CHAPTER VI

PROFESSIONS

_Introductory_—Tendencies similar to those in Industry.—Army—Church—Law

closed to women. Teaching—Nursing—Medicine chiefly practised by women as

domestic arts. Midwifery.

(A). _Nursing._ The sick poor nursed in lay institutions—London

Hospitals—Dublin—Supplied by low class women—Women searchers for the

plague—Nurses for small-pox or plague—Hired nurses in private families.

(B) _Medicine._ Women’s skill in Middle ages—Medicine practised

extensively by women in seventeenth century in their families, among

their friends and for the poor—Also by the village wise woman for

pay—Exclusiveness of associations of physicians, surgeons and

apothecaries.

(C) _Midwifery._ A woman’s profession—Earlier history unknown—Raynold’s

translation of “the byrthe of mankynd.”—Relative dangers of childbirth

in seventeenth and twentieth centuries—Importance of midwives—Character

of their training—Jane Sharp—Nicholas Culpepper—Peter Chamberlain—Mrs.

Cellier’s scheme for training—Superiority of French training—Licences of

Midwives—Attitude of the Church to them—Fees—Growing tendency to

displace midwives by Doctors.

_Conclusion._ Women’s position in the arts of teaching and healing lost

as these arts became professional.

_Introductory._

SIMILAR tendencies to those which affected the industrial position of

women can be traced in the professions also, showing that, important as

was the influence of capitalistic organisation in the history of women’s

evolution, other powerful factors were working in the same direction.

Three professions were closed to women in the seventeenth century, Arms,

the Church and the Law.

_The Law._—It must be remembered that the mass of the “common people”

were little affected by “the law” before the seventeenth century.

“Common law” was the law of the nobles,[547] while farming people and

artizans alike were chiefly regulated in their dealings with each other

by customs depending for interpretation and sanction upon a public

opinion which represented women as well as men. Therefore the changes

which during the seventeenth century were abrogating customs in favour

of common law, did in effect eliminate women from what was equivalent to

a share in the custody and interpretation of law, which henceforward

remained exclusively in the hands of men. The result of the elimination

of the feminine influence is plainly shown in a succession of laws,

which, in order to secure complete liberty to individual men, destroyed

the collective idea of the family, and deprived married women and

children of the property rights which customs had hitherto secured to

them. From this time also the administration of the law becomes

increasingly perfunctory in enforcing the fulfilment of men’s

responsibilities to their wives and children.

Footnote 547:

_Holdsworth_, Vol. III., p. 408.

_Church_.—According to modern ideas, religion pertains more to women

than to men, but this conception is new, dating from the scientific era.

Science has solved so many of the problems which in former days

threatened the existence of mankind, that the “man in the street”

instinctively relegates religion to the region in which visible beauty,

poetry and music are still permitted to linger; to the ornamental sphere

in short, whither the Victorian gentleman also banished his wife and

daughters. This attitude forms a singular contrast to the ideas which

prevailed in the Middle Ages, when men believed that supernatural

assistance was their sole protection against the “pestilence that

walketh in darkness” or from “the arrow that flieth by day.” Religion

was then held to be such an awful power that there were men who even

questioned whether women could, properly speaking, be considered

religious at all. Even in the seventeenth century the practice of

religion and the holding of correct ideas concerning it were deemed to

be essential for the maintenance of human existence, and no suggestion

was then made that religious observances could be adequately performed

by women alone.

Ideas as to the respective appropriateness of religious power to men and

women have differed widely; some races have reserved the priesthood for

men, while others have recognised a special power enduing women; in the

history of others again no uniform tendency is shown, but the two

influences can be traced acting and reacting upon each other.

This has been the case with the Christian religion, which has combined

the wide-spread worship of the Mother and Child with a passionate

splitting of hairs by celibate priests in dogmatic controversies

concerning intellectual abstractions. The worship of the Mother and

Child had been extirpated in England before the beginning of the

seventeenth century; pictures of this subject were denounced because

they showed the Divine Son under the domination of a woman. One writer

accuses the Jesuits of representing Christ always “as a sucking child in

his mothers armes”—“nay, that is nothing they make him an underling to a

woman,” alleging that “the Jesuits assert (1) no man, but a woman did

helpe God in the work of our Redemption, (2) that God made Mary partaker

and fellow with him of his divine Majesty and power, (3) that God hath

divided his Kingdom with Mary, keeping Justice to himselfe, and yielding

mercy to her.” He complains that “She is always set forth as a woman and

a mother, and he as a child and infant, either in her armes, or in her

hand, that so the common people might have occasion to imagine that

looke, what power of overruling and commanding the mother hath over her

little child, the same hath she over her son Jesus ... the mother is

compared to the son, not as being a child or a man, but as the saviour

and mediator, and the paps of a woman equalled with the wounds of our

Lord, and her milke with his blood.... But for her the holy scriptures

speake no more of her, but as of a creature, a woman ... saved by Faith

in her Saviour Jesus Christ ... and yet now after 1600 yeares she must

still be a commanding mother and must show her authority over him ...

she must be saluted as a lady, a Queen, a goddesse and he as a

child.”[548]

Footnote 548:

_C.W._ 1641. _The Bespotted Jesuite._

The ridicule with which Peter Heylin treated the worship of the Virgin

Mary in France seems to have been pointed more at the notion of

honouring motherhood, rather than at the distinction given to her as a

woman, for he wrote “if they will worship her as a Nurse with her Child

in her arms, or at her breast, let them array her in such apparel as

might beseem a Carpenter’s Wife, such as she might be supposed to have

worn before the world had taken notice that she was the Mother of her

Saviour. If they must needs have her in her state of glory as at Amiens;

or of honour (being now publikely acknowledged to be the blessedness

among Women) as at Paris: let them disburden her of her Child. To clap

them thus both together, is a folly equally worthy of scorn &

laughter.”[549]

Footnote 549:

Heylin (Peter), _The Voyage of France_, p. 29, 1673.

The reform which had swept away the worship of divine motherhood had

also abolished the enforced celibacy of the priesthood; but the priest’s

wife was given no position in the Church, and a tendency may be noted

towards the secularisation of all women’s functions. Convents and

nunneries were abolished, and no institutions which might specially

assist women in the performance of their spiritual, educational or

charitable duties were established in their place. There was, in fact, a

deep jealousy of any influence which might disturb the authority and

control which the individual husband exercised over his wife, and

probably the seventeenth century Englishman was beginning to realise

that nothing would be so subversive to this authority as the association

of women together for religious purposes. If a recognised position was

given to women in the Church, their lives must inevitably receive an

orientation which would not necessarily be identical with their

husband’s, thus creating a danger of conflicting loyalties. Naturally,

therefore, women were excluded from any office, but it would be a

mistake to suppose that their subordination to their husbands in

religious matters was rigidly enforced throughout this period. Certainly

in the first half of the century their freedom of thought in religion

was usually taken for granted, and possibly amongst the Baptists,

certainly amongst the Quakers, full spiritual equality was accorded to

them. Women were universally admitted to the sacraments, and therefore

recognised as being, in some sort, members of the Church, but this was

consistent with the view of their position to which Milton’s well known

lines in “Paradise Lost” give perfect expression, the ideal which, in

all subsequent social and political changes, was destined to determine

women’s position in Church and State:—

“Whence true authoritie in men, though both

Not equal, as their sex not equal seem’d,

For contemplation hee and valour form’d

For softness shee, and sweet attractive Grace,

Hee for God only, shee for God in him:

* * * *

To whom thus Eve with perfect beauty adornd

My Author and Disposer, what thou bidst

Unargu’d I obey; so God ordains,

God is thy Law, thou mine; to know no more

Is woman’s happiest knowledge and her praise.”

Nevertheless, though excluded from any position in the hierarchy of

recognised servants of the Church, it must not be supposed that the

Church was independent of women’s service. To their hands necessity

rather than the will of man had entrusted a duty, which when unfulfilled

makes all the complicated organisation of the Church impotent; namely,

the bending of the infant mind and soul towards religious ideals and

emotions. The lives of the reformers of the seventeenth century bear

witness to the faithfulness with which women accomplished this task. In

many cases their religious labours were extended beyond the care of

their children, embracing the whole household for their field of

service. The life of Letice, Viscountess Falkland, gives an example of

the sense of responsibility under which many religious women lived. Lady

Falkland passed about an hour with her maids, early every morning “in

praying, and catechizing and instructing them; to these secret and

private prayers, the publick morning and evening prayers of the Church,

before dinner and supper; and another form (together with reading

Scriptures and singing Psalms) before bedtime, were daily and constantly

added ... neither were these holy offices appropriate to her menial

servants, others came freely to joyn with them, and her Oratory was as

open to her neighbours as her Hall was ... her Servants were all moved

to accompany her to the Sacrament, and they who were prevailed with gave

up their names to her, two or three dayes before, and from thence, she

applied herself to the instructing of them ... and after the Holy

Sacrament she called them together again and gave them such exhortations

as were proper for them.”[550]

Footnote 550:

_Falkland, Lady Letice, Vi-countess, Life and Death of._

The quarrel between Church and State over the teaching profession is an

old story which does not concern this investigation. It is sufficient to

note that in England neither Church nor State considered that the work

of women in training the young entitled them to a recognised position in

the general social organisation, or required any provision apart from

the casual arrangements of family life.

_Teaching._—The question of the standard and character of the education

given to girls is too large a subject to be entered into here; it can

only be remarked that the number of professional paid women teachers was

small. The natural aptitude of the average woman for training the young,

however, enabled mothers to provide their children, both boys and girls,

with a very useful foundation of elementary education.

The professions of medicine, midwifery and nursing are very closely

allied to each other; for neither was there any system of instruction on

a scientific basis available for women, whose practice was thus

empirical; but as yet science had done little to improve the skill even

of the male practitioner.

_Nursing._—Nursing was almost wholly a domestic art.

_Medicine._—Though we find many references to women who practised

medicine and surgery as professions, in the majority of cases their

skill was used only for the assistance of their family and neighbours.

_Midwifery._—Midwifery was upon a different footing, standing out as the

most important public function exercised by women, and being regarded as

their inviolable mystery till near the beginning of the seventeenth

century. The steady process through which in this profession women were

then supplanted by men, furnishes an example of the way in which women

have lost their hold upon all branches of skilled responsible work,

through being deprived of opportunities for specialised training.

The relative deterioration of woman’s capacity in comparison with the

standard of men’s efficiency cannot be more clearly shown than in the

history of midwifery. Even though the actual skill of midwives may not

have declined during the seventeenth century men were rapidly surpassing

them in scientific knowledge, for the general standard of women’s

education was declining, and they were debarred from access to the

higher branches of learning. As the absence of technical training kept

women out of the skilled trades, so did the lack of scientific education

drive them from the more profitable practice of midwifery, which in

former times tradition and prejudice had reserved as their monopoly.

A. _Nursing._

Whatever arrangements had been made by the religious orders in England

for the care of the sick poor were swept away by the Reformation. The

provision which existed in the seventeenth century for this purpose

rested on a lay basis, quite unconnected with the Church. Amongst the

most famous charitable institutions were the four London Hospitals;

Christ’s Hospital for children under the age of sixteen, St.

Bartholomew’s and St. Thomas’s for the sick and impotent poor, and

Bethlehem for the insane.

There is no evidence that the women of the upper classes took any part

in the management of these hospitals. The squalor and the ugly and

disgusting details which are associated with nursing the diseased and

often degraded poor, was unredeemed by the radiance with which a mystic

realisation of the Divine Presence had upheld the Catholic Saints, or by

the passionate desire for the service of humanity which inspired

Florence Nightingale. Thus it was only the necessity for earning their

daily bread which induced any women to enter the profession of nursing

during this period, and as the salaries offered were considerably lower

than the wages earned by a competent servant in London, it may be

supposed that the class attracted did not represent the most efficient

type of women.

The rules appointed for the governance of nurses show that the

renunciations of a nun’s life were required of them, but social opinion

in Protestant England set no seal of excellence upon their work, however

faithfully performed, and the sacrifices demanded from the nurses were

unrewarded by the crown of victory.

During the reign of Edward VI. there were a matron and twelve sisters at

St. Bartholomew’s who received in wages £26 6s. 8d. In addition the

matron received 1s. 6d. per week for board wages and the sisters 1s. 4d.

per week, and between them £6 per year for livery, while the matron

received 13s. 4d. for this purpose.[551] The rules for the governance of

the sisters were as follows:—“Your charge is, in all Things to declare

and shew yourselves gentle, diligent, and obedient to the Matron of this

House, who is appointed and authorised to be your chief Governess and

Ruler. Ye shall also faithfully and charitably serve and help the Poor

in all their Griefs and Diseases, as well by keeping them sweet and

clean, as in giving them their Meats and Drinks, after the most honest

and comfortable Manner. Also ye shall use unto them good and honest

Talk, such as may comfort and amend them; and utterly to avoid all

light, wanton, and foolish Words, Gestures, and Manners, using

yourselves unto them with all Sobriety and Discretion, and above all

Things, see that ye avoid, abhor, and detest Scolding and Drunkenness as

most pestilent and filthy Vices. Ye shall not haunt or resort to any

manner of Person out of this House, except ye be licensed by the Matron;

neither shall ye suffer any light Person to haunt or use unto you,

neither any dishonest Person, Man or Woman; and so much as in you shall

lie, ye shall avoid and shun the Conversation and Company of all Men. Ye

shall not be out of the Woman’s Ward after the Hour of seven of the

Clock in the Night, in the Winter Time, nor after Nine of the Clock in

the Night in the Summer: except ye shall be appointed and commanded by

the Matron so to be, for some great and special cause that shall concern

the Poor, (as the present Danger of Death or extreme Sickness), and yet

so being commanded, ye shall remain no longer with such diseased Person

than just Cause shall require. Also, if any just Cause of Grief shall

fortune unto any of you, or that ye shall see Lewdness in any Officer,

of other Person of this House, which may sound or grow to the Hurt or

Slander thereof, ye shall declare the same to the Matron, or unto one or

two of the Govenours of this House, that speedy Remedy therein may be

had; and to no other Person neither shall ye talk or meddle therein any

farther. This is your Charge, and with any other Thing you are not

charged.”[552]

Footnote 551:

Stow, _London_, I., pp. 185-186.

Footnote 552:

Stow, _London_, app., p. 58.

The Matron was instructed to “receive of the Hospitaler of this House

all such sick and diseased Persons as he ... shall present unto you,”

and to “have also Charge, Governance & Order of all the Sisters of this

House ... that every of them ... do their Duty unto the Poor, as well in

making of their Beds, and keeping their Wards, as also in washing and

purging their unclean Cloaths, and other Things. And that the same

Sisters every night after the Hour of seven of the Clock in the Winter,

and nine of the Clock in the Summer, come not out of the Woman’s Ward,

except some great and special Cause (as the present Danger of Death, or

needful Succour of some poor Person). And yet at such a special time it

shall not be lawful for every Sister to go forth to any Person or

Persons (no tho’ it be in her Ward) but only for such as you shall think

virtuous, godly, and discreet. And the same Sister to remain no longer

with the same sick Person then needful Cause shall require. Also at such

times as the Sisters shall not be occupied about the Poor, ye shall set

them to spinning or doing some other Manner of Work, that may avoid

Idleness, and be profitable to the Poor of this House. Also ye shall

receive the Flax ... the same being spun by the Sisters, ye shall commit

to the said Governors.... You shall also ... have special Regard to the

good ordering & keeping of all the Sheets, Coverlets, Blankets, Beds,

and other Implements committed to your Charge, ... Also ye shall suffer

no poor Person of this House to sit and drink within your House at no

Time, neither shall ye so send them drink into their Wards, that thereby

Drunkenness might be used and continued among them.”[553]

Footnote 553:

Stow, _London_, App., pp. 57-58.

In Christ’s Hospital there were two Matrons with salaries of £2 13s. 4d.

per annum and forty-two women keepers with salaries of 40s. per annum.

Board wages were allowed at the rate of 1s. 4d. per week for the

“keepers” and 1s. 6d. for the Matrons. There was one keeper for fifteen

persons.[554] The Matron was advised “Your office is an office of great

charge and credite. For to yow is committed the Governance and oversight

of all the women and children within this Hospital. And also to yow is

given Authoritie to commaunde, reprove, and rebuke them or any of

them.... Your charge is also to searche and enquire whether the women do

their Dutie, in washing of the children’s sheets and shirts, and in

kepeing clean and sweet those that are committed to their Charge; and

also in the Beddes, Sheets, Coverlets, and Apparails (with kepeing clean

Wards and Chambers) mending of such as shall be broken from Time to

Time. And specially yow shall give diligent Hede, that the said Washers

and Nurses of this Howse be alwaies well occupied and not idle; ... you

shal also once every Quarter of the Year examine the Inventorie.”[555]

Footnote 554:

_Ibid._ I., pp. 175-6.

Footnote 555:

Stow, _London_, app., p. 42.

The nurses were instructed that they must “carefully and diligently

oversee, kepe, and governe all those tender Babes & yonglings that shal

be committed to your Charge, and the same holesomely, cleanely and

swetely nourishe and bring up ... kepe your Wardes and every Part

thereof swete and cleane ... avoid all Idleness when your Charge and

Care of keping the Children is past, occupie yourselves in Spinning,

Sewing, mending of Sheets and Shirts, or some other vertuous Exercise,

such as you shal be appointed unto. Ye shal not resort or suffer any Man

to resort to you, before ye have declared the same to the almoners or

Matron of this Howse and obtained their Lycense and Favour, so to do ...

see that all your children, before they be brought to Bed, be washed and

cleane, and immediately after, every one of yow quietly shal go to your

Bed, and not to sit up any longer; and once every night arise, and see

that the Children be covered, for taking of Colde.”[556]

Footnote 556:

Stow, _London_, app., p. 43.

Some idea of the class of women who actually undertook the important

duties of Matron for the London Hospitals may be gathered from a

petition presented by Joane Darvole, Matron of St. Thomas’s Hospital,

Southwark, to Laud. She alleged “that she was dragged out of the Chapel

of the Hospital at service and dragged along the streets to prison for

debt, to the hazard of her life,” she being a “very weak sickly and aged

woman,” clothes torn from her back and cast into a swoon. She petitions

against the profanation of God’s house and the scandal to the

congregation.[557]

Footnote 557:

_S.P.D._, cccclv., 87., May 30th, 1640.

Sick and wounded soldiers were tended at the Savoy, where there were

thirteen Sisters, whose joint salaries amounted to £52 16s. 8d. per

annum.[558] Among the orders for the patients, nurses and widows in the

Savoy and other hospitals in and about London occur the following

regulations:—4ᵗʰˡʸ “That every soldier or nurse ... that shall profanely

sweare” to pay 12d. for the first offence, 12d. for the second, and be

expelled for the third. 8ᵗʰˡʸ “That if any souldier shall marye any of

the nurses of the said houses whilst hee is there for care or (recov)ery

they both shall be turned forth of the House. 11ᵗʰˡʸ No soldier under

cure to have their (wiv)es lodge with them there except by the

approbation of the Phisicion. 12ᵗʰˡʸ No nurse to be dismissed without

the approval of 2 of the Treasurers for the relief of maimed soldiers at

least. Nurses to be chosen from among the widows of soldiers if there

are among them those that be fit, and those to have 5s. per weeke as

others usually have had for the service. 14ᵗʰˡʸ soldiers, wounded and

sick, outside the hospitals not to have more than 4s. per week. Those in

St. Thomas’s and Bartholomew’s hospital 2s. a week, those in their

parents’, masters’ or friends’ houses, according to their necessities,

but not more than 4s. per week. 15ᵗʰˡʸ Soldiers’ widows to receive

according to their necessities, but not more than 4s. a week. 19ᵗʰˡʸ If

any of the nurses ... shalbee negligent in their duties or in giving due

attendance to the ... sicke souldiers by daye or night or shall by

scoulding, brawlinge or chidinge make any disturbance in the said

hospitall, she shall forfeite 12d. for 1st offence, week’s pay for

second, be dismissed for the third. 20ᵗʰˡʸ If any widow after marriage

shall come and receive weekly pensions as a soldier’s widow contrary to

the ordinance of parlᵗ he which hath married her to repay it, & if he is

unable she shall be complained of to the nearest J.P. and be punished as

a de(ceiver).”[559]

Footnote 558:

Stow, _London_ I., p. 211.

Footnote 559:

_S.P.D._, dxxxix, 231., November 15, 1644.

There was one nurse for every ten patients in the Dublin hospitals, and

the salary was £10 per annum, out of which she had to find her

board.[560]

Footnote 560:

_S.P.D._, Interreg: I, 62, p. 633., 17 Aug., 1649.

The opportunity which the hospitals afforded for training in the art of

nursing was entirely wasted. The idea that the personal tending of the

sick and forlorn poor would be a religious service of special value in

the sight of God had vanished, and their care, no longer transformed by

the devotion of religious enthusiasm, appeared a sordid duty, only fit

for the lowest class in the community. Well-to-do men relieved their

consciences by bequeathing money for the endowment of hospitals, but the

sense of social responsibility was not fostered in girls, and the

expression of charitable instincts was almost confined in the case of

women to their personal relations.

Outside the hospitals employment was given to a considerable number of

women in the tending of persons stricken with small-pox or the plague,

and in searching corpses for signs of the plague. London constables and

churchwardens were ordered in 1570 “to provide to have in readiness

Women to be Provyders & Deliverers of necessaries to infected Howses,

and to attend the infected Persons, and they to bear reed Wandes, so

that the sick maie be kept from the whole, as nere as maie be, needful

attendance weyed.”[561]

Footnote 561:

Stow, _London_, V., p. 433.

In the town records of Reading it is noted “at this daye Marye Jerome

Wydowe was sworn to be a viewer and searcher of all the bodyes that

shall dye within this boroughe, and truly to report and certifye to her

knowledge of what disease they dyed, etc.; and Anne Lovejoy widowe,

jurata, 4ˢ a weeke a peice, allowing iiijs. a moneth after.”[562] “Mary

Holte was sworne to be a searcher of the dead bodyes hencefovrth dyeinge

within the boroughe (being thereunto required) having iiijs. a weeke for

her wages, and iiid. a corps carryeing to buryall, and iiijs. a weeke a

moneth after the ceassinge of the plague.”[563]

Footnote 562:

Guilding, _Reading Records_, Vol. II., p. 241, 1625.

Footnote 563:

_Ibid._ Vol. II., p. 244, 1625.

In 1637 it was “agreed ... with old Frewyn and his wief, that she shall

presentlye goe into the house of Henry Merrifeild and be aidinge &

helpinge to the said Merrifeild and his wief, during the time of their

visitacion [plague].... She shall have dyett with them, and six weekes

after their visitacion ended. And old Frewin to have 2s. a week duringe

all that tyme paid him, and 2s. in hand. And she shall have 2ˢ a weeke

kept for her & paid her in th’end of the sixe weekes after.”[564] Later

“it was thought fitt the Woman keeper and Merifielde’s wenche in the

Pest-house, it beinge above vj weekes past since any one dyed there,

should be at libertie and goe hence to her husbande’s house, she havinge

done her best endevour to ayre and cleanse all the beddes & beddinge &

other things in both the houses ... for her mayntenance vj weekes after

the ceassinge of the sicknes, she keepinge the wenche with her, they

shalbe paid 3s. a weeke for and towardes their mayntenance duringe the

vj weekes.”[565] In 1639 the Council “Agree to geve the Widowe Lovejoye

in full satisfaccion for all her paynes taken in and about the visited

people in this Towne in this last visitacion xls. in money, and cloth to

make her a kirtle and a wascote, and their favour towards her two

sonnes-in-lawe (beinge forreynours) about their fredome.”[566] On a

petition in 1641 from Widow Lovejoy “for better allowance & satisfaction

for her paines aboute the visited people; ... it was agreed that she

shall have xxxs. soe soone as the taxe for the visited people is made

uppe.”[567]

Footnote 564:

_Ibid._ Vol. III., p. 371.

Footnote 565:

_Ibid._ Vol. III., p. 384, 1637.

Footnote 566:

Guilding, _Reading Records_, Vol. III., p. 459.

Footnote 567:

_Ibid._ Vol. IV., p. 8.

In rural districts where hospitals were seldom within reach, entries are

not infrequently found in the parish account books of payments made to

women for nursing the poor. “Item. To Mother Middleton for twoe nights

watchinge with Widow Coxe’s child being sick.”[568] “To Goody Halliday,

for nursing him & his family 5 weeks £1 5; to Goody Nye, for assisting

in nursing, 2s. 6d.[569] ... to Goody Peckham for nursing a beggar, 5s.

For nursing Wickham’s boy with the small pocks 12s.”[570] A

Hertfordshire parish paid a woman 15s. for her attendance during three

weeks on a woman and her illegitimate child.[571] A Morton man was

ordered to pay out of his next half-year’s rent for the grounds he

farmed of Isabelle Squire “20s. to Margt. Squire, who attended and

looked to her half a year during the time of her distraction.”[572]

Footnote 568:

_Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. XXIII., p. 90. _Hastings Documents_, 1601.

Footnote 569:

_Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. XX., p. 117. _Acc. Book of Cowden,_ 1704.

Footnote 570:

_Ibid._ p. 118.

Footnote 571:

_Hertford County Records_, Vol. I., p. 435, 1698.

Footnote 572:

Atkinson, J. C., _Yorks. N. R. Q.S. Records_, Vol. VII., p. 91. 1688.

Sometimes nurses were provided for the poor by religious and charitable

ladies, who, like Letice, Viscountess Falkland, “hired nurses to serve

them.”[573] Sick nurses were also engaged by well-to-do people to attend

upon themselves or their servants. Thus the Rev. Giles Moore enters in

his journal “My mayde being sicke I payd for opening her veine 4d. to

the Widdow Rugglesford, for looking to her, I gave 1s. and to old Bess

for tending her 3 days and 2 nights I gave 1ˢ; in all 2ˢ 4ᵈ.”[574] A

little later, when the writer himself was “in an ague. Paid Goodwyfe

Ward for being necessary to me 1s.”[575] Though his daughter was with

him, a nurse watched in the chamber when Colonel Hutchinson died in the

prison at Dover.[576]

Footnote 573:

_Falkland, Lady Letice, Vi-countess, Life and Death of._

Footnote 574:

_Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. I., p. 72. _Rev. Giles Moore’s Journal._

Footnote 575:

_Ibid._ Vol. I., p. 100. 1667.

Footnote 576:

_Memoirs of Col. Hutchinson_, p. 377.

A few extracts from account books will supply further details as to the

usual scale of remuneration for nurses; no doubt in each case the money

given was in addition to meat and drink. Sarah Fell enters “by mᵒ given

Ann Daniell for her paines about Rachell Yeamans when she died

05.00.”[577] Timothy Burrell “pd. Gosmark for tending Mary 3 weeks

6s.”[578] Lady Grisell Baillie engaged a special nurse for her daughter

Rachy at a fee of 5s.[579] At Herstmonceux Castle they “pd Hawkin’s wife

for tending the sick maiden 10 days 3s. Pd. Widdow Weeks for tending

sick seruants a fortnight 4s.”[580] Sir John Foulis in Scotland paid “to

Ketherin in pᵗ paymᵗ & till account for her attendance on me the time of

my sickness 12. 0. 0” [scots].[581] “To Katherine tueddie in compleat

paymᵗ for her attendance on me wⁿ I was sick 20. 0. 0.” [scots].[582]

“To my good douchter jennie to give tibbie tomsone for her attendance on

my wife the time of her sickness 5. 16. 0. [scots].”[583]

Footnote 577:

Fell (Sarah), _Household Accounts_, p. 285. June 20, 1676.

Footnote 578:

_Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. III., p. 123. _Journal of Timothy Burrell._

1688.

Footnote 579:

_Baillie, Lady Grisell, Household Book._ Intro. lxvii.

Footnote 580:

_Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. XLVIII., p. 121. 1643-1649.

Footnote 581:

Foulis, Sir John, _Account Book_, p. 346. May 23, 1704.

Footnote 582:

_Ibid._ p. 396. August 22, 1705.

Footnote 583:

_Ibid._ p. 314. January 28, 1703.

All the above instances refer to professional nursing; that is to say to

the tending of the sick for wages, but nursing was more often of an

unprofessional character. Sickness was rife in all classes, and for the

most part the sick were tended by the women of their household or

family. The claim for such assistance was felt beyond the limits of

kinship, and in the village community each woman would render it to her

neighbour without thought of reward. The solidarity of the community was

a vital tradition to the village matron of the early seventeenth

century, and it was only in cases of exceptional isolation or

difficulty, or where the sick person was a stranger or an outcast that

the services of a paid nurse were called in. Probably the standard of

efficiency was higher in domestic than in professional nursing, because

professional nurses received no systematic training. Their rate of

remuneration was low, the essential painfulness of their calling was not

concealed by the glamour of a religious vocation, still less was it

rewarded by any social distinction. Therefore the women who took up

nursing for their livelihood did so from necessity, and were drawn from

the lower classes.

Illness was so frequent in the seventeenth century that few girls can

have reached maturity without the opportunity of practising the art of

nursing at home; but amongst the “common people,” that is to say all the

class of independent farmers and tradesmen, the housewife can hardly

have found time to perfect her skill in nursing to a fine art. Probably

the highest level was reached in the households of the gentry, where

idleness was not yet the accepted hall-mark of a lady, and the mistress

felt herself to be responsible for the training of her children and

servants in every branch of the domestic arts, amongst which were

reckoned both medicine and nursing.

B. _Surgery and Medicine._

The position held by mediæval women in the arts of healing is shown in

such books as Mallory’s “Morte d’Arthur.” When wounds proved intractable

to the treatment of the rough and ready surgeons who attended in the

vicinity of tourneys, knights sought help from some high-born lady

renowned for her skill in medicine. It is true that popular belief

assigned her success to witchcraft rather than to the knowledge and

understanding acquired by diligent study and experience, but a tendency

to faith in the occult was universal, and the reputation of the ladies

probably bore some relation to their success in the cures attempted,

for, according to the author of “The Golden Bough,” science is the

lineal descendant of witchcraft. The position of pre-eminence as

consultants was no longer retained by women in the seventeenth century.

Schools and Universities had been founded, where men could study

medicine and anatomy, and thus secure for themselves a higher standard

of knowledge and efficiency; but, though women were excluded from these

privileges they were not yet completely ousted from the medical

profession, and as a domestic art medicine was still extensively

practised by them.

Every housewife was expected to understand the treatment of the minor

ailments at least of her household, and to prepare her own drugs.

Commonplace books of this period contain recipes for making mulberry

syrup, preserving fruit and preparing meats, mingled with, for example,

prescriptions for plague water, which is “very good against the plague,

the small-pox, the measles, surfeitts ... and is of a sovereign nature

to be given in any sickness.” “An oyle good for any ach—and ointments

for sore eyes or breasts, or stone in the kidney or bladder.” And in

addition, “my brother Jones his way of making inks.”[584] “The Ladies

Dispensatory” contains “the Natures, Vertues and Qualities of all Herbs,

and Simples usefull in Physick. Reduced into a Methodical Order,” the

diseases to be treated including those of men, as well as women and

children.[585]

Footnote 584:

_Add. MSS._ 36308.

Footnote 585:

Sowerby (Leonard). _The Ladies’ Dispensatory._ 1651.

As was the case in other domestic arts, girls depended for their

training in medicine chiefly on the tradition they received from their

mothers, but this was reinforced from other sources as occasion offered.

“The Ladies Dispensatory” was not the only handbook published for their

use; sometimes, though schools were closed to women, an opportunity

occurred for private coaching. Thus Sarah Fell entered in her account

book, “July ʸᵉ 5º 1674 by mᵒ to Bro: Loweʳ yᵗ hee gave Thomas Lawson foʳ

comeinge over hitheʳ to Instruct him & sistʳˢ, in the knowledge of

herbs. 10.00,”[586] and when Mrs. Hutchinson’s husband was Governor of

the Tower she allowed Sir Walter Raleigh and Mr. Ruthin during their

imprisonment to make experiments in chemistry “at her cost, partly to

comfort and divert the poor prisoners, and partly to gain the knowledge

of their experiments, and the medicines to help such poor people as were

not able to seek physicians. By these means she acquired a great deal of

skill, which was very profitable to many all her life.”[587]

Footnote 586:

Fell, (Sarah). _Household Accounts_, p. 95. July 5, 1674.

Footnote 587:

_Memoirs of Col. Hutchinson_, p. 12.

Neither did ladies confine their services to their own household, but

extended their benefits to all their suffering neighbours. The care of

the sick poor was considered to be one of the duties of a “Person of

Quality,” whose housekeepers were expected “to have a competent

knowledge in Physick and Chyrurgery, that they may be able to help their

maimed, sick and indigent Neighbours; for Commonly, all good and

charitable Ladies make this a part of their Housekeepers business.”[588]

The “Good Woman” is described as one who “distributes among the

Indigent, Money and Books, and Cloaths, and Physick, as their severall

Circumstances may require,” to relieve “her poorer Neighbours in sudden

Distress, when a Doctor is not at Hand, or when they have no Money to

buy what may be necessary for them; and the charitableness of her

Physick is often attended by some cure or other that is remarkable. God

gives a _peculiar Blessing_ to the Practice of those Women who have no

other design in this Matter, but the doing Good: that neither prescribe

where they may have the Advice of the Learned, nor at any time give or

recommend any thing to try Experiments, but what they are assured from

former Tryals is safe and innocent; and if it do not help cannot

hurt.”[589]

Footnote 588:

_Compleat Servant-maid_, p. 40.

Footnote 589:

Rogers, Timothy. _Character of a Good Woman_, p. 42-43.

The provision made by Lady Falkland of “antidotes against infection and

of Cordials, and other several sorts of Physick for such of her

Neighbours as should need them, amounted yearly to very considerable

summes ... her skil indeed was more than ordinary, and her wariness

too.... Bookes of spiritual exhortations, she carried in her hand to

these sick persons.”[590] Mrs. Elizabeth Bedell “was very famous and

expert in Chirurgery, which she continually practised upon multitudes

that flock’d to her, and still _gratis_, without respect of persons,

poor or rich. It hapned occasionally that some would return like the

heald Samaritan, with some token of thankfulness; though this was

seldom. But God did not fail to reward them with (that which in

Scripture is most properly call’d his reward) children, and the fruit of

the womb. 3 sons and 4 daughters.”[591]

Footnote 590:

_Falkland, Lady Lettice, Vi-countess, The Life and Death of._

Footnote 591:

_Bedell, (Wm.), Life and Death of_, p. 2.

Expressions of gratitude to women for these medical services occur in

letters and diaries of the time. The Rev. R. Josselin enters January

27th, 1672, “My L. Honeywood sent her coach for me: yᵗ I stayd to March

10, in wᶜʰ time my Lady was my nurse & Phisitian & I hope for much good:

... they considered yᵉ scurvy. I tooke purge & other things for

it;”[592] Marmaduke Rawdon met with a carriage accident, in which he

strained his “arme, but comminge to Hodsden his good cossen Mrs.

Williams, with hir arte and care, quickly cured itt, and in ten dayes

was well againe.”[593]

Footnote 592:

Jonson, (Ben.), _The Alchemist_, Act IV. Sc. I.

Footnote 593:

Josselin, (R.), _Diary_, pp. 163-4.

Nor was the practice of medicine confined to Gentlewomen; many a humble

woman in the country, the wife of farmer or husbandman, used her skill

for the benefit of her neighbours. In their case, though many were

prompted purely by motives of kindness and goodwill, others received

payment for their services. How much the dependence of the common people

on the skill of these “wise women” was taken for granted is suggested by

some lines in “The Alchemist,” where Mammon assures Dol Common

“This nook, here, of the Friers is no Climate

For her to live obscurely in, to learne

Physick, and Surgery, for the Constable’s wife

Of some odde Hundred in Essex.”[594]

Footnote 594:

_Rawdon, (Marmaduke), Life of_, p. 85.

Though their work was entirely unscientific, experience and common

sense, or perhaps mere luck, often gave to their treatment an appearance

of success which was denied to their more learned rivals. Thus Adam

Martindale describing his illness says that it was “a vehement

fermentation in my body ... ugly dry scurfe, eating deep and spreading

broad. Some skilfull men, or so esteemed, being consulted and differing

much in their opinions, we were left to these three bad choices ... in

this greate straite God sent us in much mercie a poore woman, who by a

salve made of nothing but Celandine and a little of the Mosse of an ashe

root, shred and boyled in May-butter, tooke it cleare away in a short

time, and though after a space there was some new breakings out, yet

these being annointed with the same salve ... were absolutely cleared

away.”[595]

Footnote 595:

_Martindale (Adam), Life of_, p. 21. 1632.

The general standard of efficiency among the men who professed medicine

and surgery was very low, the chief work of the ordinary country

practitioner being the letting of blood, and the wise woman of the

village may easily have been his superior in other forms of treatment.

Sir Ralph Verney, writing to his wife advises her to “give the child no

phisick but such as midwives and old women, with the doctors

approbation, doe prescribe; for assure yourselfe they by experience know

better than any phisition how to treate such infants.”[596] Of Hobbes it

was said that he took little physick and preferred “an experienced old

woman” to the “most learned and inexperienced physician.”[597]

Footnote 596:

_Verney Family_, Vol. 2, p. 270. 1647.

Footnote 597:

_Dictionary of National Biography._

Dr. Turbeville, a noted oculist in the West Country, was sent for to

cure the Princess of Denmark, who had a dangerous inflammation of the

eyes. On his return he is reported to have said that “he expected to

learn something of these Court doctors, but, to his amazement he found

them only spies upon his practice, and wholly ignorant as to the lady’s

case; nay, farther, he knew several midwives and old women, whose advice

he would rather follow than theirs.”[598] He died at Sarum in 1696, and

his sister, Mrs. Mary Turbeville, practised afterwards in London “with

good reputation and success. She has all her brother’s receipts, and

having seen his practice, during many years, knows how to use them. For

my part, I have so good an opinion of her skill that should I again be

afflicted with sore eyes, which God forbid! I would rely upon her advice

rather than upon any pretenders or professors in London or

elsewhere.”[599]

Footnote 598:

Hoare, Sir R. C., _History of Modern Wilts_, Vol. VI., p. 465.

Footnote 599:

Hoare, Sir R. C., _History of Modern Wilts_, Vol. VI., p. 467.

Events, however, were taking place which would soon curtail the practice

of women whose training was confined to personal experience, tradition

and casual study. The established associations of physicians, surgeons

and apothecaries, although of recent growth, demanded and obtained, like

other companies, exclusive privileges. Their policy fell in with the

Government’s desire to control the practice of medicine, in order to

check witchcraft. Statute 3, Henry VIII., enacted that “none should

exercise the Faculty of Physick or Surgery within the City of _London_

or within Seven Miles of the same, unless first he were examined,

approved and admitted by the Bishop of _London_, or the Dean of _St.

Paul’s_, calling to him or them Four Doctors of Physick, and for Surgery

other expert Persons in that Faculty, upon pain of Forfeiture of £5 for

every Month they should occupy Physick or Surgery, not thus admitted”

because “that common Artificers, as Smiths, Weavers, and Women, boldly

and accustomably took upon them great Cures, and Things of great

Difficulty, in the which they partly used Sorceries and Witchcraft, and

partly applied such Medicines unto the Diseased, as were very noyous,

and nothing meet therefore.”[600]

Footnote 600:

Stow, _London_ I., p. 132.

The restrictions were extended to the provinces. A Charter given to the

Company of Barber-Surgeons at Salisbury in 1614 declared that “No

surgeon or barber is to practise any surgery or barbery, unless first

made a free citizen, and then a free brother of the company. Whereas,

also, there are divers women and others within this city, altogether

unskilled in the art of chirurgery, who do oftentimes take cures on

them, to the great danger of the patient, it is therefore ordered, that

no such woman, or any other, shall take or meddle with any cure of

chirurgery, wherefore they, or any of them shall have or take any money,

benefit or other reward for the same, upon pain that every delinquent

shall for every cure to be taken in hand, or meddled with, contrary to

this order, unless she or they shall be first allowed by this Company,

forfeit and lose to the use of this Company the sum of ten

shillings.”[601]

Footnote 601:

Hoare, Sir R. C., _History of Modern Wilts_, Vol. VI., p. 341.

The Apothecaries were separated from the Grocers in 1617, the charter of

their company providing that “No person or persons whatsoever may have,

hold, or keep an Apothecaries Shop or Warehouse, or that may exercise or

use the Art or Mystery of Apothecaries, or make, mingle, work, compound,

prepare, give, apply, or administer, any Medicines, or that may sell,

set on sale, utter, set forth, or lend any Compound or Composition to

any person or persons whatsoever within the City of London, and the

Liberties thereof, or within Seven Miles of the said city, unless such

person or persons as have been brought up, instructed, and taught by the

space of Seven Years at the least, as Apprentice or Apprentices, with

some Apothecary or Apothecaries exercising the same Art, and being a

Freeman of the said Mystery.” Any persons wishing to become an

Apothecary must be examined and approved after his apprenticeship.[602]

Footnote 602:

Barrett, _History of Apothecaries_, Intro., p. xxxii.

It will be observed that there is little in their charters to

distinguish the medical from other city Companies, and while the

examination required by the Faculties of Medicine and Surgery in the

City of London excluded women altogether, the Apothecaries still

admitted them by marriage or apprenticeship. “Mʳⁱˢ Lammeere Godfrey

Villebranke her son both Dutch Pothecarys” are included in a certificate

made by the Justices of the Peace to the Privy Council, of the

foreigners residing in the Liberty of Westminster.[603] A journeyman who

applied for the freedom of the company, stated that he was serving the

widow of an apothecary. His application was refused time after time

through difficulties owing to a clause in the Charter. Counsel’s opinion

was taken, and finally he was admitted provided he kept a journeyman and

entered into a bond of £100 to perform the same, that he gave £10 and a

spoon to the Company, took the oaths and paid Counsel’s fees.[604] He

subsequently married the widow. Similar rules obtained in the provinces,

as is shown by the admittance of Thomas Serne in 1698-9 to the freedom

of the City of Dorchester on payment of 40s. because he had “married a

wife who had lived as apprentice for 20 years to an apothecary.”[605]

Footnote 603:

_S.P.D._, ccc., 75., October 1635.

Footnote 604:

Barrett, _History of Apothecaries_, pp. 28-9.

Footnote 605:

Mayo, C. H., _Municipal Records of Dorchester_, p. 428.

The jurisdiction of companies was local, and where no company existed

boys were apprenticed to surgery for the sake of training, though such

an apprenticeship conferred no monopoly privilege. Surgery was sometimes

combined with another trade. John Croker describes in his memoir how he

was bound apprentice in 1686 to one John Shilson “by trade a

serge-maker, but who also professed surgery; with whom I went to be

instructed in the art of surgery.”[606] The operation of these various

Statutes and Charters being local and their enforcement depending upon

the energy of the parties interested, it is difficult to determine what

was their actual and immediate effect on the medical practice of women.

Statute 3, Henry VIII., must have been enforced with some severity, for

a later one declares “Sithence the making of which said Act the companie

& felowship of surgeons of London, minding oonly their own lucres, and

nothing the profit or ease of the diseased or patient, have sued,

troubled and vexed divers honest persons as well men as women, whom God

hath endued with the knowledge of the nature, kind, and operation of

certain herbes, roots and waters, and the using & ministering of them to

such as been pained with customable diseases, as women’s breasts being

sore, a pin and the web in the eye, &c., &c., and yet the said persons

have not taken any thing for their pains or cunning.”[607]

Footnote 606:

Croker, (John), _Brief Memoirs_, p. 5.

Footnote 607:

_Statutes at Large._ 34 Henry VIII. C. 8.

Not only the Surgeons but the Apothecaries also, enforced observance of

the privileges which the King had granted to them, and in consequence a

Petition of many thousands of citizens and inhabitants in and about

London was presented on behalf of Mr. William Trigg, Practitioner of

Physick, saying that he “did abundance of good to all sorts of people in

and about this City: when most of the Colledge Doctors deserted us,

since which time your Petitioners have for above twenty yeares, in their

severall times of Sicknesses, and infirmities taken Physick from him ...

in which time, we doe verily believe in our consciences, that he hath

done good to above thirty thousand Persons; and that he maketh all his

Compositions himselfe, not taking anything for his Physick from poor

people; but rather releiving their necessities, nor any money from any

of us for his advice; and but moderately for his Physick: his custome

being to take from the middle sort of Patients 12d., 18d., 2s., 2s. 6d.

as they please to give, very seldom five shillings unlesse from such as

take much Physick with them together into the Countrey ... there is a

good and wholesome law made in the 34th year of King Henry 8 C. 8.

Permitting every man that hath knowledge and experience in the nature of

Herbs, Roots and waters, to improve his Talent for the common good and

health of the people,” and concluding that unless Dr. Trigg is allowed

to continue his practice “many poore people must of necessity perish to

death ... for they are not able to pay great fees to Doctors and

Apothecaries bills which cost more then his advice and Physick; nor can

we have accesse unto them when we desire, which we familiarly have to

Dr. _Trigg_ to our great ease and comfort.”[608]

Footnote 608:

_Humble Petition of many thousands of Citizens, and Inhabitants in and

about London._

Prudence Ludford, wife of William Ludford of Little Barkhampton, was

presented in 1683 “for practising the profession of a chyrurgeon

contrary to law,”[609] but many women at this time continued their

practice as doctors undisturbed; for example, Mrs. Lucy Hutchinson

casually mentions that one of her maids went to Colson, to have a sore

eye cured by a woman of the town.[610] While Mrs. D’ewes was travelling

from Axminster to London by coach, her baby boy cried so violently all

the way, on account of the roughness of the road that he ruptured

himself, and was left behind at Dorchester under the care of Mrs.

Margaret Waltham, “a female practitioner.”[611]

Footnote 609:

_Hertford Co. Records_, Vol. I., p. 328.

Footnote 610:

_Memoirs of Col. Hutchinson_, p. 427.

Footnote 611:

Yonge, Walter, _Diary_, Intro., xxii.

The account books of Boroughs and Parishes show that the poor received

medical treatment from men and women indiscriminately. A whole series of

such payments occur in the minute book of the Dorchester Corporation.

“It is ordered that the Vˡⁱ to be paid to Peter Salanova for cutting of

Giles Garrett’s leg shall be paid out of the Xˡⁱ yearly paiable out of

the Hospitall for pious vses ... to have the one halfe having cutt of

his leg already, and the other halfe when he is thoroughly cured.[612]

... Unto the Widdow Foote xs. for the curing of the Widow Huchins’ lame

leg at present; and xs. more when the cure is finished[613].... Mr.

Losse should be payed by the Steward of the Hospital the somme of viij

li for his paynes and fee as Phisitian in taking care of the poore of

the Towne for the last yeare ... as it hath bin formerly accustomed....

Vnto Mr. Mullens the somme of thirty shillings for curing Hugh Rogers of

a dangerous fistula.”[614] Three pounds more (three having already been

paid) was ordered to be given to “Cassander Haggard for finishing the

great cure on John Drayton otherwise Keuse.”[615] In another case the

Council tendered to Mr. Mullens, “the chirurgeon, the some of xxxˢ for

curing of Thomas Hobbs, but he answered hee would consider of it next

weeke [He declined].”[616]

Footnote 612:

_Ibid._ Vol. XVIII., p. 196. _Accounts of Parish of Mayfield._

Footnote 613:

_Cratfield Parish Papers_, p. 179., 1640.

Footnote 614:

Mayo, C. H., _Municipal Records of Dorchester_, p. 516, 1640.

Footnote 615:

_Ibid._ p. 518, 1651.

Footnote 616:

_Ibid._ p. 518, 1649-50.

At Cowden the overseers paid to Dr. Willett for “reducing the arm of

Elizᵗʰ Skinner, and for ointment, cerecloths and journeys, £2;” three

years later a further sum of 10s. was given “to Goodwife Wells for

curing Eliz Skinner’s hand.”[617] Mary Olyve was paid 6s. 8d. “for

curing a boye that was lame” at Mayfield,[618] and 15s. was given to

“Widow Thurston for healing of Stannard’s son,” by the churchwardens at

Cratfield.[619] In Somerset £5 was paid to “Johane Shorley towards the

cure of Thomas Dudderidge. Further satisfaction when cure is don.”[620]

Footnote 617:

_Ibid._ pp. 518-9. 1652-1654.

Footnote 618:

_Ibid._ p. 519.

Footnote 619:

_Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. XX., p. 114. _Account Book of Cowden_,

1690.

Footnote 620:

_Somerset Q.S. Records_, Vol. III., p. 212. 1653.

Such entries show that though women may have practised surgery and

medicine chiefly as domestic arts, nevertheless their skill was also

used professionally, their natural aptitude in this direction enabling

them to maintain their position throughout the seventeenth century even

when deprived of all opportunities for systematic study and scientific

experiments, and in spite of the determined attacks by the Corporations

of physicians and surgeons; but their success was owing to the fact that

Science had as yet achieved small results in the standard of medical

efficiency.

C. _Midwifery._

It has been shown that the employment of women in the arts of medicine,

nursing and teaching was chiefly, though not entirely, confined to the

domestic sphere; midwifery, on the other hand, though occasionally

practised by amateurs, was, in the majority of cases, carried on by

women who, whether skilled or unskilled, regarded it as the chief

business of their lives, and depended upon it for their maintenance. Not

only did midwifery exist on a professional basis from immemorial days,

but it was formerly regarded as a mystery inviolably reserved for women;

and though by the seventeenth century the barrier which excluded men had

broken down, the extent to which the profession had in the past been a

woman’s monopoly is shown by the fact that the men who now began to

practise the art were known as men-midwives.

The midwife held a recognised position in Society and was sometimes

well-educated and well-paid. Nothing is known as to the mediæval history

of midwifery in England; and possibly nothing ever will be known

concerning it, for the Englishwoman of that period had no impulse to

commit her experience and ideas to writing. All the wisdom which touched

her special sphere in life was transmitted orally from mother to

daughter, and thus at any change, like the Industrial Revolution, which

silently undermined the foundations of society, the traditional womanly

wisdom could vanish, leaving no trace behind it. Even in the Elizabethan

period and during the seventeenth century, when most women could read

and many could write, they show little tendency to record information

concerning their own affairs. But the profession of midwifery was then

no longer reserved exclusively for women. The first treatise on the

subject published in England was a translation by Raynold of “The Byrth

of Mankynd.” He says in his preface that the book had already been

translated into “Dutche, Frenche, Spanyshe and dyvers other languages.

In the which Countries there be fewe women that can reade, but they wyll

haue one of these bookes alwayes in readinesse ... it beinge lykewyse

sette foorth in our Englyshe speeche ... it may supply the roome and

place of a good Mydwyfe, ... and truly ... there be syth the fyrst

settynge forth of this booke, right many honourable Ladyes, & other

Worshypfull Gentlewomen, which have not disdayned the oftener by the

occasion of this booke to frequent and haunt women in theyr labours,

caryinge with them this booke in theyr handes, and causyng such part of

it as doth chiefely concerne the same pourpose, to be read before the

mydwyfe, and the rest of the women then beyng present; whereby ofttymes,

then all haue been put in remembraunce of that, wherewith the laboryng

woman hath bene greatly comforted, and alleuiated of her thronges and

travayle.... But here now let not the good Mydwyves be offended with

that, that is spoken of the badde. For verily there is no science, but

that it hath his Apes, Owles, Beares and Asses ... at the fyrst commyng

abroade of this present booke, many of this sorte of mydwyves, meuyd

eyther of envie, or els of mallice, or both, diligented ... to fynde the

meanes to suppresse ... the same; makyng all wemen of theyr

acquayntaunce ... to beleeue, that it was nothyng woorth: and that it

shoulde be a slaunder to women, forso muche as therein was descried and

set foorth the secretes and priuities of women, and that euery boy and

knaue hadd of these bookes, readyng them as openly as the tales of

Robinhood &c.”[621]

Footnote 621:

Raynold, _The Byrth of Mankynd_, Prologue.

It is sometimes supposed that childbirth was an easier process in former

generations than it has become since the developments of modern

civilisation. The question has a direct bearing on the profession of

midwifery, but it cannot be answered here, nor could it receive a simple

answer of yes or no, for it embraces two problems for the midwife, the

ease and safety of a normal delivery and her resources in face of the

abnormal.

No one can read the domestic records of the seventeenth century without

realising that the dangers of childbed were much greater then than now;

nevertheless the travail of the average woman at that time may have been

easier. There was clearly a great difference in this respect between the

country woman, inured to hard muscular labour, and the high-born lady or

city dame. The difference is pointed out by contemporary writers. McMath

dedicated “the _Expert Mid-wife_” to the Lady Marquies of Douglas

because “as it concerns all Bearing Women ... so chiefly the more Noble

and Honourable, as being more Excellent, more Tender, and Delicate, and

readily more opprest with the symptoms.” Jane Sharp confirms this,

saying that “the poor Country people, where there are none but women to

assist (unless it be those that are exceeding poor and in a starving

condition, and then they have more need of meat than Midwives) ... are

as fruitful and as safe and well delivered, if not much more fruitful,

and better commonly in Childbed than the greatest Ladies of the

Land.”[622]

Footnote 622:

Sharp (Jane), _The Midwives Book_, p. 3.

Rich and poor alike depended upon the midwife to bring them safely

through the perils of childbirth, and it is certain that women of a high

level of intelligence and possessing considerable skill belonged to the

profession. The fees charged by successful midwives were very high, and

during the first half of the century they were considered in no way

inferior to doctors in skill. It was natural that Queen Henrietta Maria

should send for one of her own country women to attend her, French

midwives enjoying an extraordinarily high reputation for their skill at

this time. The payment in 1630 of £100 to Frances Monnhadice, Nurse to

the Queen, “for the diet & entertainment of Madame Peron, midwife to the

Queen,” and further of a “Warrant to pay Madame Peron £300 of the King’s

gift”[623] shows the high value attached to her services.

Footnote 623:

_S.P.D._ 1630. Sign Manual Car. I., Vol. VII. No. 11.

That English midwives were often possessed of ample means is shown by a

deposition made by “Abraham Perrot, of Barking parish, Gentleman,” who

“maketh oath that a month before the fire ... he ... paid unto Hester

Shaw Widow, ... the summe of £953.6.8.”[624] the said Mrs. Shaw being

described as a midwife; but relations who were members of this

profession are never alluded to in letters, diaries or memoirs. From

this absence of any social reference it is difficult to determine from

what class of the community they were drawn, or what were the

circumstances which led women to take up this responsible and arduous

profession. No doubt necessity led many ignorant women to drift into the

work when they were too old to receive new ideas and too wanting in

ambition to make any serious effort to improve their skill, but the

writings of Mrs. Cellier and Mrs. Jane Sharp prove that there were

others who regarded their profession with enthusiasm, and who possessed

an intelligence acute enough to profit by all the experience and

instruction which was within their reach.

Footnote 624:

_Mrs. Shaw’s Innocency Restored._ 1653.

The only training available for women who wished to acquire a sound

knowledge of midwifery was by apprenticeship; this, if the mistress was

skilled in her art, was valuable up to a certain point, but as no

organisation existed among midwives it was not possible to insist upon

any general standard of efficiency, and many midwives were ignorant of

the most elementary circumstances connected with their profession. In

any case such an apprenticeship could not supply the place of the more

speculative side of training, which can only be given in connection with

schools of anatomy where research work is possible, and from these all

women were excluded.

As has been said, many women who entered the profession did not even go

through a form of apprenticeship, but acquired their experience solely,

to use Raynold’s words, “by haunting women in their labours.” In rural

England it was customary when travail began, to send for all the

neighbours who were responsible women, partly with the object of

securing enough witnesses to the child’s birth, partly because it was

important to spread the understanding of midwifery as widely as

possible, because any woman might be called upon to render assistance in

an emergency.

Several handbooks on Midwifery were written in response to the demand

for opportunities for scientific training by the more intelligent

members of the profession. One of the most popular of these books, which

passed through many editions, was published in 1671 by Jane Sharp

“Practitioner in the art of Midwifery above 30 years.” The preface to

the fourth edition says that “the constant and unwearied Industry of

this ingenious and well-skill’d midwife, Mrs. Jane Sharp, together with

her great Experience of Anatomy & Physick, by the many years of her

Practice in the art of Midwifery hath ... made them ... much desired by

all that either knew her Person ... or ever read this book, which of

late, by its Scarceness hath been so much enquired after ... as to have

many after impressions.” The author says that she has “often sate down

sad in the Consideration of the many Miseries Women endure in the Hands

of unskilful Midwives; many professing the Art (without any skill in

anatomy, which is the Principal part effectually necessary for a

Midwife) meerly for Lucres sake. I have been at Great Cost in

Translations for all Books, either French, Dutch or Italian of this

kind. All which I offer with my own Experience.”[625]

Footnote 625:

Sharp, Mrs. Jane, _The Midwives Book, or the whole Art of Midwifery

discovered_.

Jane Sharp points out that midwives must be both speculative and

practical, for “she that wants the knowledge of Speculation, is like one

that is blind or wants her sight: she that wants the Practice, is like

one that is lame & wants her legs.... Some perhaps may think, that then

it is not proper for women to be of this profession, because they cannot

attain so rarely to the knowledge of things as men may, who are bred up

in Universities, Schools of Learning, or serve their Apprenticeship for

that end and purpose, where anatomy Lectures being frequently read the

situation of the parts both of men and women ... are often made plain to

them. But that objection is easily answered, by the former example of

the Midwives amongst the Israelites, for, though we women cannot deny

that men in some things may come to a greater perfection of knowledge

than women ordinarily can, by reason of the former helps that women

want; yet the Holy Scriptures hath recorded Midwives to the perpetual

honour of the female Sex. There not being so much as one word concerning

men midwives mentioned there ... it being the natural propriety of women

to be much seeing into that art; and though nature be not alone

sufficient to the perfection of it, yet further knowledge may be gain’d

by a long and diligent practice, and be communicated to others of our

own sex. I cannot deny the honour due to able Physicians and

Chyrurgions, when occasion is, Yet ... where there is no Men of

Learning, the women are sufficient to perform this duty.... It is not

hard words that perform the work, as if none understood the Art that

cannot understand Greek. Words are but the shell, that we oftimes break

our Teeth with them to come at the kernel, I mean our brains to know

what is the meaning of them; but to have the same in our mother tongue

would save us a great deal of needless labour. It is commendable for men

to employ their spare time in some things of deeper Speculation than is

required of the female sex; but the art of Midwifery chiefly concerns

us.”[626]

Footnote 626:

Sharp, Mrs. Jane, _The Midwives Book_, pp. 2-4.

Though the schools of Medicine and Anatomy were closed to women,

individual doctors were willing to teach the more progressive midwives

some of the science necessary for their art; thus Culpeper dedicated his

“Directory” to the midwives of England in the following words:—“Worthy

Matrons, You are of the number of those whom my soul loveth, and of whom

I make daily mention in my Prayers: ... If you please to make experience

of my Rules, they are very plain, and easie enough; ... If you make use

of them, you wil find your work easie, you need not call for the help of

a Man-Midwife, which is a disparagement, not only to yourselves, but

also to your Profession: ... All the Perfections that can be in a Woman,

ought to be in a Midwife; the first step to which is, To know your

ignorance in that part of Physick which is the Basis of your Act.... If

_any want Wisdom, let him ask it of God_ (not of the _Colledg of

Physitians_, for if they do, they may hap to go without their Errand,

unless they bring Money with them).”[627]

Footnote 627:

Culpeper, Nich., Gent., Student in Physick and Astrologie, _Directory

for Midwives_.

Efforts made by Peter Chamberlain to secure some systematic training for

midwives drew upon himself the abuse, if not persecution, of his jealous

contemporaries. In justifying the course he had taken he pleads “Because

I am pretended to be Ignorant or Covetous, or both, therefore some

ignorant Women, whom either extream Povertie hath necessitated, or

Hard-heartedness presumed, or the Game of Venus intruded into the

calling of Midwifry (to have the issues of Life & Death of two or three

at one time in their hands, beside the consequence of Health and

Strength of the Whole Nation) should neither be sufficiently instructed

in doing Good, nor restrained from doing Evil?... The objection infers

thus much. Because there was never any Order for instructing and

governing of Midwives, therefore there never must be.... It may be when

Bishops are restored again, their Ordinaries will come in to plead their

care. Of what? Truly that none shall do good without their leave. That

none shall have leave, but such as will take their Oath and pay Money.

That taking this Oath and paying their Money with the testimonie of two

or three Gossips, any may have leave to be as ignorant, if not as cruel

as themselves, ... but of Instruction or Order amongst the Midwives, not

one word.”[628]

Footnote 628:

Chamberlain (Peter), _A Voice in Rhama, or the Crie of Women and

Children_. 1646.

The danger which threatened midwives by the exclusion of women from the

scientific training available for men, did not pass unnoticed by the

leading members of the Profession. They realised that the question at

stake did not concern only the honour of their Profession, but involved

the suffering, and in many cases even the death, of vast numbers of

women and babies who must always depend on the skill of midwives and

urged that steps should be taken to raise the standard of their

efficiency. Mrs. Cellier[629] pointed out “That, within the Space of

twenty years last past, above six thousand women have died in childbed,

more than thirteen thousand children have been born abortive, and above

five thousand chrysome infants have been buried, within the weekly bills

of mortality; above two-thirds of which, amounting to sixteen thousand

souls, have in all probability perished, for want of due skill and care,

in those women who practise the art of midwifery.... To remedy which, it

is humbly proposed, that your Majesty will be graciously pleased to

unite the whole number of skilful midwives, now practising within the

limits of the weekly bills of mortality, into a corporation, under the

government of a certain number of the most able and matron-like women

among them, subject to the visitation of such person or persons, as your

Majesty shall appoint; and such Rules for their good government,

instruction, direction, and administration as are hereunto annexed.”

Footnote 629:

Cellier (Mrs.). _A scheme for the foundation of a Royal Hospital,

Harleian Miscellany, Vol. IV. pp. 142-147._

The scheme was well thought out, and some details from it may be given

here as showing the aspirations of an able woman for the development

of her profession. Mrs. Cellier proposed that the number of midwives

admitted to the first rank should be limited to 1000, and that these

should pay a fee of £5 on admittance and the like sum annually. All

the midwives entering this first rank should be eligible for the

position of Matron, or assistant to the Government.

Other midwives may be admitted to the second thousand on payment of

half the above fees.

The money raised by these fees is to be used for the purpose of

erecting “one good, large and convenient House, or Hospital,” ... for

the Receiving and Taking in of exposed Children, to be subject to the

Care, Conduct and Management of one Governess, one female Secretary,

and twelve Matron Assistants, subject to the visitation of such

Persons, as to your Majesty’s Wisdom shall be thought necessary ...

the children to be afterwards educated in proper Learning, Arts and

Mysteries according to their several capacities. As a further

endowment for this institution, Mrs. Cellier asks for one fifth part

of the voluntary charity collected in the Parishes comprised within

the Limits of the weekly Bills of Mortality, and that in addition

collecting Boxes may be placed in every Church, Chapel, or publick

Place of Divine Service of any Religion whatsoever within their

limits. The scheme further provides “that such Hospital may be allowed

to establish twelve lesser convenient houses, in twelve of the

greatest parishes, each to be governed by one of the twelve Matrons,

Assistants to the Corporation of the Midwives, which Houses may be for

the taking in, delivery and month’s Maintenance, at a price certain of

any woman, that any of the parishes within the limits aforesaid, shall

by the overseers of the poor place in them; such women being to be

subject, with the Children born of them, to the future care of that

parish, whose overseers place them there to be delivered,

notwithstanding such House shall not happen to stand in the proper

Parish.” ...

Then follow proposals for the care of the children, requiring that

they may be privileged to take to themselves Sirnames and to be made

capable, by such names, of any honour or employment, without being

liable to reproach, for their innocent misfortune, and that the

children so educated may be free members of every city and

corporation.

After the first settlement, no married woman shall “be admitted to be

either governess, secretary, or any of the twelve principal assistants

to the Government and that no married person of either sex shall be

suffered to inhabit within the said Hospital, to avoid such

inconveniences as may arise, as the children grow to maturity; ... if

any of these Persons do marry afterwards, then to clear their accounts

and depart the house, by being expelled the society.”

Among many interesting rules for governing the Hospital, Mrs. Cellier

appoints “That a woman, sufficiently skilled in writing and accounts,

be appointed secretary to the governess and company of midwives, to be

present at all controversies about the art of midwifery, to register

all the extraordinary accidents happening in the practise, which all

licensed midwives are, from time to time, to report to the society;

that the female secretary be reckoned an assistant to the government,

next to the governess and capable of succeeding in her stead.”

“That the principal physician or man-midwife, examine all

extraordinary accidents and, once a month at least, read a publick

Lecture to the whole society of licensed midwives, who are all to be

obliged to be present at it, if not employed in their practise.” The

lectures to be kept for future reference by the midwives.

“That no men shall be present at such public lectures, on any pretence

whatsoever, except such able doctors and surgeons, as shall enter

themselves students in the said art, and pay, for such their

admittance, ten pounds, and ten pounds a year.” The physicians and

surgeons so admitted were to be “of Council with the principle

man-midwife and be capable of succeeding him, by election of the

governess, her secretary, twelve assistants, and the twenty-four lower

assistants.”

Mrs. Cellier succeeded with her proposal, in so far that His Majesty

agreed to unite the midwives into a Corporation by Royal Charter, but

there the matter rested.[630]

Footnote 630:

Cellier, (Eliz.). _To Dr. ——, an answer to his Queries concerning the

Colledg of Midwives_, p. 7.

In France women were more fortunate, for a noted school of midwifery had

already been established at the Hotel Dieu in Paris, at which every six

weeks dissections and anatomies were especially made for the apprentices

of the institution, both past and present.[631] Before entering on their

profession the French midwives were required to pass an examination

before the chirurgeons. Their professional reputation stood so high that

Pechey alludes to one of them as “that most Famous Woman of the World,

_Madam Louise Burgeois_, late Midwife to the Queen of _France_. The

praises that we read of all those that ever heard of her are not so much

a flourish as truth; for her reasons are solid experiences, and her

witnesses have been all of the most eminent Persons of _France_: and not

only of her, but as we have already exprest, of the most excellent known

Men and Women of this Art of other Countries.”[632]

Footnote 631:

Carrier (Henriette.) _Origine de la Maternité de Paris._

Footnote 632:

Pechey, _Compleat Midwife_, Preface.

According to Mrs. Cellier, English midwives were for a time examined by

the College of Surgeons, but as their records for the years in question

are missing there is no means of ascertaining the numbers of those who

presented themselves for examination. She says that Bishops did not

“pretend to License Midwives till Bp. _Bonner’s_ time, who drew up the

Form of the first License, which continued in full force till 1642, and

then the Physicians and Chirurgeons contending about it, it was adjudged

a Chyrurgical operation, and the Midwives were Licensed at

_Chirurgions-Hall, but not till they had passed three_ _examinations,

before six skilful Midwives, and as many Chirurgions expert in the Art

of Midwifery_. Thus it continued until the Act of Uniformity passed,

which sent the Midwives back to _Doctors Commons_, where they pay their

money (_take an oath which it is impossible for them to keep_) and

return home as skilful as they went thither. I make no reflections on

those learned Gentlemen, the Licensers, but refer the curious for their

further satisfaction to the Yearly Bills of Mortality, from 42 to 62;

Collections of which they may find at _Clerkshall_. Which if they please

to compare with these of late Years, they will find there did not then

happen the eight part of the Casualities either to Women or Children, as

do now.”[633]

Footnote 633:

Cellier (Eliz.). _To Dr. —— an answer to his Queries concerning the

Colledg of Midwives_, p. 6.

In granting licences to midwives the Bishops were supposed to make some

enquiry as to their professional attainments. Among the “articles to be

enquired of” during Diocesan visits was one “whether any man or woman

within your Parish, hath professed or practised Physick or Chyrurgery;

by what name or names are they called, and whether are they licensed by

the Bishop of the Diocesse, or his Vicar Generall, and upon whom have

they practised, and what good or harm have they done?”[634] And again,

“whether any in your Parish do practise Physicke or chirurgery, or that

there be any midwife there, or by what authority any of them do

practise, or exercise that profession.”[635] But the interest of the

Bishops was concerned more with the orthodoxy of the midwife than with

her professional skill.

Footnote 634:

_Exeter, Articles to be enquired of by the Churchwardens._ 1646.

Footnote 635:

_Canterbury, Articles to be enquired._ 1636.

A midwife’s licence was drawn up as follows: beginning:—“Thomas Exton,

knight, doctor of laws, commisary general, lawfully constituted of the

right worshipful the dean & chapter of St. Paul’s in London; to our

beloved in Christ, Anne Voule, the wife of Jacob Voule, of the parish of

St Gile’s Cripplegat, sendeth greeting in our Lord God everlasting:

Whereas, by due examination of diverse, honest, and discreet women, we

have found you apt and able, cunning and experte, to occupy & exercise

the office, business & occupation of midwife,” and continuing after many

wise and humane rules for her guidance with an exhortation “to be

diligent, faithful and ready to help every woman travelling of child, as

well the poor as the rich, and you shall not forsake the poor woman and

leave her to go to the rich; you shall in no wise exercise any manner of

witchcraft, charms, sorcery, invocation, or other prayers, than such as

may stand with God’s laws, and the king’s,” concluding thus:—“Item, you

shall not be privy to or consent that any priest or other party shall in

your absence, or your company, or of your knowledge or sufferance,

baptize any child by any mass, Latin service, or prayers than such as

are appointed by the laws of the Church of England; neither shall you

consent that any child borne by any woman, who shall be delivered by

you, shall be carried away without being baptized in the parish by the

ordinary minister where the said child is born.”[636]

Footnote 636:

_Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. IV., pp. 249-50. Extracts from Parish

Registers.

The Bishops’ interest in midwives may have been caused partly by a

praiseworthy desire to secure an adequate supply for the assistance of

women in each parish. But from the Church’s point of view, the midwife’s

chief importance was not due to the fact that the life of mother and

child might depend on her skill, but to her capacity for performing the

rites of baptism. The reasons for granting her this authority are

explained as follows:—“in hard Labours the Head of the Infant was

sometimes baptized before the whole delivery. This Office of Baptizing

in such Cases of Necessity was commonly performed by the Midwife; and

’tis very probable, this gave first Occasion to Midwives being licensed

by the Bishop, because they were to be first examined by the Bishop or

his delegated Officer, whether they could repeat the Form of Baptism,

which they were in Haste to administer in such extraordinary Occasion.

But we thank God our times are reformed in Sense, and in Religion.”[637]

Though the midwife was only expected to baptize in urgent cases she

might strain her privilege, and baptize even a healthy infant into the

Roman Church. Her power in this respect was regarded with suspicion and

jealousy by English Protestants, not only because she might

inadvertently admit the infant to the wrong fold, but because it

resembled the conferring of office in the Church upon women; however, as

no man was usually present at the birth of a child, and it was fully

believed that delay might involve the perpetual damnation of the dying

infant’s soul, no alternative remained. Peter Heylyn, in writing of

Baptism, comments on the difficulty, saying that “the first Reformers

did not only allow the administration of this Sacrament [Baptism] in

_private_ houses, but permitted it to private persons, even to women

also.” He continues that when King James, in the Conference at Hampton

Court, seemed offended because of this liberty to women and laicks, Dr.

Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, denied that the words gave this

liberty, and Dr. Babington alledged “that the words were purposely made

ambiguous as otherwise the Book might not have passed Parliament.” To

whom it was replied by the Bishop of London that there was no intent to

deceive any, but the words did indeed “intend a permission of private

persons to Baptize in case of _necessity_.”[638]

Footnote 637:

Watson, _Clergyman’s Law_, p. 318.

Footnote 638:

_Heylyn (Peter), Cyprianus Anglicus_, p. 27.

The fear of secret baptisms into the Catholic Church is shown in a

letter which states that “the wief of Frances Lovell esqʳ of West Derhᵐ

is noted for a recusant. And the said Frances had a childe about three

yeares past christianed by a midwief sent thither by the La. Lovell, and

the midwief’s name cannot be learned.”[639]

Footnote 639:

Bacon, (Sir Nat.), _Official Papers_, p. 176. 1591.

It was this danger which led to the prosecution of women who practised

without licences. The Churchwardens at Lee presented “the Widow Goney

and the wife of Thomas Gronge being midwives & not sworne.” In Hadingham

they report “We have two poore women exercising the office of midwives,

one Avice Rax and the wife of one John Sallerie,”[640] and elsewhere

“Dorothye Holding wief of Jo. Holding & Dorothye Parkins wief of Wᵐ

Parkins” were presented “for exercising the office of midwives without

License.”[641]

Footnote 640:

_S.P.D._, ccxcvi., 17. August 21, 1635. _Visitation presentments by

the Churchwardens._

Footnote 641:

_S.P.D._, ccxcv., 6. August 19, 1636.

The fees charged by midwives varied from £300 in the case of the French

Midwife who attended the Queen, to the sum of 1s. 6d. paid by the Parish

of Aspenden to the midwife who delivered a woman “received by virtue of

a warrant from the justices.”[642] In most cases the amount paid by the

parents was supplemented by gifts from the friends and relations who

attended the christening.[643] Thus the baby’s death meant a

considerable pecuniary loss to the midwife. An example of her payment in

such a case is given in Nicholas Assheton’s diary; he enters on Feb. 16,

1617. “My wife in labour of childbirth. Her delivery was with such

violence as the child dyed within half an hour, and, but for God’s

wonderful mercie, more than human reason could expect, shee had dyed,

... divers mett and went with us to Downham; and ther the child was

buried ... my mother wᵗʰ me laid the child in the grave.... Feb. 24, the

midwyfe went from my wyffe to Cooz Braddyll’s wyffe. She had given by my

wyffe xxs and by me vs.”[644]

Footnote 642:

_Hertford County Records_, Vol. I., p. 435. 1698.

Footnote 643:

The Rev. Giles Moore “gave Mat [his adopted daughter] then answering

for Edwd. Cripps young daughter 5s. whereof shee gave to the mydwyfe

2s. & 1s. to the Nurse. Myself gave to the mydwyfe in the drinking

bowle 1s.” (_Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. I., p. 113. _Rev. Giles Moore,

Journal._)

Later is entered in the Journal, he being god-father “1674. Mat was

brought to bed of a daughter. Gave the mydwyfe, goodwyfe & Nurse 5s.

each.” (_Ibid._ p. 119.)

After Lady Darce’s confinement at Herstmonceux Castle, is entered in

the accounts “paid my Lord’s benevolence to Widdow Craddock the

midwife of Battle £5. 0. 0.” (_Sussex Arch. Coll._, Vol. xlviii.

1643-1649.)

Entries in a similar book of the Howard family give “To my young

ladye’s midwyfe xxˢ (p. 227-8). To Mrs. Fairfax her Midwife by my Lord

xxˢ ... by my Ladie xxˢ. More to Mrs. Fairefax her midwife by my

Ladie’s commaund iijˡⁱ” (_Howard Household Book_, p. 263. 1629.)

Sarah Fell records the presents given to her sister’s midwife—Jan yᵉ

1st 1675

by mᵒ Bro. Loweʳ to give Jane Chorley his wifes midwife 1. 00.00

by mᵒ Motheʳ gave to sᵈ midwife 5. 00

by mᵒ Sistʳ Sus: sistʳ Rach: & I gave heʳ 5. 00

Dec. 6. 1676. By M° Given ffran. Laite Sister Lowers middwife by

ffatheʳ & Motheʳ 5s. by sistʳ Sus: 2s. by sistʳ Rach: 2s. myselfe 4s.

Dec. 10, 1677 by mᵒ Motheʳ gave ffrances Layte when she was middwife

to Sistʳ Lower of litle Love-day Loweʳ 02.06, by mᵒ sistʳ Susannah

gave heʳ then 01.00 by mᵒ sister Rachell gave her then 01.00 (Fell,

Sarah, _Household Accounts_).

Footnote 644:

Assheton (Nicholas), _Journal_, p. 81.

The Churchwardens at Cowden entered in their account book 1627 “Item,

paide for a poore woman’s lying in 3. 0.” 1638. “to John Weller’s wife

for her attendance on the widow Smithe when she lay in 2. 0.”[645]

Footnote 645:

_Sussex Arch. Coll_., Vol. XX., p. 101 and p. 104. _Account Book of

Cowden._

The account book of Sir John Foulis of Ravelstone gives many details of

the expenses incurred at confinements in Scotland. His wife appears to

have been attended by a doctor, as well as a midwife, and the latter’s

fee was the higher of the two. The payments are in Scots money.[646]

“Mar. 26 1680, to the doctor Steinsone for waiting on my wife in her

labour 2 guines at 33 P. sterl. p.piece, 27. 16. 0, to Elspie dicksone,

midwife, 40. 12. 0, to her woman 2. 18. 0.” On November 26, 1692 there

is another payment “to my wife to give doctor Sibbald for his attendance

on her in childbed and since to this day 5 guineas 66. 0. 0.” Jan. 31,

1704 “to my son Wᵐ to give the midwife when his wife was brought to bed

of her sone Joⁿ 3 guineas 42. 12. 0. to my douchter Crichtoune to give

the midwife for me halfe a guinie 7. 2. 0.”

Footnote 646:

One pound Scots—20d. sterling.

The size of the gratuities given to the midwife by the friends and

acquaintances who gathered at a society christening in London may be

judged from Pepys, who enters in his diary when he was Godfather with

Sir W. Pen to Mrs. Browne’s child “I did give the midwife 10s.”[647] His

gratuities to people of lower rank were smaller, and of course the gifts

made by the “common people” and those of the gentry in the provinces

were much more modest.

Footnote 647:

Pepy’s _Diary_, Vol. I., p. 308. 1661.

In the latter part of the century there are indications of a growing

tendency among the upper classes to replace the midwife by the doctor.

The doctors encouraged the tendency. Their treatises on midwifery, of

which several were published during this time, deprecate any attempt on

the midwife’s part to cope with difficult cases. Dr. Hugh Chamberlain

points out “nor can it be so great a discredit to a Midwife ... to have

a Woman or Child saved by a Man’s assistance, as to suffer either to die

under her own hand.”[648] In making this translation of Maurice’s work

on Midwifery, Chamberlain omitted the anatomical drawings, “there being

already severall in English; as also here and there a passage that might

offend a chast English eye; and being not absolutely necessary to the

purpose; the rest I have, as carefully as I could, rendered into English

for the benefit of our midwives.”[649] This line of thought is carried

yet further by McMath, who says in the preface to “The Expert Mid-wife”

that he has “of purpose omitted a Description of the parts in a woman

destined to Generation, not being absolutely necessary to this purpose,

and lest it might seem execrable to the more chast and shamfaced through

Baudiness and Impurity of words; and have also endeavoured to keep all

Modesty, and a due Reverence to Nature: nor am I of the mind with some,

as to think there is no Debauchery in the thing, except it may be in the

abuse.”[650]

Footnote 648:

Chamberlain (Dr. Hugh). _Accomplisht Midwife: Epistle to the Reader._

Footnote 649:

_Ibid._

Footnote 650:

McMath (Mr. James, M.D.). _The Expert Mid-wife._

The notion that it was indecent for a woman to understand the structure

and functions of her own body fitted in with the doctors’ policy of

circumscribing the midwife’s sphere; McMath continues “Natural Labour,

where all goes right and naturally, is the proper work of the Midwife,

and which she alone most easily performs aright, being only to sit and

attend Nature’s pace and progress ... and perform some other things of

smaller moment, which Physicians gave Midwifes to do, as unnecessary &

indicent for them, and for the Matronal chastity (tho some of Old

absurdly assigned them more, and made it also their office to help the

Delivery, and not by Medicaments only and others, but Inchantments

also.)”[651]

Footnote 651:

_Ibid._

Clearly in a profession which often holds in its hands the balance

between life and death, those members who are debarred from systematic

study and training must inevitably give way sooner or later to those who

have access to all the sources of learning, but the influences which

were prejudicing women’s position in midwifery during the seventeenth

century were not wholly founded on such reasonable grounds; they were

also affected by much more general, undefined and subtle causes. It may

even be doubted whether the superior knowledge of the seventeenth

century doctor actually secured a larger measure of safety to the mother

who entrusted herself to his management than was attained by those who

confided in the skill of an experienced and intelligent midwife.

Chamberlain admits that the practice of doctors “not onely in England

but throughout Europe; ... hath very much caused the report, that where

a man comes, one or both [mother or child] must necessarily dye; and

makes many for that reason forbear sending, untill either be dead or

dying.”[652] He continues “my Father, Brothers and myself (though none

else in Europe that I know) have by God’s blessing, and our industry,

attained to, and long practised a way to deliver a woman in this case

without any prejudice to her or her Infant.”

Footnote 652:

Chamberlain (Hugh). _Accomplisht Midwife: Epistle to Reader._

The discovery to which Chamberlain refers was the use of forceps, which

he and his family retained as a profound secret. Therefore this

invention did not rank among the advantages which other doctors

possessed over midwives at this period. Even when, a century later, the

use of forceps became generally understood, the death rate in childbed

was not materially reduced, for it was only with the discovery of the

value of asepsis that this heavy sacrifice was diminished. We must

therefore look for the explanation of the growing ascendancy of male

practitioners to other causes beside the hypothetical standard of their

greater efficiency. Their prestige rested partly on an ability to use

long words which convinced patients of their superior wisdom; it was

defended by what was fast becoming a powerful corporation; and more

potent in its effect was the general deterioration in the position of

women which took place during the century. A lessening of confidence in

womanly resourcefulness and capacity in other walks of life, could not

fail to affect popular estimation of their value here too; and added to

this were the morbid tendencies of the increasing numbers of oversexed

society women who were devoted to a life of pleasure. The fact that

similar tendencies were visible in France, where an excellent scientific

training was open to women, shows that the capture of the profession by

men was not only due to superior skill.

The famous French Midwife, Madame Bourgeois, told her daughter “There is

a great deal of artifice to be used in the pleasing of our Women,

especially the young ones, who many times do make election of Men to

bring them to bed. I blush to speak of them, for I take it to be a great

peice of impudence to have any recourse unto them, unless it be a case

of very great danger. I do approve, I have approved of it, and know that

it ought to be done, so that it be concealed from the Woman all her life

long; nor that she see the surgeon any more.”[653]

Footnote 653:

Pechey, _Compleat Midwife_, p. 349. Secrets of Madame Louyse

Bourgeois, midwife to the Queen of France, which she left to her

Daughter as a guide for her.

Whatever may have been the explanation, midwifery had ceased to be a

monopoly for women when the “man-midwife” made his appearance in the

sixteenth century, but it is only in the latter half of the seventeenth

century that the profession passes definitely under the control of men.

The doctors who then secured all the more profitable class of work, were

united in a corporation which was often directed by men possessed of a

disinterested enthusiasm for truth, and considerable proficiency in

their art, even though many in their ranks might regard their profession

merely as a means for acquiring personal fame or wealth. But the

interest of the corporations of physicians and surgeons was centred more

upon their profession than upon the general well-being of the community,

and they did not regard it as part of their duty to secure competent

assistance in childbirth for every woman in the community. They took a

keen professional interest in the problems of midwifery, but the

benefits of their research were only available for the wives or

mistresses of rich men who could afford to pay high fees. Far from

making any effort to provide the same assistance for the poor, the

policy of the doctors, with some exceptions, was to withold instruction

from the midwives on whom the poor depended, lest their skill should

enable them to compete with themselves in practice among the wealthy.

_Conclusion._

The foregoing examination of the character and extent of women’s

professional services has brought several interesting points to light.

It has been shown that when social organisation rested upon the basis of

the family, as it chiefly did up to the close of the Middle Ages, many

of the services which are now ranked as professional were thought to be

specially suited to the genius of women, and were accordingly allotted

to them in the natural division of labour within the family. The

suggestions as to the character and conditions of these services during

the Middle Ages, rest upon conjectures drawn from the comparison of a

few generally accepted statements concerning the past, with what appears

at the opening of the seventeenth century to be a traditional attitude

to women, an attitude which was then undergoing rapid modifications. A

more thorough and detailed examination of their position in the

preceding centuries may show that it was far less stable than is

generally supposed, but such a discovery need not disturb the

explanation which is here given of the tendencies deciding the scope of

women’s professional activity within in the seventeenth century.

First among these was the gradual emergence of the arts of teaching and

healing, from the domestic or family sphere to a professional

organisation. Within the domestic sphere, as women and men are equally

members of the family, no artificial impediment could hinder women from

rendering the services which nature had fitted them to perform;

moreover, the experience and training which family life provided for

boys, were to a large extent available for girls also. Coincident with a

gradual curtailment of domestic activities may be observed a marked

tendency towards the exclusion of women from all interests external to

the family. The political theories of the seventeenth century regarded

the State as an organisation of individual men only or groups of men,

not as a commonwealth of families; in harmony with this idea we find

that none of the associations which were formed during this period for

public purposes, either educational, economic, scientific or political,

include women in their membership. The orientation of ideas in the

seventeenth century was drawing a rigid line between the State, in which

the individual man had his being, and family matters. The third tendency

was towards the deterioration of women’s intellectual and moral

capacity, owing to the narrowing of family life and the consequent

impoverishment of women’s education. The fourth tendency was towards an

increasing belief in the essential inferiority of women to men.

It will be seen that these tendencies were interdependent. Their united

effect was revolutionary, gradually excluding women from work for which

in former days, nature, it was supposed, had specially designed them.

Thus the teaching of young children, both girls and boys, had been

generally entrusted to women, many men acknowledging in later life the

excellence of the training which they had received from their mothers,

and it cannot be doubted that women were upon the whole successful in

transmitting to their children the benefit of the education and

experience which they had themselves received. But no amount of didactic

skill can enable persons to teach what they do not themselves possess,

and so the scope of the training given by women depended upon the

development of their own personalities. When family traditions and

family organisation were disturbed, as perhaps they would have been in

any case sooner or later, but as they were to a more marked extent

during the Civil War, the sources from which women derived their mental

and spiritual nourishment were dried up, and without access to external

supplies their personality gradually became stunted.

Women were virtually refused access to sources of knowledge which were

external to the family, and hence, with a few exceptions they were

confined in the teaching profession to the most elementary subjects.

Women were employed in the “dames schools” attended by the common

people, or, when they could read and write themselves, mothers often

instructed their children in these arts; but the governesses employed by

gentlefolks, or the schoolmistresses to whom they sent their daughters

for the acquisition of the accomplishments appropriate to young ladies,

were seldom competent to undertake the actual teaching themselves; for

this masters were generally engaged, because few women had gone through

the training necessary to give them a sound understanding of the arts in

question. Women were not incapable of teaching, but as knowledge became

more specialized and technical, the opportunities which home life

provided for acquiring such knowledge proved inadequate; and

consequently women were soon excluded from the higher ranks of the

teaching profession.

The history of their relation to the arts of Healing is very similar.

Other things being equal, as to some extent they were when the greater

part of human life was included within the family circle, the psychic

and emotional female development appears to make women more fitted than

men to deal with preventive and remedial medicine. The explanation of

this fact offers a fascinating field for speculation, but involves too

wide a digression for discussion here, and in its support we will only

point out the fact that in the old days, when no professional services

were available, it was to the women of the family, rather than to the

men, that the sick and wounded turned for medicine and healing. Yet in

spite of this natural affinity for the care of suffering humanity, women

were excluded from the sources of learning which were being slowly

organised outside the family circle, and were thus unable to remain in

professions for which they were so eminently suited.

The suspicion that the inferior position which women occupied in the

teaching profession and their exclusion from the medical profession, was

caused rather by the absence of educational opportunities than by a

physiological incapacity for the practice of these arts, is strengthened

by the remarkable history of Midwifery; which from being reserved

exclusively for women and practised by them on a professional basis from

time immemorial, passed in its more lucrative branches into the hands of

men, when sources of instruction were opened to them which were closed

to women. Just as the amateur woman teacher was less competent than the

man who had made art or the learned languages his profession, so did the

woman who treated her family and neighbours by rule of thumb, appear

less skilful than the professional doctor, and the uneducated midwives

brought their profession into disrepute. The exclusion of women from all

the sources of specialised training was bound to re-act unfavourably

upon their characters, because as family life depended more and more

upon professional services for education and medical assistance, fewer

opportunities were offered to women for exerting their faculties within

the domestic sphere and the general incompetence of upper-class women

did in fact become more pronounced.

------------------------------------------------------------------------