payment page
The Significance of “Kitchen Things”
“A Jury of Her Peers” is based on Glaspell’s one-act play Trifles. A trifle is something small, unimportant, perhaps even foolish or a waste of time. The county attorney and sheriff make only a cursory search of Minnie Wright’s kitchen because, as the sheriff laughs, “There’s nothing here but kitchen things.” The list of these insignificant trifles grows as the story continues. The women’s “sympathetic understanding” of Minnie’s shattered jars, for example, causes the sheriff to laugh at women’s foolishness. Three times the men mock “the ways of women” who wonder whether Minnie plans to quilt or knot the layers. Yet the evidence that Minnie did, as the attorney suspects, experience a “sudden feeling” that led to violence is captured in the quilt stitching. Mrs. Hale knows it and removes the incriminating stitches. Mrs. Peters knows it, too, and objects that they shouldn’t touch the evidence, but she doesn’t stop Mrs. Hale.
Other trifles add to the story that Mr. Henderson hopes to craft for trial: the shabbiness of Minnie’s mended clothing, the unrepaired rocking chair, the malfunctioning stove—and of course the birdcage, with its damaged door and hinge. These “insignificant” things tell the story that culminates with John Wright’s violent wrenching of the bird’s neck, likely in view of his fearful wife, and her symbolic retaliation. It is a story the man can’t or won’t see, but the women do. The men know that Wright’s own rope was used to kill him but don’t understand why. The women get it—Minnie had finally had enough.
Before the men go upstairs, Mr. Henderson tells Mrs. Peters to “keep your eye out” for clues. Mr. Hale jokes, “But would the women know a clue if they did come upon it?” Because Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters understand that life is in the details, they see, understand, and then conceal small, significant things that might sway a jury’s verdict.
Speech and Silence
“A Jury of Her Peers” explores the power of speech and silence. Who stays quiet rather than articulating their thoughts, and who rambles when silence or brevity would suit the moment better? Glaspell draws attention to these questions by describing the characters’ ways of speaking. The sheriff speaks loudly, “backing up the law with every word,” while his wife speaks with “timid acquiescence,” at least in his presence. The attorney speaks authoritatively, ordering the others about. Mr. Hale chats away happily, often adding unnecessary detail to his “wandering” stories.
The women exercise more discretion about what to say and what to keep to themselves. For Mrs. Hale, this means concealing her thoughts from a woman she doesn’t yet trust. She expresses irritation, as when she complains about the men “snoopin’ round and criticizin’” Minnie’s housekeeping, but she is generally careful around Mrs. Peters. As she fixes the crooked stitching, she speaks in a “mild, matter-of-fact fashion” to downplay her choice to tamper with evidence. Not until her remorse becomes unbearable does she speak more openly.
Mrs. Peters restricts her speech to comply with what society expects of her. When she talks about the trial, for example, she falls quiet when she hears the men’s footsteps, then lowers her voice to continue. She often censors herself, as when she mentions the death of her kitten but stops before saying what she wanted to do in that moment.
Never do Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters say aloud the truth they discern: Minnie killed her cruel husband. Nor do they speak about whether to hide the bird. They communicate about these taboo topics only through their gazes. Their silence protects Minnie, but it also protects them as they defy familial and legal authority in the tacit agreement that extenuating circumstances justify Minnie’s actions.
The Pervasive Influence of Misogyny
At the heart of “A Jury of Her Peers” are questions of motivation and culpability. Minnie’s assertion that she slept while someone entered her home and strangled her husband in their bed is frankly suspicious. As the men and the women work to understand what happened, they labor under a heavy blanket of misogyny that influences how they interpret the crime scene.
Patriarchal assumptions about male superiority inform how the attorney and sheriff investigate. These men are in control. They’ve arrested Minnie and are piecing together a case to convict her. Both men are new to their elected positions and want to keep their jobs, so their investigation is not a matter only of justice but also of preserving their authority. The men judge Minnie consistently and harshly for the condition of the house and the absurdity of her statement. John’s actions never enter their calculations because they are already on his side, offended that a wife could rebel violently against her husband.
The same misogynistic assumptions influence Mrs. Peters. The story’s resolution hinges on whether she is Minnie’s adversary or ally. Mr. Henderson assumes that Mrs. Peters is “one of us,” allied with him and the sheriff. Mrs. Peters must determine whether the “awful thing” Minnie has done is a matter of human law or of a higher principle: solidarity. As she learns more about Minnie’s life, Mrs. Peters’ own experiences foster empathy. She recalls the “stillness” of her life after her first child died and the rage she felt, as a girl, toward the boy who butchered her kitten. At the last moment, Mrs. Peters tries to hide the bird. She joins Mrs. Hale in considering Minnie’s actions a kind of self-defense against an oppressive marriage and a declaration that John’s years of abuse should not go unpunished.
