Women in the Seventeenth-Century Netherlands

Legal Matters

Dutch law offered women a measure of security, with Holland's legal system being fairer to women than any other in Europe. An unmarried woman in Holland, whether a maiden or widow, could expect to be treated under the law much as a man would be^{In the 17th-century Netherlands, "manus marital" refers to the concept of manus, a term from Roman law meaning "hand" or "authority.") In this context, it describes a type of marital arrangement where the husband had legal authority over his wife, effectively placing her under his guardianship.} If married, she determined her own rights within that relationship, according to the provisions of the nation's unique civil laws, by selecting one of two different types of marriage—manus or usus. While women's specific property rights varied by geographical area within the Netherlands, they did have rights to property both within and outside of marriage.

Women's rights were codified through a combination of legal texts, local ordinances, and customary laws rather than a unified national code. The decentralized political structure of the Dutch Republic meant that laws could vary by province and city. Notable legal scholars, such as Hugo Grotius (1583– 1645), documented and analyzed the legal practices of the time, including those affecting women, in his work Inleidinge tot de Hollandsche Rechtsgeleerdheid (Introduction to Dutch Jurisprudence).

City charters and local regulations often contained provisions that directly impacted women's rights, particularly concerning trade and property ownership. Guild regulations sometimes allowed women to become members or continue their husbands' businesses after their deaths, further integrating women into the economic life of the community.

If a woman chose the manus marital option, she accepted the status of a minor under the guardianship of her husband, who would henceforth serve as her legal representative.^{In the 17th-century Netherlands, "manus marital" refers to the concept of manus, a term from Roman law meaning "hand" or "authority.") In this context, it describes a type of marital arrangement where the husband had legal authority over his wife, effectively placing her under his guardianship.} She had no standing in court. She could not defend herself; her husband had to appear on her behalf if she was charged as a defendant. She also could not initiate any proceedings against another party or enter into any contract without her husband’s authority. (Any payment for such a contract had to be made to her husband.) This marital option—time-honored, though distinctly less popular in the seventeenth century than in previous eras—required a woman to pool her possessions, including debts and future profits and losses, with her husband at marriage as part of a community of property managed by the husband. The family finances would be entirely under his control.

Three features commended life under manus. First, the legal system provided a safeguard for a woman who entered a marriage with no material resources of her own. If her spouse passed away, the shared community of property would be divided in two, with half going to her and the other half to her husband’s heirs. Similarly, manus allowed a woman to assume the potentially loftier rank of her husband’s family, a social marker that carried value in a still-feudal world. Finally, under manus, a wife’s financial liability was limited in the event of a failed business deal on her spouse’s part—based on the legal reasoning that if she did not have the authority to make the transaction, she should not be held responsible for it. In practice, it was a respectable and common course of action for a widow under manus to simply lay the house keys on the coffin of a deceased husband who had squandered her share of the community property and literally walk away, free from any claims on resources she never had control over. A wife’s sole authority under manus was the power to operate as a domestic manager, a role the courts honored to the extent that it could not be denied her without judicial action.

The legal conventions surrounding inheritance also distinguished Holland as a uniquely egalitarian society. At the death of either spouse, in cases of intestacy, the survivor could expect to receive at least fifty percent of the estate, even under manus, regardless of how much property each spouse brought to the marriage, with the remainder going to the heirs of the deceased. (Wealthy widows were commonplace in Holland and the Dutch colonies.) Similarly, Dutch law prohibited parents from favoring gender or birth order when bequeathing property in wills. This meant daughters were not arbitrarily deprived of an inheritance. Dutch inheritance laws contrasted sharply with those in England, where firstborn sons received all of a family’s major property holdings, such as land and houses, while daughters customarily received only household goods like flatware and furniture. Female heirs in England often faced the future after a parent’s death without a home or the assets to obtain one. Widows typically emerged from high-status marriages with only the dowry they had brought to the union.

Whether or not she married, and in distinct contrast to English law, any Dutch woman could initiate legal proceedings against any individual, male or female, even her husband.

Marriage Patterns and Sex

In Sex and Drugs before Rock 'n' Roll: Youth Culture and Masculinity during Holland's Golden Age,^{Benjamin B. Roberts, Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll in the Dutch Golden Age (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2017).} Benjamin B. Roberts examines the intricacies of youth culture in seventeenth-century Dutch society, with a focus on courtship, sexuality, and marriage. Roberts explores the sexual behaviors of Dutch youth, highlighting a tension between societal expectations of chastity and the realities of premarital sexual activity. The existence of brothels and the prevalence of prostitution in urban centers (fig. 1) indicate that young men often engaged in sexual relations outside of marriage. Despite the Calvinist moral framework promoting sexual restraint, there was a degree of tolerance for youthful indiscretions, provided they did not lead to public scandal or illegitimate births.

Additionally, Roberts describes activities such as drinking, gambling, and participation in militia groups as rites of passage that reinforced male bonds and social hierarchies. These behaviors, while sometimes leading to social problems, were integral to the formation of a distinct youth culture that balanced individual desires with communal expectations.

In the seventeenth-century Netherlands, societal norms and religious doctrines predominantly discouraged premarital cohabitation. The Dutch Reformed Church, which held significant influence during this period, emphasized chastity and the sanctity of marriage, viewing sexual relations outside wedlock as morally unacceptable. Despite these prevailing attitudes, certain practices suggest that premarital intimacy did occur under specific circumstances.

One such practice was bundling, a courtship custom in which a couple would share a bed, fully clothed, often separated by a board or wrapped tightly to prevent physical contact. This tradition, thought to have originated in the Netherlands or the British Isles, allowed couples to spend the night together to foster emotional intimacy while ostensibly maintaining chastity. However, the effectiveness of bundling in preventing premarital sexual activity is subject to debate, as it may have inadvertently facilitated such behavior.

Additionally, economic and social factors sometimes led to informal unions resembling premarital cohabitation. In cases where marriage was delayed due to financial constraints or the lengthy process of obtaining parental consent, couples might live together without formalizing their union immediately. These arrangements, while not officially sanctioned, were occasionally tolerated, especially if the couple intended to marry once circumstances permitted.

Despite these instances, premarital cohabitation was not widely accepted in seventeenth-century Dutch society. Legal and ecclesiastical authorities often imposed penalties on those who engaged in sexual relations outside of marriage, reflecting the broader societal commitment to upholding moral standards. Thus, while premarital cohabitation did occur, it remained relatively uncommon and was generally viewed as contrary to the moral and religious values of the time.