QCQ #1
Quote: “A man and woman are one person in law; the wife loses all her rights as a single woman, and her existence is entirely absorbed in that of her husband. He is civilly responsible for her acts; she lives under his protection or cover, and her condition is called coverture. A woman’s body belongs to her husband; she is in his custody, and he can enforce his right by a writ of habeas corpus (4).
Comment: These two laws concerning women seem to encapsulate the themes in many of the more specific laws covered by these pages. When first stated that a man and woman become one when we think of this today; it reads as a nice sentiment and often has religious implications of unity and harmony in a spiritual. Yet, after looking at the rest of the laws and the context of how little agency women had in marriage, it really reads that it isn’t one person shared by two governing bodies but just the absorption of the woman. Also, considering the image we looked at as a class of the life and age of women, it holds true in the law that women are at their most powerful when single. Although I find it interesting that, socially and culturally, it was the norm for women to be in charge of the household and children, the laws that reflect the role of women regarding children hold all the responsibilities to the husband.
Question: I wonder when socially, the sentiments turned toward women being the most likely to take custody of their children and, most often, the decision maker regarding their upbringing. I also noticed in Brontë’s novel that in the scene where Gilbert and his family address Mrs. Markim’s ability to raise her son, the level of outspokenness seems so progressive, and I wonder about the reception of this part in particular from critics and the public. I remember Brontë mentioning in her preface the critiques of her novel, but with the laws surrounding marriage during this period, I would imagine that her ideas would seem entirely atypical, whereas today, it seems perfectly acceptable.
Responsibility can be understood in moral and financial senses with the mother having charge of the first and the father expecting to provide the second and, of course, the child’s sex/gender would draw on different parental roles. Bearing in mind again that a lot of what we’re reading is concerned with middle and upper classes, boys would be sent away to school, or educated by tutors at home, or sent to parish schools or grammar schools as a government run educational system replaced private or church run schools. Girls would have had more domestic tasks to learn and/or (and we might remember this from Burney) “accomplishments” like modern languages, fancy needlework, music.