Men V Women

Erin Tillery

English 507—Greenstadt

January 31, 2007

Men Versus Women: The Renaissance Debate

Seventeenth century Britain witnessed, as the term “Renaissance” implies, a “rebirth” or revival of ancient ideas such as humanism. Humanism, originally a classical movement emphasizing the value and beauty of the human character and figure, called for the recognition of the worth and individual dignity of all persons—male and female. At the same time, Renaissance thinkers stressed the importance of humility and meekness before God. In turn, the Renaissance desire to join the philosophy of humanism with society’s deep religious character often produced more controversy than conclusion. Opinions regarding the true character and makeup of the female in light of biblical teaching sparked lively debate, not only among playwrights and poets, but “amateur” pamphleteers of the time. Joseph Swetnam’s The Arraignment of Lewd, idle, frorward, and unconstant women set off a years-long dispute over the moral fiber and usefulness of women in general and stimulated the age-old argument over how to interpret Eve’s creation and her role in the downfall of humanity as portrayed in Genesis. Though not the first to answer Swetnam’s contentions, Esther Sowernam published a biting response, attacking Swetnam’s style, skill and skewed reasoning. Placing these texts, written by laypersons and not “professional” writers, alongside such revered poems and essays by their contemporary John Milton, who was not a minister but was highly educated in theology, reveals telling insights into the effects of humanism upon Christian beliefs. In particular, the discrepancies between these writers’ close readings and interpretations of the creation story highlight Renaissance thinkers’ difficulties in reconciling humanist ideals with accepted Christian doctrine.

Swetnam’s writing itself is possible under humanist belief in the worth of all humans. The fact that Swetnam has “authority” and is able to publish his work during this time points to the Renaissance acceptance of humanist ideals: he is not a clergyman like the early English writer the Venerable Bede, nor is he a great statesman such as the medieval Geoffrey Chaucer. According to Henderson and McManus, Swetnam was perhaps a fencing master (14); therefore most likely a gentleman, but without a formal religious or governmental title to recommend him. Swetnam himself admits that his writing endeavors are an “idle business” based on his “great choler against some women” (190).

However, Swetnam is, of course, educated, as is evidenced in his frequent allusions to both biblical and classical mythology. Swetnam’s catalogue of “froward” and evil women spans the Old Testament while, interestingly (and most tellingly), omits examples of virtuous women in both the Old and New Testaments. In addition, he uses damaging examples from Greek mythology as well as classical philosophers such as Socrates. Central to the age-old debate regarding women and to Swetnam’s indictment of them are the second and third chapters in Genesis which narrate Adam and Eve’s creation and subsequent fall from grace. Swetnam uses humor to clarify, in his own words, the biblical intention of women’s purpose, which is to exploit resources: “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” (193). Instead of being men’s “helpers,” God intends them to be, Swetnam implies that female greed is inherent. He continues to argue that women’s natural flaws stem from God’s design itself, arguing “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” (193).

Despite his assumed education, Swetnam’s arguments throughout his essay, and here particularly, abandon classical rules of reason and logic. His assertion commits the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, or, “after this, therefore, because of this.” In addition, Swetnam maintains woman is dishonest because she is made from a crooked body part, and this is true because she angers easily: a fallacious circular argument. Swetnam continues his abandonment of logic: “She was no sooner made but straightaway her mind was set upon mischief, for by her aspiring mind and wanton will she quickly procured man’s fall” (193-4). Swetnam implies that, even before the fall and the arrival of sin into the world, women were sinful. Therefore, he not only disregards sound rhetorical practice but discards common Christian doctrine that sin does not descend upon humanity until after both Eve and Adam eat of the apple from the Tree of Knowledge. Swetnam persists, committing a hasty generalization: “And therefore ever since they are and have been a woe unto man and follow the line of their first leader” (194). That all women are bent on sin because of the actions of one is another fallacious argument.

Swetnam shrouds his imperfect argument beneath the guise of humor; he purportedly does not intend his work as a serious academic argument. He preemptively answers all criticism with accusation of womanliness: “Whatsoever you think privately, I wish you to conceal it with silence, lest in starting up to find fault you prove yourselves guilty of these monstrous accusations which are here following against some women” (191). In addition, Swetnam asserts that his article is not for women to read or understand at all: “Let them [women] censure of me what they will, for I mean not to make them my Judges, and if they shoot their spite at me, they may hit themselves” (193). In short, any argument against his own, according to Swetnam, only further proves his point.

However, Swetnam’s anticipatory defense does not stop both men and women from writing passionate critiques of his Arraignment. The pseudonymous Esther Sowernam writes her own defense of women entitled Esther hath hanged Haman. Sowernam (assuming the writer was actually female) is able to write and publish under the same precepts of humanism that allow Swetnam to do so. Though she is a woman, she is human, and therefore inherently valuable. While Sowernam’s true identity, and therefore educational and class background, is unknown, her work demonstrates obvious education and a strong background in religious teaching. She answers Swetnam using consistent order and argument, pointing out Swetnam’s logical fallacies and offering her own interpretation of the creation story in Genesis. Sowernam quickly responds to Swetnam’s invective that women are mere “helpers” in the consumption of men’s hard-won earnings: “And yet (saith he in the Argument) ‘most of them degenerate from the use they were framed unto.’ Woman was made to spend and consume at the first, but women do degenerate from this use. Ergo, Midas doth contradict himself” (222). Sowernam continues by dismissing Swetnam’s “crooked rib” argument, using Swetnam’s own faulty logic against him: “So, if Woman received her crookedness from the rib and consequently from the Man, how doth man excel in crookedness, who hath more of those crooked ribs! See how this vain, furious and idle Author furnisheth woman with an Argument against himself and others of his Sex” (222).

While adhering to classical rules of rhetoric and argumentation, Sowernam adds an interesting interpretation of the Genesis story which demonstrates an attempt to marry classical reasoning and logic with Christian teaching. She points out that Adam was not perfect independent of a woman: he needed a helper, “Whereupon God created the woman, his last work, as to supply and make absolute that imperfect building that was unperfected in man, as all Divines do hold, till the happy creation of woman” (224). Sowernam’s interpretation of the biblical narrative is logically sound: man is not completed without his female counterpart. In addition to her logical intervention, Sowernam points out that the “Divines,” or clergyman, hold the same philosophy. She has so efficiently combined logic with doctrine that she leaves the matter “rather to be acknowledged by others that resolved by myself” (224). Her case needs no further explanation, only recognition of its inherent truth.

Works Cited

Henderson, Katherine Usher, and Barbara F. McManus. Half Humankind: Contexts and

texts of the Controversy about Women in England, 1540-1640. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1985.

Sowernam, Esther. “Esther hath hanged Haman.” Half Humankind: Contexts and

texts of the Controversy about Women in England, 1540-1640. Eds. Katherine Usher Henderson and Barbara F. McManus. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1985.

Swetnam, Joseph. “The Arraignment of Lewd, idle, froward, and unconstant women.”

Half Humankind: Contexts and texts of the Controversy about Women in England, 1540-1640. Eds. Katherine Usher Henderson and Barbara F. McManus. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1985.