Simultaneous Existence

This weekend, the beginning of Rosemary Kegl's The Rhetoric of Concealment: Figuring Gender and Class in Renaissance Literature gave me a lot to think about. Perhaps most interesting was Kegl's analysis of female simultaneous identity in the sixteenth century. Kegl argues that women generally were not supposed to identify with any two of their identities at the same time:

Married women were defined as children who had no rights to property and as adults who were required to answer alone for their crimes; they were mothers who shared equally with their husbands the rule of their children and also wives who, like the children, were ruled by those husbands. In short, women were expected to inhabit simultaneously positions whose logics were mutually exclusive. (24)

Because these positions were mutually exclusive, Kegl continues to argue, women had to exist discontinuously and were "left with no single recognized voice with which to speak" (24). It's a really interesting idea, and one that relates very well to Queen Elizabeth's self-construction. Kegl focuses on the female roles of virgo (virgin), mulier (literally "woman," but a sexual woman who has carnal desires, etc.), and mater (mother). Kegl notes that Elizabeth "spoke simultaneously as virgo and mater yet never as mulier" (18). Of course, that is completely illogical, as one cannot really be a mother in these times without having sex. The point is that Elizabeth purposefully claimed her own simultaneous identity, challenging the discontinuity of female construction. Perhaps that makes her more powerful, giving her a strong, consolidated voice; at any rate, it is likely one of the consequences of court society that it worked out well just for her, as she was queen and above many of the other social constraints.

Having the language to talk about this kind of simultaneous identity opens up other contradictions in Elizabeth's speech: for instance, in her dealing with Mary, Queen of Scots. This idea of using rhetoric to convey two separate positions: the first, that she loves Mary so that she would never wish death upon her even if it would secure her own safety; the second, that she will eventually call for Mary's death. As Elizabeth tells her council, if "God [had] made us both milkmaids with pails on our arms [...and] I knew she did and would seek my destruction still, yet could I not consent to her death" (188). Elizabeth claims to have no personal desire to save her own life at the cost of someone else's, and yet Mary, Queen of Scots will eventually be executed, because it will be good for the future of England. Here, too, Elizabeth takes advantage of simultaneous positions to create a voice that will let her show herself off to best effect.

So far, Kegl's book has been really interesting for commentary on how literature relates to economics, feminism, and social culture. I'll put the bibliographical information below, as well as that of a source she cited that seemed like it could be really useful for the "women and allies" group.

Kegl, Rosemary. The Rhetoric of Concealment: Figuring Gender and Class in Renaissance Literature. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994. Print.

And for the "women and allies" group: she cites this work that apparently analyzes how "Europe's gradual transition from feudalism to capitalism disempowered women, particularly aristocratic women" (7). Could be interesting. The citation (in her footnote) is:

Joan Kelly, "Did Women Have a Renaissance?" in Women, History, and Theory: The Essays of Joan Kelly (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984; paperback ed., 1986), 19-50.