HENRY
HOWARD VS. THE MISOGYNISTS:
THE
ISSUE OF FEMALE SOVEREIGNTY IN SIXTEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND
David B. Mock
Tallahassee Community College
The last half of the sixteenth century saw an
unprecedented number of women sitting on European thrones or serving as
regents. Their numbers included Mary
(1553-58) and Elizabeth Tudor (1558-1603), Catherine de Medici (1560-63), Mary
Stuart (1542-67), Mary of Hungary (1531-55), Mary of Lorraine (1554-60), and
Margaret of Parma (1559-67). The
presence of such a large number of prominent female rulers encouraged a
proliferation of political treatises concerning the issue of female regiment,
that is, government by women. Among the
sixteenth-century proponents of female rulers were John Aylmer, John Jewel,
Richard Bertie, David Clapham, Sir Thomas Elyot, and Henry Howard, later Earl
of Northampton. Their opponents
included Sir David Lyndsay, Thomas Becon, John Ponet, Christopher Goodman,
Anthony Gilby, and, arguably the best known, John Knox.(1)
The principal purpose of this paper is to compare
the key arguments of John Knox, who wrote what was probably the most vitriolic
attack on women, with those of Henry Howard, who wrote what was arguably the
most scholarly defense of female regiment of its time.
Although numerous sixteenth-century treatises were
rigorous in their denunciation of women rulers, perhaps none was more vicious
than Knox's The First Blast of the
Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women. Knox published this treatise only a few months before Mary
Tudor's death in 1558. It was the first
of three works that he planned, and the only one that he actually finished, to
undermine the political authority of the English queen. Knox's treatise openly attacked Mary's
government, which he described as that of "a wicked woman, yea of a
traitoress and bastard."(2) It
also questioned whether any woman had the right to govern--a sentiment Knox
expressed at least twice elsewhere. Knox suggested that female regiment was a
"monstriferous" situation that was contrary to both God's will and
natural law. He explained that:
"It is more than a mostre in nature, that a woman shall reigne and have
empire above men."(3) He lamented,
"how abominable, odious and detestable."(4)
In the early 1570s, Elizabeth faced a number of
challenges to her authority: the Rising
of the Northern Earls in 1569, the publication of Regnans in Excelsis in 1570, and the Ridolfi Plot in 1571. In light of the turbulence of the age
Elizabeth directed William Cecil, who would soon become Lord Burghley, to ask
Henry Howard to write a learned rebuttal to Knox's 1558 work. She probably hoped that Howard's response
would help bolster her against the attacks on the throne.
Howard was seemingly well-qualified for the
task. He had earned his Master of Arts
degree from King's College, Cambridge in 1564 and had received a second
Master's from Oxford in 1568.
Furthermore, he was extremely well-read in law, philosophy, history, and
religion. He had also recently
completed treatises on the issue of Elizabeth's marriage, on the denial of the
accuracy of prophecies, and on the foreign policy implications of the
inheritance of Charles V.(5)
Howard began in earnest to work on a project that
he would not complete until 1589. The
delay was due not only to the extensive scholarship of a work that he modestly
but accurately described as "tedious and able to discourage," but
also to a number of unfortunate circumstances.
He had perpetual problems with his creditors and was frequently evicted;
he was periodically arrested and interrogated about his alleged role in
conspiracies; and he had his notes destroyed or stolen during six separate
robberies. He even lost an early draft
of the manuscript, only to have it returned to him by a stranger who found it
on a street in St. Albans. Howard also
claimed that he was temporarily blinded.
Finally, after years of tedious scholarship and countless diversions and
interruptions, he finished his manuscript.
Understanding Howard's scholarly objections to Knox's arguments gives a
better appreciation of the sixteenth-century gynecocracy controversy.(6)
Howard organized his scholarly treatise, entitled A Deutifull Defence of the Lawfull Regiment
of Weomen, into three books, focusing respectively on natural law, civil
law, and divine law arguments. Within
each book Howard answered various objections to female sovereignty. Consulting over 200 authors and some 400
books, Howard's 234 folio-page manuscript included references to theologians,
historians, statesmen, philosophers, and political theorists. Surprisingly, Howard did not directly
mention any of the contemporary treatises that dealt with the gynecocracy
issue, and he made only a handful of indirect references to Knox's work.
Howard answered some thirteen specific objections
that he found in Knox's First Blast. Most interesting were Howard's responses to
Knox's two principal complaints against female regiment: first, that God denied woman the scepter,
because a woman, Eve, was responsible for man's Fall from Grace; and second,
that women cannot govern, because they are subject to the rule of their
husbands.(7)
In brief, Knox had explained that women had
demonstrated their inability to govern as early as Eve. He argued that proof against female
sovereignty was Eve's disobedience and her responsibility for Original Sin and
man's Fall from Grace. Furthermore,
from the time of Eve's creation, woman had failed to be man's equal. Adam had been, after all, created first,
suggesting that the order of creation established an order of social and
political precedence.(8) Moreover,
Eve's creation from Adam's rib was another sign of woman's subservience. Knox argued:
God, by his sentence, hath dejected all woman
frome empire and dominion aboue man.
For two punishmentes are laid vpon her, to witte, a dolor, anguishe, and
payn, as oft as euer she shal be mother; and a subjection of her selfe, her
appetites and will to her husbande, and to his will.(9)
Moreover, Knox proposed, women are unsuited by
their very nature to govern, and their government is not grounded in
Scripture. Consequently, he advised
women to serve men who would govern and establish justice, equity, and good
order.
In examining woman's responsibility for Original
Sin and man's Fall from Grace, Howard countered Knox's position by suggesting
that prior to the Fall Eve had not been, in fact, subordinate to Adam. In Genesis there were two stories concerning
the creation of Eve. In Chapter One,
which described the first creation, God created both Adam and Eve in His image
and gave them dominion over the Earth.
Howard argued that at this time Eve was, in fact, not subject to Adam;
rather she was his "helpmeet" or helpmate. God showered His gifts equally upon both man and woman; He gave
them both dominion over all. They were,
as Howard explained, "happie free pure virgines and fitt gheastes for
Parradise."(10) Befittingly, God
beheld all that he had created and declared it to be good.
The relationship between Adam and Eve changed,
however, in the second creation. In the
second chapter of Genesis, God placed Adam under a deep sleep to remove a rib
and create Eve. The misogynists argued
that here was a sure sign of man's superiority. Woman came from under man's arm, implying that she required man's
protection. Howard denied such
allegations, citing the arguments of St. Ambrose and St. Gregory of Nazianzus
who had claimed that woman was in fact made of better material than was
Adam. Eve was, after all, made from
Adam's rib, while Adam was made from dust.
Because woman was made of a superior substance than man, Howard asked,
does this then not indicate the superiority of woman rather than her
inferiority? He believed so and further
claimed that there was no reason to believe that man had dominion over
woman.(11)
Neither was there a reason to blame Eve more than
Adam for the Fall from Grace. Both were
guilty. If either was more guilty than
the other, it was Adam. Howard reminded
his readers that God spoke directly to Adam--but not to Eve. Adam--not God--told Eve not to eat of the
Tree of Life. Although God punished Eve
in the Fall, she was not singled out for punishment. Howard noted that both Adam and Eve lost dominion over the earth. Furthermore, Eve was "not abated any
iote or maymed in her quallities."(12)
In pursuing this issue further, Howard suggested
that the Law of Nature was clearer before the formation of society and
government. In this earlier time,
people had possessed complete freedom, living free from the control of civil
magistrates. Then the "government"
was the family, where both parents ruled.
After destroying the world by the great flood, God renewed man's
dominion over the Earth but still failed to give him predominance over woman. Northampton suggested, therefore, that
opposition to female regiment was invalid, if it were based upon these biblical
events.(13)
Knox's second key argument against female regiment
was that women are subject to their husbands and consequently should not have
authority over others due to their subservient positions within the
household. Knox explained: "For he that taketh from woma[n] the
least part of authoritie, dominion or rule, will not permit vnto her that
whiche is greatest."(14) Because a
woman is subservient to her husband, she has no right either to teach, witness,
judge, or rule.(15) If a woman cannot
teach or serve as a judge, Knox asked, how then could she expect to perform the
higher function of governing?
In
examining the issue of a woman's subservience to her husband, Howard suggested
that although she is under her husband's power, the relationship should not
suggest that all women are subordinated to men's authority. He added that the guidelines concerning
familial relationships were established during biblical times, when women
traditionally did not govern. But,
Howard explained, a woman does not come under her husband's control until after
the wedding ceremony. The dominion of
the husband is "onelie of the frute of wedlock."(16) He added:
"[N]othing ys more famylier and ordenary among the fathers of the
Churche then that weomen wch Dispose themselves are as free from all obedience
to men as from paines in Childe bearynge."(17) Howard cited Moses, Peter Martyr, St. Paul, Jerome, John
Chrysostom, and Tertullian as examples of those who endorsed this
position. Moreover, virgins and widows
were two special categories of women who were not bound or subject to men. Listing Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom, and St.
Cyprian as supporters of this point, Howard explained that virgins
"notablie sett forthe the fredome of a virgins pure estate when no
predomynannce of a man nor contradiction by commandement is able to ympeache or
to Disturbe her holie resulucion."(18)
Thus, he concluded, a husband's dominion in the household should not be
seen as implying that men are superior to women.
Neither was Howard willing to concede the issue of
a wife's unquestioning subservience to her husband. He suggested that the relationship of husband and wife "ys
not soe servile as the pasquelles prate."(19) Augustine had, after all, suggested that the title of wife was
one of honor and not one of servitude.
The marital relationship, Howard explained, is one of "predominance
in place though not predominance in regiment."(20) Husbands are to be obeyed, but not if they are
immoral and lead their wives away from God.
In fact, wives even possess some control over their husbands. Using the argument in Chrysostom's Commentary on Corinthians, Howard
elucidated that the wife and not the husband controls his body and stated that
"a woman is both her husbands servannt and his governour" as far as
corporal matters are concerned.(21) A
husband's authority is, therefore, conditional. Howard explained:
Thus we perceave in what sence the Commandement of
obedience ought to be understood that the state of wives ys onelie punished
withoute exception eyther to widowes or to maydes that the Condicion of wives
ys not soe base and servile as it is made and that the Curse which was
pronownced at the first vpon transgression hath synce bene greatlie quallefied
upon amendment.(22)
The question of the subservience of wives was also
due, Howard reasoned, to a misunderstanding of the dictates of St. Paul. The citation in question was the analogy of
the comparison of the dominion of a husband over his wife with that of Christ's
dominion in the Church. Howard,
questioning whether Paul made a direct comparison in his analogy, claimed that
women are "coessentiall with men" and that the distance between
Christ and the Church is greater than that which exists between the sexes.(23)
Howard also suggested that despite the nature of
the marital relationship, it has little to do with political sovereignty. "[T]hough wives cannot be heads in
matrymonie yet in pollicie they may and where the greatest dutie comes in place
a less avayleth not."(24)
Furthermore, the actions of other women have overturned women's
subservience and restored their right to wield scepters. The Virgin Mary canceled Eve's guilt for the
Fall of Man, while Mary Magdalene "redemed womankinde from
malediction."(25) Howard proposed,
therefore, that there is now no difference between man and woman, "becawse
we are all one in Christ Jhesus."(26)
When Howard refuted Knox's First Blast, he used the full weight of biblical, historical, and
philosophical authority. His arguments
were both rational and comprehensive.
The ultimate irony is that, while Howard's manuscript was circulated in
influential circles, it was never published.
By the time Howard had completed it in 1589, many of the peculiar
circumstances which had encouraged the initiation of the project had been
resolved. Elizabeth I had executed Mary
Queen of Scots, had defeated the Spanish Armada, and had successfully governed
England for over three decades.
Although opposition to female regiment would continue into the
seventeenth century, the issue had neither the currency nor the emotion that it
had had previously. England's virgin
queen, by ruling ably and judiciously, refuted the arguments of the misogynists
more clearly and completely than could any theologian or historian.
***
Dr. David B. Mock received his PhD in British
history from Florida State University in 1983.
He taught at Edison Community College for six years before joining the
faculty at Tallahassee Community College in 1990. He is also a visiting associate professor of history at Florida
State University since 1993. His
publications include Legacy of the West:
Readings in the History of Western Civilization (forthcoming), History and Public Policy (1991), A Dictionary of Obituaries of Modern British
Radicals (1989), and Educating Hand
and Mind: A History of Vocational Education in Florida (1986). He is currently working on a transcription
and critical edition of Henry Howard's A
Deutifull Defence of the Lawfull Regiment of Weomen. Dr. Mock served as president of the Florida
Conference of Historians from 1988 to 1989 and is currently the permanent
secretary of the organization.
ENDNOTES
1. For a good discussion of the gynecocracy debate in the sixteenth century, see Paula Louise Scalingi, "The Scepter or the Distaff: The Question of Female Sovereignty, 1516-1607," The Historian 41 (Nov. 1978): 59-75. See Sir David Lyndsay [Lindsay], The Monarchie (1552); Thomas Becon, An Humble Supplication unto God, for the Restoringe of Hys Holy Woorde, Vnto the Churche of Englande (1554); John Ponet [or Poynet], A Shorte Treatise of Politike Power and of the True Obedience (1556); Christopher Goodman, How Superior Powers Oght to Be Obeyd of Their Subjects (1558); Anthony Gilby, An Admonition to England and Scotland, to Call Them to Repentance (1558); Sir Thomas Elyot, The Defence of Good Women (1540); John Aylmer, An Harborowe for Faithfull and True Subjects against the Late Blowne Blaste (1559); and John Jewel, The Defence of the Apologie of the Churche of Englande (1567).
2. John Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women (1558), f. A2r; Richard L. Greaves, Theology & Revolution in the Scottish Reformation (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian University Press, 1980), 157-68.
3. Knox, First Blast, ff. A3v-A4r.
4. Ibid. See also Greaves, Theology, 162-63, for a discussion of the influence of Heinrich Bullinger and Christopher Goodman on Knox.
5. Calendar of State Papers Domestic Elizabeth I. v. 5 n.83; v. 149 n. 69; Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton, A Deutifull Defence of the Lawfull Regiment of Weomen (unpublished, 1589), Lansdowne Manuscript 813, f. 28v; British Library Additional Manuscripts 12: 453, 513, 515; Dictionary of National Biography, s.v. Northampton's treatises were: A Defensative against the Poyson of Supposed Prophesies (1583); A Defense of the Ecclesiasticall Regiment in England (1574); and a reply to William Stubbes' Discovery of a Gaping Gulf.
6. Howard, Deutifull Defence, f. 28r; Dictionary of National Biography.
7. Howard, Deutifull Defence, ff. 25v-125v.
8. Knox, First Blast, f. D3r.
9. Ibid., f. B6r.
10. Howard, Deutifull Defence, f. 34r.
11. Ibid., ff. 34v-37v. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Tertullian, St. Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, St. Ambrose, and St. Augustine all argue this point. Compare, e.g., Basil of Caesarea, Sur L'Origine de L'Homme (Paris: Les Editions des Cerf, 1970), 213-17; Ambrose, Paradise, trans. John J. Savage (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1961), 333-51; Origen, Commentariorum in Genesium, in Opera Omnia (Paris: Migne, 1862).
12. Ibid., f. 30v.
13. Ibid., ff. 30v-33v.
14. Knox, First Blast, f. B8v.
15. Ibid., f. C4r.
16. Howard, Dutifull Defence, f. 186v.
17. Ibid., f. 197v.
18. Ibid., ff. 188r, 198v.
19. Ibid., f. 189v.
20. Ibid., f. 190r.
21. Ibid., f. 191v.
22. Ibid., f. 192v.
23. Ibid., f. 198v.
24. Ibid., f. 201r.
25. Ibid., f. 191v.
26. Ibid.,
f. 192r.