

### In Search

### of the

### English Female Identity

### By

### B. A. Johnson

### Published by

### Beverley A Johnson

### Smashwords Edition

Copyright 2012 B .A Johnson

To Jason, thanks for all your love & support Son

Karen for being my Daughter

In memory of my Son Leon and my Parents Sarita & Henry

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

Thank you for downloading this free eBooks.

You are welcome to share it with your friends.

This book may be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, provided the book remains in its complete original form. Please be nice and 'cite' if used as reference. If you enjoyed this book, please return to Smashwords .com to discover other works by many other authors

Thank you for your support

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER - 1 Great Chain of Being

CHAPTER \- 2 Law of Strength

CHAPTER \- 3 Roman Republic

CHAPTER \- 4 First Britons

CHAPTER \- 5 Romans in Britain

CHAPTER - 6 Sub-Roman Britons

CHAPTER \- 7 Final Links

CHAPTER \- 8 Chain Tightens

CHAPTER \- 9 Norman Conquest

CHAPTER \- 10 Anglo-Norman Feudalism

CHAPTER - 11 Humors

CHAPTER \- 12 Empress Matilda

### CHAPTER 1

### Great Chain of Being

_The influential concept that all of nature - from non-living matter to sophisticated organisms to spiritual beings - forms an unbroken physical and metaphysical series_

A Lovejoy, the Great Chain of Being:

A Study of the History of an Idea (Cambridge, Mass., 1936)

### A Woman's place in the Order of things

It is very odd how the generations of people living on this small Blue planet called _Earth_ perceive 'History' for there are millions upon millions of individual people; coming as they do from so many diverse Cultures, all of whom have their own understanding of how they got where they are. Often this perceived understanding comes from a relatively bias perspective, for History is written by the victors not by the losers, consequently what then happens is that any cultural history becomes a 'Chinese Whisper' echoing down through the generations of our Ancestors. How difficult is it; in this 21st century world for anyone to have an informed understanding of how we; as individual are as much part of ' _History'_ as our Ancestors ever were, and that history is in fact, " **US"?** Each and everyone one of us, each and every person upon this wonderful planet is; at this exact moment making History. Though this statement may sound provocative, once the hundreds of years of innovation; which now make our lives so comfortable are stripped away we are, to all intents and purposes going through the said same daily routine as all the generations of peoples' who have gone before us.

As our ancestors did, so we too walk through our mundane daily lives, yet very rarely do any of us ever consider that what we are doing is _, "making history"._ As our parents and their parents did before them, we too ease our bodies from warm beds each morning, throw on our clothes and leave our homes to work at our daily labour. _(For certain, most of us; like them don't enjoy our Occupation)!_ Employment is and always has been a task to be done out of necessity, usually it is boringly mind – numbing; but this is the way in which we all now survive. To all intents and purposes we go through the said same dreaded daily routine as our distance cousin and like them we still work just as hard, albeit under better and most certainly easier conditions. Had any of us been born several thousand years ago, we would have spent the day-light hours picking berries and hunting animals, for the instinct to survive is built into our very genetic code. Now in the 21st century, our own survival has evolved to such a point whereby payment; by way of a wage or salary, is given to us for the services we give to others. Though it has to be said, that like our relatives who toiled during the Industrial revolution, we too use what paltry amount is left of our 'pay' after taxes have been deducted by the government of the day, to maintain ourselves and our families _(Paying Taxes being the constant certainty which all generations, poor or wealthy commonly share down the eons of time_ ).

As individuals we walk around our community usually being Sociable to those we know _(if you're British you'll talk a lot about the weather!)_ we share our interests with acquaintances and form close friendships which often last our life time. As Adults most of us set up home with a partner, have sex and; if you're female, give birth to offspring in much the same way as those generations before us did. We laugh and weep both together and alone, and also share the racial memory, that the most important thing in our lives is to fill our own and our families' bellies with food, and keep a roof over our head. Future generations in decades and centuries to come, no matter how Automated their society, will in all probability, still be going through much the said same daily routine as we do now. So by definition, the future generation, will in fact become ' **Us** '! It will be their daily lives which become 'instant history', as the second hand moves forward upon the face of time. However there is one certainty; that no matter where we are upon the ticking clock of history, or where we stand upon the 'Great Chain of Being' most of us will live out our lives in quiet anonymity, leaving nothing more than a fading echo of our existence, carried within the genetic code of our descendants, just as those before us have left behind their own in us.

As History is always viewed through the eyes of the generation studying it, there is little chance that anyone living today can possibly fully understand or comprehend exactly what lives our ancestor's lead. As Social circumstances evolve and generally improve conditions in which people live, so it is almost impossible for us in the Western world especially, to look through our own eyes and hope to fully comprehend what it was like to hunt and forage for food, live out our life toiling in the fields or face death alone in a ditch, as we starve for the want of a morsel of food. Therefore our complete understanding can never be absolute, because we are now so far removed from those circumstances; few of us have ever known gut wrenching hunger, absolute exhaustion or wretchedness. As a consequence though we might share our genetic heritage with our ancestors, we really have little understanding of how their societies and cultures worked. So if we cannot fully comprehend how life was, how difficult is it to understand in this "PC" world of so called Equality that; for women especially life up until the mid-Twentieth Century was certainly restrictively harder than that of their male counterparts? There was within living memory a social inequality which was unfortunately totally down to an individual's gender, the said same gender which ultimately set females on the bottom rung of the social ladder, no matter what their Status or Class. Naturally coming as we do from this 'modern age' it is as extremely hard to understand the full effect of such gender specific inequality, or even to realise how the socially constructed role of being a man's Daughter, Wife or Window set upon all females such tight Patriarchal restraints, so that all females were quite literally forced to be legally and absolutely bound to the main man in their lives, and where being in a state of 'Singleness' was considered unnatural, and viewed on by all with a great deal of suspicion.

It is certainly true to say that Patriarchy existed in England well before the arrival of Christianity, and remained almost unchanged right up until the 20th century. What may be more surprising though is the knowledge that until 1929 the pronoun _'She'_ as an Individual entity, did not even exist within the English language! So even within recent history, a woman was still identified only as a man's Daughter, Wife or a Widow, being viewed and dealt with as the property of the main man in her life and therefore being a belonging of her Father, Husband or Brother. The change only came about, in part due to five Canadian women from Alberta who appealed to the Supreme court of Canada to clarify a British Common Court ruling made in 1875 which stated that '

Women are persons in matters of pains and penalties, but are not persons in matters of rights and privileges

Due to this 1875 ruling, Alberta Social activist Emily Murphy's position as the first woman Police magistrate in Alberta in 1927, was challenged using this act, the outcome being that the Canadian Supreme court ruled that women were 'persons' rather than Individuals

" _Since the office of magistrate is a privilege, the current magistrate sits illegally. No decision coming from her court may bind anyone." (Hart 2008)_

After many years of petition signing and protest by the Five, an appeal was taken to the highest court in Alberta; that being the Judicial Council of the Privy Chamber in England, and it was only then that the law was clarified by the then Lord Justice, John Sankey, one of England's first reforming Lord Chancellors, who ruled on 18th October 1929 that

" _the exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours. And to those who would ask why the word "persons" should include females, the obvious answer is why it should not?_

This was one of the greatest victories in women's fight for Emancipation, it meant that 'the Five' were now able to legally challenge the ruling passed by the Supreme Court of Canada, which excluded women from Canada's upper house. Due to this landmark social ruling, women were finally and legally seen as individuals, and for the first time within Western culture a woman became a person within her own right and not the belonging of a man. As a consequence, the noun 'She' as an _'individual person'_ became accepted into law within England and all her Empires (Sharpe, 2007). However, though women finally had a separate identity to that of the main man in their life, the fight to be equal to men, was far from over and even today women are still viewed as second class Citizens within certain Religious and Social cultures who are live and reside in England today.

There is a need here to discard all pre-conceived notions of what it was to be female before even the 1960's in England, for we cannot begin the journey back through time before the 1929 landmark ruling, and hope to enter into the world of the English female and instantly understand just what being the 'Chattel' of the main man in your life was all about. For to step into this world it is necessary to look at History through different eyes, older eyes, eyes that have never seen what living as an equal is like and whose feminine stare drops demurely when challenged by male authority. Before the advent of the twentieth century, a female did not feel the least bit slighted for having to concede, and show total submission to all those individuals within their own social class, who were male. It was a universally accepted belief that within the natural order of things, females were the property of the male in whose life they lived and so; as with all belongings and goods which had a value they required protection from those other 'male' individuals who would have a mind steal them.

The rights or wrongs of it all is not the question here, there is a need to study the basic facts and not allow outrage to overshadow the truth of the matter, otherwise there is no hope of gaining a better insight, into how gender affected exactly where females stood within the order of life, in all known Societies at the time. This is not about the fairness or unfairness, so to protest the indignity of it all, will only slow the journey to your better understanding

### Misogyny

" _The history of Misogyny is indeed the story of hatred unique as it is enduring, uniting Aristotle with Jack the Ripper, King Lear with James Bond (Holland, 2006)_

So where did Misogyny come from? There is not one place where a finger can point to the date on a calendar, as there is so much lost to us in the empty void of what is now termed as _'before History'_. But one thing is certain, male dominance over all females in their life certainly goes back to the beginning of Humanities very evolution, to even before Homo-sapiens stood erect; which would be about 5–7 million years ago .

As base animals, (which Science has already proven; as a species we originate) the Alpha male often force-gathered and even coerced females to swell the ranks of his 'Harem'. As with all animals strength was the prevailing factor being used to good effect by the Alpha-Male, as a way to preserve his dominance over the whole troop or herd especially other younger males who might challenge his authority and right to breed with the females as they came into season. Being often smaller and weaker, the female's behaviour towards these alpha-Males would often be subdued and submissive when faced by the sheer, threatening mass and strength the male used in his natural instinct to pass on as many of his genes to future generations through them. As such, a group pecking order was enforced, with violence and the threat of it, the major factor which prevented most females from fleeing, and the younger males from taking a chance to mate with the females. As Individuals, both male and female there was the advantage of being with others of their kind, and under the protection of an Alpha-Male. There was safety in numbers; consequently being inside the troop was a better and safer place than outside, where danger lurked at every turning especially for an unprotected female. Even when another male defeated the Alpha, and often killed the old leader's offspring, the females would stay and often offer themselves in submission to the new Alpha if they didn't, violence towards the female would be used by the new Alpha-Male to force her submission. Thereby this 'Law of Strength': used as a basic instinct by males, took away any possibility of 'choice' of a mate on the part of the females.

There was no Cognitive notion or deliberate action made by the Alpha-Males at this time to bring about the submission of females, for them it was nothing more than a natural instinct to use strength against the female to force co-operation if necessary, so as to pass on his own genes. As with all animals, this behaviour ensured that only the strongest-genes were carried on through the line. The view among most scientists is that Homo sapiens arose in Africa , migrating out of the continent around 1 .8 million years ago. Already walking upright, these early Homo-sapiens moved across the landscape as quite large family groups leading a Nomadic life, foraging and hunting for their needs. Possibly it is here, in the time of early 'man' that the need to co-operate between the Sexes came about. From the first loose Family groups, Monogamous relationship between male and female began to slowly evolve. Naturally as History moves forward, Social relations begin to evolve away from the independent groups, to the more Nuclear family. As a consequence any support a female had from others of her Gender whilst within a family group begins to disappear, making the female; by her very nature now completely dependent on the male for sustenance for both herself and their offspring, especially when Pregnancy prevents the female from foraging for her needs.

This reliance of the female upon the male for food; when bearing and neutering young certainly seems to have furthered the control and strengthened the dominance of the male partner over the female, especially at times when she was vulnerable and often too weak to do anything about it. Being reliant on the male to bring food during these times would have reinforced the law of strength, and it would certainly see that this social shift certainly gave males a unique power over the weaker females. It was this 'strength and dependency' along with the social evolution of humankind which transcended time and was certainly a contributing factor towards Misogyny.

"... _from the very earliest twilight of human society, every woman (owing to the value attached to her by men, combined with her inferiority in muscular strength) was found in a state of bondage to some man" (Mill)_

Over the millennia Misogyny became all the more established by human's evolving ability to learn to communicate with each other. This brought about basic social language not only between Individuals, but also other neighbouring troops or groups. Most of what was to eventually shape western civilisation originally came out of African and Eastern antiquity, this is after all where we know civilisation began. It was from this evolving; loosely related group of early humanity that the 'law of the strength' was carried along as part of their growing social intercourse. With the evolution of basic language skills, so this law of strength was often reinforced by the oral storytelling and myths which would; quite naturally follow human-kind's rolling evolutionary journey across the shifting continental sands of the many different changing cultures. The people of these desert living tribes and societies would absorb much of what they heard from other cultures they encountered, often assimilating into their own tribal history, these alien traditions, and beliefs

In a time when communication was nothing more than words originating as it often did from a total stranger; who was to say what was true or not. any story-telling Nomad who; when relating such tales in peaceful and foreign lands, would naturally want their own Society to be seen as equal; if not on the outer edge of believability by their audience, and possible future enemies. It would often be these Nomads who brought the isolated tribes news of all they had seen during their travels and would; no doubt, have offered up a vision of how their own culture in particular was created and so by simply using their gift of 'imagination' to embellish stories, their listeners would not only stand in awe of the Tribe but also of the very man himself who had the verbal ability to tell a tale. To the uneducated tribes and people who roamed the deserts of the East, the more fantastic the story told at night around the campfire, the more the teller would hold the listeners attention, and therefore the more influential the story teller would become. Reputations were made through the evolution of good 'story-telling' and it was often this ability of imagination and talent of the spoken word which would draw people from neighbouring tribes to listen to the story telling, and it would be these people who would go away and quite literally spread the word about the great Orator they had listened to and his truth of words.

The first cultural orators; most certainly men, would come to command the greatest of respect from people and tribes, who were far less sophisticated than they. Totally disadvantaged these people; the listeners, would have been unable to articulate fully their own thoughts, so it is plausible that the story-teller used this to his advantage thus turning many original Truths into Fantasy. Often done deliberately this embellished story telling would ensure that the listeners believed that their own society and social structure was by far much more inferior to the one being told of. Eventually down the eons of time these 'tales' would become the myths of many great Societies that we know of today

As imagination and language evolved, the story tellers began to invent mystical entities, Gods, and Supernatural beings, persuading the audience through their story telling that it was they who held influence, power, and control over the acts of such Gods. On the face of it most of the 'Acts' of these so called Gods, were merely events that were part of everyday life. However most of these 'odd' happenings remained a terrifying mystery to those who experienced them. Being ignorant of the causes of natural Phenomenon people were often afraid of the very nature that was around them, often living in absolute terror of natural occurrences, such as Earthquake, Volcanic eruptions, even Thunder and Lightning. These story-tellers often claimed that they could talk directly to these fabricated, Elemental Gods and some would even boast that they could influence them. This pretence in itself, if made believable by the Narrator turned what would normally be seen as a friend and a neighbour who lived and worked alongside most of their listeners, into something of a 'super' human being. The tribe would in all probability equate the story-teller as being 'Mystical' and therefore carrying a great deal of power!

So it was that the story-tellers were elevated above all others and allowed much more influence over the decision making within tribe, and it was these people who over the many centuries, became the Priests, Accolades, Prophets of the very Gods that their predecessors had quite often invented. Stories passing as they did, through each successive generation, were constantly changing and evolving, depending on the circumstances and the ability of the story teller themselves and it would be the guardians of these myths, those with access to the written word who would eventually become some of the greatest and respected leaders within their own Civilisations .

### The Creation Myth

Within earth's most ancient of histories nearly all great civilisations had their own 'Creation story or Myth', and it's quite fascinating to see just how many, though separated often by great time and distance, follow the same misogynistic course. Most creation stories seem to run almost parallel with each other, possibly due to most of the stories coming originally from the purely oral traditions which we have already studied. Creation Myths over eons of time would come to fit a particular Societies ideal of self, only for it all to be swallowed up by centuries of conflict and wars, and assimilated into the victor's verbal history. Some of these myths were taken and re- invented, spreading and reshaping in the way that a Chinese-whisper does to an original truth. Until the mythical legend, finally reaches the quill of the scribes and is adopted as un- reputable fact from then on entering into the legal system of many of our great Civilisation without question. Yet oddly, most all of these so called Creation Stories start in the very distant past, when language was rarely written. However from what our Archaeologist have found, it certainly seems that many of these stories gave our ancestors answers to the questions about their own human identity, whether it be, self or cultural, and it was the story-tellers who answered such questions as 'what are we?', 'where do we come from' and the most important 'who am I?'

Many of the answers to the questions which humanity first asked, lay within the stories the story tellers fabricated around them, quick thinking allowed the orators a way of controlling the beliefs and fears of their audience. The creation stories in particular seem to follow much the same theme, with most starting creation off within a great chasm of black emptiness, a void as such silent and without shape, form or light, and most myths will often include the 'coming together' wrought by the power of a disembodied Deity, of the various elements, water, air and fire, which sparks the creation of life. It is quite fascinating to find that around the 800 BC almost simultaneously, from both Greek and Judean (Jewish) civilisations two 'creation stories' arose. Completely independent from each other, the two seem to run along similar almost parallel lines. Each one tells of their own civilisation's belief in the 'creation 'of the world, yet at the same time each supports the exact same myth of how it was the 'female' who; by disobeying their God(s) introduced Sin and the knowledge of it to the male. It is these two creation myths which we will look at, in particular for though totally unsupported by actual evidence, each Story/Myth has forever branded women as the "Daughters of Pandora and Eve" with the story from the Judean civilisation forever changing not only the beliefs, but also how all women were viewed and treated in the western world.

The Greek creation story of Pandora (Hesiod, 8th–7th centuries BC), tells how the first female Pandora, was created from Water and Earth by Hephaestus and then endowed with all her attributes by the Greek Titans. It was Zeus himself who gave Pandora the gift of Curiosity, doing so deliberately after Prometheus his eldest son, against Zeus's orders, stole Fire from Heaven, and gave it to Humans as a gift. As punishment of both the Humans and Prometheus, knowing of his Son's love for Pandora, Zeus gave her as Wife to Epimetheus, his youngest Son, and Brother to the erring Prometheus. Pandora carried with her a Jar and ordered by the Titan Hephaestus; her Creator, never to open it. But having been given the gift of Curiosity by Zeus, Pandora was unable to stop herself, opened the Jar, and in so doing allowed all the Evil in the World which was trapped inside, to escape and spread over the whole of the earth. To late Pandora; afraid of what she had done, closed the Jar. However at the bottom lay "Hope", and later hearing Hope calling to be release, Pandora re-opened the Jar allowing Hope out into the world

From her comes all the race of womankind the deadly female race and tribe of Wives who live with mortal men and bring them harm (Hesiod)

Rather oddly there are two Creation stories which came out of Judaea. Coming from the Book of "The Old Testament" _(Various, The Old Testament, BC 1400 - 400_ ) The narrative of each Creation story are however, totally different

**Genesis 1** \- The God named as " _Elohim",_ creates the world in Six days, with male and female coming into existence in one single act, as part of the whole of creation and not as separate creations. Elohim being a Monotheistic God has absolutely no interaction with either of his creations, communicating only with Humankind through Commands and Prophets.

**Genesis 2** \- The God named _'Yahweh'_ Eloholm (Lord God) creates Adam as the first man made in his own image, and it is only Adams loneliness which prompts the first female, "Eve" to be created from Adams Rib by Yahweh. Eloholm gives the female to Adam, and it is Adam who names Eve as 'Wife'. In this particular narrative, Adam is forbidden by Yahweh Eloholm to eat the fruit of the _'Tree of Knowledge'_ which stands in the oasis of Eden. However Eve encounters evil, which appears to her only, in the form of a Serpent and _(so the narrative continues)_ it is Eve who prompts by said Serpent, who eats the fruit of the 'Tree of Knowledge'. Then again; persuaded by the Serpent, Eve coerces Adam into eating the fruit. Adam eats, and it is only then that the pair become aware of their nakedness and feel shame that they are naked. The knowledge of Sin thereby enters the world, so the Gospel tell the reader and all because of Eve's, the first woman and Wife of Adam disobedience, and as it was this first female who coerced Adam into eating the fruit, the God Yahweh Eloholm punishes her by making all females who give birth to offspring bear the excruciating pain of Childbirth, and then Adam and Eve are evicted from Eden.

Despite having two creation narratives within the 'Old Testament' it was the 'Creation Myth- **Genesis 2'** where the 'personal' God 'Yahweh Eloholm' interacts directly with Adam, which would eventually be adopted into Roman Catholic Christianity, and as a consequence it was this 'Creation Myth' which became interwoven into the very fabric of Western society. The Misogynistic beliefs held within Genesis 2 were written and constantly re-written by Jewish and Christian Scribes until down the Ages their changing words would be supported and perpetuated through the religious teachings of even more 'Story-tellers' and 'Prophets'. It was this Indoctrination which would dictate where all females would stand in Western society for over Two-thousand years after the death of the Jewish Rabbi 'Jesus'.

" _You are the devil's gateway; you are the unsealer of that forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of Divine law. You are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man" (Tertullian)_

### CHAPTER 2

### Law of Strength

Originally, the physical 'strength' which the earliest recognisable male 'Homo-habilis' used against the weaknesses of the females, came to manifest itself over the eons of time as a _'Natural law of Strength'_. This notion carried forward out of Africa through the story-telling of the Nomadic tribes, using as they did the power of an ever evolving language to tell of the bravery and strength of their warriors and the greatness of their Civilisation, a society where males ruled supreme and females were there to merely service the needs of those male's. The outcome being that as Civilisation formed into ordered sociable societies, with rules and laws put in place to keep order, females were; and without any notion what-so-ever automatically made and considered to be 'Legally' Subordinate to all males. This belief of engendered-subordination brought about through the 'Law of Strength', was certainly implemented without question or evidence being offered to the contrary; so belief of female In-equality passed into the evolving legal system without any consideration being offered up in its Defence. Once passed males automatically became superior in every aspect of life to females, until over time all of this eventually manifested as Misogyny. These Laws regulating the behaviour and opportunities offered to all females were meant to keep them under the restrictively tight control of males.

" _Let a woman not develop her reason, for that would be a terrible thing" (Democritus)_

In the 6th century BC an Athenian by the name of Solon lay down certain laws which would place even more tight restrictions upon the rights of females within Greek society. Limits were put on women displaying their wealth, they were also banned from buying, or selling land and woman who had no Brothers, upon the death of her father were forced, to marry their Father's nearest male relative, so that it would be the first born Son from that marriage who would inherit any land.

It was these particular laws which made females within Greek society 'the vehicle through which any property was kept inside the family (18). Solon also passed another law which forbade any Athenian citizen from enslaving another, with one exception, that a Father or male Head of the household had the right to sell an unmarried Daughter into Slavery, if she lost her Virginity before marriage. We see too within the Hebrew Scriptures 'The Halakhah 'and the 'Talmudic' which also includes the Ancient Hebrew law code outlined in the Bible, the constraints on Jewish women's behaviour. Certainly these Jewish law codes echo those of the Greek laws of Solon, in that Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father without his permission. The same applied to Married women gaining consent from their Husband, and similarly Jewish women too, were restricted to roles with no authority, nor were they allowed to appear at Public venues, talk to strangers and also were forced to be 'Doubly' veiled, when they left home

As if that wasn't enough, the Oral Law codes handed down and used by the tribes of the Judea, certainly allowed a few women hating men the opportunity; once placed in positions of religious influence and power the ability to use their talents to re-enforce and develop the 'Creation Myth' in Genesis 2. In all of these extremely persuasive creation stories, told often by men to men, it was always the females of a Society or Civilisation, who were named as the Transgressors, Beguilers and Purveyors of the Original Sin, and who by their refusal to obey their 'Male' God unleashed all the Evil in the world onto ' man' .

" _And a man will choose.. .any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman.. .Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die"_

" _And I find bitterer than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her."_

It would be the fathers and husbands who ensured obedience of Wives, Daughters, and any other female, who lived within their household. It was these laws passed by men, which allowed and even actively encouraged physical abuse of women, which was seen by most societies (Male and female) as being a totally acceptable way to subdue and control disobedience by all females in society. As it was the men within society who held the legislative power to make the laws, so it was they who gave all men, the legal moral obligation to keep their Wives and Daughter imprisoned behind the walls of their homes, considering that by such isolation females wouldn't have the opportunity to betray the man's trust (again). As a consequence women became totally invisible to the rest of their society, this act alone certainly contributed as a way of depriving everyone woman of their individual identity within their own tribal society.

Patriarchy was endemic throughout the civilised world, and shows itself in all Societies which we now call 'Great' Misogyny certainly seems to have developed, as part of the intuitive need of the male to keep the female from Disobeying, Rejecting or leaving him. Naturally through the passing of centuries it became an inherent belief, even to women themselves; that they were Inferior to the men in their lives, especially when it was constantly being reinforced by the tradition of Storytelling, and later by the written word, through Religious Scriptures and Books. From the mouths of those men who were perceived as being the Greatest Academics, Religious leaders, Scientists and Philosophers of their time, came the words which condemned all women as being the instigators of the 'downfall of man' mostly always through their direct disobedience, coercion and always through the females sexual temptation. Because of these considered "absolute truths" there came about in Greece a Patriarchal society where women were totally and absolutely dominated by men, no matter what the woman's status.

One such man, who seemed to speak out against 'Women's' weakness was the Greek Philosopher Plato (427 - 347 BC). Plato's Greece had evolved from the earliest of times into not only a Patriarchal but a Hierarchical society too, which through the Law codes of Solon ensured that power for all women lay absolutely within the 'Home' or Domestic environment.

"For a woman not to show more weakness than is natural to her sex is a great glory, and not to be talked about for good or for evil among men." Pericles 495 – 429 BC

In ' _The Republic'_ \- 380 BC, being in fact a debate between himself and Socrates, Plato shares with the reader and listener, a rare vision of 'equality' for the women within an imagined Utopian society. It seems to indicate that this great thinker and Philosopher are actually on the side of the supressed females in Grecian society. However, we do have to question Plato's great philosophical dream, when we find that he actually

'... _Exalted the 'pure' love of men for men higher than the love of men for women, which he placed closer to animal lust' and Identified 'man with spirituality and woman with carnal appetite's'. (Holland, 2006)_

There are many Ancient societies, which thanks to today's modern Archaeology gives us the opportunity to take an 'Academic' view of the raw material placed within the Crucible of life and which over many Centuries, was forged and tempered by the strength of a few men's fear and hatred of woman which forged even more of the metaphorical links within the 'Great Chain of Being'. However we shouldn't get bogged down in the duality of Plato's Philosophy and should perhaps leave this particular debate to those Historians and Academics better qualified than this poorly educated author

Let us then move forward and look to Plato's student the Greek, Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) . As a Philosopher Aristotle wrote on many subjects from Metaphysics to Zoology and even now in the 21st century, this man remains one of the most influential people who ever lived. This great Intellectual however has been described as one of the most ferocious Misogynists of all time, considering women to be somewhat lacking. _"For the female is, as it were, a mutilated male."_

Born in Macedonia, at 18 Aristotle joined Plato's Academy, and remained there for the next 19 years as both student and teacher. He became tutor to Alexander the Great, King of Macedonia, eventually opening his own School in Athens. As a well-respected Greco/Romano Philosopher and Educator it was Aristotle who in his book 'The Generation of Animals' put forward persuasive evidence, wrought from the science of his age, a theory which would become known as the Doctrine of 'Fixed Species'. It was Aristotle's view that the Universe was perfect so for ease of understanding of his theory, he chose to use a 'metaphor' entitling it "The Great chain of Being" This theoretical metaphor was a model which mirrored the Universe and was what Aristotle considered as being the simplest way to show the classification of all things which occupy said Universe; be they physical or meta-physical, and in so doing show to everyone just how each species is placed in a Hierarchal order of being, right from the lowest to the highest. Within this Great chain of being, each species had its own place and so could not move up or down' for to do so would leave one link in the chain empty thereby making the chain unstable. So therefore no two separate species could possibly occupy the same level within the great chain, as this would bring about imbalance, the outcome of this being, that society itself would become un-ordered, there-by ensuing chaos. Unfortunately Aristotle, despite his great forward thinking did; as all Greek men of the time, held the common belief that all females were colder and moisture, and so were a lower form of life than their male counterpart

' _Women, in their reptilian dampness, are ruled constitutionally incapable of higher reason and therefore represent a lower order in complex but static schemata of beings' (Komesaroff, 1997)_

Aristotle even cited the female's lack of baldness as proof positive of their childlike nature, and even set out a female's purpose in life by using slaves as an example. Like slaves, Aristotle believed women were put upon earth for a purpose, in this instance it was to carry their husband's offspring, and like slaves, obedience was seen as a woman's natural state. Both slaves and women were also similar; in that they were inferior to their Master or Husband. Aristotle used these common held believes to support his theory no doubt feeling justified when placing females upon "The Great Chain of Being" a link beneath man (though females were at least one chain above worms!) males were placed at the top of the Great Chain, and above them in the eternal heavens, were the Divine, these being the Priests and their God(s). Being Hierarchical this metaphorical 'Great Chain'' brought structure and order to the civilised world. This meant that no matter what walk of life a man came from, there would always be mutual co-operation with those others from the same social sphere, and any subjugation of those males on the chain below was wholly and totally unacceptable and it was seen and understood by all who stood high upon the Great chain that they held power for the good of all. It was to be this great theory of Aristotle's which would be carried forward being used, taught and quoted by many other great Philosophers for many thousands of years

Certainly in early Greece, as in most eastern civilisations both Patriarchy and Misogyny were well established by the time Aristotle arrived on the scene. Aristotle however, by using both science and philosophy, felt he was able to show the differences between the sexes and in so doing created a 'theory' which reinforced the already legally enshrine belief of female inferiority. By sighting the differences and indicators to the weakness of females, Aristotle was through science able to determine the inferiority of females within the natural order of things, so in his 'Theory of Generation' this difference assumes superior purposes, for males over and above females _....._

' _The male is by nature superior and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; the principle of necessity extends to all mankind (Aristotle)_

So although women as such, were already the virtual slaves of males through Patriarchal law codes, it was due to Aristotle's metaphorical Great chain of being that female inferiority was actually legitimised through Science.

Life for females in Greece became even more restrictive; they had little or no Social intercourse, even with members of their own Gender. women lived away from the main house, in separate quarters; and unlike their Roman counterparts were not educated so all females remained totally inferior and subservient, to males of their own social status women had no rights and as Individuals did not even exist. Early aristocratic Greek women in particular, lead a life of almost total isolation, and though they could vote, their main function was nothing more than to breed the next generation of Sons for their husbands and it was these male children who were always brought up within the home, reared by their Mother, female servants and possibly also by a Sister. This is 'Sister' as in singular, for it was very rare to have more than one Daughter in any household. Any female born into the Family would need to be clothed and fed, there would also be other considerations with one of the most important being the question of a Dowry when it came the time for this Daughter to marry, which was usually at about the age of twelve years. Depending on the status of the family these Dowry's were often so disproportionate as to be unaffordable for many but the wealthiest of men. So it became cheaper for Husbands to order that the new-born infant be immediately 'disposed' of upon birth, no matter what his Wife wanted.

Accordingly it became acceptable practice to leave these baby girls outside as soon as they were born. _(This would also be the destination for weaker male babies too)._ Usually, but not always the new-born would be placed in an open Clay pot, where; if they did not die of exposure, they might be picked up by Slave traders or Prostitutes to be used as they or their Masters so desired. Keeping one Daughter was a barely tolerated practice, with both Mother and Daughter rarely leaving the family home and being constantly subservient to all men from their own social rank. The one remaining Daughter's future was more than a little insecure too, often these girls were sold off to Slavers if a suitable alliance through marriage could not be arranged, for once their Brother(s) had grown and set up homes of their own, they had, as such outlived their use.

Quite naturally, it is hard for anyone coming from the 21st century to comprehend, how women were viewed, for most of what we call 'modern society' with in Western Civilisation no longer allows females to be Objectified or Abused in such a barbaric way. However that is exactly what this great and ancient Grecian society of educated male thinkers did allow; and without question.

### CHAPTER 3

### Roman Republic 195-42BC

As civilisations integrate, so do their ideas and customs. Rome was not however the originator of ideas, so much of what lay within Greek society tended; over the centuries, to filter across being adopted into Roman culture, being that they were in very close proximity to Greece. However all of the customs of their Greeks neighbours were not adopted in their entirety by Roman Civilisation. There were, as we already know many great and influential men in Rome; one such being the physician and philosopher. Galen AD 129 – 199/217a prominent and highly respected Roman (of Greek ethnicity) Galen, characterised women as being 'hotter and moister' as a result of the "Four Humours" which made them _'lust weakened by losing tears and blood by turns'_

Galen's Physiological Theory provided a state of health for each individual; this also seems to have covered an individual's mental state or even their character. Galen provided that each of the four humours gave off vapours, which then move up to the brain. These vapours then affected the Physical, mental, and moral characteristics of the person, which in turn explained their temperament; it therefore took the perfect balance of all of these four elemental fluids to create a well-balanced person. As a great thinker Galen, like many before him took his own lead from the Greek Philosopher Aristotle who described females as being _"incomplete men"_ and that man rightly takes charge over a woman, because he commands superior intelligence. Certainly in early Rome males did enact some of the same stringent control over their Wives and Daughters, as the Greeks did their females, even adopting Aristotle's theory that women did not exist as 'Individuals' by reinforcing the presumption, and even going to extremes of depriving all women of their own personal name; giving them instead the feminised name of their father's _'Cognoman'_ and though considered citizens, unlike their Greek sisters Roman females could not vote.

Roman women however did eventually dare to defy this entire, adopted Greek dictate which threaten their independence. Individually at first, then as a group females began to rebel and question all types of Misogyny, this challenge came to a head in 195BC when the Tribunal tried to repeal the _'Oppian Law'._ These laws had been passed as an emergency measure some 20 years earlier in 215BC; following the defeat of the Romans by Hannibal in the wars with Carthage. Fierce and bloody, with many, many deaths of Rome's most high ranking soldiers, the war with Carthage had left Rome's treasury almost empty.

However it was noted that though the war had left much debt behind, it had also left many wealthy Roman Widows who; with legislation, could help fill the depleted coiffeurs, and so the State in passing the 'Oppian Law' limited the amount of Gold a woman might possess; thereby the requirement was announced, that all and any funds of female wards, single women and Widows had to be deposited with the State. Women too were forbidden to wear Purple trim which was the colour of mourning, nor ride in carriages through the street of Rome and beyond, the idea being that the loss of so many Roman Legions would therefore not be seen by outsiders.

By 195BC there were rumblings of discontent among the most wealthy of Rome's females, this brought some Tribunal members to forward a motion, which would eliminate the 'Oppian Law'. However when it seemed the Tribunal were about to veto the proposed repeal, the women of Rome poured out onto the street in protest.

Never before had women demonstrated in such a fashion or on such a scale. Fearful at having so many rioting females bearing down upon them, the Tribunes opposed the repeal. The matrons, whom neither Consul nor shame nor their husband's order could keep at home, blockaded every street in the city and every entrance to the Forum. As the men came down to the Forum, the matrons besought them to let the, have back the luxuries they had enjoyed...this crowd of women was growing daily, for now they were eve gather from the towns and villages. Before long they dared to up and solicit consuls, praetors and other magistrates. When the speeches for and against the law had been made, a considerably larger crowd of women poured forth in public the next day' as a single body they besieged the doors of the tribunes, who were vetoing their colleagues' motion, and they did not stop until the tribunes took back their veto. After that there was no doubt that all the tribes would repeal the Law (Livy – History of Rome)

Once again, in 42BC war brought about a need to raise taxes and therefore it was voted that 1,400 of the richest women in the State should pay taxes; the women mounted a protest, choosing Hortensia, the educated Daughter of the famous orator Quintus to speak on their behalf. The women forced their way into a forum, in which no female had ever spoken before:-

"You have already deprived us of our fathers, our sons, our husbands, and our brothers on the pretext that they wronged you. But if, in addition, you take away our property, you will reduce us to a condition unsuitable to our birth, our way of life, and our female nature...If we have done you any wrong, as you claimed our husbands have, punish us as you do them. But if we women have not voted any of you public enemies, nor torn down your house, nor destroyed your army, nor led another against you, nor prevented you from obtaining offices and honors, why do we share in the punishments when we did not participate in the crimes?... .our mothers did once rise superior to their sex and made contributions when you faced the loss of the empire and the city itself through the conflict with the Carthaginians. But they funded their contributions voluntarily from their jewellery not from their landed property, their fields, their dowries, or their houses, without which it is impossible for free women to live.. .Let war with the Celts or Parthians come, we will not be inferior to our mothers when it is a question of common safety. But for civil wars, may we never contribute nor aid you against each other Appianus (Appian) - (c. 95 – c. 16).

With the crowds support the women of Rome won their case and from then on, all females were given greater freedoms; they intervened in wars, changed Government policy and some even trained as Gladiators. Women especially were involved within their community instead of being shut up behind walls seeing to the needs of their Husbands household; they dined with their spouse and were seen for the first time as their companion. Wives shared in their Husband's authority over children, Slaves and the Household. Roman women were, in fact due to the actions of a their Sisters, finally seen as being the most liberated of women during that era, and it was perhaps the strength of Rome's women, which attributed to the success of the Empire .

### CHAPTER 4

### First Britons

_The island Britain is 800 miles long and 200 miles broad, and there are in the island five nations' English, Welsh (or British, Scottish, Pictish and Latin. The first inhabitants were the Britons who came from Armenia, the first peopled Britain southward. Then happened it, that the Picts came south from Scythia,. Landing first in the northern part of Ireland (King Alfred the Great, 890 (abt)_

Between -100 BC about the same time as the 'Creation Stories' of Greece and Judea were coming about in the East, in the West and North, migrating tribes of warring hunter gatherers were moving slowly across the Northern hemisphere, eventually arriving in England and the British Isles from Ireland. These tribal people originating as they did from across Europe brought with them not only their Oral traditions, but also their own Pagan beliefs. Most Historians agree that there is very little factual or written evidence left by these tribes historically known as the "Celts"

There are though written records from those who were the Invaders, in particular the Romans who set foot upon the shores and occupied Britain between 55BC – 410 AD. Also within the "Anglo Saxon Chronicles" there are records too, which tell us briefly of these first tribes of Britain. However, as in most stories that are written, the 'Anglo Saxon Chronicles' do originate mostly from oral sources handed down through Ballads and Rote which were compiled on the orders of King Arthur in 890 AD .In all probability most of these were no doubt embellished by many anonymous Scribes who wrote and re-wrote the Chronicles right up until the middle of the 12th Century. So it goes without saying, that much of what we read today within these ancient manuscripts is in all probability written decades; if not centuries, after great and often un-memorable events happen, so cannot therefore really be read as total factual truth. So the understanding now is that rather than being a race; these first Britons were originally an assortment of tribes made up of very loosely connected Clans, often with similar Social and Religious beliefs.

As Clans, the people existed inside Tribes who loosely held the same language and culture, and though not centrally Governed, they all did seem to have the ability to co-exist through, mutual Co-operation; albeit none too peacefully. However, possibly due to the constant Tribal warring, Britain and the Isles eventually became carved into several Kingdoms, with separate victorious Kings ruling each. But despite all of this, through the advent of this slow invasion by various forces, Britain would eventually come to have the largest Iron smelting sites within the Western hemisphere.

This happened because human beings always bring with them knowledge and for the new tribes of Britain it was no different. With them came Iron and the knowledge of smelting, and it was because of evolution of this innovation, that trade and commerce began to flourish, not only with other regions, but also with other countries. Trade brought about closer ties and alliances, more often than not through arranged marriages, until eventually the native Britain's openly mixed with many other nationalities and were introduced to societies which often held totally alien traditions and beliefs.

The Druids, as with all religious leaders seem like most Storytellers to have ascended through the ranks of ordinary folk and become the Priests and main Political advisors to the Kings They even passed on their knowledge by Rote through _(what we now consider as Universities_ ). It was most certainly the Druids who held the Power of authority, with even the right to speak ahead of the King in Council and also to uphold the law. The evidence now seems to be that not all Druids were men, as women too were inaugurated as Druid Priestesses with the females from the Clans being actively encourage thereby becoming Healers, Poets and certainly some were brought in as respected Mediators during battles. These native Britons being Pagans held no Creation Myth's as part of their religious belief .Certainly it seems that due to their isolation from the influences of Eastern religious cultures their Society remained untouched for many centuries by the Misogyny prevalent in Europe and the Middle East civilisation.

It was and still is the Pagan belief that in the beginning of time there was no room between the Deep void and the Earth for anything, so humankind, like everything else just came into existence. Perhaps it is because of this lack of the Misogynistic myth of Creation that females at the time were; despite their society being ruled by Patriarchal law of strength, seen to be equal to men in all things. The females in the clans not only owned property, they choose their own Husbands, and as Queens became leader of their armies as well as people, especially when their husband the King died during times of war. There are unfortunately few reliable sources existing regarding the clans views towards Gender divisions, but there is a belief that it was the women Druids, the Priestesses, who apprenticed all the young warriors, and that it was they who taught them the practical art of warfare.

All Oral traditions from early Civilisations have left us with little more than assumptions of how these early Britons lead their everyday lives, and though we may learn from the artefacts that our Archaeologists find, none of it tells us the whole story. Most knowledge about of our Ancestors comes quite often from many decades if not centuries after their passing, when their oral stories and myths are put down into words on parchment. Unfortunately, words only carry the echoes of those tellers of stories, often Chinese whispers which have been orally passed down from one generation to the next. The tribes of Britain were no different; for them the Bards and Poets transmitted much of what their lives were actually like. Most of what we know of their civilisation comes from Folk law and what little is written within the Anglo Saxon-Chronicles or as Anecdotal notes or Quips made by Roman's at the time, and having been written down only after their invasions 55 BC - 43 AD all of this leaves us only with a tantalising glimpse into the earliest life of our Ancestors

### CHAPTER 5

### Romans in Briton

" _Sixty winters ere that Christ was born, Caius Julius, emperor of the Romans, with eighty ships sought Britain. There he was first beaten in a dreadful fight and lost a great part of his army. (Various, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, Translated by Ingram, James, 890 approx.)_

It was under Julius Cesar that the Romans tried unsuccessfully in 55 BC to invade Britain. Cesar did however return to the Island, less than a year later in 54BC, this time taking on the tribal warriors, with some force, and it was only after a hard battle on the River Thames, that Cesar stood victorious. However the Roman leader was forced to return to Gaul two months later so leaving Britain to its own devises. Julius Caesar's descriptions of the people of Britain tell of a Savage and Barbarous race, however it is now evidenced that the Britons were well organised, living by strict religious codes and also having a well organised Social hierarchy. Most of the clans were isolated, surrounding their villages with high banks and Wattle and Daub fencing for defence. From Archaeological digs it is known that these people were technologically advanced, in both Iron and Bronze, smelting and crafting, with their Goldsmith's practiced in the making of jewellery and the women of the tribes Spinning, Dyeing and Weaving wool to make clothing. (Watney)

It is from these earliest encounters that the first written record of the native Britons and their society comes, but we have to remember that as with all victors, none are ever complementary about the enemy whom they finally overthrow, in particular the Roman's. Consequently caution should be used when reading accounts from such a bias point of view, always remembering too, that in the Roman Patriarchal society women in particular were rarely mentioned in writings

" _Celtic women are beautiful but the men preferred to sleep together"_

"The young men will offer themselves to strangers and are insulted if the offer is refused".

(Siculus D., 1st century BC)

There is though a somewhat witty remark made by the wife of Argentocoxus (a Caledonian Prince) which bears mention.

When chatting to Argentocoxus' wife Julia Augusta mentioned the free sexual intercourse British females seemed to have with their men; Argentocoxus' wife in reply quipped

"We fulfil the demands of nature in a much better way than do you Roman women; for we consort openly with the best men, whereas you let yourselves be debauched in secret by the vilest."

Such was the retort of the British woman. (Cassius Dio)

The Celts themselves found nothing strange at all in consulting with the females of their Tribe about the politics and policies of war and peace, often using the Elder women as Ambassadors and Mediators in controversies and disagreements with neighbouring allies. Women were extremely important contributors towards the day to day running of Celtic society, and as such were respected members of the own community and often neighbours too. There are still very few Celtic and Anglo-Saxon women, who are well known enough and whose reputations or names have been left behind. Unfortunately the reputation of these Celtic Queens and women are often known by us through verbal legend and Roman writings.

Most have heard of Queens such Boadicea and Cartimandua (Howarth, 2008) who even within their own life-time were amongst the most powerful Queens within ancient British history. Though it is as Warriors; and not Queens that these two women are most famously remembered. Heading up their own Armies both of these great Warrior Queens became infamous for battling against Rome during the second invasion of Britain, but despite being worthy adversaries and having put up a 'good fight' they each did eventually lose the battle, with Cartimandua betraying her own Husband at the end. Despite being of Roman birth; Cartimandua had, at the beginning fought against Claudius during the Invasion in 51 AD, being mentioned by Tacitus in his moralising narratives annals and in Histories 3 .45 he tells of her treachery and self-indulgence

_Carrismandua ruled the Brigantes in virtue of her illustrious birth; and she strengthened her throne, when, by the treacherous capture of king Caracracus she was regarded as having given its chief distinction to the triumph of Claudius Caesar, then followed wealth and the self-indulgence of prosperity. Spurning her husband Venutius she made Vellocarus his armour-bearer, the partner of her bed and throne_ . _By this enormity the power of her house was at once shaken to its base. (Tacitus)_

### Queen Boudicca

"She was huge of frame, terrifying of aspect, and with a harsh voice.

A great mass of bright red hair fell to her knees: She wore a great twisted golden necklace, and a tunic of many colors, over which was a thick mantle, fastened by a brooch.

Now she grasped a spear, to strike fear into all who watched her." Dio Cassius (Dudley, 1962)

Much of what is known of Queen Boudicca comes from unconfirmed sources, but legend has it that in 60-61 AD, Boudicca, being the wife of Prasatugas, King of the Iceni tribe fought a long and hard battle against Rome. It is said that the Roman authorities seized all of her husband, King Prasatguas property after regaling on a peace treaty the King had signed with them shortly before he died. In this Peace treaty it stated and was agreed that half of Prastagua's Kingdom would belong to Queen Boudicca's upon his death, with the other half going to the Romans. The Romans however doubled crossed Boudicca seizing all of Pratsagua's property upon his death and; by raping the Kings own two Daughters they dared any reprisals by the Queen or any other member of the Iceni Tribe. So incensed was Boudicca she raised an army of her own tribesmen and women and began to wage war on the Romans. So it was as a widowed Queen Boudicca led her army, which included her two Daughters, against the Roman authority, and in retaliation for what the Romans had dared to do, Boudicca set about burning Colchester, London, and St Albans. Again legend has it that after being the cause of a horrendous massacre of her own people and Romans soldiers too, Boudicca poisoned herself so as to evade capture.

" _And their defeat rang the death-knell of the freedom of British womanhood.... ." (STOPES, 1894)_

The Roman Conquest, despite its horrific beginnings did bring about the very gradual assimilation of the Romano/Greco Social discord. The tribes of the South being much more welcoming that those in the North, having already traded with the Romans for many decades. But no change is sudden. Roman Soldiers were stationed throughout Britain for many, and though the higher ranking Generals sent for the wives, children and their households too, the ordinary Centurions and Soldiers took the native females from local tribes as their own wives.

By leaving the larger towns to Self-govern and the smaller Communities to maintain and run their tribes through their own local native leaders. Britain became Romanised simply because the Romans left them to run their own affairs, it was through this and also by building close working ties with the people that the soldiers; whose barracks were usually near to these small settlements, became part of the local community, as did their children and it was through these integrating Roman - Anglo generations that the Hierarchical Misogynistic belief became assimilated into Britain's Culture. But all good; and bad things too finally come to an end and from approximately 388 AD the Romans began to withdraw from Britain, recalling her soldiers back to Rome. So it happened that by 409/10 BC the Roman Empire was under attack by both internally and externally and was on the very edge of collapse.

It was whilst being threatened by an invading coalition of Picts and Saxons, that the Roman-Britain citizens sent out an appeal, to the then Emperor Honorious, for help, but with the Goths ravaging Italy, Emperor Honorious had neither resources, nor the will to support Britain any longer. The defence of Britain was costing the lives of trained Roman soldiers, who could be better used defending the collapsing Empire. Consequently Rome pulled all her forces out from Britain, with Honorious penning a letter in which he told the Britons, that there were no further connections between them and Rome, and that... _'they should look to their own defences'_

Unfortunately Rome's hasty departure, left the way open for the Saxon Invasion to the South and East, and the Picts and Scots in the North and West of the English Islands. But despite Rome's somewhat hasty departure, British society, whilst in disarray did keep some semblance of order; for a while at least, simply by continuing to use what they'd been brought up with as Roman-Britons, which was the Roman way of Local Government. But without the support of the great Empire the infra-structure faltered, particularly in the smaller Rural towns and Villages, and it is true to say that the fabric of Britain began to shift under the onslaught of still more invading forces. Whilst the great Fortifications, Villas and everything which had been Roman disappeared, the strict Laws against Women's freedom, was one of the few Roman Dictates which remained as part of the surviving Social culture.

The Britons enjoy a respite from foreign invasions, but exhaust themselves in civil wars and plunge into worse crimes [c. 440-590] Chapter 22 (Bede)

### CHAPTER 6

### Sub-Roman Britain

"... _almost the only barbarian content with one wife, who gave dower to his wife , and understood the by the very rites of her marriage that she came to share hard work and peril, and that her fate would be the same as her husband's in peace and in war". (Stenton, 1957)_

Tacitus a 1st century Roman Historian had described Germanics such, these were the same Germanic Tribes that over four centuries later in 450AD shortly after the Romans withdrew from Britain, began to settle by Migration. The popular historical theories have always been that the Saxon Conquest was a violent event, however it may have been just a slow tide of migrants sweeping across from Europe; such as the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, and that the so called _'_ invasion _'_ was merely violent altercations between these Germanic cultures for overall rule of certain areas of Britain .

There is very little factual knowledge of life in Britain which can be drawn on to tell of the History of the Island from 410 onwards until the coming of Christianity, and St. Augustine. However two accounts do come from St. Germanus of Auxerre, c 429 -445 it was in 441 that St. Germanus chronicled; how part of the island had _'passed into the power of the Saxons',_ other evidence that we have of this Sub- Roman culture comes from actual Archaeology, and still more through Linguistic evidence. There are now Specialists in the modern field of Genetics, and it is these experts who have discovered that there are actual indicators within the modern Genetic pool of Native English people, that correspond with the DNA of the European tribes, along with that of the original Aboriginals, who settled in Britain during the Palaeolithic age ( _Oppenheimer, 2006/2007)._

Over the ensuing decades of this Migration, much of what the Romans' left behind after their withdrawal, was forgotten about and consequently lost or quite simply forgotten. All the great Roman Villas and Cities, the very Roman-British society they built, almost everything, apart from that is from the great Roman roads, began to decay, with the population slowly returning to their Tribal way of life; when even the ability to write became a forgotten art.

So long as the memory of past disaster remained fresh, kings and priests, commoners and noble kept their proper rank. But when those who remembered died, there grew up a generation that knew nothing of these things. Ch. 22. (Bede)

Again there are few written records for us to draw upon which aren't especially tainted by religious ideology such as Bede's 'Ecclesiastical History of the English People'. However what we do know is that the Germanic Tribes brought with them to Britain their own Pagan beliefs, and it was through this Paganism, that women once again regained most of their Equality, taking their rightful place once again within society, without discrimination of Gender affecting their stance. They were at the very forefront of decision making within their own tribes and accorded respectful consideration and seen to be equal in all things, under the Ancient System of Kinsmanship.

The Germanic Tribes held to the Salic Code of the Wergeld which was that a 'value' was place on every individual member of their society, no matter what their Gender. It held therefore, that if a person, were injured or killed, the perpetrator of that would have to pay a Wergeld (today this would be equated as a fine) which would be the value of what the impact from the loss of that person would be to the victim's Natal family. The amount depended very much upon the Social standing of a victim, and though a woman may have been Married, any Wergeld imposed or awarded was hers by right of individuality if she died because of the injury inflicted upon her; any recompense was given to her own Natal-kinsmen's, not her Husband. The responsibility for any one person always stayed with the Natal-family, even if Married and/or living away from them. This Salic Code became an integral part of what turned into Anglo Saxon society and was to remain in that form almost unaltered until the Feudal system was introduced by William and his Norman Conquest in 1066.

### The coming of Christianity

Even though from as early as the 1st century, Christian missionaries had been arriving on the shores of Britain, there had never really been an organised conversion of the British populace as such. There had been, for many thousands of years European traders crossing the waters of the Channel which separated the British from their European neighbours. Artisans too regularly crossed the country with the inevitable Mercenaries who took up arms for those willing to bid the highest for their services, their loyalties lying with whatever warring faction might pay them the most. All of these and many more 'Foreigners' moved quite freely around the Island, being that there was no Central Government as such. Which meant that as these travellers moved from tribe to tribe, Kingdom to Kingdom any of those practising the Christian religion would; quite naturally; through their own art of oral story-telling, preach to any who would listen, extolling the virtues of their own 'Lord Jesus' and spreading the word of their Faith

Christianity like many other cult religions would have been one of many doing the rounds at the time, so it would be a matter of course that the native population would hear of this new religion coming as it did from the East as they went about their daily lives. However, this new religion would have seen quite extraordinary and oddly unique to most people, being that the followers of the 'Jesus Cult' worshiped just the one God; rather than the many which was the norm within all Societies at the time. Christianity was Monotheist in character rather than Polytheists in the Pagan religion and most certainly Christianity would have been viewed with a great deal of suspicion; if not out-right disbelief by the Anglo-Saxon's simply because of this fact. Conversion to the Christian belief certainly did not take hold in Britain immediately, with most of the Anglo-Saxon population continuing to follow Pagan beliefs it would take many Centuries before any sort of organised attempt at British Christian Conversation took place, or come to that was even considered.

It would not be until 597 AD, when St. Augustine, along with forty other Monks, was given the task to bring Christianity to what was seen as the Heathen and Pagan people of Britain, when they were sent on a mission of Conversion by the then Pope Gregory .

(Ch. 23) – [A .D. 596] the holy Pope Gregory sends Augustine and other monks to preach to the English nation, and encourages them in a letter to persevere in their mission (Bede)

St. Augustine landed on the Isle of Thanet in Kent and, so legend has it, was greeted there some days later by the Pagan King of Kent Æthelbert and his Christian Queen Bertha. Though not a Christian himself, when Æthelbert married Bertha, Daughter of King Charibert of Nestria, it was agreed as part of Bertha's marriage settlement that Æthelbert would respect Bertha's Christian beliefs and allow her to follow her own religion. Though Pagan, Æthelbert was an extremely tolerant man, and actually gave the old Roman church of St. Martin in Canterbury, this was so his new Queen might practice her religion freely. So it was that upon her marriage to Æthelbert Bertha brought from Nestria with her many Clerics to support her in her religious devotions, one of these being Bishop St. Luidhard of Senlis (Butler, 1891)

In Bede's _'History of Britain'_ we are told that upon landing St. Augustine sent word of his arrival to Queen Bertha and when the messenger returned it was with instructions that St Augustine wait where he was while King Æthelbert decided what to do with him. It is believed, though that this landing had been arranged prior to Augustine's actual arrival, but Æthelbert not wanting to make his Pagan subjects anxious, sent word that any progress be halted. In all likelihood Æthelbert would have been aware of his subject's great distrust of Augustine and this new Christian religion. So he arranged for himself and the Queen to meet with Augustine in the open with witnesses' there who could report that no foreign magic had been used to coerce the King into forcing permission for the Christians entry into the realm of Kent.

Some days after, the king came into the island, and sitting in the open air, ordered Augustine and his companions to come and hold a conference with him. For he had taken precaution that they should not come to him in any house, lest, by so coming, according to an ancient superstition, if they practised any magical arts, they might impost upon him, and so get the better of him. (Bede)

St Augustine was given lodging at St. Martin's in Canterbury, the very Church which had originally been a wedding gift to the Queen from the King. It was some months later that Augustine received permission from the King to use the Church as a base and it was from there that Friars proceeded to carry out their mission of Christian conversion and with the Kings consent at that, influenced no doubt by his Christian Queen. It was not until 601AD however, that Æthelbert finally converted to Christianity himself, though he never pressurised any of his Subjects to convert from their Pagan faith and turn away from their own Gods, the King did though go a good way to help Augustine carry out his mission of conversation of the peoples of Britain.

### The Rise of Christianity

Though many missions of conversion had been made to Britain, Christianity hardly impacted on the day to day life and beliefs of most ordinary people, and though there were settlements of Monks, these were often very small, with perhaps just one simple building, with three or four Monks being housed inside. These monks lived very sparse and pious lives, living in amongst the locals, preaching the Gospels, helping the infirm and praying for the souls of any who they converted,( for a price of course).

In the 'History' Bede tells of Augustine's turmoil; feeling as he did that the British people, being of such an _'uncouth'_ persuasion would need proper guidance on such matters once they were converted to Christianity, Augustine therefore penned a letter to Pope Gregory listing a number of question upon, which he felt he was in great need of support and guidance and it is when he reaches the Eighth question that Augustine asks about the perplexing problems of _'Women'_ and what he should do when faced with the Religious Dictates of Christianity. _'Should pregnant women be baptised and when after childbirth could a woman enter church? ''How soon after child-birth may a husband have relations with his wife?'_ _'What of Menstruation were women allowed Communion during such a time?'_ Gregory replies that there should be no reason why an expectant mother should not be baptised, being that- _"The fruitfulness of the flesh is no offence in the sight of Almighty God"_

In Augustine's letters, we see Christianity possibly in all the simplest of its Piety, for it has to be remembered that Christianity was and still is a religion based around Orthodox Jewish belief, where women were and still are seen as being unclean when menstruating and after childbirth. On both occasions certain rules had been lain down within Jewish traditional belief regarding bodily fluids such as Menstrual blood and Semen too, both of which were seen as being Unclean and which required purification from before entering a Church, be it by washing or by sanctity.

"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurities of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening" (Lev. 15:19-23).

There were many question and many answers, not just about women but about every aspect of Augustine's mission which the Monk needed such guidance on, this was to better enable him to lay down the foundations of Christianity in Britain. As a new religion Christianity impacted very little on the lives of ordinary folk in Anglo-Saxon Britain, most of whom preferred to continue to follow the Pagan way of worship. There are certainly many different stories and legends about how Christianity came to Britain in the earliest of days, but in all likelihood it spread through contact and by on-going Missions which went before the arrival of Augustine,

... _..we may suppose rather that there were individual contacts, commercial and military, between Britain and Gaul which resulted in a natural germination of Christianity in the former country_

In Ireland and towards the North, the Celtic or 'Iona' faith was held in observance, which encompassed Pagan belief, and having a very strong hold on the people there. It isn't until Oswald (Oswiu) is crowned King in Northumbria in 664 AD, do we see any type of unification. Oswald was brought up in the Iona faith of simple piety, rather than the Roman Christianity of damnation and control through fear! Once crowned King of Northumberland, Oswald requested that the Irish send him a Bishop, so it was that Aiden; who had previously been his teacher landed in the Northumberland Kingdom of his old Pupil. Oswald granted Aiden the island of Lindisfarne, and it was there that Aiden founded an Abbey.

After many years of religious co-existence between the both Catholic and Iona beliefs in his Kingdom, Oswald grew tired of the disruption that the differing beliefs of each faction brought to the otherwise smooth running of his realm, being that some in his lands were of the Roman Catholic persuasion and others of the Ionian traditions Oswald found that while one set of ideologists was celebrating Easter, the other would still be in Lent. Therefore in 664 Oswald arranged a Synod at Saint Hilda's double Monastery in Whitby, where both Roman and Iona factions met.

Abbess of the Monastery, Hilda (Butler, The lives of the fathers, martyrs, and other principal saints, 1846) was related to the Royal houses of Northumbria and East Anglia, and as great niece to King Edwin of Northumbria, she along with her Great Uncle and other members of the Royal household were Baptised at York in 627 Hilda was always destined to follow a spiritual path, so being a wealthy aristocrat in 657 founded her Abbey at Whitby, where she installed herself as Abbess. For a woman at that time Hilda was very unusual, in that not only was she a Spiritual leader of a very large community of young men and women readying themselves for a life in the service of God, she also brought a great deal of knowledge of the Christian Gospels to educated men who would one day become the great Bishops. So well was Hilda thought of that Kings and learned men made very long journeys to the Monastery just to seek her advice and counsel., as a Teacher and Educationalist Hilda had a reputation for being a caring individual, as a Landowner she also efficiently ran her Estate at Whitby whilst at the same time bringing Christianity to the ordinary people, and because of all of this, it would be Hilda's Abbey which became one of the greatest religious centres of North Easter England. So taking all of this into consideration it would not have been too unusual for Oswald to call for a Synod at Whitby, after all Monasteries were not only places of worship, they were seats of learning and often of Government too, also on the plus side Whitby would be an outward show of power and looked upon as a Beacon to all that was glorious.

So it was at the double Monastery at Whitby where differing points of view over Tonsure and dates were to be used for Easter would to be discussed, hopefully integrated, and successfully brought together. Many great men attended, however whether through design or otherwise, there were a lot fewer from the Ionian belief who attended, which left any debate one sided, being that anyone who opposed the Roman Christian point of view was drowned out by sheer weight of numbers. So after much unopposed debate it was agreed and made law by Oswald that the 'Roman Practice' of Tonsure and the date for Easter, would be fixed and accepted by all within his Kingdom. So consequently it was this decision which brought Northumberland into mainstream of British Roman Christian Culture, with the Kings of the remaining British Shires and Counties followed quickly behind. The Roman Practice however did not happen overnight, with the population remaining divided, some following the Iona beliefs and others the Roman.

Theodore of Tarsus was ordained at the age of 65 by Pope Vitalian, as Archbishop of Canterbury and sent across to Britain, but on his arrival in May of 669 Theodore found the Church and country still divided between Celtic and Christian custom and in much disarray as a consequence. A very strong and charismatic man it was Theodore of Tarsus who brought about unification between Celtic and Roman beliefs. Theodore though favoured the Roman ideals and so went about undoing a lot of what St. Augustine had set up when he first began his mission. It was during this second phase that the 'Penitential of Theodore' takes over. The Hard-line and misogynistic beliefs regarding menstruating women appear and Pope Gregory's reply to St. Augustine that _'The fruitfulness of the flesh is no offence in the sight of Almighty God_ seems to go unheeded, and so it passes into Cannon Law that

" _During the time of menstruation women should not enter into church or receive communion, neither lay women nor religious. If they presume to do so all the same, they should fast for three weeks" (Para 17)_

" _In the same way those women should do penance, who enter a church before their blood is purified after birth, that is for forty days" (Para 18)_

So it was that Roman Penitential beliefs became the norm over the ensuing years, with Iona Christianity being assimilated into the one faith; though it would take many, many more years for the vast majority of English peoples to convert to Roman Christianity, it was perhaps King Oswald's agreement to the outcome of the talks at Whitby which sounded the death knell of Pagan Celtic worship in Anglo-Saxon England.

The Roman/Greco belief in the **'Great Chain of Being'** entered into Oswald's realm by his agreement and once allowed, the assimilation of the other beliefs; to which so many Britain's still clung, began to disappear. It took decades for Roman Catholic beliefs to become further organised and for the Christian persuasion of Catholic ideologies to impress itself especially on English people. But slowly through continual Cannon and Gregorian reform, females in particular through ministration of the 'Pauline Perspective, became more and more subordinate to the males in their lives and within society as a whole. The integration of gendered subordination was so subtle that over the ensuing generation's females hardly realised that their own identities were undergoing such radical change. These Paulina ideals were continually reinforced through homilies and sermons given by the Priests, during prayer and worship. Something, all of the population was expected to attend regularly, or be punished.

Had Oswald chosen the Iona Christianity, would life have been different for women? Possibly; and it might still be reflected in the lives of women living in Britain today. But it was not to be, and those who could not or would not accept Oswald's decision, simply returned to Iona, taking with them their social ideals and religion of simple piety and devotion, and so Iona Christianity slowly disappeared under the onslaught of Catholic persuasion.

Roman Christianity integrated so readily into the already evolving communities of Britain, being that most Britons were simple, uneducated, and superstitious people, who were easily swayed by Monks and Priests, especially those who threatened an afterlife of burning pits and excruciating pain for Eternity. Possibly terrified these plain ordinary folk would have done anything to save themselves from the Hellish damnation of their souls (not to mention their tortured bodies) and to receive absolution for their sins either by confession or by an act of retribution, so they might live forever in quiet peace within God's holy realm of Heaven. Almost all of the Roman Catholic Friars and Priests, who preached in the streets of the English market towns, were indeed great Orators and it would have been a certainty that going about their daily lives, ordinary folk would stand and listen to what they had to say. This certainly placed simple village and town's people immediately at a disadvantage, as they couldn't have hoped to put up any real argument, having no knowledge of the scriptures of this Christian sect. These were superstitious and simple folk and mostly all still practicing Pagans

Britain at this time consisted mostly of little more than small rural communities; with much of the countryside being given over to Arable farming and made up of many very small hamlets called the Hundreds within a framework of Shires. Each Shire was ruled over by its own King through Viceroys and Lords and so naturally, as their Kings and Lords converted to Catholic Christianity, so too did those who were Free men along with their families, Peasants and slaves followed suite having no other choice, until eventually a good percentage of the population was under the control of the Priests, Abbots and the Pope through the Kings. Perhaps it was the fear of eternal retribution, or the possibility of facing the wrath of his Christian King and Lord, which was partly the reason why no one dared question the rights or wrongs of this Eastern monotheistic religion, let alone question its origins, or from where these beliefs came. As a consequence Roman Christianity and all of what it represented became an integral part of the accepted religious and social model in Britain, mainly through the persistent indoctrination of the zealous Preachers, and simply by Christianity being slowly assimilated into the British Anglo-Saxon culture. A course of action which would affect the everyday lives of females for many, many centuries.

Is it possible therefore, that _'The Great Chain of Being',_ this Ancient Misogynist dictate, journeying as it did across so many different lands simply, through the mission of its later followers, finally conquer the last adversary on that day in 647 at Saint Hilda's monastery in Whitby? The Christianity which swayed Oswald most certainly was not the simple pious beliefs St. Agustin had brought with him on his first mission. Pope Gregory had advised Augustine; through his replies to letters, that Christianity " _Should embrace Pagan beliefs, and monasteries should be built upon the foundations of the old Roman Pagan Churches",_ for Gregory realised that Conversion and acceptance were better obtained with a gentle hand and not an iron fist. But it was neither Gregory nor Augustine who put forth the arguments at the Synod in Whitby, but greedy, ruthless and often misogynistic men of a different order, whose words swayed a King into making a decision which would eventually outlaw Paganism and come to totally subvert all female individual identity for over a thousand years.

Bede ended his Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Sawyer, 1998) with a survey of the state of Britain, and it can be seen there that the population of England was predominantly Roman Catholic by the time of his death in 735 AD

### CHAPTER 7

### Final Links

Between 602-603 Æthelbert made the decision to have the laws of the people of Kent written out ' _after the Roman manner (Bede)'_ not in Latin however but in 'Olde English' and by making these laws into a simple Codex Æthelbert tried; amongst other things, to lay down some sort of Governance within his own Kingdom of Kent. There were Ninety clauses in all, but the fact that it is only the first clause which is taken up with the Church, does bear evidence of what little significance Christianity actually had at that time. The other 89 laws relate to the rights of male and female, Property, Disorder, with the consequences and penalties imposed for breaking these Laws. The Codex also seems to concentrate on the rights of married people, including too single women and also Widows.

To all intents and purpose it does seem that Æthelbert did in fact try to make an honest attempt to define the ancient Germanic - Pagan understanding which was, that marriage was a bargain between two mutual consenting parties. In one of Æthelbert laws it states that

' _.. .If a wife wishes to depart with her children, she shall have half the goods....'_

This certainly sounds fair enough, even to us in the 21st century, and there certainly seems to be an attempt by Æthelbert even then, to set down the rights of women, as these simple laws do seem to try to define what a married woman could keep if she were Divorced or Separated. Æthelbert's codex seems also to confirm that in Anglo-Saxon Britain, a woman was seen to be an individual with her own rights, that she belonged to no one, had her own Identity and that no matter what an individual's gender was Status was the factor which decided what amount of fine would be imposed, should there be any wrong doing against that individual, so the higher the status, the more any loss was felt to the kindred of the person.

But what we have to remember now is that Æthelbert would have been much unpractised in expressing meaning in written word, and though the King was literate, he would have struggled to find the correct language, which could be understood by all, at that time, as actual written 'law within his Codex', which is seen in Æthelbert laws as a sliding scale of penalties; _(Wergild or Fine)_ imposed against those perpetrators of crimes against all people, with these penalties also applying to property. It is only when the penalty is actually imposed, that for the first time the _'status'_ of the victim is mentioned within the law, and it is status which sets the precedent when awarding any Wergild or Compensation.

As an instance, a female being forcefully abducted was not seen as a crime, unless the victim decided not to remain with her abductor, and returned to her Kin. It was only then that a fine would be imposed against the perpetrator, with the amount of restitution, depending totally upon the female's Status _(Leyser, 1995)_ being given over to the female victim or her kindred. There was no actual crime in Abducting, Raping, or Forcing a woman to marry against her will, and no crime against an individual was seen to have been committed providing the correct restitution, as set down within the Codex was made to the victim or Kindred. However there were exceptions to who received the restitution.

'If a man lies with a maiden belonging to the king he shall pay 50 shillings compensation. If she is a grinding slave he shall pay 25 shillings (Stenton, 1957)

The female grinding Slave, belonging to the King would have been 'purchased' possibly from a slave market, and that fact alone would make her the _'property'_ of the King, as much as any other goods or property that had been bought at market. The female grinding slave belonged to the King and slaves _(being classed as very expensive property_ ) were worth a fine (by Æthelbert reckoning) of half that of the Kings orphaned maiden. The young maiden, belonging to the King, would quite likely be, a young girl, possibly the orphaned daughter and in all likelihood sole heiress of a deceased Aristocrat. The young maid would have been placed under the protection of the King, until she came of an age to inherit her Father's land, as happened when there were no other children, and no Kinsmen to protect the orphaned Sons or Daughters of Aristocrats. Considering the maid's high status, being a sole heiress, the girl would most certainly have been in need of protection, to safeguard; not only her reputation but her dead father's wealth and lands.

As such it was the law that all Aristocratic or wealthy orphaned children with inherited lands were placed under the protection and control of whoever was named or became their Protector on the death of their father. If there were no older male relatives, especially in the case of an orphaned female child, the King automatically became the young maiden's protector. So as it was the King in control of the inherited lands, until the young girl came of age or married, any compensation for crimes committed against his ' _ward_ ' would go directly into his treasury. Though, when drawing up the Codex, Æthelbert ensured the amount of the fine was high enough to discourage any unscrupulous man from seducing or abducting any young maid, forcing her to marry, in the hope of gaining control over the inherited lands.

An Aristocratic maiden; under the protection of the King is; in these laws said to _'belong'_ to the King, just as much as the female grinding Slave, consequently all 'fines' for hurt or wrongdoing to either of these females are paid directly to the King . However, Slaves and Serving maids would have be bought, _[the slave at market, the serving maid an agreed amount under a 1 year contract]_ and so they became the property of the person who bought them, or their services. _'If a man lies with a noble man's serving maid, he shall pay 12 shillings compensation'_.so rather than the female's natal family being recompensed for any loss, it would be the head of the house in which they lived and served, who received any compensation. Harm done to them would mean expense to their owner, and in the case of murder their loss would cost the King/Noble man's household a lot of expense to replace them.

When we read these particular Laws within the Codex, what comes across as glaringly obvious, is that all of the laws appertaining to females, seem to have deliberately been placed together within the same group of ordered numbers yet without the female's Status being considered. So perhaps it is here, in the writings of the newly converted Christian King Æthelbert that we first see a shift in the placement of all free women within English society. The Maiden, the Serving maid and the Slave all seem to actually become the 'property' of the male head of the house, despite the difference in their actual Status simply by Æthelbert using the word _'belonging '_ for all of the females. If this is the case, then it would explain how the status of 'Individual', which the Aristocratic maiden had by right of birth, seems to have been stripped away from her and to all intents and purposes, she becomes the 'property' belonging to the King within whose households she lives, much as the Grinding Slave

Certainly Æthelbert would have, as a Christian convert been aware of the _'Great Chain of Being'_ ; however that does not necessarily mean this was a consideration when he wrote his 'Codex', it may simply have been that Æthelbert; when considering the Maiden, had penned the words _'_ _belonging to '_ as a term of Endearment, much as we do today, when speaking in an emotional context of our, Spouse, Partner or Children _(we belong to each other),_ and so perhaps it is simply that the connotation or understanding of those two small insignificant words _'belonging to'_ actually took on a different meaning in Æthelbert's England. And therefore despite the difference in their Status, it is the female's Gender which places each of these them together in Æthelbert's Codex, which is exactly where they are in on the 'Great Chain of Being', which is of course as females, is under males. Æthelbert's Codex may quite possibly have been the first step towards lawful Misogyny. Being more literate than King Æthelbert ever was, this Translation would make this particular part of Æthelbert 's law fit so easily in with where females stood on the 'Great Chain of Being' Whether it was written deliberately or not we can never know, but it does seems odd that this Codex was written after Æthelbert converted to Christianity.

### CHAPTER 8

### Chain Tightens

So where within this powerful metaphor of a chain were females? Originally on Aristotle's **'Great Chain of Being'** as already mentioned, they were below men, but above animals and worms. However over the centuries the original concept became totally distorted and as most male authorities slowly came to sanction, male power, females as individual beings became totally invisible, so that ultimately we come full circle back to Plato's Greece. It certainly seems that from their earliest beginnings most religious civilisations have laid the blame for the weakness of their males, on the women in their society.

Women are the seducers of boys and men who use lies and demonic seduction to spread discourse and disorder, they are lustful licentious, depraved and will stoop to do all sorts of evil to bring about a man's downfall.

However we are not here to discuss the right or wrongs of Misogyny, but to show how its use affected where women stood in early English society. Though it is odd how most of the earliest Fathers of the Christian Church testify to being the ' _good and holy followers_ ', while at the same time scorning the wife of Adam, and all her descendants at every opportunity. To be fair this was not just a European trait, or of one particular age in history, Misogyny encompasses all cultures and eras still to this day. However this constant imbalance is seen at its most obsessive in the written records left behind, by the Greek and Roman male dominated authorities, who seemed to have derive a great deal of personal pleasure in heaping scorn upon their women. There are too within most scriptures Christian, Muslim, Hebrew great areas where woman's defects, Spiritual as well as Physical are condemned in the crudest of terms., with all blaming the female sex for all the depravity men are prone to.

Despite being the founding Fathers of Christianity, there were some great and powerful men, who because of their own hatred of women, actively sought to turn Eve, the wife of Adam, the first man made by Yahweh Eloholm _(Lord God),_ into the very epitome of all that was Evil. One gesture by Eve, that of offering the fruit of the Forbidden Tree to her husband, would mark all women as the seducer and the temptress of man-kind; yet no comment is made within any of the Jewish or Christian scriptures of Adams weakness, by taking the fruit from Eve and eating of it freely

For I do not allow woman to teach, or to exercise authority over men; but she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (1 Timothy 2:12-14)

In most religions it is very odd how the female menstrual cycle always seems to be the one common denominator which crops up in all Scriptures and as such is seen as being the purveyor of the dark side, where Evil abides. Females are marked as being unclean and excluded from Socialising, Worship and kept separate from men during their periods/menses

"When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurities of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days.. ." Leviticus 15:19-32

Constantly the Scriptures warn that it is the Genitalia of the female which women would use to 'force' through Temptation' a man into sinning or doing wrong against his God and Society. Again never is the weakness of the man mentioned, only the female immodesty and wantonness, in her Temptation of him. What is seen time and again are the Scriptures cautioning men about the need to control these Depraved and Weak women, compelling men to take the upper hand and keep all females in their charge under the strictest of Dictates. Women get bad press no matter which early religion is the study, according to most, everything about the female sex has evil intent; and she is even judged upon the vehemence of her gossip with others.

The Misogynistic scriptures of the Old Testament state that unless rigidly controlled by the main man in her life, woman will become the downfall of him, and worse still shake the very core of Misogynistic society as a whole

" _man enjoys the great advantage of having a god endorse the code he writes; and since man exercises a sovereign authority over women it is especially fortunate that this authority has been vested in him by the Supreme Being. For the Jews, Mohammedans and Christians among others, man is master by divine right; the fear of God will therefore repress any impulse towards revolt in the downtrodden female. Simone de Beauvoir_

### CHAPTER 9

### Norman Conquest

As the Decades progressed, so it was that the great Kings of Britain did battle against each other, for supremacy of all the counties of England. But they were also fighting on two fronts, for the Kings also had the heavy raiding parties of Vikings and the Danes to contend with as their dogged determination to Conquer Britain seemed without end. There is so little oral or written history which includes women during the intervening time, simply because any records being kept were, more often than not, complied by the literate Christian male clerics, and none would ever consider women important enough to mention in any of their writings.

This was a particularly odd time for Britain, as a country it was made up of a Patchwork of separate Kingdoms, each ruled by Monarchs who were at constant odds with each other. There were many conflicts over the ensuing centuries but out of all, it was the County of Wessex which finally came out the strongest winner. It was Alfred of Wessex, or Alfred the Great, _(as he is more often than not referred to)_ who drove the Danish invaders back in 886 AD, the inevitability of which was that Alfred ended up by occupying London. It was these actions which forced a treaty with the leader of the Danish King Guthrum, and through this treaty it was agreed between both Kings that they co-exist as separate rulers of the Island. England was therefore split, with the Anglo-Saxons occupying the South and West and the Danes the North and East, this is the region which became known as "Danelaw"

England remained divided as such until 1016, when King Canute conquered the Island thereby bringing Danish rule over Britain to an end. It is reputed that it was Canute's son Edward; later called the Confessor; who having no heirs to the English throne due to his own celibacy, then named William of Normandy as his successor. Harold Godwinson Son of the extremely powerful Earl Godwin of Wessex was sent as an Emissary by the then King Edward to 'check out' the credentials of William of Normandy, Harold was told to see if William were truly worthy of the honour of taking up the English throne. On Harold's return everything seemed set for William of Normandy to inherit the throne of England. However on his deathbed, for whatever reason it was Harold who was named as Heir by King Edward himself. So it was Harold and not William, who was crowned King of England under the Witenagemot (Gomme, 1880), which under Anglo-Saxon law was the only Authority which could ultimately convey Kingship.

It could be said that through being the last to use the law of Witenagemot, Harold was the last Anglo Saxon King of England. His rein however was considerably short, dying as he did, after a very long, fierce, and bloody fight with William of Normandy on the killing fields of what is now known as 'Battle', which lay just outside Hastings; Harold is probably remembered more for his supposed remarkable death, rather than for his life. Not only did the King of England lose his life at Hastings, but many of the British and Norman Aristocracy too. Though, in truth the Conquest was nothing more than a fight for Supremacy between powerful Norman and English Nobel families, who inevitably slaughtered each other for the throne of England. Actual numbers of casualties are unknown, though Orderic Vitalis gives a figure of 15,000 dead; however this could just be the Norman losses. _(Rickard, 2004)._

The ordinary men and women of England and Normandy had very little to do with any of the conflict. There were men from a few lesser Nobel families conscripted from both sides to fight in William and Harold's armies, and they naturally took with them young men from their local villages or towns to act as Squires. But with each of the armies being more or less equally matched; 8,400 being an approximation for the Normans, while the estimation for the British is 7,500, there was little enough in it. The English army consisted entirely of Infantrymen; these were full-time professional soldiers', all hardened fighters who had a long-standing Oath of allegiance to the English crown going back for most, as far as King Cnut. Seen as the Kings own personal bodyguard they were reputed to be so loyal that they were all willing, under oath, to fight to the last man if necessary. There were also part-time soldiers, these being the equivalent of the land-holding Aristocracy, with the remainder being fyrd men.

There is no official written record of how the Battle of Hasting was fought, and though there are a few eye-witness reports, none can be said to be accurate. So apart from the Bayeux Tapestry, we have very little direct knowledge of any of the events that supposed happen there. Even in the Tapestry there is no definite proof that the Knight shown to have been shot in the eye with an arrow or the other being trampled by a horse is, as popular myth would have it, is actually King Harold Most historians agree though, that the Bayeux Tapestry was embroidered in England, possibly in Canterbury. This is evidenced, as only Anglo-Saxon women made Embroideries such as these at the time; also it is only in the Saxon language that the letter **"V"** would have been written as a **"U"** (Wilson, 1985). There is also a good possibility that this huge Tapestry was ordered by William of Normandy's half-brother Odo, who after the Conquest became Earl of Kent. Certainly part of the evidence for it being English women who did the embroidery, takes into consideration that the last stitch on the Tapestry, was made by 1077, this being almost Ten years after the conquest, which would have been just in time for the dedication of Odo's new Cathedral in Bayeux.

Whilst the Tapestry is a marvellous piece of work, we should consider that even though embroidered by Anglo-Saxon women, it tells the story of the Conquest of Britain from the Norman stand point, so is really a pictorial record of one King's successful triumph over another and is, in all probability filled with bias and reshaping of actual events to fit the picture from the victor's viewpoint, this being the Normans.

### CHAPTER 10

### Anglo-Norman Feudalism

Directly after the Conquest any economic and social change barely impacted on the lives of ordinary English women and their families. However William's victory would over time bring about the greatest social change ever known in Britain. Feudalism arrived with the conquest and being a hierarchal based system of authority, would further influence the subjection of women, as feudalism like the misogynistic 'Great chain of being' held a rigid hierarchical and patriarchal form.

It would take the better part of 11 years for William, to gain total submission of the whole of the country and it would be the North of Britain in particular which proved to be stubbornly difficult to capture. William in fact ordered his army to lay waste to the whole of the North East of England to rid himself of all who might threaten his throne and it took the 'harrying' to finally complete the Conquest of England. The King stopped at nothing to hunt his enemies, he ordered his soldiers to cut down any who got in their way and destroy homes and lay waste to the land if need be. Nowhere else had he shown such cruelty, to his shame, William made no effort at all to control his fury, punishing the innocent along with the guilty. He ordered that crops and herds, tools and food be burned so that the land was scoured which left, more than 100,000 people, mostly the poor, perishing thorough lack of food

I have often praised William in this book, but I can say nothing good about this brutal slaughter. God will punish him. Orderic Vitalise, 11th century

Crowned in Westminster Abbey on 24th December  William certainly did not wait for the complete surrender of the whole Island, almost immediately the crown of England was set upon his head, William went about distributing the spoils of war, giving across titles and lands which once belonged to the English Nobel's and their families, and which now by right of Conquest belonged to the Crown, namely him.

William cleverly kept the Anglo-Saxon Shires and the Hundreds; these were used as a basic scaffold for him to build the Administration of his new Kingdom upon. Splitting Britain, into Manors and deliberately giving these across to those Norman Barons who had supported him during the conquest William seemed by all his supporters to be rewarding his own Aristocracy for their efforts. Most of these British lands brought with them not only tithes, but also wealth and power, however the new King was only too aware that loyalty came at a price, so he cannily demanded, that each Baron swear an Oath of Allegiance up on acceptance of the Title, meaning that William could at any time call for military support from these Aristocrats.

King William certainly did not relinquish power, nor did he have any intention of handing over total control to what he knew, at some point, would become power hungry men. He took dues himself from each of the manors, either in the form of money, crops or goods, it was a way of keeping the Barons in check, and it also reminded them that the Lands they lived upon, and the wealth which came from such, technically belonged to the Crown and had been given over to the Nobel's keeping, but could and would be taken back should any of them try to rise above themselves. So it was that the Nobel's kept as much of the given land as they wished, and then they in their turn distributed the rest to their own Family or Friends, therefore passing along the understanding that they too were honour bound to meet the Nobel's military needs, especially when the King needed armies. It followed as part of the Feudal system, that the those wealthy Aristocrats, who became the Lords of the Manors, then allocated sections of their own lands (demesne) to freemen and Villeins, who themselves had to swear allegiance to their own Lord, and in the case of the Villeins provide a certain amount of free labour and food, as well as take up arms when required.

The deaths on the Battlefields of so many English Aristocratic men, had left many wealthy and well-bred British widows and daughters without Husbands and Fathers, and though William had given over all of their Estates and lands as reward, the Norman Nobel's and new Lords of the Manor, wasted no time in securing further their claim by marrying the women of their vanquished predecessors. Those aristocratic Ladies who refused to yield to the arranged marriages had little choice, they escaped most taking refuge in Europe, whilst others found sanctuary in a Nunnery; there were many though who just disappeared, settling into a life of anonymity within the Peasant class.

For the Common people change was a little less obvious, simply because many local English traditions were actually adopted by the Norman King, rather than being wiped out. The Rural and village way of life, certainly carried on more or less unchanged. However, the building of the new Cathedrals, Churches, and Religious houses brought paid work to the Artisan class, living in parts of rural England. Hamlets that had once been mere clusters of small houses and holdings grew into Villages, expanding so as to service the many men who arrived to do the work which the local Abbots and Deans required, so to build their own religious house. Quarries where the stone was cut for the new buildings needed an army of labour and skilled Stonemasons, who if they were to work efficiently needed Bread and Ale, which brought business and prosperity to many.

The new Villain class, who were unfortunate enough to live on the land now given across by William to the Catholic Church, were themselves forced to leave their Wives and families to cope with life without them, as under their oaths of fealty, being part of their feudal obligation to the manor, manor's which the Deacon's and Arch-deacons now possessed, these unfortunate people were forced to labour in the quarries and on the building sites, erecting the new Religious Houses being Commissioned. These structures were huge the like of which had never been seen in Britain before needed armies of labourers, and so communities began to form around the building sites. Traders in all sort of wares arrived as word spread of the birth of these giants of Architecture which were slowly rising from the ground. Food and essentials was needed for workers and labourers alike, and from these ever expanding working communities, busy Villages, and small Towns began to grow. But as always for most with grand designs, the money the Church had been rewarded with by William for their support soon began to run out, so the Clergy began to Petition the King for more Gold. Being a good Christian William was only too aware of his religious obligation but, rather than deplete the Treasury, the King granted Towns and Villages _'Charters'_ which allowed for a weekly market to be held, naturally the Crown took a share of any profits, by way of Tax and it was from these revenues that William granted a percentage to the Church, which in turn then allowed building work to carry on, and the remainder naturally went into the Treasury.

The Norman nobility either built or moved into the now vacant great houses on the lands which had been granted to them by way of reward for their support during the war, and began, albeit slowly, to adopt the English ways as a matter of course. The only actual change in the beginning was that for the ordinary farming families, the name of the Lord and the language used changed. They however still carried on labouring in the fields each day to fill their now feudal obligations, not to mention their new Lords belly and ultimately the Kings treasury

For the ordinary woman life was just as hard as it had ever been, most women carried on as their mother had done before them. Not for these women just to go ploughing or taking the sheep to market as their husbands did. It had always been a fact that women had more than just the one job to do in their daily life. Not only were all women (free or unfree) expected to see to the Domestic side of life, they were tending the stock, making the dairy products, brewing Ale, spinning and weaving the family's clothes. They gathered wood, hauled water and when needed helped their husbands in the fields and quarries too, if need be, all of which was hard and back breaking work A woman's day started early and finished very late, but it was these women as wives and mothers who were central to the well-being and survival of the whole family. To these simple ordinary women, life was no different to that which had been their lot before the Conquest. No matter which Lord their husbands or fathers swore their allegiance to; it was they who continued farming his land, giving across free labour and crops, just so their own family could keep a roof over their heads and basic food stuffs on the table.

As always is the case for the lower class women especially, life actually became even harder. For now when their husband died the said same land which would have automatically gone to them under Anglo-Saxon law now, under the Feudal system was given over to one of their Sons to work. If there were no Sons old enough, then the Widow Daughters and younger sons who would have been too young to work the land, were evicted, often without notice or thought for their wellbeing. Most of these families had nowhere to go, no livelihood and no money or even possessions, and with no man to help protect and speak for them, most of these lone women and their children went onto the Streets begging, where most succumbed to disease or died of starvation.

But changes were taking place, changes which would affect all of the populace, for while religious communities had been on the increase for many centuries in England and Roman Catholic Christianity already the religion of the populace, most religious houses and communities; were quite small and overseen by larger Abbey's, through the management of Abbots and even Abbesses. After the conquest, unless these Ecclesiastical estates had actually aided the British, and therefore helped in the resistance against the Norman Conquest, King William, quite wisely left them untouched; one such Estate was Ramsey Abbey

' _William, King of the English, to Archbishop Lanfranc and his bishops, and Abbot Baldwin, and the sheriffs, and certain of his faithful, French and English, greeting. Know that I concede to Herbert, Abbot of Ramsey, his sac, and tol and team, and infangentheof [rights to tolls, fee, and certain judicial profits], in the town and outside, and all his customs, which his antecessor had in the time of King Edward._

Witnesses: Robert, Count of Mortain, per Roger Bigod (Gies, 1990)

With King William back in Normandy and the huge building plan of Churches and Abbey's well underway, it did not take long for the less than wealthy Nobel's to realise, that because of King William's generosity to the Church, there was much wealth and power to be had through them, and quite quickly found a sure and certain way of sharing in both. For upon the lands given out to the Abbots and Deacons, were many farming communities and small businesses, this meant that payment of tithes did in fact go directly in to the coiffeurs of the Church itself, and after payment of Dues to the Crown, it was the Administrator, the man in charge of what was left, who had complete control over all of the Dues, and who, with careful bookkeeping could end up a very wealthy man.

To those middling Nobles, having been given land which yielded little in the way of tithes or no land at all, realisation must have come all too quickly, that through the control of these Secular Administrations wealth and opportunity could possibly be theirs. There were after all many second Sons and single Daughters of this new Anglo-Norman Aristocracy, who could quite easily pay their way into the church, through Parental bequest. So for any cash-strapped Noble family, the answer to their demise was simple, they gave across a bequest to the Church in the form of a sizeable amount of money or even donated some of their land to build a monastery or nunnery on, then placed their second Son's and single Daughters within the religious house they had sponsored. By doing this, not only would this giving across a gift of such proportion be seen, by all, as a benevolent act, it would in all probability give; by way of reward Wealth and Power to their Son's and their single Daughters, neither of which would have inherited anyway. One thing was certain, that the bequest which, in the case of young girls was often the dowry or part of it, almost certainly would, with proper negotiation guarantee that these Nobel children would take up a higher ranking position within the Administration itself.

It would be here that both sexes, over a short period of time would, elevate themselves and climb the rest of the way up the 'Divine Ladder'. By using their Father's wealth, they would rise quickly through the ranks, taking their Family with them and would ensure that it was the Nobel families who would be in charge of Church coiffeurs. Not only that, but their children having been quite highly educated, could end up in a position of influence, not necessarily directly with the King, but close enough to the Deacons, Abbots and Abbesses nearest King William. Sons especially had so many extra opportunities; all Kings after all need Administrators to run a Country and by their family continuing to pay into the church and gaining influence it would not take long before these Sons would have the ear of those Advisors who stood close to the throne. For though their Father's, as Nobel's were powerful, very few were educated in the way of Bureaucracy, however their children were thanks to the Church's Administration, and so this allowed many of the lower order of Nobel families to gain Wealth and Power and so it became usual for second Sons and single daughters to take Holy orders. It was after all not a harsh life for those who had enough money, and the more given over to the Religious orders, the easier life became.

For Aristocratic families a Nunnery was a good place to put Daughters who often refused to marry, or could not be offered in marriage, perhaps because of the cripplingly vast dowry which many of the poorer Nobel families could not afford. For a very few wealthy Aristocratic women (often Widows) so determined were they to lead a secular life, they or their families would go about Commissioning an Abbey on their own land, and once finished install themselves or their Daughter(s) as Abbess. However, under Roman Christian cannon law women could not be ordained, neither were they allowed to publicly preach, read the gospel; l unless in Private, hear Confession or give Blessing. (1Cor. 14:34–38; 1 Tim. 2:1–14) how they got around this was to make their Abbey a 'Dual' religious house, with Monks sharing half the building, which meant that the Abbess would always have a 'Male Abbot' in situ to do all that she could not, while all the time keeping the Power and Wealth for herself, her order, and not forgetting her Family, of course.

William Duke of Normandy invaded and conquered England and by introducing the French Feudal system he radically changed the Anglo-Saxon way of life irrevocably. Catholic Christianity rapidly spread across the whole of Britain as the new King ordered the mass building of Abbey's, Churches and Monasteries around the Counties. This new order brought with it the en-Gendered ideals and absolute subordination of all females and no matter their status women as individuals became almost invisible and any rights, that had been theirs before the Conquest disappeared under the onslaught of both Norman Feudal system and Catholic persuasion. Single women especially were affected, in that they were no longer allowed to marry without the consent of their nearest male relative. Although this had been the norm for many centuries, with marriages always being arranged between families by the males in their community, the female relative's wishes were always considered, and included when it came to the actual choice of husband. Depending how far down the social scale they were, women had always been and would continue to be the transferors of land and wealth through the marriage dowry, or jointure so it was always important, not only to the woman herself, but the tribe and later as Social trends shifted, the Family, that all prospective husbands were acceptable to everyone within the Kin-groups (Leyser, 1995).

Another important change which affects females after the Conquest was that no married woman could own a business's or property within her own right. The Feudal system dictated that married women could do neither, and that all land and possessions became their Husbands upon marriage. This meant that a new Husband could, quite literally do what he wanted with that which came across with his bride upon their wedding day, which would be the females Jointure for it legally belonged to him as the woman's husband only single women and Widows could hold land as Individual's; however each had to give across those lands upon marriage or re-marriage. So though it might seem to us that Widows came off best; providing that is, they remain Unmarried.

If we continue to look under the layers of this new 'Feudal Britain' we grow to understand that if these widowed women did remain unmarried in the hope of keeping their dead husbands land or running their businesses, it would t have been Socially almost impossible for any of them to talk on equal terms with men of any class, due to their gender. As a consequence it became necessary and normal practice for all widows to find a man who would be able to act on their behalf, this might be a male relative or close friend. It's quite understandable how impossibly difficult it must have been for any single or windowed female trying to carry out business in this manner. Usually what would end up happening, mainly through the active encouragement from those men who became Advocate, many found it easier to conform to single female's marrying and widow's re-marrying. The widow's jointure from her first marriage, and any other Inherited money and business which came across with the widow into the second married, would automatically transfer across to her second husband but only once a Son was born within that marriage.

It became impossible too, for the daughters of Freemen or Peasants to inherit land from their Parents if there were any surviving Son's old enough to work that land. As part of the continuance of any tenancy, after the death of the main male of the house, which would usually be the husband, anyone who inherited had to be capable and old enough to work the land, but also more importantly able to take up arms if called on by the Lord of the manor. Here females are delivered a 'double whammy', as through the Catholic belief in the _'Chain of Being'_ society now regarded females as being physically far too weak for manual work or to fight, so therefore could not work the land or take up arms, and so could not be the head of any household. A Villeins wife in particular, could never inherit a Tenancy should she be widowed, and if there were no Sons at home old enough to fill the Lawful criteria, then any Tenancy Agreement became null and void, with the widow and her family being turned out onto the streets.

So it was that Feudalism and the Great Chain of being wielded; as it was, through the Catholic Church, grew into a relenting discriminatory social force against all women no matter their class or status. Quite literally the individuality of each and every female in Britain was wiped out, without any Objection or Consideration. The Aristocratic females had at least inherited titles and wealth, which afforded them certain opportunities within the cloisters of a Nunnery, should they be left without the protection of a male. It also gave these wealthy Aristocratic women opportunity when it came to remarriage, and safeguarded not only their own, but also their children's future. For the poorest women, in this now Anglo-Norman Britain, there was no protection whatsoever and very little hope for any future. For without a main man in their lives they lost their identity and so were, evicted onto the streets without any consideration given towards their survival. As such any dispossessed family did not exist in the eyes of the Law, or even have cause to be considered by a Society which was now consumed by the en-Gendered Social constraints of the _Great Chain of Being_ strengthened as it was through Feudalism & Catholic Religion.

### CHAPTER 11

### Humors

As we have already looked at the social structure of the Feudal society and how it was divided into Estates or Social classes; as we would understand them as being today. We are aware that Feudalism was gender specific in its design, and rigidly structured, so that each man always 'knew his place'. However within the structure of these Estates, females were then categorised into yet another three specific 'Feminine or Female Estates' as a Virgin, Wife or Widow , so women were, as such defined not by their Profession, as with men, but by their relationship to the main male in their life. We also know that having wealth, and a little cunning, men could aspire to reach a higher than the actual estate into which they were born by joining the church. However that isn't to say females from the same social scale didn't have that same opportunity, and so too were also, quite literally able to move up through the social classes, in exactly the same way, despite the disadvantage of their gender. So though born into the Second or Third Estates as Daughters or even as Widows of Nobles & Freemen, females could by entering the church (voluntarily or otherwise) ascend into the First state as Nuns or Abbess's.

So by the 14th Century, the understanding of the four humours was already tempered by Christian theology, and it became usual to attribute illness to the imbalance of the humours in a person's body. Quite possibly though the greatest change in how women were perceived in Society came in the 13th century when Aristotle's "Great Chain of Being" was adapted rather rigidly into Roman Catholic Christian philosophy. In particular, the renowned theologian, Saint Thomas Aquinas by his writings concerning 'female priests' would, unfortunately leave a resounding legacy which would affect attitudes towards all women for many, many centuries to come.

In his Summa Theologica (Aquinas, 1947) St Thomas cites Aristotle's views of female's involvement in creation as one of the main reasons for not allowing women to become Priests. By quoting Aristotle's misogynist view of a woman being "a misbegotten man" St. Tomas reasons, by borrowing from both Plato and Aristotle the Greco–Roman view of Procreation; that a female most certainly is

' _..a weaker variant of the male and therefore 'defective'_.

This view was taken from the widely held belief that the act of procreation was accompanied by the element of **"heat"** \- _heat being the 'vital spirit'_ and as it took heat to produce human seed, it was the male only; who being hot could produce enough heat to make the seed. So as a consequence anything else such as female – being cold in nature- was defective and so could not exist within the perfection of Creation The conclusion therefore was that women must have been created for another purpose, that being for Procreation only, so were therefore incomplete Human beings, which in turn made them 'Defective' as a consequence the Female sex could not represent Christ as Priests.

From then on the whole model grew into a very elaborate Theology. Certainly it is understandable why the church readily adapted Aristotle's philosophy _"The Great Chain of Being_ " into their own beliefs, after all it placed the 'Divine' which included mortals such as Priests and the Pope nearer to Angels and ultimately, to the Creator! This therefore placed the Divine ( _being the clergy_ ) above everybody, including Kings. So it was that all subjects became answerable to the Monarch, who was in turn; being the body politic answerable to the Pope, being that he was the anointed and chosen representative of God on earth. Consequently this belief eradicated any potential challenge to the supremacy of the Catholic Faith. Ecclesial law considered that a females place in creation, automatically excluded them from participating in society. This consideration was mirrored within Social society too, with females being viewed by all males, as 'empty headed' filled with Sin and thereby considered unable to fulfil the obligations Society expected from all its Citizens. In England titled women could only transmit rights to their husbands and Sons and not participate themselves, and for ordinary free women, only single women, and widows were allowed to participate in the Manorial court assemblies, however they were not allowed to hold any office.

Though we may view this as Gender Discrimination, one thing we have to always consider when studying this period in History.is that this was a society where there was no other model for anyone to make comparison to. Patriarchy and the Feudal System was the norm throughout the whole of the then known 'Civilised world', it was how all societies in Europe ran. So the dominance of male over female was accepted by every living being (especially women) as perfectly acceptable, and was the only way that a civilised society could function. It was ordered, structured and Status driven, everyone knew their place and would never have considered trying to step up the Social Ladder. Most people were comfortable with the social constraints placed upon them, they knew exactly where they stood on _'The Great Chain of Being'_ and very few would ever consider stepping outside the boundaries of where they had been born, for the consequences in doing so would be dire indeed, up to and including being Ostracised by family, friends, community and ultimately the whole of English Society.

### CHAPTER 12

### Empress Matilda-The First Lady of England

It comes as no surprise, that with the introduction of the Feudal System of Governance brought into Britain by William of Normandy in 1066, along with the strengthening of Roman Catholic religion throughout Britain, that Matilda the first Lady of England's biography is not chronicle as 'standing alone' in its documentation. From the death of King William 1, the reign of his Son William Rufus, when Jerusalem was taken by the Crusaders, to the succession of his Brother Henry 1 in 1100, females still and would continue to remain well and truly below males. The introduction of the Feudal System of Governance along with the growth of the Roman Catholic religion, certainly suppresses recorded evidence of the history of females, and women as individuals almost disappear, within any written or even oral records. So it comes as no surprise that Empress Matilda's Biography is seldom chronicle as _'standing alone'_ in its documentation, despite her being the first; albeit uncrowned, Queen of Britain.

This daughter of Henry I called herself the _"First Lady of England"_ and might be seen as possibly the one female of her age to break with the Patriarchal convention by taking on the Barons of England and leading the first ever Civil war against those who would usurp her rights, as a pure blood Royal Heir to the throne. Born in Winchester in 1102 (abt) Matilda was the only surviving daughter of Henry I, King of England, and Matilda (Edith) of Scotland. An arranged marriage to the Holy Roman Emperor, would take the eight old Matilda away from Britain for over 12 years. It was in the Court of the Holy Roman Emperor that the very young girl first began her training as an Empress Consort and it was as Queen of the Romans, at the age of 12 that Matilda, in 1114 finally married Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor.

In 1120 on 25th November, Matilda's eldest brother William Adelin heir to the throne of Britain drowned, along with his younger brother Richard, while crossing the Channel in 'The White Ship'

"Here also perished with William, Richard, another of the King's sons, whom a woman without rank had borne him, before his accession, a brave youth, and dear to his father from his obedience; Richard d'Avranches, second Earl of Chester, and his brother Otheur; Geoffrey Ridel; Walter of Everci; Geoffrey, archdeacon of Hereford; the Countess of Chester; the king's niece Lucia-Mahaut of Blois; and many others. .. No ship ever brought so much misery to England." William of Malmesbury

With both Son's dead, Matilda though a female was declared heir to the throne by her Father Henry I. Knowing that his Baron's would be reluctant to accept a woman as his heir, Henry forced them to swear an Oath of Fealty to the young Princess. In 1125 Henry V Matilda's husband died and being that he left no surviving children, being that he and Matilda were childless, the Salian line of Emperors came to an end. Consequently without a realm, there was little else for Matilda to do but to return to Britain, where upon her father Henry I, named her as his lawful heir, and once again forced his Lords and Barons to swear an Oath to his daughter, accepting her as heir to the Throne of Britain.

At 25 years old though Heir apparent, Matilda was a childless widow, the King no doubt realised it was imperative that Matilda re-marry and start to produce Son's, so hopefully there might be male heirs for the British throne, who would come of aged before he died, this would then eliminate the need for Matilda to be crowned Queen. With this in mind Henry arranged a marriage of Alliance between Matilda and the Count of Maine and Anjou Geoffrey Plantagenet- (from the broom flower Plant genista, the personal emblem Geoffrey adopted) (Wilson, 2011. Matilda considered Geoffrey far below her in status, a mere Count, when she was the widow of an Emperor and daughter of a King. Having been a Queen and still calling herself 'Empress' Matilda displayed all the haughtiness of the royalty carried within her bloodline, with her reputation for being difficult and often arrogant following wherever she went . Geoffrey being the intended was ten years Matilda's junior and the marriage between the couple was; from the beginning, one of mutual dislike which instituted constant arguments along with many long separations. But despite this the pair still managed to produce three sons and a dynastic partnership built on mutual respect. It was normal for Queens to hand over power to husbands on Ascension to the throne, but there is no mention of Geoffrey of Anjou taking any power whatsoever; he is in fact hardly mentioned, and it was to Matilda alone that Henry forced his Baron's to swear allegiance.

Henry I died rather prematurely of food poisoning, after eating tainted Lampreys whilst hunting on his estates in Anjou. Though at her husband's estates which were close by Matilda was unable to attend her Father's death bed, due possibly to her being weighed down heavily with her third child. Stephen de Blois, Matilda's cousin and a favourite of the King was close however, and rushed to Kings beside when he heard the tragic news, being there when the King died Ever the opportunist Steven seized the moment and rushed across the channel to Winchester, and though Steven had sworn to support Matilda, he had himself crowned King after seizing the Treasury and using it to bribe many of the Barons to support him rather than Matilda, and so renege on their Oaths given to the old King. Slow to react, possibly due to her pregnancy Matilda was incensed at what she considered Steven's betrayal of his sworn Oath. So in 1139 with the support of her illegitimate half- brother Robert, Earl of Gloucester Matilda invaded Britain. What followed were many years of Civil War when the country was torn apart by Steven and Matilda's opposing forces.

In 1141 at the Battle of Lincoln, Robert, Earl of Gloucester finally captured King Steven, who was placed in chains and imprisoned. Finally Empress Matilda was recognised as Queen by the population; however her very haughtiness would be her undoing, for she offended the people of London by refusing to reduce their Taxes. This so inflamed public opinion that the Gates remained closed on the day of Matilda's Coronation. So having been quite literally expelled The First Lady of England never was Crowned Queen, and the Civil War continued. King Stephen's wife Queen Matilda, then in turn captured Robert, Earl of Gloucester which created something of a stalemate between Empress and Queen. Many months of negotiation, ensued until eventually there was an agreed exchange of prisoners, King Steven for Robert Earl of Gloucester. Having come of age Matilda's eldest son Henry Plantagenet was called to Britain, in the hope that his presence might rally the cause, being that he was a master tactician. So it was that with Henry Plantagenet in charge, the Civil war continued and in 1147 Empress Matilda retired to her husband's estates in Anjou, thereby abdicating her position to Henry her son.

King Steven's Queen Matilda died in 1152 and then finally 12 months later under the _'Treaty of Wallingford'_ (Bradbury, 1996) an agreement was reached. Under the terms of the Treaty, King Stephen would remain on the Throne for the remainder of his life, and as Eustace, King Stevens own son had died suddenly in August 1153, it was agreed that upon Stevens death the Crown would revert to Henry Plantagenet. So it was that King Stephen died a year later in 1154 from a stomach disorder, being succeeded by Henry II, Empress Matilda's eldest son, the first of the great Plantagenet line

From stepping back onto British soil, after the death of her first husband the Holy Roman Emperor, Matilda made no effort whatsoever to gain the support or favour of the British people and the Barons who had sworn fealty to her upon the King's demand after the death of her brother in 'The White Ship' disaster. The Empress Matilda was reported to be haughty and bad tempered, pride fully demanding complete compliance, and rather that have the support of the population, by tempering her natural instincts Matilda immediately alienated them all. The people of Britain would never like Matilda, she had; after all been away from Britain since the age of eight, and in the eyes of the people she was a German Empress, not a British Princess. The population knew nothing of her, only that she was a woman who had arrived on British shores to be hailed as Heir apparent to the throne of Britain. Matilda though was proud of spirit and tenacity; she waged a long hard battle against King Steven to procure her rightful place upon the Throne. For a male to take up arms against his King would have been difficult without support from the Aristocracy, but for a woman even to contemplate doing such was beyond belief, for few Lords would ever give over their Armies to support a female. Matilda though had been trained in the ways of Kings in the court of her late husband the Holy Roman Emperor. It was as Empress and Queen of the Romans (uncrowned) that Matilda had governed Italy in the stead of her husband, so had experienced first-hand how to rule, so very little would have deterred her from laying claim to that which was rightfully hers. The Crown had almost been within Matilda's grasp, but for her alienating the people, she paid the price of her own arrogance by having the gates of London slammed in her face on her Coronation day.

### ####

It might be considered that, as the first female to have fought for her own rights Matilda is, as such the first Suffragette within recorded history! Arguably though, it could also be brokered that Queen Boadicea was that very female, going into battle as she did against the Romans, and for the exact same reason Matilda did; that of securing her rightful place upon the throne. However in comparison Boudicca was not from an era when females were constrained by the Feudal and Religious links which had forged the Great Chain of Being, and thereby restraining all females to that of submissive compliance. Boadicea, as with all females of her time, was an individual in Pagan society; seen not only as a person, but also as a trained Warrior, who, along with her abused daughters, lead the Iceni tribe into battle as their true widowed Queen.

While Matilda fought for her rightful place upon the throne; as a female she was restrained by the socially constructed constraints which Patriarchal Feudalism and Roman Catholic Christianity had forced upon all females. Consequently being a woman, Matilda was totally reliant upon the support of those main men in her life; her Husband, her half-brother Robert and those Barons who swore allegiance to her and who were very few in numbers. However none of these barriers stopped Matilda plunging the whole country into the first ever Civil War for what she considered were her Inherent rights.

Matilda could of course, have allowed her husband Geoffrey Plantagenet to be crowned King, for as a male monarch, he would have been able to lead armies into battle. But it is doubtful Matilda was the type of woman willing to give over her throne to anyone, let alone her already powerful husband. Her father Henry I had named Matilda as his sole heir with no mention of Geoffrey Plantagenet ruling in her name as King. It was Matilda, who her father had forced his Barons to swear an oath of fealty to, and she who those said same Barons had betrayed upon the death of the King. So understandably Matilda had every right to fight for what was rightfully hers through the right of Succession, and fight for it she did, despite all the odds being against her success.

For her time, Matilda was most certainly quite a remarkable woman, considering the en-gendered social discrimination she faced from every quarter. It was as a 'Female' adversary that Matilda took on King Stephen, his Barons and all the resources that being male in feudal Britain brought. A resourceful woman too, for when King Stephen's own wife _( also named Matilda)_ lay siege at Winchester after the battle of Lincoln, Matilda escaped capturer by wearing a white cloak, so camouflaging herself as she fled Westward across a frozen lake. In the end possibly realisation brought about an understanding, that as a female, no matter how hard Matilda strained against the forged links, 'The Chain of Being' held fast and firm when any female dared question the male authority it wielded. Possibly Matilda realised that time and opportunity had passed, and the only way to ensure her father's last wish was to abdicate her rights and hand them across to her son Henry Plantagenet. All we know is that when Matilda's half-brother Robert, Earl of Gloucester died in 1148 the First Lady of England ( _for whatever reason_ ) finally retired to Normandy where she lived out her life in quiet seclusion, thereby leaving her son Henry Plantagenet to continue the fight for the throne, as part of his own inheritance

Empress Matilida, _"First Lady of England"_ died at Rouen on 10 September 1169, but lived living long enough to see her son; the Grandson of Henry I, crowned King Henry II and sitting upon the Throne as her own true male heir.

####

.

About Me

After being a males daughter, wife and mother for 58 years, it's only now as a Divorcee and very Single woman, that I'm finally able to sit down and write the 'Book' that's been rattling around in my head for most of the last 20 years, and has been put on the 'back-burner' whilst I tend to the cooking, cleaning, and other domestic duties that became 'mine' the moment from being born. Now however I am as the saying goes...

EGO sum a mulier EGO sum an unique

It is so very hard for us to imagine, in this time of emancipation and equal opportunities just how women in early modern England realised their own individual ambitions, or for that matter how they perceived those ambitions. Was it possibly through gentle coercion and manipulation of the dominant men in their lives that women found some sort of empowerment or was there perhaps far more to it? Was life really so constrained, were women so subverted, that their very existence figures so little in the written history of early modern England. It is the Queens, Princess's and the Aristocrat women who are mostly visible, simply because of written records and the odd journal, with most historical research concentrating on household accounts written by the wealthy wives of aristocratic men. But for the ordinary women going about their daily routine, few records were made and even fewer remain to mark their passing, which makes all of those ordinary women, almost invisible to historians.

Since the advent of modern education, many generations have been brought up on a diet of less than well researched scholarly historical text. Then much later through the "Hollywood" re-write, even more generations have been glossily introduced to every conceivable era in English history, which could be turned into Dollars. It has to be said that the first ever film, a 70 second archive masterpiece, "The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots" directed in 1845 by Alfred Clark was reported to have been so realistic that some viewers believed a woman really was beheaded. From this point on however, reality seems to have taken a back seat to profit, as the famous Hollywood Studios quickly moved in, conspiring to glamorise the ideal of English history Most of their celluloid interpretation usually always starred the matinee idol of the day Errol Flynn, being that he was the only man with an English (sounding) accent in Hollywood, who seemed not to mind cavorting around in tight hose and ruffed collar. Playing his usual dashing self in whatever character the tale required, the idol would always be surrounded by heavily American accented minions, leaning nonchalantly against heavily sculptured mock Tudor scenery. These cheeky chappies, hardly did anything more than swagger around, quaffing on empty bejewelled chalices, while tipping a wink at the pencilled arched browed ladies- in –waiting and if they spoke at all it was always to boast manfully of battlefield glories, whilst flashing a set of white even Pearlies between curling sultry lips.

I remember only too well the Queenly actresses floating along on cloth of Gold skirts swishing down narrow torch lit corridors between guarded chambers. These rouged and angel pouting Female monarchs cared naught for the Patriarchal society which they supposedly 'ruled' and were always shown angrily facing down any male who dare get in their way!. This then was the English Tudor Court of Hollywood, filled as it was with tightly laced corseted hour glass figures, heaving breasts and slightly parted quivering glossed lip and where women swooned at the turn of a brightly hosed thigh or stood their ground in an argument, usually with hands planted firmly on either side of their farthingale. Let's not forget the stereotypical villager either, who if memory serves right, wore various coloured off the peg hessian smocks, splattered with carefully aimed mud, carried a bundle of sticks, and along with her pussy cat, always got burned at the stake for being a witch. As a group, the men became idiots, who doffed battered hats or caps at passing gentry and in most cases grinned stupidly and jeered loudly when viewing many of the dreadful executions, usually placed at the end of the blockbuster to enhance the rolling credits. Like most of my generation, I believed everything written in our school History text books, and hung onto every word and image, as the scenes played themselves out upon the screen. I actually believed Elizabeth I was Bet Davies, and never question the authenticity of any it, not the writing or the celluloid print that disguised itself as fact, and I truly believed in my ignorance that :-

Henry VIII was a jolly fellow, who threw chicken bones into the fire and wiped his greasy slack jawed mouth on his sleeve. I was lead to believe that good old King Harry was a tyrant of a man with immense appetite's, who married eight women _(it was the song that did it )_ lopped heads off for the slightest reason, hunted manfully and finally died a grouchy, bit smelly old monarch. Mary Tudor had a perchance to burn anyone who wasn't catholic by persuasion _(which was a bit iffy, considering the persuasion's first and last name was 'Rack'_ ) that Mary thought she was impregnated by her absent Husband, which is confusing when you're 13 years old and at that funny sort of age. Elizabeth 1st, I was mis-informed was an incredible Queen and made a great speech about only being a woman, weak and feeble, while carrying a full set of silver armour on her thin feminine body, and _(whispers behind hands)_ was a virgin to boot!! All of that and she actually managed to rule a whole country without a man for 60 years.

Most of this comes, like most of my generation from the history lessons we all had to endure at school. Though it has to be remembered, girls were rarely, even in the 1960's given full inclusivity in any subjects, unless that is the particular lesson had "Domestic" in the title. We 'girls' were there merely to make up the numbers, and handy things to have around as a deterrent to any scally-wag of a boy thinking about misbehaving as it would be one of 'us girls' they'd be made to sit next to if caught. As I recall most of our "History" lessons consisted of lots and lots of dates! Dates, which I could never remember, simply because most of them had stuff in that was past the imagination of a13 year old girl. Like the awful incomprehensible and bloody battles won or lost by Kings using a weapon called "Tactics" which scored high on my list of boring boys stuff. As far as I and my girly mates were concerned, these battles always ended in some sort of heroic deaths, the battlefield crowning and Kings rising up battered and wounded from the bleeding masses of slaughtered soldiers, wielding a huge sword high and shouting very loudly about "God's Glory".

I recall too; with some fondness, my own wonderful history teacher Mr Dixon. Like most History teachers of that era, he was a man _(and a very tall man at that)_ and as was the case with tall manly men of that era, he considered girls in the classroom a bit of a distraction. Mr Dixon had an unerring passionate belief in Chivalry, gruesome conflict and the occasional bit of ceremony that accompanied it all; evidenced by the fact that it actually took our class of spotty boys and Mr Dixon _(who played a convincing Henry VI despite his blond quiff and winkle picker shoes)_ a full term to fight and win the "Battle of Bosworth Field" While all of this display of manly pre- computer role-play was going on most of us damsels de-stressed by secretly balancing a copy of Jackie on our knees under the desk, losing ourselves in the exploits of a badly drawn comic- strip teen heroine called Sue or Pam!!

This was the problem you see; there was nothing at all in any History lesson, through the whole of our 5 years at High school for us pubescent girls to connect with! I mean we skipped over the two Queens who got the heads chopped off; though Mr Dixon did go a little over the gruesome top, with the bit when they held up Mary Queen of Scots head and her red tresses turned out to be a wig, which must have made picking the decapitated head up and showing it off to the crowd a bit difficult to say the least. What about the rest!? I questioned much as I flicked through the volumes of purple inked copied text Mr Dixon piled us with. At first it was the odd Lady who seemed to invisibly pass through our class despite her importance in the scheme of things. I also noticed that Queens too went unmentioned, despite getting some pretty bad press back there in the 14th and 15th century. Not to be discussed or even considered in our lessons was a bit of a crime in itself, according to my way of thinking if you lost your head, for whatever reason it's only fair that you at least get a mention. Accused as these unfortunate women were with everything from adultery to dancing naked around a cauldron (while wearing nothing more than pointy hats) I for one was more than a little curious about them. The more I thought about it the more I discovered that I was developing a very strong sense of un-fairness. As the oestrogen began to sculpt me into the young woman I would eventually become, I suddenly felt a need to know about the women who expired in childbirth or those who were unjustly whipped naked through the streets,( and that was just for daring to pass on a bit of juicy gossip)

What about all of these women then? I mean this was the History I wanted to find out about, so where were these lost women in our history lessons? Maybe; I thought as I went into my third year, we'd get to them in the fourth. It wasn't until half way through that academic year that I sadly realised it was never going to happen! In what I now know was our male dominated nationalised educational system, never were these 'female' bits of history ever be discussed or included in the national curriculum. As a result History for me took on as much meaning as the lifeless old Academic men who often wrote it. It was they who were to blame for my total disinterest in everything and anything historical, so that by the time I sat my "O" level I was an automate, spewing out battles and victories won and lost, and facts and dates written by men and often taught by men. Oh don't get me wrong, I do seem to recall Mr Dixon reading aloud a very short piece from his "Big Book of Boys History" but due to the habit he had of dropping his head and mumbling into the page the minute words such as "childbirth" 'midwife' and 'bastard' jumped out of the page at him most of his teachings passed over my head in a whispered rush and my attention became more and more focused on the antics of Sue or Pam.

History became a game for us, with me reading and my best mate listening to Mr Dixon with half an ear, it was only when her elbow painfully dug into my ribs would I raise one eye from the page, and see for myself the crimson spreading upwards from Mr Dixon's prominent Adams apple. This sunrise of embarrassment slowly illuminated the teacher's handsome features telling me that I needed to get my hand up pretty damn smart and start asking some very forthright and embarrassing questions. Unknown to us at that time, the tall and much fancied Mr Dixon had taken special lessons in 'How to deal with dangerous questions being asked by adolescent girls' being a fully paid up member of the Teachers Gild of Parrying Methodology' this usually consisted of making a sudden lunge at the door, while mumbling an order to turn to page 13 and inwardly digest the information, as questions would be asked when he returned from his sudden urgent need to be somewhere else. We could certainly guarantee that upon his return the bell for break would sound just as the door knob turned, heralding the Masters return, therefor totally avoiding the need for Mr Dixon to explain to 18 pre-pubescent females, the delicate and somewhat embarrassing reasons for these equally embarrassing events ever having happened. So we girls never really found out about the History of all things _'Female'_

Thank you so very much for taking the time to read

"In Search of the English Female Identity"

### In Conclusion

Did we find an answer about what being 'Female' was all about? No, we merely set out on our journey in search of an answer. For to find answers we have to first learn the history of how all females, in most ancient societies became subjected and submissive to the males within their own social group. This part of humanities history is in itself intertwined within every Ancient civilisation human beings have ever built. England and her Isles has always been a melting pot of cultures, absorbing each as they set foot upon the sands of its shores. The constant change within the evolution of English society meant that female subjection tended to ebb and flow on the back of the tide of invading Armies and Nomadic settlers. The women of Briton were; apart from the era of the Roman Invasion, an important influencing agent within their own tribal groups, being treated as respected equals in all matters.

It would be the arrival of Roman Catholic Christianity which would change how all females, no matter their class, were treated within English society. An invading force of misogynistic righteousness, Christianity would bring about such a change in the way women were seen and treated, that it would over time, reverberate throughout the then known world, holding not only English women captive within the chains of subjection, but those females too, in countries which England conquered through war, settlement and commerce.

In Volume II of this book, we take a look at how women; despite the dictates of the Roman Catholic Church against their gender, actually found empowerment and used it to their own advantage.

Connect with Me Online:

Smashwords: <https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/BAJ>

Bibleography

Beauvoir, S. d. (1972). THE SECOND SEX. Penguin.

Bradbury, J. (1996). Stephen Matilda: the Civil War of 1139-1153. Stoon Publishing.

Butler, R. A. (1846). The lives of the fathers, martyrs, and other principal saints (Vol. 1). New York: D & J SADLIER.

Butler, R. A. (1891). Lives of the Father's, Martyr's and other Principle Saints. London: John Murphy.

C., S. C. (1894-1929). British freewomen, their historical privilege. London: Swan.

Dudley, D. R. (1962). THE REBELLION OF BOUDICCA. Barnes & Nobel.

Giles, F. &. (1991). LIFE IN A MEDIEVAL VILLAGE. Harper Collins e-books.

Hart, J. L. (2008). Empires & Colonies. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hepburn, S. &. (2006). Women's Roles and Statuses the World Over. Oxford: Lexington Books.

Holland, J. (2006). MISOGYNY. New York: Carroll & Graf.

Komersaroff, P. A. (1997). Reinterpreting Menopause. London: Taylor & Francis.

Lefkowitz, M. R. (1992). Women's Life in Greece & Rome- A source Book in Translation. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Leyser, H. (1996). MEDIEVAL WOMEN - A Social History of Women in England 450-1500. London: Pheonix Press.

Livy. (1871). The History Of Rome. Literally Translated, with notes and Illustrations by D.Spillan. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Lovejoy, A. (1936). the great Chain-of-Being: A study of the History of an Idea. Cambridge , Mass.

Mill, J. S. (n.d.). THE SUBJECTION OF WOMEN (an Essay).

Oppenheimer, S. (2006/2007). The Origins of the British. London: Constable & Robinson.

Raming, I. (1976). The Exclusion of Women from the Priesthood. Metuchen: Scarecrow Press.

Rickard, J. (2004). Battle of Hasting, 14 October 1066. www.historyofwar.Org/articles/battels _hastings.html.

Sawyer, P. (1978). FROM ROMAN BRITAIN to NORMAN ENGLAND. London: Methuen & Co Ltd.

Sharp, B. B. (2007). Law and authority in early modern England: essays presented to Thamas Garden. Cranbury, NJ: Rosemont Publishing & Printing Corp.

Skinner Keller, R. R. (2006). Encylopedia of women and religion in North America Vol 1 (Vol. 1). Bloomington & Indianopolis: Indiana University Press.

Stenton, S. F. (1971). ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thatcher, O. J. (1901). The Early Medieval World. The Library of Original Sources, 211-239.

Various. (1890 (abt)). The Anglo Saxon Chronicles-Translated by , Ingram, James .

Watney, B. (2005). "Escavations at the Longton Hall porcelain factory, Part III. In C. E. Orser, ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY (p. 360). Taylor and Francis e-library.

Wilson, P. (2011, December). Geoffroy V 'le Bel' d´Anjou (Plantagenêt), comte d'Anjou (1113 - 1151) . Retrieved February 21, 2012, from Geni: http://www.geni.com/people/Geoffroy-V-le-Bel-comte-d-Anjou/4194887957440076070

