ELIZABETHAN ATTITUDES: AN ANTHOLOGY

OF WOMEN, MARRIAGE, AND THE FAMILY

Marriage: Early marriage was more common among the nobility and gentry than further down the social scale. In Elizabethan England, there was fairly widespread belief that freedom of choice was a right among marriage partners. In fact, even the Medieval Church had reminded parents of their duty to consider their children's inclinations in marriage arrangements.

In the upper classes, marriage was seen as a means of gaining property, friends, and allies; therefore, marriages among wealthy landowners were more likely arranged than those among people from lower classes. In practice, marriages ranged over a spectrum running from arranged at one end to completely free at the other.

Christian teaching gave prominence to three purposes for marriage: procreation of children, regulation of sexual activity, and mutual comfort and support.

Marriage

Roles: Because women were thought to be man's inferior in intellect and virtue, women were held to be subordinate and inferior to their husbands, who were considered to be superior partners in marriage.

Common law vested control of property in the man, though dower, inheritance, and settlements gave many wives in the propertied classes some safeguards.

A good deal of mutual affection existed in most marriages, with wives occupying a separate but subordinate sphere in the family economy. Though marriage was an unequal partnership, it was less unequal than we might imagine.

Documents about Women:

 

Aristotle, Historia Animalium, translated by Richard Cresswell:

And in all animals in which there is a distinction of the sexes nature has given a similar disposition to the males and to the females. This is most conspicuous in man, and the larger animals, and in viviparous quadrupeds; for the disposition of the female is softer, and more tameable and submissive, and more ingenious; as the females of the Lacedemonian dog are more gentle than the males ....

The females of all animals are less violent in their passions than the males, except the female bear and pardalis [panther], for the female of these appears more courageous than the male. In other animals the females are more soft and insidious, less simple, more petulant, and more active in the care of their young. The disposition of the males is opposed to this; for they are more passionate and fierce, more straightforward, and less invidious. The vestiges of these dispositions exist, as we may say, in all, but are more conspicuous in those which have the strongest moral habits, and most of all in mankind; for the nature of the human subject is the most complete, so that these habits appear more conspicuous in mankind than ir other animals.

Wherefore women are more compassionate and more readily made to weep, more jealous and querulous, more fond of railing, and more contentious The female also is more subject to depression of spirits and despair than the male. She is also more shameless and false, more readily deceived, and more mindful of injury, more watchful, more idle, and on the whole less excitable than the male. On the contrary, the male is more ready to help, and, as it hath been said, more brave than the female; and . . . if the sepia [cuttlefish] is struck with a trident, the male comes to help the female, but the female makes her escape if the male is struck.

 

John Knox, "The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women," 1558:

Nature, I say, doth paint them forth to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish, and experience hath declared them to be unconstant, variable, cruel, and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment. And these notable faults have men in all ages espied in that kind, for the which not only they have removed women from rule and auhority, but also some have thought that men subject to the counsel or empire of their wives were unworthy of all public office.

 

Edward Gosynhill, "Schole house of women," c. 1542:

A popular and well-known diatribe against the vanity, talkativeness, extravagance, faithlessness, and general frailty of women from Eve to Jezebel.

 

Sir Thomas Elyot, "The Defence of Good Women," 1545:

A dialogue that cites examples from history and legend to prove woman's constancy and wisdom.

"The Deceit of Women, Instruction and Example of all Men, Young and Old, Newly Corrected," 1560:

Begins with a pictorial warning to husbands in a woodcut on the title-page presenting a woman astride her spouse, flogging him as he goes on all fours. Gives a prose account of intriguing females such as Eve, Jezebel, etc.

 

Thomas Bentley, "The Monument of Matronness," 1572:

Primarily a devotional treatise, it sets forth proof of woman's nobility and greatness.

 

Joseph Swetnam, "The Arraignment of Lewd, Idle, Forward, and Unconstant Women," 1615:

Women degenerate from the use they were framed unto, by leading a proud, lazie, and idle life, to the great hinderance of their poor husbands. . . . For commonly women are the most part of the forenoon painting themselves, and frizzing their hairs, and prying in their glass like Apes, to pranck up themselves in their gawdies, like Poppets, or like the Spider which weaves a fine web to hang the fly."

 

Jane Anger, "Jane Anger her Protection for Women," 1589:

Responds to attacks on women through an old-fashioned recital of man's iniquity and woman's virtues.

 

Sir Thomas Smith, De Republica Anglorum: The Manner of Government r Policy of the Realm of England, 1583:

Of Children

[The system of primogeniture]

The testator disposeth in his last will his moveable goods freely as he thinketh meet and convenient without controlment of wife or children. And our testaments for goods moveable be not subject to the ceremonies of the civil law, but made with all liberty and freedom.... Of lands as ye have understood before, there is difference: for when the owner dieth, his land descendeth only to his eldest son, all the rest both sons and daughters have nothing by the common law, but must serve their eldest brother if they will, or make what other shift they can to live: except that the father in life time do make some conveyance and estates of part of his land to their use, or else by devise, which word amongst our lawyers doth betoken a testament written, sealed, and delivered in the life time of the testator before witness: for without those ceremonies a bequest of lands is not available. But by the common law if he that dieth hath no sons but daughters, the land is equally divided among them, which portion is made by agreement or by lot. Although as I have said ordinarily and by the common law, the eldest son inheriteth all the lands, yet in some countries all the sons have equal portion, and that is called ganelkinde, and is in many places in Kent. In some places the youngest is sole heir: and in some places after an other fashion. But these being but particular customs of certain places and out of the rule of the common law, do little appertain to the disputation of the policy of the whole realm, and may be infinite. The common wealth is judged by that which is most ordinarily and commonly done through the whole realm.

 

 

OF THE POWER AND PLACE OF KINGS AND PRINCES

Sir Thomas Smith, De Republic Anglorum: The Manner of Government or Policy of the Realm of England, 1583:

The Prince whom I now call (as I have often before) the Monarch of England, King or Queen, hath absolutely in his power the authority of war and peace, to defy what Prince it shall please him, and to bid him war, and again to reconcile himself and enter into league or truce with him at his pleasure or the advice only of his privy council. His privy council be chosen also at the Prince's pleasure out of the nobility or barony, and of the knights and esquires, such and so many as he shall think good, who doth consult daily, or when need is of the weighty matters of the realm, to give therein to their Prince the best advice they can. The Prince doth participate to them all, or so many of them as he shall think good, such legations anal messages as come from foreign Princes, such letters or occurrents [news] as be sent to himself or to his secretaries, and keepeth so many ambassades [messages] and letters sent unto him secret as he will, although these have particular oath of a councillor touching faith and secrets administered unto them when they be first admitted into that company. So that herein the kingdom of England is far more absolute than either the dukedom of Venice is, or the kingdom of the Lacedemonians [Spartans] was. In war time, and in the field the Prince hath also absolute power, so that his word is a law, he may put to death, or to other bodily punishment, whom he shall think so to deserve, without process of law or form of judgment. This hath been some time used within the realm before any open war in sudden insurrections and rebellions, but that not allowed of wise and grave men, who in that their judgment had consideration of the consequence and example, as much as of the present necessity, especially, when by any means the punishment might have been done by order of law. This absolute power is called martial law....

To be short the Prince is the life, the head, and the authority of all things that be done in the realm of England. And to no Prince is done more honor and reverence than to the King and Queen of England, no man speaketh to the Prince nor serveth at the table but in adoration and kneeling; all persons of the realm be bareheaded before him: insomuch that in the chamber of presence where the cloth of estate is set, no man dare walk, yea though the Prince be not there, no man dare tarry there but bareheaded. This is understood of the subjects of the realm.

 

King James I, A speech to the Lords and Commons of the Parliament at Whitehall, Mach 21, 1610:

The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth. For kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods. There be three principal similitudes that illustrates the state of monarchy. One taken out of the word of God, and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families, for a king is truly parens patriae, the politic father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man.

Kings are justly called gods for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth. For if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God has power to create, or destroy, make, or unmake at his pleasure, to give life, or send death, to judge all, and to be judged nor accountable to none; to raise low things, and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both soul and body due. And the like power have kings. They make and unmake their subjects; they have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death; judges over all their subjects, and in all cases, and yet accountable to none but God only. They have power to exalt low things and abase high things, and make of their subjects like men at the chess: a pawn to take a bishop or a knight, and to cry up or down any of their subjects, as they do their money. And to the king is due both the affection of the soul and the service of the body of his subjects....

As for the father of a family, they had of old under the law of nature patriam potestatem [ancestral power], which was potestatem vitae et necis [power of life and death] over their children or family. I mean such fathers of families as were the lineal heirs of those families whereof kings did originally come, for kings had their first original from them who planted and spread themselves in colonies through the world. Now a father may dispose of his inheritance to his children at his pleasure: yea, even disinherit the eldest upon just occasions, and prefer the youngest, according to his liking; make them beggars or rich at his pleasure; restrain, or banish out of his presence, as he finds them give cause of offence, or restore them in favor again with the penitent sinner. So may the king deal With his subjects.

And lastly, as for the head of the natural body, the head has the power of directing all the members of the body to that use which the judgment in th head thinks most convenient. It may apply sharp cures, or cut off corrupt members, let blood in what proportion it thinks fit, and as the body may spare but yet is all this power ordained by God ad aedificationem, non ad destructionem [for constructive, not destructive use]. For though God have power as well of destruction as of creation or maintenance, yet will it not agree with the wisdom of God to exercise his power in the destruction of nature and overturning the whole frame of things, since his creatures were made that his glory might thereby be the better expressed. So were he a foolish father that would disinherit or destroy his children without a cause, or leave off the careful education of them. And it were an idle head that would in place of physic so poison or phlebotomize [bleed] the body as might breed a dangerous distemper or destruction thereof.

OF ORDER AND DISORDER

Sir Thomas Elyot, The Book of the Governor, 1531:

Moreover, take away order from all things, what should then remain? Certes, nothing finally, except some man would imagine eftsoons [soon afterward] Chaos, which of some is expounded a confused mixture.

Also where there is any lack of order, needs must be perpetual conflict. And in things subject to nature, nothing of himself only may be nourished, but when he hath destroyed that wherewith he doth participate by the order of his creation, he himself of necessity must then perish, whereof ensueth universal dissolution.

But now to prove by example of those things that be within the compass of man's knowledge, of what estimation order is, not only among men, but also with God, albeit his wisdom, bounty, and magnificence, can be with no tongue or pen sufficiently expressed. Hath not he set degrees and estates in all his glorious works?

First in his heavenly ministers whom, as the church affirmeth, he hath constituted to be in divers degrees, called hierarchies. Also Christ saith, by his evangelist, that in the house of his father (which is God) be many mansions.

But to treat of that which by natural understanding may be comprehended. Behold the four elements, whereof the body of man is compact, how they set in their places, called spheres, higher or lower, according to the sovereign of their natures: that is to say, the fire as the most pure element, having in it nothing that is corruptible, in his place is highest and above other element. The air, which next to the fire, is most pure in substance, is in the second sphere or place. The water, which is somewhat consolidate and approacheth to corruption, is next unto the earth. The earth, which is of substance gross and ponderous, is set of all elements most lowest.

Behold also the order that God hath put generally in all his creatures, beginning at the most inferior or base, and ascending upward. He made not only herbs to garnish the earth, but also trees of a more eminent nature than herbs. And yet in the one and the other, be degrees of qualities, some pleasant to behold, some delicate or good in taste, other wholesome and medicinable, some commodious and necessary. Semblably in birds, beasts, and fishes, some be good for the sustenance of man; some bear things profitable to sundry uses; other be apt to occupation and labor; in divers is strength and fierceness only; in many is both strength and commodity; some other serve for pleasure; none of them hath all these qualities; few have the more part or many, specially beauty, strength . . .

Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 1594:

Now if nature should intermit her course and leave altogether, though it were but for a while, the observation of her own laws; if those principal and mother elements of the world, whereof all things in this lower world are made, should lose the qualities which now they have; if the frame of that heavenly arch erected over our heads should loosen and dissolve itself; if celestial spheres should forget their wonted motions, and by irregular volubility turn themselves any way as it might happen; if the prince of lights of heaven, which now as a giant death run his unwearied course, should as it were through a languishing faintness begin to stand and to rest himself; if the moon should wander from her beaten way, the times and seasons of the year blend themselves by disordered and confused mixture, the winds breathe out their last gasp, the clouds yield no rain, the earth be defeated of heavenly influence, the fruits of the earth pine away as children at the withered breasts of their mother no longer able to yield them relief: what would become of man himself, whom these things now do all serve? See we not plainly that obedience of creatures unto the law of nature is the stay of the whole world?

An Exhortation Concerning Good Order, and Obedience to Rulers and Magistrates," Sermon preached in all English Churches in 1547:

ALmighty God hath created and appointed all things in heaven, earth, and waters, in a most excellent and perfect order. In heaven he hath appointed distinct or several orders and slates of archangels and angels. In earth he hath aligned and appointed kings, princes, with other governors under thern, in all good and necessary order. The water above is kept and raineth down in due time an season. The sun, moon, stars, rainbow, thunder, lightning, clouds, and all birds of the air, do keep their order. The earth, trees, seeds, plants, herbs, corn, grass, and all manner of beasts, keep themselves in their order: all the parts of the whole year, as winter, summer, months, nights, and days, continue in their order: all kinds of fish in the sea, rivers, and waters, with all fountains, springs, yea, the seas themselves, keep their comely curfew and order: and man himself also hath all his parts both within and without, as soul, heart, mind, memory, understanding, reason, speech, with all and singular corporal members of his body, in a profiltable, necessary, and pleasant order: every degree of people in their vocation, calling, and office, hath appointed to them their duty and order: some are in high degree, some inlow, some kings and princes, some inferiors and subjectgs, priests and laymen, masters and servants, fathers and children, husands and wives, rich and poor; and every one hath need of other; so that in all things is to be lauded and praised the goodly order of God, without the which no house, no city, no commonwealth can continue and endure, or last. For where there is no right order, there reigneth all abuse, carnal liberty, enormity, sin, and Babylonical confusion. Take away kings, princes, rulers, magistrates, judges and such estates of God's order, no man shall ride or go by the highway unrobbed, no man shall sleap in his own house or bed unkilled, no man shall keep his wife, children, and possessions in quietness, all things shall be common; and there must needs follow all mlschief and utter destruction both of souls, bodies, goods, and commonwealth.

Michael de Montaigne, An Apology of Raymond Sebond, 1568:

Is it possible to imagine anything so ridiculous as this miserable and wretched creature which is not so much as master of himself exposed, and subject to offenses of all things, and yet dareth call himself master and emperor of this universe? In whose power it is not to know the least part of it, much less to command the same. And the privilege which he so fondly challengeth to be the only absolute creature in this huge world's frame, perfectly able to know the absolute beauty and several parts thereof, and that he is only of power to yield the great Architect thereof due thanks for it and to keep account both of the receipts and layings out of the world--who hath sealed him this patent? Let him show us his letters of privilege for so noble and so great a charge. Have they been granted only in favor of the wise? Then concern they but a few. Are the foolish and wicked worthy of so extraordinary a favor, who, being the worst part of the world, should they be preferred before the rest?

Presumption is our natural and original infirmity. Of all creatures man is the most miserable and frail, and therewithal the proudest and disdainfullest. Who perceiveth and seeth himself placed here amidst the filth and mire of the world, fast tied and nailed to the worst, most senseless, and drooping part of the world in the vilest corner of the house and farthest from heaven's cope with those creatures that are the worst of the three conditions and yet dareth imaginarily place himself above the circle of the moon and reduce heaven under his feet. It is through the vanity of the same imagination that he dare equal himself to God, that he ascribeth divine conditions unto himself, that he selecteth and separateth himself from out the rank of other creatures; to which his fellow brethren and compeers, he cuts out and shareth their parts and allotteth them what portions of means or forces he thinks good. How knoweth he by the virtue of his understanding the inward and secret motions of beasts? By what comparison from them to us doth he conclude the brutishness he ascribeth unto them? When I am playing with my cat, who knows whether she have more sport in dallying with me than I have in gaming with her? We entertain one another with mutual apish tricks....