I found myself more interested in de Pizan and Scudery than in Wilson and Ramus. Though my interest was somewhat piqued by the new names for old concepts listed by Wilson.
Also, the idea of challenging the old system, as did Ramus, was an interesting concept. I keep trying to imagine what rhetoric would look like without Greek and Roman roots or with the possiblity of me being able to look at it without having to look through the lens of the Greeks and the Romans. Ramus seems to have challenged the automatic acceptance of some of those ancient concepts, but it seemed sometimes that he did more tearing down than constructing.
The women writers we read for this week, though, both focus on the rhetoric of courtly (or salon) life. Christine de Pizan alluded to Biblical women using rhetoric, which suddenly placed the story of Esther in a new perspective. She was set up as the only person who could save the Jews from a plot, and to save her people, she had to be brave enough to enter the king's court without being asked. Though she took her life into her hands to do this, she brought only a very small question to the king, "Will you come to dinner?" After a few nights of feasting, she finally brought her actual petition to the king. I always loved that story when I was younger, but had never thought about the rhetorical implications. And the story seems to fit in well with de Pizan's discussion of courtly rhetoric as it is practiced by women.
As a silent person, my attention was also caught by Scudery's second Conversation, which was a discussion of people who speak too much and people who don't speak enough in a conversation. I'm in the latter group--and it doesn't take long to figure this out! So it seemed more as if I had a personal stake in it as they discussed which breed of person was worse!