Description
PART A: In your own words explain the meaning of the term “theoretical lens.” PART B: How did the missionary religions of the early middles ages view of childhood reflect their theoretical lens? Use information from the seminar notes and the course readings to explain your responses.Address each of the following issues in your response to this part of the question …Describe key similarities and differences between the views of children in Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity in their treatment of children.Define the concept of infant depravity, describe how the Christian church came to develop that view and how it influenced their treatment of children.PART C: How did the Enlightenment philosophers change the prevailing view of childhood in the Western world in their era? Discuss how the ideas of both John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau altered views of childhood. Describe each of the two philosophers’ view of the nature of childhood, and provide examples of how their views changed the treatment of children in the West.
10 attachmentsSlide 1 of 10attachment_1attachment_1attachment_2attachment_2attachment_3attachment_3attachment_4attachment_4attachment_5attachment_5attachment_6attachment_6attachment_7attachment_7attachment_8attachment_8attachment_9attachment_9attachment_10attachment_10
Unformatted Attachment Preview
ChAD106 – Seminar 3A
CHILDHOOD IN THE MIDDLE
AGES
Required Reading:
Shahar, S. (1992). Stages of childhood. In S. Shahar, Childhood in the Middle Ages (pp. 21-31).
New York: Routledge.
Gaffery, M. F., Das, J. K., & Bhutta, Z. A. (2015). Millenium Development Goals: Past and future
progress. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 20, 285-292.
Smith, S. L. & Neupane, S. (2011). Factors in health initiative success: Learning from Nepal’s
newborn survival initiative. Social Science and Medicine, 72, 568-575.
Sterns, N. S. (2017). Childhood in postclassical world history: Impact of religious change. In
Childhood in World History (pp. 46-56). New York, NY: Routledge.
Module Leaning Outcomes:
Students will be able to:
1. Describe the perspective held by different medieval cultures in regard to the view of
childhood
2. Discuss similarities and differences between medieval cultures and the emergence of
world religions in their treatment of children and its impact on them
Discussion Question:
Read this online Forbes news article (Cohen, 2021) about the United States’ infant mortality
rate – https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2021/08/01/us-maternal-and-infantmortality-more-signs-of-public-health-neglect/?sh=753b3093a508
Do the findings in the Forbes news report surprise you? Explain why or why not. Compare the
problems of U.S. infant mortality with the health problems facing children in developing
countries. Are there similarities? Use specific information from the required reading on global
infant health in your response (e.g., the article by Gaffey et al., “Millenium Development Goals 4
& 5: Past and future progress”).
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:
The Middle Ages began in Europe with the fall of the Roman Empire (476 BCE.) and continued
until the beginning of the Renaissance in 14th century Italy. One of the pervasive influences on
Western Europe during the Middle Ages was the Christian Church. So it is important look at the
views that early Christians had of children and childhood.
Early Christian Attitudes Toward Children:
The Child as a Model of Faith
The spread of Christianity through the Roman Empire brought a decisive change in attitudes
toward children. These changes can be seen in Jesus’ own statements about children. The
values that he promoted were revolutionary for his time. He made the child, the model of the
life of faith. And he exactly reversed the expectations of his listeners. Up to this point in history,
even the few authors who reflected on the child’s needs had considered children to be
potentially human. Christ’s attitudes that seem attractive to us, were not common in ancient
literature. The Christian sympathy for outcasts, women, and children was out of place at that
time. It caused other cultures to ridicule Christianity as a religion of the weak.
However, Jesus’ statements may have been meant to shock his
followers into a new perception …
“Truly, I say to you unless you turn and become like children, you
will never enter the kingdom of God. Whoever humbles himself
like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of God. Whoever
receives one such child in my name receives me.”
This suggested that the child’s spirit is the very essence of
religious life (wonder and dependence). It promoted ideal of a
society of service rather than dominance (extend even to caring
for children). And it was the most positive assessment of child’s
worth up to that point, and perhaps in all of history.
Changes in the Original View
None of Jesus’ references to children deal with exceptional cases. Here is where his followers
strayed from his emphasis. Over time, they modified his teachings about children to suggest
that only an exceptional child was noteworthy. Some examples that early Christians used of
remarkable children included…
* Story of Jesus’ as a child amazing the teachers in the Temple with his knowledge and depth of
understanding.
* St. Nicholas was supposed to have stood up at birth, and to have fasted by nursing only once
on Wednesdays and Fridays
* The infant St. Ambrose was said to have had a swarm of bees fly into to his mouth and then
upward toward heaven indicating this future greatness.
Sympathetic Attitude Toward Children
Despite the way that early Christian leaders changed Jesus’ emphasis on children’s value, they
promoted a positive view of children that led to suggestions of more humane treatment of
them.
* St. Paul made successful rearing of children a test of their parents’ fitness for authority in the
church. He warned parents not to provoke their children to anger, because this would stand in
the way of their spiritual development. And he put a limit on their authority over children by
reminding them that parent were to provide for their children and not the other way around.
* Church prohibited abortion and exposure. The first Christian emperor, Constantine made
infanticide a crime (in 318 CE). Later it was punishable by death (374 CE). One can’t assume that
the practice stopped just because there were laws against it. But society did begin to develop a
conscience about disposing of children.
* Outlawing infanticide imposed a burden on poor families who could not afford to feed all the
children that came along. So the Church at first found foster parents, and later established
Church-run foundling homes (orphanages).
* Other laws designed to revive family life — forbade breaking up slave families. They
encouraged parents who could not afford to keep their children to put them up for adoption
rather than abandon or sell them. They secured the rights of foundlings or foster children
against parents who might threaten to reclaim them once the children were old enough to be
put to work.
However, despite all their good intentions historians doubted that these early edicts had much
effect.
Contrary View — “Infant Depravity”
Christianity was decisive in sentimentalizing the image of the child. Yet the notion of childhood
innocence conflicts with another Christian teaching, which is “infant depravity.” Infant
depravity is the belief that every individual inherits the guilt of Adam’s original rebellion against
God, and also inherits a tendency toward personal rebellion.
How did this theory arise in a sect that considered the child the model of faith? It is ironic, in
that it may have arisen in part to explain an already existing practice. The Church baptized
infants during this period. In the 4th century, the question that arose — What could infants have
done to require purification? Scholars now think that this confusion was the result of forgetting
the earlier meaning of the rite.
Baptism had not always meant only the washing away of sin. Whole families were baptized
together to show the new start of life. In the early Church, the end of the world seemed
imminent to many of Christ’s followers. And it was inconceivable that parents would leave their
children outside the Church until they were old enough to choose for themselves. Later as
other children were born into already Christian families, they were baptized as a kind of
substitute for Jewish circumcision. But by the 4th century, the Church had lost its sense that the
end of the world was at hand. The only meaning baptism retained was that element which
suggested purification or forgiveness of sins.
Debating the Nature of Children
Around the year 400 CE, the Church began to debate the nature of the child. Pelagius (an early
Church leader) argued that an infant starts life with a clean slate as did Adam, and is
responsible only for the sins that he or she later commits. St. Augustine countered with the
view that all people were contained in Adam, as we might say that we existed as germ cells in
the first human being. Thus all persons were living in the first man and are therefore implicated
in his original sin. Augustine thought that baptism takes ways the guilt of original sin, but as
children grow up the inherited tendency toward sin inevitably manifests itself.
The Church decided in favor of St. Augustine’s idea, and drew the logical conclusion that
children who died unbaptized would go to hell. Both Church scholars and parents were
uncomfortable with that idea. So they created an argument that although unbaptized children
could not go to heaven — they would go to a place where they didn’t suffer. “Limbo” is a place
of no remorse or torture. Those residing there are deprived of the vision of God. But since they
don’t know about heaven, they don’t know what they missed. (This belief remained as part of
the doctrine of the Catholic Church until 2007, when the Church ruled that there was no
scriptural evidence to support it).
The Church considered baptized children to be freed from infant depravity. And for the first
seven years of their lives they were viewed as innocent. However, childhood innocence had no
strength against temptation and had to be protected. This could lead to somewhat repressive
treatment. For instance, St. Jerome (400 CE) wrote letters concerning the raising of girls. They
were tender letters and concerned with making education pleasant – but the practices he
suggested were highly restrictive. He worried about protecting girls’ innocence. They should be
kept strictly away from boys or from young nurses (who might attract boys) or cause the girls to
think of themselves in a physical sense. Fancy clothes and even baths were forbidden. He
suggested that girls should be raised with such a sense of dependence that they would be
afraid to be alone.
Fall of Rome and the Revival of Family Authority:
The fall of the Western Roman Empire is traditionally considered to have occurred in 476 CE,
when the last Roman emperor in west, Romulus Augustulus was deposed by Odovadar (the
leader of the Goths). The destruction of Rome (along with its laws, learning, and social
structures) was the greatest societal trauma in the history of the western world. Civilization did
not quite revive in the same form. Family structure grew stronger as life reverted to more
primitive conditions. Family provided social and material security. (Whether children were
better off, is doubtful).
Germanic Families
Roman society had become urban and the society had taken over many of the functions of the
family (i.e., the father’s role in education). The barbarian peoples who overthrew Rome still
lived in an almost tribal situation. Economies were organized around the family’s combined
efforts. The people of this time period viewed their families as the early Romans had — eternal
institutions with the living members serving as the trustees for the family’s life and assets.
One major institution that did survive the fall of Rome was the Christian Church. The Church
admired the Gemanic families (European barbarian groups like the Huns, Goths, Visigoths,
Vandals, etc.) for their devotion to the family (which contrasted with Roman decadence). The
Church thought that the rest of the population was better served by the strong Germanic sense
of family than by the individualism of Roman society. The Christian Church also had some
misconceptions. They believed that the barbarians did not allow infanticide and that mothers
nursed their own children. They thought that Germanic families seemed to be based more on
affection than economic considerations (e.g., wife’s dowry was held as an insurance policy for
widowhood, rather than a payment to the husband from the bride’s family) and that adultery
was unknown.
The Christian Church found the barbarian groups different that they had believed them to be -and somewhat harder to control. The barbarian families were difficult to reform. They were
much like the feuding families in The Godfather. Everything was done to keep the family
supreme in a hostile world. Even if this meant killing family members whose weaknesses
threaten to drag down the family. They had ferocious feuds. In parts of Holland, a murdered
family member could not be buried until the death was avenged. It was not necessary to kill the
guilty party. Any member of his family was a good substitute. Many of the barbarian groups still
did practiced infanticide. Twins were sometimes killed on the theory that they were evidence of
adultery. Deformed children were killed as the devil’s changelings.
“Exposing” a baby (leaving it outside to die) because adults think that it is a “changeling” is very
different than the reason that families in antiquity practiced infanticide. As you will remember,
families in ancient Greece and Rome exposed babies if they felt they couldn’t afford another
child or if the baby was weak, sick or deformed (as hence thought to be a potential drain on the
family’s resources). Many of the Germanic families believed in the concept that evil (or
mischievous) supernatural creatures (like elves, fairies, pixies, sprites, etc.) would take a healthy
newborn human, and replace it with a sickly member of their own community (who was
transformed to look like the abducted newborn human). Humans could recognize such a
“changeling” by its physical deformities. Parents were advised to “expose” the changeling -hopefully forcing the abductors to return the human child. As you can imagine, only rarely did
parents return to find that the exposed “changeling” had been reclaimed, and their healthy
newborn was returned to them (probably because they had been mistaken about the perceived
deformity or baby suffered from a temporary condition). Most often the “changeling” simply
died. Parents took such deaths as evidence that the world was full of bad luck, and that the
supernatural forces in their world could be quite cruel.
Church Attempts to Control the Germanic Families
Church tried to be strict. There are records of French women put to death for killing their
infants. However, people in the early Middle Ages were living on the edge of survival.
Eventually the Church allowed people to do penance for infanticide, taking into account the
poverty of parents, accidents, and insanity as a defense. There were many compromises with
the upper class. They could give unwanted children to the church (sometimes dedicated before
birth). This was the main form of recruitment into the monastic life until the 10th and 11th
centuries.
The Church also established marriage laws. They had limited success stopping child marriages.
The Church ruled that a girl could not marry before 12 years old, or a boy before 14. They tried
to stop marriages of close relatives. But marriages of first cousins were common (as it
strengthen existing family ties). And the Church sometimes stopped forced marriages, if the girl
wanted to be a nun.
Laws discriminating against illegitimate children also favored the rights of the family (even
though it theoretically punishes the wrong person) There were laws that bastard could not
inherit property, and not hold office in the Church. Again the Church compromised with the
rich.
Education
Period between fall of Rome (476 CE) and the year 1000 CE is most obscure in all of Western
history. Historians know little about the lives of children. We know education at low ebb. Only a
few secular schools survived (mostly in Italy). The upper class was a warrior aristocracy with no
need for literacy. They trained their sons by sending them off to be pages in other men’s courts.
Boys learned to serve at table and fight on the battlefield. Daughters learned weaving
(spinsters), needlework, healing, music and entertainment. Trade and government were in such
a primitive state that there was little demand for clerks. Only the Church had a need for an
intellectual tradition — to consult the Scripture.
First stirring of formal education started with the arrival of missionary bishops. The bishops
(missionaries like St. Patrick in Ireland) took local boys into their household to prepare them for
the priesthood. Tradition had it that boys were expected to leave home for education. They
also left home to learn a craft. Cathedral churches set up in each bishop’s town, staffed
organized schools for the same purpose. They taught Latin for reading the Latin Bible and the
writings of the early Church fathers. They taught music for chanting the service, and astronomy
to calculate the date of Easter. Later some teachers added Greek and mathematics to the
curriculum out of a pure zeal for learning.
The vast majority of girls who learned to read were the novice nuns. Most other children
remained in an oral culture and therefore were subjects to the influence of pagan folklore along
with Christian influences. Boys were apprenticed at 7. They worked for a master for seven
years. At 14, they could become journeymen – working for a different master and drawing a
salary. The goal was to save for the time when they could establish own shops.
One notable attempt before 1000 CE to encourage a general literacy occurred in England. King
Alfred (c. 900 CE) tried to require all freeborn boys to learn to read English, if not Latin. He
helped to translate a number of essential works into English and establish some secular schools.
Unfortunately, he was unable to implement his educational plans, as he was largely kept busy
fending off the Viking invaders from Scandinavia.
Civilization Begins Again
After the year 1000 the last wave of barbarians settled down. For once there were no serious
threats to Western Europe. Civilization had a notable revival. Some of the evidence of this is
that there was more building in stone and the populations of towns increased. The Church
began to make headway in its efforts to promote the ideal of a more companionable family.
A notable example of this new atmosphere can be seen in the holidays associated with
children:
* St. Nicholas’ Day (December 6th) was fixed as the feast of the patron saint of children and
scholars, and during the 12th century it came to be thought of children’s day. Most famous
legends of the saint concerned his bringing murdered children back to life and giving dowries to
girls to keep them from being sold into prostitution. This started the practice of giving presents
to children on St Nicholas’ Eve. (And this saint became the inspiration for Santa Claus).
* At the cathedral schools a boy-bishop was elected on St Nicholas’ Day to rule until Holy
Innocents’ Day on December 28th (the commemoration of the massacre of the children in
Bethlehem). Little bishops were allowed to parade through streets with their schoolmates,
blessing houses and begging for money. It was a time for the children to relax in the middle of a
long winter. Sometimes things got out of hand, and children abused the freedom. Before the
end of the 12th century, the Church was already trying to prohibit boy-bishops, but the practice
proved to be too popular to stop.
* With the two holidays bracketing the month of December — Christmas itself came to be
associated with children. Traditionally Christmas was not an important part of the Church’s
year. Rather emphasis had been on Christ’s adult baptism as the beginning of his divine mission.
The Appollinarian heresy (which denied Jesus’ humanity) — awakened the Church to the need
to celebrate his human birth, and the Feast of the Nativity on December 25th became part of a
more general recognition of childhood.
* Epiphany (January 6th) originally commemorated Jesus’ baptism, but in the 12th century that
changed to the visit of the Magi (three wise men). All twelve days between Christmas and
Epiphany came to be associated with Jesus’ childhood. Children had a recognized place in the
festivities.
Social Changes
The rise of a market economy meant that people were forced to deal with others who were not
their kinfolk. When people moved now it was as nuclear families, not as tribes. Nuclear family
patterns (families made up of parents and children) were evident in France and Spain by the
10th century. The trend in urban societies tended toward smaller more intimate family groups.
New political states also reduced the power of the families. William, the Conqueror tried to
abolish the right of the family vengeance in England (c. 1080 CE). Governments protected those
who deserted their families rather than serve in family feuds.
The Church searched for a balance between responsibility and individual freedom. They ruled
that parents could not block a marriage forever by withholding consent. They insisted on the
consent of both parties to the marriage — public marriage before witnesses, performed in the
church porch (rather than the groom’s house). They tried to prohibit the payment of a dowry to
the husband from the bride’s family (more of a treaty than a union of individuals). And they
insisted that divorce or annulments be handled in the Church courts and not by parents or kin,
as they had been before.
Sentimentalism about Childhood
St Bernard of Clairvaux (c. 1140 CE), foremost writer of the time, promoted a sentimentalism
associated with the figure of the child. And that sentimentalism can be seen in paintings of the
Madonna and Child. The infant Jesus and mother became a symbol of the new concept of God’s
tenderness. The traditional pose for the Madonna and Child was with both facing front, and the
solemn Savior raising his hand in blessing (and other signs of His power). But by 1200 CE,
paintings show a new more natural Christ. The mother and child were often pictured turning
toward each other, smiling, caressing, and sometime the baby, Jesus is even shown nursing.
Infant Christ might be portrayed playing with a ball or fruit like any other child.
formal Madonna and Child from Later and more sentimental depiction of the
an illuminated manuscript
Madonna with the Christ child and Saint Anne
A Nursing Madonna
The church also suggested practical ideas for real children. Several books of child-rearing advice
exist from the 13th century written by Churchmen. They urged parents to pay more attention
to their children and to be stricter in their care. They praised women who nursed their own
babies, rather leaving them to wetnurses. Other practical suggestions included the use of
cradles (to prevent the danger of babies suffocating in their parents’ bed, which was a
significant cause of infant death in the Middle Ages). They gave directions on washing, weaning,
teething, etc. Some suggested disciplining with love rather than force. Not all the new ideas
trickled down to real children though. The infant Christ was never pictured in swaddling, yet it
was still a universal practice in homes. Wetnurses and beatings were still common.
In The Holy Kinship (by Cranach the Elder), the
artist uses his family to portray the Holy Family
Nuture and Marriage of the
Foundling (di Bartolo) — an
example of a baby in
swaddling.
An medieval illustration
depicting infanticide
Changes in Schooling
By the 12th century, schools were outgrowing their original role of training priests. They began
to broaden the horizons of education by pursuing more philosophical questions with their
students. And they began to attract famous teachers (like Abelard).
Boys around the age of 14 years old, came from long distances to great international centers
like Paris, forming Europe’s first universities. They lived a bohemian life, and townspeople often
took advantage of them. The Church felt some responsibility, and wanted to assert control over
students’ lives. So they began providing hostels and dormitories. When the Church became
alarmed over the direction of the intellectual debates in the universities — also began to
regulate instruction.
People were unable to agree whether education of girls was desirable or not. Vincent of
Beauvais suggested that upper class girls should learn to read and write. However, others said
that only those going into the convent needed those skills. There were no suggestions of
establishing schools for girls.
A wood cut showing a medieval school
A drawing of hornbooks. Since
books were expensive in the
Middle Ages, young students
used hornbooks (a piece of
wood with writing carved into it
or written on a paper). The
writing was covered with a thin
sheet of transparent horn.
A photograph of actual
hornbooks.
The Children’s Crusades
The Children’s Crusade (1212 CE) also shows an interesting aspect of how the Church utilized
the idea of children and childhood. According to accounts of the time, the story of the
Children’s Crusades centered around the idea of two boys, Nicholas of Cologne and Stephen of
Cloyes.
* Stephen, a French shepherd boy was said to have been inspired by a vision of Christ
announcing that the Cross and the holy places of Palestine could only be recovered by innocent
children. Stephen was reported to have set out with 30,000 boys and girls, many under the age
of 12. They headed for the Mediterranean coast, expecting the waters to part like the Red Sea
so they could walk to the Holy Land.
* Another medieval child, Nicholas was said to have guided a hoard of German children over
the Alps into Italy on a similar errand.
Pope Innocent III approved the children’s zeal saying, “The very children put us to shame. While
we sleep they go forth joyfully to conquer the Holy Land.” Sadly, even the original accounts note
that the Children’s Crusades ended in disaster. The children were robbed, raped, and kidnapped
along the way. The sea did not open up for them. Ship owners who promised to take them
across, sold them into slavery.
However, the modern version of the story suggests that history exaggerated the role of the
children in the crusades. The myth fit nicely with the cult of the childhood that the Church was
encouraging at the time — and they tended to use the story as propaganda to encourage adults
to participate more in Church life. In reality, probably only part of the group was children,
though most were young people. And the group was probably never as big as the myth
suggests.
Conclusion
The common people of the Middle Ages left little evidence of their thoughts about children (or
anything else). What they did leave with regard to children not too hopeful. Many traditional
fairytales and nursery rhymes may have their origins from the Middle Ages (i.e., Snow White,
Hansel and Gretel, Rock-a-by-Baby, etc.). These stories and rhymes suggest that children lived
difficult threatened lives. The truth may be somewhere in the middle (between the frightening
tales of folklore and the sentimental ideals of the Church).
References:
Shahar, S. (1992). Stages of childhood. In S. Shahar, Childhood in the Middle Ages (pp. 21-31).
New York: Routledge.
Sommerville, J. (1990). The rise and fall of childhood. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
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 3A
CHILDHOOD IN THE MIDDLE
AGES
Required Reading:
Shahar, S. (1992). Stages of childhood. In S. Shahar, Childhood in the Middle Ages (pp. 21-31).
New York: Routledge.
Gaffery, M. F., Das, J. K., & Bhutta, Z. A. (2015). Millenium Development Goals: Past and future
progress. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 20, 285-292.
Smith, S. L. & Neupane, S. (2011). Factors in health initiative success: Learning from Nepal’s
newborn survival initiative. Social Science and Medicine, 72, 568-575.
Sterns, N. S. (2017). Childhood in postclassical world history: Impact of religious change. In
Childhood in World History (pp. 46-56). New York, NY: Routledge.
Module Leaning Outcomes:
Students will be able to:
1. Describe the perspective held by different medieval cultures in regard to the view of
childhood
2. Discuss similarities and differences between medieval cultures and the emergence of
world religions in their treatment of children and its impact on them
Discussion Question:
Read this online Forbes news article (Cohen, 2021) about the United States’ infant mortality
rate – https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2021/08/01/us-maternal-and-infantmortality-more-signs-of-public-health-neglect/?sh=753b3093a508
Do the findings in the Forbes news report surprise you? Explain why or why not. Compare the
problems of U.S. infant mortality with the health problems facing children in developing
countries. Are there similarities? Use specific information from the required reading on global
infant health in your response (e.g., the article by Gaffey et al., “Millenium Development Goals 4
& 5: Past and future progress”).
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:
The Middle Ages began in Europe with the fall of the Roman Empire (476 BCE.) and continued
until the beginning of the Renaissance in 14th century Italy. One of the pervasive influences on
Western Europe during the Middle Ages was the Christian Church. So it is important look at the
views that early Christians had of children and childhood.
Early Christian Attitudes Toward Children:
The Child as a Model of Faith
The spread of Christianity through the Roman Empire brought a decisive change in attitudes
toward children. These changes can be seen in Jesus’ own statements about children. The
values that he promoted were revolutionary for his time. He made the child, the model of the
life of faith. And he exactly reversed the expectations of his listeners. Up to this point in history,
even the few authors who reflected on the child’s needs had considered children to be
potentially human. Christ’s attitudes that seem attractive to us, were not common in ancient
literature. The Christian sympathy for outcasts, women, and children was out of place at that
time. It caused other cultures to ridicule Christianity as a religion of the weak.
However, Jesus’ statements may have been meant to shock his
followers into a new perception …
“Truly, I say to you unless you turn and become like children, you
will never enter the kingdom of God. Whoever humbles himself
like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of God. Whoever
receives one such child in my name receives me.”
This suggested that the child’s spirit is the very essence of
religious life (wonder and dependence). It promoted ideal of a
society of service rather than dominance (extend even to caring
for children). And it was the most positive assessment of child’s
worth up to that point, and perhaps in all of history.
Changes in the Original View
None of Jesus’ references to children deal with exceptional cases. Here is where his followers
strayed from his emphasis. Over time, they modified his teachings about children to suggest
that only an exceptional child was noteworthy. Some examples that early Christians used of
remarkable children included…
* Story of Jesus’ as a child amazing the teachers in the Temple with his knowledge and depth of
understanding.
* St. Nicholas was supposed to have stood up at birth, and to have fasted by nursing only once
on Wednesdays and Fridays
* The infant St. Ambrose was said to have had a swarm of bees fly into to his mouth and then
upward toward heaven indicating this future greatness.
Sympathetic Attitude Toward Children
Despite the way that early Christian leaders changed Jesus’ emphasis on children’s value, they
promoted a positive view of children that led to suggestions of more humane treatment of
them.
* St. Paul made successful rearing of children a test of their parents’ fitness for authority in the
church. He warned parents not to provoke their children to anger, because this would stand in
the way of their spiritual development. And he put a limit on their authority over children by
reminding them that parent were to provide for their children and not the other way around.
* Church prohibited abortion and exposure. The first Christian emperor, Constantine made
infanticide a crime (in 318 CE). Later it was punishable by death (374 CE). One can’t assume that
the practice stopped just because there were laws against it. But society did begin to develop a
conscience about disposing of children.
* Outlawing infanticide imposed a burden on poor families who could not afford to feed all the
children that came along. So the Church at first found foster parents, and later established
Church-run foundling homes (orphanages).
* Other laws designed to revive family life — forbade breaking up slave families. They
encouraged parents who could not afford to keep their children to put them up for adoption
rather than abandon or sell them. They secured the rights of foundlings or foster children
against parents who might threaten to reclaim them once the children were old enough to be
put to work.
However, despite all their good intentions historians doubted that these early edicts had much
effect.
Contrary View — “Infant Depravity”
Christianity was decisive in sentimentalizing the image of the child. Yet the notion of childhood
innocence conflicts with another Christian teaching, which is “infant depravity.” Infant
depravity is the belief that every individual inherits the guilt of Adam’s original rebellion against
God, and also inherits a tendency toward personal rebellion.
How did this theory arise in a sect that considered the child the model of faith? It is ironic, in
that it may have arisen in part to explain an already existing practice. The Church baptized
infants during this period. In the 4th century, the question that arose — What could infants have
done to require purification? Scholars now think that this confusion was the result of forgetting
the earlier meaning of the rite.
Baptism had not always meant only the washing away of sin. Whole families were baptized
together to show the new start of life. In the early Church, the end of the world seemed
imminent to many of Christ’s followers. And it was inconceivable that parents would leave their
children outside the Church until they were old enough to choose for themselves. Later as
other children were born into already Christian families, they were baptized as a kind of
substitute for Jewish circumcision. But by the 4th century, the Church had lost its sense that the
end of the world was at hand. The only meaning baptism retained was that element which
suggested purification or forgiveness of sins.
Debating the Nature of Children
Around the year 400 CE, the Church began to debate the nature of the child. Pelagius (an early
Church leader) argued that an infant starts life with a clean slate as did Adam, and is
responsible only for the sins that he or she later commits. St. Augustine countered with the
view that all people were contained in Adam, as we might say that we existed as germ cells in
the first human being. Thus all persons were living in the first man and are therefore implicated
in his original sin. Augustine thought that baptism takes ways the guilt of original sin, but as
children grow up the inherited tendency toward sin inevitably manifests itself.
The Church decided in favor of St. Augustine’s idea, and drew the logical conclusion that
children who died unbaptized would go to hell. Both Church scholars and parents were
uncomfortable with that idea. So they created an argument that although unbaptized children
could not go to heaven — they would go to a place where they didn’t suffer. “Limbo” is a place
of no remorse or torture. Those residing there are deprived of the vision of God. But since they
don’t know about heaven, they don’t know what they missed. (This belief remained as part of
the doctrine of the Catholic Church until 2007, when the Church ruled that there was no
scriptural evidence to support it).
The Church considered baptized children to be freed from infant depravity. And for the first
seven years of their lives they were viewed as innocent. However, childhood innocence had no
strength against temptation and had to be protected. This could lead to somewhat repressive
treatment. For instance, St. Jerome (400 CE) wrote letters concerning the raising of girls. They
were tender letters and concerned with making education pleasant – but the practices he
suggested were highly restrictive. He worried about protecting girls’ innocence. They should be
kept strictly away from boys or from young nurses (who might attract boys) or cause the girls to
think of themselves in a physical sense. Fancy clothes and even baths were forbidden. He
suggested that girls should be raised with such a sense of dependence that they would be
afraid to be alone.
Fall of Rome and the Revival of Family Authority:
The fall of the Western Roman Empire is traditionally considered to have occurred in 476 CE,
when the last Roman emperor in west, Romulus Augustulus was deposed by Odovadar (the
leader of the Goths). The destruction of Rome (along with its laws, learning, and social
structures) was the greatest societal trauma in the history of the western world. Civilization did
not quite revive in the same form. Family structure grew stronger as life reverted to more
primitive conditions. Family provided social and material security. (Whether children were
better off, is doubtful).
Germanic Families
Roman society had become urban and the society had taken over many of the functions of the
family (i.e., the father’s role in education). The barbarian peoples who overthrew Rome still
lived in an almost tribal situation. Economies were organized around the family’s combined
efforts. The people of this time period viewed their families as the early Romans had — eternal
institutions with the living members serving as the trustees for the family’s life and assets.
One major institution that did survive the fall of Rome was the Christian Church. The Church
admired the Gemanic families (European barbarian groups like the Huns, Goths, Visigoths,
Vandals, etc.) for their devotion to the family (which contrasted with Roman decadence). The
Church thought that the rest of the population was better served by the strong Germanic sense
of family than by the individualism of Roman society. The Christian Church also had some
misconceptions. They believed that the barbarians did not allow infanticide and that mothers
nursed their own children. They thought that Germanic families seemed to be based more on
affection than economic considerations (e.g., wife’s dowry was held as an insurance policy for
widowhood, rather than a payment to the husband from the bride’s family) and that adultery
was unknown.
The Christian Church found the barbarian groups different that they had believed them to be -and somewhat harder to control. The barbarian families were difficult to reform. They were
much like the feuding families in The Godfather. Everything was done to keep the family
supreme in a hostile world. Even if this meant killing family members whose weaknesses
threaten to drag down the family. They had ferocious feuds. In parts of Holland, a murdered
family member could not be buried until the death was avenged. It was not necessary to kill the
guilty party. Any member of his family was a good substitute. Many of the barbarian groups still
did practiced infanticide. Twins were sometimes killed on the theory that they were evidence of
adultery. Deformed children were killed as the devil’s changelings.
“Exposing” a baby (leaving it outside to die) because adults think that it is a “changeling” is very
different than the reason that families in antiquity practiced infanticide. As you will remember,
families in ancient Greece and Rome exposed babies if they felt they couldn’t afford another
child or if the baby was weak, sick or deformed (as hence thought to be a potential drain on the
family’s resources). Many of the Germanic families believed in the concept that evil (or
mischievous) supernatural creatures (like elves, fairies, pixies, sprites, etc.) would take a healthy
newborn human, and replace it with a sickly member of their own community (who was
transformed to look like the abducted newborn human). Humans could recognize such a
“changeling” by its physical deformities. Parents were advised to “expose” the changeling -hopefully forcing the abductors to return the human child. As you can imagine, only rarely did
parents return to find that the exposed “changeling” had been reclaimed, and their healthy
newborn was returned to them (probably because they had been mistaken about the perceived
deformity or baby suffered from a temporary condition). Most often the “changeling” simply
died. Parents took such deaths as evidence that the world was full of bad luck, and that the
supernatural forces in their world could be quite cruel.
Church Attempts to Control the Germanic Families
Church tried to be strict. There are records of French women put to death for killing their
infants. However, people in the early Middle Ages were living on the edge of survival.
Eventually the Church allowed people to do penance for infanticide, taking into account the
poverty of parents, accidents, and insanity as a defense. There were many compromises with
the upper class. They could give unwanted children to the church (sometimes dedicated before
birth). This was the main form of recruitment into the monastic life until the 10th and 11th
centuries.
The Church also established marriage laws. They had limited success stopping child marriages.
The Church ruled that a girl could not marry before 12 years old, or a boy before 14. They tried
to stop marriages of close relatives. But marriages of first cousins were common (as it
strengthen existing family ties). And the Church sometimes stopped forced marriages, if the girl
wanted to be a nun.
Laws discriminating against illegitimate children also favored the rights of the family (even
though it theoretically punishes the wrong person) There wer…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Explanation & Answer:
500 words
Tags:
infant depravity
theoretical lens
early middles ages view 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: