Maid, Wife, Widow: Evolution of Woman
Kristen Todd
According to Judith Spicksley, women’s lives revolved “around a mere three [stages]: those of maid, wife, and widow” (Spicksley 67). At each of these stages, the masculine control of women’s lives changed from father to husband to higher-ranking men. Female power correlated directly with their closest masculine relative’s status. However, female power was only accessable for two of the stages by marriage; without marriage, a woman was developmentally stunted, and stayed a maiden. As a maiden, a woman’s power depended on that of her father’s connections. In adulthood, a woman’s power depended on her husband’s station and family connections. While her husband lived, she deferred to him. Upon his death, she assumed her husband’s responsibilities, maintaining his estate and connections. Connections were made through complicated social interactions that created alliances (which you can read more about here). English society thrived upon the forging of alliances via marriage. Single life, Queen Elizabeth I excluded, could leave one socially crippled. Without marriage, one lacked alliances that could improve finances, social station, or gain more resources.
England, from the individual level to the national level, achieved prosperity through marriage.The Tudors reinforced dependence on marital alliance as means for social mobility. They exalted “the virtues of Marriage,” insisting that marriage was “designed by God to help human beings” remain virtuous and free from temptation (“A Strange Hatred of Marriage” 101). Marriage immunized people from infection of sin and temptation. Jacqueline Vanhoutte draws a connection between this “language of infection” in “An Homily on the State of Matrimony” and the Renaissance medical practice of “[prescribing] marriage as a cure for the menstrual disorders of young virgins” (“A Strange Hatred of Marriage” 101). Marriage became a cure for societal and spiritual ills as well as women’s medical ills. Marriage was the Tudor regime’s remedy for matters of the soul and the body. But Vanhoutte claims that the “homily implies that a well-ordered marriage reflects and contributes to a well-ordered state” (“A Strange Hatred of Marriage” 101). Marriage, it would seem, was the miracle cure of Renaissance England for nobility and monarchs alike.
Marriage also meant access to all life stages; one could only become a widow if married because aristocratic and royal women used marriage as a vehicle to power. Politically subordinate, women required connections to powerful men in order to climb the English patriarchal social ladder. Renaissance England’s patriarchal system predicated itself on the understanding that marital harmony requires “the wife’s obedience to her husband” (Louis Montrose 61). This marital harmony then fosters the domestic harmony upon which the patriarchy thrives (Montrose 61). Marital harmony flourished because of a social exchange. Women exchanged their obedience for their husband’s social stature and family connections upon marrying.
This framework plays a part in the actions of the royal women in the Henriad. To better understand their motives, we might consider women’s actions in conjunction with theirpower relative to their stage of life. Catherine in Henry V, defers entirely to her parents and high-born men. As a maid, she is “destined for married chastity and motherhood” (Montrose 67). Husbandless, Catherine has no masculine power from which to draw to determine her future. This makes her vulnerable and desirable. Vulnerability also provides her incentive to marry.
Wifehood presents a transition into power. Wives work “on advancing their husbands’ and sons’ careers, arranging their daughters’ marriages, and managing their estates and households” (Harris 21). Women, in doing so, establish power and respect based on their husbands’ authority and the wives’ personal virtues. When their husbands die, they carry on wifely duties, but most also “[assume] new responsibilities,” taking over their “husbands’ estates and [as] guardians of their non-inheriting, unmarried children” (21). This power and respect becomes their credibility to rule as widows. Once women reach widowhood, they reach their greatest level of sociopolitical mobility and influence. A widow essentially takes on the role of her husband and speaks for him in his absence. We see Kate Percy do this in Henry IV, Part II. Kate begs her father-in-law, Northumberland, not to avenge Hotspur’s death (II.iii.9-45; II.iii.56-64). Rather than ignore her, Northumberland amends his plans (II.iii.50-53; II.iii.65-71).
England, from the individual level to the national level, achieved prosperity through marriage.The Tudors reinforced dependence on marital alliance as means for social mobility. They exalted “the virtues of Marriage,” insisting that marriage was “designed by God to help human beings” remain virtuous and free from temptation (“A Strange Hatred of Marriage” 101). Marriage immunized people from infection of sin and temptation. Jacqueline Vanhoutte draws a connection between this “language of infection” in “An Homily on the State of Matrimony” and the Renaissance medical practice of “[prescribing] marriage as a cure for the menstrual disorders of young virgins” (“A Strange Hatred of Marriage” 101). Marriage became a cure for societal and spiritual ills as well as women’s medical ills. Marriage was the Tudor regime’s remedy for matters of the soul and the body. But Vanhoutte claims that the “homily implies that a well-ordered marriage reflects and contributes to a well-ordered state” (“A Strange Hatred of Marriage” 101). Marriage, it would seem, was the miracle cure of Renaissance England for nobility and monarchs alike.
Marriage also meant access to all life stages; one could only become a widow if married because aristocratic and royal women used marriage as a vehicle to power. Politically subordinate, women required connections to powerful men in order to climb the English patriarchal social ladder. Renaissance England’s patriarchal system predicated itself on the understanding that marital harmony requires “the wife’s obedience to her husband” (Louis Montrose 61). This marital harmony then fosters the domestic harmony upon which the patriarchy thrives (Montrose 61). Marital harmony flourished because of a social exchange. Women exchanged their obedience for their husband’s social stature and family connections upon marrying.
This framework plays a part in the actions of the royal women in the Henriad. To better understand their motives, we might consider women’s actions in conjunction with theirpower relative to their stage of life. Catherine in Henry V, defers entirely to her parents and high-born men. As a maid, she is “destined for married chastity and motherhood” (Montrose 67). Husbandless, Catherine has no masculine power from which to draw to determine her future. This makes her vulnerable and desirable. Vulnerability also provides her incentive to marry.
Wifehood presents a transition into power. Wives work “on advancing their husbands’ and sons’ careers, arranging their daughters’ marriages, and managing their estates and households” (Harris 21). Women, in doing so, establish power and respect based on their husbands’ authority and the wives’ personal virtues. When their husbands die, they carry on wifely duties, but most also “[assume] new responsibilities,” taking over their “husbands’ estates and [as] guardians of their non-inheriting, unmarried children” (21). This power and respect becomes their credibility to rule as widows. Once women reach widowhood, they reach their greatest level of sociopolitical mobility and influence. A widow essentially takes on the role of her husband and speaks for him in his absence. We see Kate Percy do this in Henry IV, Part II. Kate begs her father-in-law, Northumberland, not to avenge Hotspur’s death (II.iii.9-45; II.iii.56-64). Rather than ignore her, Northumberland amends his plans (II.iii.50-53; II.iii.65-71).