INFORMATION TO USERS
The most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript &om the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly nrom the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are. in ^'pewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and-there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
UMI lJ^!versitv Microfilms Iniernanonal A Beil & Howell Information Company 300 North Z eeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800.521-0600
Order Number 9914471
Harpies and henpecked husbands: Images of the powerful housewife in Netherlandish art, 1550-1700
Peacock, Martha Lynne Moffitt, Ph.D.
The Ohio State University, 1989
Copyri^t ©1989 by Peacock, Martha Lyime Moffitt. All rights reserved.
UMI SOON. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106
HARPIES AND HENPECKED HUSBANDS:
IMAGES OF THE POWERFUL HOUSEWIFE
IN NETHERLANDISH ART 1550-1700
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of the Ohio State University
By
Martha Lynne Moffitt Peacock, B.A., M.A.
*****
The Ohio State University
1989
Dissertation Committee: Approved by
B. Haeger
F. Richardson Adviser 0 H. Vredeveld Department of History of Art Copyright by
Martha Lynne Moffitt Peacock
1989 To my husband for his support and to my children for their patience
11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to my adviser. Dr. Barbara Haeger, for the time she has dedicated to this dissertation. I have sincerely appreciated her help and suggestions. My thanks is also expressed to Dr. Harry Vredeveld for his kind assistance and the generous amount of time he spent with me working on translations. Dr. Frank Richardson's expertise and insight have also been greatly appreciated. I would like to thank Dr. Walter Gibson for his kindness in reading the dissertation and for his extremely helpful comments. I am also grateful for the materials and information provided by Mr. Herman Pleij. Additionally, Mr. J. P. Filedt Kok and the staff at the Rijksprentenkabinet were of great help during my research. Other institutions to which I would like to express thanks are the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie, the Koninklijke Bibliotheek and the Atlas van Stolk. Finally, I am grateful for the financial support granted by The Ohio State University and the generous support of a Woodrow Wilson Research Grant in Women's Studies.
1X1 VITA
February 22, 1957 ...... Born - Provo, Utah
1978 ...... B.A., Brigham Young University
1985 ...... M.A., The Ohio State University
1987-Present ...... Instructor, Brigham Young University
PUBLICATIONS
Edited and contributed to Rembrandt as Printmaker: An exhibition at Brigham Young University. Provo; Brigham Young University Press, 1988.
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: History of Art
Studies in Northern Baroque Art, Dr. Barbara Haeger
IV TABLE OP CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i i i
VITA ...... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii
INTRODUCTION ...... 1
CHAPTER
I. THE POSITION OF THE HOUSEWIFE IN DUTCH SOCIETY. . 18
A Gradual Increase in Female Power...... 20 Foreigners' Views ...... 24 Heroines in the War Against S p a i n ...... 30 N o t e s ...... 35
II. MISERY IN THE MARRIAGE DUE TO OVERBEARING WIVES 39 \ The Nature of WtNjien...... 40 The Marriage Tra^V...... 44 Husband's Grief . \ ...... 46 Beating and Scolding W i v e s ...... 51 N o t e s ...... 77
III. THE BATTLE-FOR THE TROUSERS ...... 84
The Male-Female Battle ...... 85 The All-Female Battle ...... 98 N o t e s ...... 116
IV. JAN THE HOUSEHUSBAND...... 121 Hennetastezs ...... 122 Spinning Husbands ...... 132 Various Chores ...... 141 Political Prints ...... 147 The Spinning R o o m ...... 156 Jan de W a s s e r ...... 159 N o t e s ...... 167 V. JUSTIFIED BEATING OF HUSBANDS? ...... 176 S m o k i n g ...... 177 Drunkenness...... 179 Husbands and Courtesans ...... 191 N o t e s ...... 205
VI. DESIRE AND DECEIT ...... 208 The Contemporary Aristotle ...... 210 Licentious Hennetastezs ...... 213 The Impotent and Deceived Hennetastez .... 217 Hoozndzagezs ...... 229 N o t e s ...... 244
CONCLUSION ...... 249
FIGURES ...... 264
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 390
VI LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES PAGE
1. Attributed to Hendrick van den Burgh, Private collection Vienna...... 265
2. Dutch School, Kenau Simons Hasselaar^ 1573, Frans Halsmuseum, Haarlem...... 266
3. Remigius Hogenberg, Kenau Simonsdocbtez Hasselaez, Hollstein 15, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. . 267
4. Utrecht Master, Trijn van Leemput, Centraal Museum, Utrecht...... 268
5. Illustration from Van de Wtnementheyt Dez Vzouwenlicken GeslachtSf 1643, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague ...... 269
6. Joannes van Keulen, Hat Toneel Dez Vzouwalyke Wzaakgiezigheyd. Atlas van Stolk, Rotterdam. . . . 269
7. Title page from Hieronymus Swserts' De Tien Vezmakelijkheden des Houvelyks, 1684, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague ...... 270
8. Title page from Hieronymus Sweerts' De Biegt dez Getzouvde, 1679, Koninklijke Bibliotheek. The Hague...... 271
9. Corneiis van Dalen after Adriaen van de Venne, Afbeeldinghe des Huwelyx ondez de Gedaente van een Fuyk, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 272
10. Adriaen van de Venne, A Peasant Couple Cazzying a Pail of Mater, From album of 1626, British Museum, London ...... 273
11. Adriaen van de Venne, Illustration from Jacob Cats' Alle de Mercken, 1700, Universiteits Bibliotheek Amsterdam...... 274
VI1 12. Adriaen van de Venne, Illustration from Jacob Cats’ Alle de RTercken, 1700, Universiteits Bibliotheek Amsterdam...... 275
13. Adriaen van de Venne, Het zijn stercke beenen die weelde dragen konnen. Private Collection, B r u s s e l s ...... 276
14. Attributed to Frans Hogenberg, A1 Hoy, 1559, Bibliothèque Royale Albert 1er, Brussels ...... 277
15. Jaques Horenbault, Allegory on the Vices, 1608, Hollstein 1, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam...... 278
16. Folio 329 from Lancelot del Lac, Pt. 3, Picard, Yale University Library, New Haven .... 279
17. Master E.S., Wild Folk Jousting, British Museum, London ...... 280
18. Albrecht Durer, The Witch, Hollstein 68, Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam...... 281
19. Illustration from Jacob Cats' Houwelyck, 1628, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 282
20. Corneiis van Kittensteyn, Mans-hant Boven, Hollstein 19, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam . . . 283
21. Emblem from Roemer Visscher’s Sinnepoppen, 1614. . 283
22. Jacob Cole after Corneiis Dusart, Tactus, Hollstein 269, Atlas van Stolk, Rotterdam...... 284
23. Jacob Cole after Corneiis Dusart, Gustus, Hollstein 267, Atlas van Stolk, Rotterdam...... 285
24. Jacob Cole after Corneiis Dusart, Auditus, Hollstein 266, Atlas van Stolk, Rotterdam...... 286
25. Adriaen van de Venne, A Peasant Couple with a Boy and a Dog, From album of 1626, British Museum, London ...... 287
26. Hermen van Steenwyck, Kitchen Interior with Three Figures, Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe. . 288
27. Jan Miense Molenaer, Touch, 1637, Mauritshuis, The Hague...... 288
V I 11 28. Nicolaes Maes, A Woman Scolding with a Maidservant Listening, Private collection. Great Britain...... 289
29. Salomon Saverij, A Shrewish Woman Scolding her Husband, Illustration from J.H. Krul's Wegwyser ter Deughden, 1639, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague...... 289
30. Pieter van Slingelandt, Cobbler in His Shop, 1670, Staatliches Museum, Schwerin ...... 290
31. Jan Miense Molenaer, Peasant Men and Women Fighting, Private Collection Brussels...... 291
32. Hugo Allardt, Bigorne and Scherminckel, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 292
33. Corneiis Massys, Battle for the Trousers, Hollstein 129, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam. . . 293
34. Folio 30v from Jacques de Longuyon, Voeux du Paon, Franco-Flemish, Private collection. New Y o r k ...... 293
35. Israhel van Meckenem, Battle for the Trousers, Hollstein 504, Bibliothèque Royale Albert 1er, B r u s s e l s ...... 294
36. Anonymous, Battle for the Trousers, 1555, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 295
37. Karel van Mander, Battle for the Trousers, Present location unknown ...... 296
38. Claes Braeu after Karel van Mander, Battle for the Trousers, Hollstein (Breen) 54-57, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 297
39. Pieter Jansz Quast, Who Wears the Breeches, Sale Amsterdam 2 July 1935 ...... 298
40. Pieter Serwouters after David Vinckboons, Battle for the Trousers, 1607, Hollstein 15, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 299
41. Jacob Cole after Corneiis Dusart, Visus, Hollstein 265, Atlas van Stolk, Rotterdam...... 300
42. Emblem from Gabriel Rollenhagen's Nucleus Emblematum, 1613, Universiteits Bibliotheek Amsterdam...... 301
IX 43. Master of the Banderoles, Battle for the Trousers, Hollstein 65, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Kupferstichkabinett, B e r l i n ...... 301
44. Florentine School, Battle for the Trousers, Staatliche Graphische Saomlung, Munich ...... 302
45. Corneiis van Kittensteyn after Adriaen van de Venne, Battle for the Trousers, Hollstein 20, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 303
46. J. Galle after Marten de Vos, Battle for the Trousers, Bibliothèque Royale Albert 1er, B r u s s e l s ...... 304
47. Frans Hogenberg after Monogrammist FB, Battle for the Trousers, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam...... 305
48. Emblem from Theodore de Bry’s Emblemata Saecularia, 1611, Rijksuniversiteit Bibliotheek Utrecht...... 306
49. Attributed to Pieter Brueghel II, Battle for the Trousers, Palais Galliere, Paris ...... 307
50. Attributed to Augustin Braun, Battle for the Trousers, Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Koln...... 308
51. Published by Van der Hagen, AFBEELDING HOE SEVEN WYVEN VECHTEN CM EEN MANS BROEK EN DE HOE DE VROU DE BROEK AEN TRECHT EN DE MAN DEN ROCK, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 309
52. Southern Netherlandish School, Proverbs, Private Collection, Geneva ...... 310
53. Adriaen van de Venne, Illustration from artist's Tafereel van de Belacchende Werelt, 1635, Atlas van Stolk, Rotterdam ...... 311
54. Pieter Jansz Quast, Battle for the Trousers, Atlas van Stolk, Rotterdam ...... 312
55. Jan Miense Molenaer, Battle for the Trousers, Private collection, Berlin ...... 313
56. Jan Miense Molenaer, Battle for the Trousers, Present location unknown ...... 314 57. Title page from Vanden hinnentastere, Herzog August-Bibliothek, Wolfenbuttel...... 315
58. Pieter Breughel I, Netherlandish Proverbs (detail), Gemaldegalerie, Berlin-Dahlem...... 316
59. Hans Liefrinck, Hennetaster, Hollstein 78, Museum Plantin-Moretus/Stedelijk Prentenkabinet, Antwerp...... 317
60. Harmen Jansz. Muller, Hennetaster, Hollstein 125, Ri jksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam . 318
61. Julius Goltzius, Hennetaster, Hollstein 49-52, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 319
62. Erhard Schoen, Peasant Breeding Eggs, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin...... 320
63. Mattheus Boll, Henpecked Husband, 1588, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin...... 321
64. Abraham Bloemaert, Peasant Woman, 1632, Centraal Museum, Utrecht ...... 322
65. Abraham Bloemaert, Egg Farmer, 1632, Centraal Museum, Utrecht...... 323
66. Barent Fabritius, Touch, Suermondt Museum, A a c h e n ...... 32 4
67. Herman Saftleven, Hennetaster, 1647, Hollstein 9, Ri jksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam...... 325
68. Published by Ewout C. Muller, De Verkeerde Hereld. Private collection Amsterdam ...... 326
69. Master bxg. Henpecked Husband, Musee du Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins, Paris ...... 327
70. Israhel Van Meckenem, The Quarrelsome Woman, Hollstein 473, British Museum, London...... 327
71. Jan Wierix after Pieter Breughel I, Flemish Proverbs, Hollstein 167, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam...... 328
72. Jacob de Gheyn, Quarreling Wife, Hollstein 106, Ri jksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam...... 329
XI 73. Claes Jansz. Visscher after Pieter Jansz. Quast, Woman Spinning, 1652, Hollstein 7, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 330
74. Illustration from Arianus Poirters, Het Masker van de Wereld Afgetroken. 1645, Universiteits Bibliotheek Amsterdam...... 331
75. Jan Snellinck II, Woman Spinning, Private collection Vienna...... 332
76. Adriaen van de Venne, Mans-Verdriet, Private Collection, Beekbergen ...... 333
77. Adriaen van de Venne, Illustration from artist's Tafexeel van de Belacchende Wezelt, 1635, Atlas van Stolk, R o t t e r d a m ...... 334
78. Jacob Gole after Corneiis Dusart, Odozatus, Hollstein 268, Atlas van Stolk, Rotterdam...... 335
79. Illustration from Ovezheezde Jan Blookaazd door zijn vinnig wijf, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague ...... 336
80. Jan de Visscher after Adriaen van Ostade, Kan Winding Woman Spinning, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam...... 337
81. Adriaen van Ostade, Peasant Interior, 1636, Present location unknown ...... 338
82. Political print, 1617, Atlas van Stolk, Rotterdam...... 339
83. Salomon Saverij, Man and Woman Winding, Hollstein 84, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam . . . 340
84. Attributed to a contemporary of Corneiis Massys, Scenes of Marital Strife, Present location unknown ...... 340
85. Published by L. Boscher, The Upper Hand, Atlas van Stolk, R o t t e r d a m ...... 341
86. Pieter de Bloot, Spinning Room, present location unknown ...... 342
87. Published by Gysbert de Groot, Klaas en Griet, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 343
XI1 88. Published by Jacobus van Egmont, Jan de Wasser, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 344
89. Published by Ratelband and Brouwer, Jan de Wasser, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 345
90. Attributed to a follower of Jan Steen, Wife Beating her Husband, Private Collection, The Hague...... 346
91. Emblem from Roemer Visscher*s Sinnepoppen, 1614. . 347
92. Corneiis Dusart, Wife Beating her Husband, Private Collection, Amsterdam...... 348
93. Egbert van Heemskerck, Beating at the Tavern, Present location unknown ...... 349
94. Pieter van der Borcht after Marten de Vos, The Lazy Cobbler, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam . . . 350
95. Salomon Saverij, Three Women in a Room Punishing a Drunkard, 1610, Hollstein 45, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 351
96. Attributed to a follower of Jan Miense Molenaer, Beating at the Tavern, Private collection, Duisber-Meiderich...... 352
97. Covert Dirksz Camphuysen, Beating at the Tavern, Private Collection Sodra Lindved ...... 353
98. Pieter Jansz Quast, Beating and Scolding Wives, 1644, Private Collection, St. Gilgen. . . . 354
99. Flemish School, The Peasant in the Tavern, present location unknown ...... 354
100. Pieter Coecke van Aelst, The Peasant in the Tavern, Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, Rotterdam. . 355
101. Remigius Hogenberg, The Peasant in the Tavern, Bibliothèque Royale Albert 1er, Brussels ...... 355
102. Gillis van Breen after Carel van Mander, Wife Beats Husband Caught with Courtesan, Hollstein 73, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 356
103. Jan Miense Molenaer, The Irate Wife, 1650, Statens Museum, Copenhagen ...... 357
Xlll 104. Attributed to Egbert van Heemskerck, The Pleasures of Matrimony Realized, Sothebys, L o n d o n ...... 358
105. Jan de Visscher after Adriaen van Ostade, The Tavern, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 359
106. Attributed to the Brueghel School, The Angry Wife, Amalienstift, Oranienbaum...... 360
107. Adriaen van de Venne, The Angry Wife, present location unknown ...... 361
108. The Housebook Master, Coat of Arms, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 362
109. Pieter Jansz Quast, "Aristotle and Phyllis ", Sale Amsterdam 2 July 1935 ...... 362
110. Monogrammist HSD, Half-Length Peasant with a Hen in His Arms, Hollstein 75, Bibliothèque Royale Albert 1er, Brussels...... 363
111. Monogrammist HSD, Young Woman with a Straw Hat, Hollstein 76, Bibliothèque Royale Albert 1er, Brussels...... 364
112. Attributed to Pieter Brueghel II, Man and Woman with a Cock, Sale Stockholm 1938 ...... 365
113. Hendrick Bloemaert, Hennetaster, Statens Konstmuseer, Stockholm ...... 366
114. Corneiis Saftleven, Hennetaster, Present location unknown ...... 367
115. Jan van Hemessen, Bagpiper and Merry Wife, Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts, Brussels ...... 368
116. Pieter Huys, Bagpiper and his Wife, Staatliche Museen, Berlin ...... 368
117. Corneiis Bloemaert after Hendrick Bloemaert, Hennetaster, Hollstein 290, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam...... 369
118. Abraham Bloemaert, Hennetaster, The Hermitage, Leningrad...... 370
119. Abraham Bloemaert, Old Woman with a Rooster, Private Collection, Amsterdam...... 371
XIV 120. Joachim Anthonisz Wtewael, Hennetaster, Staatlichen Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe...... 372
121. Copy after Joachim Anthonisz Wtewael, A Woman with Eggs, Ponce Museo de Arte de Ponce...... 373
122. Jan Matham after Adriaen van de Venne, Peasant with Eggs...... 374
123. Jan Hattigh Baak, Hennetaster, present location unknown ...... 375
124. Jan Hattigh Baak, Young Woman with Rooster, 1654, Centraal Museum, Utrecht ...... 376
125. After Lucas van Leyden, Love Triangle in Bedroom with Death and Fool, Hollstein 244, O x f o r d ...... 377
126. Crispijn de Passe II, Illustration from Nieuwen Jeucht Spiegel, Atlas van Stolk, Rotterdam...... 378
127. Crispijn de Passe I, Ages of Man, Hollstein 484, Ri jksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam...... 379
128. Crispijn de Passe II, Illustration from Les Abus du Mariage, 1641, Hollstein 188, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 380
129. Crispijn de Passe II, Illustration from Les Abus du Mariage, 1641, Hollstein 188, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 381
130. Pieter Pourbus, Hoorndrager, Private Collection, Antwerp...... 382
131. Attributed to Jan Miense Molenaer, Hoorndrager, Statens Museum, Copenhagen...... 383
132. Philip Koninck, Hoorndrager, 1649, City Art Gallery, Manchester...... 384
133. Corneiis Dusart, The Cuckold, Hollstein 10, Rijksprentenkabinet, Amsterdam ...... 385
134. David van der Plaes, Love Triangle, Private Collection, Munich ...... 386
135. Gabriel Metsu, Sleeping Hunter, Wallace Collection, London ...... 387
XV 136. Attributed to Jan Steen, Old Man with Young Couplef Private Collection, Rotterdam...... 388
137. Pieter Janssens Elinga, A Woman Sweeping, Private collection, Rouen...... 389
138. Geertruyd Roghman, A Woman Cooking, Hollstein 3, Atlas van Stolk, Rotterdam...... 389
XVI INTRODUCTION
Any mention of the topic of the housewife in seventeenth-century Dutch art typically conjures up visions of a pleasant matron busily engaged with her daily task of caring for the household. An examination of the art of this period yields many such scenes of contented industry. One of the most oft-repeated themes of the period was that of the housewife engaged in various chores— preparing food,
instructing the maid, caring for children. While much scholarship has been devoted to an examination of these
images and their celebration of domestic virtue,(1) little attention has been given to another type of image that was also frequently represented, one which depicts the housewife as a shrewish, overbearing and deceitful woman. Such images stem from a Netherlandish visual tradition that became very
popular in the latter half of the sixteenth century and
remained so in the Dutch Republic throughout the seventeenth
century. Unlike their calm and pleasant counterparts, these
negative images are replete with raucous behavior, crude
innuendo, and comic satire. While positive views of the
housewife frequently have a realistic appearance, these
latter images most often portray caricatured figures in
1 2 stereotypical circumstances with obviously symbolic motifs.
They unsparingly mock the overbearing housewife in various stock situations— sometimes humorous and at other times more seriously moralizing. Visual depictions which negatively portray the powerful housewife follow in the wake of an already firmly-established Netherlandish literary tradition which continued to censure and ridicule powerful women throughout the seventeenth century. The numerous examples of the powerful housewife theme in literature and art indicate its universality and appeal in the Netherlands during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
Although the precise popularity of this theme is difficult if not impossible to assess, one can at least determine from its numerous images that the theme played an important role in the art and literature of the period.
Moreover, the universality of this theme is suggested by a number of factors. First, the various themes included within this category are treated in both the crudest of folk prints and the most finely crafted of paintings. In addition, the images were intended for a wide diversity of purpose. Some of the images occur as illustrations for moralizing texts, others appear as the subject for didactic broadsheets meant to instruct children, while still others seem intent on amusing the viewer.
The great amount of attention given to the shrewish housewife in the art of this period represents a marked 3 change from the misogynistic imagery produced previous to
1550. Earlier Power of Women images emphasized the deceitful nature of women and presented them primarily as sexual temptresses. Included in this type of imagery are themes from various sources. Samson's downfall at the hands of Delilah and Aristotle's humiliation by the beautiful
Phyllis were two subjects frequently used to portray the sexual wiles women employed against men. Secular themes such as Love Gardens and Chess Games also depicted male helplessness in the presence of seductive women. This type of imagery appeared around 1400 and remained in vogue through the first half of the sixteenth century.(2)
From mid-century on, however. Power of Women themes began to deal largely with the shrewish and physically overbearing woman. Although there are depictions of viragoes which date from the late middle ages, it is from about 1550 that this type of imagery begins to increase significantly both in numbers and in variety of subjects.
Of further interest in relation to this theme is the fact that the era of its efflorescence relates very directly to a period of societal change in which women of the Netherlands were becoming increasingly powerful. This thesis will
therefore address itself to both the strong interest in this
theme at this period and the manner in which the intent of
these images reflects changes in the culture and society. 4
Derisive representations of the powerful housewife relate in important ways to an ongoing controversy in the interpretation of Dutch genre images. Currently, there is much debate over the meaing and intent of genre scenes.
Some scholars view their purpose as primarily descriptive of everday events in seventeenth-century Dutch society. Other art historians have argued that such scenes were intended to convey deeper meanings. Many of these interpretations associate the art with emblematic literature, thereby providing a moralistic interpretation of genre images.(3)
At present, the conclusions reached by scholars depend in large part on their position in this debate.
In regards to this debate, this study will investigate the intent and meaning of those Netherlandish works (drawings, prints, and paintings) that portray the housewife as negatively powerful, emphasizing either the physical or the sexual power she wields over her husband.
Positive images of the housewife and their relationship to these negative images will also be discussed briefly in the first chapter and the conclusion. Additionally, a few non-
Netherlandish images will be used to aid in interpreting meaning in the works. We shall study images from the
Netherlands generally for the time period of about 1550-
1600. For the years of around 1600-1700, the discussion will focus primarily on Dutch works which zealously sustain the tradition. As will be seen, the northern Netherlands 5 provided a cultural context that was extreiasly relevant to the intent of this theme, which was the mocking or censuring of powerful women.
In order to accurately interpret the intent of negative portrayals of housewives, a careful iconographie investigation of the images is essential. While a relationship with emblems will be discussed at times in this dissertation, another important aspect of Dutch genre— convention— will be used as a much more significant indicator of meaning in these images. More recently, both literary and artistic convention have been considered as important elements of Dutch genre images. An investigation of popular topoi and tradition is particularly relevant to depictions of this theme. These numerous images are characterized by a high degree of continuity. Specific themes, figurai types, motifs and even compositions are perpetuated throughout the century and a half of their popularity. This thesis, therefore, will also discuss the importance of stock themes and convention in the production of Dutch genre images through an analysis of the theme of the powerful housewife.
The repetition of specific topoi indicates that negative images of the housewife are not intended as accurate portrayals of daily life but that they variously fulfill humorous and/or moralizing functions. At times these themes, such as the beating of the drunken husband. 6 are related to stock comic themes in the contemporary kluchtspel or farce. Other themes, such as the Battle for the Trousers, are part of a traditional representation of female power present since the middle ages. Moreover, the persistent inclusion of certain motifs and the perpetual use of specific compositions in negative portrayals of the housewife also belie a purely descriptive interpretation.
Many of the objects and activities depicted in the earliest images continually recur in works from the seventeenth century. Thus, although a greater variety of subjects regarding powerful housewives develops from the mid sixteenth on through the seventeenth century, the themes also frequently build upon topoi from much earlier periods.
The figures themselves also indicate that the artist is frequently moralizing or satirizing rather than merely describing. In some cases, the presence of a fool clearly informs us that the overbearing housewife and cowardly husband are being ridiculed and censured. Even when this overt reference to foolishness is absent, however, other characteristics of the figures are used to indicate satirical intent. In general, the figures represented in these images come from the peasant class, derided for what was seen as rude manners and foolish behavior. As has been demonstrated, the peasant was frequently used in art to make the moralizing intent of the image clear.(4) In images of wifely power, the peasant figures are frequently shown 7 quarreling and beating with emphasized ferocity. Their boorish behavior is ridiculed and their appearance mocked, thus encouraging the viewer to disdain such conduct.
One of the most revealing characteristics (regarding intenr.î of these images is their relationship to popular expressions, proverbs and emblems. Comparisons with these aspects of Dutch culture serve a twofold purpose. Firstly, they indicate the meaning of certain objects, situations and actions within the work. A woman's pantoffel (slipper), for example, was more than a mere realistic detail. A pantoffelheld was a henpecked husband and the presence of a woman's slipper in certain scenes was an indication that the man was dominated by his wife. In addition, the presence of an unexplained object often acquires significance when its relationship to a popular expression is discovered. Holding horns over a man's head, for example, indicates that the man
is a hoorndrager or cuckold. Secondly, these associations also indicate how such a situation was regarded, thus signifying the moralizing and/or humorous intent.
References to proverbs immediately identify the didactic nature of many of these images. As with emblematic literature, however, it is important that such associations underscore a meaning that is already implied by the image, rather than dictate an interpretation that does not comply with other aspects of the work. 8
The most convincing argument for the moralizing intent of these works is their frequent appearance in broader moralizing contexts. Some of these depictions appear as illustrations in the texts of such moralists as Jacob Cats and Adriaen van de Venne. Other images appear within a series of moralizing representations in prints meant for the edification of children. In one such very popular
Jcinderprent entitled Jan de Wasser, an entire story develops around the representation of the domineering housewife and the abused, weak husband. Such portrayals censure women who do not submit themselves to their husband's rule and they depict the misery caused by this behavior. While many of the negative representations of women clearly convey a humorous and satirical intent, these more didactic images seem to reflect a much more deep-seated anxiety regarding the power of women. They appear to be attempts at inculcating certain social attitudes in both children and adults.
The desire to instruct Dutch society in this regard may well have arisen from societal changes in which women were becoming increasingly powerful. Several historians of sixteenth and seventeenth-century Dutch society have suggested that the literature of these separate periods reveals both a male fear of powerful women and an attempt to reaffirm a more decidedly patriarchal order. Herman Pleij was one of the first literary historians to note a 9
Netherlandish preoccupation with the theme of the shrewish and overbearing housewife in literature. He asserts that while French and Italian dramas typically characterize wives as young and deceitful, using tricks to subvert their spouses, the Dutch tradition commonly deals with the stereotype of the angry housewife who uses both verbal and physical abuse against her husband. He observes that this type of literature first appears in the Netherlands at the end of the fourteenth century and becomes very popular during the first half of the sixteenth century.
Particularly significant for the increased interest in this theme, he asserts, is the early development of an urban society and a burgher class in the Netherlands. In the wake of urban prosperity, women were moving out of their traditional roles and achieving a more powerful role in society. More women were being educated, and many of them were engaging in occupations previously reserved for men.
According to Pleij this new role of women generated a particular apprehension of the powerful and male-dominating female.(5)
Wilma van Engeldorp Gastelaars supports Pleij's assertions in an overview of the literature dealing with the shrewish housewife theme. Although she deals primarily with works from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, she also discusses seventeenth century examples. In addition, she includes visual examples of the theme but does not take a 10 systematic look at the visual tradition. She farther develops Pleij's sociological explanation for the popularity of the theme by suggesting that the early appearance of a middle class in the Netherlands created a new family ideal.
An increased emphasis on the importance of motherhood and the rearing of children made women a more siginificant factor in Netherlandish society and increased their power, particularly in the home.(6)
Lena Dresen-Coenders (an art historian) also notes that beginning around 1450 until the latter half of the sixteenth century, a strong fear of the power of women is exhibited in
Netherlandish literature and art. Like Pleij and
Gastelaars, she attributes this phenomenon to the early development of a burgher class in the Netherlands. She asserts that with the increased financial and political power of the burgher from about 1450 came a greater acceptance of a new morality which placed a strict division between female (home-related) and male (out of the home) tasks. Unlike the previous agrarian society, in which male and female chores alike were viewed as production enterprises, this new urban society tended increasingly to divide the female and male work-domains. According to
Dresen-Coenders, this encouraged an increased male aggression against female power outside of her assigned domain, as witnessed in the art and the literature of the period. Furthermore, she suggests that the women were 11 coming into marriages with an increasingly independent spirit. The new marriage pattern was characterized by several factors unique to the North-West-European tradition at this time. Women were beginning to marry at a later age
(late-twenties) than before, and many were going out in service before entering marriage. In addition, rather than marrying older men (as in the past) women frequently married younger men. These factors, she asserts, caused the married women of the Netherlands to exhibit a more independent and powerful character, thus causing greater consternation among many men.(7)
Simon Schama reaches similar conclusions regarding a male fear of female power in the Dutch Republic during the seventeenth century. He also reviews the literature of the period and finds that it contains a generally negative view of women, and that it exhibits a fear of their power. Again citing an actual establishment of female power as the reason for male paranoia, Schama delves into a discussion of the numerous freedoms and rights enjoyed by Dutch women as opposed to their European counterparts.(8)
Thus far, research regarding the characterization of the powerful female has been very distinctly separated into these two general time frames: 1400-1550 and 1600-1700.
Dresen-Coenders suggests that by the end of the sixteenth century the comic impact of the theme had decreased and was only relevant among the lower classes where a crossing over 12 of roles still occurred. She suggests that in contrast to early sixteenth-century visual representations of the Battle for the Trousers which were often of a high quality, seventeenth-century images began to be of a cruder, lesser quality.(9) On the contrary, as chapter three of this dissertation will demonstrate, there were many finely crafted prints which dealt with the theme in the later sixteenth and the seventeenth century. The theme was even treated in the higher art of painting. Quantitatively, moreover, the number of images of the Battle for the
Trousers, and in general of wifely power, produced from 1550 through 1700 greatly exceeds the number produced during the previous time period. While this is related to an overall increase in the production of genre themes and of paintings in general during this later period, it certainly does not indicate the decrease in interest that Dresen-Coenders suggests.
The two periods, as they relate to the power-of- housewife theme, actually have a great deal in common. Such factors as a widespread urban society and middle class with the resultant importance attached to motherhood tie the two periods together. Additionally, the more independent spirit which was exercised by women from about 1400 on resulted in an even further increase in the freedoms and privileges allowed women during the seventeenth century in the Dutch
Republic. Finally, the two time periods are bound together 13 through the visual tradition itself. Early representations of the powerful housewife theme are directly related to images of the later period in terms of subject matter, motifs and even compositional devices.
The sustained interest in this theme, documented in the visual arts throughout this entire period, supports scholars' assertions concerning the literary tradition and its indication of a male fear regarding increasingly powerful women. The images to be dealt with in this study are another indication of a need perceived by segments of the male population to reassert male authority.
The suggestion that these images are a male reaction to increasing female power in Dutch society will be supported in three ways. First, an examination of the images themselves, and particularly of the more seriously didactic works, will indicate an intent to reprove the wife who did not submit herself to her husband's rule. Second, a comparison with contemporary literature will also reveal a general condemnation of the powerful housewife; there are many literary manifestations of the distrust of this kind of female. The writings of moralists in particular give
insight into the type of advice given to men and women over the distribution of power in the marriage. Finally, these
images will be placed in their historical and social context to give evidence of the actuality of the housewife's
increasing power. 14
To provide the context essential for understanding and interpreting the images, it is necessary to document the growing importance of the housewife in Dutch society. In the first chapter, therefore, this background will be provided through an analysis of historical reports upon the actual legal and social standing of Dutch women in the seventeenth century.
With this historical context as foundation, the dissertation will focus on the images themselves. They will be analyzed first in terms of iconography and second in relation to convention. Furthermore, the intent of the images will be discussed and how this relates to societal and cultural views regarding powerful women.
Representations of the powerful housewife can be separated into two basic types— those showing her physical power and those showing her sexual power. In the period from about
1550-1700, those dealing with physical power greatly outnumber the images of sexual power and will therefore be given more attention. Due to their number, they will be studied in four separate chapters. The first will enumerate sixteenth and seventeenth-century warnings against women, marriage, and shrews in art and literature. Images of just such women who beat and scold their husbands will then be discussed.
The next two chapters will deal with specific representations of women's physical power which occur so 15 frequently that they constitute distinct and entire subjects by themselves. The first of these themes is the Battle for the Trousers and the second the Forcing of the Chores. The fourth and final chapter regarding physical power deals with the punishing of certain male vices by the termagant housewife. In all of these representations of physical power, the wife is typically characterized as an irascible virago and the husband as a dullard too weak to control his wife.
Although the husband is portrayed similarly in images of sexual power, the wife is more frequently depicted as young, beautiful and deceptive. Chapter six will discuss portrayals of sly and deceitful housewives in Dutch art and literature, and in particular two frequently appearing themes— the hennetastez (hen groper) and hoorndrager
(cuckold). As with images of physical power, these works also dispraise the wife and her untrustworthy nature.
Whether the image overtly displays the wife's overbearing character, as in physical representations, or subtly hints at her controlling nature, as in sexual depictions, both types of images of wifely sovereignty either ridicule or censure her power over her husband. NOTES
1. See particularly Wayne E. Franits, "The Vertues which ought to be in a compleate woman" (Ph.D. dissertation. New York University, 1987); Christopher Brown, Images of a Golden Past (New York; Abbeville Press, 19ü4), pp. 56-Sl and 140-149; Peter C. Sutton, Pieter de Hooch (Oxford: Phaidon/Oxford, 1980), pp. 41-51; several entries in Peter C. Sutton, ed.. Masters of Seventeenth-Century Dutch Genre Painting (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1984), pp. 142-143, 152, 155-161, 185-187, 202-203, 214-215, 220- 222, 285-286, 288-289.
2. Several scholars have discussed the numerous representations of this theme from c. 1400-c. 1550 including Susan Smith, "To Women's Wiles I Fell: The 'Power of Women Topoi’ and the Development of Medieval Secular Art" (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, 1978); Thea Vignau Wilberg-Schuurman, Hoofse Minne en burgerlijke liefde in de prentkunst rond 1500 (Leiden: Maartinus Nijhoff, 1983); Alison G. Stewart, Unequal Lovers: A Study of Unequal Couples in Northern Art (New York: Arabis Books, 1977).
3. The historiography of this subject is discussed in the introduction to Linda Stone-Ferrier's, Dutch Prints of Daily Life: Mirrors of Life or Masks of Morals (Lawrence: The Spencer Museum of Art, 1983), pp. 3-35; also Sutton, Masters, pp. XIII-XXV.
4. Several scholars have dealt with this topic including Hessel Miedema, "Realism and comic mode: the peasant", Simiolus, 9 no. 4 (1977): 205-219; Keith P.F. Moxey, "Sebald Beham's church anniversary holidays: festive peasants as instruments of repressive humor", Simiolus, 12 no. 2/3 (1981-82): 107-130; and Paul Vandenbroeck, "Verbeeck's peasant weddings: a study of iconography and social function", Simiolus, 14 no. 2 (1984): 79-121.
5. Herman Pleij, "Wie wordt er bang voor het boze wijf". De Revisor 4 pt. 6 (1977): 38-42.
16 17
6. Wilma van Engeldorp Gastelaars, "Ik Sal U Smiten Op Uwen Tant: Geweld tussen man en vrouw in laatmiddeleeuwse kluchten" (Doctoral dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam, 1984).
7. Lene Dresen-Coenders, "De strijd om de broek". De Revisor 4 pt. 6 (1977): 29-37 with notes on p. 77; also by the same author "De heks als duivelsboel", in Tussen heks en heilige: Het vrouwbeeld op de dzempel van de moderne tljd, 15de/16de eeuw (Nijmegen: SUN, 1985), pp. 59-82.
8. Simon Schama, "Wives and Wantons : Versions of Womanhood in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art", The Oxford Art Journal 3 no. 1 (April, 1980): 5-13; also by the same author The Embarrassment of Riches (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1987), pp. 375-480.
9. Dresen-Coenders, "Broek", p. 34. CHAPTER I
THE POSITION OF THE HOUSEWIFE IN DUTCH SOCIETY
Ironically, the enhanced power of women in seventeenth- century Dutch society was due in large part to the emphasis placed on the home and on the mother as the caretaker of
this realm. The Dutch housewife's importance as overseer of the domestic milieu was noted by many foreigners and was advocated by contemporary moralists. Women were encouraged to carefully watch over the household, children, and servants, as well as to oversee the domestic expenses.
Indeed, husbands were instructed not to exclude their wives
from the ruling of the household, and wastefulness on the
part of the husband was to be avoided by entrusting the wife
with the incoming and outgoing of money.(1) The governance
of the home was seen as a parallel to that of society, and
one in which virtues such as obedience and industry were
taught.(2) Therefore, the authority delegated to mothers
was great and the image of the woman in the home carried
with it connotations of power.
The authority and importance now associated with
housewives is also evident in the art of the period. Themes
dealing with fulfilling domestic tasks frequently appear in
18 19 both literature and art in the seventeenth century.(3)
Instructing and overseeing children and servants, a subject
of particular interest, is dealt with in an early seventeenth-century painting attributed to Hendrick van den
Burgh (present location unknown) (Fig. 1).(4) The mother,
placed on an elevated platform with her feet resting atop a
warming stove, regally sits as queen over her domain in the
center of the composition. She has momentarily interrupted
her virtuous task of sewing to guide the viewer's attention toward her four daughters at the left. The girls are all
happily engaged in industrious activities. The eldest cares
for the baby, who plays with a small dog, while another daughter (like her mother) is seated with her feet on a warming stove and handwork in her lap. She is busy weaving a wreath of flowers and kindly hands one of the blossoms to
the baby. In the background, another small daughter sits
with a doll on her lap and lifts up her hand in an
instructing gesture, as if mimicking the maternal chores of
the eldest sister. The daughters all exhibit motherly
virtues and the two eldest look to their mother as if for
guidance and approval. To the right of the mother is a
maidservant busy with her ironing, who also looks to the
governess of this domestic environment. This image of
perfect order and harmony could well be an illustration for a moralist tract instructing women on housewifely duties. 20
The attention of all is directed at the mother who invites us to survey her little realm of orderly virtue.
&_Gradua1_Increase in Female Power
The powerful position enjoyed by women in the Dutch
Republic was not a status suddenly bestowed upon them in the seventeenth century. It was a product of gradual cultural change during the previous two centuries in the Netherlands
in which women began to assert themselves. During the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, women began to interject themselves into the domain of men. They began to study and educate themselves. Additionally, they became involved in the work process, engaging in trade and the running of businesses.(5) Several explanations have been offered for the increasing power obtained by women during this century before the Golden Age of the Dutch Republic. Most center around societal changes entailed by the early development of an urban middle class in the Netherlands. Pleij asserts that this development provided the circumstances in which women could begin to assert themselves in areas previously reserved for men.(6)
The development of a burgher class is also central to
Dresen-Coenders*s discussion regarding male perceptions of
female power during the late middle ages. She suggests that a change in the marriage pattern during these years contributed to a more independent spirit among women. While women had previously entered marriage in their ' early 21 twenties, they were increasingly putting off marriage until a later age (late twenties). In relation to this, many women were going into service before marriage, thus putting many young, unwed women out in the market place. In another change from the past, when these women finally did marry, they often married men their same age or even younger.
Certainly then, women were entering marriage with a greater degree of independence and were probably in more equal positions of authority with their young spouses.(7)
Finally, Gastelaars credits the appearance of a burgher class with the development of a new marriage and family morality during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. She asserts that the development of the nuclear family, in relation to the new middle class, made the woman more of an equal (rather than subordinate) partner in marriage. An
increased emphasis on maintaining a harmonious and orderly
family life was incompatible with a husband's tyrannizing
over his wife. Gastelaars cites gradual change regarding
the "tachtigingszecht" (the right of the husband to
chastise his wife physically) as an example of the changed
power relationship between man and wife. She notes that
from the sixteenth century on, physical violence against
wives was increasingly discouraged by moralists and
restricted by law. (8)
Regarding the seventeenth century, the sociological
research of Donald Haks demonstrates that although moralists 22 of the seventeenth century strongly proclaimed a patriarchal authority, an examination of the opinions and administering of judges belies the existence of such authority. In a direct extension of the type of evidence used by Gastelaars
to demonstrate female power in the sixteenth century, Haks establishes the further demise of the tuchtigingszecht in
the seventeenth century. Although violent chastisement by a husband of his wife was still allowed, it was not advocated by judges. Haks cites several judges as well as moralists who proclaimed themselves opponents of the practice. Haks also provides other evidence which contradicts the claims of a strict male authority. Although a husband, for example,
had the right to demand the return of a wife who had left
him, this right was rarely invoked. Finally, Haks points to
the strong role played by women in trade and business. It
is evident that many women assisted in their husbands'
trades or took over for them while they were gone from
home.(9)
Schama also demonstrates that women in the Dutch
Republic enjoyed more rights than women elsewhere in Europe.
The wife, for example, could seek justice (under certain
circumstances) if her husband beat her. In the case of a
husband who had committed adultery and contracted venereal
disease, the wife could appeal to church authorities for
either a separation of beds or an ^nnulment. Many women
acted as regents for various charitable institutions such as 23 hospitals and old age homes. Furthermore, as women had the right to make commercial contracts, they could also engage
in business. Other privileges of women included the singing of psalms and sharing of pews with men.(10)
Alice Carter has also pointed out the greater freedom enjoyed by Dutch women, particularly in comparison with
English women. For instance, Dutch wives had the right to
inherit property, and they could also own property while
their husbands were alive. In addition, when the husband's
bad judgement in business matters threatened to bring the
family to ruin, the wife could appeal to the law. Carter attributes much of this indepedence to the fact that Dutch girls were educated in the schools.(11)
The active role played by Dutch women in business appears to have been one of the greatest contributors to
this increased power. Marjan Boot notes that m any of the women who helped their husbands in trade or on the farm were very independent, as their husbands were often gone at sea.
She notes that some of the women even had their own
businesses, particularly in the market place where they sold
vegetables, fish and game. Furthermore, feminine
occupations such as bleaching and lacemaking were organized
into guilds.(12)
Sociological research regarding the family also
supports the finding that Dutch women enjoyed a greater
independence than women elsewhere. A.M. van der Woude has 24
noted that in a comparative study between the northern area
of the province of Holland and England in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, reveals a marked difference in the
proportion of households headed by single females. The
ratio of such cases is three times as great in Holland as in
England. He suggests that such circumstances in Holland may
have been due to a combination of several factors: fewer
marriages, an uneven proportion of males to females and/or a
greater desire on the part of female children to set up
their own households.(13) Whatever the reasons for these
conditions, they are yet one more indicator of the
independent nature of Dutch women in the seventeenth
century.
Foreigners' Views
Although the letters and journals of travelers must be
read with a certain amount of caution, even a cursory look
at this evidence reveals a strong agreement regarding the
power of Dutch housewives. As the housewife's power
increased during the sixteenth century, she began to be
viewed by some foreigners as overbearing and shrewish.
Several travelers to the Netherlands were shocked and
dismayed at the freedoms enjoyed by Dutch women, and they
frequently censured the wife's dominance over her husband.
As early as 1567, Ludovico Guicciardini describes the
tyranny of the Dutch housewife: 25
The Women governe all, both within the doores and without, and make all bargaines, which joyned with the naturaal desire that Women have to beare rule, maketh them too too imperious and troublesome.(14)
Fynes Moryson, an English traveler \rtio visited the
Netherlands during the last decade of the sixteenth century, was also amazed by the freedoms enjoyed by Dutch women. At his arrival in Friesland, he was surprised that the gentlewomen did not sup privately in their chambers (as did the women of England); instead they ate at the public table with everyone else. After supper, Moryson was included in a very curious kissing custom which the women participated in without "the least suspition of unchastity".(15)
According to Moryson, Dutch girls were taught these freedoms at a very young age. He tells how young girls of
Leyden, "After nine of the clocke in the morning, shamed not ordinarily to doe those necessityes of nature in the open and fayre streets, which our wemen will not be seene to doe in private houses."(16) Moreover, he was shocked at the freedom young, unmarried girls were allowed with young men until late into the night.(17) Girls also practised domi nance over males, "from the first use of speech, as if they were borne to rule over the malles."(18) He surmised that the overbearing wife arose from the overbearing young girl:
Nothing is more frequent, then for little girles to insult over their brothers much bigger then they, reproving their doings, and calling them great lubbers, whereof when I talked with some schollers my companions, as a fashion seeming strange to mee, they were so farre from wondering thereat, as they 26
told me, it was a common thing for Wives to drive their Husbands and their friends out of the doores with scolding, as if they consumed the goods wherein they had a property with their Husbands. I should be too credulous, if I should thinke all Families to be sicke of this disease; and I must confesse, that in few other Nations all Families are altogether free from like accidents: but I may boldly say, that the Women of these parts, are above all other truly taxed with this unnatural domineering over their Husbands.(18}
Moryson further attributes this female domination to their large numbers:
Agayne it is generally obserued that as the wemen of these Provinces overtopp the men in number (which I formerly shewed) so they commonly rule theire famylyes. In the morning they giue theire husbandes drincking mony in their pursses, who goe abroade to be merry where they list, leaving theire wyues to keepe the shop and sell all thinges.(20)
The consequences of this excessive drinking, according to
Moryson, were that the men were unable to father more males.
In addition, he claimed that the Dutch women would commonly remain unmarried until a later age at which time they would marry younger men which also made the reproduction of females more certain. Such marriages were also certain to keep women in control :
...the watery Provinces breed flegmaticke humors, which together with the mens excessive drinking, may disable them to beget Males; or that the Women (as I have heard some Hollanders confesse) not easily finding a Husband, in respect of this disparity of the Sexes in number, commonly live unmarried till they be thirty yeeres old, and as commonly take Husbands of twenty yeeres age, which must needs make the Women more powerfull in generation. And the Women not onely take young men to their Husbands, but those also which are most simple and tractable: so as by the foresaid priviledge of Wives to dispose goods by their last will, and by the contracts in respect of their 27
Dowry, (which to the same end use to be warily drawne,) they keepe their Husbands in a kind of awe, and almost alone, without their Husbands intermedling, not onely keepe their shops at home, but exercise trafficke abroade.(21)
Moryson argued that the dominance of females not only
led to a usurpation of men's roles by women, it also forced
female tasks upon the men. He tells of such incidents in
the city of Leiden: "I haue seene men milke Cowes, and carry the milke in two payles fastned to a wooden yoke
before them, which they wore about theire neckes."(22)
Furthermore, this domination led to violence:
It is no rare thing for blowes to happen betweene man and wife, and I credibly heard that they have slight punishments for that fault, and my selfe did heare the Crier summon a man to answer the beating of his wife before a Magistrate.(23)
Such comments by foreigners continue in the seventeenth
century. Jean Nicolaes de Parival, writing in 1651, also discusses the freedom of Dutch housewives which he witnessed as a visitor to the Netherlands. He asserts that this was
the cause of violence between the spouses, thus disrupting
the neighborhood:
They enjoy as much freedom as their husbands. And this causes the unforgiveable crime of beating. I have heard recounted many times, that if a man has beaten his wife, and the neighbors find out, he has to amend for his deed by paying with a ham. And if the wife strikes her husband, she has to pay two.(24)
The involvement of women in business was another source
of amazement and discussion by foreigners. As early as
1517, Antonio de Beatis (secretary to the Cardinal of 28
Aragon) commented on the skill of Dutch women in business.
The inns are very well kept and the women that manage them are so capable in keeping the accounts and doing all. The same goes for the buying in the places for the sale of merchandise. In the public exercise of trade, the women are as well employed as the men.(25)
Guicciardini, who earlier condemned the women for their dominance, later admits to their great skill in business:
The women of Holland are verie faire, wise, paynfull, and so practiced in affaires of the world, that they occupie theselves in most part of mens exercises, especially in merchandize.(26)
Moryson states that, "without their husbands intermedling," the women, "not only keepe their shops at home, but exercise trafficke abroade."(27) He also claims to once having heard of a wife who when inquired of about her husband replied "that he was not at home, but had newly asked her leave to goe abroade."(28) The wives would even,
"saile to Hamburg and into England for exercise of traffique."(29)
James Howell, who visited the Netherlands in 1642, comments on the intelligence, as well as the business acumen of Dutch housewives:
There is no part of Europe so haunted with all sorts of Foreigners as the Netherlands, which makes the Inhabitants, as well Women as Men, so well vers'd in all sorts of Languages, so that in Exchange-time one may hear seven or eight sorts of Tongues spoken upon their Bourses: nor are the Men only expert herein, but the Women and Maids also in their common Hostries; and in Holland the Wives are so well vers'd in Bargaining, Cyphering, and Writing, that in the absence of their Husbands in long Sea-voyages they beat the Trade at home, and their Words will pass in equal Credit: 29
These Women are wonderfully sober, tho' their Husbands make commonly their Bargains in drink, and then are they more cautelous.”(30)
In 1614, an English fisherman also expressed surprise at the involvement of Dutch women in business:
At Ostendf Newport, and Dunkirk, where, and when, the Holland pinks come in, there daily the Merchants, that be but Women (but not such Women as the Fishwives of Billingsgate; for these Netherland Women do lade many Waggons with fresh Fish daily, some for Bruges, and some for Brussels etc., etc.) I have seen these Wonien-merchants I say, have their Aprons full of nothing but English Jacobuses, to make all their Payment of.(31)
Juan Luis Vives, a Spanish scholar in the Netherlands
from 1512-1540, also notes the participation of the women in trade. Even though he is know for his liberal views regarding women and education, he condemns Dutch women for taking over the husband's rightful position as breadwinner:
In Hollande, women do exercise marchandise and the men do geue themselues to guafting, the which eustomes and maners I alowe not, for thei agre not with nature, ye which hath geuen unto man a noble, a high & a diligent minde to be busye and occupied abroade, to gayne & to bring home to their viues & families to rule them and their children, . . . and to ye woman nature hath geuen a feareful, a couetous & an humble mind to be subject unto man, & to kepe yt he doeth gayne.(32)
Sir Josiah Child, an Englishman writing in 1668, asserts that their education provides Dutch women with the ability to transact business:
. . . the education of their Children as well Daughters as Sons; all which, be they of never so great quality or estate, they always take care to bring up to write perfect good Hands, and to have the full knowledge and use of Arithmetick and Merchant Accounts, . . . the well understanding and practise whereof doth strangely infuse into most 30
that are the owners of that Quality, of either Sex, not only an Ability for Commerce of all kinds, but a strong aptitude, love and delight in it; and in regard the women are as knowing therein as the Men,(33)
Another frequently cited cause for the dominance of
Dutch women is the great freedom they enjoyed under the law.
Moryson specifically discusses the wife's rights of
inheritance:
And the wife that brought a dowry, be her husband growne never so rich by his trade, may when shee dies give, not only her dowry, but halfe her husbands goods gotten in marriage, to her owne Kinsmen after his death, if shee have no children by him; and if she brought no dowry, yet she hath the same right to dispose of halfe her husbands goods gotten in mariage, and (as is supposed) by their mutuall labor.(34)
Finally, Sir John Reresby, an English visitor to the
Netherlands in 1554, asserts that all of these freedoms enjoyed by Dutch women under the law make them both shrewish and overbearing:
The wives mostly wear the breeches, and insult over their husbands with words upon easy occasion, being much favoured by the laws of the country, which inflict punishments upon those that misuse their wives, and allowing the women not only to take back, upon the death of the husband, the portion they brought him, but also half of the estate or property he has accumulated whilst they live together, and to dispose of it at her pleasure.(35)
Heroines_in the War Against Spain
Carter suggests that the greater power enjoyed by Dutch women was partially due to the Dutch Revolt. She asserts
that the help which women provided in building
fortifications and frustrating the Spanish with obstacles 31 made Dutch women more self-confident.(36) Although Haks attacks this theory by pointing out that Guicciardini had already mentioned the power of Dutch women in 1567, the
Revolt still must have enhanced the power of women.(37) The heroines of the Revolt had a great impact, not only on their own era, but also on the succeeding generations. One such woman was the famous Kenau Hasselaer, whose bravery during the siege of Haarlem was remembered both in literature and art. Many later historians would sing the praises of this brave woman.
Kenau Hasselaar, a forty-five year old widow, rallied the women of the city to defy the attacking troops when
Haarlem was besieged by the Duke of Alva in 1572. With guns and other weapons the women were able to inflict considerable damage on the Spanish troops. The fame of the courageous woman is attested to by the many works which honored her deeds. A sense of how the war began to associate manly attributes with women can be detected in an anonymous painting of the heroine dating from 1573 (Haarlem,
Frans Halsmuseum) (Pig. 2). It pictures Kenau with all the military accoutrements common to men. Her swaggering pose and masculine features indicate the extent to which Kenau was seen to have taken on traditionally male characteristics and roles. Furthermore, the inscription below similarly indicates the masculinity associated with this woman:
See here a Woman called Kenou, Brave as a Man: Who in that time. Gallantly fought the Spanish Tyrant.(38) 32
Kenau's bravery and power are also conveyed in a print by Remigius Hogenberg of 1573. Here she is compared to
Judith, the biblical heroine, whose beheading of Holofernes saved her people (Amsterdam, Hijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 3).
In matronly dress with sword and pistol at her sides, she grasps a spear in one hand while holding up the severed head of Don Pedro, the leader of the Spanish troops, in the other. At her feet lies the body of Don Pedro and in the distance we see the city of Haarlem. The German inscription below tells of the bravery of Kenau and her courageous followers.(39)
Another such episode took place in Utrecht at the beginning of the Eighty Years' War. The castle, Vredenburg,
i’; (which was constructed through forced Dutch labor) had become a fortress for the Spanish. In 1528, the castle was stormed by the housewife Trijn van Leenmut and her brave band of women. Armed with hammers, plows and pickaxes, the women succeeded (with the help of the burghers) in completely leveling the castle and expelling the Spanish.
An image of Trijn by an anonymous, seventeenth-century
Utrecht master (after a lost sixteenth-century work) shows a half-length of the woman with a pickaxe in one hand and a brick in the other— symbols of the destruction of Vredenburg
(Utrecht, Centraal Museum) (Fig. 4). She smiles triumphantly at the viewer. In the background, the troop of women is seen crossing the bridge as they attack the gates 33 of Vredenburg. Beneath is the inscription:
This is Trijn Leemputs* image, who bravely did vrtiat neither burgher nor soldier ever dared do.(40)
In his eulogy to women. Van de ^tmmentheyt des
Vzouwelicken Geshlachts (Of the Excellence of the Female
Sex), Johan van Beverwijck praises both of these women as well as the brave women of Amsterdam. Having taken the city of Haarlem, the victorious Spanish troops turned to
Amsterdam only to be met by more shooting. The women of
Amsterdam fought bravely alongside the men. On their own, the women brought artillery to a certain elevation in the city, where they bombarded the Spanish. After a long battle, the Spanish acknowledged defeat and fled to the ports. An accompanying illustration in Beverwijck's book shows the stalwart women firing their cannons at the troops
(The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek) (Fig. 5).(41)
It is revealing that the deeds of these courageous women of the Revolt should be retold and illustrated in works throughout the seventeenth century. Their bravery had a great impact on the succeeding generations, and it certainly appears to have contributed to the view of Dutch women as independent and powerful. During the Revolt, they fought like men and became war heroes like men. Although lauded by many, the power which these women demonstrated must also have caused a certain uneasiness in some men. As will be seen, the theme of the woman's usurpation of the 34 man's role as soldier is an idea ridiculed in popular prints.
In view of the strong position of Dutch women in the societies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it is likely that this new power caused some men a great deal of apprehension or chagrin. As has been mentioned, several scholars reviewing Netherlandish literature (particularly of the fifteenth through the seventeenth centuries) assert that its condemnation and ridicule of powerful wives is evidence of male anxiety regarding an actual increase in female power. The significant amount of literature and art deriding female power during these centuries supports this thesis. Moreover, there is plentiful evidence demonstrating that the women enjoyed an unusual (in comparison with the rest of Europe) amount of freedom and independence. While moralists still strongly advocated patriarchal rule, some men certainly must have seen their dominion over women slowly diminishing. The new importance associated with women due to their roles as housewives and mothers increasingly delegated to them a more powerful role in society. In what was probably both an expression of resentment and an attempt to reassert male authority, certain artists produced mocking and spiteful images directed against the powerful housewife. NOTES
1. Donald Haks, Huwelijk en Gezin in Holland in de 17de en ISde eeuw (Assen: Van Gorcum's Historische Bibliotheek, 1982), pp. 151-52; Haks draws upon several seventeenth century sources including Jacob Cats, Alle de Wercken, (Amsterdam-The Hague, 1726); G. Udemans, Practycke,. dat is werckelijcke oeffeninge van de Christelycke hooftdeughtden,...(Dordrecht, 1640); P. Wittewrongel, Oeconomia Christiana ofte christelicke huyhoudinghe... (Amsterdam, 1661).
2. Schama, "Wives", p. 3 and Embarrassmentf pp. 384- 391; in his discussion Schama cites J. van Beverwijck, Van de Wtnementheyt des Vfouwelicken Geslachts (Dordrecht, 1643) .
3. For a discussion of these numerous works see Franits.
4. This painting, now lost, is attributed with question to Hendrik van den Burgh by the Rijksbureau voor Kunsthistorische Documentatie. It is also listed under Egbert van Heamskerck with question by the R.K.D.
5. Pleij, "Boze Wijf", pp. 41-42.
6. Ibid.
7. Dresen-Coenders, "Broek", pp. 30-35; also by the same author "Heks" pp. 65-67; for this argument Dresen- Coenders relies primarily on the research of J. Hajnal, "European Marriage Patterns in Perspective," in Population in History: Essays in Historical Demography, ed. D.V. Glass and D.E.C. Eversley (London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd., 1955), pp. 101-141.
8. Gastelaars, pp. 7-8.
9. Haks, pp. 141-157.
10. Schama, "Wives", p. 9 and Embarrassment, pp. 384- 391.
35 36
11. Alice Carter, "Marriage counseling in the early seventeenth century: England and the Netherlands compared", (Leiden, 1974), pp. 94-127.
12. Marian Boot, "Kuislykheid is *t Vrouwen Kroon Cieraad", Openbaar Kunstbezit Kunst Schzift 22 (November, 1978): 171.
13. A.M. van der Woude, "Variations in the size and structure of the household in the United Provinces of the Netherlands in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries" in Household and family in past time, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), pp. 311-312.
14. Ludovico Guicciardini, The Description of the Low Countreys, imprinted by Peter Short (London, 1593), trans. from the original Descrittione di tutti i Paesi Bassi (Antwerp, 1567), reprinted by (Norwood: Walter J. Johnson, Inc., 1976), p. 15.
15. Charles Hughes, ed., Shakespeare’s Europe: A Survey of the Condition of Europe at the end of the 16th century. Being unpublished chapters of Fynes Moryson’s Itinerary (1617) (New York: Benjamin Blom, 1967), pp. 381- 382.
16. Ibid., p. 382.
17. Ibid., p. 385
18. Ibid., p. 382.
19. Fynes Moryson, An Itinerary, vol. 4 (Glasgow: James MacLehose and Sons, 1908), p. 469.
20. Shakespeare, p. 382.
21. Moryson, Itinerary, p. 469.
22. Shakespeare, pp. 382-383.
23. Moryson, Itinerary, p. 468.
24. Jean Nicolaes de Parival, Les Delices De la Hollande (Leyden; Chez Pierre Leffen, 1651), p. 19: Elies ne jouissent pas moins que leurs maris de la liberté, & ce feroit un crime inexpiable que de les battre. l'ay ouy raconter plusieurs fois, que si un homme avoit battu sa femme, & que cela vint a la connoissance des voisins, il payeroit un lambon d'amende, s la femme pour avoir frappe son mari, deux. 37
25. Don Antonio de BeatiSf Voyage du Cardinal D'Aragon; Sn Allemagne, Hollande, Belgique, France et Italie (1517-151$), trans. from the Italian after a manuscript of the sixteenth century, intro. Madeleine Havard de la Montagne, preface Henry Cochin (Librairie académique Perrin et Oie, 1913), pp. 122-123.
26. Guicciardini, p. 71.
27. Moryson, Itinerary, p. 469.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid., p. 468.
30. Joseph Jacobs, ed., Epistolae Ho-Elignae: The Familiar Letters of James Howell (London: David Nutt, 1890), vol. 1, section 2, p. 128.
31. Alice Carter, Working Life of Women in the Seventeenth Century (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1982), p. 36.
32. Vives, office and duetie of an husband, trans. Thos. Paynell (1550), quoted in Carter, Working, p. 37.
33. William Letwin, Sir Josiah Child, Merchant Economist with a reprint of Brief Observations concerning trade, and interest of money (1668) (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1959), pp. 42-43.
34. Moryson, Itinerary, p. 468.
35. Albert Avatt ed.. Memoirs and Travels of Sir John Reresby (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, and Co., Ltd., 1904), p. 137.
36. Carter, "Marriage", pp. 94-95.
37. Haks, pp. 155-156.
38. Siet hier een Vrou,/ genaemt Kenou, Vroom als een Man:/ Dief alder-tijt,/ Vromelijck bestrijt/ Den Spaenschen Tiran.
39. Es 1st bekant gar brait undt weit,/ der Amassonner weiber streit/ das sie Ihr leib und leben wagten/ und Iren Feind gar ver lagten/ Alsoo 1st auch zu unser zaijt/ vernomen In Hollandischen streijt/ ein Menlich Hertz sin und gemeuth/ zoo den Spannischen zeuch/ viel schad thir vander den Weiber in Hollandt/ die Iherenn namen machen becandt/ mit bescherming Ihers 38
Vatter lants/ darmidt es nicht so gar und gants/ von den Spannissen mohrn wert verderben,/ drumb sich ein weib Kennon erworben/ gar wol gemint und sehr bekendt/ von den Weibern furt das Regiment/ welch auch freij unne verzagen/ hatt einen Obersten das haub ab slagen/ Don Pero war er genant/ von den Spannischen vol becant/ da er durch Storm wolt lauffenn/ In der Stat Haerlem mit seinen hauffenn.
40. Dit Is Trijn Leemputs Beeld, Di Moedig Heeft Gedaan, Dat Borger Noch Soldaat, Oyt Derven Had Bestaan.
41. Johan van Beverwijck, Wtnementheyt Des Vroawelicken Geslachts (Dordrecht: Jasper Gorissz, 1643), Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague, pp. 356-357. CHAPTER II
MISERY IN THE MARRIAGE DUE TO OVERBEARING WIVES
Long existing negative opinions regarding the female character were still firmly entrenched during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The distrust of the nature of women inspired many warnings against hasty marriage to these shrewish and deceitful creatures, as such a union was certain to lead to chaos and violence. Misery in the marriage due to termagant wives was a popular topic in both art and literature of the period, which delighted in the portrayal of overbearing women who scolded and used violence against their henpecked husbands. Far from being descriptive portrayals, however, these images were clearly meant to ridicule and censure powerful women who usurped traditional male authority. Evidence of this intent is most clearly found in the characterization of women in these
images. Their physiognomies are humorously caricatured and
their violent scoldings viciously exaggerated to display their shrewish nature. In addition, many of the images are either used in overtly moralizing contexts or are accompanied by moralizing inscriptions which reveal the censuring intent of the artist. Most of the images contain
39 40 certain motifs that repeatedly occur in images throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These motifs relate to traditional topoi, popular expressions and proverbs ridiculing overbearing wives. The large number of images dealing with powerful housewives certainly indicates not only the humorous appeal of the topic but also
(particularly in the overtly moralizing images) a warning regarding the dissastrous consequences of subverting male authority.
The Nature of Women
From the middle ages, the view of women in Europe had been a very negative one. It was the woman. Eve, who had first disobeyed the Lord and had coaxed Adam to do the same.
Being composed of cold and wet humors, the woman was considered to have a changeable, deceptive nature. Due to her disorderly nature, she was also wont to exercise power over those who were in authority over her.(l)
Every possible evil had been associated with women in texts dating from a very early period. The fourteenth- century moralist Jan van Boendale lists the common vices of the female sex: lying, gossiping, idleness, unfaithfulness, pride, vindictiveness, foolishness, fickleness, avariciousness, quarrelsomeness.(2) Various types of evidence or authority were cited in works that indict women, such as Dat bedzoch der vzouwen (The deceit of women), dating from the beginning of the sixteenth century. Here 41 quotations from both church fathers and classical authors are cited in support of the condemnation of women.(3) This type of literature continues to occur frequently throughout the seventeenth century. P.B. Minnebroeder’s Spiegel der
Qaade Vrouwen (Mirror of Bad Women)(16G8)demonstrates each of the female vices by using the example of a notorious woman from the past.(4)
The way in which art and literature combine in this indictment of women is demonstrated in the rhyme print Het
Tooneel Der Vrouwelyke Wraakgierigheyd (The Drama of Female
Vindictiveness) (c.1650). Here the supposedly vicious character of wives is vividly portrayed (Rotterdam, Atlas van Stolk) (Fig. 6).(5) A large central scene and several subsidary images are accompanied by inscriptions that relate the story of a poor husband who is undone by his cruel and merciless wife. The fictional tale related in the print provides insight into certain contemporary attitudes toward the female character. The tale takes place in the imaginary land of Sevenberg where a certain law demanded that any man or wife who committed adultery be put to death by his or her own spouse. The alluring and deceitful wife in this tale is caught with another man but just as her husband is about to end her life, her tears and pleadings soften his heart and he decides to spare her lire. Soon afterwards, the situation is reversed as the husband is found in similar adulterous circumstances. His sin, however, is excused to a 42 certain extent and is blamed instead on the prostitute who cast "her lynx-like eyes upon this good man."(6) Now the wife stands on the scaffold, sword in hand, ready to strike down her husband. Despite his pleas for her to remember how he spared her life, she craves his death, and roaring like a lioness, she cuts off his head and seizes it by the hair like a trophy. The tale ends with the moralizing proverb,
"Where a woman's blood is brought to the boil, her lust for revenge will simmer until satisfied."(7)
The large central scene depicts the moment before the tearful husband's final fate. His wife, sword in hand, stands on the platform ready to deliver him to the coffin pushed forward by the young boy. Surrounding this are six smaller scenes which relate in word and image the story told in the inscription below. The first scene is of a bridal feast with all the guests seated at a table. Below is the inscription;
How can the evil be hidden: the eye may look favorably upon the husband, but in the heart another dwells. Never provoke a leopard.(8)
In the scene below this, the characters are shown in a bedroom with a large wine glass on the table. The wife is
in bed with her lover and they are discovered by several other figures at the door. The inscription reads:
To what indulgence will not the straying senses of woman lead her? She thinks she is unobserved. Fire never remains hidden in straw. 43
The following scene shows the couple on a platform with a crowd gathered around to watch the execution. The woman’s coffin stands ready but her husband has dropped the sword of retribution and instead kneels by his pleading wife’s side and comforts her. His generous act is praised (with reservations) in the inscription below:
Mingled with tears, the words of woman have softened the wrath of man. Magnanimity is heedless.
The fall of the husband begins with the fourth scene. He is now shown in a bedroom with a lover. Having drunk the wine on the table, he now becomes amorous with the woman and is spied upon at the door. Criticism of the husband's adultery is certainly less harsh than that of his wife.
The eye of man can also wander. The capricious fire of extramarital love makes gall and soot taste sugar-sweet. No hills without valleys.
The poor husband is then bound and delivered by two guards into prison to await his judgement. The inscription is ominous of his terrible fate:
Sin brings pleasure at first, then terror. Thunder shakes the rocks.
Finally, the man is brought to judgement in the next scene.
He pleads on bended knee before his wife and the judges.
The wife's upraised and accusing finger, however, indicates that she will not reciprocate his mercy. Below this scene one finds the moral of the whole tale: 44
It is hard to break a woman of her hatred. The more the man weeps the more she hardens her heart. Tigers are immovable.
Indicative of the popular sentiment toward women are the harsh words used to describe the adulterous acts of the wife compared with the description of the husband's deed.
The inscription from the second scene makes it clear that it is the woman's nature (her "straying senses") that leads her into this adulterous act. Women were considered to have naturally evil characters which led them into sin. The character of women is further assaulted in comparisons with such ferocious beasts as tigers and leopards. Like vicious, unfeeling animals, women are accused of lacking compassion and other human sentiments. Throughout these verses, men are admonished to be wary of the female beast.
Ihg Bazslaqe .Tsap Due to the presumed shrewish and deceitful nature of women, men were constantly warned in literature and art about the dangers of the matrimonial state. Examples of this type of misogynist literature are De Boosardige en
Bedriegelyck Huisvzou (The Malicious and Deceitful
Housewife)(1682) and a two part work by Hieronymus Sweerts
De Tien Veziaakelijkheden des Houwelyks (The Ten Amusements of Marriage) and De Biegt der Getzoavde (The Trap of the
Betrothed)(1679). In such works, marriage is frequently compared to a trap waiting to ensnare poor, naive men. The 45 title plates to both of Sweerts' indictments of women and their deceits use the visual metaphor of the animal trap to indicate the dangers of marriage.
The illustration for the first volume pictures a slobbering fool who has all the accoutrements of a rat catcher (The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek) (Fig. 7). In the fool's lap, sits a huge trap with what appears to be a ferret inside.(9) On his shoulder rests the pole of another trap with several rats ensnared or atop it. To the left of the fool sits an open box on which are printed the words,
"Kruijt voor de Ratten en Mayzen " (powder for the rats and mice). This box holds the poison powder used to kill the rats.
It can be inferred from Sweerts' tale, which bitterly laments the lot of a poor husband mistreated by his evil wife, that rat-catching is used here as a metaphor for man- catching and is in keeping with the unpleasant view of women as deceitful and scheming and men as naive and helpless in the face of these wiles. To underscore the artist's intent, two cupids are seen flying above: one carries a flaming heart already pierced by two arrows while the other aims his bow and arrow at the fool seated below. The moral of the text generally is inscribed on the paper which the fool holds in his hand: "Trouwen doet rouwen " (Marriage brings regret). 46
In Sweerts' second volume. De Biegt der Getzouwde, the title plate pictures the devil seated atop a fish trap, holding the fool's baton as he lures people into the marriage trap (The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek) (Fig. 8).
The man seated in the left foreground indicates with the caged mouse that he holds, the fate of all men who fall prey to marriage.(10) The artist indicates with the woman holding a mask at the right that it is female deceit which lures men into the marriage trap.
The fish trap is again used in a print after Adriaen van de Venne's illustration for Jacob Cats' book Houwelijks
Fayck (Marriage trap) (1665) (Amsterdam,
Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 9).(11) The print is entitled,
Afbeeldinghe des Huvelyx onder de gedaente van een Fuyk
(Representing of Marriage in the Guise of a Trap). Within this scene, all manner of unhappiness takes place because of
love and marriage. A newly married couple (blinded by love) gradually makes their way towards the mouth of a huge trap already filled with families. Around the trap, various
figures made miserable by love and marriage engage in
foolish behavior.
Husband's Grief
The general condition of being cursed with a
contemptible wife was known as "Man's Verdrlet " ("Husband's
Grief")(12) and examples of wives' attempts to make their
husbands miserable occur frequently in art and literature. 47
The significance of these frequent references as an
indication of certain male attitudes gains further import with the realization that this is accompanied by an almost
complete lack of literary and visual examples in which the
reverse occurs. There are, for example, only a few visual
references to male beatings of wives. Literary references
to such beatings are usually only made when such a beating
is somehow justified by the wife's bad behavior. When
husbands are shown exhibiting other types of disreputable
behavior (drinking, smoking, lust) in the presence of their
wives, it is often used as an excuse to exhibit the wives'
shrewish scolding against such behavior in either a comic or
moralizing fashion.
An example of this common condition known as Man's
Verdriet is seen in one of Adriaen van de Venne's miniatures
from an album of 1626 (London, British Museum) (Pig. 10). A
man and wife carry a support between them which holds a
large tub of water containing a bucket. The water is being
sloshed up on the man, yet he seems completely unaware of
the trickery going on behind his back. That the dousing of
water is not accidental is revealed by the coy sideward
glance of the woman. Here, the obtuse-looking husband plays
the perfect stooge for the deceit of his wife. This view of
the husband is further illustrated by the pieces of straw
sticking out from his pant legs; a feature which may
indicate that he is dominated by his wife. The word 48
strooman (a man made of straw) carried the meaning of a weak man. Thus, this element identifies him as a weak man,
unable to rule and control his wife.(13) Perhaps, there is more intimated here than mere caprice by the wife. If he is completely unaware of this trickery, what greater deceit might she be keeping from him? As will be seen in the
chapter on sexual power, the foolish, old husband unaware of
his wife's adultery was another subject of interest for
Dutch artists.
In the popular moralizing work Houwelyck
(Marriage)(1628), Jacob Cats devotes an entire text to the
instruction of women. It can well be argued that no other
seventeenth-century Dutch author had as much influence in
establishing what was considered to be proper behavior for
women as Jacob Cats. His Houwelyck gave detailed
instructions for women to follow at all stages of life. The
importance attached to this text is suggested by its
numerous editions.(14) In the section of Houwelyck entitled
Vzouwe (Wife), Cats instructs the woman in her duties as
wife. One such admonishment criticizes the disobedient wife
who subverts her husband. Cats describes the plight of a
certain man whose life is made miserable through his wife's
trickery. Adriaen van de Venne’s accompanying illustration
is similar to the miniature from the 1626 album, except that
here the couple carries a chest on a support held between
them (Amsterdam, Universiteits Bibliotheek Amsterdam) (Pig. 49 il). The chest starts to fall as the wife drops one of her handles while casting a sly glance toward her husband whose back is to her. The accompanying verse laments;
Come hear the good man, whom you see here below. Learn his lesson for you, and lament his misery; Though I bear what I can, yet it does not work in all cases. When the one who helps carry wants to let the pack fall. My help is my obstacle; my comfort is my grief; My industry is without fruit, my sweat does not do any good here. "Unless the one who precedes does his duty to the very best, "It is only threshing hay, when there is something wrong with the last one, "Even if a good servant yoked two horses to the plow, "When one of them does not want to pull, things are bad enough, "See where something is entrusted to two people. "One who pulls back makes his companion suffer. "Even if your sound management is based or wise counsel, "It still always depends on your companion. Remember this lesson, men and women. Who with a marriage bond are yoked to the house. "Do your share, and bear each other's burden. "It goes well for people when one hand washes the other."(15)
Cats instructs women that they should be a helpmate to their
husbands. They should not make their husbands' lives miserable by trying to subvert the authority in the
household.
In an emblem from Spiegel van den Voozleden en
Tegenwoordigen Tijt (Mirror of the Past and Present
Time) (1665), Cats further warns men that they will have a
heavy burden to carry when they marry. The emblem is
entitled 't Zijn stercke beenen die weelde dragen konnen
(Only the strongest legs can bear luxury). Pictured in the 50
illustration is a young man who carries on his shoulders a well-dressed young woman (Amsterdam, Universiteits
Bibliotheek Amsterdam) (Pig. 12). In the background, an old man looks on as a young man drops a woman from his shoulders. The verse below the image explains that one young man can carry his burden well, while the other young man cannot. The young woman in the foreground holds in one hand a purse from which coins drop, while in the other she carries a pipe and a glass. Cats informs the reader that this figure represents Lady Luxury. The burdens which she
inflicts on those who court her are heavy indeed. In warning the reader about the dangers of this woman's
caprice. Cats links the image of Lady Luxury to the domineering wife. This domineering wife must be at the helm and directs the husband in everything he should do:
And it is not a heavy load of which I here complain; It is (as you see) a capricious wife. That sits (I know not how) astride my body.
Peace is a misery for her, silence a pain.
But this thing already goes beyond all reason. It jerks me where it wants and weighs upon me;
But reader, I think you wish to know What she, whom I carry, is called in Holland; Well, in a word. Lady Luxury is her name (16)
The association made between Lady Luxury and the
domineering wife is clearly illustrated in Adriaen van de
Venne's original painting of the image where the background
figures portray a wife attacking her husband (Brussels, 51
Private collection) (Fig. 13). Wives who attempted to rule their husbands are the greatest burdens of all.
Furthermore, this association is underscored by the
story that accompanies this emblem, entitled Wat Venus voegt
/dat scheyt de klippel (What Venus joins / the clapper [or
tongue of the wife] divides). Gys was a young man who wanted a wife and fell in love with a woman named Fytjen, who unbeknownst to him, was a malicious and hateful scold.
Gys married her and the first two nights were full of joy,
but on the third day her true nature appeared and she fought
him for control of the trousers. This (as will be
demonstrated later) signaled the wife's usurpation of the
husband's rightful authority. The story ends with Gys
mourning the day he married this wicked and scornful
woman.(17)
Beating and Scolding Wives
The theme of evil wives appears very early in Dutch
literature and its presentation is different from that which
occurs in the rest of the European tradition. As previously
mentioned, Pleij has demonstrated that French and Italian
dramas typically characterize the woman as young and
deceitful, using tricks to subvert her domineering spouse.
The Dutch tradition, however, commonly deals with the
stereotype of the angry housewife who often uses both verbal
and physical abuse against her cowardly husband.(18) The
curse of a shrewish wife had long been considered one of the 52 worst evils to befall a man. Her scolding tongue and evil heart were the favorite subject of many authors and artists
in the Netherlands from as early as the late fourteenth century. The woman who would not respect her husband as master was often shown using physical violence to gain power
over him. An analysis of both the art and literature concerning this violence implies that the theme was long-
lasting and that it enjoyed at least a certain amount of popularity. It also provides insight into the meaning of certain motifs and the didactic or humorous intent of the work.
It appears from the research of Donald Haks that actual physical violence took place among both spouses in the
Netherlands during the seventeenth century, even though the
"tachtigingsrecht " (the right to physically chastise one's spouse) was legally only given to the man. Among the examples Haks cites is the case of Crijn den Haan from
Maassluis who complained that his wife first struck him and
then set him outside the door.(19) It is generally only the
violence by the female, however, that is depicted in art.
In literature, male violence, when it occurs, is typically
used only for the purpose of taming a shrewish wife. The
implication, therefore, is that the husband's use of violence is justified. In art, the attempt by women to subjugate physically their husbands is always exhibited in a 53 negative fashion, even when the scolding would seemingly be justified by reason of the husband’s vices.
Marriage, in this view, was made miserable by a shrewish wife who used violence against her husband.
Fighting against the roan of the house brought misery and chaos to all. Obvious and frequent instances of images that moralize against overbearing wives are found in prints which illustrate a variety of Dutch proverbs. The illustration of proverbs had always provided popular subject matter for artists in the Netherlands. In a print of 1559,
Frans Hogenberg illustrates several Dutch proverbs with a myriad of separate groups of figures. One of these groups
(reproduced in the detail) portrays a woman beating her cowering husband with her fist (Brussels, Bibliothèque
Royale Albert 1er) (Fig. 14). The accompanying inscription clearly deplores the wife's shrewish behavior, "In this manner my wife beats me and to none can I complain. He who has an evil wife has much nain."(20)
A similar inventory of familiar proverbs is found in a print by Jaques Horenbault (1608) (Amsterdam,
Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 15). Here the woman beats her husband with a distaff rather than her fist. The distaff became a symbol for women themselves, as it was their most familiar tool.(21) It also becomes a familiar weapon in the visual arts for women in their battle against men. Although the distaff can be used in a positive sense (as it 54 symbolized female industry), it also has negative
connotations when used as a weapon by shrewish wives, and it
is used as such from a very early period. Already in the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries women are represented in
the margins of manuscripts using distaffs as weapons in a
"Battle of the Sexes" (New Haven, Yale University Library)
(Fig. 16). In prints of wild folk, couples are often shown
jousting with their characteristic tools— the male with a
rake and the female with her distaff (London, British
Museum) (Fig. 17). Such a purpose for the distaff is
reiterated in one of Erasmus’ Colloquia in which two
friends, Eulalia and Xantippe, have a discussion about their
husbands. Xantippe describes how her husband comes home
drunk and beats her. Eulalia exclaims, "A new sort of
shield! You should have used your distaff for a lance."(22)
As late as the seventeenth century the distaff was still
used as a metaphor for women generally and also at times
more specifically for overbearing females. It is used as
such in an expression found in Jacob Cats' Regels voor de
Huys-houdinge in Spreucken, Spzeeck-woozden, en Gedichten
(Rules for Households in Sayings, Proverbs and Poems)(1665):
Wherever the distaff dominates the sword. There things are going badly for the head of the household.(23)
The distaff became a symbol of female power and in this
vein was particularly associated with wives' shrewish
violence towards their husbands. Further evil was connected 55 with the distaff due to its purported use by witches.(24) In a print by Durer, a truly evil looking witch astride a goat carries her distaff as if it is a scepter— a gesture which signifies her evil female power (Rotterdam, Museum Boymans- van Beuningen) (Fig. 18). The use of the distaff by the woman in Horenbault's print therefore carries with it a whole assemblage of negative associations which would have immediately indicated to the seventeenth-century viewer the evil and subversive nature of this action.
The evil nature of the wife who tries to subvert the
"natural order" of her husband's authority is further indicated by the inscription beneath the struggling pair,
"Die een quaet wijf heeft tis een qaa plaeght," which compares a bad wife to a bad plague. That the devil is the instigator of this violent, quarrelsome behavior is suggested by his presence atop the haycart in the background. The husband grasps a handful of hay from this cart, while his wife sticks some in her belt. The inscription below indicates the worthless nature of this hay, thereby making a comment on the useless and foolish activities taking place everywhere in the print. It further warns the viewer to do good constantly and to stay away from the worthlessness of evil pursuit.(25) The moralizing intent in images such as these is obvious and such works aid in deciphering the intent of similar images which are not accompanied by devils and inscriptions. 56
Another type of image which clearly indicates contemporary attitudes towards overbearing wives is the illustration of moralizing texts, such as can be found in the works of Jacob Cats. In Vrouwe, Cats particularly emphasizes the importance of a wife's obedience to her husband and he stresses the necessity of supporting a traditionally patriarchal order. He calls a shrewish wife the worst of all plagues:
One hears from olden times and also in our day. That there are women of such a violent nature. Who try to seize their husband's beards. Who come against their masters with fists. And with loud voices demand as if it were a full battle. Who even with claws, yes with fierce teeth Tear to pieces true marriage, and its sweet bond.(26)
Accompanying this particular section of Cats' text is a print after Adriaen van de Venne (Amsterdam,
Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 19). It depicts an overbearing wife who pushes her forlorn-looking husband to the floor while running right over the top of him. The print and
Cats' accompanying verses emphasize that the wife's forcefulness is the cause of the unhappy situation. Meaning
in other images can be deciphered through comparisons with overtly moralizing works such as this.
One particularly comparable print is a seventeenth- century image by Cornelis van Kittensteyn after Adriaen van de Venne entitled Mans-hant boven (Man's hand above)
(Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 20). The popular expression Manshand boven (which advocated the husband's 57 mastery over the wife) was commonly used to put forward the
proper authority of the man in the home.(27) The usurpation
of this proper and natural authority is ridiculed in the
inscription below:
Man's hand above, what a wonder: The wife is on top: The man lies under.(28)
The humorous results of the inversion of the "natural
order" are displayed throughout the scene. The husband is
thrown to the ground while his wife tramples over him as in
the Cats illustration. She swings out her basket of eggs
behind her, flinging eggs everywhere. Some of them break
on the ground, while one cracks on the nose of her son. In
addition, several cheese molds are strewn on the ground and
an over-turned pitcher of milk lies in the right foreground,
further adding to the chaos of the scene. The wife's
foolishness has also upset the children— the son grabs his
mother's skirt in order to halt her domineering stride,
while the distraught daughter at the right pleads with her
mother on bended knee. Crazed with her lust for power,
however, the mother rushes forward, unconcerned with the
chaos and misery she is causing.
While caring for the eggs was considered a common
female chore, the prominence of the eggs in this print
suggests that they have a greater significance than mere
descriptive detail. Eggs, hens and roosters are frequent
elements in images dealing with the powerful housewife
theme; they are used as metaphors for children, wives and 58 husbands. In particular, the cackling hen became a metaphor for the shrewish, scolding wife, as demonstrated by popular expressions of the day. One such seventeenth-century proverb (found in the writings of both Jacob Cats and Johan de Brune) was, "He who wants to have the eggs, must be able to endure the cackling of the hen".(29) The meaning of this proverb is made evident in Roemer Visscher's Sinnepoppen— an emblem book first published in 1614. Visscher illustrates this expression with an image of an angry hen (Fig. 21).
This is accompanied by a quotation from Socrates, who, when asked how he was able to endure the scolding and abusive language of his wife, replied that the answer was found in the beautiful young ones that she brought forth.(30)
Another popular proverb which is recalled here through the relationship of hens and eggs is, "It is a great misery in the house. Where the rooster is silent and the hen crows".(31) This proverb (at times inscribed directly on an image) clearly states the misery caused in a household where the woman scolds and rules. Although there are no hens or roosters present in this image, a reference to this frequently recurring relationship between cackling hens and shrewish wives and dominated roosters and weak husbands is suggested here through the emphasis on the flying eggs and their association here with an overbearing wife. Moreover
(as will be seen), this association is so often made in 59 images of powerful women, the images actually form a sub category of the theme.
Meaning is therefore determined in Kirtensteyn's print through a variety of indicators. The overbearing wife and the havoc that she wreaks are certainly portrayed in a humorous fashion yet the inscriptions, the relationship to popular proverbs and the comparable features with the illustration in Cats' text indicate that the print was also meant to warn the viewer against the consequences of reversing the "natural" patriarchal order. Therefore, as has been suggested by De Jongh, many seventeenth-century genre images, including this print, were for the "1ering en vermaak " ("instruction and amusement") of the viewer.(32)
Inscriptions and symbolic references to popular expressions and proverbs, as well as the actions and figures portrayed, also unite to convey meaning in a print series by
Jacob Gole after Cornelis Dusart. No group of images more vividly displays the horrors of the shrewish wife than this late seventeenth-century series of prints representing the five senses. In each scene, an overbearing vicious-looking housewife scolds, beats or simply domineers over her husband. Three of those images will be discussed here, while the other two will be analyzed later in reference to specific themes.(33) Tactus (Touch), as the print is entitled, pictures a husband in the midst of being struck to the floor by a vicious wife (Rotterdam, Atlas van Stolk) 60
(Fig. 22). She fiercly grabs his hair with one hand while striking him with a slipper held in the other.
In the seventeenth century, the type of slipper worn by women around the house was called a pantoffel ; it became
(in folklore, at least) a handy weapon to use against husbands. Its use for this purpose gave rise to the expression"Onder de patoffel zitten " or "to be under the slipper". This implied that a man was ruled by his wife.
Furthermore, a henpecked husband was called a
pantoffelheld,(34) thus the prominent appearance of the
pantoffel in art works often signified the mastery of a wife
over her husband. In seventeenth-century images, the
pantoffel became a traditional weapon for the wife to use against her husband. As with the distaff, this was not
simply a matter of realistic detail; the use of the object
amplified the meaning of the action taking place in the
image. The pantoffel signified an overbearing wife and a
weak husband.
The facial features of the peasant couple in Dusart's
image have been grossly caricatured so that the wife's
pointed features and snarling mouth emphasize her shrewish
character, while her husband's dullard looks make him appear
even more foolish. Again, the tattered dress of the figures
(identifying them as peasants) makes their appearance even
more comical and crude. Their vulgar nature is meant to 61 cause the viewer to regard such characters and actions with disdain.
Another element frequently found in scenes of shrewish, overbearing wives, is the bundle of birches, which in this scene hangs threateningly above the fireplace as a sign of who commands the power in the house. Like the pantoffel, the birches underscore the fact that this is a henpecked husband. Birches were used for the spanking of naughty children in the seventeenth century and as this task usually fell to the wife, the birches became another handy weapon for the wife to use against the husband. The expression
"onder de plak van zijne vrouw zitten " (to be under the stick or rod of his wife) meant that the husband was under the power of his wife.(35) With the weapon of birches, the husband’s humiliation was doubly increased, as it was usually the punishment for children. This, therefore, indicated the complete powerlessness of the husband, signifying as it does, not only his emasculation by his wife, but also the ascription of a child’s role to his position in the home. Beneath the battling pair are inscriptions in Dutch and French that further underscore the plight of this poor husband:
Illustrious women, although you make your business very playful, Quiryn calls out, his sword gives way to the slipper of Els!
Ah, how the touch hurts me To be struck by a she devil(36) 62
This popular representation of the boorish, peasant couple engaged in the "Battle of the Sexes" has its literary
parallel in the popular Netherlandish kluchtspel or farce.
Literary instances of beating and scolding wives occur as
early as the late-fourteenth century in the Netherlands.
The fifteenth-century farce Nu Noch warns of the
helplessness of a man who is cursed with a bad wife. His neighbor advises him to act as if he has gone mad and reply
to everything with the nonsensical phrase "nu noch" in
order to gain his wife's sympathy. The ruse fails, however, and in the end both he and his neighbor are beaten black and
blue by the wife.(37)
Another representation of the vulgar behavior of a domineering wife is witnessed in Gustus (Taste) another
print from Dusart's series (Rotterdam, Atlas van Stolk)
(Fig. 23). It depicts a domineering wife who sits before a
delicious feast of ham. The woman drowsily guzzles beer
from a huge jug, while in the background her submissive
husband cowers in the shadows eating his bowl of gruel.
Forced to stand while his wife enjoys her feast, he is
completely powerless in the presence of his overbearing
spouse. The inscriptions beneath the print underscore the
wife’s gluttonous and bullying behavior:
Examine the midday meal of Jorden and Jutt: Here German beer and delicious ham, there thin beer and gruel.
Taste makes me bulge out from drinking and foolishly gobbling gruel(38) 63
There is certainly no more convincing image of a virago than the wife in Dusart*s representation of Auditus
(Hearing) (Rotterdam, Atlas van Stolk) (Fig. 24). Her snarling fangs, scraggly hair and claw-like hands all help to create the image of a truly ferocious shrew. She threatens to attack her husband who smilingly plays his violin. The presence of the wife's pantoffel behind the step ladder may again suggest the wife's domineering character. Even more revealing, however, is a pearl which lies in the center of the floor in an oyster shell. This object is a pictorial pun on the woman and her shrewishness.
Margarita is the Latin word for pearl, and Eddy de Jongh has discussed the play poets made of the word in bridal verses for women whose names were Margarita or Margaretha.(39)
Griet, the nickname for Margarita, was the name often given to ill-tempered, domineering wives.(40) To reinforce such an interpretation of the pearl, the woman in the print is named Griet according to the inscription below:
When Griet begins to dance, play your violin diligently, friend Jasper, or she will tear the ears off your head.
Gentlemen, I laugh because by playing the violin Louie turns Jeanne into a demon.(41)
Those images found in overtly moralizing contexts
(illustrated proverbs and moralistic text illustrations) and images with moralizing inscriptions clearly censure the overbearing housewife. More difficult to interpret, however, are the more comical, less overtly moralizing 64 representations. Many of these are not prints with inscriptions and the humorous characterization of the figures makes one question how these images were to be interpreted. Several features are common to these comical types of images and these characteristics suggest that the images were still meant to moralize but in a humorous and satirical manner. These features include the use of figures from the the peasant class and a figure who points out the folly of the situation to the viewer.
Regarding the use of peasant types, there has been much debate over how these figures were intended to be viewed in
Netherlandish genre images.(42) At present, however, many historians agree that the peasant was used in art to make the moralizing intent of the image clear. Even though a clear association with foolish behavior is made through the use of peasant figures, it should also be noted that often times these peasant types also have an undeniable comic appeal. This is emphasized by their grossly caricatured features and exaggerated expressions. Therefore, the frequent use of peasant types in images of female power has the purpose of both censuring and ridiculing this crude and improper behavior.
Another feature occurring in some images regarding powerful housewives is a fool, who is present for the purpose of pointing out the nature of the behavior taking place. In the immediately following images to be discussed. 65 the moralizing fool is removed, presumably due to a desire for greater realism in images of the seventeenth century.
Another more naturalistic yet still indicting figure, however, is substituted in order to reveal the foolishness of the behavior depicted. The frequent use of this feature in combination with caricatured peasant types strongly argues for a moralizing interpretation of these works. This seems to be the case even in the more humorous images.
While the major emphasis may well be on the comic nature of the behavior, this does not mean that a moral is absent.
Although this didactic intent may be more subtle and light hearted it is still often present.
An image in which the above features are present is another scene from Adriaen van de Venne's series of miniatures (London, British Museum) (Fig. 25). The representation of powerful females was a favorite theme for
Van de Venne and this scene depicts a very formidable- looking housewife, her bemused spouse and a mocking child.
The woman, in a typical scolding stance, glares at her dull- looking husband who absentmindedly scratches at his protruding belly. A small boy mocks the powerless husband with his gesture and gleeful expression. It has been suggested that the man is a coachman who holds his whip behind his back. The coachman was considered to be a profession of very low status, thus reducing the man to an even greater extent.(43) Further evidence of the husband's 66 complete powerlessness is crudely portrayed in the figure of the woman. Her apron has been strangely formed into a phallic shape which mockingly points (as does the boy) at the foolish man. This suggested phallus is another element that emphasizes the man's complete impotence (in both a physical and sexual sense) in the presence of his wife.
Perhaps this is crudely reiterated in the knife that hangs from his belt. Such a mocking of impotence was not uncommon in Netherlandish art (as will be discussed in chapter six).
The caricatured peasant figures, exaggerated expressions, crude innuendoes and mocking child all indicate the ridiculing intent of the image. These features are intended to cause the viewer to look on both the figures and their foolish behavior with disdain.
A similar representation of a powerful female is seen in a mid-seventeenth century painting by Harmen van
Steenwyck (Karlsruhe, Staatlichen Kunsthalle) (Fig. 26).
The husky housewife dominates the kitchen interior in her huge, throne-like chair. Her masculine appearance is emphasized by her posture— especially by her huge booted foot which rests on the overturned tub. The large, bulging still life objects which surround her also help to create a sense of her dominance. She glares threateningly at a foppishly dressed man. The domestic interior and the now- familiar relationship between overbearing wives and weak husbands suggests that the couple are husband and wife. 67
Both the husband's timid stance with hands behind his back and his sheepish glance add to the foolishness of his appearance. His laughing companion, who sits astride a tub
in the background, derives great enjoyment from the
situation. In a less overt manner, he (like the fool)
reveals the upside-down situation in which the overbearing
wife keeps her husband in meek submission.
In Molenaer's painting of the sense of touch (1637), a similar group of three figures satirize the situation of
the shrewish housewife (The Hague, Mauritshuis) (Fig. 27).
In this scene another husband comes under the power of the
pantoffel as the sense of touch is twice referred to in the
painting. While the befuddled (perhaps drunken) man gropes
under the skirts of his wife, he is about to feel the blows
of her upraised slipper. Again, a male companion gleefully
watches the beating without making any attempt to help.
While his amusement over the couple's antics is certainly
meant to convey the humor of the situation, it again points
out that these are indeed foolish actions.
The amused onlooker is of central importance in a
painting by Nicolaes Maes dating from the latter half of the
1650s (Great Britain, Private collection) (Fig. 28). In
fact, it is not until one looks very closely that the
relevance to this theme becomes apparent. The Eavesdropper,
as the painting is entitled, pictures a maidservant in a
basement kitchen surrounded by various dishes and utensils. 68
She smiles out at the viewer while raising her finger to her lips urging silence. The reason for this eavesdropping is made clear when one looks past this figure and up the spiraling staircase into the adjoining room. Here the mistress of the house leans forward with open mouth and hands on hips in a posture that has already indicated and will continue to denote the characterization of a shrewish, scolding housewife. As has been suggested by William W.
Robinson, it is rather certain that the object of her abuse is her husband hidden by the trompe I'oeil curtain.
Robinson goes on to point out the stereotypical nature of this shrewish character and compares it to Jan Harmensz.
Krul's tale, Weg-wyser ter deughden (1639) in which a termagant wife deserts her husband and children. An illustration for the story portrays the wife in a similarly scolding pose (The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek) (Fig.
29). As Robinson indicates, particularly relevant to Maes' painting is Krul's admonishment that women should never quarrel with their husbands in front of servants or children.(44) The folly of such behavior is clearly
indicated in this painting by the servant who derives great pleasure in listening to her mistress' vituperation.
The stock posing of scolding wives is so familiarly portrayed in Dutch art that it becomes an overt and prompt
indicator of the nature of the activities taking place.
Such is true in a painting by Pieter van Slingelandt, dated 69
1670 (Schwerin, Staatliches Museum) (Fig. 30). This image
of a cobbler in his workshop is the type of work which might at first glance appear to be merely descriptive. Even from
the images discussed thus far, however, the scolding pose of
the wife can be immediately identified as as one that
relates to the stereotype of shrewish wives. The wife leans
forward toward her husband in a stereotypical pose pointing an accusing finger at him. That the husband is a cobbler is another characteristic which helps to categorize this image as part of a stock situation in Netherlandish genre.
Cobblers appear to have received a certain amount of attention in images which reprove laziness or the dissolute
household.(45) Another such image by Peter van der Borcht
will be discussed in chapter five (Fig. 94).
Although, the direct cause of the scolding taking place
in Slingelandt's painting is not readily apparent, a
tentative suggestion can be put forward with a knowledge of
related images. As will be demonstrated the scolding of
husbands who engaged in some sort of vice formed another
subject for seventeenth-century Dutch art. While the
similarity with Van der Borcht*s image (in which the husband
drinks and neglects his work) has already been mentioned,
the same sort of indulgence is not demonstrated by
Slingelandt's cobbler. Another type of vice that could
raise the ire of wives was fraternizing with courtesans and
perhaps some of the objects in this scene suggest that the 70 man is being scolded for licentious behavior. The lustfulness of old men, as will be seen, was a favorite topic for ridicule in the visual arts. The slight smile on the face of this old man may be an indication of such character. Could the large pitcher with its opening to the viewer be a female sexual symbol in this image, as it is in many genre images? Are the birdcage and ivy, so frequently used in love emblems and amorous genre scenes, signs of love
in this image as well?(46) This suggestion regarding the scolding of the old man's licentiousness must remain conjectural as there are no scenes which compare more precisely with the specific aspects of this scene.
Regardless of the reason for the wife's scolding in this
image, it is certainly one which relates to convention in the portrayal of both the scolding wife and the ridiculed cobbler.
As has been witnessed in several of these images, another stock element in images of shrewish wives, is the
inclusion of neighbors who mock husbands subjugated by their spouses. The termagant housewife not only brought misery to her own household, she disrupted the peace of the entire neighborhood. She frequently challenged the authority of
other husbands and rallied the women to teach the men a
lesson. In J. Nosemans' Klucht van Kzijn Onvezstant of
Vzouven Pazlement (Farce of Krijn the Innocent or Women's
Parliament) (1671), the possibly disastrous consequences of 71 plotting females are vividly portrayed. Trijn, who beats her husband Kees regularly, tries to convince her neighbor,
Neeltje, that she must attack her husband, Krijn Onverstant, before he is able to beat her. She tells Neeltje that if it were her husband, she "would scratch and bite him." She also advises Neeltje to, "take a hand full of sand, and fling it in his eyes." Neeltje declares, "Do not think that
I will lay my hands on his flesh. I know that one must be obedient to one's husband." Trijn replies, "That was the fashion in the old days, follow my reasoning;...! do everything that I want to do."(47) The women of the neighborhood counsel with each other over the beating of
Neeltje by her husband and they try to convince her that she should rebel but she dutifully replies, "You know that one must always make her husband content".(48) Meanwhile, in order to tame the shrewish Trijn, Krijn and Kees exchange clothes. Krijn teaches her to be obedient through a sound beating. The moral of the farce is then expressed in the repentant words of Trijn who warns the other unruly wives,
"You women who plague your husbands. Oh! learn, as I have,
to rightly love your husband."(49)
A painting by Molenaer comically portrays this collective power of the women in the neighborhood (Brussels,
Private collection) (Pig. 31). A woman whose husband has
pinned her to the ground calls out to her female compatriots
for help. The women eagerly respond. Three of them are 72 already battling against the man who sits astride his wife.
One woman attempts to pull him off while another tugs at the wife's arm in an effort to free her. Ready to strike the husband with his own hat, another woman stands threateningly above the struggling pair. Still more help is on the way as a woman signals to the other wives out planting in the
fields (one is still bent over the newly plowed furrows).
They rush forward with vehement gestures and determined
faces while the other males in the scene give little aid to
the husband. One stands with a plow in his hand and his
foot on the pinned woman's leg. He puts forth little
effort, however, and he seems to be primarily enjoying the
comedy of the situation as he laughingly points to the
struggling pair. Another man seems to be rolling up his
sleeves in order to help his friend but he too is more
amused than violent. Caricatured and crude, the facial
features of these peasants are again used to make both the
figures and their actions appear low and foolish.
A print in which the whole world seems to have been
turned upside down by overbearing, shrewish housewives is
the sixteenth-century Dutch rhyme print Bigorne and
Schezminckel executed by Hugo Allardt (Amsterdam,
Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 32). In an exaggerated fashion,
the image demonstrates the overwhelming prevalence of
vicious, angry wives who lust for power. Bigorne (an obese,
dog-like creature) fills the right foreground and is in the 73
process o£ devouring one man, while his next victim
(Goossen) kneels at the feet of his scolding wife Griet.
Bigorne, as the inscription indicates, eats only good men and he comes by his food easily because of the large numbers
of them. This, then, explains Bigorne's large size.
Conversely, good women are not so plentiful. Throughout the
scene are demonstrations of cross wives who overpower their
husbands. To the left of the central pair. Marri-crabbers
(Mary-scratcher) attempts to scratch at the face of Hans
pluym. Behind them Fokel beats laep with an upraised club
and in the right background, Lobbrich has already caught
lasper who attempts to fend off the blows of her club.
Scherminckel (Bigorne's thin counterpart) is a type of
emaciated monster with a long neck and bird-like feet. One
of the Scherminckel monsters grasps the woman Engeltjen
(little angel) between its teeth, while another Scherminckel
monster runs through the background. The Scherminckel
monster can only eat good woman which, unfortunately, it can
rarely find. "It walks through all the countries, and wants
to know where in the world one is to find such a woman."(50)
The verse further indicates that women are bad because
of their attempts to rule their husbands. The woman being
eaten in the foreground is a rarity, "Who does everything to
her husband's pleasure." She cries to be left alone or
else for the monster to take her love along. Conversely,
many a man eaten by Bigorne is relieved at his fate, in 74 order to get away from his angry wife. The horror of the power of wives is aptly expressed in the following lines:
A king can rule over his country and people, A magistrate his city, a Prince his subjects. An admiral at sea can rule over his whole fleet, A captain's company must stand at his service. An innkeeper all his guests, a skipper all his men, A lord can free his household from their pledge. And an obstinate wife can give orders to them all,—
In addition, the verse carries a strong warning to the male viewer to keep his wife as a friend in order to keep peace in his household. Moreover, the man is advised to at least pretend to listen to his wife's advice, "So that she (who is but as a servant) wholly appears to be the master."(51)
As can already be witnessed by these introductory examples, images of shrewish women are common in Dutch art.
The impact of them is even greater when one considers that many were prints— a format easily reproduced and dispersed.
There are also many types of images dealing with the topic of overbearing wives in Dutch art: illustrated proverbs, prints with accompanying inscriptions, paintings,
illustrations for moralizing texts, rhyme prints. The diversity suggests a strong familiarity with the theme among a wide variety of audiences.
Through an examination of all types of images dealing with this topos, it becomes clear that they fulfill both moralizing and comic purposes. The humorous actions and exaggerated expressions must certainly have provided 75 amusement as is attested to by the frequent occurrence of this theme in both art and the popular farce. Yet even in satire, one may catch a glimmer of attitudes toward such behavior in reality. The mocking figures attendant in these images and the display of caricatured peasant types engaging in boorish behavior must also have made such behavior seem repugnant to at least the middle class viewer. The notion that many of these were meant for the middle class viewer is supported in a variety of ways : the high quality of many of the images, the frequent accompaniment of moralizing inscriptions, illustrations of proverbs in which middle class dress is used, the frequent reference to the theme in moralizing texts. Thus both purposes, instruction and amusement, are intended with the use of the powerful housewife theme.
The frequency of images ridiculing wifely power, therefore, suggests a felt need to reassert a proper patriarchal authority. The increasing power of women appears to have made some men apprehensive. They obviously felt that such an inversion of roles would lead to chaotic arguing and fighting in the home, or to their subjugation.
As can be witnessed in both moralizing texts and comical farces and in both overtly didactic prints and humorous paintings, it is the woman who is primarily blamed for this contrary situation. Due to the evil nature of women and their lust for power, men were frequently warned against a 76 hasty marriage and the resulting conflicts. If men did marry, they were cautioned not to be weak, but to rule their wives and keep peace in the household. Women were also instructed as to their proper place in society, and they were admonished to obey their husbands and to please them in all things.
In order to assert the importance of maintaining this patriarchal rule, situations of wifely authority were censured and mocked in literature and art and the horror of ruling housewives was exaggerated and stereotyped so as to emphasize this moralizing intent. The recurrence of specific themes, as will now be discussed, also indicates that the intent of such images was to stress a point rather than to describe everyday life; and that point was the ridicule and censuring of wifely power and male subjugation. NOTES
1. Natalie Zemon Davis, "Women on Top: Symbolic Sexual Inversion and Political Disorder in Early Modern Europe", in Barbara Babcock, ed.. The Reversible World: Symbolic Inversion in Art and Society (Cornell, 1978), pp. 147-148.
2. As quoted in Pleij, "Boze Wijf", p. 39.
3- For a discussion of this work see Herman Pleij, "Een fragment van de oudste nederlandse novellenbundel in Cambridge", in Opstellen door vrienden en vakqenoten aangeboden aan Dr. C.M A. Krayskamp (The Hague, 1977), pp. 142-155.
4. P.B. Minnebroeder, Spiegel der Quade Vrouwen, (Amsterdam, 1668), Universiteits Bibliotheek Amsterdam.
5. This tale was originally used in Jacob Cats' Houwelyck as a warning against adultery.
6. Most of the translation in the text was provided by David Kunzle, The Early Comic Strip, 2 volumes (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), 1:244-245: Niet lang na deze daed zo ziet dien goeden Man, Een loze lichtekooy, met lincxsche ogen an.:
7. Waer Raekt vrouwe-bloed aen't kooken. De Wreek-lust Stookt soolang tot sy haer heeft gewrooken
8. Och hoe kan zich t quaad verbergen: t oog den Man wel gunst betoond: Maar, in t hart, een ander woond. Luypaarts hoeft men niet te tergen.
Als de zinnen elders doolen, Wat bestaet de Vrouw dan niet Sij waend dat er niemand ziet: Vuurblyft nooyd in Stro verholen.
77 78
Vrouwe woorden, die met tranen Sijn vermengdf des Mans gemoed. In de gramschap haest verzoet. Milde laten sich niet manen.
’t Mannenoog kan mee verdwalen 't Grillig vuur maekt gai en roet, Buyten 'd Eckt schier zuyker zoet. By de Heuvels syn de dalen
Als de sonde word bedreeven Is men wonder in zyn schik: Haer daer na is 't enckel schrik Douder doet de Rotzen beeven
Vrouwen Haet is quaet te brecken Hoe de Man meer tranen stort, Hoe heur Hart noch Harder word Tygers luystren naer geen Smeeken.
9. Ferrets were domesticated and used for the killing of rats. See Stone-Ferrier, Prints, pp. 74-78.
10. Mousetraps were frequently used in this regard, for a discussion see Tot Bering, pp. 284-287.
11. This was originally an illustration for Jacob Cats' text of the same name.
12. The expression is used in Fig. 76; also use of the expression in A. de Cock, Spzeekvoozden en Zegswijzen Over de Vrouwen (Ghent: Ad. Hoste, 1911), p. 29.
13. Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, vols. 1- (Hague and Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, A. W. Sijthoff), 16:170.
14. Sutton points out that fifty thousand copies were in circulation by 1655 and uses as a source I.I. Schipper's foreword to the first edition of Jacob Cats, Alle de Wercken (Amsterdam, 1655). He also points out that Cats' collected works were published four times between 1655 and 1665, Sutton, Masters, pp. LXXV and LXXXVI n. 47.
15. Jacob Cats, Alle de Wercken, 2 volumes (Amsterdam, 1700), Universiteit Bibliotheek Amsterdam, 1:317-18: Kom, hoort den goeden man, dien gy hier onder siet U spellen dijne les, en klagen sijn verdriet. A1 draegh ick, wat ick magh, nogh deugt net niet met alien. Hits een die mede draeght, het pack willen laeten vallen: 79
Mijn hulp is mijn belet; mijn troost is mijn verdriet; Mijn vlijt is sonder vrucht, mijn sweet en gelt 'er niet. "Of wel die voren gaet sich quijt ten alderbesten, "t Is al maer hoy gedorst als 't hapert aeen den lesten, "Al spant een rustigh knecht twee peerden in de ploegh "Soo 't een maer qualijck wil, het gaet 'er slecht genoegh, "Siet als 'er eenigh dingh twee menschen is bevolen, "Een die te rugge treckt, doet sijnen macker dolen, "Al is uw kloeck beleyt gegront op wijsen raet, "Noch hanght het altemael aen uwen mede-maet. Onthout my dese les, gy vrouwen en gy mannen. Die met een echten bant zijt aen het huys gespannen, "Hout uw bescheyden deel, en draetght gemeene last, "Het gaet de leden wel als d'een hant d'ander wast."
16. Ibid., 1:568: 't En is geen wigtig pack daer van ick heden klage; Het is (gelijck gy siet) een wispel-tuerig wijf, Dat sit ('k en weet niet hoe) my scharlinx op het lijf.
De rust is haer verdriet, het stillewesen, pijn.
Maer dit aelweerdig ding gaet buyten alle reden, Het ruckt my daer het wil, en druckt my op de leden;
Maer, Leser, na my dunckt, gy wenst om eens te weten Hoe dat sy, dien ick draeg, in Hollandt is geheten; Wel hoor'et met een woord: Vrou WeeId' is hare naem,
17. Ibid.
18. Pleij, "Boze Wijf", p. 41.
19. Haks, p. 154.
20. Translation is given in Walter Gibson, "Bruegel, Dulle Griet, and Sexist Politics in the Sixteenth Century", in Pieter Bruegel und Seine Welt (Berlin: Mann Verlag, 1979), pp. 10-11.
21. Woordenboek, 14:2846.
22. The Colloquies of Erasmus, trans. Craig R. Thompson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), p. 117. 80
23. Cats, Werkerif 1:601. Alwaer de spin-rock dwingt het sweert, Daer staet het qualick met den weert.
24. Durer's print is discussed in relation to the symbolism o£ the distaff in Timothy Husband, The Wild Man : Medieval Myth and Symbolism (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1980), pp. 139-40.
25. Dabuijsen zijn groot, in alle staeten soo men bevint tot alle stonden, Daer om doeghet goet en will et quaet laten, want anders Tlaes eijst al hoij bevonden
26. Jacob Cats, Houwelyck (The Hague, 1628), Rijksïùüseum, Amsterdam, p. 575: Men hoort van ouden tijt, en oock in onse dagen, Als dat 'er vrouwen zijn, van soo een stonten aert. Die mannen onderstaen te grijpen in den baert. Die haeren over-heer met vuysten komen tergen. En als een vollen krijgh met hooge woorden vergen. Die met de nagels selfs, jae met een felle tant Verscheuren echte trou, en haren soeten bant.
27. Cock, Spreekwoozden, p. 60.
28. Mans-hand Boven, Wat een Wonder: Wijffs' genae: De Voogt leijt onder.
29. Jacob Cats, Dichtezlijke Wezken van Jacob Cats, ed. P.G. Witsen Geysbeek, 2 volumes (Amsterdam: Gebroeder Diederichs, 1828), 1:475; also Johan de Brune Bankket-wezk van goede gedagten, 2 vols. (Middelburg, 1660), Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague, 1:135,137: Die de eijeren hebben wil, moet het kakelen der hennen lijden.
30. Roemer Visscher, Sinnepoppen (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1949), p. 106.
31. Cats, Wezken, 1:601. 't Is in het huys geheel verdraeyt, Daer *t haentje swijgt, en 't hintje kraayt.
32. Tot Lezing, the phrase is used to indicate the purpose of Dutch genre.
33. See pp. 96-98, 143-144. 81
34. F.A. Stoett, Nederlandsche Spzeekwoozden, Spzeekwijzen, Uitdzukkingen en Gezegden, 2 volumes (Zutphen; W.J. Thime and Co., 1923), 2:138, also Woozdenboek, 12, pt. 1:339.
35. Stoett, 2:138, 164; also 'Woozdenboek, 12, pt. 1:2186.
36. Doorluchte Vrouwen, al maakt uw bedryf veel spels, Uw degen, roept Quiryn wykt voor de muiyl van Els!
Ha que 1 *Atouchement me blesse Destre daubbe d'une Diablesse
37. This farce is discussed in Gastelaars, p. 17.
38. Aanschouw het middagmaal van Jorden eens, en Jutt: Hier Mom en lekkre Ham, daar Scarrebier en Grut
Le Goust me fait mettre en saillie De boire au sot crocque bouillie
39. E. de Jongh, "Pearls of Virtue and Pearls of Vice", Simiolus 8 no. 2 (1975-6): 84-85.
40. Stoett, 1:283-84; also ftToordenboek, 5:698.
41. Als Griet aan 't danssen raakt, zaag iy toch vlytig op. Vriend Jasper of ze scheurd jou de ooren van de kop.
Messieurs je ri qu'au violon L'ouie rend Jeanne un Demon
42. Svetlana Alpers views the use of peasants as non- didactic in, "Bruegel's festive peasants", Simiolus 6 no. 3/4 (1972-73): 163-75; also by the same author, "Realism as a comic mode: low-life painting seen through Bredero's eyes", Simiolus 8 no. 3 (1975-76): 115-144; also by the same author, "Taking pictures seriously: a reply to Hessel Miedema", Simiolus 10 no. 1 (1978-79): 46-50; taking the opposite position are Hessel Miedema, "Realism and comic mode: the peasant", Simiolus 9 no. 4 (1977): 205-219; Keith P.P. Moxey, "Sebald Beham's church anniversary holidays: festive peasants as instruments of repressive humor", Simiolus 12 nos. 2/3 (1981-82): 107-130; and Paul Vandenbroeck, "Verbeeck's peasant weddings: a study of iconography and social function", Simiolus 14 no. 2 (1984): 79-121; without disputing the negative associations made with the peasant, Margaret D. Carroll believes that peasant images also aided in creating an ethnic consciousness which rallied the people of the Netherlands in the revolt against 82
Spain in, "Peasant Festivity and Political Identity in the Sixteenth Century", Art History 10 no. 3 (September, 1987); 289-314.
43. The man is identified as a waggon-driver in Martin Royalton-Kisch, Adriaen van de Venne's Album (London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1988), p. 105. Royalton- Kisch also says that the image deals with sexual impotence but sees the woman as encouraging of her husband. He points out that the knife is a phallic symbol.
44. William W. Robinson, "The Eavesdroppers and Related Paintings by Nicolaes Maes" in Hollandische Genremalerei im 17. Jahrhundert: Symposium Berlin 1984, ed. Henning Bock and Thomas W. Gaehtgens (Berlin: Mann Verlag, 1987), pp. 297-298.
45. See Figs. 1 and 4 in Walter S. Gibson, "Some Flemish Popular Prints from Hieronymus Cock and His Contemporaries", Art Bulletin 60 no. 4 (Dec. 1978): 677- 678.
46. See pp. 239-242.
47. J. Nosemans, Klucht van Krijn Onverstant, of Vrouwen Parlement (Amsterdam, 1671), Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague, pp. 3-4: ik sou hem krabben, bijten. Of neemt een hant vol sant, en smijt hem dat in d 'oogen
Denkt niet dat ik men handen aen sijn vleys sel leggen. Je weet wel dat men moet sen man gehoorsaem sijn. Dat was by d ’oude stijl, volg jy de raet van mijn: ... Ik doe al wat ik wil,
48. Ibid., p. 15: Je weet wel dat men moet sen man steets vergenoegen
49. Ibid., p. 22: Gy Vrouwen die tot noch u mannen sijt tot plaeg, Och! leert gelijk als ik u Man te recht beminnen.
50. Loopt alle Landen deur, en soude gaeren weten; Waer dat het sulcken wijff, ter werrelt vinden sel.
Die schier ten naesten bij haer Mans believen dee,
Een koning kan sijn Landt, en Luyden overheren, Een Overheyt haer stadt, een Prins syn onderdaen, Een Admirael ter zee, sijn gantsche vloot regeren. 83
Een Hoproans Compangi, moet hem ten dienste staen, Een waert sijn Gasten al, een Schipper al sijn lieden, Een Huys-heer sijn gesin kan vryden van arreur. En een kort-hoofdich Wijff haer alien kan gebieden,
51. Dat sij (maer is als knecht) en schijnt volkomen Heer. CHAPTER III
THE BATTLE FOR THE TROUSERS
One of the most popular themes of the Power of Women was the so-called "Strijd om de Broek " or "Battle for the
Trousers". This theme, more than any other, became a well- known metaphor for the shrewish, overbearing woman. The theme actually incorporated two different types of battles from the late middle ages on. The first type depicts a wife struggling to win the pants (and thus the power) from her husband. The second kind of battle portrays a group of women (most frequently seven) fighting over a pair of male trousers. Although the second type is almost always simply generically grouped with the first, the former most often represents a struggle for the man rather than with him.
Usually, then, this type of battle was to win the man for a husband although there are many subtle variations among depictions of this second theme. Both types of Battle for the Trousers scenes were depicted throughout Europe in literature and in art. In the Netherlands, the theme became very popular during the latter half of the sixteenth century and it remained a favorite demonstration of bullying female power throughout the seventeenth century.
84 85
The Male-Female Battle
Frequently used as a metaphor by moralists, this type of battle for the trousers became the supreme symbol of evil women who lusted after power. The trousers had long been considered a strictly male form of clothing and thus became a symbol of men generally, just as the skirt represented the female. The expression "De broek aanhebben" (to have the trousers on) or "De broek dragen" (to wear the pants) referred to a person's being master in the house. A woman who wore trousers not only signaled that she had taken on male attributes but also that she had usurped the powers and privileges of her husband.(1) In addition to its indictment of women, the theme also emphasizes the humiliation of the weak husband who cannot rule his wife.
In an attempt to admonish men to maintain control over
their wives, several texts sharply ridicule overpowered
husbands. In Vanden X Esels (Of the Ten Jackasses) (1558), the man who lets his wife wear the trousers is one type of man who deserves to wear the donkey's ears. This foolish
man does everything that his wife commands him. Instead of
carousing with his friends at the inn, he remains at home
sweeping the floor and making the beds. He does everything
that his wife wants so that she won't scold him or hit
him over the head with a five-stemmed candlestick.(2) The
author then reminds his readers that the man was given
mastery over the woman by God in the Garden of Eden. It was 86 there that he told Eve, "You will be under the power of your husband and he will have mastery over you."(3)
Visual representations of the Battle for the Trousers are even more comical in their mocking of the weak, obtuse husband and in their criticism of the shrewish, overbearing wife. When the wife is shown appropriating the trousers, the man is either left trouserless or wearing the skirts of his wife. The ridiculous appearance of an enraged, masculine wife who forces her cowering husband to dress her with his pants makes the Battle for the Trousers image the most comical and effective of themes dealing with the power of women. The frequent occurrence of this theme and its long duration both suggest its popular appeal.
An image that appears to have been very influential on subsequent representations of the Battle for the Trousers theme is a mid-sixteenth century print by Cornelis Massys
(Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 33). Seated at the right of the composition is a stocky, formidable-looking wife who looks down scornfully at her kneeling husband.
Having already won the battle for her husband’s trousers, she further threatens him with an upraised fist. In addition to indicating her threats, this last motif may again have reference to the familiar expression "Manshand boven." This suggestion is supported by other scenes (Figs.
36, 40) where the woman's fist appears in just the same manner. The poor, cowering husband is completely subdued as V
87 he kneels at his wife's feet. His humiliation is emphasized by the way he is forced to both grovel at her feet and to dress her in his trousers. Obediently yielding his trousers, however, is not enough: he must also be victim to her violent blows. His wife has already become the man of the house, to judge not only by her newly-won male apparel and dominant position over her husband, but also by her hardened masculine features. The "husband's grief" is underscored in the inscription below: "SUS SYNSE GEPLAECHT-
ALST DWIF DE BROECK DRAECHT" (Thus they are plagued— when the wife wears the pants).
The powerful wife, over whom the husband has no power, has not always fared so well. In an earlier representation, from a late-medieval manuscript, the wife also receives blows for her attempt to appropriate the trousers.
Decorating a section of Proverbs are a man and woman shown struggling over a pair of pants held by the woman (New York,
Private collection (Fig. 34). He attempts to strike her with his fist, while she restrains him and holds the pants
out triumphantly as her sign of power.
A similar battle is described in a verse attributed to the sixteenth-century poetess, Anna Bijns.(4) She describes the plight of a husband who, tempted by the riches of his wife, now finds himself married to a shrew and would give anything to be rid of her. He complains:
She gives me lumps and bruises which make my eyes bulge; 88
But nevertheless She too gets many blows...
She can chase me from corner to corner The flesh from my bones she gnaws. Because she wants to wear the pants alone...(5)
In later images, however, the emphasis is on the overbearing, shrewish wife, who beats her husband rather than on the actual struggle between man and wife. Beginning
in the latter part of the fifteenth century, Netherlandish
images begin to emphasize the wickedness of the wife, thus censuring her behavior. In an image by Israhel van
Meckenem, the wife's evil nature is emphasized to a much greater extent (Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale Albert 1er)
(Fig. 35). Her coiling hair flows back from a truly wicked
face. She raises her distaff with great vehemence, holds the wrist of her struggling captive and even stands on his
foot to make certain that he does not escape her blows. In
front of the kneeling man lie the trousers— the object of dispute.(6) Finally Meckenem places a terrible demon in the background to supervise the struggle. Its two tails coil
furiously in the same manner as the woman's hair. The presence of the demon is intended to reveal the nature of women who sinfully usurp the male's God-given right to rule.
A similar type of moralizing is clearly the intent in an anonymous Dutch print dated 1555 (Amsterdam,
Rijksprentenkabinet) (fig. 36). The placement of the man and his wife is similar to those in Massys' print, but the
husband looks even more foolish as he kneels before his 89 wife, dressing her in his trousers while dodging the blow of her upraised fist. His exposed genitalia add to his ridiculous appearance and also leave no doubt as to the fact that they are his trousers which she has won. Further humiliating the husband is his placement amidst all the instruments of domesticity, such as the spools and winder, the brooms, the pot cooking over the fire and the bowl and spoon which suggest that he has taken over all the wife's domestic chores. That the wife will no longer be doing any of the household tasks is indicated by the apron which she has removed and thrown on the floor near her chair. The male taking on of female chores, as will be seen in the next chapter, was another indication of a henpecked husband.
Other elements of the image heighten the impression of the wife's dominance. The chair from which the wife reigns has now become almost throne-like so that her authority is emphasized to an even greater degree. Additional evidence of her power is conveyed by the placement of the familiar symbol of wifely authority— the distaff— at the foot of the bed. It stands out boldly as a signification of who rules in this marriage.
The fool, who enters through the open doorway and points accusingly at the husband, further mocks him for his weakness. The inscriptions clearly indicate this intent.
Above the fool is written:
One finds in the world no greater fool than he who helps his wife put on the pants. 90
Above the wife are her words:
Put on us the pants without hesitation Because they are mine, as much as yours And shut your mouth, you scum of scoundrels Or, Jan, you shall feel these fists.
And below the husband is his plea:
Oh wife, I desire to put the pants on you But I can not really do without the codpiece.(7)
Clearly, the ethos of the time was that men who allow their wives to wear the pants are also to blame for their predicament. Men were advised to keep their wives under control and to teach them proper humility.
In a print by Karel van Mander, the battle becomes much more of a real struggle as neither the husband nor the wife has yet won the prized trousers (Present location unknown)
(Fig. 37). They have both pulled on one leg of the trousers and are in the process of struggling with the other
in order to completely master the pants. The wife grabs the husband's hair, and he responds with a horrible toothy yowl as he attempts to restrain her. Neither of them, however,
is willing to let go of the trousers. The ugly, caricatured
faces and the peasant dress emphasize the boorish behavior of the couple and the inscription below underscores their undignified appearance:
Oh this is not honourable for me to put up with the foolishness of my wife who badly attires herself and wants to put on these pants. But yet does the husband lament where the wife is master of your pants, you must put up with it.(8) 91
The relative popularity of this print is witnessed through a copy by Claes Braeu (Amsterdam,
Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 38). It is now accompanied by inscriptions in German, French and Dutch which both moralize against and lament over wives who "wear the pants":
It is a great cross in the house. All prosperity also vanishes from it, when the wife challenges the husband's authority and puts her leg in the pants.
When the wife wears the pants, the house is entirely disturbed.
It is a great cross in the house, where virtue falls in the corner; there the wife full of arguing, as shown above, has a leg in the pants.(9)
In a similar vein, the seventeenth-century moralist,
Adrianus Poirters, also laments the misery caused by an overbearing wife. In Het Masker van da Wereldt Afgetrocken
(The Mask of the World Removed) (1645), he warns that, "with marriage comes mourning."(10) He cautions his readers that the wedding will be beautiful but then all the woman's flaws will come forward and "Oh, when aprons wear pants. That is a cross for the husbands."(11)
Another image in which a real struggle for the trousers takes place is a seventeenth-century image which is also one of the few paintings dealing with the subject. It is one of two pendants (the other of which will be discussed in chapter six) by Pieter Jansz Quast that deal with dominant females (Present location unknown) (Pig. 39). In this image, the peasant husband and wife each have a firm hold on 92 the trousers as they both try to pull them from the other’s grasp. For extra leverage, they each brace one foot against the foot-warmer in the center of the painting in a real tug- of-war. The heaped up cloth in the foreground seems to be the woman’s skirt discarded on the floor as both of the figures are fully dressed only from the waist up, each hoping to dress the lower half with the prized trousers.
The pants are held directly above the skirt in order to indicate that whoever wins the struggle for the pants will also obtain mastery in the marriage. Again, a figure regards the scene with a mocking expression, further emphasizing the foolish behavior.
By the end of the sixteenth century, there are several features that had become common in Battle for the Trousers images and that continued in use through the seventeenth century. The characters involved in the struggle are often from the lower classes and their grossly caricatured features emphasize the repugnant nature of their behavior.
Often, the men are made to look foolish and weak under the power of the dominant female so that the husband is also ridiculed. The theme is primarily restricted to prints, a popular medium with a wide circulation. Finally, (as will be further witnessed) there are even certain compositional elements that are frequently repeated. The seated position of the wife with an upraised hand over her kneeling husband. 93 as seen in Massy's print, is repeated in several depictions
of the theme throughout the seventeenth century.
All of these features are present in an early seventeenth-century print by Phillip Serwouters after David
Vinckboons (Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 40). An
obtuse-looking husband kneels clumsily before his wife, dressing her in his trousers. Again, the wife raises her fist above his head in a threatening gesture. Now, however, she makes another significant gesture with her right hand— another common element in scenes of dominant women. She lifts her thumb up before her husband who gazes dully at it. This is most certainly done in order for her
husband to kiss her thumb. As Walter Gibson has demonstrated, this was a sign of submission by the husband.
Gibson notes that the gesture was used with this meaning in a kluchtspel from the sixteenth century— Een gheneuchlijck
Tafel-speelken van een droncken man ende zijn wij£ (A
pleasant farce of a drunken man and his wife).(12)
This continued to be used as a metaphor of wifely power
through the seventeenth century, as can be found in the
anonymously pulished De Ontvoogde Vzouw (The Untamed Wife)
(1693). In a plot similar to Nosemans' Klucht van Krijn
Onverstant of Vrouwen Parlement discussed in the previous
chapter,(13) the author of this farce warns against the dangers of letting a wife gain too much power in the
marriage. Neeltje, the properly modest and humble wife, is 94 being beaten by her husband Jan in the opening scene. The evil Griet, Neeltje's neighbor, attempts unsuccessfully to convince Neeltje that the only way to handle a husband is to strike him first, which she proceeds to do to her husband
Kees. After the bad Griet has soundly beaten her husband she says, "Come, kiss my thumb then as a husband."(14) When
Kees hesitates, she threatens to tear him to pieces with her teeth, so he concedes and kisses her thumb. Jan, who is disgusted by the henpecked Kees declares "And I abhor the most this man who meekly lets his wife put the apron on him and gives her the pants."(15) Jan and Kees then plot to tame Griet who finally submits and must go through the neighborhood and admit that she has been subdued. Griet, now completely changed in character, advises "No household can ever survive when husband and wife fight."(16)
As a further sign of deference to the wife in
Serwouters' print, the husband has removed his hat, and even the small dog looks up at the wife as if venerating her mastery. In the background, behind the husband, lies a
large hog that appears to be another element mocking the
foolish demeanor of the husband. Its kneeling body, stubbled face and upward gaze all mimic that of the crude husband.
Behind the couple, seen through an open half-door is a woman with a winder and spindle who jeers at the laughable husband. She takes the place of the fool (such as in Fig. 95
36), and, like him, points out the folly of the absurd situation:
That husband is worthy to be mocked Who puts the pants on his wife.(17)
In order to regain his dignity and bring peace to the household, the henpecked husband had to curtail his wife's shrewish behavior and teach her her proper place. This is
the plot of an anonymous farce actually named for the theme
of the Battle for the Trousers— De Broekdragenda Vrouw (The
Trouser-Wearing Wife) (1666). In this play, Baertje is convinced by her mother, Fijtje, and a neighbor woman,
Giertje, that she must take the mastery over her husband.
Fijtje orders, "Now you must rip the pants off him. Tie your apron on him now." Baertje, enjoying the thought of her new power, responds, "Now I am master of the
pants."(18) And later she further triumphantly declares
"These pants are my scutcheon, through which I restrain the male wildness."(19) Baertje, however, is soon taught her
place when her husband, on the suggestion of a quack doctor,
binds her in an animal skin until she concedes, "I will
always give you the honor which is a man's due."(20)
This method of taming a shrew was frequently used in
the farces but opinions did vary as to how one might best
handle an overbearing wife. While the husband was most
frequently advised to rule his wife and teach her obedience,
if the wife was too shrewish to be tamed, he occasionally
was told to yield his authority in order to keep peace in 96 the household. This is the advice given by the moralist
Johan de Brune in the verse Wijfs heezschappy (Wive's dominion) from the collection Bankket-Wezk van Goede
Gedagten (Banquet of Good Thoughts) (1660):
He has a bad cat to skin who is afflicted with a bad wife. No matter that he must play the beast with two backs, and make his lance into a distaff; he must also scratch himself often, there where it does not itch him; give up the pants, and change the places, if he wants to have any peace at all.(21)
Thus, De Brune does not chastise the husband who is forced
to yield his trousers to an unalterable wife; in this case,
the blame rests entirely on the wife.
Certainly, the peasant husband in a print by Gole after
Dusart, is not a willing dupe for his wife's wicked designs
(Rotterdam, Atlas van Stolk) (Fig. 41). Grudgingly, he yields his trousers to a shrewish wife, who appears to be a
very formidable-looking foe. This print is entitled Vi sus
(Sight) and is part of the series of five senses discussed
earlier. Elements derived from images of the sixteenth
century are still in evidence in this print dating from the
end of the seventeenth century. The man again kneels at
his wife's feet while pulling the trousers over her foot.
Instead of raising a clenched fist over her husband, the
wife now threatens him with the familiar bundle of birches.
The husband, however, does not seem quite so submissive— his
snarling expression seems to indicate that, indeed, the 97 birches will be necessary in order to tame him. In the left foreground of the print lies the wife's familiar pantoffel, which is completely isolated from the rest of the clutter in the room. This feature, frequently used by Dusart, again informs us that this man "lies under the slipper of his wife" and that he is a pantoffelheld.
The objects hanging above the wife all relate to the sense of sight, and in connection with the inscription below, they further illuminate the intent of the work;
The good Jan dresses here his Kate, lazy and immodest. She threatens him with the birch rod. Oh terrible sight.(22)
To the right is the French inscription:
Do not make a gross error Which puts my troubles in view
Again the folly of the situation is pointed out; however, the husband is not the one being ridiculed here. The husband is not a weak, foolish man. Instead, he seems ready to reclaim his authority at any moment. The inscription further emphasizes that it is the birch rod which keeps poor Jan under the power of his wife. Moreover, the objects hanging above the wife's head indicate the disapproval of her behavior, rather than that of her husband.
Above the wife hang candles, spectacles, a lantern, and a print with an owl on it. These objects relate to an emblem found in Gabriel Rollenhagen's Nucleus emblentatum
(1513)(Amsterdam, Universiteits Bibliotheek Amsterdam) (Fig. 98
42). In this emblem an owl with spectacles grasps two burning torches in its claws. On either side of the owl are two lit candles. The inscription below reads:
Torches and candlelight are no help to the blind And the foolish night owl cannot see in broad daylight.(23)
In the same manner, these objects speak of the blind foolishness of the woman in Dusart's print. Her overbearing behavior is ridiculed by both the objects and the inscription.
The All-Female Battle
From very early on, another type of battle for the trousers similarly ridiculed overbearing females. This type of battle has almost always been grouped with the battle for power over the man; there are, however, a number of differences in presentation and meaning which distinguish these two sorts of images to a greater or lesser degree.
Although this theme was frequently represented in art, it does not occur with the same popularity in literature.
This type of struggle takes place among a group of women rather than between a man and a woman. The earliest example in the Netherlands is a print from the fifteenth century which has been attributed to the Master of the Banderoles
(Berlin, Staatliche Huseen Preussischer Kulturbesitz
Kupferstichkabinett) (Pig. 43).(24) Twelve women now push, pull and strike at each other in order to get at the trousers being held aloft by three of the women. Two fools 99 stand nearby— one holds a bone and the other carries a bagpipe. As in the battle between husband and wife, their presence indicates that the actions taking place are being criticized. Aby Warburg asserts that this battle refers to the Biblical passage found in Isaiah 4:1:
And seven women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying. We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only 1st us be called by thy name; take thou away our reproach.(25)
The women in the print are, therefore, battling for the man rather than with him. The inclusion of the bagpipes, a well-known symbol of lust, would further support this interpretation.(26)
Such reasoning seems even more credible when one looks at an Italian print also from the fifteenth century
(Munich, Staatliche Graphische Sammlung) (Fig. 44).
Warburg suggests that this print derives from the
Netherlandish work.(27) Again, twelve women are shown struggling with each other. However, they now all reach up towards a laurel wreath from which the pants hang. Two putti hold the wreath aloft and in its hollow floats a heart with an arrow piercing it. This strongly suggests that it is a love battle that is taking place rather than one for dominance. As in the battles for dominance, however, there are again two figures that suggest the women's folly— a fool who blows on a horn and beats a drum and a figure of death holding his scythe. The somewhat metaphysical struggle depicted in this print stands 100
in sharp contrast with the much more ferocious and earthy
Netherlandish battles for the trousers.
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, there is an
increased interest in this theme in the Netherlands.
Warburg's argument that this is a love battle becomes even more convincing in images from this period because now the number of women battling for the trousers is almost always seven (as is described in the biblical verse). Another element which reveals that this theme is distinct from the battle for dominance is the dress of the figures. It was noted earlier that during the sixteenth century, images of the battle between husband and wife become increasingly
limited tc figures of the lower classes in order to more severely ridicule the type of behavior taking place. In all
the female battles, the women continue to be represented in
fine dress throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries. Although their behavior is frequently more raucous and violent than in the pictured struggles between
spouses, the women still wear stiffly pleated ruffs and
stately stomachers, making their vicious battle appear even
more improper.
Another explanation for this use of fine costume
becomes evident in a seventeenth-century print by Cornelis
van Kittensteyn after Adriaen van de Venne (Amsterdam,
Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 45). The struggle is a very
violent one in which the women use a distaff, shoe and 101 dagger against one another and again their extremely fine attire makes their fierce behavior appear very improper. A
trouserless man, over whom the battle is fought, looks on in dismay. The accompanying inscription ridicules both the sweethearts' envy and their pride;
You who look at this print Do not express your opinion at once But stand still for a moment And hear what it means Look here and see great envy And, moreover, a great fight Here are the knights of the skirt Who all fight over one pair of trousers If someone now asks what I feel I shall speak thus of this turmoil I say, although the lovers are proud Yes, as hard as a rock One sees, however, everywhere That the time will come That here and elsewhere will occur What in this picture was seen. Alright then, lovers, ladies, whoever you are Bide your time And pay attention to your behavior While you still have the chance For once you miss your chance You may search all you want, you won't find it again.(28)
This inscription and the finely detailed and elegant
costumes of most of the seven women relate very directly to
the condemnation found in Isaiah 3:16-26 (those verses just
preceding the one noted by Warburg):
Moreover the Lord saith. Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts. In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon. 102
The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers. The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings. The rings, and nose jewels. The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins. The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty. Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground.
The fine manner of the women's dress in this print serves a purpose— the women are being warned against pride.
According to the biblical verse, the scarcity of men is part of the punishment meted out because of the haughtiness of the women. If the women do not pay attention to their behavior, the inscription warns them that they will find themselves in the same situation as these seven women. This then, would seem to provide an explanation for the fine dress of women in this type of Battle for the Trousers.
As Isaiah's prophecies warned women of pride, so too these prints warned of the downfall of proud women.
Besides the dress of the figures, another feature which distinguishes this type of battle from that of the spouses is their violence. Except for Van Mander's version of the battle between the spouses, none of the wives is actually shown inflicting pain on their husbands in the previous images. Instead, the threat is only suggested by an upraised fist or bundle of birches. Perhaps this is done to 103 make the husbands seem even more weak and cowardly. The struggle between women, however, becomes an all out war as they push each other, pull hair and use vicious weapons against one another. Remembering the negative types of associations made with the female character, it seems likely that an all female battle would have been portrayed in a particularly ferocious manner.
A print by J . Galle after Marten De Vos probably from the early seventeenth century, displays many of the
features which were to become common in later representations (Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale Albert 1er)
(Fig. 46).(23) Seven women all pull at a pair of canions
(kneebreeches with hose). The women wear a variety of
costumes including very fine as well as rather ordinary dress. Many of the women raise their fists to strike at
their adversaries and one woman uses the familiar slipper.
A fool is shown departing through an open doorway and he
looks back at the struggling women as if dismayed by their
foolish behavior. The accompanying inscription further
underscores the ridicule of the women’s ill-mannered and
immodest behavior:
Behave modestly amorous women for this member is not foot, head, shoulder or hand For whom you fight such strong battle But the germinating father of the whole human race.
There the wives fight and fault none Each of seven is here as the hen pulling and dragging without manners It is actually the phallus they are after, not the trousers.(30) 104
The women are thus fighting over the pants as though they are the man whom they hope to marry. The women are chastised for both their unvirtuous and their violent actions.
Frans Hogenberg's sixteenth-century print of seven women battling for the trousers includes many of the same elements found in De Vos' image (Amsterdam,
Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 47).(31) Some of the weapons used by the women are quite familiar— the shoe and the distaff. One woman raises a pair of shears above her head
in a particularly fierce way. The shoe-wielding woman pulls
the hair of a fallen adversary who, by lying on the floor with her legs awry, is reminiscent of the woman in De Vos'
print. The canions are now held primarily by the woman in
the center and the focus of the attack is on her. The
inscription at the lower left immediately identifies this as a battle of love:
Noble lovers take heart Because seven amorous women who we see here. Battle with all their power for one pair of trousers. In order that each can have it for herself.(32)
Another one of the accompanying inscriptions, in
connection with the activities taking place, gives added
support to Warburg's thesis of a Biblical reference. The
two verses (already quoted) that precede Isaiah 4:1 indicate
that the shortage of men is caused by the ravages of war.
This explains the scene to the left of Hogenberg's print
which portrays the aftermath of a battle. A group of men on 105 horseback carry pennants and ride o££, leaving many dead soldiers behind. Several women are seen mourning and lamenting over the fallen soldiers. Thus, the reason for the women's struggle over the trousers or over the few remaining men is made evident. This obvious connection with the Biblical passage is unusual and is made even more forceful by the inscription above the women:
Knock on your rump you men and servants Who look very handsome in your pants Because seven women fight over one pair of pants Since many men are driven off the field of battle Thus these women save you, man's pants, as treasure And put them on, ready to marry on this activity which in man's pants is vile torment These women want to keep man's pants Because man's pants are peace makers of all women.(33)
This inscription also helps to explain the actions which are taking place at the right. Here, the man, having seemingly taken all of the women to wife, is shown enjoying all of their attention and ministrations. There is no longer any fighting taking place among the women as they all pay great devotion to the man— serving him at table and making loving gestures towards him. Above this group hangs a framed painting in which seven women are shown approaching a seated man. One of the women plays a flute, another carries a container, while two others carry laurel wreaths.
The foremost woman crowns the man with the wreath, perhaps as a celebration of a victorious conclusion to the battle at the left. 106
Returning to the central scene, there is no longer a fool watching the struggle; instead, a man is shown viewing the women through a window. It is probable that the trousers being fought over belong to him as he functions in a manner similar to the trouserless man in Kittensteyn's print. It is also noteworthy that the dress of the man (his cap, cape and the canions— if they are indeed his) is the same as that of the man in the painting. This suggests that the smaller scene is at a point later in time when he has brought peace to the struggling women through polygamous marriage. So, in the end, all returns to harmony and peace.
This peaceful conclusion to the struggle is another feature unique to Hogenberg's print. Indeed the print does not seem to be a moralizing image in the usual sense.
Unlike most of the images which appear to rebuke contemporary women for their immodest actions, this print almost makes of the theme a lofty historical image.
Somewhat similar to Hogenberg's print in certain aspects is an emblem from Theodore de Bry's Emblemata
Saecularia (1611) (Utrecht, Rijksuniversiteit,
Kunsthistorisch Instituât) (Fig. 48). Again seven richly- dressed, battling women fiercly attack one another with keys and other weapons such as a club and distaff stand. As in
Hogenberg's print, a battle scene is represented in the background, providing reason for the women's struggle. A finely dressed gentleman watches the fighting women and 107
holds a meaningful object in front of him. The object is a
sieve on which a miniature woman stands. Below the sieve is
a miniature, falling woman. The sieve frequently appears as
a pictorial metaphor for separating the good from the bad.
The man is thus in the act of separating good and bad
women. The accompanying inscriptions describe the battling and also encourage the man to separate out a worthy
sweetheart.(34) Again, there is less rebuke of the battling
women and more emphasis on the battle for love.
In later representations of this theme an alteration in
the meaning of the theme begins to take place, as in a
portrayal attributed to Pieter Bruegel the Younger (c.l564-
1638) (Paris, Palais Galliere) (Fig. 49).(35) Now, the two
types of battles (for love and domination) are joined
together in a single scene. Their meanings also become
intertwined so that the images ridicule women for their
overbearing nature both in battling for and ruling over
their spouses. A trouserless man sits on a tree stump
outdoors and points to the battle taking place in front of
him. Four women are shown pulling and hitting at each other
as they struggle for the trousers hanging from a tree branch
overhead. One of the women reaches up to grasp the
trousers. In the background, there is another group of four
women and a man (presumably, these are the same figures
shown at a different moment as is suggested by the figures'
dress). 108
In the background scene, the man stands at a lower level than the women and is up to his knees in water. One of the women places her hand on the back of his head, as if
forcing it forward. Another woman places her hand on top of his, so it appears that the women are forcing him to kiss her thumb— metaphorically revealing the subjugation of the husband by these potential wives. His placement below the women certainly indicates his subjection to them. These suggestions concerning the actions taking place and the resultant combining of the two types of battles become more plausible when we look at other examples from the seventeenth century.
A clear example of this is a drawing by the German artist Augustin Braun (Koln, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum) (Fig.
50).(36) In the background of this drawing, seven women
fight over a man's trousers using keys, a shovel and a winder as weapons. In the foreground, a trouserless old man
is shown putting his trousers on his young wife. Another
indication of the wife's power over her husband is the
placement of her hand on his head— clearly a reference to
the expression "Manshand boven ". Next to the wife lies a distaff, the familiar symbol of her power. As in the
previous image, the two themes are clearly joined in a
general display of female power and contentious nature.
Although this is the most obvious combination of the two 109 themes, several Netherlandish images also suggest such a connection.
This ratses the question of whether any of the other images p ic t u r in g an all-female battle also relate with some degree to the other type of battle and its warning against power-hungry women. Although a direct link between the two battles is not made in most of the depictions, the exaggerated dismay of the men in some of the images may at times be an expression of this anxiety regarding powerful women. Giving added support to this suggestion, another verse in Isaiah warns of just such women. In a verse just prior to those already mentioned (Isaiah 3:12) Isaiah laments that one of the calamities to befall Judah will be the rule of women. That such circumstances are both wrong and disastrous is further alluded to in the verse:
As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
If it can be concluded that the all-female Battle for the
Trousers does indeed stem from the verses in Isaiah, then a reference to women who rule may also be present in some of these scenes.
Such an association is again seemingly made in the earliest Netherlandish child's print with proverbs
Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 51).(37) The third scene portrays seven women battling over a pair of trousers in the familiar manner. Beneath the image is the 110 phrase that commonly accompanied this type of battle in scenes of proverbs, "Here seven women fight over a man’s trousers". In the first scene of the last row, a man is dressed in his wife’s skirt while she wears his hat and puts on his trousers. Above the woman are the words "QUAEY
GRIET "(BAD GRIET). Beneath is written "Bad Griet puts on the pants, her husband puts on the skirt."(38) These two scenes are related to one another by the title that is placed above the entire print "AFBEBLDIllG HOE SEVEN WYVEN
VECHTEN CM EEN MANS BROEK ENDE HOE DE VROU DE BROEK AEN
TRECHT EN DE MAN DEN ROCK" ("REPRESENTATION OF HOW SEVEN
WIVES FIGHT OVER A MAN’S PANTS AND HOW THE WOMAN PUTS ON THE
PANTS AND THE MAN THE SKIRT"). The association of the two types of battles here suggests that by the seventeenth century, perhaps both kinds of images are at times representative of bad Griet— the overbearing, immodest housewife; and this behavior was as ridiculous as that represented in the other scenes which are all examples of
folly.
Adriaen van de Venne also related the two themes in his
book, Tafereel van de Belacchende WereIt (Painting of the
Ridiculous World) (1635). The characters in the book are
kermis guests and through their conversation. Van de Vsnne moralizes about the foolish behavior of the world. One of
the illustrations shows the battle for the trousers among
seven women from which Kittensteyn’s image was taken Ill
(Rotterdam, Atlas van Stolk) (Fig. 53). (39) As in the earlier representations, the scene is quite comical, with the largely finely-dressed women struggling for the trousers in the center. Besides the distaff and shoe, a more lethal looking dagger has been added to their arsenal of weapons.
A trouserless man stands in the foreground showing great dismay over their conduct. This man, over whom the battle is fought, becomes a standard character in seventeenth- century representations of the theme. He seems to have taken over the role of the earlier fool— to observe and comment on the ridiculous actions taking place.
In the text, Soetje Strijkers and Lammert Gijsen discuss the scene. They can hardly believe the foolishness of these lovesick women. Lammert then goes on to name each of the women and to describe her actions in the battle.
Along with the conversational text. Van de Venne includes several pertinent proverbs and expressions. The saying
"Last Mannen by de Bzoeck, En Wyve by de Doek " ("Let
Husbands with the Pants, and Wifes with the Apron) is placed at one side of the particular conversation.(40) With this juxtaposition. Van da Venne has also related the battle for love to the battle for domination and he moralizes against the foolish conduct of women in both instances.
A drawing by Quast also suggests a combination of the two themes (Rotterdam, Atlas van Stolk) (Fig. 54). In this silverpoint drawing the figures are represented in half 112
length. Seven women are engaged in a violent struggle for the trousers which are held aloft on a stick by a young woman. One old woman strikes her with a clenched fist, while another old woman uses her distaff as a weapon. As in
the other seventeenth-century images, the man over whom the
battle is fought is present. It is now he, rather than
the trousers, that is placed in the center of the struggle.
This young man looks more forlorn than any of his
predecessors as the old woman wraps her arm around his neck.
His expression is more than one of dismay at their immodest
behavior; it is almost an expression of fear. Quast seems
to focus on the dread of being captured by an overbearing
(and particularly old) female in this love battle. The old
woman's dominance over her soon-to-be spouse is already
evident in her gesture. The doomed young man seems to have
no power over the struggling women or the outcome of their
battle.
A sense of powerlessness is also felt in two
paintings by Molenaer which depict a Battle for the
Trousers, or in these cases a battle for the man (Berlin,
Private collection and Present location unknown) (Figs. 55
and 55). In both paintings women are again engaged in a
struggle but Molenaer has completely altered the intent of
the battle. Here, the women do not fight against one
another, instead they struggle to held the man down. The
sly looks and smiles of all the figures as well as the 113 obscene actions and gestures all indicate that this is a love battle rather than a vicious struggle for power. It is the women's sexual wiles, rather than their physical strength, which triumphs over the men. With this last alteration of the theme, it is evident that the representation of seven women battling, although having gone through many alterations, still retains its significance as a battle of love.
Although most scholars still tend to group all Battle for the Trousers images together as representations of an attempt by wives to dominate their husbands, it is clear that their are many subtle variations of meaning and intent in these images. The theme of the Battle for the Trousers began with two very distinct types of images, both dealing with the power of women. The first type of battle took place between spouses for the mastery in the marriage and can be seen in manuscript marginalia as well as prints from a very early period. Equally popular in prints from a very early period was the second type of battle— a love battle which took place among women (most frequently seven) to see who would receive the man's favor. It related in some cases very specifically to Isaiah's prophecies concerning the downfall of Judah in which the pride of women was condemned and blamed for the shortage of men. These two types of battles appear to have remained somewhat distinct throughout the sixteenth century, as can be seen in a comparison of the 114 anonymous print of 1555 (Fig. 36) with the print by
Hogenberg (Fig. 47).
In the seventeenth century, however, the two ideas often blended together to moralize more generally against
immodest females who used physical violence against men and other women in order to gain power. Such a combination can be seen in the child's print with proverbs (Fig. 51).
Moreover, Van de Venne makes reference to both types of battles in Tafezeel van de Belacchende Wezelt and emphasizes
the foolishness of women who battle so ferociously, whether
for love or domination. Both types of battles in the seventeenth century generally ridicule and censure
combative, overbearing women.
The symbolic character of the Battle for the Trousers
images is immediately evident and they can in no way be construed as being descriptive of daily life. The
relationship to a long-existing theme of female lust for
power is obvious. More than with any other theme, works
dealing with this topic exhibit remarkable continuity. A
comparison between Dusart's Visas dating from the end of the
seventeenth century (Fig. 41) and Massys' mid-sixteenth-
century Battle for the Trousers (Fig. 33), for example,
reveals a number of similarities. The figures are similarly
placed within the composition with the man kneeling before
his seated wife. Both wives threaten the husbands with an 115 upraised arm ready to strike. Moreover, both husbands are
forced to dress their wives with the trousers.
This noteworthy continuity strongly suggests that the theme was more than just a reflection of popular culture.
Its frequent use shows the extent to which this metaphor of
female power-hungriness had penetrated into the general culture. Its use in a wide variety of literature, from
farces to moralizing texts, also attests to this. This
theme seems to have best encapsulated the various notions associated with this general theme of female power: a shrewish and violent wife, an obtuse and submissive husband, and most importantly this lust of women to rule over their husbands. The occurrence of several of these images in
overtly moralizing contexts and the particularly vicious nature of some of the battles seems to indicate a strong reaction to powerful females and a criticism of those women who usurp male authority. This, however, in no way negates the other obvious intent of these images which was to amuse the viewer with a joke that had long been found humorous and which still held relevance in the continual Battle of the
Sexes. NOTES
1. Stoett, 1:140-141.
2. Het volksboek vanden X. Esels, (Antwerp: A. Elslander, 1946), as discussed in Gastelaars, p. 23.
3. Ibid.: Ghy suit zijn onder dye macht van uwen man/ ende hy sal heerschappie hebben over dy.
4. This is attributed to Bijns in Nieuwe Refereinen van Anna Bijns, (Groningen: W.J.A. Jonckbloet and W.S. van Helten, 1880), as cited by Gastelaars, p. 22.
5. Gastelaars p. 22, Zij smijt mij buylen dat mij doogen puylen; Maer niet te min altemet mett vlagen Crijgt sij ooc slagen
Zij can mij jagen van hoecke te hoecke Tvleesch doetse mij van den beenen cnagen. Want zij wilt dragen alleen den broecke
6. These are identified as a form of pants from the late middle ages in Albert Walzer, Liebeskutsche, Reitezsmann, Nikolaus und Kindezbzinge, Volkstumlicher Bildezschatz auf Gebackmodeln, in dez Gzaphik und Kezamik, (Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke Verlag Konstanz, 1963), p. 153.
7. Men vint ter werlt ghien meer der Gecken Dan die haer Wijfs die Broeck antrecken.
Treckt ons an den Broeck mit moeden vry Want se is my / soe guet als dy Ende swijcht al stil / ghi schuym van Boeuen Oft Jan ghy suit die Vuysten proeuen.
Och Wijf, u die Broeck an toe trecken doe ick geeren Her den Voerbroeck can ick soe qualick ontberen.
116 117
8. As the present location of this print is not known, the only photo of the print available to me was in a rather poor photo in the Warburg index- The inscription, therefore, was difficult to decipher and hence contains errors: Och is dit niet derelick om medete gecken min wijfe die quaet enen gheseet tu wil die broeck antrecken. Mar noch is de man meer beclaecht daer de vrou master ijeen Je broecke J moehs ete.
9. Es ist gros creutz im haus. All wolfart wecht auch draus; Wans weib den man ansicht, Ihr bein in die hosen sticht. Quant la femme a le Braye chaussee La maison est entièrement troublee. Tis groot cruijs int huis, al waer froechd in den hooc sneefft; Daer twejff vol gekijff een been dus in die broock hefft.
10. P. Adrianus Poirters, Het Masker van de Wereldt Afgetzocken, (Oisterwijk: J. Salsmans, 1935), p. 184: Maer van trouwen komt het rouwen.
11. Ibid., p. 185: Och, als doecken draghen broecken, Dat is voor de Mans een Cruys.
12. Gibson, "Cock”, pp. 677-678 and note .25.
13. See pp. 70-71.
14. De Ontvoogde Vrouw, (Amsterdam: Jacob Lescailje, 1693), p. 15: Kom, kus my duim dan als een man.
15. Ibid., p. 13: En ik verroey die man op 'tmeesten Die zich gestaag laat doeken van Zyn vrouw, en haar de broek geeft an.
16. Ibid., p. 38: Geen huisgezin kan ooit beklyven Als man en vrouw te zaamen kyven.
17. Waerdich is dien Man begect Die syn Vrou de Broec aentrect. 118
18. De Bzoekdragende Vzouw, (Amsterdam: Jacob Lescailje, 1666), Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague, Act 6: Nu moetje hem de broek afrijten. Bind hem nu voor uw schorteldoek
Nu ben ik meester van de broek.
19. Ibid., Act 9: Deez broek die is mijn wapenschild, Daar door betoom ik •tmanlik wild.
20. Ibid., Act 10: Ik zal u altijd d'eere geven Die aan een man gegeven wert.
21. De Brune, 1:348-349, Hy heeft een quae katte, om te villen, die met een quaed wijf ghekruyst is. 'tEn komter niet op aen, dat hy de beest met twee rugghen spelen moet, en van zijn Ians een spin-rock maecken; dat hy oock zich dickwils drauwen moet, daer 'them niet en junckt; hy moet den broeck verlaten, en met de keurs verwisselen, wilt hy anderzins vrede hebben.
22. De goeje Jan kleed hier zyn Kaatje, luy en licht: Zy dreigd hem met de gard. 0 vreeschlijk gezicht:
Ne va pas faire une bevue Qui mette mon tracas en Veue
23. Gabriel Rollenhagen, Nucleus emblematum, (Utrecht: 1613), p. 95, use in other images is discussed in Tot Bering, pp. 247-49: Coecus nil facibus nil lychni luce juvatur Nec videt in media Noctua stulta die.
24. F.W.H. Hollstein, Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, (Amsterdam, 1949) p. 65.
25. Aby Warburg, Gesammelte Schziften hezausgegeben von dez Bibliothek Warburg, 2 Vols., (Leipzig, Berlin; B.C. Teubner, 1932), p. 180.
26. The bagpipes are identified with lust in Dirk Bax, Hiezonymus Bosch: his picture-writing deciphezed, (Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1979), p. 26. The bone held by the other fool may be a reference to envy. In Bosch's tabletop of the Seven Deadly Sins, two dogs' envy over a bone is representative of the sin of Invidia. Such a reading would certainly be in keeping with the envy of these women. 119
27. Warburg, p. 179.
28. Ghy die op dese prente siet En seght terstont u meijningh niet Maer staet al hier een weynigh stil En hoort eens watse segghen wil Besiet hier seen groote nijt En boven dien een groote strijt Hier sijn de Ridders van den douck Die vechten al om eenen Brouck Vraeght iroant nu wat ick gevoel Ick spreke dus van dit ghewoel Ick segh al sijn de Vrysters trots Jaewel soo hart ghelijck een rots soo seitmen echter over al Als dat de Tijt eens koomen sal Dat hier en elders sal gheschien Dat in dees Plaete wert gesien. Wei aen dan Vrysters wie ghij sijt Neemt acht op uwen goeden tijt En let doch wel op u beiagh Terwijl het u ghebeuren roaah Want als men eens sijn kans versiet: Al souckt ment nae men vintec niet.
29. Another version of the print with the artists' names and a change in wording ("vrouwen " instead of "wyvs") is also in the Bibliothèque Royale Albert 1er.
30. Traites modes Fement Amoureuse shohorte Ce membre, car ce nest pied, teste, espoule ou main Pour guy vous donnes la bataille sy forte. Mais le pere germeux de tout le genre humain.
Daer de wyfs vechten, en ghrbeecke gheenen fier Elck, van seuenen is hier als de cloecke Treckende en sleurende sonder manier Tis haer ecter om tweyer dan om de broecke.
31. In a letter dated September 29, 1988, Walter Gibson suggested that the date of the Hogenberg print may be as early as 1570. He stated that the figures bear a certain resemblance to the style of Frans Floris.
32. This quote in French is a later addition, not found in the version in the Museum Boymans-van Beuningsn, Rotterdam. Gentilz galans soyez couragieus Car pour une braye sept Dames amoureus Voit on icy combatre de toute leur pouoir. Pour ce que chascune pour soy la veut avoir. 120
33. The difficulties in reading this inscription may have resulted in some errors in the translation: Clopt op u billen ghij mans en knechten Die in de broecken wel fraij sijt gestellt Want seue vrouwen um een broek vechten Hits dat veel mans verslaghen sijn uit tfelt Dus die vrouwen se sparen u broeckman schat of En doen hem wel chiecs aen vol trouwen Om die vrolichz die in broeckman is vughe quelt Willen die vrouwens broekman behouwen Om dat broekman peijsmaecker is van all vrouen.
34. Palmare puellarum
In numéro minor est error, cribrate puellas
Hoc palmare mihi si totum cesserit uni. Inter septenas ero fortunatior omnes.
35. This painting is attributed to Pieter Brueghel II by the R.K.D.
36. This drawing is attributed to Braun in Horst Vey, "Kolner Zeichnungen Aus Dem 16., 17. und 18. Jahrhundert", Wallraf-Richaztz-Jahzbuchf 26 (1964): 118.
37. Although Maurits de Meyer identifies it as the earliest of this type, he does not give a date for it in De Volks- en Kinderprent in De Nederlanden van de 15e tot de 20e Eeuw (Antwerp, Amsterdam: N.V. Standaard-Boekhandel, 1962), p. 405. The dress suggests a date from the early seventeenth-century.
38. A painting of proverbs in which such an image and inscription occur is a work attributed by the R.K.D. to the Southern Netherlandish School in a private collection in Geneva (Fig. 52). Hier vechten seven wyven om een mans broeck.
Quaey Griet trecht de broek aen---man trecht den rock aen.
Afbeeldingh hoe seven wyven vechten om een mans broeck ende hoe de vrou de broeck aen trecht en de man den rock.
39. See Fig. 45.
40. Adriaen van de Venne, Tafezeel van de Belacchende WereIt (The Hague: published by the author, 1635), Warburg Institute Library, p. 240. CHAPTER IV
JAN THE HOUSEHUSBAND
The idea of enslaving a man through marriage occurs very early in Netherlandish literature and art. The earliest examples in literature begin to appear toward the end of the fourteenth century. Examples in art begin to
occur at about the same time and by mid-sixteenth century,
the theme rivals the Battle for the Trousers in popularity as an expression of shrewish female power. Even more than the Battle for the Trousers theme, it came to represent the notion of the ’’Verkeerde Wezeld " or "World Turned Upside
Down" and was used as an example in many Verkeerde Wereld
prints. Indeed, the moral of most literary and visual works dealing with the theme is that when men take on female tasks
such as gathering eggs, cooking, winding, spinning, cleaning
house, and caring for children, such actions will result in
complete chaos. The picturing of men engaged in female
chores thus warns against the dangers of such role reversal
and it also provides the stage for a most humorous display
of calamity and confusion. So popular was this theme that
by the end of the sixteenth century it began to develop into
a number of sub-themes which can still be witnessed in works
121 122 dating from the late seventeenth century. These minor themes include the hennetaster (hen groper), the male winder and the popular Jan de Wasser (Jan the Washer) who was
forced to do all types of female chores.
Due to its reliance on a separation of male-female roles, the theme of the Forcing of the Chores was frequently accompanied by the description of a strict division of male and female tasks. This type of literature appears around
1400 and reaches a high point in the first half of the sixteenth century.(1) Dresen-Coenders asserts that due to
the development of an urban, middle class during these same years, there also occurred a gradual and more distinct division in the work domains of men and women. As this development occurred, more authority began to be attached to male tasks, thus further separating male and female work domains. Furthermore, she suggests that this deepening division contributed to male aggression towards female power
by making more consequential the crossing over of gender
boundaries.(2) Such hostility is found in many works of
literature and art during this period.
Hennetasters
Vanden hinnentastere (Of the hen groper)(c.1550), for
example, is a text which stresses the importance of a sexual
division of tasks. Hennetaster (hen groper) is the name
given to a man who busies himself with women's work since
the feeling of the hen for eggs was considered a female task 123 and thus inappropriate for men.(3) On the title page, the husband is represented grasping a hen while his wife stands
in the next frame in a scolding position (Wolfenbuttel,
Herzog-August-Bibliothek) (Fig. 57). The text tells of a
farmer who returns from his work in the fields only to find
that his wife has not yet prepared his dinner. Angered by
her husband's subsequent scolding, the wife suggests that
they reverse roles for a day. She instructs her husband
that he must follow a certain regimen in completing the
household tasks; he must feed the cows and sweep their hay,
clean thestable, milk the cows, goats and sheep, churn the
milk and form the butter into two pound pieces, make the
bread, feed the geese, chickens and pigs, care for the
roosters and pigeons, brew the beer, tend the child and
rock it when it cries, wash diapers, clean the house, make
the bed, give water to the calves, and finally have a warm
meal ready when she comes home from the fields.
The wife goes to the fields the next day and performs
the farmer's work; when she returns that evening, she finds
the house in utter chaos. The child and animals are howling
because they have not been cared for, the diapers floated
away as the husband was washing them in the river and as he
was milking the cow, it peed on him. The story concludes
with the warning that men should not engage in female work
because men are, by nature, not meant for women's work: "I 124 say it to you clearly: it is impossible (for) men to do what women can."(4)
A warning against role reversal between spouses continues to be a popular theme in seventeenth-century literature. Jacob Cats reiterates the importance of each spouse’s adhering to his or her own appointed tasks in
Hoawelycki
The husband must conduct his business in the street The wife must look after the kitchen of the house. One finds a country strange, where only women conduct business with people outside. The husband broods in the house, and busies himself with the child. The husband makes sure the maid is spinning uniform threads. There are also blots even here on our shores. Where women do business and carry out great affairs. Yes, traveling all over while the husband Sits idle, sits and consoles himself with a full jug.(5)
Around mid-sixteenth century, the hennetaster became popular subject matter in the visual arts as well as literature. Visual evidence of the popular usage of this expression can be found in Pieter Brueghel's 1559 painting of Netherlandish proverbs (detail, Berlin-Dahlem,
Gemaldegalerie) (Fig. 58). At the left side of the painting, near the wall, stands a man who feels the underside of a hen. The globe turned upside down above the hennetaster emphasizes the illogical and ridiculous nature of the various activities taking place. Behavior such as trying to shear a pig or cuckolding one's husband (other 125 actions represented) or a man doing female chores is
ridiculed as being the opposite of what it should be.
More explicit in its disclosure of the meaning of
hennetaster and in its ridicule of hennetasters is a mid-
sixteenth-century Flemish print by Hans Liefrinck (Antwerp,
Museum Plantin-Moretus/Stedelijk Prentenkabinet) (Fig. 59).
The image pictures a hunch-shouldered old man who grasps a
hen and glances back over his shoulder at his wife standing
in the open doorway. She gestures at the chickens pecking
in the yard as if pointing out the husband's duties to him.
A rooster who stands above and in the center of its mates
looks up almost wonderingly at the old man, as if it
represents the proper order and the man the wrong order of
things. The text addresses men who themselves play the
hennetaster role and admonishes them to be masters in their
own households:
It is no wonder if the world goes topsy-turvy When the hen crows above the cock; Because it sees no one who is satisfied with what he has. The husband almost wholly spurns man’s work And busies himself with his wife's work. He becomes a cuckold and a hennentaster. Is it not strange that one now finds Many bad wives who are not ruled The husbands are the reason that many of them wear the pants. You hen gropers, let the wives do their work. You grain counters, you are the cause of your wife's scolding. You who want to have everything go your way. Let the wife rule the house. There she may in householding remain. If you as a roan used reason, and understanding. If you rule as master in your house. Then she will respect you for this, and will not go 126
against you. Otherwise she will cut you down. What is the use of wanting to advise her in her work! All that comes from it is scolding and fighting. Disturbing of senses, never a good word. But if you want to settle all this wisely. Let the wives do what they want, as long as they do not do anything improper. Remain on good terms with each other. The wife is a weak vessel who is easily disturbed. Thus, do your work and live by this advice. So that you will not (in the end) degenerate into evil.(6)
This text makes it clear that men, as well as women, were rebuked for the reversal of roles in marriage. They were advised not to busy themselves with female chores, but to take their place as rulers in the home. Bad wives were likely to take advantage of weak husbands and thus would take over as master in the house if given the chance. As this text warns, such a reversal of roles was certain to lead to domestic misery and strife. The abomination of weak and foolish men is expressed in the inscription at the top:
There are some who are so abhorred. The hennentasters, who busy themselves with their wives' work.
In a print by Harmen Muller, the wife is even more firmly shown to be the boss over her husband (Amsterdam,
Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 60). This print dates from around the turn of the sixteenth century and it has been suggested that the print is probably after a drawing by the artist's son Jan Muller.(7) Filling the foreground of the print, the husband gropes a hen while eyeing the viewer. In the background his wife sits in the open doorway of their 127 cottage. She is in the process of putting on her husband's trousers. By concerning himself with women's work, he has allowed her to seize both his trousers and his authority.
The inscription warns other men about the dangers of engaging in female chores:
Come here, you miserly clutchers of hens and counters of barley, whoever wants to split a block of peat into five, a hair into three: Learn from this Jan Hen and mind your manners, or the wife will rob you of you trousers too.(8)
Another hennetaster who weakly submits to the physical power of his wife is represented in a print by Julius
Goltzius also of the late sixteenth century
(Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 61). A man, somewhat dull-witted in appearance, grasps a hen while glancing back at his wife with a certain amount of trepidation.
Ostensibly, he is moving out of the way of his wife's
upraised arm, poised for a blow against her husband. The awkwardness of the wife's upraised hand and the emphasis
placed upon it may be an indication that in addition to
signifying violence against the husband, the artist intended
this gesture as a reference to the turning upside down of
the proper Manshand boven. The association of this term
with portrayals of overbearing females has already been
mentioned and other examples will demonstrate that it was
not an infrequent reference. The use of the hen as a
metaphor for the woman may be the intent of this artist as
well. While the wife in this scene does not display the 128 exaggerated anger witnessed in other images, the hen, with
its waggling tongue and scornful gaze, does exhibit these typically shrewish characteristics. The inscription, which is in German and somewhat uneasily squeezed into its position, may be a later addition. In any case, it merely reiterates the foolish and topsy-turvy nature of a husband who carries out the female chores and lets his wife have the upper hand:
You are an odd fellow Because you have thus firmly groped this (hen) (9)
Incidents of role reversal between shrewish wives and weak husbands in relation to hens and eggs appear very early
in Northern Renaissance art, as in a German print attributed to Erhard Schoen dating from the early sixteenth century
(Berlin, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz,
Kupferstichkabinett) (Fig. 62).(10) In a metaphoric reference to the female task of rearing children, the mannish-looking wife here grabs the hair of her husband, forcing him to brood the eggs in the basket. The
inscriptions used are metaphorical references to the misery
in this marriage. The first phrase is spoken by the shrewish wife:
If you attended to your eggs as you do the tavern, they would hatch
God must pity you that your eggs will not get warmer
Your heart is not in it. Your nest is no good(11) 129
A similar reference seems to be the subject of another scene from the child’s print entitled AFBEELDINGH HOE SEVEN
WYVEN... referred to earlier (Fig. 51). As previously discussed, this print illustrates a number of proverbs, two of which deal with both types of the Battle for the
Trousers.(12) In the ninth scene of this print, a man is shown holding an egg while looking down at a hen. The hen does not sit on the nest placed in front of it and the
inscription underneath explains why: "HY SIET OP HET EY EN
LAET HET HOEN LOOPEN ” ("He sees to the egg and lets the hen r a n g e^ ). The wife disregards her female duties and leaves her husband to sit on the nest and hatch the egg. This again appears to be a metaphoric reference for the man taking over the female task of raising children and is yet another image which reproves and ridicules a role reversal of husbands and wives.
Another German print shows a husband similarly seated on a basket of eggs from which roosters and chickens are hatching (Berlin, Staatliche Museen Preussischer
Kulturbesitz, Kupferstichkabinett) (Pig. 63). This print by
Mattheus Boll (1588) shows a trouserless man whose ankles
have been bound. The parrot in the tree mocks "guck guck"
(look look). The inscription tells how this poor man is
forced by his evil wife Anna to tend to the eggs. It is she who has taken his pants and bound his feet, thus ensuring 130 that the poor husband will never be able to escape from the household and the female chores.
Caring for hens and eggs is often the task assigned to men who are ruled by their wives— both in literature and art. In the farce Benen man ende een wijf ghecleet up zij boersche (A man and a wife dressed up in the peasant fashion)(c.1555-60), a peasant couple quarrel on their way to market. The husband has to carry the basket of eggs and his wife mocks him, while he complains that all women want to rule their husbands. She makes him feel in the basket under the hen and charges him, "Nu tast, hinnentastere"
("Now grope, hennetaster").(13)
Pendant paintings by Abraham Bloemaert, dated 1632, recall the scene described in Benen man ende een wijf ghecleet up zij boersche. The paintings obviously represent a couple carrying their goods to market with the wife scolding and nagging along the way. In the right pendant, an old woman stands with a walking stick (Utrecht, Centraal
Museum) (Fig. 64). She is placed before an old shed with a
large jug tied to her back and a basket over one arm. She stands in the familiar scolding pose— bent forward with her
finger upraised toward her husband who is found in the
pendant (Utrecht, Centraal Museum) (Pig. 65). In an attitude of long-suffering endurance the man leans against a
tree trunk and a large rock while he gazes off in the distance immune to her scolding tirades. In comparison 131 with the caricatured examples previously discussed, this poor berated man, who has been charged with the female task of carrying the eggs, evokes a much greater degree of sympathy.
The reason for the wife's chastisement is made evident
in this case by the presence of broken eggs. As was suggested in Vanden Hinnentastere, when husbands were forced to do women's work they often did it very badly. In the
farce Jan Goemoete (Jan Good-nature)(1559), a henpecked husband whose wife mocks him and forces him to do the female chores also breaks the eggs. (14) The husband in Bloemaert's painting has obviously not been careful with the contents of his basket, as a few eggs have fallen out and broken open while others lie cracked in the basket. The familiar Dutch sayings "He who wants to have the eggs must be able to endure the cackling of the hen" and "It is a great misery in the house where the rooster is silent and the hen crows" seem particularly appropriate in this example.
Even more pitiable is a mid-seventeenth-century
hennetaster painted by Barent Fabritius representing the
sense of touch in a series on the five senses (Aachen,
Suermondt Museum) (Fig. 66). A very old, bearded and
balding man holds a hen with his left hand, while feeling
its underside for eggs with his right hand. The ancient
figure, set against a dark background, is gravely solemn in
his task, almost reverent. In the background is a rooster 132 perched on a nest— another sign of female domination.(15)
Like the man in the child's print, the rooster has been relegated to the female task of brooding the eggs. Both males have been forced to do the work of their mates.
Men who allowed their wives to abuse them in this way were mocked as in a print from a series by Herman Saftleven.
The image of a foolish-looking peasant who holds a hen is accompanied by the inscription "hennetaster " (Amsterdam,
Rijksprententkabinet) (Fig. 67). The man's appearance underscores the foolishness of his activity.
Spinning Husbands
The task which had the longest history of being unnaturally forced upon weak husbands was that of spinning.
The theme probably has its roots in the myth of Hercules and
Omphale. Hercules, for love of Omphale, submits himself to the female task of spinning. The spinning Hercules appears in seventeenth-century Dutch emblem books as a man conquered by love.(16) The types of Hercules and Omphale were translated into genre images depicting female power. The men in these images, however, are not willing or happy performers of female chores.
As has already been noted, distaffs were frequently used as metaphors for women themselves and they became particularly associated with female dominance in the marriage. Men with distaffs, winders and spindles therefore became common indicators of henpecked husbands. Such men 133 were often represented in a type of print known as
"Verkeerde Wereld" or "upside-down world". These prints contained a number of small scenes illustrating a topsy turvy world in which children feed, discipline and rock their parents to sleep and animals become masters over human beings— making them pull plows and coaches. One of the most popular scenes in such prints was that of the trading of tasks between men and women. The task usually forced upon men in these images was spinning.
In a Verkeerde Wereld print from the end of the sixteenth century, the third scene bears the inscription,
”HBT WYF TRECT NA DE KRYCH " ("THE WIFE GOES TO WAR")
(Amsterdam, Private collection) (Fig. 68). The woman is shown standing and holding various weapons of war while the husband is seated, busily spinning with a distaff.
Clearly, a man spinning was considered as ridiculous an idea as men pulling a plow before an ox carrying a whip.
Of further interest in this print is the third scene in the sixth row. Again the subject refers to the upside down situation of women going to war. The scene pictures a legion of women carrying banners, guns and drum who storm a fortress. Some of the women fire guns at the figures atop the wall while others begin to climb a ladder to reach the foe. The inscription below informs us as to what was considered to be the reversal of nature in this particular scene: "DE VROUWEN BESTORMES TmJYS” ("THE WOMEN STORM THE 134
HOUSE”). It is interesting to consider that this image is published at the very time of the war with Spain, when, as we have seen, women were engaging in such battles in the
Netherlands and were becoming famous for their heroic
exploits. Obviously certain members of the male population
found this situation to be contrary to the rightful order of
nature.
Another feature of note in this work is the dress and
character of the figures. As in the child's print,
AFBEELDINGH HOE SEVEN WYVEN ... (Fig. 51), the figures are
clearly of the middle class. These variations from the
stereotypical peasant types commonly portrayed in scenes of
domineering housewives are usually found only in overtly
moralizing contexts such as proverb and Verkeerde Wereld
prints as well as prints for children and illustrations to
moralizing texts. The use of middle class figures in these
more instructive, less humorous works was certainly done for
the purpose of making the figures and the actions more
relevant to the audience for which it was intended and less
a situation of humor.
As seen in the Verkeerde Wereld print, the image of the
spinning man became a clear metaphor for the henpecked
husband. For example, in the previously-discussed farce Da
Bzoekdragende Vrouw, the overbearing wife, Giertje, forces
her husband, Jochem, to sit at the spinning wheel; she
commands: ”Sit there and spin until evening."(17) When he 135 complains, she beats him. The peasant husband forced to spin appears during the late middle ages in art as in a print by the German Master bxg (Paris, Musee du Louvre,
Cabine des Dessins) (Fig. 69). The wife is shown seated on a stool above her husband who sits on the floor. He raises his arm to defend himself against her kicks and blows from her upraised distaff. She forces him to use the winder on the floor and the spindle which he holds in his right hand.
Israhel van Heckenem has portrayed a similar forcing of
the husband to do female chores in a print from the
fifteenth century (London, British Museum) (Fig. 70). The husband and wife are both seated on stools. While wielding
her distaff over her head, the wife is shown pulling on her
husband's codpiece. Her husband sits to the right using a
spool and winder. Fearfully, he looks up at his wife ready
to duck her blows.
In this same tradition is a print by Jan Wierix after
Pieter Brueghel the Elder, which forms one of a series
illustrating Netherlandish proverbs (Amsterdam,
Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 71). The image is of a virago
who makes her husband wear an apron and be the woman of the
house. The irascibility of the wife is clearly suggested by
her pose; one can almost hear the scolding words as they fly
from her open mouth. The scorn on her face implies the
disdain felt for her husband, who sits meekly before her.
As with many of the images, she is placed in a position over 136 him, and the forceful way in which she presses toward him with hands on hips leaves no doubt as to her shrewish
nature. With his eyes meekly lowered, the husband sits with his hands folded in the woman's apron that he wears- The chair that lies overturned behind his wife suggests the vehemence with which the virago has sprung up to scold her spouse. The winders that hang above the husband indicate that he is forced to do the woman's work in the house. Also suggestive of this is the manner in which the wife stands on her distaff which (as the inscription informs us) she
refuses to use:
A wife who scolds without reason Does not use the distaff in the house(18)
The ape (peering out from behind the hearth) is a common motif emphasizing folly; here it is the folly of a
situation where a wife is the master and her husband the
slave. In addition, two other animals add to the
significance of the pictured activity. The husband's
lowered gaze directs our attention to the cackling hen at
his feet. Its upraised beak is directed toward the man who
receives the scorn of both the woman and hen. Behind the
dominating hen stands her mate, the rooster, whose lowered
head reminds us of the henpecked husband. These animals
also refer to the two proverbs which encircle the scene:
A roof that leaks/and a smoking chimney, yes, there the monkey sits on the hearth and looks, a crowing hen/a quarrelsome wife, is misfortune in the house/yes torment and grief(19) 137
These same metaphors are used in a print by Jacques De
Gheyn (Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 72). As in the print after Brueghel, the abusive wife and hen both stand cackling at the husband. Her bundle of keys is prominently displayed, and as has already been seen, this item was used as a weapon by the houswife. The man is shown seated on a basket before the fire, busily working the spindle and winder, his hands seemingly imprisoned in them. He looks beseechingly towards heaven as if it may be the only aid for his predicament. Standing in the background is a metaphor for the man's misery. A rooster is entrapped behind the prison-like bars of a table, and it can only stick its head through to eat from the trough before it. Both husband and cock are miserably imprisoned and cannot escape the house.
Another element in De Gheyn's print relates to the farces which deal with the collective power of the women in the neighborhood, who urge a rebellion against male authority. A female figure seen through the open doorway throws up her hand and appears to be screeching with wide open mouth. The inscription informs us that, again, a neighbor has incited the wife to tyrannize her husband and force him to spin:
Ah the monster! An evil woman rings out like empty bronze (a bronze bell). Giving a tongue lashing with loud voice. The neighbor woman caused this. Therefore, there is always some evil on account of a neighbor.(20) 138
The empty kettle placed on the table in the background may be a visual metaphor for the "empty bronze" mentioned in the verse. In addition, such a reference may also be an allusion to the biblical verse I Corinthians 13:1:
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling symbol.
Certainly the woman in this scene demonstrates no charity toward her poor husband. As the inscription indicates, she clamors away at him with a loud voice like the din of a bronze bell.
A somewhat problematic depiction of a male winder is found in a print by Claes Jansz. Visscher after Quast (1652)
(Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet) (Pig. 73).(21) A man winding threads stands near an unlovely woman who sits using her distaff. As she glances up at the miserable-looking man, a devil grabs the spun thread behind him. The inscription below, "Tis al verwart gaeren " ("It is all tangled threads"), indicates the futility of the man's actions as well as the confused nature of such improper work. The man unhappily performs these female tasks under the watchful eye of his wife.
While the emphasis of this scene certainly seems to be on the misery of this man who does women's work, other significant elements within the scene seem to allude to a deeper meaning. These elements all have sexual connotations. First the man's erect codpiece is strongly 139 suggestive of his lust. The emphasized vessel between the man and woman further suggests a sexual meaning. It has been demonstrated that such vessels were often used in Dutch genre painting as a sexual metaphor for women.(22)
Moreover, the very act of spinning was used as a sexual metaphor in art and literature of the seventeenth century.(23) It is difficult to decipher the specific role of these sexual elements in the print. Perhaps the man's attention has simply wandered to lustful thoughts. The presence of the devil, the woman's rather intense and
piercing gaze and the man's somewhat vacant stare would all
support such an interpretation. Or perhaps the elements are a reference to the man's lust which places him in a position
of helplessness under his wife's power. Whatever the
precise meaning of these sexual references is, the scene is
certainly related to the unhappy situation of a marriage in
which men must perform female chores.
Such an idea is further supported with a print in the
reverse based on Quast's image (Universiteits Bibliotheek
Amsterdam) (Fig. 74). It is used as an illustration in
Poirters' Het Masker van de Wereldt Afgetzocken (The Mask of
the World Removed) (1645). The section in which it is used
is entitled Ongheluckighe, tweedzachtige; vezwazde
Houwelijcken (Unhappy, discordant, disrupted marriages).
Atop the image after Quast's print is an illustration in
which a man has been forced to the ground by his wife who 140 beats him with a bundle of keys. This scene overtly represents the battle between the spouses, while the other scene is symbolic in its intent. Below the image after
Quast is the inscription, "Quaet Huysgesin; Duyvels gespin ”
("Angry Household, Devils work").(24) Clearly, in this use
of the image, there is a reference to fighting spouses and misery in the marriage. The verses that follow tell of a
wife who spins while her husband unhappily winds, then the devil enters the scene and causes a great deal of trouble:
See what a game a devil plays As he grabs the threads. Lijs spins here all day. And Lemmen winds what he can. Even though it is with hate. Because the devil seizes the thread. Even if Lijs spins two times as swiftly, and had ever so fine flax, and her threads were ever so strong. Yet the work is all spoilt. And Lemmen does not like it a bit. This is heading for a scolding(25)
Another painting which is related to these latter two
images is a painting by Jan Snellinck (c. 1575-c. 1627)
(Vienna, Private collection) (Fig. 75). This painting is
difficult to decipher both because of its poor condition and
also because the expressions and elements are rather
ambiguous. A woman is shown seated at a spinning wheel
while her husband sits opposite her with a winder. Again,
the devil is shown in the background tangling the threads.
Two other characters are present: a child and a
maidservant. All attention is focused on the woman, as the
other three characters all look in her direction. The 141 knowing sort of looks cast out at the viewer by the wife and devil seem to indicate that she may be in league with the devil— perhaps in the forcing cf female chores on her husband. Such an interpretation, however, must remain conjectural.
Various Chores
In addition to spinning, other tasks were also forced upon poor henpecked husbands. Listed among female chores in
Vanden hinnentastere was the task of cleaning the rooms.
In a marriage play from a collection entitled Cruyt-hofken
(1600), a husband complains that among other chores he has to scrub the kitchen.(26) In a similar way, the man in a painting by Adriaen van de Venne laments that he is forced to scrub the floor in the title "Mans-Verdriet " ("Husband's
Misery") (Beekbergen, Private collection) (Fig. 76). A
large overbearing woman sits warming herself by the fire as she scornfully supervises her husband mopping the floor with a wet rag. Behind him is the broom which he must also use to tidy up the house. He wears a long apron which clashes comically with his fine gentlemanly clothing. There is no doubt that the man's misery is caused by the mastery of his wife. That the woman is an overbearing shrew is emphasized by the tongs which rest against her legs. The Dutch word
"tang " was a name given to ill-natured wives.(27) The appearance of the spectacled face peering out from behind the curtain is unclear; perhaps she is there to remind us of 142 the blind foolishness of such behavior as with the
bespectacled owl.(28)
A print after this painting is an illustration for Van de Venne's Tafereel van de Belacchende Wezelt (Rotterdam,
Atlas van Stolk) (Fig. 77). The two images are similar except that the print is crowded with washbuckets to emphasize the overwhelming nature of the husband's chores.
The cruel woman has become even more ugly as she scornfully
glares at her laboring spouse. Accompanying this
illustration in the text is a condemnation of shrewish,
overbearing wives; it reveals how the man is forced by his wife's snarling to scrub the floor. On the street, he hides
his shame under an honorable appearace, but at home he is completely ruled by his wife, who keeps him in bonds. A pun
on the exprassion Manshand boven is found in the line, "the
under-head wholly has the upper shame."(29) The sayings
which accompany the text continue the ridicule of a wife who
rules her husband:
The wife's domination is a husband's misery.
She was created for him, not he for her.
Other accompanying sayings are simply a mocking of women in
general :
They say: Women with curled hair have worms in the head.
The man was first to be created from the earth. Therefore, he is dignified, constant and unyielding. The wife is made of bone from the man. Wherefore, she is more Inclined to rattle the jawbone.(30) 143
The verses and the illustration contained in Van de Venne's text are evidence both of the negative views frequently expressed regarding women and more specifically of shrewish wives who force their husbands to engage in women's work.
Another task assigned to women in both Vanden hinnentastere and Cruyt-hofken is the changing and washing of diapers. Mothers wiping and changing babies bottoms are
familiar elements in Dutch art. Dusart, however, has reversed this role in his illustration of the sense of smell, OdozatuSf which belongs to the series of prints engraved by Gole in which each of the senses is illustrated with a shrewish, domineering housewife (Rotterdam, Atlas van
Stolk) (Fig. 78). The sense of smell is illustrated here by the dog who sniffs at the baby’s dirty bottom and by the
husband who now has the chore of changing the baby and looks
out at the viewer with an out stretched tongue to indicate
the stench. The uninvolved housewife stands in the
background with a horrible scowl on her face as she bends
over to light her pipe (which also stinks) with a coal
from the fire. Smoking was a particularly male pastime and
was considered very inappropriate for women.(31) The
perversity, therefore, of this woman's behavior underscores
the upside down nature of the entire scene. She holds the
coal with a pair of tongs— another allusion to her shrewish
nature. The inscription below identifies both the sources
of the smells and the source of the man's misery: 144
What a stench! Wobbe smokes a pipe: and our fool Geurt, meanwhile, fills his nose with fresh child filth
The smeller says in order to smell well It is necessary to do as this dog(32)
Even more miserable are the men who must endure several types of domination as in a rhyme print from a collection entitled Het af-vaaren van het vol en zoet geladen schip
Sint Reynuyt (The sailing of the full and sweetly loaded ship Sint Reynuyt).(33) The rhyme print Ovezheezde Jan
Bloodaard door zijn vinnig wijf (Cowardly Jan dominated by his shrewish wife) shows a man busy at a spinning wheel who must also tend to the baby beside him in a cradle (The
Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek) (Fig. 79). He looks up at his scolding wife who threatens to strike him with a stick.
Behind them two women enjoy dining at a table laden with
food and drink. Another dominated male is seen in the painting on the wall showing a man wiping a baby's bottom.
Yet another is shown sweeping at the far right side. The rhyme below ridicules the upside down nature of this household :
Everything that John by spinning gets His wife devours in cheerful drinking And if he does not spin, he is beaten Who can endure this domination By this renowned and proud sex That wants to be boss day and night?(34)
Of further significance in the Forcing of the Chores is
the painting (or perhaps window) on the back wall of the
room. It is a scene in which a man kneels by an outdoor 145 well. He holds a stick in his hand as if ready to beat the woman’s head surfacing in the well. Ironically, this also has reference to a woman's shrewishness in the home as it refers to a tale included in the Cluchtboeck (1576).(35) In this story, the wife's stubborness is a constant source of misery for her husband. During one of their frequent arguments, she calls him a "laysbos" (bunch of lice) and he is so angry over this that he tries to force her into retracting her words by kicking and beating her. She stubbornly refuses to recant and soon her husband tires of the beating. Frustrated, the husband drags her outside where he ties her to a rope and drops her down the well. He then threatens that he will drown her if she keeps calling him names. She is so obstinate that even when he drops her completely under the water so that she is almost drowned, she still will not stop her mocking. She even sticks her hand above water and makes a gesture of pinching lice dead.
Finally, the man admits defeat and pulls her out of the well, realizing that he will never change her shrewish nature. The most astonishing aspect of the reference to this story in context with this illustration is that it condemns the wife’s shrewishness rather than the husband's violence. Such a juxtaposition indicates that it was another instance of censuring shrewish wives.
In overtly moralizing works such as this the criticism of a reversal of tasks is obvious, but at times the 146 assigning o£ male and female tasks is more unclear. For example, while spinning and winding were certainly considered female chores, not all images of men engaged in these tasks should automatically be assumed to be representations of henpecked husbands. Linda Stone-Ferrier, for example, states that Jan de Visscher's print after
Adriaen van Ostade is a scene of a domineering wife who laughs at her husband because he is using a winder
(Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 80).(36) The inscription below, however, identifies this as a scene of a happy family:
See our work with sweetness spilling With such a whimsical appearance Therefore spouse, hold Our sweet little child, and nevertheless Thus, we consider our poor home as good as The splendor of a splendid house.(37)
Although the tone of this inscription is positive and happy, Stone-Ferrier warns that this may be misleading as it could have been added at a later date.(38) While it is true that the inscription may have been a later addition, it does give us some insight into how its contemporaries viewed the scene. Moreover, it is important to note that the wife is working along with the husband and there is no evidence of the usual sign of force by the woman. All of the figures
(including the husband) seem happy and contented. Jacob
Cats advocates such harmony in the doing of chores between husband and wife, "When the man winds well, then the wife spins well."(39) Finally, when one examines the entire 147 oeuvre of Adriane van Ostade, one finds several examples of men with winders in which there are no indications of force by the wives. Such an example is found in an Ostade painting in which a woman churns butter while her husband winds (Present location unknown) (Fig. 81). There is no suggestion of wifely dominance in this quiet and harmonious scene. It is therefore important to make certain that the mood conveyed by the image itself is in keeping with an interpretation of female dominance. All aspects of the image must be compatible with the moralizing intent. Just as all aspects of the image should support the interpretation, the inclusion of some inexplicable elements in certain scenes of overbearing wives cannot be ignored in interpreting the scene. These ambiguous motifs are characteristic of the images to be discussed next.
Political Prints
The inclusion of battle scenes in depictions of the
Forcing of the Chores is one of the most obvious indicators that a deeper meaning is intended in the works. The meaning of such additions becomes more easily deciphered when one realizes that the Forcing of the Chores theme was used in political prints as a metaphor for tyranny and chaos. J.
Bolte describes such a print dating from the end of the sixteenth century which is entitled Troost bij onvzede in bet huwelijk an oorlogsplagen (Consolation for troubles in marriage and plagues of war).(40) As with other 148 representations of the Forcing of the Chores, a husband complains in this print about all the household tasks he must do. He is shown sitting near a cradle with his wife standing threateningly behind him. In the center two men bind bundles of branches while at the right a village is being plundered. The inscription below links the misery of the man under the dominance of his wife with the misery of a society at war by using all of the well-known metaphors of female power. It consoles men that, like the men pictured, they are not alone in their misery:
I must do everything that my wife makes me do. Because when I annoy her, she cannot be appeased. So then rock and spin, whatever I meet with At home to scrub and shine, clean pots and dishes. Do the wood work and on the iron stir. Rock the child and change its diapers, wash them. Scrub the floor, make the bed and water splash. Clean the food-hearth and stoke the fire. Haul water, peat and wood and cook the meals. In short, to do everything my wife asks. Because this hen is the guardian here, she already has these pants. Thus I am commander general of the manure pile. One would think that when I do this Her snarling would stop and that peaceable speech would take place. But no, she still goes against me, so that I have great misery. Therefore, I bind not alone; because I have much to grieve over! With violence they thresh and reap. These houses and sheep rows are robbed, damaged and broken. The peasants are chased, these farms are burned. But I bind not alone; With that I must be content,(41)
It has been suggested by Gastelaars that many of the farces dealing with a role reversal between spouses were possibly viewed as metaphors for some sort of political 149 domination as well.(42) This suggestion is given support in the visual arts as well. Both of the Dutch historical atlases, the Atlas van Stolk and the Muller Atlas, describe a certain print from the early part of the seventeenth century as being symbolic of religious arguments taking place in 1617 (Rotterdam, Atlas van Stolk) (Fig. 82).(43)
The print is another scene of marital discord, where a tear faced man, under the sign Bona Intentio (Good Intentions), is shown spinning thread from a distaff. Underneath him is the word which describes his actions, Obseguium (obedience).
His wife, under the sign Discozdia (discord), sits with a winder scolding him. She mockingly holds up two fingers which mirror the two points on her husband's hat. Below, the action of the woman is appropriately labeled Exacerbatio
(exacerbation). The force behind the woman's gesture seems to be the distaff held by the devil Den Rockez (The Distaff
User) seated behind her. He uses the distaff to prompt the woman to be shrewish.
Another smaller devil is seated on the floor beside the man; he and a small spider busily unravel the thread spun by the man. This devil is labeled die Verwarder (the
Entangler). On the wall behind the man hangs a tool called a hackle, which was used to dress the flax in preparation for weaving cloth. Spun across the corner of the open window is a spider web. From this window and the open door one glimpses a burning village and soldiers riding and 150 marching to battle. The inscription beneath the scene describes the misery in the household and associates it with the battle scene and wickedly inspired domination:
Discord Now, moreover, spin you bad dawdler, I think your winder will slip out of your hand. Hence, hold your head right now Or we will tell some others. And you have already endured. What I receive, that is what I wind. Because ere you wind, it will be unwound Another is distaffed, more than you would fully know. Good Intentions Oh, Oh, for this reason I bow my head This spinning lasts so long, who would have believed it, I already have more than I can spin. Must I yet spin more, I am sick of it. Because I am only given bad work to spin. My thread is tangled, I get a bad feeling. Therefore, it is fruitless spinning of flax Where the devil is spinner and tangler. Quarreling and Submissiveness Discord Do you want, spinning villain, to tire the heart If you don't do it your farm will be set on fire And you hasten this burning because I used to be peaceful - Good Intentions The more I spin, the more you shout and storm I have too much to do so I scratch my head; But it is too late, the skirt scratches me The devil makes me spin. With the help of the enemies ready to serve on either side of him. When, however, you show no thought And you are still thus your whole life long As one see in this piece The wives and devils make bad cloth How she teases the poor young man. These, however, will always be your master.(44)
Although the inscription beneath the print gives little insight into the connection between the scene of marital discord and the battle scene, the meaning can be further 151 understood through an examination of both historical events and contemporary prints.
On a surface level the scene is one of marital discord in which the wife forces her husband to spin thread. The hackle (.hekel ) on the wall underscores the husband's misery. The hackle in this scene is probably more than a common household implement; it refers to the shrewishness of the wife. It relates to a verse found in Roemer Visscher's
Bzabbelingh (first published in 1612):
The best Griet, says Mieuwes, to be found. Was the one who bound the Devil on the cushion. When her goodness was with this revealed. The evil woman would have bound him on a hackle.(45)
In the notes to this verse, Nicolaas van der Laan explains that the first two lines of the verse were a well- known proverb. The evil woman in Visscher's verse refers to
"qua Griet "— the infamous "Bad Griet" who was so malicious that even the devil did not frighten her. Binding the devil on a cushion was too kind for the evil Griet, so instead she used the more threatening hackle. Van der Laan further explains that earlier than this proverb regarding the evil
Griet who bound the devil on a cushion there was a proverb regarding the shrewish Griet who bound her husband on a hackle.(46) Thus, the hackle in this print emphasizes the misery of this poor man whose shrewish wife forces him to undertake female chores.
That the woman's actions are evil is underscored by the presence of the two devils. One instigates the woman's 152 mocking gesture while the other makes the man's misery worse by unraveling the threads he spins. Another creature of evil who helps the smaller devil in his mischief is a spider. While this spider unravels threads, another spider spins a web in the window. The spider was frequently used as a metaphor for an evil person as is indicated by the expression "angry (or evil) as a spider." In particular,
the spider was associated with evil, malicious, back-biting
or evil-plotting women. Furthermore, the spider's web was
compared to a tissue of tricks and deceit in which one
sought to catch someone.(47) One final point to note about
the spiders is the bishop's miter worn by the spider on the
floor.(48) In order to fully understand the meaning of
these various elements, it is first necessary to provide an account of the historical events surrounding the production
of this print.
The date of the print, 1617, was a year of great
turmoil in the United Provinces due to religious
differences. Bitter arguments between the liberal
Remonstrants and the ultra-orthodox Counter-Remonstrants had
reached a peak, with the latter group accusing their rivals
of being papists and pro-Spain. Oldenbarnevelt, one of the
primary leaders of the States General, was to become a
central figure in this religious argument as he attempted to
peacefully negotiate between the two parties. Although he
tried to settle the matter with regard to both arguments. 153
the Counter-Remonstrants saw him as an enemy and virulently began to attack him from the pulpit and with bitter
pamphlets. He was accused of receiving bribes from the
Spanish, of being in close correspondence with the Jesuits and Rome, and of conspiring with Spinola (the Spanish
general) to help deliver a defeat to the Dutch.
With this historical background, many of the elements
in the print from 1617 gain a new dimension. The spider
(spin ) must be a reference to Catholicism (evidenced by the
bishop's mitre) but it may also be a pun referring to
Spinola.(49) In addition, Stone-Ferrier has pointed out
that the act of spinning may be a reference to the Spanish
general.(50) The tyrannical wife causes quarreling and
discord through her shrewish behavior, just as divisiveness
was brought on by Oldenbarnevelt and the Remonstrants.
Furthermore, this divisiveness brings about the destruction
pictured in the background and the tyranny pictured in the
foreground, as the Remonstrants and Oldenbarnevelt were
accused of being in league with Spain and the Catholic
church. The print (probably produced by Counter-
Remonstrants) refers metaphorically to the divided, upside
down state of the United Provinces themselves. Many other
prints depicting the discord brought about by the deceit of
Oldenbarnevelt and the Remonstrants in league with Spain and
the Catholic church support the suggested interpretation of
these images. 154
Another instance of political meaning in an image of wifely dominance can be seen in a print by Solomon Saverij after Quast (Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 83). The print closely follows the composition viewed earlier (Fig-
73). The female power referred to in this print is both physical (the Forcing of the Chores) and perhaps sexual (as was discussed earlier),(51) but both types of power are
indicated as being evil and of the devil. The woman is
labeled "Bedroch " (deceit) which is underscored by the mask
from under which Medusa-like snakes protrude. Again, in a world where women wield the power, all goes wrong, as the man's efforts are thwarted by the devil. The title, "See
the end of the tangled threads," both suggests that all has gone awry and informs us of the instigator of this evil, the devil. A small cloud is blown out of the devil's mouth, and he is labeled "evil prompting." That the husband has been
forced to do his winding is indicated by the inscription above his head "the one who must work under tyranny."(52)
These three figures are set against a seascape with many ships. The political meaning of this setting and its relationship to the foreground figures can be made clear by examining the other prints in the series.
One print in particular reveals that this series refers to the war between England and the Netherlands. It pictures a ship being plundered; further, two names, C.
Appelton and Ian van Galen are inscribed on the print. Jan 155 van Galen was sent by the Republic to the Mediterranean and
C. Appleton was admiral of the British fleet off Leghorn.
In 1652, war broke out between the English and the Dutch over economic interests, most importantly over fishing rights in the North Sea. On the thirteenth of March, during a battle in the Mediterranean, Van Galen destroyed the
British squadron at the cost of his own life.
In a later edition of Saverij's print after Quast, the inscriptions make the connection with the war a certainty.
The inscription above the characters is changed to, "See the tangled threads from the Bloody English Parliament." The inscription above the man later reads, "Cromwell is the one who worked this out."(53) It thus appears that the artist is suggesting that Cromwell has attempted to deceive the
Dutch and bring them under English domination. The deceit of Cromwell was a favorite topic of Dutch political prints during this period. Thus, the masked woman in Saverij's print appears to be a comment on England's deceit of the
Dutch.
These political prints indicate the extent to which the theme of the shrewish and overbearing housewife had become part of the general culture in the Netherlands. It became a metaphor for the unrighteous usurpation of authority as well as a symbol for a disastrous situation in which things were not as they should be. The repetition of the Forcing of the
Chores theme and its use in political contexts reveals the 156 overwhelmingly negative association of the domineering housewife. In particular, representations of husbands spinning or winding became symbols of wifely , and hence of
improper political dominance.
The Spinning Room
Due to the popular use of this metaphor of wifely power, the spinning room, where women commonly joined together to perform their spinning tasks, became the setting
for many scenes of female domination. In spinning room
images the elements of all themes relating to shrewish and overbearing housewives are combined in an uproarious display of female power. One of the earliest of these comical
images is a painting on linen which has been attributed to a contemporary of Cornells Massys (Present location unknown)
(Fig. 84). (54) Although the work is in very poor condition and the inscriptions obscured, several familiar symbols of wifely power can be deciphered. One wife in the left
foreground threatens her kneeling husband with an upraised
fist while he pulls his trousers on her. Two other women stand authoritatively over him: one holds a distaff and the other a winder (their female weapons). To the right is the
other familiar metaphor of female power, the hennetaster who
feels the hen and looks up at his scolding wife. She places her hand on his head, again a reversal of the familiar
"Manshand boven". A fool stands in the center of the image; 157 he mocks and points out the foolishness of the kneeling man who is forced to yield his trousers.
Walter Gibson has suggested that a print bearing the name Boscher may have been based on this linen (Rotterdam,
Atlas van Stolk) (Fig. 85).(55) The kneeling man who is forced to dress the seated woman in his trousers at the right of the print are compositionally similar to the reversed couple of the linen. Strewn across the foreground are the familiar symbols of wifely authority and shrewishness: spindles, winders, distaff and tong. The pun on the word tong, which had the double meaning of a shrewish woman has already been mentioned and their symbolic meaning
is reiterated here in their usage as a weapon by the woman
in the left background. The forcing of the chores takes place at the left background of the scene with the man using a winder and spindle. The broom lying in the left
foreground is most likely another reference to this theme as
it lies in close proximity to the submissive man kneeling and kissing the woman's thumb. Sweeping, as we have seen, was one of the tasks relegated to henpecked husbands.
Flying above this topsy turvy scene is a banner bearing the words "D'overhant" (the upper hand), stressing that it is
now the women who have the upper hand. The words stand in direct contradiction to the correct order of nature,
"Manshand boven ." The other inscriptions give further
commentary on the sad state of the household in which a 158
woman rules:
A woman either loves or hates; she is said to have no third alternative. Unless it is a crazed lust for domination which causes her in her pride to force her husband to knuckle under. Vhile she, wearing the pants, holds up the battle standard, the HAND.
Where the woman has the upper hand, and wears the trousers. There it is that Jan the Man lives according to the dictates of the skirt.
Where the woman governs, carrying the banner And the trousers too, everyone follows behind.(56)
In the seventeenth century, a similar mockery of female
power in the spinning room is painted by Pieter de Bloot
(Present location unknown) (Fig. 86). Many of the motifs in
this painting seem to stem directly from Boscher's print.
One woman triumphantly waves the "Over Hant" banner, leading
a pack of angry women. At the right, another fierce mob of
women chase a fearful man with a stick. Central to the
scene is a man on bended knee who respectfully gives the
woman standing over him the "kiss of the thumb". In deference to this powerful figure, the man has removed his
hat and nearby lies the broom, an indication of the
husband's submission to wifely chores. These features are
quite similar to the print published by Boscher, as is the
man who sits hunched over the winder, while fearfully
ducking the blows of his conqueror's stick. Three women at
the left join forces to remove the pants of and paddle a man
bent down on his hands and knees. The tongs which the women 159 use for punishing are again a reference to their shrewish natures. Again, the fear of powerful women who tyrannically rule their husbands is vividly conveyed.
Jan de Yasser
By the end of the seventeenth century, representations of female dominance had become so popular that a whole folktale developed around the theme. The tale of Klaas and
Griet (later to become Jan and Griet) was put into comic strip form and was widely reproduced in several different formats. The series became know as Jan de Wasser (Jan the
Washer) and appeared in several versions, only a few of which will be discussed here. Maurits de Meyer suggests that the story of Jan de Wasser did not have a precise literary source; instead, he asserts that several sources influenced the development of the story. Farces such as
Cornells de Bie's Jan Goethals en Griet syn wyf (Jan
Goethals and Griet his wife) (1670) and the anonymous
Broekdragende Vrouwe (previously discussed)(57) had an impact on the story. He also mentions as a source the
Trost bei ehellchem ünfrieden und Kriegsplagen (previously discussed)(58) print because the names of the spouses are the same and the chores outlined are similar.(59) The supposition that there were a variety of influences seems likely because, as we have seen, the bad Griet who bullied her husband was a well-known topos by the end of the seventeenth century. 160
The earliest of these is a children's print from the late seventeenth century and is entitled ”Kind*re hier gy vooz uv siet / 't Leven van ons Klaas an Griet " ("Children here you see before you / the life of our Klaas and Griet"
(Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 87). In the first scene, Klaas and Griet are embracing each other at the table, while a young boy plays a violin behind them. The inscription reads:
Klaas loves his Griet He feels her bare breasts See there behind them, it's Little Piet, the violin player He plays a great love song(60)
In the next scene, we see the couple holding hands as they are married:
Griet cannot hold back her love She has said yes to Klaas Here we see them getting married They are delighted over it.
The troubles between the happy couple begin in the third scene where Griefs shrewish nature is already in evidence as she glares angrily at Klaas who enters the house:
Klaas comes home late for supper Griet gets up from her chair Where she had been sitting And now causes great turmoil.
Violence erupts in the next scene as Klaas attempts to tame the bad Griet:
Klaas says Griet will presently be quiet He takes the shovel and tongs in his hand Or will get a beating from me Man's hand above or it is a shame.
In the following scene, Klaas begins to become a 161 pantoffelheld when his wife pushes him to the floor and beats him with the symbolic tongs:
Griet, very angry and stubborn. Has taken the tongs from him She strikes him extremely hard And says "Klaas, you will now dread".
Following his beating, Klaas next encounters the other metaphorical stripping of his power— the loss of his trousers :
Klaas must take off his trousers Griet stands there with them in her hand And desires to make him a fool Now he tears his hair out.
Completely tamed by his wife in the next scene, Klaas is shown carrying out all the female chores:
Klaas must spin and rock. Because Griet has overpowered him She threatens him with a stick How silly this fellow looks.
A foretelling of what lies ahead for Klaas to the end of his days is seen in the final image:
Griet comes looking for Klaas again Presently, she grabs him by the hair Because he was baking pancakes And they were not well risen.
In this print, all the familiar signs of female domination are present: scolding, beating with the tongs, the Battle for the Trousers, and the Forcing of the Chores.
A gradual transformation takes place regarding Griet who changes from a loving sweetheart to an irascible virago.
Her face becomes more shrewish with each scene, indicating that there is little hope for the poor Klaas to ever free 162 himself from his burden. The sad situation of Klaas, who has been stripped of all of his manly attributes, carries very little of the humor witnessed in other versions of the shrewish wife theme. Absent are the comic peasant types and exaggerated caricatures. Indeed, the work adopts a more serious, moralizing tone, certainly intended to stress the misery caused by termagant wives.
The story is lengthened in another print from the late seventeenth century (Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig.
88). The poor husband has now been dubbed Jan de Wasser, a name which will follow the character into the eighteenth century. The print is entitled, "Hier heb je 't leven en beâryf. Van Jan de Wasser en zijn Wyf " ("Here you have the life and deeds of Jan the Washer and his wife"). In this print there is a much more detailed account of the chores which Jan is forced to do, emphasizing the onerous nature of these tasks. In the first and second scenes Jan and Griet are already shewn being married and celebrating the occassion:
Jan the Washer will marry But I fear he will regret it. When the wedding is over. They will go here to the wedding feast.(61)
Griet wastes no time, for in the next scene she is already changing her skirt for her husband's trousers:
Jan and Griet both boldly Exchange trousers for apron.
From that scene on, Jan becomes a slave to his wife: 163
Griet teaches Jan how to cook. And also how he must stoke the fire. Meanwhile, the food is getting cold, Jan here makes another fire. Jan comes out with the food, Griet sits and Jan must stand. And see our Jan, how well it suits him. How well he washes the containers. He must also scoop up the ashes. After he has cooked the food. Jan washes the windows with the spout. So hard that the glass falls out. Jan the Washer must also scrub. He has the water in a tub. He has to mop the floor clean. Or he will receive a beating for his pay. When he was done with scrubbing. He had to stand at the wash tub.
In the next scene, Jan and Griet are accompanied in a boat by a nurse and child. Jan carries a lantern in his hand and on the bank there is a well. They are making a trip to
Volewijk to get a baby from the "kinderput" (chiId- well). (62) Then, they bring the baby home and Jan's miseries are doubled as he now has to care for home and child;
Jan and Griet together. Make a boat trip to Volewyk. Jan lies here in the labor bed. Which is pleasant for his wife. Here, Jan nurses the child. Which he loves more than Griet. Jan gives the child some pap. Which it eagerly eats up. Jan receives a beating Because the child had cried. Now Jan watches out better. And he also plays with the doll. Here Jan teaches his child to walk. He will buy the cakes and figs. Jan who goes here with respectability. Takes his child for a ride in the park. Jan does not sit on his rear. And he has his child defecate. 164
The child grows big and naughty, Jan beats it on its bottom. Because Jan did this, Griet wants to whip him. Griet and Jan argue about What the child will be trained in.
This print ends as did the previous example, foreboding an unhappy life for Jan as Griet continues her shrewish dominance and Jan his female chores.
Although all the examples of the next type of Jan de
Wasser print were published in the eighteenth century, they were made with seventeenth-century blocks (Amsterdam,
Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 89). As the title implies,
’•Hier heeft de Jeugd tot haar gerijf // Jan de Wassezs leven en bedrijf” ("Here the youth may view the life and career of
Jan the Washer), the print simply deals with the events of
Jan’s daily life. The wife is not even mentioned in the title, thus completely eliminating the importance of her earlier shrewish role. Even though Jan still does all the womanly tasks, he is no longer under his wife's thumb.
Instead, he is the master and reinforces this by periodically beating his wife. In the end, they even lie happily together in bed. Maurits de Meyer states that due to the scarcity of examples of this type, it appears that it was not very successful.(63) This may be due to the great change in the print’s intent. It is no longer the comical world turned upside down.
In the earlier versions of the print, however, all the various themes of termagant female power come together. The 165 bad Griet wants to rule her husband so she scolds him and beats him with the symbolic tongs and paatoffel. She takes
his trousers and leaves him with the skirt in order to show
who holds the power. Then, she makes him stand while she
sits to eat. Finally she forces him to do all her female
chores; cooking, cleaning, spinning, and (the most
humiliating of all) caring for the baby and changing its
diapers. The poor husband is doomed to a life of misery
which can only be cured by the grave.
In light of the serious tone of these works, they
appear to more earnestly disparage a world in which women
rule and husbands meekly obey. The absence of caricature
and humor suggests that these works have a different intent
from the comic farces and the prints that relate to them.
Like the more seriously moralizing collections of proverbs,
Vezkeerde Wezeld prints, and particularly text
illustrations, these images portray figures from the middle
class vdiich makes the moral more relevant and less humorous
to the audience for whom the work was intended. They appear
to indicate, in a more pressing fashion, the existence of a
perceived need to inculcate in children a social attitude
which deplores such a reversal of patriarchal authority. As
has been previously discussed, a reversal in which women
interjected themselves into the male domain often did take
place in seventeenth-century Dutch society, a situation
which must have caused a certain amount of anxiety. The 166 many versions of the Jan de Wasser print strongly argue for such an interpretation of the intent of these works.
In the images of wifely power discussed thus far, the primary intent has been to ridicule or censure the upside down situation in which husbands and wives reverse their traditional roles. Evidence of this intent can be found, most importantly, in the repeated use of long-existing topoi such as the Battle for the Trousers or the Forcing of the
Chores- Such themes became well-known comic situations which appear to have amused audiences from early times
throughout the seventeenth century. Indeed, one can still
find instances of such mocking today. Satirizing and moralizing, however, are not mutually exclusive activities.
A censuring of such behavior is also present in many of
the more humorous images.
The person most indicted in this upside-down situation
is, of course, the housewife. The sharpness of her shrewish
features and the crudeness of her behavior indicate her motivation as a lust for power which can only be stemmed by
a man who will teach her her proper place. While the
husband too is mocked or chided for his foolish
submissiveness, it is the overbearing nature of women which
is most criticized. While the criticism of women in these
instances of shrewish harpies seems somewhat justified (even
if exaggerated), such a condemnation of women seems
unwarranted in the next group of images. NOTES
1. Pleij, "Boze Wijf”, p. 39 and Gastelaars, p. 17.
2. Dresen-Coenders, "Heks”, pp. 65-67.
3. Woordenboekf 6: 579-580.
4. Herman Pleij discusses both the story and its moral in "Taakverdeling in het huwelijk", Literatuur 3 (1986): 66-67.
5. Cats, Dichtezlykf 1:288: De man moet op de straet om sijnen handel gaen; Het wijf moet in het huys de keucken gade slaen. Men vint een seldsaem lant, daer slechts alleen de wijven Cock met het buyte volck den gantschen handel drijven; De man die broeyt in huys, en moeyt hem met het kint. De man let of de meyt eenprigh garen spint Daer zijn oock vlecken selfs in onse kust gelegen, Daer vrouwen handel doen en groote saecken plegen; Jae reysen over al, terwijle dat de roan Sit ledigh, sit en troest ontrent een voile kan.
6. Ten is gheen wonder, al gaet de weerelt verdraeyt En dat de hinne bouen den haen nu craeyt; Want siet niemant en es te vreden in tsijne. Den man mans wercken schier gheheel versmaeyt Ende int werck sijns wijfs verfraeyt, Eer coockolueris, een hinnentaster wort hi ten fyne. Dus en 1st niet vremt, datmen nu ten termyne Quaey wijfs veel vint niet om vercloecken. Want de mans sijn oersaeck, datterveel dragen de broecken. Ghe hinnentasters, laet de wijffs haer werck bedrijuen, Ghi gortentelders, ghi sijt de saecke van tkijuen Vvs wijfs, diet al wilt stellen na v hant. Laetet dwijff thuys regeren, wint ghi slechts de schiuen, Daer men mede mach huys houwende blijuen. Hebt V als een man ghebruyct reden verstant,
167 168
Regeert v als meester ws huys, de reden want, Soo sal sij V ontsien ende huer niet teghen v stellen. Oft anders soo sal sij v inden torfhoeck vellen, Wat batet, dat ghi haer in huer werck wilt berichten! Tprofijt, datter af comps, is kyuen en vichten, Verstoort van sinnen, nemmermeer goet woort. Maer wildy wysselijck dit al beslichten, Laetet dwijf gheworden, als sij niet en stichten, Dat onbehoorlijck is, hout met malcanderen accoort. De vrouwe is een cranck vaetken, licht ghestoort. Dus doet V werck en leeft by rade. Op dat V int leste niet en vergae tot guade!
Al omme see zijn si wel om verfoeyen De hinnentasters die huer dwijfs werck moyen.
7. E.K.J. Reznicek, "Jan Harmensz. Muller als Tekenaar”, Nederlands Kunsthistozisch Jaazboek 7 (1956): 92-93.
8. Translation by Anne Lowenthal in Joachim Wtewael and Dutch Mannerism (Doornspijk, Davaco Publishers, 1986) p. 139.
9. Der Hennentaster Du bist ein wunderlicher gast Das du das tasten hast so fast.
10. Walter L. Strauss, The Illustrated Bartsch, vols. 1- (New York: Arabis, 1978), 138:340-342.
11. Ibid., p. 340.
12. See pp. 109-110.
13. Gastelaars, p. 18
14. Ibid.
15. It is difficult to make out the sex of the bird in the background but it is identified as a cock in the Suermondt-Huseum catalogue, 1932, Fig. no. 148e.
16. Linda Stone-Ferrier, Images of Textiles (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1985), pp. 100 and 104 and notes 40-43.
17. See p. 95. De Broekdragende Vrouw, p. A5: "Zit daar, en spin tot t'avond toe;". 169
18. Femme qui tanse sans raison Ne fait quenuij a la maison
19. Een leeckende dack / ende een roockende schouwe, Ja daer de simme aenden heijrt sit en siet, Een craijende hinne / een kijfachtige vrouwe. Is ongheluck in huijs / ja quellinghe en verdriet.
20. Hui monstrum! vacuo similis mala foemina aheno Tinniet: stentorea verbera voce tonans. His causam vicina dédit: sic disce malum tu Vicinum propter semper adesse aliquid.
21. An earlier version of this print is signed by Quast and dated 1638.
22. De Jongh, "Erotica in vogelperspectief: De dubbelzinningheid van een reeks 17de eeuwse genrevoorstellingen", Simiolus 3 no. 1 (1968-9): 45-47.
23. Stone-Ferrier, Textiles, pp. 95-100.
24. Poirters, p. 339.
25. Ibid., p. 340: Siet eens wat spel een duyvel maeckt, Als hy ontrent het gaeren raeckt. Lijs spint hier aen den heelen dagh. En Lemmen haspelt wat hy magh. En even-wel niet sonder haet, Om dat den duyvel vat den draet. Al spon ons Lijs noch eens soo ras, Al had sy noch soo fijnen vlas, Al waer haer draetje noch soo sterck, Het is doch al bedorven werck. En dit staet lemmen gheensins aen, Daer sal het op een kijven gaen:.
26. Gastelaars, p. 20.
27. Stoett, 2:345-346.
28. See pp. 97-98.
29. Adriaen van de Venne, Tafereel van de Belachende WereIt (The Hague: by author, 1635), p. 108: 'tOnder-hooft hiel d'overschanden.
30. Ibid., pp. 108-109. Wijfs-ghebiedt is Mans-verdriet
Sy is om Hy, Hy niet om Sy. 170
Man seyt: Vrouwen met ghekrult hayr hebben wormen in ’thooft.
De man is eerst vande / Aerde geschapen, Daerom hy deftigh / gestadigh / en gront-houdend is.
De Vrou is van been gemaekt uyt de Man, Waerom Sy lichter blijft genegan 't kakebeen meer te rammelen.
31. A.C.J. de Vrankrijker, Mensen, leven en werken in de Gouden Beuw {The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1981), p. 49; also Ivan Gaskell, "Tobacco, Social Deviance and Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century", in Hollandische Genremalerei, p. 127.
32. Dat's bruyen! Wobbe rookt een pyp: en onze gek Geurt vult ter wyl zyn neus met versche kindredrek
L'odorat dit pour sentir bien Qu'il faut faire comme ce chien
33. For a discussion of the character Sint Reynuyt and the associations with folly, see Konrad Renger, Lockere Gesellschaft (Berlin, Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1970), pp. ISff.
34. Al wat dat Jan met spinnen wint Sijn vrouw in dert'le dranck verslint En spint hy niet soo krijght hy slagen Wie can dees heerschappy verdragen Van dit vermaert en trots geslacht Dat baes wil zijn by dagh en nacht?
35. Gastelaars, p. 50.
36. Stone-Ferrier, Prints pp. 62-64.
37. Siet ons werck met soetheit spillen In schijn van zulcke wondere grillen Doch houden echter met de sin Ons kindtje soet, en niet te min Soo houden wij ons slechte kluys Voor 't prachte van een prachtich huys.
38. Stone-Ferrier, Prints, p. 64.
39. 'Cats, Wercken, 1:631: Als de man wel wint, 't Wijf dan wel spint. 171
40. I have not been able to locate a copy of the print which J. Bolte describes in "Bilderbogen. des 16. Jahrhunderts", Tijdschzift vooz Nedezlandse Taal- en Lettezkunde, vol. 14, 1895, pp. 151-52.
41. Moet ick het al doen, wat myn Wyf my leyt te voor. Want als ick haer verstoor, sy is niet te versoeten. Soo dan schommelen en raghen, wat my mach ontmoeten, T'huys te boenen, te vroeten, potten en schoettelen schueren, Het hout-werck vryven en op den hoeghel my te rueren, T'kint wieghen en die lueren spoelen, die vaten wassen. Die vlour vaghen, t'bed' maecken en, watter is te plassen. Den heert van d ’assen te suyveren en vier te stoocken. Water, turf, hout te halen en het eeten te coocken. Ten cortsten ghesproocken, te doen al myn s ’Wyfs versoeck. Want die Hen is hier Voocht, al heb ick noch die broeck, Soo ist doch den turf hoeck, daer ick commandeer generael. T' waer noch een cleyns, mocht my, als ick dit doe altemael Ghebeuren een vreedtsaem tael en dat zy haer grauwen liet. Haer neen, noch gaet zy my qualick toe, dat my t ’meestt verdriet; Doch Ick bints alleen niet; wat wil icker veel om trueren!
Coment met gheweIt sacken, dorsschen en maeyen. Die Huysen en scharpraeyen beroven, schenden en breken. Den Bourman verjaghen, die Hoeven in brant steken; Maer Ick bints alleen niet; daer mede moet ick my saten,.
42. Gastelaars, pp. 62-63.
43. Atlas van Stolk, vol. 1- (Rotterdam, 1895), 2:80 and Frederik Muller, Bezedeneezde Beschzijving van Nedezlandse Histozieplaten Zinnepzenten en Histozische Kaazten, vol. 1- (Amsterdam, 1970), 4:145.
44. Twist Nu spinnt voorts ghy tryselaer slecht. My dunckt u spil sal u ontvallen, Daerumb wilt u hooft my houden recht Offte wy sullen wat anders kallen. Ende haste u al sonder verdrach, Dat ick wat krige dat ick haspel mach. 172
Want eer ghy dien suit hebben af gesponnen En ander wort gerockt, mehr als ghy suit vollende connen. Gude Meinung Och, och, van sulcken reden drauwe ick mijn hooft Dat desen rocken so lang duert, wie sout hebben gelooft, Ick hebben alreden mehr als ick spinnen kan, Moet ick noch mehr spinnen so bin icker quaelick an. Want man geeft my niei dan quaet werck to spinnen, Mijn garen wort verwart, ick krijck arme sinnen. Darrumb ist to vergeefs gesponnen van wat vlas dat is Daer den duuel die Rocker und Verwarder...is. Zwitracht und Wilfertigkeit Discord Veux Tu file Vilain lasche de coeur Si ne le fais Ce sera ton mas feur Et te despesche Geste fusee Que je de uide sy serray a Paissee. Bone int. Tant plus je file plus tu crie et tempeste Je lay trop fait dont je gratte ma teste; Mais cest trop tard Oree de me gratter Le diable ij est je me faut bien filer. Was hilffts das man zu jder zeit Seim feindt zu dienen ist bereit, Wan ers jm doch weiss keinen danck Und jn noch fatzt sein lebenlangk Gleich wie man sicht in diesem stuck Des weibs und Tewfels bose tuck Wie sie vexiern dan armen blut, Ders doch stetz meint jm hertzen gut
45. Nicolaas van der Laan, Uit Roemsr Visscher ’s Brabbelingh (Utrecht: A. Oosthoek, 1978), p. 50: De beste Griet sey Mieuwes diemen vant. Was die de Duyvel op het cussen bant. Dan haer rechte goetheyt wert hier bevonden. De quade had hem op een heeckel ghebonden.
46. Ibid., p. 156.
47. The meanings of spiders and spiderwebs are discussed in Stoett, 2:296-297; also Woordenboek, 14:2824, 2842.
48. Atlas van Stolk, 2:80.
49. Ibid.
50. Stone-Ferrier, Textiles, pp. 104-09; also Atlas van Stolk, 2:95. 173
51. See pp. 138-139,
52. Siet t'verwarde Gaerens ent
Quaet Ingeven
Geweldt d ’uijt wercker
53. Siet verwarde Gaerens ent vant Bloedich Engels Parlement
Cromwel d'uijt wercker
54. B.L. Dunbar, "The Landscape Art of Cornelis Massys" (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Iowa, 1972), p. 277.
55. Gibson, "Cock”, pp. 678-679.
56. This translation was provided by Gibson, "Cock", p. 677: Aut amat, aut odit Mulier, nil tertium habere Dicitur: insanum ni foret Imperium. Unde superba suum cogit sufflare maritum: Tt bracata, tenet bellica signa, MANUM. This first line was a well-known adage based on Publilius Syrus. Proverb #6.
Waer de Vrouw d ’overhandt heeft, en draecht de brouck Daer ist dat Jan de man leeft naer aduys van den douck
Ou la femme gouuerne, portant la banniere Et des brayes avecq: le tout y va derrière.
57. See pp. 95, 134-135.
58. See pp. 147-148.
59. De Meyer, p. 498.
60. Klaas heeft liefde tot zijn Grietje Voelt haer by haer Borsjes bloot Siet daar achter Speelman Pietje Speelt een Hinne-lietje groot.
Grist kon haar liefde mee niet houwen Heeft Klaas het Ja-woort toegeseyt Hier siet mense t'samen trouwen Waar over dat zy zijn verbleyt. 174
Klaas komt laat t’huys om te eeten Griet die rijst op van haar steel Daar sy eerst op had geseeten En maakt straks een groot gewoel.
Klaas seyt Griet wilt aanstonts zwijgen Neemt de Schop en Tang in d ’hant Of suit van mijn krijgen vijgen Mans hand boven of 'tis schant.
Griet seer boos en opstinaat] Heeft van hem de Tang genomen Sy hem daar mee byster slaat En seyt Klaas nu meugt gy schromen.
Klaas moest noch zijn Broek uyt-trekken Griet staat daar mee in haar hant En beghert met hem te gekken Hy klout nu zijn hoofte schant.
Klaas moet sitten spinnen / wiegen Want Griet heeft hem overmant Met een hout gaat zy hem driegen Hoe onnosel sit die quant.
Griet komt Klaas alweer besoekan Grijpt hem aanstonds in het haar Om dat hy ging bakken koeken Die niet wel gereesen waar.
61. Jan de Wasser die zal Trouwen Maar ik vrees het zal hem rouwen.
Als het Trouwen is gedaan, Zal men hier te Bruloft gaan.
Jan en Grietje, beide kloek.
Griet leert Jan de Pot hier kooken. En ook hoe hy ’t Vuur moet stooken Terwyl het eeten dan word koud, Jan hier weer een Vuurtje bouwt Jan komt met het eeten aan, Grietje zit en Jan moet staan. En zie ons Jan of ’t hem niet past, Hoe aardig hy de Vaten wast Asch opscheppen moet hy ook, Als hy het eeten heeft gekookt Jan wast Glazen met de Spuit, Dat de Glazen vliegen uit. 175
Jan de Wasser moet ook schrobben, Hy heeft het Water in een Tobben. De Vloer opsellen moet hy schoon. Of slagen krygt hy ist zyn loon. Toen hy had gedaan met schrobben, Moest hy staan aan de Wastobben. Jan en Griet, die twee gelyk. Die vaaren naar de Volewyk.
Jan die leit hier in de Kraam, ’t Geen zyn Vrouw is aangenaam. Jan die bakert hier het Kind, Dat hy meer als zyn Grietje mint. Jan die geeft het Kind wat Pap, Daar het Bloedje graag na hapt. Jan die krygt hier voor zyn Gat, Om dat het Kind gehuild had. Jan die past nu beter op. En hy speelt ook met de Pop. Jan die leert zyn Kind hier loopen, Hy zal het Koek en Vygen koopen. Jan die gaat hier met fatsoen, Zyn Kindje kruijen in het Groen. Jan die zit niet op zyn bakken. En hy laat zyn Kindje kakken. Het Kindje dat wordt groot en stout, Jan het voor zyn Naarsje klout. Om dat Jan zulks heeft gedaan, Wil Griet heem met de Zweep slaan. Griet en Jan die disputeeren, Wat men 't Kind zal laaten leeren.
62. De Meyer, p. 499.
63. De Meyer, p. 495. CHAPTER V
JUSTIFIED BEATING OP HUSBANDS ?
There is another body of images which deals with wives who beat and scold their husbands. In contrast to the depictions discussed previously, these women do not behave this way because of their shrewish natures. Instead, they are provoked to anger by the various vices of their husbands. Drinking and smoking were two of the male habits that could bring on a wife's rage. Once the man's reason was lulled through indulging in these two vices, he was often seduced into one more sin— consorting with courtesans.
While men are certainly warned against sinful behavior in images dealing with this theme, the warning primarily focuses on the possibility that it will give their wives the chance to gain the upper hand in the marriage. Wives are also severely criticized in these images because they have taken advantage of their husbands' weaknesses to become masters over them; this is the primary subject and moral of the images.
Images related to this theme have much in common with other scenes of female power. They, too, depict stereotypical rather than descriptive situations that relate
176 177 to specific topoi. Another point of comparison with the other portrayals of female power is the insertion in both of such objects as the pantoffel, birch bundle and distaff which relate the images to proverbs and popular expressions.
Finally, the presence of mocking figures and ridiculing inscriptions again underscores the moralizing intent of these works. gmpXi-sq
A number of these elements are present in a painting that has been attributed to a follower of Jan Steen (The
Hague, Private collection) (Fig. 90).(1) In this image, there is once again an encounter with the familiar beating of the pantoffel, indicating wifely domination of a henpecked husband. The husband, who has been forced to the floor by his scolding wife, leans on an overturned stool while his wife stands over him with the upraised pantoffel.
Here, the amused and mocking on-looker is a small boy, who watches through an open window and holds a bundle of birches. The birches, as noted previously, underscore the henpecked situation of this husband and his embodiment of the popular expression "onder de plak van zijne vrouw zitten" ("to be under the stick or rod of his wife"). The humor of the boy holding the birches increases the humiliation of the overpowered husband. The child, on whom the rod is customarily used, now holds it up mockingly while looking down on the completely powerless man. 178
The insertion of another element in the scene provides the probable provocation for this beating. On the floor in the right foreground lies the husband’s hat with a clay pipe stuck in it. Beside the hat lies a paper containing tobacco. It appears that just previous to the beating, the husband had been busy preparing his pipe for smoking.
Smoking was considered very foolish behavior by Dutch moralists of the seventeenth century. In Visscher's
Sinnepoppen, for example, the immoderate behavior of the smoker is criticized. Over the image of a smoker is the expression, -veeltijdts wat nieaws, selden wat goets "
("Often something new, seldom something good") (Fig. 91).(2)
Many housewives would not tolerate the foul practice of smoking in their houses. Some wives even put a statement in their marriage contracts forbidding their husbands to smoke.(3) Even when smoking became a more acceptable activity in the latter part of the century, it was still considered ill practice to do so inside the home.(4)
Regardless of disapprobation of the smoking habit, however, the wife is still not excused in her aggressiveness toward her husband. The presence of both the pantoffel and the plak both censure the wife and ridicule the situation in which a weak husband must yield the authority to his wife.
Moreover, the mocking child points out the folly of such a role reversal. The husband is warned that engaging in such vices will allow the wife to wield power over him. Men are 179 warned that they too will end up in as foolish a situation as this mocked man if they yield to this vice. As with the majority of previously discussed beating images, the use of boorish peasant figures underscores the crudity and foolishness of such behavior.
Comic peasant types are also used in a watercolor of a beaten smoker by Cornelis Dusart. As has been seen,
Cornelis Dusart was an artist who often dealt with the theme of the overbearing, shrewish housewife. This scene pictures a man sitting at a table with a tobacco paper on it (Present location unknown) (Pig. 92). The man is in the process of lighting his pipe with a burning piece of paper and his mouth has dropped open as he looks painfully at his wife behind him. She grabs his shoulder with her right hand while beating him over the head with her pantoffel held in the other hand. The shrewish wife wears a terrifying expression on her caricatured face. Because the figures are cut off at half-length, one immediately confronts the activity of the couple and particularly the exaggerated expressions on their faces. Again, the reason for the beating is the husband's smoking, yet at the same time, the wife’s shrewish expression and her use of the pantoffel serve to criticize her termagant nature.
Drunkenness
Similar ridicule and criticism of overbearing wives occurs in images of the drunken husband, one of the most 180 frequent reasons for a man's loss of power in the home.
Drunkenness is often the cause of physical violence between spouses in Dutch literature. As in scenes of the Battle for the Trousers and the Forcing of the Chores, representations of drunkenness ridicule men whose foolishness allows evil women to dominate them. This is evident in the relevant contemporary farces where the woman is usually depicted as aggressive and lusting for power while her husband is ridiculed for his foolish, drunken state.
In the play Nieu Tafelspel van twe pezsonagien (New
Play about two people)(1623), the source of marital discord is the husband's drunkenness. He is afraid of his wife because, "At least half the money from the pig has gone to drink. My backside will catch blows because I am drunk."(5)
When his wife finds him, she threatens to kill him and gives him a sound thrashing, whereupon he is forced to do the household chores. The wife indicates that it is the husband's drunkenness that has caused him to lose the power as she accuses, "You have lost the trousers off your drunken bottom."(6) The closing lines, however, do not condemn the husband's wasteful, drunken behavior; instead, they warn other husbands against bad wives. They advise husbands to work hard in the support of their families because "a shrewish wife will usually strike a drunken man."(7) Thus, even when violent behavior is seemingly justified by the husband's bad behavior, wives are still seen as shrewish 181 when they exercise authority, or bad temper over their husbands.
In a seventeenth-century painting by Egbert van
HeemsKerk, such an opinion is humorously portrayed (Present location unknown) (Fig. 93). This time the merrymakers are situated outside a building which apparently serves as both a tavern and brothel. That it is a place for drinking is evidenced by the jug that sits atop the signpost of the tavern, v^ile the bird in the cage which protrudes from the attic story is an indication that it is also a brothel.(8)
The revelers drink and smoke while singing to the music of a fiddler. Central to the humor of the scene is a wife beating her poor drunken spouse. He lies in a bedraggled state over a wooden stool. His wife yanks up his befuddled head by grabbing a fistful of hair ^ile angrily glaring at the drunken crowd in front of the tavern. The conventional tongs, clenched in her left hand, are an indication of the beating which her husband is about to receive as well as alluding to her shrewish nature. The ugly grimace on her
face is equally expressive of her character.
Most of the farces on drunken behavior portray women in a negative light. One would think that the wife is justified in attempting to correct her husband's behavior, but instead she is portrayed as one who uses drunkenness merely as an opportunity to seize the power and beat her husband. In addition, the wife's shrewish behavior often is 182 cited as the reason for the husband's drunkenness. For example, in the farce. List tot Welstandt ofte bekeezde
Dxonckaezdt (Tricked into Behaving Well or converted
Drunkard)(1660), Volkert comes to the tavern and asks
Lubbert, "Didn't you find therein (the newspaper) that my sweetheart, Trijn Smickbuyls, that evil spider, has kicked me out of the house today?" Lubbert replies that his friend is right to complain because there is a plague in
Amsterdam in which "most wives are rulers over their husbands and know nothing other than scolding and fighting."
After their discussion of Volkert's evil wife, they all go in to drink heartily. (9)
In a satiric vein, men are often warned against marriage because it will greatly curtail their freedom to drink. Advising men and women against marriage, two verses attributed to Anna Bijns dating from the first half of the sixteenth century give reciprocating reasons for such restraint. To the women in Onghebonden best / veeldich wijff sondez man (Unbound is best / wealthy wife without husband) she warns that their husbands will be out gambling and drinking. Conversely, to the men in Onghebonden best / weeldich man sonder wijff (Unbound is best / wealthy husband without wife) she warns that they will have no freedom to go and drink in the tavern.(10)
Similar advice is given in a text from the collection
Vanden Hinnentasteze. This dialogue between a young fellow 183 and a married man is entitled Vanden Jonghen Vzijer Ende vanden ghehouden man Ben schoon speelken (Of the young suitor and of the bound man, a pretty little play). In discussing the pros and cons of marriage, the married man tries to disuade the eager young suitor from marriage by listing all the disadvantages— there is not enough to eat, there are many children and one's wife gets continually uglier. And besides all this, one can no longer go drinking with friends at the tavern.(11)
Examples of wives who scold their drunken husbands are numerous in Netherlandish farces of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In the beginning of the play Jan ende Klaer (c. 1600), Klaer praises her young husband. She stresses the advantages of being married and she is happy to let her husband be the breadwinner of the family. When, however, Jan throws away his money at the tavern and comes home drunk, she scolds him and threatens to strike him. She warns him that she will now be the ruler in the marriage.(12) Thus another wife has used her husband's drunkenness as an opportunity to attack him and exert her power.
The misery of a scolding wife who will not allow her husband to enjoy his drunken revelry is the subject of a print by Pieter van der Borcht after Marten de Vos
(Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkablnet) (Fig. 94). A drunken cobbler is shown seated before a table of food with a 184 drinking jug in his hand. He scoffs at his scolding wife before him, as do his two apprentices. One even raises his foot in readiness to kick her from behind. On the fence sits the couple’s daughter who screeches at the duck which comes cackling at her. The two ducks near the fence exhibit the same argumentative behavior as the spouses.
The intent of two of the inscriptions is rather hard to decipher, as they both relate to the courageous and carefree state obtainable when one drinks. The final inscription, however, reproves the wife for her angry nature:
Wife, why do you quarrel with me so early at this evil hour? We only care that our beer In the pot is not too sour. Therefore, be silent. We are at it from ten to four. I praise our daughter on the fence who does not care a whit.(13)
Other carefree characters are seen dancing in the background to the tune of the bagpipe. Everyone, with the exception of the wife, escapes his worries and miseries. It would seem therefore, that the intent is to discourage worry and scolding. Furthermore, from the inscriptions and the shrewish-looking nature of the wife, it is possible to infer that this husband drinks in order to drown out the scolding voice of his bad-natured wife.
From an early period, the responsibility to treat a drunken husband with respect and kindness was advocated by moralists. In the conversation between Eulalia and Xantippe from one of Erasmus’ colloquies (1524), the solution to
Xantippe's marital problems is made clear. She complains 185 that her husband constantly comes home drunk. Eulalia advises her on how she can cure her husband by speaking kindly to him. Thus, the wife never has good reason for scolding or beating her husband. Kindness and respect are always the requirements of a good wife toward her husband.(14)
In a collection of plays entitled Spelen van Sinne
(presented at the Antwerp Landjuweel of 1561) there is a short drama, a Factie, which also stresses that women should not beat their drunken husbands. Several men complain that they have "wespen" (wasps) in the head and that this headache is caused by their wives who regularly strike them when they come home drunk. The wives names all refer to their shrewish behavior: Lijs Quaetbeck (angry mouth),
Griet Suermuyl (sour mouth), and Truy Spijtighe (spiteful).
The wives abuse their husbands because the men drink and gamble away all their money at the tavern. Although their behavior seems warranted, the women's anger is rebuked when they consult a quack doctor over the problem. He tells them that the one remedy is for them to henceforth receive their drunken husbands only with sweet words. In the end, peace is restored to all the households as the wives consent and follow the doctor’s advice.(15)
In literature, the wife's anger over her husband's drunkenness usually centers on the husband’s wasting of money at the tavern rather than on the foolishness of his 186 inebriated behavior.(16) In the Esbatement van IV pezsonagien (Play of four persons)(1620) by the rederijker
Hendrick Fayd'herbe, drunkenness and gambling are both the sources of argument between a married couple.(17) The unlucky Claes comes home drunk and has also lost his coat in a card game. Due to his wastefulness, his angry wife (the bad Griet) hits him with a lantern and her bundle of keys.
Frequently in the farces, women from the neighborhood gather to help a wife who is distressed by a drunken husband. Such is the case in the 3atement van den
Katmaecker (Play of the Catmaker)(1578) in which the husband, Heyn, certainly seems to be deserving of a beating.
He comes home drunk and expects to be beaten by his wife.
Upon seeing that his wife's time for delivery is near, he refuses to send for the midwife. He wants to be able to see the child first. The neighbor women all begin to abuse him and call him names. One of the women threatens to scratch out his eyes. She warns, "I will teach you not to raise up against women."(18) Two of the women try to trick him by disguising a cat as a child and showing it to him. When
Heyn discovers their deceit, he gathers the neighboring husbands and together they all beat the women into their houses. There are forebodings of the moral and outcome of this story in the early musings of Heyn’s drinking companion, Roel: 187
These wives want to guide these husbands, Will we let women rule? A man must be a man, know that they will pay for it.(19)
In a print by Salomon Saverij after Joos Goeimaere
(1610), a humorous scene takes place in which neighbor wives help a woman to beat her drunken husband (Amsterdam,
Rijksprentenkablnet) (Pig. 95). A man whose pants have been removed is forced to his hands and knees by three women.
Two of them use their hands as weapons while the other uses the symbolic pantoffel. The shame attached to such an upside-down situation is pointed out by the small boy in the doorway. As in the painting by the follower of Steen discussed earlier, the child points out the foolishness of such ridiculous behavior as he looks knowingly at the viewer. This is further illustrated by the inscription below. On the left are the words of the drunken husband:
Help, fellow topers, help, who like to rap with the jug for drink: These cursed wives, want to beat me on the rear, their whole lives.
The words at the right belong to the wives who punish
the drunkard for his foolish behavior as well as for
upsetting the household:
That is for you drunkard who caused the household to suffer want; Cry out: you are forced to your hands and knees, rear end taste the slipper, because you are such a fool.(20)
It is important to note that it is not only the
drunkenness that is ridiculed here. The small, pointing boy 188 mocks him because his drunkenness has caused him to lose his trousers or his power over women. He is forced to kneel before them and has become the proverbial pantoffelheld.
The print is a warning to all husbands that drunkenness causes suffering and makes men vulnerable to their power- hungry wives.
Another image of the combined power of neighbor women in the beating of drunks is a painting attributed to
Molenaer but probably executed by a follower (Duisberg-
Meiderich, Private collection) (Fig. 96).(21) It is difficult to determine the setting of the painting but the lack of household implements and the large number of figures indicates that it is probably a public tavern. In the center stands a man who having already had his hat removed is now also in danger of losing his pants. His fate lies before him in the birch branches on the floor. The forlorn man has no chance of escape, as one shrew pins his arms behind his back while another takes the task in hand.
To the right kneels a man who has already had his pants removed and is receiving a vigorous beating from the woman standing over him. A young boy stands at the left with his hand to his head in dismay, while another woman blindly thrashes out with her birches. Above this scene of complete mayhem stands an anguished-looking man with his hands raised heavenward, uttering a woeful plea. This painting again reminds us of the intimate relationship between art and 189 theatre in representations o£ this theme. With the spectacle of rhetorical gesture, exaggerated expression and carefully posed antics of the characters, it is almost as if a drama is taking place right before our eyes.
In a mid seventeenth-century painting by Covert Dirksz
Can^huysen, another raid on the tavern by angry wives takes place (Sodra Lindved, Private collection) (Fig. 97). In the tavern, a woman chalks up the bill on the reckoning board in the background. It appears as though the drinking and smoking of several men has suddenly been interrupted by the arrival of two women who have come to reclaim their husbands. One man, who had presumably been sitting on the overturned stool in the foreground, is now being vigorously escorted out the door at the left. A drunken companion stands nearby looking at the viewer with a mocking expression. At the center of the scene, the punishment becomes more violent as a shrewish-looking old woman grabs her husband's collar while attempting to strike his head with her clenched fist. Her first blow seems to have already knocked his hat off, and the family quarrel has brought the child in the background to tears. Other drinkers in the tavern laugh at the couple's antics. The gestures made by the drinking companion in the right foreground are particularly demonstrative in their appeal to the viewer's attention. The man grins with a knowing look towards the viewer as he points to the right, apparently at 190 the couple exiting the tavern. He puts his other hand in his pants in a very deliberate way, perhaps pointing out to the viewer the emasculation of the man who in a drunken state no longer has power over his wife. Mow she is the boss as she forces him out of the tavern.
In a drawing by Quast (1644), men are again admonished by shrewish women for their drunkenness (St. Gilgen, Private collection) (Fig. 98). The revelry that has been taking place is indicated by the gathering of men around a table and large jug. The inclusion of the bagpipe player may perhaps be intended to suggest that this was also a brothel
(due to the sexual connotations of the bagpipe) or it could merely be an indication of their merrymaking. Whatever the case, the women have brought the joviality to an abrupt halt with their beating and scolding. Present are all of the conventional weapons used by termagant and domineering wives. Paying little attention to his scolding wife, one man leans with his cheek in his hand while his friend looks on in amusement. Even though the man's wife beats her fists together in a threatening manner, he shows little concern.
Other men in the background, however, cower before other viragos, as they try to duck their blows. One man kneels before his wife with hat in hand as a sign of submission, while another tries to fend off the blows of his wife's pantoffel. Finally, at the right, one other woman is shown chasing her husband with the traditional distaff. The 191 wives' vicious appearance comes in for particular scorn, as shown by their sharp features and exaggerated shrewishness.
This emphasis clearly indicates that the artist's primary intent is not to admonish husbands against drunkenness; it is to warn them that such behavior could lead to a usurpation of their male authority by tyrannizing viragos.
Images of beating the drunk, therefore, form another stereotypical theme ridiculing shrewish wives and their weak, foolish husbands. The husband's drunkenness has not made the wives' overbearing behavior any more acceptable; rather, their behavior is sometimes cited as the reason for the husband's drunkenness. The wife is still seen as lusting for power, and her husband's drunken state provides the opportunity for her to seize the authority. Moralizing inscriptions and a relationship with other literary admonishments indicate the ridiculing intent of these
images. In addition, the use of such accusatory wifely weapons as the pantoffel, plak and distaff further indicates the artist's intent to moralize against overbearing females.
H.u?b?t.hdg-apd-Ço\>ir-tgg.ang.
Curiously enough, as with images of drunkenness, it
is wastefulness which appears central to the wife's irate behavior when she catches her husband with a courtesan. The taverns were a place where one could squander one's money in a variety of ways. Besides wasting money on alcohol and women, money was also frequently lost through gambling. The 192 type of moral conveyed in images regarding this theme is similar to those just discussed. Vives who caught their husbands drunk or consorting with courtesans were admonished to treat them with sweetness and love, not anger and violence.
Such soft advice is given in a moralizing poem. De
Stove, by Jan van den Dale from 1528. The setting is a bath house where a poet eavesdrops on two women who are discussing marital problems. Similar to the colloquy of
Erasmus, one of the women complains about her husband while the other gives advice. The unhappy wife has continual squabbles with her husband because he is always drunk and chasing after other women— he even strikes her. The same admonition is given this woman as was found in the colloquy; her friend, who had once had the same problem but had cured her husband, enjoins the miserable woman to behave gently and sweetly towards her husband. Furthermore, she warns her never to scold her husband or strike him back. With gentleness, she will be able to succeed. Thus, wives are advised to endure their husbands's fraternization with courtesans and are further counseled to always give men their due respect.(22)
The theme of a man losing money to a courtesan through gambling occurs early in Netherlandish art. Even though the wife is absent in earlier versions of this theme, they form
the foundation for a conventional representation in which 193 wives are included. One of these early versions of the theme survives in two different paintings which Gibson dates between 1525 and 1535 (Present location unknown) (Fig.
99).(23) It depicts a peasant seated at a trictrac board who scratches his head and looks with dismay at the gaming board on which the courtesan moves pieces. Over one arm the man carries a basket which holds eggs. Another woman stands behind them while a third female stands near the reckoning board in the background holding a drinking jug. The presence of this last woman suggests that the peasant's loss of the game was due in part to his drinking. The smiling face of the courtesan leaves little doubt as to who will win the game and the eggs of the peasant (as eggs were used for money).(24) Beyond this meaning, the eggs may also have reference to the man's lust and his being ensnared by these temptresses. Eggs held connotations both of fertility and of the male testicles.(25) Additionally the sexual connotations of eggs are made clear in the popular saying,
"he lays his eggs elsewhere". This expression, which knew several forms, refers to a man's committing adultery.(26)
Therefore, considering the situation of the man with courtesans, it seems evident that he loses his eggs to the courtesan both through lust and gambling.
The idea of the peasant losing his eggs through the lust for a courtesan comes forth even more clearly in a drawing by Pieter Coecke van Aelst (c. 1630) (Rotterdam, 194
Museum Boymans-van Beuningen) (Fig. 100). Again, a dismayed peasant is seated across the gaming board from a courtesan.
She smilingly moves the pieces while one woman stands at the reckoning board pointing out the cost of his bill. Another woman lays her hand on the peasant's shoulder while holding a drinking jug. The man, again, carries a basket which now holds a chicken as well. That lust, as well as drunkenness, is the cause of the peasant's downfall is indicated by the flying putti on the fireplace. Thus, these scenes represent all of the vices to which a man falls prey at the tavern; drinking, lust and gambling.
One begins to see the relation of this theme to the housewife in a print by Remigius Hogenberg which is very similar to these two images (Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale
Albert 1er) (Pig. 101). A peasant is pictured in a tavern playing a game of trictrac with a courtesan. Over one arm, the peasant carries a basket of eggs. One of the women of the tavern offers him another drinking jug to further befuddle his mind. Evidence of his previous drinking is being tallied up on the reckoning board by another woman in the background, while still another helper steals his purse.
The mournful look on his face and the manner in which he scratches his head, again signify that he is losing the game. The two feathers on his cap resemble donkey’s ears and reinforce the notion that he is certainly not a clever fellow. Here is one easily duped by the sly courtesan with 195 whom he plays. This becomes certain in the inscription underneath. First, the woman mocks:
Look out, you clodhopper, learn to cut turnips. That I will take for myself (referring to the coins which she gathers from the board). Gambling is not haymaking; if you want to play, go to.
Then the peasant replies:
I have missed my chance, lost my money. Thus I scratch my head. I have gambled away my eggs and also my grain; if my wife knew, she would strike me dead.(27)
Thus, this theme suggests two types of female power over the poor, weak male— the violent, physical power which a wife uses on her husband, and the seductive sexual power with which a courtesan wins a man's money.
In later versions of the theme, the irate characterization of wives is much more vehemently conveyed, and the viragoes are actually included in the image. For example, in a late sixteenth-century print by Gillis van
Breen after Karel van Mander, three figures are shown in half-length before an inscribed parapet (Amsterdam,
Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 102). The setting is rather ambiguous with only a few glimpses of ruins behind the
figures.
The wife catches the husband with a prostitute and tears his hair out by the roots.(28)
Here, the money appears to have gone for sexual favors rather than for gambling, as the husband amorously embraces the richly dressed courtesan. The glass on the parapet also
indicates that he has been drinking with the woman, as the 196 two vices usually accompany one another. The roan lets out an almost audible yowl as his wife angrily grasps his hair with both her hands. Her ugly, wrinkled face and plain clothing contrast sharply with the youth, beauty and finery of the courtesan. The wife's jealousy over the courtesan's beauty and her anger at her husband are expressed in the inscription at the left, which is somewhat more sympathetic to the wife this time:
So I find you here, you foul rogue. Therefore, I will claw your head Because you waste that which I need at home with beautiful women.
While jealousy is suggested, it is still primarily anger over the wasting of money which is at the source of her anger. The courtesan grasps the ill-gotten purse firmly in her right hand while her left hand caresses his left hand— a clear indication of how the money was won. The placement of the man's hand on her breast also makes this obvious. With a greedy smile she stares intently at the bag of money, seemingly unconcerned with the battle going on between the man and his spouse. The bag of money is placed central to the entire scene, as it is the real source of conflict.
The actions in a painting by Molenaer (1658) take place in the more traditional tavern setting (Copenhagen, Statens
Museum) (Fig. 103). Here, the husband's terror and the wife's anger are even more convincingly expressed. Fleeing
into the room with an expression of sheer terror, the 197 husband lands in the lap of his courtesan. His wife is right behind him, violently swinging at him with the familiar pantoffel. The use of the pantoffel underscores that this is a henpecked husband who fears his wife. Again, the courtesan tightly clutches the purse of money which she has acquired from the man through seduction. Here, however, she too ducks the wife's blows which are being delivered with fury. She protects the money from both the lunging man and his angry wife by drawing her hand behind her. The loss of this prized money is again the reason for the wife's anger.
All of the figures in the scene are caught up in the activity. The other tavern patrons merrily watch these antics and streetgoers stop to laugh through the open doorway. Even the small dog follows the husband's example and flees for its life. The only somewhat independent figure is a small boy in the right foreground. The child in this painting again replaces the earlier fool. He looks at the viewers and points out to them the folly of this behavior as he holds up the wife's angry words:
So I find you here, you foul peasant. Therefore, I will claw your head Here you carry on with beautiful women There at home I am needy.(29)
The words are almost identical to those in the preceding
print, another indication of how much these artists relied
on convention and looked to other images of a similar subject. While the inscription is again somewhat more 198 sympathetic to the wife's anger, another element in the scene again indicates the henpecked nature of this poor husband. To the right a smiling man stands in front of a bird cage and demonstratively holds up the bound feet of a fowl toward the crowd outside the door. Such a gesture, as was seen in Fig. 63 and will be seen again in chapter six, was used as a metaphor for a woman's power over her husband.
Similar to Molenaer*s painting in subject matter and composition, is a drawing attributed to Egbert van Heemskerk
(London, Sothebys) (Fig. 104).(30) The setting is again the interior of a tavern with several merrymakers seated around a table. Through the open doorway, the half-seen viewers and even the small dog at the man's feet are comparable to those in Molenaer's painting. These figures are all amused by the wife soundly thrashing her husband with the pantoffel. The expression of pain and fear on the man's face is greatly exaggerated to enhance the humor of the scene.
Although the beating of a husband caught with a courtesan does not actually take place, it is humorously alluded to in a mid seventeenth-century print by Jan de
Visscher after Adriaen van Ostade (Amsterdam,
Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 105). In a much shabbier tavern interior (where the wall itself is used as a reckoning board) an old man makes amorous advances on a large grinning woman of obvious i11-repute. The jug and wine glass which 199 she holds, as well as the pipe and cup on the table, indicate that the pair have already been pleasurably indulging themselves. The man's darkened nose and half closed eyes are evidence that he is now completely inebriated as he reaches inside the woman's blouse. She lifts up her arm as if to fend him off, but the grin on her face belies her intent. A drinking companion stands behind the man watching the advance with amused interest. Although the mood of the print is one of jovial pleasure taking, other elements in the scene warn us that the man will have to pay dearly for his indiscretion. Hanging ominously above the nen's head is a bundle of birches— an instrument of punishment. Next to the birches is a scrap of paper which pictures the beating that will inevitably take place because of the man's merry making. A bare-bottomed man on hands and knees is shown being thrashed by a woman who stands over him. The tavern patron's bad behavior will certainly bring about the predictable outcome.
Courtesans also had a lot to fear from an enraged wife.
In art and literature, a jealous wife's revenge is frequently taken out on the courtesan as well as the husband. In a story from Simon de Vries' Seeven Duyvelen regerende en vervoezende de Hedendaagse Dienst-Maagden
(Seven Devils Ruling and Seducing the Present-Day Serving
Maids)(1S82), the consequences brought on by the Hoezy
(Whoring) devil are deadly. The story tells of a certain 200 man from Hessenland who keeps company with two prostitutes.
One day he brings the two whores to his house and locks all three of them up in his bedroom. Soon his wife comes to the bedroom to make up the bed but she cannot get in. Her husband convinces her not to break the door down because the key will certainly be found before the day is over. He advises her to go back to her work in the kitchen, which she does. Unfortunately for the husband, their young child asks the mother where the two women who were in the bedroom have gone, and the wife understands v^at is happening. She goes to the room, berates her husband for his infidelity, and murders the two prostitutes. Her husband, knowing that adultery is punishable by death, then stabs his wife and himself.(31)
The avenging wife in an attributed copy of a Brueghel
School painting also attempts to vent her wrath on a courtesan, and here the ridicule of the wife for this shrewishness is clearly inscribed on the painting
(Amalienstift, Oranienbaum) (Fig. 106)(32). Interestingly, this image incorporates several of the elements found in
Molenaer's much later painting. The scene appears to represent a sort of outdoor tavern. In the foreground, two men and one woman are seated around a barrel with jugs.
Behind this group, a ferocious virago rushes forward swinging her distaff with a weak man trying to stop her by grasping onto her shoulders. It is certain, however, that 201 he will not be able to deter this horrific woman. The target of her violence is most likely the seated woman (bar maid) in the foreground, rather than the husband. As with many images of female power, there is a figure who ridicules such behavior and indicates the moral of the image. The ridiculing figure in this painting is a man in the foreground who points to a hen cackling at him. A rooster stands with bowed head nearby— this element strongly resembles similar representations of fowl already discussed.
Recalling the inscribed scroll in Moelenaer's painting, the moral of the image is made clear through the inscription on the barrel of the popular proverb already discussed:
It is a great misery where the hen crows and the rooster does not(33)
A second inscription below the irate wife further compares her to a cackling hen and a shrewish spouse:
From the hens it is also torment Much abuse and not well considered
Thus, even though the wife is presumably irate because of her husband's sinful behavior at the tavern, it is still the wife who is ridiculed for her shrewishness.
A similarly violent revenge takes place in a painting
by Adriaen van de Venne (Present location unknown) (Pig.
107). That this scene takes place more specifically in a
brothel, rather than an inn where men drink and pay women
for sexual favors, is evidenced by the numerous women in the
room and the absence of men. A sinister presence reigns 202 here. Particularly ominous in appearance is the woman who stands in the shadowy background smiling grimly at the viewer. This image has an aura of evil female power similar to that first witnessed in Hogenberg's print. It also relates to two types of powerful women— those who physically abuse men and those who gain power over men by sexually seducing them.
Other evidences of the evil that lurks in this sinister scene are the drinking glass, jug and cat in the foreground.
The former were well-known stimulants to lovemaking while the latter had very negative connotations. The cat was used as a metaphor for seductive women who entrapped men as the cat entrapped mice.(34) Two of the courtesans are shown seated before the fire playing cards, while another woman holds a candle for them to see in this dark and evil place.
In the background, other courtesans are seated at a table drinking. At the right, a woman rushes in angrily heading towards the seated courtesans. She has flung up her basket
(from which several eggs fly) as she vents her anger. As in the previous image, her blow is not directed towards her husband but at the courtesans. This wife runs right over her husband, ignoring his pleading tugs at her skirt and arm. It is evident that this weak and kneeling old man will not have the power to stop the shrieks and blows of his forceful wife. The basket of eggs used as a weapon in this scene may be a reminder of the husband's wastefulness and 203 loss at the hands of these courtesans or it may again refer to the proverb of the overbearing hen.
Images of men caught with courtesans by their wives incorporate all the evil that was associated with women.
First, the images deal with a wife's wicked lust for power over her husband. The discovery of his adultery forces the husband to endure the chastising beatings of his wife. As with drunkeness, infidelity with a courtesan gives the wife an excuse to beat and be the master over her husband. The comic nature of some of these images and their relationship to popular farces indicate that a major intent was to convey humor. Even in such humorous images, however, the moral is still indicated (as in Fig. 103) by a mocking figure who indicates the folly of the behavior to the viewer.
References to popular proverbs and expressions which censure powerful wives again indicate that these images, like those of drunkenness, were meant to warn men against sinful behavior and to admonish women not to take advantage of these male weaknesses to gain control over their husbands. Instead, women were encouraged to continue in gentle obedience to their husbands. A woman was therefore never justified in beating and scolding her husband. This type of behavior— no matter what its cause— was always criticized as being contrary to the rightful patriarchal order. Secondly, the images deal with the sexual power which women were presumed to hold over men and with their 204 ability to entice men and deceive them. Through this power,
the courtesans succeeded in depriving their innocent victims
o£ all o£ their money. As will be demonstrated in the next
chapter, this type o£ power was not limited to women o£ ill-
repute. Wives were also accused o£ wielding this power over
their weak and love-struck husbands in order to subject men
to their will. NOTES
1. This painting is attributed to a follower of Jan Steen by the R.K.D.
2. Visscher, p. 132: Veeltijdts wat nieuws, selden wat goets.
3. Vrankrijker, p. 49.
4. Gaskell, pp. 134-135.
5. Gastelaars, p. 37: Tgelt vant vercken is wel half verdroncken, Mijn bachuys sal vliegen vangen omdat ick ben beshoncken.
6. Ibid., p. 20: ghy hebt de broec verloren om u droncken gat.
7. Ibid., p. 37: een quaet wijf wil gemeenlijc een dronken man slaen.
8. The erotic nature of birds and cages in Dutch art as well as the identification of brothels is discussed in E. de Jongh, "Erotica", pp. 47-72.
9. J. van Vloten, Het Nederlandsche Kluchtspel van de 14s tot de 18e Eeuw, 3 volumes (Haarlem, W.C. De Graff, 1877), 2:43: vindj'er niet in, Dat mijn amoreusjen, Trijn Smickbuyls, die booze spin. My van daegh heeft uyt het huys gestooten?
dat de meeste wyven Vooght over de mans sijn, en weten niet als van knorren en kyven.
10. Gastelaars, p. 28.
11. Ibid., pp. 30-1.
12. Ibid., p. 27.
205 206
13, Wa vrouwe, ghy kyft ons al te vroech, ter quader ure; Wy en sorghen maer, dat ons d'bier inden pot nu niet en sure, Swycht toch, wy stellent al aen van tien en van viere, Ick prys ons dochter op t'hecken, die en sorcht niet een siere.
14. The Colloquies of Erasmus, trans. Craig R. Thompson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), pp. 114-127.
15. Gastelaars, p. 36.
16. Ibid., p. 39.
17. Ibid., p. 37.
18. Ibid., p. 18: Ic sal u leren tegen vrouwen oprechten.
19. Ibid.: dat die Wijfs willen die mans bestieren, sullen wij ons laten van vrouwen regieren? Een man moet een man zijn, wiet sou becopen.
20. Helpt, Kittebroeren helpt, die so gaeren met de kanne om nat: clappen: dees bsuete wyven, bij gans lijven, willen mij op 't gat: lappen.
Dat is voor u wtbrengen Dronckaert datmen t ’huys wel ghebreck: lijt. roept: ghij wert ghestoept, uyl proeft de muyl, om dat ghij sulcken geek sijt.
21. This painting is attributed to Molenaer with question by the R.K.D.
22. Gastelaars, p. 32.
23. Gibson, "Cock", p. 679.
24. Stoett 1:212-213.
25. Stewart, p. 54.
26. Woozdenboek, 3, pt. 3:3974: zijn eiren uitleggen. 207
27. This translation was provided by Gibson, "Cock", p. 679: Sich foer dich, ghij kinckel boer leert rapen snoeijen dat strijk ick voer mij Het spelen en is gheen schapen hoeijen / Wildij pickelen se bij.
Ick heb mijn kansee verkeecken / myn ghelt verlore / dijes krauwich mijn hooft Myn eyeren verspeelt ende oock mijn core / Wist myn wif sij sloech my doot.
28. Inventum coniunx male cum meretrice maritum Excipit, evulsa dilaceratque coma
Vindick u hier dy vuylen boef, hoe sal ic dy het hooft noch clouwen Dat ghy wech brenght met schoone vrouwen, het ghene ick selfs thuys wel behoe.
29. Vint ick u hier ghy/ fuilen boer / Hoe sal ick u dat / hooft noch klouun / daer ghyt verteert / met schone / vrouwen daer / ick't huis / Soo noet / Behoef. 1650.
30. This drawing is attributed to Heemskerk by Sothebys.
31. Simon de Vries, Seeven Duyvelen regerende en vervoerende de Hedendaagse Dienst-Maagden (Amsterdam, 1682), Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague, p. 174.
32. This painting is attributed as a Brueghel School copy by the R.K.D. The date 1568 is painted on the barrel.
33. HET ES DEN (HUYS?) EEN GROOT VERDRIT DAER THINNEKEN CRAET EN KAINKE NIET.
HET IS DER HINNEN MEE DE PINE VEEL BECRAT EN NIIET GHEWOGE.
34. Tot Bering, p. 156. CHAPTER VI
DESIRE AND DECEIT
Another type of power which women exercised over men was sexual power. Indeed Power of Women Imagery prior to
1550 had overwhelmingly dealt with the sexual rather than
the physical power of women. As with images of physical
power, depictions of sexual power began to emerge around
1400 in northern Europe. The latter topos, however, began
to greatly increase in popularity until its period of
greatest prominence in the early part of the sixteenth
century.(1) Around 1550, the character of misogynistic
imagery changed. Interest in themes dealing with the sexual
power of women declined, and instead art and literature
began to deal much more frequently with the physical power
of women. As has been discussed, this change in art is a
reflection of changes in the culture and society of the
Netherlands from 1550 through 1700. Even though depictions
of sexual power declined from 1550 on, there were still some
images which continued the tradition. Those which deal with
wives and husbands will be discussed in this chapter.
While the works to be discussed here primarily
emphasize the sexual power of wives over their husbands,
208 209 they are also at times related to themes of physical power.
As has already been demonstrated, the Battle for the
Trousers theme took on sexual overtones in certain works.
Similarly, the Hennetaster theme is in some instances also associated with sexually-domineering women. Due to these interrelationships, it is difficult at times to distinguish whether the image relates to physical power or to sexual power and at times the intent seems to be an allusion to both. These works are also comparable to images of physical power in that they too relate to traditional topoi. A few images relate to the subjection of Aristotle, a theme which stems from the middle ages. Others, such as the hennetaster, bring the theme of sexual power up to date with references to popular sexual metaphors and common expressions. Such references, taking the form of the insertion of certain objects and gestures, reveal the meaning and intent of many of these images. Thus these works have many similarities with the images of physical power.
Recognizing these similarities, it is also necessary to point out the several significant differences between the two kinds of images. Sexual power is often displayed in a much more subtle manner than representations of physical power. Furthermore, the women in scenes of sexual power do not appear to actively wield this power in order to subject their husbands to female authority. Instead of emphasizing 210 the supposedly shrewish and vicious nature of women, these depictions characterize women as cunning and deceitful.
Moreover, the women in images of sexual power are often young and beautiful unlike the caricatured harpies witnessed earlier, and they use these attributes to slyly taunt men rather than to ferociously subdue them. These representations more frequently concentrate on the misery brought on by the deceitful nature of women. In addition, the tone of these works is not harshly moralizing as in the
images of physical power. Indeed, only one of the images to be discussed is an illustration in a moralizing text and none of them are scenes from collections of proverbs,
Verkeerde WereId prints or children's prints. Mocking in tone, these works ridicule (primarily old) lustful men as much as they warn against women, and their character is
often more humorous than condemning. Also of significance
is the fact that there are far fewer images dealing with the
sexual power of wives (from 1550-1700) than images of their
physical power.
The Contemporary Aristotle
A woman's ability to attract men through her beauty and
charm had long been considered one of the primary causes for
the misery and downfall of the male sex. Much literature of
the Middle Ages, including sermons, songs and plays, deals
with the treachery of women in their attempts to lure
helpless men with their wiles.(2) This power was their 211 legacy from Dame Venus, that figure to whom much northern literature and art was devoted during the fifteenth century.
This figure's importance has been discussed by several scholars as a metaphor for and warning against the sexual power of women.(3) To illustrate these womanly wiles, authors extracted examples of sly and deceitful women from the Bible as well as from classical texts.
One such theme not infrequently depicted in art is the story of Phyllis and Aristotle. Aristotle, worried over the young Alexander's infatuation for Phyllis, warns his pupil against her. Angered by Aristotle's intervention,
Phyllis charms him into falling in love with her after which he begs her to be his. The deceitful Phyllis agrees on the condition that he let her ride on his back, which she does the next day to the poor man's humiliation. The story provided the perfect warning that, no matter how great a man's wisdom, he could still be brought to his knees by a woman's wiles. It was a subject used by many Northern artists of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries in their indictment of women.
The Housebook Master comically translates this story into the genre idiom and combines it with the story of
Hercules and Omphale (Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet} (Fig.
108).(4) On a coat of arms, a peasant woman is portrayed astride her husband. Not only does she humiliate him by her ride, but she also forces him to hold her distaff while she 212 spins. Beneath them on the coat of arms, a man stands on his head— a clear reference to the world turned upside down.(5)
In a similar vein, Quast represents a peasant couple as
Phyllis and Aristotle (Present location unknown) (Fig. 109).
The painting forms a pendant to his painting of the Battle for the Trousers (Pig. 39); thus both are examples of long standing power-of-women themes. This Phyllis pulls on the reins bridled through the man's mouth and cracks a whip over his head. The characters are portrayed very comically.
Phyllis is not young and lovely with flowing hair, but is old and ugly with a bulging tummy and a toothless smile.
The presence of another mocking peasant increases the humiliation of the kneeling man. The woman has also appropriated her husband's hat and wears it now as a sign of triumph, all the while grinning out at the viewer. The age of the couple indicates that the man is likely her husband rather than an aged lover and the pendants together form a satire on the physical and sexual power of the contemporary housewife.
While it is evident that traditional themes of cunning women had some impact on genre images of the housewife's sexual power, such works form only a small proportion of all genre images concerning sexual power that were produced during the mid-sixteenth through seventeenth centuries. Of much greater influence were the more contemporary themes 213 which contained more lascivious and at times even crude
innuendo. One of these themes, the hennetaster, has already been discussed in relation to wifely power. However, as will be demonstrated, the old man who gropes the hen also carried with it licentious connotations. In addition, the theme of the hoorndrager or cuckolded spouse became one of
the most oft-treated themes dealing with the wife's sexual power.
Licentious Hennetasters
As was discussed in chapter three, a hennetaster was a
weak henpecked man who let his wife use him for the carrying
out of female chores. Another meaning for this term was the
signification of a lustful, usually old, man.(6) Jan
Grauls, in discussing the hennetaster in Brueghel’s painting
(Fig. 58), provides several examples of licentious
hennetasters from Dutch literature.(7) From Een
tafelspeelken van twee personagien (A play of two persons),
Grauls quotes a conversation between a woman and her
husband :
Man There is, nevertheless, a hen. Wife I want to feel them, then I would be more sure of it. Man Let me feel them. Wife Then go ahead and feel, hen groper. Man Yes wife, laugh, it's found, it's found! See what I have here, and don't fight. Wife Is that a hen? 214
Man No, it is an egg.(8)
Grauls asserts that the double meaning of the word "tast "
(to touch or to fondle someone) would have caused an uproar of laughter when the woman tells her husband to go ahead and feel.(9)
Grauls cites another example in which this definition of hennetastez is indicated in pendant prints by the
Monogrammist HSD (c.l546-c.l580). One shows a half-length, leering, old man with a hen in his arms (Brussels,
Bibliothèque Royale Albert 1er)(Pig. 110). He wears a cap with two feathers protruding out of it. Below is the verse:
And do not dirty my little hen by coming too near She should lightly get the sprout.(10)
The pendant print is of a half-length young woman in a straw hat who smiles and gestures toward the man (Brussels,
Bibliothèque Royale Albert 1er) (Fig. 111). Beneath her is the inscription:
Yet daily one finds such fellows Who feel the hens to get their eggs.(11)
Grauls states that the erotic meaning of hennetaster is underscored in these two prints by the dress of the woman, which clearly indicates her profession (presumably a prostitute).(12) He does not give any further proof, however, that this is the dress of a prostitute. The first line of the man's verse, "And do not dirty my little hen by coming too near," seems to have been ignored. Who is it that he would warn other men to stay away from? It is 215 likely that he wants them to stay away from his wife. In addition, (as will be demonstrated) pendants of such hennetasters and their wives became a common format for several works produced from the mid-sixteenth through early- seventeenth centuries. The wife's gesture, smile and inscription all seem to mock the lusting man; the lust of the old was a popular subject for ridicule in the sixteenth century.(13) Whatever the intent of the woman may be, the caricatured leer of the peasant is enough to make of him a figure of ridicule.
In regard to this type of licentious hennetaster, the references to hens and cocks take on even greater significance than as merely metaphors for men and women.
Since De Jongh's pioneering article "Erotica in vogelperspectief ", there has been much discussion of the association of the terms "vogel " (bird) and "vogelen "
(slang for to copulate) with birds and sexual innuendo in art.(14) There are many examples in Netherlandish genre images in which sexual references are made through the inclusion of birds. Indeed, the cock itself became a metaphor for the phallus.(15) Such an association is overtly made clear in a painting attributed to Pieter
Brueghel the Younger in which a peasant now holds a cock rather than a hen (Present location unknown) (Fig. 112).(16)
Placed near him, the wife does not mock him in this case but metaphorically takes part in the lustful behavior by making 216 a sexually-expllclt gesture with her fingers over the head of the cock.
The licentious implications of the hennetastez still seem apparent in the seventeenth century in a painting by
Hendrick Bloeroaert (Stockholm, Statens Konstmuseer) (Pig.
113). A rather old-looking man holds a hen in the crook of his right arm vrtiile feeling the underside of it with his
left hand. He looks out at the viewer with a somewhat
lecherous grin but it is not exaggerated to the extent of the hennetastez in Pig. 110. Bloemaert's figure is more representative of the realism associated with the seventeenth century. Certainly, however, the works are related in terms of both subject matter and the half-length
format.
Another rather licentious-looking hennetastez is depicted in a painting by Cornells Saftleven (1609-81)
(Present location unknown) (Fig. 114). A dwarf sits near a gate and wears a fur cap while leering at the viewer. His
face is made even uglier by the wart on his nose. With his
left hand, he gropes the underside of the hen. Even though
his leer makes the image humorous in its sexual innuendo,
the man's size and appearance make him a somewhat pitiable
figure. This characteristic links the figure with other
pathetic hennetastezs discussed in chapter three, such as in
Fabritius* painting (Fig. 66) and makes one query vdiether
the differences between various types of hennetasters were 217 so distinctly drawn. Several o£ the hennetasters discussed
previously (such as in Pigs. 59 and 60) also wear quite
lecherous grins. Perhaps the term more generally connoted
several attributes seen as improper behavior. This
discussion becomes still further complicated with the next
discussion of the type of hennetaster who because of his
impotence is sexually deceived by his wife.
The Impotent and Deceived Hennetaster
Before the impotent hennetaster himself is discussed,
it is necessary to provide a more general context for the
joke of impotent men as portrayed in art and literature of
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Representations of
this theme most often involve the marriage of a young woman
to an old man. This theme of unequal lovers first appears
in the visual arts around the end of the fifteenth century
and became a frequent subject in the north.(17) Due to the
old husband's inability to satisfy his young wife, she would
frequently become an adulteress. In the Bsbatesaent van
Stout en Onbescaemt by Cornells Everaert, a young wife
complains about the impotence of her old husband, "In front
he is lame and behind he is stiff. And I am still a lustful
wife."(18) Soon afterwards, she ends up committing adultery
with a sexton.
In accordance with their evil nature, women were
assumed by many to be prone to lust and to the committing of
adultery.(19) The poor husband in the farce Lippijn is not 218 only deceived by an un£aith£ul wi£e but is also mistreated by her physically and £orced to do female chores.(20)
Lippijn is so weakened from his drinking and his old age that his wife is able to rule over him completely. She makes him do all the household work at the same time that she commits adultery. In art and literature, the impotent man was often portrayed as being both sexually and physically weak, thus making it easy for his wife to rule over him. Therefore, the Power of Women is twice referred to in these works. The man's lust for the woman often brought him under her physical power as well.
ÂS was noted in chapter two, Adriaen van de Venne's image of a domineering wife and a weak husband probably referred to both his physical and sexual impotence (Pig.
25). The smiling boy mocks the husband's impotence with his pointing gestures. This taunting of the impotent man appears to be the subject of several images from the sixteenth century. The subject comes forth in Jan van
Hemessen's Bagpiper and Merry Wife (c. 1540) (Brussels,
Musees Royaux des Beaux-Arts) (Fig. 115) and Pieter Huys'
Bagpiper and His Wife (1571) (Berlin, Staatliche Museen)
(Fig. 116)(clearly dependant on Hemessen's image). Burr
Wallen suggests that Hemessen's painting forms a pendant to his Tearful Bride and -nat the bagpiper and his wife might possibly be merrymaking attendants of the marriage celebration indicated by the man's "no doubt scurrilous 219 ditty and the merry wife's lusty laughter."(21) Certainly
the wife's smile in conjuntion with the objects that she
holds, the open jug and the phallic-like food, carry strong
sexual connotations on her part. The man's scowling
expression and gesture of protestation, however, seem to
indicate that he is not a similar participant in this
merrymaking. Indeed the deflated bagpipes (a symbol of
sexual impotence) suggest that he is incapable of
participating in any licentious activity. Such an assertion
would explain his angered protestations againt his wife's
lascivious jeerings. That this is instead an image of a
wife taunting her impotent husband is further supported in a
comparison with the very similar Huys painting.
The man in Huys' image also carries a deflated bagpipes
while his smiling wife stands near him holding an open jug.
The gestures and expressions of the two men are also
comparable, except that Huys' figure conveys a greater sense
of lament. In this image the wife removes a purse from
around her husband's neck which is the cause of his gesture
and words of protestation. The inscription above the pair
reads :
Oh, leave off, it is in vain, my Purse is grabbed. You emptied it and already my Pipe does not give a sound anymore.(22)
Christiaan Vogelaar has suggested that the man's
gesture is one of instruction and that the inscription is
meant to be a warning to men regarding both the 220
licentious and avaricious wiles of women.(23) These assertions seem quite in keeping with the nature of both the
image and the inscription. The purse may be of further
significance in indicating that the woman is additionally deceiving her husband. As will be seen, the notion of a wife paying for sexual favors from another with her
husband's money was a theme not uncommonly portrayed in the
visual arts. The lustful character of the wife would
support such an idea. While the didactic nature of this
image is emphasized, the humorous mocking of the impotent
husband is not ignored in either the wife's smile or the
husband's lament.
The joke of the impotent husband mocked by his wife appears to have been further applied to the image of the
hennetaster. Although the definition of an impotent old man
has not been previously given for the term hennetaster, it
does relate somewhat to a definition which has been given
and that is of a man deceived by his wife's adultery.(24)
As was discussed previously, a man's impotence was often
cited in the farces as the reason for a wife's committing
adultery. Indeed, the adultery of the wife is indicated in
some of the images to be discussed, along with the impotence
of the man. With these associations in mind, the proposal
of another type of hennetaster will now be discussed— the
impotent husband mocked by his wife. This group of images
is frequently depicted with the use of half-length pendants 221
like those by the Monogrammist HSD (Figs. 110 and 111). One
image typically portrays a woman who may be holding a
rooster or eggs; its pendant is o£ an old man groping at the
underside of a hen.
The meaning of these images comes forward most clearly
in a print by Cornells Bloemaert after a painting by his
father, Abraham and a drawing by his brother, Hendrik
(Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 117).(25) In a manner similar to the print by the Monogrammist HSD, this
print portrays a half-length peasant who grasps a hen in his
arms. At his right elbow is a straw basket with a strap
wrapped around the handle and to the left is a bird trap.
The old peasant wears a hat with two feathers attached. Due
to the similarities with the Monogrammist HSD, Grauls
asserts that Bloemaert's image is another portrayal of a
lustful, old hennetaster.(26) While this may be true in
part there are several features which differentiate both the
mood and meaning of the two images. Bloemaert's
hennetastez, for example, looks out rather mournfully at the
viewer, rather than lustfully. Furthermore, the inscription
below is more pathetic than licentious in tone:
See how the old man feels the hen, A dried up old woman would also like something to do.(27)
Here the term queen is certainly used as a nickname for
an impotent man. This can be inferred from the fact that
Quene also stands for bagpipe (the symbol for male 222 genitals), thus "Een droge Queen " can also be read as
"dried up male genitals".(28) Such a reading also ties the image to the previous two works and the mocking of the impotent old man. The old man is therefore left to seek sexual pleasure through the groping of the hen. Such pleasure is denied him by his wife due to his impotence.
With this, the man has also probably taken on the connotations of the third definition of hennetaster; the man whose wife deceives him. That he has an unfaithful wife may be alluded to by the old man's two-feathered cap. As will be seen, the indication of horns on a man is evidence of a hoorndrager or cuckolded husband. Feathers used on a man's cap often seem to indicate a deceived spouse. In the farce De Gevaande Advocaat (The Supposed Lawyer) by P. de la
Croix (1685), feathers are called the crown of the
"hoorendraager ".(29) This feature combined with the frequent topos of the impotent man and his adulterous wife support the idea that this is not an image of a lecherous man but of a pathetic one. Therefore, although the print clearly has an obscene meaning, it more forcefully conveys the notion of a miserably cuckolded and impotent spouse.
Another old hennetaster by Abraham Bloemart reveals further interest by this artist in the theme of the impotent hennetaster (Leningrad, The Hermitage) (Fig. 118). Although described as a man with a rooster, the lack of sickle feathers and wattles clearly identify this as a hen,(30) 223
thus making the man a hennetastez. The presentation o£ the hennetaster in half-length with a basket over his arm is very similar to the preceding print. Again the graying old man is rather pitiable as he gropes the underside of the hen and licentious references are almost completely absent.
This hennetaster by Abraham Bloemaert and the original
painting from which his son's hennetaster print was taken both have an interesting connection with a third painting by
Bloeroaert of an old peasant woman (Amsterdam, Private collection) (Fig. 119). One of the hennetaster images
probably formed a pendant to this third painting. As has already been seen and as will further be shown, portrayals
of this theme are frequently depicted in terms of male-
female pairings. In the Hemessen and Huys paintings of the mocking of the impotent husband such a relationship was seen
(Figs. 115 and 116). Even more comparable are the pendant
prints by the Monogrammist HSD (Figs. 110 and 111) which
picture a hennetaster in one half-length image and a mocking
woman in the other.
Abraham Bloemaert's half-length old, peasant woman
holds a straw basket with a strap attached to the handle in
a manner similar to the print. Crooked in her right arm is
a rooster whose feet she pins together with her thumb and
forefinger. Both she and the rooster look to the left,
suggesting that there is a pendant figure to whom she
directs her view. Moreover, these two images as pendants 224 strongly recall the two full-length pendants previously discussed which also made references to hens, eggs and a domineering wife (Pigs. 64 and 65). The binding of the rooster's feet in this image of an old woman reminds us of
Boll's print in which the husband's legs are bound as he is forced to sit on the eggs (Fig. 63). Here the manner in which she makes the rooster incapable of movement is probably a reference to her husband's impotence. As the cock was a sexual metaphor for the man, its binding would provide a plausible metaphor for impotence. The laughing woman in Bloemaert's painting looks on as the poor old man in the proposed pendant fumbles the hen.
There are two other pendant paintings that give added support to the idea that Bloemaert's im .ges once formed pairs. One of these paintings is by Joachim Wtewael (a
Utrecht artist whose works have a great deal in common with those of Bloemaert) (Karlsruhe, Staatliche Kunsthalle)
(Fig. 120), and the other has been designated as a copy after Wtewael (Ponce, Museo de Arte de Ponce) (Pig.
121).(31) Wtewael painted a hennetastez image in which a half-length old man feels the underside of a hen while resting his hand on a basket of eggs. Even more than his previously witnessed fellow gropers, this figure evokes great sympathy as he sadly looks at the viewer with a weary expression. He certainly does not look like a lustful old man. This weary old man appears desperately in need of the 225 eggs which he carries in his basket. For, as De Jongh has demonstrated, eggs were represented with old men in the context of aphrodisiacs, and that seems to be its clear
purpose in this image. In his argument he uses a print by
Jan Matham after Adriaen van de Venne which pictures an old man pointing to a basket of eggs (Fig. 122).(32) Underneath him is the inscription:
When I have incurred the displeasure of Trijn and she begins to scream, I take such pills as these, then I can again pacify her.(33)
The inscription thus suggests that the eggs will again give him the virility to satisfy his wife.
In her book on Wtewael, Anne Lowenthal suggests that
this hennetaster may be an indication of a roan who either is
lecherous or who busies himself with female chores.(34) The actual intent of this figure may relate to these meanings but neither of them is overtly stressed. The pathetic appearance of this old man veils any lecherous caricaturing.
Additionally, the sexual connotations associated with these
types of hennetasters generally and with the eggs and hen in
this work specifically would seem to indicate that the
primary emphasis is sexual. This hennetaster is portrayed as a man whose age has made him incapable of any type of sexual activity beyond the fondling of this hen. A look at
the proposed pendant to this image would seem to support
this last interpretation. 226
Lowenthal has suggested that a painting of A Voman with
Eggs is probably a copy of an undiscovered pendant (listed
in an inventory) to Wtewael's painting (Fig. 121).(35)
Again, the traditional format of these works would appear to
support such a suggestion. This half-length old woman is
positioned in such a way as to suggest an accompanying
pendant (to the left); so that with the previous painting on
the left, the two figures would face toward the center as
with the other pendants discussed. This old woman does not
make any threats which would suggest physical dominance over
the man in the pendant, rather it appears to be an
indication of the deceit which hennetasters were subjected
to. She holds up a basket of eggs and makes a pronged
gesture with the second and third fingers of her left hand.
A gesture made with these two fingers or the second and
fifth fingers is common in images of sexual deceit. Wives
make these gestures as an indication that they are
cuckolding their husbands. Therefore, the man's impotence
is revealed, while his wife indicates her adultery in a
familiar association with the term hennetaster.
This interpretation of motifs and gestures is supported
in the more obviously suggested elements of probable
pendants by Jan Hatbigh Baack (1619-1665) (Present location
unknown, and Utrecht, Centraal Museum) (Figs. 123 and 124).
The two works, although not previously designated as such,
form pendants very simlar in format and subject to those of 227
Bloemaert and Wtewael. Baak was also an artist working in
Utrecht who certainly appears to have been influenced by the
two older artists in these paintings. In the right
painting, the familiar old hennetaster is pictured in half
length (Fig. 123). The old man grasps the hen in his left
hand while holding its egg in his right hand. The egg is again an element which may refer to the impotence of the
man. His impotence and age have made him less satisfactory
to his young wife; therefore, it is necessary for her to
look elsewhere for an able lover. His cap also has a
feather attached and although only one is visible, it more
certainly (than in the other feathered caps witnessed) forms
a distinct horn over his left ear— idenifying him as a
hoorndrager. His mournful expression further emphasizes his
plight as a cuckolded, lustful old man.
The pendant provides even greater evidence as to the
meaning of these works (Pig. 124). It represents a young
woman in half-length who faces the other painting. Unlike
her spouse, she gleefully smiles out at the viewer. Her
smile and gestures reveal that this is another instance of a
wife taunting her old and impotent husband. Similar to the
woman in Bloemaert's painting, she pins the rooster’s feet
together in her hand. With her right hand she makes the
most telling gesture of all and one that is comparable to
the gesture used in Wtewael's painting. Her two outermost
fingers are raised, thus making a signification of horns. 228 which are pointed directly at the man's head. There is no doubt that the woman has made a hoorndrager out of her husband. With her sexual power she has trapped him with her youth and beauty but has cuckolded him, thus making of him a hennetastez and a hoorndrager at the same time.
The frequent associations made with hoorndragers in these images make it necessary to take another look at the
image by the Monogrammist HSD (Figs. 110 and 111). As previously noted, the hennetaster in this print wears a cap with two feathers protruding from it. They appear so obviously in the shape of horns that to ignore the association with the hennetaster/hoorndzagers just discussed would seem unwise. The leering smile of this figure, however, is so at odds with the other images discussed that one can not assume they carry the same intent. Perhaps the artist is indicating that the man is lustful because his wife bestows her sexual favors on others, leaving him wanting. Whatever its intent, the print's close relationship with the other images suggests the possibility
that these artists and people generally did not always make
sharp distinctions in their minds between the various meanings of hennetastez.
When one bears this in mind, the various types do begin
to relate to one another in a closer fashion. The image by
Fabritius, for example, pictures an old man whose pitiable
appearance is related somewhat to these images just 229 discussed. Perhaps associations of role reversal and impotency were assigned to this figure. In addition, the impotent old men by Bloemaert, Wtewael and Baak were probably also viewed as men being forced to carry out female chores. They may also have carried the implications of lecherous men, even if they could do nothing about such desires. It seems evident, therefore, that the meanings of hennetaster were more inextricably linked than Grauls theorized. The old hennetaster could be viewed as lecherous, impotent and deceived, henpecked, or any combination of these. The purpose of this investigation has been to pinpoint what appears to be the most significant meaning associated with each hennetastez but it certainly does not exclude the possibility of other associated meaning. This discussion has also provided insight into the various ways this theme is related to literary and artistic convention. Moreover, the varied images all derive either their humorous or didactic import from their association with the more general theme of wifely power. abSKadtsaeFs While it is certainly evident after viewing all of these hennetaster images that they form part of a Dutch topos, the final group of images dealing with the sexual power of wives is much more immediately recognizable as a traditional theme. The husband's humiliation is overtly displayed through the humorous representation of a pair of 230 horns. At times, an actual set of horns is placed over the man's head; more frequently, however, the horns are indicated by a gesture from the wife orothers in the scene. This gesture associates these scenes with a popular
Dutch expression hoorndrager, but the theme was certainly not limited to the Netherlands.(36) Hoorndrager was the term most frequently assigned to a husband who was cuckolded by his wife.(37) Women use their sexual power in images of the hoorndrager to cheat and deceive their husbands.
Images of the hoorndrager appear early in the sixteenth century as in a print after Lucas van Leyden, Love Triangle in a Bedroom with Death and a Fool (c. 1520-1530) (Oxford)
(Fig. 125).(38) A nude young woman is pictured next to her lustful old husband. While he caresses her, she steals the money from his purse to give to a young man near the side of the bed. A fool stands to the other side with two fingers raised, indicating that the man is a hoorndrager. The grave nature of the warning against female wiles is alluded to by
Death at the window who holds an hourglass (a familiar
Vanitas warning). As Stewart points out, the young women almost always receive the burden of blame in these images, as they were the deceitful ones.(39) They wield their power over generally old, lusting men as is particularly
indicated in this print by the roundel relief of Judith and
Holofernes on the bed.(40) This Biblical tale was one of the subjects often used to represent the Power of Women. 231
Perhaps this reference to virtuous female power was meant as a contrast to the evil power wielded by the wife. Thus, the deceit of adultery was seen as another way in which wives exercised power over their husbands, and this adultery was most frequently conveyed in art from around 1550 on through the seventeenth century by means of the hoorndrager theme.
Through lies and trickery, the wife and her lover commit adultery behind the husband's back, as in the farce
Bedroge Jalouzy (1659). As is often the case, Catrijn is not only an adulteress, she is also an abusive, angry wife.
In the opening scene, Catrijn taunts her husband, Rombout, by challenging his authority. He attempts to force her to admit his mastery and says, "Angry wives and bad horses one must ride with sharp spurs."(41) Catrijn is glad when he leaves and calls him an old "horendrager " as she prepares for the arrival of her lover.(42)
Meanwhile, Rombout tells his servant to keep watch and inform him of his wife's activities. Karel (Catrijn's lover) meets Rombout on the street and deceitfully chats generally about women who are unfaithful to their husbands.
Afterwards, he slyly informs us that he will now go to
Catrijn but only after he goes home to check on his own wife's faithfulness. Ironically, Neeltje (Karel's wife) is also committing adultery with a notary named Gerbrant. When
Karel comes home, Gerbrant is there and they quickly excuse 232 his presence. When Karel leaves, Neeltje laughs, "I will make him Lieutenant of the Cornutes”.(43)
Eventually, Rombout comes home early and Karel has to hide in a cupboard. Rombout, who knows he is there, sends for Gerbrant and Neeltje to certify that the two of them were together. Karel promises fidelity to Neeltje in the future and blames the affair on the tempting Catrijn.
Gerbrand who has settled the quarrel walks away chuckling to himself, "So I win in one day two unexpected brothers-in- law, and make through cleverness two foolish cuckolds".(44)
The deceived hoorndrager was also popularly used in poems and song books. In an illustration to the Nieuwen
Jeucht Spiegel (c.l650), Crispijn de Passe II shows a fancily dressed young woman covered with jewels (Rotterdam,
Atlas van Stolk) (Pig. 126). Her hair is done up in cornutes— one of the popular fashions of the day worn by worldly women; it is particularly used in images with an amorous setting.(45) An old bearded man, obviously infatuated by her charms, offers her a flower. The man, however, is certain to be cuckolded by his young spouse as is indicated by the ox horns which another man holds behind his head. The accompanying verses confirm this suspicion:
He is more ridiculed than pitied Who in the marriage wears horns. What do you want to do with us poor man? A goddess said. We are of no more use to you than a fox in a hen coop; If you take us for our money, you make a mockery of yourself. 233
Because nothing but cruel reproach threatens to be your reward; Take an ugly bride that is foolish many times over. Who will, through impatience, also make you foolish. But are you thus so twisted and dim-witted. That you marry a beautiful woman, then good-bye to peace and love. Because beyond the trouble, loss, injury and scolding. That you, poor man, receive from a too beautiful wife. You will certainly wear the horns on your cap" But reconcile yourself with these words, because he who wears horns is usually more ridiculed than pitied Then comfort yourself by weighing the lumps against the bruises.(46)
Again, both the physical and sexual power of women are bound together in these verses. In order to escape the tyranny of both types of power, men were sarcastically warned to marry ugly, foolish women.
As evidenced by the many examples of hoorndragers and hennetasters, it appears ordained that old age and cuckoldry go hand in hand when a man is married to a young wife. In fact, Crispijn de Passe de Oude uses the image of the hoorndrager to represent old age (70) in his series of the ages of man (Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 127).
Although an old man is seated before a table with scientific
instruments and books, he is, in reality, not an intelligent man. The glasses which he wears indicate that he does not see clearly and he is particularly blind to the deceit of his young and beautiful wife. She stands next to a young man in the background, who wraps one arm around her and extends the other toward the old man making horns with his
first two fingers as he draws back the bed curtains. The 234 painting of Venus and Hars with Cupid on the back wall underscores the amorous and adulterous relationship between the couple. Not only does the old man receive the horn gesture from his wife's lover, but he also rather absent- mindedly gives it to himself. Furthermore, the young boy in the background holds the ox's horns over the old man's head.
And finally the donkey (the most stupid of beasts) indicates through its presence that the man is a fool who refuses to see his wife's deceit. The inscription reiterates his blindness;
I am deserted; now old age offers no reward to the veteran For it is, alas, all too hateful to the young, I, sluggish old man, close my eyes to their mocking grimaces. But take pleasure in frequent reading and enticing scraps of paper.(47)
Crispijn de Passe II continues to pursue this theme in his illustrations to a collection of verses entitled Les
Abus du Marriage (The Abuses of Marriage) (1641). The verses give examples of several marriages where one of the spouses (usually the woman) betrays the mate. One example
is of a certain Signor G., the Noble Venetian (Amsterdam,
Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 128). He is pictured on the
left, holding his money bag and glancing sidewards at his wife. At the right, his wife is pictured with her lover and she too holds a bag of money. Her young lover amorously embraces her while making the horn gesture with his left hand. The traces of a blindfold are seen over the lover's 235 eyes, perhaps suggesting that he has been blinded by love.
The accompanying verse (in English) tells of the Signor's love for his beautiful wife and also of her adultery:
I am a rich man, Venice knowes it, and A favour have I from faire Venus hand, I will embrace it, sweet heart, daigne a kisse If man or mony likes thee, here it is.
M. Leonella his sweetheart. What a fond foppe is this? he's old and tough Paine would he kisse, but cannot for the cough. Give me a lad whose yeares and parts well suites mee, Kisse goodman goose, for a kisse cornutes thee.(48)
De Passe ends the book with a song about hoorndragers.
The illustration shows a wagonload of men and women who are driven by Pan and his goats to the Inn of St. Job
(Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet) (Pig. 129). Several horns are strewn on the ground (a reference to cornute) and one couple each raises the horns over the other's head as they drink wine. In addition, a man who walks alongside makes the horn gesture. The banner underneath reads, "Three innocent yet guilty."(49) This refers to the three couples who deceive and are deceived by their spouses. The donkey which walks along behind the wagon is also a reference to their foolishness.
The song describes each of the characters and the cause of their predicament. It is entitled, "The Poolish
Adulterer's Merry Wagon Song."(50) The song tells the riders that they may comfort themselves with the fact that hoorndragers are a common plague. Although each of the couples cuckold each other, it is primarily the women who 236 are blamed for the adultery. The husbands, conversely, are indicted because they were foolish enough to marry whores in the first place. They are admonished not to be fearful of their wives' anger but to cast off this plague. The song ends, however, with all of the hoorndragers riding merrily on to their miserable end as they drink their wine.
Images of the hoorndrager frequently include several other figures who are aware of the deceit as was the case in the farces. The relationship between these images and the popular theatre is clearly seen in a mid-sixteenth century painting of a theatrical scene by Pieter Pourbus (Antwerp,
Private collection) (Fig. 130).(51) The beautiful wife stands with her young lover at the right of the work. They lovingly gaze at one another as the young man embraces her.
With his head turned in the other direction, the bewildered, old, gray-haired husband looks at the devil-masked figure to his right who makes the horn gesture behind the man's head.
A young woman stands behind them and looks at the viewer as if to inform about the situation. Another man points at the husband to ensure that our attention will be drawn to the foolish old man. And finally an old woman at the far right raises her finger to her lips encouraging silence. It is, therefore, evident that the man is not aware of his wife's deceit.
A similar mockery of an old man is made in a painting attributed to Molenaer (Copenhagen, Statens Museum) (Fig. 237
131).(52) It is a kitchen scene in which an old man in a fur hat embraces his young wife busy scrubbing a pot. The man has apparently just returned home, as his walking stick and basket of eggs lie on the floor near him. Both of these elements are references to his old age as he needs the stick to help him walk and the eggs as an aphrodisiac.
The deceit which took place during his absence is
indicated by the gestures and glances of the other figures.
His wife looks past him and smiles at a young man standing behind his back. Hidden from the old man's view, he makes the horn gesture with his first two fingers and smiles at the wife. Another figure who joins in the mockery of the old man is an old woman standing behind the young man as she also makes the horn gesture. At the left is a large still-life of rounded vessels which may well be a reference to the amorous activities which took place during the old man's absence. Two other figures enter through the open doorway and they too mock the deceived old man. Thus, as usual, everyone but the old man is aware that he is a
hoorndrager.
Philips Koninck depicts a hoorndrager (1649) in which
only the woman and her lover are aware of the deceit
(Manchester, City Art Gallery) (Fig. 132). The wife sits in
the center of the image with her foot resting on a stove and
a drinking glass on her knee. She looks up at a man who
sticks his head through a small door and smiles at him while 238 making a horn gesture. Hidden by the open door, he smiles back at her. In the shadowy background, we see the poor old cuckold whom they deceive. The noticeable placement of the foot warmer with the woman's foot on it may be a sign of her mercenary nature.(53) Both husband and lover are under her power as they try to please her.
Cuckoldry is more cunningly indicated in a print by
Dusart which Hollstein entitles The Cuckold (1685),
(Amsterdam, Rijksprentenkabinet) (Fig. 133). The familiar love triangle is represented here through clasped hands and sly expressions. The stereotypical old cuckold is immediately recognized by the lecherous gaze he directs toward his wife. He delicately holds her hand while also grasping the hand of the young man behind her. The cunning smile of this man reveals that he is her lover. The old cuckold is obviously unaware that he is being duped and the feigned coyness of the wife indicates that she is keeping her secret well. No overt horn gesture is made in this image but again the horn-like feathers on his cap identify him as the familiar hoorndrager.
A much more elegant version of the theme is a late seventeenth-century painting by David van der Plaes (Munich,
Private collection) (Fig. 134). Seated in the center of the image is a man still wearing his hat and cloak. He is presumably visiting the man standing next to him. Behind these men at the right is the host's wife, who holds a 239 drinking jug. The sly gestures and glances are again the key in understanding the artist's intent in this image. The host glances suspiciously at his guest but he does not look at his face; rather, he watches the man's hand as it reaches behind him. Having received an offering gesture from his host, the guest seems about to take more than tobacco for his pipe. He carefully glances up at the host as he makes the horn gesture with his right hand. Between the last two fingers of his left hand he holds a bird's feather which he offers the wife. She, in turn, coyly glances at him from the corner of her eye. The gestures and glances unite all the figures in a humorous and sly play of deceit.
The Sleeping Sportsman by Gabriel Metsu (c.1626-67) has many erotic metaphors, as has been noted by De Jongh
(London, Wallace Collection) (Fig. 135). While De Jongh admits to the difficulty of deciphering this image, he is inclined to accept it as a brothel, therefore identifying the woman as a courtesan.(54) While the fur-trimmed jacket could certainly be the dress of either a courtesan or a housewife, the headgear seems more in keeping with images of wives rather than courtesans. It seems more likely that this is a house rather than a brothel and that the woman is a housewife looking down on her sleeping husband. It will also become apparent that the gestures and motifs are all more understandable with this reading of the image and that 240 the joke created with them is all more convincing with this interpretation.
The husband, clearly in an inebriated slumber, is unaware of his wife's infidelity. His wife stands behind him and laughs at the foolish cuckold as she holds a drinking glass and jug as references to the cause of his slumber. The subtle and careful placement of her fingers on the glass indicate that the sportsman is a hoorndrager. She points the gesture at him as she grins at his inebriated state. Her lover projects his head out the window and he smiles at the viewer, while making what appears to be a crude gesture with his thumb and forefinger. He demonstratively makes this gesture over the dead bird which hangs from the tree at the right. These elements make clear the connection between the gesture and the word "vogelen "
(to copulate) and the sexual connotations often given to images of birds.(55) The two lovers are united by the ivy which grows overhead. The ivy plant was frequently used in emblem books as a metaphor for love.(56) So the sexual metaphors all relate to the love between these two figures and the mocking is directed toward the drunken husband, unaware of his wife's deceit. In Metsu's painting the hoorndrager's cuckoldery is due not only to the deceit of his wife but to his own drunkenness. It is, therefore, a comic warning against strong drink and against the adultery made possible by the husband's drunkenness. 241
Similar sexual metaphors are used in a painting attributed to Jan Steen (Rotterdam, Private collection)
(Fig. 136).(57) In many ways, it combines all of the symbols which have been discussed in relation to female sexual power. The scene takes place outdoors near a dovecote. Sprawled out in the foreground are a young man and woman who wear the clothes of shepherd and shepherdess.
They take seeds from a dish on the young man’s knee to feed a bird perched on the woman’s arm. They are surrounded by several objects which act as sexual metaphors. A large, rounded vessel with the female dove atop it is clearly a female sexual reference. Preening himself for her inspection is a male bird who fans out its tail. The two birds on top of the cage literally act out the verb
"vogelen”. Also present is the symbolic ivy spreading out in front of the lovers at the right.
While the foreground scene portrays a pleasant, pastoral scene of young lovers, the stooped old man in the background creates an uneasy presence. Once again, we see the old hennetaster who gropes the hen and stares lecherously at the voluptuous young woman. One might assume that this licentious man is merely watching a pair of lovers; however, one other element suggests that this is a cuckolded spouse. The horns of the cow, which are juxtaposed with the man’s head, imply that the man is also a hoorndrager. Therefore, the male bird which tries to 242 attract the female’s attention is even more thoroughly a metaphor for the entire painting. Men under the sexual power of a beautiful female are constantly anxious for their sexual favors.
Like their hen-groping compatriots, hoozndzagezs are old, impotent husbands who lust after their young, wives.
Disatisfied by their old husbands, these young wives cheat and deceive their husbands and comit adultery with young men. Often the hoorndrager 's humiliation is increased by
jeering onlookers within the scene. The viewer is also
invited by the gestures and glances of the characters to
laugh at the old men's foolishness, as they let their young wives exercise deceitful power over them. It is one more
instance of a wife's ability to subject her husband to her malicious power.
Although images of sexual domination are at times less overt in their intent than representations of physical power, they are clearly related to specific themes. These
relationships to traditional topoi clarify their meaning.
Moreover, when the individual images are placed within the
larger context of these traditional themes, their moralizing
or satirizing intent becomes evident. In a few instances
they are a continuation of power of women themes that had
been in existence since the middle ages. More often,
however, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the
examples of seductive women from antiquity were translated 243 into a popular genre idiom with references to common expressions like hoorndrager and hennetaster. Due to their lust, all of the husbands in scenes of sexual female power end up falling prey to the wiles of their wives. The wifely power in these images is at times more subtle than the display of ferocity in physical images, yet the assaults on female character implicit in the two are similar. One type of woman is sly and deceitful, the other shrewish and malicious but they both have the desire to render their husbands helpless and to subject men to the female will.
It is also important to evaluate the significance of numbers in relation to visual representations of these two types of female power. Even a cursory comparison of the number of physical power images in contrast to those of sexual power reveals a much greater preference during this period for scenes depicting the housewife as shrewish and abusive. Prior to mid-sixteenth century, however, the preference had clearly been for images ^ich displayed the sexual power of women as is indicated by the many representations of Dame Venus, Samson and Delilah, and
Phyllis and Aristotle. This shift in emphasis toward the termagant wife who abuses her husband physically and wants to rule over him, is significant and provides added support for the thesis that these images were indeed a reaction to societal conditions in which women were becoming more powerful. NOTES
1. See particularly Smith for a discussion of representations of female sexual power from c. 1400-c. 1550; also Stewart; also Vignau Wilberg-Schuurman; the exhibition catalogue Tussen heks en heilige.
2. Ibid.; also Ellen S. Jacobowitz and Stephanie Loeb Stepanek, Thé Prints of Lucas van Leyden and His Contemporaries (Washington: National Gallery of Art, 1983), p. 102.
3. Vignau Wilberg-Schuurman; also Smith; Stewart pp. 47-50
4. See p. 132.
5. Keith P.F. Moxey in The Master of the Amsterdam Cabinet or The Housebook Master (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), p. 72.
6. Jan Grauls, Volkstaal en Volksleven in het Werk van Pieter Bruegel (Antwerp, Amsterdam: N.V. Standaard- Boekhandel, 1957), pp. 141-47.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid., pp. 143-44: "Man Daer es nochtans een hinne. Wijf Ic wildicse zaghe Of ghevoelde, zo ware ic de zake vastere. man laetse mij tasten. Wijf Nu tast, hinne tastere, Ghij en zullet niet bet dan icke duergronden. Man Ey wijfken, lacht, al vonden, al vondenl Siet wat ic hier hebbe, en maect gheen gheschreij. Wijf Es dat ee hinne? Man neent, tes een eij."
244 245
9. Ibid., p. 144.
10. En Vuilt Mijn Hinneken Niet te Seer Genaeken Het Soude lichtelijch Aen De Sprou Geraeken
11. Noch Vintmen Daeghelijcx sulcken gasten Die De Hinnekens nae haer Eyeren Tasten.
12. Grauls, p. 145.
13. Stewart, pp. 50-81.
14. De Jongh, "Erotica".
15. Ibid.
16. This painting is attributed to Pieter Brueghel the Younger by the R.K.D.
17. Stewart, p. 50.
18. Gastelaars, o. 61, Van voreii is hy lam ende achter styf, Ende ic ben noch een wellustich wyf.
19. Ibid., p. 40.
20. Ibid., p. 17.
21. Burr Wallen, Jan van Hemessen: An Antwerp Painter between Reform and Counter-Reform (Ann Arbor; UMI, 1983), p . 66.
22. Ay laet staen, tis verloren./ mijn borse ghegrepen/ Ghy hebtse gheleeght./ en mijn Pijp al uuyt ghepepen.
23. Christiaan Vogelaar, Netherlandish Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century Paintings in the National Gallery of Ireland: A compete catalogue (Dublin: The National Gallery of Ireland, 1987), p. 33.
24. Woordenboek 6:579-580.
25. The present location of the painting is unknown but it was previously in the Nationalmuseum Stockholm. A drawing in reverse of the image by Hendrik Bloemaert is in the British Museum.
26. Grauls, p. 145. 246
27. Siet hoe den ouden voeit het hoen Een droge queen wil cock wat doen.
28. I am grateful for the help of Herman Pleij in suggesting the connection between bagpipes and the word "quene" in a letter dated July 4, 1989. The definition for "queen" as an old woman is given in Woordenboek 8 pt. 1:744.
29. P. de la Croix, Da Gewaande Advocaat (The Hague: Albert Magnus, 1685), Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague, p. 33.
30. This is identified as a rooster in Yury Kuznetsov and Irene Linnik, Dutch Paintings in Soviet Museums (New York: Abrams, 1982), catalogue no. 66.
31. This designation is made in Lowenthal, pp. 139, 169.
32. Tot Lazing, pp. 250-252.
33. Wanneer ick't heb verkerft en Trijn begint te schreijen, Neem duske pillen in, dan kan ick haer weer peijen.
34. Lowenthal, p. 139.
35. Ibid., pp. 139, 169.
36. Stewart p. 73.
37. Stoett 1:370; also Woordenboek 6:1099.
38. Stewart pp. 74-75.
39. Ibid., p. 73.
40. Ibid. p. 75.
41. Joost van Breen, Bedroge Jalouzy (Amsterdam: Jacob Lescaille, 1559), Koninklijke Bibliotheek, p. A2: "Bose wijven / en qua paerden / moetmen met harde sporen beryen,".
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid., p. A4: ”'K sal hem noch Luytenant van de Cornette maken".
44. Ibid., p. B3: "So win ick op een dach twee onverwachte swagers / En maeck / door slim beleyt / twee sotte horendragers". 247
45. Petrus Thys, De Mode In Rubens’ Tijd (Antwerp: Provinciaal Museum, 1977), p. 86.
46. Chr. van Sichem and J. Bara, Nieuwen Jeucht Spiegel (c. 1650), pp. 172-73 (with verse on facing page): ”Hy wort meer belacht als beklaecht Die daer in 't houwelijch hoornen draecht. Wat wilt ghy met ons doen arm' mans? Sprac een Goddinne, Wij sijn u doch zoo nut als d'Vos in 't Hoenderkot; Neemt ghy ons om het goet, zoo maect ghy u tot spot. Want niet dan wrsedt verwijt, drijcht ghy 't uwen ghewinne; Neemt ghy een leelijc dier dat's dickmael sen Sottinne, Die mach door onghedult, u mede maken sot, Maer sijt ghy zoo verdraeyt en van verstande hot, Dat ghy een schoone trout, adieu rust ende minne. Want boven d'onghemac, verlies, schaed', en ghekijg, Dat ghy arm' Mans ontfanght van een te goelijc Wijf, Zoo draecht ghy voor ghewis, de Hoornen op de Mutss: maer dit woort weer versoet, om dat, die Hoornen draecht Wort voor den meesten deel meer belacht als beklaecht Stelt dan tot uwen troost de buyl teghen de blutse."
47. Deseror, emerito iam praemia nulla: Senectus/ Namque iuventuti est proh odlosa nimis?/ Conniventem huius sannis sed lectio crebra Me juvat: et segnem chartula blanda senem.
48. Crispijn de Passe II, Les Abus du mariage (1641), Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, pp. 27-8.
49. Ibid.: "De Drij Onoosele en doch Beschuldigde,"
50. "Der verdwaelde Boeleerders Vrolick Wagen-liedt"
51. Another hoorndrager scene from the theatre is found in a print by Hans Liefrinck reproduced in Eduard Fuchs and Alfred Kind, Die Weiberherrschaft in der Beschichte der Menschheitf 3 vols. (Munich: Albert Langen, 1913), 1:272.
52. The painting is attributed to Molenaer in the Copenhagen Royal Museum of Fine Arts Catalogue (1951), p. 203. 248
53. The foot warmer is used as an emblematic device in Visscher's Sinnepoppen and the accompanying motto advises men who seek the love of women to learn from the foot warmer,- which is favored by women because of its use to them. That the foot warmer relates to genre images in this way may be supported by its prominent placement in many scenes of couples, such as The Duet by Molenaer which is discussed by Peter Sutton in Masters, pp. 261-262. In relation to an image where it may more directly relate to the submission of a man to a woman in a love relationship, Otto Naumann describes its use in Cornelis de Man's The Chess Players in Masters, p. 244. Here as the woman triumphs in a game of chess this female dominance is even more closely comparable to Visscher's emblem.
54. De Jongh, "Erotica", pp. 37-8.
55. De Jongh discusses at length the erotic meaning of birds in Dutch art in "Erotica", pp. 22-71.
56. Such an emblem is found in Otto van Veen, Amorum Emblemaca (Antwerp, 1608), Koninklijke Bibliotheek, The Hague, p. 174.
57. The painting is attributed to Steen by the R.K.D. CONCLUSION
The seventeenth-century images discussed in this dissertation have received relatively little scholarly attention in comparison with the large amount of attention that has been devoted to positive images of housewives during the seventeenth century. This may be due in part to the fact that the former are mostly prints— some by anonymous artists and some of crude quality. They also
frequently deal with low humor and vulgar types.
Methodologies and subjects for research, however, are changing as art historians have begun to recognize the significance of such works in determining common themes and their relevance to popular culture. Historians have also
begun to recognize their import as indicators of societal attitudes and values. Such evaluation seems particularly
relevant to the Dutch Republic in the seventeenth century, where so much of the subject matter in art seems to relate
very directly to the people's lives. In regards to the
particular topic of the housewife, to ignore these images is
to neglect a significant portion of images produced
regarding the housewife. As has been demonstrated, the
frequent references to the theme of the powerful housewife
249 250
In various types of literature and art ensured a common knowledge of the theme. Furthermore, it indicates at least a significant amount of interest in the theme.
My study of these images has demonstrated that they are obviously not descriptions of daily life in the Netherlands, but certainly rely on convention and are variously intended to satirize and moralize with the use of stock situations.
The use of caricatured figures and exaggerated expressions is one of the most revealing aspects of these works in regards to this ridiculing or censuring intent. Many of the works also contain inscriptions that reveal their purpose.
Furthermore, the repeated insertion of seemingly non- essential objects or gestures suggests a deeper intent.
While the aspects of meaning and intent are overtly manifest in some of these images, they remain somewhat hidden from modern eyes in other works.
The grouping of themes in this dissertation has aided
in ascertaining the meaning and intent of some of these less-obvious images. Of course, some of these themes, such as the Battle for the Trousers, are immediately
identifiable. This theme, for example, has a history dating back to the middle ages and is still used proverbially as a metaphor for tensions between the sexes to the present day.
Others, such as the hennetaster, however, are less obvious and were themes which developed specifically during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. There was an expansion 251 as well as a continuation of themes dealing with female power during this time period but most of the representations still adhere to certain stock manifestations and presentations of this power.
In addition to the use of traditional themes there are other aspects of these works which relate them to convention- The frequent inclusion of references to proverbs and popular sayings was in itself traditional in
Netherlandish art. The presence in these images of objects such as hens, shoes and distaffs, that relate the images to these sayings, is another indication of the non-descriptive nature of the images. Furthermore, it is another aspect which reveals to the modern viewer the great importance of convention as a determinant of subject matter, purpose and pictorial format.
The significant connections with literature that have been noted in relation to these images are also revealing.
They further indicate the reliance on convention in these images. In addition, they give evidence of the strong entrenchment of these subjects and expressions in the society at large, and the wide-ranging aspects of these themes. Finally, literary parallels also aid in deciphering both meaning and intent as the literature often clarifies the references to sometimes vague sayings and proverbs in the images. 252
The images that negatively portray wifely power can therefore be related to a long-held topos which ridiculed powerful, overbearing wives and weak, henpecked husbands.
The frequent use of stock characters and situations in humorous images and comic farces indicates that they were familiar themes guaranteed to raise a laugh. The continuation of old themes and the expansion into new subjects that feature the powerful housewife also demonstrates the continuing interest in this general subject.
While it is clearly evident that the theme provided a popular comic topos in art and literature of the period, other aspects of these images suggest that this was not their only purpose. The fact that the theme occurs in a wide variety of types of both literature and art suggests
the significance of the theme for various types of audiences. The subject is frequently found in the popular
farce, for example, but moralists also did not hesitate to discuss the ludicrous and unnatural character of role
reversal between the spouses. In art, the theme often manifests itself in popular prints but it also occurs in art
prints of high quality and in paintings. Many renderings of
the theme are relatively serious in tone: either in their
portrayed fear of vicious females or in their strong
condemnation of a usurpation of patriarchal authority. It
is these renderings which seem to suggest that the purpose 253 of these images was not purely for the entertainment of the viewer but for their edification as well.
Although art historians have somewhat ignored the seventeenth-century images discussed in this dissertation, historians have increasingly shown interest in these images and what they reveal about societal attitudes. While some art historical studies regarding Dutch genre scenes now satisfy themselves with an investigation of convention only, this study has attempted to discover reasons why the powerful housewife became a popular subject in art and literature and why the theme manifests itself in such a wide variety of literary and visual types. If the images were only humorous in nature one could be satisfied with the conclusion that they were merely an extension of a comic tradition and were only intended to be a joke. Many of the images, however, have a more earnest character that makes it difficult to simply dismiss them in this way. The works of
Adriaen van de Venne, for example, strongly suggest a moralizing character which was intended to censure the behavior of overbearing and deceitful women. This intent is made overt in both his paintings with inscriptions and his illustrations for moralizing texts. The use of this theme in collections of proverbs and Vezkeezde Wezeld prints also indicates the strongly moralizing nature of the theme.
Furthermore, the many versions of the children's print Jan de Wasser are a forceful manifestation of the manner in 254
which this theme was used to stress certain social lessons.
Finally, the ingort of linking the theme with political
struggles cannot be overlooked. Such examples emphasize the widespread and serious moralizing associated with the theme
of the powerful housewife.
One other element which encourages a sociological
inquiry regarding these images is the one-sidedness of this
moralizing. As has been demonstrated in a number of the
farces, male beatings frequently took place against the type
of wife who tried to be the master, and this type of beating
was justified in order to teach the wife her place. Such a
beating of the spouse was never justified in the wife’s
case; even when a husband indulged in drunkenness and
adultery, the wife was still admonished to treat him with
kindness. Furthermore, the tale of the mistreated Jan de
Wasser has no parallel in strips concerning poor, abused
wives. Finally, except for a very few examples, women are
not represented in art receiving similar sorts of beatings
or scoldings. While Haks' research demonstrates that
beatings of both spouses actually occurred in the Dutch
Republic during the seventeenth century, it is only the
beating of the husband that is portrayed in art. Obviously,
these images are not reflective of reality; they were
created for the purpose of displaying and emphasizing the
dangerous occurrence of wifely dominance. 255
Thus for this study it was necessary to search out societal conditions which would explain the change in misogynist images around 1550 from an emphasis on the perceived deceitfulness of women and their sexual power to a concentration on their supposed shrewishness and physical power. A situation in which the threat of female power was imminent certainly appears to have caused apprehension on the part of some men and also to have prompted the type of moralizing evident in these works. Of primary import in explaining this phenomenon then, are the actual circumstances and position of women, and more specifically housewives, in the Netherlands. Before one even begins to examine legal and historical evidences, a purview of Dutch art itself suggests something about the position of women in
Dutch society. Certainly the large number of seventeenth- century Dutch images dealing with the housewife (both negative and positive) indicate a greater interest in the housewife and her activities during the seventeenth century than previously, and in Holland than elsewhere in Europe.
Furthermore, this increased concern with the housewife reveals to some extent the greater importance of the housewife in Dutch society at large.
An examination of actual historical sources further indicates that women in Dutch society were indeed becoming increasingly powerful. This power was probably encouraged early on by the emergence of an urban middle class in the 256
Netherlands. By 1517, female intervention in the male domain of business had already been noted by Beatis.
Certainly the Dutch struggle for independence (in which women played a very significant role) further contributed to the powerful presence of women in society. Thus, in the seventeenth century, this gradual accumulation of power had won for women many legal rights not enjoyed by women in surrounding countries. The journals and letters of visitors from various countries to the Netherlands frequently recorded astonishment at the privileges accorded Dutch women. These women interjected themselves into what had traditionally been areas of strict male domain, such as educational institutions and business enterprises. Most importantly for this discussion, these accounts of foreigners also contain several complaints that Dutch housewives rule over their husbands and treat them with disrespect.
The increased production of representations of the shrewish housewife from 1550 through 1700 in the Netherlands
(particularly those with an earnestly moralizing character) must have had something to do with societal and cultural conditions. While artists are certainly affected by artistic convention (and such influence has clearly been demonstrated with this theme), they are also products of particular eras and societies with specific cultural circumstances. Several historians have already discussed 257 the impact which this increase in female power had on
Netherlandish literature of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Although some of them have mentioned a few of these images as supportive evidence for their theses, a thorough study of these images and what they reflect in terms of meaning and purpose had not previously been conducted. It appears from this investigation that the visual images offer added support to the idea that an increase in female power did cause some anxiety for certain men in these societies.
This assertion is carefully made, however, bearing in mind the diversity of mood and intent in these various images. Certain images are obviously humorous, but this does not necessarily mean that they did not also convey a moral (however light that might be). They too must be _ viewed in a cultural context. For those that are more seriously censorious, it certainly does not seem to be reading too much into them to detect an apprehension of female power. This is not to say that they are part of a deliberate and premeditated plot for keeping women in their place. Indeed, some of the images seem to be primarily a negative reaction to this display of power and an attempt to point out the increasing pervasiveness of shrewish, unmanageable women. The print of Bigorne and Scherminckelf for example, or the series of the senses after Dusart seem to exhibit such characteristics. Others, however, do seem 258 to be more intent on admonishing men and women to fulfill their ordained roles in a patriarchal society. Certainly the overtly moralizing works already mentioned (proverb,
Verkeerde WereId, and children's prints) fit into this category, but others such as the print published by Boscher, the prints by Kittensteyn and the works of Adriaen van de
Venne also seem quite earnest in their attempt to instil such behavior. It would seem, therefore, that the negative view of wifely power did have particular relevance in the
Netherlands during these years in which women were
increasingly asserting themselves in society.
If one accepts that several of these images are a reflection of this increase in the power of the housewife, this may also carry import for those works which portray the housewife in a positive manner. Perhaps the many representations of housewives engaged in various chores are another sort of attempt at encouraging women to tend to those things rightfully assigned to them— the home and domestic duties. In literature, the great popularity of
Cats' Houwelyck suggests that the perceived need to instruct
the wife as to her proper role was rather urgently felt.
Houwelyck is but one of a whole category of texts
(instructing women in their duties) that became very popular during the seventeenth century. These texts strongly advocated a domestic role for women and they criticized women who tried to interfere in the man's world of business. 259
Might not the visual images that pictured the tranquil and successful discharge of domestic duties have been another means of encouraging women in the pursuits naturally
ordained to them?
Regarding this assertion an interesting comparison can
be made between two images of housewives: one is by the
female artist Gertruyd Roghman and the other by the male artist Pieter Janssens Elinga. Before setting out this
comparison, it is necessary to qualify the conclusions that
can be reached. First, there are not many images by female artists available for comparison so that it is difficult to assess the significance of such a comparison. Secondly,
neither of these images is considered to represent the
outlook of all Dutch men or all Dutch women. The comparison
is merely an interesting one to ponder in light of the
suggestion I have made regarding the purpose of domestic
images.
In Elinga's image, the woman almost becomes another
furnishing in a well-ordered home (Rouen, Private
collection) (Fig. 137). Like everything else, she has been
rendered with the same careful finesse that defines every
other object in the room and she blends with them. One
might conclude that she has lost any designation of humanity
as she performs the tasks assigned her in order to keep the
household orderly. She lacks the sense of power immediately
noted in Roghman’s figure (Rotterdam, Atlas van Stolk) (Fig. 260
138). Also seen from behind, Roghman's housewife has a strong physical presence that distinctly sets her apart from her surroundings. Although the usual still life elements are incorporated in the scene, she is not lost among them.
She is the core of the image with all other objects grouped around and related to her. Moreover, the strong three- dimensionality of her figure tends to flatten out all other objects and perspectives in the scene. Again, in contrast to Elinga's image, these aspects vividly focus and keep our attention on her rather than on finely crafted surfaces and clever perspectives.
Another aspect that differentiates the two is the work that they perform. Elinga carefully places his figure so that we can observe the performance of the woman’s domestic duty. While one can surmise in Roghman's image that the woman is cooking, her precise actions cannot be viewed.
Indeed, the domestic task is not the primary point of the print. Instead, we become curious about this solemn figure, as if she were a real person, not an ideal in a finely- crafted painting. Adding to this character is the honesty and ruggedness with which Roghman's figure is portrayed.
One senses that the image certainly must have been created by someone who was familiar with and sympathetic to the real work of women. The strength with which this woman dominates her domestic realm is as reflective of the increasing power 261
of women in Dutch society as are the negative images discussed in this study.
Roghman's image seems to reflect the increasingly significant role these housewives played in Dutch society.
It is important to remember that it was through the woman's
position as housewife that she gained importance in society.
The orderly caretaking of the home, children and servants
was seen as a parallel to the orderly governance of the
Republic and the home was the one area where women could
rightfully assert their power and rule (at least over
servants and children). It was in this role as ruler of the
home that the woman increased her strength and position in
Dutch society. The many images showing women in this role
underscore the importance attached to housewives and their
tasks.
Elinga's image, on the other hand, seems more closely
allied to the numerous handbooks which stressed the
importance of women carrying out their various domestic
duties. The woman is so closely associated with these tasks
in the painting that she has become a part of the very
setting and seems inseparable from this domain. This work
and other such scenes dating from the latter half of the
seventeenth century relate in interesting ways to the
research of Marjan Boot. She asserts that increasingly in
the latter part of the seventeenth century and in the
eighteenth century, women were relegated to the home and 262 domestic duties. They became steadily less involved in the male domain of business and more involved in the care of the household.(1) If, therefore, the intent of negative images
or positive images or both was to more firmly consign the woman to the home and to remove her as a threat to her husband’s role as breadwinner for and master over the
family, then it would seem that they eventually saw some success. While some of these suggestions must remain
tentative at this point, this study has provided the basis
for further research on the multitude of images dealing with
the housewife in seventeenth-century Dutch art. The associations made here between seventeenth-century Dutch society and the efflorescence of the powerful housewife theme contribute to our knowledge of both the images and the society that produced them. NOTES
1. Boot asserts that in the latter part of the seventeenth century there was more wealth in the Dutch Republic so that there was less need for women to work outside the home. She uses the Dutch family portraits of the latter part of the seventeenth century as examples of how remaining at home became a sort of status symbol. She goes on to discuss how the Dutch were increasingly influenced in the eighteenth century by English and French pedagogical theory in which children were no longer viewed as small adults, but were seen as children who needed the proper care and guidance of their mothers. Increasingly women were shown in art in nurturing and instructing roles with children, pp. 168-175.
263 FIGURES
264 PLEASE NOTE:
Copyrighted materials in this document have not been filmed at the request of the author. They are available for consultation, however, in the author's university library.
These consist of pages:
265-389, Figures 1-138
UMI BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alpers, Svetlana. The Art of Describing. Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1983.
"Bruegel's festive peasants." Simiolus 6, no. 3/4 (1972-73): 163-76.
"Realism as a comic mode: low-life painting seen through Bredero's eyes." Simiolus 8, no. 3 (1975-76): 115-144.
_____ "Taking pictures seriously: a reply to Hessel Miedema." Simiolus 10, no. 1 (1978-79): 46-50.
Avatt, Albert, ed. Memoirs and Travels of Sir John Reresby. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, and Co., Ltd., 1904.
Bax, Dirk. Hieronymus Bosch: his picture-writing deciphered. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema, 1979.
Beverwijck, Johan van. Wtnementheyt Des Vrouwelicken Geslachts. Dordrecht: Jasper Gorissz, 1643.
Boot, Marjan. "Huislykheid is 't Vrouwen Kroon Cieraad." Openbaar Kunstbezit Kunst Schrift 22 (November, 1978): 168-175.
Breen, Joost van. Bedroge Jalouzy. Amsterdam; Jacob Lescailje, 1659.
De Broekdragende Vrouw. Amsterdam: Jacob Lescailje, 1666.
Brown, Christopher. Images of a Golden Past. New York: Abbeville Press, 1984.
Brune, Johan de. Bankket-Werk van Goede Gedagten. 2 vols. Middelburgh: Jaques Fierins, 1660.
Carroll, Margaret D. "Peasant Festivity and Political Identity in the Sixteenth-Century." Art History 10 no. 3 (September, 1987): 289-314.
390 391
Carter, Alice. "Marriage couseling in the early seventeenth century: England and the Netherlands compared." In Ten Studies in Anglo-Dutch Relationsf pp. 94-127. Edited by Jan van Dorsten. Leiden and London: the University Press, and Oxford University Press, 1974.
Carter, Alice. Working Life of Women in the Seventeenth Century. London; Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1982.
Cats, Jacob. Alle de Wercken. 2 vols. Amsterdam, 1700.
Cats, Jacob. Dichterlijke Werken van Jacob Cats. ed. P.G. Witsen Geysbeek. 2 vols. Amsterdam: Gebroeder Diederichs, 1828.
Cock, A. de. Spreekwoorden en Zegswijzen over de Vrouwen. Ghent: Ad. Hoste, 1911.
The Colloquies of Erasmus. Translated by Craig R. Thompson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965.
Davis, Natalie Zemon. "Women on Top : Symbolic Sexual Inversion and Political Disorder in Early Modern Europe." In The Reversible World: Symbolic Inversion in Art and Society^ pp. 147-190. Edited by Barbara Babcock. Cornell, 1978.
De Jongh E. "Erotica in vogelperspectief: De dubbelzinningheid van een reeks 17de eeuwse genrevoorstellingen." Simiolus 3 no. 1 (1968-69): 47- 72.
De Jongh E. "Pearls of Virtue and Pearls of Vice." Simiolus 8, no. 2 (1975-76): 70-97.
Don Antonio de Beatis. Voyage du Cardinal D'Aragon: En Allemagne, Hollande, Belgique, France et Italie (1517- 1518). Translated from the Italian after a manuscript of the sixteenth century. Introduction by Madeleine Havard de la Montagne. Preface by Henry Cochin. Paris; Librairie Académique Perrin et Cie., 1913.
Dresen-Coenders, Lene. "De Strijd om de Broek." De Revisor 4, pt. 6 (1977): 29-37.
Dunbar, B.L. "The Landscape Art of Cornelis Massys." Ph.D. dissertation. University of Iowa, 1972.
Franits, Wayne E. "The Vertues which ought to be in a compleate woman." Ph. D. dissertation. New York University, 1987. 392
Fuchs, Eduard and Alfred Kind. Die Weihezherrschaft in der Beschichte der Menschheit. 3 vols. Munich; Albert Langen, 1913.
Gaskell, Ivan. "Tobacco, Social Deviance and Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century." in Hollandische Genremalerei im 17. Jahrhundert; Symposium Berlin 1984. ed. Kenning Bock and Thomas W. Gaehtgens. Berlin: Mann Verlaa, 1987.
Gastelaars, Wilma van Engeldorp. "Ik Sal U Smiten Op Uwen Tant: Geweld tussen man en vrouw in laatmiddeleeuwse kluchten." Doctoral dissertation. Universitéit van Amsterdam, 1984.
Gibson, Walter. "Bruegel, Dulle Griet, and Sexist Politics in the Sixteenth Century." in Pieter Bruegel und Seine Welt. Berlin: Man Verlag, 1979.
"Some Flemish Popular Prints from Hieronymus Cock and His Contemporaries." Art Bulletin 60, no.4 (December, 1978): 673-581.
Grauls, Jan. Volkstaal en Volksleven in het Werk van Pieter Bruegel. Antwerp, Amsterdam: N.V. Standaard- Boekhandel, 1957.
Guicciardini, Ludovico. The Description of the Low Countreys. Imprinted by Peter Short. London, 1593. Reprinted by Norwood: Walter J. Johnson, Inc., 1976.
Haks, Donald. Huwelijk en Gezin in Holland in de 17de en ISde eeuw. Assen: Van Gorcum's Historische Bibliotheek, 1982.
Hollstein, F.W.H. Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts. Amsterdam, 1949.
Howell, James. Epistolae Ho-Elignae: The Familiar Letters of James Howell. Edited by Joseph Jacobs. 2 vols. London: David Nutt, 1890.
Hughes, Charles, ed. Shakespeare's Europe: A Survey of the Condition of Europe at the end of the 16th century. Being unpublished chapters of Fynes Moryson*s Itinerary (1617). New York: Benjamin Blom, Inc., 1967.
Husband, Timothy. The Wild Man: Medieval Myth and Syjabolism. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1980. 393
Jacobowitz, Ellen S. and Stephanie Loeb Stepanek. The Prints of Lucas van Leyden and His Contemporaries. Washington B.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1983.
Kunzle, David. The Early Comic Strip. 2 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973,
Kuznetsov, Yury and Irene Linnik. Dutch Paintings in Soviet Museums. New York: Abrams, 1982.
Laan, Nicolaas van der. Uit Roemer Visscher's Brabbelingh. Utrecht: A. Oosthoek, 1978.
Letwin, William. Sir Josiah Child, Merchant Economist, with a reprint of Brief Observations concerning trade, and interest of money (1668). Cambridge: Harvard University, 1959.
Lowenthal, Ann. Joachim Wtewael and Dutch Mannerism. Doornspijk: Davaco Publishers, 1986.
The Master of the Amsterdam Cabinet or The Housebook Master. Rijksprentenkabinet / Rijksmuseum-Amsterdam in association with Princeton University Press, 1985.
Meyer, Maurits de. Volks- en Kinderprent in De Nederlanden van de 15e tot.de 20e Eeuw- Antwerp, Amsterdam: N.V. Standaard-Boekhandel, 1962.
Miedema, Hesssl. ’’Realism and comic mode: the peasant." Simiolus 9, no. 4 (1977): 205-219.
Minnebroeder, P.B. Spiegel der Quade Vrouwen. Amsterdam, 1668.
Moryson, Fynes. An Itinerary. 4 vols. Glasgow: James MacLehose and Sons, 1908.
Moxey, Keith P.P. "Sebald Beham’s church anniversary holidays: festive peasants as instruments of repressive humor." Simiolus 12, nos. 2/3 (1981- 82): 107-130.
Nieuwe Refereinen van Anna Bijns. Groningen: W.J.A. Jonckbloet and W.S. van Helten, 1880.
Nosemans, J. Klucht van Krijn Onverstant, of Vrouwen Parlement. Amsterdam, 1671.
De Ontvoogde Vrouw. Amsterdam: Jacob Lescailje, 1693. 39 4
Parival, Jean Nicolaas de. Les Delices De la Hollande. Leyden: Chez Pierre Leffen, 1651.
Pleij, Herman. "Taakverdeling in het huwelijk." Literatuur, 3 (1985): 65-69.
Pleij, Herman. "Wie wordt er bang voor het boze wijf." De Revisoz 4, pt. 5 (1977): 38-42.
Poirters, P. Adrianus. Het Masker van de Wereldt Âfgetrocken. Oisterwijk: J. Salsmans, 1935.
Ranger, Konrad. Lockeze Gesellschaft. Berlin: Mann Verlag, 1970.
Reznicek, E.K.J. "Jan Harmensz. Muller als Tekenaar.” Nedezlands Kunsthistozisch Jaazboek 7 (1956): 65-121.
Robinson, William W. "The Eavesdroppers and Related Paintings by Nicolaas Maes." In Hollandische Genzemalezei im 17. Jahzhundezt: Symposium Berlin 1SS4, pp. 283-313. Edited by Henning Bock and Thomas W. Gaehtgens. Berlin; Mann Verlag, 1987.
Rollenhagen, Gabriel. Nucleus emblematum. Utrecht: 1613.
Royalton-Kisch, Martin. Adriaen van de Venne's Album. London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1988.
Schama, Simon. The Embarrassment of Riches. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1987.
"Wives and Wantons : Versions of Womanhood in Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art." The Oxford Art Journal 3, no. 1 (April, 1980): 5-13.
Smith, Susan. "To Women's Wiles I Fell: The 'Power of Women Topoi’ and the Development of Medieval Secular Art." Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, 1978.
Stewart, Alison G. Unequal Lovers: A Study of Unequal Couples in Northern Art. New York: Arabis Books, 1977.
Stoett, P.A. Nederlandsche Spreekwoorden, Spreekwijzenf Uitdrukkingen en Gezegden. 2 vols. Zutphen: W. 0. Thime and Co., 1923. 395
Stone-Ferrier, Linda. Dutch Prints of Daily Life: Mirrors of Life or Masks of Morals. Lawrence: The Spencer Museum of Art, 1983.
Images of Textiles: The Weave of Seventeenth-Century Dutch Art and Society. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1985.
Strauss, Walter. The Illustrated Bartsch. New York: Arabis, 1978.
Sutton, Peter C., ed. Masters of Seventeenth-Century Dutch Genre Painting. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1984.
______Pieter de Hooch. Oxford: Phaidon/Oxford, 1980.
Thys, Petrus. De Mode in Rubens' Tijd. Antwerp : Provinciaal Museum, 1977.
Tot Bering en Vermaak. Betekenissen van Hollandse genrevoorstellingen uit de zeventiende eeuw. Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum, 1976.
Tussen heks en heilige. Nijmegen: SUN, 1985.
Vandenbroeck, Paul. "Verbeeck's peasant weddings: a study of iconography and social function." Simiolus 14, no. 2 (1984): pp. 79-121.
Veen, Otto van. Amorurn Emblemata. Antwerp,1608.
Venne, Adriaen van de. Ta fereel van de Belacchenàe Werelt. The Hague, 1635.
Vey, Horst. "Kolner Zeichnungen Aus Dem 16., 17. und 18. Jahrhundert." Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 26 (1964): 116-118.
Vignau Wilberg-Schuurman, Thea. -.Yoofse Minne en burgerlijke liefde in de prentkunst rond 1500. Leiden: Maartinus Nijhoff, 1983.
Visscher, Roemer. Sinnepoppen. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1949.
Vloten, J. van. Het Nederlandsche Kluchtspel van de 14e tot de 18e Eeuw. 3 vols. Haarlem: W.C. de Graff, 1877. 396
Vogelaar, Christiaan. Netherlandish Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century Paintings in the National Gallery of Ireland: A Complete catalogue. Dublin: The National Gallery of Ireland, 1987.
Vrankrijker, A.C.J. de. Mensen, leven en werken in de Gouden Eeuw. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1981.
Vries, Simon de. Seeven Duyvelen regerende en vervoerende de Hedendaagse Dienst-Maagden. Amsterdam, 1682.
Wallen, Burr. Jan van Hemessen: An Antwerp Painter between Reform and Counter-Reform. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1983.
Walzer, Albert. Liebeskutsche, Reitersmann, Nikolaus und Kinderbringe, Volkstumlicher, Bilderschatz auf Gebackmodeln, in der Graphik und Keramik. Stuttgart: Jan Thorbecke Verlag Konstanz, 1963.
Warburg, Aby. Gesammelte Schriften herausgegeben von der Bibliotkek Warburg. 2 vols. Leipzig, Berlin: B.C. Teubner, 1932.
Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal. Hague and Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, A.W. Sijthoff.
Woude, A.M van der. "Variations in the size and structure of the household in the United Provinces of the Netherlands in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries." pp. 299-318. In Household and family in past time. Edited by Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.