M Newby. Was affection a characteristic of the early-modern family in England?

Abstract

This essay evaluates whether affection was a significant characteristic of early-modern English families. It draws upon primary sources including diaries and court records, and engages with key secondary works by the likes of Stone, MacFarlane, Berry and Foyster, Tadmor, and Laslett. In contrast to the cold, transactional model proposed by Lawrence Stone in The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800 (1977), this essay supports the argument that emotional warmth was a significant – if contextually varied – feature of early-modern family life.

Historiographical Context

The family in early-modern England was significantly different than today, in both a semantic and practical sense.

Naomi Tadmor, in ‘The concept of the household-family in eighteenth century England’, posits that the word itself has shifted in meaning over time[1], pointing to Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language, published in 1755; ‘Fam’ily, s. a household; race, generation’[2]. In the early-modern period, the word ‘family’ referred to those who live within the same house, extending beyond the word’s meaning today – the nuclear family – to include dependents, servants, apprentices, and extended kin.  

In a practical sense, in a preindustrial world, the family served primarily as an economic unit. Marriages were arranged, child mortality was high, and life expectancy was low. As Laslett put it, the era ‘was no paradise, no golden age of equality, tolerance or of loving kindness’[3], and scholars have speculated whether the realities of life (and death) in the sixteenth century may have impacted the degree to which affection was a characteristic of family life.

In fact, the emotional dynamics of the families of this period, i.e. the degree to which these families were affectionate, or on the other hand cold, pragmatic and more or less indifferent, is, somewhat ironically, a hotly debated topic among scholars. This has been the case since the publication of the late Lawrence Stone’s seminal work, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800 (1977).

In this tome, Stone argued that, up until the mid-sixteenth century, family members were no more affectionate than, for example, neighbours, because the ‘expectation of life was so low that it was highly imprudent to become too emotionally dependent upon any other human being’[4]. He states plainly that ‘Inside the home the members of the nuclear family were subordinated to the will of its head, and were not closely bonded to each other by warm affective ties’[5].

Then, Stone argues, over the next two centuries, affection within the nuclear family grew as a result of puritan ideals, industrialisation and, as other scholars have noted, the Enlightenment ideas of Locke and Rousseau[6]. 

Stone’s thesis is both influential and contentious, and The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800 has directly spawned countless historical works looking to support or, more often, debunk its central claim. Alan Macfarlane led the charge with his Review of L. Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800 (1979).

Macfarlane accuses Stone of methodological flaws and historical oversimplification. Macfarlane was, as far as I know, the first (but not the last) to point out Stone’s narrow selection of sources – mainly records concerning elite families and prescriptive literature – which produced a distorted view of family life in the period. Critically, Macfarlane criticised Stone’s Whiggish teleological model of emotional development, which assumes that affection was largely absent prior to modernity.

Macfarlane instead contended that family affection was a continuous feature of family life from the medieval to early-modern England, to today. Macfarlane draws on sources that I will refer to myself in this essay, such as the diary of Ralph Josselin, a 17th-century clergyman, where he finds statements of concern for immediate family members and grief at their passing, revealing deep emotional ties between husband, wife, and children. He thus argued that Stone’s thesis painted an overly deterministic picture[7].

This historiographical debate is crucial to understand as it frames the broader analysis of early-modern family relationships.

Affection in spousal relationships in the Early-Modern period

As mentioned, in his review of Stone’s work, MacFarlane refers to the diary of Ralph Josselin, recorded between the years of 1616 to 1683. Josselin often records his feelings for his wife, Joan Josselin, throughout this period[8].

In his entry for 1640, Josselin describes the day of the ‘first proposal of the match one to another’ to his soon-to-be-wife, who he refers to as ‘my Jane’ and ‘my Dear wife’[9]. Throughout their lives together, he notes with great concern whenever she is unwell[10].

Even when Josselin complains about her not keeping the household in order, he beseeches God to ‘give me a heart of love and care towards her continually’[11].

Likewise, Samuel Pepys, an MP who kept a diary from 1660 to 1669, wrote often of his wife, Elizabeth. While their relationship was deeply turbulent[12] and his relationship with women was, by today’s standards, criminally exploitative[13], he recorded his grave concern when she was unwell[14], and was jealous of her relationship with her dance teacher, Mr Pembleton[15].

While neither grief nor jealousy is direct evidence of affection, one can infer that these emotions both emanate from losing a loved one[16], or the fear of losing a loved one[17], and thus infer at least a degree of affection.

Affection in parent-child relationships in the Early-Modern period

Ralph Josselin notes in his diary with obvious concern whenever his daughter is in danger, has a fall or is taken ill[18], and is deeply grateful whenever she recovers[19]. Josselin’s relationship with his daughter is a key piece of evidence in MacFarlane’s criticism of Stone, particularly the entries made while she was on her deathbed[20].

In The Family in Early Modern England (2007) by H. Berry and E. Foyster, Joanne Bailey draws on the records of Durham and York’s ecclesiastical courts records, looking specifically at spousal cruelty and separation cases, recorded in Trials for Adultery (1779–81) and A New Collection of Trials for Adultery (1799). In Bailey’s words, ‘The most detailed matrimonial cases are useful in several ways to explore parenting because they frequently include information about spouses’ roles as fathers and mothers’[21].

One such case study is that of William Ettrick (1726-1808), a justice of the peace, and his wife Catherine Wharton (?-1794). Ettrick’s treatment of his children was so shocking that his wife took him to court, which led Bailey to infer that a degree of affection must have been the baseline norm from which this behaviour was deviant[22].

One passage that Bailey highlighted is of particular interest when it comes to the normal levels of affection in the period[23]. ‘George Applegarth recalled seeing William order his children to do something when they had guests. When they did what they were bid, ‘some of the Company did say Mr Ettrick shou’d kiss them upon which he said if the Children wou’d come to him he wou’d Spitt in their Mouths and that was the way to kiss them’’[24]. A kiss from father to child for good behaviour was clearly not a controversial proposition.

We can conclude that a degree of affection was indeed common in families of the early-modern period, so common that, when absent, it was grounds for litigation. However, it must be noted that Bailey highlights Ettrick’s mother’s comments that William was simply doing what all parents do, and concludes that attitudes towards the raising of children were in a state of flux in the period: ‘This rare insight suggests that William was following his own family’s model of childrearing, which perhaps diverged from Catherine’s understandings’[25]. This conclusion could be said to support at least the gist of Stone’s thesis, and more directly that of Heywood and Cunningham[26].

Affection in other relationships in the Early-Modern period

Referring again to the diary Ralph Josselin, we find clear evidence of familial affection for a sibling, his sister Hannah: ‘This week my sister Hannah came over to me, I sent her away in some hopes to help her about her house, and with some expressions of love, lord remember me and mine (and) hers in mercy.’[27]

While servants, i.e. household employees, would not be considered part of the family today, we have already established that, in the early-modern period, they were. And Bailey points to direct evidence of Ettrick’s servants demonstrating affection for his children[28].

Taken together, we can conclude that Stone’s explicit assertion that families of the early-modern period ‘were not closely bonded to each other by warm affective ties’[29] was incorrect. Affection clearly was a characteristic of at least the families we have discussed thus far.

The problem with historical models that make claims about the emotions of people long since dead

In the very work that prompted the debate, Stone describes the development of familial affection as having three distinct, yet overlapping stages. These are; the perfunctory Open Lineage Family of the sixteenth century and before, the halfway Restricted Patriarchal Nuclear Family, beginning in 1530, rising to predominance from 1580 to 1640 and continuing on to 1700, and the much warmer and more affectionate Closed Domesticated Nuclear Family, evolving in the late seventeenth century and predominating the eighteenth[30]. He also caveats his assertion about affection in early-modern families by noting, while parents were advised by theologians not to be overly attached to their children, ‘of course by no means everyone heeded this advice’[31]. The problem with this claim, as I see it, is that it is so broad and imprecise as to be essentially unfalsifiable.

The sources we have for the earliest years of the early-modern period, such as state papers and the proceedings of the ecclesiastical courts, weren’t a record of people’s thoughts, feelings, and interpersonal relationships. Moreover, we know from our own time that, even if we do attempt to measure the general public’s feelings about a particular subject, the results are not necessarily representative of reality[32].

Our best insight into the thoughts and feelings of people of the period is personal testimony. The issue here is that most likely, very few diaries were written, those that were written were necessarily written by the literate, i.e. the elite, and very few have survived the ages.

On top of this, while the diaries of both Ralph Josselin and Samuel Pepys both demonstrate conclusively that affection was indeed a part of their own family lives, both are late enough as to fall into Stone’s period of Restricted Patriarchal Nuclear Families. I.e. When Stone himself claims that affection began to creep into family life.

Before this period, there is essentially no evidence that affection was a characteristic of early-modern families in England. But, as the old aphorism goes, ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’[33].

---

[1] N. Tadmor, ‘The concept of the household-family in eighteenth century England’, Past and Present 151 (1996), p.19

[2] S. Johnson, Dictionary of the English Language (London, 1755), s.v. ‘family’

[3] P. Laslett, The World We Have Lost – Further Explored (3rd edn, 2005) P4

[4] L. Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800 (1977) p.5

[5] L. Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800 (1977) p.7

[6] P. Laslett, The World We Have Lost – Further Explored (3rd edn, 2005) Page 4

[7] A. MacFarlane, History and Theory, Studies in the Philosophy of History (1979) passim

[8] A. MacFarlane, The Diary of Ralph Josselin, Name Index – Joan Joselin also Constable (J118), accessed 21 Nov 2024

[9] A. MacFarlane, The Diary of Ralph Josselin, 1640, accessed 21 Nov 2024

[10] A. MacFarlane, The Diary of Ralph Josselin, 17.11.1644, accessed 21 Nov 2024

[11] A. MacFarlane, The Diary of Ralph Josselin, 26.4.1646, accessed 21 Nov 2024

[12] The Diary of Samuel Pepys, Pepysdiary.com, Elizabeth Pepys (wife, b. St Michel), accessed 21 Nov 2024

[13] K. Lovemann, Women and the History of Samuel Pepys’s Diary, The Historical Journal, 2022, p12

[14] The Diary of Samuel Pepys, Pepysdiary.com, 14.9.1663, accessed 21 Nov 2024

[15] The Diary of Samuel Pepys, Pepysdiary.com, 26.5.1663, accessed 21 Nov 2024

[16] K. Hoppe, How I Came to Realize That Grief Is Love, Psychology Today, (2023), Accessed: 21 Nov 2024

[17] S. Sultana, Jealousy and Love, are they Interconnected? The Open Psychology Journal (2023), Accessed: 21 Nov 2024

[18] A. MacFarlane, The Diary of Ralph Josselin, 20.9.1644, 11.11.1644, 18.5.1645 accessed 21 Nov 2024

[19] A. MacFarlane, The Diary of Ralph Josselin, 22.6.1645, accessed 21 Nov 2024

[20] A. MacFarlane, History and Theory, Studies in the Philosophy of History, (1979) p.103- 126

[21] J. Bailey, Reassessing parenting in eighteenth-century England, H. Berry and E. Foyster The Family in Early Modern England (2007) p.212

[22] J. Bailey, Reassessing parenting in eighteenth-century England, H. Berry and E. Foyster The Family in Early Modern England (2007) p.214

[23] J. Bailey, Reassessing parenting in eighteenth-century England, H. Berry and E. Foyster The Family in Early Modern England (2007) p.214

[24] Ibid., Catherine Ettrick, Libel, article 17; ibid., George Applegarth’s deposition

[25] J. Bailey, Reassessing parenting in eighteenth-century England, H. Berry and E. Foyster, The Family in Early Modern England (2007) p.218-19

[26] Heywood, History of Childhood (2001) p. 27; Cunningham, Children and Childhood (1995) p. 59, 66

[27] A. MacFarlane, The Diary of Ralph Josselin, 26.8.1644, accessed 21 Nov 2024

[28] J. Bailey, Reassessing parenting in eighteenth-century England, H. Berry and E. Foyster, The Family in Early Modern England (2007) p.216

[29] L. Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800 (1977) p.7

[30] L. Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800 (1977) p.4

[31] L. Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800 (1977) p.5

[32] N. Sherman, Did the US election polls fail? BBC News, Accessed: 23 November 2024

[33] Unattributed, Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence, QuoteInvestigator, Accessed 27 Nov 2024 /