Violent and Abusive Behaviour in Nineteenth-Century Marriage in Bohemia

The words uttered during divorce proceedings by Veronika Láňová, the wife of the householder Václav Láňa, in January 1894 at the deanery in České Budějovice introduce us to a whole range of historical research issues. Veronika Láňová was 47 years old when the divorce proceedings began, and she entered the marriage as a widow with a daughter of about 3 years of age. Whether this was also Václav Láně's second marriage is uncertain. During their 17 years of cohabitation, the couple had three more children, boys aged 15, 12, and 2. After this time, the then Veronika Láňová filed for divorce. There were several serious reasons.

Firstly, there was physical abuse, threats to kill, and humiliation of the wife in front of the children. Then, there was the husband's extravagance in squandering the family property and indulging in alcohol. In order to support the family, the wife tried to keep herself by selling vegetables. Lastly, there were also suspicions of the husband's infidelity, whereby Václav Láně was alleged to have brought his mistress home and to have offended the children by his behaviour. Spouses were divorced in a civil court in České Budějovice, but the wife also applied for an ecclesiastical divorce before the Catholic Church. ² The husband failed to appear in court despite repeated appeals from the deanery, and the town parish priest, who was in charge of drawing up the report, sided with the wife, believing that a divorce would serve the welfare of both wife and children.

Introduction

A whole dynamic network of relationships, ways, and possibilities of people's actions in the past emerges before our eyes. The issue of conflicting relationships accompanied by physical violence emerging from the sources of divorce proceedings during the long second half of the nineteenth century ³ will therefore be the main focus of this study. ⁴

The sources for this study are the testimonies of the spouses and witnesses who participated in the divorce proceedings. The court records here serve, among other things, as a way to explore the history of everyday life, relationships, and possibly the expression of emotions in the family and the construction of gender roles in society. The sources date from the second half of the nineteenth century and, in two cases, extend back to 1903. We have selected 10 families who are imaginary representatives of the lower and middle classes of contemporary society in Bohemia, who applied for divorce in the ecclesiastical marriage courts in Prague and České Budějovice. Namely, the spouses Černý, Barašek, Schlang, and Urban from 1857, Boušek from 1858, Kindl from 1867, Přeslička from 1868, Láně from 1893, and Farkas and Haláček from 1903. All families were also Catholic. It is important to say that Catholic marriage is indissoluble. Divorce means “only” the economic division of the household and the interruption of the sexual cohabitation of the spouses. The marriage as such remains in force. In Bohemia, this situation remained unchanged throughout the nineteenth century.

We will trace the effect that constructions of masculinity and femininity had in the past on the possibilities of perpetrating violence and on, the ways in which men defended their perpetration, and how women defended their behaviour in an attempt to prove that they did not cause the men's behaviour. In the past, other institutions, people, and their families from the village or town were also involved in the process and may have acted as witnesses in cases of marital divorce. Marital local family disputes disturbed the desired public peace. The aim of social institutions was then, in turn, to try to preserve the family unit and reconcile the spouses even under conditions we might consider unthinkable today. The public good here prevailed over individual satisfaction. In the context of family relations, we also turn our attention to the children, who were often the subject of strife but also active perpetrators of wrongdoing. The linguistic basis of the language used in conflicts in the form of swearing at family members will not be omitted.

The opportunities to perpetrate violence within the family depended, firstly, on the public tolerance of such behaviour and the degree of power the perpetrator had within the social group. It was the social order and law that conferred a considerable amount of energy on the male members of the family. As with other institutions, in the family unit, male power is backed up and legitimized by the outside world. Marriage between a man and a woman was considered a social and sexual contract in which the woman agreed to be subordinate to her husband, who in turn was to provide her with protection. The Civil Code of 1811, known as ABGB, defines precisely that the man is the head of the family. ⁵ The man was responsible for giving the family he headed the material conditions that would guarantee its functioning, and, unlike the woman, he was also the legally mandated negotiator in public affairs. The woman, on the other hand, was a subordinate in the hierarchy, whose task was to look after and care for the household and the children, in accordance with the established order. A certain tolerance of violence as a means of establishing order in the family is evident in the context of nineteenth-century Bohemia and is the subject of research by historians. That is why this article intruded. There is no support for violence directly in the law in the ABGB. In the section “Title II. Matrimonial Law” clearly states right at the beginning of §90, “both parties are equally bound to be decent,” then §91 rightly said, “the husband is the head of the family and has the right to run the household” and finally in §92 “the wife is obliged to carry out the measures issued by the husband in the household.” If there is violence, it is always on a case-by-case basis, with interpretation of the conduct and examination of the evidence before the court. Importantly, the argument of violence as a reason for divorce was still valid in the Czech lands throughout the nineteenth century.

It should also be noted that physical abuse in the family was perpetrated in all the cases we examined against women. There are references to cases where the woman defended herself in a conflict situation and caused injuries to the man in self-defence. This is not to say, of course, that violence by women against men could not have been committed in the past, but the judicial sources are silent on this point. ⁶

We are now entering the field of gender roles, which have shaped the form of relationships and power structures in the family and influenced individual behaviour. A gender perspective will therefore be used throughout this study. Hierarchically, therefore, the male had the upper hand over the female in terms of the internal and public affairs of the family. ⁷ However, the woman was not completely powerless, and she was also considered an important part of the whole and could enjoy her rights, but never beyond the boundaries set by the underlying gender division of roles. The predetermined hierarchical arrangement also influenced the way in which spouses defended themselves in court. In simpler terms, if, for example, we did not have enough information about the legal conditions of the time and had to approach the research from the other side, i.e., from below, according to the speeches of the spouses themselves, the language and terms of the time would be the first and foremost indicators, imaginary mirrors that would reflect the shape of the division of roles. Strategically, a woman could use different ways of expression and terms to defend herself against her husband. He, on the other side, could use different actions against her. ⁸

At this point, it is also necessary to draw attention to the theories of feminist historians such as Lynn Abrams and Anne Clark who, within the context of nineteenth-century marriage practice, addressed the apparent power of the individual in society. ⁹ At first glance, the very possibility of divorce would seem to be a sign of a liberal, emancipated society that also offered women a way out of the predicament presented by a violent environment. However, the practice is somewhat more complicated when one considers the position of women in society at the time and what is really meant by divorce. In this theory, the whole judicial procedure is a kind of empty trick, an illusion that serves the ideal of the indissolubility of marriage more than it serves the women or both spouses. The judicial process and its instruments of power leave the woman unprotected in the event of a divorce or in the whole lengthy procedure, while at the same time putting pressure on both spouses to reconcile, often regardless of the gravity of the situation, for example, the violence that has just been resolved.

Furthermore, if divorce actually occurs, women find themselves in existential and economic distress. Recall that Catholic divorce under the law, although it meant the separation of the spouses, offered the possibility of reconciliation while prohibiting the possibility of remarriage. At the same time, separation also did not necessarily mean that the wife was able to move out of her husband's house. Neighbours, relatives, and possibly parish priests who tried to resolve the situation, whatever their motives, represent in this theory intermediate links that are part of the invisible consolidation of patriarchal power. Practical examples also show that domestic violence, also in the second half of the nineteenth century, ceased to be a reason for divorce in German countries, for example. ¹⁰ Violence against the individual and its effects were becoming an afterthought in the mentality of the time.

Individual cases of divorce proceedings show that a divorcing woman in nineteenth-century Bohemia may not have been so helpless, although her situation in a patriarchal society was not at all easy. Firstly, the argument of domestic violence as a reason for divorce was still valid here, unlike in the German environment, throughout the nineteenth century. Efforts to defend the woman and provide her with security are shown both by the local clergy, to whom she could come to draw up a protocol, and by relatives. Many women already resorted to their families or family members during divorce proceedings and demanded a direct division of property with the option to move away from the husband. At the same time, some of the women were not so completely economically dependent on their husbands and relatives. However, it is still true that marriage provides a more economically and socially advantageous status. Women seeking divorce, however, had clear ideas about their position beforehand: they would live with the support of the original family, demand the division of property (including the return of dowry), determine maintenance for themselves or their children, and seek an official alternative residence, often before the court process even begins. In these cases, then, the possibility of divorce, albeit subject to patriarchal authority, seems better in the Czech lands than if there were no such possibility. The number of women who actually managed to get out of a difficult situation in this way cannot yet be determined with certainty for the Czech lands; research for this discussion remains open and is the subject of current research. ¹¹

Perpetrators of Violence

Marital dynamics can be observed from the positions in which the spouses situate themselves before the court. In the case of the spouse in relation to the topic of violence, it is necessary to observe the strategies, or better said, the justification of the violence committed. It was the reasons that the court asked for and that the men used to justify their actions before the court.

Barbara Kindl had been physically abused and assaulted by her husband, and she had asked the township chief for help with the situation, but he had been unable to help her because he knew her husband well, but it had been impossible to reason with him because of his nature, and he had urged the woman to be patient. The situation in the family was not settled, and Barbara finally sought help from the town parish priest and asked for a divorce on the grounds of intolerable ill-treatment. She also accused her husband of mistreating her after the money she had brought as a widow into the new marriage was spent. The husband, Václav Kindl, defended his behaviour as the result of ill-treatment from his wife, not the squandering of all finances. He accused his wife of theft and unfaithfulness; she was supposed to have damaged his name by stealing grain from other people's fields, for which, as her husband, he only reprimanded her. We see here that the husband put himself in the role of a tutor and tried to correct the alleged bad qualities and dishonest intentions of the woman, whose actions were not only against the family but also against the decorum of society. The wife, Barbara Kindl, however, refused these suspicions, even calling them “a method devised to abuse me.” ¹²

Kindl also admitted to cursing and physically assaulting the woman because his wife had donated beans to a female labourer that was employed at their household without his permission. The donation of resources from the family property and budget without the knowledge of the husband, who is the only one with the right to dispose of household property, has constituted a misdemeanour in the past. Thus, the wife could be charged with wasting raw materials and robbing the household, which is what actually happened in this case, although her reason may have been altruistic. Kindl also blamed his conduct on anger, “in which one does not feel and does so much and then is sorry for it afterward.” ¹³ But the important point here is that the violence was thus justified both by an external cause, recognized by society, and by the natural, biological behaviour of a person in affect. ¹⁴

A similar defence, whereby the wife had to establish a reason for receiving violence, is found in several incidents in the Černý family. First, the wife was accused by her husband and stepson of stealing money. In the end, it turned out that it was probably the stepson who had set up the theft in order to turn the father against the stepmother. The money was then to be found accidentally by the son after the conflict had been provoked. However, his suspicious actions did not put his father on the wife's side, nor did she receive an apology for the misunderstanding, but threats and abuse in the form of what would have happened if the money had not been found. Another rift in the Černý family was caused by a visit from a poor woman who asked her wife for a few potatoes. The self-sacrificing wife wanted to donate vegetables, but the poor neighbour was chased away by her stepson, who then informed his father about everything. The irritated man was then rude to the wife, and she tried to pacify him with questions about lunch. The husband, however, continued his irritability, causing the wife to refuse to cook lunch. The wife must have been deeply affected by the husband's words, as preparing the meal was one of her main responsibilities and functions within the household. By refusing to cook the meal, she defied the established order, symbolically suspending the regular running of the household for the purpose and wish of reasonably resolving the conflict and establishing peace. She hoped, perhaps, that this would achieve the opposite and that an apology or kind word and reconciliation would be forthcoming. She wanted to earn at least a modicum of respect, which was rightfully due at least to her position in the family. The exasperated and by then already prejudiced husband saw this action as a violation of marital duties, in defiance of the order, and used the whole situation as a reason to provoke a more serious conflict.

“while I asked what he wanted in the soup, he answered me shamefully that it was shit and that I should eat it, whereupon I answered nothing and went back into the parlor, sat down to sew, and waited for my husband to come soon, who stayed in the cellar with his son until noon, but afternoon he came into the parlor all melted and said why don't I make a fire? Then I answered him that it was hard for me to do anything at all, in response to such a wicked and shameful answer as he had given me before, and that I did not know how to do him good, but he jumped up in a fit of rage and grabbed me by the waist and dragged me up to the courtyard,beating me constantly.” ¹⁵

Marie Barašek faced similar problems. Here, too, the donation of resources from the family budget emerged as a cause of physical punishment, even though it was a trivial amount, and the wife had a very good reason for the donation. “At Christmas time, when I wanted to send a little soup and a little good liquor to my neighbour, who was going out on six Sundays as a godmother, my husband hit me on the head with his fist so hard that I was stunned, and beat me further with a stick so that I could not do any harm afterward. With such treatment and dealing with me, he has cast a spark of ugliness within him, which has been so intense and inflamed that I cannot have any more intercourse with him, and would rather end my life.” ¹⁶

In their defence before the court, the men also tried to minimize their actions, downplayed the harming, and tried to put their wives in the position of persons who exaggerate and cannot rationally reflect on the situation or who misinterpret words or actions, and lack perspective, etc. For example, Antonín Urban, who was accused by his wife Kateřina of abuse and strangulation, defended himself by saying: “I declare that I never strangled my wife, as they say, except that I once took her by the neck in a joke and told her: “If you make me angry, I will strangle you, which would imply that my wife does not understand jape or joke." ¹⁷ However, the wife, who according to Urban did not understand the “joke” in the relationship, had evidence of wrongdoing before the court in the form of a medical report confirming the abuse.

At first glance, therefore, it may seem that the cause is the trigger for conflict and violent behaviour. The blame, therefore, lies with those who intentionally or unintentionally provoked the conflict. The man tried to defend that the fault did not lie with him, and his emotionality manifested in aggressive behaviour. The position of power does not allow for such thinking that would weaken his position. ¹⁸ The man's power in the family lies in the fact that it was enough to prove that he acted according to his rights, even if his actions were beyond the limits of human tolerance. To overthrow the authority of the real culprit, that is, the one who does the violence, in the form of punishment would be to truly expose the dysfunction of the system and to expose the instability of those to whom power was bestowed. Moreover, the law did not specify the level of tolerance, nor did it deal with the details of what it meant to break the order; all of that was at the discretion of the man, which then opened up a vast field of possibilities and ways for him to dominate and control the household.

We have also suggested that the man was charged with leading the family properly according to the set social order. The man's conduct, the proper conduct of the family, was therefore inevitably linked here with his honour. ¹⁹ Maintaining order in the unit meant maintaining respect in society. If a man was not respected in society, his wife and children would not obey him. The issue of maintaining male honour by violent means has been explored by historians in questions relating mainly to conflicts between men with each other. ²⁰ Here, honour is shown as a tool by which men could justify their actions in order to maintain order in the family they were in charge of. We cannot say for sure whether what provoked the man was really the woman's actions, whether her actions really affected his honour to such an extent that punishment had to come, or whether his irritability, accompanied by aggressive behaviour, had another reason. Anthropological issues such as personal dissatisfaction with one's status, poverty, fatigue from work, or supportive factors of violent behaviour such as alcohol may come to mind. ²¹ Yet here the symbolism of honour and responsibility stand out as an important element in the mentality of the nineteenth-century man.

Defence of the Women

Women have complained about their husbands’ violent behaviour in court. In her study, British historian Lynn Abrams pointed out that women had to have a defence strategy. According to the author, women had to speak the language that belonged to their position in the family. In court, women described the anger, pain, and disappointment of an unhappy marriage, accompanied by the good-natured belief of reconciliation. Here we see the spectacle of a man who, though suffering, is willing to forgive to preserve the marital order, but the degree of patience and ability to endure mistreatment was not boundless. ²²

Since the wife was the cause of the man's violent behaviour in the eyes of the husband, the women's defence in court was aimed at justifying themselves. In other words, if the wife, in the eyes of the husband, had behaved as he had wanted her to, he would not have acted violently towards her. Thus, it was important for women to justify their so-called “not giving cause” together with their integrity. Alternatively, they could confirm the truthfulness of their statements by swearing an oath. In court, they had to defend their fidelity to their husbands, their honesty, and their exemplary care of the household.

On the contrary, they could also try to prove the husband's dubious reputation, pointing out this problematic behaviour was one of these defence strategies. A dishonest man was one who was unable to provide for the household financially, or who spent the family property excessively. One of the most common reasons was alcohol consumption or, for example, a fondness for playing cards. Václav Přeslička somewhat curiously explained his drinking in the pub, who, as a member of the Chamber of Commerce, had to spend a long time in negotiations, sometimes until 10 o'clock in the evening. His wife then locked the door in front of him so that he could not get home during these hours, so he spent his evenings in pubs. “Here I sometimes drank out of regret and got drunk.” ²³ Barbora Přeslička is therefore the cause of her husband's drinking.

The wives also complained, on the contrary, about the unfaithfulness of their husbands. Beyond the imaginary limit was the behaviour of her husband, Václav Barašek, who flirted with his newfound lover in public and even moved her into the marital home.

“This year, after the New Year, he took in a maid named Anna Kunštová, with whom he danced continuously on the festival and bought her drinks and sugar delicacies, then he brought her to our house and declared her his wife." ²⁴ Václav Barašek's actions were certainly not in accordance with the marriage law.

In many cases, the women were helped by neighbours who acted as witnesses and could often take the woman's side. In their studies, historians have drawn attention to the strength of community-wide relationships that may have provided protection for women. In simpler terms, the victim wasn't alone, the entire community stood behind her and was not indifferent to violent behaviour. ²⁵ The town parish priests also played a role, acting as mediators between the husbands and the judicial apparatus. They could take the side of defending the wife's honesty and proper conduct of life and, like the witnesses, testify to the husband's bad behaviour, his drinking or embezzlement of property, and violent behaviour. ²⁶ The town parish priests, or later the ecclesiastical court officials themselves, also served as advisory bodies in marital conflicts, where they were allowed to speak to the spouses, and in the case of the husband, to admonish his bad behaviour. The aforementioned physicians could also document physical abuse at this time. An eloquent summary of such conduct can be found, for example, in the defence of Hermína Farkas.

“Because of his disorderly, reckless life; when I did not give him money for the pub and for cards, he always began to swear and physically tormented me. When I was visiting my father in Prague, he committed adultery with my friend Růžena Kremanová. He treated me brutally and callously. I can prove this by a medical certificate issued by Dr. Ahrenstein; that he strangled and beat me can be proved by the eyewitness Růžena Kremanová, who defended me herself.” ²⁷

“I endured his abuse, his rough treatment of me, as well as I could, and when it seemed unbearable to me, I went to tell on my husband to the superior of our small town.” ²⁸ It also proves that although divorces were more accessible during the nineteenth century, women were not allowed to go complaining right after the first conflict. The longer time span was what eroded the temporarily conferred legitimacy of permissible acts of violence.

Children Part of Conflicts

The woman represented an intermediate link in the family hierarchy between the man and the children, and if she was not respected and protected by her husband, her position was weakened. This created room for possible disrespect from the children, whether they were her biological children or acquired through marriage. Stepchildren could feel threatened by the new marriage. From the perspective of the children and adolescents, the newly arrived mother posed a potential threat to such a family in the form of the possibility of begetting new siblings and heirs to the future property. Possible psychological reasons to explain the hatred towards the new mother must be left aside in this study, as the source material is not rich enough for this issue. We have in mind here, for example, the longing for the biological, deceased mother and the experience of grief or the nature of the new mother herself, which could be potential reasons for the inability to build a relationship with the woman. There is, after all, a difference between a respectfully ordered, artificially created new marriage and a smoothly unforced one that is created by building subjective emotional attachments. ²⁹

In our cases, this issue is particularly observed in marriages where the mother is a new subject in the household. In particular, the teenage offspring hardly accepted the new female authority in the family and sometimes could be one of the many agents of conflict between the spouses, or directly actively participate in the wife's torment.

This is illustrated, for example, by the case of Barbara Haláček, a 60-year-old woman who married into the family of a 65-year-old widower, Josef Haláček, who had a daughter and a son from his first marriage. Interestingly, she was the sister of the deceased wife, so she was not an unknown person to the children, she was their aunt. The court tried to reconcile the spouses, the husband was willing to accept the wife, but only after his son was to marry and acquire a trade for himself. The daughter of the deceased mother kept the household for 2 years, until the arrival of Barbara Haláček to the family. Here we see that the positions were already well divided, the children were grown up and the care of the family was taken by the elder daughter, who then made life unpleasant for Barbora by swearing. The town parish priest, in his report to the matrimonial court in České Budějovice, then described how physical violence was also inflicted on the woman: “The son, because she had taken a piece of cooked smoked meat, threw her on the floor and kicked her.” ³⁰ Moreover, the town parish priest noted that the couple had no other differences between them and even willingly shook hands as a sign of goodwill during their first reconciliation efforts.

The aforementioned widow Barbora Kindl, who married into the family of Václav Kindl, also found herself in a difficult life situation. The man had five children from his first marriage, two older daughters aged 20 and 17, and three younger boys aged 9–13. Barbora Kindl had one 2-year-old son from her first marriage, but he was considered a new burden in the family, the man treated him badly, according to Barbora's words: “the child soon trembled in fear before his new stepfather,” ³¹ so Barbora was forced to give him to childless relatives to protect her son. Barbara herself soon became pregnant again; however, this caused further rifts in the newly formed family, especially from the two older daughters.

“Anna was so insolent that she reproached me for my loyalty to my husband in the performance of my marriage duty, saying that if I had denied it to her father, there would have been no increase in the house members. Whenever I found myself in the pains of motherhood, and due to the convulsions my work had to cease, I was called a sluggard by both my daughters.” ³² Barbora Kindl confirmed in her file that not all of the harm was done to her in her husband's presence, but there were many times when the father was right there when the daughters were rude to their new mother and did not intervene, thus encouraging them to disrespect her.

The following lines describe the difficult situation in the family during the pregnancy: My husband knew well the wrongs that the children did to me; for in his presence his eldest daughter said to him, “if you had threatened her with a rod, you would have driven her sickness out of her.” He did not scold her for it and he also incited the children against me. He used to say to them, as he was leaving the house, “Take care of that wicked woman, if she lies down, tell me, I will lift her up, I will teach her. If she wanted to be ailing, she shouldn't have married.” ³³

A similar situation befell the aforementioned Marie Černá, whose life was made more difficult by her stepson Antonín and later by her husband František. Antonín Černý defamed his stepmother before his father and often invented false scenarios to turn his father against his new wife. “The malicious son suddenly dared to start all sorts of quarrels between me and my husband, and so it happened at one time that he angered my husband so much that he beat me with a large bucket, and then he jumped on me and hit me between the eyes with a cruel blow with his hand, namely with a stone that was in his hand, so that I remained lying unconscious….” ³⁴

Cursing and Swearing

The specific verbal expression was then the abuse that the angry and frustrated spouses used. ³⁵ Abusive words were also accompanied by physically violent behaviour. In terms of the hierarchy of gender roles in the family, different swear words are given to the woman and others to the man in the nineteenth century. Moreover, slander in court served as a justification for violence in the form of corporal punishment and as a means of bringing disgrace to the person's honour and thus reducing his or her credibility before the authority in charge and witnesses. Several forms of insult can be observed in our cases. ³⁶

In the case of a man complaining about a woman, one cannot help but notice the derogatory words that refer to her femininity, which in the case of this study is seen as a set of characteristics that are attributed to women in society based on the biological sex of their bodies. In the case of the Schlang family, the wife was referred to as a witch by her husband in correspondence. In the German language in which the letter was written, the term is “die Hexe Courve.” ³⁷ The comparison of the wife to a monster or an evil supernatural being continued in the correspondence in the form of describing the wife as “the devil's most faithful wife” ³⁸ and “cave dragon” ³⁹ that the “poor man” ⁴⁰ had to endure. ⁴¹

In the Přeslička family, the woman was also labelled a “witch” and a “superstitious person.” ⁴² Her husband even accused her of poisoning her ex-husband with poison.

Josef Boušek also accused his allegedly gullible wife of supernatural magic in court: “My superstitious and vindictive wife has used a very foolish means: she has taken a kind of jar, smeared it with her menstrual blood, and superstition further falsely claims, as this spout may dry, that the one against whom these “spells” are casted must perish! My labourer Hynek Ševčík and I found this jar in the cupboard, to which my wife had so much access, and even this malicious intention of the superstitious wife was stopped.” ⁴³

Interestingly, we do not find a connection with spirituality when the husband is lied to, but we do have cases where the husband has been accused of wickedness. The connection between femininity and magical mysticism is shown here to be an ever-persistent attribute in the mentality of nineteenth-century people. The verbal attacks were more directed at the failure to fulfill family functions. The man was supposed to be the manager of the property, the provider of the financial background. If he failed to perform this function, he became a dishonest man. The wives in the cases complained about regular drinking and called their husbands “drunkards” and often “thieves,” the universal term was then “bad guy.” ⁴⁴ The denunciations were intended to prove to the court that the husband was not properly fulfilling his obligations in the marriage and was unable to provide financial support.

Profanity was also tied to sexual conduct, especially if it may have been infidelity. The aim was to damage the other person's reputation in the court of public opinion. The adultery of which the husband accused the wife included terms such as “whore”, “adulteress.” ⁴⁵

The father could also call the children “bastards”. ⁴⁶ The children then appear here in the position of a new instrument of the wife's affliction. These were children that the wife had brought with her from a previous union, as we have seen in the case of Marie Černá, or even her own children, whom the husband suspected were not his biological children. To what extent these suspicions were based on truth depended on the individual cases, but accusing the wife of infidelity and disgracing the children she had borne was one of the serious accusations by which the wife and her children could lose their honour.

The husband was referred to as a “whoremonger” or “adulterer”. ⁴⁷ Marie Boušek also complained to the court about such behaviour on the part of her husband, “that he had been having sex with a whore in the barn and had committed adultery with another in the cellar, with the result that he had contracted a dusty disease, and I did not have sex with him for six weeks, fearing that I might contract the same disease from him.” On this account, the husband, Josef Boušek, defended himself by saying, “Let the informer prove that, “I have been wading in the black mire of fornication for a long time.” ⁴⁸

Only in one case did a husband of the Barašek family tease a woman for her appearance. “Namely, because I am of small stature, he lied and called me a “cucumber”, and he slandered me with the words “swine” and “whore”. Through these words he stirred up my sadness and my pity again, and lit a flame of disgust towards him.” ⁴⁹

Conclusion

Violence, as the political philosopher and theorist Hannah Arendt wrote, is justifiable, or rather it seeks and needs justification because it is not legitimate, just like power itself. There is no thinking about violence in society without at the same time seeking justification for doing so. ⁵⁰ In nineteenth-century society, violence was allowed to be resorted to, and then debatable in the court of law in terms of its frequency, degree, and the effects it had on the wife, the family, and, through and through, the neighbourhood. ⁵¹

Violence had to and must be rationalized, as we saw in the case of men who spoke out about the reasons for violence against their wives. After all, in the past, it was the man who represented imaginary reason and the woman was seen as a being subject to her emotions. The authority bestowed by society also gave men the responsibility for the family they were in charge of. For the proper functioning of the family, male authority required unquestioned recognition from the wife and children in the form of obedience. Defining what it meant to be obedient and judging what constituted disobedience, on the other hand, lay within the family at the will of the man. If the husband decided that the conduct of his children and wife in some way undermined his own authority within the power given to him by the society within the family, he was entitled to resort to such measures as he considered proper in order to re-establish order. Thus, a man could commit acts of violence against his wife and children if he felt that the cause was established by those who had by some action undermined his position. The proper functioning of the family was also related to the question of male honour. For these reasons, too, men could defend their violent behaviour in court, rationalising it or, on the contrary, downplaying its extent.

On the other hand, women who were accused of having provoked an emotional conflict by their actions had to prove that they were not to blame for their husband's bad behaviour. They tried to prove that they had not provided a rational reason for their husband's mistreatment. In contrast, within their gender role, they could highlight qualities that were related to the idea of a good wife, such as patience, tolerance of mistreatment, bearing the burden for a long time, effort in forgiveness, and belief in the truce. If the woman committed the alleged cause, such behaviour could be justified by the woman's altruism, the belief that she acted in accordance with her faith. Thus, at the same time, women were not entirely powerless within their position, although their situation was not simple and made more difficult by the limitations of their own rights. However, intermediaries could also help women. Neighbours, other family members, town parish priests, or the town leaders, this entire community, had a rather detailed insight into the nature and ways of the husbands’ actions. It was the witnesses who played a key role in these conflicts and who could often help the women in court hearings, but also in everyday conflicts that were beyond the boundaries of cohabitation.

However, it is also important to emphasize that in all of the cases examined, violence was perpetrated against women. Where physical assault has occurred, it has been done in self-defence.

The situation of women in the Czech lands was not easy, but the possibility of divorce could in many cases actually make their lives easier. Especially if they were not completely economically dependent on their husbands and relatives. Many women made considerable efforts to have their conditions granted and very often demanded the separation of the household before the whole court process even began. However, the number of women who actually managed to get out of a difficult situation in this way cannot yet be determined with certainty for the Czech lands; research for this discussion remains open and is the subject of current research.

Children had a rather specific position in the family during conflicts. The situation became heated when a new mother was about to join the family and the teenage sons and daughters already had a firmly established order in the household, which the new woman disrupted not only by her existence but also by the possibility of producing new offspring. Future potential heirs brought unease to the minds of these adolescents. The causes of hostility towards the new wife may, of course, have also been due to individual psychological reasons, but these cannot be safely traced from the sources. The children, therefore, may often have been additional causes of the unrest between the spouses, and they may not have made the situation in the family any easier for the new mother.

In many cases, specific words, swear words, with which the spouses honoured each other, crystallized during the joint splits. Expressions related to femininity and masculinity were specifically tied to the gender roles that were laid out. It is also from such lines that one can read the contemporary mentality and relations of the spouses.