Domestic Disturbances, Patriarchal Values

Violence, Family and Sexuality in Early Modern Europe, 1600-1900

Marianna Muravyeva

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138098930
• eBook ISBN: 9781317388845
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

This book offers an in-depth analysis of several national case studies on family violence between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries, using court records as their main source. It raises important questions for research on early modern Europe: the notion of absolute power; sovereignty and its applicability to familial power; the problem of violence and the possibility of its usage for conflict resolution both in public and private spaces; and the interconnection of gender and violence against women, reconsidered in the context of modern state formation as a public sphere and family building as a private sphere.

Contributors bring together detailed studies of domestic violence and spousal murder in Romania, England, and Russia, abduction and forced marriage in Poland, infanticide and violence against parents in Finland, and rape and violence against women in Germany. These case studies serve as the basis for a comparative analysis of forms, models, and patterns of violence within the family in the context of debates on political power, absolutism, and violence. They highlight changes towards unlimited violence by family patriarchs in European countries, in the context of the changing relationship between the state and its citizens. This book was originally published as a special issue of the Journal of the History of the Family.

Violence or justice? Gender-specific structures and strategies in early modern Europe

Satu Lidman

Legal History, Faculty of Law, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

This article aims at getting a deeper understanding of gender-specific justification of violence in early modern legal discourse and practice. The analysis focuses on structures and strategies concerning women’s supposed misconduct, disobedience and sexually suspicious acts, and violence related to this. The legal cases referred to originate from the secular lower courts’ proceedings of the cities Stockholm and Munich in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.

In addition to acts perceived as crimes, such as rape, the term violence refers to those not necessarily qualified as wrong, such as domestic castigation. Furthermore, in this study, the subject violence also applies to discriminatory legal structures and customs. The core questions therefore are: To what extent were disciplinary and penal methods as well as other acts upon a woman’s body understood as just and legitimate, to what extent and in what circumstances were they seen as violent and wrongful, and how did this reflect the contemporary gender roles?

1. Introduction

Violence seems to be a commonplace feature within human history, and where there is violence there are attempts to regulate and legitimate it. This, on the other hand, obliges one to consider the concept of justice. However, both violence and justice are historical and societal constructions, changing images that are given different meanings depending on the culture and time period. During the nineteenth century, the legal protection of individual’s physical and sexual autonomy became an essential part of national legislations, and today it is embedded in human rights. Violations of individual integrity are generally perceived as morally wrong. In early modern society, the limits of acceptable sexual behaviour and use of violence followed another kind of logic. Therefore, it can be presumed that the contemporary understanding of these features differed from today’s perspectives at least in some, possibly crucial, ways.

This article investigates the ways in which disciplinary and penal power were embedded within male–female relations and jurisdiction in early modern society and law, especially in the micro-legal cultures of the Swedish and Bavarian capitals. On a more concrete level, the analysis wishes to profit from exemplary court cases concerning marital disagreements, adultery and sexual violence, and handled by the secular lower courts of the cities Stockholm and Munich in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. In both cities a higher royal or ducal court could be used as the second legal instance, and ecclesiastical authorities also dealt with marital violence and moral offences. In this article, the focus lies on the magistrates’ courts proceedings, which, for the most part, seem to have followed a similar working logic in both cities.

When reading the testimonies and statements of witnesses and defendants, as well as the discussions of the magistrates that were written down in the court proceedings, a substantial source criticism is needed. The actual circumstances, actions and sentiments cannot be reconstructed through textual material like this. Firstly, the clerk might have misunderstood something, the “truth” was never told – or heard – or he might even have deliberately marked down the court’s own interpretations. Secondly, all parties of a legal case might have tried to use the system for their own benefit. Thirdly, and when it comes to marital and sexual violence in particular, it is to be assumed that the majority of actual incidents never became legal matters. However, the fact that they were addressed at least in a certain quantity does indicate that the subject that would today be called violence against women was to some extent topical in the contemporary society.

Around 1600, Stockholm and Munich were both residential and administrative centres of powerful rulers, the Protestant Swedish kings and the Catholic Bavarian dukes. In the period when the confessions were already long established but still needed to be emphasized, capital cities had to serve as models for other areas, especially in the fields of morality and good order. In both states, the period was characterized by feverish religiousness also influencing secular authorities, as well as the growth of bureaucracy and criminalization. However, characteristically, both of the magistrates’ courts were still led by laymen. As the level of its own national legal education was low in Sweden, German judicial literature in particular was widely read.

The combination of male political and judicial power and the growing attention to female unchastity in the period after the Reformation resulted in many forms of discrimination and violence. This article seeks to observe how, if at all, the contemporary society justified its policies regarding the control of women and their sexuality. It does not aim at a systematic comparative analysis of the two judicial systems, but suggests that even a rough scrutiny of legal norms and court processes remains useful, as these are exactly the points where the changing contents of violence and justice become visible. A dense urban environment offers fruitful bases for the study, as rumours and impressions of the neighbours played a significant role in the legal processes. Certainly, being a “good” woman was quite different from being a “good” man – and of course in many ways it still is.

2. The complexity of patriarchal order

In early modern society, socially acceptable, honourable behaviour was woven into the dynamics of the patriarchal worldview according to which both men and women had their duties and certain limits for their doings that they should not transgress. The contemporary “gender politics” was based on patriarchal hierarchy as well as a gender-specific honour code. This meant the rule of fathers, husbands and masters as well as authorities, over children, wives, servants and subordinates, and it was one major way of maintaining the “natural” order in a society largely based on inequality (e.g. Gowing, 2003; 2005; Ingram, 1999; Murray, 1995). However, patriarchal hierarchy is to be seen as a rather complex phenomenon, and not in any way an innovation of the early modern period.

Patria potestas, rule by the father, was one of the most important ingredients in the social system of Roman law, which in its late antique form came to strongly influence European legal thinking until the modern era (Koch, 1991; 1997; Perneder, 1592 Institutiones [Inst.] 1.12; Ruff, 2001 p. 133). Additionally, the position and possibilities available to individuals rested on various bases: Differences in their origin, familial background and reputation, social and professional status, wealth and age as well as sex. Furthermore, especially among the nobility and bourgeoisie of the late medieval and early modern era, honour was a highly respected value (Dilcher, 1997; Hull, 1997, pp. 228–229; Lidman, 2008, pp. 49–70; Muravyeva, 2012, p. 24; Schreiner & Schwerhoff, 1995, pp. 2, 6–7). These features created the framework for good life.

Unlike sex, which refers to biological and reproductive qualities, gender is to be understood as a social role that people perform (Classen, 2007, p. 8). In the case of women, their gender role was linked to the female honour code, and this consisted primarily of chaste and amenable manners. Women were assigned the roles of a loyal daughter, mother and wife – if they were not widows or nuns. Additionally, a woman’s sexual reputation and therefore her relation to men influenced the honour of her whole family, including its male members (Burghartz, 1995, p. 220; Schreiner & Schwerhoff, 1995, 18; Wiesner, 1993 pp. 34–35).¹ Therefore, it seems logical to think that men were to guard and control women’s doings, and perhaps that they were also quite motivated to do this. It is important to emphasize though, that not only women but both sexes were brought up and expected to act according to their gender-specific roles. The early modern view of this advisable and required behaviour can be summarized as shown in Table 1.

Yet, it needs to be stressed that though chastity surely was the bedrock of women’s virtues, other qualities and abilities could contribute to female honour as well (e.g. Classen, 2007; Wunder, 1997). Furthermore, when speaking about male control in the context of patriarchal duties and responsibilities, one has to consider a wider way of understanding the concept of family. Early modern rulers saw themselves as “fathers” of their territory, and this position was not only associated with kings or dukes but was applied for lower local authorities, such as the magistrates, as well (Lidman, 2008, p. 76; Schuward, 1584). In his famous educational book from the early sixteenth century, Erasmus depicted the sun in the sky as the ‘prettiest image of God himself’² and compared this to the ruler, who should let his wisdom and power shine among his people ‘like a good master of the house’. According to his widely adopted view, a king was to be seen as father for the people. (Rotterdam, 1521, p. XIIIv, XXv). The same patriarchal dynamics functioned on a smaller scale within the household walls as the master exercized his disciplinary power.

One possible way of looking at this scenario is to picture women as especially valued and therefore worthy of special safety measures for which men were obliged to be responsible for the sake of everybody’s happiness. It seems more relevant to ask, though, in what ways these structures and values may have protected women – or did they merely result in double standards? And even more importantly, did they actually encourage the use of violence? Depending on the type of source material, the vulnerability of the female gender tends to be either emphasized or downplayed, and criminal court proceedings seem to have the former effect. Nevertheless, and especially in the case of women of lower social standing, the loss of honour did not leave much left to shield them from the consequences of sexual assaults and violence.³

Table 1. The ideal gender roles.

A “good” woman?	A “good” man?
Chastity, sexual purity	Honesty, trustworthiness
Obedience (to males)	Loyalty (to authorities)
Hard working, modest	Hard working, respectable

Of all vices, sexual misconduct in particular was believed to offend yet another father figure: God. God’s wrath (Swedish Guds vrede, German Gottes Zorn) would collectively harm the entire nation through hunger, war and disease. To prevent this, legal authorities as well as husbands and fathers not only had the right but the duty to discipline and punish shameful behaviour with the necessary severity. Therefore, all suspicions related to unchastity were serious matters. These images of human and divine punishments were mutually reinforcing as sacrificing the guilty helped to keep the community safe and discourage further crime. Since deterrence was thought to create peace, punishments including public shaming were understood as part of God’s desire for order on earth (Ingram, 1999, pp. 89, 94–95; Lidman, 2008, pp. 83–86; Roper, 1999 pp. 64–66; Rosenberg, 2004, pp. 166–173). These views were not new in the sixteenth century, but they became stronger in the period after the Reformation.

Hence, the close connection of religion and law are characteristic for early modern Europe, including Sweden and Bavaria. Legal arguments were not infrequently based on religious grounds, or at least adjusted to a “godly” undertone. Sin and crime, order and disorder as well as morals and chastity were all central concepts in the national systems of control and discipline regardless of the confession (Hull, 1997; Lidman, 2008; Tamm & Johansen, 1999; Schilling, 2004 p. 27; Österberg & Lindström, 1988; Schnabel-Schüle, 1997). As the authorities tried to create a “pure” Christian society, a whole ‘wave of moral politics from above’ emerged from the second half of the sixteenth century onwards. (Burghartz, 2004 p. 85). From being secrets of the heart many forms of sinning now turned into public matters.

Legal norms and practices especially related to sexual misconduct intensified. Both in Catholic and Protestant states, the “unchaste” behaviour of women in particular became a focus of concern, and at the same time it came increasingly into the secular jurisdiction (Burghartz, 1999, pp. 286–287; Hsia, 1989; Roper, 1999, pp. 222–227; Strasser, 2004, p. 5). However, many moral offences and family troubles continued to be handled before the church courts (Van der Heijden, 2004; Hull, 1997, pp. 223–226; Ingram, 2003; Korpiola, 2009, p. 276; Schilling, 2004 p. 28). While the ecclesiastical authorities focused on reconciliation, the aim of the secular courts was to punish crime. Yet, the different agencies of social control, such as clergymen and magistrates, did not always make clear distinctions between sin and crime (Van der Heijden, 2004 pp. 58–59).

In Protestant Sweden, the idea of God’s hunger for revenge was introduced at the latest in the royal “patent” of 1563, which demanded harsher sanctioning of serious moral offences (Schmedeman, 1706, pp. 48–49). In 1608 the king promulgated the Law of Moses to be followed beside the secular norms of the realm. This led to an increase in ex officio accusations and to harsher punishments, especially in the field of moral offences. Yet the shift towards a more punitive justice was a gradual change in the course of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. (Korpiola, 2009, p. 349; Österberg, 2010, pp. 152–153, 166–167; Österberg & Lindström, 1988, p. 30; Tamm & Johansen, 1999, pp. 314–317; Schmedeman, 1706 pp. 127–129).

In the Catholic Duchy of Bavaria, similar arguments illustrating the horrible heavenly revenge for people’s sins and proclaiming the responsibility of secular authorities to prevent this were heard from the early sixteenth century onwards (Lidman, 2008, pp. 79–86; Strasser, 2004 pp. 1–3, 6–7). In general, there was ‘a highly organized attempt’ of the centralizing legal system and slowly modernizing society to ‘make an entire population conform to a narrow moral code of behaviour’, as Ulinka Rublack writes (R...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction – ‘A king in his own household’: domestic discipline and family violence in early modern Europe reconsidered
• 1. Violence or justice? Gender-specific structures and strategies in early modern Europe
• 2. Judicial archives and the history of the Romanian family: domestic conflict and the Orthodox Church in the eighteenth century
• 3. Vigilante violence vs. freedom of choice in marriage: the Foray/Zajazd in the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth of the 18th century
• 4. Marital cruelty: reconsidering lay attitudes in England, c. 1580 to 1850
• 5. ‘Till Death Us Do Part’: spousal homicide in early modern Russia
• 6. Violence between parents and children: courts of law in early modern Finland
• 7. Female serial killers in the early modern age? Recurrent infanticide in Finland 1750–1896
• Index