Women's Status in Europe,
1500 to 1700

A woman's status in Europe for the period 1500 to 1700 is one that has certain paradoxes. We cannot simply view this status through the eyes of feminism today but rather should tackle it from its origins. European patrilineal society and the subjugation of women was nothing new, but new facets of this subjugation were brought forth by the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.

This period of religious change allowed fundamental alterations in two manners. First, the inaccessibility of God promoted by the ritualistic Catholic Church was challenged by placing God in theological reach of the layman instead of only within the reach of Catholic Synods.

Second, it precipitated a widespread revolution of the puritanical religious views which held orthodoxy in the centres of learning (i.e. towns/cities). While paradoxically a woman might be allowed a greater religious recognition of spiritual purity than before, socially and economically her wings were still brutally clipped, even more so than before.

Theological views seem to be predominantly responsible for women's position as they were the point of origin for most attitudes prevalent at that time. Women's virtues and positive religious contributions were recognised in her position as mother (virtuous and Mary-like) and householder.

As a living being, however, she was still of the flesh (sinful and Eve-like). The view of women was coloured by the view taken of religious text by new theological "discovery" of womanhood.

The Malleus Maleficarum spoke of woman as being imperfect and carnal, and thus not able to uphold the faith in the same manner as men who were considered to be characterised by practically unshakeable reason even in the face of woman, the "natural temptation". Views such as these can be seen to have been drawn from the writings of the Apostle Paul.

Equally, a strong force at that time was the awakening of Mariology, which recognised the sanctity of the Virgin Mary as mother of the Christ-child. While women were given a position that now allowed them to be considered spiritually pure despite guilt for Original Sin, they were not ecclesiastically freed but rather shackled to marriage and motherhood as their only means of purity. Their husband was their head and obedience to him was supreme.

Basically, when a woman married, she merely changed hands in "ownership" from her father to her husband. Certain religious groups allowed divorce from an irreligious husband on the basis of biblical testimony of unequal "yoking" of partners but this would surely have met with great stigmatisation and was more largely a theory than a practical possibility.

In these patriarchal conditions a woman could not consider herself an autonomous individual but rather subject to a hierarchical position in society, denoted by her hierarchical position in the family and her dependency upon her husband for any social status.

While widowhood allowed her to inherit property and with it a certain amount of freedom , she was under considerable social pressure to marry again or to pass the property to a son, as woman as the head of the household was considered unnatural.

Sexuality was considered an issue of necessary evil. It was seen as a tool for procreation and any use other than this was considered sinful and carnal, with menstruation being seen as clear evidence and cyclical repetition of women's uncleanness.

Part of the view of women's carnality arose from the belief that she received twice the degree of pleasure than a man might, as she was custodian of her own seed and receiver of his.

Thomas Aquinas was as uncharitable as to suggest that woman had no value in creation other than that as a sexual vessel of procreation, while more weight was placed upon her by Luther as having "common interest in the children and the property" of her husband.

Social hierarchy obviously granted woman differences in status as affected by the social position of her husband or father, and a marriageable daughter was often seen as means to cement an agreement. A noble woman might be granted sufficient power to govern her household, while the wife of an artisan would have a vested interest in his business, often performing function in its running.

For peasants, on the other hand, it was of economic necessity that a woman should continue working throughout her pregnancy, and return to work as soon after birth as possible. This obviously was a yardstick of a woman's social comfort, but it is clear that for her position she was dependent either on her father or her husband.

University study was not open to women on the basis of attitudes of the times. It was unthinkable as they were considered intellectually inferior. This meant that no professional vocation was allowed them, although in certain circumstances woman out of financial necessity in the lower social groups had to work.

They were paid little, and many barriers were placed in their path to discourage them from forming guilds. This industry was primarily in the line of spinning weaving or production of woman's articles.

Something also to be considered in the degree of change experienced by women was their proximity to the Holy Roman Empire. The areas close to the Mediterranean were notorious in their poor view of womankind while Germanic territories considered woman of greater economic importance to the survival of the community.

Perhaps this can be derived from more widespread populace and agrarian activities further north, and a higher concentration of populace allowing less importance in woman's labour in the southern regions of Europe.

This brings one to the difference in treatment of the towns-woman in comparison to her country counterpart. In the city an orthodoxy of the subservient and powerless woman had already risen through slow and progressive restriction.

In new fields where learning or theological debate grew, women were simply never allowed to partake in debate. This was part of a social evolution in the cities that was not followed by the widespread countryside. Here women and men functioned alongside one another, something unfathomable to the theologians of the city.

Puritanism reared its head in this era, as can be seen in particularly in the Calvinistic attitudes which arose. Some would have it that this was a direct result of the virulent form of syphilis which was spreading throughout Europe at this time, severely decimating the population.

This produced greater clamps on sexual sin (i.e. infidelity) and men seemed to be seen as unfortunates who caught the disease from whores or "harlots".

This illness defied human efforts at control, as did the Black Death, and was considered a type of magical entity (maleficence or spell as its cause) or punishment from God for sin. This served only to reinforce women's position as being central to sin and unhappiness in the eyes of men, even going to the extreme of labelling them "witches".

Fertility and the control thereof is always considered a feminist issue. This is probably because it can convey prevailing attitudes to women. Most historians point to the low birth rates in this period in amazement and believe that some form of contraception was available.

It must be emphatically stated that sexual intercourse while avoiding conception was seen in church eyes to promote carnal lust. There are many theories as to the existence of a form of contraception.

Most historians seem to think that the low birth rate can be attributed to coitus interruptus (considered a sin in itself as Onanism) as the predominating form. But there is evidence of oral herbal infusions that limited fertility, restricted implantation of the fertilized ovum or caused expulsion of the foetus.

If women were curtailed from performing any form of medicine in the cities, these must have been proliferated in the countryside.

In the cities the skills of midwives were also prohibited as easing woman's punishment (childbirth) for Original Sin. Could these themes have been central to the antagonistic view of country women as evil? Coitus interruptus is a male controlled form of contraception, but men might not have been aware of the "evil blight" if contraception fell into the hands of women through means of mysterious infusions and possible strange rites.

Might these have been the "deeds of Satan" of which the witches were considered guilty? By restricting women's payment for Original Sin, for prolonging her youthful glow and vanity, for removing control from men and enhancing women's carnality and concupiscence by allowing sex without conception?

While women might have been allowed to attain a degree of religious virtue, all those not conforming to the standards set by theology and the patriarchal orthodoxy of the times, were seen through eyes of suspicion. Woman as mother, housekeeper, and as part of her husband's workforce was the norm. No woman had practical economic or social freedom as she was subject to obedience to a man, her head.

The witch-craze was a phenomenon which predominantly targeted women who did not fall into the "orthodox" view of the theological image of woman. Thus, those who did not conform were brutally removed on the basis of superstition. The Reformation and Counter-Reformation, with their distinctly puritanical flavour, changed the face of womanhood through fear and theology in a manner which still visits upon us.

Women had always been subject to men before 1500, as well as carrying the Guilt for Temptation for Original Sin, but between 1500-1700 a woman sat in a fearful precarious balance between toeing the line or being viewed as unnatural/supernatural, or possibly even a witch. Humanism heralded individuality for men, but women were profoundly, fearfully worse off than before.