Introduction: The Family as a Micro-Society

In early modern philosophy, the family was compared to the state, with the authority of the head of the household being synonymous with the sovereign ruler. These notions, influenced by the absolutist system of the French political theorist Jean Bodin, became popular across Europe in the late sixteenth century (Muravyeva 2013, 230–231).

In the same way a ruler could be characterised as the ‘father of the nation’, the head of the household was seen as a ‘father’ by his subordinates, meaning not only his biological children but his wife and servants as well (Lidman 2008, 76. See also Muravyeva 2013, 231). For the head of the household, this meant the opportunity to exercise certain rights but also the need to fulfil a gendered role suitable for a man in this position. This point of view shows in the contemporary familial advice literature and rulers’ books in the early sixteenth century—for example, works written by Erasmus of Rotterdam. In the picture Erasmus painted with his words, kings and other worldly rulers—including household heads and family fathers—were compared to the sun, which was the image of God himself.

[A] godly ruler should possess such a spirit and heart towards his people that a good household head has for his folk. Because what else is a kingdom than a grand household? What is a king other than the father of many people?1

Evidently, early modern society was largely marked by inequality, not least because of a still-influential concept of Roman law, patria potestas (Koch 1991, 56, 59). According to this concept, the ideal adult man had a wife and children, and taking care of the order in his household was an essential way for him to demonstrate his masculinity (e.g. Liliequist 1999, 2011; Spierenburg 1998). This manly role included such disciplinary privileges that would today be interpreted as domestic violence. Such discipline aimed to maintain the patriarchal order, which was seen as a natural cornerstone of society. Therefore, discipline was closely linked to the well-being of every man, woman, and child. Quite contrary to the modern understanding, patriarchy was an element intended to create justice rather than unfairness, and it was grounded in God’s will (Lidman 2013, 2015, 2018). In accordance with Judith M. Bennett, I claim that understanding patriarchy and the gender politics it generated is essential for history research (Bennett 2006).

Another aspect typical of early modern society was its way of drawing the line between privacy and publicity, a matter worthy of study through the example of upbringing and disciplinary correction. Raising one’s children well was considered an important part of the societal order rather than a private familial issue; in this sense, the authorities had the right to become involved in familial life. However, problematic familial matters were to be discussed and dealt with within the private sphere to avoid public scandal (Albertinus 1638, 2:239–241; de Glen 1641, 199–200; Lidman 2015, 104).

From the Reformation onwards, familial advice books became commonplace in all parts of Protestant and Catholic Europe. Despite the authors’ desire to constantly remind the readers of their chosen Christian confession, there were similarities in the familial policies of different denominations. Their views did not differ on any essential points in the matters concerning ideal parenting (Hsia 1989, 122–124; Schilling 2004, 27; Lidman 2013, 241–242. See also Wiesner-Hanks 2010, 131, 172–173). The wide reception of these moralistic writings shows that the barriers of confessions and languages in early modern Europe are rather the product of later imagination. Therefore, it is not surprising that German-language literature—both Protestant and Catholic—was well known in Sweden (Andersson 2011). Like households in other countries, the ideal Swedish hushall was also a mini-kingdom ruled by the firm hand of the housemaster (Marklund 2004).