Talk:The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 14 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cdev007.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Misnamed?
Frankly, I think this may be misnamed--a link about the work by Knox ought to be the title, perhaps with redirects from "monstrous regiment of women" and "monstrous regiment". The first sentence is simply ugly--I don't know how to write it more elegantly. Any thoughts about any of this? Jwrosenzweig 22:08 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I've ever heard this phrase used, plucked out of the title as it is here. I suppose that it is, by someone: but surely only as a reference to the book and its theme.  Anyway, I don't know about that.  I tried my hand at rewriting some parts, primarily for smoothing out the phrases and punching up the prose.  Revert what you don't like. Mkmcconn 18:28, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Mk, I think we're slowly streamlining it in the right direction--I definitely appreciate your contributions, and won't revert them. :) I worry a little that you may be a smidge over the top in the addition about "most misogynist invective in history", but then it's been a long time since I read anything at all by Knox, and something tells me you've probably actually stated the case fairly well.  Thanks for letting me know your reasoning, Jwrosenzweig 15:46, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Among my heroes, Knox ranks near the top; but this book makes me laugh at all heroes and at the people who have them. Here's one of my favorite passages (preserving the olde spelling for heightened comic effect):

''For who can denie but it is repugneth to nature, that the blind shall be appointed to leade and conduct such as do see? That the weake, the sicke and impotent persons shall norishe and kepe the hole and strong? And finallie, that the foolishe, madde and phrenetike shal governe the discrete and give counsel to such as be sober of mind. And such be al women, compared unto man in bearing of authoritie. For their sight in civile regiment is but blindness; their strength, weaknes; their counsel, foolishnes; and judgment, phrensie, if it be rightlie considered."''
 * Mkmcconn 16:11, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * You have to marvel at the Calvinist gift for creating a memorable title, don't you? The First Blast of the Trumpet. . . and Cotton Mather's Wonders of the Invisible World are two of my favourite book titles in English, ever.  I do think that it probably ought to be moved to a page given the full title as a name, though, with both Monstrous Regiment and Monstrous Regiment of Women redirecting thereunto.  -- IHCOYC 19:38, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be 'regimen'?
I'm sure it's regimen. It used to confuse me when I was at uni. I've been looking through my notes to try to find the facsimile copy they handed out for our lectures. No luck yet.
 * I'm thinking your recollection is mistaken. I could find more authoritative evidence, I'm sure, but a quick google search showed 14,600 hits for "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment" and only 106 hits for "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regimen".  Jwrosenzweig 04:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, take a look at the image of the title page, it uses Regimen... Modest Genius talk 10:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that the image you refer to is of a reprinted edition from 1766, centuries after the initial publication, and taking that fact in the context of the Google info above and the fact that the e-texts we link to use "regiment", I'm inclined to think that this is a printer's error on the particular edition we have an image of. If we can determine that it's not a printer's error, but a variant spelling used in at least a few significant editions, perhaps some note should be made.  Jwrosenzweig 06:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.34.128 (talk)

I was taught many years ago that it was "regimen". Since you (Jwrosenzweig) say "I could find more authoritative evidence, I'm sure", we'd all be very grateful if you could do so. Thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I offer the cautious transcribers of Project Gutenberg, as evidence of "regiment": http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext06/8trmp10h.htm - It's not like we haven't dropped another letter since these reprints. (We'd call it the "regime of women" today.) -Yamara ✉  00:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. It does seem to be the case that Knox wrote "regiment". The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives both "regimen" and "regiment" as words which existed in Knox's time, with different but overlapping meanings. ("Régime" came in from French later.) It looks as though editors in e.g. 1766 used the "regimen" spelling because they thought it was clearer, and in fact I agree with them. I don't think there's any question of a misprint. But as far as the article is concerned, it must be right to go mainly with Knox's spelling, but there ought to be some note about the other, if only to stop the title-page image from looking stupid. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be more consistent if an image were uploaded with the "regiment" title to replace the "regimen" picture currently showing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.240.210 (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The National Library of Scotland has on its website a digital image of the title page of the first edition. This was published anonymously in 1558 (M D LVIII), and does contain the word regiment rather than regimen http://digital.nls.uk/scotlandspages/timeline/1558.html. I'm not techno savvy enough to be able to make changes to this page, but perhaps one of you others could manage it. A second point about this article is that Mary, Queen of Scots, was a child in 1558, and Knox was really more concerned with the rule of her mother, Mary of Guise, who was regent of Scotland at the time. Thirdly, I'm not convinced that Knox was not against the authority of women in all walks of life; the extract on the page rather confirms this, as does the very first paragraph of the work itself. Lalar99 (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is correct. It's unfortunate that, given the correction, the page has been allowed to stay in its incorrect state for so long. RandomCritic (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

JStor and other sources quoted
I didn't have time to add to this article, but used it for another, and the results might be useful for this one, if anyone is interested in applying the research. I used the citations in this article. To find some of my research, including quotations, see reference notes (which include quotations) in a past revision of Matriarchy. Also, John Knox expressed "opposition to female rule" and an "initial outburst against female rule". Nick Levinson (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Second Blast
Is this statement accurate: "Knox intended to write a Second Blast and a Third Blast, but after seeing how people responded to the First, neither ever became reality."

I ask, having noticed that the title page picture here says "To which is added, The Contents of the Second Blast". TurnipWatch (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)