This document discusses how Queen Elizabeth I's reign was portrayed through literary and artistic works as drawing parallels to the biblical figure of Deborah. It examines Richard Mulcaster's work "The Passage of Our Most Dread Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth" and how it framed Elizabeth's coronation procession as likening her to Deborah. While this helped establish Elizabeth's legitimacy, it is argued that Mulcaster's account was not entirely objective and helped construct an image of Elizabeth aligned with contemporary interests. The document also explores the biblical and historical contexts that may have informed the drawing of parallels between Elizabeth and Deborah's rise to power.

1. Dean Ramser<br />Professor McManus<br />English 560: Elizabeth I in Literature and Culture<br />December 6, 2010<br />quot;
we princes . . . are set on stages in the sight and view of all the world duly observed”<br />Queen Elizabeth I’s Performance of Deborah<br />One could argue that the reign of Queen Elizabeth I was not only performed on “[a local] stage” (93), as Richard Mulcaster suggests in The Passage of Our Most Dread Sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth (1559), for she was aware of her dubious place in a man’s world, and that as royalty quot;
we princes . . . are set on stages in the sight and view of all the world duly observed” (Reynolds 263), that her reign was performed on the European arena, demanding of her careful consideration of conflicting factions while maintaining her Grace (my italics); the most dangerous of the divisive groups being the unresolved residue from The War of The Roses (1455-1487), and the threat from Spain and France. Queen Elizabeth's calculating cognition of her own theatricality relates to the issue of judgment: both her judging and her being judged, specifically, as exemplified in not only her speeches, but in the numerous references to her in literary pieces of her time, paintings of her, and scholarly essays, some of which are cited in this paper, but also her appropriating the persona of a Biblical female leader. This paper attempts to examine thru Mulcaster’s poetic essay how Queen Elizabeth’s performance of the Hebrew prophetess, judge, and deliverer Deborah, affected her decisions of justice, and whether the virtues attributed to the queen were adversely impacted by her acute self-consciousness of the historiography of the Old Testament women recognizing a need to lead. By narrowing my focus on that intersection of justice and performance I intend to qualify the historic, literary, and performative dimensions of her political actions, and to discover parallel dimensions between female usurping male hegemonic political rule and the quality of justice resulted from the flipped gender role. <br />The challenge to this journey is twofold; qualitative relationships, as Sandra Logan referenced at the beginning of Making History: The Rhetorical and Historical Occasion of Elizabeth Tudor’s Coronation Entry: “The problem of historiography is, above all else, a problem of the relationship between events and texts” (251), and a modern interpretation of those events and texts. To begin, the similarity between ‘female’ leadership rising up from beneath the pile of turmoil has multiple allusions: mythological, Biblical, historical, and literary. I will attempt to center on the biblical and historical reference. To frame the rise of the female ‘Phoenix’ Elizabeth, it is important to situate the narrative. It could be argued that it was a cumulative set of circumstances that enabled her ascent to the throne, and promoted the personification of a figure from The Book of Judges. Leah Marcus concurs in Puzzling Shakespeare “The phoenix was a motif strongly associated with Queen Elizabeth; it appeared, for example, on the city gates at Norwich for the royal entry in 1578 at the time of the ritual burning on the Catholic Rookwood’s estate“ (89). <br />To place the Queen’s ascension (despite obstacles) one need not look further than John Knox, a Scottish clergyman and a leader in the Protestant Reformation and founder of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland at the time, who echoed and ministered a misogynistic sentiment in 1559 expressed by many male clergy, that her scent to power was a “miraculous work of God, comforting his afflicted” for “which most I have thirsted, and for the which…I render thanks unfeignedly unto God”(Healey 379). Robert M. Healey’s Waiting for Deborah: John Knox and Four Ruling Queens examines the complicated anticipatory angst Knox felt toward the Queens. Knox’s seditious expression, though published anonymously in 1558, The First Trumpet blast Against the Monstrous Regime of Women, was specific to Mary Tudor, the queen of England, and Marie de Guise-Lorraine, the Dowager Queen of Scotland and regent on behalf of her daughter, Mary Queen of Scots, Knox did believe that Queen Elizabeth assertion of power required an act of the Supreme Being, exemplifying a prominent male mistrust of females in positions of authority, and despite his “vitriolic diatribe against women rulers” and Queen Elizabeth, “the Elizabethans found an exemplar of female authority and historical precedent for their queen in the Hebrew scripture” (Ephraim 301). Michelle Karen Ephraim in Jewish Matriarchs and the Staging of Elizabeth I in The History of Jacob and Esau, furthers the claim by citing noted scholar Susan Doran that “Deborah of the Book of Judges, a providential ruler and the rescuer of the Israelite chosen people from Canaanite idolatry, could readily be identified with Elizabeth in her attempts to uproot popery and build up the Protestant Church in England.” That a person’s identity is conflated with others, real or fictionalized is not unique; what is specific to Queen Elizabeth’s path to power are the similarities between events leading to her rise, and the events given to the calling of Deborah to lead her people to victory and justice. <br />As prophesized, post-Elizabeth, like Mulcaster’s Passage, William Shakespeare’s historical play (All is True) Henry VIII, written ten years after her death in 1603, has the character Archbishop Cranmer speaking of the newborn Elizabeth to her father King Henry VIII, aligning her yet unfulfilled promise to be a Phoenix, rising from beneath “her ashes” or legacy, (to begat her “son” James I), answering Elizabethan’s prayers, and like Deborah, leading her English and their descendants: <br />CRANMER <br />The bird of wonder dies, the maiden phoenix,<br />Her ashes new create another heir,<br />Shall be, and make new nations: he shall flourish,<br />And, like a mountain cedar, reach his branches<br />To all the plains about him: our children's children<br />Shall see this, and bless heaven.<br />KING HENRY VIII <br />Thou speakest wonders.<br />Why post-prophesize? Why would Shakespeare allude to Deborah/Elizabeth, if not because of strong similarities in political and militaristic events? Why would Queen Elizabeth become known as “Deborah,” “Virgin Queen,” “Mother of England”? Did Mulcaster co-create the tone of his record of the coronation, as suggested by William Leahy in Propaganda or a Record of Events? Richard Mulcaster's The Passage Of Our Most Drad Soveraigne Lady Quene Elyzabeth Through The Citie Of London Westminster The Daye Before Her Coronacion? Leahy cites conflicting evidence regarding the painting and placement of certain decorations: “Elizabeth's descent was illustrated in a vast rose tree of the houses of York and Lancaster, there was a pageant in the form of Virtues defeating Vices, another celebrated the Queen's devotion to the biblical beatitudes, another showed a withered and a flourishing landscape to typify a good and bad commonwealth and, finally, there was a vision of Elizabeth as Deborah, consulting with her estates for the good of her realm”(Strong, Splendour 25). This is troubling because Elizabeth had yet to accomplish the tasks that would define her as Deborah, or for that matter any of the other icons. In the same essay by Leahy, David M. Bergeron is cited, pushing the inquiry further by citing the Queen’s involvement in the placements of ornaments, the painting contracts, and so forth: <br />Bergeron felt that Elizabeth must have been aware of what was to take place because she had helped decide the content of the pageants, in the form of providing a number of costumes for the pageant players. Though Bergeron does not say as much, the revelation that Elizabeth was a part-patron of the pageant devices compromises certain aspects of Mulcaster's specially commissioned pamphlet, which repeatedly insists upon the Queen's spontaneity in response to the performed events. This new evidence undermines the suggestion that the procession was an instinctive celebration of love between the Queen and her people, and puts into question the notion that the pamphlet is a reliable source of historical accuracy. Rather than being a mere record of events, the pamphlet can be regarded as less than disinterested, and for a more compelling reason than that it was written on a commission. For, apart from the discovery that Elizabeth was involved in formulating the pageants, there are a number of other examples in his report which compromise Mulcaster's version of events.<br />These iconographic appropriations by Queen Elizabeth were no doubt media inventions, created by her privy council, her propaganda machine, but also there seems to be reasonable assumptions that indeed her metaphoric rise to power has a biblical lineage, that the public seized as Truth. There must have been strong evidence found by the propagandistic machinery to create (or co-create since Elizabeth was a scholar in her own right), thus appropriating biblical allusions, such as Deborah. One parallel dimension is the rise itself. And that the pamphlet was produced nine days after the event, and reproduced later suggests the cooperation between the Queen Elizabeth and the mythologizing of her (yet) reign. <br />To begin the ascent, we’ll look at the conceit of “ashes,” as Elizabeth is declared a “bastard” in 1537, equating the figurative ruin of her father’s promising dynasty. There could be no more de-identifying of a human being than having their blood connection to a reign denied. Next is incest, or the implication of it, for in 1549 Kat Ashley is taken to the Tower for questioning regarding Elizabeth’s relationship with Thomas Seymour (Henry VIII married Thomas’s mother Jane Seymour in 1536); same year Elizabeth is questioned, Thomas Seymour is imprisoned, and beheaded. In 1551 Elizabeth returns to court; insurrection by Henry Grey, duke of Suffolk; Queen Jane Grey disposed after nine days in 1553; John Dudley executed; in 1554 Mary I is declared Queen and marries King Phillip II of Spain; Protestant rebellion, led by Sir Thomas Wyatt (later executed), with rumors of Elizabeth’s involvement resulting in her imprisonment in the Tower for eight weeks; England returns to Roman Catholicism; and Protestants are slaughtered leading to Mary’s nickname “Bloody Mary.” Here is a direct parallel to Deborah, for the “children of Israel were behaving wickedly,” calling for a savior, like England who for centuries had undergone a tumultuous succession of religious strife, political persecutions and executions, the Black Plague, civil war, and external conflicts. Israel adversaries were the Canaanites, and for England it seemed that all neighbors were foes at one time. In the Geneva version of Judges Chapter 4.1 “And the children of Israel began again to do wickedly in the sight of the Lord when Ehud was dead” reverberates the schismatic divide between Catholicism and Protestantism; between England and Europe, more specifically Spain and France; between the dynasty resulting from Henry VII succession - settling the friction between the Yorkists and Lancastrians by marrying Elizabeth of York (Queen Elizabeth’s namesake) - and those opposed to the royalty. So by the time Queen Elizabeth has succeeded her Catholic sister, Archbishop Cranmer who prophesized in Shakespeare’s Henry VIII, was burned at the stake, thus officiating the birth of the return of Protestantism to England. Meanwhile in France, the rebelling Protestants called Huguenots, grew in number, as did their persecution. The bloodiest anti-Protestant violence, perhaps, was being “The Saint Bartholomew's massacre” in Paris, 1572. <br />Unlike Deborah, Elizabeth’s Phoenix rise did not involve a folklore popularity where she was sought after for her wisdom before her coronation, though Elizabeth did benefit from several tutors, including Kat Ashley. These academics tutored her brother Edward who was also tutored with Lady Jane Grey and the young sons of John Dudley. Elizabeth was taught languages (French, Greek, and Latin), grammar, theology, history, rhetoric, logic, philosophy, arithmetic, logic, literature, geometry, and music. She was also taught religious studies. The famous learned educator for Elizabeth Roger Ascham, who taught her the art of double translation, is quoted:<br />[her technique] quot;
grows out of the subject; chaste because it is suitable, and beautiful because it is clear [...] Her ears are so well practised in discriminating all these things and her judgment is so good, that in all Greek, Latin, and English compositions there is nothing so loose on the one hand or so concise on the other which she does not immediately attend to, and either reject with disgust or receive with pleasure as the case may be.quot;
<br />So in that sense, Queen Elizabeth’s wisdom developed during youth would be sought after during her reign. As is evident from Bergeron and Leahy’s scholarship, Elizabeth artfully crafted a dramatic performance during the procession. She stopped at predestined places to receive the appropriate gift or item, or recitation. Deborah, on the other hand, followed a different trajectory of wisdom. Recognizing a need, Deborah heard “the word” and responded. The mythologizing of women warriors draw upon the call and response to action. In the Old Testament Rebekah (Genesis) confirmed the proper birthright blessing would be given to her son Jacob; Shiprah and Pual (Judges), the Hebrew midwives, disobeyed the Pharaoh and refused to slay infant male Israelites; and Miriam (Exodus) the prophetess, sister of Moses, helped her mother save her baby brother. These stories echo the taking of power away from the male to guarantee justice, a theme reverberating in Elizabeth’s reign.<br /> We can see a reasonable parallel between Deborah and Elizabeth in the historical writing, and in Mulcaster’s writing, we are pointed in the intended direction of sight, since as Logan articulated in Making History: <br />[he] participated in its planning, the meaning of Elizabeth’s coronation procession was already overdetermined: he had been assigned the task of writing the poems to accompany the tableaux along the procession route, and had conceived of this series of allegorical representations as a linked development of Elizabeth’s right to reign, which he summarized in the final poem inscribed on the tablets at Temple Bar, and which was further reiterated there in a poem recited by a child (35-36)” p253<br />Logan extends the argument on Mulcaster’s writing being a reflection of “his particular interests tend to overwrite the form and function of the event he describes” (253). The complicity of writing historical non-fiction and creating a piece of writing reflective of the times stretched the tendons of truth, as documented by Germaine Warkentin’s The Queen’s Masjesty’s Passage & Related Documents. Though there were others involved in the manufacturing of the dramatic impact of the pageant, the recording of what was said, the words used, was entirely in Mulcaster’s disposal. Thus the ‘spin’ of the coronation was his as noted by Warkentin:<br />Based on the sketchy account of Deborah in the fourth and fifth chapter of the book of Judges, it displayed the Israelite prophet beneath her iconic palm trees (Judges 4-5). However, it showed her with an open rather than an imperial crown, and arrayed in ‘parliament robes’ (93). The pageant thus figured forth not Deborah’s saving of the Israelite people so much as her supposed behavior (not touched on in the Bible) in consulting with her estates for the good government of her people. In its characteristic pedagogic mode the pamphlet informs us, ‘The ground of this last pageant was, that forasmuch as the next pageant before had set before her Grace’s eyes the flourishing and desolate states of commonweal, she might by this be put in remembrance to consult for the worthy government of her people, considering God oftimes sent women nobly to rule among men, as Deborah which governed Israel in peace the space of forty years, and that it behooves both men and women, so ruling to use advice of good counsel’(94-95). <br />Yes, the Deborah pageant proved to attract scholars of Elizabeth’s early politics, as noted by A.N. McLaren in Political Culture in the Reign of Elizabeth, especially the chapter ‘To Be Deborah.’ In addition, as noted in the footnotes (p66) Warkentin states: ‘that the source of much of the Deborah comparison seems to have been John Calvin himself, who had mentioned her example to John Knox in a conversation about 1557. He was furious at Knox’s subsequent attack on female rulers, and wrote to Cecil, probably in 1559, to say ‘I brought forth Huldah [2 Kings 22, 14] and Deborah and added, that God did not vainly promise by the mouth of Isaiah, that Queens should be the nursing mothers of the Church.’ Whereas the production of the Deborah – Elizabeth Icon thus far is aligned with males creating the myth of the Elizabeth as a Deborah for England, I wonder how she participated in the creation? In her retort query to John Knox, “if God should call her majesty leaving issue a daughter…what thinketh of that Daughter’s Right”(Elizabeth to John Knox 1559 (McLaren 12), it is apparent that Elizabeth was very knowledgeable of literary history, including the Bible, and that she was conscious of her literary context. She knew of Erasmian humanist thinking, having been tutored by the scholars her father brought to England. She certainly knew of the power of the male in the monarchy and Privy Council. She had witnessed females dismissed or beheaded, without access to judicial defense. What is interesting is how Elizabeth flips the “famous assertion [by Knox] that ‘the empire of a woman is an idol’ as well as his wider argument that female rule symbolizes, and enacts, the ungodly propensities inherent in kingship itself – the argument to which Elizabeth responded in 1559” (McLaren 16). If she be an “idol” or a “symbol” why not enlarge the objectifying that accompanies subjectification? The following debate of titles, Surpreme Governor of the Church of England, and not Surpreme Head, as obtained by her sister Mary, suggests that Elizabeth, as “Geoffrey Elton argued that the new title represented an attempt to satisfy moderate Catholic opinion that Elizabeth had not assumed a title rightly belonging to the pope and also to answer doubts about the ‘propriety’ of a woman being called Surpreme Head of the Church of England” (McLaren 17). Her finessing of the division over titling in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church, previously a dominant voice in English religion, and still a force to be accommodated. As with any politician, the gesture irked some, including Knox and Anthony Gilbey – “who regarded both the attempt and the title ungodly” (McLaren 18). To further obfuscate the political dynamic, her Privy Councillors wanted “Elizabeth exercise[d] the same theocratic authority as her father had done, whilst holding up the change in title to ‘Surpreme Governor’ as evidence of their, and her, reforming commitment” (McLaren 19). Again she was betwixt the identities she possessed, the ones she created, and those identities thrust upon her, either by her inner court, public opinion, or the opposing forces. <br />In Puzzling Shakespeare, Marcus asserts that “we are accustomed to thinking of the Virgin Queen [Elizabeth] in terms of a set of clearly female identities. She was a Queen of Shepherds, a new Deborah, a Cynthia or Diana, the unreachable object of male desire and worship. But alongside such womanly identifications, which she certainly did nothing to discourage, the queen possessed a set of symbolic male identities which are much less familiar to us, in part because they surface most frequently in her speeches and public pronouncements, in part, I suspect, because her rhetoric and confounds our own preconceived notions about gender”(Marcus 53). Conflating her identities is woven throughout Mulcaster’s pageant narrative. “At the same time, it is an allegorical progress, in that she undertakes a kind of “quest” for a monarchical identity, functioning herself as an allegorical figure within that progress” (Loran 253). This is a dynamic, because as Mulcaster suggested in The Passage of Our Sovereign Lady, Elizabeth not only appropriates a Deborah-like judge and restorer of the house of [England], she commanders by being greeted by figures, tablets, statues, implying an association (103). In addition by having a child (Purity) recite poetry, the imagery of innocence communicating with Truth and Time (symbols of the Queen), harkens the song sung by Deborah in Judges 5. As Elizabeth (“Grace”) leans in to listen to the child, her physical movements suggest temperance and grace per Mulcaster: “I here see this merciful work towards the poor, whom I must in the midst of my royalty needs remember,” and so turned her face toward the child, which in Latin pronounced an oration to this effect: that after the Queen’s Highness had passed through the city and had seen so sumptuous, rich, and notable spectacles of the citizens, which declared their most hearty receiving and joyous welcoming of her Grace into the same, this one …”(104). Turning the check allusion (though often thought of as from Mathew, is actually from a Jewish ethical teaching in the Tanakh, quot;
You will not exact vengeance on, or bear any sort of grudge against, the members of your people, but will love your fellow as yourselfquot;
(Leviticus 19:18)), is suggestive of Old Testament theology, wherein Deborah resides. Yes it is a stretch to draw a connection between the turning of Elizabeth’s face toward the child as being Deborah-like, one could however argue that both Mulcaster and Elizabeth were cognizant of the importance of building a believable representation of Queen Elizabeth as a person of importance. This envelops a welcoming image of a benevolent ruler, like Deborah, a beacon of justice pulling the citizenry together, and Deborah gathered her armies to fight the Canaanites (Judges 4).” <br />That Elizabeth was aware of the importance of directing religious thought in England is an understatement: in Prayers and Exhortations (Norton 109), “As Surpreme Governor of the newly reestablished Protestant Church of England, Elizabeth […] brought back the Book of Common Prayer […] prepared by her martyred godfather, Thomas Cranmer […] [made changes including] the addition of several prayers to the Litany, including “A Prayer for the Queen’s Majesty”[…] Elizabeth ordered […Cranmer’s sermons] to be printed, reprinted and read in all the churches[…]The Book of Homilies was reprinted so hastily that although some of the masculine pronouns have been changed to feminine, not all of the references to “King” have become “Queen,” and Elizabeth, like Edwards, is still called the “Head of the Church.” In 1559 Elizabeth authorized the enforcement of the Act of Uniformity in all of the churches, and in a dedication letter, the translators of the new Geneva Bible, referenced Deborah, yet urged Elizabeth to follow the kings in the Old Testament (Norton 109). This all indicates that Elizabeth consciously manipulated her image before and after the procession. That she chose the ‘Surpreme Governor’ instead of ‘Surpreme Head’ reveals this acute sensitivity to how her people thought of the queen, the monarchy, and justice. Yet her decisions did cause anxieties. <br />As McLaren states in ‘To be Deborah’ that Elizabeth’s “depiction as the English Deborah” was promoted by these anxieties over gender rule, religious strife, and concern over the Tudor Dynasty. The Deborah allusion strategy was “one that forwarded the identification of England with Israel that proved so momentous a feature of English history through the mid-seventeenth century” (23). That the Old Testament speaks of Deborah responding to the ‘will’ of God, to many Englishmen, it was analogous to Queen Elizabeth. This may be because of the belief that monarchs rule by ‘divine’ justice, or the belief that family rule was ordained (as it was) by the Roman catholic Church (and then the Church of England), and perhaps the reasoning behind the belief in Deborah as Elizabeth, was “through Elizabeth He intervened in English history to nullify the Marian apostasy and secure the Protestant nation. ‘Deborah’ therefore became a powerful emblem of restored Protestantism; at one level, given the taint associated with female rule, in association with and in the service of the crown” (McLaren 23). <br />The parallels to Deborah extend beyond the need to respond to the heed, it also references the weak leadership prior to Deborah’s rule, and likewise the problematic leadership of English rule, fraught with civil war, foreign wars, and spiritual uncertainty. Barak was the undecided warrior whom Deborah convinced to go to battle, and likewise, for Elizabeth “the Earl of Essex was explicitly identified as Barak in public sermons” (McLaren24). How the mythologizing of Elizabeth as Deborah began is an unanswerable quest, but it is important to note that the biblical allusion was deliberately included in the coronation. “It is therefore revealing that the pageant series presented by the City of London [who paid Mulcaster and was financed by the Queen and/or her Privy Council- Leahy] to Elizabeth on the day before her coronation climaxed with a tableau in which a figure representing simultaneously Deborah and Elizabeth attended to ‘good counsel’ proffered to her by her estates. More significant still is the fact that the Deborah/Elizabeth figure presented by the city to their future sovereign wore an open, spiked headpiece, not the closed headpiece of the imperial crown” (McLaren 24). So, it is one thing if the Queen helped orchestrate the look and feel of the pageant, but that others thought of her as Deborah, rich with the responsibilities of a profound religious leader is even more astounding. The mythologizing of Elizabeth as Deborah, besides the obvious gender political undertones of misplaced authority, is used by parliament (session 1576) to accuse the Queen’s “refusal to be guided by prophetic address in the 1572 session had drawn down God’s wrath on queen and country alike. God had punished His people by taking ‘Deborah’ from them, leaving a tyrannical female ruler in her place” (McLaren 26-27). To rule as Deborah, McLaren continues, meant “relying entirely on God’s grace, serving as His instrument in an ongoing politics ratified and supervised by the men who were committed to her government in two senses: as partisans of Protestantism and, more generally, as men made in God’s image and charged to her care in their earthly abode” (McLaren 28). Now that proposition that the men who previously had controlled all aspects of life in England had now abdicated their position so that the Deborah-Elizabeth may rule not only undermines the significance of Queen Elizabeth’s ability to survive political turmoil dominated by men, it also undermines her leadership qualities continuing the Renaissance and Reformation legacy of her father, King Henry VIII. <br />While the recorded pamphlet by Mulcaster is documented as being a deliberate propagandistic style piece of writing, how exactly did Elizabeth’s appropriating of Deborah affect her decisions of justice, and whether the virtues attributed to the queen were adversely impacted by her acute self-consciousness of the historiography of Old Testament women? Since the pamphlet predates Elizabethan reign, we must look at examples provided during and post-Elizabeth to fully grapple the concepts of political action affected by literature. And by examining the performative dimensions of her political actions, we may see a parallel dimensions between female usurping male hegemonic political rule and the quality of justice resulted from the flipped gender role. One example is the painting attributed to Hans Eworth “Elizabeth I and Three Goddesses” (Plate 6):<br />Elizabeth I and the Three Goddesses (Plate 6) <br />Susan Doran notes in Part 3, ELIZABETH ENGENDERED, “Presentation and Practice, Virginity, <br />Divinity and Power: The Portraits of Elizabeth I” that Elizabeth is seen as superior to the three goddesses <br />(Juno, Pallas-Minerva and Venus), and that Elizabeth’s monarchical and imperial authority is seen in <br />contrast to the Chaos around her. Like Deobrah who took control of a chaotic environment, the painting <br />depicts Elizabeth doing the same. In addition several Art critics and historian detect several allusions <br />within the painting to Elizabeth’s ability, like other mythic leaders, in exercising sound judgment.<br />Another example of the impact of ‘her’ rule is the historical perspective: “Rule by a woman at this stage of England’s reformation history therefore led to a reconceptualization of monarchial authority, one that simultaneously exacerbated fears of instability, even anarchy. In the longer run, and as a result, it produced both an aristocratic reaction and a sectarian politics” (McLaren 44). <br />She played the frail woman to her advantage in her Tilbury speech; she responded to a Parliamentary Delegation on Her Marriage, 1559; reply to English Bishops who wanted to continue Mary's pro-Catholic policies (suggesting that her father, Henry VIII had been influenced by heretics to quarrel with the Pope); her speech on religion in 1583; and her Farewell speech in 1601. In all such speeches she is articulate, cogent, assiduous, and deft at deflecting the arrows of male political discourse. Her Farewell speech is brilliant at conflating assumed gender identity, explicating truths behind her judgment, inserting herself directly in the Deborah allusion as “His instrument,” and her personal command up to the last moment. <br />a)I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.<br />b) And albeit it might please almighty God to continue me still in this mind to live out of the state of marriage, yet it is not to be feared but He will so work in my heart and in your wisdom as good provision by his help may be made in convenient time, whereby the realm shall not remain destitute of an heir. That may be a fit governor, and peradventure more beneficial to the realm than such offspring as may come of me.<br />c) As for our father being withdrawn from the supremacy of Rome by schismatical and heretical counsels and advisers; who we pray advised him more or flattered him than you good Mr Heath, when you were Bishop of Rochester? And than you Mr Bonner when you were archdeacon? And you Mr Turberville? Nay further, who was more an adviser of our father than your great Stephen Gardiner, when he lived? Are ye not then those schismatics and heretics? If so, suspend your evil censures. Recollect, was it our sister's conscience made her so averse to our father and brother's actions as to undo what they had perfected? Or was it not you, or such like advisers that dissuaded her and stirred her up against us and other of the subjects?<br />d) I see many overbold with God Almighty making too many subtle scannings of His blessed will, as lawyers do with human testaments. The presumption is so great, as I may not suffer it. Yet mind I not hereby to animate Romanists (which what adversaries they be to mine estate is sufficiently well known) nor tolerate newfangledness. I mean to guide them both by God's holy true rule. In both parts be perils. And of the latter I must pronounce them dangerous to a kingly rule: to have every man according to his own censure, to make a doom of a validity and privity of his Prince's government with a common veil and cover of God's word, whose followers must not be judged, but by private men's exposition. God defend you from such a ruler that so evil will guide you.<br />e) We have heard your declaration and perceive your care of our estate. I do assure you there is no prince that loves his subjects better, or whose love can countervail our love.[…] I have ever used to set the Last Judgement Day before mine eyes and so to rule as I shall be judged to answer before a higher judge, and now if my kingly bounties have been abused and my grants turned to the hurt of my people contrary to my will and meaning, and if any in authority under me have neglected or perverted what I have committed to them, I hope God will not lay their culps and offenses in my charge. I know the title of a King is a glorious title, but assure yourself that the shining glory of princely authority hath not so dazzled the eyes of our understanding, but that we well know and remember that we also are to yield an account of our actions before the great judge. To be a king and wear a crown is a thing more glorious to them that see it than it is pleasant to them that bear it. For myself I was never so much enticed with the glorious name of a King or royal authority of a Queen as delighted that God hath made me his instrument to maintain his truth and glory and to defend his kingdom as I said from peril, dishonour, tyranny and oppression. There will never Queen sit in my seat with more zeal to my country, care to my subjects and that will sooner with willingness venture her life for your good and safety than myself. For it is my desire to live nor reign no longer than my life and reign shall be for your good. And though you have had, and may have, many princes more mighty and wise sitting in this seat, yet you never had nor shall have, any that will be more careful and loving. <br />'For I, oh Lord, what am I, whom practices and perils past should not fear? Or what can I do? That I should speak for any glory, God forbid.' And turning to the Speaker and her councilors she said, 'And I pray to you Mr Comptroller, Mr Secretary and you of my Council, that before these gentlemen go into their countries, you bring them all to kiss my hand.'<br />[I wonder if Secretary of Hilliary Clinton/President Barak Obama are the modern day equivalent of Deborah/Barak or Elizabeth/Essex?]<br />Work Cited <br />The Works of Queen Elizabeth I (Modern History Sourcebook)<br />http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/elizabib.htm<br />Queen Elizabeth’s Speeches:<br />Response to a Parliamentary Delegation on Her Marriage 1559 <br />On Religion 1559 <br />Response to Parliamentary Delegation on Her Marriage, 1566 <br />On Religion, 1583 <br />The Farewell Speech, 1601<br />Doran, Susan & Thomas S. Freeman, eds. The Myth of Elizabeth. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. (Print)<br />Ephraim, Michelle. “Jewish Matriarchs and the Staging of Elizabeth I in The History of Jacob and Esau.” <br />Project Muse. SEL Studies in English Literature 1500-1900, Volume 43, Number 2, Spring 2003, pp. 301-321 (Article). 31 October 2010.<br />Greenblatt, Stephen, et als. The Norton Shakespeare. New York: Norton. 1997. (Print)<br />Healey, Robert M. and John Knox. “Waiting for Deborah: John Knox and Four Ruling Queens.” The Sixteenth Century Journal. Vol. 25, No. 2 (Summer, 1994), pp. 371-386. JSTOR. 21 November 2010. <br />Juhasz-Prmsby, Agnes. The Queen’s Majesty’s Passage and Related Documents. Project Muse. <br />University of Toronto Quarterly, Volume 75, Number 1, Winter 2006, pp. 252-253 (Review).<br />Leahy, William. Propaganda or a Record of Events? Richard Mulcaster's The Passage Of Our Most Drad<br />Soveraigne Lady Quene Elyzabeth Through The Citie Of London Westminster The Daye Before Her Coronacion. Early Modern Literary Studies 9.1 (May, 2003): 3.1-20 <br /><URL: http://purl.oclc.org/emls/09-1/leahmulc.html>.<br />Logan, Sandra. Making History: The Rhetorical and Historical Occasion of Elizabeth Tudor’s Coronation Entry. <br />Project Muse. Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, Volume 31, Number 2, Spring 2001, pp. 251-<br />282 (Article). 31 October 2010.<br />Marcus, Leah S. Puzzling Shakespeare: Local Reading and Its Discontents. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988 (Print)<br />McLaren, A.N. Ideas in Context. Political Culture in the Reign of Elizabeth I; Queen and Commonwealth 1558-1585. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. (Print)<br />Mulcaster, Richard. Felch, Susan, and Donald Stump, eds. “From The Passage of Our Most Dread Sovereign Lady, <br />Queen Elizabeth (1559).” Elizabeth I and Her Age. New York: Norton. 2009. (Print)<br />Reynolds, Paige Martin. George Peele and the Judgment of Elizabeth I. Project Muse. SEL Studies in <br />English Literature 1500-1900, Volume 50, Number 2, Spring 2010, pp. 263-280 (Article). 31 October 2010<br />Warkentin, Germaine. Ed. Tudor and Stuart Texts. The Queen’s Majesty’s Passage & Related Documents. Toronto, Canada: CRRS Publications, 2004. (Print)<br />Watkins, John. Representing Elizabeth in Stuart England; Literature, History, Sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. (Print)<br />