{"id":20270,"date":"2025-05-08T19:50:37","date_gmt":"2025-05-08T19:50:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/?page_id=20270"},"modified":"2025-05-08T20:17:03","modified_gmt":"2025-05-08T20:17:03","slug":"templin-2025-congress","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/abstracts\/templin-2025-congress\/","title":{"rendered":"Templin (2025 Congress)"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2>Lisa Templin<br \/>\n(<em>Mount Saint Vincent University<\/em>)<\/h2>\n<h3>Paper<br \/>\npresented at the 60th International Congress on Medieval Studies<br \/>\n(Kalamazoo, 2025)<\/h3>\n<h3>Session on<br \/>\n\u201cWomen and Manuscripts: Questions of Authorship\u201d<strong><br \/>\n<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><strong>Sponsored by<br \/>\nResearch Group on Manuscript Evidence<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<h4>Organized by Jaclyn L. Reed (<em>Independent Scholar<\/em>)<\/h4>\n<h4><a href=\"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/2025-international-congress-on-medieval-studies-program\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2025 Congress Program<\/a><\/h4>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center;\">&#8220;Not soe good as common&#8221;:<br \/>\nThe Eroticization of the Female Voice in the Margins<br \/>\nof Rachel Speght&#8217;s <em>A Mouzell For Melastomus<\/em><\/h2>\n<h3>Abstract:<\/h3>\n<p>In her printed pamphlet,<em> A Mouzell for Melastomus<\/em> (1617), Rachel Speght responds to Joseph Swetnam\u02bcs infamous <em>Araignment of <\/em><em>Lewde, Idle, Froward, and Unconstant Women<\/em> (1615), presenting herself as a young virgin armed \u201cwith the truth . . . and the Word of Gods Spirit\u201d against Swetnam, the \u201cGoliah\u201d to her David. To combat both Swetnam and the double bind which simultaneously necessitates and precludes her speaking on behalf of other<br \/>\nwomen, Speght constructs for herself a speaking position of chaste authority backed by religious precedent. However, Speght could not prevent what she calls \u201cthe biting wrongs\u201d of her would-be detractors as evinced by a copy of <em>A Mouzell for Melastomus<\/em> at Yale\u02bcs Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library that contains manuscript marginalia in which a contemporary male annotator makes crude sexual puns at Speght\u02bcs expense, highlighting the perceived connection between the uncontrolled female voice and sexuality in the early modern period. On some pages these manuscript annotations compete for dominance on Speght\u02bcs printed page, creeping into the spaces<br \/>\nbetween lines, and enveloping the space over, under, and around her words, effectively disciplining the page in her absence.<\/p>\n<p>This paper explores how the manuscript response to Speght attempts to silence Speght from the margins of her own text by negating Speght\u02bcs speaking position. With a strategy that mirrors Speght\u02bcs construction of chaste authority, the annotator appropriates and eroticizes her voice so that her arguments may be ignored as simply an example of uncontrolled female sexuality and unworthy of consideration.<\/p>\n<p>*****<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Lisa Templin (Mount Saint Vincent University) Paper presented at the 60th International Congress on Medieval Studies (Kalamazoo, 2025) Session on \u201cWomen and Manuscripts: Questions of Authorship\u201d Sponsored by Research Group on Manuscript Evidence Organized by Jaclyn L. Reed (Independent Scholar) 2025 Congress Program &#8220;Not soe good as common&#8221;: The Eroticization of the Female Voice in [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":1023,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/20270"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20270"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/20270\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20290,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/20270\/revisions\/20290"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1023"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/manuscriptevidence.org\/wpme\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20270"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}