SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
CHILD..REARING: A MATTER OF DISCIPLINE
By Kathryn Sather
McGill University
Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 22, 2014
As is the case in many new fields of historical inquiry, so too in the study of the
history of child-rearing, the pendulum has swung, in the last two decades, from
one extreme to the other: from Aries' nightmare of childhood' to Pollock's
consistency of parental behaviour. 2 Along the way, the methodologies in this area
of scholarship have been fraught with problems.
A comparison of Jewish and Puritan child-rearing practices in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries, based upon an analysis of passages from LevTov and
OfDomesticall Duties 3, uncovers certain findings which are inherently historically
significant, and appear to disrupt Linda Pollock's widely, though tacitly, held
theory. These passages suggest that not only does child-rearing not operate as an
independent dynamic but that there have been changes over time as a direct result
of social forces, the influence of which Pollock denies: III believe there isno reason
to assume that parental care must vary according to developments and changes
in society as a whole."!
Both of the advice manuals examined were very popular. LevTov was published
at least twenty'two times between 1620 and 1836 in various centres across Europe
and Of Domes ticall Duties went through three editions in London (1622, 1626 and
1634). Neither of the authors was remote from actual child-rearing. While we
have no known family information about R. Isaac B. Eliakim, it is unlikely, owing
to Jewish law and tradition, that he would have been single or childless. Gouge,
the Puritan author, we know, had thirteen children, the last born two years after
the publication of his book.!
Let us examine LevTov and Of Domesticall Duties against a background of the
general child-rearing literature for the sixteenth and much of the seventeenth
centuries. A scan of this literature elicits an unquestionably authoritarian
approach.f Ozment tells us that lithe cardinal sin of child-rearing in Reformation
Europe, a common one, according to moralists, was wilful indulgence of children."? At least one writer cites permissiveness as underlying the "presence in
society of 'mercenaries, murderers, and criminals'."! Another describes the
children of permissive parents as "creeping about idly" while still another tells us
that these children are involved in "all the things that keep youth from studying
and learning."? Erasmus, Brunfels and Luther all suggest careful monitoring of
behaviour and appropriate punishment when necessary. While harsh treatment
was never encouraged, sparing the rod was equated with neglect of one's child.'?
Much has been made of the idea that prior to the Reformation there was no
religio-legal injunction for parents to educate their children (the word "educate"
was used in its broadest sense possible) and that afterwards parents were more
aware of and concerned with their obligation toward their offspring. I I While
736
journal of social history
Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 22, 2014
there may be a certain amount of truth to this, Ozment is closer to the mark in
asserting that parental control was a reflection of "Protestant concern with
developing the internal and external controls necessary to preserve and enlarge
their newly won religious freedoms."!
It is precisely against this background that both the Jewish and Puritan advice
manuals stand out. Of course both works are every bit as concerned with the issue
of discipline as much of the advice literature in Western Christendom. The idea
that children need firm guidance which includes corporal punishment is not
presented as a novelty in these manuals. On the contrary, what is happening is
that parents are being so harsh with their children that both authors set out
conditions for treatment. While Reform literature is advising parents to clamp
down, the authors of LevTov and Of Domesticall Duties are imploring their readers
to lighten up on their children. Thus, the emphasis isnot so much on setting forth
an authoritarian approach but on limiting excessive discipline already in practice.
The relevant passages in LevTov and Of Domesticall Duties are concerned with
cautions and prohibitions and therefore veer from the usual prescriptive tack of
advice literature. Published only two years apart by men living in different parts
of Europe and having faiths radically different from each other, the similarity
between the two passages is remarkable."
The author of LevTov sets out guidelines for the chastisement of children (see
Appendix A). As circuitous as his language sometimes is, R. Isaac presents quite
forcefully his cautions with regard to the punishing of children, and his tone
clearly distinguishes this passage from the rest of his chapter on child-rearing.
In each of the five rules regarding the correction of children the issue of anger
is raised. An angry admonition will be beyond the understanding of the child and
he will not accept the punishment; a parent who is angry is not properly serving
God and this service necessarily includes the handling of offspring; the end of
correction is promotion ofTorah and good deeds, and presenting this in anger is
impossible; one may injure a child if punishing in anger. Moreover, R. Isaac not
only spells out the implications of anger for each rule, he states twice that it is a
great transgression for a Jew to be angry in the first place.
Given the striking emphasis, the likelihood is strong that the behaviour
described and proscribed isactually taking place. This isnot to say that the normal
cautions regarding bias and exaggeration are not appropriate. When the author
of Lev Tov speaks specifically about anger and corporal punishment he is not
necessarily referring to what one would think of as exceptional, brutal behaviour.
Rather, observing what he feels to be excessively harsh and disciplined childrearing, he feels compelled to provide moral and ethical guidelines for those
normal times when corporal punishment is used. Beyond this, his reference to
potential injury only underscores the likelihood that R. Isaac is not just engaging
in rhetoric but responding to an observable, and, in his view, lamentable practice.
It should also be pointed out that in LevTov we see several points corresponding
to Pollock's "significant facets of a concept of childhood."!' Childhood as
presented in LevTov is evolutionary, that is, it progresses through developmental
stages: "according to his understanding." Children are considered to be beings
who require care and protection: "Every father and mother is obligated to explain
to their child and when they are angry they cannot explain.... If one strikes one's
CHILDREARING
737
Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 22, 2014
child in anger one may wound him." The idea that children need training and
discipline is articulated clearly: "direct one's child to Torah and good deeds;"
"Parents must strike their child because he is young." Elsewhere in his chapter on
child-rearing R. Isaac recognizes that children indulge in play and need to be
provided for financially. LevTov presents an abstract concept of childhood and
discipline which predates anything found in the child-rearing literature thus far."
What this indicates, as will be seen in the Puritan text as well, is that strict
disciplinary practices do not imply an absence of a deep appreciation of child,
hood.
Turning now to Gouge's manual we see a similar concern with placing limits
on overly authoritarian forms of child-rearing. His advice regarding the disciplining of children actually begins in his sixth treatise in a section called "Duties on
Fathers.t'" What is significant about this initial reference is the fact that the
author opens with a prohibition which is "provoke not to wrath. "17 His definition
of the other extreme: "over-much-remissness," makes clear what he is referring to
in the former. Gouge's work throughout reflects this same traditional [udeoChristian notion of moderation, but it is the order, the precedence of caution over
the "precept upon the prohibition," which is significant here. Thus, in Of
Domesticall Duties as well as in LevTov, the admonishment to avoid treating one's
children too severely is found in the opening statements on discipline.
In "A Direction to Parents in Correcting Their Children" (see Appendix B)
Gouge presents three rules applying to the matter of correcting: "That [the
parents] be sure there is a fault committed." Here he explains that "many times
[parents] correct after their own pleasure" and not only is this unjust but it does
no good for the child. "That the fault be made known to the child corrected and
he apparently convinced thereof.':" We see a similar emphasis in LevTov on the
obligation of parents to explain themselves and the need for the child to accept
his punishment. Lastly, the faults to be corrected are those which "the parents can
show ...to be against God's word." One could argue that any mis-step a child could
make may involve something which is against God's word. However, the point
appears to be that a parent must not be capricious in his use of discipline.
The four general rules applying to the manner of correcting include references
to prayer, love and dispassion in the act of disciplining, but the first rule calls on
"God's manner of correcting his children." This roughly parallels the third point
in LevTov which deals with service to God. It might be mentioned here that that
the Biblical references throughout the two passages are strikingly similar.'?
Ofhis particular rules, the first one cited by Gouge states: "Correction by word
must go before correction by the rod."20 This echoes many assertions in Puritan
literature that corporal punishment be used as a last resort when verbal adman,
ishment and demonstration have failed. Curiously, we see no similar piece of
advice in Lev Tov. Indeed, the author opens his first point with the surprising
statement that "Parents must strike their child because he is young." However,
comments made by Gouge under "Duties on Fathers" lead one to think that there
is little real difference between the two groups in terms of actual practice. He
states that "stripes and blows" constitute the "more proper kind of correction.'?'
Raising the rhetorical question: "Wouldn't instruction better instill wisdom ?"; he
answers that it is correction which brings them to practice what they
738
journal of social history
Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 22, 2014
know...[children are] much more sensible of smart, than of words."22 In light of
this, an earlier statement that "it is taken for granted that parents do chastise their
children as required" takes on new meaning." It could be that in his particular
rules Gouge is toeing the party line, so to speak, and that corporal punishment was
not commonly the last resort." His cautions with regard to severe discipline
suggest that it was, more than likely, one of the first methods used.
The second particular rule givesdue notice to the fragility of youth and the need
to adjust correction accordingly. Following on the heels of this enjoinder is the
recommendation that habitual faults be treated more severely: "Whereof they
have gotten a habit, [they] are with greater severity to be corrected."
Our analysis of the passagesfrom LevTov and Of Domesticall Duties has brought
to light the prevalent practice of both Jews and Puritans utilizing severe physical
chastisement to discipline their children, this to such an extent that both authors
felt the need to warn against such behaviour. This analysis is also supported by a
statute from "The Compact with the Charter and Laws of the Colony of New
Plymouth." Under a clause relating to "extreme and cruel correction," a child had
the right to take his parents to court. "The arbiter of all such questions wasnot the
parental couple directly involved but rather the constituted authorities of the
Colony as a whole."25 The fact that this new community passed such a law
indicates its need for it. We would suggestthat this extreme mode of discipline but
also the increased concern for control arose out of shared values and certain
common social factors operating on both Jews and Puritans.
Philip Greven's comprehensive work on Puritan child-rearingf provides
evidence of many features internal to British and American Puritan communities
which were shared by European Jews during this period." Both evangelical
Puritans and Jews exhibit a tendency to favour the nuclear family arrangement.
While Jews were more community oriented and did not suffer the same social
isolation as many of the former (who often settled as individual families and
frequently moved from place to place), the family situation did enhance an
authoritarian approach to child-rearing. As Greven puts it: "Children had no
buffer from the full force of the parental control, influence, and discipline that
shaped their temperaments from infancy to adulthood.l'"
There is a Puritan preoccupation with details of daily living which nearly
approaches the conformity demanded byJewish law. How and what one ate, how
one dressed and early training are emphasized by both groups. It is of course true
that one also sees an abundance of this sort of material in the general literature,
but the motives are different. ForJews and Puritans, all aspects of life were imbued
with religious intent while in general society manners and social graces were very
much the concern; religion had an ancillary role in these specific issues. In the
case of Jews and Puritans, the rigid control of children's daily habits was not by
way of ensuring smooth introduction into society, but rather separating them
from it.
This feeling of separation was also fostered by the acute sense of communal
awareness shared again by both Jewsand Puritans. Greven's insightful description
of "moderate" Puritans applies with equal force to Jews:
CHILDREARING
739
The moderates' children grew up with a knowledge of the connections and
differences that bound people together or kept them apart, and an awareness of the
status, rank, and social position of themselves and everyone else around them,
which enabled them to locate themselves and others."
Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 22, 2014
We would suggest that this stress on the importance of distinctions within the
communities led to a similar stress on the importance of the distinctions between
both the Puritan and Jewish communities and those outside.
Although social and religious features of the Jewish and Puritan communities
may have shaped approaches to child-rearing, they, by themselves, were not
responsible for the intensity of disciplinary practices. The advice manuals dealt
with here were written by members of''fion-conformist" groups, as it were, during
a period marked by gradually increasing, but still fragile, religious tolerance. It has
already been recognized that during the Protestant Reformation controls were
necessary to "preserve and enlarge [the] newly won religious freedoms."? How
much more does this apply to minority groups which exist on the fringe of general
society! The focus on internal and external controls within the two groups
examined did not constitute an effort to attract followers. Tolerance was much
more important to Jews and Puritans because of their religious and cultural
isolation from even mainstream reform. During a time when differences were only
just being accepted, these groups were too different. Their need for control was
greater and the efforts that went into achieving exemplary behaviour not only
secured tolerance for the groups, but solidified their communities and ensured
that their values would be carried on."
The following pattern emerges. The special circumstances and pressures
operating upon Jews and Puritans, in conjunction with their particular values, led
them to use an extreme form of physical control on children, so much so that
discipline might defeat the very values that parents were trying to inculcate. Both
LevTov and Of Domesticall Duties, while still emphasizing the need for parental
control and discipline, feel called upon to protest the excessesthey are witnessing.
Indeed, R. Isaacpoints this out: 'an angry parent cannot direct one's child to Torah
and good deeds. Similarly, Gouge tells his readers that "disturbed passions cast a
mist before the understanding."
In sum: What we have here are two advice manuals written by members of
widely disparate "non-conformist" groups at approximately the same time, a
period characterized by increased religious tolerance. The contents of certain
passagesof these manuals are strikingly similar. Both carry a very strong message
that severe punishment of children is not acceptable behaviour. Social and
religious comparisons between the two groups have been drawn which support
the similarities of approach.
The cases of seventeenth century European Jews and British and American
Puritans drive a wedge into Pollock's last word on child-rearing. It seems that
there were periods of time during which some parents, responding to group and
societal pressures, did alter their disciplinary practices in an observable way. The
data collected here suggest a general hypothesis that during periods of social
tension for minority faiths, child-rearing is likely to involve increased discipline
which may appear excessive by normal standards."
740
journal of social history
APPENDIX A
Parents must strike their child because he is young and according to his understanding. But if you
strike your child in anger he will not see the reason.
Every father and mother is obligated to explain to their child [when they chastise him] and when they
are angry they cannot explain. When they finally explain to their child he will not accept it since
he was already spoken to in anger.
It is a grave and serious transgression when someone is angry. For one who is an angry person cannot
serve God properly. Now to chastise one's child [properly] is a great good deed, and a good deed which
comes from a transgression is a transgression.
For a Jew to be angry is a great transgression. And with a transgression one cannot direct one's child
to Torah and good deeds. For when one is angry, one cannot chastise [or strike] one's child properly.
(Excerpted from R. Isaac Ben Eliakim, LevTov, Prague, 1620,pp. 24,a-b., translation from Yiddish).
APPENDIX B
A Direction to Parents in Correcting Their Children:
For well using this biting corasive of correction, parents must have respect to the matter for which
they do correct and to their manner of correcting.
In regard of the matter, these three things must be noted:
1. They they be sure there is a fault committed: that so that there be just cause of correcting:
otherwise more hurt than good will proceed from thence. If a corasive be laid where there is no sore,
it will make one. If correction be unjustly given, it may provoke to wrath, but it will do little good.
This is it wherein earthly fathers are taxed, and made unlike to God, for many times they correct after
their own pleasure: which is a point of great injustice.
2. That the fault be made known to the child corrected: and he apparently convinced thereof.
Correction must be for instruction, which cannot be, except the child know why he is corrected: for
it is all one to him, as if he were corrected for no fault, if he know not his fault. God thus at first
proceeded with the serpent, with Eve and with Adam. Thus Judges proceed in punishing malefactors.
Thus will men deal with a dog. Should they not much more with a child?
3. That the faults be such especially, as the parents can show to their children (if at least they be
of so much discretion) to be against God's word; as swearing, lying, pilfering, and the likes: for 1. these
are most dangerous faults, and therefore more carefully to be purged out.
2. the child corrected will thus be the better evicted of his fault, the more condemn himself, and
more contentedly bear the correction.
In regard of the manner of correcting, four general and four particular rules are to be observed.
The general rules are these.
1. An eye must be had to God's manner of correcting his children, and in particular of God's
correcting the parent himself: no better general direction can be given: for God's pattern is a perfect
rule.
2. Prayer must be made by parents for themselves and for their children: for themselves, to be
directed in doing it: for their children, to be bettered by it. Thus will good physicians in ministering
physick. In all duties is prayer to be used; especially in this: for a parent is ready, partly through his
own intemperate passion, and partly through the child's impatience, to fall into one extreme or other.
This is not to impose upon all, whensoever they take up the rod, to go and make a solemn prayer, but
to lift up the heart for direction and blessing.
3. Correction must be given in love. All things must be done in love: much more this, that carries
a show of anger and hatred. In love they will give phvsick to their children, and splinter a joint, if
Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 22, 2014
One should not strike one's child in anger for if one strikes one's child in anger one may wound him
and may injure an eye or cause some other injury.
CHILDREARING
741
(excerpted from Wm Gouge,
Of DomesticaU Duties, London 1622.
pp. 555-557).
Department of]ewish Studies
3511 Peel Street
Montreal, Quebec H3A 1W7
Canada
FOOTNOTES
1. Philippe Aries. Centuries of Childhood. (Boston, 1967).
2.
Linda Pollock. Forgotten Children: Parent-Child Relations From 1500-1900. (London, 1983).
3. R. Isaac ben Eliakim. Let! Tot! (Yiddish). Prague, 1620; William Gouge. Of DomesticaU Duties.
(London, 1622).
4. Pollock, Forgotten Children p. VIII. The quality of her work notwithstanding, Pollock is
misguided in her 50 year time spans. She seems to have been looking for acute changes over two
generations and this is unreasonable to expect, in any event, in this field. Observable trends would
show up only gradually and over long periods, and it would be longer still for the literature to catch
up and again for the behaviour to respond if it does. Furthermore, neglecting Jewish sources, as so
many historians do - granted the linguistic obstacles posed -Pollock missed an opportunity to use
Jewish child-rearing practice as a test case against that of radical Puritans, an exercise which may have
led her to the same conclusions that I have drawn.
5.
Sir Leslie Stephen and Sir Sidney Lee eds. TheDictionary ofNational Biography 8 (London, 1960).
6. Abigail J. Stewart, David G. Winter, and A. David Jones, "Coding Categories for the Study of
Child-Rearing From Historical Sources," Journal ofInterdisciplinary History 4 (Spring, 1975): 689 also
Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 22, 2014
need be. God corrects his children in love: so must parents. Love will make them do it with tenderness
and compassion.
4. Correction must be given in a mild mood, when the affections are well ordered, and not
distempered with cholar, rage, fury, and other like passions. Disturbed passions cast a mist before the
understanding, so as a man cannot discern what is enough, what too much. When passion is moved,
correction must be deferred. God corrects in measure.
The particular rules are these.
1. Due order must be kept. Correction by word must go before correction by the rod. I rebuke and
chasten, says the Lord. Thus a parent will show that he takes no delight in smiting his child: it is
necessity that forces him thereunto. Thus a parent shows himself like to God, who does not punish
willingly, Lam.3.3.3. Physicians, when they minister strong physick, will give a preparative: rebuke
may be as a preparative. Good and pitifull surgeons will try all other means before they come to lance
and sear.
2. Due respect must be had to the party corrected: if he be young and tender, the lighter correction
must be used. Solomon often mentions a rod, as meerest for a child; for that is the lightest correction.
So if the child be of a flexible and ingenuous disposition soon sneapt, the correction must accordingly
be moderated. If he be well grown, and withall be stout, and stubborn, the correction may be more
severe.
3. Due respect must be had to the fault: sins directly against God, open, notorious, scandalous sins,
known sins, sins often committed, in which they are grown up, and whereof they have gotten a habit,
are with greater severity to be corrected.
4. A parent must behold his own faults in correcting his children: so more compassion will be
wrought in him.
742
journal of social history
recognize an "initial concern with authority and suppression of impulse" for this period. As well, they
suggested the idea of using prohibitions in the study of advice literature.
7. Steven Ozment, When Fathers Ruled (Cambridge, 1983), p. 133.
8. Ibid.
9.
10.
Ibid., pp. 134-135.
Ibid., pp. 147,225.
11. Ephraim Kanarfogel. "Attitudes toward Childhood and Children in Medieval Jewish Society,"
Approoches wJudaism in Medieval Times 11 (1985): 1-31.
12. Ozment, p. 135.
14. Pollock, op. cit., p. 98, outlines the following points regarding a concept of childhood:
1. Organisms that pass through developmental periods.
2. Organisms that indulge in play.
3. Organisms that need care and protection.
4. Organisms that need guidance, for example, by education and discipline.
5. Organisms that have to be financially provided for.
15. Pollock, p. 152, credits Puritan Cotton Mather (1663-1728) with the first articulation of an
abstract concept of childhood.
16. William Gouge,
Of Domesticall Duties (London: 1622), p. 497.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid., p. 555.
19. Both authors rely heavily on Proverbs. OfR. Isaac'scitations for his five rules, four are matched
by Gouge: Proverbs 19:18, 22:15, 23:13, 23:14. Only about ten per cent of Gouge's citations for this
particular passage come from "New Testament" literature.
20. Gouge, p. 551.
21. Gouge, p. 553.
22.
Gouge, p. 554.
23.
Gouge,p.553.
24. Philip Greven, The Protestant Temperament (New York: A. Knopf Inc., 1977), p. 50. Greven
feels that for Evangelical parents the use of the rod "testified to the failure of discipline rather than
its success... [and that it] wasprobably the least effective method of all for the encouragement of selfdiscipline and conformity to the standards of behaviour set by [them] for their children." Gouge
doesn't seem to think so.
25. John Demos, A Litde Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony (New York, 1970), p.lOl.
26. Greven; I remain unconvinced by Greven's classification of Puritans into three categories
Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 22, 2014
13. One can safely rule out even the remote possibility that Gouge was directly influenced by Lev
Tov. In 1620, the year Lev Tov was published, Gouge had Of Domesticall Duties entered in the
Stationer's Register. A Short-Tide Catalogue of Books Printed Abroad 1475-1640, compiled by A.W.
Pollard and G.R. Redgrave, London, 1926, indicates the date of entry as 28 October, 1620.
CHILDREARING
743
although I did use it for the purpose of comparison. This, however, does not detract from the value
of his observations and some of his analysis.
27. Murray Rosman, "Jewish Perceptions ofInsecurity and Powerlessness in the 16th-18th Century
Poland," PoUn 1 (1986): 19-27, dissuaded me from separating out the "Golden Age" Jews of Poland
from the rest of the European Jewish community in this consideration of approaches to child-rearing.
He provides quite a solid case for his idea that Polish Jews were feeling many of the same social
pressures as their co-religionists in the rest of Europe despite appearances to the contrary.
28.
Greven, p. 28.
29.
Greven, p. 153.
30.
Ozment, p. 135.
32. The author wishes to thank Prof. Gershon Hundert for his valuable suggestions and Prof.
Lawrence J. Kaplan for his kind assistance with translation. The usual caveat with regard to errors
applies here.
Downloaded from http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 22, 2014
31. Murray Rosman's assertions notwithstanding, it is generally accepted that of the European
community Polish Jews were the best situated, socially and politically speaking; however, even there
the same concerns regarding behaviour apply. Jacob Katz, Tradition andCrisis (New York, 1961), p.
40, tells us: "A serious problem of social education faced Jewish leadership: at a time when existing
conditions encouraged laxity, they had to enforce proper standards of conduct toward the outside
world. Jewish governing institutions...maintained strict vigilance over the conduct of their individual members in all fields." Later (p. 98) he states that the "very life" of Jewish society in Poland
"depended on a clear-cut separation from the outside world and a stringent discipline from within."