© 2025 Transcribed into contemporary English with commentary by Colin Melbourne
The image of the modern woman is a skilful re-creation from the death-masks and portraits of Mary Queen of Scots courtesy Becca Segovia
John Knox continues his First Blast Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women
To investigate this proposition, I will not be so careful, as to gather whatever may amplify, set forth, or embellish the same, but I am purposed, even as I have spoken my conscience in most plain and few words, so to stand content with a simple proof of every part, bringing in for my witness God’s ordinance in nature, His plain will revealed in his word, and the minds of such as be most ancient amongst godly writers.
[Knox’s three proofs: God’s order in nature, God’s word and will written in the Holy Bible, Opinions of church Fathers. Ed.]
Repugnant to Nature
And first, I affirm the empire of a woman to be a thing repugnant to nature, I mean not only that God by the order of His creation has stripped woman of authority and dominion, but also that man has; seen, proved, and pronounced, good reason why it should be so.
Man, I say, in many other cases blind, does in this case see very clearly. For the causes be so manifest, that they can not be hid. For who can deny but it be repugnant to nature, that the blind shall be appointed to lead and conduct such as do see?
That the weak, the sick, and impotent persons [1] shall nourish and keep the whole and strong, and finally, that the foolish, mad and frenetic shall govern the discrete, and give counsel to such as be sober of mind?
And such be all women, compared to man in bearing of authority. For their sight in civil rule, is but blindness: Their strength, weakness: Their counsel, foolishness: And judgment, frenzy, if it be rightly considered.
[1] Causes why women should not have preeminence over men.
[Knox excludes women from ruling men because women are naturally subservient to man by divine decree, and by their innate weakness and foolishness compared to man. Ed.]
I except such as God by singular privilege, and for certain causes known only to Himself, has exempted from the common rank of women [2], and do speak of women as nature and experience do this day declare them.
[Knox permits that it’s God’s privilege sometimes to make exceptions to the natural state, as He sees fit. Ed.]
Nature I say, doth paint them further to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble and foolish: and experience hath declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment [rulership Ed.].
[Knox’s low opinion of female character and wisdom in general. Ed.]
And these notable faults have men in all ages espied in that kind, for the which not only they have removed women from rule and authority, but also some have thought that men subject to the counsel or empire of their wives were unworthy of all public office. For this says Aristotle in the second of his Politics [3]: what difference shall we put, saith he, whether that women bear authority, or the husbands that obey the empire of their wives be appointed to be magistrates? For what follows the one, must needs follow the other, to wit, injustice, confusion and disorder.
The same author further reasons, that the policy or regiment of the Lacedaemonians (who otherwise amongst the Greeks were most excellent) was not worthy to be reputed nor accepted amongst the number of commonwealths, that were well governed, because the magistrates, and rulers of the same were too much given to please and obey their wives. What would this writer (I ask you) have said to that realm or nation, where a woman sits crowned in parliament amongst men.
[Knox cites Aristotle in support. Ed.]
Oh fearful and terrible are thy judgments [4] (o Lord) which thus hast abased man for his iniquities!
I am assuredly persuaded that if any of those men, which illuminated only by the light of nature, did see and pronounce causes sufficient, why women ought not to bear rule nor authority, should this clay live and see a woman sitting in judgment, or riding from parliament in the midst of men, having the royal crown upon her head, the sword and sceptre borne before her, in signification that the administration of justice was in her power: I am assuredly persuaded, I say, that such a sight should so astonish them, that they should judge the whole world to be transformed into Amazons [5], and that such a metamorphosis and change was made of all the men of that country, as poets do feign was made of the companions of Ulysses, or at least, that albeit the outward form of men remained, yet should they judge that their hearts were changed from the wisdom, understanding, and courage of men, to the foolish fondness and cowardice of women.
Yea they further should pronounce, that where women reign or be in authority, that there must needs vanity be preferred to virtue, ambition and pride to temperance and modesty, and finally, that avarice the mother of all mischief must needs devour equity and justice.
[Knox writes that even godless men of old would mock the idea of women rulers. Ed.]
But lest that we shall seem to be of this opinion alone [6], let us hear what others have seen and decreed in this matter.
In the rules of the law thus it is written [7]: Women are removed from all civil and public office [8], so that they neither may be judges, neither may they occupy the place of the magistrate, nor yet may they be speakers for others. The same is repeated in the third and in the sixteenth books of the Digests [9]: Where certain persons are forbidden, Ne pro aliis postulent, that is, that they be not speakers nor advocates for others. And among the rest are women forbidden, and this cause is added, that they do not against shamefacedness intermeddle themselves with the causes of others [10], nether yet that women presume to use the offices due to men.
The law in the same place doth further declare, that a natural shamefacedness ought to be in womankind [11], which most certainly she looses, whenever she takes upon her the office and estate of man. As in Calphurnia [12] was evidently declared, who having licence to speak before the senate, at length became so impudent and importune, that by her babbling she troubled the whole assembly. And so gave occasion that this law was established.
[Knox cites Roman Law to uphold his low opinion of women in general. Ed.]
[2]: Private example do not break the general ordinance.
[3]: 2 Politicorum Aristotelis.
[4]: Read Isaiah Ch. 3.
[5]: Amazons were monstrous women, that could not abide the rule of men, and therefore killed their husbands, read Justine.
[6]: Arist. 2. Politic.
[7]: Lib. 50. de regulis iuris.
[8]: What women may not be.
[9]: 3. 16. lib. Digestorum.
[10]: Ad Senatus consul, Veleianum. [11]: Lib. 3. de posulationse Tit. 1.
[12]: Calphurnia.
In the first book of the Digestes [13], it is pronounced that the condition of the woman in many cases is worse then of the man. As in jurisdiction (saith the law [14]) in receiving of care and tuition, in adoption, in public accusation, in reporting a crime, in all popular action, and in motherly power, which she hath not upon her own sons. The law further will not permit, that the woman give any thing to her husband, because it is against the nature of her kind, being the inferior member to presume to give any thing to her head [15]. The law doth moreover pronounce womankind to be the most avaricious [16] (which is a vice intolerable in those that should rule or minister justice). And Aristotle[17], as before is touched, doth plainly affirm, that wherever women bear dominion, there must needs the people be disorderly, living and abounding in all intemperance, given to pride, excess, and vanity. And finally in the end, that they must needs come to confusion and ruin [18].
[13]: De statu homino Titul. 8. From women.
[14]: power is taken away by the Civil law over their own children. [15]: Dig. lib. 24. de donatione inter virum et foeminane.
[16]: women be courteous therefore unsuitable governors.
[17]: Lib. 1. Digest. de le gib. et senatuscon Titul. 3, Politic. 2.
[18]: England and Scotland beware.
© 2025 Transcribed into contemporary English with commentary by Colin Melbourne
The image of the modern woman is a skilful re-creation from the death-masks and portraits of Mary Queen of Scots courtesy Becca Segovia