Welcome to my blog

Having completed my research and a research paper on the topic of infanticide in Early modern England, there are quite a few things that I've learned. There are also quite a few resources that are listed throughout this blog so that anyone interested in this topic will be able to find them and review them. Hopefully this blog site will provide some helpful information for future researchers. Overall the most interesting things that I've learned throughout my research relate to some of the more unfortunate stereotypes surrounding women of the period and some of the obstacles that they might have faced.

Women who were not wealthy often worked as servants in other households before getting married and the age of marriage for most girls of this class was relatively late compared to common thought. Most servant women married around the age of twenty-six. I also learned that female servants were extremely vulnerable to sexual advances from their masters. The fact that the stereotypes of the period categorized women as either sexualized and wanton or chaste and virginal demonstrates how community members relied solely on reputation to determine the true value of the average early modern woman. This period in history also reflected an extreme reliance on the family unit as a parallel to the government. Therefore servants belonged to their masters and wives belonged to their husbands. The husband was the king of the house and was not to be defied. Women who stepped out of line in any way were portrayed as monstous and unnatural. Women who defied their husbands were shrews, homerebels, or housetraitors. Women who could not be categorized or who lacked domestic rule were often portrayed as witches, and women who became sexualized within society were characterized as whores.

One of the most interesting aspects of this type of thought process relates to the topic of infanticide. If a woman was raped by her master and could not prove rape, she would be labeled as a whore, especially if her pregancy was discovered. This would ruin her reputation and her marriage potential, and cause her to become an outcast within the community. Few people would want to associate with a woman who had such a reputation. At the same time, if a woman in this position were to try to conceal her pregnancy and was discovered, she could face charges of infanticide under the Act of 1627, because the law associated concealment of pregnancy with the intent to murder the baby. Regardless of how she became pregnant, an unwed mother was condemned to some type of punishment. This is by far the most interesting aspect of infanticide as far as I'm concerned.

Another interesting aspect of my research is the treatment of married women. At the beginning of the semester I addressed this issue and found that there were no laws to protect married women from the wrath of their husbands unless they were actually murdered. The church and community were meant to handle this aspect of marriage and they only intervened when the beatings or altercations became a public nuisance. Most often church or community involvement resulted in shaming rituals which were used to embarrass and punish the guilty party. Pamphlets from the period addressed issues such as infanticide, petty treason, and petty tyranny. Petty treason was the charge that murderous wives faced and this charge resulted in the same punishment as high treason; both resulted in the execution of the guilty party. This yet again demonstrates the parallel between the hierarchy of the home and the hieracrchy of the government. Petty tyrrany was the charge that murderous husbands faced, and this charge is comparable to a simple murder charge. All of these facts help to reveal the truth about how women were oppressed, stereotyped, and kept in place by early modern society.

Another extremely interesting aspect of my research reveals the fact that unwed mothers and married women were characterized differently even after committing the same crime. The motive for infanticide committed by an unwed woman was universally accepted as an effort to hide her shame. On the other hand, married women who committed infanticide were thought to be controlled by the devil or corrupted in some way. This reflects the views of unwed mothers during the period. It was assumed that unwed mothers were sexually promiscuous deviants.

Hopefully some of the resources listed below will be helpful to those who find this blog interesting.

"A True and Perfect Relation of a most Horrid and Bloody Murther"
Anon
London: 1686
EEBO (Early English Books Online)

"A Pittilesse Mother"
Anon
London: 1616
EEBO (Early English Books Online)

"The Murderous Midwife, with her Roasted Punishment"
Anon
London: 1673
EEBO (Early English Books Online)

"Deeds against Nature and monsters by kinde"
Anon
EEBO (Early English Books Online)

Amussen, Susan Dwyer. “Elizabeth I and Alice Balstone: Gender, Class, and the ExceptionalWoman in Early Modern England.” Attending to Women in Early Modern England. Ed. Betty S. Travitsky and Adele F. Seef. Newark, NJ: U of Delaware P., 1994.

Bothelo, Keith M. "Maternal Memory and Murder in Early-Seventeenth Century England."SEL Studies in English Literature 1500-1900. 48.1 (2008). 113-130. Project Muse. http://muse.jhu.edu/

Dolan, Frances E. "The Subordinate('s) Plot: Petty Treason and the Forms of Domestic Rebellion." Shakespeare Quarterly 60.3 (1992): 317-340. JSTOR. 3 March 2009http://www.jstor.org/.

"Anno vicesimo primo Jacobi Regis, &c. an act to prevent the destroying and murthering of
bastard children." City of London. Printed by Samuel Roycroft. 1680. EEBO.
ASU Library, Boone, NC. 11 March 2009. http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home.

Brewer, Thomas. “The Bloudy Mother.” Nature’s Cruel Stepdames: Murderous Women in the
Street Literature of Seventeenth Century England. Ed. Susan C. Staub. Pittsburgh, PA:
Duquesne U.P., 2005. 240-255.

Dolan, Frances, E. Dangerous Familiars: representations of domestic crime in England, 1550-
1700. Itaca: Cornell U.P., 1994.

Eales, Jacqueline. Women in early modern England, 1550-1700. London: UCL Press, 1998.

Gowing, Laura. “Secret Births and Infanticide in Seventeenth-Century England.” Past and
Present. 156 (1997): 87-115. JSTOR. ASU Library, Boone, NC. 1 April 2009.
http://www.jstor.org/.

Shakespeare, William. Cymbeline. http://shakespeare.mit.edu/cymbeline/

Sharpe, J.A. and J.R. Dickinson. “Infanticide in Early Modern England: the Court of Great
Sessions at Chester, 1650-1800.” Infanticide: Historical Perspectives on Child Murder
and Concealment 1550-2000. Ed. Mark Jackson. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2002.

Staub, Susan C. Nature’s Cruel Stepdames: Murderous Women in the Street Literature of
Seventeenth Century England. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne U.P., 2005.

Another instance of infanticide in Early Modern England

Yet another pamphlet from the period entitled "A True and Perfect Relation of a most Horrid and Bloody Murther" demonstrates how murderous mothers were demonized and how their crimes were characterized as monstrous. This pamphlet which was printed in 1686 relates the story of Mary Philmore who drowned her infant son. The infant was nine weeks old and the mother had been ill recently and had also been in an altercation with her husband prior to her murderous actions. She was found later wandering the streets with no idea of where she was going or where she had been. She confessed her crime and was imprisoned until her trial date. The pamphlet doesn't relate her manner of execution or her confession but it does characterize the woman as a "desperate creature" and her actions are described as "inhuman". While the pamphlet doesn't relate all of the facts, it does a better job than most. The reader is able to tell from reading this pamphlet that all was not right with Mary Philmore, and her actions against her nine week old infant were the result of something that had gone terribly wrong. Unfortunately during a time when terms like postpartum depression were not yet known and did not exist, the only explanation for her actions would have been associated with the devil and evil. The author of this pamphlet even mentions that "the Devil still being busie with her to make it [the child] away". It would have been reasonable to assume during this period that the devil was the cause for such a horrifying action.

cited from:
"A True and Perfect Relation of a most Horrid and Bloody Murther"
Anon
London: 1686
EEBO (Early English Books Online)

"The murderous midwife..."

This is a completely unbelievable story of infanticide that occurred in Paris, but was written about in London in 1673. This midwife's house was searched after rumors circulated about her, and during the search the bodies of 62 infants were found amongst the contents of her privy. The author of this pamphlet was obviously as shocked as I was at this news and he states: "What wickedness and villainous imaginations hath this Age more universally afforded in Mortals than any other!" Apparently this horrific discovery caused him to believe, like many people today do, that the world must be near its end if things like this are happening. Unfortunately my research on infanticide did not uncover the truth about how stillborn babies were discarded or where they might have been placed by midwives, though mothers in most cases would bury their stillborn children. The text discusses the fact that this was a widely discussed story, so the text might be based on hearsay. The text also states that the bodies of the infants were in various states of decomposition, so they might have been collected over a long period of time, during which many women might have given birth to stillborn children. This midwife might have also been a helper for those unfortunate unwed women who had nowhere to turn. There is really no way to tell for sure because facts are few within these pamphlets, but this pamphlet does share many similarities with the other pamphlets that I've read. The events begin with gossip, the woman's house is searched by nosy neighbors, they search her privy (what a delightful job that would be), and then they execute her because they seem to have enough evidence to convict (though it didn't take much evidence in most cases). The reason that I chose to take a closer look at this pamphlet is because of the rather extreme manner of execution. This lady was placed in a cage with 16 wildcats and they were all roasted to death over an open flame! Can anyone say overkill?! My god, wouldn't one wildcat have done the job sufficiently, especially if it were being roasted? The only thing that I really can conclude after reading this pamphlet is that this is clearly exaggerated. I just can't believe that this could have happened, ever. In any case, it is obvious that the "wickedness and villainous imaginations" do not simply belong to the midwife. 16 wildcats! Roasted! My God!

Source:

"The Murderous Midwife, with her Roasted Punishment"

Anon

London: 1673

EEBO (Early English Books Online)

The Witch of Edmonton - the second half

Within the last half of this play the accused witch meets her end and so does Frank Thorney, but unfortunately Sir Arthur only has to pay a fine. I say unfortunately because he is the one that I wanted to see receive his comeuppance. Sadly, he faced no real consequences for his evil and Frank paid the price instead. The way that the play was set up made it difficult to determine who was really evil. There were at least three different categories within which the characters fell. Sir Arthur, Old Banks, and Frank Thorney all committed crimes against others of their own free will. Frank Thorney felt pushed to commit murder because he saw no other way, while Sir Arthur only wanted to cover up his past sins conveniently and continue to pursue Winnifride. Old Banks on the other hand was just an a**. He treated those around him as if they were unworthy of life, and was the first to make accusations against Sawyer simply because she fell outside of any categorical placement within society. Then of course there is a separate category of evil into which Sawyer, the devil dog, and possibly Young Banks fall. They are aware of an evil that isn't tangible. Young Banks isn't even certain of this evil until his conversation with the devil dog near the end of the play, and all three of these characters could be viewed as scapegoats for the tangible evil within society. Finally there is a category of completely innocent people which includes Somerton and Katherine. These two characters seem completely unaware of the evil that is going on around them and both are duped by the evil doer Frank. At one point within the play it seems as if Somerton might actually become yet another scapegoat. Fortunately this works itself out when Katherine discovers the bloody knife that had been used to kill her sister in Frank's coat.
Overall this play was a great read and it definitely made me think about the different ways that evil can present itself within society. Even today the things that people are most afraid of are the things that we can't recognize at first glance. Serial killers frighten us because they are generally so suave and unrecognizable. Terrorists are frightening because we are unable to identify them right away. The unforeseen danger is definitely the scariest. I'm certain that members of early modern society felt the same way. Of course they would be frightened to think that there were witches living among them. It's just terrible to think about how many innocent people might have been executed as scapegoats for unfortunate and coincidental events, and this play makes the reader think about that.

The Witch of Edmonton - the first half

This play by Thomas Dekker, John Ford and William Rowley makes the reader ponder the nature of evil. Although the play is about an accused witch, her part is minuscule compared with some of the other characters who appear numerous times within the play. Within the first half of the play Elizabeth Sawyer, the accused witch, has a few short appearances, while the main plot concerns many other characters. Within her parts she appears as a social outcast who seems to wish revenge on the characters who torment her. While her character does take part in behaviors related to witchcraft, she never really brings harm to anyone with her own hands and the only evil that is really evident is her communication with a devil dog who appears within several scenes prior to the occurrence of unfortunate events. The real evil within this play doesn't seem to be the witch. The real evil seems to be present in the other plots when Sir Arthur and Frank Thorney conspire individually to deceive their family and friends. These men aren't even those who Sawyer wishes to bewitch. Their evil is actually their own. It certainly makes one question where the real evil is within society. Within certain sections of the play evil appears as society itself, when Sawyer is being treated poorly prior to having done any harm.

The Roaring Girl - Part Two

I found this play absolutely delightful. I know I've already posted on the first part of the play, but the last half of the play is so interesting that I deemed it worthy of more discussion.
By the time the reader is half way through the play it's obvious that the main character Moll is meant to have stronger morals than any of the other characters. While she obviously crosses the line when it comes to the gender roles of the period, she doesn't cross any moral boundaries within the play. Unlike some of the other characters in the play, she doesn't lie or cheat. She also proves the true strength of her character when she maintains her morals even in the face of temptation. She simply does not waver.
The really interesting thing about Moll is that she is determined to do good by other people. She comes off looking like some type of early modern superhero, defending her friends from pickpockets, defending the honor of women, and helping Sir Alexander to see the error of his ways. All of this is quite comical because it is set against a plot full of characters who are weaving massive webs of deceit and who stay extremely busy plotting against one another and covering up their lies. Moll remains untouched by all of this deception though and even has time to leave the reader with a few moral lessons. The fact that she appears dressed as a woman in the final scene of the play might have even allowed the early modern audience to experience some relief, but I honestly don't think that she has any intentions of changing. She may appear to have changed in this final scene, but her thoughts are those of a modern day feminist. She makes it clear that she may never marry and that she may never change to suit those who find her so monstrous. Thomas Middleton and Thomas Dekker really won me over with the creation of such a character.

"Deeds against Nature and monsters by kinde"

This pamphlet by an anonymous author depicts yet another murderous mother. This woman's name is Marth Scambler, and she, unlike many of the other women I've read about, actually admits to killing her infant son. Another difference between this woman and many of the others that I've read about is that she was examined prior to her confession and conviction. The only other narrative of murderous women that mentions an examination is "Newes from the Dead", and even in this pamphlet the examination takes place only after the convicted woman has survived her execution. Although the convicted woman in this case admits her crime, and one can easily see how the crime might be considered detestable, the language of the literature demonizes her as if she isn't human. Within this pamphlet she is referred to as lascivious and monstrous, while her crime is described as heinous and unnatural. The author states that she is "another Caterpillar of nature, a creature more savage than a shee woolfe, more unnaturall than either bird or beast, for every creature hath a tender feeling of love to their young, except some few murtherous-minded strumpets" (4). The author then goes on to describe the crime, relating that she gave birth to a son, and then in order to hide the shame of having become pregnant out of wedlock, she "threw it downe unto a lothsome privy house, therein to give it an undecent grave" (4). The thing that I find interesting about all of these pamphlets is that these women are left with little choice. They have two options. They can keep their children and become outcasts with reputations for being whores, harlots, and indecent women; or they can murder their child and take the chance of avoiding any consequences. The reality within this society is that women are forced into a position which leaves them feeling as if they have no other option.

cited from:
Deeds against Nature and monsters by kinde
Anon
EEBO (Early English Books Online)

Edward II - Second Half

While I have to admit that I expected Edward to die, I must also state that I was completely unprepared for the nature of his death. Though the play does not go into details about the specific actions of his executioners, it is widely accepted that they sodomize him (in the modern sense) with the hot poker which they have prepared. Only a bed, a table, and the red hot spit are mentioned, but the men are told to "stamp" on the table, and it is mentioned that they do not want to bruise his body. Of course the play ends with Edward III restoring order and proving his ability to rule appropriately, as his father was unable to do. On this subject, I was able to find many similarities between the way Edward II was portrayed, and the way Shakespeare's King Lear was portrayed within that play. They are both portrayed as weak kings who were not capable of ruling the country. This can be added to the list of the numerous hints that exist within the play, that the King will die. The play does bear his name after all.

Edward II - First half

This play by Christoper Marlowe is quite telling of the stereotypes surrounding homosexual behavior, and also demonstrates, as always, the role of social order within this society. Although I find it disturbing that any stereotypes exist, I also find that there are lots of similarities between this piece of literature and others works from the period. As soon as Gaveston opens his mouth to speak in act one I begin to compare him to Iago, from Shakespeare's Othello. Although he isn't as conspiring or as evil, he seems to be plotting something from the beginning. My favorite lines from the entire first half of the play are within the first act. When Gaveston says:

Sometime a lovely boy in Dian's shape,
With hair that gilds the water as it glides,
Crownets of pearl about his naked arms,
And in his sportful hands an olive tree
To hide those parts which men delight to see,
Shall bathe him in a spring, and there hard by
One like Actaeon peeping through the grove
Shall by the angry goddess be transformed,
And running in the likeness of a hart
By yelping hounds pulled down and seem to die.

I must admit that the beautiful use of language is what really attracts me to this particular speech, but the homosexual implications within the description of the "lovely boy" whose parts "men delight to see", cannot be ignored. Neither can the implication that Edward, like Actaeon, will very likely be torn apart by his own hounds should anyone find him out. This implication made by Gaveston seems to hint toward a calculating conspiracy. I have to admit that after reading the first half of this play, I was extremely interested to see how it would proceed.

Finding out more about average women in Early Modern England

I've discovered an interesting book entitled Attending to Women In Early Modern England which is edited by Betty Travitsky and Adele Seeff. This book contains a section written by Susan Dwyer Amussen that gives insight into how modern historians and all other interested parties are able to determine the truth about the lives of women in the early modern period. The title is "Elizabeth I and Alice Balstone: Gender, Class, and the Exceptional Woman in Early Modern England." Within this discourse Amussen makes the point that all that we know about women from this period is either what they have written or what was written about them. This of course leaves us with only the stories of the literate aristocratic women, and the court documents regarding the lower class, poor women. We have little evidence of the daily life of the average woman in Early Modern England. Amussen also states that while Elizabeth I could clearly not represent the average woman, neither can the poor, vagrant Alice Balstone. Both of these women were exceptions to the average. She states that in order to determine the life of average women we must focus on "implicit and explicit norms" within the narratives of the period (227). She states that "All our evidence about the past reflects someone's attempt to tell a story, so we must pay attention to narrative strategies" (230). This is of course what we are doing in class. We are focusing on 'the monstrous' in the literature of the period so that we are better able to recognize the normal. We are able to tell from the language used within these narratives what aspects of certain crimes made them appear monstrous to the people within Early Modern England.

cited from:
Amussen, Susan Dwyer. “Elizabeth I and Alice Balstone: Gender, Class, and the Exceptional
Woman in Early Modern England.” Attending to Women in Early Modern England.
Ed. Betty S. Travitsky and Adele F. Seef. Newark, NJ: U of Delaware P., 1994.

Infanticide and "A Pittilesse Mother"

This image is an image of a murderous mother from the title page of the pamphlet "A Pittilesse Mother". Within this image the mother is holding a rope around the neck of her child, while the devil aides in the action. Her other child is already dead at the foot of the bed and the devil seems to be offering ropes to the mother who actually strangles her child using her stocking. The mother, Margaret Vincent "resolved the ruin of her own children" when she allowed the Roman Catholic faith overtake her (181). Her conversion to Catholicism is marked as "the first entrance into her life's overthrow" and it is also stated that the reader should consider "how strangely the Devil here set his foot and what cunning instruments he used in his assailments" (180). This text also cites the reason for this heinous crime as an effort on the mother's part to save her children's souls from the sin and darkness of a Protestant upbringing brought about by her husband. Of course the literature of the period would seek to demonstrate what happens to those who do not follow the Protestant religion devoutly, or who move toward Catholicism which is also demonized within the pamphlet literature of the period, as demonstrated in an early posting. This pamphlet does not demonize the monstrous mother as much as other pamphlets from the period do, and this could easily be attributed to that fact that the author is too busy demonizing the Catholic religion, to pass judgment on the woman.

The Roaring Girl

The Roaring Girl by Thomas Middleton and Thomas Dekker, is quite an interesting piece of literature. The play portrays Moll Cutpurse, the main character, as a "roaring girl", who dresses in men's clothing and goes about doing all the things that women of the period should not do. She smokes like a man, remains independent, and goes to all the places which are generally taboo for early modern women. I really like this play. The authors portray the character Moll, who is loosely based on a real woman named Mary Frith, as a woman who demonstrates stronger morals and more decent behavior than any of the other characters within the play, which is completely unexpected after everything we've read so far. Most of the characters and the title are ironically or sarcastically named, which I find absolutely delightful. I would really like to learn a bit more about Miss. Cutpurse, and the play in general. I may do some research on this subject as well as infanticide. Speaking of infanticide, I have a lot to write about that as soon as I find time.

Mervin Lord Audley

Having just read "The Arraignment and Conviction of Mervin Lord Audley", I am quite unsure of exactly what to say, except that even people within today's society would be uncomfortable if this were reported on the news tomorrow night. Of course who knows how much of this is gossip, considering that hearsay was such a common form of evidence used in early modern trials. Also Lord Audley denied most of the charges against him, and accused those who testified against him of plotting to inherit his wealth. The crimes are described as being so heinous, that they would be fit to appear on a special episode of Law and Order SVU, and I doubt that even their writers would be so creative. On a more serious note, the literature makes it apparent that Audley's greatest transgression is that of using men's bodies as if they were women's, which was an extremely serious transgression at the time. The term buggery appears quite often, but sodomy is used most often, because it is used to refer to any sexual interaction that isn't procreational in nature, regardless of gender. The thing that I find most interesting is that all of the other men within the trial are treated as victims, because Audley was their master, even though they took part in some of the crimes, such as the rape of Audley's wife. Another interesting detail is that the judge makes the statement "a whore may be ravished, and it is a felony to doe it." This is quite contradictory to anything I have ever read about the period. I can only assume that this statement is true as long as there are witnesses who see the 'whore' being 'ravished' and report it to the court. Otherwise there would certainly be more evidence of this fact within documents of the period, other than a judge simply stating it. Of course I suppose that I should mention that the woman in question was not a whore; she was actually of a higher class than Audley when they married. This of course constitutes that some action be taken, considering that he turned his house into something similar to a brothel and allowed all types of transgressions to take place there. Another of the most appalling of these events is that he allowed different classes to mix, which is absolutely unacceptable.
I hope that my sarcasm is evident rather than confusing, however, if it's not, there is little that I can do about it now. Just in case...I was being sarcastic throughout the latter half of this entry. I have no qualms at all with mixing of the classes, especially considering the fact that I'm poor and could only benefit from it.

Various Sources

While I have had no luck trying to upload the previously mentioned image, I have found numerous sources pertaining to infanticide in the literature of Early Modern England. Keith Bothello has written a very informative article that can be accessed through Project Muse, which is entitled "Maternal Memory and Murder in Early-Seventeenth-Century England". Written in 2008, this article discusses how the fears and common views of women during this period influenced the literature. It's an extremely interesting article that offers insight into why murderous mothers were demonized, and discussed using language that made them appear monstrous. Another source that is certainly worth mentioning is the book, Nature's Cruel Stepdames, by Susan C. Staub. This book not only offers insight into the literature of the period, it also offers readable versions of some of the street literature, or pamphlets from the period. It discusses the murderous mother, the murderous wife, and the murderous husband. It offers great insight into the mindset that influenced the writings of the period.
While this is only the tip of the iceberg, it's a great start. Meanwhile, I fully intend to get some images uploaded to this site.

Early Modern Views of Infanticide

I'm researching this topic a bit more than the others because I'm trying to flesh out an idea for a research paper. I've stumbled across some very interesting articles along the way one of which is written by Keith M. Botelho an assistant professor of Early Modern British Drama at Kennesaw State University in Georgia. In his article "Maternal Memory and Murder in Early Seventeenth Century England", he takes an analytical look at some of the literature from the period concerning infanticide. He argues that these texts "emphasize the disruptive power of maternal forgetting, a dissident social practice that challenges male sovereignty and signals a breakdown of female community" and that they "point to the increasing anxiety and opposition to this liminal figure of the murderous mother" (113). This article might prove to be very helpful if I choose to write on the topic of infanticide.

Article citation:
Botelho, Keith M. "Maternal Memory and Murder in Early-Seventeenth Century England."
SEL Studies in English Literature 1500-1900. 48.1 (2008). 113-130. Project Muse.
http://muse.jhu.edu/

Re: Unnatural Mothers

I've been trying relentlessly to get an image from Early English Books Online (EEBO) to download onto my blog, but I have obviously not been successful. The image is of a very interesting document that I found during my research. The document is a statute entitled "An act to prevent the destroying and murthering of bastard children" and is listed under Anno vicesimo primo Jacobi Regis Wing, printed in 1680. It basically states that woman who makes an effort to conceal the birth of a bastard child might be sentenced to death. This is extremely interesting because of the penalties that an unwed woman might face should she not try to conceal the birth of a bastard child. This type of statute would certainly make it impossible for any unwed woman to become pregnant without facing some sort of punishment. She would simply have no options. It's not surprising that many women turned to abortion or attempted to murder their babies upon birth in the hopes that no one would ever find out. The only way for a woman to remain free from harm would be if she was successful at such an attempt. Otherwise she would face unknown atrocities at the hands of community members and the judicial system of the period. Basically a woman who found herself in this position would have nothing to lose, except for her life.

I will continue to attempt to download the image in hopes that I may be able to share it.

Relating the texts to today.

We had an interesting discussion in class the other day in which one student related the community involvement and press associated with condemnation in Early Modern times to that of today. Someone mentioned the octuplet mom who is getting all of the negative press surrounding her obvious negligent and outrageous decision to have eight more children that she cannot possibly support. This discussion brought us around to the point that single women are often viewed and discussed with more scrutiny than other women in both societies. Anne Greene and Jane Hattersley made the huge mistake of having children out of wedlock. This was obviously condemned in Early Modern England and probably caused the neighbors and other community members to pay a little more attention to their activity. Does this remind you of anything? Why are we seeing images of the octuplet mom's home and hearing about how often she has manicures or goes shopping for designer clothes? Why is it so shocking that she doesn't have a husband?
As an American I view our society as a more forward thinking one. I consider America to be slightly more liberal than most and it never occurred to me that a husband was a prerequisite to being a good mother. Widows, single moms, and career women who haven't been fortunate enough to find a 'good husband' should not be discounted as people who are not capable of motherhood. It's ridiculous. Yet we question this woman's ability to raise her children without a husband. She seems to have a support system; her father is willing to go back to work to help support her financially, her mother is willing to take on full responsibility of childcare, and she is ready to go back to school to obtain a degree. (It is shocking and disturbing that I know so much about this!)
Of course there are many who condemn her because they say that she is a welfare mom and this very well may be true, but does anyone know the statistics on how many welfare moms there actually are out there? So why do we have to know everything about this one woman? Even if she does use food stamps or get college grants, millions of women in America do the same thing every day, why condemn this one? Why not condemn the system for not monitoring their program better? The fact that she shops for designer clothes and has manicures while utilizing the welfare system is not surprising. She certainly is not the only one. This, much like the credit crunch in which we find ourselves, is our own fault! We buy into the idea that one must own Prada shoes, Gucci bags, and drive expensive cars so that we fit into a society in which everyone must own these things. Are food stamps not meant to supplement your income so that you might be able to have a better quality of life? If not, someone should explain this to America, preferably on television or in a tabloid so that we actually pay attention.

"Newes from the Dead"

This pamphlet written by Richard Watkins is of the same nature as "The Bloudy Mother", but is quite different. It tells the story of Anne Greene, who was sentenced to death and survived the hanging. Her story is related to "The Bloudy Mother" because she also had a child out of wedlock that died under suspicious circumstances. In much the same manner as Jane Hattersley, Anne Greene was openly condemned of infanticide. However, this pamphlet is not about that. There are only a few lines in the beginning of the pamphlet that refer to her crime, and the rest of the story is about her survival of the death sentence, which Early Modern citizens obviously viewed as a miraculous result of her innocence. She is redeemed and found to be innocent only after her miraculous recovery. In this pamphlet the author, and supposedly all involved use phrases such as "supposed murder of her infant" and "accident" (Staub 285), whereas in the pamphlet about Jane Hattersley they use terms and phrases such as wickedness, sin, and heinous murder. I find it even more interesting that the true investigation into this crime began only after Anne's recovery. At that time the review of the trial seems to indicate that she should have been proven innocent long before her execution date, but somehow the evidence was overlooked. If all of the trials of the period were conducted in such a manner one could only imagine how many women were condemned to death on insufficient evidence and murdered rather than executed. The one thing that I am sure of at this point is that Anne Greene was extremely fortunate that she either had a much stronger neck than all of the other women before her, or that all of those who went before her wore the rope thin. Regardless of the true cause of her survival, it must be mentioned that the statistics for survival in such a case are far less than the statistics for success and so the numbers tell a gruesome story about how many women would have died. Since this pamphlet also makes it obvious that the judicial system at this point in history was flawed, it also becomes obvious that Anne Greene was probably not the only innocent woman who faced the gallows. All of this information certainly makes one review "The Bloudy Mother" with a different perspective.

This pamphlet can be found in:
Nature's cruel stepdames: murderous women in the street literature of seventeenth century England by Susan C. Staub

The Bloudy Mother

This pamphlet written by Thomas Brewer tells the story of Jane Hattersley, who was convicted of infanticide in 1609 and sent to the gallows. While the pamphlet is obviously meant to reflect a true story, the reader is forced to read between the lines to obtain all of the facts. The pamphlet openly condemns Jane and her lover for their wicked actions, but it also is written much like one would expect a tabloid to be written. While it is true that infanticide and the abuse of innocence is contemptible and heinous, one must also realize that these two people had every eye in the community on them, and the obvious fear that drives us to condemn others before we have any sufficient evidence is brought to our attention in the very beginning. Brewer states that "The eye of man cannot pierce or pry into the thoughts and intent of man; neither can it give the heart intelligence but from outward behavior and working. And therefore right easily may the judgements of men be deceived . . ."(Staub 243). The fear that we might be so easily deceived by someone within our community drives us to be suspicious and overcautious even today.
Recall how betrayed we all felt when members of the Catholic Church were facing accusations of child molestation. The scariest thing about this incident is that someone trusted these men to take care of innocent children. The entire nation continues to ask itself how this could have happened. This same fear drives us to be most terrified of what we don't know. Why do you think that we are so openly terrified of serial killers? They are considered monstrous even in modern society because they are so deceptive. It strikes fear in our hearts to realize that we might not recognize evil if we carried on a conversation with it.
For all of these reasons women such as Jane Hattersley are openly condemned by community members once their story is revealed. Community members volunteer information about how she often wore baggy clothes or appeared to have a belly at certain times, once they recognize that she may have been deceptive. One of the many 'witnesses' within this story claims to have been looking through a keyhole while Jane gave birth to one of the many children that she was accused of murdering. The witness also states that after delivering the baby, Jane came downstairs and conversed with her for half and hour, during which time the witness tried to find evidence that Jane had just given birth but could not (Staub 249). The fact that she as a servant, had an affair with her master, and had children out of wedlock is enough to appear monstrous to Early Modern Society. Without any evidence that her children didn't die from natural causes, and without proof that more than one child was secretly buried, a story of a women who has murdered numerous infants to conceal an affair is born. A story that would have shocked and awed members of the community and aroused their suspicions surrounding every women capable of becoming pregnant. A miscarriage or the death of an infant could easily lead to accusations of abortions, witchcraft, or infanticide; and only those with spotless reputations would be safe from this social prying and condemnation.
Of course I'm not arguing that this woman was innocent of these heinous crimes, I'm just commenting on the judicial system of the period which relied heavily on the testimony of members of the community, and often condemned victims with little or no hard evidence. The fact that there were laws which condemned bastard children and their mothers would have given Jane enough reason to conceal her pregnancy and try to hide her children if she had any. She could have just as easily given them away without anyone knowing. Of course that would not have made for such great press.

This pamphlet and others like it can be found in:
Nature's cruel stepdames: murderous women in the street literature of seventeenth century England by Susan C. Staub

More on Arden of Faversham

As I have said in some of my prior blogs, this play really intrigues me and has left me wondering whose tragedy this really is. So after finishing the play I was determined to find some discourse on the subject that might serve to enlighten me. I've already said that I have done some research on Domestic Violence in Early Modern England, so I'm fully aware that Alice's actions constitute Petty Treason. I'm also aware that the narration of the story is meant to comment on the topic and that it reveals the fears and stereotypes surrounding the rebellious woman. Alice's actions obviously disrupt the social and political hierarchy within the home as much as Mosby's actions, along with all of his accomplices, threaten the social and political hierarchy of the community as they are all meant to be subordinate to Master Arden, who has higher social status and should be respected.
Upon researching this matter further I found a very insightful article by Frances Dolan that had been published in the Shakespeare quarterly and that discusses this matter in full detail. The article, "The Subordinate('s) Plot: Petty Treason and the Forms of Domestic Rebellion" cites the play as a story of petty treason that "focuses on the contradictions and fragilities of social status as seen in weak, flawed, or absentee masters and in rebellious subordinates" (319). Dolan also states that "the play inacts how a master can remain central without engaging in either positive or negative action simply by holding the place that stands for privilege and power, the place for which his subordinates compete" (330). This explains why Arden runs away from his responsibility when he is aware of his wife's affair, and also why the story follows him to his every destination. He remains central to the plot because his station or social position is like the golden ring on the carousel, all of his subordinates ride around in circles just for another opportunity to grasp for it. The fact that he does run away from his responsibility also allows the reader to see that he is partially to blame for the situation. He is the absentee master who has allowed his subordinates too much freedom and not enough discipline. His inaction is demonstrative of his inadequacies as a master. Since he is completely oblivious of the plot against him he cannot plan any counteraction. According to Dolan this is why we are left with "a play with not hero, no master plot, and no identifiable form". However, Dolan makes another great point when she states that "Holding Arden's place even after death, the blood stains and the unsettling body print reveal that the subject-position of the landowner and master remains powerful, no matter how inadequate the holder of the position" (332). So even though Arden is flawed, according to the laws of his society his position as master should never be challenged.

Article cited:

Dolan, Frances E. "The Subordinate('s) Plot: Petty Treason and the Forms of Domestic Rebellion." Shakespeare Quarterly 60.3 (1992): 317-340. JSTOR. 3 March 2009
http://www.jstor.org.

Arden of Faversham (13 - End)

I expected everyone to die at the end of this tragedy because it is a tragedy, even if it does have some characteristics of a comedy. I was of course not surprised when the mayor sentenced Alice to be "burnt". This is the most likely punishment for murderous women of the period. What interests me most though is this: Whose tragedy is this?
We spent some time in class discussing the fact that although Alice would likely be found out and face death, the tragedy is not named for her. This interested me most before I finished the play, because I viewed the tragedy to be Alice's tragedy. I felt that the entire story was about her actions, her mistakes, and finally her death which was meant to be a direct result of her deeds. In other tragedies this is usually how it works. After finishing the play though, I can see how this tragedy is Arden's. In the Epilogue Franklin states: "But this above the rest is to be noted: / Arden lay murdered in that plot of ground / Which he by force and violence held from Reede, / And in the grass his body's print was seen / Two years and more after the deed was done. (9-13). This statement makes me believe that not only is this Arden's tragedy, but it is his actions that we must analyze more closely to see where he went wrong along the way. I have been focusing all of my energy on Alice because I felt sure that the play would focus on her mistakes and she would die as a result of her terrible behavior. I now think that the play is meant to demonstrate where Arden went wrong. Even though Alice's stereotypical mood swings and contemptible actions are obvious throughout the play, there are also many times within the play that Arden is portrayed as a greedy man who thinks that since he belongs to a higher class, everything within his reach is his for the taking. We also get several glimpses into his life with Alice that, although they are somewhat typical for the time period, allow us to see his tyrannical nature. Even if his words seem to belong to a man who is dominated by his wife, his actions demonstrate something quite different. Either way I certainly believe that this play deserves a closer look.

Domestic Violence in Early Modern England

While preparing for a presentation on Domestic Violence for my Renaissance Literature class, I found some really interesting information that I thought I should share. When I first began to look for sources I was having a really hard time because the term 'domestic violence' didn't even exist in Early Modern England. Instead, women who rebelled within the home were called home rebels, house traitors, or shrews. I found it extremely interesting that these women were thought to be the problem within the household, while the abuse they endured at the hands of their husbands was justified as a way to maintain order. I found some really great sources though and this helped tremendously. Susan Dwyer Amussen and Frances E. Dolan have produced a couple of texts that discuss this matter thoroughly and even provide examples of the many acts of domestic violence and domestic murder that occurred during the period. I also found some really interesting texts on Early English Books Online. This is a top notch site that allows you to view texts that would otherwise be off limits because they were printed so long ago. I found a couple of texts from the period, which expressed differing opinions about the treatment of women by their husbands. Richard Steele was a minister who compiled an entire handbook for husbands entitled The Husbandman's Calling and it doesn't even discuss the treatment of the wife. It does however, mention the treatment of cattle, the land, children, and servants. I also found a book by William Heale entitled An Apologie for Women which was printed in 1609 and which argues that it is not lawful for a husband to beat his wife. The differing opinions within these texts demonstrates how the issue was being addressed by the church and community, rather than by the law. While all of this information is quite interesting I certainly do not want to bore my Professor who has already heard an entire presentation on my findings. However, I really wanted to post this for those who might be interested in obtaining more information on this topic. I also found a couple of other books that proved to be interesting. One was written by Elizabeth Foyster and entitled Marital Violence: An English History, 1660-1857, and the other was written by Sara M. Butler and entitled The Language of Abuse: Marital Violence in Later Medieval England. Both of these books were also very helpful and interesting.

Arden of Faversham (Scene 4-12)

I know that I should be making some brilliant insight into how this play is constantly using stereotypes to peg Alice as a monstrous woman in practically every scene, and I have every intention of doing that soon enough. For now though, I just can't seem to quit laughing at how Shakebag and Black Will keep bumbling around like complete idiots. I find this play completely hilarious. I have decided that if Arden ever dies it will be by mistake. One of these silly characters will fall on him with a knife or accidentally drop a rock on his head. It really is just too funny to take serious at the moment with Shakebag and Black Will fighting one another over honor, falling into ditches, and missing their chance to kill Arden at every turn.
However, I have found that there are lots of passages within this one play that should be approached seriously. I also think that there are enough passages that are relevant to my topic to keep me writing for weeks. So, I've decided that I will approach them slowly and write a little bit about each one as I have time between readings. For anyone out there who might be reading this (it appears as if I'm speaking only to myself and my Professor), I may not approach these passages in any specific order, but I do plan to cover most of them. Even if I have to do this scene by scene.

Arden of Faversham (Scene 1-3)

Upon reading the first three Scenes of this play it became obvious that poor Alice has no hope of being seen as an average woman. Although this play is based on a true story in which a wife murdered her husband, it is apparently an embellished version with the wife portrayed as the murderous villain. The common fear of the period, that women might rebel against the authority of their husbands and seek retribution against them for any little transgression, is brought to life in this tale of a woman who does exactly that. Anyone reading this play will be able to see that Alice is meant to be the monstrous adulterer and wanton woman. She is portrayed as a deceitful woman whose moods and desires change as easily and quickly as hurricane force winds, raging in all directions and destroying everything. There is little hope for Alice to be seen as a women who is simply unhappy with her greedy husband, a man who is disliked within the community and known for his ruthless greed in his quest to own everything. Rather he is portrayed as a man who is concerned about his wife, who he knows is having an affair, and as a man who is making every effort to save his marriage which he believes is only being compromised by another man. He doesn't for an instance entertain the idea that he may not be making his wife happy.
The opening of the play is obviously meant to set the tone, with Franklin commenting on the true ways of women. He states that "It is not strange / That women will be false and wavering" (20). This conversation which takes place between Franklin and Arden is meant to display to the audience that Arden is aware of his wife's affair and he wishes to fix things between them, however it also serves to demonstrate the obvious stereotypes surrounding women of the period. It makes it clear that female sexuality was an unknown and was to be feared, and women who rebelled against their husbands were also to be feared. Rebellion against authority was seen as a crime that must be deterred within the household as well as within government. The fear was that this rebellion might spread outside of the house and in some way affect the monarchy. For this reason women who murdered their husbands were charged with Petty Treason and were often burned at the stake for such rebellion.
Although the play does portray Alice as the murdering wife, it also allows the reader a less obvious insight in to why Alice might not be happy with her husband. Even other people in the community dislike Arden for his ruthless attempts to obtain land, and his ignorance of what his wife needs or wants is also displayed throughout the play, though these hints toward Alice's unhappiness aren't nearly as obvious as those that comment on her "false and wavering" nature.

Tamburlaine The Great - Part One

Upon finishing the play I must admit my opinion of Zenocrate has not changed. I did begin to worry a little when she first admitted to Agydas that her passion for the villain had grown into what sounded a bit like love. I thought that her love for Tamburlaine might cloud her vision and that her opinion could no longer be trusted. Of course it works out well since she voices her concerns about war and death despite the fact that she is in love. Although she does not tell Tamburlaine how she feels about his conquests she does allow the reader to know how she truly feels. In Act five she says, "Those that are proud of fickle empery / And place their chiefest good in earthly pomp / Behold the Turk and his great emperess! / Ah, Tamburlaine, my love, sweet Tamburlaine / That fights for scepters and for slippery crowns / Behold the Turk and his great emperess!" (352). Although she still loves Tamburlaine, she is also capable of seeing what ruthless greed and the need for selfish gain can do to those who encounter it.
It does make me wonder though, if she is truly in love with the devilish Tamburlaine or if she is only trying to prolong her life by siding with the winner. It would certainly be to her benefit to play along as long as it was necessary, considering that women were viewed as extensions of the men to whom they belonged. In this case, as long as she can maintain the love of the man in charge she will certainly live a better life, not to mention a longer one.

Tamburlaine The Great - Part 1

Act One and Two
Although I haven't read far enough into the play to have formed a serious opinion, there are a few points that struck me as odd. To begin with Zenocrate, the central female character, is the only character within the first two acts of the play who does not seem to want to join Tamburlaine. Her decision to join Tamburlaine is more of a coerced decision, with slavery as her only other option. Of course who could turn down the chance to be this man's most prized possession. As he is trying to persuade her to join him, he tells her that she is of more "worth" to him "than the possession of the Persian crown" (90). She still isn't convinced and responds to his invitation to stay willingly or become his slave with the statement: "I must be pleased perforce. Wretched Zenocrate!" (259). I must say that I like her style.
Although Zenocrate doesn't speak at all throughout Act Two, I feel certain that her opinion and perspective will be of much value to the reader later in the play. She seems to be waiting patiently in the background for an opportunity to present itself. Of course I've learned to be patient myself and to not allow my hopes to get too high, because generally the female characters within literature from this period are not allowed to accomplish very much. After all, if Zenocrate were the hero the play would be entitled "Zenocrate The Great" (or maybe not!).

The fair maiden

This female archetypal character can be found throughout literature including most fairytales, although the real meaning is often trivialized in most fairytale readings. The fair maiden is strongly represented within the literature of Early Modern England as a precious, innocent who must be protected from men, by other men. In Shakespeare's The Rape of Lucrece, the title character's chastity and integrity come under close scrutiny when she is raped. The fact that she is a chaste woman who has never been unfaithful to her husband is of no consequence to the public, who will now view her as a wanton woman. Lucrece eventually commits suicide upon realizing the bleak future that she will likely face. This was the case for most women during the Early Modern period. Rape ruined a woman, there was no question about it. It sullied her reputation and could even make her husband doubt her loyalty.
This weeks assignment included a ballad entitled "The Lady and the Blackamoor", which was meant to demonstrate the stereotypes associated with Africans during the early modern period. Of course it also blatantly demonstrated the stereotypes associated with the women of the period as well. The ballad tells the tale of an African servant who rapes the lady of the house and murders the entire family as an act of revenge on the man of the house for his tyranny.
The lady of the house is of course constructed as a helpless chaste woman. The ballad states that she was "a virgin of great fame" prior to marrying her "noble" husband. This ballad ends with the murder of all involved and the suicide of the perpetrator, conveniently leaving no loose ends. Most cases from the period would not have ended so conveniently. The woman had she lived, would have faced a much more brutal inspection by those who would insist that rape must be proven. She would have been expected to run through the town publicizing the event and allowing herself to be inspected by those who would want to see her wounds. She also would likely face the threat of the man who committed the crime, and his accusations of her lustful nature. Regardless of the outcome of any trial (if the case was ever heard), the raped woman's reputation would never be clear, and there would always be doubt surrounding the circumstances.

The Popish Asse

This monster who according to Philip Melancthon is representative of the Catholic Church, is meant to be one of many signs or warnings of God's wrath. The story of the Popish Asse and another story of a Moonkish Calfe by Martin Luther are translated out of French and into English by John Brooke and are obviously religious writings meant to cast doubt on the works and traditions of the Catholic Church and its members. My first glance at the title of this piece left me wondering if I would be able to incorporate it into my blog. Upon reading it though I realized that I had little to worry about. Even in these types of religious writings women are present. Notice that the belly and chest of this monster is that of a pregnant woman. This portion of the beast is meant to signify the body of the Pope and all of the officials of the church who "feede and pamper their paunches with delycious wynes and delycate dishes" and "seeke their ease and all the allurements and entisements to whoredom" (Brooke 5). This combination of feminine and maternal characteristics is meant to signify the lustful, wanton ways of women and at the same time speak out about the way the Catholic Church idolized the Virgin Mary. John Melancthon writes that "....without any shame his belly of a woeman, naked and bare: even to these, without any shame, doe lead a dissolute and wanton lyfe, full of all filthinesse and wickednesse" (Brooke 5). So even in these religous writings, the obvious stereotypical female of Early Modern England is presented to the modern world. Once again, I'm not at all surprised.

Quoted from: Of Two Woonderful Popish Monsters, translated by John Brooke

Found on EEBO (Early English Books Online)

Women as possessions

I was not at all surprised upon reading Christopher Marlowe's play Jew of Malta, to have discovered yet another example of a female character in Renaissance literature, who is treated as if she were a possession. In the following exchange with Lodowick, after Barabas has lost all of his wealth, he begins to use his daughter Abigail as a bargaining piece.

Lodowick: Well, Barabas, canst help me to a diamond?
Barabas: Oh, sir, your father had my diamonds.
Yet I have one left that will serve your turn.
(Aside) I mean my daughter; but ere he shall have her
I'll sacrifice her on a pile of wood.
I ha' the poison of the city for him,
And the white leprosy.
Lodowick: What sparkle does it give without a foil?
Barabas: The diamond that I talk of ne'er was foiled.
[Aside] But when he touches it, it will be foiled.
[Aloud] Lord Lodowick, it sparkles bright and fair.

Barabas refers to Abigail as a diamond whose value might depreciate should Lodowick become involved with her. Her happiness is of no importance to Barabas either, as we soon find out when he causes a fight between Lodowick and Abigail's true love, Mathias. This fight ends the lives of both men, leaving Abigail shocked and alone.
Of course nothing demonstrates the true value that Barabas places on his daughter quite like the course of action he takes when he finds out that she has converted to Christianity. After deciding that his daughter is no longer valuable, he kills her and all of the other nuns at the nunnery with poison. This really isn't shocking considering that in the beginning of the play he states "I have no charge, nor many children / But one sole daughter, whom I hold as dear / As Agamemnon did his Iphigen". This reference to a man who was willing to sacrifice his daughter's life in exchange for a strong wind, kept me on my toes awaiting the sacrifice of poor Abigail.

The Woman's Part

Posthumus:
Could I find out
The woman's part in me—for there's no motion
That tends to vice in man, but I affirm
It is the woman's part; be it lying, note it,
The woman's; flattering, hers; deceiving, hers;
Lust and rank thoughts, hers, hers; revenges, hers;
Ambitions, covetings, change of prides, disdain,
Nice longing, slanders, mutability,
All faults that name, nay, that hell knows,
Why, hers, in part or all; but rather, all;
For even to vice
They are not constant, but are changing still . . .

Cymbeline Act 2, scene 5, 19-30 - William Shakespeare

In this soliliquy by Posthumus in the second act of the play, it quickly becomes apparent that Posthumus blames "the woman's part" of himself, or his mother's contribution, for all of his faults and weaknesses. The idea that all women were lustful and deceitful was common in Early Modern England because of the fear surrounding the possibility of deceit in regards to conception. The fear was that a man could easily be fooled by his wife and lose face within his community, becoming known as a cuckold and even unknowingly raising another man's child. Many literary works from the period incorporate this idea because it was a common fear. As Posthumus also points out in the this play, an unfaithful act on the part of one woman often casts doubt on them all, leaving the impression that no woman can be trusted.