Please read the entireity of Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum.  If you are unable to print out the entire document, please bring sections which you will be ready to talk about in class. 

Attachment: Salve Deus Rex Judeorum

provided courtesy of Meagan Gobel as an example of a reading journal entry.


Jane Anger: Her Protection for Women

    This feels like a very passionate, perhaps reckless piece. It leaves itself open for criticism because it is so much like all those hate-ridden misogynist pieces. All spleen and no real argument. It is a lot like something I would write.
    I think her basic point is that men think women are bad because we are not like them. And since she says men are the ones who are fundamentally bad, that makes women good. It’s an interesting, but very subjective argument. Because men are lascivious and want sex all the time and women don’t give it to them, they turn it around on women and blame them for being sexually deviant. When really, says Anger “Our good toward them is the destruction of our selves, we being wel formed, are by them foully deformed”. She calls men bulls, beasts and says no wonder Helen of Troy left her first husband Menelaus, as he was a “smel-smocke” (a skirt-chaser) so can we really blame Helen for getting fed up with him? And how like a man to be put out that she left him after all the crap he put her through!
    It’s interesting comparing this piece with Christine de Pisan, as it is obvious which enjoyed more fame in literary circles. Christine’s piece is thoughtful, careful, patiently argumentative but not finger pointing. To her it is more effective to focus on the wonderfulness of women instead of highlighting all the bad things about men and trying to work backwards. But perhaps Anger is just trying to use more traditional forms of logic: If a=b  and a=c then a=b kind of thing. If men say women are bad, but men are bad, then it follows that what men say isn’t true, and thus women aren’t bad! Hey presto. It’s an amusing piece in it’s “anger” but is certainly secondary to the Cyte of Laydes.

Rachel Speight, A Mouzell For Melastomus.

And what a muzzle indeed, she sure shuts him up! At least I’m assuming she does, how on earth could you respond to that …response! Of what cleverness was her pen! I am writing this after class which is cheating somewhat, but getting that presentation paper done and another done was enough for one night and I’m sorry. But the discussion was interesting. She talks of men’s “ingratitude” to God when they berate women and trash-talk them as woman was a gift from God directly to Adam to be his comfort and helpmate. She says these men should be grateful for what God has given them and not rail so much against women’s alleged stupidity. Anything that was made by God cannot be so evil as all that. One of my favourite lines was “Thus if men would remember the duties they are to performe in being heads, some would not stand a tip-toe as they doe, thinking themselves Lords & Rulers, and account every omission of performing whatsoever they command, whether lawfull or not, to be matter of great disparagement, and indignity done them…” and so on! Not only because it’s a run on do I love it(I’m really good at those) but the image of men standing “ a tip-toe as the doe” is just too perfect. I know boys like that, who just preen because they are male and supposedly so great without even trying. God’s (un)chosen ones apparently.
I am also upset that she disappears, that might make a good novel one day…