Description
Different cultures influence one another. Using information from both the seminar notes and readings in the course, explain how you believe the American system of public education has been shaped by the practices of different cultures in the past and influenced by specific educational reformers. Describe at least two cultures in the past and discussed in the course that you believe have served as models for or influences on U.S. schooling. Explain your reasoning and provide examples.Select at least two specific educational reformers whose theories may have impacted American public education. Provide specific examples of these reformers views, and explain how you believe their ideas have influenced U.S. schooling.
13 attachmentsSlide 1 of 13attachment_1attachment_1attachment_2attachment_2attachment_3attachment_3attachment_4attachment_4attachment_5attachment_5attachment_6attachment_6attachment_7attachment_7attachment_8attachment_8attachment_9attachment_9attachment_10attachment_10attachment_11attachment_11attachment_12attachment_12attachment_13attachment_13
Unformatted Attachment Preview
ChAD106 – Seminar 2
CHILDHOOD IN ANTIQUITY
Required Reading:
French, V. (1991). Children in antiquity. In J. M. Hawes & N. R. Hays (Eds.), Children in historical
and comparative perspective (pp. 13-29). New York: Greenwood Press.
Sterns, N. S. (2017). Childhood in the classical civilizations. In Childhood in World History (pp.
29-45). New York, NY: Routledge.
Module Leaning Outcomes:
Students will be able to:
1. Describe the perspective held by different ancient cultures in regard to the view of
childhood
2. Discuss similarities and differences between ancient culture in their treatment of
children and its impact on them
Discussion Topics/Assignments:
Seminar #1 talked about the first scholar who investigated the history of childhood (e.g., Aries).
Aries suggests that there was no concept of childhood until the 17th century and that the
parent-child relationship was very formal until the 17th century. Consider Aries’ theory about
the historical view of childhood and compare it with the information in the second set of
seminar notes and the reading by French and Sterns.
Describe at least one ancient culture that might seem compatible with Aries theory and at one
other that might refute his theory. Use specific information from this set of seminar notes and
from the reading by French and/or Sterns to support what you say.
Your discussion posting should be at least 300 words (but you can write more if you feel that
you need to in order to answer the question), and your reply to another student’s post should
be at least 100 words. Please post your response directly to the Discussion Area — don’t submit
it as an attached file. Please see the schedule in the course syllabus for the due date for this
assignment.
Discussion postings will be scored for length, being posted on time, quality of the writing and
the use of thoughtful reflection. Remember that you will also need to submit your Discussion
Area posting (but not your reply) to the corresponding folder in the Assignment Area. This is
so your file can go through turnitin.com and so I can enter your grade.
Seminar Notes:
Children have been a concern to parents since ancient times. The following quote comes from
the inscription on one of the earliest known Mesopotamian clay tablets…
“Our earth is degenerate in these latter days. Bribery and corruption are common. Children no
longer obey their parents … the end of the world is evidently approaching.”
What we know about children in antiquity comes from a variety of primary sources.
Information about children appears in writings (the works of philosophers, medical texts, legal
documents, and personal letters). Images of children can be found in art. And artifacts that
were objects, which belonged to children can also tell us about their lives.
Egypt
Egypt was an old and very stable civilization. It experienced great prosperity, and while wealth
usually makes most people restless — Egypt changed little over thousands of years. One can
assume that they must have used very successful socialization techniques to ensure that their
offspring grew up continuing to practice the traditions that they knew as children.
We don’t know a lot about Egypt. Much of what we do know
comes from Greek historians commenting on Egyptian culture -and they sometimes had a tendency to exaggerate. However,
there are two Egyptian practices that Greek historians remarked
upon that are likely to be quite true, because they were surprising
to the Greeks. First, Egyptians did not practice infanticide. The
practice of killing a child was a punishable crime in their society.
The Greeks (who did allow infanticide) assumed that Egypt must
be a very rich and fertile country that could afford a growing
population. That may be part of the answer. However, Egyptian
medical texts do give advice about birth control — so not everyone
wanted an unlimited number of children. (Just a note: birth
control techniques in the ancient world were not nearly as
effective as modern contraceptive techniques. The discussion of
birth control in Egyptian medical texts suggests that some people
may have wanted to limit childbearing, but it does not mean that
they had an effective way to do so).
A second childrearing practice that surprised Greek historians was
that Egyptians did not swaddle their babies. Swaddling a baby
involves wrapping or binding it in lengths of cloth. Many other
ancient cultures did practice swaddling their infants. And they did
this for a number of reasons. It kept the baby warm. It tended to
comfort the baby. It made caring for an infant much easier (they
were virtually immobile). And it also gave the baby a more straight
and adult-like shape. The fact that the Egyptians didn’t swaddle
their babies suggests that they had more time to attend to and
care for the infant.
Other things that we know about
Egyptians were that the treatment of
children was mentioned in medical
texts (so they were not expendable
and someone must have cared about
their comfort). They are also depicted
in art — sometimes with parents in
family activities, and sometimes as
professional dancers or mourners.
Both boys and girls in artwork appear
naked or wearing few clothes.
The image on the left shows the
Pharaoh Akenaten and his family (14th
century BCE). The unusually elongated
heads of the Pharaoh’s children were
considered attractive by Egyptians.
And adults deliberately tried to
encourage children’s head to develop
that shape.
Ordinary families also buried things with their children when
they died, which suggests a respect for them, or a desire for
them to have positive experiences in the afterlife. Some of
these items may have been toys. However, sometimes the
small model objects were made to represent items that the
child would need in the afterlife. So the objects may have
had a serious purpose and not necessarily been playthings.
The image on the left is a mummy portrait of a twelve-yearold boy from the later Roman Period of Egyptian history (150
CE).
Sparta
Sparta was one of the Greek city states — and famous for its childrearing practices. Many
people in other societies and later times admired certain aspects of how the Spartans brought
up their children (i.e., Plato, Rousseau, the founding fathers of the United States, etc.).
The Spartans took a hard line in raising their children. They were a militaristic society and their
goal was to rear boys to be good soldiers (with unthinking obedience to the state) — and to rear
girls to be the mothers of soldiers. Children’s lives were shaped from the earliest moments by
their society. When a free-born Spartan was born, a group of community elders visited the
home. The elders decided if the child was healthy enough to live — or if it should be “exposed”
(left outside to die). Those strong and healthy babies who were allowed to live, were put into
the care of nurses. Spartans wanted to limit family connections and ensure that a child’s main
loyalty was to the state. Babies were not swaddled because Spartans felt that it was important
for the baby to exercise their limbs to grow stronger. The nurse’s job was to teach the young
child to do things without the complaints or fears that are common to little ones in other
societies.
A Spartan statesman named Lycurgus is
famous for establishing the idea of
community commitment to education.
Rather than individual families needing to
pay for the education of their children — all
freeborn children were educated by the
state. At 7 years old, boys were sent to
boarding schools where they lived until
they were about 20 years old. They
received military training. This included
extensive physical training and exposure to
the elements to toughen them up. Sparta
was an oral culture — so children were
barely literate. However, boys memorized
epics and histories as examples of heroism.
They learned the choral songs that they
were famous for singing as they marched
into battle. Since Spartan laws were not
written down — young Spartan citizens
memorized their legal code. Interestingly,
Spartan girls were educated too. In fact,
women in Sparta received an education
that was more similar to men than in any
other ancient culture. Girls learned
gymnastics and participated in athletics -and were encouraged to become involved
in national life. Spartans felt that this type
of education for girls would make childbirth
easier — and better prepare them to be
mothers. The image of the sculpture on the
left is simply called, “The Spartan Girl.”
Athens
Athens is the city state that we often think of when referring to ancient Greece. That society
was responsible for many of the Classical Greek ideas and writings that we know today. In
ancient Athens, education was paramount for creating the thinking or informed man.
Consequently, children under the age of 7 (and too young for formal education) were given
little attention — and weren’t considered fully human until they reached an age at which
education could start.
Athens did practice infanticide. If an infant was born weak, sick or deformed, or if a family had
more children than it could afford to support — it was considered responsible to “expose” the
baby rather than let it live. Interestingly enough, there are scholars today (like John Boswell)
with a different perspective on infanticide in ancient Greece and Rome. Boswell says that
exposing babies in the ancient world wasn’t only about killing them — it was an approved way
to promote adoption. Generally, babies left to die were abandoned at the town dump. This was
a place that you could leave a baby without being seen — but you could be sure that other
people would be coming there throughout the day. Boswell suggests that people may have
taken and reared many of the abandoned infants. Sometimes they may have done this, because
they couldn’t have children of their own, or sometimes it was a way to increase your slave
holdings or to recruit young prostitutes for brothels. If you were willing to raise the child — it
was yours. Boswell’s evidence is the many myths and stories of abandoned children who were
reared to adulthood by strangers (and even by animals). Examples include Hercules, Oedipus,
Romulus and his twin brother, Remus, and even Moses.
The sculpture on the left depicts
Romulus and Remus. They are the
twins who legend says founded the
city of Rome. They were believed to
be abandoned and raised by a shewolf.
If upper class babies were kept by their families,
they grew up in the area of their home where
their mother lived and worked on household
tasks. Just because young children weren’t
viewed as fully human — didn’t necessarily mean
that adults didn’t love them. Parents could be
very fond of children. Examples from Greek
literature, like the scene from Euripides’ Trojan
Women, when Hector says good-bye to his wife
and infant son before going off to battle, show a
deep sympathy for children. Athenians accused
of crimes often brought their children (or hired
other people’s children to come) to court to sit
behind them and cry — since judges were known
to be more lenient in cases where a child’s future
was at stake.
The image on the left is from a fragment of a 5th
century Greek bell krater. It depicts a women
holding a child, and suggests a loving emotional
bond between them. Other examples of painted
images on Greek pottery show young children in
the care of women and playing with toys.
Once a boy reached the age of seven, he was old enough to begin his education. Boys in the
upper class were assigned to a male servant called, a paidagogos who served as his companion.
The paidagogos walked the boy to school in the marketplace ensuring his safety (there were
robbers and kidnappers). However, they had another role too. Plato, the Athenian philosopher
was noted for saying, “Children are the most stubborn of all wild beasts, because they are the
most clever … sneaky, insolent creatures who shouldn’t be let along for a minute.”
Consequently, the paidagogos also served to to keep the boy “in line.”
Athenian education was
separate from practical
skills. Poorer boys may have
learned a trade, but parents
who could afford to send
their sons to school wanted
him to have a liberal
education. Young Athenians
learned reading, writing, and
mathematics. They
memorized the work of the
poets, participated in
athletics, and learned music
(particular on an instrument
called the lyre — which is
seen hanging in the picture
to the left). Education was
an end in itself. It was the
beginning of self-knowledge,
and of understanding one’s
place in the universe.
Girls were unlikely to receive a liberal education. Unless a father chose to hire a tutor for his
daughter or teach her himself (like the father of the great female mathematician, Hypatia) -girls learned from their mothers. They were taught to spin, weave, and run a household. Many
were illiterate. And many were destined to marry very young (13 or 14). Interesting, married
couples often had little in common in the upper class. Men were well-educated and older when
they married. And their brides were young, often uneducated girls. Consequently, women had
their own area of the house, their own responsibilities, and sometimes little contact with their
husbands.
Athenians also promoted the concept of the erote. The erote represented the ideal time of life – the time when a human is closest to the divine form. For the ancient Athenians, “the youth”
(teenager or young adult) represented that divine form.
Hebrews
The Hebrews had a different perspective on education and children that makes them
noteworthy in the ancient world. They viewed education of boys as a lifelong experience and a
means to gain a better understanding of their faith. Most of our knowledge of the ancient
Hebrews comes from the books that were their teaching materials. These are scriptures
containing law, history, and issues of faith. Education was also a way of preserving a national
identity in the absence of their own state (as the Babylonians destroyed their state, Temple,
and public buildings in 587 BCE). The Hebrews had an early sympathy for children. Infanticide
was forbidden. There are many stories that reflect a concern for younger sons. Although
families might favor an elder son — God often choice to bless the younger (i.e., Abel, Joseph,
and David). This suggests a view of children as unique individuals and not merely extensions of
their families. Education was also given importance. Boys attended schools taught by a rabbi (or
scholar). The rabbi had a high status within the community. Learning and children may have
had greater value in the Hebrew society than anywhere else in antiquity. While they were not
formally educated to the same level as boys, Hebrew girls were not unimportant. The Jewish
identity is passed through the mother. And mothers, as well as fathers had a role in teaching
their children about their traditions. Consequently, mothers taught their daughters about their
faith and how to maintain religious traditions in their homes. The fifth Commandment, “Honor
thy father and mother” is very unusual statement in the ancient world where woman had little
status.
Rome
Rome can be viewed as two different societies — the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire.
The Roman Republic began as a small city state on the Italian peninsula in about 500 BCE. The
state grew up around the ideal of the family or the clan. Total authority was vested in the father
as head of the family. Fathers were responsible for deciding if a newborn lived or died. If the
father accepted and named the baby, it lived — and if he did not, it was “exposed” (i.e., left
outside to die). The original religion was genius (“spirit of the family” or ancestor worship). The
goal of education in the Roman Republic was to produce the ideal family man. Cicero (a Roman
statesman) says that goal of childrearing was to teach “self-control, combined with dutiful
affection to the parents, and kindliness to kindred.” Mothers had a role instilling these virtues in
their children — and in educating their daughters to become good Roman wives.
However, a boy received his education
from his father. At the age of 7, a boy
became his father’s apprentice. He
followed his father about in all this
business and professional dealings
(whether the father was a common
laborer or a Senator). Fathers spent
many hours with their sons teaching
them such things as reading, writing,
Roman law, riding, swimming, etc. At
the age of 16, the young man was
officially introduced into society and
adopted adult dress (the toga) — and
received Roman citizenship.
However, Rome prospered and grew. And by 240 BCE, life for families in Rome began to
change. Many fathers were needed in the military or to act as administrators in Rome’s foreign
conquered territories. Rome itself became an urban society. And education became
“professionalized.” Romans were very good at adopting the ideas of cultures that they
conquered — and they adopted the Athenian concept of a liberal education. So boys from the
age of 7-12 years of age went to schools held in noisy marketplaces. Teachers were underpaid
and recruited from the lowest strata of society (sometimes they were even Greek slaves).
The growth of the Roman Empire weakened the Roman family. Fathers began to abuse their
authority (denying daughters dowries, denying adult children the right to marry, selling off
family lands, even killing or selling family members into slavery). Divorce increased and
birthrates dropped. Infanticide (which had always been allowable) increased. In particular,
Romans practiced selective infanticide of baby girls. Sons could inherit your land and business.
Daughters left your family when they married, and in order to promote a marriage the bride’s
family needed to provide a dowry (a gift of cash, property or other valuables) for the groom’s
family. Daughters were costly — and most Roman families chose to have only one at most.
Emperor Augustus (30 BCE to 14 CE) was one of the people troubled by the demise of the
family during the period of the period of the Roman Empire. And he established the first known
campaign to save the family. The Roman upper class was becoming under-populated — and
Emperor Augustine introduced a number of laws to promote better family value. For instance,
he set an age limit at which children could marry without parental permission, required fathers
to provide reasonable dowries for daughters, established penalties for those who refused to
have children once then were married, provided government job, tax exemptions, and legal
rights to families with three or more children, and required that a man have grounds for
divorcing a wife. These were notable efforts at reform. However, like most campaigns to save
family values — Emperor Augustus’ seemed to have no real effect to stop the declining Roman
population or to promote more personal/family responsibility among Romans.
Another famous Roman who attempted to establish
reforms related to children was Quintilian. He was a
Roman statesman and author of the “Training of
the Orator.” He was also concerned about the
changes that had come over Roman educator, and
he called for a return to the goal of educating the
“good man.” He felt that luxury and the new liberal
educational system was corrupting Roman society.
And he suggested a number of reforms. He said that
the early years of a child’s life were critical, and
young children should be encouraged to play and
develop a love of learning. He indicated that
teachers should pay attention to students’
individual differences — and that beating students
was unnecessary. It is doubtful that Quintilian’s
views changed Roman education, but they were
unusually significant in that parts of them were
known even in the Middle Ages.
(The image above and to the left is said to be of
Emperor Nero as a boy. The image is not related to
Quintilian — other than Nero was definitely not an
example of the “good man” that Quintilian hoped
his reforms could produce. As an adult, Nero was a
better example of what was wrong with Rome.)
References:
Boswell, J. (1990). The kindness of strangers. New York: Vintage Books.
French, V. (1991). Children in antiquity. In J. M. Hawes & N. R. Hays (Eds.), Children in historical
and comparative perspective (pp. 13-29). New York: Greenwood Press.
Sommerville, J. (1990). The rise and fall of childhood. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
CHILDREN I N
ANTIQUITY
Valerie French
Child rearing was the predominant occupation of women in classical antiquity;
fathers also frequently played more than minor roles in caring for and educating
their children. In addition, thousands of other adults contributed personally to
rearing the young as midwives (who also served as pediatricians for babies),
nurses (both wet and dry), tutors and companions (usually slaves, and most often
of the same sex as the child), physicians, and teachers (not only for reading,
writing, arithmetic, music, history, law, and rhetoric, but also for athletics and
military training). Moreover, the laws of many ancient Mediterranean communities contained substantial provisions regulating the ways children were to be
treated. In sum, there can be little doubt that child rearing was an important
socio-political aspect of classical antiquity, an activity to which adults devoted
large amounts of time and considerable attention.
Alongside this clear concern for and investment in the welfare of children
stands an equally clear picture of thousands of children subjected to infanticide,
sale, neglect, abandonment, and horrendous abuse (emotional, physical, and
sexual). Nor can there be much doubt that ancient societies tended to devote
more effort and resources to rearing male children.
Scholarly work to date has provided at least the sketches, and in some cases
rich detail, for these two contradictory portraits of childhood in classical antiquity.’ Given the fragmentary nature of our evidence for reconstructing the lives
of Greek and Roman children, it is unlikely that a determination can be made
as to which pattern of child rearing-attentive, nurturing, valuing the child versus
neglectful, destructive, demeaning the child-predominated generally or within
particular periods or specific cultures.
28
THE PREMODERN WORLD
pp. 93-1 19. For the rearing of small boys in Athens, see Valerie French, “Sons and
Mothers,” Helios 4 (1976): 54-56.
43. For example. see J.P.V.D. Balsdon. Roman Worncrl (New York: Barnes & Noblc,
1962). pp. 190-199; F. R. Cowell, Ezwryday Li/e in Ancicrrt Rornc (New York: G. P.
Putnam, 196I), pp. 35-44, 72-77; Marjorie and C. H. B. Quenncll, Everyday Things in
Ancient Greece (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1954). pp. 130-141,218-255; T.B.L. Wcbster. Athenian Culttrre and Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973),
pp. 58-67, 78-79.
44. See, for example. J. R. Hamilton, “Alexander’s Early Lifc.” Greece nrrd Rornc
12 ( 1965):1 17-1 24; Arthur D. Kahn’s. The Edrrcariorl ofJrrlitrs Cncsar: A Biogrphy. A
Rcco~~srrr~ction
(New York: Schocken, 1986), suggests how historians can attack the
problem.
REFERENCES
N
4
.
t
Balsdon, J.P.V.D. Roman Worrzen. New York: Barnes & Noblc, 1962.
Beck, Frederick A. G. Greek Educatiorr: 450-350 B.C. London: Metheun, 1964.
Bonfante. Larissa. “Dedicated Mothers.” Visible Religion 3 ( 1984): 1 – 17.
Bonner, Stanley F. Educarion in Ancient Romc: From the Elder Cato ro the Younger
Pliny. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977.
Bradley, Keith R. “Childcare at Rome: The Role of Men.” Historical Rejlections 12
(1985):455-523.
-.
“Child Labour in the Roman World.” Historical Reflections 12 (1985): 3 1 1-330.
Clarke. M. L. Higher Education in the Ancient World. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1971.
Cole, Susan G. “Could Greek Womcn Read and Write?” In Rejlections of Women in
Antiquity, edited by Helene P. Foley. pp. 219-245. New York: Gordon and Breach
Science Pub., 1981.
Cowell, F. R. Evetyday Li/E in Ancient Rome. New York: G. P. Putnam, 1961.
deMause, Lloyd. :’The Evolution of Childhood,” History ofchildhood Quarterly: Journal of Psycltohistory 1 (1974):503-575.
Dixon, Suzanne. The Roman Mother. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1988.
Duncan-Jones, R. P. “The Purpose and Organization of the Alimenta.” Papers of the
British School at Romc 32 (1964): 123-146.
Etienne, R. “La Conscitnce medicale antique et la vie des enfants.” Annales de demographie hisrorique (1973): 15-6 1 .
French. Valerie. “Sons and Mothers.” Helios 4 (1976154-56.
-.
“History of the Child’s Influence: Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations.” In
Child Effects on Adults, edited by Richard Q. Bcll and Lawrence V. Harpcr,
pp. 3-29. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977.
. “Midwives and Maternity Can: in the Roman World.” Helios 13 (1986):69-84.
. “Birth Control, Childbirth, and Early Childhood.” In Civilization of rhc Ar~cienr
Mediterranean. Vol. 3, edited by Michael Grant and Rachel Kitzinger, pp. 13551362. New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1988.
Hallett, Judith P. Fnthers and ~ a u ~ h t einr sRoman Society: Womerr and the Elire Family.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984.
CHILDREN I N ANTIQUITY
29
I4amilton. J. R . “Alexander’s Early Life.” Greece & Rorllc 12 (1965): 117-124.
Hands, A.R.W. Choritics ond Social Aid in Greece and Rorne. London: Thamcs &
Hudson. 1968.
Harris. W. V. “The Roman Father’s Power of Life and Death.” In Studies irr Roman
Law in Memory o f A . Arrhrtr Schiller, edited by R. S. Bagnall and W. V. Harris.
Lcidcn: de Grucyers, 1986.
Joshcl, S. “Nurturing the Master’s Child: Slavery and the Roman Child’Nurse.” Signs
12 (1986): 3-22.
Kahn, Arthur D. The Edrtcarion of Julius Casear: A Biography. A Reconstruction. New
York: Schocken, 1986.
Kaster, Robert A. “Notes on ‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’ School in Late Antiquity.”
Tronsoctions of tlre Americurl Philological Association 1 13 (1983):323-346.
Klein, Anita. Clrild Life in Greek Art. New York: Columbia University Press. 1932.
Lacey, W. K. The Farnily in Classical Greece. Ithaca, N.Y.: Corncll Univcrsity Press.
1968.
Lelkowitz, Mary, and Maureen B. Fant. Women in Greece and Romc: A Sortrce Book
in Trctnslation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982.
Manson. M. “The Emergence of the Small Child in Rome (Third Century B.C.-First
Century A.D.).” History of Educatiorl I2 (1 983): 149- 159.
Marrou. H. I . A History of Educntion in Antiquity. London: Sheed & Ward, 1956.
Pomeroy, Sarah B. Goddesses. Whores. Wives, and Sloves: Womcn in Classical Antiquity.
Schockcn: New York. 1975.
Qnennell, Marjorie. and C.H.B. Qucnnell. Everyday Things in Ancient Greece. New
York: G. P. Putnam, 1954.
Rawson. Beryl. “Family Life Among the Lower Classes at Rome in the First Two
Ccnhuries of the Empire.” Classical Philology 61 (1966):71-83.
., ed. Tlrc Farnily irr Ancient Rome. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1986.
Sallcr, R. P. “Familiu. Domus, and the Roman Conception of the Family.” Phoerlix 38
( 1984):336-355.
Sallcr. R. P., and B:D. Shaw. “Tombstones and Roman Family Relations in the Principatc: Civilians, Soldiers, and Slaves.” Journul ofRomarl Studies 74 ( 1984): 124156.
Shelton. Jo-Ann. As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Rornan Social Nisrory. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1988.
Slaicr, Philip E. The Glory of Hero: Greek Myrhology ortcl the Greek Family. Boston:
Beacon Prcss, 1968.
. “The Greek Family in History and Myth.” Arethrcsa 7 (1974):9-14.
Still, George F. The History of Paediatrics. London: Oxford University Press, 193 1 .
Wcbstcr, T.B.L. Athenian Ctrlture and Society. Bcrkclcy: University of California Press,
1973.
ChAD106 – Seminar 4
RENAISSANCE CHILDHOOD / THE
MATERIAL CULTURE OF
CHILDHOOD / PURITAN’S VIEW OF
CHILDHOOD
Required Reading:
Sommerville, J. (1990). Childhood becomes crucial: The religious reformation. In J. Sommerville, The
rise and fall of childhood (pp. 100-110). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Greven, P. J. (1973). Cotton Mather: Some special points relating to the education of my children. In P.
J. Greven, Child-rearing concepts, 1628-1861 (pp. 42-45). Itasca, IL: Peacock Publishers.
Module Leaning Outcomes:
Students will be able to:
1. Describe the perspectives held by different Renaissance and Reformation cultures in regard to the view
of childhood
2. Analyze how your own contemporary theoretical lens compares to that of view of childhood during the
Renaissance cultures
Discussion Topic:
The historian, Karin Calvert who is discussed in the seminar notes, researched the topic of the
“material culture” of childhood (e.g., the physical items that you need to raise a child). She theorizes
that the physical things parents think that they need to raise children go beyond the simple needs of
the child — and reflect the societal view of what children ought to be. Calvert believes that the material
culture of childhood in the 17th century suggests that parents wanted to rush children through infancy
and childhood — to create a more adult-like and mature child.
Compare this idea to the material culture of children today. What are at least 5 physical items that
many modern Americans would consider important to have when raising a young child in today’s
world? What do you think that those items suggest about the contemporary American view of
childhood compared to that of the 17th century? Remember that you need to discuss “material” items
(e.g., physical things like furniture, clothing, toys, etc.). Also remember to consider the more unusual
things that many contemporary parents want to provide for children.
OPTIONAL – add a photo of a contemporary material culture item for children. What does that item
suggest about our view of children? (Below are some examples).
Additional thoughts about this question: While it is reasonable to assume that children need love and
responsive caregivers — you would be evading the question if you talk about the non-material needs of
young children. “Material culture” is defined as the physical evidence of a society in the objects that
they make or use. It is the kind of things that centuries later someone might see in a museum. So think
about the physical “stuff” that you have to acquire when you have a young child (e.g., clothes,
furniture, toys, etc.). And what do you think those items suggest about the view of modern childhood?
Think of yourself as an archeologist comparing materials culture items of childhood from a 17 th century
and a 21st century excavation sites. What did those two cultures think about children based on the
physical objects adults used for their offspring?
Sometime students also try to avoid looking closely at contemporary “material culture” items for
children, by reducing their list to only basic necessities and then concluding that this shows we love our
children (and by comparison parents in earlier time periods didn’t love their little ones). Calvert points
out parents in the 17th century wanted to make their children appear older because they cared about
them (read the seminar notes to find out why). We also have unusual things that parents purchase for
their children – and those things say something about our view of what childhood should be like. What
do you think that all those interesting material culture items mean about us (i.e., Baby Einstein DVDs,
infant stimulation materials to make babies smarter, designer clothes for toddlers, full makeup lines
marketed for girls as young as 8 years old, strollers that can cost $2,300, etc.)?
Your discussion posting should be at least 300 words (but you can write more if you feel that you need
to in order to answer the question). Post your response directly to the Discussion area — don’t submit it
as an attached file. Please see the schedule in the course syllabus for the due date for this assignment.
Discussion postings will be scored for length, being posted on time, quality of the writing and the use
of thoughtful reflection. Remember that you will also need to submit your Discussion area posting
(but not your reply) to the corresponding folder in the Assignment area. This is so your file can go
through turnitin.com and so I can enter your grade.
Seminar Notes:
Renaissance View of Childhood
“Renaissance” is the name historians give the period of history in which an interest in Roman and
Greek literature stimulated a rebirth of art and speculation in Western Europe. The Renaissance
started in different areas of Europe at different times. It was first seen in the mid-fourteenth-century in
the Italian city states as their explorers and merchants began to look for trade routes to the east — and
returned with not only material wealth, but ideas and learning from the Middle East. Other parts of
Europe experienced the Renaissance later (i.e., England as late as the sixteenth century), but
everywhere the Renaissance was accompanied with a marvelous outpouring of creative activity and
efforts to modernize. Many people get the impression that the Renaissance represented a break with
the past — but it grew out of the ferment of medieval thought.
Family Life in the Renaissance
The Renaissance was a period of economic expansion. People were searching for new trade routes to
bring silks and spices from the east (i.e., Marco Polo). However, strains were evident too. And it wasn’t
unusual for there to be trade wars among the Italian city-states. All this new wealth led to the growth
of very powerful families who were often at odds with each other (i.e., the Borgias, the DeMedicis,
etc.). To protect their wealth and positions, family homes became fortress-like (often built around a
square so that they could be sealed off). Early on during the period homes were sparsely furnished. Yet
when families ventured outside — they dressed richly in an effort to display their wealth and power.
Children were an extension of the family, and they too wore costly clothes and jewels to impress their
family’s status upon outsiders. An example of a wealthy child’s dress can be seen in the image at the
beginning for this seminar topic. The title of the painting is “A Medici Princess” and the DeMedici
family became wealthy enough that they were able to marry their daughters into the aristocracy.
Immediate family was taking on greater importance among the upper classes during the fifteenth
century. Bigger houses were built to accommodate more of the family’s activities indoors. Large
interiors gave artists more work, as wealthy homeowners commissioned them to do decorative art.
Religious art (in particular paintings of the Holy Family) were in vogue. Madonna-Child paintings were a
common motif. The Madonna-Child paintings of the Renaissance continued to become more natural
and loving in appearance than were the similar paintings in the middle ages.
More devotion to the immediate family may not have meant that things were much different for
children though. The individualism that thrived for men in this age didn’t extend to women and
children. Brides were passed from their families to those of their husbands — and the women had little
choice in marriage. Like ancient Athens, there could be a marked age difference between husbands
and wives in the Renaissance. In fifteenth-century Florence, girls first married at about 18 years old,
and their husbands at about thirty. Part of this age difference was due to the ruthless economic
competition that was part of arranging the marriage. The families of the husbands-to-be were
demanding increasingly higher dowries. (Dowries returned with the rise of the “merchant aristocracy”).
The bride’s new family could use the money as capital until the husband’s death, when it was returned
to the widow. The price of marrying off a daughter rose so high that some girls were sent to convents
instead. Those families with enough wealth to provide a substantial dowry wanted the best possible
match. Consequently, a girl’s family would choose a powerful older man if they could afford the price.
As was the case in Athens, this did not lead to a husband and wives having much in common.
This age difference also meant the fathers were more likely to die when their children were still young.
It became fashionable for these fathers (often 30 or 40 years old when their children were born) to
leave testaments of moral advice to make up for the lack of personal communication between
generations. This advice was not usually personal, but was about family affairs. That is because
children were important not as individuals, but as family heirs.
There were some interesting exceptions. Blood was not always thicker than immediate necessity. If it
seemed that a child (or adolescent) would get the family in trouble, the family could get rid of them
through legal “emancipation” (so not be accountable for their debts or crimes). On the other hand, if
the family was short of heirs, they could adopt someone (often a more distant relative was chosen).
Blood was not always the most important element. After the Black Death (Bubonic Plague) swept
through Europe in the fourteenth-century, killing a third of the population — unrelated individuals
joined artificial kinship groups rather than exist without family support.
Lower on the social scale, young people may have had more freedom. With less family money at stake,
young people had more to say about their future marriage partners. Artisans and those in the rising
middle class tended to be older at the time of marriage too. Skilled labors in Italy were already in
nuclear families (e.g., parents and children). There was even some evidence of closeness among those
nuclear families. For instance, artisans sometimes named their wives as their heirs.
However, the nuclear family wasn’t always the easiest arrangement for members of the lower classes.
The family was too likely to break up when a parent died. Having grandparents, aunts and uncles (an
extended family) nearby helped a lot in such situations. Without the extended family more common in
the upper classes, economic necessity often forced widows and widowers to remarry for the sake of
the family (introducing the idea of step-families). Consequently, as families prospered they tried to
keep more of the family together — having sons enter the family business, or having daughters bring
their husbands into the family home.
Nursing Arrangements
Many women (even the wives of skilled labors) preferred to hire wetnurses rather than nurse their
own babies. This was partly for convenience and fashion. Nursing was considered to be for peasants,
and sending infants out to wetnurses was one of the first luxuries women demanded. Hiring a
wetnurse was also encouraged by husbands because nursing was one of the few limited forms of birth
control available to women at the time. A nursing mother is less likely to ovulate regularly. So a wife
was more likely to become pregnant and give birth regularly (every year or alternate year) if she did
not nurse her own babies.
Although the church preferred mothers to nurse their own children (hence the commissioning of
Madonna-Child paintings showing the Virgin Mary nursing the infant, Jesus) — they also realized that
hiring a wetnurse was common practice. Consequently, the church provided advice on how to choose a
wetnurse. Primarily, they suggested that she be of good disposition. This was important as it was
believed that milk contained the nurses’ personal traits that could be passed from the nurse to the
child (for example Michelangelo’s wetnurse was a stone-cutter’s wife, and some people felt that this
contributed to his skill as a sculptor). This was also the reason behind the distaste for the use of animal
milk to feed babies. Only the very poor were reduced to using goat’s or cow’s milk.
Here is a quote from a cleric explaining why it is a bad idea to feed a baby with animal milk …
“As boy or girl nourished on animal milk doesn’t have perfect wits like one fed on women’s milk, but
always looks stupid and vacant and not right in the head”
People in modern societies are unlikely to believe that children will pick up animal-like traits from
drinking animal milk. However, given the lack of sterilization, this prohibition during the Renaissance
was a good thing. Children who had to be bottle-fed had extremely high mortality rates.
Only royal infants (or children from extremely wealthy families) had a wetnurse come to live in their
family home. Most children went to live with the wetnurse and her family right after birth, and usually
stayed about two years (when they were weaned). Many parents didn’t have a chance to visit on a
regular basis, or didn’t have the inclination to do so (although there are some exceptions). This led to a
social phenomenon in which most people spend their early years away from their birth families, and
then returned to them as virtual strangers when they were young children.
A royal infant being given to his
wetnurse.
Although feeding human infants
animal’s milk was frowned upon, these
are silver bottles for infants
Porcelain bottles for infant feeding.
Children as a Sentimental Symbol
An interesting irony was the popularity of mother-child painting motif — and the increasing sentimental
view of that relationship (in art). Some suggest that Renaissance artists (and their patrons) were
attempting to compensate for their own maternal loss. Children themselves were becoming symbols in
art. Artists had mastered anatomical proportions of babies. Rather than suggesting that people at this
time had a better understanding of children or necessarily treated them better — this suggests that
artists were beginning to idealize children and babies for a different purpose. Raphael’s (1500) children
are almost too appealing. Shakespeare’s child characters are too loving and brave to be realistic. What
this suggests is that children were being used as a symbol (of pathos or innocence).
Cherubs were commonly used in Renaissance art, and they
represented an infant entity between God and humankind, a
“link between heaven and earth.” This is very different from
the erotes (in ancient Greece), which represented adolescence
as this unique stage.
Children’s Education in the Renaissance
Education experienced major changes at this time. Concern for education was a major thrust of the
Renaissance. Greek and Roman literature was brought back to the classroom. However, the classroom
was not necessarily a kinder place for children. Beating was still a common motivational strategy for
teachers to use. In fact, there is some reason to think that there were more problems for students in
school during the Renaissance than there were during the Middle Ages.
1). The classical curriculum of the Renaissance was more impractical for many students. Latin didn’t
have a use for many of the students (yet it became the main thrust of the grammar school curriculum).
2). More children were being sent to school than before. The aristocracy now saw the need for
academic training, so children who may have had little aptitude were sent to school along with their
more able peers.
3). The aristocracy still viewed learning as a toughening process. They had always seen education as
difficult process and there wasn’t much reason to make it more pleasant.
In general, only boys went to school (the petty school for the younger boys and the grammar school for
older ones). Girls’ education was accomplished at home by parents or private tutors — and only to the
extent that the girls’ families were willing to educate them. There were some brilliant, well-educated
women during the Renaissance (e.g., Queen Elizabeth I of England, her cousin Lady Jane Grey, Queen
Christina of Sweden, the daughters of Sir Thomas More, etc.), but they were exceptions. Most girls had
little access to schooling.
The Toy Industry
On a brighter note — this was the time period when the toy industry
was born. Early toys were often home-made. These included tops,
kites, hobby horses, and glove puppets (with live birds sewn
inside!). But by the 15th century, professional toy makers in
Nuremberg were creating jointed dolls. Nuremberg and Ausburg in
southern Germany were centers of the toy trade, exporting to Italy
and France. By 1700’s, the Dutch were producing enough toys to
export them to England and Scandinavia. Dolls were among the
earliest trade items used by the English colonists with the Native
Americans.
Material Culture of Childhood
The paintings of children in the Middle Ages and Renaissance often look strange to modern viewers.
And historians like Aries theorized that adults saw their offspring as “little adults.” Parents in the past
often did dress their children in apparel that mirrored the clothes that adults wore in that society. The
toys that children played with and the furniture that they used also differ from some of the things that
children use today. These things that children used (i.e., clothing, furniture, toys, etc.) are called
“material culture” items.
Karin Calvert researched the material culture of childhood. And she says that the objects used in the
raising of children have changed dramatically over time, but they have always met more than the
simple needs of the children. They also met the parents’ need to mold their infants into the accepted
cultural image of the time. No child-related object has remained continuously in use in America (e.g.,
cradles, walkers, swaddling, dolls, clothes, etc.). Instead each object flourishes for a time, disappears
and is then replaced by new and different goods considered necessary to bring up a baby.
The little world that parents create for their children reveals a great deal about the accepted place of
children in the larger world. Parents use clothes, toys, and furniture to create, enforce or encourage
socially correct behavior in their very young children.
Creating an Adult-Like Child through Clothes and Furniture
For example, early 1700 the artifacts were designed to create a semblance of adult appearance and
behavior — to move the child rapidly into adult society. The cradle, swaddling, standing stools, walking
cages, and leading strings, all forced the child to lie straight, stand straight, or walk erect. Parents in the
17th century (both Catholics and Protestants) were concern with uprightness — both physically and
morally.
To the 17th century mind — human beings were made, not born. Newborns and infants looked
shapeless. They had to be molded into human form. This was done first by the midwife, and later
through the use of clothes and furniture. When a new baby was born, the midwife pressed the bones
of the skull toward the soft spot. Mothers or wetnurses were encouraged to continue this practice
until the soft spot on the baby’s head closed. When it did close — this was considered to be proof that
their efforts had worked. Midwives and early caregivers also worked to shape the baby’s face, arms,
and legs. Babies were wrapped in yards of swaddling. Swaddling served a variety of purposes …
(1). It immobilized the baby (creating a tiny mummy about the
size of a loaf of bread). This made infants much easier to care
for. They were portable. They couldn’t roll away, and you
didn’t have to support their heads when you held them. Infant
care was virtually “idiot-proof.” Even young children could look
after an infant successfully.
(2). Swaddling worked to keep the infants warm. Chilblains,
cracked and bleeding skin were serious problems in cold
weather climates. Babies were kept completely swaddled for
the first three months. Then if it was warm enough their head
and arms were left free after that.
(3). Swaddling provided the right posture from birth. A
swaddled baby looked tall and straight — the shape of an adult.
Parents in the 17th century thought that without aid, babies
would never learn to stand erect. The French physician,
Francois Mariceau commented that if infants were allowed to
“crawl on all fours like little animals … [this will continue] for
the rest of their lives.” Rickets (a condition resulting from
vitamin D deficiency) was blamed on letting infants sleeping in
the fetal position.
Physicians cautioned that swaddled children should be changed every 12-24 hours (which is much less
frequently than is common in modern societies). However, it is unlikely that many infant caregivers in
the 17th century changed the babies even that frequently. Water had to be carried from a distance,
heated, and finally discarded. Wet diapers were simply hung to dry and not laundered. Diaper rash was
a serious problem (and infant medical advice from the 17th century mentioned many different salves
and potions for babies’ skin problems).
Other material items were also used to mold infant appearance
and behavior. Cradles (or other sorts of separate beds for babies)
were recommended. This prevented “laying over” — a common
source of infant mortality when babies slept with their wetnurse
or mother (this literally means that the adult smothered the baby
by rolling over on it while asleep). However, cradles had different
features in the 17th century. There were holes or pegs along the
edges of the cradle to lace the infant in place. Hoods and sides
on the cradle kept out the cold.
Clothing also changed when a baby was 6-9 months old. Children dressed in first long petticoats (the
literal meaning of this word is “little coats,” but it looks like the dress worn by women). Children were
also given tiny padded corsets to promote an adult posture. Most infant corsets were quilted for
stiffness, rather than “boned” like the corsets worn by women (which were supported with ivory or
metal pieces). However, some very young children were put into put into boned corsets. Consider the
following letter written in the 17th century by a father whose daughter Elizabeth had died at age two…
“I had the advice of a very able physician…his judgment was that her iron corset was her pain and had
hindered her lungs to grow and truly the surgeon found her breast bone pressed very deeply inwardly
and he said two of her ribs were broken … both the doctor and surgeon did conclude that going into the
corset so young … hastened her death.”
Infant clothes were virtually identical to women’s clothes, except the petticoats were longer. These
clothes kept babies warm, and prevented them from crawling (which was considered to be a very bad
habit). Babies born before 1800 did not learn to crawl before they walked — parents and caregivers
didn’t allow it. Instead babies were pushed to their feet early. It was considered bad luck to talk before
you could walk. And all 17th century parents wanted their babies walking before their first birthday.
A number of material culture items helped to promote early walking. Standing stools were used after
babies were out of swaddling. The stools’ frames kept babies standing, and unlike modern infant
walkers there was no seat. Standing stools did keep infants off cold, dirty floors, and out of the way.
Doctors complained of children being left for hours on weak legs until they fainted. However, parents
and caregivers of the time didn’t take crying too seriously. A crying baby was considered to be
exercising its lungs, or displaying willfulness. Leading strings also helped babies to walk. These were
stout ribbons or cords fastened to toddlers’ clothing. Adults would hold the string to guide the child’s
steps and prevent crawling. Falls were very common! Consequently many young children wore
“puddings.” These were thickly padded head gear (like a stuffed sausage of cloth encircling the baby’s
head like a hat brim and tied under the chin). They acted like bumper guards to prevent head injuries
when the babies fell. They also gave rise to the affectionate term, “puddin’ head” — which meant a
toddler just learning to walk. Babies could also be placed in walking stools or walking cages. These
were standing stools with wheels (but still no seat). These devices permitted babies to walk without
adult help. And they kept infants off the floor. They provided the first taste of autonomy (as babies
could move independently for the first time). But they did not protect babies from accidents (e.g.,
open fireplaces, stairs, etc.).
Colonial infant’s quilted corset
“The Lace Maker” showing a baby in a
standing stool and wearing a pudding
A young French prince on a leading
string (yes, this is a boy!)
There were no high chairs for young children. Babies and very young children were held at the table,
ate standing, or sat on chair piled with things to raise it higher. Children slept in the thick of things too.
They usually didn’t have their own bedrooms. As infants, they slept in cradles in same room with their
caregiver. Later children slept in a trundle bed or pallet wherever there was room in the house. They
had no special furniture after they could walk. They simply took their place in the adult world.
Gender Markers in the 17th Century
In the 17th century, there were two basic forms of clothing — breeches (and frock coats) or anklelength petticoats. This dichotomy represented both a gender and an age difference. Young children
(both boys and girls) wore petticoats, corsets, and shifts for warmth and proper bearing. The tight
constriction made them look (and act) like little adults. They couldn’t move freely. Generally they wore
nothing underneath. And toilet training seemed to be of little concern.
Gender distinctions in clothing were different from
today. Girls and infants wore caps — like women. Boys
were more likely to have uncovered long hair, or fancy
hats (with ribbons, and feathers). Collar shape was also a
gender marker — there were rounded collars for girls,
and square collars for boys.
All females dressed alike. The social position of a woman
was not much different from that of a child. The bodice
of a child laced up the back. For a woman, it laced up the
front. Both women and children were born to a
subordinate role in the 17th century.
Boys’ clothing changed as they grew. This was evidence that they were taking their place among the
men in the family. Periodic changes in costume marked their progress. As they grow older, they wore
no caps. Long hair was sign of masculine superiority. Boys were breeched at six or seven years old
(meaning that they got to wear pants or breeches). This was a major life change. Parents wrote of it in
letters and diaries, and celebrated it among the family. The worst threat a parent could use for a boy
who was misbehaving at this age was the humiliation of a return to baby clothes. This was the age
when a boy was old enough for formal schooling, apprenticeship, work in the fields, and venturing into
the world.
A boy in petticoats (the hat and feather
are the gender markers)
A boy in petticoats (the uncovered hair
and square collar are the gender
markers)
A boy in breeches and a frock coat
Playthings with Serious Purposes
Sometimes portraits of children show them with small items that we think of as toys — but some of
these items had serious purposes.
One such item was the coral-and-bells. These were rattles
made of silver (sometimes gold) with a smooth piece of
coral fastened in the silver handle, hung with tiny silver
bells. The bells amused the child. The coral was believed to
protect the baby from disease. It was considered to be a
cure for teething problems. Parents feared teething as
much as diphtheria or whooping cough in the 17th century.
Doctors cautioned that teething difficulties could lead to
“fever, cramps, palsies, fluxes, rheumes, and other
infirmities … sometimes death.” The coral teething devices
were also considered to be good for resisting lightning,
warding off evil, and if ground to a powder would cure a
nosebleed. While it might look like a play thing — it was a
tool, not just a toy.
While many of the material culture items for the 17th century were used in both Catholic and
Protestant homes. Puritan parents were a little different in their attitudes toward to toys. For the
Puritans, play things were dangerous. They were unproductive, wasteful, and a temptation to idleness
and fantasy. Dolls (“poppets”) in particular were associated with witches. And most Puritan parents
would not want their children to have them. Puritan children were most likely given adult-like things to
pave the way for their grown-up roles (e.g., own lamb or calf to raise, a plot in the garden, or set of
dishes).
Conclusions
Calvert concludes that in the 17th and early-18th century, infancy was a vulnerable time. Many babies
died in the first year of life. Parents didn’t want to prolong babyhood. They rushed their children onto
their feet and out of their infancy, because a child who looked older to a parent was a child who
seemed less vulnerable. To be “childlike” in this time period was to be childish, foolish, degrading and
animalistic – it was not perceived as “cute.” Children were “not-quite-competent” adults. They were
understudies for their grownup roles. Maturity was the goal and reward in that time period. And
material culture items were the means to train and mold children toward that goal.
Calvert has an interesting theory that suggests parents dress their children in more adult-like fashions
in time periods when they feel that it is somehow dangerous to be a child or look like a child (e.g., the
high infant mortality of the 17th century). In her book, she raises some intriguing points that might
cause us to question why contemporary Western cultures have a designer clothing industry for
children and why we “push” our children to grow-up in different ways (e.g, infant stimulation
materials, “Teach Your Baby to Read” programs, etc.). Is there something about being a child that is
frightening to modern society?
The Puritan View of Childhood
While the ideas of the Catholic Church dominated in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance, various
reformers had been promoting different ideas for some time — the most dramatic example, being
Martin Luther in 1517. Luther suggested a return to faith that involved trust and dependence, and that
didn’t depend on meritorious works or the sacraments. He also came to feel that family life (and not
priestly celibacy) should be the most holy state. This led to a renewed interest in the family and
childhood. Luther asked parents to be more involved in their children’s spiritual development. So
different Protestant Churches (e.g., Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.) were established
during the Reformation, and many of them shared a common view of children.
The Puritans were a particular group of Protestants noted for their strict adherence to their faith. They
didn’t think that some other Protestant groups had gone far enough in breaking with Catholic
traditions or in living as scripture dictated. They wanted both religious and social changes — and they
were willing to go to great lengths to make that happen. Two examples of Puritan groups were the
Pilgrims who came to America to establish their own society, and the Puritans who led the English Civil
Wars of the 1640’s (and until 1660 controlled the English government). They thought and wrote a great
deal about their faith and their family life — so that we know quite a bit about their views.
Children as Individuals
They viewed their children as individuals. While the tradition in Catholic Renaissance Europe was to
view children as an extension of the family — Puritans saw them as individual souls, and gifts from God
who parents should protect and reform. Some theorists suggest that the Puritans were the first
“modern” parents. They felt that their role was not just to ensure their child’s duty to the family, but to
help the child make good personal decisions. They were the first authors ever to state that children
must obey God rather than parents, in cases of clear conflict. Some evidence of the Puritan attitude
about children as individuals can be seen in the names that they gave to their children. Traditionally, in
medieval Europe (and continuing into the Renaissance) children inherited the names of their parents
and relatives. Families and friends might use nicknames to avoid confusion, but in England there were
relatively few common first names for boys and girls. The Puritans were among the forces that
changed this tradition. They began to give their children a great variety of Biblical names that had not
commonly been used before their time. They chose Biblical names based on their meanings (which
they could find listed in the appendix of their Geneva Bible). Sometimes they went a step further and
simply named their children for the values or traits that they admired (e.g., Grace, Charity, Prudence,
Praise-God, Safe-on-High, etc.). What was significant about this phenomena was that Puritans seemed
to view their children as individuals and want (even in something as simple as their names) to give
them some direction as they set out in life.
Infant Depravity
Just as children were given to Puritan parents to safeguard and care for — they also felt that they had
been given that child to reform. They believed in the early-Christian idea of infant depravity. Every
child was born with original sin (sharing some part of Adam’s rebellion against God in the Garden of
Eden). Puritan parents felt that it was children’s nature to be inclined to sin — and that it was the
parents’ responsibility to convert them. Unlike Catholics, they didn’t feel that they could rely on the
sacraments (like baptism) to purify children and make them innocent. It took action on the part of the
parents (through training and education) to convert their children. Puritan parents were instructed to
constantly be on their guard. A child who could rebel against a parent — is a child who could later rebel
against God. And a Puritan wanted to ensure that his or her child was on the path to salvation. The
following poem by the early-American poet, Anne Bradstreet describes the Puritan view of the child’s
nature (and warns parents not to be fooled by the sweet appearance of a child)…
“Stained from birth with Adam’s sinful fact/ Thence I began to sin as soon as act/ A perverse will, a love
of what’s forbid/ A serpent’s sting in pleasing face lay hid.”
Childrearing Advice
Puritans published a great deal of childrearing advice, and it followed several common themes.
1). Puritans felt that mothers should nurse their own children, and not send babies to live with
wetnurses for the first few years of their lives.
2). They argued that the early years of childhood were important, and that learning started long before
schooling. Consequently, parents were encouraged to carefully set a good example for their children to
follow.
3). They advised against “cockering” children (indulging their whims or pampering them). They
understood that it could be easy to give into children when they are little or be amused by childish
ways. However, Puritans pointed out that it was better to “nip problems in the bud” when children
were young and their habits were less well formed — than to wait and try to change long-term bad
behavior in older children.
Some historians have considered Puritans to have been unusually harsh with their children (advising
parents to “spare the rod, and spoil the child”). However, if one views Puritans within their time period
— they were suggesting a style of discipline that was consistent and thoughtful. Physical punishment
was an accepted practice in most homes and schools during the 16th and 17th centuries. The Puritans
were asking parents to use such “correction” in a careful and reasonable way. They suggested the
children should have faults explained to them, and if simply scolding them brought repentance — then
that was enough. Susannah Wesley (the mother of the Methodist Church founder, John Wesley and his
10 siblings) is famous for stating that she taught her children to “fear the rod and cry softly.” However,
she also stated that she would never punish a child who came to her and admitted a fault openly (as
that would teach the child that it was better to lie than be truthful). She also felt that parents should
be willing to forget bad behavior (when it had already been dealt with) and not continuously remind a
child of it. And she recommended that parents make a genuine effort to acknowledge or reward
children for good behavior (when it had been difficult for them) rather than take it for granted. William
Gouge, the 1622 author of the text, Of Domestical Duties, advised parents that when corporal
punishment was necessary — they should be careful not to strike a child in anger (“not distempered
with choler, rage, furie, and other passions”), and that the correction should be “proportioned to the
fault and the child’s years.” Last, he states that it is “better to err on the side of leniency.” If Puritan
parents were different from other parents of their time period — it was that they gave childrearing
more thought than did their contemporaries.
Literature
The Puritans created the first books written specifically for children and young people. All of their
books were religious in nature and sought to teach young readers the Puritan doctrine. A famous
example was James Janeway’s, A Token for Children (1671). This book was filled with the stories of a
number of exemplary boys and girls who died young. In particular one told of a little boy who before
the age of two used to ask his parents about God, refused to go to bed unless the family had spent
time reading scripture together and praying, and his own prayers were so loud that the neighbors
complained. While Janeway’s stories may seem unbelievably pious, he and other authors were telling
Puritan children that they could be examples to adults. These books prompted the idea that even
children can live fully in a moral or religious sense.
Educational Reform
The Puritan emphasis on personal salvation required that people be able to read the Bible for
themselves — and that was one of the underlying reasons that the Puritans were in the forefront of
educational reform in the 17th century. It was not enough that someone read scripture to you, or
explained it in a sermon. Puritans (along with other Protestants) felt education was critical to the
development of a Christian community. Just as the Lutheran clergy in Germany helped the Duchy of
Wurttemberg establish the first elementary school system in 1530 (for both boys and girls) — the
Puritans in Massachusetts Bay Colony passed the “Old Deluder Satan Act” of 1647. That law required
that every town with 50 or more families set up a school. They felt that the way to outwit the Devil was
by creating a literate population. This push for basic literacy included some education for girls. Petty
schools (in Europe) and Dame schools (in the American colonies) took children of both genders and
taught them enough basic reading, writing, arithmetic, and scripture to prepare the boys for grammar
schools and to give the girls basic literacy skills. Whether girls got additional education was still up to
their families.
After the English Civil War and during the rule of the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, Puritans pushed
for considerable educational reform in England. They proposed universal education, government aid to
schools, and a more practical curriculum. The government opened a number of new schools in remote
areas of the country, founded Durham University, and allowed scientific subjects to be taught in the
universities. Unfortunately, when the Puritans lost control of the government and the monarchy was
restored in 1660 — their educational reforms were abandoned.
One great educational reformer who the Puritans brought to England was Jan Amos Comenius. Sadly,
he was not able to put many of his ideas into practice after the restoration of the British monarchy -but many of his concepts have filtered down to us today through later reformers. Comenius was a
minister in the Moravian Brethren Church in Czechoslovakia. He lost his family and all that he owned in
the Thirty Years’ War that raged on the European continent between the Catholics and Protestants. He
had the unique theory that education could be used to improve mankind through social reform. He felt
that education was the way to promote happiness in this life and the next — and that schooling
shouldn’t be a painful process. Comenius suggested radical reforms like the idea that teachers should
find out about children’s interests and build the curriculum around those topics. Children should learn
by observing and doing (not only rote memorization). He pioneered the concept of the “class lesson” in
which all the children in a room learn together (which was very different than the schools of the time
where individual children waited for their turn to recite). Comenius is also responsible for the idea of
the “Mother School” where women would design learning experiences for very young children (like
modern preschools or kindergarten), He also published a primer, the Orbis Senualium Pictus (1658)
which had pictures on each page matched to common things from everyday life and captions written in
English and Latin. His belief was children would want to read about the things from their own
experiences. In this he created one of the first picture books and a model for later educational texts.
Overall, the Puritans held a unique view of children for their time. And they attempted through their
religious institutions, their advice to parents, and their efforts at educational change to radically affect
the treatment of children.
References:
Calvert, K. (1992). Children in the house: The material culture of early childhood, 1600-1900. Boston,
MA: Northeastern University Press,
Greven, P. J. (1973). Cotton Mather: Some special points relating to the education of my children. In P.
J. Greven, Child-rearing concepts, 1628-1861 (pp. 42-45). Itasca, IL: Peacock Publishers.
Sommerville, J. (1990). Childhood becomes crucial: The religious reformation. In J. Sommerville, The
rise and fall of childhood (pp. 100-110). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
ChAD106 – Seminar 5A
ENLIGHTENMENT
PHILOSOPHERS AND
CHILDHOOD IN EARLY
AMERICA
Required Readings:
Greven, P. J. (1973). John Locke: Some thoughts concerning education. In P. J. Greven, Childrearing concept, 1628-1861 (pp. 18-41). Itasca, IL: Peacock Publisher.
Rousseau, J. J. (1993). Emile. (pp. 5-40). Rutland, VT: Charles E. Tuttle Co. (Originally published
in 1762).
Pacholl, K. (2007). Let both sexes be carefully instructed: Educating youth in colonial
Philadelphia . In J. Marten (Ed.). Children in Colonial America (pp. 191-203). New
York : NY University Press.
Module Leaning Outcomes:
Students will be able to:
1. Describe the views of childhood that dominated Enlightenment thinking
2. Analyze the impact of two to three factors emerging during the Enlightenment that
influenced Western European views of childhood.
Discussion Topic:
There is NO discussion topic for this week. However the Research Project Part I – Introduction
is due this week. Please check the “Start Here – Course Materials” Module to see the Research
Project Assignment Description and Rubric.
Seminar Notes:
Enlightenment Philosopher: John Locke
By the end of the 17th century, ideas about human nature and childhood were changing.
Certain Protestant thinkers in England had grown unsympathetic to some of the traditional
doctrines of their faith. One such thinker was John Locke. He attacked the concept of innate
ideas (i.e., that humans are born with certain characteristics). He proposed that all ideas derive
from experience. His general work on childhood, Some Thoughts Concerning Education
(published in 1693) became the most popular book on childrearing of its time, with at least 26
English editions before 1800. It was not just read in England, but was popular on the European
continent too (with 16 French editions, 6 Italian editions, and translations into Dutch, German,
Swedish, and Spanish). The public was ready for the ideas that he proposed.
In particular, Locke attacked the idea of infant depravity. He believed that children could not be
either naturally good or bad — as they were not capable of either evil or virtue until they
developed a will of their own and their actions were deliberate. He suggested children were
born tabula rasa (a “blank slate”) and that they could be molded as parents saw fit. He
suggested that parents be watchful so that children didn’t pick up bad habits, that they correct
bad behavior early, and that they insist on obedience. However, he thought that shame and
praise were the best techniques for parents to use if they wanted their children to internalize
their values and come to adopt the parents’ moral position.
Locke was a physician by profession, and his writings also dealt with pediatric matters from
which earlier writers shied away. He argued for loosening swaddling, warned against giving
children sugary foods and snacks, and advocated strict toilet training. He suggested a regime to
toughen the child up with lukewarm baths and leaky shoes — so that they would get used to
cold weather. He warned against the dangers of lacing girls into corsets with the intent of trying
to shape their figures.
The concept of childhood that Locke
proposed gave parents a critical role as
educators of their children. Now the outcome
for the child (good or bad) was the direct
result of a parent’s efforts. And many parents
used the ideas that Locke suggested as a
means of raising their children. Locke’s
concept that children could learn through
repetition and that education led to useful
habits caused many parents to start working
with their children to teach them academics
at a young age. He advised parents to
encourage children’s curiosity and play.
However, he thought that developing artistic,
musical, or poetic talent in children would
only lead them into a life of idleness and bad
company.
Enlightenment Philosopher: Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Another important philosopher of the Enlightenment Period who wrote about his view of
childhood was the Frenchman, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. He published Emile (the story of a tutor
and his young charge) in 1762. And his ideas were a catalyst for change. He states that children
are born neither evil nor blank slates — they are naturally good. The opening sentence of Emile
is revolutionary … “The Author of Nature makes all things good; man meddles with them and
they become evil.” Earlier writers thought that human institutions (e.g., families, schools,
churches, government) helped to correct the flaws of human nature. But Rousseau contested
that idea — stating that nature is the source of all that is good, and human society is the cause
of evil.
Rousseau thought that the child is best educated if left to learn
directly from nature. He felt that swaddling was a form of
bondage, and he encouraged parents to abandon it. He said that
mothers should return to nursing their own babies — as it was an
ancient (and natural) practice. He accepted children’s impulses
and urged parents to promote their curiosity (rather than
attempting to restrain it). Rousseau said that a wise tutor would
not beat a child, but rather rely on natural consequences to let a
child learn the results of his actions. For instance, if Emile lies, his
tutor should simply stop believing anything that he says until the
boy comes to value honesty.
Emile is the story of Rousseau’s concept of an ideal education, and it involves moving the child
out of the city (with its decadent society) and into a more natural countryside environment. The
tutor’s task is to keep the harmful influences away from Emile, and to promote learning that
this based upon desire and readiness. Rousseau felt that the self-motivated child will demand
to be educated. In particular, Rousseau proposed that the child receive no formal education
until the age of 12. At that point, the tutor should arrange for the child to receive a letter. Since
the child cannot yet read — the tutor must read it to Emile, and it turns out to be an invitation
to a party. Thus Emile will come to understand that print has meaning, and that it can bring
good news and important information. After a few such letters, the Rousseau advises the tutor
to arrange for another letter to come when the tutor is away. Emile will wait for the tutor to
return (in order to learn the contents of the message). Sadly, when the tutor reads the letter to
Emile it is another invitation (for that same day) — but because Emile had to wait for the tutor’s
return to read the message, he missed the party. Rousseau suggests that this is when a child
will want the independence of being able to read on his own and formal education can begin!
Rousseau felt that educational problems arise when teachers attempt to rush things. And he
devised a timetable where Emile receives his first formal education at 12 years old. He is
introduced to a broader moral education through literature and history at age 15. At 22, when
he wants to see the world — he is taken abroad to learn about politics and economics first hand.
And at age 25, he returns to take his place in public life.
Rousseau was instrumental in being the first to fully affirm the child — to try to genuinely
understand his needs and limits. However, like others of his time (and into the next century)
who sentimentalized childhood, Rousseau had some serious shortcomings. He felt that there
was no value in educating girls. The story of Emile has a chapter entitled , “Sophy, or Woman,”
and it describes the education of Emile’s perfect spouse. However, Rousseau felt that “woman
is made for man’s delight” and there was no need for girls to be literate. He didn’t have a
particularly happy family life of his own. He had five children with his common-law wife (a
working class woman who was his housekeeper), but he made her give all those children to a
founding home (an orphanage) at birth. He had attempted a career as a tutor himself — but quit
in a rage at his students’ insubordination and ignorance. He had no real desire to help people
who attempted to use his ideas to actually raise children. When they had practical problems
implementing his ideas — he ridiculed them. And as novel as his ideas were, many historians
suspect that he was more interested in using them to promote his own literary career than in
actually hoping to see a change in the conditions of children in his world.
Other notable educators did attempt to use Rousseau’s ideas in practical ways. Johann
Basedow, a German opened a truly experimental school in 1774, in which he tried a variety of
new teaching techniques. He was a pioneer in that he took the development of the child’s
intelligence as a conscious aim and was not satisfied with just the mastery of subject material.
Johann Pestalozzi, also opened a school in Switzerland (1799) based on some of Rousseau’s
ideas. He combined the idea of using objects from the child’s own world as their first teaching
tools. Friedrich Froebel (the father of the modern kindergarten) was also greatly influenced by
the Rousseau’s ideas.
Changes in Practical Childrearing in the Enlightenment Period
The second half of the 18th century was a time of great change in the world (e.g., the American
revolution, the French revolution, new scientific discoveries, philosophies that emphasized
individual rights, etc). And these changes did trickle down to influence the treatment of
children in Western Europe and the United States. The Middle Ages (and the Renaissance) had
postulated a precarious world caught between divine and satanic whims, where people where
powerless to effect change. But during the Enlightenment period, thinkers of the time suggests
a more dynamic and orderly world. All things were seen to progress through observable and
orderly stages of development (even children). Childhood became a necessary training period
and a time when education was important. As an example, parents during the Middle Ages had
thought that a child might pick up characteristics from their environment — but one never knew
what might affect the child (i.e., the effect of a wetnurse’s personality or animal’s milk could be
unfortunate influences). People in the Enlightenment period still believed in this idea of
acquired characteristics — but they saw this as an opportunity to control the development of
the child and teach future generations desirable attributes. And this gave the time a new sense
of optimism and confidence that they could nurture children and channel their development.
The ideas proposed by John Locke (in his book, Some Thoughts Concerning Education) were
deeply influential. Dr. William Cadogan in London in the 1740’s and Dr. William Buchan in
American in the 1760’s were popular childrearing authorities who used Locke’s ideas. They
suggested more freedom and less restriction for children. Locke had urged parents not to
“trouble yourself about those faults in [children], which you know age to cure.” And this led to a
move away from parents trying to shape their children or teach early walking. Many parents
abandoned swaddling by the 1770’s — as physicians advised against it. Dr. Buchan declared that
“dwarfishness, deformity, disease and death” often resulted from swaddling babies. The only
remnant that remained was the bellyband (a piece of flannel wrapped around the baby to
protect the navel and support the back). This was secured with new cotton ties (a safety feature
advocated by doctors rather than the old straight pins that had been used to hold swaddling
bands in place). Leading strings, standing stools, and walking cages were gone as well.
What babies gained in freedom from restrictive clothing, they lost in protection from the cold.
Dr. Cadogan believed that infants were not more delicate than adults — but were actually
stronger, “The truth is a new-born infant cannot be too cool and loose in its dress.” Clothing and
bed covers became looser. Babies were to be bathed in cold water. Cradles were developed
with slats on the sides to allow air to flow through. And brisk daily outings were recommended.
Babies still needed care. And with the loss of the furniture and clothing that restricted their
movements, parents of the late 18th century needed to find new ways to monitor and contain
babies. Many mothers needed some kind of help with young children. Early in the 18th century,
this might have been a young female neighbor or relative. The girl could help while learning to
manage a household (an informal kind of apprenticeship). As time went on, more parents relied
on hired servants (which meant that the people caring for the infants and young children in a
household were often not of the same social class as the family). This led to more class
consciousness and distrust on the part of parents. In addition to servants, many families turned
to alcohol and drugs to make babies more manageable. The majority of people in the 18th
century favored the use of alcohol in moderation for young children. Other home remedies for
tending a grouchy or colicky baby were catnip tea, pine-root tea, soot tea (which was actually
made from chimney soot), and sugared tobacco-water. Some of these substances were
harmless — and others were quite dangerous. It is ironic that parents who wanted to free
children from physical restriction turned to alternatives that could be even more damaging.
Children’s clothing was also changing. Infants and girls now wore light, high-waisted muslin or
cotton frocks which allowed them more freedom of movement. Boys added another stage to
their clothing. Between the frock dress of an infant and the breeches of an older boy — young
males (3-6) wore hussar suits (sometimes called skeleton suits). These were pants with a short
jacket which some observers though resembled the uniform of the Hussars (the Hungarian
cavalry). Children of both genders were allowed to wear their hair long and lose with bangs cut
across the forehead.
Conclusions
The Enlightenment was a time of confidence in childrearing, where childhood was seen as
necessary step toward adulthood. The philosophies of the time encouraged greater parental
involvement in education, more freedom of movement for children, and the image of the child
was further sentimentalized.
References
Calvert, K. (1992). Children in the house: The material culture of early childhood, 1600-1900.
Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
Sommerville, J. (1990). The rise and fall of childhood. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
ChAD106 – Seminar 2
CHILDHOOD IN ANTIQUITY
Required Reading:
French, V. (1991). Children in antiquity. In J. M. Hawes & N. R. Hays (Eds.), Children in historical
and comparative perspective (pp. 13-29). New York: Greenwood Press.
Sterns, N. S. (2017). Childhood in the classical civilizations. In Childhood in World History (pp.
29-45). New York, NY: Routledge.
Module Leaning Outcomes:
Students will be able to:
1. Describe the perspective held by different ancient cultures in regard to the view of
childhood
2. Discuss similarities and differences between ancient culture in their treatment of
children and its impact on them
Discussion Topics/Assignments:
Seminar #1 talked about the first scholar who investigated the history of childhood (e.g., Aries).
Aries suggests that there was no concept of childhood until the 17th century and that the
parent-child relationship was very formal until the 17th century. Consider Aries’ theory about
the historical view of childhood and compare it with the information in the second set of
seminar notes and the reading by French and Sterns.
Describe at least one ancient culture that might seem compatible with Aries theory and at one
other that might refute his theory. Use specific information from this set of seminar notes and
from the reading by French and/or Sterns to support what you say.
Your discussion posting should be at least 300 words (but you can write more if you feel that
you need to in order to answer the question), and your reply to another student’s post should
be at least 100 words. Please post your response directly to the Discussion Area — don’t submit
it as an attached file. Please see the schedule in the course syllabus for the due date for this
assignment.
Discussion postings will be scored for length, being posted on time, quality of the writing and
the use of thoughtful reflection. Remember that you will also need to submit your Discussion
Area posting (but not your reply) to the corresponding folder in the Assignment Area. This is
so your file can go through turnitin.com and so I can enter your grade.
Seminar Notes:
Children have been a concern to parents since ancient times. The following quote comes from
the inscription on one of the earliest known Mesopotamian clay tablets…
“Our earth is degenerate in these latter days. Bribery and corruption are common. Children no
longer obey their parents … the end of the world is evidently approaching.”
What we know about children in antiquity comes from a variety of primary sources.
Information about children appears in writings (the works of philosophers, medical texts, legal
documents, and personal letters). Images of children can be found in art. And artifacts that
were objects, which belonged to children can also tell us about their lives.
Egypt
Egypt was an old and very stable civilization. It experienced great prosperity, and while wealth
usually makes most people restless — Egypt changed little over thousands of years. One can
assume that they must have used very successful socialization techniques to ensure that their
offspring grew up continuing to practice the traditions that they knew as children.
We don’t know a lot about Egypt. Much of what we do know
comes from Greek historians commenting on Egyptian culture -and they sometimes had a tendency to exaggerate. However,
there are two Egyptian practices that Greek historians remarked
upon that are likely to be quite true, because they were surprising
to the Greeks. First, Egyptians did not practice infanticide. The
practice of killing a child was a punishable crime in their society.
The Greeks (who did allow infanticide) assumed that Egypt must
be a very rich and fertile country that could afford a growing
population. That may be part of the answer. However, Egyptian
medical texts do give advice about birth control — so not everyone
wanted an unlimited number of children. (Just a note: birth
control techniques in the ancient world were not nearly as
effective as modern contraceptive techniques. The discussion of
birth control in Egyptian medical texts suggests that some people
may have wanted to limit childbearing, but it does not mean that
they had an effective way to do so).
A second childrearing practice that surprised Greek historians was
that Egyptians did not swaddle their babies. Swaddling a baby
involves wrapping or binding it in lengths of cloth. Many other
ancient cultures did practice swaddling their infants. And they did
this for a number of reasons. It kept the baby warm. It tended to
comfort the baby. It made caring for an infant much easier (they
were virtually immobile). And it also gave the baby a more straight
and adult-like shape. The fact that the Egyptians didn’t swaddle
their babies suggests that they had more time to attend to and
care for the infant.
Other things that we know about
Egyptians were that the treatment of
children was mentioned in medical
texts (so they were not expendable
and someone must have cared about
their comfort). They are also depicted
in art — sometimes with parents in
family activities, and sometimes as
professional dancers or mourners.
Both boys and girls in artwork appear
naked or wearing few clothes.
The image on the left shows the
Pharaoh Akenaten and his family (14th
century BCE). The unusually elongated
heads of the Pharaoh’s children were
considered attractive by Egyptians.
And adults deliberately tried to
encourage children’s head to develop
that shape.
Ordinary families also buried things with their children when
they died, which suggests a respect for them, or a desire for
them to have positive experiences in the afterlife. Some of
these items may have been toys. However, sometimes the
small model objects were made to represent items that the
child would need in the afterlife. So the objects may have
had a serious purpose and not necessarily been playthings.
The image on the left is a mummy portrait of a twelve-yearold boy from the later Roman Period of Egyptian history (150
CE).
Sparta
Sparta was one of the Greek city states — and famous for its childrearing practices. Many
people in other societies and later times admired certain aspects of how the Spartans brought
up their children (i.e., Plato, Rousseau, the founding fathers of the United States, etc.).
The Spartans took a hard line in raising their children. They were a militaristic society and their
goal was to rear boys to be good soldiers (with unthinking obedience to the state) — and to rear
girls to be the mothers of soldiers. Children’s lives were shaped from the earliest moments by
their society. When a free-born Spartan was born, a group of community elders visited the
home. The elders decided if the child was healthy enough to live — or if it should be “exposed”
(left outside to die). Those strong and healthy babies who were allowed to live, were put into
the care of nurses. Spartans wanted to limit family connections and ensure that a child’s main
loyalty was to the state. Babies were not swaddled because Spartans felt that it was important
for the baby to exercise their limbs to grow stronger. The nurse’s job was to teach the young
child to do things without the complaints or fears that are common to little ones in other
societies.
A Spartan statesman named Lycurgus is
famous for establishing the idea of
community commitment to education.
Rather than individual families needing to
pay for the education of their children — all
freeborn children were educated by the
state. At 7 years old, boys were sent to
boarding schools where they lived until
they were about 20 years old. They
received military training. This included
extensive physical training and exposure to
the elements to toughen them up. Sparta
was an oral culture — so children were
barely literate. However, boys memorized
epics and histories as examples of heroism.
They learned the choral songs that they
were famous for singing as they marched
into battle. Since Spartan laws were not
written down — young Spartan citizens
memorized their legal code. Interestingly,
Spartan girls were educated too. In fact,
women in Sparta received an education
that was more similar to men than in any
other ancient culture. Girls learned
gymnastics and participated in athletics -and were encouraged to become involved
in national life. Spartans felt that this type
of education for girls would make childbirth
easier — and better prepare them to be
mothers. The image of the sculpture on the
left is simply called, “The Spartan Girl.”
Athens
Athens is the city state that we often think of when referring to ancient Greece. That society
was responsible for many of the Classical Greek ideas and writings that we know today. In
ancient Athens, education was paramount for creating the thinking or informed man.
Consequently, children under the age of 7 (and too young for formal education) were given
little attention — and weren’t considered fully human until they reached an age at which
education could start.
Athens did practice infanticide. If an infant was born weak, sick or deformed, or if a family had
more children than it could afford to support — it was considered responsible to “expose” the
baby rather than let it live. Interestingly enough, there are scholars today (like John Boswell)
with a different perspective on infanticide in ancient Greece and Rome. Boswell says that
exposing babies in the ancient world wasn’t only about killing them — it was an approved way
to promote adoption. Generally, babies left to die were abandoned at the town dump. This was
a place that you could leave a baby without being seen — but you could be sure that other
people would be coming there throughout the day. Boswell suggests that people may have
taken and reared many of the abandoned infants. Sometimes they may have done this, because
they couldn’t have children of their own, or sometimes it was a way to increase your slave
holdings or to recruit young prostitutes for brothels. If you were willing to raise the child — it
was yours. Boswell’s evidence is the many myths and stories of abandoned children who were
reared to adulthood by strangers (and even by animals). Examples include Hercules, Oedipus,
Romulus and his twin brother, Remus, and even Moses.
The sculpture on the left depicts
Romulus and Remus. They are the
twins who legend says founded the
city of Rome. They were believed to
be abandoned and raised by a shewolf.
If upper class babies were kept by their families,
they grew up in the area of their home where
their mother lived and worked on household
tasks. Just because young children weren’t
viewed as fully human — didn’t necessarily mean
that adults didn’t love them. Parents could be
very fond of children. Examples from Greek
literature, like the scene from Euripides’ Trojan
Women, when Hector says good-bye to his wife
and infant son before going off to battle, show a
deep sympathy for children. Athenians accused
of crimes often brought their children (or hired
other people’s children to come) to court to sit
behind them and cry — since judges were known
to be more lenient in cases where a child’s future
was at stake.
The image on the left is from a fragment of a 5th
century Greek bell krater. It depicts a women
holding a child, and suggests a loving emotional
bond between them. Other examples of painted
images on Greek pottery show young children in
the care of women and playing with toys.
Once a boy reached the age of seven, he was old enough to begin his education. Boys in the
upper class were assigned to a male servant called, a paidagogos who served as his companion.
The paidagogos walked the boy to school in the marketplace ensuring his safety (there were
robbers and kidnappers). However, they had another role too. Plato, the Athenian philosopher
was noted for saying, “Children are the most stubborn of all wild beasts, because they are the
most clever … sneaky, insolent creatures who shouldn’t be let along for a minute.”
Consequently, the paidagogos also served to to keep the boy “in line.”
Athenian education was
separate from practical
skills. Poorer boys may have
learned a trade, but parents
who could afford to send
their sons to school wanted
him to have a liberal
education. Young Athenians
learned reading, writing, and
mathematics. They
memorized the work of the
poets, participated in
athletics, and learned music
(particular on an instrument
called the lyre — which is
seen hanging in the picture
to the left). Education was
an end in itself. It was the
beginning of self-knowledge,
and of understanding one’s
place in the universe.
Girls were unlikely to receive a liberal education. Unless a father chose to hire a tutor for his
daughter or teach her himself (like the father of the great female mathematician, Hypatia) -girls learned from their mothers. They were taught to spin, weave, and run a household. Many
were illiterate. And many were destined to marry very young (13 or 14). Interesting, married
couples often had little in common in the upper class. Men were well-educated and older when
they married. And their brides were young, often uneducated girls. Consequently, women had
their own area of the house, their own responsibilities, and sometimes little contact with their
husbands.
Athenians also promoted the concept of the erote. The erote represented the ideal time of life – the time when a human is closest to the divine form. For the ancient Athenians, “the youth”
(teenager or young adult) represented that divine form.
Hebrews
The Hebrews had a different perspective on education and children that makes them
noteworthy in the ancient world. They viewed education of boys as a lifelong experience and a
means to gain a better understanding of their faith. Most of our knowledge of the ancient
Hebrews comes from the books that were their teaching materials. These are scriptures
containing law, history, and issues of faith. Education was also a way of preserving a national
identity in the absence of their own state (as the Babylonians destroyed their state, Temple,
and public buildings in 587 BCE). The Hebrews had an early sympathy for children. Infanticide
was forbidden. There are many stories that reflect a concern for younger sons. Although
families might favor an elder son — God often choice to bless the younger (i.e., Abel, Joseph,
and David). This suggests a view of children as unique individuals and not merely extensions of
their families. Education was also given importance. Boys attended schools taught by a rabbi (or
scholar). The rabbi had a high status within the community. Learning and children may have
had greater value in the Hebrew society than anywhere else in antiquity. While they were not
formally educated to the same level as boys, Hebrew girls were not unimportant. The Jewish
identity is passed through the mother. And mothers, as well as fathers had a role in teaching
their children about their traditions. Consequently, mothers taught their daughters about their
faith and how to maintain religious traditions in their homes. Th…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Explanation & Answer:
500 words
Tags:
diversity
different cultures
Concepts of Childhood
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool’s honor code & terms of service.
Reviews, comments, and love from our customers and community: