Essay — A Mouzell for Melastomus (24)

A Mouzell for Melastomus [RI Prelim 2020] With a title as scathing as A Mouzell for Melastomus, Speght’s feminist polemic promises to deliver a blistering critique of Swetnam’s misogynistic Arraignment, a promise she delivers on in this extract. Drawing heavily on Christian metaphors and references, Speght establishes that even though men do possess authority over women, they nonetheless ought to be dutiful and righteous masters. Subsequently, she directl y criticises Swetnam’s prejudiced attack on two grounds: that it reductively generalises about all women based on the deficiencies of some, and that it reflects a gross ingratitude for God’s gift. Speght begins by acknowledging the truth that “the Man is the woman’s Head” and therefore holds “Supremacy” over women. Here, male dominance is bolstered by the use of capitalisation: not only does it connect the “Man” to the diction of authority, but it also visually reinforces his power over the uncapitalised and lesser “woman”. However, while the metaphor of the “Head” ostensibly concedes the man’s supremacy, Speght will use this same image to qualify male dominance and illustrate that men must exercise this power over women responsibly. First, she develops this metaphor to its logical conclusion by examining the physical function of a human head: while it is the “imaginer and contriver of projects”, these projects must be “profitable to the safety of the whole body”. While “imaginer” and “contriver” allude to the head’s unique capacity for reason and planning, Speght simultaneously reminds us that this power is used to protect the body over which it rules. Thus, just as the literal head is a prudent and responsible master of the body, the “Husband” — a metaphorical ‘head’ — “must protect and defend his Wife from injuries”. With the equal importance of the “Wife” vis - a-vis the “Husband” now reinforced by the previously -denied capitalisation, Speght underscores the obligation men have to shield women from “injuries” , calling to mind attacks from writers like Swetnam injurious to women’s reputations. In this way, she shows men that their patriarchal authority comes with responsibility as well. Second, Speght further explicates the man’s duties as a master by comparing his role as the woman’s ‘head’ with Christ’s role as the “Head of his Church”, a familiar parallel that recalls Ephesians 5:22. She observes that Christ not only “entirely loveth” his people but also “gave his very life” to secure their salvation, undersc oring his caring, protective nature as a master with intensifiers alongside a reminder of his ultimate sacrifice of crucifixion. Christ’s benevolence is juxtaposed with the overbearing authority of some men, with their self - aggrandisement revealed through their attempt to inflate their stature by “tip-toe[ing]” and the absolute diction in their orders to “perform whatsoever they command, whether lawful or not”.

By comparing them against the standard