By Emily Steiger (Fall 2022)
Rachel Speght’s, A Muzzle for Melastomus (Black Mouth), made her the first Englishwoman to critique gender ideology back in 1617. She was a prominent writer who contributed to the pamphlet wars, a phenomenon that was occurring during this post-printing press innovation that made it possible for literary conversations. The intention of this movement was to defend and criticize ideologies and perceptions that others were invoking through text and displaying to the world. Speght’s text, is a direct, and wordy response to Joseph Swetnam’s, The Arraignment of Lewd, Idle, Forward, and Unconstant Women, which is a proclamation of a “trunk full of torments against women” (Swetnam). Swetnam uses biblical references quite heavily throughout the piece in order to back up his points, of which Speght firmly declares is an abomination of using his Catholicism to justify his torrid beliefs of women. In this analysis of Speght’s work, it will ignite personal reflection in regards to one’s own ego that influences the development of “taking yourself too seriously” as well as revealing the literacy and intelligence of women of the 1600s. Society did not recognize women of the Renaissance period to be more than objects, let alone a part of literary discourse.
These works were known as treatises on the management of households, a type of literary work. This concept of household management (also known in academic terms as, oeconomics) can be defined as, “the discipline aimed at the head of the family with the purpose of guiding him in the achievement of justice and prudence in the domestic sphere.” (Arienzo, 2018) This movement was driven by sources that became the backbone of education throughout the development of Renaissance literature on household management; these are Xenophon’s (c.430–354 B.C.), Oeconomicus, Aristotle (c.384–322 B.C.) his first book, Politics, and a set of texts for a long time attributed to Oeconomica. (Arienco, 2018) It displays the differences between “oikos” and “civitas”, the relationship between morality and necessity, and the distinction between administration, government, and oeconomics and the way that society should be structured. When juxtaposed with religious fandom, it is the creation point for distinct inequality between genders. This knowledge from ancient philosophers was ubiquitous at the time with the high level of education that both parties had gotten throughout their lifetime had to at some point had these as educational tools that they could use in their own writing. Speght is known through the content of her writing that it indicates she received a well-rounded education in theology as well as rhetoric and Latin (Spencer, 2022). These concepts of morality and necessity became opposingly juxtaposed between Speght and Swetnam, and through their work reveal that this is the literary movement they were meant for.
Gender in juxtaposition with religion is something that has always worked to intrigue my thoughts throughout my learning journey, as for many others. Understanding the thought process and power struggles that have transformed and grown in our perception of gender is critical in understanding how society, anthropologically, has shaped time. However, our innate desire to solve our unknown questions and absolve our sins, which result in the formation of religion, has drastically impacted our society in a negative way; giving individuals the power to do whatever they want, or say whatever they want “in the name of God”. Institutionalization of the Church has polluted the righteousness that holy religions once had; it seems as though through misappropriation of the Word, the real work of the Holy Spirit vanishes as money begins to be funneled into the Church. It has been said that, “the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was the main locus for the first flowerings of capitalism.” (Novak, 2010) The Church dominated essentially every aspect of life from land to the undoubting faith from its followers who consistently donated in “penance” for their sins. Once individuals became versed with the absolution of sins through Confession, it became a pinnacle point for injustice. Through this work it will be unveiled; the ways in which men have used the Bible and ancient texts in justification for treating women so horribly and viewing them as the bane of society, and countered with how Speght uses it so beautifully. Rachel Speght’s, A Muzzle for Melastomus became a pivotal moment in literature as the first piece of feminist texts to make it to a large audience, which made it the referent to a plethora of responses ensuing their discourse.
In order to properly understand Speght’s, A Muzzle for Melastomus, a turn unto Swetnam’s, The Arraignment of Lewd, Idle, Forward, and Unconstant Women, as it is a direct response to this piece. He begins his first point going straight into biblical justification of how, “Moses describes a woman thus:… “a woman was made to be a helper unto man.” And so they are indeed, for she helps to spend and consume that which man painfully gets.”(Swetnam). Immediately, he is casting women as the villain in his story that he has created his personal reality. He speaks for many men of the time in their feelings towards women, however the intense use of Biblical references as a mode of manipulation is the way that Swetnam viewed his piece as right and just—and more importantly, shared widely with the public. He carries the weight of the argument explaining that the woman was taken from the rib of the man, the Old Testament story of Adam and Eve. Without man, there would have been no women, and therefore they are superior and the creators of humanity. This toxic elitism that is entirely justified through Biblical texts becomes a weapon of words against women, and creates a horrid sentiment towards their place in society as the Word was so heavily believed in. Swetnam casts this negative view of women that “they” are deceitful and easily swayed by temptation, and therefore can never be “tamed”. The use of comparing women to voracious and wild animals is the final straw that Swetnam pulls in yet proclaiming man’s superiority over women. This somehow comes to be juxtaposed with women’s love for their vanity, a contradiction that they are wild and untamed, yet revealing that they abide by a set of standards entirely on their own in order to appease men. Swetnam closes off with explaining stoically that, “A fair woman commonly will go like a Peacock, and her husband must go like a woodcock.”, referring to vanity vs. practicality. (Swetnam) He writes this text as a warning for men, which resultingly ignited a fire within the feminists of the time, leading to the work of Speght, A Muzzle for Melastomus.
Speght’s, A Muzzle for Melastomus, shows through her literary voice the anger in which she feels towards the spiteful work of Swetnam. It is an interesting note that Speght herself was in fact married to a Calvinist minister a few years after publishing her pamphlet. Her writings reveal that she was surprisingly well educated in Christian and Latin texts, despite her circumstances of not being necessarily from the upper class. This text was a reformed stream of consciousness in response to Swetnam’s abhorrent work, where she oftentimes takes the backlash he gives towards women and gives it right back to him in an eloquent manner. She starts off her work proclaiming that Swetnam is “a fit scribe for the Devil.” (Speght), immediately setting the tone of her hatred for this man and his widely published writing. She often comes back to this point, proclaiming that Swetnam is in no way shape or form, a man of God, and in fact—one with the Devil himself. There is a critique of his faith as he is altering the Holy Testament: “dishonoring of God by palpable blasphemy, wresting and perverting every place of Scripture, that you have alledged.” (Speght) Her elevated vocabulary is used to punctuate her thoughts of how Swetnam uses the Word in vain. Oftentimes she will call out his poor grammar and use of language, which is a powerful tool in demeaning his proclamation—he cannot even explain his own thoughts as well as Speght could. She explains how he misappropriated the Scripture in order to persuade his audience to believe his rhetoric of how women are the bane of man’s existence.
Speght uses references from other ancient philosophers and texts, in addition to her elevated vocabulary in order to put herself above Swetnam. She uses The Serpent, known to most as ouroboros, the ancient symbol depicting a serpent or dragon eating its own tail. Speght responds with the line: “Speake not evil one of another: and then had you not seemed so like the Serpent Porphirus, as now you doo, which, though full of deadly poison, yet being toothless, hurts none so much as himself.” (Speght)The ouroboros entered Western tradition via Greek magical tradition, of which Speght seems to reveal she has vast knowledge and admiration of. This analogy displays her beliefs in a well-put manner, that Swetnam has made a fool of himself through publishing his writing; it is incomparable, his use of language opposed to Speght. He clearly lacks many elements of Speght’s literary training in grammar or vocabulary. However, Swetnam’s work was still thought of in a much higher light than Speght’s. The gender divides of the time were not progressed to the point in which women would be taken seriously, even if they are as well versed as Speght. There still was the systematic misogyny that was ever so potent during this time in the 17th century. This call out reigns deep in calling out Swetnam for being a hypocrite in the name of God. It points out the element that Swetnam might be letting his ego get to his head and makes it seem as though he is taking himself too seriously. He knows the power that he has as a privileged male in society, and knows that he can get away with saying just about anything due to his status. This raises one to question: How serious was Swetnam? In a room full of men to his likeness, a text like his can almost be seen as joking commentary like “locker-room talk”. That does not undermine what terrible things he has to say about women, rather is just a way to perceive what he is writing and why it might be so technically in-advanced.
A large portion of both Swetnam and Speght’s work uses the book of Genesis as a backbone for their arguments. Swetnam goes from the approach that Eve was the abomination to mankind, that opened the door to original sin for being swooned to eat the forbidden fruit. He has the sentiment of “woe is me” when explaining his points of how women ruined the perfectness of man. Speght says how, “woman first sinned, yet find wee no mention of spiritual nakedness till man had sinned; then it is said, Their eyes were opened, the eyes of their mind and conscience”, putting the blame back on Adam, for had it not been for his gaze the world would have not endured pain. Speght puts an equal blame on both parties for the majority of the text, however definitely makes it clear that she does not think that it was a single-party job in dishonoring God; Adam too had free-will to not eat the forbidden fruit. Woman simply wanted to share joy with man. This fuels the debate between Adam and Eve that turns into a roundabout argument similar to, “What came first: the chicken or the egg?”. Did sin exist because of Eve taking the fruit, or because Adam gave in? Speght argues that if Adam (man) was so smart, how was he fooled by a woman? Speght goes on to argue that, “(Eve) not produced from Adams foot, to be his too low inferior; nor from his head to be his superior, but from his side, near his heart, to be his equal; that where he is Lord, she may be Lady…By which words, he makes their authority equal, and all creatures to be in subjection unto them both….”. By bringing it back to corporeal elements, it takes on a very paganistic approach and is similar to that of Hindu scripture where castes of people were assigned to certain body parts of deities. This point circles back to her thoughts of how man and woman should be treated as equals, as they came from the same cloth. She debates, how can a woman be a beast and so horrid if she came from man, a creature so noble and honorable— how can it be that from that, evil was born.
Using Swetnam’s word against him is the way in which Speght’s text becomes so powerful, the ways in which she points out his hypocrisy and abomination of the Scripture in order to perpetrate the subordinate treatment of women. Overall, this segment of the pamphlet wars in the category of religion and gender reveals the polarization amongst individuals that still exists today. Women are still just as angry that even if they produce work of higher quality than a man, it will still lack significance or recognition. Over the course of 500 years, the appropriation of the Word still goes on to justify negative behaviors that lead one to question where morality lies within religion anymore. No longer is the Church synonymous with spirituality, as previously mentioned after the Middle Ages society was tormented by early capitalism that infected religious institutions. Rachel Speght’s, A Muzzle for Melastomus, is a critical piece of literature in gender studies and should be praised for the use of eloquent language and complex writing structure in order to call out Swetnam, and quite frankly all men of the time.
Works Cited:
Arienzo, Alessandro. “Household Management.” Academia.edu, 14 Apr. 2018, https://www.academia.edu/36404826/Household_Management.
“Gender Relations: Conflict and Counsel.” Edited by Allegra Villarreal, An Open Companion to Early British Literature, 22 Jan. 2019, https://pressbooks.pub/earlybritishlit/chapter/gender-relations-conflict-and-counsel/.
Novak, Michael. “How Christianity Created Capitalism.” Acton Institute, 9 Dec. 2022, https://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-10-number-3/how-christianity-created-capitalism.
Spencer, Luke. “Rachel Speght (1597–?) & A Mouzell for Melastomus (1617).” COVE, 11 Feb. 2022, https://editions.covecollective.org/chronologies/rachel-speght-1597%E2%80%93-mouzell-melastomus-1617.
This work is licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
