The Sixteenth-Century Debate about Resistance to Political Authority

and the Issue of Female Regiment

David B. Mock

Tallahassee Community College

The Protestant Reformation not only changed the religious landscape of Europe, but influenced discussions about political obedience as well. Today we will be looking very briefly at changing notions about political obedience and resistance and how these views influenced men’s attitudes toward female regiment. What we will see is that there was a dramatic change in the positions that men held concerning political obedience and female regiment that was in large part due to the actions of some of the women who had risen to prominence during the sixteenth century.[1]

The Reformation’s emphasis on religious individualism led Protestant religious leaders to argue that the people should obey God and resist monarchs who led the people away from Him. The individual conscience became the ultimate arbiter in deciding matters of obedience and resistance. Personal biblical study led to conflicts of conscience that ultimately raised popular expectations for religious toleration. The new emphasis on religious individualism saw increasing concerns about political individuality that could threaten the power of the state and its ruler. Martin Luther is generally seen as an advocate of political obedience to legitimate authority. His criticism of the Peasants’ Revolt is also well known. But, Luther’s statement “It is lawful for an inferior magistrate to resist a superior that would constrain their subject to forsake the truth” was also used to justify his followers’ fight for religious freedom in the War of the Schmalkaldic League. The second generation reformer John Calvin clearly saw princes as God’s lieutenants who received their power directly from Him. Calvin preferred tyranny to anarchy. Nevertheless, he too encouraged passive resistance in 1555, 1557, 1559, and six times in 1561, if “‘princes of the blood’ resist and if the Courts of Parliament join in their resistance.”[2]

But, before the fires of Smithfield and the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre political theorists and religious leaders proposed moderate, orderly means to resist tyrants. Those who were dissatisfied with an unfavorable king or queen should turn first to a prince of the blood and secondly to magistrates to deal with a ruler who was guilty of tyrannical actions. The Calvinist Theodore Beza claimed in Du Droit des Magistrats sur leurs Sujets that people owed complete obedience to God and that divine and natural laws limited the power of monarchs. Beza believed that magistrates were appointed for the good of the people and were thus subservient to the people’s representatives. If the ruler were tyrannical, the magistrates and estates could resist his authority, even to the point of tyrannicide. Francis Hotman, a Huguenot, favored popular sovereignty whereby the people transferred authority to a ruler although he too believed that Franco-Gallic law justified resistance. Meanwhile Bartolus of Saxoferto recognized two types of tyrants: the one who had seized a throne by force and the one who had received his crown by succession or election but later oppressed the people. Bartolus believed that the people could resist the first tyrant, but not the second, whose opposition would have to come from the nobles, popular representatives, and lesser magistrates. Popular resistance is thus possible, but not the resistance of individuals as this would lead to anarchy. Should the aristocrats and lesser magistrates fail to fulfill their responsibilities in resisting tyranny, Bartolus argued, the only alternative is flight. Challenging the issue of unquestioning obedience to lawful authority, Duplessis-Mornay recognized the existence of a triple contract between God and king, God and people, and people and king. The violation of one of these contracts, e.g., a king breaking his contract with God, voided the other two agreements. Zanchius also justified resisting an ungodly superior magistrate since someone who advocates evil is not a power that God established. Johannes Alstedius contended that the people could oppose tyrants who broke their oaths of office. People, after all, he maintained obey the laws, not the dictates of kings. Althusius on the other hand recognized the existence of two contracts—one of government and one of society. If the ruler breaks the law the people can rise up against him because once he has broken the contract he has lost his authority to govern. George Buchanan, noted that kings exist for the will and good of the people and thus can be brought to account if they fail in their duties for breaking their contract.[3] (Note: In 1567 the Scottish legislature enacted a statute that recognized the duty of the subject to rebel against a sovereign.) Arguments justifying political resistance to tyrants were thus not uncommon.

The fiery deaths of some 287 martyrs during the reign of Mary I and of some 10,000 Huguenots as a result of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, during the regency of Catherine de Medici, will change both the tone and the nature of political resistance theory. Jean Boucher, for example, claimed that the church could depose a heretic if he were a tyrant as the people would be released from their required obedience. Boucher went on to condone tyrannicide. Guillaume Roze, Francisco Suarez and Juan de Marianna also encouraged popular revolution and tyrannicide, though Roze only approved the assassination of usurpers. For his part Marianna argued that if a godly king becomes tyrannical and loses popular support the people could kill him, but only if they first warned him to change his evil ways. Justification of tyrannicide, while less common than the call for lesser magistrates to control tyranny, extended to the highest levels. Even Pope Gregory XIII pardoned beforehand any assassin of England’s Elizabeth I.[4]

In the sixteenth century there was a surprisingly close link between political resistance and resistance to female sovereignty. Opposition to the rule of women increased dramatically in the last half of the sixteenth century. The French political theorist Jean Bodin for example, opposed female regiment, arguing: “Women ought to be removed as far as possible from the majesty of government; for the rule of a woman is contrary to the laws of nature, which has given men prudence, strength, greatness of soul, and force of mind to govern, but to women has denied these gifts.[5]

The Scottish reformer John Knox was a vociferous and arguably the best-known opponent of female sovereigns. He cautioned: “[L]et us comfort ourselves with the thought that we are rendering that obedience which the Lord requires when we suffer anything rather than turn aside from piety”. Knox suggested that female regiment is not so significant as to cause men to lose their lives in resisting it. Nevertheless, he also theorized that ministers were duty-bound to speak out against female rulers because such women usurped God’s authority and thus were “abominable, odious, and detestable”. Moreover, he claimed that it was unnatural for women to govern as they were made to obey men and were prohibited from speaking in public or from judging cases of law because of their natural imperfections of vanity, weakness, and impatience. They thus held office against God’s will, although Knox did admit that God had exempted some women and raised them to the throne. Knox’s particular dislike of England’s Mary I and her religious policies enhanced his opposition to female regiment, a sentiment reinforced by the actions of Mary Queen of Scots. He criticized the English and Scottish nobles for being “schlaues of Satan, and seruantes of iniquitie” for accepting the governments of Mary Tudor and Mary Stuart, respectively. Moreover, while Knox proposed that God can put aside the law and appoint women to political office, man does not have the same authority. Given Knox’s opposition to female regiment, it is not surprising that he favored deposing female sovereigns who unjustly usurped their thrones or that he called upon his fellow Scotsmen to overthrow the immoral Mary Stuart.[6]

Christopher Goodman, another enemy of female regiment, argued that man should obey his political leader, even if a woman, as to do so meant not only the obedience but also the glorification of God. Goodman maintained that obedience was, however, expected only as long as rulers were engaged in lawful activities. He explained that people who fail to follow the dictates of their leaders call down upon themselves the wrath of God. He noted how recently English magistrates had encouraged Englishmen to disobey God’s laws and follow Mary Tudor’s “ungodly” policies. In this instance he felt that England’s aristocrats, so-called “ministers of injustice”, were neglecting their responsibilities to follow the law and the teachings of true religion. Disobedience of authorities who led men from God is therefore necessary, Goodman suggested, because it would cause people to “fal into the handes of his mightie reuenger”. He additionally warned people about accepting a female monarch, particularly that “wicked woman” Mary Tudor. Resistance was thus expected of those who led the people away from God, for “to disobey God is playing rebellion in his judgemente”. Goodman invited the English people to rebel against their queen because she was a bastard, a hypocrite, an idolatress, an agent of Satan—and a woman. Magistrates were, for Goodman, primarily responsible for leading a rebellion against a tyrant. If they failed to do so they should be considered negligent in the performance of their duties. This incompetence would then release the people from their bonds of obedience. The English theorist empowered the lesser magistrates to resist tyrants if the greater officials, busy ingratiating themselves with their prince, failed to act. In the event the magistrates and the public refused to rise against an idolater, the people should pray and ask for divine intervention. Goodman, however, also justified the assassination of idolaters and added that any ruler who was known to be an idolater “must dye the death”. He asked, had not God told Moses to hang the captains and the popular leaders “agaynst the sunne without mercy” because they were heretics? [7]

David Lyndsay (or Lindesay) argued that man should accept the male magistrates placed above them because “Paul bids us to be obedient/To kings as the most excellent”. But, he opposed female sovereigns who were disqualified from holding office by Eve’s responsibility for man’s fall from grace. Lyndsey argued that after Eve, all women were subject to men’s rule. Nevertheless, women, despite their disqualification, have erroneously desired sovereignty.[8]

Yet, not all men opposed female regiment. In An Harborowe for Faithfull and Trewe Svbiectes John Aylmer offered one of the first rebuttals of Knox’s First Blast. Aylmer explained that he was speaking out lest people think his silence meant that he had accepted Knox’s views. He freely admitted the cruelty and inhumanity of Mary Tudor, but claimed that her reign was “though the faulte of the persone, and note of the Sexe.” He further argued that God appointed magistrates and it was therefore not man’s responsibility to overthrow political authorities. Instead, he continued, it was the people’s duty “to honour [H]is choise, rather the[n] to prefer our own”. Aylmer then suggested that God may have “some secret purpose” that women should reign. He even credited Anne Boleyn for causing the English Reformation, and recognized that there had been numerous female rulers who possessed the same virtues as their male counterparts. Aylmer further suggested that England’s mixed government of king, aristocracy, and Parliament reduced his fear of female sovereigns. Moreover, people should trust God for establishing female rulers and for helping them govern. Clearly, people should obey their magistrates. “Nowe therefore, it is all our duties, to be in euery wise be obedient to gods lieutenants our souereign in forwardness, and helping her both without goods longs and bodies, when nede is, euerye man in hys callyng”. Aylmer concluded by encouraging his readers to be good subjects if they wished to have good kings. Obedience leads to the reception of God’s blessings and prosperity. “Blusterynge blastes to blowe you, fyrst from youre dutie to God, whiche commaundeth you to obeye youre Rulars, next from your faith which you owe to your prince, for that care and love whiche she beareth toward you”.[9]

John Ponet also defended women’s political rights, claiming that magistrates possessed their God-given power to execute laws by having control over the bodies of their citizens. Man’s fall from grace demonstrated that he needed to be supervised so that he would behave himself. Rulers do not, however, possess absolute power, “but that the ende of theire authorities is determined and certain to maintene justice, to defende the innocent, [and] to punish the evil”. God’s laws thus bound and subjected them to His judgment. Citizens must, Ponet claimed, obey their prince, who possesses “fulnesse of power,” unless he erred against God or attempted to harm his subjects. Ponet saw resistance to be the same as opposing God, though he admitted that one should not have to act against one’s conscience. “He [man] mustt seke what God will haue him doo, and not what the subtiltie and viole[n]ce of man will force him to doo”. Ponet added that Christian law justified killing “malefactours,” even if they were magistrates; and noted that revolution and assassination “doo most certainly confirme it to be most true, just and consonaunt to Goddes judgement”. But, private citizens cannot act unless they have a “special inwarde comaundement or surely proved mocion of God”. Poynet also noted that the Greeks and Romans celebrated those heroes who assassinated tyrants, even making brass busts of and dedicating songs to them. “[I]t is naturall to cutte awaie tn incurable membre which (bei[n]g suffred) wolde destroie the hole body”. Resistance to tyranny is not always violent, however, as people also have the options of penance and prayer.[10] 

Sir Thomas Elyot’s The Defence of Good Women examined the issue of female sovereignty with a debate between two fictional characters (Caninus and Candidus) and Zenobia, a famous female warrior and queen who had unsuccessfully led her armies against the soldiers of ancient Rome. His characters “proved” that women possessed the requisite martial and political skills along with the moral integrity necessary to govern.[11]

The political events of the sixteenth century clearly influenced development of political thought in the century. How could this be otherwise when one considers the relatively large number of female sovereigns, regents, and governors in that century? A brief listing of some of the female rulers, regents, and governors includes Isabella and Juana of Spain, Mary Tudor, Mary Stuart, Elizabeth I, Catherine de Medici, Margaret of Parma, Mary of Guise, and Jeanne de Navarre. By the late 1580s, when Henry Howard completed what is arguably the most scholarly defense of female regiment, the issue of female regiment was essentially a non-issue. Political theorists in the following century will continue to address the nature of the legitimacy of political authority and justify resistance to that authority, but the gynecocracy controversy is largely over. Seventeenth century thinkers would focus on natural rights, political liberties, and especially practical political abuses. Sex, it appears, no longer matters.[12]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] See Paula Scalingi for a good discussion of the gynecocracy debate in the sixteenth century. Paula Louise Scalingi, “The Scepter or the Distaff: The Question of Female Sovereignty, 1516–1607,” The Historian 41 (November 1978): 59–75. See also Sharon L. Jansen, The Monstrous Regiment of Women: Female Rulers in Early Modern Europe (New York: Palgrave, MacMillan, 2002); Richard L. Greaves, Theology and Religion in the Scottish Reformation: Studies in the Thought of John Knox (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian University Press, 1980), pp. 157–68; Robert M., Kingdon, “Calvinism and Resistance Theory, 1550–1580,” The Cambridge History of Political Thought, 1450–1700, eds. J. H. Burns and Mark Goldie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 193–214; James E. Phillips, Jr., “The Background of Spenser’s Attitude toward Women Rulers,” Huntington Library Quarterly 5 (October 1941): 5–32.

[2] Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, ed. J. Pelikan et al. 54 vols. (St. Louis: Concordia, 1955–76); Jean Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. J. T. McNeill, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), pp. 1058, 1486, 1490, 1494–95, 1511–17; Jean Calvin, Praelections in librum prophetlariums Danielis English (Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans, 1993), Lecture 30; H. C. Porter, Reformation and Reaction in Tudor Cambridge (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1958), p. 47; Kingdon, “Calvinism,” pp. 200–206; Jansen, Monstrous Regiment, pp. 1–6.

[3] Theodore Beza, Du Droit des Magistrats sur leur Sujets, ed. Robert Kingdon (Geneva: Droz: Les Classiques de la Pensee Politique, 1971); Johannes Althusius, Politica Methodice Digesta, ed. C. J. Frederich (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932); Francis Hotman, Le Tigre de 1560, ed. Conyers Read (Geneva: Slatkine Reprints; facsimile reprint of 1875 edition); John Ponet, A Shorte Treatise of Politike Power (1556); Bartolus of Saxoferto; Philippe de Duplessis-Mornay, Vindiciae contra Tyrannos (1577); George Buchanan, History of the Reformation in Scotland (1564), p. 1521. J. H. Franklin, ed., Constitutionalism and Resistance in the Sixteenth Century: Three Treatises by Hotman, Beza and Mornay (New York: Pegasus, 1969). In 1567 the Scottish legislature enacted a statute that recognized the duty of the subject to rebel against a sovereign.

[4] Jean Boucher, Histoire Tragique et Memorable de Gaverston Gentilhomme Gascos Iadis Mignon d’Edouard II Rio d’Angleterre (1588); Guillaume Roze, Opera Omnia, ed. D. M. Andre, vol III (Paris: Vives, 1856) Francisco Suarez, Juan de Marianna, De Rege et Regis Institutione Libri Tres (1599).

[5] Jean Bodin, The Six Books of a Commonweale, trans. R. Knolles, ed.K. D. McRae (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), p. 1154.

[6] John Knox, First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women (1559), ff. 6, 9–10, D7v, E1r, E8v–F2r; Greaves, Theology and Religion, 126–68.

[7] Christopher Goodman, How Superior Powers Oght to Be Obeyd of their subjects, (1558) pp. 47, 60, 144–45, 179–85. See also Anthony Gilby, An Admonition to England and Scotland, to Call Them to Repentance (1558).

[8] David Lyndsay, The Monarchie (1552), ff. B2v, D6v.

[9] John Aylmer, An Harborowe for Faithfull and Trewe Subiectes against the Late Blown Blast Concerning the Government of Women (1559), ff. B2r-v, B3r, Q3r-v, Q4v-R1r, R2v.

[10] John Ponet, A Shorte Treatise of Politike Power and of the true obedience, (1556) ff. A4v, B6r, C1v, D1r-D4v, G3r, G6r-7r, G8r-v, H6r-7v.

[11] Sir Thomas Elyot, The Defence of Good Women

[12] Lisa Hopkins, Women Who Would Be King: Female Rulers of the Sixteenth Century (New York: Viking, 1991); Jansen, Monstrous Regiment, pp. 67–228.