Released with Early Modern England Encyclopedia 1.0a
Unless otherwise noted, intellectual copyright in EMEE Anthology pages is held by
Early Modern England Encyclopedia
By Kate McPherson, inspired by
Encoded in TEI P5 according to the LEMDO Customization and Encoding Guidelines
This document uses Canadian English spelling
In early modern England, women’s subordinate status was based on religious concepts of gender hierarchy. God’s punishment of Eve in Genesis 3:16 is stated as
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly increase thy sorrows and thy conception; in sorrow shalt though bring forth children; and thy desire shall be subject to thine husband and he shall rule over thee.
To reinforce this hierarchy, Anglican priests read
Ye women, submit your selves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the wife's head, even as Christ is the head of the Church, and he is the saviour of the whole body. Therefore as the Church in congregation is subject unto Christ: so likewise let the wives be in subjection unto their own husbands in all things.
In English common law, married women were considered man and wife are one flesh
. A wife could not usually own property in her own name or make legal contracts of any kind without her husband’s permission. Occasional cases exist that indicate women sometimes inherited property, brought court cases, and controlled business interests separately from their spouse.
Unmarried women, including widows, were considered
Young, unmarried women would not have had financial freedom, as their father, brother, uncle or other guardian would have controlled any property or funds on their behalf, as well as selected a suitable husband and negotiated a marriage contract. Heiresses who had inherited substantial money or estates were highly sought-after as marriage partners—but their property likely passed to the husband once married.
A marriage contract, particularly for anyone with property, would have included stipulations for a dowry, an amount of property, money, or goods provided to the intended husband by the bride’s family. In return, the husband would provide a jointure: a sum of money or property guaranteed to his widow. A widow would not automatically inherit her husband’s estate (houses or land were likely entailed to eligible male heirs) or necessarily expect to be named as guardian to their children.
As Tranio says regarding his eligibility as a husband in
(2.1.373–379)I am my father’s heir and only son; If I may have your daughter to my wife, I’ll leave her houses three or four as good Within rich Pisa’s walls as any one Old Signior Gremio has in Padua; Besides two thousand ducats by the year Of fruitful land, all which shall be her jointure.
A husband was expected to regulate his wife’s behavior and spending. Social and religious conventions dictated that women needed someone to look after them and curb their unruly tendencies through appropriate chastisement. However, this expectation of household government did not mean that the husband was allowed to be a tyrant or to abuse his wife (although abuse certainly did occur, then as now). Husbands were expected to provide and care for their wives, love her according to Christian principles, and support their children. Abusive men could be prosecuted or separated from their wives. Although English law did not sanction divorce, couples could live separately or have the marriage annulled, a difficult process that erased the marriage’s legal and ecclesiastical status.
A wife did have some authority within her home. She was expected to manage the household, supervise any children’s basic education and spiritual welfare, and to train and regulate any servants. She was expected to be an helpmeet
(Genesis 2:18) to her husband, meaning a fitting supporter of the household’s endeavors. If the number of sermons and pamphlets about keeping women quiet or subordinate is any indication, English women of the period were vocal partners in their marriages, despite the many pressures of female subordination in the period.