Works That Were Shaped by A Change in 17th Century Politics

            England in the seventeenth century underwent a number of drastic changes: Queen Elizabeth died, there’s a plague ravaging the country, new scientific ideas are emerging, and lack of censorship breeds a new generation of literary masters in the wake of Shakespeare’s death. In all this turmoil and social change, there was a new and aggressive debate emerging to determine the role of women in society (both domestically and in general). Writers like Joseph Swetnam publically bashed the importance of women, albeit in a comical, and lively tone, while others like William Gouge offered a more stiff and direct argument for the role of women. In the middle of all this was a young minister’s daughter named Rachel Speght who wasn’t comfortable sitting idly by while the men of her time besmear the name, and nature of women. In, From a Muzzle for Malastomus, Speght’s rebuttal to Swetnam’s The Arraignment of Lewd, Idle, Froward and Unconstant Women: Or the Vanity of Them, Choose You Whether, she unrelentingly attacks Swetnam in both argument and person. She not only demonstrates her argumentative prowess, but her work signals an England slightly (though still significant) more open to the views of women.

            Early on in Speght’s rebuttal we see a woman not afraid to come out of her corner swinging. She addresses Swetnam in a brief dedication at the beginning of her work by stating, “Not unto the variest idiot that ever set pen to paper, but to the cynical baiter of women, or metamorphosed Misogunes, Joseph Swetnam” (Speght 1652). From the very beginning Speght’s words are filled with an aggressive diction and tone. With her first lines she’s acknowledging that this piece isn’t directed toward everyone, only Swetnam, which signifies her aggressive stance. Speght further loads her address to Swetnam with biting words, referring to him as a “cynical baiter of women.” She’s suggesting that Swetnam’s argument was put fourth in such a way that it was meant to essentially “call her out.” The fact that Speght, who was relatively young at the time, responds to Swetnam in a publication signifies her boldness as a female write. Lastly, her use “misogunes” (misogynist) lobs the claim that Swetnam’s argument is not only damaging to women, as it’s a piece written in hate; but it also subtly discredits his argument in the underlying assertion that because he hates women, he cannot effectively pose a clear and rational argument – since his argument is founded on an emotion.

            Speght furthers her public attack on Swetnam by using the reference for his argument (the Bible) as a means for degrading his character. She cites James 4.11, “Speak not evil one another,” to prove that Swetnam’s amoral and unworthy of making his argument with such a righteous tone. She contends that if Swetnam was in fact a moral man he would follow the scripture with the same meticulous reverence he shows it when using it to belittle the social role of women. Yet, being the confident writer that she is, she goes beyond the biblical reference and, again, attacks Swetnam head on when she states, “and then you had not seemed so like the serpent Porphirus, as now you do; which though full of deadly poison, yet being toothless, hurts none so much as himself” (Speght 1653). She’s asserting that by not following the scripture to the letter he’s essentially proving that he himself has taken the power of out the argument he’s attempting to make.

            Lastly, Speght takes a jab at not just Swetnam’s argument, but at the whole established idea that women are to blame for man’s fall. Citing Genesis 3.7, Speght, again, gracefully uses scripture to attack Swetnam and men in general. She claims that while it is a fact that the female sinned first (i.e. Eve eating the forbidden fruit in the garden) it wasn’t until man partook in sin that, “the eyes of their mind and conscience [were opened], and then perceived they themselves naked […]” Speght (1654). The fall of man via the loss of innocence through the participation in original sin was, as Speght claims, man’s fault. Adam himself had the ultimate choice in eating the fruit, and had he not both husband and wife would have lived for eternity in paradise.

            Rachel Speght demonstrates a shift in the social order of seventeenth century England. With the removal of strict censorship, a woman was able to not only publish her work, but she was able to publish a piece that was eloquent in its argument, and impressive in its aggression. A Muzzle fro Malatomus, is a piece that displays the political shifts during this time period because it shows the gradual social acceptance of a female voice. In this regard, not only was Speght a phenomenal writer – one with a bit of spunk, I must add – but she was also an early feminist.