Closely connected to the field of psychological and sociological gender classification is the religious approach of a gender discussion. Whether a woman is weak in her ways of leading her life or whether a man is the bold head of the family was for centuries also seen as a matter of God's creation. Faith alone sufficed as an explanation for female laziness and inferiority as well as for male faithfulness and supremacy. By introducing the Original Sin into a discussion, a different sort of quality could be added to arguments: if one was to argue against this pro-male method of strengthening a case, one was arguing against God's master plan. Few people dared to challenge an adversary in a discussion that was initiated on the grounds of Christian fundamentalist dogmas. In the 17th century, however, two women overcame the barriers of England's patriarchic religious ideology and used the strategy of the original writer of an anti-female pamphlet against him.

This term paper is meant to point out Joseph Swetnam's methods of denouncing women on the basis of Divine Providence and to confront his line of argumentation with those of Rachel Speght and Esther Sowernam's texts. A general note on religious argumentation will be provided and, furthermore, particular arguments of the individual authors will be traced back to their roots in Scripture and, if necessary, checked for their validity. In addition, the internal conflict between Speght and Sowernam will be discussed and Sowernam's criticism on Speght's text will be examined further. The main goal, however, will be to present a literary conflict of the sexes that sees a ostensibly and self-proclaimed heroic author on his quest to improve (wo)mankind and two female underdog authors who with wit and knowledge argue against narrow-minded ignorance and, thereby, present the image of strong and intelligent women worth of being God's creation.

2. Gender-dependent Interpretations of Scripture

The religious domain of 17th century Britain was still strongly influenced and unsettled by the incidents that had taken place in the precedent century. Due to the fact that “in 1534 Henry broke away from Rome and declared himself head of the church in England” (Oakland 255), religious unity and self-awareness was a major issue, though it could not yet be widely achieved throughout the areal extent of British rule. This lack of clarity was even intensified when “Henry VIII's daughter, the Roman Catholic Mary Tudor, tried to restore the Roman Catholic faith during her reign (1553-8), but did not succeed” (Oakland 256) and finally when “her half-sister, the Protestant Elizabeth I (1558-1603), established the Protestant status of the Church of England” (Oakland 256). According to Morrill, “by the time of the Glorious Revolution of 1688-9 [the Church of England] had lost the intellectual, moral, spiritual authority it had acquired by 1603” (390). The constant religious factor, though, was “a hybrid of Protestant doctrine and Catholic practice” (Morrill 390).

Which in itself contains the historical irony of two ruling women establishing male dominated religious systems, in this case widens the gap between the genders even further: “Although Henry had established a national church, that church was still Roman Catholic in its faith and practices” (Oakland 255). This implies a strict male hierarchy which was refined and never criticised through the attempted re-establishment of the Roman Catholic faith and finally through the alteration of Protestant conversion. The fundamental basis for religious argumentation, therefore, was the unquestionable authority of the bible, which, by 1611, had just been newly translated and published as the King James Version (The Holy Bible, Foreword: The King James (Authorized) Version), displacing the Genevan Bible of 1560 as the common version of this text (The Holy Bible, Foreword: Sixteenth-Century England). The bible itself symbolises a male monument of dominance. With its authors being known as men (Jesus' disciples, evangelists and prophets), the translator staff consisting of “fifty-four of the best scholars” (The Holy Bible, Foreword: The King James (Authorized) Version), the orderer being King James I and the text constantly dealing with a male deity (cf. The Holy Bible, Eph. 1.3; Mt. 6.26; Lu. 11.13), the masculine sovereignty and monopole over this cornerstone of cultural literature becomes palpable.

Female share in religious life, however, was rather limited. Either a woman could decide to fully devote her existence to her faith and enter a convent (cf. Wagner / Laferl 127) or she preferred leading a family life that consisted of taking care of her household, husband and children. Others even remained unmarried despite the by now increased “age of first marriage” (Morrill 328) that had reached an average of over twenty-six in the late 17th century (Morrill 328). One way or the other, religious self-actualisation for women meant to read and follow the bible, apply its content to her personal sphere and not to question or criticise its meaning or the way it was laid out by scholars and clergy likewise. Thus, with the source text standing exclusively under male influence, its interpretation limited to the work of masculine clergy and women confined to the part of silent pious worship, religious gender argumentation was bound to be biased with women being on the losing side.

2.1. Swetnam's Religious Argumentation

Swetnam, by van Heertum referred to as “the rather hapless author of The Arraignment of Women” (21), builds large portions of his 1615 anti-female pamphlet upon his personal and predominant male exegesis of religious aspects. Very early in his text, he uses biblical imagery to debase women when he explains that in his supposedly upcoming second book he “will go upon these venomous Adders, Serpents and Snakes” (Swetnam 192). This reference already alludes to the biblical fall from grace and the association of the serpent with deceit and maliciousness (cf. The Holy Bible, Gen. 3), the very same attributes Swetnam accredits to his female contemporaries. He then continues by quoting and interpreting Moses in the first chapter of his pamphlet which he declares to “[show] to what use Women were made” (Swetnam 193) and “that most of them degenerate from the use they were framed unto by leading a proud, lazy, and idle life, to the great hindrance of their poor Husbands” (Swetnam 193):

Moses describeth a woman thus: "At the first beginning," saith he, "a woman was made to be a helper unto man." And so they are indeed, for she helpeth to spend and consume that which man painfully getteth. (Swetnam 193)

This rhetoric trickery which “[perverts]” (Speght 8) the initial statement in regard to its content is perpetuated on forthwith:

He also saith that they were made of the rib of a man, and that their froward nature showeth; for a rib is a crooked thing good for nothing else, and women are crooked by nature, for small occasion will cause them to be angry. (Swetnam 193)

In these two excerpts, Swetnam's eagerness to use even the most neutral gender-related statement from the bible and turn its meaning into sheer disparagement becomes apparent. Of course, he thereby indirectly accuses God of being inefficient in his work, criticising the creation of something crooked in man's rib and the use of this deficient body part to create an even more deficient woman. Swetnam is on the brink of charging God with the defects he believes to find in women, a position that he himself might have been unaware of, but that nonetheless would have been difficult to defend (cf. Speght 8).

After having quoted Moses in the preceding paragraph of his text, Swetnam continues this strategy of citing biblical figures whose trustworthiness is incontrovertible in terms of 17th century ideology. Of David and Solomon he writes:

For the one of them said that it was better to be a doorkeeper and better dwell in a den amongst Lions than to be in the house with a froward and wicked woman, and the other said that the climbing up of a sandy hill to an aged man was nothing so wearisome as to be troubled with a froward woman. (Swetnam 194)

Swetnam tries to strengthen his case against womanhood through the introduction of out of context references and pro-male platitudes. Yet, they carry some weight regarding the backing of his point, they are clearly judgemental concerning the female gender and they are given as the comments of the Israelite King David and his son and successor Solomon (cf. The Holy Bible, 1Ki. 1 - 1Ki. 2). The effect on the devotional reader is, therefore, likely to be acceptance of Swetnam's claims and an increasing trust in his writing. Curiously, he later deprives his examples of biblical misogyny again of their credibility with the sole purpose of showing that female fiendishness can even corrupt the most noble men:

Solomon was the wisest Prince that ever was, yet he lusted after so many women that they made him quickly forsake his God which did always guide his steps, so long as he lived godly. And was not David the best beloved of God and a mighty Prince? Yet for the love of women he purchased the displeasure of his God. (Swetnam 198)

Swetnam quite openly uses and misuses any traces of anti-female propaganda that he is able to seek out in Scripture, even when it means blaming someone on whose opinion parts of his argumentation were based on earlier, and whose position was, consequently, much cherished (cf. Swetnam 200). This concept, though it produces further examples worth using in Swetnam's ideology, makes his writing inconsistent and eliminates the logical retraceability of his arguments.

The author does not even hesitate to compare the woman to the central antagonist of Christian faith when explaining that “not with small shot, but with a cruel tongue, she will ring thee such a peal that one would think the Devil were come from Hell” (Swetnam 197). What was initiated through the allusion to “venomous Adders, Serpents and Snakes” (Swetnam 192) is now quite casually expanded to the maximum, the association of the female sex with the impersonation of everything sinister and evil:

Then who can but say that women sprung from the Devil? Whose heads, hands, and hearts, minds and souls are evil, for women are called the hook of all evil because men are taken by them as fish is taken with the hook. [. . . .] They lay out the folds of their hair to entangle men into their love; betwixt their breasts is the vale of destruction; and in their beds there is hell, sorrow, and repentance. (Swetnam 201)

Through his statements, Joseph Swetnam accredits as much creative claim in the design of women to the Devil as he does to God. Apparently, he sees God as the physical creator of the female gender whereas he imputes the Devil to be responsible for the psychological and emotional foulness which he believes to find in women.

The alleged diabolical nature of women is further visualised by the reference to their greed and Swetnam's opinion that “they must have maintenance howsoever they get it, by hook or by crook, out of Judas's bag or the Devil's budget” (205). The association with Satan is extended by an allusion to Christ's disciple Judas Iscariot who betrayed his Lord and delivered him to his prosecutors for the sum of thirty silver coins (cf. The Holy Bible, Mt. 26.14-15). The imagery applied here suggests that women will deceive their husbands or men in general for their own profit in a most dishonest and abhorrent way, worthy of comparison to the deception of Jesus Christ. Additionally, the motive of greed is also a central issue of Solomon's proverbs (cf. The Holy Bible: Pr. 1.19; Pr. 15.27; Pr. 21.25-26) who, as one of Swetnam's earlier sources, has already been introduced to the reader as being reliable in his anti-female opinion. At the same time, the author almost imperceptibly creates a synopsis between Christ and Judas on one side and men and women on the other. With women availing themselves of men's possessions and Judas benefiting from Jesus' extradition, Joseph Swetnam applies a direct scheme of good and evil to social gender relations.

2.2. Speght and Sowernam's Reaction

Two years after the publishing of Swetnam's pamphlet, Rachel Speght had her answer “A Mouzell for Melastomus” printed in 1617, which also makes her “the first historically verifiable woman in England to have written a printed defence of women” (O'Malley et al., Introductory Note: x). In a humble, though confident way, she unmasks Swetnam's inhumane criticism “of all Hevahs sex” (Speght 4) and herself accuses him of being biased, fiendish, even blasphemous (Speght 8). Her approach is widely characterised by the dualism of distinctively pointing out her “imperfection both in learning and age” (Speght 5) while proving her high level of education and erudition through the introduction of not only biblical and religious, but also numerous philosophical sources such as Aristotle or Seneca (cf. Speght 4). Through her selection of citations and allusions, she covers a wide range of intellectual aspects and, thereby, manages to create a literary work which is likely to appeal to a broad audience. Speght constantly fortifies her statements by offering arguments from the religious sphere which strongly contradict Swetnam's remarks or by putting forth philosophical ideas that point out the inhumane character of his views. Another effect of her decision to bring essential representatives of Greek and Roman philosophy into the discussion is that she puts herself and her readers in the tradition of these classic European civilizations, thus adding fundamental credibility to her refutation. Speght completes her, in regard to 17th century literary and social customs, rebellious retaliation by taking on a role that shows her engaged in an uncommon female, yet powerful enterprise, namely construing and interpreting Scripture (cf. Speght 15). Altogether, her work marks her as a skilled writer, her creativity is not least observable in her mock poem (cf. Speght 6) and her boldness is outstanding for her time.

In the same year, yet another answer to Swetnam's “The Arraignment of Women” was published, this time written by an ostensibly female writer who calls herself “Ester Sowernam”. This pseudonym (van Heertum 78; 321) in itself can be seen as a forthright statement as to what purpose “Ester hath hang'd Haman” was written. Van Heertum explains:

The pseudonym is an obvious pun on Swetnam's name, while the first name Ester is chosen with reference to the title. The Book of Esther relates the story of Haman, the King's favourite, who, because Esther's uncle Mordecai refused to honour him, contrived to destroy Mordecai and his people. Through Esther's intercession the King ordered to hang Haman on the gallows which had been prepared for Mordecai's

execution, [sic!] [. . . .]

In Ester hath hang'd Haman, Swetnam's charges are successfully turned against him - he, too, provides the rope with which he is hanged. (321)

The author, under the name of Ester Sowernam, is prepared to not only contradict Swetnam, but also to give evidence that women indeed are “gracious instruments to derive God's blessings and benefits to mankind” (Sowernam 219) and further to “arraign such kind of men which correspond the humor and disposition of the Author [Swetnam]: lewd, idle, furious and beastly disposed persons” (Sowernam 219). Sowernam does not simply follow Speght's strategy of explaining the worth of women and of contradicting Swetnam's arguments, she expands her apology by the factor of accusing the male gender. Sowernam explicitly points out the blames and faults in Swetnam and his fellow men, underlined with the tone of a self-confident and well-versed “country gentlewoman” (van Heertum 78). Moreover, her modus operandi is characterised by the rhetorical analysis of Joseph Swetnam's pamphlet and by the uncovering of stylistic flaws that present him contradicting himself continuously (cf. Sowernam 222). She, likewise, makes use of religious references or biblical quotations (e.g. Saint Jerome, Saint Chrysostom; cf. Sowernam 221) and completes them with allusions and excerpts from philosophical or historical sources (e.g. Homer; cf. Sowernam 221; 222), thus clarifying her position as a respectable author, accentuating her expertise and stabilising her role as spokesperson for the unjustly condemned womankind.

Both female authors show comprehensive knowledge of religious, philosophical and historical contexts, nonetheless, Sowernam's style and assertiveness mark her and her work as the dominant examples of female self-conception and self-assurance. Basic strategies such as extensive use of supportive citation and explicit reference to religious matters are to be found in either texts, nonetheless, Sowernam's approach never questions her equality or even superiority as a writer, whereas Speght continuously apologises for her young age and her insufficient level of education (cf. Speght 3; 5). This behaviour, though it may first seem to show modesty in the author, results in a lack of confidence in Speght when directly compared to Sowernam's work. Nonetheless, a major change not only in literary gender conception has been made by these two female writers. They both did not let Swetnam make victims of them, as he obviously planned to do to the female gender as a whole. They did what he tried to ban women from doing on a global basis, they expressed their feelings and uttered their opinions on a matter that concerns everyone: the total social expulsion of half the human population.

2.3. Dismantling Swetnam's Ideology

While Joseph Swetnam's personal motivation for his condemnation of the female sex remains unclear, van Heertum offers one possible explanation by stating that “detractors of women turn against the entire female sex because rejected or disappointed by one individual woman” (321), a situation she calls “a familiar one in formal defences” (321). Yet, no matter how many accusations Swetnam, motivated by his obsessive anti-female position, is creating, Speght and Sowernam aspire to debilitate them. His first association of women with the devil and his stereotypical heraldic species, namely “venomous Adders, Serpents, and Snakes” (Swetnam 192) is already responded to by Speght when she compares him to a “viper” (3) in reference to his poisonous writing (cf. Speght 3). Swetnam goes on to cite Moses and to, as mentioned earlier, rigorously alter the meaning of the phrase “helper unto man” (Swetnam 193) and give it the negative connotation of women “spend[ing] and consum[ing]” (Swetnam 193) everything a man earns. Sowernam attacks this claim on two bases, meaning the contextual and the structural levels of text analysis. She explains that “spending and consuming of that which Man painfully getteth is by this Author [Swetnam] the use for which Women were made” (Sowernam 222) while Swetnam states that “most of them degenerate from the use they were framed unto” (Swetnam 193; Sowernam 222). According to Sowernam, Joseph Swetnam therefore “contradict[s] himself” (Sowernam 222). Moreover, the contextual side of his expression bears “horrible blasphemy” (Sowernam 222) for her, as she accuses Swetnam to imply that “the end of God's creation in Women [was] to spend and to consume” (Sowernam 222). Ester Sowernam cunningly shows inconsistencies in her adversary's text and simultaneously questions his faith by using his own words against him. This tactic remains unchanged when she talks about Swetnam's conclusion that “women are crooked by nature” (Swetnam 193) because “they were made of the rib of a man” (Swetnam 193) which, by his definition, “is a crooked thing good for nothing else” (Swetnam 193). First, Sowernam draws the conclusion that “Joseph Swetnam was made as from Adam of clay and dust, so he is of a dirty and muddy disposition” (Sowernam 222). She then continues by deducing that “if Woman received her crookedness from the rib and consequently from the Man, how doth man excel in crookedness, who hat more of those crooked ribs” (Sowernam 222). Once more, she coevally charges Swetnam with disbelief for suggesting that “Woman receive[d] her soul and disposition from the rib” (Sowernam 222) instead of God (cf. Sowernam 222; The Holy Bible, Ge. 2). The effect of Sowernam's method is that the reader can easily follow her line of argumentation: after proving stylistic flaws in Swetnam's work and extending his statements to the male gender, thus, showing that his schemes can find defects in both sexes, she ultimately questions his piousness. This results not only in a loss of credibility for the author of “The Arraignment of Women”, it even throws back his entire attack on himself.

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

Although their overall intention unites Speght and Sowernam, the latter feels a lack in “A Mouzell for Melastomus” and its author. Sowernam explains that she was kept from writing her apology when “word was brought [her] that an Apology for women was already undertaken, and ready for the Press, by a Minister's daughter” (Sowernam 219), implying that this circumstance attributes her a certain educational and religious authority. To her disappointment, she was faced with the “slenderness of [Speght's] answer” (Sowernam 219) which demanded of her “to add supply” (Sowernam 219) to it. Sowernam as well points out that “the Maid doth many times excuse her tenderness of years” (Sowernam 219; cf. Speght 3; 5). While Speght's tone widely testifies her graveness and her “self-consciousness as a literary woman” (Beilin 110), her constant deferent apologies play into the hands of anti-feminists who could claim that a defence for women written by a “Maid” (Sowernam 219; 224) is not to be taken seriously.

Moreover, Sowernam reproaches Speght with her opinion that her “undertaking to defend women doth rather charge and condemn women” (Sowernam 219), which finds support in the way Speght names the woman “the weaker vessel [which] was with more facility to be seduced” (Speght 14). Furthermore, Speght asserts “that the Man is the Womans Head [sic!]” (Speght 23), acknowledging male “Supremacie” (Speght 23) over the female sex. As harshly as Speght attacks Swetnam for his pamphlet, as submissively she accepts traditional gender role allocations and her generally inferior status as a woman. Sowernam's claim seems valid in respect to the presentation of the female gender regarding its equality in Speght's work, a flaw that she herself clearly tries to avoid and which forced her to issue “Ester hath hang'd Haman” in the first place.

4. Conclusion

One of the most essential principles and a central doctrine of Christian belief is the Second Commandment: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (The Holy Bible, Mr. 12.31). Joseph Swetnam heedlessly disobeys this order by not only clearly detesting the female gender and, thus, part of God's creation, but also by writing and having his literary odium published. His attempt to portray himself as the pious defender of true faith and the sole remaining apologist in a time of gender-related disorder shows diverse violations against the religious system that Swetnam alleges to protect and fundamental weaknesses in its form and content. In the course of his “book” (Swetnam 193), lines of argumentation break off due to insufficient support, others are simply contradicted elsewhere. The decision to build large portions of his pamphlet's logical structure upon religious issues without first considering chinks in his reasoning must be estimated as rather unwise. As a result, his pamphlet “The Arraignment of Women” is a self-contradictory collection of profanities whereas labelled as “counsel” (Swetnam 216), its supposed objectivity quickly can be deciphered as the frustrated assault of a probably emotionally hurt man.

The reaction of Speght and Sowernam shows that their capacity to endure revilements of the female gender was exceeded by Swetnam's work. They decided to answer his accusations by introducing the discussion into the public domain and having their defences of women published. In an exemplary deconstruction of his argumentation, they have obtained lasting effects in their audience and in cross-gender relations. Without foreseeing it, Swetnam has given Speght and Sowernam obvious points of attack: they surpass his argumentation skills and his knowledge concerning Scripture likewise. In addition, Sowernam uses her rhetoric capabilities to dismantle any logical incongruity presented in “The Arraignment of Women”. Finally, the concept of importing philosophical notions into the discussion elevates their level of debate over that of Swetnam's, attributing an early stage of open-mindedness to them. It has been thoroughly demonstrated that women can not only measure up to, but even excel fellow male writers, and that their pride and self-awareness as women make them an emancipated part of society.

What remains is the irony in the fact that by his attempt to display the female sex as inferior, fiendish and degenerate, Swetnam, on the contrary, gives women a chance to gain the respect and esteem they deserve. Sadly, this incident did not mark the completion, but only one small step on the path to gender equality. In the end, with his hateful text, Swetnam really seems to have prepared the gallows (cf. van Heertum 321) for himself and the likes of him from a literary, social and humane point of view and made himself a shameful example of 17th century male arrogance.