Elizabeth I was worshipped as 'Gloriana' -- but how successfully does she embody ideals of Renaissance rulership as a female monarch?

Elizabeth I was worshipped as 'Gloriana' -- but how successfully does she embody ideals of Renaissance rulership as a female monarch?

by Darcy R. Keim, MA

 

It may be confidently ascertained that there are few periods in history that have drawn as much intrigue and study as that of the Elizabethan era^[1]. Elizabeth I’s reign - notably known as ‘The Golden Age’ - lasted forty-four years and can be regarded as a focal point in terms of women’s history and the study of female rulership. Undoubtedly, she is one of England’s most celebrated and well-known monarchs, which is made evident through her own success in self-fashioning, with such additional titles as ‘The Virgin Queen’, ‘Gloriana’ and ‘Good Queen Bess’. However, in order to appropriately address this question of Renaissance rulership, particularly in regards to Queenship, it is imperative to have an understanding of the circumstances that shaped Elizabeth I as an individual. Elizabeth Tudor, (daughter of Henry VIII and his second wife, Anne Boleyn) was born female into a period of utmost dynastic instability; a factor that can be argued to have contributed to the way in which she shaped and cemented her reign^[2]. With regards to the precarious nature in which the Tudor dynasty had been established, there was a significant pressure to produce a male heir in order to maintain dynastic security. This exemplifies that there was a degree of apprehension towards the idea of having a queen regnant; an observation that is further supported by examples of contemporary works, such as John Knox’s The first blast of the trumpet against the monstruous regiment of women, a piece published in 1558 (the year of Elizabeth’s ascension to the throne), in which Knox openly wrote that:

 

To promote a Woman to beare rule, superioritie, dominion, or empire above any Realme, Nation, or Citie, is repugnant to Nature; contumelie to God, a thing most contrarious to his reveled will and approved ordinance; and finallie, it is the subversion of good Order, of all equitie and justice.^[3]

 

Ultimately, the patriarchal structure of the sixteenth-century had indeed contributed to the social and political implementation of gender hierarchy - an element that cannot be disregarded when discussing the topic of female rulership. What this paper will attempt to assess is how successfully Elizabeth I involved Renaissance values and qualities as a ruler and additionally, if she had managed to achieve this as a female monarch.

 

Firstly, a highly acclaimed element of Renaissance rulership was the incorporation of Humanist ideology. Within the context of the European Renaissance, the concept of ‘Humanism’ has been historically regarded as an intellectual movement^[4]; with this conceptualisation of the self-made ‘Renaissance Humanism scholar’ - a well-rounded and exceptionally learned individual, who was expected to have had a varied and in-depth knowledge of classical literature and the arts, philosophy, language and politics^. In relation to this, it has been observed that there was a progressive increase in the interest for Renaissance rulers to acquire a Humanist education, as there was this degree of expectation to embody this concept of the ‘Scholarly Prince’. One argument as to the success of Elizabeth’s involvement of Renaissance qualities does indeed relate to her own personal achievements as a Renaissance scholar. This is particularly noticeable when taking into consideration the high level of Humanist education Elizabeth had received earlier on in her life, despite her disinheritance from the line of succession after the death of her mother, Anne Boleyn’. Nevertheless, Elizabeth was tutored by Humanist scholars; amongst those were William Grindal and Roger Ascham. Ascham himself regarded Elizabeth as an exceptionally learned individual,

 

Ascham boasted to John Sturm of her preparation in Latin and Greek rhetoric, and it is certainly true, as Mary Thomas Crane points out, "that Elizabeth was trained, as other women were not, in the use of rhetoric to assert authority,"and she was rigorously drilled in the language of men's privilege and power-Latin. She was also accomplished in the two chief contemporary English styles: one complex, often ambiguous, almost euphuistic; and one simple and direct. She used both styles in her writings, letters, and speeches, as her need or will served.^[5]

It is undeniable that Elizabeth embodied the Renaissance conception of the “scholarly prince” through her academic achievements. An additional example of this can be acknowledged in Elizabeth’s passion for producing translations. This can be observed on several occasions, more notably when she used to present copies of her translations to her stepmother, Queen Katherine Parr and Henry; such as an Italian translation of Parr's Prayers or Meditations; Henry receiving a translation of the same text in both Latin and French. With consideration as to her choice of text, it can be suggested that this example is demonstrative of her high level of scholarly ability and dedication. This high level of scholasticism remained evident during her own reign, as Elizabeth’s reputation for being a multi-linguist can be founded within the exchanges she had with foreign emissaries at court.

 

However, Elizabeth’s embodiment of the ‘Scholar Prince’ is not solely illustrative of the extent in which a Humanist education influenced her reign; it can also be related to the Renaissance quality of ‘self-fashioning’. The concept of ‘self-fashioning’ has been defined by Stephen Greenblatt as this ideology that “there were both selves and a sense that they could be fashioned”^[6]. In a wider European context, the concept of self-fashioning can be found in Castiglione’s construct of ‘Fiction’, an element that is mentioned in his Book of the Courtier; in which the involvement of ‘self-fashioning’ is based on this characteristic that courtiers and court-life construct themselves on the fiction of an ‘elegant otium’ - a world in which social and political frictions may also be leisurely enjoyed with social interaction and academic endeavours^[7]. This gave individuals the opportunity to create a defined self-image; what a courtier - or even a monarch - is known for and the reputation of the fashioned self that proceeds with this. It may be asserted that the concept of ‘self-fashioning’ provided Elizabeth with the opportunity to manipulate her image and therefore, simultaneously, her audience^[8].

 

One prominent use of this concept of ‘self-fashioning’ was Elizabeth’s incorporation of ‘the King’s Two Bodies’ - the body politic and the body natural. Ernst Kantorowicz, author of The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology, addresses this by noting that “Elizabeth’s reign witnessed the first major secular elaboration of the mystical fiction of “the King’s Two Bodies”^[9]. This image was immediately established in Elizabeth’s reign, as can be noted during her accession speech in which she did openly state, “I am but one body, naturally considered, though by [God’s] permission, a Body Politic to govern”^[10]. One argument for the construction of this image is that it may have been used to separate the issue of her gender and that of her position. This can be deduced by the approach to the ‘body politic’ as no longer being subject to the passions that the ‘body natural’ (the female sex) ^[11]. In relation to the gendered approach of the ‘two bodies’ construct, Cheryl Glenn, author of Rhetoric Retold: Regendering the Tradition from Antiquity through the Renaissance, asserts this idea that “Elizabeth self-consciously composed herself as uniquely superior, relegating herself to the very top of a stratified society…. thereby transformed the feminized margins of political power into a masculinized body of actual strength”^[12]. This is demonstrative of the idea that through the ‘two bodies’ construct, rather than erasing the issue of her gender, Elizabeth attributed to her ‘self’ masculine qualities. However, another argument as to the use of ‘two bodies’ concept may not directly relate to the issue of gender. As proposed by Greenblatt, another approach to this is to evaluate the manner in which this concept may have strengthened a sense of her own identity,

 

The notion of “the King’s Two Bodies” may, however, have heightened Elizabeth’s conscious sense of her identity as at least in part a persona ficta and her world as a theater. She believed deeply - virtually to the point of religious conviction - in display, ceremony, and decorum, the whole theatrical apparatus of royal power. “We princes,” she told a deputation of lords and Commons in 1586, “are set on stages, in the sight and view of all the world duly observed.^[13]

 

Nevertheless, it is possible to identify this Renaissance construct of courtly fictions within the manner Elizabeth I interacted with her English subjects. In her article, Love and the Female Monarch, Judith Richards discusses a distinctive quality of Elizabeth’s reign - observing that she had adoration for the Humanist idea of romantic leadership^[14]. This redefinition of love - that ultimately led to the political involvement of the ‘language of love’ - has been recognised as a common theme among Humanist writers, as it illustrates a shared acceptance of responsibility, obligation and duty for the benefit of everyone^[15]. The Renaissance formation of the ‘language of love’ has been considered as Petrarchan; an aspect of courtly interaction by which both monarch and subject initiate the use of complementary language and chivalrous ideals to gain loyalty and favour from one another. Petrarchan politics is not necessarily ‘love’ but rather based on the conventions of it. An example of this can be seen with the manner in which Sir Robert Carey, Warden of the East Marches, rode to Theobald’s unannounced and had managed to gain an audience with the Elizabeth over the matter of owed payment. A fellow courtier, William Killigrew, informed Elizabeth that Carey had been deprived of her presence and desired nothing more than to kiss her hand^[16]. This illustrative use of romantic fiction is demonstrative of the involvement of Petrarchan politics, as well as this observation that Elizabeth – as a Renaissance ruler – appeared to enjoy and perpetuate to this format of engagement. Additionally, it can be observed that Elizabeth used this to her advantage when creating her image as a monarch, and certainly at the beginning of her reign it was imperative that she did so. Elizabeth’s initial use of this courtier-monarch relationship can be seen as a way in which she attempted to calm political tension at the beginning of her reign^[17].

 

However, as to assessing how successfully Elizabeth I embodied Renaissance ideals, it could be proposed that despite her gender, the set-up and structure of her early life was indeed similar to those of her male-counterparts. Elizabeth had been allowed access to a royal Humanist education and was exceptionally well learned, a quality that arguably led to her involvement of Humanist ideologies during her reign, such as the use of Petrarchan politics. Her success in self-fashioning herself was indeed politically influential, as this distinction between her ‘two bodies’ approached the matter of her gender – a noteworthy example being her speech at Tilbury, in which he expresses that she has the “stomack of a kinge, and of a kynge of England too”^[18]. Nonetheless, it may be argued that the success and celebration of Elizabeth’s reign is not merely founded upon her embodiment of Renaissance values but also how she had managed to do this as a woman in a inherently male-dominated position.

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Beemer, C., ‘The Female Monarchy: A Rhetorical Strategy of Early Modern Rule’, Rhetoric Review, Vol. 30, No. 3 (2011), 258-274

 

Green, M. J., ‘“I My Self”: Queen Elizabeth I’s Oration at Tilbury Camp’, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 28, No. 2 (1997), 421-445

 

Greenblatt, S., Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare, (London, 1980)

 

Glenn, C., Rhetoric Retold: Regendering the Tradition from Antiquity through the Renaissance, (Illinois, 1997)

 

Felch, M, S., ‘The Rhetoric of Biblical Authority: John Knox and the Question of Women’, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 26, No.4 (1995), 805-822

 

Kristeller, O, P., ‘Studies on Renaissance Humanism During the Last Twenty Years’, Studies in the Renaissance, Vol. 9 (Chicago, 1962), 7-30

 

MacCaffrey, T. W., The Shaping of the Elizabethan Regime: Elizabethan Politics 1558-1572, (Princeton, 1968)

 

Richards, M. J., ‘Love and a Female Monarch: The Case of Elizabeth Tudor’, Journal of British Studies, Vol. 38, No. 2, (Cambridge, 1999), 133-160

 

 

---

^[1] W. T. Wallace, The Shaping of the Elizabethan Regime: Elizabethan Politics, 1558-1572, (Princeton, 1968), 3

^[2] M. J. Richards, ‘Love and a Female Monarch: The Case of Elizabeth Tudor’, Journal of British Studies, Vol. 38, No. 2, (Cambridge, 1999), 141

^[3] M. S. Felch, ‘The Rhetoric of Biblical Authority: John Knox and the Question of Women’, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 26, No.4 (1995), 805

^[4] P. O. Kristeller,‘Studies on Renaissance Humanism During the Last Twenty Years’,

Studies in the Renaissance, Vol. 9, (Chicago 1962), 7

^[5] J. M. Green, ‘"I My Self": Queen Elizabeth I's Oration at Tilbury Camp’, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 28, No. 2 (1997), 422

^[6] S. Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare, (London, 1980), 1

^[7] Ibid. 162.

^[8] Ibid. 169.

^[9] Ibid. 166

^[10] Ibid. 166

^[11] Ibid. 167

^[12] C. Glenn, Rhetoric Retold: Regendering the Tradition from Antiquity through the Renaissance, (1997), 567

^[13] S. Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare, 167

^[14] M. J. Richards, ‘Love and a Female Monarch: The Case of Elizabeth Tudor’, 133

^[15] Ibid. 136-7

^[16] S. Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare, 165-66

^[17] Ibid 134

^[18] J. M. Green, ‘"I My Self": Queen Elizabeth I's Oration at Tilbury Camp’, 425