The female body is universally the only vessel for human life, yet is commonly scrutinized and used as a means to diminish women’s agency and power in society. In early modern Europe, women typically functioned within the domestic sphere, with limited instances in which they had access and agency outside of the home. In this sense, women were most times expected by society to function as wives and mothers who worked to serve others. The domestic sphere for women was not simply a place which women provided for their family, which is many times the way it was perceived, but also a sphere in which women held power over their space and developed ways to demonstrate their knowledge and authority. There is one job which women are the only individuals who have the capability to perform, the job being carrying and giving birth to a child. As a result of this unique job which women were expected to complete, the woman's body in pregnancy was respected as men understood the power which women held in the vulnerable state of pregnancy. Yet, while women were able to use their capabilities of pregnancy and motherhood as a way to leverage respect from men, males also demonstrated a trend of drawing upon the female body to justify why men had superior power and agency in the larger society. Men widely claimed that women had a biologically inferior makeup and therefore that was why they were not expected or allowed to be equal to men in society. While this idea of women’s biological inferiority diminished in credibility as time progressed, men would continue to hold notions of power over women justifying claims on the basis of a woman's femininity. Through examining primarily primary sources which reveal both the negative and positive treatment of women, one can observe this double edged sword of the women’s body used as justification for varying treatments. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries across western Europe, women’s bodies were regarded as both powerful and worth respect when their function in pregnancy or as a mother was favorable to a man’s goals for his family, yet simultaneously women’s biology and natural feminine demeanor was used as a justification for males to claim superiority over women in society, demonstrating the inconsistent dichotomy between male’s respect and contempt for women.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries of western Europe, more often than not men were expected to be the head of the home while women were expected to serve their families through domestic chores and duties, which demonstrated traditional gender roles. As males had the majority of the power and agency in this society, for example working outside of the home and being educated, men also understood the one aspect of life in which they could not exhibit control over: pregnancy, and consequently motherhood. In an uncharacteristic way, men were forced to relinquish all control over a woman's functioning in the time of a pregnancy as men physically have no way to understand or make decisions for a pregnant woman and her unborn child, “She needs care during pregnancy and freedom from work when her child is born; she must have a quiet, easy life while she nurses her children.” [1] Women who got divorced when pregnant were able to get “Alimony payments during the nine-month waiting period, and… up to three years of support for maternal breastfeeding or wet-nursing,” [2] which demonstrates the special treatment which women got not just from men during pregnancy, but also from the law. In this sense, males demonstrated a unique appreciation for women and their child bearing capabilities as men understood that the treatment of their wives was imperative to not just her health, but their unborn child’s health as well. Hannah Wooley’s translated primary source book which describes how females should act and how men should act towards women even notes that a pregnant woman has “Incomparable worth.” [3] Men had to relinquish control and rely on a woman's knowledge of her own body during pregnancy, although this does not discount instances in which men attempted to cling to some form of authority by regulating midwives and the birthing space, like when Louise Boursier, a male writing about his experience observing midwifery, notes that a midwife nust “do all her diligence and pain ... to turn the birth tenderly with her anointed hands,” [4] exhibiting male commentary without recommendation, despite women’s pain and action in the birthing space. For example, men would allow women to not perform any of their typical household duties if a woman requested to do so on the ground of keeping a baby healthy and safe. In any other instances not relating to pregnancy, women would be expected to perform daily tasks despite sickness or stress. But, during pregnancy, women would be able to sit in their bedroom for weeks, commonly called a “lying chamber” [5] in which women would prioritize their unborn children and lay waiting for their arrival while men had to figure out how to manage the household. Even after a baby was born, women were not expected to get back to their normal household chores until they felt ready, “In particular social and political contexts it allowed women to demand respect for generosity, love and care as the conditions human life depended.” [6] Men, in contrast to their normal expectations of women, respected the unique circumstance of pregnancy, childbirth, and recovery as their wives were giving them a child, an act which men cannot do themselves. This uncharacteristically respectful treatment of women as a result of her biological capabilities demonstrates the way in which women could leverage the power of their bodies over men in order to gain agency and strength to make their own decisions regarding their lives and bodies as a mother.

Just as men viewed the female body and its capabilities as a justification to allow women to demonstrate agency in their capabilities and duties as a mother, men conversely demonstrated a sense of superiority over women claiming that her biology and feminine nature account for her less prominent and valuable role in society. Defending this perspective, men would claim that the women’s body was physically warmer than a males body, that it was inferior as women would bleed monthly, was not as strong, etc. and this “fact” therefore justified why women were not as deserving of agency and power [7]. Men in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries would go so far as to claim that the woman's body was biologically the same as the male’s body, just inverted, implying that the woman was made for the man, furthering a male superiority complex in terms of biology, "the male body has always been taken as the 'standard' and the female body as a 'deviation'...indeed, the same still hold true today." [8] This argument, as it was based on biology was only disputed until the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, gave men the grounds to claim their power with no way for women to dispute it as they were not allowed to be educated in the sciences. For example, in physician Thomas Raynalde’s book entitled “The Birth of Mankind” from 1626 the women’s vagina is depicted as a mold of a penis, demonstrating the perception that even medical professionals believed in the idea that the woman was made for the man. This point and idea itself furthered misogynistic claims that women filled the role in society which males did not fill, in that sense being a mold for the male experience to benefit. [9] In reality, women were only able to experiment with knowledge and science in the domestic sphere, which in turn men were not aware of as they generally did not participate in domestic matters and society did not focus “Beyond the domestic situations of learned men,” [10]. In this time, only recipe books and private primary sources can be seen to demonstrate the power and knowledge which women had about their own bodies. In a sense, recipe books which drew upon women's ailments actually served to claim control over male professionals which attempted to intervene in and manage the female body and experience, “Recent studies have demonstrated that the domestic space was one of the main sites for medical intervention and the promotion of health.” [11] For example, through a recipe book entitled “Treatise on diseases of women” by Mary Maund which contains 262 pages of recipes for the women’s body, one can see how the connections between different women who all contributed to this recipe book demonstrate women taking their own knowledge and turning it into relationships of power to help other females. Specifically, one recipe which combats a woman’s cramps notes the differences between a period cramp and a contraction which signals childbirth [12]. This example is one which no male would understand and could not advise a woman on, serving to show how women through recipe books in the domestic sphere took back power and agency as a group. As women rarely got the opportunity to share this knowledge, recipe books that had recipes to aid women’s bodies, which were actually not ailments but actually just symptoms of the women's reproductive cycle functioning healthily, were passed around communities of women because men did not have the sort of intimate knowledge that women did. As a result, men did not know about this female agency and knowledge and continued to believe that their education on the female body was superior. Rousseau even notes in his work that “The man should be strong and active; the woman should be weak and passive,” in addition to that a woman is defined by her inferior sex [13] to demonstrate this idea that men are inherently above women as a result of her nature and sex. Men used a kind of ignorance of women and her experience in order to be able to justify claims that the women’s role was not as valuable as the role which the man filled in society, and men used their misunderstanding of the women’s body and nature to justify their claims. Men were demonstrated to set high standards for that of mothers, seemingly not understanding the obligations that the job of being a mother has, Hannah Wooley’s translated primary source book notes that in regards to a women raising children that women should “Look then to your own actions, these must inform them; look to your own examples, these must confirm them,” [14] which puts immense responsibility on these women and scrutinizes their actions. This misogynistic ignorance is interesting as it counters the respect which women got from men as a result of their biological ability to bare children, demonstrating this dichotomy of treatment in which men pick and choose when and where women deserved to be valued and given authority in society and when women were expected to fill the inferior role of domesticated mother.

Through this analysis of the perception and treatment of women in sixteenth and seventeenth century western Europe, one can understand how the women’s body and nature was used as a double edged sword in which it was either respected and given value, or devalued and considered as a justification for treatment of women that made her lose agency and power in the larger society. Authors in this field of scholarship have been able to exhibit these phenomenons separately, either displaying respect or disrespect based on historical analysis and examples. But, through this examination, a new perspective of a simultaneous dichotomy of male-female relation is revealed and contributed. By cross analyzing sources which exhibit both value of women and conversely misogyny, one can now understand that the examples and ideas exhibited in this essay prove that these two treatments were not mutually exclusive, and instead happened simultaneously and impacted one and other. Furthermore, this analysis specifically speaks to the understanding that in the larger historiographical analysis of gender relationships, no one idea or understanding of a trend is exclusive to another. These themes and ideas are cross-sectional, all interacting with each other at a given point in time, causing and creating new interpretations of history.

The women's role in sixteenth and seventeenth century western Europe can be seen and understood through the dichotomy of treatment which they widely received from men, as their bodies and experiences during pregnancy and motherhood were acknowledged as valuable and therefore worth agency, yet conversely women were scrutinized through biology and female nature to justify the inferior role which men expected women to play. While women continue to fight for agency and control over their bodies, this objectification by non-female actors continues to be a theme throughout history. As the female body’s credibility in society changes from who happens to be observing it, it is imperative that women learn to understand the power which their bodies give them in society and not let others' opinions of the female body affect the importance and valuable capabilities which it has.

Notes:

[1] Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Emile, or Education. Translated by Barbara Foxley (London, 1921), www.libertyfund.org. Page 1.

[2] Couchman, Jane, and Poska, Allyson M.. The Ashgate Research Companion to Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2013. Accessed November 22, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central. Page 225.

[3] Woolley, Hannah, fl.1670. The Gentlewomans Companion; Or, A Guide to the Female Sex Containing Directions of Behaviour, in all Places, Companies, Relations, and Conditions, from their Childhood Down to Old Age, 1673. https://www-proquest-com.go.libproxy.wakehealth.edu. Page 30.

[4] Thomas Chamberlayne. The complete midwife's practice enlarged, in the most weighty and high concernments of the birth of man. London: for Obadiah Blagrave, 1656. Call number: C99.2 and LUNA Digital Image. Page 4.

[5] Rublack, Ulinka. “Pregnancy, Childbirth and the Female Body in Early Modern Germany.” Past & Present 150, no. 1 (February 1996): 84. doi:10.1093/past/150.1.84. Page 88.

[6] Rublack, Ulinka. “Pregnancy, Childbirth and the Female Body in Early Modern Germany.” Past & Present 150, no. 1 (February 1996): 84. doi:10.1093/past/150.1.84. Page 86.

[7] Schiebinger, L. (2003). Skelettestreit. The University of Chicago Press Journals. Page 310.

[8] Schiebinger, L. (2003). Skelettestreit. The University of Chicago Press Journals. Page 312.

[9] Jolley, T. (1626). The birth of man-kinde; otherwise named The womans booke. Retrieved 2020, from https://luna.folger.edu. Page 10.

[10] Leong, Elaine. Recipes and Everyday Knowledge : Medicine, Science, and the Household in Early Modern England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018. Accessed November 22, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central. Page 131.

[11] Leong, Elaine. Recipes and Everyday Knowledge : Medicine, Science, and the Household in Early Modern England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018. Accessed November 22, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central. Page 3.

[12] Maund, M. (n.d.). [Treatise on diseases of women] - Digital Collections - National Library of Medicine. Retrieved 2020, from https://collections.nlm.nih.gov. Page 204.

[13] Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Emile, or Education. Translated by Barbara Foxley (London, 1921), www.libertyfund.org. Page 1.

[14] Woolley, Hannah, fl.1670. The Gentlewomans Companion; Or, A Guide to the Female Sex Containing Directions of Behaviour, in all Places, Companies, Relations, and Conditions, from their Childhood Down to Old Age, 1673. https://www-proquest-com.go.libproxy.wakehealth.edu. Page 3.

Bibliography:

Couchman, Jane, and Poska, Allyson M.. The Ashgate Research Companion to Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe. London: Taylor & Francis Group, 2013. Accessed November 22, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.

DiMeo, Michelle, and Pennell, Sara, eds. Reading and Writing Recipe Books, 1550-1800. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2013. Accessed November 22, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Evans, Jennifer, and Sara Read. “‘Before Midnight She Had Miscarried’: Women, Men, and Miscarriage in Early Modern England.” Journal of Family History 40, no. 1 (January 2015): 3–23. doi:10.1177/0363199014562924.

Jolley, T. (1626). The birth of man-kinde; otherwise named The womans booke. Retrieved 2020, from https://luna.folger.edu.

Leong, Elaine. Recipes and Everyday Knowledge : Medicine, Science, and the Household in Early Modern England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018. Accessed November 22, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Maund, M. (n.d.). [Treatise on diseases of women] - Digital Collections - National Library of Medicine. Retrieved 2020, from https://collections.nlm.nih.gov.

McClive, Cathy. “The Hidden Truths of the Belly: The Uncertainties of Pregnancy in Early Modern Europe.” Social History of Medicine 15, no. 2 (August 2002): 209–27. doi:10.1093/shm/15.2.209.

Michael Stolberg, “A Woman Down to Her Bones: The Anatomy of Sexual Difference in the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries,” Isis 94.2 (June 2003), pp. 274-299

Rublack, Ulinka. “Pregnancy, Childbirth and the Female Body in Early Modern Germany.” Past & Present 150, no. 1 (February 1996): 84. doi:10.1093/past/150.1.84.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Emile, or Education. Translated by Barbara Foxley (London, 1921), www.libertyfund.org.

Schiebinger, L. (2003). Skelettestreit. The University of Chicago Press Journals.

Thomas Chamberlayne. The complete midwife's practice enlarged, in the most weighty and high concernments of the birth of man. London: for Obadiah Blagrave, 1656. Call number: C99.2 and LUNA Digital Image.

The Oxford Handbook of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe and Colonial America Edited by Brian P. Levack

Woolley, Hannah, fl.1670. The Gentlewomans Companion; Or, A Guide to the Female Sex Containing Directions of Behaviour, in all Places, Companies, Relations, and Conditions, from their Childhood Down to Old Age, 1673. https://www-proquest-com.go.libproxy.wakehealth.edu.