Abstract: The fact that classical and early medieval allegorical personifications were exclusively female has long perplexed literary scholars and rhetoricians. Although arguments have been made about this gendering using grammatical formalism for the most part, an examination of rhetoric's own deep structure—that is, the discursive metaphors it has always employed to talk about tropes and figures—promises to better articulate the gendered bases of the figure. Using analytical tactics drawn from Paul de Man's discussions of prosopopeia, this essay re-examines some of the rhetorical record along with programmatic imagery from patristic writings in order to demonstrate how women theinselves could serve as the “figures of figuration.”

The fact that classical and early medieval allegorical personifications were exclusively female has long perplexed literary scholars and rhetoricians. Although arguments have been made about this gendering using grammatical formalism for the most part, an examination of rhetoric’s own deep structure—that is, the discursive metaphors it has always employed to talk about tropes and figures—promises to better articulate the gendered bases of the figure. Using analytical tactics drawn from Paul de Man’s discussions of prosopopeia, this essay re-examines some of the rhetorical record along with programmatic imagery from patristic writings in order to demonstrate how women themselves could serve as the “figures of figuration.”