Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T04:05:53.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Male Honour, Social Control and Wife Beating in Late Stuart England1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

Elizabeth Foyster
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In seventeenth-century England honour was a concept which had meaning for men in the private or domestic spheres as well as in the public spheres of their lives. Indeed, failure to prove an honourable man at home could exclude men from entering any honour community outside it. Above all else, men from whatever social status were only held worthy of honour if they could demonstrate control over their wives, children and servants. Hence honour was a concept which was vital to the upholding of male power. To achieve that power or control men were encouraged to adopt behaviour which laid emphasis on two key gender characteristics which were thought to distinguish them from women: physical strength and reason. As Sir Thomas Smith explained in 1583, God had intended to give the male ‘great wit, bigger strength, and more courage to compel the woman to obey by reason or force’. Men used their claim to reason to legitimise their authority over women; the first Marquis of Halifax explained to his daughter in a letter of 1688:

That there is Inequality in the Sexes, and that for the better Economy of the World, the Men, who were to be the Law-givers, had the larger share of Reason bestow'd upon them…Your Sex wanteth our Reason for your Conduct, and our Strength for your Protection.

Type
Honour and Reputation in Early-Modern England
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 6 , December 1996 , pp. 215 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Smith, T., De Republica Anglorum, (London, 1583), p.13Google Scholar, as cited in Houlbrooke, R.A., The English Family 1450–1700 (1986), 103Google Scholar.

3 Savile, G., 1st Marquis of Halifax, The Lady's New Year's Gift: Or, Advice to a Daughter (1688)Google Scholar, as cited in Women in the Eighteenth Century: Constructions of femininity, ed. Jones, V. (1990), 18Google Scholar.

4 For the importance of self-mastery see Hodgkin, K., ‘Thomas Whythorne and the Problems of Mastery’, History Workshop Journal, XXIX, (1990), 20–41, especially 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Manning, R., Hunters and Poachers (Oxford, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Malcolmson, R.W., Popular Recreations in English Society 1700–1850 (Cambridge, 1973), 34–40,42–3Google Scholar.

6 Ingram, M., ‘Ridings, Rough Music and the “Reform of Popular Culture” in Early Modern England’, Past and Present, no.105 (1984), 79–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Ingram, M., ‘Ridings, Rough Music and Mocking Rhymes in Early Modern England’, in Popular Culture in Seventeenth Century England, ed. Reay, B. (1985), 129–97Google Scholar; Thompson, E.P., Customs in Common (1991), c. 8Google Scholar.

7 Whateley, W., A Bride Bush (1623), 157Google Scholar, see also 129, 159–60; Gouge, W., Of Domesticall Duties (3rd edn, 1634), 423, 604Google Scholar; for a fuller discussion of these issues see Foyster, E., ‘The Concept of Male Honour in Seventeenth Century England’ (Ph.D. thesis, Durham University, 1996)Google Scholar.

8 For the procedure of the court of Arches see Slatter, M.D., ‘The Study of the Records of the Court of Arches’, Journal of the Society of Archivists, I (1955), 29–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Stone, L., Road to Divorce: England 1530–1987 (Oxford, 1990), 33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Lambeth Palace Library, Court of Arches [hereafter CA], Case 1041 [case numbers taken from Houston, J., Index of the Cases in the Records of the Court of Arches in Lambeth Palace Library, 1660–1913 (1972)Google Scholar] (1672), Personal Answer [hereafter Ee], 3, fos. 738—41r 745r–6v; Deposition [hereafter Eee], 4, fos. 613v–15v,807–8,815–18r,821v–2,850v–83r; Eee5, fos. 24v–5r.

10 Stone, L., Broken Lives (Oxford, 1993), 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 CA, Case 1127 (1663), Eee1, fo. 83; CA, Case 6659 (1666), Eee2, fo. 101.

12 CA, Case 1813 (1673), Ee4, fos. 118v–28; for a witness who supported John's claim that he was fed inadequately see Eee5, fo. 17r.

13 CA, Case 8770 (1684), Ee6, fo. 11.

14 CA, Case 4834 (1669), Eee3, fo. 299r.

15 Gouge, , Of Domesticall, 389Google Scholar.

16 , T.E., The Lawes Resolution of a Woman's Rights (1631), 128–9Google Scholar, as cited in Amussen, S.D., ‘“Being Stirred to Much Unquietness”: Violence and Domestic Violence in Early Modern England’, Journal of Women's History, VI, no. 2 (1994), 71Google Scholar.

17 Whateley, , A Bride Bush, 128–9Google Scholar, see also 99–100, 139.

18 Ibid., 171.

19 Ibid., 123; see also Fletcher, A., ‘The Protestant Idea of Marriage in Early Modern England’, in Religion, Culture and Society in early modern Britain, ed. Fletcher, A. and Roberts, P. (Cambridge, 1994), 172–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; in the 1540s the Augsburg Council ruled that husbands should not beat their wives ‘without reason’, see Roper, L., The Holy Household: Women and Morals, in Reformation Augsburg (Oxford, 1989), 189Google Scholar.

20 Whateley, , A Bride Bush, 170–3Google Scholar.

21 Gouge, , Domesticall Duties, 395Google Scholar.

22 Smith, H., A Preparative to Marriage (1591), 73Google Scholar.

23 Church of England, Two Books of Homilies, 510–11, as cited in MacDonald, M., Mystical Bedlam: Madness, Anxiety, and Healing in Seventeenth Century England (Cambridge, 1981), 102Google Scholar.

24 Dod, J. and Cleaver, R., A Godly Forme of Householde Government (1614), sig. G2Google Scholar.

25 Addison, J. and Steele, R., The Spectator, ed. Bond, D.F. (Oxford, 1965), II, no. 236, 417Google Scholar, as cited in Hunt, M., ‘Wife Beating, Domesticity and Women's Independence in Eighteenth-Century London’, Gender and History, IV, no.1 (1992), 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 CA, Case 1041 (1672), Eee4, fos. 874r,876r.

27 CA, Case 6659 (1666), Eee2, fo. 124r.

28 CA, Case 1888 (1676), Eee6, fo. 278v; CA, Case 4688 (1690), Eee7, fo. 120v; see for another example of a drunken husband beating his wife CA, Case 2177 (1676), Ee4, fo. 799r

29 MacDonald, , Mystical Bedlam, 102Google Scholar.

30 Ingram, M., Church Courts, Sex and Marriage in England, 1570–1640 (Cambridge, 1990), 183–4Google Scholar.

31 Emmison, F.G., Elizabethan Life: Morals and the Church Courts (Chelmsford, 1973), 162Google Scholar, as cited in MacDonald, , Mystical Bedlam, 102Google Scholar.

32 Stone, , Road to Divorce, 199Google Scholar.

33 CA, Case 9870 (1669), Eee3, fo. 555v.

34 CA, Case 10406 (1671), Eee4, fos. 512–13.

35 CA, Case 1127 (1663), Eee1, fo. 63v.

36 CA, Case 4747 (1673), Eee5, fos. 250v–1r.

37 CA, Case 6244 (1672), Ee4, fo. 51v; Eee4, fo. 767r.

38 GLRO DL/C/154 fo. 509, as cited in Hunt, M., ‘Wife Beating, Domesticity and Women's Independence in Eighteenth-Century London’, Gender and History, IV, no. 1 (1992), 22Google Scholar.

39 CA, Case 1432 (1667), Eee2, fos. 538–40.

40 Thompson, , Customs in Common, especially 505Google Scholar.

41 CA, Case 3789 (1662), Ee1, fo. 195v.

42 CA, Case 1813 (1673), Ee4, fos. 127v–8r.

43 CA, Case 8770 (1684), Ee6, fo. 11r; CA, Case 4834 (1669), Ee3, fo. 343; CA, Case 757 (1673), Ee3, fos. 59–60; for other examples of husbands arguing that they showed restraint when beating their wives see, CA, Case 1888 (1676), Ee4, fo. 494r, and CA, Case 6364 (1663), Ee1, fo. 258r.

44 Amussen, , ”Being Stirred”, 70–89Google Scholar.

45 See, for example, CA, Case 1041 (1672), Eee4, fos. 856r, 868v; CA, Case 1128 (1675), Eee5, fo. 681r; CA, Case 1813 (1673), Eee5, fo. 20v; CA, Case 4747 (1673), Eee5, fo. 251v.