Hi Kacie,

I agree with you that the depiction of women within the text appears to be questionable as being particularly feminist–or at least what we would think of today as being feminist. I think that the seeming contradiction you are getting at–that Spenser seems to both advocate for women’s leadership while also advocating for extreme chastity–makes sense when approaching the text as a glorification of Queen Elizabeth, as we discussed in class. In this context, promoting chastity as the supreme feminine virtue while also expressing the strength of exceptional women works when both concepts were part of the image Queen Elizabeth cultivated. One part of Book III that stood out to me along similar lines was in stanza 7 where the narrator comforts Guyon when Britomart  knocked him off his horse: “For not thy fault, but secret powre unseen,/That speare enchaunted was, which layd thee on the greene” (3.1.7.62-63). In the next stanza, the narrator tells Guyon that he would be embarrassed if he realized “that of a single damzell thou wert met” (3.1.8.67). Essentially, it is shameful if a man is overthrown by a woman, but in this case it appears to be somewhat okay because Britomart has an ‘enchaunted’ weapon. This type of thinking allows for the continuing of a general rule–women should not overthrow men–while also saying that in this instance, it’s alright because the reason is outside of anyone’s control. This seems to go along with a justification for a woman to reign as an exception to a general rule and is reminiscent of Queen Elizabeth’s speech where she refers to God’s decision to make her Queen, even though normally the kingdom would be entrusted to a man.