ABSTRACT
M edieval views about the nature of gender and about appropriate gender roles have been the subject of intense historical scrutiny in recent decades. There is, indeed, considerable evidence about the contemporary rationale for laws and customs regulating these matters, and about the legal frameworks in place. The Bible and the works of the Church Fathers provided a bedrock for sharp stresses in canon law, and in clerical discourse, on the religious significance of gender differences. As regards English cities and towns, collections of urban customs and gild regulations and records of the proceedings of borough courts reflect insistent distinctions between the legal and customary rights of men and women.1 One effect of the generally lower status accorded to women in these contexts has been to obscure them in large measure from the view of historians. As named individuals they appear, occasionally and fleetingly, in a variety of capacities in the records of borough courts. They appear, too, in the more sparsely surviving records of diocesan courts, among whose responsibilities under canon law was the protection of the rights of both parties in marriage.2 Thus on 18 March 1408, in a certain high chamber in Archbishop Bowet’s residence at Cawood, near York (with which Margery was to become painfully familiar), in his presence and that of many witnesses, Sir William Either subscribed by oath to certain articles contained in a schedule. Here is the tenor of part of the document, as entered in Bowet’s Register:
The document contains further provisions intended to ensure Sibelle Rither’s welfare.3
