Sample Solution

The writings of Queen Elizabeth I are by no means considered canonical and play no central role in Renaissance literature. Indeed, one could discuss Elizabethan writing whilst quite ironically ignoring the Queen herself. This dissertation sets out to examine works which are, on the whole, neglected and shows that Queen Elizabeth I expertly utilised language to defend herself as both a queen, and a woman. Specifically, words allowed the monarch to mould an image which could fight prejudice and gain favour. She impressively negotiated a male-dominated writing culture, and society, to prove her worth. To demonstrate this, the structure of this dissertation has been divided according to the different audiences Elizabeth addressed, and her relationship to such audiences. I will begin my first section by examining the monarch’s early epigrams written in confinement to identify the constraints Elizabeth faced in her position. I will then move to an analysis of sonnets that circulated between members of the court to understand how verse could be utilised by the monarch to undermine her closest opponents. The final section of the dissertation will focus on speeches addressed to court and country, exploring how the rhetorical demands of a ‘Queen’s speech’ lent itself to powerful demonstrations of resistance to the public. This discussion hence will exhibit how the literary methods Elizabeth employed to combat constraints altered depending upon these different audiences, focusing particularly upon her identity as a woman.
This dissertation was partly inspired by the marginalisation of monarchic writing. The avoidance of these works could be for several reasons; perhaps the lack of literary excellence, (the writings are arguably skilled, but nothing outstanding), or the accessibility and reliability of the verse. Despite this, criticism on Queen Elizabeth I’s writing does exist. A fundamental text to which this work is indebted is Ilona Bell’s Elizabeth I: The Voice of a Monarch, but Bell’s chronological focus limits its analysis to a more generalised look at Elizabeth’s life. Criticism which focuses solely upon monarchs can also be found in Peter C. Herman’s invaluable Royal Poetrie: Monarchic Verse and the Political Imaginary of Early Modern England. Thus investigation into the credibility of monarchic verse justly asks for a re-assessment of royal writings: ‘There are no good reasons, in sum, for ignoring this poetry’. Herman’s focus upon several monarchs however – a chapter each dedicated to Henry VIII, Mary, Elizabeth, James and Char