5In-©cnf 1618, franjöfifa). ') Sammlung Ebbacbt,
Seit« 12. ) Sammlung vfbburbt, Seite T'J. 3) Sbieme, 3lllg. Sex. 2?b.
3. 497.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookname.com