Hilton's essay has primarily three goals" 1) make the case for more equality among women in the labor class, 2) discuss the underrepresented role of women in trade in Medieval England, and 3) unpack the role of women in trade beyond simply being "ale-wives." In doing so, Hilton turns to strong documentary evidence but does so carefully. When covering the first of the above points, for example, Hilton tempers the improved equality by stating that, in the end, women are still operating under the ideological constraints imposed by male authorities in both the church and government.
Hilton first unpacks the significance of labor conducted within the domestic sphere, where trades such as reaping, plowing, and cloth manufacture would be equally divided between male and femal members of a household. Hilton moves from this model to discuss the role of urban labor for women traders, considering first the more common discussion of "ale-wives" but then also making an interesting case for women as victuallers. The latter in particular enjoys an ambiguous legal standing, as these were important for urban populations yet also garnered distrust among local authorities. Despite that distrust, victuallers were afforded certain leeway in regards to taxation that benefited women in particular engaging in these trades.
As a whole, Hilton's article may be brief, but it makes some strong points pulling from relatively convincing evidence that is presented with a grain of salt, calling to attention its own potential limitations.
No comments:
Post a Comment