MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1881891375 · doi:10.1353/sex.2012.0040

Pregnancy and Childbirth in Twelfth- and Thirteenth-Century French and English Law

2012· article· en· W1881891375 sur OpenAlexaff
Fiona Harris-Stoertz

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of the History of Sexuality · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueMedieval Literature and History
Établissements canadiensTrent University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésChildbirthHegemonyMiddle AgesLawBureaucracyIntervention (counseling)HistoryGender studiesEnglish lawSociologyPregnancyPolitical scienceMedicineAncient historyNursingPolitics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Pregnancy and Childbirth in Twelfth- and Thirteenth-Century French and English Law Fiona Harris-Stoertz (bio) Through most of the Middle Ages, childbirth was an event attended and controlled largely by women. Men, while they might wait anxiously outside the birthing chamber and sometimes conveyed their wishes to the women inside, were rarely present at births and had little direct impact on the birth process.1 Nevertheless, male contemporaries could not and did not ignore entirely something as vital to society as childbirth. An examination of French and English law codes written before 1325 shows that secular authorities throughout the Middle Ages wrote laws concerning pregnancy and childbirth and that these laws became more prevalent and more intrusive in the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Although these forms of intervention were limited in scope and would have had little real effect on most women, it can be argued that they represent part of the “thin end of the opening wedge” of male control of pregnancy and childbirth and helped pave the way for the greater loss of female hegemony in later centuries. Still, the development of such laws should not be seen merely as [End Page 263] a product of misogyny; it also, among other factors, resulted from greater attention paid to matters of inheritance and from the expansion of literacy, the study of Roman law, and the bureaucratization of medieval society, all of which increasingly touched all aspects of human existence. What follows here contributes to a growing body of work on male intervention in matters relating to pregnancy and childbirth during the Middle Ages. It has long been argued that it was only at the end of the Middle Ages or especially in the early modern period that male clerical and secular authorities gradually gained authority over childbirth, as church officials and municipal authorities began to supervise and regulate midwives more intensively, and male “experts” gained prestige in the birthing chamber.2 In recent years, however, several medieval historians have suggested that certain forms of male intervention occurred earlier, particularly in the thirteenth century and later. Becky Lee, examining proofs of age produced from the thirteenth century onward, suggests that while men were rarely present at births, they were to some extent aware and interested in them, with news and gifts penetrating the walls of the birthing chamber.3 Kathryn Taglia finds that northern French church authorities began to pass legislation regarding emergency baptism during childbirth from the very late twelfth century onward, something that I view as a kind of official intrusion into some births, although the baptisms were often performed by midwives.4 Jacqueline Musacchio argues that Italian men from the fourteenth century attempted to influence birth through their selection of decorative objects for bedrooms and birthing chambers.5 Renate Blumenfeld-Kosinski suggests men entered the field of obstetrics through the performance of caesarean sections, which were described in medical literature from the early fourteenth century onward and performed on living women from about 1400.6 The [End Page 264] most important work on male intervention in women’s health care is that of Monica Green, who has explored this subject in a number of books and articles. She argues that female control of childbirth was never absolute. Certainly by 1300 some women were turning to male medical practitioners in obstetrical emergencies and in cases of sterility, a trend that was encouraged by the increasing identification of men with learned obstetrical literature, among other factors. Likewise, Green demonstrates that after the thirteenth century obstetrical and gynecological literature became less focused on helping women and more oriented toward understanding women’s secrets.7 While the most overt and widespread forms of male involvement in childbirth, such as the licensing of midwives and the creation of what have been called man-midwives, may be products of later centuries, one can certainly find an increased willingness on the part of men to intervene in childbirth matters in a number of significant ways as early as the twelfth century. In some respects, law codes are not ideal sources for the study of medieval pregnancy and childbirth. Most were probably authored by men, who, as I have suggested...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,940
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,282

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,208
Écart entre enseignants0,186 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations13
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of the History of SexualityMême sujetMedieval Literature and HistoryTravaux en français237 207