 |
 |
Hello -- this is poached (as a means also of advertising) from a finished and soon-forthcoming essay in SidJ by Karen Holland on the Sidney women in Ireland. It describes a service in the Protestant Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin. Anne Fitzwiilliam is the wife of the lord deputy. It describes a spat over primacy of seating, but included is some discussion of where the "ladies" sit in church, esp. chapels. It is difficult to figure out what is going on regarding the issue of sex separation: is this a group of ladies who enjoy sitting together? Wives of prominent officials (and/or those who are not wives of prominent officials) who are expected to sit together? Or division of sexes by church decree? Or none of the above? Sincerely, --Tom 'In November 1589, Anne Fitzwilliam’s regular attendance at services seated in her customary pew was disrupted by a noteworthy affront from Lady Bourchier, wife of Sir George Bourchier, Kt. As Lord Deputy Fitzwilliam related in a letter to Burghley, “last Sunday my wife coming to church to hear the sermon went to the chapel where she and other ladies sit. The Lady Bourchier was there before her coming and in the place where my wife usually sitteth.” Rather than call additional attention to this indignity Anne was made to “go to the other side and sit with the rest of the ladies.” This usurped seating was significant as church pews were allocated in strict adherence to social ordering with governing families prominently seated in the front.' ['From Lord Deputy Fitzwilliam to Burghley, 14 November 1589, TNA SP 63/148/10.'] ________________________________________ From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Roger Kuin [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:35 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Sidney-Spenser: Were the sexes separated during church services in the pre-Reformation English church? This article on French Protestant churches of the 16C and 17C claims that the upstairs galleries, when extant, were reserved for the men. I can't quite make out the illustration of the Charenton chuirch's interior, but it does look as if the men are upstairs and the women downstairs. http://chretienssocietes.revues.org/index2736.html Roger On Aug 30, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Quitslund, Beth wrote: I am embarrassed that we--by which I mean I--can't just answer this off the top of my/our head(s). My instinct--and admittedly that may not be worth much--is that separation of the sexes was a southern European convention that didn't extend very far north. I have (on the hard disk that died last week) an English Reformation woodcut showing the appalling indifference of the popish congregation to the speaker in the pulpit, but can't put my finger on it now. (I thought it was Foxe, but all the Foxe sermon w/cs seem to be outdoor sermons.) However, some objections to the idea that English congregations were regularly segregated: 1) They were mixed in the 16th-c Protestant English Church. See the frontispiece to Acts and Monuments Book 9: http://www.johnfoxe.org/woodcuts/f1328w.gif. 2) There isn't any evidence of post-Reformation outrage or even comment on the sexes mingling at church. Men and women singing together, yes; sitting together, no. Family pews might not raise objections, since one would presumably have a harder time flirting while surrounded by one's own family, the mingling in the Foxe cut is much more, um, promiscuous. 3) It seems to me that More would be much less likely to specify this so clearly for the Utopians if it were standard practice in the churches attended by his audience. It has the sound of so many of the other practices introduced there for social order, e.g. dining arrangements. 4) That is an appallingly useless footnote. (Ok, that is actually an objection to the generally good Logan edition.) cheers, Beth OHIO UNIVERSITY Department of English Beth Quitslund Associate Professor / Undergraduate Director Ellis 381 1 Ohio University Athens OH 45701-2979 T: 740.593.2829 F: 740.593.2832 [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> ________________________________ From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Charlie Butler [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:51 AM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Sidney-Spenser: Were the sexes separated during church services in the pre-Reformation English church? On 30 August 2011 03:43, Kathryn Walls <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: In the relevant illustrations in both the Melbourne and Laud MSS of the Pilgrimage of the Lyfe of the Manhode (MS Laud Misc. 740, fol. 19v and Melbourne MS *096 G9, fol. 15v) communicants are depicted as a mixed group. In the equivalent pictures in the first fair copy of William Baspoole's Laudian adaptation (The Pilgrime), however, communicants are depicted as (in one picture) all men, or (in two other pictures) all women. My guess would be that the sexes were not separated in the fifteenth century (or, at least, not in England), but that separation (into "companies") was being insisted upon by the 1630s--especially by the Laudians. For "companies" see Visitation Articles, ed. Fincham, 2: 83. I wonder how this question squares with the post-Reformation introduction of pews, and particularly of box pews for families. The latter would seem to be incompatible with segregation by sex. C -- Website: www.charlesbutler.co.uk<http://www.charlesbutler.co.uk> Blog: http://steepholm.livejournal.com/