A Woman’s life

By Ben Y8 History 2002

It is hard to ever be sure about history when historians can disagree when using the same evidence. It is particularly hard to find out about married women from 1500-1750 because they could rarely write; they often died young in childbirth and could not be hired for a job. Historians therefore have very different interpretations of facts so they can back up there own theories. Some historians think married women in the middling sort from 1500-1750 had a difficult life obeying the husbands that often beat them. Once a wife you were not free to do as you wished, instead you had to stay at home and look after the children and the husband. Other historians believe women had quite a bit of freedom to do different jobs outside the house. Women were considered to be equal partners with their husband and were treated well although they often did not obey their husbands.

Domestic conduct books and advice manuals are things written to tell married couples how to behave, historians use them to try and interpret what happened. Because it is so hard to find out about married women historians have to use sources like these however unreliable and not entirely to the point. These books and leaflets were often more supportive of our first interpretation as they were written by men, so they gave a lot of information like “men should have power over their wives”. “Good wives should be patient, loving, sweet, kind and obedient.” Men are stronger and wiser than women”. Wives should respect their husbands.” Women should sweep the house; set the table, milk the cows, make your husbands meals, and make butter and cheese.” This information is apparently supporting interpretation one. However as the manuals were telling people to do things it could mean wives did not do these things. The leaflets were written for women to read and women would not read them if there was nothing positive for them to read. So other advice was also written like “Men should look after their wives.” “Men should take advice from their wives.” Men should respect their wives.” A woman should send corn to the mill.” “Husbands should be honest with wives.” The picture on the front cover shows women working in the house although these could be servants. I think these books mainly support the first interpretation although all of the points can be used to back up the second interpretation.

Looking at pictures and descriptions by foreigners. Descriptions by foreigners are very good pieces of evidence to use because they don’t lie and also they truthfully compare it to their own country. Most evidence backs up the second interpretation because the evidence that backs up the first can also be used to back up the second “The husband has been drinking beer whilst looking after his baby.” The husband looked after the baby means he does some of his wife’s jobs but he drank whilst doing it so it backs up both interpretations. ”Men are not supposed to let their wives hit them.” The wife actually hit the husband. Also there is evidence that backs up the second interpretation without backing up the first interpretation “The wife hits the husband.” “Wives in England are entirely in charge.” “Wives are well dressed.” “Wives spend time walking, playing cards, visiting friends and riding.” “England is the paradise of married women.” I think these pieces of evidence back up interpretation two completely.

Diaries are quite reliable resources although men only write them so you only get one side of the relationship often. Here is some evidence from some reasonably un-bias entries. “I woke up late and called my wife a beggar for not doing the house work.” “I came home for my dinner made by my wife” “I hit my wife because she had not organised the housework properly” “My wife was angry so I pulled upon her nose.” “His wife said she would obey him.” Some of these pieces of advice show husbands telling their wife’s off for not doing something but if the wife did not do it, it can back up the other interpretation. Here are pieces of evidence from diaries supporting interpretation two “My wife called me a prick louse.” “My wife’s spirit such that she scratched and bit me.” “Adams wife refused to wear what he wanted her to.” “His wife stopped him going out.” “Adam said he would be a good husband.” These clearly support interpretation two showing that the wives can hurt their husbands and not allow them to do things. I think most evidence from the diaries supports interpretation two but that is my opinion.

Other historians have found out general information like; about one in ten marriages ended up with a husband running away from his wife and children. The law says that as soon a woman got married anything she owned belonged to her husband. For most of the period 1500-1750 diaries tell us that married women spent their time at home, looking after children, cooking, fetching water, washing clothes and spinning. This shows evidence to back up interpretation one. But there is also evidence to back up interpretation two; Pictures sometimes show women carrying corn, shearing sheep, thatching, spreading manure, and breaking stones for road repair. Men were sometimes taken to court for beating their wives. When a husband wrote a will he usually left everything to his wife. Diaries and letters show that many husbands and wives missed each other when they were apart. Women often were very successful widows once their husbands had left them their business. This shows information backing up interpretation two. I think these mainly back up interpretation one even though there are more points for the interpretation two.

Historians will continue to disagree about married women from 1500-1750 because we have only looked at a bit of evidence and managed to think of ways they can serve two interpretations. Also I have only looked at the middling sort and the lower sort and Gentry are bound to be very different and every couple is likely to be different so it is almost impossible to agree with any interpretation but I think that just over half of wives fitted into the second interpretation better, but I think if there was a midway interpretation that would be more general even more wives from 1500-1750 would fit in.