Susan Doran and Thomas Freeman have provided scholars, students, and nonscholars alike with a fascinating and thought-provoking collection of essays on the construction of the Elizabeth whom so many believe they “know.” Whether through images, novels, dramas, or film, Elizabeth is among the most well-known historical figures. But who is the Elizabeth that everyone “knows”? Was she the Virgin Queen who gave up personal fulfillment for duty to country and her people, the Protestant Champion and rival of Mary Stuart? These are among the most commonly held descriptions of Elizabeth. But what is so crucial, as the editors point out, is that so much of what is known about Elizabeth is the result of myth.

This stimulating collection of essays examines how those myths were created and why they endure. Each contributor analyzes distinct sources that were the basis of mythmaking in order to explain the intentions behind those who created the myths. What emerges is that contemporary authors’ intentions often diverged from the myths that resulted from their work. In the end, the editors provide a fresh insight into a well-known historical figure by highlighting the myths of Elizabeth, many of which are far more enduring than historical reality. The contributors to this volume have all added to our understanding of Elizabethan history and our own biases, for as the editors rightly contend, in studying the mythologizing process, we better understand not just those who created the myth, but ourselves. The perpetuation of certain myths reveal the social and cultural views of those who maintain them.

The essays are divided into three distinct groups; the first is entitled “Trojan Horses” since the works examined ostensibly celebrate the queen, while also maintaining covert criticism. Thomas Freeman addresses the genesis and perpetuation of Glorianna in Foxe's Book of Martyrs, and Andrew Hadfield analyzes the Glorianna of Spenser's The Faerie Queen. Freeman's essay argues that one enduring aspect of the Glorianna myth was based on Elizabeth's survival of imprisonment and impending execution during her sister's reign. Freeman contends that while Foxe was among the first to mythologize this event, the historical reality of the depiction of Elizabeth in The Book of Martyrs is far different. As Freeman contends, Foxe made changes in the text during the first decades of the reign that were consistent with his growing frustration at the queen's failure to further reform the English church. Thinly veiled criticism, rather than praise of the queen, in fact mark the later editions of Foxe's work. However, while this may be the reality, not only did Elizabeth herself choose to ignore the criticism, subsequent writers “slavishly” followed the dramatic account of the queen's imprisonment, solidifying the story into myth.

Similarly, Hadfield's analysis of Spenser's The Faerie Queen argues that while ostensibly a work of praise, it also functioned as a work of censure. While one character may appear to celebrate Elizabeth, other characters served to criticize her.

The second group of essays examines the mythmaking of Elizabeth during the reign of James I, with her policies and persona serving as a stark point of comparison to her successor or as a point of instruction. Lisa Richardson's analysis of the works of Fulk Greville, in which Elizabeth serves as the paradigm of a good ruler—respecting the rights of Parliament, restrained in her use of prerogative—was meant to contrast with the ill-advised policies of James I. The work of John Hayward likewise presented Elizabeth, the goodly ruler, as a point of instruction for James's son. Teresa Grant explains why one of the most dreadful plays of the period was also one of the most popular and remained so well into the seventeenth century. Thomas Heywood's two part historical drama If You Know Not Me You Know Nobody presented the “sad story” of Elizabeth, reiterating many of the myths so well known today—Elizabeth at Tilbury rallying the troops, Elizabeth the Virgin Queen and Protestant champion, solidifying myths begun by Foxe and perpetuated for political and cultural ends.

Patrick Collinson examines the genesis of William Camden's history of Elizabeth, demonstrating that while it was commissioned by James I to restore the reputation of his mother, Mary Stuart, it became something much more. It was not due to Camden, however. He did not write a history of Glorianna; it was his English translators who embellished the work with the Glorianna myths that have been sustained to this day.

Alexandra Walsham examines the ways in which the mythology of Elizabeth, the providential monarch, continues to be maintained despite the overwhelming historical evidence to the contrary. What is known about Elizabeth's own religious views and the politics behind the 1559 settlement is not consistent with the myth. However, as Walsham convincingly argues, contemporary celebrations of Elizabeth as providential monarch were, like Foxe's Book of Martyrs, often veiled criticism of her failure to fulfill her providential destiny. Moreover, the events of the reign, from her recovery of smallpox to her excommunication by the pope and survival against dastardly plots, could be couched within a providential context and transform Elizabeth into Judith or Deborah—all of which solidified her position and power while simultaneously providing instruction by example.

The last group of essays analyzes the role of gender in creating and perpetuating certain myths about Elizabeth. Susan Doran's essay provides fresh insight into the cult of the Virgin Queen that previous historians have established. Doran, however, provides a nuanced and convincing argument against a singular view that a cult of the Virgin Queen was created. Examining portraits and symbols such as the rose and Phoenix, Doran provides a different interpretation of their meaning and usage, and she makes the case that rather than fashioning a cult of a Virgin Queen, the goal was to establish Elizabeth as a Protestant ruler. Doran's essay goes to the very heart of the collection's goals when she argues that if the cult of a Virgin Queen is demythologized, the Elizabeth that is so well “known” will be lost too, and that the very use of the word “cult” has contributed to a mythology that is removed from historical reality.

Two other essays are in this group; the one by Brett Usher challenges that the myth that Elizabeth the unmarried, unfulfilled woman was hostile to married clergy is likewise not grounded in historical reality and appears to be perpetuated for reasons of culture and historiography. Jason Scott-Warren's essay examines the gossip of John Harrington because it reveals the extent to which men gossiping about certain gender-related issues functioned as a means to address the disruption of the patriarchal order Elizabeth represented. For example, the myth that Elizabeth was constantly jealous of women in her household who married or dressed in greater finery than the queen was largely the result of stereotypes about female jealousy and backbiting.

The final essay by Thomas Betteridge addresses the Elizabeth of film, and though concentrating on three particular films, he also addresses other presentations of the queen to provide a compelling argument about gender stereotypes informing portrayals of Elizabeth. Betteridge contends that a woman's social roles in a given period are mirrored in film or television, such as was the case in the Elizabeth R series and the Mary, Queen of Scots film. Those portrayals of both Elizabeth and Mary mirrored issues being raised by the women's movement of the period, and the gender stereotypes that often resulted. Elizabeth was the career woman who suppressed her femininity while Mary Stuart was the feminine, love-struck queen whose feminine weaknesses lost her a kingdom and eventually her head. Indeed, the issue of comparisons between Mary Stuart and Elizabeth inform some of the most enduring myths of Elizabeth, those pertaining to gender expectations and stereotypes and the continued comparison of Mary Stuart and Elizabeth as representatives of those stereotypes.

Betteridge argues that in history and film there has been an inability to transcend the conflict between good ruler/bad woman, but perhaps an answer to that quandary may be found in current social tensions over gender roles. Because gender constructs continue to be problematic in our own society, it may be unrealistic to see an interpretation of Elizabeth that is able to move away from that. It seems, then, that Elizabeth's reputation is still held hostage to the myth, particularly myths grounded in gender constructs.