Notes Notes to the Introduction 1. For an illuminating study of families in civil war see Christopher Durston, The Family in the English Revolution (Oxford, 1989). 2. I wish to thank both Sally Gosling and Margaret Smith for their contribution to my understanding of these issues. Notes to Chapter 1: The World that Slips through our Fmgers 1. T. H. Hollingsworth, HistoricalDemography (1969) p. 37. 2. J. Hajnal, 'European Marriage Patterns in Perspective', in D. V. Glass and D. E. C. Eversley (eds), PapukItion in History: Essays in Historical Demography (London 1965) p. 104 3. T. P. R. Laslett and R. Wall (eds), Household and Family in Past Times (Cambridge, 1972). 4. Ibid., p. 22. 5. Ibid., p. 26. 6. For a more careful consideration of such solitary households, see \'Yes Blayo, 'Size and Structure of Households in a Northern French Village between 1836 and 1861', in ibid., pp. 256--8. On Clifford and Jefferies, see below, pp. 85, 177-9. 7. David Hey (ed.), Richard Gough: The History of Myddle (Harmondsworth, 1981). 8. Judith Ford, 'Wills and Will-making ... in Bedford, 1500-1540', unpublished Open University PhD, 1992. 9. Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost Further Explored (London, 1983) p. 91. 276 NOTES 277 10. H. E. Hallam posited a mean of 4.5 or 5.0 for South Lincolnshire in the later thirteenth century and, more controversially, J. C. Russell suggested a mean size of household of 3.0. 11. 4.75 MHS (Mean Household Size) as opposed to around 3.0 MHS. 12. Philip Greven, 'The Average Size of Families and Households in the Province of Massachusetts in 1764 and the United States in 1790: An Overview', in Las1ett, Household and Family, p. 551. 13. Philip J. Greven, Four Generations: Papulation, Land and Family in Colonial Andover, Massachusetts (Ithaca, 1970); Barry Levy, (!}takers and the American Family: British Settlement in the Delaware Valley (New York, 1988); David Blake Smith, Inside the Great House: Planter Family Life in Eighteenth Century Chesapeake Society (Ithaca, 1980); James M. Gullman, 'Determinants of Age at Marriage in Colonial Perquimans County, North Carolina', WiUiam and Mary (!}tarterly, XXXIX (1982) pp.176-91. 14. Annik Pardailhe-Galabrun, The Birth of Intimacy: Privacy and Domestic Life in Early Modem Paris (Oxford, 1991) pp. 37-40. 15. Laslett, The World We Have Lost, p. 95. 16. Tamara Hareven, 'The Family Life Cycle in Historical Perspective: A Proposal for a Developmental Approach', in J. Cuisenier and M. Segalen (eds) , Le Cycle de la vie familiale dans les societes europeennes (The Hague, 1977) pp. 339-52. 17. M. Segalen, 'The Family Cycle and Household Structure: Five Generations in a French Village', in Robert Wheaton and Tamara Hareven (eds), Family and Sexuality in French History (Philadelphia, 1980). 18. A. Collomp, 'Famille nucleaire et famille eJargie en Provence au XVlIIe siecle', Annales, ECS (July-October 1972). 19. Philip Greven, 'The Average Size of Families and Households', in Laslett, Household and Family, pp. 558-9; 551-3. 20. Greven, in ibid., pp. 555-6. 21. E. T. Pryor Jr. 'Rhode Island Family Structure: 1875 and 1960', in Laslett, Household and Family, pp. 571-89. Joan Cashin, A Family Venture. Men and Women of the Southern Frontier (Oxford, 1991) p. 11, also takes issue with the assumption that southern planter households were nuclear by the early nineteenth century. 22. S. Ruggles, Prolonged Connections: The Rise of the Extended Family in Nineteenth-Century England and America (Wisconsin, 1987), passim. 23. E.g., J. C. Peyronnet, 'Famille elargie ou famille nucleaire? En Limousin au debut du XIxe siecle', Revue d'histoire modeme et contemporaine, October-December 1975, pp. 568-82. For the disappearance of the extended family household in Paris see Pardailhe-Galabrun, The Birth of Intimacy, pp. 33-4. 24. Louis Merle, La Metairie et ['evolution agraire de la Gatine poitevine, de la fin du Moyen Age Ii la Revolution (Paris, 1958). 25. Jean-Louis Flandrin, Families in Former Times: Kinship, Household and Sexuality (CUP, English Translation, 1979). 278 NOTES 26. Jean-Noel Biraben, Annales de dbnographie historique (1970) pp. 441- 62; 'A Southern French Village: The Inhabitants of Montplaisant in 1644', in Laslett, Household and Family, pp. 237-54. 27. See pp. 97-111. 28. See pp. 187-91. 29. Fiandrin, Families inFormer Times, p. 91. 30. laslett, The World We Have Lost, p. 14. 31. See the economic motivation for the adoption of sixteen-year-old Edward Austen by a kinsman in 1783, Park Honan, Jane Austen, Her Life (New York, 1987) p. 25. 32. R. Wall, 'Work, Welfare and the Family: An Illustration of the Adaptive Family Economy', in L. Bonfield et al. (eds.), The World We Have Gained: Histories of Population and Social Structure (Oxford, 1986) pp. 261-94. 33. See Rosemary O'Day, Education and Society in Britain, 1500-1800 (London, 1983). 34. Michael Anderson, 'What is New about the Modern Family?', in M. Drake (ed), Time, Family and Community (Oxford, 1994). 35. See Lorena S. Walsh, '''Till Death Us Do Part": Marriage and Family in Seventeenth Century Maryland', and Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, '"Now-Wives and Sons--in-Law": Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County', in Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman (eds), The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays in Anglo-American Society (Chapel Hill, 1979). 36. See pp. 259-60. 37. Martine Segalen, 'The Family Cycle', p. 254. 38. See pp. 36-7; 267-8. 39. Seymour V. Connor, 'A Statistical Review of the Settlement of the Peter's Colony, 1841-1848', Southwestern Historical QJJarterly, 57 (1953-4) pp. 38-64. Notes to Chapter 2: The Prescriptive Family, c.1450-1700 1. See Ferdinand Mount, The Subversive Family: An Alternative History of Love and Marriage (London, 1983 paperback edition) pp. 1-7. 2. The debate in 1993 about the social implications of the 'death of the family' has further revealed profound misconceptions. 3. Sarah Hanley, 'Engendering the State: Family Formation and State Building in Early Modem France', French Historical Studies, 16 (1989) pp. 8-15; see below for these regulations set in a different context. 4. Richard Baxter, Gildas Salvianus or The Reformed Pastor (London, 1656). These extracts, interestingly, come from William Brown (ed.), The Reformed Pastor (Glasgow, 1829) pp.158-160. 5. C. E. Corrie (ed.), Sermons of Hugh Latimer, Sermon xxv (Cambridge, 1844) p. 470. NOTES 279 6. See also Sarah Hanley, 'Engendering the State', p. 21 7 David Herlihy, Medieval Households (HaIVard, 1985) pp. 8-10 8. Ibid., pp. 124-5 9. Ibid., pp. 127-30. 10. C. H. and K. George, The Protestant Mind of the English Reformation, 1570-1640 (Princeton, 1961) p. 266. 11. K. V. Thomas, 'Women and the Civil War Sects', Past and Present, 13 (1958) p. 42; M. Todd, 'Humanists, Puritans and the Spiritualized Household', Church History (1980) 49, pp. 19-34; C. R. Thompson (ed.), The Colloquies ofErasmus (Chicago, 1965). 12 C. R. Thompson (ed.), The Colloquies ofErasmus, pp. 88-98; 115-27. 13. L. Roper, 'Luther: Sex, Marriage and Motherhood', History Today, December 1983, pp. 33-8. 14. John Cotton, The Covenant of God's Free Grace (London, 1645); I. M. Calder (ed.), Letters ofJohn Davenport, Puritan Divine (New Haven, 1937) pp. 262-6; E. S. Morgan, The Puritan Family (New York, 1966) pp. 135-6. 15. S. Coontz, The Social Origins ofPrivate Life (London, 1988), p. 85. 16. K. M. Davies, 'Continuity and Change in Literary Advice on Marriage', in R. B. Outhwaite (ed.), Marriage and Society: Studies in the Social History of Marriage (London, 1981) pp. 66-7, sees the conduct books as expressing a bourgeois ideal. 17. William Gouge, OfDomestic aU Duties (1622) Epistle, sig. 2v. 18. Epistle to the Ephesians 6: 5-9. 19. Corrie (ed.), Sermons of Hugh Latimer, Sermon XXI, Fifth Sermon on the Lord's Prayer, p. 392. 20. Ibid., p. 393. 2l. Ibid., pp. 501, 503. 22. Ibid., p. 536. 23. endowed. 24. William Perkins, Workes (1613), vol. III pp. 693-4. 25. John Dod and Robert Cleaver, A Godlie Forme of Householde Government (London, 1612) p. 30 being a new edition of R. Cleaver, A Godlie Forme ofHousehold Government (London, 1598). 26. C. B. Paris, Marriage in Seventeenth-Century Catholicism (Paris, 1975) pp.71-80. 27. J. B. Bossuet, Catechisme du diocese de Meaux (Paris, 1687) pp. 183-5; cited in R. Briggs, Communities of&lief(Oxford, 1989). 28. R. Briggs, Communities, pp. 235-76, especially pp. 240-3; C. Maillard, Le Bon mariage (Douai, 1643) p. 206, cited by Briggs, Communities, p.242. 29. R. Briggs, Communities, p. 253; A. Bourdoise, Lldie d'un bon ecclisiastique (Paris, 1667) pp. 12-14. 30. J.-L. Flandrin, Families inFormer Times: Kinship, Household and Sexuality (Cambridge, 1979) pp. 123, 126-9; Jean Benedicti, La Somme des pechez (Paris, 1601 edition, first published 1584) Bk II, no. 28. 3l. Flandrin, Families in Former Times, pp. 130-1; R. O'Day, 'Hugh Latimer, Prophet of the Kingdom', Historical Research, 65 (1992) pp.269-76. 280 NOTES 32. F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, The History of English Law before the Time ofEdward 1, 2nd edition (Cambridge, 1968) II, pp. 309, 313. 33. Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism: The Family, Property and Social Transition (Oxford, 1978) pp. 80-1OI. 34. Margaret J. M. Ezell, The Patriarch's Wife: Literary Evidence and the History of the Family (Chapel Hill and London, 1987) pp. 3tHJ1; Robert Filmer, 'In Praise of the Vertuous Wife', c. 1643; many of the marriage conduct books echo this view - see, for example, William Whately, A Bride-bush; or, a Direction for Married Persons, 1623 edition, pp.