Argumentation Against Female Monarchy Kelley Northam

The First Blast Against the Writings of John Knox: An Investigation of John Knox’s Forms of Argumentation Against Female Monarchy

Kelley Northam

Tosaythatintheyear1558 Europewasexperiencingturmoilinreconcilingreligion,

gender, andthemonarchicalrulewouldbeagrossunderstatement. Twoqueens, Mary, Queenof

ScotsandQueenElizabethI, satuponthronesthathadbeenpredominantlyoccupiedbymenfor

centuries. Liketheirpredecessor, MaryI, thesewomenchallengedvariousconventional

conceptionsofgenderthathadlongbeentiedtobothCatholicismandProtestantismsimply

throughtheirrulealone, leavingsixteenth-centuryEuropequestioningthevalidityandmoral

ramificationsoffemalemonarchy. AmidEngland’squestioning, onesixteenth-centuryProtestant

reformer, JohnKnox, attemptedtoanswersuchquestionsandremedythemonstrousfeminine

quagmirethatheperceivedtobedamningallofEurope. Thispaperexaminesthewritingsof

JohnKnox, specifically The First Blast ofthe Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of

Women andhiscorrespondinglettertoQueenElizabethI. Thispaperwillprimarilyarguethat

Knoxattemptedtounderminefemalemonarchythroughaprejudicedexegeticalargumentation

relatingtohistheologicalinterpretationofthenatureofwomen, theirinferiorityinregardsto

wieldingpoliticalpower, andwhatdefinesan“exceptional”womanintheeyesofGod.

TheologicalhistorianssuchasGeddesMacGregorsuggestthatdedicatingenergytoa

criticalanalysisoftheinflammatorylanguageagainstwomenfoundin The First Blast…

illustratesnotonlyan“ignoranceofthehistoricalbackgroundbutaprofoundmisunderstanding

ofChristianity”(MacGregor20). Others, likeA. DanielFrankforter, whohavethoroughly

examinedKnox’scorrespondenceswithwomenmakesapointtoappraisehowKnoxusessuch

languageashe“wasconvincedoftheinferiorityofwomen”(Frankforter120). Thispaperaligns

itselfwithFrankforter’sinterpretationofhowoneshouldanalyzeKnox’swritings. Furthermore,

itattemptstoadvanceacomprehensivediscussionofhowKnox’shighlymisogynisticlanguage

andargumentationhasshapedperceptionsofgender, politics, andtheologyintheSixteenth

centuryandbeyond.

JohnKnoxwasbornaround1514atGiffordgateinHaddington, Scotland. Itisspeculated

thathereceivedaconventionalregionaleducationandlaterpursuedhigherlearningatSt.

Andrew’sUniversity, thoughhedidnotreceiveanofficialdegree(Dawson1). Uponreceiving

thiseducation, hebegantoexplorehisvocationofbecomingaministerandwasordainedapriest

inthelate1530s. Hedidnotbeginpreachinguntilaround1547whilehidinginSt. Andrew’s

ChapelbecauseofhistiestoGeorgeWishart, aProtestantreformerwhowascondemnedasa

hereticandexecuted(Dawson1-2). ItwasduringKnox’sfirstsermon, wherehevehemently

denouncedtheauthorityofthePope, asKnoxbelievedhimtobetheAntichristdepictedinthe

BookofRevelation, whereKnoxbegantodevelophisaggressivepreachingstyle. Mainly, Knox

interpretedpresenteventsthroughacriticallyapocalypticlensbydrawingfromboththeOld

TestamentandtheBookofRevelation(Dawson2).

AsKnox’sProtestantconvictionsgrewstronger, hisprosedidaswell,somuchsothathe

caughttheeyeoftheyoungProtestantKingEdwardVI, whoappointedhimtobetheroyal

chaplainin1551 (Dawson5-6). However, duetoEdward’sprematuredeath, Knox’sdirect

ministrytothemonarchywasshort-livedafterhisstaunchlyCatholichalf-sister, MaryTudor,

ascendedtotheEnglishthronefollowinghisdeath. Unsurprisingly, MaryexiledKnoxattheend

of1553 andhethenrelocatedtoGeneva, Switzerlandwithhistailbetweenhislegs(Dawson8-

10). Nevertheless, KnoxcontinuedtopreachagainstMaryTudor’srule, frequentlyreferringto

herasanEnglish“Jezebel”becauseheperceivedherasleadingEnglandawayfromthetrue

religionthroughfemininevice(Dawson8). ThisisquiteaninsultagainstastaunchlyCatholic

queenbecause, intheFirstBookofKings, Jezebelnotonlyledherhusband, KingAhab, away

fromworshippingYahwehbutalsopersecutedthosewhoworshipedYahweh. Thisisanobvious

analogtoMary’sattacksonProtestantismandisKnox’swayofaccusingMaryTudorofleading

therealmastrayfromitspreviousgodlinessobtainedbyformerProtestantkings. AsMary’s

reigncontinued, KnoxcametofurtherrealizethatwhileEnglandhadpreviouslybeenrightwith

GodthroughitsembraceofProtestantism, ithadbecomesimilartotheIsraelitesbyregressingto

Catholicismand“hadrefusedfullobediencetodivinecommands. Therefore, Godhadpunished

Englandbyreplacingitsgodlyprince[EdwardVI] withanidolatrousfemaletyrant[MaryI]”

(Dawson8). Inaddition, Knoxbelievedthattherewasmoredisordertocomefromthisfeminine

regime, andwaspreparedtostopthisoffenseagainstGodinwhateverwayshecould(Dawson

8).

InadditiontothepersecutionsofhisfellowProtestantsinEngland, Knox’sexileand

perceivedhumiliationatMaryTudor’sCatholichandscanbeviewedasaprecursortohis

heavilymisogynisticlanguagethatcondemnedfemalemonarchy. Oneofthemostegregious

examplesofthislanguagecanbefoundin The First Blast ofthe Trumpet Against the Monstrous

Regiment ofWomen. InhisfirstsectionofThe First Blast… heopenedbystatinghisfirstmain

argumentagainstfemalereign: “Opromoteawomantobearerule, superioritie, dominion, or

empire… isrepugnanttonature, constumelietoGod, athingmostcontrarioustohisreuledwill

andaprouedordinance, andfinallieitisthesubuersionofgoodorder, ofallequitieandiustice”

(Knox11). Here, Knoxdisavowedfemalepoliticalauthorityinallcapacitiesashebelieveditto

becontrarytothelawsofnatureestablishedbyGod. Moreover, Knox’sargumentinsinuatesthat

thisdistortionofnaturallawisbecauseoffeminineauthorityprohibitsthejusticeandequality

thatonlyamalemonarchcanattempttoprovidetohissubjects.

Inhisfirstpremisearguingagainstwomenrulingduetotheirnature, Knoxdidnottake

thestrictlybiblicalrouteastobeexpectedduetohisstrongtheologicalconvictions, butmade

useofAristotle’sthoughtsonwomen. Aristotle’smainargumentforhumanflourishingrestedon

hisideaofthegoldenmean, whichisaperfectbalancebetweenexcessanddeficiencyresulting

inappropriatevirtues. Followingthis, anindividualwhohasachievedthismeanwouldmost

likelybethebestcandidatetogovernthemasses. However, Aristotlebelievedthatwomenwere

unabletoachievethisgoldenmeanandlackedthecapacityforvirtue. Knoxhonedinonthisby

specificallycitingAristotle’sargumentthatwomenrulingwouldresultintheimbalances

inherentofthefemalesex, suchasintemperance, vanity, andpride, beingpassedalongtothose

subjectsunderthewoman’srule, sparkingutterchaos(Knox14).

KnoxdrewonAristotle’swarningagainstfeminineruletocometotheconclusionthat,

becauseoftheimbalancesandweaknessesofwomenbyvirtueoftheirsex, menhavebeen

“illuminatedonliebythelightofnature, haueseenandhauedetermined, thatitisathingmoste

repugnanttonature, thatwomenruleandgouerneouermen”(Knox14). Bystatingthis, Knox

notonlycontinuedtounderminewomen’scapacityforpoliticalofficebutalsoimpliedthatthe

malesexistheonlysextohavetheintellectualcapacitiestorecognizetheflawsofafeminine

politicalregimebyvirtueoftheirsuperiornature. Furthermore, Knox’sclaimwouldmeanthat

womenarenotonlyincapableofruling, butalsointellectuallyincapableofrecognizingtheir

owninferiority. Therefore, theylacktheintellectualcapacitytochallengeanykindofpolitical

ideology, renderingthemutterlyvoicelessanddependentonthemalepoliticalvision. This

convenientlyremovedthepossibilityofwomenraisingobjectionstohisclaim, asKnoxwould

havebeenabletodismissthemaslackingthecapacitytocomprehendhispoliticalideas, let

aloneobjecttothem.

However, inhissecondportionregardingthenatureofwomen, Knoxtookapurely

theologicalapproach, basedonthesecondcreationaccountfoundintheBookofGenesisand

selectiveteachingsonwomenfromSt. Paul. AfterreferencingSt. Paul’sclaimthatbecause

“manwasnotcreatedforthecauseofthewoman, butthewomanforthecauseofman, and

therforeoghtthewomantohauepowervponherhead,”Knoxconcludedthat“inhergreatest

perfectionwomanwascreatedtobesubjecttoman”(Knox15). Thisstatementfurther

denouncesautonomousfemaleruleasitstatesthatawoman’sonlyvocationisoneinservitude

tomenbyvirtueoftheircreation. KnoxcontinuedthispointbydivingfurtherintotheBiblical

accountoftheFallbyemphasizingthatwomenbecamecompletelydependentonmenatGod’s

commandaftertheFalloutofsheernecessityduewomenlackingtheabilitiestothinkand

surviveindependently(Knox15-16). Consequently, femalemonarchsshowasinfulcontemptfor

God’sdecreefollowingtheFall,astheyarenotdependentonthewillofamanaswas

commandedbyGod. Moreover, Knoxarguedthatfemalemonarchywould“defile, polluteand

prophane…thethroneandseatofGod, whichehehathsanctifiedandapointedforman

onely…tooccupieandpossesseashisministreandlieutenant: secludingfromthesameall

woman”(Knox33). Thisargumentimpliesthatfemalemonarchsaregoingdirectlyagainstthe

naturalorderestablishedbyGodand, bydefinition, wouldthereforebesinning.

AlargeholeinKnox’sgenderedinterpretationoftheFallexistsinthefactthattheFall

acknowledgesbothmenandwomen’scapacitytothink, reason, andactontheirownaccord.

Knoxstatedinhisearlyargumentationthatbyvirtueoftheirnature, womenlacktheintellectual

capacitiestomakedecisionsandholdanytypeofpoliticalauthority. Yet, Eveshowedacapacity

forreasonthroughherGod-givenfreewillasshechosetoeattheapplefromtheTreeof

Knowledge, asdoesAdam. Whilelackinginfaith, Eve’schoiceisnotanirrationaloneeitheras

sheisnotdirectlypursuingvice, butratherknowledge. ItisnottheactionitselfofAdamandEve

eatingfromtheTreeofKnowledgethatresultsintheirexilefromEden, butratherthatthey

disobeyedGod’sdirectcommandtorefrain. PuttingasidetheconsequencesofEve’schoicethat

thenarrativedepicts, thefactthatshehadtheabilitytochoosetopursueknowledge, avirtue,

acknowledgeshercapacitytomakerationaldecisionslikeAdam. Therefore, hisargumentthatis

rootedinhisinterpretationoftheFall,thatwomenlackthecapacityforreason, isactually

underminedbythenarrativeoftheFall,whichKnoxattemptedtoreverseanduseagainstfemale

politicalauthority.

ItcomesasnosurprisethatduetoKnox’sexplosiveclaimsaboutthenaturaland

theologicalillegitimaciesandineptitudesoffemalemonarchs, QueenElizabethrefusedtogrant

KnoxpermissiontotravelthroughEnglandonhiswayhometoScotlandinMay1559(Dawson

16). InresponsetothisKnoxcomposedanexplanatoryletteraboutthreemonthslateraddressed

tooneofElizabeth’sadvisors, SirWilliamCecil, entitled: “JohnKnox’sapologeticalDefenseof

hisFirstBlast&c. toQueenElizabeth,”asaguisedattempttoseekElizabeth’sclemencyafter

penning The First Blast…. However, earlyoninhisletter, Knoxhighlightsthatheisnot

“myndedtoretractortocallanyprincipallpointorpropositionofthesame[e], tilltreuthand

veritiedofartherappear”nordoesheclaimtounderstandwhyElizabeth“shouldbeoffendedat

theaucthorofsuchawork”(Knox58). IntrueKnoxfashion, thisstatementdidnotretractthe

inflammatorycontentfoundwithin The First Blast… butaddressesKnox’sconcernsthatQueen

ElizabethImisinterpretedthecontentsofhisworkbyrespondingnegativelyagainsthimand

refusinghimpassagethroughEngland, potentiallyinsinuatingthatherdecisionisrootedin

intemperatefemininerashnessbasedofhispreviouslydiscussedinterpretationofAristotle’s

conceptionofvirtue. InhisinsinuationthatElizabethmisinterpretedthecontentsofhiswork,

KnoxsubtlyshiftedtheblameontoElizabethfornotfullygraspinghisclaim, furtherbelittling

herintellectualcapacitiesasafemalemonarch. ThisisconsistentwithKnox’spreviously

discussedclaimfoundwithin The First Blast… thatwomenareunabletointellectuallyengagein

politicalthoughtbyvirtueoftheirsex. Knoxtakesituponhimselftoactasthemaletranslatorto

ElizabethashebelieveshertobeunabletocorrectlycomprehendthecontentsofThe First

Blast… withouthisintellectualguidance. Inthiscase, thisguidancecomesintheformofan

apologeticalletter.

ThiscloakedbelittlementcontinuedwellonintotheletterasKnoxcharacterized

Elizabethasan“exceptional”womanchosenbyGodaloneandforGodalone. Knoxbeganthis

breakdownofElizabeth’spowerbycallingouthersinfulnessandurgingherto“forgetyour

byrthandalltytillwhichthervpondothhing[e], andconsidderdeapliehowforfeirofyourlyfe

yediddeclynefromGOD, andbowtillIdolatrie. Lettitnotappearasmalloffenceinyoureyis

thatyehauedeclynedfromCHRISTIESUS,”drawingattentiontohowElizabethhasneglected

God’swillinthepast(Knox59). However, Knoxclaimsthatdespitehersinfulness“Godhath

coveredyourfoormaroffence,…hathexaltedandraisedyowvpnotonliefromtheDust, butalso

fromtheportes[gates] ofdeathtoreullabovehispeoplefortheconfortofhiskirk”(Knox60).

KnoxskillfullyseparatedElizabethfromherbirthrightandreduceshertoameresinner,

specificallyanidolater. ItisonlythroughGod’spowerandforGod’speople(Protestants)that

shewasraisedupfromhersinfulnessandwasfittogovern. WhilesomemayinterpretKnox’s

“exceptional”womanargumentaslegitimizingElizabeth’sruleviaspecialprovidence, his

argumentremainsasexistoneasmalemonarchsdidnotneedtobeconsidered“exceptional”to

rulebutrathercouldrulethroughbirthrightalone. Furthermore, theclassificationofan

“exceptional”womanrestsentirelyonsubjectiveperspectivesofmortals, likeKnox, andnot

God.

Nonetheless, Knox’sclaimthatElizabethwasan“exceptional”womanismostapparent

whenhedescribedElizabeth’sruleasbeingdependenton“thedispensationofHismercywhich

onelyemackethethatlauthfulltoyourgraceWhichnatureandlawDenyethtoallwoman”

(Knox59). Here, KnoxdirectlysubvertedElizabeth’srighttoruleandrulingabilitiesbystaying

consistentinhispremisethatGod’snatureandlawspreventwomenfromwieldingpolitical

office. Additionally, towardstheendofhisletter, hefurtherattemptedtoremindElizabethofher

reign’sdependenceondivineprovidencebysayingthatby, “theeternallprouidenceofHymwho

contrar[y] tonature, andwithoutyourdeservinghaththusexaltedyourhead,”meaningthatGod

istheonlyonecapableofallowingElizabethtobreakGod’sownlawsandparadigms(Knox

60). EventhoughhehidbehindcraftylanguageinhislettertoElizabeth, heactualfurtheredhis

previousthesisfoundin The First Blast… thatwomenareincapableofrulingindependentlyand

needamalefigure. InElizabeth’scase, thismalefigurewouldbeGodastoprovideproper

governanceoverherselfandtherealm, asKnoxperceivedGodasmale. Knox’sargumentrested

ontheassumptionthatGodismale, whichbecauseGodtheFatherisnothuman, cannotbe

correctbecauseGoddoesnothaveagenderorsex.

Inpresentday, somewouldclaimthatJohnKnox’sclaimsbearlittle-to-noweight, asthe

political-religiousturmoilofsixteenth-centuryTudorandStuartBritainhaswitheredlikearose.

However, Knox’sclaimsregardingthenatureofwomen, howtheylacktheabilitytogovern, and

“exceptional”women, stillhauntbothreligiousandpoliticalaffairstoday, monarchalornot.

Examining The First Blast ofthe Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment ofWomen andthe

correspondinglettertoQueenElizabethIholisticallyhighlightsthewaysKnoxattemptedto

manipulateScripturetounderminethosewomenwhomhesawasathreattothereligious, social,

andpoliticalorders. Nevertheless, thesewomenpersistedinspiteofthoseattemptingtoslow

themdownandpavedthefoundationsforfuturewomentoblossomintherealmofpolitics.

Works Cited

Dawson, JaneE.A. “Knox, John: (c. 1514-1572).” Oxford Dictionary ofNational Biography, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/15781.

Frankforter, DanielA., “ElizabethBowesandJohnKnox.” Church History, vol. 56, no. 3, September1987, 333-347, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3166062.

Knox, John. The First Blast ofthe Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment ofWomen, 1558, editedbyEdwardArber, London, EdwardArber, 1878, https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/012290206.

Knox, JohntoSirWilliamCecil, 12July1559. “JohnKnox’sapologeticalDefenseofhisFirst Blast&c. toQueenElizabeth.”In The First Blast ofthe Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment ofWomen, editedbyEdwardArber, London, EdwardArber, 1878, https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/012290206.

MacGregor, Geddes“JohnKnox, theThunderingScot.” Journal ofthe Presbyterian Historical Society (1943-1961) vol. 38, no. 1, 1960, 13-25, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23325258. .