Reading 3, Question 3

3. How ‘rhetorical’ were the chambers of rhetoric? What groups were free to use this performance venue as a medium for social critique and self-expression? Were these organizations capable of true subversion of dominant contemporary values and institutions?

The Chambers of Rhetoric were quite rhetorical. Not only did the Chamber s of Rhetoric serve a form of entertainment for the audience, they also provided a forum to discuss the moral, philosophical and social issues that were dominating their times. Each Chamber of Rhetoric would perform their play. Many of the Chambers of Rhetoric were quite anticlerical and often spoke out against the hierarchical and dominating position of the church. Or, there was some type of reformation propaganda within their play. In fact, the readings argued that what united most of the Chambers of Rhetoric were their anticlerical sentiments. However, they could not be too anticlerical because they were funded by the Church and State.
Most members of the Chambers of Rhetoric were merchants, professionals, higher members of the artisan class and some guild members. Thus, many of the Chambers of Rhetoric performances paralleled the views of the middle-class urban Dutch society. The goal of the Chamber of Rhetoric was to create a literate society and encourage creativity. As they were the ones who also wrote the plays and performances, these members heavily shaped the public opinion during this time as many of the performances were held in large public arenas easily available to a large audience.
Yes, it seems that the Chambers of Rhetoric were somewhat able to subvert the dominant contemporary values and institutions. This is mainly due to the fact that the Chambers of Rhetoric performed to large public audiences made up of a variety of low, middle, and upper class individuals. Thus, it is presumable to say that their message was easily disseminated to the other classes. However, their messages were usually highly metaphorical and perhaps people could not understand the anticlerical statements intertwined within their performance. Maybe it was more like a half-true subversion.