Archive for the ‘18th Century’ Category

The Declaration of Sentiments

Wednesday, July 20th, 2011

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”

This sounds quite familiar, and yet, something in that sentence is not quite “right”.

Just one word. One word is enough to makes this quote not the famous quote from the Declaration of Independence, but a different one. That extra word is the word “women”.

On 20 May 1848, a group of women - and men- approved a Declaration at a convention convened at Seneca Falls, New York on 19 and 20 May 1848 to discuss the rights of women.

Over 300 women and men met and debated the text of a Declaration, which is known as the Declaration of Sentiments.

Two women were the driving force behind this declaration, Elizabeth Cady Stanton who drafted the text and Lucrecia Mott. The two had met eight years earlier, at the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London.

Lucrecia Mott had traveled to England with her husband, a Quaker minister, and a staunch abolitionist. They had been chosen to serve as delegates to the Convention because of their abolitionist activities. Such activities included refusing to use the product of slave labour, cotton and cane sugar in particular, as did other Hicksite Quakers. But the Motts also traveled to advocate for abolition, and they sheltered runaway slaves.

At the London convention, no seats were made available to women delegates. It is then that Lucrecia met Elizabeth, who was attending with her husband Henry. Both decided the time had come for a convention to discuss the rights of women.

Born in a wealthy New York family, Elizabeth had managed to convince her father that she needed to go to college, where she studied philosophy and logic.

It is thanks to that education that she was able to draft the Declaration of Sentiments. But it took eight years before the convention could be held.

And it took over eighty years for the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution - granting the right to vote to women - to be proposed in 1919, and ratified on 18 August 1920.

A night to remember

Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010

The Three Estates: A faut esperer q'lu jeu la finira ben tot

The Three Estates: A faut esperer q'lu jeu la finira ben tot

The night of 4 August 1789 in Paris was a night of uncontrolled passion. And the morning after, quite a few of the partakers had second thoughts.

That night, in the course of a few hours, members of the nobility and of the clergy renounced many of the centuries old privileges that came with their social position.

In 1789, France was a nation of about 28 million people, in which society was divided into three classes, the Estates. The First Estate was the clergy, the Second Estate, nobility, and the Third Estate included everyone else: from rich and educated bourgeois to poor illiterate peasants.

While the first two Estates were the richest and paid hardly any taxes, the Third Estate was heavily taxed not only by the King but also by the other two Estates, through the system of privileges. In early 1789, when invited by Louis XVI to express their concerns, the French had bitterly complained about the unfair tax system in the more than 50,000 Cahiers de Doléances that were to register such concern.

So widely spread was the complaint that it is reflected in the imagery of the time, including caricatures and ceramics. Famous are the images that show the Third Estate bent over from carrying the weight of the clergy and nobility, with such taglines as: Hopefully, this game will be over soon, or I am weary of carrying them…

Less than a month after the storming of the Bastille, the night of August 4, 1789, officially marked the end of feudalism in France. The event was initiated by the need to respond to unrest that accompanied the 14 July event throughout the country. As food had become scarce nation-wide, local militias formed in the provinces, searching for hoarded grain. Violence against the hoarders grew, peasants refused to pay taxes, and rumours spread about nobles that were enacting revenge disguised as brigands. A number of castles were attacked, and feudal records destroyed.

In an attempt to calm the countryside, a night session of the National Assembly, which was working on the drafting of a constitution for France, was called at 8pm, on 4 August, 1789.

French Revolution barber dish: Je suis las de les porter

French Revolution barber dish: Je suis las de les porter

The day before, in a small gathering of liberal nobles who were trying to find a response to the crisis, the Duke d’Aiguillon, the second richest man in France after the King, had proposed to renounce feudal rights. Giving up on such rights meant that the Duke would become a lot poorer.

During the August 4 night session, the Viscount de Noailles, who in terms of wealth had much less to lose, pre-empted the Duke and spoke first. He delivered an impassioned speech in which he proposed to give up feudal rights. D’Aiguillon followed him and supported the proposal.

One-by-one, the many privileges that benefited the Second Estate were mentioned and renounced by delegates of the nobility who responded enthusiastically to the generous proposals that were being made. Goaded by the nobility delegates, the clergy had no other option than to respond to the challenge and agree to also renounce their tithes. It became a competition between the two Estates as to which would give up the most of their privileges.

The meeting went on late into the night, and collective rights, those of regions, towns, and civic corporations, were also gradually relinquished.

So many rights had been abolished during that one selfless night, that it took one week to complete the Decrees, and more than six months before they would start being implemented.

The privileges that members of the nobility and the clergy gave up covered a wide range of rights, from feudal, including serfdom, to hunting rights; even the right to maintain pigeon houses was abandoned…

French Revolutionary plate, 1791: Je suis las de les porter

French Revolution plate, 1791: Je suis las de les porter

ARTICLE I. The National Assembly hereby completely abolishes the feudal system. It decrees that, among the existing rights and dues, both feudal and censuel, all those originating in or representing real or personal serfdom shall be abolished without indemnification…

II. The exclusive right to maintain pigeon houses and dovecotes is abolished…

III. The exclusive right to hunt and to maintain uninclosed warrens is likewise abolished, and every landowner shall have the right to kill, or to have destroyed on his own land, all kinds of game…

This passionate abolition of rights - the rights of a few at the expense of a majority of others - marked a step in the adoption, at the end of August, of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

10 days and 13 years

Saturday, July 17th, 2010
10 days and 13 years separate two 18th Century July events that have become national holidays commemorating the American and the French Revolutions. Both resulted in major legal texts recognizing human rights.

On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia adopts the American Declaration of Independence, which rejected British rule and layed out the principles of basic rights for the American people. A Committee of Five, which included John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, Robert R. Livingston of New York, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut, had tasked Jefferson with producing the first draft.

Storming of the Bastille

Storming of the Bastille, July 14, 1789

On July 14, 1789, the people of Paris stormed the Bastille, the medieval fortress which, as a jail, had become a symbol of the royal arbitrary power. It was used by the French Kings to emprison a number of free thinkers, who would be sent there for having printed, expressed or advocated liberal ideas. If the King so decided, anyone could be sent to prison on the basis of a lettre de cachet, the executive order that did not need the validation of a court. Although on July 14 only seven people were still held prisoners, the storming of the Bastille is considered as one of the critical events that marked the beginninng of the French Revolution.

Much has been written about the links between the American and the French July events. On both sides of the Atlantic, a number of individuals have played a role in, or been eye-witness to, two of the most determining episodes in the history of human rights. As it happens, the same individuals have been involved to some degree in the two events.

One year before the Declaration of Independence was signed, on June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress created the Continental Army and elected George Washington to be its Commander-in-chief. Washington had been nominated by John Adams, delegate from Massachusetts.

Developments in America were closely followed in France. Beaumarchais is allowed to found a commercial enterprise which provided the American rebels with weapons, and necessary supplies. The Marquis de La Fayette chooses to serve in the Continental Army, and although he has received strict orders from the French King not to leave France, he sails for America and lands in Georgetown, South Carolina, in June 1777. He offers to serve without pay and two month later becomes an aide to George Washington, is wounded at the battle of Brandywine, and continues fighting in the Revolutionary War for two years.

John Jay, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin and the Treaty of Paris

From left, John Jay, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin and the Treaty of Paris

Having made a number of friends in America, back in France, La Fayette settles at the Hôtel de La Fayette, rue de Bourbon, which becomes the headquarters of Americans in Paris. Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and his wife Sarah, and John and Abigail Adams, became frequent guests, visiting once a week. John Jay, who had served for one year as President of the Continental Congress until 1779 just before taking an assignment to Spain, in 1782, is sent to Paris along with Franklin and Adams. As ministers plenipotentiary, the three men were to negotiate to end the American Revolutionary War. On September 3, 1783, the Treaty of Paris is signed, which formally brought peace between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United States of America. When Thomas Jefferson replaced John Jay in Paris, he worked with La Fayette to facilitate trade agreements between the two countries.

In 1788, La Fayette is appointed to the Assembly of Notables that was to advise Louis XVI on the financial crisis which had been partially initiated by the cost of the intervention in the American Revolution. La Fayette protests against proposals to raise taxes, and recommends calling for a meeting of the Estates General, which will bring together the three French social classes: the nobility, the clergy and the commoners.

Just as George Washington becomes the first United States President under the Constitution, and takes the oath of office on April 30, 1789, in France, the Estates General are getting ready to meet. They first meet at the beginning of May 1789, with the Third Estate (Tiers Etat) having been awarded double representation. Voting however will be by Estate, and not by head. The Third Estate refuses and starts meeting separately. On 17 June, they declare themselves as the National Assembly; gradually members of the clergy and the nobility - among which La Fayette - join them. Work then starts on a constitution and a declaration of the rights of man, and on 11 July, La Fayette presents his own draft of the Declaration. The draft borrows heavily from the American Declaration of Independence. It is not retained.

On 15 July, following the storming of the Bastille, La Fayette is appointed Commander in Chief of the National Guard of France and orders the Bastille demolition.

Model of the Bastille

Model of the Bastille

Symbolically, La Fayette sends to George Washington the key to the west portal of the Bastille on March 17, 1790, and writes: Give me leave, my dear General to present you with a picture of the Bastille, just as it looked a few days after I had ordered its demolition,- with the main key of the fortress of despotism. It is a tribute, which I owe, as a son to my adoptive father, as an Aide - de - Camp to my General, as a Missionary of liberty to its Patriarch. The key is still on display at Washington’s home in Mount Vernon.

In letters to friends, Thomas Jefferson, then Minister to France, has provided his analysis of the events that led to the French Revolution. In a January 8, 1789 letter addressed to a Dr. Price, he writes: The court was well disposed towards the people, not from principles of justice or love to them; but they want money. No more can be had from the people. They are squeezed to the last drop. The clergy and nobles, by their privileges and influence, have kept their property in a great measure untaxed hitherto. They then remain to be squeezed, and no agent is powerful enough for this but the people. The court therefore must ally itself with the people.

Marquis de La Fayette

Marquis de La Fayette

On May 10, 1789, Jefferson shares the following concern with George Washington: I am in great pain for the Marquis de La Fayette. His principles, you know, are clearly with the people; but having been elected for the Noblesse of Auvergne, they have laid him under express instructions, to vote for the decisions by orders, and not persons… I have not hesitated to press on him to burn his instructions, and follow his conscience as the only sure clue, which will eternally guide a man clear of all doubts and inconsistencies. If he cannot effect a conciliatory plan, he will surely take his stand manfully at once, with the Tiers Etat.

To John Jay - who preceded him as Minister to France and as American Secretary of Foreign Affairs - Jefferson writes in June: This day ([June] the 25th) forty-eight of the Nobles have joined the Tiers. Among these, is the Duke d’Orleans. The Marquis de La Fayette could not be of the number, being restrained by his instructions. He is writing to his constituents, to change his instructions or to accept his resignation.

On July 11, the future American President writes to the author of Common Sense and The Rights of man, Thomas Paine: The National Assembly then (for this is the name they take), having shown through every stage of these transactions a coolness, wisdom, and resolution to set fire to the four corners of the kingdom and to perish with it themselves, rather than to relinquish an iota from their plan of a total change of government, are now in complete and undisputed possession of the sovereignty. The executive and aristocracy are at their feet; the mass of the nation, the mass of the clergy, and the army are with them; they have prostrated the old government, and are now beginning to build one from the foundation. A committee, charged with the arrangement of their business, gave in, two days ago, the following order of proceedings.

1. Every government should have for its only end, the preservation of the rights of man; whence it follows, that to recall constantly the government to the end proposed, the constitution should begin by a declaration of the natural and imprescriptable rights of man…

Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson

His account for July 14 is again addressed to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay. Jefferson recalls the events of the preceding days, including Finance Minister Necker’s dismissal which, together with the gathering of foreign troops, led to the insurrection of the people of Paris. He describes the efforts of the Paris Bourgeoisie to arm itself for the preservation of order in the city… On the 14th, they sent one of their members (Monsieur de Corny, whom we knew in America) to the Hotel des Invalides, to ask arms for their Garde Bourgeoise. He was followed by, or he found there, a great mob. The Governor of the Invalides came out, and represented the impossibility of his delivering arms… Monsieur de Corny and five others were then sent to ask arms of Monsieur de Launai, Governor of the Bastille. They found a great collection of people already before the place, and they immediately planted a flag of truce, which was answered by a like flag hoisted on the parapet. The deputation prevailed on the people to fall back a little, advanced themselves to make their demand of the Governor, and in that instant a discharge from the Bastille killed four people of those nearest to the deputies. The deputies retired; the people rushed against the place, and almost in an instant were in possession of the fortification, defended by one hundred men, of infinite strength, which in other times had stood several regular sieges, and had never been taken. How they got in, has, as yet, been impossible to discover. Those who pretend to have been of the party tell so many different stories, as to destroy the credit of them all. They took all the arms, discharged the prisoners, and such of ther garrison as were not killed in the first moment of fury, carried the Governor and Lieutenant Governor to the Greve (the place of public execution), cut off their heads, and sent them through the city in triumph to the Palais Royal…

Jefferson later describes the reaction of the aristocracy and of the King who the next day went about eleven o’clock, accompanied only by his brothers, to the States General, and there read to them a speech, in which he asked for their interposition to re-establish order… He returned to the chateau a foot, accompanied by the States. They sent off a deputation, the Marquis de La Fayette at their head, to quiet Paris. He had the same morning, been named Commandant-in-Chief of the Milice Bourgeoise…

The National Assembly becomes the National Constituent Assembly, tasked with drafting a constitution. On August 4, 1789 the new Assembly officially abolishes feudalism, and in the course of a few hours, in a meeting that runs into the early morning hours, members of the nobility and the clergy surrender many of their special privileges. The Viscount de Noailles, who has served under La Fayette in the American Revolutionary War is the first to speak.

Work continued throughout the month of August on the drafting of the proposed declaration of the natural and imprescriptable rights of man… A number of drafts, including La Fayette’s, were considered and reviewed. Finally, on 26 August 1789, that the Assembly adopts the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

Abigail, Lydia, Amanda, Elizabeth and Sara

Sunday, April 25th, 2010

Abigail, daughter of Hazard and Mary Field.

Lydia, Old Baptist Church Cemetery, Yorktown, NY

Lydia, wife of David Knapp.

Amanda  M., wife of Hiram Williams and daughter of the late Jordan McCord.

Our mother, Elizabeth Hart, daughter of Samuel Hart, wife of Martin Brown.

Abigail died in 1874, aged 66 years, 5 mo. & 10 d.s. Lydia also died at 66 in 1853, and Amanda at 28 in 1832. Elizabeth was 52 when she died in 1849. 

Sara Fochee Huisvrouw, Sleepy Hollow Cemetery, NY

 

Earlier tombstones sometimes have been engraved in Dutch, such as the one of Sara in the Sleepy Hollow Cemetery: Sara Fochee Huisvrouw Van John Enters Geboren Den 20 October 1717 Gestorven Den 26 December 1769… Sara, John Enters’ wife, was therefore 52 year old when she died in 1769. 

Tombstones in American cemeteries reflect the extent to which women of the 18th and 19th centuries were subject to the rules of a patriarchal society.

Elizabeth Hart, mother, daughter, wife, Old Baptist Church Cemetary, Yorktown, NY

Elizabeth Hart, mother, daughter, wife, Old Baptist Church Cemetery, Yorktown, NY

Their identity is always defined in relation to a man: a husband, a father, or their children. Elizabeth Hart’s tombstone is sacred to the memory of our mother, daughter and wife, but is fortunate enough to have her maiden name mentioned. 

Lydia’s tomb stands just next to her husband’s. David Knapp however is remembered as himself, with no mention of his wife deemed required.

Stone Family Tombstones, Sleepy Hollow Cemetary, NY

Stone Family Tombstones, Sleepy Hollow Cemetery, NY

Dudley and Mother, Sleepy Hollow Cemetery

Maybe even more striking is an ensemble of tombstones in the Sleepy Hollow cemetery erected to the memory of the Stone family. Next to Lawrence, Frederick, Sydney and Dudley is a nameless Mother, who will forever rest in anonymous peace next to her identified male relatives.

Women then did not have the right to vote, did not have the right to own property, had no reproductive rights, nor legal rights over their children, but could be taxed. As evidenced by the social testimony borne by their tombstones, they did not have a right to be remembered as individuals either.

If the comparison can be made, one century later, an Eleanor, who did not have to chose to retain her maiden name and is remembered as one of the staunchest advocates of human rights, is honoured on an equal basis to her husband.

Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt, Hyde Park, NY

Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt, Hyde Park, NY

Remember the ladies: last Monday was International Women’s Day

Friday, March 12th, 2010

Today’s post is dedicated to a friend, a long-time advocate of women’s rights, who just passed away this Thursday. When I visited her in Boston last fall, she took me to Faneuil Hall and told me about Lucy Stone.

March 8. For some, the date will immediately evoke formal ceremonies of all kinds, big panel discussions about the rights of women, or maybe images of women receiving flowers. At least, this is my experience, having been exposed (treated?), on that very day for a number of years, to the presentation of a rose handed by a beaming male colleague from one of the former Soviet Republics.

For others, the 8th of March is just another day. On Monday, I jokingly wished a male colleague “Happy Women’s Day” and was met with a totally blank stare. “What is she talking about (again)?”

March 8 is International Women’s Day (IWD). When dit it start? What does it mean?

Right to vote, New York City

Reproductive rights campaign, New York City, 2001

Originally observed as a Socialist party event, the day has been marked since the early 1900’s. A National Woman’s Day was observed across the United States on 28 February 1909. A year later, at an International Conference of Working Women held in Copenhagen, German Social Democrat Clara Zetkin proposed that the day be marked internationally on the same day.  The first official IWD was honoured in 1911 in Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland on 19 March with rallies advocating the rights of women to work, vote, vocational training, and hold public office.

Less than a week later, on 25 March, in New York, 140 working immigrant working girls lost their lives in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. The tragic event has been commemorated during subsequent IWDs and led to more attention being given to labour legislation and working conditions in the United States.

In 1913-1914, women rallied for peace in Russia and all over Europe, and the date retained to mark IWD was 8 March. With more than two million soldiers dead in the war, Russian women in 1917 started a strike for bread and peace, which four days later resulted in the Czar’s abdication. The provisional government established to run the country immediately granted women the right to vote.

Until the 1960s, IWD was mostly observed in Socialist Europe, when it was revived in the West with the rise of feminism. The United Nations has been officially marking the day since 1975 to recognize the struggles of women worldwide to be granted political and civil rights.

Such struggles have taken many forms. With her famous Remember the ladies, Abigail Adams in 1776 invited her husband, John Adams, one of the Massachussets delegates to the Continental Congress, to take into account the interests of women, when drafting the American Declaration of Independence, or else…

…remember the ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.

In last year’s post on IWD, in addition to Abigail Adams, I also mentioned Olympe de Gouges and Mary Wollstonecraft. This year, I would like to feature another early day suffragist: Lucy Stone. 

Lucy Stone, Faneuil Hall, Boston

Lucy Stone, Faneuil Hall, Boston

The first woman from Massachusetts to earn a college degree (in 1839), Lucy Stone is also the first American woman to retain her maiden name after marriage, leading to the late 19th Century term a “Lucy Stoner”. An abolitionist and a suffragist, Lucy Stone spent her life fighting for women’s rights. She is also the only woman to be honoured in Boston’s Faneuil Hall.

In 1858, to protest taxation without representation, she refused to pay property taxes on her home. On the 100th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, in December 1873, she called for a New England Women Tea Party in Faneuil Hall in Boston and told the crowd that attended the meeting:

We are taxed, and we have no representation. We are governed without our consent. We are fined, imprisoned, and hung with no jury trial by our peers. We have no legal right to our children, nor power to sell our land, nor will our money.”

Reproductive rights campaign, New York City, 2001

Reproductive rights campaign, New York City, 2001

Almost a century and a half after  the New England Women Tea Party, one decade into a new millennium, where do we stand? This week, a text was given to me by a 23-year old for posting on Rights from the Start.  It is included below and provides a young European woman’s perspective on the status of women’s rights today.

Women’s day.

Today is the 8th of March. Does it mean anything to you? Well, I must admit that it also took me a few years to realize that this was a very special event as it is… International Women’s day!

And every year I ask myself why there has to be a special day to remind the world that women have to be treated equally to men.

In 1791, French activist Olympe de Gouge wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Women. Her purpose in writing such a text was not only to affirm that women had/have the same rights as men (article 1) but also to fight to obtain new ones.

This was 219 years ago, and yet it’s impossible to affirm today that women’s rights are respected.

From an historical perspective, we can distinguish between two categories of women in this world. The ones lucky enough to be born with a set of rights recognized to them and the ones that
still have to fight for those rights. But in the end, both categories are threatened.

If the last generations gained many powerful rights, such as the right to vote, to own a bank account, divorce, abortion, birth control or just work, new generations have to fight to retain these rights. This is true for the lucky women category. The other category still has a long way to go. The opportunity to study and work is still a luxury for a number of women. And, being able to represent themselves is to this day only a dream for many others.

What frightens me the most today is not the fact that there’s still a lot to do, because fighting to gain something is always a positive motivation to obtain new opportunities; it is more that we might lose all the chances that we had to fight for over so many years.

Let’s take the right to abortion for instance. If it took a long time to obtain, and mostly to accept, it’s not a given any longer. In Italy, if women can freely ask for an abortion, the physician is always entitled to a « droit de regard » and can refuse to perform such an act if it is against his/her convictions. And I’m absolutely devastated when I hear politicians (and most of the time women politicians) saying that abortion should be prohibited again. Here, I cannot help myself from thinking that, it’s not homo homini lupus but women who are dangerous to women.

When will we stop religion beliefs to influence our choices? When will we be entirely free to dispose of our body?

As for the right to vote or to work, if it is absolutely obvious nowadays, women are still underrepresented, not only in politics but also in the work place. And, when women succeed in reaching higher responsibility jobs they will always be submitted to higher pressure than their male colleagues. Not only should we be clever and efficient, we should also be beautiful, a good mother, a good wife when we shouldn’t also be a good cook or house hostess! And all this without even being guaranteed to have the same salary as our dear males.

But, you got it, this is for group number one, the shiny group. Our second group, as I said, has a long way to go. The right to be educated should be the priority for everyone in this world. This is our only way to have wings and to be able to progress not only in the public but also in the private arenas.

Every woman in this world should have the possibility to be educated, to study, to work, to be a mother, to refuse to be one, in one word: to gain independence. Choice shouldn’t be a luxury.

And for all of these reasons, we cannot use the 8th of March as the only day to claim and fight for our rights. Every single day has to be a fight for freedom and equality.

Reproductive rights campaign, New York City, 2001

Reproductive rights campaign, New York City, 2001

On gold, toothpullers and attempted revolutions

Tuesday, March 9th, 2010
 

Inconfidência Museum, Ouro Preto

Inconfidência Museum, Ouro Preto

 While a number of people will know that July 1789 marked the beginning of the French revolution, fewer may be aware of the Inconfidência Mineira (the Minas Gerais conspiracy), a rebellious movement which attempted to proclaim a Brazilian republic in February, that same year. 

Following the landing of Pedro Alvares Cabral at Porto Seguro in April 1500, Brazil became a Portuguese colony. Sugar rapidly ranked first of the colony’s exports, but once gold was discovered in Minas Gerais some time around 1693, gold mining soon replaced sugar as the main economic activity. A number of towns were built around this activity, such as Vila Rica, known today as Ouro Preto.

The extraction of gold was totally controlled by the Portuguese Crown. It was allowed on the condition that a payment of one fifth (the quinto) would be made to the colonial government. To ensure better control over the gold production, goldsmiths were driven out of the region, and foundries where established where the gold was cast into bars, and marked with the royal seal. Gold could only circulate in that form. As happened in other parts of the world, the heavy control and taxation eventually led to rebellious movements, such as those we have seen in the case of tea or salt.

A first rebellion took place in 1720: the Levante de Vila Rica (the Vila Rica uprising) demanded the relaxing of the drastic measures. The movement was fiercely repressed by the Governor, who ordered the arrest of the leader, Felipe dos Santos, and the burning of hundreds of houses in Ouro Podre where he owned many houses. The hamlet is now called Morro da Queimada. Dos Santos was eventually sentenced to death, hanged and his body quartered.

Tiradentes, proto-martyr

Tiradentes, proto-martyr

More than sixty years later, inspired by the 1776 American independence from yet another colonial power, as well as by the French philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment, the Inconfidência Mineira took place in 1789, also in Vila Rica. While books and other publications were being banned in the colony, the Inconfidência Museum in Ouro Preto displays clandestine editions of forbidden books, including a Recueil des loix constitutives des Etats-Unis, 1788, which is known in Brazil as Tiradentes’ book.

As gold mining was decreasing in the Minas Gerais captaincy, the Crown had asked for an additional tax on gold, the derrama. The plan was to start the rebellion on the day the derrama was to be instituted. The movement brought together a number of liberal thinkers who wanted to create a Republic, open harbours to stimulate trade with other nations, create a university.

Tiradentes, Brasilia

Tiradentes, Brasilia

The movement lacked cohesion however, with some of the members being republicans, while others were monarchists. Members of the conspiracy eventually denounced the proposed uprising. A long trial ensued in Rio de Janeiro. Joaquim José da Silva Xavier decided to assume responsibility of leader of the movement.

Here was his head..., Ouro Preto

Here was his head..., Ouro Preto

A dentist, he was given the nickname of Tiradentes (toothpuller) during the trial. While 11 of the conspirators, including famous Brazilian poet, Tomás Antônio Gonzaga, were banned to Mozambique and other Portuguese colonies in Africa, Tiradentes was sentenced to death. He was hanged in Rio de Janeiro in 1792, and his body, like Felipe dos Santos, quartered. To ensure proper publicity to the strong reaction of the Portuguese Crown to any rebellion, Tiradentes’ body parts were displayed in several towns. His head was placed in Vila Rica, while his house was torn down and salted.

Praca Tiradentes, Belo Horizonte

Praca Tiradentes, Belo Horizonte

Minas Gerais State flag, Tiradentes' house, Ouro Preto

Minas Gerais State flag, Tiradentes' house, Ouro Preto

Tiradentes has survived his execution to become a symbol of the struggle for Brazilian independence. The anniversary of his death is a national holiday and many Brazilian cities, including Brasilia, Belo Horizonte, or Ouro Preto have named a square after him, or display his statue.

The members of the Inconfidência Mineira had planned for a whole new way of life after independence, and had even designed a flag, which has since been adopted by the State of Minas Gerais. The motto reads: Libertas Quae Sera Tamen (Freedom, even if it be late).

The most iniquitous of all taxes

Sunday, January 3rd, 2010

Sea salt

Sea salt

Salt started being taxed in China, around 300 B.C. Salt being essential to daily sustenance, the proponents of taxation argued that people would be willing to pay a higher price to ensure this vital commodity would remain available.

Revenues derived from the salt tax at one point represented half of the State income, and over the years were used to build armies, as well as defensive structures including the Great Wall. In 9th Century Canton, the main sources of revenue were the duties on tea and salt.

In Ancient Rome, the Via Salaria, Salt Road, was built to ensure that a constant supply of salt could be transported to the soldiers and horses of the Roman armies. According to many sources, that are now disputed, salt was also used to pay soldiers, and the latin word sal is at the origin of the English word salary, the French word solde, from which the word soldier is derived. Rather than taxing salt, the Romans actually subsidized it so that it would be available to plebeians.  

India had an ancient tradition of salt making and trading. The West Coast Gujarat marshland is famous for its solar-evaporated sea salt, while two kinds of salt are found in Orissa, on the East Coast: the naturally evaporated kartach and the much sought after panga, a salt produced by the malangis (salt labourers) by boiling salty soil in sea water. Orissa salt had a large market in neighbouring Bengal.

Salt taxation existed in India from early on, with differences in the way it was imposed. In Bengal, during the time of the Mughals,  it was not uniformally applied: while Muslims paid a 2.5% tax, Hindus were imposed at 5% of the cost.  

Starting in 1759, the British East India Company repeatedly tried to derive income from salt and to bring its trade under the Company’s control. Orissa salt was in high demand, including to manufacture gunpowder that was necessary for the British army. 

In 1780, a new tax system was introduced. The malangis would sell their salt to Agents, who managed Agencies, under which the salt works were now placed. The buying price was set at two rupees a maund, while a maund would in turn be sold with an additional tax of 1.1 to 1.5 rupee per maund. With the new tax, the Company saw its revenue increase from 80,000 rupees in 1780 to over 6 million rupees for the period 1784-1785. The tax was later further raised to bring the price of a maund to about 4 rupees.

Meanwhile, in Cheshire, England salt was also being produced in large quantities and new markets had become necessary. There was however no comparison between the Cheshire salt and the higher quality and cheaper Orissa salt: to ensure a market for the Cheshire product, the British banned Orissa salt from Bengal. Smuggling of the better salt ensued, which eventually resulted in 1803 in the annexion of Orissa by the British. The goal was to control smuggling, and on 1 November 1804, Orissa salt became a British monopoly. Salt could only be sold by the government at a fixed price.

With no direct source of income, malangis had no choice but to work for the British authorities who would pay them in advance for future salt production. Paying their debt became a heavy burden for the malangis, many of whom ended up leaving.

Custom checkpoints were established throughout Bengal to stop smuggling activities, and gradually, a thick thorn hedge was built. This eventually grew into the Great Hedge of India, covering more than 2,500 miles and guarded by close to 12,000 men.

It had become illegal to engage in any activity related to salt: even scraping salt for private consumption was considered a punishable offence.

The British Raj took over administration of the salt trade, which by 1880 was bringing in seven million pounds, representing close to 10% of the nation’s income. 

Indian rupees and sea salt

Indian rupees and sea salt

In 1878, it was decided to impose a uniform salt tax of two rupees and eight annas to the whole of India, resulting in certain cases in a decrease.

The taxation on salt had a serious impact on the health of the population of India, who for the most part could not afford the high price of the iodine rich commodity. More than in other countries, the high temperatures that can be reached in India made it imperative for people to increase their salt intake.

Protest against the salt tax started in India with a mention during the first session of the Indian National Congress, in 1885 in Bombay. In February 1888, the first public meeting to protest the salt tax took place in Cuttack. From 1888 forward, the tax was discussed in various sessions of the Congress.

It is while he was in South Africa,  in 1891, that Mohandas Gandhi wrote first against the salt tax: according to him, ”salt is an essential article in our diatery. It could be said that the increasing incidence of leprosy in India was due to the salt tax.”

Thanks to Gandhi, protest against the salt tax became part of the Indian National Congress strategy in its fight for independence. On 31 December, 1929, in Lahore, the Indian National Congress had raised the flag of India, and on 26 January, 1930, the Congress issued the Purna Swaraj, a Declaration of Independence from the British Government. “We believe that it is the inalienable right of the Indian people, as of any other people, to have freedom and to enjoy the fruits of their toil and have the necessities of life, so that they may have full opportunities of growth.” 

As a sign of independence, a symbolic act of civil disobedience had to be planned. Gandhi suggested to target the Salt Act, in a nonviolent protest, the Salt Satyagraha, which was based on his previous attempts at using strength through nonviolence.

In a highly publicized campaign, which reached out to the world, Gandhi prepared a 23-day march that was to leave from his ashram on March 12, pass through 48 villages and reach the coastal village of Dandi, in his native Gujarat.

Gandhi gave ample time to the British authorities to grant his 11 demands, one of which was the abolition of the salt tax. He would stop the march were his demands to be met. Lord Irwin, the Viceroy, ignored Gandhi’s letter.

On March 12, as scheduled, Gandhi left his ashram. He was accompanied by 78 male satyagrahis: the decision had been made not to include women, as the risks were too high. He was met on the way by growing crowds, and by the time they reached Dandi, thousands had joined the march, including women, and thousands more were waiting for them.

International media coverage was sustained throughout the march. Gandhi was well aware of the impact such coverage would mean for their cause, and as the satyagrahis were about to reach Dandi, he declared: “I want world sympathy in this battle of Right against Might.”

Gandhi, Union Square, New York

Gandhi, Union Square, New York

On April 6, Gandhi walked to the sea and picked up salty mud from which he produced illegal salt. He then asked his fellow Indians to follow his example. Millions listened to him who made or bought illegal salt. The movement was rapidly joined by women of all ages, a turning point in the fight for independence.

By the end of April, the British authorities had arrested over sixty thousand people. The salt satyagraha then turned into a mass campaign of civil disobedience, with British goods, including cloth, being boycotted, and Indians refusing to pay taxes all over the country. The Indian National Congress was declared illegal.

As part of Gandhi’s plans, the fight against the salt tax was to continue with a raid on the Dharasana Salt Works in Gujarat. Again he informed Lord Irwin who this time reacted by having him arrested on May 4. Gandhi’s arrest did not stop the plans, even though more leaders - including Gandhi’s own wife, Kasturba - were arrested on the way to Dharasana. The march was then led by a woman, Sarojini Naidi, who reminded the marchers that they were neither to resist nor to try to protect themselves. Marchers were repelled by British soldiers armed with steel tipped wooden clubs.

From Dharasana again, the world media reported on the protest. The British authorities unsuccessfully tried to censor United Press Webb Miller’s story, which got picked up in 1,350 newspapers around the world. Time Magazine compared Gandhi’s Dandi march “to defy Britain’s salt tax as some New Englanders once defied a British tea tax” with the Boston tea party.  

The British authorities finally gave in to the civil disobedience campaign, and in early 1931, Gandhi, along with all other political prisoners, was released from prison and invited, as the sole representative of the ndian National Congress, to attend a conference in London. They were to discuss the issue of Indian independence.

It took close to another 17 years before India would become independent following World War II, on August 15, 1947. The salt tax was only abolished in October 1946 by the Interim Government led by Jawaharlal Nerhu.

Sugar, tea and sweet liberty

Saturday, November 7th, 2009

In some countries, it was salt - the French Cahiers de doleances famously illustrated the unpopularity of the gabelle tax, which eventually contributed to sparking the French Revolution -, in others it was sugar, in some it was tea. 

The Boston Tea Party is equally famous for having signalled the beginning of the American Revolution. To better understand the importance of the event - which involved the destruction of many crates of tea in the Boston harbour on Thursday, December 16, 1773 - it is useful to look back at how the taste for tea developed, and at the relationship between a scarce product and heavy taxation.

Interestingly, since both played a role in a revolution, salt and tea have had a similar history. According to an Arabian traveler, duties on salt and tea were the main sources of revenue in 9th Century Canton, China. After having established a trading port in Macau, in 1557, the Portuguese discovered and reported the existence of a Chinese drink called “chá”, but it is only in the early 17th century that a Dutch East India Company ship returning from China brought back the first green tea leaves to Amsterdam - an event which eventually contributed to the development of the tea culture in Europe.

Chinese and English teapots, 18th Century

It was a Portuguese princess, Catarina de Bragança, who, when she married King Charles II of England in 1662, brought to the English court the habit of drinking tea. Promoted as a medicinal beverage or a tonic, tea rapidly gained popularity in aristocratic circles.

Back in China, the tea trade was controlled by two monopolies: the Chinese Hongs and the British East India Company. Trade between Britain and China was going strong, but ships bringing English-made fabrics to India and China were returning only partially full. Tea had obvious potential and the East India Company initiated a campaign that popularized tea throughout Britain, making it a viable return cargo.

Sugarbowl, 18th Century

Sugarbowl, 18th Century

While the tea trade rapidly grew in England between 1690 and 1750, the cane sugar trade was facing a similar increase. A sweetened tea cup quickly became a daily necessity, resulting in rival companies being established to import tea from the East Indies.

In 1698, the East India Company was granted monopoly over tea importation, while the British colonies were required by a 1721 Act  to exclusively import their tea from Great Britain, thereby ensuring a steady source of income through the duties imposed on tea. This income was however challenged by smuggled Dutch tea which was serious competition to the highly-taxed legal tea.

Looking for additional revenue, the Parliament decided to enact a law allowing direct taxation on the colonies, including on tea. Colonists did not have direct representation through elected Parliament members: taxation without representation was rapidly perceived as unfair. Protests and boycotts started, with many colonists pledging to abstain from drinking British tea, while alternatives were being sought.

In spite of protest, additional tax legistlation was passed, including the 1767 Townshend Revenu Act: it was repelled in 1770, with the exception of duty on tea. Tea imports continued and Boston quickly became the largest colonial importer of legal tea: meanwhile the smuggled tea trade was also flourishing.  

A 1772 change in taxes brought yet another burden on the tea trade, with a new Tea Act, enacted on 10 May. With that, the market value of legally imported tea had become cheaper than smuggled tea by one penny per pound. The Act called for a system of consignees, colonial merchants who received tea on consigment and would sell tea for a commission, who were appointed in New York, Philadelphia, Boston and Charleston. Monopoly of the tea trade was given to the East India Company.

A protest movement, led by Whigs - who sometimes called themselves the Sons of Liberty -  quickly developed against the Tea Act, and in Philadelphia and New York, consignees were forced to resign, while tea shipments were being returned to England.

Samuel Adams in front of Faneuil Hall, Boston, MA

Samuel Adams in front of Faneuil Hall, Boston, MA

In Boston, however, Governor Hutchinson convinced consignees, two of whom were his sons, not to resign. Samuel Adams, a Whig leader, convened a mass meeting at Faneuil Hall on 29 November 1773. The meeting called for the Captain of the tea-carrying Dartmouth and two other ships to go back to England without delivering the tea and paying the import duty, which normally would have to be paid within 20 days of arrival. The Governor forbade the Captain to leave without paying the duties. On December 16, the issue was resolved when, following another meeting convened by Adams, a group of men - some of whom were disguised as Mohawks - boarded the ships and dumped the tea in the harbour.

Punished with the closing of the Boston harbour and the passing of the Coercive Acts, the event served to unite all parties in Britain against the colonies. Meanwhile, the reaction in the colonies varied: while Benjamin Franklin suggested that the value of the destroyed tea be repaid, others rallied around the fight for independence, which eventually led to the adoption in 1776 of the Declaration of Independence.

Paul Revere teapot, milk pot and spoons, 1773

Paul Revere teapot, milk pot and spoons, 1773

Famous patriot and silversmith Paul Revere, the son of French Huguenot Apollos Rivoire, produced for Bostonian wealthy families numerous silver services that included teapots, milk pots, tea spoons and tea tongues. Interestingly, in the portrait of Revere painted by his friend John Singleton Copley in 1768, it is a teapot that Copley decided to feature as the most emblematic of the silversmith’s craft, while that year, in support of the tea boycott, Revere only crafted one teapot. 

It is only in 1778 that the Tea Act was repealed with the Taxation of Colonies Act.

The Boston Tea Party is one of the more famous episodes of the fight against unfair taxation. In 1930, following the Indian salt protest campaign, Gandhi used duty-free salt to remind the British Viceroy of the Massachusetts event.

July and rights: a Pennsylvania pursuit?

Sunday, July 5th, 2009

July 4. July 14. These two dates mark July as an essential month in the history of human rights.

Equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Year-around Celebrating Independence, 2009, New York State

It all started in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on July 4, 1776. Or did it?

Obviously, the Declaration of Independence did not happen overnight. The quest for independence in the British colonies started in the 1770’s, inspired by principles proclaimed in England at the end of the 17th century.

Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson - the last two later to become Presidents of the new United States of America - , are some of the important players in the fight the American Colonies led for their independence from the British rule .

Initially, the American colonists were asking to be granted the rights of Englishmen by the British Crown.  In 1774, in A Summary View of the Rights of British America, Jefferson explains:

These are our grievances, which we have thus laid before his Majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their Chief Magistrate. (Jefferson, 1774, in Koch et Peden, 1944 : 310)

Soon, beyond the rights of Englishmen, the colonists will be fighting for independence. In Common Sense, the first edition of which is published in Philadelphia in January 1776, Thomas Paine called… for the creation of a republican government – based entirely on the representation of the people – in a newly independent America, and a written constitution guaranteeing the rights of persons and property and establishing freedom of religion… Paine transformed the struggle over the rights of Englishmen into a contest with a meaning for all mankind. (Foner, 1984 : 10)

Himself an Englishman, and a friend of Benjamin Franklin, Paine had recently migrated to the colonies. Common Sense poignantly pleads for a free America, independent from the tyrannic rule to which it is then submitted. O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind. (Paine, 1776 : Chapter V)

A free America will obey the rule of law. But where says some is the King of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King. (Paine, 1768 : Chapter V)

Remembering Revolutionary Soldiers, Sleepy Hollow, NY

Remembering Revolutionary Soldiers, Sleepy Hollow, NY

And independence will affect future generations. The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. ‘Tis not the affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. ‘Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the end of time, by the proceedings now.

The same year, on 12 June 1776, the Virginia Constitutional Convention adopts the Virginia Bill of Rights, drafted by George Mason.

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government. (Virginia Bill of Rights, 1776)

Section 1 proclaims freedom and independence.

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. (Virginia Bill of Rights, 1776)

While the right to property is one of the first to be claimed, the right to justice, derived from Habeas Corpus is not mentioned until Section 8.

Section 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself

And then comes freedom of the press.

Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

The Virginia Bill of Rights also recalls core values and principles:

Section 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

Rights however are not granted to all citizens, but to the rich planters. This Virginia document was deeply conservative, keeping power in the hands of the planter oligarchy that had dominated Virginia for a century and a half and upholding the status quo. Mason’s declaration retained the property-owning qualification for voting, keeping power in the hands of fewer than one percent of the population. (Randall, 1993 : 268)

July, 4 2009, Poconos, Pennsylvania

July, 4 2009, Poconos, Pennsylvania

Meanwhile, 56 delegates, representing the 13 colonies are meeting in the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. One of the seven delegates from Virginia, Thomas Jefferson is asked to prepare the first draft of a Declaration of Independence. Between 11 and 28 June, Jefferson summarizes ideals expressed by John Locke and others: the first part of the draft is strongly influenced by the Virginia text. This draft is reviewed by Benjamin Franklin and John Adams.

On 2 July, the Continental Congress begins its review of the text, which is finally adopted in the late morning of July 4, less than a month after the Virginia Bill of Rights. Delegates unanimously proclaim their independence from the British Crown.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. »

While for the Virginia Bill of Rights men are free and independent by nature, the Declaration of Independence recognizes these inalienable rights as given to them by their Creator. Some claim that the first Jefferson draft read We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable and that Benjamin Franklin suggested to replace the words sacred and undeniable by the words self-evident.

The Declaration of Independence does not define rights as precisely as the Virginia Bill of Rights does. Neither did it have to. With indepence proclaimed, the Virginia Bill of Rights served as a model for similar Bills of Rights, which were promptly adopted by the other colonies. The Virginia text also formed the basis of the 1789 American Bill of Rights.

Don’t forget the ladies

Sunday, March 1st, 2009

Women watching a march of the Ligue, Paris, 16th Century

Women watching a march of the Ligue, Paris, 16th Century

And what about women’s rights or the human rights of women? International Women’s Day is this week, an invitation to reflect on the rights of women.

Well, since my last post was about the Magna Carta, maybe we can start our quick overview right there.

Women are indeed mentioned, sometimes en passant, as in the article specifying the three exceptional reasons that would authorize the imposition of an aid, one of which being when the King would marry his eldest daughter.

As a matter of fact, it is mainly in relation to the issue of marriage that women are mentioned in early texts dealing with human rights. This is the area where they are allowed, or not - most frequently not -, to exert some level of free will.

The Magna Carta is no exception. Article 8 - we have seen this reflects a strong preoccupation for the subject - rules:

8. No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she prefers to live without a husband; provided always that she gives security not to marry without our consent if she holds of us, or without the consent of the lord of whom she holds, if she holds of another.

If women therefore have some limited level of freedom when it comes to marriage, their words has little legal value, as evidenced by Article 54

54. No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other than her husband.

The age of discovery and Renaissance in Europe allow women to play more important roles. Not all women, but some really powerful women make their mark, a position of power that is frequently the result of their marriage. Marriage is a way to secure alliances, end conflicts, acquire land, protect inheritance, and women are given little choice as to who their husbands - sometimes two or three, as life expectancy is rather short then -  will be.

The discovery of America, and the Reconquista over the Alhambra are associated to Isabella, Queen of Castille. It is in her own right, but together with her husband, King of Aragon, that Queen Isabella allows Christopher Columbus to set on his expedition, and it is in the name of the two Catholic Sovereigns that the Alhambra is conquered. Both events happened in 1492.

It is also in 1492 that Marguerite de Navarre was born, in Angouleme, the daughter of a 15-year old Louise de Savoie who became a widow at 19, after having given birth to a son, Francis, later Francis I, King of France. By decree of French King Louis XII, the highly educated Marguerite is forced to marry a practically illiterate Charles of Alencon, to ensure that the county of Armagnac stays in the family.

After his death, she remarries the King of Navarre, and as sister to the King of France, Marguerite de Navarre became the most influential woman in France. She had her own salon, corresponded with scholars, such as Erasmus, and wrote poems, plays and stories.

Jeanne d'Albret, Queen of Navarre

Jeanne d'Albret, Queen of Navarre, Jardin du Luxembourg, Paris

Her most famous work is the Heptameron, but the one that caused her the most trouble was Miroir de l’âme pécheresse, which was condemned by the conservative Sorbonne as heretic. This, she wrote in 1531 shortly after the death of her infant son, the only son she had at the then advanced age of 38.

Her daughter Jeanne d’Albret is married against her will at 13. The story goes that she had to be bodily carried to the altar. After four years, the marriage is annulled and she later remarried Antoine de Bourbon. As Queen of Navarre, she declares Calvinism the official religion of Navarre. Her son, King Henry III of Navarre, later to become King of France as Henry IV,  married another Marguerite, Marguerite de Valois, sister to three kings of France. It is on the occasion of their wedding, that a large number of Protestants who had came to Paris were murdered during the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, on 24 August 1572, along with several other thousand Protestants in Paris and throughout the country.

While these women, as daughters or sisters of kings, benefited from excellent education, they enjoyed limited freedom, being made to marry in the interest of the kingdom. Marguerite de Valois is featured in Alexandre Dumas’s 1844 novel, named after her, Queen Margot.

At some point in the novel, Queen Marguerite agrees with her mother, Queen Catherine de Medici, about how fortunate men are to be free to run, while women have to stay in the palace and wait. She then explains that it is not her personal fate she is so concerned about, but more the general condition of women.

This would seem to be more of a 19th century comment, attributed to a 16th century woman, similarly to the transposition I described with Rozema’s adaptation of Mansfield Park.

It is difficult to know what the feelings of women were at the time, as the writings of female authors, such as Marguerite de Navarre reflect the feelings of exceptional women, exceptional in the sense of their fortune and education, at a time when education was for the most part reserved to men, although Renaissance certainly brought a change to this.

These exceptional women evolved in a limited circle, frequently related through the marriages arranged between member of the royal families of Europe. Queen Claude de France, Marguerite de Navarre’s sister in law is another example. The daughter of Louis XII of France and Anne de Bretagne, Claude was to inherit the Duchy of Brittany from her mother. With the intention of keeping Brittany separate from the French crown, Anne decided to marry her daughter to Charles of Spain who was to become Charles V. French nobles reacted and convinced King Louis XII to marry Claude to Francis, later Francis I of France. At 7, she became engaged, and married at 15, thus ensuring that Brittany would remain part of France.

Education for women was perceived to be necessary to ensure a good marriage. It is to further her education that Ann Boleyn is sent to the French court, where she becomes a lady-in-waiting to Queen Claude. There she meets Marguerite de Navarre, who is said to have given her a copy of the Miroir de l’âme pécheresse.

It is seldom that women could refuse the marriage that had been arranged for them. Even more difficult was it to refuse to become the King’s mistress. Back at the court of England, Anne refused to become King Henry VIII’s mistress, which prompted the King to secure an annulment for his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Following a long dispute and the refusal of the Pope to grant an annulment, the King decided to break with Rome, and took control over the Church of England.

Anne became Henry VIII’s second wife and in 1533 gave birth to Elizabeth. After she had failed to produce a male heir to the throne, the King had her arrested and executed, in 1536. Twenty-two years later, in 1558, Elizabeth succeeded the Catholic Mary Tudor, her half-sister, daughter of Catherine of Aragon, as Queen of England.

Princess Elizabeth’s education had been extensive: she studied Italian, Latin, French and Greek, and at age 11, she translated Marguerite de Navarre’s The Miroir or Glasse of the Synneful Soul, from the French, and presented it to Henry VIII’s last wife, Catherine Parr. A powerful queen, Elizabeth was able to resist repeated petitions from the English Parliament for her to be married, and became known as the Virgin Queen.

Other powerful women have helped shape European history: queens, regents, King’s mistresses, intellectuals have proven that women can think and act independently. It is not until the 18th Century, however, that women of more modest origin have fought directly for the recognition of the rights of women.

Women Political Club, French Revolution, 1790

Women Political Club, French Revolution, 1790

In my view, three women in particular defined women’s rights in the 18th Century. In the British Colonies, in a famous letter of March 1776, Don’t forget the ladies, Abigail Adams, threatened her husband of a rebellion if women’s interests were not taken into account at the time John Adams represented Massachussetts in the Continental Congress.

In 1791, Olympe de Gouges posted all over Paris her Déclaration des droits de la femme et de la citoyenne, a version of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen that she had adapted to represent the rights of women.

And in 1792, in England, Mary Wollstonecraft publishes A Vindication of the Rights of Woman where she argues that if women had access to education, they could show themselves to be equal to men.

The fight for equal rights continued well into the 20th Century, with the passionate English suffragettes, as well as later fights, some countries recognizing the right of women to vote as late as 1979.