Chris' mini-trace and synthesis

[this is from Chris]

Vives, Ignorance (not knowledge) Fostered Evil:

Vives argues that it is the experience of many people that they fall into the same behavior to which they have been accustomed without their being aware of it, and although at times they struggle against them and try to control them, they slip out and burst forth against their will (56). This is a central argument for Vives, as it constitutes why learning is necessary to combat evil. It is their not being aware of it that leads to evil. Vives consequently argues that women should be edified by chaste tales (56). His idea is thus that learning (a very distinct and proper type of learning) has the double effect of warding off ignorance and consequently evil.

Even Vives' recommendation of the art of cooking follows this logic. He suggests that she will learn the art of cooking, not the vulgar kind associated with low-class eating houses that serve up immoderate amounts of food to great numbers, nor that which caters to gluttony, but a sensible, refined, temperate, and frugal art (64). While this does not directly address evil, the connotations are evident in language of opposition (low-class, immoderate, gluttony against sensible, refined, temperate and frugal. In positing cooking as something learned as an art, Vives suggests that ignorance in this area associates one with evil. This is an example of the broader logic of ignorance and evil.

Of course, for Vives learning must be of a very specific kind. He states that learned women are suspect to many, as if the mental ability acquired by learning increased their natural wickedness and as if men should not also be suspect for the same reason if subtle learning is added to a perverse mind. The learning that I should wish to be made available to the whole human race is sober and chaste; it forms our character and renders us better (64). Vives, instead of seeing learning in women as dangerous argues that the opposite is the case; Vives' learning has a constructive quality, it is used to rid one of vice.

The main concern with Vives' argument is that, for him, learning must only be of a certain kind--it must be sober and chaste. If this is the case, is it fair to assert that his recommendation of limited learning is still a form of ignorance? Vives seems to believe that this type of learning will allow one to recognize evil and false learning. He argues that the study of literature... lifts the mind to the contemplation of beautiful things and rids it of lowly thoughts; and if any such thoughts creep into the mind, fortified by precepts and counsels of good living, either dispels them immediately or does not lend an ear to vile and base things (70). In this statement Vives suggests that once one has the right base of learning, they are capable only of good and chaste thoughts.

But were one ignorant of right and wrong (had they not knowledge) they would not be subject to vices such as reading literature of amorous reveries (74). Learning and knowledge, for women as in men, acts as a safeguard rather than a corrupting factor.

-cjt