Essays

The essence of comedy is meant to reveal or critique different human situations or social issues in a light-hearted way. Comedy is used as a tool to poke fun at human absurdity and explore the themes of the human condition. The use of irony in a comedic text or play supports the analysis of social issues and human nature in order to critique inappropriateness of human behaviours or different ideologies on human existence. In Geoffrey Chaucer’s tale, “The Miller’s Tale”, he uses irony and satire to comment on class structure and human nature’s desire for temptation through the unfortunate, yet comedic cuckold of John the carpenter. Throughout his tale, Chaucer uses the miller as a disruptive force, whether intentional or not, to disregard social decorum amongst the other characters in the tale. Chaucer additionally explores the concept of human greed and inevitability within the human condition. In Samuel Beckett’s play, “Waiting for Godot”, he focuses on the concept of human purposelessness and uses the absurdity of theatre to challenge ideologies of existence. The play exposes the desirability of greater or divine beings as a way to give purpose to human existence. In Geoffrey Chaucer’s tale, “The Miller’s Tale” and Samuel Beckett’s play, “Waiting for Godot”, irony and satire is used in both texts to reveal the absurd affect of desire on the human condition through the portrayal of humiliation and the behaviours of the characters in each of the texts.

In “The Miller’s Tale”, the themes of duplicity and punishment are constant throughout the tale. The miller is described to be a roguish, uncouth fellow with no sense of decorum or manners among the other travellers on the pilgrimage. The tale opens with the miller explaining, while “…fordrunken [and] all pale,” (Chaucer) what his tale will be about. Before the actual tale even begins, the behaviour of the miller is important to take note of. His prelude to the story already displays the satirical way that the miller is written to be like. His rude, interruptive behaviour is meant to be a comedic play on the social hierarchies of Medieval England. The drunken miller is extremely rude because he cuts off the order of speakers and goes before the knight, who is of a higher status than the miller. He interrupts the social decorum of storytelling hierarchy among the other travellers for their pilgrimage. This disruption is done in a way to either be a societal challenge on hierarchies and class or could simply be the miller’s uncouth attitude. Either way, the way the miller is initially portrayed is meant to invoke the comedy of this tale because it is supposed to be extremely immoral and crass. His tale is revealed that it is one of cuckoldry, deceitfulness, and desire. In the story, there is an older carpenter, John and his newly wedded wife, Alison, “[Of] eighteen year[s]…of age”, that “…he loved more than his life[:]” (Chaucer). The miller introduces this couple to have a huge age gap, which could insinuate the lack of romance or passion if the carpenter is a much older man than his eighteen year old wife. He continues to describe John as an extremely jealous man “…and held her narr[ow] in cage[,]” because “she was wild and young, and he was old[,]”. From the first description of the couple, the miller makes them out to appear as a doomed pair on their way to experience some type of debaucherous behaviour, due to their age gap and the carpenters controlling and jealous personality. The carpenter acts in a jealous manner because he is aware that his wife is young and desired by many of the men in his town, however his jealousy to keep her away from those men is what ultimately leads to him being cuckolded. Morally, the audience is able to understand that adultery is not a morally acceptable act to commit, and should solicit some type of punishment if committed. In the tale, the miller uses Alison’s illicit behaviour to mock medieval romances since “romantic fixation[,] which revolves around the beauty of perfect form…is [also] a logical target for satire[.]” (Frye, p. 218). The faithfulness of marriage vows is entirely thrown out the window when Alison begins her affair with Nicholas, a scholar renting a room in John’s house. The tale continues in a comedic manner to poke fun at the foolishness of the men in Alison’s life. All of their desires to be with her is what leads to their humiliation later on. With Alison’s husband, John, believing her lies and then falling off the roof as his punishment for marrying a woman so much younger than him. Then again with Absolon, another forlorn suitor of Alison being tricked and ridiculed by her and Nicholas, for desiring a married woman. And finally, with Nicholas being branded by Absolon’s hot poker for having sexual relations with a married woman. The miller makes his final summarization of the events made throughout his tale — “swived was the carpenter’s wife, [who] enjoyed [despite] all his keeping and his jealousy, [And] Absolon [having] kiss[ed] her nether eye[,] [a]nd Nicholas [being] scalded in the tout[.]” (Chaucer). All of these men are punished and humiliated in some type of way. It is interesting to note how throughout the whole tale, the carpenter’s wife is neither punished nor made a fool of because of her adultery ways. She is entirely absolved of any fault or blame and is made to laugh alongside the people mocking at the carpenter being cuckolded. This form of comedy is very satirical because “[t]he chief distinction between irony and satire is that satire is militant irony: its moral norms are relatively clear, and it assumes standards against which the grotesque and absurd are measured[.]” (Frye, p. 208). Although, morally it is understood that the people who are cheaters in relationships should be made as the villains or at the very least shamed for their deceit, it is the husband who has been cheated on and all the men who desired Alison to be humiliated and punished. Everyone, except the wife is made a fool of in some type of way, in order to critique the human condition shown in Absolon and John. Both of these men are susceptible to the lies of Nicholas and Alison to serve as some form of comedy to the pair. Alison’s desire to cheat is not deemed as a punishable offence in the tale, but rather one that is expected to happen, which places the blame on John’s jealousy, depicting him as a controlling, foolish man. In the tale, the infidelity of Alison is portrayed to be an inevitable act since she is described as a young and wild woman that the carpenter himself realizes he must control and confine, in order to keep her from committing adulterous affairs. Nonetheless, the irony of the carpenter confining his wife to not cheat is what ultimately leads to her being more determined and desiring the act itself. Chaucer’s tale reveals that for the purpose of creating a “conventional life at its best…[is] an avoidance of all illusion and compulsive behaviour” (Frye, p. 211). John is easily manipulated by Alison and Nicholas’ lies and compulsively tries to confine his wife which are all the points that lead to him being cuckolded and losing a conventionally good life. Morally, it is known that duplicity in relationships is wrong and unjust. It is not something that should be expected to occur in any relationship. This tale is satirical as it mocks medieval romances and chivalry through the punishments and humiliation towards all the other characters, except for the adulterous wife. This story reveals infidelity as an innate, uncontrollable, and humorous desire to mock the modesty of medieval romances in an immoral and entertaining way. John is created to be a pitiful and gullible character to represent human condition in the way that describes humans as naive beings, predisposed to believe whatever is told to them. John’s character is similar to the portrayal of human condition in Beckett’s play, “Waiting for Godot” because both Estragon and Vladimir are naively waiting and hoping for nothing to happen and fail to see the reality of what they are being told.

Similarly to Chaucer’s, “The Miller’s Tale,” in Beckett’s play, “Waiting for Godot” the punishment and humiliation that Estragon and Vladimir experience is due to the cosmic irony of their fixed desire to continually wait for Godot, or God, to finally reveal himself to the two men. Throughout the play, Estragon and Vladimir are described to be constantly stagnant in their positions on stage and never leaving their places as they are “[w]aiting for Godot”. The absurdity of this play is revealed through the two men constantly going back and forth with one another, talking about how they will go or leave, but never moving from their spot. The play creates a consistent tone of frustration because of the characters never leaving their spot and continuing to patiently hope that this Godot, which is revealed as God, will come for them. Within the first line of dialogue in the play, Estragon states that there is “[n]othing to be done[.]” which sets up the tone of how the rest of the play proceeds. The two characters represent the absurd nature of human existence. In the play, they are filled with the desire and longing for Godot to come to them because they believe that he will show up. Their unwavering faith in Godot is shown as something humorous for the audience because the men make a fool of themselves on stage — having unfinished conversations and stories, and going back and forth on leaving but actually not leaving at all. The men are portrayed as foolish characters through the concept of human purposelessness. Throughout the play, they wait and wait for Godot to come, but unsurprisingly he never shows up or reveals himself to Estragon and Vladimir. This play tackles the themes of human existence, the meaning of life, and existentialism. The idea of whether or not there is a higher, divine power or god is unknown to human knowledge. It can be seen from an atheistic perspective that faith is a foolish thing to have, especially through the portrayals of Estragon and Vladimir. In the play, both of these characters are firm on their belief that Godot will show up which can be seen as a mockery to people who have some form of faith in a higher power. Beckett uses the absurdity of theatre to create a play fully saturated in irony and satire to critique the concept of human purposelessness of life, and time and suffering. There are “[t]wo things…[that] are essential to satire;…a sense of the…absurd, [and] an object of attack[.]” (Frye, p. 209). The absurdity of the play is through the isolation of the characters in a fixed position and their nonsensical conversations that are almost mechanical in a way. Their desire to be patiently waiting for Godot to show up appears like dolls or puppets, in the sense that they never move from their spot and wait for someone to come and get them to actually move around. In Cate Watson’s article, “‘Shipwrecked by the Laughter of the Gods’: Henri Bergson’s Theory of Comedy and the Meaning of Life”, she points out that “[w]e have a too ‘mechanistic’ habit of thought to understand life itself[.]”. The way that Estragon and Vladimir wait idly by for Godot circles back to Watson’s point about the ‘mechanistic’ way humans tend to understand their existence. The way that Estragon and Vladimir communicate with each other is very robotic because even if Godot does not show up today, both Vladimir and Estragon believe that they will simply, “…come back tomorrow…And then the day after tomorrow[,]…[a]nd soon[.]” (Beckett). It appears like the two men are conditioned to live their purpose for this Godot and will unconditionally wait for him to appear. The “…pure denunciation [of any existence of Godot] forms one of the boundaries of satire[.]” (Frye, p. 209). Godot’s absence is meant to mock in a way the belief of religious people’s understandings for human existence. The play focuses on human purposelessness and that no matter what people believe there is no guarantee that the questions about existence will be answered. Moreover, Vladimir mentions that, “[t]he essential doesn’t change” (Beckett), meaning that their essence for living is for Godot. Despite Godot never appearing to Estragon and Vladimir, they are conditioned to wait for him because they exist for him. In Northrop Frye’s book, “Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays: The Mythos of Winter: Irony and Satire”, he states that “[w]hat is recommended is conventional life at its best: a clairvoyant knowledge of human nature in oneself and other[,]”. However, the tragedy of this is that it is impossible to carry a clairvoyant knowledge of the human condition because humans are not supernatural beings. This discordance is what leads to humanity turning to religion in order to achieve what is not natural in human nature. The purpose of comedy in Beckett’s play is used to comment on the salvation by which is promised from religion, but never comes. The play reveals through irony the reality of what religion is truly like — waiting around for nothing. The critique that existence is not from a divine source, but rather created within us is represented through the stagnation of Estragon and Vladimir.

The human condition is something that can easily be influenced. The entirety of what humans are capable of doing can range from being completely still in life and never moving forward, or committing morally unjust acts. The characters in Chaucer’s tale explore the extremities of human capability by enacting affairs, lies, and manipulation. The human condition is a malleable force that can lead to immorality. The desire and longing for greed is what leads to the men in the tale being punished for their sinful acts. Desire in Beckett’s play is presented through the hope that Estragon and Vladimir hold for Godot. Their longing for him to appear is what makes them out to be foolish characters, as they are stagnant in their ways and never seem to move forward. The absurdity of the two texts reveal human nature’s innate desire. Human nature is capable of immoral acts like adultery, but also can be susceptible to the empty promises of religion in the belief that there will be salvation given to those who will wait. The comedy of both of these texts are used as commentary on human nature — the pitfalls of greed and the emptiness of religion. Both texts are satirically saturated to reveal the absurdity of these types of human conditions. The longing for the immoral and what is not known to human existence can create a better understanding of the capabilities of humanity. Human desire is an inevitable condition that cannot be confined or controlled, which often leads to some form of punishment as a way to reveal the purposelessness of existence.

To create a community is not merely to establish a group of individuals, but to foster a shared sense of identity, belonging, and mutual purpose. Creating a community is a process that goes beyond financial or social incentives, reaching into the deeper realm of human connection and personal discovery. A well-formed community allows individuals to forge bonds that not only provide support and solidarity, but also offer opportunities for self-exploration and growth. This sense of collective identity becomes particularly significant when considering early modern women writers, who faced considerable social and cultural barriers to having their voices heard. For early modern women writers, creating a community was imperative to generating some kind of success with their writing. For these women, building a community was essential to their success as writers, as it allowed them to craft a specific audience for their work and bolster their sense of belonging within a literary tradition that often excluded them. By cultivating such a community, these writers could reinforce a shared cultural identity among themselves and their readers, thus fostering solidarity in the fight for the recognition of women’s intellectual contributions. Early modern women writers connected to their imagined communities in order to help further the voice of their writings, while also buttresing their advocacy for the messages they wrote about—freedom for women writers to be acknowledged seriously by society. Aemilia Lanyer’s poem “Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum” addresses both inspiring women writers and potential patrons as a way to generate a wide community of readers. The poem positions itself in the defense of women in the Biblical narrative while also setting up the idea that women can also write on divine texts during the early modern period. The poem not only defends women within Biblical narratives, but also legitimizes their engagement with religious texts. Lanyer’s “Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum” not only defends women within Biblical narratives, but also legitimizes their engagement with religious texts. She challenges the traditional view of Eve as the root of sin, instead presenting her as a seeker of wisdom whose actions should not be framed as moral failure. In doing so, Lanyer counters the misogynistic interpretation of the Fall that has historically justified the subjugation of women. Aemilia Lanyer’s “Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum” reclaims Biblical narratives by reframing Eve as a seeker of knowledge and challenging male dominance in theology. By engaging with religious texts and fostering a female readership, Lanyer establishes a feminist literary tradition that affirms women’s intellectual and spiritual authority. 

Aemilia Lanyer addresses a variety of audiences in her poem including, “the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty,” “All Virtuous Ladies in General,” and “the Doubtful Reader,” in order to generate interest from women initially and then everyone about her feminist approach to the Biblical narrative and women’s roles in the Bible. Lanyer begins her poem by addressing the Queen so that she can create some kind of legitimacy with her readers. She directly speaks to the Queen with much flattery to hopefully encourage women’s writing authority, which during this time was an extremely controversial topic. Lanyer goes on to call the Queen a “Renowned Empress, and Great Britain’s Queen” (61). Next, she calls the Queen the “[m]ost gracious mother of succeeding kings” which was Lanyer’s way of reminding readers that lineage only continued with women and the Queen is the woman responsible for all our great and successful kings. What these flatteries and praises do is allow Lanyer to “[v]ouchsafe to view that which is seldom seen [a] woman’s writing of divinest things.”  Lanyer urges the push for women writers voices’ to be heard and granted the freedom to write about Biblical narratives. By addressing the Queen in this acclamatory manner, Lanyer directs the reader’s attention with her sincerity for women writers. By doing so, Lanyer also creates a space for herself to emphasize the importance of women characters in Biblical narratives. She calls on women to recognize their shared suffering and resist male authority, asserting that they “came not in the world without [pain]” and that this shared experience should “make that bar against [men’s] cruelty” (80). By positioning pain and sacrifice as sources of strength rather than subjugation, Lanyer reframes womanhood as an empowered and collective identity. 

In a similar manner, Lanyer continues her poem to address “All Virtuous Ladies in General.” This dedication is a way for Lanyer to grow her community to welcome these “virtuous ladies” as she addresses Biblical narratives. Again, Lanyer is creating legitimacy for herself with these ladies as a way to attract a larger audience of primarily women to read her take on these divine texts from a woman’s point of view. She calls to the ladies to “[l]et virtue be [their] guide, for she alone / [c]an lead [them] right that [they] can never fall” (66). What Lanyer means here is that she is reminding these virtuous women to essentially trust themselves and what they know. She is not attempting to change their minds or force them to read something unholy or unvirtuous. With this technique, Lanyer is allowing these ladies to let their guards down and read her work as their virtues would want them to. 

Lanyer creates sympathy between the ladies and herself when she tells the story of Eve, taking a more apologetic take. She tells the ladies “[t]hat we (poor women) must / endure it all [and that] [w]e know right well he did discretion lack, [b]eing not persuaded thereunto at all” (95). Here, Lanyer is talking about the unfairness that Eve has faced because of the whole Garden of Eden story. She is petitioning the ladies and her audience of women, that we too as women must feel empathy and pity for the suffering and blame society has laid upon Eve for most of history. Lanyer is expressing the notion that not all the blame should be set unto Eve because she did not persuade Adam to take a bite as well. Lanyer’s critique of Eve’s portrayal extends beyond shifting blame—she also challenges the broader assumption that men alone possess theological authority, remarking that they “boast of knowledge, which [Adam] took / [f]rom Eve’s fair hand, as from a learned book” (79). By equating Eve’s actions to the transmission of wisdom, Lanyer undermines the assumption that intellectual and theological authority solely belongs to men. 

As she defends women and Eve for the blame of Original Sin, Lanyer also argues that Adam should share the guilt of this sin as well because of how he is described in the Bible to be much stronger than Eve and has the capability to resist temptation. She expresses how for Eve, “whose fault was only too much love, [w]hich made her give this present to her dear [Adam]” (95), that she should not be the sole blame for Original Sin. Lanyer is reinventing the narrative of Eve, but also is situating Eve in the framework of women during the 1600s—being doting and subservient housewives. She is reminding her imagined community that Eve is like them too, a loving woman to her husband that only ever wants to share her gifts and such with him. Nonetheless, Lanyer even addresses the irony of men claiming that they are more knowledgeable than women, when Eve was the person who first sought for knowledge when she ate the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden. Lanyer critiques men’s hypocrisy, pointing out that they “boast of knowledge” despite having “took / [f]rom Eve’s fair hand, as from a learned book” (95). By making this claim, Lanyer challenges the assumption that intellectual and theological authority belongs solely to men. It is important for Lanyer to create an audience of primarily women, so that she can connect her different take on these Biblical narratives that instead support women’s rights. 

Comparatively, Aemilia Lanyer discusses her version of Christ to support her feminist argument. The Christ that Lanyer creates in her narrative is “[s]tripped of the already limited power of consent [to resemble] many of the poem’s women, whose will exists, it often seems, only to be violated” (Rogers 439). This is important because she is using the figure of Christ as a figure of the feminist argument—women, like Christ, could not exercise free will or consent. John Rogers’ article, “The Passion of a Female Literary Tradition: Aemilia Lanyer’s ‘Salve Deus Rex Judæorum,” highlights how “Lanyer’s feminized Christ, as she repeatedly insists throughout the narrative, is “content” to submit himself to the inexplicable will of the Father” (440). This claim that Rogers makes supports the creation of Lanyer using Christ as a figure of relatability for her audience of virtuous women. By the same token, Rogers goes on to note that “[s]ubstituting the s of “consent” for a t, Lanyer strips her Christ of the capacity for even the passive agency exerted in the willed consent to follow the word of God.” Lanyer appeals to these virtuous women by using Christ and his crucifixion as a way to gather a community to be interested in her work that advocates for women agency. 

In like manner, Suzanne Trill’s article, “Feminism versus Religion: Towards a Re-Reading of Aemilia Lanyer’s ‘Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum,” Trill points out “...the text’s perceived feminism and its representation of an idealized Protestant “community of good women” (68). The community of women that Lanyer creates her work for are all seemingly religious (virtuous) women because she rewrites Biblical narratives from the perspective of a woman writer. Trill continues in her argument that “[w]ritten by a woman, Salve Deus is also dedicated to women, who are explicitly instructed to read it” (68). Lanyer’s text is meant for women because she is advocating for women’s right to write on Biblical narratives, but also for the defence of women as inferior to man from these texts. Even in her dedication to the Queen, Lanyer introduces “fair Eve’s apology, [w]hich [she] ha[s] writ[ten] in honour of [their] sex” (63). Moreover, Lanyer addresses the “Doubtful Reader”: 

Gentle Reader, if thou desire to be resolved, why I give this title, Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum, know for certain that it was delivered unto me in sleep many years before I had any intent to write in this manner, and was quite out of my memory until I had written the passion of Christ, when immediately it came into my remembrance, what I had dreamed long before, and thinking it a significant token that I was appointed to perform this work, I gave the very same words I received in sleep as the fittest title I could devise for this book. (Lanyer 97)

What Lanyer is addressing to the reader in this quote is her creative process with choosing the title for her poem. This dedication appeals to a larger community as a way to possibly suggest that she is not attempting to make a mockery of the Biblical narratives, but rather that she herself has inspiration from faith to discuss these divine works from a woman’s point of view. Scholars such as John Rogers and Suzanne Trill argue that Lanyer’s text offers a radical reinterpretation of Christian narratives by drawing parallels between Christ’s suffering and women’s historical oppression. 

Additionally, Lanyer’s exploration of women’s place in Biblical texts and literary traditions further strengthens her feminist argument. The historical context of early modern England provides insight into why women’s voices were largely marginalized in both religious and literary spheres. Patriarchy dominated intellectual and theological debates, and women’s contributions were often disregarded or dismissed. Lanyer’s text, therefore, acts as an intervention into these debates, positioning women as intellectual and moral equals to men. By reconstructing Eve’s story in a manner that highlights her pursuit of knowledge rather than her guilt, Lanyer actively reclaims the narrative for women. This act of reclamation echoes early modern feminist literary criticism, which seeks to analyze and challenge dominant narratives that suppress women’s voices. Lanyer’s critique of patriarchal injustice extends beyond Eve’s story, as she contrasts the moral strength of women with the corruption of men. She highlights Pilate’s wife as a woman who, despite having “hands…guilty of no kind of sin,” was ignored, while men, who “practice falsehood in [their] heart,” ultimately dictated the course of justice (81). By drawing this contrast, Lanyer positions women as more morally righteous than men, further reinforcing her argument for female authority in religious discourse. Moreover, Lanyer’s use of Christ as a feminized figure further deepens her argument about the oppression of women. In her depiction, Christ is positioned as an innocent figure subjected to suffering, similar to the way women were historically subjected to injustice and marginalization. This comparison aligns Christ’s sacrifice with the struggles women endure in a patriarchal society, making the poem not only a religious mediation but also a feminist manifesto. 

Lanyer’s work not only challenges traditional gender hierarchies, but also constructs a rhetorical space where women can engage with and critique Biblical narratives. Rogers observes that “the poem itself seems largely to question the assumption that female speech—indeed, any original speech—might succeed in effecting positive change” (440-441). However, by addressing a female audience, Lanyer subverts this skepticism, demonstrating that women’s voices can indeed be a force for empowerment amongst young women during the early modern period. She reframes Biblical stories to shift the perception of women’s roles, explicitly challenging the power imbalance between men and women. Lanyer asks, “[t]o judge if [they] agree not with the text: [a]nd if [they] do, why are poor women blamed, [o]r by more faulty men so much defamed?” (63). Here, Lanyer calls attention to the ways in which women are disproportionately condemned, inviting her audience to recognize and resist these injustices. Her appeal for women to “have [their] liberty again [and that] [they] came not in the world without our pain, [and should] [m]ake that a bar against [their] cruelty” (96) reinforces her call for female solidarity. She calls for women to be empowered by the changes in Biblical narratives that she writes about—that we, as women, carry the same pain and disregard as the women in these divine texts carried with them. As Trill notes,“[i]n Lanyer’s case, faith does not preclude feminism; rather her feminism is facilitated by her faith” (76). This connection underscores why Lanyer’s audience—composed of virtuous women—is central to her writings. Through her faith-driven feminist discourse, she not only validates women’s voices but urges them to reclaim their agency in both literary and theological traditions. 

The radicalism of Lanyer’s poem is meant to cause a disruption of the social order for change and agency for women and women writers. Lanyer suggests to her audience that women should not be the sole blame for Original Sin, and even explains that “[t]he after-coming harm did not appear[,] / [t]he subtle serpent that our sex betrayed [b]efore our fall so sure a plot had laid” (94). In this instance, Lanyer is explaining how women have been historically portrayed and marginalized through the story of Eve and the Fall of Man. She highlights how the serpent had deceived Eve and had planned for her to be the cause for Original Sin. Lanyer goes on to state that “[f]or had [Eve] known, of what [women] were [later] bereaved…she (poor soul) by cunning was deceived, / [n]o hurt therein her harmless heart intended” (94). Lanyer is creating empathy between her audience and her recreation of Eve’s narrative. She portrays Eve as a person that recognized the potential for growth and knowledge because “she alleged God’s word, which he denies, / [t]hat they should die, but even as gods, be wise.” Here, Lanyer is rationalizing Eve’s act of eating the fruit—challenging the notion that her actions were motivated by only sin and disobedience, but rather Lanyer suggests that Eve was well aware of God’s intentions and that she desired to expand her knowledge and wisdom. This nuanced perspective of Eve’s narrative opposes the traditional Biblical narrative. 

Lanyer is emphasizing to her audience that they must challenge and reevaluate the traditional Biblical narrative of Eve and all women. She wants women to understand that Eve had a role in the creation of Original Sin, but also that there were external forces that led to these consequences. Women should not be wholly blamed and disregarded within the patriarchal society based on this version of the narrative. The significance of having a woman-dominated community allows for “Lanyer’s writing [to be] primarily studied for what it can potentially reveal about early modern female consciousness or subjectivity, rather than for its participation in doctrinal debates” (Trill 68). Lanyer is not only rewriting and revisioning Biblical narratives in the lens of a woman, but she is also creating an empowering notion with her work during the early modern period for her community of women. For this reason, Trill states in her article that “Lanyer’s poetry has been primarily positioned as a performance rather than a profession” (75). What this suggests is how influential and inspiring Lanyer’s work is for feminist texts. During a time where women lacked agency and authority as writers, Lanyer challenged these norms and used her writing to uplift women. Lanyer is strategically drawing attention to women audiences in order to empower them through the reimagined narratives of women characters in divine texts as important and not solely disobedient. 

Lanyer’s poem actively constructs a community of women readers, positioning them as both interpreters of scripture and participants in a shared literary tradition. By remimaging divine texts through a female lens, she not only challenges patriarchal narratives but also legitimizes women’s voices within theological discourse. Rogers argues that “Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum” “uses a reenactment of the crucifixion as a means of a retroactive authorization of its composition and publication” (446), suggesting that the poem’s very existence asserts women’s rights to engage with and reshape religious texts. Similarly, Trill notes that Lanyer’s work “demonstrates that women’s writing has a history; it indicates that women read other women’s texts; it apparently establishes a sense of female community; it suggests that women actively interpreted the scriptures for themselves; and it seems to question the validity of inequalities between the sexes” (69). This reinforces how Lanyer’s poem does more than appeal to early modern women–it establishes an ongoing literary and theological space where women can recognize their intellectual and spiritual authority. 

Beyond literary analysis, Lanyer’s word carries significant implications for feminist activism. Her emphasis on community building, intellectual agency, and spiritual empowerment serves as an early prototype for later feminist movements that sought to unite women under common ideological and political causes. In this sense, Lanyer’s “Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum” operates not only as a poetic work but also as a call to action, urging women to recognize their worth and fight for intellectual and creative autonomy. As feminist literary criticism continues to evolve, Lanyer’s work remains a critical reference point for discussions on gender, religion, and authorship. By creating a community of women readers and reinterpreting Biblical narratives through a feminist lens, Lanyer paved the way for future generations of women writers and intellectuals. Her strategic engagement with religious texts, her careful construction of a female readership, and her bold challenge to patriarchal authority ensure her lasting relevance in both literary and feminist discourses. Creating an audience itself for early modern women writers was difficult, not to mention trying to find women that could even acknowledge their work was not a fairly easy task to achieve. 

Women are invited to challenge stereotypes and barriers that have historically restricted them from attaining the same intellectual and social recognition as men. “Eve’s Apology,” in particular, urges for the reevaluation of women’s social positions by interrogating long-standing narratives that cast women as inherently subordinate or culpable. By fostering a readership composed primarily of women, Lanyer makes sure that her feminist message reaches those most affected by societal constraints, offering them a framework for resistance and self-empowerment. Her writing not only encourages women to question longstanding religious and social narratives that confine them into restrictive roles but also advocates for their intellectual and spiritual equality. Lanyer’s reinvention of Biblical narratives serves as both a challenge to patriarchal interpretations of scripture and a powerful assertion of women’s agency in shaping theological and literary discourse. Lanyer empowers women to challenge patriarchal authority and claim their rightful place in theological discourse. Furthermore, “Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum,” is a testament to the power of women’s literary communities in challenging patriarchal norms and advancing feminist thought during the early modern period. Literature can serve as a vehicle for social change, creating a space where women’s voices are not only heard but valued. Lanyer reclaims the authority to interpret Biblical texts, positioning women as both critical thinkers and active participants in religious and intellectual debates. By reclaiming Biblical narrative and constructing a literary space for women, Lanyer laid the groundwork for future feminist writers. Her work remains a testament to the power of literature in challenging patriarchal structures and shaping feminist thought across centuries. More than a poetic work, “Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum” is a declaration of women’s rights to recognition as intellectual and spiritual equals. Her work not only influenced contemporary women but also foreshadowed the feminist movements that would emerge centuries later to disrupt male-dominated intellectual spaces. The themes that Lanyer explores—women’s autonomy, equality, and the reexamination of Biblical narratives—remain relevant today, underscoring the enduring power of literature. Lanyer’s writing pioneers feminist thought in order to inspire scholars and readers alike, proving that the written word has long been a catalyst for challenging societal structures and advocating for progress. Lanyer’s poem not only reclaims Biblical women’s narratives, but also affirms the historical role of women as unwavering followers of faith. She reminds her audience that, unlike men, women remained by Christ’s side during his suffering, as they “follow’d him wheresoere he went” and, even at his death, “did not absent, / [b]ut with sad sighs…bewayle his face” (82). By ending on this image, Lanyer reinforces her overarching claim that women’s loyalty, intellect, and righteousness have been consistently overlooked by patriarchal structures. The radical ideas that Lanyer wrote about provides a foundation for feminist scholars today, demonstrating that literature has been a crucial site of social and political transformation.