Chapter 3: How Men View Women

The previous chapters were just a warm-up. Their purpose was to get you familiar with reading sources from the past. Some were easy to read and understand, others took a bit more time to parse. In the end, they were each pretty straightforward. Starting here, and throughout the rest of this sourcebook we are going to make things a little more difficult. As a historian it is a dream when you can walk into an archive and find a source that directly addresses the issue that you are interested in. I call it a dream, because that’s exactly what it is. This almost never happens. Instead, we need to read through dozens, sometimes hundreds of sources in order to find bits and pieces that will help us to construct a picture that gives us a partial glimpse of the issue at the heart of our inquiry.

In the following sources we are going to be examining the concept of how men viewed women in different historical periods. European history is full of societies that were built on patriarchal identity. This means they were designed to benefit the men, with men serving in the highest positions of governance, war, religion, and the economy. Most of what we know about women in these periods come to us from the writings of men. There are very few sources that were written by women themselves. This means that we cannot really get at what women wanted or how they understood their own lives, we only can analyze what men believed about these things. There will be much in these sources that have nothing to do with how men view women. Do not ignore those bits. However, you need to register what they say and then move them to the side. Zero in on the passages that really get at the core idea being presented in this chapter. As you read, make sure to refer back to those guiding questions we used in Chapter 2.

Remember that as you read these sources that they were not written for the purpose of explaining to a modern audience how men of the time understood women. The first source is the transcript of a speech from a murder trial. In it the accused, Euphiletos is defending himself for the murder of his wife’s lover. The second source captures a debate in the Roman Senate over the Oppian Law, which was a sumptuary law that had been designed to limit animosities between the classes during the 1st Punic War. The key to both of these is to not focus on the trial or the law, but what they tell us about how women were viewed. The final source is much more forward, as it is a guide written by a man for his wife.

3.1 Lysias: On the Murder of Eratosthenes (c. 403 BCE)

Lysias (c. 445–380 BCE) was one of the greatest speechwriters and orators of classical Athens. Born into a wealthy family of metics (resident foreigners), Lysias was unable to participate directly in Athenian politics because he was not a citizen. Instead, he earned a reputation by composing speeches for others to deliver in court, becoming one of the most influential logographers of the ancient world.

Lysias was admired for his clear, concise, and persuasive writing style. His speeches provide valuable insights into Athenian law, politics, and everyday life, making them essential sources for understanding the legal system and society of classical Greece. The short speech below has attracted a great deal of interest as much for its author’s skillful presentation of argument and character, as for its details of Athenian law and life.

Euphiletos stands accused of the murder of Eratosthenes, his wife’s lover. According to Athenian law, if a husband caught his wife’s lover in the act of adultery, he could either kill him or demand financial compensation. The latter had become the more common type of settlement at Athens. Euphiletos found Eratosthenes with his wife and killed him in front of witnesses. He now has to prove that the killing was not premeditated murder, as Eratosthenes’ family has claimed, but both legal and understandable. To do this he must present himself as a credible character with a convincing account of events. Euphiletos appears honest, hard working, and perhaps a little gullible, in short, an ordinary Athenian with whom a jury of other, ordinary Athenians could be expected to sympathize. While we learn a lot about Athenian society from this source, we can also learn a lot about how the average Athenian viewed women.

The following is adapted from Lysias 1, translated by Caroline L. Faulkner and stored on Diatoma. The translation is based on the Oxford Classical Text edited by C. Hude (1982).

[1] I would be very grateful, gentlemen, if you, the dikastai in this case, judged me as you would judge yourselves, were you to go through the same sort of experience. For I am well aware that if you employed the same standards for others as you do for your own behaviour, there is not a single one of you who would not be furious at what has happened. In fact, all of you would consider the penalties light for those who practise such things.

[2] And these feelings would be acknowledged not just by you but by the whole of Greece. For in the case of this crime alone both democracy and oligarchy offer the same redress to their weakest members as to their most powerful. The result is that the least individual has the same opportunity as the greatest. In the same way, gentlemen, all humanity considers this kind of violation to be the most outrageous of acts.

[3] I believe, then, that all of you have the same opinion about the severity of the punishment, and that no one considers the matter to be so frivolous that he supposes that those guilty of such acts should be pardoned or deserve light penalties.

[4] I believe, gentlemen, that what I have to demonstrate is this: that Eratosthenes seduced my wife and corrupted her, that he brought shame on my children and insulted me by entering my house, that there was no cause for enmity between him and me apart from this, and that I did not commit this deed for money, to make myself rich instead of poor, nor for any other advantage except revenge, as the law allows.

[5] I shall, then, reveal the whole story to you from the beginning, omitting nothing, but telling the truth. For I believe my only chance of survival lies in my telling you everything that has taken place.

[6] Now, Athenians, when I decided to get married and brought a wife into my house, for some time I did not wish to impose on her or let her be too free to do whatever she wanted. I used to keep an eye on her as far as I could, and give her a suitable amount of attention. But from the time my son was born I began to have more confidence in her, and I gave her full responsibility for my house, as I believed this to be the best type of domestic arrangement.

[7] Well, in the beginning, Athenians, she was the best of all wives, for she was clever and frugal in her running of the house, and carefully supervised every aspect of its management. But when my mother died, her passing proved to be the cause of all my problems.

[8] It was at her funeral, which my wife attended, that she was seen by this man and was eventually seduced. You see, by keeping watch for the times when our slave girl went to market and by propositioning her, he corrupted her.

[9] First of all then, gentlemen, for I must also explain such details to you, I have a modest, two storey house, which has equal space for the women’s and men’s quarters on the upper and lower floors. When our child was born its mother nursed it, and, so that she would not risk a fall on her way downstairs whenever the baby needed bathing, I took to living on the upper level while the women lived downstairs.

[10] From that time, then, it became such a regular arrangement that my wife would often go downstairs to sleep with the child to nurse it and to stop it crying. This was the way we lived for quite a while, and I never had any cause for concern, but carried on in the foolish belief that my wife was the most proper woman in the city.

[11] Time passed, gentlemen, and I came home unexpectedly from the farm. After dinner the child started to cry and become restless. It was being deliberately provoked by our slave girl into behaving like this because that individual was in the house; I found out all about this later.

[12] So, I told my wife to go away and nurse the child to stop it crying. To begin with, she did not want to go, claiming that she was glad to see me home after so long. When I got annoyed and ordered her to leave she said, “Yes, so you can have a go at the young slave here. You made a grab at her before when you were drunk.”

[13] I laughed, and she got up, closed the door as she left, pretending it was a joke, and drew the bolt across. Thinking there was nothing serious in this, and not suspecting a thing, I happily settled down to sleep as I had come back from my farm work.

[14] About dawn my wife returned and opened the door. When I asked why the doors had made a noise in the night, she claimed that the lamp near the baby had gone out, and so she had gone to get a light from the neighbours. I said nothing, as I believed this was the truth. I noticed though, gentlemen, that her face was made up, although her brother had died not thirty days earlier. Still, I said nothing at all about it, and I left without a word.

[15] Later, gentlemen, after some time had passed during which I remained quite ignorant of the terrible way I was being treated, an old woman came up to me. She had been sent in secret by a woman with whom that individual was having an affair, as I later heard. The woman was angry, thinking herself badly treated because he no longer visited her as he had, and so she waited until she found out the cause.

[16] Well, the old woman, who had been watching for me near my house, came up to me and said, “Euphiletos, do not suppose that I have approached you from any desire to interfere in your business. The person who is disgracing you and your wife happens to be our mutual enemy. If you catch your slave, the one who goes to market for you and waits on you, and if you torture her, you will find out everything. It is,” she said, “Eratosthenes from the deme of Oëa who is responsible for this; he has not only seduced your wife but many other women, too. It’s his specialty.”

[17] So saying, gentlemen, she went away, while I was immediately confused as everything began to come back to me. I was full of suspicion as I reflected on how I was locked in my room, and I remembered that on that night the inner and outer doors made a noise — this had never happened before — and I thought my wife was wearing make up. Every detail came to my mind, and I was full of suspicion.

[18] I went home and told the slave- girl to come with me to the market. I took her to a friend’s home, and said that I knew about everything that was going on in my house. “So you,” I said, ” can have your choice, either to be beaten and thrown into the mill and suffer endless torture, or to confess the whole truth, receive no punishment, but instead be pardoned by me for the wrongs you have done. Tell me no lies, but speak the whole truth.”

[19] She denied it at first, and told me to do what I liked because, she said, she knew nothing. Yet when I mentioned the name of Eratosthenes to her, and said that he was the one visiting my wife, she panicked, because she imagined that I knew every detail of the whole affair. Right then she fell at my knees, and, getting me to promise that she would come to no harm, she confessed first how he approached her after the funeral, [20] then how she ended up carrying his messages, how my wife in time was won over, how he entered the house, and how, during the Thesmophoria when I was at the farm, my wife had gone to the temple with that man’s mother. She explained everything else that happened as well.

[21] When she had revealed the full story, I said, “Make sure, then, no one else finds out about this; otherwise, our agreement will be worth nothing. I expect you to show me them in the act. For I do not need words, but clear evidence whether that is really what is going on.”

[22] She agreed to do this. After our conversation four or five days passed…

[23] [After I had dinner] … I went to bed. Eratosthenes came in, gentlemen, and the girl woke me immediately and informed me that he was inside. I told her to mind the door, and went downstairs, leaving without making a sound. I went around to different neighbours, and found that some were not at home and others were out of town. Gathering the largest group I could find of those who were at home, I made my way back to the house.

[24] We took torches from the nearest inn, and entered — the door was open because the girl had seen to it. We pushed open the door of the bedroom, and those of us who were the first to enter saw him still lying next to my wife; the ones coming in later saw him standing naked on the bed.

[25] I struck him, gentlemen, and knocked him down. Then I twisted him round and tied his hands behind his back. I asked him why he was disgracing my house by entering it. He confessed that he was in the wrong, and he begged and entreated me not to kill him, but to agree to a financial settlement.

[26] I said to him, “Your executioner is not I, but the law of the city, whose violation you thought less important than your pleasures. It was your choice to commit an offence like this against my wife and my children, rather than to obey the laws and behave properly.”

[27] This, gentlemen, is the reason why he met the fate the laws allow for those who commit such crimes. He was not snatched from the street, nor was he a suppliant at my hearth, as these people claim. For how could anyone, who was struck in the bedroom and immediately fell down and had his hands tied, get away when there were so many people inside? He had no weapon, no club, or anything else to defend himself against those who had come in.

[28] In fact, gentlemen, I believe that you, too, appreciate that people who commit crimes do not admit when their enemies are speaking the truth, but make up lies and invent stories to make their listeners angry at those who are acting within their rights. So, first, read out the law.

LAW (the law is read)

[29] He did not argue, gentlemen, but confessed that he was in the wrong; he begged and pleaded not to be killed, and was ready to pay money in recompense. I did not agree with his offer; I considered that the law of the city was the greater authority, and I exacted that penalty you considered the most just, and that you ordained against those who practise such crimes. Now bring forward the witnesses of these events.

WITNESSES (the witnesses give their evidence)

[30] Please read out, also, the law that is on the pillar of the Areopagus.

LAW (the law is read)

You hear, gentlemen, that the court of the Areopagus itself, which, from the time of our ancestors down to ours, has been granted the right to judge cases of homicide, has explicitly decreed that a man should not be found guilty of murder if he catches an adulterer in the act with his wife and takes the vengeance I did.

[31] Moreover, the lawgiver so strongly believed this to be the right course of action in the case of married women that he imposed the same penalty even in the case of mistresses, who are worth less than wives. Yet it is clear that, had he any better form of redress than this for married women, he would have introduced it. As it was, he could not discover a more powerful deterrent than this in their case, and he decided that the same penalty should apply even in the case of mistresses. Please read this law, too.

LAW (the law is read)

[32] You hear, gentlemen, that it lays down that if anyone rapes a free man or child, he owes double the damages. If he rapes a woman, in those cases that carry the penalty of death, he is liable at the same rate. Thus, gentlemen, rapists are thought to deserve a lighter penalty than seducers, because the law condemned the latter to death, but assigned double the amount of the damages to the former.

[33] The assumption is that those who achieve their aims by force are hated by those they have violated, while seducers so corrupt the souls of their victims that they make other men’s wives more intimate with them than they are with their husbands. They make the whole house theirs, and it becomes unclear to which father the children belong, the husband or the seducer. Because of this the lawmaker assigned death as the penalty for seducers.

[34] So then, gentlemen, not only do the laws acquit me of doing wrong, but they also require me to exact this punishment. It is for you to decide whether they should maintain their authority or become worthless.

[35] I believe that all cities make laws with this intention that in those instances where we are uncertain, we find out what we ought to do by consulting them. Well then, the laws recommend that in cases of this nature we exact this kind of penalty from wrongdoers.

[36] I expect you to come to the same conclusion. Otherwise, you will create such a safe haven for seducers that you will find thieves claiming to be seducers in complete confidence that, if they put forward this excuse for themselves, and claim that this is why they are entering other people’s homes, no one will lay a finger on them. Everyone will know that the laws on adultery must be renounced, and that what they have to fear is your vote, because it is the supreme authority in the state.

[37] Consider carefully, gentlemen; they charge me with telling my slave on the day in question to go after the young man. I think I would have been within my rights, gentlemen, to try to catch him in any way I could in the act of corrupting my wife.

[38] You see, if, after our conversation, I had told the girl to go after him, and no act was committed, I would have done wrong. But if, when he already achieved all his objectives and made repeated visits to my house, I tried to catch him in any way I could, I would consider my actions perfectly reasonable.

[39] See how they are lying about this, too, as you will easily conclude from the following evidence. As I have already stated, gentlemen, I met my close friend Sostratos coming from the farm at about sunset, and I dined with him. After he had had a good meal, he left for home.

[40] Yet think about this first, gentlemen; if I was laying a trap for Eratosthenes on that night, was it more of an advantage for me to dine at someone else’s house or to bring someone home with me? Had I done the latter, that man would have been less likely to risk entering my house. Second, does it seem reasonable to you that I would see my fellow diner off and remain alone and unaccompanied, or that I would ask him to stay and join me in exacting punishment from the seducer?

[41] Lastly, gentlemen, do you not think that I would have called on my friends in the daytime and asked them to gather at the home of a friend who lived very close by, rather than run around at night as soon as I found out, without knowing whom I might catch at home and who was out? I even went to Harmodius’ house and to somebody else’s and found they were not in town, for I had no idea. Others I discovered were not at home, and I made my way with those I could find.

[42] Yet, if I really knew what was going to happen, do you not think I would have got slaves ready and summoned my friends in order to provide myself with the greatest possible protection when I went in (for how did I know whether the man was armed as well?), and the greatest number of witnesses when I took my revenge? As it was, I did not know what would happen that night, and I took what people I could. Now please bring forward the witnesses of these events.

WITNESSES (the witnesses give their evidence)

[43] You have heard the witnesses, gentlemen. Reflect on this matter carefully among yourselves, and ask yourselves whether there was ever any cause for enmity between me and Eratosthenes except for this. You will surely find none.

…

[47] I believe then, gentlemen, that I exacted this penalty not for personal reasons, but on behalf of the whole city. For when the perpetrators of deeds like this see the kinds of rewards their crimes bring, they will be less inclined to do wrong to others, if they understand that you, too, hold the same opinion.

[48] Otherwise, it is far better to wipe out our existing laws, and to introduce others that will exact penalties from those who take care of their own wives, while they create a powerful immunity for those who wish to do these women wrong.

[49] Surely that would be a much fairer course of action than laying traps for citizens through laws that encourage a man who catches an adulterer to do whatever he wants, while making trials riskier affairs for the victims than for those who break the law and dishonour other men’s wives.

[50] As it is, I am now in danger of losing my life, my property and everything else because I obeyed the laws of the city.

Source: Caroline L. Faulkner, trans. in Diatoma. Based on the Oxford Classical Text edited by C. Hude (1982).

Permission is hereby granted to distribute for classroom use, provided that both the translator and Diotima are identified in any such use. Other uses not authorized in writing by the translator or in accord with fair use policy are expressly prohibited.

3.2 Livy: On the Repeal of the Oppian Law (c. 10 BCE)

Titus Livius, known to history as Livy, composed his monumental chronicle of Rome during the transition from Republic to Empire. His work, spanning from the city’s mythical origins to his own day, served as a moral and cultural compass for future generations. In this selection from Book 34, Livy details a significant domestic conflict: the debate over the Oppian Law. Enacted during the existential crisis of the Second Punic War, this sumptuary law severely restricted female displays of wealth, including gold ornaments and multicolored garments. By 195 BCE, with Rome’s prosperity rising, Roman women organized a public protest to demand its repeal. The following account captures the tension between traditional Roman austerity, championed by the consul Marcus Porcius Cato, and the evolving social realities of a burgeoning empire. Through the competing oratory of Cato and the tribune Lucius Valerius, we gain insight into ancient Roman anxieties regarding gender roles, luxury, and the preservation of ancestral customs. We do not have the voice of women here, we can not give them agency in the fight for rights. Instead use the source to focus on how those women are portrayed and understood in the eyes of men.

The following has been adapted from Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, trans. George Baker, 6 vols. (London: A.J. Valpy, 1833-1844), vol. 4, pp. 406-414.

Bk. 34.1. Amid the serious concerns of so many important wars, some scarcely ended, and others impending, an incident intervened, which may seem too trivial to be mentioned, but which, through the zeal of the parties concerned, occasioned a violent contest. Marcus Fundanius and Lucius Valerius, plebeian tribunes, proposed to the people the repealing of the Oppian law. This law, which had been introduced by Caius Oppius…during the heat of the Punic war, enacted, that “no woman should possess more than half an ounce of gold, or wear a garment of various colors, or ride in a carriage drawn by horses, in a city, or any town, or any place, nearer thereto than one mile; except on occasion of some public religious solemnity.”

Marcus and Publius Junius Brutus, plebeian tribunes, supported the Oppian law, and declared that they would never allow it to be repealed; while many of the nobility stood forth to argue for and against the motion proposed. The Capitol was filled with crowds, who favored or opposed the law; nor could the matrons be kept at home, either by advice or shame, nor even by the commands of their husbands; but beset every street and pass in the city; beseeching the men as they went down to the Forum, that in the present flourishing state of the commonwealth, when the public prosperity was daily increasing, they would permit the women so far to partake of it, as to have their former ornaments of dress restored. This throng of women increased daily, for they arrived even from the country towns and villages; and had at length the boldness to come up to the consuls, prætors, and other magistrates, to urge their request. One of the consuls, however, they found inexorable—Marcus Porcius Cato, who, in support of the law proposed to be repealed, spoke to this effect:

Bk 34.2. “If, Romans, every individual among us had made it a rule to maintain the prerogative and authority of a husband with respect to his own wife, we should have less trouble with the whole sex. But now, our privileges, overpowered at home by female contempt, are, even here in the Forum, spurned and trodden under foot; and because we are unable to withstand each separately, we now dread their collective body. I was accustomed to think it a fabulous and fictitious tale, that, in a certain island, the whole race of males was utterly abolished by a conspiracy of the women… Scarcely, indeed, can I determine, in my own mind, whether the act itself, or the precedent that it affords, is of more dangerous tendency…For, whether the measure, proposed to your consideration, be profitable to the state or not, is to be determined by you, who are to vote on the occasion.

As to the outrageous behavior of these women, whether it be merely an act of their own, or owing to your instigations, Marcus Fundanius and Lucius Valerius, it unquestionably implies culpable conduct in magistrates. I know not whether it reflects greater disgrace on you, tribunes, or on the consuls: on you certainly, if you have brought these women here for the purpose of raising tribunician seditions; on us, if we suffer laws to be imposed on us by a secession of women, as was done formerly by that of the common people. It was not without painful emotion of shame, that I, just now, made my way into the Forum, through the midst of a band of women. Had I not been restrained by respect for the modesty and dignity of some individuals among them, rather than of the whole number; and been unwilling that they should be seen rebuked by a consul, I should not have refrained from saying to them, ‘What sort of practice is this, of running out into public, besetting the streets, and addressing other women’s husbands? Could not each have made the same request to her husband at home? Are your blandishments more seducing in public than in private; and with other women’s husbands than with your own? Although if females would let their modesty confine them within the limits of their own rights, it did not become you, even at home, to concern yourselves about any laws that might be passed or repealed here.’

Our ancestors thought it not proper that women should perform any, even private business, without a director; but that they should be ever under the control of parents, brothers, or husbands. We, it seems, permit them, now, to interfere in the management of state affairs, and to thrust themselves into the Forum, into general assemblies, and into assemblies of election. For, what are they doing, at this moment, in your streets and lanes? What but arguing, some in support of the motion of tribunes; others, contending for the repeal of the law? Will you give the reins to their intractable nature, and then expect that themselves should set bounds to their licentiousness, and without your interference! This is the smallest of the injunctions laid on them by usage or the laws, all of which, women bear with impatience: they long for entire liberty; nay, to speak the truth, not for liberty, but for unbounded freedom in every particular. For what will they not attempt, if they now come off victorious? Recollect all the institutions respecting the sex, by which our forefathers restrained their profligacy, and subjected them to their husbands; and yet, even with the help of all these restrictions, they can scarcely be kept within bounds. If, then, you suffer them to throw these off one by one, to tear them all asunder, and, at last, to be set on an equal footing with yourselves; can you imagine that they will be any longer tolerable? Permit them once to arrive at an equality with you, and they will from that moment become your superiors.

…

Bk 34.4. …Be assured that when a woman once begins to be ashamed of what she ought not to be ashamed of, she will not be ashamed of what she ought. She who can, will purchase out of her own purse; she who cannot, will ask her husband. Unhappy is the husband, both he who complies with the request, and he who does not; for what he will not give himself, another will. Now, they openly solicit favors from other women’s husbands; and, what is more, solicit a law and votes. From some they obtain them; although, with regard to you, your property, or your children, you would find it hard to obtain anything from them. If the law ceases to limit the expenses of your wife, you yourself will never be able to limit them. Do not suppose that the matter will hereafter be in the same state in which it was before the law was made on the subject. It is safer that a wicked man should never be accused, than that he should be acquitted; and luxury, if it had never been meddled with, would be more tolerable than it will be, now, like a wild beast, irritated by having been chained, and then let loose. My opinion is that the Oppian law ought on no account to be repealed. Whatever determination you may come to, I pray to all the gods to prosper it.”

Bk 34.5. After him the plebeian tribunes, who had declared their intention of protesting, added a few words to the same purport. Then Lucius Valerius, who made the motion, spoke thus in support of it:—“If private persons only had stood forth to argue for and against the proposition which we have submitted to your consideration, I, for my part, thinking enough to have been said on both sides, would have waited in silence for your determination. But since a person of most respectable judgment, the consul, Marcus Porcius, has denounced our motion, not only by the influence of his opinion, which, had he said nothing, would carry very great weight, but also in a long and labored discourse, it becomes necessary to say a few words in answer. He has spent more words in rebuking the matrons, than in arguing against the measure proposed; and even went so far as to mention a doubt, whether the conduct which he censured in them, arose from themselves, or from our instigation. I shall defend the measure, not ourselves: for the consul threw out those insinuations against us, rather for argument’s sake, than as a serious charge. He has made use of the terms conspiracy and sedition; and, sometimes, secession of the women: because the matrons had requested of you, in the public street, that, in this time of peace, when the commonwealth is flourishing and happy, you would repeal a law that was made against them during a war, and in times of distress.

…

Bk 34.7. “Shall, then, every other class of people, every individual, feel the improvement in the state; and shall our wives alone reap none of the fruits of the public peace and tranquility? … But, in truth, it will be a source of grief and indignation to all, when they see those ornaments allowed to the wives of the Latin confederates which have been forbidden to themselves; when they see those riding through the city in their carriages, and decorated with gold and purple, while they are obliged to follow on foot, as if empire were seated in the country of the others, not in their own. This would hurt the feelings even of men, and what do you think must be its effect on those of weak women, whom even trifles can disturb? Neither offices of state, not of the priesthood, nor triumphs, nor badges of distinction, nor military presents, nor spoils, can fall to their share. Elegance of appearance, and ornaments, and dress, these are the women’s badges of distinction; in these they delight and glory; these our ancestors called the women’s world. What other change in their apparel do they make, when in mourning, except the laying aside their gold and purple? And what, when the mourning is over, except resuming them? How do they distinguish themselves on occasion of public thanksgivings and supplications, but by adding unusual splendor to their dress?

But then, if you repeal the Oppian law, should you choose to prohibit any of those particulars which the law at present prohibits, you will not have it in your power; your daughters, wives, and even the sisters of some, will be less under your control. The bondage of women is never shaken off, without the loss of their friends; and they themselves look with horror on that freedom which is purchased with the loss of a husband or parent. Their wish is that their dress should be under your regulation, not under that of the law; and it ought to be your wish to hold them in control and guardianship, not in bondage; and to prefer the title of father or husband, to that of master. The consul just now made use of some hateful terms, calling it a female sedition and secession; because, I suppose, there is danger of their seizing the sacred mount, as formerly the angry plebeians did; or the Aventine. Their feeble nature must submit to whatever you think proper to enjoin; and the greater power you possess, the more moderate ought you to be in the exercise of your authority.”

Bk. 34.8. Notwithstanding all these arguments against the motion, the women next day poured out into public in much greater numbers, and, in a body, beset the doors of the protesting tribunes; nor did they retire until the tribunes withdrew their protest. There was then no farther hesitation, but every one of the tribes voted for the repeal. Thus was this law annulled, in the twentieth year after it had been made. [….]

Source: Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, trans. George Baker, 6 vols. (London: A.J. Valpy, 1833-1844), vol. 4.

This selection is part of the collection hosted by LibreTexts and is shared under the CC BY-NC-SA license. It is intended for educational use. No permission is granted for commercial reproduction.

3.3 The Goodman of Paris (1392/4)

Le Ménagier de Paris (The Goodman of Paris), written in 1392/4, is a medieval French household manual composed by an elderly Parisian bourgeois for his much younger wife. Part instructional guide and part moral treatise, the work was intended to teach her how to be a virtuous wife, capable household manager, and devout Christian. The text is divided into three broad sections. The first focuses on religious devotion and moral conduct. The second section addresses practical household management. The final section was intended to discuss recreation and entertainment, including games such as hawking and chess, however the surviving manuscript is incomplete. Today, The Goodman of Paris is one of the most valuable surviving sources for the study of everyday life in late medieval Europe. It provides historians with detailed insights into gender roles, marriage, domestic economy, food preparation, social customs, and the expectations placed upon women in fourteenth-century France. We are going to focus on the first part in order to get at the idea of how men view women.

The following has been adapted from “The Goodman of Paris” translated by Eileen Power in The Goodman of Paris, (London: Routledge, 1928), and reprinted in Richard M. Golden and Thomas Kuehn, eds., Western Societies: Primary Sources in Social History, Vol I, (New York: St Martins, 1993).

DEAR SISTER,

You being the age of fifteen years and in the week that you and I were wed, did pray me to be indulgent to your youth and to your small and ignorant service, until you had seen and learned more; to this end you promised me to give all heed and to set all care and diligence to keep my peace and my love, as you spoke full wisely, and as I well believe, with other wisdom than your own, beseeching me humbly in our bed, as I remember, for the love of God not to correct you harshly before strangers nor before our own folk, but rather each night, or from day to day, in our chamber, to remind you of the unseemly or foolish things done in the day or days past, and chastise you, if it pleased me, and then you would strive to amend yourself according to my teaching and correction, and to serve my will in all things, as you said. And your words were pleasing to me, and won my praise and thanks, and I have often remembered them since. And know, dear sister, that all that I know you have done since we were wed until now and all that you shall do hereafter with good intent, was and is to my liking, pleaseth me, and has well pleased me, and will please me. For your youth excuses your unwisdom and will still excuse you in all things as long as all you do is with good intent and not displeasing to me. And know that I am pleased rather than displeased that you tend rose-trees, and care for violets, and make cl-raplets, and dance, and sing: nor would I have you cease to do so among our friends and equals, and it is but good and seemly so to pass the time of your youth, so long as you neither seek nor try to go to the feasts and dances of lords of too high rank, for that does not become you, nor does it sort with your estate, nor mine. And as for the greater service that you say you would willingly do for me, if you were able and I taught it you, know dear sister, that I am well content that you should do me such service as your good neighbours of like estate do for their husbands, and as your kinswoman do unto their husbands. Take counsel privily of them, and then follow it either more or less as you please. For I am not so overweening in my attitude to you and your good intent that I am not satisfied with what you do for me therein, nor with all other services, provided there be no disorder or scorn or disdain, and that you are careful… And lastly, me-seems that if your love is as it has appeared in your good words, it can be accomplished in this way, namely in a general instruction that I will write for you…in three sections containing nineteen principal articles….

***

The first section of the three is necessary to gain the love of God and the salvation of your soul, and also to win the love of your husband and to give you in this world that peace which should be in marriage. And because these two things, namely the salvation of your soul and the comfort of your husband, be the two things most chiefly necessary, therefore are they here placed first. And this first section contains nine articles.

***

The fifth article of the first section telleth that you ought to be very loving and privy towards your husband above all other living creatures, moderately loving and privy towards your good and near kinsfolk in the flesh and your husband’s kinsfolk, and very distant with all other men and most of all with overweening and idle young men, who spend more than their means, and be dancers, albeit they have neither land nor lineage; and also with courtiers or too great lords, and with all those men and women that be renowned of gay and amorous and loose life….

***

The sixth article of the first section saith that you shall be humble and obedient towards him that shall be your husband, the which article containeth in itself four particulars.

The first particular saith that you shall be obedient: to wit to him and to his commandments whatsoever they be, whether they be made in earnest or in jest, or whether they be orders to do strange things, or whether they be made concerning matters of small import or of great; for all things should be of great import to you, since he that shall be your husband hath bidden you to do them. The second part or particular is to understand that if you have some business to perform concerning which you have not spoken to him that shall be your husband, nor hath he bethought him concerning it, wherefore hath he nothing ordered nor forbidden, if the business be urgent and it behoves to perform it before he that shall be your husband knoweth it, and if you be moved to do after one fashion and you feel that he that shall be your husband would be pleased to do after another fashion, do you act according to the pleasure of your husband that shall be, rather than according to your own, for his pleasure should come before yours.

The third particular is to understand that if he that shall be your husband shall forbid you to do anything, whether he forbid you in jest or in earnest or whether it be concerning small matters or great, you must watch that you do not in any manner that which he has forbidden.

The fourth particular is that you be not arrogant and that you answer not back your husband that shall be, nor his words, nor contradict what he saith, above all before other people.

Taking the first of the four particulars, which biddeth you to be humble and obedient to your husband, the Scripture bids it …. That is to say, it is the command of God that wives be subject to their husbands as their lords, for the husband is the head of the wife, even as our Lord Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. Thus it followeth that even as the Church is subject and obedient to the commandments, great and small, of Jesus Christ, as to her head, even so wives ought to be subject to their husbands as to their head and obey them and all their commandments great and small….

***

The seventh article of the first section showeth how you should be careful and thoughtful of your husband’s person. Wherefore, fair sister, if you have another husband after me, know that you should think much of his person, for after that a woman has lost her first husband and marriage, she commonly findeth it hard to find a second to her liking, according to her estate, and she remaineth long while all lonely and disconsolate and the more so still if she lose the second. Wherefore love your husband’s person carefully, and I pray you keep him in clean linen, for that is your business, and because the trouble and care of outside affairs lieth with men, so must husbands take heed, and go and come, and journey hither and thither, in rain and wind, in snow and hail, now drenched, now dry, now sweating, now shivering, ill-fed, ill-lodged, ill-warmed and ill-bedded. And naught harmeth him, because he is upheld by the hope that he hath of the care which his wife will take of him on his return, and of the ease, the joys and the pleasures which she will do him, or cause to be done to him in her presence; to be unshod before a good fire, to have his feet washed and fresh shoes and hose, to be given good food and drink, to be well served and well looked after, well bedded in white sheets and nightcaps, well covered with good furs, and assuaged with other joys and desports, privities, loves and secrets whereof I am silent. And the next day fresh shirts and garments..

And thus shall you preserve and keep your husband from all discomforts and give him all the comforts whereof you can bethink you, and serve him and have him served in your house, and you shall look to him for outside things, for if he be good he will take even more pains and labour therein than you wish, and by doing what I have said, you will cause him ever to miss you and have his heart with you and your loving service and he will shun all other houses, all other women, all other services and households…

From: “The Goodman of Paris” translated by Eileen Power in The Goodman of Paris, (London: Routledge, 1928), and reprinted in Richard M. Golden and Thomas Kuehn, eds., Western Societies: Primary Sources in Social History, Vol I, (New York: St Martins, 1993). This text is indicated as being without copyright on p. 330 of the Golden/Kuehn book.

This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. No permission is granted for commercial use. © Paul Halsall, November 1996.