Early modern queenship studies understand women in relation to their husbands, fathers, and brothers. When defined outside of her own actions, a woman’s agency marginalizes. Patriarchal dominance over the centuries paints politically active women negatively even when primary evidence of their lives differs from the textbook narrative. After the rise and fall of the courtly love tradition, Anne Boleyn (~1507-1536) showed the deadly combination that masculine rhetoric and femininity formed. Her use of sexuality, adoption of masculine rhetoric, advancement of her family, and open expectations of her husband set her apart from her predecessors. Through these actions, her narrative offers an early modern redefinition of the concept of queenship based on the unification of the roles of mistress and queen. Without Boleyn’s crucial creation of a third approach to queenship, England would not host queens like Elizabeth I, Victoria, and Elizabeth II.
Inquiries on early modern queenship face a number of source issues. Due to the subject’s controversial nature, most primary sources, such as, personal artifacts, letters, and
…show more content…
Ross’ work The Birth of Feminism: Woman as Intellect in Renaissance Italy and England explores a tripartite definition of feminism seen between the thirteenth and seventeenth centuries. Both genders fit into one of three molds of feminist practice: “explicit” feminism, which actively critiques patriarchal order and seeks total equality, adapted by Ross from Siep Stuurman, Karen Offen, and Nancy Cott; “celebratory” feminism, in which women emphasize their roles and equality as intellect through self-writing and education; and “participatory” feminism, which while indirect, stems from women directly engaged with their male peers. By this split concept of feminism, early modern women and their supporters regain agency and
The English attitudes towards gender are reflected in the literacy works of Margery Kempe and Elizabeth I’s letter to Sir Walter Raleigh. Within these two works, the women, especially, challenge the attitudes towards gender roles. First of all, women were expected to be domesticated, meaning all their duties lied within the home and the marriage. The women were responsible for taking care of the children/family and being obedient to their husband.
In 1558, John Knox declared, “To promote a Woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any Realm, Nation, or City, is against all Nature…” (document 1). Knox’s statement was no different than most English men’s opinions during the 1500s. The majority of the population was opposed to having a women hold any type of political power, as they believed it was a job for solely a man to possess. Leading up to the time period of Queen Elizabeth I’s reign, females had a specific purpose in life: to serve their husbands and provide them with children. All women lacked freedom and liberty, Elizabeth Tudor sought to change this matter. When Queen Elizabeth was coronated in 1559, men were superior in all economic and social aspects; however,
Robin, Diana, Anne B. Larsen, and Carole Evans, eds. Encyclopedia of Women in the Renaissance: Italy, France and England. Santa Barbara: Abc Clio, 2007.
While neither Machiavelli’s The Prince nor Shakespeare’s Henry V focus explicitly on gender roles, they both make assumptions and implications sufficient to illustrate their opinions about the nature and place of women in relation to men. In Machiavelli’s The Prince, men and women are depicted in traditional gender roles with women as tricky and unreliable, but ultimately yielding to men who are portrayed as tough and immovable. Shakespeare’s Henry V acknowledges these ideas, but also portrays women as able to influence events within the small domain they are given.
From the 14th to 17th century, the Renaissance was considered a notable era of great shifts and reformation throughout Europe. From the flourishing of classical sources to the greater accessibility to education, this significant period marked the end of the Dark Ages and the birth of modern history. Yet, despite the Renaissance being an era of immense prosperity and cultural development, it was also a time of extreme societal patriarchy. For most of history, women have remained anonymous figures and have spent centuries struggling to escape the wraths of male dominance. After the upswings of the Renaissance took place, many began to question whether women were included in this notable period of resurgence. While historians have endlessly disputed this great debate, the arguments made could however not challenge nor deny the anonymity and oppression deeply rooted in the way women have been both treated and perceived during this era. Thus, through analyzing the regulations of female versus male sexuality, the ideologies about women presented in literature and philosophy as well as the life of significant female Renaissance figures, it is clear that Renaissance women did not have a period of rebirth, ultimately delaying the future development of feminine hope and emancipation.
Feminine identity is formed according to many definitions and includes many factors such as personality, role, circumstance, and social class. We hope to condense the definition of what is conventionally female by analyzing reoccurring feminine behaviors within the context of their time. Femininity can be referred to as “the quality or nature of the female gender” (Merriam Webster). In Jane Austen 's Northanger Abbey, we can connect the traits among several female characters to gain a perspective of the roles and expectations of English women living in a privileged society during the 1800s. Because characters Catherine, Isabella, and Eleanor share similar experiences we can compare their femininities to identify specific characteristics among women. Although appearance, proper behavior, and status seems to be the desirable attributes of women, Catherine the female protagonist, is
Queen Elizabeth I, also known as the “Iron Queen”, was a remarkable woman of her time, she ruled with great power and longevity. She was one of the greatest feminist of time. Coming to the throne in 1558, she took the place of her father, Henry VIII. She was given one of the most difficult jobs fit for a man or King, ruling England. At the time women were second class citizens, they could not vote nor own properties and such. Surprising England with her intelligence and fierce rulings, she changed herself to make better decisions. She proved through her rulings, to everyone that females were strong and could rule just as well as a king. She refused to marry, giving a feeling of “I don’t need a man for anything.” The Queen was responsible for giving females a voice in literature and it is shown through Shakespeare’s writings.
Her chief arguing points and evidence relate to the constriction of female sexuality in comparison to male sexuality; women’s economic and political roles; women’s access to power, agency, and land; the cultural roles of women in shaping their society; and, finally, contemporary ideology about women. For her, the change in privacy and public life in the Renaissance escalated the modern division of the sexes, thus firmly making the woman into a beautiful
Upon the death of her sister--in November of 1558--Elizabeth ascended to the thrown of England. Until Mary’s rule, no woman--apart from the unrecognized rule of Matilda, daughter of Henry I--had ruled England of her own right1. Much like her sister, Elizabeth began her rule widely accepted and welcomed2. There were, however, still many who felt that women were unable to rule, being that women were said to be the weaker sex. John Knox argued that, “God by the order of his creation hath spoiled women of authority and dominion, [and] also that man hath seen, proved and pronounced just causes why that it so should be.”3 Women had always been no more then property, first to their fathers and then their husbands. If a women were to be the anointed queen of a realm of her own right and then marry, whom was beholden to whom? A woman was to do as instructed by her husband in all things, yet a sovereign was to be under the command of God only.
Two hundred years ago, during the reign of Queen Victoria in England, the social barriers of the Victorian class system firmly defined the roles of women. The families of Victorian England were divided into four distinct classes: the Nobility or Gentry Class, the Middle Class, the Upper Working Class, and lastly, the Lower Working class . The women of these classes each had their own traditional responsibilities. The specifics of each woman’s role were varied by the status of her family. Women were expected to adhere to the appropriate conventions according to their place in the social order . For women in Victorian England their lives were regulated by these rules and regulations, which stressed obedience, loyalty, and respect.
Gender was the leading cause of distress in the 1500’s: King Henry VIII wanted nothing more than to have a son, yet was “cursed” with the legacy of a sickly son, whom died before the age of 18 and two daughters, one of whom broke every convention of her gender. Queen Elizabeth I never married nor had children, yet can be considered one of England’s most successful monarchs. By choosing King James VI of Scotland as her heir, unbeknownst to her, she created the line that leads to the modern Queen of England, Elizabeth II. The question posed is then, how did Elizabeth I’s gender affect her rule?
Cloud, Amanda. Gender Roles of Women in the Renaissance. n.d. Web. 7 Nov. 2009. < http://www2.cedarcrest.edu/academic/eng/lfletcher/shrew/acloud.htm >.
With the restoration of Charles II to the throne following the fall of the Commonwealth and Puritanism came a surge of sexual and artistic freedom in England. This new libertine ideology brought with it not only the reemergence of the theatre, but and a society that embraced freedom of sexuality and thought in a way that was unprecedented. It is this new libertine society that provided a context for the writings of Aphra Behn. While Behn observed men like rakish Charles II and the effeminate Earl of Rochester enjoying England’s newfound open mindedness, she was forced to navigate, or rather circumnavigate, the limitations that remained in place for women. In a time when actresses were first appearing on stage and Charles II’s mistresses were regarded practically as pop culture icons, women were finally breaking out of the private sphere and being thrust into the public eye.1 While women, and even their sexualities were at last being celebrated outside of the domestic sphere, it was far from on their own terms, and entirely relative to the roles they filled for men. While the society so often characterized by the court of Charles II was on the whole highly performative, women were expected to perform in a much more specific way than their male counterparts. On and off stage women were expected to conform to a limited selection of character types that started with wife and ended with whore, and the spectrum between was narrow if not nonexistent.
This paper will argue that Beatrice and her cousin Hero are used to show the gender inequality of the the Elizabethan era. The first scene gives good insight into Beatrice’s character. Benedict tells Beatrice how he will never marry a woman, and he will be a bachelor forever. To this Beatrice responds: “A dear happiness to women. They would have been troubled by a pernicious suitor” (1.1.126-127).
The feminism of Shakespeare’s time is still largely unrecognized. Drama from the 1590’s to the mid-1600’s is feminist in sympathy. The author