Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution in 19th century Europe brought about widespread changes throughout the various countries. New and innovative ways for working helped shuffle in these changes and new ideals. Two aspects of this revolution that  I would like to focus on are birth control and anesthesia for childbirth. Birth control was something new that came about in the 19th century. People were not as keen on having large families, and as a result, new forms of birth control developed. Instead of the old practice of simply abstaining, there were now ways to still have sex, but at the same time reduce the chance of getting pregnant. Although these methods were not as advanced as the ones we have today, they still helped keep unwanted pregnancies from happening. I think this was a good thing because an unwanted child put the woman in a hard place and could have led to infanticide, which was a whole other issue during this time period. This gave women more control over their own body and let even a married couple control their family. The other new aspect that I thought was interesting about this time period was the use of anesthesia during childbirth. Now it was not like today where the women was simply given a drug that allowed her to still be coherent just without the pain. It was more of just take away the pain. For example, Queen Victoria  was given chloroform during childbirth, which essentially made her unconscious. I think this introduction was an important step because it shows that people began to care about the pain that almost every woman had to go through at least once. Women now had the option of relieving some of the pain, and once again, it gave them more control over their lives. In general, I think the Industrial Revolution brought about many things for women, the majority of which made life easier for them and gave them more control over their lives.

Malthus and Population Control

Thomas Robert Malthus wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population, which argued for population control in 18th century Europe. He believed that the growing population would sooner or later be checked by famine or disease, which was in contrast to the popular view that Europe was a place that was very much improving. I find his theory very interesting because I do agree that when a population becomes too much for the land to handle, there will be some kind of natural event that will control it. If there too many people in one area then, I think, there is bound to be some kind of famine or disease that sweeps across the area. In addition to this, I think that if famine and disease started spreading in one area then some people would begin to move to other areas, and that would also be a form of population control. Although I agree with Malthus’ ideas of a population check, I do not agree that it was something that would have been happening in 18th century Europe, rather I am looking at it from a modern standpoint. The population of Europe in the 18th century is definitely not even close to the population that it is sustaining now, and I think that sooner or later there will have to be some kind of check to control said population. I do not think there was a problem with the population in the 18th century because, at that time, there was still hundreds of acres of land that was not being used up, unlike today where development is happening in almost every corner of the world.

French Revolution

While the Enlightenment was bringing about changes in England, the French were undergoing their own revolution at the same time. Similar to what was happening in England, the aspects of marriage was changing in France. The implementation of divorce in France was one of the biggest changes that took place. Husband and wife no longer had to suffer through a terrible marriage. It was better to happy and not married than unhappy in marriage. The reasoning behind this was that if people were happy than that would benefit the state, which was one of the biggest goals of the French Revolution. Now, in order for a divorce to be granted there had to be mutual consent, which was something new that helped people get out of terrible marriages that, maybe, had been forced upon them. However, there were some restrictions to this new installation of divorce. Women could only petition for divorce if her husband had installed a mistress into their home, and men could petition for divorce if only suspected adultery. Thus, this shows that the divorce laws were not really equal during this time period. Even though there were some restrictions to divorce, I think it is a good thing that came about because it gave people a way to get out of an unhappy relationship. Also, it was beneficial for women because their husbands could no longer openly have an affair in their own homes, which helped them gain a little more control over their private lives. Overall, I think the French Revolution did a lot for women, even though it was disguised under betterment of the state.

The Enlightenment in England

In the 18th century, the Enlightenment brought a new view of marriage to England. To start, marriage was now done at a later age and both the man and woman were around the same age when married. The new age for marriage was around 25 to 28, for both parties. This was done in order to control fertility and thus have a smaller family. I think this is important to note because it shows that women were gaining more respect during this time. They no longer were being forced into marriages during their teens and had some more freedom. Another aspect that gave women more freedom was that the husband now had less control over the woman’s possessions. This meant that the woman could have her own things and, once again, have more freedom to do what she wants with her possessions. Additionally, the Enlightenment brought with it the option of divorce. It was now seen as unacceptable to sentence two people to be in a marriage where there was no love and no happiness. I find this aspect the most noteworthy because it shows that opinions were changing about marriage in a dramatic way. Before, divorce was not even an option and the man and woman would just have to suffer through the marriage. Divorce shows the shift in opinion that happiness was one of the highest goals in life for the individual because if one was not happy than they could just get divorced. I think this mirrors our opinions today on divorce because people get divorced, mostly, because they realized they are not happy with the person they married. Overall, I think it is good that the aspects of marriage were changing because it shows that women were gaining more freedom and had more options than ever before.

Peasants in Europe

Since the peasants in Europe were not really a concern of the wealthier classes in Europe, except for tax purposes, there is not much evidence describing what their lives were like in the Early Modern Period in Europe. One thing I found interesting about these peasants was how they dealt with rape. In accordance with our views today, they viewed the rape of adolescent girls as a very serious offense. Although they were pretty slack about sex before marriage, the rape of a young girl was not acceptable. I think this shows that they truly cared about the girls in their community. However, this concern did not extend towards older women, unless a woman was married when she was raped. I find it hard to believe that they could care so much about a young woman being raped, but at the same time not care about older women being raped. Here, one can see the fracture in their thought. They are on the same page with us today in one aspect, but on the other side they hold an older view of rape. I find it interesting that the view can change simply because of the age of a woman. I am curious as to what age it changed to be less serious to rape a woman. Overall, I think it is good that even the peasants, who were considered to be some of lowest people in Europe, saw the destruction of rape, even if they still had some aspects to work out.

Jewish Practices in Early Modern Europe

As life for many Europeans was changing in the the Early Modern Period, the Jewish people of Europe also had their own practices and customs changing. One aspect their practices that I found interesting was the marrying off of daughters. Unlike the wealthier aristocrats of the time who were waiting to marry off their daughters, the Jews were marrying them off as soon as they could produce a dowry. This resulted in the young Jewish girls being married off around the age of 12 or 13. For me, I find this practice very strange because when I was at that age the last thing I was thinking about was being married. I do understand that this was done so that more children could be produced and because of the high death rate it gave families a better chance at having a good sized family. I just think this was unfair towards the girl who was being forced into a marriage at that young of an age.

Another aspect of the Jewish customs in which women played a significant role was in their rituals and rules. These included  food purification, prayers, cleansing, dietary restrictions, ritual slaughter, separate dishes for meat and milk products, the for need kosher wine and not doing anything on the Sabbath. I find these very interesting because I have a Jewish roommate here at Catholic University, and although she does not necessarily follow these rules, I have heard her talk about them. I can understand better why these rules are in place and why women play such an important role in making sure that they are followed. I think the fact that women are so involved shows that the Jewish people may have had a higher respect for women than other cultures and religions had at the same time.

Creating a Household in the Early Modern Period

In the early modern period in Europe, things began to change for the middle class. One of the more interesting changes was how new couples would provide for their own household. Instead of choosing to live with one of the sets of parents, the newly betrothed couple would work to make enough money to have their own household. This is interesting to me because this is kind of the way things are in today’s society. A couple who is engaged pretty much does anything to be able to not live with a set of parents. It is likely that couples in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had similar feelings as couples today that they want their own independence from their parents. Another interesting facet to the creation of a new household, is where the man and woman get the money from. A boy would usually get sent off as an apprentice to learn a trade and eventually take over a shop or have his own. On the other hand, a girl would usually get sent off to work as a domestic servant in a wealthier house so that she could earn money for her own dowry, which would help the couple set up a household of their own. I think the woman providing her own dowry is interesting because before it was always the fathers responsibility to provide this, and it shows the move of children becoming more independent from their parents. Overall, I think this change was necessary and important because it helped children and young adults not be dependent on their families and we still use this idea of providing for oneself today.

Legality of Marriage

In class on Wednesday, we read the story of Giovanni and Lusanna. One theme that was interesting to me from this reading was what made a marriage official . Giovanni argues that his marriage to Lusanna was not official because, mostly, it was done in secret. Since it was secret, there were not as many witnesses to the marriage as there usually would have been. Also, even though there was an officiator there, that still did not necessarily mean that the marriage actually happened. I think that it is interesting that during the renaissance era there needed to be a public ceremony for a marriage to be considered official. This consisted of basically the entire town coming out and witnessing the marriage. I think that this leaves a lot of room for the guy to trick a young girl into “marriage” and then it is never truly official. This would kind of ruin the girl because she would not be as desirable to another man because she was no longer a virgin. Because of this, I am on the side of Lusanna and believe that they were actually married. There was a ceremony and someone from the clergy to officiate it, and thus I think theyG entered into a legal marriage.

-That’s all I have for now. Until later…

I’m Back!

Due to a fractured thumb and, thus an impaired ability to type, I am finally able to use both hands and pick up blogging again. There have been many topics that I have missed during my month’s absence, but I am determined to not let that happen again. Briefly, I just want to give an overview of the topics that I have missed. These topics include, early Christian marriage, chivalry, the Black Death, the Renaissance, the Lutheran Reformation, and Calvin. I hope that in my spare time I will be able to discuss some of these topics in this blog, but for now I have to focus on what the topic of today’s class will be, which I will post about later on in the evening. Until then…

Birth during the Ancient Roman Period

One interesting topic from class on Monday was about how births worked during the Ancient Roman time. When giving birth, it was only women who were allowed in the room or place of the birth. From a contemporary perspective, this seems really bizarre and unusual. Today, we place a lot of importance on the father being there for the birth of his child. Therefore, it is interesting that the women did have the father of the child present while giving birth. I am not sure of the exact reasons as to why this was the common practice, but I could maybe find some reasons. For example, a women may not want her husband in the room simply because it is not the most pleasant site in the world. However, it is still the birth of his child and is something special. I feel like the fathers were missing out on something during this. Additionally, it was mentioned in class that the father picked the child up off the floor after his or her birth to either accept or reject the child. This prompts a question for me: At what point was it acceptable for the father to come in and accept or reject his child? There must have been some accepted time at which fathers would come in, but, for me, it still remains a question.