The image above is taken from an account of Ann Bidlestone who in 1653 was, drove through the street by an officer of the same corporation [City of Newcastle] holding a rope in his hand, the other end fastened to an engine, called the branks, which is like a crown, it being of iron which is musled over the head and face, with a great gap, or tongue of iron, forced into her mouth, which forced the blood out; and that is the punishment which the magistrates do inflict upon chiding and scoulding women.
As you will see the case cited is not from Norwich, nor the accompanying image, although you will often see it used with reference to the branks. The reason I've used here is because I can't find an example from Norwich or Norfolk. The reason I can't find one from Norwich or Norfolk is because there is not one! This hasn't however stooped the local museum making a feature of scolds bridles in its dungeons tours and if you were to go there today you would be told that in every town and village in the county, a man whose wife nagged him could go to the local magistrate and ask for the bridle/brank to be put on his wife. If you go anywhere where they display punishments from the past you will hear much the same thing. But its simply not true, especially in Southern England. Its more likely that the punishment was more popular in Scotland and only really made it into Northern England during the various crisis of the early to mid seventeenth century; a time when insecurity led to much harsher and far less liberal forms of control by the authorities! The conflicts of the time also led to a much closer connection between the affairs of Scotland and England.. Certainly Dr Plot in his Natural History of Staffordshire (1686) noted that it was a rare punishment. He referred to it as, a particular artifice at Newcastle and Walsall for correcting of scolds and also that it was, scarce heard of, much less seen.
This does not mean that bridle may have been used illegally, but its unlikely because when other unruly punishments meted out by the community took place, it often resulted in litigation in the courts. Both men and women who for example were forced to ride the stang, (Meaning to be humiliated upon donkey or pole) would often take action against those who humiliated them. And its also worth noting that the cases of ridings against scolding or adulterous women also punished husbands for allowing their wives to misbehave. It is therefore unlikely that any man being nagged by his wife would admit it to the local magistrate or anyone else for that matter!
There is little evidence to suggest that the scolds bridle was a popular punishment and many of the surviving examples, collected by nineteenth century antiquarians seem to have been copies and the real thing collected from European penal institutions. These examaples would have been used on both men and women. Certainly in the case of Norwich the examples held in the Castle Museum are copies of examples from the north of England or even copies of copies! In the case of Norwich the ducking stool was the accepted punishment for scolds and even that was only used in extreme cases.
Its not that I'm saying that bridles did not exist as a punishment and that it was a harsh one at that, but like most barbaric instruments, their use has been overstated. If there is anything to be learnt about the scolds bridle is probably to do with the Victorian antiquarians like T. N Brushfield who 'rediscovered' them. Brushfield is said to have single handedly brought their existence to public notice and collected examples like the much decorated Manchester bridle (The fact that its decorated suggests it had a symbolic/ceremonial function not a literal one) And its probable that any bridles that can be traced back to the seventeenth century were never intended for use, but simply displayed as jokes and served a psychological function; to release the tension created by the gap between idealised good female behaviour and the reality. There is also the famous case of Ann Bidlestone noted above, for it too was popularised by Brushfield and this interest in bridles in the nineteenth century does I think say a lot more about Victorian thoughts and feelings on female behaviour than it does on the ideas and beliefs of men from three hundred and fifty years ago!
But enough of that, for there is another famous first hand account of a woman being punished in a bridle in the seventeenth century, which you can read below. Although again it is not a local example for there are none! And in the case of Dorothy Waugh cited below, she was punished in the brank for speaking out about Quakerism (then a minor sect) and also about the Mayor of Carlyle's cruel treatment of Quakers, and not because she was scold....
Dorothy Waugh, her testimony in, Cruell usage by the mayor of Carlile, one of seven Quaker testimonies that occur in, The Lambs Defence against Lyes. And a True Testimony given concerning thye suffering and death of James Parnell (1656)
Out of Egypt where thou lodgest, but after these words, he was so violent and full of passion he scarce asked me any more questions, but called out to one of his followers to bring the bridle as he called it to be put upon me, and was to be on three hours and that which they called was a steel cap and my hat being violently pluckt off which was pinned to my head wherebe they tere my clothes to be put on the bridle as they called it, which was a stone weight of iron by the relation of their own generation, and three barrs of iron to come over my face, and a peece of it was put in my mouth, which was so unreasonably big a thing for that place as cannot be well related, which was locked to my head, and so I stood their time with my hands bound behind me with the stone weight of iron upon my head and the bitt in my mouth to keep me from speaking and the Mayor said he would make me an example.
As you will see the case cited is not from Norwich, nor the accompanying image, although you will often see it used with reference to the branks. The reason I've used here is because I can't find an example from Norwich or Norfolk. The reason I can't find one from Norwich or Norfolk is because there is not one! This hasn't however stooped the local museum making a feature of scolds bridles in its dungeons tours and if you were to go there today you would be told that in every town and village in the county, a man whose wife nagged him could go to the local magistrate and ask for the bridle/brank to be put on his wife. If you go anywhere where they display punishments from the past you will hear much the same thing. But its simply not true, especially in Southern England. Its more likely that the punishment was more popular in Scotland and only really made it into Northern England during the various crisis of the early to mid seventeenth century; a time when insecurity led to much harsher and far less liberal forms of control by the authorities! The conflicts of the time also led to a much closer connection between the affairs of Scotland and England.. Certainly Dr Plot in his Natural History of Staffordshire (1686) noted that it was a rare punishment. He referred to it as, a particular artifice at Newcastle and Walsall for correcting of scolds and also that it was, scarce heard of, much less seen.
This does not mean that bridle may have been used illegally, but its unlikely because when other unruly punishments meted out by the community took place, it often resulted in litigation in the courts. Both men and women who for example were forced to ride the stang, (Meaning to be humiliated upon donkey or pole) would often take action against those who humiliated them. And its also worth noting that the cases of ridings against scolding or adulterous women also punished husbands for allowing their wives to misbehave. It is therefore unlikely that any man being nagged by his wife would admit it to the local magistrate or anyone else for that matter!
There is little evidence to suggest that the scolds bridle was a popular punishment and many of the surviving examples, collected by nineteenth century antiquarians seem to have been copies and the real thing collected from European penal institutions. These examaples would have been used on both men and women. Certainly in the case of Norwich the examples held in the Castle Museum are copies of examples from the north of England or even copies of copies! In the case of Norwich the ducking stool was the accepted punishment for scolds and even that was only used in extreme cases.
Its not that I'm saying that bridles did not exist as a punishment and that it was a harsh one at that, but like most barbaric instruments, their use has been overstated. If there is anything to be learnt about the scolds bridle is probably to do with the Victorian antiquarians like T. N Brushfield who 'rediscovered' them. Brushfield is said to have single handedly brought their existence to public notice and collected examples like the much decorated Manchester bridle (The fact that its decorated suggests it had a symbolic/ceremonial function not a literal one) And its probable that any bridles that can be traced back to the seventeenth century were never intended for use, but simply displayed as jokes and served a psychological function; to release the tension created by the gap between idealised good female behaviour and the reality. There is also the famous case of Ann Bidlestone noted above, for it too was popularised by Brushfield and this interest in bridles in the nineteenth century does I think say a lot more about Victorian thoughts and feelings on female behaviour than it does on the ideas and beliefs of men from three hundred and fifty years ago!
But enough of that, for there is another famous first hand account of a woman being punished in a bridle in the seventeenth century, which you can read below. Although again it is not a local example for there are none! And in the case of Dorothy Waugh cited below, she was punished in the brank for speaking out about Quakerism (then a minor sect) and also about the Mayor of Carlyle's cruel treatment of Quakers, and not because she was scold....
Dorothy Waugh, her testimony in, Cruell usage by the mayor of Carlile, one of seven Quaker testimonies that occur in, The Lambs Defence against Lyes. And a True Testimony given concerning thye suffering and death of James Parnell (1656)
Out of Egypt where thou lodgest, but after these words, he was so violent and full of passion he scarce asked me any more questions, but called out to one of his followers to bring the bridle as he called it to be put upon me, and was to be on three hours and that which they called was a steel cap and my hat being violently pluckt off which was pinned to my head wherebe they tere my clothes to be put on the bridle as they called it, which was a stone weight of iron by the relation of their own generation, and three barrs of iron to come over my face, and a peece of it was put in my mouth, which was so unreasonably big a thing for that place as cannot be well related, which was locked to my head, and so I stood their time with my hands bound behind me with the stone weight of iron upon my head and the bitt in my mouth to keep me from speaking and the Mayor said he would make me an example.
Yes, although absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, I would agree with your conclusions here. Interpretatively, I can't see that the Branks resonates with 'the meanings inherent in the resource' (NAI) of Norwich Castle Museum. Personally, I'd advocate removing it from display.
ReplyDeleteGood to see you updating this site mate! (Indeed, I just posted to my Heritage Interpretation blog after a long leave of silence.)
<*((((><(
its just horrible
ReplyDelete