|
|
|
|
|
by pclmulqdq
1177 days ago
|
|
Before the Victorian Era, nothing about womens' lives was well documented, so you can't exactly infer an absence of education from the absence of evidence. What we know is that the very wealthy often had private tutors for their daughters, and that some women also learned a lot from their parents. Records exist that describe the tutelage of aristocratic and royal women, and it's not hard to extrapolate that those professional tutors probably needed other clients (from the less-well-off aristocracy and merchants) to both "climb the ladder" and fill the gaps between aristocrats' daughters. An interesting tidbit in this regard is that we actually do know that the women in the (middle class) Bach family were as musically-educated as the men, since they ended up as leading sopranos in opera houses. Some people theorize that the Bach women were the ones teaching their sons music, not the men. Universities definitely aren't the only places to get educated, and they were a men's club for a shockingly long time. Women were getting higher education in more private settings. |
|
There are plenty of female diarists. Court cases often delved into women’s lives. Women belonged to institutions like convents that kept records.
The real gaps in documentation aren’t based on gender but class. Not entirely clear what medieval peasants did with their time.
But even then, inquisitions kept meticulous records and regularly investigated small towns. Women were questioned as often as men.
Modern historians (pre-1970s) may have been less interested in women’s lives, but they weren’t necessarily less documented.
Edit: another big gap in records is from the wars of the 20th century. WWII and the wars of the 1990s destroyed “the record” in large parts of eastern europe.