What do you think?
Rate this book
Medieval Households
Traces the history of family life during the Middle Ages and examines medieval marriages, childhood, motherhood, and fatherhood
272 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1985
About the author
David Herlihy
46 books12 followersSee also his son, David V. Herlihy, for works on the history of cycling.
David Herlihy (May 8, 1930 – February 15, 1991) was an American historian who wrote on medieval and renaissance life. He was married to historian Patricia Herlihy. Particular topics of his included domestic life, especially the roles of women, and the changing structure of the family. He studied for his bachelors at the University of San Francisco, received a doctoral degree from Yale University and taught at Bryn Mawr College, Wisconsin, Harvard and Brown.
His study of the Florentine and Pistoiese Catasto of 1427 is one of the first statistical surveys to use computers to analyze large amounts of data. The resulting book examines statistical patterns in tax-collecting surveys to find indications of social trends.
The University of San Francisco history department named their annual award for the best student-written history paper the David Herlihy Prize, and Brown University has established a David Herlihy University Professorship.
David Herlihy (May 8, 1930 – February 15, 1991) was an American historian who wrote on medieval and renaissance life. He was married to historian Patricia Herlihy. Particular topics of his included domestic life, especially the roles of women, and the changing structure of the family. He studied for his bachelors at the University of San Francisco, received a doctoral degree from Yale University and taught at Bryn Mawr College, Wisconsin, Harvard and Brown.
His study of the Florentine and Pistoiese Catasto of 1427 is one of the first statistical surveys to use computers to analyze large amounts of data. The resulting book examines statistical patterns in tax-collecting surveys to find indications of social trends.
The University of San Francisco history department named their annual award for the best student-written history paper the David Herlihy Prize, and Brown University has established a David Herlihy University Professorship.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
August 15, 2013
This is a really fun little book. It's only about 150 pages and it's breezily written, so you can probably get through it in a day or two. It certainly has some sources problems - any time you're writing about medieval family life, that's going to be the case - but Herlihy gets around it the best that he can by bringing in every kind of source he can think of: quantitative analysis, charters, saints lives, didactic writings from Tacitus to Augustine to the Renaissance humanists, and more.
His main argument puts forth that the medieval period - thanks to the end of slavery and the Church's stricter prohibitions on polygamy and incest - brought forth the 'modern' idea of the household or family in place of older, more diffuse groups. This had a plethora of effects on marriage ages, dowries, and patterns of inheritance, though not always in the ways you would expect. He does an especially nice job tracing the rise and fall of the position in women in the various stages of household development (in case you're wondering: if you're a woman, you'd probably be best off in the late Roman empire or the early medieval period. Who knew!).
My favorite part was a section on familial affection and feelings, in which Herlihy suggests that the position of the Virgin Mary as intercessor was a natural outgrowth of family dynamics: because women tended to be quite a bit younger than their husbands, they often had to act as generational arbiters between fathers and sons in disputes. It's the kind of claim that's nearly impossible to prove, but also really compelling.
His main argument puts forth that the medieval period - thanks to the end of slavery and the Church's stricter prohibitions on polygamy and incest - brought forth the 'modern' idea of the household or family in place of older, more diffuse groups. This had a plethora of effects on marriage ages, dowries, and patterns of inheritance, though not always in the ways you would expect. He does an especially nice job tracing the rise and fall of the position in women in the various stages of household development (in case you're wondering: if you're a woman, you'd probably be best off in the late Roman empire or the early medieval period. Who knew!).
My favorite part was a section on familial affection and feelings, in which Herlihy suggests that the position of the Virgin Mary as intercessor was a natural outgrowth of family dynamics: because women tended to be quite a bit younger than their husbands, they often had to act as generational arbiters between fathers and sons in disputes. It's the kind of claim that's nearly impossible to prove, but also really compelling.
September 1, 2022
Unlike Jimmy Anderson in Swanny's diaries, informative, but not enteraining
Classical conceptions of the household: probably due to slavery, no commensurable definition of the household, despite Roman censuses every 5yrs.
Classical conceptions of marriage: Roman Law 'the union of a man and woman holding to a single habit of life', purpose being 'the procreation of children'. Roman maxim: 'consent, not intercourse, makes the marriage'. Bride had to be > 12, groom > 14. Dowry bride to groom until Justianian made bilateral
Classical Christian influence: 'state religion' from 380 AD, but mostly Roman Law until spread of canon courts in 12thC. Augustine of Hippo supported celibacy (Farage-like fears of overcrowding, as well as virtue): however, his 3 'goods' of marriage were 'fidelity, offspring, and permanent union'
Early middle ages: commensurable household units emerge with decline of slavery and rise of peasant agriculture ('family farms'). However, at this stage, 'barbarian' reverse dowry (groom to bride) more common than bride to groom. Ppl. also married c.same age (mid-to-late twenties)
Central and Late Middle Ages: From 1000 changes occuring as Canon Law replaced Roman/secular Law.
MARRIAGE
Idea in Gratian's 'Decretum' (c.1141) that marriage requires 2 stages (consent and sex) implies that Joseph and Mary's marriage was incomplete. Ultimately, Peter Lombard (BoParis) in 'Sentences' prevailed: present consent all that is needed for marriage, future consent being a betrothal. Lombard endorsed by pope Alexander III, with irony not lost as seemed to weaken churches control over marriage (but really probably weakened father's control more as opposed arranged marriages). People, typically noble girls, married younger (Elizabeth de Clare 14, Chaucer's wife of Bath first of 5 husbands aged 12), groom still mid-to-late 20s. More emphasis on bride paying dowry. Erasmus praised the idea of marriage as upheld the social order: St Paul's ideas -> 'Let wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because a husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church'
INHERITANCE
Patrilineage makes sure property/wealth concentrated with family for posterity (reaction to growth of Church power?), but requires monogamy (though 'fidelity' already one of Hippo man's big 3). However, also consortial lineage, esp. N. Italy, where property shared amongst male heirs. This was more socialist, with family often sharing a tower/castle, then have separate properties elsewhere. Giannozzo Alberti (1430s Florence) ideal to 'have all my relatives live under one and the same roof' 1356 Golden Bull supported patrilineage/dynastic lineage: 'only the first-born male heir could inherity the right to vote, and his territory, the Kurlaand, could not be partitioned'. However, exogamy mandated with Fourth Lateran Council: marriage within 4 degrees of family forbidden. Inheritance more for rich: 1427 Catasto only 18.19% of peasants owned their own farms
LOVE
Philippe Arès idea that medieval families cold and unloving (Jesus did say 'He who loves father and mother more than me is not worthy of me', and accounts of saints' lives often villify close family members). However, love of children/fam. transcend temporality as fundamental, Darwinistic value? Marbode (11thC bishop of Rennes) notion of 'the good wife' (care for children, do housework, care for the sick), but irony that he didn't actually have one. Plutarch idea that breasts high on body for mother to embrace child when breast feeding. Cult of baby Jesus: St Ida of Louvain claimed to have been repeatedly visited by Jesus, and recalled herself giving Jesus a bath. Cults of the Virgin Mary and St Joseph imply respect for good parents. Parable of the prodigal son: unconditional love for family members. Ultimately, 'The medieval family was not a cold community founded upon indifference'
SEX
Expectedly for ppl. who inhibit themselves, hagiographers scornful of sexual relations. 15thC Bernardine of Siena condemned contraception
HOUSEHOLD
Defined as 'a coresidential community with parents and children - the primary biological descent group - at its core'. Rich ppl. helped care for 'orphaned relatives', 'illegitimate offspring' and the young servants they employed (food, shelter, safety)
Conclusion that 'two-thirds to three-quarters of households' were not 'centres of production or [...] reproduction' ('The two chief functions classically associated with households'). This means not much use looking at individual households with respect to how society functions with respect to economic production and demography, but rather the broader household system.
Classical conceptions of the household: probably due to slavery, no commensurable definition of the household, despite Roman censuses every 5yrs.
Classical conceptions of marriage: Roman Law 'the union of a man and woman holding to a single habit of life', purpose being 'the procreation of children'. Roman maxim: 'consent, not intercourse, makes the marriage'. Bride had to be > 12, groom > 14. Dowry bride to groom until Justianian made bilateral
Classical Christian influence: 'state religion' from 380 AD, but mostly Roman Law until spread of canon courts in 12thC. Augustine of Hippo supported celibacy (Farage-like fears of overcrowding, as well as virtue): however, his 3 'goods' of marriage were 'fidelity, offspring, and permanent union'
Early middle ages: commensurable household units emerge with decline of slavery and rise of peasant agriculture ('family farms'). However, at this stage, 'barbarian' reverse dowry (groom to bride) more common than bride to groom. Ppl. also married c.same age (mid-to-late twenties)
Central and Late Middle Ages: From 1000 changes occuring as Canon Law replaced Roman/secular Law.
MARRIAGE
Idea in Gratian's 'Decretum' (c.1141) that marriage requires 2 stages (consent and sex) implies that Joseph and Mary's marriage was incomplete. Ultimately, Peter Lombard (BoParis) in 'Sentences' prevailed: present consent all that is needed for marriage, future consent being a betrothal. Lombard endorsed by pope Alexander III, with irony not lost as seemed to weaken churches control over marriage (but really probably weakened father's control more as opposed arranged marriages). People, typically noble girls, married younger (Elizabeth de Clare 14, Chaucer's wife of Bath first of 5 husbands aged 12), groom still mid-to-late 20s. More emphasis on bride paying dowry. Erasmus praised the idea of marriage as upheld the social order: St Paul's ideas -> 'Let wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because a husband is head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church'
INHERITANCE
Patrilineage makes sure property/wealth concentrated with family for posterity (reaction to growth of Church power?), but requires monogamy (though 'fidelity' already one of Hippo man's big 3). However, also consortial lineage, esp. N. Italy, where property shared amongst male heirs. This was more socialist, with family often sharing a tower/castle, then have separate properties elsewhere. Giannozzo Alberti (1430s Florence) ideal to 'have all my relatives live under one and the same roof' 1356 Golden Bull supported patrilineage/dynastic lineage: 'only the first-born male heir could inherity the right to vote, and his territory, the Kurlaand, could not be partitioned'. However, exogamy mandated with Fourth Lateran Council: marriage within 4 degrees of family forbidden. Inheritance more for rich: 1427 Catasto only 18.19% of peasants owned their own farms
LOVE
Philippe Arès idea that medieval families cold and unloving (Jesus did say 'He who loves father and mother more than me is not worthy of me', and accounts of saints' lives often villify close family members). However, love of children/fam. transcend temporality as fundamental, Darwinistic value? Marbode (11thC bishop of Rennes) notion of 'the good wife' (care for children, do housework, care for the sick), but irony that he didn't actually have one. Plutarch idea that breasts high on body for mother to embrace child when breast feeding. Cult of baby Jesus: St Ida of Louvain claimed to have been repeatedly visited by Jesus, and recalled herself giving Jesus a bath. Cults of the Virgin Mary and St Joseph imply respect for good parents. Parable of the prodigal son: unconditional love for family members. Ultimately, 'The medieval family was not a cold community founded upon indifference'
SEX
Expectedly for ppl. who inhibit themselves, hagiographers scornful of sexual relations. 15thC Bernardine of Siena condemned contraception
HOUSEHOLD
Defined as 'a coresidential community with parents and children - the primary biological descent group - at its core'. Rich ppl. helped care for 'orphaned relatives', 'illegitimate offspring' and the young servants they employed (food, shelter, safety)
Conclusion that 'two-thirds to three-quarters of households' were not 'centres of production or [...] reproduction' ('The two chief functions classically associated with households'). This means not much use looking at individual households with respect to how society functions with respect to economic production and demography, but rather the broader household system.
July 27, 2016
I read and studied from this book for an Independent Study course through Brigham Young University. This is for my degree in family history-genealogy.
I enjoyed learning about the medieval households and families. Learning about the Irish sept and the Germanic Sippe were pretty intriguing. I was surprised to see how both societies differed so much from Roman marriage and family customs. Rome was more authoritarian over the household than the Irish and Germans were. The Irish and Germans were quite liberal with their practices.
Religious and secular influences had a hand over marriage and family. Polygyny was heavily practiced by early medieval clans and tribes throughout Europe, but monogamy and exogamy were pushed on during the mid- to late Middle Ages so that men living in wealth or poverty could have an equal opportunity to be married.
The Germans in the early Middle Ages claimed family ties through mothers instead of their fathers for the span of multiple generations, which changed with the push for patrilineage by AD 1000.
I enjoyed learning about the medieval households and families. Learning about the Irish sept and the Germanic Sippe were pretty intriguing. I was surprised to see how both societies differed so much from Roman marriage and family customs. Rome was more authoritarian over the household than the Irish and Germans were. The Irish and Germans were quite liberal with their practices.
Religious and secular influences had a hand over marriage and family. Polygyny was heavily practiced by early medieval clans and tribes throughout Europe, but monogamy and exogamy were pushed on during the mid- to late Middle Ages so that men living in wealth or poverty could have an equal opportunity to be married.
The Germans in the early Middle Ages claimed family ties through mothers instead of their fathers for the span of multiple generations, which changed with the push for patrilineage by AD 1000.
October 12, 2016
Fantastic and concise book on the evolution of medieval households. An essential companion for the medieval and early modern historian of gender, social structure and even economics.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews