Anakena Year 8
International
School of Toulouse 2002
Historians disagree about the lives of married
women in the period 1500-1750. Some historians think that women had a hard
life, had to do a lot of labour, and were often brutally treated. However,
other historians think that married women had more freedom than people thought,
that they weren’t treated that badly, and that they did not always obey their
husbands.
Domestic
Conduct books and Advice Manuals can be used to support both interpretations.
One particular one was written Anthony Fitzherbert in 1523. It can be used to
support the first interpretation because it lists that women are supposed to
“sweep the house, set the table, put everything in the house in good order,
milk the cows, get the children up, dress them, make their husband’s breakfast,
dinner and supper, send corn to the mill, make butter and cheese, feed the pigs
and poultry. They must do this every single day. In March, a woman makes her
garden, makes sure that her garden is weeded, sows flax and hemp, and makes her
husband and herself clothes out of the wool she sheared off her husband’s
sheep. It is a wife’s job to winnow the grain, wash and wring the clothes, make
hay, reap corn, help her husband to fill the muck cart, drive the plough, load
hay and corn onto the carts, go to the market, sell the goods, and buy anything
needed for the house.” However there are some parts of the manual that support
the second interpretation. For example, it is written that, “the husband must
tell his wife how much he has spent, just as she must. Husband and wife will
not prosper if they are not honest to each other.”
The evidence from Pictures and Descriptions suggests that poor women may
have had more equality with men than rich women. Also, a letter from a Dutch
stranger in England in that era suggests that married women in England had more
freedom than in other countries (the 2nd Interpretation). Here is an
excerpt from his letter: “married women in England were a lot more free than in
Spain as they were not shut up, they could go to the market, they were
well-dressed, fond of taking it easy. […] They spent time walking, riding,
playing cards and visiting friends. […] That is why England is called the
paradise of women.”
I find that diaries support both interpretations. Here is some evidence
from Samuel Pepys’ diary that supports both interpretations: “I slept till
almost 7 o’clock. Some angry words with my wife about her neglecting to keep
the house clean, I calling her a “beggar” and she calling me a “prick-louse”.
To my office. Very merry and well pleased with my wife.
I was very angry and began to find fault with my wife for not commanding
the servants, as she ought. She giving me a cross answer, I did strike her over
her left eye such a blow as the poor wretch did cry out. But her spirit was
such that she scratched and bit me.
And so to home, and there finding my wife in a bad mood for not my
dining at home. I did give her a pull by the nose and left. She followed me in
a devilish manner, so I got her in the garden out of hearing (to avoid shame)
and managed to calm her. Then I walked with her in the garden, and so to
supper, pretty good friends and so to bed.”
The
first sentence of the diary, states that Pepys slept till almost 7 o’clock.
This means that men could sleep in but women could not because of all the work
they had to do (first interpretation). Then, it is written down that he called
her a “beggar” (1st interpretation), but she had the courage to
stand up to him and call him a “prick-louse” (2nd interpretation).
Because she gave him a cross answer when he reprimanded her for not ordering
the servants correctly, he stroke her over her left eye (1st
interpretation). But, once again, she stood up to him and scratched and bit him
(2nd interpretation).
Another diary we can borrow evidence
from, is Adam Eyre’s. This diary supports the 2nd interpretation
more than the 1st one. Here is proof:
“Adam was not very good with money and wanted to sell some of his wife’s
land to pay off his depts. She refused to hand it over.” The fact that his wife
wouldn’t hand over her land is interesting because the law stated that when a
woman got married, she had to hand over to her husband all the land she owned.
This supports the 2nd interpretation: women did sometimes stand up
to their husbands.
“Susan [Adam’s wife] swore at her husband when he stood on her sore foot. Adam said that he would not share a bed with her until she took more notice of him.” This piece of information supports both interpretations. The fact that Susan swore at her husband makes it seem as though she was equal to Adam (interpretation 2). But the fact that he wouldn’t let her sleep in their bed until she began to take more notice of him, clearly supports the first interpretation because it makes it seem as though men were highly superior to women and had the power to “ban” women from their bed.
“Adam stayed home all day because Susan would not let him go out and
play bowls.” This supports the 2nd interpretation because it means
that women sometimes held their husbands back from amusements because they
thought they (the women) were doing all the work.
Historians will always continue to disagree about the lives of married
women even if they are using the same sources because if Year 8 students of the
I.S.T. can find as many different views that support both interpretations in a
single source, than historians will most certainly be finding different views
all the time. Also, with so many little questions from personal diaries and so
on, we end up with very long, very hard-to-answer big questions, that may
remain un-answered forever…
Anakena Year 8