Childhood and childrearing in ad status sermons by later thirteenth century friars

Childhood and childrearing in ad status sermons by later thirteenth century friars * Jenny

Swanson

It is drf&ult to obtain a balanced and accurate bicture of medieval views of such to@ics as childhood, treatment of children, and the nature offami[ll ties, whether of affection or obligation. A significant source of information on these topics, abundant but so far underused, lies in the sermons, pastoral handbooks and biblical commentaries of the period. These are abundant for the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries, allowing the historian to examine the development of ideas over time. One group of late thirteenth century ad status collections, witten by friars, is particularl_y interesting. They a,ere extremeLy popular throughout the fourteenth century, and therefore represent an important starting point for any study of developing tlieas about thegoung. Comparison of their views with those of their predecessors, identiJies a clear trend towards increased axtareness of children as a group with specific characteristics and speciJic needs. Orlerall, the writers of these late thirteenth century ad status collections - John of Wales, Guibert de Tournai, Humbert de Romans - shote decided reservations about the value of corporal punishment, and a conviction that children are in-

trinsicalb

good, despite the sins characteristic

of

their various stages of development. This must call into question some of the conclusions reached b11 scholars Mause.

such as Philippe

To attempt concept

to identify

of childhood’

Aries

and Lloyd

one single would

de

‘medieval

be futile.

It is

important to be aware of possible variations in theory and in practice: variations associated with time, with class, with region, with personal opinion. with generation, One person may think nothing of children as such, while another may delight in their characteristic qualities. I do not think anyone today would assume that all parents of the 1980s follow the current advice of Penelope Leach, or that all parents of the 1960s followed Dr. Speck. Even now there are probably as many parents who believe that ‘a good hammering’ is essential to a child’s upbringing, as believre that to strike a child is wrong. It is now thirty years since the publication of Philippe Aries’ Centuries of Childhood (1960: English translation 1962). In these three decades. man)- scholars have devoted attention to the children of the lCIiddle Ages. As more scholars delve more deepl),, the picture alters in shape and focus, and the certainties described by Aries seem less firm. In his study, primarily. of the privileged families of sixteenth to nineteenth-century France, Aries claimed to distinguish the devrelopment of a new ‘concept of childhood’ in the seventeenth century. From this time, children dressed, played and worked differently from adults, and were finally identified as a distinct group with needs and qualities quite separate from those of adults. Aries argued that in previ-

ous centuries, children of about se\‘en or over shared the world of adults almost bvithout restriction: wore the same clothes, partook of the same games and meals, worked in the same ways as their parents did. He

here to contradict

AriGs’ model, which rcc-

ognised medieval awareness of the nature of these \.er)- young children. Shulamith Shahar, \vithout tackling the issue of whether

or not a ‘concept

of child-

ivrote:

hood (as opposed to bab>,llood) reall) existed in the Middle Ages, examined e\i-

111medicl-al socirtv the idea of childhood did rw/ rti\/:’ this is not to suggmt that children wcrc ncglcctml. forsnkcn or dcspisrd. The idra of childhood is not to lx confitsecl with affection for children: it corrcsponcls ti2an abmxmcss of thcf particular nature of’chilclhoocl. that particular nature which distinguishes the child In niedit7.al h0l11 thr adult, t?\‘Ctl the youn, 11adult. society. this awareness was lacking (1986:12.5).

dence for aff‘ection tokvards offsfsurine I II from the parents of three classes: noble, urban and peasant (1983:140-S, 183-9, 230-63. She Ihund examples of parental love in all classes. but mo5t abundantl>- in the peasant class, w:here a child \~as likel), to spend most or all of its young J’ears in its mother’s care. She also discussed the 1ol.e of children for their parents: Guibert of Nogent and Xnselm of‘ C:anterhur\- being twx~ of the bestknokvn csamples of men \~llo repaid a mother’s love \vitll de\.otion.

and later on he observed: The age group of Neolithic timrs. thy Hcllcnistic and a transition hcpcri~/eia. presupposed a difrcrcncc town the world of children and that of adults. a transition made by mcuns ofan initiating or an education. hledie\xl ci\.ilization Gilcd to lwrceive this dilterrncc and therefore lacked this cl,nccpt of transition (1986:396).

These are large claims to make, impl\.ing a5 they do a united attitude across Europe throughout many centuries. Can it be true that the collapse of Roman ci\.ilization left Europe without a concept of childhood for over a thousand )-ears? A number of scholars 1lal.e recentl), produced material to sho\~ that in practice, at least some sections of medieval European society recognised their children as children, and loved them as individuals. hlar) Martin hlclaughlin, for example, cites se\-era1 vignettes of typical childish behaviour, happy parent-child relations and of (1976:101-81). It is noticeable. howc\.er, that in nearly all the examples the child is M-hat medieval parlance kvould haire called an ‘infant’ or ‘tiny child - that is a child under the age of seven. There is nothing

310

If one is to determine \vhether or not a ‘concept of childhood’ existed in the 3Iiddle Ages, it is necessary to turn to the Lvritten wmrd, and to seek definitions and analysis of children in the abstract, or descriptions of.children in real situations. Either of these could reveal awareness of that “particular nature of childhood . \vhich distinguishes the child from the adult”. to \vllich Aries referred. One significant source of information on the topic of childhood in the hIiddle Ages, abundant but so far underused, lies in the a II d sermons pastoral handbooks biblical commentaries of the time. They are a\.ailable throughout the period from 4001500, and are particularl), numerous for the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries. a ke). era if we are to re-examine the conclusions of Xrii-s. Such material is valuable in t\vo main bya)-s. First, it provides a source of information on the development and spread of

theories

about the nature and needs of chil-

on the subject

of childhood?

If the friars

dren. Second, it contains literally hundreds of cameos of children and of family life,

who wrote the ad status collections

often described in passing and as illustrations of some other main theme. These ‘snapshots’ of contemporary life, as the

derive it? How many of their predecessors had taken a similar approach? How far did the ideas in sermons and biblical commentaries relate to those in the educational liter-

scholarly authors had observed it themselves, are an important source on medieval attitudes to children, and on the relationships which family.

existed

within

the

medieval

There is a vast amount of material available in this field, and the work described in this paper is merely a study of a small portion of it. I have picked the ad status sermon collections of the late thirteenth century as my main theme, for a number of reasons. They are the first model sermons to devote any real attention to the problems of children and young people, and the way- in which they tackle these problems raises immediate questions about previous assumptions on ‘the medieval attitude to childhood’. The discussion of corporal punishment, in particular, shows that these thirteenth-century scholars had greater reservations about its value than many historians have proposed. ‘Liberal’ or moderate attitudes to discipline were clearly already established among high-ranking scholars. Because some of the model sermon collections were extremely popular over the following two centuries, one of the questions raised is that of whether or not they influenced the opinion of others on the topic of children. \lhat proportion of fourteenthand fifteenth-century sermons followed their line3 \Z’e must also ask whether these ad status sermons really presented ideas which were unusual for their time. \Vhat do the sermons and commentaries of the 126Os-1280s say

represent

a minority

really do

view, whence did they

ature? Can we tell how many of the ideas expressed in sermons and commentaries were put into practice? The real value of the preaching aids is that they were aimed at a double audience: first the great array of practising preachers, and second the even greater array of the population as a whole. Thus they provide a potential channel through which attitudes to childhood, and approaches to childrearing, might filter down to the secular population at large. Ft’e know that such preaching manuals numbers

were welcomed and used by large of preachers, and these preachers

in turn have left records of the sermons which they preached. There is thus a possibility of tracing which particular approaches to childrearing were successfully transferred from the preacher’s handbook to the pulpit, and from there had an opportunity to impress themselves upon secular listeners, and to influence childrearing practice. The custom of addressing sermons to the problems

and

needs

of

specific

groups

within the population was first fully developed in the mid-thirteenth century. Many scholars wrote preaching aids to help the new armies of parish priests and itinerant preachers to provide sermons on a wide variety of topics, including social issues such as family relationships, and stages of development such as childhood. But some earlier collections of ad status sermons do exist.

311

Perhaps comments

the earliest collection of nd status is the Sermones nd Populum of Au-

gustine of Hippo, written about 400 AD. (MPL 39). He dealt with ).outh in a single sermon Ad Zuuenes, Mhich subdivides into six sections (MPL 39, cc. 1705-l 709). The first speaks generally of original sin, and of the importance of baptism. Augustine then learns of the dangers of )-outhful fancies, beforc recommending lusts and passions, that if youths wish to be loirers, they should be in love with knolvledge. Finally he addresses a few words specifically to oldei girls, or young \vomen. He advises them against showing off in church, and suggests that the). should flee the desire of )x~ung men. His )rouths are clearly of an age to be sesuall>- acti\,e, and )‘ounger children receive no specific advice. The Confessions of Augustine tell us that he had a clear memor). of childhood and its characteristics, but the sensitivit! and s)‘nnpath? \Ihich he revealed there do not real]>. come through in this brief sermon. It is interesting, howexrer, that he addresses his )‘oung audience directl). He Lvrites “1’OU _ should do this;_you should not do that: I sa). to you . ..“. In later centuries, it became more common to address ad\,ice on children’s beha\iour to a third part). - usuall) parents or teachers. Although Augustine follows his sermon on youth with one on marriage. hc does not take the opportunity to discuss the role of parents or the place of children in a marriage. Gregory the Great, writing almost t\vo centuries after Augustine of Hippo, included advice to difyerent groups in the third part of his Regulae Pnstornlis, written about 590 (AlPL 77, cc. 49-126). His comments on l-outh are brief in the extreme: he

312

simpl>- says that they should be se\,erel>. chastised, so that they may behave M-ell. This single sentence sums up the popular twentieth-century opinion of ‘the medie\,al attitude to childhood’. But it would certainly be unfair to judge an). indi\.idual’s attitude on the basis of one sentence: and later authors at least re\.eal a much more complex set of attitudes to both children and their punishment. Rathcrius of \‘crona, \vho held a bishopric from 962 to 974, \vas also interested in giving appropriate ad\Ace to different groups in societ),. His Pmeloquionm libri .sc~.t, Lvritten about 930, contains advice to thirtvt\vo different groups among the general population, in addition to a lvhole book aimed specificall>. at kings, bishops and other rulers (JlPL 136). Ratherius’ categories include fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, tin)- children (/Mwu~P.Y). ~.oung boys and adolescents. So hc is di\iding his audience both b!~ age and stage of’ development, and also by role. Parents are dealt I\ith quickly (1,IPL 136. cc. 201). “Arc ) 011 a father or mother;‘” Ratherius asks. If’ so. remember that >-OLI ought to discipline your children, but remember the apostle‘s Ltarning (Eph. 6:4). do trot gocld_ljour children into reseutmext. Punishment in moderation seems to be the recommendation here. Rathrrius goes on to address sons and daughters, reminding them that the!, should respect their parents, and that if in adulthood they find themselves financiallv secure, the\- should not leave theil parents struggling in poverty. This. he says, does frequently happen. and he devotes tw.0 paragraphs to explaining just how \vrong and obnoxious it is. Both little children and young boys are

warned learn lengthier (MPL

of sin, and (MPL section

advised

136,

cc.

to study 203-4).

is devoted

136, cc. 204-10).

and

A

to

much

to adolescents

In it, Ratherius

cussed

has

devoted

young,

but

all have

the group re-

peatedly emphasises the importance of knowing God and following the Christian path. His comments are lavishly illustrated by biblical extracts, and by one reference to St. Augustine’s Confessions. The emphasis throughout is upon correct behaviour in one’s spiritual life, rather than in practical Ratherius is trying to everyday activities. show the young how to develop and maintain a satisfactory relationship with God, rather than with their everyday, human associates. Nevertheless, he gives his advice to the young in much more detail than either St. Augustine or Gregory the Great. The next writer of an ad status collection, in chronological sequence, is Honorius Augustodunensis, who wrote in the early twelfth century. His Speculum Ecclesie contains a group of sermons addressed to various sections of the population (MPL 172, cc. 807-l 108). There are only eight of these - priests, judges, the rich, the poor, soldiers, merchants, farmers and married people. The last section contains advice on parenting (MPL 172: cc. 867-70). As with Gregory and Ratherius, this is brief. The parents are advised to bring up their children under discipline and in fear of God, and to keep them away from evil. The implicit recommendation towards moderation made by Ratherius is not included. Children are told to obey their parents in everything, because in this way the parents’ lives may be greatly prolonged. This is the first appearance of the issue of obedience to parents in an ad status collection. None of the ad status collections so far dis-

great

as one in need

The next of the well-known tions, chapters contained twelfth-century Alan of Lille

attention

showed

to the

awareness

of some

of

comment.

ad status collecin the later

Summa de Arte Praedicandi of (Alanus ab Insula), shows a

different approach (MPL 210, cc. 185 seq.). He gives nine basic categories, compared to the eight of Honorius Augustodunensis, but although he has a section on married people, he discusses neither parenting, nor children and the young from any aspect. Alan appears simply not to have been interested in the topic. However, we cannot argue from absence and conclude that he did not recognise the existence of children. No age categories are included nor are men and women discussed separately. But surely no one would suggest that Alan had no awareness of the two sexes. These six examples represent the main survivors of the genre of ad status sermons from the late Roman Empire until the end of the twelfth century. Although five of the six do make mention of children, perhaps the most noticeable characteristic of their comments is their brevity. In every case, other (adult) groups receive much lengthier and more detailed advice and comment. The advice to and about children essentially remains in summary form: parents, discipline your children; children, obey your parents and strive hard for good behaviour. Almost no reference is made to any authority other than the Bible. There is very little acknowledgement of stages of childhood, and no attempt to define the nature of children. In a sense the children are defined purely by the relationship to their parents: they are dependent sons and daughters.

313

\Yhen guidelines

we

compare

these

with the comments

summar)

of thirteenth

century ad status sermons, the differences are very marked. The three main collections were written in the second half of the cen-

John

remained

in Paris as part of the com-

mission appointed to examine the works of the Averroist Peter John Olivi, and he died

tury, by John of \2’ales (d. 1285), Guibert de Tournai (d. 1284), and Humbert de Ro-

there in April 1285 (Little 1926:845). \\‘hat was John doing during those blank decades in his career:’ \\:e now know that he was extremely bus)- writing a range of

mans (d. 1277), respectivel?,. discuss them in this order,

preaching aids. During the thirteenth century a number of changes took place in the

I propose to as the Com-

muniloquium of John of \\:ales (which contains his ad status comments) can be definitely dated to 1268/70 (Swanson 1989:63), while the dates of the other two collections are not so well fixed. All three writers \vere friars, and it seems to be the case that management and education of the )x)un,g were particular interests of thirteenth-century friars. John of \Vales was an eminent Franciscan scholar who was active in the mid-late thirteenth centur).. As is often the case with medieval scholars, \2;c know nothing of his birth. but he is thought to ha1.e come originally from North \l’ales.’ He took his Arts degree at Oxford before joining the Franciscan Order in the mid-thirteenth century. perhaps about 1250 (Little 1917:183). He did well, and from about 1259-62 he \vas Lector to the Oxford Franciscans (Little 1926:845). After that his career becomes obscure. He surfaces in Paris in 1270, as \VC 1laL.e records of a sermon which he gave there in x of \Vales (Douie 1952:238, 247). After his period as Regent ended in 1283,

314

nature of preaching. Generally speaking, it became much more frequent, and in man? places it only became regular for the first time. It was realised that not e\.eryone in the population would benefit from the same sermons or types of sermons, and so the idea of nd status preaching, the preaching of diff‘erent t),pes of sermon to diff‘erent groups of people, became kvidespread. It also became the practice to liven up sermons, and thus to tr) to hold the audience’s attention, b) using not only biblical quotations, but also extracts from eminent authors (including those of the classical period) and e”\errj,/Aa 01 illustrative tales. This practice posed a potential problem for the rural preacher, \vho could not get to a librar), to look up suitable material, and also for the friars ~.ho tra\.elled about the country preaching to the population, and could not reall!. backpack a large selection of reference books a5 the)\vCIlt.

The solution to this problem la)- in the development of a whole genre of preaching aids. Some \vere sirnpl>, guides to orator). and to the ‘tricks of the trade’ \vhich \\zould make a sermon effecti1.e. Others were collections of skeleton or model sermons: outlines fc)r those ~.ho lacked the confidence 01 intellectual equipment? opportunity or inclination to \\,ritc their o\vn. Still others took the form of‘ \z.hat one might call souixy

books: the

collections

owner

could

of useful material

which

The early phases of life are discussed

then

as re-

three, section two, and the topic of young scholars appears in part five.

draw

upon

quired. This was the area in which John of \\‘ales excelled. He produced some twenty surviving works, including a collection of over 400 sermons,

biblical

commentaries

and a vol-

John opens his observations with some advice for parents.

in part

on childhood They should

be warned, he says, to train their children with discipline. He justifies this with a

ume on the technical art of preaching. He wrote over half a dozen substantial preach-

group of biblical citations and an extract from book seven of Aristotle’s Ethics. They

ing aids: one on the virtues of ancient philosophers and princes, one on the history of philosophy and its lessons for medieval Christians, one on penance, one on the ten commandments, one on the virtues and vices. He also wrote a work called Communiloquium, which is primarily an ad status collection. In it, John divides and redivides society according to a number of different classifications, and offers his reader a wide selection of material relevant to each topic. John wrote substantial sections on the respublica and the functional groups within it, including the prince or king; on personal relationships, e.g. father and son; and on groups such as men and women, spinsters and widows. He also discussed the ranks of the clergy, the various stages of a scholastic career, members of the religious orders and finally the dying. \\‘ithin these categories John covered topics as varied as the relative loyalty owed to the respublica and the family,

should be instructed in good habits and prepared to endure hardship, so that the)- ma) undertake and successfully handle their inheritance. For this reason ancient nobles caused their sons to be educated most judiciously, as he has already described in the case of Philip, the father of Alexander. Also they were most anxious for their children to be disciplined well, warned from evil and informed of good. Policraticus (the Policraticus of John of Salisbury) tells us that the emperor Octavian adopted sons and set them to a military career, and caused them to be trained in running and leaping and swimming, to bear a sword and to throu missiles by hand or with a sling. Similarl) he had his daughter instructed in the spinning of wool, so that they could earn a li\ring if the)- fell into poverty.
the doctrine of recreation

of tyrannicide, the importance for scholars, the evils of hunt-

ing for sport, the best approaches to educating the young, how to cope with a bad-tempered wife and so on. John discusses the questions of children, child-parent relations, education and discipline in a number of places in Communiloquium. The topic of play is covered in Communiloquium 2.2.1-2., siblings in 2.3.1.

3 13

these lessons

at an earl>- age. says John,

is

because, as Seneca tells us, cllildren of tender age are easy to teach. Seneca also tells us that the Spartans punished a lazy bo). lvitl1 strong blolvs and Lvhippings. The

nests harm

in inaccessible places, them, and put amethysts

as a protection

lest snakes in the nest

from poison. Therefore

how

reason was that the part of the hod!. which receives the most use is the strongest - foi

much more the faithful ought to warn their children of the serpent of old, and teach them to nest on the rock of Christ, kvl1ich is a firm foundation.

example the sailor’s body. the farm\jwrker’s hands, and the legs of a runner.

John’s children

CJohn repeats some more biblical quotations on the need for disciplining children, then goes on to discuss the degree of se\.erit) required. For examples of true se\.erity, he recommends the reader to turn to 17alerius iLIasimus, ~110 told 110~ hlanilius Torquato ordered his son from the house for a financial offence: and \vhen the Son hanged himself in remorse, even refused to go to the funeral. John now provides some contrasting examples of parents \\:ho treated thei] children wit11 moderation: and of parent5 ~2.110lvere positi\.ely indulgent. For esample, Antioclius, the son of King Sclcucis, fell into a gra1.e decline after he ~vas crossed in lo\.e, and when the doctor couldn‘t cure him, his father allokvcd him to mar-r)’ the

of doing this is summarised as lo\-ing them \\ith true affection, obeying tllem, honouring them, sustaining them and supplying them \vith necessities if the\- become indigent. John again recommends 1,.alerius Llasimus as a good source of examples to slio\v that loving one’s parents is the first la\\. of nature. He @\-es a number of esamples himself; including the Lvell-worn tale of the Roman matron ~~110fed 11er mother wit11 milk from her owx1 breasts, and concludes that the Roman5 generall)- displayed great respect for their parents. The preacher should use the kind of examples given to encourage children to respect their parents. The chapter closes lvith a horror story taken from St Augustine, of some brothers and sisters ~,ho spoke ill of their mother and kvere punished kvitl1 a dreadful pals)-. Already \vc see a number of differences fi-om John‘s predecessors. John refers to a distinctil~e qualit). of “children of tender age” - the), are eas) to teach. The age is not specified, but I doubt
girl. Finall>-, John abandons exembba and gives a j~erdict. Paternal se\.erit). in correcting children is to he commended, hut not to excess. And there should be moderate praise bvhen the child keep5 from sin and follows an ordered path. If a father fails to correct a child’s faults, he v.ill bc punished by God for his negligence. Parents should not set a bad example - gambling is particularl?. mentioned here - and the)- should pass on inheritances in good condition. Abe\-e all, however? parents ouglit to warn their children awa). from sin. Eagles ha\-e a great love for their children, and they build their

316

nest chapter discusses the 1cn.e of for their parents. The proper \va)

mal educational process. In fact the Spartan bo).s to whom he refers would ha\,e been aged se\‘en or more. \\‘here affection is concerned, , do as \t-ell. In eschange, children should also 1oi.e their par-

ents, and care for them if they are in need.

Because

This

should be denied wine, and attention

is a development

visaged

by Ratherius,

of the ‘contract’ where

en-

the health)

and able generation cares for the dependent one, be it young children or aged parents. \Vhere Ratherius describes the emotion fueling the relationship it as love. In the second

as respect, John sees

distinction

of part

three,

John turns to the different phases in a man’s life. The first two, infnncia or the first seven years, and puericia, the second seven, are those of most interest in our particular context. John’s chapter on infancy was naturall) directed towards parents, as he clearl) realised that under-sevens would be unlikely to gain much from preaching. He began by reminding the reader that he had already discussed the proper beha\iour of parents. They should educate their sons as Aristotle educated the son of Philip of hlacedon (Alexander the Great). John agrees with Jerome that a wet-nurse should not be drunken or wanton or garrulous, then goes on to the importance and lasting quality of earl!, impressions. The first years have a pliancy and softness which ma)- easily be shaped and moulded in the desired direction. John g i\res the examples of young trees, which can be bent into any shape, and young animals, which can be easil) domesticated. Deep within, he says, one is accustomed to cling to the sentiments which are first inscribed there. So when the soul is young and pliable, then it is easiest for good habits and customs to be induced. Anselm of Canterbury gives a similar exemplum, says John. He said that if one wished hard wax to retain a particular impression, the impression must be made while the wax is soft.

children

are impressionable,

be paid to their diet. They

should

the) should be bap-

tised, guided into the faith, and taught to have good habits and pray to God (see pp. 27-9 below for discussion of Anselm). John then repeats that the nurse should not be a chatterbox, and explains why. The early years are so impressionable that a child can easily be led into good habits. \\‘ords are like milk or nourishment if the) are good, but like poison if they are bad, and this is why people are warned against chattering nurses. John says that children should be punished for their sins, which Augustine tells us are so numerous . . . as he says in his Confessions (1.12) “so small a child, so great a sinner”. However, adds John, until the age of seven the parents are held responsible for the sins of a child, and hence it is particularly important that the) should teach him to do right. Parents are also advised to teach their children the skills suitable to their station: noble parents should teach their children that they should be noble in their deeds, and if parents have to live by their skills, then their children should be taught these skills, so that the) may live justl),. John then turns to puericia or boyhood. He warns boys that they should specially beware of the sins which arise during this period, namely lust and covetousness. The) should strive towards sobriety and chastity. Youth is unfruitful ground which produces man)- thorns if neglected. John refers to Cicero’s discussion of the Lycurgan laws of Sparta. The young, he concludes, should be respectful and obedient. For as a tree will not fruit without first having flowered, so it is with youth and age. Those who do not

317

strive

towards

not deserve life.

any discipline

honour

in youth,

or consequence

John’s final chapters with their education.

Lvill

in later

on the young deal Using as sources


the pseudo-Boethian De Disciplinn Srolnriunz, Quintilian and Augustine’s Cotz-

fissions,

he tells us ho\\- bo)x should

be in-

structed initially. They should he taught according to their capacity. beginning with the elements of literac).. Boys ought to learn tliesc thoroughly, because nothing learnt thus in the beginning can he learnt so well after, and it is a more serious and dif‘ficult thing to reinstruct badl!. taught bo).s than to educate those \vllo have previousl>- had no teaching. It is easier to put in ,good information than to strike out had. particularl!lvlren boys cling so hard to their first in\\-llate\,er its qualit).. Therefijre struction, bo).s are to bc instructed Lvith great dilithe time of gcnce, lest through negligence Ix)ylmod should pass them by. ‘I’he h~.s tlicmsel\~cs arc recomrmenclecl to pa\. attctition to their teachers and not to decei\rc them. It is important that they should be instructed correctI>. in the elenlents, Ixginning lvith grammar, ant1 ho~z to read correctl), \vitli the accents in the right places. The tenor of John‘s comments indicates that he had a real awareness of bo\-s and their habits. and of the tenacious nature of ;I \.er)’ ).oung nlind. As a Franciscan lectol he lvould 1laL.e had consideral~le teaching and he \\~~ulci seem to lia\.c experience, spent sonie of his tinie in accurate ohser\xtion.’ He is aIvare of‘ the difrerence hctween the )mung and the adult, and is able to identiI‘\ the nature of the difkrences. John’s last chapter on yuth continues his observations on the correct Imode of‘ teach-

ing youth.

Care

should

be taken,

he says.

lest the boys should become too much steeped in poetry and stories, and become drai\,n to their delights. This is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. as this \vas plainly one of John’s besetting sins, but he continues quite unconscious, and tells a star\. from Valerius AIasimus about a Spartan’ king \vho operated a form of book censorship. Remember, says - the!. begin Ivith grammar and logic. It is clear li-om all this that John had a considerable amount to sa>. on the subjects of‘childrearing and education. The preachel armed with his handbook could 1laL.e prolided ans\vers to all the main problems Lvhich might have \.cxcd his hearers. LJoh~l’s attitude to punishment is of some interest, under se\ en as 1.3 his point that children were not to be held responsible for their obvn actions. This principle was enshrined in English la~v fair11 soon afier the publication of‘ SJoh~l’s C;hnrmnnilotluiun2(Hurnard 1969: 156). 1t is also characteristic of John’s esnentinll!. practical attitude that, in addition to ad\-ice I)ah>.care, elernentar). religious educaand teaching techniques, he found space to point out that parents kvcre responsible for fitting their children to lead a usefill adult life. Thus the children of better-ofl‘ parents should be taught usefhf occupations and ho~v to hancllc inheritances (\vhich the parents are responsible for passing on in on

tion

good condition),

and less well-off

parents,

who live by their skills, should see that their children

have

skills

too, so that

they can

people (including

their role as parents)

and

one on teachers of youth. These sermons add up to approximately 7,000 words, while

earn a living decently. John is making a serious attempt to temper his advice to the reality of life in the various classes of soci-

Jacques

de Vitry’s

ety. John’s writing on children and childhood is enormously more detailed than that of

Guibert is doing more than parrot decessor.” There are obviously

adolescents total words. From this

sermons on boys and approximately 3,000 alone it is clear that his premarked

contemporaries? One of his direct contemporaries was Guibert de Tournai, a Franciscan who spent most of his career in Paris (Glorieux 1933b:56). He too wrote a collection of ad status sermons, including some aimed at the young. LTe can profitably compare the content of these with John’s comments on the same subject, but it is important to remember that Guibert’s ad status sermons,

similarities in the two texts, for Guibert has drawn heavily upon Jacques de Vitry as a Guibert has source of exempla. However, chosen to present these exempla in a sequence of his own, has enlarged upon some and reduced the importance of others, and has added a more complex theoretical structure and some new source material obtained independently. In doing so he has presented a viewpoint of his own. Guibert left two sermons on the biblical phrase “Thobias taught his son from infancy to fear God and to abstain from all sin”.G He tells the reader that for the purpose of these sermons he understands the phrase patres to include not only fathers, but also all others who have boys in their guardianship. Parents ought to teach their sons doctrina from the first, because it is most sweet and easy to carry out. Guibert draws a parallel with honey. After eating this, all other food seems tasteless, and it is the same

which proved very popular, drew substantially upon the earlier ad status collection of Jacques de Vitry (d’Avray and Tausche 1980:71-119). It is useful to compare the

with divine doctrine. He contrasts spiritual and physical beauty, and tells an exemplum (from Jacques de Vitry) about a girl whose father was a virtuous man who laboured in

two sets of sermons briefly, to establish the degree to which Guibert can be credited with any originality, rather than classified as merely parroting his predecessor’s work.

the fields, but whose mother was a spendthrift who used up money faster than her husband could earn it, and indulged in drunkenness and fornication. \\:hen the parents died, the girl had to decide which of the two lifestyles she would follow. An angel came to her in a dream, and took her

his predecessors before 1200. He discusses not only parent-child relationships, but also the needs and problems of children of different ages, and the question of educational approaches and techniques. He not only says that both children and parents should do right, but also explains in concrete terms what is constituted by ‘right behaviour in particular situations. This is a very distinctive difference from the earlier ad status writers. But how did John compare with his

Guibert discusses children in four of his ad status sermons - one each on boys and on adolescents, one on behaviour of married

319

first to see her mother burning then to see her father being

in hell, honoured

and in

heaven. The two alternatives are most vividly described in the enemplum. The angel then asked the girl Which her choice \vas to be. She promised follow kvished nance,

him that

she Lvould never

the example of her mother, to spend her life in labour and

but pe-

as her father did. The following morning she retired to a caxre, to live a life of poverty. Guibert supplies a number of biblical quotations on the need to teach children to do right, and says that if parents undertake to guard their children from the dangers of real kvater, how much more the)should guard them from the ri\.cr of illicit pleasures. Bo).s, says Guibert, are to be taught from the time of infanq., test the)- remain puerile for ever. Z?z&te.c are \\reak and vulnerable to the devil. \vho tempts them with things which they desire. Thus one can be led fi-om the ta\.ern to a prositute, from a prostitute to gambling, from gambling to theft, from thefi to the gibbet, from the gibbet to hell. \\‘e must infer that lucre Guibert is thinking of a group rather older than the i?l/ilrl/es of his pre\ious paragraph - perhaps he \vas carried a\va). b>- the desire to inclucle this dramatic example from ,Jacclues de \‘itry. On the subject of punishment, Guibert sa!-s that boys should be beaten. but the punishment should not he too harsh or too long in duration. For i~ficncicl is a condition like soft Lvax. and it recei\.es impressions easily. Animals are easil) tamed, and bird5 domesticated, kvhen young. Soil that is not full of stones and briars is easier to plough. and birds taken from the nest chatter most s\veetl). The things xvhich \VC learn in infancy are firmly rooted in the adult, and

therefore the infant abstain from evil.

should

be ad\,ised

to

In this sermon, Guibert is really addressing himself entire]!. to adults. Like
older

boys.

and

being offered to he deals \vith

lvhilc

much

of the

advIce is still addressed to their older mentors. some of it is given more directly, and he also advises the preachers on the kinds of points M.llicll they could profitabl>. make directI>, to bo1.s. Boys and aholcscents, he says, should bc taught about reverence to the Lord, obedience to their parents or tutors, modest), toLvards themscl\~cs and truthfulness toivards their nrigtibours. \\liere re\.erence is concerned, the? should be taught to fear God, attend church services. sa\- their pra)‘ers and make frcquent confessions. The)- ought to attend chuch in order to hear sermons. and not gather in the porch and disturb the service. The! ought to 1x taught to ]“a)., particularly the Lord’s Prayer. The), ought to be taugl1t to confess, and the\. should run to the confe5sional at once \vhcn the) knolv they have committed a sin. The)- should conf&s such sins as trampling on standing corn, taking grapes from \.incs or apples from trees, or breaking apple trees. Xnd the). ought not to make excuses for themsel\.cs at confession. Guibert critices those \vho aa!’ “I didn’t do it . . . if‘ I did do it 1 didn’t do wrong .., if I did wx)ng I didn’t do \-er!. \vrong . if I did \rer)- bvrong I didn’t knew. it . ..” and so on. Bo\.s FirstIt.

ought to be taught obedience. the\. should be\varc of‘ offending

against

their parents.

their children teaching

with

Parents

should teach

with words, and confirm their good

examples

and

good

words. There

are a number

tween the messages

of similarities

put across

be-

by Guibert

deeds. In this way, good parents will be delighted with obedient children. If boys have done wrong, they must undergo correction from their parents. Guibert warns parents that boys lie easily and excuse themselves

de Tournai, and those of John of Wales. Guibert also can clearly distinguish between the characteristics of infants and those of older boys, and offer advice to parents, teachers and, in the case of the older

convincingly. They should still be corrected, but this must be done with forbearance and prudence, and not when hot with rage or zealous after punishment. Guibert repeats the point that this should be undertaken with forbearance, and says that boys ought to accept it in the same spirit. Boys should not speak ill of their parents, and they should be taught physical exercise for a while, lest they grow lazy. For example, David had the sons of the Jews taught archery, because the Philistines were archers and knowledge of the skill could be used to defeat them. Boys should honour their parents, and supply them with the necessities of life if they need them, unlike the cuckoo who, after taking food from a little bird, kills it. They should also preserve the precious treasure of modesty, being war!’ of This desiring women, and of fornication. point is dealt with in some detail. Finally, boys should be truthful. lt’ords mirror the mind, so boys should be careful what they say. They should know when to speak and when to remain silent. An exam-

group, the boys themselves.

ple of this was the Blessed Virgin, who remained quiet when greeted by an angel while alone in her bedroom, although she was startled by his entry. Boys ought not to listen to dishonest words either, because whoever delights to hear such things encourages the speaker. They ought to be truthful in their deeds as well as their

Guibert

has less

to say about the practical side of a parent’s duty to prepare his children for the adult world, but he gives more detail on the moral aspect of education. Like John, he needs to be classified on the moderate wing of the spectrum of views on corporal punishment. His insistence that it should not be too hard, or too long, is backed up by comments in his next sermon (no. 79). This, addressed to those in charge of teaching very young children in schools, recommends that verbal correction should be tried first, and that corporal punishment should only follow if words have no effect. Again, like John, Guibert speaks here of the dangers of boys wasting too much of their time on stories, and emphasises the importance of acquiring a good knowledge of the basics, before attempting to master the more advanced branches of learning. Guibert likens the consequences of skipping the basics to the fate of Icarus, who in a fit of youthful enthusiasm flew too near to the sun and fell to earth with a resounding crash. Overall,

this sermon shows a good under-

standing of the nature of boy children. Guibert refers first to the innocence of boys, then to the way in which this can be corrupted, and finally to the methods by which the teacher can initiate reform. Clearly he does not see evil inbuilt in young children. He presents four characteristics of boyish

321

chastit>-, neighbourliness, maturity and obedience to teachers, and lists four corresponding faults which destroy innocence

these \.irtues: indulgence, discord, playfulness and pride. Guibert enthusiasticall>. relates examples of boys ivho have suffered from these faults, and of the nasty fates which befell them. His lists

ofimmature

be-

haviour include revealing limbs to others.’ kissing bvornen. s\vearing, perjury and blasand he gives among others the phemy, example of a blasphemous fi\.e-year old who was pursued by e\ril spirits in the fbrm of black men. Other boyish faults described by Guibert include: following one’s olvn bvishes rathel than those of parent or teacher; annoying one’s mother by not wishing to be subject to her; and, if corrected, replying cheekit> and pertly. Truancy and failure to learn are also mentioned. Finall>,, Guibcrt ad\.ises the teacher how to cope with such dificulties: \visel>- chosen study, backed up b)- appropriate correction, is the essence of the treatment. Corporal punishment is to be used as a last resort. Again, we see a clear recognition of the nature of boys betkveen the ages of seven and fourteen. Breaking trees (presumahl\ on them), by climbing in or swinging scrumping apples, checking one’s mother, pla).ing truant, reluctance to own up. all are qualities \vhich have for centuries been regarded as characteristic of this group - and still are today. One does not expect adults to do these particular things no~v, and Guibert was not alone in not expecting adults of his time to do these things - I have ne\‘er found a medieval sermon Lvhich learned adults against such behaviour. Guibert also includes a series of nine ser-

322

mons aimed at older girls (nos 59-67, Ad rliu,@nes). Two of these discuss the need for chastit)-, xvith man!. illustrative examples from the female saints, one discusses the I-alue of literacy and basic medical knowledge,

and warns

girls against

laughing

in

church, three discuss the perils of make-up and of the interest in fashion and perfume, one covers preparation for marriage, and one the dangers of wealth. The sermons are cluite length)-, and in many ways repetiti\fe, but the). do show- that Guibert had not forgotten the other half of his young audience. No distinction is made between girls of different ages. Once girls had passed out of the very young, infantile, state, the)- seeming]!. passed through only one recognised stage hefore becoming women. This could tw a reflection of actual practice: an aristocratic girl, \vho might be married in her earl). or mid-teens, lvould face quite a different pattern of life to a ho)- \vho might well not marry until his late teens or early tkventies, and could therefore fit in a period of relatively carefree adolescence or young manhood.” It is also an accepted biological fact that girls mature more quick]), than ho)-s. The last of our trio of later thirteenth centur‘). ad status writers is Humbert de Rornans (d. 1277). He M’rote sermons addressed to one hundred different groups, main]> groups from different religious orders (De Ewditiolle

Pmedicatorum,

book 2). However,

Humbert did pay some attention to secular groups, and three of his sermons refer to children or youths: sermon 87, adpueros. sermon 97 ad iurlenculas sire adolescentulas, and sermon 63, ad scholares in gmmmatica. Humbert’s style leas characteristicall), much crisper than those of either John of \t’ales

or Guibert

de Tournai,

enthusiastic of classical

about

he was not as

tioned

great

they will answer

exempla or authoritative

ing quotations, as much

and

including

space

sheaves

to the

young

nearly

as either

and

to be aware

that

to God on the day ofjudge-

ment.

support-

so he does not devote

wrongdoings,

of

these contemporaries. If one follows Humbert’s sermons in sethe first one on youth is that on quence, scholars of grammar. Humbert exhorts these students, whom he says are mainly boys and adolescents, to study willingly. They are also warned to lead a good life, as without this scholarship means little. And because Humbert says that many do not know what a good life consists of, he goes on to spell it out for them. The study of literature is important, he says, because it leads to the study of divine wisdom and of philosophy. Learning the basics is hard work, but there is much pleasure and satisfaction to be found in the later stages. Learning is a noble and useful occupation, and therefore students ought not to dodge their studies or to skip classes, but rather should study with all diligence. Secondly, they should note that literacy alone without a good lifestyle will not save them. Therefore they should behave in the following ways: they ought to obey their parents, following the example of the boy Jesus; they ought to beware of feeble jokes; they ought to go to church often to hear sermons and the divine office; they ought to reject bad society; they ought to remain willingly in the homes of their parents, and not to leave or to wander about uselessly; they ought to preserve the treasure of their virginity diligently, like the young St Bernard, who when a woman came to him in the night shouted “thieves, robbers”. They ought to beware of all the previously men-

The outlook Humbert does

here is strictly practical. not confine himself to gen-

eral statements on the need for good behaviour, but goes on to set out exactly what the young should and should not do, following it with a clear explanation of the consequences of going astray. In his sermon on boys, Humbert begins by saying that they should be reared to be tough, quoting the laws of the Spartan Lycurgus on the rearing of children. They should be brought up under discipline, and should be taught not only grammar and other knowledge, but also matters pertaining to health. They should be taught about the scriptures from infancy, not only by their fathers, but also by their mothers. This is the first mention of the role of mothers in our ad status collections. The children should be taught from the beginning what is a good life and what is a bad, what to undertake and what to reject. This is difficult to learn, says Humbert, but it is easier to teach the correct path from the first than to redirect the steps of those who have gone astray, and although it is difficult to climb a hill at first, it becomes easier as time passes. Thus in the beginning it is difficult for boys to go to school, while later, when they develop a real love of books, they leave their fathers and sustain many difficulties. Boys should refrain from feeble jokes, and should be taught to heed examples of the holy children, Jesus and others. Humbert refers the reader to his chapter on grammar students for further advice, before turning to the older children or adolescents. He begins this section by telling the preacher that

323

he should

not limit

his attention

to boys.

Girls, whether at school or in the home, should be instructed in the things which pertain to a good life.” The). ought to learn kvillingl) from their parents, and should kno\v how to say the psalter, the hours. the office of the dead and other prayers. Humhcrt explains that this Lvill help them if the), choose to become nuns when the!, are older, \\hile if the)- do not so choose, it \t-ill help them to understand the scriptures better. He then gives a number of examples of religious \\:omen ~.ho \vere educated - St Catherine, St Agatha, St Ciecilia and so on _ to shohv that literac). is acceptable in kvomen. The point of vic\v he presents is rather unusual for its da).. Girls should beM.are of the e\.ils of gossip and dancing, and they should be \var). of‘all types of men, lest at an?’ time one exposes himself to her \vhile alone. The). ought to f?~llow the ad\-ice of regilious IIIC’II, and to remain with their parents or other adult women. The)- ought to devote their \vllole heart to lo\+ngJesus Christ alone. Humbert finally recommends the reader to turn to his chapter on young nuns for more detailed advice on spiritual matters. \\‘e can see Humbert has continued his characteristicall)practical approach. He details

not

only

whn/ a girl

should

clo, hut

and explanations Apple. not onI>. to the spiritual side of life, also

~‘/y’, and his adxicc

but also to the practical. The), should learn the prayers because it l\-ill help them to understand the Bible. or c\‘en to become a nun. The). should not be alone with a man because he ma)- espose Iiimself‘ to her. 7’liia commonsense approach to specific situations \vhich might arise in e\wyda). life is characteristic of‘ all three of these (Id s/n/us

collections, emphasised Remans.

but is perhaps most strongl? in the writings of Humbert de

Both John of It’ales and Guibert de Tournai had much to say about discipline and punishment. Although both accepted the need for it, both recommended and the reservation of corporal

moderation punishment

fbr stubborn casts. Humbert did bareI>, mention the need for discipline, but he did not discuss it in an\ \j’ay. The fact that he did not include an, of the harsher bit~lical quotations upon the subject ma). indicate that he would ha\re agreed \j.ith John and Guibert on the moderation of punishment. Their \.ic\vs certainI\, contrast with the comment of one historian of preaching, \vlio Lvrotc of pre-reformation preaching that “the stern disciplining of lvife and children (is) typical of tl ie message of the faithful friar” (Owxt 1%X:9,5). This issue of. correction, or punishment, brings u5 ine\-itabl>, to the beating debate. There can Ix no denying that corporal punishment \vas much used in medie\A Europe, as it still is today in some circles. But the lie\\. that it \\.as endemic, consistcntl!. appro\,ed of and generalI>, \w). sc\xv, is an unncccssarily narrow one, \\,hicll is not entireI>. hrnc out by the sources. ‘Ilie most ardent proponent of‘this view is Llo) d de I\lause. \vllo \vrotc that he had esamined o\.t‘r 200 statrmcnts on childrearing, from the times of the ancient Greeks until the eighteenth

centur\,

and

found

that

all but

and l.ecommendations towzrds moderation (de I\lause 19’76:40~. From this he concluded that harsh physical punishthree

appro\.cd

most

made

ment

\vas indeed

is proposed

of

heating

children.

no

the norm.

1)) Nicholas

A diRerent Ormc

vie\\

( 1984:34).

vvho suggests moralists ment

plausibly

that one reason

so emphasised

in theory,

was

physical that

they

insufftciently used in practice. dence to show considerable practice,

first in differing

wh)

punishfelt it was

There is evivariation in

situations

(e.g. in

school as opposed to at home), and second between individual homes. The famous example of Guibert of Nogent shows this clearly: his autobiography contrasts the tender affection supplied by his mother with the harsh discipline imposed by his resident tutor (Benton 1970:50). John of Lodi’s biography of the eleventh-century scholar Peter Damian records several changes of treatment in Peter’s youth. At first rejected b>, his mother, he was nursed back to health by a priest’s concubine, then accepted and cherished by his own mother. Orphaned while v’ery young, Peter was adopted by an older brother who beat and starvred him, then at the age of twelve transferred to the care of another brother who treated him with great love and affection.“’ It is apparent that within a single household or farnil) there could be great v,arations in the way a child u-as treated. \Yhat of the theory? The three scholars whom de nlause listed as registering opposition to beating were Plutarch and two fifteenth-centur). Italians. None of these three was likel), to have influenced a writer such as John of \2’ales, who had not read Plutarch (Swanson 1989) and preceded the fifteenth-century Italians by some 200 vears. Hove unusual was his decision in favour of moderation, and whom could he have derived it from3 \\‘e do know of a number of other medieval churchmen who favoured moderation in beating. Apart from John Chrysos-

tom,

who

wrote

in his Address on Vainglory

that

a child

should

but

should

sometimes

not be beaten be won

too much, with

gentle-

ness and promises (Laistner 195 1:99), the earliest of these is Anselm of Canterbury, whom tween wax.” tion

John of Ft’ales cites for the simile bethe young child and the soft sealing Anselm had for compassion

a considerable reputatowards the young

(Southern 1972:38). In his Lzj2 of St. Anselm, Eadmer tells us that an abbot once asked Anselm for advice about the boys in his care. He complained that he was forever beating them, but that their behaviour never improved (Southern 1972:37-g). A nselm asked the abbot what kind of tree he would expect to get if he planted a shoot and then hemmed it in on all sides. The abbot replied that it would be a useless tree, with distorted branches (one can see that gardening similes were extremely popular when the training of youth came under discussion). “\\‘liose fault would it be?” asked Anselm, and answered his own question. It would be the abbot’s own fault, for shutting the tree in so unnaturally. Your bo)-s, he said, were at their oblation planted in the garden of the church, to grow and bring forth fruit for God. But you so terrify and hem them in . . with threats and blows, that they are utterly deprived of their liberty. This leads them to harbour twisted and evil thoughts, and to have no faith in your good feelings towards them. And he asked the abbot, “\l’hy in God’s name are you so incensed against them? Are they not human? Are they not flesh and blood like you? \Tould you like to be treated as you treat them?” He then offered a simile with the work of a goldsmith, who uses not only blows, but also gentle

325

taps and careful

pressures

in his cvork. The

abbot must do the same with his boys, and offer the encouragement and help of fatherl) sympathy and gentleness . the M;eak soul, which is still inexperienced in the service of God,

needs milk - gentleness

from others,

kindness, compassion, cheerful encouragement, loving forbearance and much else of tl1e same kind. All this is very persuasive, and John of \\‘ales was not the only thirteenth-centur) friar to quote Anselm on this topic: t\vo others were Vincent of Beauvais (c. 11901264) and Bartholomaeus Anglicus (first half of the thirteenth century). Vincent of Beauvais, one of the great encyclopaedists of the thirteenth century, \vas a Dominican. He discussed child education in his 1Ie Eruditione Filiorum h’obiliorum (c. 146-49) (Steiner 1938) and his S$adum .!/cliu.r (ear-l? 1260s). He too cites Anselm of Canterbur> as a source (Steiner 1938:sxi), and ad\-ocates moderate use of discipline (Steiner 1938:89-101). He drew a distinction between children who do not need physical punishment, and ma)- even be scriousl) harmed by its use, and others who 5cem to need to be disciplined in this wa). (Steiner 1938:89-101). This should remind us that the terms discipline and punishment Lvere not necessarily synonymous wit11 corporal punishment or beating. John of \\‘ales included exile from the family home in his examples of how a parent may discipline a child, in the same \val- that the Benedictine Rule, written in the 53Os, included the sending of an ill-behaved monk to ‘Co\.entry’ among punishments bvhich could be carried out in a monastery (chapters 23-30). Bartholomaeus Anglicus, who wrote his L)e P1-ojwietntibus Kerum (c. enc)-clopaedic

326

1250): was another English Franciscan, but appears to have written mainly in France (Emden 1974). Bartholomaeus had a great deal to say on the subject of childrearing, from tl1e moment of birth, and gi\.es a clear picture of a man who knew about the nature of childhood. He did not enter the beating debate, but kvrote a lively description of small boys as “without thought or care, loving only to play, fearing no danger, always hungry and disposed to ilhiess as a result of their mothers efforts to greed, resisting Lvasl1 and comb them, and no sooner clean than dirty again” (McLaughlin 1976). Bartholomaeus sho\vs strong abvareness of the essential nature of childhood. hlore. perhaps, than some might expect from a bachelor churchman, but then, like e\.eryone else, he had had the best possible experience of childhood - he had been a child himself. His description of small boys may be compared to the much less Lvellkno\vn description of the genus given b> Thomas Docking, ~~110 succeeded Jol1n of \t’ales in the post of lector to the Oxford Franciscans (Little 1943:98-l 22). Docking does not seem to have had John of \\.ales’ strong interest in youth, and he Lvrotc no ad status sermons, but \ve do ha1.e some comments on parents and children, drakvn from his biblical commentaries. ” He believed that fathers should beat their children when the). iverc young? but not lvhen the), Lvere adult.‘,’ And like John of \\‘ales, he took from Quintilian the idea that co-operation ratl1er than domination was the proper rclationship bet%veen master and pupils. The teacher: he said. should be both father and mother to his students. Docking also left us a description of “the wa)x of little boys”. It has been suggested

that

this

might

be at least

partly

autobio-

mentions

fall into

graphical, and it seems more than likely that it does indeed contain reminiscences of

would

Docking’s

dice; organised base or charades;

Norfolk

childhood.

He wrote

and note the characteristics of a little ho\,. He is not anxious, he does not covet, he occupies himself with simple and innocent games, he values his household so much that, having been transferred to a kingdom, he seeks rather the things of old, and longs to be among his accustomed ones. He knows the propcrt) of his father. and runs now in the field, now in the garden, no\v in the orchard. now in the meadow, now to the stream, now to the vineyard. He has his own particular falrourite times of the year: in spring he follows the ploughcrs and sowers, in summer and autumn he accompanies those gathering the grapes. Sometimes he is restored to his former vigour with a taste of the outdoor meals of the serfs. He takes much pleasure in gathering fruit, rubbing unripe grain, picking bunches of unripe grapes. exploring the nests of birds and bringing home recovered sheep or hens with great rejoicing and leaping. And he prefers hunting with snares to repairing coppices.”

\\Te get the impression that Docking’s childhood had been a happy one, and that he remembered it well. And by giving a delinition of the “characteristics of a small boy”, he makes clear that he recognised the group, and expected his audience to do so also. Both Bartholomaeus Anglicus and Thomas Docking picked out play as one of the distinguishing qualities of their small boys. Lt’here Bartholomaeus onI>- refers to love of play, Thomas refers to “simple and innocent games” and mentions running freely around the countryside, “helping” \vith the harvest, investigating birds’ nests and hunting with snares. Ariis argued that a shared community of games between older children and adults was one piece of proof that a separate concept of childhood did not exist (1986:6097). However the kinds of games which he

now

as chess,

three

classify

nine-men’s

categories,

as ‘board morris,

what

games’ gambling

we such with

games such as prisoner’s and what we should now

consider as sport - hockey, tennis, bowls and so on. All these types of game are frequently played alike, although

now by adults and children adults would tend to confine

the second category to parties. The distinctive quality- of the types of play associated with childhood, by our medieval writers, is its free or creative nature. The unifying quality of the three types of play cited b) Ari&s is that they are, in modern parlance, ‘games’: that is to say, they have rules and a definite shape. Purposeless leaping, climbing and running, and creative and imaginati1.e play, seem to have been the domain of the child, then as now. Friars do not supply the only examples. Gerald of lt’ales wrote of building on the \Telsh sands in the 1150s. His imaginary churches and monasteries, contrasting as they did with the towns and castles built by his brothers, apparently inspired his father to prepare him for the church (Orme 1984:35 quoting Giraldus Opera 1.2 1). The fifteenth-century poem Rntis Racing describes “play with flowers,

how children love to to build houses with

sticks and branches, to make a white horse of a wand or a sailing ship from broken bread, a spear from a ragwort stalk or a sword from a rush, and to make a beautiful lady from a cloth, decorate it with blossoms and cherish it”.” And Froissart in his autobiographical poem, referred to “children’s games as they are played before the age of twelve” (Buchon III. 479 ff.). \l:ith this phrase he not only shows awareness of games special to children, but also tells us

327

thv age

\vhicll

I)et~.ecn

children

diKerent made raph!.. dent ) cars) dered

kind

he sa\v

as the cut-olT

and )-ouths,

of game.

point

bvho played

A similar

point

a

\vas

in Guibert of Nogent’s autobiog\Vriting of his period under a resitutor

(bctiveen

ages

he said “while others c\,ery\vhere at \t-ill

five

and

ele\xv

of in)- age kvanand Lucre un-

checked in the indulgence of sue/z i~Yi~~/z’o~~.r (0 zklB)‘em7tuml nt their age (III), italics) I ~~~ulcl sit and look at the troops of pla)-ers” (Brnton 1970:49-SO). Certain friars of the thirteenth centur).. then, sho\vcd more s).mpatlly for, and acquaintance \vith. youth than they 1iai.e wmetimes been gi\.en credit for. In connection hit11 this. they also show acquaintance bvith the kvorks and attitudes of that ele\.entli-cenrur~. scholar Anselm of Canterbury. \\‘hat of later friars and scholars? SJolln of \\‘ales, \~incrnt of Beau\-ais and Bartholomaeus Anglicus all kvrote enqclopaedic z\wrks \vhich circulated kvidely. ‘(’ The nn status sermons of Guibert dc Tournai and Humhert de Romans \,vere also \.cr-!. popular (Schneyer 1969). Did their \.ie\\,s on childhood ha\-e an)- discernablc cfrect? It is far too early yet to form an)’ firm conclusions. But 1z.c can perhaps see a shadow:)outline. \\‘e know of t\vo fourteenth-century preachers \vho ad\.ocated moderation of discipline. Both kvrre English Dominicans. Robert Holcot, 1~110 died in 1349: included remarks on childrearing in his sermons, and in his Conrme?~fn~)~011 Ili’s(/o~I. Lvritten about 1334-36 and estrcmel>, popular in later years (Smalle)- 1960). Beryl Smalle)- Lvrote “The gentle side of‘his nature emerges most clearly in his views on the education of‘ youth. Holcot is more humane than \‘incent of Beauvais. Hc brings out the

328

brutal old cliches, He insists on the

but always softens need for affection

them. in the

master-pupil relationship, saying that children love to be taught with kindness. And he tells his hearers that youth needs character training, diet and

sharp lenient

concentration, judgement”

moderate

(Snlallc\~ 1960:191-2, 332-4). Like SJolm of \\‘ales, Holcot li\.ened up his chapters on childhood \vith stories from the ancient Lvorld. He had a passion fill such tales, and in fact frequently used John of \\‘ales’ work as a source, although he does not al\vays acknokvledge it (Smalle) 1960). , with one of its mother’s jewels. and recei\,es the repI> “kvhat filthy hands !.ou have - wash them first and I’ll gi\,e it to you“ (Owst 1926:27). Another child, too young to know about death, is described a5 playing happil) \\itll the silken pall coxrering its parent’s hocl~- (Oust 1926:34). John Brom).ard also knew what children \j’ere like. and he could describe their acti\.ities well and Lvith sympath!,. He come5 down on the side of‘moderation in beating, on the practical grounds that “the t)o). beaten too frequently or for a trivial cause is hardened and carts little about blo\\-s” (O\vst 1926:X2). Brom)-ard too knew and used ,John of \\‘ales‘ Comrmniloquium, although lie is not quoting it directly on this occasion. ” Can ive draw an). conclusions about this small group of scholars \vho show understanding of children and a sympathetic attitude tolvards them? \Vith the exception of

Anselm, who died 150 years before any of the others were writing, all are friars. Both Franciscans and Dominicans were particularly interested in education, and one might expect that commonsense would soon lead them to the conclusion that severe corporal punishment was not the solution to ever) problem. I have suggested that Anselm’s writings and life may have helped to influence the friars of the thirteenth century in their attitudes towards the young. But Anselm was not the only Archbishop of Canterbury who was famous for his gentleness towards youth. The tenth-centur) scholar St Dunstan also acquired a reputation as a protector of boy-monks from excessive beatings. The story was later elaborated into several versions, including one by Eadmer, author of the Life of St. dnselm (Scholz 1966: 127-48). Eadmer was also responsible for a life of Bregwine, the eighth-century Archbishop of Canterbury who acquired a reputation for protecting schoolboys from the beatings of their masters (Scholz 1966:127-48). The praiseworthy nature of such moderate views seems to have been well established in Canterbury circles at the time of Anselm’s rule there. He certainly seems to have typified it to an extraordinar) degree, and we might plausibly suggest that it was his example and influence which led to the development, at just this time, of moderate and protective characteristics in the lifestories of some of his famous predecessors. \\:here did Anselm derive his seemingly unusual humanitarianism? \\:e find a clue in Eadmer’s biography (Southern 1972:172-3). 0 ne family of manuscripts, based upon the copy which went to An-

selm’s

one-time

monastery

of Bet,

tells the

story of Anselm’s unhappy experiences on first being sent to school. He was kept constantly at his studies, and never allowed out of the house to play. Eventually he was returned home in a state of severe distress, extremely withdrawn. His mother, most upset at this, ordered that he must be alldwed to do whatever he wished, and thus gradually he was restored to his original happy state. Anselm himself is supposed to have said that he always tried to behave towards others with the same gentleness and understanding that his mother had shown him when he was a child (McLaughlin 1976: 127). If we accept this story, it adds fresh poignancy to Anselm’s advice to the abbot. Anselm was famous for his compassion when he was alive, and spread it through his works long after he was dead. h/Ian)- a medieval child may have had cause to give thanks to Anselm’s mother.

Notes * I am grateful to the \\‘arhurg Institute in London, and to the British Academy, for financial support which made it possible to write this article. I Ny italics. _ Jesus College Cambridge, MS. 67, provides the evidence for this. i Paris MS. Nat. lat. 15034, f. 127. 129d. 4 As lector he would not have taught very young boys, but he would have had an excellent opportunity to observe how older boys and young men clung to bad habits acquired in extreme youth. i The ad sfatzts sermons (Sermones bitlgares) of Jacques de Vitry are only available in manuscript. I used Paris N. lat. 17509. I am grateful to David d‘Avray who supplied me with microfilm of the relevant pages. 0 Guibertus Tournacrnsis, Ad Status sermons, printed Johannes de \\:estphalia, Louvain (? 1473), sermons 77-78. i It is not clear to me what is meant here. Is it a

329

gcncral prohibition against nudity? ;\ reference to the equivalent of our ‘flashing’ or perhaps ‘streaking’? 8 \Ve still know relati\,cly littlc about actual ages of’ marriage in the difrrcnt social classes. in \,arious parts of the hliddle Ages. But thcrc is some evidence that in the upper classes at least girls often marrird hy their late teens. \\‘r must presumr that the girls to whom Guilxrt rcfcrs lvere in the main the cquivalents of his grammar school buys. and thewfore from relativcl!wealthy homes. 1, He seems to assume that girls could go to school. Perhaps hc nicans young girls in nunncrics? \Ve knm\- too little about the educational opportunities available to girls at this time. Froissart. in his autobiographical poem E,YpinrUr dmowwsr (11. 479 11:) wrote‘ of hoxv he first bvent to school and nlct littlc girls of his ohm age - so perhaps mixed clxscs wcrt an option at least for young children of good family. 10 Cited t,!- Mary Martin hIcLaughlin ( 1976: I@5). For original see niPL 144. 114-17.

I/

E.g. Cotmmcntary on the EllistIcs of St. Paul. Commentary on Hebrews. I{ Balliol College 1\IS. 30 I’, 106 (On tllr Epistlcs of St. Paul). 1, Balliol College his. 30 f: 349 (C:on~mcntar) on Hebrews). printed in Latin 1,~ .i. G. I.ittlc. 1943: 1 I I. XI!- translation.

Ii

<)\vst ( 1926573) tells II) that Brom~ard usctl John of \\‘alrs at times. The coninicnt hcrc clots not appear to lx related to the ol)scr\.ations ofJohn ot \Valcs.

Literature .-Man of Lillc (Alanus al, Insult). Swnnla dc artc praedicandi. hlPL 210. .\rii-s. P. 1986. Centuries of childl~uotl. London. Augustine of Hippo. Confessions. R.S. Pine-Cbtlin (trans.) 1961. I.onclon. .\ugustinr of Hippo, Scrrnoncs ad pol~ulutn. YIPL 39. Bcnton, .J, F. (cd.) 1970. Self and society in rmeclicx~al Francr: the menroirs of .\hhot Guibcrt of‘ Sogcnt. Srw York. Butler. H. E. 1937. The nutohiogral,l~~~ cut’ (;iraldus C:anit)l-ensis. Lundon.

330

d’.\vra?. 1). L. and Tauschc. XI. 1980. Xlarriagc scrnlons in ad s/n/~ collections of the central Xlidclle Ages. :IDHLRI,\ 71-l 19. de Mausc, L. (cd.) 1976. The c\wlution of chilclhoocl. The history of’ childhood l-74. London. Douie, D. l9;2. Archbishop Pechann. Oxford. Emden. ,,I. B. 1974. .A biographical register of the Uni\.ersitv of Oxford, ;\.D. 1501-1~40. Froissart. ‘Espinrttc .bmourrusc. Buchon (ed.) III:-TiS fX Gluricux. P. 1933a. D’:llesandrr de Hales in Pirrrc 21uriol: le suite des maitrcs Franciscains dc Paris au \-iii’ siecle. .\rchi\wm Franciscanurn Historicunl 26:2i5 ff Glorious, P. 3933h. Rclxrtoire cles Rlaitrrs en ThCologic de Paris au xiii’ sicclr. Paris. Gregory the Swat. Regulae Pastoralis. RIPI, 77. Guihcrtus Tournaccnsis. .ad stntzrr srrmons. printecl ,Johanncs clc \Vcstphalia, Loulxin [T 1473). Honorius .\~lgustoclunensis. Speculunn Ecclesic. AlPI. 172. Humhcrtu5 de Romanis. 1677. De Eruditionc l’rncciicatorun~, hlasimn Bihliotlirca Patrum 2.j. I.\ 01,s. Hur;xwcl, IN. 1969. ~The king:-‘s pardon fur hormicitlr. (1amt~ridgc. ,J(~hn C:hr\-sostoni. liddress on \xinglory. hl. I,. \V. 1.aistnc.l’ (ccl.) 1931, Christianity and pagan culturt in the later Rorman empire. Nr\\, \I-urk. ,John of \\‘alrs. 1473 C:ommuniloq~li~~~~~. A Sorq. .\ug\l,iir,q. LittIc. .\. C~;. 191 7. English Franciscan historx-. Illanctlcstcr. Littlc. .\. G. 1926. The Franciscan school at Osti~rd in tile thirteenth ccntur\ .\rchivum Franciscanurn Historicun 19: 803-74, Littlt. ;\. G. 1943. Franciscan plxrs, lists ant1 tlocumcnts. ,\lanchcstcr. hlcI.arighlin. Al. AI. 1976. Sur\,i\vrs and surrogatrs. In: L. dc I2lauw. (cd.) .\ histor), of childhood: IO18 I Orn1r. N. 1984. Front childhood to chi\,alr> I,ontloll. O\vst. G. 1926. Preaching in imedieval England. C:amhridgr.

Rule of‘ St. Benedicr. Trans. _J. 1\IcCann. 1976. Lontl0n. Scllncycr. ,J, B. 1969. Repertorium dcr 1,atcinischcn Set-muncs dcs ;\littelnltcrs fiir die Zrit \Y)II I IX13.50. hliinstcr \Vcstfalen. Sc110l~. B. I\‘. 1966. Eadmcr’s lifti of Brcg\tinc, 76 I-764. ‘l’raditio of’ C:anterhur\ .\I-cllhisllop 22: 127-l-18.

Shahar, S. 1983. The fourth estate. A history of women in the middle ages. London. Smalley, B. 1960. English friars and antiquity. Oxford. Southern, R. 1972. The life of hnselm of Canterbury. Oxford. Swanson, J, 1989. John of\l’ales. A study of the works and ideas of a thirteenth-century friar. Cambridge. of Bcauvais. De eruditionc filiorum \?ncent nobiliorum. A. Steiner (ed.) 1938. Cambridge. Mass.

331