Boys and Girls, Sons and Daughters: Gendering the Household

Like adults, children were part of a societal order in which individuals were placed differently based on their gender, age, family background, social status, and behaviour around others.

The ways in which the earliest stages of life were categorised were not set in stone, either, although often the following antique philosophy- influenced division was used: infantia (zero to seven years), pueritia (seven to twelve/fourteen years), and adolescentia (twelve/fourteen to twenty-one years) (Parkin 2010, 97–101; Heywood 2005, 30−31, 63−65; Toulalan 2011b, 133–134). In many cases, relatively young children were seen as capable of working, but when unmarried or living in the household of the parents, sons and daughters would remain in the interphase of not quite being an adult, regardless of physical age. Even later in life, parents still had authority over their offspring (Liliequist 2014, 30–34; Toivo 2013).

In history research, gender is not only important as category but is also an essential component of broader perspectives (e.g. Koch 1991; Walker 2003; Muravyeva and Toivo 2013). In addition to contemporary perceptions of gender, both social rank and age were important factors in defining proper behaviour, so being ‘good’ and meeting the expectations of others depended on various factors. Daughters were to be married off as wisely as possible, and this left its mark on their lives from early on. Taking care of their reputation and chastity was crucial because failure to do so would affect future marriage deals and through that both the honour and socio-economic status of the family. When the girl reached puberty, an immaculate reputation became her most desirable quality. Along with it came the other ideal female characteristics that also applied to adult women and small girls, such as obedience and modesty (Gowing 2005, 1–3, 111; Schreiner and Schwerhoff 1995, 18; Wiesner 1993, 34–35; Lidman 2013, 6; Rublack 1999, 13–14; Muravyeva 2012, 23–27; Roper 1999, 222–227; Strasser 2004, 5). As Steven Ozment puts it, ‘no parental action was thought to contribute more to the fitness and success of a daughter than the laying of a sound moral and spiritual foundation early in life’. This was believed to be more important for girls than for boys, as young men could rely on their better education and worldly experience; young women, on the other hand, had mainly their piety and chastity to guide them through life (Ozment 2010, 93). Inevitably, the expectations towards growing children and youth were deeply gendered; as a result, good girls and good boys were not alike.

In the microcosm of the household, the aspect of gender was also reflected in the role of the mother. As a Christian, she was theoretically equal to a man, but as a wife, she was subordinate to her husband. Linked to this ‘natural’ order and God’s will, she was supposed to be loyal and hardworking in her continuous efforts for the household and the upbringing of her children (Kilday 2013, 53–54; Dolan 2008, 40–49; Roper 1999, 30, 54–55, 160; Ruff 2001, 35; Strasser 2004, 47–50; Wiesner 1993, 21). According to the German Catholic moralist Aegidius Albertinus, whose work from the early seventeenth century was also translated into Swedish, ‘nature had determined that the woman is to stay inside the house’. Thus, she was created to take care of the household, not to study or take part in public life. Through marriage she was subjected to her husband’s authority (Albertinus 1638, 2:118–119, 141).3 At the end of the century, the Swedish churchman Zacharias Brockenius (1696, 111) took part in this discourse:

[B]ecause the woman is not made of the man’s head nor his leg, but of his ribs, she has less authority than the man, she is less worthy than him, and she is to be obedient to him, but [… she] is still not to be treated like a servant.4

In Bodin’s philosophy, the desired hierarchy of the family rested mainly on the relations between husband and wife and the father and child (Muravyeva 2013, 230–231). Like the subjects of a ruler, women brought honour to men when they behaved in a proper, subordinate manner (Brockenius 1696, 122). Accordingly, the position of a growing girl was largely seen within the framework of the female honour code, as the purpose of her life was to ultimately become a wife and mother. Therefore, the principle worries concerning daughters were related to the issues of chastity and good reputation as she reached puberty and adulthood (de Glen 1641, 140–141). Albertinus taught women to maintain their timidity (blygsamhet) in all situations and stages of life because men would easily become suspicious (Albertinus 1638, II:112–113).

If your daughter is self-willed, keep a good eye on her—she will take liberties as soon as you stop watching. Beware if she looks men shamelessly, and do not be surprised if she then confronts you.5

This fundamental suspicion towards the female gender, and therefore also towards teenage girls, shows in the multiple forms of control in early modern society. For example, a telling excerpt can be found in a seventeenth-century testament that Cornelia Niekus Moore mentions in her book on the culture of manners. Moore refers to a testament in which the dying mother wants to ensure a good life for her daughters and to spare them from misery. She instructs them in a manner familiar to the contemporary familial advice literature (Cited in Moore 1987, 105–106):

Take drinks only from other girls. When a young man cuts a piece of fruit for you, do not take it. When he sits beside you, do not answer his questions, say only ‘yes’ or ‘no’, or ‘I don’t know’. Do not smile to him. If he enters your room by accident, hide behind the bed and threaten him with a slap on the ear.6

After reading passages like this, one cannot but wonder how the same gendered reality manifested for growing boys. Were they prepared to be turned down when offering sweets to a girl, and was this, perhaps, understood as part of the game? Were they told to sneak into young girls’ rooms, to defend themselves against the girl’s slapping, or to ignore it? The logic does not to seem to work this way. Instead, boys were raised to be trustworthy and manly, qualities that could nevertheless be interpreted in various ways. This gendered reality can be observed, for example, by considering contemporary verbal insults. Men were mostly scorned for being dishonourable—like a thief—or too female—i.e. not standing up for their manly rights.

According to Erasmus, regardless of their social standing, all boys should be brought up ‘not in the wilderness of the rough swineherds, but like better sons with all honour and virtues’. They should be surrounded with virtuous friends since ‘malicious talk results in malicious ways, but in the company of the pious one becomes pious, in the company of fools a fool’ (Rotterdam 1563, a ii r-a ii v & d ii r-d ii v).7 Additionally, a smart boy was polite and always acted according to the rules of the contemporary social hierarchy. He did not, for example, forget to use the respectful greetings needed when speaking to people ‘more worthy’ than him (Rotterdam 1563, c viii v). Yet in practice, the general desirable qualities that boys and girls were expected to possess were also emphasised differently depending on their class. Poor children and children from a lower social standing were not expected to look, sound, or act like those born into better families. In their advice books, Erasmus and Albertinus, along with other contemporary authors, offered instruction for the bourgeoisie and nobility rather than the common people; families on or beyond the margins of society were not included in the intended readership.

All in all, grown men were understood to have greater potential for perfection in their character than women (e.g. Albertinus 1638, 2:135–136. See also Marklund 2004; Liliequist 1999). Thus, being a good son was largely based on the boy’s increasing understanding of the gendered patriarchal hierarchy when growing up. As a young boy, he was supposed to listen to both his mother and father, and they both had disciplinary power over him. As he grew older, his relationship with his mother changed, especially if the father died or was away, when the youngster was to fill the role of head of the household. He was supposed to take care of the Christian order in the house (Koch 1991, 2). These transitions in life, ‘rites of passage’ as Tim Parkin calls them, affected individual family members but also the family as a whole. The influence of the Greco-Roman culture on the Western understanding of the role of the family members was strong over the centuries, and it still forms the basis of the Western perceptions of, for example, an ideal upbringing (Parkin 2010, 103). As boys were to become men, this also put brothers and sisters into different positions in relation to each other as they grew older. Brothers could, for instance, become responsible for their sisters’ marriage deals or economic well-being in other ways.