New Leaf June 2018 Discussion • The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas

[Bookpossum]

Indeed, it is always about who has the power. Good post gmw.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by gmw

It's the sort of food that gives one indigestion. There is a significant difference between a kept woman and a kept man as described in this book: who has the power. In both cases the men retain the power. The women, if discovered, are in real trouble, the men will receive congratulations.

And I don't think you need the "until recent times" qualifier. The double standard still holds in many (most?) parts of the world.

<Shrug>. In my career (35+ years and counting), I've had more female bosses than male (at the first two levels above me). Having the power of promotion and paychecks over one doesn't seem to be powerless to me. I guess that just doesn't fit the meme here.

Re my sidebar comment: Why didn't the Lady in question just say the equivalent of "Take a hike, chump"? A woman with a rich husband and her own jewels can't say no? Even in the times she certainly had enough derived power to do that. (It takes two to tango. . . .)

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

<Shrug>. In my career (35+ years and counting), I've had more female bosses than male (at the first two levels above me). Having the power of promotion and paychecks over one doesn't seem to be powerless to me. I guess that just doesn't fit the meme here.

gmw was referring specifically to kept women v. kept men and not to the workplace, where in any case women bosses are a very recent development (and the glass ceiling is real).

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

<Shrug>. In my career (35+ years and counting), I've had more female bosses than male (at the first two levels above me). Having the power of promotion and paychecks over one doesn't seem to be powerless to me. I guess that just doesn't fit the meme here.

I'm not sure where this came from. I didn't see many women as bosses in The Three Musketeers (not even Milady fits that description).

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Re my sidebar comment: Why didn't the Lady in question just say the equivalent of "Take a hike, chump"? A woman with a rich husband and her own jewels can't say no? Even in the times she certainly had enough derived power to do that. (It takes two to tango. . . .)

Are they her own jewels? In The Three Musketeers I am guessing not - although I'm no expert on French law of the time. Also, relationships of this nature may be started on seemingly agreeable terms but not end that way, and it's when things turn disagreeable that disparity in power becomes most apparent.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by gmw

I'm not sure where this came from. I didn't see many women as bosses in The Three Musketeers (not even Milady fits that description).

Are they her own jewels? In The Three Musketeers I am guessing not - although I'm no expert on French law of the time. Also, relationships of this nature may be started on seemingly agreeable terms but not end that way, and it's when things turn disagreeable that disparity in power becomes most apparent.

If her husband gave them to her, I would assume they are hers. (after all, the queen gave D'Artangnan an jewelled ring as payment for his trip to England, and MiLady kept the necklace from Athos (in his former life). I think you are reading too much into a minor sidebar in the book. But whatever. . .

[issybird]

Could we avoid the dismissive use of the word "whatever," please?

This as a mild reminder that our standard is courteous discussion. Heated is fine and fun as are rebuttals, but dismissive and other rude locutions are not. Thanks.

ETA: Some posts have been deleted. People with concerns are welcome to PM me about them. I'd like to get back to at least tangentially related matters!

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If her husband gave them to her, I would assume they are hers. (after all, the queen gave D'Artangnan an jewelled ring as payment for his trip to England, and MiLady kept the necklace from Athos (in his former life). I think you are reading too much into a minor sidebar in the book. [...]

Except that I think ownership is at the core of my point, at least as far as this discussion touches on The Three Musketeers. Were the Queen's jewels actuallys hers, or did they belong to the state? More relevantly, it was made quite clear in The Three Musketeers that the woman keeping Porthos was doing so from the coffers of her husband. My assumption (I do not know for certain) is that in marriages of those times everything, probably including the wife, was legally the possession of the husband (it wasn't until 1882 that the Married Women's Property Act was passed in the UK, I don't imagine France was too different). So there was a great disparity in how a kept woman was kept versus how a kept man was kept.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by gmw

Except that I think ownership is at the core of my point, at least as far as this discussion touches on The Three Musketeers. Were the Queen's jewels actuallys hers, or did they belong to the state? More relevantly, it was made quite clear in The Three Musketeers that the woman keeping Porthos was doing so from the coffers of her husband. My assumption (I do not know for certain) is that in marriages of those times everything, probably including the wife, was legally the possession of the husband (it wasn't until 1882 that the Married Women's Property Act was passed in the UK, I don't imagine France was too different). So there was a great disparity in how a kept woman was kept versus how a kept man was kept.

I would say from the coffers of the marriage. Same as if the husband was keeping a mistress. The cost came from the same pool. I don't know French law from the 1620's, I do know domestic law varied from country to country, widely. I am familiar with the differences between Spanish domestic law and English common law on the subject, because Texas law is almost totally based upon Spanish law, not English, which comes as a great shock for people relocating to Texas.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I would say from the coffers of the marriage. Same as if the husband was keeping a mistress. The cost came from the same pool. I don't know French law from the 1620's, I do know domestic law varied from country to country, widely. I am familiar with the differences between Spanish domestic law and English common law on the subject, because Texas law is almost totally based upon Spanish law, not English, which comes as a great shock for people relocating to Texas.

Coverture would have been in effect in the 1600s, which would have put all a married woman's money and personal property under her husband's control. How that played out in day-to-day life, I have no idea, but it seems like it was a lot more complicated than a pool of money from which they could both draw.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Coverture would have been in effect in the 1600s, which would have put all a married woman's money and personal property under her husband's control. How that played out in day-to-day life, I have no idea, but it seems like it was a lot more complicated than a pool of money from which they could both draw.

Was that French domestic law? That was English law at the time, it was most definitely not Spanish law at the time. Spain had strict community property domestic law. . .

In practice, on a day-today basis, it was a matter between spouses, to be hashed out between them. It would only come to legal notice if a legal filing was made.

[orlok]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Well, Issy, you just must be so much more discerning and intellectual than so many of us here, because queerly enough, a very large number of us neither found it funny, nor read into it any intimation that Dumas was making fun of his creations. I certainly found no such indication. As I said before, those who love it, fine, love it. That's certainly your prerogative.

Hitch

Wow, Once again, thanks for your insightful input.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Was that French domestic law? That was English law at the time, it was most definitely not Spanish law at the time. Spain had strict community property domestic law. . .

In practice, on a day-today basis, it was a matter between spouses, to be hashed out between them. It would only come to legal notice if a legal filing was made.

Given that Spain was strongly Catholic, and the church is not known for its fair treatment of women, this seems an extraordinary claim. Consider this article (PDF downloadable at link) on Divorce and Abuse in 16th, 17th and 18th Century Spain:

Spoiler:

"Although initially free, every woman who marries enters into a state of perpetual subjection to her husband for the rest of her life by virtue of the marriage itself. None can escape from this subjection during marriage, since it is the natural law, authorised by divine order from the beginning of the world" (Mejía, 1566).
[...]
In this paper, we have attempted to conduct a global analysis of the phenomenon of domestic violence against women in Spain in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. To this end, we began by analysing the secondary role that - in the eyes of the moralists and jurists of the time - wives were expected to play in marriage. This submission was the result of a strengthening of the patriarchal order, a phenomenon which occurred not only in Spain but also throughout Europe. The Tridentine reform, the strengthening of the modern state and the gradual intensification of the importance of the conjugal family all played a major role in this process. Accordingly, by virtue of human and divine laws, women fell under the authority and rule of their husbands, and were expected to obey their decisions without questioning. In contrast, husbands were obliged to love and respect their wives, but also to maintain constant control over them in order to protect their own honour. As a means to uphold this authority at all times, husbands were entitled to inflict violence on their wives, although always within the limits considered acceptable at the time.
[...] a clear limitation imposed by the ecclesiastical authorities on their judges when hearing women's claims, whereby these were restricted exclusively to cases which, due to their truly outrageous nature, it was absolutely necessary to address. Lastly, additional evidence to that already mentioned can be observed in the judgements, which were generally more favourable to men.

To bring this back to France (and therefore The Three Musketeers), French law at the time apparently fell under two influences: Roman (as with the Spanish noted above) and Customary (as with the English). Neither of which, in practice, gave married women real equality with regard to property rights. Go back another 600 years and things can be different, but the Renaissance was not much of a renaissance for women.

[issybird]

The Three Musketeers would have understood and approved. Carpe diem.

[gmw]

Dumas certain seemed to someone that lived large. I wonder if he was truly generous, as described in that article, or simply not careful (as the circumstances in that article seem to me). I am pleased they saved the building though, but it's a shame the contents were lost long ago.

[Bookpossum]

It’s a 19th century version of Grand Designs, where people spend ever more money as they keep making changes to their enormous houses as they are being built. The buildings do look attractive though.