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.