The 'Treasure Box of Greater Learning for Women' was a short treatise, first published in Japan 1716, and generally accepted as being the work of Kaibara Ekiken (1630-1714). It contained guidelines concerning the proper instruction of women and included a list of behaviours for which a man would be justified in divorcing his wife. I thought I'd share them here. Let's see how many of us would still be married today if these rules had continued to be followed!
1. A woman could be divorced if she showed disobedience to her father-in-law or mother-in-law.
Well, I've fallen at the first hurdle. Imagine having to submit to the wishes of your mother-in-law in all things... to the point where, even if the reason for a dispute were miniscule, she could insist that her son divorce you. I'd have rolled up my futon and hit the road about five minutes after saying 'I do'. Ok, I admit it, I wouldn't have lasted that long.
2. A woman could be divorced if she did not bear a child; the reason being that women were sought in marriage to give men posterity. A man who had a child by a concubine, however, would not have had reason to divorce a wife of virtuous heart.
And the second hurdle has brought me down too. No children. No concubines either, to save me from being shown the door. All was not lost though, if your husband happened to have an affair and got some other filly pregnant, you could adopt her baby and bring it up as your own to avoid being divorced... what fun. And if he did have an affair, consider the next reason for divorce before smiting him with a frying pan.
3. A woman could be divorced if she were jealous.
This print, on the right, is from a series by Utamaro called 'Variegations of Blooms According to their Speech' (Sakiwake kotoba no hana), published around 1802-3. The woman portrayed is a merchant's wife, and the text above her records her words as she reprimands her husband; the implication being that he has been seeing another woman. The purpose of the series was to highlight the traits amongst women that should be avoided; jealousy being one. In addition to complaining about the infidelity, however, the woman is complaining about her husband's parents. Consider the first reason for divorce listed here... this little lady's on very shaky ground!
4. A woman could be divorced for being lewd.
Ah well, in this I am safe, as I am always the model of propriety. I hear my husband laughing but cannot imagine why.
5. A woman could be divorced for talking too much.
Remembering that those judging what 'too much' was were men, if this rule had been adhered to, surely there would have been no women who stayed married long enough to become mothers-in-law who could then insist their daughters-in-law be tossed out onto the street for disobedience!
6. A woman could be divorced for being a kleptomaniac.
At last, one that has no affect upon my own marital status. I have receipts to prove this is so.
7. A woman suffering from leprosy or any 'like foul disease' could be divorced.
I love you sweetie, you've given me three wonderful children and you're great with my parents, but you're ill... toodle-pip.
Would now be a good time to mention that one of the things young women were persuaded against doing, as it took time away from doing the household chores, was reading? Liking small animals too much was also to be avoided. Oh, who needs a husband anyway!
About Gina
Connections
View all »
Causes Gina Collia-Suzuki Supports
PETA
The World Wildlife Fund
RSPCA
Cancer Research UK








Interesting
The "rules" were revealing of another time. (At least I hope it is another time and not still influencing people today.) Your comments were funny. Made me laugh. Glad you keep your receipts.
Ryoma keeps his receipts,
Ryoma keeps his receipts, too... just in case I do become a kleptomaniac and need to be returned. I've told him that the rules no longer apply, so he's stuck with me... much to my mother-in-law's chagrin!
Toodle-pip!?!
Do they still say that in the West Country? I'll go to the foot of our stairs... (No,don't ask)
Great blog. Thanks:)
I'm not sure that anyone in
I'm not sure that anyone in the entirety of the British Isles still says it, aside from me. But as I spend most of my time in the 18th century, it's about as hip, happenin' and trendy-cool as I get. Occasionally you may get a TTFN out of me, if you're lucky.
please decode . . .
. . . TTFN! Inquiring (American) minds (racking their memories of Pamela and later Victorian novels) want to know!
'Ta ta for now'... very
'Ta ta for now'... very popular during World War II. Often muttered by me... one of the reasons my mother calls me an 'old fart'.
oh, duh!
But, you know, I don't associate that with the 18th century at all! To my befuddled American brain it conjures up Edwardian, maybe even early 20th c., England. But what do I know?? : )
while i'm posting
Gina, thanks for making me laugh and laugh! Your commentary is hilarious! Moreover, I love these kinds of historical documents that expose so clearly why there's no point in conflating *marriage* with monogamy or life-time commitment. : ) The former not only doesn't guarantee the latter, it was obviously never meant to! LOL!
Indeed! And to add insult
Indeed!
And to add insult to injury, a prostitute had more rights, with regard to her clients, than a married woman did within her marriage. Whilst the married woman had to suffer in silence if her husband kept a filly on the side, a lady of the night was entitled to imprison the offending client inside a barrel and poke fun at him until he repented!