Youth in the Middle Ages

153 Pages·2004·1.02 MB·English

by  P.J.P. Goldberg

YOUTH IN THE MIDDLE AGES

Edited by
P.J.P. Goldberg, Felicity Riddy
YOUTH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
YORK MEDIEVAL PRESS
YorkMedievalPressispublishedbytheUniversityofYork’sCentreforMedieval
StudiesinassociationwithBoydell&BrewerLtd.Ourobjectiveisthepromotion
of innovative scholarship and fresh criticism on medieval culture. We have a
specialcommitmenttointerdisciplinarystudy,inlinewiththeCentre’sbeliefthat
thefutureofMedievalStudiesliesinthoseareasinwhichitsmajorconstituentdis-
ciplines at once inform and challenge each other.
Editorial Board (2001–2004):
Prof. W. M. Ormrod (Chair; Dept of History)
Dr P. P. A. Biller (Dept of History)
Dr J. W. Binns (Dept of English & Related Literature)
Dr J. Hawkes (Art History)
Dr M. O. Townend (Dept of English & Related Literature)
Allinquiriesofaneditorialkind,includingsuggestionsformonographsandessay
collections, should be addressed to: The Director, University of York, Centre for
Medieval Studies, The King’s Manor, York YO1 7EP(E-mail: [email protected]).
Publications of York Medieval Press are listed at the back of this volume.
YOUTH IN THE MIDDLE AGES
Edited by
P. J. P. Goldberg and Felicity Riddy
YORK MEDIEVAL PRESS
© Editors and Contributors 2004
All Rights Reserved.Except as permitted under current legislation
no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system,
published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast,
transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission of the copyright owner
First published 2004
AYork Medieval Press publication
in association with The Boydell Press
an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd
PO Box 9 Woodbridge Suffolk IP12 3DF UK
and of Boydell & Brewer Inc.
PO Box 41026 Rochester NY14604–4126 USA
website: www.boydellandbrewer.com
and with the
Centre for Medieval Studies, University of York
ISBN 1 903153 13 1
Acatalogue record for this book is available
from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Youth in the Middle Ages / edited by P.J.P. Goldberg and Felicity Riddy.
p. cm.
Includes index.
ISBN 1–903153–13–1 (alk. paper)
1. Children – Europe – History – To 1500. 2. Children – Europe –
History – 16th century. 3. Youth – Europe – History – To 1500.
4. Youth – Europe – History – 16th century. 5. Europe – Social
conditions – To 1492. 6. Europe – Social conditions – 16th century.
7. Social history – Medieval, 500–1500. I. Goldberg, P. J. P., 1958–
II. Riddy, Felicity. III. Title.
HQ792.E8Y68 2004
305.235’094’0904 – dc22 2003017822
This publication is printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Great Britain by
Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham, Wiltshire
CONTENTS
List of Contributors vi
Introduction: After Ariès 1
P. J. P. Goldberg, Felicity Riddy and Mike Tyler
Childhood and Youth in the Early Middle Ages 11
Edward James
Jewish Society under Pressure: The Concept of Childhood 25
Simha Goldin
Desiring Virgins: Maidens, Martyrs and Femininity in Late Medieval 45
England
Kim M. Phillips
Out of the Mouths of Babes: Authority inPearland in Narratives 61
of the Child King Richard
Rosalynn Voaden
ASafe-Haven for Children? The Early Humiliati and Provision 73
for Children
Frances Andrews
Migration, Youth and Gender in Later Medieval England 85
P. J. P Goldberg
Good Advice on Leaving Home in the Romances 101
Helen Cooper
‘Youth on the Prow’: Three Young Kings in the Late Viking Age 123
Judith Jesch
Index 141
CONTRIBUTORS
Frances Andrews is a lecturer in Medieval History at the University of St
Andrews
Helen Cooper is a professor of English at the University of Oxford
P. J. P. Goldberg is a senior lecturer in History at the University of York
Edward James is a professor of History at the University of Reading
Judith Jesch is Professor of Viking Studies at the University of Nottingham
Simha Goldin is a senior lecturer in Jewish History at the University of Tel
Aviv
Kim M. Phillips is a senior lecturer in History at the University of Auckland
Felicity Riddy is a professor of English at the University of York
MikeTylerisadoctoralstudentinMedievalStudiesattheUniversityofYork
Rosalynn Voaden is an associate professor of English at the Arizona State
University
vi
Introduction: After Ariès
Introduction: After Ariès
P. J. P. Goldberg, Felicity Riddy and Mike Tyler
I
ChildhoodasanobjectofstudyhasbeenseenasthecreationofPhilippeAriès
(1914–84), a French agricultural development expert by profession and
free-lance historian in his spare time.1 His L’Enfant et la vie familiale sous
l’AncienRégime,firstpublishedin1960,wasissuedtwoyearslaterinEnglish,
under the misleading title Centuries of Childhood – misleading because to
English-speakingreadersitappearedtobeastudyofchildhoodinisolation,
rather than a study of the child in the family. Where other historians of the
family have sought to identify the development of affectivity primarily by
studyingtherelationsbetweenhusbandandwife,Ariès,unconstrainedbythe
conventionsofprofessionalacademichistory,hadthebrilliantideaoftracing
changesinfamilystructuresviatheemotionalrelationsbetweenparentsand
children.
The book was an attempt to answer the question whether the idea of the
familyhasdiminishedinthefaceofthetwinprocessesofmodernizationand
industrialization as divorce, once unknown, proliferates and parental
authorityiseroded.Ariès’sansweristhatas‘avalue,athemeofexpression,
an occasion of emotions’, the family only arrived in the early nineteenth
century.2Physicalchangesindomestichousingallowedthemodernnuclear
family,whichArièsseesasemergingatthisperiod,tocutitselfofffromthe
world.3Publicness,definedassociability,isthereforeheldtocharacterizethe
AncienRégime,whileprivacy,definedastheretreatintothehomeandinto
self-sufficient family relationships, is seen as a modern condition.
1 Thishasbeenclaimedby,forexample,thepsychotherapistAdamPhillips,inhisintro-
duction to the Pimlico edition of Philippe Ariès, Centuries of Childhood, trans. Robert
Baldick (London, 1996), p. [iv]. Quotations are from this edition.
2 Ibid., pp. 397–8.
3 Since1960aconsiderablebodyofscholarshiphasemergedthatwouldchallengesomeof
theseassumptions.TheearliestEnglishworktoimpactsignificantlyonscholarlypercep-
tionswasPeterLaslett’sTheWorldWeHaveLost(London,1965).Thiswasfollowedby
HouseholdandFamilyinPastTime,ed.P.Laslett(Cambridge,1972).Evidenceforanuclear
household structure in parts of north-western Europe from the later Middle Ages is
found,forexample,inP.Desportes,‘LaPopulationdeReimsauXVesiècle’,LeMoyenAge
72 (1966), 463–509.
1
P. J. P. Goldberg, Felicity Riddy and Mike Tyler
Privacy now is ideological: it gives priority to the particularistic relations
betweenparentsandchildrenwhichareahallmarkofmodernity.ForAriès,
the pre-modern family is an institution for securing the continuation of the
patrimony,forprovidingtraininginconductandtherebyinculcatingrespect
for the good order of society. None of this requires the emotional bonds
betweenitsmembersthatcharacterizethemodernfamily,whichunderstands
itself as organized round its love for the children. Ariès generally acknowl-
edgesthatparentslovedtheirchildreninthepre-modernera,butarguesthat
parental love was not thought of as a defining feature of family life.
The modern idea of the family, then, produced the idea of the child. The
sectionsofthebookdevotedtopre-modernchildhooddrawonanawesome
and somewhat eclectic range of evidence, primarily literary and artistic, in
whichArièsattemptstodiscernlargepatternsinsupportofthiscentralthesis.
The opening sentence of a chapter entitled ‘The Discovery of Childhood’
strideswithtypical,generalizingconfidencethroughaminefieldofproblems
abouttherelationbetweenartandlife,aboutwhatgetsrepresented,byand
forwhom,andforwhatpurposes–indeed,aboutwhatsurvives:‘Medieval
artuntilaboutthetwelfthcenturydidnotknowchildhoodordidnotattempt
toportrayit.Itishardtobelievethatthisneglectwasduetoincompetenceor
incapacity;itseemsmoreprobablethattherewasnoplaceforchildhoodinthe
medievalworld.’4By‘noplaceforchildhood’Arièsmeansthattherewasno
placeforitasaseparateandprivilegedcategory;itwas,heassumes,‘aperiod
oftransitionwhichpassedquicklyandwhichwasjustasquicklyforgotten’.5
SummarizinghisargumentabouttheMiddleAgesattheendofPartOneof
Centuries of Childhood, he begins thus:
Inmedievalsocietytheideaofchildhooddidnotexist;thisisnottosuggest
thatchildrenwereneglected,forsakenordespised.Theideaofchildhoodis
nottobeconfusedwithaffectionforchildren:itcorrespondstoanaware-
ness of the particular nature of childhood, the particular nature which
distinguishes the child from the adult, even the young adult. In medieval
society, this awareness was lacking.6
Nevertheless,fromthethirteenthcenturyon,heargues,wecanbegintosee
thedevelopmentofthemodernideaofchildhood.Childrenstarttoappearin
art:adolescentangels,theinfantJesus,thesoulasanakedchild.Theiconog-
raphyofJesusextendstootherholychildren,andthentonarrativegenresin
whichchildrenappearalongsideadults,playingorhelpingorwatching.From
the fifteenth century two new genres appear: child portraits, including
mortuaryeffigies,andputti,andthesetwomergeintheseventeenthcentury
4 Ibid., p. 31. For a critique of Ariès’s use of visual evidence see A. Burton, ‘Looking
forward from Ariès? Pictorial and material evidence for the history of childhood and
family life’,Continuity and Change4 (1989), 203–29.
5 Ariès,Centuries of Childhood, p. 32.
6 Ibid., p. 125.
2
Introduction: After Ariès
in nude studies of children. And at the same time an old genre, the family
portrait, begins to plan the group around the children, foreshadowing the
modern centrality of the child in the privatized home.
In Ariès’s thinking, then, childhood and privacy are interdependent
concepts which are held to come into being together. In order to respond to
this argument, therefore, it is not enough to show that there was affection
betweenparentsandchildrenintheMiddleAges,whichhasoftenbeendone
andwhichArièsknewperfectlywellalready;wealsoneedtoprisechildhood
andprivacyapart.7WemightbegintodothisbylookingathowArièsunder-
standsprivacyandpublicness.InCenturiesofChildhood,‘private’means‘the
isolated group of parents and children’ and ‘public’ means ‘society’: Ariès’s
publicsphereisnotapoliticalconceptbutasocialone.Ariès’sassociationof
childhood with privacy, and his understanding of publicness only as socia-
bility, means that he may not have found ‘an awareness of the particular
nature of childhood’ because he was looking in the wrong place.
II
Onesuchpublicuseoftheideaofthechild(andhere‘public’hasthesenseof
‘thestateasasourceofpower’)isinthesermondeliveredbythearchbishop
ofCanterbury,ArchbishopArundel,totheassemblythatwassummonedin
October 1399 to confirm Richard II’s enforced abdication and Henry IV’s
accession to the throne. Latin and French summaries are preserved in the
parliamentaryrolls.Thearchbishop,anoldadversaryofRichard’s,tookashis
themeatextfromthefirstbookofKings:‘Amanshallruleoverthepeople.’
The parliamentary record reports that:
ThesaidarchbishophasshownthatthishonourablekingdomofEngland,
whichisthemostplentifulcorner[angle]ofwealthintheworld,hasfora
longtimebeenled,ruledandgovernedbychildren[enfantz],andtheadvice
of widows . . . the kingdom would have fallen into utter desolation and
grievousmisfortuneifithadnotbeenthatalmightyGod,throughhisgreat
graceandmercy,hassentawiseanddiscreetManforthegovernanceofthis
kingdom who, through the aid of God, wishes to be governed and coun-
selled by the sagacious elders of his kingdom [les Sages & Aunciens de son
Roialme].8
Thearchbishopdevelopedthecontrastbetweentheboyruleroftheprevious
reignandthemanrulerofthenewone:‘fornowitisnotaboywhorulesbuta
man’...‘Forwhenaboyreignswilfulnessreigns[voluntassola]andreasonis
7 Apioneeringattempttodemonstrateanaffectivebondbetweenparentandchildinthe
medievaleraisB.A.Hanawalt,‘ChildrearingamongtheLowerClassesofLateMedieval
England’,Journal of Interdisciplinary History8 (1977), 1–22.
8 RotuliParliamentorum,utetPetitionesetPlacitainParliamentoTemporeRicardiR.II,6vols.
(London, 1783), 3: 415.
3