What sort of  writing WAS Christine's Treasure?   What sort of writer was she? Was she essentially a medieval thinker and writer? Or, should she find a proper context in Renaissance thinking that was then, just, on Christine's horizon? Our question centers on Christine's context:   for example, compare the renaissance values exemplified in the works of Castiglione, Pico Della Mirandola and/or Machiavelli. Similar or different? Or Heloise's Letters to Abelard....

       Many historians have relied on Jacob Burckhardt, stating that "the Renaissance is the point of departure for the modern world."  (Of course, Colin Morris in his Individualism-book and the Barbara Reynolds/Dorothy Sayers-conception imply that modern has gone beyond Renaissance and has lost its intellectual strength....) Does Christine's book fit .... which conception? Do you see in her Treasure statements of Renaissance humanism and/or humanist Studia-Humanitatis Education, individuality as a disciplined concern free of dogma(s), conscious statecraft, revival of Greco-Roman ideals, personal freedom(s) and/or sophisticated rational thought? Or do you see a Medieval context of political and religious hierarchy, social ‘groupism,’ traditional authority, personal feudal politics?  (And as some have argued as above, is 'modern' becoming 'medieval' in its dis-engagement from reason, individualism, creativity and discipline?)

        Be specific when you see a theme, approach to life, context, moral, value, quality etc that seems to you oriented toward either context. This discussion could get vague, specious, personally emotional -- keep your terms and citations clear and tight!

        I think you will find this an interesting line of inquiry.  In one past class, a student had responded to a similar question on Christine by:

1.) putting his feet up on the desk in front of him (the desk was uninhabited),

2.) saying that he absolutely loved  Christine, as well as her portrayal of women in her book,

3.) explaining that he hoped to marry a woman imbued with Christine's medieval values (and money) so that he could come home at night from party-ing and put his feet up on her! A lively discussion followed....

          If this student correctly portrayed Christine and her advice, well, then her book belongs deep in the PIT of Eileen Power's medieval "pit or pedestal."  On the other hand, a recent biography of Christine by Charity Willard (CW) gently pushes Christine from the medieval to the renaissance context in all its glory.  Consider this outline with quotations from Willard's book. It will help to Define Terms.

         As a beginning, comb through Christine's (and the Penguin) Introduction for anything that relates to the questions before (and above) us.  Remember always and ever:  some book editor's idea of an introduction may or may not be very helpful, but the author's own intro is sure to point us in the directions she wants us to go. So, sentence by sentence, consider Christine's intro fully and carefully. We will discuss this in depth, and this discussion should help us isolate, explain, make connections between texts and ideas, analyze and so on.

       In particular, look for the 'rainbows' people have seen in Christine's work -- the promise of better days for women (and consequently, for men?).  Locate and describe these new Horizons, as far as you can see them. Defining these Horizons will help when going through the text of the Treasure, and in understanding the 'New Age' of the Renaissance.

       Of course (you have probably already seen this) none of this may be correct. It might be, as a few students have argued in the past, that Christine and her work actually advocates the superiority of women, to the detriment of the male of the species. And another 'of course' -- given her context, she had to be sly about such arguments so that the male of the species would not suspect.... Such arguments have been applied before, for example, to certain wives of Roman Emperors -- like Livia pulling the strings of strong and able men and surmounting the social-political-cultural obstacles that forbade women to rule.

        So, besides the two book-ends of interpretation('Door-mat-ness  of women, or,  Superiority of Woman) there is also a spectrum of possibilities which the first part of this essay suggests. Where does the evidence lead you? What position is most defensible by 1.) the best quality of evidence and, 2.) the greatest quantity of evidence. Is consistency an issue for interpreting Christine's book? How? Are there contradictory strands in her thinking, and if so, what does that mean? What do you think?

Links