Reactions to Unwanted Behaviour: Disciplining the Household
Depending on the interpretation adopted, children have been seen either as innocent and thus not responsible for their actions or as ‘wild’ and in the need of discipline. The latter may be the more accurate description of early modern perceptions (Harington 1998).
Even today, some may say that all children are just lovable, whereas others might consider them potentially ‘naughty’. These kinds of generalisations reveal important aspects of the cultural understanding of childhood, but in one way or another, they also imply that it is adults who define what is acceptable and unacceptable for children. As it was in early modern Europe, childhood is still often understood as a period when individuals should learn the social rules of their culture to become ‘respectable’ adults. When children grow up, friction may appear between them and their parents. Of course, this was also the case in earlier times, so the question of how conflicts were settled can be raised—especially when a child’s position significantly differed from that of an adult both socially and legally.Nevertheless, it would be foolish to think that early modern parents did not love their children—of course they did. As Ozment points out, caring parent–child relationships ‘were not rare exceptions in an otherwise parentally indifferent and tyrannous family world’. Parents tried to do what they thought was best for their children, and in these potentially difficult moments in life, they were constantly advised by different authors (Ozment 2010, 79–80). At the same time, perceptions of what love is, who deserves it, and how it can be expressed vary over different historical periods. Due to the hierarchy that so profoundly defined early modern culture, parental love was not necessarily altruistic—it could be conditional. This is shown, for example, in a letter from a German father to his twelve-year-old daughter in 1625.
He writes:Behave in such a way that one there has reason to continue to treat you kindly. Then you will also give me reason to love you and to treat you as a true father should. Be god-fearing and humble to everyone, and I will always remain your dear, loyal father.8
When being raised in an early modern family, both boys and girls were to understand their place within the societal hierarchy and in relation to their parents. It was God’s will that the mother and father were to be respected and honoured, even if these adults were not mutually equal in society. Their word was not to be questioned. Therefore, ‘good children’ were amenable, and they took part in the household work and other tasks when needed. They behaved according to Christian ideals—and they did not rise up against their parents, certainly not in public, not to mention violent confrontations (e.g. Liliequist 2014). Well-behaved children would bring glory and happiness to their parents. In cases of delinquency, parents were under pressure to react and take control of their offspring to save the family’s honour.
In Sweden, like elsewhere in Europe, the man’s legal right to discipline and chastise his household members dated back at least to the high middle ages, but it had its roots in the worldview of Roman law. As the lady of house, the mother had a similar right in relation to her children and servants (Koch 1991; Liliequist 2011, 2014; Perneder 1592, Inst. 1:12). For children and youth, it was necessary to humbly submit and receive just punishment if needed. Ozment, for example, refers to an English case from 1687 in which a college boy first refused to be whipped by his schoolmaster and was therefore in danger of being expelled. His father’s visit made him change his mind, and he agreed to his sentence (Ozment 2010, 81–82). According to the biblical view, to love one’s child was to take care of punishment as necessary: ‘He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes’ (Proverbs 13:24).
Therefore, it was only logical that desirable parenting included the possibility of disciplinary correction; this was an essential part of the early modern value system, and it did not contradict the contemporary understanding of justice. Methods of physical chastisement were to be considered in cases of ‘bad behaviour’ at home—such as contradicting the parents, being rude or bawdy, and cursing—or in cases of committing even more severe crimes in the eyes of the ecclesiastical or secular authorities.What did the idea of disciplinary correction actually involve? Psychological correction and other means of control were not primarily understood as violence, nor was physical correction. Familial discipline could include the just use of force (potestas) or culpable violent deeds (violentia), and the latter were not supposed to be tolerated. In contemporary use, the Swedish expression vald rather referred to the former, so it was seen in the context of desirable masculine or parental authority, not violence. The German word Gewalt possessed similar connotations. It could also include non-physical acts of power, such as the parents’ right to decide over the future marriage partners of their children, especially daughters (Schwerhoff 2004, 230–231, 235, 237; Lidman 2013, 2015, 2018; Liliequist 2011, 1–3. See also de Glen 1641, 227–228). When talking about disciplinary correction in the early modern families, the emphasis lays on certain physical methods, mainly birching. This was not violentia but an expression of potestas, as parents had every right to discipline and chastise their children.
In the advice literature of the sixteenth century, disobedient children were described as ‘wild’, and it was the parents’ duty to ‘tame’ them. With the help of careful upbringing, children could be separated from their ‘bestial nature’ in a healthy way. However, according to Joel Harrington, many parents did not prefer this view. At the same time, they were ready to admit that problems with children were rather grounded in negligence than active abuse (Harington 1998, 20–23.
See also Toivo 2013, 339–341). Parents had a great responsibility for their children and also for the honour of the whole society. In the context of the widely spread theory concerning God’s wrath, the well-being of the community could be seen as dependent on parents’ actions: disciplining and punishing badly behaved children would keep collective harm at bay.According to Raisa Maria Toivo, disciplinary correction was ‘often regarded as a self-evident feature of early modern family life’, even in the sense that a ‘lack of discipline could be thought to be a form of neglect’ (Toivo 2013, 340). It was the duty of all parents to take care of societal order, starting with one’s own family. Discipline and punishment were essential in terms of common well-being, as they were thought to prevent more serious, collective hardships. The implementation of these ideas was also reflected in medicinal ideas of justice, in the sense of a doctor cutting away a sick limb to save the rest of the body (Carpzov 1638, 3; Rotterdam 1521, IIr). Parents were not to beat up their offspring on a whim: before whipping, there should be at least explanation, warning, prayer, and patient lectures on Christian virtues and the kind of life that was expected from God. Many forms of ‘bad behaviour’ not only involved questioning parental authority; they were also sins and confrontations with God. Nevertheless, physical correction was supposed to be the last resort, the ultima ratio, in solving familial issues. Similar advice was given to husbands when communicating with disobedient wives (Albertinus 1638, 2:239–241; de Glen 1641, 199–200, 230–232; Brockenius 1696, 117). It was in the interest of all household members, especially its male head, that familial conflicts did not become public, as this could have easily been interpreted as a sign of weakness and insufficient control.
Evidently, this setting contributed to the use of disciplinary correction in the sense of domestic violence towards children.
When analysing the treatment of ‘bad’ children, it is also necessary to note that it happened in a society that was used to public shaming and painful corporal punishments, not to mention death penalties. These were important instruments in the struggle of the authorities against crime and disorder (Ingram 2004, 36, 47–48; Lidman 2008, 64–70, 116–133; Schilling 1999; Matikainen and Lidman 2014). Judicial punishments often included many kinds of violence against the convicted, and these public performances were open for everybody to observe. Certainly, experiencing this sort of violence on the cultural level was reflected in the domestic sphere, and it especially supported the image of masculine disciplinary and penal power. If the courts could prescribe the whipping of adults in a public square, why would the housefather not have the right to correct his children?In his didactic book from the early sixteenth century, the German Franciscan writer Johannes Pauli tells the story of a man sentenced to death because of his horrific crimes. He made fun of his father, saying (Pauli 1522, 18–19): ‘if you only would have punished me in my youth, I would not have ended up with the shame’.9 On one level, this notion seems to blame parents for not righting the wrongs within the family as expected; at the same time, it strengthens the image of them being given this authority. In early modern understanding, parents had the ‘natural’ right and duty to discipline their children. This could mean both preventive methods of upbringing and punitive actions after unwanted deeds. Either way, faith in the righteousness—or at least the necessity—of these actions was widespread, and, therefore, there was no ultimate proscription of violence within the family if it happened for disciplinary purposes.