By the far the most renowned hero in ancient times was Heracles / Hercules. While tradition held a certain ‘pattern’ for his character—an average or expected set of characteristics—authors and poets were continually re-conceptualizing him to suit their own times and their own purposes. It is quite possible to view explicitly many interpretations of the Hercules myth in their respective historical contexts. Whether a writer admired or condemned the character of Hercules greatly determined the role that he was given in the narrative. Both positive and negative perceptions can been seen in Greek and Roman texts; this flawed character was especially suited to tragedy. Although authors reinterpreted the basic myth to serve their own ends—of which Vergil with the Aeneid is exemplary—a pattern of development emerged. Hercules became more of a metaphorical construct, representing the struggle of life over death and conflict within man. Thus two patterns of development can be observed in the character of Hercules: adaptations according to the purposes of individual authors, and a trend toward greater spiritual sophistication.
By examining Hercules in all of the myths in which he is present, it is possible to determine a prototype of his character. Indeed, in doing so, one can associate the origins of the character with Mycenaean times. Exemplary of the highest virtues desired in that era, Hercules possessed enormous strength and physical endurance and was the bravest of men. This in turn led to his importance in the religion and folklore of Mycenae and later Greece. Therefore, explicit within this context, one can see acclamatory sentiments toward Hercules in many authors. Frequently, he is seen as a civilizing force in a world of barbaric chaos. This ‘sophisticating’ aspect of his character can be discerned in the nature of the monsters that he has to overcome in his labours. All of them were supernatural creatures who threatened civilized society: the Hydra and the immortal lion can be seen as encroaching barbarism. Pindar, Timaeus, Aeschylus, and Pisander all praise the hero for these achievements. Yet, such affirmations of Hercules seem merely an appeasement and a supplication to his status as a hero. In the Aeneid, Vergil used Hercules as a means to political and social ends. To a great extent Aeneas was a Roman reincarnation of Hercules, created to exemplify Roman imperialism and unite the populace behind the empire much as Hercules consolidated the disparate Greek city-states. While not nearly as physically imposing as Hercules, Aeneas was nevertheless the most strong and agile warrior in the Aeneid. Additionally, he shared with the Greek hero the utmost self-assurance which his elevated physical ability allowed. Akin to Heracles, he does not check himself in battle but rather relishes it: upon returning to his besieged encampment, “Aeneas was the first to charge against the levies of country-folk...and he was the first to strike Latins down” (Aen. 10, p. 260). The two characters also correspond as founders and defenders of civilization. In addition to his labours, an account of Hercules as civilizer is given in Book VIII of the Aeneid, in which he liberates the people of King Evander from the monster Cacus. The light of civilization was spared from barbarism as Hercules slew the monster and “tore down the doors and the murky den was thrown open” (Aen. 8, p. 209). Aeneas realized a similar achievement: to found Rome he first had to subdue the native Italians. His chief opponent, Turnus, was the absolute embodiment of barbarism; in many ways he was comparable to the opponents of Hercules. Importantly, like Hercules, Aeneas becomes elevated above mortal status by his heroic exploits. Indeed, the comparison between the two heroes in this context was of vital importance for Vergil—and indeed, to his sponsor Augustus—in declaring Roman dominion as having a mythological basis. This belief is implicit in Book VI when Aeneas declares that like Hercules, he too is “descended from highest Jove” (Aen. 6, p. 151). Hercules was thus used as a mythological stamp of approval for Roman imperialism.
Yet Vergil is not in complete accordance with Hercules as a respectable hero. In several manners he seems to view Aeneas as being superior to the Greek hero, partially to reflect a belief in superior Roman morality. Vergil frequently emphasizes that Hercules’s weapon was a club —a primitive bludgeoning device that requires relatively little skill to employ. Alternately, Aeneas wielded spears and more importantly a sword, armaments that can only be constructed in more advanced societies and require an equally elevated sophistication in their handling. Similarly, at times Vergil displays a dislike towards the violence inherent in Hercules’s nature and reflected in Aeneas; several instances in the Aeneid document Aeneas’s tendency to lo losing control to his impulses. As Troy is being sacked, his fury over the loss of this beloved city allowed “madness [to master his] judgement and [gain] complete control” (Aen. 2, 68), and nearly caused him to attack a defenseless woman. When compared to Hercules’s killing of his music teacher Linus, it is easy to note Vergil’s contempt. Indeed, the denunciation of Hercules can be seen in the works of several other authors. Chiefly, they asserted that his extreme strength was dangerous and capriciously applied. One can see such criticism even as early as Homer, who mentions the hubris that Hercules displays and the odious killing of a host, Iphitus (Il. 5.403, Od. 21.28). Yet the most scathing reproach came from Sophocles in the Trachiniae. He portrayed Hercules as a drunk whose vengeance brought the death of Iphitus, whose passions brought the downfall of Oechalia, and whose neglect is painfully felt by his wife and children. A more lighthearted approach to objection can be seen in The Voyage of Argo by Apollonius of Rhodes. In this text, Heracles is gently satirized in a variety of situations: his physical size is noted for the first time in literature as he is forced to sit in the middle of the ship, and he is too strong for his oar to bear (Book 1, p. 67). Yet such docile humour is counterbalanced in the text by a recounting of the murders that he committed, and his last appearance is wholly unflattering. Indeed, Apollonius portrays the irrelevance of such an archaic hero as Hercules for the age in which the poem was written, the Hellenistic period—a time of great scientific and artistic achievement, and an age in which warfare differed greatly from combat portrayed in traditional myths of Hercules. Therefore, in this context it is no surprise that he can not even complete the voyage but is instead drawn away by his passions (Book 1, pp. 70-1). Hercules was further condemned for his hubristic violations of nature. This seems the basis for Seneca’s Hercules Furens, as the hero is seen as the exemplar of human hubris.
While such praise or condemnation of Hercules continued throughout the Greek and Roman periods, one approach to the myth did indeed change over time. Over the centuries, the Hercules myth altered from representing the physical achievements of the hero to symbolizing more metaphysical issues. The true worth of the deeds of Hercules began to be questioned: Lucretius condemned Hercules for ignoring the challenges of the mind and spirit. Yet authors started to merge the two into one concept—the deeds of the hero deriving from spiritual perfection. Thus, the conquests of the hero began to symbolize spiritual accomplishments. Two plays by Euripides exemplify these tendencies. In both Heracles and Alcestis, the hero is forced to confront mortality. Indeed, in the latter play Hercules is seen to overcome death quite literally as he goes down to the underworld and returns with Alcestis. When associated with his ascension into heaven, it can be observed that Hercules became a guarantor of immortality; in reality he was frequently represented in later Roman funeral rites. By the Roman period, the re-evaluation of Hercules as a hero of a spiritual nature became common. In addition to condemning the hero in Hercules Furens, the supreme nature of his spirit in conquering death is emphasized. It is stated that by his virtus he would be able to return from the underworld (312f., 319-24), and constant reference is made to his deification (438ff., 959). By this period, therefore, Hercules can frequently be seen as a symbol of immortality and the struggle of life over death.
From such evidence as has been noted above, admittedly limited to only a few of the multitude of possible authors, it is possible to observe the evolution of the Greek hero from the physical to the spiritual realm. Indeed, in light of the criticism accorded Hercules over the centuries, this transformation conceivably occurred to justify and reaffirm the importance of his character within Greek and Roman society. What is clear about the mythology surrounding the hero is that it was continually being adapted to suit the needs of individual authors. Therefore it is easy to see the protean nature of the Hercules character following two paths: at the same time he transformed in a linear sequence over time, and alternately he was being separately reconstructed by each author in a lateral fashion. Throughout the many changes in Greek and Roman mythology, however, Hercules never lost his importance.
Bibliography
Apollonius of Rhodes. The Voyage of Argo. Trans. E.V. Rieu. London: Penguin Books, 1971.
Fitch, John G. Seneca’s Hercules Furens: A Critical Text with Introduction and Commentary.
Ithaca, USA: Cornell University Press, 1987.
Hamilton, Edith. Mythology. Boston, USA: Little Brown and Company, 1942.
Vergil. The Aeneid. Trans. W.F. Jackson Knight. London: Penguin Books, 1972.
Monday, November 24, 1997
Wednesday, November 19, 1997
Urban Women in Late Medieval Europe
In examining the lives of the various townswomen of the late middle ages, it must be noted that there was no single mode of existence throughout all of Europe. Laws and cultural traditions varied quite dramatically with geography; therefore, a manner of life which existed in Florence may not have been reflected in London or Hamburg. There is one constant among all the cases examined, however: without few exceptions, life in a mid- to large-size town was more prosperous, varied, and free for urban women than their rural counterparts. The much greater circulating wealth and occupational diversity of the towns allowed women to be well represented in the economy. To a large extent the majority of the professional work done by women was an extension of their domestic service. However, one must beware not to devalue such occupations on this basis; the work that women performed for their communities was of great importance. A woman’s civil liberties can be seen as linked with the occupational foundations of the town in which she lived. In towns whose economy is based on the trade of goods for which women are the main suppliers, a high degree of freedom and legal support is given to them. The nature of the data that have survived must here be noted. First-hand or other direct accounts of the lives of average urban women are quite rare; indeed, most of the few records that have survived that provide direct access into the experiences of urban women are literary. Therefore, one has to extrapolate from the extant data to provide a more complete picture. In doing so, however, one encounters the problem inherent in medieval data sources: they are neither complete nor continuous. Yet, an admittedly blurry picture of urban women does emerge from these sources. Many are shown to be industrious and successful, even in light of laws in certain regions which greatly prohibited their activities.
To a great extent, the move to an urban setting emancipated women from a short life of hardship and dependence. Their lifespans increased, quickly surpassing that of men. Coupled with the propensity for men to marry younger brides, there was a large number of women outliving their husbands. In order to accommodate such a situation, property and inheritance laws were gradually modified to preserve women’s liberties. The most universal and important safeguard for women was the emergence of the dowry and dot, the portion of wealth that a bride was required to bring to a marriage. The dowry kept women from utter poverty when they became widowed or were otherwise separated from their husbands as it could not be given to heirs without her consent. Additionally, while the dowry could be freely invested by the husband, it could not be claimed by creditors for any debts owed by him. In many parts of Europe, women could legally disassociate themselves from their indebted husbands and withdraw their dowry. As an adjunct to this ‘guaranteed’ wealth of the dowry, women could inherit the property of their father or husband, either whole or in part. There are many cases of women independently managing the family lands or businesses. Alternately, they might become business partners with their children, the intended heirs of the property. Importantly, women had the right to determine their marital status after the death of their husbands; they were not legally forced into remarriage. Women were also allowed to make their own wills and bequeath property at their discretion, although they frequently needed permission from their husbands while he was still alive. Even though a man had legal control over his wife’s property—indeed, in many regions she had no property of her own save her dowry while her husband was still alive—in practice many women acted independently with their wealth, buying and selling at their desire. In a few regions women had the authority to represent themselves in the courts as well, further suggesting their legal independence. They did not gain complete personal freedom in the domestic or civil spheres however. In very few regions could women engage in politics, either as guild masters or on town councils. Inheritance laws were modified to arrest the concentration of wealth within a few families. Marriages could no longer be arranged among heirs: widows were restricted from marrying a brother of their deceased husband. Indeed by marrying outside of their own households, rich women circulated wealth among the townspeople. Men could still abuse their wives and daughters with impunity, although they could not kill them. Additionally, the threat of withholding the dowry forced daughters to accept the wishes of their fathers, including the arrangement of marriages. In conclusion, it can be seen that with the advent of urban life, women gained a great deal of legal freedom, although they were far from being completely independent of men.
The modern stereotype of a woman in medieval Europe places her in domestic servitude under the authority of her husband. Yet modern scholarship has proven such a situation as unrepresentative of most of the women in the towns and cities of Europe. There was indeed a great deal of work to be done in the urban household: they had to nurse children, cook for the family and guests, manage the goods-stores of the house, spin and weave, and supervise servants. Through the high and late middle ages the role of women in ‘external’ occupations becomes ever more clear. However, the nature of the data must be examined: there is no single source which provides a true picture of the working life of an average urban woman. Thus, as an example, tax records can not be completely relied upon to determine the number of women who engaged in commerce; alternately, they do provide some insight into the extent to which women did participate. As many men performed their trade or business at home, women were actively involved in the process. By observation and participation, they would learn the techniques and intricacies of the crafts first from their fathers and later their husbands. Indeed, these skills were of crucial importance, as women would take over the business when their husbands were away. There are also many instances of women acting on their own, either alongside their husband or in their own separate business affairs. In a few cases, husbands drew up a legal agreement entitling their wives to act on their behalf; the most common of these were not documents but official seals. Women were not limited to participation in the business of their husbands however. Frequently, they established themselves completely independently, either inheriting a business from a parent or commencing one anew. The majority of occupations by which they did so can be seen as extensions of domestic labour: cloth-making, fishing, the selling of foodstuffs and other provisions, and tavern-keeping. While some men objected to dealing with businesswomen, most records demonstrate that women were indeed accepted into the economic sphere as ordinary participants.
Guilds allowed membership to women, and in certain occupations they could become mistresses, although their activities were occasionally limited. The simplest route to membership was through the husband; most guilds allowed a woman to continue practicing the craft after her husband’s death, even though she may not have been a master. As marriage provided such an easy avenue into the fellowship, members were required to have their spouses approved by the guild; it is easy to envisage men who had been rejected by the guilds seeking marriage with a widow who had membership. Several occupations, such as embroidery, brewery, and silk-spinning were almost exclusively female, and this was reflected in the restrictiveness of the respective guilds. Young girls were apprenticed in the same manner as boys, usually entering apprenticeship in their early teens, although by the late medieval period they rarely received guild membership through such means. While the guilds seemed to protect the business interests of women, they became increasingly restrictive towards them towards the end of the middle ages. Men were appropriating occupations which had largely been the domain of women: brewing and cloth-making guilds began to exclude women. The sole occupations which remained exclusively female in the late middle ages were in the silk industry. They could receive a formal education, however for the most part it consisted simply of basic literacy. Indeed women in merchant families were required to be literate to conduct the family business. Yet, with the advent of universities and grammar schools women became increasingly excluded. As many occupations began to require some form of education, women became increasingly marginalized.
The majority of the economic activity described above pertained to the middle class. However, neither the upper or poor classes remained on the fringes of economic society. Indeed, upper class women could all but remain unoccupied: their husbands possessed the majority of the wealth of the urban centres. Cases have survived which demonstrate the extent to which a woman of the upper class engaged in business alongside her husband: she might enter important trade agreements. Additionally, when they inherited the estates of their fathers or husbands, they could come into control of sizeable property and might head a highly successful business. There are several instances of women acting independently as moneylenders and tradeswomen. Women of the lower classes were more restricted in the opportunities presented to them. Domestic service was the most accessible occupation, yet it was not an easy or highly profitable life. Entering into the households of the middle and upper classes, they were expected to work hard in order to allow their masters to concentrate on the family business. These servants were frequently children of poor parents, or even orphans, who would work for their board and perhaps to receive a small wage to put towards their dowry. Distinctions among the classes were just as important to urban-dwellers as to the aristocracy. Sumptuary laws were passed to keep women from dressing ‘above their station’, and there are many records of merchant women wanting to flaunt their modest wealth. The extremely wealthy did have a very high standard of living; indeed, they attempted to live in a similar fashion as the aristocracy. Yet individuals were mobile within the social structure: an increase in wealth gave individuals more power and respectability in the town. There are many cases of men and women marrying wealthier spouses and thus elevating their social positions. This did not occur among the extremely poor and the extremely rich, however. Within this social context, women can be seen as having established themselves as solidly middle class. They were rarely part of the extremely wealthy upper class, unless they had married into or inherited wealth, but they nevertheless enjoyed financial independence. Such was not the case for rural women; it can be seen that within a social context, the city allowed a degree of mobility unknown in the country.
It is impossible to form a complete picture of the typical European urban woman of the late middle ages. The closest that one can come to this goal is to create a broad generalization which may not apply to all regions and circumstances. As has been noted above, women’s legal rights differed greatly from country to country, and even among individual towns. Yet one constant aspect of urban life can be seen throughout Europe: women gained some measure of liberty and financial independence with the move to an urban setting. Their importance in the economic life of cities has been repeatedly proven and is no longer a basis of debate. Yet, in many ways such freedoms were being curtailed in the later medieval period. Thereafter, women would not enjoy the same level of civil freedom that they had in the high and later middle ages until this century.
Bibliography
Ennen, Edith. The Medieval Woman. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Cambridge, USA: Basil
Blackwell, Inc, 1989.
Gies, Frances and Joseph. Marriage and the Family in the Middle Ages. New York: Harper
& Row, 1987.
Goody, Jack. The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Heer, Friedrich. “The Social Status of Women,” Everyman in Europe. Ed. Allan Mitchell & Istvan Deak. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1981. 125-132.
Herlihy, David. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Women,” Everyman in Europe. Ed.
Allan Mitchell & Istvan Deak. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1981. 117-125.
Herlihy, David. Medieval Households. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press, 1985.
Hollister, C. Warren. Medieval Europe: A Short History. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, 1982.
LaBarge, Margaret Wade. Women in Medieval Life. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1986.
Nicholas, David. The Domestic Life of a Medieval City: Women, Children, and the Family in
Fourteenth-Century Ghent. Lincoln, USA: University of Nebraska Press, 1985.
Rowling, Marjorie. Everyday Life in Medieval Times. London: B.T. Batsford, 1968.
Seccombe, Wally. A Millennium of Family Change. London: Verso, 1992.
Sheehan, Michael M. Marriage, Family, and the Law in Medieval Europe: Collected Studies.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996.
Stuard, Susan Mosher. Women in Medieval Society. USA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1976.
To a great extent, the move to an urban setting emancipated women from a short life of hardship and dependence. Their lifespans increased, quickly surpassing that of men. Coupled with the propensity for men to marry younger brides, there was a large number of women outliving their husbands. In order to accommodate such a situation, property and inheritance laws were gradually modified to preserve women’s liberties. The most universal and important safeguard for women was the emergence of the dowry and dot, the portion of wealth that a bride was required to bring to a marriage. The dowry kept women from utter poverty when they became widowed or were otherwise separated from their husbands as it could not be given to heirs without her consent. Additionally, while the dowry could be freely invested by the husband, it could not be claimed by creditors for any debts owed by him. In many parts of Europe, women could legally disassociate themselves from their indebted husbands and withdraw their dowry. As an adjunct to this ‘guaranteed’ wealth of the dowry, women could inherit the property of their father or husband, either whole or in part. There are many cases of women independently managing the family lands or businesses. Alternately, they might become business partners with their children, the intended heirs of the property. Importantly, women had the right to determine their marital status after the death of their husbands; they were not legally forced into remarriage. Women were also allowed to make their own wills and bequeath property at their discretion, although they frequently needed permission from their husbands while he was still alive. Even though a man had legal control over his wife’s property—indeed, in many regions she had no property of her own save her dowry while her husband was still alive—in practice many women acted independently with their wealth, buying and selling at their desire. In a few regions women had the authority to represent themselves in the courts as well, further suggesting their legal independence. They did not gain complete personal freedom in the domestic or civil spheres however. In very few regions could women engage in politics, either as guild masters or on town councils. Inheritance laws were modified to arrest the concentration of wealth within a few families. Marriages could no longer be arranged among heirs: widows were restricted from marrying a brother of their deceased husband. Indeed by marrying outside of their own households, rich women circulated wealth among the townspeople. Men could still abuse their wives and daughters with impunity, although they could not kill them. Additionally, the threat of withholding the dowry forced daughters to accept the wishes of their fathers, including the arrangement of marriages. In conclusion, it can be seen that with the advent of urban life, women gained a great deal of legal freedom, although they were far from being completely independent of men.
The modern stereotype of a woman in medieval Europe places her in domestic servitude under the authority of her husband. Yet modern scholarship has proven such a situation as unrepresentative of most of the women in the towns and cities of Europe. There was indeed a great deal of work to be done in the urban household: they had to nurse children, cook for the family and guests, manage the goods-stores of the house, spin and weave, and supervise servants. Through the high and late middle ages the role of women in ‘external’ occupations becomes ever more clear. However, the nature of the data must be examined: there is no single source which provides a true picture of the working life of an average urban woman. Thus, as an example, tax records can not be completely relied upon to determine the number of women who engaged in commerce; alternately, they do provide some insight into the extent to which women did participate. As many men performed their trade or business at home, women were actively involved in the process. By observation and participation, they would learn the techniques and intricacies of the crafts first from their fathers and later their husbands. Indeed, these skills were of crucial importance, as women would take over the business when their husbands were away. There are also many instances of women acting on their own, either alongside their husband or in their own separate business affairs. In a few cases, husbands drew up a legal agreement entitling their wives to act on their behalf; the most common of these were not documents but official seals. Women were not limited to participation in the business of their husbands however. Frequently, they established themselves completely independently, either inheriting a business from a parent or commencing one anew. The majority of occupations by which they did so can be seen as extensions of domestic labour: cloth-making, fishing, the selling of foodstuffs and other provisions, and tavern-keeping. While some men objected to dealing with businesswomen, most records demonstrate that women were indeed accepted into the economic sphere as ordinary participants.
Guilds allowed membership to women, and in certain occupations they could become mistresses, although their activities were occasionally limited. The simplest route to membership was through the husband; most guilds allowed a woman to continue practicing the craft after her husband’s death, even though she may not have been a master. As marriage provided such an easy avenue into the fellowship, members were required to have their spouses approved by the guild; it is easy to envisage men who had been rejected by the guilds seeking marriage with a widow who had membership. Several occupations, such as embroidery, brewery, and silk-spinning were almost exclusively female, and this was reflected in the restrictiveness of the respective guilds. Young girls were apprenticed in the same manner as boys, usually entering apprenticeship in their early teens, although by the late medieval period they rarely received guild membership through such means. While the guilds seemed to protect the business interests of women, they became increasingly restrictive towards them towards the end of the middle ages. Men were appropriating occupations which had largely been the domain of women: brewing and cloth-making guilds began to exclude women. The sole occupations which remained exclusively female in the late middle ages were in the silk industry. They could receive a formal education, however for the most part it consisted simply of basic literacy. Indeed women in merchant families were required to be literate to conduct the family business. Yet, with the advent of universities and grammar schools women became increasingly excluded. As many occupations began to require some form of education, women became increasingly marginalized.
The majority of the economic activity described above pertained to the middle class. However, neither the upper or poor classes remained on the fringes of economic society. Indeed, upper class women could all but remain unoccupied: their husbands possessed the majority of the wealth of the urban centres. Cases have survived which demonstrate the extent to which a woman of the upper class engaged in business alongside her husband: she might enter important trade agreements. Additionally, when they inherited the estates of their fathers or husbands, they could come into control of sizeable property and might head a highly successful business. There are several instances of women acting independently as moneylenders and tradeswomen. Women of the lower classes were more restricted in the opportunities presented to them. Domestic service was the most accessible occupation, yet it was not an easy or highly profitable life. Entering into the households of the middle and upper classes, they were expected to work hard in order to allow their masters to concentrate on the family business. These servants were frequently children of poor parents, or even orphans, who would work for their board and perhaps to receive a small wage to put towards their dowry. Distinctions among the classes were just as important to urban-dwellers as to the aristocracy. Sumptuary laws were passed to keep women from dressing ‘above their station’, and there are many records of merchant women wanting to flaunt their modest wealth. The extremely wealthy did have a very high standard of living; indeed, they attempted to live in a similar fashion as the aristocracy. Yet individuals were mobile within the social structure: an increase in wealth gave individuals more power and respectability in the town. There are many cases of men and women marrying wealthier spouses and thus elevating their social positions. This did not occur among the extremely poor and the extremely rich, however. Within this social context, women can be seen as having established themselves as solidly middle class. They were rarely part of the extremely wealthy upper class, unless they had married into or inherited wealth, but they nevertheless enjoyed financial independence. Such was not the case for rural women; it can be seen that within a social context, the city allowed a degree of mobility unknown in the country.
It is impossible to form a complete picture of the typical European urban woman of the late middle ages. The closest that one can come to this goal is to create a broad generalization which may not apply to all regions and circumstances. As has been noted above, women’s legal rights differed greatly from country to country, and even among individual towns. Yet one constant aspect of urban life can be seen throughout Europe: women gained some measure of liberty and financial independence with the move to an urban setting. Their importance in the economic life of cities has been repeatedly proven and is no longer a basis of debate. Yet, in many ways such freedoms were being curtailed in the later medieval period. Thereafter, women would not enjoy the same level of civil freedom that they had in the high and later middle ages until this century.
Bibliography
Ennen, Edith. The Medieval Woman. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Cambridge, USA: Basil
Blackwell, Inc, 1989.
Gies, Frances and Joseph. Marriage and the Family in the Middle Ages. New York: Harper
& Row, 1987.
Goody, Jack. The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Heer, Friedrich. “The Social Status of Women,” Everyman in Europe. Ed. Allan Mitchell & Istvan Deak. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1981. 125-132.
Herlihy, David. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Women,” Everyman in Europe. Ed.
Allan Mitchell & Istvan Deak. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1981. 117-125.
Herlihy, David. Medieval Households. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press, 1985.
Hollister, C. Warren. Medieval Europe: A Short History. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, 1982.
LaBarge, Margaret Wade. Women in Medieval Life. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1986.
Nicholas, David. The Domestic Life of a Medieval City: Women, Children, and the Family in
Fourteenth-Century Ghent. Lincoln, USA: University of Nebraska Press, 1985.
Rowling, Marjorie. Everyday Life in Medieval Times. London: B.T. Batsford, 1968.
Seccombe, Wally. A Millennium of Family Change. London: Verso, 1992.
Sheehan, Michael M. Marriage, Family, and the Law in Medieval Europe: Collected Studies.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996.
Stuard, Susan Mosher. Women in Medieval Society. USA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1976.
Thursday, November 13, 1997
Witchcraft in Colonial America
Mythology surrounding witchcraft is deeply embedded in the social tapestry of modern western civilization. Yet there is a great deal of misconception and outright fallacy in popular culture regarding the phenomenon. Contemporary scholarship to a great extent endeavours to alter these preconceptions. In order to begin the analysis of the tragic spectacle of witchcraft, the nature of accusation must first be addressed: what situations typically led to suspicion? Additionally, the character of the “average” witch must be determined; indeed, the scholastic theories concerning witches differ greatly from traditional stereotypes, which developed after the majority of witch trials had passed into history. Similarly, those who accused witches have been misconceived in the centuries after their actions and therefore must be re-examined. Yet, while these stereotypes are in question, some witches were in fact executed, agreeing with convention; however, a greater number of those accused were acquitted of the charges against them, or never entered court at all. The relationship between witches and accusers is itself of great importance in analyzing witchcraft cases. While a number of factors governed the attitudes of each party for the other, the most obvious aspect of the interactions between accused witches and their accusers was conflict, usually of a financial nature. When such personal conflict was elevated to include the entire community, as occurred in Salem in 1692, a major outbreak of witchcraft persecution erupted. Yet Salem is a peculiar case; it will be briefly examined as an extremity of the normal model of witchcraft, and not as the defining element of colonial witchcraft as it is popularly believed to have been.
The most fundamental issue that needs to be explored is the nature and origins of witchcraft accusations: on what grounds were they given? Scholastic consensus attributes suspicion with conflict between two individuals, most likely neighbours. They might have had a dispute over land claims or other large-scale financial matter, or over smaller interpersonal experiences, such as one party’s constant intrusion into the house of the other, which would lead to disdain. The events which were most conducive to suspicion involved the exchange of goods, frequently initiated by the witch. Demands for goods or favours were usually rejected; the victim might project their guilty conscience towards the witch, which would frequently be confirmed with some chastising remark from the witch. Such seemingly minor incidents would climax when the victim would suffer an accident or disaster, either to himself or his family, or to his property. Any contact with the witch prior to being afflicted in the aforementioned fashion could lead to a formal accusation for witchcraft. Yet a further situational aspect was required. Seemingly in opposition to all the internal conflict that was required in order to promote suspicion of witchcraft, a fundamental stability needed to exist at the level of the community. One does not see periods of witchcraft trials during town settlement, or when a dangerous external force threatened the community. After examining the sources it becomes clear that the traditional stereotypes have some modicum of truth, yet are greatly exaggerated in the details. Therefore, while the majority of witches were in fact older women, the evidence requires further contemplation. Accusations for witchcraft were not dispensed at the sight of one instance of possible witchcraft. Alternately, suspicions of witchcraft gradually increased over several decades before one event, as described above, triggered formal accusations. When interpreted in a social context, the majority of those who participated in witchcraft proceedings were members of the lower classes. It was they who accepted witchcraft as a societal danger most readily; it is quite easy to envisage the economic hardships suffered by the lower classes and therefore their willingness to denounce their economic rivals. Yet when a powerful individual was a participant, the case had a higher probability of entering the courts. At the same time however, many educated members of the upper class were skeptical of the legality of such trials.
From these beginnings, models of typical witches and their victims can be created. Far from being old wise-women who engaged in pagan religious practices in contempt of their Puritan neighbours or social misfits who defied authority, those accused and condemned for witchcraft were conventional members of their communities. In virtually every case, however, there was one abnormality which differentiated the accused from the other members of their town and forced them into being viewed as “outsiders”. The most obvious of these abnormalities, at least from the position of the accuser, was the social status of the accused. In the majority of witchcraft trials, witches were of the low and lower-middle classes, while the individuals bringing forth charges were of a higher class. Such statistics have a relatively easy explanation: wealthier individuals could bring charges of witchcraft to court with greater authority and less opposition. They could have more easily condemned their social inferiors and would not have been as vulnerable to counter accusations. Notably, those “mobile”individuals who began to lose their wealth and high status were also easily accused. It is easy to visualize such individuals incurring the enmity of their higher-class neighbours in attempting to ameliorate their position by engaging in activities which could have been seen as socially threatening, or by allowing their jealousies to be exhibited. Additionally, it must be noted that while members of the upper classes were not exempt from accusations, they were rarely convicted; their influence in the community was simply too great. The portrait of witchcraft victims is less straightforward than that of their accused. Indeed, to a modern observer they do not seem to be victims so much as persecutors in their own right. Yet they did not use witchcraft merely to gain advantage over those whom they disdained; conversely, they truly believed that they were the victims of diabolical machinations. One group stands out among victims: young adult males. Men in this age group were most susceptible to victimization because to a great extent they were the most vulnerable individuals financially; they had begun the long, arduous process of establishing an independent livelihood. Analyzing such a situation, it is easy to interpret witchcraft accusations deriving from the crop and handicraft failures noted above; these men projected their own failure onto others.
The Salem witchcraft outbreak in 1692 is exceptional due to the excessiveness of both the circumstances which led up to it and the extent to which it progressed. Fundamentally, the situation in Salem was similar to other cases in that accusations derived from conflict. Yet personal conflicts increased to engulf the entire community, dividing it into factions. This fragmentation can be traced to several linked sources: hostility between Salem Town and Salem Village; divided loyalties for the Village minister of the time, Samuel Parris; and financial conflict between the two leading families of the Village. Each of these aspects was linked by threads of power, in both the financial and political spheres. The evidence is quite clear: those whose loyalties lay with the Village attempted to accuse those whose interests lay in the Town, or at least individuals who were involved with them. Notably, in opposition to the expected trend, accusations rose from the lower classes to being aimed at some of the powerful and influential people of the Village. However, it was ultimately these same individuals who brought an end to the accusations, mainly through the inability of the law to properly deal with the situation. Therefore, in examining the abnormal degree of persecution in Salem, one must remain aware of the peculiarities of the Town’s situation; the nineteen witches who were executed were not killed on the basis of crop failures or petty jealousies alone.
Witchcraft is one of the most cited yet most misunderstood aspects of colonial America. The language and philosophy of the persecutions have entered into the cultural conscience of the western world. It is interesting to note, however, that most of these fragments of history were derived from the extreme case of Salem. The outbreak in 1692 is not representative of witchcraft in the colonies as a whole. Indeed, the typical case is a cautious and rational one, although the particular convictions do not associate with modern ideology. Yet it is important to situate the phenomenon of witchcraft as a part of the normal experiences of early settlers in the new world.
Bibliography
Boyer, Paul, and Stephen Nissenbaum. Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1974.
Demos, John Putnam. Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early New England.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.
The most fundamental issue that needs to be explored is the nature and origins of witchcraft accusations: on what grounds were they given? Scholastic consensus attributes suspicion with conflict between two individuals, most likely neighbours. They might have had a dispute over land claims or other large-scale financial matter, or over smaller interpersonal experiences, such as one party’s constant intrusion into the house of the other, which would lead to disdain. The events which were most conducive to suspicion involved the exchange of goods, frequently initiated by the witch. Demands for goods or favours were usually rejected; the victim might project their guilty conscience towards the witch, which would frequently be confirmed with some chastising remark from the witch. Such seemingly minor incidents would climax when the victim would suffer an accident or disaster, either to himself or his family, or to his property. Any contact with the witch prior to being afflicted in the aforementioned fashion could lead to a formal accusation for witchcraft. Yet a further situational aspect was required. Seemingly in opposition to all the internal conflict that was required in order to promote suspicion of witchcraft, a fundamental stability needed to exist at the level of the community. One does not see periods of witchcraft trials during town settlement, or when a dangerous external force threatened the community. After examining the sources it becomes clear that the traditional stereotypes have some modicum of truth, yet are greatly exaggerated in the details. Therefore, while the majority of witches were in fact older women, the evidence requires further contemplation. Accusations for witchcraft were not dispensed at the sight of one instance of possible witchcraft. Alternately, suspicions of witchcraft gradually increased over several decades before one event, as described above, triggered formal accusations. When interpreted in a social context, the majority of those who participated in witchcraft proceedings were members of the lower classes. It was they who accepted witchcraft as a societal danger most readily; it is quite easy to envisage the economic hardships suffered by the lower classes and therefore their willingness to denounce their economic rivals. Yet when a powerful individual was a participant, the case had a higher probability of entering the courts. At the same time however, many educated members of the upper class were skeptical of the legality of such trials.
From these beginnings, models of typical witches and their victims can be created. Far from being old wise-women who engaged in pagan religious practices in contempt of their Puritan neighbours or social misfits who defied authority, those accused and condemned for witchcraft were conventional members of their communities. In virtually every case, however, there was one abnormality which differentiated the accused from the other members of their town and forced them into being viewed as “outsiders”. The most obvious of these abnormalities, at least from the position of the accuser, was the social status of the accused. In the majority of witchcraft trials, witches were of the low and lower-middle classes, while the individuals bringing forth charges were of a higher class. Such statistics have a relatively easy explanation: wealthier individuals could bring charges of witchcraft to court with greater authority and less opposition. They could have more easily condemned their social inferiors and would not have been as vulnerable to counter accusations. Notably, those “mobile”individuals who began to lose their wealth and high status were also easily accused. It is easy to visualize such individuals incurring the enmity of their higher-class neighbours in attempting to ameliorate their position by engaging in activities which could have been seen as socially threatening, or by allowing their jealousies to be exhibited. Additionally, it must be noted that while members of the upper classes were not exempt from accusations, they were rarely convicted; their influence in the community was simply too great. The portrait of witchcraft victims is less straightforward than that of their accused. Indeed, to a modern observer they do not seem to be victims so much as persecutors in their own right. Yet they did not use witchcraft merely to gain advantage over those whom they disdained; conversely, they truly believed that they were the victims of diabolical machinations. One group stands out among victims: young adult males. Men in this age group were most susceptible to victimization because to a great extent they were the most vulnerable individuals financially; they had begun the long, arduous process of establishing an independent livelihood. Analyzing such a situation, it is easy to interpret witchcraft accusations deriving from the crop and handicraft failures noted above; these men projected their own failure onto others.
The Salem witchcraft outbreak in 1692 is exceptional due to the excessiveness of both the circumstances which led up to it and the extent to which it progressed. Fundamentally, the situation in Salem was similar to other cases in that accusations derived from conflict. Yet personal conflicts increased to engulf the entire community, dividing it into factions. This fragmentation can be traced to several linked sources: hostility between Salem Town and Salem Village; divided loyalties for the Village minister of the time, Samuel Parris; and financial conflict between the two leading families of the Village. Each of these aspects was linked by threads of power, in both the financial and political spheres. The evidence is quite clear: those whose loyalties lay with the Village attempted to accuse those whose interests lay in the Town, or at least individuals who were involved with them. Notably, in opposition to the expected trend, accusations rose from the lower classes to being aimed at some of the powerful and influential people of the Village. However, it was ultimately these same individuals who brought an end to the accusations, mainly through the inability of the law to properly deal with the situation. Therefore, in examining the abnormal degree of persecution in Salem, one must remain aware of the peculiarities of the Town’s situation; the nineteen witches who were executed were not killed on the basis of crop failures or petty jealousies alone.
Witchcraft is one of the most cited yet most misunderstood aspects of colonial America. The language and philosophy of the persecutions have entered into the cultural conscience of the western world. It is interesting to note, however, that most of these fragments of history were derived from the extreme case of Salem. The outbreak in 1692 is not representative of witchcraft in the colonies as a whole. Indeed, the typical case is a cautious and rational one, although the particular convictions do not associate with modern ideology. Yet it is important to situate the phenomenon of witchcraft as a part of the normal experiences of early settlers in the new world.
Bibliography
Boyer, Paul, and Stephen Nissenbaum. Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1974.
Demos, John Putnam. Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the Culture of Early New England.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)