Besides, a family is a little Church, and a little Commonwealth, at least a lively representation thereof, whereby trial may be made of such as are fit for any place of authority, or of subjection in Church or Commonwealth. Or rather it is as a school wherein the first principles and grounds of government and subjection are learned: whereby men are fitted to greater matters in Church or Commonwealth. Whereupon the Apostle declareth (1 Tim 3:5), that a Bishop that cannot rule his own house, is not fit to govern the Church. So we may say of inferiours that cannot be subject in a family; they will hardly be brought to yield such subjection as they ought in Churchor Commonwealth: instance Absalom, and Adoniah, David's sons.

-William Gouge, Of Domesticall Duties, 1622 (PDF Warning)

The importance of the family unit in 17th century Puritan thinking can hardly be overstated. The harmonious family was a reflection of society-at-large and maintaining that harmony was a fundamental duty of the male head of household, his subordinate wife, and their obedient children and servants or slaves. Families had no shortage of literature to draw upon with respect to the execution of these duties. Domestic handbooks like the (modernized) one above were published extensively in 16th and 17th century England and its colonial holdings. A Godly Forme of Household Government instructed husbands to “love his wife as his own flesh. Then to govern her in all duties that properly concern the state of marriage…” The wife’s role was “…in all reverence and humility, to submit and subject herself to her husband in all such duties as properly belong to marriage.” The Homily on the State of Matrimony went so far as to express to women that suffering an abusive marriage was showing even greater honor toward God.

He that loueth his friend, seemeth to doe no great thing: but he that honoureth that is hurtfull & hatefull to him, this man is worthy most commendation: Euen so think you, if though canst suffer an extreme husband, thou shalt haue a great reward therefore: But if thou louest him only because he is gentle & courteous, what reward will GOD giue thee therefore?

The prescriptions above seemingly express the idea that a husband had full license to beat his wife as he saw fit, and indeed, court records of the day demonstrate that this was often the interpretative route men took. However, religious and secular authorities had no such official stance. To be clear, William Gouge advocated only for the verbal correction of wives, never the physical. Also, the very next segment of the above homily is this:

Yet I speak not these things that I would wish the husbands to bee sharpe towards their wiues: But I exhort the women that they would patiently beare the sharpnesse of their husbands. For when either parties doe their best to performe their duties the one to the other, then followeth theron great profite to their neighbours for their examples sake.

Emphasis added.

However, this should not be misconstrued as concern for the safety and well-being of women so much as guidance for men to remain pious. The homily goes on to state that the excessive beatings may actually be counterproductive and worsen a woman’s behavior.

Contained in that passage is also a critical piece of understanding one of the values that drove Puritan social life as well as one of the methods of protection afforded women against abusive husbands. The incredible emphasis on the family’s importance to the community helped to create a world in which that busy body neighbor who complains to the township about the color of your trash cans would thrive. Villages and towns were self-policed and the censure of neighbors was one dire consequence of transgressive behavior. So what does this mean in the context of domestic violence?

While a man’s duty to uphold domestic order was often expected to result in the physical harm of his wife, children, or servants, he was also expected to show restraint and proportionality. This was especially true in instances of hitting his wife. Striking a wife was meant to be a tool of correcting behavior and a line was acknowledged, though not defined, between chastisement and abuse. A drunken fit of rage or physical and verbal abuse was likely to get the attention of neighbors. In the Plymouth and Massachusetts this could result in a number of consequences, including a visit from a local minister who would in many cases council the couple on their failure to uphold a productive, quiet, and conforming household. More serious or repeated transgressions could result in the abuser being brought before a church court, where he would be publicly shamed and made the subject of a sermon on morality and his lapse before God. The highest priority was very often the preservation of the family unit by way of reconciliation, rather than the issuance of justice on behalf of the victim. After all, blame was very often laid at the feet of the beaten woman. A husband was likely to defend himself by highlighting the failings of his wife, such as adultery or speaking out of turn. In many cases, these women would be compelled to acknowledge that blame. Lemuel Phelps’s wife was summoned to admit that she had assumed too much authority over her husband, who was on trial for beating her. She apologized and expressed a desire to correct her behavior.

Prior to the 1641 Body of Liberties, the law’s ambiguity for the protection and rights of women was the subject of The Lawes Resolution of Women’s Rights, by the anonymous “T.E.” Published in England in 1632, it highlighted the fact that women could apply for legal protection against abusive husbands, but again that murky space between abuse and correction came into play. Legal protections included “bonds for good behavior” which women could attempt to take up against a husband. Essentially a restraining order, a woman would have to have a very compelling reason to seek one. There are also cases of separations being granted, but again, the abuse needed to be extraordinary and evident. The best chance a woman had of escaping an abusive marriage was the intervention of friends, family, and neighbors.

Further reading:

Pleck, Elizabeth Hafkin. Domestic tyranny: The making of social policy against family violence from colonial times to the present. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Amussen, Susan Dwyer. "" Being stirred to much unquietness": Violence and Domestic Violence in Early Modern England." Journal of Women's History 6, no. 2 (1994): 70-89.

Foyster, Elizabeth. "Male honour, social control and wife beating in late Stuart England." Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 6 (1996): 215-224.