Swetnam's second major way of incriminating women is quoting well-known (biblical) personalities, as shown by the example “of David and Solomon” (Swetnam 194). Rachel Speght instantly adapts this procedure and opposes him by citing Saint James when she demands “Speake not evill one of another” (Speght 8). Moreover, she refers to Saint Peter, explaining that it “is to the destruction of them that” (Speght 8) sin against “God by palpable blasphemy, wressing and perverting everie place of Scripture” (Speght 8). Speght even brings one of Swetnam's own sources back into the discussion, she herself quotes the proverbs of Solomon: “He that findeth a wife, findeth a good thing, and receiveth favour of the Lord” (Speght 12; cf. The Holy Bible, Pr. 18.22). Due to the fact that Speght cites the very same individual that Joseph Swetnam used to revile womankind, her source is to be seen as being just as authentic, thus redressing the balance of this argumentative conflict. Sowernam utilises religious sources with a slightly different objective. She uses the statements of Saint Jerome and Saint Chrysostom to exemplify her sentiments in having to abide another writer's subjectively blasphemous remarks concerning God:
Saint Jerome:
I have patiently borne insult to myself; I have not been able to endure impiety against God (Henderson 221; cf. Sowernam 221)
Saint Chrysostom:
It is impious to ignore insults to God. (Henderson 221; cf. Sowernam 221)
Speght and Sowernam's citation tactics can, thus, be outlined as a combination of at least two techniques that complete each other. Speght effectively denies Swetnam's arguments by seeking fitting counterparts that contradict the quotes he used and, consequently, invalidate or milden them. Sowernam questions Swetnam's piety and faith, which associates her with the defence of Christianity whereas her adversary is portrayed as a blasphemous heretic who with or without his awareness insults God in a most insufferable way.
The most forbidding facet in Swetnam's writing, not least for educated and godly 17th century women, is his comparison of the female gender with the devil. Being associated with the eternal arch-enemy of God (cf. The Holy Bible, 1Jo. 3.8) must be considered the single most offensive incrimination a believing Christian will have to endure. Therefore, Swetnam's assumptions that “women sprung from the Devil” (Swetnam 201), that “in their beds there is hell” (Swetnam 201) and that “they must have maintenance howsoever they get it, [. . .] out of Judas's bag or the Devil's budget” (Swetnam 205) form the ultimate insults embedded in his writing. Still, his female objectors return these insults in like manner. Rachel Speght starts her literary counterstrike by calling Swetnam's text a collection of “Diabolicall infamies” (Speght 3) and “the scumme of Heathenish braines” (Speght 4). By further applying the term “fierie and furious Dragon” (Speght 5), she evokes an allusion to Satan himself, who in Scripture is likewise referred to as “a great red dragon” (The Holy Bible, Re. 12.3; cf. The Holy Bible, Re. 12.9). This idea is elaborated on in line two of the second verse of her short poem, when she assumes of Swetnam:
“W as [sic!] Sathan crept into thy filthie Pen [. . .]” (Speght 6, 8).
Speght is convinced that Swetnam's “corrupt Heart and railing Tongue, hath made [him] a fit scribe for the Divell” (Speght 7). Comparable accusations can be found in Ester Sowernam's reply. Of the authors of misogynic texts she predicts that they “will hereafter pull in their horns” (Sowernam 220), playing on the stereotypical image of a horned devil and adding yet another hint to the “great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns” (The Holy Bible, Re. 12.3).
“A Mouzell for Melastomus” and “Ester hath hang'd Haman” present their authors as assertive and intellectual female writers, the likes of who “The Arraignment of Women” does not deem possible to exist. None of Swetnam's accusations and attacks remain unanswered, his violent outbreaks of unjustified rage and fury against women are successfully unmasked. The glorious and heroic aura which Swetnam accredits himself by claims as “I have shot so near the white that some will account me for a good Archer” (Swetnam 193) is bound to fade more with each line of text that his objectors Speght and Sowernam set against his biased preconceptions. In opposition to his aim, he unwillingly offered the female sex an opportunity to present their gender in a whole new and positive light, a chance his antagonists did not miss.
3. Internal Criticism: Sowernam's Opinion on Speght
