Coppi 202 oxi Uns oss USA- O80. Ati een, Beaneeg Creer NIREN Eee NRE MEET (Coos) Introduction IN May 1698 two Holborn women, Margaret Kingston and Katherine Alderidge, stood trial at the Old Bailey for the murder of one Ann Barker. ‘The prosecution alleged they had followed her to a public house where they kicked and beat her ro death, ‘saying, they would be revenged of her for picking Kingston's husband's pocket. The two women did not deny the assault, though an obliging surgeon saved them from the gallows by testifying that the victim had probably died from a diseased liver, eather than her injuries." Such an incident, though as rare in the seventeenth century as today, saises a multitude of questions that reach far beyond those addressed in the tril. Why had Margaret taken it on herself to avenge her husband’s wrongs, rather than leaving it to him or reporting the alleged thief to a constable? Why would a friend join in the auack? More generally, how can we reconcile such a brutal assault with the passive behaviour expected of women in a patriarchal society? The brief {tial eport provides no clues, butthis book will explore the wider context in which such an incident could occur. Ie will eck to unravel some of the complexities and contradictions in relations between men and women, and among women themselves, over the century and a half from the accession of Elizabeth in 1558 o the end of the Stuartline in 1714 England in this period was ‘patriarchal’ in the loose sense that its Politica, social, economic, religious, and cultural life was dominated by men. In almost every field women were subordinated, marginalized, or excluded, though many of these social arrangements rested on con- vention rather than law. There was no patriarchal stem, rather an inter locking set of beliefs, assumptions, traditions, and practices, and the largely informal character of patriarchy enabled each generation to adapt 4 to changing circumstances.? Male domination was so rooted in the culture that contemporaties found it almost impossible to imagine a society based on fundamentally different principles. Most contempor- aces, of both sexes, understandably accepted the assumptions on which 2 OB SP y-9 Mayr 5 2 Thebes gence stveyis Mendelson and Cefod, om on pararcy'sadapebiy sce laches, Ge on: rs heat tn See ee comment ase) tom wane on 261037 O85opr 200, crs Urey Pess USA O50. Ane sen 2 Introduction they had been raised, and very few escaped that cultural straitacket. Even. the most radical critics could think of no realistic means to effect change. Butif women did not challenge the patriarchal order, neither did they simply acceptit on its own terms. Anthony Fletcher has drawn attention to ‘a huge untold story of the contestedness of English patriarchy within the easly modem home’.’ This book sets out to tell something of that story, and to show how women mightinfluence their owa domestic lives and the affairs of theit neighbourhood, We will see how many found ways to limit, evade, ot accommodate male domination, both by their own efforts and by harnessing the support oftheir female fiends or ‘gossips. ‘The informal nature of patriarchal order could serve women’s interests as well as men’s, and enabled the resourceful to modify st least their own personal circumstances. This study focuses throughout on women the ‘middling and lower levels of society. The writings of women from the landed elites speak primacily oftheir own very diferent world, and are an unreliable guide to the lives of the silent and unlettered majority. Modem scholars have increasingly addressed the issue of women’s agency, which forms a central motif in the survey by Sara Mendelson and Patricia Crawford, Some have explored theit economic activities, while Amy Erickson has shown women fighting to protect their economic interests within matsiage, Others have investigated women's readiness to pursue their interests through legal means, whether suing over debts in local borough courts or tuming to the ecclesiastical courts to protect their good name." Studies of non-elite women face huge methodological problems, however, for we usually hear their voices only as mediated by court officials or other male contemporaries, ‘That exacerbates the problems facing any historian aspising to reach behind partial and partisan narratives to establish ‘what feally happened’, Many recent scholars have preferred to follow Natalie Davis in sing depositions to ‘econstruct cultural values rather than reliable natratives.® Depositions 2 Plc, Gnd 98. “ Nendelon and Cfor, Wa M. Pir, Women inthe Vib Economy: Oxon, 1500-1} in ead. 64), Wamer ing Sci 1b (1983); Ea, "The Fama Lab “Mackin London athe Late Seventeenth nd Eat Eighteenth Cenane?, ECHR saat, ($989) pt a P Sharpe (el), Wome’ Work Te Ens Express 996 P-Shagp ‘Lacey Spite A New lncerprention of Local economy and Demcpephy in Coron ia the Sevententh nd Tighceth Cente, EUR, and sera 592) AL Edeoon, es nd Propo in ary Matra Eland (1993), 25a pain, Mele Cea and the Cour Debi Lignin in aSevatsenth-Ceatry Urban Comeaniny, Ed, rode, 4 (995) hich ‘hows thatasmanya 15% of lint were women; Goving, Dims Degrs 2 N. Z, Dis Fit he Ari Par Tas od ht Tle Srl Cetr Fra (Cambridge, 987}: Gowing, Lynda Rope, and Garhine Walker ae amo ugscolar wha have pursued Davison, Cito 8S When Goss Meet: men, Fay, rd Naghboutnd in ay Mode Enc, {ite Uno Press USA~OS0, 708 PoQunrt bak Cera Meera cnet comtNatea acon ‘ete ton warn on ie 1057 O85,Introduction 3 ‘were invariably incomplete and often contradictory, and we can never assemble a comprehensive picture of incidents that occurred several centuries ago. Yet such records can offer far more than ‘fiction ia the archives’, and in the legal disputes used for this book we often have a battery of depositions by neighbours from which to establish at least a core of agreed fact, I would like to focus attention once mote on social behaviour as well as representations and values, to ask how ordinary ‘women acted in a varity of situations, what they hoped to achieve, and how far they succeeded. ‘THE PATRIARCHAL EDIFICE ‘The intellectual and structural foundations of male domination have been analysed fully elsewhere, and only a brief summary is needed here Scripture provided the frst and most important ideological prop. God had created Eve (Woman) as companion and helpmeet for Adam (Man), making the principle of female subordination an integral part of| the Creation story, The preacher Mattkew Griffith urged women to remember that Eve had been created from Adam’s side, nothis brain, and ‘warned them not to behave ‘as if you had wisdom and discretion enough. of yourselves" The Creation story was reinforced by the associated myth, of the Fall, which told how Eve's mora weakness had led Adam to disobey God, plunging the human race into sin, misery, and mortality. ‘Many other texts confirmed that female subordination was ordained by God, a message developed by the New Testament epistles of St Paul and St Peter. St Peter stressed the continuity berween Judaic and Christian teaching, urging wives to be subject to their husbands, ‘even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters yeare’ (1 Pet. 5:1). For Christians as for Jews, Adam represented the fallen state of all ‘mankind, and Eve symbolized all women. The puritan minister John Brinsley could remark as a truism in 1645 that women were ‘naturally more prone to be deceived and misled’, and asked rhetorically, “How many of Eve's daughters do we daily here see following their mother?” Another puritan, Daniel Rogers, told his female readers bluntly, ‘Remember, thy sex is crazy, ever since Eve sinned." The allegorical ‘martiage between Christ and his Church offered a rather more positive image, but again signalled female inferiority. For in every well-ordered capri ©2008, Ostet Unvesy Press USA O50, Ae ested § SeeMendeloon and Cnford, Wome; letces, Gedn.ch, 4 Aanssen, Onkr Siy. 1 MGaiih, Blo «Forme fr Fai0635), 144 * J-Brinles, A Lookin Gls for Gand Womens), SD. Rogers, Marmol Foor (1642), Cope, 8.S. When Gossips Mee: onan, Fan, a Nghboutted Ea Maton Enyce, or unieraty Press USA. O50, 200, aquest Ebook Cent, Mo abort pegs cone 2007 Cesta fom tron ne 30 6s4 Introduction family, according to the puritan preacher William Gouge, ‘an husband catticth a resemblance of Christ, and is after manner a Saviour’, exploy- ing his superior reason, moral judgement, and strength to ‘redeem his wife from the consequences ofher frailty.” Female subordination was also thought to reflect the natural orler, a second powerful prop, The principle of hierarchy and orderheld a central place in medieval and early modem culture, with equality, especially equality of the sexes, viewed as unnatural. Medical science derived from the Greeks taughe that men were physiologically different from wemen, and superior. The clements composing the humaa body were combined differently in each sex, with women’s predominantly moist and cold con- stitution rendering them itrational, emotional, impulsive, and serually ‘rapacious. St Paul's description of women as ‘the weaker vessel, parase frequently invoked, was endorsed by a medical science which depicted women as physically, intellectually, and morally inferior. Biology also confitmed the biblical view that women’s bodies were designed for the primary function of bearing children. The pain women suffered in child- bearing, said the minister William Thomas, is theit proper way to Heaven; for that’s the work which God hath committed them to do! !Ie ‘could also be viewed as punishment for Eve's sin, and for many centuries European culture regarded childbirth, and women’s sexual organs and functions more generally, as in some way shameful and unclean."! ‘Women were thus thought to embody base passions and attributes that threatened man’s higher nature, Even their everyday speech and gestures betrayed a vulgatity which might subvert the order and decorum of civilized, male society. A writer on the att of polite conversation remarked in 1683 that women ‘are generally an unthinking som of ‘creatures, and scarce teflexive on what they say, being overruled by heit passions’, warning readers that ‘to laugh as women do sometimes, with their hands on both sides, and with a lascivious agitation of theie whole body, is the height of indecency and immodesty’." In the eighteenth ‘century writers came to believe that women embodied a natural modesty and refinement, but earlier commentators associated them with a raw Nature which posed a constant threat to male civility and culture.? Third, the patriarchal mindset recognized a close link between 1 3 Gouge, Of Dama Date(s), 36D. Cawdey, Retin Proms (1636) 18 " W. Thomas, Cin and Con Col), A "Seve, P Cea Atdes to Mensrion in Seventeenth Centay England’, Patand Prom st 98 DA Tek eC niga ale oh ly nd Cio se 669.14 37. 2 CEU. Rablah, Te Cin of We it Zar Mado Germany (Oxford, 3999), 13-14 ‘ino. when Goss ere. Fan ot Neonode Ege creat ney Pes USA “03028 Peduest honk Comal, psc eae combat Ceprote 2003 cnr Uersy Pets USA-OSO. A ges serieCony ©2000. OxerdUnveraty Prss USA-O50, A is een Inoraductin 5 domestic and political order. Adam, the frst father and first magistrate, had ruled with a natural and divine authority, answerable only to God. ‘The parallel between royal and domestic authosity was stressed in most ‘writings on the fumily. ‘A houschold is asit were alte commonwealth,’ explained Dod and Cleaver in one of the most influential of the domestic ‘conduct-books popula in the period. No man could be fit to bear public office unless he slready knew how to govern his family. A husband was “the prince of thehousehold, the domestical king? said William Whately Domestic theorists were thusable to clothe fathers with something of the sacred majesty of kingship, making dissent by their wives, children, or servants akin to treason, Political theorists, for their part, could link royal authority to a form of government that was familia to all and accepted as natural, The association gave powerful reinforcement to authority at every level, combining domestic, national, and even divine sovereignty in a comprchentive and coherent system of order.'* Robert Pricke explained in 1609 that God himself was ‘a most wise and holy house- holder’, who had perceived mankind’s innate dislike of authority and therefore ‘set upon all superiors the sweet and amiable name of Father and Mother’ to make it more acceptable. Like most commentators, Pricke stressed that the fifth commandment, requiting obedience to one’s father and mother, covered all those in authority, from prince to schoolteacher.* The patallels surfaced again in the popular image of the ‘body politic’, in which both king and father appeated as the head, with their subjects or families as limbs. Daniel Rogers's comment that “Two heads in a family confound all’ would have been seen as a truism; a two- headed creature was clealya freak of nature. ‘The law provided a fourth prop for male superiority, both in principle and practice. A man’s word catried more weight than a woman's in any court heating, and the word ‘testimony’ was indeed detived from testis, ‘The gendered character of the law was further illustrated in the treatment of rape cases. Lozd Chief justice Hale explained that a husband who discovered another man raping his wife was entitled to kill him on the spot, ‘x difnda’—in selfcdefence. The husband not only ‘owned his wife's sexuality, he could, in this situation, regard their two bodies as. ne." Yet in any tial for rape it was notoriously difficult to secure a con- vietion. If there was no evidence except the bare word of the alleged J. Dod and R. eaves A Gal Forme of Howld Grommet (061) i. Ay, 8 LW. Whacey Bridbth Ore Dino fr Mariel Pras (1639) 204; Rogers, Maton Flor, 98 Amuse, Orie Sach RPh, Te Dus got ado biti (iB ° Rogers Marino Hm 270. ™ SieMatthew Hale, soe Ptoram Creat (036) 48. Cav 8. When Gossips Mut: Yen, Fata taghteuact nary Woden Erland, eto univers ess USA O50, 200 Pune Ea Car Mp toeroe peut cambvaneetsl acon? ‘retatom nanran 2 103708237,Cepyren© 2003 rs nhery Pets USA-O50. A ts een 6 Insrodction victim, the widespread prejudice that women were untrustworthy, libidinous, and swayed by passions such as malice and revenge, tipped the scales heavily against her. Ina still more extreme manifestation of the legal culture, a man who killed his wife would be hanged for murder, whereas a wife who murdered her husband was burned for petty treason. ‘The law itself thus enshrined the principle thatthe husband was a king ‘within his household.” Far more importane in everyday life was a man’s, legal sight to dispose of his wife's money and moveable property without her consent or even knowledge. The law also treated widowers far more generously than widows; widower had a fe interest in the whole of his wife's property, whereas a widow was entitled to only a thitd of her husband's, ot half f there were no children, and usually forfeited this if she remartied." There were, admittedly, occasions when the law could work to the woman’s advantage. If a husband and wife committed burglary together, for example, the man would be hanged for felony while his wife would be judged not legally responsible, the law assuming she had simply obeyed his orders. But even these benefits served as reminders of female subordination, and contemporaties recognized that the law functioned to uphold male interests.” Finally, history, custom, and language reinforced the intellectual and {egal foundations of patriarchy. For most people, female subordination ‘was something imbibed from infancy, not a concept to be scrutinized. Children grew up in a society which accepted hizrarchy as a universal Principle of nature, with gender perceived as an integral part. Most people absorbed social conventions from their parents, masters, and preachers, process of social osmosis reinforced by the jokes they heard and the harassment they saw directed at nonconformists. Those born ‘with an independent ot rebellious spitie could find no mode in history or any other European society to suggest that any different pattem of gender relations could be legitimate or practicable. Indeed, proverbial wisdom held that England was already ‘the paradise of women’, and that if a bridge were ever to be constructed over the Channel, Continental women ‘would rush across it. The preacher Zachary Crofton judged it ‘the glory of England, that their women are not so servlely submisse as the * Onrapesee Ch, 6 below, © Hale, Haig 377, ® Esicaon, Wn ad Prporys T Siecoa, Wom Waging Law in Dieesban Eagond (Cambridge, g58,ch and passin ® M.Dalton, Th Caney Jute (677), 37: Hie, Fini 4,536: . Chambly, Ale Nott te Prt Sate of Eland (6) 432, Foe examples ee OBSP 2-1, ps, OBS 1-18 Mey 1 35 OBSPr=1 Juv, 2; OBSP 1017 Dre ne, OBSP 69 De 199, (ETE, ZoeLawes Racltionof Wane Rig (632) pai cep 8.8. vben Gorse et Women, Fay, a Noun in Esty oder Engle tr ner Pes Uso, 203. Pues Eon Ceres hipaa equ conNbeet ens contd vom anon 2163037 028057"Cong © 2003. Oxted Univers Pres USA O50. Ais ened Introduction 1 French’ Women in England were certainly better off than in most of southern or eastern Europe, as some educated women themselves acknowledged. But for Crofton, and most contemporaries, che proverb probably served to reassure men that any complaints were by definition absurd. If English women already enjoyed unparalleled freedoms, how could they have any legitimate grievances? A multitude of other proverbs and aphorisms repeated the message of women’sinferiority, making theic Subordination appear both natural and necessary. Traditional wisdom held it was foolish to be moved by a woman’s teas, as by Seeing a goose barefoot: both signified nothing, and the analogy hinted thae women ‘were as irrational as dumb animals and bieds.* Patterns of language thus reinforced social attitudes, which in turn shaped language itself, so that we find negative concepts acquiring female associations and vice versa ‘The word ‘gossip’, for example, originally meaning a godparent of ether sex, gradualy lost its value-free character and took on predominantly negative and female connotations.* Similaly, though ‘shrews’ could be spitefi, waspish persons of either sex, and both sexes might ‘scold’, both. terms were overwhelmingly applied to women. ‘The most elaborate expositions of the patsiacchal order can be found in th homily ‘Of the State of Matrimony’ and in domestic conduct-books sping “Out the reciprocal duties of husbands, wives, children, and servants, and addressing problems readers might encounter in daily life.” 2 Chambeayae, PretStt 65, 43205: T. Deter and). Webster, Wit wri He (16-7), To Drona Woks of Times Dba oF. Bowers (Cambie, x93 336, W. Rye, Eon Se by Farin (163) 7-8, 14,73, 99:2. Coon, Baten Coed 633), 195 2 Bugeain Ze Fema Abate A Partha Libr of be Ted Sexs00), 32 Wome's ‘eq posion ws in fir bererin sme parts of Europe: Lschson, Wane at Pfr, ays and sources there ced 2B Rich The Hons of this Ay 64) ed P-Coaningham (149), pti DN. FigarafSie (1652) it BY E-Ravenserf, Thr Carb Tal [6] 0 ES. Heny (8%), 286; lather (Gen, 70-4; Mendelion nd Crveford, Winey, 6-5, ° See Osfnd Engh Diciary asr9 en), ‘gop * For le shrew se, Deke, Phy Ratna 6) in Pt Now Dramatic Wrks RB. Melero iv (963), 264 for male cede eclding see og RH. Helio (ed), Slat Gene o= Denton (een Soc, 198), 25,8. H. Bae (04), The Save Quart Sae, alii 19195193), 2965 GE, MB 9064/15. gi LRO, 1D 43/14/6204, Ginn or Hl: iin bead arsine Ti of en gab (831), 534-49-On conduct bock se A. Fechet, The Protestant ea Mateiage in Beh Modo England, ini, and P.R Robers (Cds), Ro, Cali end Sayin Bary Moon Brin (Caibsie, 994 letces, ay, ch, 1; Amussen, Ord Sith ch 2: M. Davos, Ca ‘sui and Change in Literary Advice on Masa’ RB, uth (ed) Marg ond iy Shs ie Sil sory of Mari (Camis, $81); Alison Wal, Par en Patt ie Bg! ‘ys-s6p (2022) ch 5, A Shepa, Meanings of Manhood in Katy Modern England, ith special reference wo Cambri, 160-164" [PhD University of Cambridge, 1998, intod, and eh 6 tp, B.5 When Gass Met Wm, Fay, ard Ngtthootin Eat Maden ngand, Loxordunieraty Presi “030, 2003 Produ Eomk Ca, Hen tooscete pes sector occ ote te request conan actor8 Iniradetion Most writers were aware that patriarchal theory might be challenged at several points. Many acknowledged, for example, that some wives were superior to their husbands morally, intellectually, and spiritually. Dod and Cleaver conceded, remarkably, that ‘if at this day, a due survey should be taken of all men and women, throughout his Majesty’s dominions, there would be found in number, moe {more] women that ate faithful, religious, and virtuous than men’.* But patriarchal theory easily accom- ‘modated such contradictions, insisting that wives must obey bad husbands justas subjects must obey bad kings. Arguments based on indi- ‘vidual metit were judged irrelevant in the context of divine authority, for 10 grant equality to a woman, however capable and virtuous, would flout God's own decree. ‘Without question itis sin fora man to come lower, than God hath set him’, thundered the preacher William Whately. ‘Ie is not humility, but baseness, to be ruled by her, whom he should rule.” Richard Baxter made the same point in more measured language: ‘God hath said in his law, the husband shall rule the wifes... Andif she should agree with him not to rule her, it were ipo facto null’ Tt would transgress the law of nature too, for a wife governing her husband was both ‘monstrous and unnatural.” Writers agreed that family and state alike rested on fundamental principles of order, and that disobedience in either spelled anarchy and confusion. You know that the frst government that ‘ever was in this world was in a family,’ Robert Abbott declared in 1653, “and the first disorder that ever was n the world was ina family;and all the disorders that ever fell out since, sprung from families. Defenders of patriarchy could thus deploy arguments from Scripture, nature, reason, and history, and repel an assault on one part ofits foundations by forces drawn from other parts of the citadel. As Mendelson and Crawford remark, ‘the aggregate effect ofthe whole system of discourses was more than the sum ofits pars’? Patriarchal principles, ubiquitous at every social and cultural level, naturally helped to determine the roles seen as appropriate for each sex. Writers and preachers insisted that women should be confined to the private, domestic sphere. ‘God hath made the man to travail abroad, and the woman to keep home’, explained the influential Elizabethan preacher Henry Smith. ‘God hath appointed their station to them Copy © 2003, td Ursy Pest USA-080, A his send 2% Dod and Cleave, lh Form Py > Whately, rides, 9; Rogers, Marinoni! Hon, 258-62; R. Baste, A Hay Commo it [65] e W.M. Lamont (Cambie, 1594, 14-16; Pike, Dai Saints of ]S A Bef Antone Wan (3655). * Roger, Marimoil Homa, 270; Abou, A Clrnion Fai Buiel by Ga (63), ig ‘Ag; Mendelson and Censfoed, Pane ‘tno 8.5, When Gersos Meat: omer, Fay, re Natound in Ea Mae Eagar rtd Univer Press USA O50, 208 Peres coat Cara Meo pues contrat acters ‘rote om we on 20884047 094257ong 2000. oxo Uns Pres USA O80. At gs eer Introdeton 9 both, the one, without, the other within echoed Daniel Rogers." The ‘woman's tole was to manage the household, look after the children, and oversee her maids, Her entite life should revolve around the home. Some contemporaties compared the good housewife to a snail or tortoise, images derived from the ancient world and reflecting the fact that both ‘were literally inseparable from their homes. The snail was afiting model, one writer remarked, ‘because she carries her house upon her back, to show where her mind and ordinary abode must be'—a gloss that subtly delimited women’s mental as well as physical sphere.” Writers and preachers condemned those who preferred to ‘gad abroad? as idle, slovenly, or worse. “The wise man maketh such gadding abroad a note of ‘light and lewd housewife,’ Thomas Gataker warned in 1657.9 The effects of these entrenched attitudes are manifest at every tue. ‘Women played no formal partin public affuirs, whatever influence some ‘might wield kehind the scenes. Sit Thomas Smith, discussing “he persons of the commonwealth’ in 1583, remarked: ‘we do reject women, as those ‘whom nature hath made to keep home and to nourish theie family and children, and not to medalle with matters abroad, not to beat office in a city or commonwealth no more than children and infants. Women ‘were barred ftom office in both central and local government, and from voting. Typicily, this exclusion rested on convention and propriety, not law. Technicclly a spinstet or widow with freehold land was eligible to vote in patliamentaty elections, but the few who tried to exercise their right were strongly discouraged." The only significant exception was the ability of women to inherit the English throne, an anomaly which conitemporaties agreed had no bearing on any other aspect of gender relations. Women were also excluded from any formal role in the Church, ‘ marginalization reinforced by the suppression of nunneties after the Reformation. They were barred from higher education, played no role in the legal profession, aad were kept firmly on the margins of the medical Profession, working mainly as nurses and midwives. ‘Though some 2 H.Soith Ppt Mais (91), 33: Rogers, Matrimonial How, 198 Taeiderii- ‘ation female sspecailiy wih anexchavely domes phere soften seabed the ate ‘Mthorevenithentuy, bat the anguments were fais pneratons eae, 2% aon, Crian Fam 75 RBeitroite, Tie Deion of Good We (068, iB ‘T.Gataee, Merige Dinos ii ech tin Cae Soman (137), Gi, tt Form fi Fas (65). Aetording 0 Wii Scher, the Grescars Ping ld dwn an cstematic woman Sting unders tal hel Secs Wedge Pr pe Fingr538, 36. * Gates, Mags Dinctions95 Abbot, Chinn Fon, 2; Rages Manoa Hoar, 2 Sie Thomas Suit, De pubis Anglo M. Deva Cambs, 98), ® Mendekow std Crxwfort, Wom 396-7. ipo 8 Swen Goss Met: sme, Fal. Neto Ey Modo Egan. of ntersy rec 8 G50, 2003, Prue Ebook Coal ha abort pegs Counsel acon ‘Geatedtom yasw oni esseopp 2009, Ot Uersty Poss USA-OS0. A gt sere 10 Intradtion practised informally as physicians or bone-setters, they encountered increasing hostility ftom male practitioners. Women’s position in eco- ‘nomic life was similarly marginal. As conditions worsened in the sixteenth century, they were increasingly excluded by guild regulations from trading independently, except as widows. Girls could still serve apprenticeships, but few were able to pursue their craft independently thereafter. If some opportunities remained open, mainly in retail and victualing, of as miliners, i is clear thae women were fitmly excluded from the most important and profitable sectors ofthe economy. To modern readers, this sketch of the gender order in eatly modern England will suggest a tegime deeply misogynistic, the product of male ‘contempt, feac, and self interest packaged as principle. The social order undoubtedly servedmale interests, but most writers balanced their assex- tion of patriarchal authotity with a vigorous denunciation of domestic tyranny, condemned by Gouge as ‘heathenish, and sottish arrogancy’.” ‘They stressed that men had duties as well as rights, and urged the impor tance of love, care, and mutual forbearance. The Bible taught chat husbands and wives were one flesh, and most writers sought to promote 1 loving, companiorate relationship. ‘Husbands and wives should be as ‘wo sweet friends,’ Danie! Rogers insisted. A man should seek his wife’s advice and consent on all family matters, and not demand more than she could readily concece, Gouge memorably summed up the proper exer- cise of a husband's authority as‘A forbearing to exact more than his wife §s willing to do, or to force her to dwell where itis not mect, of to enjoin her to do things unmect in themselves, or against er mind. "That was a significant concession, and by no means unusual. Another guide, ‘Thomas Hilder, peed, ‘et me beseech thee that arta husband, that all the commands thou dost lay upon thy wife may be in the nature of requests and entreaties’ As we will se, most writers condemned the use of violence by husbends as shameful. Men and women should exercise mutual restraint. ‘Husbands must hold their hands and wives theie tongues,’ Henry Smith directed in 391, typical view.” % These sn fll modien account, bu ee A. Clas, Working Lif f Wren nb Sent {Gat sea, with nc. by. Le Beckson (1993); L- Dain aL. Chats es), ame snd Work sn Predndtiat Erland (1985; Sharpe, Wone's Wr, Meadelion and Cevsford, Wasa, cb, Petcher, Ged 13 Cte Sms Fie, 531-93 Gog, Of Dm Dt, 38, Regs, Metin Hoses 35 * Roges, Marini Hon, 00; Gouge, Of Doitall Dt able of eonteos eis (anys): Hides, Cg Canal Seasonal Adin, oth Unmaid and Marie Parse 0653) 104 7 HLSmith, Prparatie i, s0eCh. 2, below. ‘Cero 8S. Wen Goss Mee: Wane, Fant, and Nlgbautod in Ey adr Eagle Grey Pes USA 050, 2908 Prague ook Cantal ip nonce pegs conta sce ‘role tam wancan 20 iP a7 08-257Introduction n Commentators stressed too that husbands and wives cach had their particular responsibilities, and should not trespass beyond them. For ‘women, that promised at least some autonomy within the home. Daniel Rogers condemned ‘foppish husbands’ who meddled in the affairs of kitchen and dairy, ‘a if they would have an oat in cach boat’, and fully understood their wives’ icttation. ‘What wise woman would not break: into a mixed passion of fulsome indignation and contempt? he demanded Most conduct-books were waitten by ministers with pastoral experience and responsibilities, and their exhortations for husbands to be loving and considerate, echoing New Testament teach- ings, helped to soften the stress on male authority. At the same time, their primary aim was always to secure male authority, not compromise it. ‘They sought to define patriarchy in terms that would render it effective 4s well a8 harmonious and fair. Judith Bennett has argued that com- Panionate massiage depended entirely on the husband's goodwill, and ‘was at best ‘voluntary egalitarianism shadowed by inequality’ ‘The impact of the conduct-books is far harder to assess. Many were substantial and relatively expensive works, aimed primasily at pro- fessional men, gentlemen, and prosperous taadesmen who would already share most of theie values, But we also find Nehemiah Wallington, a Young and fairly impecunious turner, buying a copy of Gouge’ weighty guide when he martied, and occasionally we catch a glimpse of how well the arguments could be absorbed. Robert Burnam, a London chandler enraged when his wife refused to live with him, declared that ‘a wife tebelling against her husband doth rebel against God, against the law of God, against the Lord Jesus, and against the church of Christ. The patriarchal message, moreover, did not depend solely or even primatily ‘on conduct-books for its dissemination. Many, like Gouge’s, had originated inthe pulpit, and a stream of unpublished sermons spread very Similar ideas, while the homily ‘Of Matrimony’, read from pulpits across the country and probably reaching larger audience than all the conduct. books put together, contained all their centel ideas. A variety of shortet Printed works repeated their message. Daniel Cawdrey offered his Reformation Promoted as a condensed version of Gouge's tome, with the author's blessing, for readers who could not afford the original? The ‘message was further seinforced by cheap ballads and chapbooks which { Rogers, Marinoni Homa. EM Benner, Medieval Women, Modeen Women: Acco che Geet Dive’ ia D. ess (Calo istry sot Enc Em Comanie, mt and Write 9983 SB. Seaver, Wali Walt Paitin a Seth Catry Lon Ct). 9; 2 Buena, Remson, ra Newstd Vindaston (1643), 19 © Cowes, Ryrmation Pot 66), Ay i, 8 Wen Gs Ment: We, apy. Nltbouaed Eat Mose Eagan Syesuriny ss Uo, 20 Pedus Conk Cer, hp ihc east cones on? cra fom enon Sub 17a es ‘eau Cope © 202. cord Urry Press USA 050A its eonhb Insroduation disseminated in simple tetms the traditional picture of male and female character, and the responsibilities proper to each sex. Many of the assumptions and arguments found in such writings were derived from ‘more scholarly works. Thus Zhe Virtous Wf, published in 1667, set out hher qualities in terms familiar from the conduet-books, and probably lifeed from them, Ilustrated with two erude woodcuts, it probably sold for only 2d. ot 3d, and was clearly targeted at a humble audience. Similarly, two companion pieces by the balladeer Marin Parker, Hold yur bands, bnwst Mon and Keep a Goad Tongue in your Head, summed up tradi- tional advice on the proper behaviour and roles of men and women respectively. As Parker's titles indicate, even popular fare might try t0 balance the gospel of male authority with support for companionate ‘mattiage and the recognition of mutual responsibilities and separate roles, within the household. Balladeers found a steady market for humorous accounts of the disasters that followed whenever men and women strayed outside their proper spheres. It is clear that patriarchal ideas and values were absorbed by most of the population, But it may well be that many men absorbed their authoritarian thrust while ignoring the qualifications on which preachers also insisted. The homily ‘Of Matrimony? itself lamented that ‘the common sort of men’ regarded moderation in domestic relations as ‘womanish cowardice’, and saw it as ‘a man’s part to fume in anger, to fight with fstand staf?” Much of the popular printed fare offered a crude if ocular misogyny instead of a measured patriarchal message. One early piece, The Sole House of Wore, depicted them as garrulous, deceitful, lust ful, idle, and power-hungry, adding some humorous twists to traditional arguments. In its flippant version of the Ceeation mrth, a dog runs off with the bone God has just removed from Adam’s side, forcing hit to fashion Eve from the dog's rib instead—which ‘explained’ why women ‘were always bawling and barking at men over trfles. The degrading and ‘animalistic associations of this jest found parallels in othet popular lore, such as the proverbial wisdom that Where many geese be, be many turds, ‘And where be women, be many words A humorous chapbook lumped ‘wanton maids’ with monkeys and apes as symbols of lechery, while promiscuous women were frequently env © 200, ox Uns Pras USA O80. Ais ose. L Psice, he Vita I (63. © Resa 256-48 Mendelson and Creond, Wome, 295-6, 256, © Cesena 957 op, 8S. When Gens Moet: Women Fant, nd Neghutans Esty Maden Eglin, connor Unis Pres USA “S000, ProQuest Est Cen ponalceta equest comwaaleta actorsIntroduction 5B derided as ‘salt itches" Other balladeers and hack poets fed traditional prejudices by depicting girls and young women as always desperate for sex. In The Maids Complaint for ibe mant ofa di doul [ila a inl of 16 offers all her money to any young man willing to relieve her sexual frustration, while another ballad shows a bold country wench making advances to a young tailor, only to decide that his ‘yard’ is too short, and send him pack- ing. The author of a4 Strange Wender or a Wonder in a Woman (1642) summed up popular misogynystic thinking by declaring that while afew ‘women mightbe angelic, among‘many thousands....you shall scarce find ‘one that is not guilty of one abominable erime or another. The wouter” trailed in his tide was to find virtue in any woman. Pamphleteers like scholars disposed of the ‘problem’ of good women by dismissing chem as too rare to be of any general significance. This misogyny was often reflected too in the spoken language of the age. Anthony Fletcher has documented the aggressive and frequendy demeaning terminology which men atall levels of society used to describe the sexual act itselé*" And if wife-beating was condemned from the pulpit, it was often encouraged by proverbs, jests, and ballads, many of which recommendeditas the only means to subdue a disobedient spouse. “Teach her manners with a crabtree cudgel’, one pamphleteer advised the henpecked husband in 1671." A cavalier newspaper recounted with glee the old story ofa drunkatd who beathis scolding wife and broke her arm. Asked why he had paid the bone-setter double the fee requested, he