Of all the misconceptions about the Middle Ages, some of the most difficult to overcome involve life for children and their place in society. Our distorted view is understandable: evidence is scant, and little work has been done on the topic by medievalists until recently.
In addition, as is often the case with medieval studies, assumptions have been made by those who sought to hold up the modern age as "enlightened" in comparison to the "dark ages" that had gone before. It is these generally unfounded concepts that seem to take the strongest hold on the popular imagination.
In this series of articles I hope to offer an introduction to what recent scholarship has uncovered about the status of children in the Middle Ages. We'll also look at what details are known about the various phases of life for the younger members of society. In the process, perhaps we can puncture some of the most prevalent misconceptions and begin to see a more lucid picture of the medieval child.
The Concept of Childhood
If you have heard that there was no recognition of childhood as a distinct category of development in medieval society, you are not alone. The idea that children were treated like miniature adults as soon as they could walk and talk is a common one. It is also nearly impossible to support with fact.
One of the most frequently-mentioned forms of "evidence" I have encountered for this concept is the representation in some medieval artwork of children dressed in adult clothing. If they wore grown-up clothes, the theory goes, they must have been expected to behave like grown-ups.
This argument takes a fairly strenuous leap to its conclusion on the flimsiest of springboards. Although there certainly isn't a great deal of medieval artwork that depicted children other than the Christ Child, the examples that survive do not universally display them in adult garb. More importantly, there is ample evidence that society as a whole recognized childhood as a separate stage of life. Medieval laws existed to protect the rights of orphans. Medieval medicine approached the treatment of children separately from adults. In general, children were recognized as vulnerable, and in need of special protection.1
The idea that adolescence was not recognized as a category of development separate from both childhood and adulthood is a more subtle distinction, but only just. The primary evidence concerning this outlook is the lack of any term for the modern-day word "adolescence." If they didn't have a word for it, they didn't comprehend it as a stage in life.
This argument also leaves something to be desired, especially when we remember that medieval people did not use the terms "feudalism" or "courtly love." And again, there is some evidence to refute the assumption. Inheritance laws set the age of majority at 21, expecting a certain level of maturity before entrusting a young individual with financial responsibility. And there was concern expressed for the "wild youth" of teenage apprentices and students; the mischief that youth can cause was frequently seen as a stage that people pass through on the way to becoming "sad and wise."
Of course, we cannot automatically assume that medieval attitudes were identical or even similar to modern ones. But we can see fairly clearly that childhood was recognized as a phase of life, and one that had value, at that.
Continued on Page Two: The Importance of Children.
Note
1. Gies, Frances, and Gies, Joseph, Marriage and the Family in the Middle Ages (Harper & Row, 1987), p. 197.
Guide's Note: This article was originally posted in October of 2000 and was updated in May of 2009.
